Of gut reactions and BBC narratives

 

If you're worried about thousands upon thousands upon thousands of largely adult male migrants from the Middle East and Africa arriving illegally on our English Channel shores and then melting, unchecked, into the Home Counties  - especially given recent terrorist attacks by such people - and if you think that a population rise of around 10 million people in just 20 years in a small country isn't necessarily a good thing, then the BBC's chief propagandist on the immigration question, Mark Easton, was there - as ever - to waive away all your worries yesterday. 

To sum him up: It's not a big deal. The government's pandering to pro-Brexit sentiment over the issue. And what problems exist are because of Brexit. And there's nothing we can legally do to stop the poor migrants in their dinghies. And, shush, don't even mention concerns about terrorism. And please think of the migrant children.

And where the canny Mark Easton led, Newsnight followed last night. 

Emily Maitlis's latest monologue contrasted the ''hard numbers'' [that ''net migration to the UK is actually down. More people are leaving than coming into the country, in other words. The UK currently takes far fewer asylum seekers than many of our European neighbours''] with people's ''perception''.

And in the following report Ben Chu continued that theme and followed the Mark Easton line almost to the letter, and warned us against our ''gut reaction'' on seeing ''images of cross-Channel migrant crossings''.

 ''A closer look at the numbers suggests there's more complexity to this subject - and, indeed, the wider immigration debate - than a gut feeling might lead us to believe'', he said, arguing that ''in the scheme of things'' those poor migrants crossing the Channel aren't a ''big'' problem. 

To sum him up: Everything's hunky-dory as far as numbers go, with no population explosion whatsoever, we've not taken in many asylum seekers compared to other countries, and UK businesses are crying out for more migrants. 

The propaganda from the BBC is massively ramping up again, and I'm guessing the Mark Easton/Newsnight tag-team - all saying the same thing, all spinning the same narrative - were just the tip of the iceberg as far as the BBC's output goes. 

The hope remains, of course, that most of the public will see through it all - though whether they should be made to fund it is another matter entirely.

Modulation

Never agree to be a vox pop on Newsnight. 

Ben Chu, the programme's economics editor, went to Bedford. One of the people he spoke to was the sister of an Italian-born baker. She supports Brexit. 

Go to 8m 16s and just listen to the way Ben adds an incredulous tone of voice to the word 'immigration' when he says, "And Salvatore's sister Liz has come round to supporting Brexit on the grounds of tighter immigration control." 

However already set up Salvatore and Liz's immigrant background, was he signalling to viewers that it's a bit rich for Liz to want immigration control? Why couldn't he just have said that without modulating the pitch of his voice to express surprise at her holding this point of view?

Bias, bias, bias

Tonight's Newsnight featured a remarkable report from the programme's economics editor Ben Chu.

It's a fascinating case of BBC bias, especially in its use of 'bias by authority' (we get "analysts" and "experts" and "analysis...by the Treasury") and 'bias by labelling'  (we get "the non-partisan UK in A Changing Europe think-tank" and "credible" and "serious analysts"). 

And, I don't for one moment think coincidentally, every single one of those examples helps Ben to bolster his own argument. 

For starters, I'm afraid, charming as he is, that I don't believe Anand Menon is an entirely neutral analyst/expert. He's never been pro-Brexit, to put it mildly. 

And to describe UK in A Changing Europe as "non-partisan" is only technically correct if you define "non-partisan" as meaning "not affiliated to a party". 

And the Treasury of former chancellors Philip Hammond and George Osborne is far from being a trusted source of neutral 'analysis', given its recent record, so why would large swathes of the public take its word for anything?

Note also that Ben, the ex-economics editor of The Independent, gives Labour something of a thumbs-up in the criticism of Boris's deal - which is unhelpful to supporters of the deal. 

And note that this isn't an 'either/or' kind of balanced report. It's a single-minded argument, with supporting quotes and statistics. No disagreeing voice is included. 

And, finally, note just how inexorably negative it is about Brexit. Twice we get the word "negative" itself, and the piece concludes with the thoughts of "economic damage to the UK".

Kirsty Wark: I will talk to two politicians who oppose the deal in just a minute. But how different is this deal from the Theresa May old failed deal? Of course the backstop has gone - instead, a set of arrangements which critics argue leaves a border of sorts somewhere in the Irish Sea. Beyond that - what kind of Brexit is this? How might it work for our economy - and what about Labour's fears over workers' rights. On which, as you heard earlier from Nick, the Government has made concessions tonight designed to entice more opposition waverers to fall in line. Here's our economics editor Ben Chu on the impact of these historic choices on the UK economy.  

Ben Chu: 

Jeremy Corbyn: So we believe the deal he's proposed is heading Britain in the direction of a deregulated society.  

Keir Starmer: Why on earth would the Labour Party, the trade union movement back a deal which is starting down a slippery slope to deregulation? 

But are they right? What course does Boris Johnson's unexpected deal with Brussels actually chart for the UK? And what does it really mean for UK businesses, for families, for workers? Analysts say Theresa May's deal pointed to a reasonably close partnership with the EU on things like customs and single market rules but that Boris Johnson's putts us on a very different track. 

Anand Menon (UK in A Changing Europe): The key difference for me is the final destination and ultimately there, Boris Johnson seems to want a far loser relationship with the European Union than that that Mrs May was seeking, and that will have economic consequences for us that will be negative. 

High common social employment and environmental standards are mentioned in the non-legally binding political declaration in the new Brussels agreement. And the Government has tonight made various promises to protect those rights, but experts say the Brussels deal itself does not preclude a divergence on these rights an standards over time, giving some substance to Labour's concerns ant deregulation.

Anand Menon: I think what they are saying to some people on the Labour side is look, we are serious about these regulations don't worry about it, we have no intention of cutting standards, the point is while Mrs May's deal enshrined the level field conditions in law, meaning that you didn't have to believe promises, you had the law to fall back on, this is a question of trust and if there is one thing that is in perilously short supply in our politics at the moment it's trust. 

Furthermore, Mr Johnson has made it clear he is aiming for a very limited Canada-style free trade agreement with the EU that members of the Conservative European Research Group have long said they want. So what's the economic impact of less integration with our largest trading partner? Last year analysis by the Treasury projected a negative impact from Theresa May's preferred deal of 3.9% of GDP over 15 years. Neither the Treasury nor the Office for Budget Responsibility have yet analysed the impact of Boris Johnson's deal, but researchers at the non-partisan UK in A Changing Europe think-tank have, and their work suggests Theresa May's deal would have left the economy smaller by 1.7% per capita than it otherwise be over ten years. That's a cost of £500 per person. By contrast, they estimate that Mr Johnson's destination would leave the economy 2.5% smaller, or £800 per person. And if you add in credible estimates of the impact of more intensive trade on national economic efficiency, the potential hit from Mr Johnson's proposal rises to 6.4% per capita, or £2,000 per person. 

Stephen Phipson (Chief Executive, Make UK): Half the exports of the country are manufactured goods and about half of those go to the EU and that is hundreds of thousands of jobs dependent on us having a close relationship, outside of the EU, we understand that, but a close regulatory alignment in a new free trade arrangements that protects those jobs and those investments. 

Anand Menon: What's worrying is the government is doing this whilst denying that there'll be any sortr of adverse effects. 

These are only estimates, with uncertainty about the precise impacts, and the Government insists there will be long-term economic benefits from Brexit. But the choice for MPs, nevertheless, is whether or not to approve a deal that staves off a no-deal Brexit of which serious analysis still suggests we do economic damage to the UK.

Now, who to believe?

The Tories also took umbrage at this Newsnight-inspired item:

The Government replied:

This drew comment from blog favourite Alex Deane:

Yet again our healthcare authorities have to correct really irresponsible scaremongering over Brexit. Last one I saw was Gary Lineker. This time it’s... the BBC.

(though as someone replied, "If Leo Varadkar IS the EU then Gary Lineker IS the BBC").

So who's right - Newsnight or the DHSC? Well, I'm quite unable to say (not being an expert on such matters), but I can say that it's not unusual (as we know) for the BBC, including Newsnight, to go with alarming/alarmist warnings about Brexit as main stories.

In passing, however, Newsniffer shows that it took the Newsnight reporters in question - Ben Chu & Marianna Spring - nearly 24 hours to get their main talking head's job description right. For the first 21 hours of their BBC News website report she was identified as "Saffron Cordery, the chief executive of NHS Providers" until they edited the piece and she became "Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers". That's a long time to correct something as simple as that.

Another curious Newsnight fact here (just as an aside, and while I'm on) is that both reporters - Ben and Marianna - came to the BBC via left-leaning papers, namely The Independent and The Guardian respectively.  (Someone with a name like 'Marianna Spring' just had to have worked at The Guardian!}. Will that manifest itself in their reporting?

Well, blow me down with a feather!

Breaking Newsnight news from Guido Fawkes:

Newsnight have appointed Ben Chu as their economics editor while Helen Thomas is on maternity leave. Chu is a lefty Remainer who has churned out a regular diet of sour-faced news stories attacking the Tories and generally revelling in bad economic news as the Independent’s smug economics editor, attacking Brexiteers as “xenophobes” and calling politicians like Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg “intellectual and moral pygmies”. He’ll fit right in at the BBC…