Showing posts with label Ben Thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Thompson. Show all posts

Saturday, 21 September 2019

Free at last!




"For much of my career, I’ve felt rather like the junior butler trying to blag a seat at His Lordship’s dining table in Downton Abbey"

(John Humphrys, on being a working class, non-arts graduate at the BBC)


Just two short days after departing the Today programme, in mourning weeds, with tears in eyes, John Humphrys has seriously let rip at the BBC in (OMG) The Daily Mail...

Feedback will be appalled, and doubtless John's choice of publication and what he has to say there will only confirm to his many left-wing haters on Twitter that he's the right-wing fossil they've been so vociferously asserting he is over recent years. 

Many of his criticism of the BBC will be very familiar, and we've made them ourselves...over many, many years. But it's always good to get it from the horse's mouth, even if the horse felt the need to bolt from the stable first. 

It's a long piece, so I'll try to summarise it:

1. He says he's now free to speak and no longer has to "submit to the BBC Thought Police" his "subversive musings". 

2. The BBC is "a tremendous and irreplaceable force for good" and "this country is the stronger for its existence". "Our democracy needs it" and he's "convinced that it occupies a special place in the nation's heart" and that "we would be poorer without it".

3. The BBC has a "great fear... of the politically correct brigade and the most fashionable pressure groups — usually from the liberal Left, the spiritual home of most bosses and staff".

4. BBC bosses didn't even try to disguise their horror at the result of the EU referendum. It wasn't what they expected or what they wanted. They saw it as "a disaster".
The Brexit crisis had exposed a fundamental flaw in the culture of the BBC. Its bosses, almost to a man and woman, could simply not grasp how anyone could have put a cross in the Leave box on the referendum ballot paper.
Here's a lengthier extract with a telling anecdote:
We note how much time the typical boss spends in meetings — usually with other bosses — and how little in the various news rooms. It’s true that they tend to appear on the mornings after, say, General Elections — offering a few nods and smiles and the odd encouraging remark to the poor bloody infantry who have been slaving away all night. 
The morning of the EU Referendum was different. Leave had won — and this was not what the BBC had expected. Nor what it wanted. 
No nods and smiles when the big bosses appeared. No attempt to pretend that this was anything other than a disaster. 
Their expressions were as grim as the look on the face of a football supporter when his team’s star player misses the penalty that would have won them the cup.
5. The BBC has an "institutional liberal bias". The main reasons for this are (a) its recruitment process, which overwhelmingly hauls in middle-class, university-educated, often private school-educated arts graduates ("and it’s a racing certainty that there won’t be more than a handful of Tories among them") and (b) groupthink:
There is, I believe, a groupthink mentality, an implicit BBC attitude to what makes news. Decisions are influenced, if only subconsciously, by what the organisation has done in the past. So it can too often be willing to settle for the status quo, settling into the same lines of thought.
6. Because of that groupthink, immigration and euroscepticism became two important areas where the BBC "failed so badly to spot a change in the nation's mood".

7. He himself voted Remain in the EU referendum. He's voted for most political parties over the years (though not the far-Right or the far-Left) and considers himself "pitifully middle-of-the-road".

8. The BBC finds it "hard to resist" the temptation to engage in social engineering. It sometimes tries "to create society in its own image" and "places its powerful finger on one side of the scale of social justice":
Which is why I raised my eyebrows when the BBC announced it had created the new post of LGBT correspondent — and the man appointed said: ‘I’m looking forward to being the mouthpiece for some marginalised groups . . .’ It was the use of the word ‘mouthpiece’ that jarred. Obviously, the BBC must give a voice to minorities, but it must not act as anyone’s mouthpiece. That’s what lobbyists and public relations people do. To confuse the two is to undermine the job of a journalist.
9. More and more people at the BBC "conflate and, perhaps. confuse their own interests with those of the wider world...The logic seems to be that if they feel strongly about a given issue, the BBC should not only listen to them but modify its output to reflect their own world view." He cites the example of members of the BBC's LGBT group, including a business presenter, demanding on Twitter that a question on Question Time asking if it was morally inappropriate to teach five-year-olds about LGBT issues shouldn't have been allowed. It's not a good look for people at the BBC to engage in censorship.

10. The BBC's handling of the Carrie Gracie affair and his leaked off-air banter with Jon Sopel about it "made the Kremlin circa 1950 look sophisticated". He doesn't believe he did anything wrong.
I was disappointed by the BBC’s reaction. They might have made the point that my 50 years’ service at the BBC showed that to accuse me of misogyny on the basis of one bit of private banter was risible. Fat chance. Instead, they came up with the typically pompous comment: ‘This was an ill-advised off-air conversation which the presenter regrets.’ And a ‘source’ told the Guardian that ‘management are deeply unimpressed’.
And he's particularly angry at how then-PM presenter Eddie Mair - the real "boss" of PM - handled the story (or, as JH sees it, non-story), going on to complain:
Mair was not a team player. When he joined PM in 2003, it was a straightforward news-based programme. By the time he left, it had become — in my view — a vehicle for his ego.
11. Yes, he enjoys arguing and approaches people in power "with a pretty strong dose of scepticism", but he's come to realise that the "gladiator sport" style of interviewing is far from ideal. What does it actually achieve? "Too many interviewers (present company included)", he says, "are too often more concerned with making headlines than with helping the audience understand the issues at stake." He admits he got "a little heated, too heated" in the past, did "a lot of interrupting" and, to his "great shame", lost his temper at times, but "calmed down" over the years. 

12. Punchline: After 33 years on Today, he "can't deny that he's rather looking forward to tomorrow".

Saturday, 6 April 2019

One of them, RIGHT HERE, is on your TV every morning


Ben, looking bashful (for some reason)

Here's a transcript of a segment from this week's Newswatch, presented (in Samira Ahmed's absence) by Shaun Ley:

*******

Shaun Ley: Last Thursday's edition of Question Time picked up on the protests against lessons in diversity and equality [by mainly Muslim parents] which are being taught at some Birmingham primary schools. They include same-sex relationships and the rights of LGBT people. 
Question Time audience member: Is it morally right that five-year-old children learn about LGBT issues in school?
Fiona Bruce: Oh, I can hear all sorts of sounds coming from the audience here, so...
There was an angry response from some members of the wider TV audience to the inclusion in the programme of that question which was then posted on Twitter by the Question Time team. One of those expressing views in a forthright way on that tweet was the BBC Breakfast presenter Ben Thompson:
Ben Thompson: LGBT 'issues'? Like what? That we exist? One of them, RIGHT HERE, is on your TV every morning. I held back on this hoping it was clumsy writing, done in haste. But it's still online. Would you ask if it's 'morally right' to learn about gender/race/religion/disability 'issues'. 
Others agreed, with Jerome writing:
Jerome: The question is loaded with prejudice and the premise is incorrect. Are we back in the 1950?
And Lil Tinge asked:
Lil Tinge: Do you want to explain to your LGBT licence payers why your producers thought this was an acceptable question for debate?
Well, the BBC issued the following explanation:
BBC News: Question Time is a topical debate programme. This was a question asked by an audience member on a subject which has seen a lot of recent discussion. 
This week the corporation's Director of News Fran Unsworth sent a general reminder about the use of social media to all staff in news which found its way into the public domain [i.e. was leaked by someone at the BBC to the Guardian]. It advised:
Fran Unsworth: We all have personal views, but it is part of our role with the BBC to keep those views private. You shouldn't state your political preferences, or say anything that compromises your impartiality. Don't sound off about things in an openly partisan way. We haven't always been consistent in dealing with this issue in the past, but we cannot afford for this to continue, and will consider appropriate action in the future.
*******

So it was BBC Breakfast's Ben Thompson, it appears, who brought down The Wrath of Fran on the BBC as a whole.

Now, I must say I'm with the BBC and Ivy Unsworth of In Loving Memory's grand-daughter Francesca here. 

This was a question from a member of the QT audience. Shouldn't he be allowed to ask it because it offends the easily-offended? 

And I don't think it's a remotely objectionable question anyhow. 

Contrary to what Ben Thompson of BBC Breakfast said, the question wasn't about the morality of teaching about LBGT 'issues' - or gender/race/religion/disability 'issues' - in schools per se. It was about teaching about sexuality to five-year-old children. 

Yes, people like Ben might be justified in blowing their tops if people called for such things to be banned from being mentioned in secondary schools, but teaching such sexualised matters to five-year-old IS a question that deserves moral querying.

Ben Thompson should have THIS pointed out to him too, whether by email or in person. Over to you Fran.

Sunday, 11 March 2018

How to turn a good news story into a bad news story about Brexit



There's a 'good news story' for bricklayers and plasterers in today's Sunday Express:
Construction jobs BOOM: Bricklayers and plasterers earn MORE than architects
THE AVERAGE bricklayer earns 10 per cent more than the typical architect, according to research. A poll by the Federation of Master Builders (FMB) found that brickies earned £42,034 on average compared to £38,228 for architects across the UK.

By CAMILLA TOMINEY, EXCLUSIVE 
Floorers, scaffolders and plasterers also earn more and one firm was paying London bricklayers £90,000 a year. 
FMB chief executive Brian Berry said: “Money talks and, when it comes to annual salaries, a career in construction trumps many graduate roles. 
“The average university graduate in England earns £32,000 a year, whereas your average brickie or roofer is earning £42,000 a year across the UK. 
“Pursuing a career in construction is therefore becoming an increasingly savvy move.”  
Plumbing is the most lucrative technical trade with average earnings of £48,675 a year, followed by electricians (£47,265), civil engineers (£44,253), steel fixers (£44,174), roofers (£42,303), bricklayers (£42,034), carpenters and joiners (£41,413), plasterers (£41,045), scaffolders (£40,942), floorers (£39,131) and plant operatives (£38,409). 
According to the Office for National Statistics, architects earn an average of £38,228 per year, followed by painters and decorators (£34,587) and general construction operatives (£32,392). 
The Government is seeking to create parity of esteem between academic and technical education and to create a technical education system that “rivals the best in the world”. 
Julie Hyde, director of vocational qualifications specialist CACHE, said: “Technical education is vital to ensuring that we have the skilled workforce this country needs for the future.” 
This very article was discussed on BBC Breakfast's paper review this morning, and just see - from the following transcript - how the BBC presenter manages to turn it in a ' bad news story' about Brexit:
Ben Thompson: A story here, not sure what paper it's from, "Bricklayers and plasterers earn more than architects". This is something we have talked about a lot on the programme...
Naga Munchetty: It's the Daily Express.
Ben Thompson: ...certainly in the business section of the programme, the fact that skilled labourers, skilled workmen, are in really short supply right now. 
Angela Epstein: Yes, this story suggests that bricklayers are paid 10% more than architects. Architects are a member of the educated classes, they are a professional organisation, you spend seven years at a university for it, a particularly long course, and the idea which is we want esteem and parity between the so-called white-collar professions and the more technical or hands-on professions. I think the problem's happened because there's a 'university for all' policy now and everyone wants to go to university, even if it's to do Golf Studies at the University of Nowhere, when actually it's better to tell our young people being academic is not the one size fits all approach. Take an apprenticeship, use your hands. I will pay anything if I need a plumber in the middle of the night.  It's unlikely I will need an architect in the middle of the night. 
Ben Thompson: And there have been warnings as well that changes to immigration rules after Brexit could make that problem even worse. 
Angela Epstein: Yeah, absolutely, it may well be exacerbated by a certain skills demographic that disappears but I don't think that parent should feel they are shortchanging their children by not encouraging them to go to university. 
 Drip, drip, drip...

Sunday, 15 May 2016

"Desperately seeking headlines"?


Here's exactly what Boris Johnson said in that Sunday Telegraph article interview today:
The whole thing began with the Roman Empire. I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. 
The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.
The Sunday Telegraph then splashed a sensationalist front page headline about it:


And the BBC has followed suit, with a vengeance:


And BBC Breakfast has been going hammer-and-tongs at the story too:
Main News headline (7.00): A political row as Boris Johnson compares the ambitions of the European Union to those of Hitler. The Remain campaign accuses him of a shameful lack of judgement after a newspaper interview in which the former Mayor of London said both had similar aims.  
(7.02) Ben: First our main story. Boris Johnson has compared the EU to Hitler, saying it wants to create a powerful superstate.
Naga: The former Mayor of London, who's a leading member of the Vote Leave groups, says the EU is similar to the Nazi dictator because it aims to unify Europe under one political government. The Labour MP and Remain campaigner Yvette Cooper has accused Mr. Johnson of playing "a nasty game". Let's talk to our political correspondent Carole Walker. It is getting a bit nasty, isn't it Carole? Morning.
Carole: Yes, good morning, Boris Johnson is known for his colourful language but these marks are certainly going to provoke quite a storm.
Paper review (7.20) Naga: We'll take a look at the front pages first of all. Let's begin with the Sunday Telegraph. It has a look at...Boris Johnson: "How the EU wants a superstate, as Hitler did".  Now, there's lots of criticism about the language that Boris Johnson has used in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph. He's warned that while bureaucrats in Brussels are using different methods from the Nazi dictator Hitler they share the aim of unifying Europe under one authority. And this, of course, has sparked much retribution.
Main News headline (8.00): A political row as Boris Johnson compares the ambitions of the European Union to those of Hitler. The Remain campaign accuses him of a shameful lack of judgement after a newspaper interview in which the former Mayor of London said both had similar aims.
(8.02) Ben: First our main story. Boris Johnson has compared the EU to Hitler, saying it wants to create a powerful superstate.
Naga: The former Mayor of London, who's a leading member of the Vote Leave groups, says the EU is similar to the Nazi dictator because it aims to unify Europe under only one political government. Ben: Well. the Labour MP and Remain campaigner Yvette Cooper has accused Mr. Johnson of playing "a nasty game". Let's speak to talk our political correspondent Carole Walker. Carole, just explain for us just exactly what Mr. Johnson said here.
Carole: Well, Boris Johnson is known for his colourful language but certainly I think there's going to be quite a storm over this remark. 
(8.13) Naga: Adolf Hitler and the European Union. Different methods to achieve the same aims. That's according to Boris Johnson in a newspaper interview this morning.
Ben: Yes, the former Mayor of London and leading Vote Leave campaigner says that, like Hitler, the EU wants to see Europe unified under a single under a single political authority.
Naga: Now, his words have provoked an angry response from the Labour MP and Remain campaigner Yvette Cooper. She's accused Mr. Johnson of playing "a nasty game" and "desperately seeking headlines". 
Am I the only one who things Boris is being 'more spun against than spinning' here?

******


Update: Or to put it another way...

Jeff
There’s been a rather typical response from the Beeb regarding an article Boris Johnson has penned for today’s Telegraph. Boris, being a classical historian, gave a very long range view of what has happened in Europe back to the times of the Roman Empire. And he happened to mention that both Napoleon and Hitler had tried, unsuccessfully, to create a one state Europe. At no point in the piece did he write that the EU is like Hitler.
It’s absolutely clear what he means but of of course those desperate and irritating Remainiacs like Yvette Cooper have to stick their oar in and fake outrage. I’m not at all surprised at Cooper and co manufacturing offence, I mean, what else does she do? What is sinister though is that the BBC run with the headline, “Boris likens EU to Hitler.”
It’s nonsense! They know it, we know it and that appalling creature Yvette Cooper knows it.
It really is too bad.

Saturday, 7 May 2016

Snapshot


Here's a 'snapshot' of how the BBC reported its lead story on BBC Breakfast at 7 o'clock this morning:
Headline: Labour's Sadiq Khan is elected the Mayor of London. He becomes the city's first Muslim mayor, but there has been criticism of the campaign run by the Conservative candidate Zak Goldsmith.
Sadiq Khan: I am so glad that London today has chosen hope over fear and unity over division.
Introduction to report: Naga: Labour's Sadiq Khan has been confirmed as the new Mayor of London. He becomes the first Muslim mayor of a major Western capital.
Ben: The MP for Tooting defeated his main challenger the Conservative Zak Goldsmith. There's been criticism of the Tories' decision to link Sadiq Khan with Islamic extremists.
Naga: The former cabinet minister Baroness Warsi said the party had lost its reputation and credibility on issues of race and religion.

Sunday, 3 April 2016

"the government probably trying to make out that..."



I was watching the BBC News Channel this morning and saw an interview between BBC Breakfast presenter Ben Thompson and BBC reporter Susana Mendonça about the steel industry in Britain.

Nothing struck me as untoward about it until I read a comment at Biased BBC shortly after, beginning:

AsISeeIt
“The Government is probably trying to make out that….”
I would welcome this form of robust sceptical and frankly challenging phraseology – if it were uniformly applied to all state initiatives, which it isn’t. Note the wording prefixed a beeboid on beeboid conversation – not an interview with a Government spokesperson.

Lanky sofa flunky Ben Thompson and his BBC masters obviously think they’ve got the Tories grabbed by the steel and tariffs – and they aren’t going to let go. If only that barmpot Corbyn would just shut up and lie low the BBC would happily do his opposition work for him.

Looking back on what was said on BBC Breakfast, that exchange began:
Let's talk to our political correspondent Susana Mendonça, who is in central London for us. Susana, the government probably trying to make out that this in their attempt to act to save some jobs in South Wales but many saying already it's too little too late?
Now, when you think about it, that is a highly loaded question, isn't it? It's the kind of question BBC interviewers often put to politicians and other partisan guests - and rightly so. 

Is it an appropriate question to ask though when it's a 'neutral' BBC interviewer interviewing a 'neutral' BBC reporter?

Couldn't Ben just have asked something along the lines of, "Susana, can you bring us up to date with what the government is saying and what the reaction's been so far?"

There's a huge amount of that kind of 'framing' going on during these kinds of BBC interview these days. The first hour of Today can be full of it at times. And - as this one initially did with me - such 'framings' can just fly by without causing so much as an eyelid to bat in the unsuspecting viewer.


If you were wondering, this was Susana Mendonça's reply in full. This also didn't start out well for the Conservative government, though it actually ended on a high note for them (with Susana, twice, asserting that the government's latest initiative will "inspire confidence"):
Hmm. Well, the government certainly has been on the back foot about the potential job losses in Port Talbot and it's been criticised for putting Chinese trade deals ahead of saving steel jobs here in the UK, and so you could see this certainly as an attempt to show it's doing something. 
It's actually not going to make much of a difference to those jobs in Port Talbot but what it will do is it will, I suppose, inspire confidence. 
The government says it's about levelling the playing field. So, as you say, local councils, NHS bodies and what have you, will have to look at giving contracts...well, look at whether UK companies are allowed to accept those contracts instead of just advertising them outside the UK and also looking at the impact on jobs in the UK when they're giving out those contracts. 
Now, this is not a new idea. It's something the government did last year with central government bodies. They have to look at awarding contracts to UK companies also. 
But what it does it inspires confidence 

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Snapshot I



Another snapshot.

BBC Breakfast interviewed a couple of businessmen from small-and-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) about the EU referendum - one a Leave supporter, the other a Remain supporter (both of whom did well). I thought I'd record it and check whether that balance was reflected in the questions put by the BBC presenters.

Here are the questions:
Questions put to the pro-Remain businessman
(by Ben Thompson, BBC) Marcus, you are clearly reassured by what you've heard from the Prime Minister. Reforms, a reformed EU and one you still very much want to be part of it. 
(by Ben Thompson, BBC) What's going to be so interesting as the campaigns now get under way for either side is the fact that this is not black and white. There are so many shades of grey about what people want out of the EU and what they don't. Marcus, what is it that you are most worried about? Clearly you are supporting our continued membership but is there a worry there? Is there something...?
Questions put to the pro-Leave businessman
(by Ben Thompson, BBC) It's interesting, Scott, isn't it? We talk a lot about that uncertainty, the influence it has on business. We don't know. It's unprecedented. No country has ever left the EU. We don't know what would happen. Are you not worried about that as a businessman? 
(by Naga Munchetty, BBC) Scott, tell me. When David Cameron announced that he was going to be embarking on these negotiations - these negotiations that have taken a lot time, a series of meetings - was there anything or were you hopeful that you'd be convinced to stay in or had your mind completely been made up? 
(by Naga Munchetty, BBC) And even with the spectre of that being renegotiated in the future?
As we were discussing on one of yesterday's threads, the language is something that's worth watching. The language of "spectre", "unprecedented", "uncertainty", "We don't know", "Are you not worried?" flowed from both BBC presenters here and related to the Leave side. On the other side we had words like "reassured" and "reformed" and "reforms".

And I suspect that David Cameron might be happy with Ben's description of what he's achieved as "reforms, a reformed EU" and Naga's "these negotiations that have taken a lot time, a series of meetings". 

On the question of whether they were challenged, or gifted with setup questions, I think there's a clear answer here.: The anti-EU guest was asked challenging questions while the pro-EU guest was gifted with setup questions. (Even the one about worries allowed him to amplify his worries about the uncertainty a Brexit would bring).

Incidentally, I had to smile at Ben Thompson saying "We talk a lot about that uncertainty, the influence it has on business".

You can say that again, Ben!