Twas the Saturday before Christmas

Thank you, even more than normal, for your comments this week. 

You really have captured all the main goings-on involving the BBC, particularly on the open thread - with a special doff of the cap to Charlie. 

It's been invaluable, so thanks again.

-----------

Today, as JunkkMale notes, has been dominated by a mass 'flounce' by BBC types after Camilla Tominey, the delightful associate editor of the Daily Telegraph, published a BBC-bashing piece headlined The BBC is wilfully ignorant about Tory Britain. She began:

It may be apocryphal but it is a story worth telling anyway. A young producer turned up at the BBC to do a shift on election night in December 2019. Huw Edwards had just revealed the results of the exit poll, predicting a landslide Conservative majority and the complete evisceration of Jeremy Corbyn. According to the tale, the rookie journalist arrived at the newsroom in Portland Place to find half of Auntie’s staff in tears.

It might not be true but it certainly is believable.

Now, I dislike that kind of thing as much as anyone, possibly more so - the 'it's probably not true, but it reflects a real truth' nonsense. It drives me up the wall, round the ceiling and down the chimney, even while Santa might be busily climbing back up. Now, what I want is, Facts - to quote Mr Gradgrind. Camilla was probably just being rhetorical, but shouldn't have said it. 

But it's been huge fun watching The BBC Collective, and their allies, take to Twitter to spit out feathers and dummies at Camilla en masse. 

Nick Robinson, Marianna Spring, John Simpson and countless others have all piled in with furious 'tally-hos'. 

To sum up their grievance: It's not true and it's soooooo unfair.

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to burst a blood vessel laughing your head off at it all.

But, of course, such laughter might be misplaced. 

They're all piling in because they've spotted an obvious, easy chink in a BBC critic's armour. 

Camilla's opening paragraph is indefensible, so it was evidently all hands on deck and all grist to the Twitter mill from the BBC - and their fans - to exploit the situation to their advantage. 

Unfortunately for them, they're probably peeing into the Twitter wind - a tiny minority echo chamber. The folk 'below the line' at the Telegraph and their readers are somewhere else and on Camilla's side rather than the BBC's side - in another echo chamber possibly.

But maybe they're not peeing into the Twitter wind after all because although Twitter may be something some 5/6 of the UK population don't ever engage with they are still reaching the people who matter to them - their many fellow Twitter users in the high ranks of the media and the political class. In other words, their guardians.

Meanwhile, if this wasn't complicated enough already, Dame Nick Robinson also went on a massive [self-] righteous rant on Twitter about how Camilla had reported - or misreported -  a part of the story involving John Redwood MP, with Camilla swatting him off with a kiss and various counter-points. 

This was six of one and half a dozen of the other, though pompous Nick - being in his echo chamber - had the bulk of the support on Twitter.....which he really shouldn't take as reflecting anything much.

If you can't be bothered with any of the above I don't blame you. It's enough to make your head whirl like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan after hours of dervishing at an Ottoman revivalist rally. 

Or are we being wound up?

Transcript time:

This was how The Andrew Marr Show's paper review discussed the Charles Moore/Paul Dacre story this morning. 

What stood out for me was Camilla Tominey's delivery of a delicious jab against Andrew and the BBC. 

It brought a smile to my face:

Andrew Marr: Let's talk about the front-page of the Sunday Times. Lots of papers, in fact virtually every paper, carries the same story: that Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail, one of the most famous and controversial newspaper editors of his time, is being lined up to head Ofcom, overseeing broadcasting, and Charles Moore, now Lord Moore, who was an editor of your papers and the Spectator and is a Conservative commentator and biographer of Margaret Thatcher - no great fan of the BBC it has to be said - is being lined up as chair of the BBC. Very straightforward question Camilla: Is this true, do you think? Or [laughing] are we being wound up? 

Camilla Tominey: I like the fact that the BBC reaction is to consider it a wind-up, simply because both of these figures are right of centre, representing right of centre newspapers in their time. It does seem a little bit tricksy. But, at the same time, perhaps that is the problem. Perhaps the fact that if Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of the Guardian had been put up for either of these roles, no-one would have paid a blind bit of notice. Perhaps that, therefore, does... 

Andrew Marr: They would have been purring across north London [laughing].   

Camilla Tominey: Well, exactly! So maybe that does suggest...maybe the reaction to this does suggest there is a problem Andrew!

Andrew Marr: Alright. Of course, we have to say, that there is a proper process for this kind of thing, and there is is a tweet from Peter Riddell, who heads the body that looks over public appointments. He says, "Public competitions for the new chairs of the BBC and Ofcom, both regulated by the Public Appointments Commission, have not yet been launched. Each would involve a Senior Independent Panel Member to provide assurance of a fair and open process as in the Government's Governance Code." Now, we should say, Faisal, both of these characters are very, very eminent journalists and they are serious contenders for anything. 

Faisal Islam: They are. Certainly in the case of the Ofcom chair, that has traditionally being filled in the past by kind of PhD or professors of economics because the role isn't mainly about content regulation, though there is an important role in online [indecipherable] coming forward for Ofcom. It is about broadband, and telephones, and mobiles, and all that sort of stuff, so it tends to have been a technical appointment. But it is a new Government. They may have a change of direction on who they think should run these things. 

Andrew Marr: It will be very, very interesting to see what happens next. 

Titbits

Here are some titbits that you may have missed from the dead tree press this weekend:

I

Charles Moore on Nick Robinson:

Someone like Nick Robinson, for example – another of the Today presenters – is just as good as Humphrys in the role of crazed dentist looking for holes in a politician’s teeth, but one feels that his motive is different. The essential Robinson message is “I know more about politics than you, so let me handle this”.

II

Camilla Tominey on Question Time:

If we view Southampton as a microcosm of Britain, last night’s episode taught us two things: firstly that Boris Johnson is not quite as unpopular as his detractors - including the BBC - care to make out and secondly, that the Liberal Democrat’s new “cancel Brexit” policy is anathema to huge swathes of the general public. 

III

Not so Fab-u-lous for another Craig:

Strictly Come Dancing judge Craig Revel-Horwood, 54, has been banned by the BBC from using his ‘Fab-u-lous’ catchphrase outside the show. He was reportedly hoping to use it as the name for a range of wines. Judges cannot exploit their on-air roles for commercial gain.

IV

Inaccessible Ben:

Yes, I am undeniably privileged, something I am enormously thankful and grateful for. Socially, my opinions on class, the economy and politics are often dismissed because I’m “privileged” and therefore also “disconnected” — or, as the BBC referred to me when I was dropped from presenting Countryfile, “inaccessible”.

V

Justin Webb on John Humphrys:

‘Oh, wearing jeans, are we?” It’s four in the morning last Thursday and John Humphrys has arrived for his final appearance on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Actually, my trousers are pressed cotton, clean on and neater than anything he normally wears. But this is no normal day: it’s a special day and John has dressed special. In a suit. As he would have done growing up at home when something happened — a funeral or a wedding, perhaps. A working-class respect for time and place. For occasion.

VI

Rod Liddle on John Humphrys: 

One or two directors-general resented both his interviewing style and his prominence. I remember being told by a middle manager, in about 1998, that our interviewers should “go easy” on Blair’s government because it was terribly popular with the people. It was an instruction I totally ignored and certainly never passed on to Humphrys, who would have merely ratcheted up the ferocity a bit more. Later managers worried about the fact that he wasn’t quite woke, like all the rest of the BBC’s employees — forgetting that 75% of the country (that is, the licence fee-payers) aren’t woke either, and won’t be woke no matter how many alarms you set or how much our dozing bodies are prodded by the hyperbolic liberals in an attempt to make us so. 

Down with the kids

I wasn't greatly surprised to find the BBC and The Guardian being of one mind on those climate-protesting, Mrs-May-effing truants during the Andrew Marr paper review this morning, or that Camilla from the Telegraph was the only one expressing any reservations. Very BBC/Guardian. 

Anushka Asthana, The Guardian: But can I just say, right, all those politicians who are getting so angry about these kids, anyone with kids - and anyone else - probably knows that the Friday before half term is not an educationally enriching day at school. And one of the most educationally-enriching things kids can do is get involved in political action on the biggest issue and the biggest crisis facing our planet. 

Andrew Marr, BBC: They are right about this.

Anushka Asthana, The Guardian: They're really right. An the idea that politicians - and a lot of them were Conservatives - coming out and saying, well, they're acting truant,  on the Friday before half term, I think totally misses the point. And for a party that needs to attract young people I feel like they should have taken a different attitude. 

Vicky Young, BBC: I was surprised they came out so forcefully. Actually, Cabinet ministers doing that. I was surprised at them doing it. 

Camilla Tominey, Daily Telegraph: Although you have to make sure the kids are safe. There was an argument to say some of them had been running off to protest and no one knew where they were, which is slightly concerning from a safeguarding... 

Vicky Young, BBC: (interrupting) At least they're engaged!

Andrew Marr, BBC: We are down with the kids - which you can't always say for The Andrew Marr Show. 

*******

Meanwhile, our old friend DB posted a string of tweets from an effusive BBC politics journalist called Joey D'Urso a couple of days ago. I was about to screengrab them and post them here but Joey has now deleted them. In them he gushed that the protests were "really quite something", that the children skipping school were "righteously angry" and he "doubts they're going away" and, all in all, he said he finds it all "genuinely quite humbling". But, perhaps as a result of DB pointing them out, Joey D'Urso has now sent his opinions down the memory hole. 

*******

And....Friday night's Newsnight saw Katie Razzall (prior to reading out that half-apology to Richard Tice) called the protests "sobering":

Taking to the streets - the young pit themselves against the old, in the interests of the planet. Is climate change becoming the inter-generational battle of our times? It's sobering to see our children walking out of their classes in protest at how they think the grown ups have failed to protect their futures. Is what they're asking of us hopelessly naive, or just brutally true? 

******* 

It seems to have dawned on Mr D'Urso at least that it might be questionable in terms of BBC impartiality, but Vicky Young, Andrew Marr and Katie Razzall still seem to think that it's absolutely fine for them to express their support for these protests. 

Is it?

"Yeah, well just answer the question!"

Mud won't stick

“Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat” 

says Sam Coates in the Times (£)  Who’s surprised?

Did you watch Camilla Tominey on Question Time, (that is if you could bear to listen to John Prescott’s semi-decipherable streams of verbiage, or watch the Asian lady brandishing those scissor-hands menacingly as she performed exaggerated expressions of disapproval) No, Question Time was barely watchable, and the clip from Tominey’s Corbyn speech was a brief highlight amongst a large field of lowlights. It makes no difference whatsoever. Friend of Hamas? Hezbollah? IRA? Press TV? Commie spy? Everything thrown at Corbyn is simply dismissed as a smear; not that his loyal followers would care either way.  

Did you listen to The News Quiz? I accidentally caught part of it. The panellists were amusing themselves with affectionate jokes about Corbyn’s ineffectual spying, but the fact that they ridiculed their hero was probably enough to counter accusations that the BBC’s comedians never satirise Jeremy Corbyn. We learned that Jeremy Hardy has been a friend for years; name-dropping of a most peculiar kind.

According to the Guardian Ken is coming back! Did you know that Ken Livingstone is all set to be reinstated as a member of the Labour Party? He never did anything wrong.

The tide of antisemitism engulfs the Labour Party and it looks as if a great many people are resigned to a Labour Government in the not too distant future.

“But the toxicity of the Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party has meant that I have had no choice but to speak out on racism, time and time again. At seven of the last nine meetings, the Kilburn Brent Branch of the party has tabled toe-curling motions singling-out Jews and Israel. Seven out of nine. If that is not institutional racism, I don’t know what is.”

I watched Nigel Slater the other day. He went to the Middle East (Turkey, Lebanon and Iran) because he loves Lebanese cuisine and wants to experience the renowned hospitality of the people. That’s something that people like Nigel Slater always marvel at. Because of their generosity and their aromatic cuisine, he and people like him overlook the antisemitism and more barbaric elements of Islamic culture. 

This is mad, I know, but I always feel instinctively sorry for Nigel Slater. He seems lonely. But at least he has a lovely kitchen, and like Nigella, always has special artisan groceries wrapped up in crinkly greaseproof paper, not like the vacuum-packed and impenetrable stuff from Lidl’s and Morrison’s. Nigel and Nigella - the his and hers of posh shopping.

One aspect of Nigel’s jaunt through (some of) the Middle East troubles me in the same way ex-hostage (in Lebanon) John McCarthy used to when he hosted a travel programme on radio 4. He was always extolling the virtues of Damascus as a holiday destination. Of course, that was way back in the days when Damascus was merely a police state, rather than an out and out war-zone.  He never mentioned that Bashir al-Assad’s spies were everywhere, eavesdropping on every conversation.

But still, nice middle-class people have a thing about Muslim countries and people so hospitable that, no matter how poor, they’ll give a stranger their last sheep’s eye. Well, last week Nigel left Lebanon, where he had been most warmly received by all, Hezbollah was nowhere to be seen and politics was never mentioned but for a couple of oblique references to “the War”. How would he be expected to care that Hezbollah has about 500,000 rockets pointing at Israel? 

Off he trotted, to Iran. Nigel was overcome with joy at the hospitality of the Iranians. And only one teeny little mention of the current regime; something about ‘fun’. ‘Long lost,’ it was. I heard there's no such thing as homosexuality in Iran. Luckily for Nigel.