Showing posts with label Chris Mason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Mason. Show all posts

Saturday, 25 July 2020

A chat about Any Questions, Chris Mason & Peter Hitchens



For those who listened to Any Questions on Radio 4 last night (or are about to do so again when it's repeated shortly), here's a little Twitter chat about it. 

It's a rather civilised one by the standards of Twitter, and I think that fair points were made all round.

Chris Mason is a great improvement on Jonathan Dimbleby. I think he'd also make a great replacement for Anita Anand on Any Answers - though, alas, I don't think my prayers will be answered on that front. 

Moreover, I do hope that the Monster Munch story below is true. I rather like pickle onion-flavoured Monster Munches, and haven't had one for aeons. I think I would have gratefully accepted Chris's kind offer.
Ron Swanson: Might actually be worth listening to Any Questions tonight. The BBC have, reluctantly I’m sure, invited Peter Hitchens on.
Chris Mason (to Ron Swanson), retweeted by Peter Hitchens): Thanks for listening. We don’t invite anyone onto the programme reluctantly. Peter is a brilliant debater and I’d love to have him back soon.
Ron Swanson (to Chris Mason): Chris, I don’t want a row with you, and this isn’t even aimed at you or Any Questions which has people from all views on. My issue is with the BBC in general. Have a good day.
Mike Wilson: Peter always gives his honest opinion with no flannel, you don’t have to agree with him to see he’s genuine, which is a breath of fresh air these days.
Ron Swanson: Chris is much better than Dimblebot too, IMHO. He actually lets people talk and doesn’t constantly interrupt. A good appointment. Thumbs up. As for Peter, I don’t always agree - which is good! I don’t want to always agree with someone. How boring. But what he says he believes. Rare.
Sir Radfoot Strongdoctor: I once encountered Mr Mason in a long queue at a post office in Hounslow. He was eating noisily on a packet of pickled onion flavoured Monster Munch. On catching my gaze he offered the packet to me and invited me to take one. I politely refused. "Suit y'self" he said.
Robert Miller (to Chris Mason): You gave him a fair hearing too. More than some other programmes did.

Saturday, 25 January 2020

Ee ba gum

A Yorkshireman

Many people were taken aback by the appointment of Chris Mason to replace the younger Dimbleby as host of Any Questions? 

People were expecting a 'diverse' person to be appointed. 

A headline at The Conservative Woman summed it up: White man gets BBC job. What went wrong? 

If. however, you thought this was a rare example of the BBC not following its 'diversity'/'identity' obsession, you were a bit premature. Today's Times interview with Radio 4 controller Mohit Bakaya confirms that The Great Chris Mason (™ Andrew Marr) wasn't just chosen on merit. He was chosen because of his Northern accent:
One of the reasons I put Chris Mason in on Any Questions was just to start to see if we could get more voices from around the UK on the network.

Sunday, 24 November 2019

Comeback


The great Chris Mason (t/m Andrew Marr) responds:
Alex Balfour: Have you watched the BBC recently? It’s almost as if RP is no longer allowed. Great to have nice regional accents but then you get Chris Mason who sounds like a train conductor, Beth Rigby who turns ‘ings’ into ‘in’s’ and Steph McGovern who makes the Tetley ads sound highbrow! 
Chris Mason: Mercifully, the word ‘eejit’ means the same how ever you say it.

Sunday, 10 November 2019

The greatness whereof I cannot enough commend, comes with him


It's always pleasant to receive compliments from your work colleagues, but too many compliments from a boss towards just one employee can arouse envy. 

I though of that after hearing Andrew Marr call his colleague Chris Mason "the great Chris Mason" after that young man had finished reading the news on this morning's Marr show

Poor Ben Thompson didn't get any such praise last week, nor did poor Roger Harding the week before.

But back on 0ctober 20, Chris Mason was on again and, yes, after that young man had finished reading the news Andrew again called him "the great Chris Mason".

It's becoming a habit. 

If someone was feeling mischievous behind the scenes of the programme they might ask Samira Ahmed to read the news next week. If Andrew Marr fails to call her "the great Samira Ahmed", she might very well be tempted to take the BBC to the cleaners!

Friday, 18 October 2019

No mea culpa from Katya


  • 3/10 Katya Adler: "The chances of getting a deal now, between now and the EU leader's summit is zero, let's be honest."
  • 10/10 Chris Mason: "Katya, you were saying, last week I think it was, I may not be quoting you entirely verbatim, but the essence of it was you thought that there was a vanishingly small likelihood of a deal...It's still vanishingly small."
  • 10/10 Katy Adler: "It's not going to happen." 

So, on last night's Brexitcast, did Katya & Co. do the decent thing and admit that they got it wrong? 

Of course not. 

Thursday, 17 October 2019

Mystic Katya



Fans of useless BBC punditry may especially relish this exchange from last week's Brexitcast on BBC One:
Chris Mason: Katya, you were saying, last week I think it was, I may not be quoting you entirely verbatim, but the essence of it was you thought that there was a vanishingly small likelihood of a deal. And for all of the noise and the talk of, you know, the clouds and now, maybe, a little ray of sunshine, it is still vanishingly unlikely in the current timeframe, isn't it? I mean, I know it's important to keep the diplomatic channels open and keep talking and regardless of what happens there are going to have to be conversations between Dublin and London and all that, but getting a deal so the UK can leave by the end of October, which is three weeks today, and the ratification that's necessary for that and all the rest of it, still seems vanishingly small. 

Katya Adler: I think if Harrison the Brexit baby forgives me, we are really in a situation where nobody wants to be left holding the baby. Nobody wants to be the one that says it's not going to happen. But it's not going to happen. Maybe, maybe, there is a 0.0000-0.3% chance that it will happen.  
Chris Mason: It was 0.2 this morning!  
Katya Adler: But nobody, nobody, nobody wants to be the one to say it. 
So two of the BBC's very own top Brexit brains were repeatedly telling each other - and us - only last Thursday that "there was a vanishingly small likelihood of a deal", with Katya Adler going so far as to put a figure of 0.0-0.3% per cent on its likelihood.

Just one week later....


Indeed, on the previous week's episode Katya had said (to murmurs of agreement from the fellow BBC Brexitcasters):
The current proposals on the table are not acceptable to the EU, full stop. Let's be honest about that. The chances of getting a deal now, between now and the EU leader's summit is zero, let's be honest. 
Can Chris and Katya ever be taken seriously again?

P.S. Here's Laura Kuenssberg on 8 October's BBC One News at Six being slightly more cautious:
Politics has been strange in the last two years. Never say never. A deal is not completely and entirely off the table in time. But it seems vanishingly unlikely that we are actually going to get into that position with the time left. It is only a matter of days since the Prime Minister put his new proposals on the table in Brussels and quite clearly they are simply not changing hearts and minds and they are simply not on course to be able to get to a conclusion. 

Saturday, 12 October 2019

How did THIS happen?



The news that Chris Mason is to the next permanent presenter of Any Questions? has gone down pretty well. 

Understandably so. He's a likable chap. 

Gary Oliver at The Conservative Woman is still surprised though:
[Chris Mason] is a mildly irreverent, self-deprecating and congenial character, as well as being an experienced and highly competent political broadcaster. However . . . Yorkshire-born Mason has a peely-wally complexion and white privilege enabled him to attend a high-performing grammar school followed by Cambridge University. For the past 39 years Mason’s preferred pronouns have been he/his/him and this unapologetic patriarch appears unwilling to join the inordinate number of BBC employees who identify as transgender. The cisgender man is married – but to a woman, for heaven’s sake!  
Yet despite ticking none of the Corporation’s crucial boxes, somehow Chris Mason has landed the prestigious role as host of Any Questions? How on earth did the BBC’s diversity auditors approve the appointment of this white-privileged, heteronormative man?
*******

Meanwhile Roger Bolton interviewed Chris Mason on Feedback and asked him if he was also going to be presenting Any Answers? - as Jonathan Dimblebly did in his early years - but, alas, he's not.

So, folks, it looks as if we're stuck with 'The Anita Anand Show' for the forseeable future. 

Friday, 7 June 2019

Back Through the Looking Glass


One of the founders of Scientists for (the) EU, Dr. Mike Galsworthy, certainly galled the BBC's Chris Mason this morning.

The Labour-supporting academic had tweeted, "Labour win in Peterborough! Who is BBC Radio 4' s Today interviewing right now? The winner? No... they have Nigel Farage on. This is *the* top radio spot. I’ve had enough of the BBC. They promote him when he wins. They promote him when he loses."

Chris Mason replied, "This is Twitter at its pathetic worst , Mike Galsworthy. Craving retweets in an echo chamber. Here are the facts: narrowly defeated party leader on BBC Radio 4' s Today at 07:10. Shadow cabinet minister from winning party on at 08:10."

And the 08:10 spot is actually *the* top radio spot - and has been for decades - not 07:10. 

Maybe Dr. Mike should get his tweets peer-reviewed before sending them out?

Actually, Nigel Farage was in third place in the traditional Today pecking order. The third-placed party in Peterborough, the Conservatives, did better and got second place on Today with the 07:30 spot. (Are you still following me?)

Meanwhile Labour peer Baroness (Joan) Bakewell also had a beef with the BBC. She chipped in on the same thread alleging sexism on the Corporation's part for not having Lisa Forbes on Today: "But where’s the winner?  Oh, she’s a woman!".

As someone swiftly replied though, "I would imagine she was probably in bed, having been up most of the night."

Indeed. And as we know from Sue, she was soon up and back on the BBC facing Andrew Neil. 

Ah, Dr. Mike and Dame Joan! Seriously, maybe it's time for the BBC to revive The Brains Trust yet again. As when it was last revived, Dame Joan could be its presenter, and its panellists should be Dr. Mike Galsworthy, Professor A.C. Grayling, Paul Mason, Dr Heinz Kiosk and Ash Sarkar. How about it BBC?

Sunday, 24 March 2019

Chirp, chirp

BBC Politics: Peoples Vote March organisers say more than a million people joined protests in central London.
Tim Montgomerie: The BBC has become Remain’s propaganda vehicle.
Chris Mason, BBC: I should arrange a lunch for you and Andrew Adonis. A table for two, a couple of cameras at a discreet distance...
Tim Montgomerie: BBC uncritically repeating organisers’ claims that a million marched today. Last time the organisers exaggerated by 450,000. 
Denis MacShane (former Labour Europe minister): Tim, BBC TV News gave equal billing to Farage and 50 anti Europeans in car park to one million of our fellow Brits expressing concern. BBC bias against EU this century is shameful.
And enter stage neither left, right, nor centre (as the BBC is, of course, wholly impartial), here's Rob:
Rob Burley, BBC: Maybe you're both wrong...
So who's right? 

Well, let's start with Denis MacShane's claim. Saturday's three main BBC One news bulletin's all led with the pro-Second Referendum march and none of them mentioned the pro-Brexit protest ("50 anti Europeans in car park") at all. So his complaint is false in regards to BBC One. And the BBC News website has also been leading with the march and placing a brief mention of the '50 anti Europeans in car park' at the back end of its long report - quite literally the back end, i.e. the final three paragraphs of a 32-paragraph report. And that doesn't even includes the eight paragraphs of pro-Second Referendum 'voices from the march'. So his claim is false about that too. 

As for Tim Montgomerie's claim, well, I must say that reading and comparing the BBC, Sky and ITV news websites earlier this evening, I thought the BBC actually put in rather more caveats that either of its broadcast rivals as far as the numbers go. And, checking out their respective main late evening news bulletins, their opening headlines ran as follows and reinforced my first impressions:
Sky: Demanding their voices be heard - As many as one million people take to the streets of London calling for a second EU referendum.
ITV: An estimated one million people marched through London today demanding a second referendum to break the political deadlock over Brexit.
BBC: A huge march in central London by protestors demanding another EU referendum. Organisers claim more than a million people took part and say it's one of the biggest protests in British history.
So I'd said Rob Burley has a point that both sides are wrong here - though Denis is much more wrong than Tim. Denis is plain wrong; Tim is wrong because the others are even worse.

Update - It continued:
Denis MacShane: Both?
Rob Burley: Yeah, you and Tim.
Denis MacShane: Ah. You are probably right.
Rob Burley liked
Very civilised.

Screaming headline alert: The BBC's Chris Mason DESTROYS Lord Adonis


Who mourns for Lord Adonis? (Not Chris Mason)

Fans of BBC-Lord Adonis tussles might enjoy this Twitter exchange from a couple of days ago. This time the BBC wins and Lord Adonis exits pursued by a geeky-glasses-wearing bear:

Lord Adonis: BBC News this morning is totally ignoring seismic 2.3 million who in 48 hours have signed petition to revoke Article 50.
Chris Mason: 11,000 likes, but wrong. It was in my BBC Breakfast report. It was in my BBC 5 Live report. And I talked about it on Brexitcast.
Anand Menon: And they mentioned at it near the top on BBC R4 Today as I recall. But hey. Don’t let the facts get in the way Andrew.
Simon Templar [though possibly not The Simon Templar]: Sorry to point this out Chris, even though I love your broadcasts and tweets, but you are being somewhat pedantic. And I do acknowledge that I am being pedantic in doing so. There's a little bit of Sheldon Cooper in all of us. Just saying.
Chris Mason: Sure Simon, I’m pedantic about facts. It’s my job to be. Lord Adonis was wrong, simple as that.
Lord Adonis: No, you are wrong Chris. I was listening to the BBC News on the Radio 4 Today programme and its reports, from 6am to 7.30am and no mention of the Revoke Article 50 petition across all bulletins. Fact.
Chris Mason: Let me quote you: ‘BBC News this morning is totally ignoring...’ Sent shortly after 6am. You are now justifying your falsehood by referring to one outlet. I know how much you love your retweets on here, but the simple reality is you were factually wrong.

Obviously His Lordship is talking nonsense about BBC bias. It's what he does. It's cynical pressuring.

And it doesn't balance out justified criticism of BBC anti-Brexit bias. 

Saturday, 3 November 2018

Rats deserting the sinking ship?


Rob's next line-up for Politics Live?

"The sewer of social media, when a reporter merely reports that police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes among Labour Party members". 

So tweeted the BBC's Chris Mason yesterday.

(I like Chris. Nerdy and nice - and there's nothing wrong with that).

The tweet from the Corbyn supporter which provoked Chris's Twitter outburst (it contained an insult, sweary language and a wildly conspiratorial assertion in less than 140 characters) did indeed arise from the sewer, with half a dozen rats holding their whiskery noses and looking away as it did so. 

Such behaviour towards BBC reporters is totally reprehensible and the chap in question should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. 

Richard, an anti-Brexit 48%-er, then tweeted Chris to commiserate and say, "Social media, I fear, is killing civilised, intelligent debate. Abuse seems to be the new normal. Never has quality journalism been so important". 

"I agree Richard", replied Chris

Hmm. What exactly was Chris agreeing with there? If he was embracing the whole of Richard's point, as he seemed to be doing, then that's far, far too sweeping. 

But such sweeping sentiments do seem to becoming the starting point for a strongly emerging BBC theme at the moment: Social media bad; old-style media outlets like the BBC good. 

I'm starting to see that all over the place, across the BBC, from the BBC.

The BBC does get like this from time to time. They used to go after Rupert Murdoch, News UK, Sky, etc. Now it's the social media companies and social media in general, plus Netflix & Co.

As Katty Lette might say, am I right girls? 

Monday, 9 April 2018

Smokescreen revisited



Due to my lack of rigour with regard to ‘tagging’ I know I have missed zillions of postings concerning Yolande Knell, but suffice it to say that there are 34 tagged as such on this blog alone, and a similar search brought up several on Biased BBC from 2011, although I’m pretty sure  earlier ones exist somewhere in the ether.







I’m telling you this because of a below the line remark on a BBC Watch post that I’m about to expand upon in a minute. 
Michael says: “when you begin to talk about Knell’s interview, it would be better to give readers a little background on Knell. New people here may not know who she is.”
So the Knell-related preamble was directed at anyone who doesn’t know what we BBC bias nerds think of Yolande Knell, and for anyone New. (Hello.)

It has always struck me that the BBC positions people like Knell solely on the ‘Palestinian’ side of the violent confrontations with Israel it reports - those it chooses to report, that is, because much Palestinian-instigated aggression goes unreported by the BBC. (Click on the link and scroll down for the full effect.)

Here, I’m talking about 'the Palestinian side' in a geographical as well as an ideological sense. We get the human interest angle, the bird’s eye view, the scene that’s looking at Israel from the other side of the fence where malign Israeli forces appear to be spying on us from menacing Nazi-era watchtowers and occasionally taking pot-shots at innocent Palestinian bystanders just for the hell of it.

Another stranger-than-a-mere-coincidence phenomenon is that, particularly on the radio, the voices of Israeli officials are made to sound even more remote due to a mysterious technical aberration that suddenly interferes with the sound; a sort of hollow echo that makes them sound mechanical, robotic and other-worldly.   

These things all happened during the recent reporting of the March of Return / Friday of the Tire or whatever slogan the Hamas marketing department thought would go down well with the cannon-fodder it was designed to inspire.


The one I blogged recently, starring Chris Mason  which I titled “Smokescreen” and a TV version featuring a little more of Yolande Knell and her Interviewee. 
I’m returning to this partly because BBC Watch has fleshed out the details that I failed to provide. This is because Hadar Sela knows much more than I do about such things, and I imagine not everyone has the appetite for the minutiae of hostilities between hostile neighbouring villages pre 1948.

The first point that cannot be emphasised enough is how ludicrous and unrealistic the concept of the March for the Right of Return actually is. The Right of Return is not the same thing as the Law of Return as decreed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922. The latter provides a safe haven for peoples of Jewish heritage when, for example, Jeremy Corbyn turns Britain into The Weimar Republic, whereas the former is a parody of it, purely intended to hasten the progress of Israel’s destruction. Perhaps the BBC doesn’t see the distinction.

There may be a case for compensating any legitimate property owners amongst the original refugees that fled or were displaced in 1948, but the concept of a Right of Return of millions of their descendants is a non-starter. The Arabs started the war, they lost the war, and as yet the Palestinians haven’t shown the ability to create anything worthy of being respected as a viable future state. The march is a stunt and a declaration of Hamas’s determination never to reach a peaceful “two-state” solution. 

As BBC Watch points out, the sister of this confusion is the concept of Ancestral Lands. The idea seems to be that if the Jews refer to their “Ancestral Home’ so can the Palestinians, but these are different things.  The Jews are alluding to their 3,000 year old association with the region, their one and only  ancestral homeland, whereas when the BBC says:  “what Palestinians see as their ancestral lands” they don’t explain that in order to qualify for refugee status, one only had to claim a mere minimum of two years of residency in Mandate Palestine. That muddies the situation considerably, and doesn’t take into account a factor, which might be classed as ‘whataboutery’,  but the truth is that an even larger number of Jews were driven out of Arab and North African countries and forced to leave their possessions behind whereupon they were absorbed by Israel and began new lives, not kept in camps for decades and used as political pawns. 

Not all Palestinian refugees are indigenous. Many current Palestinians classed as refugees originate from all over the place. The old Egyptian rogue Arafat was from Egypt, for example, and it’s thought that the well-known Tamimi propaganda machine originates from the Abu Tamim tribe in Saudi. The Ancestral Lands theme is another parody of a legitimate Israeli one; arguably a counterfeit concept borrowed from a genuine one.

BBC Watch also highlights the “forcibly displaced” legend that was casually slipped into the narrative. Also, the unquestioning repetition of unverified casualty figures provided by the “Palestinian health ministry” (Hamas) which has become standard BBC practice. Sloppy and unethical.

Then - Knell’s contribution. A human interest story featuring a 72 year-old Palestinian man, retired English teacher Ahmed Abdullah. BBC Watch provides the context that Yolande Knell leaves out, and poses a loaded question shaped to receive a specific answer.
“When the Israelis say it’s just Hamas that’s trying to stir up violence…”
I addressed that in my earlier post, but at the time I didn’t have the will to tussle with the rest of the item, which included Chris Mason interviewing the head of the political NGO B’tselem about his organisation’s call for Israeli soldiers to disobey orders, as unrepresentative as, say, Russia Today inviting Jeremy Corbyn to give the definitive assessment of Theresa May’s response to the Skripal incident.
Then we heard an IDF spokesperson speaking from within a echoing dungeon, no doubt an ante-room to the burning Hell of Hades.

Saturday, 7 April 2018

Smokescreen


I don’t usually listen to the World Tonight, but I happened to turn the radio on tonight in time to catch Chris Mason introducing the BBC’s version of what’s been happening on the Gaza border.
His introduction took me aback. This is a late-night post, written in haste. Make allowances. 
“When you hear, or use the word smokescreen, the chances are the speaker is indulging in a spot of imagery about a ruse designed to disguise someone’s real intention.
But along the eastern borders of the Gaza Strip today a smokescreen was a literal description of the tactic deployed by Palestinians; the choking black clouds, the result of burning tyres, had a simple purpose - make it harder for Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border to shoot protesters in Gaza.
This was the second week of a planned six week protest set to end on 15th of May, the 70th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, or catastrophe in which more than 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced by Israeli forces in the Arab Israel war of 1948.”

Before I go any further, that short introduction is stuffed to the gunwales with with malign insinuations and the most blatant falsehood came last. 

If the BBC sincerely believes that 750,000  Arabs (not Palestinians - the brand hadn’t been invented in ’48) were ‘forcibly displaced by Israel forces’ they are factually wrong and they really need to check with  reliable, non partisan sources. Most credible historians recount that most of the Arabs who fled in 1948 did so following instructions to ‘get out of the way’ issued by warmongering antisemitic Arab leaders who intended to demolish the nascent Jewish state and mistakenly assumed this would be quick and easy. 

‘Israeli forces’ is hardly a suitable way to describe hastily trained, armed Jewish pioneers and Holocaust survivors fighting for their lives.  In other words, Chris Mason is regurgitating Palestinian propaganda based on wishful thinking and racist hatred of the Jewish people. So who’s been using a smokescreen as a tactic?

Doesn’t the phrase “making it harder for the IDF to shoot protesters”  imply that the trigger-happy IDF takes pleasure in shooting Palestinians? I thought so; but then I would.

Next, we were treated to Yolande Knell chatting with her pet refugee, who probably still has the deeds to his mother’s house, which the family lost when five Arab armies tried and failed to eliminate the Jewish state and all who sailed in her. Now he thinks it’s his ‘right’ to march back to his ancestral home taking his twenty five grandchildren with him.  Pity; they should have stayed put and accept Israel, like the ones who made the sensible choice.

Yolande Knell then urged him to deny that Hamas had orchestrated this planned protest. Why? Hamas’s plans have surely been documented and widely publicised by all, including Hamas themselves.I suppose she thought it was worth a try - some people might not have seen it on t’internet.

My point is that the BBC is openly inciting hatred. One-sided, factually erroneous reporting only encourages the pro-Palestinians and the anti-Zionists to believe they’re supporting a good and righteous cause, and that there is a realistic possibility that Israel will be eliminated. 
This gives the haters false hope, and is tantamount to openly inciting, nay, whipping up antisemitism. 
Then, to add insult to injury, the BBC reverts to full smokescreen mode, effecting pretend outrage at Corbynistic manifestations of antisemitism. It’s a disgrace. Thank you and goodnight.

Saturday, 16 July 2016

Boris-baiting



This was part of BBC political correspondent Chris Mason's introduction to a short interview with Boris on the BBC News Channel at 10:10 this morning:
Mr Johnson has a curious relationship with Turkey. His great-grandfather was a controversial journalist and politician killed in Turkey, and a figure sufficiently controversial that his name, if you like, is still mentioned in conversation in Turkey now. And just a couple of weeks ago, before Mr Johnson took up his post here at the Foreign Office, he won an 'offensive poetry' competition run by the Spectator magazine in which he penned a verse about the current president which, to put it mildly, was less than complimentary. Anyway, within the last half an hour of so Mr Johnson has made a statement. We'll play it to you now.
And here's the closing part of that interview with Boris:
Chris Mason: Yes, two and a half million Brits go to Turkey every year. What specifically are you guys saying in the Foreign Office to British tourists right now? And, secondary to that, what do you say to those people who would say, 'Are you the person to be offering this advice given that just a few weeks ago you wrote that poem about the Turkish president?'? 
Boris Johnson: I think the thing you can do is look at the travel advice and if I've anything more to say we'll be out later on. Thank you. 
...immediately followed by Chris's comment:
You get an insight there into Mr Johnson's reticence to engage with my specific question about his remarks a matter of weeks ago about Turkey's president given that, as he said, just a couple of hours ago he was on the phone to a member of the Turkish government. 
Shortly after, Gavin Esler took up the same theme with him:
Gavin Esler: Just a quick question before you go, Chris. The point that you alluded to earlier about something that Mr Johnson wrote in.a poem about the Turkish president. We've seen, in just a couple of days since he's been in the Foreign Office, booed at the French embassy. We know he's written things about various American people, President Putin and so on. Are we going to see serious events round the world with people actually asking him about things that he's written in the past which he may now find a bit awkward? 
Chris Mason: Yeah. I think we are. And in many ways my question to him was an illustration of that. I think he will hope - and the new British prime minister Theresa May will hope - that there's a finite number of occasions on which that kind of thing will happen because whilst Boris Johnson is well known for the colourful nature of his language and the colourful nature of his photo-opportunities there is a finite, albeit relatively well-stocked series of, frankly, insults that he has levelled at various world leaders or aspiring world leaders over the last few years. I think in his early weeks and months as foreign secretary, yes, he will be confronted with those remarks because there's no disputing he said them and he now carries a serious office of state here in the UK. I hope that Mrs May will hope that in the medium term the advantage he can bring to this office is akin to what he was seen by his supporters to be very good at doing when he was the Mayor of London - in other words to be a colourful ambassador for the city. They will hope in time he can be useful, successful and colourful ambassador for the UK. But with that will come scrutiny about what he said in the past. 
Gavin Esler: Indeed. Chris, thanks very much. Chris Mason there, thank you.
And an hour later, Chris was back at it, framing Boris's statement/interview in much the same way as before (at 11:12):
I then caught up with him. He gave a statement a couple of hours later, shortly after 9:30 our time, in which I asked him for his reaction to events in Turkey but pressed him as well about his connections to Turkey. His great-grandfather was a prominent politician and journalist in Turkey, and a controversial one too - sufficiently controversial that his name is still controversial to this day. And also a poem that Boris Johnson had written about the Turkish president just a matter of weeks ago that won a competition in the Spectator magazine - a magazine he used it edit. It was  an 'offensive poetry' competition run that he won and it was derogatory about the president of Turkey in the strongest possible terms. You'll hear my question about that shortly. Firstly his reaction to events overnight.
And after a reprise of the interview/statement, he added:
And there is, as I was hinting there, plenty more advice if you are planning a journey to Turkey or you're in Turkey now and trying to get out on the Foreign Office's website. Plenty more advice but not a keenness from Mr Johnson to answer my question about his poem. 
This kind of thing has been going on since his appointment, of course.

Stretching from Newsnight on the night of his appointment through Today, The World at One, PM, BBC One's News at Six and News at Ten and The World Tonight the following day, the BBC certainly hasn't been reluctant to raise such concerns - at length. They all gave us a 'little list' of Boris's 'colourful language'. 

I don't recall any of them giving us the full context of Boris's 'offensive' Erdogan poem (as a protest against the decision, made at the Turkish government's request, to prosecute a German comedian for insulting the Turkish president in the German courts).

Was this inevitable? And how long will the BBC keep on doing it? 

Saturday, 24 May 2014

Politicians'-speak



BBC political correspondent Chris Mason seems to be moving into presenting these days. Following his hosting of Broadcasting House a couple of weeks back, young Chris presented Saturday PM this evening. 

The discussion featuring Tory MP Robert Halfon and Labour List's Mark Ferguson particularly caught my attention. They were discussing how the two main parties should react to UKIP's gains, and Chris asked them if they should follow UKIP's example and talk "like human beings". 

It's certainly true that mainstream politicians often spout 'politicians'-speak', sounding as if they come from Planet Politics, and that many voters don't like it one bit. Nigel Farage's reputation for plain-speaking, in contrast, has won him many admirers. 

Now, 'politicians'-speak' tends to be at its worst in the wake of poor election results. You all know the cliché. You've heard them many times before, things like: 
'We're listening', 'We get it', 'We're going to go back out there', 'We're going to change', Our message is right, but we're just not communicating it properly', 'We're going to try and get our message across'. 
Mark Ferguson himself gave us one of the old-time classics, "There's no time for complacency", as well as a variant on that old favourite about opinion polls, "You've got to be looking at the actual polls, the actual elections", but he was completely out-classed by Robert Halfon MP - one of finest spouters of 'politicians'-speak' I've ever had the pleasure to hear.  

Just listen to these absolute beauties from Mr Halfon, every one of them a true politicians' cliché of the first order: 
"We have to look at this very carefully. We have to respond to it." 
"We have the right policies, but we need to communicate those in a way that is like a moral mission". 
"We need to be counter-intuitive. The Chancellor has raised the minimum wage. We need to look at those kind of issues and, as I say, we need to be authentic and do public meetings in the way UKIP have done". 
"The government's had to take really difficult decisions".
"[It's] an important message for us not to be complacent".
Even the finest satirists would struggle to have come up with such a belter as the third one there. Or this whole discussion.

Sunday, 11 May 2014

The principle of the matter


Did you spot how Chris Mason, standing in for Eurovisionophile Paddy O'Connell on this morning's Broadcasting Houseintroduced LBC presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer with a clip where Bob Crow challenged her over her political views, but then introduced Lord Robert Winston as being a scientist with a lot of words after his name, and plenty before? 

The latter is certainly the case, as Robert Winston's full title is 'The Right Honourable Professor The Lord Winston, FMedSci FRSA FRCP FRCOG FIBiol FREng(Hon)'

What Chris Mason (a BBC political correspondent) didn't mention is that Lord Winston is also a Labour Party peer, which is something that might have been thought relevant during a newspaper review when political subjects often arise and opinions are sought. 

Thankfully, Lord Winston - except for one dig at the coalition's Care Bill - wasn't very partisan, so no real harm was done. 

Still it's the principle of the matter. Harrumph.

*********

Actually, like Chrish in the comments, I liked Chris Mason's presentation of today's BH. He should do it more often. 

Sunday, 5 January 2014

Editorialising



What should a media organisation which is bound by statute and its own editorial guidelines to report impartially do when a UK politician appears to be engaging in shameless electioneering? Should it say so?

David Cameron rejected suggestions today that he has decided to protect pensions ahead of offering immediate help to working people because the retired are more likely to vote. The Prime Minister used his first major interview of the new year to announce the Government’s pledge to commit to the “triple lock”, which guarantees that pensions rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year, because it was a “choice based on my values”. “I want people who reach retirement... to have a decent state pension and they don’t have to worry about it lagging behind prices or earnings,” he told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC One. 
Who was accusing him of making this decision simply because the retired are more likely to vote? Labour? The Guardian? Whose suggestions is he rejecting?

Well, if you've been listening to Radio 4 today you'll know that it's the BBC which has been boldly suggesting this. 

Hour after hour this morning the BBC's political correspondent Chris Mason gave this report on Radio 4's news bulletins, beginning: 
If there was a guidebook on how to be a successful politician, on Page One it would say, 'Appeal to people who are most likely to vote'. That is why wooing pensioners makes political sense. David Cameron's promise to renew his existing policy was, he said, the first plank on next year's Conservative election manifesto.
So, David Cameron insists he's doing it because it's right to do it. The BBC's Chris Mason, however, strongly implies he's merely doing it as an election gimmick. 

Chris Mason may very well be right, but should he be saying so? Shouldn't he leave that to, say, Polly Toynbee in the Guardian or a guest on Broadcasting House?

Each news bulletin this morning followed that news item with another - a pledge from Ed Miliband to close a loophole in EU laws which he believes is used to exploit cheap foreign workers. 

Ed's policy announcement was read out straight with no editorialising and no aspersions being cast on his motives or on the likelihood of him actually achieving what he's promising.

[Update: Over on BBC TV, another BBC political correspondent Carole Walker was up to the same thing, ending her report with the same suggestion:
Pensioners are the most likely age group to vote, so perhaps it's not surprising that the first plank of the Conservative manifesto is crafted to appeal to their interests.
No need for her to add a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' to the end of that.]

BBC bias in action?