Over to Tim

My friend David Keighley from News-watch has posted a fabulous open letter to the BBC's DG Tim Davie today at The Conservative Woman. 

It's spot-on, and I hope Mr Davie reads it and invites News-watch to discuss it - something none of his predecessors has ever deigned to do. 

I would be pleased with Tim if he does. (My breath isn't being held though).

News-watch's latest report, investigating a week's worth of BBC coverage - and if the BBC accepts a week's worth of monitoring from Cardiff University, why not accept this too? - found that, Covid notwithstanding, and us leaving the EU earlier this year notwithstanding, the BBC continues to pursue 'Project Fear' and to favour, by a large margin, voices hostile to Brexit above voices supportive of it. 

(Same as it ever was! Same as it ever was! Same as it ever was! Same as it ever was! Same as it ever was! Same as it ever was! Same as it ever was!)

One recommendation struck me as particularly timely:

Ditch opinion polls as a way of determining whether BBC output is impartial and get properly in touch with real people out there north of Watford and west of Oxford who will tell you what needs changing.

Given how poorly the pollsters did with the US election (and I imagine them collectively crying, "My God, what have I done!") the BBC's reliance on polls - and it really is their main defence - must be looking especially shaky. 

Onwards!

So Lord Justice Singh sang from the same hymnbook as Mr Justice Supperstone and Mrs Justice Lang and rejected David Keighley's bid for a judicial review into the BBC's methods of measuring impartiality.

The judges ruled that the BBC can use opinion polls as proof of their impartiality, if they so choose, as there's nothing in the BBC Charter to legally prevent them from so doing. Moreover, the judges ruled that such audience surveys are actually a rational means of measuring impartiality.

They also ruled that the BBC isn't obliged by law to adopt any particular methodology. "This is a matter left to their judgement", they say. Like Ofcom, the BBC has "expertise" in the matter.

Kathy at The Conservative Woman writes that this judicial brick wall leaves Ofcom as the only remaining option, though Ofcom is crammed with people with close links to the BBC.

Mrs Justice Lang also landed David with heavy costs of approximately £18,000. "She might as well have said: ‘This is a warning to anyone who has the temerity to challenge the action of the nation’s monopoly broadcaster – you will pay for it.’", observes Kathy.

This is dispiriting but I know David will carry on the fight to stop the BBC having carte blanche when it comes to marking their own work. 

If the BBC and the courts don't want to read News-watch's studies then plenty of people (and newspapers) do. 

Plus, as MB says, we now have a semi-populist government that seems semi-intent on tackling the BBC.

*******

P.S. Talking of opinion polls and BBC impartiality, here's a fascinating one highlighted by Guido Fawkes: 

As DAD notes in the comments, "BBC News is least trusted by the 'right', but well trusted by the 'left'. Yet the 'left' claim that the BBC is 'right biased'. Strange world in which we live." 

Wonder what that audience survey tells the BBC?

Crossing the line

What an excellent video Sue posted (below). Lara Logan's "a press corps that's working hand-in-hand with propaganda organisations with a political agenda" reminds me that the BBC's Newsnight recently worked hand-in-hand with Greenpeace - on which very theme please read David Keighley's latest post at The Conservative Woman headlined Greenpeace and the annexing of BBC news. It still astonishes me that the BBC has now crossed this line. 

Beware!

Over at The Conservative Woman, David Keighley sounds a note of caution:

It seems that reform of the BBC is firmly on the new government’s agenda. But to what end? The reality is that every attempt at BBC reform – stretching back to the Thatcher era, as I wrote here before the 2015 general election – has failed, and each new Charter has made the Corporation more arrogant and entrenched.

And there's even more...

David's latest piece also notes that Ofcom has carried out an expensive, year-long review of the BBC's news and current affairs output, and guess what the recommendations of the Ofcom report were?

News and current affairs is largely tickety-boo – with one major caveat, the ‘D’ word. Wait for it: not enough diversity!

And the contents analysis done for the Ofcom review comes from...drum roll...the same people the BBC used for their own output reviews - our old friends at the School of Media, Journalism and Culture at Cardiff University, a department headed by Richard Sambrook, ex-BBC Director of Global News. 

So not only is the Ofcom content board stuffed with ex-BBC people and the Ofcom main and advisory boards stuffed with ex-BBC people, Ofcom uses the same Cardiff University as the BBC uses to carry out their output reviews. 

Circles within circles.

David writes: 

So how did the wise people of Ofcom decide that output was impartial? A main plank was that they had considered 300 complaints about BBC bias in 2018-19 and upheld none of them. Well, that’s okay then. Or maybe – more likely – it confirms the need for an urgent external investigation of Ofcom itself into confirmation bias – the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that affirms one’s prior beliefs or hypotheses. 

That's as bad as the BBC making a favourable opinion poll its main proof of impartiality.

As for bias and Brexit, well, this sounds very odd:

The second main plank of their approach was the PwC report mentioned above. A key element of this was based on 13 interviews and workshops around the country, each attended by a dozen consumers of BBC output. How precisely these were framed is not disclosed – it is assumed by Ofcom that PwC knew what they were doing. But a striking feature of the exercise, at a time when the news agenda was dominated by Brexit, was that those with strong views about the topic were deliberately excluded.

I find none of this remotely reassuring.

And there's more...

David Keighley, in his  latest The Conservative Woman article, notes that the ex-BBC-dominated Ofcom content board - which rules on BBC bias - has behaved as a cynic might expect such an ex-BBC-dominated board to behave: 

Despite the relentless tide of anti-Brexit bias, the Ofcom content board – eight of the 13 members are ex-BBC – has dismissed the vast majority of BBC complaints appeals referred to it with the same cavalier liberal-Left disdain as the BBC itself. 

Most strikingly, a meticulously researched complaint about the anti-Brexit bias of BBC1’s Question Time was dismissed on the basis that a single contribution from Theresa May crony Damian Green proved that the ‘hard’ Brexit perspective had been adequately represented in 25 editions. 

Whatever happened to Aaqil Ahmed?

Do you remember our old friend Aaqil Ahmed - the BBC's first Muslim Head of Religion and Ethics, and the man who took Songs of Praise to the illegal immigrants camp in Calais and compared the immigrants to Jesus, Mary and Joseph fleeing King Herod. 

He left the BBC in 2016. Guess where he is now?

Well, News-watch's David Keighley report today that he's among the latest batch of ex-BBC members appointed to Ofcom's various boards.

All three of the latest intake are ex-BBC.

Also, 8 of the Ofcom content board's 13 members are ex-BBC - and they're the ones who rule on BBC bias. 

It's an endless revolving door, isn't it?

Aaqil, if you're wondering, has been busy since leaving the BBC: I see from Linkedin that he's been a Professor of Media at Bolton University (no, me neither), a media consultant to various companies and a non-executive director at the Advertising Standards Agency. 

Sorry?

What’s wrong with everybody? Can’t anyone comprehend English these days?
 Perhaps comprehension has been dropped from the school curriculum. Aren't children expected to master comprehension at about eight or nine years of age any more? I'm sure English teachers used to set a passage of text and pupils had to reproduce the gist of it in their own words to demonstrate that they’d properly understood it.

“[Reading] comprehension involves three levels of understanding: literal meaning, inferential meaning, and evaluative meaning.”

Something has happened. For some reason, it's become commonplace for politically motivated journalists and their followers to maliciously fail to comprehend ‘news’. and no-one seems to bat an eyelid at the alarming proliferation of “Quote mining”. 

On TCW David Keighley examines the BBC’s responses to the Emily Maitlis and Naga Munchetti  affairs. 

By way of a  personal declaration of non-interest, I can’t stand any of the BBC’s flim-flam formats which feature Hello Magazine style items sandwiched between the inane banter of a pair of BBC anchors on a sofa in a garishly lit BBC studio. Like many of you, (probably) I hadn’t been following The Naga Manchetti ruling, but I have heard it discussed in the media. 

I gather that Naga Munchetti’s Beeb colleague had invited her to opine on President Trump’s “racist” remark, which had been retrospectively revised  (‘quote-mined’ ) to infer that President Trump had told the ‘squad’ (of BAME congresswomen) to “go back to their own countries”.

  

I have actually seen President Trump’s whole Tweet - the full monty - reproduced on the TV screen with just the relevant words emboldened. Yet despite the entirety of the tweet being clearly visible, the crucial caveat  “and then come back and fix it ” was completely ignored. Some kind of collective blind spot? (Has Ilhan Omar hypnotised the whole world?) 

Here’s an example of the type of ‘quote mining’ we'd normally dismiss as laughable when used to promote some godawful film, play or book. 

“David Turner-Samuels (for the Eye): With your permission, my lord, I will read an extract from The Times Literary Review — "Lord Russel's works could be said to be pornographic…" 

David Hirst, QC (for the plaintiff): Read the rest of the sentence. 

David Turner-Samuels: "But they are not."

See what I mean? “Read the rest of the sentence”  - but of course no-one has any appetite for the rest of President Trump’s sentences.

Naga’s opinion concerned her personal experience of ’racism’ - all perfectly legitimate, but nothing much to do with President Trump because any alleged connection was entirely predicated on a deliberate misinterpretation of what he'd said. The whole silly business blew up because the media decided to scoop words out of a longer passage in order to paint President Trump as a racist. And it’s easily forgotten why he made that remark in the first place. It was in response to the blatantly racist conduct of the congresswomen in question.  This is getting really silly. 

Look at the relentless, malicious, politically motivated journalistic hounding of  PM Boris Johnson. 

Firstly, we have the watermelon smiles and picaninnies. All taken out of context and repurposed to ‘prove’ “racist belittling” of persons of colour by Boris.  Flippant and reductive maybe, but racist only if one ignores the context.  Then we have those wretched letterboxes and bank robbers. Racist against Muslim women? How so? Taken out of context again. (And are we really supposed to see the full-face veil as anything other than ridiculous?)   This language-related madness is being deliberately uncomprehended for political purposes. 

The most recent Boris-related hurricane in a teacup blew up over the Bill-and-Benn-undermine-Brexit-act being disparagingly referred to as the ‘surrender’ bill. To the Remain lobby that might sound flippant and disrespectful, but it’s an accurate label nonetheless. The ‘foul’ comparison between an MP and a turkey and something fictitious about traitors is so lame I can’t be arsed to go into it. Especially in the light of the long list of truly foul language thrown around by angry lefties.

To pile incomprehension upon incomprehension, I watched a snippet of a conversation about this language business on Sky News. A person of colour known as Poet George and a young conservative with a Geordie accent were invited to discuss this problem.

Poet George expressed horror over the MP whose name he couldn’t initially recall who had used the “N” word.  Here we are. 

“A Conservative MP has been suspended from the party after it emerged she used a racist expression during a public discussion about Brexit.
Anne Marie Morris, the MP for Newton Abbot, used the phrase at an event in London to describe the prospect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
She told the BBC: "The comment was totally unintentional. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."
The Conservative Party later confirmed she had had the whip withdrawn.
Announcing the suspension, Theresa May said she was "shocked" by the "completely unacceptable" language.
"I immediately asked the chief whip to suspend the party whip," she said in a statement.
"Language like this has absolutely no place in politics or in today's society.”

As any fule other than Poet George must kno, in the olden days, before the N-word was censored, that particular ‘unmentionable in the woodpile’ phrase was intended to illustrate a concept: 

 “some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed—something suspicious or wrong”

Back in the Enid Blyton era, when friendly gollies with waistcoats and striped trousers were objects of affection and the N-word was casually used by all and sundry to describe a shade of brown with no offence intended and not exclusively reserved for rap artists of colour to bandy about amongst themselves, anyone could freely use all sorts of phrases and metaphors. Then, with all its good intentions, along came the ‘enlightenment’, which paves the road to the kind of hell in which anyone can be caught out for unintentionally committing acts of racism such as accidentally saying “coloured person" instead of 'person of colour'.

Anne-Marie Morris MP duly apologised and grovelled and so on, and after a suitable period had the whip restored. Apologising for using such an out-of-touch phrase might have made sense, but she was probably even sorrier that she'd been unfairly accused of racism. 

Nowadays we deliberately misunderstand and mis-comprehend whatever suits us. The media cavalierly repurposes quotes and sound-bites until they’re devoid of literal meaning, inferential meaning, and evaluative meaning.  

Apologies in advance for any offence caused.

More last words on John Humphrys

The case for the prosecution continues:  

Humphrys – the BBC’s bias-monger in chief, by David Keighley 

Shameful silence of Humphrys over the Iraq dodgy dossier, by Kathy Gyngell

More questions than answers

Context is everything/nothing. 

Watching this “Room for thought” video, (which I see is three weeks old at the time of writing) reminded me of Rod Liddle’s article in the Spectator, written in 2006, in which he defends Boris Johnson by simply providing context to Boris’s infamous piccaninnies comment: ‘And so on to the next bunch of grinning piccaninnies.’

In this video he goes a little further, describing the Unicef reps that chauffeured  them around Uganda as a “couple of Swedish lesbians,” which leads me into another of Rod’s observations that came towards the end of the conversation, on the (infamous) Muslim protests against “gay education” that have been taking place outside a Birmingham primary school. 

“On this one,” confesses Rod, “I’m with the Muslims” much to the bemusement of Carswell. 

So what do we make of it?

I know what I make of it, but this is a blog post, not a doctoral thesis, so I’ll leave it there.

*************

Another interesting point I have to add (well, I’m not compelled to by law, but I feel obliged to do so) Is that Rod clearly states that although the BBC is clearly biased to the left, it cannot be accused of supporting Jeremy Corbyn. This is true. 

Much as I might prefer it if the Corbyn/Milne/ McDonnell axis were not given any air time at all, I do realise that to insist on such a thing would be even madder than demanding the BBC no-platforms anyone to the right of the aforementioned trio. However, there are people who think that is a perfectly reasonable demand. For example, the ones who get all irate at the very appearance on TV of anyone not openly hostile to Israel.

When David Keighley launched his crowd-funded legal challenge to the Beeb, which I understand is based on the BBC’s weak methodology (particularly with regard to anti-Brexit bias) several donors commented that the bias they found most troubling was the BBC’s bias against Jeremy Corbyn. 

It is interesting (to me) that BBCWatch, which focuses on the factual omissions and inaccuracies within the BBC’s coverage of Israel and the Palestinians, continually offers specific examples to illustrate the BBC breaching its own editorial guidelines. In other words, BBCWatch bases its critiques on objective analyses, albeit from a subjective (pro-Israel) angle.  

Here is an example of the opposite camp attempting to use the BBC’s editorial guidelines to underpin its (pro-Corbyn) angle. An outfit called Media Reform Coalition attempts to debunk the BBC’s Panorama Programme on antisemitism in the Labour Party by pitting specific quotes from the editorial guidelines on impartiality and accuracy against examples they have selected from the programme. I'm not so sure it stands up to scrutiny, but what do you make of it?

Note to self. This is a blog post, not a novel, so I’ll leave it there.

********

Did anyone else watch the first two of Kathy Burke’s C4 films, ‘All Women’?

It wasn’t on the BBC of course, but I’ve been scouring the reviews to see what the rest of the world made of them.

On the theme of luvvies morphing from actor to opinionista, this was quite high on a scale of validity (in terms of the actual justification of going ahead with the project) as opposed to certain other actor or actresses political advocacy for want of any better examples. 

Kathy Burke had a genuinely enquiring approach to the topics she chose to feature. The ‘appearance’ episode was entertaining, although the relative superficiality of the film’s treatment of that particular topic was equal to the obvious superficiality of the topic itself. Especially as it was made-for-TV, a medium that virtually depends on physical appearance for its continuing existence - particularly where wimmin are concerned.

Do I make myself clear? It’s blindingly obvious to state that beauty is only skin deep, but it’s also quite trite, and coming from someone who describes her own appearance in the appropriately derogatory terms, well, she would say that, would she not?  

I think Ms Burke is - was -  a terrific comic actress. her “Perry” to Enfield’s Kevin was brilliant especially in the ‘our kid’ from Manchester episode, and her Waynetta was a delight. 

But the defiant stuff about her chin had a hollow ring and when you saw her waddling along you couldn’t help thinking that she could have done with losing a few tons in the name of longevity if nothing else. 

I wonder how many ‘fucks’ they needed to convey “edgy”? Or defiance and rebelliousness? Billy Connolly put me off the gratuitous ‘fuck’ when he got lazy with the jokes and liberal with the expletives. Not that I mind hearing the odd ‘fuck’ blurted out especially at times when it seems so much more expressive than any other swearword could possibly be. Sorry, but the swearing here was actually tedious and didn’t enhance Kathy’s image for me.

The motherhood thing was interesting. I imagine there was something deeply psychological in Kathy’s decision to not have children - because she seemed quite fond of children and even actual babies. 

As a mother (which Andrea Leadsom once said, famously scuppering her hopes of ever becoming Prime Minister) I think not having children allows you to remain ‘as selfish as an average infant’ your whole life through. It’s hard to be quite as selfish ‘as a mother’ as you were before yer kids came along. I think the current trend favours selfishness (in women.) Is that a good or a bad thing?

Utter selfishness is quite unattractive, but so is in-yer-face-selflessness. 

What do we make of that?

The case against the BBC

A head of steam is building up and critics of the BBC are on the warpath. The Conservative Woman’s David Keighley, an ex-BBC man, has raised enough money to fund a legal challenge. The idea is to sue the BBC for breach of the crucial impartiality obligations within its charter. Lawyers have been hired to build the case. 

  

Robin Aitken, another ex BBC man, has been pursuing a similar agenda for decades. 

Aitken believes the left-wing consensus is so ingrained in the confirmation-bias-prone media bubble that the inhabitants of such an insular environment just don’t see it.

 O wad some Power the giftie gie us /To see oursels as ithers see us!

This video was made in January 2019.  In conversation with Peter Whittle, Robin Aitken articulates the collective mindset within the Beeb. He alludes to a deliberate strategy of social engineering which entails sanitising and normalising ‘Muslimness’, (a condition with a bespoke word of its own).

 “Our view of the world is this. Muslims are always victims, they are victimised and Islamophobia is rife in the country and that’s the story we want to tell. Do we want to tell a story about Muslims behaving badly? Attacking Jews, or attacking women? No, we don’t want to really. We don’t want to tell those stories. That’s why, for instance, it took so long, and it took some brave journalism by The Times newspaper to bring that whole thing about the Pakistani rape-gangs into the open.”

If the aim is to aid social cohesion, it’s a big fail. You can’t hide things from the public forever, and once people realise they’re being manipulated they’ll resist. Only the BBC itself supports its own ham-fisted attempts at social engineering.

If you listened to today’s Sunday Programme you will have heard that the findings of a ‘com res poll’  show that nearly half of the UK believe that Islam is incompatible with British values

(if the specific time-link doesn’t work for you, scroll to 10:20)

The MCB’s Miqdaad Versi thinks that (presumably because Jews argue that they should be allowed to define antisemitism) Muslims should equally be allowed to define Islamophobia. The existing definition, which has been accepted by several organisations but not the Conservative Party, includes the invented terminology ‘expressions of Muslimness’ which, in practice amounts to the introduction of blasphemy law by stealth. So no wonder the Conservative Party is reluctant to accept it. 

Sadly, portentous attempts to equate everything ‘Muslim’ with everything ‘Jewish’ have succeeded in toxifying specific Jewish religious practices that had been rubbing along quite peacefully in British society for years, and with one fell swoop has driven an expedient Israel-bound mini-exodus of British Jews.(£)

 “With the rapid rise in size and political importance of the Muslim community in the UK, there is also a feeling that Israel is being singled out for opprobrium and that the balance has swung decisively against the Zionist cause. For those whose biggest fear is Corbyn, many are waiting to see if Labour wins a general election before deciding whether or not to make aliyah.”

“I think the air has already changed, regardless of Corbyn. Some 730 years since King Edward I expelled the small mercantile Jewish community from England, the Jews are leaving again. This time not through the decree of an absolute tyrant, but as the consequence of a subtler, stealthier tyranny. There seems to be nobody left, over here or in continental Europe, who will fight the Jews’ corner, so electorally insignificant have their numbers become. That it is primarily the left that is driving them out is something they surely could not have foreseen or imagined. But here it is.”

David Keighley’s current criticisms of the BBC principally concern the BBC’s demonstrable anti-Brexit bias, the long-term effect of which, he believes, will prove disastrous for the country. 

However, I think the long-term consequences of the BBC’s pernicious, interminable hostility to Israel and Jews will have equally serious and perhaps even longer-lasting ramifications.

A decades-long history of ‘half-a-story' reporting, a Middle East editor with a built-in grudge, and contrary to the allegations of Miqdaad Versi and others, the BBC’s institutionally pro-Muslim outlook including the ever-presence of anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian talking heads on panels and political broadcasts has produced an ill-informed consensus. Public opinion appears to be perfectly content to exchange 250,000  loyal British Jewish citizens for over 4million incompatible or not necessarily loyal British / Pakistani / Middle Eastern/ African Muslims.

The antisemitism in the Labour Party is just the beginning. The leadership’s inability to deal with it is a great shame, but the BBC’s biased reporting makes rectifying the situation impossible.

BBC Watch constantly researches, writes and posts several articles per day in an effort to keep abreast of endless unreported examples of Muslims behaving badly. Shamefully, the BBC still refuses to report almost all of it; at least, not until Israel retaliates. Day after day aggression against Israel is ignored. “The BBC is only interested when Israel fights back” is a saying that is becoming more tired and worn every time it’s uttered. Repetition might make that saying ineffectual, but that doesn’t make it wrong. 

Nor has the antisemitism from the right gone away. For once Yasmin Alibhai Brown had a point when she mentioned that on Sky recently.

That too is tacitly reinforced by the BBC’s failure to fill in crucial gaps in what ought to be general historical knowledge. Right-wing antisemites often cite the infamous bombing of the King David Hotel to reinforce their theory that Israel was founded on terrorism, a stance that conveniently ignores the fact that at the time the King David Hotel was more of an army HQ than a tourist destination and more importantly, it disregards the fact that Britain’s post-war government’s hostile, antisemitic, pro-Arab political policies denied sanctuary to many desperate Holocaust survivors, an important factor in understanding why certain (arguably renegade) Jews fought against the British at that time. You have to seek that information out, and who nowadays can be bothered.

So I think the BBC’s bias against Israel and Zionism will inevitably lead to a major Jewish exodus and a predominantly Muslim Britain.  A great loss to this country. 

If it’s indeed true that this important aspect of the BBC’s bias has taken a back seat in this particular crowd-funded and well-intentioned litigation project, then I’m sorry and disappointed.

BBC Appeal

My splendid friend David Keighley of News-watch has launched a crowdfunding appeal today called Stop The Bias.

It aims to raise £30,000 to fund a judicial review of the BBC's own methodology for monitoring bias - a judicial review the BBC is bound to fight every step of the way with the licence fee payer's pennies and pounds.

Shouldn't the BBC be held to account by rigorous, independent, external monitoring rather than by its own barely-existent, self-trusting 'checks and balances'? And how will the BBC possibly justify in court its absurd 'opinion polls show we're trusted on bias so, ergo, that proves that we're impartial' line?

The crowdfunding appeal was only launched this morning and is already over a quarter of the way there. There's clearly a public appetite for legal action against the BBC as regards bias. 

If you want to contribute, the Crowd Justice website link is here.

Hardline hornets in hats (featuring Kate Hoey and BBC Complaints)

hardline

Regular readers will know that I've had a hornet in my Homburg hat for months about the BBC's use of the word 'hardline'. 

I closely tracked the BBC's use of the word and found it was nearly always used about certain kinds of people.

To recap, the VAST majority of the BBC's recent use of the word 'hardline' - and its beloved sibling 'hardliners' - have been connected to Brexit-supporters, especially those in favour of leaving the EU on WTO terms (i.e. supporters of a 'no-deal', crash-out-and-apocalypse Brexit). 

But 'the others' in my surveys have been equally predictable to anyone who's watched the BBC over the years: Trump's immigration policies, tax-cutters in the US, the right-wing Austrian government (over immigration), the Italian populist government (over immigration) the national-populist Hungarian government (over immigration and everything else), European governments in general that oppose mass immigration, the conservative CSU in Germany (over immigration), a Turkish right-winger not part of Erdogan's party, Hindus in India, France's yellow vests ...plus clerics in Saudi Arabia who oppose women drivers. 

To bring things up to date, and tracking the word's use by BBC folk since the start of February this year on BBC One, BBC Two and the BBC News Channel...

Yes, the term 'hardline' is still mostly used - again and again and again and again and again - in connection with 'Brexiteers', and all the variants thereon.

Seriously, using TV Eyes to monitor 'hardline' brings up masses of BBC reporters/presenters endlessly spouting the term in connection to Brexiteers, the ERG, Conservatives, Eurosceptics, etc. 

I've not found a single counter-example, so pro-EU, hardline Remain types who want to overturn the 2016 referendum remain once again untainted by the loaded term in the BBC's output.

The exceptions this time are, again, mostly familiar - Hindu nationalists (repeatedly) and parties in Italy opposed to mass immigration - but there's also a one-off criticism of anti-China US politicians and (more predictably) Australia's immigration policies.

To sum up, the BBC uses the term 'hardline' almost invariably against right-wingers, opponents of mass immigration, Hindu nationalists, and strong supporters of Brexit.

It's a trend that's so overwhelming that it should speak for itself and dispel any doubts about the BBC's biased use of language here.

Specifically tracking the use of 'hardliners', however - besides the many, many incarnations of 'Tory hardliners' - also brings up something that might seem less predictable at a first glance but has long been a BBC 'thing' - multiple mentions of Iranian 'hardliners' (who the BBC often also label 'conservatives'). That's nothing new though. It's long been a thing hereabouts to complain about the BBC using the term 'conservative' to describe the most hardline Islamists in the Iranian revolutionary regime. 

Given the John Simpson transcript I posted earlier, this latest finding in the Iranian context is particularly intriguing. 

*******

Anyhow, all of this leads back to Kate Hoey MP's potent complaint to the BBC about their perpetual use of 'hardline' in reference to people who think like her (whether left-wing or right-wing or whatever) on the subject of Brexit.

If you've not read it already, please read it.

*******

And that in turns leads on, as knights follow daze, to News-watch's David Keighley and his powerful new article at TCW, ‘Hardline’ Hoey and the BBC at its slippery worst - which is a 'must-read'. (So please read it!)

David crystallises the argument and details Ms Hoey's exchanges with the BBC - and the BBC's (oh-so-familiar) "blinkered", "self-righteous" replies. 

The whole first section of David's piece, however, needs quoting in full as it might be new to you. And even if it isn't new to you it remains, frankly, quite staggering:

ONE of the huge frustrations about the BBC is that they have a defence for every complaint, made up according to their own ever-shifting rules, and adjudicated mainly by their own staff. 

When David Cameron formally announced that he would hold an EU Referendum, Newsnight reported the development with a programme which included 18 Remainers (one who was said to be a businessman but actually was a Liberal Democrat politician) and just one who wanted Leave. 

News-watch complained. The BBC’s response? Months earlier, Newsnight had presented an edition which contained someone who put the case for withdrawal. The programme with blatant 18-1 stacking was thus fine because this was ‘due impartiality’. Of course.

Ah yes, good old BBC 'due impartiality'! - about as flexible as term as you could imagine. 

Over to David...

There's an excellent piece here by News-watch's David Keighley about Question Time under the new chairpersonship of Fiona the Bruce:

Welcome to the Fiona Bruce Remainer Show

David spotted an exchange I missed between Fiona and Isabel Oakeshott about Question Time's question selection. Please give it a read.

More on Chris Morris

Chris Morris, 'The Day Today'

David at News-watch's take on the Peter Lilley/Chris Morris transcript he so kindly provided me with the other day has been cross-posted at The Conservative Woman. He sums up the problem with the BBC's chief 'Reality Checker' Chris Morris:

The BBC’s so-called ‘reality check’ unit is, of course, nothing of the sort. Why? Exhibit A is that back in February, Morris presented a five-part series called Brexit: a Guide for the Perplexed. His lens was so distorted that 18 out his 24 main interviewees were anti-Brexit and only seven per cent of the words spoken were from the withdrawal perspective. That report by News-watch is currently under investigation by Ofcom following a formal complaint, and the outcome of the appeal is expected imminently. 

Meanwhile, Morris has ploughed on regardless with his opinionated perspective, to the extent that, judging by the frequency of his appearances, the Today programme now regards his input as an essential part of the editorial process.

Other takes on the Chris Morris/Peter Lilley debacle include:

Lord Lilley: "...all [Chris Morris] did was oppose my facts with the opinions of people with whom he agreed." 

Rod Liddle: "...its absurd ‘reality check’, correspondent Chris Morris, whose job it is to offer spurious statistical support for the BBC’s liberal prejudices." 

Charles Moore: "The BBC’s ‘Reality Check’ device is a piece of hubris, which this week met its nemesis. It effectively says: ‘We report untrustworthy politicians who disagree with one another. You, the stupid viewer/listener, obviously cannot be expected to work out where the truth lies. Our expert correspondents will tell you.’ The main man who does this on Brexit is called Chris Morris. His version of ‘reality’ is strongly pro-Remain. If you read his online summary of the withdrawal agreement, for example, he says that ‘the Brexit process has caused an enormous amount of anxiety and uncertainty’ in relation to immigration. That is a defensible proposition, but one depending on a point of view. A Leave supporter would blame most of the anxiety and uncertainty on deliberate obstruction by the European Commission. When he explains the Irish backstop, Morris manages not to mention the constitutional issue which is the key to the whole thing — that the EU would acquire special powers over Northern Ireland, thus fragmenting the United Kingdom."

The boss of the BBC's Reality Check gets reality-checked...and fails

Reading the comments here, I know that most of you will already have heard this...

...but, with massive thanks to you, and, above all, to the tireless efforts of David and Andrew at News-watch, here's a transcript of that interview on this morning's Today programme for posterity's sake. 

It began as a simple BBC interview between John Humphrys and Peter Lilley, but the BBC decided to bring in their lead journalist at the BBC's 'divisive and controversial' Reality Check unit, Chris Morris, to 'reality check' pro-Brexit Lord Lilley as the interview proceeded. (A Lord Adonis-like move?)

Big mistake on the BBC's part! 

Lord Lilley turned the tables and 'reality checked' Chris Morris, leaving the BBC's 'reality checker' flailing like a EU quota-breaking fish on the deck of the Today studio floor. 

An extraordinary, landmark BBC interview then, exposing the absurdity of having a partisan hack (no offence) as the head of a supposedly impartial BBC front-facing reality-checking project...

Cue courtesy-of-News-watch transcript:

*******

Transcript of BBC Radio 4, ‘Today’, 20 November 2018, Interview with Peter Lilley, 8.10am

JOHN HUMPHRYS: So that's it then. Theresa May's political enemies had threatened to unseat her and it hasn't happened. They needed 48 Conservative MPs to sign a letter calling for her to go and they told us those letters were in the bag. It turns out they are not. The dramatic appearance outside the House of Commons last week by the rebels’ leader Jacob Rees-Mogg is looking a little premature at best, a busted flush at worst and another threat to Mrs May from a group of five senior Brexiteer Cabinet ministers demanding changes to her withdrawal deal also seems to have receded, if not disappeared. So is she home free? Well a man who's been a leading Brexiteer for many, many years is Peter Lilley now Lord Lilley and he is with me and I gather Lord Lilley that you were at Number 10 yesterday with some other Brexiteers, you saw Mrs May?

PETER LILLEY: We did, but I'm afraid it was a private meeting . . . 

JH: (speaking over) A private meeting. 

PL: I’m terribly old fashioned I don't tell you what (words unclear due to speaking over)

JH: (speaking over) Well, just tell us whether she was singing as it were, whether she was doing a little dance of joy. 

PL: I didn't see any dances. 

JH: Didn't see any dances. Well . . . well that's a shame. But, but the reality is that she is home free now, isn't she? I mean, the rebellion, if we can dignify it as such, that's gone, hasn't it?

PL: I don't know. I'm not in the House of Commons. I'm not an expert on that sort of thing.

JH: But you were for a very, very long time and you're still a loyal Conservative.

PL: Indeed. 

JH: And what do you think, I mean, is there any point at this stage in trying to unseat her to continue trying to unseat her? 

PL: I didn't realise that's what we were (words unclear due to speaking over)

JH: (speaking over) Oh, sorry I (words unclear due to speaking over) bit of politics . . . 

PL: (speaking over) intending to spend time discussing . . . I thought I was her to discuss about trade and . . . 

JH: We will do that, we will do that but can I just get your thoughts on that? 

PL: No not really I don't have any. 

JH: You don't have any you don’t . . . 

PL: (word or words unclear) not . . . not of any importance. 

JH: You don't by virtue of well, come on, you're a senior politician. But isn't the reality that so long as she stays you're not going to get a different deal?

PL: Well we might if Parliament turns down her present deal and then we will have, I hope, to take up the deal that was offered by Tusk, the President of the European Council, on 7th of March this year when he said that we could have a Canada style deal plus, plus, plus, plus, security cooperation, co-operation on investment and innovation and education and culture and, finally, immediate talks to prevent absurdities like the disruption of air flights once we leave. Sadly, the government turned that down. And the reason they give for turning it down was partly that they were afraid it might not apply to Northern Ireland and, obviously, we would want that for the whole of the United Kingdom, but also because they said a free trade area introduces friction in trade because companies have to fill in custom.. or, you know, lodge customs declarations and declare the origin of their goods. I've published a paper today saying that all these fears, the fears that that would be hugely costly cause disruption interrupt with just-in-time supply chains and undermine economic growth are at best exaggerated and at worst completely imaginary. 

JH: But you're not really suggesting, are you, that a new deal, a completely new deal could be negotiated in a few months, the next four months?

PL: It probably could. Because we're in the unique . . .  normally free trade deals (fragments of words, or words unclear) take a long time because you’ve got to get rid of 11,000 tariffs . . . 

JH: (interrupting) They take years . . . 

PL: They, they, on average they take 28 months. But the . . . 

JH: (interrupting) Well, the Canada deal took seven years. 

PL: Yes, but that's because they started with 10,000 tariffs and they had to negotiate their removal, not just with the other side but with their domestic industries that had become protected behind them. We start with zero tariffs. We want to end with zero tariffs. Tell me how that can take more than 10 minutes to negotiate? The other thing that you have to negotiate is to get your rules and regulations equivalent and remove any that are artificial barriers to trade. That normally takes years and is very difficult. We start with identical rules and regulations. How can that take very long to end up with identical rules and regulations? All you've got to negotiate is a system for dealing when one side or other changes their rules and regulations. That could be done within months, if not we leave on World Trade Organisation terms as we trade with America and many other countries and start negotiating then just as Canada did, but we start where Canada ended up. So it can be done quite quickly. 

JH: Well let me tell you then some of the things that the Department for Exiting Europe says needs to be done to import goods in, in a ‘no deal’ scenario basically. Register for a UK economic operator registration and identification number. This is mindbendingly tedious I understand, but nonetheless enormously bureaucratic . . . bureaucratic and has to be done. That is one thing. Ensure their contracts in international terms and conditions of service reflect that they are now (word unclear ‘unimportant’ or ‘an importer’),  to consider how they will submit import declarations whether to engage a customs broker, freight forwarder and logistics provider, decide the correct classification and value of their goods and enter this on the custom . . .  And so on. It is immensely complicated.

PL: Well, it's not immensely complicated but you're right, there are complexities and you have to trade off the complexities of this which are comparatively minor and tens of thousands of companies do it already, with the advantages of being able to negotiate your own trade deals elsewhere. If it were so hugely damaging, you would expect . . . being in a free trade area rather than a customs union. You would ask yourself, ‘Well why don't countries like Canada, which has a free trade agreement with America; Switzerland, Norway which have free trade agreements with the European Union and similar bodies in Asia. Why don't they want to convert it into a customs union to avoid these problems you've just raised?’ They don't. And so . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Why don’t you . . . 

PL: So they don't find it too much of a problem. I don't think British businesses are any less competent than Swiss businesses or Canadian businesses. 

JH: Well they don't feel very confident about the sort of thing that you're proposing do they? We heard Carolyn Fairbairn, Director General of the CBI yesterday saying that investment is flooding out of Britain as a result of Brexit, in cash that companies are planning into (corrects himself) plowing into ‘no deal’ planning that otherwise would have been put into skills and technology and so on. In other words they are desperate to have a deal and they (fragment of word, or word unclear) they have settled for Mrs May's transition deal?

PL: Can you remind me of an occasion when the CBI ever got it right? They were wrong about the euro. They were wrong about going into the ERM. They were wrong about coming out of the ERM. They were wrong about dealing with the financial crisis a few years ago.

JH: They speak for business.

PL: Well they claim to. Ask them how many paid up members they've got. They won't tell you.

JH: Why . . . why are companies in that case stockpiling goods if they're feeling so confident . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Well . . . 

JH: . . . why are they stockpiling?

PL: . . . they're being told in large measure not to, for example the government's written to all Health Authorities saying don't stockpile, to all medical, you know, GPs and say, ‘don't stockpile, because we don't think it's necessary. We've taken such precautions as are necessary.’ And one reason it's not necessary is that we are not going to stop goods coming into this country. The Customs and Excise have said that they don't think they'll need to be any more checks than there are at present on goods coming into this country because the checks they carry out are largely on dutiable goods, alcohol and tobacco - no change there; looking for illegal immigration - no change there; looking for drugs - no change there . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Well . . . 

PL: So they don't expect any more checks at the border than there are at present . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Well that’s not, that's not quite right is it? All UK exports of animal origin must enter the EU via veterinary border inspections. 20 to 50 percent subject to physical inspections. That is the reality.

PL: No, no, that, you’re right, that’s exports. I'm talking about stuff coming into this country . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Indeed. 

PL: You were talking about stockpiling stuff . . . 

JH: (fragments of words, or words unclear) both ways, it, it . . . 

PL: (speaking over) But no, no, they’re both important but I was previously dealing with imports because you were talking about having to stock things (words unclear due to speaking over)

JH: (speaking over) Indeed. But, but (fragment of word, or word unclear due to speaking over)

PL: But as far as exports, yes, there will possibly be extra checks on the continent. 

JH: Not ‘possibly’, ‘certainly.’ 

PL: Well, it’s not so certain as all that, John, after all the European Union signed up to the World Trade Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement which says that you shall accept the tests in another country if they're equivalent to your own. Well ours will be identical. But they will probably nonetheless want to carry out checks to check that our checks are good.

JH: Alright, look . . . 

PL: But that . . . that . . . we can handle that we can cope with that. That's not going to bring the world to an end. 

JH: Alright. Don't go away because sitting next to you Chris Morris our Reality Check correspondent, who . . . not that I'm suggesting that you don't, but who knows all of (fragments of words, or words unclear), he’s been dealing with it for a very long time now. An observation on what we've just been hearing?

CHRIS MORRIS: Well, I mean, Lord Lilley's basic point in his report, many of the problems ascribed to leaving the customs union are imaginary and most of the rest are exaggerated, I think it's fair to say the vast majority of trade experts and freight companies, certainly that I've talked to, would disagree with much of that fairly robustly, and you can certainly, you can certainly make the case . . . 

PL: (speaking over) And would  . . . would firms in the European Economic Area disagree? Are they agitating for a customs union?

CM: You can certainly make a case that . . . 

PL: (interrupting) Tell me a bit about the reality of people who are experiencing it, rather than people who are imagining it. 

CM: You can certainly make a case for relying on a basic free trade agreement.

PL: That’s what I am. 

CM: And ports obviously want to trade seamlessly. But if you are taking a basic free trade agreement and comparing it to being in, not just the customs union, but the single market as well, because they do together, and you can . . . agree or disagree about whether it’s a good thing, but being in the single market and the customs union does provide trade which is entirely frictionless, in a way that the government wants, and in a way that it needs to keep the Irish border open, (fragment of word, or word unclear due to speaking over)

PL: (speaking over) I’m sorry, even that is untrue. 

CM: . . . that a free trade agreement would not entirely bring in. 

PL: That is untrue . . . 

CM: (speaking over) If you, if you take . . . 

PL: . . . at present there are checks at the border. I go back and (fragments of words, unclear) I’ve got a house in France, I go back and forward all the time, and I see them being checked. You have to, for example, have different VAT declarations if you’re trading with Europe than you do if you’re trading domestically. You have to be checked if you’re potentially carrying any alcohol or tobacco or illegal immigrants. You have to declare, if you’re a company of any size, (word unclear ‘or’ but means ‘on’?) the contents of what you’re doing to Intrastat. 

CM: (speaking over) But Lord Lilley, I don’t think it’s un— I don’t think . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Have you looked, have you looked . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Let him make his point, Peter Lilley. 

CM: I don’t think it’s untrue to say, if you take, for example, you know it obviously very well, CETA, the recent free trade agreement signed between the European Union and Canada. It implies far more border checks and infrastructure and bureaucracy than being in the single market and the customs union, would you agree with that?

PL: Well . . . being in the customs union?

CM: (words unclear, speaking over)

PL: . . . I’m more interested in what will happen here, and I’m quoting . . . 

CM: (speaking over) But, but, but, but . . . 

PL: . . . I’m quoting HMRC . . . 

CM: (speaking over) Canada is, Canada is, is, is one of the models . . . 

PL: (speaking over) HRMC . . . 

CM: . . . which . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Well . . . 

CM: . . . has been put forward as an alternative to the current . . . 

PL: (speaking over) you would agree that Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue are experts in this field? They’ve given . . . 

CM: They certainly are. 

PL: They’ve given evidence to countless select committees and they say we do not see any need for any extra checks, right or wrong? 

CM: They . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Reality or falsehood?

CM: (fragment of word, unclear) Extra checks where?

PL: At the borders. 

CM: (fragments of words, unclear) Well, you’ve just been discussing with John imports and exports, I mean the fact is that if we want to export animal and food produce to the European Union . . . 

PL: (speaking over) (fragments of words, or words unclear) I’ve acknowledged that . . . 

CM: . . . there will be . . . well, you said there may be checks, and you talked about the phytosanitary agreements, there will be checks because it’s European Union law, which I think . . . I think you know . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Well, there are also . . . 

CM: And it is European law that there have to be one hundred (fragments of words, or words unclear due to speaking over)

PL: (speaking over) I, I, I, this is supposed to be a Reality Check, not an arguer for Remain. 

CM: Well, I was, I was just trying to make some points, but you kept interrupting me . . . 

PL: Well, that’s because you kept getting it wrong. 

CM: (laughs)

JH: Well, gentlemen, it’s rare for me to do the . . . ‘gentlemen, gentlemen, please, calm down,’ because normally it’s people saying that to me. However, look, I think what we have established, go on, a final quick point, uncontested Peter, (laughter in voice, words unclear) at this stage, go on. 

CM: Well, I think the other point that this report makes that is important is that the claim that WTO rules require border, they’re saying that is incorrect. And I agree with that, it is incorrect, but W— . . . WTO rules do not require you to have checks at border . . . at borders, but they do require you to treat all your trading partners equally. So, for example, if you were to allow, say, Irish beef to come across the border from Ireland to Northern Ireland without any checks or without the imposition of any tariffs, you would have to do the same for French beef coming across the Channel, or Argentinian beef coming from further afield. 

JH: Alright, alright . . . now . . . 

CM: So . . . there are consequences for some of the things that this report suggests and (words unclear ‘lays out’?)

JH: And isn’t the political reality, Lord Lilley, that when the agreement, the deal, comes before the House of Commons, that is the only deal we are going to get, at that stage, that is the transition deal that has been agreed between Mrs May and the rest of Europe and that is what you’re going to have to vote on. You will vote against it, what will then happen?

PL: Well, if it’s voted down, we’ll have to think again, and the obvious thing to do is to take up Tusk’s offer, and your (laughter in voice) Reality correspondent, so-called, may . . . er, not like it, but it is quite a good offer. And it’s a realistic (word unclear due to speaking over ‘offer’?)

CM: (speaking over) But it wouldn’t . . . it wouldn’t solve the Irish border problem, would it? Being in a Canada-style free trade agreement?

PL: (exhales) Again, I cite the evidence . . . (fragments of words, unclear due to speaking over)

CM: (speaking over) I mean, that’s what Donald Tusk said (fragment of word, or word unclear ‘though’ or ‘that’s’?)

PL: (speaking over, fragments of words) I cite the evidence of the chief executive of Customs and Excise, he says there are no circumstances, repeat, no circumstances, be it a free trade area, customs area, or WTO terms, in which Britain will require to have border checks or infrastructure at the border. Now, the European Union may want to, and let’s be quite clear, it’s them that are proposing borders, I think they . . . they can do that, and we’ve tried, my goodness, tried to show how within European law they can do without it. But that’s what we ought to be discussing – if we can do it, why can’t they? Let’s do it, it’s very important to have peace and prosperity in Ireland, let’s find a way of doing it, and then we’ve solved the problem. 

JH: Go on, one sentence Chris?

CM: I think in reality it is unlikely the European Union is going to change its law to please a country that’s leaving. It doesn’t . . . it doesn’t mean we’re right or wrong to leave, but that, that’s the reality . . . 

PL: (speaking over) But because . . . 

CM: . . . if you, if you speak to officials from across Europe, it’s . . . 

JH: Right . . . 

CM: ‘You’re leaving, it’s your problem, you sort it out.’ Of course it’s of benefit to both sides to trade as freely as we possibly can, but the technical details can’t simply be wished away. 

JH: There I’m afraid we must leave it, thank you both very much indeed. 

PL: I think it’s wonderful that you cross-checked me in this way. I’d love you (sic) to see, the same degree of rigour applied to those putting forward arguments for the Remain side. 

JH: I think we’ve . . . 

PL: Thank you.

JH: . . . been doing that. 

PL: I haven’t noticed it. 

JH: Thank you both very much.