Gordon Brown!

This is getting ridiculous now.

Last September I posted about how Radio 4's Sunday programme “likes giving Gordon Brown a platform to promote his causes”. 

I wrote:

Despite it being a weekly programme featuring very few politicians, the son of the manse has been granted the Sunday bully pulpit no less than three times over the past year, pushing his agenda with the BBC's help.

Last October he was on demanding that the government 'must act to prevent the loss of a million young people to the job market'.

This May he was on advocating for G7 leaders to 'prioritise vaccines for developing countries ahead of the G7 summit'.

And today he was back saying that world leaders need to act now to end the 'moral outrage' that 'rich countries are amassing huge stockpiles of Covid vaccines they don't need'.

It's all very Sunday. In the years that I've covered them, they've always had their favourites and put them centre-stage. 

In January I posted again about the promotion of “their living saint among UK politicians”:

I repeat all this because Gordon Brown was back on Sunday once again this morning pushing a campaign (and an online petition) to compel the UK government to give more aid to the Afghans. 

[He's forever wanting to give our money away.]

Ed Stourton's questioning - or more accurately 'questioning' - was very helpful to the former prime minister.

And so it continues!

And if you recall last month, Edward Stourton went so far as to describe Mr Brown - off his own bat, as an opinion - as  “quite a just steward”.

Well, take a guess how today's edition of Sunday began...

Without a 'good morning' or anything, an excited Ed launched straight in:

And we have an exclusive interview this Sunday. As we heard in the paper review just now, the former prime minister Gordon Brown is in the news this weekend. He says the crisis facing vulnerable people is a moral issue that goes far beyond politics. He's assembled a coalition of charities and faith groups and he'll tell us live why he wants an emergency budget.

What on earth is going on here? 

Gordon Brown, the Just Steward

There was a revealing moment on this morning's Radio 4 Sunday programme. They were giggling at Boris Johnson's reading at the Jubilee service at St. Paul's and discussing past prime ministers, and one of the guests mentioned Gordon Brown and imagined him being given the Parable of the Unjust Steward to read as a joke. The guest said that it would have been unfair, and Edward Stourton chipped in to agree, saying “Because he was quite a just steward”. 

That's a point of view I don't entirely share.

Time then, I think, to head off down Memory Lane again:

As Sunday also continued to celebrate Pride Month today, maybe Ed and Gordon could 'get a room'?

Gordon's still alive!!!

I wrote a piece last September about how Radio 4's Sunday “likes giving Gordon Brown a platform to promote his causes”, noting that he'd been “granted the Sunday bully pulpit no less than three times over the past year, pushing his agenda with the BBC's help”.

“It's all very Sunday”, I wrote. “In the years that I've covered them, they've always had their favourites and put them centre-stage.”

I then called Gordon Brown “their living saint among UK politicians.”

I repeat all this because Gordon Brown was back on Sunday once again this morning pushing a campaign (and an online petition) to compel the UK government to give more aid to the Afghans. 

[He's forever wanting to give our money away.]

Ed Stourton's questioning - or more accurately 'questioning' - was very helpful to the former prime minister.

And so it continues!

Are you sure about that, Ed?

Here's Edward Stourton in full flow on today's The World This Weekend:

Wednesday's transfer of power will take place under the protection of thousands of National Guard troops and will in many ways be dominated by the man who isn't at the party. Donald Trump has decided to become the first American president in history not to attend his successor's inauguration.

Well, except for John Adams, John Quincey Adams, Martin Van Buren and Andrew Johnson that is!

More reality checks

 

When Sir Ivan Rogers (former Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union) claimed in 2016 that a final trade deal with the rest of the EU might not be done for 10 years, and might ultimately fail, the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg said:

This is perhaps a reality check of just how hard these negotiations might prove. 

Wrong!

I thought of Sir Ivan again a couple of weeks ago after Edward Stourton popped up on Paddy's Broadcasting House to preview The World This Weekend and announce "a bit of a scoop" - an interview with the elusive Sir Ivan. 

Ed then recalled another of Sir Ivan's predictions - his "warning" two years ago of "an accidental no deal, because the two sides didn't understand one another". 

"Those warnings look very prescient this morning," said Ed Stourton. 

Wrong!

When The World This Weekend arrived Ed described Sir Ivan as "a consistent prophet of the risk of no deal", and here's how their interview began:

Edward Stourton: We're joined now by a man who has been warning us all that a no-deal end to this story was pretty likely, and he's been warning that pretty consistently ever since the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. Four years ago this month Sir Ivan Rogers, then Britain's representative at the European Union, warned Theresa May that agreement with the EU could take as long as 10 years and might never be achieved. He resigned after his advice was leaked. And I suppose we'd have to say, Sir Ivan, that you were right.

Wrong! 

Sir Ivan replied, "Well, I take no pleasure in saying that." 

Well, I had a feeling that this sycophancy on Edward Stourton's part would come back to bite him, and I take great pleasure in saying that.

An unrepentant sinner comes before Ed Stourton

I'm assuming it's his belief in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ that gives Franklin Graham, son of Billy, a sense of optimism so strong (or blind) that he agrees to go on the BBC only to be repeatedly 'monstered' by BBC interviewers for his "inflammatory" and "offensive" views about Islam and same-sex marriage, and his 'closeness' to President Trump. 

Edward Stourton's interview with this 'wrong-thinker' on today's Sunday was pretty much a carbon copy of Martin Bashir's interview with him on Sunday two years ago - an interview I described at the time as "a very chilly grilling". 

Back then Martin Bashir went after Mr. Graham in the manner of a prosecution barrister, constantly invoking the "offence" Mr. Graham's words have caused to Muslims and LGBTQ people. 

Franklin Graham was back in the BBC dock today, with Ed Stourton covering exactly the same ground: Does he stand by his post 9/11 statement that Islam is evil? Doesn't he realise how "inflammatory" that is? Does he understand the hurt caused by his view that same-sex marriage is Satanic in origin? Isn't he wrong to be so close to Donald Trump? 

Ed interrupted the sinner at least 12 times, sprang 'gotchas' on him, and tried to get him to see the error of his ways and repent his past words. 

Nonetheless, I bet Sunday are thinking themselves 'brave' to have interviewed him in the first place, as quite a few people didn't want the programme to 'platform' him at all. 

Helping the cause

Radio 4's Sunday was busy helping the cause again today, just as Broadcasting House did recently. It started with Ed Stourton telling us that Boris Johnson "has come under fire" for removing a provision in Theresa May's Withdrawal Bill designed to help child refugees "at a time of concern about the level of local authority spending on child refugees". Then came a discussion between a loving foster parent and her grateful Muslim refugee child. And that was followed by an interview with the head of a campaigning, pro-refugee charity who found Boris's removal of the provision "disappointing" and who approved of The Observer's campaigning journalism on the issue. Ed invited him to put his case and the only challenge he made was to tell the campaigner that the numbers coming in were "still tiny next to the scale of the problem". The campaigner, as you'd expect, agreed. A short government statement was read out at the end 'for balance'. The Radio 4 Appeal is on shortly, right after Sunday, but we seem to have had one already under the guise of BBC reporting.

Business as usual

A bird's eye view of our church, St Peter's at Sawrey #lakedistrict #cumbria #northwest #englishchurches pic.twitter.com/CYjYtzvEGK

— Tim Brownlow (@timjb69) November 24, 2018

"Nothing is the same", Andrew Marr said this morning. I don't think his colleagues at Radio 4's Sunday programme have got the message though. They were doubling-down on their ongoing mission to remain the most liberal programme on the BBC. 

This morning's programme began with discussion of the Modi government's "very controversial" new citizen law in Assam. "What is means for Muslims is the focus of a great deal of the criticism", said Ed Stourton. 

Then it was onto an exhibition of art work by prisoners at Chester Cathedral and a long segment on homelessness featuring the Bishop of Manchester David Walker. (He's on the programme so often he should be called 'the Bishop of the Sunday Programme'). 

The main discussion of the day involved a couple of liberals - Sunny Hundal of the New Statesman and Ben Ryan of Theos - agreeing with each other that the election has fracture faith communities and blaming politicians, the government and India's BJP. This discussion ended in a very Sunday way:

Ben Ryan: I think if there's one sign of hope it's that, compared to most of Europe, one area in the UK has done quite well is that it hasn't had a very close association between the populist right and Christianity. And there's various reasons for that, but one is that the churches have been so clear about their opposition to those sorts of policies. So there is a hope for British leaders to stand up and do something."

Ed Stourton: "On that more positive note, we must leave it. Thank you both very much for coming in this morning".

Oh, so you're agreeing with that, are you Ed?

Then it was only a new Netflix series called  The Two Popes and an interview with its left-wing director, Fernando Meirelles. Fernando originally intended it to be "a story of the Good Pope and the Bad Pope", but the Bad Pope (Pope Benedict) has grown on him. "I'm still more on Francis's side, but I understand his point", he said. The BBC's Emily Buchanan used the programme's usual kind of labelling, saying:

Many people talk about a lot of very right-wing Catholics seeing the presence of Pope Benedict as a rallying point for an opposition.

And finally, it was onto an interview with a nice lady from Tree Sisters who are running a Christmas campaign called 'Seven ways to be an earth-restorer' this year. Ed talked of the "high environmental price tag" of Christmas. 

You see what I mean?

Equivalence

Radio 4's Sunday programme again demonstrated the BBC's increasingly dogged equivalence between actual antisemitism in the Labour Party and supposed Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, despite the two being very different beasts. Here's how Ed Stourton began the segment on the influence of religion on the election:

The allegations of antisemitism against Labour and of Islamophobia against the Tories seem destined to haunt both the big parties during this election campaign. It was reported this week that the Conservative party had suspended some members over claims of Islamophobic social media posts. 

Take three more Tablets

Today's Sunday featured another interviewer from the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet. 

That's the third within the space of a month. (Christopher Lamb, 13 October; Christopher Lamb, 27 October; and Liz Dodd, 10 November). 

This blog's first substantial post noted the dominance of guests from The Tablet (the Catholic equivalent of the Guardian) at the expense of the more conservative Catholic Herald. 

There were dozens from The Tablet over an 18-month period but not even one from the Catholic Herald. 

There was such a fuss as a result of our evidence that The Tablet guests on Sunday dropped to near zero for a while and a smattering of Catholic Herald guests began appearing. 

Now, eight years later, things look to have gone back to where they started: The Catholic Herald guests are gone again, and The Tablet guests are back in force. 

And, yes, The Tablet's trustees still include Lord Chris Patten, Baroness Shirley Williams, Baroness Helena Kennedy....and Sunday's main presenter Edward Stourton. 

It stank then, and it stinks now.

Ed reaches for his shoehorn

Cardinal Newman, Remain 

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 was dominated by the canonisation of Cardinal Newman. During Edward Stourton's opening chat with his old chum at The Tablet Christopher Lamb, our Ed managed to shoehorn Brexit into the discussion: 

Ed Stourton: And I see that the British Ambassador to the Holy See has been quoted as suggesting he might also offer a model for post-Brexit Britain. 

Christopher Lamb: Well, yes, a case is being made that Newman is a Remainer. Father Ignatius Harrison, who is the Actor of the sainthood calls for Newman said that on Friday. So obviously we can't confirm or deny that, but there is a sense that Newman wouldn't have wanted to cut himself off from Europe at a spiritual and cultural level, though of course, I think Newman, as I say, can be colonised for any argument and then people want to see him in a a broad sense, but he was both a quintessentially English figure but also a man of the Roman church. 

I can't say that I want to cut myself off from Europe at a spiritual and cultural level either. The EU, of course, isn't Europe.

Wonder if Elgar would have been a Leave voter?

By such things do we know them

It was a nice, quiet day at work this morning. 

After savouring its soothing delights I retreated to my car this lunchtime to check the news and listened to The World at One,

and OMG!!...

...11 unelected judges have ruled against the elected Government over its prorogation of Parliament!!!

And the BBC's Norman Smith, in his usual hyperbolic way, is calling it "catastrophic for the Prime Minister!!!!!!!!"

Really?

Despite the BBC, might not 'some say' that it could actually be much more catastrophic with regards to people's faith in UK democracy and the impartiality of Britain's major institutions?

And then, on WATO, we heard an endless parade of people opposed to Boris Johnson, exulting in the court's ruling, with just one single defender across the course of whole hour...

...which, I must say, didn't feel entirely impartial to me.

I did,  however (being ever willing to be fair to the BBC), consider that the very heavy imbalance of voices might be down to some people wanting to talk to the BBC and some people (i.e. Boris's government) not.

And, apparently, if the reporting is to be believed (and it's something Evan Davis emphasised later), Boris's Government has told its MPs to stay quiet.

So fair enough then? 

Well, in the midst of a sea of unchallenging interviews, featuring very few interruptions and an otherwise low-key interviewing technique by blog favourite Ed Stourton, came the exception to the rule.

Yes, Ed's interview with Steve Baker MP of the (anti-EU) ERG stood out like a fairly sore thumb. 

It was the only one that featured BBC Ed doing what BBC Ed does so often when he talks to people he doesn't agree with.

He began making all manner of strange, loud extraneous noises - wheezes, intakes of breaths, snorts, huffs - while Mr Baker was speaking, keeping it up throughout to a rather distracting degree, making his presence felt.

And, of course, he also made constant attempts to interrupt Mr Baker (occasionally successfully) - much more than against anyone else. 

Some analogy to a hunting hound straining at its leash with loud excitement might be made here. 

That multitude of weird noises. which never occurs during interviews with like-minded people, and the upsurge of interruptions, is surely evidence of bias (conscious or otherwise)? 

It's not major evidence, but it's surely evidence nonetheless?

(Possible rule?: If you've got one contrary voice on Brexit among six or seven other voices don't go in strongest, huffing and puffing, againt the one exception.)

As is BBC presenters' choice of language. 

Call me Chris Mason, but I'm nerdy enough to quickly pick up on Evan Davis, on tonight's PM, using the words "wheeze", "dodge" and "trick" to describe Boris's prorogation of Parliament. 

And, no, it didn't come across as him quoting others. It sounded like him entirely choosing his own words.

And what a biased choice of words it is!

Elsewhere, in the traditional BBC way, Evan put in the odd 'either/or'-type sop to impartiality and, in fairness, really didn't go 'the Full Emily' on the Boris defender (Charles Walker MP).

But just listen to him and you'll still hear him being noticeably nicer to Boris's opponents (Joe Moor and former Tory MP St. Rory Stewart) than the one-and-only pro-Boris guest (Charles Walker).

By such things do we know them.

Shares

Fine blogger David Hansard appreciated this morning's Sunday special from Nigeria.

There was a bit of a sting in the tail to his compliment though. He tweeted, "Turned on BBC R4 Sunday expecting the usual identity politics fare, but was pleasantly surprised to hear an excellent programme-length special about Nigeria, with Edward Stourton. Includes interesting interview with Femi Anikulapo-Kuti". 

"Turned on BBC R4 Sunday expecting the usual identity politics fare" sums up my expectations of the usual Sunday programme too but, yes, this was very good from Ed Stourton. 

Incidentally, a couple of other tweets from David are worth quoting too. This one comes from Thursday:

A brief discussion with Peter Hitchens on the BBC's Today at 7.50 am, about free speech at universities. Good performance. Introduced by Justin Webb as having "strong opinions". Outside the BBC they're known as reasonable and commonly-held opinions.

Justin did indeed trail the feature by calling Mr Hitchens "a man of strong opinions on a variety of subjects". 

And here's David calling out Polly Toynbee:

Brazil nut

Well, the new 'far-right' President of Brazil strikes me as being "a bit much", but then again so did this week's Profile of him on Radio 4 by Mr. Edward Stourton.

It was critical voice after critical voice for the first eight minutes or so before 'BBC balance' arrived, first in the shape of a declared admirer who then proceeding to slag off Mr Bolsonaro (thus sounding more like a critic than an admirer) and then with a voter who said something nice about him (for a few, short seconds).

Incidentally, the tool I use to help transcribe things - TV Eyes - isn't brilliant at capturing radio programmes. Its brave attempt to render the name 'Jair Bolsonaro', for example, came out as 'Jail above scenario', which is nice.

Brickbat and Bouquet

'Badley Church, Suffolk' by Harold Steggles (1936)

Well, I woke up early this morning, put on my 'I love Pope Francis' badge (Ed Stourton lent me one of his spares) and switched on to the radio equivalent of the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet - namely Radio 4's Sunday, hosted by Tablet trustee Ed Stourton. 

Today's topics included: (a) the raising to sainthood of the murdered El Salvadorean liberation theology-sympathetic Cardinal Oscar Romero, discussed with a Catholic charity worker (which cast conservatives in a bad light); (b) a report by a Catholic group on the need for prison reform, discussed with a Lib Dem peer (who denounced "penal populism"); and (c) a discussion of  a resignation in the US Catholic Church over sex abuse, where both guest and presenter (Ed) cast the present Pope and his unfortunate cardinal in the best possible light. 

Also discussed were: (d) the UN's World Food Day, plugged with a participating charity; (e) Anglican "institutional homophobia", discussed with an aggrieved married gay Anglican cleric; and (f) the 50th anniversary of the Olympic black power protest, discussed with one of the black power saluters. 

The two other items were BBC-on-BBC interviews on (g) the gay cake case and (h) the released pastor and his prayer for President Trump. 

All very 'Sunday'!

Still, one of the featured BBC reporters, Mark Simpson (the BBC's Northern Ireland correspondent) showed afterwards how to be charming on Twitter. The estimable Jane Kelly was criticising his comments on the 'gay cake' case, and he responded:

Jane Kelly: Your reporter Mark Simpson declared, 'There are no winners in this case,' the winner was free-speech. You could also remind him that he is supposed to be a 'reporter.'
Mark Simpson: The question was asked in the context of the personal toll that the 230 week case has taken on the participants.
Jane Kelly: I see, that explains your sympathy for the man who lost, saying he 'looked devastated.' For me that was because he just assumed he would win.
Mark Simpson: Jane, Jane, Jane. That’s simply not true. But, hey, you’re entitled your view. I admire your work. Always have. And I respect your right to call it as you see it. Free speech. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. And next time you’re in NI, I’ll buy the coffee.
Jane Kelly: Thank you very much, you are very gracious. I used to visit NI a lot, a truly fascinating place. I have changed sides a bit though, now see the Protestants as a tribe in danger of extinction.
Mark Simpson: I look forward to hear your reasoning. Keep in touch.

Catch up

Not blogging for a week leaves you stranded like a beached whale. You end up having too much to catch up on, also like a beached whale but one that's rescued and put back to sea and which then has to swim frantically after its pod. And then Time, like Captain Ahab, keeps on chasing you on its wooden leg. [Ed - And how, pray, does Time have a wooden leg?]. And you end up writing long, unfathomable posts like Moby Dick. And then the Norwegians come after you with their Norwegian model of EU non-membership and the Eskimos come furiously demanding you call them Inuits...er, I think I'm taking this extended simile too far.

Anyhow, here are some things I missed or just grabbed today...


1. Springtime for Labour and Jeremy

Mr Marr was in Liverpool this morning for the Labour Party conference and devoted his interview with Jeremy Corbyn to (1) Brexit, (2) Labour antisemitism and (3) the party's new policies.

(Questions on the later felt like a waved-through afterthought though).

A fellow blogger who I like and follow on Twitter - and who most definitely isn't a fan of Andrew Marr - was complimentary today, saying that Andrew was "doing a not half bad job" in "exposing that Corbyn wants to do just as much cherry-picking in any negotiations with the EU as he accuses the Govt of". He also gave "Kudos to Marr for being persistent in his questioning" over Labour antisemitism.

I agree, but I don't think he drew blood on the antisemitism question It was almost as if he was ticking off a checklist written with his production team. Mr Corbyn slithered away.

Meanwhile, it goes without saying that the far-Left were absolutely furious at Andrew Marr for focusing on antisemitism at all. The man is an out-and-out Tory lickspittle who has it in for Jeremy apparently, and they want nothing but questions about Windrush and Tory racism with Theresa May next week. Given all this pressure, it will be interesting to see if Andrew Marr raises those very subjects next week.

Incidentally, the paper review contained 'the new normal' for BBC programmes. No, not the fact that it was an all women guest list, but the fact that a far-left guest was platformed. Sitting next to Camilla Tominey on the sofa was Laura Parker from Momentum. To paraphrase Samira Ahmed, isn't the BBC guilty of 'normalising' far-left extremism?

(I don't actually mind one bit. I'm just highlighting the paradoxical position of the likes of Samira Ahmed here. And Laura was useless.)


2. Mark Mardell This Weekend

Today's The World This Weekend was Labour Conference-focused.

Its main subject was the (apparent) demand for a People's Vote among Labour Party activists (i.e. a second people's vote after the first one went the wrong way).

Mark Mardell went canvassing views, almost all in favour of a People's Vote, and then gave a less-than-impressive Labour shadow minister a grilling for (apparently) going back on her previous calls for a People's Vote.

If Nick Robinson is to be believed, this report and those questions were just the BBC doing its job and not adding to the push for a People's Vote.

Well, maybe it is just a harmless fact of BBC reporting that a programme we've spent huge amounts of time proving to have an anti-Brexit bias today led on the People's Vote push, featured mostly pro-People's Vote voices and then made a backsliding Labour MP squirm over her backsliding over the People's Vote question. Or maybe it isn't.

Ah but, there was another strand to this Labour Conference segment today. It questioned Labour's deselection process. Lord Hattersley was on hand to decry the deselection of nice, 'moderate' Labour MPs (i.e those from the pro-EU 'right' of the party).

So here was The World This Weekend leading on calls for a People's Vote within Labour and calls for the Labour leadership to be nice to the (pro-EU) 'right' of the party.

Entirely innocent, as per Nick Robinson? Hmm.


3. What Ed and Bob Said

“It’s half past seven. Still to come in the programme, Anjem Choudary, jailed for supporting Islamic State, will soon be released from prison. Is he still dangerous?"

So asked Ed Stourton on Sunday today, before taking sides over the Trump administration's decision to cut funding for "Palestinian projects".

Sue has given this a thorough fisking (above).

Though there was an interesting report on the growth of pilgrimages in France by John Laurenson (one of the BBC's most interesting reporters), there was also a classic BBC hit job on Billy Graham's son Franklin.

He appears to be rather pro-Trump, which might not help.

Franklin Graham is visiting Blackpool this week and Sunday has been kicking up a storm over (or, as Nick Robinson would say, 'reporting') the 'controversy' about his visit over the past couple of weeks.

A report last week and a report this week 'gave both sides' whilst being, very obviously, on the anti-Franklin side.

And then came the interview with Mr Graham himself by Sunday's Bob Walker.

This interview is almost in the same league as the one Sue transcribed, albeit there was just one interviewee here. And though you may feel as unsympathetic towards Franklin Graham as I do, I think you'll see (if you listen to it) that Bob was on a mission to make Mr Graham look as bad as possible.

And I suspect that's because Bob is even more unsympathetic towards him than I am. (AKA biased).

It was a deeply passive-aggressive interview: How dare this man say that Islam is a nasty religion? How dare he, as a Christian, believe that homosexual acts are a sin? "Many" say what he says is offensive. It's offensive, isn't it? Go on, Franklin Graham, say something offensive for me here on Sunday! Go on, go on, go on!

I think that sums it up pretty fairly.

4. From Our Own Biased Correspondent

I'm still waiting for a FOOC piece from Israel that dwells on the positives of Israel. This week's piece wasn't what I was after: "In Israel, Tom Bateman is on the hunt for the finest falafel as he hears what Arab and Jewish Israelis think of the controversial new Nation State law", the blurb on the website read. It featured a Jewish Israeli man "asserting" something (in favour of the law) and an Arab Israeli woman "saying" something (against the law), and it wasn't hard to guess which one Tom felt most sympathetic towards. Please think of the falafel.


5. King Arthur v Lord Adonis

I haven't watched it myself but I was fascinated by the social media reaction to Alice Roberts's BBC documentary King Arthur's Britain. Pro-EU types on Twitter were positively gloating that it would infuriate UKIP types ('gammons') and anti-EU types were absolutely appalled at its twisting of history to hammer home a pro-EU, pro-globalisation, pro-mass immigration message. Can I bring myself to watch it and judge for myself?

So far, no.


6. Salzburg

And to end, a Mozart symphony to reflect the big UK/EU event of the week - a Salzburg symphony no less by the 15-year-old Wolfie (no relation to Paul Mason, despite the Austrian famously being a Freemason):

Sunday, Bono Sunday

As I've often mentioned, many, many, many times before, Radio 4's Sunday has been accused of being the most liberal-biased of all BBC Radio 4 programmes. 

(Discuss)

Today's edition, I kid you not, made this its headline story:

As well as the "niqab wearing superhero" and her creator - an aggrieved Muslim woman - we got:

1. a Putin critic.
2. Cardinal Nichols (ostensibly on to talk about human trafficking) being pushed to condemn the Dan Brown-like fantasies of Pope Francis's "right-wing" critics.
3. a happy-clappy piece about Syrian refugees in the UK.
4. a piece focused on a Muslim Labour MP, who promptly denounced 'Islamophobia' and the right-wing newspapers.

Now, that Muslim Labour MP forms part of an new, ongoing Sunday series about MPs and their faith. So far it's been all left-wing MPs - a Labour Sikh MP, a Catholic SNP MP and a Labour Muslim MP. I'm hoping for a few right-wingers to balance that out in the coming weeks.

(From almost a decade of assiduously listening to Sunday I'm well aware that right-wing politicians are rare species on the programme, unlike their left-wing counterparts).

Plus, unlike William Crawley when presenting, our Ed rarely quotes Twitter comments on the programme. Today he did, right at its close, and here's that very tweet:

Hmm. "After the last couple of years..." eh? Wonder why Sunday ended the programme with that one-and-only tweet? 

(Answers on a postcard to RhetoricalQuestions@IsTheBBCBiased.co.uk.) 

Oh, ah, eh, but...Lord Sacks was on to plug his new Radio 4 series on morality. 

This was the exception. But did it prove the rule?

Well, Edward Stourton let the cat out of the bag by saying that Lord Sacks had been invited on to plug his new Radio 4 series before he made his comments about Jeremy Corbyn being an antisemite. 

From what I heard Ed (and his programme) seemed to feel he needed to be asked about that (understandably). 

And you probably won't be surprised that up-with-the-lark Corbynistas piled in afresh on 'far-right' Lord Sacks on Twitter. 'Nice' isn't the word to describe many of their tweets.

So shall I quote Edward's questions/interventions to Lord Sacks about Mr Corbyn to you? Yes, I think I will:

• The Labour Party have called what you said 'absurd and offensive', particularly because you linked him with Enoch Powell, who was, in his legacy, a toxic figure I think it's fair to say because of the famous Rivers of Blood speech. Was that really an apposite comparison?
• Let me just pick you up on your interpretation of his words because actually, the Labour Party points out, he was talking about a group of Zionists. He wasn't talking about Jews. In other words, he was talking about a group who believe certain things rather than a group who are defined by their race or religion. 
• You really think that Jeremy Corbyn meant Jews? He just didn't, er, say the word?
• The other point made against that argument is that if you conflate Zionism and being Jewish in the way that you rather do with that [indecipherable]. Do you not then close down political debate? Do you not make it impossible to criticise...?
• Given how strongly you feel about this issue do you think Jeremy Corbyn should resign?
• What else do you think the Labour Party needs to do?

All very BBC Sunday.

That would be both a Catholic and a BBC bias matter

Old hobby-horse time again (sorry)...

Frankie

It's probably a peculiar quirk of this particular, peculiar blog that our very first posts concentrated, in minute detail, on a BBC radio programme most people doubtless sleep through even if they're aware of it - which most people aren't - namely Radio 4's Sunday. 

Our very first 'hit' at Is the BBC biased? was to stir up a veritable hornet's nest over what might seem a very recherché issue: the programme's massively pronounced bias towards a particular Catholic magazine, The Tablet, and the total exclusion of its main UK rival The Catholic Herald.

This very heavy bias seemed far worse because of the fact that the programme's main presenter Edward Stourton was (and is) a trustee of The Tablet. 

For newbies, and to put it crudely, The Tablet is a liberal Catholic magazine (the Catholic Guardian, so to speak) and The Catholic Herald is a conservative Catholic magazine (the Catholic Spectator, so to speak). 

Over 22 months of close monitoring (without deliberately looking or, to begin with, knowing anything about The Tablet or the Catholic Herald) I'd found literally dozens upon dozens of appearances on Tablet trustee Ed's programmes by liberal Catholic Tablet guests and literally no appearances - not a single one! - by Catholic Herald writers.

It was as stark an example of BBC bias as it was possible to imagine (however little it mattered to me or you personally).

It helped that the then head of the Daily Telegraph's blog (RIP), Damian Thompson, was closely associated with the Catholic Herald and a sharp critic of the BBC and that I tweeted him a link to our most damning post.

After the storm broke the programme instantly dropped its Tablet horde for a couple of years or more, and even invited on some Catholic Herald guests for a while. 

Things, alas, have begun slipping again recently in the past couple of years. Tablet guests are returning and the Catholic Herald guests have vanished again. 

*******

And then (liberal) Pope Francis replaced (conservative) Pope Benedict.

And suddenly on Sunday, the papacy could do no wrong (for a few years).

It often felt like I was listening to puff pieces for Pope Francis after years of hatchet jobs on Pope Benedict.

(Please feel free to scour our archives for very lengthy proofs of that).

*******

And another thing I found in my intense study of Sunday (2010-12) was that the programme, in the years of conservative Catholic pope Benedict XVI, focused with relentless intensity (and quite rightly so) on Roman Catholic child abuse and was never afraid to question Pope Benedict's role in the matter, with Ed Stourton (never a fan of Pope Benedict) often in the thick of that questioning.  

I've listened to every episode of the programme both before and since that original study and I can say, with total confidence, that the emphasis on Catholic child abuse and the Pope's attitude to it dropped massively after Pope Benedict resigned and Pope Francis took over.

It didn't disappear, but it became much less of a preoccupation.

(And Anglican abuse came into sharper focus).

And the Pope-of-the-day's position on the matter has rarely been raised since.

Benny

So, to put it another way, until today's edition I've never heard anything on Sunday that focused sharp questions on Pope Francis's reaction to clerical child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.

It's as if, once the hated Pope Benedict had shuffled off this Vatican coil into nearby retirement, and, as a nice, liberal, PC pope was elected in his place, everything came good for Sunday.

Even last week, when Sunday broadcast a special edition to mark Pope Francis's visit to Ireland, the then-breaking story that Cardinal Viganò - an archbishop of the Catholic Church who had served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 2011 to 2016 and who had previously served as Secretary-General of the Governorate of Vatican City State from 2009 to 2011 - had accused the present pontiff of covering up a child abuse scandal didn't get a mention on the programme.

Some listening (conservative) Catholics were staggered and wondered why. And Damian Thompson has been tweeting about liberal media double standards all week ever since. 

Well, today the programme finally turned to the issue of Pope Francis and his alleged role in covering-up a child abuse scandal and, knowing what I know of the programme and its past history, I suspected it would come out in support of Pope Francis in much the same-if-also-polar-opposite way it used to come out against Pope Benedict. 

So did it focus sharp questions on Pope Francis?

Well, it was balanced enough in that it featured a Catholic guest who thinks Pope Francis has questions to answer (Edward Pentin) and another Catholic guest who thinks it's the Pope's "right-wing" critics who have questions to answer (Austen Ivereigh).

In light of everything I've mentioned earlier in this post (and at this blog since its inception), however, it didn't surprise me in the slightest that Edward Stourton put challenging question after challenging question to Edward Pentin (the conservative Catholic) whilst giving Austen Iverleigh (the liberal Catholic) an easy ride. The difference in tone was palpable.

Nor did it remotely surprise me that Edward Stourton, in a later interview with Vincent Nichols, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, went way beyond BBC impartiality and, as if in passing, compared the claims of Cardinal Viganò (and Edward Pentin) about cover-ups around Pope Francis to Dan Brown novels - a comparison Ed brought into the conversation.

Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed introduced Mr Pentin as a "conservative" whilst not introducing Mr Ivereigh as a "liberal". (This was classic 'bias by labelling').

Nor did it remotely surprise me that Ed (Tablet trustee) failed to mention that Austen Ivereigh - the man he gave an easier ride to - used to be a deputy editor of The Tablet.

I feel as if I'm somewhat entering into an ecumenical matter here, but the bias seems very clear to me, especially perhaps because I remain detached from it (not being a Catholic, not being religious).

Please listen to the programme for yourself and this interview and see if you see what I mean.

Set menu time

As you may know, I think that Radio 4's Sunday programme has a particularly pronounced liberal bias. I used to joke that it took its topics for discussion from a set menu. Among the items on that menu were "the usual airing of Muslim grievances" and "a call for something or other by a left-wing campaign group". This week's edition gave us items on Tax Justice Sunday, why Muslims are feeling victimised in Austria, an evangelical Christian's struggles with her sexuality (she's lesbian) and the Church's issues with LGBT rights, what difference having a female as head of Orthodox Judaism in the UK might make, Windrush and racism in the CofE, and why people in America think God has a feminine face...plus, in light of the Trump-Kim summit, an interview with a UK-based human rights advocate who fled North Korea. Very little of that dispels my impression about Radio 4's Sunday's bias. (Not that it wasn't interesting).

I particularly enjoyed the Tax Justice Sunday item - a joint interview with Methodist minister Rev David Haslam and Dr Jamie Whyte from the Institute of Economic Affairs. Ed Stourton's handling of it made me laugh. I think it's safe to say that he was more of Rev David's (pro-tax) party than Dr Jamie's (anti-tax) party.  (Listening to it brought back memories of that scene in The Simpsons where someone's monocle keeps dropping out through shock. Please listen for yourself. It begins at 11.56).  

Radio 4 profiles George Soros

For the first few minutes it sounded as if Edward Stourton's Radio 4 Profile of George Soros was going to be nothing but a hagiography but, towards the end, we did get some brief, dissenting comments - one from the spokesman of the Hungarian government, the other from a journalist whose beef with Mr. Soros is that his Open Society projects (such as the ones in Russia) haven't been anywhere near as effective as they should have been. (Not the usual criticism we hear of the meddling Mr. Soros). Plus we also heard a comment from a friend who described him as a benevolent feudal prince (which could be taken as a criticism or a compliment or a mixture of both).  

Ed's language was typically 'BBC' - e.g. In introducing the spokesman from the Hungarian government and describing its immigration policy he didn't just call it "hardline" (in the usual BBC way), he called it "very hardline". ("Hungary has taken a very hardline indeed on immigration and refugees").