Some truths

Emily Maitlis’s truth.

Following in the footsteps of Dorothy Byrne (formerly of Channel Four,)  Emily Maitlis (formerly of the BBC) delivered the MacTaggart memorial lecture at the Edinburgh International TV festival. 

Emily Maitlis wants a Remainer BBC by Tom Slater 

"What’s striking about Maitlis’s critique, which has been curdling among elite Remainer media for a while, is that it essentially posits attempts at impartiality as bias.

Maitlis certainly struck a chord. “The BBC is biased!” screeched everybody under the sun. Fact!

However, trawling through the wide spectrum of tittle-tattle online, it seems that half the commenters agreed with Emily that the BBC is biased to the right, and the other half agreed with  - well- us - that the BBC is biased to the left. (‘Half-and-half’ may not be strictly mathematical)

I’ll just throw in the following quote for the hell of it because it tickled me.

"Channel 4 boss Ian Katz has said he thought Maitlis’ speech was ‘brilliant’, and that it served as a powerful reminder that ‘due impartiality is the bedrock of journalism.’

 

Nevertheless, the anti-BBC vibe is growing, whichever way you look at it. Despite, not because of, the woefully ineffectual pushback from the likes of the BBC's chief content officer, Charlotte Moore, one might even sympathise with the BBC. (You know, as the underdog.) 

BBC insiders back Emily Maitlis over claims of Tory meddling

"BBC insiders have said Emily Maitlis was right to call out Sir Robbie Gibb as an “active agent” of the Tory party who interfered with editorial matters.

Enough already. Sir Robbie Gibb’s position on the BBC Board appears (to Emily Maitlis and others) to constitute conclusive proof that the BBC is biased to the right.

+++++++++++++++++

Eddie Izzard’s truth (Strange but true)

Izzard intends to “Stand for Labour in Sheffield central”

This BBC article is notable for slavishly adhering to gender make-believe from the  “if I sez I’m a lady, then I’m a lady” school of abandon-all-reason.

All the way through this piece Eddie, wearing a skirt, is “assigned” “she” by the BBC. 

"Comedian Eddie Izzard says she hopes to stand as a Labour candidate in Sheffield at the next general election.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many female pronouns gratuitously (and dare I say almost maliciously?) shoehorned into a teeny bit of reporting. Is someone  (other than me) ’avin’ a laugh? I’m seriously wondering if the BBC has gawn mad. Here’s Guido. Amongst the comments, 259 at the time of writing, (which was roughly the day before yesterday) I spotted a delicate question that most other contributors failed to ask. Where on God’s earth did those b00bs come from?

+++++++++++++

Jeremy Bowen’s (personal) truth

Jeremy Bowen has written another book you’ll be glad to hear. It’s called The Making of the Modern Middle East: A Personal Story

The reviewer Justin Marozzi is a fan - I saw that on the twitter. 

Well, I won’t be reading any more of  Jezzer’s personal stories and I wish I could unread the ones I’ve already read.

++++++++++++++++

“Marriage”  untruth

The other day I mentioned the BBC’s 4-part drama Marriage starring Sean Bean and Nicola Walker plus James Bolam and some other actors.

Once again, public opinion fell into two (weirdly passionate) camps, which we’ll call - ‘For’ and ‘Agin’.

Newspaper reviewers raved about it. Carol Midgley in the Times thought it was the bees’ knees while  James Innes-Smith in the Spectator was less keen.

Torrents of negativity poured in after just one episode. The prolonged silences interspersed with inane dialogue in episode one instantly brought about an irresistible compulsion to switch-off-the-TV. 

This ‘more naturalistic than actual naturalism’ genre is not new. It was captured more effectively several decades ago.  In 1971 Mike Leigh produced “Bleak Moments.” Leigh’s early output was characterised by similarly ‘realistic’ conversations that elevated the mundane to poignant-verging-on-poetic. The semi-improvised dialogue revelled in outrageously inane banter that was doleful, yet humorous, compelling, and entertaining yet somehow believable.

In my humble opinion, “Marriage” was charmless; the casting was wrong - the production failed to give the illusion that Sean Bean, as an unreconstructed northerner, and Nicola Walker were a couple.

 

The adopted daughter-of-colour bore no hint of resemblance to either of her adopted parents, either in accent, turn of phrase or familial idiosyncrasy. The sub-plot-by-numbers was equally unlikely and unconvincing.

Note: If I ever hear protracted whingeing about a baked potatah at an airport I’ll eat all the above words.

One last hurrah

I see that the BBC put out yet another ruling against the dearly departed Emily Maitlis earlier this month.

Their Editorial Complaints Unit judged against her retweet of an anti-Boris tweet from former Conservative MP Rory Stewart, saying that “in the absence of any indication to the contrary, retweeting the comment risked giving the impression that Ms Maitlis endorsed the view it expressed.” 

As she then apologised on Twitter they considered the matter “resolved”. 

She certainly kept them busy in recent years, which is why I instantly believed the reports this week that said some at the BBC were glad to see the back of her and her partner in crime Lewis Goodall. 

If you missed that, here's how the Daily Telegraph reported it on Monday:

BBC bosses believe they have solved the problem of perceived Left-wing bias on Newsnight, after Lewis Goodall announced he was leaving to join Emily Maitlis at a commercial rival.

The Telegraph understands that the corporation did not make a counter-offer when Goodall, the programme’s policy editor, told them he had been approached by Global.

The departure of Goodall and Maitlis is being viewed as an opportunity to reset the programme and focus on impartiality after the pair were at the centre of damaging rows with the Government.

Two down, several thousand to go. 

Two out, one back in

Another of our old BBC favourites, retired BBC veteran Hugh Sykes, took to Twitter the other day in light of the BBC's Ukraine coverage to take a potshot at Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis:

Hugh Sykes: I bet the recent Big Name defections from the BBC are regretting their decision to go dosh-and-podcast - they are nowhere near the front line now: out of sight, out of mind.

David M. Beneš: Oh they’ll soon be back, like KK.

Hugh Sykes: No one is indispensable.

I was also thinking about Maits and Soapless today in light of all the chat hereabouts about how The New York Times has just conceded that The New York Post got it right in 2020 when reporting the Hunter 'Son of Joe' Biden laptop story - a possible major scandal with strong implications for the ethical standing of the present US president, especially in light of the Ukraine crisis. 

This was, notoriously, something that landed The New York Post - a famous US newspaper - with a two-week Twitter ban for its now-shown-to-be-accurate journalism in the run-up to the 2020 US election. 

It's the sort of thing the BBC's disinformation unit and Ros's Radio 4 Media Show should look into and John Simpson should object to. 

Where Jon and Emily come into this is that they did an Americast podcast for the BBC at the time [which Arthur T got me to listen to] where they 'covered' the story. 

'Covered', in inverted commas, is the word. They 'covered' it, but Emily Maitlis in particular - then in her pomp at the BBC - was openly derisive about the story, sarcastically mocking the fact that they were covering it at all. Her and Sopes and The Zurch used every trick of language in the book to show how little they thought of the story. It was all a distraction by The Donald apparently.

On listening back today the word 'covered' took on other connotations: Unconsciously or consciously, they were 'covering' for Joe Biden as he fought for office with President Trump, blowing the same bubbles that their US counterparts were blowing from their echo chamber to help make this story blow away.

Anyhow, they're now LBC's business. Rob Burley, bless him, will probably end up having to defend them on Twitter. For his sake only, I hope they're not a walking disaster for LBC's ratings.

Meanwhile, as David M. Beneš tweeted above, KK - Katty Kay - is back at the BBC. 

She was formerly the face of the BBC in America but left last year to join a left-wing US media outlet that closed shortly afterwards following fraud allegations. 

The BBC has kindly taken her back on as a 'US special correspondent'. 

Kindly for her, though not necessarily for BBC licence fee payers.  

She's now back on the Beeb defending the Biden administration as if she'd never left and back doing the BBC's claim of impartiality harm again.

Despite Hugh, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel's departure was a blessing for the BBC in impartiality terms. Rescuing Katty Kay - the kind of partisan BBC journalist who also moans about the influence of 'the Jewish lobby' - isn't a good idea for the publicly-paid corporation in that respect.

Coda to Sue's post...

So Mates and Soapless are off to join James O'Brien, presumably leaving The Zurch in the lurch. 

It's worked out nicely for the Beeb because the Defund the BBC campaign has lost its poster girl, but - looking on the bright side - it's worked out nicely for us too because we'll hopefully never have to think of either of them ever again. 🙏

Oh!

 

 

The Telegraph. Hope you can all access the comments!  Quick summary for those who can’t :

“Good riddance / we are all watching GB News now anyway."

A Saturday Selection

I've been a bit out-of-action recently, but here are a few things I noted down this week:

I

Never mind Partygate. Sue Gray and Dame Dick need to investigate the Foreign Office for blowing lots of licence fee payers' money on a sparkling farewell party for departing BBC North America editor Jon Sopel. 

That's reported by Steerpike at the Spectator. 

You'll find beneath his piece this comment from former Harry's Place regular Lamia which will doubtless strike a chord with many of us:

Sopel spent the four years of Donald Trump's presidency Tweeting his disapproval of Trump and his Tweets, helping keep the humble folk of Broadcasting House and North London in a permanent state of gratified superior outrage. Once Joe Biden got into power, Sopel and the BBC simply lost interest in reporting about the US President, except what flavour of ice cream he likes. Sopel is a worthless journalist, let alone a journalist for a supposedly impartial broadcaster, because his personal and political biases have infected and dictated everything he reports (and everything he doesn't report about). Not only should he not be the BBC's political editor - if the BBC had any standards (yes, we know it doesn't...) then he would have been sacked years ago. So obviously he's a shoe-in as BBC political editor.

II

Rod Liddle probably ought to hang up his satirical spurs because BBC reality is outpacing him faster than the winner of the Kentucky Derby. A Guardian exclusive reports that the BBC is preparing to broadcast a new take on Dickens's Oliver Twist that will “make a conscious effort” to put food poverty “to the fore” and echo footballer Marcus Rashford’s campaign to reduce child hunger. Very BBC.

III

The BBC is celebrating what they call “a hundred years of our BBC” and they've released a two-minute campaign video - in response to Nadine Dorries - about how the “BBC belongs to all of us”. As you'd expect,  the last word - “every one of us” - goes to Sir David Attenborough and the whole party political broadcast on behalf of the BBC ends with the caption, “This is our BBC.”

The estimable Lance Forman responded:

If the BBC belongs to me - Please can they release the Balen Report which examined anti-Israel bias at the BBC. The BBC have spent circa £500,000 to keep this covered up. With antisemitism rampant there is a public interest in releasing this. Transparency belongs to us all!

IV

The BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson pompously gives us “a reminder”:

Just a quick constitutional reminder for the BBC’s 100th anniversary: it belongs to the people of the UK. It doesn’t belong to the government. And, contrary to what the current Culture Secretary seems to think, it isn’t state-funded.

It may not be, but it still drags thousands of reluctant viewers through the courts.

V

As Paul Homewood notes, BBC Future has a piece by some white woke guy called Jeremy Williams headlined Climate change divides along racial lines. Could tackling it help address longstanding injustices? The pasty-faced gentleman in question has a book out too, Climate Change is Racist: Race, Privilege and the Struggle for Climate Justice, thereby evidently making him absolutely irresistible to the BBC. I'm not sure I was even aware of BBC Future. The BBC has no many tentacles it's hard to keep track.

VI(a)

I see some people on Twitter have been complaining that BBC One's main new bulletins gave mere seconds to the jailing of former Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham for paedophilia last night. Indeed, News at Six gave the story 17 seconds and News at Ten gave the story 13 seconds. It beggars belief.

VI(b)

It remains a telling fact that Newsnight has still never covered the Barry Gardiner/Chinese Communist Party influence story or that their policy editor Lewis Goodall, despite being a hyperactive Twitterer, has never tweeted about it either - despite the CCP's influence on the UK being one of the biggest new stories out there. I put it down to bias. 

VII

Wagner's Ring cycle lasts 17 hours and runs for over four days. In it the bronzed Valkyrie Brünnhilde disobeys the Director-General of the gods Wotan, ensconced in Valhalla House. The weak Wotan, despite Brünnhilde's flagrant disregard of Valhalla editorial guidelines, merely slaps her wrist by giving her a talking-to and then sentences her to a good night's sleep on a luxury bed surrounded by fire. The dragon-slaying idiot Siegfried awakens her with a kiss and an embittered, self-righteous Brünnhilde then - after various twists and turns - mounts her mighty steed Grane and, immolating herself in the process too, brings about the fiery destruction of Valhalla House and the godly board. Similarly long-lasting is the BBC's Monologue cycle. In this saga the bronzed Emily Maitlis disobeys pasty-faced chief god of the BBC Tim Davie. Tim Davie weakly slaps her wrist by mildly saying she might, possibly, not have been quite entirely right - and then does nothing more. She disobeys him again. And again. And again. Always playing throughout to her main audience, her fellow Valkyries on Twitter. The Trump-slaying Jon Sopel awakens her with a kiss and she mounts her mighty stallion Twitter and disobeys Tim Davie yet again. So what happens next? Well, if my tortuous Wagner analogy runs on, Emily's biased behaviour will help precipitate BBCdämmerung, The Twilight of the BBC, as Tim Davie sits forlorn in Broadcasting House as everything around him goes up in flames and, amid floodwaters, the Thamesmaidens swim in to take back the BBC licence fee. So is Tim Davie ever going to do something about her? She's making a mockery of 'BBC impartiality' and sneering at her BBC bosses, but I doubt he'll do anything. He doesn't seem the type to tackle BBC bias full on. As BBC TV sitcom Valkyrie Mrs Slocombe was wont to say, he's ''weak as water''. 

VIII

BBC disinformation reporter Marianna Spring has been busy promoting a new 10-part podcast series “investigating the human cost of pandemic conspiracies online in one town, who believes them - and why” for Radio 4 and BBC Sounds. She “will share more details soon!” This drew a sarcastic reply from Peter Hitchens: “Looking forward to this, Marianna Spring. Obviously this is the most urgent lack in BBC coverage of the last two years. But will a mere ten episodes be enough?”

IX

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale followed UK PM Boris Johnson to a press conference in Ukraine with the Ukrainian president and provoked criticism in some quarters for “making the UK look like a joke” by asking Boris about Partygate rather than Russia-Ukraine. I suspect that as extraterrestrials first emerge from their twenty-mile-long mothership to make contact with humanity for the first time BBC types will be there at the front of the press pack asking about the Sue Gray report. 

Of Twa hunters and Emily Maitlis

Further to a post here from last Saturday - the one featuring Michael Crick saying “Tonight the world’s eyes are on Washington,” says Emily Maitlis in her Newsnight intro. What total rubbish - here are the opening two paragraphs of a long-read essay at UnHerd by Aris Roussinos, which expand slightly on Michael's 'What total rubbish' critique:

“Tonight the world’s eyes are on Washington,” declared Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis recently, referring to the abortion debate currently going through America’s Supreme Court. No doubt, in the dark forests of the Ituri, Twa hunters paused their age-old stalking of game to deliberate on Mississippi’s new legislation; in the glittering skyscrapers of Shanghai and Guangzhou, the Chinese economy ground to a halt as industrialists awaited Amy Coney Barrett’s contentious deliberation; high in the mountains of Bolivia, peasant farmers abandoned their timeless struggle with the frigid Andean soil, huddling in their villages to confer on what this could all mean for America’s women.

Obviously this is a fantasy, like most British political commentary. It is Britain’s political comment class alone who are so destructively enamoured of the political theatre of a distant foreign country that American news crowds out our own in the battle for attention. Yet this colonised mindset is only true of a specific shade of American politics: an identitarian left-liberal strand tailor-made for our mid-Atlantic Twitter class.

Michael Crick vs Emily Maitlis

I'm guessing that former Newsnight colleagues Michael Crick and Emily Maitlis won't be sending each other Christmas cards this year. On watching Emily delivering one of her usual introductions on Wednesday's Newsnight, this time introducing a story about abortion rights in the United States, former Newsnight political editor Michael tweeted: 

“Tonight the world’s eyes are on Washington,” says Emily Maitlis in her Newsnight intro. What total rubbish.

 The four most 'liked' replies say: 

• Well said. Mine aren't.
• Seemed to more about Jackson, Mississippi. By the end there were probably more people participating than watching. I certainly turned off. Shows how much money the BBC has to throw away.
• BBC eyes, Michael. They live on different planet to the public.
• Always considered myself a right-minded person, and generally well updated on news and current affairs....but my eyes are certainly not on Washington and tbh I've no idea what's happening there.

Groupthink

Sopes, Maitlis and The Zurch gathered again for Americast this week to review the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, absolute oozing disapproval of Kyle Rittenhouse and his defence team and his supporters. The Zurch complained about two-tier justice for the rich because of all the funding for Kyle R; while Maitlis asserted that his gun was illegal despite the judge saying it wasn't; and Sopes sneered at him for meeting Tucker Carson and for becoming ''a celebrity'' after killing two ''protestors''; and both Sopes and Maitlis were aghast at him being offered internships, and played clips of some of his ''far-out'' high-profile Republican supporters, mocking and sneering at them; then The Zurch talked of the ''tragedy'' of the men's killing and how the Right was turning Kyle R into Captain America. And then came their guest, and she ruled Kyle R ''morally culpable'' and thinks the case should have been made against him over his handling of the gun. The bias was in plain slight, and this might have been MSNBC.

Anyhow, have you read Stephen Daisley's latest Spectator piece, Kyle Rittenhouse and the collapse of media neutrality? Oddly, he doesn't mention the BBC. 

Update: Meanwhile, here's a little Twitter exchange that also, oddly, doesn't mention the BBC:

Spiked: The silence on the Waukesha massacre is shameful. Six people were slaughtered by a man in an SUV and there’s just silence from Hollywood, from influencers, from the woke set. Identity politics has corroded these people’s humanity, says Brendan O’Neill. 

Max Klinger: Brendan O'Neill on the horrendous attack in Waukesha and the predictable response to it in @spikedonline. He's correct. It's possible to predict when we will and won't witness massive displays of selective outrage with almost perfect accuracy.

So...Americast moved on from one episode to another in this past couple of weeks, covering Kyle Rittehouse and the killing of a black jogger, Ahmaud Arbery, in Georgia by three white men. 

Have a guess which murderous US event they didn't cover, as if to prove Brendan right?

Lets go Brendon!

Of gut reactions and BBC narratives

 

If you're worried about thousands upon thousands upon thousands of largely adult male migrants from the Middle East and Africa arriving illegally on our English Channel shores and then melting, unchecked, into the Home Counties  - especially given recent terrorist attacks by such people - and if you think that a population rise of around 10 million people in just 20 years in a small country isn't necessarily a good thing, then the BBC's chief propagandist on the immigration question, Mark Easton, was there - as ever - to waive away all your worries yesterday. 

To sum him up: It's not a big deal. The government's pandering to pro-Brexit sentiment over the issue. And what problems exist are because of Brexit. And there's nothing we can legally do to stop the poor migrants in their dinghies. And, shush, don't even mention concerns about terrorism. And please think of the migrant children.

And where the canny Mark Easton led, Newsnight followed last night. 

Emily Maitlis's latest monologue contrasted the ''hard numbers'' [that ''net migration to the UK is actually down. More people are leaving than coming into the country, in other words. The UK currently takes far fewer asylum seekers than many of our European neighbours''] with people's ''perception''.

And in the following report Ben Chu continued that theme and followed the Mark Easton line almost to the letter, and warned us against our ''gut reaction'' on seeing ''images of cross-Channel migrant crossings''.

 ''A closer look at the numbers suggests there's more complexity to this subject - and, indeed, the wider immigration debate - than a gut feeling might lead us to believe'', he said, arguing that ''in the scheme of things'' those poor migrants crossing the Channel aren't a ''big'' problem. 

To sum him up: Everything's hunky-dory as far as numbers go, with no population explosion whatsoever, we've not taken in many asylum seekers compared to other countries, and UK businesses are crying out for more migrants. 

The propaganda from the BBC is massively ramping up again, and I'm guessing the Mark Easton/Newsnight tag-team - all saying the same thing, all spinning the same narrative - were just the tip of the iceberg as far as the BBC's output goes. 

The hope remains, of course, that most of the public will see through it all - though whether they should be made to fund it is another matter entirely.

Emily Maitlis is at the centre of an impartiality scandal again

Emily Maitlis strikes again. She began last night's Newsnight by saying:

Tonight, Conservatives change the rules and protect one of their own at the centre of a lobbying scandal.

This drew a rebuke from former Newsnight political editor Michael Crick who tweeted:

Newsnight has twice just called the Paterson affair a “lobbying scandal”. I personally think it is a scandal, but it’s wrong for Newsnight, part of a broadcaster which is meant by law to be impartial, to make such a judgement.

3-against-1

When watching the TV or listening to the radio, I especially don't enjoy it when broadcasters set up 2-against-1 discussions/debates on a controversial subject.

It doesn't feel fair to me. 

Even worse is when the host of the programme takes the invited majority side and makes it 3-against-1. 

And my hackles really rise if that host then sends the bias sky-rocketing by either mainly or exclusively interrupting the one and only, single and unique dissenting voice, making it 3-against-1 with an added power imbalance against the 1.

And I find that grossly rude.

So let me confess: 

In first getting acquainted with GB News a while back, I was heavily disappointed to find GB News host Dan Wootton doing that very thing on a matter of controversy.

It was 2-against-1 guests, made 3-against-1 by Dan himself sharing the same view of the 2 against the 1, then Dan going after the lone dissenting 1 with contradictions and questions...

...and I thought to myself, ''I don't think I want to escape the BBC just to end up with a mirror image of the BBC - even if it's slightly better because its biased host isn't pretending to be impartial'' [or words to that effect].

And I wasn't thinking that because I agreed with the harassed dissenter. 

Far from it. In the discussion, I agreed with the 3 against the 1 and didn't particularly like the 1, who I felt wasn't right.

It just felt wrong though. 

----------------------

And I've held that view for about a month now regarding parts of GB News's output, but now I'm starting to think again...

My new thought is: Given how the BBC is, is that reasonable? Maybe a mirror image of it it necessary after all, especially as the BBC is publicly-funded and getting away with murder?

----------------------

And what provoked that re-think was last night's publicly-funded Newsnight on BBC Two.

This was the first discussion about Boris's reshuffle, hosted by Emily Maitlis. 

It was a classic biased BBC discussion.

It featured two Boris critics - Peter Kyle, Labour's Shadow Schools Minister, and someone Emily introduced as ''former Cabinet minister, now outspoken critic of this PM'' Anna Soubry - pitted against just one Boris supporter, Charles Walker, briefly former leader of the 1922 Committee.

That's Stage One. 

The obvious question already is: Why not just feature one guest from each side? Why not, say, just have either Mr Kyle or Ms Soubry face off against Mr Walker? Why stack it against Mr Walker with a 2-against-1 situation?

Then came Stage Two, as the biased host entered stage left, and intervened most aggressively against the single, dissenting voice - here Charles Walker. 

It was 3-against-1 time again,

Yes, it was pure Dan Wootton on GB News again, but from the opposite direction while - far worse - pretending to be impartial.

----------------------

Ironies abounded.

It began with Labour's Mr Kyle being given a long, free run to attack the Government. He got 1m 4s of uninterrupted ranting.

Then pro-Boris Charles Walker was brought in and Emily asked him about there being ''very little diversity of opinion'' in the new cabinet - which, in the first irony, is particularly rich coming from the present Newsnight team of left-liberal thinkalikes who think nothing of repeatedly labelling Nadine Dorries - the new culture secretary - a ''social conservative'' [as they did at least twice last night].

Hilariously, Mr Walker then 'did a June Sarpong' and replied listing all the racially diverse members of the present cabinet, and Emily - repeatedly interrupting him - told him, as if it was wrong, that he was ''talking about race'' rather than diversity of opinion [O irony upon irony!] - something Emily didn't want to do here but which Newsnight would undoubtedly have done if given even the remotest chance...

...except that they are famously one of the whitest, most right-on broadcasting teams at the BBC and that the Government puts them to shame as far as the identity politics 'putting diverse people in the top jobs' front goes.

Charles Walker barely got a sentence out before being quickly and repeatedly interrupted and contradicted by Emily, who seemed to be gunning for him. Her first interruption came 9 seconds into his first answer. [Note the contrast with Mr Kyle].

Anna Soubry was then brought in and soon fell out with Mr Walker. Ms Soubry said, ''Could you let me finish? You've spoken an awful lot, Charles'' - even though he hadn't been allowed to speak much at all.

I've counted it up and he got the same amount of time, prior to Anna entering, than Labour's Mr Kyle [around 1m 10s each] - though Peter Kyle got his free run while Charles Walker had to bat off Emily Maitlis's targetted-to-him questions and interruptions. And Anna went on to get plenty too.

Mr Walker, his hackles rising, asked why she was even on, given that she's no longer a member of Parliament. It's a good question, though we can easily guess the answer. Emily replied that she ''actually'' has ''been in cabinet''. Mr Walker replied that Ms Soubry ''wasn't in cabinet''.

''Let her finish her sentence, please,'' said Emily to Charles around this time - which was ironic given that Emily had repeatedly interrupted his sentences earlier. 

Anna Soubry, of course, unlike Charles, wasn't interrupted by Emily after 9s. She was also given free rein, only stopped by Charles Walker interrupting her. 

Anna then continued again, at length, ranting against Nadine Dorries. Emily let her finish her sentences. And on Anna Soubry was allowed to go, for an entire minute, raging against the new culture secretary. 

Charles Walker then defended Nadine Dorries and slammed Anna Soubry for not being ''nice'' - a section ending in all three guests speaking at the same time.

Emily then went on the attack against Charles Walker, gunning for him again. 

And Emily then did the BBC thing of playing devil's advocate for the one and only time, asking the Labour man a  half-hearted question about about how Boris is ''getting stuff done'' and doesn't looked ''scared of your party''.  Mr Kyle then delivered another long rant with the shortest interruption midway from Emily. And then Anna was given another long go. And then Mr Kyle returned again to add to his rant.

And finally Charles Walker was asked a long, complicated, heavily loaded by Emily - one with half a dozen questions embedded in it. He answered briefly. Then Mr Kyle leaped in and slagged off Michael Gove, uninterrupted.

And that was that.  

-----------------------

And after that, frankly, please give me openly biased Dan Wootton over 'claims to be impartial' Emily Mailis any day. 

It's the pretence of impartiality whilst being any but that really, deeply sticks in the throat.

''We conflated...In fact...We also said...To be clear''

Talking of Newsnight and BBC management 'corrections'...

Did you see this - a BBC 'correction and clarification' issued on 16/8, some four months after the offending programme was originally broadcast?

Newsnight, BBC Two, 20 April 2021

We conflated the vaccination rates for Israel’s Palestinian citizens and Palestinians in the occupied territories when we said the roll-out rate was half a percent.

In fact, within Israel it was then estimated to be around 67%.

We also said the “Palestinian population has not been inoculated at anywhere near the rate of the Israeli population.”

To be clear, this was because of vaccine hesitancy.

16/08/2021

I had to dig a little, because the BBC gave no clues, but...Can you guess who at Newsnight said these things, and got them so wrong? 

Yes, it was Emily Maitlis. 

She keeps on getting the BBC into trouble, doesn't she?

'Newsnight' and accuracy

 

In his regular Spectator column Charles Moore recounts how - and why - he spurned the BBC's advances earlier this week:

On Tuesday, I was asked to appear on BBC Newsnight to talk about the Sussexes’ interview. When told it would be presented by Emily Maitlis, I declined, on the grounds that ever since her political speech against Dominic Cummings on the programme last year, I have had no confidence in her fairness. Sure enough, she spoke on the programme that night of ‘the sense of the attempted suicide’ of the Duchess of Sussex — though Meghan had mentioned only ‘suicidal thoughts’.

At the time, my little gesture seemed rather pointless, so I was pleased to read in the next day’s papers that Ofcom has at last decided that the Maitlis diatribe against Cummings ‘had the potential to be perceived by some viewers as an expression of her personal view on a matter of major political controversy’. Hardly a bold rebuke, but a start.

Emily Maitlis's error was actually on Monday night's Newsnight when she asked John Kerry: 

Just before we end, we are talking on a day that has been dominated by the Harry and Meghan interview. We know how important the monarchy is to soft power. Does anything in it that you've read, any of the accusations of racism or the sense of the attempted suicide change how America views the institution of our monarchy?

The Tuesday edition itself was notable for another error - one which necessitated an on-air 'clarification' from Emily Maitlis. She began one interview by saying:

But first we're joined by Guy Hewitt, former High Commissioner of Barbados, which will leave the Commonwealth in November - a decision that we should say has been years in the making. It wasn't as a result of the last 24 hours. 

I can imagine, as the interview continued and Rev. Hewitt said what he had to say, that alarm bells began ringing in the studio as it dawned on them that they'd made a mistake, and that voices appeared in Emily's earpiece telling her to 'clarify' the matter. Towards the close of the segment, the following happened:

Emily Maitlis: And just let me clear up an inconsistency that I think I made. You will remain part of the Commonwealth, is that right, but you won't have the Queen...? 

Guy Hewitt: Barbados will remain...Yes, we will have a native head of state but we will remain part of the Commonwealth as the majority of members are republics.

 I don't think the "attempted suicide" error has been corrected yet. 

Ofcom 'does a BBC' over Emily Maitlis

 

In news that's unlikely to surprise anyone hereabouts, we learn today that Ofcom won't be pursuing the BBC over Emily Maitlis's infamous Dominic Cummings monologue on Newsnight. 

An Ofcom spoke says:

We consider the programme's opening monologue could be perceived as Ms Maitlis's personal view on a matter of major political controversy. 

But, having assessed the programme as a whole, we also found that a range of different viewpoints were given appropriate weight, including those of the UK government. 

Given this, and taking into account the BBC's acceptance under its own complaints processes that it fell short of its editorial guidelines, we won't be taking further action. 

We have, however, reminded the BBC that when preparing programme introductions in news programmes, to capture viewers' attention - particularly in matters of major political controversy - presenters should ensure that they do not inadvertently give the impression of setting out personal opinions or views.

It's the gentlest of raps on the knuckles. 

Ofcom is famously staffed with ex-BBC people. The language of that is pure BBC.

It "could be perceived" as Ms Maitlis's personal view? Presenters should ensure that they do not "inadvertently give the impression" of setting out personal opinions or views?

Whether or not it was solely Emily Maitlis's personal view, or the Newsnight team's point of view, it's absurd to claim that it wasn't a contentious point of view. 

And there was nothing "inadvertent" about it. It was meant.

"Emily Maitlis retweet of Piers Morgan lands BBC in new impartiality row"

Though it's fast becoming a 'dog bites man' kind of story, rather than a 'man bites dog' one, The Times reports today that Emily Maitlis has "landed the BBC in a new impartiality row".

The article begins:

Emily Maitlis has been criticised for lacking impartiality after sharing a message by the broadcaster Piers Morgan that was critical of the government. 

Maitlis, lead presenter of the BBC programme Newsnight, retweeted to her 425,000 followers on Twitter a message by Morgan that stated: “If failing to quarantine properly is punishable by 10yrs in prison, what is the punishment for failing to properly protect the country from a pandemic?” 

She was one of 12,200 people to do so but later deleted the message from her Twitter timeline.

As regular readers will know, it's not the first time she's had to delete a non-impartial tweet (or a retweet) and send it swiftly down the memory hole.

One of the key tests of Tim Davie's director generalship was his ability to rein in the likes of Emily Maitlis. 

So far she's sailed on, even despite ruling after ruling against her by the BBC itself for lapses on the impartiality front. 

Will no one at the BBC ever dare to clip her wings?

Bad News Day

 

After Donald Trump's acquittal by the US Senate tonight, I saw a tweet saying "Cue: wailing and gnashing of teeth at the BBC". 

We critics of the BBC often predict such BBC behaviour, but Newsnight's off-the-leash twitterers are making such predictions come true. In spades.

Emily Maitlis's Twitter feed in particular is wall-to-wall wailing and teeth-gnashing at the moment. She's seriously not happy with Senator Mitch McConnell. (If ever he agrees to be interviewed by her he should seriously consider wearing body armour from now on). 

And her Newsnight colleague Lewis Goodall is spitting the dummy too. He's positively aghast. All his monocles have plopped into his champagne glass in one go today.

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. 

The Case of the Deleted Tweet

 

A Twitter mystery. 

Earlier today Emily Maitlis posted a tweet about crowds at a London airport with a cryptic remark that I can't quite remember. I thought on seeing it, 'What's she getting at there?'. I assumed she be 'getting at' something, sending out dog whistles of some kind to her followers to condemn someone or something, but I moved on and postponed thinking about it again till later. 

And now that tweet has vanished. 

Enjoying a bit of detective work I've tried tracking the replies.

One demanded "context", saying the crowds were probably socially distanced and complaining that "a once world-leading Broadcaster, setting the standards for others" has sunk to "now following the clicks".

Another wrote (after the deletion), "I’m a little concerned why you have deleted your earlier tweet featuring a photo of a busy Heathrow Airport terminal? Was it inaccurate? At times like these we need to rely on a vigilant and accurate media, if we don’t have this then what do we actually have?". 

Another wrote (before the deletion), "You do realise a lot of these people would have been sitting in close proximity to each other on their flights. The question should be why are so many people flying at all? Did you need to go to the States? Couldn’t you have done the job from the studio?"

That was a theme others took up: "That's the price you pay for your two week jolly in the States, paid for by licence payers."

Someone else accused her of "stirring": "You know that everyone now flying has had the 72 hour Covid test prior to flying in which case you know these people are  Covid free! Stop stirring - again."

A clue as to what Emily Maitlis might have been 'getting at' came with this reply: "The negative effects of Brexit are already being felt as British passport holders wait in constricted airport lobby with no social distancing."

*******

And having just written all this, I see that some fine soul screengrabbed the vanished tweet:

What point do you think Emily Maitlis was trying to make? And why did she delete her tweet (without comment) after an hour or two of replies?

*******

Whatever, it highlights again the dangers of social media overactivity by BBC presenters, for themselves and for the BBC as a whole. It keeps getting them into trouble.

Plus, that "following the clicks" charge against the BBC is demonstrated by this very tweet. It was just sent out, without context, begging for clicks.

And another good question was raised in those replies: Why does Emily Maitlis keep flitting backwards and forwards between the UK and the US during a pandemic rather than leave it to the US's many US-based journalists (e.g. Jon Sopel and Anthony Zurcher)? Is such travel necessary?

*******

Evening Update: Well, well, well...

Sky News is tweeting tonight about Sky's editor-at-large (must resist cruel puns!) Adam Boulton. 

Adam's not happy:

"This is welcome to Britain... not ideal." Sky's editor-at-large @adamboultonSKY was in a queue for one hour and 20 minutes at Heathrow, returning from the United States. The airport has said a two-metre rule inside has never been feasible.

It doesn't reflect well on Adam Boulton or Sky that they clearly failed to guess how most people would (very naturally) react to that 'entitled' tweet. 

They are now, of course, getting an absolute pasting for it.

Here's a small but representative selection:  

• My heart bleeds for him. I’m sure the trip to the US was really essential too.
• I noticed Sky, BBC, Ch4 etc. all sent multiple presenters and crew members to the US this past week. Could that not be covered by people already on site or remotely? It’s no use lambasting people who are struggling to put food on the table. Expecting them to step aside for you.
• And to be fair no news reporters need to travel. Just use colleagues in the relevant countries.
• We're in the middle of a global pandemic where most of us are stuck in our houses, so my cup of sympathy about his airport woes is, quite frankly, empty.
• What was so important that he had to travel? Not heard of video calling? Instead just adds to the problem. Well done!

Many have been far less charitable.

Looking at this, Emily Maitlis now seems almost sensible for deleting her tweet. Adam Boulton and the crowd at Sky appear utterly clueless in comparison. (Kay and Beth might have a chuckle at this, if no one else).

Emily shares her embarrassment

 

Talking of last night's first Newsnight of 2021, here's how host-commentator Emily Maitlis framed the bit on US politics. (They really are obsessed with US politics.):

It's exactly two months since the US presidential election. Exactly two months since Donald Trump lost that election to Joe Biden. But two months hasn't cooled the ardour of the man who is still passionately, embarrassingly, insisting he won. In an hour-long phone call this weekend, Mr Trump first encouraged, then beseeched, then threatened Georgia's Secretary of State to overturn the result. Georgia was one of the states he lost. Unfortunately for Trump, the phone call with Brad Raffensperger was recorded and leaked to the press. It could not have come at a more critical moment. Georgia will see a run off tomorrow for two Senate seats. If the Republicans lose them, Democrats will control the Senate. Our US Correspondent David Grossman joins us from Washington.

Putting aside the disputed accuracy of how she presented this story, when did it become acceptable for BBC current affairs presenters to tell us that they find a foreign President's actions "embarrassing"? Is that within BBC editorial guidelines? Why can't she keep her "embarrassment" and her opinion to herself?

Ah, of course, she's presuming to speak for us all again. 

Frankly, I find her "embarrassing". Why doesn't Tim Davie?

The juggernaut rolls on

 

Emily Maitlis and Newsnight returned for another year last night, and it was business as usual.

They went with the familiar Newsnight approach of 'gotcha-ing' the Government, and doing so from the familiar BBC 'Why didn't they lockdown, sooner, tougher, longer?' angle.

Here's how Emily began:

Boris Johnson: From this evening, I must give the British people are very simple instruction. You must stay at home. I'm afraid you must once again stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives.  

Did we ever think, back in March, we'd be hearing it all over again today? A brand new year, a brand new lockdown. Yesterday, we were promised schools were safe, today they are shut. They won't reopen until late February. What do we know now we didn't know in December? 

Emily then mounted her soapbox and gave the nation a 'alternative prime ministerial speech' in that all-knowing, self-important style that she's quite obviously nicked from high-profile 'liberal' US commenter-presenters like Rachel Maddow. 

Having had a swipe at the Government in that introduction, she then sort-of-credited Boris for "spelling it out" after his belated "recognition" that his previous limited measures "have not worked". (Boris evidently seeing the light of Emily's superior wisdom). She then gave her authoritative take on why "the numbers are stark enough to explain the why" of the new lockdown:

Good evening. To all those who welcomed in 2021 with a renewed sense of optimism and cheer, we salute you and we want you to cling on to that feeling. Because, tonight, it will feel we are moving backwards in time, not forward, to another stay-at-home lockdown and the closure of more of our schools. This is a recognition that the measures of the last few weeks - the tier system, the cancelling of Christmas, the forbidden foreign travel - have not worked. And, this evening, the Prime Minister spelled it out. To those thinking the disease peaked last March, it didn't. Covid hospital admissions in England are now at a 40% increase on then. There's been a 30% rise in just one week. The numbers are stark enough to explain the why. But here's the how. The rules start from now and stretch until mid-February. Parliament will vote on the new laws tomorrow. Tonight, we get first reaction to the Prime Minister's announcement and ask if this means we have run out of options for controlling the disease with anything less than total shutdown. 

 More asking, less telling us what to think would be welcome.