The BBC, abortion, Trump, 'Panorama' and bias

I've not had much time to blog recently but when time permits and the impulse is upon me I sometimes find myself wasting a half hour or so of my life watching something I'd never normally watch just to check out a hunch about BBC bias. (May a host of harmonious angels singing Handel rescue me!)

Thus, having just watched Big Nick Robinson's M. Barnier-friendly Panorama on Brexit, I spotted that the subsequent Panorama edition was a US-based report by Hilary Andersson (not to be confused, despite what you might think, with Hillary Clinton). 

Now, the BBC's Hilary and biased Panorama editions go together like a horse and carriage.

We've already posted two detailed posts on the subject. 

One was a jaw-dropper on the Boston bombers - Chechen Muslim immigrants - where she tried to maintain that the Boston Marathon bombers weren't really jihadists and that America's Muslims were victims too.

The other concerned an edition of Panorama that was originally going to be called 'America's Most Hated President?' until the BBC got cold feet. Guess which President Donald Trump Hilary was asking about! It was broadcast on 14 November 2016, almost two months before The Donald actually became president. Gun-toting stereotyped white male Trump supporters duly got contrasted with young minority students fearful of Trumpian racism and Hilary's narrative cannily managed to imply that the only-just-elected president-to-be was responsible for black people being shot by the US police.

Now, on seeing that the subject was 'America's Abortion Wars' and then spotting Hilary Andersson's name, I expected the programme to make a pretence of impartiality but frame the narrative so as to very firmly push the social liberal rather than the social conservative side of the matter.

And guess what? Well, this is the BBC, so it was inevitable really. Should I bother laying out the evidence then?

Well, why not?

OK.

"We ask, could women here lose the right to abortion?", was the way the introduction framed the Big Question, and Hilary immediately began by talking of abortion clinics being "under siege" and of the "vitriol".

We were then introduced to Dr. Robinson, a black, female abortionist in the Deep South who also delivers babies. She's "regularly harassed" by anti-abortionists and "she has good reason to be afraid". I immediately spotted her as the heroine of the story.

Then we meet 22 year old Sandra, who wants an abortion. She having to move states. And there's sad music to accompany her story. BBC Hilary sat in on Sandra's abortion and confessed "I found it really hard to watch", but she told us that Sandra felt "relief" and Sandra then told us that herself.

What of the change of law in rose-filled Alabamy?. As Hilary narrates the politics there the programme shows a sign commemorating Rosa Parks and her anti-racism bus boycott. Is that just for local colour, or to slyly link anti-abortionists with white supremacists? (about 8 mins in).

"You could go to jail for up to 99 years", Hilary says to our heroine, Dr. Robinson, before going on, "And it's not just Alabama. 11 other states have joined the crusade" [not a positive word in the BBC's world].

Now we meet our first anti-abortion 'talking head'. It's Phil Bryant, Governor of Mississippi . He doesn't get to say much, before it's onto Kathryn Kolbert, captioned as a 'reproductive rights lawyer', and the programme's main 'impartial expert'. She doesn't sound at all keen on the conservative way things are going. 

Next comes Maralyn Moseley, an elderly black women who experienced bad things, abortion-wise, in the bad old days of backstreet abortions and then became a pro-abortion campaigner. You might well guess the gist of what she said.

Time for politics, and conservatives, Trump and the US Supreme Court majority: "So could Americans lose their right to abortion?", asked Hilary. 

Kathryn Kolbert, 'reproductive rights lawyer', appeared again to say, not approvingly, that Republicans will overturn Roe v Wade.

Then it was back to Gov. Bryant: "Won't banning abortion lead to more back street abortions?", asked Hilary. 

Off then to Our Kansas, or - as some call it -Arkansas. "It's not called the Bible Belt for nothing", said Hilary. "Most people here - and most women - oppose abortion". Life begins at conception they believe and, she added, "must be preserved at almost any cost".

Time for a spot of 'BBC balance: Here's white, middle-aged Kandi, a mother of seven who had an abortion at 19 and is "still traumatised" by what happened. "Kandi turned to religion", said Hilary, and set up an adoption agency to provide women with an alternative to abortion. Kandi adopted one such unborn girl herself (Anne Marie) - a girl with an incurable skin disease who's "in constant pain" but who has already lived longer than anyone predicted. 

That sounded sympathetic from Hilary Andersson, but then came: "And even if Anne Marie's mother was raped, it makes no difference to Kandi", and she went on:

In America today the most personal matters have become political. If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, the abortion bans in nine states will even apply to women who've been raped and to those whose children would be born with severe disabilities.

And, to counter Kandi, here came Dina from Alabama, raped at 17,who found out she was pregnant 8 months in and gave birth to a severely disabled child. She told Hilary that she loved the child, but she constantly brought back memories of the rape and her sense of women's shame, imbibed from her dad's religion (which "crushed her"). Little Zoe "had a short, painful life". Dina's "outraged" that women, even in early pregnancy, may "soon lose the right to abortion here". She would have terminated her pregnancy if she could have.
.

"To Governor Bryant though abortion is simply murder", Hilary said next, before asking him:

• "You want to ban abortion even in the cases where a woman has been raped or the victim of incest. Is that right?"
• "But just looking at the issue itself, it's a very difficult issue for a woman to carry her rapist's child".

Republican Governor Bryant was the baddie 'in the dock' on Panorama. 

So what of the 2020 president election? Donald Trump's recent anti-abortion remarks at a rally led Hilary Andersson to suggest electoral reasons for so doing, and her main 'talking head', Kathryn Kolbert, 'reproductive rights lawyer', accused the President of using "red meat everywhere" because "it riles up his base". Possibly echoing Panorama's use of that Rosa Parks sign earlier in the programme, Kathryn listed "white nationalists" among those supporting President Trump here.

Ah, but, as Hilary then said, "the majority of Americans - around 60% - broadly support the right for abortion". {How broadly?]

And, sticking with Donald Trump and keen to make a 'reality check' point, Hilary continued: 

And now the fight's getting really ugly. President Trump is focusing the debate around the most sensitive issue - abortions in the late stages of pregnancy, which he describes like this: 

"The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so". 

What he described is not a method of abortion used in America. Over 98% of abortions take place before 21 weeks. Very late abortions are rare. Women who seek them out, often desperate."

It was then back to Dina, defending late-term abortions. 

Hilary then talked to a late-term abortion doctor from Washington DC, "one of the most staunchly pro-abortion parts of America" - Dr Leroy Carhart. She called him "one of the most controversial abortionists" and asked him "You don't have a problem with killing a baby?", but was a good deal more sympathetic towards him that she was towards the Governor of Mississippi. "He believes they're [anti-abortionists] trying to push women back into the Dark Ages".

Back then to Gov. Bryant of Mississippi then to repeat that point: "Is there a bigger picture here that you and President Trump are trying to turn the clock back, bring America back to what you see as a more moral kind of age?" 

And then came the programme's concluding passages (minus the 'talking head' clips):

• "Dr Robinson has carried out 24 abortions this week but today it's time to deliver a new life. It's a girl. The abortion bans may be struck down but women's right to choose in large parts of America has not been in this much jeopardy for decades". Dr Robinson fears for the next generation..."
• "For all the politics raging around abortion in America the issue is deeply personal for Kandi - Anne Marie living proof, in her view, that all life is precious..."
• "America's changing profoundly under President Trump. At stake with abortion, what kind of country this will be - one where women can control their own destiny, or a nation where, in the name of God, life always comes first."

I suppose this programme must have passed the BBC's impartiality test - just as the two other Hilary Andersson Panorama programmes must have done, despite neither of them, or this one, being anywhere nearly truly fair, open-minded and impartial.

On the question of abortion especially I'd expect nothing less (or more) from the ultra-socially liberal, anti-Trump BBC.

"America's Most Hated President?"

Did you see tonight's Panorama? 

It was originally going to be called America's Most Hated President? but the BBC clearly had second thoughts about this inflammatory title and changed it to Trump's New America instead.

The programme itself remained pretty inflammatory however, with reporter Hilary Andersson stoking up racial tensions throughout. 

There was a recent report on Newsnight where the chosen Trump supporters were part of a fringe, survivalist group. That seemed a bit odd at the time. It seems a little less odd now though because tonight's Panorama did much the same by going to a gun-toting, white, male, middle-aged Texan civil defence group to find its 'typical' Trump supporters. 

The Twitter reaction has been striking and surprising. It has been largely negative and full of people saying this was the most biased BBC programme they've ever seen. I agree with a lot of their criticisms and will share them with you here.

A lot of them focused on this "stereotyping" of Trump supporters as "redneck males", eg: 

Really lazy and stereotypical reporting. Rednecks with guns don't make up the 60 million votes that Trump achieved. 

"Who shall we interview about Trump? I know, let's go to Lone Star Texas and interview some gun nuts. That's representative."

Watched @BBCPanorama. The redneck male Trump supporter is not the full story - he was also propelled to power by 53% white women. 

@BBCPanorama Disgraceful stereotyping of Trump supporters. I am no fan of Trump but some well-educated people voted for him. #propaganda. 

How will #bbcpanorama portray the Trump vote? Outset: already selective: ill-educated rednecks then 'educated middle class'...

Of course, the Trump-supporting rednecks weren't the real focus on Hilary Andersson's Panorama. It was those who hate or fear a Donald Trump presidency that were her main focus. Cue people on Twitter again:

Hilary Anderson's report was biased to the point of inciting hatred. She chose an all black/Latino group to discuss racism.

Anderson focused on uneducated white Trump voters and on lefty, coloured college-educated Clinton voters? BBC agenda is vile.

And the programme ended with Black Lives Matter and some highly tendentious reporting from Ms Andersson which the following tweets capture quite accurately:

More biased bullshit from our "trusted" BBC. This time Trump is the cause for police brutality on blacks. Obama's police!

To be clear what's your programme about: Trump or police shootings? Sloppy reporting. One argument doesn't prove the other.

Somehow trying to blame pre-Trump police shootings of black US citizens on Trump...Great journalism.

And to conclude, here's a final selection of tweets about tonight's Panorama:

Not recognisable from the brilliant programme it used to be, ruined by political correctness - as most @bbc programmes are.

I'm no Trump fan but, @BBCPanorama, what happened to quality reporting? This is liberal sob story nonsense.

Only wanted to get a balanced impression of "Trump's New America". That was an appalling programme. Thoroughly negative & one-sided.

Shows MSM still haven't got it. Programme dominated by guns and threat of civil war. Little mention of opportunity of new Presidency.

Can I have the part of my licence fee back that paid for the lefty American to go home all expenses paid please? One sided!

'Panorama' - The Brothers Who Bombed Boston

It's a little late at night to draw any  considered conclusions yet, but I thought it might be helpful to provide a detailed overview of tonight's Panorama on BBC one, complete with some direct quotes from it. 

The two main messages given by this evening's Panorama were right there from the programme's introduction however - and they couldn't have been clearer.

Hilary Andersson: "Were they fanatical jihadists or just angry young men?"

A friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev: "I never really knew about him praying much at all".

Hilary Andersson:  "Have far is America prepared to go?...Some moderate Muslims are saying spying's gone too far".

Nichole Mossalam, Islamic Society of Boston: "If you think that there is one or two things slipping through the cracks now, it's gonna be ten times as worse if that's how they want to deal with it."  

[the 'Panorama' logo then rolled]

After a full  outline of the background...

We heard from one of the Tsarnaev brother's wrestling coach Peter Payack and a friend Luis Vasquez. Of the elder brother, they painted the picture of a young man who came to America and fell in love with the country.

"It was his fashion taste he stood out for, not any devotion to Islam", said Hilary Andersson.

He wanted to compete for America at boxing in the Olympics, but he was barred from contesting at a national level because he didn't have American citizenship. That's why he started hating America. Tamerlan Tsarnaev developed a passion for Islam and began reading about anti-Semitism. His wife converted to Islam. 

Some of his friends are unwilling to speak publicly are they're "afraid of being associated with terrorism", said Hilary.

One, "Mike", told us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev began criticising American for attacking Middle East countries and wanting oil.

Jahar Tsarnaev, the younger brother, seemed a regular American teenager. Did he pray a lot?", asked Hilary. No, she was told.

Jahar had "deep strife at home" - his parents divorcing, his dad's brain tumour, smoking pot "while his brother tried to ram pot-heated religion into him" (as Tamerlan didn't approve of his party lifestyle). 

Then his mother "found religion". We heard from the mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, thanking Allah for helping her through all this.

We heard a brief clip of Congressman Mike Rogers stating his belief that the mother was involved in the brothers' radicalisation.

"We spoke to Zubeidat last week. She denied the congressman's allegations," said Hilary in response. [And that was that!]

Aaron Zelin from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy described Tamerlan's YouTube page. He was, said Hilary Andersson, "interested in Muslim prophecies of apocalyptic battles and in videos glorifying the Islamic struggle for independence from Russia". Russia warned the FBI after he went  to Dagestan & Chechenya. It's not clear if he got any training there, she added [and that was that too!], but the FBI missed his return - which was a "massive oversight". 

She said, 

"...he had frequent outbursts, angry about US drones killing Muslims and about Russia, but still he only turned up to pray occasionally at this, his Boston mosque. He had two outbursts here, though they said he never talked the language of someone who fully understood radical jihad."

We heard at that point from Nichole Mossalam of the Islamic Society of Boston: 

"There would have been more outbursts than what there were. There would have been confrontations with individual members as they tried to sway people over to their side, their way of thinking. They are intolerant in all aspects of their lives. So if this was going on, whether discreetly or not, someone would have said something." 

Hilary Andersson continued:

"And we found out that Tamerlan's interests here at home were not just Islamic. He subscribed to publications about government conspiracies, gun rights and white supremacy. He also read about mass shootings. Tamerlan was perhaps not so much the true radical jihadist as a deeply troubled young man who latched onto Islam."

[That shot of the anti-Semitic AFP - see the previous post-but-one has the 'conspiracies' headline clear for viewers to see but  everything at the top of the page remains blurred].

Peter Payack, the wrestling coach, was deeply shocked.

Hilary Andersson continued:

"No Islamic group has claimed any connection with the Boston bombings. The brothers became extremists in the privacy of their American home. They seem to be lone wolves." 

Aaron Zelin immediately added, 

"al-Qaeda has begun to call for lone-wolf attacks in the past three or four years and it's possible that this could have resulted in what we saw in the UK and France related into some of the attacks against the soldiers."

The programme then shifted to New York.

"But if the next terrorist is already right here, in America, operating alone, then it could be almost anyone. So how far is America prepared to go to find them? Some say it's time to take the gloves off."

Then came a clip of Congressman Jeff Duncan, Republican [always clearly labelled 'Republican']:

"Political correctness has got to stop with regard to the war on terror. As we go forward, no holds barred. We need to infiltrate the groups we feel are threatening the American way of life". 

There have been at least 40 attempted terror plots since 9/11, but several have slipped through the net. Hilary Andersson went to the control centre for the New York Police Department and spoke to Jessica Tisch of the NYPD Counter-Terrorism unit who showed her what they do.

I'll transcribe this next section in full:

Hilary Andersson:

"But is there more to this than meets the eye? [Cue scary background music!] The NYPD has been accused of spying on Muslims over at least a hundred mile radius. These secret documents show how the police have mapped Muslims shops and mosques, block by block, over the city of Newark so they can listen in on 'locations of concern'. Like many Muslim establishments this mosque was listed in the report. Few pray here now. Police informants have infiltrated some mosques posing as locals. Now no one is sure who is who and the mosque leaders say no one here has ever been charged with any terrorist connections. Glenn Katon is suing the NYPD on behalf of Muslims here for what he calls 'blatant religious discrimination'."

Glenn Katon, legal director, Muslim Advocates:

"This whole programme treats Muslims as inherently suspect, which is exactly what our constitution forbids, right. It's only Muslims. As if Muslims are the only ones who are committing, you know, criminal or even terrorist acts."

Hilary Andersson:

"New York's police are trying to built relations with the Muslim community. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly says there is no spy programme."

Ray Kelly, Commissioner, NYPD [being interviewed by Hilary]: 

"The so-called mapping that we've been doing was authorised by the court to find out more information about where communities are in this most diverse city." 

Hilary Andersson: 

"I'm just trying to get an understanding of how your surveillance of the Muslim communities work. You're saying that basically the..." 

Ray Kelly, interrupting her:

"Right, no, I mean, I think you're characterising in the wrong way. "Surveillance of the Muslim community". We don't do that. What we do is follow leads in an investigation and we'll go wherever those leads take us. But surveillance of the Muslim community is not happening."

Hilary Andersson [and dissonant music again]: 

"In Washington some politicians don't mine their words, saying surveillance of Muslims could stop another Boston-style attack".  

Congressman Jeff Duncan, Republican:  

"We've infiltrated drug cartels. We've infiltrated the Mafia  So what's wrong...what's so wrong with infiltrating the mosque and the Muslim community with law enforcement to try to thwart the deaths of Americans, like we saw in Boston?"

Hilary Andersson:

"The problem though is one of trust. At Tamerlan's mosque in Boston they say they'd naturally have reported Tamerlan if he had seemed like a radical but they said that other mosques being spied on might not feel so inclined."

Nichole Mossalam, Islamic Society of Boston:

"If you can't trust me I'm not gonna trust you. If I bring you information are you going to be grateful, or are you going to assume I'm in on the plot and put me in jail? [Hilary looking on sympathetically] If you think there is one or two things slipping through the cracks now, it's gonna be ten times as worse if that's how they want to deal with it." 

Hilary Andersson [to Congressman Duncan, Republican]: 

"If law enforcement is looking for that kind of stereotypical radical Muslim and that's not who the Boston bombers were, isn't that a huge problem, because you're making that community angry and also potentially missing the real threat?"

Congressman Jeff Duncan, Republican: 

"The Boston radicalisation of Tamerlan wasn't an isolated incident. [Hilary looking on less sympathetically] This has happened and so the Muslim community doesn't have to get angry. They can willingly assist us and provide information about..when they see bad things happening."

After bringing the story of Jahar Tsarnaev's trial and the plight of one of the victims up to date, we came to the programme's closing words from Hilary Andersson:

"A relay across America came into Boston the night before we left. Some of the victims braved coming here to the same finish line, an act of defiance in a country now living with a new kind of terrorist - the enemy within."

Update: Actually, I will add a few extra comments tonight.

The programme was an absolutely classic piece of narrative reporting. 

The two main messages - that the Boston bombers weren't really jihadists and that America's Muslims are being victimised - were stated straight away.

The first half of the programme made the case for the first message. 

A few of the known Islamist aspects to the bombers' lives were acknowledged, but many others weren't - and those of you who have been following the story closely will spot many of the missing details. Very little time was spent examining what happened in Chechenya and Dagestan, for example.

No, instead the message that these were troubled young men, lone wolves, who merely latched onto Islam was reinforced again and again. Even the 'white supremacy' angle (which the BBC website led the way in spotlighting today) turned out to be there just to re-emphasize the point that these were crazy, mixed-up kids. 

Having 'established' that point, the programme moved on to its second message - that America's Muslims are being unjustly targeted by the authorities. 

The narrative arc here started with a Republican congressman sounding a bit harsh. Then Hilary Andersson showed us the NYPD's surveillance programme up close, letting us see just how powerful (and potentially intimidating) it is.

Scary music starts up. 'Secret' documents have been found showing that Muslims are being spied on en masse. A lawyer protests - unchallenged -  on the Muslims' behalf.

Thus set up for a fall, the NYPD Commissioner is made to look like a liar by denying the spying Hilary has just 'shown'. She challenges him.

The mean Republican congressman returns, to more scary music, and he's introduced as 'not mincing his words'.

Hilary's narrative then contradicts him and puts the Muslims' case for them before the Muslim spokeswoman repeats it, in her own words, with Hilary's sympathetic eyes upon her.

Straight back to the Republican congressman and an immediate challenge to him from Hilary - a challenge which encapsulates the programme's two messages in a single statement:

"If law enforcement is looking for that kind of stereotypical radical Muslim and that's not who the Boston bombers were, isn't that a huge problem, because you're making that community angry and also potentially missing the real threat?"

The congressman gives a short, hardly adequate response.

And that's that. A quick update, and it's on to the closing 'it's a new kind of terrorist - the enemy within' soundbite. 

This was an opinion piece, an argument, much more than an investigation. It had two messages it wanted to put across and put them across as effectively as it could - admitting the odd dissonant thought about Islamist influences but immediately smoothing them away to allow the full flow of Hilary Andersson's argument to reach its always-intended end point. 

Alarm bells

Tonight's Panorama, The Brothers Who Bombed Boston, looks as if it's going to try to paint the Boston bombing suspects as being more akin to far-right, anti-government white supremacists than to Muslim jihadists. 

As if the two things are mutually exclusive. 

After all many Muslim jihadists share the same hatred of Jews and the American government as those on the conspiracist far-right - and expressions of admiration for Hitler are far from uncommon among Islamists.  

The programme's blurb raises alarm bells:

On the 15th of April, in the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, two homemade bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring more than 200 participants and spectators. With interviews with those who knew them, Panorama reporter Hilary Andersson explores how the two suspected bombers - brothers raised and educated in the US - became radicalised, and asks if America's war on terror has come home.

With the surviving brother due to stand trial later this year, she goes on patrol with New York Police Department's anti-terrorist squad which uses the latest technology to protect New Yorkers from future terrorist attacks. But she finds a backlash amongst many Muslims in America against law enforcement programmes they believe are designed specifically to profile, map and spy on Muslims. Panorama asks: are the authorities spying on the right people? 

"...and asks if America's war on terror has come home" has an ominous ring to it. Is Hilary going to imply that America brought the Boston bombing on itself through its own foreign policy or security strategies?

The focus then looks to shift to the usual one for the BBC - changing the story from an attack by Muslim terrorists into an attack on Muslims  (the inevitable "backlash" angle we're so familiar with from the corporation).

The closing question, "Panorama asks: are the authorities spying on the right people?", leads me to suspect that the "right people" won't turn out to be Muslim extremists but white, right-wing Americans instead - the very people the BBC speculated were really responsible for the attacks in the first place. 

So, are we about to see a revelatory BBC investigation that changes everything we thought we knew about the Boston bombings, or are we able to see a manipulative piece of BBC agenda-pushing? 

Well, we'll see.

Those alarm bells might not have rung so loudly were it not for a post by the ever-excellent DB at Biased BBC:

BBC tries to blur the lines over Boston bomber

DB spots that the video report accompanying the BBC website write-up shows Hilary Andersson looking at the right-wing American publications one of the Tsarnaev brothers is said to have read.

For some reason the BBC has blurred the footage of the literature that Andersson is reading so that only a couple of headlines can be made out. 

DB then wondered "why the BBC [is] so reluctant to identify the publications that Andersson is seen reading?" (You can see his screengrab at Biased BBC).

DB identifies the publication in the blurred image as being from the American Free Press (AFP) - "a vehemently anti-Semitic weekly paper which peddles all manner of conspiracy theory, usually linked in some way to the neocon New World Order that’s run by the Jews."

Here's the nub though:

What doesn’t quite fit Andersson’s narrative, and perhaps explains the reluctance to identify the publication, is that while the AFP is very anti-Jewish, it is also sympathetic to Muslim grievances. In one article which blames pro-Israeli propaganda for inciting Anders Breivik’s horrific murderous spree, the writer says Europeans should fear Jews, not Muslims.

DB details several further examples of this - its defence of Iran's Press TV, its anti-Gitmo stance - and adds: 

"I imagine quite a few young Muslims read the American Free Press. It spouts the same bullshit that Islamists do, and that is what will have appealed to Tamerlan....It’ll be interesting to see if the full Panorama programme highlights any of the above information, because the teaser items certainly haven’t."

It will indeed be interesting to see if Panorama does that tonight.