“Is no one checking scripts any more?”

Under the headline BBC facing brain drain as exodus goes deeper than just the big names, The Sunday Times's media editor Rosamund Urwin reports on the mood of “despondency” among BBC news employees as the leaving parties pile up. The paper says the BBC “has lost more than 2,500 years of experience...since January 2020”, and another thousand employees might go.

As for BBC profligacy, I was particularly taken by this passage:

In her book, Scoops, published this week, Sam McAlister, the former Newsnight producer who clinched the interview with Prince Andrew, writes of a famous BBC presenter “who spent more money in taxi expenses than I earned in an entire year. Actually, not once, several times. I’d check to see I’d finally managed to out-earn his taxi expenses every year. I never did.”

Meanwhile on Twitter...

One of the earlier departed, Hugh Sykes, was listening to Radio 4 last night. From the sounds of it, a BBC programme was praising the BBC. That led to the following thread:

•  'A Hard Look At Soft Power' on BBC Radio 4  gave BBC News as one of the best examples, but it's at risk due to the over-75s licence deal scandalously agreed by ex d-g Tony Hall with John Whittingdale which slashed the BBC budget by 20%. Accuracy is one of the casualties - eg (more): 
• Inaccuracies are creeping into BBC News. For example, news bulletins describing abortion as a 'Constitutional right' in the USA. It has never been that. It isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Roe Vs Wade only made it a l e g a l right. Is no one checking scripts any more? 
• Conservatives politicians (like Nadine Dorries) undermining the BBC with tendentious ideological attacks may regret it when they are out of power and they find that the BBC is no longer holding their opposition successors robustly to account. 
• In Iraq nearly 20 years ago I had to explain the BBC Gilligan/Dodgy Dossier/David Kelly/Hutton row to a taxi driver. When I'd finished, he asked "So. BBC not government?!" No, I said, BBC not government. That needs to remain true if this British soft power is to remain powerful.

“Is no one checking scripts any more?”, asks Hugh. 

Well, on his specific point - e.g. on Saturday 2 July, the BBC News Channel repeatedly said, throughout the day, “It comes after the US Supreme Court's decision to remove a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.” - one person who evidently isn't is Amol Rajan. Here's Amol interviewing Billie Jean King:

At the time of our speaking, we have only seen the draft judgment of a proposal to overturn Roe v Wade, which is the landmark case of 1973 which enshrined a woman's constitutional right to an abortion in the US.

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.

Hearts

The Boy with Two Hearts is not only a tale of a family in crisis, but a love letter to the NHS, which provided hope and reassurance as they sought asylum in the UK and fought to save their loved ones - BBC blurb

Jane Kelly of The Conservative Woman, The Spectator and The Salisbury Review poses a question:

BBC Radio 4's Book of the Week is the adventure of a family from Afghanistan travelling through Europe to the UK to use the NHS. The premise of the book is not challenged in any way & I wonder who in the BBC metropolitan bubble selected it?

The BBC's Hugh Sykes replies:

Someone with a heart (and a heart in better health than Hussein's).

From inside the Bubble

Shock news: Hugh Sykes likes Guardian writers praising the BBC:

Hugh Sykes: Heartening, and heartfelt, tribute to the BBC by Nesrine Malik in today's Guardian: "To be a BBC listener or viewer doesn’t feel like being a consumer, exchanging money for a product, it feels like being a partner, an owner of the material."

Giving how often Nesrine's on the BBC I'm not surprised she feels like being 'a partner' and 'an owner of its material'.

"BBC-bashing comes from a place of privilege", she writes without irony.

Hugh Sykes strikes again?

😀

Made me laugh @craigmorecambe I wonder if Hugh Sykes was pulling twitter promo duty? pic.twitter.com/kKVjE4GP60

— Peter ‘Custom Stella’ Martin (@JunkkMale) January 12, 2020

Chunter

To quote MB on the open thread, "H/T to Guest Who on the "other channel"... Hugh's got his handbag out and has just walloped Andrew Marr":

A drawback of this @BBCRadio4 disco about political interviews, presented by @AndrewMarr9 (including his glorious grumble that Boris Johnson was 'chuntering'), is no one's so far dared say Marr's questions were also chunter & nowhere near as forensic as @afneil's would have been.

— Hugh Sykes (@HughSykes) January 11, 2020

In fairness, though, that 'disco' - Archive on 4: Questioning the Political Interview -  did include a moment that made be chuckle (around 35 minutes in) when George Osborne referred to "the very best interviewers" and named John Humphrys and Andrew Neil, and then, with a laugh, added - very obviously as a sudden afterthought - "and yourself, Andrew".

What to say?

Well, it seems - though the BBC remains cautious about this - that the founder of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Bigdaddy, has finally been decaliphinated by Donald Trump's special forces.

The BBC's elders are now chewing the cud on the matter:

John Simpson: The real credit for the death of al-Baghdadi must surely go to the dogged policework of US intelligence - plus, no doubt, the huge reward money to give him up.  

Hugh Sykes: Making up for all the lack of US intelligence which left so many resentful and angry Baathists and army officers without a future after 2003, allowing them to help Zarkawi & Al Qaeda at first and then Baghdadi to kill so many hundreds of Syrians and Iraqis. 

John Simpson: That really was Paul Bremer’s doing. As I understand it the US military and intelligence disagreed. 

Hugh Sykes: Yes. US military I was often embedded with around that time were hopping mad but wouldn't hop madly for my microphone. "Oh, Hugh, I w i s h I could go on the record!" one batallion commander said to me in desperation. And I was thinking of 'intelligence' in the IQ sense as well!

Nocturnal Twitterings VI

(Unexpected, this one:)

Hugh Sykes, BBC: Hey Extinction Rebellion! Aviation accounts for 2 to 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cement manufacture produces four times as much CO2: 8%. Why are you targetting minor offender London City Airport instead of cement factories?...And annoyance in anyone who knows the facts instead of being seduced into this messianic new religion without doing a bit of (easy) research first.

"His grubby organisation"

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published its findings this week on allegations linked to the Archdiocese of Birmingham when the present leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, served archbishop there. The IICSA found that the then Archbishop of Birmingham defended the reputation of the church rather than protecting children in the face of allegations of sexual abuse.

The BBC has some involvement in the story. According to The Guardian:

In 2003 the BBC broadcast a documentary that traced [serial child abuser and priest James] Robinson to a caravan park in the US. Nichols issued a press release complaining that the programme was “hostile” to the Catholic church. This response was “misplaced and missed the point”, the IICSA report said."

Veteran BBC reporter Hugh Sykes's take on this is quite startling:

Putting 'cardinal' in inverted commas and describing the whole Catholic Church as a "grubby organisation" suggests real anger from Hugh.

Et tu, Hugh?

I read a tweet earlier today from the estimable Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, which said in response to another tweet:

Stephen has subsequently deleted this tweet, whilst retaining the link to show his own error - which is an admirable way to behave. Own up, don't hide what you got wrong, and take action:

Having seen this, I suspected that some of our BBC favourites would have leaped on that Mark Elliott tweet with all the relish of half-starved lions (especially post-Mueller). And, yes, one of my first ports of call, our old friend Hugh Sykes, was indeed on it like a lion up a massive lion-sized drainpipe that includes branches so the lion can climb up it and that already has a tasty deer carcass at the top of it to make all the effort worthwhile (#extendedmetaphorsaregreat):

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing Hugh won't be owning up and deleting his tweet. 

As Benjamin Franklin said...

In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes and that John Simpson would heartily approve of the election of a progressive liberal in Slovakia:

His fellow BBC veteran Hugh Sykes is with him all the way, and adds a further point:

Isn't it nice to see these two BBC old-timers sharing their joy at an election result for once?

You may say that he's a dreamer...

(h/t DB)

A certain veteran BBC reporter lays his coat of views at the door of the BBC, apparently. But on Twitter....

"How could you disagree with that?"

A Twitter thread, featuring veteran BBC reporter Hugh Sykes... (h/t Clockworkorange)

Hugh Sykes: Lest We Forget. A memorial in Calais to five young members of the Resistance, "shot here at dawn on September 3rd 1944." Now, Germany and France are at peace with prosperity - and the UK, which helped to achieve both, is in danger of forgetting....

Jane Dunning: I've just finished They Fought Alone by Maurice Buckmaster (F Section SOE). Towards the end of the book, resisters head off to an encounter shouting 'Vive la France! Vive l'Angleterre!'. I felt sad reading this. We are making a huge mistake.

Graves of the Free French in Gordes, Luberon (fairly near Avignon). I'm planning a French Resistance element to Book 3 of my trilogy.

Hugh Sykes: A relative of my wife's was in the resistance in the Haut Morgon, and guided British gliders in at night with the headlights of his car.

Jane Dunning: It must've been terrifying.

Hugh Sykes: When he told me about it, he told me with pride and delight and with no hint of fear.

Jane Dunning: Good. It must've changed everyone so much. I wonder how everyone returned to normality after the conflict ended.

Hugh Sykes: I'm not sure they all did.

Douglas McWilliams: Don’t push it too far. Economic integration has in general reduced tensions, but the Euro has ramped them up. I suspect the lack of war is more because we all exhausted ourselves last time than because of any institutional arrangements.

Hugh Sykes: Enduring peace since 1945 between nations which fought each other with vicious destruction and startling loss of life in two wars in the last century has been an astonishing achievement which it is criminal to jeopardise. [Image: Cologne 1945]

Douglas McWilliams: Thanks for the response. Obviously I disagree with you....but have a good weekend.

Hugh Sykes: How could you disagree with that? Peace is precious.

Douglas McWilliams: I don’t think Brexit places any risk to peace.

Hugh Sykes: The UK is part of a union of mutual trust & cooperation that has helped to anchor priceless peace in Europe for 75 years. There is an ignorant & dangerous undercurrent to Brexit - of xenophobia stoked by people too young (or unimaginative) to know what they are putting at risk.

Foreign affairs

Especially for those of you who don't use Twitter...It's really easy to click on a random tweet that various algorithms forward in your direction. And, yes, I clicked on one yesterday morning. It came from this fine, upstanding-looking fellow:

Watch UK foreign secretary yesterday betray an astonishing apparent ignorance of the Cold War period by telling the people of #Slovenia they were once a “Soviet vassal state”, ignoring that the former #Yugoslavia was ferociously non aligned and independentpic.twitter.com/iLPC529d7U

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) February 22, 2019

Now, as a BBC-watcher, what really caught my attention here was that Mr. Shoebridge went on to predict that the mainstream media (including the BBC) would not report Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's embarrassing blunder in stating, in the very presence of the Slovene leader, that the former (Titoist) Yugoslav republic Slovenia was a "Soviet vassal state".

And, by and large, Charles hasn't been wrong, has he? (Yes, I've checked).

Now, the odd thing here is that Charles Shoebridge turns out to be a left-wing, Craig-Murray-type and that he's going at this from the 'the BBC is a state media lackey of the US/UK military-industrial complex' angle...

...while, in contrast, I'm going at it from the 'Well, the BBC would have gone absolutely haywire and made this headline news for days if ever their pro-Brexit bogeyman Boris Johnson had commited such a spectacularly historically uninformed gaffe' angle.

Anyhow, I have to say (and I sincerely thank myself for so doing) that I still think that I'm nearer the truth here that the esteemed Charles, and I'm presently toasting myself in consequence, in true John Sweeney fashion, with a flaming sambuca on BBC expenses. (In reality, an under £5 Pinot Noir from Aldi).

But, in fairness - and I'm sure Mr. Shoebridge will appreciate this - at least the eternal flame of the true spirit of the BBC (alongside the mighty John Simpson) - namely veteran BBC reporter Hugh Sykes - is on the present Foreign Secretary's case, agreeing (on Twitter) with a professor that poshly-educated Mr. Hunt may have graduated with first class honours from one of the twp usual posh universities but that - in BBC Hugh's words - Mr. Hunt is "clever but not very bright".

...breaking news...BBC reporter says Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is "not very bright"...breaking news...BBC reporter says Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is "not very bright"...breaking news...BBC reporter says Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is "not very bright"...BBC reporter Hugh Sykes says he hangs his view up with his coat at the BBC door...breaking news...Empire star Jussie Smollett says he's been attacked by a racist emu...breaking news....Empire star Jussie Smollett says he's been attacked by a racist emu...breaking news...the late Rod Hull has refused the BBC's request for a comment...breaking news. .the late Rod Hull has refused the BBC's request for a comment....BBC reporter says Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is "not very bright"...breaking news...(etc)...

*******

And by a remarkable coincidence, Mr. Shoebridge also cropped up related to other story getting the Media Lens end of the internet (including Mr. Shoebridge) excited: "BREAKING: BBC journalist confirms the Douma chemical attack was staged by the White Helmets. The US bombed Syria over this". 

Riam Dalati's job title is "BBC Syria Producer". He often works with Quentin Somerville, and both Quentin and Lyse Doucet have been tweeted for their reactions to this. (They've not responded yet): 

So what's this all about?

Viva Hugh Sykes!

Late night bonus post...

We here at Is the BBC Biased? are very fond of BBC veteran reporter Hugh Sykes. 

We think of him as the authentic, time-honoured voice of the BBC. 

His Twitter feed remains a joy. He pronounces himself to be something of a contrarian, but his Twitter contrarianism almost invariably chimes with BBC orthodoxy, and - even better - is expressed neat rather than diluted.

Read through the great man's latest tweets (views his own) and you'll find someone who really doesn't agree with pro-Brexit Tory MP Mark Francois over Brexit and will re-tweet anything (however rude) attacking the MP for his views, again and again and again.

And you'll also find someone who'll willingly plug ex-BBC colleague Gavin Esler's intemperate anti-Brexit tweets slamming "Jacob and Boris and Nigel", in addition to promoting numerous other anti-Brexit tweets from various sources. 

You won't find any pro-Brexit re-tweets from Our Hugh Of The BBC. 

Strikingly, he's someone who will even re-tweet attacks on his BBC colleagues if, regarding the case of John Humphrys, he follows the Twitter mob in smoking out a BBC presenter who might just harbour forbidden pro-Brexit views. 

Interestingly, Hugh also repeatedly re-tweets attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, Len McCluskey and Seamus Milne from the same pro-EU perspective.

So far so (mainly) obvious, and present-day BBC.

But, interestingly, Hugh then re-tweeted a Sinn Fein MP defending the Maduro government's legitimacy in Venezuela, plus criticisms of US foreign policy over Afghanistan (from the 'it's all about oil' angle), and support for left-liberal hero George Clooney's criticisms of the US government's position on Sudan.

That seems like good, old-school BBC leftism.

Stuff mocking Trump and talking of climate change follows, going back chronologically.  

And this is just a dip-in from the last couple of days. 

Long may Good Old Hugh keep on refusing to hang up his coat of non-impartial views on Twitter. It helps me figure out the BBC's view on subject after subject. 

In Praise of DB

Talking of DB (me and Sue's old blogging pal), he's on fire again at the moment, and his Twitter feed is a must - if you're into Twitter.

Please follow him if you can.

Here's a selection of his posts from the first three weeks of 2019:

I

Hmm. Maria reminds me of another pro-EU Newsnight employee with a Polish-sounding name, Maya Rostowski. Maya's apparent heavy involvement in a report slagging off her pro-EU Polish politician dad's political opponents, the conservative Law and Justice, raised eyebrows - to put it mildly.

II

Nomia's not a Rod Liddle fan, obviously. 

(In contrast, I thought this from Rod in this week's Spectator, on a related theme, was another gem from the former Today editor).

Nomia isn't new to us. She did a pro-hijab report for BBC One's news bulletins.

III

And here's that very The Young Talks video for your delectation, featuring alt-right-obsessed, left-wing, ever-so-impartial, senior BBC Trending guru Mike Wendling. Enjoy!

IV

This preceded the previous example of the BBC leaping on an anti-Trump story from a major US mainstream media source and swallowing and regurgitating it hook, line and sinker (see next-to-last post). Here the BBC, making it their top News Website story, leaped on an anti-Trump Buzzfeed story that, like an insubstantial pageant, dissolved and appears to have left not a rack behind, leaving the BBC scrambling, discreetly, to bury its tracks. 

(MB has been closely following this on the previous Open Thread). 

V

Ah yes, good old Hugh. Coat always hung up at the door of BBC impartiality. 

And that 'gotcha' so excited the BBC that Reality Check generalissimo Chris Morris was wheeled in in to deliver the coup de grace to poor, babbling Boris. 

Oddly, Chris's take (and other would-be 'reality checks' across the BBC, and elsewhere) piled on just three examples - two throwaway, somewhat ambiguous comments and one co-authored letter with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart. 

And that was pretty much it. Where was the long, damning list of quotes?

And, to me, this actually, accidentally, showed that Boris had, in reality, made next to nothing of the Turkish EU accession question in the run-up to the EU referendum. 

But "latch on" and make "a huge gotcha moment" of it the BBC tried to do nonetheless.

VI

This one was initially prompted by StewGreen:

Well done More or Less! The BBC's BBC Global Gender and Identity Correspondent (yes, really), to give her full official BBC title, certainly did get called out by Tim & Co, there. Ha ha. 

For more on Megha from me and Sue, please click here. She's very BBC - not into Ivana Trump, a fan of Naomi Klein, someone who wants to explain explain arranged marriage "to white people", and someone who deleted a tweet damning pro-gay rights Ireland for backing Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest!

VII

And, OMG, here's something about Katty:

Yes, Katty actually just-about, in a roundabout, unspecific way, acknowledged that mainstream media types, leaped in too soon on the Buzzfeed Mueller story. but then - having, as DB noted, evidently learned nothing, was straight in their again on the Native American/MAGA-capped schoolboys media fiasco. 

Oh Katty, as we approach Burns Night, please bear this good-natured advice in mind:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.

Aye to that! Cue bagpipes...

A falling-out

Those with sufficient popcorn at hand might savour the following transcription of a Twitter exchange between various present-day BBC people and certain ex-BBC people which took place three days ago. (If only it had gone on longer!):

Sir Craig Oliver: Saying you want “a managed no deal Brexit” is like saying you want a managed motorway pile-up. You can’t control it - and the point is to avoid it, not bring it on.
Hugh Sykes, BBC: Does your rather Delphic comment imply support for another referendum? If so, your old boss' attempt didn't go the way he expected, did it? (For those in doubt - who he? - this guy use to spin for David Cameron).
Sir Craig Oliver: Delphic? Think you need to brush up. It’s pretty clear. And btw don’t think 2nd ref answer. Have a sensible and polite conversation if you want to be taken seriously.
Hugh Sykes: PS. But it remains true that history is likely to settle on your old boss as the one who gambled with the national interest in order to try, unsuccessfully, to resolve conflicts in his own party and the threat that UKIP posed to it.
Sir Craig Oliver: I guess history will at least consider him. Not sure you’ll even be a footnote at the BBC.
Giles Dilnot, ex-BBC (to Sir Craig): You’ve always had an unfortunate habit of being snide about ex colleagues. Including, I seem to remember, the one that now replaces your old job in No10.
Jackie Leonard, BBC (to Sir Craig): Woah there. Hugh is a BBC legend, as you must be aware. No need to be rude.
Sir Craig Oliver (to Jackie Leonard): Hardly. But he certainly checks his impartiality in at the door when he goes onto social media.
Hugh Sykes (to Sir Craig): I'm happy with what I already have - several awards. including a Sony Gold Award for Journalist of the Year.
Sir Craig Oliver (to Hugh Sykes): Good for you Hugh - but where’s the bitterness coming from?
Nicola Careem, BBC (to Sir Craig): Wow, that's a really horrible comment.
Hugh Sykes (to Nicola Careem): Er, yes, and strange to assume that I even want to be 'a footnote at the BBC.' And odd (or maybe not? - very Spin Doctorish) that he resorts to insult instead of counter-argument. Thanks Nicola!
Sir Craig Oliver (to Hugh Sykes): Hilarious - I’m insulting you, but what you wrote isn’t insulting? You still aren’t answering the failure to be impartial point. Worrying you don’t get it, or avoid it.
Hugh Sykes (to Sir Craig): A mild insult in that first tweet, yes. And when you complained, my response was: 'Fair enough'.
Humphrey Hawksley, BBC (to Sir Craig): Hugh is one of the finest radio journalists of his generation. He is already far higher ranked among his peers than Cameron is among his.
Sir Craig Oliver (to Humphrey Hawksley): Not sure their categories are comparable, Humphrey (Sony Award vs General Election) - not that I accept your points. Regardless, BBC correspondents shouldn’t be scoring political points and pretending to be impartial. That includes you.
Humphrey Hawksley (to Sir Craig): So right, Craig. Trying to be impartial with peer group ranking. A great journalist will not try to be the story. A sourced footnote is a good place to be, while a great politician does need to be the headline. Cameron and Sykes have both made indelible marks on their trades.
Sir Craig Oliver (to Humphrey Hawksley): Sorry Humphrey. You are massively over-reaching here. I’m sure Hugh has done well - but the scale just isn’t comparable. By all mean defend your mate, but try to have a little perspective.

Twitter may not be the most edifying medium but without it would we, the BBC's public, ever have got to to hear such revealing exchanges? Both sides score palpable hits (which, given that they're basically on the same side, is even funnier). 

He'll get his coat

Regular readers will be delighted to know that veteran BBC foreign correspondent Hugh Sykes is still having his say on Twitter. Here's his take on Mr. Rees-Mogg MP:

The i-word

Yes, it's that time again!...

Today's The World This Weekend discussed the migrant crisis in light of the EU summit about it and the "hard" policy of what Mark Mardell called the "newly militant" Italian government. 

It wasn't too biased (and Mark even used the i-word ['illegal'] once), but:

(a) The main report featured two pro-migration 'experts' (including Leonard Doyle) and a pro-migration Spanish socialist MEP 'balanced' by an anti-migrant figure from Italy's Lega, and the main interview was with a UN official.

(b) It was striking that the idea of placing migrants in camps around the Mediterranean, including across North Africa, was rubbished by successive speakers and that the BBC's Kevin Connelly said there were "ethical" issues as far as placing them in North Africa is concerned. 

(c) Mark Mardell twice made a point of stating that the number of migrants has fallen drastically since the height of the crisis, making it sound as if there's no longer a numbers problem. Each time he asserted that it's no longer a migration crisis but a political crisis:

• "Illegal migration into the European Union has, in fact, fallen dramatically by 95% since its height in 2015. So it's not so much a migration crisis as a political crisis about migration."
• "Again, it's an interesting point. The problem is going down in terms of numbers but up in terms of political salience." 

(d) It was also striking the difference in tone and content between one interview and the rest of the interviews. If you want to hear this for yourselves just listen to how Mark Mardell interviewed the man from the UN and compare that with how he interviewed the man from the League. I think it's undeniable that the tone was significantly softer with the man from the UN. 

As I say, it could have been worse.

P.S. The other piece was a report by the mighty Hugh Sykes from Turkey. As with other BBC reports I've seen in recent days it focused on the growing strength of the opposition to President Erdogan there. These reports have raised the possibility than an upset is possible. The thought has kept crossing my mind though that, despite all of this, that President Erdogan will probably win again - and by a far larger margin than these reports suggest.

That was only based on a gut instinct and the fact that these things hardly ever seem to go the way BBC reporters seem to think they'll go. The early results of the count are suggesting a landslide for Erdogan. So much for Hugh Sykes, it seems....though the gap is tightening. (Will I be cracking open a bottle of Turkish wine - not that I have one - and toasting Hugh after all?) 

Paddy O'Connell falls for fake news

Poor Hugh Sykes got teased on Radio 4's Broadcasting House this morning for misidentifying a singing bird in his garden. He thought it was a blackbird but a hundred or so BH listeners protested that it was a thrush. Apparently he has form too, getting his swallows and swifts mixed up in Syria a few years ago. 

Meanwhile his teaser, Paddy O'Connell, was busy telling the audience:

The rapper Kanye West has come out for Donald Trump. West, who praised their shared dragon blood, gained an important friend in the White House but lost 10 million followers on Twitter.

Now, Paddy should have then got his Trump impersonator to say, "Paddy, you're FAKE NEWS!", because that was fake news. As The Independent put it:

Kanye West isn't actually losing followers on Twitter despite his use of it to support Donald Trump. 

In the wake of West's string of posts, a number of websites claimed that his follower count had dropped by millions in just a few minutes. A number of viral tweets suggested that his follower count had dropped by nine million users in just a few minutes, after he posted tweets including a picture of a signed Make America Great Again hat. 

But despite the controversy around the posts, West's followers do seem to be staying the same, at around 27 million. The number might be changing on some people's screens, but that appears to be a problem with Twitter rather than people taking issue with his posts. 

A Twitter spokesperson that the fluctuations were a mistake. 

"We can confirm that Kanye's follower count is currently at approximately 27M followers," the company said. "Any fluctuation that people might be seeing is an inconsistency and should be resolved soon."

In fact, Kanye appears to be closing in on 28M followers now.

Oh Paddy!