What 'Newsnight' was doing in late 2016

There's a video doing the rounds this weekend of Newsnight pulling a stunt and mocking a call by a Conservative MP for the BBC to play God Save the Queen every night by playing the Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen, introduced with a straight face by Kirsty Wark. 

Though the same Conservative MP [Andrew Rosindell] has repeated his call this week, that Newsnight stunt dates from November 2016, back when Ian Katz was the programme's editor. He was fond of those kind of japes. 

I'm surprised we didn't cover it back then. 

UPDATE: Whoops. Well, that video, via Alex Belfield, has been removed. 

I'm guessing, given that Alex's YouTube channel is still up-and-running, that Alex either spotted his error or had his error over the date of the Newsnight video pointed out to him and then deleted the video. 

If you're still interested in seeing the 2016 Newsnight playout though, here's a fresh link. Altogether now, 'I wanna be.../Anarchy BBC':

Trifecta

I've learned a new word today: trifecta.

I learned it from Stephen Pollard after he tweeted:

He was talking Newsnight editor Ian Katz's decision to dump the BBC for Channel 4.

......

And in other news...Sarah Montague is packing her bags and swapping jobs with Martha Kearney. (It's like Game of Thrones at Today these days). 

The MSM clears itself

Poor old John Simpson. He reads a piece in the Observer (naturally), sends out a tweet:

and fails to find that his Twitter audience has fully appreciated it. 

Indeed, his Twitter audience has been downright unappreciative in response.

People are saying that his tweet is "arrogant", that the 'Observer' piece doesn't "show" anything; it merely "claims", that JS has "lost his marbles", that the BBC is biased, etc. Others are being downright sarcastic (e.g. "This is the kind of honest introspection your industry needs John"). 

The Observer article in question - a long read - certainly defends the likes of the BBC. The author, Andrew Harrison, thinks that they getting it about right, and aren't biased. 

Naturally (as you do) I followed the links to see who Andrew is. He belongs to Remainiacs. ("REMAINIACS is a no flim flam Brexit podcast for everyone who knows that leaving the EU won't be un morceau de gateau. We're not sick of experts and we won't shut up and get over it.") 

Incidentally, one of the voices featured in the article is Newsnight editor Ian Katz. He acknowledges some problems. Here's part of what he had to say:

“It’s plainly the case that shows like ours could benefit from a greater degree of diversity,” says Katz, “not just ethnic diversity but of background, class and education. It’s a criticism that hurts because it’s got some truth to it.” Viewers need to see people on TV who look and sound like them if they’re going to be confident in what they hear. Katz describes an endless battle to ensure that Newsnight discussion panels are not solely composed of middle-aged white males. “If you were in here, you would see us with our heads in our hands looking at the guest list going, ‘This is ridiculous’.”

"When the audience don’t believe the news, we’re all in trouble"

John Sweeney

The main theme of Ian Katz's Spectator article is that the media has a serious problem because large parts of the audience no longer trust it. 

As regular readers will know, I didn't know whether I could trust Chris Cook Newsnight reporting on cladding in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster - a predicament made worse when, shortly after, I came across a post by Dr Richard North which pointed out serious holes in it. 

Unlike Chris Cook, Richard North has knowledge of the field and clearly knows what he's talking about. (And there's another excellent post by him here on the same subject). 

Dr North described Newsnight's reporting as "low-grade research", so it appears as if I was right to wonder have my doubts about whether Mr Cook was up to reporting on fire safety issues. 

Chris Cook's reporting on the cladding issue, therefore, highlights a number of problems with Newsnight reporting. 

It's far too keen to make a splash and to be able to say the magic words 'A Newsnight exclusive'. They don't have many reporters and they spread them around over all manner of stories about which they know little and expect them to produce eye-catching reports within hours or just a day or two. It's a species of sensationalism. 

My old joke about Gabriel Gatehouse is that he's Newsnight's Everywhere Correspondent. He pops up all over the world and all over Britain and after a day or so presents him take as confidently as if he'd been pounding that particular beat for years. I know they probably have to do that to some extent but it means audiences need to treat what they say with caution. 

I did a long piece on a Hugh Sykes report once after Hugh had parachuted into a northern French town and began painting a picture that sounded plausible but, on close inspection, proved to be full of holes. I felt, just like these Newsnight types, that he'd gone in there and found only what he wanted to find. If I hadn't checked I wouldn't have known what he was missing out and how he was getting it wrong. 

I was watching another report on the Grenfell Tower tragedy on last night's Newsnight, presented with confidence by John Sweeney and full of remarks like "Newsnight has uncovered evidence", "Newsnight has gathered anonymous first-hand accounts", "Newsnight understands", etc. I didn't know whether to believe that report either. It sounded important and convincing, but was it fair? Did it provide a properly-rounded picture? Was it accurate? I can't say, and I don't think I trust the BBC's journalism enough to give them the benefit of the doubt any more.

Confessions of a BBC Editor

Ian Katz

From Ian Katz's Spectator piece

Call me cynical, but I did wonder what on earth provoked Newsnight editor Ian Katz into writing such a 'humble' piece for The Spectator? 

Was it a result of panic provoked by the hugely negative reaction to his arrogant car-crash interview on Newswatch last week, combined perhaps with the realisation that far too many people were reading Evan Davis's admission that 'people who are making programmes' at the BBC couldn't care less about complaints about political bias as meaning that he, Ian Katz, couldn't care less about complaints about bias? And where better for an ex-Guardian deputy editor turned BBC editor to write than the Spectator in order to 'prove' his impartiality?

The funny thing is that he's obviously picked up on complaints of bias from certain types of people - the types of people left-wingers tend to come across more often on their own Twitter timelines: Corbynistas, aggrieved Muslims, cybernats, Grenfell activists. Complaints 'from the other side', say about the BBC's Brexit coverage, don't seem to haven't registered with him anywhere near as much (possibly simply because his social media echo chamber doesn't echo to such concerns). So, call me 'cynical' again, but I think his piece inadvertently makes his own biases shine through even more.

Still, if the penny genuinely has dropped with the Newsnight editor (as it appears to have done) that people's concerns about BBC bias do matter then that can only be a good thing.

And the acknowledgement that too many Newsnight contributors come from "a relatively narrow band of opinion" (something we've been saying for ages) is very welcome.

Admitting failings beyond the concerns of Corbyn supporters would help too, say over the programme's unbalanced Brexit coverage. Then we really would be getting somewhere.

Ian Katz gets his own accountability interview

Ian Katz

Talking about Ian Katz, the Newsnight editor was interviewed by Samira Ahmed on this week's Newswatch. 

Viewers had complained to Newswatch about Newsnight presenters (specifically Emily Maitlis, though I'd have included Evan Davis in that too) pushing a relentlessly negative line on Brexit and being rude and aggressive during interviews with politicians such as Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom, and hairy-chested Ian was on to defend his interviewers.

I've seen many an interview on Newswatch where BBC editors say that the BBC got it right but few BBC editors could match this performance by Ian Katz for complacency and sheer arrogance. On that front this was a bravura performance from the Newsnight man, but it also turned into something of a car crash too. 

He repeatedly asserted that the featured viewers' complaints weren't representative. (How on earth does he know? Is he basing that on what he's read on his own Twitter feed echo chamber?) 

Then, after scoring a debating point over the use of a single word by his critics, he later fell victim to his own arrogance by getting tangled up over another single word. All credit to Samira Ahmed for spotting that and making him squirm over it. 

Also, never mind the Maybot! Here was the Katzbot, endlessly repeating the strong and stable phrase "accountability interview".

A transcript follows.

Look out for his use of the carefully-chosen phrase ‘the continent we’re in’ to describe the EU-UK relationship. Is that merely a figure of speech? Or  goes it give us a glimpse inside BBC groupthink where the iron logic of geography makes ‘being in Europe’ appear existentially inevitable and immutable and 'not being in Europe' appear perverse?

Samira Ahmed: Well, with me right now is Ian Katz, the editor of Newsnight. Ian, thank you for coming on Newswatch. The reference that Andrea Leadsom made to patriotism has been much mocked, but some viewers say she really did have a point about the focus of Brexit coverage being relentlessly negative. 

Ian Katz: And the first thing I should say is I thought it was an excellent accountability interview. I think...I'm sure there are some viewers out there who will agree with some of these complaints. I think the vast majority of people who saw it will think that calling an interviewer 'unpatriotic' when they ask some awkward questions is sort of somewhere - somewhere between hilarious and slightly sinister. It's the sort of thing that happens in Moscow and Beijing, but not really in a place with a free media. 

Samira Ahmed: Well, there is an interpretation issue there, because of course Andrea Leadsom went on to say that she wasn't calling her unpatriotic...

Ian Katz: (interrupting) I don't think it's really open to interpretation. You only have to watch it to be pretty clear, and the viewers that you have just reported the complaints of were actually making the point that it was fair to call Emily unpatriotic. 

Samira Ahmed: Newsnight is very good at turning around this kind of interview as a social media clip, to go viral, which is exactly what happened. But watching it back, on the whole, the whole of it, do you not see how many viewers felt it was heavy-handed? 

Ian Katz: Well, I think if you are making a point about partial extracts from an interview, and how some of those can gain circulation outside the context of an interview, I think that's a really interesting one. And that's one that we really need to think quite a lot about, because sometimes you'll have a sort of minute-long fragment from an interview which gets seen by huge numbers of people, outside the context of the interview. I think that's an interesting point. But I think that, you know, this was a classic accountability interview on a really momentous issue. I mean, this is about the future shape, relationship, of the country with the continent we're in, and it's absolutely right that Emily conducted a really tough, hard-hitting accountability interview. 

Samira Ahmed: We all understand that politicians can go on too much, they can need to be brought back to answer the question. But there was a lot of interrupting here. We heard that one viewer there at the end say it's really frustrating not getting to hear Andrea Leadsom finish her answers. 

Ian Katz: Well, you know better than anyone, interrupting is a really sort of fine line in interviewing. I've got quite a lot of sympathy with viewers who feel that we're sometimes too interrupt-y. I mean, we owe subjects the sort of fairness of allowing them to set out their case. Set against that, there are, I won't name any names, lots of interviewees who essentially come into an interview with the aim of sort of filibustering their way through it, and just sticking to two or three homilies...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) But in this case? 

Ian Katz: Well, this was a very interesting case, the Andrea Leadsom case. It was supposed to be a 15-minute interview. For reasons to do with when Andrea was able to start it, it ended up being a much shorter one. It was more like seven or eight minutes, and it was a down-the-line interview. And in those situations, the interviewer is under a lot more pressure to keep the interview moving along, and to address all the questions they are trying to address in the interview. 

Samira Ahmed: Let's move on to another issue. Last week we featured complaints about another interview Emily did, with the Prime Minister, about the Grenfell fire. Let's watch a clip. 

Theresa May: We have yet to find out what the cause of the fire was. The fire brigade, the fire service, are doing that...
Emily Maitlis: (interrupting) You could have stopped it spreading by spending £2 more on the cladding.
Theresa May: The fire service are looking at what the cause of the fire was. And it's important that we get to the bottom of this, that we find out exactly what happened. That's why...
Emily Maitlis: (interrupting) But you were recommended this in 2013. You were in Government there, and the coroner said you can stop this with a sprinkler system in every block. 

The criticism there is she seemed to be putting personal blame for everything on Theresa May. The use of the word "you," particularly in relation to who bought the cladding, and that viewers felt just wasn't fair. 

Ian Katz: Hmm. Well, the figure of speech I think Emily was using was, "you could do this," as in, "one could do this." She was saying, "One could have bought a more expensive cladding"...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) But "You could have spent £2 more", I mean...

Ian Katz: (interrupting) It's in the same way as you say, "You can get up", you know...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Well, you've got the Prime Minister... I think what viewers were saying is some of that focused anger perhaps should be directed at the right people, that this is a scattergun approach. Save it for the council. 

Ian Katz: Well, I don't think that's right. The Prime Minister is also the leader of the Conservative Party. It was a Conservative borough. It is entirely reasonable to say, 'There is a set of responsibilities that lie with national government, with local government. You are the leader of the party that runs the council'. It was absolutely appropriate to hold her to account. I think, in that particular case, I don't think what Emily meant was [pointing] "you personally chose the cladding". I think what she was saying is, "One could have build different cladding for £2"...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Well, language matters, doesn't it? And what you think she said is not what viewers felt they got out of it. 

Ian Katz: Well, clearly you're right that clearly some viewers construed it differently. I don't think the majority of viewers will have construed that way. 

Samira Ahmed: Tone is also very important, and a lot of viewers said it came across as angry and emotional. Isn't it a BBC journalist's job to remain very calm and measured? 

Ian Katz: I think that's a good question, and I think it often is, and I think... But I think one of the responsibilities of an interviewer to is channel the questions that the viewers would want asked in a particular situation. And I think that, on that Friday, Emily brilliantly channelled the - the questions, the mood, to some extent, of a lot of the country, around the handling of the aftermath of that disaster. 

Samira Ahmed: Nothing you would do differently, looking back? 

Ian Katz: I think they were two really exemplary interviews. 

Samira Ahmed: Ian Katz, thank you very much. 

A Tale of Two BBC Editors

Just reflecting on the comments on an earlier thread here....

It is uncanny how easily we BBC watchers can (often) guess what the BBC will do. 

One of our commenters, spotting the Jeremy Corbyn-friendly piece from the New Statesman's Stephen Bush on last night's Newsnight, made an informed guess that it would be 'balanced' tonight by a piece that would be anything but a 'balancing' piece. 

He anticipated it being from someone who would "damn with faint praise and undermine her with 'helpful' criticism", guessing Ken Clarke or George Osborne...

...and he wasn't far off with those guesses. The 'balancing' piece is to come from Matthew Parris - a man very much in the Ken Clarke/George Osborne mould.

Also amusingly, given our commenter's prediction that it would be someone who would "damn [her] with faint praise and undermine her with 'helpful' criticism", Matthew Parris is the author of a very recent Times piece headlined, 'May has my vote but only with gritted teeth'.

It really is uncanny how easily we BBC watchers can (often) guess what the BBC will do, isn't it? 

That is all very Newsnight though.

*******

Even more amusingly, Matthew Parris has posted another Times piece tonight with the headline, 'I’m not quite Tory enough, or so thinks the Beeb', in which Matthew registers his surprise at the fact that last Sunday's Marr show dumped him because they were "worried" that he "wouldn’t be as tribal as Polly [Toynbee]" - Polly being another guest planned for the paper review (before the programme got cancelled due to the London terrorist attack).

Now, I'm on record here as being an admirer of the Marr show's editor, Rob Burley. This only increases my admiration for him, as it shows him thinking seriously about his programme's obligations regarding BBC impartiality. 

He compared Polly and Matthew and felt that the latter wasn't a sufficient counterbalance to the former - and he was quite right.

In contrast, Newsnight's editor Ian Katz, typically, had absolutely no such qualms whatsoever. He was straight onto Matthew Parris (still firmly anti-Brexit, voting for Mrs May through "gritted teeth") in order to 'balance' Mr Bush's gently sympathetic piece towards Jeremy Corbyn with what is bound to be a far more...er...'nuanced' piece about Theresa May. 

Evan Davis is right about one thing though. The BBC isn't entirely a monolith. Some BBC editors take their duties towards impartiality vastly more seriously than others who barely account it even worth thinking about.

"No one at the BBC takes those kinds of things into account"

Of course, any complaints that Newsnight was displaying party political bias through that Walsall voter panel will be ignored by the BBC. And we know that because Evan Davis has told us so himself. 

As you'll probably already know, The Daily Mail reported Evan's remarks at the Hay Festival where he said that the BBC is constantly getting accusations of party political bias but that "no one at the BBC takes those kinds of things into account" and it's "very rare" for BBC types to even talk about it.

All the time we get those emails. And honestly, no one at the BBC takes those kinds of things into account. Maybe people at the very top of the BBC do, I don't know. Maybe they do. But none of the people who are making programmes do.

He's presumably including the person who makes his programme in that sweeping statement - namely Newsnight editor Ian Katz.

So I think it's safe to assume that Ian Katz wouldn't be 'bovvered' in the slightest by any fuss over dodgy voter panels on Newsnight because, if Evan's to be believed, such things are of no account to him.

Ian Katz is on the case

Newsnight editor Ian Katz's BBC website report earlier in the week, Nobel winner: Attack on experts 'undermines science', is interesting in its use of language. 

The report pits the views of Michael Gove against Sir Paul Nurse. 

The verbs used to describe Sir Paul's contributions are: 

says, told, said, said, said, said

The verbs used to describe Mr Gove's contributions are: 

says, admitted, said, told , insisted, conceded, added

The use of the word "admitted" has connotations of confession, "insisted" implies an assertion and "conceded" suggests admitting that something's true after having previously denied it. None are necessarily neutral words, value-wise - unlike "says", "said" and "told". 

Michael Gove is in the dock in this report and the language used about him suggests that Ian Katz is acting, to some degree, like a prosecution barrister here, summing up for the jury.

Crooked media

On Wednesday of this week the programme was presented by James O’Brien.  Now in the first place Mr O’Brien is a strange choice to present this programme.  Not just because his awkward, cut-out, Lego man gait makes it obvious why he has made his career in radio, but because he is the sort of hyper-partisan figure who, if they came from the opposite political side, would never be hired by the BBC.

                            Douglas Murray, The Spectator

There's a must-read article by Douglas Murray at The Spectator about the "must-watch" interview between James O'Brien and Asra Nomani on Wednesday night's Newsnight (which we discussed here and here). 

It really lays out the full awfulness of what James O'Brien did that night on BBC Two. 

It wasn't just that he was ostentatiously rude, or that he seemed even more biased than usual, or even that he inaccurately introduced Ms Nomani (and got promptly corrected), or that this "crooked and fake" introduction of his was very clearly intended to prejudice Newsnight's audience against Ms Nomani from the very start...

...it's that his attempted hit-job on her was targeted at a very brave-sounding woman about whom JO'B either (a) knew nothing, or (b) didn't care, or (c) did know something (that she's a pro-Trump Muslim). 

The blame can't all go to James O'Brien for this shameful interview though. Newsnight editor Ian Katz must surely take ultimate responsibility for it. 

Views his own

One of the most striking things, for those of us who go on Twitter, is the sheer extent to which BBC types have been reflecting their biased reporting of matters Trump-related in their biased tweets.

I can barely remember all of the ones I've seen, but Newsnight editor Ian Katz's inauguration tweets stand out and left very little doubt about where he stands...

....though his notoriously unsuccessful Guardian campaign to stop George W Bush being reelected in 2004 through a Guardian readers write-in campaign to voters in Ohio was probably already a pretty big clue!. 

His concerns on Twitter were to focus on making points about race and making dark links to the fascist 1930s, eg:

That Sinclair Lewis book, if you're wondering, is a novel about the election of a fascist to the American presidency - something that will have been in Ian Katz's mind when he sent that tweet.

Two of those tweets were directly echoed by Emily Maitlis on that night's Newsnight, with the third tweet's question being put to a race-focused anti-Trump guest. Had Ian suggested it to her? (The Sinclair Lewis one was probably too recherché for Friday night on BBC Two).

"I think you're fooling yourself"

The final Newsnight of 2016 featured part of an interview with The New Yorker's liberal, anti-Trump editor David Remnick and a transcript of the full interview has also been published on the BBC News website. The passage that stood out for me was this one (not broadcast on Newsnight) where Mr. Remnick and Newsnight editor Ian Katz discussed impartiality, and the former had a little dig at the BBC's view of itself:

Ian Katz: But is there a problem that if you hoist your flag - as you did effectively on the night of the election - that actually when you do this really important accountability reporting you're talking about and you call the government out on lies and you deliver this crucially important fact-based reporting, that actually you are dismissible by the other half of America, because you've shown your colours. 

David Remnick: My colours were never concealed. I don't believe in that business - this old 1950s notion of the New York Times, much less the New Yorker - that it was objective, somehow like a science experiment. That scientific method was involved in journalism, I think is a fantasy... What I think is achievable is checking facts. What I think is possible is to have fair argument. What I don't think is possible is to have some fake objectivity - in which on the one side we have 99% of the scientists say... You know on the one hand on the other hand… That's bad journalism. It does the world no good. 

Ian Katz: But you've got a problem in this country which is that there is no place, there is no media organisation, platform, which even a plurality of the country can agree to trust. 

David Remnick: If you think that French state television or the BBC in England is somehow a common narrative of the country, I think you're fooling yourself. I bet you there are a lot of people, the people in the north of England, who think the BBC is a bunch of lefties.

Ian Katz in 'The Spectator'

Newsnight editor Ian Katz has a Brexit-related piece in this week's Spectator. 

In it he speculates that the language used to describe the two sides in the EU referendum might have had some bearing on the actual result. His particular focus is the use of the romantic, buccaneering, portmanteau word 'Brexiteers', which (he said) could have been 'quietly significant' in winning it for the Brexiteers.

He notes the battle between 'Brexiteers' and the less-romantic-sounding 'Brexiters' in certain media outlets (making his old employer, the Guardian, sound far less partisan than its right-wing rivals in the process):

Even before the FT issued its style note on the matter [counselling against the use of 'Brexiteers'], you could divine a newspaper’s position on the referendum from its choice of collective noun. In the Guardian Brexiteer and Brexiter appeared roughly the same number of times between the start of the year and the referendum. In the Telegraph Brexiteers outnumbered Brexiters almost four to one. And in the Mail, it was six to one.

Wonder what it was at Newsnight?

The comments below his piece don't sound very impressed. The top-rated one begins, "It's amusing to watch Remainers like Ian Katz contrive ever more bizarre explanations for their failure to win the referendum."

Obama speaks. Mute wonder lurketh in men's ears (according to Newsnight)

To mark today's 400th anniversary of the death of Shakespeare, last night's Newsnight began each of its sections with a quote from the Bard, performed by actress Akiya Henry.

To introduced its coverage of the Obama intervention in the Brexit debate, editor Ian Katz chose a passage from Henry V.

In the play, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely are discussing how wonderful Henry is, and the selected passage comes from the Archbishop's most lavish outpouring of praise to the new king:

Turn him to any cause of policy,
The Gordian knot of it he will unloose,
Familiar as his garter: that, when he speaks,
The air, a charter'd libertine, is still,
And the mute wonder lurketh in men's ears,
To steal his sweet and honey'd sentences;

Or to put it another way: 

Bring up any complicated political topic, and he’ll untangle it as easily as if it were his own garter. And the result is that when he speaks, the very air—which is free to go where it likes—stops dead, and men stand in silent wonder, hoping to catch the benefit of his gorgeous utterances.  

Obama as Henry V? Thanks for that Newsnight!

******

I don't think anyone would have thought of illustrating David Cameron's performance yesterday with "Valiant Lord Talbot" from Henry VI , Part I:

Saint George and victory! fight, soldiers, fight. 

Or King Edward IV in Henry VI, Part III:

Then strike up drums: God and Saint George for us! 

****** 

Here, incidentally, was Ian Katz's view on Twitter:

Conspiracy theories

So was the BBC itself pushing a "conspiracy theory" (about Mr Whittingdale and the press) as part of an actual conspiracy of its own (to bring down its 'enemy', Mr Whittingdale)?

Quite a few people are claiming (or implying) as much - from the Spectator to Stephen Glover, from Biased BBC to Neil Wallis on Today. 

It was faintly comical that Emily Maitlis and John Sweeney (on Tuesday night) said - for 'balance' - that critics of Hacked Off and others might say that Hacked Off & Co. have an 'agenda', a 'grievance'.

The Newsnight pair didn't entertain the possibility that they ('Newsnight') might have been pushing "a conspiracy theory" for some reason too. 

According to David Aaronovitch in The Times, such 'conspiratorial' thinking certainly was in the minds of some at the BBC:

It has been put to me by someone in the BBC that the simple fact of Mr Whittingdale knowing that there might be a story about him that someone might have wanted to publish was sufficient reason for him to be recused from any responsibility for the press. I think this is mad. Every politician (and public figure) has a story or picture from the past that they would prefer not to see printed. In any case the reverse logic would apply: since Mr Whittingdale’s Damoclean sword has now dropped he must currently be the best person to do that job.

This is where obsessiveness gets you: ridiculous conspiracy theories

My own pet 'conspiracy theory' is that Newsnight editor Ian Katz simply wanted another 'scoop' - a 'scoop' at any price, as it were - and spotted his chance. (He seems to be obsessed with Newsnight 'scoops' at the moment, perhaps because of his programme's dire ratings). And perhaps, if it harmed John Whittingdale, so much the better.

And the BBC's senior management gave him the go-ahead because they also want Newsnight's rating to go up and didn't want to get caught suppressing another Newsnight 'scoop' (given past humiliations) - and, well, if it harmed John Whittingdale, so much the better, perhaps.

And then the rest of the BBC piled in - as the rest of the BBC always piles in on such occasions. And, being John Whittingdale, maybe they piled in with even more relish than usual. Perhaps.

Perhaps.

What? Watt?

It's funny cos it's true...

We had a little exchange here a couple of weeks back about the likely replacement for ex-Guardian journalist Allegra Stratton after her departure from ex-Guardian editor Ian Katz's Guardian-like Newsnight:

And, yes, he would dare!...

Tramping against Trump - and Brexit

Last night's Newsnight was quite something. They really went after Hillary Clinton. 

First John Sweeney did a take-down of Hillary. He chucked everything he could at her: from Whitewater to the Clinton Foundation, rows over the money she gets for speeches, Sidney Blumenthal, Benghazi, her private email server, possible conflicts of interest among her advisors, her State Department emails, etc. Various anti-Hillary hacks and lawyers acted as his 'talking heads'.

Then Emily Maitlis went to speak to Hillary-inclined voters in a small town in Louisiana. Her main 'talking head', however, was another anti-Hillary hack. 

Then came a studio discussion of the wider meaning of the Hillary phenomenon with three like-minded commentators: Eurosceptic academic John Laughland, British historian Mark Almond and US political commentator Pat Buchanan. They all slated Hillary. the EU and the establishment, and said positive things about Putin and the Hungarian and Polish governments. 

I couldn't believe what I was seeing on the so-called impartial BBC!

*****

You didn't believe me for a second did you? 

I don't blame you. Of course none of the above happened. And was never likely to have have happened on the BBC.

In each case the mirror image actually happened: John Sweeney did a take-down of Donald Trump; Emily Maitlis went to speak to Trump-inclined voters in a small town in West Virginia; the various hacks in the reports were all anti-Trump; and the studio discussion on the wider meaning of the Trump phenomenon involved three like-minded commenters from the opposite side of the argument to Messrs Laughland, Almond and Buchanan: namely, (1) Anne Applebaum, (2) Timothy Garton-Ash and (3) Timothy Snyder. They all slated Trump, European 'national populists' (Front National, Polish and Hungarian governments), Putin, and Brexiters, and said positive things about the EU and traditional Western institutions.

Everyone - from Newsnight's reporters and presenter (Kirsty Wark) through to their 'talking heads' and all of their studio guests - was marching in lockstep last night against Trump - and the closing panel marched in lockstep against Brexit too.

*****

You really don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about the pro-Brexit bias on last night's Newsnight, do you? 

Timothy Garton-Ash and Anne Applebaum are very well known for being strongly pro-EU and you don't invite them onto a studio discussion about the wider meaning of the Trump phenomenon without expecting them to make plenty of pro-EU, anti-Brexit points - as they and Professor Snyder then did. Newsnight must have known what they would get.

Will many Americans see this edition of Newsnight? 

If they do maybe it will have the same effect as Newsnight editor Ian Katz's last major intervention in US politics when, as a Guardian editor, he oversaw that letter campaign from Guardian readers to swing-voters in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election urging them to vote for Kerry over Bush - a campaign widely reckoned to have backfired and annoyed enough voters in Ohio to swing the state towards Bush.

Infamous Seumas and 'Newsnight'

I was curious to see how Newsnight would tackle one of the biggest UK party political talking points of the week - the highly controversial appointment of the Guardian's Seumas Milne to be Jeremy Corbyn's chief strategist.

Newsnight's editor Ian Katz was, of course, a long-time colleague of Infamous Seumas at the Guardian, so would it be kid gloves' treatment for the story as a result?

Would the controversy be the focus of a entire Newsnight segment? Or would it be ignored? 

Well neither, it turned out. On Wednesday's edition Labour MP Lisa Nandy was asked a single question about it. She answered (or rather waffled) and then the interview ended with no follow-up question.

For me, that felt like a token gesture to show that the programme had tackled the subject (a spot of watertight oversight).

Judge for yourselves though. This was Kirsty Wark's question:

One of the main developments has been the very critical appointment to the future of the Jeremy Corbyn term, which is the head of strategy, and that is Seumas Milne. Now, people have been looking at his whole back catalogue and he's got some very strong opinions, expressed in a number of articles. I'm just going to put a couple to you. Milosevic shouldn't have been tried at the Hague. That was one of them. The murder of Lee Rigby wasn't terrorism in the normal sense, as an indiscriminate attack on civilians. And as far as he's written about Ukraine, "There certainly has been military expansionism but it's overwhelmingly come from NATO and not from Moscow". Now, he is going to be involved in strategy for the next five years. Do you agree with these statements?

Now, given the wealth of quotes that have been reported already (and they keep on coming) - about 9/11, 7/7, our soldiers in Iraq, Hamas, the victims of Stalin, etc - a few follow-ups might have been expected, Paxman-style, mightn't they? They never came.

Still, in fairness to the increasing crazy world we live in, I have to note that the massed ranks of Corbynistas on Newsnight found even this one question too much: It was a pointless question. Newsnight was 'apeing tabloids again'. There were 'shades of McCarthyism' here. It was 'shameless anti Jeremy Corbyn bias'.

Friday

Friday night's edition of Newsnight began with what's becoming a regular focus of Newsnight's attention: Saudi Arabia, and Britain's arming of Saudi Arabia - a focus given added momentum by the recent row between Ian Katz (and his presenter James O'Brien) and pro-Saudi Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski over Newsnight's damning coverage of the Saudi's air strikes on the pro-Iranian Houthis in Yemen.

I kind of guessed Ian Katz wouldn't leave it there, so it wasn't exactly a shock to find Newsnight leading on allegations of Saudi war crimes again tonight, or to find Emily setting out her editor's stall from the start. "Saudi Arabia is Britain's largest arms export market". she said, but our relationship with them "leaves a bitter taste in the mouth for many" (much as was said last time).

"Should we now re-examine our whole relationship with the Saudi Kingdom?", was Emily's big question.

And whose report gave the answer? Yes, it was the BBC's everywhere correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse again. Gabriel did the original pair of reports that so incensed the Tory MP too.

Now, I'm all for bashing Saudi Arabia, and Gabriel's report (seemingly from London) certainly bashed its human rights record and the potential crucifixion of a dissident, but was this disinterested broadcasting on Newsnight's part?

A hostile interview followed with the Saudi ambassador to the UN, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr.

He started by attempting a Daniel Kawczynski and 'correcting' a couple of points made so far.

Emily initially let him have his say, despite registering a certain nervousness ("Understood, understood", she said, interrupting, as he made his 'strongest' point), but then began interrupting ever more insistently.

Saudi Arabia's dismal human rights record and its disgusting election to head the human rights council was the focus here, though she did essay quite a bit of digging too to try and find a damning British-Saudi link over that vote.

Things got ever more hostile as the interview went on. "The world is looking with outrage at you at the moment" she said dramatically, and then repeated even more dramatically. Case after case of Saudi human rights abuses were raised.

The suave Saudi diplomat stalled suavely. Emily banged on.

What to make of this?

Is Newsnight pushing an anti-Saudi agenda? Well, it certainly looks like it. (And I've not noticed a counter-balancing anti-Iranian agenda).

But why shouldn't it push an anti-Saudi agenda (ignoring 'BBC impartiality' for a moment)? I'm all for it pushing an anti-Saudi agenda. Saudi Arabia is barely any better than Islamic State. Much of Emily's questions were questions that needed putting to a Saudi mouthpiece.

So bravo Emily!

The next story began thusly (?):

A father whose children were taken into care after he was arrested after allegedly trying to take them to Syria insists he's being treated unfairly because of his faith.

I groaned: "Another Muslim grievance-monger being given prominence by the BBC."

The father says he was merely taken them on a holiday, not going to join Islamic State.

Newsnight's starting questions: How should the family court respond? And when should they step it?

Secunder Kermani "talked to that father concerned". Yes, the father's view was the main focus of this report - the father arrested by, and aggrieved at, the British authorities.

Such arrests are "controversial", says Secunder. Arresting children  is "particularly emotive". Martin Downs, a human rights barrister, warned that such "regimes" risk breeding "contempt" and "anger".

The father said he doesn't understand the British authorities concerns, adding, "It's extremist ideology that David Cameron is dropping bombs on children", and other such bollocks.

Secunder said people watching would be suspicious that the father refused to explicitly condemn ISIS. The father said he loves his family dearly and wouldn't want to put them in harm's way.

A court official briefly defended the court's system, but Secunder's report ended like this:

...says he just wants his children back. He's likely to face protracted legal proceedings though. And the numbers of similar cases coming through family courts is likely to rise.

I felt like swearing by this stage (well, swearing again, given that I've already sworn once in this post.)

What next? Well, something to make me turn the air on this blog blue: an interview with an "expert in Sharia law" (and someone who "sees no problem" with Sharia law in the UK): Aina Khan, Head of the Islamic Department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors.

Aina says it's a bit of "a trigger-happy approach at the moment" from the authorities.

Oh for goodness sake, BBC! What the **** is wrong with you?

Finally came a rare interview (by Stephen Smith) with "the country's greatest living artist", 85 year old Frank Auerbach, subject of a major retrospective at Tate Britain - a Kindertransport refugee whose parents perished in Auschwitz. "A good Auerbach could cost you north of £2 million", said Stephen. I was feeling a bit too grumpy to entirely appreciate it.

Thursday

Vladimir Putin's intervention in Syria was first up on Thursday night's Newsnight. 

As a blogger about BBC bias I'm supposed to check for any patterns of bias and point them out to you (our readers) if I find any. 

Well, see if you can spot a pattern here: 

The main 'talking head' in Mark Urban's opening report was (anti-Putin) Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Then came an interview with the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg  (also no friend of Putin), Then came a studio discussion between former UN ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock (who is critical of Mr Putin) and the FT's foreign editor Roula Khalaf (also no admirer of Mr Putin). 

I'm nervous about making OTT statements, so I won't make the claim that whereas Russia Today can rightly be considered a pro-Putin mouthpiece then Newsnight, on this evidence, ought to be considered an anti-Putin mouthpiece (whether acting for the British government or merely acting for left-liberal BBC received opinion).

So I won't make that claim at all,...and maybe I'll just stick with saying that Newsnight's coverage certainly wasn't sympathetic towards the Russian leader at all, to put it mildly.

The next segment began with Emily saying, "The former prime minister Gordon Brown said the European Union could be put at risk if those who want to leave are allowed to pose as what he called 'the sole defenders of Britain'".

That was the prelude to a chat with Allegra about the launch of the pro-Brexit 'Vote Leave' campaign the following day. A clip from their campaign video and a short clip from an interview with their media spokesman Robert Oxley was framed by Allegra and Emily's conversation. 

Was there any bias here (in any direction)? Well, nothing I can quote, though the tone struck me as somewhat unconsciously revealing - a slight sighing scepticism of tone followed by laughter and quips (of a slightly mocking kind) at the upbeat campaign video.

Then Allegra made the following statement: 

British public opinion on Europe is a bit like a Christmas cracker. You have 30% on the end that believe we should leave come what may. You have 30% in the middle that are undecided. And at the other end you have 30% that is quite keen on remaining.

That was a striking image. 

Naturally, I immediately totted up the percentages and wondered about the missing 10%. Was that an example of a BBC reporter being innumerate? 

Also, when someone presents one 'end' as "believing" we should leave "come what may" (i.e. as reckless fanatics) and the other 'end' as being "quite keen on remaining" (i.e. positive, reasonable and open-minded) my bias detectors start seriously twitching. I think I can guess which way Allegra will be voting - what with her being so positive, reasonable and open-minded.

Next came a discussion about presenting budgets (and the EU referendum), presented by Newsnight's (former FT) policy editor Chris Cook, with Lord Lawson (Conservative) and Alistair Darling (Labour). It was almost light relief and I couldn't find much bias in it, though I suspected Chris of trying to fish out some uncomplimentary comments from his guests (especially Mr Darling) about the new Labour leader.

Next up a story about how a bunch of prisoners in the US beat a set of Harvard scholars in a debate.

My first thought was: Aha! a Guardian-type story about elitism in the US being 'done one over' on by the underclass!

As the story was being introduced, however, I noticed (BBC Three racism hunters take note!) that all of the Harvard losers appeared white while three out of four of the winning prisoners were black. Was Newsnight about to obsess about race angle again? 

Well, no. Wrong!...

Then Emily outlined the motion of the debate: "The children of illegal immigrants should be denied access to free schooling".

Here I stopped in my tracks. Surely the Harvard types would oppose such a motion. (I imagine Harvard types to be overwhelmingly liberal). So would Newsnight actually be defying my expectations of them and celebrating the victory of a team that argued that the children of illegal immigrants should be denied access to free schooling? Really?

Of course, it was more complicated than that. On Googling around it transpires that the inmates were indeed backing that unexpected position, but they were doing so despite personally opposing it - i.e. they were brilliantly playing devil's advocate (so no harm done as they didn't believe it). A safe story for Newsnight after all then.

Further checking online, this story has been a big story (for three days) at...the Guardian. I've checked quite thoroughly and the Guardian does seem to have been the only UK media to make a lot of this...other than Newsnight. 

So, yes, after all, it was a case of "Aha! a Guardian-type story about elitism in the US being 'done one over' on by the underclass!" Presumably Ian Katz read it in his old paper and thought, "Great story. Let's do that!"

And if you thought that reeked of BBC/Guardianista sensibilities then the final item absolutely stunk of them. 

Yes, it was all about the latest BBC/Guardianista obsession: transsexuals and transitioning gender - and normalising transexuality. 

(Apparently, from what I've read elsewhere, BBC One's Eastenders is being used to push this angle too.)

This Newsnight report by Cat McShane (complete with emotional music) was wholly sympathetic and one-sided (and featured an attack on a Murdoch paper for being unsympathetic), propagandist even...

...and here I get into a moral quandary because I'm as liberal as anyone at the BBC about such things. I understand. I sympathise. I wish them well...

...but this report had such an agenda, such a palpable design on its viewers, that my hackles were somewhat raised by it - particularly by Cat's ostentatiously virtue-signalling commentary. 

Checking Cat out, I can't say I was too surprised to read:

I’ve presented for the World Service, and written for Vice, The Observer, New Statesman and blogged for the Huffington Post.

Of course she has. And of course Ian Katz is a fan. (If it turned out she'd written for Breitbart I'd probably have had a heart attack from sheer shock!)