Is BBC bias getting ever more extreme?

Is BBC Bias by News Agenda Choice getting ever more extreme? 

I spotted a tweet this morning from Andrew Neil saying:

Knifeman shouting “in the name of the Prophet” shot and wounded after attacking three police officers in Cannes, shortly after 6am this morning, outside town’s main Police Commissariat.

And the newborn broadcaster he left, GB News, has the story as the main headline on its news website:.

Policeman survives suspected terror attack in French city of Cannes

I'm looking hard to see if the BBC even reported the story and finding absolutely nothing on their 'news' website. 

Nor, after a search on TVEyes, am I finding even a single mention of it on their TV channels [BBC One, BBC Two, the BBC News Channel]. 

A search of Google News reveals that media outlets from the Daily Mirror to Sky News, and from the Times and CNN and to the Daily Mail and the Independent, and from the Evening Standard and METRO to the New York Times and Jerusalem Post [and many more] are all reporting it. 

All I can't find it a link to the Guardian and the BBC.

 

Are the BBC now at the stage where they feel they can get away with not even reporting such stories?

The headlines on the homepage of the BBC News website seem to me to have taken another sharp turn towards ever-more blatant agenda-pushing in recent weeks. 

They are presently leading with Barack Obama berating Donald Trump over climate change, with more about 'racism' at Yorkshire Cricket Club as their second story and all manner of other agenda-twisted pieces following on - including a new 'identity politics grievance' piece.

How far is far-right?

Listening to the Today Programme this morning I heard Ross Hawkins’s alarming vox-pop cameo, which was clearly designed to advance the absurd hypothesis that the threat of violence from the “extreme far-right” is equal to, if not in excess of, the violence (terrorism) motivated by Islamic extremism. While he was at it, he also managed to belittle Sara Khan, who was in the studio talking to Mishal Husain, who conducted this interview in her ‘impatient-schoolmarm’ voice. (No saccharine tones for Sara Khan this morning.)

I know full transcriptions can be dull, but since you’re here  I’ve made one for you, you might as well read it. (Emphases: italics=theirs; bold=mine)

MH
Let’s start with your own position and the question about how effective you can be when there was so much criticism of your appointment because you were perceived by so many people as insufficiently independent of government. 

SK
Well, I would contest that. I have criticised government in the past when I believed government policy is wrong and the best example I can give actually is my opposition to the government’s counter-extremism bill itself. If I agree with government policy, if I believe that one of their policy is correct then I will support it. That’s the approach I’ve taken in the past and that’s the approach I’ll continue to take in the future. 

MH
But the central government policy in this area is the Prevent policy, which is widely regarded as being stigmatising to Muslims, even a UN special rapporteur said that it could actually end up promoting extremism, by dividing, stigmatising and alienating segments of the population, now the organisation you used to run took money from Prevent, didn’t it? 

SK
 I think it’s really important to make clear that my remit as lead commissioner is not Prevent. I have no remit with Prevent whatsoever. My focus is looking at extremism in this country and I think Ross’s piece is very interesting because it actually highlights the challenge of extremism today and in particular what does modern day extremism look like. 

MH
Yes we’ll come to that in a minute, but the point about your credentials, it is correct isn’t it, that your organisation did benefit from money that came from Prevent. 

SK
So one of my campaigns that “Inspire’ ran was an anti-ISIS campaign called ‘making a stand’; that was one campaign that the Home Office funded over ten years’ worth of work. I’m very proud of that campaign, if I was with Inspire again I would do that campaign again. The campaign benefited Muslim women from across the country. It taught them theological counter-narratives to extremist ideology. It taught them who they can go to for support, and the Home Office, I believe has a responsibility and a duty to support Muslim communities, to support other communities who are facing extremism and how to safeguard their children. 

MH
But some of those who’ve been very worried about your appointment, a Labour MP Naz Shah, the Conservative Peer Lady Sayeeda Warsi, the Muslim Women’s Collective, the Muslim Women’s Network UK, you have a really important job to do and these are all people and organisations that you need to work with, don’t you, and it doesn’t seem as if you’ve had them onside at the moment. 

SK
I would disagree with that I mean from day one I’ve made it very clear that I’m going to engage widely and that’s what I’ve done. Over the…

MH
Which parts do you disagree with, needing to work with them…. 

SK
…over the last few months I’ve engaged with over three hundred people, experts, academics, I’ve visited ten cities, just last week I was in Liverpool at meeting with different faith leaders which included ten Imams from ten different mosques. I’ve engaged with different Muslim women’s organisations .. 

MH
But with… 

SK
…I’ve had a very constructive meeting… 

MH
With the aim of doing what? You’re going about doing these meetings and you are planning to write a report I think, about the evidence you’re gathering..if you need to gather evidence, now, on extremism, does it suggest that we haven’t properly defined what extremism is, as yet. 

SK
Well, government has defined extremism, and there is a definition, now what’s been interesting for me as I’ve toured the country and I’ve spoken to faith leaders, I’ve spoken to women’s organisations, I’ve spoken to ordinary people, is how they see extremism. They have described it to me with crystal clarity. They can see extremism and they know what it is when they see it, so, far-right demonstrations in their cities, the extremism they’re seeing on social media - I was in Leicester for example…. 

MH
Has that, I mean, on far-right extremism, do you think we as a country have underestimated that? 

SK
Well  think we’re underestimating the scale of all forms of extremism and i want to be clear, my extreme - my commission is looking at all forms of extremism, that’s why I’ve been meeting people who specialise in far right extremism, islamist extremism, hard left extremism, I’ve spoken to Hindu and Sikh activists who are concerned about extremism within their own communities, and so looking at that and understanding the scale of that is what I’ve set out to do which is why we want to do a comprehensive study looking at the scale of extremism, the harm it’s causing - we don’t talk enough about the harm it’s causing, the tactics that extremists are using, and understanding the changing face of extremism in 2018. If we don’t understand extremism Michelle (sic) we’re not going to be able to effectively counter it. 

MH
Sara, thank you very much.

Hmm. That got me thinking. I wonder what the government’s definition of far-right extremism is? 

I Googled. 

Demos starts its study on this topic by stating: 

“In tandem with, and partially as a result of national political and social differences, there is no clear definition of far-right extremism.” 

I haven’t read the whole thing because my attention-span has dwindled to negligible, but a quick skim led me to surmise that they believe the far-right extremism of today has much to do with opposition to Islamic terrorism.

(Do correct me if I’m jumping to my own pre-conceived hypothesis.)

Since we’re allowing folks to meddle with internationally recognised definitions of racism and bigotry, and since internationally recognised definitions are evidently susceptible to the pick’n’mix approach, perhaps we don’t need definitive guidelines after all. 

We already tend to thoughtlessly label each other ‘bigot’ ‘extremist’ ‘hard left’ or far-right. Or Zio. 

If I’m not mistaken, the kind of far-right extremism to which everyone, including Sara Khan, the government, the BBC and the liberal consensus appears to be alluding, is vociferous opposition to all manifestations of Islam that are ‘incompatible-with-our-values’ i.e., far-right extremism merely means opposition to the creeping Islamisation of the west.  

All that nonsense about extreme Hinduism and Sikhism, not forgetting that silent spectre in the room, ultra-orthodox Judaism - most of whom appear to be religious fanatics who confine their abusive practices to insiders - and the inflated threat of violence (against whom?) from the far-right - all that bluster seems very much like a smokescreen, set up purely as a cover. Why?  To avoid being accused of that terrible crime, Islamophobia. 

Perhaps they’re correct to fear that “far-right rallies” will whip up unrest, thus endangering the elusive (or non-existent) condition called ‘social cohesion’.  But one has to ask,  which came first, the establishment’s deliberate social engineering project designed to acclimatise the irreligious majority to an unmanageable influx of Muslim immigration by stealth, with the media frantically endeavouring to normalise Islamic religious and cultural practices - or the existing population’s resistance to it? 

I’m saying that the particular kind of ‘far-right extremism’ that these organisations, including Khan’s,  are referring to is a reactive phenomenon. It wouldn’t exist without its cause. 

To muddy the waters further, the problem has been turned on its head; but we’re still stuck with Islamic terrorism now, whether or not Sara Khan and her team are able to shut down the opposition, or if the state keeps Tommy Robinson behind bars in perpetuity. 

Who was it who said “If British Muslims renounced their religion, there would be no more violence; but if they silenced the “far-right” Britain would be Islamic."  I might have mixed up that quote with one about another intractable conflict.

If the government’s definition of far-right extremism is that elastic, I’m a far-right extremist; and so, probably, are you.

A bit of a general rant rather than a take-down of a specific piece of BBC bias this time, but at least you had the transcript. Sorry about the football.  

The Experts. Antisemitism and the Government’s plans to tackle Islamist extremism

Alas! Lack of technical nous prevents me from embedding the video into this blog. But I implore you to click on the link and please, bear with me and scroll past the montage of all Tuesday’s front pages, right down, on and on,  to the video headed “What the commentators say”

It’s Chris Rogers (who has form) hosting the paper review with guests ‘Journalist Rachel Shabi and Ben Riley-Smith of the Telegraph’.

Understandably, as this is a football-obsessed country (opiate of the masses etc) a major chunk of the chat is about Leicester City.  

Cheering News indeed. But we’ve already spotted that the biggest story on the front page of the Telegraph is the piece by Kate McCann with its screaming headline  Labour Suspends 50 for racism.

You couldn’t miss it, even if you were just a run of the mill viewer and not an actual ‘Telegraph political correspondent based in Westminster.’ For a while I thought the whole thing was going to be devoted to the footie, but eventually, Chris Rogers said  “There is some other news in the papers.”

Cack-handedly looking for some kind of code in a failed attempt to embed the video I found a bizarre transcript, apparently the output of a bot.

“Labour suspends 54 racism” it declares, mistaking “54” for “50 for”. Fun, but not much use for those of us who appreciate a good transcript. 

Anyway, you’ll have to play the video to get the full force, because even if I were to spend half a day transcribing it meticulously, you need the original sound and the visuals to get the full effect.

  

Watching Rachel Shabi, (well-known to those who have followed CifWatch now UK MediaWatch ) and a frequent guest on Dateline, is never a pleasant experience, either for the politics or the simpering manner.

Combine a foghorn with a mid-Atlantic drawl plus that metropolitan str e t c h ing of certain words, as in ‘soooo’. 

That’s the audio. Then there’s the visuals. A semi-amused smirk, a twinkly eye and much animated head-turning from speaker to speaker with a mixture of exaggerated expectation and faux admiration, but all the while waiting to air her misguided and self-opinionated views.

According to Ms Shabi, all this antisemitism needs to be put in context. It’s a widespread issue, always there, but "not specifically in the Labour Party." It’s only in the Telegraph because of the election, otherwise it wouldn’t be there at all. 

“Right-wing elements seem to be trawling through ..... we don’t have a control of this experiment, do we, we don’t have people doing the same for the Conservative partiee or any other partiee - there’s no way to tell that this is specifically about the Labour Party.”

Ben Riley-Smith doesn’t seem to have been following this particular news story at all. He couldn’t recall the name of the MP who had publicly accosted Ken upon the stair (he wasn’t there again today / I wish, I wish he’d go away)

“Antisemitism is a problem in society”, ventured Chris Rogers “Not just in the Labour Party”.

“Percisely” says the foghorn “I don’t think it’s particularly fair to say that the Labour Pardee has a problem with antisemitism”

“But politicians are meant to lead by example” says Chris Rogers, tasked with playing Devil’s advocate.

Next up: “PM plans new laws to stop Muslim extremists”

Shabi is an expert on this topic. The government is making things worse. “The problem is that they’re focusing on Islamist extremism.” 

I’m not absolutely certain, but I imagine she’s asserting that violent extremism is nothing to do with Islam. It’s just the criminals, the insane and the disenfranchised.

“It’s just about money, it’s just about oil” chips in the Telegraph man.

Next - The Guardian: “UK’s covert fight against the lure of ISIS”. 

“There is a propaganda war, isn’t there?" announces Rogers.

“It’s gonna end up alienating just the people you wanna get engaged” says the expert, leaning closer to her reviewing companion, who, though nodding vigorously, is backing away.

“You are more of an expert than me” he says.

“Briddish-backed enterprise” enunciates Shabi “is this gonna spread more mistrust at a time when what you wannado is build that,  because if people know that they’ve been, you know, fed lines by a government-backed unit, that’s not gonna be a way to counter or deal with the problem."

"We’ve only got a couple of minutes but I really want to do this: 'man sues former employer for boring him out of his mind' ”  says the anchor.

Does this paper review encapsulate one particular attitude, dare I say that of the BBC? 

If so, to put it in Rachel Shabi’s own phrase “that’s not gonna be a way to counter or deal with the problem.”