A Saturday Selection

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

I

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

That's reported by Steerpike at the Spectator. 

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

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

II

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

III

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

The estimable Lance Forman responded:

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

IV

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

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

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

V

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

VI(a)

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

VI(b)

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

VII

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

VIII

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

IX

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

“The details of this story are pretty astonishing”

“The details of this story are pretty astonishing”, tweeted Jess Brammar, editor of the BBC's news channels, this morning. 

She was referring to a BBC News website report by James Landale, the BBC's diplomatic correspondent: Afghanistan: Foreign Office chaotic during Kabul evacuation - whistleblower. 

Reading it myself and then reading other accounts astonished me too. 

The headline in The Times shows where that paper's emphasis lies: Work-from-home culture fuelled Kabul chaos, leaving Afghan refugees in danger, says whistleblower. 

The Daily Mail agrees. In its account, the whistleblower's main point is that the UK's Afghan rescue effort was hampered by a 'work from home' culture in the Foreign Office. 

That, however, doesn't even get a mention in the BBCs report. It's not listed under ifs 'Key issues flagged' flagged section. It must be a key point, however, as the Guardian lists it as a key point under the sub-headline FCDO ‘working culture’. 

The public service 'working culture' at the FCDO sounds rather similar to that at the BBC. Is that why the BBC hasn't reported this part of the story, either because it made they weren't interested in it or felt uncomfortable reporting it? The ''chaos'' outlined in the BBC piece is about everything but that.

Update: As others are noting, the name 'Joe Biden' is missing from that long report about the chaos of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, despite him being ultimately responsible for it. 

"Bunked off early"

Here's the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale this afternoon marking a moment of history for his country:

A slice of diplomatic history at lunchtime when Boris Johnson chairs UN security council. Last UK PM to do so was John Major in 1992. That was the first time the UNSC had sat at head of state level. Also round the table were Presidents Bush, Mitterrand & Yeltsin. 

And here he is again, a little later, trying to shame his own country's PM:

So, after all that, Boris Johnson bunked off early, having chaired the council for less than an hour & listened to only 5 speakers, handing over to Dominic Raab. I wonder what the other contributors - including heads of government & John Kerry - thought about that? #diplomacy

My questions:

Is the BBC's diplomatic correspondent saying that the UK PM is lazy here? (It certainly sounds like it. And may be true. But...)

Why is he stirring the pot against his own country's PM? Why even raise such questions (off his own bat)? 

Isn't he also, indirectly perhaps, also stirring the pot against his own country's interests? #undiplomatic?

And why is he worrying about the possible offence to other world leaders - and John Kerry? And was Joe Biden there? Or didn't he bother to attend? Maybe, being a world leader, Joe's as busy as Boris, and vice versa? 

Finally: Why do BBC journalists do this?

Only, just, controversial

I was reading some comments on Twitter earlier about last night's BBC One News at Six concerning the BBC's coverage of the Government's decision to cut the UK's overseas budget from the sacred figure of 0.7%.

The thread began:

Tweeter 1: I've just watched the BBC News item on cutting foreign aid. The opening clip shows food being dropped directly to the people. That's the image they want you to take in - not grants to NGOs and Governments. Manipulation.

It continued with such comments as:

Tweeter 2: Said exactly the same thing myself when I saw that last night. They also opened up with the comment ‘widely criticised policy’ as opposed to ‘widely supported’ which it undoubtedly is across the UK. Total bias yet again in the way they portray/report!

The latter was referring to longstanding polling evidence that the public supports cutting the UK's foreign aid budget - a public mood reflected in YouGov's latest polling (from yesterday) showing that 66% of the public support cutting overseas aid while a mere 18% oppose the cut.

Naturally, I thought I ought to see that BBC report for myself. Were they being unfair to it?

Well, no, they weren't. Far from it. This really is classic BBC. 

It begins, as noted above, with the dubious contention that cutting overseas aid is "controversial" - despite all the polling evidence, which goes completely the other way:

BBC Newsreader: One of the more controversial aspects of the spending review is the Chancellor's decision to cut - for the time being - the amount of money the UK gives in aid to poorer countries. Mr Sunak told MPs that to carry on spending abroad when we have a domestic emergency would be difficult to justify to the British people. Here's James Landale.

Of course, it might seem "controversial" within the BBC and its bubble, but that's the point of the comment above: The vast bulk of the public believes it's "controversial" not to cut overseas aid, and the BBC is, yet again, massively out of step with public opinion on this.

As the first commenter said...

Accompanied by footage showing food being dropped directly to the people, a senior BBC reporter then sang what virtually amounted to hymn of praise to British overseas aid: 

James Landale: For years, the sight of a plane delivering British food and medicine has brought hope to millions. The humanitarian assistance and development that can, for some, mean the difference between life and death.

Isn't British aid wonderful!

James Landale: But now the Government has decided it's got to cut back. 

How  awful of the Government! 

After that first op-ed came a brief 'balancing' quote: 

Neil O'Brien MP, Conservative: This is not something anybody wanted to have to do, but the truth is the NHS and helping people who are unemployed has to be the priority next year.  

James Landale then 'contextualised' it. But just look at his language: 

James Landale: Last year, the UK spent £15 billion on foreign aid, about 0.7% of national income. Now the Government wants to cut that legally binding target to just 0.5%. That means spending only £10 billion on aid next year. This will leave the UK spending less in Germany on 0.6%, but more than France on 0.4%. 

The use of "just" and "only" there is loaded language, language that sends a message that 0.5% is both not much and not enough. 

It's not neutral language. 

A nod towards balance then followed, swiftly pursued by the first of James's onslaught of critics:

James Landale: The aid budget has long faced questions about priorities, such as why some goes to India, with its own space programme. But those who work to reduce poverty and disease say today's cuts will bite deep, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Romilly Greenhill, One Campaign: Cutting aid will make it harder to get vaccines to people all over the world, harder to get the treatments people need and ultimately it will extend the lifetime of the pandemic. 

The onslaught continued: 

James Landale: The Archbishop of Canterbury said the aid cut was "shameful and wrong".

The onslaught went on: 

James Landale: The Foreign Office Development Minister Lady Sugg resigned, also saying it was fundamentally wrong. 

And on: 

James Landale: And her old boss, the man who enshrined the targets in law, was equally unhappy:

David Cameron: Well, I think it's a very sad moment. It's not just that we are breaking a promise to the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world - a promise that we made, a promise that we don't have to break - it's that that 0.7% commitment, it really said something about Britain.

And then came another op-ed, hymning UK overseas aid and raising concerns about the cut: 

James Landale: For years, Britain's had a reputation as an aid superpower.  And that's got Britain a hearing on the international stage. It's opened door for ministers and officials here at the Foreign Office. The question is what impacts today's decision will actually have on that reputation just as Britain tries to carve a new role for itself after Brexit. 

And then, finally, came this more factual-sounding bit of reporting: 

James Landale: To spend less on aid, the Government will also have to change the law. That means a long Parliamentary battle ahead. James Landale, BBC News.

Does this feel like impartial reporting to you? 

It doesn't to me.

Coda to the post above

An update to the post above: Wednesday's News at Ten ramped up the language yet further. It changed from this at Six:

One of the more controversial aspects of the spending review is the Chancellor's decision to cut - for the time being - the amount of money the UK gives in aid to poorer countries. Mr Sunak told MPs that to carry on spending abroad when we have a domestic emergency would be difficult to justify to the British people. Here's James Landale.

...to this at Ten:

One of the more controversial elements of the spending review, was the Chancellor's decision to cut the amount of money the UK gives in foreign aid. The decision has been widely criticised, and a minister at the Foreign Office has resigned in protest. Mr Sunak told MPs that to carry on spending abroad when there was a domestic emergency was difficult to justify. Our diplomatic correspondent James Landale has more details.

The remainder of the report then ran as follows, relegating the one defence nearer the end and bringing the criticisms forward:

James Landale: For years, the sight of a plane delivering British food and medicine has brought hope to millions. The humanitarian assistance that can, for some, mean the difference between life and death. But now the Government's cutting back, to the fury of the man who championed aid in office.

David Cameron: Well, I think it's a very sad moment. It not just that we've... We're breaking a promise to the poorest people and the poorest countries in the world, a promise that we made and a promise that we don't have to break, it's that that 0.7% commitment, it really said something about Britain.

Last year, the UK spent £15 billion on foreign aid, about 0.7% of national income. The Government is now cutting that legally binding target to just 0.5%. That means spending only £10 billion next year. This would be less than Germany on 0.6%, but more than France on 0.4%. Those who work to reduce poverty and disease say these cuts will bite deep, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Romilly Greenhill, One Campaign: This is the last time we should be cutting aid. Cutting aid will make it harder to get vaccines to people all over the world, harder to get the treatments that people need and, ultimately, it will extend the lifetime of the pandemic. This is a little bit like cutting funding to the RAF right in the middle of the Battle of Britain. 

The Foreign Office Development Minister Lady Sugg was so unhappy she resigned, saying the cut was fundamentally wrong. But the aid budget has long faced questions about priorities, such as why some goes to India, with its own space programme. Questions that are harder to answer when the country's facing such an economic emergency.

Neil O'Brien MP, Conservative: This is not something that anybody wanted to have to do, but the truth is that the NHS and helping people who are unemployed has to be the priority next year. 

For years, Britain's had a reputation as an aid superpower. And that's got the UK a hearing on the international stage. It's opened door for ministers and officials here at the Foreign Office. The question is what impact today's decision will have on that reputation just as Britain tries to carve a new role for itself after Brexit. To spend less on aid, the Government will also have to change the law - and that means a long Parliamentary battle ahead. James Landale, BBC News.

Ever wondered what a non-sarcastic BBC comment about Donald Trump looks like?

(Spoiler: You won't find the answer below.)

Also as per a comment by Peter, here's the BBC's Diplomatic Correspondent James Landale:

Ever wondered what ⁦@realDonaldTrump⁩’s motorcade looks like from above? Here it is keeping the good folk of Buenos Aires awake... pic.twitter.com/GPpRWT5rZc

— James Landale (@BBCJLandale) December 1, 2018

Here are some of my favourite responses (not all of them from Twitter!):

• You new at this covering Presidential motorcades and security thing, James?
• Clearly technology was more advanced in the past when Obama's motorcade could pass noiselessly through residential areas. 
• It's unbelievable how Trump gets criticised for doing things every other President has done. People on Twitter criticised him for his statement on Bush because it was written by a speechwriter. There have been speechwriters for years!
• Now tweet the one of Clinton visiting Belfast. The same cavalcade. I watched it go past. This is the norm not news.

CCBGB

In the CCBGB ('comments could be going better') stakes, I think the BBC's Diplomatic Correspondent James Landale has all won hands down today - with no need whatsoever for a second people's referendum vote to make certain of that. 

Two of his tweets have gone down extraordinary badly with the twittering public, even with people who usually disagree about everything else and throw insults at each agree. 

In fact he seems to have achieved the impossible, bringing the nation together, and even uniting #FBPE types with pro-Brexit types in total condemnation of his 'cheap political point-scoring':

Here's a small selection of the replies:

• May laid a wreath at Thiepval with Macron on Friday.Today she was at the Cenotaph, accompanied by the President of Germany and watched by the Queen. Find a political grievance somewhere else.
• This is a pretty shameful agenda you're pushing here, James/BBC. The Royal Family, May and others are in the right place at the Cenotaph - not abroad.
• Today is not a time for trying to score points. Mrs May was rightly in attendance at our Cenotaph. As you know she was in Europe prior for other events.
• So she's expected to snub the President of Germany then? And the British people?
• Your snarky tweets don’t serve you or the BBC very well today.
• David Liddington? Far left of picture, second row from front. You're welcome.
• What is your problem? The PM was at the cenotaph where she ought to be.
• She would have been criticised for not being at the Cenotaph if she were there. I'm no fan of May's but it's asinine to criticise her for being at the Cenotaph.
• You know full well the PM was at the Cenotaph as every PM before her on Remembrance Sunday. Your remarks are snide. I would say I expect better from the BBC but that is proving harder and harder by the day.
• James Landale and BBC should be thoroughly ashamed of this tweet!
• Stop trying to spin a line, for goodness' sake. Now is not the time.
• Has a PM ever missed the Cenotaph on the 11th of the 11th? BBC News has sunk to a new low!

Now, in fairness to James, he wasn't the only high-profile BBC reporter saying such things (surprise, surprise!): Jeremy Bowen was at it too, earlier tweeting an image of M. Macron and Mrs. Merkel together and asking a question:

Some of the public soon gave him the answer - though not as overwhelmingly, given that his followers are particularly partisan (surprise, surprise!):

• Dr Alison Statham: This was a reaffirmation of Franco-German unity at the spot where the Armistice was signed, and where Hitler chose to humiliate France 22 years later.
• Kevin McGregor: I’m glad you said it Alison as I was going to. The fact that Jeremy is such an esteemed BBC journalist I’d have thought he’d have tried to find out the historic background first before commenting.
• Celia D: UK/France/Belgium ceremony was on Friday.
• Spurs2257: Together Theresa May and Macron attended ceremonies on Friday I believe.
• Rosemary: She had to return to attend the British Legion Festival of Remembrance last night in the Royal Albert Hall. A very fitting tribute.

Star BBC reporters, eh? Worth every penny of the licence fee! 

*******

Reading those two James Landale tweets in particular makes me wonder, purely speculatively (in the manner of Norman Smith) if the snarky, sarky style favoured by the likes of Anthony Zurcher, Mike Wendling, Jon Sopel, Dominic Casciani, even John Simpson, plus sooooo many other BBC types on Twitter, has been given official BBC clearance. 

Maybe it's even being officially encouraged, to attract the young and the social media crowd? 

Just a thought. 

*******

Oh, and at the zenith of this phenomenon, shining brightly from his own highest point (or maybe somewhere lower), is Anthony Zurcher. His last six tweets (one's neutral) include these five impartiality-free cracks:

Are you feeling the 'BBC impartiality' there? (Can't say I am).

Maybe he's angling after a job at Saturday Night Live in his home country or The Mash Report here?

It's the way 'e tells 'em! (wink).

Marr matters

Mr. Marr's Sunday Morning Service didn't open with the words "Polyphiloprogenitive/The sapient sutlers of the Lord" but with this reassuring homily instead:

Good morning to you. Remembrance Sunday. A day for many of us to reflect on relatives killed in war, but also a day, perhaps, to look around us at the somewhat scary-seeming world we're living in now, and to reflect over many decades past, the outlook for Britain was much, much more perilous.

Amen.

*******

No caption needed from me

There was an exciting bit of (pre-watershed) BBC-on-BBC action on the Marr sofa this morning with James 'Scoop' Landale acting as one of Andrew's paper reviewers. I was particularly taken by this exchange, which neatly punctured a line that hardline Remainers are pushing today (via the Observer):

Andrew Marr: James, can I ask you about Northern Ireland? That is another really, really important hard-edge political story today.  

James Landale: Really important story, which hasn't been sorted yet.  What I thought was really interesting in this piece in the Observer is just the scale of the robustness of the briefing that the EU... We always forget ...We kind of think that this is just a...that only the Brits brief. Actually the Europeans brief very hard. There's one fantastic quote here where a senior EU official is quoted as saying, "My impression is that this issue of Northern Ireland isn't a priority for the UK". I mean, if I was a UK negotiator, I'd find that deeply offensive. There's also an amazing quote from Sir Andrew Duff, an incredibly powerful pro-European MEP, who accuses...who says that Britain is experiencing "a Weimar collapse", which is overstatement to say the least!  

Andrew Marr: Absolutely. There is a lot of very aggressive briefing coming from Brussels, and we shouldn't forget that.

I have to say though that I don't think I've ever thought that "only the Brits brief". I - and I bet you - have never been guilty of "always" forgetting that the EU engages in "very aggressive briefing". I think it's a revealing little insight into BBC thinking that this very obvious thing seems like something of a revelation to James Landale. 

*******

Camilla Tominey

Another interesting exchange during the paper review this morning was between Andrew and the Sunday Express's political editor Camilla Tominey:

Andrew Marr: Before we get to that, I just want to ask you one thing. I've noticed over the last few weeks and months that the Sunday Express, your paper, is putting politics much more often on the front page than it used to. It's politics, politics, politics, which is not what we used to get from the Sunday Express. Why?  

Camilla Tominey: Well, to be fair, we've always splashed on hard news stories. I know the Daily is sometimes associated with health stories, but we've always gone for the news of the week. Politics is selling for us, and that's really good, and I think we always do the kind of 'Sunday lunch test' when we think what we're going to splash on - what are people talking about? - and I think our readers have felt vindicated by the Brexit vote and want to read more about it. Fisheries is a particularly emblematic story, which is why we put it on the front page today.

By coincidence, I was just thinking that I'd noticed that Camilla herself was being invited onto the BBC more - and certainly more than her recent predecessors. She's been on Question Time and now she's been on The Andrew Marr Show. And I think that's really good. 

*******

An intense moment with Michael Gove

As for the two main political interviews - with Sadiq Khan and Michael Gove - well, my old interruption coefficients show that Mr Khan (1.0) was interrupted more frequently than Mr Gove (0.8) but my subjective impression is that Mr Gove received the tougher interview. 

Sadiq Khan was questioned on (1) Boris and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, (2) transport fares, (3) housing, (4) Uber, (5) clean air, (6) Trump and (7) Brexit. 

Michael Gove was questioned on (1) the Green-Left lobby's praise for him, (2) Boris and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, (3) Boris again, (4) Brexit, (5) the environment post-Brexit and (6) clean air. 

"Are you an Uber man?", Andrew asked Sadiq. 

"With respect that is not good enough", Andrew scolded Michael. 

"It's part of democracy when we point out democratic mistakes, I would argue", Andrew also reprimanded Michael. 

And "Dig for Victory!" Andrew chimed in when Mr Gove was outlining the post-Brexit future for farmers. Hmm.

*******

Guess who?

Of course, no Sunday would now feel wholly complete without some Rob Burley Twitter action, and the Andrew Marr Show editor has been busy again this morning defending his programme from all manner of interesting people.

Yes, I know there's something of old Bedlam (where the public were permitted to laugh at the mad inmates) about my presentation of all of this, but unlike that horrible spectacle from a bygone age, this is actually funny. 

And this week's selection features some bonus sane people for good measure.

So please purchase your popcorn and take your seats, ladies and gentlemen. Let's begin!...

Rob Burley: Team news...Full #marr line up: (3-5-2) Landale, Hinsliff, Tominey, Khan, Gove, Peach, Bell, Bening, Parker, Dyson, Rock. Kick off 9am tomorrow BBC1.

Tim Fenton‏: The Sunday Express has a real political editor? 

Rob Burley: Yes, she's on the telly.

Tim Fenton: Seen her - just a surprise that the Desmond press needs anyone to edit what they put out.

J-P. Janson De Couët‏: #SackBorisJohnson

jeane macmillan‏: I'm be interested to know how you justify the lack of female representation on the show this morning.

Rob Burley: Hi Jeane - fair point. Last week the opposite was true, just one man. But to an extent we are dependent on who the parties put forward. So I agree, the balance today not as I would have it.

Scott Reid: Almost all of this interview should be on Sunday Politics London.

Rob Burley: Well he is the mayor of London...

Chris Peatfield‏: So please rename Marr to this is London Politics

Rob Burley: Relax, it's not really a problem. I'm sure people outside London care about Trump and Johnson stories.

Craig Duncan: When scripting #Marr s question why not just ask him - “What’s your prepared answer on this contentious issue I won’t press you on?”

Rob Burley: Just a load of old tosh that one Craig.

Craig Duncan: I know you think that… or it wouldn’t happen - but interviewees are being let off with so much. Maybe it’s just the style of the sort of show your bosses want and your hands are tied.

Rob Burley: No, the idea of bosses dictating to me is a fantasy. We ask tough questions and pursue them but we're not rude and hear people out and time isn't limitless.

Craig Duncan: I think that enroute in the cab politicians would view an interview with Marr a breeze while dread an interview with Neil. That’s the difference. However I REALLY do appreciate and respect you not ignoring complaints like mine and others Rob.

[Rob Burley liked.]

Peter Kirkham‏: Met police collapsing in the #CrisisInPolicing. Police stations closing all around. Commissioner  giving unprecedented warnings over more cuts to come... And when @AndrewMarr9 @MarrShow has @MayorofLondon on he doesn't ask a SINGLE question on. Policing! Why not @RobBurl 

Rob Burley: Fair point. We had a very short period of time because he was leaving for the Cenotaph.

Rob Burley‏: @Dyson announces new electric car with driverless element. . .

WWICK: Brilliant, fewer unchallenged politicians on #Marr please, more entrepreneurs and business leaders (not associations or federations).

Rob Burley‏: If you think Sadiq Khan was "unchallenged" your telly is on the blink.

.Ah Magners‏: Don’t watch it any more because it’s basically a vehicle to allow Tories to spout their pish unchallenged.

Rob Burley: Pish backatcha. Your telly must be faulty too. Actually watch the show and you will see - as with M Gove today - the challenge is present and correct.

.Ah Magners: Be too much time out of my life I’d never get back. How many right wingers you have on this morning.

Rob Burley: If you can't be bothered to watch - because let's face it you're a massively busy person who just happens to be arising around on Twitter - I can't be bothered to answer your stoopid questions!

Rob Burley: Sorry, I meant "arsing" nor "arising".

Rob Burley: Get your tellies on. ... #marr

Minnie rolfe: I have got my telly on and I'm staggered by the differential, sycophantic tone of #Marr towards tax dodger Brextremist, Dyson compared with his Punch and Judy badgering of @SadiqKhan, can @MarrShow editor check the footage and respond.

Rob Burley: One of them is a politician with a record to defend, the other a businessman hence the tone difference. I note you don't like him, or Brexit, but that's not really how we approach interviews.

Pie Thagoram‏: Again Marr doesnt challenge Gove on £350m "gross" figure, needs to clarify the rebate to viewers

Rob Burley: Oh come off it.

Pie Thagoram‏: sorry Rob, you are reaffirming the view as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation #unacceptable

Rob Burley‏: I see what you did there. Amazing.

Stewart Lewis: I'm afraid it was as you feared, and a bit worse.  Not a whiff of challenge to Dyson, but strong pushback on Sadiq Khan.  Makes you wonder a bit...
Rob Burley: Makes me wonder whether you missed the Gove interview Stewart.

And finally...

Rob Burley: Wow! You go to a lot of trouble to announce you aren't going to watch #marr and, at the same time, quote the show you say you missed, almost as if you didn't miss it. There are even pictures!
Damon Evans: I took screenshots from the start/line-up of the programme. Switched off immediately after. Gove is enough to put anyone off their breakfast.
Rob Burley: Honest, I put it on, took some screen shots and then turned it off straight away! I think you want to watch it really. Don't fight it.
Damon Evans: Haha. I usually do watch it (and often defend @AndrewMarr9 against the masses who accuse him of Brexit bias). However, I really couldn’t stomach it this morning. Hopefully next week the line-up won’t be as nauseating.
Rob Burley: It's Philip Hammond and John McDonnell? How's the tummy with that?
Damon Evans: Turning.

*******

P.S. The interview with Sir James Dyson is well worth catching up on. As was the Stanley Spencer bit and the closing song. You can't beat a bit of Butterworth and Housman. 

Colluding with a foreign government

The Priti Patel affair has left a nasty stench. Before they lost interest in it, fickle as usual, the BBC spent a few days frantically rationalising their own hysteria.  The gravity of Priti Patel’s misdemeanour was protested "too much" and amplified, as if this particular breach of ministerial code was unique and unforgivable and that’s all there was to it. 

Christian Fraser, talking to Katty Kay, spent quite a while explaining that this fuss has nothing to do with the fact, you understand, that the country in question was you-knew-where. This seemed a little outside their "Beyond 100 days" Trump-bashing remit. 

Had the country in question been, say, Uganda, Bolivia, Timbuctoo, Honolulu, Namibia or Kathmandu, the response would have been just the same, you’d better believe it. That was the gist - but is anyone at the BBC aware of the torrent of antisemitic bile that has been unleashed?

The Guardian’s live, minute-by-minute updates tracking the progress of Priti Patel’s plane journey home were pure “The Day Today”. They weren’t actually trying to be funny of course.

Melanie Phillips has another “must read” piece on this fiasco. Do click on the link and read it.

This piece by Seth Frantzen "ANATOMY OF A SCANDAL: THOUGHTS ON THE PRITI PATEL RESIGNATION AND ISRAEL" covers the whole event in some detail and contains some pertinent links to Twitter etc.  It made me wonder  who ‘leaked’ to James Landale and what was their intent?

“In a piece at Tablet Eylon Aslan-Levy asserts that “there isn’t an antisemitic undertone to the reporting. But the press spin of secret meetings, with questions about wealthy Jewish lobbyists helping Israel gain underhand influence over British policy, runs the risk of pushing some worrying buttons.” He goes on, “if the news cycle in Britain decides to drag this story on rather than jump to the next manufactured crisis, Britain’s Jewish community will be unnerved by what a bored punditocracy could do with such fecund material for a conspiracy.” Tom Gross has asserted in i24 that the ousting might be due to “undercurrents of anti-semitism.”

I’d really like to know who alerted James Landale to this business in the first place, and why. I’m not blaming the messenger you understand. Just curious. Was it someone in the FCO? Someone who knew it was the sort of thing the BBC would appreciate. “I saw this, and I thought of you”

“colluding with a foreign government”, Lord Falconer called it on the Today Programme aided and abetted by Nick Robinson. Compared with Robinson's recent hostile interview with  Tzipi Hotovely, he seemed quite benign here. He may have asked the right questions, but without much conviction, and he allowed Falconer to perpetuate some unpleasant antisemitic tropes, unchallenged.

From BBC Watch:

One of those items included a discussion (from 02:13:45 here) between presenter Nick Robinson, Conservative MP Crispin Blunt and former Labour politician Lord Falconer who accused Priti Patel of “colluding with a foreign government” and looking “like she’s much more the emissary of the Israeli government than a member of the British government”. 

When Robinson asked “if she’d told the Foreign Office would that have made it OK?”, Falconer painted a garish caricature of the actual story that went completely unchallenged by Robinson. 

Falconer: “I doubt it because the whole feel of the thing is that she – without officials, without telling anybody – which I think is one element only, was talking to them and instead of saying look I come with the British government’s view, I come with my own view. Let’s work out – the Israeli government and Miss Patel – how we can get assets out of the British government to help Israel. That does not look to me like the activity of a British government minister.” [emphasis added] 

Later on in the conversation (02:16:57) Nick Robinson posed the following question:
Robinson: “Isn’t part of a subtext here, Charlie Falconer, that some people dislike the fact that Priti Patel is pro-Israel? Maybe the Foreign Office dislikes that and that this is a particular case rather than a general one? You’ve even accused her of trying to raise money for a leadership bid.” 

Falconer: “Well I don’t know whether she’s doing that or not but I mean it obviously positions her well with those who are very pro-Israel, who would like to see a pro-Israel leader of either the Tory or the Labour party.” 

Clearly understanding Falconer’s insinuation, Robinson then made an observation that – in light of the BBC’s ‘Jewish lobby’ record – is worthy of note. 

Robinson: “I’ve got to put it to you, you know, there’ll be some people in the Jewish community listening to that and saying that’s the sort of paranoia about the Jewish community that is unacceptable.” 

Falconer: “It’s nothing to do with paranoia about any particular country or any particular group. You do not want a prime minister who is in hock to the United States of America. You do not want a prime minister who is in hock to any particular group.” 

“In hock” is defined as meaning “owing money to a person or organisation, or forced to do things for them because they have lent you money or have helped you”.
The conversation then moved on, with Robinson posing no further challenge to Falconer’s barely veiled promotion of the type of age-old tropes concerning scheming “pro-Israel” groups, governments, power and money that, until now, the BBC had over the last couple of years appeared to try to expunge from its content.  

Protocols

Many of his colleagues are patting James Landale on the back for exposing a breach of ministerial code which seems to have prompted the imminent sacking of another member of the Conservative government. Well done James! And you did so with such relish!  

But as well as drawing attention to a violation of procedure, this investigative triumph has unleashed a Pandora’s box of bile.

Patel and Erdan

While Jeremy Corbyn hangs out at the Finsbury Park Mosque with his friends, prominent members of Hamas, James Landale’s ever-expanding revelations are currently facilitating an outpouring of  unadulterated, ignorance-fuelled hatred. Check out the comments section in the Indy for starters. 

Corbyn and Kozbar

I’m not saying that ministers should be allowed to ‘get away with’ breaches of protocol if it suits 'my' agenda. But unless we can be sure that Priti Patel’s breach is unique and unprecedented I’ll reserve judgement, and until I can be certain that all violations of protocol are consistently rooted out, quashed and tried by media whenever and wherever they have happened, I’ll keep quiet.

Priti pickle

Criticism of Priti Patel for her ‘holiday’ was all over the BBC yesterday, even partially eclipsing other  sensational news, and I couldn’t help wondering, like esteemed commenter “deegee”…..

……whether the BBC was being more antisemitic than was absolutely necessary. 

Needless to say, Tweets praising the merits of James Landale's investigative journalism  have attracted a predictable type of fly.

However, it seems that esteemed commenter “Pounce” has the low-down on the matter.

It truly was a matter of ministerial code. But did James Landale need to actually slavver over it?

Update.

Labour seems to think the way to get Jeremy Corbyn into Number Ten is to knock the Tory cabinet down one by one like skittles.

“Did she have any meetings on the Palestinian side because she of course will appreciate the importance, as a Middle East minister, of a wholly balanced approach to the ME peace process, not a one-sided one. 

[…] and if we had a PM who wasn’t so weak both (Priti+Boris) of them would have been sacked.

I’d love to know how many times a call for the “Israeli side to be heard” have been uttered by Ben Bradshaw when a member of his own party has brought up some Palestinian grievance or other in the house.

The Mandy Rice-Davies approach.

I have friends - I once had friends - who are avid Guardian readers.. They see themselves as humanitarians, libertarians and socialists. They are undoubtedly middle class so I suppose it’s the Guardian that has made them into inverted snobs. They are staunchly a-religious and they take a dim view of Islamic fundamentalism and, obviously, terrorism. However, they have absorbed every melodramatic detail of the tragic Nakba / catastrophe. Why they chose to follow the Palestinian/Arab narrative exclusively, and so religiously, I have no clue. It’s as though they have abandoned reason. To me this is a complete, logic-defying mystery. However, their opinions are what they are and, by the atheist God almighty, they’re sticking to them. 

The reason behind this can only be latent antisemitism; but they don’t see it. They would be mortified at such an idea.

Under the general umbrella of “Stolen Land”, their view of the creation of Israel goes like so: Indigenous “Palestinians” were forced out of their homes at gunpoint by interloping European and American Jews who were mysteriously authorised to do so, illegally, by the British. 

They are the very types who claim they don’t hate Israel, only “What Israel is doing” . 

Recently, the Guardian featured a typically disingenuous article by Mahmoud Abbas, titled: “Britain must atone for the Balfour declaration – and 100 years of suffering” h

UK media Watch has given it a thorough Fisking. But of course, my ex-friends won’t see this, and even if they did they would be sure to take the Mandy Rice Davies approach.  

PMW has another deconstruction of Abbas’s account of ‘the greatest crime in the history of mankind”, which my ex-friends and their fellow Guardian readers are even more unlikely to see.

Oh well. That’s what this country is like these days. Here is Theresa May’s curate’s egg of a speech followed by a moving speech by Israel’s PM. at the Balfour Dinner, which I hope the shadow foreign secretary enjoyed.

Harriet Harman precedes anti-semitic joke with: "People like Andrew say these things are perfectly alright". What could go wrong? #bbctw pic.twitter.com/bMcWmi1p7G

— Rob Howland (@HowlandRobin) November 3, 2017

Now, there's the Andrew Neil thing that everyone is talking about, and finally this strangely gleeful BBC report by James Landale about a scandalous breach of the ministerial code of conduct.
“I put a long list of questions to her department about this”.

He would, wouldn’t he.

'Embarrassing defeat'

The BBC News website's home page has the following headline this morning:

The BBC report's sub-headline is:

And who is being quoted there? A politician or diplomat from one side of the dispute? No, it's the BBC's diplomatic editor James Landale. 

The BBC is highlighting its own reporter's take on the news there.

And that's not his only opinion. James also blames the defeat on the Brexit vote:

James Landale, Twitter and fake news

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale sent out a tweet yesterday that 'went viral', going on to received over 18,000 re-tweets and even more 'likes':

The thread beneath his tweet began well for him, with The Media Show presenter Andrea Catherwood, among many others, joining in disapproval and mockery of the US president: 

Unfortunately, many others - some avowedly not Trump supporters - began pointing out that Trump almost certainly was wearing a translation device and later produced the photographic evidence to prove it. Andrea Catherwood at first refused to believe them and then, when the evidence became too conclusive, simply shut up and went away. (A story for a future edition of The Media Show maybe?)

James's tweet came to the attention of Sean 'Spicy' Spicer:

James Landale then sent forth a second tweet, which - it has to be said - received far, far, far fewer re-tweets and likes:

Unfortunately (for him), the comments below this second tweet won't have made for happy reading for the BBC's diplomatic correspondent. Here's a highly representative selection:

• He does. I've seen him photographed with it. If I know that from published photos shouldn't a BBC journalist know that?
• If he can't be objective instead of vindictive, maybe he ought to stick to covering children's soccer games.
• It's embarrassing how journalists have allowed their partisanship to get in the way.
• And look at the replies to your tweet. Do not complain when people call you fake news.
• And he kept the fake news tweet up too. He's practising vindictiveness, not journalism.
• But that didn't stop you before spreading nonsense?
• I hate how this last election has turned every journalist into some "gotcha" activist, where they are only concerned about their politics.
• You "reported" before inquiring. Solid work.
• BBC is the CNN of Europe, spewing fake news 24/7.
• Shouldn't he just quit and find a new line of work??   I mean it doesn't get lower than spreading Fake News like that.
• An objective journalist would verify before tweeting this as fact (see: MLK Bust on day 1.) 
• You actually thought that Trump ignores speeches?
• Where is your apology for falsely stating President Trump did not have earpiece? Terrible journalism.
• Apology for your insinuation will be forthcoming?
• Say it with me, James. "I was wrong. I retract." You can do it!
• You're fake news.

Gossip column

From the Telegraph to the Guardian, and a bit of Guardianista BBC gossip (played out, probably unsurprisingly, on Twitter):

It takes a lot to make an Old Etonian blow his top in public, but ITV’s passion for Peston led BBC deputy political editor James Landale to take to Twitter and tell a group of fellow TV lobby journalists (Chris Ship, Andy Bell, Allegra Stratton and Joey Jones, some of whom are also thought to have applied for the ITV political editorship): “I tweet tonight in praise of quiet competence and putting the story first. KBO [Keep Buggering On]”.

As Landale got television news’s only scoop in May’s election – David Cameron’s revelation that he would only be PM for two terms – yet is still a No 2, having presumably missed out on both the BBC and ITV top jobs, his ire is understandable; what’s striking is that he chose to implicitly damn show-off, “noisy” reporters (as opposed to quiet competence) whose goal is projecting their personality (as opposed to prioritising the story), apparently with Peston in mind. 

Let’s hope his No 1 Laura Kuenssberg, preferred to Landale when Nick Robinson’s job was up for grabs, wasn’t in his sights too. Her normally affable deputy happens to be the author of a book on duelling.

A classic BBC stealth edit

I didn't see Friday evening's BBC One News at Six, but others did. 

Here's a comment from the previous thread:

Likewise the posh James political correspondent (the one who interviewed Cameron before the election) asserted boldly that the government had fallen behind the curve of public opinion on the migrant issue. As you rightly point out, that is just BBC PC bllx and by 10pm he had changed his tune - no mention of being behind the curve of opinion.

And here's someone at Digital Spy: 

James Landale on the BBC 6 o'clock News on Friday, following Cameron's revised position:

"the Prime Minister found himself behind the curve of public opinion, and has belatedly tried to address this".

How the heck did Landale know what "public opinion" was? How dare he state it like it was some indisputable fact? Like so many of his colleagues, he mistakes the siren voices of the Guardianista for "public opinion",  

That original report has gone from the iPlayer but, by luck, is still to be found on the BBC website. At 1:48 you can indeed hear James Landale saying:

To his great frustration David Cameron has found himself behind the curve of public opinion on this - both at home and abroad.

As we now know, from yesterday's Mail on Sunday/Survation poll and, even more strikingly, from today's Sun/YouGov poll, this couldn't have been more wrong. 

The public weren't - and aren't - anywhere near where James Landale assumed them to be on this issue. So this is another case of a BBC reporter reporting inaccurately.

The later report, also by luck (though not for the BBC perhaps), is now available on YouTube. 

If you watch the two versions of the report concurrently you'll see that they are exactly the same until that 1:48 point. Then the later version leaps forwards by 17 seconds to the bit where Mrs Merkel and Mr Hollande criticise David Cameron. 

Yes, the second video simply edits out the inaccurate/biased passage, with James Landale then editing in a tiny change of words (at the start of the Merkel/Hollande bit of the second version) to cover over the cracks - and cover the BBC's tracks. The two versions then run in parallel again until the final few seconds.

So yes, the BBC did change its tune over this as Friday evening went on (or got cold feet) and then edited their report to try and hide the fact.