The BBC's bread magnet comes unstuck

 

Two critics of Nish Kumar

The Independent quotes Nish Kumar's reaction to the BBC's cancellation of his The Mash Report:

Responding to the news on Twitter, Kumar wrote: “A lot of people are asking me for a comment and here it is” – accompanied with an image of himself on the show pointing to a screen that reads: “Boris Johnson is a liar and a racist.”

Of course, Boris Johnson isn't a racist.

The Independent also quotes James O'Brien, the ex-Newsnight presenter, complaining:

The Mash Report, a comedy program critical of the government has been axed by the state broadcaster, reportedly for political reasons, and at the behest of a director general appointed by the government.

Of course, Tim Davie wasn't appointed by the government. JO'B is confusing the BBC director general with the BBC chairman. The BBC chairman is appointed by the government. The BBC director general is a BBC appointment made by the BBC board, and they appointed a BBC insider. 

In the present world of spreading emojis: James O'Brien = 🤡.

Clive mired

So Clive Myrie wants the ungrateful, ignorant public re-educated about the BBC?

Such sentiments, so charmingly expressed, can hardly fail to win people over, can they?

And talking of charmers, here's that nice James O'Brien riding to the BBC's defence:

"Get it yet?"

What time is it?

The BBC isn’t the only broadcasting arena that can propel one to the off-switch with that special, panic-propelled urgency.

The word ‘James O’Brien’ triggers such a response; faster than a missile from a catapult. But as he himself puts it, ‘Even a stopped clock is right once, nay, twice a day.”

Now, there’s something very disturbing about James’s mannerisms and tics. He must have chewed the inside of his mouth to ribbons during that conversation, but on this occasion, the clock has stopped at just the right point.

This little example shows that listening to an interviewee and letting the speaker set out and develop his case can benefit the listener, the interviewee and ultimately, the interviewer himself. By not interrupting, not trying to score some sort of Twitter-friendly gotcha, the audience gets to learn something, and the BBC could learn something too.

I doubt that I’ll be an O’Brien convert from now on, but as time ticks on, you never know. That rigid old clock might coincide with events once again.

Are we very, very lucky to have James O'Brien?

In the wake of the US's killing of General Soleimani, LBC's James O'Brien issued this effusive tweet in praise of the BBC:

Probably a good moment to remind ourselves that with journalists like John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen and Lise Doucet, we are very, very lucky to have the BBC.

(Yes, he spelt Lyse's name wrong). 

You won't be surprised to learn that Jeremy Bowen and John Simpson both put their retweet functions to good use. They do like being praised. 

Even if JO'B had copied in Lyse Doucet, I doubt she'd have retweeted it. She doesn't seem the type.

Fathead

Douglas Murray illustrated his article about James O’Brien with a maliciously delicious picture. O’Brien is the only person I can think of who’s got cellulite on his forehead.

The fact that someone at the BBC saw fit to hire him as a presenter boggles belief. A mixed metaphor, but it’ll do.

Why did anyone at the Beeb think he was suitable for Newsnight? (Literally un-suitable, as in unable to wear a suit in the normal manner.) He's more at home in manky old T-shirts in keeping with his demeanour; rude, uncouth and obnoxious.

Good grief!

James O'Brien

Here's Jimmy, calling for Andrew Neil to be sacked:

Meanwhile, here's award-winning Carole saying that the BBC conspired with the Government and right-wing lobbyists to cover up massive electoral fraud:

Altogether now...

James v Jamie

I'm with Demos's Jamie rather than LBC's James over this:

The BBC News website report in question can be found here. 

And, as Jamie says, yes, it features 5 times as many pro-People's Vote voices than pro-Brexit voices. (#bbcbias!)

And if James O'Brien doesn't think that's anywhere near as biased against pro-Brexit voices as it ought to be, well, that says a good deal more about him and his biases than it does about the BBC.

Gone to the pub?

Another Twitter conversation, provoked by the following tweet:

Rob Burley, BBC: This is an odd “exclusive” because that makes it sound as if Tommy Robinson is somebody all broadcasters are definitely bidding and competing for. Whereas, for my programmes anyway, we’re just not.

Owen Jones (to Rob Burley): An honourable decision.

James O'Brien (to Rob Burley): Respect.

Jonathan Dimbleby (to Rob Burley): How strange. The same is true of  BBC Any Questions as well. Who are all those broadcasters busily bidding for Mr Robinson?

Dan Hodges (to Rob Burley): Genuine question. On what editorial basis would you exclude Robinson?

Rob Burley (to Dan Hodges): I’m just not bidding for him. Obviously things could change and he could become a political leader of a significant party etc. but he’s not. So my point was that it’s a funny use of “exclusive”.

Dominic Casciani, BBC (to Rob Burley): I think the appropriate phrase would be “INCLUSIVE: Man finally gets round to speaking to Sky after all of us who are interested have done our bit and gone to the pub”.

Update

Whatever your views of Tommy Robinson, this 12-minute video is an absolute 'Gotcha!' as regards Sky News:

Nothin like a dame

Is the BBC’s bias against Israel a niche subject? I only ask because I do worry that I’m getting boring. Harping on about it morning noon and night; I even bore myself.

It’s only when someone like Margaret Hodge who happens to be a dame (there is nothin’ like a dame) gets up and utters a naughty word that everyone sits up and goes “eh, what?”

What if I self-identify as a dame? I might try that later.

Anyhow, it seems that a combination of Labour’s machinations over creating a bespoke definition of antisemitism, and the incongruity of that effing word from the mouth of an effing dame has caused enough of a stir to startle even the BBC. 

Had Dame Margaret not sworn at the dear leader, this might not have attracted very much media interest because this antisemitism malarkey is becoming boring; everyone’s heard it all before and what about the poor Palestinians.

Following a link from a commenter on Harry’s Place, (yes, that’s niche. For niche people) I listened to an LBC phone-in programme, hosted by James O’Brien.  I’m not very familiar with LBC but I have heard the odd snippet from Iain Dale or Nick Ferrari’s programmes, and of course, we all know James O’Brien from his abbreviated stint on Newsnight.  

I have to ask any James O’Brien aficionados out there, do these broadcasts always start off with a protracted rant? Or was this one extra lengthy and extra ranty because the public couldn’t be arsed to phone in? 

Anyway, our host spent what seemed like eternity expounding on a revolutionary theory he’s thought long and hard about, concerning the antisemitism within the hard left; the Corbyn faction.

I’ll summarise:  these people have fought against racism all their lives and sincerely believe they can’t be antisemitic. Their (antisemitic) remarks (about Jews and Israel) are merely The Truth and Anything Different is Fake News.)

James O’Brien obviously thought this theory was very controversial, and he preempted the anticipated Twitter-storm by reminding us that he was by no means a fan of Israel, despite the outrageous fact that he has been accused (by Corbynista types) of being a Zionist shill.

A caller was chastised for alluding to “things we’re not allowed to say” and another, who momentarily referred to media bias was severely reprimanded for straying from the core topic (James O’Brien). Throughout, the Thing we’re Not Allowed to mention was not mentioned.

I have to say that this problem might never have grown so huge, nor become so entrenched, had the media not spent the last fifty years regurgitating Palestinian propaganda. 

Anyway, I’ve seen Luciana Berger and Dame Margaret Hodge on the BBC and Sky, so it seems the F-word is still effective, provided it’s uttered by someone other than Frankie Boyle and the like.

No more late nights for James

There was a bit of good news this week...

A swallow I thought I spotted in May last year actually does now make a summer. Newsnight came to its senses after all:

If you want a reminder of the sheer awfulness and partisanship of JO'B's attack on Asra Nomani please click here.  

I wander if the decision to drop James O'Brien came before or after Ian Katz's departure from Newsnight back in October last year? His last gig on Newsnight was on 26 October. Did acting editors Jess Brammar and Daniel Clarke make that wise decision, or was it a parting gift from Mr Katz? Twitter suggests it was around 30 October that JO'B was requested to step aside, one day before Ian Katz's departure was formally announced. 

Nazanin

Alan at Biased BBC has ferreted out a 1st November report from the Independent that, in the light of everything that's followed on the Boris/Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe story, makes for fascinating reading. 

It shows how uncontroversial and widely-welcomed Mr Johnson's remarks were until, a few days later, they suddenly became controversial and widely-reviled. 

The game-changer was an Iranian judicial decision (if it can be dignified with such a term) to bring her back to court on the basis of Boris's remarks. 

Partisans here are getting fired up, and - weirdly - Brexit seems to be the dividing line. 

Michael Gove has now found himself attracting flak too for his comments about the case on this morning's Andrew Marr Show. Mr Gove was defending Boris Johnson and, in doing so and in responding to a question from Andrew Marr ("What was she doing when she went to Iran?"), replied "I don't know". And when pressed ("You say that you don’t know what she was doing. Her husband is very clear that she was there on holiday with her child") replied, "Well, in that case I take exactly her husband’s assurance in that regard". And when Andrew pressed again ("So was she training journalists?") replied, "Well, her husband said that she was there on holiday, and her husband is the person who should know."

To some he was merely being honest; to others he was compounding the lie about Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. 

The fired-up Brexit Partisan brigades then began amplifying it all - "You're jumping on an anti-Brexit bandwagon", "No, you're a bunch of nasty right-wingers determined to protect Johnson at all costs", etc.

And the BBC, whose lead reporters have been vocal and unequivocal (especially on Twitter) in their criticism of Boris Johnson over this, splashed their news website for a while today with:

Ah for the days when the likes of Lord Palmerston could order in British forces and daringly rescue distressed damsels like Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe from the clutches of foreign tyrants!

I do hope this turns out well for her and her family. And soon.

*******

Meanwhile, on the 'complaints from both sides' front, here's James O'Brien - occasional Newsnight presenter - complaining about The Andrew Marr Show, and the programme's editor (as he does) then responding to that criticism:

James O'Brien doesn't strike me as the sort who'll ever let someone else have the last word, so this is bound to go on until even Rob loses the will to live and gives JO'B the final say. 

One swallow?

Call it wishful thinking, but I've not seen James O'Brien on Newsnight for ages. 

Has the BBC seen sense and realised that by adding such a partisan figure from one part of the political spectrum to their rota of Newsnight presenters while not adding a partisan figure from the other side of the political spectrum to that same rota reeks of bias? 

Or has it dawned on Ian Katz that James O'Brien was allowing his biases to shine through too much that it was making it far, far too easy for bloggers like me to shoot James O'Brien-shaped fish in a Newsnight-shaped barrel and, thus, 'not helping' the BBC?

It was be lovely to think that James O'Brien has been decommissioned by Newsnight because of concerns over BBC impartiality.

Has he though? Or will he rise from the scrapyard again soon?

Going down well (so far)

I haven't seen much of the BBC's coverage of the Trump administration's military strike on a Syrian regime airbase but I'm getting a strong sense from the Twitter feeds of many familiar BBC reporter that the US military action is going down well with the (duly impartial) BBC.

Here's a small selection, beginning with the the BBC's Washington bureau chief, Paul Danahar:

...a point that Newsnight presenter James O'Brien has already taken on board: 

Even Katty Kay is positive about the strikes:

And for the first time ever, I've actually seen BBC reporters re-tweeting criticism of Stop The War types opposed to US military action - including Hugh Sykes:

...and John Sweeney:

John Sweeney is also among those BBC reporters re-tweeting Arab appreciation for President Trump's actions (and not - for once - re-tweeting Arab criticism):

...as is Katty Kay:

Others, like Kim Ghattas, are following their earlier tweets criticising the lack of action (by persons unspecified) over the last few years:

...with attacks on those critical of last night's strike:

Others are tweeting about editorials that back the action (and not tweeting about editorials which criticise the action), such as Ian Pannell: 

...while others are placing a positive gloss on the politics of the military strike, such as Barbara Plett:

Others are even hoping that President Trump might go even further and do something even better, such as Laura Bicker:

The BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, has tweeted nothing about the strikes yet. Nor has the BBC's World Affairs editor John Simpson.

How much of any of this is feeding into the BBC's actual reporting I can't yet say (as I've not had time to check it out), but a definite BBC point of view is emerging on Twitter. 

There are also, naturally, plenty of digs at Donald Trump for his past flat-out refusal to back military action in Syria, though even here - as with Quentin Somerville - there are surprising defences of Trump:

As for my Twitter feed in general, it's been fascinating seeing nearly all the anti-Trump types backing the strikes and nearly all the pro-Trump types opposing them - and Trump. 

It's all gone topsy-turvy today.

The BBC and its use of vox pops

When you went from Amol Rajan's Twitter feed and his BBC One News at Six report to Newsnight's coverage of the George Osborne's appointment you stepped into another world entirely. 

If Amol's tweets partly read like a Lebedev press release and his News at Six report come across as a more balanced but slightly Osborne-tilted piece of journalism, then Newsnight took the opposite approach.

They went instead for the full-on anti-Osborne hatchet job treatment, complete with a sneering introduction from James O'Brien, wacky visual images of Mr Osborne being repeatedly hit on his hard-hatted head by brickbats in the following criticism-heavy report, and then a long list of overwhelmingly one-sided questions from James O'Brien (critical about/sneering about George Osborne) to his two guests (Simon Jenkins and Rachel Johnson). You would think from that, to paraphrase Jonathan Haynes of the Guardian, that it's like JO'B is a left-wing London radio shock-jock rather than a BBC current affairs presenter. 

To illustrate the difference in intent between the BBC journalism of Amol Rajan on the News at Six and the BBC journalism of Newsnight here, I'm just going to set side-by-side the vox pops sections from Mr Osborne's Tatton constituency which were selected by each programme. 

First:

AMOL RAJAN, BBC News at Six: In his Tatton constituency in Cheshire today, this is how some voters reacted:

VOX POP 1: Obviously thrilled for George, remaining in the public spotlight. I guess one just hopes he will continue his constituency duties.
VOX POP 2: To me, he should either be that one or that one. Make one of them your job.
VOX POP 3: I don't have a problem with George Osborne doing that. I thought he was an amazing Chancellor. 

Now compare that to:

DAVID GROSSMAN, Newsnight:  In his constituency, 130 miles away in Cheshire and definitely not in London, the news of the MP's new job was greeted by some with incredulity.

VOX POP 1: What?
BBC REPORTER: He's going to be the editor of the Evening Standard in London. We're asking people you think about that.
VOX POP 1: I don't think very much of it, to be quite honest. He's not a journalist, is it?
BBC REPORTER: But he's going to be the editor of the paper?
VOX POP 1: That's what I mean. He's not a journalist so how on earth can he be an editor?

I don't think anything can be clearer, could it? The first selection of vox pops offered three voices, two supportive of George Osborne, one somewhat more critical, while the selection of vox pops from Newsnight was just one bloke criticising George Osborne, adding to the overall hatchet-job effect. (You can also 'hear' the difference in tone there in the framing remarks from the BBC journalists).

If nothing else that's surely the ultimate proof that the BBC's use of vox pops is not to be trusted.

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. 

“Got a little list?”

“Got a little list?”

or Newsnight heads towards self-inflicted no-platforming.

I’ve been feeling duty bound to watch Newsnight recently, as if watching it will somehow immunise me against its worst effects. Keeping guard, if you like. And for that reason, I saw last night’s episode, aspects of which Craig has addressed below.

Just in case any of our readers didn’t follow the links or click on all the clicks, I’m going to expand on it.

If you didn’t watch this interview, it’s here. 

After having been subjected to Tariq Ramadan’s monologue, too.

O’Brien has a habit of asking people for ‘lists’ to substantiate their allegations; in this case he wants a list of examples of journalists vilifying Trump or the Trump administration, otherwise he’s not going to accept the validity of the allegation. This is one of his favourite tactics. O’Brien himself is always armed with lists, hoping he can disarm his adversary who may not have come prepared. 

As for O’Brien’s quest for a ‘list’ of the journalistic vilifications he is questioning the existence of, surely he could have looked no further than half an hour earlier, within his own programme, at John Sweeney’s clip of Anneke Green, former speechwriter for George W Bush.

“I do think that there is not the same rigour going on right now in newsrooms, er, the number of rubbish stories that we’re seeing, with reporters just rushing to publish with thinly sourced or anonymously sourced stories, is not doing any favours to the impression that they’re out to get Donald Trump.”

Okay, it’s not a list, but it’s a widely held perception - almost too broad for the kind of list O’Brien is demanding - an especially disingenuous demand if his intention is merely to knock down each example one by one.

You could tell he was getting rattled when he very rudely addressed his guest as ‘Madam’. 

Newsnight is becoming so appallingly biased that people who watch it are spectators rather than viewers. It’s an arena - a spectacle that’s so bad it’s good. 

James O’Brien is utterly obnoxious. I could even provide a list of people who say so. There’s even one of those tiresome Change petitions to get rid of him, (from LBC I think, rather than Newsnight) but I say, No! Let him stay. Give him enough rope. 

Have you ever seen anyone else with a fat forehead?  Here’s an example of O’Brien’s obnoxious behaviour, which illustrates his substandard debating ability as well as his massive bias.

“I see this isn’t in the script you’ve prepared,”  says O”Brien to ‘Sammy’ .  Just one of the nastier remarks he makes. Projection, rudeness, misguided sense of superiority, rolled into one.

When O’Brien asserted that Donald Trump’s business interests were behind the exclusion of certain countries from the travel ban, “Sammy” should have demanded a list of Trump’s business interests. I wonder if O’Brien had armed himself with such a list? He probably felt confident that he could get away with making the allegation without one.

See how O’Brien resorts to personal insult when he’s stumped. See how he uses the tired old “How many people have been killed” mantra, as if “Not enough” Islamist acts of terrorism have succeeded  in order to justify preventing more.

I say, keep O’Brien, not because sacking him would be a form of no-platforming, which is an alarming trend, but just so we can see Newsnight deteriorating in plain sight and by its own volition.

 Self-inflicted no-platforming is the best kind.

Aftermath

Anyone who saw the combative closing interview on last night's Newsnight might be interested in the following exchange of emails, tweeted by James O'Brien's less-than-impressed interviewee, Asra Nomani:

More on James O'Brien

Last night's Newsnight, presented by left-wing 'shock jock' James O'Brien, was a Trump special. 

JO'B was as 'impartial' as ever, making an ostentatious show of presenting his anti-Trump/anti-Brexit guests as "experts" (a word he kept on using in that respect) before giving them all ample chance to showboat their anxieties/rage about Trump/Brexit with as little challenge as possible. 

In contrast, pro-Brexit and/or pro-Trump guests got the fully sneery JO'B treatment. 

It's BBC impartiality James, but not as we know it (though, alas, actually, very much as we know it).

First up came, Dr Leslie Vinjamuri (no fan of President Trump), introduced as "an expert in the transatlantic partnership" and asked "this must, professionally, be a fraught time for you?". JOB's questions questioned the importance of the 'special relationship', in the usual BBC way. ("Well, it was a global agenda in one sense. In another sense, the American media seemed a lot keener to ask questions about Mexico and Russia than they did about the other half of the so-called special relationship"; "In the great scheme of things, for all of his Scottish ancestry and what have you, how high up on his to-do list will be giving Britain something?")

Then came Dan Hannan, repeatedly (and sneeringly) called "an arch-Brexiteer" by JO'B. JO'B interrupted him quite vigorously and chose to take advantage of Dan's mention of the "English-speaking" nations to sneeringly imply racism on Dan's part. ("The English-speaking democracies?"' "English-speaking? English-speaking, or would we allow non-English speakers in as well?"). It was classic JO'B.

"In a moment we'll be talking to the foreign affairs expert, Anne Applebaum. But first joining me now from Florida is the veteran Republican political strategist Roger Stone, himself a long term confidante of Donald Trump", said JO'B introducing his next guest. 

Mr Stone received the usual JO'B treatment, getting a hostile grilling (for being right-wing) and having it made personal. Here's a flavour:

• And, sort of, the law of truth as well. You are a veteran of the dark arts of politicking. You seem to revel in the rascal-ish nature of the profession. So when, for example, you put it out that Ted Cruz' father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, one imagines you doing it with a wry smile and a sort of thumbs up to the gallery. Donald Trump has a slightly different relationship with the truth. When he spoke today at the press conference about being in Scotland the day before Brexit, the calendar in his own Twitter account reveals he did not go there until the day after. Does he in his own mind believe it when he says these things, even though all of the evidence contradicts him? 

• Which is why I haven't asked you about it! I've asked you about the stuff that has happened. On the record. Today. So when he says that he was in Scotland on the day that the result came in...I begin your pardon...the day before the result came in and he predicted it all and then his own Twitter account reveals he landed in Scotland the day after, does he believe it when he says it. 

• No, I'm interested in whether....you well well be right about that...when he says it wasn't raining during the inauguration but people can actually feel the raindrops landing on their head, I'm just intrigued to know whether or not, psychologically, as a long-term confidante, he's sort of gaming everybody or that, somehow, he puts himself in a position where he has persuaded himself that what he wants to be true is true? 

And the interview ended in a way that, regardless of who's being interviewed, always strikes me as unprofessional - i.e. where the interviewer gives himself the final come-back at his interviewee's expense. and then adds a final sneer before giving thanks:

But not on the dates for arriving in Scotland. Roger Stone. Congratulations on the morning suit and many thanks indeed to you. 

And then it was straight onto anti-Brexit/anti-Trump Anne Applebaum and JO'B introducing her by repeating her 'expert' credentials:

I'm joined now by Anne Applebaum, the foreign affairs expert and columnist for the Washington Post. 

The interview was gentle and ended with JO'B saying (of Mrs May and Mr Trump):

Well, hey, they held hands! Anne Applebaum, thank you very much indeed. 

And finally came a tag-wrestling match with James O'Brien and Simon 'Drama' Schama on one side and pro-Trump prof Ted Malloch on the other.

Impartial BBC interviewing it wasn't. Typical James O'Brien on Newsnight it was. 

For fans of transcriptions, here's one of the final segment:

JAMES O'BRIEN: The historian Simon Schama is here, alongside Ted Malloch, who is widely tipped for a role in the Trump administration - possibly as Ambassador to the European Union. You don't have any news for us, do you Ted, tonight? 

TED MALLOCH: Maybe next week. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: OK. We'll start with you Simon. You've taken to social media and coined the rhyme 'Theresa the Appeaser'. Anything in today's events to appease your fears? 

SIMON SCHAMA: No, not particularly. I did...no...The spectacle of them holding hands, actually, which doesn't in any rational way speak to your question, James, did turn my stomach somewhat actually. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: We don't know that it didn't turn hers! But the fear that she is cosying up to a regime that may prove to be, as an historian, may stand comparison with other 20th-century horrors..are you stepping back? 

SIMON SCHAMA: No, I think scary authoritarian regimes, not to inaccurately paraphrase Count Leo Tolstoy, are scary and authoritarian each in their own way. I think this is starting to look incredibly scary and authoritarian. Particularly, actually, banning the possibility of the Environmental Protection Agency delivering data to the public. All sorts of things, I think, are serious. But the most worrying part of all, which doesn't speak to the authoritarian issue, but something loopier, is President Trump's contact or lack of contact with reality. Today, he doubled down on this extraordinary assertion that between three million and 5 million illegal immigrant votes were cast. It is absolutely... and this was actually delivered to a reception in which...the first reception he had from Congressional leaders...were treated to an harangue on this entirely fantastic story, which has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): OK, hold on!

SIMON SCHAMA: He is starting an investigation into an election he won! 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Yes.

SIMON SCHAMA: This is beyond absurd. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: There are three adjectives there that I will pick up on: 'absurd' is the first, but 'scary' and 'authoritarian' are the other two. Do you recognise what Simon Schama describes? 

TED MALLOCH: None of the above. Where would you like me to start? 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Well, let's start with the voter fraud allegations. He's sort of alleging that the Democrats managed to swing 3 million illegal votes, but not put any of them in the places that would have swung the election.

TED MALLOCH: So, let's have an investigation, and if there's hard evidence - and there's supposedly some people who have some evidence - then if there's more investigation...

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): There's one (indecipherable)...

SIMON SCHAMA (interrupting) The evidence comes from Greg Phillips, the conspiracy theorist! 

TED MALLOCH: We'll see what evidence there is.

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): We have the investigation and come to the conclusions afterwards?

TED MALLOCH: No, then you obviously state the conclusions. That's what investigations are. We have an investigation into Russian hacking and then we find out the truth. Hopefully we have imperial evidence into these things that we can look at, rather than dismissing them out of hand at the beginning. Why not look at them? Even on the liberal left, you are willing to look at actual facts?JAMES O'BRIEN: Empirical evidence. I mean, obviously it's a bit of a... 

TED MALLOCH: I'm a social scientist, so I prefer data. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Clearly. Except when climate change is on the table.

TED MALLOCH: Yeah, well, there are people who have different points of view on climate change. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): Thought we were talking about empirical data a minute ago! 

TED MALLOCH: We are! But there are about 10%, I'm told, of hard scientists who have some questions about some of that data. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Of course. Let me just draw the conversation out, if I may, and look at whether or not you feel, as somebody who clearly Donald Trump holds in high regard, that we are in some sense - whether you're worried about it, like Simon Schama, or whether you're not, like you - at a pivotal point in Western history? 

TED MALLOCH: I think we are at a turn in Western history. Obviously we have had a change from one regime to another regime, so you have that. But you also have a more national-orientated and more populist-orientated political caste coming into play, and that's not just in the United States. It's in many countries around the world. So if that's the case then maybe a new order is beginning to appear. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Nationalist, populist, they are not new ideas, are they? 

TED MALLOCH: Well, in this form, this time, yes. Frankly, are there any new ideas since Plato? We could have that debate. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): But we're not. Nationalism and populism rarely lead to harmony. 

TED MALLOCH: Lead to harmony? Well, there are different kinds of nationalism, different kinds of populism. 

SIMON SCHAMA  (interrupting): Well, 'America first', you know, let's take that slogan. It takes a jaw-dropping ignorance of history...

TED MALLOCH (interrupting):  So do you know who used the term first? 

SIMON SCHAMA: ...if you know your history...Pardon?

TED MALLOCH (interrupting):  Do you know who used the term first? 

SIMON SCHAMA: Well, it was....Wilson? 

TED MALLOCH: Woodrow Wilson!

SIMON SCHAMA: Fine. I know. But it was reprehensible when Wilson used it...

TED MALLOCH (interrupting): Ah, I see. 

SIMON SCHAMA (crosstalk): It was unbelievably reprehensible...

TED MALLOCH (crosstalk): Maybe when Lindbergh used it it was more reprehensible.

SIMON SCHAMA (crosstalk): And how! Lindbergh was an appeaser. Lindbergh was soft on the Nazis. It is an irony that Trump has moved Churchill back into his office, who would have detested and did detest everything about the slogan and what 'America first' stood for. 

TED MALLOCH: But he nonetheless needed America to help save Britain at a certain point in time. But Trump is probably not intellectually connected with that wonderful litany we've just talked about in terms of intellectual history...

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): What is he intellectually interested in?

TED MALLOCH: He is interested in, clearly literally, putting America first, re-establishing America's place in the world, America's economy. That is the thing to underscore. He really got elected on a platform that said the middle class has suffered for at least 15 years. So it's not just the last eight years. But it has suffered and it needs to come back...

SIMON SCHAMA  (interrupting): So why's he proposing a tax cut that will benefit, hugely and disproportionately, the top 1%? 

TED MALLOCH: You know about supply-side economics, it's worked before. 

SIMON SCHAMA  (interrupting): No, it hasn't worked before. We could have an argument about that.

TED MALLOCH: I'm an economist. It's worked before. It worked for John Kennedy, it worked for Ronald Reagan and it could work this time. In four years we could have a balanced budget under the best circumstances. 

SIMON SCHAMA: We had a balanced budget under Bill Clinton actually...

TED MALLOCH (interrupting): Newt Gingrich was the head of the Congress and they did it together, if you recall. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: I'm interested in the distinction between 'literally' and 'seriously'. It has been a recurring theme in the programme. You taken seriously, but you don't take him literally. You have always taken him literally? 

TED MALLOCH: No. I think you could take him either way and people obviously have in this very campaign. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): But he's President now, he is not campaigning. 

TED MALLOCH: That's true. There should be some difference, you know. When you're president you step up your game...

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): Have you seen any yet? Have you seen any yet? 

TED MALLOCH: Well, In five days, I think we are beginning to... I actually think we saw some of it today, in the meeting and the summit with Theresa May. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Ted Malloch, thank you. Simon Schama, are you seeing any cause for cautious optimism?
SIMON SCHAMA: No.

JAMES O'BRIEN: Or a dilution of your pessimism? 

SIMON SCHAMA: No.

JAMES O'BRIEN: Ted Malloch, Simon Schama, thank you very much indeed. 

Biasnight

The general point behind this tweet is, surely, a perfectly reasonable one:

James O'B himself was back on Newsnight last night and didn't very too hard to disguise his left-wing views (as usual).

It was perfectly predictable, for example, that during the interview with a Tory backbencher and a Labour frontbencher he'd let the Labour MP talk at length without interruption but challenged, and repeatedly the Tory backbencher.

Less predictable - and quite extraordinary - was the near 40-second LBC-style rant he inserted as a question to the Tory backbencher midway through the joint interview (complete with bizarre moments of emphasis):

Osborneomics, Heidi Allen, I mean, that is the most busted of busted flushes, isn't it? I mean, the whole idea was that the deficit was absolutely crucial, that driving down the debt was the driving force of the entire project. Six years in 11 Downing Street and now his predecessor [sic] has given up on it. What do you say to the people you care so much about who have had wage freezes BECAUSE austerity was the answer to the deficit, WHO perhaps have lost their jobs in the public sector BECAUSE austerity was the answer to the deficit? People who have genuinely been squeezed or jammed, or whatever you want to call them, as a DIRECT result of the policies that your party enacted?

Labour's Chi Onwurah got nothing like that (or even a single interruption).

He then asked (pro-Remain) Heidi Allen, after she'd made an anti-Brexit dig, if her colleagues who campaigned for Brexit had "actually caused the poor, at least in the short term, to suffer more"...a typical leading question from a well-known anti-Brexit, left-wing LBC broadcaster.

Talking of which...

It was also predictable (given that he's so hostile to Brexit) that he'd begin the Brexit segment with some point-scoring, which he duly did:

They called it Project Fear during that Referendum but there are signs now that some of the warnings of post-Brexit trouble could be crystallising into Project Fact. Credit Suisse published its annual global wealth report today and estimated that Britain is $1.5 trillion poorer in dollar terms due to the fall in the pound since the vote to leave the European Union. But even if you are one of those people who don't trust experts it's hard to see a number of that magnitude - my 10 year old tells me there are 12 noughts in a trillion - in the context of our day-to-day existence. Much closer to home Newsnight has been told that because of the value of sterling food prices are likely to rise by more than 5% over the next 6 months. Adam Parsons has the story.

Bring on Iain Dale, or anyone of equivalent stature from the pro-Brexit Right, to balance this kind of thing, Mr Katz, or risk being regarded as hopelessly and irredeemably biased (if you care about such things).