Moving on

When it was first mooted, I was quite enthusiastic about the idea of Times Radio providing an alternative to the increasingly tired and tiresome BBC Radio 4. But then the names of the presenters came out and it turned out to be mostly BBC presenters and familiar BBC guests, mostly from the 'mainstream centre' (as they like to see themselves). I suppose it could still be better than BBC Radio 4, but I can't see it being much more broad-minded.

Still, one of its new presenters, John Pienaar, has given an interview to The Sunday Times and said something he wouldn't have said while at the BBC - especially at the moment:

I wouldn’t describe Britain as a racist country. I grew up strongly believing that part of Britain and part of Britishness meant a kind of a leaning towards tolerance. I thought the British character recoiled from extremism. I still kind of believe that.

That's good to hear. 

"It is a fact"

Look behind you, John!

Last night's BBC News at Ten featured the BBC's deputy political editor John Pienaar focusing on two things: firstly, "the uncomfortable truth" that British ministers now have little power to influence events or American presidents and, secondly, that Boris should have 'led the line' on the US-Iran 'crisis'. Here's his editorial in full:

Quite, Fiona. The uncomfortable truth is that chorusing the case for restraint is about the extent of British ministers' power to influence events in this crisis, whether it's the Defence Secretary in the House a short while ago or whether, like the Foreign Secretary, it involves talking to counterparts, or like Boris Johnson, who has been in contact with President Trump and also with the Iraqi leadership, among others. But he hasn't been speaking publicly on behalf of the Government. His absence in the House of Commons earlier on today was conspicuous. I doubt he'll mind too much being taunted about that by his defeated Labour rival today. But some Conservatives are also pointing out that past prime ministers have chosen to lead the line at moments of crisis on this scale. When you remember that Donald Trump acted without informing, let alone consulting Britain on what he was about to do, it is easier to make the case that Boris Johnson's clout in the White House is a lot less than that of past prime ministers with past presidents. Yes, some British officials, diplomats, intelligence officials, military personnel, have very good relationships with counterparts in Washington. But they are not, it seems, often the kind of people that Donald Trump wants to consult with. So at a time of crisis, at a time of definition for Britain's role in the world, Britain looks to many eyes, not just exposed, but also lacking the kind of clout that British ministers would like. That may or may not be a cause for political criticism. It is a fact.

In the preceding report, Nick Bryant also had a nibble at Boris:

In Parliament, it was the Defence Secretary rather than the Prime Minister who called for calm on all sides.

Has the BBC fact-checked John Pienaar?

The first comment on our new Advent open thread reads as follows: 

Mola Ram1 December 2019 at 18:16  

"After 10 years of Conservative rule blighted by austerity and Brexit-weariness, it takes an almost breathtaking audacity - hostile critics might say the brassiest neck in the business - to campaign for a fourth consecutive Tory term in office as the face of change. It takes, in other words, Boris Johnson."

The opening paragraph of John Pienaar’s article today smacks of personal opinion to set a particular tone rather than valuable political insight.

And the BBC's John Pienaar immediately follows that opening volley (with its strong echo of the "ten years" angle that Mr Marr was so vigorously pushing today) with a smidgen of sarcasm at the Tories' expense. 

And then - and we're still only a few paragraphs in - comes this: 

This isn't, however, easy to pull off. Mr Johnson has been a prominent MP and minister for much of that time - aside from, admittedly, a period away from Westminster while London mayor. 

Now, I know that John is a seasoned political reporter for the BBC, but one thing even I (a mere blogger) know is that Boris Johnson has been out of Parliament longer than he's been in Parliament over this period. 

And as for being a "minister for much of that time", until he became Prime Minister, Boris had only been a minister over the last "ten years" for...(drum roll)...less than two years.

Where's Chris Morris and his Reality Check to 'reality check' John Pienaar?

Dare I go on? What's next? (Live blogging!).

Ah, yes, John moved on from getting his facts wrong to being sarcastic about the Tories again. ("The PM did, after all, allow a decent interval (of maybe two or three hours) to pass after the attack before he began reciting Tory election promises of more police and tougher sentencing"). 

And on it went.

It's all very droll. Journalism as comedy. Radio 4 comedy, that is. 

A Tale of Two BBC Reporters

Jon and John

Oh, you don't often hear from David Morris, Conservative MP for Morecambe, especially when it comes to criticising the BBC. He's usually silent on the issue. Ah, there's must be an election on! Anyhow, the Mail quotes him saying "Barely has the Election campaign begun and already the BBC is betraying its pro-Corbyn leanings and its anti-Boris bias." 

This was in reaction to a BBC One News at Ten report last week. 

Here's how the Mail reports 'the row':

BBC bosses were last night accused of blatant ‘anti-Boris bias’ for failing to nail Labour’s lie that the Tories will sell off the National Health Service to Donald Trump after Brexit. 

Conservatives angrily accused BBC1’s flagship News at Ten of promoting Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘ridiculous’ claim last week – even though the US President specifically ruled it out on the very same day. 

Tory MPs demanded to know why Mr Trump’s trenchant denial was not included in the BBC report on Thursday night. 

They also took offence at what they saw as ‘pro-Corbyn’ references, including BBC deputy political editor John Pienaar reporting how ‘Jeremy Corbyn has offered real change’.

Here's a transcript of some of it:

"When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?"

Another transcript for your delectation, this time from last night's News at Six and News at Ten on BBC One. 

I think Ukip will have found Fiona Bruce's autocue introduction perfectly acceptable.

John Pienaar's report, however, regardless of its accuracy, was certainly 'unhelpful' to Ukip - to put it mildly.

As was John's choice of questions to put to Gerard Batten and broadcast on BBC One - especially the "And you find the idea of being a racist party, or extremist, offensive?" question. (A classic "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?" type of question).

After replying to it, Mr Batten brought the interview to an abrupt close. 

And the vox pops, however representative they really were (and we viewers aren't able to know that), fell into the 'anti', 'don't know' and 'pro' camps, so were clearly 'balanced' - except that the young woman slamming Ukip for being 'racist' was firm and coherent, the 'don't know' man helped the Ukip/Brexit Party squabbles seem ridiculous. and the 'pro' man (a late middle-aged white man) was just quoted saying "Brilliant. A lot better than, er, what's, what's, what's running the country now, innit?", like something out of Little Britain. 

And John's finally editorial banged the nails of irrelavance even further into the coffin he'd pre-prepared for Mr Batten's Ukip.

Here's the transcript:

Newsreader: Ukip's leader Gerard Batten says his is the only political party that offers a clear policy to take the UK out of the European Union. As he launched Ukip's campaign for the European elections on 23rd May, Mr Batten said Brexit was being betrayed and a second referendum would mean the effective end of democracy. John Pienaar reports from Middlesborough:

John Pienaar: More than just a one-man band? Well, there's a new leader since Nigel Farage left to start a rival group - and Ukip's new themes at their European campaign launch? Much like the old ones, exactly what their target audience want to hear. 

Gerard Batten: We're here because Brexit is being betrayed. 

If playing the patriotic card guaranteed success, this would be a landslide for Gerard Batten's party. 

Gerard Batten: Now, some of our more sensitive MPs don't like being called appeasers, collaborators, quislings and traitors. But if the cap fits, then wear it. 

Ukip had 24 MEPs. Defections, desertions helped reduce them to four. Some called their party 'extremist'. Mr Batten called Islam a 'death cult' and took on a hugely controversial adviser. 

Gerard Batten: This election isn't about Tommy Robinson, or anybody else who isn't a member of the party...John Pienaar: (interrupting) It is about your identity. Gerard Batten: This election is about the European elections and whether people want to remain in the European Union or leave, and what I've said to the crowd today, and you've heard it all, if they want to leave the European Union then Ukip is the authentic party of Leave. John Pienaar: And you find the idea of being a racist party, or extremist, offensive? Gerard Batten: You know very well that this party isn't racist. You know very well that I'm not. You know very well that Nigel Farage is saying things for political benefit, but I'm not frightened to speak out on things which I think are important and affect the future of this country. Thank you.

Ukip has a job of convincing to do with many voters: 

Female Vox Pop 1: If you have racist policies, or policies that we would consider to be racist, then you're still a racist party.  

Male Vox Pop 2: Is that the Nigel Farage bus or party, or are there two? John Pienaar (to Vox Pop 2): Ukip, the party Nigel Farage left. Vox Pop 2: Right, but he's started another party now, has he?. John Pienaar (to Vox Pop 2): He's started another party now. Vox Pop 2: Yeah, so I am just confused.  

Male Vox Pop 3: Brilliant. A lot better than, er, what's, what's, what's running the country now, innit?

The UK Independence Party will likely be weakened by the loss of Nigel Farage, whether they'll admit it or not. A figurehead, a symbol can mobilise a mood - of anger, of hope, of both. These elections will help determine whether Ukip can still gain from broken loyalties to the big parties, or whether they will be discarded and left behind. For a while, politics seemed almost easy for Ukip. Since the vote to leave, life's got much harder. John Pienaar, BBC News, Middlesbrough. 

Has the BBC fact-checked this?

John Pienaar (no relation to Peter from the Richard Hannay books)

John Pienaar's report on last night's BBC One News at Six began: 

The picture's building, and it's not pretty. Of course it may never happen, but Brexit with no deal could mean disruption to travel, trade, business. Warning notices are pouring out of Government now - 106 and counting. The latest? Could we see this in Northern Ireland? There would have to be action to protect energy supplies, keep the lights on, if EU rules suddenly fall away. Could the Eurostar keep running? International rail services run on EU wide agreements. They would have to be replaced, maybe quickly. And what about trade, not just with the EU but the 40-odd countries Britain buys and sells to and from as part of the union? No deal with them could mean new tariffs and checks on business covering around 12% of UK trade around the world. The Brexit Secretary is looking on the bright side. 

If the Brexit Secretary was looking on the bright side, then the Minister for Trade and Investment seems to have been looking at a TV screen, watching John Pienaar's report and not liking it. He then tweeted the following:

If Mr Hands is correct, then John Pienaar got his facts spectacularly wrong there. 

And, Googling around, it turns out that Mr Hands is indeed correct about it being "40 deals with 70 countries", not the "40-odd countries" the BBC's deputy political editor talks of. (Every non-BBC report I've come across has eported this correctly.)

On the second point - the "12% of UK trade" point - there's more confusion. Other outlets are also saying that 12% of "total" UK trade could be put at risk. So who's right here?

Looking on the Dark Side

Today's The World This Weekend,...

....which twice featured Mark Mardell calling DUP leader Arlene Foster "Eileen Foster",...

...also featured an interview with former EU commissioner Danuta Hübner.

She was predictably negative about Brexit and the consequences for the UK of leaving the Customs Union. 

During the interview Ms Hübner said that non-tariff barriers "are not existing within the Customs Union". 

Well, apparently that's not true. According to Full Fact: 

There are no tariff barriers to trade with other members of the single market, but there are non-tariff barriers. These can be things like product standards and regulations that make trade harder. 

This sort of barrier is a particular issue in the services sector. 

Why didn't Mark Mardell pick her up on that?

Anyhow, if Ms Hübner was downbeat about our prospects if we leave the EU Customs Union then the BBC's John Pienaar, who preceded her, sounded even gloomier!:

That leaves aside the question that these trade deals that are being discussed. They're not there yet. Many people are deeply sceptical about the fact that they might be, that the European trade deal would take years to negotiate, that other parts of the world global economy - you look at America, you look at South Korea, China again -you're talking about years before they come on stream. So gaps and holes and barriers absolutely all over the place.

Can anyone think of a reason why that isn't biased reporting?

A burst of Eric Idle singing 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life' is probably needed now.

Watertight oversight - 'Cob' and the BBC

Please bear with me on this one (as I weave my way through my thoughts on this), and please also try to remember that not all tl;dr posts are really 'tl', and that (maybe) they should be 'r' after all...

Stephen Glover of the Daily Mail has excoriated the BBC for "ignoring" the allegations about Jeremy Corbyn being "a Czech ‘asset’" - and agent codenamed 'Cob', approved by the Soviet Union in the dying years of the Cold War: 

Far more worrying is the way the all-powerful BBC has hitherto avoided Sarkocy’s allegations, which have been met with vehement denials by the Labour Party. If you relied on our public service broadcaster for your news, as about half the nation does, you wouldn’t know anything about ‘Cob’. 

I watch and listen to the news on BBC television and radio almost obsessively, and I have picked up only two fleeting references [on a Today newspaper review and The Andrew Marr show yesterday - the bit where Andrew called the story 'rather thin] to the extremely grave charges against Mr Corbyn. All I can find on Auntie’s voluminous website is a tiny mention of a newspaper report....

There may have been other passing references, but it can be fairly stated that the BBC has done its utmost not to give this story wider circulation even though it contains the mind-boggling suggestion, of course unproven, that as a young MP Jeremy Corbyn betrayed his country.

Oh Stephen! Much as I like and admire you and much as you may have a point here, the canny BBC's tradition of 'watertight oversight' means that it was never going to be that easy for a critic of the BBC like you here (though please bear with me!)...

...and, sure enough, Dino Sofos, Senior Social Media Producer at BBC News, found a 'gotcha' answer for you (and, specifically, for Guido Fawkes) :

And so did Rob Burley, the Ed-Sheeran-averse editor of The Andrew Marr Show:

So (apparently) John Pienaar's Radio Sunday show covered it "at length", and so did today's Daily Politics. 

QED for the BBC? (Not really. See below).

And, similarly, when Guido Fawkes asks, "Any chance the BBC will cover it properly now the PM has commented?", the BBC will point to a report on BBC News website this evening headlined Corbyn should be 'open' on spy's claims - May and say 'Yes, we did report it'.

Ah but....

...(long sigh)....

....in the venerable tradition of BBC 'watertight oversight', just check out where on the BBC website the BBC published this headline story (and where it's stayed ever since). [You'll have to click the image to enlarge it, and then you'll see that the BBC hasn't made it a prominent story.] Yes, it appeared near the exit door of the BBC's Home page, so to speak. But, yes, they have reported it on their Home page, so....'watertight oversight' kicks in and the BBC is off the hook.

Or is it?

Read that BBC report, however, and it's mostly 'the case for the defence' as far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned.  The caption to the opening image puts Jeremy's case for him, rebuttals of the claims against Mr. Corbyn get the lion's share of the reported speech, and the BBC itself gives its own imprimatur to those rebuttals. Plus the whole report is full of 'health warnings' ("claims", "alleged", "reportedly", "possible") about the claims against Mr. Corbyn.

The BBC, rightly or wrongly, is essentially rubbishing the story here - 'belatedly reporting it and frantically trashing it', unkind folk might say!

As I'm wary of taking the BBC on trust these says (even those BBC people I like), I've also checked out Dino and Rob's claims. 

As for John Pienaar on Pienaar's Politics, yes, the story was discussed - for fully 5 minutes - but John Pienaar himself immediately rubbished those claims that Jeremy Corbyn might have been an agent for the Soviet Bloc by describing them as "pretty absurd" and ended the big discussion (twently minutes later) by saying, flippantly, "this story may be going absolutely nowhere but it doesn't stop us talking about anything!" - both of which statements clearly signalled to the Radio 5 Live listener that the BBC's Deputy Political Editor personally doesn't reckon much to the story. 

As for the discussion itself, two defenders of Jeremy Corbyn (Labour's Peter Dowd and pro-Labour journalist Jenni Russell) rubbished the story for nearly all of and then, just before the end, the Sun's David Wooding got a brief say and voiced some criticism of Mr. Corbyn's past. 

So, yes, Pienaar's Politics did devote a whole segment of the programme to the story yesterday, though John Pienaar began and ended his programme's coverage of it by strongly suggesting his own sense that the story doesn't amount to much and doesn't really merit reporting, and - separately - the 2:1 imbalance of the discussion (made worse by David from the Sun getting far less time than either of the two Labour-defending guests) didn't really cover this segment in impartial BBC glory either, did it? 

So, Pienaar's Politics is classic BBC watertight oversight in action. 'See, we discussed it after all!' , says the BBC. Yes BBC, you did. But HOW did you discuss it on this rare occasion when you seemingly reluctantly consented to finally discuss the story? That is the question.

As for The Daily Politics, well, yes, they too did discuss it today, as Rob said. ('What took them so long?' I imagine many people crying). Did they, as Rob contends, discuss it "at length"? Well, I think Rob is definitely stretching it there! So how long did they discuss it for? For 3 minutes and 2 seconds.

And Jo Coburn began the segment by stating, "Our man in Prague has spoken to the head of the Czech secret service archive who has reiterated that there's absolutely nothing in the archive to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn was an informer but he was a 'person', according to her, 'of interest' to the secret service."

Again, this is classic BBC watertight oversight in action. The story that many people claim the BBC is "ignoring" is then (after those complaints have been pouring in for days) finally discussed on the flagship Daily Politics...albeit for just three minutes and with the BBC presenter sounding a very strong 'health warning' about it from the word go.

So there we are. The BBC - like the Guardian but unlike several right-wing papers - isn't buying these claims about Jeremy Corbyn.

And it's not encouraging you to buy them either.

And what does that say about 'BBC impartiality'?

For a firmly non-BBC take on all of this you might want to read the latest article from Douglas Murray. It's quite a 'think' piece.

"Well, Reeta, they know better now"

There was some interesting labelling used by the BBC's Deputy Political Editor John Pienaar on last night's BBC One News at Ten. Talking about how Philip Hammond is "taking the lead in setting out government thinking on Brexit", JP called his opponents in Cabinet "hard-core Brexiteers" and "hardline Brexiteers". And as EU demands that the European Court should continue to have a say in settling trade disputes, his pay-off line last night had a point to make at the expense of those 'hardliners':

Hardline Brexiteers once believed it could all be accomplished  really quite easily and simply. Well, Reeta, they know better now.

That's them told!

Was the BBC biased over the Budget?

The pressures of extra hours at work (employed not self-employed) has kept me away from the blog for a few days (have I missed anything?), so it's 'catching-up' time again...

The Budget has been the big domestic news story of the week. My Twitter feed showed that something remarkable had happened when hordes of right-leaning tweeters were pouring derision on Philip Hammond for his NICs rise on the self-employed while a few prominent left-leaning tweeters were advising others on the Left to consider that Mr Hammond was actually doing something 'progressive', something they could and should approve of.  

The BBC's News at Six on Budget Day opened with the following strongly-angled headline:

The Chancellor's Budget .2.5 million self-employed people will pay higher National Insurance contributions. That's despite pledging not to raise National Insurance in the party manifesto. But Mr Hammond says his Budget promises a better future. An extra £2 billion is found for social care in England to be spent over the next three years. We'll be looking at the impact of today's Budget and how it could affect you.

BBC bias? Fair comment? I'd go for 'fair comment' here. It's the angle everyone else seemed to be leading with and 'everyone else' was calling the Chancellor out of that too (and, if I'm expected to give opinions, I'll add 'And quite right too!' on the manifesto point).

The loudest accusations of bias against this bulletin came from the Left, especially for John Pienaar's opening report, which Corbynistas accused of being 'pro-Tory' and 'anti-Corbyn' - especially for highlighting the mockery at Mr Corbyn's expense and for saying that Mrs May "rightly or wrongly, seemed to see Labour's leader as a bit of a joke". 

(Was that biased? Or was it balanced? I can't make up my mind. It's certainly a striking turn of phrase.)

Here, for the record, is John Pienaar's report - or at least his parts from it. Please judge for yourselves whether they constitute pro-Tory/anti-Corbyn bias or not:

• Chancellors always hang around in the street on budget day. But Brexit, a bit like the weather, turned out nicer so far than the forecasters expected. He had more spending power thanks to higher growth and lower borrowing. But Brexit will not be a smooth or quick journey. Not that he is too worried about his Labour opponents. Here at Westminster, as the time came round towards the Budget, his boss, rightly or wrongly, seemed to see Labour's leader as a bit of a joke. And more than just a bit. And the Chancellor allowed himself to keep the tone upbeat.
• They call him Spreadsheet Phil, businesslike, proud to be boring. So, no spending sprees. But we would have higher bills to pay and, for millions, that meant higher taxes, on company owners, who pay themselves in share dividends, and a hike in national insurance for the self-employed, though the Tory manifesto did promise to keep National Insurance down. 
• On National Insurance, there is a tax hike for the self-employed. Their national insurance contributions will go up to 11% in 2019. The Chancellor says this will help raise £145 million. Other changes raise much more. But some Tories are unhappy. Paying for social care is now an urgent problem and the Chancellor had promised MPs he would find cash to buy more time. 
• For social care, there'd be an extra £2 billion over three years, with £1 billion available in the next year. He said the long-term funding options would be announced, but what he called Labour's death tax on estates was ruled out. Companies, including pubs, are being hit by higher business rates after revaluation and that's worried MPs and forced the Chancellor to pour out a little comfort. 
• So to ease the burden of business rates, local councils will be given £300 million to help the worst hit. No small business losing rate relief will see their bill increased by more than £50 a month. There would be a £1000 discount on rates for but, with a rateable value of less than #100,000, 90% of them. Getting Britain fit for Brexit meant cash for new schools, grants for technical education and spending on technology and science. Cue another joke at the expense of Jeremy Corbyn. He didn't see the joke at all. But the Chancellor was into his stride and feeling upbeat. Mr Corbyn had his counterattack ready: The Government was failing in its own ambitions. 
• Extra money for Wales and Scotland, meant to cement the case for the union, was never likely to head off nationalist condemnation. 
• A strong backlash then for a relatively small-scale Budget. But fierce controversy is normal now, on Britain's long march to Brexit.

*******

And now for Norm.....

The other 'big thing' I noticed about the Budget was Norman Smith's characteristically hyper Twitter commentary.

Here, in reverse chronological order, are Norm's tweets as the Budget proceeded.

If the jury's still out on whether Jon Pienaar was making particular points there, there's no doubt whatsoever that Norman was most definitely trying to make a point here.

Now, many (including me) would agree it's a valid point Norman Smith was plugging away at so relentlessly here, but was he doing so for purely journalistic reasons or was he displaying 'anti-Tory bias'?

(He was certainly being opinionated. That's for sure!)

Again, you decide!

• "People who are the backbone of the Conservative party - the aspirational working class - are being hammered." - @TheLTDA
• Cabbies lash out at Hammond NICs rise. "We're being hammered" - @TheLTDA
• For the avoidance of doubt. Tory 2015 manifesto....
• Treasury seem completely blind sided by broken manifesto row. Looks like their political antennae gone seriously wonky. #Budget2017
• This is a Govt committed to its manifesto say Treasury. #Budget2017
• Self employed hit by NICs tax rise will be £240 a year worse off #Budget2017
• One and a half million self employed to be hit by govt NICs tax rise #Budget2017
• Methinks...Bottom line is Tory election manifesto broken on NICs. End of. #Budget2017
• Treasury sources say tax lock legislation AFTER election did not exclude NICs tax rise ...! Er..so Tory manifesto doesn't matter ?? 
• Increase in NICs tax for self employed is "a fairness argument" say Treasury sources #Budget2017
• Nics tax rise designed to avoid loss of revenue in future as more people opt to work for themselves #Budget2017
• Nics tax changes for self employed raise around £200m . #Budget2017
• Im guessing £ 2 billion for social care cd come from local council savings #Budget2017
• Chancellor promises extra two billion for social care. But where does this extra cash come from ??? #Budget2017
• From where I'm sitting 2% rise in NICs for self employed is breach of tory manifesto pledge not to raise direct personal taxes. #Budget2017
• Two per cent rise in national insurance for self employed #Budget2017
• Tax rise Claxon. Whoop. Whoop. National insurance tax rise for self employed #budget2017

BBC One 'News at Six' (yet more)

When we last left our monitoring of which side's angle comes first in either the headlines or the whole bulletin on BBC One's News at Six (EU referendum-wise), the tally stood at a hugely imbalanced 14 for Remain and 3 for Leave. 

In the week since we've seen:

15/5 Leave "Boris Johnson compares the EU to Hitler, saying both wanted a single European state. His critics say the comments are offensive".

16/5 Remain "The Chancellor George Osborne has said the economic debate over whether Britain should stay in the EU is over. Speaking at Stanstead Airport Mr Osborne said an exit from the European Union would be 'a one-way ticket to a poorer Britain'".  

17/5 Remain "A war of words inside the Conservative Party over the EU referendum. Lord Heseltine attacks Boris Johnson. Lord Heseltine: "He is behaving now irresponsibly and recklessly and I fear that his judgement is going"."

19/5 Leave "Migration is one of the big issues in the EU referendum debate. The latest official figures show a sharp rise in the number of EU migrants working here. Those campaigning to leave the EU said it proves that UK workers are losing out. Downing Street has said that the vast majority of jobs in the UK are carried out by British workers."

20/5 Leave "Michael Gove of the Vote Leave campaign warns of massive extra demands on the NHS if we stay in the EU".

...which takes the running tally to: 

Remain - 16

Leave - 6

And here's where things get a bit complicated. 

The two Remain-led days' coverage put the respective Remain campaigners' cases first and foremost. They then followed through with that case.

Please contrast that with...

The 15/5 coverage, which may have led with Boris but it did so by somewhat misrepresenting Boris and focusing on the "outrage" he'd caused. Unlike all of the Remain-led stories, this Leave-led story wasn't helpful to Leave (at least it wasn't after the BBC had reported it!). This was 'negative' reporting for the Leave campaigner. It should really have gone in the Remain column.

And the 19/5 coverage was peculiar in its lack of reporting of Leave's points about the sharp rise in EU migrants working in the UK. The BBC suddenly went into pure 'facts and figures' mode. Viewers would have struggled to get any sense of why the figures might be a major issue relevant to the Leave side's case for leaving the EU.

And the 20/5 coverage - the one that looks like a 'proper' Leave-led bulletin was quite the jaw-dropper. I was going to write about this in detail myself, but David Keighley has already done it over at News-watch (complete with a full transcription). 

Michael Gove's claims were pretty much 'rubbished' by the BBC's deputy political editor John Pienaar:

The Leave campaign deny they’re scaremongering but some of the numbers today do look scary and they are meant to. They are also open to question. Take a look. We are told if we stay in the EU that will add between 2.5 and 5 million to the population. Why? Because it assumes that five countries, including Turkey, all join the Union by 2020, which is doubtful.  It takes no account of new controls. David Cameron says Turkey won’t be joining for decades.  But the Leave side say it would add between 6 and 13 visits to A&E departments, and increase of 57%. Why? Because migration and A&E visits have both gone up – there’s no conclusive evidence that the two sets of numbers are linked.

And then John Pienaar did what I'd expect a pro-Remain campaigner to do. He reached back to the pre-Referendum archive to broadcast a clip of Boris to further 'rubbish' the Leave point (fair dos if you're a campaigner; less so {I think} if you're meant to be an impartial broadcaster):

John Pienaar: The leading Leave campaign wasn’t convinced countless Turks were coming quite recently.
Boris Johnson (speaking in March 2016): Turkey’s been a candidate for membership of the EU since 1963.  I think the chances of the Turks readily acceding to the European Union are between, you know, nil and 20%.

Given that all three of the three previous 'Leave-led' stories focused on negative campaigning by Leave (Boris bashing Obama, Michael Gove accusing Remain of behaving badly and Nigel Farage slagging off other Leave campaigners), Leave are still getting the raw end of the deal here - even when their angle is leading BBC One's much-watched early evening news bulletin. 

The stats speak for themselves in suggesting the sheer scale of the pro-Remain imbalance but, oddly, they actually seriously understate the imbalance. The imbalance is even more massive than the stats suggest.

Gushing and Gloating

...let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp,

And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee...

When I wrote yesterday (in a comment) that the main report on yesterday evening's BBC One News at Six by John Pienaar felt "gushing" to me, I think I'd now add "gloating" too.

Here is a transcription of exactly what the BBC's deputy political editor told the BBC One audience about President Obama's visit to Britain. 

I suspect David Cameron will be feeling almost as grateful to John Pienaar as he did to Barack Obama after this piece of 'candied' reporting. He stressed the "friendship" between the two leaders almost as much as Mr. Cameron himself kept doing. He even phrased the bit about Boris in a helpful way to the PM, using the word "even" to suggest the London mayor went too far. 

Some particularly loaded words and phrases are highlighted in bold.

******

When the President comes calling he starts at the top. Touchdown at Windsor Castle for a private visit to the Queen. Well, as private as these trips ever get. The one place, the one person to whom Barack Obama defers.

Obama deferring to (the Queen) the Saudi king

Protocol rules even for presidents. And here's here not just as a courtesy on his farewell tour but to have his say on Britain's place in the world before her subjects decide. Now, which head of state's supposed to go in front? 

The royal welcome was warm enough - a lot warmer than those wanting out of the EU were about to feel about Barack Obama, especially after the business end of his visit, the President's next stop. 

And in Downing Street his welcome looked even warmer - not just because president and prime minister are quite good friends - you could see that! - but because the biggest star in world politics was here to help David Cameron in the fight of his life: keeping Britain in the EU and, in the process, saving the Cameron premiership from a messy and unhappy end. 

Then they were on. President Obama took his chance, and he wasn't holding back. 

(Clip of Obama speaking) 

Toughest warning yet by far. And he wasn't sorry for saying it. 

(Clip of Obama speaking) 

David Cameron couldn't have asked for more. The Out camp are convinced that he did. To him the choice was obvious. 

(Clip of Cameron speaking) 

Even before the President said a word you somehow knew something big was coming - bigger than Prince, the Beatles, the Stones all in a row, maybe some game-changer. And what a show it is when Barack Obama comes to town! In there (Downing Street) it's all about international diplomacy, high-stakes politics. Out here - forget the rain! - it feels a bit like a crowd at a rock concert. Everyone's come to have a last look at a president who's more popular than any politician here, even in their dreams. But can Barack Obama win minds as well as hearts? 

But if you didn't know these two were close - first names and all - you know now. Opponents - their opponents - are upset. One of them - Boris Johnson - even doubted whether the President he called part-Kenyan even had Britain's interests at heart.  

(Clip of Boris speaking) 

Side by side, shoulder to shoulder. Barack Obama's done his part, and more. The fight for Britain's future still hangs in the balance. And that will decide whether the dramatic support David Cameron's closest friend and ally has given today is remembered as a prize trophy or just a kind consolation prize. 

John Pienaar, BBC News.

Angles and Mishaps

Just to share a couple of other election-related observations...

Firstly, do you detect a particular angle being pushed on the Tories' latest election pledge in the following framing remarks from Mark Mardell on Radio 4 and John Pienaar on Radio 5 Live?:

Mark Mardell, Broadcasting House: We're in Glasgow looking at what could turn out to be the defining story of the general election - the predicted SNP surge - and I've been out and about in Edinburgh seeing if Labour and the other parties are managing a fight-back. I'll be talking to some of the party leaders here in Scotland asking them, among other things, what they make of the Conservatives' brand-new policy on inheritance tax; yes, the one the civil service warned would push up house prices and would only benefit wealthier households. Is that the best for them to fight against the image of 'the party of the rich?' All that at One. 

Mark Mardell, The World This Weekend: But first, they're on manoeuvres south of the border too, where tax is the topic of the day. The party of austerity has been overcome by a fit of generosity - to the better-off anyway - abolishing inheritance tax on families' homes worth more than a million pounds. 

John Pienaar, Pienaar's Politics: Will a promise to cut death duties for pricier home owners raise a smile on the average doorstep? Cabinet minister Patrick McLoughlin joins me live in a moment. He's a miner's son by the way. Not many of those in the Tory hierarchy! 

And I'd add that JP's preview of his upcoming interview with Labour's Angela Eagle included no such crack, class-based or otherwise. [For more on John Pienaar's show, please see here.]

Secondly, Norman Smith provided his second piece of Norman's Wisdom on this morning's Broadcasting House - a spot where he highlights one incident from the week that strikes him as particularly significant.

Last week it was Joey Essex not knowing much about politics, something Norman felt was a warning to all hacks and politicos, giving that most people don't live in the Bubble they live in. This week it was the story about the collapsing stage backdrop at UKIP's press conference, signifying how UKIP's vote appears to be collapsing now, given all the pressures and added scrutiny brought by the election.

It will be interesting to hear what Norman's remaining pearls of wisdom tell us.

Norman's getting to do a few of these spots at the moment. He did a 'Mishaps of the Week' spot on yesterday's Today, where three amusing David Cameron 'mishaps' where spotlighted [involving using a knife and fork to eat a hotdog, giving Sam Can a knife and fork to each a bacon butty, and trying - and failing - to get a 6 year-old girl to read with him], two UKIP 'mishaps' [involving the sausage roll scandal and a press conference from hell] and one Lib Dem 'mishap' [involving their campaign bus running over a pigeon].

Norman said he'd tried to find a similar Labour 'mishap' but failed. Amusingly (well, for me anyway), Justin Webb immediately added that he knew one - the 'high five' Ed Miliband tried on a wee bairn belonging to one of his party activists in Edinburgh, which said bairn failed to give back.

Fancy Norman not remembering that himself (especially as it was on the BBC's News at Ten the previous night)!