Showing posts with label Jon Donnison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Donnison. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 May 2019

Premature ejaculation, Updated

It’s quite likely that the media has attributed the death of a pregnant Palestinian woman and a baby to ‘Israel’ before properly ascertaining the facts.  


The IDF said it was caused by one of the Palestinians’ own missiles that fell short. This is not a first. Remember the case of the baby “who only knew how to smile?”
Jon Donnison's overwrought report still up there on the BBC website.

It was a tragic case - but not likely to have been caused by Israel, though the BBC disputes this. 

The BBC is quite happy to regurgitate information from Palestinian sources unquestioningly. The Palestinian Ministry of misinformation...... is Hamas.

Scroll through the IDF’s Twitter to get a picture of what’s going on. 

Why choose Hamas’s word over Israel’s before any investigation has had time to take place? Easy. Because if you blame Israel no-one will bother to question it. Ever.

Update.
(Washington Examiner)
"One of the terror organizations responsible for the recent barrage of attacks against Israel admitted that a malfunction with its own rocket killed a baby in Gaza after previously blaming Israel.
A report from the Telegram account of Hamas’ al-Risala News was published Sunday and said that the 14-month child was killed by a Gazan rocket that exploded inside of the family’s home, there are also reports that a woman also died in the Saturday blast. The report was quickly deleted, the Jerusalem Post reports.
“There is a claim that the technical failure was caused by low-grade explosives in the rocket,” it said. “There is no doubt that the baby’s death has nothing to do with the enemy’s [Israel’s] planes.”
But Tommy Corbyn hasn't got the memo.



Monday, 6 August 2018

They never will


The BBC is still dutifully addressing the Labour Party’s antisemitism problem. Not exactly addressing. It seems more accurate to say they’re paying lip service to addressing it. They’d like to get to the bottom of it, or they’d like you to think they’d like to get to the bottom of it. They never will though. Not while they’re still broadcasting such biased reporting about Israel from the likes of Jon Donnison and Paul Adams.

I think Jon Donnison’s addiction to ‘the people of Gaza’ is unhealthy. Kind of obsessive-compulsive. At first, I thought he had been banished by the BBC because his bias was getting too obvious; on the verge of bringing the BBC into disrepute. (joke). One could easily assume he’d been sent down under for a spot of rehab and was now deemed well enough to return to the Middle East.

But no. He hasn’t been sent back to Gaza. He’s bringing those heavily slanted reports about his favourite topic from here and he’s somehow wangled Nazi Ghazi Hamas Hamad past the Beeb’s quality control to vouchsafe that there wasn’t a single drop of violence during the peaceful protests along Gaza’s border with Israel (apart from a few packs of lone wolves.)


Paul Adams had already resurrected the story about Gaza’s mental health problems, which has been spun, with a cunning combination of innuendo and omission, to place the blame on Israel.  


On Sunday’s Newshour this story appeared yet again. Fathi Harb’s self-immolation was pitched as the desperate response of a man driven mad by Israel’s blockade.

Adams didn’t recount the words Fathi allegedly cried as he burned, but mumbled something about the “struggle to make a living”. Bizarrely, the pronunciation of the deceased’s name, “fatty”, made the whole thing sound all the more surreal.

Ynet News:
A 20-year-old Palestinian father of two from Gaza set himself on fire Saturday night in the city's Sheikh Radwan neighborhood, all while cursing the strip's Hamas rulers who he apparently blamed for his family's poverty and the dismal economic situation in Gaza. 
Eye witnesses saw the man dousing himself in flammable liquid shouting "damn the government" before lighting himself up. Video footage of the incident shows the young man burning alive and screaming in agony with passersby rushing to put out the flames. 
Fathi's family and associates emphasized that he does not suffer from mental illness, but noting he was distraught over his brother's injury in one of the "March of Return" demonstrations at the border with Israel, which are organized and promoted by Hamas.

If the BBC are genuinely puzzled about surging antisemitism they are playing a ridiculous game of “innocent Face” 
We heard Yvette Cooper speaking to Martha Kearney this morning. She thinks the whole thing would go away if they merely “adopted the full definition,” with all its examples.
“Because it does still, rightly, allow people to criticise Israel for the deeply damaging things it is doing.”
What are these deeply damaging things, I wonder? Are they fag-ends and tidbits overheard from the kind of reporting we’ve just been discussing mixed together with ‘facts’ and statistics regurgitated straight from “the Palestinian Ministry of  Health”. (Hamas)

There was an amusing rant from a former member of Trump’s team this lunchtime. She had a good old go at Mark Mardell.
“Dr. Betsy McCoy was an economic advisor to President Trump when he was President Elect and she joins me now from New York. Hello there!”
Hello I must say I’ve been listening to this previous interview and the bias is so evident, so appalling, that your narrator used the word  ‘treason’, which even the ‘witch-hunter himself, Robert Mueller has not used. It’s quite shocking, I hope your listeners know what an incredibly biased presentation that was.”

Talking of Yvette Cooper, did you see Ed Balls strutting his stuff last night? At least his enjoyable film gave these deplorable the space to show that they were not quite so deplorable after all. 

Ed, on the other hand, was positively Gallawayesque in his lycra costumes. (Wow, he’s got hefty since Strictly) He said he was there to listen and learn, but my impression was that he failed to do both. He’s turning into a positive Anne Widdecombe; the Yin to Widders’s Yang. 


I suppose people do change when they leave politics but I can’t help thinking of Yvette’s face, all fired up with indignant righteousness, condemning hatred of the Jews while insisting on retaining the freedom to condemn Israel for “what it is doing” to the Palestinians. 

Saturday, 23 June 2018

Jon Donnison is back



BBC news correspondent Jon Donnison was interviewing a couple of anti-Brexit marchers at the People's Vote March in London a few minutes ago (just after 2 o'clock) and, doing his 'BBC impartiality' bit, asked one of them: 
Again, people would say: There was a referendum. People voted. It was close - 48 to 51 -- but the 48 lost. 
He could have said, "Again, people would say: There was a referendum. People voted. The 48 lost", but he didn't. He had to add, "It was close". (Was it? There was a 4% difference.)

Also, the result wasn't "48 to 51". It was 48 to 52 (48.11% to 51.89%).

Checking back, he also called Leave voters "the 51%" earlier too (just after 1 o'clock), so it wasn't a random slip.

Was this evidence of bias or just factual inaccuracy on Jon Donnison's part?

Saturday, 23 September 2017

Where has JonDon gone?


Regular readers of this blog will, perhaps, be interested in the latest Jon Donnison news. 

I just heard him on PM reporting on the Uber story.

Yes, the great man has abandoned his beloved Gazan shore and his far-from-beloved Australian shore and been posted back to Blighty. 


I'm sure he'll be his usual 'impartial' self in London (and, yes, that's sarcasm). 

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

Out of this world

It’s not you, it’s me. No; that’s the wrong way round. It is you, I’m pretty sure.

Me = out of kilter with you.
You = politicians, the media, the world, the universe and everything.  

I used to think it was just me, but oddly enough I keep coming across people who suspect the News is being beamed in from a parallel, extra terrestrial BBC, possibly staffed by shape shifting lizards. Sky News is coming at us from beyond the actual sky. It follows that the mysterious, abstract concept formerly known as cyber space is really outer space and the print media is collated by evil men from Mars.  
We can tell that evil, shape-shifting forces have taken charge, and we are wondering why hardly anybody has noticed up till now. In fact it’s almost official; we’re being fed iffy stuff by aliens.

 I’m writing this from a padded cell in David Icke’s personal dungeon.

*************

Brexit V Remain.

I heard this programme on BBC World service. “The Inquiry. Is Brexit inevitable?” The title suggests we were in for an objective analysis. An ‘inquiry’ sounds objective, no?

This episode was about the legal and constitutional implications of Brexit. Of course it had a palpable pro EU agenda.  “Brexiteers are regretting it”  “People are changing their minds” and so on. That’s par for the course with the lizards, but I’m citing it here specifically to illustrate how the BBC perceives Brexit voters.
“Our next expert witness is John Harris. He’s been travelling round the country for ‘Anywhere but Westminster’, a project run by the Guardian Newspaper” 
announced the presenter, Maria Margaronis, in a quavery voice.
“He’s found deeply wounded communities”  
You’ll guess what’s coming. 

Although full of nostalgia for the days when south Wales was a working-class area with a thriving mining industry and a sense of community, John Harris portrays the present day inhabitants as an unemployed, drug-addled underclass with racist tendencies and no hope. Through no fault of their own, it must be stressed. He’s not blaming them at all. He’s blaming the establishment for ignoring them for too long, and he warns that if the establishment  continues to ignore them it will result in the rise of UKIP “or something worse”. 
The have-nots railing against the ‘haves’. The disenfranchised expressing their anger at the political establishment. According to John Harris, these are the Brexiteers, while the Remainers are university lecturers -  pro-immigration, open minded and well-healed, but selfish.  

Melanie Phillips, on the other hand, has the definition I much prefer. (£)  
“Remainers swallowed their dislike of the EU because they didn’t think Britain could overturn the status quo and survive.”

See? That is a much more nuanced characterisation of the Remainers. Yes, indeed they probably were frightened by the scaremongering and did not wish to risk upsetting the applecart, despite the potential instability of the EU ‘going forward’ and a small matter of sacrificing our sovereignty.
  “Those who voted Brexit did so because the continued loss of national self-government was so intolerable it made the undoubted risks of leaving the EU worth taking.”

See what I mean? She gives both groups credit for their ambivalence and their nuanced appraisal of what was at stake. We’re not all selfish thickos.

*************

Aliens are in charge. Part two. Back-stabbing.

The BBC has attached a meme to Michael Gove. The “Backstabber” meme.
Jo Coburn said: 
“ Michael Gove is a backstabber, as you know”. 
According to the media Michael Gove is officially a backstabber.  The well-known backstabber.


Did you hear  Sarah Montague and guests discussing unsurprising things that (surprisingly) surprise people? For example, the referendum. A yes or no affair; yet neither David Cameron nor Boris Johnson were prepared for the outcome. They were taken by surprise. 

Let’s face it, neither Boris nor David Cameron really needed to chicken out, did they?
Hadn’t it crossed their minds that one of just two outcomes would automatically follow a ‘binary’ choice?  Heads or tails. One or t’other. In or out -  no mister in between.
What is going on? Alien forces are at it again.

Even if that mischief-making knife-related meme wasn’t wholly responsible for Theresa May’s decision to sack Michael Gove, it has served to justify it.

Michael Gove was regarded by many of his colleagues as the kind of reformer that Theresa May should have promoted rather than ditched, and her inability to recognise that looks short-sighted and vindictive, like cutting off one’s nose to spite the whole country’s face.

“There was neither sense nor generosity in the PM’s brutality to Michael Gove. He had patently acted like a lunatic over the leadership campaign, behaving neither rationally nor honourably, but all that is over now. But it is still quite extraordinary that Mrs May has not taken on board that Mr Gove was pretty well the one reformer in government.”

Still, does Melanie McDonagh actually know how Michael Gove, or for that matter Boris Johnson, ‘behaved’ over the leadership campaign, or is she just going with the flow?  Was she there at the time?
Describing Mr. Backstabber’s Gove’s behaviour as “neither rational nor honourable” suggests she’s taking the easy route and accepting a meme that is so entrenched that no-one has the strength to argue with it. 
  She says:
“He was shaping up to be a genuinely reformist Justice Secretary, having identified right at the start that prison was for people who had been failed by, among other things, the education system; it was in a way where his previous department left off. His Christian feel for rehabilitating the sinner was patently the driving force behind his programme of reforms. Rehabilitation is one of those things everyone talks about but he, remarkably and in a way his predecessors had not, started to engage with, though God knows, cuts fell disproportionately on prisons. 
His programme for giving governors greater autonomy was an interesting take on the same principle in schools; ‘academy prisons’, you might say, though the title was ‘reform prisons’. If you want to know why Mrs May should have left him well alone, read the account of Michael Gove’s address to the Howard League for Penal Reform.”


Libby Purves writes:(£) “Our squalid prisons needed the zeal of Gove
” My awareness of Liz Truss, the Norfolk MP and former Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) minister, has been pretty much confined to her eerily intense conference speeches about “opening up new pork markets in Beijing” and cheese imports being a disgrace. Now, as she takes over as justice minister, I hunger for reassurance that in her new job she will recognise a real disgrace when she sees one: our overcrowded, drug-poisoned, often squalid and educationally under-resourced prisons. She has a tough act to follow: when her predecessor Michael Gove was removed from education for undue abrasiveness, he…”

That’s the free part of the online Times. I have the hard copy, but I haven’t time to type it in here.

Theresa May has decided to appoint Liz Truss and we are left wondering ...why and what for? 
Here’s another piece, this time by Charles Falconer, even.  (£)
“The new prime minister’s reshuffle could not have revealed more clearly her indifference to the rule of law. In any government the lord chancellor has a duty to ensure that judges are properly protected from political attack and are able to act independently — and that the government itself always acts in accordance with the law. 
The lord chancellor has to be someone with the weight and stature to stand up to the prime minister or the home secretary when, for instance, they want to compromise on complying with the law in an attempt to placate the public. Or when…”
That’s the free bit, but you get the gist. Our prisons are in crisis. Violence, drugs and radical Islam rule the roost. Swapping Liz Truss for Michael Gove seems truly senseless and irresponsible.  It’s nearly as mad as appointing an accountant to head Culture, Media and Sport. 

I see I’m contradicting my theory here, as Melanie McDonagh, Libby Purves and Charlie Falconer are part of the media rather than men from Mars. There must be blips in the system.

*******

Aliens part 3.
Stabbing and car-ramming.

Wasn’t it odd that Jon Donnison happened to be in Nice at the time of the “Lorry Attack”? As the BBC reporter with the biggest obsession about Israel and the Palestinians, he was uniquely placed to inform viewers that car-ramming is not a new phenomenon. The difference is that when they occur in Europe, they’re called ‘terrorism’, but of course when the victims are Israelis car-rammings and stabbings are seen as militancy and acts of resistance. 
I know I’m not the first to point that out and I probably won’t be the last. 

As soon as we heard that 84 people had been killed in Nice, we were swiftly reminded that Muslims were victims too. 
We were told that the perpetrator (the driver, not the lorry itself) had mental health issues. 
The security services are looking into any possible connection between this man and Islamic State. 
It’s immaterial to me whether they find links or not. If Islamic State claimed him as their soldier, that’s enough for me. Soldiers of Allah, “structured in a quasi-military fashion” rather like the Salvation Army.

While they’re at it, Islamic State may as well claim ownership of every violent crime that takes place anywhere; then all murderers get to claim an ideological motive, Islamic State continues wreaking terror without lifting a finger, and the alien commentators get more blame to share out. Everyone’s a winner.

Panels of extra-terrestrial experts could appear on Sunday Morning Live and explain that what happened in Nice is our own fault because we make Muslims feel alienated and disaffected.  They even looked as though they’d just landed from Mars and they didn’t fool anyone.


***********

Talking of stabbings and vehicular rammings, I read a transcript of a recent question session in parliament (Foreign and Commonwealth office) which took place on or around the previous government’s final day. 
As a kind of tribute to Jo Cox, who apparently had a passion for Palestinians, Tobias Ellwood MP asked  a question about the continued demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities. Aliens were evidently controlling this session, because the speakers gave little indication of why seemingly random demolitions might take place.  For sheer devilment perhaps. File it under “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians.”
Then Eric Pickles said : 
There is, however, the other side of the coin, with 36 Israelis, along with four foreign nationals, murdered this year. Instead of condemning the murders, the Palestinian Authority glorified them.” 
Which was duly acknowledged by Mr Ellwood: 
“My right hon. Friend makes the important point that the actions of the Palestinians do not go unnoticed, and we require the leadership of President Abbas to make it clear that those actions must be condemned.”
But Sarah Champion (Rotherham) piped up with her concerns about Palestinian children being detained in Israeli prisons. I’m tempted to ask whether she showed as much concern for the children in her constituency who suffered sexual abuse under her watch, but I won’t in case it sounds bitter and twisted.
Beam me up.

*******

I saw Jan Ravens (off Dead Ringers) on TV the other day. They were perched under an awning on College Green chatting during a brief lull in the political revelations. She was asked how her Theresa May voice was coming along.

She demonstrated how, in order to produce the Theresa May voice, the muscles in the lower part of the face must be clenched rigid. Theresa May’s voice has a jangly timbre to it and her enunciation is stiff and posh. 

Have you noticed, Theresa May often does that Gordon Brown ‘jaw’ thing - a kind of grimace. You’d almost forgotten about that, hadn’t you? 



Daniel Finkelstein mentioned something recently that I swear I’d been thinking as well.
The BBC has a whole department dedicated to proper pronunciation, and it should  issue instructions on the correct pronunciation of Theresa.  Not Teraysa, not Tereessssa, but plain “Te - ree - za”.

Jon Culshaw hasn’t yet mastered his Jeremy Corbyn. Wind players have to control their breathing when playing, to keep phrases intact. Most of us do so naturally when speaking. 
Not Jeremy Corbyn. He takes tiny breaths, mid-flow,  like a small child whose vocabulary can’t keep pace with his thoughts.  Jon Culshaw needs to incorporate his mid-flow intakes of breath into his monotonous drone or he won’t get very far with his Corbyn impression.  

In order to get into character properly, he should cock his head slightly to the left, and the script should include repetitive socialist wish-lists that all start with the same few words, and he must finish every statement with a slight smirk (and he should never leave the stage)

*********


This is the one I wanted to write about yesterday, but I didn’t have time. It’s Mark Mardell introducing Naz Shah and that pesky "anti-semetic" incident. 
Naz Shah might well have made amends, apologised and genuinely built up a good relationship with the local Jewish  community. I’m not criticising that at all. But how could someone who’s bright enough to get herself elected as an M.P. not know that antisemitism was ‘racist’. 

The mind truly boggles. She now needs to question the racism that emanates from her constituents as well as her own racism, otherwise it’s all a bit hollow. She sounds fairly intelligent one minute and laughably, mind-blowingly stupid the next.  Is she .......from a parallel universe?



********

I also watched the Home Affairs Committee enquiry into antisemitism. Unfortunately it took place on a day when other matters were occupying the most perky members of the committee, so hardly anyone was present. 

Poor old David Winnick seems to think Israel should be grateful for his half-baked support and he assumes his criticism will be regarded as that of a friend. Some friend. 

John Mann was a witness. He is a strong character and his high profile campaign against antisemitism is of immense value, especially as he is not a Jew.  However, he is much more positive about Shami Chakrabarti’s review than anyone else seems to be, which seems a bit strange. ‘To boldly go where no Mann has gone before’ comes to mind, I don’t quite know why. 


Saturday, 6 February 2016

"Stories via @jondonnisonbbc"


David (in the comments section of the previous post) has grabbed the embed code for a truly intriguing tweet:


Now, as you'll see if you click on their Twitter feed, Team Palestina are activists:


They have a remarkably busy Twitter feed which has been going since 2010 and which has already pumped out 135,000+ tweets, all promoting the Palestinian cause and denouncing Israel. 

And yet there's a tweet from their Twitter account promoting themselves which adds the words: "Stories via @jondonnisonbbc".

What on earth does that mean?


P.S. It's not the first time this has happened:


It could, come to think of it, simply mean that that day's 'Daily News' cited a BBC piece by Jon Donnison - though given that JonDon hasn't been on reporting duties in Gaza since 2014 what exactly would they be citing? His tweets? 

Who would have thought it


Meanwhile...

Some things never change.

The wonderful Daphne Anson has spotted a Twitter exchange between the BBC's Jon Donnison and someone who is apparently the Australia public broadcaster's answer to Jon Donnison: ABC Jerusalem correspondent Sophie McNeill.

JonDon, of course, is famous for being most emphatically not pro-Israel (to put it mildly). 

Recently he's also proved himself to be no fan of Australia's firm immigration policy (also to put it mildly).

Here he manages to combine both sentiments in just one short, ever-so-impartial reply:


*******

P.S. For those wanting some up-to-date evidence of JonDon's reporting of Australia's migration policy, there's his 'analysis' on a BBC report from a couple of days ago, Australian churches offer to take in asylum seekers. Describing the situation regarding a couple of hundred or so migrants now facing being sent back to Nauru, he writes - starting with that stand-by phrase for biased journalism "Many would think":
Many would think the government would be concerned about the negative coverage the story has generated internationally, with Australia being portrayed by many as cruel and lacking in compassion. 
But ministers also know that domestically, their tough policies towards asylum seekers have broad public support.
Who is that "many"? Not that many in Australia by the sounds of it. Probably not many in the UK either.

His next sentence reads:
The headline in one of Australia's best selling newspapers, Sydney Daily Telegraph, this morning was "Turn Back the Kids."
And his view about that is made perfectly clear in another of his ever-so-impartial tweets - this one a highly sarcastic affair:

Saturday, 19 December 2015

Conspiracy theorists


I see the Guardian is giving several dozen nudges and a whole batch of hints that nasty old Rupert Murdoch and his Tory puppet George Osborne jointly cooked up the deal that did for the poor old BBC earlier this year:


'There's no smoke without fire' seems to be the message behind this less-than-entirely-convincing piece of Guardian journalism which lists various dates and various contacts with various media types, including Ol' Rupert, and allows its readers to join the dots

Now, any science or statistics fans will know that correlation does not imply causation. So the fact that George met Rupert twice before the BBC deal was brought about doesn't necessarily mean that Rupert put George up to it. 

Similarly, the passage deep inside the Guardian piece which says David Cameron "has also met [Guardian editor Katharine] Viner and the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland and Patrick Wintour, as well as [the BBC's Lord Tony] Hall in September" doesn't necessarily mean - because of the proximity of the names in that sentence and the proximity of the dates of their meetings with the PM -that Lord Hall of the BBC and the Guardian are in cahoots either!

That, of course, won't stop some BBC types from joining the Graun in their nudge-nudge-wink-winking over this. 


Saturday, 24 October 2015

Award-winning journalism from Jon



Talking about From Our Own Correspondent...

(hmm, it's becoming a bit of a habit of mine to start posts with the words "Talking about....". I suppose I should stop doing so, but...)

Er, talking about From Our Own Correspondent...


Today's edition contained one piece that really ought to be given an award for fine writing. (A cynic might say it was too obviously aiming at such an award, but I'm no cynic.)

It came from the heart of the typhoon-struck Philippines, and tugged at this listener's heart.

The tale of a plucky fisherman braving the "wild and wet weather" was both its starting and finishing point.

"Kids of the chubby-cheeked cherubic kind" grace this feisty fisherman's home, we were told, touchingly.

Along with loads more of this sort of lip-licking alliteration came sluices of juicy assonance and mouth-watering chains of extended imagery:  
Like most Filipinos Marlon is something of a pocket rocket, the build of a bantamweight but the chin and the resilience of a heavyweight. A hard man to knock down. Typhoon Koppu, on the other hand, has lumbered across the Philippines this past week with the slow-moving mass and menace of a sumo wrestler.
And on went the alliteration and assonance: "rooftop rescues", "landslips, mudslides, lives and livelihoods lost", "Filipinos, people who paradoxically", "see the sunny side", "gripe and grumble", "skilfully skippering his skiff" (my favourite), "risking life and limb to make a living", etc.

The report ended with the hope that Marlon will be braving the seas again soon, whatever the weather, come typhoon or...er...typhoon. Amen.

The BBC reporter knows though, whatever, that he's "sure" to be (given an award for this report) "greeted by the same smiling faces, kindness and character", which is nice, whatever the "extreme weather event".

Step forward Mr Jon Donnison and please collect your award for fine writing and even finer feeling.

As W.H. Auden once wrote: Round the rampant rugged rocks/Rude and ragged rascals run. 

Jon might want to bear that in might next time he sees some more chubby-cheeked cherubic children cheerfully playing on the beach somewhere award-winning, but on this evidence he clearly doesn't need any such advice. 

Saturday, 29 August 2015

A Saturday night smorgasbord (Part 2)


And on we go...

*****


I have to say that James O'Brien isn't growing on me as a Newsnight presenter. 

I don't appear to be alone. In recent days I've seen his interview style described (on Twitter) as varying between "patronizing questions and leading questions" and his "modus operandi" in general being characterised as "abuse, smearing and pretending he is some kind of genius". Others have been less kind. 

An example of JO'B's use of leading questions could be seen with his interview on Thursday's Newsnight with John Dalhuisen of Amnesty International on the migrant crisis - or "refugee" crisis as Mr Dalhuisen terms it. ("So the only way that this could be assuaged is for them to be, for want of a better word, welcomed?"). 

Contrast that with his later interview with UKIP's Douglas Carswell, where he pounded away, repeatedly interrupting, trying to make the point that people in low-immigrant-dense constituencies tend to be (unreasonably) anti-mass immigration. Or with his relentless interrupting of Corbynite Labour MP Cat Smith on Friday's edition.

[Vis-à-vis our Cat, our next-door-neighbour MP for Lancaster...she sounded surprisingly cocky for someone who squeaked in as a Labour MP, just defeating the sitting Tory MP (despite polls predicting she'd win by an absolute landslide)...and she only managed that thanks to the total collapse of the Lib Dems, the sharp rise of UKIP and most Lancaster voters not having the slightest clue what she actually stands for.]

Now, maybe Cat and Douglas deserved to be relentlessly interrupted by James O'Brien (they weren't admitting what he wanted them to admit), but I always think it's very bad form for a BBC interviewer to do what JO'B did to Mr Carswell on Thursday - namely contradicting him and not allowing him to respond, moving onto the other guest and changing the subject:
Douglas Carswell: We often argue in UKIP that we need an Australian type system of immigration. That is to allow us to choose people with the skills we need to come and work here and contribute. If you look at the detail of some of these figures it shows that for every one non-EU job created over the past year there have been 35 EU jobs created. That clearly suggests - unless anyone's going to suggest that Europeans are 35 times more able - it clearly suggests that actually the system we have at the moment is preventing us from recruiting the brightest and the best from around the world.  
James O'Brien: And, of course, if you look at the detail of the Australian points system you'll see that in per capita terms the rate of immigration is about twice as high as it is into Britain at the moment.... 
Douglas Carswell: It, it... 
James O'Brien [pointing at Fraser Nelson]: I just want to put to Fraser Nelson...
That's a BBC interviewer forcing his views on his audience, isn't it?

*****


Anyhow, at least we can take some satisfaction in seeing 'hard man' James O'Brien's obvious discomfort later in that same edition on having to eat a dead squirrel live on TV.

That was when Newsnight well and truly jumped the squirrel. 

And it did so courtesy of Newsnight editor Ian Katz's old chum at the Guardian, George Monbiot

It's not the first time Ian has invited George onto the show to air his latest moonbattery. His plans to expunge the Lake District of sheep and 're-wild' the fells got him an invite soon after Mr Katz took over. And here he was again, following on from his latest piece in the Graun extolling the thrill of eating a recently-deceased grey squirrel and his parallel dislike of conventional animal farming. 

So there was the Moonbat himself, wielding an axe and butchering a squirrel live on BBC Two, with James O'Brien looking on and then trying to eat 'one we prepared earlier'. 

James introduced George Monbiot, at the start of the show, as "the nation's favourite environmentalist".

All very odd.

*****



As this is a smorgasbord, I really ought to include something about Sweden

Sweden has been much in the news recently, with BBC reporter/commentator after BBC reporter/commentator noting that Sweden has taken in far more migrants per head of population than we have (a point always made at our expense).

I may be missing something but what none of those BBC reporters/commentators ever points out is that Sweden has a population of 9.5 million and an area of 449,964 km². We have a population of 64.1 million and an area of just 243,610 km². 

*****

Anyhow, matters Swedish came to the attention of other commenters about BBC bias through a recent BBC TV report from BBC Breakfast's Graham Satchell

It was another of those reports, featuring attractive migrants cast amid glowing Swedish scenery and various pro-immigration voices, including a Swedish mayor. It also (very briefly) featured an opposing voice, introduced as being "hard-right". 

Well, the Sweden Democrats (the party of the "hard-right" lady featured) are pretty hard-right (though much less than they used to be). However, it struck me that Graham didn't give us any political label for the featured mayor. I had to Google her to find which party she represents (the centre-left Social Democrats).

'Bias by labelling' is a common bugbear of those concerned about media bias. This was surely a case of it, wasn't it?

You may also remember Graham Satchell from his reporting of the Rotherham abuse scandal. I certainly remember one report (which I've just found again) where the Muslim angle was only mentioned in connection with fears of a backlash - an absolute BBC classic of its kind. 

*****


So far, so typical of the BBC in this smorgasbord. However, sometimes something unexpected happens....

....such as a BBC reporter expressing the view that it's a very good thing that the UK isn't part of the EU's Schengen Agreement on the free movement of people. 

That shocker came on Monday's The World at One and emerged from the mouth of the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner (about 27:35 in): 
I think that one of the problems here is that in the Schengen Area - which, thank God, Britain is not a member of - but in Schengen you can pass across border with no checks in theory...
Thank God indeed, Frank!

And if you think that's weird, please try getting your head around Jon Donnison posting a piece from a libertarian perspective, denouncing the nanny state in Australia. Yes he grounds his piece in the opinions of the only Ozzie libertarian MP, but (as is his way) JD doesn't disguise where his own sympathies lie - and they aren't where I expected them to lie:
And for me personally, I have to say Australia is without doubt one of the most rule obsessed and bureaucratic places I have ever lived.
We all know he's not a great fan of Australia but, still, criticising the country from a 'Classical liberal' position is just about the last thing I'd ever have expected from JonDon (though obviously not the last thing I'd ever have expected - which is him reporting it from a pro-Israeli position!)

Friday, 28 August 2015

Surprise/no surprise


After a brief pause in blogging, I'm not exactly sure that I want to return to my 'comfort zone'....
but....

Here's Johnny! (bemoaning a recent, highly surprising turn of events):

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

Shudder!


Citing the Guardian, the BBC's Sydney correspondent Jon Donnison asks his Twitter followers a question:


His BBC colleague Matt McGrath provides 'the correct answer' in a newly-published BBC website piece:



That "Err, not really" sets the tone for much of the rest of Matt's piece. Reporting and opinion frolic side by side thoughout, so much that it might be better described as an 'editorial' than a 'report'.

Monday, 10 August 2015

Jon Donnison and the "refugee" who makes the world's best coffee


For all of us who've been following the career of the BBC's reluctant Sydney correspondent Jon Donnison, his latest BBC report will come as no surprise at all:


Nor will you be surprised, on viewing JD's report, that the "refugee" bringing such benefits to the benighted Ozzies is captioned as: "Born in Bosnia. Fled the Balkan Wars for Australia". 

Are you (like me) detecting a not-so-hidden message here, given events in Calais?: Think of all the potential coffee-makers we could have if we let in these "refugees", "fleeing wars" around the globe, into our country? 

What Jon Donnison wants us to take from his report seems pretty obvious from his tweet, doesn't it?

However, was (ethnic Serbian) Sasa Sestic really a "refugee" from the Bosnian War, as the BBC man implies? 

From Googling around, it looks as if JD may have been exaggerating that part of Sasa's life-story:
Q: Tell us a bit about your background – where did you grow up, did you study and if so what did you study, and what were you doing before you became involved in the wonderful world of coffee? 
A: I grew up in Bosnia, worlds apart from where I live today. Wanting to get away from my war-torn homeland, my brother, Dragan, and I decided to use the one skill we had in common to migrate to another country. Taking an enormous leap of faith, we applied to represent Australia at the Sydney Olympics in handball – and we won a berth on the team! Citizenship followed, and hence our move to Australia.
Now, that's not my idea of a proper "refugee". Nor is it really what legal types consider a "refugee" either, is it?:
The Definition of a Refugee 
International legal protection of refugees centres on a person meeting the criteria for refugee status as laid down in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Under Article 1(A)2, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:
“...owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
Jon Donnison seems to be seriously spinning his latest story here in order to make a pro-immigration point...

...and his tweeting is obviously tied to his actual reporting. 

Saturday, 25 July 2015

"Why Aussies are the world's biggest losers"



If there's one thing I think we can be pretty sure about it's that the BBC's former Gaza correspondent Jon Donnison hasn't exactly warmed to his re-assignment as the BBC's Australia correspondent. Or to Australia. Or to (non-Muslim) Australians. His contempt for each and every one of them has been palpable.

You may have heard his latest report from a few days ago - now published online too - into how bad Australia's gambling problem is. It was a complete jeremiad (a word coined in honour of Jeremy Bowen's reporting from Israel, obviously).

I will admit that I was instantly sceptical about how genuinely concerned JonDon was about this, merely suspecting him of cynically going for the usual heart-tugging, unbalanced sort of award-winning stuff that he does so 'well'...

...but it was only when I saw one of his latest tweets that I just knew for sure what JonDon really thought. The cynicism is there for all to see. (Who says a BBC reporter's Twitter feed doesn't mirror his reporting?)


That tweet really isn't helping to diminish my feeling (much repeated here at ITBB) that JonDon needs moving urgently to somewhere completely different - namely Antarctica. 

Quite why the BBC can't see what their star reporter is up to down under is beyond me. It is obvious, isn't it?

Sunday, 19 July 2015

Stewart Lee wows the BBC



Talking about the Guardian's vigorously pro-BBC campaigning...

...among today's fresh batch of BBC-defending, government-bashing pieces is a diatribe by the BBC's funniest comedian, Stewart Lee.

His point is that the BBC entertain, informs and educates better than any commercial rival could possibly do that, that commercial values aren't what really matters, and that John Whittingdale's panel of eight experts contains a fair few of these commercial types who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Of course, he doesn't put it quite like that:
And what a golden shower of talent Whittingdale has stitched together, a veritable human centipede of business-minded entities, in order to safeguard the nation’s cultural heritage. 
Dawn Airey is the former head of Channel 5, the launch of which in 1997 marked a colourful new chapter in British broadcasting. Some might say that asking a former head of Channel 5 to decide the future of the BBC is a bit like asking someone who draws ejaculating penises on the inside of public toilet cubicle doors to curate the National Gallery, but she is sure to bring an interesting perspective to the negotiating table.... 
Andrew Fisher is the executive chairman of Shazam, a smartphone app which identifies unknown songs, and with which he has made the world a much duller place, bereft of mystery; crushing the richness of human experience for economic gain, giving you what you want, right here, right now. Perhaps Andrew can now develop an app that can identify what someone has had for dinner from the smell of their farts?
BBC types are absolutely lapping it up. 

Here's the Social Media Editor for BBC News ejaculating over the piece with considerable enthusiasm:


And here's the BBC's Australia Correspondent Jon Donnison concurring, with a wave of his emphatically cork-free hat:

Friday, 17 July 2015

More BBC 'impartiality'


For those keeping an eye on the BBC's extremely reluctant Australia correspondent Jon Donnison...

He's returned to BBC TV today, making a fairly rare appearance, reporting on one of the very few subjects about Australia that seems to bother him: the country's immigration policy. (He's not a fan).

Given his past recording of reporting on Australia's immigration policy (he disapproves) and Human Rights Watch vis a vis Israel (he approves), this was a report he clearly had to post:
Jon Donnison reports from Sydney. 
Of course he does, of course he does...

...before returning to Twitter to slag off the Daily Telegraph and Rupert Murdoch's The Australian (his latest twitterings).

Friday, 10 July 2015

"Expect the climate change deniers to get fired up"


Sunday, 5 July 2015

It's impartiality, Jon, but not as we know it


BBC Australia Correspondent Jon Donnison continues to sound off on Twitter.

Here's his latest opinion - critical, as ever, of the Australian government:

Thursday, 2 July 2015

A rant from Mark Mardell



Mark Mardell was fond of editorialising when he acted as the BBC's North America editor. 

Curiously, he obviously still believes it's appropriate to sound off in a highly opinionated fashion - even though he's now a presenter on Radio 4's The World at One and The World This Weekend

Even by his standards though, his latest blogpost - Cameron is not asking the big question on Islamic State - is stonkingly opinionated. And on a highly controversial subject too.

He mocks David Cameron for saying that Islamic State poses an "existential threat" to the UK:
One has to have a fairly lurid imagination to envision that IS could snuff out the UK. 
He also implicitly includes the PM in his description of the "emotive words and stirring phrases from politicians around the world" - as is made explicit by his later description of Mr Cameron's proposals on how to deal with IS as "portentous pronouncements".

He also gives Tony Hall the finger by ranting about his feelings about the terminology used to describe the so-called so-called Islamic State:
It is perhaps telling that Mr Cameron objects to the BBC using the phrase "Islamic State", he prefers Isil - which stands for Islamic State in the Levant - or the preface "so-called" .
No doubt there will be a big debate about this, but personally I loathe that phrase. 
It is only used in ordinary conversation in scorn: "Your so-called girlfriend. 
And, it seems to me, once we start passing comment on the accuracy of the names people call their organisations, we will constantly be expected to make value judgements. Is China really a "People's Republic"?
Now, I have to say that I agree with Mark Mardell on that - and on other things in this piece. His strong opinion here mirrors mine, but...

...I'm an unpaid blogger, and he's a well-paid senior BBC news presenter. I am allowed to express strong opinions. Is he?

And, seemingly inevitably when it comes to 'old hand' BBC types (and where I part company with him), he ends by blaming...

...can you guess?...

...no, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, just try to have a guess who Mark Mardell of the BBC ultimately blames for the appeal of Islamic State...

...go on, can you guess?

Yes, it's us! The West! We're to blame!:
But there is a critical element that is often ignored, a Western aversion to what should be obvious and beyond debate - the appeal of IS is not just an increasingly violent and fundamentalist interpretation of a religion, not just a retreat into the values of the past in the face of the shock of modernity, but an explicitly political reaction to the actions of the West.
******

Incidentally, Mark Mardell has been backed over this by a fellow BBC journalist, via a re-tweet from a Palestinian-American columnist:


Birds of a biased feather flock together, eh?