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

Saturday, 14 September 2019

Brilloiant


Andrew Neil, who it turned out was departing the BBC after all, is still bringing his 'unusual for the BBC' wit and wisdom to Twitter. Here's a recent couple of gems:


Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Saturday, 14 January 2017

ThunderSnow


Over to Channel 4 News and this tweet from a disgruntled Jon Snow:


I think it's fair to say that the Twitter response hasn't exactly gone his way. Most have pointed out that Donald Trump isn't even in the White House yet and that, consequently, presidential responsibility for Mr Snow's distressing inconvenience lies with a certain Barack Obama. Naturally, some have also accused the Channel 4 News anchor of 'fake news'.

Meanwhile, back at the BBC, this morning's From Our Own Correspondent had a dispatch from the United States and you will surely never in a million years guess what it's starting point was. Oh,, you have guessed! Yes, 'fake news'. (Will every FOOC from the States for the next four years include a mention of 'fake news'?)

Kate Adie's introduction to this quite interesting feature began somewhat defensively:
Journalists - no exception here at the BBC - like to think we're accurate and as impartial as we can be. No one's perfect, but the intention is to provide clear, unbiased news. Not everyone believes that. And a mere glance at the extraordinary and abrasive press conference with Donald Trump, after lurid allegations had been made about the President-elect, had him pouring scorn on some sections of the media. He branded CNN "fake news", adding about the BBC: "That's another beauty". The words 'fake news' peppered his comments. The problem, according to history professor Robert Colls, is that in America in particular it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish real, non-partisan news from other things that sound like news.
Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

The right to rant

Nick Cohen penned an article just t’other day, entitled: Nobody will ever forgive the right if they destroy the BBC.

Cohen wasn’t writing primarily about bias. He was arguing on behalf of the BBC and telling us that it is a National Treasure and ‘ya won’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone’, but he did include the passage below.
 “And, yes, thank you for raising it, I know, there is BBC bias. I accept that Radio 4 will give us left- and extreme left-wing comedians but never their right- or far-right equivalents. You do not have to tell me either that you can find individual broadcasters who are bent. I have as much contempt for them as anyone else. But the point surely is that the BBC has standards that they are failing to meet.”
A crude summary: “ The audience is intelligent enough to recognise (and if necessary tolerate) a bit of bias, because the BBC has its heart in the right place, and its minor flaws can easily be fixed. “


Well, now there’s another article by Nick.  This time he’s addressing the principle of journalistic integrity, impartiality and ranting. He uses the topical example of Andrew Neil’s ‘courageous’ rant, which many people thought of as a long-awaited breath of fresh air. (I must admit I thought it was a long awaited statement of the bleeding obvious). 
Cohen’s article argues that it’s inappropriate for respected journalists to exploit their  privileged position by spouting their personal political opinions, particularly when they’re delivered in full frontal, close-up, talking-head-to-camera packages.

I wonder if there’s anything slightly contradictory in these two pieces, but perhaps that’s a bit nit-picking - Nick-pitting - of me.

The below the line comments are, again, gratifying. (This is happening to me quite a lot recently. Someone says something I don’t like, and then masses of the general public dive in and save me the trouble of clarifying my objections in my own head. Yippee.)

I must point out a couple of things from the comments before I end.

Firstly, several complained that he chose to use Jon Snow as another (equivalent) example of dubious inappropriate ranting. Many below the line commenters pointed out that there is no comparison whatsoever between Andrew Neil’s and Jon Snow’s un-journalistic rants.
Not only was Andrew Neil on the ‘right’ side (and Jon Snow on the ‘wrong’) ....
“Oh dear! You attempt to follow your own lead by the 'impartial' equation of Neil with Snow. Not acceptable. Neil knew evil when he saw it and left us in no doubt where he stood, as every good journalist should. Snow is a newsreader and his anti Israel pro Palestine bias is so obvious my parrot can recite it.
There is simply no comparison. Your attempt to draw one is not convincing.”

....but some said Snow is supposed to be a news anchor, whereas Neil is a political commentator. Some pointed out that Neil confined his criticism to ISIS rather than Islamic extremism, therefore his speech wasn’t courageous at all, and someone else said:
  “Incidentally Neil is wrong in supposing that Paris will necessarily continue to be a bright shining light.Demographics win”

Even though the outlook is bleak, at least the tenor of the below-the-line response to this piece was heartening. Positively cheered me up for a few seconds.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, 10 July 2015

Rubble Rousing

Having created the neologism “Rubble rousing” I would like to highlight a post on the blog
Five Minutes for Israel
where there’s a very handy reference guide for anyone who finds him/herself face to face with Jon Snow or Yolande Knell, or anyone else who tells you the reason for Gaza’s continuing devastation and dereliction is The Siege. (which of course technically the blockade is not.) 

Written in CementWhy is Gaza reconstruction so slow?In her BBC dispatch, Why is Gaza reconstruction so slow?, BBC NEWS, 8 July 2015, on the pace of rebuilding in Gaza she totally ignores eight good reasons that don’t scapegoat Israel’s dual use policy.At what point does omitting crucial information become lies by omission? If you accept Knell’s dispatch Israel’s policy towards so-called dual use material is the sole reason why not a single destroyed home has been rebuilt. Not one?We accept that Israel doing what it needs to protect itself may be part of the problem but not all of it and quite possibly not the largest part. Consider the following because the BBC doesn’t.Eight reasons ignored by Knell


  • Hamas commandeers a significant part of construction material for itself and has been reported to have begun to reconstruct fortifications
  • The Gaza black market distributes most of the remainder to the highest bidder 
  • Egypt also has a border but doesn’t allow import of building materials. The Rafah crossing is for people (when it is open) not goods 
  • Disputes between Hamas and the P.A. have meant that finance for purchasing materials doesn’t always arrive; 
  • Only a fraction of money pledged by the ‘international community’ (notably the Arab world) has materialised; 
  • Hamas may be deliberately keeping parts of Gaza unreconstructed for propaganda purposes — exactly as Knell’s report; 
  • Palestinian attacks on the transfer of material slows things down. Israel transferred the entrance point for trucks to Keren Shalom from the much larger and better equipped Karni crossing because of Palestinian attacks on Karni – which left several Israeli soldiers dead – several years ago; 
  • This week Israel closed Keren Shalom crossing, until further notice, in response to attacks which killed dozens of Egyptian soldiers in Sinai. This isn’t the cause for anything that has happened previously but it’s odd Knell doesn’t mention it, even as a things will get worse throw-away ending.
  *******
  • We don’t actually have an outside source for this but it seems a very reasonable assumption given that nothing is done in the most devastated areas. Some materials do reach civilians hands – those who pay. After all what would be the point of a black market without buyers?
do read all David's post here 



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, 7 June 2015

"Nice guy in a nasty situation"


Channel 4's Jon Snow has been making the news again - well, at least on Twitter. Even by his standards, this is extraordinary:



Here's a flavour of some of the reaction:


Undeterred, Jon Snow ploughed on (channeling Peter Simple's Dr Heinz Kiosk):

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Friday, 24 October 2014

The playground bully and the Tory

Some are likening it to the rumble in the jungle, others are calling it a ‘heated exchange’ but it does seem that the incident between Tory Philip Davies and lefties Jon Snow and his sidekick Krishnan Guru-Murthy  caused quite a stir at the ITN newsroom where Channel 4 news is based. Or should that read ‘biased’. 




Anyway, Anita Singh has an article in the Telegraph about it, which is headlined “Jon Snow ‘acted like a playground bully’ says Tory MP”
 Philip Davies MP had previously expressed incredulity at Rona Fairhead’s faith in the BBC’s reputation for objectivity and impartiality,  so we can guess what he thinks of Channel 4. Well, we don’t need to guess, because he’s quite open about it. 

It seems that Mr Davies was invited to the ITN building in his capacity as a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, but was ‘ambushed’ by Jon Snow to whom he had just been introduced by the deputy editor of Channel 4 news. 
“she said, 'This is Jon Snow.' I said hello."He stood up out of his seat and at the top of his voice, so everyone in the newsroom could hear he said, 'You said I'm left-wing and biased - give me one example of an interview where I've been left-wing and biased.'"I said I had come to look around and hadn't come for an argy-bargy. He just kept repeating the same thing in a deliberately loud voice. It was like he was the playground bully and the newsroom was his playground. This carried on for at least five minutes.”
The exchange spiraled out of control till Mr. Guru-Murthy asked the MP to leave the building. 
During the heated exchange Jon Snow said to Philip Davies:
'You said I’m Left-wing and biased – give me one example of an interview where I’ve been Left-wing and biased.’”
Isn’t that annoying? Someone whose every word is Left-wing and biased asks for one example. You’re on the spot and there are so many to choose from you don’t know where to start. 
Stephen Pollard has an interesting piece about this in the Telegraph. As Pollard says:
“At the risk of provoking a further eruption from Mr Snow, who appears not so much to be thin-skinned as to possess a comical lack of self-awareness, I have to ask: is there any viewer of Channel 4 News who does not think Mr Snow is biased? Isn’t that the very point of him and his show?”
Pollard is arguing that he prefers his bias up-front and open, not all pretendy like the BBC. He thinks fans of Snow like it that way and they’re getting what they want, adding that the same thing could be said of Guardian readers, which I suppose is one way of looking at it.  Many people are less sanguine than Pollard about that. They are disturbed by the harmful influence of Channel 4 and the Guardian as well as the more slippery bias of the BBC. 
  It wouldn’t be so bad if  Jon Snow didn’t deliver his bias whilst wearing the cloak of authority that automatically graces the anchor of a flagship news programme.
“The BBC’s bias – or disposition, if you want a less pejorative word – isn’t conscious. But we all bring our own dispositions to the work we do, and that’s as true of BBC journalists as it is of lawyers and plumbers. The BBC’s news simply reflects the mindset of its urban, culturally liberal staff.”
Of course Jon Snow massively abused his position when he aired his appallingly biased film about Gaza. I’m sure many people must have had this in mind when they read about the dramatic ITN newsroom confrontation.  Stephen Pollard probably did too, despite making the following, rather cavalier assertion: 
 "I’m a lot less bothered by Mr Snow’s obvious, in your face, that’s-why-you’re-watching-me bias than I am by the BBC’s, which makes claims for its news as something altogether more elevated."
He ends his piece with: 
“This summer, (Jon Snow) recorded a video about Gaza that could have been straight out of the Hamas PR manual, entirely lacking in balance or context. The BBC’s deputy director of news and current affairs, Fran Unsworth, has said that no BBC presenter would have been allowed to make such a video.
Give me Jon Snow’s explicit bias any day, though, rather than the Beeb’s supposed but spurious objectivity. When it comes to Middle East coverage, at least Mr Snow’s heart is there on his sleeve for all to see. The BBC’s Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, is no less opinionated, but his views are couched in notional neutrality.But oh what fun it is to see the reaction of one of the great panjandrums of the liberal Left, when someone dares to utter a word of criticism. They can dish it out. But boy, they certainly can’t take it.
Update 26/10:  And here's Rod Liddle's take on this from the Sunday Times:
While being shown around the studios of Channel 4 News, the Conservative MP Philip Davies was set upon by a snarling Jon Snow, outraged that Davies had once dared suggest that the presenter was a tad biased to the left.
The row got so heated that the pair had to be separated by Snow’s unctuous homunculus, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, and Davies escorted from the building.
Snow demanded Davies show him evidence that he was biased. Phew — well, there’s a challenge, if ever there was one. But other than every single edition of Channel 4 News, is there anything else for the prosecution to work on?
Snow was once described as a “pinko liberal”. You might put that down simply as name-calling, but the person who described him thus was, er, Jon Snow. And then there was the video he made about the children of Gaza. The BBC said it would not pass its partiality test.
When a film is so pro-Palestinian even the BBC wouldn’t touch it, I think the word “bias” is not too strong.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, 30 August 2014

Conflict – Emotion, Bias and Objectivity

Conflict – Emotion, Bias and Objectivity


That’s the heading to the promotional material for the event that was to have taken place at the Frontline Club next week. It was fully booked, but it has now been postponed, which must have been inconvenient for all concerned.

“An event discussing media coverage of the recent Israel-Hamas conflict has been cancelled, following plans by the ZF to protest outside it. “Reporting the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict – Emotion, Bias and Objectivity,” organised by the Frontline Club, was scheduled to be held on Sept 3 at the Shaw Theatre.”

Perhaps the postponement (or cancellation?) had something to do with the line-up. 
The latest chapter in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has again highlighted the difficulties of covering this complex and deep-rooted conflict that provokes such a strong emotional response from the general public.The BBC has faced accusation that it is not critical enough of Israel’s actions and that its reporting is one-sided, where as Channel 4 News has been accused of crossing the line between journalism and campaigning. Is there a middle ground?In the face of such devastation should we expect correspondents to offer an objective view devoid of emotion? If we encourage correspondents to show more emotion do we risk compromising the credibility and standard of journalism in this country?Join us as we take a view of the coverage we have seen, talk to the journalists that have produced it and ask what we can learn.
The above blurb seems, on the face of it, reasonable enough. The BBC is “pro-Israel” and Channel Four pro-Palestinian. Surely this represents a balanced state of affairs? So, we co-opt a spokesperson for the BBC and pit him against one for Channel For. What, as they say on the interweb, could possibly go wrong?

(Apart from the fact that Jeremy (blind as a) Bowen’s reporting has been criticised for its overtly pro-Palestinian attitude, having attracted at least one censure from the BBC Trust, and Jon Snow has been accused of publicly disgracing Channel Four’s news department by turning it into a pro-Palestinian propaganda machine.) 

Oh, and didn’t someone say Owen Jones is on the panel? No, not this time. It was white suited Martin Bell, who complained about the BBC’s refusal to show the DEC appeal for Gaza in 2009, which he thought showed an unfortunate pro-Israel bias. 


So the event would be fine if they just dropped the last word from the title.

Conflict - Emotion and Bias. There, fixed it.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 31 January 2014

Bad Egg

Isn’t it odd that the BBC lags behind events in oh so many ways? When something they find distasteful comes along they drag their feet until they simply can’t ignore the elephant pounding on the door.
This time it was the black egg over on Channel 4. I rarely watch Channel 4 news because of the obvious political bias of Jon Snow. He really can be a disgrace, as Richard Millett will testify. 

But via Harry’s Place (I know) I was urged to watch the episode of Channel Four News that was aired on the 28th. It was broadcast before the Newsnight edition I mentioned here. 
That probably explains why the BBC actually deigned to address the issue - a catch-up type of thing.

“We’ve taken the decision to cover up the image in case it causes offence to some viewers..”
Anyway, it seems that Channel 4 introduced the Jesus and Mo debacle with an illustration of the offending cartoon. With “Mo” blacked out. They’d specially made a Mo-shaped blackout graphic that looked a bit like Mo was wearing an eyeless burka, or as the cartoonist described it “ a black egg.” 
The egg of Islamophobia.  It was asking to be lampooned, and so it was.
Here’s that Channel 4 news, which includes an interview with Mohammed Shafiq.
Note  how Shafiq repeatedly calls him Jon throughout the interview. In my opinion Shafiq is asking to be lampooned and at least he’s *against violence*. We really really need one of those old style impressionists. Who would dare to do Mohammed Shafiq? Rory Bremner? Culshaw? McGowan? 

“This sounds neither liberal nor democratic!” “ Who elected you? “  - some of the counter arguments put by Snow. But I don’t think his heart was really in it. Innit.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)