The BBC and Julian Assange

In the decade or so since this blog began many people's take on Julian Assange has changed. A decade or so ago he was reviled on blogs like this and treated favourably by the BBC. Now he's grudgingly admired on blogs like this and treated not so favourably by the BBC. And, for the record, I've undergone quite a change of view about him too. 

The news today that Priti Patel has given the go-ahead for Mr Assange to be extradited is receiving muted coverage from the BBC. The BBC News website briefly featured it on their home page, but it's slipped off into the remoter parts of the site already. A few years back they'd have kept it as a main story.

Here is BBC home and legal correspondent Dominic Casciani's 'analysis' for the BBC News website today. Please see how you read it, because I read it as [most unusually] sort-of backing Ms Patel, painting her as legally having no other alternative:

This decision is the most important stage so far in Mr Assange's long legal battle.

Judges in London have already ruled that the US's request was lawful and that the American authorities would care for him properly in prison.

Now, the home secretary has carried out her role in the complicated legal process by signing off the US request.

Her officials said she was legally bound to do so because Mr Assange does not face the death penalty - nor does his case fall into the other narrow range of categories for her to refuse to approve the transfer.

In practice, this means there is nothing to stop Washington sending a jet to pick up Mr Assange - unless he can win on appeal.

If his lawyers cannot get a hearing back before judges in London, he could petition the European Court of Human Rights.

Ten years ago it ruled extradition to the US would not breach human rights - but expect the Wikileaks founder to try fresh arguments not heard back then.

If, as I see it, the BBC has largely gone cold on Julian Assange, there are exceptions. The BBC's World Affairs Editor, a certain John Simpson, remains loyal and has come out for his publicly-declared friend once more today, ignoring the BBC's guidelines on commenting on matters of public controversy and tweeting:

Journalists in Britain and elsewhere will be very worried by the decision to extradite Julian Assange to the US — both for his own well-being & for the precedent it creates for journalism worldwide.

A tweet from ex-BBC/Newsnight whistleblower Meirion Jones tonight, meanwhile, casts a clarifying light on how things were a decade or so ago, when views of Julian Assange were rather different:

All media that were in on Wikileaks should be calling for Assange extradition to be stopped. That includes BBC - I know because I was courier between David Leigh's Kings Place bunker & Beeb World Affairs Unit for diplo leaks ahead of release 29/10/10.

Friends Reunited

I continue to have lots of conflicting opinions about Julian Assange. 

I, therefore, still don't quite know what to make of him, or how much to admire him or dislike him. 

I veer all over the place over him, like John Sweeney on a Ukrainian ice rink after too many Kir Royales.

But I think I do know what to make of the BBC's world affairs editor, John Simpson: 

John Simpson is a BBC man who lets his biases show, with his BBC bosses' indulgence, whilst vigorously claiming to be impartial and aggressively claiming that those who criticise him are rude and unreasonable.

Back in January 2021 Charlie - here at ITBB - mentioned a John Simpson report on BBC One's News at Ten, saying that JS is "obviously a fan of Julian Assange", adding:

His long ‘love letter’ report on tonight’s main news was a one sided affair carefully crafted in its use of words and images to leave the viewer in no doubt that he is more a hero than a villain.

I then raked up a 2019 tweet from John Simpson that was typically partial:

Alan Rusbridger, writing in defence of Julian Assange: 'Whenever you read about journalists harming national security, massive alarm bells should start ringing.' Absolutely right. Assange revealed uncomfortable truths about US policy & tactics, & the US wants to punish him for it.

Today, however, comes the absolute clincher.

 John Simpson has just tweeted:

Many congratulations to my friends Stella Moris and Julian Assange on their marriage today. Great pity it had to be in Belmarsh.

So what does this mean? 

Surely it means that one of the most senior/high profile BBC journalists has been using BBC One's News at Ten and Twitter to campaign on behalf of his friend?

Admirers and non-admirers and undecideds as far as Julian Assange goes alike...what does it say about the BBC if this is allowed under BBC guidelines?

Julian and John

I have mixed feelings, none of them particularly strong in any direction, about Julian Assange. He arouses very strong, partisan passions in others though.

We recorded back in January what Charlie called ''a love letter'' to Mr Assange from the BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson on BBC One's News at Ten. 

And, in another case of a BBC reporter 'not' hanging up his opinions at the door, John's tweets have been similarly lacking in impartiality. This, for example, is what he tweeted on May 26, 2019:

Alan Rusbridger, writing in defence of Julian Assange: 'Whenever you read about journalists harming national security, massive alarm bells should start ringing.' Absolutely right. Assange revealed uncomfortable truths about US policy & tactics, & the US wants to punish him for it.

And with today's developments, the BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson is back in action again, campaigning about it once more on Twitter:

After today’s judgement in the Julian Assange extradition case, journalists in many countries will be worried about the precedent it sets. No one who reveals secrets which the US wants to keep hidden can be certain of staying safe.

Will this erupt in another BBC report/'love letter' on News at Ten, if his bosses let him?

John Simpson & Julian Assange

Charlie mentioned John Simpson's report on BBC One's News at Ten last night, saying that JS is "obviously a fan of Julian Assange".

"His long ‘love letter’ report on tonight’s main news was a one sided affair carefully crafted in its use of words and images to leave the viewer in no doubt that he is more a hero than a villain".

This is where it gets especially interesting, because the BBC's World Affairs Editor has form here. 

This is what he tweeted on May 26, 2019:

Alan Rusbridger, writing in defence of Julian Assange: 'Whenever you read about journalists harming national security, massive alarm bells should start ringing.' Absolutely right. Assange revealed uncomfortable truths about US policy & tactics, & the US wants to punish him for it.

It's a funny thing. Dame Jenni Murray was banned by her BBC bosses from talking about certain subjects - transgender issues and Brexit - after she expressed views on them on non-BBC platforms, yet here is John Simpson being permitted to report on a matter of controversy where he has previously expressed a very strong opinion on a non-BBC platform. 

One rule for one, one rule for another it seems.

UPDATE 14:30: John is now reacting, and not just to the news...:

John Simpson: Big victory for Julian Assange, his partner Stella Moris & his legal team. Most supporters of free journalism are over the moon. BUT Joe Biden is no friend of JA & may bring new charges. Importantly, though, it’s Round One to Assange.

Ratfink Maloney: Julian Assange literally collaborated with Roger Stone to influence the 2016 election. Was that “journalism”? You’re a useful idiot John.

John Simpson: And you don’t seem able to control your rudeness. I don’t want you following me, thanks.

PJ's Today

Hahahaha. Today I've been mostly listening to PJ Harvey’s Today programme. 

What a shocker!! (as they say on the tabloids) It’s just the type of thing I would’ve come up with, had I been invited, when I was about fourteen. No, twelve.

Of course what she really wanted to do, the imp, was to make Today, Radio 4 into a teen-pop programme like, say, BBC three, amateurish but without the wit.

All the items I heard seemed to be survivors of self-awareness-ectomies. Or should that be otomies.

Pilger! Actually he said many spot-on things about media manipulation but forgot to mention that he is himself the arch media manipulator, nay, the king of media bias, both by emoting and omission. 

Then, obviously Assange. The penultimate and much awaited Thought for the Day. 

As many others have noted on the interweb, his whinge was a self-serving plea for an unabated information free-for-all. 

Let’s circumvent the democratic process, he might as well say, which is after all as flawed as the people we elect. Let’s let every member of society have a say in every facet of governance, perhaps in the form of multiple referenda, or is that referendums, so that everyone can ‘ave a go at deciding stuff. Yippee.

I can’t help agreeing with those who don’t see any harm in a bit of coercive questioning, especially if it’s regulated and justified. I know they’ve stopped police doing it. They now have to wait patiently for a voluntary confession. 

But I’m infantile enough to succumb to a bit of bad-taste sniggering at the anti-war version of When Johnny comes Marching home. I kept thinking of Ivor Cutler’s song The Boo Boo Bird. 

If you don’t know Ivor Cutler, imagine a lugubrious Scottish delivery, largemente, accompanied by a mournful harmonium. 

I can’t find the exact lyrics, but if I remember it goes something like:

“I am the Boo Boo Bird.

Of all the birds I am the most absurd.

I have no tail.

I have no wings.

I have no legs.

I have no head.

I have no body.

I’m invisible.”

________________________________________________

Ivor solemnly pronounces ‘bird’ almost as ‘beard’, and ‘invisible’ ‘invisibille’

I enjoyed the whole thing because it was so absurd, and righties who are too incensed are liable to make themselves look pompous, which will no doubt delight PJ.