Gossip around the BBC water fountain

 

With Kamal Ahmed (and Gavin Allen and Jo Carr) being ejected by Fran Unsworth from the BBC News board this week, the media focus has been largely on the BBC apparently breaching its own guidelines over diversity, and on the gossip. 

The Mail had the best bit of gossip from a "BBC insider":

No one working here was very surprised. Most people think he had it coming.

Kamal had gone to Tony Hall arguing that we needed this editorial director role, and Tony created it for him. But most people think it was a non-job. He and Fran did not get on.

People didn't like him. They didn't understand how he was elevated so quickly, and many didn't forgive him for that speech to a hedge fund while lots of job losses were being announced here.

If that's true about Kamal's sudden rise, Lord Hall sounds to have behaved in a very 'Lord Hall' way. 

Nudge, nudge

Gillian Reynolds, the doyenne of radio critics (as I seem to always call her), reviewing a Radio 4 programme called The Disrupters, which "tells stories of business success and failure", also in today's Sunday Times, said something in passing that struck me as being quite interesting. She was saying that Editorial Director of BBC News Kamal Ahmed's reorganisation of BBC radio news showed that he was no good at either teamwork or admitting mistakes (well, he is BBC after all) but at least he has nerve: "I will admit it certainly required nerve to nudge quite so many outstanding reporters, Mark Mardell for one, into early retirement." I wasn't aware that we have Kamal to thank, though I don't think Gillian herself approves of Kamal's "nudging".

Samira's Adventures in Wonderland

The main question on this week's Newswatch was: "What language is unacceptably racist for BBC News?".

Here we went down the rabbit hole and leaped through the looking-glass again. 

In this week's (BBC) news: 

(a) An Ulster Unionist peer had misspoken about Kamala Harris and "caused some outrage" by calling her "the Indian" [ed - maybe confusing her with Elizabeth Warren?]

and 

(b) The Chairman of the Football Association, Greg Clarke, had to resign after using "an offensive and outdated term" to describe black players. 

[ITBB Trigger warning: Please brace yourselves, and look away now if you can't face the word. The offensive word Mr Clarke used was "coloured". 

Reminder: "Of color/Of colour" is acceptable and should be used at all times, but "coloured" is offensive and should never be used on any occasion. 

I'm not sure about "colourful", as in "a colourful personality", but - so far - it seems OK]. 

And, as Samira mentioned, criticism of the BBC's reporting of both of these stories comes in the wake of this year's earlier furore after a well-meaning BBC reporter used the n-word in her report.

The context, not mentioned, was that the BBC report in question focused on a racist attack against a black man during which the n-word was used by his racist attacker and the white reporter used it in her report, with trigger warnings in advance, because the family of the black victim had wanted her to...

...yet a huge row blew up nonetheless, and a black BBC radio DJ resigned in protest because the n-word should never, never, never be used, regardless of context. 

The BBC originally, rightly, defended its reporter but then caved in and grovelingly apologised - doubtless because the woke 'outrage' coincided with the height of the BLM wave in the middle of the year and the BBC (under the outgoing Lord Hall) was absolutely terrified of being seen as being on 'the wrong side' of those protests. 

So the BBC (under the outgoing Lord Hall) threw their well-meaning reporter under a bus to appease 'the outraged' mob - especially the mob frothing away on Twitter.

That isn't how Samira and Kamal Ahmed recalled what happened - as you'll see...

Nevertheless, there's a rabbit hole to go down and a looking-glass to leap through, so here's the transcript:

*******

Samira Ahmed: Well, to discuss all this, let's speak to Kamal Ahmed, the Editorial Director for BBC News. Kamal, let's start with the two cases this week. The first one, with the peer referring to the US Vice President-elect as "The Indian". Now, the BBC described that as a "racist" tweet, with the word racist in quotation marks. Why? 

Kamal Ahmed: Because they were quotes from parliamentarians and others about Lord Kilclooney's comments, and so we put them in quotes to show that they were attributed to other people who were criticising him. And also, in no way would they suggest that the BBC was passing any form of judgement on what was said, so we simply used the quotes to show that there is attribution and that those were criticisms of what Lord Kilclooney said. 

Samira Ahmed: So, critics of him were describing the tweet as racist, and that's why the word racist was in quotes? 

Kamal Ahmed: Yes. 

Samira Ahmed: Then there's Greg Clarke, the chairman of the FA, who resigned after remarks BBC News reported there. They focused on this particular word he used to describe black players. We're not going to repeat it. We heard him saying it there. BBC described it as offensive language. Why use that word to describe it? 

Kamal Ahmed: Many people consider the use of the word as offensive. And, clearly, he resigned after saying that the word was offensive and there was widespread agreement that the word that he used was offensive, so we were able to use that as a description of the word. And given that he resigned, he clearly realised that he had used the word inappropriately. 

Samira Ahmed: Kamal, you and I are old enough to remember a time when that particular word was used quite widely in mainstream British society. It's offensive now. And one wonders, should the BBC be repeating it at all? 

Kamal Ahmed: We obviously were allowed to use it once there, when he said it himself. So, we have quite in-depth discussions about these issues before we broadcast. And you have to get the correct balance between audience understanding of the story and also not causing gratuitous offence to audiences, and so it would have been difficult, we believe, for the audience to understand the story if we simply didn't use the clip of Greg Clarke saying the word at all. But also, you don't want to compound any offence by repeating the word over and over again in scripts or in cues before any packages are seen, so we agreed, after a wide discussion amongst editorial heads here, that we would use the clip once - to give context to the audience, what the word was - but we wouldn't overuse it and risk doubling the offence that could be caused. 

Samira Ahmed: I suspect there are people watching right now who would be saying they don't find that word offensive. What would you say to them? 

Kamal Ahmed: Well, the judgement we take is whether it is offensive to audiences. And there would be many audiences who would find that word offensive and we have to take care if that is the case. It doesn't mean that everyone needs to find it offensive before we make those judgements. And also, as I say, Greg Clarke resigned, so clearly there was an agreement that what he had said was inappropriate and offensive. 

Samira Ahmed: This all comes after the summer in which the BBC broadcast the n-word in a news report about a racist attack, defended it for quite some time, but then apologised after a huge public outcry - which included a Radio 1 DJ resigning over the matter. Did the BBC give in to public pressure or did it get it wrong? 

Kamal Ahmed: No, we agreed that we hadn't made the right decision at the outset, we apologised for that. There were in-depth discussions about the coverage of that story. It was a very, very important story about an horrific, racially aggravated assault, and it was reported in the way it was reported. We realised that that was a misstep and we apologised for it. 

Samira Ahmed: You implied there'd been discussions, so has there been a rewriting to some extent of BBC editorial policy since then over how news deals with racially offensive language? 

Kamal Ahmed: Yes. So, after that, as you suggest, we had discussions about how we can ensure that our guidelines were robust on these issues, and now we do have new guidelines in place on the most racially offensive slurs, and they are now automatically referred to the director of the division - in our case, the director of News, Fran Unsworth - and that means that we have robust systems in place to ensure that we don't misstep in that way again. There can be disputes around what was the intent of the use of certain words, and that's perfectly reasonable, and it's important that the BBC doesn't pass judgement on the motivations of people using words but making it clear that words are offensive. 

Samira Ahmed: Kamal Ahmed, thank you.

"Two more paid speeches for BBC boss Kamal Ahmed in pay row"

John Sweeney will doubtless be tucking into his Sunday sausages with extra relish this morning: The Sunday Times is in hot pursuit of the BBC's "Mr Bung". 

The paper is reporting that Kamal Ahmed, the corporation's editorial director, has "carried out two other paid engagements, at a property developer and a government-run bank" despite having a monthly salary of around £10,000 after tax. 

He's already apologised and offered to waive his fee from another such engagement after an "outcry". 

The paper says that, so far, Kamal has "declined to reveal how much he had been paid for the events or whether he would pay it back".

It never rains but it pours.

Kamal Ahmed v John Sweeney

The BBC aren't so much having an embarrassment of riches at the moment, rather a richness of embarrassments.

Having been largely out of action for the past week, I half-missed the headlong fall into the Slough of Embarrassment suffered by Kamal Ahmed, the BBC's £205,000-a-year editorial director, but it's well worth catching up with. There was an outcry after it was revealed that he took a £12,000 speaking fee for addressing an Aberdeen Standard Investments (ASI) event. He then apologised and waived his fee.

Fascinatingly, the man leading the charge against him was none other than 'Roaring' John Sweeney who christened his former colleague 'Mr Bung'.

Here's a very small sample of 'Roaring' John's output on the matter:

• While BBC colleagues are losing their jobs, Kamal Ahmed trousers £12,000 from hedge fund. He is the Editorial Director of the BBC and is paid £200,000 a year. This is wrong, a kind of soft-core corruption and he should repay the money, then resign.
• Thread: #Kamalbunggate. TV's Mr Bung reverse-trousering of £12,000 from hedge fund is not the end of the story. There is a conflict between BBC's and Mr Bung's version. On Sunday BBC told Mail that @bbckamal "had not broken any rules..." /1
• "... because he agreed to appear when in his previous role of BBC Economics Editor, where he could receive payment for outside work." Mr Bung emailed BBC bosses today: "Some months ago I accepted a paid-for event to speak at a conference entitled “Investing for the Future”... 2/
• ..hosted by Aberdeen Standard Investments. As the former Economics Editor..." The discrepancy is that The BBC said the bung was offered b4 he became Ed Director in 2018. But now Mr Bung admits the offer was made after he was BBC Ed Dir. Liar, liar, pants on fire, Mr Bung. 3/

Ouch!

trading as WDR

There's lots of fascinating stuff (as ever) at Bill Roger's trading as WDR blog. 

As Charlie pointed out on the open thread, Bill has caught Lord Hall in the act of spinning the ratings for BBC Sounds. By Bill's calculations, the BBC's justification for launching the service - that it would increase the number of listeners aged 16-34  - hasn't been realised. The figures have barely budged.

Another post tells us that the BBC's preferred supplier for booze is Majestic and that over the past twelve months the BBC has bought close to £25k from them. By my own calculation, the amount they spent rose by 22.6%. Wonder if, post-election, post-Brexit, this year will see a sharp drop in fizz? 😜

Meanwhile, BBC Editorial Director Kamal Ahmed is focusing on what Bill calls a "woke wheeze" called "Growing up, Learning and Identity". Ah, an even greater focus on identity politics from the BBC? How delightful!

And there's something too about our old friend 'Opinionated' Huw Edwards:

The BBC's lead anchorman Huw Edwards is back from his social media holiday, and piling in on those who have given Welsh place names new English monikers. 

Huw doesn't approve. 

There's lots more too, including a regal response to an FoI request about the disappearance of the BH piazza Christmas tree. a very W1A BBC job advertisement, and various job moves...

...plus something I meant to mention yesterday. The National Audit Office has found that of the BBC's commercial successes, only four of its forecast top 16 money-spinners date from after 2010 - i.e. the BBC is replying on stale cash cows. Bill adds something that I've not seem reported elsewhere though:

The NAO notes a load of money was lumped on a second series of His Dark Materials, way before the first could be assessed financially.

I do hope Peter Hitchens takes note. He's not keen on the BBC's pushing of Philip Pullman, which gives me a chance to post his take on it from this week's Mail on Sunday:

Flop after Flop, but Pullman's Atheism keeps the dramatisations coming

The atheist author Philip Pullman is, I suspect, more admired and bought than read. When his finger-wagging anti-Christian books are dramatised, on stage or film, they flop. Yet people still keep trying to stage them. Why? My diligent colleague James Heale has obtained for me the viewing figures for the BBC’s recent costly TV version of ‘His Dark Materials’. They started at 7.2 million in Episode 1. Then they fell almost continuously, with one hiccup at Episode 5, to a poor 4.1 million at the end. But how many of them were awake? It was quite boring. A friend who stuck it out to the end confesses that he fell asleep during the final bout.

You many remember Mr Pullman from such foam-flecked tweets as:

Of course Meghan Markle is attacked by the British press because she's black, and of course Prince Harry is right to defend her. What a foul country this is.

— Philip Pullman (@PhilipPullman) January 9, 2020

😮

Anyhow, if you're not already a fan, please take a look at Bill's very fine blog.

TRANSCRIPT: 'Newswatch', December 6: Interview with Kamal Ahmed

Meet the Ahmeds

Samira Ahmed: Hello and welcome to Newswatch with me, Samira Ahmed. All other major party leaders have faced the questioning of Andrew Neil, but not Boris Johnson. Is this the fault of the BBC? And in a fractious campaign, have BBC interviews helped or hindered the election process? Interviews with party leaders during election campaigns are often feisty affairs, and Andrew Neil is widely considered one of the BBC's toughest interrogators, as he showed this week with his questioning of Jo Swinson and Nigel Farage. Boris Johnson's failure to commit himself firmly to Andrew Neil's questioning initially led the BBC last week to say the Prime Minister would not be on The Andrew Marr Show until he committed to the Andrew Neil interview. But after Friday's knife attack on London Bridge, the corporation withdrew that ultimatum, arguing that it was now in the public interest for him to appear. Here are the thoughts of Maria Jeffrey:

I am dismayed and disgusted by the way the Tories have played the BBC. Why was Boris Johnson allowed the oxygen of publicity for his election campaign on The Andrew Marr Show - a U-turn, given the BBC ban after he'd declined to have his policies and behaviour scrutinised by Andrew Neil - a process that the other party leaders had been through. 

But if the suggestion was that Boris Johnson would have an easy time on The Andrew Marr Show, that turned out to be far from the case. In a often acrimonious conversation, the presenter pressed the Prime Minister on the circumstances under which the London Bridge attacker Usman Khan had been released from prison:

There was no question... And under the Conservatives he was let out. No. Under the Conservatives he was let... Because - because... This was a Conservative decision. Because of changes... You've been in power for ten years! Because of changes to the law that were brought in by the Labour Party - that I voted against. SCOFFS. You were in power for ten years and you've done nothing about it in ten years! Jeremy Corbyn voted in favour of. For ten years, you've done nothing about it. He voted in favour of automatic early release. That was... For ten years, you've done nothing about it. You cannot retrospectively change... For ten years, you've done nothing about it. 

Dave Mann was one of the thousands of viewers to object to the interview and recorded his reaction on video:

I'm a huge admirer of Andrew Marr and watch his programme most Sundays, but I was appalled at the way he interviewed Boris Johnson last week. He kept posing questions and then, when Boris was about to answer, would not let him answer and kept asking more questions or talking over his answers. In fact, he seemed more concerned about moving onto the next question than actually hearing what Boris Johnson had to say. 

Samira Ahmed: Well, with me to discuss that and other issues around the BBC's election campaign coverage is the editorial director of BBC News, Kamal Ahmed. Thank you for coming on Newswatch. So the London Bridge attack had already become politicised. So viewers are right, aren't they, to say that there was a case for the Prime Minister to go on The Andrew Marr Show? 

Kamal Ahmed: I think there was a very strong case. The Prime Minister had already made a statement about how law changes may have affected the treatment of the perpetrator of this crime. And I think audiences, quite rightly, would want to see the BBC interviewing the Prime Minister. So there was a significant change in the political weather because of the events on London Bridge and I think it was quite right for the BBC to say that the Prime Minister was available and that the BBC was the place where that interview should take place. 

Samira Ahmed: OK. It's pretty obvious, isn't it, that the BBC should have pinned down all the party leaders before running any of the Andrew Neil interviews? Because now you didn't get the balance right on the Andrew Neil interviews. Why didn't you? 

Kamal Ahmed: So, these are very complicated issues. I am involved in Question Time, for example, and when you're doing a whole series of programmes, to say that you need to nail them all down before the campaign, or before announcing any of them, that is...has two big problems...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Not before announcing any of them! 

Kamal Ahmed: First of all, it would give the parties veto over us doing anything. So it would be one party that said "We're not doing it," that would mean we'd have to abandon everything we're doing. And also, we also have to be practical, Samira. Diaries change, events change. We need to offer various different interview slots. And if... 

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) I don't think people feel it's about a veto - they feel it's about the Prime Minister playing games and avoiding scrutiny. 

Kamal Ahmed: Well. We offered many, many different opportunities for the Prime Minister to sit down, do the interview with Andrew Neil. That option is still open. There's nothing we can do to compel them to appear. We just have to do our best. 

Samira Ahmed: So too many interviews, when they do happen, viewers feel, can seem to end up in arguments without offering genuine insights for voters in an election. And the Marr encounter with Boris Johnson, where you couldn't even hear each of them, talking over each other, it was just painful, wasn't it? 

Kamal Ahmed: No, I don't think it was painful. I think that he got some interesting information out of the Prime Minister - the fact that 74 other people who had been released from prison under possibly similar terms to the perpetrator of the crimes of London Bridge was a very important point. Now, of course, sometimes politicians don't want to answer the question that's put to them, and I think it's quite right for Andrew to then say "Well, hang on. I wasn't actually asking the question you're answering. I was answering - I was asking a different question." 

Samira Ahmed: OK, stay with us. We're going to move on to another issue now.......Allegations against the BBC of political bias are par for the course during election campaigns, but those who suspect the corporation of favouring the Conservative Party this time round point to two incidents, which we have featured on Newswatch. The replacement on Breakfast of this year's pictures of Boris Johnson laying a wreath on Remembrance Sunday, where he had been criticised for his appearance with what was considered more flattering footage of him from three years ago. And the cutting from a news report of audience laughter directed at the Prime Minister during a Question Time leaders special. The BBC has apologised for both mistakes, but questions are still being asked about how and why they came about. At the same time, there's been criticism of the airtime given to photo opportunities and stunts, such as Boris Johnson's spreading a scone last week. Designed to show politicians in a good light, there's the suspicion here again that the Conservatives have benefited more than other parties have, with Tony Padilla begging for: 

No more sycophantic photo ops with scones and jam. 

.......Well, Kamal Ahmed is still with us. All the political leaders do try these stage-managed stunts, like the scone or they're in a boxing ring, to make themselves look good. Why is BBC News pandering to them? 

Kamal Ahmed: Well, we're not. I mean, these are just pictures that audiences see all the time. They're well able to judge how important these things are. And they have to be put up against the huge amounts of information that is on our online site. The rest of the package, these are all tiny little bits. I think the point about all these allegations around the BBC, these are things that are on air for a matter of seconds. We produce hundreds of hours of election coverage - really serious, really in-depth, really holding our political leaders to account. Of course, you can take tiny little clips of a second here or a second there, but that doesn't reflect our overall election coverage. 

Samira Ahmed: OK, well, it's interesting you say that because obviously, you know, viewers feel that it does - it adds up. And the BBC's - it's fair to say it hasn't had a good election because it's already had to apologise over news content - we mentioned a couple of specific stories there. And the explanation for the editing off of the Question Time audience laughter - it was concerning. It didn't actually save time and there was something editorially important that was lost in taking off that laughter. What is going on at BBC News? 

Kamal Ahmed: It did save some time. We've admitted that it...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Two seconds! 

Kamal Ahmed:  No, it was a few seconds. We've admitted it was a mistake. Again, this is in the context of hundreds of hours of material. That piece came from a Question Time special done by the BBC the night before. It was run in full on all sorts of output. That was one outing where it was trimmed and a mistake was made. You say we've had a bad election. We have had the Question Time special - all four of the main party leaders on air, prime time, BBC One. The seven-leader debate. Andrew Neil interviews with Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson and Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage were all fantastic pieces of work. 

Samira Ahmed: All right, Kamal. Thank you very much. We've got another issue.......Through the campaign, broadcasters have been showing a wide variety of debate programmes involving senior politicians and the questions of who is invited where and who actually turns up and takes part have been as fraught here as they have with those interviews with party leaders. We're recording before Friday night's head-to-head leaders debate on BBC One between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, but for weeks have been receiving viewer complaints like this from Alice Hovanessian: 

I am writing to request that you included the Lib Dems as the only Remain and centrist voice in the BBC election debate. They represent a lot of people and were even in government more recently than Labour. A lot of people do not support Corbyn or Johnson and will want to hear what Jo Swinson has to say. The all-male format is also very stale in this day and age.

.......So let's talk about this, Kamal. I mean, at a time when, you know, women MPs are quitting Parliament in significant numbers because of abuse and hostility, so the decision to exclude the only female national party leader, Jo Swinson - Nick Clegg was there with David Cameron and Gordon Brown in 2010 - it looks like very poor judgement by BBC News, doesn't it? 

Kamal Ahmed:  So all these leaders' debates which you've referred to should be taken as a set of programmes...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) This is THE leaders debate, six days before the election. .

Kamal Ahmed: ...so as I say, on Question Time - on the Question Time special, you had Jo Swinson, Nicola Sturgeon, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson in one programme. Jo Swinson has also been involved in many other special programmes to do with the election. When it comes to who appears in the prime ministerial debate, we compare, or we test our output, against the result in 2017. And in that election, 80% - more than 80% of the votes - went to the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, and that fashions the way we look at how we build our programmes. 

Samira Ahmed: And I hear what you say, but viewers will say, "Look, it doesn't matter how many other programmes you have with other leaders, the BBC is promoting this as the big one. It is six days ahead of the election." 

Kamal Ahmed: We're not saying it is the big one. It is a very important moment...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) The prime ministerial debates? 

Kamal Ahmed: It's the prime minister debate...There are many, many different ways of engaging. One programme out of all that set of programmes is defined by who could actually be prime minister on December the 12th, after December the 12th. And that is one - that is the prime ministerial debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson. 

Samira Ahmed: Kamal Ahmed, thank you very much. 

Kamal's New Thing: 'Explaining Journalism'

The Saturday transcript is fast becoming a weekend tradition here at Is the BBC biased?, so please draw up a chair, put on your fez and dressing gown, set aside your copy of 'In Defence of Political Correctness' by Yasmin Alibhai Brown, pour yourself a large glass of port, take out your finest cigar, and we'll begin....

Newswatch, 2 November 2018: 

Interview with Kamal Ahmed

Steady ladies!

Samira Ahmed: This week's Budget was the last for Kamal Ahmed as the BBC's Economics Editor. On Thursday he started a new job as Editorial Director for BBC News and he is with me now. Welcome to Newswatch in your dual capacity! Let's start with the criticism. Are you offering opinion rather than facts when you're covering economics and being too negative?

Kamal Ahmed: No, we don't offer opinion. I don't. My opinion doesn't matter. We look at what the data say [ed - sic, or not as the case may be]. We try and explain to our audiences what the figures are showing, what the Government is attempting to do. I said in the News at Ten...I did the News at Ten for Budget Night...I said that the public finances were in a lot better shape than expected, that borrowing was a lot lower. So we were showing what the good parts of the Government's economic story was. But also I think it is important for us to set out the risks, set out some of the criticisms. As economics editor, my opinion doesn't matter, but I do make judgments on what the data is telling us about how the economy is performing.
Samira Ahmed: What's interesting is that, unlike most science, where there's usually a consensus [ed- not so sure about that Samira!], economists...I know it's social science...often disagree or, as in the case of the 2008 crash, didn't really seem to know what was going on, is it fair to say viewers are right to feel wary of the experts the BBC wheels on?

Kamal Ahmed: I think it's important to understand what economics is and what a forecast is. It's a spread of possibilities and there is a central possibility, but there are outlying possibilities. And, as you say, it's not like a pure science, not like gravity, if you drop a ball it goes down. It doesn't mean the viewer should think I shouldn't listen to experts. These are people who look at how economies work, how they respond to interest rate rises or trade disputes... 

Samira Ahmed: There are ideologies, aren't there, too in how they approach economics? 

Kamal Ahmed: There could be political effects on how some people approach economics but that's not how we approach, how we look at the facts and the figures. We look at the models put together by the Bank of England, by the London School of Economics, by the International Monetary Fund, by the OECD, and we try and explain what those models are saying to our viewers and our audiences. And tell them that this is a possible path. It's not a definite. And I think that has been the issue around forecasts. Politicians do try and use some forecasts to say this will definitely happen. That is not what forecasts are for. 

Samira Ahmed: Often you're dealing with macroeconomics - you know, the big numbers, GDP, and viewers often feel the coverage doesn't focus enough on the human scale and the human impact?

Kamal Ahmed: When we did the tenth anniversary of the financial crisis, we deliberately started it off with a young single father from Manchester and what had happened to his income over the last ten years. And so we do very deliberately try and tell a lot of those big macro stories, like how our incomes have been affected by the financial crisis through individual stories. I think you're absolutely right, we need to get out there, we need to talk to real people about their experiences, and we have pushed ourselves to do that.
Samira Ahmed: More generally, you spoke publicly about areas of BBC news coverage that you think might benefit from a fresh approach and. For example, you said of confrontational debate, "studio ding-dongs don't explain the news". How big a concern is that?

Kamal Ahmed: It wasn't a direct criticism of the BBC at all. I was just saying that some news coverage in general can be driven by the controversy, by A versus B, by this idea there are two sides and they're in battle. Sometimes it will be the role of journalist and the BBC as an organisation to explain that there are nuances to these arguments, that not everything is a complete controversy. And also part of my new job is going to be about promoting the idea of 'explaining journalism'. So the BBC reports the news but also explains the news. It gives context, it gives background and it gives depth. And that's an important part of news reporting. Because we get a lot of evidence from our audience research that the news makes people feel anxious, and that's all it make them feel. There's no solutions Everything is a huge polarised row. We want to change some of that tone.
Samira Ahmed: Well, you have just started a new managerial job, as Editorial Director of News. Given that there's a Controller of Editorial Policy, David Jordan, another a number of other senior editorial managers in news, Newswatch viewers might wonder what you'll be doing. 

Kamal Ahmed: Well, they might! So my new job is going to be about two or three things. First, the big challenge for the BBC - the BBC is an organisation built around the big, great news programmes - News at Ten, News at Six, the Today programme, Radio 5 News, Newsbeat, you know, all those things - but they are 'appointment to view' moments. You have to tune in at ten o'clock. How does the BBC change in three to five years when our audiences want the news on their phone, want it on their tablet, want it when they want it on the go? And that's a big change for this organisation. So I'm going to be looking at the challenges of that. There's the day-to-day role of helping us choose the type of stories that engage our audiences, maybe avoid some of the complaints you get on this programme. That's going to be part of my job. Then, interestingly, there's also an internal bit of it as well, which is about the culture of the BBC. Are we the best place to work? Are we promoting the best talent through the organisation -  the next generation who will run the BBC when I'm long gone?

Samira Ahmed: Briefly, it does feel like the BBC News editorial decision-making is constantly under attack at the moment, as never before, for example how the BBC reports Brexit. How do you think the BBC should deal with that?

Kamal Ahmed: You say we are more than ever before. Well, I think a function of that is that there are more platforms on which to attack the BBC rather than more people are cross with the BBC. And the fact is we have a huge amount of output, we have thousands of journalists, we have loads and loads of great products and, of course, people don't like everything we do - and that's absolutely reasonable. We'll listen. We'll react when it's of substance. But we won't be overwhelmed by it. The BBC does an amazing job every day producing news and current affairs, and my new job is just to help us think about the future, new audiences, younger audiences in particular. But also to help us make the right decisions day-by-day. 

Samira Ahmed: Kamal Ahmed, thank you.

********

What with Kamal telling Samira that part of his new job will be to "maybe avoid some of the complaints you get on this programme", and saying "We'll listen. We'll react when it's of substance", I'm guessing he's going to be making more appearances on Newswatch. I'm not sure the bit when Samira puts a criticism he made of "studio ding-dongs don't explain the news" and he scrambled into 'Protect the BBC' mode instantly bodes particularly well though. But hope springs eternal!

********

P.S. As Bill at trading as wdr says (h/t Peter):

The BBC's Kamal Ahmed has given his first interview to Newswatch under his [very-soon-to-be] new title, Editorial Director. 

He may learn that listing things creates sins of omission. "The BBC is an organisation built around the big, great news programmes, News at Ten, News at Six, the Today programme, Radio 5Live news, Newsbeat, all those things".  This has potential to create anxieties, real or imagined amongst editors and staff of programmes and services not mentioned. Make your own list. 

As I transcribed this interview the word 'Newsnight' did immediately cross my mind. 

Paul Mason gets something wrong again (shocker)

One of the minor pleasures of blogging about BBC bias is that, from time to time, you get to debunk Paul Mason....

The former Newsnight economic economic was, in his usual Wolfie Smith fashion, raising the red flag of revolution last night against the reactionary licksplittles and running dogs at the BBC:

His point? 

Well, Kamal Ahmed's News at Ten report featured one Rupert Harrison as a 'talking head', and the caption introducing Mr Harrison simply read 'BlackRock Asset Management'. And he said complimentary things about the Budget. 

So yes, just as Paul said, Rupert Harrison was presented as if he was some kind of impartial expert......with no mention whatsoever that he'd been George Osborne's former chief of staff. 

So "Pro-Tory BBC bias!", according to Paul.

But...

What Wolfie neglected to mention was that just a few moments later in the same Kamal Ahmed report there came a second 'taking head': one Professor Mariana Mazzucato. And the caption introducing her simply read 'University College London'. And she said uncomplimentary things about the Budget.

So she too was presented as if she was some kind of impartial expert......with no mention whatsoever that John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn appointed her to be a Labour Party economic advisor. 

So what's that then, Paul? "Pro-Corbyn BBC bias!"?

This isn't really a 'complaints from both sides' thing. It's much more a 'Paul Mason got it wrong again' thing!

Now I say 'got it wrong again', but given that it's very unlikely that he didn't know that Prof. Mazzucato has close ties to the Corbyn leadership, maybe he 'got it wrong' deliberately?

(I know...shocking thought!)

Was Mark Carney misreported?

This is interesting:

Instead of "makes front pages and becomes 'fact'" Andrew might have said "made headlines on the BBC and becomes 'fact'", given that the BBC was also front-and-centre with reporting this story.

A reasonable-sounding reply came from Georgy Bradders: 

He’s always made clear he’s talking about the stress-testing the Bank has done for all scenarios including the very worst case. It’s not his fault if the #looselips in parliament and journalists don’t understand this. Fortunately we do still have some real journalists. 

And she then linked to Sky's Ed Conway (tweeting two days ago, as the story was first breaking). His tweets, however, suggest that Georgy may actually have seriously understated the 'lack of understanding' from journalists (including BBC journalists):

• Short thread: major note of caution needed with this Bank of England house price crash forecast story. Now (clearly) I wasn’t in cabinet & wasn’t privy to what was discussed. But I have a strong suspicion people are getting the wrong end of the stick here. Let me explain: 1/
• The past few years the Bank has run stress tests to see how well capitalised the banking system is. The fictional scenario is v ugly: house prices down 33%, unemployment up over 9%, interest rates up to 4%. Worse, in many senses, than what UK went through in the crisis 2/

• These stress tests are explicitly not designed as forecasts. They are BEYOND WORSE CASE SCENARIOS which, like caps lock sentences, are supposed to shock the city into safe balance sheet behaviour. The good news is last yr the UK banks almost all passed 3/
• Mark Carney has said in public a number of times that he is worried about a no deal, before adding that the financial system would be able to withstand it. As if to prove it he has then trotted out that stress test scenario: look, the banks can even survive THAT! 4/
• Yes: part of his point behind such illustrations was that Brexit could indeed be bad news for house prices etc. It could be really bad. But 35%…? Not likely. Even the Treasury’s worst case scenario for house price falls pre-referendum was literally HALF that 5/
• Mr Carney prob trotted out similar lines at Cabinet today. But someone there seems to have gotten the wrong end of the stick and has leaked that this was a Brexit-specific forecast/scenario. No. This (below) is the Bank’s stress test scenario. Compare to my 2nd tweet in thread. [Here he cited Jim Pickard of The Times, saying "Bank of England has modelled a worst case no-deal Brexit scenario where real estate prices fell by a third, interest rates rose to 4 per cent, unemployment to 9 per cent and the economy went into a 4 per cent recession"] 6/
• I don’t mean to undermine news stories running tonight. Those reporters were briefed on the cabinet meeting & are reporting what they’re being told. But I suspect what they’re being told isn’t quite right. I’d be amazed if the BoE was really forecasting anything like this 7/
• It’s the same problem as happened before the referendum. Most of the economic community produced sensible analysis warning of risks around Brexit. But (& @George_Osborne deserves some of the blame for this) in the end all everyone remembers was that scary HMT recession warning 8/
• What if the same thing happens again? I’m willing to bet if the UK crashes out of the EU house prices won’t crash 35%; interest rates won’t suddenly leap to 4%. Then, because of these stories, the BoE’s credibility will be further undermined. Along with their fellow economists 9/

If Ed Conway is correct then lots of lazy journalists with insufficient understanding simply swallowed some leak and then regurgitated it wholesale.

And the BBC? Would they be 'guilty' of that charge too? Well, yes because they led the reporting of the story, and this was their headline about it:

Brexit: Carney warns a chaotic Brexit could see house prices plunge

And this is how their online report began:

The Bank of England's governor has warned the cabinet that a chaotic no-deal Brexit could crash house prices and send another financial shock through the economy.

Mark Carney met senior ministers on Thursday to discuss the risks of a disorderly exit from the EU.

His worst-case scenario was that house prices could fall as much as 35% over three years, a source told the BBC.

("A source told the BBC". And the BBC told the nation.)

And BBC Breakfast, on Thursday morning, was telling it like this:

House prices could plunge by more than a third in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to the Governor of the Bank of England. Mark Carney briefed senior ministers Thursday to discuss the potential risks of leaving the EU without a deal. According to sources, the Governor said a slump in the pound and a rise in interest rates could mean house prices would fall by as much as 35%.

("According to sources". According to the BBC.)

What do you make of this? Is Ed Conway correct? Because if he is then there are a lot of very poor quality journalists out there, including at the BBC, pumping out what can only be called 'fake news'.

And here's where we return to Andrew Neil's tweet because Mark Carney, as reported in (say) the Guardian, is now insisting that he wasn't predicting a no-deal house price slump and that "he set out to cabinet worst-case scenarios used in bank stress tests" - just as Ed Conway said two days ago. 

So was this 'loose lips' from Mr Carney the other day followed by a later 'clarification'? Or did the 'sources' cited by the BBC & Co. get 'the wrong end of the stick' and most of the media (including the BBC) simply not have the knowledge or the journalistic gumption to scrutinise the story properly?


P.S. The BBC's Kamal Ahmed 'clarified' the BBC's own reporting nearly 10 hours after the BBC website first published the report by adding an 'analysis' (as Newsniffer shows):

It appears that the Governor wasn't providing the Cabinet with a forecast of what the Bank believes would happen in the event of a no deal Brexit. He was briefing the Cabinet on what preparations the Bank was making if that does happen, including last November's stress test.  

It was not a forecast.  

It was an apocalyptic test where the Bank deliberately sets the parameters beyond what might reasonably be expected to occur.

Checking BBC One (using TV Eyes) I see that this 'clarification' didn't make into on BBC TV and that even yesterday evening BBC London was still trotting out "Because the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, says house prices could dip by more than a third if Britain leaves the EU without a deal..."  

Despite Brexit

This was Kamal Ahmed's take on the economy on last night's BBC News at Ten: 

So Hugh, if we remember to the earlier part of the year, the economy was a rather sickly patient. If we look at the figure for growth from February to April, that came in at the princely of 0% - i.e. there was no growth. Terrible weather in the winter, more than 30 days of freezing temperatures, the usual post-Christmas lull in the economy led to that very poor figure. Today, as you say, a much better figure, 0.6% growth for the UK economy. That's building on a trend from last month of 0.4%, so there is some growth in the trend. Why is it happening? Well, two big sectors are doing better. They are construction and retail. If there is no snow on the ground, you can build houses, house building has been strong in the last 3-4 months. And retail. As you say, the World Cup and hot weather. Put those together, we're out more, we're shopping more, enjoying restaurants and entertainment. So that has been why it has been stronger. But it's not quite time to hang out the economic bunting in all senses. That Brexit uncertainty is still weighing on the economy, though of course if there was better news, as you've been hearing earlier in the programme, that might boost that. But the final point is that growth today is in exactly the same place as it was this time last year. So, no substance, no change of substance on the economy so far. 

Oops! ...I Did It Again

John McDonnell has done it again. 

A month ago it was "Let me put this message out to anyone: We are a party that is anti-racist and anti-Semitist". This morning (on Today) it was "Let's talk about how we tackle that now as a community as a whole and the Labour party will play its full role in leading that anti-Semitism". 

Don't worry John, it's already doing more than enough on that front!

Of course, he misspoke. Here it is in context - the whole two minutes that Today gave over to the topic this morning:

Kamal Ahmed: Can I just ask you finally about headlines in the papers today and yesterday around a speech made by Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 where he was quoted as saying - this raises again the issues around anti-Semitism in the Labour Party - where he says that Zionists in Britain and I quote "don't understand English irony". This has received very strong condemnation from many Jewish leaders in Britain. Is there a danger...is that a phrase, firstly, Mr. McDonnell you would use? And was it right for the leader of the Labour Party to described 'Zionists', as he put them, and some people are saying that's shorthand for 'Jewish people' "don't understand English irony"?
John McDonnell: No. I think this has all been taken out of context. Whatever Jeremy has said throughout the years has always been about how to secure peace, particularly within the Middle East. and also peace with justice for all concerned, both members of the Jewish community and also members of the Palestinian community. In that context, in that context Jeremy has devoted his life. So I think to take expressions out of context in that way is not helping...
Kamal Ahmed: (interrupting) Would you have used a phrase like that? Would you have used a phrase like that?
John McDonnell: In the...in the context...in certain contexts certain phrases are appropriate. To take them out of context is unacceptable and I think is not helping. It's exacerbating the issue. Where we want to get to now is let's recognise there is anti-Semitism in our society. Let's have a real serious debate about the actions needed to tackle anti-Semitism wherever it's displayed. I want to live...I repeat time and time again...I do not want to live in a society where Jewish pupils have to have security when they go to school or when Jewish cemeteries are daubed with swastikas. Let's talk about how we tackle that now as a community as a whole and the Labour party will play its full role in leading that anti-Semitism, the campaign against anti-Semitism, the way in which we develop our policies both to tackle anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, and that includes in the Labour party.
Kamal Ahmed: Mr. McDonnell, thank you very much.

Kamal didn't exactly go at him like a ferret up a kilt there, did he? In what way, Kamal might have asked, have Jeremy Corbyn's words been taken out of context here? And doesn't the actual context make it even worse?

And talking of context, Radio 4 listeners coming new to the story weren't given the full context either. The bit about "having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives" (i.e. that they aren't properly English) got missed from Kamal's framing of the story. 

Into the bubble

Around lunchtime today, this was the second story on the BBC News website: 

The "gaffe" by Ben Broadbent, a deputy governor at the Bank of England, sprang out of comments in a Telegraph interview:

According to Broadbent, the UK hasn’t seen such a slump since the late Victorian era. In the 1880s, economic historians have noted that there was what is termed a “climacteric” effect when “productivity growth suddenly slowed pretty much to a halt”. 

It was similarly severe to the sluggish improvements seen in the last decade, Broadbent believes.

This term, used by economic historians, is borrowed from biology, he says. It essentially means “menopausal, but can apply to both genders”. Put simply, “you’ve passed your productive peak”. 

An in-depth explanation of the term had the central bank’s policymakers squirming, Broadbent says.
“I once got an economist into the MPC to explain the origins of the word ‘climacteric’. As soon as he started talking to all these middle aged men – about [how] it means you’re past your peak and you’re no longer so potent – they all said: ‘We understand’.”

You might find nothing objectionable in that, but then you're a reasonable person. Others, however, as is the way of the world these days, 'took offence' and the BBC, naturally, made the resulting row top headline news.

Not everyone shares the BBC's sense of news priorities though - or, for that matter, the Corporation's take on this particular story. Here's Telegraph business writer Juliet Samuel for example:

Insane that this confected “row” is BBC’s second headline, with KamalAhmed editorialising that there are now “questions” about Ben Broadbent being bank governor. Makes me despair for this country. 

Here are some stories that could instead have graced slot 2 in the headlines: 

1. North Korea says it won’t denuclearise and Kim might not attend Trump meeting

2. Italy seemingly on cusp of forming revolutionary new government

3. Trump threatens EU w tariffs

4. Turkey struggling to stabilise its currency

5. May cladding pledge

A Twitter exchange ensued, with Kamal Ahmed himself chipping in (before quickly exiting pursued by a bear):

Mark Watson: It was a really stupid thing to say IMO, raises questions about his rationality and judgement. There are much better phrases that he could have used. Just my opinion of course!

Juliet Samuel: Everyone ought to read the interview. He didn’t say it was menopausal. He said it was “climacteric”, realised that was jargon and then said, effectively, “climacteric means menopause but for both sexes”. I just can’t understand how that’s offensive or inappropriate in any way.

Kamal Ahmed: Bank and Ben Broadbent don't appear to agree with you. Say language was "poor" and caused offence. I did say on #WATO is was important to keep it in perspective, but clear communication is an important part of the job. Even more important if you ever want to be Governor.

Juliet Samuel: Did you read original interview & context? How can it possibly be top news that he tried to explain jargon “climacteric”? Yes Bank apologised to neutralise it precisely because of coverage like this, which legitimises online mobs who would tear Broadbent’s head off for no reason.

Tim Montgomerie later added a couple more points:

Two thoughts on this (1) there’s now an epidemic of BBC journalists giving their opinions rather than simply reporting and (2) Juliet’s thread of alternative news headlines suggests she gets what public service broadcasting could and should still be. 

The World at One even had Jane Garvey, one of the BBC’s own journalists, as a pundit to judge the “menopausal” row.

*******

It's really worth listening to that The World at One to get a sense of what Juliet Samuel and Tim Montgomerie are objecting to.

The discussion about the story consisted of BBC presenter Sarah Montague interviewing the BBC economics editor Kamal Ahmed and then chairing a discussion between BBC Woman's Hour presenter Jane Garvey and a single non-BBC guest - writer Celia Walden. 

Kamal came first, editorialising that it matters because "I think language matters" and going on to say:

You've got to modernise how you talk about things and using 'menopausal' in a pejorative sense like this - i.e. not a very good thing - something that half the population go through perfectly naturally - shows that the Bank has a bigger issue here....

"It is important" he insisted.

His BBC colleague Jane Garvey was of the same mind, calling Mr Broadbent's words "thoughtless", "dismissive" and "hurtful" and insisting that the "language of economics" would have to change if what Mr Broadbent said is typical. She took it personally. Both she and Mr Broadbent are 53, she noted. "I'm a useless old hag but he's a thrusting silver fox", she huffed.  

It was left to the one non-BBC guest, Celia Walden, to break out of this BBC consensus and to bring a little reasonableness into the proceedings. She pronounced herself to be "not remotely offended" and, though calling it "an odd metaphor", was far more put out by people "deliberately working themselves up into states of offence all the time" about frankly nothing. 

When Jane resumed her rant against Mr Broadbent, saying his comment "puts women very much in their place", she drew in Kamal to back herself up, saying "and, as Kamal's already said, their place at the moment is not at the very top of the Bank of England".

And when Kamal was brought back in, he took up Jane's cudgels and re-insisted that "I think it does matter though" and deployed feminist arguments about power relationships and language to answer a point about how using derogatory language about men in such circumstances could be seen as as bad as using derogatory language about men in such circumstances. ("Men of a certain age don't have prejudice working against them. Women do," he said. "So, therefore, you have to use language differently for men and for women.")

The BBC does feel very much like a bubble at times like this.

P.S. Here's BBC Scotland Editor & Sunday Politics presenter Sarah Smith leading the charge much earlier. She's offended!:

Bull

Raging Bull

Someone has been making waves this week, and it would be remiss of a blog like this not to crack open the popcorn and chronicle it. So here goes...


Continuing his Ovid-like metamorphosis into a rampaging bull (or maybe even the Minotaur), Baron Adonis, of Camden Town in the London Borough of Camden has been charging at the BBC all week.

He began it by agreeing with a tweet which said that Today is "under Tory management" and "shamelessly pro-Brexit".

Then he continued with statements like, "The BBC largely created Farage" and "The BBC is substantially responsible for debasing political debate and analysis, which led to Brexit. And it is getting worse".

This led him into a Twitter confrontation with Nick Robinson and Gary Lineker:

Andrew Adonis: The BBC is now performing so badly at impartial and fearless news, & the quality of Netflix etc now so much better at drama, I am wondering for the first time in my life whether we couldn’t do better. Sky can keep sport! BBC on ropes. Sport largely gone to Sky. Quality drama gone to Netflix. BBC news increasingly Brexit, weak & simply Govt press releases. If Netflix set up a sharp, balanced News service, what would be left besides local radio, a desert island & a few good foreign correspondents?

Gary Lineker: What a load of complete and utter tosh.

Andrew Adonis: The BBC’s most highly paid presenter?

Nick Robinson: Well there’s the fact we’re the most trusted source of news & the world’s best nature programmes (Attenborough) & most popular entertainment (Strictly & Sherlock) & culture (Proms & Glasto) & sport (Wimbledon & the Olympics). Other than that what has the BBC ever done for us?!

Andrew Adonis: Huge complacency Nick. The country is in crisis, dangerously poor, polarised, fractured and populist, & you want us to throw garlands! This is not where things are at, I’m afraid. And in the view of many of us, you (the BBC) are the midwife of Farageism. And btw, your news website, after a string of complaints today, still hasn’t corrected a disgraceful headline describing the EU as a ‘corpse.’ Is this what you mean by ‘most trusted source of news’?

Nick Robinson: I don't want garlands. I want perspective & an acceptance that in a fractured society the BBC will hear from (& challenge) people you may dislike and/or fear.

Andrew Adonis: Well, I haven’t noticed the challenge, tbh. @BBCr4today now just a noticeboard for government and Farage press releases. Vast uncritical coverage of Boris speech, & total failure to get into the Northern Ireland crisis,just the latest instances.

At the same time, his Lordship was also charging, horns lowered, at Kamal Ahmed and the BBC News website (Kamal entered the maze too). He complained to Ofcom and got nowhere, and isn't happy about it:

Andrew Adonis: Apart from the disgraceful headline - when was the EU a ‘corpse’? - the BBC’s economics editor declares the EU will be ‘without, in the future, Britain.’ But we haven’t left & Parliament is a long way from agreeing Brexit. Yet more Brexit bias! https://twitter.com/bbckamal/status/963765351484882945 … Sorry to keep on about the BBC debasing public debate, but when was the European Union a ‘corpse’? Germany: I wish I was that lifeless! A disgraceful standard of analysis.

Kamal Ahmed: As you know Andrew, it is a reference to a quote by Douglas Carswell made in 2012. The point is it is not true (if it ever were, economically). I cannot see how a sensible analysis of that economic fact is debasing the public discourse.

Andrew Adonis: Kamal, instead of defending the indefensible, would you please correct this disgraceful ‘EU corpse’ headline immediately & remove the reference to Britain ‘of course’ leaving the EU.

Andrew Adonis: Kamal, your ‘EU corpse’ headline is disgraceful, & justifying it by quoting Douglas Carswell only makes it worse. Since when was Carswell the point of reference for the BBC?! The BBC has got to the stage it doesn’t even realise its pro-Brexit bias.

Andrew Adonis: Dear BBC, I have asked your economics editor to change this disgraceful ‘EU corpse’ headline & correct other bias, but nothing has been done. Can you please do it now before I start formal complaints?

Andrew Adonis: Astonishingly, the BBC is digging in. Kamal Ahmed told me ‘EU corpse’ was fine as a headline because it echoed a Douglas Carswell anti-EU rant of 2012! The Brexit bias is now so deep the BBC doesn’t even realise it.

Andrew Adonis: BBC BIAS: yesterday the BBC ran big story on website with headline describing the EU as a ‘corpse’. I and others complained. The BBC’s economics editor told us to chill because his point of reference was Douglas Carswell quote from 2012. We asked for it to be changed. It wasn’t.

Andrew Adonis: After 24 hours, the BBC has changed the headline on the website story but Kamal has not deleted these tweets on the ‘corpse’ of the EU. Too little, too late, too typical of today’s Brexit BBC I’m afraid.

Kamal Ahmed: Thanks Molly. Headline has been changed. It was not meant to be taken as literal, but as an historic reference that was out of date.

Andrew Adonis: But describing the EU as a ‘corpse’ wasn’t true historically either, Kemal. You shouldn’t take Douglas Carswell as a source of wisdom on the European economy, past or present. This sums up why the BBC has done such a bad job of reporting the EU & Brexit!

Andrew Adonis: I have referred to @Ofcom this disgraceful headline & tweet likening the European Union to a corpse, as a breach of the BBC’s duty of impartiality.

Andrew Adonis: BBC & EU ‘CORPSE.’ Weak Ofcom decline to review BBC calling EU a ‘corpse’ this week, saying BBC complaints process has to be ‘exhausted.’ But when I complained to BBC they did nothing for 24 hrs & didn’t retract. And that was before Farage’s 32nd BBC Question Time was announced!

Kamal Ahmed: It’s been pretty torrid on here since @Andrew_Adonis raised the issue. The headline has been changed and I have deleted the original tweet. Journalism has to be read in context - headline and article. I felt meaning was clear. I hope we can keep the debate civil. 

Oh, yes - as you can see from the last one there - he's not happy with Question Time either and has written to Lord Hall of the BBC to complain about it:

Andrew Adonis: BBC largely created Farage. They continue to promote him because it makes ‘good telly’ & they don’t want him criticising BBC on LBC! Pushing politics to the Hard Right out of fear & cynicism. @bbcquestiontime

Andrew Adonis: UKIP have no seats in Parliament but a permanent seat on Question Time and the Today programme’ @bbcquestiontime @BBCr4today

Andrew Adonis: I haven’t been invited on @bbcquestiontime for 8 years. They don’t have space with the reserved slots for Farage & other Brexiters.

Andrew Adonis: Farage’s 32nd appearance on BBC Question Time next Thursday is final straw in the BBC’s degeneration into a Brexit propaganda station. Time for weak @Ofcom to do its job & uphold impartiality.

Andrew Adonis: #heshoudbeleftinthepubnotputonBBCquestiontimefor32ndtime!
Andrew Adonis: Just written to Lord Hall, DG of BBC, asking if he thinks Mr Farage’s 32nd appearance on BBC Question Time, as ex leader of party on 2% in the polls, is consistent with his duty to uphold impartiality. I’m also seeking retraction of BBC claim this week that the EU is a ‘corpse’.

What's the betting Lord Adonis's 8-year dry spell at Question Time will come to an end very soon?

Oh, and Today got it in the neck too for not asking Theresa Villiers 'the right questions':

Rainy day in Bristol: Brexiter Theresa Villers on @bbc4today talking Northern Ireland. Will they ask her HOW the border issue can be solved? No, course not.

Andrew Adonis: These points are spot on (& thread). There are deep problems of journalistic confidence & bias at @BBCr4today & @BBCNews. They have been captured by Brexit & fear of the Brexiters.

Rainy day in Bristol: Case study this morning, Nick. 1. Theresa Villiers, ex-Northern Ireland Sec and ardent Brexiter was on. 2. She was interviewed at length about the problems of the N. Ire executive and discussed them in detail 3. However at NO POINT was she challenged about the DUP & May

Andrew Adonis: Case study of the deep problems of bias and lack of journalistic confidence at @BBCr4today & @BBCNews. They are terrified of the Brexiters & getting offside with the Govt.

And this very morning, Lord Adonis is facing down the BBC's very own sword-brandishing Perseus, Andrew Neil:

Andrew Neil: German journalist wrong to say at #MSC18 — Munich Security conference — to Mrs May that French people voted against Lisbon treaty then changed minds, calling it ‘prudent’. When treaty downgraded to ‘reform’ there was no 2nd French referendum. Parliament ratified.

Charles Tannock MEP: So are you suggesting if a fresh deal came from the EU27 with an improved offer to the UK as @HansOlafHenkel is campaigning for UK Parliament could stop A50 & override 2016 Referendum & reverse Brexit?

Andrew Neil: Errrr no. Not slightest suggestion of any of that in my tweet, which was pure;y factual. Are you hallucinating? Bit early for the cooking sherry.

Charles Tannock MEP: I'm just making a more general point that continental countries like France, Denmark and Ireland are more pragmatic than UK in their relations with EU and noone threatened mass insurgency unlike Brexiteers when small majority referenda were reversed. But thanks for responding,

Andrew Neil: Perhaps because, in the end, France, Denmark and Ireland did as they were told, after initial revolts.

Andrew Adonis: View from the BBC: freely expressed will of the French, Danish & Irish people & parliaments is ‘doing what they are told [by Brussels], after initial revolts.’ Pure Farageism from ‘impartial’ BBC political interviewer. @Ofcom

Andrew Neil: Change “told” to “politely but firmly asked to think again” if it makes you feel better. What bit of the narrative is factually wrong? Remember all our hopes of a British Macron now rest with you.

Andrew Adonis: You are brilliant commentator Andrew. But this is obviously unacceptable from ‘impartial’ BBC political interviewer. U only get away with it because BBC News now annexed by Brexiters. It’s why people like me are having to get back into politics, to stop you wrecking the country.

Andrew Neil: Idea BBC News ‘annexed’ by Brexiteers is bonkers of a very high order. Very, very high. Stratospheric, in fact. I notice no factual corrections to my tweet. But I’m delighted you’re back in politics (when did you leave?). You are our Macron. Can I be your campaign manager?

Andrew Adonis: It is factually incorrect to say that the  French, Danish & Irish people & parliaments ‘did as they were told, after initial revolts.’ Farageism of a very, very high order. Stratospheric, in fact. As my campaign manager, would you like to retract this?

Andrew Neil: I changed told to firmly asked to think again. Do I have the job?

Andrew Adonis: I couldn’t possibly afford you on your inflated BBC salary! But please carry on highlighting that the BBC is no longer an impartial state broadcaster - so we can resolve this before the now inevitable referendum on Mrs May’s Brexit terms!

Andrew Neil: I'll do it for free. As public service. Purge of BBC Brexiteers can't wait. From DG down ... to Head of News ... total cull at Newsnight ... don't get me started on Today ... or Sky News ... and these pro-Brexit fanatics at Economist, FT and Guardian - and Times! Heads must roll!

Such thinking about the BBC is obviously spreading. A close friend of mine is just as convinced as Lord Adonis that the BBC is a rabid pro-Brexit poodle of the Tories and keeps telling me to 'open my eyes' to the truth of that fact!

Of course, as Andrew Neil says, that is "bonkers of a very high order". 

As for Lord Adonis's various points, the idea that the BBC "largely created Farage" is "bonkers" of an even higher order. The BBC marginalised and belittled UKIP for years. It was Nigel Farage and his party's electoral successes particularly in the Euro elections of 2009 and 2013 that gave UKIP their great leap forward. The BBC had to start giving Mr. Farage a higher profile from that time. For concrete evidence of how wrong Lord Adonis is here, just look at how UKIP were being marginalised back in 2009-10, even after they came second in the 2009 elections. This was my count (at the time) of the airtime given to the various political parties as far as interviews on all the main BBC TV and radio current affairs programmes:  

July 2009

Labour - 60.92%

Conservatives - 24.08%

Lib Dems - 10.82%

SNP - 2.08%

Greens - 0.82%

BNP - 0.76%

UKIP - 0.32%

Plaid Cymru - 0.22%

August 2009

Labour - 6 hours 5 minutes 33 seconds, 52.3%

Conservatives - 2 hours 37 minutes 57 seconds, 22.6%

Liberal Democrats - 1 hour 32 minutes 15 seconds, 13.2%

SNP - 1 hour 7 minutes 6 seconds, 9.6%

Greens - 7 minutes 11 seconds, 1%

Independents - 3 minutes 47 seconds, 0.5%

UKIP - 3 minutes 33 seconds, 0.5%

Plaid Cymru - 2 minutes 42 seconds, 0.3%

September 2009

Labour - 12 hours 25 minutes 26 seconds, 61.51%

Liberal Democrats - 4 hours 5 minutes 10 seconds, 19.98%

Conservatives - 2 hours 52 minutes 1 second, 14.03%

SNP - 19 minutes 35 seconds, 1.58%

UKIP - 10 minutes 52 seconds, 0.86%

Plaid Cymru - 7 minutes 34 seconds, 0.62%

Independent - 5 minutes 16 seconds, 0.43%

Greens - 2 minutes 51 seconds, 0.23%

English Democrats - 2 minutes 47 seconds, 0.23%

UUP - 2 minutes 27 seconds, 0.21%

DUP - 2 minutes 15 seconds, 0.19%

SDLP - 1 minute 56 seconds, 0.13%

October 2009

Conservatives - 10 hours 51 minutes 29 seconds, 43.20%

Labour - 10 hours 42 minutes 41 seconds, 42.61%

Liberal Democrats - 1 hour 45 minutes 39 seconds, 6.99%

SNP - 1 hour 0 minutes 22 seconds, 3.99%

UKIP - 11 minutes 17 seconds, 0.74%

DUP - 9 minutes 2 seconds, 0.60%

BNP - 8 minutes 8 seconds, 0.54%

Sinn Fein - 6 minutes 16 seconds, 0.41%

Greens - 5 minutes 20 seconds, 0.34%

Alliance - 3 minutes 26 seconds, 0.22%

Plaid Cymru - 3 minutes 16 seconds, 0.21%

UUP - 2 minutes 27 seconds, 0.15%

November 2009

Labour - 7 hours 44 minutes 21 seconds (41.1%)

Conservatives - 6 hours 25 minutes 11 seconds (34.1%)

Liberal Democrats - 2 hours 16 minutes 19 seconds (12.0%)

SNP- 1 hour 15 minutes 4 seconds (6.7%)

UKIP - 29 minutes 10 seconds (2.6%)

Greens - 16 minutes 34 seconds (1.5%)

Sinn Fein - 9 minutes 35 seconds (0.9%)

Independents - 8 minutes 1 second (0.7%)

Plaid Cymru - 4 minutes 59 seconds (0.4%)

December 2009

Labour - 56.20% (7h 49m 56s)

Conservatives - 29.01% (4h 2m 40s)

Lib Dems - 11.65% (1h 37m 30s)

SNP - 1.21% (10m 13s)

UKIP - 0.99% (8m 25s)

Independents - 0.65% (5m 40s)

Plaid Cymru - 0.29% (2m 46s)

January 2010

Labour - 54.81% (12h 13m 18s)

Conservatives - 22.81% (5h 5m 13s)

Lib Dems - 12.65% (2h 49m 19s)

SNP - 2.25% (30m 10s)

Sinn Fein - 1.68% (22m 49s)

UKIP - 1.44% (19m 28s)

DUP - 1.22% (16m 34s)

Independents - 0.90% (12m 1s)

Greens - 0.60% (8m 4s)

SDLP - 0.48% (6m 46s)

Alliance - 0.46% (6m 18s)

TUV - 0.46% (6m 18s)

Respect - 0.24% (3m 16s)

The idea that the BBC was responsible for the rise of Nigel Farage is beyond ridiculous. Lord Adonis is simply wrong.

As for the idea that Radio 4's Today is now "just a noticeboard for government and Farage press releases", well, the evidence (stats not anecdotes) say the opposite. Today continues to be heavily tilted in favour of those who aren't pro-Brexit, guest-selection-wise. Lord Adonis is simply wrong. 

And, yes, though Question Time does give Nigel Farage a platform - on average about twice a year (31 appearances from 2000 to now) - the stats also show that the programme's panels remain heavily tilted in favour of those who aren't pro-Brexit. Lord Adonis is wrong again.

On the Theresa Villiers grumble, the interview was about the news that day - serious problems with the NI executive. It wasn't about Brexit. So this amounts to nothing more than Lord Adonis and his Brexit-fixated Twitter friend not getting the discussion they wanted. Not every discussion about Northern Ireland with a pro-Brexit politician has to be about Brexit. It was a short interview too. And if Justin Webb had changed the subject and asked her about Brexit, these same people would then probably have complained that he was giving a pro-Brexit politician a platform to push Brexit! Lord Adonis is simply wrong.

Furthermore, that very edition of Today, when it did discuss Brexit, repeatedly saw its business reporter Dharshini David (at 6:22, 6:28 and 8:50) asking questions about Brexit from a negative standpoint - the IMF's "warnings" about Brexit, how Brexit could be an "obstacle" to tech companies, and the "challenges" Brexit poses for the UK's fashion industry, and the main Brexit focus was on an Ed Balls-commissioned report that found that small and medium-sized businesses want us to stay in the Single Market (two segments on that). Did Lord Adonis miss these bit? Guest-wise, Polly Toynbee and Ed Balls were balanced by John Mills and Charles Moore. 

On Andrew Neil's tweets, well, yes, Andrew Adonis has a point. AN is very opinionated on Twitter and his views aren't disguised. If others shouldn't be he shouldn't be either (much as I enjoy his tweets). But Andrew Adonis only has a very narrow point specifically related to AN. Andrew Neil remains the exception that proves the rule on that front. The rest of the BBC tends very heavily in the other direction. Read almost any of the other opinionated BBC Tweeters and you'll find next to no links to pro-Brexit commentaries but plenty of links to anti-Brexit commentaries. By singling him out and making him 'represent' the BBC, Lord Adonis is completely inverting the truth about biased BBC tweets. Lord Adonis is still wrong. 

On that 'corpse' headline, which the BBC later changed, however, yes, I did raise an eyebrow or two myself when I saw that headline, but Kamal Ahmed's commentary beneath that headline was certainly not pro-Brexit. Even some pro-EU Tweeters pointed out the falsity of Lord Adonis's characterisation of his actual piece. ("I read your article through twice after reading criticisms of it especially by Lord Adonis. It was pretty clear to me what you were saying and that it wasn't insulting to the EU or those of us who wish to remain in it. Sadly some may have only read the headlines."). Lord Adonis was right about that headline but, otherwise, is simply wrong again.

All of this is, of course, will be both unpleasant for and pleasing to the BBC. They won't like Lord Adonis's repeated claims of bias against them, but they will relish being able to play the 'Complaints from both sides' card: He says the BBC is pro-Brexit; They say the BBC is anti-Brexit; Ergo, the BBC must be getting it about right.

However, nearly all of what Lord Adonis said here is complete and utter baloney. What sites like News-watch (for example) say, claiming the opposite of what Lord Adonis is saying, is not complete and utter baloney because it is backed up by evidence (and lots of it). So if one side is wrong and the other side is right, the contention that 'we must be getting it about right because we're being complained about by both sides' doesn't hold water.