Marianna Spring v Mark Dolan

You may have already seen this GB News monologue from Mark Dolan about the BBC's Marianna Spring. 

She's been promoted from being a BBC Specialist Disinformation & Social Media Reporter to being the BBC’s Disinformation & Social Media Correspondent:

Now Mark makes a small mistake. He calls her a BBC “new recruit”. As we know, she's no such thing. 

What's interesting here is that Marianna, being one of the newer intake of more activist BBC journalists, couldn't resist replying on Twitter - and getting her 70.4K followers to rally to her side. She described Mark's monologue as “4 min rant”, adding:

My job isn’t to tell people what to believe. As I’ve done for over 2 years, it’s to investigate the impact of online disinformation, hate and social media harms.

“My job isn't to tell people what to believe” made me smile. I did a post on New Year's Day this very year headlined 'Marianna and Clive tell us what to think'. As a reminder, here's one example from that post:

Marianna Spring: I think as well, in, I mean...A lot of the conversation online has been very polarised, and we talk about cancel culture, and we talk about the culture wars, but actually that reckoning, that awakening, that there are things that are wrong and they are just wrong and supporting standing up against things that are wrong, it isn't up for debate. And a lot of the conversation around taking the knee has been about that really.

Back to Marianna Spring v Mark Dolan though, and Marianna couldn't just leave it there. Here's what came next as she responded to a supportive tweet personally attacking Mark Dolan:

Jack Evans wasn't 'spot on' though. Marianna clearly hadn't 'fact-checked' his comment. Mark Dolan didn't used to do The Friday Night Project. He hosted The Last Word, which Jack was probably thinking of. 

I wonder what Tim Davie would make of a BBC correspondent getting into a spat via social media? 

And what would he make of his new Disinformation & Social Media Correspondent discrediting herself - and, thus, the BBC in such a public way by describing a factually inaccurate comment attacking someone else as 'spot on'?

A Saturday Selection

I've been a bit out-of-action recently, but here are a few things I noted down this week:

I

Never mind Partygate. Sue Gray and Dame Dick need to investigate the Foreign Office for blowing lots of licence fee payers' money on a sparkling farewell party for departing BBC North America editor Jon Sopel. 

That's reported by Steerpike at the Spectator. 

You'll find beneath his piece this comment from former Harry's Place regular Lamia which will doubtless strike a chord with many of us:

Sopel spent the four years of Donald Trump's presidency Tweeting his disapproval of Trump and his Tweets, helping keep the humble folk of Broadcasting House and North London in a permanent state of gratified superior outrage. Once Joe Biden got into power, Sopel and the BBC simply lost interest in reporting about the US President, except what flavour of ice cream he likes. Sopel is a worthless journalist, let alone a journalist for a supposedly impartial broadcaster, because his personal and political biases have infected and dictated everything he reports (and everything he doesn't report about). Not only should he not be the BBC's political editor - if the BBC had any standards (yes, we know it doesn't...) then he would have been sacked years ago. So obviously he's a shoe-in as BBC political editor.

II

Rod Liddle probably ought to hang up his satirical spurs because BBC reality is outpacing him faster than the winner of the Kentucky Derby. A Guardian exclusive reports that the BBC is preparing to broadcast a new take on Dickens's Oliver Twist that will “make a conscious effort” to put food poverty “to the fore” and echo footballer Marcus Rashford’s campaign to reduce child hunger. Very BBC.

III

The BBC is celebrating what they call “a hundred years of our BBC” and they've released a two-minute campaign video - in response to Nadine Dorries - about how the “BBC belongs to all of us”. As you'd expect,  the last word - “every one of us” - goes to Sir David Attenborough and the whole party political broadcast on behalf of the BBC ends with the caption, “This is our BBC.”

The estimable Lance Forman responded:

If the BBC belongs to me - Please can they release the Balen Report which examined anti-Israel bias at the BBC. The BBC have spent circa £500,000 to keep this covered up. With antisemitism rampant there is a public interest in releasing this. Transparency belongs to us all!

IV

The BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson pompously gives us “a reminder”:

Just a quick constitutional reminder for the BBC’s 100th anniversary: it belongs to the people of the UK. It doesn’t belong to the government. And, contrary to what the current Culture Secretary seems to think, it isn’t state-funded.

It may not be, but it still drags thousands of reluctant viewers through the courts.

V

As Paul Homewood notes, BBC Future has a piece by some white woke guy called Jeremy Williams headlined Climate change divides along racial lines. Could tackling it help address longstanding injustices? The pasty-faced gentleman in question has a book out too, Climate Change is Racist: Race, Privilege and the Struggle for Climate Justice, thereby evidently making him absolutely irresistible to the BBC. I'm not sure I was even aware of BBC Future. The BBC has no many tentacles it's hard to keep track.

VI(a)

I see some people on Twitter have been complaining that BBC One's main new bulletins gave mere seconds to the jailing of former Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham for paedophilia last night. Indeed, News at Six gave the story 17 seconds and News at Ten gave the story 13 seconds. It beggars belief.

VI(b)

It remains a telling fact that Newsnight has still never covered the Barry Gardiner/Chinese Communist Party influence story or that their policy editor Lewis Goodall, despite being a hyperactive Twitterer, has never tweeted about it either - despite the CCP's influence on the UK being one of the biggest new stories out there. I put it down to bias. 

VII

Wagner's Ring cycle lasts 17 hours and runs for over four days. In it the bronzed Valkyrie Brünnhilde disobeys the Director-General of the gods Wotan, ensconced in Valhalla House. The weak Wotan, despite Brünnhilde's flagrant disregard of Valhalla editorial guidelines, merely slaps her wrist by giving her a talking-to and then sentences her to a good night's sleep on a luxury bed surrounded by fire. The dragon-slaying idiot Siegfried awakens her with a kiss and an embittered, self-righteous Brünnhilde then - after various twists and turns - mounts her mighty steed Grane and, immolating herself in the process too, brings about the fiery destruction of Valhalla House and the godly board. Similarly long-lasting is the BBC's Monologue cycle. In this saga the bronzed Emily Maitlis disobeys pasty-faced chief god of the BBC Tim Davie. Tim Davie weakly slaps her wrist by mildly saying she might, possibly, not have been quite entirely right - and then does nothing more. She disobeys him again. And again. And again. Always playing throughout to her main audience, her fellow Valkyries on Twitter. The Trump-slaying Jon Sopel awakens her with a kiss and she mounts her mighty stallion Twitter and disobeys Tim Davie yet again. So what happens next? Well, if my tortuous Wagner analogy runs on, Emily's biased behaviour will help precipitate BBCdämmerung, The Twilight of the BBC, as Tim Davie sits forlorn in Broadcasting House as everything around him goes up in flames and, amid floodwaters, the Thamesmaidens swim in to take back the BBC licence fee. So is Tim Davie ever going to do something about her? She's making a mockery of 'BBC impartiality' and sneering at her BBC bosses, but I doubt he'll do anything. He doesn't seem the type to tackle BBC bias full on. As BBC TV sitcom Valkyrie Mrs Slocombe was wont to say, he's ''weak as water''. 

VIII

BBC disinformation reporter Marianna Spring has been busy promoting a new 10-part podcast series “investigating the human cost of pandemic conspiracies online in one town, who believes them - and why” for Radio 4 and BBC Sounds. She “will share more details soon!” This drew a sarcastic reply from Peter Hitchens: “Looking forward to this, Marianna Spring. Obviously this is the most urgent lack in BBC coverage of the last two years. But will a mere ten episodes be enough?”

IX

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale followed UK PM Boris Johnson to a press conference in Ukraine with the Ukrainian president and provoked criticism in some quarters for “making the UK look like a joke” by asking Boris about Partygate rather than Russia-Ukraine. I suspect that as extraterrestrials first emerge from their twenty-mile-long mothership to make contact with humanity for the first time BBC types will be there at the front of the press pack asking about the Sue Gray report. 

Peter Hitchens v Marianna Spring

This looks like an interesting encounter - Peter Hitchens v Marianna Spring:

Is the BBC Licence Fee now being used for Thought Policing?

The BBC has now moved on from trying to tell us what to think, to policing those who don't share its views. Last week I was approached by a Marianna Spring, who proclaims herself the Corporation's 'Disinformation Reporter'.

She wants to question me about my work during the Covid panic. I'll keep you informed about her enquiries, which are proceeding.

But my view is that her very title is an expression of prejudice. 'Disinformation' is just a long way of saying 'lying'.

If she thinks I'm dishonest, then let her say so on the BBC and we'll see how that goes. But in general, if you want to investigate something, you start with an open mind and see what you find. How can your mind possibly be open, if you glorify yourself as a judge of truth before you even start? And remember, this is being done with licence-payers' money.

If the BBC wants to hunt down 'disinformation' about the Covid crisis, it is my view that it should clean its own house first.

Remembrance of Recent Mamories...

Times change. 

Long gone are the days of Sir Robin Bowtie, Charles 'Hot Cheeks' Wheeler, Eric Morecambe of Morecambe fame, counting-in-and-out Brian O'Hanra O'Hanrahan, and Martin 'Man In The White Pants' Bell. 

And the days of John Simpers (Liberator of Kabul) and Dame Kate Adeeee of the Beeee Beeee Ceeee are numbered too.

We now live in the BBC Age of Marianna Spring, named after the BBC's senior disinformation reporter, where 'look at me!' selfies from BBC staff are legion. 

Indeed - as a sexist might say - one of the least onerous curses of tracking BBC bias on Twitter is that of being inadvertently obliged to see numerous BBC females posting endless selfies of themselves, frequently pouting. 

Cue: Industrial-scale lipstick, huge close-up smiles, gleaming teeth to outshine the work of an ancient Greek dental hygienist siren, clingy dresses so tight they'd put conscientious boa constrictors to shame, legs stretching to infinity and far, far beyond, and, most of all, GLAM. 

They love themselves, these BBC ladies, bless them. And they absolutely love all the appreciative 'You look beautiful' relies too. 

I'd love to know what Dame Jenni Murray and Jane Garvey, now departed, make of all this. Whither old-school BBC feminism?

Here's a tweet this very evening from BBC Trending boss Mike Wendling's underling and star reporter Marianna tweeting about her hair:

Call me old-fashioned, but her wonderful hair wasn't the only thing I noticed. I also noticed her smile.

And, even as an impartiality fan, I really, really don't want to see her boss and possible puppet master, Mike Wendling, for balance's sake, glammed up in tight lycra showing off his BBC-friendly 'lower man rack'. 

The bulk of the replies to Marianna's tweet tonight are of this kind:

• You look fantastic. I'm so happy I've found someone such as yourself who is focusing on the harmful effects of online conspiracies and abuse. Thank you for your work.
• Green suits you. Thanks for your hard work x
• Looking lovely!
• Fab hair. Looking forward to watching the programmes.

As far as mainstream outlets go, media-wise, it's a different, less serious and less intelligent age perhaps, despite - in the BBC's case - its present licence fee funding. 

Paging poor, increasingly-cancelled, ex-BBC regular Germaine Greer. Wonder what she makes of all this? 

I rather miss Germaine, lost from the BBC during the Trans wars. 

The Eric Gill statue outside Broadcasting House is attacked

 

The Eric Gill One

Following the Colston Four's acquittal for pulling down the Edward Colston statue in Bristol, someone this afternoon might have high hopes of also being acquitted after taking a hammer/sledgehammer to the Eric Gill Prospero and Ariel statue at Broadcasting House - a sculpture that shows an aging Prospero and a naked, child-like Ariel fiddling on his flute.  

As many of you will know, Eric Gill was a paedophile who slept with his two daughters and the family dog. 

That fact is tattooed in my brain because, like many of you, I've watched Alex Belfield's YouTube channel and he's fond of repeatedly pointing it out. He wants the statue gone. I don't. Eric Gill was a bad man who wrought some wonderful work, including at Morecambe's Midland Hotel. I prefer separating the man from the work wherever possible. If we didn't we'd lose many great works. But I respect the views of those who can't do that on moral grounds. I wouldn't just dismiss them. 

Enter Mike Wendling and Marianna Spring's colleague, Shayan Sardarizadeh. He was straight onto Twitter linking it - as the BBC Trending/BBC Disinformation Unit seem to link everything, obsessively, whenever they possibly can - to QAnon. They are somewhat like conspiracy theorists in that respect:

A man has taken a sledgehammer to the Eric Gill statue outside the BBC Broadcasting House. The statue has been an obsession for British QAnon, "save our children", "Satanic ritual abuse" and other conspiracy groups for a very long time. Police have now arrived at the scene.

He could well be right, but it's typical how some BBC Trending/BBC Disinformation Unit types ignore Marianna's repeated cautions about speculating without facts. 

I hope she'll be having a word in Shayan's shell-like about waiting till facts emerge before speculating on social media. 

That said, let me 'do a Shayan' and speculate too: 

Maybe it could just be someone following their conscience and being on the right side of history as far as paedophilia and the BBC's shameful historic links to paedophilia go, and wanting the statue removed to avoid causing grave offence to passers-by who are forced to see it, even if not actually noticing it, out of the corner of their eyes. The vandal might even eventually claim to have increased its monetary value. With that paltry hammer, however, I'm certain he won't be dragging and dropping it into the Thames any time soon, even if Dame Dick's lot all bend their knees to him while he's doing permanent damage to his hip attempting to do so. 

Update: It looks as if Mike Wendling won't be making Marianna have a word in Shayan's shell-like after. She's deployed on Twitter too this evening, making it all about herself. 

Sharing an earlier message, she's tweeted:

This message I shared mentions the Eric Gill statue currently being attacked at the BBC. Gill’s crimes are appalling - and this statue has often become a focal point for online conspiracy movements. But it raises concerns about willingness to resort to violent tactics.

I'm guessing you're all as aware as I am of the 'cognitive dissonances' over this kind of thing. There's more than a bit of it about here. 

As far as Marianna Spring goes it's less clear. As a statue outside the BBC is attacked, Marianna calls that attack “violent”, but did she ever describe the “violent tactics” used by the Colston Four as “violent tactics” too?

Reality Check for Marianna

  

One more post on this year's Pick of the Year with Marianna Spring and Clive Myrie...

As I listed earlier, the first part of the programme rehearsed the usual subjects covered by the BBC's Disinformation Unit, with social media getting it in the neck over misinformation as usual.

However, here comes another preachy passage from later in the programme when they discussed the 24 November migrant tragedy in the English Channel when 27 people drowned.

They'd already played a clip of a Thought for the Day by Bishop Nick Baines where Bishop Nick had said, “The difference between the fallen Westerners in Afghanistan and the drowned Easterners at Calais is that we label the latter, question their choices and forget their identity”, and Clive had said “the feelings were summed up” by this TFTD, without outlining quite whose feelings were “summed up”. [I'm assuming he thought he and Marianna were speaking for everyone], when this was said:

Marianna Spring - It always strikes me whenever I see these stories in the news just how bad it must be for you to leave where you call home. Because why would you ever choose to. It's the place where everyone you love usually. It's the place you know. It's the place you so desperately want to stay. And in that terrible tragedy where so many people were killed off the coast of the UK a large number of them were from Afghanistan. And we've all seen what's happened there over the past 6 months, especially, and the Taliban takeover and what that means for lots and lots of the people who live there, who are fearing for their lives.

Marianna Spring describes herself as an “award-winning specialist reporter covering disinformation and social media” with BBC News and BBC Trending, but she was peddling a bit of disinformation of her own there. 

It's simply untrue that a “large number” of people killed in that terrible tragedy “were from Afghanistan”. Most were Kurds.

FACTCHECK - 16 Iraqi Kurds, 4 Afghans, 3 Ethiopians, 1 Iranian Kurd, 1 Somali, 1 Vietnamese, 1 Egyptian died on 24 November 2021 in the English Channel disaster.

Maybe she should fact-check herself?

Marianna and Clive tell us what to think

Sticking with this year's Pick of the Year with Marianna Spring and Clive Myrie I want to quote you three short discussions from it, just so you can get a sense of just how preachy it was.

You'll hear them moralising about the racism that followed the Euros [how much was there really?], asserting that woke is a good thing and that some things  - such as taking the knee - aren't up for debate -  and that the slogan 'Black Lives Matter' isn't really up for discussion either.

On racism after the Euros:

Marianna Spring - I think the biggest conversation about online hate happened around the Euros. I was actually at the Final watching those penalties and, perhaps a worrying sign of my job or the impact of my job, was sitting there and as I watched Rashford and Saka and Sancho go up to take those penalties and I watched them miss, my first thought was, Oh my gosh, they are going to get so much racist hate on line!

Clive Myrie - And so many people said that. So many people said they knew that was what was going to come, which is such a terrible indictment of our culture and our society at the moment.

On racism in cricket and 'taking the knee': 

Clive Myrie - You know, it's good that these rocks are being turned over and these debates are being had and conversations are taking place. Because, you know, enlightenment is the key to wisdom, and frankly I think a better society.

Marianna Spring - I think as well, in, I mean...A lot of the conversation online has been very polarised, and we talk about cancel culture, and we talk about the culture wars, but actually that reckoning, that awakening, that there are things that are wrong and they are just wrong and supporting standing up against things that are wrong, it isn't up for debate. And a lot of the conversation around taking the knee has been about that really.

Clive Myrie - We as a society should be listening to their reasons as to why they are taking the knee are not placing our own ideas about taking the knee on their heads.

On Black Lives Matter: 

Clive Myrie - Black Lives Matter.

Marianna Spring - It's not controversial.

Clive Myrie - It's not a big deal. When you think about it. And it does not mean that white lives don't matter. It's just making the point that Black Lives Matter too.

Pick of the Year

   

I wonder if Lord Blunkett and Libby Purves and Michael Buerk listened to today's Pick of the Year on BBC Radio 4. I think they'd have been appalled.

If anything show's the station's sharp turn towards 'woke' this is surely it. It used to be a showcase for the width and depth of Radio 4's output across the year, intended to make you laugh and cry and think. This year it was almost entirely political, earnest and preachy. They weren't going to let us think for ourselves either.

It was presented by Clive Myrie and Marianna Spring. They played Radio 4 highlights from across the year that dealt with these subjects [in the order they dealt with them]:

[a] The Capitol “attempted coup”, QAnon, Trump and conspiracy theories

[b] misinformation and vaccine hesitancy

[c] misinformation and climate change

[d] how Facebook is failing to tackle misinformation

[e] feet

[f] climate change and wildfires

[g] migrants and refugees

[h] Afghanistan

[i]'Internet shaming' of women

[j] women's fears about their safety following the murder of Sarah Everard

[k] online hate/racism

[l] racism in sport

[m] taking the knee against racism

[n] Mondays.

It really was as fun as it sounds.

If you recall a comment I quoted a month ago today that said ''I can't help myself, and I know it's silly, but whenever I switch on radio 4 I listen to the first 10 words I hear. Invariably they are about race, gender or climate. Try it.'' If that person had have tuned in to Pick of the Year it would have been an instant 'Bingo!'

Twas the Saturday before Christmas

Thank you, even more than normal, for your comments this week. 

You really have captured all the main goings-on involving the BBC, particularly on the open thread - with a special doff of the cap to Charlie. 

It's been invaluable, so thanks again.

-----------

Today, as JunkkMale notes, has been dominated by a mass 'flounce' by BBC types after Camilla Tominey, the delightful associate editor of the Daily Telegraph, published a BBC-bashing piece headlined The BBC is wilfully ignorant about Tory Britain. She began:

It may be apocryphal but it is a story worth telling anyway. A young producer turned up at the BBC to do a shift on election night in December 2019. Huw Edwards had just revealed the results of the exit poll, predicting a landslide Conservative majority and the complete evisceration of Jeremy Corbyn. According to the tale, the rookie journalist arrived at the newsroom in Portland Place to find half of Auntie’s staff in tears.

It might not be true but it certainly is believable.

Now, I dislike that kind of thing as much as anyone, possibly more so - the 'it's probably not true, but it reflects a real truth' nonsense. It drives me up the wall, round the ceiling and down the chimney, even while Santa might be busily climbing back up. Now, what I want is, Facts - to quote Mr Gradgrind. Camilla was probably just being rhetorical, but shouldn't have said it. 

But it's been huge fun watching The BBC Collective, and their allies, take to Twitter to spit out feathers and dummies at Camilla en masse. 

Nick Robinson, Marianna Spring, John Simpson and countless others have all piled in with furious 'tally-hos'. 

To sum up their grievance: It's not true and it's soooooo unfair.

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to burst a blood vessel laughing your head off at it all.

But, of course, such laughter might be misplaced. 

They're all piling in because they've spotted an obvious, easy chink in a BBC critic's armour. 

Camilla's opening paragraph is indefensible, so it was evidently all hands on deck and all grist to the Twitter mill from the BBC - and their fans - to exploit the situation to their advantage. 

Unfortunately for them, they're probably peeing into the Twitter wind - a tiny minority echo chamber. The folk 'below the line' at the Telegraph and their readers are somewhere else and on Camilla's side rather than the BBC's side - in another echo chamber possibly.

But maybe they're not peeing into the Twitter wind after all because although Twitter may be something some 5/6 of the UK population don't ever engage with they are still reaching the people who matter to them - their many fellow Twitter users in the high ranks of the media and the political class. In other words, their guardians.

Meanwhile, if this wasn't complicated enough already, Dame Nick Robinson also went on a massive [self-] righteous rant on Twitter about how Camilla had reported - or misreported -  a part of the story involving John Redwood MP, with Camilla swatting him off with a kiss and various counter-points. 

This was six of one and half a dozen of the other, though pompous Nick - being in his echo chamber - had the bulk of the support on Twitter.....which he really shouldn't take as reflecting anything much.

If you can't be bothered with any of the above I don't blame you. It's enough to make your head whirl like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan after hours of dervishing at an Ottoman revivalist rally. 

Roger Harrabin is off

So Roger Harrabin, the BBC's environment [activist] analyst, is joining the exodus from the BBC - albeit not for a few months. He tweeted today:

Personal news: I'm leaving BBC staff in June after 35 years reporting on environment and energy. It's been great - but opportunities beckon in the post-COP26 world. More later.

 His former colleague Richard Black has paid tribute: 

Privileged to have worked alongside this usually brilliant, occasionally infuriating but unfailingly interesting brain for a decade at BBC News … a big loss, very hard shoes to fill. Intrigued to see what comes next for you, Rog.

And many of the people you'd expect have also paid tribute. So Roger's tweeted again: 

Thanks to everyone for the amazing tributes. I didn't know I'd need a hanky. I will be available for after dinner speeches, Bar Mitzvahs, weddings and funerals. Especially after dinners...

I'm guessing he won't be off to become a spokesman for any new coal mines in Cumbria.  

Meanwhile, I'm sure his remaining colleagues will keep up the good work. 

Here are a couple of links that suggests some of them - including the famous Marianna Spring - are already off to a cracking start, trying to bind together groups of people the BBC disapproves of into one handy, easy-to-smear bundle:

How the BBC is crushing the climate debate. BBC News is equating criticism of the green agenda with conspiracy theories and science denial.

A related Twitter thread

Marianna's made a career over the past couple of years reporting on anti-lockdown protests and focusing only on the conspiracy theorists in attendance, so much so that she risks being seen as a one-trick pony. Therefore, it's nice to see that she's spreading her wings and beginning to apply this narrowly-focused approach to another group of people the BBC disapproves of - those who don't adhere to the BBC's line on climate change. I'm sure Roger will be proud of her.

Well, Marianna?

Here's a good question from Benedict Spence [to which I think we can guess the answer]:

I wonder if the BBC’s specialist reporter on online disinformation will do a report on the aftermath of the Rittenhouse trial?

Becoming the story again

A recent selfie, posted on Twitter

Since when did expressing a negative opinion of a BBC reporter become an abusive, threatening "false claim"?

I ask this in connection to Marianna Spring, the BBC's high-profile specialist disinformation reporter - someone who specialises in "false claims".

By her own account, she's received many horrible, abusive, threatening responses as a result of her work, including death threats - something that's absolutely unforgivable, and I hope the police track down and prosecute every single person who has ever sent her anything threatening.

She's blurring things now though, and this needs pointing out.

She tweeted this screengrab today:

She then tweeted the following complaint:

I am often targeted with false claims like these. 

I’m the BBC’s Specialist reporter who investigates and covers the real world impact of online disinformation.

They often focus on my gender and age. I am young and female. That makes me no less qualified to report on this.

I work with a top team of experts and editors on this beat. 

It’s a beat which is increasingly important - and news outlets across the world have dedicated journalists and teams covering it. 

Read this to better understand my job.

I love my job! But want to call out this falsehood that is often shared online.  

Threats and abuse I receive are usually much more extreme than this - and that should never be normalised.

That description, however, isn't a "false claim". It's someone's opinion of her and her reporting. 

It's not a threat. It's not abuse. It's not extreme. It may be wrong (and certainly isn't flattering or kind), but 'some people would say' it has a few grains of truth to it - grains of truth she might do well to take onboard as a BBC journalist who is meant to be open to public feedback, including reasonable criticism:

1. She is the BBC's specialist disinformation reporter. 

2. That job description - and the unit she works for - does have an Orwellian "vibe" to it - especially if you know your 1984 and know the name of the corporation that was a key inspiration for Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

3. It's surely understandable that people might ask: What qualifications does she have to speak with such authority on vaccines, pandemics, electoral fraud and the like, and how does she know which experts to turn to for advise? Her degree is in foreign languages and her short post-university career entirely involved working for various media outlets, especially the Guardian and the BBC? 

4. Given that her qualifications don't seem to especially qualify her to talk with great authority on pandemics, vaccines, US election fraud, etc, it might well be considered "funny if it wasn't so serious" that she's been appointed "the arbiter of truth" on such issues at the BBC. Such a point of view is a matter of opinion of the kind that people, probably as part of being human beings, make about other people every single day. Why is it necessarily wrong to make it? 

(P.S. Whatever happened to BBC journalists going out of their way NOT to be the story?)

Seriously, is even this post 'abusive'? 

(This blog isn't a safe space for BBC journalists I'm afraid.)

(And Goodness knows how abused Mark Easton must feel by now, and he's neither young nor female!)

Victims of viral disinformation

If you're one of those people who believes that there was voter fraud and rigging in the US presidential election and that Donald Trump may have actually won the election, or if you're one of those who thinks that the deadly fracas in the Capitol building on Wednesday involved Antifa 'false flags'...

...well, here's Marianna Spring of the BBC's Disinformation Unit (on Thursday) to tell you that you're a "victim" of "viral disinformation".

(And Christian blames "the right-wing media" too):

Christian Fraser: It was so striking listening to those people as they went up the steps of the Capitol building yesterday Marianna about what they believe, what they understand to be true. What are they saying today on social media? What have you seen? 

Marianna Spring;  Those images, those interviews, were very, very striking because a lot of people really, genuinely, do believe allegations of rigged elections, of voter fraud - conspiracies that have been circulating on social media in recent weeks and months - very passionately, and in many ways too they have fallen victim to viral disinformation. Today we have seen even more disinformation online, more conspiracies. A lot of it has focused on who was there outside Congress yesterday and inside, and there are lots of images showing supporters of the QAnon Conspiracy - that's the baseless conspiracy that suggests President Trump is waging a secret war against satanic paedophiles - as well as those who are part of the Stop the Steal movement that emerged in the days following the election when it appeared that Joe Biden was going to win, and also extreme groups like the Proud Boys and others who have been linked to far-right groups and circles. But today the suggestion from those people, influencers within those conspiracy communities, was that people causing the trouble yesterday were Antifa - anti-fascist groups. There is no evidence to support that idea, and a lot of the pictures they are using to demonstrate that show recognisable conspiracy influencers, generally on the far right. So those claims are not true. But in the chaos of what has been building on social media, and in the days afterwards, we are just seeing more and more conspiracies. 

Christian Fraser: Yeah, and some of that is stoked by the right-wing media as well. 

Katty Kay:  I'm going to assume, Marianna, that all of that now gets traction, and that is what the narrative becomes amongst those groups. Does suspending President Trump make any difference in that case or is this bigger than one person now? 

Marianna Spring:  I think that it is bigger than one person. President Trump's social media accounts have been crucial to fuelling the conspiracies spreading on social media for a number of months. But what is key here is, this is not something that came out of the blue, It has been building online for weeks and weeks, not just after the election but in the build-up to that too. Conspiracies like QAnon have thrived on platforms like Facebook, like Twitter, like Instagram and YouTube, and President Trump since April has been tweeting allegations of voter fraud showing no evidence, claims about rigged elections that have further fuelled those conspiracies. So many people have been primed over a number of months on social media to genuinely believe false claims. And what you remove now and do now almost feels slightly futile because the very worst thing, the fears, were realised yesterday. And those fears were that not only viral information can inspire violence but in many ways it can erode democracy. We saw that happen. 

Christian Fraser: Yeah, Interesting that the DC police have asked for people to come forward with information. A lot of it is there on social media, You can tell who these people are, as you say. Marianna, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. 

Are you? 

Where's Amol? (Updated)

 

It's quite an astonishing act of censorship that Google has pulled talkRADIO's YouTube channel, presumably for 'sailing close to the wind' for giving voice to the sceptical minority over Covid-19 and lockdown, as if such views shouldn't be tolerated. 

talkRADIO is an Ofcom-regulated broadcaster that receives its hourly news from Sky News. 

It's owned by Wireless Group, which also owns talkSPORT and Times Radio and is part of the universe of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. 

Amol Rajan, the BBC's media editor has been highly active on Twitter today, but - so far - has been ignoring this extraordinary attack on free speech by 'Big Tech'.

Come in, Amol! One for BBC One's main bulletins? Urgent questions from you to Google/YouTube?

Anyhow, here's BBC disinformation specialist Marianna giving her "analysis", and sympathising with the predicament the poor, censorious 'Tech Giants' find themselves in. 'It's so hard for them having to decide to censor media outlets like talkRADIO but it's a job they've probably got to do' seems to sum up her point of view:

That's outrageous, but it's where we are with the BBC these days.

Update:  talkRADIO is back on YouTube, but Konstantin Kisin's earlier comments (before their reinstatement) still strike an ominous chord:

I am sure thatTalkRadio will get their YouTube channel reinstated. They have the lawyers, the connections and the money. I will be delighted for them when it happens. However, it doesn't matter. Today is the day we can all be 100% certain that free speech is over. Here's why:

When Big Tech censored the New York Post's story about Hunter Biden during US election, I told you (as a non-partisan) it was the biggest story of 2020. Big tech decided what was true in an attempt to influence an election. From there it gets worse: 

As covered by Glenn Greenwald, the Biden cabinet is packed with former big tech executives. His administration will do nothing to deal with big tech censorship. The only chance was Trump winning and being so pissed off that he took a sledgehammer to Section 230. Congress won't help - they don't even understand how big tech companies operate as we have seen from hearing after hearing. They once asked Zuckerberg how Facebook makes money if they don't charge users. 

There is a simple truth here: Big Tech has more power than individual consumers and creators due to their monopoly and they have more power than your government due to lobbying, geriatric politicians and political appointees from big tech backgrounds. And they know it.

Free speech online is over.

Update 6/1: As StewGreen notes, the BBC website article was re-written last night and Marianna Spring's 'analysis' removed. 

!

Marianna Spring, from the BBC's Selfie Dissemination Unit, certainly likes her exclamation marks! 

It's a toss-up as to which appear more in her tweets, photos of herself or exclamation marks!

Not that I'm innocent on that front. I learned from Sue that too many exclamation marks are a bit much (like laughing at your own jokes, as F. Scott Fitzgerald once remarked). I have been trying to limit my use of them ever since, not always successfully!

The best time to use them, of course, is when you're marking an exclamation - eg, "Lawkabiddy! That's a biased report!" - though they are certainly useful for suggesting that you're feeling perky today as well.

LAWKABIDDY, if you're wondering, was an 18th century exclamation of surprise or astonishment. I recommend it to Marianna. She should start all her tweets with it.

Experts now fear...

 

Talking of the omnipresent Marianna Spring, she was also on BBC One's lunchtime news today. 

The BBC has now declared Georgia for Joe Biden and Marianna was on hand to hammer home the central message about how badly President Trump (aka "Trump") is behaving and how something needs to be done to stop the dangerous disinformation being put out by the President and his #StoptheSteal supporters:

• "Experts now fear that online disinformation is undermining faith in democracy for millions in the United States."
• "The experts are worried about its imminent and lasting impact."
• "One worry going forwards is that this online movement could provoke unrest, as disinformation risks seriously undermining the faith of millions in democracy."

It looks as if "the experts" are back - though who needs them when we've got Marianna and the BBC?

The BBC's Selfie Queen

If 2011 was The Arab Spring then 2020 has been The Marianna Spring - at least as far as the BBC goes. 

Marianna Spring is the BBC's specialist reporter covering disinformation and social media, and she's never been off the BBC's airwaves in recent months. 

(Is she their busiest reporter?)

Her very active Twitter feed amuses me. It largely consists of photos and videos of herself. So much so that I've awarded her the nickname 'The BBC's Selfie Queen'. 

And she surpassed herself yesterday by posting nine images of herself in a single tweet:

The remarkable thing about her, especially given that she's young, is how much she knows. 

Never was the phrase "a wise head on young shoulders" more appropriate. She knows so much she puts the late King Solomon and the Encyclopedia Britannica to shame. 

The English scientist, researcher, physician and polymath Thomas Young (1773-1829) is usually considered "the last person to know everything" - i.e. to be familiar with virtually all the contemporary Western academic knowledge at that point in history. But now we have Marianna Spring.

Whether it's to do with US electoral fraud, Covid 19, vaccines, you name it, she's knows what's true and what isn't. 

She knows so much for certain, across so many fields of expertise, that the BBC should consider cutting hundreds more reporters' jobs and just let her do everything instead.

Plus that way we'd also get to see even more of her. 

And we'll surely all drink to that!

Update: Guest Who was thinking the same as me (?). 

I also suspect the hand of BBC Trending boss Mike Wendling - or, on thinking about it, even more likely, somebody above him - in encouraging Marianna Spring to heavily promote herself as the youthful public face of the BBC's specialist disinformation unit, and to do so by putting that face of hers on pretty much everything she posts. 

(And it also crossed my mind that Ash Sarkar might be feeling jealous as a result. It used to be her job to be ubiquitous at the BBC!)

Rumour-mongering from the BBC's Middle East editor

More from the BBC's BBC's Specialist Disinformation and Social Media Reporter Marianna Spring last night: 

And yet (h/t Terry), barely an hour earlier the "partisan news site" sharing one of the three "unfounded claims" she mentions - the claim the devastating explosion in Beirut might have been the result of an Israeli attack - was the BBC itself in the shape of its obsessively anti-Israeli BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen on Radio 4's Six O'Clock News:

A BBC journalist at the scene reported dead bodies and severe damage, enough to decommission the port - a huge blow in itself to Lebanon which imports almost all its needs. Smoke was already rising when the building was vaporized. Windows were broken across the city. Some local reports have suggested it was an accident at a fireworks storage warehouse, but many other theories have emerged including an Israeli attack. The Israeli military said it did not comment on foreign reports. Tensions in the heavily armed border region between Israel and Lebanon are high. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia and political party, threatened vengeance after one of its fighters was killed in an Israeli air strike in Syria. Israel has accused Hezbollah of mounting cross border attacks. If the explosion relates to the wider Middle Eastern conflict it's a serious escalation. If it is an industrial accident it could be another symptom of Lebanon's overwhelming political and economic crisis. all coming on top of a serious outbreak of Covid-19. That in itself will cause more national despair in a country that some local analysts fear it is collapsing under the weight of its problems.

As Marianna Spring says, that surely risks spreading misinformation. Both Hezbollah and Israel have ruled it out as an Israeli attack and the Israel government has offered to help Lebanon recover from this terrible catastrophe. Why on earth would he spread rumours of an Israeli attack? Isn't that astonishingly reckless and irresponsible from the BBC's Middle East editor so soon after a devastating event?

Spreading the news

Hmm. 

This was on the BBC News Channel at 6:04 pm today. 

The BBC presenter stopped an eye-witness in Beirut and said:

I just want to bring our viewers up-to-date with some information which had been provided to us by Jeremy Bowen, our BBC Middle East editor.  

I'm just going to read this out. 

A huge explosion has shaken Beirut. Footage on social media shows a building at the Beirut port being blown apart. 

A big column of smoke rising above the Lebanese capital followed the fireball.  

Some local reports - this is from Jeremy - have suggested it was an accident at a fireworks storage warehouse.  

But with tensions high on the border with Israel, many other scenarios are being discussed on social media, including an Israeli attack.  

The Israeli military has said it does not comment on allegations in foreign reports.

So that is just to bring you up-to-date with the information given by Jeremy Bowen, our Middle East editor. 

So there's the BBC's Middle East editor adding nothing of value, as far as I can see, but simply telling the BBC audience what he's seen on social media - and, for good measure, spreading only the anti-Israel speculation on there. 

Here again is the BBC's Specialist Disinformation and Social Media Reporter surely warning people against doing what Jeremy Bowen has done tonight:  

 

"If you're not sure it's true, don't share"

The huge explosion in Beirut has resulted in the BBC's specialist disinformation reporter Marianna Spring issuing the warning she always issues on such occasions:

Wise words. If only some of her BBC colleagues bore them in mind: