Correct/Clarifty

After a nearly two month gap where nothing happened, the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications has finally jerked back into life and posted another correction/clarification - an unusually quick one.

Today

BBC Radio 4, Monday 13 December

In an item about the rise in infections caused by Omicron and its impact on the NHS we said: ‘NHS England says between 20 and 30 per cent of critical care beds are occupied by Covid patients.... three quarters of those haven't been vaccinated.’

We also said that the ‘vast majority’ of those in critical care are unvaccinated. In fact, the most recent figures from the Intensive Care and National Audit Research Centre (ICNARC) show that 51% of intensive care patients in England with Covid in November were vaccinated and 48% were not.

15/12/2021

As ever, the BBC here protects the identity of 'the guilty party' at the BBC responsible for getting this so badly wrong. But, using TVEyes, it was quite easy to track down Martha Kearney as the one incorrectly laying emphasis on it being the ''vast majority'' [twice, at 6.55am and 8.39am - the later time before asking her interviewee if he thought it was time for ''compulsory'' vaccines].

In fairness to Martha, she was probably fed the false fact by inept elements of the Today journalistic team and simply parroted it. But I'd have hoped for better from her and that she'd have fact-checked it herself before repeating it [repeatedly].

Maybe BBC Trendling's Mike Wendling could free up a few of his disinformation team to reality-check the BBC itself for fake news and disinformation?

Good old letterboxes

Today Programme  5/12/2019   (2:20:02)

I think Martha Kearney has taken a leaf out of Andrew Marr’s little red book of interupterviewing.

Although the interruption quotient didn’t sound quite so excessive when I 'listened again', I noticed the Today Programme didn’t use the Islamophobia-related excerpt on Twitter. It’s impossible to convey the full ‘interrupterviewing’ tone in a transcript, but here's my best attempt. 

I’ve tried to keep to the appropriate punctuation  (onomatopoeic rather than grammatical) to indicate where the end of a sentence runs straight into the next one so as to prevent an inconveniently ‘premature’ answer, as in the emboldened section below.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

M K

I want you to address what’s going on, ah in your party, in particular the issue of Islamophobia do you acknowledge that this is an a-a-an-important issue for your party the Guardian last week talked about twenty-five sitting and former Conservative councillors being exposed for posting Islamophobic and racist material on Facebook and social media.

SJ

I-I- it’s a very important issue of course I acknowledge that and whenever we have found any kind of prejudice, whether it’s anti-Muslim hatred or any other type of prejudice, I’m proud that we’ve always taken action immediately as soon as that is presented to the party centrally

MK

That’s not the view of Sayeeda Warsi, the former Conservative cabinet minister who thinks that the party has been slow to act on this.

SJ

Look, I’ve got time for Sayeeda Warsi I’ve always listened to what her and others have got to say but she wouldn’t be knowledgeable of all the actions that we have taken, it’s right that when someone is accused that we look at the evidence but we have a zero-tolerance policy against any type of prejudice or hatred it is something - it is something I came into politics to fight, it’s one of the things…

MK

But have you been fighting hard enough within the Conservatives because Sayeeda Warsi talked to The World at One last week and she said she understands your position, she said it would be the career-ending moment for you to criticise the party for Islamophobia, but she hopes that one day you will be braver and bolder.

SJ (chuckles)

Well I have to say, with respect, saying that’s nonsense. This is - why come in to politics if you’re not going to make positive change and this is one of the things that has motivated me more than anything and it’s not just about me it’s something that the Prime Minister would never ever tolerate, and remember, this is the Prime Minister that has appointed the most diverse cabinet that this country, has ever seen and that’s because he…

MK (interrupts)
Would - would you have written an article, as Boris Johnson has, about…

SJ

…loves and celebrates the…

MK (interrupts)
……….would you have written…

SJ ..the whole diversity of this country.

MK 

Would you have written an article as Boris Johnson did about Muslim women wearing the veil looking like letterboxes?

SJ 

I don’t write articles so, but Boris Johnso….

MK

Would you use that language?

SJ

Well he was a journalist and he’s written lots of articles, as he said himself, you know, people can pick one word out or another but what matters is the kind of prime Minister he is going…

MK

So you won’t criticise that..

SJ

and when it comes to our nation and the great diversity of it, it’s hard to find anyone who celebrates it more than Boris Johnson does.

MK

Sajid Javod … sorry, (laugher) Chancellor of the Exchequer, thank you for talking to us.

SJ

Take care.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The BBC (as an institution) clearly equates Islamophobia with antisemitism. The  BBC’s default position is to regard them as two cheeks of the same arse. This might have something to do with rigidly presenting the appearance of ‘impartiality’ that the BBC is so proud of. I think this is foolish and ignorant, but it is what it is, and sadly, one is obliged to accept the situation.  

It seems to me that the BBC sees its role as one of redressing a (non-existent) imbalance. The Chief Rabbi has intervened in the long-running battle for meaningful recognition of the fact that the Labour Party is mired in anti-Jewish racism, therefore the BBC must counterbalance this with “Sayeeda Warsi.”

Remember the famous response to Dan Quayle likening himself to Jack Kennedy? In a similar vein one might say “Sayeeda, you’re no Chief Rabbi”.  Of course, it wasn’t Warsi herself doing the comparison - not on this occasion and not in so many words, but the BBC appears to be doing so on her behalf and making a similarly unfortunate analogy.

The BBC seems to regard Warsi’s demands as the ‘other side of the coin’ in a currency where her non-stop grievance-mongering is given equal billing to the once-in-a-blue-moon intervention by a religious leader whose role is traditionally a-political. 

I just watched Matthew D’Ancona on Politics Live saying he can’t vote for Boris Johnson because “he said veiled Muslim women look like letterboxes and bank robbers.” Deep thinking there, Mr A. Especially when you come on TV looking like you’ve been dragged through a hedge backwards. 

I’d love to know whether there is an acceptable description of the fully-veiled Muslim woman whose sole window of navigation is through a narrow slit of a peephole. What’s wrong with letterboxes, anyway? They’re a delight! Letterboxes still facilitate a human way of keeping in touch with others - that is until they’re as outmoded as fountain pens and paper. 

What will we use as a comparison when letterboxes are obsolete? Then we’ll only be left with bank robbers. No doubt they will still be with us.

Down south

Well, it's probably warmer than Morecambe at the moment:

About to broadcast live from Antarctica as start of special series on climate change @BBCr4today @BAS_News pic.twitter.com/bGaw407oA6

— Martha Kearney (@Marthakearney) November 23, 2019

Israeli elections

Tomorrow @Marthakearney will be reporting live from the West Bank to find out how the Israeli elections could affect the Israel-Palestine peace process 🇮🇱🇵🇸 Listen in from 0600 #r4Today pic.twitter.com/zAQTlz4BzD

— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) April 8, 2019

Well known BBC Today Programme reporter with the ‘radio-face’ and the ‘silent-movie voice’ is in Jerusalem, co-incidentally exacerbating fuelling addressing confronting Labour’s antisemitism problem head-on. 

Martha shares her findings, illustrating them with randomly selected, colourful vox-pops. We hear from a representative portion of God’s chosen people, left-wing Israelis and aggrieved, hard-done-by Palestinians.

More impartial reporting tomorrow as the results come in. Expect another wide-ranging spectrum of typically unpalatable sound-bites from the arrogant impertinent Israeli public. 

Tanya Joya

Here's the transcript of Martha Kearney's interview with Tanya Joya for your information. It's as accurate as I could manage. 

MK

You’ll have heard the home secretary vowing to do anything in his power to prevent people who went to Syria to join so-called Islamic State from returning to the UK. Shamima  Begun who joined IS at the age of 15 has been appealing to the authorities to come back with her newborn baby.  One woman who understands what that’s like is Tania Joya https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-former-first-lady-of-isis-now-loves-reform-jews-plans-to-visit-jerusalem/ who was once nicknamed ‘the first lady of ISIS’ after marrying an American Jihadi. She grew up in Harrow in north London and now lives in Texas after fleeing from Syria with her three children.

TJ

I understand that she’s a product of her environment. What’s typical of Bengali Muslim families is that we prioritise religious norms and rules and we don’t discuss at home the rule of law and respecting due process. It’s more about mysticism, (which we know we can’t (?) ) understand and it’s about God and they use it to control girls and the men use it to control women and, communities and it comes like that.

MK 


Is that what happened to you do you think?

TJ

It did happen to me because I moved from Harrow to Barking, and Barking is a hot pocket for extremists, but my parents, they’re from a generation that wasn’t too interested in religion, but it was cultural, so it wasn’t until they - after September 11th, like, I went away in 2003 to Syria and then I didn’t see my family for ten years and when I came back they were all really religious. And what was so ironic is that I stopped being a Muslim and I took off the hijab and things while after going to Muslim countries, to lived there, and I got turned off even more, and then I came back to London and all my family were practising and suddenly very strict on themselves and I noticed it wasn’t just my family, like, in London, in general, became a lot more… Islamic. (laughter)..it’s peculiar.

MK


What was life like for you when you went to Syria?

TJ

So I’ve been to Syria three times, before the war to Damascus and it was lovely, but it’s not  like going back in time because they were so hard back from the rest of the world, so I left….everything was nice then, but when my husband took me the first time against my will and I wasn’t ready to do that, to go to Syria during a war because I had children and I was pregnant and I wasn’t ready to see my children die, so yeah, I went into - it was a war zone - I got a taste of hell and I knew I wasn’t going to put up with it, not for my husband, any more.

MK


When you heard what Shamima Begum has been saying since she left life under so-called Islamic State, what do you think about the kind of things she’s been saying - she’s come under criticism from some people, for not expressing enough remorse

TJ

Yes. I mean who wouldn’t be frustrated, it’s like a parent/teenager relationship - teenagers are obnoxious, and they’re not really fully formed in their maturity, She doesn’t know what to think. Everything she’s saying, she’s just a mouthpiece for Islamic State. She’s just repeating what she’s been told she has to say. She doesn’t have her own thoughts because she doesn’t know anything different, she hasn’t had enough exposure. That’s what I believe.

MK

She has caused some offence in this country by making comparisons between the Manchester Arena attack on the Ariana Grande fans and the kind of bombings that took place in Syria.

TJ

I think, with these people, their understanding of life is warped. They don’t believe this life is real. they think it’s temporary, like a dream, like as insignificant as a dream; they think the real, life, the eternal life, starts after death. So they’re delusional, they’re living out this fantasy cos at one point in their life I believe they want to escape reality, and we have to get them out of that mindset because it’s very dangerous. It’s important that these people learn that you live once. And you have to respect life. You just don’t think oh, I’m going to kill a child, it’s ok because he’s going to come back alive in heaven because we don’t have a   ? in our religion. We don’t have to crack their way of thinking as they don’t know how to think straight.

MK

So what do you think should happen now to Shamima Begum?

TJ

I think the most humanitarian thing we can do is help her child, and we don’t want to separate mother and child, and she is a British citizen and she has rights and we’re going to show her due process and show her what justice is because she thinks a draconian lifestyle is justice, but it’s not; and she’ll learn that. She’ll mature, and she’ll learn where she’s gone wrong. She’s a smarter teenager than I was so I know she’s going to learn if she’s open to it, and I believe she’s just going to grow out of it eventually

MK


Although you’ll have heard what the Home Secretary Sajid Javid has been saying, he says whatever role the role who went to Syria took in the so-called caliphate they all supported a terrorist organisation and in doing so they’ve shown that they hate our country and the values we stand for.

TJ

He’s right, and he’s entitled to his views, but I don’t know if he’s a practising Muslim and I shouldn’t really judge him, whether he is or not, but there’s a child involved and now we know better, now we know she has an innocent life on the line, we can’t say ok you just have to die cos your mum was a 

foolish girl. We can do better. We can bring them back and we can show them how western values are more compassionate to humans than Islamic law.

Reshuffle

or 'avin a larf. (someone is)

Look at Guido —> The sidebar screams “PM runners and Riders.” I guess we’re meant to think PM stands for Prime Minister. Leadership election? Oh no! Not anerther wun! 

But no. It’s just the BBC reshuffling the same old same olds. 

Of course by the time I’d written that it’s outdated. Guido posts a new something every ten minutes.

(Back on topic) According to Guido, rumour has it that the contenders are: Emma Barnett, Carolyn Quinn, Mishal Husain, Martha Kearney, Laura Kuenssberg, Robert Peston (?) Vicky Young, and just for the hell of it, Amol Rajan.

A few btl commenters immediately said what I would have said, e.g.,  “time for fresh ‘talent’ ”, “at least Victoria Derbyshire isn’t on the list” and “stopped listening to PM ages ago.” 

Anyway, it’s Guido’s descriptions that amused me.

Emma Barnett?  

Headline-maker fast becoming a household name thanks to her fearless Brillo-style grilling of politicians.

Yep. She once gave Corby a hard time by revealing his shaky grasp of economics or something. She’s tenacious, which is a laudable attribute but not always productive  - think Paxman. But she’s Jewish you know; at least that will annoy the Momentumistas

Carolyn Quinn?

Experienced. 

Yes, but not all that likeable.

Mishal Husain?

Established presenter with internal reputation for even-handedness.

Are you quite mad?

Martha Kearney?

Huge experience of Radio 4‘s daytime news output over 11 years on The World At One. 

But I’m already tired of hearing her voice on the Today Programme. I have to say I prefer listening to male voices on the whole. (Not on the whole; on the radio.) 

Robert Peston (!)

Famous for his on air ‘banter’ clashes with Mair,..

Not really. Famous for his idiosyncratic delivery.

Vicky Young?

Chief Political Correspondent

Ah yes, name rings a bell.

Amol Rajan?

The ubiquitous media editor can never be ruled out of any BBC presenter role.

His contract stipulates that he has to be on everything, and now it’s getting a bit too obvious.

Jerusalem edition

I awoke to the business section of the Today Programme, which goes out before 7am.  For reasons known only to the BBC, they had decided to mark the upcoming Nakba day / Trump’s new US Embassy by despatching Martha Kearney to Jerusalem, and much of the programme came from Israel. Justin was back in London. 

The first Israel-themed interview was with Doron Kolton of TopSpin Security, a thriving Israeli cyber security company. The mood was upbeat and ‘can-do’.

 “The attitude here is - we have a problem, ok we will find a way to solve it,” said Mr. Kolton enthusiastically.

For one moment I thought some sort of turning point had occurred. A sea-change - but I was mistaken. The positivity didn’t last long.  In fact, that was it. After that interview normal service was resumed.

Still with business, we were treated to the travails of doing business from the “territories”.

 ”The occupied territories have a much tougher time because of the restrictions, you know," announced the presenter. “There are lots of little restrictions that you wouldn’t know about,” said he.

Well, we will in a minute, I thought.

“Did you hear Manal White, the MD of Zaytoun, talking about the restrictions that business and farmers face in Palestine on the Today programme. Listen again on BBC iplayer. Manal's interview starts at about 6.18am. https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player?”

...says a highlighted Tweet on the Zaytun website. Yes, we did hear it, and it sent a passive-aggressive message while advertising its produce.

If I were Craig, which I ain’t, I’d do a clinical analysis of the ‘for and against’ voices that appeared on this programme, time them, and deconstruct Martha Kearny’s questions and reactions. Unfortunately, I haven’t the patience, so suffice it to say that there were many more ‘againsts’ than pros. And, predictably,  some of the ‘againsts’ were left-wing Israelis. 

I didn’t spot any pro-Israel voices from the Palestinian side, nor any self-critical ones. The nearest thing to a conciliatory remark came from a Palestinian woman who thoughtfully posited that there might be some nice Israeli people. That is, after explaining why she takes her children along to the Gaza ‘protests’. "Because to get what we want there must be Blood”.

The BBC voices could also, arguably, be counted as: “against". (Yolande Knell, Barbara Plett-Usher, Tom Bateman as mournful as ever, Jeremy Bowen and the author of a book about Gaza, Donald MacIntyre.) Yolande (Rhymes with Roland) Knell gave us a brief history lesson about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians “who fled or were driven out of their homes in the ’48 Arab Israel war.”  Still, that’s not as loaded a version as Lyndsey Hilsum's, who just articulated something very similar on Channel four, only she said “a million”, adding that many were ”massacred”. 

Is it surprising that there’s so much Jew-hate around when these fanciful stories are bandied about?

Having written the above, I’ve just seen this summary from the eyes and ears of Israel-related broadcasting, Happy Goldfish. (I don’t know what he’s got to be so happy about) Here you can see the names set out so that you can have a guess who said what.

The most disturbing interview occurred when Martha went to Gaza to talk to Dr Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas. 

He made no bones about the fact that the violence in the current March of Return protests is deliberate and he made it clear that the 'peaceful' protests are no such thing. He was so open about his abject loathing of the Jews. that it was almost refreshing to hear it. I predict that most listeners will let it wash over them, perhaps wishfully persuading themselves that the nice old man doesn’t really mean it.  

He had a particularly colourful way of enunciating the word “Jews”, with the kind of spittle-flecked relish that only deeply-held, visceral hatred can evince. 

This bit was truly vile:

 “In 1220 Britain eliminated the existence of Jews, so if you are speaking about discrimination…. You are getting rid of the Jews - from your country and you established this state as a replacement, You put your enemy in our land as a sort of occupation, and to immunise your country against the corruption of the Jews.”

Martha said, a little sharply, “That's antisemitic!”  Martha should have been around to say that to Adolph Hitler. “You should be ashamed of yourself, you racist”, she’d say, and then the Holocaust would never have happened. 

(That’s sarcasm by the way.)

"We are not happy about any sacrifices... but nobody can prevent them" - one of the co-founders of Hamas, Dr Mahmoud Al Zahar, tells us Palestinians will keep trying to cross the border into Israel - even if that means being shot. #r4today pic.twitter.com/xk6WajZ7eN

— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) May 11, 2018

Germaphobia

"I'm also very much of a germaphobe by the way. Believe me".

So said Donald Trump yesterday.

After playing a clip of him saying so this on this lunchtime's The World at One, Martha Kearney said (with a droll laugh):

Coining a new word there I think!

Now Martha really should have Googled around before saying that. Just because Donald Trump knows a word she doesn't know doesn't necessarily mean that silly Mr Trump has just made it up.

Google tells me that 'germaphobe' is the informal word for someone suffering from 'Mysophobia'. Its growth in popularity (as a word) rose steeply from the last decade of the 20th Century onward. Some credit that to its use in Seinfeld - though its use there was probably a joke. 

Anyhow, for more on 'germophobia', here's President-elect Trump's beloved CNN from 2011: We're a nation of germophobes. 

And here's his just-as-beloved BuzzFeed from 2013: 19 Ways To Tell If You Are A Germaphobe.

Bone of contention

Today's The World at One on BBC Radio 4  began, as you'd expect, with coverage of the BBC Charter Renewal review. (Naval-gazing is a BBC speciality.)

After a short review of events in parliament came a discussion between the BBC's Martha Kearney and Steve Hewlett of the Guardian/BBC Radio 4's Media Show, which suggested the review wasn't as bad as the BBC and its supporters feared but that there are still issues of concern for the BBC and its supporters. 

Then came a much shorter interview with Peter Bone MP, a BBC critic. It was the 'balancing item' -even though it lasted barely more more than a minute (the shortest interview by far).

Astonishingly, Martha forcefully stopped him in his tracks as as soon as he raised what he described as his "main concern": BBC pro-EU bias. Martha clearly wasn't going there for anything in the world. Realising that, Mr Bone just laughed.

Then came Jesse Norman MP saying that the government's plan is great and the BBC is great. 

Then came Labour-supporting former BBC Trust boss Sir Michael Lyons (not that Martha even hinted at such a thing) attacking the government for going too far but saying that there is a problem with BBC bias: bias against Labour's Jeremy Corbyn. A somewhat-startled-sounding Martha Kearney not only didn't cut him off when he raised it (in contrast to how she treated Peter Bone when he tried to air his concerns about pro-EU BBC bias) but actually went on to press his pro-Labour 'BBC bias' point with Lord Hall. 

And Lord Hall was the big WATO interview today

He didn't agree with Sir Michael about the BBC's anti-Corbyn bias (you won't be surprised to hear), saying that the BBC is impartial (you also won't be surprised to hear) and that the BBC brings "light to controversy".

Lord Hall sounded pleased with what the government has announced. The BBC's Martha (gently) pressed him largely from a pro-BBC, Peter Kosminsky-type standpoint rather than an anti-BBC Andrew Bridgen-type standpoint.

And that was that: Lots of pro-BBC types having their say, plus (very briefly) Peter Bone. 

Meanwhile over on BBC One's News at One bulletin we got more of the same, plus three items on the EU referendum: Mark Carney of the Bank of England's dire warnings of the economic dangers of voting to leave the EU came first. A little later came the Vote Leave/ITV spat over whether Nigel Farage should be involved in a TV debate with David Cameron. And finally, immediately before the sports news (i.e. as the last 'serious' news item), came the news that the ONS has finally conceded that immigration from the EU has been massively under-represented in the government's official figures (not that the short BBC news item put it like that) - a point that many people have been saying might well give a huge boost to the Leave campaign.

So why did BBC One choose to 'bury' that story as a very short new item near the end of its lunch time news bulletin?

Wasn't that Peter Bone's point being proved? 

Get UKIP (again)

As someone not wholly unsympathetic to UKIP, am I being biased in complaining that the BBC is making an awful lot out of the accusations of 'sexism' against UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler? 

The accusations originated with Claire Gerada of the Royal College of General Practitioners. For the BBC she's merely the head of the Royal College of GPs. For me she's an avowed socialist with little (or no) sympathy for the party. As a result, I see her accusations in a very particular light.

The story features on the home page of the BBC News website - UKIP man denies sexism in debate - and is ranked in priority above the latest wave of mass murders in Iraq and the story about large numbers of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants having already arrived in our country.

And there's more...

The World at One discussed it as the second story in their running order (after Egypt), hauling in Mr Wheeler to defend himself. 

Plus I've just started listening to PM and Eddie is promising a debate between Ms Gerada and a UKIP supporter, so it looks as if PM is making it its second story too. 

And yet...neither the Sky News nor ITV News websites are making anything of the story. 

So, at least as far as the broadcast media are concerned (until Channel 4 News inevitably gets onto Mr Wheeler's case), the BBC stands alone in making this a massive story - and a negative story for UKIP.

Still, I listened to Martha Kearney's interview with Mr Wheeler on The World at One and I have to say that Martha not only allowed him to make his case but seemed rather charmed by him and that Mr Wheeler gave a perfectly credible and nuanced account of himself. I couldn't disagree with anything he said. 

That's something in favour of the BBC, I suppose - even if the prominence given to the story on The World at One does suggest an anti-UKIP bias. 

The bad side is the web article (linked to above), which strikes me as almost vicious. Please take a read of it for yourself and see what you think.

That PM debate is going on as I type. It's Claire Gerada v UKIP's Diane James. Ms Gerada is slagging off Mr Wheeler while Diane James is arguing against taking things out of context and playing to a political agenda. 

Who is Eddie putting in the dock? No one impartial would deny that Diane got a much tougher time than Claire, being interrupted and being asked tougher questions, with more than a flavour of cynicism in the way Eddie put one of those questions.

As you may have guessed, I'm something of an Eddie Mair fan but this wasn't impartial interviewing - even though he gave space for both guests to make their points. 

I may have a soft spot for UKIP but the BBC's coverage of this story today suggests they have something of a bias against the party. Hardly a jaw-dropping revelation I know, but there you are!

Update: Tellingly, BBC One's News at Six covered the story. ITV's main evening news bulletin didn't.

Still, at least the BBC bulletin only dealt with it briefly, near the end of the bulletin - unlike its Radio 4 colleagues.

Where all their speculation got them....

As discussed in an earlier post, Tuesday's speculation on Radio 4's Today with regards to the Boston marathon bombings tilted strongly towards giving credence to the 'it's domestic, right-wing terrorism' line of argument:

Evan Davis: We know it was Patriots' Day and a holiday in Boston yesterday. How significant might that be do you think? Or is it just the day the Boston marathon is run and, so, if you want to create carnage at the marathon that's the day you do it?

.....looking at this it seems as though the evidence is tipping towards some kind of domestic terrorism rather than something more Middle Eastern-related. Just because of the day, the fact that it isn't suicide bombers. 

The Today interviewers played down the opposing line of argument (for which there was, at the time, just as little evidence), that it could be a foreign or jihadi terrorist attack. 

Listening back to that days' The World at One and PM finds something very similar going on. 

On The World at One Martha Kearney posed this question:

Well, the marathon in the city is traditionally run on Patriots' Day, which commemorates the first battle of the revolution back in 1775, but in recent decades the day has become associated with domestic terrorism, the date of the Oklahoma Bombing. Does that give us any clues as to who might be behind the attack?

On PM Carolyn Quinn posed these questions [to Democrat senator Bennie Thompson]:

The marathon in Boston is traditionally run on Patriots' Day, commemorating the first battles of the American revolution. In recent decades though the day's become associated with domestic terrorism, hasn't it? The date of the Oklahoma bombing. You were the author of a report on that. Do you think that could give us a clue as to who might be behind the attack?

So when you talk about that [domestic terrorism] what sort of groups could you be talking about?

The same angle, as you can see, was being pursued across Radio 4's output on Tuesday. The wrong angle, as we now know. 

Neither Martha nor Carolyn pursued any other specific lines of investigation in their questioning.

That there had to be some speculation on Tuesday about the motives of the (then unknown) perpetrators is probably inevitable. That the speculation should have concentrated so noticeably - in the questioning of the various Radio 4 presenters - towards one particular explanation (the right-wing, domestic extremist explanation) at the expense of other explanations was surely not inevitable. It makes it appear as if the BBC was encouraging its listeners to leap to conclusions - the wrong conclusions hindsight now tells us - and steer them away from other conclusions (especially those concerning Islamic terrorism).

To quote David Preiser at Biased BBC:

If they’re going to wildly speculate to fill air time, then they should speculate about everyone, and not try to dismiss suspicion about one specific possibility. No evidence means no evidence either way, BBC. It’s just as wrong for them to remove one group from suspicion as it is to point fingers at everyone else.

Indeed.

Tipping the balance part 2

Complaints.

This is an example of a complaint from the PSC which in my opinion has little substance.

It concerned Martha Kearney’s interview with Mark Regev, which took place around  the time of the death of Rachel Corrie.

Rachel Corrie was allegedly mown down by an IDF bulldozer as she was protecting a Palestinian home. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it. 

Much doubt has been cast on the veracity of that tale, but suffice it to say that the late Rachel Corrie’s so-called heroism is legendary in the world of anti-Israel activism. A play has been written about her, and pages and pages of material in honor of her bravery are featured online. Her anti-Americanism and virulent hatred for Israel are less well-publicised. 

The complaint is about Kearney’s awkward attempt at balance, in particular in the wording at the end of this phrase: “Clearly Rachel Corrie was one of the casualties of what happened that day – and I know Israeli soldiers died too”.

The objection, as far as I can tell, was that Israeli soldiers did not die on that day, though if that sentence was correctly reproduced here it doesn’t even state that they did, (die on that day) and the complainant seemed also to believe that Kearney’s question carried the implication that Rachel Corrie’s death could be morally counterbalanced by soldiers’ deaths. Or something like that. The BBC Trust’s review doesn’t touch upon the fundamental questions surrounding the incident, so the fact that the Trust came down on the right side, ruling that “there had been no breach of the guidelines” was probably a matter of luck rather than judgement. Furthermore, the Tust’s acknowledgment that “the question was poorly phrased and therefore gave a false impression” was enough of a concession to the PSC for them to claim a victory, which in many ways it was, as the Trust, impliedly, accepted the anti-Israel version of the Rachel Corrie incident in toto. If that is indeed the case it rather undermines the PSC’s allegation that the BBC is biased against the Palestinians. But they wouldn’t see it that way. 

Corrie’s posthumous deification looks like a bit of a travesty. Firstly, when Corrie was run over she was crouching below the cab, out of the cab driver’s eye-line, where he couldn’t possibly have seen her. It is claimed that she wasn’t defending a Palestinian home, but, probably unknowingly, the entrance to an arms dump. There were discrepancies regarding the home, which was said to be still standing long after it had allegedly been bulldozed, and various additional circumstances involving Corrie herself as well as other Western activists. They were ultimately pawns in the propaganda war, which exploits foreign useful idiots because the martyrdom of a Westerner is more valuable to the cause than your common or garden martyr.

Another complaint, which belatedly succeeded in persuading the BBC to scrap some inflammatory material in an online description of a programme entitled “Gaza Surf Club” aired on 5th November 2012.

“The people of Gaza are hemmed in by checkpoints and walls, fences and watchtowers and few are able to leave the territory or to import and export goods.”

has been deleted altogether, as has: “defy both the Israeli blockade and a sea that's often polluted with raw sewage”. 

Were these sentences ever relevant or accurate?  Or were they simply symptoms of the Tourette’s anti-Israel tic that the BBC just can’t help.

A small victory, too little too late, but a victory nonetheless.

Here’s another weird complaint, which got nowhere. It wasn’t made to the BBC, but it was indirectly related by way of  the BDS movement, which is a typical manifestation of anti-Israel advocacy in the guise of pro-Palestinian advocacy.  Anti-Israel activism usually masquerades as Pro Palestinian advocacy, in that people who profess to support the Palestinians invariably prove to be far more interested in attacking Israel, almost forgetting the poor Palestinians in the process. Being honest about this would look like racism. Not would. Does.

 The Clackmannanshire Boycott Fiasco. 

Exposing council members to too much BBC and too little intellectual curiosity is the likely cause. It inspired council members make a sadly misconceived gesture, the exact nature of which is unclear, both to them and everyone else.  The complaint, which was made to the council and of course not the BBC, proved ineffective. Amusing banter (Modernity Blog Harry’s Place and more recently again, here) alleviated the gravity of the situation by making the council look a bit foolish.

“Clackmannanshire Council said it would resist all economic and political support for Israel in order to “end suffering in Palestine” 

says the JC article. This might possibly ease, if not end, the suffering of the Palestinians, by cheering them up. Resist! Resist! Go Clackmannanshire!

“The boycott was implemented by 11 councillors after lobbying by anti-Israel activists from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.” 

 Note the overt reference to “anti-Israel” activists. The councillor who entertained with his witty defense of their boycott-that-isn’t-a-boycott does appear a little confused. Asked why the council were being somewhat selective with their boycotting, specifically, avoiding anything that would inconvenience them, he declared:

“ The Council is not implementing a boycott of Israel. Council has though, agreed to resist, insofar as legislative considerations permit, any action that provides political or economic support to the state of Israel.” 

Resist! Resist! etc.

Not cutting off your nose to spite your face-ism is a wise kind of ism. Clackmannanshire council’s metaphysical resistance goes to show  that a complaint may be futile, yet usefully illustrate the ramifications of contagious anti-Israel-itis.

And now for something completely the same.  Mehdi’s weird interview with Lord Ahmed was mentioned on the Clackmannanshire thread by the way. That’s where I first saw it.

This time I don’t think Lord Ahmed’s, or for that matter Mehdi Hasan’s feelings about the Jews and/or Israel emanate from the BBC. They are more of an ingredient of the Muslim anti-Israel-ism that Mehdi had recently spotted.  But really, these two back-slapping co-religionists, aren’t they a hoot? Mehdi, with his cattle on the one hand, and his “Oh, look!  Antisemitism in the Muslim world!” shock horror on the other, and Lordy Ahmed with his Vicky Pollard impersonation “It weren’t me anyway, anyway; because I would never do that”  He couldn’t believe some ‘twisted mind’ said something he didn’t remember saying because there’s ”no word for Zionist in Urdu.” Which apparently isn’t even true, but yer but no and anyway truth has abandoned the good ship Ahmed.

P.S.

Who still thinks Glastonbury is cool? John Humphrys seems to. Him and Farmer Eavis. Oh, and the producers of radio 4’s Today. That’s how dumb radio 4 is these days. What are radios 1,2,5 and 6 for? Keep Glastonbury away from radio 4.