“The BBC News Channel could be gone by April”

You may not know this, so here are a few tweets from BBC News Channel presenter Martine Croxall's Twitter feed today concerning the future of the BBC News Channel. 

She's not happy:

• I think The Papers will be a casualty of what the managers are planning with one single channel.
• I make my feelings known loud and clear. We are told that the audience has not made a fuss about what's planned...
• I do not believe the true extent of the damage to the News Channel has been made plain.
• It’s being closed. There will a new world-facing commercial one instead. The UK will get simulcast programmes you can see/hear elsewhere already. A strand of breaking news for the UK on merit that a standby team gets on air from a rudimentary studio.
• The replacement channel will be commercial and aimed at an overseas audience. The UK licence fee payer will not recognise it.
• There will be lots of ad breaks to fill for UK viewers.
• The focus is to be “digital first” but that requires content. UK content comes largely from the BBC News Channel. Anyone who understands BBC News should know that.
• These decisions are being made internally at the BBC. I am speaking the truth but I’m sticking my neck out. It’s the equivalent of threatening to jump off a cliff. Who loses?
• Be prepared to be told that the UK will still get rolling News. What you won’t be told is that the target audience is overseas.
• I was told on Thursday that the audience has not objected.
• But people won't complain if they haven't been properly informed of what's in the offing.
• You are not powerless. Object to the BBC DG and chairman. To Ofcom. To the DCMS select committee. Make noise about what you value. Our bosses say audiences don’t care. The BBC News Channel as we know it will be gone by April if we cannot shape the plans.
• Without the BBC News Channel the range of UK stories and voices will wither. We give time and space to issues and to the Nations and Regions squeezed of other national programming.
• The claim is that the plans were announced in May. But there’s to be no audience survey.
• The news channel news was announced on May 26 but the true scale of the change was not made clear.
• Yes and the front half hours will be aimed at a global audience. You’d get those recorded progs on weekdays too.
• The BBC News Channel feeds many other BBC News services. It does so on a modest budget and very little internal recognition.
• Managers claim it has been publicised.
• The standard reply is there will be a channel. It won’t say it’s designed for commercial overseas viewers.
• That’s about the size of it. The rest of the time you will get output aimed at a foreign audience. And any UK breaking news will have to be put on air from a standing start by a small team.
• The management line is there will still be a rolling news channel for the UK but the small print shows it will be commercial and aimed at a foreign audience. Little room for adequate UK news coverage.
• The BBC4 change is years away. The BBC News Channel could be gone by April.
• So short-sighted.

Back on my hobby-horse

 

The BBC's flagship international affairs programme Dateline London [the one hardly anyone in the UK watches] reminds us why the BBC is the BBC and not, say, GB News.

This week's guests - two of the mainstays of the programme, the third the BBC's Asia/Pacific editor - said many interesting things.

I was particularly intrigued by mainstay Ashis Ray saying that Pakistan played a major part in getting North Korea's nuclear programme going. 

But it's long been typical of the programme that the majority of the people who the BBC invites to appear on the programme end up saying pretty much the same thing on most subjects, and there's too much agreement.

It's an extension of BBC groupthink.

One example...

What with all that's been going on with Joe Biden's hapless, dubiously honest administration at the moment, quite why this week's trio of guests kept taking potshots at Donald Trump seemed odd - especially as it's been eight months since Mr Trump was last in office. 

And, even odder, they barely even mentioned Joe Biden and gave him a free pass.

The reason is pretty obvious though, surely. 

These invited BBC guests have a particular outlook on the world - one shared by the biased BBC - and when they all get together they naturally bond by doing familiar mutual-grooming things...

...and also by very much not talking about certain other, uncongenial things - like how 'Crap hat. No rabbit' Magic Joe has been.

So what's more natural, when appearing on the BBC's Dateline, than to have a dig at the previous US president? 

Mutually-reinforcing digs at The Donald have been as regular on Dateline as even numbers in a list of numbers for well over five years now, and they've scratched themselves to happiness so many times that today's outbursts were merely par for the course. 

In presenting a weekly snapshot of world opinion, Dateline remains very selective. If there's just one Indian regular guest for well over a decade, for example, let him be strongly anti-Modi and not for one second think of inviting a new, pro-Modi voice in all that time. 

Very BBC.

A second example....

On the question of the UK government and Covid, all sang from the same medical sick note. 

The two non-BBC mainstays said that the UK government is being reckless by being so soft. They both want face masks made mandatory in the UK. And the BBC Asia/Pacific editor [Celia Hatton] wants the UK to do its international duty and cough up money and vaccines to vaccinate the world's poor. 

And BBC presenter and blog favourite Martine Croxall added to the unanimity by posing her questions from the 'Is the UK government being reckless in taking a light touch approach to Covid given how bad things are already getting and how much worse it could get this winter?' angle,

Here are all her comments and questions on the matter:

• Hello, and welcome to Dateline London. I'm Martine Croxall. This week we ask, has the UK Government announced enough measures to protect people from Covid, flu and a National Health Service crisis over the winter?
• Boris Johnson has revealed a light touch plan A and a tougher plan B to tackle Covid in England this winter. And many suspect that the UK is bracing itself for another grim few months. But is his plan enough? Hospitalisations are up. Diagnosed cases of Covid are still high. Parts of the National Health Service already say that they are under strain. It is worth repeating that the different nations of the United Kingdom run their own Covid policies because health is part of their devolved powers. Henry, looking into what Boris Johnson is trying to do to get Britain through relatively unscathed this coming winter, how well does it look like he is doing?
• Ashis, we have also seen several countries have been told that they are going to come off Britain's so-called red travel list, which will be music to their ears. A clear signal from the UK Government that they really do want to be open for business again but how wise is it, given the rates in some parts of the world? 
• Celia, here in the United Kingdom, there has been a massive push for people to be vaccinated. Adults first, then older teenagers and now young teenagers, 12-15. We are seeing massive differences though around the world, particularly the parts of the world that you cover in how much vaccine is available. 

Such uniformity of thinking is very BBC, and the mirror image of the uniformity of thinking that sometimes afflicts GB News and this end of the social media spectrum - though, of course, neither of the latter are licence-fee funded so their biases are far less consequential.

I prefer Dateline London when the people invited to appear on it don't agree about everything. [Bring back Alex Deane!]. But editions where that happens have been the exception rather than the rule for well over a decade now. It's why the BBC is as bad as it is, and why urgent action is needed and why alternatives are vital.

Not controversial, apparently

 

There was a revealing comment, in passing, from BBC presenter Martine Croxall to Dateline London Canadian regular Jeffrey Kofman this weekend:

What Extinction Rebellion are saying, Jeffrey, isn't exactly controversial, is it? 

Hm. 

Some - at the very least - of what they're saying is certainly controversial - e.g. their claims, and their targets, and the possible economic impact of their proposals.

Is this rosy view of XR common at the BBC?

A good deal of criticism

I suspect the silent (silenced?) majority in this country appreciated Dominic Raab's refusal to 'take the knee' in support of the extremist Black Lives Matter movement.

But there's no escaping the engulfing madness at the moment, and - after a huge Twitterstorm - he's now been forced to semi-apologise, despite being right.

Turn to the BBC though, and it's clear they think he was wrong.

You had, for example, their obedient deputy political editor Norman Smith babbling on this lunchtime about "the fact that [Dominic Raab] knows he has blundered badly and caused unnecessary offence by his remarks, and bear in mind this is the Foreign Secretary, so one of the most senior figures in government and, on top of that, the man meant to be in charge of the diplomatic service and yet, at the very least, his remarks are deeply undiplomatic".

And, reviewing that on TV Eyes, you see that disapproval in BBC News Channel presenter Martine Croxall's facial gestures and vocal intonations as she tees up Norman's damning commentary by describing what Mr Raab said. Every contour of her face, every modulation of her voice, signalled the presence of a ten-foot barge pole between her and the BBC and Mr Raab's comments.

BBC One's News at One was at it too, focusing on the "The Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has been heavily criticised" angle. After playing a clip from Mr Raab's interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer which ended with Julia laughing, the BBC's Chris Mason put on his most serious voice and said "Others aren't laughing" and quoted David Lammy slamming Mr Raab. Two 'talking heads' were also featured (Lisa Nandy and Sir Ed Davey), both slamming Mr Raab. And Chris Mason's narration then ended by saying: 

Taking the knee has become a symbol of global protest loaded with huge feeling and sensitivities. One critics insist their man's diplomatic language from the Foreign Secretary. Chris Mason, BBC News. 

Lots of people agreed with Dominic Raab's original comments. So why not feature some of those? Why only feature critics? And why back up those critics with a narrative wholly in tune with theirs, rather than a balanced report?

And Chris Mason is usually one of the better ones at the BBC. 

And going back to Norman Smith earlier, he'd ended his chat with Martine Croxall entirely in terms of this 'critics are saying' angle, so beloved of the BBC these days: 

Quite apart from the row his comments have caused [not how Norman 'victim-blames' Mr Raab for 'causing' the row with his comments, rather than putting it more neutrally, or noting the fact that the row was 'caused' by his critics concocting a storm about them], the timing is also deeply damaging, because it comes, of course, as President Macron is about to arrive in London a hugely symbolic moment, to mark the 80th anniversary of the wartime broadcast by General de Gaulle encouraging the French to carry on with their resistance against the Nazis, and it is a big, big moment diplomatically, but also for the French, so the timing for the Foreign Secretary to be embroiled in a separate set of headlines is not good, added to which it comes just days after Boris Johnson launched his race commission, in part in response to the protests we saw from the Black Lives Matter movement. At the time, it also faced a good deal of criticism from people who suspected that it was all being rushed out and hadn't really been thought through and it was just another report and an attempt to deflect attention from the protests, and [and here comes the editorialising!] I suspect the fears of those critics, that somehow the government just doesn't get it, will have been further bolstered by Dominic Raab's comments this morning.

I like Norman Smith, but that's not neutral reporting.

And how did Martine Croxall interview Sir Ed Davey? Well, she began with this question...

Dominic Raab has issued a correction, clarification, he's saying that people have every right and he respects anyone who chooses to take the knee. How sufficient is that?

…and then let him speak uninterrupted and without challenge throughout. Sir Ed duly delivered an Emily Maitlis-style diatribe.. The only other thing the BBC's Martine said was, "Sir Ed Davey, acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, thank you very much for your time today".

And how sufficient is that, Martine? Why not challenge him?

There's more of this kind of thing that ever at the moment, which is why - for me - the BBC is becoming absolutely insufferable. 

Begum yet more questions

The BBC and Sky were immensely proud of their Shamima Begum 'scoops'. They'd got to speak to her, interview her and report her comments, plus the pleas of her family and her jihadi husband on her behalf.

But tonight it's The Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday who appear to have really taken the story forward and cast serious doubts on her claim to have been an innocent abroad - a mere jihadi bride.

The Sunday Telegraph reports "well-placed" Syrian sources, some of whose claims (they say) have been confirmed by Western intelligence, stating that Miss Begum was well-known as brutal enforcer in IS's morality police, in which she served for seven months. They say she carried a Kalashnikov rifle, and is "likely to have ordered the imprisonment and lashing of local women in Raqqa who were deemed not to be observing its dress code or were caught travelling without a male guardian." The sources also say she played an active role in recruiting other women to IS's cause. 

Meanwhile, the Mail on Sunday reports that British "spy chiefs" told Theresa May and Sajid Javid that Shamima Begum was witnessed stitching suicide bombers into explosive vests during the siege of Raqqa, meaning they couldn’t be taken off without detonating - information said to be gleaned from the CIA and the Dutch intelligence service. 

How will the BBC report this (especially having not got these scoops)?

Martine Croxall (her top is red because of her bleeding heart)

Update: Ah, I see the first paper review on the BBC News Channel tonight has discussed it. BBC presenter Martine Croxall's contribution was to instantly parrot the familiar BBC line on the story:

There are a lot of people saying, look, if she's done something wrong get her back here, put her on trial, and also she was only 15 when she went.

(Typically for a BBC paper review both paper reviewers said "that's right" to that).

I think you'll find Martine that even more people aren't saying "get her back here".

Further Update: In the second paper review, Martine didn't need to bring up her first point again because both of her left-leaning guests made it for it, but she did bring back her second point: "Complication here is how young she was when she went to Syria". And then, in a sad tone of voice, "But she also had two babies she said while she was in Syria, both of whom died" and, exuding sympathy, "You'd have thought people would have been watching out for them [the three Bethnal Green girls as they fled the UK to join IS]...girls who were so young". A remarkable performance from Martine. She could hardly have been more on Shamima Begum's side, short of wearing a 'Bring back Shamima" t-shirt.

Oh, T**** T****

How do you feel about T**** Robinson? (Real name Stephen Yaxley Lennon).

I think I was one of the first bloggers to give him the (cautious) benefit of the doubt, back in the olden “Biased-BBC” days. From a post in July 2011.

“Stephen Lennon AKA T**** Robinson – he has two names, so people usually call him the bloke from the EDL – had another grilling on BBC News 24 from £92,000 per annum worth of BBC anchorwoman, Carrie Gracie. However hard she tried, she just couldn’t trip him up, and she didn’t bother to conceal her frustration. 

Breivik’s insane killing spree has unleashed some unedifying spectacles of no-holds-barred lashing out at the ‘far right’ from the media and the BBC, and their favourite target is the EDL, which they see as the epitome of illiberalism and intolerance. The more Ms. Gracie insisted that the EDL had ‘the same objectives’ as Breivik and tried to connect him and his atrocity with the EDL as an organisation, the weaker her case became. She failed to ridicule him, trip him up, counter-argue or bully him on any level at all, but instead got herself more and more worked up, so that the whole of the following item was conducted with a rictus grin. 

By merely admiring the way Stephen Lennon stood up to the BBC I foresee the prospect of being inextricably associated with the EDL for ever more. But I support Israel, which already places me as a right-wing nutter, so what the hell.”

See how scared I was at the prospect of discrediting myself by offering a somewhat guarded defence of T**** Robinson? 

I still feel a similar sort of trepidation, because no-one wants to be dismissed as a far-right extremist. (Actually, am I bovvered? I mean one only has to look a bit like a Zionist to be classified as a far-right extremist.  As Stephen Pinker said - if we view the left as a pole - a spot from which all directions, by default, are right  - then weirdly, any position not overtly anti-Israel is deemed ‘right-wing’ by the left. See? Left = good; right = bad.)

I rarely listen to the BBC any more. The Today programme, Question Time and a couple of dramas, maybe, is all. 

Someone had tuned my radio to LBC, and I heard Matt Frei interviewing Gerrard Batten this morning. He was in sync with the Beeb’s Martine Croxall. What a revealing transcript Craig brought to us!

Matt and Martine’s shared attitude to T**** Robinson demonstrates the increasing vacuousness of the media these days. They seem to know next to nothing about western society’s inharmonious relationship with Islam, and even less about the public’s growing awareness of it. Matt’s dismissive view of Islamic extremism - “it’s only a very tiny minority” - echoes a particularly feeble defence of Brunei’s brutal new Sharia law I keep hearing. “Rarely implemented; a deterrent, is all.”

Coupled with Mishal Husain’s indignant reaction to the very idea that anyone should be opposed to Islam, the ‘London-centric media bubble’ or whatever you’d like to call it is looking ever more isolated from reality.

For that matter, the same attitude is found amongst most politicians. They all think it’s enough to treat T**** Robinson as if he’s so beyond the pale that they can dismiss him as a far-right racist thug and be done with it. Just like that. That’s how they rationalise the US tech giants’ collective decision to deny him a platform. That is almost unbelievable in an age where all but the most radical and extreme Islamic propaganda enjoys a prolific and unhindered media presence. 

What do I think of T**** Robinson? Firstly, I have to admit that the hostility he endures from all and sundry almost drives me towards overlooking his shortcomings. 

What are they? (You ask.)

  

Firstly, his ill-advised cul-de-sac type deviations that distract from the main issue. When he’s calm and reasoned he can be knowledgable and articulate. He has come a long way, but there are still plenty of rough edges, but he is apt to sabotage his own legitimate arguments by unnecessarily introducing irrelevant ones. 

The case against Cambridgeshire police was one such. He will borrow some of the more lamentable tactics from the people he opposes to beef up his case. For example, exaggerating the psychological damage to his ‘babies’ at the hands of the police, whose clumsy handling of the eviction from that pub seemed quite unfair; although this is a rather weak point of mine, I’d say he well knows that losing his anonymity is part and parcel of his activism. It’s not quite as bad as Sadiq Khan’s inappropriate reflection concerning city dwellers and terrorism, but Tommy has effectively given up his personal freedom by dint of his notoriety. That’s life I’m afraid. No use complaining about the fact that activism and celebrityhood entail sacrificing an element of personal privacy. The judge was right in to throw out this case; it was an utter waste of dosh.

Another TR video (there are still thousands out there despite the best efforts of the no-platforming project) shows Tommy outside the BBC, criticising the Cecil Rhodes Eric Gill statue on the grounds that Gill was a paedophile, ranting that the BBC “refuses” to dismantle the statue, and foolishly confusing the words ‘incestuous’ and ‘insidious’ in the true Mrs Malaprop  tradition.

I also think there are as many weak arguments in the PanoDrama film as there are strong ones, and I suspect Tommy himself probably recognises them. (I hope so.)

T**** Robinson lacks sound tactical guidance, and he could really do with someone on his team who can spell (for the subtitles.)  If you’re going to make significant headway, you need to pay attention to these things.

I’d be interested in any comments you Tommy fans out there might care to make.

Transcript, BBC News Channel, 5th April 2019, 7.10 pm: Gerald Batten v Martine Croxall

Martine Croxall

Martine Croxall: Let's speak to the UKIP leader Gerard Batten, who's in our Westminster studio. Mr. Batten, good evening. Thanks very much for joining us.  How likely is it that you will want to stand in the European elections and field candidates for UKIP? 

Gerard Batten: Well, we thought that this was going to happen for months, so we've been preparing for months because I've always...you know, I've predicted every stage of this for the last couple of years, of where we were going to be, and reluctantly we knew it was going to be betrayed and reluctantly we've had to prepare for European elections. So. we've already gone through 190 candidates in a selection process. We've whittled that down to 73. We've selected our candidates. They now just have to be positioned on the list, and we'll be doing that within the next few days. So we're ready to go. We're raising the money. We've had our campaign planned. So we intend to fight that election on a platform of unilateral unconditional withdrawal, no compromise, no surrender, and we are going to represent the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. And a lot more now, I think, have come round to that point of view. 

Martine Croxall: Well, some polls suggest the opposite. But, as we know, polls can tell us different things depending on what we ask. But you talk about 'betrayal'.  The Prime Minister has said though she is doing all she can to get the UK out of the EU with a deal as fast as possible. So it might not be necessary to stand in these elections. Why would you bother if we're likely to come out sooner rather than later? 

Gerard Batten: Well, I've had to prepare - it was my responsibility - because we can't suddenly find we're in the European  election and we've made no preparations, so we're ready to go. It is difficult to see how anything is going to happen now because Parliament has consistently voted against any deal - and I didn't like the deals anyway. They voted against them. They voted against no deal. And now Mrs May, in her inimitable style, has gone and handed the ball back to the European Union and said basically if there's no further agreement reached in Parliament then we'll have to go forward into the European elections. And ,of course, what the European Union wants is, although I'm sure it doesn't want a lot of UKIP MEPs back, but it would rather have UKIP MEPs back in the parliament than have the UK out of the European Union. So I think that's just something they're prepared to live with. So I think it's likely...

Martine Croxall: (interrupting) What should viewers...what should voters...make of your choice to share a platform with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who likes to be known as Tommy Robinson? For a lot of people his views on race, immigration and Islam are repellent. 

Gerard Batten: He's not got any views on race. Because Tommy Robinson, if you... Why don't you have Tommy Robinson on one of your programmes and ask him his real points of view? We had a rally last week, which was basically sponsored by Tommy Robinson and his news service, Tommy Robinson News, which we wouldn't have been able to hold otherwise because we couldn't have spared the money to pay for it. You make these accusations about Tommy Robinson, which I'm rather tired of, to be honest, because I think if you want to call him names...

Martine Croxall: (interrupting) What about his tweets? Have you not read his...I mean, have you not read his tweets? 

Gerard Batten: ...if you want to call him names...

Martine Croxall: It's not calling him names. It's describing...

Gerard Batten: ...why don't you have him on your programme and ask him the question?...

Martine Croxall: ...it's describing some of the things he says on the platforms that he, at times, has shared with you and it's also looking at the way he uses social media. He is offensive. 

Gerard Batten: Well, he's never said anything racist. I wouldn't be on a platform with him if he had. He talks about Islamic ideology, and he's helped to write a book about that, and that is fair enough to have a critique of an ideology. That doesn't make somebody a bad person or justify the names he gets called. And as I've said, all these people that keep asking me about Tommy Robinson, why don't you have him on your show and ask him yourself? 

Martine Croxall: Well, it's perfectly legitimate to ask you about Tommy Robinson, or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, as his real name is, because you choose to appear in public with him and I have just been... Before I decided to interview you, before this interview took place, I went back and looked at some of the reports about him. I went back and looked at some of his tweets. They are so offensive, that I wouldn't read them out on television. 

Gerard Batten: Well, I've been on platforms with Labour MPs, Conservative MPs, people of all kinds over the years, and I don't go into every detail of what they may or may not have said in the past....

Martine Croxall: (interrupting) But they're not...but Labour MPs and Conservative MPs, all the people that you name, haven't got his track record, have they? And the kind of language that he uses about people from Pakistan, about people who are Muslim, is not the kind of language that you get from those other people that you're talking about. It's not a fair comparison. 

Gerard Batten: You're now saying things but you're not prepared to read out what the tweets are...

Martine Croxall: (interrupting) Only because they're offensive.

Gerard Batten: I haven't read all of his tweets...Well, that's your opinion. I don't know what they are saying because I haven't seen them. I've met Tommy a few times...

Martine Croxall: (interrupting) Isn't that worrying? A leader of a party who wants to have people elected to the European Parliament if the elections go ahead is prepared to share a platform with someone who is widely reported to hold these views and yet you don't bother looking at them yourself? 

Gerard Batten: It's only been widely reported by people like you who won't interview him yourself. 

Martine Croxall: Because he has extreme views which have to be handled with care. 

Gerard Batten: So you're the censor now that says...People have views that you don't approve of, so therefore you don't have to interview them. 

Martine Croxall: (interrupting) No, it's not...the head of editorial policy makes...the head of editorial policy...

Gerard Batten: I get this on every programme I go on. Basically what you are...you represent a Remainer organisation of the media and the easiest way to have a go at what I represent is to bring him in and talk about him when you will talk to him personally yourself. 

Martine Croxall: (Pause) Many people believe the BBC...to...to...have...to...to...er...have been more on the Leave side of the campaign. We seem to upset people on both sides. Our head of editorial policy makes the decision about whether we interview people like Tommy Robinson, not me. How many seats do you think you will get if these elections go ahead? 

Gerard Batten: Well, we came top of the poll last time with 24 seats. Since we are the authentic party of Brexit, and we will be standing for an absolutely clean exit from the European Union, I would expect to do very well. I never make predictions. I've been leader of this party for 13 months. I under-promise and over-deliver, and that is the way I intend to go on. 

Martine Croxall: Gerard Batten, thank you very much. 

But...

Martine Croxall giving the trumbs down to Brexit?

And now, before I go and lie down, here's a link to last night's paper review on the BBC News Channel which will bring us back to the reality of BBC bias:

The Papers, BBC News Channel

Please watch BBC presenter Martine Croxall and pro-EU former Lib Dem spokeswoman Jo Phillips gang up on the pro-Brexit-sounding chap from the Evening Standard, and just savour the moment when Martine seems to realise that she'd gone too far in defence of the EU and makes an 'off course that's not my opinion' comment to camera before then, very soon after, returning to the fray with Jo and defending the EU against the chap from the Evening Standard who spent most of the episode saying he didn't agree with that. 

In less than 15 minutes this programme provided a classic demonstration of BBC bias in action. Listen to it while you can. Maybe complain to the BBC while you can. (Not that it will do you any good). 

Nothing to see here!

Unintentional comedian Paul Mason tweeted what Frank Carson would doubtless have called "a cracker" this morning. His tweet began reasonably enough: 

The Telegraph’s “spy” smear  @johnmcdonnellMP is literally fake news. 

but then his tinfoil hat went straight back on again:

The whole operation seems co-ordinated from Tory HQ...

Lovely use of the word 'seems' there, Paul!

Now, Brother Paul isn't the only one who doesn't reckon much to the Sunday Telegraph's lead story today:

Andrew Marr gave it short shrift this morning:

They've also got the story about Jeremy Corbyn and the Czech agent. I should say that this has been comprehensively and absolutely denied as "lies and rubbish" by all of the politicians concerned and it does seem, reading through it, fairly thin." 

and Martine Croxall & her fellow paper reviewers judged it to be a "non story" on the BBC News Channel last night. 

So that's that then for the poor old Sunday Telegraph it seems! 

"Whatever else it is it's a sad, sad story for him"

There was a striking statement from Andrew Marr this morning, during his run-through of the newspaper front pages:

And finally the Mail on Sunday, the interview there with Jo Cox's widower - a very sad story actually, given what that man has gone through. Whatever else it is it's a sad, sad story for him. 

That echoes what he said last week, when he again called it "a sad story".

This was followed by an even more striking gesture: His paper review chose not to discuss the Mail on Sunday story.

Brendan Cox has been interviewed twice by The Andrew Marr Show. I suspect that Andrew & Co. have developed protective feelings towards him and that they would say that they were just being "nice and friendly and human" by drawing a veil of sympathy over his fall from grace. 

Martine Croxall

Last night's The Papers on the BBC News Channel, presented by Martine Croxall, were also notable for their treatment of this story. They did discuss it. In the first paper review, Martine began by saying, "Oh right. Here we go. Mail on Sunday", looking and sounding as if she was talking about this story with a heavy heart. And in the second paper review, she said, "Let's start with the Mail on Sunday, and Brendan Cox" and then she sighed. Both times she immediately took issue with the Mail on Sunday:

Oh right. Here we go. Mail on Sunday. '"Yes, I was a sex pest" confesses Jo Cox's husband'. This is Brendan Cox, "sensationally admitting"...This is not quite what he admitted if we read the quotes...

Let's start with the Mail on Sunday, and Brendan Cox. (Sighs). We have to take issue though, straightaway, with the headline. "Yes, I was a sex pest, confesses Jo Cox's husband". He didn't say that in this article.

She also said that of Brendan Cox's the phrase "years later" to describe now as compared to then - when the alleged incidents took place - even though they are alleged to have occurred in 2015 (2-3 years ago), and read out in full the Jo Cox Foundation's tribute to Brendan before saying, "So he's taking a step back because he does not want this [the 'inappropriate behaviour'] to get in the way of all of that [the Jo Cox Foundation's good work]".

I don't doubt that she was trying to be 'nice and friendly and human' too towards someone she feels sympathetic towards.

Of course, as you'll know, plenty of others feel very little sympathy for Brendan Cox. You only have to read the comments under the Mail on Sunday article to know that.

And the criticisms of Andrew Marr and his editor are already coming in, some measured in tone -

Hi @RobBurl I’m curious to know why #marr felt the need to express sympathy for Brendan Cox considering he’s only got himself to blame. No one else.

Thought @RobBurl perhaps it cld be useful to suggest to editor of @newswatchbbc to interview the editor of #Marr about when why and how stories are selected to be covered or not on newspaper reviews (for legit editorial or legal reasons doubtless) but just help deflect critics. [Ed - For those who don't already know, Rob Burley is also the editor of BBC Newswatch!]

- others less so:

Defender of sexual abuse, and you’re the editor! Shame on you!  #partofthecoverup

Rob is yet to reply.

Update: Rob has replied:

"We don't dictate to the reviewers which stories they must do. They chose".

That's fair enough, and answers that charge:

MrMacphisto #JRM4PM: He’s admitted it and resigned since last weekend, which I think is newsworthy. Or am I missing something? Tony Young treatment was rather different I recall.
Rob Burley: It was in the news and we reported the front page. The reviewers didn't chose the story. That's it.

And one of the paper reviewers, the Sunday Express's Camilla Tominey, has backed Rob up:

As a reviewer I can confirm we didn't choose it - we felt it had been done last week and that there were other stories more relevant to the public. 

As to Mr. Marr's overt expressions of sympathy for Brendan Cox, it will be interesting to read Rob's take on that too.

Further Update: Actually, Andrew Marr himself has saved Rob the need and responded first:

It's admirable that Andrew has responded to viewers' concerns (just like his editor), though it must be said that the comments (in response to his response) could be going a lot better for him (e.g. '"Sorry if taken the wrong way"= it's your fault for not understanding. Unbelievable' and 'Still no condemnation of his behaviour!').

Further Further Update: On things go...

"Little Tim"

If there's one bias that even BBC insiders will sometimes admit to it's that the BBC has a strong social-liberal bias - though, of course, that's also true of many broadcast media journalists well beyond the BBC (though we don't pay for them via a compulsory licence fee).

One of the odder events of last week seemed to manifest that: namely what Stephen Daisley at The Spectator called "the cruel hounding of Tim Farron" over his views on gay sex. 

Though it was Channel 4 News (in the form of Cathy Newman) and ITV (in the person of Robert Peston) who really set this fox running, the BBC sounded the tally-ho too, most strikingly in a report/interview with Mr Farron by Eleanor Garnier which appeared on BBC One's News at Six last Tuesday. The report's introduction was accompanied by this photo of the 'shame-faced' Lib Dem leader:

The tone of the reporting was of Tim Farron finally 'fessing up after "having declined to answer the question" or having "refused to answer this question" despite being asked about it "again...and again":

It's taken him almost two years, since becoming the leader of the Lib Dems, to clarify his position. But the pressure has increased since the election was called. 

- and it was explicit about his Christianity ("Mr Farron, who's a Christian...", "the Lib Dem leader, a committed Christian...", "your Christian belief"...). 

Plus the questioning was accusatory:

• So, what's changed in the last 48 hours that you are now able to say that you don't think gay sex is a sin, yet for the last two years you have very blatantly swerved the question? 
• So you were either misleading people before, or you are misleading people now. Which is it? 
• Isn't it just that it is your Christian belief, and you didn't want to admit it? 
• So this is blatant electioneering? 

Some have wondered, doubtless reasonably, whether a non-Christian politician would ever be asked such questions (especially the third one). 

*******

Tim Farron, of course, got called all sorts of things last week - "bigot", "homophobe", etc - but at least someone at the BBC was prepared to stand up to him - though naturally not over the gay sex issue.

And the word which broke the camel's back for that particular BBC presenter? Alex Deane's use of the word "little" to describe the Lib Dem leader on last night's The Papers on the BBC News Channel. 

Martine Croxall took great exception to him calling Mr Farron "Little Tim"; indeed, she gave him such a prolonged, schoolmarmish dressing-down that she might as well have just told him to go and stand in the corner and stop being such a naughty political commentator. She just wouldn't let it go. (Alex took to Twitter straight after and began, "Well, that was weird".)

Though it might well make you cringe, you can watch the whole thing unfold by clicking this link to the programme (if I can get it to start at the right time).

It's well worth watching. I've never seen anything quite like it before. 

The festive spirit

Just to really get you into the Christmas spirit...

If you fancy watching a BBC presenter and a couple of her (pro-EU, rightwing-bashing) guests have a right good sneer at Nigel Farage, the right-wing press and British people who don't understand 'Europe' then please treat yourself to watching both of last night's editions of The Papers on the BBC News Channel. 

If you don't fancy watching it, please allow me to summarise then: Silly Nigel Farage! Silly Brits just don't understand how Europe works! OMG the Daily Mail! OMG the Daily Telegraph! OMG the Sun!

"It is impossible to keep track"

The Papers

Regardless of what you think about Donald Trump and his fitness to be President of the United States of America, it's surely beyond reasonable doubt that "a full-scale Corporation attack on him is now in full spate" - as News-watch's David Keighley put it the other day.

Yes, that may also be said of most other mainstream media outlets, but the BBC is the only one that people are forced (by law) to pay a compulsory licence fee to watch.

I've not seen much of the BBC News Channel overnight or today, but I did watch three short segments (about half an hour's viewing in total).

There was last night's edition of The Papers with its very cosy consensus between the BBC presenter and her two journalist guests from the Times and the FT on Trump and Brexit-related matters (biased in all the expected ways), with Martine Croxall adopting a special, slightly derisive tone when talking about Nigel Farage.

Then there was BBC Breakfast's paper review where the BBC's Rachel Burden shared a sneer, at Donald Trump's expense, with David Davies (formerly of the FA and the BBC).

Then I switched on (at around 10:10) and witnessed Gavin Esler interviewing an anti-Trump author and cosily reinforcing everything that anti-Trump author was saying in criticism of Mr Trump, with very little (if any) attempt at playing devil's advocate on Gavin's part.

As I say, those are just snapshots, yet all three contained varying degrees of bias - and all in the same direction.

Goodness knows what listening to hours of it would have yielded (other than a blogpost half a mile long)

As David said, "It is impossible to keep track", so why even try? The bias is all across the BBC. It's there for all to see and hear. I shall just resign myself from now on to just dipping in at random every so often and sampling (as above). That's all anyone can do.

Besides....

Though there's always the 'echo chamber' danger of seeing more and more people sharing your view and thinking that amounts to something significant, it really does seem to be the case that many, many more people are becoming seriously angry at BBC bias these days - and especially over the course of this year.

It seems to have gone way beyond 'the usual suspects'. Is it an explosion yet?

Complaints about BBC bias are certainly spreading like wildfire onto the BBC website, as anyone who regularly clicks on BBC Have Your Say threads will know.

Is this gentleman Catholic?

I just clicked on a few minutes ago - on another of their 'Fake News' pieces - and where I might have seen the odd anti-BBC comment at most a few years ago it can now almost be guaranteed now that there will be legions of such comments.

(Of course, it could be that 'the usual suspects' have colonised there too, but I don't think that's the explanation).

On this typical piece all of the top-rated comments are critical of the BBC. Here are the Top 5:

13. IWANTTOBREAKFREE: Dancer you are spot on. BBC has been ranting about this "fake news" issue all week with the inference that it affected the vote in the USA. This is despite it publishing its own "fake news" in the form of a supposed leaked Govt document saying there was no strategy for Brexit which turned out to be nothing to do with the Govt. Sadly BBC news can no longer be considered reliable. Look elsewhere.

11. Raskilnikov: The BBC and their ilk like to imagine that Brexit and Trump won because the people listened to the wrong advice, Murdoch etc as opposed to our moral guardians the BBC, the truth is people aren't stupid, they voted for Trump/Brexit because it was what's best for them, whats best for the BBC isn't what's best for the working class

3. BBCLeftWingBias: Facebook is cobblers, the BBC News publishes biased articles, the sun rises in the morning and water is wet. Move along, nothing to see here.

2. Dancer: So Zuckerberg is now political, BBC when are you going to admit you are politically motivated?

39. NigeM: The BBC is smarting because it failed to stop Brexit and Trump. As a result it is now slinging mud at everybody else because it knows its influence is on the slide. The population is slowly waking up to the antics of the BBC.

The top-rated comment there ought to be particularly painful for the BBC. It is well put.

"Hard Brexit"

If you recall, last week's The Andrew Marr Show saw its host wrongly characterising "hard Brexit" as "whether we try and get out very quickly and don't be part of the Single Market, have a complete block on immigration". Martine Croxall on one of last night's BBC News Channel paper reviews mischaracterised it in a related way (at 7:25), describing it as "shutting the borders and having no access". In this case, however, Toby Young was one of her guests and pointed out that no one's saying that we should 'shut the borders' and have 'no access' to the Single Market. 

Blind eyes

Catching up (h/t Sisyphus)...

Thursday night's The Papers, presented by Martine Croxall, discussed the Telegraph's main story, among others.

The Telegraph's headline was Blind eye turned to Muslim vote 'fraud' and during the opening run-through of the newspaper headlines, Martine, in that rather BBC way of hers, read that out as:

The Telegraph leads with allegations of electoral fraud in some communities.

When she later discussed that with her panel - former Labour advisor Ayesha Hazarika and Toby Young of the Spectator - she did read out the headline in full but then immediately went back to her own preferred way of putting it (ironically, rather seeming to prove Sir Eric Pickles's point in the process):

Let's just look at the Telegraph: "Blind eye turned to Muslim vote 'fraud'". We now have a corruption tsar, in the form of Sir Eric Pickles, who is saying that people are a little bit too... 'politically correct' is the expression that's being used...overly sensitive about looking at issues of election fraud in certain communities. 

Ayesha Hazarika (a Muslim) replied that claims of fraud should be looked into "regardless of the community". It's "not about sensitivities", she added. And we "shouldn't be stigmatising communities" either.

Ayesha and Martine were speaking the same language there.

"Something like 2 per cent of our laws in this country are from the EU"

From Maxine to Martine (whose names often get mixed up by people on blogs!)...

BBC presenter Martine Croxall's opinions on the BBC News Channel's The Papers have caused concern here before - and suggested a pro-EU bias on her part. (Our archive on her can be found here). Finally, it appears she's gone too far - even for the BBC. 

I first spotted that from a mysteriously brief entry on the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications page (whose link took you to another identically brief entry):

It then appeared in an article at Heat Street headlined BBC Presenter Caught Peddling EU myth. That presenter was Martine Croxall: 

While hosting a newspaper review last night at 11.30 on the BBC News channel, Croxall challenged pro-Brexit supporter and former Tory MP Esther McVey over the number of laws imposed on the UK from Brussels. 

McVey was trying to make the point that the EU has become dominant when it comes to legislation in the UK.

She said: “…Fifty per cent of the laws are now coming from Europe…” 

But Croxall interrupted her, and lectured: “That’s not true, though, is it? That’s not true. Something like 2 per cent of our laws in this country are from the EU.” 

Not only was Croxall standing uncomfortably near the impartiality line which BBC broadcasters must never cross, but she was also wrong.

Of course, the BBC only conceded the 'Inaccuracy' point. They didn't concede any 'Bias' point. 

But I would urge you all to watch that edition of The Papers in its entirety. (It's not long). Martine Croxall's challenges towards Esther McVey went well beyond that one intervention. They were relentless and overly passionate. She comprised something of a tag-team with John Stapleton against the former Tory MP. 

Yes, Miss McVey probably talked too much and some balancing points needed making for the sake of BBC balance, but I think Martine went seriously OTT here.

Purely incidentally, it looks as if Martine is going to have to amend her LinkedIn page. One of her 'current' roles looks if it might be ending very soon!:

Martine Croxall in the Nile

Martine Croxall, on her high horse again

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you must have missed Martine Croxall doing the papers late last night. Her comments about Trevor Phillips’s “What Muslims really think” articles were pure BBC.  Denial is absolutely not just a river in Egypt.

                                                     Sue, Is the BBC biased?

Yep. 

Martine Croxall's BBC News Channel paper reviewers were describing the Trevor Phillips/'What British Muslims Really Think' story in the Daily Mail last night, when Martine decided she had a point to make and went on to mount her high horse (in a very animated fashion):

Martine Croxall: But to say 'all Muslims are the same' is quite ridiculous, isn't it?  

Yeah, and there's a hashtag #WhatBritishMuslimsReallyThink - really, really caught people's imagination on Twitter. Things...saying things like "This is so tiresome and passé. Can't we just be treated like everybody else?". 

And some of the stuff is very funny, some of the comments that they're saying...you know, "Shall I put my cream on my jam or my jam on my cream? #WhatDoMuslimsReallyThink", you know, from a Muslim in Devon. 

I mean, it's making light of it because it's saying not all Muslims are the type that [starts laughing] this article's talking about.

Talk about erecting a straw man! 

As if Trevor Phillips actually said that 'all Muslims are the same' or wrote in his article that "all Muslims" are of one "type"!

It was an truly ridiculous outburst from a supposedly impartial BBC presenter.

The whole tenor of the discussion changed as a result. Her guests (hitherto neutral-sounding) started saying things like, "Yeah", "Well, it's like saying all Christians are the same", "There's the danger it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy as well if you try to put Muslims in a box", surveys can be "skewed", etc. 

What is it with BBC journalists and this kind of story? Impartiality really does seem to fly out the window all round.

*******

Trevor Phillips's Daily Mail article is a considerably shorter read than his Sunday Times piece. Its points are, therefore, easier to digest.

Here's something from it that Martine Croxall could have raised instead:

Finally, there’s the small matter of the Jews: 35 per cent of British Muslims – compared to 8 per cent of others – believe Jewish people have too much power in Britain.

Now that's a statistic that points to a very important story. 

Martine is innocent - says BBC

You may recall this post from a week and a half ago:

Opinions R Us

I was just reading Biased BBC and saw a comment there saying that BBC News Channel presenter Martine Croxall had made an extraordinary biased statement during one of Friday night;s paper reviews: 

BBC News 24 couple of nights ago: Vacant-looking Martine Croxall reviewing the papers with 2 achingly left-wing commentators. Comes to the story about the ECJ forbidding the UK from deporting Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law for terrorist activities due to her ‘right to a family life’.  Martine opines: “That’s why we need the ECJ, to tell us what do do in cases like this”. Her two comrades nod sagely. FFS!

I have to confess that I thought the commenter must have misheard because Martine Croxall isn't stupid enough to say something quite as biased as that. So I watched it myself, as you can do from 10:12 here (for a while). 

The conversation went on much as Chilli at Biased BBC described, with Martine chucking in the odd comment, such as "It comes down to that idea that you can pick and choose who you allow to have human rights. And I don't think the law allows that", until, replying to what James Millar of The Sunday Post had said about the European Court of Justice, Martine said (beginning at 12:17):

Well, that's why we have it, isn't it? To tell us what we should be doing in this country, to keep...checks and balances so that everyone has the laws applied to them. 

And then, with her guests nodding their agreement, she moved straight on to the next story, in the Guardian.

So, yes, BBC News Channel presenter Martine Croxall really did give us her opinion in favour of the ECJ on Friday night's BBC News Channel. 

Wonder how the BBC Complaints Department will explain this one?

Well, here is how the BBC Complaints Department explained it:

Many thanks for getting in touch regarding The Papers, broadcast 5 February.

We reviewed the programme and Martine was explaining in a factual way the purpose of the European Court of Justice, summarising its relevance to the story and how it had been covered by the Press. We've done a similar thing here in the video part of our iWonder guide, outlining the remit of various EU institutions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgjwtyc

It's also mirrored by the factual way the CJEU explains its role as 'Ensuring EU law is interpreted and applied the same in every EU country; ensuring countries and EU institutions abide by EU law':

http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice/index_en.htm

(Please note the BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites.)

The Papers does invite opinions and occasionally the presenter will challenge and probe the discussion, but in this case the closing remark was simply setting the institution in context. Explaining the basics of the Court's role was not an attempt to create a sense of bias for or against the EU in general.

I hope this addresses your concerns. We value all feedback we receive and your concerns have been sent across to the programme and to senior management.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

You too can 'review the programme'. The moment in question remains at 12:17 here. 

Was Martine merely making a factual statement? Or was she stating an opinion by saying of the European Court of Justice, "Well, that's why we have it, isn't it? To tell us what we should be doing in this country..."?