"Why not BBC News?"

Former newspaper political editor and ex-MEP Patrick O'Flynn wasn't overly impressed with the BBC's behaviour this morning: 

On the 8.30am Today Prog news the BBC reported that Meghan had said a member of the royal family asked *her* what colour the baby would be. By the 9am bulletin the word *her* had been dropped but there was no apology for the earlier instance of misreporting. Why not BBC News? 

Listen at 2hr33min35secs in as BBC News misreports Harry and Meghan's claims of racism against the royal family. Bulletin says "Meghan claimed a member of the royal family asked her how dark her and Harry's first child would be." Simply not true. 

By giving this false account BBC News has reported Meghan's claim as first-hand testimony, skewing any attempt at objective assessment about what may have happened. I cannot believe it has not already acknowledged a serious mistake and apologised for it. 

Looks like BBC News is just going to sail on without apologising for its untruth about the Royal Family on the Today Prog, hence further fuelling the idea of "Is it true or did you hear it on the BBC?" One day they'll come to regret such arrogance.

He described what happened correctly and sounded genuinely shocked, even though it's becoming pretty standard BBC behaviour these days. 

(A case of 'Hope springs eternal' perhaps'?).

I'm sure we'll see something on the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications page - which hardly anyone but us knows about, or reads - sometime before the end of 2022, if Patrick's lucky. 

Nick Robinson tweets

I've no desire whatsoever to write about Meghan & Harry, but I think Nick Robinson's editorial on Twitter needs recording for posterity:

Nick Robinson: Some dismiss it as a trivial Royal soap opera unworthy of the attention on serious news programmes. Yet Meghan & Harry have given young & diverse Britain all they need to see the Royal Family (tho’ not the Queen) as at best old fashioned & at worst bigoted. That really matters. 

It is, of course, only one side of a story which is, first and foremost, about family tensions. The Royal Family must now decide whether the traditional response - getting on with their duties which defy the caricature whilst saying nothing in public - is enough.

One of the upsides of Twitter is that people get to reply and this is, by some way, the highest rated response so far:

David Robertson: Such impartiality....such empathy...such understanding! You forgot to mention that they also let us see just how intolerant, self-obsessed, narcissistic, wealthy and entitled they are....I guess it just slipped your mind...?!

What Meghan Wants

“The BBC has an eleven-year Charter — our mission is secure until 2027. But we also have a mid-mission is secure until 2027. But we also have a mid-term review process for the spring of 2022.

WTF? As someone pointed out, the BBC is too vast not to have appointed a proof reader - (oops nearly forgot the ‘r’ ) -  to glance through the DG’s resignation letter before it went to press. The coffers have probably been drained by Sarah Montague’s massive payout. 

Anyway, I just thought I’d mention Tony Hall’s resignation in the light of his remarkably self-deluded cloth-earedness: 

“In an era of fake news, we remain the gold standard of impartiality and truth. What the BBC is, and what it stands for, is precious for this country. We ignore that at our peril.”

Beryl the Peril.

Which brings me to Mark Thompson who has evidently gained a huge amount of personal confidence since he left the Beeb to turn the NYT into a sanctuary of lefty anti-Britishness. 

On Marr yesterday Thompson showed no sign of the stammering hesitancy of old. If it’s that good at boosting one’s ego maybe we should all join Harry and Meghan across t’pond in their new aspirational 'commoner' role. (Pity Harry when Meghan decides she wants “a brahn baby”.)

Harry and Meghan

Meghan, Harry and the BBC

I think we need a thread on the BBC's Harry and Meghan coverage, and MB's fine pair of comments on the Open Thread accord so well with my own take on this that I'll re-post them here.

:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH::: 

Maitlis's introduction and Newsnight give us three choices for what prompted Meghan and Harry's decision: tabloids, racism or a valid quality of life choice. 

Are those really the only three possibilities? 

Maybe Meghan never really intended to make her life here. Maybe she wants to restart her Hollywood career. Maybe she's given Harry an ultimatum. Perhaps they simply can't cope with legitimate criticism. 

It's quite unacceptable I think to blame the press and "racism". Meghan was welcomed to the bosom of Britain, so to speak - I don't recall any racist comments. The press could hardly be expected to ignore genuine stories about fractures within Meghan's family. Once Meghan and Harry became a preachy, well they have to accept they cannot be seen to be hypocrites. The press were quite right to call them out on multiple private jet flights when they are moralising to the rest of us about carbon emissions.

:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH::: 

Further evidence of how out of touch they are... 

Maitlis sums up discussion of Meghan and Harry saying something like "Well maybe the public reaction will be different...maybe there will be an outpouring of love and support for them." 

BS. The British people will generally be thoroughly p'd off with them. For the following reasons: 

1. They have become preachy but when caught out in their hypocrisy, try to blame those who point out their hypocrisy.

2. They have turned their back on Britain.

3. They have disrespected our much loved Queen by not giving her prior notice of their decision.

4. The mention of money doesn't sit well - it's like that's at the forefront of their minds.

Emily Maitlis was talking to former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt, and reacted to him saying that a senior MP he'd met that day had challenged him about the public's reaction saying that the public has "a great deal of sympathy" for Harry and would support them. Emily said,  "There could be a huge split between what commentators think tonight and what the public sitting at home are thinking about this couple." Actually, as MB says, there's probably an even bigger split between what Emily thinks the public sitting at home are thinking about them and what the public sitting at home are actually thinking about them. 

It's a BOY!!!

Such exciting news about the “Royal Baby Boy”.

The BBC has shown an unwholesome interest in the fact that Meghan and Harry’s newborn child has presented itself themselves Xe’s self as a ‘boy’,  rather than a ‘girl’.


But surely it’s up to him/her/it/them/z ze, sie, hir, co, or ey to decide what gender they ey are? Wouldn’t it be more ‘woke’ to just wait a few months before jumping to conclusions?  Is that too much to ask?  

The BBC is transphobic now? Surely not.