Red v blue

The idea that the BBC has a position on many stories cannot be shaken on certain kinds of subject. Before overturning Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruled on gun ownership. Here's a short transcript of how it was reported. The colour-coding sets out the positions of the two sides, but - as you can see - one side gets the lion's share. And it probably won't surprise you which one:

Nada Tawfik, BBC Radio 4 Six O'Clock News Thursday 23 June

The New York case is the most significant involving gun rights that the justices have heard since 2008 when they ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a hand gun in the home for self-defence. The conservative justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, declared that the Constitution also secures that right outside the home in public. New York and a handful of other Democratic states have licensing frameworks in place which require people to show proper cause to carry a concealed weapon. That required, until now, a special need for self-protection beyond a vague self defence argument in an effort to limit firearms in the street. The nation's most powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, was quick to declare victory, but the Governor of New York state Kathy Hochul expressed a very different sentiment. “The Supreme Court of The United States of America has stripped away the state of New York's right and responsibility to protect its citizens. And the language we're reading is shocking. Today the Supreme court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence. We are still dealing with families in pain from mass shootings.” President Joe Biden said he was disappointed by the ruling. He said “it contradicted common sense, the constitution and should deeply trouble everyone.” The Liberal justices of the court expressed a similar concern. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the dissenting opinion, said the decision “burdens states' ability to curb violence.” He cited figures showing that since the start of this year there have been 277 reported mass shootings in the United States, an average of more than one per day.

Did the other side say nothing? Was the actual Supreme Court ruling not worth quoting from?

"The majority of migrants around the world travel and work legally. They are football stars, actors and entrepreneurs"

Nada Tawfik

Talking of BBC pro-mass global immigration reporting, there's an absolute classic on the BBC News website at the moment from BBC New York/UN reporter Nada Tawfik:

In 2016 all members of the United Nations agreed that no one country can manage international migration on its own. Co-operation and a coordinated approach was needed. And now, after six rounds of negotiations, they have come up with this: The Global Contact for Migration. It's not binding, but it's the first time there's a comprehensive agreement that sets out a fairer and more humane approach to the issue. 

Louise Arbour, UN Special Representative for International Migration: If it's well-implemented it's good for everybody. It preserves state sovereignty and their right to decide your migration policies. It will reduce the chaos of irregular dangerous migration. It will increase access to safe legal pathways, for instance to the labour markets that have deficits in human resources and that will need foreign workers.

The majority of migrants around the world travel and work legally. They are football stars, actors and entrepreneurs, and while they make up 3% of the global population they contribute most than 9% to global gross domestic product. But with the rise of nationalism there's been more of a focus on the challenges rather than the benefits.

(Clips of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage juxtaposed with images of children behind bars and migrant vessels in the Mediterranean, accompanied by ominous music)

Amb. Juan José Gómez Camacho, co-facilitator of negotiations: The global migration today is based on believes, is based on perceptions and is based on misinformation, so we need to move it to one that is based on evidence. Once it is based on evidence we all as countries can make all the policy choices that are necessary.

(Image of watchtowers in the US, accompanied by sad music).

The United States pulled out of the vote in the process. The Trump administration said America alone would decide its policy, and Hungary claims the deal encourages migration which threatens their stability and security. Still the UN is taking a victory lap, saying the overwhelming consensus proves that international co-operation on the toughest issues is possible.

The structure of the report, the language used, the choice of images and music and the one-sided selection of talking heads all add up and suggest heavily biased reporting. The remarkable quote used in this post's headline is really quite something though.

Indirectness

Nada Tawfik

Browsing the internet this morning, I spotted a comment somewhere else saying:

On Radio 4 about 6:40am they were talking about the [Annapolis] shooting, “…Trump has criticised the media in the past so should take responsibility for the killings….”. BBC are a total joke these days. They are not even subtle in the bias anymore.

Ah, if only it were that easy! 

Checking it out for myself, it turns out not to be an actual quote. Neither Justin Webb nor BBC North America reporter Nada Tawfik said anything quite so direct or unsubtle this morning. 

What they did do, however, was to imply the possibility of a link between the killings and the Trump administration's hostile attitude to journalists and to imply that President Trump has got questions to answer:

Justin Webb: Does highlight, doesn't it, how dangerous and unpleasant it is to be a journalist at the moment in the United States? I mean, has the White House...has anyone kind of said anything about what happened?
Nada Tawfik: Yeah, I mean it absolutely does. And, you know, across the United States and in New York, in Los Angeles, in Chicago, here in Maryland, police departments have been stepping up security at major media outlets in light of this incident. And, you know, they've said that they have been concerned for some time about the safety of journalists. Now, President Trump was questioned about this. He offered his thoughts and prayers to the victims. But he was asked if his...his Press Secretary, his Deputy Press Secretary specifically was asked...if, you know, the comments that President Trump has made about the press has made it more dangerous in this day and age. And all she would really say was that they condemn any kind of violence and obviously don't condone that. But certainly, you know, an event like this does just underscore the very charged nature which journalists are increasingly working in in this country, in America.

According to NBC, however, the suspect's grudge against the newspaper dates back long before Donald Trump's election (back into the era of Barack Obama's first presidential term):

Jarrod W. Ramos, the man identified as the suspect in the shooting that killed five people at the Annapolis, Maryland, Capital Gazette, appears to have had a longstanding grudge against the newspaper over a 2011 column that reported his guilty plea to criminal harassment, according to court records. 

So maybe this has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump and that by even raising and implicitly giving credence to the possibility that it does the BBC is betraying heavy symptoms of media hyper-partisanship here.