Onwards!

So Lord Justice Singh sang from the same hymnbook as Mr Justice Supperstone and Mrs Justice Lang and rejected David Keighley's bid for a judicial review into the BBC's methods of measuring impartiality.

The judges ruled that the BBC can use opinion polls as proof of their impartiality, if they so choose, as there's nothing in the BBC Charter to legally prevent them from so doing. Moreover, the judges ruled that such audience surveys are actually a rational means of measuring impartiality.

They also ruled that the BBC isn't obliged by law to adopt any particular methodology. "This is a matter left to their judgement", they say. Like Ofcom, the BBC has "expertise" in the matter.

Kathy at The Conservative Woman writes that this judicial brick wall leaves Ofcom as the only remaining option, though Ofcom is crammed with people with close links to the BBC.

Mrs Justice Lang also landed David with heavy costs of approximately £18,000. "She might as well have said: ‘This is a warning to anyone who has the temerity to challenge the action of the nation’s monopoly broadcaster – you will pay for it.’", observes Kathy.

This is dispiriting but I know David will carry on the fight to stop the BBC having carte blanche when it comes to marking their own work. 

If the BBC and the courts don't want to read News-watch's studies then plenty of people (and newspapers) do. 

Plus, as MB says, we now have a semi-populist government that seems semi-intent on tackling the BBC.

*******

P.S. Talking of opinion polls and BBC impartiality, here's a fascinating one highlighted by Guido Fawkes: 

As DAD notes in the comments, "BBC News is least trusted by the 'right', but well trusted by the 'left'. Yet the 'left' claim that the BBC is 'right biased'. Strange world in which we live." 

Wonder what that audience survey tells the BBC?

And there's even more...

David's latest piece also notes that Ofcom has carried out an expensive, year-long review of the BBC's news and current affairs output, and guess what the recommendations of the Ofcom report were?

News and current affairs is largely tickety-boo – with one major caveat, the ‘D’ word. Wait for it: not enough diversity!

And the contents analysis done for the Ofcom review comes from...drum roll...the same people the BBC used for their own output reviews - our old friends at the School of Media, Journalism and Culture at Cardiff University, a department headed by Richard Sambrook, ex-BBC Director of Global News. 

So not only is the Ofcom content board stuffed with ex-BBC people and the Ofcom main and advisory boards stuffed with ex-BBC people, Ofcom uses the same Cardiff University as the BBC uses to carry out their output reviews. 

Circles within circles.

David writes: 

So how did the wise people of Ofcom decide that output was impartial? A main plank was that they had considered 300 complaints about BBC bias in 2018-19 and upheld none of them. Well, that’s okay then. Or maybe – more likely – it confirms the need for an urgent external investigation of Ofcom itself into confirmation bias – the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that affirms one’s prior beliefs or hypotheses. 

That's as bad as the BBC making a favourable opinion poll its main proof of impartiality.

As for bias and Brexit, well, this sounds very odd:

The second main plank of their approach was the PwC report mentioned above. A key element of this was based on 13 interviews and workshops around the country, each attended by a dozen consumers of BBC output. How precisely these were framed is not disclosed – it is assumed by Ofcom that PwC knew what they were doing. But a striking feature of the exercise, at a time when the news agenda was dominated by Brexit, was that those with strong views about the topic were deliberately excluded.

I find none of this remotely reassuring.

And there's more...

David Keighley, in his  latest The Conservative Woman article, notes that the ex-BBC-dominated Ofcom content board - which rules on BBC bias - has behaved as a cynic might expect such an ex-BBC-dominated board to behave: 

Despite the relentless tide of anti-Brexit bias, the Ofcom content board – eight of the 13 members are ex-BBC – has dismissed the vast majority of BBC complaints appeals referred to it with the same cavalier liberal-Left disdain as the BBC itself. 

Most strikingly, a meticulously researched complaint about the anti-Brexit bias of BBC1’s Question Time was dismissed on the basis that a single contribution from Theresa May crony Damian Green proved that the ‘hard’ Brexit perspective had been adequately represented in 25 editions. 

Whatever happened to Aaqil Ahmed?

Do you remember our old friend Aaqil Ahmed - the BBC's first Muslim Head of Religion and Ethics, and the man who took Songs of Praise to the illegal immigrants camp in Calais and compared the immigrants to Jesus, Mary and Joseph fleeing King Herod. 

He left the BBC in 2016. Guess where he is now?

Well, News-watch's David Keighley report today that he's among the latest batch of ex-BBC members appointed to Ofcom's various boards.

All three of the latest intake are ex-BBC.

Also, 8 of the Ofcom content board's 13 members are ex-BBC - and they're the ones who rule on BBC bias. 

It's an endless revolving door, isn't it?

Aaqil, if you're wondering, has been busy since leaving the BBC: I see from Linkedin that he's been a Professor of Media at Bolton University (no, me neither), a media consultant to various companies and a non-executive director at the Advertising Standards Agency. 

BBC Appeal

My splendid friend David Keighley of News-watch has launched a crowdfunding appeal today called Stop The Bias.

It aims to raise £30,000 to fund a judicial review of the BBC's own methodology for monitoring bias - a judicial review the BBC is bound to fight every step of the way with the licence fee payer's pennies and pounds.

Shouldn't the BBC be held to account by rigorous, independent, external monitoring rather than by its own barely-existent, self-trusting 'checks and balances'? And how will the BBC possibly justify in court its absurd 'opinion polls show we're trusted on bias so, ergo, that proves that we're impartial' line?

The crowdfunding appeal was only launched this morning and is already over a quarter of the way there. There's clearly a public appetite for legal action against the BBC as regards bias. 

If you want to contribute, the Crowd Justice website link is here.

Hardline hornets in hats (featuring Kate Hoey and BBC Complaints)

hardline

Regular readers will know that I've had a hornet in my Homburg hat for months about the BBC's use of the word 'hardline'. 

I closely tracked the BBC's use of the word and found it was nearly always used about certain kinds of people.

To recap, the VAST majority of the BBC's recent use of the word 'hardline' - and its beloved sibling 'hardliners' - have been connected to Brexit-supporters, especially those in favour of leaving the EU on WTO terms (i.e. supporters of a 'no-deal', crash-out-and-apocalypse Brexit). 

But 'the others' in my surveys have been equally predictable to anyone who's watched the BBC over the years: Trump's immigration policies, tax-cutters in the US, the right-wing Austrian government (over immigration), the Italian populist government (over immigration) the national-populist Hungarian government (over immigration and everything else), European governments in general that oppose mass immigration, the conservative CSU in Germany (over immigration), a Turkish right-winger not part of Erdogan's party, Hindus in India, France's yellow vests ...plus clerics in Saudi Arabia who oppose women drivers. 

To bring things up to date, and tracking the word's use by BBC folk since the start of February this year on BBC One, BBC Two and the BBC News Channel...

Yes, the term 'hardline' is still mostly used - again and again and again and again and again - in connection with 'Brexiteers', and all the variants thereon.

Seriously, using TV Eyes to monitor 'hardline' brings up masses of BBC reporters/presenters endlessly spouting the term in connection to Brexiteers, the ERG, Conservatives, Eurosceptics, etc. 

I've not found a single counter-example, so pro-EU, hardline Remain types who want to overturn the 2016 referendum remain once again untainted by the loaded term in the BBC's output.

The exceptions this time are, again, mostly familiar - Hindu nationalists (repeatedly) and parties in Italy opposed to mass immigration - but there's also a one-off criticism of anti-China US politicians and (more predictably) Australia's immigration policies.

To sum up, the BBC uses the term 'hardline' almost invariably against right-wingers, opponents of mass immigration, Hindu nationalists, and strong supporters of Brexit.

It's a trend that's so overwhelming that it should speak for itself and dispel any doubts about the BBC's biased use of language here.

Specifically tracking the use of 'hardliners', however - besides the many, many incarnations of 'Tory hardliners' - also brings up something that might seem less predictable at a first glance but has long been a BBC 'thing' - multiple mentions of Iranian 'hardliners' (who the BBC often also label 'conservatives'). That's nothing new though. It's long been a thing hereabouts to complain about the BBC using the term 'conservative' to describe the most hardline Islamists in the Iranian revolutionary regime. 

Given the John Simpson transcript I posted earlier, this latest finding in the Iranian context is particularly intriguing. 

*******

Anyhow, all of this leads back to Kate Hoey MP's potent complaint to the BBC about their perpetual use of 'hardline' in reference to people who think like her (whether left-wing or right-wing or whatever) on the subject of Brexit.

If you've not read it already, please read it.

*******

And that in turns leads on, as knights follow daze, to News-watch's David Keighley and his powerful new article at TCW, ‘Hardline’ Hoey and the BBC at its slippery worst - which is a 'must-read'. (So please read it!)

David crystallises the argument and details Ms Hoey's exchanges with the BBC - and the BBC's (oh-so-familiar) "blinkered", "self-righteous" replies. 

The whole first section of David's piece, however, needs quoting in full as it might be new to you. And even if it isn't new to you it remains, frankly, quite staggering:

ONE of the huge frustrations about the BBC is that they have a defence for every complaint, made up according to their own ever-shifting rules, and adjudicated mainly by their own staff. 

When David Cameron formally announced that he would hold an EU Referendum, Newsnight reported the development with a programme which included 18 Remainers (one who was said to be a businessman but actually was a Liberal Democrat politician) and just one who wanted Leave. 

News-watch complained. The BBC’s response? Months earlier, Newsnight had presented an edition which contained someone who put the case for withdrawal. The programme with blatant 18-1 stacking was thus fine because this was ‘due impartiality’. Of course.

Ah yes, good old BBC 'due impartiality'! - about as flexible as term as you could imagine. 

Sloppy and loaded

The Two Brexiters

I don't think Kate Hoey MP (above, with someone else) would mind us lifting this from inews (though inews possibly might!), so here goes:

‘Hardline Brexiteers’: The way the BBC describes pro-Brexit MPs is not impartial. The term is never applied to figures who are 'hardline' in wanting to remain in the EU. 

The word “hardline” has been creeping into descriptions of MPs who are pro-Brexit for a year or so now. After hearing it in a BBC news bulletin this week, I wrote in to complain.  

Jonathan Munro, head of newsgathering for the BBC, replied: 

We do take great care in our language on Brexit. I’m sorry you were unhappy with the scripting of our early evening bulletin on Sunday. The term ‘hardliner’ is in use across the media, including most newspapers, generally to distinguish the views of members of the European Research Group from their Conservative colleagues who support Brexit, but have indicated they are more flexible about the terms the Prime Minister is negotiating. 

Our headline referred to ‘Tory hardliners’ and the introduction to the report made clear the term was being used in the context of the debate over the Northern Ireland backstop. 

I hope this answers your concerns. 

No, Jonathan, it doesn’t. The BBC received £3.8bn from licence fee payers last year. Unlike other media, it has a special duty, as defined in its charter, to be scrupulously impartial. Munro’s argument that it is following where other media lead is therefore not an excuse. It’s an abrogation of the BBC’s duty to the British public. 

The Corporation was warned about its biased use of language about the EU in 2005, when the referendum was first mooted. Lord Wilson of Dinton conducted an independent inquiry into bias claims, which concluded that the BBC was “not succeeding” in being impartial in its coverage of Europe. 

The BBC promised to do better but the sloppy and loaded approach has become worse since the referendum. First came the phrases “hard” and “soft” Brexit. This painted those who wanted a clean break with Brussels as hard and unyielding, and those who did not as cuddly and reasonable. 

Another term picked up by BBC journalists to describe leaving the EU was “divorce”.  Jean-Claude Juncker frequently refers to the EU as a “family”, and in 2016 began referring to Brexit as a “divorce”. By autumn 2017 a survey by News-Watch, which searches for BBC bias in coverage of the EU, showed BBC presenters and correspondents using “divorce” as the core definition of what Leavers wanted. 

Not only were Leavers xenophobes – they were now home-wreckers, too.  

The term “hardline” has been used by BBC journalists to describe President Trump’s immigration policies and a vicious wartime Japanese governor. It is clearly not intended as a compliment. 

News-Watch surveyed the coverage on Radio 4’s Today programme of Parliament’s defeat of the Withdrawal Deal. Only a handful of the 111 contributors were firm supporters of implementing the referendum result. And the main one – Steve Baker, spokesman for the ERG group – was introduced as – surprise! – “hardline”, a term never applied to figures such as David Lammy or Dominic Grieve, who are “hardline” in trying to thwart leaving the EU. 

The word “Brexiteer” – with its echoes of “mutineer” – is another biased description used routinely by the BBC. The Financial Times manages to use the more neutral “Brexiters” – you’d think a supposedly impartial news organisation would do the same.

'Brexiteers'? I've used that myself, perhaps because I spend far too much time monitoring the BBC. 

Who first used it though? Who amplified it? And did they mean it as a compliment (dashing, noble-hearted heroes?) or as an insult ("with its echoes of 'mutineer'")? And have I been brainwashed by the BBC, despite myself? 

Whatever the case of that, Kate Hoey definitely has a point about the use of "hardline" and "divorce", don't you think? 

(I do).

Over to David...

There's an excellent piece here by News-watch's David Keighley about Question Time under the new chairpersonship of Fiona the Bruce:

Welcome to the Fiona Bruce Remainer Show

David spotted an exchange I missed between Fiona and Isabel Oakeshott about Question Time's question selection. Please give it a read.

More on Chris Morris

Chris Morris, 'The Day Today'

David at News-watch's take on the Peter Lilley/Chris Morris transcript he so kindly provided me with the other day has been cross-posted at The Conservative Woman. He sums up the problem with the BBC's chief 'Reality Checker' Chris Morris:

The BBC’s so-called ‘reality check’ unit is, of course, nothing of the sort. Why? Exhibit A is that back in February, Morris presented a five-part series called Brexit: a Guide for the Perplexed. His lens was so distorted that 18 out his 24 main interviewees were anti-Brexit and only seven per cent of the words spoken were from the withdrawal perspective. That report by News-watch is currently under investigation by Ofcom following a formal complaint, and the outcome of the appeal is expected imminently. 

Meanwhile, Morris has ploughed on regardless with his opinionated perspective, to the extent that, judging by the frequency of his appearances, the Today programme now regards his input as an essential part of the editorial process.

Other takes on the Chris Morris/Peter Lilley debacle include:

Lord Lilley: "...all [Chris Morris] did was oppose my facts with the opinions of people with whom he agreed." 

Rod Liddle: "...its absurd ‘reality check’, correspondent Chris Morris, whose job it is to offer spurious statistical support for the BBC’s liberal prejudices." 

Charles Moore: "The BBC’s ‘Reality Check’ device is a piece of hubris, which this week met its nemesis. It effectively says: ‘We report untrustworthy politicians who disagree with one another. You, the stupid viewer/listener, obviously cannot be expected to work out where the truth lies. Our expert correspondents will tell you.’ The main man who does this on Brexit is called Chris Morris. His version of ‘reality’ is strongly pro-Remain. If you read his online summary of the withdrawal agreement, for example, he says that ‘the Brexit process has caused an enormous amount of anxiety and uncertainty’ in relation to immigration. That is a defensible proposition, but one depending on a point of view. A Leave supporter would blame most of the anxiety and uncertainty on deliberate obstruction by the European Commission. When he explains the Irish backstop, Morris manages not to mention the constitutional issue which is the key to the whole thing — that the EU would acquire special powers over Northern Ireland, thus fragmenting the United Kingdom."

The boss of the BBC's Reality Check gets reality-checked...and fails

Reading the comments here, I know that most of you will already have heard this...

...but, with massive thanks to you, and, above all, to the tireless efforts of David and Andrew at News-watch, here's a transcript of that interview on this morning's Today programme for posterity's sake. 

It began as a simple BBC interview between John Humphrys and Peter Lilley, but the BBC decided to bring in their lead journalist at the BBC's 'divisive and controversial' Reality Check unit, Chris Morris, to 'reality check' pro-Brexit Lord Lilley as the interview proceeded. (A Lord Adonis-like move?)

Big mistake on the BBC's part! 

Lord Lilley turned the tables and 'reality checked' Chris Morris, leaving the BBC's 'reality checker' flailing like a EU quota-breaking fish on the deck of the Today studio floor. 

An extraordinary, landmark BBC interview then, exposing the absurdity of having a partisan hack (no offence) as the head of a supposedly impartial BBC front-facing reality-checking project...

Cue courtesy-of-News-watch transcript:

*******

Transcript of BBC Radio 4, ‘Today’, 20 November 2018, Interview with Peter Lilley, 8.10am

JOHN HUMPHRYS: So that's it then. Theresa May's political enemies had threatened to unseat her and it hasn't happened. They needed 48 Conservative MPs to sign a letter calling for her to go and they told us those letters were in the bag. It turns out they are not. The dramatic appearance outside the House of Commons last week by the rebels’ leader Jacob Rees-Mogg is looking a little premature at best, a busted flush at worst and another threat to Mrs May from a group of five senior Brexiteer Cabinet ministers demanding changes to her withdrawal deal also seems to have receded, if not disappeared. So is she home free? Well a man who's been a leading Brexiteer for many, many years is Peter Lilley now Lord Lilley and he is with me and I gather Lord Lilley that you were at Number 10 yesterday with some other Brexiteers, you saw Mrs May?

PETER LILLEY: We did, but I'm afraid it was a private meeting . . . 

JH: (speaking over) A private meeting. 

PL: I’m terribly old fashioned I don't tell you what (words unclear due to speaking over)

JH: (speaking over) Well, just tell us whether she was singing as it were, whether she was doing a little dance of joy. 

PL: I didn't see any dances. 

JH: Didn't see any dances. Well . . . well that's a shame. But, but the reality is that she is home free now, isn't she? I mean, the rebellion, if we can dignify it as such, that's gone, hasn't it?

PL: I don't know. I'm not in the House of Commons. I'm not an expert on that sort of thing.

JH: But you were for a very, very long time and you're still a loyal Conservative.

PL: Indeed. 

JH: And what do you think, I mean, is there any point at this stage in trying to unseat her to continue trying to unseat her? 

PL: I didn't realise that's what we were (words unclear due to speaking over)

JH: (speaking over) Oh, sorry I (words unclear due to speaking over) bit of politics . . . 

PL: (speaking over) intending to spend time discussing . . . I thought I was her to discuss about trade and . . . 

JH: We will do that, we will do that but can I just get your thoughts on that? 

PL: No not really I don't have any. 

JH: You don't have any you don’t . . . 

PL: (word or words unclear) not . . . not of any importance. 

JH: You don't by virtue of well, come on, you're a senior politician. But isn't the reality that so long as she stays you're not going to get a different deal?

PL: Well we might if Parliament turns down her present deal and then we will have, I hope, to take up the deal that was offered by Tusk, the President of the European Council, on 7th of March this year when he said that we could have a Canada style deal plus, plus, plus, plus, security cooperation, co-operation on investment and innovation and education and culture and, finally, immediate talks to prevent absurdities like the disruption of air flights once we leave. Sadly, the government turned that down. And the reason they give for turning it down was partly that they were afraid it might not apply to Northern Ireland and, obviously, we would want that for the whole of the United Kingdom, but also because they said a free trade area introduces friction in trade because companies have to fill in custom.. or, you know, lodge customs declarations and declare the origin of their goods. I've published a paper today saying that all these fears, the fears that that would be hugely costly cause disruption interrupt with just-in-time supply chains and undermine economic growth are at best exaggerated and at worst completely imaginary. 

JH: But you're not really suggesting, are you, that a new deal, a completely new deal could be negotiated in a few months, the next four months?

PL: It probably could. Because we're in the unique . . .  normally free trade deals (fragments of words, or words unclear) take a long time because you’ve got to get rid of 11,000 tariffs . . . 

JH: (interrupting) They take years . . . 

PL: They, they, on average they take 28 months. But the . . . 

JH: (interrupting) Well, the Canada deal took seven years. 

PL: Yes, but that's because they started with 10,000 tariffs and they had to negotiate their removal, not just with the other side but with their domestic industries that had become protected behind them. We start with zero tariffs. We want to end with zero tariffs. Tell me how that can take more than 10 minutes to negotiate? The other thing that you have to negotiate is to get your rules and regulations equivalent and remove any that are artificial barriers to trade. That normally takes years and is very difficult. We start with identical rules and regulations. How can that take very long to end up with identical rules and regulations? All you've got to negotiate is a system for dealing when one side or other changes their rules and regulations. That could be done within months, if not we leave on World Trade Organisation terms as we trade with America and many other countries and start negotiating then just as Canada did, but we start where Canada ended up. So it can be done quite quickly. 

JH: Well let me tell you then some of the things that the Department for Exiting Europe says needs to be done to import goods in, in a ‘no deal’ scenario basically. Register for a UK economic operator registration and identification number. This is mindbendingly tedious I understand, but nonetheless enormously bureaucratic . . . bureaucratic and has to be done. That is one thing. Ensure their contracts in international terms and conditions of service reflect that they are now (word unclear ‘unimportant’ or ‘an importer’),  to consider how they will submit import declarations whether to engage a customs broker, freight forwarder and logistics provider, decide the correct classification and value of their goods and enter this on the custom . . .  And so on. It is immensely complicated.

PL: Well, it's not immensely complicated but you're right, there are complexities and you have to trade off the complexities of this which are comparatively minor and tens of thousands of companies do it already, with the advantages of being able to negotiate your own trade deals elsewhere. If it were so hugely damaging, you would expect . . . being in a free trade area rather than a customs union. You would ask yourself, ‘Well why don't countries like Canada, which has a free trade agreement with America; Switzerland, Norway which have free trade agreements with the European Union and similar bodies in Asia. Why don't they want to convert it into a customs union to avoid these problems you've just raised?’ They don't. And so . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Why don’t you . . . 

PL: So they don't find it too much of a problem. I don't think British businesses are any less competent than Swiss businesses or Canadian businesses. 

JH: Well they don't feel very confident about the sort of thing that you're proposing do they? We heard Carolyn Fairbairn, Director General of the CBI yesterday saying that investment is flooding out of Britain as a result of Brexit, in cash that companies are planning into (corrects himself) plowing into ‘no deal’ planning that otherwise would have been put into skills and technology and so on. In other words they are desperate to have a deal and they (fragment of word, or word unclear) they have settled for Mrs May's transition deal?

PL: Can you remind me of an occasion when the CBI ever got it right? They were wrong about the euro. They were wrong about going into the ERM. They were wrong about coming out of the ERM. They were wrong about dealing with the financial crisis a few years ago.

JH: They speak for business.

PL: Well they claim to. Ask them how many paid up members they've got. They won't tell you.

JH: Why . . . why are companies in that case stockpiling goods if they're feeling so confident . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Well . . . 

JH: . . . why are they stockpiling?

PL: . . . they're being told in large measure not to, for example the government's written to all Health Authorities saying don't stockpile, to all medical, you know, GPs and say, ‘don't stockpile, because we don't think it's necessary. We've taken such precautions as are necessary.’ And one reason it's not necessary is that we are not going to stop goods coming into this country. The Customs and Excise have said that they don't think they'll need to be any more checks than there are at present on goods coming into this country because the checks they carry out are largely on dutiable goods, alcohol and tobacco - no change there; looking for illegal immigration - no change there; looking for drugs - no change there . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Well . . . 

PL: So they don't expect any more checks at the border than there are at present . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Well that’s not, that's not quite right is it? All UK exports of animal origin must enter the EU via veterinary border inspections. 20 to 50 percent subject to physical inspections. That is the reality.

PL: No, no, that, you’re right, that’s exports. I'm talking about stuff coming into this country . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Indeed. 

PL: You were talking about stockpiling stuff . . . 

JH: (fragments of words, or words unclear) both ways, it, it . . . 

PL: (speaking over) But no, no, they’re both important but I was previously dealing with imports because you were talking about having to stock things (words unclear due to speaking over)

JH: (speaking over) Indeed. But, but (fragment of word, or word unclear due to speaking over)

PL: But as far as exports, yes, there will possibly be extra checks on the continent. 

JH: Not ‘possibly’, ‘certainly.’ 

PL: Well, it’s not so certain as all that, John, after all the European Union signed up to the World Trade Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement which says that you shall accept the tests in another country if they're equivalent to your own. Well ours will be identical. But they will probably nonetheless want to carry out checks to check that our checks are good.

JH: Alright, look . . . 

PL: But that . . . that . . . we can handle that we can cope with that. That's not going to bring the world to an end. 

JH: Alright. Don't go away because sitting next to you Chris Morris our Reality Check correspondent, who . . . not that I'm suggesting that you don't, but who knows all of (fragments of words, or words unclear), he’s been dealing with it for a very long time now. An observation on what we've just been hearing?

CHRIS MORRIS: Well, I mean, Lord Lilley's basic point in his report, many of the problems ascribed to leaving the customs union are imaginary and most of the rest are exaggerated, I think it's fair to say the vast majority of trade experts and freight companies, certainly that I've talked to, would disagree with much of that fairly robustly, and you can certainly, you can certainly make the case . . . 

PL: (speaking over) And would  . . . would firms in the European Economic Area disagree? Are they agitating for a customs union?

CM: You can certainly make a case that . . . 

PL: (interrupting) Tell me a bit about the reality of people who are experiencing it, rather than people who are imagining it. 

CM: You can certainly make a case for relying on a basic free trade agreement.

PL: That’s what I am. 

CM: And ports obviously want to trade seamlessly. But if you are taking a basic free trade agreement and comparing it to being in, not just the customs union, but the single market as well, because they do together, and you can . . . agree or disagree about whether it’s a good thing, but being in the single market and the customs union does provide trade which is entirely frictionless, in a way that the government wants, and in a way that it needs to keep the Irish border open, (fragment of word, or word unclear due to speaking over)

PL: (speaking over) I’m sorry, even that is untrue. 

CM: . . . that a free trade agreement would not entirely bring in. 

PL: That is untrue . . . 

CM: (speaking over) If you, if you take . . . 

PL: . . . at present there are checks at the border. I go back and (fragments of words, unclear) I’ve got a house in France, I go back and forward all the time, and I see them being checked. You have to, for example, have different VAT declarations if you’re trading with Europe than you do if you’re trading domestically. You have to be checked if you’re potentially carrying any alcohol or tobacco or illegal immigrants. You have to declare, if you’re a company of any size, (word unclear ‘or’ but means ‘on’?) the contents of what you’re doing to Intrastat. 

CM: (speaking over) But Lord Lilley, I don’t think it’s un— I don’t think . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Have you looked, have you looked . . . 

JH: (speaking over) Let him make his point, Peter Lilley. 

CM: I don’t think it’s untrue to say, if you take, for example, you know it obviously very well, CETA, the recent free trade agreement signed between the European Union and Canada. It implies far more border checks and infrastructure and bureaucracy than being in the single market and the customs union, would you agree with that?

PL: Well . . . being in the customs union?

CM: (words unclear, speaking over)

PL: . . . I’m more interested in what will happen here, and I’m quoting . . . 

CM: (speaking over) But, but, but, but . . . 

PL: . . . I’m quoting HMRC . . . 

CM: (speaking over) Canada is, Canada is, is, is one of the models . . . 

PL: (speaking over) HRMC . . . 

CM: . . . which . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Well . . . 

CM: . . . has been put forward as an alternative to the current . . . 

PL: (speaking over) you would agree that Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue are experts in this field? They’ve given . . . 

CM: They certainly are. 

PL: They’ve given evidence to countless select committees and they say we do not see any need for any extra checks, right or wrong? 

CM: They . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Reality or falsehood?

CM: (fragment of word, unclear) Extra checks where?

PL: At the borders. 

CM: (fragments of words, unclear) Well, you’ve just been discussing with John imports and exports, I mean the fact is that if we want to export animal and food produce to the European Union . . . 

PL: (speaking over) (fragments of words, or words unclear) I’ve acknowledged that . . . 

CM: . . . there will be . . . well, you said there may be checks, and you talked about the phytosanitary agreements, there will be checks because it’s European Union law, which I think . . . I think you know . . . 

PL: (speaking over) Well, there are also . . . 

CM: And it is European law that there have to be one hundred (fragments of words, or words unclear due to speaking over)

PL: (speaking over) I, I, I, this is supposed to be a Reality Check, not an arguer for Remain. 

CM: Well, I was, I was just trying to make some points, but you kept interrupting me . . . 

PL: Well, that’s because you kept getting it wrong. 

CM: (laughs)

JH: Well, gentlemen, it’s rare for me to do the . . . ‘gentlemen, gentlemen, please, calm down,’ because normally it’s people saying that to me. However, look, I think what we have established, go on, a final quick point, uncontested Peter, (laughter in voice, words unclear) at this stage, go on. 

CM: Well, I think the other point that this report makes that is important is that the claim that WTO rules require border, they’re saying that is incorrect. And I agree with that, it is incorrect, but W— . . . WTO rules do not require you to have checks at border . . . at borders, but they do require you to treat all your trading partners equally. So, for example, if you were to allow, say, Irish beef to come across the border from Ireland to Northern Ireland without any checks or without the imposition of any tariffs, you would have to do the same for French beef coming across the Channel, or Argentinian beef coming from further afield. 

JH: Alright, alright . . . now . . . 

CM: So . . . there are consequences for some of the things that this report suggests and (words unclear ‘lays out’?)

JH: And isn’t the political reality, Lord Lilley, that when the agreement, the deal, comes before the House of Commons, that is the only deal we are going to get, at that stage, that is the transition deal that has been agreed between Mrs May and the rest of Europe and that is what you’re going to have to vote on. You will vote against it, what will then happen?

PL: Well, if it’s voted down, we’ll have to think again, and the obvious thing to do is to take up Tusk’s offer, and your (laughter in voice) Reality correspondent, so-called, may . . . er, not like it, but it is quite a good offer. And it’s a realistic (word unclear due to speaking over ‘offer’?)

CM: (speaking over) But it wouldn’t . . . it wouldn’t solve the Irish border problem, would it? Being in a Canada-style free trade agreement?

PL: (exhales) Again, I cite the evidence . . . (fragments of words, unclear due to speaking over)

CM: (speaking over) I mean, that’s what Donald Tusk said (fragment of word, or word unclear ‘though’ or ‘that’s’?)

PL: (speaking over, fragments of words) I cite the evidence of the chief executive of Customs and Excise, he says there are no circumstances, repeat, no circumstances, be it a free trade area, customs area, or WTO terms, in which Britain will require to have border checks or infrastructure at the border. Now, the European Union may want to, and let’s be quite clear, it’s them that are proposing borders, I think they . . . they can do that, and we’ve tried, my goodness, tried to show how within European law they can do without it. But that’s what we ought to be discussing – if we can do it, why can’t they? Let’s do it, it’s very important to have peace and prosperity in Ireland, let’s find a way of doing it, and then we’ve solved the problem. 

JH: Go on, one sentence Chris?

CM: I think in reality it is unlikely the European Union is going to change its law to please a country that’s leaving. It doesn’t . . . it doesn’t mean we’re right or wrong to leave, but that, that’s the reality . . . 

PL: (speaking over) But because . . . 

CM: . . . if you, if you speak to officials from across Europe, it’s . . . 

JH: Right . . . 

CM: ‘You’re leaving, it’s your problem, you sort it out.’ Of course it’s of benefit to both sides to trade as freely as we possibly can, but the technical details can’t simply be wished away. 

JH: There I’m afraid we must leave it, thank you both very much indeed. 

PL: I think it’s wonderful that you cross-checked me in this way. I’d love you (sic) to see, the same degree of rigour applied to those putting forward arguments for the Remain side. 

JH: I think we’ve . . . 

PL: Thank you.

JH: . . . been doing that. 

PL: I haven’t noticed it. 

JH: Thank you both very much.  

Love?

As you may have noticed, there's been a bit of news day. And it's still going on.

Meanwhile, taking a longer view, and working over months rather than minutes, David and Andrew at News-watch have been very busy surveying another BBC series about Brexit - namely Mark Mardell's  Radio 4 Brexit: A Love Story.

We dipped into it (posting about three of its episodes) and found it severely wanting impartiality-wise. But David and Andrew have gone beyond mere dipping and have devoutly drenched themselves in the entirety of the thing.

Please read their resultant full 143-page report here.

The stats speak again. This was a series that, statistically-speaking, was sharply biased against pro-Brexit points of view. And the word count has shown what a simple count of the allegiances of the contributors could only hint at:

Although there was only a slight numeric advantage in favour of ‘pro’ EU/EEC contributors, those speakers delivered 64 per cent (13,392) of the words spoken, against 28 per cent (6,009 words) from the ‘antis’, a ratio of 9:4. In addition, of the top 10 contributors by running length, eight were ‘pros’ and only two were ‘anti’. Strong Europhiles such as Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and Sir Stephen Wall had much more space to advance their ‘pro’ opinions than those who were negative about ‘Europe’. 

And that's only for starters: Only six speakers of the 121 contributors who appeared in the series as a whole "made what could be called substantive points against the EU".

The whole series struck me as being a 'masterclass' from the mighty Mark Mardell in how to appear to be impartial whilst being anything but.

It may therefore, perhaps, be taken as a template for BBC reporting as a whole on certain subjects. 

‘Little Englander’ stereotypes

For a systematic analysis of bias in Radio 4 comedy please take a read of Andrew's new piece at News-watch, Dead Ringers clang out their anti-Brexit bias. 

Here's a brief extract:

‘Little Englander’ stereotypes 

The sketches lampooning David Davis and Nigel Farage were predicated on links between anti-EU sentiment and xenophobia, an association repeated regularly on BBC news and entertainment programmes over the last two decades. 

In his Dead Ringers incarnation, David Davis was cast as the ‘Brexit Bulldog’, noting that it was just ‘one year to go till we march up to Johnny Foreigner’, while explaining that he only speaks two languages, ‘English and slightly slower, louder English for when I’m on holidays.’ At one point he referred to an imaginary EU national as ‘Pedro’. 

Similarly, the script for Nigel Farage featured the former UKIP leader referring to an EU border guard as ‘Fritz’, stating that he didn’t ‘bloody well care’ about the Irish, and stating that unless the Brexit issue was sorted he would ‘unleash the kind of hell not seen since my local introduced Peroni on tap’ – the inference that he would dislike the Italian beer on account of its nation of origin.

The BBC Hasn't Got a Leg to Stand On

The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation? is the title of a new Civitas report published today. 

It's a gathering together of over 18 years worth of work by David and Andrew at News-watch and takes about two hours to read the whole thing - something I'd recommend you do if you can, especially as there are plenty of fascinating details...

...such as that during News-watch's first monitoring exercise - the 1999 European Parliament elections - there was just one interview on the theme of withdrawal from the EU. It was with a 38-year-old UKIP spokesman by the name of Nigel Farage: "In the exchange, John Humphrys bracketed the party with the BNP, and then suggested that leaving the EU was ‘literally unthinkable’ because of all the turmoil that would be created". 

The central theme of the report is that, despite public support for withdrawal from the EU being either a huge minority or a majority throughout that entire time, the BBC pretty much ignored it. 

For starters, the BBC only very rarely interviewed pro-withdrawal speakers over a long period: 

The BBC's choice of guests, therefore, has been consistently and overwhelmingly biased against pro-withdrawal voices to a truly staggering degree - until the referendum of course (though the BBC has subsequently regressed again).

And the agenda-setting BBC behaved even worse when it came to asking questions about withdrawing from the EU. Basically they hardly ever did it:

Yes, the BBC only asked the questions it wanted to ask and only discussed the subjects it wanted to discuss. If it didn't want to talk about something (such as withdrawal from the EU), even if large swathes of the public might want the subject discussed (as also with immigration until fairly recently), it simply didn't ask about it or talk about it.

That's quite astonishing really when you think about it - a public broadcaster that won't talk about things that matter to large sections of the public! 

Here's another telling point: 

That's tied to the remarkable fact that in the same period Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine "made between them 28 appearances, with contributions totalling 11,208 words – over nine times the amount of airtime allocated to all left-wing supporters of Brexit" - an astonishing finding. 

The second part of the report is headlined The BBC complaints procedure – unfit for purpose? The answer to that question turns out to be 'Oh yes!!!". It's a fascinating essay in its own right. Many of you will nod your head in recognition at many points. Here's an extract:

Another measure of the overwhelming negativity involved in the BBC complaints process can be found in the Corporation’s response to a News-watch complaint in 2013. On January 23 of that year, David Cameron announced his pledge to hold, after the next general election, a referendum on the UK’s continued EU membership. That evening, Newsnight on BBC2 broadcast a reactive programme which featured 18 supporters of remaining in the EU and only one who wanted to leave. News-watch, backed by a cross-party group of MPs concerned about BBC bias, submitted a complaint under the BBC’s formal procedure. The matter was eventually considered by the Editorial Standards Committee, but it ruled that the programme was not in breach of impartiality rules. It came to this view on the grounds that it had not been a major news event (which would be governed by special conditions of impartiality), that an edition of Newsnight six weeks previously had contained supporters of withdrawal, and that the aim of the January 23 programme had been simply to explore elements of the reaction to David Cameron’s speech – and most at Westminster supported remain.  

As in 2007, the defence amounted to preposterous stone-walling. For example, the earlier Newsnight edition cited by the BBC did include limited opinion in support of leaving the EU, but the programme as a whole was strongly biased in favour of Remain. There was no way it properly ‘balanced’ the January 23 edition. Further, the ESC’s denial that Mr Cameron’s speech was a major news event flew in the face of basic common sense: newspapers the following day carried dozens of pages of news reports and analysis. No appeal was allowed.

The BBC's initial response was as deeply inadequate a piece of brazen stonewalling as you're ever likely to see. Note how they simply ignore the whole mass of evidence and just go on asserting their own impartiality regardless:

We’re covering the process towards Brexit in a responsible and impartial way independent of political pressure. The job of impartial journalism is to scrutinise the issues and interrogate the relevant voices, not advocate for a position. It’s precisely for this reason that the public trusts the BBC.

They remind me somewhat of The Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. This Civitas report has cut off the arms and the legs of the BBC's claims to impartiality over Brexit but the BBC is still there, giving it large, saying "I'm invincible!"

Further reading

If you're in need of a little more BBC bias-related reading this afternoon then I'd recommend a couple of pieces from adjacent blogs:

• The Conservative Woman - We’re impartial, it’s just our staff who aren't  

• BBC Watch - BBC News report on 2017 ‘fake news’ excludes its own

David and Hadar are getting the year off to a flying start. 

Ofcom's first test

That Oxford panel: Stephen Gethins, Camilla Cavendish, Clive Lewis, Damian Green and Jo Swinson.

Over at News-watch David has an important piece about what appears to be Ofcom Content Board's first BBC-based ruling. 

The complaint from Gavin Hunt focused on BBC One's Question Time. Gavin had tracked 25 consecutive editions of the programme in the first half of 2017 and discovered that 22 had panels which contained a majority of Remainers - something that he believes demonstrates significant bias against Leavers.

I'd urge you to read the ruling in full. 

The first thing that might make your jaw drop is that Ofcom chose to focus on just two editions (and then narrowed it down even further to just one) - the two programmes (one from Oxford, the other from Salford) which had five Remainers and no supporters of Leave.

What was the point of doing that? (Laziness, from what I can see.) The complainant's point was based on it being a comprehensive January to June survey. Ofcom just flicked that aside, declared that their time was precious, and based their findings on two episodes out of 25.The BBC always asks to be judged over time not on single examples when it comes to bias. Ofcom is going with the single examples that the BBC usually complains about!

Yes, if the second edition - the Salford one - barely touched on Brexit then it's nowhere near as clear a case of a 5:0 panel on Brexit as the clearly-duly-unimpartial Oxford edition. The panel listed by Ofcom for the Salford edition (Amber Rudd, Andy Burnham, Colin Parry, Sara Khan and Nazir Afzal) was clearly a panel chosen very carefully in the wake of the Manchester terrorist attack specifically to talk about terrorism and Muslims. 

BUT that (a) doesn't excuse the Oxford edition and (b) doesn't even begin to answer the main point that the complainant was making: 

“2 episodes had Leave majorities of 3:2 on the Panel; 1 episode was balanced; 22 out of 25  episodes had Remain majorities on the Panel; 2 episodes (Oxford and Salford) had 5:0 Remain  majorities; 8 episodes had a 4:1 Remain majority”.

Ofcom simply failed to deal with that. They changed the goalposts from 25 episodes in a row to just two episodes, and then changed it again to just one. As a result they side-stepped the complainant's point. 

My jaw also dropped at the bit in the 'Oxford programme' section where Ofcom tried to pass Damian Green off as 'not Remain'. 

During the discussion, there were a number of viewpoints expressed which could be described as critical of Brexit to some degree. However, we considered that there were also views expressed which could be described as supporting Brexit in some form, or otherwise challenging the Remain position. For example, Damian Green disagreed with various statements that were supportive of a Remain position. He said most people had not changed their mind since voting in the 2016 EU Referendum (“the referendum”), and although he was part of the referendum campaign for Remain, he respected democracy and the referendum outcome. 

It's not sensible of Ofcom to claim that that either supports Brexit or challenges the Remain position given that plenty of Remain-voting people, including politicians, (a) have been honest enough to acknowledge that that most people haven't changed their minds (as the polls mostly show) and (b) have said again and again and again that they respect the referendum outcome. Even Keir Starmer, Anna Soubry & Co. repeatedly say that they respect the referendum outcome. To say that that's "Damian Green disagreeing with various statements that were supportive of a Remain position" here is absurd.

He also: rebuked Tim Farron for saying the Liberal Democrats would frustrate the Parliamentary process for introducing Brexit; stated a strong and stable government would get a good Brexit deal; the referendum outcome ruled out membership of the Single Market and being subject to the European Court of Justice; and argued that Brexit had to mean more control over immigration and our budget. We considered that these were views that could be reasonably described as supporting what may be termed a form of “Hard Brexit”. 

Well, if Ofcom thinks that Damian Green in any way supports a 'Hard Brexit' then they know absolutely nothing about Damian Green (or politics). That claim alone should be enough to make them laughing stocks. 

And when you watch what he actually said on 'Hard Brexit' - from 19.48 here - you find (surprise, surprise!) that Damian Green is actually arguing, despite some 'hard talk' for 'Soft Brexit'. That Ofcom didn't realise that and thinks that what he said there is 'Hard Brexit talk' suggests where their collective mindset is on Brexit. 

So to claim that he was "putting the Leave perspective" is deeply disingenuous.  He was actually putting a Remain perspective, but a Remain perspective which accepts the democratic result and wants to try and make the best of it and to be as positive about it as possible. 

Ofcom's claim that this edition was duly impartial is nonsense.

So, all in all, Ofcom actually out-BBCed the BBC here. The BBC is canny when it comes to complaints and can waffle away like a Complaints Houdini at the drop of a rabbit-containing hat. The BBC would never have released such a gormless, self-damning ruling. 

Except, of course, that most of these Ofcom people are closely tied to the BBC....see News-watch link here!