True to form

 

How well we know some BBC reporters! 

I read a prediction this morning that the BBC's Nick Bryant, reporting from New York for From Our Own Correspondent, would...

...be doing his best to avoid the Cuomo scandal and other similar ‘stuff em in nursing homes to make hospital stats look good’ scandals in other states...

...even though he'd be reporting on Covid's impact on New York City.

Kate Adie's introduction led to me into thinking this might prove incorrect as she said, in passing, "Could it have been handled better, with the governor Andrew Cuomo coming in for criticism?"

But no, though he did talk about the impact of the disease and the lockdown on the city, Nick Bryant never mentioned Governor Cuomo or the nursing home scandal. 

He didn't even allude to them. 

The only politician he had a pop at was...guess who?...yes, Donald Trump. 

Very Nick Bryant!

Nick Bryant sums up the BBC's view of the year

 

The final From Our Own Correspondent of 2020 ended with an unusually long item by Nick Bryant, the BBC's perma-tanned and opinionated New York correspondent. 

Given its length and placing, it was clearly chosen to represent the BBC 'at its best'.

It strove for effect and I suspect it will be 'award-winning', given its content - and the applause it's already receiving from the usual people. 

I will try to summarise it for you, as it absolutely reeked of BBC bias:  

Nick's mum "called it" early: 2020 "has become a byword for all that was wrong, the worst year ever".

 

Nick himself thought that the vast bush fires in Australia and "the enormity of the climate emergency" were going to be the big story of 2020, and the start of a new era [a great reset so to speak]. He said the fires were such a catastrophic event that he felt they "would separate 'the past and the future' into 'the before and after'".

But then along came Covid. 

A long passage about how the virus has changed the personal lives of 'people like us' ended with him talking about 'our' "lofty vantage point of privilege" ('us', "the fortunate few") then led to chastising reminders of the plight of the poor and the migrants of New York struggling to put bread on the table and middle class New Yorkers queuing for food parcels. 

[It really is quite insufferable when genuinely privileged people like Nick Bryant put on a righteous, condemnatory tone of voice and take the moral high ground and start lecturing listeners - as if he's smugly appointed himself our conscience, and self-absolved himself by doing so].

And then came this resounding, very FOOC statement:

Just as poverty became a propagator of the pandemic, the pandemic became a propagator of poverty.

That's one of those mighty phrases FOOC writers often come out with, but is it true? 

Take the first clause: In what way was poverty "the propagator of the pandemic"? Surely, it came out of an increasingly affluent China and was spread by "the fortunate few" travelling around the globe?

As for the second clause: It's certainly true that poverty is being propagated - and is likely to 'propagate' a massive amount more as time passes, especially if lockdown continues, widens and deepens - but by what is the propagation being done by? By the pandemic itself? Or by people imposing severe lockdowns?

Anyhow, then Nick Bryant launched into a series of political points, all reflecting the BBC mindset to the very last dotted i and last crossed t. 

He argued that:

(a) The world needs multilateralism not unilateralism. 

(b) Nationalism is "myopic". 

(c) The United Nations has been "sidelined" by the major powers (a bad thing).

(d) The World Health Organisation has been "ensnared" in politically-motivated criticism (also a bad thing).

Then came a particularly striking passage: 

He said that "a strong body of evidence" suggests that countries run by female leaders (Angela Merkel, Jacinda Ardern, etc) handled the crisis "more expertly" (no one every mentions Belgium when that claim is made), and then said this:

By contrast countries governed by presidents and prime ministers who surfed the populist wave with a macho swagger often did poorly.

He openly named "Donald Trump's America, Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil and Boris Johnson's Britain" as his three examples of such "macho" swaggering populist surfers, then sneering:

The virus could not be sloganed away.

It's a way of thinking many share, and many don't. Quite why licence fee payers who fall into the latter camp should have to stump up for his opinions (or prejudices) is an obvious question. 

He later returned to the Trump theme, saying that the Trump administration's management of the outbreak...:

...may come to be seen as the most catastrophic domestic policy failure of the past 100 years.

He then claimed that Covid exposed "two duelling realities" in America, "one based in fact, the other in scienceless fiction" [a very binary, black-and-white view of things, don't you think?]. 

And on it went, though China's Xi being mean to Australia and misinformation being "the scourge of the online world", till Nick ended by talking about his new baby daughter, born amid "anti-racist protests" and the joy this has brought him.

So - award please! - he's now full of "intense and conflicted emotions of dread and fear and joy", of memories for those who have lost their lives of feelings of being "thankful for the magic of new life and grateful for making it to the end".

Congratulations to him on his new daughter. Hope she has a lovely life. I only hope her father doesn't tell her too many scary stories.

It really is extraordinary how the BBC can claim to be impartial when its senior reporters are given free rein to write and broadcast such one-sided, contentious stuff. 

The Comedy Club

The comic stylings of the BBC's North America editor-turned-stand-up comedian, Jon Sopel, continue to tickle the funny bones of his admirers. 

He was soaking up the applause last night for his gag on the News at Ten about Rudy Giuliani "clearly having a bad hair dye", even though he'd obviously nicked the rib-tickler from his similarly impartial colleague Nick Bryant. 

(Jon is, famously, no stranger to hair dye himself).

In fact, whole swathes of Paul Danahar's American team appear to prefer being stand-up comedians. 

Anthony Zurcher is another one, favouring the dry Jack Dee-style one-liner. (He even has his own stage name, The Zurch.) He's one of his latest zingers:

Boss Danahar himself leads from the top, though his punch-lines are more, er, subtle, eg:

President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani is again using a press conference make a number of unsubstantiated claims  of coordinated, widespread fraud in the US Election. In one positive development for his team it appears not to be outside a gardening center.

Mr Danahar certainly wasn't impressed by Rudy Giuliani's performance yesterday, also tweeting "Rudy Giuliani's press conference today on ‘voter fraud’ was one of the wildest, most unsubstantiated diatribes I’ve ever listened to and I say that as someone who has sat in a room with Col Gaddafi for three hours." 

I'm presuming that Mr Giuliani kept his wind to himself though.

Meanwhile, this morning's Today programme allowed Justin Webb to join in. He was talking to the Guardian's beauty columnist Sally Hughes (Q: Why doesn't the BBC have a beauty correspondent, or is that Jon Sopel?) and dealing with the substance of the former mayor of New York's press conference - the hair dye tricking down his face, of course. Sally was telling Justin that she though it was "a very temporary form of hair dye, so either a wash-in-wash-out sort of a dye" or "a spray-on kind of root touch-up product" and Justin replied: 

So he hadn't done it properly? Because you ought to be able to. I mean, with proper hair dye you should be able to go into a hot room, shouldn't you, and fulminate about Venezuela?

Sally from the Guardian chuckled and Mishal Husain (not a bundle of laughs herself) guffawed. It's the way he tells 'em! 

I wonder if they'll ever have such fun about any member of the Biden administration, even once? 

Nick Bryant carries on regardless

 

Mac, on the open thread, noted the ending of a Nick Bryant report for the BBC's News at Ten a couple of days back:

Mac: Did enjoy Nick Bryant on News at 10 last night:

"Donald Trump keeps on trying to change the conversation to law and order but we keep on returning to the health crisis that has claimed the lives of more than 190,000 Americans. This feels like a covid campaign."

Sometimes you don't even have to do any work to detect the bias. They just tell you straight up. We are not going to report what the President says about the murders and riots but instead stick with the central theme of his campaign opponents. And when he says 'we', who exactly does he mean?

Charlie: Interesting Mac. Even though Bryant was recently censured for bias, it hasn’t stopped him. It won’t because no-one will ever challenge the BBC narrative that everything about Trump is bad. Certainly not his bosses. They feel the same way.

 Here's the full transcript:

Huw Edwards: President Trump knew full well that coronavirus was deadlier than the flu as the virus began to spread across the United States, but wanted to play down the crisis. That is according to the veteran journalist Bob Woodward, who spent hours with the President earlier this year. Mr Trump said he wanted to avoid causing any panic. The remarks are included in Mr Woodward's new book, which is called Rage, a book that Mr Trump has already dismissed as a "fake" piece of work. Our North America correspondent Nick Bryant has more details. 

Nick Bryant: Even as the coronavirus began to claim scores of American lives, the US president publicly talked down the threat. 

Donald Trump: It will go away. You know it is going away and it will go away and we will have a great victory. 

But at the same time, Donald Trump was telling the legendary Watergate journalist Bob Woodward that he had deliberately played down the pandemic, even though he understood the deadliness of the virus. 

Donald Trump: Well, I think, Bob, to be honest with you... Bob Woodward: Sure, I  want you to be... Donald Trump: I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down... Bob Woodward: Yes, sir... Donald Trump:...because I don't want to create a panic. 

This was impossible to dismiss as fake news and, instead, the President tried to explain his comments: 

Donald Trump: I am a cheerleader for this country. I love our country and I don't want people to be frightened. I don't want to create panic, as you say. And certainly, I'm not going to drive this country or the world into a frenzy. 

His Democratic rival Joe Biden is already leading in the polls and he immediately weaponised what the President's critics will seize upon as a Covid smoking gun.

Joe Biden: He lied to the American people. He knowingly and willingly lied about the threat it posed to the country for months. He had the information. He knew how dangerous it was. And while this deadly disease ripped through our nation, he failed to do his job on purpose. 

Donald Trump keeps on trying to change the conversation to law and order, but we keep on returning to the health crisis that has claimed the lives of more than 190,000 Americans. This feels like a Covid campaign. Nick Bryant, BBC News, New York.

The BBC rules against Nick Bryant's 'approach and tone'

Maybe Roger Mosey's claim that there's a battle going on within the BBC is reflected by their Executive Complaints Unit's unusually trenchant criticism of BBC New York correspondent Nick Byrant.

The ruling came after a complainant had claimed that an online article by Mr Bryant - 'Coronavirus: What this crisis reveals about US - and its president' - "reflected bias against President Trump on the part of its author" . 

The ruling criticises Nick Bryant's "tone and approach" and says some of his "phrasing" passes beyond "professional judgements" and comes "closer to the language of personal views". 

It even calls out the usual fake sops to impartiality that you often find in such reports, saying that this "was not offset by the limited, and relatively restrained, criticism of the Democrats, Joe Biden and Congress". Ouch!

The ECU says that only ''a great deal of alteration" would have brought it into alignment with the BBC’s editorial standards, and seems to suggest ("as would normally have happened as a result of the process of editorial oversight applied to such pieces") that editorial oversight had been noticeably lacking. 

They continued, "Whether or not Mr Bryant was in fact expressing a personal view of President Trump, some of his observations were couched in terms which might well have led readers to conclude that he was" This, the ECU concluded, amounted to "a departure from the BBC's standards of impartiality".

What's striking is that it's a clear 'Upheld', not a partial one. 

A ruling against Nick Bryant has frankly been a long time coming. He has been getting increasing out of control ever since his time as the BBC's Australia correspondent.

I can imagine the consternation, possibly alarm, being felt today by some of his scarcely less openly opinionated colleagues. I bet some of them will be angry too.

Here is the ruling in full:

Coronavirus: What this crisis reveals about US - and its president, bbc.co.uk

06 August 2020

Complaint

A reader of this online article complained that it reflected bias against President Trump on the part of its author (Nick Bryant, the BBC’s New York Correspondent). The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality in connection with News, Current Affairs and Factual Output, which say:

News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality. 

And:

Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC – they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality has been achieved. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal opinions of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area. They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence, but may not express personal views on such matters publicly, including in any BBC-branded output or on personal blogs and social media. 

Outcome

The Guidelines provide for BBC journalists to offer “professional judgements” on matters of political controversy, and the ECU regarded the article primarily as an instance of a specialist correspondent using his knowledge and experience to provide informed and considered analysis in his areas of expertise. The ECU also agreed that Mr Bryant had sought to support his assessment of President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis with evidence, much of which had been cited in previous correspondence with the complainant. However, it accepted that that there were issues with the “approach and tone” of the item at certain points, and that phrasing such as “Ridiculous boasts”, “mind-bending truth twisting”, “particularly vicious assault”, “pettiness and peevishness”, “narcissistic hunger for adoration” and “the tricks of an illusionist”, when not attributed to sources other than the author of the piece, was closer to the language of “personal views” than that of “professional judgement” and, in terms of impartiality, was not offset by the limited, and relatively restrained, criticism of the Democrats, Joe Biden and Congress. In the ECU’s judgement, the article could have been brought into alignment with the BBC’s editorial standards without a great deal of alteration, as would normally have happened as a result of the process of editorial oversight applied to such pieces. As it stood, however, and whether or not Mr Bryant was in fact expressing a personal view of President Trump, some of his observations were couched in terms which might well have led readers to conclude that he was, resulting in a departure from the BBC’s standards of impartiality. 

Upheld

Further action 

The finding was discussed with those responsible for the article and reported to the Board of BBC News, and the article itself was amended in the light of the finding.

"It is a fact"

Look behind you, John!

Last night's BBC News at Ten featured the BBC's deputy political editor John Pienaar focusing on two things: firstly, "the uncomfortable truth" that British ministers now have little power to influence events or American presidents and, secondly, that Boris should have 'led the line' on the US-Iran 'crisis'. Here's his editorial in full:

Quite, Fiona. The uncomfortable truth is that chorusing the case for restraint is about the extent of British ministers' power to influence events in this crisis, whether it's the Defence Secretary in the House a short while ago or whether, like the Foreign Secretary, it involves talking to counterparts, or like Boris Johnson, who has been in contact with President Trump and also with the Iraqi leadership, among others. But he hasn't been speaking publicly on behalf of the Government. His absence in the House of Commons earlier on today was conspicuous. I doubt he'll mind too much being taunted about that by his defeated Labour rival today. But some Conservatives are also pointing out that past prime ministers have chosen to lead the line at moments of crisis on this scale. When you remember that Donald Trump acted without informing, let alone consulting Britain on what he was about to do, it is easier to make the case that Boris Johnson's clout in the White House is a lot less than that of past prime ministers with past presidents. Yes, some British officials, diplomats, intelligence officials, military personnel, have very good relationships with counterparts in Washington. But they are not, it seems, often the kind of people that Donald Trump wants to consult with. So at a time of crisis, at a time of definition for Britain's role in the world, Britain looks to many eyes, not just exposed, but also lacking the kind of clout that British ministers would like. That may or may not be a cause for political criticism. It is a fact.

In the preceding report, Nick Bryant also had a nibble at Boris:

In Parliament, it was the Defence Secretary rather than the Prime Minister who called for calm on all sides.

The madman theory

A man with a tan

The BBC's permatanned North America correspondent Nick Bryant, talking on last night's BBC News at Ten of "the most unpredictable president ever to occupy the White House", concluded his latest editorial for the BBC by saying:

It sometimes feels like Donald Trump is pursuing a modern day version of what Richard Nixon called 'the madmen theory', creating a sense amongst American adversaries that he would be prepared to take the most extreme military options, casting aside the notion of proportionality. He has also repeatedly stated he doesn't want to embroil his country in another Middle East war, an objective made much harder by his decision to assassinate General Soleimani. America is sending B52 bombers to its base in the Indian Ocean, planes for decades that have symbolised its military might. Will the perception that Donald Trump lacks restraint check the response from Iran?

They're grrrrreat!

That’s me only a few minutes after arriving.Rocking the sleep deprived jet-lagged look! Thanks for the sun #Sydney!! #Australia 🇦🇺 pic.twitter.com/mrtuHkH8tf

— shaimaa khalil BBC (@Shaimaakhalil) November 10, 2019

It looks as if BBC people calling other BBC people "great" is spreading.

Following Andrew Marr's repeated praise for "the great Chris Morris", here's the BBC's former Australia correspondent Nick Bryant praising the latest one:

The BBC has a new Australia correspondent and she’s great - Shaimaa Khalil. Tellingly, she arrives to massive bushfires and a coal-brandishing prime minister who “refused to be drawn on whether climate change could have contributed to the fires”. 

Tellingly, Nick also has a point to make there, and Shaimaa - bless her! - is already on it:

Australia warns of a "catastrophic" bushfire threat to the areas around Sydney as blazes rage across NSW and Queensland. Meantime the country's conservative gov. refuses to make the link to climate change.  

Twitter bantz

Nick Bryant, BBC: If you were wondering what’s on the mind of the President of the United States this morning....

Donald Trump: Vote for good guy Sean Spicer tonight on Dancing With The Stars. He has always been there for us!

Jeremy Bowen, BBC (replying to Nick Bryant): Good to know.  

Red face

BBC headline overnight:

Canada's PM Justin Trudeau admits he can't remember how often he wore blackface, as row deepens ahead of election

In my half century of life I've never once put on 'brownface' or 'blackface' - unlike ultra-woke Justin Trudeau, Canada's Liberal PM, who's accidentally done it at least three times now. 

Confession time, I did once -  albeit aged ten, and abetted by my teachers - put on 'goldface' to play the scary Ghost of Christmas Future in my primary school's production of 'Scrooge'.

I had a black cowl and a black cloak. I glided. I held both arms in front of me, like a sleepwalking Frankenstein's monster. I pointed. I was silent. I was ominous. And then I tripped over the end of Scrooge's bed. 

Thus ended my acting career.

I suspect Justin Trudeau ('a virtue-signal made flesh') is feeling even more embarrassed today than I did back in 1979, especially as he was a 29-year-old teacher when he last painted his face brown, just 18 short years ago.

Oh well, you live and learn. I doubt he'll do it again now.

Though you never know. Maybe, like Father Ted in that episode where he inadvertently keeps offending Craggy Island's Chinese community ('I hear you're a racist now, Father!), poor Justin will just have to accept the fact that he's fated to be the kind of man who accidentally ends up having 'blackface' on his face from time to time. Maybe it's a curse?

I did wonder what all the BBC's hyperactive Tweeters - from Jon Sopel to John Sweeney, from John Simpson to Hugh Sykes, from Katty Kay to Anthony Zurcher, etc - had to say about this. What fun they must be having mocking  and tut-tutting at the liberals' pin-up boy! But they haven't posted a single tweet about this. Not one. Fancy!

I bet if images emerge of The Donald in 'brownface' and 'blackface', even as a 10-year-old, they'll be tweeting about it till their fingers bleed - and beyond.

********

Anyhow, here (for your interest) is how Nick Bryant reported the story at 10:19 pm on last night's BBC One News at Ten:

Question: Given that Mr Trudeau is now 47 (six years older than Emmanuel Macron, eight years older than Jacinda Adern and twelve years older than Kim Jong-un), is it still right to call him "the young Prime Minister"?

Nick Bryant: In this age of celebrity politicians, Justin Trudeau is a politician who became a celebrity. Youthful, telegenic - a leader who seemed to embody the values of modern-day progressiveness, a model of political correctness. But this photo presents a very different picture, showing him wearing blackface make-up at a private-school gala in 2001. An Arabian Nights costume party where, as a 29-year-old teacher, he was dressed as a charater from Aladdin. His message today - "Forgive me, I've changed." 

Justin Trudeau: Darkening your face, regardless of the circumstances, is always unacceptable because of the racist history of blackface. Should have understood that then, and I never should have done it. 

More blackface photos have emerged, and a video has surfaced from the early '90s showing a young Justin Trudeau sticking his tongue out and making faces. All this in the midst of an election campaign in which Mr Trudeau had already been reeling from a corruption scandal. Blackface is now recognised as a racist caricature, and his opponents are piling in. 

Jagmeet Singh, NDP leader: Any time we hear examples of brownface or blackfacing, it's making a mockery of someone for what they live, and what their lived experiences are. I think he needs to answer for it. 

The young Prime Minister has always sought to portray Canada as one of the world's most successfully multicultural countries. Here, he greeted Syrian refugees at the airport. This damages his political brand. But in the capital, Ottawa, today, most people we spoke to were forgiving. 

Vox Pop 1 (elderly Sikh man): It is nothing, because he was very young at the time. Vox Pop 2 (elderly white lady): And it was Canada, it's not the US, we don't have the same history here that they have in the US. Nick Bryant to Vox Pop 3: Do you find it offensive? Vox Pop 3 (young Native Amercian lady): I do. 

He's positioned himself as a liberal counterpoint to Donald Trump, but his golden boy image has been tarnished. Nick Bryant, BBC News, Ottawa.  

Nick Bryant (continuing): Now, Justin Trudeau couldn't even remember today how many times he had worn blackface make-up, which raises the possibility, of course, that more damaging pictures may emerge. Now, he thinks he can weather this political storm, and we will find out this time next month, when Canada goes to the polls. 

A 'special' report from Nick Bryant

Last night's BBC One News at Ten carried a reporter by the BBC's North America Correspondent (as he was introduced) Nick Bryant. I'll post a transcript below, with my added comments in red italics:

Newsreel footage: During his visit, the Prime Minister and Mr Roosevelt consulted with members of the Pacific War Council. 

Nick Bryant: The special relationship has often turned on personal relationships between the leaders in Washington and Westminster. Churchill and Roosevelt formed a close wartime alliance. Reagan and Thatcher were like ideological newlyweds. Bush and Blair were from different sides of the political street but nonetheless became partners in Iraq. The chemistry already seems good between this billionaire populist and old Etonian populist [loaded descriptions intended to undermine their 'populist' credentials by emphasising their 'privelege'], here meeting at the United Nations in New York, the city where both men were born. In Donald Trump, Boris Johnson has a transatlantic fan. Tonight came warm, soothing words [a hint of a mocking tone there] from the White House:

President Trump: I think we are going to have a great relationship and Boris is going to be a great Prime Minister. I predict he will be a great Prime Minister. He has what it takes. They needed him for a long time. 

Nick Bryant: The special relationship has always been cyclical, but the recent trendline has been downward. Barack Obama and Gordon Brown were not especially close and although he became barbecue buddies with David Cameron he regarded Angela Merkel as the key, European leader. Donald Trump's relationship with Theresa May started with a gentle tap on the hand but ended with repeated kicks in the teeth. Ever since Churchill first coined the phrase, the special relationship has meant far more to the British than the Americans, as that's especially true now. As the UK tries to exit the European Union it's becoming more diplomatically isolated [in Nick's opinion] and it desperately [another loaded word] needs a trade deal with the United States. That partly explains the early offer of a state visit to London. But this America First president prides himself on his negotiating skills and knows he has by far the upper hand. 

Nicholas Burns, former US Under-Secretary of State: [Unannounced to BBC viewers, someone who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is now supporting Joe Biden] A mature, wise and responsible American president would look at Britain engulfed in this fundamental crisis and give Britain a helping hand. I worry that this unscrupulous, mercurial, unpredictable president in the White House could even try to take advantage of Britain in a moment of weakness . That wouldn't honour the special relationship. 

Nick Bryant: But the man Donald Trump once suggested should be UK's ambassador to Washington, Nigel Farage, claims [why not 'said'?] he's a more faithful friend:

Nigel Farage: Well, we need to press the reset button. Donald Trump is a businessman. He will go for a good deal. Of course he will.. As we will go for a good deal. I think it's remarkable, given that over the last three years we've disappointed Trump again and again and again, he is instinctively pro-British. He wants us to have a much better relationship than we've currently got. 

Nick Bryant: But Boris Johnson also needs to win the Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has warned [why not 'threatened'?] that Congress won't ratify a new trade deal if Brexit jeopardises the Good Friday Agreement. She visited the Irish border earlier this year to hammer home that point. Donald Trump seems untroubled that Boris Johnson once said he betrayed "stupefying ignorance" about crime in London, but can the new Prime Minister repair a special relationship that risks becoming servile [an opinion disguised as a question]? Nick Bryant, BBC News, Washington. 

Nick Bryant calls Donald Trump "racist" (again and again)

Having been out of action for most of the past couple of weeks, I've got a lot of catching up to do. I did, however, see the original trio of Donald Trump tweets about 'The Squad' (14th July)... 

(1) So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly... 

(2)...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how... 

(3)...it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

...and, though having only come across BBC programmes very occasionally, I did hear a couple of reports by Nick Bryant that focused on the "go back" bit but 'forgot' to mention the "come back" bit and said to my family, 'No wonder Trump accuses the media of 'fake news''.

And, on trying to catch up, it seems as if vast swathes of the world and the media also 'forgot' the "come back" bit too in their urge to denounce the US president as "racist".

Even if Donald Trump's tweets were racist in intent or content, merely reporting him as saying "go back" and not telling people that he continued (within the same tweet) to say "then come back" is surely not honest reporting? Is it?

If a racist tells someone to 'go back where they came from', then that's unequivocal. But do racists usually tell their victims to "then come back"? I bet not. 

I suspect a lot of people have already made this blindingly obvious point, but I'm still catching up and can't be sure that they have. 

Whether the pro-Trump crowd chanting "Send her back!" about the antisemitic Somali-born congresswoman Ilhan Omar was being racist or not, or just registering their dislike of a highly controversial figure who they feel has been ungrateful to the country that took her in, Donald Trump was doubtless right to distance himself from them slightly. After all, he wanted her to then come back. 

Anyhow, back to Nick Bryant of the impartial BBC...

The BBC's high-ups obviously had no problem whatsoever with him repeatedly stating that the President's tweets were racist - no ifs, no buts. 

This is seriously-off-the-scale stuff - angry journalism making a point, relentless opinion-pushing on a matter of controversy.

Seriously, in what way is this impartial reporting?:

15 July BBC News at Six 18:13

Donald Trump was at a 'Made in the USA' business event at the White House today, showcasing the kind of economic nationalism that has become a hallmark of his America First presidency. But it's his white nationalism that's caused the latest political storm, a racist Twitter attack aimed at four women of colour, three of whom were born in the USA. 

16 July BBC News at Six 18:13

Last night, the four non-white Congresswomen who were the target of the President's racist Twitter onslaught stood in shoulder to shoulder solidarity on Capitol Hill.

16 July BBC News at Ten 22:17

Last night, the four non-white Congresswomen who were the target of the President's racist Twitter onslaught stood in shoulder to shoulder in a tableau of American diversity.

17 July BBC News at Six 18:20

On Capitol Hill, fierce words of condemnation for the President's racist tweets. 

17 July BBC News at Ten 22:06

The White House put out this video today - easy-listening patriotism in a week when Donald Trump's brand of nationalism has been more strident and at times racist. 

18 July BBC News at Six 18:24

This is a rally that will be talked about for decades to come. After the racism of Donald Trump's original attacks on the four Congresswomen of colour came the kind of racial demagoguery we've not heard or seen from a modern-day American President.

On the BBC's Nick Bryant

Nick Bryant

I've just found a post I prepared in July 2010. I was between blogs at the time, so I never published it.

(I'd forgotten I hadn't published it though, so I've had to look hard to find it tonight as it wasn't where I expected it to be).

It concerned the BBC's then Australia correspondent Nick Bryant, now the BBC's New York correspondent (though, famously, it's a rare day that you hear him reporting on news from New York).

This is it:

No worries

The BBC is nothing if not consistent on illegal immigration. It is always 'intensely relaxed' about it.

Looking at Nick Bryant's Australia blog shows this to be the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/nickbryant

The BBC's Australia correspondent is always on message on the issue of immigration. He is squeamish about Australia's "messy debate over asylum seekers, which never arouses the nobler aspects of the Australian character". He repeatedly characterises illegal immigration as "the most paranoiac issue in Australian politics" (that word 'paranoiac' crops up in at least three of his posts) and is fond of using the phrase "dog whistle" whenever a politician talks tough on the immigration issue.

He quotes at significantly greater length from those advocating a liberal immigration policy and peppers his blog with posts praising Australia's 'multi-culturalism'.

***

The BBC, represented by Nick Bryant, is clearly disappointed by Australia's new Labor prime minister Julia Gillard. Whereas the chucked-out Kevin Rudd was an out-and-out left-liberal (and a pal of Obama), Julia is rather more conservative and isn't wholly on message over immigration - and isn't pushing hard enough either over 'climate change' (for the BBC's tastes).    
   
Nick Bryant, of course, still prefers her to the Liberal leader Tony Abbott, who is far more conservative than his predecessor, the Cameron-like Malcolm Turnbull. Tony Abbott once famously described climate change as "absolute crap" and Bryant is fond of quoting attacks on his immigration policies (lots of 'dog whistles'). Nick Bryant's welcome for the "highly erratic" Abbott's election? "By installing Mr Abbott, have the turkeys just voted for Christmas?"  
   
Several of Bryant's posts swoon (at length) over the memory of Gough Whitlam's left-wing Labor government of the 1970s. He even seems to believe the conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in Whitlam's removal from office.    
   
Kevin Rudd is viewed as a tragic figure by Byrant - a fallen hero, once feted by Barack Obama, brought down brutally by his failure to force through plans for an emission trading scheme.    
   
On Obama: "I said that a new cadre of politicians was emerging, like Barack Obama, who find partisan politics rather tiresome, counter-productive and ugly." Really?     

In fairness to Nick Bryant though, he is surprisingly fair in his reporting of the debate over AGW. He acknowledges there is a debate for starters -  and, unlike so many of his BBC colleagues, has done for some time now. He even quotes opinion polls that Richard Black wouldn't touch with a ten-mile barge-pole (namely one showing that less than 40% of Ozzies supported Rudd's emissions trading scheme in February.)

How's that for a trip down Memory Lane? (Ex-Ozzie PM) Julia Gillard and (ex-BBC environment reporter) Richard Black in one post? Ah, happy days!

And I did enjoy Nick's typical BBC failure to make predictions. Rather than "turkeys voting for Christmas" by installing the "high erratic" Tony Abbott as Liberal leader in 2010, the Liberal/National Coalition beat Labour in the following 2013 election (under his leadership) by over 12%.

So why am I mentioning all of this?

Well, firstly, because it will make it much easier for me to find it again....

....and, secondly, because that post did put in print some very clear examples of Nick Bryant's often highly overt bias during his time as the BBC's Australia correspondent - especially over the issue of immigration.

But, thirdly, because Nick Bryant has subsequently gone on to be non-too-impartial BBC US correspondent.

On listening to yesterday's Radio 4 Six O'clock News, and hearing that Nick Bryant was doing a report on the G20 Summit in Japan, I began playing my usual Nick Bryant game. I knew some biased comment or other was bound to come, and I guessed it would about Donald Trump (not exactly a difficult guess!), but where would it be - the beginning, middle or end of his report?

I guessed (from past experience, so - again - not a difficult guess!), the end. (It's a bit of a habit of his).

And, yes, his perfectly-coiffured and heavily-loaded dig at Donald Trump, President of the USA, re his proposal to shake hands with Fat Boy Kim of North Korea during his visit to South Korea, landed just where I expected it to do - and with just as much of a deadpan sneer as I expected too at the very end with these sneering words:

...but will he get his date at the DMZ the with his friend from the totalitarian North?

In what way are those words not a sneer from 'impartial' BBC reporter Nick Bryant?

Other views are available

Some views on the Acosta affair (including about the banning of the CNN reporter from the White House) from BBC journalists on Twitter:

Nick Robinson:

Trump’s attack on CNN’s Jim Acosta is an attack on the right of all journalists everywhere to ask tough questions of people in power. That’s our job. Only fair to note - as others have - that Trump is more available for questioning than many politicians here, that CNN relishes the fight & that journalists should talk about others not ourselves. However, attacks on news organisations as ‘enemies of the people’ crosses a line.

Nick Bryant:

The press secretary of a man who has boasted about sexually molesting women...

Jon Sopel: 

This is dumb. And disproportionate.. Jim Acosta may be royal pain in ass - but that’s our job. We’re not sent to ask easy questions.  But can’t help feeling this is a shiny object thrown for the media to chase when far more important things are happening.

Emily Maitlis: 

Don't underestimate how much more watchable rolling news shows make themselves when they're getting attacked by DJT. They both looked for that row.

John Simpson:

Pres Trump’s press sec Sarah Sanders accuses CNN’s Jim Acosta of ‘placing his hands’ on intern who tries to snatch the mic from him. The video doesn’t support this. Let’s hope she is more accurate about things that don’t happen in front of her.

Gary O'Donoghue:
This is a total fiasco - and utterly demeans the presidency.

Samira Ahmed:

3 observations: A female White House intern exploited for a bigger political fight. Again. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was labelled as victim of a vicious attack when a female comedian made a joke about her eye makeup. Brett Kavanaugh.

Extraordinary

Nick Bryant

The arrest of a 56-year-old registered Republican voter for the series of parcel bombs sent to prominent critics of President Trump led BBC One's News at Six tonight. Nick Bryant's report was notable for way it lurched midway from straight reporting into editorialising:

The initial response from the White House this morning was extraordinary - the President not condemning the attacks but raising questions about their timing, with vital congressional elections just eleven days away. 

That was a senior BBC reporter passing judgment on the present US president.

"Wide-eyed, adolescent-style affection"

The BBC's New York correspondent Nick Bryant is not pleased with Donald Trump. In a tweeted editorial, the opinionated BBC man is today accusing the US president of showing "wide-eyed, adolescent-style affection" for Kim Jong Un: