Seven days in July

For an alternative take to Brendan's...

The [UK] Press Gazette has a piece by its editor-in-chief, Dominic Ponsford, headlined Seven days in July when journalists brought 'careless power' to account. 

Dominic of the Press Gazette, not to be confused with Mr Cummings, is impressed by his likeminded fellow journalists. And not just by the press, but by BBC broadcasters too.

The BBC rode hard, reins cracking. during the latest charge to dethrone Boris, and the final cannon blast that sounded the casus belli to topple the present PM came via the BBC itself - specifically from BBC political correspondent Ione Wells. 

Ione, as Dominic Ponsford puts it, 'revealed' that Boris 'had been told about a formal complaint about Mr Pinchergate MP’s “inappropriate behaviour” when he was a Foreign Office minister in 2019/20'.

The BBC made Pinchergate top news for 6-7 days. 

Ione Wells of the BBC has been the toast of left-leaning/pro-EU/pro-BBC Twitter and their media friends ever since. 

Ione evidently dug well.

So, in the same spirit, let's dig too...

...and using 'Farage' as my knee-jerk first 'search' on Twitter when investigating BBC journalists' tweets - as it's such a 'tell' as to where they're coming from politically - ...

...here's Ione, before joining the BBC and 'leaving her coat at the door', displaying her hand:

And this time-marked link [if she doesn't delete it] will bring up all of her tweets around the time of the 2016 referendum on the UK remaining in or leaving the EU. Here are just a few of many, many examples, e.g.:

No wonder she's played such a part in Boris going. Ever so impartially of course.

Apologies if this is old news - though I've not seen it elsewhere yet. 

I'm guessing others will have been 'doing an Ione' and doing unto Ione what Ione has been doing unto Boris. 

But if we've 'a scoop' here, hopefully Pippa Crerar and Beff and Paul Brand and Robert Peston will put the blog up for an award.

And, to end, one for my 90-year-old Dad and a favourite piece of music of his, best known for being played via a BBC concert conducted by John Wilson. 

Here's the original though - not conducted by either JW or the BBC - displaying latter gangs of 'journalists', BBC ones near the front, high-fiving each other as they converge and rampage in pursuit of Boris's head. Is that the late departing Lewis Goodall I see cantering in from the left?

The composer is the wonderful Franz Waxman:

 

What do I know

Such a pity Biden is ga ga and Putin is a maniac. But what do I know? I only listen to the media.

Once again we’re in When the Wind Blows territory. Deja vu all over again.  The credible and true possibility of imminent worldwide nuclear conflagration. So who should we believe? The BBC? The Alt media?

Apparently, Nigel Farage has admitted that his prediction, (that it would all “blow” over) was contra to the actualité.

The relevance to this blog is within KK’s explanation in the podcast above, namely why he no longer accepts invitations to appear on GBNews’s opinion panels. The reason? He doesn’t like being cornered into opining about stuff upon which he knows little or next to nowt. 

It’s one thing to strive to be literally non-judgmental and democratic over what is broadcast, opinion-wise. I think this is virtually impossible. Claims of impartiality are neither credible nor true, when made by the BBC or anywhere else. Including here. (Not that we have ever claimed such a thing) Personally, I don't ever want to talk utter nonsense,  but as the Rolling Stones famously said, "You cain't always git what ya wawont."

How representative of public opinion could ‘random’ vox pops be, when they’re aired, edited, and selected at the whim of whoever selects them. The same goes for experts. 

 

According to KK, everything that goes out is controlled by 20-year-olds, for it is they who fundamentally run the MSM. 

One thing I have learned though. Only personal or empirical experience can be relied on. Everything else is regurgitated, hear-say, Chinese whispers, and nearly always agenda-led. 

Your Views on GB News

I’ve been disappointed recently. Bigly. 

I know GBNews is a breath of fresh air. Big sigh. Tell me what antidote to the currently biased MSM wouldn’t be?

I’m aware that Andrew Neil was so disgruntled with what he described as ‘UK’s Fox News’ that he got on his hobby horse and rode off in all directions - for example to Channel 4., and apparently also back to the Beeb.

However, nothing and no one is ever perfect, and as an alternative to the BBC, GBNews isn’t completely doing it for me. I still enjoy watching much of it, but regret that it has to be in a ‘best of a bad job’ kind of way. 'Least worst'.

If you’ll allow me to use the label ‘left-wing’ pejoratively, well, the BBC is so blinded by its own institutional bias it’s hard to see how it could be fixed. Personally, I don’t necessarily see the label ‘left-wing’ as an insult, but I’m using it as such here for convenience. Know what I mean, ‘Arry? 

(I wonder what happened to Frank Bruno. Oops! I fear he’s been sectioned. )

Despite Tim Davie’s promised top-down overhaul, if that was indeed the promise - I can’t quite remember - recent staff appointments in the news department indicate that things are heading in the opposite direction. I think the BBC is actually doubling down.

I ought to explain my disappointment with GB News. Firstly, I do agree that it has settled down considerably since the shaky debut. Sound and lighting problems sorted, new presenters hired, and people of substance gradually agreeing to appear, cautiously sensing that being seen on GB News doesn’t automatically nix their credibility. 

My main disappointment is that several of the ‘personalities’ are being allowed, nay, encouraged, to opine willy nilly on subjects other than their niche specialisms. 

Take Nigel Farage. He with the smokers’ cough and overbearing manner. He was someone to be reckoned with on your Brexit. Indeed, he is Mr. Brexit. He was and is persistent on your illegal immigration and wouldn’t let it lie. He is undoubtedly super-qualified to opine on these topics, but expertise in certain areas doesn’t automatically confer expertise on everything else under the sun upon one. 

My disappointment is that I think he is unduly strident and overbearing on various other topics yet silent on others. Mark Steyn is another case in point. (Or case in disappoint) He used to be someone to be reckoned with too. Very much so. Now I’m not quite sure. However, it’s unwise to project your hopes and dreams prematurely onto any individual; maybe best to wait till they’re long dead?  

It seems that GB News is, in general,  pretty restrained on Islam. Only Patrick Christys so far has spoken up on behalf of Israel and British Jews.

  

I watched a shocking example  (scroll to 1:35: 54) of ignorance by the host, Conservative MP Dehenna Davison this morning, during a feature ironically titled “Common Ground”. It might be common ground for some people, but  - let's just say it’s debatable. Watch as Davison fawns over guest Imam Ajmal Masroor  (of The Big Questions notoriety) as he tells a sentimental tale about a generous donation of books to the people of Gaza while spouting some rabidly antisemitic, wildly perverted, and untrue ravings against Israel.

 

Start at 1:35:51

Maybe it’s too late. The demographics ensure that robust criticism of that ideology is out of bounds.

 So, is there hope for GBNews? Your views? 

Will the BBC's John Simpson be watching Nigel and Donald on GB News tonight?

I've a free evening tonight, so I might watch GB News at 7pm when Nigel Farage interviews Donald Trump for a whole two hours. 

As you'd expect, certain BBC types aren't feeling particularly unemotional or impartial about it.

 

Within the last hour, the BBC's impartial World Affairs Editor John Simpson - someone who will never in a millennium of Mondays wish GB News well, or ever think a single pleasant thought about either Nigel Farage or Donald Trump - has taken to Twitter to sneer:

Before the hype that will no doubt follow Nigel Farage's interview with Donald Trump on GB News in some sections of the press, a quick reminder of the latest BARB viewing figures: BBC News 149,200. Sky 72,500. GBN 17,500.

Will he be watching though? 

Nish v Nigel - An Update

 

This comment from Jeremy Vine's nemesis LunchTimeLoather on the Open Thread needs a post of its own (especially for readers new to the blog and just passing by and merely glancing at posts):

LunchTimeLoather: New Year's Eve seems a distant memory now, but some will remember Nish Kumar's remarks about Nigel Farage on the Graham Norton show.

Jeremy Hayes, BBC Complaints Director, told me this week: "I think there is little doubt that it would be regarded as offensive by Mr Farage but the test here is, I think, whether it could be said to breach generally accepted standards, taking into account that the programme was broadcast very late in the evening to an audience of adults. Not everyone appreciates Mr Kumar’s sense of humour, which is often targeted at politicians and can be quite brutal. Having reviewed the programme I do not think his jibe can be regarded as so extreme as to breach generally accepted standards and I am therefore not upholding your complaint. There is no provision for further appeal against this decision within the BBC.". 

JunkkMale: In a sane world, what this oaf ‘thinks’ is worth zippy.  

Vrager: Usual weasley response when the BBC doesn't think it will be sued for libel/slander.

Nish Kumar "brutally" called Nigel Farage "not technically a man, just a sack of meat brought to life by a witch’s curse" on late evening New Year's Eve BBC One.

His comments were clearly neither hate-free nor hilarious. 

And it came from a man who's widely regarded as being 'not technically a comedian', merely a very lucky, shameless, agitprop, bread roll magnet who's never been a hit with the general public but has been privileged and brought to public prominence - and claque applause - by the BBC overwhelmingly because he ticks a number of key BBC boxes. 

He is, perhaps, the ultimate barely-talented beneficiary of positive discrimination promoted beyond his abilities purely for reasons of BBC virtue-signalling (no offence). 

As they used to say on exam papers: Discuss.

Will Andrew Neil's new channel bring us Nigel Farage and Nish Kumar sharing a bottle of champagne and agreeing to disagree on New Year's Eve 2021? 

I suspect Nigel at least would be up for it. Would Nish though, lacking his BBC claque?

You're not alone (updated)

I wanted to read one particular article in the Telegraph so I subscribed to the one-month “Free” trial offer. It might have been due to something technical beyond my ken, but on 99% of the occasions I attempted to log on it wouldn’t let me. I saw that they’d taken a payment from me so I unsubscribed, eight quid the poorer. I’m still due a few more days’ residual access, (which I now seem to be able to enjoy) therefore I’ll make the most of it while I can.

Something has been gnawing away at the back of my mind ever since I saw it on TV. the other day. During yet another report about racism, we were presented with a description of a ‘racist’ incident that had occurred in a school. It seemed that young black girl had experienced a terrible example of racism, after which the mother was moved to complain to the school. The incident was described as follows:

“We were studying John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and  a classmate read out the ’N-word' in class.”

That was it. 

So I stole a chunk of Julie Birchill’s piece from the Telegraph because it seemed apposite. Well, I stole the whole thing, but I’ll give you just a taster and the link here. If you’re interested and haven’t got access, why not sign up for the free trial and remember to unsubscribe asap unless you feel the Telegraph is “worth it”

“As luck would have it, I’m writing a book called Welcome to the Woke Trials published by Constable in the spring of next year. You’d think that everything happening would make it a piece of gluten-free cake to dash off at top speed but I’m finding it something of an embarrassment (literally, for the perpetrators and capitulators when they look back on this shameful summer) of riches. Each morning I read back the previous day’s work – only to find that half a dozen new acts of idiocy have taken place while I slept. Writing this book feels like the fabled painting of the Forth Bridge: no sooner completed than in need of attention once more as you see a bit you’ve missed.
[..]
But now that I’m old, I’m no stick-in-the-mud. So here’s a suggestion: in the interests of harmony and time saving, shall we just cut to the chase and ban everything – every book, film and TV show, reinstating each one in turn only when a worldwide referendum has established that no one in the world is offended by them? Because surely if some people are offended by a statue of a man who led the armies that defeated Hitler, then they can be offended by anything; I fully expect Flat Earthers to start pulling down statues of explorers soon. Swan Lake has the good white swan and the bad black swan, David Bowie had sex with under-age girls, Manet used prostitutes, John Lennon used the N-word and Dickens was mean to his wife.”

While we’re on a roll Telegraph-wise, I saw something else there, relevant to this blog. 

Nigel Farage: Broadcasters like the BBC are alienating their audience with 'woke' pandering 

"A pattern has emerged within most of Britain’s mainstream media whereby a disproportionate amount of time is devoted to subjects which do not reflect the views or experiences of the majority. Often, this is a result of broadcasters wanting to appear so well-disposed to minority topics and groups that they over-compensate, alienating their core audience in the process. 

In the case of Brexit coverage in the last few years, it has often seemed as though the 2016 poll – which was won by a margin of more than 1.25 million votes – simply never happened. The mainstream media’s role in delaying the instructions of the people being implemented by Parliament through fixating on what some Remainers wanted, and then agitating for a new battle to take place, cannot be overstated.  

  In the last few weeks, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 News and Sky News have all shone a magnifying glass with great intensity on the issue of race because of the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. […] 

All of this is childish beyond belief. It has turned into a game of who can shout loudest. Reason has evaporated. This is because of the very simplistic terms in which the mainstream media has chosen to present this complicated argument, which has much to do with social class, among other things. When not being branded “racist”, anybody whose point is not deemed to be sufficiently “woke” has been silenced, often under pressure from commercial sponsors and advertisers.

Heresy on Question Time

Next, from the Spectator: The pitfalls of wrongthink  by  Laurence Fox (The actor)

“I, too, have come to the conclusion that I may never get an acting job again without expressing ‘correct’ opinions. While this probably isn’t the end of the world for you, it is a cause of some sadness and anxiety for me. Not least because I’ve always loved my job and also because I have two children who need dinner and clothes and a holiday once in a while. In my job there is a lot of waiting around and a lot of banter and more serious conversations that take place on set. Until very recently, my views on life were met mostly with good humour and, if not always agreed with, always respectfully tolerated. 

The genesis of this rather bleak view of my prospects came after my appearance on Question Time, where I voiced (slightly exasperatedly) a heresy that I’m fairly confident is held by a sizeable proportion of the population. The heresy was that, far from being hounded out by the baying racists of this statistically very tolerant and diverse country, Meghan Markle might, just might, have left for other reasons. Having spent years around actors, a fairly common trait is an enormous ego and the desire to be the centre of attention. I include myself very firmly in this bracket. So with little mental gymnastics involved, I wondered whether her departure might have had something to do with her being denied the limelight she craved.”
[…]
A week later, I got a text from a very well-known young actor with a screenshot of a tweet of mine which read: ‘Every single human life is precious. The end.’ ‘Can you explain this to me?’ said the message. My phone rang; I picked it up and knew straight away that my friend and I were not alone on the call. I heard a quiet shushing, an awkward pause, the white noise on the line changed to speakerphone levels, the louder background and less intimate voice that give these things away. 

‘Hey Loz… I want to really understand you… I mean… I defend you and as you know… I really love you… [You’re an actor, the only thing you love is the mirror, darling] but this… this is really hard…’
‘Which part of it?’ I said.
‘Can’t you see it’s just wrong?’ they said.
‘What?’ I said.
‘Loz…’ came the gently menacing reply. ‘How can I defend you, man? When you are saying shit like this?’
‘Shit like what?’ I said. ‘That every single human life is precious? Which part of that is problematic for you?’
‘It’s racist,’ came the reply.
Cue deep sigh. Let me say at this point that I firmly believe that most people take the BLM mission statement at face value and support it in kind. I’m aware that I am not black and have no concept of the lived experience of anyone other than myself."

There you go. If you’re in despair, you can take comfort from reading some of the non-MSM stuff that’s around. At least that makes you feel you’re not alone.

Update.
I must admit I only just noticed the blooper near the end of Laurence’s timely article. Did you spot it?

“We must be aware of biased media, including our own state broadcaster the BBC. It has moved from the Jeremy Bowen-style ‘show not tell’ reportage of old, to one that describes protests that led to hospitalisations and mass arrests as ‘largely peaceful’.”

While that example of wrongthink doesn’t sabotage his entire credibility, it certainly dents it with me. He could have picked a legitimate example of “show not tell” reportage, but I assume that would require delving deep into the BBC archives. 
Sorry Laurence, but this self-inflicted gaffe exposes the gaping hole in your savvy.

Dystopia

In the brave new world:

• TV channels (the BBC, Sky, al-Jazeera etc) give us 4-hour non-stop coverage of a certain funeral. 
• Al Sharpton tells us that the dead man’s “only crime” was to be born black. 
• On the Today programme Chris Patten (!) suddenly becomes the voice of reason.
• 1q§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§qq (The cat typed that)
• The Times (!) (£) prints: “Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, released a two-minute racist outburst in which he accused police of being “soft-handed” at the protests because there were “too many people who aren’t white”.
• Hmmm
• I don't think Boris is very well. The other day his voice was weak and he looked frail. (No wonder)
• Wake me up when it’s over.

What's the point, Piers?

The Twitter mob is marching out with torches and pitchforks out this morning because Nigel Farage was on The Andrew Marr Show. 

Despite serving for over 21 years as an elected MEP and being the most influential politician in modern British political history, these fiery furies really don't think the BBC should invite him on. At all.

Yes, Nigel Farage only got a walk-on (or sit-down) part on the sofa this morning, sitting alongside a former Lib Dem advisor during the paper review, while the ex-President of the European Council Donald Tusk got the long, final interview. But even that's too much for them.

Piers Morgan has tried, but seriously, Piers, what's the point?

Piers Morgan: Nigel Farage was calm, measured, reasonable & non-gloating on #Marr - so of course, illiberal liberal Twitter is losing its hysterical sh*t yet again & howling abuse about him. The perpetually furious woke brigade will never win an election until they learn to stop doing this.

Amanda AbuBakr-Poole: He's a fascist , do your homework!

Piers Morgan: Farage is not a fascist. Ironically, the new fascism is the illiberal left constantly branding everyone with a different opinion ‘fascist’.

Who cares what this nasty, grim-faced Marxist serial loser has to say any more? Utterly irrelevant. #marr #mcdonnell pic.twitter.com/FplRS9rWHE

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 2, 2020

"Really?"

During the Andrew Marr paper review this morning, Nigel Farage (the first man on the sofa this year) made a striking comment: 

I don't think the EU ever took Mrs May terribly seriously. I got the sense, I was there on Wednesday, my last day there, I got the sense in that debate that for the first time since the vote in 2016 they are a little more frightened of us than we are of them.

Andrew Marr's response to this was striking too. He asked, incredulously, "Really?"

He evidently didn't believe Mr Farage. 

Viewswatch

BBC’s head of Westminster was supposed to come on @newswatchbbc today but isn’t. We hope to see a senior bbc boss in the next fortnight. In meantime we are looking at PrinceAndrew, future of Newsround & presence of Nigel Farage. 745pm Newsch/BBC1 745am Sat https://t.co/QD9XvN8JwU

— Samira Ahmed (@SamiraAhmedUK) November 22, 2019

It's always tricky when a BBC presenter, off camera, has repeatedly expressed a particular viewpoint but then, in their role as an impartial BBC presenter, repeatedly finds herself reading out other people's expression of that very same viewpoint. 

Take Samira Ahmed, for example. She's known for opposing the exposure given to Nigel Farage, who she doesn't approve of, by the BBC over the years, and yet here she was today on her Newswatch programme reading out a response "that we've heard many times before from viewers" (as she put it):

Can someone explain why Nigel Farage is a mainstay on political programming? He is not running to be an MP, and there are other British MEPs.  

Well, Samira, it's not just "from viewers" that we've heard that response, is it? It's from you too. 

Funny old world

Twitter banter:

Nick Robinson: No-one in the UK will be able to vote for Nigel Farage & no-one voted for him to lead his party but he is, undoubtedly, one of the big players in this election. Funny old world. 

Peter 'Details Matter' Martin: As is the most partial of broadcasters being funded by compulsion.

Moving on

Yesterday I promised to respond to your points here, but this morning things seem to have moved on, what with Donald Trump’s LBC debut 

and that young fellow’s sparky contribution to last night’s QT. 

“Bring on a general election. I hope Boris gets a majority, delivers Brexit and defeats a Marxist Jeremy Corbyn government”, says this #bbcqt audience member. pic.twitter.com/1XQS42KYVC

— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) October 31, 2019

No matter how much we strive to be less of a ‘hate-site’  and more of a platform for legitimate criticism, the BBC gets worse, not better.  Naturally, we feel discouraged by our own impotence.  I can’t speak for Craig here, but recently I have detected a stagnant air about this place.  I found the dwindling number of below-the-line contributors disheartening.

The page-views are still buoyant, but if you’re merely lurking, why not join in? 

Perhaps the comments facility is a deterrent - it’s not at all user-friendly - but people complain about Disqus as well. To those of you who have stuck with us  - your loyalty and thoughtful contributions are much appreciated.

These (we call them introspective) posts come across as ‘fishing for compliments’, which isn’t exactly what I’m fishing for at all. I’m fishing for engagement and debate. To liven things up.

(This is today. I might feel different tomorrow.)

To Arthur T 30 October 2019 at 14:31

Once upon a time, the BBC considered the sincere criticism they found on the Biased-BBC blog worth engaging with and refuting. But when the site was reinvigorated (taken ’downmarket’) some of the petty and factually questionable comments that popped up discredited the whole enterprise and let the BBC off the hook, so to speak. They took the easy option and dismissed the whole thing as ‘hate’. In a way are collateral damage. But we knew that when we started this.

To Unknown 30 October 2019 at 15:39

I thought the idea of ‘handing it over’ was slightly absurdist. I mean, what’s to hand over? It’s a free blog, run on goodwill and gratis. Nothing to stop anyone setting up one of their own. I suppose the domain name could be transferred. D’you think it has commercial value? Any offers? (Only joking)

To Monkey Brains 30 October 2019 at 22:35

All nine of your questions are up for discussion as and when you like. Open debate is exactly what this site is (wishes it was) about. So, how can we encourage it any more than we do already? Genuine question.

Bear in mind that self-publicity is not our strong point. We’re hard-wired against it. This is what Douglas Murray calls a 'hardware' rather than a software issue - it’s genetic, inborn; nature rather than nurture. 

To Terry 31 October 2019 at 11:16

Battle-weary is a good diagnosis. The general election might reignite some passion - but as I’m more of a long-form merchant, the appropriate brevity is hard to master and I don’t know if there’s any future in churning out posts that end up “tl;dr”. (I do try.)

Enjoy

Douglas Murray has been doing the rounds -  publicising his book The Madness of Crowds - Race, Gender and Identity. 

Of all the book-publicity material I’ve seen, (with Candace Owens, Julia Hartley-Brewer , etc etc,) this conversation with Peter Whittle in the “So What you’re Saying Is…” series, (New Culture Forum) allows the subject free rein to express and develop his ideas.

 Of the Roger Scruton fiasco: 

“…….a public square so stupid and deracinated that people who are actually thoughtful and have thought about things can be ‘disappeared’ at the whim of the ignoramus.”

As one commenter says, we get to hear Douglas Murray without too much input from the host. 

I’m not too sure about the dirty-protest themed backdrop, (I might discuss backgrounds at a later date) but it’s good.

This Brexit themed video (H/T M.B.) is fun, probably more so for the 52% than the 48%…

Radio 4’s Start the Week this morning alluded to the BBC in a discussion about confirmation bias, echo chambers and ‘non-diversity of thinking. 

From within my own bubble, I’m beginning to suspect that the BBC’s popularity is in a downward spiral.

Champion Ash

Interesting fact:

Nigel Farage has been on Question Time once in 2019. Far-left scribbler Ash Sarkar has been on three times. 

Nigel Farage (geoff) boycotts the BBC. The BBC begs him to reappear

At least Andrew Marr didn't ask him about Paddington Bear

Thus spake Nigel...

(h/t MB):

I appeared with Andrew Marr in the European Elections, when we were heading the polls in the European Elections, and I was treated like a war criminal. 

It was just extraordinary. You’d have thought I was at Nuremberg for something awful I’d done. 

They’re now begging me every week on email to reappear. So far I keep telling them I’m washing my hair. 

 I don’t think we need the BBC as much as we used to. I think their behaviour has been disgusting at every level. They are utterly biased. 

But mercifully fewer people watch them or listen to them. 

May that trend continue.

What is Nigel Farage best-known for?

One of the people I follow on Twitter, Dr. Paul Stott from the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, wrote this earlier today on the theme of the Andrew Marr/Nigel Farage interview:

The most illuminating part of the interview was when Andrew Marr claimed Nigel Farage is best known for the 'Breaking Point' anti-immigration poster. He's not. But that is what many activists find most unacceptable in his back catalogue. Marr was taking their views as fact.

I must admit, probably because my brain was locked in 'interruption-counting' mode, that I hadn't picked up on that. 

Checking back, here's what Andrew said:

Let's return to the thing that you are most well-known for, to a lot of people watching, which is that famous poster, the 'Breaking Point' poster that Ukip put up. Can I ask you, would the Brexit Party put that poster up?  

Paul has a point. 

F

The previous post featured my transcript of part of Andrew Marr's interview with Nigel Farage, but the programme itself has now posted its own transcript of the full interview - a service they perform every week.

I know, in the scheme of things, that it's a minor point, but the AM transcripts all take the same form (naturally), so you'll see, say, the Damian Hinds interview this morning written up like this:

The Jonathan Ashworth interview is, similarly, written up like this:

The Nigel Farage transcript is different isn't just different to these, it's different to any I've read before (and I've read huge numbers of them). See if you can spot the difference:

Yes, 'AM' interviewed 'DH' and 'JA', but when it came to Nigel Farage 'AM' is interviewing 'F' rather than 'NF'.. 

As I say, I've never seen an interviewee simply reduced to the initial of the surname before in these transcripts. It's as if for them Damien Hinds and Jonathan Ashworth deserve to be thought of as 'Damien Hinds' and 'Jonathan Ashworth' but Nigel Farage is just 'Farage'.

If it's deliberate, then it's very passive-aggressive behaviour from the AM team member(s) who transcribed it.

Andrew Marr v Nigel Farage

Here's Andrew Marr trying to do to Nigel Farage what Andrew Neil did to Ben Shapiro:

It didn't get off to a good start for Andrew Marr:

Andrew Marr: Nigel Farage in 2016, why did you not advocate no deal?
Nigel Farage: Because it was obvious we could do a free trade deal. M. Barnier and the others were talking about this. The problem is the Prime Minister never asked for it, so we finished up in the mess we are in. And the only way...
Andrew Marr: (interrupting) It was obvious, but it didn't happen.
Nigel Farage: Well, because the Prime Minister didn't ask for it. She chose to go for this 'close and special partnership'. Basically, right from the start, she was happy for us to be kept very close to the customs union. So where we are now, the only way the democratic will of the people can be delivered is to leave on a WTO deal.
Andrew Marr:  So you accept you weren't advocating no deal back then because you know...
Nigel Farage: (interrupting). Oh, no, no, no! In the referendum itself I was the one who coined the phrase 'no deal is better than a bad deal', which of course is pretty obvious...
Andrew Marr: (interrupting) I've gone back, and you said it...if you said it, you said it away from the cameras and the microphones.
Nigel Farage: (interrupting) No, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry...
Andrew Marr:  Because I can't find examples of you saying this...
Nigel Farage: 'No deal is better than a bad deal' I was using every day for the last two weeks of that campaign.
Andrew Marr: Right. We can't find it.
Nigel Farage: Well, you'd better look closer!

Well, it look me less than a minute to find a BBC report from June 20th 2016 quoting Nigel Farage saying "No deal is better than the deal we currently have", and from there it was straight on a BBC report from June 8th 2016 about the previous day's ITV referendum debate which quotes Nigel saying "No deal is better than a rotten deal that we have at the moment" in front of the cameras and the microphones! 

I also quickly found him saying "No deal would be better than the rotten deal we have now" during a June 3rd 2016 Express Group referendum debate hosted by Nick Ferrari. 

So how on earth did Andrew Marr and his high-powered BBC team fail to "find it"?

Bizarre.

Demolition job

Okay, so who demolished whom? I’d say the blogosphere-cum-Twittersphere-cum-my-own-head-osphere has come down, say 60/40 on the side of Andrew Neil.  

Whether you’ve watched the edited version, the full version, the YouTube version or the BBC version, the problem du jour is the BBC’s complacent reliance on the dull-witted, second-rate, unimaginative research on which their adversarial interviewing technique is habitually based.

Arguably, Andrew Neil won on points - well, one point - which is that he himself is not particularly known for his leftieness. It’s the BBC that’s known for that. 

In which ⁦@afneil successfully⁩ takes on US conservative Ben Shapiro https://t.co/TnYQkMe8hx

— Rupert Myers (@RupertMyers) May 10, 2019

However, Andrew Neil isn’t all he’s cracked up to be. When it comes to certain issues he’s as lefty as the next ‘Beeboid’. (viz his horrified reaction to perceived Islamophobia and related politically incorrect attitudes) He’s lazy on that.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned in this context is Ben Shapiro’s apology. Fulsome and unequivocal.  Has Andrew Neil reciprocated? Or has he doubled down?  

If neither of them had really ‘never heard of’ the other, then it’s surely very remiss of the BBC to have left Andrew Neil in the dark. Anyway, someone should be a bit sorry about that, if nothing else.

The theme of attacking the BBC for cherry-picking old and tired soundbites and using them as their primary demolition strategy seems to have caught on. 

Nigel made mincemeat out of t’other Andy in that regard, I thought. Poor chap looked quite shell-shocked in the end; he went pale - and who wasn’t just a little concerned for his health?

Farage taken to task by Marr pic.twitter.com/ge2FrWyIyl

— Rupert Myers (@RupertMyers) May 12, 2019

Anyway, the BBC should now take a leaf out of some rival broadcasting organisations. I can’t access  Al Jazeera Eng any longer, but although they were who they were, they allowed their debates time to flow. I think I’ve heard more uninterrupted speech from Israeli politicians and spokespersons on Al Jaz than on any of our own MSMs.

 And look at Russia Today? Who saw that debate with David Vance and Peter Tatchell the other day? Apart from some unforgettable smarmy bits, I thought it was quite good. In its own sweet way.

As for the spiteful ad homs and attacks on Ben Shapiro that have littered the blogosphere, well, shame. (Mind you there is a touch of the heliums in there, which does slightly ‘affect the overall’. )

No, They Haven't Got 'Have I Got News For You' For You

"The BBC has specific editorial guidelines that apply during election periods. Because of this it would be inappropriate to feature political party leaders on entertainment programmes during this short election period, which does not allow for equal representation to be achieved."

                                          BBC statement

The BBC's last-minute decision to pull this week's Have I Got News For You because of fears that the appearance of Change UK/The Independent Group's interim leader Heidi Allen might break the corporation's election impartiality rules has provoked the usual storm of indignation from #FBPE types. 

The FBPEs' main line of (ahem) reasoning is that the previous night's Question Time had Nigel Farage on and that his week's The Andrew Marr Show will also feature Nigel Farage, so why shouldn't Heidi Allen be on Have I Got News For You? - the obvious answers to which are:

(a) because HIGNFY is light entertainment programme while QT and Andrew Marr are political programmes, and... 

(b) because the latter (QT and the AM show) will be balanced over the course of the election while HIGNFY won't be  - and can't be. 

[Naturally, many #FBPE types failed to remind each other that Anna Soubry of Change UK-TIG was also on that QT alongside Nigel Farage].

The BBC has said it will broadcast the edition later, after the election.

If they do, I'd  be quite intrigued to see how Ian Hislop & Co. treated Ms. Allen. Was she 'roasted' the way a pro-Brexiter or a right-winger is invariably 'roasted' by the programme, or let off lightly? 

Until then, fans of uncorroborated theories may entertain themselves with this thought: Maybe Heidi Allen got such an easy ride from Ian & Co. that the BBC thought it looked too biased and panicked?