Pheeww! (OPEN THREAD)

A few observations, but please make allowances for someone who only managed about four hours sleep. 

Thank you for a lively open thread.  (You may use this as a new one if you like)

The magic has deserted the grandpa. The full pronunciation of ‘Party’ has resumed; Jeremy's ’T’ has been restored to its rightful place. He probably deduced that pandering to glottal-stopping troops was a waste of time if they’re going to just turn on him and kick him when he’s down.

Although I wouldn’t class Lisa Nandy and Lucy Powell as particularly disloyal, or Corbynista troops -  not by a long chalk - but don’t forget, they would have stood by him if Labour hadn’t been thoroughly trounced.  

Both of them publicly turned on him this morning, albeit in measured tones.  Lucy Powell said he could have shown some contrition and taken responsibility for Labour’s failure. He didn’t. He was irritable and he doubled down on the weaknesses in his campaign with remarkably stubborn intransigence. Sulky and, what’s the opposite of magnanimous? Mean-spirited?

I was sorry that Caroline Flint lost her seat. She was magnanimous. That's the way to do it.

What will happen next?

Where will all the antisemitism go? It’s out of the bottle and it can’t go back.

Let’s see how the BBC will adjust. Will they pretend they weren't institutionally hostile to the Tories all along?

Look at "ex-BBC" Paul Mason! I think he's completely lost touch with reality. Yet the BBC once employed him as a BBC economics expert. Look at shifty Shami Chakrabarti. She's been interviewed by the BBC's finest a few times since 'the whitewash'. Yet she wasn't even challenged on the fiasco of a report that earned her a peerage.

 But, hey. Pheewwww!

Kirsty v Paul

Though Emily Maitlis continues to regularly retweet her ex-Newsnight colleague Paul Mason (as if they are still besties), there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of warmth now between the ex-Newsnight far-left extremist and another of his former Newsnight colleagues, namely Kirsty Wark - at least if tonight's Newsnight is anything to go by. This snippy exchange was even chillier in the flesh than it appears on the page:

Kirsty Wark: Joining me tonight we have Salma Shah, who was a special advisor at the Home Office until earlier this year, The Sun's political editor Tom Newton Dunn, author and Labour activist... 

Paul Mason: (interrupting): Journalist. 

Kirsty Wark: ...author, journalist and activist Paul Mason, and Westminster Correspondent for the Yorkshire Post, Geraldine Scott. 

Actually, Kirsty was right first time.

Red Len v Red Andy (featuring Red Paul Mason)

I'm late in catching up with today's The Andrew Marr Show. 

Andrew's interview with far-left Len McCluskey of the Unite union was particularly gripping viewing.

My favourite bit needs transcribing:

Andrew Marr: Have you ever heard the suggestion around the leader's office that he's going to step down towards the end of this year?
Len McCluskey: Absolutely not. It's fake news. Jeremy is a strong leader and people should stop putting him under pressure. This idea, even from comrades of the Left - Paul Mason. He seems to have lost his marbles -...
Andrew Marr: (interrupting) No, he hasn't lost his marbles!
Len McCluskey: He's wanting...
Andrew Marr: (interrupting) No, that's not fair!
Len McCluskey: ...to sack everyone around Jeremy...

Now I, of course, was mainly laughing there at Red Len's denunciation of Comrade Mason, ex of the BBC's Newsnight (though I shocked myself by finding myself agreeing with Len on quite a few things during the whole interview)...

...and I also laughed at Red Len saying that Jez is "a strong leader" and then saying "and people should stop putting him under pressure". (Who needs satire?) 

I then saw from Twitter that far-left ex-BBC Newsnight economics editor Paul wasn't at all happy with Red Len about that, and that made me laugh even more. 

The endless fallings-out of the present day extreme-Left are grimly comical, in a Monty Pythonish kind of way, but what if they - and their anti-Semitic hordes - got into power via a Jeremy Corbyn premiership? What price laughter then?

A Masonic headshake

Well, at least the BBC can't be accused of not covering or suppressing discussion of that pro-EU march yesterday.

Oh... 

Exchange:

Phil Atherton: screenshot of the ‘top stories’ on my BBC News App at 8am. Did the march happen?

Rob Burley, BBC: Yes, it happened yesterday and was lead story all day. What is the new aspect of the march that should be in the news today? Of course it will be discussed but that’s not the same as a new development.

Paul Mason, ex-BBC: Why is Barbara Streisand more important than the political aftermath of the biggest demo in living memory? It's the BBC's flawed and opaque editorial judgement that deems mass peaceful protest of only fleeting significance. If a Royal died would you take that off p1 the next day?

Rob Burley: The aftermath of the march features prominently in the TOP STORY on the site today about the position of the Prime Minister. It just doesn’t have a story of its own because, unlike the Streisand story which has changed, the march finished yesterday and has still finished.

Additional tweet:

Rob Burley: Here’s the BBC apparently trying to suppress discussion of the march yesterday (which led all day) by including it in the top story this morning. Honestly, the desire to take offence and find fault without even checking what we are doing is exhausting.

Free Speech

It’s all very well arguing about free speech, no-platforming, diversity, safe spaces, being/not being triggered, positive discrimination and having the chance to see and hear others’ points of view before making up your own mind about controversial issues. I get all that, and I do realise that you can’t have everything your own way. (Bit like Brexit)

However, the BBC’s over-exposure of Ash Sarkar is verging on ‘diversity of opinion too far’.

First there was saturation-point Paul Mason, a subversive hard-left pundit whom the Beeb couldn’t seem to get enough of - but his appearances have thankfully subsided, (although he was on this morning’s Broadcasting House) but even he seems more moderate these days, perhaps in comparison to the likes of Sarkar, assorted Asian women and that weirdo from Squawkbox. 
I feel triggered by Ash Sarkar, with those terrifying talons that she keeps waving in the air, although I suppose I must defend her right to wave them. 

Talking of Broadcasting House, they too touched on the aforementioned Rod Liddle, namely his recent, controversial article about missing dads. Absent dads, I mean - and to be more specific, absent black dads.

So they brought along that internet sensation of a black dad who made a video that went viral, in which he stated what could be described as the bleedin’ obvious, which is that if someone threatens you with a knife, if possible, scarper! Do as the Satnav says, and turn around where possible.

However, to most victims of the stabbing epidemic, not losing face seems to have taken priority over not losing your life. (Which would you rather save?) 

That inability to lose face reminds me of the continuing conflict in the Middle East - peace or intractability, that’s the choice. I digress.

Anyway, the wise dad, whose video stating the bleedin’ obvious went viral, has plans. He wants to set up youth projects to give kids something to do. Excellent! But not new.

Remember Camila Batmanghelidjh? I think I’m her one remaining supporter. Yes, she messed up, but her original approach to feral youth was promising.

See the way the BBC’s Chris Cook completely vilifies her. His article drips with rancour.  He states that the service she provided was unnecessary. 

“As its end approached, local charities, councils, child psychiatrists and officials all steeled themselves for the end of a £20m-a-year enterprise that had said it was in the same business as them. 

But the flood of need never came.”

“We can also now definitively say that local youth crime statistics have given the lie to a prediction from the charity that its collapse would lead to a descent into "savagery". None of the ups and downs coincide with the charity's collapse. Changes in city-wide crime, policing approaches and gangland economics matter much more than Kids Company did. 

I would suggest that this is a matter of opinion. The spate of knife crime, gangs, drugs and absent dads is hardly consistent with “The flood of need never came”.

I do know this viewpoint won’t go down well with many of you but there it is. I claim it in the name of free speech.

All Gas and Gaiters

Elsewhere, of course, #VicarGate is still raging. 

For newcomers to this latest Newsnight 'scandal', here's a summary of what happened:

Earlier this week Newsnight staged a discussion about Mrs May's Brexit deal involving "members of the public", one of whom, 'Reverend Lynn', urged us to “have faith in the government”.

Some viewers, however, smelled a unholy rat and claimed that 'Reverend Lynn' is actually a professional actress called Marina Hayter, who has been an extra in Eastenders and a Star Wars film, as well as playing "Bar Worker, Chemo Patient, Wedding Guest and Fun Fair Attendee" in various other things.

Many started accusing the BBC of deliberately hiring an actress to pretend to be a Brexit-Deal-backing pro-Government pastor on Newsnight.

The BBC, of course, denies this:

Some familiar faces appeared among the conspiracy theorists. Hear the word of the Lord, for example!:

Enter Emily, stage left:

And a little bird tells me that Newsnight editor Esme Wren started twittering too:

Cue Paul Mason, ex-Newsnight master of impartiality, entering stage far-left:

And on it goes...

eg me

Well, it's an idea:

😁

And there's more:

I think Paul may have a point though about the BBC's "panel of hand-picked numpties". That's my worry too. 

"Me? The BBC? Here? In charge of choosing a panel for a major Brexit debate? At nine o'clock in the evening? With our reputation? What were they thinking of?"

Paul Mason gets something wrong again (shocker)

One of the minor pleasures of blogging about BBC bias is that, from time to time, you get to debunk Paul Mason....

The former Newsnight economic economic was, in his usual Wolfie Smith fashion, raising the red flag of revolution last night against the reactionary licksplittles and running dogs at the BBC:

His point? 

Well, Kamal Ahmed's News at Ten report featured one Rupert Harrison as a 'talking head', and the caption introducing Mr Harrison simply read 'BlackRock Asset Management'. And he said complimentary things about the Budget. 

So yes, just as Paul said, Rupert Harrison was presented as if he was some kind of impartial expert......with no mention whatsoever that he'd been George Osborne's former chief of staff. 

So "Pro-Tory BBC bias!", according to Paul.

But...

What Wolfie neglected to mention was that just a few moments later in the same Kamal Ahmed report there came a second 'taking head': one Professor Mariana Mazzucato. And the caption introducing her simply read 'University College London'. And she said uncomplimentary things about the Budget.

So she too was presented as if she was some kind of impartial expert......with no mention whatsoever that John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn appointed her to be a Labour Party economic advisor. 

So what's that then, Paul? "Pro-Corbyn BBC bias!"?

This isn't really a 'complaints from both sides' thing. It's much more a 'Paul Mason got it wrong again' thing!

Now I say 'got it wrong again', but given that it's very unlikely that he didn't know that Prof. Mazzucato has close ties to the Corbyn leadership, maybe he 'got it wrong' deliberately?

(I know...shocking thought!)

Paul Mason strikes again

Fans of everyone's favourite far-left ex-Newsnight economics editor Paul Mason might enjoy the following...

As reported in today's The Times, George Osborne's Evening Standard stands accused (by openDemocracy's James Cusick) of promising "six commercial giants (including Uber and Google) 'money-can’t-buy' news coverage in a lucrative deal, leaving millions of Londoners unaware of who’s paying for their news". The Evening Standard strongly denies this, but that hasn't stopped Paul Mason from making demands on Sarah Sands, the editor of the Today programme (and previously the editor of the Evening Standard):

A flaw in Paul's argument was quickly spotted...

...followed by gales of public hilarity. (Oh Paul!)

Incidentally, this story (or non-story) is arousing a lot of interest from prominent commentators on Twitter but not, as far as I can see, from the BBC yet. (Not even the not-very-shy-and-retiring BBC media editor Amol Rajan).

P.S. A conspiracy theorist has just told me, possibly or possibly not via BBC Trending's Mike Wendling, that the BBC is protecting anti-Brexit cheerleader George Osborne and his Evening Standard here because George is doing such a good job on the Brexit front. Should I believe that conspiracy theorist? 

Another day another smear

An article by Marcus Dysch concerning the media’s general indifference towards antisemitism was published in the Spectator yesterday, but I note it’s now plummeting towards the bottom of the “most popular’ list, which kind of self-substantiates its own proposition.

Here’s Paul Mason on a connected theme.

Another day, another smear. Actually it was yesterday's smear so you're a day late.

— Paul Mason (@paulmasonnews) March 9, 2018

Odd that he considers it a smear, since he is a member of the group in question. Doesn’t make any sense.

Nothing to see here!

Unintentional comedian Paul Mason tweeted what Frank Carson would doubtless have called "a cracker" this morning. His tweet began reasonably enough: 

The Telegraph’s “spy” smear  @johnmcdonnellMP is literally fake news. 

but then his tinfoil hat went straight back on again:

The whole operation seems co-ordinated from Tory HQ...

Lovely use of the word 'seems' there, Paul!

Now, Brother Paul isn't the only one who doesn't reckon much to the Sunday Telegraph's lead story today:

Andrew Marr gave it short shrift this morning:

They've also got the story about Jeremy Corbyn and the Czech agent. I should say that this has been comprehensively and absolutely denied as "lies and rubbish" by all of the politicians concerned and it does seem, reading through it, fairly thin." 

and Martine Croxall & her fellow paper reviewers judged it to be a "non story" on the BBC News Channel last night. 

So that's that then for the poor old Sunday Telegraph it seems! 

Paul Mason complains about someone he doesn't like being interviewed on the BBC

Oh yes, the far-Left are really flocking and furiously flapping their bright red wings this morning - and there's still an hour to go until The Andrew Marr Show begins. 

They really don't want Claire Kober - who resigned as Labour leader of Haringey Council accusing such people of bullying - to be 'platformed' by the show. Or at least 'platformed' without a balancing bully being present.

One of them, however, (a former economics editor at the BBC no less, who's never off the BBC) flew straight into a window...

Rob Burley: Also on #marr the Leader of Haringey Council Claire Kober - on why she's resigning after ten years in the job. Tomorrow at 9am BBC1.

Paul Mason: Why don’t the BBC just give Kober her own channel?

Tom Hamilton: I don’t think she’s got enough broadcast experience, she probably couldn’t sustain a whole channel on her own, on balance it makes more sense just to interview her on an existing channel and then show a range of other programmes designed to appeal to different audiences.

Rob Burley: Yes, I'm with Tom on this.

Update: It continues...

Paul Mason‏: Will you be interviewing anybody from Haringey Labour Party or any of the tenants whose homes she wanted to hand to Lend Lease?

Rob Burley: No, as I've said, you have been on the show and know this, we are an interview programme holding politicians to account. We have spoken to residents groups and Momentum (they were very helpful).

Paul Mason attacks the BBC (again)

Paul Mason, during his BBC days

For long-time followers of former Newsnight economics editor (now a regular jumper of sharks) Paul Mason, here's an extract from a long interview with him in The Huffington Post. I found it interesting and felt it might be worth sharing, especially as there are some surprisingly plausible points in it. Please see what you make of it though:

Paul Mason, Fleet Street’s Rebel With A Cause, On BBC Anti-Corbyn Bias, Brexit And The Media

But for Mason, his former employer is the most biased broadcaster when covering Corbyn. “I don’t think the other broadcasters have been too bad,” he says, adding that both Sky News and ITN, makers of Channel 4 News, have “done alright”. He defends political programming like The Daily Politics but says Corbyn supporters’ criticism of BBC News is fair. 

The corporation’s problem is “group think” that comes from so many of its journalists being from similar backgrounds such as private and Oxbridge education, he says. 

Journalists felt Corbyn was unelectable and had “nothing to lose” in their coverage of him, making them more hostile. Mason says journalists who listened to Corbyn’s shadow cabinet deliberations through a door last year were going against “the spirit” of the passes that give them special access to Parliament. 

“[The BBC] clearly no made no attempt to understand and explain what he was trying to do, it simply joined in the hounding and pursuit of him.” Mason says when he worked at the BBC, doorstepping a senior politician was only ever done when they had refused an interview on a matter of public interest. But that “seemed to go out the window” when Corbyn was elected and journalists regularly began questioning him outside his Islington home. 

“There’s not many Corbyn supporters in these major broadcasters. I know for a fact that there are many supporters of liberal Conservatism and centrist Labourism. They just need to work out a way of covering this radical movement in politics in a way that allows us, the tax payers and licence fee payers, to say: ‘You know what, I think they’re trying’,” Mason says. 

“Corbyn and Labour’s return to the Radical Left is a challenge to the world of many people who work in broadcast news, it will change their world if we come to power. 

“Therefore, I don’t blame them for being wary, hostile, mistrustful. It’s just, you’re not allowed to let that come through to the supposedly unbalanced and impartial reporting.” Perhaps sensing I am about to push for specific examples of biased reporting, he adds: “Anyway, that’s probably enough about the BBC.”

Collective melt-down

In the interest of balance, I bring you another perspective on Paul Mason and his extraordinary class-warrior outburst on last night’s Question Time. "The Canary"

“Economist, journalist and film maker Paul Mason appeared on BBC Question Time on Thursday night, liberated from all impartiality rules for the first time since leaving Channel 4 News earlier this year. It made for explosive viewing, and right-wing pundits were not happy about it.”

Liberated from impartiality rules. Right wing pundits. Social media. OMG The Daily Mail.......

........Breath of Fresh Air.   As you can see, I’m not making much sense.

“For most on social media, Mason’s appearance was a breath of fresh air. Social media lit up with praise for his refreshingly unrestrained presence – which did shake up a show which has become tediously predictable of late.”

“Swivel-eyed crazy”

I was just about to compose a shell-shocked rant about Paul Mason’s extraordinary outburst during last night’s Question Time, but I see OMG The Daily Mail has done it for me.

In a sidebar, a brief reference to the BBC: 

“Dismissed as a 'revolutionary marxist' by George Osborne, Paul Mason's left-wing leanings were no secret during his decade long career at the BBC.”

Toby Young  and William Cameron Tweeted:

I wonder if anyone from the BBC will have anything to say?

Ha, ha!

So even Paul Mason is now a "Tory"!

Breaking news

Fans of far-left, Syriza-obsessed former Newsnight economics editor Paul Mason will be pleased to hear that he's now leaving left-leaning Channel 4 News.

Why? Because even its demands for him to pretend to be impartial are proving far too onerous. 

According to the Graurdiann, he's going freelance - in order to be as biased as he likes.

And good on him I say...

...though I bet he didn't see it coming.

My own favourite post of mine here at ITBB (oh, how modest!) was my review of one of his appearances on Radio 4's annual BBC Correspondents Look Ahead. I think I proved that Paul is even less of a successful prophet than Karl Marx.

Occupy, occupy, occupy!

Random thoughts

I've just switched on the BBC News Channel and I'm glad to see that they're leading with the murderous attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels. As a serious news organisation, that is right and proper - and all credit to them for it. So it the BBC One evening news.

*****

I was reading Evan Davis in the Spectator. As befits a BBC wallah, he professed himself to  be equally torn between a left-wing economist, Thomas Piketty, and a right-wing economist, Deirdre McCloskey, on the issue of equality and capitalism. 

As regards M. Piketty, the darling of the left-wing chattering class (even according to Newsnight), one passage stood out from Evan's piece:

Only the brave would dare argue wiith his pages of tables and charts, his equations and dense prose.

Well, Evan Davis - former BBC Economics Editor - might not have been brave enough but Chris Giles of the Financial Times certainly was and, as a result, found an extraordinary number (and range) of errors in M. Piketty's tables, charts, equations and dense prose. 

A Nobel prize for Chris Giles please!

That FT article of his is an absolute tour-de-force [and you can read it for free if you haven't used up your eight Paywall lives at the paper], an extraordinary achievement for a British journalist, suggesting that the conclusions drawn by M. Piketty - and widely accepted by the British media - are, at the very least, unproven and, at worst, completely and utterly wrong.

Why did none of the economic geniuses at the BBC ferret out these errors? Why did they just accept them?

Newsnight devoted much of its 30/4 edition to discussing Thomas Piketty's 'findings', without demur, so it was good to see the its 23/5 edition reporting Chris Giles' severe fisking - albeit briefly and near the end of the programme - and just as good to see the much-anticipated Duncan Weldon, Newsnight's new ex-TUC economics correspondent, reporting it.

It all rather looks though as if Evan's dilemma - being torn between M. Pinketty and Deirdre McCloskley - has been solved. If I were you, Evan, I'd go with Deirdre.

*****

I very much enjoyed favourite BBC philosopher Michael Sandel's 'Why vote?' edition of The Public Philosopher this week. 

It was like hearing Socrates in the forum putting on an American accent and raising all manner of outlandish yet strangely pertinent questions about the state of democracy in modern Britain. The result was weird yet revealing.

I was amused though to hear him conclude, from various questions, that his audience was far from being representative of the British public. 

For starters, nearly all of the audience at the L.S.E. (by the sounds of it consisting of L.S.E. students and professors) said they intended to vote in this week's elections. Very few said they wouldn't be voting - and, as we know, that's extremely unrepresentative.

Oh for the days when David and Jonathan Dimbleby, Nicky Campbell (et all) dare to say something similar about their programme's highly political audiences!

*****

Interpolated addition to post: By a curious coincidence I'm now catching up with Paddy O'Connell's Broadcasting House broadcasting from a tent at the Hay Literary Festival. He's talking to Labour's Alan John 'bout stuff, and asked the former minister about what percentage of the audience he reckoned had voted this week. He reckoned, going off the national average, some 34%.

Instead of phoning a friend, Paddy asked the audience. He reckoned around 80% put their hands up to say they'd voted.

Another unrepresentative BBC audience then!

*****

Just watching the BBC One news bulletin as I type. Jeremy Bowen is on, spinning for the Palestinians and what he sees as the Pope's endorsement of the Palestinian cause. He's looking like the cat that's got the cream, and then poured it on a pie full of shrews and sparrows. 

When it comes to Jeremy's, I prefer Paxman and Clarkson. And Brett, the best ever Sherlock Holmes. And Bentham, the stuffed philosopher. Irons, of course. Not so much Vine though.

*****

I bet Paul Mason, now over at Channel 4 News, is wetting himself in anticipation of the Greek far-Left Syriza doing well in the Greek portion of the Euro elections. Duncan Weldon could only ever be an improvement on Citizen Paul. 

Duncan has a stranger way with vowels though. 

He's one of those people who has a strange way of saying certain words. I always used to listen out for the Miliband brothers and the way they both say the word 'years', pronouncing it as 'yars', which I thought made them sound very posh. 

That said I'm northern. My vowels are flatter than Ed Miliband's approval ratings.

*****

As a blogger I really ought to say that 'The world's gone MAD!!!!' more often.

On a recent repeat the BBC censored the word 'girl' from a programme. No really, they did.

A BBC presenter called Mark Beaumont made a documentary about the Commonwealth Games and was filmed losing to a judo champion. The judo champion was a 19-year old girl, so - being a human being of the male persuasion - he joked, "I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old girl."

The BBC collectively fainted, and Mariella Frostrup ritually disemboweled herself (in the manner of Yukio Mishima) in protest. He word 'girl' was a goner, henceforth to be know as the g-word.

The world's gone MAD!!!! Well, at least the BBC part of the world.

Incidentally, here's an image of Mark getting his ass kicked by a g***!

*****

Moving onto Broadcasting House, Paddy's talking to the eternally ultra-loyal Labourite Alan Johnson before an unrepresentative BBC audience. Alan's spinning it for Labour. The audience are backing him up, apparently...though maybe not, as a later show of hands shows that a majority (though by the sounds of it only a small majority) don't support Labour.

Alan Johnson has just been saying that Ed Miliband should be true to himself and not try to deny his upbringing (those posh 'yars').

In doing so he did a Tony Blair himself and started dropping t's from the middle of words and popping in a 'working class' "don't" where he would usually say "doesn't":

And I think it would be terrible if Ed star[t]ed to sound like a Yorkshire backstreet...like something like me perhaps with me accent. He don't come from my background. He comes from a different background. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

I've heard innumerable Alan Johnson interviews over the years. He doesn't speak like that normally. Those were put-ons, and that 'don't' really made me laugh (or lol, as the BBC's Jasmine Lawrence might put it).

When politicians attempt to point up their 'authenticity' it never goes well.

I used to use Paddy of pro-Labour bias [as he used to display it on a regular basis], but he certainly didn't show it hear. He put the anti-Ed case with some tenacity and made Alan Johnson work for his pro-Labour spin.

*****

The latest update on the 'My blog list' section on the right-hand side of this blog is from BBC News. It reads 'Kerr quits as manager of Arsenal'.

At the risk of sounding like a girl, I didn't know that Arsene Wenger had already gone. 

Paul Mason: A Cameronite/Osbornist propagandist?

If I shake my head in disbelief any more this morning I might end up cricking my neck, or risk it dropping off into my cornflakes...

On last night's Newsnight, Paul Mason told us:

My final barometer of confidence is Twitter, because every time a report like this goes out saying the statistics show signs of recovery a lot of people tweet me saying, basically, I'm a Cameronite/Osbornist propagandist, and when that stops I think that will be a fair sign that confidence has returned.

Which suggests to me (a) that sections of the Twitterati must be several eggs short of an omelette and (b) that Paul wants Newsnight viewers to think that the charges of bias against him come from the Left. 

Both Paul - and many a Newsnight viewer - will be well aware though that the usual criticism he gets (away from the world of Twitter) is for 'reporting from the Left' (given that he is a left-winger). 

So he seems to be subtly deploying that well-worn BBC argument, 'we get criticised from both sides, so we must be getting it about right'. 

I'm not buying it though, Paul. 

Tweets about BBC bias on Twitter bare little relation to the views of people as found in opinion polls about the BBC, such as that YouGov one which found that though 37% of people think the BBC is biased in some way, shape or form a mere 4% think it's "biased towards the Right" - more than four times fewer than those who think it's "biased towards the Left". 

Check out Twitter though (search 'BBC bias') and just see the sheer predominance of those who hold that very minority view, that the BBC is biased in favour of the Right. 

On this issue at least, Twitter is a barometer of very little other than itself, I'd say. 

Paul Mason gets a beating...at 'The Guardian'

Talking of Paul Mason and his EU-critical reports, Newsnight's soon-to-be-departing "furrow-browed theorist from the Marxisant Left" reported from Morocco on Wednesday night's programme. 

His subject was the plight facing the mass of sub-Saharan Africans seeking entry to Spain (and the EU more generally) via the North African kingdom. 'The Spanish aren't willing to let the poor migrants in and the Moroccans aren't being very nice to them either' is the basic gist of his report.

You can view the report here (for a few more days) or read Paul's online article about it here. 

What fascinated me though was reading Paul Mason's other article about it - at the Guardian (naturally) - and the remarkably unfavourable response it got from the Guardian's commentariat. It has been well and truly fisked (or should that now be 'masoned'?). I doubt Paul Mason was expecting that. (I certainly wasn't!)

The points - and they are many and various - range from severe doubts about the credibility of the stories Paul Mason's migrants are telling (which they claim he's swallowed uncritically) as well as swipes at the apparent inconsistencies in Paul's own narrative right through to disdain for what many a commentator there feels to be his inability to see that the EU's unwillingness to allow in huge numbers of (im)migrants might not necessarily be a bad thing. Others say he's not getting the 'illegal' part of the phrase 'illegal immigrant'. 

A brief flavour:

Spare me your crocodile tears, Paul.

Mr Mason doesn't appear to have done much research. 

More nonsense from the maudlin, overly-sentimental school of journalism. Stories to warm the heart and make the writer look compassionate, but without a hint of reality or the repercussions associated with allowing large numbers of unskilled people into Europe. 

While part of your taxes, via the EU, is being used to keep the African illegal immigrant tide partially at bay, another part, via the BBC licence fee, is being used to denigrate this effort and solicit sympathy for the lawbreakers. Swings and roundabouts ain't in it.

The BBC's article was never open for comments and, of course, on Newsnight Paul's report went completely unchallenged. 

More's the pity.