Priorities

As discussed on the open thread, here's the running orders of the main BBC One news bulletins since Friday...

Friday News at One
1. 'Wagatha Christie' trial
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Friday News at Six
1. 'Wagatha Christie' trial
2. Calls for compensation in blood scandal
3. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Friday News at Ten
1. Commonwealth Games
2. Calls for compensation in blood scandal
3. 'Wagatha Christie' trial
4. Cost of living
5. Ukraine War
6. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Saturday 1pm Weekend News
1. Train strikes
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Saturday 5pm Weekend News
1. Train strikes
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Saturday 10pm Weekend News
1. England women's football final the next day
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

From the Dark Side of the Moon

On the same theme, here's more of the past week's big BBC bias rows - from (scary music) 'the other side':


1. Spitfiregate 

During the closing headlines of Wednesday night's BBC News at Six black and white footage of a spitfire landing and other spitfires in flight were accidentally broadcast as newsreader Sophie Raworth summarised the Prime Minister’s plan to reopen Brexit talks with EU leaders.

Many laughed at this, but others didn't see the funny side and accused the BBC of doing it deliberately.

Yes - as the Guardian reports - the BBC was being accused of staging a pro-Brexit stunt. [Yes, I know!].

The programme's editor Paul Royall then sent out a tweet saying it was an honest mistake: 

For those wondering - simple human error at end of #BBCNewsSix. A production mistake meant pictures used earlier to tease story about Biggin Hill ended up in our top story recap at close of show. If and when it happens pretty certain PM not travelling to Brussels like this.

The strength of conspiratorial thinking about the BBC among the wilder pro-EU types (especially on Twitter) is very striking, showing that many have become highly radicalised.

As you'll see from the replies to Paul Royall, a lot still won't accept his perfectly reasonable explanation ("Oh. An "accident". Right"; "Too bloody convenient an answer"; etc), while others want an apology rather than "a mumbled excuse".

Here's a particularly interesting response (and one we might also sympathise with):

It might have been a simple mistake. But a lot of people were incredulous and thought it was deliberate. That should worry you. Your explanation should be an apology. But then again BBC news does not do apologies, do they? Just carry on regardless.

2. MarkFrancoisgate

Another conspiracy theory among #FBPE types raged after Conservative MP Mark Francois's appearance on Politics Live, where he made 'Germanophobic remarks' in relation to Airbus boss Thomas Enders and then ripped up, live on air, a copy of Airbus's dire warning about Brexit - a stunt that surely took the BBC unawares.

Or not, as the case may be, for as Samira Ahmed said  on this week's Newswatch, "Some people felt the BBC was party to a stunt by letting him rip up that letter from the Airbus chief executive on BBC airwaves". 

The BBC boss appearing on Newswatch, Sam Taylor, denied that the BBC had "choreographed" it, saying it was "just another interview with a politician".

I believe him, but he then went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid - i.e. by playing the "we get feedback from people on both sides of the argument" card.


3. FionaBrucegate

The audience member in question (like M. Chevalier, I remember her well)

No, not that FionaBrucegate, but another one.

After the Diane Abbott 'scandal' had aroused the fury of the hard-left Corbynistas two weeks ago, the very same edition also aroused the later fury of the #FBPEs and the Cadwalladristas, headed by clan chief Carole Cadwalladr herself - and they've been banging on about it even since:

Fiona Bruce corrected a viewer on BBC QT who said Leave ran a ‘dirty’ campaign to say there were ‘questions on both sides’. It made a false equivalence between illegal acts and politically motivated criticism. Its refusal to acknowledge this is gobsmacking and depressing. BBC journalists, what do you think? This is not a criticism of Fiona Bruce but of the BBC’s seemingly limitless inability to recognise mistakes and correct them. You know the rules. How is this not in breach of 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4? Can anyone explain?

Where Carole leads, legions of devotees always follow - like cats on hearing a Whiskas sachet being opened (h/t Andrew Neil). And she received this reply from the BBC's fabulously complaint-denying complaints department:

So what was said on QT?

Audience member: I feel that people did not have the information, didn't have the right information and the Leave campaign was such a dirty campaign...[Boos from the audience towards the audience member]...It was, it was. And so I really think people need the full facts, and II don't think any of us have the full facts in the room and no one really knows...
Fiona Bruce: (interrupting) I mean, in fairness, there were questions over both the Leave and Remain campaigns. Diane Abbott, let me come to you...

Hmm. Well, I'm with the BBC complaints department minion here, as Leave were massively outgunned during the Referendum campaign and Remain weren't averse to making massively false statements on myriad occasions, so I think Carole is climbing up the wrong Christmas tree, but, it must be said, Carole and her army remain deeply dissatisfied with the BBC here and, like cats with mice (h/t Andrew Neil), they really aren't letting it drop.

Oh Fiona, QT really isn't like The Antiques Roadshow, is it?

4.  Denis MacShane v Dominic Raab/Nick Robinsongate

He may have been caught out by the law (and jailed for six months), but strongly pro-EU former Labour MP Denis MacShane remains a canny man, and he's been busy this week complaining to the BBC about a Dominic Raab/Nick Robinson interview on Today. 

Denis and his Twitter followers believe they've totally disproved Mr Raab over the Swiss-EU border and feel that the BBC (in the form of Nick R) failed to hold Mr Raab to account over his "lies". 

Though being somewhat lost in the detail (and willing to admit I could be wrong), I think Denis and his followers appear to be right about the Swiss-EU border being far less frictionless than Mr Raab said it is. 

Mr MacShane, however, then almost ended up defending the BBC against his more enthusiastic #FBPE supporters. They wanted the 'BBC conspiracy' angle. He preferred the 'BBC ignorance' angle. 

And maybe it's true that Nick Robinson doesn't know anywhere near enough (as a star BBC presenter/reporter) about the Swiss-EU border.

There's a lot of ignorance about at the BBC. 

Broadly landing in the right place

This week's Saturday transcript also comes from the BBC's Newswatch and introduces us to a thrilling new variant on the time-honoured BBC editors' catchphrase "I think we got it about right".  (Even Brucie never wore out a catchphrase so much). 

Paul Royall, editor of the BBC's News at Six and News at Ten, here rejects all criticism in the usual BBC way but then, just before the end, concedes "Occasionally, we're not perfect". (Given that he'd previously been pretty much saying they are perfect, that's quite something!)

And then comes the fresh variant on the BBC editors' catchphrase: 

...but I'd really argue that if you look at it in the round, if you look at everything we're doing, we have sort of broadly landed in the right place.

So a big ITBB welcome then please for "I think we broadly landed in the right place".

Samira Ahmed: To discuss all this I'm joined by Paul Royall, editor of the BBC's News at Six and News at Ten. Do you think the BBC has explained all it should have been explaining about the draft agreement? 

Paul Royall: I think we have. I mean, I do appreciate the frustrations with some of the audience and we sort of empathise with that because Brexit is a difficult story. But you used a couple of good examples in your introduction there - Reality Check, Ask This as well - which are attempts to explain and explore what's within Brexit and what are in these declarations and agreements. If you look at Thursday night's Ten O'Clock News this week, for example, when we had the draft political declaration - that's the second document- , Huw Edwards spent a minute at the top of the programme taking the audience through the main headlines from that document. John Pienaar in his first report, which was based around Westminster, but very early in the report he did what we call 'a piece to camera' where he underlined those key points and also give a brief assessment of where they stand politically. And then again, after that piece, Katya Adler took us through the documents from Brussels, looking at is from a UK-EU perspective. 

Samira Ahmed: What people felt though overall about BBC coverage over these last few days is that the BBC seems far more obsessed with the personality politics and the career prospects of individual MPs and gave that far too much attention. Whatever else you did. 

Paul Royall: I would disagree. I think, of course, we understand there's a tension between reporting what some people might regard as the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster and explaining what are in these critical documents, which are about the future and the shape of the UK and how it runs itself. But at the same time, they were high-profile resignations. The Brexit Secretary, the person who has latterly been negotiating this, stuff resigned. That is a serious political story. They were other Cabinet resignations and other ministerial resignations, and we have to reports that. There was also then a move by some of the Conservative Brexiteer group to announce that they were sending in letters of no confidence in the Prime Minister and there was clearly a story around would there be enough of those to create a vote of no-confidence in the Prime Minister. I wouldn't say though that the coverage was tilted too far in that direction. 

Samira Ahmed: Well, if you take the issue about the speculation of a vote of no confidence, viewers feel there was a lot of breathless excitement from BBC journalists speculating about whether there might be enough to trigger a vote of no-confidence. Jacob Rees Mogg was on the air a lot. But actually it didn't materialise. It hasn't materialised yet. Did you fall for the hype? 

Paul Royall: I don't think we did fall for the hype because I don't think the coverage was breathless in the sense that we took people through all the events on that...it was quite a momentous day in Westminster. Obviously so far, with the vote of no-confidence and what Jacob Rees-Mogg did, that hasn't materialised, but I think we reported it as best we could with the knowledge we had and the expertise and insight we had about what was going on at Westminster. 

Samira Ahmed: Paul, you'll know this is an issue viewers are really concerned about with the BBC's political coverage. They feel again and again that BBC News gets far too excited and devotes far too much airtime to the personalities and to speculating about the personalities instead of concentrating on informing the audience about what the policies actually are. And on Brexit, it matters more than ever. 

Paul Royall: It does matter more than ever, and that's why we've taken a lot of steps. We ask ourselves that question every day in terms of before we hear the argument or the row that might be going on,  Are we explaining what they are talking about? And the last couple of weeks that has really been at the fore, it really has, otherwise the coverage makes no sense. Occasionally, we're covering what's going on in Westminster and it might be around the arguments over someone's career or who's in and who's out. Occasionally, we're not perfect, we may get dragged a bit in that direction but I'd really argue that if you look at it in the round, if you look at everything we're doing, we have sort of broadly landed in the right place. 

Samira Ahmed: Paul Royall, thank you very much, 

The BBC's coverage of Mohammed Emwazi

Samira Ahmed's Newswatch discussed the BBC's coverage of the unmasking of Mohammed Emwazi. 

Three specific aspects of the BBC's reporting have prompted complaints: (1) the continued use of the nickname 'Jihadi John' days after Enwazi's real name was made known, (2) the BBC's habit of claiming 'exclusive' developments on such a harrowing story, and (3) the BBC's reliance on testimony and information from dubious sources, including Islamic State defectors and CAGE.  

The main complaint, however, was that that the weight of coverage serves to help Islamic State in getting its propaganda across:

Nigel Jackson, calling from Norfolk. I am absolutely staggered at the amount of time you are wasting on the alleged 'Jihadi John'...and I find that name just repulsive...I'm surprised you haven't told us his inside leg measurement. I mean, all this coverage, you're just giving those people even more credence. I'm sorry. I just find it grossly offensive.

There then followed a discussion between another BBC viewer, Deborah Smith, and Paul Royall, editor of the BBC's News at Six and News at Ten:

Samira Ahmed: Deborah then. What were you concerns about this coverage?

Deborah Smith: My comments were very similar to what the other viewer had said: That there was just too much of it. We didn't need to know that he was a good child at school, that his parents live in Kuwait, that his whole life his whole life was different and that the CAGE had said that they believed he had joined up because of being bombarded by MI5. It's unnecessary. He's a horrible man and we don't need to need to know what he was like before then. That was in the past and we should be dealing on, OK, if he's committed something now that's news. What he was like at school isn't to me. It's a complete waste of time and shouldn't have been in telly.

Samira Ahmed: Paul, this was a concern for a lot of viewers. 

Paul Royall: Yeah, well I think the rise of so-called Islamic State is a globally significant story and the naming of Mohammed Emwazi is an important part of that. I recognise that those sort of points ...there is going to be a lot of coverage, and I think you're right to flag up that there was a lot of coverage because it's important to understand the background to Mohammed Enwazi, to understand how he became radicalised and the story behind him. But it is a difficult story and it's one of the hardest stories we have to work with. And so all I would want to do is to reassure you that the whole time there is proper editorial thought and process that goes behind this.

Deborah Smith: Yes, OK, you needed to put the whole story across, but did it really need to be told every night thereafter?

Samira Ahmed: And I think the idea is a lot of it is very personal, it's very speculative and that what people felt was this is essentially propaganda for Islamists who want to say, oh look, they've all got a cause and they've got some kind of justification.

Paul Royall: Yeah. I would obviously challenge the idea that this is somehow glamourising. I think what was happening over the past week is finding out the background and the details and the causes behind Mohammed Enwazi. And I actually think what happened in terms of naming Mohammed Enwazi is actually a demystifying of the story and actually helps us and the audience understand why people end up doing these horrific things and helps our understanding of so-called Islamic State, and what is actually a really difficult, hard story and thing that is going on around the whole at the moment.

Deborah Smith: Yes, I appreciate that but I mean I just think that we are just glamourising it. We're just making him a role model for those that are going to go down...that are thinking about going down that path. They're going to think, oh look, he's on telly. We'll get more...You know, if we join up we'll get more publicity.

Samira Ahmed: And with it the whole fact that the BBC was still calling him 'Jihadi John' three days after his real name was known. Isn't it just time to drop that? Even "he's also known as"?

Paul Royall: Throughout the whole of this story, from last summer when he first emerged, we've been sparing and judicious in our use of that name, and...

Samira Ahmed: It was a strap three days after he'd been named across the bottom of the News Channel.

Paul Royall: Since he's been named. And actually what the naming allowed is for this person to be known by his real name, Mohammed Emwazi. And so that is how he is now referred to the first time he's referred to. There are still times when to make sense of the story and, sort of, to aid the understanding of what we're doing, it has still been used. But there was a decision made as soon as he was named to start being more sparing, more judicious about the use of 'Jihadi John'.

Samira Ahmed: OK, can I ask about the whole claim of 'exclusive' stuff that the BBC was saying? Some of it, like audio tapes, seems to be just tapes that CAGE, this advocacy group, was giving the BBC. At lot of concern that they were getting their propaganda message across and the BBC was just enabling them to.

Paul Royall: In terms of the use of the term 'exclusive', it's to demonstrate the rarity or the singular nature of the story that BBC News has. Whenever we use that terms and the material and the story that is around it is editorially justified I would argue, I think it is properly processed and challenged where necessary and put in its appropriate context.

Samira Ahmed: Sometimes we did see CAGE just being interviewed on the News Channel. We had them being interviewed on the 'Today' programme. And them saying things like "All Muslims believe". And there was the IS...ex-IS person...Paul Wood interviewed. We didn't know how they knew he was ex-IS, what the source he was on that, but he's speaking at length about, you know, what 'Jihadi John' was like, supposedly.

Paul Royall: Well, I'd go back to the original point that the rise of so-called Islamic State and the naming of Mohammed Emwazi, they're globally significant stories. Everything we do is editorially thorough and rigorous in terms of why we're talking to those people and why we're putting them on the air. And in both those cases you're alluding to that is the case. CAGE were part of the story last week and we featured them as part of the story but I fully believe we were robust, we were editorially challenging and we justified how we used them with the context of the story. The same with Paul Wood's interview with a former IS fighter who knew Mohammed Emwazi. This is a difficult story and you have to make hard choices in terms of what you need to hear and see to try and aid understanding and build up a picture of how so-called Islamic State operate and exactly what they're doing.

Samira Ahmed: Deborah, if the BBC just maybe said, look, we assure you we have checked very carefully before we put these people and know who they are, would that make the difference? What's your view? 

Deborah Smith:  The difference for me is the amount of coverage. That's the thing that I object to. You know, they had three girls last week went to Syria, you know, because...we don't know why. They just decided that they believed enough to go and join ISIS. It's...We don't know. You don't know what's compelled them to go, but maybe it was the coverage that they get on the telly, that they've seen it on the telly and though, OK, we'll go. You know, we're only 15. We can do what we like, cos teenagers do believe they're invincible and will do what they want and that's...you're also having to bear in mind that that is...that your audience consists of teenagers who are very impressionable and, you know, it's not just adults who watch the programme, it's people of all ages and those that are young don't necessarily understand everything that they're seeing on the telly.

Paul Royall: I mean...

Samira Ahmed: Sorry, we're going to have to leave it there, but thank you so much...

Paul Royall, with his politician-like manner and management speak, essentially made the usual point that BBC editors invariably make on 'Newswatch' - that the BBC got it spot-on.

Concerns about the saturation coverage of Emwazi were brushed aside, as was the point about far too much of it being over-personalised and speculative. He sidestepped the specific example of the 'Jihadi John' strapline on the News Channel three days after Emwazi's name became public. He also tried to avoid tackling the point about enabling CAGE forcing Samira to ask him again. Even then, he still sidestepped the point that some of the BBC's 'exclusives' were simply audio tapes handed to them by CAGE.  

All in all, an unsatisfactory performance from Mr Royall, despite his smoothness.