More Random Thoughts

It's proving very difficult to focus on BBC bias at the moment. The time for posting is proving harder and harder to find, and without the time to do proper research it feels as if I'm dipping in - and I really don't like just dipping in. I like nailing things down, with hundreds and hundreds of nails and twenty varieties of hammer. I feel that only when you listen to every edition of a BBC programmes (like Mark Mardell's The World This Weekend or Dateline London) do you get to appreciate that it is possible to work out how BBC bias actually functions and, with enough time and energy, to prove it.

I've proved it (beyond doubt) to my own satisfaction and, maybe, to yours but why don't I feel that I've proved it beyond anyone's reasonable satisfaction. Why? Because I haven't systematised it enough probably. Timings for every Brexit-related segment showing the massive disparity I know there's been (on both The World This Weekend and Dateline London) between the time given for pro-Brexit voices and anti-Brexit voices would help. Listing every question put would also help. And, yes, counting interruptions would help too. As would focusing analytically on the words used. Anything else? 

Is nailing things down as tightly as possible actually necessary though? Why shouldn't just 'dipping in', saying it how you see it, be enough? Doing so might make more of an impact than timing and counting?

Answer (after blinding flash!): There's room for both. If only there were time for both. Or time for anything really.

******

Yolande Knell

There have been some horrible events in and around Israel in recent days. I've seen some of the BBC reports. One from Alan Johnston - back (to my surprise) as a BBC Middle East editor a decade after his kidnapping by Palestinian terrorists (prompting claims of Stockholm syndrome after his release) - showed violence from Palestinian rioters in Jerusalem and the Israeli response. It contrasted sharply with Yolande Knell's much-broadcast and very gimmicky report which used only images of the Israeli authorities responding (to something) with skunk water, stun grenades, etc, and Yolande (twice, because of the gimmicky repetition) fleeing from their tear gas. No violence was shown from the Palestinians. It was as if Israeli was just using force for no good reason.

The most gruesome event there in recent days has been the murder of members of the Salomon family eating a Sabbath meal in celebration of their newborn grandson in the Israeli settlement of Halamish. The teenage terrorist knocked on their door, they opened it, he began stabbing them, murdering the grandfather, his daughter and son, and injuring the grandmother. The grandchildren were rescued. Not untypically, the human details of the Israeli family and their story, including their names, haven't been included in the BBC's online report of the attack.

This sort of thing raises serious questions about BBC reporting, doesn't it?

******

Meanwhile, down the road in Tel Aviv, Radiohead - ignoring Ken Loach and all manner of other BDS campaigners - performed their longest concert for years this past week. Thom Yorke was typically gnomic but (just as typically) left no doubts about where he stood. "A lot was said about this, but in the end we played some music", he said. (And Radiohead will be back in Israel next year). The BBC's write-up, Radiohead defy critics to play Israel, began like this:

The rest of the article wasn't so bad though.

As Israelis say to all those terrorists who keep trying to slaughter them, "This is what you'll get/This is what you'll get/This is what you'll get/When you mess with us"...

******

And talking of musicians, Daniel Barenboim's anti-Brexit speech at the Proms has drawn a lot of flak, most incisively from Douglas Murray at The Spectator. We know that the BBC were aware in advance of an earlier pro-EU bit of point-scoring by pianist Igor Levit and allowed it to go ahead, so what did they know about Mr. Barenboim's pro-EU speech in advance? What did they say to him about it? And what's coming next? And who's doing the Last Night this years? Maestro Guy Verhofstadt? 

Mr B's two concerts - Sibelius, Birtwistle and Elgar (both symphonies) - were excellent though. I even ended up re-listening to the Birtwistle three times. 

******

Radio 4's Dead Ringers is provoking some comment this series. There's no doubt, from Twitter, as to which new 'character' has been its main talking point. It's chirpy "Brexit Bulldog" David Davis, whose negotiations skills usually end up in his death. (He even ended up in Hell last week). The cartoonish nature of the Brexit Bulldog's self-delusions and self-induced disasters are hard not to laugh at. It's proving popular because it's essentially an old-fashioned comedy routine (despite being put to an anti-Brexit purpose). Is it effective satire? Well, it may be 'fake news' but it might still make Mr Davis a laughing stock with Radio 4 listeners, however representative (or unrepresentative) they are - though I (with hope in my heart) credit many of them with the ability to differentiate Mr Davis from his Dead Ringer caricature. 

That said, Dead Ringers is also presenting us with an impersonation of John McDonnell - another of its new regular characters - and making him out to be a mentally unhinged Marxist who is trying (and failing) to appear cuddly. His every attempt to talk about his allotment turns into a murderous Maoist diatribe against the bourgeoisie. 

******

I'm still, of course, keeping up with Dateline London. I noted the way centre-right commentator Alex Deane (quite superb as ever) was introduced as a "Conservative commentator" while far-left commentator (and Corbyn fan) Rachel Shabi was introduced as a "Middle East expert". That was very flattering to Rachel. If she's really a Middle East expert then I'm hoping to be called 'an expert in loop quantum gravity' some time soon. "Middle East expert" my posterior!

Who brought the race into this row?

Broadcasting House.

It has been drawn to my attention (I didn’t listen to it live) that radio 4’s Broadcasting House covered the Mail on Sunday’s piece about the feud between Michael Foster and the Corbynistas  in their paper review. 

The guest reviewers were: popular Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, anti-Israel campaigner Rachel Shabi and Kenton Allen, TV producer and former sound-effects person on the Archers. (I wonder if the Ambridge character ‘Kenton’ was named after him.) 

The topic in question came after the discussion about the Archers and I thought it was almost worth transcribing it, as it neatly encapsulates the contributors’ attitudes. to the topic in question. 

Paddy O’C:

Rachel Shabi, move the page. The Mail on Sunday -  what’s happening? 

RS:

“Well. It’s a bit um annoying to see the Daily Mail frame the story in this way. 

The headline ‘Corbyn purges top Jewish donor’ of Mail on Sunday article, and ‘reignites race row.’ Well I think it’s the MoS that brought the race into this row, um, this is about Michael Foster who was barred by Corbyn after he mounted an attack on the Labour Party leader though the MoS, and he likened the  Corbyn supporters to stormtroopers. So the, hehe, the violent, intimidating Nazi forces that helped their rise to power in 1930s Germany - um to call - to suggest that this is a purge of somebody who is Jewish, I think is …incredibly dangerous and damaging and unfair and the worst way to frame this subject. Antisemitism is a real and serious issue and the last thing we wanna do is to dilute or detract or in any way weaken people’s perception of what antisemitism looks like, and feels like and sounds like - um - Michael Foster has not been barred because he’s Jewish, he’s been barred because he’s likened Corbyn supporters to stormtroopers, which, at a time when the Labour Party is using, you know, theres’s abusive language all round, it’s the very last thing he should have done and it’s clearly a mistake.” 

Paddy O’C:

Well he’ll be giving his account of that on TWATO, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Jacob Rees Mogg, where would you start? 

JR-M:

Well just on that. I thought that was an excellent story by the MoS and it’s worth looking at the dateline that they produce, of serious problems in the Labour Party with antisemitism, and Maureen Lipman with whom I’ve reviewed the papers on your programme in the past, a very sensible intelligent lady, has raised these concerns, so I think just to brush them under the carpet is a mistake, ugh, but I would start with the Sunday Express…… 

Paddy O’C:

Rachel wants you to know she doesn’t want to brush it under the carpet… 

RS:

Actually the last thing I’m suggesting we do is brush the matter under the carpet and I just think that’s a really erroneous way to frame the debate. It is an issue, let’s make it an issue of antisemitism and not just a way to attack the Labour Party… 

KA: 

Well maybe the way to deal  with it is not just to expel the Jewish member who brought it to your attention…

RS: 

The Jewish member who brought it to your attention has been expelled or suspended for…

KA: 

That would be a moronic thing to do…

RS:

 ….for calling Corbyn supporters stormtroopers.

KA: 

Prone to hyperbole, he’s a former showbiz agent. I’m sure he’ll apologise for that, but to expel the Jewish member for just raising the issue of antisemitism seems to be a bizarre thing to do.

RS: 

Well I think that antisemitism is really important and I wish we could discuss it in a sensible way, without using it as a stick to either bash or, you know, not bash, the Labour Party. 

Paddy O’C:

Ok, we’ve got the passion here.

Well, at the risk of reigniting the race row yet again, I’ll refrain from using this to bash, you know, not bash, Rachel Shabi.

Mind your language

Despite the media’s exasperating habit of picking up and running with real “gaffes” and inventing fake ones, I still think the BBC is making a brave effort to portray both EU campaigns even-handedly. To the best of its ability.

The EU referendum has brought about some strange cross-party alliances, which supports the theory that there is but a cigarette paper’s difference between soft left Conservatives and centre-left (old) New-Labourites. Now the biggest divide seems to be between Corbyn’s hard left and all the rest.

A good example of this was Lord (Norman) Lamont and Charles Clarke on this morning’s - no, that’s this afternoon’s -  Daily Politics. They agreed on almost everything. 

I’m easily distracted. I mean, people always have something to say about women’s outfits and hairstyles, and I did wonder for a moment if Charles Clarke’s parents were ever offered the chance of an ear-pinning operation on the NHS. Distinctiveness is just what the BBC is after.

Oh well. While we’re on the subject of trivial distractions, Lord Lamont’s eyebrows are less significant now he’s a Lord, and I think they’ve been trimmed, which is a good thing.

Jo Coburn seems to be letting her hair grow, and do you think she has had it lightened? 

Jo is remarkably unstylish for a BBC babe, but perhaps that’s insurance against being dismissed as a mere babe. Like wearing specs even if you don’t need them to denote intelligence, as in strip cartoons, where the heroine eventually takes them off, and the hero says “But hey, you’re not a swat! You’re beautiful!” and they kiss.

Jo Coburn doesn’t do anything like that, and today she was relaxed and  percipient.

The answer to the quiz was that Newquay might be the venue for a space station, being that it already has an airport with a runway.

What if you accidentally got on the wrong plane? Last time I was at Newquay airport the procedure seemed a little amateurish, so it could happen. What if, instead of Stansted, you ended up on the moooon?

Dear Mr, Porter, whatever shall I do? I wanted to go to Birmingham and they’re taking me to the moon. Send me back to Newquay as quickly as you can, Oh! Mr. Porter what a silly girl I am!

Anyway Chas and Norm got along fine, opining on the economic interests of the UK, even though they are from different sides of the divide and Jo was on the side of the BBC.

The topic of the government’s proposal to ban extremists was more up my street. Obviously the definition of ‘extremism’ is key, and it was agreed that there are already sufficient laws in place to tackle incitement to violence; they decided that if extremism stops short of actually inciting violence it can be seen as ‘opinion’, which is tricky. 

Banning it would be problematic, said Lord Lamont, “to suppress it would be wrong”. However he did mention Sayyid Qutb, and:

“Brotherhood has set up an office in Cricklewood, North West London. Doha’s Al Jazeera channel is a critical Arab media outlet for the Islamists.”

Jo Coburn introduced the EU into that subject and neither guest seemed to know whether we’d be safer in or out.

  

Natalie Bennett appeared. She looked exhausted, but as she has achieved everything she set out to do, non, je ne rerette rien. 

Next up, Max Mosely’s “soapbox”. Needless to say I’m not a fan. His voice is as sinister as his persona. He resisted making a meal out of the obvious comparison between his and John Whittingdale’s misadventures with the press. Very gracious I’m sure.

The most grating part of this particular Daily Politics was of course inviting Rachel Shabi to opine on the ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’ enquiry. She’s just about the last person in the world I’d have liked to see addressing that, because when reporting for the Guardian her attitude to Israel  frequently crossed the notorious line separating anti-Israelism from bigotry.

We hear that Miss Chakrabarti has been briefing us. She’s launched an enquiry to look at Islamophobia as well as antisemitism. “While it was triggered by allegations of antisemitism, we’ll look at all aspects of racism, including Islamophobia” she has announced.

“It would be a nonsense to just focus on one area, given this opportunity”

In other words, the whole exercise is a nonsense. 

Shami has joined the Labour party herself so that everyone knows she’s acting in the Labour Party’s interests.  Luckily she hasn’t been asked to launch an enquiry into any other party then. Just imagine if she’d launched an enquiry into antisemitism in the Conservative Party (to which Rachel Shabi believes the enquiry should more properly be directed) and had to join the Conservatives, or UKIP.  She’d be facing an insurmountable moral dilemma then.

“This looks like a robust review.” “Is there a problem with antisemitism in the LP?” 

“There is a problem with antisemitism in society.” 

“Do you think there’s a particular problem within the LP itself?” 

“I think there’s a particular onus. We tend to expect progressive parties not to be antisemitic, whereas we don’t have that weight of expectation on the Conservative Party.”

Jo Coburn mentioned the importance of language, with regard to anti-Zionism and antisemitism. 

“Criticism of the Israeli government, illegal occupation of occupied territories, West Bank and Gaza Strip, and anti-Jewish sentiment”

(Does she think Gaza is occupied?)

“Do you think there are people who use that as a proxy for antisemitism?”

That’s an ideal question to put to Shabi. I don’t think.

“I don’t think antisemitism is the same as anti-Zionism, but I do think, obviously people who are Jewish aren’t ... there are going to be things said about the occupation that aren’t pleasant to hear....”

Charles Clarke went on to dispense words of wisdom about language, waving his hands about expressively and evidently knowing very little about antisemitism. He was very moved by Naz Shah’s apology though, and strung together several ‘verys‘ for extra emphasis. 

I must say that Naz Shah didn’t actually “talk about deporting Israelis to America” as Jo Coburn said. Shah retweeted a wretched map, and endorsed the idea in a jocular and very silly manner. Just to be more accurate. 

I mean, if we’re talking about the importance of language, and being very very very careful about it, we might try not inventing fake gaffes.

The Experts. Antisemitism and the Government’s plans to tackle Islamist extremism

Alas! Lack of technical nous prevents me from embedding the video into this blog. But I implore you to click on the link and please, bear with me and scroll past the montage of all Tuesday’s front pages, right down, on and on,  to the video headed “What the commentators say”

It’s Chris Rogers (who has form) hosting the paper review with guests ‘Journalist Rachel Shabi and Ben Riley-Smith of the Telegraph’.

Understandably, as this is a football-obsessed country (opiate of the masses etc) a major chunk of the chat is about Leicester City.  

Cheering News indeed. But we’ve already spotted that the biggest story on the front page of the Telegraph is the piece by Kate McCann with its screaming headline  Labour Suspends 50 for racism.

You couldn’t miss it, even if you were just a run of the mill viewer and not an actual ‘Telegraph political correspondent based in Westminster.’ For a while I thought the whole thing was going to be devoted to the footie, but eventually, Chris Rogers said  “There is some other news in the papers.”

Cack-handedly looking for some kind of code in a failed attempt to embed the video I found a bizarre transcript, apparently the output of a bot.

“Labour suspends 54 racism” it declares, mistaking “54” for “50 for”. Fun, but not much use for those of us who appreciate a good transcript. 

Anyway, you’ll have to play the video to get the full force, because even if I were to spend half a day transcribing it meticulously, you need the original sound and the visuals to get the full effect.

  

Watching Rachel Shabi, (well-known to those who have followed CifWatch now UK MediaWatch ) and a frequent guest on Dateline, is never a pleasant experience, either for the politics or the simpering manner.

Combine a foghorn with a mid-Atlantic drawl plus that metropolitan str e t c h ing of certain words, as in ‘soooo’. 

That’s the audio. Then there’s the visuals. A semi-amused smirk, a twinkly eye and much animated head-turning from speaker to speaker with a mixture of exaggerated expectation and faux admiration, but all the while waiting to air her misguided and self-opinionated views.

According to Ms Shabi, all this antisemitism needs to be put in context. It’s a widespread issue, always there, but "not specifically in the Labour Party." It’s only in the Telegraph because of the election, otherwise it wouldn’t be there at all. 

“Right-wing elements seem to be trawling through ..... we don’t have a control of this experiment, do we, we don’t have people doing the same for the Conservative partiee or any other partiee - there’s no way to tell that this is specifically about the Labour Party.”

Ben Riley-Smith doesn’t seem to have been following this particular news story at all. He couldn’t recall the name of the MP who had publicly accosted Ken upon the stair (he wasn’t there again today / I wish, I wish he’d go away)

“Antisemitism is a problem in society”, ventured Chris Rogers “Not just in the Labour Party”.

“Percisely” says the foghorn “I don’t think it’s particularly fair to say that the Labour Pardee has a problem with antisemitism”

“But politicians are meant to lead by example” says Chris Rogers, tasked with playing Devil’s advocate.

Next up: “PM plans new laws to stop Muslim extremists”

Shabi is an expert on this topic. The government is making things worse. “The problem is that they’re focusing on Islamist extremism.” 

I’m not absolutely certain, but I imagine she’s asserting that violent extremism is nothing to do with Islam. It’s just the criminals, the insane and the disenfranchised.

“It’s just about money, it’s just about oil” chips in the Telegraph man.

Next - The Guardian: “UK’s covert fight against the lure of ISIS”. 

“There is a propaganda war, isn’t there?" announces Rogers.

“It’s gonna end up alienating just the people you wanna get engaged” says the expert, leaning closer to her reviewing companion, who, though nodding vigorously, is backing away.

“You are more of an expert than me” he says.

“Briddish-backed enterprise” enunciates Shabi “is this gonna spread more mistrust at a time when what you wannado is build that,  because if people know that they’ve been, you know, fed lines by a government-backed unit, that’s not gonna be a way to counter or deal with the problem."

"We’ve only got a couple of minutes but I really want to do this: 'man sues former employer for boring him out of his mind' ”  says the anchor.

Does this paper review encapsulate one particular attitude, dare I say that of the BBC? 

If so, to put it in Rachel Shabi’s own phrase “that’s not gonna be a way to counter or deal with the problem.”