BBC Scotland's former lawyer complains to Ofcom about BBC pro-SNP bias

Here's an interesting development North of the Border...

Alistair Bonnington, Head of Legal at BBC Scotland from 1992 to 2008, used to fight off claims of BBC bias from angry Scottish nationalists. Now he's made an official complaint to Ofcom about what he describes as the BBC's “slavishly biased” coverage of the SNP, saying:

If a "breach of the duty of impartiality" case were brought against the BBC in the Scottish courts tomorrow, I would expect the BBC to lose, and lose comprehensively. That's because BBC Scotland is so obviously partial in its political news output today slavishly biased in favour of the SNP who now form the devolved Holyrood government.

The Scottish Daily Mail also quotes Prof. Tim Luckhurst, a former BBC editor, saying:

My impression is that the BBC is under extreme pressure to do as the SNP wishes it to do. Many of the BBC's young journalists appear to have nationalist sympathies. Several former BBC staff have joined the cause. Alistair Bonnington is astute and brave - he has identified a flaw that others have detected but chosen not to name.

It will be fascinating to see where this leads. 

Alan Cochrane on the BBC's reporting of the SNP

The Telegraph's doughty Alan Cochrane today echoes Andrew Neil's concerns about the BBC's attitude to the SNP government at Holyrood, observing that the BBC’s main day-time news bulletins, in London and Glasgow, “contained not a word” about Sarah Smith's experiences at the hands of abusive SNP supporters or “the massive controversy her comments had engendered, certainly in Scotland.”

He says it's “highly unlikely” that here bosses didn't know what was happening to her, “but BBC executives have never been that keen on shining a spotlight on the SNP – even in defence of their own journalist.”

The station’s unofficial line has always been to tread a cautious, even timid, path in its relationship with the Nationalists. At times it’s almost as if, with most newspapers opposed to Sturgeon’s independence demands, it regards itself as the one organ which can put the record “straight” by essentially parroting the SNP line. 

Thus, critics have complained that controversial stories are invariably “neutered” thanks to the way the BBC, in both local and network reports, always seems to give too much weight to the SNP position, no matter the circumstances – a situation seldom adopted by the Corporation’s political reporters at Westminster.

He thinks that Nicola Sturgeon’s political control “verges on” being an “elective dictatorship”...“which is why it is so important that the BBC is able to report freely on events in Scotland. Its journalists should not be subjected to abuse just for doing their jobs.”

Andrew Neil on the BBC's reporting of the SNP

  

Andrew Neil has a piece in today's Daily Mail headlined The sinister abuse of BBC star Sarah Smith...and how Scots 'cybernats' have turned independence battle into a toxic cesspit. 

Sarah Smith - the BBC's former Scotland editor, now North America editor - said this week that she's been looking forward to escaping the “criticism, bile and hatred” she's suffered as BBC Scotland editor and hopes her new beat will be far less stressful.  

Andrew Neil compliments her and says she was “scrupulously fair in her reporting” of Scottish politics as BBC Scotland Editor. But, he says, BBC Scotland itself “is too cowed by Sturgeon and her henchmen” and “generally timid in its coverage of the SNP”, adding:

It is significant that Auntie has barely reported Smith's remarks — which are, by any standard, a major story. But timidity trumps truth.

Mind Your Language

This happened in the House of Commons yesterday:

Brendan O'Hara, SNP: Last night I tuned in to the BBC 10 o'clock news to get the latest on this terrible disaster, and I was absolutely appalled when a presenter informed me that around 30 migrants had drowned. Migrants don't drown. People drown. Men, women and children drown. So will the Secretary of State join me in asking the BBC News editorial team and any other news outlet thinking of using that term to reflect on their use of such dehumanising language and afford these poor people the respect that they deserve? 

Priti Patel, Home Secretary: Even during the Afghan operations and Op Pitting I heard a lot of language that quite frankly seemed to be inappropriate around people who were fleeing. So yes, I will.

I refer the honourable lady to Melanie Phillips:  “Pass the smelling salts: the BBC is right. Why is the Home Secretary endorsing an attack on objectivity?”

As Melanie say, Brendan O'Hara's argument is “tendentious” and “absured” - a “manipulative piece of verbal mischief”. Migrants' is “a neutral and objective term” - “the one term that accurately covers all these different categories of people making these unlawful Channel crossings”. He's seeking to “reframe” the mass illegal crossings of the English Channel as “a decontextualised humanitarian challenge which no-one with a heart could possibly resist. And he is requiring the BBC to assist him in doing so.”

 

As for Priti Patel's reply, Melanie writes:

So because she heard inappropriate language about Afghans, the Home Secretary is going to complain to the BBC for its use of wholly appropriate language to describe a different group of people in a different situation?

She continues:

Why is Priti Patel endorsing this attack on BBC objectivity — the very quality which the BBC is usually rightly accused of lacking? Why is she thus giving implicit succour to those who exploit the accelerating crisis in the English Channel — a crisis which she and Boris Johnson have failed to resolve — to denigrate those who wish to uphold the integrity of their country’s borders and the rule of law?

The BBC is often very wrong, but on this occasion it is absolutely right. When a Conservative Home Secretary takes up a position to the left of the BBC, something has gone very badly awry with British politics.

Indeed. 

Something rotten in the state of BBC Scotland

I'd seriously urge you to read two outstanding pieces before considering Andrew Neil's questions, as they provide all the necessary background and are much more about the BBC's role in the story than you might guess merely from their headlines:

Effie Deans: It's absurd to imagine there was a conspiracy

The Scotsman: Don't blame MSPs who try to get at the Sturgeon-Salmond truth - Brian Wilson

What happened this week is that BBC Scotland interviewed one of the women who accused Alex Salmond. 

This has caused some consternation, given that Mr Salmond was cleared by a jury.

And critics say that the BBC interviewer, Glenn Campbell, basically let her have a free run at Mr Salmond.

Effie Deans puts The Big Question in a nutshell: "The BBC acts as if Salmond were guilty even though he was acquitted. Why else interview someone the jury did not believe?"

She writes: 

The BBC are supposed to be impartial, but it is quite clear not merely from this interview but also because of the Kirsty Wark documentary that BBC journalists have taken sides. They think that Salmond ought to have been convicted for which reason they disbelieve the alternative explanation that there was a Scottish Government conspiracy against him. This is partly because of the liberal bias in the BBC that treats all accusations of sexual assault as true, because women don’t lie, but more importantly since 2016 the BBC has lost all objectivity about Scottish politics because Sturgeon campaigned for Remain.

But there are lots of other questions for the BBC to answer, which both Effie and Brian outline and which I think will prove a lot trickier for the BBC to answer. They are nitty-gritty questions that go to the heart of BBC Scotland's actions and motivations. 

These are the very ones Andrew Neil's encapsulates so well here:

1. With a major h/t to Brian Wilson I put the following questions to BBC Scotland News.
2. First, what was the provenance of your recent interview with one of the complainants in the Salmond affair? Did you approach the individual? Did she volunteer? Or was she offered up by the spinners surrounding the First Minister?
3. Second, is she independent of the current political ructions within the SNP? If so, fine. If not, why were viewers not told. And if that was not possible on grounds of self-identification, then why was it still OK to broadcast the interview? Some disturbing things are happening in Scotland and BBC Scotland is clearly in the thick of them. 

Various other thoughts:

I wonder if the BBC will reply to Andrew Neil? I suspect they'll have to, as he's a tenacious journalist and will follow it through.  

And these are serious questions that could genuinely damage the BBC's reputation as an independent, impartial broadcaster if the BBC fails to account for themselves. This could spiral out of control for them.

Some are calling for Tim Davie himself to look into what's going on at BBC Scotland as a matter of urgency. 

He should, of course, be doing that already. This has been brewing for a while. And if he's not doing that already then he might be in for a rude awakening shortly.

In which Nick Robinson lets himself down

 

If only BBC journalists like Nick Robinson could resist the temptation to go for the easy 'gotcha'.

And I'm not talking about politicians here but (possibly licence-fee-paying) members of the public.

Going back to an earlier post, and Nick's notable tweet:

Nick Robinson: Was there a cover up of what was known about sexual harassment allegations? This is an extraordinary story about a war between the two leading figures in the drive for Scottish independence. Imagine how big it would be if it was about, say, Johnson & May.

One reply said: 

Leading Edge: This is a huge story but the BBC and other MSM hardly touch it.

At which Nick pounced and replied:

Nick Robinson: Except you’re commenting on the BBC reporting it so...

No, Nick. You're missing the word "hardly" in Leading Edge's comment. 

Leading Edge's point stands. 

Yes, Nick Eardley wrote a piece of the BBC website about it, but, as I wrote earlier, BBC One had barely touched the story, covering it (briefly) just twice so this year so far, and Newsnight has avoided it completely in 2021. 

That, in my book, supports Mr Edge's point that the BBC has 'hardly touched it'. 

I suspect Nick Robinson is well aware of that (he's not daft), but the chance for a cheap comeback proved far too alluring - hence his easy snark.

P.S. Nicola Sturgeon is back on The Andrew Marr Show tomorrow. Will Andrew go hard and dig deep, with an eye-watering, Boris-interview-like battering of interruptions, or not? 

(He's also got on Israel’s Minister of Health Yuli Edelstein, so where will he go with that interview too, as if we can't guess?)

Another of our stories is missing

  

The extraordinary civil war in the SNP between supporters of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon is proving gripping if nothing else, and now has the potential to bring down the previously all-conquering Scottish First Minister. 

As my favourite commenter on Scottish politics, Effie Deans, notes today though:

If the Salmond Scandal had happened in England it would be headline news on the BBC every day.

So far this year, it's made BBC news bulletins just twice - once on 8 January (when it got less than 2 minutes) and once last night (where it got 25 seconds) and - Newsnight hasn't covered it at all. 

Indeed, Lewis Goodall, who hyperactively tweets about every possible hint of scandal involving the Westminster government, remains resolutely uninterested in the story. He's tweeted nothing specifically about Mr Salmond since 24 Jan 2019: 

Wow. 14 counts against Alex Salmond. 9 sexual assaults. 2 attempted rapes. 1 breach of the peace. 2 indecent assaults. If these prove to be true, there are huge questions about how much, if anything, was to known to his SNP colleagues and those in the wider Scottish govt.

If those questions were "huge" then, now they're surely even bigger, given that "how much, if anything, was known" to Nicola Sturgeon is only the starting point. An even bigger question is: What there a conspiracy against Mr Salmond? And: Has there been a cover-up? Given that Lewis regularly travels up to the Scotland to report for Newsnight, why isn't he reporting on them now?

(Just to add to my point, he's retweeting stuff today about the Welsh Tory leader resigning after a Covid-busting booze-up). 

*******

UPDATE: Blimey, even Nick Robinson seems to see there's an issue here: 

Was there a cover up of what was known about sexual harassment allegations ? This is an extraordinary story about a war between the two leading figures in the drive for Scottish independence. Imagine how big it would be if it was about, say, Johnson & May. 

The top-rated reply reads:

This is a much bigger story about government corruption on an unprecedented scale Nick. Scottish media outlets silenced, pro indy quangos all over the place, misuse of data, grant based organisations government criticism bought off, Covid politicised. You guys have gone AWOL.  

*******

P.S. More from Effie Deans: 

We pay top BBC journalists hundreds of thousands of pounds to find out things. Not one of them has contributed to the revelations about Salmond and Sturgeon.

Praise from the SNP

 

It's striking I think, in terms of 'bias by omission', that Newsnight's Lewis Goodall, though tweeting as hyperactively as ever on all manner of aspects of UK and US politics, is avoiding the remarkable goings-in in Scottish politics at the moment. His one act of recognition that something big is going on up there  - the explosive charges against Nicola Sturgeon from Alex Salmond - was a lone retweet of his BBC colleague Nick Eardley on Thursday.

Rechecking Lewis's feed to make sure I hadn't missed anything I did spot, ironically, someone called Erik Geddes saying, "Lewis Goodall's reporting of Scotland is as fair and as strong as anyone on the BBC network".

When I clicked on the man's name to see who he was it turns out he's head of broadcast media for the SNP.

BBC news

The BBC has been in the news quite a bit this week. Here's a round-up of some of those stories.

1. Channel 4 has complained to Ofcom about the BBC's plans to expand its iPlayer streaming service to allow programmes to remain available for a year rather than for 30 days. Channel 4 believes it could harm the BBC's rivals (including itself). 

2. Though ending free licence fees for most over-75s, the BBC is spending more on its 'talent' this year than it did last year, with the amount spent rising from £148m to £157m. 

3. There are now three women in Top 10 of the BBC Rich List - Claudia Winkleman, Zoe Ball and Vanessa Feltz. Hurray!

4. Though ending free licence fees for most over-75s, the BBC will be spending £3m on branded mugs, magnets, hoodies and umbrellas - freebies to be given to staff and viewers to promote programmes and “corporate identities”.

5. Around 7 million people watched England’s win over Norway in the Women’s World Cup quarter-final - more than watched the men's FA Cup final. The BBC's promotion of women's football appears to be working.

6. The BBC got accused of caving into the Foreign Office over its apparent censoring of Boris's comments called the French 'turds' from a BBC Two documentary series. Apparently, the French aren't 'turds'.

7. Boris himself based the BBC at a hustings in Carlisle, calling it "the Brexit Bashing Corporation" and adding, “All of their highly expensive presenters mean that they can’t afford to look after over 75-year-olds when it comes to their TV licence.”

8. The SNP's deputy leader criticised the BBC for an infographic which appeared to minimise the scale of the SNP vote share in the European election. The BBC said that the bar chart was merely indicative, but the nationalists complained that the SNP bar was too short. They wrote an angry letter to the BBC. 

9. Emily Maitlis got into bother for letting her dog take up a seat on a busy GWR train from Cornwall to London. She responded with an article in The Times saying "Photos of my whippet in his own seat tell only half the story. The carriage was not full, and humans had dirtier feet on the upholstery". And her poor dog is poorly.

And that's all we have time for I'm afraid. Stay with us. Now for the weather with Tomasz Schafernaker...

Nick Robinson v the cybernats (Part 54)

Today's big 'stooshie' on Twitter (regarding BBC bias) concerned the sudden flaring-up again of the deep, historic enmity between Nick Robinson and the cybernats.

If you recall, Nick Robinson had asked Alex Salmond a question at a press conference during the referendum debate which didn't go down very well with either Mr Salmond or his supporters (to put it mildly). Some pro-independence supporters 'went their dinger' so much that they swarmed around the BBC's Glasgow HQ demanding Nick Robinson's 'heid' on a platter.

Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival this week, the BBC's former political editor said he regretted phrasing his question badly but added that Alex Salmond had exploited his question as a diversionary tactic. 

He also compared those protests to something out of Putin's Russia:

Alex Salmond was using me to change the subject. Alex Salmond was using me as a symbol, a symbol of the wicked, metropolitan, Westminster classes sent from England, sent from London, in order to tell the Scots what they ought to do. 

As it happens I fell for it. I shouldn't have had the row with him, which I did and I chose a particular phrase we might explore badly in terms of my reporting and that is genuinely a sense of regret. 

But as a serious thought I don't think my offence was sufficient to justify 4,000 people marching on the BBC's headquarters, so that young men and women who are new to journalism have, like they do in Putin's Russia, to fight their way through crowds of protesters, frightened as to how they do their jobs. 

That, you may agree with me or disagree with me, is not how politics should operate either in the UK or in future independent Scotland if there is to be such a thing. 

We should not live with journalists who are intimidated, or bullied, or fearful in any way.

This will run and run (and run).

‘Let’s kill Israelis’.

“Because of the Holocaust, you can’t say, ‘Let’s kill the Jews’, but you can walk down the road saying, ‘Let’s kill Israelis’.

I recently wrote:

“I sincerely believe the BBC takes a fierce and firm anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian approach, which I suspect stems from ignorance on the part of BBC management as well as their on-the-spot reporters and foreign correspondents.”

 A commenter responded:

“ If only the BBC slanderous reporting against Israel did stem just from ignorance !!!.”

Of course it doesn’t ‘just’ stem from ignorance, but I do still think - aside from some genuine old-fashioned antisemitism and some Islam-based Jew-hate that emanates from certain Muslim employees - the BBC’s Israel related output would be much more balanced and its anti-Israel bias far less heartfelt if they actually knew what they were talking about. I think most of them believe they’re fighting for a good cause, just like many Germans did in the 1930s.

A pretty good illustration of what I mean can be seen in a video of a “pro-Palestinian” stall set up (after being banned by the organisers from the “fair proper” ) on the fringes of the Richmond May Fair. H/T Daphne Anson.

The actor John Altman (Jewish, by the way) sets out a series of reasons why he supports the PSC. (As if we weren’t heartily sick of minor and less minor celebrities opining on political matters about which they know next to nothing on the premise that their fame bestows spiritual wisdom upon them )

Before Altman we see Jenny Tonge telling us why she’s here today: 

“The injustice meted out by the Israelis against the Palestinians is the root cause of all the troubles in the Middle East that we’re now having to deal with”

What exactly does she mean? She gets away with this waffle, as she gets away with her oft quoted “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians.” Meaningless phrases that contain nothing but mendacious, substance-free inferences, swallowed hungrily by those with an appetite for the Tonge brand of lazy, prejudiced antisemitic bile.

So Jenny Tonge thinks the elimination  of Israel would cure - what? Terrorism? Isis? Syria? Yemen? Iraq? Yeah right. It’s so patently untrue and antisemitic that one wonders how she gets away with it. Well, we know how. It’s because of ignorance, laziness and a misguided desire to fight what is portrayed as injustice. That’s how Joseph Goebbels managed to swing it.  

The camera alights on a poster about the illegal wall, then a puffy faced John Altman appears.

“It’s John Altman once again here at the Richmond Fair supporting the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Um, many big news items have taken place recently in the world, oh Syria always dominates it of course, and the Yemen, but there on the Gaza Strip and in Palestine, people are being murdered, every week, by the Israeli armed forces, um, houses are being bulldozed, their land is being stolen as we speak and unfortunately Benjamin Netanyahu is once again in power and he’s gone with the far right.” 

John Altman might be half aware of the likelihood that the kind of people who are most easily influenced by him are the ones that think he is Nick Cotton. 

“So it doesn’t look good for the situation down there. I pray that this year, somebody somewhere in government, I don’t know if Cameron will, he seemed to ignore the last mass murder of Palestinian people altogether, I remember Miliband spoke up about it, but let’s hope somebody somewhere in the world really does do something about the situation down there. I hear recently, at long last, some building materials were let in to the devastated area; thousands of people were homeless, thousands of people suffering malnutrition and hypothermia last winter - none of it gets in the papers of course, but if you go deeper into the news you’ll see what the situation is like down there. 
It’s hell on earth. Especially on the Gaza Strip. So please. Open people’s eyes to the situation. let’s see a change. This year. In Gaza and Palestine. Give those people their freedom. Thank you.”

If I asked for a list of wrong information set out to illustrate my point, that was as good as any.

We might start by mentioning the absence of any historical or religious content in John Altman’s consciousness. He then seems to infer that Syria and Yemen dominating the news is somehow unfair, the wrong priority on behalf of the media, which should really be concentrating on the Gaza Strip.

  

Which people are being murdered “every week”, by the Israeli armed forces? Palestinians trying to cross the “illegal wall,” Palestinians throwing rocks,   Palestinians rioting, bomb throwing. It’s that age-old, life-threatening thing, war. 

Yes, there are casualties.  Of course if the media reports the defence before the attack, the public don’t get to be fully informed. It doesn’t occur to John Altman that if there were no Palestinian aggression there would be no casualties.

Bulldozing houses is a controversial policy in Israel. It’s a punishment for families of terrorists who’ve murdered Israeli civilians. On the other hand, not a lot of  people know that terrorists’ families receive generous salaries from the PA.  Which is morally superior? Punishment or reward for killing Israelis.

“Their land is being stolen as we speak” is wrong on several levels, starting from the word “Their” and ending with “speak”. It demonstrates the ignorance of legal and historical facts, which again is due to failings of the media.

'The mass murder of Palestinian people', which allegedly Cameron seemed to ignore and “Miliband spoke up about” is a gross distortion of l’actualité, deliberately emotive, factually deficient and it completely disregards context. If he means that Miliband spoke in favour of the UK government prematurely recognising a Palestinian state, that is another factually illiterate bluster that people like Altman know they can get away with because it sounds convincing to those with an appetite for it. 

The building materials ‘being let in‘ is also factually incorrect.   

Perhaps John Altman hasn’t even heard of Hamas? It certainly sounds like it. I wonder if he’s heard of radical Islam? I wonder if he ever wonders whose fault it is if anyone in Gaza suffers from malnutrition and hypothermia? It can’t be Israel, because tons of commodities are trucked in there every day. Whether it reaches its destination is another matter. Does Altman know that disputes between Hamas and the PA are responsible for shortages of power?

He’s half right when he says “None of it gets into the papers.” Half of it doesn’t, and a good deal of the half that does is regurgitated antisemitic propaganda. He implies that he knows better because he “goes into it deeply”. 

He must mean he’s been ‘educated’ by the PSC, a massive anti-Israel campaign with branches throughout the UK, spreading antisemitic myths and lies far and wide, from the media to academia, to the general public, to religious and political leaders and people who sincerely believe they occupy the moral high ground.

A particularly worrying group that is acutely infected with this toxic malady is the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon is an ardent advocate for BDS. The Scots Nats are passionate pro-Palestinian sympathisers and anti-Israel activists.

No wonder British Jews are worried.

There’s an article about that in today’s Sunday Times magazine. (£)

The tipping point had not been the Paris attacks, but events last summer in the Middle East. She blamed what she perceived as biased reporting that held Israel to account and “unleashed this torrent of hatred” against Jews. “You know what Goebbels said — if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.” Rabbis might have preached that this is not Germany in the 1930s, but Ruth was not comforted. She fears the impact of radical Islam and believes that Jews in the UK are “sitting on a time bomb”.Ruth was aware of how quickly everything had changed in Germany. She pointed to photographs of Anne Frank’s father, proudly wearing his German military uniform. German Jews thought they were German first and Jews second, said Ruth, and that was their mistake. “Some saw what was coming and had the foresight to get out. I can understand why people are sitting here, thinking, ‘Oh, life is just what it was, there’s no danger.’“I hope and pray every day that I am proved wrong...” But she had no plans to wait around.

   

I think many people would divest themselves of their keffiyehs and think twice about supporting BDS if they were in full possession of the vital missing parts of the story.  

Report, report, report

Hamish and Dougal, not looking happy about the BBC's reporting of today's goings-on in Glasgow

Though this is a blog that tries as hard as it can - or at least as hard as one man and one woman with families and busy lives can possibly do - to monitor as much of the BBC's output as possible.....and, given how colossal the BBC's output is, that's nowhere near as much as we'd like - to put it mildly!.....we probably miss a heck of a lot of (potential) bias.

Thankfully, plenty of other eyes are out there.

Some of those eyes, however (like us perhaps), see things through their own filters (and biases) and either find things or miss things that we don't see, or that don't interest us - some plausibly, some implausibly.

This latest bout of introspection arises because The Crazy World of Twitter is going absolutely wild this afternoon/evening with furious accusations of BBC bias...

...but those accusations are coming, it seems, almost entirely from those notorious supporters of the SNP known as 'cybernats' - the sort of people who on seeing Jim Naughtie walking down a street in Dundee march towards him and chant in unison, "Delete, delete, delete". (One for Doctor Who fans there.)

The story, reported on the home page of the BBC News website, is that Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy and Labour-groupie-comedian Eddie Izzard have been rudely heckled - or worse - during a "scuffle" in Glasgow.

The BBC's man-of-the-moment in Scotland, James Cook, paints a grim picture of the scene on Twitter:

James Cook @BBCJamesCook  ·  7h 7 hours ago
Absolute chaos on the streets of Glasgow as Jim Murphy and Eddie Izzard try to be heard over protestors. #ge2015

James Cook @BBCJamesCook  ·  6h 6 hours ago
“Democracy is dead” one of the protestors who shouted down Jim Murphy in Glasgow tells me. #ge2015

James Cook @BBCJamesCook  ·  6h 6 hours ago
More pictures of the scuffles in Glasgow to come if possible. I couldn’t get any as I was watching cameraman @cherlie1′s back.

James Cook @BBCJamesCook  ·  6h 6 hours ago
Eddie Izzard condemns “violent” and “aggressive” protestors at Labour campaign event in Glasgow. #ge2015

Nicola Sturgeon may have distanced herself from the anti-Labour protests, but the cybernats are still calling 'bias' on the BBC for reporting what they call a Labour 'stunt' and they are posting images that they say prove the BBC is misreporting/exaggerating the event (or, to put it more bluntly, lying).

The image endlessly being re-tweeted, in response to James's claims of "chaos" is:

I'm not sure what the second image relates to - but it obviously means a lot to the cybernats. My guess is something to do with the post-referendum violence in Glasgow said to have been carried out by pro-union thugs.

Is that "BBC: Chaos in Glasgow" image a true or a false picture of today's events? Are the BBC over-egging the pudding? Are James Cook and his BBC colleagues covertly campaigning for Scottish Labour?

Well, call me 'an indecisive blogger' if you will but, frankly, I've not got a clue. I've Googled around to try to find out what really happened and yet I've still not got a clue. I rather doubt the BBC are covering for Labour (or covering for the SNP, as I've seen claimed on certain largely English blogs - though the one thing I can be certain about here is that James's tweets certainly weren't doing that!) but, still, I've not really got a clue.

So this is this blogger's take then on this latest outburst of #Beebbiasery from the cybernats is: I don't know what to make of it or who's telling the truth. Is the BBC telling the truth? Dunno. Is the BBC shilling for Labour? Dunno.

Craig's Final Thought - To summarise: Dunno.

Evan Davis v Nicola Sturgeon

Well, Evan Davis was back on BBC One tonight with his latest Leader Interview, featuring a leader the vast majority of UK voters can't vote for - Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP.

Tone-wise, it could hardly have been more different to Evan's last BBC One interview (the one with the leader of UKIP).

(If any cybernats moan about this, they seriously need help and deserve to be afforded no credibility whatsoever ever again).

Evan and Nicola got on like a house on fire. It was all pretty good-natured, with Evan and Nicola laughing at each others jokes, sparring light-heartedly and, generally, treating each other with kid gloves. (Evan even echoed some of her comments). 

She seemed to enjoy it. As did he.

There was lots of discussion about the SNP's attitude towards Labour and how things might work with Labour after the election, plus other post-election scenarios.  A bit of stuff about how she feels about London and who she'd support in, say, an England-Germany match, plus some stuff about what she'd like to be remembered for after her long career in politics, many years hence.

There were lots of interruptions (34, by my count - putting her ahead of Ed but behind David and Nick - and way, way behind Nigel's 55), but it still was a million miles away from the hostile tone of last week's interview with Nigel Farage - full of joshing, fencing, and pushing without bruising. 

He didn't imply racism (even anti-English racism). He didn't have a dig at SNP candidates or supporters. He didn't personally have a go at Nicola Sturgeon. He didn't, even for a second, dig into her economic policy (that fiscal 'black hole' for example), or anything else about her manifesto. He didn't seek to embarrass her with clips from the past, or an endless stream of potentially embarrassing quotes (just one from Alex Salmond, if I recall correctly). He didn't cite Paddington Bear against her nationalist standpoint. 

Evan's interview with Nigel Farage felt hostile, as if Evan were seeking to ruin UKIP's reputation.

This interview was pathetically soft in comparison because, I suspect, Evan doesn't care about the SNP as much as he cares (negatively) about UKIP - meaning that he's guilty of a bias against UKIP. It was just a prime-time interview with the leader of the SNP for him. Not personal.

Watch it for yourselves though please. 

Say what you see

(Our next PM, OMG!, taken from The Independent)

This morning's Today, much to my disappointment, didn't have a good chuckle about Ed 'the happy warrior' Miliband, following the falling of his prep notes (for last week's ITV leaders' debate) into The Sun on Sunday's fragrant hands:

me versus DC. decency, principle and values.

(Self-praise is no praise, Ed).

Still, as Alan at Biased BBC notes, they did have time for a David Had a Little Lamb feature.

This concerned indecent, unprincipled, value-free David Cameron and his photo-op with a cute lamb, about which John Humphrys was drolly sceptical.

[John Humphrys, however, also mentioned the 'bacon sandwich' scandal regarding Ed Miliband (see above) - the mere mention of which usually prompts the Labour wing of the ITA (International Twitter Army) to scream 'BBC bias!' at the top of their very busy fingertips.]

******

And Today most certainly had time to mention...and re-mention...and then re-mention once more...that infamous memo (obtained by the Telegraph) which so infuriated the SNP...

...so infuriated them, in fact, that I imagine them acting like those anti-obscenity protestors in that notorious episode of South Park, hurling themselves from giant catapults against BBC Scotland's Glasgow HQ, and splattering themselves, bloodily, in the process. I'm thus envisioning hordes of dying SNP supporters piling up outside Pacific Quay. 

OK though, back to that memo....

....the one where, at third-hand, an unnamed Scottish Office official (so it transpires, apparently) relates that someone told him that Nicola Sturgeon told someone else said she'd prefer DC to win and that Ed M wasn't up to being prime minister - even though the same official who wrote the memo also worries (privately - or so he {or she} apparently believed!) that such public forthrightness from the Scottish FM doesn't sound right and that something could have been "lost in translation". 

The SNP and the French (i.e. all of those present) strongly deny any such thing was ever said.

However, many canny observers suspect, at least in theory (and, probably, in practice), it could have been said, given that the SNP would surely relish having a hated Conservative UK government in power at Westminster (whether minority or majority) in order to absolutely clinch their case for leaving the UK.

Others also suspect that Nicola Sturgeon might well think that Ed Miliband isn't up to the job - given that most other people seem to think that too! - and that she could also have said it.

Speculation, speculation everywhere and not a fact to drink...a subject to which I'll return later!

******

(Nicola, Queen of Scots, looking more happie than krankie)

Is the BBC biased over the SNP though? And, if so, in which direction?

Alan at Biased BBC (no fan of the SNP) thinks the BBC's failure to report BBC reporter James Cook's comments about how senior SNP figures have told him that a Tory government would suit them better shows BBC pro-SNP bias. 

Countless furious cybernats, and former BBC presenter Derek Bateman (most definitely a fan of the SNP) would strongly (and probably abusively (though not Derek)), disagree about that and find little but BBC pro-establishment, anti-SNP bias here. 

In terms of numbers, the cybernats win - but does quantity of accusation also equal quality of accusation?

Honest answer = I don't know. Some BBC programmes/presenters seemed to be trying to rubbish the story while others seemed to be going full steam ahead with it (as noted in an earlier post).

Whether that means that the BBC (getting complaints from both sides) is getting it about right or getting it completely wrong in more than one direction is hard to say...

...though forcing myself off the fence, I'd say that this morning's Today and its continuing focus on a story that SNP supporters loathe hearing about ('UKIP scandal'-like) tends me (slightly) towards the Nats' position.

If the BBC was really pro-SNP they'd have buried this story by now.

Also inclining me towards that view is the way SNP MP Stewart Hosie's understandable reluctance - under sustained pressure - to say that Labour's Ed Miliband would make a splendid PM was then spun, in the following news bulletin, thanks to Norman Smith, into a headline story. (As I said before, who in God's name, actually does think he'll make a great PM?). Norm said the SNP were being "less forthright" about the matter.

******

(A Labour-biased pooch, plus the BBC's always-impartial Norm)

And talking of Norman Smith and speculation...

...here's Norman's take on this in the final hour of this morning's Today:

It matters very obviously because any suggestion that privately, secretly, Nicola Sturgeon favours David Cameron would be devastating to the SNP's campaign in Scotland where they're desperately trying to win over Labour voters...

["devasting", "desparately" - Good old Norm and his hyperbole, and not exactly SNP-friendly. The SNP, as per the polls, don't seem to be "desperately" trying to win over Labour votes at all. They seem, simply, to be winning them over - though time, and the actual results, will tell. One for those who claim the BBC is anti-SNP, I think.] 

...but I think Sarah's interview may have, actually, provided us with half an answer to how this memo potentially came about because Ms Sturgeon, the French ambassador, the French Consul General have all vehemently, categorically, 100% denied that Scotland's First Minister said she would like David Cameron to remain in Downing Street.

However...

...where they've been much more reticent is whether she expressed any sceptical views about Ed Miliband's leadership abilities and we could hear it quite clearly there from Stewart Hosie that they are not terribly enthused about the prospect of Ed Miliband as a potential prime minister and it seems to me, therefore, that, perhaps, Ms Sturgeon did venture some doubts about Mr Miliband's leadership qualities. That was then reported to the Scotland Office and there, maybe, that was overwritten, over-interpreted as reservations about Ed Milibands equals preference for David Cameron.

Now, that might explain why then that memo was written suggesting that somehow she favoured the Conservatives remaining in government when, in fact, what she might have simply stressed was her doubts about Ed Miliband as a prime minister.

I'm speculating slightly but I think that could explain how it is that everyone has been able to 100%, categorically deny that she wants David Cameron to remain prime minister while being much less forthcoming about what she might have said about Ed Miliband.

[Well, yes, Norman, you are speculating here - but far, far more than just "slightly" though. You're actually massively speculating. Put mathematically: No facts + pure speculation = "I'm actually speculating exponentially."] 

~~~~~

It matters because she wants to say to Labour voters in Scotland, "Relax, you don't have to vote Labour to kick the Tories out. You can vote SNP and you can be absolutely sure I am more hostile, more anti-Tory, than any Labour voter. I would, in fact, vote down the Tories even if they were the largest party."

If there is the least scintilla of doubt that she is being slightly economical with the truth and that undermines that whole pitch to voters.

[Does it really "undermine" her "whole pitch to voters"? Labour might like to argue it does, but would it really? Wouldn't most Scottish voters realise (as most English voters would probably realise too), if they thought the SNP - for 'realist'/'Machiavellian' reasons - wanted the hated Tories to rule over Scotland from London - that the SNP would only be using the Tories to get rid of the Tories - they'd hope - forever?]

Added to which, I suspect there is a sort of hard-headed view among some people that actually, well, it would be rather good for the SNP if David Cameron remained in Downing Street because it enables them to highlight the differences between England and Scotland, because Scotland, presumably, won't have many Tory MPs. But, more than that, if David Cameron goes for an EU referendum and Sturgeon has already said, that that could provide a potential trigger for yet another independence referendum if England was to vote to leave the EU and Scots were to vote to remain to stay in.

[Just the line James Cook was advancing on Twitter. So at least there's some BBC consistency there.] 

So you can see, in a very hard-headed way, although it's been utterly denied, why the SNP might, actually, benefit from a David Cameron government.

[Email to Norman Smith from Labour HQ: "Thank you Norman" - and much of the praise he got for this piece came, at least on Twitter, from Labour Party supporters.]

******

(Somewhere Scots Nats regard as Propaganda Central)

Now, personally, I'm a unionist. I'm part-Scottish, but mostly English (extremely Northern English to be precise). I want the two parts of my self to stay whole by means of the UK staying whole. And, therefore, I find myself in the (very) peculiar position (for me) of hoping that Labour won't do as badly as the polls predict and that the SNP will feel let down on polling day...

...but, as a dogged and, hopefully, honest watcher of the BBC over the past seven years, including monitoring some of BBC Scotland's output (on my old blog), I really don't think the BBC is 'institutionally' pro-SNP.

Yes, the cybernats can be hysterical, and the BBC can - from what I've seen - swing both ways and, moreover, some BBC reporters/presenters clearly try to be fair, but overall (as I see it) the corporation seems to swing (somewhat) against the SNP.

Maybe that's my own anti-Labour bias coming out, but I remember what I monitored in the run-up to the 2010 election and what I've monitored, on and off,  here at ITBB (and there are two links included there, so please keep clicking!) and I've not found the BBC to be, by and large, in any way sympathetic to the SNP or Scottish independence. Quite the reverse.

It's a rowdily controversial subject area, of course, but all a blogger can do is say what they see. 

The latest stooshie over BBC bias

As this is a blog about BBC bias, something probably ought to be said about the big 'BBC bias' story of the week (well, at least according to some) - i.e. the latest onslaught of accusations hurled at the BBC in recent days by supporters of the SNP. 

The first major set of accusations came in the wake of ITV's leaders' debate. 

The cybernats took to Twitter en masse (as they tend to do) to complain that the BBC wasn't (pace Handel) seeing the conquering heroine (Nicola, Queen of Scots) come.

To paraphrase (in less than 140 characters): 

"Everyone knows that Nicola Sturgeon wiped the floor with the rest of them, so why oh why isn't the *#$%ing biased BBC acknowledging that fact? #bbcbias".

As my own survey of some of the BBC's reporting of the debate clearly shows, the BBC was, in fact, very far from shy about acknowledging Nicola Sturgeon's "triumph". 

The first BBC One news bulletin (News at Ten), mere minutes after the debate ended, featured the BBC's deputy political editor unambiguously declaring her the winner, and BBC reporters - from Allegra Stratton to Julia MacFarlane, from John Pienaar to Norman Smith - were almost falling over themselves to back him up. 

Therefore, to be blunt, such complaints from SNP supporters are total rubbish.

The second major set of accusations came in the wake of the Telegraph's reporting of a leaked email which the Telegraph reported as showing Nicola Sturgeon favouring David Cameron as UK prime minister over Ed Miliband (in a leaked memo, apparently written by a "senior civil servant", reporting the new French ambassador's conversations with Scottish figures including the First Minister.) 

The cybernats are furious at the BBC for paying attention to what they saw, at worst, as something akin to the Zinoviev Letter (i.e. a fake document, possibly devised by the security services, intended to damage a political party) and, at best, as worthless and wrong tittle-tattle. (Sky, who also majored on the story, don't seem to bother them at all.)

Typically, things got extremely vitriolic - so much so that Fraser Nelson of the Spectator clearly felt the need to step in and say 'Calm down! Calm down! (though in a Scottish rather than a Scouse accent) in defence of a BBC reporter, James Cook. James has (from the sounds of it) been on the receiving end of a staggering amount of particularly bilious bile from the cybernats - something Fraser calls "hounding" - simply for reporting the story. (Nicola Sturgeon, to her credit, also called for the attack dogs to return to their kennels.)

I have to admit, however, that I can see where the cybernats are coming from with some of the BBC (and Sky reports) I've seen, heard and read - such as yesterday's coverage on PM  - and with the Telegraph's reporting.

Putting aside the conspiracy theories for a moment, it does seem obvious to me that the Telegraph spun the 'leaked memo' by failing to emphasise that the writer of the memo himself cast doubt on whether Nicola Sturgeon would have really made such remarks and whether what she actually said has been "lost in translation" - and that's even before the emphatic denials from all and sundry (including the SNP and the French)...and I have noticed some BBC reports that have completely failed to reflect that.

However (and this is a complicated story, so a few 'however's are only to be expected)....

I also saw the BBC News Channel's paper review (on the night the story broke) where presenter Martine Croxall and a journalist from the Economist jointly poured cold water on the story - and rather blatantly relegated the sports writer from the Telegraph (who, rather unconvincingly, tried to defend his paper) to the sidelines....

....and James Naughtie went a considerable way out of his way on yesterday's Today to pour even more cold water (with bucket loads of ice) over it too. (And Jim isn't a favourate of the cybernats, to put it mildly. They think he's a Labour stooge. {Ed - and they aren't alone it that!})

Now, I've tried to make sense of all of this. Whether my take makes sense, however, I'll leave you to judge.

*******

Update (h/t Guest Who, Biased BBC): James didn't just have the cybernats to contend with:

They were nice people but my goodness did they detest us Tories #SNP - so @BBCJamesCook IMO should not assist Labour with 'unnamed sources'
— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 4, 2015

.@LouiseMensch The difference between us, Louise, is I'm not interested in who I'm "assisting". I just report what I know to be true.
— James Cook (@BBCJamesCook) April 4, 2015

@BBCJamesCook I don't think you do, no. Unnamed and unverifiable "sources" tell you something massively damaging to the SNP?
— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 4, 2015

@BBCJamesCook in an election campaign, unless you can verify this with a named source it is wrong to "report" it.
— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 4, 2015

Meanwhile, in another universe...

The cybernats are not happy bunnies today. 

They are (as ever) very active on the Twitter hashtag #bbcbias, busily tweeting each other messages like the following:

Proof of #bbcbias entire interview subliminally captioned as "SNP Threat" on #bbcdp Impartial and unbiased eh? ”

wow the #bbcbias channel now trying subliminal messages. It's not done in error

@BBCNews @BBCNewsnight @BBCPolitics your bias against the SNP is the REAL THREAT to democracy! #BBCBias

Stewart Hosie interviewed by BBC yesterday surely positive proof of BBC bias? 

More incredible BBC bias. They don't even try and hide it anymore. (Too funny) 

#BBCBias introduce latest series for their  #ProjectDemonizeSNP

If you needed proof of BBC bias toward SNP, here it is @boycottTheBBC @daily_politics @theSNP @afneil 

And what exactly has got their goat today (mixing my animal metaphors)? Well, this:

Now, I think I know what the BBC's trying to say with that caption but I don't think the cybernats would entirely buy that explanation.

Anyhow, you're now beholding an image (above) which is surely destined for thousands upon thousands of tweets and re-tweets from now till infinity...or at least until Scottish independence.

Kirsty Wark on Nigel Farage

We were treated to the deep political insights of Newsnight's Kirsty Wark during the newspaper review on this morning's Broadcasting House. And what a treat it was! 

Paddy invited her to reflect on the latest opinion polls showing UKIP doing very well indeed, and this was her reflection on the whole phenomenon:

I just can't get over the..kind of..Nigel Farage here in Scotland. Do you remember when he came up and he got attacked outside a pub? {laughter from Lord Ian Blair} This is my..kind of..abiding image of Nigel Farage.

But the thing is, you know, he is making headway and, as opposed to what's happening in Scotland, I think it's quite an interesting kind of dichotomy for people in Scotland because what he is saying is that, you know, an independent Scotland would then have to..er..you know, it would be out of the...would be out of the EU as well, you...presumably...and I think he's getting everything mixed up, Nigel Farage. I don't actually think he understands what's going on in Scotland.

Well, with all due respect to Kirsty Wark (which, of course, is Journalese for 'with no respect whatsoever'), her shallow contempt for Nigel Farage and her (and Lord Blair's) amusement at that attack on him last year, suggests bias.

Plus, it appears to be her - a Newsnight presenter - who's got everything mixed up, as evidenced by the barely coherent way she expressed herself there [though her contempt for Nigel Farage couldn't have been much plainer, could it?] 

Reading what the UKIP leader told Scotland on Sunday, it seems pretty clear that Nigel Farage understands the logic of Alex Salmond's position rather better than the BBC's Kirsty Wark, and that Mr Farage wasn't saying what she thought he was saying. 

Alex Salmond's position is predicated on the presumption that Scotland will automatically remain inside the EU if there's a 'yes' vote in the referendum. His unionist opponents believe - as Kirsty appears to believe - that it won't, and that it will have to reapply. 

Nigel Farage was clearly taking Alex Salmond's starting point with regards to Scotland's EU membership after the referendum and running with it, turning its logic against the SNP leader. 

You may not buy Nigel's own starting point that you cannot be an independent country if you're inside the EU, but it's a popular one - even with a sizeable minority of Scots - and there's nothing illogical about the point he's making.

Here's how Scotland on Sunday reports his remarks:

SCOTS should be offered a referendum on European Union membership if there is a Yes vote to leave the United Kingdom, Ukip leader Nigel Farage said last night.

Claiming that Scotland would not be a truly independent nation unless it was out of the EU, Farage attacked Alex Salmond for failing to offer another referendum in the event of a Yes vote. In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, the Ukip leader said Scots were being denied “true independence” by Salmond.

...as Salmond was delivering his keynote speech in Aberdeen, his vision of independence came under attack from Farage, who said it was “unacceptable” that Salmond’s independence white paper made no provision for an EU referendum.

Farage said: “It seems to me that it would be completely wrong for Scots not to be offered a referendum on EU membership if they vote for independence. Salmond is not offering true independence. Most of our laws and regulations now come from the EU.”

EU membership has been a vexed question for the SNP. The party’s position – that Scotland would automatically be included on independence – has been strongly disputed by EU officials and Salmond’s political opponents.

Last night the SNP dismissed Farage’s intervention in the referendum debate. An SNP spokeswoman said: “Ukip support a No vote in September’s referendum, and one of the reasons why a Yes vote is essential is so that Scotland doesn’t risk getting dragged out of the European Union against our will in a Westminster in/out referendum.”

What in any of that suggests that Nigel Farage is "getting everything mixed up" and doesn't understand what's going on in Scotland? 

Let's 'replay' Kirsty's comments again in the light of that. 

I'd say that she's  the one who's getting everything mixed up and who doesn't seem to understand what Nigel Farage is even saying, or even what Alex Salmond believes will happen after a 'yes' vote:

But the thing is, you know, he is making headway and, as opposed to what's happening in Scotland, I think it's quite an interesting kind of dichotomy for people in Scotland because what he is saying is that, you know, an independent Scotland would then have to..er..you know, it would be out of the...would be out of the EU as well, you...presumably...and I think he's getting everything mixed up, Nigel Farage. I don't actually think he understands what's going on in Scotland.

Kirsty Wark is clearly confused (well, confused about this story, if not about her own negative feelings about Nigel Farage.) 

Maybe, Kirsty wasn't just pretending to be a zombie last year.

A (Sun)Day in the Life (of the BBC) - I.

As I'm prone to posting about BBC programmes broadcast on Sunday - especially Radio 4's Sunday - I thought it might be worth tracking a(n almost) whole Sunday's worth of Radio 4 programmes, and seeing what emerges. The following posts will be a blog diary of what results. (If I get bored, it will end prematurely).

Let's start at 5:43, this last Sunday. Yes, 5:43 in the morning, when you were all probably fast asleep, awaiting the arrival of your morning-after hangovers.

5:43 Bells on Sunday

I like bells on Sunday, and Bells on Sunday. 

Here we heard the eight bells of St Mary and St Chad in Brewood, Staffordshire, pealing out very brightly. Ah yes, timelessly English! Yet, with my classical music hat on, it also sounded a bit like the kind of upbeat American minimalism exemplified by the music of Michael Torke. (Thought I'd share that with you.) No mournful bells these.

The one snag, as ever, was that we were allowed to hear a mere two minutes of bell-ringing. That's nowhere near enough. (Another complaint to the BBC will be going in about that.) Scrap Broadcasting House and give us an hour of Bells on Sunday instead!

Talking of church bells, our vicar was walking to church this Sunday morning and spotted me working in the garden.

"Can't you hear those bells summoning you to church?" said the vicar.

"I'm afraid you'll have to speak a little louder, vicar!" I replied.

"CAN'T YOU HEAR THOSE BELLS SUMMONING YOU TO CHURCH?!" shouted the vicar.

"I'm sorry, vicar," I said, "I can't hear you because of those effing bells!"

5:45 Profile

This was an early morning repeat for a programme broadcast the evening before, profiling the SNP deputy first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon. It was written and presented by BBC business reporter Lesley Curwen.

Sometimes it hard to imagine that the person being profiled by Profile would enjoy the experience of actually listening to the programme. This wasn't one of those occasions.

I would (figuratively-speaking) wager a small bet that Nicola will have been listening to it - especially as one of the programme's 'talking heads' was her own mum, Joan. If so, she will have had a pleasant quarter of an hour's worth of listening, hearing political friend and foe alike singing her praises. Besides Joan Sturgeon, we heard from her SNP colleague Fiona Hyslop, the political commentator David Torrance, and the (Lib Dem) coalition government minister Michael Moore.

Unusually, there was barely a shadow of sourness to be heard. Even Mr Moore was full of praise for her qualities as a politician.

The nearest we got to that elusive shadow was a hint that the very political Miss Sturgeon had a single, non-political obsession - that Danish...er...political drama Borgen (broadcast on BBC Four). That's hardly a bad thing of course. Such things humanise politicians - or, at any rate, are assumed to do. (Incidentally, Clive James also likes Borgen. He fancies the lead actress).

Nicola Sturgeon does appear to be a bit like a stick of SNP rock. She's been SNP since her mid teens, her mum's an SNP councillor and she's married to the present chief executive of the SNP.

The programme left us with the suggestion that the sky could be the limit for her, especially if the independence referendum goes her way.

Here's a joke that didn't appear on Profile but it's one that I'm sure (having a feel for such things) is guaranteed to have every red-blooded SNP supporter rolling in the Isles with laughter:

The SNP has stated today that every Scot would be six hundred pounds a year better off in an independent Scotland.

Or as it's been promoted north of the border...an extra 1300 units of alcohol.

In the next post (due this evening): Sunday, On the Farm and an edition of Something Understood which meditates on the subject of anticipation. Aren't you simply tingling with anticipation to read it?