Very weird and foreign

This week's Unspun World with John Simpson saw John Simpson discussing the state of the United States with BBC North America editor Sarah Smith.

Note that the "very weird and foreign" things are ones associated with conservative viewpoints in the US, and how when Sarah Smith criticises "politicians, on both sides of the political divide, who play to that...fracture" she actually only cites an example used by US conservatives. 

And also note the bit where she criticises social media for making "everybody's voice more extreme and louder" (hyperbole!) and where she says social media "allows people with extreme views to find each other, communicate and reinforce them." 

Well, Unspun World with John Simpson allows people with BBC views to find each other, communicate and reinforce them.

Here's a transcript. 

Please enjoy all the bits where the conservatives on the Supreme Court are to blame, along - of course - with Donald Trump. And Sarah and John's refusal to blame, name and shame 'the other [Democrat] side'.

And note how 'the man kept in a basement' during the 2020 election, the present President Joe Biden - presently unpopular and widely perceived as not competent - doesn't even get a mention in Sarah's 'roll of shame'. 

The BBC - like their US counterparts - have been covering for him better than those censorious types who endlessly knit socks for all the centipedes who dance each night at the Moulin Rouge, as painted by M. Toulouse-Lautrec:

John Simpson: In the eyes of the outside world the United States can seem very weird and foreign. The whole business of the right to bear arms, for instance, or the hostility towards abortion. And yet it's always hugely influential. Think of the spread of the Me Too movement and Black Lives Matter. Other Western countries are fiercely divided at present, Britain and France among them, but not as damagingly as America, where some people are talking openly of a second civil war. Is that just excitable, exaggerated stuff, or is there something to it? I asked Sarah Smith, the BBC North America editor, what she thought.

Sarah Smith: Social media does play a part because it makes everybody's voice more extreme and louder, and also allows people with extreme views to find each other, communicate and reinforce them. One of the other things that's happening in American society is that these two tribes of left and right, conservative and liberal, are living in different places as well. They are geographically sorting. So that you have liberal with a small l people in the cities, in urban areas, and living along the east and the west coasts, whereas in rural areas, in the countryside and in the states in the middle, you have far more Republicans. You can see it also between the North and the South as well, to a certain extent, with the northern states generally being far more liberal than southern ones. So these days, it is entirely possible for people to not interact with anyone who has a very different world view from theirs, and there's no attempt to meet in the middle. So it just...it creates this fracture that just gets worse and worse and is, frankly, self reinforcing. And there are politicians, on both sides of the political divide, who play to that.

John Simpson: I mean, is it right across society, or is it really just all springing out of politics and is Washington-focused?

Sarah Smith: What some Washington politicians have done very cleverly is take some of the social issues that people are genuinely concerned about - what their kids are being taught in schools for instance, which is something that would deeply affect every family - and have turned and weaponised them into issues that show people that right in the heart of your community there are things which the other political side are doing which could damage your life in ways you hadn't realised.

John Simpson: This politicising of justice and the law, that must be also playing a major part in these divisions, isn't it?

Sarah Smith: Well, certainly since the really controversial and momentous decisions that the Supreme Court has taken in the last couple of weeks, touching on some of the most incendiary issues in American politics - abortion rights, gun rights and climate change. They've issued quite conservative rulings in all of those cases, as well as some other ones too. But the Court itself is supposed to be above politics. It's supposed to look at the law, look at the constitution and come to a judicial decision about what politicians and lawmakers can and cannot do. But because they are appointed in a partisan way - partly because Donald Trump, unusually, in one four-year term got to appoint three justices - the Court looks more and more political. It's got a 6-3 Conservative majority at the moment - and a really pretty conservative majority that is prepared to do quite radical things like overturn nearly 50 years of abortion rights. And you can see that opinion polling is already suggesting that people are starting to view the Court as just another branch of politics, see it as political and partisan, and are losing faith and trust in it. You get to a point where society feels really quite removed from the people who are making the rules and the laws that govern their lives, and that is a potentially dangerous situation. We live in a time when serious political commentators, not people given to hyperbole, are talking about the possibility of a second American civil war. I mean, not one that would look like the first, where you had two armies confronting each other, but one where there is the potential for political violence. And, you know, it is possibly true to say you could describe the state of affairs we're in at the moment as already being an American cold civil war.

John Simpson: Is there a way forward out of this, do you think?

Sarah Smith: For the first time ever since I've been coming here, over 25 years, Americans themselves aren't hopeful for the future. They are the ones who are starting to say 'America's time is finished. This, the American Age is over. I don't know what direction our country is going in, but it's certainly not forwards'. And although there have been commentators around the world saying that again and again, this is the first time out of the mouths of patriotic Americans, even as they are watching the 4th of July fireworks, have I heard them talking like that. And, of course, one of the things that's depressing them so much are these mass shootings. And on the 4th of July itself, at an Independence Day parade, six people are shot dead. That's the kind of shocking incident that just makes people really worry about what the future of this society could look like. Are these mass shootings. And on the 4th of July itself at an independence day parade. 6 people are shot dead. That's the kind of shocking incident that just makes people really worry about what the future of this society could look like.

Edits, fake news and BBC misreporting

That people on Twitter - especially anti-Brexit people - would put out and spread a 25-second clip 'showing' Boris Johnson looking isolated, a 'Billy-no-mates' at yesterday's EU/G7 summit despite longer videos of the event showing no such thing is, well, just typical of Twitter. Twitter partisans are not always noted for their fairness, or honesty. Where it becomes serious is when the BBC's main news bulletins spread this 'fake take' too.

Sarah Smith, the BBC's new North America editor, was one of the guilty parties yesterday.

On yesterday's BBC One News at Six, while a 6-second edit showed Boris 'standing alone' as others greeted each other, she said:

This show of solidarity is why President Biden's here. With the Nato chief and over 30 other world leaders to display the unity they believe is their strength. Although Boris Johnson looks remarkably isolated, even as the Kremlin crowned him the most active anti-Russian leader.

But she cannot take all the blame for this as that bulletin has editors, especially as they allowed her to broadcast the same brief misleading clip on the News at Ten too and say:

Boris Johnson looked a little isolated but remains in step with allies over Ukraine. Everybody wants peace, including the United Kingdom.

A lot of complaints seem to be going in to the BBC about this. And rightly so. 

Here's are two longer videos disproving Sarah Smith and the BBC's misinforming take:

President Biden Meets With NATO Allies In Brussels https://t.co/DeAEiJw9s4 pic.twitter.com/lYIQqJqIhh

— Forbes (@Forbes) March 24, 2022

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.

Aye Right, Sarah

 

I see a dark Twitter storm gathered around BBC News's Scotland Editor Sarah Smith overnight with the usual calls for her sacking. 

(The inevitable hashtags like #resignsarahsmith and #SackSarahSmith are trending).

In fairness, the complainants had something substantial to complain about. She made a horrendous mistake at the start of yesterday's BBC One News at Six, saying:

Alex Salmond said he believes Nicola Sturgeon has misled Parliament and broken the ministerial code, which he thinks means she should resign. 

I actually spent the start of my weekend last night watching, on catch-up, the whole of Alex Salmond's appearance at the Scottish Parliament select committee. The last few hours of it were particularly gripping. So I know for a fact that Mr Salmond went out of his way throughout not to say that Ms Sturgeon should resign but to say that that's a matter for others to judge. Therefore, it simply beggars belief that a BBC journalist of the standing and seniority of Sarah Smith should say otherwise - and get it so wrong - during the BBC One News at Six headlines. It leads me to wonder: Hadn't she been paying attention?

She later issued a 'clarification' (though not an apology) on Twitter:

1. On the 6 o’clock news headline tonight I said that Alex Salmond had claimed the First Minister had ‘broken the ministerial code and that he thinks she should resign’. I would like to clarify that Mr Salmond did not say that the First Minister should resign.  

2. He said “I've got no doubt that Nicola has broken the ministerial code but it’s not for me to suggest what the consequences should be”.

I don't think there's been an on-air correction/apology yet, though the BBC Press Office put out a Twitter statement saying pretty much word-for-word what Sarah said there.

Sarah Smith forgets her mum

A brilliantly amusing spot from Charlie, posted on the Open Thread...

BBCs Sarah Smith tweeted this at 10am this morning:

Four hours later she tweeted a clarification:

As Charlie says, she is ex-Labour leader John Smith's daughter and her mum was made a Dame.

Even worse for her, The Lordly Adonis (who has just written a book about the great Ernest Bevin) then chipped in, adding that "Florence Bevin was given a damehood after the death of Ernie Bevin in 1951", adding that "There is a long list of wives of top politicians being honoured - wives of Disraeli, Churchill, Gaitskell & Major all got damehoods or peerages". 

To quote Charlie's summary: "As a BBC political editor you might expect she should be better informed or at least check her facts before tweeting".

Roger Mosey, David Jordan and Tom Mangold, though all thankfully still alive, must be turning in their graves,

Maybe we need a new Law. Shall we call it Lewis's Law?: 

BBC journalists who seek to pander to the partisan world of Twitter will end up compromising the BBC's reputation for impartiality (and, possibly, making complete fools of themselves too).

In fairness to Sarah Smith though, at least she didn't delete her embarrassing tweet, but left it up and added a rather charming apologia. 

I approve of that. Others just delete their embarrassing tweets and move on (including the man who inspired my naming of Lewis's Law). 

Eid Mubarak

 

Pendle, Lancashire (of witches and lockdown fame)

With lockdown restrictions being eased in Leicester, just prior to Eid, the Government has imposed lockdown restriction across parts of East Lancashire (though not my part of it), West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, also just prior to Eid. From that you could draw the conclusion that such decisions are based on local spikes in Covid-19 infections. Now, it could also be that the measures up North were brought it with the gatherings in homes associated with Eid in mind, given the sheer number of people involved, but it's a big, potentially inflammatory leap from that to saying that the the Government changed the rules on the eve of Eid specifically to target the Muslim population and stop them celebrating Islam's most important annual festival - something they weren't being stopped from doing.

In that light (in you accept it), what do you make of Sarah Smith on Today yesterday morning asking this question to Matt Hancock?:

Many people are wondering if this is specifically aimed in the north-west of England at the Muslim festival of Eid which culminates tonight and you could have expected a lot of people to get together, celebrating in each other's homes possibly rather than in bars and restaurants. Did you announce this late last night because you wanted it to be enforced today to stop those Eid celebrations?

Was she (a) just playing devil's advocate there and putting a question 'many people' would have wanted to hear the answer to couched in terms of their own language, or (b) - as the splendid Jane Kelly tweeted - did Ms Smith accuse the government of deliberately enforcing new restrictions in order to stop Eid celebrations? (Jane added, "I know the BBC is 'taking a stand' on racism but is it your job to increase social divisions & spread conspiracy theories?")

And what do you make of Judith Moritz, in a report broadcast throughout yesterday on BBC One, asking an unhappy Muslim couple in Oldham, "Do you think this timing was chosen because of Eid, it's to stop large family gatherings, large gatherings?" Sisyphus, on the departing open thread, calls this a "leading question", and I agree.

Stooshie Time

The BBC's Scotland Editor Sarah Smith (daughter of the former Labour leader John Smith) felt compelled to recant her words on last night's BBC One News at Ten no less than four times today.

Today she dressed herself in non-literal sackcloth and ashes, but last night on the BBC she had her equally-non-literal party frock on and an unfortunately literal laugh in her voice and said this:

The Scottish Government are planning to publish a document, a route map, on Thursday this week, which will outline how they plan to cautiously and gradually ease some lockdown restrictions, but no changes will actually be introduced until the 28th of May at the earliest. So it will be the end of the month before people in Scotland can sit in the park, play a game of golf or tennis, visit a garden centre or maybe even restart some outdoor work like on construction sites. And the Scottish Government say that, like all of the UK nations, they base their advice on expert advice that they are given and that it has got nothing to do with politics, but it has been obvious that Nicola Sturgeon has enjoyed the opportunity to set her own lockdown rules and not have to follow what's happening in England and other parts of the UK. The gamble is whether people will continue to support her taking a different path when they are living under more stringent restrictions than other people in the UK.

Her first pair of contrite tweets came after Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon took to Twitter to respond to an SNP supporter's tweet railing against Sarah's "shameful" report, with Ms Sturgeon responding:

Never in my entire political career have I ‘enjoyed’ anything less than this. My heart breaks every day for all those who have lost loved ones to this virus.  

Two hours after Ms Sturgeon's tweet, the BBC's Sarah replied:

I do not believe that Nicola Sturgeon is enjoying this crisis. I had meant to say on the ten o’clock news that she has “embraced” the opportunity to make a policy unique to Scotland. I said “enjoyed” by mistake. Not suggesting she is enjoying crisis but embracing devolution. 

On last night’s News at Ten I said Nicola Sturgeon had “enjoyed the opportunity to set her own lockdown rules”. I should have said she was “embracing” the opportunity to set a separate policy for Scotland. I never meant to suggest she is enjoying this crisis. Of course she is not.

Nicola Sturgeon then responded:

I’ve made clear my view on this report. I’m not ‘enjoying’ or ‘embracing’ an ‘opportunity’. I’m just doing what I judge best in very difficult circumstances. That said, I understand the scrutiny that comes with it and accept Sarah’s clarification. For me, the matter is closed. 

And Sarah Smith replied with two more strongly apologetic apologies:

For the avoidance of doubt, I am sorry that by mistake I said last night that Nicola Sturgeon was “enjoying the opportunity” to set a different policy. 

For the avoidance of any doubt. I am sorry that by mistake I said on the news last night that Nicola Sturgeon was “enjoying the opportunity” to set lockdown policy in Scotland. That was not what I meant to say and I apologise to her for my error.

All's well that ends well then? The BBC's Sarah Smith misspoke. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon objected. The BBC's Sarah Smith 'clarified' what she'd said. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon accepted Sarah's 'clarification'. The BBC's Sarah Smith then apologised twice more. All very civilised. 

That's not how everyone sees it though. (This is Twitter after all).

I'm seeing two diverging lines of dissention: 

The first, reflected in the 'trending' hashtag #sackSarahSmith, came from the usual hordes of angry, ultra-loyal cybernats. Unlike the canny Ms Sturgeon, many of them aren't for forgiving the daughter of a former unionist Labour leader, or the 'pro-union' BBC. They want Sarah's metaphorical head - i.e. for her to be sacked - and brand it as deliberate bias.

Meanwhile, some on 'our side' of the Twitterowebosphere think that Sarah Smith was right all along and have smelt metaphorical knuckle dusters from the SNP - and equally metaphorical grindingly repentant kissings of the Godmother's ring from the cowardly BBC. They think it is obvious that Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP has been enjoying the opportunity to set her own lockdown rules and are amazed at the BBC for apologising when they were actually, 'for once', right.

Partisans must do what partisans must do, alas. So: Did Sarah Smith misspeak, or did she report fairly and state the plain truth, or did she betray anti-SNP bias? And was she right to apologise or wrong to apologise? 

"Something monstrous"

On the Today Programme, some of which I listened to ‘despite Greta’, two brief slots addressed the rise in antisemitism. The first item, at 12:56, introduced the phrase ‘the mainstreaming of hate-speech.’ It popped up during a conversation between Aleem Maqbool and Sarah Smith.

(I noticed that Sarah Smith got the 'antisemitism' gig this time rather than Mishal Husain)

Later, at about 1:09, Sarah spoke to the  President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews about the graffiti in London. Marie van der Zyl had the figures to hand (pretty alarming) - but she insisted it’s rare to see this kind of thing in London. 

“Why do you think it is that we’re seeing an increase?” asked Sarah, “…a rise in hate crime against different groups?”

Okay, we can see where this is going.

“In society, we need to be clear that anti-Jewish racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and prejudice of any kind is not acceptable in our society” waffled Ms van der Zyl. “Simon Shama said ‘something monstrous is rising out of the slime’ and this really has to be addressed by society,” she went on. “This (Global problem) coincides with the rise in populism and world leaders must ….” she continued limply. 

Last summer this particular lady was exchanging tetchy letters with Jeremy Corbyn. Now she’s actually turned into Jeremy Corbyn. 

Listen here.

 Simon Maier tweeted: 

“Just listened to this. She’s not a good or sufficiently strong mouthpiece for Board of Deputies or the community. Each question was answered vaguely and with lack of spirit. This is a time for best mouthpieces and irrefutable argument.”

I quite agree. If this weak mouthpiece is really representative of British Jews, we might as well give in now.

Questions

Sarah Smith (face visible)

The other discussion on the Boris/burqa issue on Today this morning was conducted by Sarah Smith, formerly of The Sunday Politics.

It was a slightly embarrassing interview to listen to because it became evident that Sarah, unlike many of us, hadn't been keeping abreast of the story and was severely under-prepared. She'd clearly not been paying attention to social media and certainly hadn't read Guido Fawkes or the Spectator's Steerpike - and others - who spent a lot of time yesterday unearthing examples of similar or 'even worse' jokes and comments about burqas from the BBC, the Guardian and various politicians from Emily Thornberry to Ken Clarke. Sarah was interviewing Andrew Bridgen MP and Mohammed Amin, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum and ended up getting herself into a right mess. She allowed a highly clued-up Mr Bridgen (who'd evidently read and remembered the whole lot!) to run rings around her somewhat.

Here's a brief flavour of it - unfortunately lacking the tone of Sarah Smith's voice, which made it sound as if every example Mr Bridgen gave had come as a surprise to her:

Sarah Smith: Andrew Bridgen, should Boris Johnson apologise if only to put this row to bed? It's been a week now that it's been dominating the news. That must be very concerning for you and the party?
Andrew Bridgen: Well, that's self-perpetuating, and this is nothing about what what Boris Johnson said. What we do know now is that it's about Boris Johnson. Far worse or far more inflammatory remarks with regard to the burka and niqab have been said by celebrities on the BBC on Have I Got News For You, Polly Toynbee has written about it in the Guardian, the Guardian have written about it, Emily Thornbury has spoken about it, Ken Clarke spoke about it, no outcry at all. This is actually about diminishing, humiliating Boris Johnson because he's seen as a political threat by those on the Left and those in the Conservative Party at the moment and, unfortunately, it is the Muslim community who have been caught up as a stick to beat Boris Johnson with. And that's all it's about.
Sarah Smith: Lots of people of course have talked about the niqab but they haven't used language like letter boxes or bank robbers. That's what people object to.
Andrew Bridgen: Well, Paul Merton and Ian Hislop on on Have I Got News For You...
Sarah Smith:... are not senior politicians.
Andrew Bridgen: Polly Toynbee, your darling political commentator, wrote some quite explosive comments in the Guardian about it a few years ago...
Sarah Smith: Again, it's not an elected representative. You've just heard Mohammed Amin say...
Andrew Bridgen: What about Ken Clarke? Where was the...? What about Emily Thornberry, who was actually the shadow for Boris Johnson before he resigned as Foreign Secretary. She said she wouldn't have someone in a burqa looking after her four-year-old daughter, she wouldn't have someone in a burqa look after elderly mother and the only job they should be doing is in the backroom of hospital looking after the records, but no-one batted an eye because this isn't about Islamophobia or anything else. This is about attacking Boris Johnson because he seems a political threat and it's a stick to beat him with in the silly season. And this story would have died if Brandon Lewis hadn't sent that tweet out 24 hours after the article had been written, and then the Prime Minister waded in, and it has been as Jacob Rees Mogg said tremendously badly handled. If that's what you want to believe it is actually just a stick to beat Boris Johnson with.

And forgetting that Mr Bridgen had already talked about Labour's Emily Thornberry at some length earlier and apparently not noticing that he'd just done so again, just look at her interruption here:

Andrew Bridgen: But where was the outcry when Emily Thornberry said what she said live on the BBC on Question Time? Ken Clarke made his remarks in a BBC interview. Anna Soubry supported Ken Clarke's remarks on a panel...
Sarah Smith: Andrew Bridgen, simply saying that other senior Conservative politicians have made similar remarks doesn't necessarily defend the party from the accusations of Islamophobia?
Andrew Bridgen: I'm pointing out the huge hypocrisy we're seeing here. There's one rule for everybody else and there's one rule for Boris Johnson, and that's not fair. 

Her questions to both guests will now be listed in full. I think, like Mishal Husain two days earlier, Sarah Smith asked mostly helpful, almost leading questions to Mr Amin. Mr Bridgen, in contrast got the rough end of the stick, and even had to listen to the other guest get asked, "Mohammed Amin, do you worry that Andrew Bridgen and possibly other MPs like him don't understand the problems you see in the perceptions of the Conservative Party?"

Anyhow, here are the questions (in order):


To Mohammed Amin, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum:

• Mohammed Amin, does this row show us that the party has a wider problem with Islamophobia and that this isn't just about comments made by the former Foreign Secretary?
• And do you think that situation could be improved if Boris Johnson apologised for the comments he made in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week?

To Andrew Bridgen MP:

• Andrew Bridgen, should Boris Johnson apologise if only to put this row to bed? It's been a week now that it's been dominating the news. That must be very concerning for you and the party?
• Lots of people of course have talked about the niqab but they haven't used language like letter boxes or bank robbers. That's what people object to.
• [Paul Merton and Ian Hislop]... are not senior politicians. 
• [Polly Toynbee] Again, it's not an elected representative. You've just heard Mohammed Amin say...
• But you've just heard Mohammed Amin, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, say that he goes around the country and talk to voters who think the Conservative Party is anti-Muslim.

To Mohammed Amin, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum:

• Mohammed Amin, do you worry that Andrew Bridgen and possibly other MPs like him don't understand the problems you see in the perceptions of the Conservative Party?
• Except, of course, the article was actually talking about him supporting the right of women to wear the niqab and saying he didn't agree with the policies in other countries that have banned it.

To Andrew Bridgen MP:

• Andrew Bridgen, simply saying that other senior Conservative politicians have made similar remarks doesn't necessarily defend the party from the accusations of Islamophobia?
• He could put an end to this by apologising. He's been asked to by the party chairman and the Prime Minister. 
• (To Mr Bridgen's question "Why should he?"). Because it would do less damage to the Conservative Party arguably if he simply apologised and his row went away?

To Mohammed Amin, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum:

• Mohammed Amin, what we have seen - as well as the comments made by Boris Johnson this week - is the Prime Minister and the party chairman saying they believe he should apologise for this. Does that not show you that the Conservative Party takes this issue very seriously, all the way right up to the top?

Into the bubble

Around lunchtime today, this was the second story on the BBC News website: 

The "gaffe" by Ben Broadbent, a deputy governor at the Bank of England, sprang out of comments in a Telegraph interview:

According to Broadbent, the UK hasn’t seen such a slump since the late Victorian era. In the 1880s, economic historians have noted that there was what is termed a “climacteric” effect when “productivity growth suddenly slowed pretty much to a halt”. 

It was similarly severe to the sluggish improvements seen in the last decade, Broadbent believes.

This term, used by economic historians, is borrowed from biology, he says. It essentially means “menopausal, but can apply to both genders”. Put simply, “you’ve passed your productive peak”. 

An in-depth explanation of the term had the central bank’s policymakers squirming, Broadbent says.
“I once got an economist into the MPC to explain the origins of the word ‘climacteric’. As soon as he started talking to all these middle aged men – about [how] it means you’re past your peak and you’re no longer so potent – they all said: ‘We understand’.”

You might find nothing objectionable in that, but then you're a reasonable person. Others, however, as is the way of the world these days, 'took offence' and the BBC, naturally, made the resulting row top headline news.

Not everyone shares the BBC's sense of news priorities though - or, for that matter, the Corporation's take on this particular story. Here's Telegraph business writer Juliet Samuel for example:

Insane that this confected “row” is BBC’s second headline, with KamalAhmed editorialising that there are now “questions” about Ben Broadbent being bank governor. Makes me despair for this country. 

Here are some stories that could instead have graced slot 2 in the headlines: 

1. North Korea says it won’t denuclearise and Kim might not attend Trump meeting

2. Italy seemingly on cusp of forming revolutionary new government

3. Trump threatens EU w tariffs

4. Turkey struggling to stabilise its currency

5. May cladding pledge

A Twitter exchange ensued, with Kamal Ahmed himself chipping in (before quickly exiting pursued by a bear):

Mark Watson: It was a really stupid thing to say IMO, raises questions about his rationality and judgement. There are much better phrases that he could have used. Just my opinion of course!

Juliet Samuel: Everyone ought to read the interview. He didn’t say it was menopausal. He said it was “climacteric”, realised that was jargon and then said, effectively, “climacteric means menopause but for both sexes”. I just can’t understand how that’s offensive or inappropriate in any way.

Kamal Ahmed: Bank and Ben Broadbent don't appear to agree with you. Say language was "poor" and caused offence. I did say on #WATO is was important to keep it in perspective, but clear communication is an important part of the job. Even more important if you ever want to be Governor.

Juliet Samuel: Did you read original interview & context? How can it possibly be top news that he tried to explain jargon “climacteric”? Yes Bank apologised to neutralise it precisely because of coverage like this, which legitimises online mobs who would tear Broadbent’s head off for no reason.

Tim Montgomerie later added a couple more points:

Two thoughts on this (1) there’s now an epidemic of BBC journalists giving their opinions rather than simply reporting and (2) Juliet’s thread of alternative news headlines suggests she gets what public service broadcasting could and should still be. 

The World at One even had Jane Garvey, one of the BBC’s own journalists, as a pundit to judge the “menopausal” row.

*******

It's really worth listening to that The World at One to get a sense of what Juliet Samuel and Tim Montgomerie are objecting to.

The discussion about the story consisted of BBC presenter Sarah Montague interviewing the BBC economics editor Kamal Ahmed and then chairing a discussion between BBC Woman's Hour presenter Jane Garvey and a single non-BBC guest - writer Celia Walden. 

Kamal came first, editorialising that it matters because "I think language matters" and going on to say:

You've got to modernise how you talk about things and using 'menopausal' in a pejorative sense like this - i.e. not a very good thing - something that half the population go through perfectly naturally - shows that the Bank has a bigger issue here....

"It is important" he insisted.

His BBC colleague Jane Garvey was of the same mind, calling Mr Broadbent's words "thoughtless", "dismissive" and "hurtful" and insisting that the "language of economics" would have to change if what Mr Broadbent said is typical. She took it personally. Both she and Mr Broadbent are 53, she noted. "I'm a useless old hag but he's a thrusting silver fox", she huffed.  

It was left to the one non-BBC guest, Celia Walden, to break out of this BBC consensus and to bring a little reasonableness into the proceedings. She pronounced herself to be "not remotely offended" and, though calling it "an odd metaphor", was far more put out by people "deliberately working themselves up into states of offence all the time" about frankly nothing. 

When Jane resumed her rant against Mr Broadbent, saying his comment "puts women very much in their place", she drew in Kamal to back herself up, saying "and, as Kamal's already said, their place at the moment is not at the very top of the Bank of England".

And when Kamal was brought back in, he took up Jane's cudgels and re-insisted that "I think it does matter though" and deployed feminist arguments about power relationships and language to answer a point about how using derogatory language about men in such circumstances could be seen as as bad as using derogatory language about men in such circumstances. ("Men of a certain age don't have prejudice working against them. Women do," he said. "So, therefore, you have to use language differently for men and for women.")

The BBC does feel very much like a bubble at times like this.

P.S. Here's BBC Scotland Editor & Sunday Politics presenter Sarah Smith leading the charge much earlier. She's offended!:

Growing into it

"He has regretted having made the remark that he did" says @AndyMcDonaldMP on Corbyn's comments about 'anti-Semitic' mural

"He regrets it, he hasn't apologised for it" says @BBCsarahsmith #bbcsp pic.twitter.com/t87nbXNU1L

— BBC Daily Politics and Sunday Politics (@daily_politics) March 25, 2018

Sarah Smith was far more persistent on The Sunday Politics than Andrew Marr was this morning. This clip and the one in my earlier post are from Twitter and only show excerpts from the interviews with Tom Watson on the Marr show, and Corbyn supporter Andy McDonald MP on the Sunday Politics; you can see the whole of the 'antisemitism' part of the latter interview here. 

Andy McDonald took the same approach to defending the Labour leader as Tom Watson did with Andrew Marr. Jeremy didn’t inhale, but whatever he did was in the context of supporting freedom of expression.

Everyone now acknowledges the mural was ‘obviously’ vile. Vile at first glance, even. But Jeremy’s record is of opposing antisemitism and “all forms of discrimination” so there.

Andy has got it into his head that he’s talking to someone called Laura and is obviously quite rattled, and so he should be.  Sarah Smith was rather good. She’s growing into it. 

"Clumsily worded"

Watching The Sunday Politics, something struck me as I noticed Sarah Smith asking much the same question to her Labour guest as Andrew Marr had asked earlier, namely that they both got similarly-worded reply each time:

Andrew Marr: What is the difference between this situation and Diane Abbott, who was also calling for a second referendum, and Keir Starmer? 

Tom Watson MP: There was a difference between a letter that goes to a constituent which was clumsily worded, as was the case with Diane Abbott, and do an interview in the Guardian.

Sarah Smith: But the other thing which is not a first is a member of Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet saying that we should have a second referendum, Diane Abbott had sent a letter around her constituents in Hackney where she said she would argue for the right of the electorate to vote on any deal which is finally agreed?

Andy McDonald MP: And I think the difference is that Diane Abbott has said that that was clumsily worded, that is not her position.

Both Sarah and Andrew left it there, but if you see the letter...

...you'll see that it's not "clumsily worded" at all. It couldn't actually be any clearer. Those Labour shadow ministers are telling an untruth. (Yes, I know! Shocking, isn't it?)

Moths to a flame

It seems like only a decade ago that we were reading Craig’s piece about Claire Kober’s upcoming spot on the Marr Show. Oh, hang on - it was yesterday. 

Anyway, I think there was something about antisemitism in there? 

Oh, here it is, look.

Well, Andrew Marr wasn’t interested in any of that. When Kober touched on it briefly, Andrew ushered her away quick. Remember? Something about a demonstration against defining antisemitism? “There’s nothing wrong with demonstrations” said Andrew, or words to that effect, before swiftly moving the conversation back to the matter in hand.

So, here’s the thing. Everyone (well, not everyone) said it was a good interview, including ((Hodges)) and I do realise that Kober wouldn’t have been on the show at all if it wasn’t for all that London-centric stuff about Housing in Haringey.

Far be it for me to hijack that earth-shatteringly controversial topic with my feeble little bleatings and whinings about antisemitism, but frankly, after that piece in the Times it was a little conspicuous by its absence. 

The only mention of antisemitism I spotted in BBCland all morning was Sarah Smith talking to Jon Ashworth, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, who uttered those galvanising words “if there was antisemitic chanting it needs to be reported and if they are antisemitic they need to be thrown out of the Labour Party.” Yep, ne e e e d away. 

Stella Creasy brought it up on the other side, with Robert Peston. There’s nothing like mentioning antisemitism for attracting the antisemites. Like moths to a flame.

.@stellacreasy reacts to the resignation of @ClaireKober and insists it is time for @UKLabour to act more strongly on anti-semitism and misogyny. #Peston pic.twitter.com/d1LrF9JH4E

— Peston on Sunday (@pestononsunday) February 4, 2018

The less moderate candidate

Ee bah gum, Scottish Labour has a new leader! Yorkshireman Richard Leonard beat Anas Sarwar to win the post today. 

The BBC's Scottish Editor Sarah Smith informed BBC One viewers this evening that Mr Sarwar "was the more moderate candidate in what was a fractious race". 

I guess that makes Mr Leonard 'the less moderate candidate' - or, to put it another way, 'the more extreme candidate'. 

A nice example of 'bias by labelling' there (even if it's true).

The Sunday Politics

The swallows must be getting twitchy. Autumn will soon be upon us, and all the Sunday morning political programmes are now back.

The Sunday Politics looks much the same, except for having a new presenter - Sarah Smith.

Smiley Smiley Sarah Smith

She may have to work on her wit and whimsy lest she makes it a glum watch every week. Dullness doesn't make for enjoyable viewing.

Will she prove as even-handed as Andrew Neil? Only time will tell, but she seemed even-handed enough to me today...

...with one possible exception: It will be interesting to see how she handles Labour Party interviews, particularly if there turns out to be a pronounced difference in how she treats hard-left and centre-left Labour interviewees. The pro-Corbyn interviewee today certainly got much tougher treatment than the New Labour interviewee. We'll see if that's a one-off over the coming months.

Also on the subject of The Sunday Politics...

Thinking again about Julia Hartley-Brewer's complaint on Question Time that she's "the sole Leaver on the BBC panel...most of the time" (which wasn't true about most of her QT appearances), that must have come about, in part, because of her appearances on The Sunday Politics where the three journalists on the panel each week almost invariably consist of 1 Leaver and 2 Remainers.

Indeed, scanning through the episode list for 2017, there have been 25 editions this year. Only one panel has been 'two against one' in favour of Leave. The other 24 have been 'two against one' in favour of Remain.

That's a striking imbalance.

Even the dodgy defence that Andrew Neil is assumed to be a Leaver and, thus, somehow balances it out (dodgy because AN was scrupulously fair on the Brexit issue) will surely no longer hold now that AN is gone, and I doubt anyone seriously believes that Sarah Smith is a closet Leaver.

Not a fan of Boris?

BBC Scotland's Sarah Smith is much more used to being accused of anti-SNP, anti-independence bias by massed armies of furious cybernats, so this post might make a pleasant change for her...

Here's her not-entirely-impartial-sounding take on Boris on the 'Marr Show':

Well, if you're trying to combine being Mayor of London and being and MP and having a newspaper column and write a book at the same time, it doesn't look as if you're terribly serious about your politics, does it?

Or it might look as if you're very serious about your politics, Sarah - i.e. very ambitious - if all of that effort is essentially directed towards the goal of becoming prime minister of our wonderful United Kingdom.

The right kind of 'militants'

There was an exchange between Andrew Marr and BBC Scotland's Sarah Smith during this morning press review that went as follows:

Sarah Smith (BBC): Operation Stack, which is all these freight trucks stacked up on the M20 southbound, and Kent Police warning that that is going to be in place all day today as well. So that means there's up to 5 hour delays for holiday makers trying to get through the Channel Tunnel. Absolutely miserable for them, but worth noting in this story as well...it talks about another migrant who was trying to climb on top of a train this week and was killed. Eight migrants trying to get through the Channel Tunnel from Calais have been killed this year, which puts waiting a few hours to get off on your holidays into perspective.

You will doubtless have spotted that BBC Sarah took the opportunity to engage in a fine bit of BBC-style 'virtue signalling' there. Anyhow, here was Andrew Marr's response: 

Andrew Marr: Operation Stack is also about the French militants on the other side of the tunnel, isn't it...?

...at which point you might have been forgiven a moment's shudder at the scary thought of French Islamist terrorists attacking the Channel Tunnel, given that 'militants' usually means 'terrorists' these days on the BBC, except that Andy then went on to say:

....who are protesting about working conditions and so forth?

Yes, these 'militants' here are the old-fashioned kind of 'militants' (the kind that 'enter' the Labour Party from time to time) rather than terrorists. Dieu merci! 

Maybe the BBC could start calling terrorists 'terrorists' rather than 'militants'? Much less confusing!