Populist right-wing clerics

I've just read a comment at the Spectator that said, in passing, that a reporter on BBC World had "called the b*stards who want that Pakistani girl killed 'right wing populists'", so I checked TV Eyes and found that the reporter in question was former Newsnight journalist turned BBC Pakistan & Afghanistan Correspondent Secunder Kermani. 

This was on 31 October and the BBC man's exact words were "populist right-wing clerics". 

Of course, he could have called them 'hardline Muslim clerics' or 'radical Islamic clerics' but chose "populist right-wing clerics" instead. 

Very BBC.

Coming to a street near you and me?

A bouquet for Newsnight follows.

There was a shocking report on last night's programme from Secunder Kermani about the brutal lynching of a left-wing student, Mashal Khan, by a large mob of fellow Muslim students in Pakistan. Those students believed him to be guilty of blasphemy. 

Kirsty Wark said the case "puts pressure on British imams to distance themselves from the country's blasphemy laws", though the report didn't expand on that side of the story and there were no follow-up interviews with British imams. 

According to Secunder Kermani: 

Most Pakistanis, religious or not, are sympathetic to Mashal's case, believing he was wrongly accused [which, if true, is good news]. But none of the political parties are seriously talking about reforming the blasphemy law because of the resistance they would face. Unlike extremist groups such as the Taliban, the law does have deep support in many quarters. 

Of course, such violent tensions within Pakistan are mirrored here now as a result of mass Muslim immigration to this country over the past few decades. As a result we in the UK need to keep up to speed with such stories now, alas.

Pause for Thought

You know the one where we complain that the BBC is usually way behind other media outlets when it comes to naming the attackers in an Islamist terrorist attack, well, Channel 4 News (of all people) inadvertently sounded a corrective warning about going too soon with names this week by reporting the wrong name for the Westminster terrorist. 

I saw that unfolding on Twitter. People began putting the wrong name out there. It began spreading like wildfire. I spotted some well-known journalists on my timeline starting to draw conclusions based on the wrong name. Then the controversial ex-Newsnight reporter Secunder Kermani (now a BBC Pakistan correspondent) interjected on Twitter:

Shortly after it was tweeted that Channel 4 News was naming names. Jon Snow announced it straight away. Simon Israel reported it. And then it all fell apart for Channel 4, with audible screech marks being applied as the programme went on and an apology being aired the following day.

That came a few hours after a salutary experience I had at work. The first I heard of the attacks was two guys talking about something on the news. One of them said that the BBC was behind with the story. The other said that the BBC isn't very good at breaking news. They both then agreed that this was because the BBC is a more responsible broadcaster than other media outlets and that they check things before reporting them, and that checking things takes time. They both thought that this is a good thing.

That, of course, made me think at the time that the BBC still has the trust of a lot of people and that the BBC's defence for this kind of delay in reporting things like the suspect's name - that it's them being a more responsible broadcaster than the rest - does (and will) clearly strike many people as not just a good defence but also the only right-and-proper way for a broadcaster to actually behave. 

Channel 4's humiliation will only have reinforced that feeling with such people...

...and will have given pause for thought to others too (like me).

However, the BBC also has a record of not holding back like a responsible broadcaster. It can speculate as wildly as anyone when it (wrongly) suspects (say) a 'white, right-wing' attacker. 

Moreover, the BBC's record of censoring vital details on these kinds of story has a long and undistinguished history. 

This blog has laid out countless examples of such behaviour (some examples here and here and here and here), and that goes beyond being a responsible broadcaster and pursuing a 'verify, then verify again' approach to breaking news into out-and-out massaging of stories in pursuit of an agenda - usually, in this case, to 'promote social cohesion'.

That is where the bias lies.

James O'Brien pursues a line...

If there's one thing I picked up on earlier (from commenters on Twitter and at Biased BBC, Guido Fawkes, The Spectator, etc) is just how strongly James O'Brien stood out today for pushing a particularly aggressive line on the Nice atrocity on his LBC programme.

He provoked considerable ire for so doing (as befits a shock jock). 

Cutting off at least one caller (apparently), he ranted for ages (apparently) on the subject of why it's wrong to blame Muslims for such things as the Nice massacre (a matter that - apparently - mattered to him above all else). 

Of course, as an LBC presenter, he's entitled to rant as much as he likes. (It's partly what he's there to do.) But, having read so much today about how far he'd gone in being biased today, I seriously gulped when I saw that he'd be presenting tonight's Newsnight tonight...of all nights. 

Would his very open bias at LBC (where he's allowed to be out-and-out biased) feed into his presentation of Newsnight? Or would be hang up his views (Hugh Sykes-style), as required, on the BBC's coat-peg of 'impartiality'?

Well, Newsnight first invited on Alain Richard, a French socialist. James O'Brien, respectfully, asked him (without interruption) why France has been hit more than other European countries and how divided he thinks his country is. M. Richard said he didn't want France's Muslim community to be discriminated against/opposed by the rest of French society. And that was that.

JO'B then talked to a man from the French National Front, Marc Etienne Lansade. The video connection was absolutely terrible, so M. Lansade really struggled to even hear JO'B's questions tonight. The interview soon collapsed.

That, of course, didn't stop J'OB from pursuing (in full voice) a particular line of questioning with M. Lansade - a line of questioning curiously 'of a piece' with the line he'd (allegedly) been taking so very strongly at LBC:

You just heard, I hope, the former defence minister Alain Richard suggest that Islamic State want to see more division in France and would particularly like to see French Muslims discriminated against more. Do you agree with him? 

I'll have one more attempt. My apologies to you, monsieur. Alain Richard, the former defence minister, suggest that Islamic State want to see French Muslims discriminated against more. Do you agree with his analysis?

I understand your answer although the question really was about the response politically in France to people not perhaps responsible for the spread of Salafi-ism (sic) or Wahhabism. Do you feel French Muslims feel less safe now, because not only are they are the risk of being victim to terror attacks, they are also, in some quarters perhaps, at risk of being blamed for them? 

I think the technology has defeated us....

Hmm, very much still pushing a line I think (on the 'impartial' BBC).

******

P.S. Controversial Newnight reporter Secunder Kermani's report then stressed how questionable are the claims of an Islamic motive for Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel (not religious, liked alcohol). There's "no concrete evidence" that his attack was jihadi-inspired.

So Newsnight as a whole seemed to be pushing a line here.

Secunder Kermani, Sadiq Khan and Zak Goldsmith

I see that Secunder Kermani's report on the London mayoral election on last night's Newsnight was unusually well-received by the Corbynistas on Twitter. (Not one of them accused him of being a 'Tory'!) 

And no wonder as his report wasn't at all helpful to Zak Goldsmith's campaign. In fact, it struck me as being a distinctly one-sided intervention by Newsnight in a key election battle.

The report focused on claims of Conservative Party 'Islamophobia' over their questioning of Sadiq Khan's links to Islamic extremists, and reinforced those claims by:

• Showing various Labour people, including Sadiq Khan, and some Muslim 'vox pops' complaining about the 'dirty politics'.
• Being dismissive of the allegations against Sadiq Khan, and cherry-picking the case of one that "backfired" (the Muslim preacher who has also been photographed, once, with Zak Goldsmith).
• Strongly hinting that a dark "new politics" is being brought into British politics here by Lynton Crosby.
• Describing Lynton Crosby as "controversial".
• Implying that the Conservatives are playing the 'religion' card by going after the Hindu vote - cue some Hindu 'vox pops' admiring the Tories. ("Some" have said it's "patronising" and "divisive", said Secunder.)
• Not giving the Conservatives a right-to-reply.

Was this impartial broadcasting? I very much doubt it.

Is it cos he is a Newsnight reporter?

One of the most significant recent stories involving the BBC - surprisingly little commented-upon I think - has been the seizure of Newsnight reporter Secunder Kermani's laptop by the police under the Terrorism Act.

Secunder Kermani's Newsnight interviews with various British-born jihadists have proved highly controversial and we've discussed them on several occasions:

Friday

"We will continue to follow this story and report on all aspects in a sensitive way"

Some extremists worth understanding, some extremists not worth understanding

"OK, your point's well made"

'Newsnight' and the 'Laughing Jihadi'

A British man beheads an American journalist

I have to say that I'm torn by several aspects of this story. 

I don't want the state seizing journalists' laptops but I do want the state to protect us from the very jihadists Secunder Kermani was talking too. 

Where to sit on that question remains hard for me to figure out. 

And, despite my huge qualms about such interviews, I've argued before that there could be a case for giving airtime to these jihadists if such exposure exposes their vile views and vile personalities to the full glare of the public gaze, properly mediated and properly scrutinised by the BBC.

My doubts - as outlined in some of the posts above - are that Secunder's Newsnight reports have often left something to be desired in that respect. 

Though I've always felt disgusted by his interviewees...to which some credit might be supposed to gotto Secunder...I've always put that down to me being intensely hostile to such people rather than to Secunder and Newsnight. 

And I've also wondered, 'What would those who don't share my hypersensitivity to such things make of such interviews?' 

Some of the above posts contain critiques of various Secunder Kermani reports for the BBC, They outline my concerns that Secunder has been insufficiently critical of the jihadists, their families and their friends - or, to put it another way, far too uncritical of some of the jihadists, the jihadists' families and the jihadists' friends; and far too 'pushing of the Muslim agenda'.

The BBC's defence of his reporting, as on Newswatch a couple of weeks ago, has been that such interviews with jihadis have always been accompanied by strong, critical probing from the BBC. 

All I can repeat is that's not really been my experience of Secunder Kermani's Newsnight reports.

One of the above posts (Some extremists worth understanding, some extremists not worth understanding) rather tellingly details (if I say so myself) Secunder's Twitter activity, contrasting his interactions with two kinds of 'extremist' - the Islamist kind and the anti-Islamist kind. 

If you read that post you'll see how sharp the contrast is. He's openly aggressive towards the 'anti-Islamist extremists' but far less so the 'Islamist extremists'....

....which calls for the question: Why? 

His tweets seem, therefore, to parallel his reporting, such that if, say, India's BJP PM Narendra Modi were to visit the United Kingdom (as he's just done), I'd expect him only to tweet the following (as he's just done): 

There was a pro-Modi guest on that programme. He went untweeted-about.

Now, the question of bias regarding Secunder Kermani's reporting doesn't necessarily answer the question about whether the police should have seized his laptop. They are different questions.

I'm guessing, however, that his Newsnight reports will change from now on, given that his jihadist contacts will now know that the UK authorities will take anything they say to him in evidence against them.

Friday

Friday night's edition of Newsnight began with what's becoming a regular focus of Newsnight's attention: Saudi Arabia, and Britain's arming of Saudi Arabia - a focus given added momentum by the recent row between Ian Katz (and his presenter James O'Brien) and pro-Saudi Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski over Newsnight's damning coverage of the Saudi's air strikes on the pro-Iranian Houthis in Yemen.

I kind of guessed Ian Katz wouldn't leave it there, so it wasn't exactly a shock to find Newsnight leading on allegations of Saudi war crimes again tonight, or to find Emily setting out her editor's stall from the start. "Saudi Arabia is Britain's largest arms export market". she said, but our relationship with them "leaves a bitter taste in the mouth for many" (much as was said last time).

"Should we now re-examine our whole relationship with the Saudi Kingdom?", was Emily's big question.

And whose report gave the answer? Yes, it was the BBC's everywhere correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse again. Gabriel did the original pair of reports that so incensed the Tory MP too.

Now, I'm all for bashing Saudi Arabia, and Gabriel's report (seemingly from London) certainly bashed its human rights record and the potential crucifixion of a dissident, but was this disinterested broadcasting on Newsnight's part?

A hostile interview followed with the Saudi ambassador to the UN, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr.

He started by attempting a Daniel Kawczynski and 'correcting' a couple of points made so far.

Emily initially let him have his say, despite registering a certain nervousness ("Understood, understood", she said, interrupting, as he made his 'strongest' point), but then began interrupting ever more insistently.

Saudi Arabia's dismal human rights record and its disgusting election to head the human rights council was the focus here, though she did essay quite a bit of digging too to try and find a damning British-Saudi link over that vote.

Things got ever more hostile as the interview went on. "The world is looking with outrage at you at the moment" she said dramatically, and then repeated even more dramatically. Case after case of Saudi human rights abuses were raised.

The suave Saudi diplomat stalled suavely. Emily banged on.

What to make of this?

Is Newsnight pushing an anti-Saudi agenda? Well, it certainly looks like it. (And I've not noticed a counter-balancing anti-Iranian agenda).

But why shouldn't it push an anti-Saudi agenda (ignoring 'BBC impartiality' for a moment)? I'm all for it pushing an anti-Saudi agenda. Saudi Arabia is barely any better than Islamic State. Much of Emily's questions were questions that needed putting to a Saudi mouthpiece.

So bravo Emily!

The next story began thusly (?):

A father whose children were taken into care after he was arrested after allegedly trying to take them to Syria insists he's being treated unfairly because of his faith.

I groaned: "Another Muslim grievance-monger being given prominence by the BBC."

The father says he was merely taken them on a holiday, not going to join Islamic State.

Newsnight's starting questions: How should the family court respond? And when should they step it?

Secunder Kermani "talked to that father concerned". Yes, the father's view was the main focus of this report - the father arrested by, and aggrieved at, the British authorities.

Such arrests are "controversial", says Secunder. Arresting children  is "particularly emotive". Martin Downs, a human rights barrister, warned that such "regimes" risk breeding "contempt" and "anger".

The father said he doesn't understand the British authorities concerns, adding, "It's extremist ideology that David Cameron is dropping bombs on children", and other such bollocks.

Secunder said people watching would be suspicious that the father refused to explicitly condemn ISIS. The father said he loves his family dearly and wouldn't want to put them in harm's way.

A court official briefly defended the court's system, but Secunder's report ended like this:

...says he just wants his children back. He's likely to face protracted legal proceedings though. And the numbers of similar cases coming through family courts is likely to rise.

I felt like swearing by this stage (well, swearing again, given that I've already sworn once in this post.)

What next? Well, something to make me turn the air on this blog blue: an interview with an "expert in Sharia law" (and someone who "sees no problem" with Sharia law in the UK): Aina Khan, Head of the Islamic Department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors.

Aina says it's a bit of "a trigger-happy approach at the moment" from the authorities.

Oh for goodness sake, BBC! What the **** is wrong with you?

Finally came a rare interview (by Stephen Smith) with "the country's greatest living artist", 85 year old Frank Auerbach, subject of a major retrospective at Tate Britain - a Kindertransport refugee whose parents perished in Auschwitz. "A good Auerbach could cost you north of £2 million", said Stephen. I was feeling a bit too grumpy to entirely appreciate it.

Syrians...and Kosovans and Albanians

Amidst all the outpouring of praise for Germany on the BBC at the moment for inviting in vast numbers of refugees and asylum seekers from Syria and Afghanistan, it would be remiss of me not to mention a counter-point made by Newsnight reporter Secunder Kermani on last night's programme (whilst reporting from a refugee centre in Düsseldorf): 

Yes, much of his report focused (visually) on images of women and children (as so much of the BBC's coverage seems to be doing at the moment), but along the way we got this startling passage:

But as well as those fleeing war zones, there are many from the Balkans. 

Kosovans and Albanians are together responsible for more asylum claims so far this year than even Syrians.

Well, that's the first I'd heard of that.

Have you heard about that before on the BBC? 

From everything else I've been hearing and seeing on the BBC, I've been led to believe that those travelling to Germany and Scandanavia through Austria, Hungary and Serbia, have been pretty much exclusively Syrian refugees.

From what Secunder Kermani said, it appears there might also be a huge number of economic migrants from Kosovo and Albania moving northwards through Europe too.

"We will continue to follow this story and report on all aspects in a sensitive way"

No one from the BBC was prepared to appear on this week's Newswatch to face questioning from Samira Ahmed over the BBC's coverage of the 'British' jihadis. 

One viewer emailed the programme to say:

I cannot believe how sympathetic the BBC news coverage was to the death of suicide bomber Talha Asmal. The BBC were so consumed with sympathising with him for being 'groomed' that his victims didn't even receive a mention.

Indeed, that was the very thing that struck me about the BBC's reporting (and many others too, from what I've read elsewhere). The actual victims of Talha Asmal - the dead Iraqis -  pretty much vanished from view (as you can see from the BBC's main online report on the story).

Who were they? Oil workers? Soldiers? Just people in the wrong place at the wrong time? How old were they? Did they have children?

That's what makes Dominic Casciani's focus on whether British jihadis might be victims too all the more disturbing for me.

The BBC's coverage of the three Bradford sisters and their nine children slipping off to Islamic State territory has also raised eyebrows.

I suspect that many people will share Rod Liddle's view here: 

The BBC and the Guardian are terribly concerned about them, worried about their safety. Me — I’m slightly less so, to tell you the truth. In the first place, I don’t see why we should restrict the movement of people wherever they might want to go — they wish to travel the world, do a spot of beheading and be blown up by a US airstrike, I say bon voyage. And if they can encourage a few more similarly minded people to do likewise, all the better. All I would add is — whatever you do, don’t let them back in. Any of them.

******

Tuesday night's Newsnight was "terribly concerned" too. 

Secunder Kermani's opening report began by focusing on the weeping fathers and the "bewilderment" and "fears" of all and sundry at the apparently inexplicable turn of events. 

Then, typically, the BBC reporter said:

Some question whether enough was done by the authorities to engage with the families... 

 ...which was followed by his first 'talking head', Ishtiaq Ahmed from the Bradford Council for Mosques, saying this seemed "like a major failing by the intelligence services and other authorities". 

(Secunder didn't challenge him about that). 

Then the BBC reporter went to a primary school which two of the children attended to get the views of parents there and found they were surprised because everything's absolutely normal at that school (or so they said).

Secunder Kermani then turned to camera and informed us that "one youth worker in the area" told him that "some British Muslim women has expressed concerns to him to new government counter terrorism legislation meant that their children could be taken away from them just for being deeply practising Muslims and that perception was making some people more vulnerable to radical ideology".

Some Muslim women's groups want women to have more access to mosques so they can discuss contentious issues. "Britain's first female-governed mosque" could be opening soon in Bradford, and Bana Gora of the Muslim Women's Council was Secunder's second 'talking head', talking about it. 

[That sounds 'progressive' but, just Googling 'Bana Gora', it appears that "female-governed" is a euphemism for "women-only", which sounds somewhat less 'progressive' in that segregated worship isn't exactly new to Islam]. 

It was then back to the fathers and the "daunting task" of getting their families back from ISIS. 

That's the kind of BBC reporting that begs so many questions - the kind of questions Newsnight was hardly likely to pursue. (They just don't seem to think that way).

Then came a studio discussion - inevitably for Newsnight on such occasions - between three Muslims.

They were there to discuss the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the government's Prevent strategy.

We heard from Zubeda Limbada of Connect Justice; Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters [and Tell Mama]; and Raza Nadim of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (who talked over every one else, and blamed foreign policy and alienation.)

Evan Davis's line of questioning was pretty consistent. It involved questioning the effectiveness of the government's policies: Is it working? Has the government's policy "reduced the trust" Muslims have in the authorities? Has the emphasis on British values been a bad thing? Has central government made things worse?

It's a nice, safe line of questioning for a BBC journalist to pursue: Blame the government and the authorities, not Muslims (and Islam).

******

Returning, however, to Newswatch...

This was the statement the BBC gave the programme over its Talha Asmal coverage [with some asides from me]:

As well as reporting the attack [whilst almost forgetting about the victims], the radicalisation of young British Muslims is a key element to this story [which the BBC tends to report through Muslim/non-'controversial' non-Muslim voices], and like other news organisations [a classic BBC ploy that!] we interviewed people who knew him to provide context [but didn't the BBC do far too much of that, and give far too much prominence to it? - all those people saying the suicide bomber was nice and kind]. There has also been comment by senior and local political leaders in the UK which we also reported on [though, as per the previous post - and earlier ones here at ITBB - not entirely fairly or accurately]. We will continue to follow this story and report on all aspects ["all" aspects? I very much doubt that!] in a sensitive way [oh yes, it will be "sensitive" all right - "sensitive" especially towards the 'aggrieved' parts of the Muslim community especially, no doubt].

All of which raises the question: Is BBC News fit for purpose?

Some extremists worth understanding, some extremists not worth understanding

Just sticking with Newsnight's Secunder Kermani for a moment...

Some of his previous Newsnight reports - especially his interviews with Islamic terrorists - have been highly controversial.

(We've posted about them here and here, and even Dame Pauline Neville-Jones has complained about them).

The accusation made against his kind of report - non-judgemental interviews with Islamic State and other terrorists - is that they give our mortal enemies the oxygen of publicity.

Others think they do a valuable service in allowing us to listen in to our enemies' thoughts (though those thoughts usually tend to sound like propaganda to me).

They make me uneasy, queasy even.

Secunder's speciality is in engaging English-speaking jihadists on social media sites like Twitter. He questions them. They answer. He broadcasts his questions and their answers. Job done.

Understandably, his Twitter feed is quite active (though most of his discussions with Islamic extremists go on behind the scenes of course).

He can - at times - display a combative tone against some extremists on Twitter - unusually for a BBC reporter.

Oddly, those extremists aren't of the Islamist variety though. Quite the reverse. It's PEGIDA - the movement against Islamisation that began in Germany and has now spread to the UK - that he's keen to get down and dirty with on Twitter.

But Pegida aren't racist right? Just against extremism? Hmm... https://t.co/8mNIAWfNHj

— Secunder Kermani (@SecKermani) June 9, 2015

Come on @PegidaUKGroup u think I wouldn't screenshot that? You aren't racist right? Just against extremists?? pic.twitter.com/F7dhOHK22K

— Secunder Kermani (@SecKermani) June 9, 2015

At a pub after the Pegida demo. Pretty sure this is nazi related flag if anyone knows? pic.twitter.com/ibKIJ8AGcG

— Secunder Kermani (@SecKermani) April 4, 2015

"OK, your point's well made"

David Cameron's speech in Slovakia, where he said that some British Muslims quietly condone the beliefs of Islamic State, has drawn a range of widely differing responses from Muslim groups, counter-terrorism experts, politicians and others - some for, some against.

Last night's Newsnight, however, choice only critics of the speech.

First came a report from Secunder Kermani which juxtaposed clips from the PM's speech with reactions from the Muslim community": The first Muslim vox pop described it as "a mini attack on the Muslim community; the second said that Muslims on social media are already "destroying" ISIS propaganda; the third said that mosques are doing enough and can't be blamed; the fourth said that Islam and Sharia are "set in stone" and will never change for anyone, and that "some individuals...misunderstand it"; the fifth said it's the responsibility of all of us ("As a British citizen I think we are all responsible for this"). Not one of them accepted any of David Cameron's points.

Then came an interview with Sir David Omand, former director of GCHQ, who also disagrees with Mr Cameron over this (as Newsnight was probably well aware when they invited him to appear on the programme).

Here's a flavour of Sir David's interview with Evan Davis:

Evan Davis: As I listen to you, it sounds like you're taking a very different perspective. You're really the opposite of the Prime Minister because you're really saying, 'Hang on a minute. If we alienate some of these communities, who may have views that are not really mainstream British values at all. If you alienate them by going after them, saying "Your views are unacceptable. You're a gateway to violent jihad" then you're gonna sort of lose touch with the people who may be able to influence that violent jihad'.

Sir David Omand: That's exactly my point. 

Evan Davis: Yeah.

Sir David Omand: The community as whole does not, I believe, share those views but there are some who do, and it's very important in tackling the few who do hold those views that you don't demonise those whose support we actually need. 

And did Evan Davis then challenge him and put the other side of the argument (David Cameron's side)? Well, this was the next question:

Evan Davis: But is there a case that you might harden attitudes in certain communities. The more you draw into the kind of label of "unacceptable" you've got a new bunch of people who think, 'Oooh, the government's attacking Muslims'; you've got people saying, 'This is not where we want to be'; you divide communities and harden attitudes?

Despite its opening "but" that question merely continued and amplified the point that Evan and Sir David had already been making, critical of the PM's case. 

Sir David made a reply saying that caution and subtlety are needed and Evan replied by saying, "OK, your point's well made."

Strangely no one at Newsnight seems to have seen any problem, impartiality-wise, with featuring no one but people who disagree with David Cameron's speech. 

And Evan Davis didn't seem to see any problem either, given that he merely drew out and reinforced (amplified, you might say) those very criticisms of the prime minister.

The whole thing appeared to advance a single angle: that David Cameron risks demonising Muslims.

Unsatisfactory and biased BBC reporting.