“Why is the BBC saying Boris’s Savile claims are false?”

“Why is the BBC saying Boris’s Savile claims are false?” asked The Spectator this week:

Is Boris Johnson’s claim that Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile ‘false’? The BBC certainly thinks so. During the Radio 6 bulletins last night, a BBC newsreader stated: “The Commons Speaker has rebuked Boris Johnson over his false claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile after the Labour leader was targetted by protesters.”

The Spectator argues that though the BBC is correct to sat there's ‘no evidence that Sir Keir was involved at any point in the decision not to charge Savile’ that's not the point - the point concerns where responsibility should lie. Can Sir Keir be held responsible as DPP for the failures of his subordinates? This, the magazine argues, is a moral question more than a factual one.

“The dispute isn't nearly as clear cut as the BBC is making out”, says The Spectator, before describing the BBC's decision to brand the claim as ‘false’ “a technique often used by American broadcasters when covering Donald Trump” - which is a fair point. 

The BBC is morphing into CNN in that respect.

The point though, The Spectator concludes, is how the BBC chooses to present that distinction between personal and organisational responsibility:

When the Corporation reports that the statement is ‘false’, it implicitly makes a value judgement on where responsibility lies. For all its talk of objectivity, the BBC has made that moral judgement for you.

What struck me on digging into this via TV Eyes, is just how relentlessly the BBC used the term false claim or false accusation in connection to Boris's statements about Sir Keir and Sir Jimmy. 

Some senior editor/editors at the BBC must have told their journalists to shove it in every item about the story every hour, across all BBC news platforms. 

Every news presenter/reporter who appeared used the term.

There's a notorious modernist piece of classical music by Stockhausen called Klavierstück IX, which begins with the same chord repeated 139 times. Even that isn't as unrelenting as the BBC in full cry. 

Such behaviour raises questions...some of which were raised, rather admirably, by this week's Newswatch:

Samira Ahmed: Hello and welcome to Newswatch. I'm Samira Ahmed. Has BBC News reported accurately on what the Prime Minister said about Keir Starmer's time as Director of Public Prosecutions? The temperature in Westminster has been high for a while now, and so it remains. One argument in particular has gained further traction over the past few days. Ignited by an incident on Monday involving the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. 

Laura Kuenssberg: This is not normal rough-and-tumble. But the abuse and untrue accusations being hurled at the leader of the Opposition. One false claim that he protected the paedophile Jimmy Savile. Keir Starmer bundled to a police car. Two arrests were made. It happened outside Parliament where seven days ago the Prime Minister made a false link between the two. 

But was that link made by the PM last week incorrect? Not according to Brian Gare, who told us on Tuesday: 

Brian Gare: This small group of protestors have been outside Westminster for about a year and have harangued politicians and journalists alike. Yesterday's protest was in thee main about Julian Assange and the vaccination programme. There was only one woman who shouted out about Savile. But to listen to the BBC broadcasts, it was all about Savile.

Then there's the issue of that claim made by the Prime Minister, later clarified but not retracted that Keir Starmer had spent his time as head of the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile. That's been unambiguously described as false, not just as we heard there in Laura Kuenssberg's report, but across BBC News. 

Huw Edwards: Tonight at 10pm: Boris Johnson is called upon once again to withdraw a false accusation he made against Keir Starmer. 

Chris Mason: Keir Starmer used to be Director of Public Prosecutions, but there is no evidence of the Prime Minister's original allegation that Sir Keir had failed to prosecute Savile. 

Ben Brown: Downing Street has no intention of apologising for the Prime Minister's false claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile for sex offences. 

Francis Morton was pleased to hear such clarity on truth and falsehood writing:

Francis Morton: I have been highly critical of BBC News, but now I wish to applaud you: “The Prime Minister has refused to apologise for false claims made against Sir Keir Starmer.” Factual, accurate.

But Paul Binge had a concern about the  coverage, despite the repetition that the claim was false:

Paul Binge: By continually linking Keir Starmer and those the CPS failed to prosecute, BBC News is doing the PM's grubby work. The BBC has an obligation to ensure that our politicians are supported and not slurred. 

Others thought the status of Boris Johnson's claim was not as black and white as the BBC had portrayed it, arguing that as head of the Crown Prosecution Service at the time that it failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile, Kier Starmer had some responsibility for that failure. So was the Prime Minister's claim actually false then? David Jones thought not:

David Jones: We have been hearing repeatedly from BBC News about the 'false claims' made by the PM concerning Keir Starmer and Jimmy Savile. Will BBC News please tell us which of the following statements are 'false': a) Keir Starmer was DPP and head of the CPS from 2008 to 2013; b) The CPS failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile.

We wanted to discuss all of this with someone from BBC News, but no-one was available. Instead, we were given this statement:

BBC statement: The BBC has reported on all aspects of this story - including the reaction of Boris Johnson to the treatment of Sir Keir Starmer by protesters, and criticism from some Conservative MPs and others linking what happened to remarks made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

If 'I think we got it about right' is the Newswatch BBC interviewee's catchphrase, then surely 'But no-one was available. Instead, we were given this statement' is Samira's catchphrase. 

Déjà vu

I'm getting a slight sense of déjà vu on reading Steerpike's latest piece at The Spectator - especially the last pair of paragraphs [and the last paragraph in particular]. 

It's mostly what you heard here at ITBB 24 hours ago, but with added juicy detail from the Speccie.

If Mr S. is partly copying us I'd happily invite him to continue to 'borrow' as much as he likes. Share and share alike in a good cause after all. Nothing here is copyrighted. 

It could, of course, just be a highly likely coincidence of people reacting the same way. 

Anyhow, Mr Steerpike turns out to be even meaner to the BBC than we were yesterday because he forgets Mayor Khan's involvement and blames it all on the BBC. Mayor Khan deserves some of the blame too: 

Watch: BBC’s cringe New Year monologue 

Some accuse Britain of being a mawkishly sentimental nation. So what better rejoinder could be offered to that than the BBC's New Year's Eve fireworks display, when an army of drones spelled out the letters 'NHS' in the sky. As Big Ben struck midnight yesterday, actor Giles Terera recited a poem more twee than a tea commercial, eulogising the country's supposed 'achievements' in 2021. For nothing screams progress like a Hamilton actor performing a YouTube star's piece about COP26 on the Millennium Bridge.

Emphasising every word as if it were crafted by Shakespeare himself, Terera did his best with a structure that managed to rhyme 'vaccination' with 'nation' and Tom Daley's 'cardie' with 'camaraderie.' All the usual nods were there: Marcus Rashford's free school meals. Drink. Our NHS heroes. Drink. The Glasgow climate change conference. Drink. All we needed was a stammering Hugh Grant and an Oasis backing track to round off the Brit-Popping vibe, given the strong echoes of the London Olympics.

Forget 2022: it appears that half the cultural elite want to turn the clock back to 2012.

More 'reaction'

"Andrew Neil eviscerates Boris Johnson over interview no show" says Steerpike in the Spectator online. But you know what? (I do hate that ‘you know what’ habit) (I’m just doing it now to annoy myself) This is what. Not everyone is with you.

if Andrew Neil, (associate editor of the Spectator) read the comments below the film clip + transcription featured in the online mag he co-edits,  he might find that his ‘no show’ rant is not quite the evisceration Steerpike envisaged. If anyone was eviscerated, some would say it’s the BBC’s eviscerator-in-chief himself. 

Don't appease him Boris!

I hope Boris continues to frustrate the self-aggrandising unattractive brute that is Neill: he's not worth the bother. And neither are most of the other broadcast political journalists worth the bother, all of whom appear to want to appear pointedly rude to their interviewee to illustrate what tough guys they are. When everyone of them are playing the same game it get tedious. Boorish.

Oh! ..am reminded: And what a total prat Marr made of himself when he attempted to outdo Neill with his incivility. Pathetic.

says commenter Bruce Mills. 

(At the time of writing, that was posted “14 minutes ago”, but the world has moved on since then.) This conversation has been going strong since yesterday. 

The oldest comment (by someone using  the moniker “The Macho King” ) says:

Brillo just comes across as a complete moron here.

He thinks he's bigger than the election, some kind of superstar interviewer that all must come before for some kind of validation. He is making that cardinal sin of starting to believe his own hype. And who the hell says that anyone who wants to be PM must pass through the gates of Brillo to win?

Would Trump do Brillo? No, Because Trump couldn't care less who this idiot is. Trump is perhaps the last Alpha male on the planet (bar the Macho King) and does what the hell he wants.

So Boris is right to ignore him. Don't play to his ego and appear on his show, it just validates his superiority complex.

There are one or two dissenting voices in the mix, most of which boil down to an assertion that Boris is an unprincipled buffoon and frit. Several say Boris was quite right to give the would-be inquisitor a wide berth - as if his berth isn’t wide enough already. Or did I mean girth. 

There’s an element of truth in both points of view if you ask me. But who’s asking?

Why don't you switch off the TV ?

A couple of days ago Craig included the following observation in his smorgasbord post: 

 “In a questionable editorial decision, this morning's Today chose to invite in comedian Jake Yapp to mock ITV for switching off all their channels this morning in a Team GB-related stunt to encourage children to go out and do some exercise... The BBC mocking ITV for doing something noble doesn't strike me as being very...er...noble on the part of the BBC. The one upside is that Jake, as ever, was funny. I like Jake. He does all the voices:”  

Over on the Spectator, ‘Steerpike’ has posted something about Mr. Yapp too, but rather than picking up on the ‘questionable editorial decision’ made by the BBC to mock ITV for switching itself off to encourage couch potatoes to “do something less boring instead” (like sport) -  Steerpike has chosen instead to criticise Jake Yapp for sneering at the working class. 

 I’m with Craig on this one. I thought Yapp’s little sketch was okay. Not hilarious, but …okay. It would be nice if Mr. Yapp did one about the BBC one day (for balance) - but we’ve had “Harry and Paul’s Story of the Twos’ so we should be happy with that.

 

Harry and Paul's Story of the Twos [couchtripper] by couchtripper

All comedians seem to range from left-leaning to hard-line leftie. The more lefty the jokes, the harder it is for non-believers to see the funny side. When a leftie comedian does their thing, even if it’s funny, non-lefties won’t crack. “Not funny” they insist, sucking a lemon.

Much as I loathe Jeremy Hardy’s bizarre anti-Israel / antisemitic politics, I have to admit that when he steers clear of that topic he can be funny. Actually, on second thoughts, that’s pushing it a bit. I used that extreme example to illustrate my point, because his slap-you-in-the-face anti-Israel ‘jokes’ are a real antidote to laughter. 

Another example of the above is Frankie Boyle. I think if he was on my side, I probably would laugh, but as it is, no. His rapier-like wit is more rapier than wit. Well, there is wit, but when the ‘joke’ hinges on a falsehood it ceases to be amusing.

Here’s another example. Many ‘critics of the left’ detest Jo Brand. She used to make one feel uncomfortable rather than amused by shocking the audience with her self-deprecating, rude, too-much-information patter. But Jo Brand’s material has matured; it’s still self-deprecating but no longer obsessively gynaecological. 

Her co-authored sitcom with Joanna Scanlan and Vicki Pepperdine “Getting On” was a mini masterpiece. (though I didn’t think her solo spin-off was up to scratch) 

Now when I see her chairing HIGNFY, I give her the benefit of the doubt. If she amuses me, despite golliwog-gate, I don’t try not to laugh.

Anyway before I go off on a lengthy list of drearily unfunny leftie comedians, which would probably contradict the point I set out to make, let me return to the reason I started to write this. What was it again? Oh yes.

Look at the comments below Steerpike’s article. They’ve veered away from the topic, as usual, and settled upon a generalised outpouring of criticism of the BBC.

It seems that the BBC’s bias is recognised by huge numbers of people. You see it everywhere. On both right and left-wing media. From the OMG Daily Mail to… even the Guardian.

BBC staff will soon be the only ones who are unaware of their elephantine bias. That’s the employed ones. They do have a habit of ‘discovering’ it when they leave.  


Gatecrash (from Craig): I agree with Sue (to paraphrase a famous pair of unfunny comedians). 

Those comments at the Spectator ought to give the BBC pause (but won't). 

More and more people are angry at the BBC - from the Corbynistas and the SNP on one side to all the many-and-various 'people like us' on the other.

The old 'complaints from both sides' no longer washes either. Both sides are firing from different sides at the same place (loathe as they might be to admit it): the place where the BBC sits.

And the BBC doesn't sit where many of us/they sit. It (generally-speaking) sits with people other than us/them, somewhere on the socially-liberal, strongly pro-EU, economically-centrist, politically left-leaning, pro-modern-Establishment spectrum between Ken Clarke and Owen Smith.

Still, here's more Jake Yapp (another one for Mr. Steerpike?)...