Twits, spats and tw*ts

Looking at Twitter can be a depressing experience. Look at this extraordinary Tweet from disgraced ‘charity fat-cat’ and widower of murdered MP Jo.

Brendan Cox Tweeted a couple of days after the Westminster ‘vehicular attack’.

“Last few days has shown that the far right hate our country. They used a terror attack to denigrate it. They are no patriots.”

I stumbled upon it when I was looking at professor Steven Barnett ’s re-tweets. (Mar 25th) 

Also on that platform, amongst various references to “Hopkins” (He’s not a great fan) and Fox News, (not a fan) I spotted something by “the Secret Barrister” relating to Katie Hopkins’s spat with Jack Monroe and Laurie Penny, which, as  you are probably  aware, eventually cost Ms. H. a huge fine, (£131,000) the magnitude of which was grossly inflated through her intransigence. (she could have settled earlier with an apology and a donation of £5,000)

(Incidentally here’s something about another case I blogged recently, which might be of interest.)

Anyhoo, here’s the 'iNews' post about Katie H: "At £131,000, Katie Hopkins should realise trolling on Twitter is an expensive hobby"

Her intransigence. Whether or not you agree with the gist of her trolling (I often do - but not always) her intransigence was patently ridiculous, and reminds me of - you’ll be able to guess - Ken. No, not Dodd. The other one. Will he be getting a fine?

This is leading up to an excuse to advertise a number of posts about this subject, which I’m only going to link to, knowing that it’s a comparatively specialised topic that holds little interest for many, more’s the pity.

David Hirsh: Livingstone, Labour and antisemitism.

Paul Bogdanor: Ken Livingstone’s claims are an insult to the truth 

Marcus Dysch: Ken Livingstone claims Jews and Nazis 'collaborated' before the Second World War 

Ian Austin: This is a moment of great shame, and we owe you an apology 

and finally, Marcus Dysch again.:

Livingstone case has opened the floodgates for antisemites  

It has allowed cranks and nutters, whose pathetic expressions were once dismissed out of hand, to feel as though they are part of normal society, and that the matter of Jew-hatred is open to the same sort of rigorous debate as Brexit, house prices and the football. 
Mr Livingstone’s case has, to a large degree, normalised antisemitism. It is no longer a taboo subject. “

This is a meandering tale with no middle, beginning or ending, with perhaps only an indirect connection with the BBC, and I can’t even say I rest my case, because I don’t.

Marking our own homework

The BBC’s Newswatch programme explored the difference between the way complaints will be dealt with by the BBC’s new independent external regulator Ofcom, the body that, from Monday, is replacing the BBC Trust. 

“Now, who decides what constitutes impartiality, balance and accuracy in BBC news reports?” asks Samira Ahmed “and passes judgment when those values have been infringed”

She spoke to two media experts, Professor Steven Barnett, Professor of communications at Westminster University, and Stewart Purvis former chief executive of ITN and a former partner at Ofcom.

Formerly a complaint would go to the BBC Trust, explained Steven Barnett, adding: “which, despite the name, in my view at least, was actually a pretty independent body [..] the perception was that it was just  - once again - the BBC.” (Marking its own homework, as Samira put it earlier.)

Initially your complaint will still go to the BBC, and “if you then want to escalate it” it will ultimately be dealt with by Ofcom, said Professor Barnett. 

Samira pointed out that the BBC chair wants a scientific approach to this (analysing bias) but Stewart Purvis says we want human judgment involved. We want people to take account of the context, background and a series of factors before the regulator comes to a decision. 

Samira said it would be good if the BBC did a proper ‘head count’ of people on panel shows and the amount of airtime. “I’ve heard complaints about people being talked over and not getting their fair share”.

“You’ll always get complaints from people who see the news through their own lens” 

opines the professor of communications. 

“Particularly on some of the big issues like the referendum, Brexit, the Middle East, which is the ones they get the biggest lot of complaints” 

“You can count the number of minutes as much as you want - you can count the number of heads, you can count the number of times on different sides that someone is for or someone is against. In the end it is going to be a matter of judgment.” 

“It’s going to politicise Ofcom in a way that it hasn’t been before. It’s going to put it in the firing line. It will put it under pressure from those that aren’t great friends of the BBC, I’m thinking in particular of the major publishers, and some of those who are the major critics of the BBC. Once Ofcom comes down, which they will, on the side of the BBC, I suspect we are going to see more criticism of Ofcom than we have seen so far.”

Actually, as far as I’m concerned, that’s all fine and dandy. Apart from one or two tell-tale signals.

In search of a credible snapshot of Steven Barnett’s own “lens” (other than just his appearance, which, let’s face it, he looks like a lefty - let’s see if he ‘talks like a lefty’ and quacks like one) what does one do these days but turn to Twitter. So, through his Twitter feed thing, he makes no secret of the fact that he’s the academic variety of your bog standard, lesser spotted anti-Brexit, anti-Islamophobia, anti-Trump, pro-refugee, liberal lefty.

I just thought, if the media is entirely in the hands of left-wing media studies professors, what hope is there for “impartiality”, now and forevermore.

Now, I’m the first to admit, and I think arch stopwatch/calcuator specialist Craig would agree, that your stopwatch findings aren’t the be-all and end-all of bias evaluation.  But they are a significant  indicator of what the BBC deems “right’ or ‘wrong’. 

For example, no-one in their right mind would be happy if the BBC suddenly felt it had to give an equal platform to (insert something that’s universally considered to be beyond the pale) say, advocates and opponents of paedophillia, or Islamic State. 

But when it comes to areas and opinions where the left-liberal consensus that dominates the media gets a more generous slice of the BBC’s platform than opposing or contrasting views, which might represent a considerable number of viewers, then your stopwatch gauge comes in handy. Not everyone shares the same view on what is or isn’t ‘beyond the pale’. Especially on issues such as the ones Steven Barnett cited, viz: Brexit and the Middle East .