Shush!

GB News, reviewing the MoS front page story last night

We've been doing this so long now that we can just guess what the BBC will do sometimes.

Before going to bed last night I was reading The Mail on Sunday's scoop about a leaked intelligence report showing that nearly 4 in 10 people illegally crossing the English Channel come from Albania - i.e. from a peaceful country and, therefore, economic migrants not refugees, despite what the BBC insists. The leak was passed to the paper via Reform UK leader Richard Tice.

My instinct, based on past experience of the BBC and these kind of 'unhelpful' stories, is that the BBC would downplay it. So the first thing I did after logging on this morning was to check the BBC News website's daily The Papers section to see if they've included The Mail on Sunday or not.

This is where it gets interesting. They have mentioned it but are downplaying it.

There show full screenshots of all the Sunday front pages, except one: 

The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph, The Observer, The Sunday Express, The Sunday People, The Sunday Mirror, The Sun on Sunday and The Daily Star on Sunday are all there, but not The Mail on Sunday.

But scroll down and - in a classic example of 'watertight oversight' in action - you'll see that the BBC has mentioned it.

To my mind there's only one reason for them NOT showing the Mail on Sunday front page and that's because they deliberately chose not to draw attention to it because they don't like the story.

Isn't that a fair assumption?

Update: Checking TVEyes...GB News has been showing that front page and discussing it since around 10.30pm yesterday. Neither of the BBC News Channel's paper reviews at 10.30pm and 11.30pm even mentioned it, neither showing it nor discussing it. 

Who regulates the regulator?

  

It's over five years since News-watch first rang alarm bells at the fact that of the 13 members of Ofcom's Content Board at the time 10 had close BBC links. 

Ofcom is, of course, the BBC's regulator.

That was in 2016. Now, as we start 2022, The Mail on Sunday's deputy political editor Anna Mikhailova reports that this figure now stands at 10 out of 14, as there's been another member added to the Content Board.

Anna writes that:

Nadine Dorries is planning to review Ofcom's structure following concerns over bias towards the BBC, The Mail on Sunday understands.

The Culture Secretary is expected to examine the regulator's role as part of an upcoming review into the Corporation's complaints process.

Officials have raised concerns that out of the 14 members of Ofcom's Content Board, ten are ex-BBC employees. The regulator is the ultimate authority to which complaints can be escalated.

The next two paragraphs show why it's important that something is done:

Over the past two years, only one complaint about the Corporation was investigated by Ofcom, out of 418 referred to it by the BBC.

This is a fraction of the 830,632 viewer complaints made in total to the Corporation over the same period.

Isn't that extraordinary?

The piece continues: 

A Government source said: 'Fundamentally this needs to be looked at.'

It's very much to be hoped that Nadine Dorries isn't just talking about it but going to do something about it. There's been rather too much talk.

'The BBC is silencing the viewers who should be heard'

[h/t News-watch]

I can't find it on Mail Online so, if you missed it, here's an editorial from yesterday's Mail on Sunday [click to enlarge]:

The BBC understands

I was reading some criticism of the BBC's reporting of Lord Frost's resignation from the government and checked out how BBC One's late evening bulletin reported the Mail on Sunday's scoop. In their main headlines, the BBC said:

The BBC understands the Brexit minister Lord Frost has resigned from the Cabinet. It's believed Lord Frost, who's led negotiations with the EU, stood down over the political direction of Boris Johnson's Government.

The BBC ''understood'' it through reading it in the Mail on Sunday.  

They are quite shameless.

Also, via BBC reporter Damian Grammaticas, we got the return of an old favourite - the BBC's favoured use of ''hardline'' to describe Brexit supporters in the Conservative Party:  

He helped Mr Johnson win the backing of hardline Brexit supporters in his party, advocating a tough approach to Brussels.

Says hardline BBC reporter Damian Grammaticas.

Nick Robinson, BBC Director of News?

The Mail on Sunday is on fire today. They are also reporting that Nick Robinson has has been ''sounded out by BBC bosses'' to replace Fran Unsworth as Director of News. ''BBC sources say'' he's considered an ''impartial and safe'' figure. [No laughing at the back!]. 

Strictly Come Social Engineering?

The BBC's nemesis at the Mail on Sunday Katie Hind has a piece today headlined Strictly can't get much more diverse than that! Four contestants and not a single straight white man - the dream semi-final for BBC chiefs who wanted a 'less pale and stale' series:.

The BBC has been praised for having the most diverse Strictly Come Dancing semi-final in the show’s history. The line-up for last night’s programme featured two black contestants, a gay man and the favourite to win the overall title – deaf EastEnders actress Rose Ayling-Ellis.

She quotes one of those helpful 'sources':

There is a great deal of delight that Strictly is reflecting Britain today with its line-up. This year and last, there was a real effort to ensure that there was diversity – particularly with the introduction of the same-sex couples. Last year it didn’t go quite so well, but this year has been an absolute triumph. And viewers have clearly loved it. Audience figures have been really high.

''The Somali element – erm, no''

  

If ever a tweet could be said to have been sent 'with attitude' it was surely this from BBC News Home and Legal Correspondent Dominic Casciani yesterday:

Lots of speculation about the identity of the suspect in the dreadful killing of Sir David Amess. We have learnt from official sources that detectives have established the individual is a UK national, seemingly of Somali heritage. We report this in the interests of accuracy.

As usual with Dominic C on Twitter, it was carefully worded so as not to say exactly what was on his mind, merely to strongly hint at it. However, he then went on Radio 4's Today and blurted it out anyway:

Nick Robinson: The suspect is a British citizen, but he's also of Somali origin. Is that regarded as significant?

Dominic Casciani: The Somali element – erm, no. The reason why some reporters have established this fact is that there has been some misreporting. Yesterday, during the day, there were some news outlets, and also on social media, some suggestions as to the identity of the individual. So I think the police are at pains to clarify in a statement last night that the individual is British. They haven't said anything about the heritage. But my understanding is that there was initially, potentially, some confusion over the individual's background and identity.

And that has earned him this Mail on Sunday headline:

Sunday morning

I

Well done to Morecambe's very own world-beating boxer Tyson Fury!

The BBC's report on his triumph has a couple of adverts for other BBC output at the bottom of it, which don't seem entirely relevant:

I think I'll pass on those.

II

Talking of advertising on the BBC, the BBC is hardly free of adverts as they deluge viewers with plugs for other BBC programmes between programmes. 

But at least they don't put them in the middle of programmes....

....except, that is, if your watching the news and see a plug for, say, an upcoming Panorama disguised as a news report. 

The Mail on Sunday claims however, that it goes a lot further than that. They suggest that the BBC is using Strictly Come Dancing as a ''walking advert for other shows'' as eight out of this year's 15 celebrity contestants are already working for the BBC. Did they enlist an EastEnders actress because EastEnders's viewing figures have falling to an all-time low? Did they enroll one of the new team captains on Question Of Sport because that show's new line-up hasn't proved a hit so far? Are they promoting new Newsround presenter Rhys Stephenson because ''sources say that he is being lined up to be a future superstar of the network''? Is BBC Breakfast's Dan Walker walker on because of the ratings battle with ITV's Good Morning Britain? etc, etc.

I wouldn't put it past them.

III

And talking of BBC Breakfast, [h/t Guest Who], it's charm all round this Sunday morning: 

Rob Chisholm [BBC viewer]: Glad that BBC Breakfast doesn't have Naga Munchetty on the sofa again. It's a far more pleasant and professional programme without her snide & irritating comments. Long may the lack of Naga Munchetty on our screens continue. 

Naga Munchetty [BBC presenter]: Ah Rob. Thank goodness there's someone else who is also 'snide & irritating' out there. Phew! Long may your own lack of pleasantness continue. X

I see from his Twitter profile that Rob is, among other things, a Royal British Legion Rider and a an RAF Veteran and that his 'pinned tweet' recommends a 'Coffee and Cake To Go For Paramedic Heroes', plus he has a union flag in his profile. No wonder they don't like each other!

IV

The Mail on Sunday also reports that Match of the Day ''WILL continue to show Premier League teams take the knee each week - despite a growing amount of players choosing not to perform the gesture''. A BBC spokesperson said: ‘Match Of The Day’s editorial brief is to provide coverage of all aspects of the Premier League. The ongoing anti-racism statements made by all teams is an important part of the current football narrative.’ Ah, the BBC and their narratives!

''BBC Hit By New Bashir Shame''

“The BBC has a really grim bit of reading in The Mail on Sunday. This is another Martin Bashir-related story. Goes on for pages and pages and it is tough stuff for BBC people to read”, said Andrew Marr this morning. 

He didn't elaborate, or mention the story again. 

This morning's BBC News Channel paper review also merely mentioned it, with Victoria Derbyshire laying heavy emphasis on her own words, “it claims”.

The Mail on Sunday's remarkable investigation into how Martin Bashir took the Babes In The Wood victim's bloodied clothes from her mother, and then lost them, focuses on how that was followed by “derisory” efforts to find them by the BBC. 

The loss, the Mail reports, was only found out when the mother asked for them back to help police review the evidence and help convict the chief suspect.

As with the Princess Diana scandal, it's the allegations of a cover-up by the BBC that are particularly telling:

At the time, a BBC spokesman announced 'extensive inquiries' had been made to find them. 

But we can reveal today that the Corporation failed to even carry out the most basic checks, including speaking directly to Bashir. 

Key journalists who worked alongside him on the Babes In The Wood documentary also said they were never contacted. 

Nor were the families of Karen and fellow victim Nicola Fellows, nor a forensic scientist named by the programme's editor as an expert who could analyse scene-of-crime material. 

The acting director-general of the BBC at the time, Mark Byford, has also admitted no 'formal investigation' was held into the missing clothes.

Well might Julian Knight MP say in reaction, “These allegations, if proven, would amount to one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the BBC. This could be the BBC's Milly Dowler phone hacking moment.” 

His Commons Culture select committee will be interviewing Tim Davie on Tuesday. 

---------------

Update - The story was discussed during this morning's Broadcasting House paper review. Only one guest commented on it, namely  former Conservative MP for North Devon Peter Heaton-Jones, who also previously worked for...guess who?...yes, the BBC:

Paddy O'Connell: What is the front page of the Mail on Sunday, Peter?

Peter Heaton-Jones: Well, yes I thought I should dip into the world of journalism from my previous life Paddy, and so...the Mail on Sunday is obsessed with the BBC, has been for some time, shows no signs of waning. So you can read about the BBC and the Mail's view of it on pages 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 26, should you be so disposed. I love the BBC. I worked here for 20 years and I think that the licence fee is the right way to fund the BBC. Let me get that out of the way first. But the Mail says one thing in its editorial which I think has some substance to it, and it's this: They...quote, “The BBC's closed and haughty elite with its insistence on being judge and jury in any case where it comes under criticism, ploughs on regardless”. And I just think if there's one lesson for the BBC to learn, it's you can get it wrong sometimes, don't always defend yourself to the hilt if someone accuses you of getting something wrong. 

Paddy O'Connell: And this front page is another scandal involving the disgraced journalist Martin Bashir.

Peter Heaton-Jones: Yes, “BBC hit by new Bashir shame”, they say on page 1 - and about 18 other pages. It's not a good story, which I don't think I want to go into detail about Paddy, but it's another example of how I think the Mail and certain other newspapers will try to find any chink in the BBC's armour. They are there, but they find them very actively.

---------------- 

Further update [Sunday evening] -  The BBC has radically undermined BBC apologist Peter Heaton-Jones tonight. 

He said it wasn't a good story, but the BBC obviously disagrees. They've taken onboard the Mail on Sunday's investigation.

As a result, the BBC has now issued an apology, saying they're “extremely sorry” over the loss of the murdered schoolgirl's clothes. 

This is important, and needs exploring further, though the BBC website report - true to form - spins the 'cover-up' claim as wrong, to the BBC's advantage.

Maybe time will tell, or maybe it won't.

Whatever, well done to the Mail on Sunday, however many pages they took over it.

Sunday morning reading

I

The Mail on Sunday quotes Sir Iain Duncan Smith not so quietly ripping into the BBC's Covid coverage:

The vaccines are really good at stopping hospitalisation and death, yet every night we report the infection rate – why?

Why does the BBC throw over every single bit of data, when Covid is about sixth on the death toll? Can we have the death toll for pneumonia while we're at it? 

Cancer, heart disease, liver problems? Why are we continuing with the Covid stuff on the BBC and the main news channels? It frightens people.

Older people are still asking, 'Are we allowed to hug now?' Even when they have had all the jabs.

We have people who are now scared of normal life.

We certainly don't do it for flu, and we don't do it for cancer. 

Either we go the whole hog and every night publish a list of how you're going to die, or not at all. Covid isn't the major reason for death.

II 

The same paper also reports Peter Hitchens's rare victory over the BBC Complaints department. 

It concerned an episode from a Radio 4 series Mayday: The Canister on the Bed, broadcast on 20 November 2020. The BBC summarised the case like this:

The programme, part of a series on aspects of the conflict in Syria, dealt with the chemical weapons attack at Douma, which it described as “one of the most contested events in the war”, and included an account of the role subsequently played by a former inspector with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), known pseudonymously as Alex, who had expressed concerns about the OPCW’s conclusions on the matter. The journalist Peter Hitchens complained that the programme had been inaccurate in insinuating that Alex’s disclosures had been motivated by a reward of $100,000 offered by WikiLeaks, that he believed the attack had been staged, and that he had made his views known only through “a select few journalists who share the Russian and Syrian state views on the war”. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

And the BBC upheld Mr Hitchens's complaint, concluding that this episode in Chloe Hadjimatheou's Orwell Prize short-listed series [a] did indeed make an “insinuation” against Alex and that [b] the evidence for that insinuation wasn't strong enough to warrant the programme calling Alex's motives into question. It also found that [c] the programme's claim that Alex “believed the attack was staged” wasn't justified by strong enough evidence and [d] the programme mischaracterised Alex’s dealings with journalists, saying he had collaborated with journalists who held broadly the same views on the war as the Russian and Syrian governments, whereas he had in fact “also collaborated with journalists of whom that could not be said (Mr Hitchens among them)”.

The ECU found that, although they were limited to one aspect of a investigation into a complex and hotly contested subject, these points represented a failure to meet the standard of accuracy appropriate to a programme of this kind. The ECU noted that a posting about one point of the complaint had been made on the Corrections and Clarifications page of bbc.co.uk but, as it was not reflected in the extended version of the programme which continued to available on BBC Sounds and the website of the series, it did not suffice to resolve the issue in question.

And what Further Action has been taken? Well, “the finding was reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers in question.” 

That'll teach 'em!

Frustration at 'Panorama'

 

Sticking with the same paper...

The Mail on Sunday's Jonathan Bucks reports that BBC journalists working on a John Ware-fronted Panorama special investigation into how Martin Bashir obtained his famous interview with Princess Diana - and a possible BBC cover-up over it - "have complained that BBC bosses are unwilling to co-operate". 

They are said to feel "frustrated" after "the Corporation denied them easy access to even the most basic documents". 

Producers trying to access the BBC’s broadcasting guidelines from 1995, when the interview was broadcast, were told they would need to submit Freedom of Information requests – an arduous process that takes up to 20 working days for information to be provided.

Oh dear! Many of us are aware of the BBC's reluctance to give in to Freedom of Information requests anyhow. Wonder if Panorama will get the usual response?

We can advise you that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’  The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion….

Stop Me If You Think You've Heard This One Before

 

It's a strange sensation, dipping into the Sunday papers online and finding The Mail on Sunday going heavily with the BBC Teach telling primary school-aged children that the there are 'over 100 genders'. 

Their political editor Glen Owen has a piece on it, as does columnist Sarah Vine (Michael Gove's missus). The first is headlined: 

BBC lockdown home-schooling programme tells 9-year-olds there are 'over 100 genders' and shows kids talking to adults about 'bi-gender', 'genderqueer' and 'pansexual' identities

and the second is headlined: 

BBC home-schooling programme that tells 9-year-olds there are 'over 100 genders' is a masterclass in indoctrination... on the licence fee

Now, you'll have probably guessed the 'strange' bit about this: The  'over 100 genders' BBC Teach video is old news, very widely reported two years ago. Most of you will probably remember it.

It's something we wrote about in September 2019 and The Times covered it too. And so did the MoS's sister paper the Daily Mail. 

So why is the Mail on Sunday bringing this up as if it's a brand new story now? 

I assumed that it was perhaps being broadcast again on BBC TV as part of the BBC's much-publicised lockdown school programming, but the article quotes the BBC saying it isn't and itself says it's only online. 

It's still just available on the BBC Teach website, online, unchanged, just as it was when we first wrote about it in 2019. 

So, the Mail on Sunday is just recycling an old story it seems - unless its journalists were completely unaware of it till now.

Still, it's a good story, and one that always makes its readers fume at the BBC's 'wokery'. I'm sure they'll be stirred up all over again when they wake up this morning - those that aren't rolling their eyes at being fed old news that is! 

Update: However 'old news' it is, it's driving a lot of anti-BBC comment on the #DefundtheBBC hashtag on Twitter. It's striking a chord again.

*******

Glen Owen is on a roll, incidentally. He's also got a piece about a new BBC Three documentary 'DIY Trans Teens' which he says (a) "reveals how children can buy sex-change drugs" and (b) "will  publicise the work of a doctor who has been struck off in UK" but "who now has an online firm overseas  that offers gender-change drugs to people" - drugs the effects of which "are unknown and may include long-term harm". He makes it sound irresponsible. Whether or not it is, only time will tell because the programme apparently isn't yet finished. 

It's the way the BBC spokesman tells 'em!

 

The Mail on Sunday also adds to the examples we mentioned over New Year of BBC News being chock-a-block with empty glass negativity about Brexit. 

It adds Simon Jack going on about the "mountain of new paperwork" faced by firms, and a bulletin on the News Channel going on about "bureaucracy" being a consequence of the Brexit deal, and Laura Kuenssberg referring to "extra paperwork" and saying "There is a very, very, very long list of new kinds of paperwork that is coming into force for all different kinds of business, whether that is filling in customs forms or doing different kinds of extra paperwork if you want take your pet on holiday", and Katya Adler saying, "It's not true that there are no bumps in trade."

It's been pretty much that all the way, from what I've seen.

Never mind Nish and Frankie, here's something much funnier. It's a BBC spokesman: 

The BBC is impartial on all topics and always features a variety of different perspectives – our Brexit coverage has been no different.

It's a cracker!

New Year Nish & Frankie

 

Other than talk and issue pleasant-sounding declarations of intent, I wonder what Tim Davie has actually done to tackle bias at the BBC? 

The Mail on Sunday suggests not much on the issue of bias in BBC comedy at least.

It really is striking that at the very moment when the UK finally, fully left the EU - 11pm on New Year's Eve - the BBC gave us The Graham Norton Show, which featured Nish Kumar insulting Nigel Farage (‘not technically a man, just a sack of meat brought to life by a witch’s curse’) and attacking Brexit. 

Meanwhile, Frankie Boyle compares Brexit to cancer on his own New Year's Day BBC show. (‘Having Brexit at the end of a year like this is like finding out your cancer has spread to the walls of your house.’)

What's happened to Frankie Boyle over the years is akin to what happened in the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Frankie has castrated himself and become a eunuch at the court of the BBC, living a live of comfort and influence in exchange for his testicles. 

A baker's dozen

This won't come as a surprise to us, but The Mail on Sunday has carried out an "analysis" of the BBC's coverage of the Democratic Party primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire and found that 13 BBC correspondents covered them.

The paper's headline is: What cuts? The BBC has THIRTEEN reporters covering the US election trail... while back home, it's axing up to 450 jobs in £80m savings drive. 

The MoS points out that Emily Maitlis "jetted across the Atlantic at considerable expense" for a couple of Newsnights, despite the programme already having a US correspondent (David Grossman) involved in the coverage.

They also point out that Christian Fraser "flew out from London to join his Washington-based co-host Katty Kay in Iowa" for Beyond 100 Days.

The BBC, of course, says there's nothing wrong with this ridiculous wastefulness, adopting the 'it's not as bad as usual' defence:

The BBC has a huge amount of output across our news channels, bulletins, radio, online programming and podcasts. This election is being primarily covered by our US-based team… meaning we have sent far fewer London staff than we have ever done previously.