Tricky

Catching up with the past week's typically turbulent BBC-related news [and, as ever, thank to you for keeping us up to date on the open threads]...

That Daily Telegraph story about how the BBC's ultra-worthy 50:50 equality project is going wrong and leading to complaints from within the BBC that the corporation is “disappearing women” by allowing the female side to be filled “by those who self-identify as female” included some fascinating details. 

As the BBC itself might say, I've not been able to independently verify the Jeremy Vine discussion about women’s sports on BBC Radio 2 where the voices on air were four men and three trans people with no women, but I have checked out the edition of Radio 4’s Moral Maze a year ago last June where two men and two trans women discussed women’s sport. 

Which does seem odd.

The Telegraph quotes “a senior BBC insider” saying that the BBC presenter behind the 50:50 equality project, Ros Atkins, “has gone along with” redefining the word 'woman' - “a word which we all understand”, something the BBC has done “without any public debate”.

As for the whole 50:50 equality project, it is interesting how one [male] BBC presenter, such as Ros Atkins, could have such a massive impact - for good or for ill - on the BBC's behaviour. His agenda has pretty much consumed the BBC since 2017.

This is something Radio 4's Media Show, or the BBC News Channel's Outside Source, or the BBC's Analysis Editor might want to tackle...

...if only the man behind the 50:50 equality project wasn't also a main presenter on Radio 4's Media Show, and the main presenter on BBC News Channel's Outside Source, and the BBC's Analysis Editor.

And called Ros Atkins.

Tricky.

The BBC and science

And talking of the Telegraph talking about BBC pay, here's the opening paragraph of from Telegraph arts and entertainment editor Anita Singh's rather entertaining piece about a BBC science programme where “viewers were told that space is cold and the speed of light is fast”:

It is part of my job to read the BBC annual report so you don’t have to. Once we’ve dealt with the astronomical salaries, other things swim into focus. Such as the fact that, of the corporation’s £1.78 billion TV budget, just £31 million is spent on the arts. There is no breakdown of the budget for science programming, but it is clearly a low priority. Search for the word “science” in the 280-page report and just a handful of mentions come up, almost all of them about the BBC’s commitment to Net Zero.

Sounds about right. 

“For the life of me I’ve never understood why it spends so much on him”

Talking of BBC pay, the Telegraph's Michael Deacon hit the nail on the head this week when he wrote that getting rid of Gary Lineker - thereby saving £1.35 million - would “not lose the BBC a single viewer”:

Last year, the BBC paid Lineker around £1.35 million. For the life of me I’ve never understood why it spends so much on him. I’m not saying he’s a bad presenter. On the contrary, I think he’s a very good presenter. But the BBC doesn’t actually need a very good presenter to host Match of the Day – for an extremely simple reason.

Which is that it’s football. And, let’s face it, football fans would watch the highlights of Saturday’s big games no matter who was presenting them. They’d watch them even if they were presented by Jedward, Diane Abbott or Larry, the Downing Street cat. Because it’s the goals they’re tuning in for, not the reading of the autocue.

...which is very true. 

MD also mocks DG Tim Davie for insisting that the broadcaster has shown “incredible restraint” with its wage bill. He observes, “Whenever we read about all these stupendous sums of money, it becomes hard to sympathise with complaints about the BBC’s budget being frozen.”

It certainly does.

A “tight-knit cabal at the top of BBC News who give tacit approval to gender ideology”

Further to a post here from over a week ago, the Sunday Telegraph is reporting the comments of a “whistleblower” regarding the corporation's recent use of Global Butterflies, a trans organisation, for training BBC staff. The Telegraph's headline sums up the story like this:

BBC staff told there are more than 150 genders and urged to develop ‘trans brand’

Material provided to radio staff by Global Butterflies, a transgender group drafted in by corporation for training sessions last year

The “whistleblower” - “a senior staff member who recently quit the corporation” (ed - so ex-BBC, which is slightly disappointing. Why didn't they blow their whistle while still at the BBC?) -  claims that the BBC was “suppressing stories” that ran counter to trans activism and claims there is a “tight-knit cabal at the top of BBC News who give tacit approval to gender ideology”. 

Here are further quotes from the article:

• “The BBC simply doesn’t understand what’s going on with gender identity ideology. They’ve been pandering to a social contagion amongst young people rather than being the adult in the room.”
• “‘Inform and educate’ from the BBC Charter has left the BBC when it covers trans issues.”
• “Stories from the ‘gender critical’ – pro-woman, pro-safeguarding – point of view are being pitched by individuals, but they are rejected because the top of news won’t commission them.”
• “Any story that doesn’t affirm gender ideology originates from outside the news cabal and when it appears it’s always sent upstairs, heavily scrutinised, triple checked – whilst gender affirmative stories go straight to output.”
• “And there’s a complete lack of understanding at the most senior BBC editorial levels that pronoun declarations align with a belief in gender identity ideology.”

The BBC spokesman quoted - “The BBC declined to say how much the Global Butterflies training cost, but it has now cut its ties with the group” - strikes a typical tetchy note:

Third party voluntary training material does not instruct BBC staff, but is available to increase awareness and understanding. There is no link to, or influence on, any editorial decision making and to suggest otherwise is wrong. As we have said many times before, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines are sacrosanct, our staff know this and they understand their responsibilities.

Well, this former BBC “whistleblower” says otherwise.

One last hurrah

I see that the BBC put out yet another ruling against the dearly departed Emily Maitlis earlier this month.

Their Editorial Complaints Unit judged against her retweet of an anti-Boris tweet from former Conservative MP Rory Stewart, saying that “in the absence of any indication to the contrary, retweeting the comment risked giving the impression that Ms Maitlis endorsed the view it expressed.” 

As she then apologised on Twitter they considered the matter “resolved”. 

She certainly kept them busy in recent years, which is why I instantly believed the reports this week that said some at the BBC were glad to see the back of her and her partner in crime Lewis Goodall. 

If you missed that, here's how the Daily Telegraph reported it on Monday:

BBC bosses believe they have solved the problem of perceived Left-wing bias on Newsnight, after Lewis Goodall announced he was leaving to join Emily Maitlis at a commercial rival.

The Telegraph understands that the corporation did not make a counter-offer when Goodall, the programme’s policy editor, told them he had been approached by Global.

The departure of Goodall and Maitlis is being viewed as an opportunity to reset the programme and focus on impartiality after the pair were at the centre of damaging rows with the Government.

Two down, several thousand to go. 

Oh!

 

 

The Telegraph. Hope you can all access the comments!  Quick summary for those who can’t :

“Good riddance / we are all watching GB News now anyway."

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.”

The nub of the matter

The closing paragraph of Zoe Strimpel's Telegraph post today is worth quoting:

The BBC’s problem with Jews goes back several generations, and, as with Corbyn’s Labour, the reason lies in the slow but sure percolation of the most toxic parts of left-wing culture of the 1970s. Only when the BBC confronts its anti-Israel bias will it find that it makes fewer slips in its handling of Jews.

More developments

The Daily Telegraph has 'seen' a letter from Nadine Dorries to Tim Davie concerning the BBC's coverage of the antisemitic incident on Oxford Street. 

The Culture Secretary wants to know what actions the BBC has taken so far and how the corporation intends to resolve the issue “in a suitably timely manner”. 

Don't we all!

The BBC spokesman quoted in the report strikes a more emollient tone than earlier BBC spokesmen on the issue, some of which reminded me of Corbyn era Labour Party official responses to charges of antisemitism against their party and leader, even down to the 'we oppose all forms of racism' language. This time, however, the BBC spokesman said: 

Anti-Semitism is abhorrent. We strive to serve the Jewish community, and all communities across our country, fairly. As we have stated previously, our story was a factual report that overwhelmingly focused on the individuals the police want to identify; those who directed abuse at the bus.  

We know that there are some strong views about this report. We take complaints very seriously and they are being taken through our complaints process. Tim Davie has instructed that this process is accelerated to the Executive Complaints Unit which is editorially independent from news and will ensure complaints are fully responded to as swiftly as possible.

Wednesday morning reading

Here's some Wednesday morning reading from the newspapers, beginning with Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph:

I strongly believe that by any objective standards the persecution of Michael Vaughan by the BBC and BT, who were both due to carry his broadcast analysis this winter before he was cancelled, has become an outrage. Monty Panesar, in his excellent column for the Telegraph last Saturday, noted the violation of the ancient precept of innocence until proven guilty. I draw the attention of Vaughan’s persecutors to the observations of Panesar, as a man of colour, about his friend’s and former captain’s track record of working with and developing the careers of players from ethnic-minority backgrounds. 

One wonders what Vaughan, having been found guilty without trial by both the BBC and BT, having his livelihood put at risk an d having been consigned to that abysmal rank of society peopled by ‘racists’, must now do to restore his reputation. He has no recollection of having referred to his Asian team-mates as "you lot". And why should he? Either he didn’t say it, or if he did it was a tasteless joke that meant so little to him that he can’t remember it.

The Telegraph also has the headline Déjà view: BBC One’s Christmas Day lineup is exactly the same as last year today, as the 'flagship channel will screen same shows - including EastEnders, Call the Midwife and Mrs Brown's Boys - in exact same order as in 2020'. And talking about déjà vu, here's the Daily Mail today: It's deja view... again! BBC1's Christmas Day schedule is exactly the same as last year's.

BBC navel-gazing and metropolitan elitism

Here's a little Tuesday morning reading from the newspapers, starting with Anita Singh in the Daily Telegraph:

There is navel-gazing, and then there is the sight in The Princes and the Press (BBC Two) of BBC presenter Amol Rajan reporting on media editor Amol Rajan reporting on the Royal family criticising the BBC. Absurd doesn’t cover it.

After the second and final episode of a series that has caused so much controversy, what have we learned? That there was rivalry between the Royal households. That Harry hates the press, and Meghan got terrible headlines. That Palace sources, whose job it is to secure favourable press coverage for their royals, may have briefed certain journalists in the hope of doing exactly that. Any and all of this information has been available to read in the newspapers for several years. Recycling it for television has achieved nothing, except to sour relations between the BBC and the Royal family.

And David Blunkett is back on the subject of 'woke' BBC Radio 4, this time writing a piece for the Daily Mail. He says:

Radio 4 has become so determined to address multicultural diversity, gender issues and identity politics that it forgets about all-embracing inclusion. People who live outside a narrow class of well-off professionals with rigidly right-on opinions, almost all of them in London, no longer feel included by the station. If you’re not part of the self-proclaimed metropolitan elite, you are unlikely to hear your views reflected. The BBC seems to ignore the obvious fact that ‘B’ stands for British — and its remit is to broadcast to the whole country, not just a few fashionable streets around Islington.

Meanwhile, The Times has a piece by Jawad Iqbal headlined The BBC has a blind spot over the bias of its Covid expert Susan Michie. It begins...and ends:

The BBC is guilty of a grave disservice to its audiences in continuing to give prominent airtime to a communist-supporting scientist as one of its go-to experts on pandemic restrictions, without any real attempt to contextualise or counterbalance her criticisms. Professor Susan Michie, of University College London, a super-rich longstanding member of the Communist Party of Britain, was lined up as a main expert to pass judgment on the prime minister’s announcement of measures to tackle the new Omicron variant....Michie’s revolutionary views — she is said to be dedicated to establishing a socialist order in the UK — are surely relevant when evaluating her critique of pandemic policies. The BBC, which prattles on endlessly about the importance of impartiality and objectivity, seems to have a blind spot when it comes to Michie. Its first duty must be to its audiences, who have a right to be told much more about the experts given valuable airtime.  

On which theme, by the way, I noted down the names of the first four interviewees on the BBC News Channel immediately following Boris's press conference the other day. All were what might be called 'lockdown hawks'. In order of appearance they were: Professor Susan Michie, University College London; Alex Norris MP, Shadow Health Minister; Professor Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh; and Dr Sarah Pitt, University of Brighton.

''Non-EU salt and pepper''

This was something I was going to post on Tuesday but ran out of time....

The reporting of the latest Twitterstorm is revealing of BBC bias. 

It's all about this label:

The Daily Telegraph headlines it like this:

Morrisons apologises to angry Remainers for 'anti-EU' chicken labelling. Supermarket responds to boycott threats over 'non-EU salt and pepper' label that complies with rules originally set by Brussels 

And James Crisp, the paper's Europe Editor, begins his piece like this:

Morrisons has apologised after Remainers threatened to boycott the supermarket chain because they were offended by packaging on chicken that contained “non-EU salt and pepper”. A Twitter mob accused Morrisons of pandering to Brexiteers by advertising British chicken with non-EU condiments, but the supermarket was only obeying rules originally set by Brussels.

Contrast that with the BBC's take. 

Their headline is Morrisons sorry for 'non-EU salt and pepper' chicken label and the anonymous BBC report begins:

Morrisons has backed down after customers complained about its labelling of a chicken meat product as containing "non-EU salt and pepper".

The supermarket chain's salt-and-pepper chicken crown features the Union Flag on its label, which says that it is "made from British chicken".

The label provoked an angry reaction on Twitter, including one accusation of stoking "anti-EU hatred".

In response, the firm said the wording was "an error for which we apologise".

"We are changing the packaging immediately," its tweet added.

I'm going to copy-and-paste both reports in full for posterity's sake, but I'll add a few points before doing so. 

The Telegraph piece tells it how I see it. A few loud hardline Remainers kicked up the usual silly, out-of-proportion, removed-from-the-public-mood, factually-wrong fuss on Twitter and a frightened supermarket panicked and apologised. 

The BBC tells it differently. According to the BBC it's ''customers'' who complained and made Morrison's ''back down''. 

I very much doubt that those responsible for this pile-on against Morrison's were typical ''customers'' - if they were actually 'customers' at all. 

So there's a clear difference of opinion between the Telegraph and the BBC: 

The Telegraph blames the EU, saying the regulation about requiring the phrase ''non-EU'' is an EU regulation copied over into UK law after Brexit and still operative until at least October 2022. 

The BBC blames the UK government, calling the use of ''non-EU'' 'government guidance' and uses language that obfuscates the contention that it's a leftover EU regulation.

This is a good test for accurate, impartial journalism. 

Both of the reports are fascinating in their clear biases.  The Telegraph piece has a pro-Leave bias, the BBC piece a pro-Remain bias. 

But the Telegraph is fairer than the BBC in offering a wider range of voices from each side of the argument. In fact, though it starts its selection of direct quotes with two quotes from pro-Leave voices it swiftly follows them with three quotes from pro-Remain voices.

The BBC report simply quotes pro-Remain voices before tagging on a final sentence suggesting a different point of voice. 

And the BBC report 'curates' how readers are meant to think at least as much as the Telegraph piece does through its choice language. 

Compare and contrast:

THE BBC'S TAKE

Morrisons sorry for 'non-EU salt and pepper' chicken label

Morrisons has backed down after customers complained about its labelling of a chicken meat product as containing "non-EU salt and pepper".

The supermarket chain's salt-and-pepper chicken crown features the Union Flag on its label, which says that it is "made from British chicken".

The label provoked an angry reaction on Twitter, including one accusation of stoking "anti-EU hatred".

In response, the firm said the wording was "an error for which we apologise".

"We are changing the packaging immediately," its tweet added.

A spokesman for Morrisons said: "It is adhering to packaging regulations rather than making any political point."

The supermarket said it would change the packaging and de-emphasise the mention of non-EU salt and pepper, but said it would still have to be included somewhere on the wrapping because of packaging laws.

According to government guidance on food labelling, the term "non-EU" must be used on meat packaging when full country information is unavailable.

From October next year, following post-Brexit rule changes, this will be replaced by "non-UK".

Country of origin

Among the reactions from customers, some pointed out the irony of a soon-to-be US-owned supermarket displaying its British credentials.

Last month, Morrisons shareholders approved a multi-billion pound takeover offer from US private equity group Clayton, Dubilier & Rice (CD&R).

Others poked fun at the wording in other ways, with one person tweeting: "I've just had a look at my salt and pepper and it has no country of origin on it. It's from Aldi...

"Does that mean it's non-EU or not? Is it safe to put it on an English chicken? Asking for Morrisons..."

One customer raised the issue of food miles, saying: "In other words, they get their S&P from somewhere further away, creating more impact on the climate."

Another queried how useful such information was for shoppers, tweeting: "Aside from anything else, I'd have thought most normal people want to know where foodstuff IS from, not where it isn't."

The move comes in the midst of a debate in the food retailing industry about firms' increasing tendency to use patriotic imagery on packaging, with trade publication The Grocer identifying it as part of a post-Brexit "culture war".

However, those who support the trend see the "made in the UK" tag as a sign of quality rather than a political statement.

THE TELEGRAPH'S TAKE

Morrisons apologises to angry Remainers for 'anti-EU' chicken labelling 

Supermarket responds to boycott threats over 'non-EU salt and pepper' label that complies with rules originally set by Brussels

By

James Crisp,

EUROPE EDITOR

Morrisons has apologised after Remainers threatened to boycott the supermarket chain because they were offended by packaging on chicken that contained “non-EU salt and pepper”.

A Twitter mob accused Morrisons of pandering to Brexiteers by advertising British chicken with non-EU condiments, but the supermarket was only obeying rules originally set by Brussels.

“Why have Morrisons apologised for following rules originally imposed by the EU? They must have turned chicken,” said David Jones, the deputy chairman of the eurosceptic European Research Group.

“And who are they apologising to? People who are such fans of the EU that they would prefer a supermarket to break the law?,” the Tory MP for Clwyd West said.

The label reads “Salt and Pepper Chicken Crown. Roast in the bag. Made from British chicken and non-EU salt and pepper”.

“Tell me Morrisons that this is not real. Your response will dictate whether or not I ever shop at your stores again,” said Lee Williscroft-Ferris, a writer, as the latest twist in the Brexit culture war gained traction on social media.

“It’s annoying but necessary to boycott b******ery. Morrisons joins the list,” tweeted Chris Kendall, an EU official and host of the Cakewatch podcast.

“US-owned Morrisons stokes anti-EU hatred,” tweeted “Kristina #FBPE”. “Won’t be going back until this is withdrawn and an apology is issued.”

''Our chicken label is adhering to British packaging regulations, however we will be redesigning it to make it clear this is not a political commentary,'' a Morrisons spokesman said.

The label of a Morrisons roast in the bag garlic and herb whole chicken states it is made from "British chicken and non-EU and EU garlic and herbs".

Brussels rules require the “non-EU” label on packaging when products contain ingredients from more than a single country outside the bloc.

Those regulations were copied into UK law when Brexit took legal effect on December 31. Suppliers have until October 2022 to change the label to non-UK instead.

Because the label makes clear the chicken is British, one interpretation of the regulations is that the fact some of the ingredients are non-EU have to be as prominent.

The non-EU label will still have to be retained but is likely to be de-emphasised in the redesigned package.

It is not the first time that Morrisons has become embroiled in controversy over Brexit and food.

In Christmas 2019, it caused a social media sensation after removing the word “Brussels” from bags of Brussels sprouts.

Instead sprouts were sold as Lincolnshire or Yorkshire sprouts, depending where they were grown, much to the delight of some Brexiteers.

Chicken has also played a prominent role elsewhere in the Brexit culture wars. Those opposed to a post-Brexit trade deal with the US have warned it could lead to British consumers having to eat US chlorinated chicken.

Bonkers

I was going to write something about the madness of this week's #SackLauraK, but I think ex-BBC journalist Giles Dilnot put it sufficiently crisply yesterday:

Wait, so a hashtag calling for the sacking of a journalist is trending today over a suggestion in a 2 day old tweet from another journalist that wasn't true, uncorroborated by anybody, deleted, withdrawn, apologised for...BS. Sheesh this place is an utter tribal madhouse at times. Said hashtag has had 7000 tweets associated. Seven thousands calls to sack someone for something that never happened. Bonkers.

As for the Daily Telegraph journalist who started it off, and then merely linked to his own newspaper's rebuttal while refusing to let anyone reply to his correcting tweet, Giles added:

Dominic Penna, you ok with all this? I wouldn’t have been.

If you missed it all, Mr Penna tweeted that Laura Kuenssberg had a 'dance battle' and 'rap-off' at the Conservative Party conference. And the far-left and the pro-EU #FBPE then piled in, assuming it was real, and #SackLauraK went wild. The BBC Press Office put out a statement saying there was no truth in it, as did the Telegraph.

The other part of his tweet, however, was that Lewis Goodall did 'a Theresa May' and performed Dancing Queen after asking if there were any 'Tory scum' in the audience - which I assumed was a joke, except that he most definitely did sing Dancing Queen at the Conservative Party conference [badly]:

I note, in passing, that #SackLewisG didn't trend, even despite that performance.

Broadcasting Reclaimed

 

A prominent story in the Sunday Telegraph today, Top scholars launch fightback against woke brigade’s ‘blatantly false’ reading of history, tells how ''leading academics'' [e.g. Prof. Robert Tombs and Andrew Roberts] are ''joining forces'' for a campaign called History Reclaimed which is ''aimed at calling out misleading narratives about historical figures'' in the light of ''growing consternation at the steady march of “woke” ideology which has seen statues pulled down, university degrees “decolonised” and museum exhibits relabelled or removed altogether''. 

The Telegraph report was discussed on this morning's BBC Radio 4 Broadcasting House paper review and all three of Paddy's guests mocked it, presenting it a non-story, and dismissing concerns about “woke” as right-wing nonsense. 

It's the BBC, so who's surprised at this very BBC meeting of like minds? 

As Rod Liddle once put it, ''On Radio Four, you get the bien pensant toss rammed down your throat, almost without variation''. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen and others, is why GB News - or something like it - is needed. 

P.S. The young ''social justice''-focused pro-''woke'' woman on Paddy's wholly likeminded panel, Swarzy Macaly, turns out to be ''the official young voice of BBC Sounds''.

Naturally.

Is Baroness Hoey being lined up to be the next BBC chairwoman?

Kate Hoey:The next BBC chairwoman?

Have any of you been mooted as the new BBC chairman yet? Pretty much everyone else has, if you believe the papers. 

The latest headlines concern the Europhile former chancellor and 'man of a hundred jobs already', George Osborne. Having failed to land the plum Royal Opera House job, the Daily Telegraph's Choppers now claims the Government is "lining him up" to replace Sir David Clementi. 

There are lots of 'woulds' and 'ifs' in the article and Christopher Hope adds that "some government sources" have "downplayed" for the ex-chancellor's chances. The piece ends by saying, "Mr Osborne declined to comment" and "The Daily Telegraph understands that he has not yet been approached about the role". 

So frankly we're barely any further on that when George Osborne was first mooted weeks ago. 

Andrew Neil, for one, doesn't reckon much to the story. "I bet he's not", he tweeted in response to the headline about Mr Osborne being "lined up" by the Government. 

Anyone who wants drastic surgery to save the BBC won't be looking to Mr Osborne, who would be almost as bad as David Dimbleby. Michael Portillo, Trevor Phillips or Sir Robbie Gibb would be better bets. 

No one's mentioned Kate Hoey though, have they? Should we start a rumour here in her favour and pass it onto the Telegraph? Yes, let's! I've a feeling "some government sources" might possibly have mentioned her at some stage, and she'd be great. 

The new leaf is just like the old one

Luckily for Sir Keir Starmer, Boris’s activities misfortunes and a happy event have overshadowed the tribulations of the Labour Party. At the moment, the main criticisms of Sir Keir are directed at his wooden, charisma-free personality. However, it’s Sir Keir’s deeds (or lack of) rather than his words that people are beginning to notice.

Starmer under pressure from Jewish Groups! The BBC reports his failure to act after Diane Abbott and another weirdly-named Labour woman, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, were caught hosting a Zoom meeting in which two activists who had been expelled for antisemitism were allowed to participate. 

As if to distance itself from accidentally making a ‘value-judgement’ the BBC was careful to point out that ‘Jewish Groups’ are the ones who happen to be concerned.  The bold is actually the BBC’s 'allegedly.'

“The Jewish Chronicle reported that Tony Greenstein, who was thrown out of Labour in 2018 for offensive comments, and Jackie Walker, who was expelled over allegedly anti-Semitic comments, had attended the meeting.”

Gideon Falter, the Chief Executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: 

“The participation of Diane Abbott and Bell Ribeiro-Addy in an online conference with Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, is a brazen challenge to Sir Keir Starmer. During his leadership campaign, Sir Keir pledged that any MP who provides a platform for Labour members expelled in connection with antisemitism will themselves be suspended from Labour. Instead of keeping his promise and immediately suspending both Diane Abbott and Bell Ribeiro-Addy from the Party, Labour has merely ‘reminded them of their responsibilities’. 

“After half a decade of the Labour antisemitism crisis, no MP should need ‘reminding’ not to engage with those expelled from the Party over antisemitism. Instead of ‘tearing antisemitism out by its roots’, Sir Keir has welched. Through his inaction he is telling Britain’s Jews loud and clear that his apologies are meaningless, his promises will be broken, and MPs who consort with even the most notorious expelled activists still have a place on the Labour benches.” 

On 27th November 2019 while Corbyn was still Labour leader Allister Heath wrote in the Telegraph:

“If one studies the litany of disgusting anti-Semitic incidents involving Labour members and far-Left activists these past few years, they span almost every possible strand of Jew-hate, virtually every demented conspiracy theory. It would take an immense effort for any party to cure itself of an infection of such virulence, even were it truly committed to doing so (and Labour isn’t): no wonder the Chief Rabbi felt compelled to speak out, warning of Corbyn’s unfitness for high office and that the “very soul of our country is at stake”[…]

"All of which takes us to Israel, a country with which Britain’s Jews are more culturally and personally connected than ever before. Many Corbynites see it as a “white” colonial state, an oppressor nation: in their deranged loathing, they don’t criticise or seek to boycott any other country. They refuse to accept that most Israeli Jews are descended from refugees from the Middle East, Asia and Africa, and the rest escaped the Holocaust.

The only baddies are Israel and the US, the two nations with the biggest Jewish populations. Israel is the only country they want to abolish; the Jews the only people they don’t believe deserve a national homeland." 

Also in the Telegraph, but just the other day, Tom Harwood wrote about the recent Panorama Programme that was stuffed with aggrieved persons who turned out to be Labour party activists in the guise of NHS workers. No label. No mention of any affiliation. Even worse -

‘Nor were BBC viewers informed about the political background of the ‘A&E Nurse’ who turned out to be a Unite activist who “fights the Tories hard”, or Professor John Ashton (also featured in the Panorama disaster), who proudly described himself as a Labour Party member “for 53 years” 

- and Guido has unearthed more on John Ashton, a regular BBC ‘go-to’ expert who happens to be a pretty rabid antisemite. We used to say these people were ‘on the BBC's speed dial’.

The Jewish Chronicle says:

“But aside from offering his advice over health issues, Professor Ashton, who has been a long-time member of the Labour Party, regularly posts on social media on issues involving Israel and Zionism. In one tweet he suggested it was, "Time to isolate Zionists and all religious fundamentalists whatever colour of black." 

An analysis of social media posts made by the former President of the Faculty of Public Health from 2012 until 2018 shows that he has frequently equated Zionism with Nazism.
Writing in November 2012 in response to Israeli military actions in Gaza, he stated: "Sickening to see Zionists behave like Nazis.”

Melanie Phillips highlights the spat between Robert Halfon MP, whom I rather like, and the Jewish community’s left-wing officials and spokespersons who don’t appear able to see past some of Sir Keir’s new appointments, at least not enough to realise that they belie his vow to turn over a new leaf and eradicate antisemitism in the Labour Party.

There’s Naz Shah. When outed for antisemitism Shah made a suitably grovelling apology and promised to learn from the incontinent and ‘inadvertently’ racist Tweets and remarks she’d accidentally made; then promptly forgot the apology and made a few more.  

More troubling is Sir Keir's choice for Labour’s foreign-affairs spokesman, Lisa Nandy. Why on earth did he give Nandy ‘foreign affairs', when the one foreign affair she’s been deeply involved in is Labour Friends of Palestine? While 'chair' (is she still or not?) she actually pledged to campaign for the Palestinians' Right of Return.

“This places her among the opponents of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. For the “Palestinians” have no such legal, moral or historical right; the so-called “right of return,” which would flood Israel with Arab immigrants, is merely a device to destroy the State of Israel.”

How she reconciles that with her support of ‘Zionism’ is a mystery, but perhaps the good residents of “my constituency" Wigan, are as obsessed with Palestine as she is. For some reason.

The Board of Deputies are a shocking lot. Like Andrew Doyle said (of lefty Remainers) "they’re not just like turkeys who voted for Christmas, they’re like turkeys who’ve plucked themselves and climbed into the oven as well."  Not to mention the stuffing.

Playing his joker

As discussed on the open thread, Lord Hall, DG of the BBC, has played the 'complaints from both sides' card in his piece for the Daily Telegraph:

Around 27m people in the UK came to the BBC website to find out about the election results. It was a reminder of the trust people place in the BBC. Yes of course we faced some criticism for our election coverage. That is to be expected as the national broadcaster. Where we can and need to improve we will. But the fact criticism came from all sides of the political divide shows to me that we were doing our job without fear or favour.

As the paper's Anita Singh notes, however:

That assessment does not chime with comments made by the BBC’s head of news and current affairs, Fran Unsworth, who said earlier this month: “I don’t necessarily subscribe to the view that if we get complaints from both sides, we are doing something right.”

She's right not to subscribe to that view.

Interesting times

The Sunday Telegraph's political editor Edward Malnick writes that "Downing Street has decided to impose an effective boycott of Radio 4's flagship news programme" - i.e. Today - "over allegations of pro-Remain bias". If enforced, that would be quite something.

His report also says that "Boris Johnson has ordered his aides to launch an urgent review into decriminalising the BBC licence fee". That would also be quite something.

Interesting times for the BBC.

Ex-cathedra pronouncements to the flock

Getting love-bombed by Charles Moore again. Can you get love-bombed behind a paywall? https://t.co/uqmC1LtmBg

— Chris Morris (@BBCChrisMorris) November 26, 2019

For those who missed Mr Moore's 'love-bombing' of the BBC's reality-checker-in-chief, here it is:

“Get Brexit done”, is the Conservatives’ principal slogan and unique selling point, so obviously it should be open to scrutiny. One should object, however, to the pretence that this is merely a factual question on which the media, rising above base politicians, can shed the clear light of truth. 

One of the minor agonies of the Brexit process since 2016 has been the existence of the BBC’s Reality Check, usually presented by Chris Morris. Rather than arguing the issue with political leaders, Morris gives ex-cathedra pronouncements on where the truth lies, which are then unquestioningly accepted by his flock of fellow-BBC staff. Funnily enough, his version of reality seems always to coincide with the view from Brussels. 

On the Today programme yesterday, Morris was asked by a deferential Mishal Husain to pronounce on whether “Get Brexit done” was misleading. He said, in essence, that it was. He complained that the slogan gave the “impression” that everything would be settled by 31 January 2020, whereas in fact the Tory “rush” for a trade agreement by December 2020 was itself unrealistic. 

Morris might well be right about the struggles ahead, but he made no allowance at all for the fact that we are dealing with political issues here, not just technical ones. When (and before) Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, BBC experts kept telling us that the EU would never reopen negotiations or offer Britain better terms than those they had given Mrs May. Yet they did, very quickly. 

Nor, in applying “reality” to the Tory manifesto yesterday, did Morris mention that Brexit is an event in law: if the new Parliament votes to approve his deal, that event of leaving the EU will indeed take place by 31 January. In that important sense, we will have got Brexit done. 

If I had the resources of the BBC (over £5 billion a year, the great bulk coming from a compulsory licence fee), I would set up a Reality Check on its own claims. It would keep several hundred reporters busy throughout the “24/7 news cycle” 365 days of the year.

Pestering the public

Following our discussion the other day about vox pops on the BBC, here's Michael Deacon of the Daily Telegraph having a pop at them too - and rather amusingly:

Earlier this year, I wrote a column about the increasing use of vox pops in TV news bulletins. During the current election campaign, however, the bulletins seem to be stuffed with even more vox pops than ever. But why do we think this is? 

Once again, we took to the streets to find out. 

“I think vox pops are brilliant,” said Tristram Fatuous, 33, a TV news producer from London. “All right, so they’re almost without exception clichéd, banal, predictable and of absolutely no value to the viewer. But on the other hand, they’re an extremely cheap and easy way to fill up lots of time on air. And in the age of 24-hour news, that’s what really counts.” 

“Vox pops are important,” said Tarquin Ludicrous, 33, a TV news producer from London. “If we didn’t have vox pops, we’d have to do things like reporting and expert analysis. That sort of stuff is terribly old-fashioned and out of date. Much better just to spend the afternoon thrusting a microphone under the noses of startled shoppers and asking them whether they think politicians should ‘just get on with it’. In fact, there’s only one thing I like better than vox pops, and that’s ringing up a 22-year-old imbecile from a Left-wing blog and a 22-year-old imbecile from a Right-wing blog, and then offering them £75 each to come into the studio and have a confected row about a subject neither of them knows the first thing about.” 

“I would always defend the use of vox pops,” said Tamara Vacuous, 33, a TV news producer from London. “Ultimately in the future the news won’t contain any news. It’ll just be a solid half-hour of market stall holders in Stoke being pestered for their views on Brexit. By 2025 we estimate that it will be impossible to buy anything from a British market stall, because every single one of them will be permanently surrounded by a BBC news crew.” 

“As far as I can see, there’s only one problem with vox pops,” said Tabitha Bumptious, 33, a TV news producer from London. “Basically: we’ve now done so many vox pops, there’s no one left to vox pop. We’re going to have to start vox popping each other. Here, you wouldn’t mind telling us what you think of Labour’s plans for a second homes tax, would you?”