Jon Sopel takes umbrage after somebody is "sarcastic" at his expense

After listening to Jon Sopel on this morning's Today, Tim Montgomerie put finger to mobile phone and tweeted:

Tim Montgomerie: Could the BBC's Jon Sopel have been more gushing about Biden’s team?

That didn't go down well with Jon Sopel: 

Jon Sopel: Just woken up to this Tim. What utter crap. Have just listened back. I say they are small c conservative, technocratic, unflashy and more diverse. I use no adjective - approving or disapproving. I’m asked what stands out. I answer. Without any gush.

Tim Montgomerie: You’ve endlessly critiqued Trump (often fairly) but critical faculties have been suspended over Biden. You would have found many negative things to say if you’d been asked what stood out about Trump nominees. It’s always Democrats good-Republicans bad on the BBC.

Jon Sopel: Just not good enough Tim. I was neither complimenting nor disparaging. You asked sarcastically if I could have been more gushing. Just give me one example where I ‘gushed’. If you can’t maybe  you’d reconsider the tweet. 

Tim Montgomerie: Any half-decent report would have referred too how this was a throwback to the Obama years when Russia, China, Syria and Iran were all emboldened. Instead you gushed about how diverse it was. No apology from me.

*********

I think we can adjudicate as to who's right here: I've transcribed the section in question and I think it shows that Tim Montgomerie is absolutely spot-on in his criticisms of Jon Sopel. 

For starters, let's take Jon's claim "I use no adjective - approving or disapproving". Really? What about "very reassuring" and "incredibly smart"? 

And, yes, Jon did "gush about how diverse it was", while using contrasting adjectives about the first Trump cabinet: "white, old and wealthy". 

It's a sign of where we are that Jon Sopel could say what he said today and think it's outrageous that anyone would find it biased. What he said is biased!

Mishal Husain: What about the future Biden team, Jon? More names emerging. Who are the most striking to you, and what do they suggest about the new administration?

Jon Sopel: I suppose you'd say Tony Blinken becoming the Secretary of State. I think a lot of Europeans will find him a very reassuring figure. He's an internationalist. He's outward-looking. He supports the rights of refugees. It is a return to a normalcy of US foreign policy that has been a consistent line, if you like, since the Second World War that was broken with the Trump administration. So I think Tony Blinken is one. Jake Sullivan? I think incredibly smart, young National Security Adviser, who was a very close advisor to Hillary Clinton. And Janet Yellen, who was Chairman of the Federal Reserve, becomes the first woman to be Treasury Secretary. And I think what you're seeing in these appointments is a sort of small c conservatism. They are technocrats mainly. They are not flashy big name egos who will cause Biden trouble. It is all part of his bid that "I am here to unify the country, to get on with the job, and I want people who are capable to deliver it". In that sense you would say 'small c conservative'. But in another way you would say 'quite radical', because there is much, much more diversity. There will be the first woman who's going to be Director of National Intelligence. As I said, first woman who is going to be in charge of the Treasury department. There is going to be someone who is from a Cuban exile background to be Head of Homeland Security. And so you see a very different picture than the one that was gathered round Donald Trump's first cabinet table. which was white, old and wealthy. And I think Joe Biden is bringing in a much more diverse group. 

So what they're saying is...

 

On the same theme as the previous two posts, here's a transcript from Channel 4 News on Cathy Newman's interview with Tim Montgomerie and Ed Vaizey.

I'd only add in advance that Mr Vaizey - a former minister for culture - is out-of-date (ill-informed) as far as LBC is concerned. Nigel Farage was forced out of LBC in June.

Cathy Newman: Fair, balanced and impartial, that's the law for anyone broadcasting news and current affairs programmes in the UK. But two new channels are hoping to capitalise on what critics of the BBC have described as its "woke, wet" agenda. One is spearheaded by former Downing Street advisor Sir Robbie Gibb, the other is reportedly being mulled by Rupert Murdoch's News UK. Both insist they will be impartial. Well, to discuss I'm joined now by the former culture minister Ed Vaizey, who's talked of the BBC's "massive public support", and Tim Montgomerie, a former prime ministerial adviser who's accused the corporation of "Guardianista wokeness". And before we start, I should say in the interests of transparency, this is my main job, but every Friday I also present a show on Rupert Murdoch's Times Radio. Tim Montgomerie, it is denied that it is going to be Fox News, either of these channels, so how different is it from what we have at the moment? 

Tim Montgomerie: I hope, I don't know, I'm not part of either initiative, but what I would hope would be there would be true diversity in terms of the editorial rooms of these proposed channels. There is a lot of focus, and it is a good focus, on diversity of gender and ethnicity in BBC and I'm sure Channel 4 editorial staff conferences. But where, for example, are the Brexiteers? Where are the people who go to church? Where the people who would take the side, for example, of Israel rather than Palestine in the Middle Eastern debate? What there seems to be a lack of in the main establishment broadcasters in Britain at the moment is the sort of intellectual, philosophical diversity that I think produces programmes that really will understand where the whole country, the whole of the viewing audience, is. If it that is sort of diversity then we will get real impartiality from these channels. 

Cathy Newman: Ed Vaizey, do you agree with that? 

Ed Vaizey: Yeah, I do - up to a point. I think the comparison of these channels to Fox News is a distraction, although it helps get their news on the news as it were. I think the model is more closely aligned actually to Times Radio and to LBC. I think the people behind the channels have seen, for example, the amazing success of LBC, which is owned be Global Radio, a UK company, and is now thanks to digital radio a national station. And opinion ranges. And the key about LBC is that, on the one hand, you have Nigel Farage, who may be meat and drink to Tim, and, on the other hand, you have people like James O'Brien, who is more of my sort of politics if you like, and that way it sort of achieves impartiality, but each programme has a particular slant, and it it does attract listeners - though there is no doubt at all that these two channels are also potentially looking over their shoulder at Fox News, which is an absolute cash machine for the Murdoch empire and has been proved very lucrative for them. 

Cathy Newman: Tim Montgomerie, is opinion really needed? I mean, I accept what Ed's saying. You can be opinioniated, as long as across the board it is impartial and it balances out so you keep within the law, but is that sort of opinion style of broadcasting really needed?

Tim Montgomerie: Not necessarily. But what a broadcaster chooses to report is also a reflection I think of the diversity of who they employ. Channel 4, for example. Recently Krishnan Guru-Murthy had an interview with the head of the Metropolitan Police, and it was an interesting interview, but of all the questions were focused on questions of institutional racism. Those are legitimate questions, but when I saw the interview I thought, 'Where are the questions being asked on behalf of Londoners who are worried about violence or an inadequate police response to the violence?'...

Cathy Newman: (interrupting) Well, I mean, did that happen to be the whole...but Tim, I must interject there. The whole issue of racism is a huge story at the moment with the Black Lives Matter protests, so a legitimate line of questioning to the Metropolitan Police commissioner. 

Tim Montgomerie: It is, and I wouldn't deny that for a second. They were very legitimate questions. But a lot of Londoners would also say they're very worried about knife crime and they're very worried about other forms of crime, and those questions were not asked. And I think a different kind of person who was on a channel with a different philosophical background might sort of have said before that interview was made, 'Aren't we going to ask about these questions, which worry Londoners just as much as questions of racism?'

Cathy Newman: Without getting into a discussion about Channel 4, we have repeatedly covered issues about knife crime and repeatedly put those questions too. But Ed Vaizey, is this really just a way of bashing the BBC? Tackling the BBC? Should the BBC rather be cherished rather than chastised? 

Ed Vaizey: Well, obviously the BBC should be cherished against its detractors like Tim who seem to be obsessed with what the BBC is doing wrong. We should cherish the BBC for a number of reasons. First of all, obviously interviews are driven by the news and you quite rightly point out you can have the Metropolitan Police commissioner on when Black Lives Matter is in the news and you'll have her on when knife crime is back in the news and you'll challenge her then. But secondly, we live in an age of grotesque disinformation, particularly on the internet. We need more than ever our public service broadcasters. And I don't understand, for example, why the launch of these news channels has to be predicated on the fact that they are only good because the BBC is so terrible. That is absolute rubbish. We depend hugely on the BBC in this kind of 21st Century digital age. Around the world people look on the BBC as this extraordinary broadcaster...

Cathy Newman: (interrupting) Tim, I just want to...OK...we are running out of time...

Ed Vaizey: ...and I can't believe we are full of people just denigrating it. 

Cathy Newman: Sorry to interrupt. Just want to get Tim Montgomerie to respond to that cos...Do you think the licence fee should be scrapped? Is the BBC failing us, or is it a jewel in the crown?

Tim Montgomerie: Despite what Ed says, I actually do want the BBC to continue...

Ed Vaizey: Good!

Tim Montgomerie: ...but a poll yesterday in the Daily Mail...and by 52% to 17% the people who pay that licence fee think the BBC is too politically correct. If those people who really believe in the BBC want to save it, that problem needs to be addressed and not pretend that it doesn't exist. 

Cathy Newman: Thank you. Tim Montgomerie and Ed Vaizey, I'd love to carry on talking...

Ed Vaizey: So would I!

Cathy Newman: ...but thank you both very much. We will. Yes, thanks very much for that.

Fury

A huge Andrew Marr interviewing a tiny Jeremy Corbyn

This is the tweet that started it all:

A large spattering of people objected to the near-absence of pro-Brexit voices. 

Here's a selection of their objections:

Tim Montgomerie: Five main guests on the Marr programme in the weekend before the European elections and all five voted Remain. Well done BBC, you’ve outdone yourselves.
Martin Daubney: The weekend before the European Elections & BBC's Marr pulls out a full ticket of Remainers. Brexit not only broke politics, it's breaking our media.
Adrian Hilton: This is Marr's line-up for Sunday – the last weekend before Euro elections. You may spot a slight omission, or discern a very subtle inclination. Very subtle.
Leave.EU: Just days before the EU elections and THIS is the line up for tomorrow's Andrew Marr. BBC bias is never subtle but this as Remain as they come! A Trotskyist presenter welcomes an all-Remain panel on a public broadcaster propped up by funding from Brussels. One to miss!
Darren Grimes: Besides news review not a single guest on #Marr voted Brexit. Next week we go to polls to vote in European Elections that shouldn’t be taking place, three years on. Surely a Brexit-backing voice is relevant at this time? The BBC can barely mask its contempt for us at this point.
Guido Fawkes: In the Sunday before the Euro elections the BBC's flagship politics show plans to have representatives from all the parties apart from the one party topping the polls.

I was particularly struck by this thoughtful contribution though:

David Paxton: Not sure I’ve ever really done one of those bias BBC tweets. I’m getting fairly close to it here though. I’ll say this, I can see why Brexit types are scoffing at this. Rory Stewart, reluctantly, plugs the WA. Corbyn sort of half says he’s for the softest of Brexits but might sort of want a 2nd ref. The rest will do anything to revoke and forget. For a ‘special extended’ show it’s probably not great. Perhaps Marr wants to follow through on the Farage debate by just asking every major Remainer about their previous statements, presented in the worst light possible. But I have my doubts. They don’t choose which Tory I’m sure. The Tories do. So they’ve asked someone from each of those parties. And that tilts one way. All fairly explicable. Still though... 

Several hours later, The Andrew Marr Show's editor John Neal responded, tweeting:

1.) For those asking: it’s a European Parliamentary election and we are legally obliged to represent the parties over the election period.
2.) Labour and Conservatives are both - as in 2017 - committed to delivering Brexit in some form. The Brexit Party were on the programme last week. UKIP have appeared previously in the period. Two out of three paper reviewers this week are advocates of Brexit.

You'll note, however, that the BBC Politics tweet he attached is different to the original one - the one that sparked all the controversy. It has an extra name:

Yes, probably because of all the outrage, a second pro-Brexit paper reviewer had subsequently been invited - spiked's pro-The Brexit Party Ella Whelan - thus allowing John Neal to tweet that "Two out of three paper reviewers this week are advocates of Brexit". Before then the only pro-Brexit guest had been Sarah Vine. Hence all the complaints!

John Neal's boss, Rob Burley, then intervened (as you might expect!) to back him up and gave a reasonable explanation as to why no-one from The Brexit Party was on this week. The AM programme wanted Nigel Farage for today's show but NF preferred last week instead:

For those asking about Marr line up, see below. And just to add, Brexit Party were offered a slot this week but opted to go last week. We are, in a relatively short election period, balancing the political parties as we are required to do, as many critics of this actually know. 

In reality, we asked the Brexit Party on this week but they preferred last. We can’t dictate when people are available. 

Fair enough, surely?

What though about the politicians chosen from each party? Why not have a pro-Brexit Labour or Conservative guest instead of Jeremy Corbyn (yes, I know!) and Rory Stewart, to balance perspectives on Brexit as much as parties? 

When Andy met Rory

Well, Rob's point (which David Paxton, if hardly anyone else, pointed out) is that "critics ignore" the fact that it's the Government or Labour or whoever who "choose" who to put forward for a show during an election ("perhaps not the person you want/agree with on Brexit"). Rory Stewart was one because the Tories wanted him on and put him up for interview. Again, that sounds fair enough to me. 

Rob Burley, obviously, can't convince everyone though and things have gone on (as such things do on Twitter). Let's eavesdrop on one exchange:

Tim Montgomerie: Crap. Almost every week - in and out of election periods - Marr is stacked with Remainers. We’ve been keeping count.
Rob Burley: This is a) uncharacteristically rude and b) based on  belief that we should count where people stand as in June 2016 not today. Accordingly, Theresa May would be counted as Remain because this accords with Tim's position. So count all you like but I question your methodology.

The 'Who do you characterise as a Remainer or a Brexiter in 2019?' question is one Rob returns to repeatedly, with good reason. 

Obviously he's absolutely correct that it's not just as simple as saying that so-and-so voted Remain in 2016 so they should be counted as a Remainer now. 

As David Paxton noted, yes, Nicola Sturgeon, Chuka Umunna and Sir Vince Cable are hardline Remainers but Jeremy Corbyn's position is evasive and self-contradictory (is he a soft-Brexiter, a half-hearted Remainer, or what?) and Rory Stewart positions himself as the softest of soft Brexiters these days. dutifully fulfilling the voters' decision.  

But Tim is absolutely right to count. (I would say that, wouldn't I?). And what needs counting - especially outside election periods (which will invariably tend to skew things issue-wise) needs sharper definitions. 

I'd describe those who don't want us to remain in the Single Market or the Customs Union as a distinct, easy-to-spot group whose appearances can easily be counted. Those who want to Revoke Article 50/annul the 2016 referendum result are just as easy to spot. Narrowing down the various in-betweeners wouldn't be that difficult and counting would then be fairly easy. 

The BBC should count too and make sure that no group is under-represented.

Of course, given last week's highly controversial Nigel Farage interview from Andrew Marr, the other Big Question this week concerns the treatment of respective guests. Does that show bias? 

What lots of people have been asking basically boils down to this: Would any of today's five Remainer/Remainerish AM interviewees be given the full 'gotcha' treatment that Nigel Farage received last week? Would any of them have a barrage of old quotes flung at them (quotes presented in the worst possible light) and little else? 

Well, Andrew did bring up both Chuka and Sir Vince's past 'we must respect the voters' decision' comments and, especially with Jeremy Corbyn, he pursued a 'one shadow cabinet member said this, another shadow cabinet member said that' approach - showing consistent strategies in play. 

I am, hopefully as ever, trying to be fair here. I think Andrew Marr asked uncomfortable questions to all of his guests. (Jeremy Corbyn fared particularly badly as a result, being snippy and evasive. And the line of questioning about how useless Change UK have been didn't get convincing answers from Chuka). His programme was, again, following a script, probably in pursuit of further would-be 'gotchas'. 

But the tone and the intensity of today's five interviews were different to that Nigel Farage interview. The tone was more sober and the intensity far less fierce. 

When Andy met Chuka

Andrew could have played clip after clip after clip of Change UK people (Anna, Heidi, etc) making 'we must respect the voters' decision' remarks or quoted Chuka's infamous "trash" comments, and he could have quoted several dozen upon several dozen of Jeremy Corbyn's past comments to expose his far-left extremism and his strong inclination towards antisemitism and anti-Semites, or could have brought up terrorist Hamas's extraordinary 'thank you' to him this past week. But he didn't.

Everywhere behind these interviews lie strategies to pursue throughout the interview. 'Ask these questions. Pursue this particular angle'. Such strategies aren't inherently biased. They might just be 'the way to do it' appropriate to each interviewee. But they can easily fall prey to bias - far more easily than I think the BBC often appreciates. 

Today's The Andrew Marr Show, I think, was seriously trying to fairly challenge each interviewee. But, I also think, that some interviewees are juicier targets than others, and that much more research goes into finding 'gotchas' to discredit them than others. The Nigel Farage interview was just one long stream of would-be 'gotchas'  - some given the worst possible interpretation, others factually wrong (as we noted). 

If this post is full of shades of grey, then that's us. The BBC got some things right here and some things wrong. They made mistakes, but (stealthily) corrected one of them. They tried to give everyone the 'gotcha' treatment (in various ways), but gave Nigel Farage the most heavy-handed treatment of all, very possibly because they have deeper feelings about him.

Chirp, chirp

Another Twitter contretemps:

BBC Politics: Peoples Vote March organisers say more than a million people joined protests in central London.

Tim Montgomerie: The BBC has become Remain’s propaganda vehicle.

Chris Mason, BBC: I should arrange a lunch for you and Andrew Adonis. A table for two, a couple of cameras at a discreet distance...

Tim Montgomerie: BBC uncritically repeating organisers’ claims that a million marched today. Last time the organisers exaggerated by 450,000. 

Denis MacShane (former Labour Europe minister): Tim, BBC TV News gave equal billing to Farage and 50 anti Europeans in car park to one million of our fellow Brits expressing concern. BBC bias against EU this century is shameful.

And enter stage neither left, right, nor centre (as the BBC is, of course, wholly impartial), here's Rob:

Rob Burley, BBC: Maybe you're both wrong...

So who's right? 

Well, let's start with Denis MacShane's claim. Saturday's three main BBC One news bulletin's all led with the pro-Second Referendum march and none of them mentioned the pro-Brexit protest ("50 anti Europeans in car park") at all. So his complaint is false in regards to BBC One. And the BBC News website has also been leading with the march and placing a brief mention of the '50 anti Europeans in car park' at the back end of its long report - quite literally the back end, i.e. the final three paragraphs of a 32-paragraph report. And that doesn't even includes the eight paragraphs of pro-Second Referendum 'voices from the march'. So his claim is false about that too. 

As for Tim Montgomerie's claim, well, I must say that reading and comparing the BBC, Sky and ITV news websites earlier this evening, I thought the BBC actually put in rather more caveats that either of its broadcast rivals as far as the numbers go. And, checking out their respective main late evening news bulletins, their opening headlines ran as follows and reinforced my first impressions:

Sky: Demanding their voices be heard - As many as one million people take to the streets of London calling for a second EU referendum.
ITV: An estimated one million people marched through London today demanding a second referendum to break the political deadlock over Brexit.
BBC: A huge march in central London by protestors demanding another EU referendum. Organisers claim more than a million people took part and say it's one of the biggest protests in British history.

So I'd said Rob Burley has a point that both sides are wrong here - though Denis is much more wrong than Tim. Denis is plain wrong; Tim is wrong because the others are even worse.

Update - It continued:

Denis MacShane: Both?
Rob Burley: Yeah, you and Tim.
Denis MacShane: Ah. You are probably right.
Rob Burley liked

Very civilised.

Liked

While Andrew's agreeing, Nick's liking...and taking Adam's side (surprise, surprise). 

If you were wondering, it all kicked off after Julia Hartley-Brewer agreed with Kate Hoey MP that broadcasters shouldn't call MPs like Jacob-Rees Mogg, Bill Cash and herself 'hardline' or 'hardliners'. Sky's Adam Boulton thinks it's fine to use such terms. 

"Because why would anybody be opposed to it?"

If there's one area of BBC bias that's surely beyond question it's that the BBC has a pronounced bias in favour of social liberalism and against social conservatism. 

It has (institutionally-speaking) a progressive outlook on such matters - except, very occasionally, when they clash with the sensibilities of one particular faith group.

Tim Stanley of the Telegraph, a Catholic, noted that the BBC News website's report, Reform of 'archaic' divorce laws revealed, concerning the introduction of 'no fault' divorce, "includes no quotes from anyone opposed to it", adding that it "includes quotes from the Government, who proposed it, Labour, who wants it go quicker, and a lawyer who thinks it's a smashing idea".

Some people are agreeing with Tim, others disagreeing. Those disagreeing are all basically making the same point: "Because why should anybody be opposed to it?"...

...to which Tim is replying, "Not the point. BBC is state owned and has impartiality rules."

Another Tim, Tim Montgomerie (also a Christian), drew a broader point from this - not dissimilar to the one I was making at the start of this post, but with an added twist:

The scrupulous balancing by BBC News* of their reports according to a right/left axis completely misses eg the conservative/liberal debate. See Tim below. 

* BBC drama? Not so much.

I'm neither religious nor much of a social conservative, but the BBC undoubtedly has a major blind spot here. 

Yes, on programmes like Sunday Morning Live and The Big Questions, when they are conscious of the need to be balanced, they usually are balanced on such questions. But when reporting news stories like this I suspect it simply doesn't enter most BBC reporters minds that there might be people out there who don't approve of the socially liberal measure being proposed or introduced. 

And, so, I bet whoever wrote that piece about divorce law reform never gave a moment's thought to people who might oppose the reforms. "Because why would anybody be opposed to it?"

Mishal Husain defends the Muslim Council of Britain against Sajid Javid

Tim Montgomerie has it right here:

Play for the Day: 'A Difference of Opinion'

Act One

Enter Media Guido and Rob Burley of the BBC, through different doors.

Media Guido: The probability of six guests selected at random all being remain supporters is 0.03125 - amazingly Peston has managed it.
Rob Burley: It’s not June 2016. Ex- Remainers are members of a Brexit delivering government and a Brexit supporting Labour Party. This measure is silly.
Media Guido: Brexit is still the main subject of discussion in politics, this is a political discussion show with six guests, none of whom campaigned for Brexit. You think drawing attention to that is silly. No further questions m'lud.
Rob Burley: I think the measure is wilfully designed to distort. Parking a specific programme I have no involvement with, I suggest we stop measuring as if it’s June 23rd 2016. It’s just not.

Trap door opens. Stephen Colvin rises, delivers heckle and descends again.

Stephen Colvin: (to Rob Burley) You are an embarrassment. The discussion is very much alive and it is up to so called impartial broadcasters to demonstrate it. 

Trap door closes. Exit Media Guido. Enter BBC Waste, stage right.

BBC Waste: Brexit still prism through which everything seen & decisions taken (govt policy shaped by opinions of those for or against within cabinet). Naive to think those who publicly back don't privately what to demur or seek to modify. Silly of BBC to ignore. Measure entirely appropriate.
Rob Burley: Disagree. Nuances of these issues reflected in the coverage but to base balance on position of guests pre-referendum is neither desirable or practical.
BBC Waste: Further difficulty with this position is this is the position BBC (rightly) adopts for aportioning airtime to political parties. But now not referendum views?
Rob Burley: We did in, yes, the referendum.
BBC Waste: Do love a robust courteous debate. Yes. Those attacking the BBC should also acknowledge the impossible task they have to balance. Good for Peston/ITV and others to be mindful of optics though. Looks bad. And very easy to  criticise.

Exit BBC Waste, stage right pursued by a 'Like' from Rob Burley. Enter Andy #FBPE, stage left.

Andy #FBPE: Therein lies the problem with the BBC...they think it was all over in 2016 and choose to ignore  both reality and the ongoing debate.
Rob Burley: That’s precisely the opposite of the point.

Exeunt omnes. Enter Tim Montgomerie. Turns to face audience. 

Tim Montgomerie: It’s not silly. BBC way of measuring balance classifies likes of Amber Rudd, Damian Green and Keir Starmer as pro-Brexit and that’s well short of giving the 52% the representation they deserve.

Curtain falls.

Will there be an Act Two?

Groundhog Post

I really didn't want to post this post, as I feel as completely exhausted by all of this kind of absolute drivel as the BBC's Rob Burley must surely feel about it...

...but...

This week's line-up for The Andrew Marr Show consists of Penny Mordaunt MP, Andrew Gwynne MP, Henry Bolton, Anna Soubry MP, Chuka Umunna MP, Ayesha Hazarika, Julia Hartley Brewer and The Spitfires. 

That's a decent balance of guests, isn't it?

For those happy few of us who are really interested in politics, there's somebody for almost everyone here.

Corbynistas ought to be happy. So should pro-Brexit Tories. And anti-Brexit Tories. And pro-EU Blairites. And UKIP supporters. And fans of The Spitfires.

Even on Brexit, the balance works out well, and everyone's a winner.

Hmm. A reasonable person would surely think so...

...but...

'Over And Over Again' is the title of The Spitfires's most high-profile song (and very likeable it is too), and the phrase 'Over And Over Again' - or 'Groundhog Weekend' - sprung to my mind when reading the usual onslaught of tweets to The Andrew Marr Show's editor Rob Burley, and I bet you can guess what's been happening today, Twitter-wise... 

Yes, rampaging hordes of politically-engaged people have been complaining, sourly, about BBC bias simply because The Andrew Marr Show has had the temerity to invite on someone they don't like.

UKIP's Henry Bolton, Julia Hartley Brewer and Anna Soubry seem to be especially objectionable to the Twitterati (especially the latter pair of female political opposites on the Brexit issue).

UKIP, Julia HB and Anna Soubry are all on the BBC far too much, apparently, and they jolly well shouldn't be!

Rob tweeted:

I agree with Rob (which probably won't help him)...

...but...

...earlier came a sarcastic tweet from Tim Montgomerie about a different BBC programme...

...which draw a response from Anushka Asthana, the Guardian journalist presenting that programme this week.

An interesting exchange ensued:

Anushka Asthana: It’s about the Week in Westminster in a week that Anna Soubry has made news, and her interview came after an interview with strong Brexit supporter Anne Marie Trevalyan.

Tim Montgomerie: There's always a good reason for individual appearances but the multitude of slots...? So lazy and rewarding of her extravagant, made-for-Milbank remarks.

Anushka Asthana: People who are outspoken tend to get aired a lot. I’m pretty sure I quote Jacob Rees Mogg as much as Anna S, if not more, and we’re the Guardian. BBC will be actually counting to make sure balance.

Tim Montgomerie: That's your justification?! JRM is a SLIGHTLY bigger deal than AS. He leads the @ConHome grassroots poll for next leader. Soubry might even struggle to get her papers signed by a couple of colleagues and (twice) couldn't get elected to the Brexit select ctte.

Anushka Asthana: If anything the news amplification of Tory MP voices (I appreciate this may not be same for membership) is disproportionately in favour of those wanting hardest break.

Tim Montgomerie: That is also true but doesn't excuse us having to endlessly hear her insisting she respects the ref outcome while dissing it in her every action. ENDS! 

Wasn't Tim Montgomerie falling foul of Rob's Golden Rule, 'So, here's the thing, people you don't agree with will sometimes be on TV', here?

Well, even if he was (and he probably was), he certainly wasn't wrong about Anna Soubry being on the BBC an awful lot, including over the past week.

After her appearance on Monday's Newsnight, she was on Victoria Derbyshire on Tuesday and This Week on Thursday, as well as today's The Week in Westminster. (Yes, I've done my homework).

And, via Rob Burley's Twitter feed, I subsequently spotted something that probably wouldn't go down too well with Montie either. Yes, as mentioned earlier, the (in)famous Anna will be on The Andrew Marr Show tomorrow too:

Is she on because she's made the news this week (with Newsnight's help), or because she's outspoken and outspoken people tend to get aired a lot? And, if the latter, is that lazy journalism which amplifies a marginal voice disproportionately and distorts the news? Or is it good journalism that grabs a news-leading maverick and makes the most of her?

I really don't know what I think about this, so if you can help in the comments below please do.

Incidentally, as regular readers will know, Anushka isn't correct about the BBC "actually counting to make sure balance". (In)Famously, the BBC publicly disapproves of "bean counting" as a way of monitoring bias.


Update: Fresh in -

In Praise of Baron Bragg

As it's New Year's Eve, here's a tweet from Tim Montgomerie:

Though I wouldn't agree that it's "on its own, just about worth the licence fee" (that would be going way too far), but it is "unparalleled in its consistent excellence" (and forget the 'almost'!). Plus Baron Bragg of Wigton FRS, FBA, FRSA, FRSL, FRTS is incomparable as its guiding light.

So well done Melvyn, and please keep up the good work in 2018!

P.S. Here's an ITBB exclusive. Lord Bragg's name actually came first on this year's Honours List - at least according to the Government's official NY18 Queens List page. 

And, ITBB 'has learned' (from reading the same government website) that he shares his Order of the Companion of Honour will just one other person this New Year: Lady Antonia Fraser (of history, champagne socialism and Harold Pinter fame). 

Is it Maoist to complain about BBC bias?

Back in April, I looked into a tweet by Tim Montgomerie that asked "Are all presenters of Radio 4's Week in Westminster Remainers?" and found that, though they weren't all Remainers, Tim did have a point about the balance of Remainers and Leavers. 

Out of the 26 episodes between the EU referendum and then only 2 episodes had been fronted by an open Leave supporter (Peter Oborne) while 14 episodes had been fronted by open Remain supporters. 

Tim has returned to the fray today with another such tweet: 

Well, the regular presenters when I last looked in April were: Steve Richards, George Parker (FT), Tom Newton Dunn (Sun), Helen Lewis (New Statesman), Peter Oborne (Daily Mail), Anushka Asthana (Guardian), Isabel Hardman (Spectator) and Jim Waterson (Buzzfeed). Since then there's also been Anne McElvoy (Economist), Paul Waugh (HuffPost) and Sam Coates (Times). 

Tim remains wrong about "not one of them" backing Brexit, given that Peter Oborne is still a regular presenter, but the overall balance - especially with the likes of Steve Richards, Tom Newton Dunn, Helen Lewis and Anne McElvoy being on - remains very heavily pro-Remain and he still has a point....though making it is, apparently, "Maoist":

Tim Montgomerie: Nine (I think) regular presenters of BBC Radio 4’s #WeekinWestminster. Not one of them back Brexit. At least five are Remainers.
Nick Cohen: Tory Maoism (cont).
Tim Montgomerie: Poor Nick. Can’t tell the difference between a Brexiteer wanting balance on a publicly funding broadcaster and a communist tyrant of an undemocratic superstate who killed millions.

I've never thought of myself as a Maoist before just for complaining about BBC bias. That said, I'm off out in a few minutes (despite the wintry showers) to advance courageously under the guidance of the red flag of Mao Zedong thought, and do a bit of shopping.

(P.S. If any of the 70% of 16-24 year olds who Survation found had never heard of Mao are passing by, please write to your present or former schools and complain!). 

"Are all presenters of Radio 4's Week in Westminster Remainers?"

Here's a BBC bias-related question posed on Twitter today by Tim Montgomerie:

Well, going back through the Week at Westminster archive shows the following as having been presenters since the EU referendum last June: 

Steve Richards (7 editions)

George Parker, FT (6 editions)

Tom Newton Dunn, Sun (4 editions)

Helen Lewis, New Statesman (3 editions)

Peter Oborne, Daily Mail (2 editions)

Anushka Asthana, Guardian (2 editions)

Isabel Hardman, Spectator (1 edition)

Jim Waterson, Buzzfeed (1 edition)

Now, several of those TWAW presenters were undoubtedly staunchly pro-Remain - namely Steve Richards, Tom Newton Dunn and Helen Lewis. 

Four of the others are harder to place with total certainty. [Please fill in the gaps if you can though]. I'm assuming with some confidence however, rightly or wrongly, that George Parker, Anushka Asthana and Jim Waterson were Remainers while Isabel Hardman was probably pro-Leave. 

The only staunchly pro-Leave Week In Westminster presenter, therefore, has been Peter Oborne - and he's only presented two editions since the referendum, thus giving the programme as a whole a very pronounced pro-Remain slant, presenter-wise. 

From that then, I'd say that Tim has a point.

Elor Azaria Guilty and other Israel-related controversies.

Please excuse recent dereliction of duty blogwise (due to obligatory seasonal spike in Domestic Goddessness)

Shame, just when so much has been happening, too. 

John Kerry’s rambling speech rationalising Barack Obama’s vengeful decision not to veto a UNSC resolution that was so badly constructed that it shunted the prospect of peace even further into oblivion. 

Then our own government shamefully emerging as co-architect of that very resolution, the one John Kerry was attempting to defend, making both Theresa May’s pro-Israel speech at CFI and her public denunciation of John Kerry’s look expedient and insincere.

The fact is, the Government, the BBC and the man in the street do actually believe settlements are the obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

********

All day yesterday the media were reporting the latest news about Elor Azaria the young IDF medic who had just been convicted of manslaughter by an Israeli court in a case quite similar to the one concerning Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman, described here.

I understand most popular opinion in the UK is with the soldier whose ‘battle fatigue’ defence struck a chord with the public, if not with conventional military due process. 

In both cases there is an element of the show-trial, where any perceived leniency could tarnish the reputations of the respective armed forces - although in the eyes of the BBC-educated British public the IDF’s reputation comes pre-tarnished - that is despite Col. Richard Kemp’s constant attempts to convince hordes of people who don’t want to hear it that Israel’s army is the most moral in the world.

Owen Bennett Jones said: “… Almost certainly the case, isn’t it, if it hadn’t been filmed, this [prosecution] would never have happened?” (H/T Happy Goldfish) Which is probably quite true of many parallel incidents and not necessarily confined to the I/P conflict. 

This piece in Haaretz is informative  and several other Israeli press reports from varying perspectives are linked by Honest Reporting here.  The  btl comments fields are illuminating.

Yolande Knell was on the BBC a lot yesterday, and, to be honest, despite her sour-faced delivery, her reporting wasn’t as unfair as it initially looked.  At first I thought she was far too keen to stress that the verdict “has divided Israeli society”, but I see she is by no means alone in remarking on that. What did jar, though, was her statement that some Israelis are calling Azaria a hero, which seemed to me an acute case of projection, for in Yolande’s ‘Arab World’, referring to any killer of an Israeli as “a hero” is de rigueur. 

Later though, I imagine as context, Knell presented a short clip of a young Israeli woman explaining that she did indeed regard Azaria as a hero. I took it as a generalised comment, which could be applied to all soldiers whose duty it was to put their lives on the line to confront murderous terrorists, rather than an endorsement of one specific act of manslaughter; but if I suspect Yolande Knell of cherry-picking that particular nugget for its apparent Palestinian-like qualities simply to inject false moral equivalence, I too may be projecting.

Like those vexatious, aggressive lawfare attacks that have been in the news lately, these public military trials will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on any or all soldiers. We mustn’t confuse peacetime criminality with acts necessitated by states of war.  

Here’s a piece about global media coverage. 

Whenever the BBC wheels Ken Livingstone in to express himself on any random matter my first instinct is one of extreme irritation that he has been given a platform (is he or is he not still suspended from the Labour Party?) but then I have to remind myself that there are certain people who feel sore affronted by the very appearance of Mark Regev on TV, even if, unlike Ken, his opinion is relevant to the matter in hand.

So when I heard Mustafa Barghouti opining to Tim Franks on BBC World Service, Newshour, I had to check to determine whether my instantaneous revulsion at hearing from him on the BBC was justified. In Barghouti World, the wounded Palestinian’s actual knife-attack had been completely air-brushed out of the equation, along with all the Palestine-shaped, blood-soaked-knife images that emanate from the PA. And Tim Franks, ever deferential, hardly batted an eyelid.

The thread on Harry’s Place airs some of the issues more thoroughly. For once Marc Goldberg sets out the case with extreme brevity and lets the btl department take care of all the nuance.  Bit of a shame that the comments are automatically deleted after a short time. 

******

The biggest impediment to a deeper understanding of the Israel situation is the widespread lack of knowledge. Tim Montgomerie of all people had written a surprising (to me) piece in the Tims (£) and the btl comments were a mixed bag, though, again surprising to me, mostly supportive. 

"Israeli settlements are not the real barrier to peace"

“When you are surrounded by people who want you dead, Israelis can’t be blamed for not rushing to repeat what happened after their 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. Vacated settlements became launchpads for missile attacks. I’ve visited the bomb shelters that Israeli schoolchildren scurry to when alarms sound.What those who deserted Israel at the UN miss, including Barack Obama and Theresa May, is that today’s Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be understood within the context of the radicalisation of the region. Israel is in the front line against radical Islam and, in the words of the author Sam Harris: “We are all living in Israel, it’s just some of us haven’t realised it yet.” 

And here is a history lesson from Melanie Phillips. Whatever you might think of her politics, she knows her history. (please excuse video trespassing on sidebar)