A fleeing British teenager

Watching tonight's BBC One early evening news bulletin, I was struck by how it began:

The family of the British teenager who joined the Islamic State group, say she's given birth in Syria. Shamima Begum says she wants to return to the UK, after fleeing the last IS stronghold. It comes as President Trump calls on Britain and other European nations to put captured Islamic State fighters on trial.

Hmm, a "fleeing...British teenager" whose just given birth and who wants to return to the UK? 

Interesting language there, I think. 

And, of course, I'd have said "captured Islamic State terrorists" rather than "captured Islamic State fighters", but that particular BBC linguistic tic has been with us so long you almost don't clock how obsessively 'neutral' it is anymore. 

And on it went:

Good afternoon. The family of Shamima Begum, one of three British school girls who left Britain to join the Islamic State group, say they've been told that she's given birth to a boy. The 19-year-old is living in a refugee camp in northern Syria, after fleeing the last IS stronghold in the eastern part of the country. Her family has asked the British government to help bring her home. It comes as President Trump has called for the UK and other European countries to take back hundreds of members of IS, captured in Syria and Iraq, and to put them on trial. Daniel Sandford reports.

Wonder what viewers new to the story would have made of that?

Anyhow, here's a transcript of Daniel Sandford's report and his subsequent chat with newsreader Tina Daheley. I was struck by how the two featured speakers - and even President Trump! - reinforced the 'bring her home' argument, as did the following BBC-on-BBC discussion:

Daniel Sandford: This morning came news from Shamima Begum's family she's given birth to a baby son in a refugee camp in northern Syria. It adds another layer of complication to the case of the schoolgirl who joined IS and now wants to come back. Shamima Begum first came to attention after leaving her home in East London with two school friends four years ago aged just 15. She married an IS fighter in Raqqa and had remained with the group until fleeing the fighting two weeks ago. Her family are asking the government to show compassion and help them get her home. The government has said that it won't hesitate to prevent people who went to join a terrorist group returning to Britain but concedes that people like Shamima Begum, who have only one nationality, may ultimately be allowed to come back.

Jeremy Wright MP: If you are dealing with a British citizen who wants to return to this country, and not a dual citizen, so their only citizenship is British citizenship, then we are obliged at some stage at least to take them back. That doesn't mean we can't put in place the necessary security measures to monitor their activities and make sure that they are not misbehaving. 

Today, President Trump called on Britain and other European countries to take back people who'd gone to fight for IS and put them on trial. He said 800 fighters had been captured, and if they were to be released, they might permeate Europe, as he put it. Raffaello Pantucci, who has been studying violent Islamists for years, says the government will probably have to shift its position of refusing to accept responsibility for any IS fighters.

Raffaello Pantucci: The UK needs to establish some sort of a process of what to do with its nationals that are out there. I think frankly they are the UK's responsibility and some sort of resolution does need to be established, a due process they can be put through. 

IS's last toehold in Syria, Baghuz, is slowly being reduced to rubble. There is a fledgling project in the UK for handling any women and children of IS who make it from here back to the UK called the Returning Families Project. So far, it's only dealt with a handful of cases and the funding runs out next month.
Tina Daheley: Well, Daniel's here with me now. How has Shamima Begum's baby changed the situation now?
Daniel Sandford: I think in the immediate term it doesn't change the situation. The British government have been fairly clear that they think it is too risky to try and help anybody who's in a refugee camp in northern Syria at the moment and I don't think they feel there's any rush. I think if the situation deteriorates in those refugee camps, very, very, seriously, or if the women and children in those camps are somehow turfed out into the desert the pressure might build. If on the other hand Shamima Begum was to make into to a place of safety like Turkey, for example, and try to make it to the British consulate, the fact she has a very, very newborn baby might force the British government to act a little bit more quickly than they might otherwise have done.
Tina Daheley: And in the case of EU governments, how concerned will they be about Donald Trump's threats?
Daniel Sandford:  Well, Donald Trump seems to be suggesting that the Kurdish allies of the US government and US troops on the ground might actually set free the Isis fighters in captivity. I think that seems unlikely, but I think this is a sign of the pressure that America is going to start applying on the European governments to take some of the IS fighters that have come originally from their countries and are now being held in captivity because certainly the Kurds there don't want to deal with them, the Americans don't want to deal with them, and someone's going to have to handle them and put those that can be put on trial, and otherwise deal with them in a way that they're not a threat to the public. And I think this is a sign of the pressure the Americans are starting to apply rather than a real threat to set them free next week, as it were.
Tina Daheley: Daniel, thank you very much.

Hardline Watch drones on

'Hardline Watch' continues. (I know it's riveting you all). Since last Saturday, on the BBC News Channel, the only uses have been for "hardline Brexiteers", "hardline Tory Brexiteers" (repeatedly) and "hardline conservative". So the familiar pattern continues. The guilty BBC hardliners this week have been Norman Smith (a repeat offender), Tina Daheley and David Willis. 

Themes without variations

An earlier post looked at the first few episodes of podcast offshoot of the Today programme, Beyond Today, hosted by Tina Daheley and Matthew Price, and found them to be little different to the Today programme (except that, being aimed at a younger audience, Matthew Price was speaking more slowly and pretending not to know stuff, such how to pronounce the new Brazilian president's name). 

Overall, I thought that the themes - including fake news, hate speech, middle-class drug abuse and concerns about Instagram and WhatsApp - were very BBC/Guardian-type themes. 

The four subsequent episodes have focused on (1) diversity in the media (especially class), (2) #MeToo, (3) whether misogyny should be considered a hate crime....and (4) the US midterms. 

Again, lots of very BBC/Guardian-type themes there. 

The one about diversity in the media - an extended discussion between Tina D and Amol Rajan - was very informal, more a chat even, and very interesting. Tina D, in particular, considers herself working class and, like Amol Rajan, thinks there's a significant problem of under-representation of working class people like her at the BBC. Indeed, Amol argued that the reason the BBC kept failing to see things coming - Brexit, Trump, the rise of Corbyn, various elections - is because of that under-representation of working class people. And he may very well be right about that. 

So, yes, more working class people at the BBC might well help expand the BBC's mind, but it's diversity of opinion that really matters...and, as Beyond Today is proving, the BBC mindset is a very resilient and rigid thing. I doubt that many of the readers of this blog or most people (working class or otherwise) would have come up the topics the makers of Beyond Today have been coming up with as the concerns of Beyond Today seem to spring from a very particular world view. That way of thinking needs a massive amount of fresh air letting in. 

Chips and Shoulders

Tina D, reading the news this morning

Tina Daheley, the co-presenter of the youth-aimed Today spin-off to be launched tomorrow, has been talking to The Observer. Here are some quotes from the piece:

Anyone who has been paying attention knows podcasts are hugely popular with under-35s, and if you’re serious about reaching that audience, it’s the logical thing to do. For me, a big thing is class and social background. We’re supposed to be holding a mirror to society and be representing them, but when was the last time someone who didn’t go to public school or Oxbridge presented the Ten O’Clock News?  

The BBC gets a lot out of me. I should be thinking: ‘this is brilliant, I’ve got this whole area locked off, I tick all of those boxes in terms of strategy – young women, brown people, so-called C2DE demographics – but I wish there were more of me. I had to work twice as hard and be damn good at my job to develop my career. I was doing 19 jobs and working for months without a day off [to get noticed] but there should be more people who look like me. 

"There should be more people who look like me"? Hmm, you have to wonder, don't you, does she actually watch the BBC these days?

And far be it from me to suggest that chippy-sounding Tina wasn't being entirely fair about the BBC's attitude towards diversity on 'The Ten O’Clock News', but, as we know, the Corporation is actually completely obsessed with such things:

The programme's six presenters are Huw Edwards, Fiona Bruce, Sophie Raworth, Reeta Chakrabarti, Clive Myrie and Jane Hill. 

That's four women and two men. And there are two ethnic minority presenters. Plus there's a mix of English, Scots and Welsh. And of straight and gay. 

Plus its main presenter, Huw Edwards, didn't go to public school or to Oxbridge. Nor did Clive Myrie. (The BBC ladies are much posher though!)

Anyhow, reading that Observer interview suggests to me that the young have got such a treat in store when SJW Tina and gloomy Matthew Price launch their Today-based podcast tomorrow.

O to be young again!

Mr. Marr's Sunday Menu

Andrew Marr's introduction today:

So, Theresa May's best week, I guess, since she became Prime Minister, getting that first Brexit agreement. But this leaves open the biggest question of all - what kind of relationship are we going to have with the EU? What kind of country are we going to be? At last, the Cabinet are going to settle down to discuss it. About time, because, as with Labour, right now, it's clear as mud. David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, and Sir Keir Starmer, his Labour opposite number, are both here, mud-free, promising straight answers to straight questions. I'll also be talking to Ian Blackford, the SNP's Leader at Westminster, about his call this morning for Labour to join his party in a pledge to stay inside the Single Market. And I've been talking to the Hollywood screenwriter and West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin, on his first film as a director, Molly's Game, with its star Jessica Chastain. Plus reviewing the news, Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner, the broadcaster Iain Dale - he's pro-Brexit - and observing them both, Anushka Asthana, political editor of the Guardian. 

*******

A question from former UKIP leader (now an independent) Steven Woolfe:

 ...to which the answer is 'No'. The guest line up was 3 Remainers v 2 Leavers (if you don't count Anushka Asthana of the Grauniad as a Remainer. If you do then it's 4 Remainers v 2 Leavers). Time-wise, however, as far as the three big political interviews went, given that the David Davis interview was almost as long as the Ian Blackford and Sir Keir Starmer interviews combined, that imbalance looks much less unbalanced. The press review had pro-Brexit Iain Dale and anti-Brexit Gina Miller - and Anushka Asthana. So make of that what you will!

*******

Tina Daheley's left-leaning bias 

Sue's busy today, but wants to know why Tina Daheley has to sit off-centre when reading the news. Once you notice it you can't unnotice it, she says. 

Sue's right, and now I'm noticing it too. (Thanks for that, Sue!). 

*******

Here's Marr editor Rob Burley:

Of course, there's a good deal of truth to that. It's vanishingly rare to find anyone who ever accuses Andrew Marr of conducting a "soft" interview with someone they support or who accuses him of conducting a "hard" interviewee with somebody they themselves can't abide. Funny that, isn't it? That said, I think Andrew was tough on all three of his main interviewees today - even the ones I disagree with. So there! They were all excellent interviews.

I especially enjoyed the sequence of clips of politicians from both sides in the EU referendum saying that we'd be leaving the Single Market if we voted to leave the EU which was played to the SNP leader at Westminster. Ian Blackford blethered on regardless and tried a spot of whataboutery but was made to look silly by doing so. (Entirely his own fault, of course). 

In this incredible clip, Ian Blackford is shown a video of the PM, the Chancellor, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove all saying that people would be voting to leave the single market if they voted #Brexit.

Ian Blackford: ‘I don’t accept that.’ pic.twitter.com/tLX7ranhoK

— Jack Glendinning (@dunkeIdbridge) December 10, 2017

Naturally, not everyone agreed with Rob's tweet. Someone went off at an interesting tangent too: 

Rob Burley: So, here's another thing, seems to me that people's view of whether we are hard or soft on interviewees is closely-related to whether they agree or disagree with said interviewee. It's boring.
Paul Ewart: Here's the thing: journalists should be holding government ministers to account over Brexit. The opposition, is, um....the opposition. Brexit as an issue, derives almost entirely from Conservative divisions and incompetence.
Rob Burley‏: We hold both to scrutiny. It's simple.
Paul Ewart: Government should be held to account more than the opposition. It's simple: speak truth to power.
Rob Burley‏: We don't take the view that we should favour one or the other. Obviously they are in a different position but both must be examined.
Paul Ewart: It's not about favouring for goodness sake, it's about holding to account those who are actually enacting power and policy. On an issue such as Brexit, the government of the day should always, always be held to higher account than the opposition &thus more stringent interrogation. That I should need to explain this to an experienced journalist is beyond baffling.
Trumpton‏: (interrupting) All elected politicians are in a position of power - suggesting that a Labour MP should not be scrutinised is just baffling.
Rob Burley: Enough of the logic. You're in the wrong place.

I suspect you'll be able to guess where Paul Ewart comes from politically. (Clue: He's not fond of Tories and is unlikely to ever complain that the BBC gave the likes of David Davis a hard interview).

This discussion went on and on, incidentally, with Rob at one point begging the persistent Paul to block him!

That said, I'm not the only one being virtuous today. Zelo Street's Tim Fenton (very much from the same part of the political spectrum as Paul) is being just as virtuous:

@AndrewMarr9 shows with David Davis + Kier Starmer that he is an equal opportunity bringer of difficult questions #MarrShow

Rob Burley replied, "Thanks Tim - and you are not a man who is easily pleased." (He's not wrong about that either!)

And, finally in this section, Rob also received a "Top Tip" from one viewer: "If you waterboard all participants, no such accusations can be thrown at you and it is far from boring. Let's do that next week, OK?"

*******

Luvvies

Sue also wants to know why Andrew Marr asked film director Aaron Sorkin Molly Bloom about Trump's Jerusalem decision? "Could it be that  a lefty luvvie might come up with an unexpected answer?", she asked rhetorically. "I. Don't. Think. So", she replied. 

And she was right not to think so. Mr Sorkin was nothing if not predictable here:

Andrew Marr: When you're making a film, you've written presidents, you've written the Social Network and now you're bringing in the Russian Mafia. That can't not be a political statement at this moment?
Aaron Sorkin: It would have been a political statement no matter what year the film was released. As it happened, this film suddenly became more relevant than anyone expected it to be. I'll even tell you this - many of the Russian mobsters who Molly inadvertently lets into her game, she did not know that they were connected, as we say, in the US. Many of them lived in Trump Tower.
Andrew Marr: And your characters in the West Wing have this golden way of speaking which owes a lot to JFK, I guess, and that era, and the writers around there. And we now have a president who communicates by tweet. Can I put it to you that, actually, whatever you think of Donald Trump - and I suspect you're not a huge supporter - he's a very, very effective modern rhetoritician?
Aaron Sorkin: Well, effective at what? I don't think there's a grand strategy behind what he's doing, I don't think he's playing 3D chess while the rest of us are playing checkers. I think that we are seeing a guy just lob spitballs, and what he does best and what his base likes him the most for is that he's an excellent stick with which to poke their enemies in the eye.
Andrew Marr: You come from an American-Jewish heritage. Do you not at least applaud the move to Jerusalem as the capital, the American embassy going to Jerusalem? A lot of people in Israel are really, really delighted.
Aaron Sorkin: No, I am not delighted that he did that. It was absolutely unnecessary. There is no upside to it. It will very likely cause violence around the world. A lot of that violence is going to be directed toward Americans. It was an empty gesture designed to appease a very, very narrow group of supporters. Of course, Israel is applauding it, and of course, we all support Israel, but it was a reckless and stupid thing to do. 

*******

There was no musical number at the end this week, so here's some Abba:

Shampoo

Nick Robinson is miffed, they say, because the BBC is replacing him for their upcoming election coverage with young ladies, namely Steph McGovern and Tina Daheley. I suppose it’s a case of diversity gawn mad.

I have to make a couple of ad hominem comments - well I don’t have to, but I will.

Steph McGovern’s accent is…. I don’t know .… for election coverage at least - an accent too far. And as for Tina Daheley, with whom I’m familiar only because of her occasional news-reading stints on the Andrew Marr show, has found an original way of being annoying.

She seems reluctant to face the camera ‘fully frontal’, so to speak, like a proper newsreader. That is to say, her face is always tilted slightly away from the camera, so the viewer gets a good view of her hair, as in a shampoo advert. This may sound picky, but once you notice it, you can’t un-notice it. Trivial, perhaps, but there it is.

"I'm grateful to the immigrants who saved my life, but..."

Many people have commented about the pro-immigration bias of last night's Newsbeat election special, broadcast live on Radio 1 and the BBC News Channel, then re-broadcast later on BBC Two. 

The feature that most caught people's attention was Newsbeat reporter Tina Daheley's introduction, complete with its collection of youthful vox pops:

Tina Daheley: You hear plenty of talk about it....

News presenter: Immigration.
Another news presenter: Immigration.
Another news presenter: Immigration.

Tina Daheley: In our biggest ever survey of 18-24 year olds, it wasn't your top priority, but 28% of you told us that controlling immigration is important.

Vox pop 1: I think immigrants bring more to our society and culture than they take out. I think a lot of hate that immigrants get is due to ignorance.

Vox pop 2:  I think it's amazing what immigration can do culturally. Without Jamaican immigration we wouldn't even have jerk chicken here.

Vox pop 3: I support membership to the EU and believe that immigration is important to a successful economy. However, I do believe there should be limits on when immigrants can claim benefits.

Tina Daheley: But getting hold of really cold hard facts on immigration is incredibly difficult. Lots of the figures you hear are based on surveys, projections and sometimes on pure guesswork.

Vox pop 4: The media's always telling us that Britain's over-crowded and the immigrants are the ones to blame. But personally I don't think there's a problem.

Vox pop 5: I left school when I was sixteen. I went straight into the building trade. I started earning £80 a day. In 2005-2006 we had mass immigration, mainly from Eastern Europe, which was unskilled workers, upon which I moved to a different firm and all I could literally get was £40 a day and that was because of the mass immigration of unskilled labour.

Tina Daheley: So what do we actually know? Every year hundreds of thousands of people come to the UK, hundreds of thousands leave to work or study elsewhere. The difference between those numbers gives us a rough total for immigration and that number is around 300,000 every year, many from the European Union but many others from outside it.

Nigel Farage: Take immigration into Britain back to normal.

Vox pop 4 (again): When politicians talk about a normal level of immigration I just find it a bit weird. Everyone's normal level is going to be different.

Tina Daheley: There's plenty of evidence that immigration is good for the UK's economy, but there are growing claims that these numbers are just too high and it is putting a strain on things like housing, schools and the NHS.

Vox pop 6: I'm grateful to the immigrants who saved my life but I do think it's important to have a good grasp of the English language.

Tina Daheley: Many politicians say they want to bring immigration down but not many want to put a figure on how many they want to reduce it by because so many have got it dramatically wrong in the past.

David Cameron: Immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs, no buts.

Nick Clegg: Got "No ifs, no buts." Said it very firmly to the camera. "We're going to get immigration down to tens of thousands." I said, "No. you're not".

Jeremy Paxman (to David Cameron): Would you except you haven't met the promise there?

David Cameron (to Jeremy Paxman): We've not made the commitment I made. I fully accept that.

Jeremy Paxman (to David Cameron): Right.

Ed Miliband: Labour got it wrong in the past. We've listened, we've learned and we've changed.

Tina Daheley: Even UKIP now say they wouldn't put a limit or cap on immigration.

BBC interviewer (to Nigel Farage): Do you have a cap now?

Nigel Farage (to BBC interviewer): No, I...

BBC interviewer (to Nigel Farage), interrupting: So you don't have a cap. He says you do have a cap. What is it?

BBC interviewer (to Nigel Farage): I sat with him yesterday. Policies develop, they evolve, they move on.

Tina Daheley: So what do our young voters in Birmingham make of it all?

******

Yes, that was certainly biased. 

Where to begin? With the contentious assertion on Tina Daheley's part that "There's plenty of evidence that immigration is good for the UK's economy" set against what she said were "claims" from the critics of a strain on services caused by the high numbers of immigrants? 

Or, more perhaps even more damningly, with the overwhelming pro-immigration bias of the six vox pops? With one exception (the one lad among the young, female vox pops) the brief, lukewarm caveats expressed were prefaced by comments like, " I support membership to the EU and believe that immigration is important to a successful economy, however..." and "I'm grateful to the immigrants who saved my life, but...". 

Or with the framing of the clips featuring David Cameron and, twice, Nigel Farage to made them look bad - especially Nigel Farage, who was tarred by one of the vox pops with 'weirdness'?

A definite impartiality failure there, I'd said - and quite a whiff of propaganda.

'The (BBC) women journalists asking the hard questions'

Here's some of the (impartial) wit and wisdom of the BBC's female presenters/reporters, as shared with the Observer: 

Emily Maitlis, Newsnight presenter:

Are there any topics you dread coming up in interviews? I have a slight shutters-down on personal finance and pensions.

What’s your reaction to voter apathy? I think it’s appalling and if I was in charge I’d actually make it illegal not to vote. I can’t bear people saying all politicians are the same and there’s no point. That’s just being a lazy git. 

Allegra Stratton, Newsnight political editor:

Which topics interest you personally? Wages haven’t gone up since the mid-2000s. I want to know how people are going to make a living and which skills they’ll need.

Kirsty Wark, Newsnight presenter:

Which topics interest you personally? It’s a big step to decide to leave Europe. My father would be horrified at the idea after what he fought for in the Second World War.

What’s the best way to phrase a question to a politician? You want a one-two – a question that requires a second clarification. I asked Mrs Thatcher: “Do you understand why people in Scotland find you so patronising?” If the answer is yes, then why the hell are you patronising them? If it’s no, then why don’t you understand them?

What is your reaction to voter apathy, Russell Brand-style? We should involve under-18s in debates. You can marry and have a baby at 16 but not vote. What responsibility does that foster? 

Tina Daheley, Radio 1 Newsbeat presenter:

Which topics interest you personally? Subjects that aren’t really covered elsewhere – things like revenge porn, self-harm, bullying, transgender issues, trust in the police.

Are there any topics you dread coming up? I don’t think there’s anything I dread, because as journalists the job is completely unpredictable and you deal with different things all the time. But explaining complicated issues to our audience, so taxation, for example, is challenging. Why do we have to pay tax when rich people get away with paying little or no tax and politicians and companies help them do that? 

*****

I think it's fair to say that the biggest potential stooshie here, bias-wise, comes courtesy of Kirsty Wark's, "It’s a big step to decide to leave Europe. My father would be horrified at the idea after what he fought for in the Second World War." 

It's pretty safe to guess where she's coming from on the subject of the EU (not that we couldn't have guessed)...

...and her support for the lowering of the voting age to 16 (as proposed by Labour) makes her position on that issue pretty plain too.