Gossip around the BBC water fountain

 

With Kamal Ahmed (and Gavin Allen and Jo Carr) being ejected by Fran Unsworth from the BBC News board this week, the media focus has been largely on the BBC apparently breaching its own guidelines over diversity, and on the gossip. 

The Mail had the best bit of gossip from a "BBC insider":

No one working here was very surprised. Most people think he had it coming.

Kamal had gone to Tony Hall arguing that we needed this editorial director role, and Tony created it for him. But most people think it was a non-job. He and Fran did not get on.

People didn't like him. They didn't understand how he was elevated so quickly, and many didn't forgive him for that speech to a hedge fund while lots of job losses were being announced here.

If that's true about Kamal's sudden rise, Lord Hall sounds to have behaved in a very 'Lord Hall' way. 

In with the new, out with the old

So, just a few days in, Tim Davie is apparently going to:

(a) Stop BBC stars from engaging in lucrative but potentially impartiality-busting moonlighting (in the light of recent controversies over the out of office activities of Naga Munchetty, Jon Sopel, etc);

(b) Crack down on impartiality-busting activity on social media ("If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC");

(c) Reduce the one-sided political partisanship of so much BBC comedy, maybe getting rid of the worst-offending shows; 

(e) Shift the focus away from London to the whole UK ("from Cornwall to Shetland, from Suffolk to County Fermanagh");

(f) Seek "a wider spectrum of views";

(g) Try to stop hiring just 'BBC types' "from out own image";

and

(g) Have Rule, Britannia! and Land of Hope and Glory sung at The Proms after all. 

This is striking stuff. And a rebuke to the old regime that allowed things to deteriorate so badly. 

I'm liking it. Maybe he is the very model of a modern director-general. 

But...he's rightly receiving a cautious welcome. 

Most of those, however grudgingly, praising him for 'talking a good talk' are understandably waiting to see if the second part of that cliché  - the bit about 'walking the walk' - ever happens. 

He's a BBC insider, of course, and he might go native even quicker for already being 'a native'. 

Others, of course, are wondering if (and some hoping that) it's far too late anyhow.

*******

I've been reading lots of people in the papers saying nice things about Lord Hall, particularly about how nice he is. 

But the state the BBC now finds itself in is something he must bear ultimate responsibility for - including agreeing to fund over 75s' licence fees as part of a deal with the government and then welching on that deal. 

And the pandering to the 'woke' brigade in recent months (overruling his own editorial director David Jordan on at least two occasions) has been especially damaging. 

My pet theory for that is that Lord was thinking of himself and his own future as a highly-remunerated arts supremo and playing to the 'ultra-woke' arts gallery. 

It sounds as if Tim Davie forced Lord Hall into an emergency compromise at the Last Night of the Proms - having orchestral versions of Rule, Britannia! and Land of Hope and Glory rather than dropping them altogether - but now Lord Hall's gone to his next plum job at the National Gallery Mr Davie has squashed that compromise and is having them sung after all - along with Jerusalem.

The battle continues

The Battle of the BBC goes on.

Thankfully-departing BBC DG Tony Hall has once again stepped in to overrule the older, traditional BBC hands who are trying to cleave to the old Charter-bound concept of BBC impartiality by siding with the 'woke' mob on Twitter [update: and, as Charlie notes below, doubtless with the 'woke' mob within the BBC itself].

After previously vetoing their ruling against Naga Munchetty for going against BBC norms and openly venting her personal distaste for Donald Trump's 'racism' on BBC Breakfast, Lord Hall has now overruled his editorial colleagues again. 

They had originally defended a white, female BBC News Channel/Points West reporter for using the n-word in connection to a vicious racist attack on a black man on the grounds that the (black) victim's family wanted the word used in the report to highlight the racism behind the attack. They'd also noted that the report had flagged up the use of offensive language.

Regardless of that, over 18,000 people complained - after an online campaign encouraged them to - and Lord Hall evidently decided to play to the 'Twitter mob' gallery by apologising and saying they were right that the taboo word should never have been used because of the "distress" it causes - regardless, it seems, of any context. 

With Lord Hall going, what's next? Will his 'woke', Blairite protégé James Purnell keep on pushing in the same 'woke' direction, or will Tim Davie step in and restore sense?

*******

Update (10/6): There was a further twist to this tale when BBC Radio 1Xtra DJ Sideman (aka David Whitely) resigned after calling both the initial report and the BBC's defence of it "a slap in the face of our community". 

(Wonder who appointed him to speak for "his community"?).

"The BBC sanctioning the n-word being broadcast on national television by a white person is something I can't rock with," Sideman said. 

The BBC's online report about this contained an 'analysis' by the BBC's media and arts correspondent David Sillito. In it Mr Sillito said that Sideman wasn't just "echoing the views of large parts of the audience" but "also many within the BBC".

Now I'd strongly question whether Mr Whitely was truly echoing the views of "large parts of the the audience", as I suspect he was merely echoing the views of a small but extremely noisy part of the audience, but that he will have been speaking for "many within the BBC" I don't doubt at all. That's increasingly where the BBC is these days.

So the onward march of the 'woke' battalions at the BBC proceeds apace. And with the sitting DG giving them his backing, that march will doubtless go on for a while yet, leading the BBC ever further from its increasingly disgruntled, licence fee-paying core audience.

Such victories for the 'woke' BBC battalions may prove pyrrhic. If Mr Davie doesn't get a grip and their bosses' pandering alienates vast numbers of older people who pay for the BBC in favour of a younger audience that seems ever more indifferent to the BBC, then their 'progressive' hopes of using the BBC to bring about the kind of world they want to see will very probably go in up in smoke, along with the licence fee. 

What the people want

I wish Andrew Marr would level with and just say “we’re campaigning to have Dominic Cummings sacked so that we can usher in that nice Sir Keir who can forensically nit-pick his way towards reversing Brexit.” (It’s what the people want.)

Did the BBC really invite Grant Shapps onto the A.M. show to discuss transport? 

I wish Maggie Foster would do one of her ten-times-more-entertaining-than-anything-the-BBC-has-produced-for-the-last-ten-years lip-sync impressions of Andrew Marr’s warm-up before the interview with Grant Shapps

 “This morning the Sunday Mirror and the Observer reported two sightings of Dominic Cummings out and about in the North East!” 

as well as the press briefing I watched the other day, which was 100% devoted to forcing that sacking/resignation.. (It’s what the country wants) and I’d quite like to see her facial expressions while emoting Sam Coates’s ranty question.

Last night TVs all over the country literally vibrated from Sonia Sodha’s indignant screeching. (about Dominic Cummings) When Dan Hodges is the one voice of sanity, one has to …..... I don't know, what?

And by travelling hundreds of miles to be close to extended family in case he needed childcare Cummings showed disregard for the safety of healthcare workers (NB I really *didn’t* say Cummings wanted them to die as I was then accused of!) pic.twitter.com/Gu1BydKNVz

— Sonia Sodha (@soniasodha) May 23, 2020

 Oh! Look at Dan Hodges’s Twitter as people pile in with assorted *wrong* assumptions.

I think Andrew Marr and Tony Hall are terminally and irreversibly deluded. Tony Hall’s appearance alone is enough to make you wonder just what sort of a man is this? What does he look like? Contrary to popular belief, hair-dressing is not rocket science. 

Still after the youth market, Tony? I don’t think so mate.

Now for something completely different - (H/T Guest Who, B-BBC.) Jeremy Bowen has instigated a whole barrage of one-liner, virulently anti-Israel Tweets, merely by ‘remembering’ the incident that cemented his hatred for Israel.  Responses are always revealing. How the BBC sees fit to keep this individual in the influential position he’s in,  and still claim they represent ‘impartiality’ is beyond belief.

Rod Liddle has done a baffling about-turn. He thinks the BBC has had a good pandemic! Body hell! 

Does coronavirus affect people in more ways than we’re being told? 

Generous tribute

 Robin Aitken pays a generous tribute to the outgoing D.G. but concludes thusly:

"However the main item on the charge-sheet is his failure to tackle the obvious bias in the Corporation’s news output. Brexit is the issue that everyone talks about in this context but it is by no means the only one; from Trump, to climate change, to transgenderism, the BBC has nailed its colours firmly to the liberal mast. That is unfortunate when, by dint of December’s general election, it now faces a strong Tory government in a position, and possibly a mood, to settle old scores. 

For all his good points Lord Hall never showed the least interest in tackling this problem; there was no attempt to achieve any kind of political diversity among staff. Some voices, my own included, have been warning for years that unless the BBC tried harder to realise its fabled ‘impartiality’ there would one day be a reckoning. "

A difference of opinion

ITV's political editor opines, pursued by a reply:

Robert Peston: Decision on who replaces Lord Hall as bbc DG is probably as important as who becomes next Labour leader. Because given size of Boris Johnson’s majority, the task of holding the government to account will probably fall more on media than on parliamentary opposition. And also new DG will have to make powerful public case for the importance of a poll-tax funded public service broadcaster, in the face of a sceptical government. Much at stake.
Jon Holbrook: It is NOT the role of a state funded broadcaster to 'hold the government to account'.The fact that Robert Peston (a BBC luvvie) thinks it is, explains why the BBC has lost public support.

A tribute

I’m sorry Tony Hall is leaving the BBC. He’s been a steadying force & a good friend. The next few years will be pretty torrid for the BBC, & it may well not survive past 2027 in any recognisable form.

— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) January 20, 2020

Getting out

As you know, Lord Hall is leaving the BBC.

He's off to run the National Gallery - which is very nice for him.

Hopefully he'll carry on his fine work at the BBC and pursue its sacred mission - the diversity agenda - with just as much vigour there. The National Gallery is full of paintings by dead, white European males, which surely can't be allowed to continue. 

(Wonder if Ash Sarkar can paint? Tony Hall could still make her the Gallery's artist-in-residence, even if she can't). 

*******

The BBC's online report on the story is open for comments. As Bernard would have said in Yes, Minister, that's very brave. I think it's safe to say that, so far, they could be going a good deal better for the BBC. 

Here are the Top 10 comments:

1. Great, can we please have the BBC back? You know, the one that wasn't obsessed with gender politics, racism or anything snowflake, and could it return to being a dependable and unbiased organisation that produced great programming? Could we, please?
2. He has turned the BBC into a biased woke left wing organisation that does not reflect the majority view of the population. A population that is forced to pay for this and it is high time to get rid of the TV tax.
3. Hall has totally destroyed the BBC and turned it into a third rate tabloid! Should have been sacked years ago!
4. Box ticking BBC has lost its way with social engineering and biased views.
5. But he said he felt it was important the BBC had the same leader for the BBC's mid-term review in 2022 and the renewal of its charter in 2027. Who says the BBC's charter will be renewed in 2027 anyway?
6. He's getting out before the poo hits the fan.
7. I'd give it 18 months and there will be no licence fee.
8. I'm glad. Somehow over the last few years I've felt like BBC news was there to make me feel unhappy with everything, rather than informing me of national and world events.
9. Hope the new DG can crackdown a bit. BBC News (website in particular) is a biased joke, and they seem to think that the nation should do/think exactly what they want, or go swivel. It needs some serious reform. Look to how Reuters handle news: it can't ever be perfect but they try to be fair in layout and language and avoid trying to "spin" the news. 
10. I can only echo the comments of the highest rated. We don't recognise the BBC anymore. I would say under Hall's watch the company HAS proved to be divisive and bad for our country. It's all cookery shows, endless trailers, endless having minority groups rammed in your face.

*******

Although rumour has long had it that Lord Hall was grooming former Labour minister James Purnell to succeed him, pretty much everyone is predicting that his successor will actually be a woman. 

(I suppose James could always self-identify as a woman, if that helps.)

I doubt it will be Samira Ahmed. 

Should we predict who it will be? From the Guardian's list of runners and riders, I'll pick former Ofcom boss Sharon White. She'd certainly keep the diversity flag flying at the BBC.

What Meghan Wants

“The BBC has an eleven-year Charter — our mission is secure until 2027. But we also have a mid-mission is secure until 2027. But we also have a mid-term review process for the spring of 2022.

WTF? As someone pointed out, the BBC is too vast not to have appointed a proof reader - (oops nearly forgot the ‘r’ ) -  to glance through the DG’s resignation letter before it went to press. The coffers have probably been drained by Sarah Montague’s massive payout. 

Anyway, I just thought I’d mention Tony Hall’s resignation in the light of his remarkably self-deluded cloth-earedness: 

“In an era of fake news, we remain the gold standard of impartiality and truth. What the BBC is, and what it stands for, is precious for this country. We ignore that at our peril.”

Beryl the Peril.

Which brings me to Mark Thompson who has evidently gained a huge amount of personal confidence since he left the Beeb to turn the NYT into a sanctuary of lefty anti-Britishness. 

On Marr yesterday Thompson showed no sign of the stammering hesitancy of old. If it’s that good at boosting one’s ego maybe we should all join Harry and Meghan across t’pond in their new aspirational 'commoner' role. (Pity Harry when Meghan decides she wants “a brahn baby”.)

Harry and Meghan

trading as WDR

There's lots of fascinating stuff (as ever) at Bill Roger's trading as WDR blog. 

As Charlie pointed out on the open thread, Bill has caught Lord Hall in the act of spinning the ratings for BBC Sounds. By Bill's calculations, the BBC's justification for launching the service - that it would increase the number of listeners aged 16-34  - hasn't been realised. The figures have barely budged.

Another post tells us that the BBC's preferred supplier for booze is Majestic and that over the past twelve months the BBC has bought close to £25k from them. By my own calculation, the amount they spent rose by 22.6%. Wonder if, post-election, post-Brexit, this year will see a sharp drop in fizz? 😜

Meanwhile, BBC Editorial Director Kamal Ahmed is focusing on what Bill calls a "woke wheeze" called "Growing up, Learning and Identity". Ah, an even greater focus on identity politics from the BBC? How delightful!

And there's something too about our old friend 'Opinionated' Huw Edwards:

The BBC's lead anchorman Huw Edwards is back from his social media holiday, and piling in on those who have given Welsh place names new English monikers. 

Huw doesn't approve. 

There's lots more too, including a regal response to an FoI request about the disappearance of the BH piazza Christmas tree. a very W1A BBC job advertisement, and various job moves...

...plus something I meant to mention yesterday. The National Audit Office has found that of the BBC's commercial successes, only four of its forecast top 16 money-spinners date from after 2010 - i.e. the BBC is replying on stale cash cows. Bill adds something that I've not seem reported elsewhere though:

The NAO notes a load of money was lumped on a second series of His Dark Materials, way before the first could be assessed financially.

I do hope Peter Hitchens takes note. He's not keen on the BBC's pushing of Philip Pullman, which gives me a chance to post his take on it from this week's Mail on Sunday:

Flop after Flop, but Pullman's Atheism keeps the dramatisations coming

The atheist author Philip Pullman is, I suspect, more admired and bought than read. When his finger-wagging anti-Christian books are dramatised, on stage or film, they flop. Yet people still keep trying to stage them. Why? My diligent colleague James Heale has obtained for me the viewing figures for the BBC’s recent costly TV version of ‘His Dark Materials’. They started at 7.2 million in Episode 1. Then they fell almost continuously, with one hiccup at Episode 5, to a poor 4.1 million at the end. But how many of them were awake? It was quite boring. A friend who stuck it out to the end confesses that he fell asleep during the final bout.

You many remember Mr Pullman from such foam-flecked tweets as:

Of course Meghan Markle is attacked by the British press because she's black, and of course Prince Harry is right to defend her. What a foul country this is.

— Philip Pullman (@PhilipPullman) January 9, 2020

😮

Anyhow, if you're not already a fan, please take a look at Bill's very fine blog.

Reflections

Reflecting on his guest editorship of the Today programme, Charles Moore says that though he enjoyed it and found the staff "who do the basic work" charming and helpful, he can't help feeling "a little envious of the reverential treatment accorded to Greta Thunberg when she filled the same spot".

He continues to find the BBC bureaucracy "astonishing". 

He tried to get Roger Harrabin to interview two 'climate sceptics', and he tried to get Lord Hall to come on to account for "how they had got Brexit so wrong, and why they have becomes preachers for wokery", and he tried to get John Hales from BBC TVL to come on "to defend his methods of exacting the licence fee from the poor"......but, he says, "there were no takers". 

It seems as if Roger Harrabin and the BBC bosses were frit. 

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.

Who's lying? (III)

Peter Oborne hasn't given in, despite all the scepticism aimed at him. That said, I'm puzzled. Mr Oborne originally said:

I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics. 

Today he's focusing on something he heard second hand ("on excellent authority") i.e. somewhat saying that Tony Hall had said something - which is rather less impressive:

Peter Oborne: Three days ago I called the BBC press Office. I told them I had been told on excellent authority that BBC Director General Tony Hall has recently said that in no circs would the BBC call Boris Johnson (or any PM) a liar. I asked for confirmation or denial or even contextthis remark. We agreed a 5pm deadline for an answer. None came, so I pressed the BBC press office a second time the following day. When I finally received a statement from the BBC press office it made no attempt to deal with my question re Tony Hall. So I rang up the press office a third time and was told that a non-answer the only answer I was going to get. So I am asking Tony Hall over Twitter to answer the question I repeatedly put to the BBC press office over the last few days and which it has failed to answer.

Oddly, Lord Hall hasn't replied yet.

Who's lying? (I)

Veterans at war:

John Simpson: Peter Oborne wrote in The Guardian recently that senior BBC execs had told him it was wrong to expose a British prime minister‘s lies because it undermined trust in politics. In 50 years at the BBC I’ve never heard this said once. Oborne has a public duty to name these execs.

Peter Oborne: I'm not naming the people I spoke to. John Simpson should contact Tony Hall, director general of the BBC, and ask Hall's opinion about whether the BBC should expose Johnson as a liar. Rightly or wrongly (there are honourable reasons) I understand it's against BBC policy to do so.

John Simpson: If you don’t want to name the people who told you this, then you should at least give us some idea of their jobs or their seniority. And tell us how many there are of them.

Saturday Morning Light Breakfast

I

Fresh from having its ruling against Naga Munchetty squashed by the elegant shoe of Lord Hall, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has contented itself with upholding two complaints on the grounds of swearing. Mrs Whitehouse would have been delighted. 

Over the past week, two rulings have been released. The first concerned the use of the f-word during BBC One's D-Day 75: A Tribute to Heroes  in June, while the second concerned Nicky Campbell's mis-speaking of Jeremy Hunt's surname as 'C***' on Radio 5 Live in June. 

They have been fully upheld on the grounds that neither programme gave a prompt apology for the use of blue language. 

Tellingly, it's taken about three months for both complaints to crawl their way through the maze of the BBC's complaints process.

*******

II

Further to Sue's post about Lord Singh's aggrieved departure from Thought For The Day after (he claims) the BBC censored him on the grounds that some of his talks "might offend Muslims", The Right Rev Dr Gavin Ashenden, former chaplain to the Queen, has written a letter to The Times arguing that it's more than a storm in an eggcup:

It is more that the BBC has surrendered to a politically correct or progressive culture that pretends to want simply to avoid causing offence. But the actual effect is a wholesale redistribution of power and influence. This culture has no problem causing offence to Christians through an erosion of Christian culture and ethics; nor, it seems to Sikhs, if we take Lord Singh at his word. Instead it prefers the victim causes of identity politics and Islam. Lord Singh’s vital and principled intervention signals the increasing restriction of freedom of speech and thought that the privileges of our culture are predicated on.

Very true.

I see. incidentally, from the Times report that both James Purnell and Lord Hall got personally involved in batting away Lord Singh's concerns.

*******

III

Talking of the Times, the paper also reports that Newsnight's Kirsty Wark recently told a literary festival audience that she got where she is today thanks to positive discrimination by the BBC:

I joined the BBC as a graduate entry when they needed more women. I became a producer young because they needed more women in senior positions. Now I’m still on television because I’m older. I’m not quite sure it would have been the same if it were ten years earlier, but I’ve been quite privileged to have the longevity of this career.

The top-rated comment below the article rather rudely says, "Positive discrimination. That explains a lot, Kirstie [sic]."

This evenings viewing

You’ll have heard that Tony Hall has reversed the BBC’s unfortunate decision about Naga Munchetti and she has been uncensured. Will heads roll? Come back John Humphrys, that’s your speciality isn’t it?

I intended to watch Jane Corbin’s take on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, mainly because I’ve just mastered the fluent pronunciation of 'Khashoggi', with both adjacent gs (hard and soft) bound seamlessly together, which is more than most BBC announcers can manage. 

The problem was that the TV was tuned to Channel Four and I was transfixed by the post-conference interview with a portly-looking Krishnan Guru-Murphy, Rachel Sylvester, Craig Oliver and Gillian Keegan MP. 

Tory MP Gillian Keegan tells @krishgm re Johnson groping claims: ‘I've no reason not to believe him’ https://t.co/ZGhx9zfywd

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) September 30, 2019

Unsurprisingly, being Channel 4, the topic they were most excited about was Boris and thigh-gate. Who lied? If it wasn’t Charlotte Edwardes with her extra e, it must be Boris, the lying letch.

I had been reflecting on the increasing ubiquity of Rachel Sylvester as seen on TV. She’s been on loadsa political programmes recently. She’s a columnist for The Times, yet she appears to be a very priggish lefty. 

In the event, I sacrificed the first half of Khashoggi to my own morbid need to see how far Channel 4 could go with their petty, childish and spiteful Boris-bashing gossip. Gillian Keegan was the only sane person present and Guru-Murthy was almost beside himself with glee.

Looking at Rachel Sylvester’s spite-flecked eyes and listening to her squeaky voice one couldn’t help thinking that no-one’s going to be touching any of her body parts under or over any dinner-tables any time soon without written permission.

Watching Ed Balls on BBC 2 marvelling at our massive non-European fruit and veg related import and export industry was a nice change. It came across as rather pro-Brexit. Probably accidentally.

Master of all he surveys

So:

Fake news: BBC and tech firms join forces to fight disinformation https://t.co/JCobUnTryW

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) September 6, 2019

Comments most certainly could be going better under that tweet, as hordes descend to mention black pots and kettles and to accuse the BBC of being one of the biggest purveyors of fake news out there. 

The BBC Media Centre's announcement runs as follows:

A new industry collaboration to tackle dangerous misinformation was announced by the BBC and partners today. 

Major news and tech organisations will work together to protect their audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, including elections. 

Earlier this summer the BBC convened a Trusted News Summit, bringing together senior figures from major global technology firms and publishing. Recent events such as the Indian elections have highlighted the dangers of disinformation and the risks it poses to democracy, and have underlined the importance of working together around shared principles. 

The BBC’s partners who attended the summit are The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, and The Wall Street Journal. Other partners are AFP, CBC/Radio Canada, Microsoft, Reuters, and The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, and we are also consulting Twitter on areas of potential collaboration. 

Tony Hall, Director-General of the BBC and EBU President, says: “Disinformation and so-called fake news is a threat to us all. At its worst, it can present a serious threat to democracy and even to people’s lives. 

“This summit has shown a determination to take collective action to fight this problem and we have agreed some crucial steps towards this.” 

The summit agreed to work collectively, where appropriate, to agree collaborative actions on various initiatives. The group will publish details of its commitments on these areas at a later date, following consultation. Initiatives include:  

• Early Warning System: creating a system so organisations can alert each other rapidly when they discover disinformation which threatens human life or disrupts democracy during elections. The emphasis will be on moving quickly and collectively to undermine disinformation before it can take hold   
• Media Education: a joint online media education campaign to support and promote media education messages 
• Voter Information: co-operation on civic information around elections, so there is a common way to explain how and where to vote 
• Shared learning: particularly around high-profile elections

Everyone involved is committed to ensuring the collaboration is a success. That means it must work in practice as well as in theory. To ensure the approach works and is fast and responsive, we will be conducting “fire drill” tests before we roll out the agreed actions.

Incidentally, until reading this I never knew that Lord Hall also now acts as President of the European Broadcasting Union. It's a two-year job he took up in January this year. 

He's a busy man, isn't he? Not just running the BBC, but the EBU too!

The BBC and the gilet jaunes

Yesterday

Lord Hall cited the "entirely false"claim that the BBC is operating under a D-notice as far as reporting the gilets jaunes protests in France goes as his prime example of "fake news" but, nonetheless, the rumour persists.

So what actually accounts for the relative lack of coverage the French protests have received (especially in recent months when mentions of the 31-week-long protests have virtually disappeared from the BBC), despite the often astonishing levels of police violence being caught on camera there? Is it a deliberate editorial decision by the BBC? Is it evidence of bias?

Here's author of Economics Made Simple Michael Gow Tolson who tweeted this yesterday:

BBC has given more exposure to the Hong Kong demos in one week than they have the French gilet jaunes in the last 32 weeks. Tells you all about their pro EU bias.  

Several replies to him raised the D-notice rumour again, though one person offered another explanation:

As Macron has lost control then the French demos are so frequent they are boring to viewers and reader, whereas the Hong Kong situation is extremely serious for the biggest financial traders in the far east. The potential ramifications are awesome.

That's obviously true about the Hong Kong demos, but are the French demos really "boring", and is that really the reason why the BBC is barely reporting them these days?

Alas, having seen plenty of videos of police violence there, I don't think "boring" is le mot juste, and the BBC never really gave the protests the concentrated prominence given to, say, anti-Trump protests in America. So if that alternative explanation quoted above has some truth to it, it's certainly not the whole truth. 

Lord Hall says calling the BBC 'mainstream media' is "an assault on freedom of expression"

The lordly Tony Hall, Dee-Gee of the Bee-Bee-Cee, turned into Mr. Boombastic last week (as Scooby's friend Shaggy would doubtless say). 

Giving the Lord Speaker's Lecture on Wednesday last week, he told people like us to stop using the phrase "mainstream media".

Why? Because "it’s an assault on freedom of expression": 

The phrase, “mainstream media”, is now a term of abuse - used by people of all political persuasions. Traditional journalism is painted as part of the problem rather than the solution. This really worries me. 

Ultimately, it’s an assault on freedom of expression. And our duty to seek out the facts - without fear or favour - no matter how inconvenient they might prove to be. 

I think he's being complacent. Indeed, maybe Sue and myself should set up a side-blog called Is the BBC complacent? (with an especially redundant question mark).

The way traditional broadcast outlets, all mainly employing like-minded people from similar higher socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, feed in packs on so many stories in barely distinguishable ways (from Trump to Brexit), like the clique to end all cliques, makes for an unhealthily complacent echo chamber where the likes of Lord Hall can feel at ease but from which many, many people feel deeply disconnected. That clique needs a name, and 'mainstream media' does the trick beautifully

It may not be a comfortable term for the likes of Lord Hall, but by disconcerting him - and his like - it's definitely doing its job. 

And, of course, it's possible to flip his hypocrisy and claim that it's "an assault on freedom of expression" to try and stop people like us from using resonant phrases like 'mainstream media'. 

Is Lord Hall so wrapped up in his BBC comfort blanket that he just can't see any of this?

Well, tough luck Tony. The phrase 'mainstream media' is here to stay. And as they say in mainstream American movies, 'Deal with it!'. 

Dominic Lawson on Lord Hall's 'welching' on the deal

Dominic Lawson has a splendid piece in today's Sunday Times about the BBC's bad faith over the 2015 licence fee settlement. 

That settlement saw Lord Hall & Co. agree to fund the licence-fee concession for over-75s whilst "in return" the corporation "got stuff it wanted": the licence fee to be adjusted in line with inflation for five years; the ability to charge the full licence fee to those who watched BBC programmes on devices other than a TV set; and a reduction in the BBC’s obligation to fund rural broadband. 

But now Lord Hall has changed his mind, and "having pocketed the negotiating gains in the 2015 deal, the BBC is now proposing to welch on the big cost". 

The piece ends with Dominic speculating that "the youth-fixated denizens of New Broadcasting House who blame the oldsters for the Brexit vote" might have another reason for ending the over-75s - namely as "a form of collective punishment."