The BBC Academy College of Journalism has updated its guide on reporting matters related to Israel and the Palestinians.
As soon as I opened the page the following passage leapt out because its guidelines are being flouted, day in, day out; flouted with such frequency that one may be surprised to learn that such guidelines exist. Producers, scriptwriters and commissioning editors must be unaware of them too.
‘Middle East expert’ Some ‘experts’ may have a history of sympathising with one cause or another, even if they have no overt affiliation. It is preferable, where time and space allow, to provide a lengthier indication of the contributor’s views on past issues so that the audience might calibrate his or her statements for themselves.In all reporting we should avoid generalisations, bland descriptions and loose phrases which in fact tell us little about a contributor or event. The phrase ‘Middle East expert’ implies the BBC thinks this person's views have weight and independence. If we can defend that judgement - that's fine. If not it may be better to avoid the phrase.Overall, we should seek a precise description - for example, what job does this person hold? Who employs them? Where do they stand in the debate?
Has the BBC been following those guidelines? They say Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse), so an unequivocal mission statement like the above, dedicated to transparency and clarity, is tantamount to a confession. Each time extremists such as Abdel Bari Atwan or Ghada Karmi are introduced as ‘experts on the Middle East’, perhaps with “editor of Al Quds” or “research fellow at Exeter University’ innocently tagged on, the BBC is guilty of opacity and bias by omission. Anyone who didn’t know any better would get he impression that they are impartial. All that’s missing is the epithet *innocent face*.
But this particular BBC failing applies across the board. It’s not limited to matters M.E. BBC folk are complacent and content with their own political biases and, cue annoying advert, ‘they don’t even know it.’ Take, for example the ubiquitous adjective “right-wing” as applied to “think-tank”, or “far-right” applied to anything or anyone opposed to Islam. Left-leaning is the BBC’s meridian, and that’s that.
It makes the following sentence even more nonsensical on oh so many levels.
“Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements.”
“I think it is reasonable to see some of the actions associated with anti-Muslim bigots as ‘terrorist’, though these are not at the worst end of the spectrum generally,”
Now we’re into semantics, I think she should start a thread to define ‘Bigot” too.
The BBC’s policy is never to use the word ‘terror’ unless it’s a quote. I’m not sure if this is because of difficulty with the precise definition - does it apply to any violent act in the name of a war or cause, perpetrated by an unofficial, (i.e. illegitimate ) soldier/political activist? Or even a threat or incitement - nobody seems to know.
But in any case the big deal they’ve made out of using a euphemism in order to avoid making a value judgement does little more than draw attention to the fact that they ARE making a value judgement. Each time they call an obvious terrorist a militant it’s the biggest display of a value judgement one could ever hope to encounter.
What they fail to recognise is the obvious fact that the whole of the BBC’s output is a kind of value judgement. It’s the selection of certain matters that are deemed newsworthy, and by the same token, those that ain’t.
The result of the BBC’s failure to report vital information was demonstrated on Thursday. Melanie Phillips created a minor furore when she attempted to enlighten the Question Time audience about the religious mania that motivates the Iranian Ayatollahs, viz the coming of the Mahdi, which first necessitates an apocalypse (to befall upon us, predicted to occur in 2022 if I’m not mistaken)
How far-fetched is that? Well, it is far-fetched, and that’s precisely why she was telling them it’s useless to think one can negotiate rationally with Iran. Hoping that Iran’s secular movement will somehow seize power seems almost as far-fetched.
But the BBC QT audience knows nothing about matters concerning the Mahdi, the apocalypse or the aspirations of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Hosseini Khamenei, because the BBC deems that kind of thing less newsworthy than, say the triumph of a Palestinian ‘Cinderella‘ winning Arab Idol.
Because the whole Twelfth Imam business is one of those ‘you couldn’t make it up‘ scenarios, the baying - nay, braying mob booed Melanie Phillips for saying what she said. With the aid of the BBC they are convinced that the reasonable thing to do is to ‘reach out’ to Iran with the open fist of friendship, otherwise known as capitulation.
The BBC audience is led to believe that the religious Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas, Hezbollah and other fundamentalist Islamist organisations are ‘just like us’ because people like Yolande Knell are oddly unimaginative. Despite being sent to far-flung regions as professional reporters, they remain inherently parochial. I think it must be something to do with belonging to the BBC ‘family’. Like in the Peggy Mitchell Eastenders of long ago. It’s Fambley.
Melanie Phillips’s exasperated outburst became a bit of an internet sensation. She accused the British public of being ignorant and imbecilic for pooh-poohing her suggestion that Iran needed to be neutralized. Since she was on the BBC, she stopped short of directly attributing the audience’s ignorance and imbecility to the BBC’s failure to disseminate the facts surrounding Iranian irrationality.
People are strangely passionate over matters about which they know next to nothing. They don’t even know they don’t know, however, simply because they think it’s possible to learn all there is to know by listening to bits of news on the BBC.
I stumbled upon one blogger’s critique of that episode of Question Time. The blogger is “a guy in his early 30′s(sic) who’s trying to make a go of this whole writing business.” (Keep trying.)
I might as well give him a link because no-one is going to be swayed by someone who addresses his readership as lemmings.
“HOW TRIVIAL OF YOU! HOW IGNORANT OF YOU!” was her [Melanie Phillips’s] next line and with it went any hope that the show might remain tenuously anchored in reality. “
opines early 30s guy, with a swagger.
“ part of me is quite pleased to see that Mel’s back and as unhinged as ever”
he says later. This Mad Mel mantra is a poor excuse of an argument. I’m waiting for one person to justify it. Even the heckler who shouted “Paranoia” was unable to flesh out his argument.
One thing 30s guy got right is that Question Time is terminally compromised by the frantic drive to make sparks fly by choosing an outspoken panel. That now takes precedence over inviting guests whose presence would increase the likelihood of a productive debate.
The mischievous decision to invite Russell Brand onto the panel proved more of a damp squib than a sparky controversy. Few people could be arsed to react, even though he was supposed to be in disgrace and expunged from the BBC’s speed dial. Whose idea was it? Who cares; it was stupid.
“The crux of the problem with Question Time is its tendency to invite modish comedians or generally thick TV folk on the show, to answer questions with populist twaddle. This is designed to placate a loud yet clearly unthinking audience, who frequently hold such absurd positions with unbelievable self certainty that they are reminiscent of flat earthers.”
Yup. I’m with him. Why does Russell Brand sound like Ali G with a smattering of Bluebottle?
“Drug addics should be trea’ed in a compassioni’ and empafa’ic - empafe’ic way.”
Indeed. What time is it Eccles? Question Time, my good fellow. I got it writted down on a bit of paper. Oh.
The Guardian(backed by Channel 4's Dispatches - a programme which puts the BBC's clapped-out Panorama to shame) has scored yet another scoop with its explosive story of alleged police misbehaviour vis-à-vis the family and friends of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.
An undercover police officer has told the paper that he was part of a spying and smearing campaign against the Lawrence family and against Stephen's friend Duwayne Brooks. If true, this would be a truly extraordinary case of shameful wrongdoing by the British police which ought to take everyone's breath away. We're a democracy with a police force that's meant to be on the side of right after all.
If the Guardian's whistle-blower is truly telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then the Guardian reporters behind this story (Paul Lewis and Rob Evans) have vindicated British investigative journalism and deserve an award. No amount of whataboutery could possibly excuse such police behaviour.
The story, understandably, has dominated the news headlines today - on Sky, ITV, the BBC, and many of the newspapers (the Mail and Telegraph included). They all know a scoop when they see it. I can't see how anyone could reasonably criticise any of them for making such a big deal of the story today.
Some of you may be fed up about hearing about Stephen Lawrence and his family and may ask 'whatabout?' other murder victims whose stories are covered far, far less than that of Stephen but, surely, even you must be concerned by the suggestion that the British police deliberately set out to smear a murdered teenager's family and friends. It would constitute a clear case of corruption.
Time will tell where this story leads. The Met commissioner at the time, Sir Paul Condon, is denying all knowledge of a smear campaign tonight. The current Met commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, says "If these allegations are true, it's a disgrace, and the Metropolitan Police Service will apologise. Smearing the family of a murder victim would never be acceptable to me or my officers."
I've only just got round to watching this week's Dateline London, with Gavin Esler. (I've been on holiday, hunting haggis and listening to mutually-contradictory legends about Rob Roy MacGregor in Scotland.)
Things have proceeded as usual, such as Topic 1 - Afghanistan - seeing token right-winger Janet Daley of The Sunday Telegraph denouncing the bizarreness of the Obama administration's policy on Afghanistan ("I'm a president, get me out of here!") and finding BBC presenter Gavin Esler immediately (reflex-ly?) turning to left-wing Arab writer Mustapha Karkouti and asking "I don't know how much of you buy [i.e. I don't agree with that] but, Mustapha, presumably it's worth talking to the Taleban, it's always been worth talking to the Taleban, and perhaps we'd have lost a lot of lives and treasure and so on if that had been engaged properly earlier" - which is as clear a crystallisation of what I've long thought to be the BBC's 'line' on Afghanistan as can be imagined. "Certainly, no doubt about that", replied Mr Karkouti, agreeing wholeheartedly with the BBC's Gavin Esler (as I would expect). "Talking to the Taleban would save lives, no doubt about that", he said. Count that then as yet another example of a BBC presenter being in synch with the sort of people I'm not in synch with. Being an old-style lefty Mustapha said the Qataris are 100% in agreement with the Americans. "Hmm", said Gavin of the BBC, as if it were true. The next guest, Catherine Mayer of Time (she of the infantalising haircut, as Sue once put it), said we should stop thinking of the Taleban as a single body and that what we're seeing is the emergence of one particular brand of the Taleban. She agreed with Janet that giving a date for withdrawal (i.e. by President Obama) was a mistake but she said there's been a violent pendulum of indecision going back and forth for ages, resulting in the disaster of Iraq and now becoming ever more febrile. Our terms of intervention, she said, remain undefined. Gavin chipped in a doubt about whether inventions are sellable in the U.S. now. The French left-winger Mark Roche, Dateline's most starry-eyed Europhile, then proved (again) his independence from the present British left-wing 'right-think' by extolling the virtues of the West's intervention in Afghanistan, and denouncing the Taleban as being the voice of "the Middle Ages". Catherine said, with Gavin's open backing, that you should make peace with your enemies not your friends. Talking to the Taleban is, therefore, good.
By Dateline's standards that was an unusually balanced discussion. Impartial BBC presenter Gavin's 'Talk to the Taleban' angle, however, was not hard to miss.
What of Edward Snowden, the leaker of America and Britain's intelligence secrets? 'A hero or a villain?', asked Gavin, oh-so-impartially. Catherine Mayer (above) talked of ambiguities, and was ambiguous herself. Marc Roche said it's essential that we have people like Mr Snowden. Janet Daley dismissed the question and and raised the issue of freedom v totalitarianism, saying it's shocking what Mr Snowden has revealed about what's going on, therefore (essentially) agreeing with M. Roche. Mustapha Karkouti, began by taking a somewhat different tack, saying we need to know what's going on, but later reverted to Marc and Janet's position that we do need to be involved in the work of the intelligence agencies more. Gavin intervened, to Janet's approval, to say there is no privacy. French left-winger Marc Roche then attacked French right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy for spying on Le Monde (ooh, that's his paper, don'tcha know). Catherine confessed to her earlier incoherence and affirmed that whistle-blowers are brave people. Gavin backed her up on that, saying he must have known what was coming but went ahead and did it anyway. Catherine agreed with Janet and Gavin that lots of unjustifiable land-grabs have been made by the security agencies and that there's not been a proper debate about what they ought to do. Gavin kept it up, asking Janet to agree that the various agencies are nudge-nudge-wink-winking to each other. Janet agreed. Marc Roche said the security agencies are over-staffed and need supervision themselves. Methinks I can guess where Gavin's sympathies lie (with Mr Snowden). I'm not sure where mine lie. The discussion here was pretty consensual, and clearly on Mr Snowden's side - though I suspect Janet's unexpected involvement in this BBC-corralled consensus might have quite a lot to do with her strong dislike of Barack Obama.
The final discussion concerned those bankers...yes, yet another discussion of bankers this week on the BBC (Broadcasting House raised very similar questions yesterday and PM had aired the issue last week. I've only listened to a very few BBC programmes but, Sunday excepted, that's a clean sweep of programmes discussing an issue that doesn't seem to be that topical). Fascinatingly -and going completely against my expectations - Marc Roche wanted the banks broken up but said that most bankers do a good job. Gavin Esler said "it [the government's new plan] does smack a bit of a show trial" against bankers. Catherine Mayer expressed "absolute contempt" for banker-bashers and banker-bashing. Janet Daley blamed Democratic politicians in the U.S. rather than bankers. Wow, a defence of bankers on the BBC!! Who would have expected that?!? Ah, thank goodness for traditional lefty Mustapha Karkouti for then restoring the natural order of things and saying that bankers control politicians and giving them a right good bashing. Then Catherine, to Marc's approval, said that getting more women into banking would help. Ah yes, phew, we're back on true BBC territory now! Marc wanted more "minorities" involved too. Break up the banks, Marc said in conclusion. Aaahh, and relax - suddenly, the world makes sense again!
Last night's Down The Line (BBC Radio 4, 7.15) was an absolute treat. The subject of the phone-in, hosted as ever by the award-winning Gary Bellamy, was the UK's Olympics legacy. Here's a sample of the discussion:
Lord Declan: My main point is that since the Olympics the whole country has been enthused. Now there are young lads in the east end of London and the inner city parts of Birmingham, stout Geordie chaps, and they want to be out rowing and sailing and doing equestrianism and all that. And it's up to me to enable them to do that, to really bring dressage into the inner city ghettos.
Gary: Yes, it's a very expensive sport, isn't it, you know? How do you get horses into schools, for example?
Lord Declan: In the lasagne.
********
Caller: It's Sadiq from Bradford.
Gary: Hello Sadiq.
Sadiq: You know this thing about the Olympics, right, it's un-Islamic man, you gotta ban it. You know, swimming, volleyball, gymnastics, even archery because sometimes, bro, you can see their armpits and all that, doyouknowwhatimean. All that exposing the flesh. It's very un-Islamic. The Saudis are right, doyouknowwhatimean. Just ban it.
Gary: What if they did all these sports covered up?
Sadiq: All I'm getting is funny thoughts, doyouknowwhatimean, about Jessica Ennis and all that, Rebecca Addlington's thighs, doyouknowwhatimean.
Gary: Yeah.
Sadiq: When I go to watch beach volleyball I don't want to see all these naked bums and stuff, doyouknowwhatimean. You want to see a proper game.
Gary: Then don't watch it!
Sadiq: You've got to watch it though, haven't you!
Gary: Yeah, they do look great in those skimpy outfits, don't they? Yeah but, no, the answer isn't just to ban everything, is it? Banning will just sent it underground and there'll be underground illegal volleyball playing, underground illegal gymnastics or underground illegal swimming.
********
Gary: Hello, next caller, who's there?
Caller: Hello, Gary, it's Khalid.
Gary: (Deep sigh). Well, hello Khalid.
Khalid: What is point Down Line? What is point Down Line?
Gary: (Sigh)
Khalid: What is point Down Line?
Gary: Well, I'll tell you what the point of Down the Line is. We allow people to make points, to talk about topics, discussions. We give people a voice.
Khalid (loudly): What is point give public voice?
Gary: Where else do they have a voice?
Khalid (loudly): Don't care about giving the public voice! What is point give stupid people voice? [Hangs up]
Gary: I sometimes wonder myself, Khalid, but I persevere.
Curiously enough Down the Line came to mind while I was listening to a fascinating discussion programme on the BBC Asian Network, which I heard via Nota Sheep. You really must listen to it.
The topic under discussion was whether the UK government should ban Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and AtlasShrugs's Pamela Geller from entering the country. It was hosted by the doubtless-award-winning Nihal. Nihal's guests were Robert Spencer himself and, arguing against him, Imam Yunus Dudhwala and Nick Lowles of 'Hope Not Hate'. As Nota Sheep says, Nihal did a fair job of fairly interviewing them all. (That's the 'BBC bias' bit, folks).
Though the topic is, of course, a deeply serious one and there was a hostile tone at times, I found myself laughing out loud many times. I'll let Nota Sheep describe one such moment, as this obviously tickled his funny bone too:
I found especially interesting the part from around 12 minutes in when Nihal asked Robert Spencer to give him some passages from the Koran and Hadith that he found objectionable and then asked the Imam to counter these claims. From around 17:20 listen to the Imam complain that the Qur'an was more Robert Spencer's field than his. I did enjoy Nihal responding incredulously "But you're an imam!"
That could have come straight out of a Down the Line-like spoof.
The funniest part of the show though came when the phone lines were opened and the calls begin coming in. I really could have sworn I was actually listening to Down the Line at times - an impression helped by Nihal's uncannily Gary Bellamy-like way of hosting the discussion. (They even sound a little alike).
It had everything - from the host's habit of giving his personal opinion (such as "unfortunately we are seeing Sikhs and Hindus getting involved on certain EDL timelines") and his rather aggrieved-sounding 'so there!'-style slapping down of a critical e-mailer (over what the word 'jihad' means. "Unfortunately.....you're wrong", he said - with feeling), plus his obvious complete astonishment at the sheer dumbness of one of his callers (Cameron), right through to the inevitable angry caller, the caller who admitted she didn't know much about the EDL yet still wanted to speak her brains on the subject (as they used to say on The Day Today), the not-very-bright academic...
....and, above all, the final caller, Cameron from Birmingham, whose bizarre line of questioning to Robert Spencer has to be heard to be believed. (I'm still not entirely convinced that Cameron wasn't actually Paul Whitehouse in disguise). Go to 38:33 and enjoy!
Now, I'll freely admit that the whole Cameron bit had me laughing so much that I may have missed the substance behind it. (I'm sure you won't miss it though!) Plus, once you've heard such a brilliant spoof as Down the Line it can become hard to hear other topical phone-in shows in quite the same way again.
Maybe that's not unlike what happened to me after watching Leslie Nielson & Co. in Airplane. I only saw Airport, the disaster movie it spoofed so hilariously, after seeing Airplane and, as a result, when I first watched Airport I found myself creasing up with laughter as po-faced disaster after po-faced disaster befell its characters.
The upshot of all this is...please listen to Down the Line and enjoy, and please listen to Nihal's show and enjoy!
Paddy O'Connell had a simple message on this morning's Broadcasting House and, being Paddy, he pushed it pretty hard. He was (in true Paul Mason fashion) seeking to find commonalities between the protests in Brazil and those in Turkey:
Protesters seem to feel locked out of the political machine run by older people - mostly men - and social media helps spread the word.
He invited two young women from both countries to share their experiences.
And listening, Débora in Brazil, did you hear about Merve's protests in Turkey? Do you have a similar feeling, do you think?
And, Merve, did you see any similarities with life in Brazil?
Then he repeated his initial point:
So do you feel there's sort of a conspiracy of older men? Do the people who run your country, have they been taken by surprise? Do you think they know how to deal with you?
Listening to the women's respective grievances, I'd say they had strikingly different concerns despite the superficial similarities suggested by Paddy: One is protesting against an Islamising, socially conservative government agenda, the other against corruption and public waste in a socialist-led country.
As for the older men running their countries, I'd point out to Paddy that the older man who runs Brazil looks like this:
Last week's survey of PM gave me the opportunity to be flippant, pop in a joke or two, and dwell a little on the lighter side of the news. This week's survey reflects the much more serious tone of this week's editions of PM.
My goodness, it often felt as if the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were Eddie Mair's special guests in the PM studio. Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death were the main themes of the week (and, yes, most of the items really could be slotted into one of those categories). There was nary a joke from Eddie to lighten the mood. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me to have heard Eddie, who probably looked like a jasper and a sardius stone this week, say in a voice like thunder, "Come and see!" at the start of each programme and then to have heard the PM newsreader read the news to the sound of seven trumpets. Sadly though, the Whore of Babylon didn't turn up to give us the weather forecast.
The intention behind this ongoing survey is to see if any trends in bias are emerging - as they should be doing if the BBC is as biased as people like me have long claimed. (That's the theme of this blog after all.) PM is one of the most-listened-to current affairs programme on BBC Radio 4, so it's an obvious test case to use. I have to say that I can't see any such trends of bias yet (quite the reverse), but I'll leave it open to you to disagree if you spot something I'm missing.
The side benefit of doing such a survey is that it's got me listening to a lot of very interesting items. Hopefully what follows will convey some of that interest (and be of interest to you too), even at the risk of it reading more like a diary crossed with a news magazine at times rather than a blog about BBC bias.
So, as President Obama orders more arms to be sent to the so-called lukewarm factions in the Laodicean opposition and President Assad promises to spew them out of his mouth in response, let's get started...
1. Policy pronouncements by Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg
Basically, Ed promises not to borrow more to fund spending and Nick promises not to break election promises next time. Ritula Shah (presenting) wondered whether "this cautious approach" would lead to a "dull agenda" at the next election. Former Labour special advisor and Progress columnist Paul Richards and Mark Pack of Liberal Democrat Newswire discussed the matter with her. Ritula's questioning stuck fairly rigidly to the framing question. This was the kind of bog-standard party political discussion that bores me rigid these days. It didn't engage me one bit and tempted me to switch off (except that I could hardly do that, could I?) Blah-di-blah-di-blah.
2. The U.S. files criminal charges against Edward Snowden, the leaker/whistle blower
The BBC's John Sudworth updated Ritula on the latest from Hong Kong.
3. The Guardian's story about GCHQ's use of internet surveillance
After clips of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti denouncing GCHQ's apparent actions as "a clear contravention of the law" and Sir Malcolm Rifkind denouncing as "absurd" the idea that the U.S. is engaged in fishing expeditions against British internet users, Ritula interviewed security specialist Professor Peter Sommer (who last appeared on the programme precisely one week earlier and seems, therefore, to be their go-to guy on the issue). Professor Sommer says (and gives evidence in support of his contention) that "it's all pretty ambiguous". To boil his initial point down: The law in this area says this and that, but there are always exceptions. He's even unsure as to which legal forum GCHQ would need to go to discuss this kind of thing in the first place. In theory the first point of oversight would be the Foreign Secretary. (Why is William Hague competent to judge such things? Though democratically-elected, is he democratically accountable given that he will never be questioned in open parliament about his decisions?) Then there are various commissioners, but they're there to check compliance with (and interpretation of) existing legislation. Finally, there's the ten-member Intelligence and Security Committee (chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind), only two of whom (Sir Malcolm and Sir Robin Butler) would have had much experience of dealing with intelligence at all - in other words, WTF do they know about modern surveillance? Ritula summed up his responses as "More questions than answers". Indeed. Still, they were very interesting questions.
4. Mamphela Ramphele launches a new political party in South Africa, Agang, to challenge the ANC
The BBC's Mike Wooldridge and Karen Allen report on the launch. Mamphela Ramphele (former partner of Steve Biko) wants to cut the ANC's majority to under 50%. Will her promises win voters? According to many of Karen's vox pops, the new party lacks governing experience. However much people like her policies, that lack of experience will count against her, they say, and people seem likely to keep preferring the ANC.
5. The government has dropped plans to raise the speed limit on motorways to 80 mph
The Times hadsuggested that this is because the government is wary about annoying women voters. An AA survey of 13,000 drivers suggests 63% of all drivers were in favour of a higher limit but 41% of women thought the limit should remain at 70 mph. Ritula asked racing driver and TV presenter Vicki Butler-Henderson (above) and Harry Eyres of the FT (not above) for their views (one being a woman, the other a man!). In an obviously-anticipated reversal of expectations, Vicki wanted the speed limit raised, on the grounds that most people are doing that anyway and because cars are much safer than they were when the 70 mph limit was first introduced, while Harry not only firmly rejected the idea but wants the limit of motorways reduced to 50 mph on grounds of road safety and the need to reduce carbon emissions to signal our need to ensure a sustainable future.
1. Sentencing of teacher Jeremy Forrest for abducting a schoolgirl
Eddie was updated from the court in Lewis by the BBC's Sophie Hutchinson then talked to Forrest's defence lawyer Ronald Jaffa. He raised with him the chatter on Twitter comparing the five-and-a-half year sentence given to him with the 15 month sentence given to Stuart Hall. Mr Jaffa said the judge followed the sentencing guidelines and sentenced within them.
The same issue was then discussed with the BBC's Clive Coleman, who agreed there's no anomaly between the two cases. The judge in the Stuart Hall case had to sentence according to the law at the time, when there were lower maximum sentences. The crucial year was 1985, when the maximum sentence for indecent assault was raised from two to ten years. Stuart Hall's crimes took place before then, so that's what he was convicted of and why his sentence was as long as it is. That maximum sentence remained at ten years even when the offence morphed into sexual assault in 2003. Jeremy Forrest was convicted of sexual activity with a child, considered a far more serious offence and carrying a maximum sentence of fourteen years. If there's intercourse, the starting point for any such sentence is four years. The breach of trust by someone in a position of authority was a significant aggravating feature in this case. This accounts for the sharp differences in sentences between the two cases. New guidelines are coming, Clive added, which will move away from the present emphasis on 'which body part is touching which body part' in favour of an emphasis on the harm caused.
Now, if I've explained that to your satisfaction then it's a testimony to the clarity with which Clive Coleman explained it to me - and to Radio 4 listeners.
2. Autopsy confirms actor James Gandolfini died of a heart attack
A statement from a friend of the family.
3. The Care Quality Commission (CQC)
Returning to the story the programme "discussed at length" the previous night (as Eddie put it), we heard extensive clips of interviews from earlier BBC programmes (including PM). Eddie then interviewed Camilla Cavendish, investigative journalist and associate editor of The Sunday Times who has just be made a non-executive director of the CQC board - a sign they are wanting to appear transparent, she says. Her view is that the CQC's initial decision to try to suppress the name of those involved in the cover-up (at the advice of lawyers) was "daft" and "misjudged". She approved of their quick change of mind though and wants the leaders of the CQC to be given "an encouraging wind" (i.e. not given the push). She wants the CQC to listen to patients like James Titcombe and Julie Bailey, who were "the only effective watchdogs" at Morecambe Bay and Mid Staffs. She suspects there's a "culture of contempt" for patients from within "some parts of the NHS", adding that many of us have anecdotal evidence that that's the case (as, indeed, many of us do). She backed up Jeremy Hunt's idea of a Chief Inspector for Hospitals.
For those bias-hunters seeking evidence of the BBC's pro-NHS bias, it's hard to find any such evidence here, and bias-hunters seeking evidence of the BBC's anti-government bias can't claim that Camilla and her support for Jeremy Hunt's scheme provided any evidence of that either. Short of Eddie Mair asking "Aren't Labour to blame for all this mess?" to every guest interviewed on the subject, it's hard to imagine some of most anti-BBC right-wingers accepting that the BBC isn't being pro-Labour. I suppose they would have liked Eddie Mair to haul Andy Burnham in for questioning and tell him he's a nasty piece of work (like he did with Boris).
4. A party leaves the Greek government
Mark Lowen tells Eddie about the departure of the Democratic Left's departure from the government over the row of the "yanking" of the ERT, its state broadcaster.
5. North Korea
The BBC's Lucy Williamson reports on a decade-old Seoul-based online newspaper which is smuggling information out of tightly-controlled North Korea - images of street children sleeping rough in temperatures of -20 degrees, for example. The organisation has ten undercover correspondents gathering news from the dark North - including border patrol guards, policemen, secret service agents, the military, municipal workers, merchants and manual workers. Some get paid, some don't (and those who don't appear to be wanting to help change in their country). The sources mainly come from the remote Chinese border region. The risks are high, says the paper's editor. Being near the Chinese border - and using Chinese mobile phone networks - helps fool the regime in North Korea into not suspecting the calls so much, whereas if they'd been made directly to South Korea the regime would be more easily able to trace them. If caught the risks could vary. Local North Korean officials can be bribed. Get caught by officials from Pyongyang or military officials, however, and you could be sent to a concentration camp. One correspondent was recently arrested and the site has faced cyber attacks - which is the price of becoming better known. Officials in China and South Korea are now part of its audience. An interesting piece. I'd always wondered how such snippets of reality get out from such a strange dictatorship, other than by getting star BBC reporters to go on holiday with a bunch of LSE students.
6. The Care Quality Commission (CQC)
The programme convened its own mini CQC to "help us to understand how hospital inspections can be improved". The panel consisted of: Dr Jonathan Fielden of University College Hospital, London; Jocelyn Cornwell, who worked for one of the CQC's predecessors; and Joyce Robins, co-founder of the Patient Concern campaign group. None of them reckoned much to hospital inspections. (Bias?) Jocelyn Cornwell (now of the King's Fund think-tank, much respected by the BBC) gave somewhat perfunctory-sounding support for Jeremy Hunt's idea of a new chief inspector but believes inspectors cannot assure the public. Safe patient-centred care is the responsibility of those on the front-line, she says, and blames the system rather than the individuals themselves. She says inspectors aren't able to be there all the time and doesn't see how inspection will help motivate staff. Jonathan Fielden agrees that inspectors aren't really the answer and that organisations need to listen to patients and staff. The right leadership and an "open culture" are needed, he waffled said. I have to say, having heard both of the two guests so far, that Joyce Robins's opening remarks that she's "absolutely sick of this endless statement of purpose which sounds great - all the vision and the mission and all that sort of thing" struck a chord. She wants the inspection system made less bureaucratic, less grand. Jocelyn Cornwell listed the errors at Morecambe Bay: (1) a lack of skill and knowledge on the part of staff, compounded by (2) not listening to the parents, compounded again by (3) a cover-up. She doesn't see how inspection could have helped with any of those things. (So what, precisely, could have helped then?) Dr Fielden rushed to place it all in context - "millions" of patients are looked after "each day" (really?) and there's a "vast amount of high quality care" to consider. (He used the word "vast" a vast number of times here to emphasise the wonders of the NHS). Joyce Robins said the inspection system is still too geared to giving hospitals an overall rating. Crash teams are needed to shut things down and open things up if necessary. It's not good enough that hospitals as a whole get a rating, rather than individual units within a hospital, she concluded.
The bias angle? Well, you had a couple of voices from within what you might call the health establishment largely singing from the same hymn-sheet and a patients' campaigner from outside that circle voicing the concerns of her particular campaign group. (I've read up on them (google 'Patient Concern') and I'm not on board with some of the things they want, so I won't say that she speaks for all - or, dare I say, even most? - patients). All were downbeat about the value of inspection - in theory as well as in practice. All in all, I found it a curiously unsatisfactory discussion, not taking us very far and, frankly, confusing me even more - though I don't think that's down to the programme itself, merely to the quality of their guests' contributions. Tut, tut though - Eddie didn't ask a single one of them "Aren't Labour to blame for all this mess?" Some people (on right-wing blogs other than this one) aren't going to like that one bit!
7. The rebuilding of King Frederick the Great's Palace in Berlin
"Brace yourself", Eddie said. Suitably braced, we heard him tell us about the German...yes, German building projects in Germany that are "running very late and very over budget". (I should have braced myself more for that shocker. It's taken me hours to recover - and I still can't believe it). "I should warn you", Eddie added, preparing us again, "Stephen Evans's report contains size comparisons with football fields."
The laying of the foundation stone was marked by a gong. The palace had been dynamited by the communist regime in 1950 as royal palaces weren't their sort of thing. So recreating it has a symbolic purpose. Some vox pops watching the ceremony expressed approval. However, Berlin's new airport is late, and will cost twice the original estimate. A plan to alter the station in Stuttgart is running billions over budget. A new concert hall in Hamburg is seven years late and ten times the initial budget. We hear from a taxpayers' campaigner who is (understandably) dismayed at that. Stephen speculated that the country's new-found confidence is making it think very big, wanting huge status symbol buildings to match its growing status - despite this being an age of austerity. Political pressure is leading to the construction of such buildings with, perhaps, too little preparation. Klaus Wowereit, the (Social Democrat) Mayor of Berlin (personifying this way of thinking) reckons the King's palace will be OK though and sounds intensely relaxed about it running over budget. (Maybe that chap from the German taxpayers' alliance should have a work with him.) As far as the theme of bias is concerned, both sides of the taxpayer versus tax-spender argument would have found something to agree with.
8. Previously on PM...
Charles Saatchi & Nigella Lawson; a commenter says men are victims of abuse by women too; another commenter supports Nick Clegg for saying he wouldn't have known how to have reacted had he been there. (Neither would we, she said,); the CQC; a commenter tells of his own failure to get the secretive CQC to come to grips with his complaint; GM foods; a commenter talks about the copyright problem and the wickedness of agri-businesses; another says the onus is on scientists to prove their safety and we shouldn't run before we should walk; a third attacks multi-nationals and their plans to own third world countries; those Brazil protests; a commenter complains about the overspend on the 2012 London Olympics.
As for bias, that all three of the comments about GM foods were anti-GM is very likely to reflect the programme's e-mail inbox. GM foods do arouse a lot of hostility. (Not from me though. I suspect we're in anti-science, MMR scare-type territory here).
9. How the human voice links us to the deceased
A brief collection of treasured voices that listeners have sent in of deceased friends and family...talking, singing...Strangely moving - and, even more strangely for me, slightly unnerving. This was followed by a hard-to-forget - and far from maudlin - interview (by the master of such interviews, Eddie Mair) with a lady whose daughter, Flora, died of a brain tumour at the age of 6 last year. As someone who's spent some four years (on and off) blogging about BBC bias, it's easy to overlook how enriching the BBC can be at its best - and it's easy to try to fool yourself into thinking that such things don't matter and that the bias (you see) is all that really matters.
1. The names of those present at the Care Quality Commission meeting that decided to delete a report on its own failings are revealed
This was clearly the big story of the day - the suppression of an internal review into the failure of the CQC's own inspections at Furness Hospital. To remind you all of what you doubtless already know: The CQC had given the hospital the all-clear, despite several new-born babies dying in its maternity unit. When questions were raised internally about the issue, the review was ordered to be deleted. The CQC later hired accountants Grant Thornton to investigate this, and Grant Thornton uncovered the cover-up. The current boss says all the CQC members responsible for the cover-up have all gone. However, the CQC then decided to redact the names of those CQC members from the Grant Thornton report "on legal advice", thus adding a new layer of cover-up to the story. The Information Commissioner was not impressed by that and a head-of-stream, built by the Mail and Telegraph, led - late in the afternoon - to the publication of all nine names. BBC reporter Angus Crawford detailed what was apparently said at that meeting - and jaw-dropping stuff it is too - and what actions might follow. James Titcombe, whose son Joshua died at Furness Hospital, wants a police investigation of the CQC.
David Behan, chief executive of the CQC, was then interviewed at length by Eddie and made to account for the events of recent days. He gave Mr Behan a right-and-proper grilling, refusing to allow him to weasel out of anything through polite but firm and thorough interviewing. Hopefully, parliament will hold him to account with the same rigour.
2. Teacher Jeremy Forrest found guilty of abducting a schoolgirl
The BBC's Sophie Hutchinson reported from the court on the jury's decision.
3. Nick Clegg is asked on LBC about the assault on Nigella by Charles Saatchi, and says he's not sure exactly what happened, it could have just been a "fleeting thing" and can't imagine what he'd have done had he been there
Some MPs are unhappy with Mr Clegg about this. The BBC's Iain Watson explained why, saying that Mr Clegg had made an "error" by doing what some politicians don't do - answering instead of ducking a question. The MPs in question - cue Labour's Yvette Cooper - alleged that it shows a "casual" attitude towards domestic violence. Nick Clegg put out a "clarifying" statement, saying he "misspoke" and that he's done a lot of work on domestic violence. I think Iain's point that "politics, as we know, can paint issues in primary colours rather than more subtle shades" is proved by this story.
(I see Ed Miliband has now told the Graun that he would have intervened. Yeah, right! How gullible does he think we are? I mean, the idea of Ed Miliband...yes, Ed Miliband...leaping Clark Kent-like into action without a moment's hesitation to save the beautiful Nigella from the violent clutches of her husband doesn't really ring true to me. And as for telling Andrew Sparrow "Our duty is to intervene," well, the word "pompous" springs to mind. Now, it would be wonderful to think that any man would intervene in such a situation and ask "What's going on?" but, as the other diners that day showed, that doesn't seem to be what usually happens - especially when people can't be completely sure what's happening. There's something quite grating about a politician jumping on a bandwagon).
4. The Queen's horse wins the Gold Cup at Royal Ascot - for the first time
After an ear-splitting clip from an excitable BBC commentator, the BBC's horse racing correspondent Cornelius Lysaght told Eddie that this was the first time the horse of a reigning monarch has ever won the Gold Cup since it was first staged there in 1807. The Queen's had 21 Royal Ascot winners, but none have won the Gold Cup before. Eddie asked, "Do we know if the Queen was as excited as the commentator there?" (I don't think that could have been possible). The quandary as to who would hand the Queen the cup, given that she always hands it out and it would have looked a little odd if she'd merely picked it up and clutched it, was solved by the Duke of York handing it her instead. (Phew!)
5. Brazil protests
Carla Dauden, a Brazilian photographer, used YouTube to "eloquently" (as Eddie put it) complain about the use of people's taxes to pay for sports stadiums. We heard a long extract from the video. She says most of the money from the World Cup goes straight to FIFA, and tourism money goes to those who already have money. She thinks it could be a lot better spent. People are being kicked out of their houses. Native Indians are being evicted from their traditional lands. 'Is that democracy?', she wonders. Etc, etc. You can watch the whole thing here (and I can certainly see where she's coming from):
After Carla's video, Eddie talked to BBC sports correspondent Tim Vickery, who set it all in context. He says it's a new development that's perplexed the authorities. He thinks the protests are about the relationship between the Brazilian state and the Brazilian citizen. The football tournaments are a rallying point for protest because the Brazilian state has been so "high-handed" and "arrogant". (Paul Mason won't like this, but this makes the protests sound like a sort of Brazilian Tea Party). What's gone wrong? Well, when Brazil won the World Cup in 2007 the public were "explicitly told" the stadia would be paid for by private money, leaving taxpayers' money for infrastructure like public transport (the starting point for the protests). The opportunity to improve things like public transport "has been squandered". Tim said the games are (a) costing a lot more money than they should do (sounds familiar) and (b) are bringing fewer gains that they should do.
6. GM Food
Government minister Owen Paterson says emotion rather than evidence is driving people's fears about GM food. Eddie talked to environmental campaigner Mark Lynas, a former staunch opponent of GM crops who "shocked audiences earlier this year" by saying he'd got it wrong in this debate, and food journalist Joanna Blythman, author of What To Eat, who opposes GM food. A two-sided debate followed, which reminded me of the kind of intemperate debates which rage over 'climate change'. (Ye gods, all those 'Watts up with the real climate' blogs - on opposing sides of the argument - with their infinitely cliquey and frankly monstrous regiments of loyal commenters!). For example, I had to grin at the way Joanna launched a string of harshly-worded ad hom attacks on the supporters of GM and then (without seeming to bat an eyelid) launched another ad hom accusing them of "vilifying" their opponents. Why do these kinds of debate bring out the worst in people? Still, it certainly wasn't biased.
7. Boris Obama calls George Osborne 'Jeffrey' at the G8 Summit
President Obama called the British chancellor that three times, seemingly confusing him with the singer responsible for the 1980s hits On the Wings of Love and Stay With Me Tonight. PM managed to get the aforementioned Jeffrey Osborne on the line. He was flattered that President Obama is a fan. He understands that George sings though, so when he comes to London next they could, he suggests, sing a little duet together. "What do you think caused the confusion?", asked Eddie, "because you don't look like him?" (Jeffrey Osborne laughed at that). "Are you any good at maths?", wondered Eddie. He then asked him if he'd sing back a quote of George Osborne's: "Tax cuts should be for life, not just for Christmas". Jeffrey obliged.
8. The death of Sopranos actor James Gandolfini
We heard a clip from one of his very rare interviews.
9. How the human voice links us to the deceased
Another interview in this short but thoughtful series featured a PM listener who, as a 13 year old, used her cassette recorder to record her grandparents. She admitted she'd previously used it for...ahem...recording the Top 40 (er, yes) and Eddie said he wouldn't report her to the authorities for that! Her grandparents (both born in 1895) thought it a magical device. They spoke into the microphone. Her late dad's voice is on there too. She can't remember what they said, only having listened to it once since. Her memories of how cassette tapes jammed and unravelled, and all those illegal Sunday nights with the charts, brought back a fair few memories for me too. It was that fear of losing the tape forever due to jamming or unravelling that stopped her from listening to the recording again. She still couldn't throw it out though.In one of those moments you kind of sensed was coming but were still glad that it happened, Eddie told her that BBC Scotland had processed her tape into a digital format and that she could have the results on an MP3. She was, I'm glad to say, happy. Radio 4 listeners listened along too, and I'm sure they were happy for her too. Eddie then complimented her on the quality of her recording!
1. The Supreme Court rules that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government under the Human Rights Act
Eddie provided a detailed history of the background complete with clips for starters. The issue concerns Snatch Land Rovers: Did they offer sufficient protection to soldiers in Iraq? After giving us the views of the complainant families and their supporters and a flavour of the political debate, the BBC's Clive Coleman provided Eddie with an analysis of the legal position. Up until today, he said, protection for soldiers stationed abroad under Article Two on the European convention that protects the right to life effectively ended at the gates of the military base they're serving in and didn't extend onto the battlefield. Today changed that, pushing that protection onto the battlefield (against the MoD's wishes). Sounds like a quantum shift? Well, Clive says, not really. The Supreme Court hasn't guaranteed that the claims will succeed, only that they'll be heard. Moreover, decisions taken in the heat of battle and policy decisions taken at a high level of command can't be challenged on human rights grounds.
Further to several earlier clips from the complainant families, we heard from a father of another of the soldiers, happy at the verdict. The MoD declined to be interviewed, so a clip from Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was played instead. Richard Kemp was then heard of for the third time, sounding a note of caution about the ruling, then a lawyer acting for the families put the opposing side. We were getting several points of view here. BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt described it as a difficult area of law, with one of the Supreme Court judges dissenting, and outlined the MoD's concerns and the debate over what this means for Britain waging war. This ruling sounds like another great leap forward for lawyers, methinks.
To those who, as with the CQC story, have been complaining that the BBC is failing to lay the blame where they believe it really should be laid - at the door of the last Labour government - well, this segment didn't exactly dwell on that angle but it did present historic clips of two figures from the Conservative opposition demanding answers from the then-Labour government. Yes, no former Labour minister was dragged in kicking and screaming and given a good coshing by Eddie though.
2. Peace talks in Afghanistan?
The BBC's Jonathan Beale reports on continued Taleban attacks, and the frustrations of President Karzai regarding the intended talks and the behaviour of the Americans.
3. Protests in Brazil
The BBC's Gary Duffy updates Eddie on the spread of the protests and specifies the cost of hosting major sporting competitions, corruption and inequality as the main grievances. His three vox pops, all protesters, say what they want - each reflecting one of those three grievances.
4. The Spanish economy
Emma Jane Kirby reports from the resort of Torre del Mar (near Malaga) on the plight of the unemployed there. She finds many young unemployed people there playing games on the beach. They explain why they aren't at work: Because there isn't any work, They also express deep pessimism about the future. Across Spain about one-sixth of the young population is out of work, but in Andalusia unemployment has historically been high. In 2005 it was already over 14%. It's now at 37% and youth unemployment is pushing 60%. Permanent jobs are particularly hard to find. Sounds grim down south.
5. President Obama makes a speech in Berlin
Stephen Evans reports on the latest speech by President Obama. His charisma eventually shines through, he says, but it didn't overwhelm apparently and Stephen suggests that he didn't match either Kennedy or Reagan in the power of his rhetoric here. A German think-tanker (from the Mercator Foundation) agrees that a bit of the Obama sparkle has gone. (Not much Obama-worship there then). On more serious matters, Stephen Evans also reported that Chancellor Merkel, who grow up in the Stasi state, had expressed concerns about U.S. surveillance in the wake of the Snowden leaks.
6. Should we still hate bankers, or is it time to move on?
Phil Dibbs, former director at Barclays Bank, and Frances Coppola, an independent banking analyst discussed this question. Mr Dibbs robustly stood up for bankers in general, saying that "a few people have ruined it for the vast majority". The slightly more sceptical Frances Coppola largely agreed, saying that it was only "a very few rotten apples at the top" that put the economy in peril, and that if we go too far in bashing bankers per se they're simply not going to want to work - "be able to work" - in the industry. Enough is now enough, was her message. Those looking for anti-banker bias here would not have found any (except perhaps in the choice of subject). Pro-banker bias in the guest selection, however, is a surprising thought.
7. The trial of teacher Jeremy Forrest for abducting a schoolgirl
BBC reporter Duncan Kennedy was at the Lewis court and told Eddie what had happened.
8. "Slut-shaming pages" on Facebook
Another case of cyber-bullying. Users can post comments anonymously which claim to expose the sexual behaviour of young people (some as young as 12 years old) in towns and cities across the UK. Declan Harvey from Radio 1 reported. Imagine that your name and photo on Facebook are used to set up a page and all manner of made-up allegations and degrading insults are written on it about you by someone you may know (by, say, an embittered ex or a work colleague) or by a complete stranger. Everyone can see it. Rape victims have even been accused of lying on it. Police say it's a civil matter of defamation and have referred calls about it to Facebook. The child protection agency CEOP says its not a matter for them either. The victims say it's a bit of a battle getting Facebook to act, though Facebook say they remove the pages quickly. The Cyber Smile Foundation, the UK's only anti-cyber bullying charity, is on the case - and good luck to them.
9. How the human voice links us to the deceased
Another PM listener regrets not been able to hear recordings of their deceased loved ones. She recalls her loved one who died back in 1974. She's got photos now - and a recording of his music. (He was a jazz trumpeter and pianist). That recording also preserves his voice - in the sound of his laugh. Now it can be found, thanks to PM, in the Radio 4 archive too. So many thoughts arise from this interview. I'm very glad to have heard it.
Eddie talked to Richard Barrett, former head of the UN's monitoring team with responsibility for al-Qaeda and the Taleban. Mr Barrett expects no early resolutions. Eddie wondered, Who do you talk to? What preparatory work has been done? Couldn't these talks have taken place earlier, given the loss of life there's been? Mr Barrett posed the question supporters of both sides might have been asking: "OK, well what have we been fighting for? Why didn't we start talking in 2002? Why didn't we start talking in 2011? Why don't we start talking in 2014?"
2. G8 Summit
BBC chief political correspondent Norman Smith updates Eddie. A clip of David Cameron claiming success at getting "a strong and purposeful statement" on Syria is immediately followed by Norm's "but", contradicting the prime minister: "But, Eddie, I've been through the document and I have to say..." What he has to say it's hard to see any concessions from President Putin and as regards the one area where he might have given ground - over President Assad -, well, he hasn't given any ground at all. Mr Cameron "insists" Assad must go, but Norm describes the statement as "so vague" as to be open to any interpretation. Another clip of Mr Cameron insisting is followed by another "but" from Norm, chucking cold water over the prime minister's spin. A clip of "supremely relaxed" President Putin is not followed by a contradiction, merely by an "and". Norm then summarises all his points and says it will be the Russian leader who goes home smiling, not David Cameron. Does Mr Cameron ever get anything other than a bad press from Norman Smith? Still, by the looks of things, Norm wasn't wrong.
3. Children and online pornography
The government and online companies have been discussing the issue. A watchdog - the Internet Watch Foundation - will get more money and go out and look for child porn instead of waiting for it to be reported. The BBC's Andrew Bomford went to their offices to find out how they carry out their work. (The images had to be pixilated for Andrew to see them.) The researcher send there's been a trend towards younger children and towards severer content. The director of the Internet Watch Foundation welcomes to move to allow them to actively seek out such content, quickening the process of removing it from the internet.
Eddie then talked to Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP). Mr Gamble welcomes the extra funding and the new powers for the watchdog, but gives the startling figure that only 35 'notice and take down' reports were served in 2012 by the Internet Watch Foundation (i.e. notice given to internet service providers of offensive material on their sites which the ISPs then take down), reflecting the fact that ISPs aren't the main means by which paedophiles access this kind of material. They do that by clustering together to form 'peer to peer networks' (sharing directly from each other's hard drives, bypassing ISPs). His concern is that ISPs have been blocking for years and that blocking is all very well but what really matters is finding the abused child behind that image and rescuing them. What's needed, he says, is for the number of police working on the task of infiltrating online paedophile gangs (at the moment only a handful or so officers a day) to be boosted. Many more police should be working on this task. The images are a symptom, he said. The real issue is the rape and abuse of children, and rescuing them from that daily ordeal.
He believes Mr Cameron is being badly advised - though he sounded to have a dog in the fight, as it were.
4. Depicting Hitler in today's Germany
Prompted by a new book - Er is Wieder Da (He's back!), a comic novel re-imagining Hitler as if he were living today - the BBC's Stephen Evans reported on the debate about whether it's OK to depict Hitler in today's Germany. The author, Timur Vermes, says that presenting Hitler as a figure of fun with a logic of his own rather than as someone bad and senseless might help explain to modern Germans why their grandparents voted for him. They haven't been looking at him clearly and, as a result, haven't understood what happened. The rave reviews for the stage show in Berlin of Mel Brooks's The Producers - complete with Springtime for Hitler - showed that it was acceptable to present Hitler in this way, but only because of the Jewishness of its author. We heard from Rudolph Herzog, author of Dead Funny, who added that there would have to be an underlying worthiness to any such work to avoid flippancy. Most depictions present him as a clown, but a clown with a potential for anger. Thomas Pigor, the cabaret singer behind the song Sitting in my Bunker recounts his mimicry, beginning in 1993, when it still was a real taboo. Now, it's less shocking and more normal to laugh about Hitler, he said, before tracing the history of 'laughing at Hitler' in post-war Germany. People joked about Hitler all the way up until 1968, when a new generation blamed the elder generation for the denial of their Nazi past and jokes about Hitler stopped. American TV and films provoked occasional debates about the acceptability of depicting the Nazi past, and that acceptability only gradually re-emerged. Now it's OK again, he concluded.
5. Two teenagers hit by a train in Hertfordshire
The BBC's Alexandra MacKenzie reports on this sad story, apparently suicides.
6. Climate scientists gather to discuss Britain's weird weather
Professor Richard Betts from the Met Office was at the meeting and talks to Eddie. They looked at three seasons - the cold winter of 2010/11, the wet summer of 2012 and the cold March of this year. Causes? Declining sea ice in the Arctic, the ways in with the atmosphere and the seas interact, and changes in the sun (its eleven-year cycle) were their suggestions. Computer models will be used to 'test' them. Professor Betts found the discussion "exciting". Eddie wished him "good luck with it". Climate sceptics will, of course, be crying 'Blatant pro-warmist bias!' at this point.
7. The trial of teacher Jeremy Forrest for abducting a schoolgirl
BBC reporter Duncan Kennedy was at the Lewis court and told Eddie what had happened. Traffic noise stopped the interview for a while (if that matters).
8. How the human voice links us to the deceased
Another interview in this short series - this time from Warren Lakin, partner of Linda Smith, the comedienne well known to Radio 4 listeners, who was caught by surprise, shocked even, at PM's montage (which he hadn't been forewarned about). Eddie apologised for that, but Warren actually wanted to thank the programme. He likes listening to her voice on radio, but finds it very hard to watch her TV appearances. He was overwhelmed by the affection the public had for her, revealed after her death. He recently collected all her material together and deposited it with Kent University.
9. Domestic violence
Chris Avery, someone who used to beat his wife but now helps people not to do so, talked to Eddie about his impression of Charles Saatchi's actions. He believes Mr Saatchi to be minimising his actions and that he needs to face up to it. He then discussed his past and his present, and the nature of domestic violence.
Alan Collins, a solicitor in the field of child abuse law who has acted on behalf of Hall's victims, gave his take on the case and the verdict. Eddie read out a BBC statement about its role in the story and invited Mr Collins to give his observations. Mr Collins wasn't unduly troubled by the length of the sentence, but a small number of people have complained, thus triggering an investigation by the attorney general's office. Only one complaint is needed to trigger that review process. Eddie then interviewed former attorney general, Sir Edward Garnier (Conservative), about the nature of such complaints. Sir Edward told him that anyone can complain - for example, a person in Exeter could read in a newspaper about a sentence given in Newcastle - but you have to do so within 28 days of the sentence being given. The attorney general has to refer the matter to the court of appeal if he thinks it's unduly lenient within that 28 day period, and there's absolutely no discretion about that period - no referral can be accepted after 28 days, even if the attorney general agrees with the complainant that the sentence has been too lenient.
2. Hearing to test Moors' Murderer Ian Brady's sanity
The BBC's Dominic Casciani tells Eddie about the day's events at the hearing.
3. Charles Saatchi puts his hand round wife Nigella's throat
...in happier days
Eddie reads out a statement from Mr Saatchi then talks to former Guardian picture editor, Eamonn McCabe, who gives the photos his seal of his approval. Eddie asked him about how such pictures would progress to the point of publication.
4. Newham Council's desire to deny betting company Paddy Power a license rejected by the courts
(Labour-run) Newham Council has got the hump about betting shops on its (or should that be "its"?) high streets and tried to stop Paddy Power from opening a new shop. The courts chucked their case out. Paddy has the power after all. The BBC's Andrew Bomford reported on the story. Despite giving a spokesman from the betting industry a brief say, Andrew gave an anti-betting Labour councillor the lion's share of the 'talking head' bragging rights and painted a scene of betting shops springing up like scabies in the area - which rather reinforced the Labour councillor's case. Yes, both sides of the case were given space but Newham Council's side (the side that lost the court case) were granted the better hearing. So, yes, a smidgeon of BBC bias might be found here. Still, too many betting shops in an area doesn't sound altogether healthy....(or is that just Andrew's report exercising a powerful subliminal effect on me after all?)
5. G8 Summit
Eddie talked to BBC political correspondent Norman Smith about the latest summit in Enniskillen. Norm predicted no progress on Syria. (I'd have predicted that too).
6. Greece
Mark Lowen reports from Greece on the political situation there. The Greek broadcaster has been "yanked off the air" (a phrase Eddie will use again this week). We hear from an ERT reporter, who ain't happy that Mr Samaras has yanked them off and wants the Greek equivalent of the BBC put back on air. The prime minister's coalition parties aren't happy but Mr Samaras says the reform is overdue.
7. The Spanish economy
Here's an interesting stat: When the Spanish property bubble burst some eight million jobs went with it. A town on the South coast of Spain spent a fortune building a tramway six years ago to link it to the major seaside report nearby (Malaga). "Guess what's happening to it now?" asked Eddie. I think we could all guess. It ain't going well. BBC reporter Emma Jane Kirby told its story. The trams have been leased to Australia and will be gracing the streets of Sydney. The local mayor says it's necessary to deal with the deficit. A furniture business owner is having to close her business, and says the town is going to have to change. It's doing so, says Emma Jane, by going back to its agricultural roots, tearing up vines and olive trees to grow more profitable mangoes and avocados. (Who'd have thought mangoes would have been more profitable than vines?) Still, there's good ol' BBC hope at the end: If the town gets back on its feet those leased trams (see below) will be back!
8. The trial of teacher Jeremy Forrest for abducting a schoolgirl
BBC reporter Duncan Kennedy was at the Lewis court and told Eddie what had happened.
9. World hunger
Ruth Alexander from the BBC's More or less looked at a statistic used by the If campaign against world hunger: "There is enough food for everyone in the world yet every 15 seconds a child dies of hunger." But is that true? In advance of listening to this report I thought (and I'm typing as I think it!) that the BBC would hardly be so daring as to refute a key If campaign statistic just as the G8 summit was getting under way. That would be so un-PC - and so un-BBC!! Ruth said that the If campaign had actually changed that statistic to "every 10 seconds a child dies of hunger" midway through the campaign. So is that true?
Well, said Ruth, it's true that that many children are dying but they're not starving to death. They're dying of diseases like measles and pneumonia, which their diets make them more susceptible to. It's not a lack of calories but the lack of a balanced diet that's causing the deaths - "a problem that in most cases could be addressed by nutrition education". So, to my surprise, Ruth was partially refuting the If campaign's stats.
What did they have to say to that? Well, they used the line that campaigners so often use when caught out:
"But the If campaign defends their stats. They say 'You've got to get people's attention with a simple message and then you can give them the detail'".
In other words, a little white lie does no harm.
A very informative little section, as you might expect from the More or less team.
10. How the human voice links us to the deceased
This was the first in a series of interviews, following on from the death of BBC newsreader Rory Morrison, which evoked the power of the recorded voice of dead loved ones on the living. We heard from a mother whose son hung himself at the age of 19. Only one voice recording might survive - a voice-mail on his mobile perhaps. Unfortunately, the mobile phone has been lost. She daren't ring the number but will get her husband to do so soon. I will keep my fingers crossed for her. A thought-provoking interview by Eddie....
The following day's programme updated us with the news that she had rung the number but that it hadn't been recognised.
Thus ends my second review of PM. Did you spot any egregious bias?
The Economist, I think, presents the most informative overview of the current protests in Brazil.
The protests started on June 6th in São Paulo over a rise in bus fares but these have now gone nationwide, turning into the biggest street demonstrations seen in the country since 1992.
The initial bus fare protests weren't universally popular, as many saw the protesters' demands as unreasonable and unaffordable. That changed on June 13th though when an ill-trained police force violently over-reacted to a mostly peaceful march. The popular reaction to his brutal police action went well beyond São Paulo.
As for the new, nationwide protests, "there were many more women, families and middle-aged folk than at the initial protests." The demands were many and varied - corruption, rising prices, the cost of the World Cup (etc). The police were ordered to be stand back, unless violence erupted - thus reducing the mayhem.
The Economist article then pointed out the differences with those other countries where small protests have recently escalated into mass movements. Brazil, in contrast to those places, has record low youth unemployment, leaping living standards, hardly any immigration (etc), and those at the bottom of the social scale have gained most from economic growth.
"That has left commentators—and some marchers—struggling to explain why Brazil has taken to the streets", the Economist says.
Potential causes? Endemic violent crime and political corruption? More generalised police brutality? Drugs? High taxes? ("Brazilians pay taxes at rich-world rates (36% of GDP) and get terrible public services in return.") The high cost of living? The sheer scale of the spending on World Cup stadiums?
"So why now?", the Economist asks. The world's eye being on the country because of the Confederations Cup? A recent spike in inflation?
President Dilma Rousseff is trying to position herself as being on the protesters' side. Her popularity remains high, there seem to be little party politics in the protests and the opposition is weak.
The article concludes:
Nonetheless, her government has been put on notice. In the past decade 40m Brazilians have escaped absolute poverty. Most are still only one payday from disaster, and will fight tooth and nail not to fall back. They see further gains in living standards as a right. The marches are a sign that they are waking up to the fact that they pay taxes and deserve decent public services, not just shiny stadiums.
The BBC News website's take offers some interesting statistics. As the Economist notes, the initial protests in São Paulo featured a strong youth element - some 53% of them being under 25 - though that same stat shows that even in the early São Paulo protests 47% of the protesters were over 25. As the Economist also notes, the nationwide protests have swelled to include many more families and middle-aged people. Therefore, any attempts to paint the protests as being a Brazilian mass youth movement seem misguided. Given that the BBC's stats also show that only 24% of those polled say they are protesting "against politicians", any attempts to paint the protests as being against "the sham nature of democracy", "clique politics" and the "elite" seem premature too. Sweeping generalisations are, therefore, best avoided.
His latest article is far less informative than that of the Economist. Instead, he paints the protests in Brazil as being part of the global awakening of a disillusioned generation - "global youth" - using the tools of social media to fight the power. That's his one-size-fits-all narrative. It's the same narrative as found in his book Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere.
His analysis here is entirely in keeping with his recent reporting from Turkey, where he excised most of the complexities and contradictions found in the protests there in favour of an evocation of global revolt and the Paris Commune.
This tendency to simplify and generalise and to provide a grand, framing narrative emerged even more strongly in his report forNewsnight last night - an entirely typical Paul Mason piece complete with protesters battling police and two Laurie Penny-type attractive, young, female left-wing Brazilian activists as 'talking heads'. He even managed to use his "kicking off" catchphrase.
Yes, there may well be factors in common in some elements of the various large-scale protests taking place around the world, and some of the "core" protesters (as Paul would call them) may employ a shared symbolism (those Guy Fawkes masks, for example), but Paul really seems to be at risk of simplifying to such an extent that he misses out whole types of protester who don't fit in with his narrative (as also happened in Turkey), and of mistaking the "core" (his type of Occupy-type protester) for the voice of the mass protests in general, and of mistaking the often internally-incoherent mass protests for the (alleged) disillusion of an entire generation or social group, and of generalising so much that he downplays the local peculiarities of each country's protests and can't see the differences, and of projecting his romantic, left-wing revolutionary wish to see pretty young female activists leading an uprising of world youth against the capitalist system so much that he seems to keep getting it wrong, again and again - and Paul Mason certainly has form in getting in wrong.
Still, if you take a look at the comments beneath his blog, click on the 'Highest ratest' and read the praise for his piece, you will see that he strikes a warm chord with the Laurie Pennies of this world. The anti-capitalist, Occupy types just love his stuff - as well they might, given that it is so attune with their own views and panders so well to their own self-image.
Whether it amounts to accurate or unbiased reporting I very much doubt.
.jpg)
