Tuesday, 20 August 2013

The Salford Guardian



Roy Greenslade of the Guardian has been complaining for two days now about the failure of the rest of the press to report the David Miranda-Glenn Greenwald-Alan Rusbridger story as if it were the biggest story of the moment. 

He's certainly right that the rest of the media - with one notable exception-  hasn't shown anywhere near the same interest in the story as the Guardian itself. 

For example, not a single newspaper (excepting the Guardian) featured the story on their front page this morning and I looked at the Sky News and ITV News websites first thing today and didn't find the story among the former's list of main stories and found it only a good way down the news agenda of the latter. 

Roy Greenslade has had no cause for complaint about the BBC though (and, as a result, hasn't complained about the BBC). They've been leading their online news coverage plus all the main BBC One news bulletins with the story for two days now, and programmes from PM to Newsnight have covered the story in detail. The Guardian couldn't have hoped for any more from the BBC.

Compare that to the way the BBC is reporting the dramatic news story which is now leading the Telegraph website - a story with potentially major repercussions for Europe: Greece needs third bail-out, admits German finance minister: Wolfgang Schaeuble makes unexpected admission that Greece will need a third bail-out as other politicians play down the deeply unpopular prospect before German national elections

Yes, it's on the BBC's  home page but it's only appeared at No.9 in their running order - behind a story about a new Sony Play Station (see bottom of post for a screen print of the BBC home page). They clearly think it's a less important story than the Miranda story. 

They may or may not be right. 

Sky doesn't reckon much to either story, while ITV this evening has begun to tilt strongly towards the BBC's position, having bagged an 'exclusive' interview with Glenn Greenwald. (It even led their evening news bulletin, having been treated as a minor story yesterday.)

Still, the BBC's closeness to The Guardian is something that often gets commented upon and this is surely another prime example of that.

OK, here's that snapshot of the home page of the BBC News website (from about half an hour ago):


No 10 'knew of Miranda detention'Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda

No 10 was "kept abreast" of the decision to detain David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, a spokesman says.

Police escort Michaella McCollum Connolly, of Ireland, left, and Melissa Reid, of Britain, in handcuffs as they are moved from the National Police anti-drug headquarters to a court to be formally charged for drug trafficking in LimaUK drugs women arrive at Peru court

Two UK women arrested in Peru on suspicion of drugs smuggling are in court and are due to find out if they are to be charged.

Elmore LeonardElmore Leonard, crime novelist, dies

The prolific US crime writer Elmore Leonard, whose books include Get Shorty and Out of Sight, dies at the age of 87.

Monday, 19 August 2013

The bedroom tax, multicultural Manchester, and the BBC



My local BBC news programme North West Tonight was in full-blown campaigning mode this evening, leading on the issue of the bedroom tax. 

The programme's introduction used the phrase 'bedroom tax' without qualification or implied inverted commas [saying, "A housing association promises that no one will be made homeless by the bedroom tax", accompanied by images of placards reading 'Axe the tax'], even though the government is adamant that it's not a tax and has complained about the BBC using its opponents' terminology without qualification. [So that showed 'em then!]

Ah, but the programme did later qualify it, saying "Critics call it the 'bedroom tax' and the fear is that it will push people into arrears, into court and onto the streets." [So that's all right then.]

Those fears dominated the following report though. 

We heard the views of campaigners and a housing association; we heard what protesters want; we heard about a woman who's facing eviction as a result of the 'bedroom tax'; and we heard from a disabled man who's in arrears and finding it hard to make ends meet because of the 'bedroom tax', and has "sentimental reasons" for keeping his spare room (members of his close family died in that room.)

Reporter Jayne McCubbin then asked someone a question: "People aren't going to be happy with this."

Who did she put this too? Well, the caption read "Cllr Nick Peel, Bolton Council". 

Googling him revealed him to be a Labour Party councillor, so it was hardly surprising to find him replying, "Well, the only real solution to the bedroom tax is the repeal of the bedroom tax."

Then it was back to the protests, before Jayne finally give the opposing (government's) side - that it's unfair for those in private accommodation to be disadvantaged as opposed to those in public sector housing. She gave the government's side for all of twelve seconds. [That's BBC balance for you! - and who could find anything wrong with that?]

Then it was back to the protests and Chris Hobson of National Housing Federation talking of the "human cost" of the 'bedroom tax', homelessness and people struggling - things his organisation had warned the government about before. 

And with Chris's concerns ringing in our ears and being re-packaged for us by Jayne (presumably lest we'd sneezed a few seconds earlier when he was making them first time round), the report ended - the government and its bedroom tax well and truly pwned.


Still to cheer its viewers up after that tale of government-inspired woe, North West Tonight later gave us a good news 'And finally...'-style story to warm the cockles of our heart - a story which had the presenters almost purring with contentment. 

So what was this feel-good story? 

It was the multi-cultural good news about "Manchester's melting pot - the city in which it's claimed 200 languages are now being spoken".

Yep, researchers have found that over 200 foreign languages are now spoken in Manchester. 

The smiling presenters informed us that those researchers believe that fact makes the city "increasingly attractive to international business."

Reporter Stuart Flinders kept the good multicultural news coming:
"More than 200 languages are spoken, some known mostly in no more than a handful of villages on the other side of the world. This is proof if ever it were needed that Manchester now really is truly an international city."
"In some shops it's handy to have a range of languages available".
"Big business is interested in multi-lingual Manchester too."
An academic from Manchester University - one of the researchers behind the study - expressed his approval too, and Stuart told us that no other large UK city can "boast so many languages". There followed lots of happy, joking 'vox pops' celebrating their various languages.

As the report ended, the North West Tonight presenters turned to each other with wide-eyed amazement:
"Never would have imagined there were so many languages spoken!"
"No, no, it does show what an international city this has become!"
It's all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I love smiling faces. I love multiculturalism. I've won the victory over myself. I love the BBC.

Sunday, 18 August 2013

Rant for the Day



It's the perennial question facing bloggers about BBC bias: Do our own biases bias us against the BBC's reporting, or is the BBC biased? Well, please judge for yourselves here...

When I started listening to Broadcasting House on Radio 4 this morning, I was expecting the Muslim Brotherhood side of the Egyptian argument to be given the lead, given that it's been given the lead over recent days on almost every BBC programme I've seen or heard, and almost the opening thing I heard on the programme was the voice of an MB supporter screaming that Morsi was elected and 'where are human rights?' and 'where is democracy?' 

My eyes raised to heaven [as I'm no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood]...and raised again when Hugh Sykes turned up to bemoan the plight of the "politically pragmatic" Brotherhood.

"Bugger off, Hugh!", I thought.

He didn't though, and pursued his familiar BBC narrative, stopping along the way (as Hugh is prone to do) to whinge about the wicked West and its wicked ways: "An Islamist who believed that the West believed in democracy, whatever the result. First Hamas in 2006. Now Egypt in 2013. Democracy dismissed. Twice. Dumped." [Cue the screaming MB supporter from the programme's introduction].

"Bugger off, Hugh!", I thought again.

Paddy O'Connell was consequently struck by "the passion from the street" [ie. from the Muslim Brotherhood], as reported by Hugh Sykes. 

An interesting report on the plight of pubs was followed by an interview with a Tory politician on the same subject. Paddy talked politics - "Mrs Thatcher", "bucking the markets", the Big Society hasn't been mentioned "for a thousand years", "breaking up big brewers", etc.

"Bugger off, Paddy!", I thought. 

Something about Hemel Hempstead (Britain's ugliest place) followed from Radio 4's 'Ed Reardon'. It completely by-passed my humour gland - though Paddy had a good chortle at it. (Genuinely? Or merely out of professional courtesy?)

Then it was off to Gibraltar. A BBC reporter was on patriotic duty on board a Royal Navy ship...no, scrub that...the BBC's Tom Burridge was on board a Spanish fishing boat, sailing into Gibraltar's waters.

"Bugger off, Tom!", I thought.

Still, at least he also reported from the queues outside Gibraltar, where British people were not happy at being kept waiting for hours on end, thanks to the Spanish blockade.

After all that swearing I will now go and wash my mouth out with soap and water.

"The phrase 'Arab Spring' seems a cruel irony this morning..."


Here's this week's review of Radio 4's Sunday.

7.10 Introduction, by Edward Stourton. His opening words?: "The phrase 'Arab Spring' seems a cruel irony this morning..."

7.11 The Archbishop of York announces a review into child abuse in the Anglican Church. Edward talked to Anne Lawrence of the Campaign to Stop Church Child Abuse. She wants a public inquiry into abuse in the Church.


7.15 Zoroastrianism.  In the light of the Zoroastrian new year, Edward interviewed Lord Karan Bilimoria, the only Zoroastrian in the House of Lords. Zoroastrianism is one of the world's oldest religions, though it has small numbers of followers these days. Lord Bilimoria gave some background to this ancient theistic religion, possibly the world's first monotheistic religion. There are just 6,000 Parsis in the UK. (Did you know Freddie Mercury was a Zoroastrian? Edward Stourton didn't.). 

Any issues for Zoroastrians? Lord Bilimoria has been on several BBC programmes over the last couple of years attacking the government's immigration cap, so it was unsurprising that he replied "immigration" and then attacked the "current government's blunt immigration cap". We should be encouraging immigration that benefits us, he said.

7.20 In St. Paul's footsteps. In the second part of his report, Bob Walker began his 300-mile work through Turkey. A local imam helps him when he gets lost. He encounters howling dogs, a dead wolf, a scary dam, thick mud, baking heat and many rivers. He quotes St. Paul's own description of his trek across this landscape. He meets no one else on the trail for days, then meets a Dutch couple [Christians] doing the same walk. They find it historically interesting. Way-marks prove elusive for Bob. The charity of locals is literally a life-saver for him. A Roman road, spectacular ruins. Anatolian sheepdogs are the scariest thing of all - big and fierce. Calls to prayer, mosques, minarets. He wonders what Paul would have made of those sounds. He finally reaches an Antioch church - the  Church of St. Paul, apparently built on synagogue. He recalls Paul & Barnabas's announcement that they will "turn to the gentiles" - a major event in Christianity, the beginning of "the universal Christian church".


7.26 GK Chesterton. An interview with Prof Alison Milbank on the Catholic writer, and on the calls for him to be canonised. She thinks he's a deep thinker and says that his little book on Thomas Aquinas is considered one of the greatest about the philosopher. His critiques of nihilism and relativism drew on his own experiences. His own theology? "A theology of gift", that everything is a gift from God - God the dramatist, artist. Quite a mystical theology. He also wrote a book called "Orthodoxy" - a spiritual autobiography, Prof Milbank calls it. She herself finds orthodoxy "exciting", Edward says it's "unfashionable". Edward notes that Pope Francis is rumoured to be a fan. 

7.31 Fracking and the Anglican Church. Church commissioners asserted their rights to mining this week, then issued a statement calling on anti-fracking protesters to consider the possible benefits of fracking. People put two and two together, noted Edward Stourton. So Philip Fletcher of the Church's group on Mission and Public Affairs was brought into the studio. Sunday had wanted to question the commissioners (presumably to give them a grilling), but they didn't want to speak to the programme. Edward pressed Mr Fletcher on the issue and asked whether the "desire for financial gain" had any part in the Church's statement. Ed then raised the issue of different opinions within the Church.

7.36 Immigration in Australia. The new Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, is taking on  the politicians over their tough immigration policies. We heard a report from the BBC's Phil Mercer, which began with a protest song about a Sri Lankan asylum seeker, of which we heard two surprisingly long extracts. Phil said that tougher policies are being promised by the politicians but Archbishop Davies wants a more "compassionate" approach to these "vulnerable" people and accuses the politicians of turning the issue into a "political football". Kevin Rudd is quoted, saying it's about saving lives not winning votes. He has, says Phil, an "uncompromising policy". Tony Abbott is also quoted, immediately followed by the sound of a protester shouting about "bigotry". We then heard about the anger in Australia's Muslim community" and a Muslim spokesman criticised the country's immigration policies. Phil speculated that the images of boat people "stirs deep fears" within many Australians. He asks: Is it an ancient "fear of invasion from Asia" or "simply xenophobia"? We then hear from a church minister who says Australians are not as kind as they think they are and then from the head of Australia's Refugee Council who is happy that church leaders are taking the lead against the politicians over immigration. Finally, it was back to Archbishop Davies and a final reiteration of his concerns. 


So, except for those two extracts from the politicians [both from public statements], this report consisted of nothing but a string of opponents of tough immigration policies. You would have thought that a few balancing 'talking heads' supportive of tough immigration policies would have been included in the report as a matter of course. But no, not a bit of it. 

Add to that remarkable imbalance of 'talking heads' Phil Mercer's own speculations about the irrationality of the Australian people's concerns about immigration and you get precisely the kind of biased pro-immigration reporting which critics of the BBC have long accused the corporation of being guilty of - and which the BBC says may have been the case in the past but is now no longer the case. Well, Phil Mercer's report here shows that it is still the case, now.  

7.42 Egypt. What's to be done about the Muslim Brotherhood? 

Edward Stourton didn't sound too happy at the army's use of force, from the tone of his questioning. He began by discussing matters with Jeremy Bowen. Both agreed that the Muslim Brotherhood is so deep rooted that the military's attempts to eliminate them as a political force won't succeed. 

In a bit of a change to the cast-list originally announced on the programme's website, Edward then brought in Coptic Bishop Angaelos and the (in)famous Tariq Ramadan, an ancestor of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Mr Ramadan says that he's been critical of Muslim Brotherhood strategy but they've not had long enough in power. The won the election, he said. For him, the coup-d'etat, the comeback of the army "is the true question".
Edward says the Copts can't do very much, as they are a small minority (just 10%). The bishop replies that an openly affiliated president shouldn't have been the case. It resulted in the "marginalisation" of Christians and a lot of Muslims who didn't share the Brotherhood's vision. It was "a power-grab that went through almost every section of society".


Mr Ramadan says that during the first uprising, Copts and Muslims protected each other. Copts have an important role to play, but advises them: "Don't take the side of the military". He wants the Copts to denounce army violence.
What of the liberals? Jeremy Bowen says they've made a lot of political mistakes, including since the coup. He expressed surprise at Mohammed al-Baradei's backing of the coup, sounding disappointed in a man he admires. He added though that the military action has a lot of support.
Be optimistic, Ed says. The bishop says clear guidelines on religion and policy needed as a partial democracy isn't a full democracy. The Brotherhood didn't try to represent everyone.
Tariq Ramadan says that national civic coalition is needed and wants the military's role defined and reduced.

******

So, did this edition of the programme draw on what I keep on describing as its "usual diet of breaking news from the Arab world, Christian-related abuse stories, bad news about the Catholic Church, something about human rights, the usual airing of Muslim grievances, a call for something or other by a left-wing campaign group, an Anglican row over something, that sort of thing"? 

Yes, most of that list was duly ticked by Sunday this week. Egypt took care of the 'breaking news from the Arab world' box; the opening story ticked the 'Christian-related abuse stories' box; the immigration report ticked three boxes - the 'something about human rights', the 'the usual airing of Muslim grievances' and the 'call for something or other by a left-wing campaign group' boxes; and the fracking story ticked the 'an Anglican row over something' box. Only the 'bad news about the Catholic Church' box went unticked this week.

Saturday, 17 August 2013

Think again, Fran



On that think tank-based study by the centre-right Centre for Policy Studies, a senior BBC editor has seen fit to post a riposte on the BBC's own 'About the BBC' blog....
This week the Centre for Policy Studies published a report claiming to have found a left of centre bias in the BBC’s online reporting of think tanks. They also claim right of centre think tanks are more likely to receive health warnings than their left of centre counterparts.
The CPS itself is hardly impartial on the BBC – it argues for a smaller BBC and campaigns against the licence fee.
Leaving this aside there are several points about the report that are worth noting.
The report crucially doesn’t give details of the actual news stories in which the think tanks are mentioned, omitting useful context. We don’t give health warnings about think tanks, we aim to describe them. The CPS also haven’t published their own definitions for describing the think tanks concerned - another crucial omission. Nor do they provide concrete evidence to back up their claims or publish the full methodology used – although they do point to references to searches on Wikipedia.
BBC News provides impartial and independent coverage to a quarter of a billion people across the world.
Our priority is to deliver the best services for all our audiences at home and abroad and in that we are pleased to say we are succeeding with record audiences abroad and more listeners and viewers at home than any of our competitors. We are rigorously policed by the BBC Trust, our own editorial guidelines and our own audiences. More importantly, we remain the most trusted news broadcaster in the UK.
Francesca Unsworth is Deputy Director, BBC News and Current Affairs
The comments are beginning to stray off-message though. Some long-winded pseudonymous type, whose tedious writing style is so uncannily like my own that I suspect it was actually written by me, writes in reply:
"The CPS itself is hardly impartial on the BBC – it argues for a smaller BBC and campaigns against the licence fee."
I believe that's what's known as an 'ad hominem argument'. If their findings are correct then their motivation is irrelevant.
No less an 'ad hom' is your snide point about them referring to Wikipedia - which they did (once) merely to access a list of well-known UK think tanks. 
Do you think that context would help, Fran? That comparing the BBC articles which mention the left-leaning IPPR to those which mention the right-leaning CPS, for example, would show that the BBC is impartial? 
Take a look for yourself and you'll find it won't. 
Search under 'IPPR' and 'Institute for Public Policy Research' and 'Centre for Policy Studies' and read each article since, say, Jan 2012 and you'll see that IPPR reports form the starting point of significantly more articles (by a large margin) than CPS reports.
Context is unlikely to be your friend here. 
"We don’t give health warnings about think tanks, we aim to describe them." 
Excuse me if I don't accept that, given that you so often don't describe them when doing so would give your viewers and listeners a useful handle on where they are coming from. 
As an extra example of that, the Resolution Foundation think tank's findings on 'the squeezed middle' (so helpful to the Labour Party and widely reported by the BBC), might benefit from context being given as to the centre-left nature of that particular think tank - plus the links of many of its senior figures to the last Labour government. 
The CPS could have done with showing ALL their working, but they showed more of it than you are implying. Did you not read the introduction to their report?
Your response here isn't really adequate, is it? And appearing to get your defences from 'Liberal Conspiracy' doesn't add to your credibility either.
Am I Is that Beeb-bashing commenter right there? Or am I is he being unfair? 

Talk Like an Egyptian



Today's Dateline London (minus Gavin Esler) was an unusually feisty and rewarding affair. 

Much of it was taken up with a discussion of this week's violent events in Egypt and it began with an impassioned contribution from the programme's regular Egyptian contributor, Abdallah Homouda. 

This came across as something of a cry of frustration at the way in which the events have been covered by Western media organisations, and Mr Homouda gave me the impression of being distinctly nervous about presenting his own point of view on the BBC today - given the BBC's own recent reporting.

[Maybe he'd heard the BBC's Roger Hearing bellowing at a liberal Egyptian pro-army guest on last night's The World Tonight].  

Here's as exact a transcription as possible (sorry, but a couple of words eluded me):
I was concerned yesterday when I was told that I would come to the programme because I felt that I could be a lone voice in a tide of Western media which is barraging Egypt these days. 
I find it really difficult to say that..er..
Everything is accusing the military, accusing the security forces and exonerating the culprit, who is the Muslim Brotherhood. There are 350,000 members, well-organised and bound by obedience and commitment, well-trained, and a wing of them is well-armed and they have taken on the security forces from the very beginning. 
They massed their members in two areas around Cairo. They made life difficult for everyone.
Everyone forgot that there were 45 days of agitation, contrary to the narration in the West.
In the West they played on the fact that they are against the military and for democracy and in Cairo they were speaking about the Islamic estate and the Islamic identity of Egypt and that Western democracy is a heretic civilisation. 
They spoke about the Coptic Christians in Egypt as 'casual citizens'. 'Casual citizens' could go anywhere, but Egypt is for them only and not for everyone else.
It is amazing that the Left and the Right both in the West are so naive, or they have their own self-interest. The Egyptian people are beginning to feel, in a way, under attack, xenophob....sorry, I can't say the word...yeah, xenophobic.  
I am so stressed because of the situation to the extent that I find it difficult even to speak in Arabic, because of the unfairness of the situation.
The military just set the scene to reboot the democratic process. The new president is by the default constitution the head of the constitutional court, so he.. [came?]. A new government has been appointed of technocrats who are well-respected around the world and the army is guarding from as far away as possible, leaving the security forces to direct the situation.
The 45 days of agitation threatened everyone, 'We either control you or kill you', and encouraging their own members to play martyrdom, and embarrass the Egyptian authorities in the world.
What I can say is not enough.
I have a list of 45 churches around Egypt which were burned.
What is happening in killing is up and down the country. It is not between the security forces and the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies, it is between the Muslim Brotherhood who are attacking the people.
Today I'm going to interview an English lady who lives in Alexandria and this lady has pictures and will give testimony. I'm inviting Nabila to come and interview her as well, just to know what is going on from someone who is not Egyptian.
The surprising thing here was that Mr Homouda wasn't a lone voice on the panel. In fact, that lone voice belonged instead to the French-Algerian Guardian columnist Nabila Ramdani. 


Nabila - as you might already be aware - has been one of the BBC's most-used 'external' commentators on Middle Eastern matters in the last few years, perhaps because her views strike many at the BBC as being well-judged. (I have to say though that I usually completely disagree with her).

However, in a complete reversal of the situation I'd have expected from Dateline, Nabila Ramdani found herself ranged not only against Mr Homouda but also against Janet Daley of The Sunday Telegraph [from the Right] and Marc Roche of Le Monde [from the Left] - both taking Mr Homouda's side in the noisy tussle that ensued. 

Nabila's views tallied with much that I've been hearing from the many BBC reporters and editors who have been reporting from the country over the past few days and weeks. It was most unusual to find her views so robustly challenged - and all thanks to Dateline [not something I usually find myself writing!] 

3-against-1 situations on Dateline are something I usually complain about (though actually the programme's frequent 4-against-0 consensuses are my particular bugbear.), so I suppose I should be complaining about bias here too. 

I'm not though. Is this because this particular bias coincides happily with my own point of view? Or because this particular bias (deliberately or accidentally) counteracted the prevailing bias of the BBC's own reporters (as I think it does)? 

Thus Spake Zarathustra

"Mmmm....Sunday, with Ed Stourton"




My attempts at predicting what's going to up for discussion on Sunday have been thwarted once more, as the programme has again published its 'table of contents' a day early. 

To be covered...an interview with the Archbishop of Lima about the two British women arrested in Peru over suspected drug trafficking; the second half of that 'following in the footsteps of St.Paul' report; an interview with Lord Karan Bilimoria, the first Zoroastrian Parsi to sit in the House of Lords, about Zoroastrianism; a report from Australia about an Anglican archbishop's campaign against the proposed crackdown on asylum seekers [a typical Sunday story]; the campaign for the canonisation of GK Chesterton; and a discussion of the question, 'Can Egypt ever be reconciled with itself?', between a bishop of the Coptic Church in the UK and two academics.

Jon Donnison - suppository of bias



A few days ago we did a piece about how the BBC's biases were already making themselves evident during the corporation's initial coverage of the Australian federal election. 

Among the points made was that stories about 'gaffes' by right-wing politicians are standard fare when it comes to the BBC's foreign coverage - as the BBC seems to love such stories.  'Gaffes' by left-wing politicians, in contrast, barely get a mention. That opening week's coverage went overboard on one such right-wing 'gaffe' story (concerning a minor candidate from a minor party). "More of the same should probably be expected over the next month," was the post's closing prediction.

That was last Sunday. So, has the coverage between then and now borne out this 'more of the same' prediction? Or not?

Well, the next flurry of articles came on Tuesday. 

First up was a piece by Jon Donnison, Where should you put your wisdom? - a post about Australia's leading right-wing politician, Liberal leader Tony Abbott, and a 'gaffe' he made mixing up "suppositories" with "repositories". This article ended, in absolutely classic biased BBC fashion with, "It's led to unfortunate comparisons with the master of the political slip of the tongue, George W Bush." 

Then later in the same day Jon Donnison returned with a second article, Abbott accused of new campaign 'gaffe'. This time Mr Abbott had said that Fiona Scott, one of his party's female candidates (who he was out campaigning with), has "a bit of sex appeal". (You can see her to the right of Mr Abbott in the picture at the top of this post). Cue reminders by JD of the accusations of misogyny made against Mr Abbott by Julia Gillard. As you might recall from last next's post, however, JD failed to post an article about a leading Labor candidate having been forced out for calling a female opponent a 'slut' (which seems to me to be far more clearly misogynistic). 

Onto Wednesday and the BBC had a new article about the Ozzie elections. Guess what it was about!: Australia election: Tony Abbott 'sex appeal' comments under fire, following up the same 'gaffe' story.

Later that same day, Jon Donnison was back and what did he want to report on this time? Tony Abbott's 'fashion of the moment'. Here JD seized on Mr Abbott "describing gay marriage as the fashion of the moment" to raise another 'gaffe' charge against him.

All three of JD's articles about Tony Abbott's gaffes have a tinge of mockery to their humour - at the Liberal leader's expense - and they followed on, you will recall, from the week before's spate of Jon Donnison articles about an obscure right-wing candidate for a tiny party who'd made some 'gaffes' about Islam. So, 'gaffes' by right-wing politicians clearly are Jon Donnison's main theme at the moment. 

He's only been reporting from Australia for two weeks now and yet has obviously slipped straight into the generic mode of biased BBC reporting for foreign elections. 

Still, at least he's now given it a rest for a few days. His only subsequent post (from Thursday), How much?, concerned the cost of living in Sydney, especially for students. 

The other articles about the Australian election on the BBC News website concern immigration and all come from yesterday - a full-length article, Australian election: Tony Abbott proposes tough asylum measures, and two video reports related to it. There's not much wrong with any of these.

So, what insights into the Australian election will Jon Donnison be bringing BBC website readers next week? How's Labor's campaign going so far? What are the polls suggesting? What are the big issues? Of course, he could just stick to reporting any other 'gaffes' by right-wing politicians that crop up. 

Thursday, 15 August 2013

Marshalling the facts



When it comes to providing thought-provoking insights into major Middle Eastern events, Sky's Tim Marshall seems to me to beat the BBC's Jeremy Bowen all hands down. 

If you want proof of that, just compare Jeremy Bowen's 'stating the blindingly obvious' analysis on events in Egypt here with Tim Marshall's eye-opening analysis of the same story here

Polly put the kettle on and we'll have...the BBC



The Commentator raises an interesting line of argument, and relates it to every right-winger's favourite bogey-woman, the BBC's former Home Affairs editor, Polly Toynbee of the Guardian...

In a Grauniad article, Polly "nervously acknowledges" that the BBC gets "73% of news audience", but says that's "because people choose it". She claims: "The BBC is not an opinionator, and its size is no democratic threat but a democratic asset in a world where moguls buy press power. It's Murdoch who intimidates governments...". She simply cannot understand why conservatives don't want to conserve this "great", "independent", "non-market" British institution. "The BBC stands as a monumental public good", she says. 

The lesson The Commentator draws from his is that Polly has an "abject, almost sociopathic, inability to empathise that leaves one dumbfounded. It never occurs to her that people of a different political-ideological disposition might genuinely look upon the BBC as possessed of an institutionalised liberal-Left bias. Because the BBC reflects her own prejudices, she cannot but assume that it must be objective; all the biased opinions being on the other side of the political spectrum."

When one of the Guardian's most biased columnists argues that the BBC is essentially impartial and worth cherishing many a right-winger will raise their eyes to heaven. The question is: Will those who aren't right-wingers raise an eye-brow too?

Get UKIP (again)




As someone not wholly unsympathetic to UKIP, am I being biased in complaining that the BBC is making an awful lot out of the accusations of 'sexism' against UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler? 

The accusations originated with Claire Gerada of the Royal College of General Practitioners. For the BBC she's merely the head of the Royal College of GPs. For me she's an avowed socialist with little (or no) sympathy for the party. As a result, I see her accusations in a very particular light.

The story features on the home page of the BBC News website - UKIP man denies sexism in debate - and is ranked in priority above the latest wave of mass murders in Iraq and the story about large numbers of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants having already arrived in our country.

And there's more...

The World at One discussed it as the second story in their running order (after Egypt), hauling in Mr Wheeler to defend himself. 

Plus I've just started listening to PM and Eddie is promising a debate between Ms Gerada and a UKIP supporter, so it looks as if PM is making it its second story too. 

And yet...neither the Sky News nor ITV News websites are making anything of the story. 

So, at least as far as the broadcast media are concerned (until Channel 4 News inevitably gets onto Mr Wheeler's case), the BBC stands alone in making this a massive story - and a negative story for UKIP.

Still, I listened to Martha Kearney's interview with Mr Wheeler on The World at One and I have to say that Martha not only allowed him to make his case but seemed rather charmed by him and that Mr Wheeler gave a perfectly credible and nuanced account of himself. I couldn't disagree with anything he said. 

That's something in favour of the BBC, I suppose - even if the prominence given to the story on The World at One does suggest an anti-UKIP bias. 

The bad side is the web article (linked to above), which strikes me as almost vicious. Please take a read of it for yourself and see what you think.

That PM debate is going on as I type. It's Claire Gerada v UKIP's Diane James. Ms Gerada is slagging off Mr Wheeler while Diane James is arguing against taking things out of context and playing to a political agenda. 

Who is Eddie putting in the dock? No one impartial would deny that Diane got a much tougher time than Claire, being interrupted and being asked tougher questions, with more than a flavour of cynicism in the way Eddie put one of those questions.

As you may have guessed, I'm something of an Eddie Mair fan but this wasn't impartial interviewing - even though he gave space for both guests to make their points. 

I may have a soft spot for UKIP but the BBC's coverage of this story today suggests they have something of a bias against the party. Hardly a jaw-dropping revelation I know, but there you are!

Update: Tellingly, BBC One's News at Six covered the story. ITV's main evening news bulletin didn't.

Still, at least the BBC bulletin only dealt with it briefly, near the end of the bulletin - unlike its Radio 4 colleagues.

Fools and Posturing Celebrities

I know I should be used to it by now, but I’m still shocked and taken aback by the intensity of feeling expressed by the ‘Hitler was right’ brigade. It’s particularly upsetting when it comes from the music world, around which I hover on the periphery.

I often read Norman Lebrecht’s bog ‘Slipped Disc’ and a while ago I came across an unusual guest post by pianist Peter Donahoe who had been performing a series of concerts in Israel. His piece ‘Israel Diaries’ can be read on his own website. He gives a positive account of his experiences, adding that he was not especially au fait with the politics and history of the region. Predictably, a small avalanche of left-leaning music fans proceeded to enlighten him, many criticising his decision to go to Israel into the bargain.

Pianist Peter Donahoe

This unpleasant scenario was repeated with a vengeance when the Israel Philharmonic’s Prom was defiled by attention-seeking fools, when the topic that caused most interest amongst the Slipped Disc commentariat was not so much the incident itself but the suspension of a London Philharmonic Orchestra member who had written  a letter calling for the Israel Philharmonic to be banned from the BBC Proms,

Many such people have descended upon BBCWatch to complain about Hadar’s article on Nigel Kennedy’s recent inappropriate politicising during the performance. 
“Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a bit facile to say it, but we all know from experience in this night of music tonight that, given equality, and getting rid of apartheid, gives beautiful chance for amazing things to happen.”

Nigel Keffiyeh Kennedy

On a blog that usually attracts a small handful of Hitler Was Righters, there is now a small avalanche of people who are incandescent with fury on behalf of the Palestinians and “What Israel is doing to them.” The tone of their arguments remind me of the comments that appeared on the Channel 4 blog surrounding Peter Kosminsky’s sham historical fiction The Promise. People were outraged in a similar fashion, with acres of incorrect quotes and tranches of misunderstood, factually wrong, distorted versions of the Israel/Palestine situation. Another notable trend is the bandying about of Jenny Tonge’s favourite phrase, which she might have invented, namely the ubiquitous: “What Israel is doing” (to the Palestinians) uttered confidently, without feeling any obligation to expand, like a conspiratorial wink and the ‘know what I mean?‘when sometimes you don’t really know at all.

I called these people the Hitler Was Right Brigade because their arguments always boil down to just that. 
Underlying most of it is the fear and loathing they have for the all-powerful Zionist Lobby, which they believe lies behind every defence or positive remark about Israel that they're unfortunate enough to be confronted with. 
“Why is it that western society always listens to the Israeli Zionist Jews lies. They twist historic events and have the gall to call the written record, false.
Anyone standing up to them is instantly branded as an anti-semite, when they aren’t semites”.
asks one commenter. Well, anyone can see how difficult it would be to turn the likes of that person round.
“Sadly, there are still supporters of Zionism/Israel who only respond in line with the constructed narrative they have been taught.”
says another with an alarming lack of self-awareness.
The nub of the matter is the perception, disseminated by a plethora of BBC ‘experts’, that Jews stole the land from the rightful inhabitants, the indigenous Arab Muslims, possibly at gunpoint, like something out of a gangster movie, or the Zimbabwean land grab.
“It was called Palestine, Britain had the mandate until May 1948, when it was handed back to the UN, the Zionists came and stole it from the rightful occupants. The UN had proposed a division which, rightfully, the Palestinians said No to. Would anyone like their country being given to people from another country?” 
ventures one contributor, while the reposte, which opens:
Hard to credit someone can come onto this forum displaying such a high level of sheer ignorance.” 
- you just know will fall on deaf ears, despite being followed up with a detailed correction.

Here’s another passionate declaration of the ‘truth”
The truth is the Palestinians live under a a dailyoccupation,(sic) their lands stolen, when do the Palestinians ever get a balanced and fair coverage.. I for one commend what Mr Kennedy had to say. When Israel begins to address it’s cruel policies to the people of Gaza and the West Bank, and it’s failure to respect international laws, then perhaps less people will raise their voices in opposition.”

There’s an actual  9/11 conspiracy theorist amongst them, but mostly they’re people with  child-like willingness to take on and fight for the cause of victimhood, and run with it, blindly, up the wrong garden path. 

But I’m sorry to say that these are the views of a frightening majority; not that the numbers game has much going for it,  but since one of the arguments in their arsenal is the ‘disproportionate’ one, where war casualty numbers alone comprise the beginning, middle and and end of their case against Israel, one might equally point out the geographical disproportionality between Israel and its hostile neighbours and remind them that Jews are a numerically insignificant bunch in terms of the world’s population. 

Another recent illustration of the 'Hitler Was Right' thinking took the form of a stream of incontinent vitriol in response to Guido’s  images of Gaza. I mean.

Of course the important question concerns celebrities exploiting their position for political rants of various kinds, and the fact that their opinions may not be any more well-informed or considered than anyone else’s. In fact it rarely is. The consequences of their outbursts might be far-reaching too. 
When Nigel Kennedy utters a soundbite during his publicity  tour and the broadcasting studios and press utilize the sensationalist, controversialist  elements of it to boost their ratings, what can one expect, other than fanning a few flames and stirring up a bit more Jew-bashing.

“These problems of apartheid in Israel at the moment are extreme. You know, people not able to get onto their orange groves, people not able to get education, not able to get medical supplies.”
(From Saturday Live.)
Pianist Evgeny Kissin


The only thing one must ask oneself is, do we feel the same way when, say, someone like Evgeny Kissin rises above the piano world and comes out with a political statement of his own in this ‘open Letter to the BBC’.


Dear Sir,
I first came to live in this country thirteen years ago and became a British subject seven years ago, having grown up in the Soviet Union. I was inspired and proud to belong to the country of Winston Churchill, who famously said "There is no anti-Semitism in England because we do not consider ourselves more stupid than the Jews". Above all, the BBC and especially its World Service had always been a beacon of light, of truth and objectivity to those of us behind the Iron Curtain, in the Evil Empire. Reaching out to far corners of the world, it was the voice of a country which for us was a model of democracy and human rights.
Since a long time now, I receive verified reports on an almost daily basis of the BBC's slander and bias towards Israel, painfully reminiscent of the old Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda. This culminated with the BBC's Persian Service's blood libel concerning Israel's alleged harvesting of Palestinian organs and blood for future transplant. It beggars belief that the British taxpayer should be funding an organisation which is aligning itself with Iran's despotic leader in its anti-Semitic propaganda.
Other print media, like the Guardian, which erroneously printed this libel, propagated by Israel's enemies, have since apologized. I am not aware of any such retraction from the BBC.
Is it not high time for the BBC to return to the values for which is was so much respected before it finds itself in the garbage of history together with Pravda, TASS, Volkischer Beobachter and Der Angruff? Yours faithfully,
Evgeny Kissin


Wednesday, 14 August 2013

The Howard League kindly requests...

Free Fletch and Godber!

The second-most important story in the world this morning is, according to the BBC News website,
Thieves and fraudsters should not be jailed, a legal expert says in a pamphlet released by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
The anti-prison Howard League, according to the BBC, "plans to distribute the pamphlet, entitled 'What if imprisonment were abolished for property offences?' to every magistrates' court in England and Wales in an attempt to spark a debate on sentencing issues."

The BBC is clearly doing its bit to help the Howard League along with that campaign by making Prof Andrew Ashworth's views such a prominent story. It is probably a safe bet that Today will also be doing its bit this morning.

Still, it's an interesting question and I see that both the Sky News and ITV News websites are covering the story too - albeit placing it much lower down their news agendas.

Update: Ah yes, Today is doing its bit. The programme's live page today has just got underway and says this:
0810: Thieves and fraudsters should not be jailed, a legal expert has said
So, Today is not only doing its bit but actually giving over its prestigious 8.10 spot to the story. The Howard League could not have hoped for anything better than that. 

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Is the BBC pogonophobic?


Former BBC Director General

Talking about BBC employees - and former employees - accusing the BBC of bias, Jeremy Paxman has accused his employer of being biased against beards, describing the BBC as being "generally as pogonophobic as the late-lamented Albanian dictator, Enver Hoxha". 

His former radio-bound colleague Robin Lustig concurred, saying that when he wanted to get into television he was told "that if I seriously wanted to do more, I would have to get rid of my beard."

In an act of brazen defiance, Jeremy sported a fine set of whiskers on last night's Newsnight, provoking a twitterstorm from the Twitterati. 

In the spirit of triviality, I thought I'd share that with you. Radio 4's The World at One felt the same way this lunchtime.

The BBC's Rapid Reaction Force in action?


This made me smile. 

The report into BBC bias by the Centre for Policy Studies - focusing on how the BBC reports the findings of think tanks from opposing sides of the political spectrum-  received wide coverage in the last couple of days, and one of the examples used was the left-leaning New Economics Foundation. 

As a post here at Is the BBC biased? also showed yesterday, not one of the BBC News website's articles from the start of 2012 through to yesterday gave any political label to the New Economic Foundation (except for one use of 'independent'). 

Lo and behold, today there's a fresh article on the BBC News website, Could these five projects improve life in the UK?, containing more findings from the New Economics Foundation and, guess what, here's how BBC reporter Tom de Castella describes them:
Left-of-centre think tank the New Economics Foundation...
Well, that was quick! 

Has a memo gone out from senior managers at the BBC?

Incidentally, a CPS researcher, Ryan Bourne, makes a striking claim in the Daily Mail which shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's in the the Daily Mail:
How the biased BBC linked my free-market views to homophobia: Researcher says he was asked to debate against gay rights campaigner
“This might not be up your street [said a World Service producuer] but we were wondering whether, as a free marketeer, you would debate Peter Tatchell on our programme about whether enough is being done to combat homophobia across Europe”.
‘I was astonished. It made no sense at all. The researcher seemed to assume that because I believe in a free market economy I must also be homophobic. It seemed to reveal a deep-seated, unthinking bias against right-of-centre points of view. I am not homophobic at all.’