What constitutes a religion?

This morning's Sunday with Edward Stourton did mostly what you would expect Sunday with Edward Stourton to do. There were segments dealing with two of the programme's main obsessions - same-sex marriage and priestly abuse within the Catholic Church - plus three distinct features on Nelson 'Madiba' Mandela. 

The report on same-sex marriage featured a balanced range of voices but did what such reports tend to do on Sunday: End with the liberal point of view. (One day, when I've got some spare time, I'll properly test that hypothesis out). It looked at the continuing debate within the various denominations of Christianity and Judaism (though, oddly, not Islam). 

All the usual Sunday talking points rather crowded out the other stuff, but the other stuff was genuinely interesting. 

The crowding-out problem in particular resulted in a somewhat cramped closing discussion about what constitutes a religion.

This took place in the light of the UK Supreme Court's ruling this week in favour of Scientology, and the programme's guests were Professor John Haldane from St. Andrew's University and Professor Linda Woodhead from Lancaster University. The discussion seemed to have barely got underway when they ran out of time. 

Professor Woodhead supported the court's ruling, while Professor Haldane disagreed with it (so that was a balanced choice of guests); however, it was their more general discussion of how to define a religion which was particularly absorbing, and of which I'll try to give you a flavour.

Edward Stourton asked if belief in God was a necessary part of any such definition. I instantly thought, "What about Buddhism then?", and Linda Woodhead echoed that very point soon after. John Haldane agreed that belief in God isn't a necessary part of religion. 

So what is? 

Well, Prof. Woodhead proposed that religion is focused on "alternative orderings of things, ways that are considered more beautiful, more true, more moral and more potent."

Ed read out the court's description of a religion as "a spiritual or non-secular belief system which claims to explain mankind's place in the universe and relationship with the infinite".

John Haldane queried the words "spiritual" and "non-secular", describing non-secular as "a contrastive term": "You might say, 'What does that contrast with?', and the obvious answer would be 'religion'" - i.e. a circular argument!

He proposed instead, if you're attempting an abstract definition, that a belief in a transcendent reality, a belief in something beyond the natural order, must be an essential part of that definition. 

Linda Woodhead was sceptical, raising the old 'Brains Trust' point: 'Well, that depends on what you mean by 'transcendent'. 

Prof. Haldane defined it as being the idea that religion "seeks a source of meaning of the world beyond the world, that is outside the order of nature" and argues that Scientology isn't a religion in those terms, merely a kind of "cosmological speculation about people on other planets".

Ed Stourton raised the question of strength of belief and whether that's a factor. 

Linda Woodhead preferred the idea of sincerity of belief. Hence, the Jedi Knights (of Census fame) aren't considered a real religion because they weren't really sincere, just a bit of a joke.

John Haldane was sceptical about using sincerity as a criteria as you can be sincere about all kinds of things that couldn't be considered grounds for religion, such as your sincerity towards your relationships with other people or your belief in science. (Richard Dawkins is sincere and strong in his belief that there's no God and that religion is a bad thing, of course). 

Just as Linda Woodhead said that Prof. Haldane was moving towards the question of what is true, Edward Stourton had to bring things to a close. 

The other interesting segment reported on the plight of Jamaica's tiny Jewish community - and it was quite a good news story. 

When the Spanish monarchy proclaimed the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, Columbus was sailing the ocean to blue to the Caribbean and (without intending it) opened up one escape route for Spanish and Portuguese Jewish refugees, the first of whom arrived in Jamaica as early at 1494. That makes them one of the oldest Jewish communities in the Western hemisphere. 

Recently, the tiny community there (of around 200 people) has received an academic boost - as well as a growing number of converts. 

DNA testing has revealed that around 424,000 Jamaicans have some Jewish ancestry. Doing a quick calculation, that suggests that just under 15% of the Jamaican population has Jewish ancestry. Jewish-sounding surnames are common on the island, we were told, so that might have been a big clue anyhow!

When it's not beating its various drums, Sunday can be such an interesting programme. 

And now for something completely different...

On a more positive note (and to change the subject), there was a lovely programme on Radio 4 this morning hosted by pianist and academic (and occasional Radio 3 presenter) David Owen Norris on the musical interests of the 'peasant poet' John Clare.

This episode, the first in a new series called The Playlist Series, had a fascinating subject, a likeable presenter, and three interesting (and interested) guests - and the music the presenter unearthed included a pleasant folksong, a delightfully smutty song and a particularly beautiful arrangement of another folksong as arranged by Clare himself in his late asylum years - a song with charms to sweeten anyone's solitude. I liked this latter piece so much I even tweeted him to ask him if it could be recorded. (Well, you can only ask.)

IN HILLY-WOOD

How sweet to be thus nestling deep in boughs,

Upon an ashen stoven pillowing me;

Faintly are heard the ploughmen at their ploughs,

But not an eye can find its way to see.

The sunbeams scarce molest me with a smile,

So thick the leafy armies gather round;

And where they do, the breeze blows cool the while,

Their leafy shadows dancing on the ground.

Full many a flower, too, wishing to be seen,

Perks up its head the hiding grass between.-

In mid-wood silence, thus, how sweet to be;

Where all the noises, that on peace intrude,

Come from the chittering cricket, bird, and bee,

Whose songs have charms to sweeten solitude.

Burbling away

I feel a bit like the BBC at the moment: All I can talk about is Nelson Mandela. So here's another post on the same subject.

Tomorrow will see extensive coverage of the great man's funeral on  BBC One, the BBC News Channel, the BBC World Service, BBC Radio 4 and 5Live and, frankly, it's even getting too much for the BBC's Kate Adie.

DB at Biased BBC has transcribed part of an interview she gave to the BBC World Service: 

Paul Henley: Kate how are you taking to the Mandela coverage that has been pretty much across all the airwaves for the past week?

Kate Adie: It’s not been “pretty much” across it, it HAS been across and it’s been an example of eventism in television. Hours and hours of, as it were, a camera placed staring with no great reason for it to be there.

Paul Henley: But it’s the death of a world figure who perhaps inspires more people across the planet than any body else.

Kate Adie: Indeed, but that doesn’t mean you spend hours staring at nothing and with people burbling away. There is a fascination amongst the media with big events. They’re a kind of modern drama and they’re unscripted and they go on forever. And at times I think they do a disservice to the actual central figure in the sense that they turn it into this long-running soap opera and it devalues it. And certainly with Mandela what you have is an extraordinary life and when it comes to the end of it suddenly the media turns into this quasi-religious fascinated-by-individual-grief monster which in a way does not reflect well on the man and his particularly simple approach to life.

Couldn't agree more, Kate!

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary

Both this afternoon's Feedback on Radio 4 and tonight's Newswatch on the News Channel led with the 2000+ complaints about the BBC's coverage of the death of Nelson Mandela. Those complainants felt (like me) that the BBC has gone Malala...Madiba mad in recent days. 

Also on both programmes, the BBC's Head of News, Mary Hockaday, was wheeled out to say that the BBC always takes viewers'/listeners' concerns on board but that, despite that, those viewers/listeners are all wrong and the  BBC's coverage was absolutely spot-on. 

Moreover, she made it perfectly clear that the corporation will continue to completely ignore those complainants' concerns and carry on regardless, clearing its schedules on Sunday (for example) to cover Nelson Mandela's funeral in full - however long it takes - on both BBC One and the BBC News Channel. 

'Isn't that too much?', asked Samira on Newswatch.

No, replied Mary, as BBC Two will carry Breakfast (and presumably the Andrew Marr Show) - as if that means that viewers who don't want to watch the funeral in full, live, can find alternative BBC viewing. 

I have to say that such asylum-seeking viewers are extremely unlikely to find that this Sunday morning's Breakfast or Andrew Marr Show (if it's on) will be havens at all. Both programmes are bound to be just as full of Malalamania Madibamania as the live coverage on BBC One and the News Channel, to be sure, to be sure.

She also said that the BBC has had good stats about the license-fee payer's interest in their coverage, citing (among other things) the BBC News website...

...but we here at Is? and commenters at Biased BBC have been presenting regular snapshots of what is interesting BBC website readers through the site's 'Most read' function (featured on their homepage) ,and that has revealed a staggering lack of interest from BBC website readers, with Nelson Mandela stories almost entirely absent from their Top 10 for much of the time.

[The sign-language interpreter has sparked some interest though!]

If you're wondering what's interesting BBC News website readers now it's:

1: 'Shooting' at school in Denver, US
2: Explosion in Cathedral Quarter
3: N Korea purge sparks stability fears
4: Prince Harry reaches South Pole
5: James Bond is an 'impotent drunk'
6: The death of an aspirant journalist
7: Pupil, 14, found hanged at school
8: BT apologises for 'poor' TV service
9: Nigella 'lied in court', PA says
10: Failing free school ordered to close

By the by, foreign news stories aren't always a pull, but I have noticed that whenever a news site (and not just the BBC) offers its readers a juicy North Korea/Kim Jong-fat story, they do seem pretty eager to read it.

I can understand that as I almost invariably click on North Korea stories. There's something about that murderous, communist-monarchical madhouse with it's young, fat, oh-so-ronery leader that just makes articles about it very hard to avoid clicking on.

Talking of which, a joke...

BBC foreign correspondent: "So, how's life in North Korea?"
North Korean citizen: "Well, I can't complain."

Update 8.45 (14/12/2013)

The BBC website is again leading with Nelson Mandela. The most read articles now are:

1: The map that caused a century of trouble
2: Lord Roberts of Conwy dies, aged 83
3: Forecasters predict 'severe gales'
4: 'Left for dead' dog makes recovery
5: Alcohol link in Briton's US death
6: Man and woman found dead in house
7: Online scam targets ski tourists
8: Readers' radical solutions to protect cyclists
9: Bomb explodes in Cathedral Quarter
10: Shooting in Colorado high school

Red herring

<----Sisters and Brothers---->

“Gender segregation would be outlawed by labour” says Chuka Umunna, still aboard the bandwagon afforded him by the Today programme yesterday.  

But the nasty party have countered with: “Gender segregation in universities is pandering to extremism,” Michael Gove has said, as he became the latest politician to wade into the divisive row over external speakers."

While the hard-copy Telegraph has the headline: “Forcing sexes apart is not permissible says equality watchdog” to an article by home affairs correspondent David Barrett, the online version’s headline is: 

“Official watchdog says university sex segregation plans 'not permissible'”. 

After yesterday’s discussion with Justin Webb, many people felt that Justin made mincemeat out of Ms Dandridge. But I’m not so sure. While “Forcing sexes apart” sounds unseemly, “Forcing them together” almost sounds worse. Imagine compulsory seating arrangements a la the dinner party regulations: Man, lady, man, lady, man lady. 

Enforcing seating arrangements of any kind seems regressive and inappropriate, and haven’t the universities argued that they’re ‘providing’ separate areas rather than imposing blanket restrictions, though the “brothers/ sisters” notice seems to contradict that.

 

Brothers, sisters, does God exist?

Nicola Dandridge feels that  if brothers and sisters wish to self-segregate that’s up to them. We can’t have gender police standing at the door forcibly mingling lads and lasses, surely.  But it’s a big ‘if’, for who’s to say what’s really behind this business of being “comfortable” or “uncomfortable”, with such things?

As for gender apartheid in general, no-one can even agree on the effect, if any, that ‘gender’ has on our cognitive abilities.  All this business about vertically wired brains versus horizontally wired lady-brains is dubious.  Now that even our anatomical, gender-related characteristics can be surgically reversed it’s all a blur. But there is, nevertheless, an anatomical difference between men and women, no matter how much we like to pretend otherwise. Common sense should be the arbiter of what’s best for whom.

It seems that everyone, except Nicola Dandridge and the young conservative chaplain Saleem Chagtai, who defended it on the Today programme (08:32) agrees that separate seating at Islamic meetings is misogynistic and unacceptable in universities at any time and under any circumstances. 

However, doesn’t this whole kerfuffle  about gender segregation in universities seem like a red herring? It certainly does to me. It’s a bit like all the other Muslim/Islam-related phenomena, which seem so antithetical to what I assumed was modern civilization. Things that should be accepted as ‘given’, like women’s right to education, the right to equality and enforcing the law against FGM and honour-killing now appear to be a matter of debate. Why, in this day and age should the acceptance of rabid homophobia and antisemitism even be debated let alone tolerated? 

I can’t see how the stridently feminist Sara Khan, or any other ‘brave’ modernising Muslim women can be all that liberated, empowered or free if despite championing certain reforms they’re still associating themselves with Islam.

We’re guilty of pretending that we object to gender segregation merely because it’s a symptom of paternalism and misogyny, which is how I interpreted what Sara Khan said this morning.

Well yes; and a symptom of a paternalistic, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic,  barren, hypocritical, superstitious, warmongering, jealous, medieval religion. Sorry Sara, sorry Nicola, sorry Saleem, sorry everyone, but while you’re denying the incompatibility of ‘Islam’, ‘University’ and 'Great Britain', you’re not making much sense. 

Opportunistic soundbite

Interesting feature on Today with Justin and a defender of the London university ‘gender apartheid’ debacle.

I’ve boiled down the item till it’s reduced to half its volume.

Lady opens with famous burka manoeuvre - “who are we (UCL) to interfere with a woman’s right to wear/sit where she likes?”

Justin counters with “Women are probably coerced into choosing segregation”

Closing move: ”Libertarian universities can never ‘dictate’ rules.”

Labour business secretary Chuks in “Labour government wouldn’t allow gender apartheid” 

(impliedly invoking Umunnity from own responsibility bringing about the problem in the first place.) 

((By encouraging mass Muslim immigration without which aforementioned problem would not have arisen.))

The BBC v free schools

Leading free school advocate and Telegraph blogger Toby Young is not happy with the BBC:

The BBC's anti-free schools bias is becoming laughable

The National Audit Office's report on free schools is generally favourable, though you wouldn't know it if you relied on this article on the BBC's website. 

Toby notes all the positives in the NAO's report and then argues that the BBC has opted to spin them into negatives. 

He specifically accuses BBC online education correspondent Hannah Richardson (the article's author) of having written a "shockingly misleading article" and accuses her of "Left-wing bias". (I've been reading Hannah's articles for several years and, yes, she does seem to have a strong Left-wing bias - even by the standards of a BBC reporter.)

To add a little more to Toby's analysis, I'd add this.

Just compare the BBC's headline about this NAO report:

Free schools budget trebled to £1.5bn, report shows

with that of the Times about the very same report:

Free schools ‘are good value’

As they say at primary school, "spot the difference".

Continuing in the same vein, now compare the opening paragraphs of Hannah Richardson's BBC piece

The government's flagship free school programme will cost at least three times the sum originally allocated, the public spending watchdog has found.

The National Audit Office said the scheme allowing groups to set up state-funded schools would cost £1.5bn - the original Treasury grant was £450m.

The NAO said the programme prioritised speed over cost and schools were not always where places were most needed.

The government insisted [there's that "insisted" again!] its free schools offered value for money.

with those written by Greg Hurst of the Times:

Michael Gove’s flagship free schools policy has received a boost after the Government’s spending watchdog said it appeared to deliver value for money.

Free schools cost on average £6.6 million each to open, which was about 45 per cent lower than previous construction costs of new schools, the National Audit Office said.

But it said that costs were creeping upwards as more free schools opened and called on the Department for Education to look at why some cost much more than others.

Free schools are new state-funded schools that are independent of local councils. In the past three years the Government has opened 174, which at full capacity would have 82,000 places, with another 105 schools due to open next year.

They could hardly be more different, could they?

Two key differences stand out: (1) The BBC's angle is negative while that of the Times is positive and (2) the BBC's opening paragraphs are wholly negative while those of the Times offer a measure of balance between positive and negative (i.e. they are more impartial than the BBC!) 

As angles go, the differences between the respective takes of the BBC and the Times are acute, certainly but is the BBC being obtuse here? Is either side right, and whose reaction is a reflex action, Toby's or Hannah's? 

Well, Googling around shows the right-leaning media in general opting for positive headlines. The Telegraph, for instance, has Free school boost for areas in need. The Spectator's What the National Audit Office really said about free schools also targets the the BBC's negative coverage.

The left-leaning media, in contrast, opts for negative headlines - such as the Independent's Too far, too fast: Free schools are costing £1.1bn – twice as much as planned, the New Statesman's How free schools are still failing to address the places crisis and the Guardian's Cost of establishing a free school doubles to £6.6m, auditors find. 

The BBC thus finds itself (surprise, surprise!) sharing the Left's angle on the NAO report.

The key to being sure about who's spinning here and who's being straight is obviously to read the (lengthy) NAO report and form your own judgement.

As far as I'm concerned though, that's not going to happen. So I'm stuck with an issue of lefty spin v righty spin, and another case of 'Who knows!' (You, however, may be made of sterner stuff!)

Good for the goose

Charismatic figures notoriously neglect personal relationships and benevolent, child-focused professional persons have a habit of ignoring their own children and carpenters‘ houses never have any decent woodwork.

So Nelson Mandela was a bad dad, and before being imprisoned, a violent political activist.

After his lengthy incarceration he did indeed show an astonishing lack of bitterness or resentment, considerable wisdom and apparently a great deal of charisma.  However, the way he has been elevated to a level of other-worldly sanctity is regrettable. It’s probably counter-productive too, if the aim was to achieve a sort of harmonious, cohesive, rainbow nation chorus of adulation.

The BBC seems impervious to the audience’s irritation, if the comments on the BBC website are anything to go by. I bet they regret facilitating comments.

I object to the way the BBC pounced on the non-attendance of the Israeli PM. So, even if his excuse wasn’t one hundred percent genuine, (and couldn’t the BBC themselves do with a spot of financial expediency) was there any justification for what I heard from Kevin Connolly (on Today) and read by Bridget Kendall on the BBC news website:

“Among those not attending the memorial events will be Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who cited high travel and security costs.However there will be suspicion that he wishes to avoid the potential for anti-Israeli protests, the BBC's Middle East Correspondent Kevin Connolly reports. Israel had extensive links with the old apartheid regime and many South Africans identify strongly with the Palestinian cause, our correspondent adds.”

So. If the BBC is prepared to dredge up political events that allegedly occurred during the time of apartheid SA, should they be sanitising Nelson Mandela’s inglorious past in quite such a thorough fashion? Goose and Gander again. 

I don’t know the ins and outs of Israel’s supposed ‘links’ with the old apartheid regime - i.e. if they existed or not, and if they did, whether they were any more extensive than any other country’s links, but I do suspect the BBC’s decision to use that reference to the apartheid regime in this context was gratuitous. It looks like an attempt to associate Israel with ‘apartheid’, and a none too subtle way of reinforcing the topsy turvy allegations that present-day ‘rainbow nation’ Israel is the apartheid state, and not the genuinely apartheid Islamic and (proposed) Jew-free Palestinian states.

They may as well have said “Israel has extensive links with apartheid politics and the BBC identifies strongly with the Palestinian cause” our correspondent adds.

Can they please change the record!!

I do love big, sweeping historical series. The Story of the Jews with Simon Schama, for instance, was fabulous. 

It was most unusual, however, in not being focused on Muslim history. 

This year alone has seen BBC Two's glossy, controversial The Ottomans: Europe's Muslim Emperors, plus (ongoing now) a major celebration of the The Islamic Golden Age on Radio 3's The Essay (twenty programmes) and, starting today, a "landmark" four-part series on Radio 4 entitled The Making of the Modern Arab World. 

Wouldn't it be great if the BBC were to look beyond that part of the world and give us landmark series on the history of Brazil, or Russia, or India, or China? Or Japan? What about a long history of Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand? Or maybe a panoramic overview of Central American or South American or Caribbean history? What about a history of the Pacific south seas? Or a long view of Greece, or Italy, or France, or Norway, or Finland? How about a history of the Armenians? Or an account of why Central Africa has become such a hotbed of genocide over the centuries?

How about something - anything! - other than Islamic history for a change, BBC?

Search results

Does it seem to you that there's been much more BBC coverage of Nelson Mandela in the last five days than there was of Margaret Thatcher in the first five days after her death?

Well, a search of the BBC News website for 'Nelson Mandela' between 5/12/2013 and 10/12/2013 brings up 303 'News' results (and the 10/12/2013 isn't yet over!). An almost comparable search for 'Margaret Thatcher' between 8/4/2013 and 13/4/2013 brings up 195 'News' results.

Double edged sword

There have been some odd reactions to the announcement that the world renowned pianist Evgeny Kissin has adopted Israeli citizenship, even though he resides elsewhere.

I wrote here about a letter he sent to the BBC criticising their “slander and bias” against Israel, which is  “Painfully reminiscent of the old Soviet propaganda” 

On 28th November on Norman Lebrecht’s blog ‘Slipped Disc’ some strange comments appeared below an announcement about Kissin’s Israeli citizenship.

“What’s the point?”, asked pianist Sanda Schuldmann. Later, in a subsequent Slipped Disc piece on December 7th about this topic Ms Schuldmann posted another enigmatic comment, virtually amounting to: ‘If-you-like-it-so much-why don’t you go and live there’, and: “I find this right down(sic) disgusting” .

I have no idea what to make of this, but given that her Twitter feed is full of mightily (‘right-down’) abrasive tweets, her bark is probably worse than her bite. The interweb does seem to amplify fury and it’s awfully easy to misinterpret a comment or a tweet. Here’s an amusing example from this morning’s Woman’s Hour. Did you hear it? 

Jane Garvey read out a Tweet from a listener: “ I’m home sick and it’s a delight to hear Woman’s Hour live for once.” (something like that) but Jane Garvey read out  “I’m homesick, and it’s a delight to hear Woman’s Hour live for once ”,  and added something like “I hope you’re enjoying it, wherever you are” See where she went astray? 

I’m home, sick, obviously, not “I’m homesick.” Maybe the lady didn’t punctuate her tweet, but still the meaning should have been obvious from the rest of the message.

I digress.

Anyway, the point is, Evgeny Kissin is a fine example of a highly respected figure exploiting his fame, eminence, stature and, yes, celebrity-dom, to highlight a political stance. But this time, for a change, it’s for a genuine and righteous cause. 

Is this merely the other side of the Annie Lennox/ Alexei Sayle/ Nigel Kennedy coin, I hear you ask? The coin embraced by Roger Waters, Iain Banks, Stephen Hawking, and all the thousands of celebrity BDSers?

Am I nowt but a hypocrite who doesn’t like a dose of her own medicine?

In a way it is, and I am, but I reject their immoral ‘moral stand’ and applaud Evgeny Kissin’s because the celebrity BDSers have chosen to join a bandwagon that stems from antisemitic propaganda -  and it’s unreliable in the extreme, to boot. Roger Waters feels he has studied the topic ‘in depth’ as he has read a “well written” book by Max Blumenthal. He makes no bones about his feelings.

“The situation in Israel/Palestine, with the occupation, the ethnic cleansing and the systematic racist apartheid Israeli regime is unacceptable.”  

All the bog standard chants that symbolise pro-Palestinian activism, which in reality happen to be as inapplicable to Israel as they are actually applicable to “Palestine”.

“it's the Palestinian People being murdered. It's the duty of every thinking human being to ask: “What can I do?” 

“Anybody who looks at the situation will see that if you choose not to take up arms to fight your oppressor, the non violent route, and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, […]is a legitimate form of resistance to this brutal and oppressive regime.”

Meaningless garbage on all counts.

I think the propaganda machine that starts in Israeli schools and that continues through all the Netanyahu’s bluster is poured all over the United States, not just Fox but also CNN and in fact in all the mainstream media. It's like a huge bucket of crap that they are pouring into the mouth of a gullible public”

Moats and beams, Roger. It brings to mind a children’s book we used to have called “Inside, outside, upside down”,  but it ain’t nearly so amusing. 

“They’ve always had the Ben Gurion agenda of kicking all the Arabs out of the country and becoming greater Israel. They tell a lie as part of their propaganda machinery whilst doing the other thing..”

It’s as if he’s playing a game of ‘opposites’. You know, where everything you say has to be the reverse of the actuality, or you’re out.

 So Roger Waters rationalises the narrative he has decided to embrace, the one that reinforces his antisemitic inclinations.   

 It’s probably a human right to ‘boycott’, if you feel strongly about some injustice or other. For example I do my best not to shop at the co-op nowadays; my late mother would turn in her grave if she found out that we own a VW. 

But hey, who cares what I buy, where I go or what I do. If I were a celebrity however, I would cherish and guard my influence wisely, and I wouldn’t jump on any half-arsed bandwagon without doing some some serious self examination.

So here’s to Evgeny Kissin, and Tom Jones, Paul MacCartney and the other brave souls who dare buck the trend.

South African whispers

Hmm, an article has just (i.e. about thirty minutes ago) sneaked its way onto the BBC News website. (I only spotted it because it popped up on the sidebar here at Is?):

BBC News chief defends Mandela coverage

(By 'sneaked', I mean it appeared in the 'Entertainment' section of the BBC News website rather than on its homepage.)

Breaking news? 

Hardly. It's merely a recycling of a Newswatch interview with BBC News boss James Harding from last Friday. 

Maybe the BBC wouldn't have even bothered posting an online article about it but, five hours ago, the Guardian - also pretending it had 'breaking news' - posted an article headlined BBC boss defends Nelson Mandela coverage after 850 complaints. That would have got the BBC's attention!

Google News is great for allowing you to track the spread of a story. The Daily Telegraph website must have spotted the Graun's piece and posted its own version four hours ago. The Independent joined them an hour ago. 

With the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Independent all after them, the BBC must have reasoned that they'd better publish their own online spin about this three-day old Newswatch interview.

It mostly consists of quotes from Mr Harding. There's very little on the actual criticism of the BBC's coverage from Newswatch viewers - and others. (For that you can read our post from two days ago!)

Babies, black holes, Bonnie Greer, Nelson Mandela (inevitably) and bloody Marcus Brigstocke

Slowing working through this morning's Broadcasting House and, with just two items down, there's already been a Bushtucker Trial's worth of bias from the programme, thanks to Hugh Sykes and Paddy O'Connell. So we've already had the kangaroo's willy and the witchetty grubs. What's up next?

Well, here's Paddy bringing in the turkey testicles...

...namely the tale of an Italian woman visiting Britain who was forced by a British council to give birth to her baby by caesarian section under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. (The father was Senegalese, I read elsewhere). The lady in question appears to be suffering from paranoid delusions (though that is disputed). 

Was I being paranoid when I suspected that the council in the dock, which Paddy mentioned as Essex Council, must be Conservative-run, or BH wouldn't be discussing the matter? 

Checking Google confirmed that Essex is indeed Conservative-run. (I'm Northern, so I'm never sure of such things - though I'd a pretty good idea!!)

Was this going to be a 'naughty Tory council' story? Or something much fairer and more interesting, discussing the ethics of the case in a balanced way?

I've still not listened to it yet, so let's find out............

Ah, Paddy's talking to a woman in a similar situation and she's giving her side of the case, highly critical of the way she was treated. Paddy is all ears and sympathy. Oh dear, it's going to be one-sided after all. 

Very interesting though, poor lady.

Still, I wonder what the other side of the argument is. How can it be justified to force a caesarian section on a woman with mental health issues? What was Essex Council's case?

I'd be very interested to hear that, as it seems like a gross intrusion by the state to me. I wish BH had allowed me to hear it.

Anyone for a baked spider?

Ah, here's Paddy again with news that the Kielder Forest over in't North East could become a 'Dark Sky Preserve' (Britain's first), if local residents agree to it.

Now, I love the idea of 'dark sky preserves' and the chance to spend some quality time with the Milky Way, but this is a live issue and residents need to give their consent for it. Is there 100% support for it in the area (support which this consultation exercise will conclusively confirm), or are there arguments against this move and people resisting it? 

I'm none the wiser about that because Paddy simply talked to another BBC presenter, Kaz Graham from Farming Today, about it. Both Kaz and Paddy said that dark skies matter, and Kaz presented only the case for it - all the benefits. 

Gary from the Kielder Observatory then took Kaz around the site and expounded the case for 'dark sky' status again.

How can anyone disagree with him? Does anyone disagree with him? Who knows, given that Broadcasting House wasn't saying! This was a party political broadcast on behalf of the the Dark Sky Preserve Party. Was that wrong?

The paper review, the blended cockroach drink served at the end of the programme, featured Bonnie Greer (formerly of Newsnight Review 'fame'), soon-to-be Newsnight presenter Laura Kuenssberg and an actor Robin Ellis from Poldark - all BBC-friendly people.

Nelson Mandela was up first. Paddy got Bonnie to read something from a piece in the Sun about viewers complaining about the BBC's  e   x  t   e  n   s   i  v   e coverage of Nelson Mandela's death. She called it "a tiny sort of story", and quoted the BBC's response, agreed with it, and ended by saying "it's one of the things that the BBC is for". Laura agreed, saying the extent of the BBC's coverage was "exactly the right decision".

Well, that's all right then. BBC-friendly people defending the BBC to the hilt shocker!

Actually there was one final mealworm-based snack - another 'Advent calender' entry, described afterwards by the BBC presenter as being "comedy".

I beg to differ.

Unlike last week's genuinely funny Mitchell & Webb sketch, this was a dreary Radio 4 comedian's rant - complete with extensive sneers at the the Daily Mail (and, yes, he really did call it the 'Hate Mail'). I didn't smile once. (I did think of suicide on several occasions though. It was that unfunny.).

I half-recognised the voice as I was listening. I should have instantly recognised it, given the dreary predictability of his 'humour' - and the dreary inevitability that Radio 4 would ask this particular 'comedian' to take part in its 'Advent calender' thing at some stage.

Yes, it was Marcus ****ing Brigstocke.

Marcus Brigstocke, laughing at his own jokes (the way we all laugh at his jokes)

That man really must have something truly scandalous on the bosses at Radio 4. An ability to blackmail senior BBC execs is the only logical explanation for why Marcus (universally known as 'Britain's unfunniest man') is almost impossible to avoid on Radio 4.

He makes me want to give up atheism so that I can thank God for the off switch.

Are they all in it together?

It's a peculiar thing, but whilst listening to certain BBC programmes I find it hard not to think that BBC employees are even more detached from public opinion than MPs.

This morning's Broadcasting House discussed the vexed topic of MPs' pay, following IPSA's recommendation of a whopping 11% pay rise for our elected servants. 

From what I can gather, much of the British public seems to be against such an outlandish (tax payer-funded) pay rise. Would BH reflect that public concern?

Tellingly, not a single MP responded to the programme's call for them to come onto BH and defend the proposed pay rise. Paddy said they'd been calling since 6 o'clock. 

My first thought on hearing  that was, 'What would an FoI request tell us about who BH rang?' 

How many MPs did they ring? 33? If 33, did they ring 11 Labour MPs, 11 Conservatives and 8 Lib Dems, 1 SNP member, 1 Plaid MP and a Green? Or did they ring 32 Conservatives, and one DUP MP? We'll never know - but we can certainly guess!!

Anyhow, that's rather besides the point. 

Paddy and BBC political correspondent Alan Soady discussed the matter. 

Paddy's introduction stressed that most MPs are paid less than most GPs and many BBC bigwigs, thus pre-disposing us to think that MPs are actually, despite what we think, underpaid. 

Paddy also ostentatiously stressed the word 'independent' in IPSA and then laid out Sir Ian Kennedy of IPSA's justification for the pay rise before inviting BBC Alan to expand on Sir Ian's justifications (which he promptly did). 

Paddy then described Sir Ian's proposals as "a balance" before quoting Dave, a BH listener, comparing MPs to Millwall supporters - people no one likes (poor things). 

Was that a representative e-mail? I rather doubt it.

Is it a case of tax payer-funded birds flocking together? Does license-fee funded Paddy really understand the irritation out here, in the real world, with such greedy public sector grabbers? How much does he earn? More or less than MPs?

I don't think he understands at all.

Hugh Can Call Me Nelson

Naturally, this morning's Broadcasting House began with Nelson Mandela. 

If it hadn't started with Nelson I'd have died of shock. This is the BBC, and BH after all. Some things are simply inevitable (like Kian from Westlife winning I'm a Celebrity tonight). 

The BBC's highly opinionated Hugh Sykes had been dispatched (at license fee payers' expense) to join the other 15,000 BBC reporters down in South Africa at the moment. 

Hugh did what Hugh does, expressing his impeccably left-of-centre personal feelings with some panache.

Apartheid v Nelson Mandela - ironically, a totally black and white issue. Hugh exalted in the latter, the light. 

His final barb laid into Mrs Thatcher's government with a sharpness even Neil Kinnock or Peter Hain would have been hard pushed to rival: 

The world owns Nelson now, as will become clear when all those world leaders arrive.

Including a representative, possibly Prince Charles, of a nation where a former government conspired with Apartheid by dismissing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. 

A sharp word that, 'conspired'. 

Good old BBC impartiality.  

If you can't picture Hugh by the way, here's a photo of him wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh:

God, that man is so impartial!!!

Faith schools, Pope Francis, U.S. conservatives, the Central African Republic and the Buddha

Back to this week's Sunday on Radio 4, hosted by Edward Stourton.

What else was there besides happy memories from all concerned of Nelson Mandela? Well,  there was time for some of the usual sorts of thing as well.

There's usually some left-wing campaign that needs plugging, and this week's chosen left-wing campaign group was the Fair Admissions Campaign. They claim that faith schools discriminate against poor pupils. (It's part of their more general campaign to abolish faith-based selection completely in all state-funded schools). They are supported by various secularist organisations, unions, left-wing MPs, equality think tanks, etc. Kevin Bocquet went to - and challenged with their findings - a Jewish and a Catholic faith school (Quelle surprise!). We did hear from both sides of the argument during the report, but it was tilted towards the campaign by having the BBC's Gillian Hargreaves describe the Church defenders' responses with the somewhat dismissive word "utterances", by Kevin's open encouragement to Radio 4 listeners to check out the map on the Fair Admissions Campaign's website, and (almost always a sign of where the heart of a report on Sunday really lies) by giving the last word to a campaigner from the F.A.C. (the programme's favourite Jewish guest, Jonathan Romain).

No less surprising was another piece about Pope Francis, introduced with the words "Pope Francis has, by and large, had a very good press on this side of the Atlantic." (Well, yes, especially on Ed Stourton's Sunday - unlike his predecessor Benedict XVI.) 

This report, however, looked at the less favourable take on Pope Francis from some U.S. conservative Catholics, who aren't impressed with his anti-capitalist rhetoric or his apparently more liberal tone on certain sexual matters. It was presented by the BBC's very own Matt Wells, a reporter who sprays labels (like "hardline", "defensive" and "extreme") around like confetti whenever he reports on the doings of U.S. conservatives, yet never does the same when talking about U.S. liberals. (Funny that!) 

His three expert 'talking heads' were firmly on Francis's side (and the most pro-Francis one was, as usual, given the closing words of the report). Besides some guarded comments from one parishioner, the only voice from the critical conservative camp - the side we were meant to be hearing from - was Rush Limbaugh (a clip from one of his rants) - as if ranting Rush were really representative of that wing of Catholic opinion in America (especially as he's not even a Catholic!). Couldn't Matt be bothered to try to locate and talk to a less easily-dismissable U.S. conservative voice? Did he even try? Probably not. 

Typical biased Matt Wells reporting. 

In the course of the report though Matt played an extract from the Pope's favourite piece of music - the Et incarnatus est from Mozart's Mass in C minor. Good choice, Your Holiness!

There was also a report from the Central African Republic where, as you may already know, the country's Muslim minority spawned first a rebellion, then a military coup and now a staggeringly vicious marauding Muslim militia (alongside Muslim mercenaries from Chad and Sudan) which began murdering, raping and looting on a massive scale, attacking Christians and Christian churches. Vigilante Christian militias formed in response, to fight back and defend both themselves and their churches. It's a desperate situation, verging (according to some) on genocide - and there's been more than enough of those in Central Africa over the past twenty years. 

That's the version of events that I've gathered from following the story over recent months. The account on Sunday gave an impression of the chaos wrought by the conflict there but gave such a scanty account of its origins that most Radio 4 listeners would surely have been left scratching their heads. If I'd been listening to this discussion between Ed Stourton and the BBC correspondent in the area, I'd have assumed that the problem began with the Christians attacking the Muslim population - especially as that's where the BBC reporter began when reporting the very latest developments, and that - now - both sides are as bad as the other. That's not a fair impression for them to have given us, as far as I can see. 

Still, at least the programme had an interesting feature that would have appealed to the programme's Buddhist listeners. As I've said a fair few times before, Buddhists (like Hindus and Sikhs) get a raw deal from Sunday. They rarely get any attention from the programme. (Sikhs fair worst of all). 

The programme discussed some intriguing archaeological discoveries about the Buddha, possibly pinning down the exact place of his birth in the gardens of an active shrine in Lumbini, Nepal and plausibly providing a much firmer date for his date of birth - some time in the sixth century B.C. Until now, that date has been subject to wildly diverging speculation. 

The work - a mixture of science and logic - was done by a 15-strong British team, led by Professor Robin Coningham of Durham University, so well done to them. Nothing is absolutely proven though, so it's far from being the end of the story. Still, it's good to see British academics giving our Buddhist friends some fascinating research. I'd love to know what they make of it out East. 

If Sunday didn't seem to be constantly looking through its own narrow, liberal lens and if it didn't give the impression of pushing various angles so often, think what an absorbing programme it could be.

As this has been a rather serious post, let's end with some Buddhist jokes:

Two monks were sitting in a cave. One was silent. The other one said, ‘I could have done that’.

Q: What happens when a Buddhist becomes totally absorbed with the computer he is working with? A: He enters Nerdvana.

A Zen master once said to me, ‘Do the opposite of whatever I tell you.’ So I didn't.

"Always Interesting What The BBC Chooses to Highlight". Ain't it just!

This is why it's good to have a small (but growing) cottage industry of BBC-biased related blogs out there...

This morning I clicked on an article on the BBC News website's homepage headlined Most people in poverty are 'in work'. 

The first five paragraphs (which are about all most readers - including me - will have actually bothered reading) run as follows:

More working households were living in poverty in the UK last year than non-working ones - for the first time, a charity has reported.

Just over half of the 13 million people in poverty - surviving on less than 60% of the national median (middle) income - were from working families, it said.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said low pay and part-time work had prompted an unprecedented fall in living standards.

But it said the number of pensioners in poverty was at a 30-year low.

Ministers insisted that work remained the best route out of poverty and said the government's welfare reforms would further encourage people to get a job.

So that's three paragraphs of bad news, followed by one (short) paragraph of good news, and then a paragraph about ministers "insisting" (a word which always makes the 'insistent' person sound on the defensive). 

BBC take on the Joseph Rowntree report

I thought nothing more about it and clicked onto something else...until Alan posted his latest piece at Biased BBC, entitled Always Interesting What The BBC Chooses to Highlight. (It certainly is, Alan.)

Alan then links to an article which I failed to spot in the Sunday Times, which is based on the same Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, but which could almost have been written about a completely different report. 

The Sunday Times's headline is Child poverty is at lowest for 25 years and its first five paragraphs run as follows:

THE proportion of pensioners and children who are in poverty has fallen to its lowest level in more than a generation.

Pensioners have made the most gains in living standards of any group in society, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). The pensioner poverty rate, which was above 40% in the late 1980s, has dropped to 14%. This may be the lowest recorded, apart from a short-lived blip 30 years ago.

Child poverty at 27% is at its lowest level in 25 years, although the fall from its 1990s peak of 34% has been relatively modest. Fewer children than six years ago, before the recession, now have to go without sports equipment or school trips or share a bedroom with a child of the opposite sex aged more than 10.

While society has looked after its oldest and youngest members in the recession, working families have been hardest hit according to the report, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2013, to be published this week.

In a finding that is likely to embarrass the government, for the first time on record there are more people in poverty in working families than in workless or retired families.

Here there are three paragraphs of good news, followed by one paragraph of bad news, followed by some bad news for the government.

Could the contrast be any sharper (except that both put the government's embarrassment in their fifth paragraphs)?

One angles it as a good news story, the other as a bad news story. 

Isn't that striking?

It would make a great 'Compare and Contrast' exam question for an English A-level though.

Bring Back Greg

Do you remember when Greg Dyke resigned as Director General of the BBC and huge throngs of BBC staff lined his way, cheering and clapping, such was the affection they held him in and their sense of injustice that he'd been forced out after the Hutton Inquiry...

Well, their former boss has got into a spot of bother in recent days, having made a cut-throat gesture as the World Cup group draw was being made. That draw saw England being drawn against the (scary) likes of Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica. Greg's gesture appeared to write off England's chances. 

The UK newspapers have had an absolute field day with the story, with many of them claiming it was highly inappropriate behaviour on Greg's part - especially as he's the boss of the English F.A. and because he was sitting next to the England manager Roy Hodgson at the time.

Everyone seems to have joined in the feeding frenzy - the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail, the Independent, the Daily Express, ITV News, even many of the Scottish dailies!

The BBC News website has reported the story...sort of, in a low-key way. You'll find nothing in their 'News' section, only a piece in their 'Sport' section by the BBC's chief football writer Phil McNulty

...and Phil presents Greg's plight in the best possible light, reassuring us that "it was all perfectly innocent of course" and implying that the "instant response on social media" which came about was because Greg's comments "appeared to mirror the feelings of the majority of England supporters". 

And that's that. Matter closed, as far as the BBC is concerned. 

Hmm, could their warm feelings for their former DG be making them protective towards him at this difficult moment? Are they being, shall we say, biased in their highly circumspect reporting of this story?

Personally, I'm sympathetic to Phil McNulty's point that it was "all perfectly innocent of course". This is a classic media & social media firestorm in a teacup but, that said, the BBC's old soft spot for Greg Dyke shouldn't be undermining their professed impartiality, should it?

As an aside, I've got to say that as people seem so shocked that Nelson Mandela died at the age of 95, that Tom Daley is gay and that England probably won't win the World Cup I'm seriously thinking of going into the fortune telling business.

Nelson and Margaret

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 did seem like a Nelson Mandela special, but first impressions (and, perhaps, my own biases) misled me into thinking there was more of it than there actually was. 

Counting up all the time devoted to Nelson Mandela revealed that Sunday devoted just over 38% of the programme this morning to his memory. 

I wondered how that compared to their coverage of Margaret Thatcher's death back in April. 

Well, doing the sums on that edition of the programme revealed that they devoted 34.5% of that edition to her memory.

Which isn't radically different.

The real difference between those two editions of the programme, however, lies with how their respective subjects were commemorated. 

On today's programme we heard nothing but admiring voices about Nelson Mandela - ranging from a Labour shadow minister to the Chief Rabbi, from a former Archbishop of Capetown to a reverend from the Dutch Reform Church.

Contrast that with the Margaret Thatcher edition back in April. 

Back then we heard from three guests - and only one of them was an admirer of the Iron Lady (namely, Harvey Thomas). The other two guests were a left-leaning bishop (not a great admirer of Mrs T) and a historian who's an active member of the Labour Party! 

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? 'Bias by guest selection', wouldn't you say?

A hijab-wearing conqueror

You may recall when the BBC went mad for 'The Burka Avenger' - a burka-wearing Pakistani cartoon super-heroine and 'role model' - a few months ago. 

She was everywhere (on the BBC). 

She appeared in a BBC News website article, a TV news report, a CBBC Newsround report, on BBC local radio, on the BBC World Service and even on Radio 4's Sunday.

Well, sufferin' succotash!, if the BBC hasn't gone and found another one and, wonder of wonders, they've even found space for her (amid all the Nelson Mandela stuff) on their news website homepage:

Egypt's new breed of hijab-clad superheroine

 And what's the message of the hijab heroine? 

Deena says she had her superheroine with the all-powerful name wear a hijab to combat a widespread stereotype that women wearing the Islamic attire cannot be strong.

"I wanted to send a message about the general Islamophobic backlash, and if I was going to address that, I needed to make a statement.

"Women who wear hijab usually bear the brunt of Islamophobia," she says. 

That "all-powerful name" is Qahera, which means 'conqueror' and, I'm sure you'll agree, a hijab-wearing conqueror is exactly what the world needs at the moment! 

The BBC certainly seems to be trying to conquer us, their audience, by pushing this type of story at us at every opportunity. 

The propaganda may already be starting to work. I've just finished writing a letter to Theresa May (cc-ing the Guardian and the BBC's Mark Easton) demanding that our country's policewomen start wearing the hijab as part of their official uniform. 

Read more

You really should check out this morning's BBC News and Sky News website home pages. They are strikingly different, and have to be seen to be believed.

The BBC is still leading with Nelson Mandela, and its home page is heavy with Mandela stories. I count 31 separate articles (of one kind or another) on the home page alone.

Sky News is leading with match-fixing claims instead and has just one Nelson Mandela story (in third place in its running order). Only when you get to the bottom of their home page do you find three comment pieces (none of them new today). 

The BBC's home page looks like a shrine to Nelson Mandela. The Sky News home page looks like a proper news site.

Is the BBC feeding an infinite public interest in Nelson Mandela then? 

Well, the BBC homepage has a 'Most popular' section which shows the ten most read stories at the time - and this is what people want to read right now:

Read

1. MPs set to receive 11% pay rise

2. Most people in poverty are 'in work'

3. Are Christmas trees getting worse?

4. UKIP councillor defends video remark

5. Eight hurt as car hits market stalls

6. New Labour, Nigella and 'no-fly UK'

7. Missing Pakistanis appear in court

8. Warning as flight schedules resume

9. Why do we value gold?

10. More men chat in girls' 'dialect'

So, the public's appetite for Nelson Mandela news doesn't seem to be quite as huge as the BBC's.

Incidentally, Radio 4 this morning is hardly less of a Mandela shrine than the BBC website - so far there's been a Something Understood Mandela special, a Mandela-dominated Sunday and there's a Mandela-related Sunday Worship still to come. At this rate Shula is going to be giving us her Mandela memories on the Archers omnibus later this morning, and Graeme, Tim and Barry will be singing ANC anthems on Pick Up Tune.

****

Incidentally, I see that Rod Liddle hasn't been cowed by the Twittersteria over his criticism of the BBC's Nelsonmania; indeed, he appears to be warming to his theme.

Here's an extract from today's Sunday Times (£):

Late last week I watched BBC News at Ten in the hope of seeing what the Beeb did with the story about its chairman, Lord Patten, refusing to testify before a House of Commons committee about alleged political bias over Europe within the corporation.

I rather hoped that Patten himself would be interviewed: there is something about the man that makes me want to join a secretive Marxist revolutionary cell and start blowing things up.

It’s that aloof disdain, I think, plus the epic self-regard.

Sadly News at Ten, all of it, was otherwise occupied with the death of Nelson Mandela. Maybe it’ll be on Question Time, I thought — but that programme had been moved to make way for more stuff about poor old Nels. So I took the dog for a walk, had a few drinks, collapsed into bed and rose late the next day and switched on the BBC to see if maybe Fatty Pang, as Patten was known to the Chinese, was now getting an airing.

Nope. The lead story informed me that, mysteriously, Nelson Mandela was still dead and that his regrettable state of being still dead, at the age of 95 after a long illness, was more important than anything else happening in the world.

Mandela was a great man, beyond all doubt. But for the BBC — and plenty of other news organisations — someone has blurred the line between “respect” and “absurd, interminable over-indulgence”.  I felt much the same about the news coverage when Margaret Thatcher died, just in case you think I’m one of those far-right zealots who think Mandela should have been hanged as a terrorist. I don’t think that. I just weary at the predictable relentlessness of the coverage.

What he said.

UPDATE 15:45 

The BBC News website is still leading with (and saturated by) Nelson Mandela stories - and their readers remain pretty uninterested.

Here are the 'most popular' stories at the moment:

1: Body parts found washed up on shore
2: MPs set to receive 11% pay rise
3: Second match-fixing probe launched
4: Men freed after 'slavery' raids
5: Clutha hate comments investigated
6: Inmarsat begins global roll-out
7: Are Christmas trees getting worse?
8: New Labour, Nigella and 'no-fly UK'
9: Most people in poverty are 'in work'
10: Why do we value gold?

UPDATE 20:15 

Yes, the BBC News website is still leading with Nelson Mandela, though there are now a mere 23 separate articles on their homepage.

And, gosh, the British public still aren't interesting in their coverage. Here's now's list of the 'most read':

1: Boyle reveals Asperger's diagnosis
2: Crash man suspected of drink-driving
3: Chemical alert after tent death
4: Body parts found washed up on shore
5: Second match-fixing probe launched
6: Why do we value gold?
7: Men freed after 'slavery' raids
8: Are Christmas trees getting worse?
9: Huge pro-EU protest in Ukraine
10: MPs set to receive 11% pay rise

Where's Nelson?

On the Sky News website, Nelson Mandela doesn't even make their Four Big Stories -

(1) Six Held Over Football Spot-Fixing Claims
(2) 'Slaves' Rescued In Bristol Police Raids
(3) Lenin Statue Toppled By Protesters In Kiev
(4) Temperatures Drop To -29C In Deadly US Ice Storm