Sunday, 21 February 2016

Sunday, flipping Sunday



I'll be fairly brief (for once):

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 was its usual left-leaning, liberal, Catholic-obsessed self.

Today we got:

(1) An Irish atheist sociologist on how social change in Ireland is making the country more liberal and shrinking the influence of the Catholic Church.

(2) A bit on sin where the interviewee said that 'sloth' should be understood to mean 'overworking' (!).

(3) A complaint from an Anglican bishop that his Church is "abandoning the poor" for "a preferential option for the rich" and his call for the Church to become more socially active.

(4) A piece on Sikh feminists, donning the turban for the sake of equality and against patriarchy.

(5) An interview with the (Catholic) head of Stonewall to mark LGBT History Month. 

(6) A report from Mansfield on Syrian refugees there - all Muslims by the sound of their names. One, Abdul, is grateful for being let in but feels isolated, especially because :
...he's away from the community here in Mansfield. It doesn't feel...there are no halal shops very close to where he lives, so...the Muslim community, the Syrian community, there aren't many here in Mansfield, so that increased the feeling of isolation.
(7) A interview with a Catholic priest and an Anglican writer about celibacy, prompted by Ed Stourton's Panorama on John Paul II's relationship with women. (He didn't mention his own role in that, just as William Crawley didn't mention his involvement last week. How very discreet of them!)


P.S. Ed's John Paul II story is the lead in The Tablet this week:

By George!



The row over George Galloway's involvement in Grassroots Out certainly proves one thing: that George Galloway is the UK politician who most accurately deserves that favourite BBC adjective for politicians it disapproves of: 'divisive'. 

Beside the walkout at the GO! launch itself, I don't think I've seen the pro-Leave commentariat 'below the line' at certain anti-EU sites quite so divided for a while. Even the commentariat at Raheem Kassam's Breitbart London were split asunder by his abrupt change of heart over the Galloway move.

Whatever the merits of getting a powerful orator like GG on board, making his involvement the dramatic crowning moment of the launch of a movement which aims to unify the Leave campaign but which results in anger and fresh divisions can't have been entirely a good thing for their campaign, can it?

And the 'establishment' are loving it.

Here's an exchange from this morning's paper review on BBC Breakfast between Naga Munchetty and Professor Jon Tonge of Liverpool University (which you may read elsewhere!):
Naga: We focus a lot on the divisions within parties. But we should also look at the alliances across parties, and there are some reeeaaally unlikely bed fellows: George Galloway and Nigel Farage!
Jon Tonge: Yeah, the ultimate unholy alliance in some ways. 
And here's an exchange from the mid-morning paper review on the BBC News Channel between Gavin Esler and Bronwyn Curtis from the Society of Business Economists:
Gavin: So who scares you most?
Bronwyn Curtis: Well, George Galloway probably!
          (General laughter)
And here's Janet Daley on this week's Dateline London:
It is true that this kind of charade with Farage and Galloway is seriously damaging to the image of the Leave campaign. People ask themselves when they vote 'What does this say about me?' and this could have a significant negative effect on the potential Leave vote.
And Andrew Marr and Nick Robinson were chuckling about them this morning on the Marr paper review, and then Andrew Marr really went to town with Nigel Farage over it later.

Sigh.

Snapshot II



The last post ended with me writing, regarding the alleged 'uncertainty' a Brexit would lead to: 
I had to smile at Ben Thompson [BBC Breakfast host] saying "We talk a lot about that uncertainty, the influence it has on business". 
You can say that again, Ben!
Well here's another exchange from this morning's BBC Breakfast between Naga Munchetty and Professor Jon Tonge of Liverpool University:
Naga: We focus a lot on the divisions within parties. But we should also look at the alliances across parties, and there are some reeeaaally unlikely bed fellows: George Galloway and Nigel Farage!
Jon Tonge: Yeah, the ultimate unholy alliance in some ways. 
I had to smile at Naga Munchetty saying "We focus a lot on the divisions within parties".

You can say that again, Naga!

Snapshot I



Another snapshot.

BBC Breakfast interviewed a couple of businessmen from small-and-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) about the EU referendum - one a Leave supporter, the other a Remain supporter (both of whom did well). I thought I'd record it and check whether that balance was reflected in the questions put by the BBC presenters.

Here are the questions:
Questions put to the pro-Remain businessman
(by Ben Thompson, BBC) Marcus, you are clearly reassured by what you've heard from the Prime Minister. Reforms, a reformed EU and one you still very much want to be part of it. 
(by Ben Thompson, BBC) What's going to be so interesting as the campaigns now get under way for either side is the fact that this is not black and white. There are so many shades of grey about what people want out of the EU and what they don't. Marcus, what is it that you are most worried about? Clearly you are supporting our continued membership but is there a worry there? Is there something...?
Questions put to the pro-Leave businessman
(by Ben Thompson, BBC) It's interesting, Scott, isn't it? We talk a lot about that uncertainty, the influence it has on business. We don't know. It's unprecedented. No country has ever left the EU. We don't know what would happen. Are you not worried about that as a businessman? 
(by Naga Munchetty, BBC) Scott, tell me. When David Cameron announced that he was going to be embarking on these negotiations - these negotiations that have taken a lot time, a series of meetings - was there anything or were you hopeful that you'd be convinced to stay in or had your mind completely been made up? 
(by Naga Munchetty, BBC) And even with the spectre of that being renegotiated in the future?
As we were discussing on one of yesterday's threads, the language is something that's worth watching. The language of "spectre", "unprecedented", "uncertainty", "We don't know", "Are you not worried?" flowed from both BBC presenters here and related to the Leave side. On the other side we had words like "reassured" and "reformed" and "reforms".

And I suspect that David Cameron might be happy with Ben's description of what he's achieved as "reforms, a reformed EU" and Naga's "these negotiations that have taken a lot time, a series of meetings". 

On the question of whether they were challenged, or gifted with setup questions, I think there's a clear answer here.: The anti-EU guest was asked challenging questions while the pro-EU guest was gifted with setup questions. (Even the one about worries allowed him to amplify his worries about the uncertainty a Brexit would bring).

Incidentally, I had to smile at Ben Thompson saying "We talk a lot about that uncertainty, the influence it has on business".

You can say that again, Ben! 

Not (necessarily) getting it about right



Meirion Jones's citing of a couple of examples of apparently pro-Tory bias in the BBC's coverage of the junior doctors' strike reminds me that Radio 4's Feedback also covered the story - especially how it was reported on Today.

The complaints cited by Roger Bolton weren't, however, just from critics of the government. Critics of the BMA also accused the BBC of bias. Ergo: complaints from both sides!

We often joke about BBC editors going on programmes like Feedback and Newswatch and trotting out their old, favourite, tired and easily-debunked argument, "We get complaints from both sides. Therefore, we must be getting it about right", to any complaint about BBC bias.

Do BBC editors really still say that though?

Well, yes. It's just that they now tend to sound quite a bit more sheepish about it, and have to hedge their uses of it with caveats and additional appeals to trust 

Today editor Jamie Angus gave us a particular fine example of this upgraded BBC defence tactic on Feedback in reply to that criticism of his programme's coverage of the junior doctors' strike:
It's a bit glib in a way to say if both sides are complaining volubly then we're just about in the right place but I do sometimes fall back on that.....Genuinely, my perception is that I'm getting a pretty balanced mailbag. 
As ever, that 'balanced mailbag' actually proves nothing about whether the BBC has been biased or not. One side might have a case, the other side might not. One side might be genuine, the other might be chancing it. One side might provide evidence and reasoned argument, the other might rant, assert and chuck ad homs about. 

BBC editors know that - hence the "It's a bit glib in a way to say" bit of his statement - but it won't stop them using it. They know it sounds superficially plausible. 

Whistle-blowing the bias (and working with Greenpeace)



Newsnight's former head of investigations Meirion Jones has had quite a good press in the past year from right-wingers interested in the topic of BBC bias, doubtless due to his very strong criticisms of the BBC for 'forcing him out' (along with other BBC whistle-blowers) in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Now it's the turn of left-wing critics of the BBC to laud the former BBC Man. They are now busily tweeting about his article on Open Democracy's Our Beeb page: The BBC, Savile and Investigations.

Here's the part of his piece which relates to the question, 'Is the BBC biased?':
There’s another problem. Investigations aim to hold power to account, and one of the most powerful institutions is the government. People ask me is the BBC biased, and my answer is that the fundamental corporate bias is pro-government, regardless of party. It’s the licence fee – stupid. Of course not every story will be pro-government but the overwhelming narrative will be. 
When I was on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in the late ‘80s I’d regularly get calls from Margaret Thatcher’s party chairman, Norman Tebbit, while the programme was on air. He’d ring up to try to influence the daily agenda. Alistair Campbell and his merry men were equally effective under Tony Blair and their humbling of the BBC after the David Kelly affair only made the corporation more submissive. And now there’s a Tory government so the BBC is pro-Tory. Take the junior doctors’ strike this month. Newsnight, to its credit, ran a MORI poll showing 66% public in favour, 18% against. But on the day of the action Today trawled for anti-strike patients, and the BBC News at Ten ran two negative voices from ordinary people, and no-one in favour.  
The only periods when I saw the BBC’s loyalty to the government wavering was under John Major after Black Wednesday, and during the Gordon Brown administration. In each case a cynic might say the corporation could see the PMs were dead on their feet, and the other side was about to be elected and control the BBC purse strings.
Incidentally, if you wonder what Meirion Jones himself has been up to since leaving the BBC, his article informs us that he's "spent the last six months helping Greenpeace set up an investigations unit". 

I'd expect nothing less from a former BBC man!

'Newsnight' and the EU - update



For those keeping track of Newsnight's interviewees on EU matters this year, here's the list for last week:


Joint interview: Emma Reynolds (Labour) REMAIN and John Mills (Business for Britain) LEAVE

Joint interview: Ska Keller (Greens) REMAIN and Lucy Thomas (BSE) REMAIN
Interview: Zak Goldsmith (Conservative) UNDECLARED

Joint interview: Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative) LEAVE and Neil Carmichael (Conservative) REMAIN

Interview: Peter Mandelson (Labour) REMAIN
Interview: Nigel Farage (UKIP) LEAVE
Joint interview: Sir Simon Jenkins (Guardian) LEAVE, Danny Finklestein (Times) REMAIN and Christine Ockrent (journalist) PRO-EU (probably pro-REMAIN)

Joint interview: Chuka Umunna (Labour) REMAIN and Tom Pursglove (Conservative) LEAVE


Also (in the hard to classify category):
Friday 19 Feb
Joint interview: Alex Barker (FT) and VALENTINA POP (Wall Street Journal) 

Look who turns out to be pro-EU after all!


Here's something I learned today, that old hands at 'BBC watching' might find interesting - even though as she's no longer a BBC journalist, this isn't really directly related to the issue of BBC bias.

If you read through the list of members of the Advisory board of the pro-EU Centre for European Reform think tank, you'll find many an expected pro-EU name: Roland Rudd, Lord Robertson, Timothy Garton Ash, Sir Richard Lambert, Lord Haskins, etc. I was a little surprised though to see the name of a former BBC economics editor there too: namely Chief Market Strategist for the UK and Europe at J.P. Morgan Asset Management (as she is now), Stephanie Flanders.

I was only a little surprised though. I remember some of her reporting. 

Saturday, 20 February 2016

Ze flashing knobs, ze flashing knobs!!


The man after whom the 'selfie' was named 

In the spirit of Will Self today...
Zut alor!! Wot ze 'eck wos zis veek's From ze Fax to ze Fixion on abart on your BayBayCay Radeeoh Quatre? 
And if you felt any twinge of embarrassment on reading that last sentence then you'll know how I felt listening to Will Self's god-awful Popping Out this evening. My toes are still uncurling themselves.

Radio 4's favourite prolix, opinionated popinjay Will Self wrote it and acted it himself. It was Self, self, self all the way. The only thing he didn't do was sing the theme tune. 

And as one of our English poets (almost) put it, "He do the foreigners in different voices". Embarrassingly. 

The reviews on Twitter are firm but very fair:
Will Self on @BBCRadio4 now, performing an old 'Allo 'Allo script with all the jokes taken out.
That was dire. Was Will Self trying to sound German?
Painful.
Behind it all was an Emma Thompson-style hate letter to the United Kingdom, full of lefty digs. (Nigel Farage was mocked, of course).  

This week's From Fact to Fiction therefore effortless raises our running tally to 6 episodes for the Left, with no obvious agenda (disputed), and a big fat (undisputed) for the Right. 

The pro-left bias continues, seemingly ad infinitum.

You're not going to start putting down butterfly laws to immigrants too, are you?


This is quite a listen...

It's Stephen Nolan on Radio 5 Live completely misunderstanding a caller's point and becoming quite beyond satire in the process:


I think this whole debacle can be put down to that strain in BBC thinking which assumes that anyone who wants to control immigration must be a racist. 

A surprise from 'Dateline London'



Given that I'm always banging on about Dateline London, it really wouldn't do to let this week's delayed edition pass without a post.

Given Dateline's long record of stacking its panels with pro-EU guests (as I've detailed ad nauseum over the years), I will admit I was expecting a parade of the programme's most partisan Eurofanatical regulars (Marc Roche, Annalisa Piras, Polly Toynbee, etc) but instead we got two firm Outers - Janet Daley of the Sunday Telegraph and former Kremlin advisor Alexander Nekrassov...and the other two guests simply weren't anywhere near as outspoken as them. Mild-mannered German regular Thomas Kielinger is both pro-EU and pro-UK, so he made for an interesting counterbalance. And John Fisher Burns of the New York Times wasn't explicit about his position but argued that David Cameron deserved more credit that the rest of the panel was giving him. So the 'tilt' on this edition was definitely in favour of Leave. As Marc Roche might have said, Bien me souffler vers le bas avec une plume!

Things really heated up though when the discussion turned to Syria, Turkey...and Russia. Mr Nekrassov's Twitter handle 'StirringTrouble' isn't misplaced. Thomas Kielinger seemed unusually deflated by what he was hearing from his Russian neighbour. And Janet Daley seemed scarcely less taken aback. I don't think they believed Mr Nekrassov was telling the truth about what Russia had or hadn't done in Syria. And, to be fair, I don't think I believed him either. He is very entertaining though.

Monitoring the BBC News Channel


Warning: This post contains almost as few funny, clever jokes as Will Self's From Fact to Fiction tonight.


Here's a cautionary tale for anyone who fancies monitoring the BBC News Channel to see if it's providing balanced coverage of the EU referendum debate.

I read a comment somewhere today saying that, having just watched the 1pm News on the BBC News Channel for 30 minutes, there hadn't been a single representative of the Leave camp asked to comment. Someone from the Remain campaign had appeared though, and there had been extracts from the PM's speech and a Jeremy Corbyn interview. The comment said, "Frankly I couldn't believe it, not even from the BBC".

The thing is though that if someone on another site (say a pro-EU one) had tuned in at 1.30pm and watched the next 30 minutes of the BBC News Channel they would have seen a 10-minute interview with a Leave supporter, a 2-minute interview with a second Leave supporter and then a 4-minute interview with a third Leave supporter, and they mightn't have believed it either. 

As I wrote this morning, I tried something along these lines over a 4-hour period on Wednesday afternoon's BBC News Channel and found - if you count up the guests - plenty of pro-Remain interviewees but not one pro-Leave supporters (unless James Forsyth of the Spectator is pro-Leave, which I don't think he is.) 

But that was only a snapshot, and who's to say that it's in any way representative? What if straight after I turned off, a parade of passionate Leave supporters appeared on the News Channel. I'd never know about them yet any 'bias-proving' statistics I'd drawn from what I'd observed would be worthless. 

If 30 minutes isn't enough and 4 hours isn't enough, what would be? You'd need whole teams of people watching the BBC News Channel in shifts over at least a couple of weeks to do it properly - or at least properly enough for the wider world (including the BBC) to accept that it's been in any way worthwhile.

******


For the record, however, here's a complete list of all the interviews on the BBC News Channel from the end of David Cameron's Downing Street speech through to Dateline London at 5.30.

It includes full interviews and partial reprises of those interviews, but not the recurring clips of David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn, Alex Salmond or Nigel Farage. 

12.29-12.35 Sir Malcolm Rifkind, REMAIN
12.42-12.48 Graham Stringer, LEAVE
13.22-13.26 Sir Stephen Wall, REMAIN
13.32-13.42 Chris Grayling, LEAVE
13.46-13.48 Robert Oxley, LEAVE
13.49-13.53 Douglas Carswell, LEAVE
13.53-12.56 Sir Malcolm Rifkind, REMAIN (partial reprise)
14.08-14.11 Chris Grayling, LEAVE (partial reprise)
14.15-14.19 David Coburn, LEAVE
14.21-14.25 John Mills, LEAVE
14.38-14.40 Andrew Percy, LEAVE
14.45-14.48 James McGrory, REMAIN
14.48-14.51 Sir Malcolm Rifkind, REMAIN (partial reprise)
15.07-15.10 Chris Grayling, LEAVE (partial reprise)
15.18-15.21 Steve Baker, LEAVE
15.35-15.38 Graham Stringer, LEAVE (partial reprise)
15.41-15.44 Sir Malcolm Rifkind, REMAIN (partial reprise)
16.09-16.12 Chris Grayling, LEAVE (partial reprise)
16.14-16.17 Caroline Lucas, REMAIN
16.24-16.27 Steve Baker, LEAVE (full reprise)
17.20-17.24 Mary Creagh, REMAIN 

For what it's worth, that equates to 5 pro-REMAIN individuals and 8 pro-LEAVE individuals.

Or it equates to 8 segments for pro-REMAIN supporters and 13 segments for pro-LEAVE supporters (including repeats and partial repeats).

Or it equates roughly 29 minutes of air time for REMAIN and 50 minutes of air time for LEAVE.

Now that, obviously, looks biased in favour of the Leave campaign. But - to repeat - all it shows is that Leave supporters got more air time than Remain supporters in the 5 or so hours of this afternoon's BBC News Channel. That really is all it shows.


This evening's News Channel could have a 20-minute interview with, say, Alan Johnson or Ken Clarke and the balance could tilt back again towards 'impartiality'. Or, with lots more pro-Remain interviews tonight, it could go on to bias the day's coverage against Leave instead. 

You could, of course, keep watching till, say midnight, and find the same 'bias' as this afternoon but what if tomorrow, when you don't watch, the bias is outrageously in the other direction? And what if someone from the other camp was monitoring that and took to the pages of The Guardian to say so?

Unless you are able to monitor it in such a way that you are not left open to charges of cherry picking (i.e. choosing a half an hour, four hours, a day that 'proves' the point you're trying to demonstrate) then the BBC/your critics will be able to debunk you quite easily - especially if (a) they've watched what you've watched but seen more of it than you or (b) if they cherry picking a few hours of the News Channel (say around a particular campaign event) that 'proves' their point in contradiction to yours. 

As for the BBC, it's well-resourced and secretive and it will always play the 'it has to be judged over time' card - across a suitable period, on a particular programme, etc. They won't accept you breaking their 'rules' over this, ever. 

That's why it has to be 'closed' programmes like Today or Newsnight or PM (or whatever) that are monitored, if you're going to monitor such things. Months of evidence on individual programmes (no episodes missed) could prove bias to the satisfaction of any reasonable person, and be much harder for the BBC to dismiss. 

I could go on but I wouldn't want you to lose the will to live.

For the sake of completeness


The next couple of items on today's From Our Own Correspondent were 'very BBC' too.

First was a piece from Fergal Keane about a Bosnian town where Serbs massacred Muslims during the Balkans War. 

It was pure Fergal Keane - emotive, somewhat finger-wagging. 

I know it's cynical of me but the phrase 'award winning' and its cousin 'award-seeking' just keep coming to mind whenever I think of Fergal Keane reports like this. 

Then came an American journalist talking about gun control. 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, what's pretty much guaranteed on From Our Own Correspondent is that this journalist would most definitely not be anti-gun control. That would never happen. Here the speaker was in favour of gun control and, of course, blamed money, the NRA and the Republicans for it not being enacted. 

The other two pieces were 'and finally'-type affairs. One about a boat on Lake Malawi, the other about a BBC reporter who lives in France and had a favour done for him by a left-wing mayor/deputy he likes - or something like that.

Dripping with visceral bias



If you were wondering what's happened to Nick Thorpe - the BBC Central Europe correspondent whose barely concealed disdain for the Hungarian government's attempts to keep out migrants last year left him open to repeated charges of bias - well, he's still there, doing his thing.

Here's a reminder of just some of his greatest hits (sources here):
This whole refugee crisis sometimes seems to me like a football match. Rich Nations of Europe 2: Wretched of the Earth 3. 
At first light, a Syrian man in a suit stained dark with sweat, still wearing his tie, swung down the railway track towards me on his crutches. And who are you? I asked wearily, like so many Europeans. "I am, Sir, a sovereign man," he replied. Among so many sovereign nations, it was a relief to meet a sovereign man. 
This has been a pyrrhic victory for the Hungarian government. The economic costs are high. Its good name is in tatters. 
Parallel to that, there is a hostility among some Hungarians to them. The government publicity has not helped that. I think it's whipped up a certain degree of xenophobia here. 
In these Hungarian stations you can witness the best and the worst sides of the Hungarian reaction to this crisis. Many stories of the indifference or even the hostility of the authorities, but also a remarkable outpouring of generosity from the Hungarian public.  
His From Our Own Correspondent today discussed the growing clout of the Visegrad group (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia). 

He told us that they came into being some 25 years ago, after the fall of Communism, to help each other to get into the European Union, but they quickly stopped working for each other and started working for themselves. 

Recently, however, Nick continued, the group has found "a common purpose":
Strangely though it's a negative one: to keep the migrants out of Europe.
"Negative" is such a negative word, isn't it? Some might feel that what the Visegrad group are trying to achieve is actually positive.

Obviously not Nick Thorpe, who then put on something of a silly voice when quoting the words "will dilute Christian Europe".

And then came this:
They've also issued an ultimatum. If the Merkel plan isn't working by mid-March they will join forces with Macedonia and Bulgaria to shore up Europe's defences on their own, sending Hungarian razor wire and police and soldiers to defend a wall as tough as the Israelis have built in the occupied West Bank.  
Well, isn't that a typical BBC comparison? Bias piled upon bias here!

And on he went, quoting a leftist Belgian academic (Jean-Michel de Waele) saying that the Visegrad group are "dripping with visceral xenophobia".

He then recounted an anecdote.

He'd met some "weary migrants" from the Democratic Republic of Congo last year near one of Hungarian's "archetypal" fences. He's still in touch with several, he informed us. They all have hard luck stories. One has been sleeping rough in Paris with a pregnant wife whose name - Nick also informed us - means 'peace' in Arabic. He asked them how they are doing. "We're clinging on", they tell him. 

"Like birds on the cliffs at Visegrad", he remarked, concluding his piece poetically.

There really is no impartiality like 'BBC impartiality', is there?

Messages



This Thursday's The World Tonight on Radio 4 discussed the EU and the migrant crisis. 

Its starting point was a "withering assessment" of the debate in Europe about migration from François Crépeau, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. 

Razia Iqbal duly interviewed him, and he made the kind of points you would expect a left-liberal Canadian human rights lawyer to make. For example, he both denounced voters "who have no idea what it's like to be migrants" and the politicians who pander to them, and he thinks we can cope with the migrants because Europe has enough jobs for them.

The BBC's Razia mostly fed him questions that boosted his position, such as: 
Do you feel fundamentally that this is a moral issue? That there is somehow a breaking down of morality in the way in which we are viewing the whole crisis that's posed by migration?
...and even more strikingly, the following statement:  
The crisis that's been prompted by the sheer numbers of migrants who are travelling across Europe has also done something else. It's shifted the language and the way in which we speak about what are essentially other human beings. I wonder if you can just say what you think about what's happened in the way we talk about migrants?
As you can guess, Mr Crépeau agreed that the language has been problematic - especially the way it "masses" people together.

After first giving him this platform and then supporting him through her questioning, this didn't strike me as impartial broadcasting.

*****

And it got worse. 

A panel discussion followed featuring three guests: French liberal MEP Sylvie Goulard, Charles Grant of the pro-EU think tank the Centre for European Reform, and Quentin Peel of the FT. 

That is hardly a balanced panel, is it? A very pro-EU French MEP, a pro-EU think tanker and the former Brussels correspondent of the pro-EU Financial Times

The panel agreed that the British EU debate is a relatively minor matter. Pro-Brexit supporters were accused of conflating migrants and refugees. Charles Grant and Quentin Peel felt that a concerted EU plan was needed - and the latter felt one that Angela Merkel is presently pushing could help (if countries like Austria played ball). Sylvie Goulard praised "the moral dimension" of Germany's actions over migration. Given things like climate change, she added, we (the EU) need a long-term strategy. And she thinks the UK should be offering to help more with migrants and refugees. 

And at that point the discussion ended.

Hardly impartial either, was it?

*****

And there's more...

Jan Egeland of the Norwegian Refugee Council was on to discuss the Syrian crisis, this section introduced by Razia Iqbal with the words:
Now, we know that among the greatest of push factors in the migration crisis in Europe is what's happening in Syria.
There was also a report on Bosnia's application to join the EU from Guy De Launey that ended with these thoughts from the BBC reporter: 
But while the EU might take years just approving Bosnia's candidacy perhaps those in Brussels are also gaining reassurance. For some countries at least their bloc still retains the aura of Utopia. 
And the final item on the programme was an admiring interview with a couple of students from the Royal College of Art who have designed a 'refugee coat', which can be turned into a sleeping bag and tent for an adult and a child. It will help them "remain anonymous". Razia tried it on herself but worried if it will really help refugees cope with the "harsh conditions they face" on boats crossing the sea, and the -10 degree temperatures "they are facing" in the Balkans.

*****

Are you sensing some messages here from The World Tonight?

Sanitising Galloway

This post might have but a tenuous link to the core purpose of this blog, but we reserve the right to go off-piste if we’re sufficiently  piste off.


"Bringing in the RESPECT Party helps Grassroots Out’s chance of getting the official designation for the referendum. Because those who check with the Electoral Commission would know that you could have every Cabinet Minister under the sun backing you, but it wouldn’t help with the “cross party” requirement. This is where the establishment Vote Leave are failing. And indeed it is a problem of their making."

That is Raheem Kassam’s argument for holding your nose and tolerating George Galloway’s inclusion in the Grassroots “Go” campaign. 

I’ve had a look at this and I haven’t found a ruling that says the ‘cross party requirement’ needs to include the Respect party. Surely it’s already cross-party enough. Labour, UKip, Conservative, monster raving loony - who else do they need?

Even if  Nigel Farage was thinking long-term, and merely gritting his teeth and tolerating Galloway “for the good of the country,” he has undoubtedly sabotaged the reputation of UKIP.  In fact he’s forfeited it altogether. 
I understood there was a hard-fought struggle within UKip’s ranks  to weed out racists and antisemites. 
The EDL failed to win the battle against its hooligan-riddled image, but UKip almost succeeded in ridding itself of its racist image, and distancing itself from all those murky comparisons with the BNP and the NF. 

By tolerating Galloway’s support of Islamic extremists and antisemites, even if he’s been cunning enough not to be caught expressing outright antisemitism himself by always carefully couching it in criticism of Israel or hiding it behind other indirect slurs - Nigel Farage has foregone all the potential UKip might once have had to be taken seriously as a credible and honourable political party.

Since the “Out” campaign is already fragmented, why couldn’t Galloway muster all those followers of his whose vast numbers are supposedly vital to bolster the Grassroots movement, and set up his own Islam-friendly ‘Out’ campaign. 

Giving Galloway a platform was totally unnecessary. A gross lapse of judgment. He was okay as he was - marginalised and ridiculous. Now look. Rejuvenated, rehabilitated and as poisonous as ever. 

At the moment the Out campaign  could hardly be more vulnerable to the BBC’s obsession with schisms.  Why add another divisive element into the mix?

Galloway’s Islamophillic politics are precisely what many of the Out campaigners are afraid of. The mass Muslim immigration that Galloway encourages hardly typifies most people’s vision of a better Britain. Or any kind of Britain at all.


I am disappointed now. I was leaning out, but now I’m seriously wavering.  

The tussle in Brussels



As that last post shows, the BBC isn't always a monolith,

Indeed, Newsnight and The World Tonight also differed in the general tone of their reporting of David Cameron's deal with the EU: Newsnight added a little cynicism to the mix while The World Tonight eschewed cynicism entirely.

In fact, if I were given to hyperbole, I'd say that last night's The World Tonight sounded for all the world as if it had been written by the Number Ten press office (please listen from 8.01 onwards). 

Reporter Gavin Lee described "the tussle in Brussels" in terms that made it sound as if David Cameron has pulled up his shirt sleeves and prevailed against all opposition, and presenter Razia Iqbal kept talking up his achievements throughout.

It was all a little odd.

Razia Iqbal also interviewed people from both sides, live: the pro-Brexit Arron Banks and the anti-Brexit Dominic Grieve (who she subsequently had to apologise to for wrongly introducing as a former justice secretary).

The BBC doesn't want us to count, but: Mr Banks got about a minute and a quarter while Mr Grieve got nigh on five minutes (and was allowed to answer at length). That is some difference!

(Mr Banks was also swiftly dismissed with the words, "OK, Arron Banks, you've made your position very clear. Thank you very much indeed for joining us".)

Here are two of the questions the BBC presenter put to Arron Banks: 
The Prime Minister has quite clearly said that people should be suspicious...he said this tonight...of those who say that leaving Europe is the track to the land of milk and honey. Given what the Prime Minister has [the emphasis was Razia Iqbal's] achieved this evening, why are you still so keen to be out of Europe? 
One of the things we just heard from the people is the meeting this evening saying, you know, that we wanted control over our borders - there's all sorts of restrictions, significant restrictions on benefits going to migrants that David Cameron has won this evening. Surely that's welcome?
If the programme hadn't presented the PM's achievement in so uncritical a way earlier, this might just have been taken for proper devil's advocate interviewing.

And worse, she then put questions to Dominic Grieve which also contained within then the idea that the PM has achieved "concessions" and "significant progress":
Are you happy with what Mr Cameron has walked away with? 
But isn't that going to happen? Isn't that inevitable that in the end it doesn't really matter what concessions, what significant progress David Cameron has made, the bottom line will be a question of viscerally voting 'In' or 'Out'? And you heard Arron Banks and you heard those activists in the Grassroots Out report. These are people who are already thinking nothing he comes back with is going to be enough.
The second half of her interview with Mr Grieve was wasted trying to get him to speculate on what Michael Gove and Boris Johnson are thinking. He kept saying he didn't know and advising her to ask them but that didn't stop her from asking more questions in the same vein.

A difference of interpretation



Grassroots Out (GO!) received coverage from both of the BBC's nightly current affairs staples - The World Tonight on Radio 4 and Newsnight on BBC Two.

Intriguingly Paul Moss for Radio 4 didn't even mention George Galloway, whereas Newsnight's very own GG, Gabriel Gatehouse, not only began his report with the row over the Gorgeous One but also went back to it later on. 

(In other words, one reporter made it the main pivot of his report while the other reporter ignored it completely.)

That's not the only difference.

Here's The World Tonight's Paul Moss, pointing out the diversity of the speakers: 
Grassroots Out were keen to show off their diverse membership. Speakers included the owner of a small manufacturing company and a London black cab driver who told the audience Uber was killing his trade and that the EU had facilitated this. 
And (accompanied by images of Peter Bone and Bill Cash), here's Gabriel Gatehouse on Newsnight doing the opposite:
The problem for Grassroots Out is that it isn't really a grassroots movement. Not yet anyway. It's only a month old, it's got only about 5,000 followers on Twitter, and most of tonight's speakers are familiar faces from inside what they themselves dismiss as 'the Westminster Bubble'.
I suspect Grassroots Out supporters would have been happier with Paul Moss's reporting here.

Stormy weather

There’s quite a storm brewing. Did Raheem Kassam and about 100 other people walk out of the grassroots meeting because of George Galloway, or because they were afraid they’d miss the last bus home?


What do you think?


Has Farage scored a massive own goal by allowing George Galloway to spook a considerable number of potential “out’ campaign voters, or will the “Go” movement swallow their differences in the name of unity?

I did notice that many of the speakers seemed to be preparing the audience to accept that they’d have to work alongside people they disagreed with - and -yes, even people they didn’t like. But is this step too far? 

I was just lamenting the fact that antisemitism has become something we are expected to overlook. “Suck it up” they say.

You have to ask, would they have co-opted Hitler if they thought it would boost the numbers?

Despite various glowing reports of Galloway’s “terrific speech” and the predictable standing ovation, I for one was not impressed. It was an average speech, full of the usual Galloway mannerisms that seem to impress people. He’s a great orator - to people who are unfamiliar with great orators. He’s the stupid person’s idea of a great orator in the Stephen Fry sense. 

We were just discussing the appalling way that the increasingly overt antisemitism expressed by students, the man in the street, the Muslim community as well as in certain public figures, is overlooked these days.

Now it seems that the Out Campaign is another area which has been polluted.

I heard Kate McCann from the Telegraph being interviewed by a school-marmish Mishal Husain this morning. She said 200 people walked out of the meeting when Galloway was revealed as the mystery speaker, and some allegedly told her they left because they couldn’t tolerate his antisemitic views.

We’re used to Galloway behaving in a quite rational and even normal fashion on QT, or with Andrew Neil. But his duplicity is very well known.

Raheem Kassam, who had said of Galloway’s appearance at the meeting “It’s not a good look” has subsequently rowed back


We can all change our minds, but I think he’s got a lot of explaining to do. 

Another snapshot: Naga does the splits



Just watching BBC Breakfast between 8 and 9 o'clock this morning. Here's a snapshot of what I saw.

Naga Munchetty was talking to two Labour MPs on opposite sides of the EU debate - Ben Bradshaw and Kate Hoey. Her questions focused overwhelmingly on splits in the Labour Party and splits within the pro-Leave camp.

Then came an interview about the death of Harper Lee. Guess who was invited for interview? Shami Chakrabarti of course. It was To Kill a Mockingbird that inspired our Shami to become a lawyer, naturally.

Then came the paper review with politics lecturer, Dr Victoria Honeyman, beginning with the newspapers' coverage of the EU deal. Dr Honeyman, who kept using the terms 'anti-European' and 'pro-European', commented that the 'anti-European' newspapers were doing what you'd expect them to do ("really going for it"), though the broadsheets are being "a little more restrained". \Call me 'someone who jumps to conclusions' but I think I can guess how she might be voting in the EU referendum.

Naga returned later with the Conservative MP Graham Brady. You won't be surprised that "divisions"  and "splits" within the Conservative were Naga's overriding concern here. "And to come back to the party's splits question", she said at one point, having moved away from it for a question. 

I think I can see where this is going: months and months of BBC reporters and interviewers banging on about party splits, divisions, more splits, personalities, more divisions, political gossip and splits again. 

No longer hanging on his every word


It's scarcely over a week since the BBC was heavily reporting the pro-EU views of Rob Wainwright, the British head of Europol, the EU's law enforcement agency.

He was on Newsnight less than two weeks ago saying that a Brexit would put Britain's security at risk and he was on Hardtalk the following day saying that a Brexit would make it harder for Britain to fight terrorism.

His latest statements, on a related matter, haven't caught the BBC's eye yet - even though Sky News has it as one of its top four stories:


The story has also been reported by the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Sun

What the BBC chooses to report (and not to report) remains telling.

Martine is innocent - says BBC


You may recall this post from a week and a half ago:

Opinions R Us



BBC News 24 couple of nights ago: Vacant-looking Martine Croxall reviewing the papers with 2 achingly left-wing commentators. Comes to the story about the ECJ forbidding the UK from deporting Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law for terrorist activities due to her ‘right to a family life’.  Martine opines: “That’s why we need the ECJ, to tell us what do do in cases like this”. Her two comrades nod sagely. FFS!
I have to confess that I thought the commenter must have misheard because Martine Croxall isn't stupid enough to say something quite as biased as that. So I watched it myself, as you can do from 10:12 here (for a while). 

The conversation went on much as Chilli at Biased BBC described, with Martine chucking in the odd comment, such as "It comes down to that idea that you can pick and choose who you allow to have human rights. And I don't think the law allows that", until, replying to what James Millar of The Sunday Post had said about the European Court of Justice, Martine said (beginning at 12:17):
Well, that's why we have it, isn't it? To tell us what we should be doing in this country, to keep...checks and balances so that everyone has the laws applied to them. 
And then, with her guests nodding their agreement, she moved straight on to the next story, in the Guardian.

So, yes, BBC News Channel presenter Martine Croxall really did give us her opinion in favour of the ECJ on Friday night's BBC News Channel. 

Wonder how the BBC Complaints Department will explain this one?


Well, here is how the BBC Complaints Department explained it:

Many thanks for getting in touch regarding The Papers, broadcast 5 February.
We reviewed the programme and Martine was explaining in a factual way the purpose of the European Court of Justice, summarising its relevance to the story and how it had been covered by the Press. We've done a similar thing here in the video part of our iWonder guide, outlining the remit of various EU institutions:


It's also mirrored by the factual way the CJEU explains its role as 'Ensuring EU law is interpreted and applied the same in every EU country; ensuring countries and EU institutions abide by EU law':


(Please note the BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites.)
The Papers does invite opinions and occasionally the presenter will challenge and probe the discussion, but in this case the closing remark was simply setting the institution in context. Explaining the basics of the Court's role was not an attempt to create a sense of bias for or against the EU in general.
I hope this addresses your concerns. We value all feedback we receive and your concerns have been sent across to the programme and to senior management.
Thanks again for getting in touch.
Kind regards
BBC Complaints

You too can 'review the programme'. The moment in question remains at 12:17 here

Was Martine merely making a factual statement? Or was she stating an opinion by saying of the European Court of Justice, "Well, that's why we have it, isn't it? To tell us what we should be doing in this country..."?

Snapshot


Lots of people will be systematically monitoring the BBC's coverage of the EU referendum. 

I bit off rather more that I could chew on Wednesday when I thought it might be a good idea to monitor the BBC News Channel for a few hours each night (between certain set times) for a week, but the process proved far too time-consuming. So I abandoned ship.

Still, I thought I'd share with you my notes on all the interviews on the subject between 4 and 8 pm on Wednesday evening, as they strike me as being quite revealing. You'll find transcriptions of all the questions put by the BBC and summaries of the answers given.

The interviewees here are overwhelmingly pro-EU.



17.09-17.14 Interviewee: JOHN BRUTON, former Taoiseach and EU ambassador to the UN
BBC Interviewer: SIMON MCCOY

"These concessions that David Cameron says he's won. Are they good for Ireland and the wider EU?"
Mr Bruton says some of the proposals would slow down the EU law-making process and that might work against Britain's interests. People in the EU are also puzzled because the UK is doing so well as things stands.
"Do you believe the UK would still be a global player if it was outside the EU?"
Mr Bruton says the UK will always be the UK but the EU is the UK's biggest market. If it leaves the UK if will still have to abide by EU rules but won't have any say in those rules. It currently does have such a say. "Leave the EU and the UK loses that say".
"You wrote a paper I think on what would happen if the UK left the EU, just how complicated a process it would be. What, for example, would Ireland have to do initially to make that work?"
Mr Bruton says it will be immensely complicated. The one precedent, Greenland, took 6 years to work out a new arrangement. If the UK left it would try and do that in just 2 years. What model would it take, Switzerland or Norway? Both have to follow EU rules without having any say in them. Or would it be like Canada where it wouldn't have any guarantee that the City would be able to sell its services into the rest of Europe. There are so many uncertainties that would arise if the UK decides to leave that investment decisions would be held back. Britain should think again, take a lead and consider that what happens on the continent effects Britain.
"Very quickly. You know the argument against: the belief that the EU is undemocratic, that it's powers should be curbed. I mean, is there any sense in that argument for you?"
Mr Bruton says that just isn't true. The EU is fully democratic. The Commission can only propose. The EU is a democratic arrangement for governing global issues which individual countries cannot tackle on their own in this complicated world.



17.20-17.24 Interviewee: FRANCES O'GRADY, TUC 
BBC Interviewer: SIMON MCCOY

"Let's return now to the Prime Minister's last minute efforts to gather support for his EU reforms ahead of a crunch summit in Brussels tomorrow.  The General Secretary of the TUC has made the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker to tell him that strengthening EU protection for workers and creating more decent jobs are essential to convincing working people in the UK to remain in the EU....And was he sympathetic to that?"
Ms O'Grady says she thinks he was. He's the son of a steel worker.
"Did he express any concern to you about the way the referendum might go here?"
Ms O'Grady says everyone's watching it very closely and her jobs is to point out that there has to be something in it for workers. Most people are worried about bread and butter issues and how Europe can deliver better jobs and stronger rights for working people. A Brexit would put many core rights under threat. Our holiday rights, our maternity leave, equal pay, etc, all come from Europe.
"So, I mean, we're going to be hearing from the CBI later. You would agree with them that how it works for business is absolutely crucial?"
Ms O'Grady says there's a very real threat to investment and trade and good jobs from Brexit. More is needed though on wages, zero hours, security etc.



17.35-17.38 Interviewee: PAUL DRECHSLER, CBI
BBC Interviewer: SIMON MCCOY

"We can talk to the boss of the CBI who joins me now, as you can see, and that is Paul Drechsler. And I'm just wondering Mr Drechsler what is you view about the concessions the Prime Minister seems to have got? Are they enough do you think to persuade business - which may not need total persuasion - but to agree with business (sic) at this stage?"
Mr Drechsler says 21 business federations across Europe came together today to encourage the PM to focus on competitiveness. All countries have a stake in a better Europe.
"You know the criticism is that the CBI represents big business, that business is actually as divided as the rest of the UK at the moment?"
Mr Drechsler says the CBI has a very diverse base across the UK (195,000 member firms, 100 FTSE 100 companies).
"If we're talking about trade, if you look at Switzerland - not a member of the EU but a member of EFTA. Is that a compromise that would work for business in the UK?"
Mr Drechsler says we have benefited significantly over the years we've been in the EU. All households have benefited. Other models have alternative consequences. Switzerland and Norway have to follow all the EU regulations. If we came out it might take 10-15 years to negotiate the trade deals just to get back into business again with the EU.
"David Cameron told you and others in business to make your voices heard. Is there a danger that that sounds like you're dictating to the British public?"
Mr Drechsler says this is a very important decision for the next generation of this country and beyond. Business's contribution is to help people understand the consequences for the economy, investment and jobs.



17.38-17.41 Interviewee: TOMAS PROUZA, Czech State Secretary for European Affairs 
BBC Interviewer: SIMON MCCOY

"Well, joining me now via webcam from Prague is the Czech Republic's Secretary for European Affairs, that's Tomas Prouza. Do you think that David Cameron has got the concessions he wanted and that everyone in Europe is not necessarily happy about it but accepts it's the price they will have to pay?"
Mr Prouza says he hopes so. He wants the UK to stay in. There's a lot of hard work still to be done. We can live with the agreement though it doesn't make us happy. The EU is stronger with the UK in it.
"I know one of the issues you are concerned about is the proposal that immigrants should only be allowed to claim welfare benefits after they've been in the UK for four years. You in fact sent a tweet to David Cameron's account, didn't you, showing Czech fighters from the Second World War. Now that's pretty intemperate. It was obviously something you were very concerned about?"
Mr Prouza says that tweet's a year old and things have changed when there was talk about direct ds
"So would you be happy for any change to the benefits system to be retroactive? To affect those from the Czech Republic who are already here?"
Mr Prouza says that's one of the conditions we are calling for. It would be unfair to change the rules for those already here.
"You're heading for this summit, two day summit in Brussels, Behind closed doors, when you're all together, do you regard this as a distraction you could do without? There are big issues that Europe  has to tackle. Or is this now No.1 on the agenda because we're now getting to that crunch moment?"
Mr Prouza says that it is No 1. It can be tackled once and for all and David Cameron can then start campaigning for it. All the other issues will stay around for many months. so this is the priority



19:10-19:14 Interviewee: IMKE HENKEL, Zeit.online 
BBC Interviewer: NICHOLAS OWEN

"Now, the German perspective on this is always very important. What is the latest view there of what Mr Cameron is trying to do?"
Ms Henkel says Angela Merkel is very supportive and believes it's vital for the EU that Britain stays in the EU. Mr Tusk and Mr Juncker also want Britain to stay within the EU. For Mrs Merkel this is about the EU as an international force and if Britain leaves the the EU would be significantly weakened.
"But Chancellor Merkel is very strong isn't she on the idea that it is still in the end about greater integration, whether Britain goes or Britain stays?"
Ms Henkel says it's still about greater integration for the Eurozone but the relationship between non-Eurozone and Eurozone countries that Mr Cameron wants renegotiated is being resisted more by France than Germany. For the survival of the euro and the Eurozone further integration is probably necessary but that doesn't have to include Britain.
"What are the big issues that are seen in terms of the future of Europe as far as Chancellor Merkel is concerned? I mean, you mentioned the euro but, of course, there are masses of other issues, big ones - immigration, relations with Russia for example?"
Ms Henkel says yes, Russia is very crucial. Mr Putin would be overjoyed if Britain left the EU. Britain could potentially contribute a lot in terms of defence and foreign policy. If Britain left the EU that wouldn't be there and that would play into the hands of Putin. But the refugee crisis is also crucial, along with Syria and Greece. Some wonder why we're talking about minor issues because Britain isn't quite satisfied how it's treated.



19.14-19.16 Interviewee: JAMES FORSYTH, Spectator 
BBC Interviewer: NICHOLAS OWEN

"Well, there we heard Britain almost a bit of a side issue perhaps when you look at some of these other big things. Nevertheless, for this country a major one. Can we just talk for a moment about what happens, what would happen if the Prime Minister has to walk away saying "I didn't get what I want" in 48 hours time or so. What I'm really asking you James is 'Is there a plan B?'"
Mr Forsyth says the government could push it back by two weeks and still get a deal in time for a June referendum, before the next migrant crisis in the summer. It will be a major embarrassment for David Cameron if he can't get a deal at this summit.
"We turn to another matter. We saw at the end of Ben Wright's report, some time earlier, Boris Johnson cycling around in Downing Street, refusing to answer questions. What do you think his position is? Is he clearly moving one way or the other?"
Mr Forsyth says it's been assumed that Boris will probably back 'in', but his words today have cast some doubt on that. He's flirted with 'out' for so long that if he doesn't support it now he could provoke a lot of anger on the Right.
"But his leadership ambitions are still there to be considered?"
Mr Forsyth says the general view is that an 'Out' candidate will win a leadership race.



19.35-19.39 Interviewee: KRZYSZTOF SZCZERSKI, Polish Secretary of State 
BBC Interviewer: STEPHEN SACKUR ('Hardtalk' extract)

Mr Szczerski says we should not harm the free movement of people. That's basic to the EU. Any concessions to Britain should be specific to Britain.
"So you want it written into any agreement that this cannot be a model for other member states to impose new limitations on benefits?"
Mr Szczerski agrees. It should also be tailored for newcomers.
"Ah well, that's a crucial point. Are you saying that all of these limitations on benefits, including in-work benefits and re-arrangement of child benefit - none of this can apply to Polish citizens or other EU citizens who are already in the UK?"
Mr Szczerski says yes, because they're already contributing to the system by their work, helping Britain to grow.
"So that means more than a million Poles, for example, who are believed to be in this country today, none of this will apply to them, as far as you're concerned?"
Mr Szczerski says yes, it's a principle. Retroactive measures would be against the principle of EU legislation.
"A final detailed point on this and then we'll get to the bigger picture, but as a point of detail: The British government appears to believe that some EU workers come to Britain because they're attracted by the level of benefits, including child benefit for all those who have children. So the message from the British government is that child benefit will no longer be given as it is to British citizens but will be tailored to the cost of living in the home country of EU migrant workers. Is that acceptable to Poland?"
Mr Szczerski says in general, yes, but there are many questions about organising this system. We'd prefer all Poles to come back and work in Poland but we are obliged to stand by the rights of those who choice to stay in Britain - and in every country.
"You made that point very powerfully. I'm just, specifically on child benefit, are you saying that you will ultimately accept that downsizing of child benefit payments for Polish workers in the UK? You'll accept it?"
Mr Szczerski says it depends on the formula.
"You see, you used the phrase earlier - which is important to any negotiation - you said, 'There are red lines that we will not cross.' As things stand right now, just hours before the talks in Brussels, are there red lines that frankly you will not cross which means there could be no deal?"
Mr Szczerski says yes, there could be no deal.
"So as far as you're concerned David Cameron has to make some concessions which he has not made so far?"
Mr Szczerski says the deal is not done yet, that's the message.
19.39

19.39-19.41 Clips from earlier interviews: PAUL DRECHSLER (CBI) & FRANCES O'GRADY (TUC)