With a flourish of his pen

BBC One's main evening news bulletin struck a strongly negative note about President Trump's executive order blocking immigrants from a number of countries at the US's borders. Though supposedly an impartial broadcaster, the BBC didn't exactly hide its own view of the matter here. 

A transcript follows:

NEWSREADER: As referenced in Laura's report... Lawyers in the United States have lodged a challenge to an executive order - signed by President Trump - which temporarily bans all refugees, and any traveller from seven mainly Muslim countries from entering the US. The ban includes stopping those with a resident permit, known as a green card, from re-entering the country. That order has caused confusion and panic among travellers with some people being turned back from US-bound flights. Alex Forsyth reports. 

ALEX FORSYTH: On Lebanon's streets the need is clear. One in four is a refugee who has fled war in neighbouring Syria - some wanting one day to return, others desperate to move on, now all banned from the US indefinitely. And refugees from anywhere suspended for four months. Like Nivine, which is not her real name, a transgender woman persecuted in Iraq who fled to Beirut. She was in the process of being resettled in America. That now, it seems, on hold. 

NIVINE: The moment I heard the news my dreams were shattered. My parents want to kill me. I'm terrified they'll find out where I am now. I hoped I'd feel safe in the US, that I'd finally be able to sleep in a country where I have rights and no one could hurt me. 

ALEX FORSYTH: With a flourish of his pen, President Trump made sweeping changes to policies for refugees and immigrants, to improve, he said, America's security. 

DONALD TRUMP: I'm establishing new vetting measures, to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. We don't want them here. 

ALEX FORSYTH: The executive order specifically mention suspending entry from seven countries, with predominantly Muslim populations. People from those areas have taken to social media in confusion. One said an Iraqi friend who fled Isis was turned back from her US flight. And in Qatar a 71-year-old man heading to LA was sent back to Iraq. 

ELHAM KHATAMI (National Iranian American Council): Some green card holders have been let in. I think this was a case-by-case basis in which the family lawyers intervened. We're still waiting on getting more information on that, but in general it's a state of panic and confusion. 

ALEX FORSYTH: The extent of this order has enormous implications, not just for refugees but for many from the Middle East no able able to travel to the US. President Trump argues it will improve security but many have condemned the message it sends to Muslim communities around the world. Some refugees who have been detained at airports today are being represented by civil rights groups launching legal action. The full detail of this order may not be clear but already the consequences are being felt and challenged. Alex Forsyth. 

And the moral of the tale is...

Mrs May had left Mr Trump for Mr Erdogan. The famous Laura K draws a moral from this:

While marking the past, Theresa May is following her own path around the world. She can't choose her fellow leaders. Yet politicians, like the rest of us, are sometimes judged by the company they keep. Laura Kuenssberg, BBC News, Ankara.

"Fails"

The BBC pronounces, ex cathedra:

She "fails" to condemn President Trump, does she BBC?

Even by the recent standards of the BBC that's blatant, isn't it?

More on James O'Brien

Last night's Newsnight, presented by left-wing 'shock jock' James O'Brien, was a Trump special. 

JO'B was as 'impartial' as ever, making an ostentatious show of presenting his anti-Trump/anti-Brexit guests as "experts" (a word he kept on using in that respect) before giving them all ample chance to showboat their anxieties/rage about Trump/Brexit with as little challenge as possible. 

In contrast, pro-Brexit and/or pro-Trump guests got the fully sneery JO'B treatment. 

It's BBC impartiality James, but not as we know it (though, alas, actually, very much as we know it).

First up came, Dr Leslie Vinjamuri (no fan of President Trump), introduced as "an expert in the transatlantic partnership" and asked "this must, professionally, be a fraught time for you?". JOB's questions questioned the importance of the 'special relationship', in the usual BBC way. ("Well, it was a global agenda in one sense. In another sense, the American media seemed a lot keener to ask questions about Mexico and Russia than they did about the other half of the so-called special relationship"; "In the great scheme of things, for all of his Scottish ancestry and what have you, how high up on his to-do list will be giving Britain something?")

Then came Dan Hannan, repeatedly (and sneeringly) called "an arch-Brexiteer" by JO'B. JO'B interrupted him quite vigorously and chose to take advantage of Dan's mention of the "English-speaking" nations to sneeringly imply racism on Dan's part. ("The English-speaking democracies?"' "English-speaking? English-speaking, or would we allow non-English speakers in as well?"). It was classic JO'B.

"In a moment we'll be talking to the foreign affairs expert, Anne Applebaum. But first joining me now from Florida is the veteran Republican political strategist Roger Stone, himself a long term confidante of Donald Trump", said JO'B introducing his next guest. 

Mr Stone received the usual JO'B treatment, getting a hostile grilling (for being right-wing) and having it made personal. Here's a flavour:

• And, sort of, the law of truth as well. You are a veteran of the dark arts of politicking. You seem to revel in the rascal-ish nature of the profession. So when, for example, you put it out that Ted Cruz' father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, one imagines you doing it with a wry smile and a sort of thumbs up to the gallery. Donald Trump has a slightly different relationship with the truth. When he spoke today at the press conference about being in Scotland the day before Brexit, the calendar in his own Twitter account reveals he did not go there until the day after. Does he in his own mind believe it when he says these things, even though all of the evidence contradicts him? 

• Which is why I haven't asked you about it! I've asked you about the stuff that has happened. On the record. Today. So when he says that he was in Scotland on the day that the result came in...I begin your pardon...the day before the result came in and he predicted it all and then his own Twitter account reveals he landed in Scotland the day after, does he believe it when he says it. 

• No, I'm interested in whether....you well well be right about that...when he says it wasn't raining during the inauguration but people can actually feel the raindrops landing on their head, I'm just intrigued to know whether or not, psychologically, as a long-term confidante, he's sort of gaming everybody or that, somehow, he puts himself in a position where he has persuaded himself that what he wants to be true is true? 

And the interview ended in a way that, regardless of who's being interviewed, always strikes me as unprofessional - i.e. where the interviewer gives himself the final come-back at his interviewee's expense. and then adds a final sneer before giving thanks:

But not on the dates for arriving in Scotland. Roger Stone. Congratulations on the morning suit and many thanks indeed to you. 

And then it was straight onto anti-Brexit/anti-Trump Anne Applebaum and JO'B introducing her by repeating her 'expert' credentials:

I'm joined now by Anne Applebaum, the foreign affairs expert and columnist for the Washington Post. 

The interview was gentle and ended with JO'B saying (of Mrs May and Mr Trump):

Well, hey, they held hands! Anne Applebaum, thank you very much indeed. 

And finally came a tag-wrestling match with James O'Brien and Simon 'Drama' Schama on one side and pro-Trump prof Ted Malloch on the other.

Impartial BBC interviewing it wasn't. Typical James O'Brien on Newsnight it was. 

For fans of transcriptions, here's one of the final segment:

JAMES O'BRIEN: The historian Simon Schama is here, alongside Ted Malloch, who is widely tipped for a role in the Trump administration - possibly as Ambassador to the European Union. You don't have any news for us, do you Ted, tonight? 

TED MALLOCH: Maybe next week. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: OK. We'll start with you Simon. You've taken to social media and coined the rhyme 'Theresa the Appeaser'. Anything in today's events to appease your fears? 

SIMON SCHAMA: No, not particularly. I did...no...The spectacle of them holding hands, actually, which doesn't in any rational way speak to your question, James, did turn my stomach somewhat actually. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: We don't know that it didn't turn hers! But the fear that she is cosying up to a regime that may prove to be, as an historian, may stand comparison with other 20th-century horrors..are you stepping back? 

SIMON SCHAMA: No, I think scary authoritarian regimes, not to inaccurately paraphrase Count Leo Tolstoy, are scary and authoritarian each in their own way. I think this is starting to look incredibly scary and authoritarian. Particularly, actually, banning the possibility of the Environmental Protection Agency delivering data to the public. All sorts of things, I think, are serious. But the most worrying part of all, which doesn't speak to the authoritarian issue, but something loopier, is President Trump's contact or lack of contact with reality. Today, he doubled down on this extraordinary assertion that between three million and 5 million illegal immigrant votes were cast. It is absolutely... and this was actually delivered to a reception in which...the first reception he had from Congressional leaders...were treated to an harangue on this entirely fantastic story, which has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): OK, hold on!

SIMON SCHAMA: He is starting an investigation into an election he won! 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Yes.

SIMON SCHAMA: This is beyond absurd. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: There are three adjectives there that I will pick up on: 'absurd' is the first, but 'scary' and 'authoritarian' are the other two. Do you recognise what Simon Schama describes? 

TED MALLOCH: None of the above. Where would you like me to start? 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Well, let's start with the voter fraud allegations. He's sort of alleging that the Democrats managed to swing 3 million illegal votes, but not put any of them in the places that would have swung the election.

TED MALLOCH: So, let's have an investigation, and if there's hard evidence - and there's supposedly some people who have some evidence - then if there's more investigation...

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): There's one (indecipherable)...

SIMON SCHAMA (interrupting) The evidence comes from Greg Phillips, the conspiracy theorist! 

TED MALLOCH: We'll see what evidence there is.

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): We have the investigation and come to the conclusions afterwards?

TED MALLOCH: No, then you obviously state the conclusions. That's what investigations are. We have an investigation into Russian hacking and then we find out the truth. Hopefully we have imperial evidence into these things that we can look at, rather than dismissing them out of hand at the beginning. Why not look at them? Even on the liberal left, you are willing to look at actual facts?JAMES O'BRIEN: Empirical evidence. I mean, obviously it's a bit of a... 

TED MALLOCH: I'm a social scientist, so I prefer data. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Clearly. Except when climate change is on the table.

TED MALLOCH: Yeah, well, there are people who have different points of view on climate change. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): Thought we were talking about empirical data a minute ago! 

TED MALLOCH: We are! But there are about 10%, I'm told, of hard scientists who have some questions about some of that data. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Of course. Let me just draw the conversation out, if I may, and look at whether or not you feel, as somebody who clearly Donald Trump holds in high regard, that we are in some sense - whether you're worried about it, like Simon Schama, or whether you're not, like you - at a pivotal point in Western history? 

TED MALLOCH: I think we are at a turn in Western history. Obviously we have had a change from one regime to another regime, so you have that. But you also have a more national-orientated and more populist-orientated political caste coming into play, and that's not just in the United States. It's in many countries around the world. So if that's the case then maybe a new order is beginning to appear. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Nationalist, populist, they are not new ideas, are they? 

TED MALLOCH: Well, in this form, this time, yes. Frankly, are there any new ideas since Plato? We could have that debate. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): But we're not. Nationalism and populism rarely lead to harmony. 

TED MALLOCH: Lead to harmony? Well, there are different kinds of nationalism, different kinds of populism. 

SIMON SCHAMA  (interrupting): Well, 'America first', you know, let's take that slogan. It takes a jaw-dropping ignorance of history...

TED MALLOCH (interrupting):  So do you know who used the term first? 

SIMON SCHAMA: ...if you know your history...Pardon?

TED MALLOCH (interrupting):  Do you know who used the term first? 

SIMON SCHAMA: Well, it was....Wilson? 

TED MALLOCH: Woodrow Wilson!

SIMON SCHAMA: Fine. I know. But it was reprehensible when Wilson used it...

TED MALLOCH (interrupting): Ah, I see. 

SIMON SCHAMA (crosstalk): It was unbelievably reprehensible...

TED MALLOCH (crosstalk): Maybe when Lindbergh used it it was more reprehensible.

SIMON SCHAMA (crosstalk): And how! Lindbergh was an appeaser. Lindbergh was soft on the Nazis. It is an irony that Trump has moved Churchill back into his office, who would have detested and did detest everything about the slogan and what 'America first' stood for. 

TED MALLOCH: But he nonetheless needed America to help save Britain at a certain point in time. But Trump is probably not intellectually connected with that wonderful litany we've just talked about in terms of intellectual history...

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): What is he intellectually interested in?

TED MALLOCH: He is interested in, clearly literally, putting America first, re-establishing America's place in the world, America's economy. That is the thing to underscore. He really got elected on a platform that said the middle class has suffered for at least 15 years. So it's not just the last eight years. But it has suffered and it needs to come back...

SIMON SCHAMA  (interrupting): So why's he proposing a tax cut that will benefit, hugely and disproportionately, the top 1%? 

TED MALLOCH: You know about supply-side economics, it's worked before. 

SIMON SCHAMA  (interrupting): No, it hasn't worked before. We could have an argument about that.

TED MALLOCH: I'm an economist. It's worked before. It worked for John Kennedy, it worked for Ronald Reagan and it could work this time. In four years we could have a balanced budget under the best circumstances. 

SIMON SCHAMA: We had a balanced budget under Bill Clinton actually...

TED MALLOCH (interrupting): Newt Gingrich was the head of the Congress and they did it together, if you recall. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: I'm interested in the distinction between 'literally' and 'seriously'. It has been a recurring theme in the programme. You taken seriously, but you don't take him literally. You have always taken him literally? 

TED MALLOCH: No. I think you could take him either way and people obviously have in this very campaign. 

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): But he's President now, he is not campaigning. 

TED MALLOCH: That's true. There should be some difference, you know. When you're president you step up your game...

JAMES O'BRIEN (interrupting): Have you seen any yet? Have you seen any yet? 

TED MALLOCH: Well, In five days, I think we are beginning to... I actually think we saw some of it today, in the meeting and the summit with Theresa May. 

JAMES O'BRIEN: Ted Malloch, thank you. Simon Schama, are you seeing any cause for cautious optimism?
SIMON SCHAMA: No.

JAMES O'BRIEN: Or a dilution of your pessimism? 

SIMON SCHAMA: No.

JAMES O'BRIEN: Ted Malloch, Simon Schama, thank you very much indeed. 

However

According to the BBC News website:

And that's pretty much the tone of the BBC's article as a whole. 

Of the 14 reactions cited, only two approve of the move. One is "Dutch anti-Islam political leader Geert Wilders", the other is "the President of the Czech Republic, Milos Zeman" - presumably the "right-wing European politicians" referred to above...

...though Mr Zeman is actually a left-wing politician. 

Bigly biased

I've been away for most of today but one of the BBC reporters on my Twitter feed, Quentin Somerville, quickly gave me a good flavour of the BBC's reaction to President Trump's executive order to keep out Islamic terrorists. 

Quentin's tweets and re-tweets have been uniformly opposed to the move. He is emphatic that the move is a terrible one - and a big win for Islamic State. 

("The Islamic State wins. Bigly", he tweeted about the order. "When I spell "bigly" it autocorrects to "bigot", he quipped, referring to President Trump.)

If I didn't know better I'd have assumed from reading them that Quentin is a political activist rather than an 'impartial BBC reporter', but that's the Twitter feeds of 'impartial BBC reporters' for you! 

He's definitely not a happy 'impartial BBC' bunny. 

As DB noted:

Houses of Cards

The film “Denial” is being/has been released on Holocaust Memorial Day, to mixed reviews. The cynic in me wonders if the timing was purely mercenary or a fortuitous coincidence. Either way, it has sparked off quite a bit of interest. The Today programme tackled the subject.

At the time of the original ten week trial on which the film was based (David Irving had sued Deborah Lipstadt), the BBC’s Sanchia Berg had gone to interview David Irving at his Mayfair flat. The interview took place during the pause before the verdict was delivered. Irving was quite confident that the judge would find in his favour.

We heard part of that interview, where Irving claimed to be a sceptical historian, not a liar.

“[the holocaust] has been grossly inflated, and there’s been a hell of a lot of lying by the eyewitnesses” Irving intoned in that clipped, authoritarian tone that actor Timothy Spall, (playing Irving in the film Denial) almost manages to invoke.

When Sanchia Berg told him she’d been to Auschwitz, Irving asked if she’d seen the gas chambers. “The Germans blew them up” she said. “Well, somebody blew them up” came the retort.

As we now know, the judge found against David Irving, having concluded that he had, for his own ideological reasons, deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.

“But on the internet holocaust denial lives on, unchecked, “ said Ms Berg.

Nick Robinson introduced Richard Rampton QC who had represented Deborah Lipstadt in the original trial.

"Why did you spend so much of your life on this?" wondered Nick. "Do you think it was a good use of your three years?"

“Yes I do. I still think that truth matters. It’s probably the worst massacre, if you can call it that, in the world’s history considering the scale of it, and the fact that it was done deliberately during wartime.

[…]“Yes, we had to uproot the source of the problem”

[…] “Holocaust denial is not only a falsification of history, it’s an expression of anti-Semitism and if we could uproot the source of the poison perhaps the house would fall down.

Last year the Huffington Post, not noted for its philosemitism, published the kind of article  that you rarely see in the left-wing press. Muslim Migrants Fan European Antisemitism.

It’s gradually beginning to be almost acceptable to mention anti-Semitism and Muslim immigration in the same sentence. But you still have to watch your step.

“While all of the incoming refugees and migrants, fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim lands, may not hold anti-Jewish views, an extremely large number do — simply as a result of being raised in places where anti-Jewish vitriol is poured out in TV, newspapers, schools and mosques.”

Wrote Ben Barber.

Harry’s Place suffered a post Brexit/post Obama wobble, but it’s returning to normal with this post about Geert Wilders, or to be more precise Douglas Murray’s Spectator article about him.

 Now that Holocaust remembrance day has become ‘inclusive’ all sorts of people are allowing themselves to join in. Boris, and yes, even Jeremy Corbyn  has had a go - “Survivors of genocide” covers it -not to mention Brendan Cox, widower of Jo.

Some of this rings hollow.

Now for a quick reference to Question Time, which also seems to be returning to abnormal after its recent brief wobble – nay, a glimmer of light - when the SJWs had temporarily deserted the auditorium. They’re back now. There was no-one nice on the panel.

The comedian, whom I hadn’t heard of, was a Conservative who was forced to be humorously apologetic about it.

Diane Abbott seems to be speaking even slower these days. Perhaps she’ll grind to a halt soon.

The question was something like: What would you like Theresa May to say to the new POTUS?

 All the usual stuff. Then one man of Asian appearance said Theresa May should stop President Trump supporting Israel and tell him to support the Palestinians, because Israel had just announced more settlements illegal under international law etc etc. I mean, that’s par for the course. But not one member of the panel challenged this, in fact they all appeared to be nodding in agreement.

It’s that ignorant acceptance of the falsification of history, which is an expression of anti-Semitism that gets to me. And if we could uproot the source of the poison perhaps the house would fall down

Finally, this piece "German Muslim Students Protest Holocaust Remembrance, Attack Israel"

Muslim students with with Arab and Turkish origins protested participation in an International Holocaust remembrance event for the liberation of the German extermination camp Auschwitz on January, 27­ while the school management showed understanding for their criticism of Israel.

[…]The Holocaust Remembrance event is part of a global commemoration action to take selfie photographs with a sign saying “I Remember“ or “We Remember.“ A remembrance plaque at the school was desecrated with the sentence: “F*** Israel, free Palestine.” The school was not able to identify the perpetrator or perpetrators.

[…] In January, a German court reaffirmed a legal decision from the city of Wuppertal stating the torching of a synagogue by three Muslims was not motivated by antisemitism. The court wrote the men only sought via the arson of the synagogue “to clearly draw attention to the blazing conflict between Israel and Palestinians” during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. The original synagogue in Wuppertal was burned by Germans in 1938.

Some of us are hoping that “house” will fall down soon but we’re not holding our breath.

Open Thread

Time for a new one......

Here's Laura!

For anyone not watching the Theresa May-Donald Trump press conference, here's a flavour of what you've been missing...

Theresa May: Laura? 

Laura Kuenssberg: Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Laura Kuenssberg, BBC News. Prime Minister, you have talked about where you agree, but you have also said you would be frank where you disagree with the President. Can you tell us where in our talks you did disagree, and do you think the President listened to what you have to say? And Mr President, you have said before that torture works. You have praised Russia. You have said you want to ban some Muslims from coming to America. You have suggested there should be punishment for abortion. For many people in Britain, those sound like alarming beliefs. What do you say to our viewers at home who are worried about some of your views and worried about you becoming the leader of the free world? 

Donald Trump (turning to Theresa May): This was your choice of a question? (Audience laughs). There goes that relationship!

******

This provoked a short Twitter exchange between a Breitbart journalist and a BBC journalist:

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Horrible question by BBC claiming to speak for the British public. You speak for no one but the liberal elite!

Daniel Sandford, BBC Home Affairs correspondent: Breitbart, the future of journalism? 

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Hey "Home Affairs" editor... how about reporting some actual news, like how Rotherham style gangs still persist?

******

Update: It's turning into a tag-wrestling match over on Twitter:

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Horrible question by BBC claiming to speak for the British public. You speak for no one but the liberal elite! 

Mark Lowen, BBC Turkey correspondent: The response by @BreitbartNews to @bbclaurak's utterly legitimate and probing question to @POTUS 

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Your "news" outlet flubbed the biggest chance of the year to get more trade deal details. R u gonna ask Erdogan his fave dessert? 

Mark Lowen, BBC Turkey correspondent: Solidarity among journalists is a great thing. (Independent journalists). 

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: I agree. Which is why we as a private company have more legitimacy than you as an arm of the British establishment funded by threats. 

Mark Lowen, BBC Turkey correspondent: The standard-bearers of legitimate journalism. 

Two takes

Two very takes on the same story.

First, the BBC's take:

Second, the Daily Telegraph's take: 

The BBC website's article sounds quite Soviet after reading that Telegraph article, doesn't it?

Here beginneth the lesson

Now, you may think that Sean Spicer might not have been lying when he said that "this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe" or that Kellyanne Conway was using the term "alternative facts" to mean 'true facts that are an alternative to the supposed facts put out by others' rather than meaning 'our facts, that are an alternative to true facts' but you, alas, don't have the bully pulpit of a BBC salary and a guaranteed BBC microphone....

....unlike Jonny Dymond of the BBC. He disagrees with what you think, and used the bully pulpit of a new regular feature on Radio 4's The World at One to BBCreportersplain just why you're wrong:

Finally, there was something that looked like a row with pesky journalists but was actually much, much more important. It kicked off with a very combative White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, lying:

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period. both in person and around the globe". 

Then came Kellyanne Conway, counsellor to President Trump.

"Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts".

Now, if you get bored of stories about stories and journalistic navel-gazing, be not afraid - you are not alone! And who really cares how many people turned up to listen to the inauguration? But there is a serious point here: Generally when the White House speaks we don't just listen, we believe. It's the difference between the West and the rest, between those who do their best to tell the truth and those who make no effort to hew to verifiable facts. And it matters that the White House has credibility because when a crisis comes credibility is perhaps your most precious commodity, leaving aside nuclear weapons. 

 So that's you told!

"One thing that is true of the BBC is of course, you leave all your personal opinions at the door"

This week's The Media Show featured a remarkable pair of interviews about BBC bias - especially regarding BBC bias against Donald Trump. 

The first interview featured Charles Moore of the Spectator, laying into the BBC's 'groupthink' and the corporation's lack of even-handedness when it comes to disputing/believing 'facts' (i.e. questioning figures from the Trump side whilst simply taking on trust figures from the anti-Trump side), plus making the contrast between how the BBC greeted the election of Barack Obama with how it's greeted the election of Donald Trump. 

The second interview featured James Harding, Director of BBC News. It was one of those BBC interviews when the senior BBC manager essentially says little other than that 'the BBC is getting it about right'. Even when he sounded as if he was about to concede one of Charles Moore's points, Mr Harding spun around and refused to concede it:

JAMES HARDING  Erm, I think, let me say two things. One is: I think Charles Moore makes a really good point and made a really good point in that article which is, if you're going to have an argument about the honesty of the President of the United States in picking a fight with the media about the size of his audience at the inauguration, then you’d better be as vigorous and as keen to monitor the numbers of people who go on marches. And I think that point is not just related to Trump, it’s related to that bigger issue about public protests and how do you make sure that you, you do that accurately?
STEVE HEWLETT:         So do you think there was an element in the BBC’s reporting . . .
JH:          (interrupting) So . . .
SH:         . . . that could fairly be described as ‘uneven’ slightly?
JH:          No, I just think, I think what that is an extremely important thing is (sic) to keep on reminding people that if you’re going to pick a fight over fake news – and there is a fight on all sides over fake news, then you keep coming back to the efforts you make to be accurate.  That’s a really important point.

Plus, he quite blatantly side-stepped some of Steve Hewlett's sharper questions (or, to put it another way, failed to answer them), eg:

SH:         I guess is . . . I mean, this is a very cheeky question . . .

JH:          Hm-hmm (laughs)

SH:         And there’s no reason why you should have a proper answer to it, in fairness . . .

JH:          Can I just say, ‘No I don’t’ (laughs)

SH:      Do you . . . well, that might be the answer. Do you know anybody on the journalistic or editorial staff at the BBC, who is pro-Trump?

JH:          (two second pause) (inhales) So . . .

SH:         As an individual I mean.

JH:        So, so really important . . . there’s a really important thing here, which is that, people inside the BBC, they are all journalists, actually, one of the great misunderstandings about journalists is that there is such a thing as groupthink. Journalists, by nature, have really contrary opinions, they have different opinions, certainly when, when there’s a group of think— er, people who go in one direction, they, by nature, want to go the other direction, you know them as well as I do. Erm, one thing that is true of the BBC is of course, you leave all your personal opinions at the door.

Yeah right!

It was a strikingly weak performance, all in all. See if you agree.

A full transcript, courtesy of David and Andrew at News-watch (and many thanks to them for providing it), follows 'below the fold'...

#SoFar

It looks as if #DespiteBrexit might be about to be displaced by #SoFar. This tweet from the BBC's Norman Smith, for example, comes from deep inside the #SoFar camp: 

As did Kamal Ahmed's report on last night's BBC One News at Ten. Yes, the economic news has been good and the experts confounded but there's still what Kamal called "the shadow of Brexit". 

And, spoken with a dying fall, his report ended with these ominous words:

The nation of shoppers forges on. Britain's growth last year was the highest of any of the major Western economies. Are we still waiting for the full Brexit effect?

Update: Kamal Ahmed's blog post on the same subject is open for comments. The top-rated comments are all making similar points. Here are the Top 5 comments:

• If there had been no Brexit vote and no US election, you'd have been praising the British economy and saying how strong it was. Your article is based entirely on the presumption of pain based on these two events as predicted by those who wanted a different result.
• Here we go again-BBC watering down the good news and moving the goal posts. Pre-Referendum, we were told there would be emergency budgets, instant recession, all sectors would suffer etc. Virtually every prediction made by Remain before the referendum has proven wrong yet, ironically, Brexit is still accused of misinformation! Things are on track for Team GB. More than can be said for the EU!
• Pain? What pain? We are now at the start of a long and exciting journey of discovery with all the indicators being in the right direction after years of floundering in the sticky morass of EU red tape. Long may it continue.
• At some point the economy will take a dip. The economic cycle. This will be global factors and not Brexit. Please BBC give it a rest.
• I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing Ahmed's and the BBC's negative, anti-British, pro-EU, and totally biased reporting. As Ahmed said: "And, of course, confidence tends to beget confidence" - and, so does pessimism beget pessimism! The true British character is to be optimistic and get on with the job.

Sartorial tip

May I come in?

Here at ITBB we like Melvyn Bragg’s “In our Time”. I know Craig does, and so do I, even though much of it is over my head.

This morning's edition about parasitism was fascinating. Even I could follow it.

But here’s the thing. Do you remember this?  Click on it; (g’wan g’wan) I urge you, as I know most of us can’t be arsed to click  - but if you don’t, you won’t know what I’m talking about - but guess what. Call Anna Hughes immediately! 

Professor Steve Jones has a kind of update on the vexed question of Zebras and the reason for their distinctive markings. 

Never mind the dazzle-ship theory. Don’t trouble yourself with two types of morphogens that work together, one as an “activator,” and one as an “inhibitor.” 

It’s simple. Mosquitos avoid stripes, and if you’re ever in the jungle or a malarial swamp, wear striped trousers. 

Ideal outerwear for the malarial swamp

John Humphrys isn’t all bad

Who was it that said John Humphrys  is not all bad? I know I read it somewhere recently.

Hmm. I tapped “John Humphrys’ into the search engine over at Biased-BBC to see if Alan had said it, but the first thing that came up was from September 2011 by someone called Sue.  (!)   (It made quite a good read, if I say so myself).

Anyway, I think I recall complaining about his hectoring style, which emerges on days when he’d obviously got out of bed on the wrong side. You know, when he comes across all bullying and irritable, and interrupts people he dislikes, so that they can’t finish important points.

Well, this morning he was the model of a very modern gentleman. He was even-handed and rather patient, although Shami Chakrabarti, shadow Attorney General or whatever her title is these days, might beg to differ.
The case for insisting that parliament is given a vote on the government’s Brexit strategy is pretty weak in my ill-informed opinion, and I think that her claim that the Labour Party doesn’t wish to ‘imperil’ Britain’s chances of getting a good deal while arguing that there should be transparency and that parliament should have the chance to ‘vote’ on tactics does amount to dancing on the head of a pin. 

If I’m quoting Michael Howard a lot, it’s because I think he was right and Shami was wrong, and I also think she knew she was wrong. 

Her faltering protests “It could be included in the bill” was the desperate cry of a drowning shadow Attorney General grasping at straws; one who jolly well knew she was on a sticky wicket (but who was never going to back down).

Not that I would have particularly chosen to trust Theresa May to handle things on my behalf, but negotiating is just like poker, isn’t it? Don’t show your hand. Keep your cards close to your chest. Poker Face. Lady Gaga wrote a song about it. Bluff, counter-bluff, don’t blink first and all that. And, if we’re forced to reveal our hand in the open and transparent fashion that certain MPs think we should (though they will keep dancing on a pin to deny that is what they’re asking for) then all 27 countries need to do the same. 

John Humphrys was a little ratty with Shami, and I kind of sensed his response to Michael Howard was more respectful, (with good reason, if it was) but he did listen to both sides, and put the gist of each of their arguments to the other in a professional manner.

The BBC forbids its staff to make value judgements, but some of them just have judgemental voices. I'm no fan of Mishal Husain, as you might imagine. When she is dealing with the Israel/Palestine conflict or anything related to Islam, the tone of her voice gives away more than she might wish. If she’s taking someone to task on any topic at all, she comes across all schoolmarmish and harsh. 

Not so this morning. She sounded positively syrupy while indulging in a little light banter with a couple of wimmin, discussing shoes. Emma the podiatrist and Emma the designer.

The ‘news of the day’ concerns The Women’s Dress Code and the sexism of being told to keep up appearances in the workplace. In particular, being compelled to wear high heeled shoes, hence the podiatrist. "Wearing very high-healed shoes cripples you," is what the BBC wanted to hear, so that they could be even more indignant at wimmin being forced to wear them.  But the podiatrist was in two minds. It all depends, she said. People with the right architecture (Doric columns are handy) can wear them with impunity. 

Perhaps the designer was there to make darkly meaningful remarks about Donald Trump, whose ‘wimmin' were wearing very high heels at the inauguration. (Does Donald Trump force his womenfolk to wear them in the workplace?) To augment this confusing innuendo, she said the protesting wimmin wore trainers or bovver boots.

Her own high heels are good high heels because they don't force the toes against the sides. I’m not sure what her point was. Was she for or against? No-one knows, especially not her.

Personally I’m in the “Steel toe-caps for receptionists” movement. Surely it’s people like the confused designer who profit most from the fashion victim industry. It’s in their interest to keep wimmin wearing their stuff, even if it’s uncomfortable. They are always telling us to do all sorts of unnatural things to our persons to ‘look good’. You can’t just blame men. 

I don’t think Mishal Husain was listening very attentively to either contributor or she would have called them out for being silly.  John Humphrys would have done a better job.

Emma Supple is a consultant podiatrist in College of Podiatry, Emma Hope is a shoe designer and here is a Doric column.

Dire Straits

The main news today is the Supreme Court’s decision  (8 - 3) that the government cannot use its prerogative to trigger article 50 without putting it to a vote in parliament. Therefore the decision about ‘triggling aritcer 50’ (as certain BBC reporters and politicians are apt to Spoonerise) will be up to our MPs.

 See Guido’s provisional list of MPs who will vote against.

*****

Triggling aside, I do think the media is presently running the country. Theresa May’s hesitant performance on the Marr Show exposed her genuine and understandable fear of the media, as much as anything else. If she had fallen into Marr’s little trap of admitting “she knew” that there had been a faulty test, we all know how the media would pounce. Of course her feeble attempt at obfuscation didn’t do her any good either. Lose-lose.

********

As for the anti-Trump fest, it does remind me of the Arab Spring. The media had to apologise for its embarrassing premature ejaculation on that topic.

One hopes Trump’s political agenda trumps his personal one, and if things work out for America, let’s assume the media will be magnanimous enough to recognise it. But ah ha’e me doots.

I mean, The Donald is all the things the media says he is. Well, maybe not all. Because the one thing the media has pounced upon is not really what the media will have us believe. Not at all.

They discovered that infamous ten year old video, and all they had to do was light the blue touch paper and sit back and gloat with satisfaction as the lefties and feminists grabbed the baton and sped off with in all directions. 

The pussy thing - a boast - was not a sexual assault. The pussy thing, as far as I can tell, was one celebrity’s surprise and delight at discovering the power of celebritydom. Like a child with free run of a toyshop. Yes it was babyish. Yes, it was quite repulsive. The pussy thing was an embarrassment, a childish example of verbal incontinence, and almost an expression of astonishment and disbelief at at his own power.  It. was. not. a. sexual. assault.

Now I’m sounding like Bill Clinton and the ‘that woman’ speech, but how many feminists reacted with horror when Mark Knopfler sang “Money for nothin’ and chicks for free”?

***********

Thus endeth the variegated stream of consciousness observations; now for something completely specific.

Yesterday I took the trouble to transcribe the whole of Sarah Montague’s interview with Israeli spokesperson Tzipi Hotovely . (Click on 'read more')

I didn’t set out in detail which particular words and phrases exposed the flaws in Sarah Montague’s line of questioning because I am tired of reiterating the same old things over and over. Anyone who is familiar with the situation will “know” just by reading the transcript. 

Perhaps this was the BBC’s attempt to redress the balance, but this morning someone must have decided to show ‘the other side of the story’ by bringing another interviewee onto the Today programme. The running order has:

“What do Palestinians make of the new American President? The mayor of Jerusalem believes the United States is serious about moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Haneen Zoabi is a Palestinian member of Israeli Knesset.”

This illustrates the BBC’s laughable idea of balance. Commissioning one hostile interview with an Israeli spokesperson one day, then a gentle interview with an anti-Israel spokesperson the next. Heads I win; tails you lose.

Yesterday’s interview was ostensibly about settlements. Today’s was about the possibility of the US Embassy being moved to Jerusalem.

Although the BBC mentioned it on their website, (in the above running order) Mishal Husain didn’t make much of the fact that Zoabi is an Israeli Arab and an MP in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. She certainly didn’t tell listeners that Zoabi is opposed to the ‘two state solution’ (she wants a one-state (Arab) solution) and that she opposes Israel being recognised as a Jewish state. Despite the fact that as an MP she is hugely benefiting from its democratic system, she is ideologically opposed to Israel’s existence. How mad is that?

Haneen Zoabi’s young relation Muhammad will tell you more in English, Hebrew or Arabic, whichever you prefer. 

Not to mention his mother Sarah, another ‘proud Zionist.’

I won’t be transcribing this interview. Please listen yourself. 

Haneen Zoabi was given plenty of space to express herself without let or hindrance. “What will happen if Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem? Mishal asked hopefully. “Will it be a red line?”

Mishal did interrupt a particularly long rant to ask Zoabi what she thought about settlements being “not the only issue”,  and citied other issues, which (she said)  ‘Israel sees’ as additional ‘obstacles to peace’, namely: The status of Jerusalem, refugees, Israel’s security. 

Issues effortlessly glossed over by Mishal, but hugely complex, contentious and nearly always misrepresented.

“650 units is ‘a crime against humanity’ “ said Zoabi, “It’s a war crime”.
"If you want peace, you want justice, and you must make Israel accountable to its crime” she opined. Another lengthy rant unchallenged, including the customary Palestinian rewriting of history and imaginative interpretations of various wrongdoings of the state that so generously provides her with the opportunity to spread anti-Israel propaganda to those that hunger for such a thing.

Palestinian intransigence, rejectionism, incitement, violence and visceral hatred of Jews didn't get a look-in.