Saturday, 23 December 2017

This is a local blog for local people...



In this house we always liked The League of Gentlemen, and it was very kind of the BBC to bring it back after 15 years for three final episodes on consecutive nights just before Christmas.

It was horrifyingly funny.

It was magnificent.

I loved almost every second of it.

(I got very squeamish about one thing  - no, not the exploding hedgehog scene - but I'll only share that with a psychiatrist and/or Sue).

Times change. The old The League of Gentlemen had us laughing at Barbara, the gruff-voiced, hairy-armed transsexual taxi driver. The new The League of Gentlemen also featured Barbara, the gruff-voiced, hairy-armed transsexual taxi driver, and gave her a speech on how times have changed (oh whoops, did I say 'she'?) whilst once more making us laugh at her (oh whoops, did I say 'her'?) - a delicious example of what Boris might have called 'having your cake and eating it':
Barbara: So, is it good to be back, Benjamin, after all this time?
Benjamin: It is, though under sad circumstances, obviously.
Val: Do you two know each other?
Benjamin: Yes - Barbara was the first person I met in Royston Vasey. She was very friendly, as I remember it.
Barbara: Hey, hey, hey, hey! We'll have none of that in here! No hate speech.
Benjamin: Hate speech? I...
Barbara: Gender neutral pronouns only. People used to make fun of the likes of us. Well, that's all gone now - the world's moved on. We are no longer a source of cheap humour and laughs. No. And this cab is a safe, friendly, mutually respectful, and above all, tolerant space!
Benjamin: What pronoun do you use?
Barbara: Well, if you don't know, you can piss off out of it - I'm not fucking telling you! 
Barbara: Oh, no, I don't like to use LGBT - it's too limiting. The acronym I prefer is ACRONYM. Actively Considering Reassignment Or Not Yet Made Your Mind Up. 
Now, the original The League of Gentlemen had something even more 'controversial' (in today's Twitter Age terms) than a gruff-voiced, hairy-armed transsexual taxi driver, and I surely can't have been the only fan to wonder if the BBC would dare, in 2017, to bring back the very wicked Papa Lazarou.

Indeed (not very good spoiler alert!), it's very obvious that the makers of The League of Gentlemen knew we'd be thinking that too, hence the blackface-sporting circus ringmaster being kept till almost the closing minute of the final-ever episode.


But, yes, they did indeed dare. Papa Lazarou was back, and still sporting blackface.
Yes folks...

Sporting blackface. On the BBC. In 2017! 

Where's the Twitter storm? Why aren't the writer, actors and BBC commissioners fleeing for their lives from the (Twitter) mob? Why hasn't Lord Tony Hall been put through a mincing machine? 

Funny old world, eh?

(Ed - Princess Michael of Kent, a regular reader, has just emailed us to say, 'Yes'.)

Anyhow, where the BBC bias in all of this? Well, it was there. Oh yes.

The programme's other most notorious (and popular) characters, the inbred, psychopathic Edward and Tubbs, were back and slicing people's faces off. Lots of local, stupid, ordinary people in Royston Vasey rallied to their inadvertent cause - a cause with slogans based on the couple's famous catchphrase 'This is a local shop for local people'. And the local, stupid, ordinary people won. 

Yes, The League of Gentlemen was satirising Brexit and Brexiteers. (Even Matthew Parris appeared, playing a pro-Edward and Tubbs commentator.)

Do I really care? No - especially as this angle played such a small part in the programme. Blink and you might have missed it (if you're a complete idiot).  

That said, the chances that a revival of The League of Gentlemen or of anything on the BBC would ever result in anti-Remain satire remain very, very, very low - vanishingly low even.


And, thus, I've managed to turn a 'fan post' about the brief revival of The League of Gentlemen into a piece about BBC bias.

I think even Pauline might have been impressed enough by that to have given me one of her pens. (Alas, poor Pauline!)

Venetian winds


Something on tonight's PM made me laugh. 

Naga Munchetty was in full 'social justice warrior' flow about Princess Michael of Kent's blackamoor broach when the wind got abruptly taken out of her sails...

...not that she didn't persist with her original line of questioning regardless for quite a while longer though!

Still, Joanna Hardy of The Antiques Roadshow gave her and the Radio 4 audience a welcome dose of informed good sense. 

On a less happy note, it makes you realise (yet again) just how silly, uninformed, irrational and downright unpleasant these kinds of Twitter-provoked righteous frenzies can be.  

Here's a transcript...


Naga Munchetty: Most of us at some point have agonised about what to wear to a special occasion. When is formal really formal? How cas' is smart casual? Rarely though do our sartorial choices depend on how racist they may seem. Perhaps that should have been thought more carefully about by Princess Michael when she was getting ready for a Christmas lunch at Buckingham Palace. She's since apologised for wearing a blackamoor broach, which has been deemed racist. Awkward, to say the least, when Prince Harry's fiancee Meghan Markle, who was born to a Caucasian father and African-American mother, was also present. Joining me is Joanna Hardy, a jewellery expert who often appears on The Antiques Roadshow. Welcome Joanna. Just explain to me why is this blackamoor broach considered racist.
Joanna Hardy: Well, it totally isn't! When blackamoor broaches were first created - the 16th-18th centuries - they were everything about the caring companion, nothing at all about racism. They're also called morettos, and this was a Venetian name for a member of the royal household in the Orient. So this was all about the silk trading routes. And they would come to Venice, and there would be all these cultures and gemstones and the exchange of cultures that inspired the goldsmith and the craftsman.
Naga Munchetty: So why would someone take offence to it then?
Joanna Hardy: Well, I suppose if you don't know the history maybe you just think...You're seeing it for what it is now but it's not that. It was never created for that. It was about really revering the Orient. And it was also making people feel that these long lost lands. that they were being connected with it. It gave the goldsmith the fantasy and the skill that he could apply to a broach.
Naga Munchetty: One would assume that a royal member would be advised about what to wear on such formal occasions, that the history of these pieces would be explained?
Joanna Hardy: Well, you know, when I buy a piece of of jewellery I will buy it because of what I know about it, and so I'm sure that that would have been also thought of - but in that context, not in the context that other people are seeing it in.
Naga Munchetty: And these blackamoor broaches are also known as morettos, as I understand?
Joanna Hardy: That's right.
Naga Munchetty: How, when you think about this - and people are listening to this story now - how mindful do you think they're going to be - particularly antique hunters - when you're buying something that initially perhaps you have bought simply because it was beautiful?
Joanna Hardy: Well, that's what it's meant to be. Jewellery is about the craftsmanship and the beauty and the history and the legacy behind it. That's what you must be able to remember when you're buying these pieces. And it's rather like a painting, you know. There's hidden meanings behind them. It's not all obviously just what you see in front of you. And I think one has to be very mindful of that. 
Naga Munchetty: When people ask you advice when it comes to buying antiques, do they ask about the history or is it more about the craftsmanship?
Joanna Hardy: Well, the craftsmanship and the history is very linked together because jewellery is very much representing the social history of the time that it was made too.
Naga Munchetty: So when it comes to jewellery now, what would you say people are buying most for?
Joanna Hardy: Oh, to make you feel good. You're buying something that's beautifully crafted. It's a celebration of craftsmanship. That's why I think people buy jewellery. And also it's a memory, it's a memory.
Naga Munchetty: Do you think this will be seen again on Princess Michael of Kent?
Joanna Hardy:  I don't know.
Naga Munchetty: It was a tricky question to ask you. Joanna, thank you very much for your time. 
Joanna Hardy: Pleasure!

That would be a blandly ecumenical matter



Historian and Radio 4 presenter Tom Holland has a fascinating piece in the FT, 'Our secular society draws from the well of Christian tradition'

In it he mentions the BBC ("a broadcaster so unapologetically liberal that it has entrusted responsibility for its religious output to an atheist, and even then only on a part-time basis"), focusing on the corporation's newly-published 40-page Religion and Ethics review:
The tone may have been that of an anthropologist observing with curiosity the customs of distant tribes but the report did at least commit the BBC to making an effort to understand them.
He continues:
Nevertheless, there are limits to how far it is willing to go. Acknowledging that the great array of the world’s faiths are now to be found in Britain, the BBC’s response will be to double-down on what has long been its default setting: a bland ecumenism. Henceforward, Eid will be given primetime coverage as well as Christmas; Diwali as well as Easter. The template for this approach is provided by Thought For The Day, a three-minute slot on the BBC’s flagship radio morning news programme, in which bishops, rabbis and Buddhists compete to utter vacuous platitudes. No one ever says anything that a speaker from a different faith might not equally have said. Not a hint of the passions or the yearnings that can animate believers — still less the hatreds — is ever betrayed. It is the theological equivalent of milky tea.
And here's his account of the thinking that underlies the BBC's "bland ecumenism":
The conviction that underlies the BBC’s approach, that all religions are essentially the same, is not unique to Britain. Rather, it is the secular orthodoxy across the west. It has its militant wing, in the form of atheists who dismiss all religions as equally pernicious. It has its pacific wing, in the form of liberals who refuse to countenance the possibility that, say, the actions of Isis might have anything to do with Islam. 
The underlying conceit, though, is invariably the same: that it is possible to leave behind the swirl of religious identities and attain a plateau of moral and intellectual superiority; that to be secular is somehow to have left belief behind.
The whole article is well worth reading.

Previous Open Thread (Back By Popular Demand!)

Just in case posts from Craig and / or Sue are sporadic during the frantic season, here's a new Open Thread.

And to illustrate a comment on one thread, here's an added image:

Ofcom's first test


That Oxford panel: Stephen Gethins, Camilla Cavendish, Clive Lewis, Damian Green and Jo Swinson.

Over at News-watch David has an important piece about what appears to be Ofcom Content Board's first BBC-based ruling. 

The complaint from Gavin Hunt focused on BBC One's Question Time. Gavin had tracked 25 consecutive editions of the programme in the first half of 2017 and discovered that 22 had panels which contained a majority of Remainers - something that he believes demonstrates significant bias against Leavers.

I'd urge you to read the ruling in full

The first thing that might make your jaw drop is that Ofcom chose to focus on just two editions (and then narrowed it down even further to just one) - the two programmes (one from Oxford, the other from Salford) which had five Remainers and no supporters of Leave.

What was the point of doing that? (Laziness, from what I can see.) The complainant's point was based on it being a comprehensive January to June survey. Ofcom just flicked that aside, declared that their time was precious, and based their findings on two episodes out of 25.The BBC always asks to be judged over time not on single examples when it comes to bias. Ofcom is going with the single examples that the BBC usually complains about!

Yes, if the second edition - the Salford one - barely touched on Brexit then it's nowhere near as clear a case of a 5:0 panel on Brexit as the clearly-duly-unimpartial Oxford edition. The panel listed by Ofcom for the Salford edition (Amber Rudd, Andy Burnham, Colin Parry, Sara Khan and Nazir Afzal) was clearly a panel chosen very carefully in the wake of the Manchester terrorist attack specifically to talk about terrorism and Muslims. 

BUT that (a) doesn't excuse the Oxford edition and (b) doesn't even begin to answer the main point that the complainant was making: 
“2 episodes had Leave majorities of 3:2 on the Panel; 1 episode was balanced; 22 out of 25  episodes had Remain majorities on the Panel; 2 episodes (Oxford and Salford) had 5:0 Remain  majorities; 8 episodes had a 4:1 Remain majority”.
Ofcom simply failed to deal with that. They changed the goalposts from 25 episodes in a row to just two episodes, and then changed it again to just one. As a result they side-stepped the complainant's point. 

My jaw also dropped at the bit in the 'Oxford programme' section where Ofcom tried to pass Damian Green off as 'not Remain'. 
During the discussion, there were a number of viewpoints expressed which could be described as critical of Brexit to some degree. However, we considered that there were also views expressed which could be described as supporting Brexit in some form, or otherwise challenging the Remain position. For example, Damian Green disagreed with various statements that were supportive of a Remain position. He said most people had not changed their mind since voting in the 2016 EU Referendum (“the referendum”), and although he was part of the referendum campaign for Remain, he respected democracy and the referendum outcome. 
It's not sensible of Ofcom to claim that that either supports Brexit or challenges the Remain position given that plenty of Remain-voting people, including politicians, (a) have been honest enough to acknowledge that that most people haven't changed their minds (as the polls mostly show) and (b) have said again and again and again that they respect the referendum outcome. Even Keir Starmer, Anna Soubry & Co. repeatedly say that they respect the referendum outcome. To say that that's "Damian Green disagreeing with various statements that were supportive of a Remain position" here is absurd.
He also: rebuked Tim Farron for saying the Liberal Democrats would frustrate the Parliamentary process for introducing Brexit; stated a strong and stable government would get a good Brexit deal; the referendum outcome ruled out membership of the Single Market and being subject to the European Court of Justice; and argued that Brexit had to mean more control over immigration and our budget. We considered that these were views that could be reasonably described as supporting what may be termed a form of “Hard Brexit”. 
Well, if Ofcom thinks that Damian Green in any way supports a 'Hard Brexit' then they know absolutely nothing about Damian Green (or politics). That claim alone should be enough to make them laughing stocks. 

And when you watch what he actually said on 'Hard Brexit' - from 19.48 here - you find (surprise, surprise!) that Damian Green is actually arguing, despite some 'hard talk' for 'Soft Brexit'. That Ofcom didn't realise that and thinks that what he said there is 'Hard Brexit talk' suggests where their collective mindset is on Brexit. 

So to claim that he was "putting the Leave perspective" is deeply disingenuous.  He was actually putting a Remain perspective, but a Remain perspective which accepts the democratic result and wants to try and make the best of it and to be as positive about it as possible. 

Ofcom's claim that this edition was duly impartial is nonsense.

So, all in all, Ofcom actually out-BBCed the BBC here. The BBC is canny when it comes to complaints and can waffle away like a Complaints Houdini at the drop of a rabbit-containing hat. The BBC would never have released such a gormless, self-damning ruling. 

Except, of course, that most of these Ofcom people are closely tied to the BBC....see News-watch link here!

The BBC marches with the mob


The strange story of Princess Michael of Kent falling victim to a Twitter mob for wearing a "racist" Blackamoor broach to the Queen's Christmas lunch (and, naturally, she's now apologised) has been reported by the BBC

I read Not a Sheep's description of the BBC News website's report as a "BBC SJW article", and you can see why he calls it that if you compare it to the equivalent report from Sky

Sky's account is noticeably more balanced and nuanced than the BBC's. 

For example, the BBC simply cites two critical tweets from the Outraged Brigade ("RACIST", "crass") whereas Sky, after also citing two such criticisms, goes on to report that "Some defended her saying the pieces are not racist". 

If you just read the BBC's account you wouldn't know that the accusation of racism is a heavily disputed one. You'd get the outrage but not the counter-view. 

Moreover, while the BBC merely says, "Blackamoor figures and sculptures are exotic figures which usually depict African men and were prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries" and tells us that critics have called it "racist", Sky rounds out the picture and says, "Blackamoor sculptures and jewellery usually depict an African or non-European male, as a servant. They have a complex history as they were once considered to be a tribute to the people they represented". 

Plus the BBC (unlike Sky) drops in the fact that Princess Michael's father was a major in the Nazi SS.

Sky has reported this story more fairly than the BBC. 

The Mongol Horde of Women


Yes, of course the BBC is pushing a feminist agenda in its website 'news resource' on Modern women in the land of Genghis Khan, but it's an interesting, informative piece and it introduced me to a gigantic statue of Genghis Khan which I never knew existed. 


One of the passages in the pieces where the hardships caused by the collapse of communist one-party rule in Mongolia were mentioned made me raised my eyebrows heavenwards though:


What that passage leaves out is that for that 'loss' something else of great importance was gained. Yes, Mongolia may have had more women MPs in the communist period than it has now but, in compensation for that, Mongolia's women MPs now sit in a democratic parliament and Mongolia itself is a dynamic democracy where votes turn out governments and usher in different parties. It's an Asian success story. These new women MPs aren't communist placewomen; they've earned their place in parliament through winning votes. That more surely is the real 'improvement' here (if you aren't viewing everything through a rigid feminist filter that is).

Every silver lining has a cloud



Tom Symonds


BBC One's main evening news bulletin last night had a typically downbeat take on the colour change to the British passport. Its report on the story ended with a reminder that Brexit is both 'tough' and 'divisive':
Brexit is tough; changing the passport colour relatively easy. But like Brexit, it's dividing the nation between those who say "At last", and those who say, "Why bother?" Tom Symonds, BBC News.
And a Merry Christmas to you too Tom! 

Guest Post: THE BBC's OFFICIAL FESTIVE FIFTY BIAS TECHNIQUES...


Courtesy of Monkey Brains in the comments, here's MB's John Peel-style Festive Fifty which observers of BBC bias everywhere may enjoy this pre-Christmas weekend. 

So raise your mulled wine glasses please, ladies and gentlemen, and let the countdown begin...

(Be warned though. The Undertones won't be at Number One).


A seasonal message from Lord Hall, Director General of the BBC

In this era of fake news, Russian subversion of referenda to produce incorrect results and the installation of a fascist dictatorship in the USA, I thought it apposite and timely, to publish a list of our 50 top Bias Techniques, lest anyone should think we were being complacent about the challenges facing us in the contemporary media world. This list will act as a helpful guide for our staff but I hope it will also reassure the public at large that we have their best interests at heart. 

1. Bias by News Agenda Choice. The biggie. If we don’t report it, it’s not news. And we don’t like to report things like the Synagogue attack in Stockholm, no go areas in the UK or the New Year’s Eve events in Cologne a while back. 

2. Bias by News Prioritising. OK, sometimes we can’t avoid reporting something but we can certainly give it very low priority. It only needs to appear for a nanosecond for us to be able to say that we have done our journalistic duty. 

3. Bias in Perpetuity. If we like a story…”Tories racist says report”…we might leave it up on our website for months to make sure just about everyone gets to see it, even though we are allegedly a “news” organisation. Likewise we will return obsessively to stories we love like Grenfell Tower.

4. Bias by Burying. If we don’t like a story we will bury it away somewhere like “News from Leicester” which you get to by navigating four or five pages on our website. In terms of broadcasting you will have to live in the East Midlands to be informed of what happened. I am not going to say what happened, because that would defeat the objective of this particular technique. 

5. Bias by Headline Creep. Sometimes we know a story hasn’t really got legs but by using the headline ruse we can make it sound a lot better. So “Boris “racism” claim” on the front page of the website becomes…”Boris claims government is acting on racism”….becomes “Boris has rejected a UN report claiming that racism in the UK is rising at an alarming rate”.

6. Bias by Interruption. An old time favourite…if you don’t like what the interviewer is saying, interrupt them to hell and back, so that they can’t get their points across. Some right wing obsessives on the internet try to expose this bias by recording the number of such interruptions and comparing that number with interruptions of favoured guests, but such statistical exposure of this technique can be dismissed by a vague, airy “Notwithstanding this particular interview, we consider the programme, taken in the round, was balanced and impartial”. 

7. Bias by Misrepresentation. It’s important that we at the BBC control debate by ensuring we get to mispresent viewpoints. Under this approach, being worried about hardly ever hearing the English language spoken in your neighbourhood (a perfectly legitimate concern) obviously becomes “racist attitudes to migrants”. Of course we don’t simply assert that – to do so would be crass and far too obvious. Instead we imply it via other bias techniques e.g. “Bias by Question and Some Say”. 

8. Bias by Concept Merge. Sometimes it pays to be pedantically precise about definitions (a favourite of both Dimblebys on occasion). But with this technique, it is important to be vague and overlap differing concepts until the viewer or listener is taught, in Pavlovian fashion, to associate “Member of Conservative Party” with “Far Right Nut”. Thus we merge “Neo-Nazi” into “Far Right”, which in turn merges into “Right Wing” which then merges into “Nationalist” (as in “Bad Nationalist” – obviously does not apply to SNP, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru) and further blends with “Tory” and “Conservative”. By constant mixing and association Neo Nazis, Nationalists and Tories all become part of a dangerous amorphous group that like to persecute minorities. We find this approach very effective at the BBC.

9. Bias by Mirroring. Under this ruse we call extreme radicals like Iranian Mullahs or Chinese Communists “Conservatives” so as to make toxic the whole “conservative” brand. You have to admire our cheek in doing so! But the useless Tories never make any effective protests about this.

10. Bias by Intimidation. We tell our audience that we will report them to their employer or school if they voice opinions of which we disapprove. This can be more effective than you might think. Of course we have combined this with a sustained attack on the Have Your Say function on our website and also by turning the Feedback programme into a meaningless “complaints from both sides” exercise now stuffed full of disguised adverts for BBC programmes.

11. Bias by Mockery. The mockery is not just something for “comedy” panel shows or the Now Show. News presenters can also join in the mockery of anything the BBC doesn’t like. Eddie Mair and Jonny Diamond have I think done some excellent work in this area. But woe betide anyone who mocked say Stella Creasy or Chukka Umuna!!! (not that that would ever happen under my watch!) - that would be sexist and racist and would lead to instant dismissal. We of course produce an in-house list of who to mock and who not. Currently Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are top of the list. But such lists can of course change and staff should keep up with developments. 

12. Bias by Complaint Dismissal. As long as we keep batting away complaints in the face of the truth and the facts, we can maintain our absurd formal claim of impartiality. It is therefore important that the programmes we claim allow the viewer or listener a voice should be tightly controlled. I have of course instructed all editors and producers to hold the line and deny bias by claiming complaints from both sides and if they cannot defend something, claim a broader overall balance across the piece. 

13. Bias by Propaganda Tentacle. The BBC has a long reach. Our correspondents can use Twitter to voice more extreme anti-democratic, pro-Antifa opinions through re-tweeting. We are now going into schools as well to brainwash children with our “Fake News” agenda. Our tentacles can basically reach anywhere. 

14. Bias by Question Selection. What questions get asked is vital. If you think we pull the QT questions out of a hat then you are very, very naïve. 

15. Bias by Simple Fact Denial or Avoidance. For instance we will not admit even the possibility that the housing crisis might have something to do with mass immigration. It’s rather like that loose thread in a pullover. If you start pulling on it before long the whole thing will unravel. So we have to maintain “Complete Fact Denial” in those very sensitive areas touching on the central tenets of our PC Multiculturalist doctrine. 

16. Bias by Expert. We choose the experts. Our experts are guaranteed to support our views. That’s how and why we select them! 

17. Bias by Org-Labelling. For instance, that think tank is “right wing”, this think tank (the one we like) is “respected”! It’s not so difficult once you get the hang of it. 

18. Bias by Person Labelling. That person (someone standing up for beliefs that were uncontroversial 50 years ago) is “far right”, this person (a Marxist totalitarian) is the “conscience of the left” or a “revered academic and commentator”.

19. Bias by Tone of Voice. So important! When we are children we listen to our parents’ tone of voice before we understand the meaning of their words. Are our parents angry or pleased with us? We know this and so we play on these very human weaknesses. Our presenters sound surprised if a right wing person does a nice thing or somehow escapes justice when we have been looking forward to their downfall. Equally they make it sound like their mother has died if the PC Multicultarist liberal-left suffer a reversal, however minor. 

20. Bias by Atypical Person Choice. It may be true that most female followers of Islam in Bradford may wear a Hijab and rarely go outside the family home but we have the resources at our disposal to find one who doesn’t wear a head covering, uses make up, wears tight jeans and has set up her own business. Once we have found her we are going to give her the full PR treatment on your shows, eventually giving her her own series.

21. Bias by Drama and Soap. I can’t overemphasise the importance of this bias technique. This is how we really buttress the news and indoctrination agenda. We use drama and soap to signal approval or disapproval and to identify what issues the public should think are important. 

22. Bias by Lifestyle Show. We can make frightening things appear comforting all by the magic of lifestyle TV. Of course this has to be managed. It can be an area requiring sensitive handling. We didn’t show a Hijab for years. Big beard presenters are still out and the Burka is I am afraid still a big no-no. But this is a Long March we are on. Eventually we will be able to de-sensitive the backward segment of the British public on such matters by associating such features with nice things like baking, cooking, shopping and home décor. 

23. Bias by Over-representation of Minorities. You see a lot of this on TV adverts of course and we have to take our hat off to our commercial colleagues in that regard. The message of course is “resistance is useless”. It is supposed to deliver a jolt and acclimatise people to further volcanic demographic change. We are of course doing everything we can at the BBC to ensure that minorities (officially only 13% of the population) are over-represented in a number of key areas like news presentation. When it comes to drama, we are quite happy to provide misleading representations of classics from the Victorian period now, sacrificing accuracy to our PC Multiculturalist principles. Of course when we talk about ethnic minority representation we mean generally African-Caribbean, African and South Asian. At the BBC we don’t much care about how many Poles, Arabs, Romanians, Chinese, French or Latin Americans are on our screens despite there being very large communities from those ethnic groups in our country. I hope at some point to explain why that is but sadly time is limited and I must press on. (Ahem). 

24. Bias by Slow Information Release. We wouldn’t want you to run away with the idea there’s just been a terrorist incident carried out by an IS operative migrant who shouted Allahu Akbar…so we will slowly drip feed the news and then disappear the story altogether. Often we will use the “mental ill health” ploy to justify this. 

25. Bias by Local News as National News. Local news is a good way of extending the bias especially in areas where there are lots of Labour MPs and we can call on them to provide a steady drumbeat of public expenditure propaganda . We always favour local news with a national flavour…so expect lots of NHS cuts and not much about the County Show. 

26. Bias by Survey. Our opinion polls are frequently wrong. But they always seem to favour the left for some reason. Sometimes our levels of bias are off the scale as was the case with the Newsnight panel of “ordinary voters” that voted 9-1 to remain. BBC Staff should not be embarrassed by this, rather they should see polls as weapons in our hand not instruments of science. 

27. Bias by Decree. Here, the likes of John Simpson or David Dimbleby - once respected as cutting edge journalists - trot out the BBC narrative without appearing to have thought about what they are saying first. In our BBC world of bias, if they say so, it must be true. You might call this the “Hillary Good, Trump Bad” approach. 

28. Bias by Obfuscation. David Dimbleby is of the view that if he poses a smugly sceptical or irrelevant question "But we don't know that was an official Mosque letter, do we?" (irrelevant - it was clearly being handed out at the Mosque in full view) or "But do you have an example of the BBC saying "despite Brexit"? " (Answer: Guido Fawkes website had plenty of examples the next day!), he has neutralised the critique. Obviously he hasn’t genuinely neutralised the critique, but at the BBC we feel it is “the moment” that counts. As long as he appears to have raised legitimate doubts that is enough. It is my view this is an effective Bias technique as Dimbleby is sly enough to time his semi-rhetorical questions at just the right point so they don't get or can't be answered. They therefore serve our purpose. 

29. Bias by Yawn. Sadly this is a rare example of a technique that has been tried but proved unsuccessful. It was attempted in the run up to and during the early part of the EU Referendum campaign as we got nearly all our TV and radio presenters to imply that everyone was bored with the Referendum debate even though we now all know the opposite was true: family and friends often ended up having passionate debates on the subject (some are still continuing to this date!). But we at the BBC were trying to reduce the interest in the campaign, as we knew that was important in ensuring the anti-EU vote did not get mobilised. Frankly, we failed. Though we cannot be blamed for the decision to have a Referendum (we strongly opposed that), we were wrong to pursue that ineffective technique. We should have been much more pro-Remain from the outset. Eventually we realised the yawn technique was proving ineffective: the pretend yawns stopped and it was then we desperately tried "educating" everyone to vote remain. But sadly, it was too late. Personally I feel the Government should have given us more leeway to support the Remain campaign, even though we did our best to back their arguments and rubbish the Leave campaign. Clearly it wasn’t enough. 

30. Bias by False Friend. This is one we have been using a lot recently in relation to events in the US: "So let's go over to Washington to discuss Trump's latest tweet. We have leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Republican Governor for Wyoming..." Our audience thinks this sounds balanced since it’s one Democrat and one Republican. But of course, we know something they don’t – this particular Republican Governor hates Trump as much as the Democrat. We see similar set ups with our domestic politics "Here to discuss the Government's proposals are Chukka Umuna, Labour MP and Ken Clarke, Conservative..." only Clarke is going bash the proposals almost as much as Chukka.

31. Bias by Herd Instinct. Human beings have a tendency to follow the herd or the “troop” (since we are primates!)…so we at the BBC do our best to create bandwagons for the campaigns we favour. Biased BBC Trending do a lot of good work in this area. 

32. Bias by Recruitment. This is what we at the BBC call the “Guardian readers only need apply” ploy. Don’t worry – I am a Guardian Reader!!! lol This is really a very important and self-fulfilling bias category. 

33. Bias by Vocabulary Choice. This is of course a huge area of bias. The “bread and butter” of bias you might call it. It covers many things but among my favourites are right wing think tanks "claim", "assert", things whereas left wing think tanks "point out", "conclude", "find evidence"...During the EU Referendum campaign pro-Remain agencies were always concluding, calculating, pointing our and finding...or projecting, predicting (never guessing!)...When Remain claims were criticised by the Leave side, we at the BBC always used the language of emotion and violence instead of cool consideration: the Leave side "angrily denied", "lashed out", "slammed" etc 

34. Bias by Paragraphing. We often leave the key information to the penultimate para of a long article (not the final paragraph because people sometimes skip to that). You can hope the punters have got bored by then and miss it...thinking the perpetrator was simply a "man" with known "mental health issues" not someone who visited Afghanistan last year and was carrying an IS flag.

35. Bias by Mandy Rice Davies. The point of this technique is to make the denial sound as thin as possible. I think Norman Smith is quite good at this. Norman is adept at telling us the unfavoured have "denied" something...but does so in a "well wouldn't you too if you'd been found out" sort of way...It's normally the right who get this treatment of course but there was a phase when the BBC when we were gunning for Corbyn and we gave him the same treatment (this was when we at the BBC thought Corbyn was a vote-loser who would keep the Tories in power for the next 20 years - now of course it's all Christmas jumpers with Jezza's face on it! – he’s forgiven, for the time being).

36. Bias by Uneven Standards. Of course at the BBC we believe in high standards, we just don’t believe in applying them consistently around the world. For instance we hold Israel to a much high standard than Saudi Arabia (which doesn’t even allow people to profess Christianity). We report obsessively about their “illegal occupation” of Arab land. But illegal occupation of land is a rather flexible concept. We never, or only very rarely, give Russia and China any grief about their huge empires and their occupation of territories against the people's will. We don’t ask representatives of countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada and Argentina about eradication of indigenous peoples. Romania's occupation of Magyar lands is of no interest to us at the BBC. Likewise, while we show an inordinate interest in civilian killings in the US by gunfire we have no interest in such killings in Mexico or Brazil, and absolutely no interest in the murder of thousands of white farmers in South Africa. While we at the BBC are willing to shed tears over a few thousand Palestinian Arabs losing their homes and being "forced" to flee some 70 years ago, we have no interest in the many millions of Europeans, Jews, Hindus and Christians forced to flee from the Middle East and South Asia and in reality not much interest in all the displaced persons in Sub-Saharan Africa.

37. Bias by Photo Choice. A picture tells a thousand words and picture bias tells a million. We can choose a nice one of Jeremy looking either messianic or avuncular, surrounded by happy smiling people, or we can choose one of Theresa looking very anxious (as though she's about to try swallowing something on I'm Celebrity) and isolated, with a dark sombre background. We had a nice example on the BBC News website recently: May looking worried and pensive, her frame apparently being squeezed between two EU flags that dominated the photo...and then there's Nicola Sturgeon smiling, looking very businesslike with one of her ministers carrying lots of impressive looking files...Chance choice? Of course not. Nothing happens by chance at the BBC! Photo bias is one of the easiest techniques to spot if you look for it but because people tend to take images on trust they rarely identify or comment on the bias. 

38. Bias by Placard Placement. I rather like this one. I used to use it a lot myself back in the day. We at the BBC know we are not going to get away with a newsreader saying "The Tory fascists have decided to dismantle the NHS." But there's nothing to stop us showing a placard in a protest that says something like that: "Tory fascist scum will kill the NHS". Nothing to stop the cameraman zooming in on that as a lingering image to underline a report. When , rarely, we cover right wing protests, the placards get far less prominence, unless of course we think we've found one that is an own goal. We are quite happy to feature old eccentric people covered in Union Jacks opposing the EU in robust terms. That’s an image we like to cultivate. 

39. Bias by Soft Interview. This is a technique I think is sometimes underestimate but all staff should appreciate its importance. We particularly make use of this technique when we want to put rocket boosters on a political position we approve of. So we saw recently Blair being given the softest (and longest) of rides by Mardell because Blair was proposing one of our favourites: a Brexit Reversal Policy. We can counter accusations of bias, by claiming these are serious, in-depth, “mission to explain” style interviews though we hardly ever accord such access to viewpoints we oppose. 

40. Bias by Celebrity Endorsement. No! This doesn’t refer to the celebrity endorsing a product but the BBC endorsing some celebrities over others. So Jim Davidson and Cliff Richard get the cold shoulder despite being very popular. People like Lily Allen know that BBC endorsement can be vital to prolonging their career lives way beyond their natural span and the we at the BBC know it is useful to have people like Lily Allen around to endorse otherwise somewhat difficult policies like "no borders". 

41. Bias by Reality Checking. We brought in BBC Reality Check to create a kind of alternative universe where matters of policy can be judged objectively by reference to "facts". Of course this universe does not exist in any shape or form but it is useful to our purposes to pretend it does and that we at the BBC (alone in the UK – butt out ITV and Sky!) can objectively arbtitrate such matters. Anyone who looks at BBC Reality Check can see instantly it has nothing to do with "reality" and everything to do with our policy preferences. This can be seen by (a) its choice of subject matter (Reality Check never investigate the dodgy social studies from groups like the Joseph Rowntree Trust we are so fond of quoting) (b) its concentration on "future outcomes" which by definition have not happened yet and cannot therefore form part of our "reality" and (c) its disregard for the initial starting question (you will often find the conclusion has little to do with the question!) (4) its frequent recourse to "argument from authority" - quoting their favoured sources. So, please staff, don’t think that Reality Check is going undermine your reports – you can rely on it as a solid backer of everything we at the BBC are trying to achieve. We just need to give it a spurious veneer of independence and objectivity – nothing to be scared of! 

42. Bias by Absent or Abbreviated Nomenclature. At the BBC we pride ourselves that Trump is more often Trump than President Trump whereas President Obama was nearly always President Obama, certainly for his first term - just as Thatcher was more often Thatcher than Lady Thatcher. Use of the "criminal" surname is often reserved for those perceived as "right wing" Tories. Jeremy Corbyn is much more likely to have the cosy "Jeremy" attached. Also by a kind of reverse law, titles are much inflated when the BBC wants to make use of them: so you get stuff like “Lord Shyster of Plain-Wrong, the ex Lord Chamberlain of High Office and current Chairman of the Lords Select Committee on Matters of Great Import has denounced the treatment of Calais migrants as "callous"...” Don’t worry, while we are ideological egalitarians, when it comes to pushing the agenda, a bit of peasant-like deference is on offer if it means we can push our ideas more effectively. 

43. Bias by Emotional Response. This is where we ensure the BBC acts as emotional gatekeeper to the nation. You can cry about your factory closing down but not about your neighbourhood being changed out of all recognition by mass immigration. If you are the victim of Islamic terrorism we prefer smiling defiance to tears. But other forms of terrorism may be treated differently depending on context.

44. Bias by Views as News. This is something we have always practised but these days we have expanded it into all areas. A classic recent example was James Cook's take on Trump (he doesn't like him - what a surprise!) - a virtually 100% opinion piece appearing under the BBC News banner. Of course a lot of our BBC bias involves smuggling views into news but this refers to those blatant examples where a piece should be labelled "A Personal View" if appropriate at all (doubtful).

45. Bias by Vox Pop. Never underestimate the Vox Pop. They are a really important bias tool which you will find used in nearly every national and local news programme. They can really put a nice spin on a story. And then there are the visuals which can add yet another layer of bias: we at the BBC are always very happy to have a pro-Brexit vox pop on our screen if it is delivered by an old pot-bellied bloke on a mobility scooter with a fag hanging out of his mouth, with the betting shop visible in the background. If we can encourage him to have a go at “migrants” all the better!

46. Bias by Newspaper Review. This is a specific technique we use to build a kind of Potemkin village of opinion out of MSM news. By using left-liberal reviewers, a left-liberal presenter and a selection of stories biased to the left-liberal view of the world, we are able create the erroneous impression that the BBC’s agenda is very much in line with that of the rest of the MSM. Where necessary the Review can be used to chastise heretical opinions deemed as offensive to PC Multiculturalist beliefs. 

47. Bias by Some-say. Let’s be honest, it is rare for an hour to go by without a BBC presenter or reporter having recourse to that well known family "The Somes". "But some say this belief in fundamental biologically-based differences between men and women is just petty-minded fascistic prejudice which will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history." The Somes come in very useful to us at the BBC when we want to advance the "progressive agenda" but realise we are on tricky ground. A non-specific "some" is a nice way of suggesting support is building for a "progressive" idea. It sounds a lot better than "that mad columnist from the Guardian". Given we live in a nation of nearly 70 million people, if you say "some" then most fair-minded people will think you mean a few hundred thousand or a few million at least, if not yet a majority, whereas it might only be that mad columnist from the Guardian, 12 people in Hampstead and five in Islington.

48. Bias by History. The past is not such a foreign country to us at the BBC. In order for the PC Multiculturalist Fantasy to be realised in the modern world the past needs to be tweaked or, worse, given the full Harvey Weinstein treatment. So, looking back at the past through our BBC-PC Telescope we see that slavery was something that was visited on Africans only by Europeans. Arabs did not enslave Africans in their millions and if they did, it wasn’t really slavery. Likewise only West Europeans have engaged in imperialism. Chinese imperialism is really of no note at all. Russian imperialism likewise of virtually no importance since the end of the Cold War. Through the PC lens of history we see that Islam is a universally benign and progressive force that invented the scientific method and brought the benefits of progress to Europe, India, Africa and elsewhere. The BBC History guide can’t help but be a little obsessive. So the history of the Levant 1917-1967 (no other time) is of great and enduring interest to all of us at the BBC. It is of course the time of the unjust creation and expansion of Israel as far as we are concerned. The history of Asia Minor during that same period is however of virtually no interest whatsoever to us! We have also to accept that the BBC’s history can be very sentimental when we want it to be. As far as the BBC are concerned Native Americans always lived on the Plains hunting buffalo on their horses. Likewise, the Zulus of South Africa never exterminated and drove out the San people of the area in the 1600s. Weirdly although we at the BBC have this highly “romantic” approach to history elsewhere, when it comes to the UK have absolutely no time for any romanticised version of “our island story”. No, then we cast a cold, callous, indifferent eye over the history of our forebears. Actually, I don’t think I should say “forebears” but you know what I mean. 

49. Bias by Counterintuitive Injury Reporting. At the BBC we use this mostly in the context of domestic or American demonstrations. So “An EDL march took place in Rotherham today [Note – don’t mention about what!]. The march was condemned by the local Mayor who said “This Far Right rally has nothing to with our community which is peaceful and harmonious.” There were 7 injuries and 5 arrests.” The set up makes the audience think the EDL caused the injuries and that EDL supporters were arrested, when the truth is the counter-demo mob caused the injuries and were the source of the arrests. Classic result! Just what we want!! This technique can also be used with terrorism in faraway places. “Terror attack – two Palestinians dead.” No – not an attack on Palestinians by Far Right Israelis…two Palestinian terrorists shot dead while trying to carry out a terror attack. “ Likewise “70 Muslim worshippers killed in Mosque attack” might make you think the religion of Islam was yet again being persecuted by Christians or Hindus. The fact’s it’s a Sunni-Shia thing is nicely obscured. 

50. Bias by Absorption. There are many cultural events or phenomena which we seek to make our own. Glastonbury, Turner Prize, MOBOs, Chelsea Flower Show, Women’s Football...we are like some giant amoeba, absorbing chunks of other DNA safe in the knowledge that it can replicate inside us and produce a yet more bloated version of the BBC itself. I think it’s what I would call cultural synergy. By absorbing these other cultural phenomena we make ourselves stronger and better project our cultural aims. 

I hope you have enjoyed our Festive Fifty and that you now understand better how we operate. The BBC believes in transparency and connecting with its staff and the public at large. Besides we think that you are so brainwashed by now you are probably quite happy that we are so biased. 

Seasonal greetings and a Happy New Year whatever calendar you choose, 

Yours ever, 

Tony

Nature Notes



One of the many pleasures of living in Morecambe is that you are very close to Leighton Moss, a wonderful nature reserve. There bitterns have been booming for as long as I remember. By 1997, there were only eleven male bitterns in the UK - in Norfolk and Suffolk, and at Leighton Moss. 

Today had a feature on bitterns this morning, which (purely for interest) I will now share with you via the laser display board. 

It's very good news. Boom, boom!


Justin Webb: The unmistakable sound of the bittern. Bitterns were on the verge of extinction in Britain but they're back and if you care to immerse yourself in a golden reed bed and wait for one to emerge you will almost certainly be lucky in this day and age. But as recently as 1997 there were only 11 males left in the UK. There's been a hugely successful effort to restore their habitats. We've got 150 males and counting at the moment. So for our Nature Notes this week we're joined by Tim Appleton, who is from the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust. Good morning to you.
Tim AppletonMorning Justin.
Justin WebbAnd it is about the habitats, isn't it?
Tim AppletonAbsolutely! The habitat was decimated in the Fifties, mainly through drainage, lack of management and also because the sea is slowly reclaiming a lot of the coastal sites where bitterns really first made their big comeback.
Justin WebbYeah,  and there is a conflict, isn't there, between what they need and what sometimes we need? You mention housing. The flooded areas are not ideal areas always for humans to live right next to?
Tim AppletonWell, absolutely. But then again, of course, you've got the opportunity here to use land that isn't suitable for building houses on and, of course, if you've got a lovely reed bed...there's a fantastic reed bed near Peterborough which is surrounded by houses where there are bitterns breeding. So they can live alongside people so long as you've got these very extensive areas of pure reed.
Justin WebbAnd what do they eat?
Tim AppletonThey eat mainly small fish, eels, amphibians. Poor old frogs and toads! They're getting a bit of a hammering, at certain times of year. But no, they love to be very secretive. And that's one of the joys of the bittern, I think. It's actually one of these mythical birds in some ways for bird watchers who suddenly think, "Well, I've got to see a bittern. Where do I go?" and then they sit for ages and then suddenly one will emerge out of the reeds. And they sway in the reeds. They're incredible birds. They're so well camouflaged. When you suddenly get one, well, it's a real wow moment.
Justin WebbAnd we've talked about habitat, and we've talked about food. What about climate? I mean, are they suffering or not suffering?
Tim AppletonNo, I think they're OK. I mean, the population in Europe is pretty big and, as you say, in the UK it is increasing at last. And what is actually happening, because we are creating all these amazing reed beds around the country - a lot of it, of course, funded by European life programmes, which has actually been critical - we've got other sort of birds which actually are...heron families coming back into Britain - like little bitterns, and all sorts of things. So it's a wonderful opportunity for the bittern to live alongside many of its other fellow friends. 
Justin WebbAnd you mention Europe. We are, of course, on the cusp of taking some of our own decisions about farming and the kind of farming we want to see in the future when we leave the EU. This is the kind of thing, isn't it, that if we chose to reward, as it were, farmers providing this kind of habitat then we could? 
Tim AppletonAbsolutely. It is critical that the Wildlife Trust and other NGOs in Britain make sure that DEFRA, Mr. Gove, you know, give all consideration, total consideration, to the future of our wetlands, our forests, our marshlands - everything, not just, of course, the habitat for the wonderful bittern.
Justin WebbTim Appleton from Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust, thank you very much.

That would be a Mexican matter


Alinka Echeverria 

The BBC is, it goes without saying, more than capable of conjuring up the occasional gem.

One such gem is a recent BBC Four series on Mexican art called The Art That Made Mexico: Paradise, Power and Prayers

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and recommend it strongly to you too.

Even if you think you couldn't care less about Mexican art I suspect you'll find that you do care (even if only a little bit) after watching this glorious series. 

And my feelings towards presenter Alinka Echeverria are very warm. (I'd happily watch her present every episode of Newsnight, and every other BBC programme - and, yes, Mr Burley, even The Andrew Marr Show). She obviously knows of what she speaks and was infectiously enthusiastic about the wonders of Mexican art. 

(P.S. For fans of classical music, obscure blogs and things Mexican, I'd also recommend a ten-part series of posts at a defunct blog called Serenade to Music that pursues a similar path from a position of very little knowledge but much enthusiasm. Warning: You wouldn't find its author quite as telegenic as the BBC's Alinka though). 

My favourite discovery (among many) was Dr Atl - the Mexican anarchist-turned-volcano-loving-nationalist - whose life-threatening encounters with the newly-sprung and highly active volcano Parícutin produced hallucinatory works like this:

Lead stories


Here's another striking example of how different UK broadcasters prioritise different stories. Both ITV News and Sky News are leading with the following story: 

ITV's main story
Sky's main story

The BBC is leading with this:


The particularly striking thing here is that the story that leads ITV and Sky is nowhere to be seen on the BBC News website's home page, not even among the lower-ranked stories. In contrast, ITV and Sky both prominently report the BBC's lead story. (Both have made it their third-placed story). 

For some reason, the BBC has decided to downplay the San Francisco terror plot story.

Monday, 18 December 2017

Deck the halls

Deck the Halls! ’tis the season to broadcast a bit of anti-Israel agitprop.
This morning on the iPlayer I caught up with the BBC’s hour-long documentary about Banksy’s and Danny Boyle’s much hyped “Alternativity" stunt. When that ended, the film went straight into the Alternatively “play” itself. 
It was what it was - i.e., a common or garden school play with a musical bent - after all, the revered filmmaker Boyle delegated the actual production to a local drama teacher, which accounts for the fact that it wasn’t especially well conceived or executed.    Of course the quality of the play itself was neither here nor there,  because the whole point of the project was merely to remind the world about The Wall, (which is evil.) That’s it. 

There was a Mary, a Joseph, a doll for the baby Jesus and a real live donkey. Mysteriously, Joseph was played by a female wearing a kind of gent’s jacket and a moustache. Also slotted in were three female rappers,  rappin’ a  “Free Palestine” rap. Near the end of the story, a scary baddie with a giant papier-mâché head that looked like “Mr. Punch-as-a-Jew” made a brief entrance in search of the New King, but was sent packing to much applause in true panto-baddie fashion.

Banksy must have chucked in a tidy sum to set it up; the rig and some of the staging looked more elaborate than your average school production.
The most offensive content was within the documentary. The voice-over narration was particularly troubling, one-sided and inflammatory in a passive-aggressive way. The BBC would call it  (did call it) “controversial” 
In fact the project was nothing more than a vehicle for political agitprop. So blatant was this, that, in the light of her reaction to Jon Snow’s Gaza antics, which she declared would never have got past the impartiality monitors at the Beeb, it’s truly a wonder Fran Unsworth let it through. 

Maybe she and the head honchos at the BBC were bedazzled by the eminence of The Great Man - or rather men. The Great Artist and the Great Filmmaker.

"Cool"

The documentary featured the Great Filmmaker as he strode out purposefully beneath the Great Apartheid Wall, looking meaningfully upwards.  The Great Filmmaker gazed out of the window from the Walled Off Hotel at its famous ‘view’, the Jewish watchtower. Filmic prompts, echoing you-know-what, are a filmmaker’s tool of the trade.  A brief foray into a Jewish-settlement-in-occupied Palestinian-land produced another symbolic, filmic echo; a Magen David on a door, this time underlined with a verbal innuendo from a serious-faced Doyle. 
The rest of the film showed the Great Filmmaker smiling broadly at his hosts, giggling at everything and pronouncing it all “cool”  before departing and only reappearing on what seemed to be the day of the performance. 

During the development of the project, the Great Men had been corresponding. They had a couple of perplexing dilemmas. One of them concerned ‘exploiting children’, which they didn’t wish to do, and the other was a fear that the audience wouldn’t turn up at all, because Palestinians don’t like to be reminded of The Wall. Well, who does?
They needn’t have worried. The audience turned up in abundance, probably wanting to be on TV, just like the congregation on Songs of Praise.  

Pretty little white fairy snowflakes floated gently down from on high, covering the audience in artificial snow made from little pellets of polystyrene, the clingy stuff that’s normally used to protect fragile items in transit.  It sticks to everything and no doubt causes mesothelioma if inhaled.   On the bright side, that’s another grievance to air for fifty years hence. 
Deck the halls with boughs of holly, falalalala lalalala.

Sunday, 17 December 2017

Breaking news



Really, it's sometimes difficult to know what to make of media reporting these days. 

The horrific news that a female UK diplomat has been murdered in Lebanon is being widely reported, but different news outlets are reporting or, in some cases not reporting, different aspects of the story.

You read the Sky and ITV websites and they report speculation about a sexual motive.

You then read the BBC website and they don't report speculation about a sexual motive. 

And then you turn to Mail Online and their headline is British female embassy worker is found dead in Beirut after being 'raped, strangled and dumped by the side of a motorway'

Obviously, the BBC is aware of this speculation of a sexual motive for the murder but is choosing not to report it. 

Is the BBC suppressing an angle to the story that they should be reporting, or is the BBC exercising restraint and behaving responsibly in not reporting that angle until it becomes more than mere speculation?

Or could the BBC be holding back, awaiting news about who murdered Rebecca Dykes, before they report that angle?

A Marry Christmas to Andrew, Rob & the Gang


A festive Andrew Marr

Mr. Marr's final Sunday morning sermon of the year - the one for the third week of Advent - began:
Good morning, and welcome to our last show of the year. What a year it's been! Back in 2016, we had Brexit, we had Donald Trump's election, and all those bloodthirsty leadership tussles. And we thought, "Wow - 2017 is going to be a lot calmer than that." But then what happened? The unexpected general election, its unexpected result, a weakened but resilient Prime Minister struggling on, and the drama of the Corbyn surge. 2018 is going to be really, really quiet.
Oh, wouldn't that be lovely? I like quiet. And peace.

*******

Now here's a familiar kind of exchange for 'people like us'. Someone complains about a particular bias on one particular edition of a BBC programme; the programme's editor, in response, asks to be judged over time and over a number of editions:
Rob Burley: At 9am a great #marr coming up with review of 2017, today's news discussed by Tim Shipman, Emma Barnett, Rachel Johnson plus Diane Abbott, David Gauke, James Norton and the BBC Singers. BBC1 in forty minutes time...
Tim Montgomerie: #Marr not even trying to represent Leavers anymore.
Rob Burley: As long as you don't count people like Nigel Farage, Kate Hoey, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Camilla Tominey, Michael Gove, Isabel Oakeshott, all guests in recent weeks...I mean I could go on...This is also, of course, based on the idea that Cabinet ministers who are enacting Brexit don't count if they voted Remain in 2016. So the PM doesn't count apparently.
And never the twain shall meet, apparently.

I do think that for the end of year review a pro-Brexit voice would have been a good idea. I've agreed with the thrust of Rob's main point many times before, but having no pro-Leave voices on the sofa at the beginning and the end (when the same three guests gathered, and one was the passionately anti-Brexit Rachel Johnson) was surely a miscalculation, balance-wise - and especially in an 'end of year review' segment? 

*******
Who's this?

Andrew Marr's review of the papers began with this:
And now to the papers, the front pages as ever, and we've got somebody who thinks that Rees-Mogg is a sex god on the front of the Sunday Times apparently. 
"Somebody"!? That's the lovely Toff (Georgia Toffolo) no less, deserving winner of this year's I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!. I'm guessing Andrew isn't an I'm a Celebrity fan, despite the show having featured Kezia Dugdale and Stanley Johnson this year - and a Rob-Burley-length list of politicians in previous years. (I was hoping for either David Cameron or Robert Mugabe to be on the show this year too, but alas it never happened. Maybe next year). Andrew seems to prefer Strictly Come Dancing though, saying "I'm sure we all watched that" (Not me!), but he added, "Strictly has become a personality contest I think, and everybody loved Joe." (Over to Sue for that one?) 

*******

Hmm, noting the Observer's front page, Andrew Marr talked of concerns about Mrs May "leaning too far towards Boris Johnson...[and after stumbling on the name 'Corbyn', his next headline]...and that lot". That's nice! 

*******

And if you were wondering why the BBC wasn't focusing on the Mail on Sunday's lead story - the one about Corbyn supporters sending abuse and threats to a Tory MP and his pregnant wife - well, let Andrew explain: 
There's a story about Corbyn (sic) trolling a Tory MP on the front page of the Mail on Sunday, but I have to say this story is rather lacking in names and details. We probably won't give it a lot of attention. 
The Mail's own explanation for why its story "rather lacking in names and details" is that it's "to protect mother and child from further abuse", which isn't unreasonable I think.

(I learned the MP's name from Corbynista Ellie Mae O'Hagan on Paddy's Broadcasting House. She had no such qualms.)

*******

As for Boris's interview with Tim Shipman in the Sunday Times, Andrew commented:
That's more or less what Theresa May said in the Florence speech, but now there is a clear gap. We're not allowed to use words like 'hard' or 'soft' and all the rest of it, but there is a clear gap between those people who want us to stay as close as possible to the EU - the kind-of convergers or the Continental Shelf party - and those who want to turn their back on that and look out to the rest of the world - the Deep Blue Sea party. Is that a fair assessment? 
That piqued my curiosity. What does he mean, "We're not allowed to use words like 'hard' or 'soft'"? Who's "not allowing" him? Surely not the BBC? 

*******

Someone who bores Boris's sister

Rachel Johnson described Mrs May's piece in one of the papers today as "a MEGO" piece - a term used at the FT apparently, meaning "My Eyes Glaze Over". (That made Andrew laugh). Is there an ear-related equivalent for, say, radio interviews with David Miliband (the most boring radio interviewee in the history of political interviews), or Radio 4's You and Yours? "MEBUS" (My Ears Bung Up Spontaneously) perhaps? 

*******

Praise from Caesar! As well as calling Mrs May "resilient" in his opening sermon, Mr Marr called her it again during the paper review: 
I used the word 'resilient'. She's like one of those fairground things, where every time you knock her she comes straight back up. There is perhaps a growing sense that she is able at least to keep going when lots of people, lots of men, would have given up at that point and stormed off in a huff, resigned... 
Andrew playing the 'male feminist' card there I see!

With an occasional Woman's Hour presenter, Emma Barnett, on the sofa, perhaps he felt the need to appease the vengeful feminist goddesses of BBC radio.

*******

Hmm. When Rachel Johnson talked of us leaving the EU and going off "the cliff edge", Andrew segued on to the next story, saying "Well, some people in the country agree with you because there's a new poll today from the Independent, Emma?".  That new poll, plugged by BBC broadcaster Emma Barnett, shows 51% backing Remain and just 41% now backing Leave. Andrew then added, "Of course, we've had polls going in lots of different directions and there's another poll in the Sun. This is just one poll, but there may be some sense the mood of the country is changing." Hmm.

*******

Diane in a Mao suit. (An early Christmas pressie from John McDonnell?)

What a pleasure it was to see Diane Abbott back on our TVs! I've so missed her car crash interviews. Thankfully, she was fully back on form this morning. Without once batting an eyelid, she stalled the interview more than once, went the wrong way round not one but two roundabouts, scraped several cars, performed a u-turn amid incoming traffic, overtook Andrew Marr on the brow of a hill and ended up (as ever) in a hedge before getting out and walking away as if nothing had happened. JC supporters on Twitter erupted in delight, lauding her for her wonderful driving skills and, loudly questioning why's she not yet been given the advance driving licence they think she richly deserves.

Update: I read elsewhere that others didn't see it this way at all.

Naturally, the lefties on Twitter felt that Andrew Marr had been a 'total biased Tory' and disgracefully mean towards poor Diane while going soft on 'his fellow Tory' David Gauke.

Meanwhile, on another BBC-critical blog, I also read righties saying that Andrew had been 'fawning' towards Diane and "intentionally unable" to challenge her silly points - and that the programme apparently "always" ends with "one of those black oil drum groups...or a nice bit of Bollywood",  which it most certainly does not. They would surely have been extremely pleased today though to learn that the show ended with a lovely traditional Christmas carol and that there was not even one 'person of colour' in sight to disturb their delicate sensibilities!

The "truth tellers" speak!

*******

David Gauke was on too.

*******

The closing carol was The Holly and the Ivy, sung by the BBC Singers. I refer the honourable ladies and gentlemen to my favourite of my own ITBB's posts for more on that piece:


*******

Of course, you're probably really wanting some Rob Burley action on Twitter. And, as it's nearly Christmas, who am I to deny you that pleasure?

***
Laura C: Andrew Marr  just cannot help himself from making his personal views heard on #marr. He also commented that he cannot see Brexit being stopped. He's obviously unaware of the latest poll which sees support for #Remain take an 11 point lead on Leave.
Rob Burley: Erm, he was talking about that poll at the time. But otherwise your argument is watertight.
Laura C: Thanks for that. I’ve stopped watching his biased interviews so I wasn’t aware of that.
Rob Burley: Don't let the facts get in the way.
Laura C: Which facts?
Rob Burley: The facts about the interviews you don't watch anymore.
Laura C: I ask again: which facts?
Rob Burley: You make assertions about interviews you don't watch. If you watched you would know lots of facts about the actual interviews.
Laura C: .1. I stopped watching as of today so I have a fairly good idea of Mr Marr's interviewing style and biased approach. 2. I ask for the 3rd time: which facts?
Rob Burley: Well, you don't know anything about the facts of today's interview but it turns out you are actually a loyal viewer. Until this week. So thanks.
Laura C: I really cannot see what you're trying to say. I would have thought you'd have better things to do than split hairs with an ex-loyal viewer. Good to see the Beeb spends our licence fee in such productive ways.
Rob Burley: I'm doing this in my spare time.
Laura C: Maybe your spare time would be better employed ensuring Mr Marr stops using right-wing derogatory terms to describe Remainers. His language resembles that of publications like the Express and DM. Many of us expect better from #BBC.
Rob Burley: We are endlessly told we are pro-Remain or pro-Brexit or anti-Remain or anti-Brexit. We aren't these things.
***

Who's this?

Martin Diggins‏: Andrew Marr, please explain why you gave credence to the latest #Remoaner poll (sample size 1509) whilst ignoring this petition (sample size 112,893 and counting)? FakeNewsBBC
Rob Burley: We reported a poll - chosen by a reviewer - in the paper review. We pointed out it was one poll and others said something else. A petition is self-selecting so utterly useless as a test of broader opinion although it does tell us lots of people care about an issue.
***
Gadgee Gerry‏: I missed #Marr today so was it: 1. Forensic #Marr interrogating @UKLabour, 2. #BBCOneShow style #Marr  fawning over #Tory spokesperson
S0S1Z‏: Nah, David Gauke got spanked.
Rob Burley: 1. and also forensic interrogating David Gauke but why not tweet about something you missed anyway?
Gadgee Gerry‏: It's called choice.
Rob Burley: Yeah obvs up to you if you watch it, but if you don't and then have a go...
***
VanityByNature: Despite talking puppet Andrew Marr's best attempts to obfuscate Labours position, Diane Abbott was calm, precise, accurate and reasonable on everything she said on #Marr. Looking great too!
Free The Press: If only Andrew Marr would grill the those actually NEGOTAITING #brexit as much as he relishes questioning Labour on something they have no power over, and are not in charge of negotiations for. Dear Andrew, newsflash.. its the Tories who are leading negotiations
Rob Burley: Please see last week's interview with, erm, the UK's Brexit negotiator
Free The Press: Please note that I used the word 'grill'... not interview...Maybe you guys should note the difference between the ways you GRILL Labour.. but only INTERVIEW your #ToryChums
Rob Burley: I think we do matey.
Free The Press: Of course you do.... chum!  I'll give you a tip... next time a #ToryChum sits on the couch (especially one with as important a role as Davis)... Just imagine its a Labour politician sitting there (say..Diane Abbott for example ) and act accordingly 
Rob Burley‏: We already treat them the same way. Could your perception that we are harder on those you agree with have something to do with you agreeing with them?
Free The Press‏: Could your perception that you have no biases against Labour have something to do with you agreeing with Tories?
Rob Burley‏: You have no idea of my views on anything.
Free The Press‏: Yes I do... you've expressed a few of them here. One view is that the BBC is unbiased... and, yes, its an amusing view 
Rob Burley: What views have I ever expressed?
Free The Press‏: Here's one: https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/942359808816054272 …
Gotta go now. I'll reply when Im back
Rob Burley: These aren't me expressing political views. Because I don't. Soz.
***
Stanga‏: #Marr never asks about Tory policies, since there are none.
Rob Burley: Apart from today, and the week before that, oh yeah and the week before that and...
Mohammed Shafiq‏: Rob when you are attacked from both sides you know you are doing something right.  Have a good Sunday.
***
Andy Coll: Any chance of #Marr doing his job like a journalist and not a cheerleader? I suppose not. Decent journalists in other countries get at the truth, sometimes tragically giving their lives in the question. It would be shameful to describe Marr as a journalist so I won't again
Rob Burley: If you think we went easy on welfare issues today then you must have missed the programme.
Alladin Noons: There was me thinking David Gauke had been given a good run round the park by Andrew Marr. 
Rob Burley: Stop thinking, thinking is the mistake you are making.
Wan Ke Wanqa‏: The Andrew Marr who was a supporter of SCLV, an old comrade of John McDonnell, the man who is married to a prominent Labour peers daughter?...that Andrew Marr?
***
Ethel‏: Sounds like I 'missed' the same old crap this morning. Marr giving Tories far too much time and constantly talking over Labour bods. Same old, same old.
Rob Burley: Nope, whoever told you that is having you on.
***

What, no reindeer antlers?

Overview: Other than contributing licence payers' money to The Diane Abbott Christmas Fund, what WAS the point of having her on for a rerun of her 'I Know Nothing!' interview on #Marr in October 2017?  Devoid of ANY answers to ANY questions, this was down to the usual Abbott standard.
Rob Burley: Well , we don't pay politicians to come on but carry on...
***
Jason Bournemouth‏: Decent interview of Gauke from #Marr. I'm as surprised as anyone.
Rob Burley: Well you haven't been paying attention then, but thanks.
Jason Bournemouth: Alas Mr. Editor, I can only match your casual dismissal  by telling you to fuck off.
Rob Burley: Jason seems nice.
***
Tesh: How did you and Marr vote in the referendum. Leave or Remain?
Rob Burley: None of your bloody business.
***
Rob Burley: Merry Christmas from team #marr @RobBurl @AndrewMarr9 @laurawbbc @Jason_Keen - see you on January 7th!
CraigMorecambe: Merry Christmas to you too!