Sunday, 23 December 2018

Sunday morning



T'was the Sunday before Christmas when all through the blog not a creature was stirring, not even a frog. But I'm up and about nonetheless and reading the Sunday papers online, primed to pull out all the best BBC-related bits and stuff them into your Christmas stocking, ready for when you wake up...

First, Julie Birchill, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, isn't full of Christmas cheer about the BBC, writing "This was the year that the right-on echo-chamber completed its grisly castration of Radio 4 comedy – now all virtue-signalling mutual gratification with fewer laughs than the Christmas Day episode of EastEnders". She adds:
The standard of Radio 4 drama is positively subterranean, more often than not tracing the journey of an autistic asylum seeker contemplating a mastectomy while coping with being a single parent to a dyslexic non-binary child in danger of being taken into care and being bullied online. A recent Archers storyline had resident Lovely Gay Couple hiring a Bulgarian fruit-picker to incubate a baby for them only to have Brexit (hiss, boo, behind you!) wreck their rainbow-hued happiness. There is a strong feminist case against surrogacy and an equally rigorous socialist argument against keeping down working-class wages by hiring cheap foreign labour – but Auntie knows best, and debate is hate speech, and he is she, and self-defence is aggression. Oh, to have Orwell alive and back working at a BBC that appears to have taken 1984 as a How to Doublespeak manual!
Meanwhile, Decca Aitkenhead's interview with Dominic West in The Sunday Times finds the actor casting doubt on the BBC's claims about the "unconventionally diverse" casting for its flagship BBC adaptation of Les Misérables
The good news is that the BBC has dispensed with the songs and opted for a straightforward drama, written by the wonderful Andrew Davies. The dialogue sounds contemporary, and the casting is unconventionally diverse, with Valjean’s nemesis played by David Oyelowo. “In Paris in those days there was a large number of people from foreign climes, so the BBC is claiming the casting is historically accurate,” West says. “To be honest, I’m not sure. My guess is it’s not strictly historically accurate, but it gives a flavour of what we understand now, in that everyone talks in a modern British way and it resonates with what an immigrant class looks like.”
Incidentally, the "wonderful Andrew Davies", as per The Mail on Sunday, talks of another aspect of BBC social engineering, saying that BBC bosses veto any "droopy, soppy" girls he wants to pen, and that he's not allowed to make his women anything but feisty: 
I started writing lead characters for women who disconcerted men quite early on in my career. Now it's compulsory because drama networks are run by strong women who like to see themselves reflected. I often find myself pleading, 'Can't I write a really droopy, soppy girl?' And they say, 'No, she's got to be strong and independent.' 
And the same paper features further criticism of the BBC's new Poirot adaptation under the headline 'BBC’s new Poirot story ‘is turned into anti-Brexit propaganda’ by writers who have built on racial tensions that ‘barely feature’ in the novel. The article features a quote from Agatha Christie biographer Laura Thompson:
‘The ABC Murders is a stunning book and is incredibly atmospheric. Why does anyone feel the need to do more to it? Some of the changes sound awful. It’s like everyone who is a Brexiteer has to be shown the error of their ways.’ 
Back to The Sunday Times though, where the doyenne of radio reviewers, Gillian Reynolds, thinking of a Christmas present for Evan Davis, hits the snail on the shell when describing Evan as sounding "possibly too relaxed" on PM these days. No "possibly" about it, I'd say. It's as if he's already in his dressing gown and wearing his favourite slippers:
You will recall that, after Mair quit PM, there was a decent interval while BBC contracts sorted out what it could afford to pay his replacement, Newsnight decided whether it wanted to keep him, and he carefully considered the bliss of never again having to express admiration for the dress sense of Emily Maitlis. Now he has had a couple of months in the new Radio 4 job, Davis sounds relaxed. Possibly too relaxed. So he’s going to get a giant pack of impatience tablets, as used by John Pienaar and Emma Barnett, guaranteed to get an answer even out of Theresa May. 
Ah, now for some bacon and eggs...

Saturday, 22 December 2018

Open Thread


Thank you for your comments. Here's another Open Thread. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...

Lockdown at the BBC



Paul Homewood of the 'Not a Lot of People Know That' blog calls it "a case of the biter bit!". 

Having "given unwarranted prominence to Extinction Rebellion in recent weeks", Extinction Rebellion turned up at the BBC's front door yesterday and demanded to see Lord Hall. 

They want the BBC to make climate change their top editorial priority and to broadcast about it "with the level of urgency placed on informing the public about the Second World War". 


Paul (no fan of this group) continues:
News reports have regularly given the impression that the group are a large, serious organisation who we should be paying attention to, rather than the tiny ragbag of eco nutters which they really are.
And he posts a screengrab showing a slew of BBC articles about them. (I note that Radio 4's Profile got involved too).


Meanwhile, the BBC's World Affairs Editor was characteristically not silent on the matter


This prompted quite a discussion among Extinction Rebellion supporters on Twitter
Heather Luna: I read this Tweet as though he is supporting Extinction Rebellion despite misgivings. He realises this is too important to follow by the normal rules. How are you guys reading it differently? He said "but".
Dr Heidi Edmonds: That's how I read it too.
Ian Edward: John's tweet captures the problem perfectly. The reservations, the "buts"..., "let's represent the other side of the argument", "we'll feature it next month. Right now the burning issue is Corbyn may have said STUPID".
Dr Heidi Edmonds: That's not how I interpret it. He's simply saying that perhaps in this case direct action is necessary. Imho.
willgoodbin: You might be right, but it's far from the ringing endorsement XR deserves. It could also be that John Simpson is playing it safe with a deliberately ambiguous line.
Heather Luna: To me, this is progress. We should encourage @JohnSimpsonNews to keep going and not discourage him into silence (like most others) with criticism saying it isn't good enough. Keep going! Keep going! Be brave!
Ian Edward: I think the problem is that there is nothing in John's message that suggests he will do anything. And that is exactly what Extinction Rebellion is fighting. The situation is so urgent and dire that there's a moral obligation to act.
Heather Luna: Yeah, speaking out is doing something. I bet a lot of people on Twitter aren't acting yet but are just speaking out. That's the first thing we need to overcome: being silent about #ClimateBreakdown. One step at a time. By Monday, John Simpson could be getting arrested. 

John was evidently reading the thread, and gave Heather a retweet:


I'd say that willgoodbin came closest to 'getting it' there when he called John Simpson's line "deliberately ambiguous". When it comes to BBC reporting, there's a lot of that about.

Looking for angles?



In response to an Ofcom ruling against RT and the possibility that the broadcaster's licence might be revoked in the UK, Russia says it will now carry out checks to determine if the BBC World News channel and BBC News website are compliant with Russian law. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the BBC was being targeted for its “biased” and “unfair” coverage of events in Russia and Syria. The BBC says it is fully compliant with Russian laws "to deliver independent news and information to its audiences". 

Meanwhile, the Guardian's reporting of this story brings another angle to the story:
RT last week published online messages it said were sent by a BBC Russian reporter to a local freelance journalist in France looking for a Russian “angle” to the “gilets jaunes” protests, such as Russian businesses benefiting from the protests or far-right Russians traveling to stir up violence. BBC Russian did not publish an article on the topic. The story has received ample coverage on Russian state television.
I was intrigued by this and read the RT report, written in French, via Google Translate (with the usual allowances for its foibles). It claims that BBC correspondent Olga Ivshina talked with a freelance journalist who was covering the protests of the 'yellow vests' and that she first asked the freelancer if there are "members of the National Front in the streets of Paris", and then added, "And if we find these ultra-right, will they talk about Putin and their links with Moscow?" The RT piece continues:
In the face of what appears to be a negative answer of the freelancer, Olga Ivshina asks if "Russians" participate in the demonstrations. Visibly faced with new denials, the BBC journalist does not give up and asks the freelancer about a possible presence of "Russian companies" on the spot, who would do "their headache during the riots". "But perhaps there is at least the ultra-right? And they can already be linked to Putin ... ", she asks again, determined. Still according to the conversation that RIA Novosti had access to, the BBC reporter explains her approach to the freelancer: "Yes, I'm looking for angles. Editorial wants blood."
It then says: 
Contacted by RT, the BBC - confirming the conversation highlighted by RIA Novosti - replied in these terms: "Inasmuch as the French Foreign Minister has publicly spoken about media reports about a possible Russian influence on demonstrations, it was perfectly reasonable for our correspondent to raise the subject. However, in their final state, her reports made no mention of a possible connection with Russia. We stick to impartial and independent journalism."
Now that does sound like a genuine BBC statement, so the RT story could be true. 

The BBC's response (as cited by RT) is a reasonable one, especially as they didn't run with suggestions of a connection anyhow. But, if true, it's still interesting that the BBC appears to have been focusing in so keenly on the far-right and Putin in connection to the “gilets jaunes” phenomenon. That would be a 'very BBC' thing to do. 

BBC 'balance'


Well, the review of the year on today's The Week in Westminster was certainly biased against Brexit.

It was a typical BBC panel on the subject.

You had Steve Richards, Helen Lewis and George Parker on one side, and James Forsyth on the other, and the anti-Brexit threesome were more passionate in their opinions on the subject than the Spectator man  (with the New Statesman's Helen getting hot under the collar at one point and talking of people dying because of the focus on Brexit). 

"I'm about as posh as you are. I come from Wales, as you do. I'm not posh".


David Dimbleby, in the 'Today' studio this morning

John Humphrys and David Dimbleby had a slight falling-out on this morning's Today:

John Humphrys: Your views about the monarchy? I noticed that you've got the brilliant Craig Brown to talk about it and he's a noted satirist and can be a wee bit cruel about the monarchy occasionally in a very funny way. Your views about it? Because you've been... one imagines anyway, because you're quite posh, aren't you, and one imagines you've been quite close to the monarchy over the years, and you've certainly covered a huge amount of royal occasions. 
David Dimbleby: That's a...John, that is... 
John Humphrys: I know they're two different things.  
David DimblebySorry, there's a typical sneer in that... 
John HumphrysWell... 
David Dimbleby"You're quite posh". I'm about as posh as you are. I come from Wales, as you do. I'm not posh. I happen to have been a broadcaster for a long time. I'm not... 
John HumphrysYou had a very distinguished father. 
David DimblebyBut that doesn't make me posh. I had a distinguished father. It's a ridiculous question. 
John HumphrysAll right. 
David DimblebyBut the point is about the monarchy. I'm not close to the monarchy. I have met the Queen probably less often than you.  
John HumphrysAh! 
David DimblebyI met her once I think. 
John HumphrysI don't know why I made that assumption. 
David DimblebyAnd I have no connection at all. 

So just two working-class Welsh boys who made good then?

Well, Wikipedia suggests otherwise:

Humphrys was born in Cardiff at 193 Pearl Street, Adamsdown, son of Winifred Mary (Matthews), a hairdresser, and Edward George Humphrys, a self-employed French polisher. He was one of five children. During early life Humphrys had a bout of whooping cough and concerned that he would be known as 'Dismal Desmond' his mother opted to use the name John. His parents encouraged him to do his homework and he passed the eleven plus exam. He became a pupil at Cardiff High School (then a grammar school), but he did not fit into the middle class environment there. He was an average pupil and left school at 15 to become a reporter on the Penarth Times. He later joined the Western Mail.
Dimbleby was born in Surrey, the son of the journalist and Second World War war correspondent Richard Dimbleby, by his marriage to Dilys Thomas, from Wales. His younger brother is Jonathan Dimbleby, also a television current affairs presenter. David Dimbleby was educated at two independent schools, the Glengorse School in Battle, East Sussex, and Charterhouse School in Godalming, Surrey. After learning French in Paris and Italian in Perugia, Dimbleby read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Christ Church, Oxford and graduated with a third-class honours degree. While at Oxford he was President of the Christ Church JCR, a member of the Bullingdon Club – a socially exclusive student dining and drinking society – and also editor of the student magazine Isis.

David Dimbleby was deadly serious about not being posh, and being "from Wales", and being just as not-posh as John Humphrys...despite being from Surrey, having a distinguished father, going to two independent schools (including Charterhouse), studying in Paris and Perugia, going to Oxford University and being a member of the Bullingdon Club. (And his son famously went to Eton with Jacob Rees-Mogg!). 

So I think he's definitely posher than John,  the son of a hairdresser and a French polisher, genuinely "from Wales", grammar school-educated but a misfit there who left school and got a job at 15!

Fake news from David Dimbleby (about himself)! One for the BBC's Reality Check?

Hardline Watch drones on


'Hardline Watch' continues. (I know it's riveting you all). Since last Saturday, on the BBC News Channel, the only uses have been for "hardline Brexiteers", "hardline Tory Brexiteers" (repeatedly) and "hardline conservative". So the familiar pattern continues. The guilty BBC hardliners this week have been Norman Smith (a repeat offender), Tina Daheley and David Willis. 

The BBC is therefore not obliged...


"The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion."

Those are very familiar words to those who put in a Freedom of Information request to the BBC

A Conservative MP Andrew Percy has just had the pleasure of reading them too after the BBC rejected his FoI request to get the BBC to disclose the total budget of BBC Sounds (the replacement for the BBC iPlayer) as well as information on how many times it had been promoted on BBC television and the cost of a promotional film featuring Kylie Minogue and Idris Elba. 

The Times previously found that the BBC planned to spend over £10 million on advertising it.

Mr. Percy says: 
The BBC has committed millions of pounds of licence fee payers’ money to advertising BBC Sounds. I think it is reasonable to ask exactly how much it is spending and what value it attributes to this. The new BBC charter promised more transparency on promotion of its services, so I’m surprised that BBC management has . . . sought to hide behind an opt-out.
Ha, well, welcome to our world, sir! 

The BBC has issued a statement in response: 
The BBC is committed to transparency and we voluntarily disclose more information about ourselves than any other broadcaster. This is our biggest product launch in ten years and like any media organisation we’re using advertising to tell audiences about it because the more people who use it the better value it delivers to licence fee payers.
It will still be good to know how much the BBC is spending on it though, wouldn't it? After all we pay for it.

Guest Post: THE BBC's OFFICIAL FESTIVE FIFTY BIAS TECHNIQUES 2018


It's the most wonderful time of the year. There'll be much mistletoeing, and hearts will be glowing when loved ones are near. Yes it's the most wonderful time of the year. 

And it's also the time of year when Monkey Brains passes on Lord Hall's annual Christmas message and this year's Official BBC Festive Fifty Bias Techniques countdown.

So raise your mulled wine glasses again please, ladies and gentlemen, and here we go...


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


This year we can look back over twelve months of rising bias that has finally begun to pay results. We have derailed Brexit. If our biased reporting continues to have the desired effects we will soon overturn the results of the democratic vote in 2016 and secure our remaining in the EU - a stunning victory for BBC bias.

On a global scale we continue to play a major role in the World Coalition Against Trump along with our allies such as CNN.

In 2018 we welcomed new media friends in the UK - the Mail and the Express who now back our suite of progressive policies including enthusiasm for EU membership. I have already issued instructions to the News Quiz, HIGNFY and the Now Show to stop all satirical jibes directed at those two august publications.

We have seen progress elsewhere of course. Radio 4 is now operating a full 24/7 Bias Service, covering drama, science, the arts and comedy, as well as news and current affairs. We hope to see this 24/7 approach extended to our TV services in the New Year.

Congratulations to all our biased staff! Whether it's Jon Sopel in Washington, a humble telephone operator misrecording a complaint, a researcher deciding which left wing cleric to invite on to Thought for the Day, or a regional news presenter pulling a face at the mention of Nigel Farage's name, we all have a part to play.

And so in conclusion may I wish you a very happy time during this outdated festive period. Who knows? - in years to come, with our steadfast Sharia allies we may even be able to bring an end to this absurd distraction from progressive politics. For the moment you will have to make do with the Festive Fifty.

Yours,

Tony (Hall, not Blair but it might as well be!!)


The Festive Fifty


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 Juncker's Me Too fondling of female staff, numerous knife attacks across Europe by mentally disturbed individuals with something else in common or the economic success of Hungary and the USA under Orban and Trump respectively

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 (though we managed for a long time to avoid all mention of culpability on the part of the fire service...now it's come out, we are doing our best to play it down).

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. This is something we have been using to great effect in 2018...in fact we've become so good at it that a few right wing fascists (like Peter Lilley) have started accusing us of bias during interviews...so we will have to think about how to respond to that (probably keep them off our airwaves in future). 

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”. 

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 like John Sweeney or Jonny Dymond can also join in the mockery of anything the BBC doesn’t like. But woe betide anyone who mocked say Stella Creasy or Chukka Umunna!!! (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. The favourite remained Boris Johnson as he is still viewed as extremely dangerous. Michael Gove has dropped down the list to be replaced by Jacob Rees Mogg.

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. This year things became a little more complicated as we had to pretend to take seriously complaints from Lord Adonis and Alistair Campbell about anti-Remain bias!!! (I know - absurd!!! but the other Tony insisted we had to go along with it, so I told people to be respectful of the complaints). 

13. Bias by Propaganda Tentacle. The BBC has a long reach. Our correspondents continue to use Twitter to good effect. 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.

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. We have added the Institute of Government to our list of respected think tanks despite it being madly Remainiac. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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-sensitise 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. Following the example of TV advertisers we are trying to reinforce the “resistance is useless” message. Of course refers only to certain minorities. Poles, Japanese, Filipinos, Chinese and South Americans need not apply. 

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. 

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. So we rarely feature real local news stories, preferring to echo national politics. 

26. Bias by Survey. Our opinion polls are frequently wrong. But they always seem to favour the left for some reason. Also our representative panels are of course insanely imbalanced (think of the weirdo May-supporting Rev! - how we laughed!!!). 

27. Bias by Decree. Certain of our reporters and pontificator - heavyweights (in every sense of the word) like John Simpson or Jeremy Bowen think they can make something true by fiat. 

28. Bias by Obfuscation. David Dimbleby has been a past master in this department always ready with a smugly sceptical or irrelevant question if a member of the public (how we shudder at those three words) manages to puncture the PC consensus. 

29. Bias by Yawn. In 2018 we tried recognising this with a "Bored of Brexit (BOB)" campaign. We got out Breakfast presenters, DJs and other airheads involved but it had no more success than our "Bored of the Referendum" campaign back at the start of 2016, when we hoped to douse enthusiasm for leaving the EU. We are thinking of dropping this from our Festive Fifty. 

30. Bias by False Friend. This is one we have been using a lot since Trump's election: "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..." Balanced? Nope - the Republican hates Trump as much as the Democrat! Happy days!!!

31. Bias by Herd Instinct. Human beings have a tendency to follow the herd 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. This is really a very important and self-fulfilling bias category. Our 2025 Vision Plan aims to ensure that in 6 years' time all BBC news presenters will have worked for the Guardian at some stage in their career. 

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"...

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. Norman Smith remains a key player in this regard. He 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...

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. Israel is always held to high standards. 

37. Bias by Photo Choice. A picture tells a thousand words and picture bias tells a million. Add in a misleading caption and you have "Bias Heaven".

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! 

39. Bias by Soft Interview. This is a technique I think is sometimes underestimated but all staff should appreciate its importance. Kirsty and Emily on Newsnight have recently given master-classes in the "good cop-bad cop" approach to interviewing...where they each play both! 

40. Bias by Celebrity Endorsement. No! This doesn’t refer to the celebrity endorsing a product but the BBC endorsing some celebrities over others! We keep a list of "Approved Celebrities" - it doesn't matter if they are drug addicts, prostitute users or people with serious criminal records. As long as they spout PC platitudes, that's fine. They know the score - their agents warn them they won't be invited back if they tell the truth. 

41. Bias by Reality Checking. This was one of our most popular bias techniques in 2017 and we thought it would go on to great things...but with Chris Morris live filleting on radio by Peter Lilley we are not so sure. That was an embarrassment. But we hope we can get things back on track. We will of course be "Reality Checking" Peter Lilley at some point in retaliation...

42. Bias by Absent or Abbreviated Nomenclature. At the BBC the "criminal surname" is often reserved for people for whom we have a visceral hatred. 

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. 

44. Bias by Views as News. Like smugglers of old we are always smuggling in contraband views into our news reports. As long as it is done subtly there should be no problem. 

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. 

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. Of course now the Mail and Express are on board, we have a lot less to worry about. 

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": "Some say"/"Some believe"/"Some argue". In truth the "some" are normally Guardian columnists. 

48. Bias by History. We are slowly turn the past into an inspiring version of the present where intrepid women excel in science, exploration and the arts, black people take the world of mathematics by storm and a backward Europe is taught rationality and tolerance by the wonderfully advanced Islamic world. 

49. Bias by Counterintuitive Injury Reporting. At the BBC we use this mostly in the context of domestic or American demonstrations. So, "twelve people were arrested in violent scenes at a demonstration led by Far Right leader Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Laxley-Lennon" means the demonstration was attacked by violent Far Left anti-free speech activists posing as anti-fascists. 

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.

Well that's the Festive Fifty for 2018! If you have any suggestions for what techniques might be bubbling up, please let us know! 

Friday, 21 December 2018

Less than half the story


Maren and Louisa

I didn't want to post about this, but just look at this report, now in, from the BBC News website

It begins:

Morocco tourist murders: Video appears genuine - Norway police
A video appearing to show the murder of one of two tourists killed in Morocco is almost certainly real, Norwegian police have concluded.
The bodies of university students Maren Ueland and Louisa Vesterager Jespersen were found on Monday near a popular tourist spot in the Atlas mountains.
The men in the video claim the murders were in revenge for events in Syria.
Police say four men arrested this week appeared in a separate propaganda video recorded before the murders.
Nine further arrests were made on Thursday and Friday for "suspected links to the perpetrators of the terrorist act", Moroccan officials said.
The women's bodies were flown from the Moroccan city of Casablanca to Denmark on Friday.
Ms Jespersen, who was 24 and from Denmark, and 28-year-old Norwegian Ms Ueland had been studying outdoor activities at the University of Southeastern Norway.
They had arrived on a month-long holiday in Morocco on 9 December and had travelled to the foothills of Mount Toubkal, North Africa's highest peak, 10km (6 miles) from the tourist village of Imlil, south of Marrakesh.
Their bodies were found in their tent.
Both women had taken full precautions ahead of their trip, Maren Ueland's mother said.
Thousands of Moroccans are expected to pay tribute to the women on Saturday, in a vigil outside the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Rabat.

I read that after clicking on The Times's website tonight (astonishingly, published before the latest BBC report). It begins:

Islamists held over murder of backpackers in Morocco 
Three more men with links to radical Islam have been arrested on suspicion of murdering two Scandinavian backpackers in the Atlas mountains of Morocco, as footage purporting to show the killings “in the name of Allah” was shared on social media. A fourth man has been in custody since Monday.
The killing of Louisa Vesterager Jespersen, 24, from Denmark and Maren Ueland, 28, from Norway, has damaged Morocco’s reputation as a relatively stable country, free of the terrorist threats to tourists elsewhere in the region.
The Danish intelligence service was working to authenticate the video posted on social media. It shows a knife-wielding man railing against the “enemies of Allah” and saying that the act was revenge for “brothers” in Syria.
“The video and preliminary investigation according to the Moroccan authorities indicate that the killings may be related to the terrorist organisation Islamic State,” the Danish security service said. “This is a case of an unusually bestial killing of two totally innocent young women.”
Separate footage emerged yesterday of four men, apparently Moroccan, sitting in front of a black and white flag and pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State. One is wielding a large knife. Morocco’s chief prosecutor said last night that the four men who had been arrested featured in that second video.

Which tells you more? 

Can there be any clearer example of how different media outlets report stories in vastly different ways, influenced by their respective outlooks on the world? And how certain media outlets are much more forthcoming as far as the facts go than others? 

Seriously, please read and re-read the above passages and compare and contrast.

Here, one outlet (The Times) uses the word 'Islamists' in its headline. It then uses 'radical Islam' and quotes “in the name of Allah” in its first paragraph. A "knife-wielding man railing against the 'enemies of Allah'" appears in The Times's third paragraph. The world "Islamic" appears in its fourth paragraph, and in its fifth. 

The other outlet (the BBC), in contrast, seems to be deliberately going to gargantuan lengths to avoid mentioning any words connected to 'Islamic', 'Islamist' and 'Allah' in the early paragraphs of the report.

It's all "the men...", "the men...".

We get a hint from the BBC when the report says "The men in the video claim the murders were in revenge for events in Syria", but it is just a hint. 

And, going on, we get (for some reason) "Thousands of Moroccans are expected to pay tribute to the women on Saturday, in a vigil outside the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Rabat".

Only in the 12th paragraph of the BBC report do we get the word 'Islamic' in connection to Islamic State, with paragraphs 14 and 15 further mentioning the Syria connection and the IS connection. 

And there's none of the 'Allah' quotes featured in The Times here. 

We're in the all-too-familiar realm of BBC censorship again here. 

It's as if the BBC is trying to lead us little ones by our tiny little hands when it comes to reporting this kind of story. 

Having well-intentioned it is, such censorship is dangerously insulting.

Jacob Rees-Mogg gets the full Jonathan Dimbleby treatment


Jacob and the other one

On this morning's Today, just before the 8 o'clock news, Jonathan Dimbleby (brother of the more famous David) previewed tonight's Any Questions:
An airport shuts down; more homeless die; Trump drops another bombshell; Putin backs Brexit; Theresa May turns pantomime dame; Jeremy Corbyn provides rich pickings for lip-readers; cabinet ministers are openly at odds with each other but reassure us that troops will be on standby if needed. So a festive mood for our last programme of the year with Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of Brexit's militant tendency; Joanna Cherry for the 'don't leave at any price' SNP; Shami Chakrabarti speaking for Labour's 'we have yet to decide' option; and former president of the CBI now chair of London First Paul Drechsler, who would just like some certainty please. This evening at 8 o'clock. 
Of the phrases used to describe the four guests, you'll spot that Jacob Rees-Mogg got the insulting one and that, as far as the other guests go, Baroness Chakrabarti got a critical one, while - in contrast - Joanna Cherry and Paul Drechsler both got helpful ones.

Why was that? Was it because the latter pair are the clearest opponents of Brexit, so merit such 'helpful' introductions, while Jacob Rees-Mogg, as the clearest supporter of Brexit, merits nothing but mockery? And did Shami end up with a (gentler) ribbing because of her party leadership's refusal to come down clearly on the same side as Ms. Cherry and Mr. Drechsler over Brexit? Or is this all just conspiracy-theory-mongering?

Whatever, it wasn't a one-off from the BBC man today.

Here's Jonathan Dimbleby's introduction to the programme itself, coming live from London. And note who this time is the only guest to get belittled and mocked. (Spoiler alert: It's Jacob):
Joanna Cherry is a QC by profession but, nowadays, virtually fully engaged in speaking for her party, the SNP, at Westminster on justice and home affairs. Shami Chakrabarti came to prominence as the director of the human rights charity Liberty/ She's now in the Lords and serves the Labour Party Shadow Attorney General. Jacob Rees-Mogg chairs the European Research Group, which was instrumental in failing to topple Theresa May as his party leader last week. No less significantly he says, admits, acknowledges, he's never changed one of his six children's nappies. Paul Drechsler is deputy president the CBI (he was president before that), chair of the Bibby shipping line and, after running a number of major businesses, is now chair of London First, which campaigns to make the capital the best city in the world to do business. Our panel. 
Yes, Ms. Cherry, the Noble Baroness and Mr. Drechsler got straightforward introductions, which none of them would have felt displeased by, from their BBC host. Only Mr. Rees-Mogg got the full 'Jonathan Dimbleby treatment'.

Besides the outright derision of "...was instrumental in failing to topple...", there was also the loaded 'colour' about him not changing his six children's nappies ("says, admits, acknowledges") .

And (girding our loins and listening on) who do you think got interrupted the most by Jonathan tonight? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

And who got asked the most challenging questions by Jonathan? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg - by a large margin (more than twice any one else).

And which panellist did Jonathan mockingly impersonate during one of the BBC man's many interventions? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

And who was the only panellist to get repeated questions about his personal integrity from BBC presenter Jonathan Dimbleby? Well, you might have thought Baroness Chakrabarti would have been first in line for that kind of treatment but, no, this is the BBC....so, yes, it was Jacob Rees-Mogg again.

My take on the stats for tonight's Any Questions runs as follows:

Jacob Rees-Mogg
Questions - 12
Interruptions - 4

Joanna Cherry
Questions - 2
Interruptions - 1

Paul Drechsler
Questions - 5
Interruptions - 1

Shami Chakrabarti 
Questions - 4
Interruptions - 3

Anyhow, another very vital statistic was pointed out by Mr Rees-Mogg himself (on Twitter):


And when the Brexit question came up it very clearly was 3 Remainers (and the most vocal part of the audience) against 1 Brexiteer.

As I've said before, I rarely listen to Any Questions these days (having been a great fan in my youth), mostly because of what I felt was the bias of its presenter and production team. I dipped in tonight (purely for the blog's sake) - as I did a few weeks back - and found it exactly how I remember it: Biased. 

Lesson in Christmas Love


Level 42, unlikely to be performing on 'Andrew Marr' any time soon

Many a hug was exchanged at work today as some people (though not me) finished for Christmas. With warm hearts, we parted. 

Meanwhile on Twitter, Rob Burley, the BBC's head of live political programmes was exchanging festive greeting with Phil Gould, the drummer from 80's pop band Level 42.

I'm reaching for the mulled wine already!:

Rob Burley: Coming up on BBC2 at 1215 Jo Coburn with the last Politics Live of 2018 
Mark Ridgley: Just finished watching and the lie that Corbyn said Women was perpetuated so many times I lost count. BBC BIAS.
Rob Burley: No. One person insisted he did say it, another that we simply couldn’t know and that it didn’t matter.
Phil Gould: A homeless man died outside parliament yesterday, froze to death in the shadow of the institution that should be making sure such things never happen, and yet BBC Newsnight runs with a fluff piece about Corbyn’s supposed comment. You’re an asshole Rob! How do you sleep at night?
Rob Burley: Thanks for calling me an “asshole” I don’t work on Newsnight. I do edit Politics Live. We led on homelessness twice this week including on the death in Westminster as our main story today. Your ignorant and self-righteous tweet says more about you than the BBC or me. Sleep well.
Phil Gould: Apologies for getting your job description wrong but I’ve had just about all I can take from you and your arrogant dismissal of any criticism of you or your sanctimonious BBC colleagues. How dare you call me self-righteous! You wrote the book pal. You and ilk have ruined the BBC!
Rob Burley: You accuse me of ignoring homelessness when the show I have edited led on the subject twice this week including today. So apart from being in one of the worst bands in history, you are being ridiculous in not accepting you got it wrong.
Phil Gould: I stopped paying my license fee because of you & your 3rd rate faux BBC journalists. I formed a band that sold millions of albums. I did this with my mates, off my own back. I didn’t join a corporation. And I’m a fuck sight better musician than you will EVER be a journalist! Ok?
Rob Burley: No, not OK. Your tweets illustrate perfectly the tendency to attack first & worry about the truth later. You attack us for not covering homelessness when we palpably covered it. Well done with the band, how you sold so much of that warmed up jazz funk, slap-bass pap is beyond me.
Steve Oram: It was the 80s.
Rob Burley: I know, I lived through it. And had to endure trash like his band. Which I have kept quiet about until his tweet!
Sandy Watson: Slap bass baby.
Rob Burley: I know. How has my life got to the point that I am having to put right the crazed claims of the drummer of Level 42? It’s fitting though, because I really hated his terrible band.

Things continued though:

Phil Gould: I’m mad as hell. I’ve personally helped four people off the streets this week. Put four homeless guys into shelters for the next month, and I’ve fucking had enough of media twats like Burley banging on about non-existent Corbyn comments! I’m sick of the whole bloody lot of them!
Rob Burley: Phil, while much of the press covered JC story about alleged comments we led with homelessness. Just like we did two days before. You are just wrong on this. You say we didn’t cover it and we did. Very prominently. Stop digging.
Phil Gould: Why did tweet about Corbyn then? And not homelessness! I don’t get it Rob. Look, I accept I was wrong about that, but I was responding to your tweet. I gave money to a guy today, got him London Bridge hostel and he kissed my hand. What has happened to this country?
Rob Burley: I tweeted about Mr Corbyn only to point out that we had both sides on discussing his alleged comments. But we spent much more time on homelessness. Thanks for acknowledging you got it wrong. And, of course, it is a vital issue. And one we have led with twice this week. 

And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

Thursday, 20 December 2018

John Sweeney's Pick of the (Vox) Pops


Pointing

Fans of John Sweeney will want to know that the great man was on Newsnight last night with a report about immigration. 

Before the transcript, here's an exchange from thread below the THE BBC's OFFICIAL FESTIVE FIFTY BIAS TECHNIQUES 2018 post to give it context: 

Sir_Arthur_Strebe-Grebling, 19 December 2018 at 19:55 
bBBC 'news' website today has a perfect example of 37. Our country is swamped by foreign fruitpickers, coffee-baristas and hotel cleaners, but to illustrate the government's new immigration restrictions, the bBBC displays an image of three NHS workers. 
Monkey Brains, 19 December 2018 at 23:16 
Yes, that's a classic technique. Immigration is running at something like 600,000 every year. From when I've looked at the numbers, I've concluded the NHS takes something between 20,000 - 30,000 migrants per annum. But the UK MSM, and the BBC in particular focus on the tiny 3% of migrants who come to work in the NHS rather than the 97% who don't.  
Another technique used in Vox Pop bias is to ensure that the people you interview expressing concern about mass immigration should have clearly evident health problems - ideally find someone on a mobility scooter to voice such opinions.  
John Sweeney had the classic mobility scooter interview in his biased report from Peterborough for Newsnight today. It also started with that other classic trope about the fact we like to enjoy a wide ranging cuisine means we also have to love mass immigration. The greatest non-sequitur ever - proved by the fact that countries throughout Asia like western cuisine but don't allow Europeans easy access to their countries and their citizenship. 
 ***********  
Emily Maitlis: So what does the country expect - or rather want to see from this immigration policy? We sent John Sweeney to Peterborough to find out.  
John Sweeney: When it comes to migration, who's in and who's out? Does the Government know what we want? Do we? Take a look at the main square and you'll see just how much we love a bit of foreign. Never mind Henry VIII, look below him. Pizza Express, that's Italian. Another pizza place. Yorkshire Building Society, I'll give you that. Next door, Nando's, Afro-Portuguese. Next door, the HSBC, the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank. Over there, McDonald's, American. Folk in Peterborough are happy that companies from around the world come here. But what about people? All the brouhaha around Brexit may be blinding us to some simple facts. Polling says that people who voted leave are less worried about Europeans than non-Europeans coming to Britain:  
Vox Pop 1
Vox Pop 1: Well, I'd like to see more European workers here than the others on the Indian continent, like.
John Sweeney (to Vox Pop 1): Why is that?
Vox Pop 1: They seem to fit in more with the English way of tradition, sort of thing.   
Vox Pop 2
Vox Pop 2:  There's that many people 'ere now that the systems just can't cope. At the end of the day, I'm not racist one little bit. The only thing that I object to is, like, when I want to go... I've paid into it all me life and I 'ad to pay into it, it's not voluntary, but now I get put back of the queue.   
Vox Pop 3
John Sweeney (to Vox Pop 3): Brexit will mean, you would say, that the number of Poles, Romanians, whatever, would go down. Does that worry you?
Vox Pop 3: Yes, of course it does, because they provide our economy with a very mobile, very efficient and very cheap form of labour and if that form of labour disappears and we substitute it with domestic labour, which is less efficient and more expensive, then that's going to lead to wider inflation and higher prices.
John Sweeney (to Vox Pop 3): Are you a professor of economics by any chance?
Vox Pop 3: I'm a teacher of economics. (LAUGHTER.) 
You might not pick this up on the street, but these are the numbers: In the 12 months to June this year, three-quarters of the increase of the immigrant population was down to non-EU countries. The country sending the largest number of migrants to the UK is China, followed by India. Lots of businesses say they'll struggle without European workers. But not this one. After Newsnight hid the lost Ark in this warehouse, Harrison Ford eat your heart out, we asked this storage business how they are placed: 
Jarred Lester, Operations Manager, Big Web Warehouse: I don't have particular huge concerns about losing a great deal of the Eastern European options. I think really everything is supply and demand and one of the problems that this industry and, say, the fruit picking industry has had is that they've decided that it's low-wage jobs. Now, people saying that British workers won't do it is just rubbish. Really, it's supply and demand and, you know, people will pick fruit for £10 an hour. People may not want to do it for £6 an hour. 
Today, the Government was notably fuzzy on both numbers and salary levels for wannabe migrants. Leave voters may not get quite what they wished for.