Nadine Dorries on the BBC [among other things]

Here are some quotes, with my reactions in parentheses, to Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries's appearance at the Conservatory Party Conference, in an event with the Torygraph's Christopher Chopper: 

• In an organisation like the BBC - which I think is a beacon, for the world actually, not just the UK, but in all that it does, in its drama, in its news reporting, in everything that it does [ed - the BBC will love that] - they have focused on...They have a kind of groupthink and their groupthink excludes working class backgrounds. [ed - She's focusing heavily on class.]
• North-West, North-East, Yorkshire. If you've got a regional accent in the BBC it doesn't go down particularly well. They talk about lots to do with diversity but they don't talk about kids from working-class backgrounds. And that's got to change. I want to see from organisations like the BBC what they're going to do to change. It's not about quotas. It's just about having a more fair approach and a less elitist and a less snobbish approach as to who works for you. [ed - She's still focusing heavily on class. She has a point, but just recruiting more working class people who think like the BBC and don't think like the bulk of the working class public - as the BBC has been doing - doesn't really help.] 
• I've seen that written a lot in the newspapers, and I don't want to go to war with anybody. I really don't want to go to war. But where it's quoted is with my relationship with the BBC, that I'm going to go to war with the BBC and have a culture war with the BBC. And that's not the case. I'm not going to go to war. But what I want to do is to have constructive dialogue with the BBC. How are you going to change? I don't want to go to war with you. Come and tell me how are you going to change.
• We're having a discussion about how the BBC can become more representative of the people. It's the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation. How it can be more representative of the people who pay the licence fee, and how it can be more accessible to people from all backgrounds, not just from people whose mum and dad worked there, and how it can become once again that beacon for everybody. [ ed - She's still focusing heavily on class. Is she doing it because it's part of her 'brand'? To be 'about' the working class?]. It's about impartiality, and it's about access, and it's about groupthink. And those things need to change. [ed - I'm wanting to hear much more about the groupthink. She's not spelling out how the groupthink manifests itself. It's the publicly-funded groupthink that's the problem].
• I think even the BBC have admitted themselves that they've got an impartiality problem. [ed - though, on the rare occasions they've admitted it, they've almost always placed it firmly in the past].
• Well, people say Jess Brammar's 'head of news'. She's actually quite a way down the chain. [ed- That will be music to Tim Davie and Richard Sharpe's ears as that's precisely what they said to the Commons Culture committee recently]. 
• I keep using the words 'groupthink'. It's like this...It just is. It's just the way...I suppose when people have come up through the BBC, they all come from a similar background, they all are of a certain political biofield [ed - hard to decipher], they all think the same and talk the same, and that's what's got to be changed. [ed - She's still focusing heavily on class. The problem is that many of the working class voices being added hold the same views that the elite sons and daughters of Mummy and Daddy at the BBC hold.]
• [ed- while initially dodging the question of whether she'd pay the licence fee if it was voluntary.] I'm trying to remember when I last watched a BBC programme. I've got young adults in my house who now watch Netflix and Amazon Prime, and the BBC is also now in a very much more competitive environment, so how it operates and who it broadcasts to has changed. And so, if not for any other reason, the BBC needs to change because the environment it's working in is changing rapidly. So I'm trying to think when was the last time we watched a main news channel in our house, and it was actually Strictly on Saturday night. So it's just come to me. And I love a bit of Corrie. So, you know, ITV. But I'm trying to think when do...so, I watched the BBC on Saturday night, so I would yeah [ed - i.e. pay the licence fee if it was voluntary. Chopper asked her then if she'd pay the licence fee for Strictly and she replied 'Yeah'. So she's one of those people who'd gladly pay the licence fee 'because of Strictly'. This will delight the BBC. It will be tango music to their ears.] 

And asked to choose between the BBC and ITV she begged not to be asked to chose, but when asked to choose between GB News and GBBO [Great British Bake Off] she unflinchingly chose GBBO over GB News.

And she praised Tim Davie and Richard Sharpe's behaviour.

I think the BBC can rest easy. 

-------------------

Update: It was a little joke of mine above to call the Telegraph's Christopher Hope 'Christopher Chopper', give that his nickname is 'Chopper'. 

So I laughed even more on reading the BBC News website's take on this tonight:  

The under-researching BBC journalist behind that piece seems to have confused journalist Christopher Hope with veteran Christchurch MP Sir Christopher Chope. 

It's what you pay your licence fee for.

--------------------

Further Update: And it's interesting that Nadine Dorries is referred to throughout that BBC News website piece as 'Dorries', as if she's a convicted criminal - even after all the nice things she said about them.

Turn to another report on the BBC News website today about Rishi Sunak and Rishi is referred to as 'Mr Sunak' throughout. And, turning to the very next thing I clicked on, there's Laura K referring to Sir Keir Starmer as 'Sir Keir' rather than 'Starmer' in her report. 

In fact, being curious and checking other recent BBC reports about the present Labour leader, the very next on I clicked on by BBC political correspondent Justin Parkinson also called Sir Keir 'Sir Keir' - as did another BBC political correspondent Jonathan Blake in his inserted 'Analysis'. 

So the Labour leader is 'Sir Keir' but the Tory Culture Secretary is 'Dorries'.

I'm getting intrigued now, and thought I'd try how one of the senior Labour figures Nadine Dorries - 'Dorries' to the BBC - was described last week, namely Ms Angela Rayner. And, yes, on instant sampling, Ms Rayner wasn't called 'Rayner' but 'Ms Rayner' by the BBC scum. 

SCUM

'Scum' is not offensive, apparently. As Angela says, it's a term we Northerners use affectionately all the time.

I remember a huge argument at a drunken barbeque in Morecambe 25 years ago - my first ever BBQ. It happened on a balmy late summer afternoon just beyond the shadow of our wonderful Iron Age barrow in Torrisholme, and two tribes of local middle-class Labour lefties went to war on whether you should or shouldn't label people 'scum' while I [the working class, right-wing exception] sat happily drinking overly-strong cider, which I wasn't at all used to, in the benign Morecambe sun. 

It wasn't about Tories back then, but about benefit scroungers. A Blairite wing, being suddenly tough on scrounging and the causes of scrounging after some 'scrote' had very aggressively tried to scrounge from one of them on the streets of Morecambe, got into conflict with some posher, far more hardcore leftists who felt that 'scum' was a word that should never, ever be used and that anyone using the word 'scum' was using right-wing language and absolutely beyond the pale.

It went on for hours. When we adjourned to a Lancaster pub, it still went on, getting angrier and angrier. I don't think they ever spoke to each other ever again after that. 

I sat it all out, getting ever more drunk, uncomfortably enjoying it all and hoping we could all get along, and saying absolutely nothing.

Those were the days. 

The BBC goes too far in point-scoring in drama even for 'The New Statesman'

I don't watch many [i.e. any] BBC dramas these days but heard Radio 4's Sunday plugging BBC One's Ridley Road yesterday.

The Sunday interview about Jewish people standing up to fight fascism in the UK in and around the 1960s was interesting but left a lot of questions unanswered, including how big a threat the far-right actually was back then. 

And on hearing the segment I suspected that the BBC would draw modern parallels, and that those parallels wouldn't even hint at Corbynite Labour / Muslim antisemitism.

I see from the New Statesman that my suspicions of present day political point-scoring appear justified.

The New Statesman says that Ridley Road “inadvertently glamourizes neo-Nazis” by taking the National Socialist Movement “far too seriously.”

It also says that “the script strains predictably hard for parallels with our own times” - and adds “you will hear the words 'we want our country back' more than once”.

So I think we can gather from that that this BBC drama went too far even for the New Statesman in trying to score present-day political points, including about Brexit.

I'll have to trust The New Statesman on this, because I won't be watching it.

Respect

R.I.P. Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist who draw a cartoon of the founder of Islam and spent fourteen years under police protection as a result. 

He has been killed in a car crash, along with two of the policemen protecting him.

The BBC's report goes heavy with respectful language...about Muhammad. This is how it begins: 

Lars Vilks was under police protection because of his 2007 image of the Prophet Muhammad as a dog.  

Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who sketched the Prophet Muhammad's head on a dog's body, has died in a traffic accident. 

Vilks was reported to be travelling in a civilian police vehicle which collided with a truck near the town of Markaryd in southern Sweden. 

Investigators said the collision, which also killed two police bodyguards, showed no signs of foul play. 

The 75-year-old artist had been living under police protection after receiving death threats over the cartoon. 

Why does depicting the Prophet Muhammad cause offence? 

The cartoon, published in 2007, offended many Muslims who regard visual representation of the Prophet as blasphemous. It came a year after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the Prophet.

'Our local hero'

 

Harry Cole, political editor of The Sun, tweeted this while watching Andrew Marr and Boris Johnson slugging it out earlier: 

Getting spicy now on Marr. Not much love lost here.

They certainly don't seem to like each other. It always seems to get frosty. 

Here's a flavour of it. if you missed it: 

Andrew Marr: The logic of what you are saying is that the shortages and the short-term problems are an inevitable result of the policy, that to get higher productivity and higher wages, we as a country have to go through some bumps, some shortages, some queues, on the way. And that, folks, is what you voted for. When you voted for Boris's Brexit, that is what it meant. 

Boris Johnson: When people voted for change in 2016, when people voted for change again in 2019, as they did, they voted for the end of a broken model of the UK economy that relied on low wages and low skills and chronic low productivity. And we are moving away from that and investing massively in skills...

Andrew Marr: [interrupting] When will you...

Boris Johnson: We're investing massively in infrastructure...

Andrew Marr: [interrupting] I'm sorry, you're starting...

Boris Johnson: We are going to be talking... 

Andrew Marr: [interrupting, talking over] This is...

Boris Johnson: We are going to be talking...

Andrew Marr: ...heading towards bluster. 

Boris Johnson: No, it's not.

Andrew Marr: Let me ask a direct question. 

In contrast, the two Andys - Andy Marr and Andy Burnham, got all well. Here's a flavour of Mr Marr's comments about / interactions with Mayor Burnham:

6.40am King of the North Andy Burnham is on as well.

9.01am And because we're in his backyard, by the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, aka the King of the North, Andy Burnham. 

9.11am And another fascinating story here about our local hero. Tell us about that.

9.12am Katy, it's very interesting that local mayors are actually an area where politics is rising in public esteem. People in Westminster struggling sometimes to be noticed, certainly to be admired, but when it comes to local mayors' votes, Andy Burnham, whether it's London, whether it's Sheffield, all over the place, they are finding new ways to do politics in this country. Localism is finally arriving. 

9.15am You were hearing just a moment ago about the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. I'm delighted to say he joins me now. 

9.30am So people jokingly call you the King of the North. So, Your Majesty, for now, thank you very much indeed for joining us. 

And this - for further comparison - is how Andrew Marr commented about / interacted with PM Johnson today:

9.00am Boris Johnson has made a career as the great showman selling good cheer. But will this be his autumn of discontent when he starts to lose the audience? 

9.01am Speaking of showmen, I've also been talking to one of rock's greatest frontmen - Roger Daltrey of The Who.

9.30am The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is with me now in Salford. Prime Minister, let's start by talking about...

9.44am I'm sorry, you're...this is heading towards bluster.

9.57am Alright, Boris Johnson, for free, thank you very much for joining us.

Some Sunday morning reading

I

According to The Mail on Sunday, Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries will use her conference speech to 'throw down the gauntlet to the BBC'. A source has told them:

The plan is to put the BBC on notice that its days as the voice of the Islington Left are numbered. 

Nadine appreciates that it has a global reputation for the quality of many of its programmes, but the woke-infested news output needs addressing.

We'll see. Anyhow, there's a good quote from Nadine in The Sun: 

I could almost hear the almond latte cups hitting the floor at the BBC when I got this job. 

II 

Former BBC controller of daily news programmes Gavin Allen, ousted from the BBC board in February this year, has moved on. He's now working as 'executive editor in chief' for the highly controversial Chinese tech giant Huawei. From seeing him on Newswatch many times, always sticking up for the BBC, I suspect it won't be long before he's saying that Huawei is getting everything about right. The top comment at The Mail on Sunday reads, 'No honour, no integrity. These are the sort of people that run the BBC.' 

III

I suspect many will agree with The Times's Richard Morrison about the BBC's 'sordid' Jimmy Savile drama, starring Steve Coogan:

It was the BBC that fuelled his career and gave him a nationwide, peak-time platform. And despite all the allegations, it was still protecting and projecting his “saintly eccentric” image when he died, less than ten years ago. For such a tainted organisation to be thinking about using the name of Savile once again — after all that has been revealed — to boost its ratings and generate publicity for its TV drama output beggars belief. 

I’m surprised that Coogan, a thoughtful man, has accepted this role. I’m astounded that Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, has approved the project, especially with all the other battles he needs to fight to safeguard the BBC’s future. He should think again.

IV

This week answered the question on everyone's lips: Whatever happened to the 'face of the BBC' in the US, Katty Kay? Well, she left the BBC to work for Ozy - a left-wing digital media outfit that sees itself as "a catalyst for change and inspiration" and which launched the #ResetAmerica campaign to amplify racial and social injustice issues and "forge a path forward". After its chief operating officer was accused of pretending to be a YouTube executive on a conference call during talks about a £30m investment from Goldman Sachs, Katty Kay quit. So the question on everyone's lips is now: Whatever will happen to the 'face of the BBC' in the US, Katty Kay, now that she's left Ozy?

blah blah blah

'Officials from developing countries' are 'demanding' something, according to the BBC:

This is presently the second story on the BBC News website.

If you're wondering how many paragraphs you'll have to scroll through to till you reach even a passing mention of [the massively polluting People's Republic of] China, you'll find it tucked away in Paragraph 18.  

And the 'Analysis' by BBC science correspondent Victoria Gill uncritically plugs Greta Thunberg. 

Students and activists in Milan formed a human wall to 'protect' her, BBC Victoria says - ever-so-analytically. 

Even the Guardian...

There's been a lot of anger directed at the BBC today because of the BBC News website's reporting of the David Miller affair.

David Miller was the Bristol University sociology professor who revelled in baiting Jewish students at his university by mocking them and spreading conspiracy theories at their expense. He's now been sacked.

I've seen people saying that even The Guardian reported the story more fairly than the BBC, and contrasting their respective headlines. 

Where the BBC headline says Bristol University: Professor David Miller sacked over Israel comments, the Guardian headline says Bristol University sacks professor accused of antisemitic comments. 

Even by putting it that way the BBC has taken David Miller's side, because the claim that he's only criticising Israel is his - and his supporters' - main defence.

The Guardian report begins:

The University of Bristol has sacked a sociology professor accused of antisemitic comments following a high-profile investigation and after Jewish students said they felt “unsafe and unprotected” on campus.

The BBC report begins:

A University of Bristol professor being investigated over comments he made about Israel has been sacked.

Here are two tweets from people starting from contrasting perspectives, both agreeing:

David Collier: The BBC headline saying David Miller was sacked over 'Israel comments' is outrageous. Miller was sacked for what he did to BRITISH students here in the UK and his antisemitic mindset that turned BRITISH Jews into Israeli spies. He was sacked for his comments about British Jews.

Sunder Katwala: [1] Poor reporting by the BBC. Core complaint is primarily about Miller's comments about Jewish student societies in UK universities (that they are pawns of a racist foreign power). His characterisation of them being controlled by Israel, but "over Israel comments" misses core point. [2] BBC report. Flawed headline. Opaque report, because it alludes to comments, and responses, but it does not quote comments sufficiently to inform a new general reader about the dispute. Unclear about link between "Israel" and "Jewish students" that is core. 

Reading the full BBC report after reading the full Guardian report was quite an experience.

I don't for one minute think that the Guardian report by Rachel Hall was hostile to the sacked professor, but it tried its best to fairly report both sides, without adding overly obvious winks and nudges in any direction. 

Not so the BBC piece, which struck me as being quite passive-aggressive in some of its language [e.g. "Dozens said the comments were 'inciting hatred against Jewish students'"] and positively deceptive it what it didn't mention that the Guardian did mention. 

Compare and contrast. First the BBC:

The investigation included an independent report, the university said, which considered the "important issue of academic freedom of expression and found that Prof Miller's comments did not constitute unlawful speech". 

Now the Guardian: 

Bristol said that although a QC found that the comments Miller is alleged to have made “did not constitute unlawful speech”, a disciplinary hearing concluded that he “did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff”. 

The BBC wrote that piece and obfuscated what the Graun makes fairly clear. The Graun gave both sides and a pretty full view. 

The BBC is increasingly full of activists who wouldn't recognise impartiality's bottom from its elbow. That they're even worse than The Guardian on this is jaw-dropping.

On Jonathan Munro, the petrol pump panic and Carolyn's sister-in-law

 

This week's 'I think we got it about right' BBC editor on Newswatch was Jonathan Munro, the BBC's Deputy Director of News.

Mr Munro is apparently a serious contender to replace Fran Unsworth in the the BBC's top news job.

You may remember him for:

[a] His role in the Cliff Richard affair, where the judge described him as “overly guarded” in his defence of the BBC. And the judge further accused him of “almost wilfully failing to acknowledge inconsistencies” and of “refusing to acknowledge the plain effect of some of the emails in the case”. 

[b] His role in the re-hiring of Martin Bashir in 2016, when he said he was attracted to the reporter’s “track record in enterprising journalism” and respect within the industry.

[c] His statement that “We don’t want all our editorial meetings to be dominated by what white people think”. 

[d] His sarcastic tweet about things going badly for Nigel Farage and UKIP...in 2015, a year before the UK voted for Brexit. 

[e] His branding of certain ex-BBC senior editors [Roger Mosey and Mark Damazer] in an internal BBC email as “male, pale and stale” sexists after they dared to criticise the BBC, despite him being male, pale and possibly stale himself. 

[f] His previous defences of the BBC on Newswatch where he's been disingenuous and/or factually wrong, or both, and never particularly fleet-footed.  

------------------

His appearance on this weekend's Newswatch was typically flat-footed. The judge in the Cliff Richard case would surely have made similar comments about his appearance here had he watched it and was asked for his opinion again. 

And Carolyn and Anna, the two viewers pitted against him, really showed him up, cutting through his flannel like hot knives through pre-melted margarine.  

And he was typically disingenuous again from his very first words, twisting Carolyn's claim about it being a 'non-story' at the very beginning [the Thursday of the week before last before the panic-buying began] into a straw-man suggestion that she was claiming the whole thing [from that Thursday to now] has been a 'non-story'. 

That's a slippery politician's way of sliding away from a difficult charge. 

He did it again at the start of his final answer.

The most striking bit comes though when Carolyn picks up on Jonathan Munro's inadvertent admission that the petrol/diesel pump story was high up in the news running order that Thursday partly because it was a slow news day. She rather nailed him there. 

This man is said to be the frontrunner to replace Fran Unsworth.

Here's a transcript:

Samira Ahmed: Hello, and welcome to watch with me Samira Ahmed. Did the BBC fuel a sense of panic at the petrol pumps this week? It was Thursday of last week when the BBC first put on air a story which was to dominate news output over the following few days. It appeared in the headlines on the News at Six:

Headlines: A shortage of lorry drivers forces BP and Esso to close some of their petrol stations. Downing Street says people should buy fuel as normal. 

Samira Ahmed: By Friday lunchtime, a sense of crisis was developing: 

Headlines: The government urges people not to panic buy fuel after some petrol stations had to close because there aren't enough tanker delivery drivers. But this afternoon there are long queues of motorists in some parts of the country trying to fill up. Petrol station owners insist there is no need to panic. 

Samira Ahmed: But that 'don't panic' message seemed to have the reverse effect as the queues lengthened and anger grew among some motorists: 

Vox pop motorist 1: The petrol is on zero. I'm not going to make it! People have half a tank and they are going in there to fill up. 

Vox pop motorist 2: Three hours is just ridiculous. You pass these two petrol stations, you cross the road and it's the same again. 

Samira Ahmed: The problem was clear, the cause of it less so. The Government insisted there was no lack of fuel, just a shortage of drivers. But hundreds of Newswatch viewers told us they put the blame squarely on the media and specifically the BBC. Two of those viewers join me now, Anna Grayson and Carolyn Issitt, as does Jonathan Munro, who is the BBC's Deputy Director of News. Carolyn, can I start with you? What did you object to about the news coverage you saw of this issue?

Carolyn Issitt: Basically, I felt that it was a bit of a non-story that was built up to the point which people started saying, 'don't panic', and if we've learned anything from Covid and the lockdown, if you say don't panic, people panic. People including my own sister-in-law rushed out to fill their cars with petrol, and that's what caused the problem. 

Samira Ahmed: Jonathan, this is a specific point. Did the BBC hype the story early on when it was only a few petrol stations? 

Jonathan Munro: I don't think so. I don't think it was a non-story. I think a lot of people were affected by, whether it's supply issues, but at the pump it was a lack of ability to get your car filled up because so many petrol stations were running out. So the question for us in dealing with stories like this is how do you solve the dilemma, which clearly exists, between reporting the story on the one hand because it's a legitimate story that lots of people are interested in, and as Carolyn says, being in danger of actually making it a self-fulfilling prophecy, that you report it and you cause people  like Carolyn's sister-in-law to change her behaviour. 

Samira Ahmed: Just so people know, it was the second headline on Thursday evening's Six and then it was the lead on the Friday morning on the news channel. Once it's that prominent, you can see why people think you are giving out a message. 

Jonathan Munro: There is a prominence debate, for sure, about all stories of this sort. But at that time I think I'm right in saying that about three quarters of petrol stations in England were having some sort of problems with deliveries and therefore supply to the consumer. And there are all sorts of layers on the story. It is a consumer behaviour story, as we just discussed in the context of Carolyn's sister-in-law,  but it was also a story about government preparedness and about resilience and about the just-in-time supply chains and the supplies to supermarkets and other retail outlets. So quite a lot of layers of complexity to go into. 

Samira Ahmed: Anna Grayson, you're a driving instructor yourself. How were you affected by the way this story and this problem developed over the days? 

Anna Grayson:  It was huge. It was instant. I had no problems with receiving, filling my car up until last Friday morning when this news story broke, and literally I had to stop work that Friday and I haven't been able to go back since because I cannot get fuel in my local area. 

Samira Ahmed: So, again, Friday morning is when the problem really kicked off which is after it had been given a lot of prominence on BBC News. Anna has given one example, but a lot of people have been really badly affected, cancelled medical and social care appointments and operations. Do you think the BBC thought enough about the consequences of the prominence it got on the Thursday evening and the Friday morning?

Jonathan Munro: We did think a lot about it, and we featured a lot of...not a driving instructor as I remember...but other workers whose livelihoods were affected, including those who were delivering essential services like nurses who visit patients in the community for example. Those sorts of people are clearly not panic-buying. It is part of their essential tools to go to work. And in the case of nurses and care deliverers that has a real knock-on to people who are vulnerable. So they are not in any sense panic-buying. And reporting the effects on businesses was part of what we tried to do. On the prominence point, whether we lead on a story or it runs lower down the running order does slightly depend on what else is happening in the world. This week, for example, we've done a lot more on Afghanistan, we've lot a lot more about the terrible events around the Sarah Everard murder. we've done the Labour Party conference, which was a big political story. Back end of last week was a little bit quieter elsewhere in the world and it did achieve a prominence in our bulletins and elsewhere which was a result of both the importance of the story and, as always, what else is happening that gets running time in our programmes. 

Samira Ahmed: Carolyn, you heard Jonathan...I can see  you're shaking your head. What is your response to the explanation he's given? 

Carolyn Issitt: It kind of bears out my thoughts which is, 'as it's a slow new day, let's make this one a bit bigger'. Quite honestly, from Friday, through to even yesterday, the BBC was still showing a variety of people on forecourts talking about not being able to get fuel. Just continuing to add to the problem. My BBC East Midlands show started its show at 6:35 yesterday with a photoshop of lots of empty pumps. Honestly. That's just irresponsible journalism in my view. You need to recognise when you're causing a problem and actually try to do something about it, not simply fuel the fire because it's something to make news. 

Samira Ahmed: Anna, you are really upset as well because this has affected your livelihood. What would you like the BBC to learn from the way this story has been covered and the fact that so many viewers have complained? 

Anna Grayson: We're not the only profession that has been hugely affected by this but we were just getting on our feet from lockdowns before. And I think the BBC need to be held to account in the way that they're funded. You have a social responsibility to report the truth. And what annoys me about this story is that you had other fuel providers, not just BP, who were jumping onto the media saying 'we are fine, absolutely fine, stop panic-buying fuel, we don't have a problem with the delivery of fuel'. So where did this story come from? To me, it was just pure and utter scaremongering and sensationalism with the purpose of gaining viewer numbers.

Samira Ahmed: You've heard what the viewers say. What lessons do you think the BBC is learning from this? 

Jonathan Munro: I think it is not our job to change the news, it's our job to report the news, and... 

Samira Ahmed: [interrupting] But they're arguing that the BBC played a role in turning it into a bigger story and there was a momentum. 

Jonathan Munro: Yes, but I think that the case that Carolyn mentioned, for example, about shots of the forecourts with no petrol available at series of pumps, that actually happened. It wasn't...we didn't make it up. And we have to balance that with the responsibility that Anna quite rightly says about the BBC's voice in the debate publicly and where we make sure that we are acting responsibly, and I completely agree with her that our responsibility is to report the whole picture. So, for example, to say, as we did several times on most of our bulletins, that there were parts of the country that weren't particularly badly affected. So rural areas were less badly affected, on the whole, than urban areas. Northern Ireland wasn't affected at all. And one of the things we did regularly was go round the country to our correspondents to make sure that we were getting an accurate picture of what was happening in their part of the UK.

September Continuing Open Thread

 

''By putting a concern for neurodiversity at the heart of its design, the BBC’s headquarters in Wales has taken a radical approach''

Welcome to the September Open Thread and thank you for your comments.

News management

After London primary school teacher Sabina Nessa was murdered, I saw plenty of comments about how the BBC was seriously underreporting the story, probably for the usual BBC reasons of social cohesion.

No one had a suspect then, though many were clearly guessing.

Then, particularly after it became clear that the suspect appeared to be white, the BBC's coverage suddenly exploded, and Sabina became a second Sarah Everard - a focus concerning women's safety.

.

Newsniffer records 17 separate BBC articles about her - the first dated four days after her murder on 17 September. 

The breaking news this afternoon - reported by the likes of The Times - is that the suspect is Albanian, which will doubtless complicate matters for the social cohesion promoters at the BBC. 

The BBC News website hasn't got round to reporting that yet. 

Their latest report, posted late this morning, and with no subsequent updates, and with its very BBC headline Sabina Nessa: Man questioned on suspicion of murder, is no longer even on the BBC News home page.

We'll soon see if Sabina Nessa now vanishes straight back down the BBC memory hole again.

The BBC News homepage has seemingly moved on already. They're on the BBC's preferred ground, their 'safe space' perhaps, and talking instead about the far-right. 

Britain First registers again as a political party is one of their top headlines right now.

UPDATE - Just checking for the obvious test - whether the story would appear on tonight's BBC One News at Six, after featuring in BBC One's major bulletins for days now. 

It didn't feature at all.

It really speaks volumes about the BBC. They've evidently made an editorial decision.

FURTHER UPDATE [28/9] - At 8.50 last night, the BBC published a report on the BBC News homepage, and it's still prominently placed. 

Noticeably though, where The Times says of the suspect “who is from Albania” and The Sun describes him as an “Albanian national”, the BBC are refraining from mentioning that, evidently still 'managing' the story.

Two and a half months later...

On the open thread, Charlie referred to the BBC's 'reality check' of the causes of the lorry driver shortage, noting that it underplayed the availability of DVLA tests during the pandemic and overplayed Brexit as a cause.

Something interesting has happened to that BBC 'reality check' though. 

When I glanced at it a couple of days ago I spotted a glaring error. It said that there's now a shortage of more than 100,000 drivers in the UK and that:

That number included tens of thousands of drivers from EU member states who were living and working in the UK. 

I'd read in The Times that, according to available figures [figures already noted by the BBC's own More or Less at the very start of September], 19,000 out of some 45,000 EU drivers have left in the last couple of years, so saying ''tens of thousands'' for that 19.000 figure looked misleading, to put it mildly. [In fact it was plain wrong.]

I was just about to 'catch up' and post that, but things have changed. I see it's been 'stealth edited' this very afternoon. It now says: 

That number includes thousands of drivers from European Union (EU) member states who were previously living and working in the UK. 

So, this BBC 'reality check' has been up since 14 July. It's been updated in August and throughout September. Yet only now - nearly two and a half months after it was first published - has the BBC corrected it. 

Who reality-checks the reality-checkers at the BBC? 

I'm guessing that a complaint has wended its way through the BBC's tortuous complaints process to bring this about, though it could just be a BBC person spotting an embarrassing lapse at a time when many eyes are on the piece in question and quietly putting things right. 

It certainly was 'quietly' though. Thank goodness for Newsniffer. 

St Andrew and the Dragon

It was fascinating watching Andrew Marr don shining armour and go into battle, lance raised, on behalf of damsel-in-distress Labour MP Rosie Duffield this morning. 

It was even more fascinating watching Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC looking distinctly uncomfortable throughout his interview today, like a boring, pratfall-prone, flaccid dragon.

Given that he's a barrister and former DPP, it's quite odd just how poor he is at defending himself.

I'd even call it a 'car crash interview'. 

It got so bad that I even wondered if Sir Keir must had had coaching lesson on interviewing techniques by Diane Abbott, the queen of car-crash interviews - though that's pretty unlikely, given that's she's betrothed to another. 

The analogy was made even stronger by Sir Keir's Massive overuse of 'Well, Andrew'. 

It was pure Jan Ravens on Radio 4's Dead Ringers impersonating Diane Abbott being interviewed by the late Andrew Neil. 

Well, Andrew...

Even Andrew Marr managed to pull Sir Keir apart on his contradiction of prior pledges over nationalisation and the contradiction between what he was saying on tax and what Rachel Reeves [his new, as-'boring, snoring'-as-he-is shadow chancellor] has said on tax, and even made him squirm a little over 'Scum'gate. 

The bit about Rosie, damsel of Duffield Towers, besieged in her Canterbury constituency by angry knights who believe they are maidens, was genuinely important - despite my flippancy - because it shows where we are now.

The Leader of the Opposition is a cowardly, self-censoring advocate for the Emperor's new clothes being real.  

--------------

As The Andrew Marr Show recently gave up posting transcripts of all their major interviews, so here's mine. 

Look out for Sir Keir KCB claiming that trans people are ''the most marginalised and abused communities''. 

Are they? Will the BBC fact-check that?

And look out for him calling for a ''tolerant'' debate but then uttering the most extraordinary words, that what Rosie Duffield say - a pure fact about biology - is ''not right'' and ''shouldn't be said''.

Well, what she said is right and should be said. 

Does Sir Keir really believe what he's saying, or is he just scared of saying the unsayable truth for fear of offending trans extremists and their aggressive supporters and the weirdest and least tolerant parts of the present Labour Party?

For the leader of one of the two main UK parties to say that views like those of Rosie Duffield - the factual truth - ''shouldn't be said'' and that only ''proper views'' expressed ''in a proper way'' ought to be allowed in the national debate shows that we aren't in a good place as a country, politically-speaking. 

To put it mildly.

That said, he has form, He largely bit his tongue and shifted and slid about and manoeuvred to keep himself onside with the Corbynistas over antisemitism when serving Jeremy Corbyn. 

He should have resigned. 

And I don't agree with how Andrew Marr far too generously characterised Sir Keir today. 

If you talk to...if one talks to a wide range of your colleagues, a similar picture seems to come through. They almost all say, Sir Keir Starmer, honest as the day is long, punctilious, hard-working, thoroughly decent, but in the end he's not really a politician, he doesn't have the oomph and the edge to cut through in those big seats - but in the end he is not really a politician, and these are the days when you need someone who's a bit of a showman, who can really let rip and show who they are emotionally, and you're not that man.

Is he ''thoroughly decent'' and ''honest as the day is long''. Well, Andrew, there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. 

Anyhow, here's the transcript.

 

Andrew Marr: Does someone who thinks only women have a cervix is [sic] welcome in the Labour Party?

Sir Keir Starmer: Now, look, Andrew. we need to have a mature, respectful debate about trans rights...

Andrew Marr: Yeah.

Sir Keir Starmer: ...and we need to, I think, bear in mind that the trans community are amongst, you know, the most marginalised and abused communities, and wherever we've gone to with the law, we need to go further - and we want to go further on that - but whatever the debate is it needs to be a tolerant debate, and I am absolutely sure that our conference will be a place which is safe for that debate to take place, and it is.

Andrew Marr: Is it transphobic to say that only women have a cervix?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, it is something that shouldn't be said. It is not right. But, Andrew, I don't think that...

Andrew Marr: So Rosie Duffield should not have said that? Can you explain to people watching why she should not have said that?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I don't think that we can just go through various things that people had said. Rosie Duffield...I spoke to Rosie earlier this week and told her that Conference was a safe place for her to come, and it is a safe place for her to come. And I spoke to others to make exactly the same principle. We do everybody a disservice when we reduce what is a really important issue to these exchanges on particular things that are said. But the trans community are, as I say, the most marginalised and abused of many, many communities and we need to make progress on the Gender Recognition Act.

Andrew Marr: You could say that 'exchanges' is how people communicate and resolve these things.

Sir Keir Starmer: Yeah but, Andrew, this debate...I am concerned that this debate needs to be conducted in a proper way in which proper views are expressed in a way that is respectful.

Andrew Marr: Sure. You've spoken to Rosie Duffield. We've spoken to Rosie Duffield. After your conversation, she still doesn't feel comfortable about coming to this Labour Party conference. What does that say about the Labour Party?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I spoke to Rosie just earlier this week and made it absolutely clear to her that this is a safe Conference for her to come to.

Andrew Marr: She doesn't agree with that.

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I spoke to her, and what she said...

Andrew Marr: As did we.

Sir Keir Starmer: What she said to me was that she didn't want to come because it would cause a distraction from the ideas that we are putting forward at this Conference, and i asked her when I spoke to her whether that was something I could say on her behalf and she said yes. So that's what Rosie says about this, and I'll take that from Rosie.

Andrew Marr: OK. She said to us that she didn't feel comfortable.

Wonder what that Rosie/Sir Keir phone call actually said? I'm not sure I quite believe Sir Keir's gloss on it.

Selective checking?

I see that the BBC's rather selective Reality Check unit has fact-checked Boris Johnson's UN speech.

Boris, therefore, joins Brazil's President Bolsonaro in being fact-checked so far. 

It will be interesting to see which other world leaders the BBC chooses to fact-check.

Will they fact-check President Biden, for instance?

[They would certainly have fact-checked his predecessor.]

A Tale of Two Takes

The OECD's predictions for the world economy received some contrasting coverage this week.

City AM headlined their take OECD: UK muscles out G7 to top economic growth rankings, and began:

The UK economy will grow the fastest among the group of the world’s richest countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 

The OECD thinks the UK economy will expand 6.7 per cent in 2021, the highest rate of growth among the G7.”

That sounds positive, but the BBC found a negative angle for their take. Their headline is Inflation to remain higher for two years, warns OECD, and - in contrast to City AM - the BBC compared the UK unfavourably with the world's other richest countries, beginning:

Prices in the G20 group of major economies will grow faster than pre-pandemic for at least two years, a leading global agency has forecast.

Higher commodity prices and shipping costs are pushing up inflation, Paris-based policy forum the OECD said.

The UK is expected to have inflation running at about 3% at the end of 2022, the highest rate of the advanced economies, the OECD said.

By contrast, inflation is expected to fall in the US, France, and Germany.

It's very BBC of the BBC to cast us in an unfavourable light.

Being kind

A tweet from Jeremy Vine today...

...hasn't struck people as being very kind, or classy. Here's a flavour of the reaction:

• Genuinely. Is there any need for such a spiteful comment?
• Anyway, sympathies today for anyone who thought Jeremy Vine was nice, whoever you are and wherever you may be.
• It's an astonishingly wrong footed comment from Vine. Perfectly sums up what's wrong with the BBC: deep-seated self regard. Andrew Neil is one of their "stars". Colin comes from a different background, family man, working class and above all *normal*.
• Classic BBC, pretends to be kind but can't help but bully anyone who is deemed beneath them. Colin Brazier is great. Calm, interesting, kind and patient with guests.
• Really? I've been watching Colin Brazier's show since he stepped in and have been massively impressed by his work.

Colin has replied:

On Monday I pointed out that Jeremy Vine is paid twice more than our PM - wages we are legally forced to pay via the BBC license fee. I think publicly-funded broadcasters need to be careful how they express personal opinions. 

Read more: https://gbnews.uk/news/colin-brazier-the-bbc-needs-to-learn-to-survive-by-winning-and-keeping-customers-not-by-extending-a-statutory-hand-every-year-into-our-wallets/129194

Update: Jeremy Vine has deleted his tweet. 

Did he delete it off his own bat, or did the BBC tell him too?

Nothing new under the sun

 

This won't be my finest post perhaps, and if it weren't for this blog I would never watch Newsnight again...

Newsnight isn't a patch on what it used to be, and I only ever dip into it now, on extremely rare occasions, to test BBC bias - when time and the mood strikes me.

And I tested it last night to see how the three-way first interview between climate change activist Sarah Colenbrander, pro-Brexit ex-MEP Dan Hannan and serving Democrat Congressman Brendan Boyle would go in the wake of the Biden UN speech and the muffled Boris-Joe press conference. 

I guessed that pro-Brexit Dan would get all the interruptions and the powerful US Democrat congressman get none. 

I guessed right. Dan Hannan got three challenging interruptions and a fourth abrupt cut-off interruption, while neither of the others - including Democrat Boyle - got any interruptions whatsoever.

It was wholly inevitable, given how biased the programme is.

#InterruptionsMatter

And, except for a half-hearted 'devils advocate' question from Emily Maitlis to Bren Boyle, it was all about 'getting Dan Hannan' over the UK's position after Brexit.

Very, very BBC. And very, very predictable. 

I'm no interviewer, but I think I even I could have given the obnoxious Irish lobby, Biden-supporting, shiny-faced Democrat congressman a much harder, more incisive ride than Our Emily. 

And as a pro-UK viewer I feel he deserved a lot harder push-back from Our Emily given how obnoxious and dishonest I found him. 

But, as a BBC bias watcher, I just knew what Emily and Newsnight would do what they did because it's what Newsnight always does now - with relish, and without shame. Especially as they get away with it.

They might as well have kept James O'Biased on the presenting roster.

I'll support anything now to make it stop that the public has to pay for such biased BBC broadcasting.

Tim in the kittens' den

  

I've just caught up on the whole of Tim Davie and Richard Sharp's appearance at the Commons Culture Select Committee today.

If you missed it and want to give over 1h 20m of your life to watching it, please click here.

Various things struck me:

Firstly, just how far the BBC's tentacles reach. Four out of the very small committee of MPs attending - I counted six or seven at most [as one may have been a clerk] - declared their BBC affiliations at the start. All four had been BBC journalists in a past life, and one even publicly declared his continuing financial benefits from the BBC. [What about the others?].

Secondly, how plausible Tim Davie is. He still talks a good talk. BBC chairman Richard Sharp was less assured. And the third musketeer, Leigh Tavaziva - the BBC's chief operating officer - came across as little but a babbler of corporate-speak. 

Thirdly, how soft the committee were on the BBC - including all but one of the Tories. 

Most of the Tories were kind to the BBC. And the Clacton Conservatory MP Giles Watling, who initially declared his continuing BBC financial rewards, turned out to be especially kind to them. He cocked his head and knitted his brow in sympathy for their financial flight and 'loss of talent'. It was like eavesdropping via video on a conversation between Tim Davie and Giles from the Samaritans. 

The SNP's John Nicolson [ex-BBC] quoted two contrasting emails from members of the public, one attacking the BBC from the left and one attacking the BBC from the right, and played the 'complaints from both sides' card, like he was some defensive BBC editor on Samira's Newsnight - which is intriguing. Are the SNP feeling much warmer towards the BBC now? 

Talking of which, Billy Bragg's chum Labour MP Kevin Brennan helped John Nicolson prove his point by going after Sir Robbie Gibb and The Tories Atop the BBC over JessBrammargate. Wonder what BBC returnee Jess Brammar made of Labour's Kevin Brennan being on her side? At least she's not retweeted him yet.

Fourthly, only Julian Knight, the committee chairman, really sunk his teeth into the BBC - though oddly, despite what he said the other day about the Mail on Sunday's latest piece, he didn't go after the corporation over Martin Bashir.

Fifthly, Damian Green - the Europhile former Conservative high-up under Mrs May - kept quiet. He was one of the four former BBC people.

All in all, it was a very easy ride for Tim and Richard. So many questions that could have been asked weren't asked. They were in a den of kittens and politicians.

''BBC Hit By New Bashir Shame''

“The BBC has a really grim bit of reading in The Mail on Sunday. This is another Martin Bashir-related story. Goes on for pages and pages and it is tough stuff for BBC people to read”, said Andrew Marr this morning. 

He didn't elaborate, or mention the story again. 

This morning's BBC News Channel paper review also merely mentioned it, with Victoria Derbyshire laying heavy emphasis on her own words, “it claims”.

The Mail on Sunday's remarkable investigation into how Martin Bashir took the Babes In The Wood victim's bloodied clothes from her mother, and then lost them, focuses on how that was followed by “derisory” efforts to find them by the BBC. 

The loss, the Mail reports, was only found out when the mother asked for them back to help police review the evidence and help convict the chief suspect.

As with the Princess Diana scandal, it's the allegations of a cover-up by the BBC that are particularly telling:

At the time, a BBC spokesman announced 'extensive inquiries' had been made to find them. 

But we can reveal today that the Corporation failed to even carry out the most basic checks, including speaking directly to Bashir. 

Key journalists who worked alongside him on the Babes In The Wood documentary also said they were never contacted. 

Nor were the families of Karen and fellow victim Nicola Fellows, nor a forensic scientist named by the programme's editor as an expert who could analyse scene-of-crime material. 

The acting director-general of the BBC at the time, Mark Byford, has also admitted no 'formal investigation' was held into the missing clothes.

Well might Julian Knight MP say in reaction, “These allegations, if proven, would amount to one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the BBC. This could be the BBC's Milly Dowler phone hacking moment.” 

His Commons Culture select committee will be interviewing Tim Davie on Tuesday. 

---------------

Update - The story was discussed during this morning's Broadcasting House paper review. Only one guest commented on it, namely  former Conservative MP for North Devon Peter Heaton-Jones, who also previously worked for...guess who?...yes, the BBC:

Paddy O'Connell: What is the front page of the Mail on Sunday, Peter?

Peter Heaton-Jones: Well, yes I thought I should dip into the world of journalism from my previous life Paddy, and so...the Mail on Sunday is obsessed with the BBC, has been for some time, shows no signs of waning. So you can read about the BBC and the Mail's view of it on pages 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 26, should you be so disposed. I love the BBC. I worked here for 20 years and I think that the licence fee is the right way to fund the BBC. Let me get that out of the way first. But the Mail says one thing in its editorial which I think has some substance to it, and it's this: They...quote, “The BBC's closed and haughty elite with its insistence on being judge and jury in any case where it comes under criticism, ploughs on regardless”. And I just think if there's one lesson for the BBC to learn, it's you can get it wrong sometimes, don't always defend yourself to the hilt if someone accuses you of getting something wrong. 

Paddy O'Connell: And this front page is another scandal involving the disgraced journalist Martin Bashir.

Peter Heaton-Jones: Yes, “BBC hit by new Bashir shame”, they say on page 1 - and about 18 other pages. It's not a good story, which I don't think I want to go into detail about Paddy, but it's another example of how I think the Mail and certain other newspapers will try to find any chink in the BBC's armour. They are there, but they find them very actively.

---------------- 

Further update [Sunday evening] -  The BBC has radically undermined BBC apologist Peter Heaton-Jones tonight. 

He said it wasn't a good story, but the BBC obviously disagrees. They've taken onboard the Mail on Sunday's investigation.

As a result, the BBC has now issued an apology, saying they're “extremely sorry” over the loss of the murdered schoolgirl's clothes. 

This is important, and needs exploring further, though the BBC website report - true to form - spins the 'cover-up' claim as wrong, to the BBC's advantage.

Maybe time will tell, or maybe it won't.

Whatever, well done to the Mail on Sunday, however many pages they took over it.

The Bishop of Radio 4's 'Sunday'

  

It's surely time now for David Walker, the go-ahead Bishop of Manchester, to be officially installed as Bishop of Radio 4's Sunday. 

He's on the programme so often, usually receiving the BBC's blessing for one of his campaigns.

This week Sunday helped publicise his campaign against the Government's latest immigration bill. 

If you didn't hear it yourself, here's a flavour of how it was framed today:

William Crawley: Good morning. On this week's Sunday, is the medieval idea of sanctuary coming back in a world of asylum seekers and refugees? 

William Crawley: Still to come on Sunday, why being a Good Samaritan may soon be a criminal offence, according to the Church of England. 

William Crawley: The Nationality and Borders Bill currently going through Parliament has angered some Church of England bishops. 12 bishops have signed a public letter this week accusing the government of effectively criminalising Good Samaritans. They say the bill would criminalise not only attempts to cross the border irregularly, nor even simply people-smuggling, but even those who take part in the rescue of boats in distress at sea. This week churches have also been welcoming Afghans who fled their homeland last month after the Taliban took control. The BBC's Carolyn Atkinson was at St Paul's church in Marylebone as volunteers welcome some of those refugees.

Naturally for Sunday, no one who thought differently on the issue was heard from, so here's a flavour of the response on Twitter instead:

• The Bishop of Manchester once again managed to walk past the issue that the people he is discussing are effectively fleeing France & by extension the EU & are in no way "compelled" to risk "perilous" crossing over Channel from which everybody arrives safely in Kent, so parallels [with the Good Samaritan story] seem weak.

• Suggest these bishops look at a world map. We are a tiny island. Across the world millions face war & prejudice but, realistically, it’s just not possible to accommodate, integrate, house, educate & offer free healthcare to them all in the UK. 

• The clueless bishop who doesn't think before opening his mouth. Encouraging people to risk their lives illegally crossing one of the busiest shipping lanes in an inflatable. Placing themselves & others at risk. And what of the poor, whose jobs they would take, he doesn't care.

And the Bishop of Manchester wasn't the only bishop given a bit of free advertising for his campaign this week. The programme began with Mark Strange, the go-ahead Bishop of Moray, Ross & Caithness campaigning about climate change, and here's how that was framed by Sunday:

William Crawley: Ahead of Cop26, the UN climate Change Conference in Glasgow taking place next month, faith leaders across the UK have united in a declaration, which they hope will raise up a new generation of advocates for climate justice. The Glasgow Multi-Faith Declaration calls on faith communities to make transformational changes in their lives for the sake of the planet and to speak truth to the politically powerful about their responsibilities. But what does transformational change look like in practical terms, electric cars, avoiding air travel, moving away from meat based diets, reusing clothing. I asked Bishop Mark Strange, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Anglican communion's delegate to COP26 and one of the architects of this new multi-faith declaration.

William Crawley: Well, on this third commitment of speaking truth to power, when the UK Government, when Boris Johnson's government effectively, says the Government's most international priority is dealing with with the climate crisis and at the same time the Government is supporting a new coal mine or cutting taxes on flights in response to what we've been through with Covid, some have used the term 'hypocrisy' of this Government in describing what they say and what they are doing. Would you use that term? 

Bishop Strange: I think I probably have used that term.

Again, no alternative voice was heard from.

Very Sunday.

🤣

It also wouldn't be Radio 4's Sunday without what I used to call "the usual airing of Muslim grievances". This week's programme plugged a book by two Muslim sisters. William Crawley described it as "very funny". The funny thing for me was that the passage they read out was "the usual airing of Muslim grievances":

Tariq: Sufya, there's enough bad press about Muslims without us joining in as well.

Me: I wasn't singling out Muslims.

Tariq: Look, it was OK when we were young, right. We could pretend it didn't matter then. We were just harmless Asians. But things have changed. I go into those meetings with the Home Secretary and all those excellent liberals that advise the big man. To them we are book burners, wife abusers, terrorists. That's how they see us. Most of them don't count me on their team, even though I'm sitting right in the middle of them.

Me: But I can't be on a team with all the fundis.

Tariq: They won't have you in the Islamophobes.

Did you🤣?