"But that's just my view"

As we may have said before here (yes, I'm sure we have), Jon Donnison uses Twitter as a key part of his reporting. 

This week he used the medium for a BBC-backed Q & A session with Twitter, Facebook and email users. 

For those who want to read a transcription of the whole thing (and who wouldn't?), here it is.

Who knows whether the chosen questions were representative, given how they came in, though I did spot a few decent-looking questions on Twitter (such as those asking what Australia's Muslim community could do to tackle Islamic extremism) which weren't asked, and the questions chosen...as you will see...would surely have been music to Jon Donnison's ears as they mostly confirm his own biases. 

Jon Donnison's answers are very much what you would expect from him. There's plenty of bias in them too.

He plays down the danger from Islamists, says climate change is a bigger threat, attacks the tabloids for their coverage of Muslims, uses the word 'Islamophobic', shows his disdain for a 'burqa ban' and anti-veil protestors, and gets to end with Gaza.

So here goes then:

*****

Live Twitter Q & A staring in 5 minutes on matters #Australia. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29928910 … #AskBBCjon

Thanks for your questions. Starting my LIVE Q&A on #Australia security now. #AskBBCJon

Q: Lucille Law via Facebook: "Should Australia be more worried about Islamic State threats from abroad or at home?"

A:Hi. Given distance, prob more worried about threat at home.That said,out of Islamic pop of 700,000 only tiny handful of IS supporters here

via @Aus_istan: Q: "Is local media doing a good job in differentiating btw terrorist ideology & peaceful Muslims?"

Hi @Aus_istan. In a word: no. Read tabloids & there's fair bit of whipping up the fear. As a result sadly a number of Islamophobic attacks.

Q: Neil Young via Facebook (the Neil Young???!!!): "Should Australia be expecting more anti-terror raids?"

A: Hi Neil. I think it's likely. Gov says around 100 IS supporters in Oz. But worth noting after last big raids (800+ police) only 1charged.

PS: Neil. Love Harvest Moon.

Q: via Gene Yue on Facebook: Is the "burqa ban" a paranoid one? How many women in Australia have you seen really wearing burqas anyway?

A:Hi Gene. I've never seen a woman wearing a burqa in Oz. @TonyAbbottMHR said he hadn't either. Media & gov confusing burqa with niqab. 1/2

A: basically think lazy journalists like the alliteration of "burqa ban." Niqab ban doesnt sound so catchy.

VIDEO my TV piece from a few months ago on fears over Australians fighting with Islamic State. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29201668 …

A little off topic Khakurel! Q via Khakurel Amrita via Facebook: Are you a cat or a dog person?

A:hi Khakurel. I'm def a hound man but the missus tells me we have to get baby before dog! Baby due in March so pencilling in pooch for 2015

Q: Liza Lee via Facebook: What do majority of Australians think of KKK nutters at parliament? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29782151 …

A: Hi Liza. Probably that they were one tinny short of a full six pack! They tried and failed to make a pretty incoherent point.

Q: @James_G_Fowler via Twitter: Is climate change not a threat to security in Australia?

A:G'day @james_G_Fowler. Long term climate change poses much greaert threat to Australians' livelyhoods than IS. But that's just my view ;-)

Q: A Oei via email: Do you think Australia is still a 'lucky country' with all the terror raids going on?

A: Hi A Oei. "Lucky Country" is greatly misused. Was said with sarcasm/irony. So maybe author Donald Horne may have still thought oz "lucky"

My piece asking from earlier this year asking whether Australia is still "The Lucky Country." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-29844752 …

Q: D Songur via email: What will proposed special powers granted to Asio mean for journalists, news agencies and whistleblowers?

A: Hi I dont think we know answer to that but there is undoubtedly a lot of concern from journos here about new laws & protecting sources.

Right you are.....Q: via @jmitter34: What do you think of the new Star Wars trailer? http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/30250735 …

A: Being a bit codge, original Star Wars much more my scene. 1st films I saw in cinema. Great excuse to post this.

Q: Hang Kwon Li via Facebook: What's been your most memorable coverage experience during your time in Australia?

A: Hi Hang Kwon Li. Travelling to Philipines to cover Typhoon Haiyan. A truly terrible story but Filipinos some of kindest people I've met.

Q: Smain R Avidan via Facebook: I liked your WS report. Was it hard to get interviews at mosques? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29201668 …

A: Hi Smain. No it wasn't hard. Most were happy to talk &  friendly. Many were originally from Tripoli in Lebanon, a place I have visited.

Q: via @grimlockchen: What is Aus govt doing about terrorists like those who want to go to Syria but can't because passports were cancelled?

A: Hi @grimlockchen . Watching them pretty closely I imagine. But those laws may end being challenged in courts here i suspect.

Q: @larry_friese via Twitter: What would major national security concerns be if Australia detached itself from US & UK and went neutral?

A: Hi Larry. Interesting Q given Oz has been US's most loyal ally over wars of last century. Think it would be of more concern to US and UK.

And finally....Q: Juwel Rai via Facebook: Are the beaches better in Gaza or Sydney?

A: Now that's a toughy.Sorry Bondi but my heart is with Gaza beaches. So much potential there. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28995680 …

Thanks reader(s) for all your questions. Hope I came up with a few answers. Tata for now. Jon

Knowing the Matthew Price of everything and the value of nothing

For those paying attention at the back, a post earlier this week presented evidence of strong pro-immigration bias from Today's newly-appointed 'chief correspondent' Matthew Price. Doing my duty as a conscientious blogger, it's only right to follow it up as another report was broadcast later in the week which slightly qualifies my earlier criticism.

The earlier reports focused on heart-tugging personal stories from immigrants, on the downsides of the government's moves to cap benefits for immigrants, and on the pro-immigration views of various influential parties and experts. Friday's report, however, focused on the views of ordinary people in Dudley, many of whom expressed concerns about/opposition to immigration (including a Pakistani gentleman who said that immigration is good but that the government should cut down on immigrants from the EU and outside of the Commonwealth (i.e. keep immigration from countries like Pakistan flowing!))

This is good, and didn't try to hide what people really think.

However, being the BBC, it also had an undercurrent of pro-immigration bias.

Why Dudley? Well, check out how the Today website described the story:

How British is Britain? And is immigration, which has always been a part of life on these isles, making the country less British? Large numbers of people across the country believe the answer to that is 'yes', even if they are living in areas where there are relatively few foreign born residents.

Dudley is one of those areas. Checking out the demographics, it remains predominantly 'white', with a lower than average infusion of immigrants. So, the programme seemed to be asking, why on earth are they moaning about immigration when they have so few immigrants in their area?

Matthew Price restated that point later:

Looking around you can see this is overwhelmingly a white British town. Fewer foreigners are moving here than to other parts of the West Midlands. But that's not how it feels to many of the traders.

This smacks of the old BBC 'feelings over facts' point about immigration, I think - the idea that the public are uninformed and irrational.

Matthew Price began in a boxing club where 'British Asians' and Poles mingle with the natives. He said it's the EU migrants "that are getting people talking". Someone at Biased BBC from the area, however (whose comment I can't find), said that it's actually a planned local mosque that's really getting up people's noses there (and Googling around seems to confirm that), but resentment at the effects of Muslim immigration clearly wasn't on Matthew Price's agenda. [Those demographics show that 'British Asians' are the local ethnic minority (5.6%) and that Muslims form 4.1% of the population there, with Jews having a 0.0% presence there]. 

Still, at least we got what to hear some of what the locals really think and UKIP will have found some of the comments very encouraging.

Matthew, however, kept challenging his vox pops on their facts (again suggesting that he thinks they're being wrong-headed)...

- Dudley doesn't actually have that many people coming in from outside. Statistically it's lower than a lot of places actually.

- Even here? 

- Well, you could go to Eastern Europe.

...and, unlike his other reports from around the country, there were no various influential parties and experts, so no immigration-sceptical influential people/experts have appeared in any of Matthew Price's immigration reports so far.

The following studio interview, however, was with Labour MP Frank Field. Mr Field, always the free-thinker on matters of political controversy, is a rare Labour sceptic on mass immigration. He's no opponent, but at least he provided a little counterbalance to the intense pro-immigration guest (Prof Ian Goldin) from earlier in the week. 

Today's edition of Today attempted an end-of-the-week round up - an interview with Professor Paul Ward, author of “Call Yourself British? National identity in the United Kingdom in the Twentieth Century” and Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - and neither of those are anti-immigration either. Its angle - immigrants' contrasting feelings of Britishness - was at a tangent to the rest of the week's coverage. 

Worst reporter ever!

The biggest political punch-up of the week between the BBC and the Conservative Party, of course, was that between the BBC and George Osborne (backed by David Cameron) over the BBC's coverage of the Autumn Statement - and especially over Norman Smith's remarks on Today. 

George Osborne said this about it:

When I woke up this morning and listened to the Today programme it felt like I was listening to a rewind of a tape of 2010 with BBC correspondents saying Britain is returning to a sort of George Orwell world of the Road to Wigan Pier and that is such nonsense.

I would have thought the BBC would have learnt from the last four years that its totally hyperbolic coverage of spending cuts has not been matched by what has actually happened.

What I reject is the totally hyperbolic BBC coverage on spending cuts. I had all that when I was interviewed four years ago and has the world fallen in? No it has not.

Such criticism of Norman Smith takes me back (again) to my old blog where I regularly used the word "hyperbole" to denounce "Anti-Tory Norm" - so regularly that I suspect he must have been reading my endless reviews of his reports and decided to throw in a use of the self-same word on The World Tonight. What made me to suspect that he'd done so was that he seemed never to have actually said it before, mispronouncing it as "hyperbowl". 

How funny then that George Osborne should deploy the same word in criticism "Anti-Tory Norm" here - and that David Cameron echoed him! (I'm not suspecting this time that they've been scouring the internet for criticism of Norman Smith and found my old posts though because "hyperbolic" is obviously just a word that pops into some people's heads after they've heard Norman Smith doing his thing.)

What Norm said on that morning's Today bears re-printing. It is certainly full of hyperbole, stylistically-speaking: "hugely", "extraordinary", "joy", "hulking great mountain of pain", "huge, huge", "massive", "utterly terrifying", "a book of doom", "an extraordinary, cavernous financial hole", "yesterday's razzmatazz", "we could probably all do with a few Alka Seltzer this morning because there's a real feeling of the morning after the night before" and, of course, "you're back to the land of Road to Wigan Pier":

I think it was a hugely politically astute Autumn Statement but we could probably all do with a few Alka Seltzer this morning because there's a real feeling of the morning after the night before.

While there was a lot of enthusiasm on the Conservative benches and political joy at a lot of the popular measures, when you sit down and read the Office for Budget Responsibility report it reads like a book of doom. It is utterly terrifying, suggesting that spending will have to be hacked back to the levels of the 1930s as a proportion of GDP.

That is an extraordinary concept, you're back to the land of Road to Wigan Pier.

The scale of cuts details in non-protected departments will face cuts of roughly another third. You have to question whether that is achievable. We are told that 60 per cent of the cuts are still to come. We are facing an extraordinary, cavernous financial hole, which to some extent yesterday's razzmatazz around a politically popular budget rather glossed over.

There was a slightly Brownesque moment when the Chancellor came to read out the deficit figures and cantered over the figures for the next two years, when the deficit is going up, and plummeted on the figures by 2020 when things get better. He is clinging to these forecasts in five years time to divert from the hulking great mountain of pain we've got to climb up.

These forecasts are fine and dandy but we all know they are usually wrong. Chancellors invariably seize on these forecasts as a fiscal fig-leaf to cover up the embarrassments they face now. There are massive uncertainties.

Some of the proposals the Chancellor outlined, for example the Google tax – is that really going to claw in money, are companies like Google going to be so easy to get money out of, is productivity going to pick up. There have to be huge, huge question marks whether we are indeed by 2020 going to move out from out of the red and into the black.

The case for Norman Smith here is that, ignoring his tendencies towards hyperbole, he's telling the truth about the political fallout from the Autumn Statement and what the OBR report says about the scale of the cuts and a return to 1930s levels of public spending and that if people don't like the message they shouldn't shoot the messenger and, as the Guardian puts it in its defence of the BBC, "it is absurd that a short, live two-way by one correspondent at 6am should be greeted by apocalyptic statements from Downing Street about the stance of the BBC as a whole".

The case against Norman Smith is that his hyperbole isn't just stylistic and that he's applying his own negative spin here, giving an account of the political fallout that wouldn't have displeased the Labour Party. Yes, the OBR said that public spending will fall to 1930s levels but it was Norman Smith who expressed the view that this is "utterly terrifying", doubtless giving vent to his own feelings about cutting public spending. 

As for bring in Orwell's book about the bleakness of working class life during the Great Depression and implying that the cuts could result in a similar fate for present-day people over the coming years, well, Norman Smith is making a loaded statement - and when senior BBC political correspondents make loaded statements on matters of political controversy they should expect to be called on it.

Whether he's going to be proved right  though is something we can't know yet  - and it's being debated all over the place -  but it is likely to be just scaremongering, and scaremongering about the effects of the public spending cuts has been a constant criticism of the BBC from its right-wing critics, from David Cameron downwards, over the past four years. 

Even the Guardian sort-of-conceded that Norman Smith was "on the wrong side of...the thin line...between a vivid description of a subject that might otherwise cause the listener to nod off, and crossing over into exaggeration."

John Humphrys leaped to Norman Smith's defence, saying that his reference to The Road to Wigan Pier was meant as "a joke". Well, colour me sceptical about that!

Simon Heffer, writing in the Mail, is scathing about Norman Smith in particular...: 

To most people, Mr Osborne’s strategy is not only common sense but it is morally right.

But to Norman Smith, the assistant political editor of the BBC, it is ‘utterly terrifying’.

Ludicrously, he went on to suggest that public spending will have to be ‘hacked back’ to the levels of the Depression-hit 1930s.

As Dominic Sandbrook points out elsewhere in today’s Mail, modern Britain is nothing like the 1930s.

For a senior political correspondent working for our supposedly impartial national broadcaster to make such an observation is not just improper, but little short of outrageous.

It is vital in a healthy democracy for opinion-formers — especially those working for the state broadcaster — to analyse party policies fairly, and not to indulge in absurd historical parallels.

...but goes on to argue that it's a BBC-wide problem, calling much of its coverage of this subject matter "propaganda". He believes the government's earlier timidity when it comes to fighting BBC bias on the subject is finally crumbling and that they now regret not taking action against it earlier.

The government does indeed seem to be taking the fight to the BBC, along with the Sun, the Telegraph and the Mail. They all really seem to mean business this time. The BBC is clearly finding that "utterly terrifying", as well it might (as is the Guardian.)

Politicians and media rivals attacking an 'independent' broadcaster for reporting things in a way they disagree with isn't something people should just uncritically get behind, of course. Far from it. That kind of thing in a democracy needs watching closely, but if the BBC is 'spinning for Labour' or 'spinning against the cuts' or 'spinning against Israel' or 'spinning for immigration' (etc), then it needs calling. As Simon Heffer says,

I am a strong supporter of the BBC and believe that some of its output is world-class. But it needs to represent the view not just of the Hampstead Left but of the British people as a whole if it wishes to survive its charter renewal in 2016.

And amen to that, Simon.

"A fight to the death"

It has certainly been quite a week for the BBC. It's been engaged in a war on several fronts.

The Telegraph this morning has a piece by its senior political correspondent Steven Swinford which opens with the words: 

The BBC wants Labour to win the General Election because it is in a “fight to the death” over the future of the licence fee, Conservative MPs have claimed.

The article itself only quotes one Conservative MP, Andrew Bridgen:

They [the BBC] are in a fight to the death over the future of the licence fee. They know that if Labour comes along it's business as usual but if the Tories come in the licence fee will be cut or abolished.

This is going to be a very tight election now and the corporation's lack of balance could tip the balance in Labour's favour. The BBC is in a privileged position as a national broadcaster funded by the licence fee, and it should recognise that.

As you would expect, the BBC (quote in the Telegraph article) thinks it's getting it about right:

A BBC source said: "We are satisfied with our coverage. It [the criticism] is only going to intensify as we get close to the election. We are braced for that."

And, yes, such criticism is bound to crescendo before an election and politicians (from all sides) will attempt to try it on with the BBC; however, intensifying criticism in the run-up to an election could also come about because BBC bias really does get stronger in the run-up to a general election. 

My old blog was part of the last crescendo in 2009-10 and (I think) provided a good deal of evidence that the BBC wasn't anywhere near as impartial as it likes to think it is - from the way Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green politicians were given less challenging interviews (on average) that Conservative, UKIP or SNP ones to the way the BBC News website's live blog during the election was skewed in a similar, sharp fashion. 

Some of that was doubtless the result of the collective unconscious bias of a mass of individual BBC reporters [plus some glaring examples of conscious bias - remember Sarah Bell, the Lib Dem-supporting BBC report whose outrageously biased article promoting the Lib Dem candidate Susan Kramer in Richmond had to be withdrawn?], but is possible that the BBC is now beginning a deliberate corporation-wide push to get Labour elected and the Tories booted out in order to protect its own position (which seems to follow from Mr Bridgen's point)?

It's a point many in the BBC Bias Blogosphere believe, and have believed for a long time. It's hard conclusively proving that it's deliberate, planned, fully-intended pro-Labour bias on the BBC's part though, as opposed to a largely unconscious bias arising out of the BBC's overwhelmingly left-liberal groupthink. The latter is bad enough but the former would be absolutely incendiary if found to be true. A few leaked memos to the effect would probably be needed for the charge to stick.

Still, it's hardly a great leap of faith though to believe that the BBC, as a whole, would be much happier with a (Labour-led) government that won't change its licence fee funding than with a (Conservative-led) government that probably will.

If so, how far and in what ways that unhappiness manifests itself over the coming months? We will have to see. 

The Map of Twitter

Found this funny. Thought I'd share. Using short sentences.

Courtesy of @pandamoanimum, @davidlbereseford and @davidschneider.

And so to bed...

Running a small-scale, non-self-promoting blog like this between the two of us - a quiet(ish), non-campaigning, personal place for Sue and me to pour out our semi-organised thoughts about BBC bias and other matters (pace the blog's name, and accompanying get-out clause) - it's inevitably hard to keep up with the totality of BBC-bias-related matters...

...especially this week, when (unusually) BBC-bias-related matters have returned to centre-stage after a relative lull (see elsewhere)...

...Family, friends, work, home repairs, I'm a Celebrity (for me), The Apprentice (for Sue), etc...all of these delightful things keep getting in our way and, as a result Is the BBC biased? grabs what it can and says what it can, and can do nothing more.

All we can do is write about what we see, read and hear...

...which may not be very much, given the sheer vastness of the BBC's output (an almost Borges-like infinite library of broadcast material), but, hopefully, what we do manage to catch is enough to give our blog sufficient purpose for you, our readers (bless you), to bother reading us.

So, grabbing what I can before going to bed...

After watching I'm a Celebrity on ITV (Tinchy and Kendra out) I've been watching Newsnight on BBC Two. To be brutal, Kirsty Wark is no Ant and Dec. Please allow me, therefore, to vent my spleen on the subject (like you have any choice in the matter, given that it's our blog and we can post whatever drivel we like on any subject we like. So there!)...

Newsnight began by bashing the coalition government over the "parlous state" of the RAF's tornado fleet (as if the BBC cares about the RAF), interviewing a military man and a Labour politician. The military man said the programme was airing the grievances of just one man (as, indeed, it was). The Labour MP bashed the government.  

Newsnight then bashed a private company, following a report on yesterday's Newsnight's work by ex-TUC man Duncan Weldon on the same company. Duncan returned and the private company in question was well and truly named and shamed for the second day running. A Labour MP called Toby (of all things) was then interviewed and went for the moral high ground. 

Then it was onto U.S. matters and white policemen bashing black people ("US police brutality", as the Newsnight website put it).

The BBC often gets accused of obsessing about this sort of story, and - given the BBC's voracious reporting of recent racially-charged events in America - it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt on such a charge. 

The BBC also gets accused (in certain circles) of "race-baiting". Here, in response to this story, there was a race-baiting interview with...oh please BBC, don't be so blatant and go there!...oh no...finger-gesturing U.S. director Spike Lee. (Yes, really).

Then it was onto "class, money and privilege". Another Newsnight dig at non-BBC programme Benefits Street (another obsessive Newsnight bogeyman) from Kirsty Wark led to a discussion on the issue between a posh magazine editor and a lefty arts type. 

Finally, and inevitably, it was onto a snide closing section featuring images of breastfeeding Madonnas in classic paintings - all there to mock Nigel Farage. 

As if Nigel said anything wrong. 

And as if parading a gallery of great paintings of bared-breasted virgins with divine children proved Nigel wrong. 

Still, if your audience is gullible or susceptible enough - and doesn't listen to what the UKIP leader actually said without wanting to damn him in advance - then they'll believe anything. Especially if it's said by a BBC presenter.

And so, indeed, to bed. Goodnight, and may the bed bugs keep their gnashers to themselves.

And tonight's 'Is the BBC biased?' Trivial Post of the Day award goes to Craig for...

Just to keep Sue up to date...

Alas, the BBC's Michael Buerk went a couple of days ago, but...and bite on this, Beeboids...a Tory...yes a Tory!...has been voted into the last four of ITV's I'm a Celebrity. 

If anyone spots a single BBC tweeter egging on Edwina to win, please let us know!

The BBC News website exposes its...bias

...and, in the light of the previous post, I've just clicked on the BBC News website and found that the 'most read' and 'most shared' article is Nigel Farage defends breastfeeding comments amid row in which our Nigel "insists" on this and that, and is "criticised" by all and sundry - i.e presisely the sort of piece those YouGov respondents might have had in mind.

So (as we scientists say) what is all that 'reading' and 'sharing' about then? 

Well, a clue might be provided by the Comments section beneath the BBC article. 

Click on the 'Highest Rated' and you'll see all manner of people slagging off the media/the BBC for using this against UKIP and saying that Nigel has a point. 

The public were clearly very excited by this story. The article has 1,143 comments. 

However, in a short space of time [considerably less than 24 hours] the BBC moderators declared, "This entry is now closed for comments", so 1,143 comments will be all that the BBC allows. 

The BBC News website is, it seems, unwilling to let its readers continue publicly breastfeeding their views on this article. The British public, pace YouGov, will doubtless draw their own conclusions. 

Is the media (the BBC?) biased against UKIP? The public says, 'Yes'

The mob-like tendencies of social media outlets were well described by Matthew Parris (boo!) in the Spectator, though (being an old media man) he rather underplays the extent to which this is, in part, only a quickening and democratisation of the old media's periodic hues-and-cries. 

Another feature of social media outlets, not mentioned by Matthew (though probably implied), is the way they gravitate towards being echo chambers. 

Being part of a social media echo chamber can be very satisfying. It's a friendly place - at least for those inside the echo chamber (though, like a mafia clan, the echo chamber doesn't just look after its own; it also guns down its enemies). 

It's a reassuring place too. In moments of doubt (or insomnia), you might worry that your views aren't widely shared but inside the echo chamber you can relax in the belief that every sane person shares your views, and that - though others (trolls) may disagree - you really are part of one strand of mainstream opinion, and maybe, probably, even the majority strand. 

The risk is that those inside the echo chamber are simply deluding themselves and that those who disagree with the echo chamber (trolls) might actually, God forbid, be the majority point of view after all. 

Take, for example, the vast ranks of Twitter's #bbcbias brigade. 

There's a determined echo chamber evolving there which believes that the BBC is pro-UKIP. It's a fairly small echo chamber compared to the larger echo chamber which believes the BBC is pro-Tory and/or pro-Establishment, but, still, it's out there and very vocal (and, of course, these left-leaning echo chambers overlap).  

I don't think the 'the BBC are pro-UKIP' brigade are pretending (for the most part). They really do seem to blame the BBC (and specifically the BBC) for raising UKIP's profile and making it electorally successful. They count UKIP's appearances on Question Time [Sue's nocturnal favourite!] and ignore the baying anti-UKIP audiences, the highlighting of 'inappropriate' UKIP comments from minor UKIP party figures (at the expense of other, worse, unreported comments from mainstream, higher profile figures), the high interruption coefficients (to coin a phrase) against UKIP interviewees by BBC interviewers, the regular anti-UKIP tweets (and retweets) of high-profile BBC reporters (and there have been more of those today from Hugh Sykes and Jon Donnison), etc, etc. 

Such people are living in a fantasy world; however, by echoing and re-tweeting each other, they come to believe themselves to be the majority point of view - the voice of reason...

....however, (h/t Guido Fawkes) polling evidence shows they aren't any such thing. (Bring me the smelling salts, nurse!)

A fascinating YouGov survey, reveals that a majority of the British public thinks the British media (including the BBC) is biased against UKIP - and biased at the behest of the political class. (Mr Fawkes draws the conclusion that you can’t fool the public all the time).

This is intriguing, isn't it? If you apply it to the BBC (and some of the respondents must have done), it kind-of ties in with the 'the BBC is pro-Establishment' line a significant minority of people polled in such surveys say they believe. It also seems to transcend simple Left/Right divides. 

And, reinforcing this, YouGov is keen to highlight that this view is largely non-partisan. It notes that majorities of UKIP (77%) and Conservative (53%) supporters take this view, as well as pluralities of Lib Dems (31%) and Labour (40%).

The more general aspect of YouGov's polling is just as interesting, but I doubt it can be so readily applied to the BBC as, here, people are aware of the party preferences of most UK newspapers and will doubtless factor that into their answers:

Cure for insomnia

What are you supposed to do when you wake up in the middle of the night and you just know that you’re going to stay awake. Make toast? Or watch Question Time on the iPad. 

If only Yvette Cooper would direct her not inconsiderable passion and intelligence to less juvenile, more sophisticated political ideas she’d be okay. Must be the old man. 

As soon as that poor guy in the audience had finished asking his abominable question, I knew that Yvette was about to say ‘diversity’. 

It’s as if Yvette and co. are stuck in a time warp where landladies automatically have ‘No blacks, No Irish’ notices in the window, and Yvette and her colleagues have to win them round by explaining that blacks and Irish are not all that bad and the landladies should broaden their minds and they’d actually enjoy the craick and the curry.

But times have changed, and now that our noses have been truly rubbed in diversity, some of us are thinking enough’s enough.

There’s a thread on the Spectator about Sajid Javis’s contribution. “I’m called Sajid, and I’m fiercely patriotic about our country”.

Yeah, right. Everyone agrees that old Sajid seems like a nice guy. And he’s patriotic, and a potential party leader and all that. But the way the audience and the panel rounded on the questioner for having the audacity to ask whether ‘British values’ are in any way being challenged by the fact that the most popular baby’s name is now Mohammad (or any variation thereof) was sad to behold. 

The obvious implication was that increasing Muslim numbers might be threatening UK demographics, what with the fertility and the reluctance to integrate. But we’re not allowed to say any such thing these days. 

Another aspect of this baby names malarkey is rarely mentioned. It always struck me as faintly amusing when a clearly ethnic person has been given a bog standard British name.   At the same time rather touching -  and incongruous - like when Levi Roots revealed, to much amusement, that his given name was Keith. Naming your child in the tradition of one’s host country does show adaptability and a kind of respect.

Many eastern European Jews had to change or Anglicize their names when they came here. Some because they were hard for English speakers to pronounce, some so that they could sidestep prejudice, and some just because they were willing to adapt.

If Muslim families determinedly hang on to the name ‘Mohammed’ for ever and ever, could that be interpreted as a statement?

I have to say that when, say, you’re on the phone to some godforsaken call centre and the voice at the other end says ‘You’re speaking to ...” and then mumbles some unfamiliar sound that, unless ask them to spell it out slowly, you will never comprehend, let alone remember, I do find it vaguely annoying that we native indigenes have to adapt to them and not the other way round. 

On the other hand, when you get a call from some impenetrably Pakistani-accented  youth who says he’s ringing about your Windows computer, can he have your bank details and pin number please, and his name is Michael Jackson, that’s equally annoying. 

Oh dear this has turned into a rant.

Anyway, Question Time is a parallel world. No good getting all hot and bothered about an insincerity-fest that is unlikely to develop or change. Might as well sit back and enjoy the  pantomime.

The BBC v the media

I have to write something about “The BBC v the media.”

The BBC has hit back at critics who have questioned executive salaries, asking whether licence payers are actually getting good value for money.

The BBC has issued, via Twitter, a rebuttal. 

The Telegraph’s Anita Singh doesn’t seem convinced. She cites a number of figures which make the BBC’s protestations of prudence seem slightly disingenuous.

Danny Cohen has begged journalists to be “less of the critical friend and a bit more of the friend” to the corporation. 

What about the critics who feel the BBC is politically biased, institutionally anti-Israel and out of touch with half the viewers? What about the critics who respect the power and influence the BBC still commands, but wish it could be turned around, shaken up and used to better effect? 

At the moment it’s not only the profligate squandering of resources that we criticise, but the inherent left-wing bias, the lack of imagination and lack of variety, the political correctness, the ubiquity of certain ‘personalities’ who appear time and time again, on everything, till everyone’s sick of the sight of them. 

Cohen stressed the importance of the BBC, its outstanding reputation and the fact that it delivers education and deep joy and stimulation to 97 % of the population every month.

Maybe it did, once.

There has been criticism of the large amount of repeats scheduled for the Christmas period. That does seem to be a pretty poor state of affairs, what with all those over-paid managers and high-salaried TV talent, you’d think they could cobble together some original material to entertain us over the dreary Christmas hols.  

Miscellaneous observations

I am neither an historian nor an expert on religion. In fact I am a secular non-believer. But, and it’s a big but, putting myself in the shoes of the average viewer/listener, I’m baffled about the media’s widespread lack of curiosity about the status quo vis a vis Jewish prayer rights at Jerusalem’s holiest place. To me it’s in the same bracket as the apparent universal acceptance of Mahmoud Abbas’s boast that any future Palestinian state will be entirely Jew-free in the light of a general willingness to accuse Israel of apartheid-ism, especially in regard to this prospective ‘Israel as a Jewish State’ law that’s causing such political turmoil.

So, in my ignorance, I’m wondering this: Since there is this long-standing ‘Muslim-only’ prayer scenario at what’s apparently the holiest place for Jews and the third holiest place for Islam, why should it appear so very surprising (and threatening) that certain religious Jews might want to question this. However, since the Israeli government has shown no sign that the ‘no prayers by Jews’ status quo is in any danger whatsoever, it seems equally surprising to me, as your average listener on the sofa, that any of this campaigning by religious Jews (to no avail) could be considered in any way, shape or form, an ‘attack’. But there it is.

(Out of curiosity I had a look at the “prayer” business, which is not at all straightforward - some religious Jews consider the physical site too holy to walk upon, so they wouldn’t be advocating any changes there even if Rabbi Glick’s campaign had been more successful.)

The reporting of the synagogue murders has been pretty awful. It has been examined in great detail over the last few days, and neatly summarised by Hadar at BBC Watch.

An even bigger mystery to me is why the BBC doesn’t report the incitement that is so blatantly going on by both Hamas and Fatah. 

At a time when one after another Islam-related terror plot or Muslim grooming gang conviction is making our own UK headlines, something of the nature of the incompatibility of certain other cultures with our own is slowly seeping through, but still the fear of racism or the constraints of political correctness or something I don’t yet understand prevents the final leap  - eureka! - to the right conclusion. 

 One day everyone must surely see what’s behind the I/P conflict.

*******

Here’s something else I’d like to comment on. It’s a wistful piece by Marc Goldberg on Harry’s Place. It’s nothing much to do with the BBC. Well, perhaps indirectly. 

He’s just got married and for some inexplicable reason ended his honeymoon back in the UK with a tour of the Harry Potter set.  (What?) Never mind. Different strokes.

“Is there anyone here from....?” asked the tour guide, who wanted to know how far and wide Harry Potterism had spread. People volunteered various countries.

The crux of the matter was - should they fess up - to the fact that they were from Israel? Why cause a situation?

The new wife was against. She knew. She didn’t want to have to be on the defensive on her honeymoon.

This is the thing. As the non religious progeny of vaguely non religious Jewish parents and the most assimilated person you could hope to meet, I do know one thing. Israel is the only place one could ever be freely ‘Jewish’ and be normal. 

Not have to gird your loins. Not have to be on the defensive. Not have to be condescended to. Not have to be thought exotic. And I’m the most British person one could ever hope to patronise.

*******

After half watching several glowing obituary-like tributes to Gordo on the TV the other day from people like Peter Mandelson and Al Campbell, it was nice to see the different approaches in the Times. Daniel Finkelstein’s “Good riddance to Gordon the incredible sulk.” (£) and the other one “Gordon tried to sack me”.  It seems he was fond of trying to sack people.

I can’t help remembering from the old Biased-BBC days, how people were continually incensed by the BBC’s pro-Gordon attitude. In retrospect It all kind of seems more dangerous, the more we’re told. From the Fink: 

“I used to think (I feel a little ashamed of this now) that my colleagues in the press were spending too much time chronicling the disputes between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Now I think perhaps we didn’t spend enough time on it.Reading the diaries and memoirs of the Blair years it is obvious that Mr. Brown’s impossible antics - which were worse than reported - had a serious and damaging impact on the governing of the country.. it prevented the prime minister from exercising proper control over his government, its spending and its reforms.”

******* 

Did you see Michael Buerk on the BBC news channel?

 He was voted off “I’m a celebrity” yesterday it seems. (You’ll have to ask Craig, he’s a fan.)

 The anchor began interviewing him in a somewhat confrontational manner I thought. “Do you regret appearing in this?” “Was it a mistake? “ he asked, expecting, I thought, a defensive, defiant reply. Michael Buerk wasn’t at all defensive or defiant. He took the wind out of the BBC chap’s sails with such nicely expressed honesty that I was quite taken aback. 

Does this, together with, say, Nigel Farage’s somewhat refreshing lack of politician-speak herald a new era of unspun straight talking  from unexpected quarters? Wouldn’t that be nice?

*******

Don’t you just hate the TV cliches that have taken hold with such repetitive predictability that they make programmes unwatchable? One of these is the annoying pause that has grown longer and longer before revealing who is ‘leaving us’? Is this televisual tension, suspense, heightened drama or just a gigantic pain in the neck?

*******

I forgot to watch the Apprentice last night so I’ll have to watch it on iPlayer I suppose, if I can be bothered. I haven’t warmed to any of the participants this time, and the format is becoming unbearably intrusive. What’s the point of the internal phone call to the ‘receptionist’? “Send the candidates in, please.” Do we need to see that every single time? The way Lord Sugar pronounces “Pleasse” is getting particularly annoying. The best thing he has ever said by way of a catchphrase is “With regret”. 

“With regret” is something I might need to use myself. Must remember it.

The Price of immigration?

The last time we mentioned BBC reporter Matthew Price it was in connection to a tweet of his, spotted by Biased BBC's DB:

"Israel, as a colony, cannot continue to exist" - interesting article - http://t.co/NISKmAf1rk
— Matthew Price (@BBCMatthewPrice) August 6, 2014

The article that Matthew Price found so interesting virtually called for the dismantling of the state of Israel:

It is time to call a spade a spade: Israel, as a colony, is a constant source of violence and conflict. It is not an ex-colony, nor is it an accepted part of the world for many. It is a territory in the Middle East under Western occupation, which possesses no political legitimacy now, nor can it ever acquire such legitimacy in the future because it has no raison d'être and cannot create one.

At about the same time he announced a career move:

End of my era - after 12 years as a BBC Foreign Correspondent I'm off to @BBCr4today to be their Chief Correspondent. Exciting times!
— Matthew Price (@BBCMatthewPrice) July 31, 2014

Well, he's arrived as Today's Chief Correspondent now and is fronting a series of occasional reports on immigration.

In Monday's programme he followed in the spirit of his earlier reporting from abroad

Every migrant I spoke to is fleeing war, not coming to "steal a job". Put yourself in their shoes. Would you take your family elsewhere?
— Matthew Price (@BBCMatthewPrice) June 21, 2014

by interviewing an Eritrean illegal immigrant, the story of whose journey from the authoritarian hellhole of Eritrea through anarchic Libya and across the dangerous Med through Italy and France to our shores was bound to make us admire the man's spirit and force us to put ourselves in his shoes - i.e. to empathise, even sympathise with him. 

In Tuesday's programme, Matthew Price reported from northern England. His report began in a doctor's surgery in Huddersfield, a place "which is used to registering non-British patients". Matthew asked Yvonne Armstrong, the practice manager, whether her surgery has "the correct resources at the moment to deal with the changing nature of migration", She replied, "I would say no", pointing especially to staff having to deal with so many languages.

Very quickly, however, came the following question from Matthew Price:

So migration is bad for Britain, or at least parts of it?

Answered in this way:

 Not so, argues the head of Migration Yorkshire.

The head of Migration Yorkshire, Dave Brown, said that studies show that "nationally there is a benefit to migration." The problem, said Dave, is that people are confused about this at the local level because the taxes the migrants pay in go to the national government. He thinks that more of the money generated by migrants should be spent locally.

Matthew Price then went to a homeless shelter and spoke to a Polish immigrant they've taken in. He lost his job last year and thanks to the government's benefit changes has been "forced to rely on charities like this one". Mirosław said that he likes this country and wants to stay. Adam Clark of the shelter, run by Hope Housing, added that the government's benefit cuts have had "a massive impact" and brought about "destitution on a whole new level really".

"Campaigners say the reduction in benefits for migrants from the UK at a national level is leading to increased costs at the local level...", echoed Matthew. 

He then went to a school near York whose funding model is in part dependent on wealthy foreign families paying to send their children there. Headteacher Mark Rowan, Matthew said, "is convinced immigration is good for the country but he fears the impact the current political debate is having":

I think the mood music around the debate has led to a much tighter feel in terms of us securing visas for young people to come into this school and this is an experience also at universities. There are other countries which have a much more positive approach, such as Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.

Matthew's pay-off line was: 

A key problems seems to be that the costs and benefits of migration are unequally spread across the country and that is having a huge effect on how the issue is both viewed and tackled.

Having spoken to a practice manager who expressed no views for or against immigration (merely described the situation at her surgery), to then interview another sympathetic immigrant feature three pro-immigration speakers and no anti-immigration speakers is hardly what you would call 'impartial reporting'. 

It's precisely these kind of reports that make charges of BBC pro-immigration bias stick - despite the claims of Helen Boaden, Nick Robinson, Mark Robinson and John Humphrys that, though such a pro-immigration bias used to exist, the BBC is OK now. 

To add insult to injury on Tuesday's edition, this undeniably biased report was followed by an interview with another pro-immigration speaker - Professor Ian Goldin of Oxford University, who said (among other things) that as far as immigration is concerned, "the benefits far outweigh the costs":

The benefits in the short term for the country overall are positive and in the long term they are even more positive because innovation and dynamism comes from immigrants.

He believes that immigrants should be spread more widely across the whole country, "so that the country as a whole benefits". 

Mishal Husain, doing the interviewing, wasn't her usual robust self, refraining from interrupting and merely asking such questions as: 

And, overall, when you see the kind of debate that we're having, how do you think it should be dealt with? Because there's clearly a gap between the kind of analysis that you have put forward now saying, overall, economically immigration is beneficial and what people feel in their local communities.

His reply?

Well, I believe that politicians should lead with a much stronger message that this is, overall, positive for the economy....and, of course, many of the people who say immigration should be stopped are themselves the sons of immigrants or the grandchildren of immigrants. Indeed our Royal Family have been immigrants at one time. So I think we need to tell a much more positive message and we need to be able to argue against those who say it's going to be bad. 

That didn't get a sceptical challenge and nor did his subsequent answer to a question about London, saying that everyone wanted to live in London because of its vibrancy, thanks to immigration. Raising the obvious point about 'white flight' from London never seemed to enter Mishal's head there.

Is a pattern emerging? Well, the last report [as far as I can see, and I've looked closely] from Matthew Price on this subject was on 24th November. 

He reported from a Polish Society centre in Bradford, beginning (briefly) with a long-term Polish immigrant who expressed the view that immigration should now be reduced. Then it was onto a Polish immigrant worker who is having his tax credits cut. Matthew asked him if that would "make things even more difficult". The worker said that England will lose out on "good workers". A Hungarian outreach worker said the government's benefit changes wouldn't have put her off because she didn't come here to claim benefits. 

York University's Professor Charlotte O'Brien then criticised the government's benefit changes, arguing that it hasn't worked in deterring immigrants from coming, it's just made those "at the bottom end poorer". [Her Twitter feed makes it even clear that she's strongly left-wing and very pro-immigration.] Increasing "destitution" and "child poverty" have followed. 

He then told us that "the vast majority" of EU immigrants who come here "are working and contributing to the economy", visiting a French bakery, where one immigrant worker didn't even know she could claim benefits.  

Finally, it was back to the Polish worker who complained earlier about England losing out on good workers.  He said that things were "too tight" and that "England is now no good for Polish people coming".

So, again - except for the long-term Polish immigrant at the start of his package, this report featured pleasant immigrants either reassuring us immigration or stressing the disadvantages of the government's benefit changes. The expert voice, again, was pro-immigration one.

Whether this pattern continues - and Today says the programme will continue with such reports over the coming months - only time will tell. Is Matthew Price going to be more balanced as time passes? Or persist in helping the BBC critics to prove continuing pro-immigration bias at the BBC? 

"empty...hollow...there is no plan, no plot, no narrative"

This, courtesy of George at Biased BBC, is an interesting way for a BBC reporter/presenter to describe a British party leader. It comes from a blogpost by Mark Mardell:

To watch David Cameron in action is as thrilling and as empty an experience as watching a Hollywood blockbuster.

It seems impossible that he can survive the forces ranged against him, but he buys time, survives for a precious minute, which gives him an hour, which gives him a day.

But there is a hollowness too, for it dawns on the viewer that this is all about survival, buying time until it is time to fight the next battle, but there is no plan, no plot, no narrative - which makes what happens after the election, if he wins, fascinating and troubling.

Ouch! 

Now, he may be right or he may be wrong about our clueless PM but should he be saying it, especially given how damning it it?

During his time as the BBC's North America Editor Mark Mardell certainly made use of the extra license granted to BBC editors to editorialise, but now he's back in Blighty as presenter of The World at One and The World This Weekend - programmes that primarily deal with British politics - should he be allowed to keep that side of his journalism going? 

Given how harmful such an analysis could be to David Cameron, especially as we near an election, shouldn't such sentiments be left to his guests, whether they be Mr Cameron's political opponents or newspaper pundits?

He may have been able to get away with that sort of thing with regards to U.S. politics (showing much more 'understanding' to President Obama than to his opponents), but he's going to have to be very careful about trying it here. UK politicians on the receiving end of such barbs could do something about it.  

Again

You may recall this criticism of the BBC featured in a previous post:

In traditional news style, an article is supposed to be structured as a metaphorical “pyramid” of information, with the most important facts stated as concisely as possible at the very top, and with each sentence more details and more elaboration are added 

But in the postmodern BBC “biased reporting style guide,” the pyramid is intentionally inverted, such that the details you want to obscure are hidden so far down in the article that no one will notice them. The only reason to include these details at all is so that, if later criticized, you can truthfully claim that you reported “all the facts.”

In that light, consider the following accounts of the same horrific story. The first comes from The Times:

France shocked by anti-Semitic rape of teenager

A brutal rape of a Jewish teenager and burglary of her home by a gang of apparently Muslim youths is being seen as evidence of growing anti-Semitism in France.

The assault at gunpoint, in which the attackers demanded cash because “Jews have money”, sparked a wave of indignation and an upsurge of fear in France’s 500,000 strong Jewish community.

Observers said it showed how anti-Semitic stereotypes peddled by the far right for centuries are now being expressed by youths of Muslim origin from impoverished suburban estates.

Hain Korsia, the country’s Chief Rabbi, said the attack came amid the “programmed destruction of the French dream” under the twin forces of anti-Semitism and racism.

President Hollande said: “It is not simply the family that is wounded, attacked. It is the greatness of France.”

Behind his words lie an acute concern about a surge in anti-Semitism perpetrated, primarily, by disaffected Muslim youths of north African origin. There were several attacks on Jewish businesses and synagogues in Paris during the summer.

The second comes from the BBC News website:

France anti-Semitism: Hollande condemns Creteil attack

French President Francois Hollande has spoken out against an "unbearable" assault on a young couple near Paris which ministers say was anti-Semitic.

The two victims, a woman aged 19 and her boyfriend, 21, were tied up in his family's flat and the woman was raped.

Their lawyer said three men had burst into the flat, telling the boyfriend: "You Jews, you have money."

Two of the alleged attackers have been detained and a suspected accomplice is also being held.

They have been placed under formal investigation and are also suspected of beating up an elderly Jewish man last month.

France has the largest Jewish community in Europe and a recent report said there had been a significant increase in anti-Semitic acts there this year. It is also home to the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, and there was a spike in attacks in the summer during Israel's conflict with Palestinian militants in Gaza.

Even when the BBC article finally gets round to mentions Muslims it words the section so coyly as to leave readers having to draw their own conclusions (or not as the case may be) as to why France's Muslim population might be relevant to the story.

This pattern of downplaying the alleged responsibility - or even the actual responsibility - of Muslims for acts of violence is something we've commented on about the BBC News website on many occasions before. It is too much of a pattern simply to be dismissed as occasional one-offs. It seems like an active BBC policy. 

Must Read

I’ve been “away from the office” recently, but I have to mention two outstanding ‘must-reads’.

The first has already been highlighted by Elder and BBC Watch, and has, no doubt, already been devoured by anyone who is concerned about the BBC’s damaging portrayal of Israel. It’s another media related tour de force by Matti Friedman, who pleased many frustrated BBC watchers with his earlier piece  “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth” August 2014, Tablet magazine. We wrote about it here.

In Friedman’s latest article, published in The Atlantic is titled “What the Media gets Wrong About Israel” he reiterates some of the points he made previously. The disproportionate media attention devoted to this conflict relative to other stories, the grossly oversimplified, distorted story it creates, and the telling lack of editorial interest in anything that would interfere with it.

He expands on what we might call ‘confirmation bias’. A toxic mix of assorted transient, ‘here today gone tomorrow’ reporters, all of whom are expected to assimilate or ‘acculturate’ instantly, from day one, when they arrive in an unfamiliar situation, falling straight into the arms of the welcoming, closed-world media social circle that has ties with pro Palestinian NGOs, humanitarian agencies, ‘numerous’ arms of the UN, left wing Israeli ‘peace‘ activists,  staffers and stringers from the PA. 

“This provides them not only with sources and friendships but with a ready-made framework for their reporting—the tools to distill and warp complex events into a simple narrative in which there is a bad guy who doesn’t want peace and a good guy who does. This is the “Israel story,” and it has the advantage of being an easy story to report.”

“In these circles, in my experience, a distaste for Israel has come to be something between an acceptable prejudice and a prerequisite for entry.”

Hamas’s understanding and manipulation of the press’s default narrative  -  Israel as the oppressor and the Palestinians as passive victims  - herds the media towards acting as an unwitting conduit for Hamas propaganda. Hamas will engineer faux ‘confessions’ of tolerance and soft-heartedness, which the press presents as a ‘scoop’. “The Muslim Brotherhood is Actually Liberal” and so on. Now, where have we heard that before, Mr. Bowen?

He explains how concealing the ubiquity of “other reporters” is necessary to maintain the illusion. The truth would reveal Hamas’s strategy of deliberately attacking from behind Palestinian civilians, drawing Israeli response and having the press on hand to film the resultant Palestinian casualties “with the understanding that the resulting outrage abroad will blunt Israel’s response.” 

Hamas’s ruthless M.O. is predicated on the cooperation of journalists.

“Hamas understood that journalists would not only accept as fact the Hamas-reported civilian death toll—relayed through the UN or through something called the “Gaza Health Ministry,” an office controlled by Hamas—but would make those numbers the center of coverage. Hamas understood that reporters could be intimidated when necessary and that they would not report the intimidation;”

It seems that the BBC insisted at the time that the UN figures were reliable; will the BBC acknowledge that this is not the case?

The btl comments at The Atlantic consist of bickering between pro and anti-Israel keyboard warriors. The fantasies used by the antis to defend the media and justify their impenetrable anti-Israel advocacy is based on a combo of staggering ignorance and uncritical and wholehearted acceptance of Palestinian Islamist rhetoric not to mention antisemitic propaganda.

To counter that, or some may say to stoop to their level, I’d venture to offer this somewhat extreme piece of prose by Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez, linked to by a defender of the article.  A bit racist, a bit bigoted, but with more than a grain of truth.

The second tour de force is Ambassador Ron Proser’s speech at the UN. Go to Daphne Anson to read the transcript, which is even better than the video, which you can also watch here!

Here are elementary truths that the Israel-bashing brigade find so unpalatable that they simply refuse to listen to them.