Tuesday, 8 March 2016

Potato peelings, anti-migrant sentiment and the Nazis

"The second world war ended over 70 years ago, and only those of a certain age still remember its events at first hand in Germany, and that includes those who worked at the extermination camps at Auschwitz and of course the survivors of the Holocaust. 
Of the thousands of Germans who worked at the death camps, only some of the senior figures were ever prosecuted. But now there are several trials being held in Germany, of lower ranking officials such as guards accused of being accessories to mass murder. They and their surviving victims are in their 90s, and as Jenny Hill’s been finding, it’s reminding Germany of its dark past. All the while anti-migrant sentiment is growing:

"Angela Orosz is small, energetic and she smiles a lot. I find myself laughing along with her as she tells me that her family never threw away potato peelings, preferring to eat them instead. “Potato peelings!” she exclaimed “Can you imagine?” 
Angela was born in Auschwitz. her story is an unimaginable story of human cruelty and human resilience. Her mother was pregnant when she was transported to the death camp. Somehow she survived despite the experiment she was subjected to. Somehow she sustained the pregnancy, eating potato peelings from the camp kitchen, and somehow Angela was born, concealed, and lived the first few months of her life in the camp before its liberation.  Decades later this immaculately dressed dark haired woman sits in front of me. we’re not smiling any more. “Potato peelings”, she repeats, carefully. “They saved my life.” 
Angela recently gave evidence at the trials of two SS guards at Auschwitz. A recent court ruling has made it possible for prosecutors to pursue anyone who worked in a death camp, regardless of their role. One man who’s been convicted of aiding and abetting mass murder, several others have been charged, but they’re all now in their nineties, it’s a race against time to bring them to safe justice. 
The trials fascinate and horrify Germany. They’re a searingly painful reminder of this country’s past. In the municipal blandness of the courtroom survivors recount surprisingly vivid detail. A young woman with bright red hair, shot by a uniformed Nazi; a father’s hand closing the gate on the family home before he was marched roughly away; a sewing machine, carefully, hopefully, carried into the chaos of the train to Auschwitz. It’s all recounted with quiet insistence as weak sunshine pales the wooden floor and traffic faintly murmurs past outside. 
Recently I watched as one of those survivors spoke directly to the former guard in the dock. Leon Schwarzbaum’s eyes are strikingly bright. he has a beautiful smile, but it’s often washed away by an expression of profound sadness. His whole family was killed in Auschwitz. Leon’s eyes were fixed on Reinhold Hanning who was accused of murdering tens of thousands of Jewish prisoners. Crammed together on flimsy plastic chairs, the watching journalists were absolutely still, and I realised I was absolutely holding my breath. “Mr Hanning” he began. “We are about the same age. We will soon face our final judge. I want you to tell the truth about what you did.” 
This, I thought really was Germany, confronting its past, face to face. 
I chatted recently with a lawyer who represents some of the survivors. “These trials” he told me, “really matter” His face creased, emphatic. “It’s about justice, yes, but it’s also about making sure this country doesn’t forget. It’s already forgetting.” 

I wonder whether he’s right, because it seems to me that as Germany confronts the horror of its past again, it’s also facing a stark present reality. 
The refugee crisis has revealed a painful glimpse of what the country’s president Joachim Gauck refers to as ‘dark Germany’. It’s there in the faces of screaming anti migrant protesters illuminated harshly in the headlights of a bus carrying refugees to what should have been a safe house. Or the mob, violently silhouetted by flames who clapped and cheered as a refugee home burned to the ground in front of them. And then there are the swastikas crudely splashed by night discovered by day on the walls of buildings, which house asylum seekers. There have been more than a thousand attacks like these on refugee homes in the last year. Most Germans are horrified. Even so, supports has grown for the grassroots political party in Germany which campaigns against migrants. Its leader recently proposed border guards should make use of their firearms. Germany’s constitutional court is currently deciding whether to ban another political party. The far-right NPD. Many here blame them in part for the current anti-migrant sentiment and violence, but in fact proceedings began two years ago when Germany’s 16 states petitioned the court to outlaw the party, which they claim is racist, antisemitic and has similarities to Hitler’s Nazis. 

I think back to Angela and her potato peelings. She’d also told me how she’s made her nine-year old daughter navigate the city’s subway system alone so that she could survive by herself if the Holocaust happened again. For all her determination and bravery, the circumstances of Angela’s birth have infused her life with a profound insecurity. It’s a frailty that touches Germany, even now.

That is a transcription of Jenny Hill’s FOOC (preceded by Kate Adie’s intro) I’ve done that so that you can judge for yourself. Jenny Hill (Welcome to Germany) regards all refugees fleeing from poverty or war, or seeking ‘a better life’  as unquestionably entitled to unlimited hospitality from western European countries, no matter who, why or where. 

But is the  plight of would-be migrants fleeing from poverty and war really comparable to Germany’s industrialised extermination of the Jews in WW 2? 



Does Germany’s guilt oblige European countries to absorb, permanently or temporarily, millions of destitute and desperate Muslims, when there are vast prosperous Arab countries that could accommodate them without those troublesome ideological differences? 

Did you wonder why Jenny Hill sought to sandwich the refugee crisis in between two slices of Holocaust? Well, she’s by no means the only one who does that, but it seems profoundly crass. She sees superficial similarities, so conflates the two. She alludes to ‘lessons’ that she thinks the Holocaust should have taught us. 
Not ‘Don’t tolerate antisemitism’.  The ‘lesson’ she takes from the Holocaust appears to be:  ‘opposing mass Islamic immigration is racist’ and those who do so (the far-right) are no different to the Nazis.


Is  she really equating Muslim refugees with victims of the Holocaust? Is she saying that opposing the influx of Muslim, (very likely antisemitic) refugees is racist? Have the recent  incidences of sexual harassment and violence in German cities, the rapes in Sweden and so on escaped her? 

I’d like to know what that lawyer meant by “Germany is already forgetting.” I do wonder if he meant that in the way Jenny Hill was emoting. Or the opposite. Forgetting about the consequences of antisemitism perhaps?  Never mind. 

I found Jenny Hill’s use of that ‘potato peelings’ tale cheap, inappropriate and clumsy.  

Introducing a new site...


A new site has just been launched:


I'd urge you to check it out. (I've added it to our sidebar for easy access).

The point of the site is to collate specific examples of BBC bias vis-à-vis the EU referendum, and use them in evidence against the BBC.

The people behind the site are those meticulous folk at News-Watch. 

Having the close ear of leading politicians and campaigners, they will be bending those very ears over the coming months, making sure that all examples of clear bias on the BBC's part are taken forward. 

They need our help though. 

There's a very easy to use form on its home page where any of us can pop in the details of any examples of pro-EU bias we come across. 

Some (with the individual complainant's consent) will then be posted on the site for all to read. 

Every complaint that holds water will be considered and many will be directly fed into high-powered complaints to the BBC. 

The amusing thing about BBC Complaints, with its deliciously crafty internet address - http://bbccomplaints.com - is that the BBC will hate its very existence.

Lots and lots of people will keep stumbling across it on their way to the official BBC complaints site.

Hopefully they'll then register their complaints at both sites!

Sunday, 6 March 2016

Fight!


Time to move away from yesterday and onto today as The Spectator says that Andrew Marr has provoked a big 'BBC bias' stooshie over his interview with Boris on this morning's Marr Show

According to Mr Steerpike, various "Leave activists" (on Twitter) have accused the BBC presenter of being biased against Brexit because of the high number of interruptions during his interview with the London mayor. Andrew Marr has responded (on Twitter) saying: 
To those saying I interrupted BJ too much... It felt like being a fly heckling a steamroller, or twig trying to intervene with a waterfall.
I suppose I ought to watch it before commenting.


Update: Having now watched it, comments about it can be found below.

"I'm confused"



Another reliable source of BBC bias is Anita Anand on Any Answers. Here's how she began this week's edition: 
So tell me, just between friends: Are you finding the EU referendum debate a bit...well...boring? If you are, what can the politicians do to engage you? What will Brexit do to the UK's skills base? Is it going to weaken it? Is it going to strengthen it? Particularly keen to hear from you if you're running a business which maybe employs a significant proportion of EU workers. What happens the day after if we leave? 
Some leading questions and a specific invitation to people who are likely to be pro-Remain. How very Anita in its impartiality!

Still, there was a fair spread of opinion and little of of the blatant one-sided hectoring from the presenter that can sometimes mar the programme.

There were, however, a few callers who sounded as if they were auditioning for Down the Line and Anita didn't entirely refrain from hectoring either - such as this call which I would be seriously failing in my duties as a blogger not to transcribe in full (as it's pure comedy gold):


Caller: Afternoon. I'm really confused now. For years and years and years I've been a firm federal Europist. With David Cameron's shenanigans - because nobody really believes what he said and it was all done to placate the Tory Party...
Anita (interrupting): What shenanigans are you talking about? The renegotiation - that he could renegotiate from the inside...aha?  
Caller: The renegotiations, or whatever you'd like to call it, yeah. They're all done to favour the internal workings of the Tory Party not the national interest. So I then went to 'Out' and I'm now dithering because I really think a strong Europe is a good thing to go, but I actually want to....
Anita (interrupting): I'm confused. So hang on a minute....No. I'm confused. I just want to chart your journey. So you were a strong 'In-y' and now you're an 'Out-y' and I'm still trying to find the bridge that led you from one camp to the other there. 
Caller: Because I don't believe what Cameron, and I actually want to...
Anita (interrupting): But, but, but...to not believe what Cameron did means you thought there was a problem. Being an 'In-y' there was something very, very wrong with the status quo that you wanted a renegotiation and you didn't believe that it happened?
Caller: I don't think what he came out with wasn't already there. I think it was just presented as a new way of looking at it. 
Anita: OK, but now you've gone from being happy with what was the status quo to being very unhappy with it and wanting to get out and I'm just wondering what it was that pushed you over that edge?
Caller: Well, what I'm happy with..what I'm unhappy with is the way Cameron went about it, and I want to vote 'Out' purely to show I don't want Cameron to crow on the basis he approved a negotiation and we all won.
Anita (interrupting): So the future of Europe is dependent on you basically delivering a slap to the Prime Minister? 
Caller: Well, that's my dilemma at the moment because I actually firmly believe in Europe but I actually want to give a slap to the Prime Minister. And I can't find any other way of doing it. But there's a 'yes or a no' not a 'yes and swing about' bit. 
Anita: OK, all right, thank you very much.

FOO(B)C


Continuing with the catch-up posts from yesterday....


Sue has already praised Shaimaa Khalil's piece about the Pakistani assassin and his large number of murderous supporters in yesterday's From Our Own CorrespondentWhat else was there on this weekend's edition?


Well, the lead item was about....drum roll, followed by surprised expressions all round....Donald 'The Donald' Trump. (Bet you didn't see that coming!) It came from the BBC's North America editor Jon Sopel and didn't seem particularly biased to me. It did seem very stylish and enjoyable though. I find him a much more engaging communicator than the far-more-plodding (and politically partisan) Mark Mardell.


As well as pieces on attempts to save ancient calligraphy in Afghanistan and a piece on the perils of driving in Burma (after the old military dictatorship, apparently on the advice of soothsayers, ordered that everyone should drive on the right-hand side of the road - despite all Burma's cars being left-hand drive)...

...there came a piece from the BBC's Berlin correspondent Jenny Hill, who's been gaining something of a reputation for bias over the past year after projecting strong pro-migrant sentiments in her reporting (a perception that didn't exactly diminish after she cheerfully yelled 'Welcome!' to migrants as they arrived in the country last summer).

Here Jenny told us about the ongoing trials of Nazi death camp guards and how they are coming face to face with survivors in court - and how Germany is still coming face to face with its past.

Being Jenny Hill, a moral was then drawn: A "dark Germany" still exists - the "dark Germany" that attacks migrants, burns migrant shelters and daubs swastikas on migrant buildings. She identified that with two political parties - the Neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) and Alternative for Germany (AfD). Quite whether the latter deserves to be lumped in with the NPD and the rest of "dark Germany" is open to question (though evidently not in this BBC reporter's mind).

Migrants, activists, BCC bias, Slough and Spitfires


What follows are a few catch-up posts concerning things broadcast yesterday on BBC Radio 4...



Last night's PM  began with the migrant crisis. After a short clip from an interview with "15 year-old Angie from Aleppo in Syria", hoping to go to go to join her father in Stuttgart, came a full-length interview with Franck Düvell, "an associate professor at the Centre of Migration Policy and Society at Oxford University" - as Shaun Ley introduced him. Shaun asked him if "Angie's example" was typical, and Professor Düvell said it was and kept saying that the women and children on the Greek-Macedonian border were hoping to be reunited with their menfolk in Germany.

As so often with these kinds of academic expert on the BBC, I smelled a certain lack of 'disinterest' on the good professor's part and Googled him. On his Twitter feed he calls himself an "activist on migration, refugees and human rights issues", Well, I rather suspected as much!

Next came an interview with a company director from the British Chambers of Commerce regarding the suspension of BBC boss John Longworth for showing (a mild pro-Brexit) 'bias' over the EU referendum. The company director chosen by PM was strongly supportive of Mr Longworth's suspension,

Of course being PM it wasn't all pro-migration academics and critics of John Longworth. There was also a feature on renaming Slough and the 80th anniversary of the Spitfire,

A young Muslim lad wants Slough to change its name, perhaps to Upton, He thinks a name-change will improve its reputation as the kind of place poets would like friendly bombs to fall on, and Ricky Gervais-types select to mock in their sitcoms - and which inspired John Bunyan's Slough of Despond in The Pilgrim's Progress (or maybe not). A Conservative councillor thinks that does Slough a huge disservice. Slough has a great future as Slough he reckons. And the debate goes on.

I've always wondered whether Morecambe should change it's name - particularly as few people can spell it. My suggestion is 'Morecame', as that might subliminally suggest to people that more people come to Morecambe than to, shall we say, Blackpool. I hear the council will be debating that next Thursday....whilst on their latest fact-finding mission to Tenerife.

The bit on the Spitfire was also enjoyable. It consisted of an interview with the pilot who re-enacted the plane's maiden flight. I learned from him that the wonderful sound of the plane isn't quite so wonderful inside the cockpit. Anyhow, it inspired me to click into YouTube and dig out my favourite William Walton piece - the Spitfire Prelude and Fugue:

Brits for blasphemy (II)


Following on from Sue's post (and from two previous posts about the BBC's Innes Bowen)...


This morning's Sunday led with the news about Mumtaz Qadri's funeral, with Edward Stourton expressing his (understandable) astonishment that tens of thousands of people had come out to demonstrate in favour of an assassin and BBC correspondent Shaimaa Khalil echoing that, saying that if you'd have landed in Pakistan and seen the crowds you might have assumed Qadri was a national hero rather than a killer.

Ed then talked to Innes Bowen, BBC editor and author of Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent:

Ed Stourton: Innes, what have you picked up on social media here, by way of indications of the sort of impact it's having in Britain? 
Innes Bowen: Very, very surprising actually to me. Shaimaa called the people who are regarding this guy as a martyr as 'hardliners' but in the UK the people who've come out in his support are people who were previously regarded as the most moderate of religious groups, and that's a group called the Barelvis - a Sufi group that controls about just under 40% of mosques in the UK. And these are people who have no connection with jihadist groups, who are really regarded as the love-and-peace wing of Sunni Islam in Britain. Yet some of their most prominent clerics have this week come out, calling this guy a 'martyr'. And this has caused quite a stir on social media. You know, it's brought other people out to say, 'No, this is completely wrong' - for example, the Association of British Muslims. One of their co-directors, Paul Salahuddin-Armstrong wrote, "Under no circumstances should anyone be celebrating the death of a convicted murderer as a saint". But in saying that he's actually coming out against his own Sufi order. A prominent mosque of that order in Birmingham - the Ghamkol Sharif mosque - on the front page of their website has something calling this chap 'a martyr'. 
Ed Stourton: What's going on? I mean, why from a moderate group (as you say) those sort of opinions? 
Innes Bowen: Well, the Barelvis have a very, very intense love of the Prophet Muhammad...Of course, all Muslims revere the Prophet Muhammad but with the Barelvis it's kind of done with a great intensity. And that does mean when there are things like any insults to the Prophet Muhammad or anything regarded as blasphemy that is when they are really roused. So over The Satanic Verses, the cartoons...the Danish cartoon dispute, that kind of thing, they will come out quite militantly. But this I think is really a quite dramatic development. 

Shaimaa Khalil then described how the Barelvis have also been involved in the Pakistani demonstrations, despite their having been the target of violence themselves from hardline Wahhabis mainly from Saudi-funded madrassas. These institutions have been vigorously trying to convert the Barelvis - at the insistence of the Saudis.

Then Ed Stourton continued his discussion with Innes Bowen:

Ed Stourton: Innes. You're sitting in Whitehall worrying about extremism and you pick up the kind of social media traffic that you've seen you're going to be...well...discouraged. 
Innes Bowen:  I think so. I mean, this was the largest Muslim...you know...Islamic network in the UK that was considered 'moderate' and now some of its most senior people and most important institutions are effectively supporting violent extremism. 

Well, quite.

That was good reporting from the BBC, wasn't it? As per Sue, they were not letting support for Mumtaz Qadri by British Muslims slip by under their noses, unchallenged and uncontested. And that's as it should be.

Let's hope their outrage here finally marks the start of the BBC investigating this properly - and prominently.

The imam returns



BBC Breakfast's favourite imam, Ibrahim Mogra (Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain), was doing the paper review again this morning.

His first choice of story probably won't surprise you...(it certainly didn't surprise me. He always seems to begin with a 'Muslim story')....yes, he went straight for the "extremely worrying" Independent on Sunday story about alleged British government collusion in rendition and torture at "notorious" Guantanamo Bay.

The PM needs to respond seriously to the charges, he said, "because this is just one other bit of ammunition that can be put into the hands of evil and violent extremists who say, 'We've always told you: the West is against Islam; the West is against Muslims; see how they treat our brothers in Guantanamo Bay'. That doesn't help our cause".

The imam's description of the claims in the article as "facts" may not have helped 'our cause' either.

Saturday, 5 March 2016

Brits for blasphemy

The news about Mumtaz Qadri’s funeral in Pakistan was widely reported in the media and all over the internet. 

In case anyone missed, it, Qadri was  executed in Pakistan or the murder of Governor Salman Taseer whose ‘crime’ was to campaign against Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

However, in Pakistan, they are very fond of their blasphemy laws, and they are very fond of people like Mumtaz Qadri, so they were up in arms at his ‘martyrdom’ . 
The crowds came out in force waving their arms in the air to show that they were literally up in arms as is their wont. 
Everyone in the media has had something to say about this, even the BBC.  I heard quite a good report about it on FOOC, for example. Since this appalling business took place in Pakistan, one’s shock and disgust might be tempered by thoughts such as, eg., it’s really none of our business, or, par for the course in Pakistan and thank goodness we don’t live in a country like that.
But wait. 
BBC Asian  network mentioned in passing that some Imams in this country were expressing similar sentiments too.
“Now, why is there so much support for Mumtaz Qadri, both in Pakistan and here in the UK? “ asks the Asian Network presenter (of their reporter in Pakistan.)
“It has to do with how controversial the issue of blasphemy is. Of course blasphemy is a capital punishment here in Pakistan; people who are accused of blasphemy are put on death row and even though no-one has actually been hanged or put to death for blasphemy it remains very inflammatory.  
Most people who are accused of blasphemy are either killed or lynched even before their cases make it to the courts, and that’s because of course the society here, you know religious and conservative, many people, specially people with strict Islamic backgrounds see it as an insult to the prophet Muhammed. 

Mumtaz Qadri was executed yesterday, but has been hailed as a hero by some Islamist groups out there; he has also had some support here on Facebook a Bradford Imam has said he was wrongfully executed and martyred in the way of Allah. In another post a sheikh from Coventry has called him our esteemed shahid. “

Well, I thought, now this is our business. 
Cue Harry’s Place. It seems that self-appointed spokesperson for the Muslim community and seasoned BBC ‘expert’ on Islamic issues Mohammed Shafiq is one of those British Muslims who supported Qadri. 

If the government is seriously interested in cracking down on this kind of extremism you’d think they’d ‘do something’. Of course they won’t. Just as they won’t do anything about the rabid antisemitism coming from Shafiq and his cronies. And the BBC will continue to put him on programmes like The Big Questions and PanoramaHere he is in 2007 spouting crap about  “organised sexual exploitation by ruthless criminal gangs”.
“These are criminals. They’re not Asian criminals; they’re not Muslim criminals; not white criminals. They are criminals and they should be treated a s criminals.”

Wrong in 2007; still wrong in 2016.  What sort of country are we? 



Will the BBC let support for Mumtaz Qadri by British Muslims slip by under their noses, unchallenged and uncontested? Do they think we should accept blasphemy laws here, in accord with ‘religious and conservative’ Islam, lest we should be thought intolerant? Do they think it’s okay for supporters of Qadri to preach in British mosques, or are they appalled and outraged enough to investigate it properly?

"Europe"




Whatever your views on leaving or remaining, the opening section of his speech-turned-article makes a point about the BBC which merits sharing here:

The Brexit camp has asked the BBC to do it one, pretty small favour in the run-up to the EU referendum: to differentiate between ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’. To encourage its reporters to say ‘Europe’ only when they are referring to the vast continent we live in, and to say ‘the EU’ when they are referring to the Brussels-run union of 28 member states. 
And the BBC has refused. Or it has at least failed to clarify when these two very different terms may be used by its staff. This means the BBC has implicitly given a nod of approval to its reporters to say ‘Europe’ when they really mean ‘the EU’. 
Some observers think the Brexit lobby is mad for asking for this clarification from the BBC. A writer for the New Statesman said it showed that some people will find bias in the most innocuous of things. In other words: chill out; it is not a problem for the national broadcaster to use the terms ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ interchangeably; stop making a fuss about nothing. 
But I think the BBC’s unwillingness to maintain a distinction between ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ is actually very revealing, and worrying. 
It speaks to one of the worst aspects of the debate about the EU: the conflation of the Brussels-based oligarchy with the continent of Europe; the mixing-up of the small, unaccountable cliques who peer down at Europe from their air-conditioned towers in Brussels with Europe itself. 
Think about some of the phrases that could potentially be uttered by BBC reporters if they use ‘Europe’ for ‘EU’. They could say that the people of Peterborough, one of the most anti-EU parts of Britain, are ‘against Europe’. They could say that people in Warrington, the seventh most Eurosceptic part of Britain, ‘hate Europe’ or are ‘voting to get out of Europe’. 
But of course they’re doing no such thing. Britain isn’t leaving the continent of Europe. That isn’t what we’re voting on. And these people in Peterborough and Warrington might love Europe. They might holiday in Spain, have friends in France, love Swedish TV dramas. Many, if not most, of them won’t be anti-European — they’re just anti-EU. 
The Stay campaign’s habit of conflating ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ means that those who are anti-EU can be easily depicted as anti-Europe, as xenophobic or nationalistic. These people’s political outlook — their dislike of the way Brussels can impose its writ on nation states — is reduced to a prejudiced outlook, a simple case of being anti-Europe. Their politics is pathologised, turned from opposition to a political system into opposition to a whole continent and its cultures and peoples.

A Tale of Two Programmes



It's good to see that some BBC One viewers found the channel's reporting from Calais and the Greek-Macedonian border to be as biased as I found it to be last Monday.

This week's Newswatch had a small chorus of complaints about it. 

The first concerned the report by Danny Savage, which I also took issue with:
The reporter made a very big issue about a man in a blue coat being hit by a CS gas canister fired by the authorities. However, he completely failed to mention that the same man, moments before being hit by the canister, was hurling a missile [actually, two missiles] at the security forces manning the border. This can clearly be seen in the same clip. Talk about one-sided reporting - you seem to be siding with the 'frustrated migrants' all the time.
On the same night's coverage from Calais came these complaints:
Once again the BBC shows the migrants as the victims, and those nasty French police are evicting them! I do find your news coverage always seems very one-sided.
I was watching the news on the 29th February to watch the coverage of the clearance of the camp in France. It always seemed like it was on the one side. There was criticism of the police. There was either acting, firing tear gas. It just seemed like they were onto the police all the time. But they didn't go on about the other side, the way they were acting - throwing stones at the police, and everything. If you're going to report the news don't report it biased. Report it the way you see it.
A short BBC response was then read out:
Our aim is to ensure all the different elements of this complex story are covered, from personal stories and the situation in the countries of origin to the disruption that the presence of thousands of migrants in the EU has caused - including clashes with the police and border forces. Our role is to explain what is happening and why, and we endeavour to reflect a range of voices and angles, and to provide context to help explain the causes and effects of migration.
At least Newswatch gives voice to such concerns and does so pretty fairly.

Meanwhile, over at BBC Radio 4's equivalent programme Feedback Roger Bolton was busy interviewing someone from a pro-BBC pressure pressure group - Colin Browne of The Voice of the Listener & Viewer - about the future of the BBC.

It was the usual kind of thing. Colin, the 'expert', giving his take on the BBC and the government and Roger, the impartial presenter, backing him up: The BBC is great. Nearly everyone loves it and wants to keep it as it is. Woe, woe and thrice woe for the BBC though (as a result of the government's license fee deal)!!

Maybe it's time for the Newswatch team to take over Feedback

Out with Roger Bolton, in with Samira Ahmed!

Tramping against Trump - and Brexit



Last night's Newsnight was quite something. They really went after Hillary Clinton. 

First John Sweeney did a take-down of Hillary. He chucked everything he could at her: from Whitewater to the Clinton Foundation, rows over the money she gets for speeches, Sidney Blumenthal, Benghazi, her private email server, possible conflicts of interest among her advisors, her State Department emails, etc. Various anti-Hillary hacks and lawyers acted as his 'talking heads'.

Then Emily Maitlis went to speak to Hillary-inclined voters in a small town in Louisiana. Her main 'talking head', however, was another anti-Hillary hack. 

Then came a studio discussion of the wider meaning of the Hillary phenomenon with three like-minded commentators: Eurosceptic academic John Laughland, British historian Mark Almond and US political commentator Pat Buchanan. They all slated Hillary. the EU and the establishment, and said positive things about Putin and the Hungarian and Polish governments. 

I couldn't believe what I was seeing on the so-called impartial BBC!

*****


You didn't believe me for a second did you? 

I don't blame you. Of course none of the above happened. And was never likely to have have happened on the BBC.

In each case the mirror image actually happened: John Sweeney did a take-down of Donald Trump; Emily Maitlis went to speak to Trump-inclined voters in a small town in West Virginia; the various hacks in the reports were all anti-Trump; and the studio discussion on the wider meaning of the Trump phenomenon involved three like-minded commenters from the opposite side of the argument to Messrs Laughland, Almond and Buchanan: namely, (1) Anne Applebaum, (2) Timothy Garton-Ash and (3) Timothy Snyder. They all slated Trump, European 'national populists' (Front National, Polish and Hungarian governments), Putin, and Brexiters, and said positive things about the EU and traditional Western institutions.

Everyone - from Newsnight's reporters and presenter (Kirsty Wark) through to their 'talking heads' and all of their studio guests - was marching in lockstep last night against Trump - and the closing panel marched in lockstep against Brexit too.

*****


You really don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about the pro-Brexit bias on last night's Newsnight, do you? 

Timothy Garton-Ash and Anne Applebaum are very well known for being strongly pro-EU and you don't invite them onto a studio discussion about the wider meaning of the Trump phenomenon without expecting them to make plenty of pro-EU, anti-Brexit points - as they and Professor Snyder then did. Newsnight must have known what they would get.

Will many Americans see this edition of Newsnight

If they do maybe it will have the same effect as Newsnight editor Ian Katz's last major intervention in US politics when, as a Guardian editor, he oversaw that letter campaign from Guardian readers to swing-voters in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election urging them to vote for Kerry over Bush - a campaign widely reckoned to have backfired and annoyed enough voters in Ohio to swing the state towards Bush.

Friday, 4 March 2016

"Just when you think he can't get any weirder!"


That thread on Digital Spy asking whether the BBC is biased against Donald Trump might be growing in length if anyone has been watching BBC Breakfast this morning. 

After Richard Gere had earlier described Mr Trump as "a bully" (having been asked for his views on the subject by Louise Minchin) the two in-studio Breakfast presenters then poured all their talent for scorn into their presentation of a short clip from the latest Republic Party presidential debate. Both put on incredulous voices, Jon grinned and Naga shook her head disapprovingly. It was all very theatrical. (The transcript below doesn't really do that side of it justice).

Naga Munchetty: Donald Trump has come under attack from his main rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in the latest televised debate. The frontrunner in the Republican race was on the defensive in Detroit as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz tried to make an impact. In one of the more bizarre moments, Mr Trump responds to one comment which had been made about the size of his hands:  
Donald Trump: He hit my hands. Nobody has ever hit my hands. I've never heard of this word. Look at those hands. Are they small hands? And he referred to my hands: If they're small something else must be small. I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee. 
Jon Kay: Just when you think he can't get any weirder! 

Thursday, 3 March 2016

A missing qualifier


Here's something I don't quite know what to make of...


James Naughtie gave Radio 4 listeners an illustrated talk about Donald Trump on yesterday's The World at One (beginning at 18.18).

His brief was to outline what his policy programme might look like at the November election - and he did so (using clips from the man himself) in some detail. 

Now, yes, if it's actually possible to 'impartially drip disdain' then the BBC's Jim oh-so-impartially dripped disdain here...

....but his presentation of a possible Trump programme felt as if it was 'fair' - in that The Donald's programme probably is barely-even-half-baked, and absurd and extreme and opportunistic. 

By chance, however, I then read a thread at Digital Spy headlined 'BBC bias against Trump'...

(the main split, as far as I can see, being being those who think it's wrong that the BBC is biased against Trump and those who think the BBC is wholly justified in being biased against Trump...)

...and someone mentioned this very WATO piece:
In fairness, The World at One has given him a fair say. When he ranted that he was going to bomb foreigners "to s (offensive word)", they played it in full, uncensored, even though it was just after 1pm and people of all ages and morals would have been listening.
A reply came saying:
That's not true. Trump said he ''was going to bomb ISIS to s---t''. James Naughtie's report missed that qualifier out.
I was intrigued and re-checked - and, lo and behold, yes, James Naughtie did leave out "that qualifier". 

The clip in Jim's report began from the point in the clip after Donald Trump had made it clear that he was talking specifically about ISIS (Islamic State), thus pretty much inevitably leaving Radio 4 listeners - like the first commenter above! - wrongly believing that The Donald was talking batshit crazy talk about bombing the shit out of foreigners (and grabbing their oil for the US) in general.

Was Mr T talking about the Arab World in general? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Russia? Venezuela?

Here's a transcription of what listeners heard on The World at One. Would you really have assumed straight way that Donald Trump was talking specifically about Islamic State from this?:
James Naughtie: On international security you hear The Donald in full flow. This isn't language the State Department would ever use, Nor a plan that any previous American administration would have contemplated. 
Donald Trump: I would bomb the shit out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. And, that's right, I'd blow up the pipes. I'd blow up the refin....I'd blow up every single inch, and there would be nothin' left. And you know what? You'll get Exon to come in there and in two months...you ever seen these guys, how good they are, the great oil companies? They'll rebuild that sucker, brand new. It will be beautiful. And I'd ring it, and I'd take the oil.
For context, here's a fuller version of what Donald Trump said:
Donald Trump: ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, right? They have certain areas of oil that they took away. They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the shit out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. And, that's right, I'd blow up the pipes. I'd blow up the refin....I'd blow up every single inch, and there would be nothin' left. And you know what? You'll get Exon to come in there and in two months...you ever seen these guys, how good they are, the great oil companies? They'll rebuild that sucker, brand new. It will be beautiful. And I'd ring it, and I'd take the oil.

What's puzzling me here is that what Donald Trump actually said is pretty jaw-dropping, isn't it? So why would any critic of Donald Trump (especially a BBC one) want - or need - to gild the 'offensive' lily any more?

And yet 'gild the offensive lily even more' James Naughtie did here by failing to put The Donald's remarks in context (the ISIS context)...

...and, as we know from that Digital Spy thread, some Radio 4 listeners assumed Mr Trump was talking about "foreigners" in general. (And why wouldn't they? Even I fell for it first time round.)

Why did he do that?

Was it anti-Trump bias? Sloppy journalism? Or both?

Those are the only two (or three) alternatives I can think of. Can you think of a better one?

"I've felt like crying"



A couple of days back, I posted something about Danny Savage's BBC News at Six report from the Greek-Macedonian border, which I felt to be clouded by emotionalism.

I didn't actually expect to see Danny Savage there at all. He's usually the BBC's North of England correspondent. Looking at his Twitter feed, however, it's clear that the BBC chose to dispatch him to Greece (a couple of weeks ago) in order to help them cover the migrant crisis.

Less than two weeks into his new assignment, he appeared on this morning's From Our Own Correspondent to give his impressions of what he's seen over the past few days (an episode with the title - closely echoing Evan Davis's choice of words on Newsnight - "Trapped in a Dead-End").

His piece, concentrating on the plight of the migrants, ended with these words:
At times over the past few days, as I've looked at young families stranded without cover in the fields by this border, I've felt like crying.
Having seen his BBC News at Six report, that really doesn't come as a surprise to me. 

This suggests that Lyse Doucet's neat distinction between compassion in reporting (of which she approves) and emotion in reporting (of which she doesn't approve) is getting blurred.

Journalistic objectivity seems to be going out of the window.

Speculation



Here's a minor point, doubtless far from specific to the BBC...but, as the BBC provided such a clear example of it, here goes nothing....


Tuesday night's Newsnight saw newly-imported Newsnight "U.S. correspondent" Emily Maitlis talkin' Trump in Tennessee. 

Our Em - before the Super Tuesday results came in - affirmed (as per the polls) that Hillary was likely to sweep everywhere except Vermont and that Donald Trump would sweep 10 out of 11 states - and  I believed her.

Alas for the pollsters, their media followers (including Newsnight) and us overly trusting Newsnight viewers, it didn't turn out like that: Bernie Sanders beat Hillary in four states and Donald Trump 'only' took 7 out of 11 states. 

So much erroneous speculation based on polls....

Do they never learn?

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

Beethoven and equal non-opportunities

When I switched on the radio this morning something caught my attention. A woman was  was saying: 
“I think there’s lots of progress that has been made, but not enough; and for me it’s about, first of all, a universal offer to every child.  ... to offer them a chance to learn an instrument.”
 My ears pricked up. I know a bit about this. She went on:
“That sounds very straightforward. It does happen in England, it doesn’t happen in Scotland or in Wales. 
But the offer, that it should be normal for every single child to learn an instrument and to participate in music, to me seems absolutely fundamental; there has been progress in that.  But I think there’s a major problem when you get to the end of that first experience. There are so many barriers for every child, for how, if you want to progress, can you progress to the next stage and even more if you want to progress to the very high level, what are the barriers?
  • Do you have an instrument?
  • Can you access an instrument?
  • Will it happen in school time?
  • Will you need to leave a class to go and study your instrument? (and many parents don’t want that to happen)
  • Will it happen after school hours - can you be collected?
I mean, one thing after another, we put barriers in the way. If we were to say only some children could progress in maths, there would be an outcry, and yet for some reason we still talk about music of any genre as if it’s an added extra and nice to have, and my view is that until we really buy into that value for any child, and the arts more generally, for their intrinsic value, and also, what they offer to our community, to our society, the creativity that’s developed through taking part - until we actually value that as a society and say that’s crucial, and every child should have the same opportunity, we won’t crack this.”


That sounded so right. It rang true. Instrumental teachers know it’s hard for children (with rare exceptions) to make progress without a lot of support from schools and parents. 
But wait. Was that what  this was programme all about?

Groan.


It wasn’t promoting classical music for schools. Not at all. Well, it was --  but not “for all”. 
It was promoting classical music for BAMEs. Black and ethnic minorities. (Or minority ethnics, if that’s how it’s framed.)

I think the Chineke! orchestra is great. It’s lovely, if a bit 'political'. Although it’s for black and ethnic minority players, I did spot at least three players who looked distinctly white in the string section.

However, like the “Black Police Association” is there really a valid case for racial positive discrimination in every single area of society? Or is it a gimmick? 


I mean, I recognised several players in that orchestra as exChetham's pupils, and there are no race/ethnicity barriers there. It’s all about ability and enthusiasm.  Most of the pupils of elite music conservatoires and specialist music schools are privileged, no matter what ethnicity they’re from, in that they have supportive parents (or a role model in the background).

Sorry. it’s not a matter of race at all. It may be a matter of class, perhaps; I’m not completely sure.

The barriers are non-racially discriminatory. They’re universal. The barriers listed by the speaker, Hilary Boulding of the  Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, are universal. They apply to everyone equally.
Classical music is undervalued and under promoted. Throughout all ethnicities. Maybe the presenter, Joseph Harker is a bit of an example of positive discrimination himself.
He’s a black man who  thinks we don’t enjoy classical music properly, and we should be encouraged to dance at concerts. He said:
“Neither performer nor audience could ever smile during the music, or move. They just haver to wait till the end of the concert, when they could say something like ‘jolly good show.’ I’d like to see classical music move away from these rules and conformities, and for audiences to really start enjoying themselves, to stand up, to cheer, to clap, to sing, to dance along with the music, so that they enjoy it in the same way that they enjoy popular music concerts. 
Think if the tables were turned, and we had something like the Royal Academy of Hip-Hop, and where to be a hip-hop musician you had to study for exams, you had to go to some posh sounding conservatoire, you had to know the music in depth. Imagine how many people that would put off from enjoying the music.”

Yeah right. I’m not going to say what I think of this in case it’s interpreted as racist. Instead I’ll just be snobbish. 
We could do away with all that time-consuming study, all that boring practice and that off-putting fusty old ‘in depth study’.  We could make classical music more like hip-hop. Schools could introduce something accessible to all into the curriculum, like A Level ‘Britain’s Got Talent’. Everyone could jump around with joy. 




I don’t know whether Joseph Harker realises that classical orchestras, including Chineke!, consist of musicians who have attained that level of expertise only by committing themselves to copious hours of practice and putting in a colossal amount of time and effort. There’s no short cut, no easy option, whatever your creed or colour.  I think that  is more or less what Hilary Boulding was trying to say. The barriers have little or nothing to do with race, and barriers are colour-blind. Barriers to classical music have equal non-opportunities.

Loaded language


Evan Davis's semi-editorial introduction to the migrant story on last night's Newsnight promoted the same line as the BBC News at Six. 

Instead of noting that the authorities in Macedonia and Calais used tear gas in reaction to violent disturbances by large groups of migrants, Evan gave us this (including some strikingly loaded language):
At different ends of Europe migrants have been meeting tear gas today, as Europe fashions a more forceful response to its refugee crisis. In Calais the new fences around the Eurotunnel terminal have made it significantly hardly to get into Britain, trapping many in the camps there. The French want an end to 'the Jungle' but migrants protested today as demolition teams went it. In Macedonia, right at the other end, a border has been reimposed, trapping thousands in Greece - people who want to journey up to northern Europe - causing real friction and despair. Now, you could call it 'the Donald Trump solution': build walls to stop people coming in. For some it's the idea that actually works; for others it simply shows you have a choice: You can have strong borders or humane values but it's hard to have both.
Interviews followed with the Macedonian foreign minister, being asked if he came into politics to tear gas children, and David Miliband, being allowed to argue (uninterrupted) that the EU needs to help Germany cope with the refugees and that walls and fences don't work.

Impartial? I don't think so.

Women and children first


Last night's BBC News at Six really took the biscuit.

They could have reported the violence in Calais and on the Greek-Macedonian border in a neutral fashion, but didn't. 

On the Greek-Macedonian border, a largish group of migrants smashed down part of the border fence, defended by a small number of Macedonian police. Stones were thrown in one direction, tear gas in the other. In Calais, the authorities' softly-softly approach to clearing 'the Jungle' was thwarted and stones being flying in one direction, water cannon in the other - and it's widely reported that far-left activists led the violence. 

Here, however, is how the BBC News at Six began reporting the story last night, with the emphasis being on violence from the authorities: 
George Alagiah: Europe's migrant crisis turns violent. Security forces resort to harsher tactics. Hundreds of refugees are tear-gassed as they crash through the Greek border into Macedonia.
Migrant: It's like a disaster, and they don't open the borders, Macedonians, they don't open the borders, and people are coming more and more.
George Alagiah: And in Calais more clashes as the authorities try to clear parts of the refugee camp known as 'The Jungle'. We'll be asking what these flashpoints mean for Europe's politicians.
And then backdrop to the newsreader showed three panels: one showing the police fully 'tooled-up' and taking action, the other two showing nothing but women and young children:


Danny Savage's report from the Greek-Macedonia border - and his later discussion with George Alagiah - laid particular emphasis on the effects of the Macedonian police tear gas on migrant children:
Today on a European border children were tear-gassed.
At no point did the BBC reporter even so much as hint that those aggressive migrant men smashing their way into Macedonia, throwing stones at the Macedonian police, should have perhaps made some effort to keep these young children out of harm's way. 

And the closing image of his report lingered on the 'Madonna and child'-like image of a smiling young woman and her sweet, sleeping baby:


...as Danny Savage talked of "growing desperation on this European frontier".

In another passage from the same report, Danny Savage says "a guard fires tear gas directly at a migrant. On the other side of the fence the man in the blue jacket is hit by that cannister". What he doesn't say is that alert viewers can also see with their very own eyes that the man in the blue jacket is no innocent. He has just been aggressively throwing stones at the Macedonian security forces.

"Just three per cent of BBC guests back Brexit"



TCW's headline writer, as ever, captures the point succinctly: Just three per cent of BBC guests back Brexit

That's specific to the Today programme and is based on over ten years of comprehensive listening by the good folk at News-Watch

It's a dramatic and damning figure, isn't it?

The BBC itself is well aware that it's going to be watched very closely in the next few months. so it will be fascinating to see News-Watch's findings for Today over this period.

Can Today finally break out of their seemingly entrenched pro-EU rut?

Blurb


I've not watched it yet, but the blurb beneath the BBC iPlayer for last night's Newsnight suggests the programme might touch a few familiar bases from some very predictable BBC angles:

A fan of Uncle Bob's?


Here's an odd one from Charles Moore in the Telegraph:


Happy Birthday Mr Mugabe 
Many happy returns, too, to Robert Mugabe, the tyrant and murderer who has ruled Zimbabwe since its independence in 1980. His 92nd birthday this month is being compulsorily celebrated in his country. 
On the BBC News channel, I watched an astounding dispatch from the festivities. The reporter, Nomsu Maseko, explained how thousands, their spirits undampened by rain, had turned out to cheer and “some couldn’t contain their excitement”. She noted that Mugabe was “in remarkably good shape” with “astounding presence of mind”. She admitted that his party was subject to some criticism, but quoted him to show that he was determined to “address tension and in-fighting”. She added that “many still praise his leadership skills”, finding one of his ministers ready to do just that on air. 
Is Ms Maseko, I wonder, the victim of the often misguided BBC policy of using local reporters in far-flung countries on grounds of “diversity” (and saving money)? In nasty places like Zimbabwe, local reporters can be subjected to pressure by the regime in a way that British ones cannot. If that is so in this case, the BBC should protest to the authorities, not broadcast her pro-regime propaganda. If her preposterous report is how she truly sees the old monster, why is the BBC employing her?

That "astonishing presence of mind" bit was particularly striking, wasn't it?

In fairness to Ms Maseko though, she does also say though that "many have criticised the lavish birthday party, accusing the ruling Zanu-PF of being insensitive to the needs of the poor as the country faces its worst drought in decades".

Nomsa Maseko has been the BBC's Southern Africa correspondent since February 2010. She's based in the Johannesburg area, where she'd previously worked for talk radio.

Her highly active Twitter feed is fascinating. Reading through it I'd say she's not a fan of President Zuma of South Africa. She re-tweets swathes of negative stuff about him. In contrast, her tweets about Uncle Bob Mugabe, are very odd. Besides quoting from his speeches a length, there's nothing but this kind of thing:


Is she merely being ultra-cautious in order to ensure she keeps 'getting the gig' when it comes to being allowed to report the big events in Zimbabwe by the Mugabe regime (as they might not take kindly to her tweeting negative stuff about their leader)? Or is she actually simply a big fan of Uncle Bob's?