Monday, 20 June 2016

Jo Cox (a few days later)

“Many of our young women don’t feel safe on the street.”
Who said such a thing? Nigel Farage, projecting a post Remain, Cologne-like future? Nah. It was Jo Cox, in a video she made for her report about Islamophobia.

Thankfully we don’t see many political assassinations in this country, so when one suddenly occurs the whole world is horrified. 

It was truly shocking last week to see and hear reports of Jo Cox MP being stabbed and shot outside her constituency office in broad daylight, and later hearing reports that she had died.
  
To make matters even more poignant, she was a young mother and a relatively new MP, and she had made quite an impression in the short time since being elected.

Most people immediately wondered what others made of it and rushed to see what the media had to say. Perhaps because journalists and bloggers regard topicality as their primary duty, several of them duly dished up an instant response. You might say they were stunned into the opposite of silence. 

This isn’t the first time people have made absolute idiots of themselves in similar circumstances; they should have known better, and I bet some of them wished they’d kept quiet, or waited till the dust had settled before making rash and reckless remarks  - at least until we figure out what’s going on, as Donald Trump might say.

Initially no-one was sure if Thomas Mair had really uttered ‘Britain First!” and anyone with the slightest sympathy with the Leave  campaign wished it were not so.  The ‘Leave’ campaign suffered an unquantifiable setback because of Mair’s apparent far-right associations, just as the Remain campaign would have suffered had the cry had not been “(Put) Britain First”, but “Allahu Ackbar”.

I don’t really think this murder had much to do with the referendum.  Mair was probably a closet Nazi all along, but nice and polite with it; a good son and mentally disturbed to boot. Paranoid schizophrenia, someone suggested, a theory somewhat borne out by his odd behaviour in court. Asked to confirm his name he replied:  ”"Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", a Breivik-like outburst that doesn’t sound much like a cold-blooded political statement from a ‘sound of mind’ Nazi - that is if cold-blooded Nazis can be sound of mind. We might get to find out more about that in due course.

I’ve spent hours looking online and following links, and I’ve come across some of the most virulent and abhorrent antisemitic bile on websites that contain white-supremacist Jew-hating comments. I wonder if they contravene the Incitement to Racial Hatred act.

One article looks at Jo Cox’s pet projects and spins them furiously in one particular direction and details some of her anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian activities; the comments below take things to a truly shocking level. 
 “honestly, anyone can keep my vote if you can get the jews out of white nations” 
one racist comment starts, and another one includes:
“If the above can be believed, the murder “…smells…” of something Jews would do.IMO, the BDS movement is another REAL fear that the Jewish Globalist King Pins have. I place their concern over the BDS movement on par with Holocaust Fraud Whistle-blowing or the rise of the “…Populist White…”. 
Remember Anders Brevik? The Norwegian Labour Party youth he murdered also had Labour MPs parents…, the same Party…, and correct me if I am wrong, that actually started the BDS movement against the Criminal State of Israel. 
It would be just like the Jews to kill a strong BDS supporter, then with moral outrage claim her murder was because of her Pro-EU stance and blame it on “…evil Nazis…”.
That website is one of many. (Don’t click on these links - they’re only there to illustrate a point.)

The extent to which the referendum campaign itself has turned rotten is illustrated by the rush to  blame Nigel Farage and the Leave campaign for Jo Cox’s murder, echoing the tortuous rationalisation that came to the conclusion that Melanie Phillips was responsible for Anders Breivik’s deranged killing spree. Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you will stifle freedom of speech altogether, and from those currently drifting in that direction I can already sense an ominous ‘chilling effect’. 

Today Norman Smith was asked by Sophie Raworth to reinterpret Nigel Farage’s defence of his stance on immigration and the infamous 'migrants' poster in particular, immediately after he had made it.

Norman wore a particularly furrowed brow as he systematically traduced Nigel Farage - throwing all pretence of impartiality out of the window. 

It’s possible to reach a stage where bias is so entrenched that you are completely unable to hear views that don’t align with yours. Psychological deafness, and Norman has a bad case of it. Quite why we need Norman to ‘interpret’ Nigel’s statement is beyond me. It was clear, concise and uttered in the English language, like it or not.

There is a difference between posturing in a borderline incendiary manner and explicitly inciting violence and we must concede it can be a fine line. However, in this day and age, as far as I’m aware, Islam stands alone in the unequivocal prescription of death to transgressors. 

When deranged Muslims pull a trigger or plunge a knife into some hapless infidel to the triumphant cry of Allahu Ackbar, it could inspire an unhinged individual like Mair to actually mirror that. Maybe his personality disorder drove him to hook a murderous, psychotic impulse to a far-right cause, much as Omar Mateen seems to have done with ISIS and his alleged repressed homosexuality. (Amateur psychology / free of charge.)

Jo Cox is said to have been an exceptional character, hardworking, sincere, energetic and charismatic. She wanted to make the world a better place.  The effect of her murder is wholly and completely negative and her family is suffering a tragic loss. 

I disagree with her politics. Jo Cox’s kind of activism rings alarm bells for me, as does her husband’s choice of the charity Hope Not Hate as one of three beneficiaries of donations pouring in to honour her memory.

She was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, and wanted parliament to grant premature recognition of Palestine as a state. She was an advocate of BDS and she spoke in favour of councils and other non-political bodies being free to employ BDS as a policy should they wish to do so.

I can’t see how anyone who campaigns for BDS can genuinely pride themselves on bringing people together. It’s as disingenuous as Jeremy Corbyn’s excuse, when cornered, for applying the term ‘friends’ to Hamas and Hezbollah.

She had been a employee of Oxfam, another ostensibly altruistic charity that became politicised; lefty, actively anti-Israel and pro Palestinian. 

From The Telegraph, 10th June 2014.
” Jo Cox, a former head of policy at Oxfam, is Labour’s candidate in the 2015 general election in Batley and Spen as well as chairman of the Labour women’s network. [...] 
Rob Halfon added: "Too often Oxfam put politics before their excellent charity work. No ones denies that we have been having difficult times, but for a charity to appear to put all the blame on the current Government is unacceptable. 
"Moreover, Oxfam seem to have developed a leftist anti-Israel agenda, and I hope very much that those involved will think again, and Oxfam will once again become a charity that people respect."
I kept trying to imagine how I’d feel if the murdered MP had been on ‘my’ side. What if some antisemite had stabbed and killed a pro-Israel MP?  But, in sharp contrast to the proliferation of MPs who are passionately sympathetic to Jo Cox’s favourite causes, I could hardly think of one. I suppose if that did happen I’d feel a personal sense of loss too.

Many people seem unruffled at the prospect of a limitless influx of refugees from Muslim countries, but I think we should be very concerned about the inevitable political pandering that would be bound to follow. More MPs beholden to the Muslim vote, more hatred of Jews, more demonisation of Israel and more isolation and alienation for British Jews.  

One of the best pieces I’ve read is by Brendan O’Neil, which I swear I hadn’t read before writing the above, but which, if I flatter myself, chimes with mine even down to some of the terms used. 

The most amusing thing I’ve read today is in the Times, and it concerns Jo Cox’s recent project on Islamophobia.  She’d had a meeting with “tell Mama” to find out what she could do to help combat Islamophobia, locally. 

Since one of her stated objectives was 'bringing people together,' she might at least have listened to the worries of constituents whose misgivings over creeping Islamisation might be well-founded. She was elected to serve their needs too, surely.

Anyway, she said anti-Islam attitudes are so bad in her constituency that ”many of our young women don’t feel safe when they’re out in the street”.

I liked it so much I nicked it for my headline.

I’m sticking my neck out by making negative comments about someone who clearly had so many admirable qualities, but I don’t begrudge the tributes to Jo Cox that are pouring in from those who knew or admired her. 

If me or my opinions were more important we might merit some specially dedicated, extremely anguished brow-furrowing from Norman Smith, and a few innuendos about racism, bigotry and Islamophobia thrown in for good measure. 

But I’m not, it ain’t so it won’t.

Being Katty about Boris




Katty Kay, the face of the BBC in the USA (the "Anchor for BBC World News America"), has - as so often before - failed to show herself to be the complete paragon of BBC impartiality with her latest BBC website piece: Five reasons Brexit could signal Trump winning the White House.

As proof of that, I think it's enough merely to quote the first paragraph of her closing 'reason':
Populism 
And, finally, populism loves simplicity, especially, it seems, when it's dressed up with an impressively wacky hair do. Boris Johnson and Donald Trump appeal to the heart not the head. They offer simple solutions in a time of complex problems. It's an appealing message. Think about the complicated consequences later, the thinking seems to go, for now protesting the status quo feels like a good start. 
Could she be any more contemptuous? Or biased?

Is that really the way a senior BBC journalist should be writing about Boris Johnson during a referendum where even stricter BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality are meant to apply to all BBC journalists (including her)? 

Another incendiary intervention



With the House of Commons (at the time) about to pay tribute to Jo Cox, here's a transcript of the opening of a BBC-BBC exchange on this lunchtime's BBC One News at One which struck me as being a classic example of how to 'frame the debate' over a particular news story through the use of loaded language:
Sophie Raworth: Our Assistant Political Editor Norman Smith is in Westminster. Controversial comments from Nigel Farage. What do you make of them?  
Norman Smith: Another incendiary intervention by Mr Farage...
And then on they went...

Sunday, 19 June 2016

You think?



Sue and I have always loved our 'introspective posts' and we haven't done many recently, so...

******

Will that last post about Mishal Husain's EU/immigration documentary provide yet more 'proof' of 'ITBB bias'?

I ask that because an anonymous commenter has just recently commented "Is this blog biased? Not a tricky one either" on a defunct thread about Mark Mardell's EU referendum coverage. 

(I'd written, "Is former BBC Europe Editor Mark Mardell biased? Not a particularly tricky one that!"?)

I'm guessing he (or she - or, in these times of transgender awareness, they) thinks this blog is a pro-Brexit blog and, thus, completely biased in its criticism of the BBC's EU referendum coverage. And, being so, worth discounting.

Is there any truth in that? Was I biased against Mishal Husain there? I, as you might expect, think I was absolutely spot on and showed why Mishal was biased, but you might disagree. You might have found me 'biased' instead.

Well, I can well understand why he (or she, or they) might assume that we're pro-Brexit. (I'd assume that too if I read this blog). But, whether we are or not, would that necessarily make us biased in our coverage of the BBC's coverage of the EU referendum? 

We started out pledging to be scrupulously fair to the BBC. Have we slipped over time then?  

******

I read that comment immediately after I'd posted my latest stats post. In that post I provided verifiable evidence that strongly-pro-Remain trends have emerged on Newsnight and on BBC One's News at Six over many weeks and months. I've posted similar stats showing a similar bias on other BBC platforms too.

But I've also (as on that very post tonight) tried to be fair and provided the counter-evidence - in this case that Question Time has been scrupulous in balancing its panels between Remain and Leave. 

And I didn't hesitate to post, in a previous post that otherwise highlighted plenty of strong pro-Remain bias, that Newsnight's 'My Decision' video series had strikingly gone the other way, bias-wise. It had heavily favoured Leave.

Have we done enough of that? I know some people (beyond that commenter) think we haven't. And I know other people think we've actually been far too kind to the BBC. 

Ooooh! Complaints from both sides! Ergo, we must be as impartial as the BBC. QED. (Not!)

I've always tried to lay out the evidence for any claim of bias I've made. (Unsupported Assertions R Not Us.) And I've always invited people to point out any errors that I may have made - and will continue to do so for as long as I keep on blogging, as I could very well be wrong. 

And I'll issue that invitation again here: If you think that post about Mishal Husain's immigration documentary isn't quite right please tell me why (as I see you already have! - and thank you for doing so). And if you think that stats post tonight is wrong please tell me why. I really won't mind (much).

******

So have I (not Sue, of course) been guilty of failing to give the BBC its due, as some very dear to me have told me in no uncertain terms recently? 

They say they've heard lots of impartial stuff from the BBC. They think the BBC has, by and large, been just fine over the EU referendum (just as the Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens, Peter Oborne, Sir Bill Cash & Co. think the BBC has been just fine too - to their great surprise).

They've made me seriously doubt myself.

All I can say, as I've said before, is that I've seen, read and heard what I've seen, read and heard. And I've seen, read and heard a lot. And, yes, I've heard a lot that's been broadly balanced and yes - if truth be told - I should have highlighted those more often. But I've also heard lots and lots and lots that's appeared pro-Remain-biased and much, much less that's appeared pro-Leave biased. And I've provided evidence to back everything I've written to that effect.

And the stats I've monitored (on Newsnight and BBC One's News at Six) were - as credible monitoring demands - reasonable choices, chosen in advance. The bias they've shown is the bias they've shown. That bias isn't any of my doing. It's been the BBC's doing. And I've always given every possible piece of evidence (including all available links) to back it up and allow readers to check what I've written and judge for themselves.

******



Swallowing my happy pill and putting my blinkers on, I know that not one of you will think, even for a second, that this delightful post has been in any way overly defensive.

None of you will presently be thinking about the term 'flapping around like a headless chicken'.

After all, I'm an eternally happy, 'Onwards and Jedwards' kind of blogger. My blogging motto is famously 'Damn the speedos, full torpedoes ahead!'. (Not really, of course, for any newbies).

Now where are all my Leonard Cohen albums when I need them?

Mishal Husain, the EU and immigration



I've been a little bit surprised at how little has been written (so far) about Mishal Husain's BBC Two documentary Britain & Europe: The Immigration Question. 

I've seen barely a comment about it anywhere (other than here).

For me, however, it was one of the most striking 'landmark' programmes of the BBC's entire EU referendum coverage.

Why has there been so little comment? Was it because few people watched it? Or that they did watch it but found nothing to complain about? 

I have to say that I found it thoroughly biased.

Yes, Mishal Husain & Co. covered their backs by featuring plenty of people from each side and making impartial noises throughout, but the programme's structure was fundamentally biased. 

That biased structure followed a classic template (however disguised it may have been): 

Start by focusing on the side you don't agree with. 

Give them time (say the first quarter of an hour) and allow them a good hearing so that you appear to be being fair. 

Then spend the rest of the programme (three quarters of an hour) taking their points one by one and systemically trying to undermine or debunk them. 

Add more and more attractive voices from the side you do agree with as you go on (say lots of successful, well-integrated, UK-loving EU migrants). 

Add other voices from the side you do agree with who people who don't share your point of view will relate to even more (say fearful British expats).

Keep adding that every case you've shown which suggests mass EU migration has had unfortunate consequences isn't typical of the UK as a whole. 

Also keep carefully, cautiously, adding your own points pushing the narrative of the side you support. 

Keep including voices from the side you don't agree with though in order to keep appearing fair, and - if possible - use them, wherever you can, to back your case (say using Matthew Goodwin and Iain Duncan Smith to rubbish concerns about benefits tourism expressed by members of the public elsewhere).

And mix! 



The first quarter of an hour was dominated by pro-Leave/immigration-sceptic voices (plus an empathetic if not sympathetic academic) -  Sonia from Clacton, Douglas Carswell MP, Professor Matthew Goodwin, Alp Mehmet of Migration Watch and Rod Liddle. Plus Alan Johnson from Labour In for Britain (for the Remain side)  - the 'dissenting voice' - was shown being challenged by Mishal Husain.

Despite Mishal noting 'in passing' that Clacton has unusually low numbers of EU migrants, this was 'a dream start' for pro-Leave viewers.

Then came the remaining three quarters of an hour of the programme. 

Though other pro-Leave voices were included, along with those we'd already met - Iain Duncan Smith, Angie from Boston - and some hard-to-position public servants (head teachers, GPs) were also given space to point out the problems (and blessings) of sudden mass EU immigration....

...this (much longer) section of the programme focused far more on the pro-Remain/pro-mass immigration voices.

We heard from a successful Lithuanian migrant couple, Jonathan Portes of the NIESR, Alan Johnson (again), Professor Heaven Crawley, various EU migrant workers, Madeleine Sumption of the Migration Observatory, various likeable Edinburgh university students from the rest of the EU who love us, Stephen Gethins from SNP In Europe; Basia Klimas-Sawyer, a successful long-time migrant from Poland who loves England; Grazyna Lisowska-Troc, a successful Polish migrant to UK, and her charming daughter...and not one but two expat couples who love EU freedom of movement and like what the EU has done for them and who fear a pro-Brexit vote.

Mishal took on the concerns of pro-Leave/immigration-worried voters one by one - concerns about low-paid migrants undercutting British workers; pressure on schools; pressure on the NHS; concerns about benefit tourism - and undermined them.

Every place she'd gone to in order to report those concerns wasn't typical, she kept saying. In the rest of the country the downsides of mass EU immigration aren't anywhere near so stark, she kept saying.

Then came the sections on: pro-immigration Scotland (something Mishal asserted as a fact despite polling evidence from the BBC itself showing that Scotland is almost as keen as England to tighten up on immigration); the fears of British expats living in the EU thanks to EU freedom of movement (even though one man said he might have voted 'Leave' if he still lived in the EU); and, finally, the thoughts of those economically-helpful, flourishing, robustly middle-class EU migrants who have taken up living in Britain and taken up British citizenship, and who love living here, love the UK and love us.


And then there was Mishal's commentary. Here's a sample:
(Following on from Alan Johnson): Recent figures from the taxman support the assertion that migration has been good for the economy. 
(Teeing up Jonathan Portes): In London more than a third of the population was born outside the UK. It's the most economically successful part of the country, crucial to the national economy. Some say the two things are linked. 
(Teeing up Professor Heaven Crawley:) One industry where (migrants) play an important role is in caring for our ageing population.   
(Debunking concerns about pressure on schools): A quarter of this schools pupils come from Eastern Europe and like other parts of the UK with high numbers of migrants there is real competition for places. But nationally a different picture emerges. We know that most children in Britain do in fact get into the school they want.  
(Debunking concerns about pressure on the NHS): With such a high concentration of migrants Peterborough is far from typical.  
(Debunking concerns about pressure on the NHS): Most migrants are young so they use health services much less than average.  
(Debunking concerns about pressure on the public services in general, and teeing up Madeleine Sumption): But there is something missing in the argument you often hear about migration putting pressure on public services as a whole. Most of the arrivals from the EU are working and paying taxes. Surely that extra money should help pay for extra demand on hospitals and schools.  
(To IDS, who agrees with her about benefit tourism not really being an issue): In fact EU migrants are less likely than UK nationals to claim unemployment benefit, housing benefits, tax credits, all of those. 
(About Scottish attitudes to immigration, and teeing up the SNP's pro-immigration Stephen Gethins): So why the warm welcome? As its population ages is simply set to need more people, particularly more people of working age. The Scottish government and the Treasury believe that may only be fully achievable through an influx of migrants.
(Of EU free movement and expats): It's something that's changed John and Irene's lives. Like more than a million other Britons they live elsewhere in the European Union. 
(On the 'negative perceptions' of earlier immigrants): You can even see negative perceptions in communities established by previous phrases of immigration.  
(Teeing up Jonathan Portes): There's no doubt that free movement of labour has been great for many Eastern Europeans. And some would argue there's been little negative impact on our communities.
********** 

Speaking for myself (and at the risk of bring the Thought Police down on me), I have to say that EU immigration isn't really what matters to me in this EU referendum vote. 

Sovereignty, regaining control over our own affairs, security, etc, are issues that matter to me much more than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Poles have suddenly come to live and work alongside us. 

It's not that this influx of EU migrants doesn't matter at all, of course. The scale and suddenness of the post-2004 EU influx was shamefully mismanaged by our last inept Labour government (and not managed much better by its coalition and Conservative successors). And there have been too many, too quickly (thanks to EU free movement rules). And that influx has unquestionably had a negative impact on the lives of many of our own low-paid and unemployed countrymen...

...but I don't doubt for one second that many if not most of those EU migrants have been economically and culturally beneficial to us, generally-speaking. And I'm not unhappy to have them here with us either - and, if we vote to leave the EU, I hope that many will stay with us and others will come to live with us. 

And very importantly for me, most of those people have not wanted to harm us either (usually quite the reverse).

They don't want to change us or blow us up or decapitate us in the name of their religion. 

Immigrants who do want to change us or blow us up or decapitate us in the name of their religion bother me much, much more. We should concentrate on stopping them coming into our country at all costs, and on getting rid of every one of them who does manage to get it and wants to do us harm. That's what taking back control of our borders would mean to me.

That's my bias on this issue. 

Stats

Here are various statistical takes on the BBC's coverage of the EU referendum, starting with some updates on Newsnight and BBC One's News at Six...


BBC TWO Newsnight Interviewees

The difficult question this week was whether to include Thursday and Friday's interviews in the wake of the murder of Jo Cox. As both discussions spent time discussing how the murder relates (or doesn't relate) to the EU referendum debate (with some of the guests making points against one side or the other), it was obviously necessary to include them.

Here's the latest list:
13/6
Joint interview: Robert Macinnes, building business owner (LEAVE); Mary Ann MacIver, tourism business owner (REMAIN)
Interview: John Curtice, polling expert (NEUTRAL)
Joint interview: John Boyle, businessman (LEAVE); Alasdair Allan, SNP (REMAIN); Denise Mina, author and playwright (REMAIN)

14/6 
Interview: Hillary Benn, Labour (REMAIN)
Interview: Anna Turley. Labour (REMAIN)
Joint interview: Anna Turley, Labour (REMAIN); Frank Harrison, former steel worker (LEAVE)

15/6
Interview: Steve Hilton, former Conservative strategist (LEAVE)

16/6
Joint interview: Jonathan Freedland, Guardian (REMAIN); Anne McElvoy, Economist (REMAIN); Polly Billington, Labour (REMAIN)

17/6
Joint interview: Douglas Murray, Henry Jackson Society (LEAVE); Daniel Finkelstein, Times (REMAIN); Jo Berry, Building Bridges for Peace (UNKNOWN)

By my reckoning that changes our running total, which was: 
72 Pro-Remain
50 Pro-Leave
14 Questionable/Undecided  
to...

81 Pro-Remain
55 Pro-Leave
16 Questionable/Undecided 

As for the sub-trend looking at who gets most of all of the solo appearances (i.e. not in joint interviews), well, we left that at: 

Remain - 29
Leave - 15

I now make that:

Remain - 31
Leave - 16

...with Remain still approaching double the number of one-person interviews that Leave has been invited to attend since the beginning of the year.

****************

BBC One News at Six lead angles

As for BBC One's News at Six (and its weekend equivalents), we last left our monitoring of its choice of EU referendum-related angle - as ever defined as "which side's angle comes first in either the headlines or the whole bulletin" - with the following running total:

21 for Remain
7 for Leave

Here's the latest batch:
.
12/6  David Cameron's latest warning on the risks of leaving the EU: the value of our pensions could be at risk.

13/6  Labour heavyweights pitch into the referendum debate. Gordon Brown makes the case for staying in a bid to get the Labour vote out.

14/6  Labour warns the NHS is a risk if the UK leaves the European Union but admits more needs to be done to control immigration.

15/6  65 Tory MPs turn on George Osborne after he says leaving the EU would mean an emergency Budget and higher taxes. Making waves. Leave MPs say they would vote him down. The Chancellor argues he'd have no choice.

16/6  The Bank of England has issued a new warning about the economic risks in the UK and globally if Britain votes to leave the European Union. The Bank's Monetary Policy Committee said the referendum was the largest immediate risk facing global financial markets. It warned that businesses and consumers were putting off major economic decisions and said the uncertainty was effecting the stability of the pound.

17/6 (no coverage)

18/6  Official campaigning over next week's referendum remains suspended following the murder of the MP Jo Cox. Today the International Monetary Fund, delivering its annual report on the UK economy, warned it could shrink by 5% in the event of the UK leaving the EU. The warnings have been dismissed by those who support leaving.

19/6 Campaigning resumes in the EU referendum with both sides strongly disagreeing about what the vote means for the economy and immigration. In campaigners maintain a Brexit would hit people's pockets, but Vote Leave say the UK can deal with whatever the world throw at us.

The one on the 15/6 strikes me as slightly open to question, but George Osborne's pro-Remain angle was the main angle. The rest seem pretty straightforward. All of them put Remain angles first. That, therefore, raises our running total to: 

28 for Remain
7 for Leave

****************

BBC ONE Question Time Panels

And now for a new one, echoing the conscientious work of Wronged at Biased-BBC but beginning instead with the edition after David Cameron named the date for the EU referendum back in February. 

The results are striking - and better for the BBC than the above: 

** CAMERON DECLARES DATE FOR REFERENDUM (20/2) **
25/2 - 2 Remain, 3 Leave
3/3 - 2 Remain, 2 Leave, 1 undecided 
10/3 - 5 Remain, 1 Leave 
17/3 - 3 Remain, 2 Leave
7/4 - 2 Remain, 3 Leave
14/4 - 2 Remain, 3 Leave
Sub total: 16 Remain, 14 Leave, 1 undecided

** BBC REFERENDUM IMPARTIALITY GUIDELINES COME INTO FORCE (15/4) **
21/4 -2 Remain, 3 Leave
28/4 - 3 Remain, 2 Leave
5/5 - 2 Remain, 2 Leave, 1 undecided 
12/5 - 3 Remain, 2 Leave
19/5 - 3 Remain, 1 Leave, 1 undecided
26/5 - 2 Remain, 3 Leave
2/6 - 3 Remain, 2 Leave
9/6 - 2 Remain, 3 Leave
16/6 - 3 Remain, 3 Leave (cancelled at the last minute, due to the murder of Jo Cox)
Sub total: 23 Remain, 21 Leave, 2 undecided

Final total: 39 Remain, 35 Leave, 3 undecided
Panels biased towards Remain - 6
Panels biased towards Leave - 6
Balanced panels -  3

Saturday, 18 June 2016

On Orlando



The other horror this past week (happening while I was too busy) was the appalling Islamist terrorist attack on gay people in Orlando.

That was another atrocity which it didn't feel remotely right to post about at the time - despite the rest of the world seeming to rush in regardless.

Bloggers are too often guilty of rushing in, abruptly judging and then fulminating furiously about things. It's a regrettable tendency, and - despite trying my best - I've not been entirely innocent of it myself over the years. (Sue, in contrast, has been entirely innocent of it).

And when it comes to blogging about BBC bias, the even-more-regrettable tendency is to end up, in the wake of every major atrocity, sounding as if we think the guiltiest party of all is the BBC and then, 'as a result', making feverish claims about the BBC's utter wickedness.....

.....such as one (genuine and confident) prediction I saw from a seasoned anti-BBC, anti-Islam blogger firmly asserting that the BBC would "tell us" that the victims, being gay, "deserved it, {as} they so offended Muslim sensibilities".....

.....thus, I fear, risking the entirely reasonable charge that 'we've' completely lost any sense of perspective.

Looking back as coolly as possible, I'd say that the BBC's initial coverage - as the story broke - was 'fair enough' (or at least the little bit I saw of it).

I monitored it at the time and found that - though the corporation wasn't first off the mark - the BBC was quite quick to report that the police suspected the killer of having "leanings" towards Islamic terrorism.

And, despite the subsequently pulling by the BBC of the 'the BBC has learned' card (after many other internet outlets had pipped them to the post by around half an hour), the BBC was also fairly quick to report the killer's (Muslim) name.

Plus, as I also recorded at the time, that night's main BBC One evening news bulletin) did repeatedly report the killer's possible links to Islamic groups, including Islamic State, and mentioned the killer's Afghan heritage.

And when the BBC reporter, inevitably, brought in Donald Trump at least she did it with a modicum of 'balance':
And as people call for calm after this devastating attack we have heard from Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, who said that this all proves that he was right about Islamic terrorism. Now, some people say that Mr. Trump is just stoking fear and playing politics at a tense time in America; others say that he has a point and that more needs to be done to contain the terror threat on home soil.
The next morning's Today, however, did largely hunker down onto 'safe' BBC issues such as gun control (a subject I've not heard dwelt on in the BBC's coverage of the murder of Jo Cox) - though, that said, Marco Rubio did appear on the programme to raise 'uncomfortable' questions about the Muslim angle (the programme's one concession to that angle).

I hadn't (and haven't) the time to monitor anywhere near enough of it to judge, so the question stands: Was the BBC biased in its coverage of the Orlando massacre of gay people by a Muslim fanatic?

I'm willing to stand corrected.

On Jo Cox



It's proving hard to take in the horrific murder of Jo Cox, isn't it? 

I'm still struggling to find something helpful to say two days later.

I'd never heard of her before she was killed but, like many, I've been in shock at her murder ever since.

I just keep thinking of the hideous way she was murdered and about her poor children - her three-year-old daughter and five-year-old son. Plus how everyone in politics, from whatever side, seems to have liked her.

And then everyone else piles in with their suffocating agendas and I find myself getting lost again. (I don't cope well with piles).

But it's time to at least try to say something, probably - for what it's worth...

******

I drove home on Thursday listening to the moving reactions to the murder of Mrs Cox from Labour's Joan Walley and the Conservatives' Andrew Mitchell on Radio 4's PM, sensitively handled by Carolyn Quinn.

Then I watched the BBC One News at Six, which did an excellent job. It (and Nick Robinson, who the programme interviewed) managed to convey the sheer horror of what had happened whilst keeping a cool, cautious manner of reporting. It didn't seek to speculate or score points, and even held back from mentioning the 'Britain first' (or 'Britain First') claims then widely circulating in other parts of the media (and on social media).

I then went online. Some of what I read helped. Quite a lot didn't. There were more touching articles in the online newspapers but also quite a lot of unhelpful speculation. 

One thing is certain though: The agenda-pushing started very early. Almost immediately, in fact.

I felt so annoyed by that agenda-pushing that part of me felt like posting about it at the time, but I thought better of it. It would have felt too much like me agenda-pushing. And it was far too soon anyhow.

Former senior Sky journalist Tim Marshall held back a day or so before registering similar feelings of disgust:
Remainers point to the Leave campaign’s dog whistle politics. Leavers now argue that Remainers are politicising the issue to score cheap points. Some people argued that there was a reluctance to call the attack terrorism. All sides have valid arguments but minutes after the confirmation of the death of Jo Cox was not the time to make them.  
Looking back, Tim certainly had a point. A lot of people just couldn't help themselves. The bees in their own bonnets appear to have trumped everything else, including common decency.

******

And so it's gone on: Remainers are still pointing to the Leave campaign's dog whistle politics and Leavers are still arguing that Remainers are politicising the issue to score cheap points.


******

I garnered - from comments on other 'anti-BBC sites' - that the BBC had behaved much more cautiously that day than Sky (and many of the newspapers) when it came to airing speculation about the political motives of the killer.

(Not that any of those comments directly said as much. It was just that all their fire was, for a while, squarely aimed at Sky, the Telegraph, the Guardian, etc. 'BBC bias' was largely forgotten for a few hours).

That matched my experience of what I'd just heard and seen that evening. 

Elsewhere things were falling apart though. The Guardian, on one side, was starting to smear the pro-Brexit side. And Breitbart London, on the other side (and then some), was desperately seeking to discredit the idea that the killer might have far-right links.

Agendas were seriously, disgracefully and very vigorously being pushed....

....and both of those media outlets have continued down their respective paths ever since, to their great discredit.

******

I won't go into to much detail about Polly Toynbee & Co's contributions at the Guardian, about which they should be ashamed of themselves (and regular readers will know what to expect from them), but Breitbart's coverage (which has spread onto other 'anti-BBC sites') has been at least as shameful.

Breitbart's feverish attempts, while Mrs Cox was still breathing, to promote the 'nothing to see here' line regarding the alleged killer's alleged links to the alleged far-right and promote the counter 'it's all about his mental illness' line have been frankly jaw-dropping and appalling.

And after all their desperate 'debunkings' of the mounting evidence that the alleged killer might actually, allegedly, have a far-right distant past and even a far-right recent past - plus his responses in court, "'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'" -, they've still kept on grimly trying to assert that 'it's all about his mental illness' and that it's everyone else who's biased and behaving shamefully.

It may well be. Or it may not be. The suspect's alleged motivation is for the law to decide now. Accusing others of pre-judging while furiously pre-judging yourself just isn't good though.

And quite a lot of people on our 'wing' on the blogosphere have been doing it just as much of that as those on the opposite 'wing' of the blogosphere. They should all be ashamed of themselves. (Not that any of them will be).

(And Louise Mensch hasn't exactly done herself proud either, railing against the Left for speculating and pre-judging whilst simultaneously speculating and pre-judging herself).

Plus now a surprising large number of the commenters below the line at Breitbart are indulging and furthering disgracing themselves (and their blog) by group-hugging themselves in a crazy 'false flag' conspiracy theory that the EU/Remain murdered Jo Cox to derail the pro-Brexit campaign.

(I'm not joking, I'm afraid. They really have been saying that in large numbers over there.)

It needs to immediately stop - as this piece by Iain Martin makes clear (please click on the link!)

******

As for the BBC, I also watched Thursday and Friday nights' editions of Newsnight and found both of them, taken together, absolutely exemplary. They were duly cautious about things they ought to have been cautious about, and kept sounding those cautions whilst giving voice to various non-controversial and controversial points-of-view from various angles. Their reports were honest and fair. And if Thursday's edition gave more of a platform to those who wanted to push the 'dog whistle politics' line, Friday's edition gave more of a platform to those (including Danny Finkelstein and Douglas Murray) who eloquently dismissed such charges. I was relieved and heartened by Newsnight's behaviour.

******


The one BBC reporter who struck me as seriously letting the BBC down was Mark Easton. His blog was barely distinguishable in content from those articles and tweets from those partisan pro-Remain types who have absolutely disgraced themselves in the past couple of days (like Polly Toynbee):
The phrases "political class", "the establishment" and "the metropolitan elite" are almost routinely deployed to undermine respect for our democratic representatives, for Parliament and for public servants.
Anti-politics is now a recognised force, particularly online.
Social media can be the most antisocial place. Good manners and decency are drowned in a sea of bile and hostility.
The EU referendum campaign has seen the normal rules of political engagement suspended, traditional party lines washed away as supposedly honourable members trade insults and foster contempt.
Facts and expertise are dismissed as self-serving fictions, the cry of "liar!" echoing from both camps.
And with immigration the dominant theme of the referendum debate, there have been moments when the "respect for other cultures" the prime minister wishes to promote has been replaced by statements that sound more like inflammatory xenophobia.
There are, of course, very real concerns about the impact of immigration on our country.
But the rhetoric has shifted from concerns about the phenomenon to the threat from "foreigners".
I have heard it repeatedly from voters on the streets in recent weeks.
It is certainly unedifying and, perhaps, dangerously subversive.
Not that Mark Easton's liberal bias on immigration has ever exactly been well concealed, but here he's being blatant in focusing his criticism on the rhetoric of one side of the present EU argument, and in linking "xenophobia" and the word "unedifying" to the views of "voters on the streets". He's taken us right back to exactly the kind of ultra-biased BBC worldview that various 'repentant' BBC types have kept assuring is now a thing of the past.

He even uses a word I doubt he's ever used before in a BBC article - at least without putting it in heavily inverted commas. He calls such views "perhaps, dangerously subversive".

When was the last time you ever heard/read a BBC reporter describing any contemporary strand of British opinion as "subversive"? I'm betting - like me - you've never heard it before. It's not the BBC way, is it? And, if I may be so bold, m'lud, he's talking about us.

I've not watched the BBC One News at Ten or much else on the News Channel so I don't know if it's true, as I've read elsewhere, that Mark Easton was the BBC journalist most eager to report the 'Britain first' claims - i.e. to push the political angle to the murderous attack. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was the case though.

******

Today's I've watched Dateline London and listened to Any Questions. 

Dateline focused on the Mark Easton/Polly Toynbee angle. Fortunately leading Brexit campaigner Alex Deane was on and argued robustly - and admirably (to my mind) - against that angle - and against the combined onslaught of Marc Roche and Stephanie Baker and BBC presenter Gavin Esler - and, albeit much less strongly, Brian O'Connell (who tried to strike a middle way between them and, unusually, found himself in the line of fire for so doing).

Alex took it in good spirit though:


It's well worth catching up with, if your blood pressure will stand it. It will make you think.

And talking of threats to your blood pressure...

Any Questions, in reaction to the killing of Mrs Cox, was an audience-free studio discussion. It featured Polly Toynbee and Max Hastings (both Remain), and Claire Fox and Peter Oborne (both Leave). It's also well worth listening to.

Polly, as ever, was the biggest threat to my blood pressure. She railed about the wickedness of one side of the EU referendum debate but I note she didn't answer Claire Fox's point about the demonisation of Nigel Farage, UKIP and UKIP supporters from her side.

I had that in mind especially because of a point from Sarah AB at Harry's Place regarding Alex Massie's original piece at the Spectator all-but-smearing Mr Farage with a charge of culpability for the murder of Jo Cox: How would the likes of Mr Massie (and Polly Toynbee) feel if Nigel Farage was assassinated by a far-left extremist, 'as a result of' all the hatred aimed at him?

Jonathan Dimbleby controlled the discussion fairly, though his own contributions clearly placed him as not being on Claire Fox and Peter Oborne's side (and he embarrassed Max Hastings too). Though he wasn't too biased, I'd put him as clearly 'pro-Establishment' and 'pro-Remain' on this evidence (unsurprisingly).

******

Sorry. I know this isn't a post that gets anywhere close to doing justice to any of the issues at hand, but it's all I can manage. Whether 'something' is better than 'nothing' I'll let you judge. 

Erdoganhead


While I'm feeling seriously out of focus, the BBC News website now has this as its sixth most important news story in the world:


UK rock band Radiohead have condemned an attack on people listening to their new album at a record store in the Turkish city of Istanbul.

Some 20 suspected Islamists beat up customers and staff for drinking alcohol and listening to music during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan... 
Radiohead described the assault on the Velvet Indieground store as an act of "violent intolerance".
In support of Radiohead and their Turkish fans in the face of the latest advance by Erdogan's children, here's my favourite Radiohead song:

Thursday, 16 June 2016

Home affairs enquiry

Sorry for the tardiness and belatedness of this post. Others have tackled it before me but  let’s go ahead anyway. The other parliamentary event that took place this week was the Home Affairs Select Committee enquiry about the rise of antisemitism. 



This was chaired by Keith Vaz, who pronounces antisemitism with an ‘’e’, as in “antisemetic” .

Watching Keith Vaz being forensic and painstaking in that laboured manner of his is very annoying, and it makes him look a bit thick. He began by making Jonathan Arkush define antisemitism, dragging it out as though he’d never heard of such a thing in his life. It was quite an emetic, in fact. He used attitudes to ‘the right to self-determination’ as a kind of litmus test.
For all the laborious, misdirected unpickings of what is and what isn’t antisemitism, those familiar, lazy, defamatory generalizations were left hanging in the air.

This enquiry left an overriding impression of unchallenged falsehoods and inaccuracies, ranging from the ubiquitous “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians” to Ken Livingstone’s “700,000 Palestinians who were driven out of their homes illegally at gunpoint”  - not to mention the fact that Hitler supported Zionism because he was keen to rid Germany of all its Jews by deporting them to Palestine (before he went mad and killed 6,000,000.)

What was the point of it all?  Does it relate to Shami Chakrabarti’s ill-conceived chairmanship of the inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour Party, which is morphing into an enquiry into all kinds of racism including Islamophobia? It happened; therefore it was.

MPs who were sympathetic to Jonathan Arkush and hostile to Ken Livingstone still appeared to be in agreement that condemnation of Israel was understandable because of “What it is doing to the Palestinians”, but they seemed to think that the elusive affliction known as antisemitism was shameful and a real menace. Nobody seemed to wonder why Israel kept on  “doing” stuff to the Palestinians.  It was unanimous. Everyone, including forensic examiner Keith Vaz agreed that criticism of Israel was not antisemitic.

Mr Winnick: 
The last question I want to ask is arising from what the Chair asked you about Israel. You accept entirely that criticism of Israel is perfectly compatible with non-racism, and that it is not connected automatically in any way with antisemitism. The criticism of Israel, which could be very strong indeed—some, indeed myself would say that it is often very much justified—is not antisemitic.

The most interesting sound-bite and quotable performance arose from Chuka Imunna’s dramatic speech, somewhat marred by his consciousness of the need to preempt the inevitable trolling. That says a lot about the atmosphere in Corbyn’s current Labour Party, and is a tacit admission that antisemitism is the very thing that is motivating the predicted trolls.
“You know what? I will get trolled incessantly after this exchange. I don’t care—” 
He still let Livingstone get away with his appalling lies, if indeed he recognised them as lies. 

The speech, for which the Chairman admonished him -  “This is not an opportunity to make statements” - began:
“I just say this to Mr Livingstone. You were born in my constituency and you went to school in it. I and many other Labour colleagues of all backgrounds and faiths campaigned not just once but twice for you to be Mayor, and I think you campaigned for me. You did help reduce poverty, you did help reduce inequality and you did improve the housing situation in our capital city.”

 It’s all very well to set out a couple of carefully selected examples of Mayor Livingstone implementing Labour values, thereby excusing his party’s support for Livingstone’s mayoralty. An aspiring Labour rising star could do no other. But it does look hypocritical to have overlooked, as Umunna seems to have done,  Livingstone’s record of ( amongst other things)   courting such disreputable people as Qaradawi and the disgraced Lee Jasper. 
“But you are not a historian. You are a politician. And by needlessly and repeatedly offending Jewish people in this way you have not only betrayed our Labour values but betrayed your legacy as Mayor because all you are now going to be remembered for is becoming a pin-up for the kind of prejudice that our party was built to fight against. That is a huge shame and it is an embarrassment. “

That is if one overlooks the other (aforementioned) memorable contributions to the legacy of this particular pin-up boy.

Ken Livingstone is not alone in his attitude to Israel, Jews and his malignant version of history. Why do they so readily believe (and I’ve heard it from others) that (in 1948) 700,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes at gunpoint? 
Chuka Umunna could offer no substantive challenge to this falsehood, thus considerably weakening the whole enquiry.

Ken Livingstone: No, no. It is a catastrophe in the sense that the deal done was for two states and a division. The tragedy is—and it is the legacy that still leads to violence today—that 700,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes illegally at gun point. The Prime Minister of Israel said, “The old will d 
Mr Umunna: Sorry, we only get a small amount of time to ask you questions. Either you thought it was wrong, and it was a great catastrophe, or not. Yes or no?  

Ken Livingstone: It was right to say that we will create a haven for those Jews who wish to go there. It was not right for the Israeli Government to expel— Mr Umunna: Ken, was it a catastrophe and was it wrong or not?  

Ken Livingstone: It was not wrong to create it. It was a catastrophe to expel at gun point 700,000 Palestinians from their homes. 

Mr Umunna: Sorry—that was not the question I asked.

Over the page: Transcript. Umunna and Livingstone.