Ecce Homo (though not on the BBC)

Here's a curious tale, courtesy of one of our readers...

For six weeks from Easter 2017 until 22nd May, Mark Wallinger’s sculpture Ecce Homo has found a new temporary home outside St Paul’s Cathedral. This work was originally the first sculpture to be commissioned for the Fourth Plinth in 1999. Mark Wallinger was the Turner Prize winner in 2007 for his work State Britain - an installation of protest banners and placards.

Searching through the BBC website, I can’t find any mention whatsoever of Ecce Homo’s re-siting at St Paul’s. Bias from the BBC is evident in the way that events are reported, but also in the way that events are ignored and not reported. Reporting on its new temporary home would have given the chance of debate about public art, about the religious context and interpretation of the piece - an issue that drew attention when it was first displayed.

Sponsors of the re-siting at St Paul’s were Amnesty International - Kate Allen, director of Amnesty, said: "The story of Christ - arrested, tortured and executed for peacefully expressing his opinions and for challenging the authorities of the time - still resonates around the world today. The sculpture is a strikingly vulnerable figure and is representative of the type of cases that we at Amnesty still work on today - the oppressed individual caused to suffer simply for their beliefs”. 

Why would the BBC chose to ignore this news item? 

1. Is it because there is a Christian message that does not suit the BBC narrative?
2. Is it because Christ is represented as ‘hideously white’ or some might say gay?
3. Is it because the re-siting was sponsored by Amnesty?

Personally, I find that  the work lacks a true Christian message. The guided barbed wire crown of thorns is the only real link to Ecce Homo - Behold the Man. With this removed, the piece would be similar in concept to Antony Gormley’s figures, where the siting of the work speaks more loudly than the sculpture itself. Christ’s face does not reflect any of the suffering which is central to the Christian message - the face is impassive - even vacant. 

Aside from the strange decision of St Paul’s Cathedral themselves to allow Amnesty as a strictly non-religious organisation to sponsor the work of an atheist artist on their doorstep, the BBC’s determination not to mention it is difficult to explain - the silence is deafening. I understood that Amnesty were as one with the Labour Party - which you would think would lead the BBC into making something of it. Alternatively, does the BBC have a policy about support for charities other than its own in house versions - Children in Need etc? Or, is the work of Amnesty too close in its principles to that of Liberty, in which case they might have been frightened off by Shami? 

The only other angle on this is the involvement of  Hauser & Wirth, a Swiss art gallery, who I guess would have exhibition rights to the piece.

I'm not sure why the BBC hasn't covered this. It would normally be right up the corporation's street. It's a modern art piece in front of St. Paul's Cathedral. Radio 4's 'Sunday' has done several reports on 'Homeless Jesus' - another piece of point-making sculpture - and Will Gompertz has just been in Venice exulting over some anti-national borders, globalist exhibits at the Biennale there.

I can't say that I'm overly impressed with Mark Wallinger's Jesus either though. Expression-wise, he looks just like me after I've fallen asleep during 'The Antiques Roadshow'....

....unlike this chap outside Coventry Cathedral:

It's not just his eyebrow that's arching...

Jon Sopel, of course, is strictly impartial (if he says so himself)!:

Brexit Bang-a-Bang

The burning question on the lips of BBC Breakfast presenters this morning has been, "From horse heads to monkeys, it can only be Eurovision. But will the UK feel the Brexit backlash?"...

...just as it was the question on BBC One's News at One yesterday: "And it's the first Eurovision Song Contest since the EU referendum tomorrow. Will Brexit scupper Britain's chances?"

Yesterday morning's BBC Breakfast also discussed the "speculation that Brexit could affect the UK's chances of winning" and asked, "Will Brexit mean that [the UK] meets its Waterloo?". 

And on Thursday's BBC One News at Six, it was headline news: "You guessed it, it's Eurovision time again - but could Brexit bad blood mean nil points for our Lucie Jones?"

Now, the obvious answer to this question (unless you're doom-mongering about Brexit) is that we've been near to the bottom of the final rankings for most of the past decade or so, and we can't do any worse than we did in 2010 when we came last. 

2016 24/26

2015 24/27

2014 17/26

2013 19/26

2012 25/26

2011 11/25

2010 25/25

2009 5/25

2008 23/25

2007 22/24

2006 22/24

Maybe, post-Brexit, we'll see the UK regaining our pre-1973 heights when we won twice, came second eight times, and only fell out of the Top 4 twice - and never came anywhere near the bottom.

Update: Tonight's PM on Radio 4, introduction: "Meanwhile in Kiev, worries that Brexit will be sending the UK entry home with nul points again."

ROAR!!!

Talking of Newsnight (as someone somewhere must have been), opinions appear to be divided over last night's 'Where's Andrea Leadsom?' report from John Sweeney - the one where he repeatedly bellows her name very loudly on a Cornish beach. (I bet even Sue heard him from the other side of the county).

Some called it 'hilarious', 'excellent', 'a great piece of reporting', and claimed that the Roaring One had showed up both the stage-managed Tory campaign and 'the Brexit Queen' Mrs Leadsom herself. 

Others, however, called it 'unfunny', 'laboured', 'very embarrassing' and 'sh*t journalism', 'an absolute waste of airtime', and a sign of 'increasingly low standards' - though perhaps the most frequent complaint was that it was an absolute waste of money, what with Our John motoring half way across the country and back (probably quite literally) in hot pursuit of the allegedly 'missing' Tory minister. ("Who the fu*k commissioned th*s complete and utter waste of money?", tw**ted one.)

Please ready your chuckle muscles and judge for yourselves...

The Times They Are a-Changin'

How far things have come since the early days of blogs about BBC bias!

The kind of criticisms of 'BBC left-wing bias' that blogs like this have been making since the early years of the last decade have become more mainstream. You especially see them in the comments sections of right-leaning sites across the internet, including newspaper and magazine websites. There's few things that animate the readers of such sites than talk of BBC bias. Defenders of the BBC, of course, would say that the comments across such sites are made by the same kind of people (often literally the same people), so, even though it may appear to have become more mainstream, it's still really just 'a bubble'. However, if you compare and contrast two YouGov opinion polls (which no one believes anymore unless it suits them to), one from 2013 and one from 2017, you find that the number of people who think the BBC has a pro-Left bias has risen from 17% to 28%. That suggests that discontent has grown more mainstream. 

The biggest change, however, has been the sudden explosion of left-wing fury at the BBC. It's something I've mainly seen on Twitter, where it absolutely overwhelms right-wing fury at the BBC. It's like a parallel universe, where 'right-wing plants' in the studio audience for BBC One's Question Time and the far-right political views of QT producers are raged over in almost exactly the same way as, in bygone years, 'left-wing plants' in the studio audience for BBC One's Question Time and the far-left political views of QT editors have been raged over by people on the another side of the political spectrum. 

And from it have exploded a huge number of highly-read left-leaning sites with a heavy focus on 'BBC right-wing bias', most famously The Canary, but also Evolve Politics and Another Angry Voice. Facebook, apparently, is full of such stuff too. Again, there's few things that animate the readers of such sites than talk of BBC bias. According to the guy who runs Evolve Politics, criticism of the BBC’s political coverage is the top "traffic driver" for his site (and given what I see on Twitter, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.) And such comments are becoming more mainstream on left-leaning sites, including left-leaning newspapers and magazines. Does that reflect more than a counter-'bubble' though? Going back to those two YouGov polls, the number of people who think the BBC has a pro-Right bias has risen from 4% to 18% over the past four years. (Still significantly less than those who think it's biased towards the Left though).

None of that is exactly good news for the BBC, given that, nowadays, some 46% of YouGov respondents ('nearly half the country!') think the BBC is politically biased. Yes, the BBC can shout 'Complaints From Both Sides!' (see the previous post for more on that logical fallacy), but it shows a growth in disillusion with the BBC from the politically-committed across a substantial part of the political spectrum (excepting the centre and the centre-left who seem to be the BBC's main defenders). To break out of that the BBC would have to recruit far more widely and make a determined effort to break its own predominantly 'soggy left' groupthink (as may possibly have been said before). 

The Complaints From Both Sides Fallacy

Backing up a shrewd comment from a (much) earlier thread and taking ITBB's Tardis back to last Saturday....

Here's a classic illustration of the Complaints From Both Sides Fallacy in action, courtesy of Twitter - a Corbynista cries 'right-wing BBC bias!' and a right-wing guest on the offending programme replies sarcastically:

'Aha! Complaints From Both Sides!' cry BBC defenders.

Well, no. 

Keeping track of all the guests on Dateline over many years has proved that complaints from one side (Peter's side) are wholly wrong, while complaints from the other side (Alex's side) are pretty much spot-on. 

Last week's edition was actually unusual in being 'balanced', with two right-leaning guests and two left-leaning guests - though, yes, there were no Corbynistas present. 

But, though it has grown somewhat more balanced over time, it's still far from unusual for Dateline to have panels that consist entirely of left-leaning people, covering the whole range of the left-wing spectrum from the just-left-of-centre to the extreme-left (e.g. the 8th April edition which featured Rachel Shabi, Isabel Hilton, Steve Richards and Jeffrey Kofman). 

The reverse cannot be said.

So the Complaints From Both Sides Fallacy is, indeed, a fallacy. 

And it's not just BBC editors appearing on Newswatch or Feedback who use it. It is quite staggering how often you see being used by ordinary (largely centre-left people) on Twitter. 

They must assume (a) that both sides' complaints must be equally invalid (which is far from being necessarily true) and (b) that the BBC is incapable of being biased on more than one front (say, against the Right and the extreme-Left, in favour of 'the Soggy Centre Left'). 

Andrew Marr Monitoring Update

Sorry for the lack of posts recently.

If you were especially looking forward to the latest instalment of Is the BBC biased?'s scintillating Andrew Marr Show election coverage, then here (very belatedly) are the results for last week's show, beginning with the usual transcriptions of Andy's intros (which will all be compared and contrasted after the election). 

Here's his main introduction: 

Good morning to you and, at last, some real meat - some detailed policies in the election campaign - and not just details, the biggest issues of all: how much tax you will be paying and how confident you can be about the National Health Service after polling day. The health secretary Jeremy Hunt joins me this morning to talk about new plans on mental health and the Tory record on the NHS. And what of Labour's tax plans? Jeremy Corbyn's left-hand man and shadow chancellor John McDonnell joins us to reveal all - or so I hope. Also today, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, on the dangers of interrogating politicians too closely on their faith. Plus, during times when we focus on bad behaviour in public life, Imelda Staunton and Conleth Hill on a raw and still shocking play about drunkenness and family collapse. And we have music from one of the UK's biggest new acts, Rag'n'Bone Man. And reviewing the news today... a dynamic trio:The political editor of Buzzfeed, Jim Waterson, the Labour adviser turned stand-up comic, Ayesha Hazarika and the Conservative commentator, Tim Montgomerie. All that after the news...

And his introduction to the interview with Uncle John McDonnell:

After very disappointing local election results, Labour has a new and cunning plan. According to yesterday's Guardian, the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is to be deployed to reveal more about his values and his personal story. Sounds intriguing, and he man himself is here.

And his introduction to the interview with Jeremy (Careful Jim!) Hunt:

For a lot of voters, the central issue in this election campaign is the condition of our most loved institution, the National Health Service. But these have not been easy years for the NHS or for those working in it and the Health Secretary responsible for the NHS in England may have his work cut out explaining why its future will be brighter under the Tories. And he joins me now.

The John McDonnell interview lasted 11m 35s and Andrew Marr interrupted him 15 times, resulting in an Interruption Coefficient of 1.3. The Jeremy Hunt interview lasted 14m 52s and contained 22 interruptions, resulting in an I.C. of 1.5 (i.e. slightly higher and, therefore, tougher). If we add those to our list, it now looks like this:

Paul Nuttall, UKIP - 1.6

Jeremy Hunt, Conservative - 1.5

John McDonnell, Labour - 1.3

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour - 1.2

Theresa May, Conservatives - 1.1

Tim Farron, Lib Dems - 0.6

Leanne Wood, Plaid Cymru - 0.5 

The UKIP man is still 'winning'. 

As for the content of this week's political interviews, the John McDonnell interview broke down as 34% on party politics, 25% on whether he's a Marxist or not, and 41% on tax and borrowing. The Jeremy Hunt interview spent 61% of  the time on the NHS and 39% of the time on Brexit. The bits on Brexit mainly looked at the effects on Brexit on the NHS and whether the EU is "rigging our election"; the (non-Brexit) bits on the NHS looked at NHS waiting times (36% of the whole interview), the nurses' pay freeze, NHS funding and funding for mental health within the NHS.

Thought For The Day

You go for weeks without rain, then it never stops raining. It's a bit like that with posts here sometimes.

Perhaps as a result of this I always pay particular attention to the encounters of Jesus with rain in the Bible....

"Flood of BBC bias claims"

I suppose I’m duty bound to mention this piece in the Mail Online. 

“Flood of BBC bias claims for new watchdog: Viewers have hit out at more than 60 broadcasts since Ofcom became its regulator”

Most of the below-the-line comments are from people wingeing about Laura Kuenssberg, whom they dislike mainly because they see her as opinionated, rude, Scottish and when they’ve done - basically criticising her for doing her job - they start on her appearance. 

Oh well, it was the OMG Daily Mail.

There’s another piece in the entertainment section of the Mail Online. 

“BBC receives record complaints”

"The BBC has received a record number of complaints about its programmes this year.
Viewers lodged 1,596 grievances, more than double the 794 received in the previous 12 months."

They’ve outlined a variety of the issues that have upset viewers. They must have been pretty upset if they were prepared to take on the nigh impenetrable complaints procedure. 

I did try to look up some of the issues mentioned in the article, and I couldn’t fine the one about the BBC 2 series Correspondent that was “biased towards Israel” (That must have been quite a programme) but what I did see was massive list of  ‘decisions not to respond further to a complaint about………” 

***********

Talking about below-the-line comments, I only look at some of them to get a sense of the zeitgeist. I’ve noticed that even the Guardian commentariat has softened its stance on Israel and the Palestinians. (They seem less sympathetic to the Palestinians and rather less hostile to the Israelis these days.)

However, that is counterbalanced by a persistent strain of overt and covert antisemitic sentiment below-the-line on right-wing platforms, such as The Times and The Spectator.

For example anything in The Times by Melanie Phillips will  attract a lot of comments that start with “I rarely agree with Melanie, but..” or “I don’t usually like anything Melanie has to say” and some of them will dismiss her out of hand without bothering to flesh out an argument.

Her latest piece (£)  "Universities have caved in to dogma and thuggery" is about the growing trend in US and UK universities for ‘no-platforming’ speakers of the ‘wrong’ type lest they cause distress to the delicate type of student that has suddenly sprouted everywhere. Pass the smelling salts. 

A couple of btl commenters accused her of double standards, since she was amongst the voices objecting to hate-preachers and the like being given free rein in our universities (and mosques) to incite hatred or even violence. The thing is, though, that hate-preachers are still given platforms (and so are whole anti-Zionist conferences and rallies and so on) where unwelcome, dissenting voices are dealt with, shouted down or ejected in no uncertain terms. But when a talk or lecture is scheduled by a pro-Israeli speaker, it’s  cancelled, hounded from venue to venue, or drowned out  by screaming activists.)

The double standards are the other way round.  Free rein for the anti-Zios, no-platform for the pros.

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

Still vaguely on topic, the BDS movement is still going strong, but it seems to be losing some of its momentum. Michael Gove gave a speech criticising BDS 

 and the Palestinian, Bassem Eid of Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group explains why BDS is bad for Palestinians. 

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

Roll on June 8th. 

Pandering to Arab nations

The BBC hardly reports any genuine news these days. It’s more interested in stories about itself, such as who’s lined up as the next Dr. Who, or assorted gossip about various BBC productions.

Of course it reported John McDonnell’s comments about whether or not he is an actual Marxist, but as such revelations often emerge directly from interviews with BBC staff, this  still loosely qualifies as insularity.

Andrew Marr does an interview, then bits of it are revisited on The Sunday Politics (when they did dig up a 4 year-old clip of John McDonnell stating unequivocally that he is a Marxist.) So, all good.

One subject area about which the BBC is less than forthcoming is “general matters concerning Israel”, where any news we do get is seen from the Palestinian or the anti-Zionist perspective.  The language as well as the narrative is the giveaway.

In March the Independent reported that a British Royal (Prince Charles) was to become family’s first member to make state visit to Israel later this year’. 

Being the Independent, the piece was frosty. Unsurprisingly the Palestinian point of view was given considerable coverage; the piece could easily have been written by the BBC. If one bothered to read the whole thing, however, one would soon have realised that the headline was misleading, premature and presumptuous. The Prince’s visit was by no means a certainty. I don’t know why they bothered with the story in the first place.  

Now it’s the Sun’s turn. The visit that never was, has been cancelled.  I don’t know why they even bothered. 

Well, it’s not quite a non-story about the man who wasn’t there (and certain people wishing he wasn’t there again today) …. it’s more of a tale about the Foreign Office and the Arab lobby. 

Needless to say, the BBC hasn't reported this story or (as far as i can tell) the earlier story ......so far.

Death of Facts

Idly flicking through the ridiculous abundance of TV channels yesterday and landing, serially, on a seemingly solid wall of adverts, I realised once again the importance of the BBC. We do need an ad-free broadcaster. No, really we do. We need to be informed educated and entertained without being browbeaten or brainwashed.

James Delingpole explains why it matters that the BBC fails to live up to its charter obligations

“to produce output that is rigorously fair and balanced.” 

Part of the problem is that the BBC believes that it is already fair and balanced.  Talk about a divided nation! The BBC is in its bubble, all lefty and consensual, and the other half are in theirs; alt-right, far right and “altfas”. 

One thing nearly everyone seems to agree on is that the BBC is biased. Some think it’s biased to the left, some to the right. So it’s a bit unfair on the BBC. They’re damned before they start. 

However, the BBC is “left-blind”. (I got that from an ad, you know the one with ‘nose-blind’, which means acclimatised to one’s own stench.) The BBC has slipped and slid into a default position wherein left means good ad right means bad.  

So, as many of us have worn themselves blue in the face trying to point out, labelling something “right’ or ‘far-right’ is understood to be pejorative. The kind of pejorative that is wrapped so loosely in ‘code’ that it’s still just about possible to deny with a knowing  “innocent face”. 

Critics of the BBC claim that think-tanks are frequently tagged with a ‘right-wing’ health warning, whereas ‘left-wing’ views are unlabelled.  

James Delingpole was cross, and rightly so - (sorry) because his (London branch) online site Breitbart has to endure being lumbered, and implicitly denigrated, by being tagged ‘far-right’, and on this occasion “very extreme right”. 

Of course, within the framework we’re obliged to use, Breitbart is right-wing - in that is it’s a staunch critic of the left, and will use the terms ‘left’ and ‘progressive’ as a pejorative, and in that respect I suppose the one mirror-images the other.

However, Delingpole’s criticisms of the edition of Word of Mouth with professor George  Lakoff were spot on.

I like words and linguistics as a topic. In a parallel world I might have been one of Professor Lakoff’s students. 

(But I fear the droning timbre of his voice would have turned me off, pronto.) 

Professor Lakoff’s superior, and dare I say patronising explanations of the terms “snowflake”, “alt right” and “antfas” were so off-beam that I almost felt sorry for him. They were the “dad-dancing” version, if you like. Misunderstood and uncool. Not to mention his definitions of “virtue signalling” and “Social justice warrior”.

Even more irritating than that was his assurance that these terms were ‘hardly ever heard of’  in the mainstream. That is to say, in the ‘left’ world he inhabits. Only experts like him would be aware of them at all, he explained, and we were lucky he was here to enlighten us. I think even Michael Rosen was taken aback at that.  

Another, even more disturbing and hypocritical aspect of the ‘progressive left’s attitude  was exposed too. 

The ‘hardly ever heard of’ aspect. So much so that alternative (another misrepresented term) view, that of the so-called ‘right’ has now become verboten. (There you go.  See what I did there? “Sorta, kinda, like Hitler”.)

This no-platforming malarkey, of which Berkeley, the professor’s stamping-out ground, is a hot-bed. 

Melanie Phillips was there.  Her “Zio” lecture was so ‘against the grain’ that it had to be carried out in a secret location. In a university. (You know, a seat of learning, where a plethora of ideas are explored) Or not.

Douglas Murray has written many articles, including The Death of Facts, about this state of affairs. 

Universities are now silencing free speech. It’s not only in California that this is happening though. No Israeli or pro Israel speaker can even think of speaking in a British university these days without an angry mob screaming and shouting abuse.

Oddly enough a teeny counter movement is burgeoning. Did anyone see Alastair Sooke’s anti-Trump programme yesterday? Another of the BBC’s supposedly ‘above it all’ investigations, full of baffled and despairing  lefties and progressives. 

Did you see Nadya Tolokonnikova from “Pussy Riot” ?(I thought the Pussies were in a Russian prison?) Her forehead and part of one cheek was adorned with shards of mirror. What if one of them stuck in her eyeball? I suppose punk is all about living dangerously.

The pro-Trump movement was not completely ignored through. Matt Rich, a publicist who worked for Trump, pulled Sooke up for saying people who work in the arts feel a “natural” resistance to Trump… “why do you say ‘natural’ of all things? […] I would certainly not call it ‘natural’. ” 

A black singer called Sam Moore shocked his former fans and compatriots by singing at the inauguration, attracting opprobrium from “Snoop Dog”. 

Sooke provided the obligatory opposing view again, in the form of an ironic gay, “counter-culture” “Twinks for Trump”.  An alternative alt-right Trump fan-base.  

I mean, here I go again. I’m forced into the position of defending Trump and the ‘extreme right’ not because I support them unconditionally, which I do not, but merely because ‘someone has to do it.’  

  

Airtime

Monitoring airtime is something that BBC bias watchers have long done. Who isn't getting their fair share? Who's getting more than their fair share?

Astonishingly, if the FT's Sebastian Payne is correct, the Conservatives are now at it too - but for an unusual reason:

Flag gate (someone obviously shoved it up) Updated

The gist of a clip from this morning's Today programme, as highlighted on the Today website, featuring John McDonnell "putting a brave face" on labour's disastrous results in the May 4th elections.

J.M.:

"During an election we get balanced air-time throughout broadcast media. As a result of this people can hear more about our policies and also more about our candidates and more about our leader." 

Nick Robinson:

"Are you saying the more they see of Mr. Corbyn, the more people will like him and want him to be our next P.M.?" 

J.M.:

"I think they can make a fair judgement and what they're finding is, is that what comes across is that people like the policies and then they see Jeremy Corbyn is honest, decent and also principled, and that's the sort of leader many of them want, so the more air time we get the better. It's the unbalanced reporting - the more people see of Jeremy the more they think  - this is the leader I want"

Somewhat abruptly, the clip ends. Another way of defining 'principled' is intransigent. Personally, I do  not agree that Jeremy Corbyn is decent or honest - I see him as more of a dunce. A short tempered dunce. But what do I know?

Toddle off to the full 'listen again' Today programme, to hear the part of the interview where Nick Robinson questions McDonnell about his May Day speech delivered while standing in front of that flag. Those flags actually. The Mail Online has saved me the trouble of detailing it:

"Someone obviously shoved it up"

"Mr. McDonnell, asked if he knew he was standing in front of banners with the Communist hammer and sickle, and also representing Syrian president Bashar Assad's regime, told BBC radio 4's Today: "No, of course I didn't know. 

"It was a TUC march. It was a TUC May Day celebration. I was there to celebrate May Day, which was a celebration of the contribution workers make to our economy." 

Asked if he would have insisted on the banners being removed if he had known about them, Mr McDonnell said: "Of course I would, my goodness yeah. 

"It was only afterwards - the TUC organisers didn't know they were there, someone had obviously shoved them up, I was furious afterwards and I think so were the organisers themselves. 

"We're talking about the Trades Union Congress. It isn't an organisation that backs any of these sort of movements. That's appalling."

Hmm. Nick Robinson said:

"you're a well-known radical - you've talked about the limits of doing it through the ballot box, is this not who you really are?

"Look, I'm a Trade Unionist" said the shadow chancellor evasively, and reiterated, at length, the Labour party's promise to create a fairer society. When he had finished, Nick Robinson turned to Laura Kuenssberg whom the BBC has on permanent standby to interpret the politics for the benefit of the intellectually challenged listener. She said it was a masterclass in 'brave-facery' and proceeded to analyse the ongoing results. Flag-gate was not mentioned again.

Update:

"Hard-left mob backs Corbyn, claim Tories" Times (£)

What's the problem?  See this video H/T Daphne Anson.

Kerching!

Though she's doubtless being singled out by the papers for special unfavourable attention at the moment (especially given that lots of other MPs will also have received pots of money from the BBC over the years), the Daily Mail's investigation into Diane Abbott's monetary dealings with the BBC is still quite eye-opening. (The Express and the Sun later 'lifted' the Mail's scoop). 

It gives us another insight into how things work between the BBC and politicians.

Until becoming shadow home secretary (when the BBC stopped paying her), the car-crash-prone Labour MP received £700 for every appearance on This Week and, in total (as the Sun puts it), "raked in a whopping £110,000 of licence fee payers’ money  for appearing on the BBC" (since 2003, it seems). 

Filling in some gaps

I’ll have to tell you about things the BBC hasn't covered, or has covered unsatisfactorily.

Remember last October when UNESCO passed a resolution that re-wrote history, denying "thousands of years of Jewish ties to Jerusalem" ? 

Well the bad news is that hey’ve just passed another one; the good news is that this time the vote wasn’t unanimous. 

“22 countries vote in favor of motion; 23 abstain, and 10 countries vote against; Israel envoy slams ‘new low, even by UNESCO standards’ “

If you’re interested, here’s how the voting went. Note: the UK voted against.

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

The BBC has been headlining with news of Hamas’s new moderate position. Well, no, that’s not quite true. Hamas hasn’t altered the charter.   

They've issued a new policy alongside the old charter to persuade the media that they’re no longer terrorists. They’re reformed, and are now willing to accept the creation of a Palestinian state - with Jerusalem as its capital - according to the indefensible pre 1967 ‘borders’  as long as Palestinian refugees have the right of return, and oh yes, another one … that the Zionist project gets the hell out of Arab lands. (Even Yolande Knell concedes that) 

They’ve stopped mentioning their affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt has outlawed, and they’ve decided that they’re not antisemitic, only anti-Zionist. If it works for Ken, why not?

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

It’s odd that the BBC didn’t cover that May Day demonstration, where the crowd paraded with banners and flags decorated with the hammer and sickle (get one on Amazon: £3. free delivery) and a huge image of Stalin. John McDonnell spoke to an adoring, chanting audience of commies and antisemites. 

Lots of coverage online, but the BBC didn’t show any interest.  

Rock and a hard place

Contrary to what you might think, we at ITBB don’t take everything we read on websites at face value. Even the ones we generally respect and agree with. There’s always another side to an argument if you seek it out, and there’s always someone with another take on any issue.

I often link to articles on Gatestone Institute, and I’m going to do so again now. 

This interesting piece harshly criticises Emmanuel Macron, and given that the BBC is at this very moment delightedly reporting some violent demonstrations in France against “far right Marine Le Pen”, I’m linking to it ‘for balance.’  

Not that everyone who has deep concerns about Emmanuel Macron automatically supports Marine Le Pen. It boils down to a case of the lesser of two evils. But which one is the lesser?

Recent elections have posed a similar conundrum. Trump or Hillary? Which of the two was the least worst?

Brendan O’Neill has an interesting  piece in the Spectator.  It’s a scathing exposé of the rabid feminists who supported Hillary merely and solely because she was a woman, willingly disregarding her unimpressive political record. 

That being the case, he asks: ‘why don’t the feminists unconditionally support Marine Le Pen for exactly the same reason?’ Well, they just don’t.  O’Neill is not endorsing Le Pen. Far from it. He’s merely exposing the stupidity  and hypocrisy of the feminists. 

The Gatestone piece is damning, too, but about Macron. His economic policy is basically the failed policy of François Hollande, (the continuity politician, as the BBC likes to say) and his stance against the Islamisation which is evidently engulfing France at the moment appears to be non-existent. 

(Terrorism) “will be part of the daily life of the French in the years to come” he has said. For all that, the author, Guy Millière is less than enthusiastic about Le Pen. 

Now Macron has suddenly decided to exploit the “is she or isn’t she” question that hangs over Le Pen, which is her alleged antisemitism. Like father like daughter. Macron has pledged that he’s the one who will stand up against antisemitism. Hmm. That will be a difficult circle to square.  The French voter is between a rock and a hard place,

and some would say, so are we. 

Do people find Theresa’s strong and stable ‘rock’ as hard as Jeremy’s ‘all over the place’? We’ll have to wait and see.

It's Almost Easter

Following Craig’s Bank Holiday Fun, I hope I’m not putting too much of a damper on Mark Steel’s amusing take on TFTD with another “It’s almost Easter” TFTD. (18-4-17) 

John Bell of the Iona Community frequently contributes to TFTD, unintentionally invoking Ivor Cutler.

However, the BBC’s attachment to John Bell is not much of a laughing matter.

Is Iona Community Sabotaging Itself by Embracing Kairos?  by Denis MacEoin 

“There is a role for idealists in limited situations. But problems arise when such do-gooders do not properly understand what lies behind mutual hatred, enduring antagonism between people, and conflicts in the name of one cause or another. And here, the Iona Community falls down spectacularly.” 

[...]“……the community has wittingly or unwittingly stumbled into the grasp of one of the most controversial anti-Israel and anti-Semitic alliances any Christian group could choose to enter.” 

Open Thread

As usual (and thank you)...

More fun

And there was a third sighting of Mark Steel on Radio 4 within the last 24 hours. He also appeared on tonight's The Unbelievable Truth.

The funniest (non-Mark Steel bit) was Holly Walsh accidentally misreading her script and calling Kim Jong-Il (dad of Fatboy Kim) "Kim Jong the Second"...which, actually, could have been buzzed as 'a truth' (thus making the Young'Un 'King Jong the Third'). 

#fact.


P.S. The series, as ever, has made the odd passing political joke. The Daily Mail, Donald Trump, Brexit and Nigel Farage have been its main targets. (Please pass the smelling salts!)

Start the Week (but not an open thread)

And, yes, there is more to Morecambe than this statue...

Still in the bank holiday spirit...

...and as the clouds briefly clog the skies over reliably-sunny Morecambe (the UK's sunniest and finest seaside resort, at least according to the BBC's infallible Reality Check)...

...I'd like to spread a little more Morecambe sunshine by recommending this morning's Start the Week. 

I very much enjoyed listening to it (in the garden, in the Morecambe sunshine). 

Now, yes, it featured three environmentalists, all long-term activists, and all opposed (in various ways) to "traditional growth economies", but let's not worry our pretty little heads about that today. 

Andrew Marr himself was obviously aware that a charge of bias might be fired in his direction over this, so he tried to get his defence in first: 

By the way, for people listening, I have deliberately not brought in, as it were, a traditional growth economist because I didn't want to get into a Punch and Judy show about this. We want to examine the idea properly.

Of course, a non-Punch and Judy edition discussion involving only supporters of traditional growth economies is bound to be along very soon on Start the Week!

Not guests on today's Start the Week

Still, this was an absolutely fascinating programme. 

It featured what might be called "a traditional anti-growth economist", advocating a global, left-wing, anti-growth strategy to stop wealth being so concentrated in the hands of "the 1%" and make the world more equal and fun. But against her were ranged two (mutually-reinforcing) environmentalists of a very different stripe - people who don't like the far-left drift of the modern environmentalist movement and who, to my ears, think of environmentalism in a much more old-fashioned/conservative way, as being about loving and protecting nature (both wildlife and the landscape) and not wanting it despoiled by monstrous regiments of wind farms, or by equality warriors, or by people obsessed with 'carbon targets'. 

And, yes, this wasn't a Punch and Judy show. Everyone got their say (at length) and was listened to, politely and amicably. And everyone made interesting points and gave me lots of new things to think about. And Andrew Marr largely kept himself out of it (though Wendell Berry did seem to gently protest about having been asked to read his gloomiest, most eco-nightmarish poem). And...

It really is well worth a listen. 

Bank Holiday Fun

There's been quite bit of Mark Steel on Radio 4 over the last two days. Well, two programmes. 

His Pick of the Week made a pleasant change from some recent episodes (from the likes of Liz Barclay and Sheila McClennon) which had made Radio 4 sound like one long, dreary dirge, or like an endless stream of earnest, socially-aware Guardian articles. At least Mark made the BBC's output sound varied, and his affectionately mocking tone made me chuckle. 

Here he is, for instance, giving an example of why he so enjoys Thought for the Day (and who doesn't?):

Hello I'm Mark steel and this is Pick of the Week. Now, as ever when I'm asked to make selections for Pick of the Week I'm impressed by Thought for the Day because about one minute in there's a game you can play, guessing how they're going to jump from talking about that day's news to religion. So this week there'll be one that goes, "Once again at this time of year many children are enduring the somewhat stressful experience of completing their GCSEs and A levels, or hoping for results that will propel them through the challenges of life ahead. And, as they head off with their sharpened pencils, are they on exactly the same journey as Jesus made when he went into the wilderness? For that was a test. Indeed it was God's way of saying to his only son, 'You may turn over your papers and begin now'. Good morning". Now Wednesday's episode was from the Reverend Joel Edwards, and it didn't disappoint:

I was fascinated to read about a young marketing graduate who set up an online English language and cultural course which has gained more than 12 million viewers. ‘English with Lucy’ offers such videos as: “Easily Speak Like a Native!”, “How to Swear In English” and “How To Annoy British Girls In 3 Simple Steps.” Not a verb conjugation in sight. The channel’s popularity points to a form of learning which is shaped by questions from followers from all around the world. It offers a particular kind of authenticity, imparting knowledge which is highly-tailored to consumer demand and firmly sets itself against more traditional courses.

I was thinking, "Ah, language! This is easy. He's heading to the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis. This is a simple one". But then...

And as we have entered a new global village of egalitarian truth-telling, which transfers the onus onto individuals to shop around for their ideal of authority and authenticity. Yesterday on this programme, the Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales unveiled plans for a new Wikitribune. Backed up by a team of paid journalists, the site will aim to combat fake news by offering ‘factual and neutral’ news. As a Christian, I’m thrown back to reconsider the question Pilate put to Jesus: What is Truth? 

Oh marvellous!! He threw you one way and then came the other way - from fake news to Pontius Pilate in half a sentence! I hope he's on again! 

And as it's May Day (probably his favourite day of the year, when, for a change, he goes on a yet another protest march), here's another bit of Our Mark from this morning's Mark Steel's in Town. He was in St. Anne, Alderney, and on fine form:

You don't make it easy to get here, do you? I thought, "There's bound to be couple of ferries a day from Guernsey", but there's two a week, carefully co-ordinated because the Alderney ferry leaves just before the other one arrives - with anything up to a four-day wait. And what I really like is I think you do that on purpose!  

But the main way of getting here is from Guernsey on a Trislander plane, and if you're not used to it it's not the sturdiest of jumbo jets.  One of the Trislanders is bright yellow and you call it 'Joey', and it's got a smiley face with a red nose painted on it - which is fun, but shouldn't you take designing aeroplanes a bit more seriously?  

The Trislanders have 16 seats, one of which is next to the pilot, and a bloke from the airport calls each person's name individually to get on the plane.  I though, "Oh no, there's been a mistake. I've joined the RAF!".  

And then this bloke holds the door open so you could squeeze in, and within seconds you forget any fear that you had that this thing is too small as that's replaced by the fear that it's too old.  

And three people have told me, "Did you get the one called 'G-BDTO'? That's fun. It's got a leaky roof".  A leaky roof! A plane! 

On my flight there was a bloke hanging onto the door handle, and when we arrived I said, "Were you a bit nervous, mate?", and he went, "Oh no, I know this plane and the handle comes loose if you don't hold on". 

I'm not joking, it was terrifying!

I bet there are Red Arrows pilots who go, "Sod that, I'm not going on a Trislander!" At least when smoke comes out of their planes it's on purpose for a display.  

I think this is how you encourage people to live here, isn't it? You make it really hard to get here but once they're here they're terrified of ever getting the plane back.  

I think you like the old planes with the face because you're like an island of big kids in Alderney. They suit you. 

That's why I love the airport here - the way you pretend that it's like a big airport. Because when you land here the baggage man opens the boot of the plane and he gets out your bag, stood right next to you, but instead of just handing you pick up your bag he takes you to the little rolling rack thing and he puts it on there, but it's broken, so you just pick it up and take in straight back again.