One man and his dog

Also on last night's BBC News at Ten, Jeremy Bowen metaphorically wagged his finger and then, after beginning his report by saying that that US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital has led to bloodshed as predicted, ended it by saying that things were actually "quieter...than many expected". He looked somewhat deflated.

Look out for poor old Saleh, standing amidst the rubble of his demolished home. A Jeremy Bowen report wouldn't be complete without someone like poor old Saleh, nor without a bit of pointed anti-Israel framing from the BBC's Middle East editor:

Newsreader: Israel has carried out air strikes against targets in Gaza, injuring ten people, after Palestinian militants fired a rocket into Israeli territory. Two Palestinians have been killed in clashes with Israeli security forces during a second day of protests in the West Bank and Gaza against Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Our Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, reports from Jerusalem. 

Jeremy Bowen: Palestinian protesters confronted Israeli security forces on the roads leading into all the big towns on the West Bank. Plenty of people had warned that US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital would lead to bloodshed. It has. One dead, and many wounded, across Gaza and the West Bank. That's the land Palestinians want for a state, with a capital in East Jerusalem. 

This is our land. Palestinian, all Palestinian is our land. Mr Trump, you are wrong. 

Most Israelis are delighted President Trump has accepted their reality. He [the Israeli vox pop] said:

We are steadfast here, eternally here since ancient times. This city was given to Jews 3000 years ago. We are the continuation and the US has recognised that. 

But the golden dome behind him is part of the third holiest place in the world for Muslims. And a few hundred yards away, several thousand Palestinians were going home after the noon prayer. The reality of this city is that many Palestinians live here. Life can be hard for them. Saleh's home has been demolished twice this year by the Israeli authorities. They give Palestinians very few building permits, while constructing thousands of homes for Jews. 

I born in this land, and my father and my grandfather. And I will die in this place. I will not leave it, not for Israel, not for Jews, and not for the United States. 

Palestinian areas of Jerusalem were quieter after Friday prayers than many expected. Whenever a crowd formed, mostly of onlookers rather than protesters, the police broke it up. Mr Trump's declaration is a big challenge for the Palestinian national movement. It will turn into a big defeat for it as well if the Palestinians aren't able to organise a coherent challenge to what's happened, and to build on all the international criticism there has been. Israel feels on the up. It's been given American presidential recognition in this city, without mention of occupation and without, so far, a single concession in return. Jeremy Bowen, BBC News, Jerusalem. 

Fergal Keane on the DRC

Fergal Keane

Something from an earlier ITBB post

It's good to see that the BBC is placing more emphasis on Africa and that Fergal Keane, their new Africa editor, is making good on his pledge to report goings-on there more fully. 

He's just been to the Democratic Republic of the Congo - site of the worst war (or wars) since World War Two. The BBC (though far from alone in this) never gave that conflict the coverage it deserved, preferring to focus on much less deadly conflicts instead like that between Israel and the Palestinians. 

Hopefully then, the BBC is now trying to get its priorities right (though it still came lower down the running order than the Jerusalem story). 

Last night's BBC News at Ten saw Fergal Keane in the BBC studio explaining the situation their to Fiona Bruce.

Newsreader: At least 14 United Nations peacekeepers have been killed and more than 50 injured in an attack on their base in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The UN said the peacekeepers were from Tanzania. Five Congolese soldiers were also killed. The attack took place in North Kivu province in the east of the country, where several rival militia groups are fighting for control. Our Africa Editor, Fergal Keane, is here with me. You've just come back from Congo. What's the background to this?  

Fergal Keane: Well, the UN has for some time been a target in eastern Congo because it acts in support of the Congolese government. The real context behind this, even though the group who carried out the attack, the ADF, are Islamist, well it's not like Al-Shabab in Somalia. The real context is a deeply unpopular central government that's clinging to power, whose President, Joseph Kabila, has gone beyond his two term limit. And you have a sense now among warlords, militia groups, among wider civil society, that an endgame is beginning. You have jockeying for power. Congo itself is a mess at the moment. You've more than 4 million people displaced. And at the same time as this, you have a UN peacekeeping force of 20,000 and they are now cutting it down by 3,000, under pressure from the Trump Administration, which wants to reduce peacekeeping costs. This at a time, as I say, when violence is on the rise. I've just come back and I've seen in many parts of the country how those UN peacekeepers, the very people who were attacked last night, are the only people who stand between the ordinary citizens who are being relentlessly attacked, and the exactions of militia groups, warlords and the security forces of their own government. So this couldn't come at a worse time.

I saw that after reading the Guardian's account of the atrocity and noted some striking differences:

Firstly, the Guardian's account doesn't downplay the Islamist element of the atrocity, unlike Fergal Keane's.

And secondly, the Guardian doesn't criticise the Trump administration for forcing the UN to cut the number of peacekeepers in the DRC, unlike Fergal's report which emphasises the vital nature of the UN peacekeepers there and ends with his opinion that the Trump administration-enforced cuts "couldn't come at a worse time".

I do find with Fergal Keane that you rarely come away from his reporting without feeling that you're being not-too-subtly preached to.

Hardliners

I've heard the term "hardliners" on the lips of BBC reporters over the past couple of days or so. It has been applied to two groups of people: those Iranians who are dead against Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and those Brexiteers who want 'a hard Brexit'. Frank Gardner is one example of a BBC reporter who has been using the term about those Iranians, and Mark Urban is one example of a BBC reporter who has been using the term about those Brexiteers. Oddly, I've never considered either of those to be particularly hardline BBC reporters themselves. 

Sucking up to antisemites

Spell-check will keep altering Maitlis to Meritless - I wonder if it knows something I don’t - I but  am absolutely tired of watching people like Emily Maitlis sucking up to people like Ghada Karmi. 

As if Karmi’s opinion is in any way worth hearing. (If that comment sounds dangerously close to complaining because someone I detest has been given airtime, so be it.) 

It’s not so much that I want Karmi to be no-platformed, although I wouldn’t care if she were, it’s merely that oxygen was being given to her very partisan, embittered opinion and  she was being sucked up to by one of the BBC’s senior presenters. Not only that, but Maitlis suddenly became rude and argumentative when speaking to Israeli ambassador Mark Regev, continually interrupting him in that reproachful tone of voice.

Now we all know what the BBC (and most of the British establishment) think about Trump, and we also know what the prevailing attitude towards Israel is - let’s call it lukewarm to cool -  but we suspect that the latter is based on a mixture of ignorance, lazy thinking and fear of enraging the antisemites in British society (if not on antisemitism itself.)

In case you don’t know, Ghada Karmi is an Honorary Research Fellow based in Exeter University. I think she teaches antisemitism and related studies. Honorary?  Wassat? Oh, nothing. It just means…….. Anyway, she gets to be labelled “academic”. 

To date, the only sensible article I have read about Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is in Commentary Magazine by Sohrab Ahmari, a senior writer at the magazine who happens to be of Iranian/ American nationality. So in a good position to opine. (i.e., notaJew) 

Because I don’t know if the full article will be accessible to many ITBB readers I’m going to reproduce most of it below. (The missing paragraph virtually reiterates the law US Congress enacted in 1995, which was included in Trump’s excellent speech) 

“The journalistic class is apoplectic over President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. But conservatives, including those skeptical of this president, should add it to the list of Trump-administration foreign policies that deserve praise. The case for recognizing Jerusalem, and relocating the U.S. Embassy there, is formidable. Talk of the move throwing the region into chaos is overwrought and out of touch with Mideast reality. [..] 

(Professional people) contend that Trump’s capital idea (pun intended) will scuttle any chances for a negotiated settlement to the seven-decade-long conflict. In this, they echo the Palestinian president-for-life, Mahmoud Abbas, who on Wednesday characterized the move as America’s “declaration of withdrawal” from the peace process. 

Here’s the problem with this line of argument: What peace process?

For nearly a decade, Abbas has refused to sit down for direct talks, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s open invitation. Abbas’s rejectionism was spurred in part by the Obama administration’s theory that peace would come from creating “daylight” between the U.S. and the Jewish state and tying talks to an Israeli settlement freeze. Now, with the Jerusalem move, Trump is signaling that Washington will no longer tolerate the Palestinians’ excessive demands–or the obstinacy that led them to turn down generous offers from Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008. 

But, ask the peace-processors, what about the violence that will ensue from this? Here one must respond: Have you looked at the Middle East lately? 

The whole region is on fire, as America’s traditional Arab allies respond to Iran’s hegemonic ambitions from Yemen to Lebanon. Very little of today’s instability has to do with Israel at all. Thus, Washington should take Arab leaders’ statements of outrage with a grain of salt. Arab elites have to create some sound and fury over Jerusalem to satisfy their publics. But most of them today look to Israel as a protector and potential ally against Tehran. 

It can’t be an accident, moreover, that Trump’s announcement followed news of Abbas’s visit last month to Saudi Arabia. There, the reformer-prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) reportedly told the Palestinian leader that Riyadh shares Netanyahu’s view of the conflict. The Palestinians must learn to accept a state with limited sovereignty and non-contiguous territory dotted with Israeli settlements. Under the MBS plan, the New York Times reported, “The Palestinians would not be given East Jerusalem as their capital and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.” 

The leading Arab power, in other words, has concluded that maintaining the anti-Iranian alliance is more important than a settlement here or an East Jerusalem neighborhood there. The Trump administration’s Jerusalem decision, then, is attuned to the tectonic shifts taking place in the Middle East. Why keep pursuing the fiction that the Palestinian question is the most pressing problem in the region, when the Arabs themselves have moved on? 

As for Palestinian groups’ threat of staging days of rage and rioting, that’s not so much an argument against Trump’s decision as it is a case study in why peace has remained elusive for so long.

Strangely, this morning (still early days) this issue seems to have been demoted, news-wise. I do hope the BBC finds something else to gnaw on.

Saudi Arabia’s condemnation may merely be lip service - to keep their Arab co-religionists quiet, and d’you know, I hear that the Palestinians, actually, ain’t that bovvered.

Donald Trump, Fake news and the BBC

Our minds are being truly boggled by the BBC.

The term "fake news" was popularised by Donald Trump during his presidential election campaign last year. 

He used the term to denigrate the output of the traditional news media, although it is also used to describe news stories that achieve significant traction despite being palpably false. 

BBC journalists including Kamal Ahmed, Tina Daheley, Amol Rajan and Huw Edwards  will be telling students how to identify ‘fake news’. 

This in itself smacks of fakery pokery, but I do have to ask, will they be highlighting the BBC’s own social engineering project, the Today Programme? For example, for Mishal Husain’s oddly gratuitous, sugar-coated reports about British Muslims or Manuel Hassassian’s questionable statements in his entirely foreseeable meltdown.

Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian General Delegate to the UK, says Trump's planned acknowledgement of Jerusalem as capital of Israel is "declaring war in the Middle East... and against 1.5bn Muslims" #r4today pic.twitter.com/mwvdubyR3w

— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) December 6, 2017

Okay, so there are some very British Muslim farmers, who say the requisite words in Arabic whilst practicing an entirely humane version of Halal slaughter. Jolly hockey sticks.  

I’m sorry to say that John Humphrys was blatantly hostile to the Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat when he interrogated him this morning, abandoning all pretence of impartiality. (As they do when speaking to Israelis)

Of course Nir Barkat doesn’t understand the true extent of the BBC’s ignorance of the history of Israel nor the hostility with which the BBC approaches all Israeli spokespersons, and he might not be aware of the BBC’s gullibility with regard to the fakery pokery within Palestinian narrative.

John Humphrys reinforces his outrage by listing a cornucopia of hostile Arab States that have reacted badly to the American Embassy's intended relocation, and to Jerusalem being 'recognised as Israel's capital'. 

Those familiar with the non-revisionist history of Israel would accept Nir Barkat’s comments vis a vis Jerusalem as a given, but due to years of the BBC’s bias by omission, John Humphrys, and I’m sorry to say the majority of listeners, well versed in anti-Israel propaganda, will have found them arrogant and offensive. 

As for the threats of violence, which amount to tantrums from the Palestinians when confronted with reality, well, John Humphrys wasn’t afraid to bring the subject up,

The consequences will be massive, won’t they?
 

I don’t think so. 

You don’t think so?

and he immediately starts using the impatient, staccato delivery he reserves specially for expressing fury and exasperation.

But what they want is a two-state peace process don’t they, and.. This. Will. Destroy that process. Completely

Two-state peace process? Whatever. Move on and let us fast forward to ten past eight when a particularly adenoidal-sounding Jon Sopel joins the programme  to traduce Trump. Sopel is in even more Private Pike mode than usual. I do hope he’s remembered to put on his vest.

Humph and Sopel share the hope that Trump will back away from this. Boris is ‘concerned’.

Manuel Hassassian 'effectively the Palestinian ambassador' thinks ‘it’s going to be repercussions that will be very detrimental,’ and ‘violence will be inevitable’. Now John Humphrys’s indignation is directed at Trump, in sympathy with his interviewee.

Hassassian ups the ante: 

“He’s declaring war in the Middle East, he’s declaring war against one point five billion Muslims and hundreds of millions of Christians that are not going to accept their holy shrines to be totally under the hegemony of the Israelis”

John Humphrys seems to have calmed down.

“The Palestinians don’t have the wherewithal to declare war on the U.S.” says Humph. ”How will they prosecute their war?"

“The Palestinians will go down to the streets,” declaims Hassassian, “Let’s not forget what happened in the summer when the Israelis tried to close down the Al Aqsa Mosque… to the prayers… and you know almost an intifada could happen.”

Can you spot the fake news?

Sorry, but what with Mishal Husain’s saccharine ‘reports’ about British Muslims (why?) and a predicted avalanche of hostility towards Israel, I really do despair.

The only consolation and it’s not much of a comfort, is that some of the Tweets and comments I’m seeing are not wholly on message. 

Sunday morning viewing

I couldn’t help spotting irony in kindly Sheikh Mogra’s contribution to the Sunday programme featuring the Pew report. 

In the context of the projected rise in Europe’s Muslim population (to 18% by 20150) the good Sheikh said it will work out fine if WE stop invading MUSLIM Countries. 

Who’s invading whom?

*****

I listen to Andrew Marr on Start the Week occasionally, and he always impresses with his grasp of the issues discussed, sometimes extremely complex ones, such as  this morning’s episode. Russia, religion and the Middle East.

Andrew Marr has many talents, but I don’t think presenting the Andrew Marr show is one of them.

I was just thinking, in view of Rob Burley’s wry Twittering, why not swap jobs? Burley presents the Andrew Marr Show and  Andrew Marr produces it. Win-win.

Further to Craig’s astute observations about the paper review 

“Andrew Marr was trying to conduct an interview with Nigel Farage during the paper review, challenging him about those Trump tweets, Britain First and his EU pension - something that would have been much better done as a proper interview not during a supposedly relaxed paper review with two others leaping in to 'help' in harrying the ‘interviewee’.”

(admittedly, Rob Burley would have had to undergo even more flak had Farage been invited as an interviewee proper.) 

Craig referred to Ayesha Hazarika’s (and Nigel Farage’s) verbal incontinence  as 'a shouty affair', but Ms Hazarika was the one  throwing out ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ like there was no tomorrow. 

Isn’t it odd that certain female pundits (men don’t do this so much) show their disrespect, nay, disgust, by gurning and squirming during an opponent's  attempt to “finish their point”. Ayesha gurned like a demented Yasmin Alibhai Brown, and (Craig politely referred to it as a hubbub) she and Farage continually interrupted each other, effectively drowning each other out. Andrew Marr didn’t seem to have the will nor the way to put things back in order.

Presenters! Take back control!

I spotted that tell-tale  'at last we agree on something’ from Andrew Marr as he signed off Jacob Rees Mogg, and I do think Rob Burleys’s retort was a tad glib:

“Well you don't know anything about Andrew's views. Think it was a jocular end to the interview which shouldn't be taken seriously really.”  

As Tweeter  “Tesh” remarked, I can’t see him saying that to “a leftist”, even in jest.

Still on Sunday viewing, Alan Milburn has resigned from something or other...

but when did he quit producing “One Big Family” for the BBC?

17.2%?

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 discussed the Pew Research Center's projections for the Muslim population in Europe in 2050:

Conrad Hackett, from the Pew Research Center, talked about it first and then Edward Stourton discussed it with Sheikh Ibraham Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain and Katie Harrison, Director of the Faith Research Centre at ComRes.

The message I heard from the programme is that it will all turn out well, especially if we stop invading and occupying Muslims countries! Plus, such research is useful if it's used properly and doesn't get misused by 'the far-right'. 

Reality checking Mark Mardell's knowledge of Finnish classical music

Continuing with today's The World This Weekend with Mark Mardell...

If there's one thing I do know something about it's Finland's finest Jean Sibelius (my favourite composer), so the closing feature on Finland's centenary as an independent nation aroused my interest.

"It's a hundred years since Finland became a nation," said Mark. The stirring opening chords of Sibelius's most famous work Finlandia then resounded, and Mark continued, "And it's a hundred years since the first performance of Sibelius's Finlandia."

I immediately thought, "Oh no it isn't!". It was in fact premiered in Helsinki in 1900 and then performed widely around the world in the years running up to World War I, spreading the composer's fame. 

Tut, tut! Alternative facts from Mark there!

Still, it was interesting to hear (from someone else) that there are 3 million saunas in Finland. The population is only 5 million. There are more saunas than cars in Finland. They certainly do like their saunas.

Mark Mardell gets the same scoop he got a few months ago

A familiar face

Jings! Crivens! Help ma boab! Mark Mardell and his The World This Weekend weren't exactly going our of their way today to dispel the impression some people have (namely me) that this is the most consistently anti-Brexit current affairs staple on the BBC. Mark's introduction today was pure The World This Weekend:

Welcome to The World this Weekend. This is Mark Mardell. "Brexit has undermined the Government's commitment to a fairer Britain", claims Alan Milburn as he resigns as their social mobility commissioner. In a wide-ranging interview Tony Blair tells me about his plans to undermine the Brexit coalition, the dangers of leaving the European Union for Northern Ireland and why he thinks the whole thing is doomed.

Incidentally, this is Mark Mardell's second "wide-ranging interview" with Tony Blair on The World This Weekend this year. The last one was in late April. 

Last time Mr. Blair was on, Mark previewed it on Paddy's Broadcasting House by describing him as "a very special guest". Today, Mark and Paddy said that TWTW has "scooped" by getting Mr. Blair. Some will groan, some will cheer, said Mark, but "he is very interesting". 

"But Twitter and the real world not quite same"

Twitter speaks

The Andrew Marr Show ended today with a gorgeous performance by Gregory Porter of The Christmas Song ("Chestnuts roasting on an open fire"), with some lovely strings shivering frostily in the background. "Merry Christmas to You!" sang Gregory with feeling at the end, looking through the camera deep into our eyes. Ah!

What would have made it even more heartwarming would have been if Nigel Farage and Ayesha Hazarika had provided backing vocals. And, further, if  a smiling Ayesha had then - at the very end - brought out a sprig of mistletoe and waved it towards Nigel. Then they could have kissed and made up. (Appropriately of course). 

That would surely have been one of the most memorable TV moments of all time.

Alas, it didn't happen and, worse, I've a terrible feeling that they won't be sending each other Christmas cards this year either.

Yes, the paper review (also featuring Kate Andrews of the IEA), was a rather shouty affair - a hubbub of voices (mainly Ayesha's and Nigel's) arguing across each other. Ayesha seemed determined to roast Nigel's chestnuts and Nigel was clearly trying to outdo Jack Frost in nipping at Ayesha's nose. Partisans on Twitter accused the one they disliked of being insufferably rude (though none of them used the phrase 'insufferably rude'. Their language was rather more salty than that).

Merry Christmas to You!

The problem was made worse by the fact that Andrew Marr was trying to conduct an interview with Nigel Farage during the paper review, challenging him about those Trump tweets, Britain First and his EU pension - something that would have been much better done as a proper interview not during a supposedly relaxed paper review with two others leaping in to 'help' in harrying the 'interviewee'.

I note that someone put that to Rob Burley (the programme's editor) on Twitter and that Rob conceded that Nigel Farage was "a bit miscast in that spot", calling it "fair criticism".  

As usual Rob has been out and about on Twitter today but he's got absolutely no chance of replying to everyone. or even a sizeable fraction of everyone. He's been deluged, absolutely deluged.

And mainly by left-wingers furious that both Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg were on and that the BBC is "enabling fascism" by giving them a platform and "normalising" extreme-right-wing views. (Yes, even Jacob Rees-Mogg is a "fascist" to these people).

How should a BBC editor respond when hordes upon hordes of random people tweet him to accuse him of acting as an "enabler" for fascism simply by inviting on Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg? Should he just ignore them?

Of course, being Rob, he won't just ignore them.

Here's a small sample of his responses today - including, 'for balance', some of his responses to the much small number of criticisms from 'the other side' too.

Don't forget Gregory and his warming Christmas message though before you read them. You might need to hold onto it!!

Merry Christmas to You!

*****

Rob Burley‏: So, here's the thing, people you don't agree with will sometimes be on TV.

Jo Maugham QC: I don't think that's quite the point. Would you give a platform to those advocating paedophilia? People are entitled to worry about the BBC giving a platform to fascists and those who apologise for them.

Rob Burley: Why not compile a list of those you think should be banned and see if you can get everyone to sign up?

*****

ANE: @RobBurl enabling fascism

Rob Burley: I think banning people you disagree with from speaking on TV and being challenged is pretty chilling in itself...

Glyn Jones: Yup. And a public broadcaster listening carefully to the audience questioning editorial judgements is almost as key as editorial freedom.

Rob Burley: Can't really be accused of ignoring views of public. But Twitter and the real world not quite same.

John Mayes: But @AndrewMarr9 agreed with rees-mogg that the trump tweet didn't matter because it was just Twitter...Challenging stuff indeed.

Rob Burley: Nope he agreed Twitter a trivial medium - not contents which he'd just pressed him on.

*****

M lloyd‏: Hi Rob. Key word there is "sometimes". Mr F seems to be within Mr Marr's frequent flyer club, in spite of having no UK political position.

Rob Burley: He hasn't been on for more than a year but otherwise you have us banged to rights.

*****

Tesh: I know, but the fact that it's ANDREW MARR is a travesty. Whose last words to Jacob Rees Mogg revealed his advocacy of liberalism and centrist policy AND ANTI Conservative grass roots when he said  'at last we agree on something'. I've never heard him say that to a leftist.

Rob Burley‏: Well you don't know anything about Andrew's views. Think it was a jocular end to the interview which shouldn't be taken seriously really.

*****

LEAVE.EU: .@Nigel_Farage parries waves of personal attacks on the Andrew Marr-xist show, but lands the biggest broadsides: "you're out of touch, you're out of touch," he fires back at intolerant liberals on #Marr's sofa. Notice the socks. A patriot to the last. We salute you Nigel.

Rob Burley: "Marr-xist", good grief.

*****

Rob Burley (after Cllr Bally Singh tweets him a poll of Labour with an 8% lead and the single word 'Ha!'): This is just bizarre.

Scott Nelson: Why is it bizarre, Rob? Is it because the BBC’s smears and negativity against Labour on the part of the Tories has backfired?

Rob Burley: It's bizarre that this poll should be directed at me. But as you think the BBC is in the business of smearing Labour (spoiler alert: it isn't!) there's not much point in my explaining.

Reid Von Lehmanstrasse‏: Your lack of self awareness calls into question your fitness for the role which you currently undertake. You go defensive from the outset. Not once have you indicated a moment of self reflection. That's EXACTLY why this tweet wss aimed at you.

Rob Burley: The tweet being aimed at me makes no sense. If you look at timeline you will see I quite often accept if we make mistakes and get things wrong, but crude and baseless allegations of bias? Not going to accept them, sorry.

Reid Von Lehmanstrasse‏: And there you prove my point. You never ask yourself why there's the continued accusation of bias. You sit comfortably on your own belief that your show is balanced because your own unconscious bias is invisible to you, but more importantly the trust let's it slide

Rob Burley: Have you ever considered that your prism might be the issue here?

Paulhohoho Bodriguez‏: Just cut out the middle men and air Hitler speeches instead.
Rob Burley: Godwin klaxon!

etc, etc, etc, etc.

Who Does John Simpson Think He Is?

I've seen quite a few comments in various places noting the irony of Miss Markle telling the BBC how "disheartening" she finds it that race has been made such a "focus" thanks to "the climate in this world" while the BBC itself seemed to be banging on about little else (like an obsessive-compulsive hammer collector). 

And John Simpson, reporting on this morning's Today, kept on hammering away at the race issue too, despite using that very clip of Meghan regretting such a focus. 

Did he not spot the irony?

Anyhow, as you'll see if you read the following transcript, John had some important points to make about his own family history and the Royal Family's family history - and your and my family history too.

Can you guess what his point is likely to be (if he didn't hear his report that is)? (Clue: He's very 'BBC', so what point would he be making?)

Well it essentially boils down to this familiar BBC trope: We're a mongrel nation. 

But there was more. Anyone whose interested in genealogy and genetics will know that most of us are indeed, in some way, linked genetically ('descended') from William the Conqueror, Julius Caesar and - the one usually cited - Genghis Khan. John's example, however, was very a 'BBC' one. He told us that the Queen is descended from the Prophet Muhammad. And we're all descended from the Prophet Muhammad too. (And that includes you!)

BBC One's Who Do You Think You Are? had researched his family tree and found that his ancestry is 'mongrel nation' ancestry. He seemed to assume that this was typical. I've researched my own ancestry (not being as lazy as him) and found that my ancestry is quite different. I've gone down about three hundred years on some lines and found not a single ancestor who ever lived south of Preston. Many were "clod-hopping" farmers. And our family names, wherever I look and however many new names I come across as I go back in time, are all very local (and mostly Anglo-Saxon). Essentially, my ancestors never went anywhere. So speak for yourself, John! 

The detail in John Simpson's report that particularly tickled my hideously northern English funny bone was where he effortlessly exemplified the mindset of someone David Goodhart would call an 'anywhere' (as opposed to a 'somewhere' like me) - the kind of people described in the New Statesman as "the liberal Europhile establishment, comfortable about immigration and globalisation"...

...yes, John Simpson of the BBC has a "cleaning lady". (Of course he does!). And she's Brazilian. (Of course she is!)

That was a 'beyond satire' moment, reinforcing every stereotype people have of metropolitan liberals.

(I bet he wouldn't even understand that if he read this post).

In summary, who else but someone like John Simpson of the BBC would use a piece about the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan to push the 'the UK is a mongrel nation' angle and the 'Muslims R Us' angle simultaneously?

Anyhow, here's the transcript:

John Simpson: Social attitudes change really fast nowadays. Not long ago no member of the Royal Family would have thought of marrying anyone who wasn't, frankly, white. Public opinion would have ruled it out, just as, in the 1950s, Group Captain Peter Townsend was ruled out as a husband for Princess Margaret because he was divorced. And before the First World War it would have been really hard for a prince of the blood (as they used to say) to marry a commoner. Meghan Markle's mother is African-American and her father is white, and her mixed-race heritage has been scrutinised in some of the press. It even led to Prince Harry issuing a statement last year saying his then girlfriend had been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Earlier this week, sitting beside Prince Harry, Meghan Markle discussed her ethnicity with Mishal Husain. 

Meghan Markle: Of course it's disheartening. You know, it's a shame that that is the climate in this world to focus that much on that, that would be discriminatory in that sense, but I think, you know, the end of the day I'm really just proud of who I am and where I come from, and we have never put any focus on that. We just focused on who we are as a couple, and so when you take all those extra layers away and all of that noise I think it makes it really easy to just enjoy being together and tune all the rest of that out.

Yet the fact is just about all of us have some pretty unexpected ancestors. According to Debrett's Peerage the Queen is descended from the Prophet Muhammad through her 15th century ancestor King Edward the Fourth. When I talked to an academic expert on ethnicity, Dr Daniel Falush of Bath University's Milner Centre for Evolution, it didn't surprise him.

Dr Daniel Falush: Absolutely not at all. So you go back a thousand years, you have a billion ancestors. So everyone who lived then who has left descendants will essentially, to a first approximation, have left descendants to everyone living in Europe. So, and since Muhammad had children and grandchildren it's sure to include him. John Simpson: Sure? Dr Daniel Falush: Sure, yes. Absolutely sure. John Simpson: And me? Dr Daniel Falush: Yes, absolutely. The further back you go the more interleaved it becomes and the more similar we all are in our underlying ancestry.

My wife comes from South Africa and her maiden name is Kruger. Our cleaning lady, who's Brazilian, is also called Kruger. And a historian of the family says everyone with that name has the same German ancestor. As for me I've always assumed I was simply the product of clod-hopping Suffolk farmers. Then I was invited onto a familiar slightly nerve-wracking programme Who Do You Think You Are? 

BBC announcer: Now, the last in the series, BBC reporter John Simpson uncovers his adventurous ancestors now on BBC One.

It turned out I had Portuguese and Spanish ancestors and my great grandmother eloped with a Texan cowboy, Samuel Franklin Cody. He ran a Wild West show and in 1908 became the first man to fly in Britain. And my great-grandmother was the second woman in the world to fly. So in my case the cocktail shaker contain some pretty unpredictable ingredients  The same with Meghan Markle - and Prince Harry, the descendant of the Prophet. And the same, I'd guess, with you - and with everyone else who happens to be listening. 

More value judgments...Not a Sheep on Anthony Zurcher

Anthony Zurcher

Talking about the BBC and value judgments (as we have been today), here's another example from Not a Sheep about a typical Anthony Zurcher contribution to a BBC website report:

BBC impartiality

James Cook

Sue has just written, "All I can say is impartiality has been abandoned and value judgments reinstated, in new improved BBC-land". 

I was just thinking exactly the same thing after reading BBC North America correspondent James Cook's website piece, Embracing the far right, Trump stains a history of democratic ideals. 

(See also Alan at B-BBC and earlier comments here at ITBB). 

If Trump wins "a modern apocalypse will be upon us", American writer Adam Gopnik said on Radio 4's A Point of View last year, prior to the US presidential election. 

The programme's title told us that this was "a point of view". 

No such 'warning label' has been attached to James Cook's impassioned BBC News website piece. It merely has a value-laden headline and the BBC man's own byline: 

And yet it is very clearly no less "a point of view" than Adam Gopnik's piece for radio. And it comes from a very similar "point of view" to that of Adam Gopnik too - the view that Donald Trump is a stain on/a threat to democracy and that opposing him is morally justified. 

Yes, BBC reporters mustn't call Islamic State "Da'esh" because using that "pejorative name" might give the impression that the BBC was siding with IS's enemies "and that would not preserve the BBC's impartiality". And BBC reporters mustn't use 'value-laden' terms like "terrorism" to describe acts of terrorism against Israelis because that would be seen to take sides too. But BBC reporters, it appears, can report in a fully 'value-laden' fashion and fling "the BBC's impartiality" into the bin if they are reporting about President Trump of the United States. 

James Cook's piece seems to me to mark another gear change from the BBC. BBC presenters and editors (Jon Sopel, Katya Adler, Evan Davis, Andrew Neil, etc, etc) have already been given some leeway to 'editorialise' but now it appears that BBC reporters even lower down the food chain have also been given carte blanche to do the same - and more. 

James makes the moral case for abandoning BBC impartiality here: 

But it falls to reporters to describe in plain language what we see, and promotion of fascism and racism is all too easy to observe in the United States of 2017. 

Yes, impartiality has been abandoned and value judgments reinstated in this piece of his but he believes he's reporting 'the truth' and that there's no alternative but to say what needs saying (in his view).

Maybe the BBC just needs to finally admit that 'BBC impartiality' is a thing of the past and that its reporters can use the BBC's many platforms to act as if they are columnists from partisan newspapers. As a lot of BBC reporters are now already doing that it wouldn't be as much of a leap as it might once have seemed.

Further to the previous post....

And yes, Sangita Myska did re-tweet a piece of fake news:

It is a photoshopped image:

Please Mr. President, do it again!

Did you hear Sangita Myska’s report about Britain First on the Today Programme? 

All I can say is impartiality has been abandoned  and value judgments reinstated, in new improved BBC-land. 

Sangita couldn’t conceal the venom in her voice when uttering the words “Far right” “Jayda Fransen" and anything related to “Britain First”. 

Now, we all know that Britain First’s raison d’être is actively fighting the rise of Islam in Britain.

This is racist because Islamophobia is deemed a form of racism. (Racism is  bad, and good people always boast that they haven’t got a racist bone in their body.)

You know that thing that goes: some good people do bad things and some bad people do good things? Well, that explains “pinkwashing”, which, as you know, is how Israel-haters deal with the fact that Israel is “gay-friendly”. In other words, they’re saying bad people do good things to cover up their evil intent. (When Israeli teams rush to disaster  areas, set up field hospitals, treat wounded Syrians and so on it’s only a devious and cunning plan to mask their malevolence.)

This very theme dissolved into farce this morning when two representatives from the anti-Britain-First brigade, a 'born again' anti-BF evangelist and someone from 'Prevent', described the way that Britain First were cunningly and deviously being ‘nice’ to old people and poor people and homeless people and dogs and cats in order to fool everyone into not hating them.

I just thought how lacking in political nous it all was. Did nobody realise that this particular 'accusation' (being nice) could be hurled at any politician of any stripe whatsoever. Particularly the Corbynistas? Being nice is a cunning and devious way of getting votes! They all do it, the good, the bad and the ugly. Sneaky, eh? 

Hilariously, BBC reporter Sangita Myska has fallen into the same trap as The Donald. Talk about reTweeting mad stuff!. Sangita herself seems to have retweeted fake news.

#JaydaFransenFacts skipped English lessons at school pic.twitter.com/zMhe2yQVW9

— jesuiseu 🇪🇺❄️ (@48notwrong) November 30, 2017

As several Twits have pointed out, it’s a photoshop affair. (Or is it?)

Get me outta here

Everyone needs a bit of mindless tat, and when it’s time to watch crap, Craig is an “I’m a Celebrity” man, and I would plump for Gogglebox. (If I was forced to choose.) But even mindless tat is not what it used to be. Tat has deteriorated. All that’s left is for you to just watch, mesmerised  with incredulity at the sheer weirdness of, I dunno, other people. Are they even real? (as the archbishop said to the actress.)

The one with Jeremy Corbyn and Jessica Hynes was a dismal, chemistry-free zone. They didn’t connect, literally and figuratively. Why on God’s earth did she agree to do it? 

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

Settling down to watch a bit of light entertainment the other night, I switched over to BBC One rather than watch the blitz programme on BBC 2, which hinted at lecture. I didn’t give it a chance because I wanted, nay, needed light-hearted escapism.

So, despite what  Einstein or Weinstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome, I sat through the third episode of Love, Lies and Records.  (The first episode was so ridiculous that I abandoned ship halfway through) I just thought the second episode might be different. It wasn’t. Still, if the first episode was ridiculous and the second episode was completely off the scale of bonkers, I still gave the third episode a go.  Bugger insanity.

Talk about being lectured to. I should have stayed with the bomb. I was being bombarded in any case - by an barrage of ‘trans’ and ‘same-sex-marriage’ advocacy.

The heroine’s elastic sense of cultural and moral tolerance and over-developed righteousness is coupled with a spot of sexual and intra-office jealousy. In a moment of compassionate sentimentality she subverts a golden rule of HM Registry in accord with the wishes of a dying woman, even though said woman is already dead.  

The ‘plot’ also features: suspected online grooming/ sexting/, illegal immigration/ sex trafficking/ murder/ adulterous shagging-in-the-cupboard/ man-to-woman transitioning/ a Jewish-gay wedding/ blackmail /  other right-on stuff.  Rebecca Front’s convincingly vengeful baddie commits what has become, officially, the most heinous crime of all. No, not the blackmail. Being ideologically opposed to same-sex marriage!

Help! Get me outta here!

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

The BBC has a habit of over-exposing certain personalities till they go out of fashion, whereupon they are cruelly dropped or sidelined. They must be in room 101.

Currently overloading the airwaves are the faces of Amol Rajan (He’s on everything, including being a guest judge on Celebrity Masterchef - how did he get that gig?) and Emma Barnett (she’s on everything).

Emma Barnett is all over everything everywhere, as per this piece in the Times (£) 

She can be particularly annoying on Sunday Morning Live, but that is primarily down to the format of that show, and I have to say she was a big improvement on Tommy Sandhu who couldn’t even read aloud from a massive screen without adding his own personal touches to viewers’ texts and emails.

Anyway, our Emma made a big impression on the nation’s collective consciousness when she exposed one of Jeremy Corbyn’s weaknesses in her famous interview. The one when she “skewered Jeremy Corbyn" […] "ambushing him about his poor grasp of the figures”. 

Her interviewing style on that occasion was persistent and forensic, rather than “hectoring for its own sake” as per some of her colleagues, whose line of questioning can be openly agenda-driven. 

“She enjoys big-game hunting senior politicians, often using Paxman’s famous “repeat the question without mercy” tactic.” wrote Helen Rumbelow in the Times.  (Said with apparent admiration.)

In my opinion that technique (repetition of a question that the interviewer believes can only produce an incriminating answer) is the worst, most unproductive approach ever created. It was unpleasant enough when Paxman used it on Michael Howard, but when Mishal “How many Israelis” Husain appropriated it during her ill-tempered interrogation of Gill Hoffman, it said far more about the interviewer than the interviewee.  

Similarly, when Andrew Marr addressed Benjamin Netanyahu I thought he approached the interview with a visible agenda, i.e., he set out from a  position sympathetic to the Palestinian cause (as he sees it) with the intention of “challenging” Netanyahu.. He was clearly not concerned with the business of ‘drawing out’ the Prime Minister of Israel by letting him state his case, for good or bad. He was much more concerned with burnishing his own image for the benefit of the anti-Israel consensus.

There is one abiding mystery, which remains baffling, and - to coin a phrase - “I’m not the one saying this” - which is this. Why oh why don’t heavyweight interviewers like Andrew Marr tackle John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn robustly, forensically and persistently - about the antisemitism in the Labour Party? And about their own antisemitism for that matter.  Yes, admittedly some of your ‘Andrews’ have been known to tentatively broach the subject, but are too easily fobbed of with the ‘we oppose racism in all its forms’ nonsense.

++++++++++

Did you know that the Israeli PM offered to send Israel’s rapid response team to help the victims of the Iranian/ Iraqi earthquake? The offer was refused. We never hear about that any more. Has it gone away?

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

The first episode of Kate Humble’s series “Extreme Wives” was riveting and it received well-deserved, extremely positive reviews. Oddly enough I couldn't find any reviews of episode two, the one about Haredi Jews in Jerusalem. Not a squeak. 

However, I don’t think anyone had much reason to complain about that programme. 

Kate Humble has gone up in my estimation. She has an enormous amount of charm and sincerity and she manages to win round the most uncooperative subjects with her genuinely respectful curiosity and huge smile. Somehow, one doesn’t expect to find, on the BBC, a Jerusalem dwelling Haredi family presented with accepting inquisitiveness; for once, we have a ‘presenter-led show’ that wasn’t ‘all about me”. 

It went down well on Twitter, with a minimum amount of political point-scoring. So it’s all good.

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

Fancy volunteering for a reality show? On the BBC? On a Kibbutz? You don’t even have to eat pigs’ testicles, (but you might have to face the wrath of Roger Waters.

Neither Roger Waters nor Jeremy Corbyn have an antisemitic bone in their bodies. Who knew.

Tweet dreams

The BBC is making such a meal of the latest Trump offence that the whole thing is beginning to look utterly ridiculous. Can’t they see how absurd it all is? For one thing, the way announcers and newsreaders are forced utter the word ‘Tweet’ with straight-faced, end-of-the-world solemnity.  As if that wasn’t daft enough, they have to wade through tittle-tattle that sounds as though it’s being relayed straight from the playground.  

As matters escalate from molehill to mountain, we are at the stage where campaigners against Islamophobia - the Islamophobia-phobes - are vigorously pushing for the government to disinvite The Donald from the pencilled-in state visit. 

Trump’s Tweet to Theresa May has been officially interpreted by the BBC as a “rebuke”, as has Theresa May’s response. Although on yesterday’s Daily Politics James Rubin refuted this while unsuccessfully trying to bring matters back down to earth. 

“It was not a rebuke,” said Rubin, “it’s just The Donald being The Donald, It’s what people from New York are like!” (as in: ‘He’s from Barcelona’ )

According to Rubin, no-one in the Trump administration takes “our lot’ seriously, and no wonder. Amber Rudd and co appear to be entirely in thrall to the media. If she was in a stronger position Theresa May should have risen above it. Maybe she, and ‘our lot’ would have, if only the media and the crazies in the Labour Party had allowed them to. 

Or maybe not. Conservatives everywhere are melting away. The paper formerly known as the Torygraph has gone soft left, and the Times, with over-promoted lefty columnists like Caitlin Moran,  appears to be following suit.    

“Donald Trump gave us boost in supporters, says far‑right group Britain First” screams the header on the front page of today’s Times (£)  “MPs criticise president for anti‑Muslim retweets” says the strap line.

Inside the headline goes further: “Halt ‘fascist’ Trump’s visit to UK next year demand MPs” and, sad to say, that is indeed what MPs actually said in a specially convened debate. Imagine that. A specially convened parliamentary debate about a Tweet on Twitter.

On p 35, the leading article titled ”Bitter Tweet”  the Times’s editorial concludes that “to disinvite the president would be counterproductive” qualified by a whole lot of other pointedly restrained outrage at Trump’s latest misjudgment.  

Aren’t we used to Trump’s misjudgments by now? Why get so apoplectic at this one? Because, Muslims.

By the way, I can sympathise with Sajid Javid when he said (about Britain First)

So POTUS has endorsed the views of a vile, hate-filled racist organisation that hates me and people like me. He is wrong and I refuse to let it go and say nothing.

“They hate me” is exactly how I feel when I see Jeremy Corbyn and his sycophants and flunkies being treated with respect and given credibility by the media.  You can’t help taking this as a personal slight, even when you are an atypical representative of the intended recipient of such a slight.

Last night’s Question Time spent the bulk of the programme discussing “Hate”, and if there’s anything in Roald Dahl’s theory that ‘hate’ manifests in the ugly countenance of the hater, there were a lot of haters present. (I can’t stand Dahl by the way. As well as being an antisemite,  his repressed childhood is behind all his literature)

"I have become antisemitic"

If you’ve seen Pat Condell’s video about hate crime (H/T Daphne Anson) you’ll be aware that we are blindly stumbling into a an Orwellian / Kafkaesque nightmare. I await the knock on the door with a loaded phial of whatever Slobodan Praljak took. (if only I could get hold of the recipe.)

ITBB welcomes you to December

What happens when your dog experiences snow for the first time ever pic.twitter.com/qYwe1Q4RdO

— Jo Ellery (@elleryface) November 30, 2017