Saturday, 10 March 2018

Like the kid who couldn't keep the secret...



As noted by WeaselWordsBBC on an earlier thread, Nick Bryant's report on last night's BBC News at Ten began with these words about President Trump:
Like the kid who couldn't keep the secret, Donald Trump slipped into the White House press room and told reporters to expect a huge statement on a big subject. 
A typical BBC dig at the present US president. 

Still at least Nick gave his (rather grudging) blessing to the planned meeting between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump (which I'm sure will please President Trump no end):
This is a huge gamble which offers Pyongyang a propaganda coup without much diplomatic ground work and without a guarantee of success. But all of Donald Trump's presidential predecessors have failed to halt North Korea's nuclear programme, so perhaps it's worth this dramatic new gesture. Two combustible leaders dealing with what is potentially the world's most combustible problem. Diplomacy akin to a Las Vegas title fight. The international summit of the century. Nick Bryant, BBC News, Washington. 
He returned later to say of "impulsive" President Trump that the proposed meeting "gives him a reality TV moment for the ages", but concluded:
When it comes to North Korea, [Donald Trump] believes with some justification that his unconventional approach has worked so far.
Is this the nearest a BBC reporter has come so far to actually giving the Donald some credit?

#MosqueMeToo


As Sue pointed out, the Muslim Council of Britain scored a quick victory over the BBC last week.

The MCB website reads
In an article on hijab and female dress, the BBC inaccurately wrote “One of the main pillars of the religion of Islam is female modesty”. After Miqdaad Versi, Assistant Secretary general of the MCB, contacted the BBC to clarify that female modesty is not actually a pillar of Islam, they acknowledged the mistake in an email response and corrected the error online.

I was curious about the article they were objecting to. What was it about? Were the MCB simply correcting a factual error, or did they have other reasons to attack this article as well?

It's a piece headlined 100 Muslim women rally round #MosqueMeToo written by Faranak Amidi, "Women’s Affairs Journalist, BBC World Service" and, unusually for the BBC, tackles the question of sexual harassment of women by Muslim men. 

Its specific subject is the #MosqueMeToo movement which campaigns against sexual abuse experienced by women on the Hajj. 


So is that the real reason why the Muslim Council of Britain chose to target this particular BBC article? That #MosqueMeToo isn't to their liking either and that they wanted to discredit this BBC report?

Sir John Sulston and the BBC Hijab Project


C. elegans

It was typical of the BBC's flagship news bulletins on BBC One (News at Six and News at Ten) that they each devoted just 14 seconds to the death of Sir John Sulston, the scientist who led the human genome breakthrough:
Sir John Sulston, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on the Human Genome Project, has died. Sir John's work in decoding the sequence of human DNA, the building blocks of life, saw him awarded the prize back in 2002.
Bizarrely the BBC even managed to get this wrong, twice in the space of two short sentences! 

Sir John won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for work on 'genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death' through his study of a particular species of worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) - work which led to innovations in cancer research - and not for "his work on the Human Genome Project".  

Very poor journalism.

The death of Sir John Sulston (real news) got relegated to a mere quarter-of-a-minute footnote on both the News at Six and News at Ten in order to make way for the 'news' that a modelling agency has just signed its first British catwalk model who wears a hijab - an item which took up nearly four minutes of both prime time BBC One bulletins. 

Nomia Iqbal

Here's a transcript. Note the very heavy imbalance in favour of those who take a positive view of the hijab:
Nomia Iqbal, BBCThe spotlight is on the hijab. Many Muslim women choose to wear it proudly. For some, it's an act of modesty. For others, in countries like Iran, forced to wear it, it's a symbol to remove in protest. It may divide opinion, but the hijab is going high fashion. 20-year-old model, Shahira Yusuf, has been signed up by Storm, the agency that found supermodel, Kate Moss. Shahira is one of the first British models with a hijab taking to the catwalk. 
Shahira Yusuf, modelYeah, definitely don't want to be considered a token girl. I don't want these models like ethnic models or models from different religious backgrounds to just pave the way, I want the way to stay there, become the norm within society. Because it is the norm outside of the modelling sphere. 
Shahira is becoming the face of Modest Fashion. At the show in London, Muslim designers have come from all over the world to promote their clothes. The market for Modest Fashion is on course to be worth billions. I grew up in a Muslim family and none of the the women in my family wore the hijab. None of my Muslim friends wore it either. But now, more and more young women are wearing it. 
Shahira YusufThe reason why I wear it is to number one, cover my hair. And number two, to be honest, I actually enjoy wearing the hijab, I enjoy covering my hair, I enjoy the hijabs I have today. I feel like it makes a statement. It's part of who I am, it's my crown.  
Unnamed womanThe hijab to me is empowerment and it's feminism and it's taking control and ownership of what I choose to show to the world. 
Being online has given some women a powerful platform. Social media star, Mariah Idrissi, has a huge following on Instagram. 
Mariah Idrissi, online personalityThe hijab is a part of me, it's part of my career and its representation. You know, we shouldn't be ashamed or shy to represent who we are. 
Nomia IqbalIf you are a model wearing a hijab, and you're on Instagram and having thousands of people following you, aren't you doing the opposite of what the hijab is supposed to be about?  
Mariah IdrissiThe mainstream media, western media isn't representing Muslims on TV, in fashion, anywhere. The only time we are represented is for something bad. I just saw this as, you know I'm going on the news and I'm talking about something that's not about terrorism, not about women being oppressed, I'm talking about fashion. 
Some campaigners for Muslim women's' rights think the hijab's popularity is a political statement. They feel uneasy about its use as an expression of identity. 
Ahlam Akbar, Basira Women's Rights Group: Modest does not mean you need to wear the hijab. Modesty goes beyond that in your behaviour and your way of dressing. I don't need to prove to anybody what I am, but in the hijab, you are singling yourself and proving something unnecessary, especially in the Western world. 
The hijab means different things to different people. Shahira believes you can wear it and be a successful model. Her dream? The cover of British Vogue, wearing her hijab. Nomia Iqbal, BBC News. 

Earpiece Complaints from the Other Side...


Rob (an old ITBB pic Guido didn't pilfer)

Fans of the BBC's new Editor of BBC Live Political Programmes - one Rob Burley - will be delighted to know that his new much-wider-than-just-The Andrew Marr Show remit means that Our Rob is now active throughout the week as well as at the weekends.

Here he is, a couple of days back, engaging in conversation with some very nice, entirely reasonable Corbynistas over an episode of The Daily Politics where one of Mr. Corbyn's allies fell foul of a dodgy BBC earpiece:

Tony Man: Bloody hell ..#BBCDP interviewing Chris Williamson MP,  he starts talking about Saudi humanitarian (public Executions, Beheading etc) crimes gets cut off by the BBC..
Rob Burley: There was a technical problem. Why would we invite him on in the first place if we were seeking to suppress his views?
Tony Man: Of course there was Rob..You weren't expecting him to start talking about Saudi's public executions and the embarrassment of having our PM negotiating with these people!
Rob Burley: Despite the fact that we raised Saudi executions ourselves yesterday (before Corbyn did)? We also asked a Minister about whether the Govt should be talking to Saudi. So, 2 days in a row we raised Saudi and you are suggesting we faked technical problems to sabotage ourselves.
Tony Man: I never said, or suggested, you "faked it" - I never said you were "suppressing his views". It is only YOU that introduced those things in to the post .. I know what I saw, your viewers know what they saw.  simple as that!
Rob Burley: What are you saying then Tony?
Tony Man: Rob - see my original tweet mate. I think you giving the your self away by bringing the words "suppression",  " faked technical problems", "sabotage" and "Corbyn" into the conversation.
Rob Burley: I have no idea what your insinuation was then. None. Anyway, for clarity: there was a simple technical problem and that's the only reason the interview ended.
Tony Man: .. For clarity, when I posted this tweet I was correct. Can we look forward to a complete interview with CW -without technical issues?
Rob Burley: Well he's almost certain to be on again but no special return. Again, you sort of imply it was on purpose but then again the courage of your convictions also melting away.
Tony Man: Great I'll look forward to hearing more. No Rob.. My conviction remains strong. MP Chris Williamson was talking about Saudi Humanitarian Crimes and got cut off by the BBC. Anything beyond that is a torsion in your  pants of your own making. Have a good day.
Rob Burley: Oh Tony. . . . You have a lovely afternoon too!
******** 
Jean: #bbcdp Typical BBC, Charlotte Leslie didn't show up, so cut Chris Williamson off.
Rob Burley: You think we cut him off? Wow! His earpiece failed it seems.
Jean: His BBC earpiece!
Rob Burley: Why would we invite him on if we were seeking to find an excuse to cut him off?
Jean: Why indeed!
Rob Burley: Jean, you are seeing things that aren't there. Why would we go to the trouble of inviting him only to fake a technical issue? "Why indeed" isn't an answer, it just repeats the insinuation.
Jean: Are all BBC lost connections purely accidental?
Rob Burley: Sometimes we run out of time or maybe someone is being abusive but even then we'd say goodbye and explain to viewers. This was a technical failure, Anything else makes zero sense.

#Earpiecegate.

Friday, 9 March 2018

Hate Jews? Then it’s Labour for you.

News comes and goes. As it whizzes past, the odd fragment sticks, but most of it drains away. One begins to see news in terms of a perpetual spin-cycle; wheels on fire / rolling down the road. The antisemitism in the Labour Party keeps on rolling down the road. With each revolution of the wheel it disappears from view but it always resurfaces, a little flattened, further along.

When Jeremy Corbyn and his chums commissioned Shami Chakrabarti’s infamous report into antisemitism in the Labour party they made a canny choice. At one time Chakrabarti was vaguely admired by many, including gullible members of the beleaguered Jewish community. Everyone - ok, not everyone actually - regarded the former director of Liberty as stalwart campaigner against all evil and defender of the oppressed. 

Of course back in the olden days (circa 2009 - 2012) she was regarded by ever-skeptical bloggers and Biased-BBC contributors - me too - as a virtue signalling self-promoting lightweight; the thinking person’s idea of a Stephen Fry, if you like. 

That infamous JewishTV clip exposes something. No need to call in the body language experts! Everyone recognises squirming when they see it. 


Chakrabarti’s report into antisemitism in Labour was going to bring about a fundamental spring clean. Zero tolerance of “all forms” of racism!  Out with the old in with the new. 

What we got was a hastily cobbled together, disappointing, sham investigation, which began with a predetermined agenda and ended with nothing but a whitewash. The biggest surprise of all was that hardly anybody saw it coming.

Shami, defender of human rights, spokesperson for the oppressed, high flying lawyer and independent investigator who only ‘joined the party in order to gain members' "trust and confidence” apparently ignored the submissions she’d initially invited, (requested, even) letting down and humiliating contributors who felt they had wasted time and energy compiling them.  Instead, she presented an essay on the fascinating topic of her own feelings rather than the promised rigorous report. And for her trouble, a peerage and an official  position of power and influence in the labour Party. 

A bit of a fuss, a few uncomfortable moments in front of the media, and Baroness Chakrabarti in her ermine cloak melted into the background, and despite those mysterious ‘recommendations’  the antisemitism in the Labour Party smoulders away, embers glowing ever brighter as the Momentum builds.

Now, let’s peek at the BBC and beat our heads against a brick wall. 

Laid low for the last week or so by a virus initially picked up by a family member at the health centre - not there for a flu jab exactly, which would have been hilarious (if you find that sort of thing as hilarious as I did before I caught it.)



The spy v spy incident. At first the news showed us a blurry video of a couple walking along the street. A man, Sergei Skripal, accompanied by a blonde-haired woman; also a still shot of a smiling brunette, his daughter Yulia. Oddly, no-one queried the discrepancy for days. News is often like that. Questions that seem obvious are mysteriously ignored. 

The poison is now (I think) known to be a nerve agent, a material so difficult to procure that only a government agency could be responsible for deploying it. 
The BBC brought in defender of Putin and arch weirdo Annie Machon to opine on the matter. 

If you’re not familiar with Annie you haven’t been paying attention. You remember David Shayler? Well, Annie’s his ex. That is, before he became a transvestite. Annie, bless her, thinks the Duke of Edinburgh orchestrated Princess Diana’s assassination to dodge the embarrassment of a Royal Muslim baby. (Jo Marney flashes up in one's head) Also, Mossad. Imagine Prince Phillip in cahoots with Mossad. Mohamad al-Fayed believes it; there must be something in it. Don’t forget, Prince William is off to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, according to the BBC. And he might  throw in a courtesy call to the Zionist entity, by the way. 

If it’s not Putin’s nerve agent, it’s must be that of the Russian Mafia. Real life McMafia. 
The adaptation of (the BBC’s) Misha Glenny’s book (adapted for TV by screenwriters *Hoss Amini and James Watkins) couldn’t have been more apposite, could it? Well, some people are saying that the actual book didn’t have such a negative - or hardly any at all - focus on those racketeering Israelis. There’s a petition that we should all sign, pleading with the BBC to be a bit less biased against Israel. It makes you weary just thinking about it.
Stop the BBC's anti Israel bias, their Royal Charter mandates impartiality not bias Dear BBC, please stop it this minute! There. That should do it. 

Here’s an excerpt from a comment about McMafia by one critic of the BBC:
I read the book too - which unlike the BBC series does NOT place Jews and Israel at the center of all pan-national organized crime. Really, the BBC should have checked stats published by the CIA and FBI for accuracy.
Here’s another:

“….there’s film and drama...as long as it's anti-Israel, and depicts Jews as the 'other' or inherently violent and evil - BBC2 broadcast *Hossein Amini's anti-Semitic film 'Drive' on Erev Yom HaShoah 2018. Heaven help us. Which brings us to the BBC's glossy, glamorous £30m, anti-Semitism 101 in eight hour-long parts, otherwise known as 'McMafia'. 'McMafia''s lead protagonists are an immoral, neurotic, alcoholic, greedy, flashy, violent Jewish criminal family called….Godman? 
……..with the BBC's blessing and £30m of our money McMafia the tv series allowed Glenny to publicly vent his anti-Semitic, anti-Israel spleen (read it for yourself via his Twitter feed). […] 
Glenny, together with Iranian-born scriptwriter/creator/Exec Producer *Hossein Amini (of 'Drive' fame) were allowed to concoct a storyline that puts Israel, Israelis and Jews at the snakehead of ALL global criminal activity....good grief, the BBC even signed off on an advertising/social media campaign that uses blood libel images straight out of Der Sturmer - Alex Godman's hands dripping with blood (aka the Jew has the blood of Jesus on his hands), the Jew controls the money at your local ATM, the Jew comprises 90% of the piechart of all pan-national criminal activity. These campaigns are also being used by the BBC's distribution partner Amazon Prime which last September signed a $multi-million deal with the Corporation and with the show's production company Cuba Pictures (part-owned by BBC Worldwide) to broadcast Glenny & Amini's McAnti-Semitism to every country around the world, except the US and Canada (all BBC/AMC territory so no need) and China, where Amazon is banned. Strangely, Jews in the UK are shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Meh, it's such a terrible drama no-one will watch it." 
Whether or not these comments are accurate, they are worth considering. Even if the series’s many critics found the drama unconvincing and badly acted, it did a jolly good job of reinforcing the Beeb’s general message, which is that Israelis are corrupt and inherently evil.

Nothing about antisemitism seems to shock anyone out of their collective stupor these days. No matter how extreme, explicit and stark raving bonkers, the BBC, the Labour Party or the press barely acknowledge the problem.  It kind of washes over their heads, flows straight towards the plug-hole and goes down with but a faint gurgle. 
Back to the perplexing matter of Alexa’s sinister cackle, not to mention footage of those amusing, nerve-agent detectorists grappling with the tricky problem of tying ends of string together to secure the scene-of-the-crime tent, a task made nigh impossible by those luminous green protective space-suits, backs bulked out by breathing apparatus like lumpy poisonous frogs. Did you see the one nearest the camera doing a little boogie? What? It amused me, anyway.

David Collier’s detailed and deeply worrying investigation into left-wing antisemitism and of course in the Labour Party, made a slight ripple.  It's in two parts: one here and two here.


If you haven’t heard of this study, you might at least have heard something about the closed Facebook group called Palestine Live, which brims with the kind of antisemitic hate-speech that ought to send shivers down the spine of anyone who still wonders how Hitler managed to get away with what he eventually got away with. (Which group members believe to be not very much, or nothing at all - but nevertheless cynically exploited by the Zionists) 

The kind of language you can see here could only be unleashed in a protected group, where antisemites can let it all hang out. “Is this group safe?” asked Jackie Walker suspiciously. As hindsight shows, obviously not safe enough.

The group comprises many unsurprising members, including Jenny Tonge, David Ward and - you know - Ken O’Keefe (remember him? ) Even O’Keefe, the unhinged 9/11 'trufer' and arch antisemite has been brought in by the BBC, and implicitly lauded as a hero by Sarah Montague in not one but two episodes of HARDTalk, following the BBC’s dreadfully poor reporting of the Mavi Marmara affair.
 O’Keefe is plainly so rabid, so extreme, so hate-filled that he has even antagonised other members of Palestine Live. As with Annie Machon, I’m not advocating out-and-out ‘no-platforming’, only that  undue credibility must never be given to unhinged individuals, whether knowingly, for the ratings, or through ignorance and shoddy research.

Now we learn that Jeremy Corbyn was a one-time member. Not “was” a member, he claims. He merely “found himself” a member. He found himself a member through no fault of his own, as you do. 
Of course Jeremy did step away from this group on being elected Leader of the Labour Party, which, as a defence, plainly works both ways.  He must have realised membership of that group would prove unhelpful, so the  “innocent face” ploy might not wash.  

Oh, and guess who else was on the list? Well, you already know. The BBC”s very own ‘gone native’ impartial reporter, based in Ramul-lah, Yolande Knell.  As Craig says, she was a passive member rather than an ‘active’ participant, but at least one of her FOOCs was very much to the group’s liking. And another beauty, Paul Mason.The mind boggles, bigly.

People are still wondering whether the BBC is ignorant or malevolent. Not mutually exclusive.


The media has, rather remarkably, picked up on David Collier’s study, by the way; even the BBC, but as the news rolls down the road and is subsumed by the ongoing antics of Trump v Kim Jong Un and Spy v Spy, one doughty Twitterer has taken the matter up and is still shaking it all about. Yes, ((Dan Hodges))), like a terrier, is tweeting away about it for all he’s worth. Good for him. He has influence, so let’s hope he can make something stick. 

I was waiting to see something about it on one of Rob Burley’s new babies. The Daily Politics for example. Get Dan Hodges on, or even David Collier. Get one of the Labour Party’s non-Corbynista members on and make them squirm. Get Paul Mason. Let’s see what Elleanne Green has to say for herself. Get them on. Make a fuss. Let’s see Evan Davis or Emily Maitlis interrogate someone from Momentum about the matter. Ask them if they know much about the history of Nazi Germany. It might not seem all that important to inhabitants of the media/ London-centric bubble, but the atmosphere is becoming eerily Hitlerian.

Open Thread



All tracks lead to a new open thread. 

A kind reader suggested this image for an open thread and provided me with the background to it:
This is a painting by Christopher Richard Wynne Nevinson The Soul of the Soulless City (‘New York - an Abstraction’) 1920. An extract from the Tate write-up: New York - an Abstraction was painted in London after Nevinson's return from New York in 1919 and before his next visit in October 1920 for a second exhibition at Frederick Keppel & Co. The poor reception of this exhibition may have accelerated Nevinson's disaffection with the city. His growing embitterment is perhaps reflected by the change of title. Originally exhibited in 1920 at the Bourgeois Galleries, New York, as New York - an Abstraction, it was retitled The Soul of the Soulless City in the Faculty of Arts Exhibition, Grosvenor House, London, in 1925 probably at Nevinson's instigation. The new title may have been a reference to Karl Marx's comment that religion was the 'heart of a heartless world'.
Thanks for all of your comments.

BBC partisans


The news about Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un's agreement to meet for talks has drawn some interesting reactions so far. 




So is the BBC being "partisan" over this? Well, all I can say is that their main BBC News website report about it waits for Paragraph 21 to devote one paragraph alone to citing someone giving President Trump credit.

And the usual suspects are being sour about it on Twitter. 

Anthony Zurcher's Twitter feed (so far) is particularly "partisan" and, yes, he gives North Korea all the credit for a possible "diplomatic triumph":



As for Katty Kay, well, she's been very quiet about it (so far), simply re-tweeting a rather sour comment from a former Clinton Era Democrat defence secretary: 


Take a look at Laura Bicker's prominent 'analysis' piece on the BBC News website, and you'll see that her take is just as jaundiced as Anthony Zurcher's.

Her write-up of South Korean president President Moon Jae-in's role is measured in tone and full of respectful language. He's the one she's giving credit to.

When she deals with Donald Trump, however, a disrespectful tone crashes in:
  • "His administration has had very few victories, despite promising his voters there would "so much winning".
  • "Reporters say he casually mentioned in the White House briefing room that he hoped they would give him credit for Kim Jong-un's offer. His voters certainly will".
  • "...his Art of the Deal book will not be the guide he needs to deal with Kim Jong-un".
  • and an expert whose quote begins, "Trump doesn't study or even read. He tends to fly wildly off script....".
How typical this is of the BBC's reporting of the story I'll try to find out after getting work out of the way today.

Update (17.15): And what's the first thing I see on my Twitter feed after getting in from work? This from the BBC's ever-so-impartial World Affairs Editor (his one tweet on the subject):


I can't help but think that if President Obama had done what President Trump has done John Simpson would be praising him as a peacemaker rather than damning him as a dupe.

#partisanBBCreporting.

Further update (20:28): From last night...


Who indeed?

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover


I didn't watch last night's Question Time (as I never do these days), but the choice of panel may have made you think of La-la Land - a couple of politicians (one Conservative, one Labour) plus a female engineer, a TV cook and George the Poet. 

Personally-speaking, I'm very inclusive on such matters. I'd definitely have cats on the panel (the cuter the better), and, being more impartial than the BBC, dogs too...

...though, doubtless to the confusion of alt-right-obsessed BBC Trending supremo Mike Wendling, I'd personally 'no platform' chihuahuas. 

Yes, never mind the Blue Peter presenters (one of whom appeared on the programme last week), let's have the Blue Peter pets on the programme instead (if they're not chihuahuas)!

Should I do an internet poll to that effect?

Alas, Channel 4's Great British Bake Off presenter Prue Leith didn't hit it off with the leftist, pro-EU Twitterati. She announced that she backed Brexit. So woe is her!

If Prue wants a safe space she can always find it with us. We'll find a spare old priest hole for her (in return for a Chorley cake). 

Thursday, 8 March 2018

From all walks of life (as the BBC sees life)



I rather liked Guido Fawkes's recent characterisation of the Victoria Derbyshire show as wall-to-wall "nurses pay and preferred pronouns", and it certainly lived up to that reputation today. 

This was how Victoria Derbyshire herself introduced the International Women's Day segment of the programme this morning:
Happy International Women's Day! Its goal is to achieve gender equality for all - at school, in our health service, in our workplaces, our home life and so. What's it like to be a woman in Britain in 2018? What's it like to be a girl in Britain in 2018? We've gathered nine women and girls from all walks of life to answer that question. Let me introduce you to Yewande Akinola, who has worked in construction for 11 years. Sam Spence, a health visitor for the NHS. Victoria Usher, she runs a global PR agency whose board is made up two-thirds women, most of them working mums. Charlotte Usher is Victoria's 11 year-old-daughter. Marchu Girma arrived to the UK as a refugee and now helps other female refugees. Sharon Spice, an actor and playwright who says she was once paid less than a white woman to do the same job. Michelle Russell says she appreciates women more than ever after she was recently involved in a sexual harassment case at work. She's here with her 15-year-old daughter, Esme. And Hayley Smith, who says International Women's day inspired her to set up a campaign to make sanitary products free for homeless women
If these women represent "all walks of life" in Britain today then I'm a monkey's aunt! 

Incidentally, if the VD show wanted nine females to represent Britain in 2018 they could have invited along our present head of state (HM the Queen) , our present prime minister (Theresa May), our present home secretary (Amber Rudd), the present first minister of Scotland (Nicola Sturgeon), the present director-general of the CBI (Carolyn Fairbairn), the present general secretary of the TUC (Frances O'Grady), the present commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (Cressida Dick), the present chair of the London Ambulance Service (Heather Lawrence) and the present commissioner of the London Fire Service (Dany Cotton). 

Happy International Women's Day! 

Yolande Knell BBC (No activity?)


Yolande Knell


Well, according to BBC Watch, a high-profile BBC reporter has been "revealed" to be a member of this "secret anti-Israel facebook group": namely BBC Middle East correspondent Yolande Knell...

...a reporter who has often featured on this blog, Biased BBC, BBC Watch and other blogs of this kind under the charge of being biased against Israel. (We have 32 posts about her). 

The group, PALESTINE LIVE, was founded by anti-Israel activist Eileanne Green and the evidence that Yolande Knell of the BBC is a member of this group "that includes among its membership Holocaust deniers, antisemites and conspiracy theorists" is this:


BBC Watch says this means that Yolande Knell's "position as an ‘impartial’ BBC correspondent reporting from the corporation’s Jerusalem bureau is severely compromised".

Others, however, are not so sure. 

Given her lack of activity on the site, they ask, could she have been added to the secret group without her consent?

Or, just as plausibly, could she have joined simply for research reasons - i.e. to observe and listen as part of her work?

I'm sure there will be efforts made to try and get some answers.

That said though, we never did get an answer to the questions about her involvement in the promotion of a Palestinian activist's film in London back in 2014

Sunday, 4 March 2018

Good night and good morrow



Having run out of time tonight (before yet another long week at work), here's a link to give you food for thought over the coming days...

It takes you to a long lecture from shy and retiring BBC media editor Amol Rajan called The Tortoise and the Share that will take you at least an hour to read (if you're determined to try). 

It's packed with interesting thoughts and probably needs a considered overview from us, but - having no time left tonight - I'll just copy and paste a few paragraphs to infuriate your fancy instead:

The demands of rapacious social media, combined with the groupthink inherent in all pack journalism, makes covering politics highly prone to what, in my view, are errors of judgement. Let me re-iterate that I'm not talking about specific individuals here, but give you a couple of examples. 
First, Moggmentum. I'm sure you all know who Jacob Rees-Mogg is. Last year, especially through what has become known as silly season, there was a burgeoning industry in speculation over whether this idiosyncratic and intelligent backbencher was a future leadership contender for the Tories. I read article after article after article about how he was the grassroots' favourite, and various Tories were coming together to plot his takeover, lest Theresa May fall. 
But who does such speculation benefit, other than Jacob Rees-Mogg? And is there actually any substance to the story? It is of course one of those self-perpetuating things. Once the story starts to gather, if you excuse the pun, momentum, it does have the effect of inflating Rees-Mogg's reputation, and making him seem more plausible. But do ordinary members of the public really care about personalities in politics as much as journalists do? Runners and riders stories always seem to reflect the interest of hacks and pundits rather than audiences at home. 
Or take an example from America. The mad boosterism around Oprah Winfrey is their version of the same thing. After her speech at the Golden Globes there was an explosion of chat online about whether she might run for President. Does that mean it should be covered as news? Hell no! But did CNN cover it as news? Hell yes! One of their reports carried the headline: "Sources: Oprah Winfrey 'actively thinking' about running for president". 
Where to begin with this? I spend weekday evenings 'actively thinking' about becoming a reggae producer, or eating Nutella straight from the jar. That doesn't mean it's going to happen. The fact that this speculation was coming nearly a year before the mid-terms of Trump's first term was no barrier to the idle speculation. And if you actually read the story, it contained sentences such as: "One source emphasised that Winfrey has not made up her mind about running"... and "For now, it's all just talk". Er, you don't say.

Where to begin with that? Well, I'll probably leave that to you.

In lieu of that, I'll just point out that Amol's four "positive" recommendations for improving UK journalism (including BBC journalism) are very 'BBC' recommendations: (1) provide 'context' (BBC-style), (2) "fight for truth" by promoting things like the BBC's Reality Check, (3) have expert statistical fact-checkers on hand to immediately debunk those things you (the BBC) think need debunking, and (4) "speak for and with the poor, rather than to or at them".

And where to begin with that?

Well, not where BBC Amol begins for starters! I'm fed up with BBC reporters and their biased 'context', alarmed at their adjudicating 'reality checks', and concerned about their debunking intentions (and the direction they are likely to heavily tend towards thanks to the BBC's biases).

And as for "speaking for and with the poor", well, that needs a lot of 'unpacking'. Can such privileged BBC people really speak for the poor without projecting their own earnest fantasies onto them?

Please have a read for yourselves (if you have time). What do you think of the BBC media editor's take on mainstream media reporting?

Isn't this is a new BBC high-up basically singing like a blithe-spirited lark from his new BBC bosses' hymn sheet?

Complaints from the Dark Side


Remembrance of Interviews Past  (from Downing Street). AM talking to a Gordon Brown mannequin.

For those missing some Andrew Marr Show-related Sunday tomfoolery about bias, well, today's big 'scandal' (according to the louder, dafter parts of the Left on Twitter) has been the programme's decision to broadcast a pre-recorded interview with Theresa May in Downing Street rather than interview her live in the studio. 

Apparently, it's the pro-Tory BBC caving in to Robbie Gibb, the PM's ex-BBC director of communications.

And, for good measure (and going wilder), it's also apparently the case that the interview was then edited to help the Tories and that the Marr show is "on the Conservatives' payroll" (or variations thereon).

Are March hares really madder than these people?

Though having moved on to pastures fairly new (Robbie Gibb's old BBC job, no less!), the Marr programme's former editor Rob Burley has been back in action today.


He made the obvious point in response to this latest outburst of Corbynista anti-BBC lunacy  that "the last two Labour Prime Ministers both gave Marr interviews in Downing Street (as did David Cameron)" and that "it's far from new or particularly clever, it's just something that sometimes happens with PMs". 

(Indeed, thanks to Biased BBC, you can still see one such Andrew Marr Downing Street interview with PM Gordon Brown on YouTube). 

And he added, correctly, "And BTW PM did three - 3! - live interviews on Marr last year".

But still, like creatures out of a George A. Romero horror film, they've kept on coming....


...Jez4PM...Jez4PM...Must eat brains...Jez4PM...Jez4PM...

Conspiratorial thinking isn't new when it comes to considering the question of BBC bias (and the Right side used to be as guilty of it as the Left is now), but it's going ever more off the scale these days.

It's not good, but maybe it's best for the BBC to take to heart the stoical message imparted by one of their greatest philosophical thinkers from a bygone age (now, like Cicero, in exile from the BBC's airwaves for reasons of political incorrectness):


The rest of us meanwhile can just stockpile the popcorn and cheerily despair of some of our fellow human beings.

Crunch, crunch, crunch....


P.S. If you're wondering what the immensely likeable Rob Burley is now in charge of, having moved onwards and upwards at the BBC...

...well, from what I can see, he's now in supreme editorial charge of the Daily Politics, Sunday Politics, The Andrew Marr Show, Westminster Hour, Newswatch and "executive edit" (whatever that means) of This Week.

I'd wrongly assumed, from what I'd read, that he'd left The Andrew Marr Show and Newswatch behind him in his upwards move, but it appears that he hasn't.

The 'Editor, BBC Live Political Programmes' role seems to have expanded to embrace both programmes and he's gone, Napoleon-like, from being First Consul of two live BBC programmes to being Emperor of six live BBC programmes.

He'll be invading Sky, ITV News, Breitbart London and ITBB next and imposing members of his family on us all.

Me and Sue, like the Bourbons, will have to flee before his imperial might and seek refuge elsewhere.

I don't know about Sue (who's made of far sterner, Duke of Wellington stuff than me), but I'm already crying 'Vive L'Empereur!'

(Tip to Rob though: Don't try and conquer Russia Today. It won't end well if you try.)

Where's Max?


One of the examples of BBC bias used by Stephen Glover in his recent column I say this in sadness, but unless the BBC gets its act together it may not be here in 15 years was the BBC's Max Mosley coverage (or the lack of it):
The third example of bias came yesterday after the Mail revealed how Max Mosley supported the revoltingly racist far-Right in the early Sixties, and apparently concealed this fact when successfully suing the now defunct News of the World in 2008 for describing his orgy as Nazi-themed. 
You'd have thought this was meat and drink for the Beeb, especially after Channel Four News brilliantly eviscerated Mosley. But for several hours it was shtum. When Labour announced it wouldn't be accepting more money from Mosley, the BBC carried a brief story on its website, but still ignored it on its news bulletins. 
Was it fear of the tycoon that held Auntie back? Or was she unwilling to pick up the story because it had originated in the Mail, which her left-leaning journalists regard with suspicion? Either way, it was another instance of disgracefully inept journalism.
Well, today, Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell made life very difficult for Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson over Max Mosley by telling Sky News that Mr. Watson should consider returning Mr. Mosley's £540,000 donation - the headline for which could be: Labour Shadow Chancellor Chucks Labour Deputy Leader Under a Bus over Max Mosley Racism Claims

It's obviously a newsworthy political story, and even the Guardian is now reporting it in great detail. But so far the BBC is staying shtum, again. 

Will they report it? And if they do, how will they report it? And (if they bury it in the deeper recesses of the BBC News website) will anyone notice?

Mr. Mardell Goes to Rome



I see Mark Mardell has been living la dolce vita again.

This time he managed to wangle a working holiday in Rome from his BBC bosses, despite the BBC having a Europe editor (Katya Adler) and a Rome correspondent (James Reynolds) and another Rome correspondent (David Willey) already in place there for the Italian election.

Nice work if you can get it!

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about how Mark is one of the few BBC journalists to get regular compliments from left-wing, pro-EU members of the Twitter fraternity, so it wasn't surprising to see this tweet today from one such individual: 


Nor was it surprising to see this criticism from someone on the anti-EU Right:


As you'll have spotted, Paul from the pro-EU Left admired Mark's "hatchet job" of Silvio Berlusconi while Adel from the anti-EU Right disliked his "character-assassinating" of Silvio Berlusconi. The only thing uniting them was their feeling that Mark Mardell wasn't engaging in a fair, measured piece about Snr Berlusconi (though one was happy with that lack of fairness and the other was unhappy with it). 

The thing that struck me about Mark Mardell's piece from Italy, as highlighted by the contribution of its two dominant talking heads, was its main message - and, yes, it did have a message. 

Both the novelist/journalist Carlo Bonini and the professor Giovanni Orsini, were basically saying much the same thing: Beware of anti-politician populists, for such 'devils' undermine democracy. 

No wonder Denis MacShane has tweeted his appreciation yet again:

Tony v Goliath


Lord Hall with the Head of Facebook (Caravaggio, Vienna)

If you think that the BBC has far too much influence on the British public and that its desire to impose its values on us all isn't 'a good thing' or that social media, for all its faults, is a vital counterbalance to the overweening power of the BBC then prepare to gulp...

According to The Sunday Times, the BBC director-general Lord Hall is about to declare war on technology giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google because they are, he says,  stoking “social unease and division” in Britain and threatening the country’s sense of identity. 

Lord Hall says the BBC is involved in a “David versus Goliath challenge" (with the BBC as David!) and that the BBC "must win" because its values "matter more than ever":
In a speech to BBC staff in London on Wednesday Hall will say Britain faces greater challenges than at any time since the 1970s. “Technology and social media can add to this sense of social unease and division . . . it can distort our view of one another and allow us to live in imagined communities where we only really engage with those who share our views. 
“Fake news compounds that challenge, eating away at trust in the media — including in the BBC — and blurring the lines between reality and so-called alternative facts. The country needs a BBC that helps society understand itself better . . . that explores our nation’s differences passionately and robustly . . . that projects British creativity and values globally . . . that reminds us every day of the things we hold in common.” His attack on the technology groups concludes: “These are not the passions of the West Coast giants — why would they be? The BBC represents a set of democratic ideals that matters greatly to our country: giving a voice to the voiceless, pursuing the truth without fear or favour.”
From the comments below the Sunday Times piece it seems that quite a lot of people believe this to be "self-serving drivel" from Lord Hall and that the BBC has far too much power already; that the BBC's values are not our values; and that the BBC's incessant agenda-pushing needs severely rolling back.

Saturday, 3 March 2018

Civilisations


Mary and a fine early Greek lass

Well, I've watched the first two episodes of the BBC's new 'landmark series' Civilisations - the first by Simon Schama, the second by Mary Beard - and I thoroughly enjoyed them both, in a hazy sort of way.

They passed a couple of hours of my day very pleasantly. 

Yes, they weren't anywhere near as thought-provoking or profound or original or as startling as the wonderful Kenneth Clark in his still-magnificent, beguiling and intellectually challenging Civilisation but, Hyperion to a satyr as that old BBC programme surely is to this comparatively dumbed-down new BBC programme, Simon Schama and Mary Beard are both excellent story-tellers - and, as you'd expect, the programme is an absolute treat for the eyes...

...(except for when the BBC's camerapersonages are made to do that annoying out-of-focus gimmick they've obviously been asked to do on behalf of Professor Beard). 

*******

On the BBC bias front...

...Dividing the presentation between three reliably left-wing, 'progressive' historians - all of who could be relied upon to drop in the occasional hint about the value of immigration and multiculturalism, or to talk critically about "gendered" art, or to take the odd potshot at Kenneth Clark's 'Eurocentricity' - was a very 'BBC' decision.

In fact, you might even cite it as an absolute proof of BBC bias.

And, yes, although I didn't feel as if I was being continuously hit over the head by a huge BBC-shaped haddock in these first two episodes, I did notice the programme's 'progressive' hints.

And, yes, it was indeed a divisive decision to make the presentation of the programme a purely, left-wing 'progressive' affair...

...as demonstrated by the following pair of articles (the first from the Right, the second from the Left):
Ed West: Civilisations is right-on and rather underwhelming
Yasmin Alibhai BrownThe BBC’s Civilisations is wonderfully multicultural – and the usual suspects are fuming.
*******

Mary and the Chinese lads

Despite enjoying what I've seen so far, no blogger worth his or her salt could ever resist trying to best a BBC historian, so I'm going to indulge myself here by using my avid reading of ancient Chinese history in order to try and discredit Mary Beard.

See how I get on below....

One thing I know about China's famous 'First Emperor' - the Mao-like monster. who began reigning supreme over the Chinese heartland in 221 BC and who was responsible for the Terracotta Army and the founder of the Qin dynasty - is that his name wasn't 'Qin' and that he wasn't the 'Emperor Qin' despite Mary Beard repeatedly calling him that!

He was born either Ying Zheng or Zhao Zheng and became - like Bruce Forsyth before him - the King of Qin (a joke that only works if you know that 'Qin' is pronounced 'Chin' - hence 'China').

He's known to history, after brutally destroying every over Chinese warring state and becoming the first emperor of China as Qin Shi Huang - a title not a name. It simply means 'First Emperor, from the Qin dynasty'.

No one, except for Mary Beard, so far as I can see, has ever called the First Emperor 'Emperor Qin' before, for the very good reason that there never was a Chinese emperor called 'Emperor Qin'.

Still, to be fair to her, at least she didn't call him 'Emperor Ming', or 'Ming the Merciless'.

Would Kenneth Clark have made such an error? And wouldn't the BBC of the 1960s, unlike the BBC of now (which seems to know a lot less), have prevented such lapses from going out even if he had?

The First Emperor of Mongo

*******

Reviews for the programme have been mixed - some enthusiastic, some tepid, some brutal.

Very oddly, one of the most brutal reviews (a mere two stars our of five) came from the BBC's own arts editor Will Gompertz on the BBC News website...

...and the BBC News website has given it a good deal of prominence. 

It's astonishingly rude. 

So rude that it positively invited rudeness in return....


As noted by MB on the Open Thread, Will's criticism is curious and very 'BBC'. Why? Because despite attacking a BBC programme, it weirdly employs PC to pile in upon another form of PC. 

Personal pique (Civilisations without Will Gompertzmight be the explanation.

UPDATE: A little Twitter exchange involving the BBC's Nick Higham:
Willard Foxton Todd: Is there anything more BBC than spending millions on an incredibly high profile series and then having your own arts editor give it a 2 star review on the front page of your website?
Nick Higham, BBC: As the BBC’s erstwhile bad-news-about-the-BBC correspondent, I defend to the hilt the right/duty of BBC reporters to make independent judgements about BBC policies/actions. Whether we should be *reviewing* stuff (programmes, plays, films etc) I’m less sure...