Becoming the norm

Before I got distracted by the previous observations I intended to write about an intriguing programme I saw last night on BBC Four. A very engaging Don McCullin “pootling “ around the nation in an affectionate documentary called “Looking for England” 

McCullins's black and white photos provided striking material for the TV screen, never mind the photogenic and sprightly octogenarian himself, whose enthusiasm and energy haven’t waned. 

Jasper Rees in the Telegraph:  

“In this cheerful assignment-cum-profile (directed by Adrian Sibley), he pootled around the nation, looking for Englishness in a country in the constant act of self-definition.”

The famous McCullin images are iconic, and it was gratifying to the photographer and, I think, to the viewer, to witness a stranger coming up to say hello and then identifying himself as one of the young men featured in a photograph taken by McCullin, captured decades ago when enjoying a game of football on the beach with his workmates; or another who knew the (now deceased) character who was famously portrayed in a much-admired image of a young couple standing on a railway track amidst some desolate 60s landscape. These two encounters seemed genuinely spontaneous. Doesn't really matter though. 

Very touching, nostalgic and engaging it all was, revisiting locations he’d known before. Interestingly he still sticks to the old-fashioned craft of photography, using proper rolls of film and manually developing and printing in the darkroom, himself.

No more Jewish bakery in Dalston. Hardly any Jews remaining in areas now populated by Muslims; those fox hunters - and then the hooded, black-clad protesters. McCullin seemed remarkably non-judgemental about it all. 

Jasper Rees continues:

“He found a capacious place with room for one and all: pensioners in the rain at Eastbourne, down and outs in the East End, men in Bradford beating their bare chests at a Muslim festival.” 

All the press reviews I’ve read seem remarkably unconcerned about this hideous ritual, which our politically correct journalists either ignored altogether or, as in this review, casually slipped in at the end of the list of photogenic situations and scenarios in which there’s “room for one and all”.

The Bradford street celebration that McCullin took snaps of in a seemingly detached manner involved a mob of self-flagellating Muslim men commemorating a festival called Ashura. Hundreds of them. They processed down the street, bare-chested, in a trance-like frenzy of self-harm; some of their backs were raggedly scarred. Witnessing that could drive arrows through the heart. Metaphorical arrows.

“This will become the norm in future in my opinion,” said McCullin. I wasn’t sure if he was genuinely dispassionate about such a bleak future, or whether his apparent indifference disguised weary resignation or deep sorrow. You couldn’t tell.  

This is not okay. Surely to goodness, there’s no room for this ugly manifestation of Islamification in Britain’s towns and cities.  Why are people so complacent about it? If they really are, then God help us.

Triple A (Ayesha, Ash and Alexandria) updated

My heart sank a tiny bit when I saw that Ayesha Hazarika was on Politics Live (again!!) (30:38) but I cheered up a little when I realised that Camilla Tominey was on as well. 

To her great credit, (Ayesha that is) gave a cracking speech  - a  mini-rant - about last night’s PLP antisemitism debacle. I don’t know if she was present at the meeting, but she described the atmosphere  - I can’t remember the exact word she used and I can’t get iPlayer (or whatever it’s restyled itself as) to load, but it was something like “heated, toxic, fraught”. I might chase it up sometime.  

Ah! The iPad will play the iPlayer. The word I temporarily forgot was ‘stormy’. 

“Antisemitism has cast a great stain over the Labour Party” […] They have to do better - there was a very stormy meeting last night at the PLP where the General Secretary was under fire and I think - you know - we should not be defensive about this. We are the party of equality. We are the party of social justice. We take anti-discrimination - incredibly important (sic)  and we can’t have a hierarchy of racism in our party, we have to take this seriously.[…] 

You also have to give the public trust in your disputes resolution system and […] 

and not attack people who raise the issue of antisemitism - so many, particularly Jewish MPs, have been hounded on social media by Corbyn supporters saying, “oh you’re weaponising antisemitism” - that is a gross insult particularly when we’ve just celebrated, you know, Holocaust Memorial Day.”

I happened to be watching Sky yesterday - not my choice -  but, you know, ‘democracy’, and there on the screen was Ash Sarkar discussing “Fake News’ with Dermot Murgnathingy. She was sitting beside ex-BBC Head of news and Current Affairs James Harding who was there to plug his new ‘slow news’ project, ‘Tortoise’ or some such. 

Both men were exceedingly deferential to Ms Sarkar. I can see why. She’s very articulate - talons a-flailing - and full of passion. Everyone seems to want her on their show.  

You never know though. As Grant Shapps MP joked mischievously on Politics Live, (and somewhat inappropriately directed at new gal on the block Dominique) "young, black and….Conservative!!!" by repeating that well-known philosophical remark attributed to Churchill: “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain.”

Hmm. How old is Ash? About 26 I think - (going on 40) so maybe she’ll come to her senses in seven or eight years or so. Then she might be worth deferring to.

Did you catch that cringeworthy tete-a-tete (via old fashioned telephone) between Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Corbs? Maybe Jezza’s star is on the wane. First Venezuela, now this. It’s quite a big story everywhere but the Beeb.

 Or maybe it’s just the BBC’s obstructive search engine. I wouldn’t put it past the BBC to make that, as well as BBC Sounds, inaccessible just for me.

Update:

I’ve just seen the kind of thing that must have inspired, or contributed, to Ayesha Hazarika’s outburst. Remarks made by prominent Corbynista Chris Williamson MP.  BBC Watch has this:

“In a 2017 interview with the Guardian: 

“He said rows over Corbyn’s handling of antisemitism within Labour and his approach to Venezuela were “proxy wars and bullshit”.

“I’m not saying it never ever happens but it is a really dirty, lowdown trick, particularly the antisemitism smears. Many people in the Jewish community are appalled by what they see as the weaponisation of antisemitism for political ends.”

Chalk and Cheese

Quite a strong contrast between Sky’s report of the Jennie Formby / antisemitism affair and the Beeb’s. 

One gets a very strong impression that the BBC sees the whole thing from the Formby perspective; that’s the way they present it. Sky does the opposite. 

Bias is a tricky thing. I don’t claim that Sky’s approach is any more impartial than the BBC’s (or that of any of the other MSM) but this is one example of how bias shows through no matter how heavily it’s cloaked.

I mean both reports are roughly factual but look at how they’re laid out. Here’s the BBC’s first para:

Labour MPs have unanimously passed a motion urging the party leadership to do more to tackle anti-Semitism.

Here’s Sky:

Labour MPs have condemned the party's general secretary in an angry showdown at Westminster over the "cancer" of antisemitism.

Those are, believe it or not, reports of the same incident. More from the BBC:

At a parliamentary party meeting, MPs called for more information about inquiries into those who had been accused of anti-Semitic behaviour.
MPs accused general secretary Jennie Formby of refusing to give answers.
But a Labour Party source said Ms Formby gave MPs a "comprehensive update", adding that complaints processes were "confidential".
Ahead of the meeting, Ms Formby said it was important to "eliminate the evil of anti-Semitism" from the party and she was "proud of the progress" that had been made in addressing the issue.
The party has struggled to contain a long-running row over claims of anti-Semitism within its ranks.

The tone of this is extremely generous to the Labour Party. The BBC does go on to report that there was ‘friction’ during the meeting but strongly emphasises Formby's 'case for the defence', so to speak.

By isolating every single quote they reproduce and laboriously (no pun intended) identifying it as verbatim by putting it in inverted commas, (quote marks) the BBC creates a pastiche of strict, cold-blooded impartiality while managing to tinge it with a hint of sarcasm.

Sky’s report uses quote marks too, but in a straightforwardly grammatical format (to denote speech) in other words, the quotes usually appear after (or before) the word “said” - as in:

Luciana Berger, who proposed the motion with another Jewish MP, Ruth Smeeth, said: "If we're serious about tackling the stain of antisemitism in the Labour party, we need transparency and we need answers to the questions we are asking. None were forthcoming today.”

Sky’s report includes some additional information, much of which emphasises the rancour and ill-will that pervaded the event. 

Free Speech

It’s all very well arguing about free speech, no-platforming, diversity, safe spaces, being/not being triggered, positive discrimination and having the chance to see and hear others’ points of view before making up your own mind about controversial issues. I get all that, and I do realise that you can’t have everything your own way. (Bit like Brexit)

However, the BBC’s over-exposure of Ash Sarkar is verging on ‘diversity of opinion too far’.

First there was saturation-point Paul Mason, a subversive hard-left pundit whom the Beeb couldn’t seem to get enough of - but his appearances have thankfully subsided, (although he was on this morning’s Broadcasting House) but even he seems more moderate these days, perhaps in comparison to the likes of Sarkar, assorted Asian women and that weirdo from Squawkbox. 
I feel triggered by Ash Sarkar, with those terrifying talons that she keeps waving in the air, although I suppose I must defend her right to wave them. 

Talking of Broadcasting House, they too touched on the aforementioned Rod Liddle, namely his recent, controversial article about missing dads. Absent dads, I mean - and to be more specific, absent black dads.

So they brought along that internet sensation of a black dad who made a video that went viral, in which he stated what could be described as the bleedin’ obvious, which is that if someone threatens you with a knife, if possible, scarper! Do as the Satnav says, and turn around where possible.

However, to most victims of the stabbing epidemic, not losing face seems to have taken priority over not losing your life. (Which would you rather save?) 

That inability to lose face reminds me of the continuing conflict in the Middle East - peace or intractability, that’s the choice. I digress.

Anyway, the wise dad, whose video stating the bleedin’ obvious went viral, has plans. He wants to set up youth projects to give kids something to do. Excellent! But not new.

Remember Camila Batmanghelidjh? I think I’m her one remaining supporter. Yes, she messed up, but her original approach to feral youth was promising.

See the way the BBC’s Chris Cook completely vilifies her. His article drips with rancour.  He states that the service she provided was unnecessary. 

“As its end approached, local charities, councils, child psychiatrists and officials all steeled themselves for the end of a £20m-a-year enterprise that had said it was in the same business as them. 

But the flood of need never came.”

“We can also now definitively say that local youth crime statistics have given the lie to a prediction from the charity that its collapse would lead to a descent into "savagery". None of the ups and downs coincide with the charity's collapse. Changes in city-wide crime, policing approaches and gangland economics matter much more than Kids Company did. 

I would suggest that this is a matter of opinion. The spate of knife crime, gangs, drugs and absent dads is hardly consistent with “The flood of need never came”.

I do know this viewpoint won’t go down well with many of you but there it is. I claim it in the name of free speech.

Intrusive thoughts

Another benefit of subscribing to the Times (in addition to privileged access to the btl comments) is watching those mini videos titled “Liddle’s Got Issues”. Not that Rod is particularly charismatic or easy on the eye, but the one I watched today about the reluctance of the Remain protesters to engage was well worth the sub. The idea was that he would accost some of the banner-wielding folk that were hanging about in the freezing cold and try to get one or two of them to explain why they were there. Well, we kind of knew why, but what was their message? "Why exactly are you against Brexit?" The best (and only forthcoming) response was “Because it’s a bad idea”, at which the speaker was hurriedly whisked away. 

On the surface, this was an amusing demonstration of the total absence of substance behind the demonstrators’ cause.

But on another level, it was reminiscent of those hearty brush-offs that baffled poor Gabriel Gatehouse when he tried to talk to some Dutch Tommy Robinson supporting activists (September 2018): 

 "The biased BBC? You must be joking!", one woman yelled at me down the phone. "You just want to stick me on TV and call me a racist”.

So maybe those annoying, banner-waving, in-yer-face protesters were struck dumb by a fear of being misrepresented by The Times. Or maybe they were just dumb.

While watching Rod, I had an intrusive thought. No, not about a load of filth, but, like the heroine in the new Channel 4 thing “Pure”, (I haven’t watched it yet) I do get intrusive thoughts. Not particularly of incest, bestiality or fantasies involving TV presenters, but in this case, of Rod’s scarf (which looked decidedly girly) and which was wrapped several times around his neck as if to keep out the cold. If so, why leave a triangle of exposed flesh above such a thin-looking shirt? What about the draught?  That was my intrusive thought and it wouldn’t go away.  

Other intrusive thoughts are possibly the result of being too immersed in this kind of blog. When I’m watching, say, Andrew Marr interviewing, say, Barry Gardiner - rather than listening to what they’re saying I  find myself automatically wondering why they’re saying it. Suspicious, I am.

Old Simpers sounds off

John Simpson?

John Simpson, the BBC's World Affairs Editor, is astride his hobby horse at the moment - though whether he's wearing his famous burqa or not I cannot say, alas:

• When I was the BBC political editor, in the early 1980s, I was shocked by the ignorance of most MPs about the way the outside world worked. Judging from today's proceedings in Parliament, things don't seem to have changed much.
• Some people replying to me think the problem lies with MPs having no experience outside politics. I disagree. I think it springs from a lack of knowledge and lack of interest in the way the countries close to us think and operate. The world has changed;  too many of us haven't.
• I think MPs can get too bound up with the business and pantomime of Parliament, and believe it's all that matters.  Far too many are depressingly ignorant of the world beyond Dover. That drove me crazy in the 80s. Today it's utterly unforgivable.

And the great man has now found a specific MP to loads his general reflections on, and I doubt either Paddy Power or William Hill would have been troubled by large-scale betting on the type of MP John would inevitably land on.

It just had to be a pro-Brexit right-winger.

And one such landed, like a soft, ripe peach, in his lap this weekend:

Not a happy Rob

Another Sunday and the usual accusations of “blatant pro-Brexit bias” and “obvious pro-Remain propaganda”presumably depending on which interview they happen to be watching. It’s draining and designed to bully.

— Rob Burley (@RobBurl) February 3, 2019

Ah yes, 'complaints from both sides'.

Two anecdotes

A letter to The Observer:

I was the “woman at the back” on last Thursday’s Question Time from Winchester. On a previous occasion, I was the “woman in pink”. How Question Time has changed. These days you are obliged to supply your personal details and political affiliation in order to get a ticket. This is presumably to get audience balance, but who decides what the balance should be is not clear. 

The choice of panellists also raises more questions than it answers. Apart from politicians, the BBC calls on a limited list of journalists and so-called independent thinktank representatives (lobbyists). The usual suspects, who somebody in the organisation has defined as right or left, crop up with monotonous regularity along with random celebrities who rarely make a relevant contribution. 

The format has changed considerably over the years, with the chair chipping in, interrupting the panellists and too often appearing to reveal their own prejudices. Many friends and colleagues refuse to watch the programme now but those who have stuck with it won’t have been reassured by Fiona Bruce’s brief and grudging non-apology for her embarrassing demonstration of ignorance. 

Karen Barratt

Winchester

Gillian Reynolds in The Sunday Times: 

Meanwhile, BBC News, it is whispered, wants to shift Sarah Sands away from Today. Since she became its editor in 2017, Today has lost political clout and listeners. Sands has wit, spirit and powerful contacts. At Today, she has discovered she can’t change the presenters; that power belongs to the head of news, Fran Unsworth. You have to be BBC born and bred to dodge such quagmires.

"We try. We keep trying."

Mr. Marr's introduction this morning ran as follows:

So, when do we leave the EU? Next month, the government insists. Depending on how we leave, there's lots of talk about what that might mean for food, for jobs and health. But what about our security? Important and proper questions have been raised. And meanwhile, we are going through an alarming rise in some serious violent crimes. To put it bluntly - can we trust this Government to keep us safe?

But that wasn't half as striking as what preceded the paper review, when he launched into what some uncharitable types have described as 'a rant':

We are going to talk about the papers in a moment with Fraser Nelson from the Spectator, Kate Devlin from the Times and Ash Sarkar from Novara Media. But before we do, I just want to say one thing about our line-up of interviews. We are at a moment when negotiations with Brussels are absolutely critical - and it's been a long moment - and week after week I get the chance to cross-question British ministers and opposition politicians. And week after week we ask the likes of Donald Tusk, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker to answer questions as well. And week after week they say no. We try. We keep trying. And so to the papers...

Wonder what brought that on?

Behind the scenes (2)

(h/t StewGreen)

Back on the Ralph Northam story, the BBC News website now has a new report about it headlined Virginia Governor Ralph Northam refuses to quit over racism row. This replaced the original report. Once again though, it omits the fact that Governor Northam is a Democrat and is written in such a way that the reader is liable to assume he's a Republican. 

Checking Newssniffer reveals something even stranger. The first version of this new webstory did say he was a Democrat:

This then got edited out.

Curiouser and curiouser.

P.S. The Sky News website shows the BBC how to report it properly:

Update 9.30am (h/t Arthur Trof): And now it's back! Yes, there's been another change to the BBC report:

All the weather that's fit to repeat

Talking about winter, The Sunday Times is having a little fun at the BBC's expense today, saying:

The snow that brought chaos to parts of Britain largely stopped falling yesterday but no one told the BBC. As America marked Groundhog Day, the broadcaster created a time loop of its own, accidentally replaying Friday’s weather forecast on an early-morning bulletin. 

Echoing the Hollywood film, a television weather presenter, Alina Jenkins, relived events of her previous 24 hours, promising “sleet and snow showers piling in . . . on Friday” — in a 5.55am broadcast.

The BBC said in response: 

We inadvertently ran yesterday’s forecast in one of our early morning weather slots.

Wonder if the Corbynistas or the #FBPE brigade will spot an anti-Corbyn, pro-Brexit conspiracy here? 

Meanwhile, who knew that BBC weather forecasts aren't always presented live but sometimes recorded (hence this latest honest mistake)? I have to say that I didn't...but I do now!

Pro-hunting groups grouse about Chris Packham

Talking about Chris Packham, you may have missed this story, as it only appeared in The Daily Mirror:

Chris Packham 'victim of dirty tricks campaign from shooting enthusiasts'

EXCLUSIVE: Lobbyists for groups who shoot grouse claim TV presenter Chris Packham didn’t declare a link to a drug company on a variety of BBC shows

The story is that pro-hunting groups have alleged that Chris Packham, famously an outspoken opponent of grouse-shooting, broke BBC rules back in 2015 by using BBC platforms to publicise a dog tick treatment he has links to: 

Abzed, a company which lobbies for grouse-shooting, claimed Packham was employed by a PR firm representing MSD Animal Health to help sales of its ­insecticide Bravecto. 

It alleged he did not declare that interest while appearing on BBC shows in 2015 to speak about the “Big Tick Project”, a campaign which raises ­awareness of ticks on dogs.

Here's what the two sides are saying:

Anti-Chris:  

• “Buying Mr Packham is the way companies buy BBC coverage. This is not public service broadcasting, it is the BBC for sale.”
• “The drug company’s PR firm... boasted about how successful his involvement was in getting a huge amount of coverage across the BBC for its sales campaign. It then bragged about how successful that campaign was at boosting sales. So Chris Packham was chosen by the drug company because the BBC has made him famous and he used that fame to promote the drug’s sales campaign on the BBC. These are facts not dirty tricks.”

Pro-Chris: 

• “At no time did Chris ever mention the name of the drug, only to say there were treatments available. The fact events a number of years ago are being pored over to find some sort of smoking gun is just dirty tricks.”
• “This is a spurious claim given there’s no evidence of Chris promoting this product in his role as a BBC presenter.”

I guess his critics will need concrete evidence (TV footage, transcripts of his TV appearances openly "plugging" the product, etc) to  substantiate their allegations. If they can find that and prove that he pushed Bravecto on various BBC platforms then Chris Packham will be in deep trouble. If they can't, then the charge that they are smearing him and want to get him sacked because of his opposition to grouse-shooting will continue to appear credible. 

Watching the Watchers

The new gang

BBC bias is the meat and drink of Sue and I's free-to-view cottage industry blog, but that doesn't preclude us from praising the BBC for (largely) non-biased fare that gives delight and hurts not.

And this past week's Winterwatch on BBC Two has been absolutely magnificent - especially as the snow fell live on TV, almost Narnia-like in its magic at times. 

(Cue scowl from Chris Packham). 

'The Watches' don't just involve us with wildlife, of course. They involve people too. 

In their first years, the magnificent trio of Bill Oddie, Kate Humble and Simon King ruled the roost. 

Bill was odd, as prickly as a hedgehog, but splendid in his love and knowledge of nature; Kate was his put-upon-but-enthusiastic sidechick, who also knew her stuff; and Simon was the deeply-knowledgeable man of action, camped out on a blasted heath somewhere with an expensive piece of kit. 

Then Bill, who had long suffered from depression, got suddenly and mysteriously dropped; Kate moved on; and Simon departed for a business career leading high-price personal tours. 

Meanwhile, Chris Packham arrived. 

He didn't go down well to begin with the 'Watch'-watchers, but 'Watch' fans have grown to deeply appreciate him. Learning of his Asperger's helped fill in the gaps of our appreciation of him. Much more importantly, he knows his stuff too and is passionate about it. He's as cussed at Bill Oddie but, especially having met him (and found him sympathetic), I very much like him. But, yes, he is an activist, and the BBC - despite the odd telling-off - still cuts him some slack in that regard.

Happy Michaela

With him came Michaela Strachan - smiley, smiley, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, BBC children's nature programmes, Pete Waterman, etc. She was clearly meant to be the Kate Humble-replacing sparring partner from Bill's replacement Chris, but has never seemed quite as knowledgeable. Still, she certainly can smile and play the straight act in a comedy duo.

And with her came Martin Hughes-Games, whose first 'Watch; series saw him camping it up as if John Inman had been given a tutorial from Danny La Rue and then got overruled by Julian Clary.

Later series (and his personal biography) showed him to be much more of a white, middle-aged male heterosexual than he first presented himself. 

He was then dropped.

And in his wake came Gillian Burke - female, black, and with a markedly 'diverse' accent. 

Pretty much everyone could see what the BBC was up to in including her, especially as Martin H-G spilled the beans beforehand.

It was all about 'diversity'.

Unshowy Gillian struggled in her first series but is now growing in confidence and winning admirers.

Getting-better Gillian

Meanwhile, the latest 'Watch', Winterwatch, has reversed the diversity trend by introducing a second white, middle-aged male who knows his stuff, Iolo Williams. 

And Iolo has been making himself at home in the Winterwatch camp, spreading his manly legs wide to mansplain the facts.

Poor Martin, trying ever so hard, must have seriously misjudged the BBC here. A manly man might have got him through after all, if he'd been diversely Welsh enough. 

And thus ends this post, which presents one of the BBC's finest nature series as if it were a sociologically-informed soap opera - which, to some degree, it is.

Not that that's what really interests me about it. I prefer the waxwings, wildcats. pine marten, mountain hare, urban deer, etc, plus the stunning winter footage and the snow flakes falling during the live programme, and the science - including the graphs and diagrams and experiments.

A winter woodcock

Here's to the next Springwatch then, when hopefully Chris and Iolo will engage in a competition to spread their explanatory legs as far apart as a man can go and Martin gets reintroduced (George Monbiot-style) and beats them as the show's alpha-male, and balances avoiding completely doing the splits in his mansplaining (whilst getting very, very close) by diving into huge badger cesspools and shouting in the manner of Ray Winstone. 

And I pray to St. William of Oddie that Gillian is giving the chance to grow even further and doesn't get replaced by a transgender Sir Lenny Henry. 

But, we all know what the BBC is like...

Behind the scenes

Following on from a post this morning, concerning the Democrat governor of Virginia's blackface/KKK-robes-sporting youth, and the BBC's fogging-over of his party affiliation (starring Jon Sopel) - plus the BBC's many edits of the report - ...

DB now has another question, following still more edits to that BBC online report: 

Which BBC Dem supporter inserted this irrelevant sentence before it was removed? "Northam told the NYT he had voted for Republican GWB in his presidential campaigns years earlier, saying that his decision was 'wrong'." 

From Newssniffer you can see very clearly that some BBC journalist did indeed add that paragraph (Version 6) before, some hours later, it was vanished (Version 7) - the only paragraph to be removed in that edit. 

Version 6:

 Version 7:

Yes, which "BBC Dem supporter" was it? And who overruled them?

P.S. May a million angels bless and protect the magnificent Newssniffer!

Update - DB added:

Development of this story is instructive. The instinct of BBC journos is to protect Dems wherever possible. Don't mention the bad man is Dem (in fact give impression he could be GOP). When called out admit he's a Dem, but add for no reason that he voted GWB in the past.

From the Dark Side of the Moon

On the same theme, here's more of the past week's big BBC bias rows - from (scary music) 'the other side':


1. Spitfiregate 

During the closing headlines of Wednesday night's BBC News at Six black and white footage of a spitfire landing and other spitfires in flight were accidentally broadcast as newsreader Sophie Raworth summarised the Prime Minister’s plan to reopen Brexit talks with EU leaders.

Many laughed at this, but others didn't see the funny side and accused the BBC of doing it deliberately.

Yes - as the Guardian reports - the BBC was being accused of staging a pro-Brexit stunt. [Yes, I know!].

The programme's editor Paul Royall then sent out a tweet saying it was an honest mistake: 

For those wondering - simple human error at end of #BBCNewsSix. A production mistake meant pictures used earlier to tease story about Biggin Hill ended up in our top story recap at close of show. If and when it happens pretty certain PM not travelling to Brussels like this.

The strength of conspiratorial thinking about the BBC among the wilder pro-EU types (especially on Twitter) is very striking, showing that many have become highly radicalised.

As you'll see from the replies to Paul Royall, a lot still won't accept his perfectly reasonable explanation ("Oh. An "accident". Right"; "Too bloody convenient an answer"; etc), while others want an apology rather than "a mumbled excuse".

Here's a particularly interesting response (and one we might also sympathise with):

It might have been a simple mistake. But a lot of people were incredulous and thought it was deliberate. That should worry you. Your explanation should be an apology. But then again BBC news does not do apologies, do they? Just carry on regardless.

2. MarkFrancoisgate

Another conspiracy theory among #FBPE types raged after Conservative MP Mark Francois's appearance on Politics Live, where he made 'Germanophobic remarks' in relation to Airbus boss Thomas Enders and then ripped up, live on air, a copy of Airbus's dire warning about Brexit - a stunt that surely took the BBC unawares.

Or not, as the case may be, for as Samira Ahmed said  on this week's Newswatch, "Some people felt the BBC was party to a stunt by letting him rip up that letter from the Airbus chief executive on BBC airwaves". 

The BBC boss appearing on Newswatch, Sam Taylor, denied that the BBC had "choreographed" it, saying it was "just another interview with a politician".

I believe him, but he then went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid - i.e. by playing the "we get feedback from people on both sides of the argument" card.


3. FionaBrucegate

The audience member in question (like M. Chevalier, I remember her well)

No, not that FionaBrucegate, but another one.

After the Diane Abbott 'scandal' had aroused the fury of the hard-left Corbynistas two weeks ago, the very same edition also aroused the later fury of the #FBPEs and the Cadwalladristas, headed by clan chief Carole Cadwalladr herself - and they've been banging on about it even since:

Fiona Bruce corrected a viewer on BBC QT who said Leave ran a ‘dirty’ campaign to say there were ‘questions on both sides’. It made a false equivalence between illegal acts and politically motivated criticism. Its refusal to acknowledge this is gobsmacking and depressing. BBC journalists, what do you think? This is not a criticism of Fiona Bruce but of the BBC’s seemingly limitless inability to recognise mistakes and correct them. You know the rules. How is this not in breach of 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4? Can anyone explain?

Where Carole leads, legions of devotees always follow - like cats on hearing a Whiskas sachet being opened (h/t Andrew Neil). And she received this reply from the BBC's fabulously complaint-denying complaints department:

So what was said on QT?

Audience member: I feel that people did not have the information, didn't have the right information and the Leave campaign was such a dirty campaign...[Boos from the audience towards the audience member]...It was, it was. And so I really think people need the full facts, and II don't think any of us have the full facts in the room and no one really knows...
Fiona Bruce: (interrupting) I mean, in fairness, there were questions over both the Leave and Remain campaigns. Diane Abbott, let me come to you...

Hmm. Well, I'm with the BBC complaints department minion here, as Leave were massively outgunned during the Referendum campaign and Remain weren't averse to making massively false statements on myriad occasions, so I think Carole is climbing up the wrong Christmas tree, but, it must be said, Carole and her army remain deeply dissatisfied with the BBC here and, like cats with mice (h/t Andrew Neil), they really aren't letting it drop.

Oh Fiona, QT really isn't like The Antiques Roadshow, is it?

4.  Denis MacShane v Dominic Raab/Nick Robinsongate

He may have been caught out by the law (and jailed for six months), but strongly pro-EU former Labour MP Denis MacShane remains a canny man, and he's been busy this week complaining to the BBC about a Dominic Raab/Nick Robinson interview on Today. 

Denis and his Twitter followers believe they've totally disproved Mr Raab over the Swiss-EU border and feel that the BBC (in the form of Nick R) failed to hold Mr Raab to account over his "lies". 

Though being somewhat lost in the detail (and willing to admit I could be wrong), I think Denis and his followers appear to be right about the Swiss-EU border being far less frictionless than Mr Raab said it is. 

Mr MacShane, however, then almost ended up defending the BBC against his more enthusiastic #FBPE supporters. They wanted the 'BBC conspiracy' angle. He preferred the 'BBC ignorance' angle. 

And maybe it's true that Nick Robinson doesn't know anywhere near enough (as a star BBC presenter/reporter) about the Swiss-EU border.

There's a lot of ignorance about at the BBC. 

An old theme

People watching Dateline London and commenting on it whilst so doing are usually politically-partisan twitterers - or fair-minded bloggers. 

😇

Today's Dateline London had two fairly standard Dateline balances -  (1) one right-leaning guest (Alex Deane) versus three left-leaning guests (Nabila Ramdani, Eunice Goes and Michael Goldfarb), and (2) one pro-Brexit guest (Alex Deane) versus three anti-Brexit guests (Nabila Ramdani, Eunice Goes and Michael Goldfarb) - but the politically-partisan twitterers only had eyes for "far-right" Alex Deane. 

They were aghast that he was on and are screaming 'BBC bias!'. 

Yes, some of the loudest anti-BBC, left-wing mouths on Twitter have been in action, as ever expressing their views in their own distinctive ways. 

So we hear that Dateline has "more Conservatives than at a Bankers Fraud" and that Dateline is "Tory excrement", etc. 

And when the discussion turned to Venezuela, and criticism of US foreign policy flowed, and everyone (including the estimable Ms Gracie) piled in on Alex Deane to stop from him criticising Jeremy Corbyn (and even defended the Labour leader against Alex), one of those loudest Twitter mouths turned potty-mouthed and declared (for the 500th time) that the BBC can go away in no uncertain terms and shove the licence fee up their police state posteriors for being so right-wing because he's not going to pay for such faecal output anymore [I may have toned it down somewhat there], while the other one opined that Carrie Gracie was "desperate" to "steer Tory discussion" of Venezuela against Chavez and Socialists and that she "allowed" attacks on Corbyn by "Far Right Alex Deane", with "no right of reply" - something that could hardly be further from the truth. 

Of course, such Twitter foolishness should be neither here nor there, but it's symptomatic of the behaviour of a certain, very loud kind of BBC critic who strikes a chord with a small but influential subset of the population. 

And, given the oft-cited 'complaints from both sides' argument, it remains important to point out that it doesn't hold if one side's complaints are utter drivel.

How independent is "independent"?

I was driving to work on Thursday morning listening to Radio 3 and the 7 o'clock news bulletin began:

A study carried out for the BBC says the Government hasn't made enough preparations in case the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. The independent think tank the Institute for Government said there was a significant risk that ministers working to replace EU legislation covering areas such as trade, immigration and agriculture wouldn't have new laws ready in two months time.

As was discussed on the Open Thread, on Thursday the BBC made the views of the "independent" Institute for Government one of their lead stories over the range of their outlets, and Radio 4's Today programme called the IFG "independent" and "non-partisan".

So a negative report about Britain's Brexit preparations, commissioned by the BBC from the IFG, was given the full 'take-this-as-authoritative' treatment by the BBC. 

But just how "independent" is the Institute for Government, the brainchild of major Remain donor Lord Sainsbury?

Well, as Robin Horbury noted:

Also on the IFG board are Baroness Amos and Liam Byrne (former Labour ministers), and Richard Lambert, former editor of the FT. Its director is Bronwen Maddox, also a strong Remainer and currently visiting professor at the Policy Institute at King's College which is engaged in so-called research aimed at showing how ignorant leavers are about the EU. A further point is that IFG reports for the BBC are being commissioned by Chris Morris's 'reality check' unit - in other words, it is spending vast sums of licence fee money on reinforcing its own biased echo chamber. You could not make it up.

Indeed, a full analysis of the list of board members reveals the following:

Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Labour, Remain donor)

Baroness Amos (Labour, Remain supporter)

Liam Byrne (Labour, Remain supporter) 

Sir Andrew Cahn (also on the board of a pro-EU pressure group)

Sir Ian Cheshire (Remain supporter)

Miranda Curtis 

George Freeman MP (Conservative, Remain supporter)

Philip Rutnam

Lord Simon of Highbury (former vice-chair of Britain in Europe)

Sir Richard Lambert (Remain supporter)

The fact that the board is evidently of one-mind about Brexit (i.e. not keen!) doesn't necessarily mean that the Institute's work will be biased in the direction of its board members' shared point of view (or its director Bronwen Maddox's identical point of view) but the "independent" label really ought to make BBC editors queasy when the organisation they are so describing turns out to have a board that's so heavily Remain, especially if - as Robin says - they are using it to bolster their own 'reality checks'.

"How much more cliched and stereotypical can the BBC get?"

Last year, reviewing Mark Easton's latest 'Englishness' reports, I wrote: 

And, given that four years ago I titled one of my pieces about Mark's last pro-regionalism foray around the counties of England Mark Easton Baht 'at, I found it amusing (alarming?) that tonight's Mark Easton piece from Yorkshire featured a brass band playing On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at.

(Seriously Mark? Why didn't you go the whole hog and cuddle a ferret whilst taking your clothes off and popping on a cloth cap and walking up a steep cobbled hill with a loaf of bread humming the theme from In Loving Memory?)

And then it was onto Somerset.  

And if you (meaning me), as a non-metropolitan Northerner, felt offended (almost to the point of calling the ever-eager police) about Mark Easton employing (sackable? racist?) stereotypes by using a brass band playing On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at to represent Yorkshire, then please pray, with all your heart and soul, for our poor south-western friends in Somerset (and Sue beyond in Cornwall),.... 

....for, yes, I kid you not, Mark Easton of the BBC really did feature morris dancers from there. And talk of dragons and wassail.  

(The only thing I think he missed here - and this is truly unforgivable, especially given how hard he'd been trying to go for the tried-and-testedly stereotypical before - was to feature The Wurzels singing I Am A Cider Drinker).

Well, this week's Newswatch featured a disgruntled lady from Mansfield complaining about a BBC News at Ten report from Lucy Manning (concerning Brexit, of course): 

Angela Senior, Newswatch viewer: Dear Newswatch. I watched the Ten O'Clock News on Tuesday night with some trepidation, as it was said at the top of the programme there would be a report from Mansfield. As expected, the short report featured an evening silhouette of a disused pithead stock plus an elderly local resident, with a rich local accent to boot, in a Labour club, and - to top it all off - a rendition from a local brass band rehearsal. How much more cliched and stereotypical can the BBC get? This is so totally opposite to the Mansfield area we know. Come on, BBC, it is many years since the coal mines and hosiery mills closed and Mansfield is recovering and regenerating. Please think carefully before you portray this area in such an extreme light.

Still, in fairness to the metropolitan elite types at the BBC, the piece of brass band music being rehearsed there was one of Gustav Holst's Suites for brass band - real favourites of mine. So get your clogs on and off down t pit we go!

Update: Extra images of the colliery from the BBC report....

Not biting the hand that feeds you?

Gosh, I see Lord Adonis hasn't been bad-mouthing the BBC for a few days. Indeed, he's actually tweeted a compliment (31 Jan):

Ok, time for me to be nice about the BBC. They now take 50 apprentices a year & a BBC apprentice just told me the scheme is ‘brilliant’ and ‘much better than going straight to uni.’ Well done BBC!

Call me a cynic, but might his recent abstinence from continuous Beeb-bashing have something to do with this (31 Jan)? 

I’m on Newsnight at 1030 discussing the chaos of the government’s ‘no deal’ legislation. With only 33 parliamentary days before Brexit, it simply can’t now be done in time.

Or this (29 Jan)?

Just about to go on Radio 5 live to discuss how no deal is becoming ‘no way’.

So, is there self-serving method in his BBC-baiting madness? 

An exchange of views

Definitely a Democrat

A BBC News website report, published overnight, provoked an early morning tweet from DB, linking to Newssniffer, copying in various BBC reporters:

The "comical" nature of the first few versions of the report is made even more worse by the fact that the first three versions (the ones that don't tell you Mr Northam is a Democrat) mention "the Republican Party of Virginia". 

Indeed, reading the original three versions of the report, I suspect most readers unfamiliar with Governor Northam would simply assume he was a Republican from the way the BBC wrote those versions.

Maybe one of that bevy of BBC beauties who DB copied in to his complaint had a hand in the report though, because the next update did introduce the word "Democrat". (Coincidence?). 

The headline, however, is sticking with 'Virginia Governor Ralph Northam sorry for racist yearbook photo'.

To his credit, one beauty - Jon Sopel - replied to DB's tweet (though quite what he's "disagreeing" with in his first reply isn't clear!):

Jon Sopel: He’s a Democrat. There. And I disagree. I think the fact that he is a Democrat will intensify the pressure on him from liberal groups to fall upon his sword. 

DB: It doesn't say so in this online report: https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1732817/diff/1/2 … If he was Republican the headline would say "Republican Governor..." and it would be mentioned again in the opening paragraph. 

Jon Sopel: It should be...

Jon Sopel: Just checked on front page of BBC Website. Prominently says he’s a Democrat.

DB: But the actual report doesn't.

At which point the Twitter conversation stopped.

Anyhow, the front page of the BBC website (as accessed here the UK), as of 7 o'clock this morning, does not prominently say he's a Democrat:

Pinch punch first of the month

The snow stole our hard copy of The Times today. I hear the lorry got stuck on the A30. Not to worry, I subscribe to the online version. James Kirkup has written the Thunderer column and it’s called “The BBC needs to go back to basics if it wants to survive“ 

Some of his observations coincide with what critics of the BBC have said a million times already. Actually, they sound a lot like something I’ve said (have I written about it, or just thought it?) about the BBC before.  Namely the flaw it shares with its co-iconic symbol of Britishness, poor old Marks and Sparks - you know, that it’s forgotten its core market and instead wastes its time trying desperately to attract the youth, but it’s so uncool that no-respectable person under, say, 65, would be seen dead wearing those copies of trendy fashion that completely miss the mark. It’s like Dad dancing, says Kirkup. (He’s talking about the Beeb, but I’m talking about both of them)

Just as M & S has been out-trended by the likes of, I don’t know, hundreds of youth-oriented high-street stores, the BBC is being trounced by YouTube and Netflix. 


“The BBC reacts by trying to fight YouTube and the rest on their own ground, seeking the loyalty of future adults with youth-focused content and products. The results are predictably uninspiring. BBC Online now reports on vloggers and celebrity pap as news. To lure the indifferent young to its radio and podcasts, the BBC built Sounds, an app (kids love apps, yeah?) that has succeeded only in annoying existing listeners.” 

M & S needs to concentrate on good quality clothes like jumpers in the right colours that wash well and last a long time, (about 30 years will do) and the BBC should concentrate on “what it does best — public service journalism and programming”.

Obviously, the best bit for me is the below-the-line comments. The ability to access the comments is where subscribing comes into its own. 

Needless to say, many of them are fed up with the BBC’s bias. 

  ********

I’m not going to be mean about Jeremy Hardy now that he has died. It’s very sad that anyone should die at only 57. But it’s hard to be forgiving of the BBC’s wall-to-wall eulogising about his wit and humour and commitment to his “causes” one of which was very vitriolic anti-Israel advocacy. 

He was undoubtedly witty and clever, but humour should be based on truth otherwise it’s not funny. Jeremy Hardy fell for Palestinian propaganda hook line and sinker and the general public’s gullibility allowed him to be sarky and inflammatory without any regard or respect for the truth.

Good cause