TV tears at teatime

 

A letter to The Telegraph:

Larry King 1933-2021

 

An interviewer with a very different style to most interviewers today, Larry King has died aged 87.

The BBC News Channel bungled their announcement of his passing this afternoon:

Characteristically, Piers Morgan has combined a tribute with something about himself, but I do like the quote from Larry King here:

Larry King was a hero of mine until we fell out after I replaced him at CNN & he said my show was ‘like watching your mother-in-law go over a cliff in your new Bentley.’ (He married 8 times so a mother-in-law expert). But he was a brilliant broadcaster & masterful TV interviewer.

Another of our stories is missing

  

The extraordinary civil war in the SNP between supporters of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon is proving gripping if nothing else, and now has the potential to bring down the previously all-conquering Scottish First Minister. 

As my favourite commenter on Scottish politics, Effie Deans, notes today though:

If the Salmond Scandal had happened in England it would be headline news on the BBC every day.

So far this year, it's made BBC news bulletins just twice - once on 8 January (when it got less than 2 minutes) and once last night (where it got 25 seconds) and - Newsnight hasn't covered it at all. 

Indeed, Lewis Goodall, who hyperactively tweets about every possible hint of scandal involving the Westminster government, remains resolutely uninterested in the story. He's tweeted nothing specifically about Mr Salmond since 24 Jan 2019: 

Wow. 14 counts against Alex Salmond. 9 sexual assaults. 2 attempted rapes. 1 breach of the peace. 2 indecent assaults. If these prove to be true, there are huge questions about how much, if anything, was to known to his SNP colleagues and those in the wider Scottish govt.

If those questions were "huge" then, now they're surely even bigger, given that "how much, if anything, was known" to Nicola Sturgeon is only the starting point. An even bigger question is: What there a conspiracy against Mr Salmond? And: Has there been a cover-up? Given that Lewis regularly travels up to the Scotland to report for Newsnight, why isn't he reporting on them now?

(Just to add to my point, he's retweeting stuff today about the Welsh Tory leader resigning after a Covid-busting booze-up). 

*******

UPDATE: Blimey, even Nick Robinson seems to see there's an issue here: 

Was there a cover up of what was known about sexual harassment allegations ? This is an extraordinary story about a war between the two leading figures in the drive for Scottish independence. Imagine how big it would be if it was about, say, Johnson & May. 

The top-rated reply reads:

This is a much bigger story about government corruption on an unprecedented scale Nick. Scottish media outlets silenced, pro indy quangos all over the place, misuse of data, grant based organisations government criticism bought off, Covid politicised. You guys have gone AWOL.  

*******

P.S. More from Effie Deans: 

We pay top BBC journalists hundreds of thousands of pounds to find out things. Not one of them has contributed to the revelations about Salmond and Sturgeon.

The view from the US embassy

  

The BBC's Dan Johnson (best known as 'the Cliff guy') was on droll form on Radio 4 this morning, making light of the whole Biden/Churchill bust business that the BBC's so absurdly bothered about. 

I think he may have enjoyed writing his Winston Churchill puns:

Never in the field of human sculpture was so much diplomatic significance imagined by so many yet acknowledged by so few. That's the tone of the US embassy's video, that trade links, military co-operation and the working partnership of presidents and prime ministers define the special relationship much more than a bust of Sir Winston Churchill and his proximity to power in the White House. "It's about people, values and trust", the video proclaims. Boris Johnson came to the sculpture's defense in 2016 after it was forced to surrender the sideboard in Barack Obama's Oval Office. It was Donald Trump who restored Winnie to the West Wing, but under Joe Biden those unmistakable features have been banished once more. But where? Shall we find them in the library? Shall we find them in the treaty room, or on the Hill? "An important question", the new White House press secretary conceded, though she couldn't immediately answer. Downing Street isn't making an issue of it, so bust out but no bust-up. The special relationship can grow. Its finest hour, quite possibly, still ahead.

And almost finally...

  

Yesterday brought us the news that Nissan has committed itself to a long term future in Sunderland, with 6,000 jobs now seeming secure and the future for 70,000 ancillary workers looking bright. 

Nissan's boss Ashwani Gupta said:

Brexit for Nissan is positive, and being the largest automaker in the UK, we will take this opportunity to redefine the industry here. 

Brexit gives us the competitive advantage, not only in the UK, but outside the UK also. Because in how many [manufacturing] locations in Europe are the batteries localised? Very few." 

The sort of problems that we are seeing in the ports is peanuts, frankly. For a global manufacturer that is running 150 markets and 40 plants around the world, to have additional documentation and to fill out a form at the border, it's nothing. 

We were prepared for it, we had upgraded our software and our processes, it's okay. Of course when you bring a change you need to have agility, to adapt to the new change - that's the beauty of the organisation.

BBC One's News at Ten did report the story, but it was the final one before the sport and given just 22 seconds: 

The future of Nissan's car plant in Sunderland has been secured, with the company saying the Brexit trade deal will allow it to continue manufacturing in the North East - and give it a competitive advantage. Nissan will begin making the batteries for its electric cars at the plant so that it can take advantage of zero trade tariffs, helping to secure 75,000 jobs here and across the EU.

It got 25 seconds on BBC One's News at Six (where it was the next to last story before the sport). 

I'd have expected a report at the very least, especially given the sheer scale of the previous coverage given to Nissan's future in Sunderland vis a vis Brexit. But now it's a positive story about Brexit it suddenly doesn't seem anywhere near so important to the BBC.

*******

Incidentally, the BBC's website article by Simon Jack underwent a few headline changes. It began around midnight with Nissan says Brexit deal 'positive' and commits to UK but by 7am had become Brexit: Nissan commits to keep manufacturing in Sunderland, reaching its final form Brexit: Nissan commits to keep making cars in Sunderland by 9am - the latter a definite toning-down of the first headline's Brexit positivity. Wonder if Simon changed it, or a BBC website editor?

Punchline

 

Good comic timing here...and not from HIGNFY:

A mass revolt against the BBC licence fee?

It was always going to be interesting to see how many over-75s would willingly pay for the BBC licence fee after the corporation welched on its deal with the Government to maintain the universal exception, and it turns out that more than a million people aged over 75 still haven't done so, “indicating a mass revolt against the compulsory charge" according to Matthew Moore of The Times. 

Though 2.7 million licences have been bought, on top of the 'more than a million people' who haven't take it up a further 750,000 on lower incomes have applied to continue receiving it free. 

Though the BBC must have breathed a sigh of relief this week at the Government's sharp pulling-back over decriminalising the licence fee, people are clearly taking matters into their own hands, and it's still not looking good for the BBC. 

Nitty-gritty

 

Matthew Moore, Media Correspondent of The Times, reports today that the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has chucked out a complaint against Laura Kuenssberg for using the phrase “nitty-gritty” during an episode of Brexitcast. 

He (perhaps optimistically) describes the ruling as “the latest sign of the corporation’s shift away from so-called wokery”. 

At least one person (the BBC isn't saying exactly how many) complained when Laura K using the term while talking about Lee Cain leaving No 10. She said, “Before we get into the nitty-gritty for the saddo nerds like us who are fascinated by all this soap opera”. 

The background to this is the claim by some anti-racism campaigners that “nitty-gritty” originally referred to the detritus found in the bottom of transatlantic slave ships and, therefore, shouldn't be used. Etymologists rubbish that claim though, saying there is no convincing evidence for it, that the phrase was first printed in the 1930s and that none of its early uses has any connection to slavery whatsoever. Indeed, back in 2002 the BBC itself debunked the claim. 

The interesting thing, however, is how influential the forces of 'wokery' can be:

“Nitty-gritty” was included on a list of phrases to be avoided by sports commentators last summer, at a diversity briefing attended by hundreds of BBC, Sky, BT Sport and ITV staff. They were told to use alternatives such as “the basic facts”...

P.S. I see you can buy a Nitty Gritty Comb if you want to quickly and easily get rid of all head lice, nits and 'live' eggs in your children's hair - as recommended by Mumsnet, Jonathan Ross ("Have you got the Nitty Gritty Comb, with the long bits, with the twiddly bits? That's the best comb. You've got to get the Nitty Gritty comb. I'll draw it for you and you can get it on the way home. It's fantastic") and Jason Donovan ("I just can't get by without Nitty Gritty... it's a natural headlice treatment which Angela and I use on the kids. Nits are a big problem these days.") Get yours now while stocks last - or before the company is forced to change its name.

P.P.S. Here's Andrew Neil's take on the matter: "BBC rightly rejects complaint against Laura Kuenssberg for using phrase “nitty gritty”. Licence fees of numpties who complained should be tripled to contribute to cost of complaints procedure."

[As Guest Who notes at Biased BBC, Andrew Neil here is engaging with "a BBC 100 lady of entitlement" on the matter, and it's really not going well for her]. 

The size of Wales

 

The news that the BBC spent over £1m of licence fee payers' money on external lawyers to fight the likes of Samira Ahmed over equal pay got me thinking. 

You know how geographical areas in the world are often compared to the size of Belgium (11,850 sq miles) or Wales (8,016 sq miles), well, how should BBC expenditure be described? 

How about these: The BBC has spent 'three times the salary of Emily Maitlis' on external lawyers here? Or the BBC has spent 'over twice the salary of Huw Edwards' on external lawyers here? Or the BBC has spent 'over half the salary of Gary Lineker' on external lawyers here?

Not for long...

 

As has been discussed here earlier in the week, blog favourite Daniel Sandford, Home Affairs Correspondent for BBC News, became a news story himself this week after taking a pasting on Twitter for saying "At £13.99 a month Netflix is now more than the BBC licence and there is no radio, no live TV, no news online etc etc". 

He later called it "a simple, observational statement" even after hordes of people had pointed out that it was actually spin. £13.99 a month is for Netflix Premium for up to 4 screens. The basic package remains £5.99 a month. 

My favourite part of this is where Daniel changed the subject when he got caught out:

Daniel Sandford: At £13.99 a month Netflix is now more than the BBC licence and there is no radio, no live TV, no news online etc etc

Paul W: I’m only paying £5.99 for Netflix.

Daniel Sandford: Not for long....

Darren Grimes: The basic plan will stay at £5.99/mth.

Daniel Sandford: But the BBC licence fee is for unlimited screens, radios, devices etc for a whole household so most similar to Netflix Premium. 

Another Pause for Art

 

It's not the first time that we've featured a painting by Simon Palmer, the master of moss of lichen. This one is called Pennine Railway. 

This time there's even a BBC-related excuse as Andrew Marr rightly described it as "stunning" the other day. 

Robert Peston is driving Newsnight's Deb Cohen insane!

As Charlie spotted...

If there's one thing ITV's political editor Robert Peston is known for - other than his unique manner of delivery and his legendary activities as a Punch & Judy man - it's for his famously loose lips. 

Last time those lips of his caused the collapse of Northern Rock and the entire world financial system. (Allegedly). 

And he's distinguished himself over the past near-year of Covid-related Downing Street press conferences by asking the most ill-judged questions at the greatest length. (No 'allegedly' needed).

Today, his loose lips - in the form of overeager fingers - have taken to Twitter and provoked Newsnight's Deb Cohen to pop the cosy media bubble and denounce him for being irresponsible:

Robert Peston, ITV: The government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (or Nervtag) has concluded that the new Covid-19 strain may be a bit more lethal than the existing strain. I've spoken to the influential Nervtag member, Prof Neil Ferguson about this. He has given me this statement: "It is a realistic possibility that the new UK variant increases the risk of death, but there is considerable remaining uncertainty". Four groups - Imperial, LSHTM, PHE and Exeter - have looked at the relationship between people testing positive for the variant vs old strains and the risk of death. That suggests a 1.3-fold increased risk of death. So for 60 year-olds, 13 in 1000 might die compared with 10 in 1000 for old strains. The big caveat is that we only know which strain people were infected with for about 8% of deaths. Only about 25% of people who eventually die from COVID get a pillar 2 test before they are hospitalised (at which point they get a pillar 1 test, but pillar 1 tests don’t tell us which strain they were infected with). And we can only distinguish the new variant from the old variant for about 1/3 of pillar 2 tests. All that said, the signal is there and is consistent across different age groups, regions and ethnicities." The worrying news is that although treatments for Covid-19 have improved, the new strain does seem to be more lethal. I understand Sir Patrick Vallance will address this issue at the press conference with Boris Johnson later today. The original work on the lethality of the new strain was done by Nick Davies of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and has been checked and rechecked by assorted other experts (including, obviously, Prof Ferguson).

Robert Peston's tweets are like his TV contributions. They flow on, without regard to form, like the poorest early 20th Century modernist poetry, from tweet to tweet...

...unlike Deb Cohen's. She's straight to the point, reacting to Robert's outpourings:

Deborah Cohen, BBC Newsnight: I don't often do this...but this is irresponsible. We should be able to see the evidence and the analyses so we fully understand any potential limitations or confounders. Science by briefing has become an unfortunate part of this pandemic and it's not helpful. It's really not good for public trust and probably not good for science in the long run. So many preliminary studies based on limited analyses or tiny samples are being reported with scant attention paid to limitations. It's driving me insane!

Deb Cohen has struck me for a while as being the exception that proves the rule at Newsnight (along with Mark Urban). 

Robert hasn't replied. (Very him.)

He does love parroting things as 'scoops' though.

"A gaggle of blubbing, gushing, babbling groupies"

This is well-put by Gerard Baker in The Times re the inauguration of Joe Biden and the media: 

Those solemnly self-important purveyors of facts in a post-truth world were a gaggle of blubbing, gushing, babbling groupies. The BBC’s journalists, whose presence in Washington must have rivalled that of the National Guard, seem to have been given yet another holiday from their supposed obligation to impartiality as they waxed at length about the “historic” scene and its “healing” power.

Offski

 

“To lose one licence-fee-paying household, Mr. Davie, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose 450,000 looks like carelessness.” 

So said Oscar Wilde on reading the latest from the National Audit Office. 

Between 2017-18 and 2019-20 almost 450,000 fewer non-over-75 households bought TV licences and TV licence sales as a whole have fallen by 250,000 in the past year alone due to evasion and younger viewers’ preference for streaming services. 

It's not looking good for the BBC. 

The toxic legacy of Jon Sopel

 

Historian and novelist Allan Mallinson was listening to Radio 4's Today this morning and heard Jon Sopel talking of "the toxic legacy that Donald Trump leaves behind". 

Brig. Mallinson tweeted:

Might it help convince people that the BBC is impartial if such as the BBC's Jon Sopel abjured use of adjectives, especially ones like “toxic”? 

Well, it would be a start! 

Mid January Open Thread

 

A new open thread, for when the old one feels like retiring...

Thanks, as ever, for your comments.

What next for Jon Sopel?

 

As discussed on the open thread, Jon Sopel has a piece in the Daily Telegraph today which ends:

But the real fragility of American democracy was properly on show in the weeks leading up to that day ["the storming of Congress by Trump supporters"]. There was a coup attempt which was thwarted, thanks to a few heroes acting on principle. But it was a close run thing.

Charlie has saved me the bother of critiquing this, writing:

Is Sopel being impartial there? Was there a coup attempt? Was it thwarted by a few heroes acting on principle? 

That’s the way the liberals view it, that’s clear but Sopel is getting into partisan politics by saying so.

******* 

The piece begins:

It’s been strange this past week. I have woken up alone. Sure, there has been birdsong outside my bedroom window, but no Donald Trump tweets to wake up to next to me. The alert I receive on my phone every time his thumbs get busy is redundant; the messages I receive at random times at all hours of the night, gone. It’s been the permanent accompaniment to my life – and virtually every other Washington journalist I know – these past four years. But no longer. Life seems a bit monochrome, to be honest. My bedroom feels empty.

I guessed he'd get withdrawals symptoms - though they've begun even earlier than I thought they would.

He's became absolutely addicted to the praise he gets from partisans on Twitter - and from many of his media colleagues - for his 'O.M.G.'-reactions to Donald Trump's tweets and his riffing off and being endlessly sarcastic, critical or appalled about them, and Donald Trump himself, in his TV and radio reports.

Four years of being endlessly nice and polite about the Biden administration won't be anywhere near so much fun for him. I suspect he'll be asking for a change of job before too long.

Did 'Panorama' use statistics in a misleading light tonight?

"I can't breathe!" These same words were uttered two years later by George Floyd whose death sparked outrage on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, if you're black, you're more than twice as likely as a white person to die in police custody.

So said white BBC reporter Mark Daly at the start of tonight's Panorama on BBC One, tying the situation in the USA to that in the UK.

That statistic was repeated later in the programme as well.

But is it true?

Well, the BBC's very own Reality Check last June was doubtful. It pointed out that over the previous 10 years, 164 people have died in or following police custody in England and Wales, of which 141 were white, 13 were black and 10 were from other minority ethnic groups. So vastly more white people died in police custody than black people - a context Panorama should surely have pointed out, shouldn't it? 

Moreover, if you compare these figures to how much of the population these groups comprise (which is how Panorama's figure came about), yes, black people are more than twice as likely to die in police custody than white people but (a) white people die almost exactly in proportion to their share of the population and (b) Asian people are more than twice less likely to die in police custody than white people - two facts which surely complicate Panorama's highly-charged, race-based statistic?  

Furthermore - and this must be the more relevant way of looking at it - if you review figures again of those arrested, 79% were white and 85% of those who died in custody were white, whereas of the 9% of people arrested who were black (which is disproportionally high) 8% of those who died in custody were black. So over this period a white individual who has been arrested was about 25% more likely to die in custody than a black individual who had been arrested - which again casts Panorama's incendiary charge in a highly questionable light, doesn't it?

Also, figures for the past two years available on the 17 custody-related deaths show that 12 were white people and 5 black people (30%), but those figures feed into the same 10 year period in the figures above. And were they because of the use of force? Not necessarily, say the BBC Reality Check. In 2018-19, for example, almost two-thirds of the custody-related deaths were directly linked to intoxication. (Drugs and mental health are other factors).

So what was Panorama up to here? And who at the BBC give the go ahead for that statistic to be used in this way?  

Chris Morris's message from the sickbed

I must wish the BBC's Reality Check correspondent Chris Morris a speedy recovery. 

He's been suffering from Covid-19 and has certainly been in by the wars by the sounds of it. 

He posted this today, which suggests he's on the mend. 

Whatever else the illness has done to him it's certainly not taken away his feistiness. He's taking sarcastic pops at Brexiteers and Covid deniers right, left and centre here - and trying to settle a few scores by the sounds of it! 

I suspect he's broken a fair number of the latest BBC editorial guidelines on social media use today, but now's probably not to time to mention that:

1. Hello 2021. I’ve been down with Covid since New Year's Day and it’s been pretty brutal. When I lived in India a few years ago I got dengue fever and typhoid at the same time. This has felt worse. And more scary. Thread.
2. Having written early on in the pandemic about the many weird ways Covid can attack the body, I knew what could be coming. Please take it seriously, and don’t listen to the loons who tell you it’s just flu. Coronavirus: 'Baffling' observations from the front line - BBC News
3. I had excruciating back pain and headaches, a temperature but luckily not too much trouble breathing. My heart had a couple of funny turns, and 1 day last week I just burst into tears every time I tried to read or watch TV. Covid finds your vulnerabilities and attacks them.
4. I'm hopefully on the mend now, but still feel like I’ve been hit by a baseball bat. And I'm generally healthy with no underlying conditions. Thanks to the NHS and the marvellous paramedics who keep everything moving and turned up twice at my house when I really needed them.
5. So, what’s been happening? Apparently it’s a lot more difficult to trade with the single market. Which must have come as a shock to anyone who thought talking to actual experts about practical problems - and, you know, facts - was just the latest iteration of Project Fear. 
   
6. Commiserations to all those businesses who are having to deal with the huge number of new non-tariff barriers that the Prime Minister assured us on Christmas Eve didn’t exist. Brexit: Fishing firms hold London protest over disruption - BBC News
7. I'm pretty sure border disruption will ease over time, as companies are forced to adjust to more red tape and higher costs. But it’ll get much worse before it gets better. Some businesses won't survive in their current form, or at all; others will emerge to meet new demands.
8. And this, by Kate Hoey, seems to suggest that Northern Ireland is now being treated very differently than the rest of the UK. I mean, who could have known? Even 15 months ago? Can anyone confirm - [the BBC's] John Campbell perhaps? The Tories have betrayed Northern Ireland with their Brexit deal (telegraph.co.uk)
9. Meanwhile, I'm able to read interesting stuff again. This, by the incomparable Timothy D Snyder, on the United States: "When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place." The American Abyss - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
10. And this, beautifully written by Rafael Behr about his heart, strangely reminded me of the brain fog that seemed to have enveloped British politics when I came back in 2016 after 25 years as a foreign correspondent. I thrived on the tension and drama of British politics. Then I had a heart attack | Health & wellbeing | The Guardian
11. Because of this ghastly pandemic, the fog is even thicker at the moment. When it lifts, facts will matter more than ever. But the best current fact is vaccines - congratulations and thanks to everyone who has created them, distributed them, and is now administering them.
12. And finally... others have already said this, but how brave is this man? Sadly, it reminded me of the return of Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan in 2007. Hopefully this story ends in a better way. Alexei Navalny: Poisoned Putin critic Navalny to be kept in custody - BBC News

Are you sure about that, Ed?

Here's Edward Stourton in full flow on today's The World This Weekend:

Wednesday's transfer of power will take place under the protection of thousands of National Guard troops and will in many ways be dominated by the man who isn't at the party. Donald Trump has decided to become the first American president in history not to attend his successor's inauguration.

Well, except for John Adams, John Quincey Adams, Martin Van Buren and Andrew Johnson that is!

Not quite tough enough early enough

  

A familiar point from Andrew Marr this morning:

Lucy Fisher, Daily Telegraph: We heard from the Prime Minister on Friday that there will be major changes to the border as of 4am tomorrow. From that point onwards all travel corridors will be scrapped and all inbound passengers forced to produce a negative Covid test and to quarantine for ten days once arriving. This new batch of proposals that the Sunday Times reports on today represents a much stricter series of measures. This would involve the creation of quarantine hotels which would force inbound passengers to stay there and to pay for them. And they are not cheap. We have seen that in Australia, which already has a similar system, that passengers are forced to pay between £1,500 and £2,500 to stay in these hotels. 

Andrew Marr: So this is something that has worked abroad but it hasn't been done here, and it has been effective in the past. I think Number 10 are apparently saying that they haven't taken this decision yet. We'll talk to the Foreign Secretary later on about whether it's going to happen or not. But the accusation has been made again and again and again that this government is not quite tough enough early enough to have the effect that other countries have had. 

Lucy Fisher: Yes, there have been plenty of questions in the past days about why the government didn't rush to act sooner when we saw the likes of New Zealand take these measures and what they called 'directed isolation' did seem to have a large part of the success early in the pandemic in stopping the spread. But I think the reason that these measures have been considered now really reflects ministers concerns about some of the new variants we are seeing around the world of coronavirus, particularly some of the variants coming out of Brazil, amid the concerns that they could be vaccine-busting. 

And again later in the programme:

Andrew Marr: And to do that, are you going to require people coming into this country to self-isolate in hotels before they join the rest of the population?  

Dominic Raab: We've said we will keep all the potential measures under review... 

Andrew Marr: (interrupting) I'm sorry to jump in, but...why keep this under review? You know this works in other countries. You know it's been highly effective in other countries. And there is a perpetual suspicion that you are acting slightly too late again and again. Shouldn't you be ahead of the curve and announcing this now?

Mr Marr's Sunday Morning Sermon: 17 January 2021

 

❝Hello. Today, tomorrow, and for the next few weeks, the National Health Service is going through its greatest test since it was formed in 1948. Although we talk about the NHS as an institution, it really isn't about that. It's about the exhausted, well-trained men and women giving their all this morning and every other morning, taking personal risks to care for the very sick and to get those vaccines into us. It's about people of all ages going in again and again, bone tired when their bodies say, "Turn over, go back to sleep," and then working for many hours, stressed, hot and sometimes grieving. We were right to clap for them. But this winter, clapping doesn't seem quite enough.❞

"Weird inquisatory tone in this BBC piece"

 

Matt Kilcoyne, deputy director of the Adam Smith Institute, was reading a BBC News website report from BBC Wales political correspondent James Williams headlined:

Senedd: Some Tory candidates 'would scrap' Welsh parliament - BBC News

It begins:

Leaked documents show that three Conservative candidates standing at this year's Senedd election support abolishing the Welsh Parliament.

All prospective candidates for the South Wales Central regional list were asked how they would stand in a hypothetical referendum late last year.

Now BBC Wales has seen statements from three of the selected candidates stating they are anti-devolution.

The Welsh Conservatives have declined to comment on the issue.

Matt responded:

Weird inquisatory tone in this BBC piece. Yes, some unionists opposed to devolution still exist, a sizable number in Wales, deserve representation and candidates that agree with them are being open to the voting public about their positions. 

Maybe it's another of those 'settled subjects' at the BBC. 

After all, it was less than two years ago that Huw Edwards was opining, "The governance of Wales has all too often been dismissed by Westminster. This is why the Senedd’s work is more important than ever."

The BBC's first Executive Sponsor Safeguarding Impartiality

 

The Mail on Sunday reports that the BBC has appointed its first "anti-bias boss", giving him the official title Executive Sponsor Safeguarding Impartiality. 

He's Ken MacQuarrie, formerly the corporation's Director of Nations and Regions (and before that director of BBC Scotland), and he'll be paid £325,000 a year.

The paper reports that his job with be to train staff to meet the BBC's standards on impartiality and to set in places further measures to that end. 

Apparently however, it's going to be a temporary job and Mr MacQuarrie himself will be leaving the BBC at the end of the year after working there for over 45 years. 

The article and the comments beneath it focus on the "excessive" nature of his salary. 

It's an interesting move though. 

Tim Davie paid tribute to Ken MacQuarrie last year, saying "His wise counsel to me personally, to the executive committee, and the BBC board has been highly valued and very much appreciated by all of us. So often Ken has been the person that we have turned to in tough times for calm, insightful advice."

Indeed, the BBC turned to him in 2012 to investigate Newsnight's disastrous child abuse report. 

Becoming the story again

A recent selfie, posted on Twitter

Since when did expressing a negative opinion of a BBC reporter become an abusive, threatening "false claim"?

I ask this in connection to Marianna Spring, the BBC's high-profile specialist disinformation reporter - someone who specialises in "false claims".

By her own account, she's received many horrible, abusive, threatening responses as a result of her work, including death threats - something that's absolutely unforgivable, and I hope the police track down and prosecute every single person who has ever sent her anything threatening.

She's blurring things now though, and this needs pointing out.

She tweeted this screengrab today:

She then tweeted the following complaint:

I am often targeted with false claims like these. 

I’m the BBC’s Specialist reporter who investigates and covers the real world impact of online disinformation.

They often focus on my gender and age. I am young and female. That makes me no less qualified to report on this.

I work with a top team of experts and editors on this beat. 

It’s a beat which is increasingly important - and news outlets across the world have dedicated journalists and teams covering it. 

Read this to better understand my job.

I love my job! But want to call out this falsehood that is often shared online.  

Threats and abuse I receive are usually much more extreme than this - and that should never be normalised.

That description, however, isn't a "false claim". It's someone's opinion of her and her reporting. 

It's not a threat. It's not abuse. It's not extreme. It may be wrong (and certainly isn't flattering or kind), but 'some people would say' it has a few grains of truth to it - grains of truth she might do well to take onboard as a BBC journalist who is meant to be open to public feedback, including reasonable criticism:

1. She is the BBC's specialist disinformation reporter. 

2. That job description - and the unit she works for - does have an Orwellian "vibe" to it - especially if you know your 1984 and know the name of the corporation that was a key inspiration for Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

3. It's surely understandable that people might ask: What qualifications does she have to speak with such authority on vaccines, pandemics, electoral fraud and the like, and how does she know which experts to turn to for advise? Her degree is in foreign languages and her short post-university career entirely involved working for various media outlets, especially the Guardian and the BBC? 

4. Given that her qualifications don't seem to especially qualify her to talk with great authority on pandemics, vaccines, US election fraud, etc, it might well be considered "funny if it wasn't so serious" that she's been appointed "the arbiter of truth" on such issues at the BBC. Such a point of view is a matter of opinion of the kind that people, probably as part of being human beings, make about other people every single day. Why is it necessarily wrong to make it? 

(P.S. Whatever happened to BBC journalists going out of their way NOT to be the story?)

Seriously, is even this post 'abusive'? 

(This blog isn't a safe space for BBC journalists I'm afraid.)

(And Goodness knows how abused Mark Easton must feel by now, and he's neither young nor female!)

Joining the dots...

 

Never a man to knowingly understate an argument, Peter Oborne has come down heavily against the new BBC chairman, Richard Sharp. 

Writing for the controversial, Islamist-linked Middle East Eye, Mr Oborne raises the alarm that Mr Sharp donated "thousands of dollars" ("thousand of pounds" surely?) to Quilliam - Maajid Nawaz & Co's counter-extremism organisation. 

Peter Oborne calls Quilliam "controversial". It's not trusted by Muslims but admired by the super-rich, he says.

He then cites a controversial fellow Middle East Eye writer, Nafeez Ahmed (he's the sort of 'investigative journalist' who writes articles connecting Michael Gove and Douglas Murray to white nationalism, the far-right and white supremacism), using him to bring in another 'controversial' organisation:

Since then, its supporters have included the John Templeton Foundation, described by investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed as “an American conservative philanthropic organisation, with close ties to the Tea Party and extreme right-wing Christian networks”.

That's the very same John Templeton Foundation that awards prize for writing in a 'science & religion' context - many scientists - the winners of which have been quite regularly interviewed on Radio 4's ultra-liberal religious affairs programme Sunday over the years. Past winners include Martin Rees, Paul Davies, the late John Barrow, John Polkinghorne, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, Lord Sacks, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and the Dalai Lama, etc. [It's not like Edward Stourton to have the extreme right-wing on his programme - especially those sort of ultra-right extremists!]: 

Mr Ahmed is clearly never a man to knowingly understate an argument either. 

Lots of nudge-nudge-wink-winking and joining the dots by Peter O here...

...but Peter Oborne is particularly angry about Quilliam - and, thus, by association, Richard Sharp - for giving credence to the idea that Pakistani Muslims are disproportionately involved in the paedophile grooming gangs that have blighted so many British cities in recent decades. 

He claims Quilliam "helped to fuel racism and division" because Pakistani Muslims aren't disproportionally involved - as per an article in the Guardian (of course) by two controversial academics, Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail, who put a very particular (and controversial) slant on a government report last year. 

All this means that the BBC risks "pursuing a sectarian agenda" by having Mr Sharp as their new boss, says Mr Oborne, ending thunderously:

Sharp needs to explain himself. Major public appointments cannot be left to patronage and cronyism, and their holders should be ready to tell Parliament and the British people everything about the causes they have chosen to advance. 

Quilliam, Mr Sharp and the BBC haven't apparently been returning his wacky calls on this apparently. 

I'm not sure Peter Oborne is on the side of the angels here. 

*******

Anyhow, Peter Oborne might inspire others - or, indeed, himself - to further, similar feats of the human imagination. 

How about this, for example? 

Peter Sharp's CV, submitted to Parliament, reads:

Richard has served as a member of the UK Board of International Rescue and serves as a supporter and trustee of other Refugee focused charities.

International Rescue is, famously, nothing to do with Thunderbirds but the relief organisation now headed by David Miliband. So Mr Sharp must be linked to extreme far-Blairite, pro-immigration globalist Mr Miliband. And 'some people' say Mr Soros is involved with funding International Rescue too.

Join the dots again Peter...

[After the passing of Robert Fisk, there's a gap in the market for someone to fisk. And Peter Oborne might very well be that man].

Priorities

One of the main headlines on ITV's News at Ten last night was:

Another hit to GDP as a result as the November lockdown, but the economy appears to be adjusting to the new normal. 

The economy shrinking by 2.6% in November was given over 3 minutes later in the bulletin, including a full report. 

BBC One's News at Ten, in contrast, didn't include it in its main headlines or give it a report but placed it as a minor news item lasting 40 seconds near the end of the bulletin. 

To add insult to injury, guess what that passing 40-second mention came straight after? A report from Simon Jack lasting nearly 3½ minutes on how Brexit has thrown "a new spanner" into the previously "well-oiled machine" of one "export-driven success story". 

The contrasting priorities speak volumes, don't they?

Facts matter

Charlie pointed out a CNN correction yesterday:

CNN correction: A previous version of this story misstated that Rep. Ted Lieu grabbed a crowbar before leaving his office. He grabbed a ProBar energy bar.

"This is how MSM can get stories badly wrong", he wrote. "It’s amusing but also concerning. CNN today corrected a story about the storming of Capitol Hill. Facts matter."

Less funny, but just as concerning is this from the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications page. 

I count three things that the BBC had to 'correct' and 'clarify' here, from just one programme - which is quite an achievement:

Talkback

BBC Radio Ulster, 5 January 2021

During a discussion on 5 January about how different governments have responded to Covid-19 we made [1] an inaccurate estimate of Israel’s population and [2] the number of its citizens who have received a Covid-19 vaccine. For clarity, Israel has a population of around 9 million, not six million as we had suggested. And around one fifth of Israeli citizens have received a Covid-19 vaccine at this stage - which is lower than the one third total we had mentioned. 

We note that whilst there has been some dispute about the Israeli government’s responsibility for vaccinating Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, those Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem, or who hold Israeli citizenship, are covered by the roll-out of the government’s Covid-19 vaccination programme. [3] This distinction was not made clear in the brief exchanges between contributors on this issue - all of which took place in the context of other media reports about the speed, extent and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccinations in Israel, relative to elsewhere. 

12/01/2021

Probably narrative-building again. 

Misinformation

 

Tuesday's Woman's Hour made a concerted attempt to dispel misinformation - and fears - about Covid vaccines harming women's fertility. 

Along the way, Emma Barnett interviewed vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi and singled out lockdown sceptic Dr Mike Yeadon for criticism: 

Dr Yeadon wasn't happy: 

Emma Barnett, Slander on Women’s Hour Podcast released Jan 12 2021

Dear Emma Barnett. 

I'm the person you traduced in your Women's Hour podcast, released today. Please provide the source of the "form of female sterilisation" remark which you accused me of making. 

I've spent my entire career in pharmaceutical R&D, was Chief Scientist for Respiratory at Pfizer until 2011 & have since been a successful biotech CEO & consultant to 30 start up companies, some now on NASDAQ. 

I do not appreciate the way you cast me & more importantly the statement you allege I've said is a lie. I've never said it. 

So I'm courteously giving your the opportunity to produce the authentic source of that alleged remark in the next 48h from this message, together with any relevant context.

I understand that not having contacted me beforehand means you have violated your code as a journalist. 

I have also texted this to your program website & emailed your BBC address.

Dr Mike Yeadon

Last night Dr Yeadon posted an update:

Update:

I’m pleased to report that the program editor acknowledges that they were wrong. The presenter did slander me. I’ve never said that which she alleged I’d said. They couldn’t provide an authentic source. I’ve received an apology & that segment has been deleted.

Furthermore, the editor accepts they breached the journalists’ code, which places an obligation on them to make reasonable efforts to contact me, for a right of reply. In fact, they made no effort to contact me. 

Life’s too short to waste any more time on this. Luckily for them. 

I've checked TV Eyes and compared it to the programme itself on the BBC iPlayer and, yes, some 24 words have been removed, including the bit where Emma Barnett says "and I'm naming him specifically".

I suppose the lesson for us all here is, if you're going to dispel misinformation it's probably best to get your own facts right first!

*******

Update: This interview was one that the BBC's specialist disinformation report Marianna Spring tweeted about on Tuesday, ironically praising it uncritically for tackling "unsubstantiated...claims":

Important segment on BBC Woman's Hour addressing concerns about vaccines.

From the reporting that I’m doing - lots of legitimate questions and concerns from young women, but also unsubstantiated, scary claims in antivaxx videos about sterilisation and fertility playing on these.

The newest 'Woman's Hour' presenter

 

I've read a few pieces recently from old-school Woman's Hour admirers in the mainstream media wanting Dame Jenni Murray and Jane Garvey's far younger replacement Emma Barnett to be joined by someone older and (by implication) wiser - i.e. more in tune with traditional BBC feminism. 

No such luck ladies. The BBC's gone with someone much the same aged as Emma (give or take ten years), but from a different tick box background: 

Countryfile/Strictly Come Dancing's BBC-ubiquitous, twinkle-toed Anita Rani - a BBC favourite who has been promoted far and wide and beyond in recent years. 

An interesting choice to present the Friday and Saturday editions of Woman's Hour. 

Mohit Bakaya, the 'woke' Controller of Radio 4, who's widely regarded (by me) as having taken the ruin of the channel to new depths, in the BBC press release about this makes the BBC's intentions crystal clear: “I want Radio 4 to continue to seek ways to better reflect and be relevant to the audience across the UK” - i.e. he's ticked a few boxes.

I wish Anita well. I like her. It's not her fault that the BBC is using her, and I hope she gets over being a tick in a box and makes Woman's Hour something women and men, feminists and non-feminists, country dwellers and metropolitan elitists, and people from the widest range of social and political persuasions, can all enjoy on Fridays and Saturdays.