Let's go back to the old days.

This is a blog about the BBC, but as you probably know, I  do tend to wander off-topic. However, here’s something that definitely does concern the BBC.  It’s an op-ed by Peter Baum, published in Israel National News Arutz Sheva.

The BBC – Way past its sell by date

The BBC has a problem with the truth. The BBC has a problem with the Jewish State of Israel. Blacks do not matter to the BBC either. Op-ed.

This headline, if not the article itself - is a tad sensationalist, but never mind. It’s worth a read, but it’s also worth mentioning that on other occasions the author has come in for criticism from the Board of Deputies for making ‘unacceptable remarks’ 

While the Board (and its president Marie van Der Zyl) is inclined to be excessively cautious - some might say verging on obsequious and/or appeasing - one can almost understand the desire not to rock the boat at a time when antisemitism is on the rise and the dwindling number of British Jews in the UK feel uneasy.

It took Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and those egregiously antisemitic shenanigans in the Labour Party to (finally) draw outright criticism from the Board, but arguably, that made their intervention a lot more significant than if they’d squandered their credibility by firing off accusations willy-nilly.

Now another bombshell has dropped, and I don’t really know what to make of it. Actually, it popped into our sidebar in the form of a new piece in the Guardian! 

Antisemitism issue used as ‘factional weapon’ in Labour, report finds.

Well I never! 

But if you read the actual article, the Guardian seems to give equal credence to the two opposing “factions”.  Correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t got the stamina to digest it properly at the moment (Too hot) but my personal ‘first glance’ summary boils it down to:

"Faction A accuses faction B of antisemitism, while Faction B’s counter-accusation is that  - I don’t know - faction A is being mean and spiteful."

Possibly a little more nuanced than that, but this remark makes the whole thing look ridiculous:

“In simple terms, each faction believed the other had ‘started it’ ….”

 

Come on kiddies! Get a grip!

 

  In a similar vein, I ploughed through most of the Oldham Council meeting in which members of the council (plus Andy Burnham) were made to listen and to express regret and contrition over the way everyone mishandled the grooming gang scandal. 

I have to admit that shocking as this was to watch, there was a comical element to it. In fact there’s a massive politically incorrect comical element to all of this. The characters are outrageously lampoonable, as are all politicians, councillors, perpetrators  and even victims.

I wish we could go back to the olden days when we could get away with a really vicious “Spitting Image” ridiculing the whole lot of it. Could do with a laugh.

Where's Timmy?

Q; Is Tim Davie still there? I understood that the remit - the principal raison d’être for installing a fresh DG  was to address, (and rectify) the BBC’s bias. Or the public’s perception of the BBC’s bias.

Oh, I think I’ve answered my own question.

A; The public doesn’t have much of a perception of the BBC’s bias because where certain topics are concerned (e.g., Middle East politics) the ‘perception’ in question is largely gleaned via (Through the lens of) the BBC. A self-fulfilling, circular chicken-and-egg scenario.

(Sorry for all the parentheses.) (It’s because of  the heat)

Now, let’s begin with our old friend (Well, the BBC’s old friend) Abdel Bari Atwan. (On Dateline they like to call him ‘Barry’ - a sign of affection.  (For some reason) 

He was temporarily cancelled (allegedly) for saying some pretty nasty things while accidentally using English rather than Arabic, the language in which he expresses his real feelings about the Jews. 

As Craig mentioned, I’ve speculated about this temporary absence already. 

“Oh yes, and has anyone noted the recent absence of the BBC’s most ubiquitous guest on Dateline London recently?   One of his rants has apparently been removed from YouTube but does anyone know if his recent (semi) withdrawal from our BBC screens is a coincidence or part of Tim Davie’s nascent decontamination project? Yes, I’m talking about “Barry Atwan or ‘arry Batwan.

 

 Haven’t seen Mr Atwan lately. Did he creep away quietly, or was there a showdown? (Asking for a few million friends.)"

This is getting just like that post all over again. I seem to have just regurgitated (from the same post) the following:

This is almost unbelievable when you consider that Tim Davie was supposed to be addressing the bias. I understood that the BBC’s entire raison d’être for co-opting Tim Davie to the maelstrom  — bringing him aboard - was to iron out the bias once and for all!  But when? This year, next year, sometime never?  

Never mind. We are as repetitive as needs be. And it seems my speculation was nowt but wishful thinking. Barry hasn’t been cancelled.

Neither has our old friend (Well, the BBC’s old friend) Jeremy Bowen. One might also call him ‘friend of this blog’ in the sense that typing Jezza’s name into our search box brings up pages and pages of content. 

Nothing changes. Nothing is ever properly “addressed”. 

Jeremy Bowen is widely known for his pro-Palestinian take on everything connected with the topic. His well-documented grudge against Israel after the killing of his Palestinian driver, which came about largely because of Bowen’s recklessness. (Are there echoes of a similar recklessness in Shireen Abu Ackleh’s “wrong place at the wrong time” shooting?)

It was probably wishful thinking on my part that gave Bowen’s transfer to Ukraine a benefit-of-the doubt-like passing fancy, namely that he’s been whisked away from one (metaphorical) potential danger zone (sullying the BBC’s reputation with his dreadful bias against Israel) to another (physical) one. A fresh start with a comparatively clean slate. 

But no. He’s back, yet again in the same old danger zone, stirring up antisemitism for all he’s worth.  Tim Davie, what are you thinking?

David Collier and Hadar Sela have gone into detail about this particular report of Bowen’s. 

Ostensibly covering Joe Biden’s visit to the region, Bowen’s communiqué shamelessly manipulates language while sidestepping the actual news (The Jerusalem U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Joint Declaration) to reiterate what -  in his own words- “has all been said before”.

Here we are. Blatantly biased images, highly selective and misleading film clips, and the same old distortions - they’re all back - with a vengeance!

Tim Davie, are you there? Wake up! 

Of course, writing this is a complete waste of time. Take the killing of Shireen Abu Ackleh, who is fast turning into the new Mohammad al-Dura. Even the Guardian’s forced retraction, following the same breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice (importance of distinguishing between fact and opinion), couldn’t deter Bowen from boldly repeating the same violation. 

He’s becoming increasingly audacious because he knows he can get away with it. The public (new generation) 'doesn’t know any better, and it’s not hard to see the BBC’s cavalier 'free pass' to disinformation as a contributing factor to the news that antisemitism is on the rise.

I wanted to make a nod to Harry’s Place. I don’t think many (any) of the regulars over there are aware of this blog, but we’re aware of theirs. (Nods) 

New Normal

I gather Jeremy Bowen has been snatched from Ukraine to cover Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia. 

I rarely listen to the BBC. I’m finding it increasingly unbearable. I have Radio 4 as the default wake-up alarm, but always have to turn it off in dismay. It’s beyond repair. What is Tim Davie doing? Nothing has changed. People are still calling for the Balen Report to be revealed. As if!

The Jewish Chronicle asks:

Why did BBC ignore 99% of attacks on Israelis?

Meanwhile, the corporation reported 89% of Israel’s responding counter-terror operations

"I’ve been reading a fascinating report from the Israel Security Agency on terror attacks, which took place last month and how these were reported. Or, more accurately, not reported.

There were 189 terror incidents against Israelis in June — which was more than six per day. These included 117 attacks with petrol bombs, 42 with pipe bombs, 16 arson attacks, 11 shootings and two stabbings. There was also a rocket attack directed at the southern city of Ashkelon."

The Muslim narrative has irreversibly taken hold. It’s too late to bring the BBC back to something resembling reasonableness, fairness, and normality.  Antisemitism is the new normal.

Who’s sorry now?

Can we talk about Telford now or must we wait till the Conservative leadership race is over?

I don’t think (at the time of writing) any of the Conservative leadership candidates have set out their policy on culturally sensitive issues surrounding the grooming gang phenomenon?

At least - or at last - the BBC has acknowledged the “Telford” report. Telford child sex abuse went on for generations, inquiry finds

Up until now, vociferously politically correct ‘anti-racists’ have, with mind-boggling hypocrisy, stifled and suppressed campaigners against the grooming gang phenomenon. People have long been dismissed as Islamophobes for trying to raise awareness of C.S.E. (child sexual exploitation) by “predominantly Pakistani Muslim men.”

From 2020

  A new Home Office report admits grooming gangs are not a ‘Muslim problem’. 

"If we really want to tackle this issue, we have to stop fixating on the lurid and false distraction of “Muslim grooming gangs”.[…]

The past decade has shown that too many people in power are insufficiently concerned when sexual abusers are not from Asian or Muslim backgrounds. Their hypocrisy fails victims and damages prevention efforts."

 

Okay then. If you say so. It’s imaginary; and racist.

Recently the redoubtable Mark Steyn has featured CSE victims Samantha Woodhouse and Samantha Smith on GB News. Good for him. Better late than never.  

Still, no respectable anti-CSE campaigner can risk being associated with bad-boy Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) whose ‘political awareness’ originated long ago in Luton alongside fellow Lutonian Stacey Dooley. 

Robinson appeared to be his own worst enemy. Accused of "bringing hatred and division to the town.” he played into the hands of his detractors. Various bad choices led to him being pilloried, imprisoned, and bankrupted  On the other hand, Stacey Dooley shot to fame, fortune, and BBC stardom. 

 Jan 31, 2022

 1,000 girls abused and raped by Asian gangs while police looked the other way.

Tommy Robinson brought Telford to the public’s attention way before the press and the media were forced to acknowledge the problem let alone admit the scale of it. Might Robinson deserve a glimmer of recognition from the likes of Mark Steyn? Had the media done ‘the right thing’ in the first place might things have turned out differently?

'Complaints from both sides' time again

This week's Newswatch, minus Samira Ahmed, began with a classic example of 'complaints from both sides'.

First, entering Stage Left, came viewer Paul Morgan writing:

BBC News appears to have become campaign HQ for the leadership contest of the Conservative party [sic, for the lower case 'p' there]. Huge swathes of your bulletins and news channel handed over to the campaign and a breaking news alert from the BBC app every time one of the candidate sneezes. How much would all this free electioneering cost the Conservative party [sic, again] if they had to pay for it.

This, of course, is silly. Whoever wins this will become Prime Minister, and that matters. And the BBC always goes OTT for leadership races. I remember vividly the endless post-Gordon Brown BBC Labour leadership coverage in the opening years of David Cameron's coalition government - the one that so triumphantly results in Ed Miliband becoming leader. That, despite the BBC's lavish coverage, didn't help Ed's Labour win in 2015. And this Conservative leadership coverage won't be 'free electioneering' either if all the squabbling results in an impression of disunity and leads to electoral disaster in 2024 under someone who can't win over the public - especially if the media steers it against them.

Meanwhile, entering Stage Right, came other viewer Peter Staker, writing:

With bated breath I turned on at 6pm to see which of the candidates were progressing to the first round of voting. What did I see? The first item was about Sir Mo Farah being trafficked as a child to the UK - an advert for the BBC's programme tomorrow night. The second item was regarding possible murders committed by the SAS in Afghanistan years ago, an advert for tonight's Panorama programme. Who progresses with the opportunity of being Prime Minister IS news, hearing about forthcoming BBC documentaries isn't.

Peter's points - unlike Paul's - are perfectly sensible. The BBC's obsession with adverts for itself seriously risks getting in the way of proper news reporting.  

Eilidh Barbour will need smelling salts

Wonder if Eilidh Barbour and her BBC team were watching the World Athletics on BBC One this afternoon? This winning Dominican Republic team was 100% non-diverse:

And the presenting/commentating team in the BBC studio was also 100% non-diverse:

It's almost as if black people are too good at running fast and beating everyone else. And too good at presenting and commentating on athletics.

Over to Eilidh: “All members of the winning Dominican Republican team and all the people presenting and commentating for the BBC were black, and that does point towards a lack of diversity both in athletics in the Dominican Republic and in BBC presenting/commentating on athletics programmes. What is to be done? Over to Alex Belfield for a report.”

Glad to be back?

It goes to show that you can't keep a not-so-good man down...

Back in April, Sue wondered whatever happened to Dateline London favourite Abdel Bari Atwan, the Palestinian journalist with a very, very deep hatred of Israel?

We dared to hope but, alas, he was back on Dateline London today, being invited to talk about Israel.

He's back in the BBC fold then.

He was on his best  behaviour though. No praising terrorism, or wild ranting, and laughs and sweetness and light with Shaun and 'Abdel Bari'.

His comeback tour won't last long though as the show's being cancelled by the BBC.

BBC Scotland's former lawyer complains to Ofcom about BBC pro-SNP bias

Here's an interesting development North of the Border...

Alistair Bonnington, Head of Legal at BBC Scotland from 1992 to 2008, used to fight off claims of BBC bias from angry Scottish nationalists. Now he's made an official complaint to Ofcom about what he describes as the BBC's “slavishly biased” coverage of the SNP, saying:

If a "breach of the duty of impartiality" case were brought against the BBC in the Scottish courts tomorrow, I would expect the BBC to lose, and lose comprehensively. That's because BBC Scotland is so obviously partial in its political news output today slavishly biased in favour of the SNP who now form the devolved Holyrood government.

The Scottish Daily Mail also quotes Prof. Tim Luckhurst, a former BBC editor, saying:

My impression is that the BBC is under extreme pressure to do as the SNP wishes it to do. Many of the BBC's young journalists appear to have nationalist sympathies. Several former BBC staff have joined the cause. Alistair Bonnington is astute and brave - he has identified a flaw that others have detected but chosen not to name.

It will be fascinating to see where this leads. 

Is this the right time to try it? Part 2

The BBC has spoken. Marco Silva, the corporation's Climate Change Disinformation Specialist, has ruled that claims on social media and from “various right-wing US and UK outlets that green policies” - in the form of the Rajapaksa government's 2021 seven-month ban on imports of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides - caused the collapse of the Sri Lankan economy are FALSE. 

If put like that, it's obviously false. Lots of factors contributed to the collapse. The question is did this move to promote organic farming play its significant part too?

It's a peculiar article. As well as its line-up of experts, claiming it wasn't a sincere policy and that the problem with it was that it was brought in too quickly, you get those little words like 'just' doing their work of nudging:

The government dropped the policy, just seven months after introducing it, following widespread protests.

But seven months of a complete ban on the imports of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides is hardly a short period of time for such a drastic policy, is it? And note the use of the word 'old' here:

But this week, as the presidential palace was stormed, many were quick to blame this old policy.

It's not that old. It ended just over half a year ago and had a major impact on the entire growing season in 2021. And half way through you get this:

And while banning chemical fertilisers indisputably hurt the economy, experts say several other factors contributed.

So if the ban indisputably hurt the economy and was a factor that contributed to the collapse, then how much did it contribute?

Isn't this Reality Check a spot of BBC greenwashing?

Here's what the BBC wrote about it in May under the headline Sri Lanka: Why is the country in an economic crisis?:

Tory Story

The Conservative leadership race leads the BBC News website at the moment. Or should I say 'the Tory leadership race'?

The opening section of the report is full of 'Tories' too, with not a 'Conservative' to be seen:

Though there's an analysis by Nick Eardley and a caption that does feature the C-word, the entire main body of the report omits it.

Amusingly, the tag 'Conservative Party' finds its place in the Related Topics section. The main tag at the top is 'Tory leadership'. 'Conservative leadership' is the last of the seven Related Topics.

A glimpse behind the scenes

Mahyar Tousi's latest YouTube video highlights a revealing piece of correspondence from 2013. It was sent by the BBC's Kevin Fitzpatrick - at the time a reporter for BBC Radio Manchester - to the the then-Labour leader of Oldham Council Jim McMahon [now MP for Oldham West], copying in other councillors, Greater Manchester Police and Kevin's BBC boss.

Though it shows that the BBC had - quite rightly - been asking questions about child sexual exploitation involving Oldham's 'Asian community', it proves that Oldham Council and the GMP asked the BBC not to broadcast anything about it and that the BBC agreed - 'for the time being'.

The council and the police were worried about 'tensions in the town ahead of Lee Rigby's funeral'.

We've long assumed that these sorts of conversations went on and that things were not being reported because of concerns about 'social cohesion', but it's still startling to see the evidence in black and white. 

Wonder what happened next, after the funeral?

Of one mind

As discussed on the Open Thread, the controversial BBC risked rousing racial tensions on BBC Two the other day, during the women's football:

I'm sorry, what? There's a problem with the England women's team in the #WEUROS2022 being too "white"? Which players should be dropped because they have the wrong skin colour?

Just extraordinary that a BBC presenter can say this and still be in her job!
pic.twitter.com/PBpOC8tMhs

— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) July 14, 2022

“All starting 11 players and five substitutes who came onto the pitch were white, and that does point towards a lack of diversity in the women’s game in England,” said the BBC's Eilidh Barbour.

In fairness to Eilidh, she was introducing a report from BBC star pundit Alex Scott on the subject - a subject doubtless chosen by someone higher up the BBC food chain. Plus, given that she was seemingly reading from a script, she may not actually have written those words herself. So Julia might have been better saying, “Just extraordinary that someone at the BBC - whether it be the presenter herself or someone else - can write this and still be in his or her job!” 

Alex Scott's report, and the discussion that followed, worked from the assumption that all 16 players being white is serious problem. Not one person dissented from that position. It was a very BBC segment, from its introduction, through the report to the closing chat. 

The BBC and science

And talking of the Telegraph talking about BBC pay, here's the opening paragraph of from Telegraph arts and entertainment editor Anita Singh's rather entertaining piece about a BBC science programme where “viewers were told that space is cold and the speed of light is fast”:

It is part of my job to read the BBC annual report so you don’t have to. Once we’ve dealt with the astronomical salaries, other things swim into focus. Such as the fact that, of the corporation’s £1.78 billion TV budget, just £31 million is spent on the arts. There is no breakdown of the budget for science programming, but it is clearly a low priority. Search for the word “science” in the 280-page report and just a handful of mentions come up, almost all of them about the BBC’s commitment to Net Zero.

Sounds about right. 

“For the life of me I’ve never understood why it spends so much on him”

Talking of BBC pay, the Telegraph's Michael Deacon hit the nail on the head this week when he wrote that getting rid of Gary Lineker - thereby saving £1.35 million - would “not lose the BBC a single viewer”:

Last year, the BBC paid Lineker around £1.35 million. For the life of me I’ve never understood why it spends so much on him. I’m not saying he’s a bad presenter. On the contrary, I think he’s a very good presenter. But the BBC doesn’t actually need a very good presenter to host Match of the Day – for an extremely simple reason.

Which is that it’s football. And, let’s face it, football fans would watch the highlights of Saturday’s big games no matter who was presenting them. They’d watch them even if they were presented by Jedward, Diane Abbott or Larry, the Downing Street cat. Because it’s the goals they’re tuning in for, not the reading of the autocue.

...which is very true. 

MD also mocks DG Tim Davie for insisting that the broadcaster has shown “incredible restraint” with its wage bill. He observes, “Whenever we read about all these stupendous sums of money, it becomes hard to sympathise with complaints about the BBC’s budget being frozen.”

It certainly does.

Charm Personified

News came this week that Naga Munchetty's salary has gone up from £255,000-£259,999 to £365,000-£369,999. So she's earning an extra £110,000, which is nice for her.

Meanwhile BBC Breakfast viewers - and her BBC colleagues - continue to reap the delights of her charming personality:

Feel sorry for the poor reporter and the owner of the ice cream business after Naga Munchetty makes it all about herself (as usual) on ⁦@BBCBreakfast⁩ #BBCBreakfast pic.twitter.com/tuRYKTMLRa

— Chris (@The__Winchester) July 15, 2022

'SAS Death Squads Exposed'

Though - especially as a blogger about BBC bias - I really ought to have watched it, I must confess that I didn't feel even the slightest inclination to do my blogger's duty and actually watch this week's Panorama headlined: 

SAS Death Squads Exposed: A British War Crime?

I guessed what it would be like and baulked - especially after reading your comments on the matter.

For starters, headline-wise, is there really any need for that kind of biased, inflammatory language from the BBC? 

Is the BBC anti-British? 

A rhetorical question? 

I must continue to confess that I've merely read lots of people who think like me objecting to this programme and have, possibly therefore, found myself deeply appreciating Jewish Chronicle editor Jake Wallis Simons summing us 'my feelings' in this way:

BBC looking very bad on this. Our SAS troops put their lives on the line for our country without hesitation. If gratitude is too much to hope for, they at least deserve our respect (and freedom from attacks from their own side). 

The BBC and its perennial Guardian chums worked together on this one. Of course.

Red-shifting

Whatever's been happening with the weather, something's certainly been happening with the reporting of it.

You can confirm this for yourselves by looking up YouTube videos of BBC weather reports during the 2003 heatwave when 37°C was hit and seeing how the same temperatures which 19 years ago were shown in shades of yellows and light orange have now been been ramped up into flaming oranges and dangerous deep reds.

This fine tweet from Jamie Jenkins, a stats guy who has previously worked for both the ONS and the BBC, encapsulates the spin perfectly:

📺☀️ Video of two BBC weather forecasts 19 years apart

1️⃣ 2003 it was warmer than planned this weekend and most of the map yellow /orange.

2️⃣ 2022 nearly the whole map in red.

They didn’t seem to alarm the country back in the day as much when we hit some warmer days. 🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/mpana3qiHE

— Jamie Jenkins (@statsjamie) July 14, 2022

Whether you think it's justified or not, there's some serious 'nudging' - aka 'manipulation' - going on here, isn't there?

'Flawed' reporting?

How BBC Manipulated a Major Arab World Survey in Order to Slam Israel is the headline of a piece at Honest Reporting by Gidon Ben-Zvi. The BBC online report, Arabs believe economy is weak under democracy, is mainly about what it says it's about, but also contains this passage:

According to the EIU [Economist Intelligence Unit] Democracy Index, the Middle East and North Africa is the lowest ranked of all regions covered in the index – Israel is classed as a ‘flawed democracy’, Tunisia and Morocco are classed as “hybrid regimes”, and the rest of the region is classed as ‘authoritarian’.

I can see what Gidon means when he says that this makes Israel sound akin to the 'hybrid regimes' and 'authoritarian regimes' that surround it rather than the democratic exception that proves the rule. The BBC 'achieves' this by not giving context - specifically by not saying what a 'flawed democracy'. Other 'flawed democracies' include France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, the United States, Belgium, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Malta, Cyprus and Greece. Indeed, Israel ranks higher than all of those except France.

The Honest Reporting piece ends with a question, which it doesn't leave hanging in the air:

Does the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom have an anti-Israel agenda? The British Broadcasting Corporation’s long history of perpetuating an alternate version of reality with regards to the Jewish state certainly raises serious questions about its ability to report on events coming out of the Middle East with any kind of impartiality.

Slur

Oh dear...

I might be wrong, but I thought it was now pretty much confirmed that it emerged - after all the fuss and brouhaha and 'outrage' earlier in the year - that Labour deputy growler Angela Rayner had joked to fellow parliamentarians about opening and closing her legs to show off her, ahem, ‘ginger growler’.

Regardless, the po-faced BBC - which made so much of it at the time - is making this headline news this afternoon, minus any mention whatsoever of that now famous phrase about a 'growler' which happens to be 'ginger' in its hue:

The story involves the Conservative MP for Grimsby, Lia Nici - who, despite her name, apparently isn't a pop star.

The word 'slur' in the headline shows where the BBC stands on the matter. 

Firmly.

Someone on Twitter asked, 'How is the truth a slur?' But is it the truth or a slur? Or something in-between, where a joke morphed into a later day in the House of Commons, at PMQs, where Ms Rayner wore a skirt split up to her growler region and then, as photos showed, displayed more leg than a dancing centipede at the Moulin Rouge? 

Anyhow. Back to Dua Lipa MP...

High on the scent of blood perhaps, might the BBC be after another Tory scalp? 

If so, will Lia MP - even as they're placing the axe against her forehead and lighting up torches to burn her at the stake - still be a nice Tory and soak it up and do nothing whatsoever about the BBC?

...because the BBC remains very selective in who they make into 'outrage' headline news.

One thing we learned about this though, if you recall, was that certain parts of the North - people from some alleged county apparently called 'Yorkshire' - call pork pies 'growlers'. 

I'd never heard of that, being from the other side of the Pennines. But my dad, hailing from east Lancashire, has another word for them entirely. He continues to call them 'meat knockers'. 

What is it with pork pies and connotations that would make even expert Scrabble player Albert Steptoe blush?

More red ink applied

Newsniffer reveals that there's been a striking stealth edit to a 15 June BBC online report about police racism in Canada. The report, by the BBC's Holly Honderich originally bore the headline:

This has now changed to:

The body of the report has seen the same change, with...

The report from Canada's largest municipal force confirmed longstanding concerns that people of colour are disproportionately targeted by police.

...becoming, 25 days later:

The report from Canada's largest municipal force confirmed longstanding concerns ethnic minorities are disproportionately targeted by police.

Somebody at the BBC seemingly felt the need to correct this linguistic slippage into American usage. 

Very weird and foreign

This week's Unspun World with John Simpson saw John Simpson discussing the state of the United States with BBC North America editor Sarah Smith.

Note that the "very weird and foreign" things are ones associated with conservative viewpoints in the US, and how when Sarah Smith criticises "politicians, on both sides of the political divide, who play to that...fracture" she actually only cites an example used by US conservatives. 

And also note the bit where she criticises social media for making "everybody's voice more extreme and louder" (hyperbole!) and where she says social media "allows people with extreme views to find each other, communicate and reinforce them." 

Well, Unspun World with John Simpson allows people with BBC views to find each other, communicate and reinforce them.

Here's a transcript. 

Please enjoy all the bits where the conservatives on the Supreme Court are to blame, along - of course - with Donald Trump. And Sarah and John's refusal to blame, name and shame 'the other [Democrat] side'.

And note how 'the man kept in a basement' during the 2020 election, the present President Joe Biden - presently unpopular and widely perceived as not competent - doesn't even get a mention in Sarah's 'roll of shame'. 

The BBC - like their US counterparts - have been covering for him better than those censorious types who endlessly knit socks for all the centipedes who dance each night at the Moulin Rouge, as painted by M. Toulouse-Lautrec:

John Simpson: In the eyes of the outside world the United States can seem very weird and foreign. The whole business of the right to bear arms, for instance, or the hostility towards abortion. And yet it's always hugely influential. Think of the spread of the Me Too movement and Black Lives Matter. Other Western countries are fiercely divided at present, Britain and France among them, but not as damagingly as America, where some people are talking openly of a second civil war. Is that just excitable, exaggerated stuff, or is there something to it? I asked Sarah Smith, the BBC North America editor, what she thought.

Sarah Smith: Social media does play a part because it makes everybody's voice more extreme and louder, and also allows people with extreme views to find each other, communicate and reinforce them. One of the other things that's happening in American society is that these two tribes of left and right, conservative and liberal, are living in different places as well. They are geographically sorting. So that you have liberal with a small l people in the cities, in urban areas, and living along the east and the west coasts, whereas in rural areas, in the countryside and in the states in the middle, you have far more Republicans. You can see it also between the North and the South as well, to a certain extent, with the northern states generally being far more liberal than southern ones. So these days, it is entirely possible for people to not interact with anyone who has a very different world view from theirs, and there's no attempt to meet in the middle. So it just...it creates this fracture that just gets worse and worse and is, frankly, self reinforcing. And there are politicians, on both sides of the political divide, who play to that.

John Simpson: I mean, is it right across society, or is it really just all springing out of politics and is Washington-focused?

Sarah Smith: What some Washington politicians have done very cleverly is take some of the social issues that people are genuinely concerned about - what their kids are being taught in schools for instance, which is something that would deeply affect every family - and have turned and weaponised them into issues that show people that right in the heart of your community there are things which the other political side are doing which could damage your life in ways you hadn't realised.

John Simpson: This politicising of justice and the law, that must be also playing a major part in these divisions, isn't it?

Sarah Smith: Well, certainly since the really controversial and momentous decisions that the Supreme Court has taken in the last couple of weeks, touching on some of the most incendiary issues in American politics - abortion rights, gun rights and climate change. They've issued quite conservative rulings in all of those cases, as well as some other ones too. But the Court itself is supposed to be above politics. It's supposed to look at the law, look at the constitution and come to a judicial decision about what politicians and lawmakers can and cannot do. But because they are appointed in a partisan way - partly because Donald Trump, unusually, in one four-year term got to appoint three justices - the Court looks more and more political. It's got a 6-3 Conservative majority at the moment - and a really pretty conservative majority that is prepared to do quite radical things like overturn nearly 50 years of abortion rights. And you can see that opinion polling is already suggesting that people are starting to view the Court as just another branch of politics, see it as political and partisan, and are losing faith and trust in it. You get to a point where society feels really quite removed from the people who are making the rules and the laws that govern their lives, and that is a potentially dangerous situation. We live in a time when serious political commentators, not people given to hyperbole, are talking about the possibility of a second American civil war. I mean, not one that would look like the first, where you had two armies confronting each other, but one where there is the potential for political violence. And, you know, it is possibly true to say you could describe the state of affairs we're in at the moment as already being an American cold civil war.

John Simpson: Is there a way forward out of this, do you think?

Sarah Smith: For the first time ever since I've been coming here, over 25 years, Americans themselves aren't hopeful for the future. They are the ones who are starting to say 'America's time is finished. This, the American Age is over. I don't know what direction our country is going in, but it's certainly not forwards'. And although there have been commentators around the world saying that again and again, this is the first time out of the mouths of patriotic Americans, even as they are watching the 4th of July fireworks, have I heard them talking like that. And, of course, one of the things that's depressing them so much are these mass shootings. And on the 4th of July itself, at an Independence Day parade, six people are shot dead. That's the kind of shocking incident that just makes people really worry about what the future of this society could look like. Are these mass shootings. And on the 4th of July itself at an independence day parade. 6 people are shot dead. That's the kind of shocking incident that just makes people really worry about what the future of this society could look like.

Front-page Rory

We've written on several occasions about the BBC's affection for one particular Tory - now an ex-Tory - namely, Rory Stewart. In the last Conservative leadership election, a remarkable range of BBC voices openly sang his praises [John Simpson, Gary Lineker, Quentin Somerville, John Sweeney, Danny Shaw] or retweeted praise [Emily Maitlis]. So this doesn't surprise me in the least:

Paul Embery: I very much hope that former MP Rory Stewart finds his wedding ring, but does the story really merit a place on the main BBC News page?

Adrian Hilton: You really couldn't find a much greater pointer to BBC bias than this. I, too, hope Rory Stewart finds his wedding ring, but he has no political status in the UK at all. If Jacob Rees Mogg had lost his wedding ring, it would have been totally ignored, or greeted with derision.

Not everyone agrees this is bias though:

Colin Garthwaite: How the hell is this bias? BTW, the BBC are ran by Tories. Stop talking BS!

Colin's Twitter bio reads #ScrapNHSBill #ProudToBeWoke #BLM #RefundTheBBC, so - despite the BBC being 'run by Tories' - he's proudly pro-BBC. Wonder what it is about the NHS-worshipping, pro-woke, pro-BLM BBC that so appeals to him?

John Cleese falls into a trap

Seasoned BBC bias watchers know to tread cautiously when it comes to claiming that the BBC hasn't reported something. John Cleese, alas, fell right into that trap. 

Obviously I looked at the BBC's Cricket page and there it was, published apparently 7 hours before JC's rather Basil-like, and most certainly Fawlty, tweet.

Of course, lots of helpful people replied to John Cleese informing him of this, but the great man's on 'transmit' rather than 'receive' mode it seems.

“Is no one checking scripts any more?”

Under the headline BBC facing brain drain as exodus goes deeper than just the big names, The Sunday Times's media editor Rosamund Urwin reports on the mood of “despondency” among BBC news employees as the leaving parties pile up. The paper says the BBC “has lost more than 2,500 years of experience...since January 2020”, and another thousand employees might go.

As for BBC profligacy, I was particularly taken by this passage:

In her book, Scoops, published this week, Sam McAlister, the former Newsnight producer who clinched the interview with Prince Andrew, writes of a famous BBC presenter “who spent more money in taxi expenses than I earned in an entire year. Actually, not once, several times. I’d check to see I’d finally managed to out-earn his taxi expenses every year. I never did.”

Meanwhile on Twitter...

One of the earlier departed, Hugh Sykes, was listening to Radio 4 last night. From the sounds of it, a BBC programme was praising the BBC. That led to the following thread:

•  'A Hard Look At Soft Power' on BBC Radio 4  gave BBC News as one of the best examples, but it's at risk due to the over-75s licence deal scandalously agreed by ex d-g Tony Hall with John Whittingdale which slashed the BBC budget by 20%. Accuracy is one of the casualties - eg (more): 
• Inaccuracies are creeping into BBC News. For example, news bulletins describing abortion as a 'Constitutional right' in the USA. It has never been that. It isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Roe Vs Wade only made it a l e g a l right. Is no one checking scripts any more? 
• Conservatives politicians (like Nadine Dorries) undermining the BBC with tendentious ideological attacks may regret it when they are out of power and they find that the BBC is no longer holding their opposition successors robustly to account. 
• In Iraq nearly 20 years ago I had to explain the BBC Gilligan/Dodgy Dossier/David Kelly/Hutton row to a taxi driver. When I'd finished, he asked "So. BBC not government?!" No, I said, BBC not government. That needs to remain true if this British soft power is to remain powerful.

“Is no one checking scripts any more?”, asks Hugh. 

Well, on his specific point - e.g. on Saturday 2 July, the BBC News Channel repeatedly said, throughout the day, “It comes after the US Supreme Court's decision to remove a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.” - one person who evidently isn't is Amol Rajan. Here's Amol interviewing Billie Jean King:

At the time of our speaking, we have only seen the draft judgment of a proposal to overturn Roe v Wade, which is the landmark case of 1973 which enshrined a woman's constitutional right to an abortion in the US.

What the Thunderer Said

In praising a new dramatic version of T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland to be broadcast tonight on Radio 3, and Radio 3 drama more generally, the Sunday Times's Patricia Nicol takes a passing shot at Radio 4 drama:

[Radio 3] only has one drama to produce weekly, but it often seems a more invigorating listen than so many of the tediously worthy, issue-led dramas found next door on Radio 4.

“Tediously worthy” and “issue-led” will also do for Radio 4 more generally.

The BBC bending the truth again

As I posted on Tuesday, it took 36 minutes from the news of Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid's resignations breaking on the BBC News website for BBC One's News at Six to 'break' it too. Why? Because the BBC chose to stick with the tennis and postponed the news until 6:18pm. This week's Newswatch featured three aghast viewers. Then Samira Ahmed said:

We asked to speak to someone about the decision to postpone Tuesday's News at Six, and more widely the practice of live sports events displacing scheduled news bulletins, but our invitation was declined. Instead we were given the statement.

It's the statement itself that particularly struck me:

We understand scheduling changes can be frustrating and we don't take these decisions lightly. We always try to minimise disruption but during times of live tournament sport, like our extensive coverage of Wimbledon, we do make occasional changes. Cameron Norrie was the first British man in a Wimbledon Quarter Final since 2017 and we wanted to capture that moment live on BBC One. We switched to the News on BBC One as soon as news of the resignations broke and extended our coverage on the channel as a result. This is a balancing act and while catering to audiences with such a wide range of tastes and interests, we recognise not everyone will agree with certain changes made.

My problem with that is that it's factually untrue that the BBC switched to the News on BBC One as soon as news of the resignations broke. They did no such thing. They switched 36 minutes after news of the resignations broke - resignations that came 18 minutes before the News at Six should have started. And even then, after breaking away from the tennis - with the match still ongoing - they still put in two adverts (for the BBC) before the News finally began 18 minutes late.

As for and "we wanted to capture that moment live on BBC One", they'd been capturing it live since 4:55pm on BBC One.

Why can't they just own up when they've made a mistake, and stop lying about it too?

Why does not Nick just interview himself?

I see Charles Moore is continuing to keep Nick Robinson firmly in the dock:

Nick Robinson to the new Chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, on Today on Wednesday: ‘I am asking you whether you told the truth and whether Boris Johnson told the truth and the simple answer is that you didn’t and he didn’t.’ Since he has the answers to all his own questions why does not Nick just interview himself?

Slick

I could be wrong, but I'm getting the impression from the BBC that Rishi Sunak's campaign video might possibly have been...um, what's the word? Ah, yes...slick:

• Alex Forsyth - Rishi Sunak, one of the first to quit Boris Johnson's Government, today launched a slick campaign on social media for his job.
• Ione Wells - He launched his bid in a slick video on Friday.
• David Wallace Lockhart - He certainly wants to be, launching his campaign yesterday evening with a slick social media video.
• Radio 4 newsreader - His announcement yesterday was launched with a slick video.
• Simon Jack - Let's hear from Mr. Sunak himself - a quick clip of a rather slick promotional video.
• Katie Razzall - With a very slick-looking video.

If only BBC studios came equipped with parrots. 

slick
[slɪk]
ADJECTIVE
1. done or operating in an impressively smooth and efficient way
2. smooth and superficially impressive but insincere or shallow