Joke

A duck walks into a post office and asks the man behind the counter: 'Do you have any corn?' 

The man answers politely: 'No, we don't have any corn here.' 

The next day, the duck enters again and asks: 'Do you have any corn?'

Annoyed, the man answers: 'No! We don't have any corn.' 

This goes on for a couple of days until finally, when the duck asks 'Do you have any corn?', the man gets so upset he yells: 'NO! For the last time we don't have any corn, and if you ask again I'll nail your beak to the counter!' 

The next day, the duck returns and asks: 'Do you have any nails?' 

The man answers: 'No.' 

Then the duck asks: 'Do you have any corn?'

Bricks 'n' mortification

Last year - my goodness - nearly a whole year ago - I wrote a post about blogging. It fell into the category we like to call ‘introspection’.

At the time I was sort of examining our reasons for leaving Biased-BBC and going it alone, also addressing the seemingly insurmountable problem of  being discredited by one’s own supporters in the form of unsolicited (or unintentionally solicited) below-the-line comments or if you’re Tommy Robinson, over-enthusiastic followers, fellow members and rabble rousers. Like, thugs and that.

Anyway, when the news came that ‘right-wing’ Breitbart was starting up a UK branch, and that they had hired James Delingpole and Raheem Kassam no less, I thought it sounded interesting. 

But then I remembered that even Robin Shepherd’s promising venture ‘The Commentator’ seemed to be infested with borderline racist below-the-line comments (from both sides) and breakaway former Commentator co-director Raheem Kassam’s  flashy Trending Central had something of the sledge-hammer about it - which under the circumstances is probably just what the doctor ordered - I can’t help wondering what will become of Breitbart UK.

 Will it be the kind of  ‘hate site’ that the MSM love to dismiss as the work of right-wing-spawns-of-the-devil? 

Here on “Is” despite apparently having a healthy readership count, not just bots and crawlers I’ll have you know, we don’t get many comments, so at present there’s little risk of being discredited by association. We have to do our discrediting all by ourselves. (Craig is too polite to discredit himself though.)

So; going temporarily off topic, Lego has been coming in for a bit of stick recently, what with ‘the film’ facing accusations of being anti-capitalist and “Marxist propaganda”. And now this, almost the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while. Irony upon irony mixed with Olympian foot-shooting.

wot no Islamic cleric?

It concerns Richard Littlejohn’s satirical take on a Fun Day Out at Legoland. Not just any old F.D.O., but a Muslim Family Day for Muslim people at Royston Vasey Windsor Legoland.

It’s hosted by an Islamic Fanatic named Haitham al-Haddad; not the kind of al-Ha ddad that’s married to dear old al-Ha mum, but more Haitham, with the emphasis on the Haith, and it doesn’t sound like my idea of fun.

The Muslim Council of Britain didn’t see the joke, as is their wont. Goodness me. MCB with GSOH? I think not

Anyway, they have written to Paul Dacre not only demanding an apology from Littlejohn, but also accusing him of inciting one of those anti-Muslim backlashes we often hear about, even though the backlash in question was allegedly formulated two days before the Mail article appeared.   

Dear Mr Dacre,
We write to express our condemnation of a recent article published by Richard Littlejohn in your newspaper. Entitled “Jolly Jihadi’s Outing to Legoland”, Mr Littlejohn deploys the most hateful stereotypes of Muslims to attack an individual. 
Our condemnation is not about the attacks on Mr Haitham al-Haddad: he is perfectly capable of responding to the accusations put to him if minded to do so. Many of us may well disagree with the views attributed to him. Rather, we are speaking out at the insidious and hateful tropes Mr Littlejohn uses for his argument.
Mr Littlejohn may think he is humorous, satirical in fact. But there is nothing funny about inciting hatred. The language he deploys is exactly the same as those used by racists and the far-right. One needs only to peruse the comments below his article online to see the hatred against Muslims Mr Littlejohn has generated. 
Would you allow similar hateful stereotypes to be used when writing about other faith or race communities?
Mr Littlejohn may suggest his words of hatred are directed at one figure rather than mainstream Muslims. This is a poor excuse. He accuses one figure of using hate speech by deploying hate speech himself. 
As a cross section of Britain's Muslim community, along with many of our fellow Britons, we state clearly and loudly that Mr Littlejohn's article is the worst form of bigotry. This goes beyond causing offence. Your newspaper has published an incitement to hate Muslims.
So, we urge you, in the interests of decency and fairplay, to retract Mr Littlejohn's article and to issue an apology not just to British Muslims, but to your readers and the great British public at large.

I don’t know.  As far as this member of the great British public is concerned, no apology is necessary thanks.

There are 320 comments btl on Breitbart at the time of writing, and although the article in question seems reasonably factual, there are many backlash-style comments of the sort that don’t do Breitbart any favours (in regard to defending themselves against accusations of racist incitement.)

In the same ironic way that Breitbart highlights the hypocrisy of a hate-preacher organising a day-out in Legoland or the irony of the MCB’s indignation at Littlejohn deploying ‘hate-speech’ while almost everyone concerned is deploying hate-speech either directly or by association, the MCB are behaving like Olympian-grade champions-in-chief of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

al-Haddad NSOH

They cite the nasty below-the-line comments whilst pleading that al-Haddad’s own racist hate-speech is irrelevant because “he can defend himself”.

"Would you allow similar hateful stereotypes to be used when writing about other faith or race communities?" 

Oh, the irony of the MCB asking such a question. I hope J. Delingpole and R. Kassam don’t let their UK site degenerate into one of those suicidally marginalised cesspits that we can all too easily become.  

P.S. If you have been reading, thanks for not bringing this site into disrepute with your dodgy *comments* ;-) 

Over the Long Term: A Case Study in BBC Bias

One of the standard responses from the BBC whenever someone complains about an example of bias within a single edition (or two or three editions) of an ongoing series - say, Newsnight or PM - is that the BBC will balance such imbalances (on controversial issues) over time. Overall, long-term balance (give or take) is what they promise. 

The way to test the truth of that then is to monitor a particular BBC current affairs programme over the long-term, which we've at Is have been doing with Radio 4's Sunday. 

One of the earlier posts here chronicled the programme's interviews concerning a particularly hot political issue (precisely the kind of issue the BBC's editorial guidelines are most designed for) - the coalition government's welfare reforms:  

The first edition of Sunday to discuss the subject (27/3/2011) dealt with it by interviewing a critic of the [welfare] bill, Ilyas Khan, Chairman of Leonard Cheshire Disability. No supporters of the bill were interviewed.

The second edition to discuss the subject (20/11/2011) dealt with it by interviewing a critic of the bill, John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. No supporters of the bill were interviewed.

The third edition to discuss the subject (22/1/2012) dealt with it by interviewing a critic of the bill, John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. No supporters of the bill were interviewed.

The fourth and final edition to discuss the subject (19/2/2012) dealt with it by interviewing a critic of the bill, John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. No supporters of the bill were interviewed.

 So what's happened since then - and since the welfare bill was passed?

Well, on the 12/5/2013 edition, we got a debate between Labour's Frank Field and the Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester following Mr Field's attack on the Bishops in the House of Lords for playing 'gesture politics' and being happy to criticise Government policies whilst rarely turning up to vote. This, however, wasn't the long-awaited balanced discussion about welfare reform we should have expected. It turned out to be a debate about having Bishops in the House of Lords instead.

So on went Sunday's interviews, and let's resume where we left off:

The fifth edition to discuss the subject (4/8/2013) dealt with it by interviewing a critic of the reforms, retired Anglican priest Paul Nicholson, a man who was willing to go to prison to oppose the government's benefit cuts. No supporters of the reforms were interviewed.

The sixth edition to discuss the subject (29/09/2013) dealt with it by interviewing a critic of the reforms, Dr David Ison, Dean of St. Pauls. No supporters of the reforms were interviewed.

As you can see there's never been an interview with a supporter of the reforms, resulted in a 6:0 bias against the welfare reforms.

Aren't we due a few equivalent one-on-one interviews with people who can make a moral case for the reforms? (In an ideally-balanced BBC world, six of them spread out over the next three years, with no critics of the reforms!!)

The nearest we've come to a balanced interview on the issue came last week during a discussion between Andy Flannagan of Christians on the Left and Colin Bloom of the Conservative Christian Fellowship on the subject of Christian social teaching, though the welfare reforms were only touched on tangentially - so it can't be considered the long-awaited balanced discussion about welfare reform that we've been waiting for.

Aha, but looking at tomorrow's preview of Sunday on the BBC website, has the moment finally come?  

Alas, it's not going to be the first one-on-one interview with a supporter of the reforms though, but at least - at long last - there's going to be a debate on the issue which will feature someone who can make the moral case for the welfare reforms. Praise be! 

That guest will be Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday. (There's something strangely inevitable about that).

You may be thinking, 'Well, at least that's one step forward', but - being Sunday -  there just has to be two steps back to accompany it. 

Peter Hitchens is going to be put up against not one but two critics of the welfare reforms - the Rt Revd David Walker, Bishop of Manchester and [former Labour MP] John Battle, Anti-Poverty Campaigner with the Leeds West Debt Forum. 

So, yes, Sunday finally decides to interview a supporter of welfare reform but then reinforces all its previous bias on the issue by placing him against two critics - a 2:1 bias against the reforms to add to its earlier 6:0 bias in the same direction. 

Not good is it?

Now, maybe the Sunday website has a balanced trick up its sleeve in the shape of an unannounced fourth guest - a second supporter of the welfare reforms - but I will not be holding my breath in anticipation of such an impartiality-seeking move on Sunday's part. 

The BBC bias rolls on. And on. Over time. Over the long term.

No, there won't be another fracking pun in the title of this post

According to a report in The Times (£) the BBC has been accused of bias by the fracking company Cuadrilla and by UKOOG, the industry body which speaks for shale gas companies. 

Given the way my local BBC news programme Look North West seems to have a less-than-friendly obsession with the subject of fracking, it's hardly a surprise to read that it's a local BBC current affairs show, Inside Out (Yorkshire and Lincolnshire), that finds itself under (hydraulic) pressure. 

The fracking organisations main charges against the programme (broadcast a month ago) are:

(a) that the programme chose to concentrate on claims that the process could damage children's health and environmental disaster.

(b) that they gave undue prominence to the claims of one critic of fracking.

(c) that they introduced that critic as a shale gas expert while his credentials are actually disputed. 

(d) that one of the programme's presenters quoted unnamed independent research which claimed the "health of newborn babies within two miles of fracking sites can be severely compromised."

(e) that Cuadrilla was not approached by BBC Yorkshire and Lincolnshire to contribute to the programme.

The Times quotes the BBC's response:

We reject the accusations levelled at the BBC by Cuadrilla and UKOOG. The programme featured a range of industry bodies and experts, as well as the Minister of State for Energy, and presented opposing viewpoints in relation to regulation of the industry.

As this edition of the programme isn't available for re-watching, it's hard to independently judge whether Cuadrilla or the BBC are correct, but what stood out for me from The Times article was the evidence from The Times itself that this had indeed been an error-strewn programme from the BBC - points to which we don't yet have the BBC's response:

The company also challenged the BBC over Mr Hill’s credentials. The programme said that he had worked on oil and gas rigs around the world for 20 years and had “fracked for gas in Africa”. When contacted by The Times, Mr Hill said he had “searched for gas in Africa for two years” and denied fracking for gas there, which he said he had stressed to the BBC before the programme was was broadcast.

The presenters also claimed that the Government had adopted a recommendation by Mr Hill for companies to use a “traffic light” system to monitor for seismic activity during fracking. The Department of Energy and Climate Change said the claim was incorrect, insisting that Cuadrilla had initially proposed the system, which was adopted after recommendations by two government-ordered reviews.

That sounds pretty damning, doesn't it?

Ukraine if you want to. The BBC's not for Yanukovych

I was going to post something yesterday about Tuesday night's Newsnight and its coverage of the latest upsurge of political violence in Ukraine but ran out of time. Still, an extra day's wait gives me the chance to add Wednesday night's coverage to the mix. 

I'll begin with what I wrote yesterday...

We've noted before here at Is? the BBC's tendency to side with protesters during these kinds of uprising - and, indeed, specifically during the past few weeks of the Ukrainian protests. So it wasn't particularly surprising to note that all the programme's 'talking heads' (from the Chatham House expert in Allan Little's report to Jeremy Paxman's two interviewees) were sympathetic to the opposition.

The 'talking head' from Chatham House was Orysia Lutsevych. Her views can be gauged from an article she' written for the FT called Do not fail Ukraine in its battle for European values. Similarly, Jeremy's expert interview was Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University is another sharp critic of the democratically-elected pro-Russian President Yanukovych, who describes his regime as a new dictatorship. Jeremy's other interviewee was an opposition MP, Rostyslav Pavlenko of the pro-European Udar Party. You can guess his views.

The other (pro-Russian) side didn't get much of a look-in.

To repeat my earlier speculations, if we accept this as further proof of bias, is this because the BBC is (a) trying (and failing) to report impartially, (b) faithfully reflecting official British foreign policy objectives (being an Establishment poodle), (c) reflecting its own pro-EU, given that the anti-government protests are also strongly pro-EU, or (d) just being its usual excitable self about 'people power', protests and 'revolutions' - displaying its teenage student 'Woolfie Smith' side perhaps?

Well, last night's Newsnight again began with Ukraine, and there was another report from a BBC reporter embedded (so to speak) with the protesters, in the course of which we heard again only from the anti-government side of the Ukrainian political landscape. 

This surely isn't a good thing, given that all manner of opinion polls show a nation pretty much split straight down the middle (both percentage-wise and geographically). It would, therefore, be interesting if BBC reporters went out and tried to bring us interviews with those from the other half of the Ukrainian population too.

Still, we then did get to hear from the other side of the argument during this edition of Newsnight - namely Ukrainian vice prime minister Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, a softly-spoken ex-ambassador. Jeremy Paxman interviewed him and, though asking him questions that placed him 'in the dock', did so without undue aggression or much interruption, so there can be no cause for complaints there. 

I'm still sensing though that the BBC is getting far too close to one side of the argument, and I'm missing (in their Newsnight coverage at least) some things I keep picking up from elsewhere - i.e. that it's the extreme nationalist elements which are ransacking buildings and keeping the violence against the government going and that the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist camp is by all accounts, strongly imbued with anti-Semitic elements. Not all the anti-government protesters appear to be democrats. 

Yes, the government (who seem largely to consist of Spitting Image caricatures of Leonid Brezhnev) appears to be brutal, cack-handed and well-deserving of the boot (electorally-speaking), but the opposition may not be all they're cracked up to be either. 

There's a very interesting analysis from Alberta/Sheffield-based professor David Marples on the Current Politics in Ukraine website which reviews such concerns, and ends:

Unfortunately, it seems, the era of objective reporting, insofar as it can exist or ever existed, is over. It has been replaced by simplistic evocations of the virtues of Western democracy versus the perils of Russian authoritarianism, illustrated by the evil president (Vladimir Putin) and the bloodied journalist (Tetiana Chornovol) or opposition leader (Yuri Lutsenko). In taking such stances, Western observers insert their own beliefs as the best for the people of Ukraine. Their cause is our cause. But we need to adopt a broader perspective, one that encompasses the views of all residents of Ukraine. Revolutions are complicated affairs, and there is always more gray than black and white.

Something like that seems to be going on with the BBC, as far as I can see.

Start the Week: The Prologue

Two or three week's ago Is the BBC biased?'s hidden microphones in BBC H.Q. caught the following discussion between a BBC producer (let's called her Katy - not her real name) and a BBC assistant producer (let's call him Julian - not his real name):

Katy: Did you read Eamon Duffy's review of John Cornwell's latest book in the Guardian? 

Julian: Yes, of course. Cornwell really lays into the Catholic Church, doesn't he? Maybe we could get him onto Start the Week? He's bound to let rip against the Catholic Church. He really can't stand Catholic conservatives, can he? What do you reckon?

Katy: Yeah, sounds like a great idea to me, J-J. Clever, controversial - and can't stand Catholic conservatives! What's not to like?!? I'll give him a call.

Julian: The Torygraph won't like it though! Damian Thompson on Line 1. (Laughter)

Katy: Maybe we can do something around the subject of confession then? 

Julian: Yes. That's our sort of thing.

Katy: But we need to broaden it out. 45 minutes of Catholics and confession? Urgh! 

Julian: Yeah, urghh!!

Katy: Obviously we need a psychoanalyst. We'll present that as the modern form of confession.

Julian: Yep. It's got to be Susie Orbach, hasn't it? She's brilliant, a great talker, and a feminist. Talks good sense. Mocks us men too. I like that.

Katy: I know you do, tiger! Plus that will make the Colonel Blimps choke on their port!

Julian: The Hate Mail will accuse us of hating males! (Laughter)

Katy: OK, Susie Orbach it is then. Bit heavy though, don't you think, so far? Do you think we need someone a bit less brainy? 

Julian: Someone from UKIP, you mean? (Laughter)

Katy: Got it! TV confessions...er, we're not likely to get Jeremy Vile, are we?

Julian: Oh, that would be good but, no, I don't think we'll be able to get him.

Katy: If we can't get Kyle, we could always get Vanessa Feltz. She's BBC now after all...

Julian: Yes.

Katy: ...and she's hardly going to turn us down, is she?

Julian: What, Vanessa? She never turns anyone down! (Laughter)

Katy: Right, Vanessa it is then. That's the chavy part of the audience taken care of then! (Laughter). Right, that's three guests down. Who else can be get? 

Julian: All these people listen to people confessing...or at least write about it. What about getting someone on who is confessing something? Someone who feels the need to confess?

Katy: What, like a f***ing banker? (Laughter)

Julian: Yeah... but actually, why not? I mean, I saw something in the Guardian...I'm going to have to look it up though....something about an American banker who feels really ashamed about the life he led as a banker in the run up the the global downturn in America. He'd be great to have on. 

Katy: Cool. I'll see if he's available. So let's review. We've got John Cornwell, who'll give the Latin boys a good bashing. We've got Susie Orbach and Vanessa Feltz. And if we can get this banker guy then we're in business.

Julian: Great. Do you want me to let Andy know?

Katy: That would be cool. Now kiss me. (They kiss passionately),

And thus, perhaps, was born this very week's Start the Week.

Chris Huhne, climate change, toddler victims of the government's benefit reforms, Kim so-fat and Alex Salmond (not at all fat) & the EU

Despite my pledge to let it fester...

Last night's Newsnight, presented by Radio 5 Live's Victoria Derbyshire, opened (as it ought to have done) with the subject of the floods.

The introductory seconds of the programme, however, included a clip of disgraced Lib Dem ex-minister Chris Huhne denouncing right-wing 'climate sceptics' in the Tory Party (in his capacity as a Newsnight 'talking head'.)

[Chris Huhne was, you may remember, released only last year after being sent to prison for perverting the course of justice and, from the moment of his release, Newsnight has been at the forefront of the BBC's attempts to rehabilitate him back into the community (along with the Guardian.)]

Curiously his attack stood unattacked, as no right of response from those right-wing Tories was granted in the course of Laura Kuenssberg's subsequent report on the issue (and, yes, Laura has now finally arrived back on the BBC). 

Curious indeed.

The other 'talking head' in Laura's report was another Laura - Laura Sandys MP, one of the leading 'greens' in the Conservative Party (retiring in 2015), who expressed further criticism of 'climate sceptics'. 

So far, so BBC. 

(If you're of the Steve Jones persuasion, that's good; if you're of the Bishop Hill persuasion, that's bad).

The following Victoria Derbyshire interview did, however, balance a 'climate sceptic' with a 'climate non-sceptic'. 

We heard from Kevin Anderson of Manchester University, who Vicky introduced as a "professor of energy and climate change", and from Andrew Montford, who Vicky introduced as an "author". 

Hmm, so Kevin Anderson is an expert and Andrew Montford merely an author, eh? 

My 'bias by authority' antennae began twitching slightly at that point. 

They twitched even more when, after asking Prof. Anderson a couple of questions, Victoria turning to Mr. Montford (aka Bishop Hill) and began her first question to him with the words:

Andrew Montford, you're not a scientist, you have been writing sceptically about this for a while now

which seems to me to have been a less-than-subtle attempt to paint him as a non-expert in the field - as opposed to the scientist (expert) Prof. Anderson. 

Andrew Montford, however, responded - as if in passing - that "Kevin isn't a scientist either. He's an engineer", and Kevin didn't demur from that statement either. (His subject really is Engineering.)

Still, despite Vicky's question's seeming (at several points) to urge Kevin Anderson on, both guests got to make their points. 

Now, if you believe that 'climate sceptics' are no more deserving of either airtime or respect than flat-earthers, deniers of the germ theory of medicine, creationists or moon-landing 'debunkers', then you'll probably find this kind of blatant bias acceptable, maybe even right and proper. 

Next up came a one-sided report about people adversely hit by the government's benefit reforms. 

It was undoubtedly one-sided in that everyone was (in some way) 'aggrieved' about the reforms. We heard from a charity leader, and from two benefit claimants who have had their benefits 'sanctioned', for various reasons. Everyone of them was feeling down.

The background music chosen told us to feel anxious too, and the sorry-sounding plight of the two hard-hit benefit recipients was presented without counter-balance. (I could almost hear Iain Duncan Smith fuming about BBC bias as the report preceded.)

Still, if people who deserve our sympathy are being adversely hit by the government's benefit reforms, then such cases should be brought to our attention...

...and a supporter of the government should immediately be invited on to put the other side - the case for the defence.

Such a government supporter was indeed then summoned for interview by Newsnight - namely, Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi. 

However, he was put up against a further critic, Labour MP Debbie Abrahams. (Quite why she was needed after such a one-sided report may be questioned).

Still, things could still balance out if Mr Zahawi was treated fairly and allowed to put the other side of the argument without too much interruption. 

That didn't really happen though. Debbie Abrahams was given a gentle devil's advocate treatment by Victoria Derbyshire while Nadhim Zahawi (standing, as he was, 'in the dock') was given a surprisingly emotional grilling by Vicky, with talk of poor benefit-sanctioned Zak and his "toddler", and a remarkable grilling of the Tory MP over his father's experiences of being on benefits. 

Balanced it certainly wasn't - and, as further evidence of that, Debbie was interrupted on just two occasions while Nadhim interrupted ten times - i.e. five times as often.

I can hear BBC supporters at this point saying that this is just an example of the BBC holding power to account on behalf of vulnerable people (regardless of which party is in power) - i.e. the argument that it may not be balanced but it's 'ultimately' fair. 

I'll leave you to judge the truth of that.

Next, North Korea.

The U.N. has spoken, and Newsnight leaps into action.

North Korea is perpetually fascinating - and horrifying.

Those digital channels which broadcast endless programmes about the Nazis know that pure evil fascinates audiences. The North Korean regime is pure evil too.

I've noted before that, almost alone among foreign news stories, stories about North Korea seem to generate large numbers of hits on the BBC News website or the Telegraph website - or any website, presumably.

Why? Well, here's my best guess...

We laugh and we simultaneously chill and thrill at the spectacle of the young Mao-suited Fatso and his applauding, glitteringly-be-medalled lickspittles: The god-king communist leader, descended from the smiling, mass-murdering Great Leader (teeth, fancy suits) and his curly-haired, porn-loving son (grey Mao suits, fancy shoes), waddling along, looking at some new construction (probably built by prisoners from his vast gulag), surrounded by adoring, note-taking, diminutive generals (each with more medals than Michael Phelps). Mountains, earthquakes, heavens dances at their birth. Ha ha.

Young Kim's fatness (in a land of famine) seems disgusting yet absurd - and the funniness of that absurdity tends to blunt the edge of our disgust.

His attractive but probably-soon-to-be-machine-gunned-to-death wife also arouses our interest (disgust? concern?). Will she live? Will she die, like 'the excellent horse lady' ex-girlfriend of Young Kim, recently machine-gunned to death.

An uncle (by marriage) is denounced as 'scum' and butchered. His Rosa Klebb-like widow (aunt to Young Kim) lives on. How fascinating!

Whole families imprisoned for the supposed failings of one individual member of that family, like something out of an ancient barbaric myth.

Almost perpetually drunk, porn-fixated proles (a la 1984).

To describe it is to at once recoil and revel in its evil and totalitarian glamour...and, yes, we've probably been here before.

The BBC's blessed United Nations concurs, as of yesterday. It has compared North Korea to Nazi Germany. It has excoriated the North Korean regime's ongoing crimes against humanity.

Newsnight duly runs the UN flag up its pole and salutes - and who can really object to that, in this case?

Enough laughter, more action. Something must be done. Etc.

Scotland and the EU. That was the next subject. The BBC's Matthew Price reported. Will Alex Salmond's independent Scotland even get into the EU? We heard from Pia Ahrenkilde Hansem, EU Commission spokeswoman, equivocating publicly but being very emphatic privately (according to Matthew) - that if Scotland votes 'yes' to independence it will be out of the club and find it hard to get back in. Matthew cites Alex Salmond doubting that will really happen. "But", said Matthew. But, he said, European anti-separatist nations - like Spain, under the Partida Popular, will make an independent Scotland wait and sweat. Still, said, Fabian Zuleeg of the pro-EU think tank the European Policy Centre [fancy Newsnight talking to a pro-EU think tank!/sarc], Scotland won't be kept out indefinitely. And Matthew ended outside a building that "maybe, just maybe" could "eventually" be Scotland's embassy to the EU.

I doubt either Scots Nats or Eurosceptics would have reckoned must to that report.

Finally, David Bailey. A plug for the photographer's retrospective. I'll say no more about that.

Come to Sunny Gaza

The other day I heard this FOOC. “why might our man visiting the Gaza Strip be considering going back there, with his family, for a holiday?” trails Kate Adie. The FOOC web page was entitled “Come to Sunny Gaza”

“BBC man has a revelatory experience”  i.e. BBC man finds out that Gaza is not actually an open-air prison. 

I don’t know much about Simon Cox, so after a perfunctory Google I’d say he’s standard BBC issue. I won’t go into pointless speculation about whether his intentions were honourable or not. 

Seeing the web article made me think about it more. What was wrong with it? I should be pleased at least, that he had found out something that many of us had been saying all along. Hey everyone!  Gaza is not an open prison; but it was tinged with the obligatory innuendo about hardships, (unemployment, shortages of electricity) with the attendant sub-insinuation that these were all the fault of Israel.

This piece was entitled “Discovering Gazans’ resilient side.”  That has a resonance. 

“Resilient’ against hardship, obviously, and without any explanation of why there are hardships for Gazans it’s up to the reader to assume it’s all the fault of Israel. Or not. 

The gist of the piece is that Gazan would-be journalists are ‘just like us’. They’re war-weary and their concerns are mundane,  they wear jeans and trainers and brightly coloured headscarves.

For some reason Cox had been taken by surprise, as he was expecting something else. Something ‘scary’. He’d brought his flak jacket and helmet and been driven from the border with Israel in an armour-plated car past a plethora of grey breeze block structures, unfinished due to a lack of cement.”

Ah. Here we go. Lack of cement, eh. Those evil Israelis again. However the Gazans were bravely using their ingenuity to overcome their plight and aspiring to be journalists just like Simon.

So why, I wondered, hadn’t Simon known about the posh hotel, the ice-cream parlour and the supermarket? They’d been publicised over and over; on the interweb don’t you know.

Or, for that matter, it seems a bit odd, for a journalist who describes himself as ‘investigative‘ that he didn’t know much about Hamas? I mean, what with all these comedy videos and Youtube, he might have even stumbled upon, all about another menace, worse even than Hamas; and one that is establishing itself in the Gaza strip.

Maybe he did know, but had decided not to mention it?

Update.

Simon Cox didn’t mention the fact that Hamas controls all media based in the Gaza Strip. 

Read all about the training projects that support Radio Alwan, its links with the BDS movement and political organisations that oppose the two-state solution at BBCWatch.

BBC Watch quotes:

“The majority of media outlets in Palestine are based in the Gaza Strip. Since June 2007, Hamas loyalists have either shut down or assumed control of these outlets. As of August 2007, only two TV stations are currently available: Hamas’sss Al Aqsa and the Islamic Jihad’s Sawt Al Aqsa, and two radio stations: Al Qur-an Al-Kareem which is run by Hamas’ss Religious Affairs ministry, and Radio Alwan which is considered a pro-Hamas station.
Hamas has a large online presence and has seven leading websites that target an audience beyond the estimated 243,000 Palestinians with internet access, with its official website being served in a variety of languages including Arabic, Russian, French, Farsi, Urdu, and English. Hamas also has an online children’s magazine, which launched in 2002. The site features comics, poems, entertainment and stories celebrating the heroism of the shaheeds (martyrs for the sake of Allah).”

I wonder what Simon Cox thinks of the Hamas bunny?

Oranges and Lemons

I've never heard the bells of St Clement Danes, The Strand, London before, even though I've been hearing about them since I was very young. This morning's Bells on Sunday put that omission right. Hear them while you can!

The Radio 4 presenter told us that it's believed that the tenth bell was added to allow the tune of Oranges and Lemons to be played. Which is nice. 

Sadly they didn't play Oranges and Lemons today, ringing out the changes on London Surprise Royal instead. Which is still nice.

I do like bells.

Excitable BBC commentators, and Russell Brand getting his comeuppance

Talking on the Sunday papers, here's a selection of stories from today's newspapers (well, one of them) concerning the BBC.

Call me biased and inconsistent, but if there's one bias I don't mind the BBC displaying it's a spot of restrained jingoism during sports competitions. The BBC has been getting complaints, however, that its jingoism has been anything but restrained. 

Martin Johnson at The Sunday Times (£) has an amusing article on the subject today: 

TELEVISION coverage of the Winter Olympics began with the BBC fielding complaints that the commentary team became overpatriotic when one of our girls won a bronze in the snowboarding. Whenever, for example, a rival competitor flew headfirst into a snowdrift, viewers took the view that a quiet “oh, bad luck” was a more appropriate response than a series of whoops, hollers, way-to-goes and cartwheels so acrobatic they would have brought us a medal in the freestyle aerials.

Who are these curmudgeons? When you’re disappearing down the plughole at cricket and haven’t won anything at football since Bobby Charlton sported a decent combover, ruling the world in the noble art of hurtling downhill on a tea tray would seem to be a more than legitimate cause for jingoism. 

Indeed.

And, finally, moving from the Times to the Daily Mail, and from the BBC to Channel Four, there's a piece about an interview between Jon Snow and Russell Brand that I really wish I'd seen.  I think I might have whooped, hollered,way-to-goed and cartwheeled at Ol' Russ's complete discombobulation at the hands of Jon Snow.

How different to his treatment on the BBC!

Sunday headlines

I listened to the 7 o'clock news bulletin before Sunday after having looked at Sky News's invaluable gallery of the British newspaper front pages. 

I'll list what stories the BBC chose to report after outlining the stories featured by the UK papers today.

The Observer led with 'Miliband's stark warning: climate change an issue of national security', 'Labour to set record for female MPs' and 'Midlands priest faces genocide probe'.

The Independent on Sunday led with 'NHS chief orders urgent child death review'.

The Sunday People led on the same story as the Independent on Sunday - 'Now for the truth: Sunday People wins inquiry into the scandal-hit hospital where six children died'.

The Sunday Times led with '250 jihadis spark UK terror alert',along with 'Labour candidate tells Miliband to 'hug a banker'', 'Jets send maydays over London', 'Bread to contain folic acid' and 'Strip clubs get Whitehall cash'.

The Mail on Sunday led with 'Victims of the Valentine tempest' and the Sunday Express with 'Darkest Day of the Storms'.

The Sunday Telegraph led with 'Doctors on £3,000 per shift', 'Under water, yet flood-hit areas are still ear-marked for new homes', 'Record number of foreign criminals cannot be deported from Britain', 

And the Sun on Sunday led with 'I waited all my life for you' (Simon Cowell's first words to his baby), while the Daily Star on Sunday led with 'Golden Bawls' (Simon Cowell and Lizzy Yarnold).

BBC Radio 4's 7 o'clock news bulletin had five stories:

1. The floods

2. Ed Miliband's warning over climate change

3. Research from America claiming that air currents are changing due to man-made climate change

4. Alex Salmond accusing the UK government of bullying

5. Whether 12 Days a Slave or Gravity will come out on top at the Baftas 

Except for the floods, which is the inevitable lead story, items 2-5 are typical BBC choices for 'What is the story?', aren't they?

Floods, Latin, Christians on the Left, mental illness in Pakistan, the north-south divide, euthanasia for children and marriage for gay vicars

It's that time of the week again. Doesn't it come round quickly?

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 began with the flooding in Somerset, as the BBC's delightfully-named reporter Sarah Swadling (oh please let her do a Nativity story in December!) went to speak to Rev Jane Twitty.

Jane Twitty is in charge of several parishes in the area, including cut-off Muchelney, and described what the Church is doing there. The Church is doing a lot, providing prayer, practical support and a place of sanctuary, and - by the sounds of it - acting as Churches have always done, serving as the focal point of the community in times of trouble. Even in this secular age, people are making use of it. It all sounds very reassuring to me.

Then came a piece about the Pope, Twitter and Latin. (At the mention of Twitter, Sue will doubtless have rushed to her 'Off' switch!) 

Pope Francis (unlike his predecessor) gets a good press from Sunday, so this was a very good-natured interview between William Crawley and enthusiastic Latin teacher Paul Thompson (sp?). Its starting point was Pope Francis's famous tweet in Latin. Why was it so successful?

Well, Paul says that you can be very succinct in Latin. Due to its word order, you can say a lot in very few words - which obviously suits Twitter with its 140 characters. He said that young people like learning Latin, enjoying the challenge of connecting with an ancient language. William suggested it also opens doors for other languages, and Paul agreed. William then asked him if there's a Latin word for 'Twitter'. Based on a poem by Catullus (see below), Paul suggested variants on 'pipiabat' (a bird's chirp), such as 'Pipiatio'. 

LVGETE, o Veneres Cupidinesque,

et quantum est hominum uenustiorum:

passer mortuus est meae puellae,

passer, deliciae meae puellae,

quem plus illa oculis suis amabat.

nam mellitus erat suamque norat

ipsam tam bene quam puella matrem,

nec sese a gremio illius mouebat,

sed circumsiliens modo huc modo illuc

ad solam dominam usque pipiabat.

(Try sending that in a tweet!)

I knew, I just knew, that Archbishop Vincent Nichols's "stinging critique" of the coalition government's welfare polices would be discussed by this morning Sunday - and so it proved, though it appeared somewhat circuitously.

The route it came by was a plug for a 'summit' of Christians on the Left being held this coming week at a food bank, to discuss today's political issues in the light of what William Crawley called that "radical manifesto", the Sermon on the Mount. Plugs are always helpful for those being plugged.

So what does Christian social teaching have to say about welfare reform and income inequality?

William talked to Andy Flannigan of the Labour-aligned Christians on the Left and Colin Bloom of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. That was balanced enough, and the discussion was also a pleasingly serious but good-natured affair between people with very different opinions who respected the other's point of view. William, inevitably, brought up Archishop Vincent's attack. Andy Flannagan agreed with it. Colin Bloom didn't. 

Next up was an appeal on behalf of a British citizen, Mohammad Asghar, sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan after writing letters claiming to be a prophet of Islam. His defence team claims he has longstanding mental health issues.

Sunday gave every impression of joining the appeal for his release, sympathetically interviewing Catherine Higham of Reprieve, who has been assisting Mr Asghar's legal team. They discussed the problem of perceptions of mental health problems in Pakistan and what the UK and Scottish governments are doing. Interestingly, William asked whether there is much support for Mohammed Asghar from the Muslim community in Britain. Kate didn't know but said she hopes so. That suggests to me that, no, he isn't getting much (or any?) support from the Muslim Community in Britain. William chose not to pursue that point any further though.

It was onto the North-South divide in England next - a variation on Sunday's usual 'Anglican row' feature.

Statistics show that the majority of C of E clergy want to work in southern parishes. The BBC's Bob Walker reported (without ever mentioning the thought that crossed my mind, that the stats will inevitably be strongly skewed to the south of England by dint of the fact that a lot more people live in the south). We heard from various northern clerics saying that it's a shame and that more southerners should much up north, and from various southern clerics saying that it's not so cushy a job down south as Bob Walker kept suggesting. There's 'deprivation' everywhere, apparently. One suggestion for the imbalance was that lots more clergy are married these days and that their wives need jobs, and that there are more jobs down south than up north. 

Belgium's decision to allow euthanasia for terminally ill children of all ages (if they request it) was discussed next. This was impeccably balanced, featuring Madeleine Teahan of the Catholic Herald and Professor Iain Brassington of Manchester Uni. There were also clips of pro- and anti- Belgian campaigners. Madeleine is horrified. Ian supports the move. William Crawley conducted this discussion well, largely standing back, and a respectful, intelligent discussion between two people of very different outlooks ensued. That's as it should be.

I can't be quite so fulsome about the final discussion. It was about gay marriage and was another 'Anglican row' story. Anglican bishops have said that gay clergy in the Church of England mustn't marry.

Sunday regular Rev Colin Coward of the LGBT-advocacy group Changing Attitudes was interviewed first. He's very unhappy about it, says it will lead to "a pastoral disaster" and "a purge of gay people". William challenged him over one hyperbolic statement, but otherwise let him have his say. Next up came Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield, speaking for the bishops. William challenged him noticeably harder, interrupting him often, and asking if the bishops risked confirming the perception that the Church has "irrelevant views." That's more like the Sunday I know.

And that's it for this week. See you next Sunday.

Newsnight: 10-14 February

For those of you who just couldn't face watching it, here's this week's run-through of the stories covered by BBC Two's not-very-widely-watched Newsnight - part of our ongoing project to see just what subjects they choose to cover over a long period of time.

This is basically what you missed: Flooding, a gentle ride for Lord Smith of the EA, and a rough ride for Philip Hammond MP. Lots and lots of talk of climate change. Another plug for a Labour proposal. A spot of BBC naval-gazing over men-only panels on game shows. A report about rhinos I just couldn't face watching. A tribute to a left-wing academic. A row over an MOD purchase. Women bishops (Jeremy Paxman's incredulity that anyone could seriously oppose the idea being made very apparent). Kamikazes (interesting). Scottish independence (Kirsty v Alex, as chilly an encounter as ever). Aid as a trojan horse for terrorism in Syria (laudable). Afghanistan. Some artist I'd never heard of who inspired pop art and Brit art. Phone hacking. And a typical Ian Katz-style St. Valentine's Day feature - something geeky and frothy about technology and a plug for a film.

Or, to put it more formally:

Monday 10/2: 

1. Who should we blame for the flooding? Interview with Labour peer Chris Smith of the Environment Agency.

2. Labour's pledge to redistribute power. Interview with Labour MP Liz Kendall and Matthew Taylor, former Tony Blair advisor. 

3. The threat of extinction facing rhinos due to the Far Eastern desire for quack medicines. A report.

4. The BBC's plans to ensure women appear on all TV panel shows. Interview with Maureen Lipman, Lucy Porter and Jan Ravens.

5. A tribute to left-wing academic Stuart Hall. Interview with admiring film-maker John Akomfrah.

Tuesday 11/2: 

1. The politics of the floods. Will they make or break political careers? Interview with Conservative MP Anne McIntosh and Labour's Ben Bradshaw.

2. A controversy over the government's plan to buy some expensive fighter bombers.

3. Women bishops. Interview with Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and Susie Leafe, of the General Synod of the C of E. 

4. The government of Japan wants UNESCO to add some letters from kamikaze fighters to a register of objects vital to world history. The Chinese are unhappy. Interview with Danny Rackman, a former torpedoman with HMS Formidable who faced kamikaze attacks, and Yuuichiro Nakajima, the son of a kamikaze pilot. 

Wednesday 12/2:

A special on the flooding, with Conservative minister Philip Hammond facing an angry flood-hit studio audience in the Thames Valley. 

Plus the question of whether the floods are to do with man made climate change. Interview with Sir David King, former government scientific advisor, and Alexandra Von Huffelen, vice mayor of Rotterdam, both of whom believe the floods are connected to man made climate change.

Thursday 13/2:

1. Westminster politicians say Scotland won't keep the pound if the Scots vote for independence. Interview with Alex Salmond of the SNP.

2. Are aid convoys to Syria trojan horses, following the news that a British suicide bomber travelled that way to fight in Syria? Interview with Imam Qasim Rashid of the Al-Khair Foundation charity & Henry Smith, Conservative MP for Crawley.

3. 65 detainees released from prison in Afghanistan against the U.S.'s wishes. A report from the prison.

4. The Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. The count begins. 

5. Who is the greatest British artist of the 20th Century? Was it Richard Hamilton? A retrospective opens at Tate Modern. Interview with Guy Jennings of Christie's, Lucian Freud's muse Sue Tilley & Doctor Rebecca Daniels, author of Francis Bason: Incunabula. 

Friday 14/2:

1. Should we abandon those coastal communities that are too expensive to protect from rising sea levels caused by climate change? Interview with Heather Shepherd, National Flood Forum & Jaap-Jeroen Flikweert, a flood and coastal management advisor.

2. Piers Morgan has been interviewed by police over phone hacking. Steve Hewlett of the Guardian reports. 

3. The phone hacking trial. Rebekah Brooks will take the stand soon. Interview with Steve Hewlett of the Guardian.

4. Falling in love with your computer. Virtual personal assistants. A report followed by an interview with Spike Jones, film director, who has a film out on the subject.

Are you sorry you missed it?

Glittering incarnations of a great poetic tradition

It's a peculiar thing, but whenever I read the inestimable Clive James I always hear his voice in my head as I'm reading. I don't consciously decide to hear his written pieces in my head in this way. It just seems to happen. 

See if the same happens to you too when you read his latest piece for the Daily Telegraph, from which this is a taster - and a very tasty taster at that: 

To my perhaps jaded eye, the Winter Olympics has been, since the opening ceremony, all downhill, especially when the skiers are not going downhill at all, but are slogging along the level snow for miles before lying down to fire a rifle. A lot of the winter sports are dead boring. But there are a few unmissable events, mainly on the ice-rink; and anyway there was the opening ceremony, which featured Vladimir Putin and, helping to carry the Olympic flag, a young lady rhythmic gymnast who might very well be, we were told, Putin’s unofficial inamorata.

We were told this by our normally strait-laced BBC commentary team, headed, for these Olympics, by the doughty Clare Balding, now thoroughly established as the Beeb’s go-to girl for flogging excitement into a dull sport. Clare can keep a straight face while referring enthusiastically to “legends of the luge”. According to my researches, there is nobody alive who can name even a single legend of the luge. There are people who own a luge who can’t name a legend of the luge.

Theoretically, to watch someone lying on their back as they ride a tea-tray into the pit of doom should be madly exciting, but it is not. Nor are the heavily publicised new acrobatic snow-board events all that gripping after you have seen the first competitor do all the tricks. The next competitor does all the same tricks and it is up to the raving commentator to provide the excitement. “There’s the double upside inside switchback triple twist!”

But hush, the skaters are on the rink, and once again the Russians have manufactured a 15-year-old miracle girl. Linking her jumps in a legato line, she is cooler than the ice. We have seen it all before, but it’s still pretty wonderful. There were a few real-life episodes missing from the dramatised Russian history spectacular in the opening ceremony, but they can be legitimately proud of some of their skaters, those glittering incarnations of a great poetic tradition.

Left, left, left

After giving the anti-capitalist activists/ academics of Cardiff University something of a coshing, it's now something of a relief to turn back to today's Dateline London and reach familiar ground with - despite all of Justin Lewis's 'evidence' - the usual kind of Dateline panel.

What? Four right-wingers, as per Cardiff Uni? No. Well, maybe three right-wingers? No. Two right-wingers then? No. One surely? No, no, no. 

So what would the Cardiff Uni researchers make of a BBC-chosen panel featuring one left-winger, pro-Labour Steve Richards of The Independent; a second left-winger, pro-Labour Maria Margaronis of The Nation (America's 'flagship of the Left') and The Guardian; a U.S. left-liberal, Michael Goldfarb of GlobalPost and The Guardian; and a politically cautious Chinese writer, Diane Wei Liang - and no right-wingers whatsoever?

Plus host Gavin Esler opted to provide very little counterbalance to this consensual panel (to put it mildly).

And, as a result, the expected happened. As so often on Dateline London.

The Conservatives were duly, repeatedly, trashed - again and again. So many times. By guest after guest.

One Conservative supporter really wouldn't have gone amiss here, surely? And - unless you're an out-and-out political partisan (or a Cardiff University academic) - surely any person with a sense of democratic decency is bound to agree with that?

Not Dateline though. On they sail, regardless, tacking left, left, left.

Let's go back in time - to the beginning of 2014 - and see if that's typical.

Well, last week's edition featured a token right-winger, Janet Daley of The Sunday Telegraph; a left-liberal Indian commentator, Ashis Ray; a down-the-middle Bloomberg reporter (who tweets to the left) Stephanie Banker; and a BBC correspondent, Dmitry Shiskin. That's about as balanced as Dateline ever gets.

The week before it was back to two left-wingers again, Polly Toynbee of The Guardian and Agnès Poirier of the French centre-left magazine Marianne, alongside a down-the-middle Reuters reporter, Greg Katz, and a down-the-middle Middle Eastern reporter, Mina al-Oraibi.

The week before that it was a three-left-wingers edition, with The Observer/Guardian's Isabel Hilton, Marc Roche of the French centre-left newspaper Le Monde and Abdel Bari Atwan, a pan-Arab leftist. Against them was down-the-middle New York Times reporter John Fisher Burns.

The week before that it was a quintessential Dateline four left-wingers edition, with Owen Jones of The Independent, Agnès Poirier again, Michael Goldfarb again and Arab writer (and left-winger) Mustapha Karkouti.

The week before that there was one right-winger (albeit a very centrist one), Ian Birrell of The Guardian and Daily Mail, set against a liberal American, Jef McAllister; a down-the-middle-seeming (but decidedly left-sounding) German Annette Dittert of ARD, and a clear left-winger, Nabila Ramdani of the Guardian/Observer/Independent/New Statesman.

The week before that Datelin tilted firmly leftwards again with Labour-supporting David Aaronovitch of The Times; left-winger Nesrine Malik of The Guardian; Stephanie Baker again; and a down-the-middle Egyptian, Abdallah Hamouda.

The left-leaning bias is clear and incontestable. Surely?