In that same speechToday editor Jamie Angus also addressed the issue of political bias. In a shock move, he denied there was any.
However, he did admit that the BBC appears to biased on some social issues:
“Where people have caught us out in the past has been on things like cultural issues where I think there is an apparent bias. I feel uncomfortable sometimes with coverage of right to die.
“I think too much of the BBC’s output, across the board, I am including drama, factual, not just news, has taken the standpoint that liberalising euthanasia is broadly a good thing and not too much to worry about.”
Angus also pointed to the BBC’s coverage of abortion reform but said he made “real efforts that we don’t fall into that groupthink, consensus. These are non political issues, they are every bit as tricky. One of the issues about common backgrounds is a lack of diversity on some of these social issues”.
That's a welcome admission from a senior BBC editor of something that's been blindingly obvious for some time.
Following Newsnight editor Ian 'Cool' Katz's widely-publicised calls for a lighter, less aggressive kind of political interview - and his own determined steps to lighten Newsnight - it looks as if another top BBC editor is thinking along the same lines.
According to the Guardian, BBC Radio 4 Today editor Jamie Angus is concerned that his programme isn't appealing to "younger audiences".
These younger audiences "tell us sometimes they have to pay too much attention to Today, some of the items are difficult to understand, some of them are too long"...
...so expect poor John Humphrys to be forced to follow in poor Kirsty Wark's footstepsand have to do something daft like rappin' 'n' gettin' down wid da yoof...
Mr Angus is also looking for new ways to report "bad foreign news", like Ukraine, Syria and Gaza, as some Radio 4 listeners just can't cope with it all, and have fled to to Radio 2 instead (apparently more than 300,000 of them over the summer).
Such people feel there was far too much "distressing foreign news" this summer, and they didn't enjoy being upset by it.
Nor, said Mr Angus, did they enjoy angry Israeli and Palestinian spokesmen shouting down the phone at John Humphrys.
So the Today editor is thinking of changing "how we do the storytelling, how we do the interviews.”
I have some suggestions:
- Maybe they could shorten the reports to something manageable, like tweets (eg "This is Jon Donnison in Gaza. Won't someone pls think of the children #Israelsucks").
- Maybe Yolande Knell could 'do all the voices' in her reports, like Martin Jarvis. Or maybe Martin Jarvis could do them for her.
- Maybe Mark Regev and Mustafa Bargouti could be asked by Sarah Montague to guess each others thoughts and then mime them to each other over the phone (in the spirit of a modern-day Educating Archie, or I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue).
- Maybe the Cookie Monster (apparently set to replace Evan Davis) could start spelling out the name 'Benjamin Netanyahu' for Mishal Husain, and then going 'Om nom nom nom' as he consumes the letter 'B', the letter 'E', the letter 'N' (etc).
That would bring 'em all rushing back from Radio 2.
Blink and you’d’ve missed it. I nearly did, but ‘Mr. Sue’ happened to be watching BBC 1 last night, and spotted with eagle-eyed acuity that the upcoming programme was Jane Corbin’s elusive Panorama “War of the Tunnels.” He woke me up!
Because, dear reader, I was fast asleep. Early to rise etc. etc.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of Mrs Average Viewer. You know, the kind with a casual, non committal interest in the subject. I kept thinking “But Corbin didn’t mention this” and “What about that?” which I suppose Mrs A V might not have done. Or would she?
I wanted to see whether the Guardian-reader-in-the-street I keep bumping into would come across anything revelatory in the programme, preferably something that would ease his passionate loathing of Israel.
However, and it’s a big however, on the whole the programme did indeed show several things that the BBC has previously tended to downplay or deny, such as the fact that Hamas was indeed responsible for kidnapping and killing the three Israeli teens, and that Hamas launched rockets from heavily populated areas and so on.
But we knew that. Perhaps the un/non committed viewer might have caught a glimpse of something in Israel’s situation that they otherwise might have missed?
Although it was a revelation in itself that Panorama would make a programme about tunnels, let alone refer to them as ‘Attack Tunnels”, there was still that unequal weighting in the form of ‘emoting‘ television we’re accustomed to. We might callously call it the dead baby factor.
There was comparatively little empathetic footage of the tribulations of the Israeli-in-the-street; what there was appeared almost laughable, for how could anyone look first at a pile of rubble that once was a house and a street, and then at a small hole in a roof of an empty house, in order to fully understand the continual long-term state of apprehension and fear that at any moment a missile might fall out of the sky and kill you or your loved ones?
Please don’t forget, Hamas’s stated aim is to get rid of you.
Jane Corbin did have to take cover whilst in Sderot, “Lie down!” “Shouldn’t we get outta here now?” - and she appeared suitably frightened; but that didn’t quite convey the stress of living under the threat of permanent, random, sudden death.
There was also a little too much empathetic film of one particular Palestinian-in-the-rubble.
Female Palestinian journalist Asma al-Ghul’s distress was affecting.The emotional value of her words as she accompanied Jane Corbin and kept referring to Israeli war crimes was hardly matched by the clinical testimony of a rather cold Israeli politician Yaacov Perry, whom Corbin introduced as an “Israeli government minister and former spy chief.” Hardly endearing.
Asma’s anger at Israel was taken at face value, as though Panorama expects its viewers to accept that having many Hamas ‘relatives’ is a mere irrelevance in the context of the death of “that” innocent uncle.
Yaacov Perry addressed the topic in the title of the programme. The Tunnels. Anyone who had hoped to learn more about the tunnels, their extent, their cost and their purpose might have felt disappointed. Jane Corbin said:
“An Israeli commander took me into one of Hamas’s attack tunnels, which emerges between two Israeli villages.”
“The tunnels are lined with cement, a precious commodity in Gaza, which Israel has tried to restrict with its blockade.”
The Israeli commander mentioned the quantity and the monetary value of the cement used in this endeavour, but neither he nor Corbin spoke of the cost to the people of Gaza - that the stolen material deprived them of the means to repair their houses, or the obvious fact that the ‘concrete’ existence of tunnels justified the restrictions imposed by the Israelis. Doh!
“What a huge investment of time and money Hamas had made in these tunnels, dug by hand” not to mention the 160 lives sacrificed by children in the process.
Khaled Meshal was shown telling lies and accusing Israel of telling lies - would the viewers realise the one or believe the other? However, he did admit that Hamas was responsible for abducting and killing the three Israeli teenagers (Jon Donnison, take note) “In the context of self-defence, against Israeli occupation and settlement policies” he said, and we did get to hear that the al-Wafa Hospital was a Hamas headquarters, and had been evacuated before being hit by Israel.
Some pro-Palestinian activists say the IDF are lying about this, and dispute aspects of a video,which is almost paralleled by a clip we’re shown near the opening passage of this programme, footage of the aftermath of a bombing that has also been given a frame-by frame deconstruction and accused of being mere ‘Pallywood.’
“These tunnels were built in self-defense against a technologically and militarily superior power” said Meshal. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything I thought, still in the shoes of the average viewer. “We don’t target Israeli civilians,” he says, “and we don’t have smart sophisticated weapons like the Israelis have,” he continued ambiguously. “Give us such weapons and we’ll only target Israeli military.” So - do you or don’t you? Mrs A V might wonder.
A paramedic accused Israel of a war crime - targeting an ambulance, but we heard nothing of terrorists using ambulances.
Lt Eitan was the most engaging interviewee of the Israelis. He was handsome, sincere and distraught at the loss of his friend Hadar Golding, the soldier who was dragged off through a tunnel and killed. “the tunnel was booby-trapped with explosives” said Jane.
The mother of the murdered Israeli teenager Naftali Frenkel was pitched against the father of the murdered Palestinian. I can imagine several possible reactions to those two individuals.
“By the beginning of July it was all-out war. Hamas has launched rockets from built-up areas of Gaza, as their own video shows.” said Jane. I should imagine the pro-Palestinian viewers will be up in arms at anything they perceive as being sympathetic to Israel. I can hear them protesting that Gaza is the most densely populated area in the world etc etc., and Hamas had no choice etc etc.
“Just 27 miles long, the Gaza Strip is home to 1.8 million Palestinians. It was occupied by Israel until 2005. I was in Gaza two years later when Hamas took charge, ousting the more moderate PA government. (footage of Hamas marching and singing military song) “Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by Britain, America and Europe. The militant Islamist group have sworn to destroy Israel. When Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza Hamas dug tunnels into Egypt to smuggle in everything from household goods to weapons. Last year when a new Egyptian government destroyed those tunnels Hamas lost its economic lifeline, seriously affecting its ability to govern. By the start of this year Hamas couldn’t pay the salaries of its public workers, and its leader warned the people of Gaza there were hard choices to be made. “Hamas was preparing for a showdown with Israel. To ease the blockade they claimed was strangling Gaza. The trigger was pulled. Not in Gaza, but in the occupied West Bank, near Hebron in June a Hamas cell targeted three Israeli teenagers hitching home from boarding school into Israel. One of them was 16 year old Naftali Frenkel.”
That was Corbin’s curate’s egg monologue.
Make of it what you will. I do wonder if anyone else happened to watch this stealthy Panorama, or has it sneaked past its critics unnoticed?
This just in from Is the BBC biased?'s sour, right-wing radio reviewer....
This morning's Start the Weekstarted a new season, and got off to a fine, arty start.
It featured posh, profound, populist, progressive British Museum director Neil MacGregor plugging his new Radio 4 series [accompanied by British Museum exhibition] on German history (as seen through its artifacts); Jamaican poet Kei Miller plugging his new book The Cartographer Tries to Map a Way to Zion; oh-so-contemporary artist Jeremy Deller plugging his new exhibition in Margate; and happy-to-be-provocative novelist Hilary Mantel plugging her new collection of short stories The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher.
As you may be aware, Hilary Mantel's title story has provoked a good deal of controversy. Lord Bell has called for her to be investigated by the police for imagining the assassination of his friend, Lady Thatcher, and various Conservative MPs have denounced her for her 'bad taste'. The Daily Telegraph refused to publish it. (The Guardian duly stepped in).
Presenter Tom Sutcliffe (of the Guardian) asked her about those charges - just one question, worded in a way that showed he didn't reckon much to them - and she then dismissed them, to general laughter.
Tom's own take was perhaps also reflected in the preceding question. This asked if, in imagining the assassination of Margaret Thatcher, Hilary was actually giving expression to a "collective fantasy"...to which I felt the need to add the hashtag #notinmynameTom.
Can someone explain to the Mantel-haters the difference between truth and fiction, maybe using plastic cows like Father Ted did with Dougal.
— Jonathan Coe (@jcoescrittore) September 22, 2014
Indeed, and I couldn't agree more.
I'm glad Tom believes that too as I've heard a very strong rumour that Rod Liddle's next book is a collection of short stories called The Gruesome Murder of Tom Sutcliffe, whose title story imagines the Round the Britain Quiz/Saturday Review/Start the Week host being graphically 'sliced and diced', to general amusement and acclaim, by Radio 4 listeners who can't stand him and what they see as his elitist metropolitan liberal views. (I've already pre-ordered my copy on Amazon).
Tom also admired something by the artist Jeremy Deller's on YouTube. I forget what.
Jeremy, you will be glad to hear, has now imagined St. Helier, Jersey being accidentally burned down in 2017 during a protest there by non-Jersey people against the island's tax/tax haven policies. This is not to be taken seriously of course (of course). It's contemporary art, plastic cows.
The Jamaican poet Kei Miller had some very sharp things to say about contemporary Jamaican society....er....about wicked dead whiteys and what they'd gotten up to in Jamaica. (Actually, when I say "very sharp" I mean 'very predictable, but expressed poetically and with much talk of 'multiplicity''). He had Tom, Hilary & Co. duly bending their white knees and tugging their apologetic forelocks. Elsewhere he was agreeably poetic, sounding profound even when you suspect he wasn't actually saying anything profound at all.
Poor Neil MacGregor, though he got to go first, got far too little time.
There is a point in the exhibition, he says, from which, in one direction, the visitor will be looking at the beautiful portrait of Goethe by Tischbein – with the great man, a slouch hat on his head, recumbent in the warm light of an Italian landscape, the epitome of humanely learned Germany – while the other direction takes the eye to that Buchenwald inscription. In the Buchenwald essay MacGregor himself raises the awful, essential question of how one kind of Germany turned into the other. But he doesn’t offer an answer: “I don’t understand it myself,” is all he says.
His humility is moving but, all the same, there are ways to try. The Holocaust was made possible precisely because earlier figures who had shaped German culture had dehumanised the Jews and made them objects of murderous hatred. MacGregor wants to present Luther as the father of the German language, and so he was. But what he also fathered, all the more potently for that status, was an obsessive anti-semitism which described the Jews as “full of devil’s feces which they wallow in like swine”. “If they could they would kill us all,” he raved, proposing in On the Jews and their Lies a programme to burn their synagogues and raze their houses, so as to dispose of the “poisonous envenomed worms” that they were.
Luther’s anti-semitism is not in this show. But its illuminations are no less deep for being less relentlessly grim. The Iron Cross, often taken to be the emblem of Prussian militarism, was, he reminds us, invented in a moment of reformist egalitarianism, following the traumatic defeat and humiliation by Napoleon in 1806. Its consequence was to trigger a period of reform. The Cross was iron, not of a precious metal, because it was the first decoration that could be awarded to all ranks. Sanctioned by King Friedrich Wilhelm III, it became the symbol of a new, comradely patriotism.
Radio 4's Profile doesn't just bring the personalities of its subjects alive, it also reflects the personalities of its presenters. A Profile by Edward Stourton, for example, will have a very different character to one by, say, Mark Coles.
This week's profile of VICE Media co-founder Shane Smith, for example, not only projected the hipster-businessman character of its subject but the John Peel-like warmth, dry humour and vocal inflections of its presenter, Mark Coles - plus his Peel-like love of music.
Shane Smith, a punk-loving Canadian, comes from Irish immigrant stock and has made it big in New York, and the world.
Shane...punk...Irish...New York? Shane MacGowan...The Pogues...A Fairytale of New York. Cue Pogues songs.
Mark's profile of Shane Smith projected the image of Shane that Shane clearly wants to be projected - that of the heavy-drinking/drug-taking, amoral slacker whose exceptional business acumen and 'immersionist' style of reporting wowed Generation Y and won over Rupert Murdoch. Because of Mark's dry style, however, I was left simultaneously won over by and sceptical about Shane Smith's public image. Too good/bad to be true?
The controversy over VICE getting into bed with...er, embedding with...Islamic State and going where no mainstream media outlet has gone before was aired, tending towards the view that it was - on balance - a good thing.
In contrast, the controversy over VICE getting into bed with the regime in North Korea by embedding itself with Dennis Rodman (best known as the Celebrity Big Brother friend of George Galloway and Pete Byrne of Dead or Alive "fame", apparently also a basketball player) and Kim Jong-un (best known as an obese dictator) was also aired, tending towards the view that it was, emphatically (em-fatty-cally as regards young Kim) a bad thing.
Curiously for a BBC Profile, it didn't touch on the man's political views. Shane had nothing but contempt for the Occupy movement (remember that?) and said this of European-style socialism:
I grew up being a socialist and I have problems with it because I grew up in Canada [and] I’ve spent a lot of time in Scandinavia, where I believe countries legislate out creativity. They cut off the tall trees. Everyone’s a C-minus...
[...incidentally rather like the UK's present political class for that matter!]
Why am I telling you all this on a blog supposedly about BBC bias? Either 'God knows!' or you know, as I sure as heck don't - unless the preceding few paragraphs add up to something significant about BBC bias, and, frankly, I'm getting beyond knowing whether they do or don't.
For BBC bias bloggers with an interest in UK politics and the feeling that the BBC is biased on such matters there's no better time (except during elections) to test that out.
But how to do so when you've not got a great deal of time on your hands? Well, by picking one programme and monitoring its coverage throughout.
This year I'll be mostly covering The World This Weekend/The World at One.
I'll take the opportunity to cover each edition more generally though, and sketch them out in some detail before becoming more statistical at the end of each week, so let's begin at the beginning and be as open-minded/fair-minded as possible [whilst relishing the politics]...
*******
This lunchtime's The World This Weekend, with Edward Stourton, continued to dwell on the constitutional consequences of the UK-wide parties' panicky pledge to give Scotland further devolved powers in the wake of the independence referendum.
It began by interviewing Joel Barnett - the man behind the famous Barnett Formula.
Lord Barnett-Formula
Unless you're one of those people who has little or no interest in UK politics, you will probably have been vaguely aware of the Barnett Formula for years. It's the means by which funding for the four parts of the UK has been divvied up throughout much of my adult life. I've always associated it with Scotland being given a significantly higher proportion of public spending per head than either England or Wales.
I'd never really thought about the man behind it though, but here he was - Joel Barnett, now Baron Barnett, a Labour Party peer.
He said that the mechanism was brought in by the Callaghan government as a temporary measure to tide the country over the financial crisis of the late '70s - a means of allocating resources during a time of cuts - and that it was meant to last for just one or two years. He said that the Thatcher and Major governments turned it into a 'formula' and made it a convention [typical Labour peer, blaming the Tories, but not the Labour governments post-1997, who also stuck with it, tut tut!], and that it never even entered his mind when first devising it that it was there to redistribute wealth to the relatively deprived parts of the UK. He now thinks it's "clearly wrong". He doesn't think the Scots need it, and that it's unjust. He says that the three main party leaders [including Ed Miliband] are wrong to protect it.
The next interviewee up was Sir William McKay - the former Commons clerk who reported to parliament on the consequences of devolution in 2013, especially for English law-making. His proposals, from the sound of them, amounted to keeping things much as they are - i.e. not having English votes for English laws, not having "two classes of MPs". Now, however, but he now says this his proposals, post-Scottish referendum, could not be applied as they are but would "a hefty tweak, more a kick than a tweak!" and is coming round to thinking that having "two classes of MPs" - including "a final English voice" - might be necessary after all.
Graham Brady MP
After Sir William came two MPs - the SNP's Angus MacNeil and the Conservative Graham Brady [the one who looks like Prince Andrew]. Both tended in the same direction as both Lord Barnett and Sir William, albeit much more strongly -and from very different starting points. Mr Brady, who wants 'English votes for English laws', pointed out that we already have "two classes of MPs" [those Scottish MPs who can vote on English matters but not on the same matters relating to their own constituencies] and that justice and fairness require action on the English question. Mr MacNeil said that the SNP doesn't vote on matters that don't concern Scotland (i.e. 'Scottish votes for Scottish laws' only) and believes that England can govern itself without any help from the Scots. He (obviously) wants rid of the Barnett Formula in favour of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland.
A powerful argument was being built here by The World This Weekend, whether by accident or design, and - with Graham Brady leading the attack on Labour's position - questions were building in particular for Ed Miliband, whose position, refusing to countenance 'English votes for English laws' if Scotland gets 'Devo Max', was looking rather untenable.
The next interviewee was Labour MP Kate Hoey, who reinforced that case further. She also thinks it would only be fair to make the change. She said that SNP members have been quite good on not voting on English-only matters but that Scottish Labour MPs haven't. She wants English MPs alone to have the right to vote on specifically English matters. "If it's wrong and something needs to be corrected then," she said, "even if in the short term it looks that it might be a disadvantage to our party, long term - if you do the right thing - it's good for party, and what's right for the country is right for our party."
With some nine minutes remaining, the programme turned to the other side - firstly former Labour deputy leader, Lord Hattersley, whose counter arguments amounted to (a) we should think about the unity of the UK, (b) it would be a shame if Scottish Labour MPs couldn't vote on UK Labour government-sponsored laws, and (c) people shouldn't pop up with instant answers. He didn't seem unduly bothered about the fairness issue but agreed that "something has to be done" about the English Question though, but it's not something that should be rushed into, it should be thought about for some time, that there should be a convention, etc. Quite what he actually thought "has to be done" about the English Question he wasn't saying [and, from the sounds of it, didn't want to say, or even, for that matter, to think about. He much preferred talking about Labour needing an ideology to win over the electorate as a whole.]
Tristram Hunt MP
The closing 5+ minutes were where all this had been leading to - an interview with Labour education spokesman, Tristram Hunt.
Mr Hunt isn't one of the Labour front benchers who [according to the Sunday Times] disagree with Ed Miliband here. Questioned on the issue, he argued that Labour's manifesto should win them a majority in England, so the issue of a UK-led Labour government ruling over a non-Labour-majority England wouldn't arise [which begs so many questions!].
Questioned (by Ed Stourton) on the fairness issue - whether English people should have the same sort of powers, the same sort of voice that Scotland does - Mr Hunt said it's a "complicated question" and that votes on English education and health, for example, have knock-on effects for funding in Scotland [begging the and vice versa at the moment? question], and that we need to step back and have a broader conversation, etc, etc...
He then said it would be wrong to have "two levels of MPs" [even though we've got them already]. He also said we English would be "insulted" by having our future constitution decided within the next four months. [Well, I wouldn't!]
As for the Barnett Formula, Mr Hunt said the wealth richer areas of his own constituency and from England as a whole are redistributed to poorer areas of his constituency and that it's [somehow] the same with the Barnett Formula.
Ed Stourton interjected that that wasn't answering the question [as indeed it wasn't] but Tristam ploughed on by attacking the Tories and claiming to be "shocked" at the "the narrowness of the Tory vision".
Ed pursued the main point, however: "It still remains the fact that your constituents suffer disproportionately under the Barnett Formula compared to people in Scotland".
In response, Tristram waffled about how people in his constituency had thought about raising the saltire there in solidarity with the people of Scotland to encourage them to stick with the union and that Stoke-on-Trent is "delighted" that Scotland has chosen to remain part of the union [which wasn't answering the question either].
Tristram Hunt then attacked David Cameron personally and praised Labour's own policies and asserted that Labour will win a majority in England, Scotland and Wales next May, so Edward Stourton asked him about why Labour isn't trusted by voters on the economy. Mr Hunt attacked the government in response and quoted a few Labour proposals. Edward Stourton asked him again why Labour isn't trusted by voters on the economy. Mr Hunt waffled about "big intellectual points" and "values", and the interview ended.
I rather enjoyed that.
*******
You will doubtless have spotted my own biases here. Did you spot any BBC bias though? Was The World This Weekend 'campaigning' for 'English votes for English laws'? Was the BBC 'bashing' Ed Miliband?
Coming from the perspective I've long held, and blogged about for so very, very long (it seems), asking those last two questions in the affirmative would be silly. The BBC just wouldn't campaign on the Conservatives' side for 'English votes for English laws' and wouldn't bash Ed Miliband and Labour, would it? [I won't believe it. I won't, I won't, I won't. And I'll I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick before I do so.]
Of course, it could just be the BBC following a familiar structure for programmes like this, especially during party conference season - one I've noted in previous years - setting a rhythm going over a pedal point, establishing a main theme [like 'English votes for English laws'] and repeating it whilst changing the instrumentation [the guests and their parties], whipping up intellectual tension, building up a crescendo of difficult points to climax in the big interview with a leading politician (like Tristram Hunt) at the programme's zenith accompanied by an exhilarating plunge into E major and a final collapse [as the politician gasps for air]. Or is that Ravel's Bolero?
It will be interesting to see if this pattern persists.
Instead of me doing my usual Sunday morning thing about Radio 4's Sunday, let me present you with a selection of quotes from this week's edition, extracted from each of the programme's segments, and allow you to make what you want of it...
*****
BBC Rome correspondent David Willey on the visit by Pope Francis to Albania, in response to William Crawley's question about why he's going there - his first papal trip to a European country outside of Italy:
The Pope, you know, begins his thinking on how to evangelise by going to the margins, the most vulnerable countries...
And I think Pope Francis wants today to praise Albania as a country where, in fact, you've got Muslims - it's a Muslim-majority country, the only one in Europe - you've got Muslims and Christians living peacefully side by side. He wants to hold it up as a model for the rest of the world at a moment when Christians and Muslims are at loggerheads in the Middle East.
*****
William Crawley introducing the next subject, prior to interviewing Rashid Mogradia from he Council for British Hajjis, a charity which works for the welfare of British Muslim pilgrims:
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims from all across the world have started their journeys to the Prophet's birthplace in Mecca to celebrate the Hajj, which begins on October 2nd. Here in Britain a major campaign is underway to alert pilgrims to criminal gangs who've set up bogus travel companies defrauding them of thousands of pounds and ruining the most important spiritual journey of a lifetime.
*****
Some of William Crawley's questions while interviewing Ireland's new Catholic leader, Archbishop Eamon Martin:
I asked him how radical he's planning to be.
Well, I'm interested in what you say about some of the structures there because, obviously, beyond all of the abuse crisis that everyone knows about - we've talked about it so much in the past - one of the suggestions that came forward is that we need more democratic structures within the Catholic Church.
You can go all the way back into the '60s, can't you, with Humanae Vitae and the guidance on human contraception which doesn't make a lot of sense to many Catholics in Ireland these days.
When Pope Francis came in he became the new face. He started talking in a new way. People changed their attitude towards the Catholic Church because they heard what he was saying and in Ireland that's the challenge now facing you, isn't it, that people will begin to understand the Catholic Church partly - or to a great extent - on the basis of how you look and how you sound?
*****
Extracts from William Crawley's interview with Sayed Razawi, a leading British Imam from the Ulama Council in Europe, one of the signatories to the letter by 100+ British Muslim leaders denouncing Islamic State as "non-Islamic":
William Crawley: Do you regards these terror group members as fellow Muslims?
Sayed Razawi: I wouldn't do because Islam has a structure, a theological structure, a philosophical structure, ethical structure. What they're doing is contravening and contradicting all of that. It's very simple in this day and age, especially in the Middle East, to commit an atrocious crime and plaster the term 'religion' on it just to justify it.....What I believe is this Islamic or un-Islamic State first and foremost is not representative of the religion but I think, secondly, what it's doing is it's going against Islamic values and if you go against the values of the religion therefore not only are you not representing it you're also not a believer in that particular religion.
William Crawley: And a great deal of this letter actually gets into the theology, Koranic theology, and is in some ways an attempt by yourselves to explain Islam to an organisation who call themselves 'Islamic State'.
*****
William Crawley introducing a segment on global warming and a planned mass worldwide climate change march:
Saving the earth and its people from the dangers of climate change is definitely one for the politicians, but now scientists are asking religious leaders to take action also.
Then came an interview with Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, featuring the following exchange:
William Crawley: And just finally, given your expertise...lifetime of expertise over so many of these issues, do you look at the future with optimism or with pessimism in respect of this grand challenge that humanity faces to do with climate change?
Sir Partha Dasgupta: I was worried that you might ask me that. It's easy for me to say "I'm optimistic", because that's the standard answer people give, but I'm not. I don't believe that we're all going to come crashing down but the idea that we have a glorious future of unlimited growth, that's rubbish.
*****
William Crawley's introduction to the penultimate feature:
It's not every day that the Pope, especially an Argentinian one, is photographed holding a cricket bat but that's how he was picture recently giving his blessing to a cricket team from the Vatican as it set of on a British tour which culminated in a historic match against the Church of England. The match took place on Friday at the Kent County Cricket Ground in Canterbury...
*****
Question from William Crawley (to Leo Cushley, Catholic Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh) in the wake of the Scottish referendum vote:
Leo Cushley, obviously for many Yes voters like Iain Whyte social justice was a driving ambition for change within Scotland to develop a more equal, a more caring society - not that a Yes vote is the only way you can guarantee that of course. Let's say that! - but how do you take those very laudable ambitions for social justice, for a more equal society, and develop them in the context of this new arrangement?
*****
I think that selection might give you a flavour of why I hear Radio 4's Sunday as a biased BBC programme (akin to The Tablet), one which often betrays a strong focus on liberal Catholic concerns (and a keen partiality for Pope Francis). Its guests are often on to promote 'social justice' and 'a more equal society', concerns the programme's presenters and reporters often seem to amplify themselves. It's also almost relentless in the way it lends a sympathetic ear to Muslim grievances and Muslim apologists at the expense of other minority UK religions. It also occasionally gives a free platform to climate change activists as well, with nary a sceptical voice to be heard, ever.
If you hear it differently though, please let me know.
There were four guests. Two were from left-wing newspapers, namely Kevin McKenna of the Observer and Catherine MacLeod of the Herald, and two were from right-wing newspapers, namely Iain Martin of the Telegraph and Celia Maza de Pablo from the Madrid-based La Razón. Of the UK-based journalists, that roughly translates as one pro-SNP, one pro-Labour and one pro-Conservative.
That's where the balanced stopped though. There was an evident pro-union bias in that guest selection: Kevin McKenna voted 'Yes'; Catherine MacLeod is close to Alistair Darling and, presumably, voted 'No'; Iain Martin, though Scottish, couldn't vote because he lives in England, but would have voted 'No' if he could; and Celia Maza de Pablo (whose paper La Razón is a Spanish nationalist/monarchist newspaper) held the 'No' vote to have sent an important (negative) message to the pro-independence Catalan government.
Still, the discussion was lively, interesting and marked by disagreement - especially between Kevin McKenna and Iain Martin.
The thing that stood out for me though was Celia's statement that many Spanish newspaper have been featuring around ten pages on the story every day, such is the interest in the story there. (Spain, after all, has its own independence movements.) That Spanish appetite for Scottish referendum stories seems to have eclipsed that of most Brits. I have to say that I can't see our newspapers showing such interest in Spanish affairs - even if Catalonia won independence.
Closer to an 11% than a 10% margin, the thumping decisiveness of the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum probably played no small part in the shock decision of Alex Salmond to step down. Waking up to this morning's Today I thought he must have died as well overnight, given the speak-well-of-the-dead tone of the coverage. It was like listening to an actual obituary rather than just a 'political obituary'.
I watched last night's Newsnighttoo. It had the cream of its Scottish team on display - Kirsty Wark, Laura Kuenssberg, Andrew Neil and Allan Little - plus a smattering of English ones.
It began with a Laura K report from Glasgow - one of the few places in Scotland to vote against the union. It focused on the depression and bemusement felt by the Yessers, but gave the 'No' reaction in between before ending with the seemingly sectarian scuffles in central Glasgow yesterday evening. Laura made the statement that "we know now that the vast majority of people who said 'No' made their minds up more than a year ago and simply didn't budge", which made me wonder why on earth the combined brains of the BBC couldn't have worked that out beforehand and told us.
Next came a short interview with Allan Little about Alex Salmond's resignation. Allan Little paid Alex Salmond a glowing tribute, and suggested with Nicola Sturgeon may "come on leaps and bounds now" Kirsty Wark agreed that Ms Sturgeon is "ready". (Allan Little, incidentally, is the only BBC reporter I've seen who's received plenty of bouquets from the cybernats on Twitter for his reporting.)
This was followed by the West Lothian Question and an interview with the man who first asked it, former Labour MP Tam Dalyell. Mr Dalyell is now 82 and Kirsty Wark conducted her interview with him as if he were 102, smiling at him encouragingly all the time. It's a wonder she didn't keep stopping the interview to ask if he wanted a cup of tea or needed a blanket or something. Mr Dalyell was typically forthright, not sparing either Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown in his contempt for the panicky concessions 'the three main UK parties' made after that (especially) duff opinion poll a week or so back. Tam Dalyell remains a robust defender of the union and constitutional fairness. If the Gordon Brown proposals are put in place in Scotland then, Mr Dalyell said, 'English votes for English laws' is the only fair solution. If Labour were unable to enact a lot of legislation in England thereafter as a result, that would only be fair. It's a matter of principle for him rather than party advantage.
Next up was a report from Allegra Stratton (she of 'the Westminster Bubble') on Westminster-based political class's response. She began by stating that David Cameron had made his 'English votes for English laws' pitch as a political manoeuvre to scupper Labour (calling it "a dawn raid on Ed Miliband"). Of course, she might very well be right that Mr Cameron was playing party politics here rather than being principled in the way of a Tam Dalyell and seeing no alternative to such a move on grounds of fairness if Scotland were to be given 'Devo Max'. Still, she certainly wasn't letting the Newsnight audience make its own mind up about that - and it's an accusation that Labour have been making too.
We heard during Allegra's report from Conservative MP Graham Brady (the one who looks a little like Prince Andrew) calling for an English parliament (which, given what seems to be coming in Scotland, is something we in England should have in my opinion), and from Labour's Lord Falconer rejecting the idea of an English parliament on the grounds that it would leave a "hollowed-out UK parliament" (neatly side-stepping the fact that devolution in Scotland and Wales has already done some of that hollowing-out, and that 'Devo Max' would do much more - ie side-stepping the West Lothian Question). Allegra Stratton added her own scepticism while introducing Lord Falconer ("But in a two-tier parliament a Tory administration would be more likely on English-only days an Labour administrations on UK days. Which one is more important is unclear.") The Conservative MP Owen Paterson then appeared to say that devolution shouldn't be rushed until the question of taxation and spending is settled as, as the moment, devolved politicians can "get a free hit" by promising all manner of things without being fully accountable for them.
Andrew Neil was next, with a complaint on behalf of Newsnight:
Now that the Tories' plan for more devolution involves running a coach and horses through the rest of our constitution in a matter of weeks, or at least months, we thought they might like to come on the programme to discuss what they're doing, but they declined. Well, it's only a thousand year old constitution! Anyway...
Anyway, he interviewed Labour's Chuka Ummuna instead, concentrating on the issue of 'English votes from English laws'. I think it's fair to say that Andrew Neil well and truly skewered Mr Ummuna here - a task made easier by Mr Ummuna's incompetent evasiveness (aka 'waffling'). He just wouldn't answer a direct question, and Andrew Neil's not one to stand for that. Therefore, Ian Katz's lovely vision of nicer interviews where politicians are more open and interviewers give them more time as a result was conspicuous by its absence here.
It was great theatre though, resulting in one of those 'ouch!' moments from Chuka. Fans of The Thick of It will love this:
Andrew Neil:...If [Scottish Labour] is not run by a bunch of nonentities, could...other than the Scottish Labour leader...could you name three members of the Labour shadow cabinet?
Chuka Ummuna: Of our shadow cabinet?
Andrew Neil: Yes, the Labour shadow...in Scotland?
Chuka Ummuna: Well, you've got Johann Lamont...
Andrew Neil: No, other than her!
Chuka Ummuna: You've got Kezia Dugdale..
Andrew Neil: What does she do?
Chuka Ummuna: I'm not totally sure of the exact portfolio she...
Andrew Neil: She's Education.
Chuka Ummuna: But the point is...
Andrew Neil:Could you name any more?
Chuka Ummuna: Er...not off the top of my head, no, but I mean your point...I'm not a Scottish...
Andrew Neil: You don't know who your shadow cabinet in Scotland is?
Chuka Ummuna: I'm not a Scottish MP and I'm not a member of the Scottish shadow cabinet...
Andrew Neil: We have to leave it there.
Then Andrew interviewed Conservative peer Lord Heseltine, beginning by asking him about the West Lothian Question and whether he believes it should be answered with 'English votes for English Laws'. Lord Hezza's reply was simply, "Yes." They got into something of a scrap over definitions of 'decentralisation' and 'devolution' - a scrap which, through forcibly refusing to be 'moved along', Lord H rather defeated Andrew Neil over (and, if they're right about something and not being evasive, politicians should stand their ground).
The West Lothian Question continued to hold centre stage during the following report by Newsnight's Chris Cook. After outlining what that questions means, he outlined three alternatives:
(1) An English parliament along the lines of the existing Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly and Stormont, possibly in a Northern city. (Lancaster, anyone?) This, he said, would involve the cost of the new parliament and the creation of a new capital city for England. (Lancaster, anyone?) The UK parliament would run parallel to them all, doing 'federal stuff'.
(2) 'English votes for English laws' - having the existing MPs for English seats meet on their own without the other MPs to debate and discuss English matters. This would entail having a new executive [akin to the ones in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland] answerable to English MPs, but how would that work if England didn't have its own first minister? Who would stand up for England, say, if there were a dispute between the constituent devolved governments of the UK? As English MPs dominate the UK parliament, couldn't they grant special favours to this English first minister?
(3) As English MPs dominate the UK parliament, wouldn't they be too dominant within the union? (Similarly, an English parliament). To counteract that, we could follow the U.S. example (ie the Senate) and, say, give each of the four countries of the United Kingdom an equal number of peers. That's not very democratic, but it would be a reasonable check and balance.
I'll have an English parliament (in Lancaster) elected by PR, a first minister (based in Morecambe town hall, pictured above) chosen by that parliament, a federal UK parliament (at Westminster!) with a House of Commons elected by first-past-the-post (as now, but with far fewer members and larger, fairer constituency sizes) plus a beefed-up House of Lords that, as suggested above, acted as an appointed answer to the U.S. Senate (with equal number of peers appointed from each of the four parts of the UK) but which somehow tried to reserve space for non-politicians and the great, good and wise. And, of course, H.M. the Queen. Simple, eh?
Kirsty Wark then interviewed another Conservative MP - former Attorney General Dominic Grieve. Mr Grieve took a fairly cautious but potentially radical approach, arguing against rushing but wanting a whole package to answer the West Lothian Question rather than bits and bats. "We've got to answer the West Lothian Question or, quite frankly, England will go 'Bang!' at some point", he said. He also thinks the "cack-handed" Welsh devolution legislation needs looking at. "At the moment we have a Welsh devolution settlement where, as I know from my time as Attorney General, nobody actually knows what the paper means", he said. He doesn't want an English parliament though. Kirsty thanked him for "being so candid".
It was then back to Andrew Neil for a chat with a couple of journalists: Beth Rigby of the Financial Times and Steve Richards of the Independent. Beth admired David Cameron's strategy while Steve spun it in the other direction.
Finally, it was back to Scotland and what the result means for Scottish politics. A report from David Grossman (isn't he Newsnight's technology correspondent now?), featuring Salmond biographer David Torrence (author of Salmond - Against the Odds) and Dr Alan Convery of Edinburgh University, looked (rather generously) at Alex Salmond's political successes - David Grossman even compared him to Barack Obama at one point in his attention-grabbing hopey-changey message - and then looked at where Scottish nationalism is going next, including the speculation that this has been its high-water point:
And there is a school of thought that suggests the stars will never again be as perfectly aligned for nationalism, not least having an old Etonian Conservative prime minister pushing through a programme of austerity.
The programme closed with a panel discussion on these matters, chaired by Kirsty Wark. The panel consisted of: (1) The BBC's Allan Little, (2) historian (and 'Yes' voter) Sir Tom Devine, (3) historian (and unionist) William Dalrymple, (4) journalist (and 'Yes' voter) Lesley Riddoch, and (5) Times columnist (and unionist) Magnus Linklater. That's a balanced panel, for sure, and there was plenty of disagreement, but it did seem rather more biased than it ought to have done, perhaps, due to Allan Little's contributions, especially his glowing presentation of the 'Yes' side in the referendum debate. His remarks had Tom Devine and Lesley Riddoch smiling, nodding and agreeing.
A very interesting edition of Newsnight on the whole, with only a few smatterings of bias here and there.
Yesterday’s Today programme prominently featured a statement about a right-wing backlash that has obviously caused a mini sensation at the BBC, the way such things always do. It’s a mirror image of the radicalisation problem with young Muslims, which the BBC is much less eager to dwell on in that worried, headless chicken kinda way they reserve for the non-Islamic form of radicalisation.
An anonymous infiltrator, nay, a student, of far right radicalisation who must remain nameless, (because of potential attacks) has issued a warning that dangerous far right groups are radicalising young vulnerable people, and racist violence against Muslims might ensue. The objective, we’re told by Sima Kotecha, is to change the thinking of racists.
In the light of recent events these groups have become more angry with “Asians” in the UK. That’s what Sima Kotecha said. I swear to Allah.
I came upon Sima Kotecha’s reports and discussions (several) with Justin Webb on iPlayer whilst searching for Hazel Blears’s interview, which is what I intended to comment on, and which I will do in a minute.
I have to just say that initially, listening to Sima, (but missing the intro) I honestly thought she was talking about the variety of radicalisation with which we are more familiar because she spoke of the government’s efforts to de-radicalise people in the face of enormous obstacles, like finding how best to tear vulnerable youths away from the noxious influence of their radical peers, which apparently involves whole geographical areas as well as individuals.
Vulnerable young people are surrounded and entrapped by extremists, and a Prevent scheme is to be created. Of course, as you know, she was not talking about radical Islam at all, but its opponents.
This topic was included in (all) the news headlines and Sima Kotecha’s report was reiterated several times during the course of the three-hour Today programme, lest anyone should miss it.
Well I never. Some have been using “the news” (ISIS and Rotherham) to drive a wedge between Britain’s Muslims and non-Muslims. That’s what Justin announced at about ten past eight.
A former member of a neo Nazi group with a heavy Brum accent tells Sima that he has become concerned about the power of the far right, then we heard from (I gather) the anonymous expert and the author of this much discussed warning.
“I met him in a car parked alongside a canal” said Sima, gravely.
“ One far right person said he’d like to kill everyone non white,” he explained.
“People like me?” says Sima, pointedly. (People like me too, I thought)
Tell Mama monitors anti-Islam hatred, we’re informed, and the MCB supports the claims that Muslims have been targeted, a snippet from a video about how to combat racism was played, which was narrated by someone who sounds a bit like Jihadi John.
Do Muslims need to do more to make their peacefulness more obvious? wondered Justin. Like, for example, writing letters to the Indy protesting against the actions of I.S. and pleading for mercy for the next beheading victim. (This plea in the Indy from moderate Muslims was aired in the news headlines following each of the ‘far-right’ reports, as if to underline the difference between I.S. and the real, peaceful Islam.)
*******
Hazel Blears says moderate Muslims are absolutely horrified at what is being done supposedly in their name.
But here it comes. “The Jewish people.”
“It’s not only an anti-Muslim thing”, explains Hazel, meaningfully. “It’s the Nazi movement making the ‘other’ different.”
“You made Jewish people almost inhuman and therefore it was legitimate to attack them. That’s what the right will do with the Muslim community, they’ve done it for the Jewish community for years and years and if you look at the way in which organisations like EDL actually drive extremism in the Muslim community, al-Muhajiroun, EDL, they’ve all got the same narrative here. I think that what needs to be done is what we’ve tried to do for a long time, that is to bring people together. If you bring people together it’s a lot more difficult to hate each other, if you’re sharing day to day life.
I honestly do not think that the government is doing enough in the whole prevent programme to bring people together and to support the Muslim majority who as I say are absolutely horrified at what’s been going on.” “When I was responsible for the Prevent programme we had a whole series of practical projects working with young Muslims about what life in Britain could be like, encouraging people to get involved in civic life, getting more school governors, getting more magistrates from the Muslim community - absolutely about living in Britain, living in a democracy with the rule of law and freedom, is a brilliant place to be, that you can be a really devout strong Muslim as well as being a really good member of the British community and it’s that kind of practical role models, making sure that women’s voices are heard, they’re very often not heard in the Muslim community, all of that practical work. It’s long-term, it’s generational, but it’s absolutely essential.
(The school governors thing worked out well)
I have to say that all through this item I was waiting for just one tiny reference to the antisemitism within the Muslim community, (moderates and all,) but it was not forthcoming. If the Tell Mamas, the Hazel Blearses, the Justin Webbs, the entire BBC and the Sima Kotechas of this world don’t do something to address this, and for that matter much more to acknowledge it, then all the backlashes they can muster up from the far right, the moderate right and the middle of the road right left and centre will have a job to elicit my heartfelt sympathy.
As the polls close in the Scottish independence referendum, here are a selection of topical jokes that you are very unlikely to have heard on Radio 4's The Now Show.
They might be Frankie Boyle jokes. Or they might not be. Probably the latter...
Hearing the independence vote is going to be incredibly tight. So definitely Scottish then.
How many Scots does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. From Thursday they will be back to candles.
Alex Salmond needs to find a way of keeping voters out of pubs and get them into the polling stations in Glasgow on Thursday. The police helicopter is gonna be busy .
I asked Abdul next door if he thought Scotland should be independent. "Of course they should," he said, "what right has a minority group living there got to try and make them live by their rules and culture. It's disgraceful."
I was talking politics in the pub with a Scotsman today and he said, "They can stick their referendum where the sun don't shine!" I replied, "Er, it's already being held in Scotland mate."
There was a further setback for the Scottish Independence campaign today. The Loch Ness monster has stated he's relocating to the Lake District in the event of a Yes vote.
I thought that Alex Salmond had a huge chip on his shoulder but I now realise that it's his massive potato-shaped head.
The Scottish Referendum. The NO campaign has had a huge boost as Greggs the Bakers threaten to quit Scotland if they gain independence.
A poll of people in London on Scottish independence has been released. 25% think Scotland should vote no to independence. 25% think Scotland should vote yes to independence. And the rest of London don't give a toss so long as they follow England towards being an Islamic state.
If Scotland gains its independence after the forthcoming referendum, the remainder of the United Kingdom will be known as the "Former United Kingdom" (F U K). In a bid to discourage Scots from voting 'yes' in the referendum, the Westminster has now begun to campaign with the slogan: "Vote NO, for F U K's sake."
I couldn't agree more with James Delingpole about this morning's Today, which after some glimmers of hope in recent months, found the BBC firmly back where they clearly feel most comfortable - and deflecting attention away from the real problem:
Here is the news: in Australia, a plot by Islamic State sympathisers to capture random members of the public and chop their heads off has been foiled by security services; in Syria, two Americans and a British hostage have been beheaded by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John - and another innocent Briton (a taxi driver captured while working for an aid convoy) has been told he is next on the list; across Britain, in the aftermath of the Rotherham enquiry, more and more evidence is emerging that in towns and cities all over the country mostly underage white girls have been systematically groomed, raped and trafficked by organised Muslim gangs, with the complicity of local government authorities, charity workers, police officers and the broader Muslim community.
Luckily, thanks to the BBC, we know what the real problem is here. It is, of course, our old friends, "Islamophobia" and "the spectre of a far right" backlash.
Both of these alleged threats featured prominently on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, including an interview with a former, self-confessed "far right" thug who revealed - presumably to no listener's especial surprise - that the organisation to which he had belonged was racist, prone to violence, and likely to react strongly to issues like the Rotherham rape gangs.
Today also ran an interview with Tell Mama - the one-man activist organisation run by Fiyaz Mughal which has long since been exposed for its exaggerations and its threadbare methodology in cooking up an alleged spate of "anti-Muslim" hate crimes.
When, for example, last year Tell Mama reported that there had been 212 anti-Muslim incidents, it turned out that 57 per cent of these comprised disobliging comments on Twitter or Facebook, many of them emanating from outside Britain.
And the BBC Today show rounded off with a Muslim spokeswoman who was given space to assure listeners that mosques around Britain were already doing a great deal to combat extremism but hadn't been given credit for it.
Phew. So that's all right then.
Except, of course, it's really not all right.
Perhaps it wouldn't matter so much if this BBC feature were a rare aberration. But it's not. It's long-term house policy. Barely were the bodies of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bus and tube suicide bombings cold than the BBC's reporters were out pounding the streets looking for evidence of the real issue of concern - not Islamist extremism and its numerous fellow-travellers, of course, but yes, for the spectre of Islamophobia and an anti-Muslim backlash by "the far right." It responded in the same way after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby - complete, of course, with an interview about the "cycle of violence against Muslims" and the "underlying Islamophobia in our society" by our friend Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama.
