"Not acceptable"

When the BBC first reported on Saturday that comedian Jerry Sadowitz's show at The Pleasance in Edinburgh had been cancelled due to 'not acceptable' material I read their report and thought it a typically uninformative BBC article, so I googled around and found a hot-off-the-presses piece at Chortle that was far less prissy. 

Reading Chortle's account revealed why the show had been so 'controversial'. 

The BBC has now published a second report on the story that still doesn't give readers much of a clue as to exactly what kind of things in the act proved so provocative to some in the audience, other than the usual words on these occasions - "racism", "misogyny", "sexism" and "homophobia". 

The main difference though between the BBC's two takes and Chortle's take is that Chortle reports both sides of the story. Chortle quotes a critical member of the audience AND a number of comedians and celebrities sticking up for Jerry Sadowitz and condemning the theatre's decision to cancel his second show. Though it quotes JS himself, the BBC has none of that - which is very BBC these days, particularly when it comes to these kind of stories. It reports the 'outrage' from the woke side and presents the 'cancellation' [here literally] without even suggesting alternative points of view that disapprove of the 'cancellation'. 

And - unlike the BBC - Chortle's opening paragraph hints, with a very BBC use of 'insists', that The Pleasance's statements on the matter have been self-contradictory on the issue of free speech:

Edinburgh’s Pleasance venue has insisted it champions freedom of speech after pulling a Jerry Sadowitz gig.

That's something many people elsewhere have picked up on, but the BBC's online journalists clearly decided isn't an issue that needs trouble their readers.

One curious name among Chortle's collection of JS defenders is Jeremy Vine who reacted to the news by saying:

I've seen Jerry Sadowitz perform four times. Each gig was more offensive than the last. No one complained because that's what Jerry does.

I wonder if lots of the younger BBC activists will spot that and accuse him of being on the side of  "extreme racism, misogyny, sexism and homophobia?" 

“The BBC News Channel could be gone by April”

You may not know this, so here are a few tweets from BBC News Channel presenter Martine Croxall's Twitter feed today concerning the future of the BBC News Channel. 

She's not happy:

• I think The Papers will be a casualty of what the managers are planning with one single channel.
• I make my feelings known loud and clear. We are told that the audience has not made a fuss about what's planned...
• I do not believe the true extent of the damage to the News Channel has been made plain.
• It’s being closed. There will a new world-facing commercial one instead. The UK will get simulcast programmes you can see/hear elsewhere already. A strand of breaking news for the UK on merit that a standby team gets on air from a rudimentary studio.
• The replacement channel will be commercial and aimed at an overseas audience. The UK licence fee payer will not recognise it.
• There will be lots of ad breaks to fill for UK viewers.
• The focus is to be “digital first” but that requires content. UK content comes largely from the BBC News Channel. Anyone who understands BBC News should know that.
• These decisions are being made internally at the BBC. I am speaking the truth but I’m sticking my neck out. It’s the equivalent of threatening to jump off a cliff. Who loses?
• Be prepared to be told that the UK will still get rolling News. What you won’t be told is that the target audience is overseas.
• I was told on Thursday that the audience has not objected.
• But people won't complain if they haven't been properly informed of what's in the offing.
• You are not powerless. Object to the BBC DG and chairman. To Ofcom. To the DCMS select committee. Make noise about what you value. Our bosses say audiences don’t care. The BBC News Channel as we know it will be gone by April if we cannot shape the plans.
• Without the BBC News Channel the range of UK stories and voices will wither. We give time and space to issues and to the Nations and Regions squeezed of other national programming.
• The claim is that the plans were announced in May. But there’s to be no audience survey.
• The news channel news was announced on May 26 but the true scale of the change was not made clear.
• Yes and the front half hours will be aimed at a global audience. You’d get those recorded progs on weekdays too.
• The BBC News Channel feeds many other BBC News services. It does so on a modest budget and very little internal recognition.
• Managers claim it has been publicised.
• The standard reply is there will be a channel. It won’t say it’s designed for commercial overseas viewers.
• That’s about the size of it. The rest of the time you will get output aimed at a foreign audience. And any UK breaking news will have to be put on air from a standing start by a small team.
• The management line is there will still be a rolling news channel for the UK but the small print shows it will be commercial and aimed at a foreign audience. Little room for adequate UK news coverage.
• The BBC4 change is years away. The BBC News Channel could be gone by April.
• So short-sighted.

Three clicks to murder

A guest post from Arthur T

The Salman Rushdie story prompted a search for parity between the murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess - after all we know archiving can prove to be the BBC's Achilles' Heel.

BBC News website special page

'Jo Cox murder' (1 click to 'murder' - no navigation required)

BBC News website special page

'David Amess death'

Within the Amess pages is another story with clickbait headline:

'Amess killer given whole-life jail sentence'

Only after clicking the above does the headline appear:

'Sir David Amess murder: Ali Harbi Ali given whole-life sentence'

(3 clicks to 'murder' - navigation required)

This story was buried in the Essex pages. It's only here that the word 'murder' is used. There can't be clearer proof that murder is not reported as murder (in certain cases) when it doesn't suit BBC News.

Marianna Spring v Mark Dolan

You may have already seen this GB News monologue from Mark Dolan about the BBC's Marianna Spring. 

She's been promoted from being a BBC Specialist Disinformation & Social Media Reporter to being the BBC’s Disinformation & Social Media Correspondent:

Now Mark makes a small mistake. He calls her a BBC “new recruit”. As we know, she's no such thing. 

What's interesting here is that Marianna, being one of the newer intake of more activist BBC journalists, couldn't resist replying on Twitter - and getting her 70.4K followers to rally to her side. She described Mark's monologue as “4 min rant”, adding:

My job isn’t to tell people what to believe. As I’ve done for over 2 years, it’s to investigate the impact of online disinformation, hate and social media harms.

“My job isn't to tell people what to believe” made me smile. I did a post on New Year's Day this very year headlined 'Marianna and Clive tell us what to think'. As a reminder, here's one example from that post:

Marianna Spring: I think as well, in, I mean...A lot of the conversation online has been very polarised, and we talk about cancel culture, and we talk about the culture wars, but actually that reckoning, that awakening, that there are things that are wrong and they are just wrong and supporting standing up against things that are wrong, it isn't up for debate. And a lot of the conversation around taking the knee has been about that really.

Back to Marianna Spring v Mark Dolan though, and Marianna couldn't just leave it there. Here's what came next as she responded to a supportive tweet personally attacking Mark Dolan:

Jack Evans wasn't 'spot on' though. Marianna clearly hadn't 'fact-checked' his comment. Mark Dolan didn't used to do The Friday Night Project. He hosted The Last Word, which Jack was probably thinking of. 

I wonder what Tim Davie would make of a BBC correspondent getting into a spat via social media? 

And what would he make of his new Disinformation & Social Media Correspondent discrediting herself - and, thus, the BBC in such a public way by describing a factually inaccurate comment attacking someone else as 'spot on'?

Moving on

 Reporting from Gaza is a tricky affair because reporters are severely punished for, well,  reporting. 

Melanie Phillips: A remarkable story has been published by the Associated Press. It reveals that, shortly after Sunday evening’s ceasefire between Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza, Hamas — which rules Gaza but had chosen to sit out that conflict — issued a set of instructions for journalists there:     

 Palestinians who work with foreign journalists were first informed of the new rules earlier this week in messages sent by the Hamas-run Interior Ministry. They were ordered not to report on Gazans killed by misfired Palestinian rockets or the military capabilities of Palestinian armed groups, and were told to blame Israel for the recent escalation.

But protests by the Foreign Press Association prompted Hamas to rescind that edict, as it constitutes “a severe, unacceptable and unjustifiable restriction on the freedom of the press, as well as the safety of our colleagues in Gaza”

However, Melanie Phillips says 

“.....rescinding the instruction hardly draws the sting. People in the west may not realise this, but journalists in Gaza only ever report what Hamas wants them to say. Gazan “stringers,” the local reporters upon whom western journalists rely to bring them information about what’s going on, conduct interviews with Gaza’s residents and act as western journalists’ guides and interpreters, know all too well that if they ever report what Hamas doesn’t want them to report they will be denied access or even that their lives will be in danger.”

Elder of Ziyon notes that:

“One of the criticisms of Israel when it comes to getting its side of the story out to the world is that it is just too slow, allowing the terrorists and Israel-haters plenty of time to get their version of things out and presented before the world audience. Israel just does not react quickly enough.

Not this time.

Now that Israel has demonstrated the ability to get its message across and reported in the media, what Israel needs is the ability to do this consistently.

Maybe it can even do a better job in presenting its side in the death of Abu Akleh.

Israel pushes back.

“… western media outlets stopped uncritically parroting Palestinian claims that Israel had caused the children’s deaths and started reporting the Israeli counter-claim, eventually conceding that some PIJ rockets had indeed fallen short into Gaza and probably caused Gazan casualties.” 

“…..the malice of the western media towards Israel knows no bounds. But these journalists generally speak no Arabic; and no Palestinian would have told them about the missiles falling short because Hamas rules Gaza’s journalists with an iron fist. They will report nothing that conflicts with the Hamas narrative.

If there's a softening of hostility towards Israel it seems to be largely confined to the US. The BBC, though, is unlikely to budge.

Camera.

Licence fee payers who fund the BBC’s permanent bureau in the Gaza Strip may well be wondering why, unlike AP, the corporation did not send staff to visit the sites where those shortfall missiles had landed and whether that has anything to do with Hamas’ known practice of intimidating journalists.

In fact, another report from AP gives details of restrictions imposed by Hamas which were opposed by the Foreign Press Association.

“Palestinians who work with foreign journalists were first informed of the new rules earlier this week in messages sent by the Hamas-run Interior Ministry. They were ordered not to report on Gazans killed by misfired Palestinian rockets or the military capabilities of Palestinian armed groups, and were told to blame Israel for the recent escalation.”

If that is the reason why Yolande Knell and her colleagues could not “check the figures independently”, then BBC audiences should obviously be told so.

One has to admire the ardour of Bowen’s Twitter and non Twitter followers who roughly fall into two camps: a) the Gullible and ill-informed, and b) Devout Arabists - for example our old friend Chris Doyle of CAABU. (See ITBB’s free-of-charge search engine.)

August 11, 2022

New role: I am now International Editor of BBC News. Will still do the Middle East, but after a year where I’ve spent a lot of time in Ukraine and Afghanistan, makes sense to look further afield.

— Jeremy Bowen (@BowenBBC) August 11, 2022

Boo Hoo then. Bye Jeremy! Hamas is missing you already.

Battle cries

All but eclipsed by the battle between Sunak and Truss, the battle between the IDF and PIJ has reached the BBC headlines.

Using the “Israel said”/“claims”  formulation, Yolande Knell sets it out thus:

“As well as air strikes on Gaza, where Israel said its targets included a PIJ tunnel network, there have been continued arrest raids in the occupied West Bank. Dozens of members of PIJ have been detained, according to Israel

Gaza's health ministry blamed "Israeli aggression" for the deaths of Palestinians, and for the more than 200 people wounded.

Israel accused PIJ militants of accidentally causing at least some of those deaths - claiming on Saturday that the group fired a stray rocket killing multiple children in Jabalia, in the Gaza Strip. The BBC has not been able to independently verify this claim.

One can only speculate as to why the BBC has “not been able to” verify this claim but  Knell clearly signals which side of the fence she’s sitting on. 

I heard Knell’s bulletin  on the radio this morning. (1:38 ) She said, “Israel is blaming a misfired militant rocket for killing several people including children.”

 

Well, technically she’s right - Israel “is” blaming “a misfired militant rocket”,  in other words, a PIJ “short-fall”, which is often exactly what these incidents turn out to be - and would it be paranoid to suggest that Knell’s phrasing had an air of “They would say that, wouldn’t they” in true Mandy Rice-Davies fashion? 

If you don’t have time for acronyms,  “PIJ” stands Palestinian Islamic Jihad. (“Palestinian Islamic Jihad” is an Iranian proxy)

On the other hand, Richard Kemp sets out the situation thus: 

The media's inveterate Israel-opposers such as the BBC, CNN and New York Times have already printed deliberately slanted headlines painting Israel as the aggressor. Slavering for the last two days at the prospect of IDF-inflicted mass casualties, much of the media immediately and without any evidence eagerly pointed the finger at Israel over the tragic killing of seven people, including four children, in Jabalia camp in the Gaza Strip. They will undoubtedly try, but journalists and UN investigators will find it hard to refute the IDF's confirmation that they did not strike the location and have conclusive video and radar evidence that the deaths were caused by a misfired PIJ rocket, launched as so often from within the civilian population. This would certainly fit, as approximately a quarter of all terrorist rockets fired so far during this campaign have landed inside Gaza, not in Israel.

If you still don’t have time for acronyms, IDF stands for Israel Defence Forces - and the BBC is still an inveterate Israel-opposer.

Update

For those without access to her substack Melanie Phillips provides the antidote to the BBC’s (and the MSM’s) ‘half-the-story’ reporting. 

Even if you don’t know or aren’t interested in the politics, this will have a familiar ring to many readers:

"What was the immediate reaction of much of the media in Britain and elsewhere? Israel was blamed for defending itself and defamed by recycling Palestinian propaganda.

But of course. It happens every single time. You can write the script as soon as the first Israeli missile lands. You know there will be a total absence of context so that Israeli victim and Arab aggressor are reversed. You know that Palestinian lies will be believed and reported as truth. You know that Israel will be painted entirely falsely as the villain of the piece, as it is year in, year out. You know that untold numbers in the general public will buy into this demonisation." 

 

After setting out the background to the current situation, Melanie Phillips provides an example of - wait for it -The Telegraph’s regurgitation of Palestinian propaganda!

• [The Telegraph] makes no mention of the Israelis murdered by PIJ and associates in March and April.
• No mention of Iran’s involvement.
• No mention of PIJ’s rockets falling short into Gaza.
• No mention of the Israeli video showing this happening.

Whatever has happened to the once-responsible Telegraph? 

 

If even the Telegraph falls for this what are the chances that the BBC will fare better?

Zilch.

Gordon Brown!

This is getting ridiculous now.

Last September I posted about how Radio 4's Sunday programme “likes giving Gordon Brown a platform to promote his causes”. 

I wrote:

Despite it being a weekly programme featuring very few politicians, the son of the manse has been granted the Sunday bully pulpit no less than three times over the past year, pushing his agenda with the BBC's help.

Last October he was on demanding that the government 'must act to prevent the loss of a million young people to the job market'.

This May he was on advocating for G7 leaders to 'prioritise vaccines for developing countries ahead of the G7 summit'.

And today he was back saying that world leaders need to act now to end the 'moral outrage' that 'rich countries are amassing huge stockpiles of Covid vaccines they don't need'.

It's all very Sunday. In the years that I've covered them, they've always had their favourites and put them centre-stage. 

In January I posted again about the promotion of “their living saint among UK politicians”:

I repeat all this because Gordon Brown was back on Sunday once again this morning pushing a campaign (and an online petition) to compel the UK government to give more aid to the Afghans. 

[He's forever wanting to give our money away.]

Ed Stourton's questioning - or more accurately 'questioning' - was very helpful to the former prime minister.

And so it continues!

And if you recall last month, Edward Stourton went so far as to describe Mr Brown - off his own bat, as an opinion - as  “quite a just steward”.

Well, take a guess how today's edition of Sunday began...

Without a 'good morning' or anything, an excited Ed launched straight in:

And we have an exclusive interview this Sunday. As we heard in the paper review just now, the former prime minister Gordon Brown is in the news this weekend. He says the crisis facing vulnerable people is a moral issue that goes far beyond politics. He's assembled a coalition of charities and faith groups and he'll tell us live why he wants an emergency budget.

What on earth is going on here? 

Shush!

GB News, reviewing the MoS front page story last night

We've been doing this so long now that we can just guess what the BBC will do sometimes.

Before going to bed last night I was reading The Mail on Sunday's scoop about a leaked intelligence report showing that nearly 4 in 10 people illegally crossing the English Channel come from Albania - i.e. from a peaceful country and, therefore, economic migrants not refugees, despite what the BBC insists. The leak was passed to the paper via Reform UK leader Richard Tice.

My instinct, based on past experience of the BBC and these kind of 'unhelpful' stories, is that the BBC would downplay it. So the first thing I did after logging on this morning was to check the BBC News website's daily The Papers section to see if they've included The Mail on Sunday or not.

This is where it gets interesting. They have mentioned it but are downplaying it.

There show full screenshots of all the Sunday front pages, except one: 

The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph, The Observer, The Sunday Express, The Sunday People, The Sunday Mirror, The Sun on Sunday and The Daily Star on Sunday are all there, but not The Mail on Sunday.

But scroll down and - in a classic example of 'watertight oversight' in action - you'll see that the BBC has mentioned it.

To my mind there's only one reason for them NOT showing the Mail on Sunday front page and that's because they deliberately chose not to draw attention to it because they don't like the story.

Isn't that a fair assumption?

Update: Checking TVEyes...GB News has been showing that front page and discussing it since around 10.30pm yesterday. Neither of the BBC News Channel's paper reviews at 10.30pm and 11.30pm even mentioned it, neither showing it nor discussing it. 

Tricky

Catching up with the past week's typically turbulent BBC-related news [and, as ever, thank to you for keeping us up to date on the open threads]...

That Daily Telegraph story about how the BBC's ultra-worthy 50:50 equality project is going wrong and leading to complaints from within the BBC that the corporation is “disappearing women” by allowing the female side to be filled “by those who self-identify as female” included some fascinating details. 

As the BBC itself might say, I've not been able to independently verify the Jeremy Vine discussion about women’s sports on BBC Radio 2 where the voices on air were four men and three trans people with no women, but I have checked out the edition of Radio 4’s Moral Maze a year ago last June where two men and two trans women discussed women’s sport. 

Which does seem odd.

The Telegraph quotes “a senior BBC insider” saying that the BBC presenter behind the 50:50 equality project, Ros Atkins, “has gone along with” redefining the word 'woman' - “a word which we all understand”, something the BBC has done “without any public debate”.

As for the whole 50:50 equality project, it is interesting how one [male] BBC presenter, such as Ros Atkins, could have such a massive impact - for good or for ill - on the BBC's behaviour. His agenda has pretty much consumed the BBC since 2017.

This is something Radio 4's Media Show, or the BBC News Channel's Outside Source, or the BBC's Analysis Editor might want to tackle...

...if only the man behind the 50:50 equality project wasn't also a main presenter on Radio 4's Media Show, and the main presenter on BBC News Channel's Outside Source, and the BBC's Analysis Editor.

And called Ros Atkins.

Tricky.

Introducing Joshua Nevett, BBC Politics - not a fan of Brexit apparently

The BBC News website report in the previous post [now split into two posts] was written by Joshua Nevett from BBC Politics. 

He also did a report back in May headlined Why some farmers are turning away from the Tories - a piece he summarised on Twitter like this:

• NEW: Journalism that’s not about Sue Gray or lockdown parties (refreshing, right?). Following May’s local elections, I spoke to three farmers about the post-Brexit challenges they’re facing and why they’re fed up with the Conservative government. This is what they told me 1/4:
• James Small, a livestock farmer from Somerset, said he voted for the Liberal Democrats at the local elections. He said farmers have “no idea what the destination” is for their industry, which has had to adjust to sweeping agriculture policy reforms since the Brexit vote. 2/4
• Pig farmer Anna Longthorp said production costs have skyrocketed recently, saying: “It's been an absolutely awful time”. She said the mass culling of pigs - made necessary by post-Brexit shortages of abattoir workers - has put farmers through “colossal distress”. 3/4
• Dairy farmer Robert Craig didn’t even vote in the local elections. He said Brexit was doing farmers like him "no good whatsoever", citing labour shortages as the "biggest challenge" for his businesses. For these interviews and more, read my piece 4/4. 

Yes, it's all Brexit's fault.

For fans of Twitter archaeology, here are some of Joshua's tweets. He joined the BBC in March 2019. Guess what his view of Brexit is?

1. Sep 4, 2018 - Brexit is 206 days away. As the clock ticks, Hammond says a no-deal would cost £80bn extra in borrowing. May says a no-deal Brexit 'wouldn't be the end of the world'. And Johnson has seemingly launched a leadership bid. Leave voters, let that chaos sink in for a moment. 
2. Sep 15, 2018 - What Bermondsey thinks about Brexit. As you can see, it’s rather lopsided. Those God damn metropolitan elites.
3. May 22, 2019 - Farage is shaken with fear (sorry). [Ed - after more people with milkshakes turned up to an election event where Nigel Farage had had a drink thrown over him the previous day.] 
4. May 24, 2019 - The apparent demographics of this crowd [Ed - at a Nigel Farage hustings] are telling: old and white. Polling also suggests most people over 40 are Brexiteers. Brexit is pitting young and old against each other.
5. Jun 6, 2019 - It’s interesting to hear what an actual D-Day veteran thinks about Brexit. D-Day veteran Eric Chardin: “Brexit worries me. It would be an awful shame if what we’ve gone to so much trouble to do, to collect the European big nations together, to break it all up now would be a crying shame.”
6. Jul 10, 2019 - It’s only a fudge if Corbyn becomes PM and delivers Brexit, which is highly unlikely. Unless PM Johnson tries to ram through a no-deal Brexit, a GE won’t happen. What’s more likely is a people’s vote to my mind. In that scenario, Labour’s position couldn’t be more explicit.

INSISTED Watch

Fans of INSISTED Watch might be interested in the BBC News website report Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak row over recession warning in latest TV clash where Liz Truss gets three times the number of 'insisted's that Rishi Sunak gets.

For Liz Truss:

1. Liz Truss insisted her regional pay policy was "misrepresented by various people".
2. But Ms Truss resisted such an admission, and instead insisted her regional pay policy was "misrepresented by various people".
3. In other parts of the TV programme, Ms Truss insisted she has nothing to hide, telling the audience "there are no skeletons in my closet"

For Rishi Sunak:

1. And Mr Sunak insisted he would "fight incredibly hard 'til the last day" of the leadership campaign and not quit before results day.

Once more unto the breach, Sir Keir, once more

It seems quite something that the forensic ex-lawyer and former Director of Public Prosecutions turned Labour leader Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC managed to breach the MPs' code of conduct no less than eight times. I see the BBC has already relegated it to a 'small print' headline on the BBC News website though.

Update 11.45am: The story has, naturally, now vanished from the headlines on the Home page. Amusingly, that's not stopping it remaining in second place on 'Most Read', so people are still wanting to see it. [Further update - It's gone now from 'Most Read'].

Light Relief

Sometimes the news...

...invites the obvious joke in response:

That lead onto this:

Book that man for an appearance on Mock the Week!

They'll have to be quick though.

July Open Thread

  

July by Edward Thomas

Naught moves but clouds, and in the glassy lake

Their doubles and the shadow of my boat.

The boat itself stirs only when I break

This drowse of heat and solitude afloat

To prove if what I see be bird or mote,

Or learn if yet the shore woods be awake.

Long hours since dawn grew, - spread, - and passed on high

And deep below, - I have watched the cool reeds hung

Over images more cool in imaged sky:

Nothing there was worth thinking of so long;

All that the ring-doves say, far leaves among,

Brims my mind with content thus still to lie.

Thank you for your support and comments.

Here we go again

Some things never seem to change. Rod Liddle’s article in the Sunday Times has a segment about a Jewish student at Leeds university who ‘failed’ her sociology degree.

“Danielle Greyman had written about the use of human shields by Hamas and clearly failed to qualify her arguments by adding the rider “which is the legitimate voice of the oppressed Palestinian people in their righteous fight against the Zionist entity”. An outside examiner said the 23-year-old’s essay should have passed.

You get good grades these days only by agreeing with the adolescent views of the lecturers."

Never mind “These Days!” Because ..........

in 2005 “right-wing journalist Melanie Phillips” published an email on her website which she had received from a student at Aberystwyth. The student complained that:

[T]he only way to really succeed within the university industry is to pander to the prejudices of the academic staff; anything that differs with the anti-Semitic orthodoxy results in rather harsh marking. When I first went to university, I came with the naive belief that study at such an institution was about the pursuit of knowledge and truth; it is about lies, propaganda and the worst sort of prejudice. [2]

The student claimed that ‘most of the academic staff [believe] that all the world's current ills can be attributed to the activities of the US and Israel, and those that can't are the result of our colonial legacy.’ 

2005 is what, 17 years ago? Yes, that was Aberystwyth rather than Leeds, and the academics whose political agenda tainted the course were  convener Dr Marie Breen Smyth and Dr Richard Jackson rather than the academic who assessed the Leeds essay, namely 

 “Claudia Radiven, studied under Shaikh and Sayyid, specializing in Islamic law, Islamic theology, and Islamic finance, with a special interest in rehabilitation of convicted terrorists.”

I looked at other reports about the latest incident.

Under the header: “Jewish student sues Leeds University 'after being given fail in sociology assignment for not criticising Israel’” the Daily Mail, for example, has published a substantial number of readers’ responses, the majority of which defend the university and criticise the student for ‘one-sidedness’.

Yes, her essay was one-sided. Perhaps the commentariat in their wisdom couldn’t grasp the idea that her study had a specific brief: “crimes committed by Hamas against Palestinians” and not (thanks for small mercies) “a study of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.”

In any case, would the demands for ‘putting the other side’ be equally abundant had the essay been titled “the Israeli state carries out acts of violence” or any similar ‘adolescent’ left-wing idiocy? 

Priorities

As discussed on the open thread, here's the running orders of the main BBC One news bulletins since Friday...

Friday News at One
1. 'Wagatha Christie' trial
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Friday News at Six
1. 'Wagatha Christie' trial
2. Calls for compensation in blood scandal
3. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Friday News at Ten
1. Commonwealth Games
2. Calls for compensation in blood scandal
3. 'Wagatha Christie' trial
4. Cost of living
5. Ukraine War
6. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Saturday 1pm Weekend News
1. Train strikes
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Saturday 5pm Weekend News
1. Train strikes
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Saturday 10pm Weekend News
1. England women's football final the next day
2. Fatal stabbing of a nine-year-old girl in Lincolnshire

Get offa ma TV!

The Sunday Times reports that Eastenders has dipped below one million viewers for the third time this month - “ratings to make BBC bosses quake” - and quotes former producers, writers and directors describing it as in “terminal decline”; “unsalvageable”; “toast”. 

The problem with pulling the plug though is that the BBC overspent to the tune of £86.7 million on a new set, which one former executive calls “the broadcaster’s HS2”. 

What's the issue? Well, here are some suggestions from the Sunday Times report:

There is a disconnect between the audience and those making EastEnders. One called it “a series for Brexit Britain written by Remainers”. He says: “There are too few people sympathetic to the concerns and experiences of characters in the show — they don’t know what it’s like to sign on or do a manual job.” Another former producer adds: “EastEnders is no longer a show reflecting audiences lives back to them . . . It has lost its identity. It’s also sensationalised.”

I did watch it for the first ten years then gave up because it was so miserable - which, to be fair though, it always had been.

“Will you stop that coughing?”

The Mail on Sunday reports that “BBC chiefs” blocked plans to bring back The Fast Show's coughing Bob Fleming “over fears his affliction may offend Covid sufferers”. The character was cut from last year’s Christmas special of Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing. “A production source” told the paper:

A decision was taken to drop the sketch. It is important to remember Covid was really rampant at the time.

A lot of viewers would have found the sight of a man persistently coughing unfunny and upsetting.

Consequently, both the production company and BBC decided not to go ahead with the sketch.

It was very disappointing as the whole production were thrilled to have Charlie Higson join them on location. But under the circumstances, it was the right decision.

I suspect one of Bob Fleming's colleagues, Jed Thomas, would have summed this up perfectly:

Roger, Over and Out

Roger Harrabin is no longer the BBC's environment [activist] analyst. It was his final day this week.

Earlier today, he tweeted:

I've finally left BBC after 35 years on the environment. Thanks everyone for the tributes. Many brought me to tears. The one I like best was from UN's Nick Nuttall: "BBC without Roger is like solar power without sun, gin without tonic, the Muppets without Kermit."

Among the tributes he received this one stood out for me from green campaigner Jonathon Porritt:

You’ve been a total star, Roger - thank God the idiotic BBC didn’t know what you were up to during all those dark days of them insisting on ‘balance’ in their climate coverage! 

Roger replied, "Thanks".

I think it's fair to say that even if "the idiotic BBC didn't know" plenty of people on blogs like this were well aware of "what [he was] up to".

Talking of which, I've lost count of the number of times I've recycled that 'the BBC's environment [activist] analyst' crack over the years - a crack it's now time to finally retire and turn into regenerative compost. 

“Neighbours, Everybody needs diverse neighbours”

Thursday's Newsnight marked the end of the sunny Australian soap Neighbours. Kirsty Walk's introduction contained this modish take, worthy of a Guardian column:

Although it became more diverse in later years, its heyday was just bland, mostly young, usually attractive heterosexual white Australians living unremarkable lives.

Lots of people loved it nonetheless. 

Affle’ix

Guest post by Arthur T

The BBC’s coverage of the World Athletics Championships 2022 finished on Monday 25th July. The problem has been that coverage was a day old throughout (perhaps BBC Sport hadn’t paid for live coverage) - we heard of medal successes in the news bulletins hours beforehand - quite bizarre as in the next day’s programmes the pundits breathlessly enthused, apparently in advance of each event, over the chances of their favoured few in a programme that was clearly recorded - but acted out as ‘live’ - pretending to build up the drama of a live event.

Here is the Radio Times trailer: 'World Athletics Championships presenters on BBC: Meet the pundits and commentators. Your complete guide to the presenters, experts and commentators guiding you through the World Athletics Championships live on BBC this summer. Who is presenting World Athletics Championships coverage on TV? Jeanette Kwakye – Team GB Olympic sprinter.’ Other presenters were (in RT order) Denise Lewis, Colin Jackson, Michael Johnson, Jessica Ennis-Hill, Steve Cram, Steve Backley and Paula Radcliffe.

The only GB gold medal was won by a Scot, Jake Wightman (born in Nottingham), who hadn’t featured very much in the build-up - this, in the 1500m - an event made famous in the past by Coe, Ovett and Cram, and in which Team GB have an outstanding record. Wightman beat Norwegian Olympic champion Jakob Ingebrigsten into second place.

The only Team GB silver medal was won by Keely Hodgkinson in the 800m. The other five medals won by Team GB were bronze. The information is available from BBC Newsround:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/62289402

'BBC Betrayal'

'The Thunderer' thunders:

The Times view on Tiggy Legge-Bourke and Panorama: BBC Betrayal

The corporation treated Princes William and Harry’s former nanny disgracefully

That the former nanny to Princes William and Harry should have been defamed by a false rumour that she had become pregnant by Prince Charles is scandalous. That this rumour should have emanated from the BBC is appalling. And that in order to extract an apology from the corporation she has had to wait a quarter of a century and take it to court is beyond belief.

Tiggy Legge-Bourke, as she was called when she worked for the royal family, was a victim of a scheme cooked up by Martin Bashir, a BBC reporter, in 1995 to persuade Princess Diana that those around her were in league with her husband and conspiring against her. Bashir hoped this would persuade the princess to grant an interview to the BBC’s Panorama programme.

The plan involved spreading a false rumour that Ms Legge-Bourke, now known as Alexandra Pettifer, had had an abortion as a result of an affair with Prince Charles. According to a joint statement by Pettifer and the BBC, released as part of a court settlement, Princess Diana believed this rumour; not even the sharing of private medical information would persuade her it was untrue. Ms Pettifer says that her life was scarred by it. Ms Pettifer was one of many harmed by Bashir’s wicked scheme, most notably the princess and her family. Prince William said last year, when Lord Dyson’s report into the deceit and cover-up was published, “it brings indescribable sadness to know that the BBC’s failures contributed significantly to [my mother’s] fear, paranoia and isolation that I remember from those final years with her”.

Other victims included those brave enough to question Bashir’s methods. Matt Wiessler, a graphic designer who became suspicious about how his work was being used by the reporter, was never allowed to work for the BBC again. Mark Killick, a Panorama producer, was fired 24 hours after raising concerns about how Bashir had got that interview, and was subsequently defamed.

The financial cost to the BBC is considerable. It is to pay Ms Pettifer £200,000 in damages; it has paid Commander Patrick Jephson, Princess Diana’s former private secretary, £100,000, and Mr Killick £50,000; last year it agreed a settlement with Mr Wiessler worth potentially £750,000. Lord Dyson’s review cost £1.4 million, and the BBC has paid £1.5 million to a charity chosen by the royal family.

The cost to the corporation’s reputation is incalculable. At a time when the rise of streaming platforms is undermining the BBC’s economic raison d’être, one of the main justifications for its continued financing through the licence fee is a moral one. The BBC should represent, at home and to the rest of the world, the highest standards in broadcasting. In the lies told and the pain caused in the making of this programme, it has fallen far from that aspiration.

Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, took the opportunity of the settlement with Ms Pettifer to apologise to her, to the Prince of Wales and to William and Harry. The Panorama programme, he said, would never be screened again, in Britain or elsewhere. After many years of near-silence from the corporation’s leaders, Davie’s profuse apology is welcome, but it is not enough. The BBC has yet to come clean about who was to blame for the cover-up of Bashir’s duplicity. If it is to regain the moral authority that a public-service broadcaster should enjoy, it needs to do so now.

'hasta la vista, baby’

This post has little to do with the BBC. I'm not speaking for Craig here, but I rarely watch it now so I’m afraid that might be the direction this blog is veering towards. But you never know.

I don’t think I’m the only one who’s suffering from buyer's remorse. I’m talking about Boris, obviously, but I didn’t particularly buy into Boris's defenestration in the first place, at any rate not enough to cause remorse. I am genuinely sorry to see him go, even if I do think he is starting to look gleeful about it himself.  I was beginning to wonder if the Ukraine business had an element of deflection about it. 

I never bought the argument that it was the ‘lying’ wot done it, and I wasn’t completely persuaded by the  'lack of political integrity’ argument because I think charisma all but overrides the rest of it. 

Maybe it’s all Carrie’s fault. (The wallpaper! And that ain’t the half of it.) 

 

Several commentators seem to be expressing regret too.  Because just look at who we’re left with. 

Rishi reduced his chances in one fell swoop in the ITV ‘debate’ (It wasn’t a debate) by posing a pair of questions that gifted Liz Truss a massive open goal, which she duly took advantage of, simultaneously hitting the back of the net and revealing a worrying lack of perspicaciousness in her suddenly sheepish-looking interlocutor.

Penny Mordaunt has excellent hair, but it just wasn’t enough to counteract that MCB blunder. 

Kemi Badenoch is the most promising, but maybe she’s positioned herself even better (fortuitously) for the future. 

Anyway, it’s too late now. If it’s Liz, a good hairdresser can do wonders. A bit of body; that’s the way to do it.