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

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

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

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

...which is very true. 

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

It certainly does.

Three targets hit

What happened when Israel sent its refugees to Rwanda? runs the headline of a story on the BBC News website by the BBC World Service's Daisy Walsh. 

It's quite a story - and even more of a BBC achievement - managing to bash Israel, push the 'racism' angle and slam the UK government's Rwanda plan, all at the same time. 

The BBC has scored a hat-trick! 

Ah, the term 'hat-trick' reminds me of that great British black footballer Gary Lineker - the Jesse Owens of British soccer - who scored one during the 1986 World Cup group game between England and Poland, sending us through to the last 16. 

Gary - a true survivor - has done very well for himself, despite racism. The BBC licence fee has truly set him free.

Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty he is free at last...to endlessly tweet his controversial opinions as a top BBC star, despite that BBC high-up bloke Tim Davie - remember him? - supposedly trying to rein him in.

‘I’m black Gary, you’re white.’

Nana Akua gives her views of Gary Lineker and his comments ‘trivialising the experience of racism.’

📺 Freeview 236, Sky 515, Virgin 626
💻 GB News on YouTube https://t.co/KHMl3BAwQ2 pic.twitter.com/VTk0hakQQ1

— GB News (@GBNEWS) June 25, 2022

Having each other's backs

Talking of spiked, Mick Hume has a piece in the Daily Mail today headlined Whatever you think of Boris, the BBC’s obsessive campaign to destroy him is a disgrace. Along the way he criticizes Nick Robinson for leading the "Boris-bashing" on Today, and "sneering" and "going beyond what could be considered objective journalism".

Far from being impartial, Robinson was editorialising at every opportunity, the tone always scathing or sarcastic — to the point where one could almost hear him rubbing his hands with glee during each dramatic pause in his diatribe.

Mick Hume puts it down to BBC bias:

It has built itself in the image of the woke metropolitan elites who run it. And they long since decided that, to appropriate Margaret Thatcher’s famous phrase, Boris is not ‘one of us’.

Interestingly, the comments at the Mail are going the BBC's way for once. "Boris-bashing" has spread in recent weeks among the public, unimpressed at everything they've been hearing about Partiesgate.

Still, I've rather enjoyed the irony today of the very personification, indeed the living embodiment, of those "woke metropolitan elites", ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, riding to Nick Robinson's aid on Twitter:

Alan Rusbridger: Portraying Nick Robinson as a member of the woke metropolitan elite - the latest Mail obsession - is wide of the mark. I doubt it will stop him doing his job rather well. It’s called journalism.

Nick Robinson: Thanks Alan. I rather enjoyed the irony of being accused of anti-Tory bias by a former editor of Living Marxism 🤣.

And Gary Lineker has popped in too with a smug "quick reminder":

Gary Lineker: Quick reminder: the BBC has tens of thousands of people that work for It, with a huge cross section of views. The corporation doesn’t think as one. There’s no political criteria from above other than impartiality in news & current affairs. Any perceived bias is probably your own.

It may be a typo on Gary' part, but I shall think of the BBC as "It" from now it. Never mind 'Auntie Beeb', it's 'Cousin It' from now on.

Echoes

As mentioned a couple of posts ago, I'm so grateful to you all for pointing out the BBC lowlights this week on the open thread. It's keeping the ITBB archive going. 

And the BBC have had quite a week of lowlights.

I

The Great Gambo being interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire was certainly quite something. 

In my teenage years back in the 1980s, Paul Gambaccini was one of my heroes. His Radio One Saturday afternoon US chart show was something I never missed. 

Or hardly ever. And as I was in my early teens at the time and charts-obsessed, and would always be listening to it with my cassette recorder at the ready to catch every new entry on the UK and US charts, I could get quite ratty if Mum and Dad ever made me miss it. I remember going into a particularly huge 14-year old sulk on being taken off to see my gran in Kendal [Cumbrian home of the famous mint cake] one Saturday afternoon and missing the latest US Top 30 countdown from Mr G.

So I've always had a big soft spot for him. And he's always been the broadcasting pro's broadcasting pro. And I'm so glad he's come through all the horrors of hideous false allegations, and that he's now come out fighting, and is seeking redress. I wish him well.

It is intriguing though that he says he'll be coming for the BBC too one day for aiding and abetting such injustices because he does still work for the BBC. I only hope the BBC remember they still have a 'duty of care' towards him, consider their role in reporting [or mis-reporting] these stories, stick by him and avoid the pettiness that the BBC can often sink to when they feel threatened.

II

I'm not one for late nights, but even I stayed up to watch wonderful Emma Raducanu triumph in the tennis. 

She's so much more likeable a UK champion than Andy Murray, and everyone seems to be celebrating her today.

It's probably just a Twitter thing that the usual suspects have been scoring political points though. It's like an obsessive compulsion. 

I've at least left it a few hours before doing something similar and pointing out that Gary Lineker has been busy on Twitter scoring political points over Emma's victory, racialising her achievements and pushing pro-immigration, anti-government comments, and reinforcing crude ad hom attacks on Nigel Farage [with apologies for quoting the attack on Nigel that Gary joined in with, ''the nasty little turd'']. 

I've lost track of Gary's tweeting over recent months [not that I've ever paid much attention to him on Twitter], but to see him in full flow today has reminded me why he's so controversial as far as BBC impartiality goes. He remains very opinionated and politically-focused, and shouldn't have joined in that nasty attack on Nigel Farage. 

Anyhow, it was a triumph for Channel 4 too, ''humiliating'' the BBC by getting the rights to broadcast Emma's match. I hope everyone was watching that rather than Match of the Day. It's something sporting that will be remembered for a very long time. 

Update. And, being the BBC, here we go with the signalling retweets:

Why doesn't Sopes get back to reporting the lying, incompetent Biden administration? He should be rushed off his feet at the moment.

III

As Charlie noted, the BBC's first LBGT Correspondent Ben Hunte's short career at the BBC is ending. 

John Humphrys, on leaving the BBC, specifically named and shamed him for being a new breed of activist compromising BBC journalism. 

And Ben soon landed the BBC in trouble, with an impartiality-busting piece on transgender matters that saw complaints galore, and correction after correction, and BBC clarifications, and ECU rulings against it over endless months. 

He then seemed to have been sent off to Africa for months to do special reports. 

And now he's off to Vice. 

IV

I'd urge any passers-by to click on the following link to another comment on the Open Thread. LINK. 

I've read the thread and it looks like a particularly bad case of the BBC spreading disinformation by failing to check the facts. Please see what you think. 

V

The whole BBC 'allyship' thing may make your jaw drop for not being satire. But it's another bizarre sign of where we are. I'll quote Charlie's accurate summary:

Reported in The Telegraph tonight. You couldn’t make it up! BBC staff have been offered an “allyship” test which identifies whether they are more privileged than their colleagues, as part of diversity training. The manual also sets out seven types of allies that staff can become in the workplace. One of them, the “upstander”, is someone who “shuts down, reports and pushes back on offensive jokes and inappropriate comments, even if no one’s hurt by them”. This type of ally should “check in privately with anyone who’s been offended” by the joke and “don’t just be a bystander”. Another ally type is a “champion”, who “voluntarily defers to colleagues from underrepresented groups in meetings, events and conferences”. Voluntarily deferring to underrepresented groups - the BBC do this already anyway.

In tackling this kind of nonsense, the BBC is a big part of the problem. They aren't just buying the Emperor's new clothes, they're selling them on too.

Next Month

 

If you stayed up to watch the highlights of Crystal Palace v Wolves on Match of the Day you'll doubtless have caught Gary Lineker putting on an earnest expression and saying: 

Starting on Monday is LGBT-Plus History Month, and across the BBC, we'll be telling the stories of sportspeople who've helped shape attitudes.

So that's February '-ism' taken care of.

A five year plan for Gary Lineker

 

So Gary Lineker has signed a new five year deal with the BBC. 

But, as well as taking a pay cut, he will have to adhere to BBC impartiality rules as part of that deal.

Tim Davie clearly realised that he had to do something about Gary Lineker. Leaving him out of his declared crackdown on social media use drew a lot of flak and risked making him look weak, especially after Gary seemed to be mocking him over it. So he appears to have closed that loophole. 

Mr Davie has now said that that Gary "knows he has a responsibility to the BBC in terms of social media". 

The question is, will Gary stick to his side of the deal, and what will happen if he doesn't?

I'm already seeing some scepticism. BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford, for example, tweeted this in response:

So Gary Lineker has taken a pay cut. And is supposed to more careful about his social media use. Still managed to mention grouse shooting today though!

That came after Gary tweeted this earlier this morning:

Lovely day to mingle and murder some grouses.

Sorry Tim, but I think it's going to be a long and winding road with Gary. He loves his Twitter.

😕

Update: So much for that then, apparently! 

Replying to a tweet from the Guardian saying that he'd agreed to tweet more carefully, Gary Lineker has now tweeted:

Not true, but hey-ho. BBC recognise that I tweet carefully and will continue to do so.

So, why are all these media outlets reporting otherwise? Have they got the story wrong? Is it to be business as usual with Gary Lineker and Twitter?

Is the BBC licence fee a sinking ship?

Blimey! Old Twinkle Toes himself, John Sergeant, has come out against the BBC licence fee:

The case for the licence fee, a form of poll tax, has been steadily eroded by the arrival of a multitude of competitors. It’s hard to see how the BBC can last in its present form for much longer. It is time to think of different ways of paying for BBC programmes, whether it be some form of payment by subscription, as well as programme sponsorship, if not a move towards advertising in general.

Even more astonishingly, so has Gary Lineker: 

The licence fee is our fundamental problem. You’re forced to pay it if you want a TV, and therefore it’s a tax. The public pay our salaries, so everyone is a target. I would make the licence fee voluntary. I’ve always said for a long time, I would make it voluntary. I don’t know the logistics of how it would work. You would lose some people, but at the same time you’d up the price a bit. It’s the price of a cup of coffee a week at the moment. If you put it up you could help older people, or those that can’t afford it.

More Rory

Our ongoing Rorywatch season has so far seen John Simpson singing the praises of "passionate Remainer" Conservative leadership candidate Rory Stewart and then John Sweeney and Danny Shaw adding their very warm words about him too. Now Rory has got The Big One: Gary Lineker: 

A retweet of Rory's response...

...prompted this comment from our old blogging companion DB:

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for an apology, before time runs out

As you probably know (and I know some of you do know), top 1% BBC star Gary Lineker got into a spot of bother on Twitter recently for tweeting a bit of false, anti-Brexit scaremongering:

All and sundry, even some ardent Remain types, called him out on him falling for this hoax. And the Government itself called him out on this too. It was 'fake news'.

Weirdly, and to lots of consternation, Gary initially ignored the furore and the clamour for him to delete the tweet, until, late this afternoon, he finally deleted it.

But....

He deleted it without posting any explanation why, and without apologising, and without acknowledging that he'd deleted the tweet or that there's been a furore about this tweet.

Very BBC.

As the BBC, from the very top down, has recently given Gary - as a BBC Sports presenter - carte blanche to be as opinionated as he likes about politically controversial matters, given that he isn't part of the BBC's News and Current Affairs area, he's carrying on sounding off just as unimpartially as ever. 

Still, shouldn't he have 'fessed up? 

Whenever I've made major mistakes here at Is the BBC biased? I've felt it only right to confess and apologise without making excuses. 

So why doesn't Gary Lineker just do the same? We all get things wrong after all. 

Does he feel himself too important to apologise?

One for Mike & Co. at BBC Trending maybe?

Bull

Raging Bull

Someone has been making waves this week, and it would be remiss of a blog like this not to crack open the popcorn and chronicle it. So here goes...


Continuing his Ovid-like metamorphosis into a rampaging bull (or maybe even the Minotaur), Baron Adonis, of Camden Town in the London Borough of Camden has been charging at the BBC all week.

He began it by agreeing with a tweet which said that Today is "under Tory management" and "shamelessly pro-Brexit".

Then he continued with statements like, "The BBC largely created Farage" and "The BBC is substantially responsible for debasing political debate and analysis, which led to Brexit. And it is getting worse".

This led him into a Twitter confrontation with Nick Robinson and Gary Lineker:

Andrew Adonis: The BBC is now performing so badly at impartial and fearless news, & the quality of Netflix etc now so much better at drama, I am wondering for the first time in my life whether we couldn’t do better. Sky can keep sport! BBC on ropes. Sport largely gone to Sky. Quality drama gone to Netflix. BBC news increasingly Brexit, weak & simply Govt press releases. If Netflix set up a sharp, balanced News service, what would be left besides local radio, a desert island & a few good foreign correspondents?

Gary Lineker: What a load of complete and utter tosh.

Andrew Adonis: The BBC’s most highly paid presenter?

Nick Robinson: Well there’s the fact we’re the most trusted source of news & the world’s best nature programmes (Attenborough) & most popular entertainment (Strictly & Sherlock) & culture (Proms & Glasto) & sport (Wimbledon & the Olympics). Other than that what has the BBC ever done for us?!

Andrew Adonis: Huge complacency Nick. The country is in crisis, dangerously poor, polarised, fractured and populist, & you want us to throw garlands! This is not where things are at, I’m afraid. And in the view of many of us, you (the BBC) are the midwife of Farageism. And btw, your news website, after a string of complaints today, still hasn’t corrected a disgraceful headline describing the EU as a ‘corpse.’ Is this what you mean by ‘most trusted source of news’?

Nick Robinson: I don't want garlands. I want perspective & an acceptance that in a fractured society the BBC will hear from (& challenge) people you may dislike and/or fear.

Andrew Adonis: Well, I haven’t noticed the challenge, tbh. @BBCr4today now just a noticeboard for government and Farage press releases. Vast uncritical coverage of Boris speech, & total failure to get into the Northern Ireland crisis,just the latest instances.

At the same time, his Lordship was also charging, horns lowered, at Kamal Ahmed and the BBC News website (Kamal entered the maze too). He complained to Ofcom and got nowhere, and isn't happy about it:

Andrew Adonis: Apart from the disgraceful headline - when was the EU a ‘corpse’? - the BBC’s economics editor declares the EU will be ‘without, in the future, Britain.’ But we haven’t left & Parliament is a long way from agreeing Brexit. Yet more Brexit bias! https://twitter.com/bbckamal/status/963765351484882945 … Sorry to keep on about the BBC debasing public debate, but when was the European Union a ‘corpse’? Germany: I wish I was that lifeless! A disgraceful standard of analysis.

Kamal Ahmed: As you know Andrew, it is a reference to a quote by Douglas Carswell made in 2012. The point is it is not true (if it ever were, economically). I cannot see how a sensible analysis of that economic fact is debasing the public discourse.

Andrew Adonis: Kamal, instead of defending the indefensible, would you please correct this disgraceful ‘EU corpse’ headline immediately & remove the reference to Britain ‘of course’ leaving the EU.

Andrew Adonis: Kamal, your ‘EU corpse’ headline is disgraceful, & justifying it by quoting Douglas Carswell only makes it worse. Since when was Carswell the point of reference for the BBC?! The BBC has got to the stage it doesn’t even realise its pro-Brexit bias.

Andrew Adonis: Dear BBC, I have asked your economics editor to change this disgraceful ‘EU corpse’ headline & correct other bias, but nothing has been done. Can you please do it now before I start formal complaints?

Andrew Adonis: Astonishingly, the BBC is digging in. Kamal Ahmed told me ‘EU corpse’ was fine as a headline because it echoed a Douglas Carswell anti-EU rant of 2012! The Brexit bias is now so deep the BBC doesn’t even realise it.

Andrew Adonis: BBC BIAS: yesterday the BBC ran big story on website with headline describing the EU as a ‘corpse’. I and others complained. The BBC’s economics editor told us to chill because his point of reference was Douglas Carswell quote from 2012. We asked for it to be changed. It wasn’t.

Andrew Adonis: After 24 hours, the BBC has changed the headline on the website story but Kamal has not deleted these tweets on the ‘corpse’ of the EU. Too little, too late, too typical of today’s Brexit BBC I’m afraid.

Kamal Ahmed: Thanks Molly. Headline has been changed. It was not meant to be taken as literal, but as an historic reference that was out of date.

Andrew Adonis: But describing the EU as a ‘corpse’ wasn’t true historically either, Kemal. You shouldn’t take Douglas Carswell as a source of wisdom on the European economy, past or present. This sums up why the BBC has done such a bad job of reporting the EU & Brexit!

Andrew Adonis: I have referred to @Ofcom this disgraceful headline & tweet likening the European Union to a corpse, as a breach of the BBC’s duty of impartiality.

Andrew Adonis: BBC & EU ‘CORPSE.’ Weak Ofcom decline to review BBC calling EU a ‘corpse’ this week, saying BBC complaints process has to be ‘exhausted.’ But when I complained to BBC they did nothing for 24 hrs & didn’t retract. And that was before Farage’s 32nd BBC Question Time was announced!

Kamal Ahmed: It’s been pretty torrid on here since @Andrew_Adonis raised the issue. The headline has been changed and I have deleted the original tweet. Journalism has to be read in context - headline and article. I felt meaning was clear. I hope we can keep the debate civil. 

Oh, yes - as you can see from the last one there - he's not happy with Question Time either and has written to Lord Hall of the BBC to complain about it:

Andrew Adonis: BBC largely created Farage. They continue to promote him because it makes ‘good telly’ & they don’t want him criticising BBC on LBC! Pushing politics to the Hard Right out of fear & cynicism. @bbcquestiontime

Andrew Adonis: UKIP have no seats in Parliament but a permanent seat on Question Time and the Today programme’ @bbcquestiontime @BBCr4today

Andrew Adonis: I haven’t been invited on @bbcquestiontime for 8 years. They don’t have space with the reserved slots for Farage & other Brexiters.

Andrew Adonis: Farage’s 32nd appearance on BBC Question Time next Thursday is final straw in the BBC’s degeneration into a Brexit propaganda station. Time for weak @Ofcom to do its job & uphold impartiality.

Andrew Adonis: #heshoudbeleftinthepubnotputonBBCquestiontimefor32ndtime!
Andrew Adonis: Just written to Lord Hall, DG of BBC, asking if he thinks Mr Farage’s 32nd appearance on BBC Question Time, as ex leader of party on 2% in the polls, is consistent with his duty to uphold impartiality. I’m also seeking retraction of BBC claim this week that the EU is a ‘corpse’.

What's the betting Lord Adonis's 8-year dry spell at Question Time will come to an end very soon?

Oh, and Today got it in the neck too for not asking Theresa Villiers 'the right questions':

Rainy day in Bristol: Brexiter Theresa Villers on @bbc4today talking Northern Ireland. Will they ask her HOW the border issue can be solved? No, course not.

Andrew Adonis: These points are spot on (& thread). There are deep problems of journalistic confidence & bias at @BBCr4today & @BBCNews. They have been captured by Brexit & fear of the Brexiters.

Rainy day in Bristol: Case study this morning, Nick. 1. Theresa Villiers, ex-Northern Ireland Sec and ardent Brexiter was on. 2. She was interviewed at length about the problems of the N. Ire executive and discussed them in detail 3. However at NO POINT was she challenged about the DUP & May

Andrew Adonis: Case study of the deep problems of bias and lack of journalistic confidence at @BBCr4today & @BBCNews. They are terrified of the Brexiters & getting offside with the Govt.

And this very morning, Lord Adonis is facing down the BBC's very own sword-brandishing Perseus, Andrew Neil:

Andrew Neil: German journalist wrong to say at #MSC18 — Munich Security conference — to Mrs May that French people voted against Lisbon treaty then changed minds, calling it ‘prudent’. When treaty downgraded to ‘reform’ there was no 2nd French referendum. Parliament ratified.

Charles Tannock MEP: So are you suggesting if a fresh deal came from the EU27 with an improved offer to the UK as @HansOlafHenkel is campaigning for UK Parliament could stop A50 & override 2016 Referendum & reverse Brexit?

Andrew Neil: Errrr no. Not slightest suggestion of any of that in my tweet, which was pure;y factual. Are you hallucinating? Bit early for the cooking sherry.

Charles Tannock MEP: I'm just making a more general point that continental countries like France, Denmark and Ireland are more pragmatic than UK in their relations with EU and noone threatened mass insurgency unlike Brexiteers when small majority referenda were reversed. But thanks for responding,

Andrew Neil: Perhaps because, in the end, France, Denmark and Ireland did as they were told, after initial revolts.

Andrew Adonis: View from the BBC: freely expressed will of the French, Danish & Irish people & parliaments is ‘doing what they are told [by Brussels], after initial revolts.’ Pure Farageism from ‘impartial’ BBC political interviewer. @Ofcom

Andrew Neil: Change “told” to “politely but firmly asked to think again” if it makes you feel better. What bit of the narrative is factually wrong? Remember all our hopes of a British Macron now rest with you.

Andrew Adonis: You are brilliant commentator Andrew. But this is obviously unacceptable from ‘impartial’ BBC political interviewer. U only get away with it because BBC News now annexed by Brexiters. It’s why people like me are having to get back into politics, to stop you wrecking the country.

Andrew Neil: Idea BBC News ‘annexed’ by Brexiteers is bonkers of a very high order. Very, very high. Stratospheric, in fact. I notice no factual corrections to my tweet. But I’m delighted you’re back in politics (when did you leave?). You are our Macron. Can I be your campaign manager?

Andrew Adonis: It is factually incorrect to say that the  French, Danish & Irish people & parliaments ‘did as they were told, after initial revolts.’ Farageism of a very, very high order. Stratospheric, in fact. As my campaign manager, would you like to retract this?

Andrew Neil: I changed told to firmly asked to think again. Do I have the job?

Andrew Adonis: I couldn’t possibly afford you on your inflated BBC salary! But please carry on highlighting that the BBC is no longer an impartial state broadcaster - so we can resolve this before the now inevitable referendum on Mrs May’s Brexit terms!

Andrew Neil: I'll do it for free. As public service. Purge of BBC Brexiteers can't wait. From DG down ... to Head of News ... total cull at Newsnight ... don't get me started on Today ... or Sky News ... and these pro-Brexit fanatics at Economist, FT and Guardian - and Times! Heads must roll!

Such thinking about the BBC is obviously spreading. A close friend of mine is just as convinced as Lord Adonis that the BBC is a rabid pro-Brexit poodle of the Tories and keeps telling me to 'open my eyes' to the truth of that fact!

Of course, as Andrew Neil says, that is "bonkers of a very high order". 

As for Lord Adonis's various points, the idea that the BBC "largely created Farage" is "bonkers" of an even higher order. The BBC marginalised and belittled UKIP for years. It was Nigel Farage and his party's electoral successes particularly in the Euro elections of 2009 and 2013 that gave UKIP their great leap forward. The BBC had to start giving Mr. Farage a higher profile from that time. For concrete evidence of how wrong Lord Adonis is here, just look at how UKIP were being marginalised back in 2009-10, even after they came second in the 2009 elections. This was my count (at the time) of the airtime given to the various political parties as far as interviews on all the main BBC TV and radio current affairs programmes:  

July 2009

Labour - 60.92%

Conservatives - 24.08%

Lib Dems - 10.82%

SNP - 2.08%

Greens - 0.82%

BNP - 0.76%

UKIP - 0.32%

Plaid Cymru - 0.22%

August 2009

Labour - 6 hours 5 minutes 33 seconds, 52.3%

Conservatives - 2 hours 37 minutes 57 seconds, 22.6%

Liberal Democrats - 1 hour 32 minutes 15 seconds, 13.2%

SNP - 1 hour 7 minutes 6 seconds, 9.6%

Greens - 7 minutes 11 seconds, 1%

Independents - 3 minutes 47 seconds, 0.5%

UKIP - 3 minutes 33 seconds, 0.5%

Plaid Cymru - 2 minutes 42 seconds, 0.3%

September 2009

Labour - 12 hours 25 minutes 26 seconds, 61.51%

Liberal Democrats - 4 hours 5 minutes 10 seconds, 19.98%

Conservatives - 2 hours 52 minutes 1 second, 14.03%

SNP - 19 minutes 35 seconds, 1.58%

UKIP - 10 minutes 52 seconds, 0.86%

Plaid Cymru - 7 minutes 34 seconds, 0.62%

Independent - 5 minutes 16 seconds, 0.43%

Greens - 2 minutes 51 seconds, 0.23%

English Democrats - 2 minutes 47 seconds, 0.23%

UUP - 2 minutes 27 seconds, 0.21%

DUP - 2 minutes 15 seconds, 0.19%

SDLP - 1 minute 56 seconds, 0.13%

October 2009

Conservatives - 10 hours 51 minutes 29 seconds, 43.20%

Labour - 10 hours 42 minutes 41 seconds, 42.61%

Liberal Democrats - 1 hour 45 minutes 39 seconds, 6.99%

SNP - 1 hour 0 minutes 22 seconds, 3.99%

UKIP - 11 minutes 17 seconds, 0.74%

DUP - 9 minutes 2 seconds, 0.60%

BNP - 8 minutes 8 seconds, 0.54%

Sinn Fein - 6 minutes 16 seconds, 0.41%

Greens - 5 minutes 20 seconds, 0.34%

Alliance - 3 minutes 26 seconds, 0.22%

Plaid Cymru - 3 minutes 16 seconds, 0.21%

UUP - 2 minutes 27 seconds, 0.15%

November 2009

Labour - 7 hours 44 minutes 21 seconds (41.1%)

Conservatives - 6 hours 25 minutes 11 seconds (34.1%)

Liberal Democrats - 2 hours 16 minutes 19 seconds (12.0%)

SNP- 1 hour 15 minutes 4 seconds (6.7%)

UKIP - 29 minutes 10 seconds (2.6%)

Greens - 16 minutes 34 seconds (1.5%)

Sinn Fein - 9 minutes 35 seconds (0.9%)

Independents - 8 minutes 1 second (0.7%)

Plaid Cymru - 4 minutes 59 seconds (0.4%)

December 2009

Labour - 56.20% (7h 49m 56s)

Conservatives - 29.01% (4h 2m 40s)

Lib Dems - 11.65% (1h 37m 30s)

SNP - 1.21% (10m 13s)

UKIP - 0.99% (8m 25s)

Independents - 0.65% (5m 40s)

Plaid Cymru - 0.29% (2m 46s)

January 2010

Labour - 54.81% (12h 13m 18s)

Conservatives - 22.81% (5h 5m 13s)

Lib Dems - 12.65% (2h 49m 19s)

SNP - 2.25% (30m 10s)

Sinn Fein - 1.68% (22m 49s)

UKIP - 1.44% (19m 28s)

DUP - 1.22% (16m 34s)

Independents - 0.90% (12m 1s)

Greens - 0.60% (8m 4s)

SDLP - 0.48% (6m 46s)

Alliance - 0.46% (6m 18s)

TUV - 0.46% (6m 18s)

Respect - 0.24% (3m 16s)

The idea that the BBC was responsible for the rise of Nigel Farage is beyond ridiculous. Lord Adonis is simply wrong.

As for the idea that Radio 4's Today is now "just a noticeboard for government and Farage press releases", well, the evidence (stats not anecdotes) say the opposite. Today continues to be heavily tilted in favour of those who aren't pro-Brexit, guest-selection-wise. Lord Adonis is simply wrong. 

And, yes, though Question Time does give Nigel Farage a platform - on average about twice a year (31 appearances from 2000 to now) - the stats also show that the programme's panels remain heavily tilted in favour of those who aren't pro-Brexit. Lord Adonis is wrong again.

On the Theresa Villiers grumble, the interview was about the news that day - serious problems with the NI executive. It wasn't about Brexit. So this amounts to nothing more than Lord Adonis and his Brexit-fixated Twitter friend not getting the discussion they wanted. Not every discussion about Northern Ireland with a pro-Brexit politician has to be about Brexit. It was a short interview too. And if Justin Webb had changed the subject and asked her about Brexit, these same people would then probably have complained that he was giving a pro-Brexit politician a platform to push Brexit! Lord Adonis is simply wrong.

Furthermore, that very edition of Today, when it did discuss Brexit, repeatedly saw its business reporter Dharshini David (at 6:22, 6:28 and 8:50) asking questions about Brexit from a negative standpoint - the IMF's "warnings" about Brexit, how Brexit could be an "obstacle" to tech companies, and the "challenges" Brexit poses for the UK's fashion industry, and the main Brexit focus was on an Ed Balls-commissioned report that found that small and medium-sized businesses want us to stay in the Single Market (two segments on that). Did Lord Adonis miss these bit? Guest-wise, Polly Toynbee and Ed Balls were balanced by John Mills and Charles Moore. 

On Andrew Neil's tweets, well, yes, Andrew Adonis has a point. AN is very opinionated on Twitter and his views aren't disguised. If others shouldn't be he shouldn't be either (much as I enjoy his tweets). But Andrew Adonis only has a very narrow point specifically related to AN. Andrew Neil remains the exception that proves the rule on that front. The rest of the BBC tends very heavily in the other direction. Read almost any of the other opinionated BBC Tweeters and you'll find next to no links to pro-Brexit commentaries but plenty of links to anti-Brexit commentaries. By singling him out and making him 'represent' the BBC, Lord Adonis is completely inverting the truth about biased BBC tweets. Lord Adonis is still wrong. 

On that 'corpse' headline, which the BBC later changed, however, yes, I did raise an eyebrow or two myself when I saw that headline, but Kamal Ahmed's commentary beneath that headline was certainly not pro-Brexit. Even some pro-EU Tweeters pointed out the falsity of Lord Adonis's characterisation of his actual piece. ("I read your article through twice after reading criticisms of it especially by Lord Adonis. It was pretty clear to me what you were saying and that it wasn't insulting to the EU or those of us who wish to remain in it. Sadly some may have only read the headlines."). Lord Adonis was right about that headline but, otherwise, is simply wrong again.

All of this is, of course, will be both unpleasant for and pleasing to the BBC. They won't like Lord Adonis's repeated claims of bias against them, but they will relish being able to play the 'Complaints from both sides' card: He says the BBC is pro-Brexit; They say the BBC is anti-Brexit; Ergo, the BBC must be getting it about right.

However, nearly all of what Lord Adonis said here is complete and utter baloney. What sites like News-watch (for example) say, claiming the opposite of what Lord Adonis is saying, is not complete and utter baloney because it is backed up by evidence (and lots of it). So if one side is wrong and the other side is right, the contention that 'we must be getting it about right because we're being complained about by both sides' doesn't hold water.

The appeal of Chris Evans eludes me

What about those BBC salaries? We should ask Phillip Hammond if he thinks any of the BBC’s brightest stars are overpaid. 

Harriet Harperson wondered “What can they possibly do with all that money? (I wondered that too)

The main take-home point from the ‘market value’ argument is the presumption that all these star performers can simply be bought. 

I can understand, say, Robert Peston being lured away from the BBC by ITV’s offer of ‘his own show’, but the thought of, say, Gary Lineker being so mercenary and dissatisfied with all that dosh, (besides the fee Walker’s must pay him) that he’d ditch the BBC for a higher offer seems truly bizarre. Especially now that he’s so sanctimonious.

Beth Rigby was good on Sky. She was first off the blocks with the topic.

I have to say that the appeal of Chris Evans eludes me and gender equality and diversity wrt the BBC bores me to death.

On Gary Lineker

The Daily Mail's editorial this morning was guaranteed to get many a BBC-paid MOTD presenter snorting into his crisp bag:

Equally anxious to silence debate, the BBC has pixelated film of the migrants, while only belatedly acknowledging the dispute about their ages. 

The Corporation even rallied to Gary Lineker's defence after he branded as 'hideously racist' anyone who questioned the migrant's claims. Nor has he been disciplined for peddling the falsehood that one of the 'children' - who by any yardstick looks to be in his 30s - was an interpreter working for the Home Office.

How can we have a proper debate, or reach informed judgements, when our state broadcaster conspires with the Left to suppress and distort the facts?

The BBC's current head of comedy, the hilarious Chris Sussman, was one of those accused (by the Sun rather than the Mail) of rallying to Gary Lineker's defence:

Of course, compassionate Chris might well be accused of missing the point there. It wasn't his 'compassion' but the "hideously racist" bit that really got people's goats - and his (incorrect) wishful-thinking over the 'interpreter'....a wrong claim that, amusingly, the 'green arrow riggers' in the Daily Mail's comment section swiftly made 'top rated comments' before having their bubble completely burst by lower-rated but genuine commenters.

Of course, our Gary (like Chris Packham) is officially freelance so, apparently, not obliged to be remotely impartial whenever he tweets. Chris Sussman, however, is officially BBC, so what's his excuse?