Goodall news

And so farewell to blog favourite Newsnight's Lewis Goodall, who is departing the BBC in September to join Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis at Global. Mark Urban might be left switching having to switch off the studio lights at this rate. Steerpike at The Spectator pays handsome tribute to the departing Lewis:

Departing from the BBC means that now Goodall is, at last, free to share his political views that have been so well-concealed to date.

The top comment at Guido Fawkes hit the spot too:

I for one will be curious to learn what Lewis's real views are now that he will be no longer having to work under BBC impartiality rules.

Maybe LBC should add another B to their name and become LBBC? 

Getting their own voices back

Dr Philip Cunliffe, Senior Lecturer at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent, is someone I follow on Twitter. Being a man of the Left he naturally reads The New Statesman. He wasn't impressed by one of its latest pieces though:

Philip Cunliffe: Perhaps you thought the Ukraine war was about defending sovereignty and national independence? It's actually about us Rejoining the EU, according to this latest Andrew Marr piece. They will never accept democracy went against them.

Andrew Marr's piece begins like this: 

In the earthquake caused by this war, a grand reshaping around the world, relations between Britain and the EU must again become our biggest near-at-hand argument.

Almost nobody in mainstream British politics wants to talk about this. For Brexiteers any other issue may, in theory, be reopened, from tax promises to Scottish independence; but Brexit is a sacrosanct and holy victory that must remain forever untouched. Pro-European politicians largely agree, although out of fear of English nationalism rather than pride.

Following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, this cannot be allowed to stand. 

A couple of responses to Dr Cunliffe's tweet may strike a chord with you:

Ike Ijeh: Well I never! It's such a good job the BBC is impartial. If it wasn't I would literally have had *no idea* Marr held these views until he left!

Jonny Austin: I know. Its shocking that Fogarty, Mair & now Marr move from the BBC to LBC & their opinions are centre-left anti-Brexit. Almost like we knew.

...to which can be added the names Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel no doubt. 

Coda to Sue's post...

So Mates and Soapless are off to join James O'Brien, presumably leaving The Zurch in the lurch. 

It's worked out nicely for the Beeb because the Defund the BBC campaign has lost its poster girl, but - looking on the bright side - it's worked out nicely for us too because we'll hopefully never have to think of either of them ever again. 🙏

What time is it?

The BBC isn’t the only broadcasting arena that can propel one to the off-switch with that special, panic-propelled urgency.

The word ‘James O’Brien’ triggers such a response; faster than a missile from a catapult. But as he himself puts it, ‘Even a stopped clock is right once, nay, twice a day.”

Now, there’s something very disturbing about James’s mannerisms and tics. He must have chewed the inside of his mouth to ribbons during that conversation, but on this occasion, the clock has stopped at just the right point.

This little example shows that listening to an interviewee and letting the speaker set out and develop his case can benefit the listener, the interviewee and ultimately, the interviewer himself. By not interrupting, not trying to score some sort of Twitter-friendly gotcha, the audience gets to learn something, and the BBC could learn something too.

I doubt that I’ll be an O’Brien convert from now on, but as time ticks on, you never know. That rigid old clock might coincide with events once again.

Moving on

Yesterday I promised to respond to your points here, but this morning things seem to have moved on, what with Donald Trump’s LBC debut 

and that young fellow’s sparky contribution to last night’s QT. 

“Bring on a general election. I hope Boris gets a majority, delivers Brexit and defeats a Marxist Jeremy Corbyn government”, says this #bbcqt audience member. pic.twitter.com/1XQS42KYVC

— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) October 31, 2019

No matter how much we strive to be less of a ‘hate-site’  and more of a platform for legitimate criticism, the BBC gets worse, not better.  Naturally, we feel discouraged by our own impotence.  I can’t speak for Craig here, but recently I have detected a stagnant air about this place.  I found the dwindling number of below-the-line contributors disheartening.

The page-views are still buoyant, but if you’re merely lurking, why not join in? 

Perhaps the comments facility is a deterrent - it’s not at all user-friendly - but people complain about Disqus as well. To those of you who have stuck with us  - your loyalty and thoughtful contributions are much appreciated.

These (we call them introspective) posts come across as ‘fishing for compliments’, which isn’t exactly what I’m fishing for at all. I’m fishing for engagement and debate. To liven things up.

(This is today. I might feel different tomorrow.)

To Arthur T 30 October 2019 at 14:31

Once upon a time, the BBC considered the sincere criticism they found on the Biased-BBC blog worth engaging with and refuting. But when the site was reinvigorated (taken ’downmarket’) some of the petty and factually questionable comments that popped up discredited the whole enterprise and let the BBC off the hook, so to speak. They took the easy option and dismissed the whole thing as ‘hate’. In a way are collateral damage. But we knew that when we started this.

To Unknown 30 October 2019 at 15:39

I thought the idea of ‘handing it over’ was slightly absurdist. I mean, what’s to hand over? It’s a free blog, run on goodwill and gratis. Nothing to stop anyone setting up one of their own. I suppose the domain name could be transferred. D’you think it has commercial value? Any offers? (Only joking)

To Monkey Brains 30 October 2019 at 22:35

All nine of your questions are up for discussion as and when you like. Open debate is exactly what this site is (wishes it was) about. So, how can we encourage it any more than we do already? Genuine question.

Bear in mind that self-publicity is not our strong point. We’re hard-wired against it. This is what Douglas Murray calls a 'hardware' rather than a software issue - it’s genetic, inborn; nature rather than nurture. 

To Terry 31 October 2019 at 11:16

Battle-weary is a good diagnosis. The general election might reignite some passion - but as I’m more of a long-form merchant, the appropriate brevity is hard to master and I don’t know if there’s any future in churning out posts that end up “tl;dr”. (I do try.)

Unreality Check

Oh dear! The nationwide commercial radio station LBC isn't impressed with the BBC's Reality Check for calling it a "London radio station":  

Hey @BBCRealityCheck... @LBC is NOT a ‘LONDON’ radio station! It’s been national - ‘LEADING BRITAIN’S CONVERSATION’ - for nearly 5 years now.

"Good job it isn’t called Fact Check, eh?", tweeted LBC presenter Iain Dale.

What with James Kirkup eviscerating one of its pieces, it's not been the best week for the BBC's Reality Check. 

Maybe the BBC needs to set up a new unit called Reality Check Check to fact-check Reality Check. 

Nothin like a dame

Is the BBC’s bias against Israel a niche subject? I only ask because I do worry that I’m getting boring. Harping on about it morning noon and night; I even bore myself.

It’s only when someone like Margaret Hodge who happens to be a dame (there is nothin’ like a dame) gets up and utters a naughty word that everyone sits up and goes “eh, what?”

What if I self-identify as a dame? I might try that later.

Anyhow, it seems that a combination of Labour’s machinations over creating a bespoke definition of antisemitism, and the incongruity of that effing word from the mouth of an effing dame has caused enough of a stir to startle even the BBC. 

Had Dame Margaret not sworn at the dear leader, this might not have attracted very much media interest because this antisemitism malarkey is becoming boring; everyone’s heard it all before and what about the poor Palestinians.

Following a link from a commenter on Harry’s Place, (yes, that’s niche. For niche people) I listened to an LBC phone-in programme, hosted by James O’Brien.  I’m not very familiar with LBC but I have heard the odd snippet from Iain Dale or Nick Ferrari’s programmes, and of course, we all know James O’Brien from his abbreviated stint on Newsnight.  

I have to ask any James O’Brien aficionados out there, do these broadcasts always start off with a protracted rant? Or was this one extra lengthy and extra ranty because the public couldn’t be arsed to phone in? 

Anyway, our host spent what seemed like eternity expounding on a revolutionary theory he’s thought long and hard about, concerning the antisemitism within the hard left; the Corbyn faction.

I’ll summarise:  these people have fought against racism all their lives and sincerely believe they can’t be antisemitic. Their (antisemitic) remarks (about Jews and Israel) are merely The Truth and Anything Different is Fake News.)

James O’Brien obviously thought this theory was very controversial, and he preempted the anticipated Twitter-storm by reminding us that he was by no means a fan of Israel, despite the outrageous fact that he has been accused (by Corbynista types) of being a Zionist shill.

A caller was chastised for alluding to “things we’re not allowed to say” and another, who momentarily referred to media bias was severely reprimanded for straying from the core topic (James O’Brien). Throughout, the Thing we’re Not Allowed to mention was not mentioned.

I have to say that this problem might never have grown so huge, nor become so entrenched, had the media not spent the last fifty years regurgitating Palestinian propaganda. 

Anyway, I’ve seen Luciana Berger and Dame Margaret Hodge on the BBC and Sky, so it seems the F-word is still effective, provided it’s uttered by someone other than Frankie Boyle and the like.

Why LBC is unsettling the BBC

Former head of BBC Television News Roger Mosey is becoming required reading at The New Statesman. His latest piece explains why the "startling growth" of LBC, along with "the punchiness of its editorial proposition", is "unsettling" the BBC. He adds that "many of the most memorable moments of political radio in recent years have not happened in their customary home of the Radio 4 news programmes" but on LBC. Here's an extract:

The BBC is uneasy about what is happening at LBC. “Surprised” is one of the milder adjectives used by an executive when asked to assess how LBC can broadcast a regular show by an elected politician like [Nigel] Farage within the Ofcom impartiality framework. If you happened to tune in only at a particular time each day, you would hardly be getting a balanced picture – and LBC has exploited to its full the idea of “due impartiality”, which allows broadcasters to aim for impartiality across the totality of their output rather than within a single edition of a programme.

Among the ranks of BBC producers, there are those who find this idea more attractive than the robotic balance of “this person says yes, this person says no” that can be the corporation’s default. That’s particularly the case on 5 Live, where the figures are heading downwards. Twenty years ago, 5 Live was a reinvention of speech radio; but its audience is being nibbled away by dedicated sport and news stations – and some of its editorial rationale is lost in an age of social media. Staff there express admiration for LBC’s interaction with its audience and the strength of its personality and they muse about whether they might be able to follow suit by having, for instance, consecutive shows that represent different points of view. 

It’s one possible response to the challenge I noted here last month about some BBC presenters displaying their political colours on social media – so why not on air too?

Perhaps the appeal of LBC over Radio 4 is ever easier to explain though. As Harriet Sergeant commented in response to Roger Mosey's piece, "Political correctness makes for boring radio. That's why we’re shifting the dial from BBC Radio 4 to LBC"

On which point, Rod Liddle at The Spectator has another fine piece headlined There are too many women on Radio 4 and they’re always moaning. In it he lists the type of people the social engineers at the BBC, especially BBC Radio 4, don't create quotas for to ensure proper representation:

• People who want the UK to leave the European Union — 52 per cent (Source: that referendum we had in 2016).
• People who think Islam is not compatible with the British way of life — 56 per cent (ComRes poll, 2016).
• People who disagree with the ‘right’ of gay people to adopt children — 52 per cent (British Social Attitudes Survey 2013).
• People who think immigration levels to this country are too high — 63 per cent (YouGov poll, 2018).
• People who think immigration in general has had a negative impact in the UK — 71 per cent (Sky poll for the think tank Demos, 2018).
• Europeans who want to stop all immigration from Muslim majority countries — 55 per cent (Chatham House, 2017).
• People who believe Britain is a Christian country — 55 per cent (YouGov poll, 2014).
• People who think, rightly, that there are just two genders, male and female — 56 per cent (Fawcett Society, 2016).
• People who do not identify as ‘feminist’ — 93 per cent (Fawcett Society, 2016).

Rod continues:

Now, tell me if you think those views are proportionately represented on the BBC, and especially Radio 4? Do you think they are given equal airtime to the less popular liberal standpoints which nonetheless the BBC supports? If so, you have been listening to a very different Auntie to me over the past ten years. In almost every case quoted above, people who express those sorts of views are considered by the BBC to be antediluvian and quite beyond the pale, and the usual discussion to be had is: what can we do to make these morons change their minds? Those views quoted above are simply wrong, so far as the BBC is concerned, and there’s an end to it, even when those views are in a clear majority.

More from Martin...

There's a video of Martin's 'rant' here:

Mazel Tov to Jeremy Corbyn

I can’t get LBC. Well, I could, but I never bother to tune in. You wouldn’t hear this on the BBC, but if you want to hear  9 entertaining minutes of pure joy click here. (And, “you know what?” for once I even don’t mind those.)

“I have to say to Jeremy Corbyn, absolute Mazel Tov to Jeremy Corbyn - he’s done an amazing job. You lied your backside off beyond belief.

“You promised sweets for everybody, you promised sweets for the doctors, you promised sweets for the policemen, you promised sweets for the railway workers, you promised sweets for the nurses - you promised sweets for the whole world.”

He went on: “I knew it was all spin, they even stuck a rose on Jeremy Corbyn’s lapel in the past few days to make it look like New Labour.

“They kept Momentum quiet, which is a militant organisation, I always voted for New Labour, I always voted for Tony Blair, I couldn’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. 

“I knew it was spin - but what did Theresa May do? I tell you what she done, she said to the electorate: ‘I’ve got such a lead, I can say what I want and I can do what I want’. 

“And what did she do? The silly woman went after the old age pensioners for no reason whatsoever… she didn’t need to put that in their manifesto.”

Martin continued: “That lady treated the entire working class of this nation with utter contempt. 

“She thought we’d like Jeremy Corbyn so much that she would sweep to power and she’s made the biggest political error in my lifetime.”

A Modest Proposal

Via Twitter, I've been watching (yes watching) quite a few snatches of LBC. It's a fascinating channel, with presenters ranging from Nigel Farage and Iain Dale on the Right to Maajid Nawaz and James O'Brien on the Left (though no Katie Hopkins any more of course). You know their views, and they aren't afraid to express them, but they also like engaging with listeners who disagree with them. It's open and healthy and democratic, and it feels like breath of fresh air in comparison to, say, BBC Radio 4 or Radio 5 Live.

Because of the range of views at LBC, and the undisguised nature of those views by the LBC presenters themselves, you don't find yourself repeatedly caught in the claustrophobic atmosphere of so many BBC talk shows where 'impartial' BBC presenters try to pretend that they have no views and yet can't stop them leaking out - a BBC problem made so much worse by the fact that, unlike LBC's presenters, most of the BBC's presenters seem to inhabit a narrow part of the political spectrum and to share a similar outlook on so many things.

Just imagine how much more interesting Radio 4's Woman's Hour would be, for example, if it (flexibly) alternated, presenter-wise, between days when Dame Jenni Murray, Jane Garvey and Emma Barnett were presenting and days when women with a very different point of view, say Kathy Gyngell, Laura Perrins and Jane Kelly of The Conservative Woman, were presenting. How much less stifling and agenda-driven it would feel if that kind of thing happened, and how much more interesting it would surely be. 

While we're waiting for that to happen (yeah, as if!), here's a bit of recent LBC broadcasting (h/t Biased BBC):

And for more on Maajid's theme and a very clear example of the BBC's stifling uniformity of view, just try yesterday's Sunday on Radio 4. 

By-and-large it consisted of lots and lots of talk of love and hope and interfaith harmony, and 'It's Nothing To Do With Islam', and the 'backlash', the 'backlash', the 'backlash', and everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, and (with one exception) the presenter (Martin Bashir) leading this congregation of like-minded people. It proved so unrelenting that I couldn't bring myself to re-listen to it in order to write about it yesterday.

And it was entirely typical, therefore, of Sunday to deal with the issue of Didsbury Mosque by talking to an outreach worker there, taking his every word on trust and sympathising with him about the 'backlash' the mosque has (allegedly) been facing - in other words, by taking the mosque's side. (Listen for yourselves). 

“Got a little list?”

“Got a little list?”

or Newsnight heads towards self-inflicted no-platforming.

I’ve been feeling duty bound to watch Newsnight recently, as if watching it will somehow immunise me against its worst effects. Keeping guard, if you like. And for that reason, I saw last night’s episode, aspects of which Craig has addressed below.

Just in case any of our readers didn’t follow the links or click on all the clicks, I’m going to expand on it.

If you didn’t watch this interview, it’s here. 

After having been subjected to Tariq Ramadan’s monologue, too.

O’Brien has a habit of asking people for ‘lists’ to substantiate their allegations; in this case he wants a list of examples of journalists vilifying Trump or the Trump administration, otherwise he’s not going to accept the validity of the allegation. This is one of his favourite tactics. O’Brien himself is always armed with lists, hoping he can disarm his adversary who may not have come prepared. 

As for O’Brien’s quest for a ‘list’ of the journalistic vilifications he is questioning the existence of, surely he could have looked no further than half an hour earlier, within his own programme, at John Sweeney’s clip of Anneke Green, former speechwriter for George W Bush.

“I do think that there is not the same rigour going on right now in newsrooms, er, the number of rubbish stories that we’re seeing, with reporters just rushing to publish with thinly sourced or anonymously sourced stories, is not doing any favours to the impression that they’re out to get Donald Trump.”

Okay, it’s not a list, but it’s a widely held perception - almost too broad for the kind of list O’Brien is demanding - an especially disingenuous demand if his intention is merely to knock down each example one by one.

You could tell he was getting rattled when he very rudely addressed his guest as ‘Madam’. 

Newsnight is becoming so appallingly biased that people who watch it are spectators rather than viewers. It’s an arena - a spectacle that’s so bad it’s good. 

James O’Brien is utterly obnoxious. I could even provide a list of people who say so. There’s even one of those tiresome Change petitions to get rid of him, (from LBC I think, rather than Newsnight) but I say, No! Let him stay. Give him enough rope. 

Have you ever seen anyone else with a fat forehead?  Here’s an example of O’Brien’s obnoxious behaviour, which illustrates his substandard debating ability as well as his massive bias.

“I see this isn’t in the script you’ve prepared,”  says O”Brien to ‘Sammy’ .  Just one of the nastier remarks he makes. Projection, rudeness, misguided sense of superiority, rolled into one.

When O’Brien asserted that Donald Trump’s business interests were behind the exclusion of certain countries from the travel ban, “Sammy” should have demanded a list of Trump’s business interests. I wonder if O’Brien had armed himself with such a list? He probably felt confident that he could get away with making the allegation without one.

See how O’Brien resorts to personal insult when he’s stumped. See how he uses the tired old “How many people have been killed” mantra, as if “Not enough” Islamist acts of terrorism have succeeded  in order to justify preventing more.

I say, keep O’Brien, not because sacking him would be a form of no-platforming, which is an alarming trend, but just so we can see Newsnight deteriorating in plain sight and by its own volition.

 Self-inflicted no-platforming is the best kind.

Rod, Nigel, Romanians and Germans. And James O'Brien.

...and finally...

to end UKIP Night here at Is the BBC biased? we turn away from the BBC and towards James O'Brien at LBC...

Mr O'Brien was, as you may recall, aghast at Nigel Farage for comparing the neighbourliness of Romanian immigrants with Germans immigrants (like Mr Farage's wife), to the considerable disadvantage of  the Romanians - and aghast despite the fact that Mr O'Brien had aggressively goaded Nigel Farage into making such a comparison.

Rod Liddle has James O'Brien's number though. Unlike the BBC's Nick Robinson, he's prepared to tell the truth here: FOI requests reveal that Nigel Farage is correct and that James O'Brien is wrong. 

There are some 45,000 Germans living in London (as per the 2011 census) as compared to some 42,000 Romanians - not too big a difference in numbers.

However, when it comes to deciding who would make the best neighbours the stats are very clear: Romanian immigrants are VASTLY more likely to have been arrested for crimes than German immigrants. VASTLY so, according to the Met Police's figures. They even "out-crim" the Jamaicans and the Somalians. 

But aren't those Romanians really Roma (i.e. Gypsies)? 

Rod Liddle's take on this is:

Sadly, the Met Police did not distinguish between ethnic Romanians and ethnic Roma; if they were born in Romania, that’s good enough for the Old Bill. So it would be unwise to speculate any further, wouldn’t it?

Wouldn't it indeed!

And as for much of the media, Rod is surely correct to conclude:

Still, I suspect that this explanation, the presentation of the facts, is superfluous. For the likes of James O’Brien, it’s still raaaacissst, and for the rest of us, we could have guessed as much anyway.

Indeed it is and indeed we could.

Don't forget to vote tomorrow.