“The utter junk that is GB News”

I'm not sensing much love in the responses here:

Colin Brazier, GB News: Today: a 'helicopter day'; when Sky & BBC put up the chopper to follow cavalcades and lend announcements at No10 a lofty dignity. But aerial shots don't reflect what broadcasters often neglect on the ground. The millions who feel a debt of loyalty for the Brexit Boris gave them.

Adam Boulton, ex-Sky: That's because we report the news rather than spout partisan fake news.

Rob Burley, ex-BBC, now LBC: Good on Adam calling out the utter junk that is GB News.

Two out, one back in

Another of our old BBC favourites, retired BBC veteran Hugh Sykes, took to Twitter the other day in light of the BBC's Ukraine coverage to take a potshot at Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis:

Hugh Sykes: I bet the recent Big Name defections from the BBC are regretting their decision to go dosh-and-podcast - they are nowhere near the front line now: out of sight, out of mind.

David M. Beneš: Oh they’ll soon be back, like KK.

Hugh Sykes: No one is indispensable.

I was also thinking about Maits and Soapless today in light of all the chat hereabouts about how The New York Times has just conceded that The New York Post got it right in 2020 when reporting the Hunter 'Son of Joe' Biden laptop story - a possible major scandal with strong implications for the ethical standing of the present US president, especially in light of the Ukraine crisis. 

This was, notoriously, something that landed The New York Post - a famous US newspaper - with a two-week Twitter ban for its now-shown-to-be-accurate journalism in the run-up to the 2020 US election. 

It's the sort of thing the BBC's disinformation unit and Ros's Radio 4 Media Show should look into and John Simpson should object to. 

Where Jon and Emily come into this is that they did an Americast podcast for the BBC at the time [which Arthur T got me to listen to] where they 'covered' the story. 

'Covered', in inverted commas, is the word. They 'covered' it, but Emily Maitlis in particular - then in her pomp at the BBC - was openly derisive about the story, sarcastically mocking the fact that they were covering it at all. Her and Sopes and The Zurch used every trick of language in the book to show how little they thought of the story. It was all a distraction by The Donald apparently.

On listening back today the word 'covered' took on other connotations: Unconsciously or consciously, they were 'covering' for Joe Biden as he fought for office with President Trump, blowing the same bubbles that their US counterparts were blowing from their echo chamber to help make this story blow away.

Anyhow, they're now LBC's business. Rob Burley, bless him, will probably end up having to defend them on Twitter. For his sake only, I hope they're not a walking disaster for LBC's ratings.

Meanwhile, as David M. Beneš tweeted above, KK - Katty Kay - is back at the BBC. 

She was formerly the face of the BBC in America but left last year to join a left-wing US media outlet that closed shortly afterwards following fraud allegations. 

The BBC has kindly taken her back on as a 'US special correspondent'. 

Kindly for her, though not necessarily for BBC licence fee payers.  

She's now back on the Beeb defending the Biden administration as if she'd never left and back doing the BBC's claim of impartiality harm again.

Despite Hugh, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel's departure was a blessing for the BBC in impartiality terms. Rescuing Katty Kay - the kind of partisan BBC journalist who also moans about the influence of 'the Jewish lobby' - isn't a good idea for the publicly-paid corporation in that respect.

'The BBC should correct this, it’s totally misleading and confusing and wrong'

Talking of Andrew Marr, his old editor at BBC One's The Andrew Marr Show is now his new editor on his LBC show. 

Yes, our old friend Rob Burley has landed at LBC too. 

Here's Rob, also getting his own voice back, agreeing with The Observer's Sonia Sodha that a BBC News website report about a horrific crime left something to be desired:

Sonia Sodha: When the imperative to respect a male serial killer’s preferred pronouns supersedes the journalistic duty to help readers understand a story about a terrible form of male violence against women.

Rob Burley: Quite agree. The BBC should correct this, it’s totally misleading and confusing and wrong.

The issue with the BBC report in question can be summed up by a couple of earlier tweets I read objecting to the same BBC report: 

Paul Embery: A man who killed a woman, attacked a second woman, is now accused of murdering a third woman, has admitted that he has “problems” with women, now identifies as a woman. So the media refer to him as ‘she’ and all crucial context is removed from the story.

Austin Williams: Last line: "She has also been charged with tampering with evidence". When you read this article, you realise that the BBC has also tampered with the evidence. Exhibit A: She, who recently identified as a woman, admitted to having "problems" with women.

 The report began: 

Pensioner arrested after dismembered body found in New York

A pensioner has been arrested on suspicion of killing and dismembering a 68-year-old woman she met online.

An adult female torso was found in a bag inside a shopping trolley near 83-year-old Harvey Marcelin's apartment in Brooklyn, New York. 

She has now been charged with second degree murder and concealment of a human corpse. 

Marcelin had previously spent more than 50 years in prison for killing two girlfriends.

In its original version the article described the arrested 'pensioner' as  'she' [3 times], 'her' and 'woman'.

The article was later amended to add a further sentence at the very end, with a further [4th] use of 'She':

She now identifies as a transgender woman.

After two days of criticism and anger, the article was edited again. That new information was moved a few paragraphs up...:

In 1963, a jury found Marcelin - who recently identified as a woman - guilty of murdering Jacqueline Bonds. After being paroled in 1984, Marcelin was arrested again for stabbing another girlfriend.

...with 'She has also been charged with tampering with evidence', returning to being the final paragraph.

This was about the time Rob tweeted his disapproval.

Regardless, the BBC is pretty much sticking to its guns. It seems you can take the BBC out of Stonewall but can't so easily take Stonewall out of the BBC.

"This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over"

Shippers & Co. at The Sunday Times tell us that Boris is trying to "save his tottering premiership" through "a series of populist announcements", including:

•Freeze the BBC licence fee for two years to help the cost of living.

And this morning Nadine Dorries has indeed announced a two-year freeze on the licence fee that the Mail on Sunday says, "with anticipated inflation rises, means the BBC will need to find savings of circa £2billion". And the Culture Secretary has  just tweeted:

This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over. Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.

Blog favourite Rob Burley, ex of the BBC, probably sums up the BBC supporter's view today:

• Part of “operation red meat” - distract from partygate by effectively cutting BBC funding again. This will mean services will have to be cut, staff in news and elsewhere will be lost, more mistakes will be made. Short-sighted doesn’t cover it.
• Also in the Times today, I post to pre-empt the defunders who will pointlessly clog up my timeline. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean the public don’t support the BBC.

And in response to Nadine's tweet, Rob simply wrote:

• Oh great.

Things are moving. Pro-BBC Twitter is already up in arms.

“Jools Holland and his awful Hootenanny”

Rob Burley, swashbuckling former editor of BBC live political programmes, looks to be enjoying his Twitter freedom. Here he was first thing today - as the fireworks were dying away and the dogs tentatively emerging from under their owners: 

Consider it a success that I didn’t watch any of Jools Holland and his awful Hootenanny. It’s all that boogie woogie piano Jools goes in for that I can’t abide. Never get a sense he’s into anyone else’s music as much as that boogie woogie he tries to adorn everything with.

 My sentiments exactly. 

“Let's get more analysis of that verdict now”...

               

The BBC certainly knows how to put its foot in it.

Within minutes of news breaking of Ghislaine Maxwell being found guilty on five charges, the BBC News Channel interviewed Professor Alan Dershowitz.

This has provoked a backlash against the BBC, both here and abroad. 

To summarise the case against the BBC: 

Despite being personally involved in the case himself and previously being involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Professor Dershowitz was merely introduced as a “constitutional lawyer”, and someone who had been brought on to give “more analysis”. Moreover, his BBC interviewer, Ben Boulos, failed to challenge him in any way when he used the platform granted to him by the BBC to try to discredit Virginia Giuffre, the woman accusing both him and Prince Andrew.

Here's a flavour of the reaction: 

Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC: Sorry, what?! BBC News now have Alan Dershowitz on to analyse Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction, without any reference to his background;he’s simply introduced as “constitutional lawyer” as if he’s a neutral expert. Shocked. Utterly bizarre decision & does the audience a disservice. 

Sarah Churchwell, writer: So BBC News has decided that the expert witness they need on the Maxwell trial is Alan Dershowitz. Who has taken the opportunity to say that it shows how accusations against him and Prince Andrew are wrong. I’d really like to understand how BBC News treats as an expert witness someone who literally admits without being asked that he is among the people implicated in the case. “The question is when will Giuffre be charged rather than her charging people like Prince Andrew and me.” I am not a lawyer, so I can’t comment on the legality. But journalistically, he should not have been presented as an impartial expert witness only to say the verdict vindicates him, personally. People have taken this thread as an opp to bash the BBC, so let me be clear I’m a fan and a beneficiary of brilliant people at BBC News. But this- Dershowitz as “constitutional lawyer” without explaining his screaming conflicts of interest - is not ok.

Rob Burley, ex-BBC: I don’t work there, but suspect bids being thrown out for relevant guests with little time to consider the implications. Very bad choice of first guest. In mitigation, probably small number of staff and possibly not enough editorial leadership. The cuts have gutted the newsroom.

When someone wondered what Jess Brammar, head of the BBC's news channels, Rob stuck up for her, saying, “I’d blame the Government for cuts to the licence fee for years if worried about this, not an individual and blameless (in Jess’ case) manager.”

And here are some headlines about it:

Rolling Stone: Alan Dershowitz, Accused of Involvement in Epstein Sex Ring, Analyzes Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty Verdict. BBC inexplicably brought on the Harvard professor, who has been accused of (and denied) sexually assaulting Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.

The Times: Ghislaine Maxwell verdict: BBC criticised for interviewing lawyer implicated in Ghislaine Maxwell case.

Newsweek: Alan Dershowitz Interview on Ghislaine Maxwell Leaves Viewers Outraged: 'Inexcusable'. The BBC is facing criticism for hosting constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz.

If anyone needs it, here's a transcript:

Ben Boulos, BBC: Let's get more analysis of that verdict now. We can now speak to constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who joins us now. This was a much-watched trial and after a long set of deliberations, spanning Christmas with a break, suddenly the jury reached a verdict.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think the most important thing, particularly for British viewers, is that the government was very careful who it used as witnesses. It did not use as a witness the woman who accused, for example, Prince Andrew, accused me, accused many other people, because the government didn't believe she was telling the truth. In fact, she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse. And so this case does nothing at all to strengthen in any way the case against Prince Andrew; indeed it weakens the case of Prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective in who it used. It used only witnesses who they believed were credible, credible, and they deliberately didn't use the main witness, the woman who started the whole investigation, Virginia Giuffre, because, ultimately, they didn't believe she was telling the truth. They didn't believe that a jury would believe her. And they were right in doing so. So it was very smart on the part of the government.

Ben Boulos, BBC: And yet, the version, the image, that was portrayed of Ghislaine Maxwell as a sophisticated predator is the one that the jury have agreed with.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, the jury agreed that she helped Jeffrey Epstein and his activities, and the question is then whether or not she will be sentenced as if she were Jeffrey Epstein or sentenced as if she were simply somebody who facilitated and helped. And the other question is who else will be charged? Because the testimony introduced evidence that other people where guilty and involved. Again, Virginia Giuffre. She was alleged by the same women who the jury believed to have brought them to Jeffrey Epstein knowing that they were under age, of getting undressed, having sex with Jeffrey Epstein in front of them when they were under age in order to encourage them also to have sex with Epstein. So I think the next question is when will Virginia Giuffre be indicted and charged rather than her accusing people like Prince Andrew and myself and Ehud Barak and George Mitchell and dozens of other people who she has accused. So the next question is who else will be charged for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's misconduct?

Ben Boulos, BBC: Just returning to the issue of the guilty verdicts again Ghislaine Maxwell, as a lawyer where you expect the sentencing to fall on the spectrum of prison terms that are available to the judge?

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think she will get a substantial prison term because she was convicted on five counts, and the guidelines provide for fairly high sentencing. So it will certainly be in the double figures. It won't be five years or six years or seven years. It will more likely be in the teens. She will get credit, of course, for the time she has already served. I don't think she is going to get 30 or 40 years - that would be utterly inconsistent with what prior sentences have been in comparable cases - but I think she probably can expect a significant sentence. She will also appeal, obviously. She will not get bail pending appeal, but she will appeal, and within, say, eight months or so, three judges will decide whether the trial was fair. The fact that the jury stayed out so long and did distinguish counts - five yes, one no - will make it a little bit more appealing for her to successfully appeal. But there will be an appeal.

Ben Boulos, BBC: OK, we will leave it there, but thank you very much indeed for speaking to us.

On a lighter note, Ben Boulos kept calling 'Ghislaine Maxwell'  “Glenn Maxwell” through his stint as presenter. At least he didn't have to try saying “Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC”. 

UPDATE [11.30am] - Given that many of the people complaining are precisely the kind of people the BBC takes notice of, this was inevitable:

An insider-out's view. Rob Burley speaks

Today was the final Andrew Marr show on BBC One and Andy Marr's most famous editor, Rob Burley, having also just left the BBC [against his will], took to Twitter again. It's another interesting, departing insider's take:

1) Lots of people have asked me this [''so many journalists and back room staff have left the BBC this year, what’s the reason Rob? Is it something us BBC viewers and listeners should be concerned about?'']. So here goes: lots of great people are leaving the BBC because of big cuts which are landing on BBC News. The essential reason for this is the loss of funding that’s come with freezes to the licence fee and extra costs loaded on the BBC. 

2) The current cuts have also come as a consequence of a reorganisation of BBC News which establishes a new way of running things. There’s a hope that this will improve output - it won’t - but it’s really driven by cost-cutting which has to be done. 

3) The consequences of all these cuts and changes have already impacted the programmes you see on air but with the Govt talking about a further freeze it will only get worse. It’s also been very bad for staff apart from a class of super-managers who have become v powerful. 

4) For staff it means no career progression, more responsibility for things that can go wrong without any more money and massive centralisation. This is all driven by cuts. While at the BBC I never expressed public concerns about this but now can: it’s a very worrying situation. 

5) Worst thing is the end of the distinction between the news and programmes teams. Disastrous and dangerous especially in political programmes, but when you just have to save millions you cross your fingers and risk destroying the very thing that makes the BBC special.

Oh dear. Trouble at t'mill. 

I'm especially interested by Rob's objection to the ''class of super-managers who have become v powerful''. 

I'm especially interested by Rob's objection to the ''class of super-managers who have become v powerful''. 

And Rob's on a roll. Someone on Twitter has now asked, ''Who chose to weight the cuts in the news department rather than any other department?'', to which Rob replied:

Excellent question. It’s not to say cuts have not fallen elsewhere but you’d think the BBC’s core function would be News and that it would be prioritised. The opposite is true. Shameful really.

'Super scared' at the BBC

 

Ben James-Naughtie-Slip-Risk

You may remember Ben Hunte as the BBC's first LGBT Correspondent. 

That was back in the good old days when they were just four letters in that alphabet. It's hard to keep track of how many there are now. Even Justin Trudeau of Canada can't keep up. ''LGDP...LGT...LGB...[and after prompting from an aide]...LGBTQ2+'', Justin stumbled.

Ben Hunte was the one who pledged himself to be a 'mouthpiece for some marginalised groups' and incurred the wrath of a departing John Humphrys for being far too much of an activist to work at the BBC. To which Ben [still working for the BBC] quickly snapped back that JH was 'showing his privilege'. Thus rather proving John's point. 

Many regarded BBC Ben as a 'mouthpiece' for extreme 'woke' groups like Stonewall [who have recently transitioned into absolutist trans activists], and a BBC report of Ben's on the transgender theme landed the BBC in such trouble that complaint after complaint and correction after correction followed as the BBC tried to clean up after him, and he eventually got shunted off to report for the BBC in West Africa. 

Finally enough was evidently enough - for one side or the other - and he left the BBC for Vice and immediately landed Vice in huge controversy for a piece attacking a Conservative MP that many said was full of holes - or, more charitably, a 'shoddy...hatchet job'. 

Well, the aforementioned Ben Hunte has another 'scoop' today [i.e. he's been chatting to some of his 'woke' activist BBC chums]: 

Exclusive: The BBC is expected to quit Stonewall’s LGBTQ diversity programme. LGBTQ staff at the BBC told me they are “super scared” by the implications of the decision, and they hope managers will change their minds… 

Now, if true, this is interesting. Is this a sign that you can be too 'woke' even for the BBC? 

Update: Ah, and now 'soon leaving BBC, ex-Editor BBC Political Programmes' and blog favourite Rob Burley is chipping in, saying: “Without getting into the rights and wrongs of BBC being part of Stonewall Diversity Programme, the suggestion that LGBTQ BBC staff are “super-scared” of leaving seems to infantilise LGBTQ staff at the BBC. Some will agree and some disagree, but are they “super-scared” really?”

Further Update: Douglas Murray isn't overly impressed either, tweeting 'Oh no! The BBC is quitting Stonewall’s gay extortion racket. What exactly do your “super scared” sources think will happen to gay BBC employees now,  Ben Hunte? Firings? Firing squads? Or sweet FA? What a racket. And what a hack.

"Should Jews count as an ethnic minority?"

 

To recap: 

This week BBC Two's Politics Live discussed Angela Rayner's remarks about the new Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar being the "first-ever ethnic minority leader of a political party anywhere in the UK", even though that honour belongs to Benjamin Disraeli, with three other Jewish UK party leaders to follow. 

The issue was discussed by Jewish host Jo Coburn, four new-Jewish studio guests and, via video link, an increasing appalled Benjamin Cohen of Pink News. 

The programme provoked outrage by running a banner across the screen asking "Should Jews count as an ethnic minority?", and Jo herself added to the outrage by suggesting "Many Jews have succeed in reaching high political office and therefore don't need to be seen as a group needing recognition". 

You would think the answer to the 'big question' is obvious: Jews account for a mere 0.3% of the UK population and around 0.2% of the world population and have suffered a surge in antisemitism in recent years, having previously faced an industrial-scale attempt to exterminate them in their entirety as a race within living memory. 

But voices on the left and many identity politics practitioners, as summed up by Jo's point, increasing see Jews as a group with power - an old and deadly antisemitic trope - and some even see them as white and, therefore, not an ethnic minority needing protection.

The imbalance of the panel was another thing that provoked outrage. People asked: Would LGBT issues or BLM issues be discussed with one LGB or T person or one black person on the panel against 4 non-LGBT and 4 non-black people? 

Matters got worse when Rob Burley, the BBC's editor of live political programmes, sent out a ham-fisted, insensitive, three-tweet defence of the programme in Twitter: “According to the Government — not Politics Live! — Jews aren’t an ethnic group in the UK,” he wrote, misunderstanding government statistics and failing to grasp that there are good, historical reasons why Jews haven't been included in that list or spotting on the very page he linked to that the Government is considering adding them to the census this year.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews put out a statement in response:

We were disappointed by the lack of sensitivity shown by the BBC as regards this discussion. Jews, regardless of whether they are at all religious or not, are subject to antisemitism every day - and have been subjected to mass murder, in living memory, on the basis of their ethnicity. Our community should expect solidarity and support, not questions about whether we deserve any.

There are a lot of good article about this, and I'd recommend the following to begin with:

New Statesman: Debating whether Jews are an ethnic minority is a familiar mistake by BBC Politics Live. The programme’s handling of issues of race and diversity, as well as matters of simple fact, is consistently poor, writes Stephen Bush.

Spiked: Anti-Semitism has been mainstreamed. That’s why the BBC ended up running a debate about whether Jews count as an ethnic minority. Apparently, the relative success of *some* Jews makes this a valid question. How depressing, writes Rakib Ehsan.

Jewish Chronicle: The BBC's defence of Politics Live is almost worse than the show. Rob Burley, editor of Politics Live, has effectively told Jews he knows better than us who we are, writes Stephen Pollard.

Melanie Phillips: Are Jews an ethnic minority? Is the BBC a broadcaster? Another antisemitism row illuminates once again public ignorance about the Jewish people, writes Melanie Phillips.

"There we have it. An Englishman speaking to a Scot. Thank you and goodbye"

 

The first Andrew Marr Show of the year included an interview with Boris Johnson. 

I'm about to watch the programme, not having started it yet, but I'm already intrigued by this tweet from Alastair Stewart:

Wonder what that was all about? 

Update: I'm getting more intrigued. Ex-Sky world affairs editor Tim Marshall is saying "Marr’s pay off line was odd - ‘An Englishman talking to a Scotsman’.  He seemed a little annoyed."

Further Update: Indeed he did. Here it is in context:

Boris Johnson: You should break out of your characteristic gloom, if I may say so Andrew. Things are very tough. We are going through a very tough period as a country, but I really think people should focus on the amazing fact this country has created a room temperature vaccine which can be used around the world and we now have freedoms that we haven't had for 50 years and there are lots of reasons to be very positive about this otherwise grim new year. 

Andrew Marr: An Englishman talking to a Scot. Boris Johnson, thank you for coming in.

P.S. There were fewer interruptions this time, compared to the famous 1 December 2019 interruptathon which saw Andrew interrupt Boris 91 times. Today there were only 52 interruptions. 

Rob liked it:

Rob Burley: According to Twitter Andrew Marr interrupted the PM too much. Also too little. In reality, I thought it was a suitably tough, polite and fair interview.

P.P.S.  All these interruptions must cause BBC programme editors a few headaches. The World This Weekend played a 30-second clip of Boris Johnson saying something important but along with Boris's words came all those distracting noises from Andrew Marr. We got 'OK', 'So', OK, what might...what might tougher be? What might tougher be?', 'Sure' and 'A...' - and that was one of his quieter passages.

Still hanging on in there

Many have taken the decision to drop Andrew Neil's 7pm Wednesday programme, following the previous dropping of This Week, as yet another nail in the BBC's coffin, and a lot of people assume it's because the BBC wants rid of him because he sticks out like a sore thumb there. But Rob Burley (editor of live political programmes) has kept insisting throughout that that's not the case - and, to do him justice, Rob does seem to be trying his best to keep the BBC's finest interviewer at the BBC. It would be very bad for the BBC if they 'lost' Andrew Neil, intentionally or otherwise:

Andrew Gregory: Andrew Neil, excuse me if I've missed a statement, but is your programme on BBC2 on Wednesdays coming back? My 92 year old father and I looked forward to your probing, insightful interviewing, a shining beacon in the confused, chaotic and downright biased reporting of elsewhere. 

Andrew Neil: No. It’s not coming back. The BBC said it could come back if I accepted a new, late afternoon time in the BBC2 schedule. But BBC2 bosses did not want it back at 7pm. I declined the new time so the show was cancelled. Sorry. Thanks for your interest. Best to you and father.

Liz: Bad show Rob Burley. Thumbs down 👎.

Rob Burley: Hi Liz - I don't think (quite understandably) you know how these decisions are come to if you want to blame me for it. As we have said, we want a new show for Andrew sorted ASAP!

Andrew Neil: If there’s blame to go round, Liz, none of it should be laid at Rob’s door.

Update 2:30 pm:  

Andrew Neil: BBC2 never wanted the show at 7pm in the first place. The then DG insisted. Now he’s gone it was no surprise to me BBC2 made a land grab to get it back.

Mixed Bag

At least in my head, I like to think of this site as being something of a 'blog of record' as far as certain BBC-related matters go, so having missed most of the last two weeks I'm feeling the need to fill a few gaps.

Your comments are proving very helpful in helping to plug them, so thank you.

******* I *******

First, there's that anonymous 'whistleblowing' Guardian piece by a BBC insider.

I saw mixed reviews for it here on the Open Thread.

It took me a while to figure out exactly where the piece was 'coming from', but the fact that the writer twice uses the word "reactionary" - once about Danny Lockwood, the other time (literally) about 'people like us' - and then proceeds to call the leavers of the ERG "far-right" left no room for doubt that the writer is a BBC left-winger. And although it puzzled me initially that the BBC Anon sounded queasy on the question of Brexit and was against both Mark Francois and Anna Soubry, reading the longer, unedited version of the piece at The Fence (where Tom Watson and Chuka Umunna came in for snippy criticism), I think it's safe to confidently assume that the writer is a disgruntled BBC Corbyn admirer instinctively defensive of Jeremy Corbyn's fence-sitting over Brexit. (Or am I wrong?)

Still, there was some fascinating stuff in the piece, including all the bits about the grid used by producers on all BBC political shows to ensure 'diversity':

A whiteboard would be marked up with a clumsy grid system. The grid would revolve around a set of key identities such as “woman”, “northern” or “poc” (person of colour). These would then be cross-categorised with political stances such as “Brexiteer”, “Tory” or “progressive”. Our task [as BBC producers] would then be to ensure that any proposed panel contained a complete balance of all these attributes.

If 100% accurate, how 'very BBC' and patronising is that?

I don't doubt for one moment the counting bit of the grid, especially the “woman”, “northern” or “poc” (person of colour) bit. The BBC, despite rejecting the 'number-crunching' of News-watch (and my massive 2009-10 interruptions survey), are total hypocrites in this respect. They put The Count from Sesame Street to shame when it comes to counting things like "women, Northerners and pocs".

Plus, if 100% accurate, it would mean that the BBC uses the labels "Brexiteer", "Tory" and "progressive" in production meetings - and, if the BBC really does label people that way, that would speak loud volumes about the "progressive" outlook of BBC producers.

The writer also writes about the "boozy familiarity" between BBC journalists and "a handful of MPs, deeply entrenched in London’s literary and intellectual circles, [who] treat the BBC like a university common room". These MPs are "slick and power-hungry" Remainers:

Off-camera, a highly influential Westminster social circle revolves around trips to various holiday homes in continental Europe, where various MPs and the journalists who are supposed to report on them have long been playing just as hard as they work.

It's hardly proper whistleblowing though, is it, if the BBC Anon doesn't name names?

******* II *******

The grid may be repellent to opponents of identity politics, but there's no doubt that some people gain from it.

Yesterday's The Times included an interview with regular BBC Politics guest Helen Lewis (formerly of The New Statesman, now at The Atlantic).

She singles out blog favourite Rob Burley, Editor of Live Political Programmes for the BBC, as being responsible for "a seismic change in the inclusion of women in line-ups".

I don't doubt it.

Rob, however, is forever busy in having to fend off people on Twitter comparing his carefully counted and tick-boxed programmes to Loose Women.

Having counted himself, Rob says it works out, over time, at about 50/50 as far as the balance between men and women goes.

(Question: What is it for pocs and us Northerners?)

Male-female-wise, the BBC is just like Is the BBC biased?, the most woke BBC bias blog in the world, only beaten by The Conservative Woman.

******* III *******

It's been an interesting week for Rob.

I do like him, and I understand why he's severely drawn back from being the BBC's chief musketeer on Twitter: I'm assuming too many unreasonable Corbynistas, venom-spouting spider-sporting FBPE types, and Carole Catwalladr cultists - fringe fanatics, all of them, who speak for barely a minor fraction of the public.

Even a rare, admirable, charming (if choosy) BBC engager-with-the-public like Rob must get worn down by totally irrational complaints about BBC bias from 'the other side', despite temptations to continually shoot half-witted fish in tweet-sized barrels.

('Our side', of course, is perfectly reasonable in our complaints, so 'complaints from both sides' can go and take a running jump!)

On which subject, BBC Two's Politics Live came under fire from Guido Fawkes for seeming to accept without question, or any basic journalistic probing whatsoever, what an Extinction Rebellion girl said.

There's no 'seeming' about it though. As this YouTube clip shows, Jo Coburn, seeing protestors wearing miner's hats made of cardboard, simply took it on trust that the protestors surrounding the XR girl were miners and ex-miners, despite them protesting against 'their mines' and livelihoods being extended and wearing cardboard miners hats.

Apparently, they weren't either miners or ex-miners, just climate activists pretending.

Free-range egg on the BBC's face it seems, alongside fried fake news sandwiches.

To rhyme in cliché: 'So/think/before you blink/Jo'.

******* IV *******

Meanwhile (if a bit late in the following day) here's an intriguing nugget from Andrew Billen's Times interview yesterday with David Cameron's deputy chief of staff, Kate Fall:

I was also surprised to learn that Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor at the time, recommended the editor of BBC News at Ten, Craig Oliver, to succeed Coulson as director of communications. “Look, the head of comms at No 10 has nearly always been an ex-journalist, from a paper or from broadcast. I don’t think that is a huge issue.” And Robinson recommended him? “Yes, apparently.”

Who knew Nick Robinson was such a man of influence?

*******V*******

A blog well-wisher really didn't enjoy Tuesday's Newsnight complaining that they had an item about Cyril Smith and David Steel and had Harvey Proctor on to comment. "Never mind that his story had nothing to do with it. And Maitlis kept pushing him towards her POV about the police. And I noticed that the ex-policeman was a cuddly 'John' and the ex-politician was a formal 'Harvey Proctor'". That's our Em!

Still, it might earn the programme another award. Newsnight won 'Daily News Programme of the Year' at the Royal Television Society TV Journalism Awards last week.

I love this photo of the triumphant team, firstly because of Emily Maitlis's theatrical pose and, secondly, because of the total lack of diversity on display. What would Geeta Guru-Murthy say about such "a white crowd"?

*******VI*******

Talking of triumphant people, Samira Ahmed - fresh from her equal pay victory over the BBC - is definitely smiling a lot more on Newswatch. Good!

This week's BBC editor on 'we got it about right' duties was Richard Burgess, UK News Editor for BBC News. He was defending the BBC over that perennial Newswatch complaint about BBC reporters getting blown about and soaked while reporting in the middle of a storm, preferably getting drenched in sea-spray. I think Mr Burgess put up a good defence and, here at least, the BBC did get it about right.

*******VII********

Never mind coronavirus, nothing was going to stop Mishal Husain from going to Paris to interview Asia Bibi for Today. What would Greta say?

Rob's New Year Message

If you missed it, here's the BBC's editor of live political programmes, a certain Rob Burley, issuing a New Year plea on behalf of the BBC:

1. I’ve been largely off Twitter over Christmas. But I see the BBC’s critics from left and right are still here. It is of course legitimate to criticise and debate the BBC and it’s a fact of life. 
2. But while impartiality is difficult and we will make mistakes trying, it is a really important and laudable goal. Most media takes a position and looks at issues through that prism. We try and offer something different and valuable: fair coverage without fear or favour. 
3. Of course critics will say we aren’t impartial, allege that we favour one side or take orders from political masters. The people who work at the BBC know this to be untrue. They don’t deserve the vilification and accusations of bad faith they get. 
4. So, even if you want to criticise the BBC, please think about the good that our aspiration to impartiality brings. Without it we would end up largely with echo chambers. We’d be worse off. It’s a good thing!
5. There’s so much to love about the BBC way beyond news and politics. I am proud to work for it and with fantastic colleagues. Whatever Twitter critics say, millions of viewers and citizens love the BBC too. Here’s hoping more of those people @ me in 2020!

Lauragate (Episode 329)

Oh my! 

Following on from yesterday's snappily-titled post Laura K sees the Winter Solstice light after the Christmas election I see that the bit where I wrote "The extreme wing of the Remain movement on Twitter is not at all happy with her. To put it mildly. (And many of them are not putting it mildly)" marked only the early stages of yet another Twitter onslaught against the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg.

Jolyon Maughan QC is quoting BBC editorial guidelines at her. Pascal Jacquemain is calling her a "Boris Johnson fan" and a "proud employee of the Brexit Broadcasting Conservatives". Dr Louise Raw is pulling rank, "I’m a historian, @bbclaurak. And I have bad news for you". Another historian, Daniel Edwards, is complaining, "What history will actually condemn is journalists who did away impartiality and thoroughness at a time when they were so desperately needed". Richard Corbett MEP is fuming, "No, @bbclaurak, history will vindicate those who: questioned the lies on which Brexit was based, recalled that Leave broke campaign rules, argued that the public shld not be denied a say on the actual outcome that is so different to what was promised". And, yes, plenty of them are linking to The Express.

It's got so bad that the BBC's very own Robocop has been activated:

Emma Burnell: I ’ve had my criticisms of Laura K over this election. But she definitely didn’t say what the Express are reporting. I listened to the segment on Brexitcast. I understood what she was saying and as a remain campaigner I think it was actually fair and useful if uncomfortable.
Rob Burley: Yep. Laura’s analysis was cut short and ripped out of context by the Express. They fade the audio away as she moves on to ”legitimate reasons” of those who campaigned for a second referendum. Utterly brazen. Bizarre for people who normally hate the Express to take it as gospel.

Well, the Express's transcript was pretty accurate and - unlike their audio - included the bit about "legitimate reasons" (as you can see from my post yesterday), plus you can check the Brexitcast  segment for yourselves - from 43m25s here. The Express said: 

BBC's Kuenssberg says history will question Remainers who tried to 'undo Brexit'. The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg took a rare swipe at Remainers and MPs who spent three years trying to "undo" Brexit as she warned them that history will question their attempts to overturn the referendum vote.

Look again at what Laura said (in a new, improved ITBB transcript). Is what the Express said wrong? 

From a historical point of view, when people look back at this period and they look at the extent of the Labour defeat, was it Corbyn or Brexit, or all the rest of it, I think - first draft of history and all that - I think that people will look back and think, "Hang on a minute - people voted for something in 2016 and then lots of people in the political establishment in Westminster spent a lot of time trying to undo that. [Incredulously] What?"

In the 2016 referendum campain politicians on both sides, including the then-Prime Minister, stood on platforms and said things like, 'If you vote this way, this will happen. There will be no going back, this is not a vote where you get to have a second opinion'. 

And, lo and behold, now, three years later, people are scratching their heads in the Labour Party, and saying 'oh, do you think maybe it was a bit of problem that we were trying to undo something that people voted for?' 

But there are obviously legitimate reasons, perfectly legitimate to campaign for another referendum, but I always felt, covering it as a story, it's like 'People voted for that. It’s not your job then to undo it!' 

 And she's still right.

Rob's recommended reading

Well, blow me down with a very small feather!: The FT comes out in support of the BBC. (The Archbishop of Canterbury will come out as an Anglican next):

Demonising the BBC serves no public good https://t.co/mdjOf11was via @financialtimes

— Rob Burley (@RobBurl) December 18, 2019

The liberal, pro-EU paper writes:

Britain has thus far avoided US-style hyper-partisanship. This is in large part thanks to the BBC, which still dominates UK political coverage, while arguing it is possible to provide a forum for non-partisan news, in which all sides are given a fair hearing. 

This ideal of open debate is more important than ever in an era when social media encourages people to stay inside their own political bubbles, and to dismiss all discordant stories as “fake news”. If the Johnson government now goes after the BBC in a spirit of partisan spite it will not heal Britain’s wounds. It will deepen them.

Cakes, to have and to eat

The BBC's Editor of Live Political Programmes, a certain Rob Burley (who we may possibly have mentioned here before, from time to time, once in a blue moon), is issuing a heartfelt plea tonight:

Twitter, you can (and do) shout and abuse, but at least read my bio. Those shows are literally the only ones I can answer for. They don’t include the news or QT or Today. Just so you know you are wasting your time if you message me about them. Sorry.

His far-left critics aren't buying it:

Unless, of course, you feel the need to respond to comments/complaints about other shows or BBC news outlets. As you have done when it suits e.g. Remembrance Day “mistake” and Johnson (not) being laughed at editing “mistake”.

Much as I like Rob and admire the way he engages, his far-left critics here do have a point. Though there's never any excuse for abuse, and those who engage in such behaviour are a disgrace, he does sometimes have his cake and eat it by defending the BBC against criticism of programmes which fall well outside those mentioned in his bio. And if he does that then, surely, he lays himself open to being questioned about those programmes too, doesn't he?

Rob praises Jo, and plays his joker

I see that Rob Burley's been busy today. Here he is, for example, - oh Rob! - taking out and waving the old, tattered 'complaints from both sides' card:

I reckon Jo Coburn has eaten her Weetabix this morning. Absolutely brilliant and super tough political interviewing. The usual complaints on here from both Labour and Conservatives that she is in some way biased. You guys need to get your story straight, you can't both be right!

That arose after today's Politics Live. 

Here's a complaint for 'our side' about that very edition of that very programme, posted btl (below the line) at Guido Fawkes today:

I honestly think that the Tories are so far ahead in the polls partly because the public have been exposed to the absolute rancid and breathtaking bias of the BBC during this election campaign. Everything from the tone of the interview, the type of questions and implications, to the selection of facts, is entirely dependent on which party the interviewee represents. Earlier today on Politics Live McDonnell was allowed to spout his nonsense about having a 4 day week effectively unchallenged. But in the space of a few minutes what that Tory went through was tantamount to a police investigation. He was hounded, sneered at, and it was implied several times that he was just an outright liar. Heck, he wasn't even treated like a normal human being, but more like a pathetic and inferior dog who should learn to behave himself. I think people have started to wake up to this disgusting organization. Privatize it now.

I've watched it myself now, and done a bit of counting and comparing. But the counting  and comparing is complicated by the fact that we're partly comparing chalk and cheese. 

John McDonnell took part in a one-on-one interview with Jo Coburn from outside the studio. It lasted over 9 minutes, and Jo interrupted him just 6 times. 

Paul Scully for the Conservatives, in contrast, was in the studio with Jo, and her three other guests, and their discussion was free-flowing and hard to time. Jo interrupted him 31 times (over 5 times more often than Mr McDonnell). Her other guests also repeatedly interrupted him. And Joe, the programme's fact-checker, appeared mid-interview, to add to Mr Scully's misery by telling viewers that he was factually wrong. 

More subjectively, I myself felt that Jo gave John McDonnell the gentlest of nippings while going after Mr Scully like a Hammer House of Horror hell-hound. She was, of course, pursuing the scent of the BBC's "Can we trust the Tories?" angle, and trying very hard to make Mr Scully look like a liar with all sorts of pre-primed statistical grenades and booby-traps. 

(The mild-mannered Mr Scully seemed to take it all in his stride. However sour Jo became towards him he just went on placidly, like a cow eating grass). 

As regards  'complaints from both sides', there's no equivalence here, so that argument collapses. Jo Coburn sent John McDonnell to heaven and Paul Scully to hell. Jo's Weetabix consumption revealed interviewing toughness towards Mr Scully alone.

But, being ITBB, here's a thought in counterpoint: Had the situations been reversed and Mr McDonnell been in the studio with three other guests and Mr Scully outside the studio in a one-on-one interview with Jo Coburn, would these stats have swung 180 degrees in the other direction?

Who can say? Counterfactuals can only ever be guesses. 

I very much doubt it though. The BBC - possibly out of fear, possibly not - seems incapable of properly taking John McDonnell to task. 

Reactions

Alex Wickham, Buzzfeed: Johnson confirms he is rejecting Neil interview. Senior Con source: “The public are fed up with interviews that are all about the interviewer and endless interruptions. The format is tired and broken and needs to change if it is to start engaging and informing the public again.” Instead of facing Andrew Neil...“The PM will focus on talking to voters about their priorities including investing in our NHS and helping with the cost of living.” Tories say Johnson has done 117 interviews during the campaign, Marr and two head-to-heads with Corbyn.

Rob Burley, BBC: There’s a certain irony to this. Just over a week ago the Conservative Party posted the entire Jeremy Corbyn interview with Andrew Neil on the front of their Facebook page. They didn’t complain about the format then. Credit to Sturgeon, Corbyn, Swinson and Farage for showing up.

Andrew Neil, BBC: Well, Corbyn interview got 3.2m viewers. So not that "tired". The Tories posted it on Facebook. So not "tired" at all. "Tired" never raised when trying to fix time and date. This "source" is a "pyramid of piffle" PS to source: monologue got 4m+ views. So some voter interest.

John Simpson, BBC: Not surprised that Boris Johnson has ducked out of the Andrew Neil interview. It’d probably have done him a lot of damage, & he dared not risk it. But to suggest it’s in some way akin to facing Lord Buckethead is pretty insulting. Not just to Andrew, but also to our democracy.

A familiar point

Oh Rob! 'Complaints from both sides', eh?

Twitter life in two tweets #marr pic.twitter.com/1aRCOZCIeV

— Rob Burley (@RobBurl) November 24, 2019

Is Peter telling porkies?

Peter Oborne, writing an opinion column for the Guardian (and now running a new website called The lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations of Boris Johnson and his government), has gone down a storm today (with the usual types) for saying this:

I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics. 

Really?

It looks as if the BBC's Rob Burley might want to set up his own new website called The lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations of Peter Oborne in response, given that Rob has tweeted this today: 

Just because you read something in an opinion column doesn’t mean it’s true. Often quite the opposite.

It may have riled Rob in particular because The Big O 'named and shamed' his main man, Andrew Marr:

Recently the hugely experienced broadcaster Andrew Marr allowed Johnson to go unchallenged in saying the Tories “don’t do deals with other political parties”. What about the coalition government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010? Or the £1bn “confidence and supply” deal struck with the Democratic Unionist party just two years ago? Marr let Johnson get away with it. So do many others. 

Meanwhile, here comes Huw Edwards:

I have great admiration for Peter, but he should name these ‘senior BBC executives’. I have never come across any such suggestion in my 35 years here. As for ‘undermining trust’...

So who to believe?