Thanks to Henry and Richy in comments here, to Little Bulldogs, and to several anonymous commenters for the tip. Both the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard carry stories about how
“a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
The quote from Andrew Marr (“The BBC is not impartial or neutral … It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”) might join the others on the sidebar eventually, including the earlier one from him (“Every time I ask people – show me a case of that bias … they seem to be unable to do so”). Compare and contrast, you might say. Another potential addition to the sidebar is the fact that Washington correspondent Justin Webb “said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’ it in his reports.”
Before we get into gloating, let us acknowledge that the fact that the BBC was sufficiently aware of the problem to hold the “impartiality summit”, an account of which has been leaked to the Evening Standard, is a good thing. It is encouraging that Mr Marr does now see what he could not in 2001. Mr Webb did better not worse than some others when he became aware of the problem and took steps to correct it.
Then we can – er, never mind.
Expect more on this story.
NB: Post expanded a little from the original version.
Funny you mention Mr Webb, because by an amazing coincidence I captured a daft semi-quote (hard to know for sure with the Beeb) from him this morning:
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/antarctic_lemur/2006/oct/22/america_treated_with_scorn_and_derision
Q E D jr
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/10/forget_waitrose.html
Why?
Why now?
Is this some form of scam?
Is the BBC dripping out stories to defuse something else?
Just how bad is that report the BBC don’t want us to see?
The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.
Absolutely classic
Just so, paulc. Nothing visibly new here — fish now believe water could be “wet”? Wowee!
Where’s the blood?
Wake us all up when Simpson is publicly fired in disgrace and Frei’s headless body is repatriated and interred in an unmarked grave in his native Deutschland.
I’m afraid I don’t follow Antartic Lemur’s comment at all. A President in his final two years is traditionally regarded as a “lame duck” – it seems entirely reasonable to speculate that a President in his final two years with a hostile Congress will be lamer yet.
Anyway – the point about all these admissions of a left-liberal bias at the BBC is that even though they’re clever folk, even though many of them are honest, and not trying to be biased, it just isn’t very easy to put yourself into someone else’s shoes. If you’re a leftie, and you’re interviewing someone putting forward right wing views, the flaws in their arguments, the killer rejoinders, and, let’s face it, the I don’t really like or trust this bloke starting point spring naturally to mind. But when you’re interviewing a leftie, they don’t. You have to imagine what someone who thinks differently from you might object to in your interviewee’s remarks. And the same thing applies to selecting stories, deciding on their importance, selecting interviewees etc. If you’re very clever, and very dedicated, and if you’re really concentrating then you can do a workmanlike job at forcing yourself into someone else’s shoes. But it’s a helluva’n effort. And most of the time you’ll just do a whole lot better doing what comes naturally – which is going to be biased to the left.
It’s consistently noticeable that Today Programme interviews of left wing people start with the sort of antagonistic question with which interviews with right wing people begin. But whereas the questions to right wing people are followed up tenaciously, the replies are interrupted, and follow up questions come hard and fast, that doesn’t happen when Jim is interviwing some Howard League type , who would like to let more people out of prison. Jim’s prepared his opening question, as any pro should. But the stream of tripe coming back from the Howard Leaguer’s mouth doesn’t strike him as tripe. So he can’t think of any follow up question to tax her with.
It’s like playing on the left wing when you’re right footed. You can know what you’re supposed to be doing, you can practice like mad, you can be utterly professional. But you will bog it up far more often than if you were playing on the right – because it just doesn’t come naturally.
The only way they can improve is if their news and current affairs teams, including their researchers, contain large numbers of people who think non-lefty thoughts. And that’s never going to happen.
maybe this leak to the evening standard was done on purpose – to assure David Cameron that they are “doing something about it” – and also to fend off any Tory ideas about privatising them.
Cameron wouldn’t have the guts….nothwithstanding the fact that he used to work for the opposition!
‘Cameron wouldn’t have the guts….nothwithstanding the fact that he used to work for the opposition!’
I suspect when he gets into power he will but not before as he knows that if he does anything earlier the BBC will misrepresent everything he does even more than they do now.
Lee Moore,
I must admit the article has been substantially rewritten since I first visited it ~12 hours ago, and the tone substantially altered for the better. The “lamest lame duck” paragraph was previously located in the top four or five paragraphs, mixed in with information on Bush meeting the Iraqi generals etc. It has now been pushed down to the twelth paragraph, under a separate subheading specifically about the midterms.
For other readers, the BBC item in question is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6071258.stm
Two observations: the first being that Natalie Solent has shot my fox. I was thinking of saving Marr’s admission and using it (and it alone) as a response to every single post from ‘John Reith’- who maintains the exact opposite in the face of all evidence to the contrary!
The second is that I disagree with both Lee Moore and Ralph.
Though the essence of what Lee Moore says is correct, a professional journalist can and should conceal his opinions – particularly when reporting news stories. I know it is difficult, but that is the job and even if absolute perfection cannot be attained, a far, far better fist can be made of it than has been the case in the past decade or so.
As for Ralph’s observations about the BBC and Cameron, I rather regard the boy wonder as a BBC construct. Almost every single policy swerve he has initiated has been aimed at conforming to the Newsnight agenda.
Personally, I take this as a sign of how dangerous the all-pervasive BBC has become: that the UK’s only significant party of the Right cuts its cloth to the BBC’s design.
Put me down for ‘unimpressed’. Seems to me the BBC is just carving out sea room to switch to Cameron.
They’ll announce they’ve decided they’ll need to ‘rebalance their coverage’ or whatever and suddenly we’ll be off, with Cameron getting exactly the same kind of lickspittle coverage Blair had pre-1997.
Hey BBC scum, why not try actual reporting ? Meanwhile, the rest of us will still need to go online to find out what’s really happening in Windsor/Lebanon/Brusells/Anywhere.
Much of the BBC’s bias is reflected in what it does NOT report, for example any news that reflects badly on the EU (what news doesn’t?), UN, trades unions, ethnic minorities and left wing politicians.
It of course rejoices in reporting perceived bad news on business, the USA, Isreal, and conservative politicians.
The BBC is also deeply anti-English: the West Lothian question and the Barnett Formula barely get a mention
with the honourable exception of Andrew Neil, a scot.
The BBC has an editorial policy unit that sometimes indulges in social engineering.See substitution of the phrase ‘lone parent’ for the phrase (then) in actual common everyday use ‘single parent’.I read in Frederic Forsythe’s Express column (but it’s not essential to the case) that the Wilson report had aknowledged there was an influx of leftward leaning journalists into the BBC in the build up to the 1997 election.I first heard the use of ‘Tory’ to describe the Conservative Party in a BBC radio news report in (mid)1996.This then migrated to television news reports with (to my recollection)increasing frequency approaching the ’97 election.We had Labour and New (improved) Labour.We had Conservative and Tory.The Labour terms are mutually reinforcing in brand terms.The Conservative terms are not.You could claim that Tory had become a term of abuse to a small proportion of the population by that time.I’ve seen many news reports since that time onwards when Conservative and Tory were used interchangeably and in the same report.No commercial organisation would permit such de-branding.If media was impartial they wouldn’t either.You can use (and in my opinion it was/is so used) ‘Labour’ when reporting stories emphasising ‘traditional socialist values’.You can use ‘New Labour’ when reporting on the party’s ‘vision for the future’.Using both in the same report is fine as they mutually reinforce.You can use Conservative to suggest ‘stuck in the mud’or Tory to conjure up ‘snobs and the rich’.’Aunty Beeb’ is a tremendous anchor for the country as a whole.Where the establishment meets the people.If you can put your foot in that door you’re in the driving seat.Politics has to form and grow in an organic way or all of us are poorly served.Remember when the Conservatives accused Blair of lying about Iraq before the last election.The media were up in arms.You can’t say that without absolute proof.The trouble is these things are done by word of mouth.There won’t be any memos/emails etc.So,the BBC has de-branded the Conservative party.Also by its purported impartiality it protects the government by disallowing mocking of the absurdity of its (to me) fabricated evidence that took us into war.Because the BBC being a television company,it brings us the ‘news’ first.It sets the tone for the next day newspapers.IMO this whole thing was a Labour plan in conjunction with sympathetic leftward leaning journalists already in the BBC(or joining in that pre ’97 election buildup).Labour have to be removed from power as Human Nature dictates that rather than rowing back from their wrong doings.Having got away with it (and believing the end justifies the means) they’ll see how much further they can push it next time.Who was in charge of the editorial policy unit pre 1997 election?Probably not rampant BNP supporters?On one hand the BBC has De-Branded the Conservative party on the other its laughable pretence of impartiality prevents criticism of,in my opinion,Government lies and fabrications in regards to the Iraq War,for example.
The political bias of the BBC
goes deep. The pro-Islam, anti-Christian bias, is only one element,as the report shows:
“We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News” http://www.dailymail.co.uk
(22 Oct.).
Q E D jr
TPO | 22.10.06 – 11:10 am
TPO
What is amply demonstrated by these reports is what I have been arguing in these comments columns for months: that the BBC is NOT a monolith with a uniform world-view but an organization within which arguments of great ferocity take place between individuals who take issue with one another’s judgments.
As these stories suggest, there is a Sensible Tendency, a Stupid Tendency and all shades of grey in between.
You will note that among the anecdotes reported by the Mail, one shows how the Washington correspondent (in cahoots with the Deputy Director General, no less) set about compensating for some of the damage done by members of the Stupid Tendency in terms of anti-Americanism. Another shows how the Head of News intervened to stop the Stupids censoring the truth. Happily there are many Big Beasts in the Sensible Tendency • and it’s winning battle after battle.
Rejoice, rejoice.
So John Reith
After years of saying they were balanced….
How much shame do you feel now that the BBC ADMITS it has an extreme biased toward whooly liberal thinking…..
You told us we were all racists, and imagining things…
Now it appears, as we have said all along…that YOU were the liar and propagandist who refused to see the truth…
If anyone is winning battle after battle, it is those against the BBC who have been trying to get the mentaly cha,llanged to see the bleeding obvious…..
Are you waking up to the truth now? Has the BBC updated your files yet? Are you on message??…lol.
The BBC is in terminal decline…and evryone now sees this…..
Rejoice, Rejoice….LOLOLOL!!!!!
HAHAhahehehehe
jr
“that the BBC is NOT a monolith with a uniform world-view but an organization within which arguments of great ferocity take place between individuals who take issue with one another’s judgments.” But in all these “arguments” it appears that one side almost always wins – hence this blog.
BTW the ironic (and, to you, irresistible) quote from Mrs Thatcher at the end of your comment is duly noted and strongly implies that your sympathies encompass rather more than just the anti-Americanism of the “Stupid Tendency”.
Come on you lot!We have been utterly vindicated in our views of the BBC,and the confirmation of everything we believe about the broadcaster has come from senior people inside!
I have had to pinch myself after reading the story of this report.It has been a good few weeks for us: Multiculturalism attacked by the Left,Muslims seemingly being put back in their box,and now this…
jr
I’m flattered that you should respond to me rather than the numerous other contributors who’d wish to engage with you on this issue.
Having once worked in an organisation that the BBC would gleefully refer to as “Institutionally racist” (a term I never recognised) I can’t help but feel that the content of your third para suggests that you may feel that there is some form of “Institutional bias” within your ranks.
Re: AT LAST THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BBC IS OUT!
THE BBC HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH PART OF THE NEW LABOUR POLITICALLY CORRECT THOUGHT POLICE.
THEIR RIDICULE OF ANYTHING CHRISTIAN HAS BEEN SO OBVIOUS OVER RECENT YEARS. IT IS RUN BY LEFT WING TRENDY ATHEISTIC LIBERALS, PROBABLY EDUCATED IN THE MARXIST LEANING UNIVERSITIES….ITS ALL PART OF THE NEW LEFTY ATHEISTIC DICTATORSHIP INTRODUCED 9 YEARS AGO BY NEW LABOUR, UNDER THE DISGUISE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND MULTICULTERISM, THEY HAVE USED THE GAY, MUSLIM AND MINORITY BIAS TO UNDERMINE ANYTHING TRADITIONAL, WHETHER IT BE FAMILY OR CHRISTIAN VALUES. AT LAST THIS HIDDEN AGENDA IS NOW OUT IN THE OPEN!
ITS SHOCKING THAT A BRITISH INSTITUTION, FUNDED BY THE PUBLIC CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS! WE NOW KNOW THAT THE BBC HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH PART OF THE NEW LABOUR POLITICALLY CORRECT THOUGHT POLICE.
[Please do not write all in capitals. It is difficult to read and widely seen as “shouting” – Administrator.]
Edited By Siteowner
I wonder if this makes the “BBC in the News” section on the Editors page?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
jr
I’m being dimmer than normal today.
I should have asked were you aware of this report and its content?
Waiting in anticipation.
‘As for Ralph’s observations about the BBC and Cameron, I rather regard the boy wonder as a BBC construct. Almost every single policy swerve he has initiated has been aimed at conforming to the Newsnight agenda.’
So far whatever Cameron has released policy or not has been misrepresented by the BBC so hardly a BBC construct.
‘What is amply demonstrated by these reports is what I have been arguing in these comments columns for months: that the BBC is NOT a monolith with a uniform world-view but an organization within which arguments of great ferocity take place between individuals who take issue with one another’s judgments.’
It’s odd with all this diversity the BBC still produces bias of one uniform nature.
If what you say is true then the right in the BBC ranks either must be small in number or pretty naff. I suspect though that the reality if from the top down those in power have the same or more or less the same agenda.
Does this mean that the British licence fee payer will get a full refund since the BBC has not lived up to its mandate of impartial news coverage?
Before anyone gets carried away go to google news and see how many people are carrying this story. To save you the bother, besides the two that originally ran the story in the UK we have….nobody.
There is one report from Israel and 2 from the US.
I bet none of this would have come out at all if not for the tireless efforts of Natalie, Kerry, Andrew, ed, Laban, et. al. Three cheers for our blogging hosts! They have given me nearly three years of immensely pleasurable reading.
Thanks much to all.
The BBC has done an internal audit/navel-gazing exercise in which it finds itself guilty of a number of unforced errors, indeed, tendentious factitious disinformation. USS Neverdock has a good summary of the results of the BBC’s introspection, along with some trenchant well-deserved down-putting observations of his own.
In the USA, we have PBS and NPR, both tilting left and occasionally far left. But the completely open editorializing of creepy sports of nature like Orla Guerin and her crew on the Middle East is suffused with hate for Israel and cheerleading for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations.
Orwell foresaw all this, and 1984 is behind schedule, but with the BBC as the Ministry of Truth, the UK will eventually arrive at life under Big Brother.
In other words, the BBC isn’t “admitting” that they’re biased. They’re bragging about it.
Who’d have thought that the much ridiculued (on this blog) Justin “Spider” Webb would actually turn out to be a mole for our side?
We should rename him Pimpernel Webb.
Following trendy, Left-leaning liberals can cost you money.
“Brokeback Mountain” is currently No11 in Amazon’s DVD chart.
Very good? No. It’s for sale at £3.97.
Guess they must have overstocked.
The print version of the article “We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News” in the MOS, p.13., has a final killer remark after Marr’s comment, that was omitted from the online versions:
“A Corporation spokesman said:
The BBC seminar was part of a wider project to identify the challenges to impartiality in broadcasting. It demonstrates the BBC’s commitment to independent, accurate and unbiased programming.”
Umbongo | 22.10.06 – 1:58 pm
There was nothing ‘ironic’ about it.
Jeff Randall’s ‘very senior news executive’ at the BBC who claims that “The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it”
would no doubt agree with the reformulation (in a letter to the Sunday Times) of the old adage “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”:
“Today, the maxim appears to be when in Rome, Romans must bend the knee to ensure the Carthaginians are made comfortable at the expense, and to the detriment, of Romans.”
I can see a long and successful career ahead for John Reith: as a party political spin doctor.
The fact that this debate has begun is no sort of triumph for the BBC. It was being called for nearly thirty years ago.
Nor does it mean wiser heads have prevailed. It simply means that so much fuss has been created (and I do believe Biased BBC has contributed to it) that some attention is finally being paid to all those complainants. so often dismissed as Right-wing nutters, obsessives, Europhobes and whatever other cliches can be snatched from the ragbag of White City insults.
However, started or not, the debate doesn’t necessarily mean anything worthwhile will result. At first glance, it may appear that Andrew Marrr was holding his hands up and pleading guilty. In reality, he might (very well) have been saying it with a sense of pride.
Let’s put it this way. I’m not ordering bunting just yet.
It used to be said that,”one could not get a job at the BBC unless one was queer or Catholic and that divorcees need not apply”,now the BBC recruits from the ranks of the Guardianistas.
Lee Moore
Excellent insight into the root problem of lefties trying to be impartial!
Since, as you say, we’re never going to get an influx of right thinking journalists – maybe this leak ought to provide the tipping point for a mass licence fee boycott.
As Rob says, their mandate says they’ve got to be impartial and they’ve just admitted they’re not – so why should the licence payers honour the implied contract.
I for one would happily donate next years licence fee to any organisation set up to campaign for it’s abolition.
If a few thousand people were similarly inclined maybe a mass boycott could have some real clout.
Any volunteers?
Schoolboy Error | 22.10.06 – 12:58 pm
“The BBC has an editorial policy unit that sometimes indulges in social engineering.See substitution of the phrase ‘lone parent’ for the phrase (then) in actual common everyday use ‘single parent’.”
Cranky conspiracy theory No. 1008.
Some helpful definitions:
A single parent is a parent with one or more children, who is not living with the child[ren]’s other parent.
Lone parent refers to a mother or father, with no spouse or common-law partner present, living in a dwelling with 1 or more children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent
http://www.hip.on.ca/search/47.html
I think one point which is long term healthy is that the BBC is at least adressing the issues.
The BBC has had an internal forum in which the key issues have been admitted to. This is the first step to recovery.
Most organisations have too much groupculture to allow for an open airing of shortcomings.
Hand on heart you tell me of anyone using ‘lone parent’ ten years ago?It only came into existence in 96 according to your link (in Canada).The point is it was introduced here by the BBC.Some people on their editorial side introduced it.It didn’t come from us but was imposed on us.Why?IMO,most likely to salve left wing sensibilities who saw the everyman term ‘single parent’ as stigmatising.I don’t really care why,to be honest.The point is it was imposed and didn’t arise from common usage.ie the policy unit that indulged in social engineering existed or persons with Left Wing leanings had editorial input in the BBC.
jr
I do believe your cherry picking again.
Not wishing to be the bore that I am but were you aware of this report and its content?
Boycott them.Leave them.Make them an irrelevance.Switch to the internet.’Impartiality’ is a two edged sword.When Conservatives called Blair a liar over Iraq the BBC was indignant.’Where’s your proof?’There won’t be any because these things are done by word of mouth.The BBC crushed people’s righteous indignation about being taken to war on a lie.The absurdity of the governments fabrications couldn’t even be mocked because of no media outlet.At long last the internet is available to all (strange that the government took so long to force BT to upgrade the exchanges.Criminal in competitiveness terms but usefull to control the means of information dissemination).Now we’ve got a chance to be free.The BBC are quaking in their boots because their jobs are on the line,that’s all.
Nice one, Natalie. Vindication!
Someone needs to do a photoshop banner graphic of jug-eared Andrew Marr and those before and after quotes.
I’ll do it if no one else does.
The BBC and half a story.
Currently doing the rounds on the BBC is this story;
Israel admits phosphorous bombing
Israel has for the first time admitted it used controversial phosphorous bombs during fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July and August. Cabinet minister Jacob Edery confirmed the bombs were dropped “against military targets in open ground”.
Israel had previously said the weapons were used only to mark targets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6075408.stm
and here is something Aljazeera had in their story which the BBC didn’t;
“Edery said in his statement that the army maintains that phosphorus shells are a legitimate weapon and not forbidden by international law.”The IDF used this type of munitions according to the rules of international law,” Edery is quoted as saying by Haaretz news agency.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9491C6CD-868E-4780-9C5F-EFCDFC5DA6C8.htm
Hang on the Station that the Non Islamic world berates for its pro Islamic terrorist stance gives a more honest account of a story concerning Israel than the so called impartial BBC.It really is coming to something when Aljazeera reports on a story with less of a bias than the BBC
But then I have noticed that while the BBC is more than happy to berate Israel for anything and everything. It on the otherhand remains somewhat silent on the following;
Egypt: Hezbollah provoked war
Sunday 22 October 2006, 13:03 Makka Time, 10:03 GMT
Egypt has accused Hezbollah of provoking conflict with Israel in order to justify the Shia group’s continued existence in Lebanon.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0AD32A62-E22E-4A54-B0CB-8D2386085952.htm
Veil controversy rocks Egypt university
Sunday 22 October 2006, 1:20 Makka Time, 22:20 GMT
Veiled students face expulsion from the Helwan University
Egyptian students who wear the veil could face expulsion from a leading university if they refuse to uncover their faces.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/36EFDB46-935D-49C4-9691-775B0B4ACB6A.htm
The BBC and really half a story…..
John Reith
Come come now, you really aren’t getting away with picking an argument over ‘single/lone parents’. Talk about avoiding the issue.
You have come in here for months to argue that the BBC is not biased. Some very senior people in the BBC have now admitted that it is, indeed, biased to the left, just as we said and you have denied.
Your efforts have been in vain, your arguments have crumbled to dust. Let’s discuss that.
I’d be delighted if the BbC had some muslim women newsreaders wearing a veil. The licence fee system would end break down almost overnight. Perhaps we should all send leters to the BBC saying we want veiled newsreaders.
Nothing will change. The leftie Beebaristas are proud of their stance on America, Israel, multiculturalism, europe, Christianity etc. This was merely an arse-covering exercise so they can – when challenged about it – claim that they have “discussed” it. Life at Orwell Villas goes on as usual. Trebles all round? Why not….we’re paying…
The Impartial BBC at work.
Remember the number of articles the BBC wrote about a certain Pakistani president’s new book?He said this, he said that seemed to be the theme of the day.
Well here is a little something that president said that the BBC hasn’t bothered its arse in reporting while pushing his new book;
Musharraf warns against UK withdrawal from Iraq
October 22, 2006 15:33 IST
Disagreeing with the United Kingdom army chief’s suggestion that British troops be withdrawn from Iraq as their presence worsened security problems, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has said premature withdrawal of coalition troops would have adverse impact on the region.
“I do not agree at all,” he said last night while commenting on British army chief General Richard Dannat’s views.
Musharraf was speaking at the release of the Urdu translation of his autobiography, In the Line of Fire at a function in Islamabad. The Urdu version of the book is titled Subse Pehla Pakistan (Pakistan First).
“Troops withdrawal (from Iraq) will have far-reaching and negative impact on the region and on the world,” he said calling for a careful analysis of implications of such a move.
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/oct/22mush.htm
Not even the BBC can now deny its own institutionally leftist bias where it even attacks the left from the left. However a fair solution to this bias is available from within its own format, and from a source on the other side.
Firstly, a contributor mentioned how The Moral Maze does actually do what Today should do – it puts questions to the interviewee from pro- and anti- positions. The main point is that the interviewers do not have to pretend to be ‘professional’ and hide their own inclinations; indeed, it is the balanced biases of the interviewers which ensure that the questioning is thorough and not the soft-touch stuff proferred by Naughtie to any given lefty. In fact, Naughtie is the worst of all, but he’d be OK if he were balanced by having someone else there at the same time to ask the searching questions which Naughtie’s bias will not allow him to ask.
I have seen this format in action – Hannity and Coombes on Fox, and it works.