BBC news journalism to a very large extent relies on reporting stories that fit an existing left-liberal narrative and ignoring stories which challenge this narrative – the classic example being the enormous disparities in their reporting of racist murder – those disparities relating to the ethnicity of both perpetrator and victim.
Where BBC journalists go looking to make the news, by unearthing new facts or obtaining an admission from a politician or businessman, the same rules apply. Sending undercover cameramen into BNP meetings hoping to hear bad things being discussed? Sure. Sending them into mosques with the same brief? Er … we’ll leave that to Channel Four, thanks very much.
A favourite sport of Today presenters is to try and create the lunchtime news headlines by getting some interviewee to either “drop a clanger” or “reveal their real agenda“, depending on your viewpoint. Even a Victoria Derbyshire can do it if the interviewee is ill-briefed and ill-prepared enough.
But sometimes the quest for what’s perceived to be the killer admission can ruin the interview – for some reason I always think of Evan Davies interviewing anyone at all on drugs policy, where he seems incapable of keeping his personal enthusiasms in check.
And sometimes the quest for a not-very-important admission can blind the interviewer to the most remarkable statements being made by the interviewee – which go straight past the journalist’s head because they’re nothing to do with the little verbal traps he’s setting.
That failure to actually listen to the interviewee constitutes IMHO diabolical journalism. John Humphrys (for it is he) should listen to his Patrick Mercer interview from yesterday morning, then tear up his NUJ card and announce his retirement.
The subject of the interview was a leaked letter written by Defence Secretary Liam Fox to the Prime Minister, expressing concern that the Government planned to make a legal commitment to increasing its overseas aid spending at a time when armed forces budgets are being cut heavily. The subtext of the interview, as Humphrys revealed, was Conservative division.
In the studio were Patrick Mercer, a former army officer and former Conservative security spokesman, broadly sympathetic to the Fox concerns, and Lib Dem MP Malcolm Bruce, very much against them. You’d imagine Mercer is reasonably close to current military thinking, and current M.O.D. thinking.
It was near the end of the interview, emboldening is mine :
Mercer :
“At a time when the armed forces are being cut and cut hard, when they’re at war in Afghanistan, Pakistan and indeed in Libya, with other conflicts on the horizon … you can see why the defence secretary is concerned”
Humphrys, completely missing the above and intent on his ‘Tory division’ narrative (I paraphrase) :
“But .. Liam Fox wrote to the Prime Minister and addressed him as ‘Dear David Cameron’ .. now we know he would like to be Tory leader – isn’t there an ulterior motive?”
Mercer :
“at a time when money is stretched … at a time when we are at war on at least two fronts, and probably a third front to come, no doubt Liam Fox is fighting his corner as any other Secretary of State would do”.
Now it may be that Mercer’s statement that we are at war in Pakistan is a slip of the tongue, and he’s thinking of the Americans, who do seem to have made one or two trips across the Durand Line recently. But what are these “other conflicts on the horizon“? What is this “third front to come“, assuming Front 1 to be Afghanistan and Front 2 Libya? Have I been asleep lately – should I know all about this war to come?
Syria ? Seems unlikely. Iran ? Ditto. Are the Argentinians planning another crack at the Falklands (and if they were, how could we possibly form a front down there once Mount Pleasant was lost, having no carrier capability?).
I would really love to have known what Mr Mercer was talking about – and I imagine BBC listeners might have been interested, too. Pity the BBC couldn’t find a journalist to ask him!
Excellent analysis Laban.
Pity there is no satire that does Evan Davis interviews that inevitably get round to drug legalisation (if he is still fizzing on the Saturday morning)…the Lord Young “interview” a few months ago was a classic of the genre.
I watched some tosh on injunctions last week on Newsnight, and only now have I had my moment of enlightenment.
If Hugh Grant can look as normal, real, unaffected as he did when surrounded by Maitlis and all the smoothie chop lawyers and commentators-Hugh Grant ,for Gawds sake!…then it only shows just how removed from real life the political and legal/media elite actually are!
The Today show needs scuttling,and the BBCs tactics need a good look and a few parodies…they don`t like being mocked I notice!
cj,
Evan fizzing on a saturday morning. Still “coming down” from the night before ?
A third front? Going back to Iraq or what? Israel?
all out attack on israel,if al beebzeera has its jew hating way
Just heard Paxman daring to accuse Ken Clarke of “being too old” in regard of his adroitness over this Beeb storm in a teacup about “rape”.
No irony there then!
Labans point is right again-the old fool( Paxman) simply does not listen to what he is being told by way of an answer-he simply has to riff off the Beebs line of attack,and there is absolutley no discussion of what is said at all. Pathetic-and not worthy of an NUJ card at all!
Muck out the BBC barn and quickly!
cj,
Agree and posted before that Paxo is well past his sell by date.
The quality of the journalism at the BBC is piss poor, and the tack of the interviews has become so premeditated that they are oblivious to golden nuggets when they come along. The interviewer has an end game that he/she just has to get to, and they probably pay very little attention to the answers their questions are eliciting.
Labaan,
A superbly perceptive post and absolutely spot on !
“Laban”, sorry !
Citizen journalism. You get a quality analysis in the blogshere, for free and continuously updated, whilst the £4bn BBC stands there like the rear end of a pantomime horse that can’t find its front end.
bBB couldn’t find anyone to speak for Ken footinmouth Clarke last night so what do they do? Cue Yvette Cooper to explain why he should resign immediately.
Our National Broadcaster? Good only to laugh at, no longer laugh with.
‘I would really love to have known what Mr Mercer was talking about – and I imagine BBC listeners might have been interested, too. Pity the BBC couldn’t find a journalist to ask him!’
Superb post.
The BBC is a £4B, unfit for purpose waste of space.
I can tell you what Mr Mercer was probably talking about – the military always prepare to be engaged on one futher front than they currently fight on. That is, and has always been strategegically essential.
They constantly make assessments as to what that might be, and Mr Mercer might have some information as to what that might suggest, but that does not mean that there is a story here.
Tony_E,
Maybe Humphrys didn’t ask the obvious question because he is concerned about the UK’s security ? 😀
Or, I think a more likely explanation is that he is an unprofessional idiot.
Yet more of the same today!
Sarah Montague wants Vince to agree that Gordon Brown( the our `Enery for the BBCs political nomarks) is just the man for the IMF. Isn`t Flashman just beastly not to write a reference etc,etc…?
Similarly Evan would rather have gone over the rail privitisation of Majors lot way back,rather than look at the intervening 20 years or so.To be fair to Evan though,he dropped his autocue and did engage wtih those invited in to talk.
Sarah did no such thing-she was “only giving Vince the opportunity to put the controversy to bed” as it were…no arguments down here dear!
Noted too that the Press reviews started with The Sun,Mirror and Star-none of that usual broadsheet pap today-for the redtops wanted Clarke sacked,so their normal disdain for the Populist Front was suspended for todays aimless controversy de jour.
The Toady Show is now the Gang show with utterly predictable walking onto rakes, pratfalls and Charlie Caroli japes for us all to enjoy in the mornings…only their timing is not comic at all. More bathos and sadness at the dumbed down pot pourri of prejudices and reflex gags that make up the pap package.
Apparently Gordon the Moron is 4th favourite with the bookies.
I would rather have a Frog or a Kraut than that psycho. In fact I would rather have anyone.
Kemal Dervis is in the picture. He certainly worked wonders with the Turkish economy years back and it is still going from strength to strength. He certainly has the credentials, but will probably be blocked. Can’t have a bloody Turk can we, or can we ? The Yanks, rightly, think highly of him !
Whenever Humphrys doesn’t know his stuff on a subject (increasingly often these days) he resorts to reflex contrariness in an attempt to hide his ignorance. A typical example of this occurred when he interviewed the director of the national census. Humphrys began by asking why the government had to know everyone’s sexuality; the director said that question wasn’t in the census. Humphrys then asked why the government needed to know everyone’s religion; the census guy said that particular question was voluntary. With his poorly prepared line of attack – that the census was too intrusive – exposed for its weakness Humphrys immediately flipped 180 degrees and blustered, “So in other words lots of things people might like to know – might want to know – we’re not going to be asked?” To paraphrase Monty Python this isn’t interviewing, it’s the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
David Cameron was, for once, spot on when he pointed out during their recent AV discussion how badly briefed Humphrys was. It’s not a rare occurrence; one gets the impression that the BBC’s highest paid radio journalist thinks he’s brilliant enough to just turn up a wing it. He’s very wrong.
I’m afraid we’re out of time so I’ll have to leave it there. Coming up next, a Radio 4 promo you’ve already heard dozens of times before, followed by the latest press release from Friends of the Earth, a fawning chat with a lefty muso, and Laurie Penny…
DB,
Like Paxo, Humphrys is well past his sell by date. It becomes sad when they get to that stage and try to cling on out of false pride. After all , they don’t need the money, they have already screwed enough out of us.
I very rarely watch Newsnight any more but it doesn’t surprise me to learn that Paxman is phoning it in too. Perhaps the superstars of the newsroom are too big to be criticised.
‘With his poorly prepared line of attack’
I think that was in one of those endless ‘guides’ they produce to ‘help’ them ‘prepare’ their ‘jobs’.. ‘Poorly prepared? Attack!’
Sadly for Mr. Humphrys, he is rather doing it, and getting properly nailed, a lot.
Long may he last.
‘Poorly prepared? Attack!’
Heh.
Laurie Penney-but of course,shrill young stupid and someone that some bigwig at the BBC thought was a friend of a granddaughter or civil partner…hard to say!
We can expect lots more of these lefty preppies oozing girl power. As for lap dancers being empowered or sexual harrassment being the same in kind as rape-expect lots of poses being struck as the tumbleweed blows across the upload.
Next -burquas on the slut walk…will they be filmed or even allowed?
I for one would sponsor the Muslim Women against the Crusades to blag a bandwagon for a cheridee of their choice! Bin Ladens TV License Appeal Fund maybe?
“some bigwig at the BBC thought was a friend of a granddaughter or civil partner”
Quite matey with Newsnight’s economics editor, apparently. I imagine there are quite a few people at the BBC who appreciate her worldview.
The opening remarks to this piece hold much relevance over the last two days:
Ken Clarke says something on air about rape which is unarguably based in fact, but due to the way he expresses it, it is immediately picked on by the “wimmins” movement and the BBC as an unforgivable gaffe, precipitating days of critical analysis and politically driven opportunism, while the actual abuse and rape of up to 26 young white girls, some as young as 12, by members of the Religion of Peace draws barely any comment whatsoever. Certainly no meaningful discussion.
Meanwhile, in the face of an annual count of between 10 and 20 fatal black-on-black stabbings in the metropolitan area alone each year, most of which do not even make it to the local news section of the BBC web site, an 18 year old investigation into the single fatal white-on-black stabbing of which I am aware is reopened to a fanfare of finger pointing and hand wringing by our national broadcaster.
It seems that stories have to fit a certain narrative before they get any exposure on the BBC.
Whilst we`re on the subject on the quality of journalism at the BBC, I`m phoning in about the Fred Goodwin stuff.
Sorry I can`t tell you much more about it-it was meant to be Eddie Mairs job ,but he knows as little as me so it turns out.
Doesn`t stop him hoofing like a trouper though to give the idea that it`s all on the move, and Freds injunction is invalid because some bloke in the Lords…oh,for Gods sake!
Seems to me that like the fat smug lazy and louche BBC get their news from Wikileaks and Twitter-and stay safe behind the sandbags to see if these sources are not attacked by the courts(well given a dirty look at least). Let the new media take the pain if the courts can be arsed…rarely are…a busted flush in all senses.
Then-and only then-do the Beeb lawyers let their nodding dogs loose to intimate that there may be a breach of the law-or not-where`s Joshua Rozenburg then? Oh, say something-it`s “breaking news”
Utterly pathetic and spineless ticker tape twaddle from Sky News dustbin,but the BBC claim it. It`s live and paid for so they`ve got to say something-that is makes no sense is irrelevant because its tittle tattle, it means we don`t leave Westminster or the Supreme Court press suite: and it fills time until Robin Lustig is able to explain it to us at 10pm.
Breaking news?…sorry,broken news. Eddie is the new Martha Kearney!
I’ve never thought of Humphrys as a great journalist.
His bullying manner and hectoring interruptions remind me of the unwanted opinions of the leftie bore down the pub who thinks they’re adding insight to a debate. And does anyone else sometimes detect in his interviews a ‘Gotcha’, triumphalist, point-scoring tone when he thinks he’s bettered anyone on the political right?
He is tedious and unprofessional. His retirement cannot come soon enough.
“I’ve never thought of Humphrys as a great journalist. “
I class him (and his chums at the BBC) as political activists. It is obvious that they have an agenda. You just have to read the pages of Twitter to know that most have the intelect of a 6th form student.
Can we please get over this “carrier” misinformation.
Our carriers effectively became useless for an adventure such as the Falkands some three or so years ago when the previous administration as a cost cutting exercise chopped the SEA Harriers.
Strangely there was barely a wimper then.
RAF Harriers on a carrier were a joke, only being able to offer anything if you somehow had air superiority, as potentially provided by …… the SEA Harrier.