Author Archives: Andrew

is an interesting article in Saturday’s Times, about the conflict of interest for the BBC created by the Labour Party’s unsubtle scheduling of the Hartlepool by-election for the last day of their annual conference in Brighton:

Senior corporation figures had offered to balance coverage of the last day of Labours conference – the day of the poll – after the Tories complained, The Times understands.

But Liam Fox, the Tory co-chairman, rejected the deal and called instead for equal airtime for main opposition parties throughout both weeks of the Labour and Liberal Democrat conferences.

Dr Fox first wrote to the BBC this week, arguing that, under election legislation, broadcasters must devote the same time to the main parties in the run-up to a ballot.

He acknowledged that it was not a problem of the BBC’s making and is furious that Labour called the byelection for the last day of its conference – guaranteed to provide four days of solid media coverage of the party’s policies. The Tory conference is the following week.

As Michael Howard made his first visit to Hartlepool yesterday, Dr Fox released a letter thanking the BBC for some of its suggestions but calling for more concessions.

He wrote: “On the issue of live coverage of the conferences themselves, it is unacceptable that you do not plan any measures to build in comment by the other parties. There is thus no opportunity for those parties to offer their rightful response. It is essential that, throughout the Liberal Democrat and Labour Party conferences, there is balancing comment from the other main parties contesting Hartlepool.” Dr Fox called for an immediate response.

It will be interesting to see how this one pans out. Personally I think, in this instance, that the BBC should comply rigidly with the electoral law about equal airtime – it might teach the Labour Party not to be so transparently anti-democratic in future, given that the date of the by-election (and the cause of it, for that matter), were entirely within their control.

* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.

Private Eye magazine’s regular Lookalikes feature this fortnight highlight’s the striking resemblance between Vladimir Putin and Andrew Marr of the BBC, rather in line with the observations of BBBC aficionados:

Sir,

Have you noticed the sinister similarities between these two?

I have heard that one has his roots in a subversive organisation involved in the dissemination of enemy propaganda. The other is a former head of the KGB.

Should we be warned about these double agent doubles?

Yours,

TOM HOYLE,

Leeds.

I think we know all about Andrew Marr, but was Vladimir Putin really head of the KGBBC? I think we should be told…

is a featured article in BBC News Online’s Magazine section, concerning the disturbing oppression of gay people in Jamaica. Taking this as inspiration for a new BBC News Online Magazine ‘Growing up in’ series, here are some suggestions for future instalments:

Growing up female in Iran – exposing the feudal oppression of girls and women, including cases like that of Atefeh Rajabi;

Growing up agnostic in Saudi Arabia – the problems faced by Saudi youngsters as they explore issues of faith;

Growing up unmutilated in Africa – investigating the problems and consequences of female genital mutilation common in some African societies;

Growing up malnourished in North Korea – a review of the widespread malnourishment and lack of basic necessities facing most North Koreans;

And so on. I’m sure BBBC readers will be able to supply many further examples of injustice and oppression of groups that could do with having the trusty News Online spotlight shone upon their plight. News Online – please feel free to adopt these suggestions without further ado!

A short excerpt to whet your appetite:

Later in the programme (8.31) there was an item about why John Kerry’s presidential campaign has gone pear-shaped. The assumption here was that, since no sentient individual could possibly support President Bush, and since therefore it was inconceivable that Kerry would not win the election, there had to be some extraordinary reason why Kerry was mysteriously doing so badly. The fact that he is a rubbish candidate who has demonstrated over and over again his flakiness, inconsistency, flip-floppery, lack of principle and general untrustworthiness was unsayable.

– or so it seems. On 25AUG04 (the week before the last bank holiday), News Online published a story with the needlessly emotive headline Refugee ‘robbed’ of Oxford place.

The story is about a Kosovan refugee, Vildane Berani. She came to the UK five or six years ago with her parents, went to school here and managed to gain an impressive six grade A results at A level. Not surprisingly, she was offered a much sought after place to study medicine at Oxford.

And where, then, is the ‘robbery’ therein? Oh yes, it’s that UK/EU citizens fees for Oxford are “around £1,125 a year”, whereas for non-UK/EU citizens the fees are “up to £30,000 for the first three years alone” and “The final three clinical years of her course could cost even more” and that “Ms Berani told the BBC there was “no way” her family could afford this”. Note the misleading comparison of one year’s UK/EU fees with three years of international fees.

This was the first and last story about Ms. Berani on BBC News Online, at least from my observation, and according to Google and News Online’s own search engine too.

And the good news, not covered by News Online? That was in The Times a few days later on 01SEP04, in a story entitled Girl forced out of Kosovo at gunpoint wins Oxford place*.

The Times reports that “her application to the Home Office for indefinite leave to remain in Britain had been granted” and that this “means that she effectively becomes a home student, with fees of £1,125”.

The Times also informs us that “Living on benefits, her family could not afford the fees” and that “her siblings applied to study at British universities but were told that they would have to repeat several years of study, so they returned to Kosovo”.

Thankfully, with such an expensive and privileged education in prospect, Ms. Berani is apparently “determined to give back something to the country which has effectively given her her freedom”. I’m pleased to hear it, I wish her well in her studies and, if her studies go well, success in serving the cause of medicine in the UK.

I wonder, though, 1) why News Online used such an emotive headline – clearly there was no ‘robbery’ involved – bureaucratic footdragging isn’t unusual when it comes to asylum applications; 2) why News Online missed out various details underscoring how well the UK has looked after Ms. Berani’s family since their arrival here; and 3) why News Online failed to report the happy resolution of Ms. Berani’s predicament.

Could it be that News Online’s version of the story reflects their world view, and that the full background and ultimately happy ending of the story doesn’t? Or are News Online just not very good at following and reporting the news?

* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.

is a typically incisive posting by Laban Tall, concerning a namby-pamby Radio 4 Today programme report on (failures in) youth justice. Well worth a read, especially for the ‘happy’ ending.

– Martin Stanford was interviewing today’s guest, dear Polly Toynbee.

Referring to Polly’s switch from print journalism to the seven years she spent reporting ‘social affairs’ for the BBC and her subsequent return to print journalism at The Guardian, Polly said that she enjoyed the extra space afforded in the newspaper and the freedom to express opinions therein. Polly then added:

“And of course, on television, we never express opinions.”

This was with a wry smile – Martin Stanford responded to the effect that ‘Ah, I can see from the smile on your face that that isn’t always the case’.

It may not be possible for BBC broadcast journalists to avoid expressing opinions, even indirectly, but surely, therefore, in the name of balance, there should an equal balance of views among journalists, rather than the apparent preponderance in favour of the left.

, entitled The School Siege – Survivors’

Stories, was a film about the tragic events at Beslan in the week

before last, with contributions from survivors and participants. I

recorded the programme to observe the BBC’s language – particularly

their apparent trouble in recognising that those who murder and

terrorise unarmed civilians in the name of politics/religion/ideology

are terrorists rather than merely militants. The following are

chronological excerpts:

00’00” Presenter: In Beslan’s School Number One there were no

limits, no rules of war, children were the terrorists’ new weapons.

01’00” Salimat Suleymanova (mother with five month old girl, both

released, and a seven year old boy who was killed): I personally

told him, “let at least the babies be released”, this is what I told

him, what else could I tell him, and the militant said “Pray to Allah,

pray to Allah”.

02’00” Presenter: Now everyone knows about Beslan, it is

the place where terrorists put children on the front line.

04’09” Presenter: As the children had prepared for school

about thirty members of a pro-Chechen terrorist group assembled in some

woods nearby, then they set off for Beslan

10’10” Presenter: What was happening inside the school

gymnasium was worse than anybody could have imagined, not only were the

children hostages, but the terrorists who had captured them were

deliberately filming a video of their actions

11’40” Salimat Suleymanova: There was an explosion, I’m

not sure what happened, but probably the two women suicide bombers blew

themselves up, I didn’t see what blew up, but we were told that the two

young women had blown themselves up. The militants themselves told us.

Maybe they lied

12’28” Presenter: There are reports that two women

hostage-takers were unhappy that they were targetting children, they

protested, and their own leader then blew them up.

13’40” Presenter: The hostage-takers began to make their

demands, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya and the release

of fighters seized in June in the neighbouring Russian republic of

Ingushetia

15’00” Presenter: As parents waited for news, and

terrorists fired on the surrounding security forces

19’00” Salimat Suleymanova: I got down on my knees and

begged them, please let me take my son with me. They said “don’t be

afraid, come on, nothing will happen, babies only”. I said, may I come

back after I pass my baby to somebody, he said “No, come on, get out,

thank Allah for being released with your baby

20’15” Khazbek Dzarasov: One of the terrorists brought

some water over for a little girl, she took a sip, but another

terrorist started yelling at him, “Why did you give her that?”, so he

had to take the water away from her.

39’05” Khazbek Dzarasov: All those militants must be shot,

we must get rid of them, if you put them in jail they will escape

somehow and continue to commit acts of terror. They must be caught and

shot. They are brainwashed to kill, and that’s all they’re good

for.

42’00” Presenter: So this was Beslan. Terrorism in the

21st century. Its weapons the emotions and the lives of children and

their parents.

The presenter uses the term terrorist extensively, although often

uses ‘hostage takers’ (which is debatable – desperadoes who deny

children water, food, etc. are hardly mere hostage-takers), but,

nonetheless, this is a big improvement over the deception of calling

terrorists ‘militants’.

However, what is surprising are the voiced-over translations of the

Russian participants – are we really to believe that Salimat

Suleymanova (whose 7 year old son was killed) referred to one of the

terrorists as a ‘militant’ and to the group of terrorists as

‘militants’? Or that Khazbek Dzarasov said “All those militants must

be shot”? I doubt it – and if indeed they didn’t use the term

‘militant’ I’d like to know who translated their words thus and why

they did so.

– a BBC continuity announcer (in the London area) this evening, announced that tonight’s Panorama will be about the Beslan atrocity, and that it will, get this, “look at what the terrorists did and why they did it”. I hope that this terminological rectitude reflects a change of BBC policy rather than an inadvertant blip, although I expect that even once the broadcast wing of the BBC finally ‘gets it’ that the proto-Guardian wannabes at News Online will continue to treat their work as an ongoing portfolio for jobs at the aforementioned newspaper, recent examples including:

1) A fixation this weekend with events in Chile commemorating the overthrow of Allende 31 years ago. Worth a mention perhaps, but not worth being the first item on the News Online home page under ‘Americas’, nor worth being one of the four items on the ‘Latest:’ news ticker, especially when there is so much current ‘Americas’ news to report on;

2) Earlier today the News Online home page had a headline Boy shot dead during fox hunt, linking to a story with the same headline. This is yet another ambiguous News Online headline. Fox hunting, the sort with horses and hounds, is a contentious issue – so the headline could easily be misinterpreted, negatively, as having something to do with the perennial leftie fixation with ‘toffs in pink coats’. The reality is that the boy who was tragically killed was engaging in ‘lamping’ – hunting at night with rifles – the kind of fox ‘pest’ control that will become more common once the left finally get their way in banning hunting with hounds. Hours later the story and headlines were amended to read Shot boy was ‘mistaken for fox’.

Neither of these stories are necessarily biased in themselves, but they are both examples of a subtle bias that permeates News Online, the giving of undue prominence to leftie cause-celebres here (in the first case) and ambiguous headlines with negative connotations for another there (in the second case). Just the sort of slant that you’d expect to see on news in The Guardian or The Observer. No surprise there then, but not what you’d expect from a supposedly impartial news source.

– over the last few days David Chater of Sky News has been using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the terrorists involved in the Beslan massacre. This evening another Sky News journalist, Juliet Errington, also used the word terrorist in a Beslan report. It’s good to see Sky News moving away from the dishonesty, deception and moral equivalence of describing anyone with quasi-political grievances, guns and bombs as ‘militants’. I suppose it’s too much to hope that the BBC will be honest enough to start describing people who are clearly terrorists (by dint of causing terror, whatever their alleged grievance) as terrorists – even if they confine themselves, for now, to describing those who shoot children in the back rather than let them live another day as ‘terrorists’. And of course Sky News isn’t paid for by a compulsory telly-tax on every TV viewing household in the land.