Today Paper Review

A double whammy from Evan Davis on the first paper review of this morning’s Today programme. Not only did he treat us to the paper review catchphrase (“The Guardian leads with the same story as us”) he went on to tell us that the Telegraph’s main headline (about the IMF) was “slanted”. Thanks for the editorialising, Evan, but how about letting us make up our own minds?

What was it that former BBC journalist Peter Sissons said again?

By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

Perhaps the Guardian has such low circulation figures because the lefties choose to listen to the broadcast version on Radio 4 every morning instead.

Don’t Mention The War Powers Act

The BBC mentioned it once but they think they got away with it.

The US administration is examining the legality of continuing in the Nato-led Libya campaign beyond Friday.

The War Powers Resolution, passed after US withdrawal from the Vietnam War, rules that involvement in combat operations unauthorised by Congress must be terminated after 60 days.

That deadline is on Friday and deputy secretary of state James Steinberg has said the government is aware of it.

“President Obama has been mindful of the War Powers Resolution,” he said.

That one brief article from last week is all I can find from the BBC concerning Obama’s legal requirement to obtain congressional approval for US military action in Libya. The Friday deadline has been and gone but the BBC has shown no further interest in the story, so we look to the Chicago Tribune to bring us up to date:

Under the War Powers Act, President Barack Obama had until Friday to get congressional authorization to continue U.S. military operations in Libya. But the day passed without his even asking for it, which means he has to disengage within 30 days. Obama may not heed that requirement either… As a candidate, he said the president does not have the power to go to war on his own except in cases of actual or likely attack. But if he were to ask Congress to authorize the Libyan intervention, he would probably be rebuffed. So he’s chosen to simply ignore the law.

I can’t help thinking that the BBC’s treatment of this story would be somewhat different if a Republican president was visiting these shores having just ignored his own campaign pledges to seek congressional approval for military operations of the kind undertaken in Libya, arguing now that such actions are limited and therefore don’t require the say-so of Congress. Imagine the chorus of outrage the BBC would be leading right now. But it’s Obama, so the story is quietly dropped in favour of the usual gushing lovefest from his doting BBC fanboys and fangirls.

UPDATE 18.45. From last Friday’s New York Times:

Administration officials offered no theory for why continuing the air war in Libya in the absence of Congressional authorization and beyond the deadline would be lawful. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004, portrayed it as a significant constitutional moment.

“There may be facts of which we are unaware, but this appears to be the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution’s requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after the initiation of hostilities or get Congress’s support,” Mr. Goldsmith said.

I repeat – how would the BBC be playing this if it had all happened under a Republican president?

There were resolutions in Congress yesterday, so unfortunately for the BBC the story doesn’t look like it’s going away.

The Street That Cut Everything

On this week’s edition of Newswatch:


“Alas no BBC exec available”. Well, it’s such a hassle to go down to the Newswatch studio just to mouth “You’re wrong, we’re right” in a variety of ways for ten minutes.

Hey, perhaps they’re planning a sequel in which the street is flooded with dozens of diversity officers, climate change advisers and other assorted wastes of space, paid for by taking all the residents’ money and then maxing out their credit cards for good measure. That wouldn’t be any more ludicrous than Nick Robinson’s stupid programme.

UPDATE. I see James Delingpole has given the programme a good kicking in the latest Spectator. Extract (subscriber-only until next week):

“Then, a subtitle appeared on the screen saying: ‘Do you see how vital, caring, nurturing and important a role the State plays in your lives? Well, DO you, citizen?’ And then an extendable finger came out of the side of the TV set and prodded the viewer really hard in the ribs…

[The BBC’s] default position, the length and breadth of its programming from the World Service to Springwatch to CBBC, is that Big Brother is your friend, the public sector is good and the private sector bad. And the real joke is, we actually fork out for this brainwashing, 24/7, 365 days of the year.”

BBC Agendas

Yesterday the Guardian splashed with the story that David Willetts was considering proposals to allow the wealthy to pay their way onto oversubscribed university courses. The BBC, brimming with righteous anger, made the story its lead item in the morning.

Today the Telegraph led with a letter from 42 family doctors, the heads of GP consortia representing seven million patients, in which they declare their support for Andrew Lansley’s health reforms. The BBC ignored the story.

The Telegraph’s chief leader writer David Hughes has commented:

There was not a word on this story in the news bulletins of our public service broadcaster. Just imagine what would have happened if the 42 had written a letter saying the reforms were all a terrible mistake and simply would not work. The BBC would have trumpeted it from the rooftops; talking heads would have been wheeled into the Today studio; we would have been in full Coalition in Crisis mode. Instead, we’ve had a complete and rather shameful silence. There is something unsettling about the national broadcaster choosing to ignore a major political story because it does not suit its own agenda.

Quite so.

Young Voters’ Question Time

If comments on Twitter are anything to go by, Richard Bacon was an extremely inept and very biased host on last night’s Young Voters’ Question Time. This will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog who already know that he is simply incapable of being impartial and shouldn’t be covering politics at all, either on BBC TV or radio. One audience member even tweeted that Bacon said openly that he was going to vote “yes” in the AV referendum. Quality impartial BBC journalism, that.

Click on the images to view just some of last night’s Twitter commentary.

More:

More still:


And to counter any feeble suggestions that Bacon doesn’t have a dog in this fight, here’s what a member of the audience tweeted:

How To Make A Half-Arsed BBC Documentary

As part of its ‘Inside BBC Journalism’ series the BBC College of Journalism has made a short film with documentary maker Martin Small to explain the role of a documentary producer. He talks a bit about the technical side of things, about creating a storyline and turning “a journalistic story into a dramatic story” through “all kinds of dramatic devices” (I think we know what he means there – e.g. the playing of scary-sounding music to signpost bad things such as climate sceptics or an Israeli flag.)

The college’s website also provides a transcript [pdf] of its interview with Small, and it’s amusing to note that his final piece of advice didn’t make the film:

It is only television, and somebody once said to me: ‘If a bus driver fails to turn up to work one morning it’s really, really inconvenient, and bad news for the people standing at the bus stop. They may get very wet; they may get very cold; they may turn up to work late; they may get in trouble with their bosses. But if you make a television programme which isn’t perfect, never mind, there’s one on after you.

Evidently someone at the BBC College thought that particular insight was better left on the cutting room floor.