Brussels Broadcasting Corporation

The BBC probably thought they were doing their bit for balance by inviting Helen Szamuely of the Eurosceptical blog EU Referendum onto a discussion with Zainab Badawi.

On the other hand, they might have considered that UK feelings about the EU are not at all warm, and that two pro-EU bloggers out of three was a touch imbalanced. There was Nosemonkey, a “critically pro-EU and centrist” blogger, Shiraz Socialist, a “moderately angry nouveau-middle-class leftwinger” (I’ll refer to him as SS), and Szamuely, a lovable if crotchety Eurosceptic (I am sure she will love the description). Of the three, I am pretty certain Szamuely’s blog has much the largest readership (circa 3000 daily visits).

Then again, perhaps we should look at another metric- time alloted to speakers. In this regard, by my rough reckoning, Szamuely got 92 seconds, Nosemonkey 112, and Shiraz Socialist 134. Shiraz also got the last word, in which he claimed that EU institutions need to be strengthened. He had also been given the first word, fed to him by Badawi, that politicians in general were in the doghouse. Very conveniently, following that the whole discussion managed to omit mention of which party are firmly in the doghouse. People were angry with the recession, they said, but the “L” word went missing.

Now to the tone- it was clear that Badawi was “ready” for Ms Szamuely. She interrupted her several times and disputed with her the “usefulness” of the EU Parliament (Szamuely had a ready retort about Commission overrules of Parliamnetary objections, but that got lost in Badawi’s hectoring). Badawi interrupted her too when she mentioned UKIP, clarifying who they were while Szamuely was in full flow. Then, during the discussion wind up, she told Szamuely (who we have seen got less time) to say “briefly” how she saw the UK public mood, and repeated that “briefly” so that she could give time to… SS.

She did not once interrupt SS, nor dispute with him when he claimed that EU institutions need strengthening, nor when he stated that people were angry about the (his word) “laissez-faire” economics of recent times. She even murmurred, “mmm, yes” at one stage.

Nosemonkey was mainly there for posing value, but he managed to slip in a cheap jab about Tory MPs resigning over expenses which Badawi… let go, surprisingly.

All in all then, a startlingly biased presentation, once you look closely. But see for yourself and make up your own mind by watching the video on EU Referendum’s blog.

Selected targets

Anyone know why Bill Cash MP has been splashed all over the BBC website frontpage for most of the day? As someone who gets most of his news online, I have to say I wonder. I can’t see it now but I am certain earlier today that there was a reference to him as an “arch-Eurosceptic”. I know many might just be happy to see an MP in the stocks for a day, but the way all this has been conducted very much suggests to me a studied campaign. Yes, this originated from the Telegraph, but the BBC has very much played ball- very much the old footballing one-two. Yes, there is an extremely serious point about MPs’ abuse, but there was also (as with most jobs) a legitimate need for an expenses program in pursuit of the goals of the job (ie. constiuency representation). Not defending MPs who trough here, but raising the question about the legitimacy of this broad based campaign against MPs, and asking cui bono? It certainly might seem a matter of luck whether an MP is targeted or not (disturbing enough, as it’s so inefficient)- but the BBC has seemed determined to focus on backbench Tory MPs- Cash, Kirkbride, McKenzie; seems to me Blears, Smith, Balls and what’serface have got off more than lightly… given their frontbench Government status and all.

So I would raise a question about which discredited and miserably failed party stands to gain from spreading the blame across the whole House of Commons for the indulgence combined with ineffectiveness of the chamber and its leadership during the last ten years (plus)?

Selectivity

I don’t recall the BBC giving much attention to the banning of Facebook by the Iranian regime. However, all today they have been supposedly reporting on a supposed string of murders committed by a woman in Iran, supposedly inspired by Agatha Christie books.

No context is given for this story- it’s seen as a curiosity and also a news story as “She has been described as Iran’s first female serial killer”. She has? By whom exactly we don’t know. To me this seems all too convenient for Mr Ahmadinejad as he approaches an election. “See what those dogs have done to us again”, you can imagine his media whispering in the public ear (or Ahmadinejad declaring in public). An excuse for censorship. A means to blame the West for their society’s ills. A symbol of the encroachment of western ‘diseases’.

Yet the BBC’s man in Tehran, Jon Leyne, sees fit to report it deadpan, “Just like Agatha Christie’s villains, she made careful plans to conceal her crimes”. Yeah, that’s right Jon, only Agatha Christie villains ever plan their crimes carefully. It must be her fault (I mean Christie’s, obviously). Oh, and notice the absence of the word “allegedly”. Perhaps in Iran that’s not necessary.

A commentary of biases

We don’t normally scrutinise the BBC’s essayists. We haven’t tried a survey of how many we consider right versus how many left. As a matter of fact I’ve never read any in-house commentary on the BBC that showed any strong right orientation, but I thought I’d look at this piece from Iain Watson. It’s about the Labour party launching its election campaign for the Euros with the expenses row echoing around it. The bottom line is the most interesting:

“the party will have to hope that their core voters will be thinking more about the economy than expenses. “

Objection, your honour! Only a true Labour hack laden with assumptions of “it started in America” and “it’s all about deregulation” so “what would the Tories have done differently?” would come up with this marvellous summation of wrong-headedness. It’s the economy, stupid, that Gordon Brown has taken from boom to bust.

There’s also a sly aspect to this: the journalist ignoring the base reality that the “core” vote don’t judge the Labour party on their handling of the economy- they judge them by their benefits cheques and their cushy state incomes and pensions. Anyone who were to judge the Labour party on their handling of the economy would vote against them. Simple as. To suggest that the economy might be a selling point for the Labour party is Goebbelesque.

In addition, if you look closely at the article you will see it has a certain wry affectionateness towards Labour, and deals with the expenses scandals humorously, pointing out just a few individuals who have apparently failed their genial and public spirited leader. Ok so Gordon’s a little old school and a bit stuffy, but y’know, basically it’s all about schools n’ stuff and good folk.

Can you imagine- is it possible to conceive of such a situation even- of how the BBC would be covering matters had the Conservatives been presiding over the economic meltdown?

Cover story-

Looks like the BBC has decided that the big story tonight is the emergence of another video of police activities at the G20 event. It’s obvious to me that the only stand out story from that event was the death of Ian Tomlinson.

The BBC, it seems, has been looking for an excuse to demote ongoing revelations about systematic abuse of power within the Labour Government. The question of whether insiders like Nick Robinson, Robert Peston or others knew anything about the campaign is an interesting one…

General BBC-related comment thread!

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.