It’s all about Jimmy Bowen…life that is:

Jeremy Bowen: I know there’s trouble in the Middle East when I need my flak jacket, gas mask and Kevlar pants

When the journalist becomes the story….. we all get bored.

Journalists in the Middle East need to be mobile. Visits to presidential palaces, foreign ministries and embassies all matter but being on the streets is the best way to get to the heart of the matter. My physio tells me I will stop limping fairly soon. Then I’ll be able to cycle and, after that, run.

Yawn.

It does all seem to be about the ‘Bowen’ rather than the news for Jimmy….though he’s not shy about lecturing world leaders on how to run their affairs and castigating the West for invading Iraq:

The BBC’s Middle East editor on John Kerry striking the wrong tone over Ukraine, and remembering the Aleppo souks.

I am not proposing a reprise of the row over UN Security Council resolutions or whether or not the United States, the UK and their allies were acting legally or illegally but it is important to remember that many countries did not buy the west’s version, so it has to expect a sceptical response when it scolds others.

And of course Bowen has a very high opinion of his own ‘journalism’:

Here we go, a new week of BBC bias to capture, and right here is where you capture it!

Today had on Sir David Higgins urging us to buy into the HS2 lunatic express scheme…the quicker the better….time, as he said, is money!

Jim Naughtie didn’t press Higgins hard at all….and seemed to accept the basic premise that HS2 is the best way of spending £80 billion that the nation doesn’t have….never mind flood defences, road maintenance, broadband, improving the existing rail network and so on…all of which would be less controversial, far easier to accomplish and far more beneficial to far more people than spending £80 billion on ‘elite’ business executive’s own private train…which is what HS2 is in reality….just another version of the ‘Royal Train’.

Perhaps not bias but bad reporting or journalism not to challenge Higgin’s assertions….however the default position of not testing the claims results in the same effect of being favourable to HS2.

His claim that we must crack on with the project, which he is in charge of, otherwise costs will rise is an obvious political trick….not so obvious that Naughtie tackled him on it.

Higgins tells us that HS2 is “vital for the future of the country” and said it could be “a catalyst for fundamental change”.

No objections to that from Naughtie.

Higgins knows the project is in trouble, massively expensive and benefiting a select few and so his answer is the same answer that hucksters all over the world use…‘Buy now whilst stocks last’…..’Buy now as these fantastic bargain prices can’t last much longer!‘

Never mind consultation or the approval process…never mind what Parliament or the people think….drive it through, time is money.

The reality is Higgins doesn’t really care about the costs just with getting his pet project going and his well paid job, and his legacy,  secured for years to come.

The real way to save money and not waste it..is not to do HS2….and what should really damn HS2 is that the backstabbing Vince Cable supports it….

Business Secretary Vince Cable said in an interview with the Observer on Sunday that there was a “compelling case” to speed up the extension of the HS2 rail link northwards.

The man who thinks a mansion tax is a workable, sensible idea.

The BBC’s web report pads Higgin’s claims out with more pro voices:

A Department for Transport spokesman said Sir David’s report “confirms that HS2 is the right project at the right price” but added that the report challenges the government to deliver the project more quickly and more effectively.

The Transport Secretary is due to respond to the report in Parliament later.

Shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh said: “David Higgins has made it clear that there are significant savings to be made if David Cameron gets a grip of this project and stops all these delays.

“The government must now act so this scheme can be delivered under budget.”

So everyone is in favour then…such a brilliant project.

The report does mention some opposition:

‘Waste of money’

Opponents of the scheme question how easy it will be to speed up the construction of HS2.

Richard Houghton, spokesman for HS2 Action Alliance said: “Bringing forward work will not be as simple as it sounds.

“Unless there are plans to circumnavigate the statute book, then a separate Hybrid Bill will have to be introduced.”

HS2 Action Alliance, which represents a coalition of groups opposed to the new rail link, says the project will be a “huge waste of money” and claims it will cause severe environmental damage, with the first phase alone having an impact on 130 protected wildlife sites.

That’s it then for the opposition….no real analysis….just ‘Not as simple as it sounds…and a few badgers might be inconvenienced’…….But then the BBC ducks back to the pro-side again….

Robbie Owen of Pinsent Masons solicitors, whose clients broadly support HS2, told the BBC that Sir David’s report was “incisive and powerful”.

“I think, in all, this [report] will hopefully help forge a much stronger cross-party consensus for the project,” said Mr Owen, the head of infrastructure planning and government affairs at the law firm.

“It’s crucially important to transform the economic shape of the UK and to try to rebalance the country away from all the emphasis on the South East,” he said. “We just can’t carry on as a country eking things out in terms of our infrastructure.”

The BBC’s report isn’t exactly dealing with the issues and is giving the pro-HS2 side a readymade platform to push their agenda unchallenged.

Just for interest here’s something from Al Jazeera…hosted by possibly the world’s most untrustworthy journalist, Mehdi Hasan….a devout Muslim, a Muslim preacher no less…but who tells us he is ‘secular and progressive‘.

Whilst the subjects are of interest Hasan probably isn’t the best person to be adjudicating over them as he has a dog in the fight being essentially a hardline Muslim activist himself….though that is a judgment based on past experience as I haven’t had time to listen to any of these debates yet….still interesting all the same.

A selection from ‘Head to Head’:

Head to Head is Al Jazeera’s new forum for ideas, hosted by Mehdi Hasan. In each episode, Hasan asks probing, hard-hitting questions and goes head to head with a special guest to  tackle some of the big issues of our time in front of an opinionated audience.

From Feedback……

Who decides the news agenda?

Richard Clarke, the Editor of the BBC Radio newsroom, on the stories that make the news.

Deciding the agenda…’We have our own ideas…but also use the Today programme, World at One, and PM, all of which influence us.‘

‘We test each other’s judgement….I make a much better decision when editing if I test my judgement against the rest of my team.’

So they test whether a story is suitable for the news by bouncing ideas off each other….who all think alike.

It was suggested that the BBC is becoming more ‘Tabloid’, covering too many sex and crime stories and that listeners are off to Al Jazeera for real world news……but also there was too much bad news…could there be time set aside for ‘good news’?

The reply…‘No….that would be manipulating the news.’

From that are we to believe they think they don’t manipulate the news?

Clarke says…‘When stories happen we HAVE to report them’.

Of course they do…..except when they choose not to…such as on Israel/immigration/Europe/inconvenient climate change bad news/good news on the economy.

The final question was ‘Are you interested in what listeners think?’

Answer….hmmm…not really…but he does read the duty log [of comments] every morning…probably for a good laugh.

Another Feedback programme covered similar ground……

How Broadcasting House interacts with its listeners

This programme looked especially at ‘Broadcasting House’ on Sunday mornings.

It asks….‘Do listeners have any real input….has there been anything in today’s broadcast suggested by listeners?’

Answer….‘No….but we read their comments with great interest.’

Yes…of course.

The answer continued….‘It’s quite trivial and silly things that get people going….such as whether English is being spoken on a train as raised by Nigel Farage.’

Yes…quite trivial and silly to worry about being a stranger in your own land.

Roger Bolton says ‘Listeners just want to be heard.’

Answer….’Yes….They want to know they are being listened to….that it’s not just a bunch of old suits paying themselves too much money at the BBC when the country wants to talk about these issues….they are battering the door down to tell us what the country is like.’

But is the BBC listening..to all the different voices…or just those of a similar persuasion? In my experience any ‘listening’ and response is purely on the basis that the listener is ignorant or prejudiced and it is the BBC’s job to re-educate them on the benefits of immigration or the peaceful and tolerant nature of Islam and the apparent Nasty Fascist side to UKIP.

The final point was interesting as it feeds into, and is the antithesis of, the comment made by Clarke in the first programme when he said he bounced his ideas off his own team…..in this programme it is suggested by Bolton that programmes and news broadcasts that feed off each other lead to the same agenda doing the same stories in the same way…they need to connect with the audience…and to respond to it.

Just don’t raise the subject of BBC bias.

Plenty of coverage for this BBC report:

Sue Lloyd Roberts hears how a religious sect that believes in Aliens and the pursuit of pleasure is trying to help victims of female genital mutilation in Burkina Faso

FGM, Clitoraid and The Pleasure Hospital

I heard the report on FOOC, it’s been on Newsnight and it’s in the Independent (as above) as well.

On FOOC we heard that FGM was a practise carried out by Asian, African and Middle Eastern people….wonder which ones exactly.

This though made me laugh, the presenter’s description of the ‘Raëlians‘ as a ‘bizarre religious sect’…

The initiative for Clitoraid and the Pleasure Hospital comes from the Raëlians, a bizarre religious sect who believe in UFOs, and that the purpose of life is the pursuit of pleasure.

And Christianity or Islam aren’t bizarre religious sects?

Is not the concept of an unseen God controlling everything not bizarre in itself never mind the details…creating the Earth in 6 days, women made from a rib, feeding the 5000 with one hamburger, burning/talking bushes, virgin births, coming back to life…flying to Heaven on a winged horse?

Would the BBC admit Islam is ‘bizarre’?  They might certainly go that far in speaking about Christianity if given the chance.

Why do the Raëlians get singled out as ‘bizarre’?

Raëlians are individualists who believe in sexual self-determination.^[4] As advocates of the universal ethic and world peace, they believe the world would be better if geniuses had an exclusive right to govern in what Rael terms Geniocracy.

Sounds a lot like the BBC.

The ‘pursuit of pleasure’.…an appalling way to lead a life.

From the BBC Duty Log….a listener complaint:

 “I was annoyed that a report presented the ‘big bang’ theory as fact. It is only scientific fact, not what many Christians believe.”

“Sometimes I wish I was Jesus, I’d get my Air Max on and run across the sea for you”

Apparently that sentence in a song lyric was so offensive, or something, that the BBC banned it:

Good Evans! BBC bans Jesus from Radio 2

This of course is the same BBC that has aired programme after programme denouncing and undermining Christianity whilst protecting the Koran and Islam from similar treatment….Jerry Spring springs to mind.

The BBC loves programmes that are:

Rocking The Foundations

The foundations of Christianity of course.

The latest being this:

Bible Hunters – 1. The Search for Bible Truth

[Revealing] discoveries that would shed controversial new light on the Christian origins and the story of the Bible…..The finds threatened to shake the foundations of Christianity.

BBC survey: Viewers think broadcaster is anti-Christian

The BBC is widely regarded as displaying an anti-Christian attitude in its programming, according to the Corporation’s own research.

According to viewers, the BBC uses “derogatory stereotypes” of Christians which portray them as “weak” and “bigoted”.

The BBC report, carried out as part of the corporation’s diversity strategy, said: “In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.”

In January this year [2011] a former BBC news anchor warned that Christians are “fair game” for insults at the broadcaster whilst Muslims must not be offended.

Peter Sissons, whose memoirs were being serialised in the Daily Mail, said: “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”

Could be right as the Guardian reminds us:

F*** you, says BBC as 50,000 rage at Spr*ng*r

Paxman has once again been rampaging around the country on his obsessive hobby horse making highly political comments about Tory ministers…and calling Cameron an idiot because Paxman thinks commemorating WWI is somehow the same as celebrating it.

Jeremy Paxman reopens war of words with Michael Gove over the WW1 centenary: ‘A charlatan’ who scores ‘cheap political points’

Can’t quite see how the BBC can continue to use Paxman as a political interviewer when he is so openly antagonistic towards the Tories…or indeed politics as a whole.  His comments during and after the Brand interview/farce should have immediately brought to the attention of the BBC hierarchy that Paxman is past it, jaded and unable to maintain a professional front.

Could he be shunted permanently sideways into the graveyard for past-it interviewers, making history programmes, like Andrew Marr?

Andrew Marr’s grasp of history is pretty shaky and prone to a leftwing take or revision of it…but judging by Paxman’s reading of Cameron’s speech on the WWI commemorations historical accuracy and honest analysis doesn’t seem to be one of his strong points either as we’ve pointed out before:

Going Over The Top

and noted in 2012 as well….

Jeremy Paxman on Gordon of Khartoum: so laughably inaccurate that I thought I must be hearing things

By coincidence John Humphrys piped up recently about BBC pro-EU bias (A coincidence that the next day the BBC began its defense of the license fee? Can’t help thinking Humphrys was prodded into saying this and to say the usual ‘We were biased but you know what…its all right now.’)

Craig at ‘Is the BBC biased’ has done an excellent job transcribing John Humphrys’ defense of his comments on Feedback where Roger Bolton isn’t impressed……

Roger Bolton: There is a question mark about whether you should say it publicly at this time, because…

John Humphrys: Why not? Public money!

Roger Bolton: Well, some people would say, one, because there’s a campaign going against the BBC and, therefore, you’re aiding its enemies.

So no one should criticise the BBC?  Those that do are ‘enemies’ however justified the criticism?

Then we get to a bit that is relevant to Paxman and his political outbursts…..

Roger Bolton:  The point I’m making, John, and it is difficult for all presenters. If they express themselves forcibly on a matter of public contention and debate when they come to chair something in which they’re required to be seen as objective they are compromised. 

John Humphrys: Well, on some issues you’d be absolutely right. I don’t, for instance, conduct interviews on assisted dying, which is a hugely contentious area, and I’ve written a book about it, and I have views about it, and I told the BBC I was writing the book and they said ‘Fine!’ and I agreed without hesitation. I suggested that I shouldn’t do interviews on it, and of course I don’t. So, the BBC is different. We are ALL the BBC.

If Humphrys is required to refrain from doing certain interviews upon subjects which he has publicly expressed strong views then shouldn’t the same requirement be made for Paxman?…and looking at his views on politics in general that would surely count him out of doing any political interview as he would clearly be basing the interview on his own jaundiced views.

Paxman is compromised right up to the hilt.

Finally a last word from Humphrys which is just a confirmation of what we all know….who gets invited for an interview onto the BBC is critical…..which is why programmes like Today pack the airwaves with musicians, artists, poets and writers because they know they will almost certainly have a leftwing take on events and will be suitably critical of people like George Bush or pro-climate change……and the presenters never seem to forget to ask them…‘By the way…any thoughts on Iraq/welfare/education?’……

Roger Bolton: Has anyone ever told you to go soft on the subject of Europe?

John Humphrys: Nope. But that doesn’t prove the point, Roger, because I don’t edit the programmes. I don’t decide who gets interviewed. And that is crucial to it.

Of course that isn’t the end of things…the presenters are indeed all too often of a likemind with their guests…..

As evidence by this recent bit of smearing by association spotted by ‘Is the BBC biased’:

What’s your advice, in the European countries, to the mainstream parties who see parties on the far-right with populist appeal of one kind – bashing immigrants or bashing European institutions? How should they behave? How should David Cameron, in this country, behave to UKIP?

‘Bashing immigrants‘…of course he means merely being critical of immigration doesn’t he?

And linking UKIP, once again, to the ‘Far Right’….the BBC et al were quick to denounce people who reminded us that Hitler was a socialist….and Labour are socialists.  Didn’t like that link for some reason.

Labour ‘One Nation Socialists’...National Socialists?

You can’t keep a good man down, but it seems ex BBC climate change activist, Richard Black, has slipped off to pastures new…and unknown?

He was Director of Communications at the Global Ocean Commission but hasn’t tweeted since December 17 and that position looks to have been filled now by a ‘Justin Woolford’.

Justin Woolford, Director of Communications

Justin joined the Commission in January 2014 bringing extensive experience in communications and campaigning to the Secretariat. He runs The Change Co., a consultancy supporting social and environmental change communications, and has previously run major international projects for WWF and The Co-operative, together with various civil society and private sector partners.

Let’s remember exactly why Black was so good at his job….more activist than journalist:

The BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Richard Black, gave this BBC College of Journalism presentation on impartiality and reporting climate change. He was speaking in the wake of the BBC Trust Report by Prof Steve Jones on science reporting and impartiality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gto8VTGhtZs

Tony Hall clearly has no control over the direction of travel the BBC takes politically….how can he claim impartiality is in the BBC’s DNA when it’s prime time current affairs programmes are stuffed full of people with quite obvious leftwing tendencies?

Guido reveals that Newsnight has, unbelievably?, hired a Labour stooge as its economics editor:

Newsnight Hire Pro-Labour TUC Wonk as Economics Editor

TUC’s senior economist Duncan Weldon has been hired as Flanders replacement. Weldon is a former Labour Party staffer who has blogged for the Fabian Society, Left Foot Forward and written a series of posts praising Labour politicians and attacking the Tories on LabourList. If that were not enough he also writes regularly for Owen Jones’ launched and Unite-funded CLASS think tank. Guido looks forward to his fair and balanced reporting…

BBC sources say that it would be unfair to blame the former Guardian deputy-editor Ian Katz who is now Newsnight’s editor for the hire as James Harding (ex-Times editor) signs off the hires. Katz seems sensitive to complaints about the politics of Newsnight:

@MediaGuido Excellent work!…thought it would take you longer to expose whole conspiracy—
Ian Katz (@iankatz1000) March 14, 2014

 

The BBC is the major news source for the majority of people in this country and therefore holds a particularly powerful and influential position…..and therefore should be held all the more rigorously to its charter and legal obligations to be impartial.

That clearly isn’t happening.

There is hardly a day go by without a Union representative, a Charity worker or a Labour politician being given airtime for some grievance against the government which then dominates the news agenda for that day, managing to paint a picture of destitution and ruination spreading across the nation despite an economy on the up, employment rising and inflation falling.

What to do with a dishonest BBC?  Keep sacking the DGs until they get a grip (unlikely with the hopelessly untrustworthy BBC Trust in charge)…or take them to court….after all it is a legal obligation to be impartial not merely a nice to have thing that can be disregarded if it doesn’t suit.