BBC radio phone-in silences the elderly

, according to a startling article by Stewart Payne in today’s Daily Telegraph:

…a leaked memo revealed that phone-in presenters on a local radio station have been barred from allowing callers who sound old on air.

Mia Costello, managing editor of BBC Radio Solent, told her broadcasters: “I don’t want to hear really elderly voices.”

She instructed presenters to appeal to an imaginary couple she called “Dave and Sue”, who would typically be aged between 45 and 64. “Only do caller round-ups about people in this age range,” she said.

Her memo was leaked after she axed several of her older broadcasters, including the BBC’s disability affairs correspondent Peter White, who had a Saturday breakfast show on the station until last week.

Do read the rest of the article. An absolute disgrace, quite typical of today’s BBC, and something for which heads should roll, but they won’t, also quite typical of today’s BBC.

Remember, to paraphrase Rageh Omaar’s nauseating BBC adverts from a while back, “It’s not your BBC, it’s their BBC”, and, courtesy of Simon Walters in the Daily Mail a few weeks back (which I meant to blog about at the time), We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News, we have it from the horse’s mouth, well, Andrew Marr’s at least:

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias” – Andrew Marr

The leaked account of the summit recounted in the Mail also revealed that:

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians

To which I feel compelled to respond in the vernacular: No shit, Sherlock!

Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:


Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Come tour our beautiful sugar caves! (Work experience available.)

Racist Murder – BBC responses

via DFH in the comments, Raymond Snoddy (‘until this week not one word on national TV bulletins‘) interviews Peter Horrocks (Realplayer video), head of TV news, on the Kriss Donald coverage. They’ve had 200 complaints about the lack thereof. But then ‘the British National Party has encouraged its members to write in‘, as Mr Horrocks points out.

He struggles gamely with a few straw men of his own devising (I paraphrase)- ‘we couldn’t cover the trial the way we’d like to under Scottish law – for instance we aren’t allowed to show photos of the accused, which obviously show that they were Asian and the victim was white …’

I see. If only those photos were available it would have been all over BBC Television news ! And was the particular ethnicity of the alleged murderers relevant ? Surely it was their alleged murderousness and their alleged racism that was relevant ?

We see the ‘only whites could be racists but it’s changing‘ meme a la Mark Easton.

I think there is something interesting about racial crime, that in the past it’s been seen as largely racial crime against blacks and Asians …

Been seen by whom exactly ? You’d think he was looking in from the outside, dispassionately describing some fascinating natural process outside man’s power to control.

Regrets, he’s had a few.

I do wish we’d covered the trial on its first day …

‘But you also didn’t cover the first trial’

Yes, and we should have done – and we should have done that …

We’ll add that to ‘in hindsight, it was a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively’ and ‘I think, however, we should have mentioned the Whelan murder, however briefly‘, shall we ?

DFH also provided links to the Fran Unsworth interview after the Anthony Walker coverage. Ms Unsworth doesn’t know if the Kriss Donald murder was a racist crime, and she also knows that there are about 850 homicides a year in the UK (850 homicides is the England and Wales figure). Fran Unsworth is head of “BBC Newsgathering”.

Their force is wonderful great and strong” wrote Admiral Howard of the Armada, “yet we pluck their feathers little by little“. Or as Hardy rightly said “continual dropping will wear away a Stone – ay, more – a Diamond.” Maybe one day we won’t have to do this. Chance would be a fine thing.

Racist Murder And The BBC

(Apologies for linking to many of my own blog’s postings, but I have been following this story since it first broke).

Last Wednesday saw what I believe was a first for BBC news. A racist murder featured as the main story on the PM Radio Four five o’clock bulletin. The same murder featured in subsequent bulletins and was the top story on the BBC UK News website the same afternoon. Only the Rumsfeld resignation knocked it off top spot on the six o’clock news – and the murder was discussed on Radio Five that night and again the following day.

What’s so unusual about that ? The perpetrators were not white. Previous coverage of such murders have been low-profile to the point of invisibility, in stark contrast to the BBCs coverage of racist murder where the perpetrators, or alleged perpetrators, were white.

Six examples, in chronological order, will illustrate. The 1993 murder of teenager Stephen Lawrence (830 BBC news search results) will be well-known to anyone living in the United Kingdom. No one has been convicted of his murder.

The racist murder of Ghanaian Michael Menson in 1997 – 25 results. Initially thought to have been the work of white racists, three people of varied ethnicity were convicted.

The racist murder of teenager Scott Parker (7 BBC news search results) in September 2001 will be less familiar. Unusually, the BBC have accepted, in a piece by TV editor Jon Williams, that ‘in hindsight, it was a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively’.

The reason the murder slipped under the BBC radar ?

On the same day that Shied Nazi, Ahmed Ali Aswan and Sarris Ali were jailed for the murder of Ross Parker, another murder dominated the headlines.

The uncle of Danielle Jones – a schoolgirl who disappeared in Essex — was found guilty of killing her. The search for Danielle had been extensively covered. The conviction of Stuart Campbell closed a chapter on a continuing mystery.

Add to that the build up to the war in Iraq and Hans Blix’s verdict on Iraq’s weapons dossier, and you begin to see how a newsworthy story about the murder of a teenager – in appalling circumstances – might be squeezed out by other stories.

The murder of Ross Parker took place ten days after the September 11th attacks – at a time when the BBC had all antennae alert for attacks on Muslims, not by Muslims. On the day he died this is what the BBC were reporting. I’d respectfully suggest that, had a 17 year old Muslim been chased and butchered in Peterborough on September 21, 2001, it would have not only have been reported on BBC news – it would have dominated BBC news – Hans Blix or no Hans Blix.

The third murder is the one the BBC are now covering, that of Kriss Donald, the 15-year old schoolboy, snatched from the street by strangers and held captive overnight before being slaughtered in the most appalling fashion. At the end of the first trial (of one of his killers, at the end of 2004) there were 36 BBC news search results. The verdict was covered in one report on the Today programme and one report on the PM news.

In June 2005 student Anthony Walker (127 BBC news search results) was killed in a racist attack in Liverpool. In their own words : The BBC has given a lot of national coverage to the murder of Anthony Walker, the 18-year-old boy killed with an axe in Merseyside last Friday. It made the One, Six and Ten O’Clock News bulletins; there were constant live updates on News 24; and it led the UK index of the BBC News website.

Why did the Anthony Walker murder get such coverage ? BBC News editor Amanda Farnsworth said “It is this racial element to the crime that makes it different …In addition, there was a planning and premeditation in the murder of Anthony Walker that was also particularly shocking. Anthony had walked away from the man racially abusing him but the man appears to have gone to find his friends, and an axe, and chased and killed the 18-year-old.”

And in October 2005 Isiah Young-Sam (16 BBC news search results) was killed in a racist attack in Birmingham.

830 reports, 25 reports, 7 reports, 36 reports, 127 reports, 16 reports.

In two racist murders the victim was non-white, the alleged perpetrators white. 957 reports.

In two racist murders the victim was white, the alleged perpetrators non-white. 42 reports.

In two racist murder both victim and alleged perpetrators were non-white. 41 reports – and of the 25 Michael Menson stories, several relate to the claim that his killers were a white gang (Mr Menson was actually killed by a Mauritian, a Turkish Cypriot, and a Greek – a Mr Hussein Abdullah was also convicted of perverting the course of justice).

Do we see a pattern here ?

It can be argued that the Lawrence case was an exceptional one, because of the response which the campaign of the Lawrence family engendered from government, the enquiry which was convened, and the effect of the enquiry upon society in general and government in particular. There is some truth in this. People will have to judge for themselves. It could also be said that some alleged racist murders where the alleged perpetrators were white, such as the killing of 80 year old Akberali Tayabali Mohamedally, receive little coverage. As the BBC did not report the trial, if indeed there was one, it’s difficult to draw firm conclusions either way.

The most telling contrast is between the coverage of the Anthony Walker and Isiah Young-Sam murders. Both were bright young black men from similar churchgoing backgrounds and loving families – yet the coverage ratio (127 stories to 16) is remarkable – especially when you consider the nature of the attack.

All murders – including racist ones – are abhorrent, and difficult to rank in order of ghastliness. The victims are just as dead. Yet the Young-Sam murder was particularly vile in that, like the murder of Kriss Donald, it was targeted rather than opportunistic.

The murderers of Anthony Walker and the alleged murderers of Stephen Lawrence were thugs with criminal records and histories of violence against people of all races. They met their victims by chance in the street – the Walker murderers were actually on their way to commit a robbery. Although it is impossible to be sure, it is unlikely that either set of murderers had planned the killings.

In contrast, the murderers of Isiah Young-Sam, like those of Kriss Donald, were cruising the streets looking for someone of the right race to attack. The murder took place at a time of heightened tension and street clashes between Asian and Afro-Caribbean Britons in Birmingham. So why did he get so much less coverage than Anthony Walker, despite ticking all Amanda Farnsworth’s boxes for a ‘racial element’ and premeditation ?

The coverage fits a pattern. It’s exactly what you’d expect to see from people who have been taught and believe that –

a) racism by the majority community against minority communities is widespread and is a major social and cultural problem

b) racist murders by members of the majority community are the most striking expression of this racism

In other words, anyone who’s studied politics or social science in a British university in the last thirty years.

Anthony Walker and Stephen Lawrence are important in this context not so much as individuals but as icons. It’s because their murders resonate with assumption a) that they get big air. The stories fit into an existing, larger narrative.

There’s nothing wrong, of course, with assumptions a) or b). They are legitimate views to hold. The problem comes when you pick and choose news stories on the basis of how well they fit into and illustrate it. You run the risk of being perceived as grossly unfair – racist, even – when almost identical stories get different levels of coverage.

Unstated – and until recently, maybe even unthought, are two other assumptions.

c) racism by minority communities against the majority or any other community is not widespread and is not a problem

d) what racist murders ?

I can quote statistics from the BBC News pages forever, but it’s easier to give examples of c) and d). You’ll find a number of stories on BBC news where a member of a minority community has died and (far-left) campaigners are convinced a racist murder has been committed. The deaths of the McGowans in Telford or Ricky Reel come to mind. They’re reported because they fit assumption a). You won’t find any stories where a member of the majority community has died and (far-right) campaigners are convinced a racist murder has been committed. Protests about the killing of Gavin Hopley went unreported. The story doesn’t fit the narrative.

And “what murders ?” On 1st December 2005, the day when the Walker killers were sentenced, Jane Garvey of BBC Radio Five’s Drive programme interviewed Peter Fahey, Chief Constable of Cheshire and race spokesperson for ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and asked him :


“Has there ever been a white victim of a racist murder in this country ?”

If the regular presenter of a daily BBC three-hour news and current affairs show is unaware of such murders what does that say about the coverage they get ?

At the time Ms Garvey asked her question BBC researchers must surely have been aware of the 2004 Home Office data (p20) which states : “Over this three-year period, the police reported to the Home Office 22 homicides where there was a known racial motivation. Twelve victims were White, 4 Asian, 3 Black and 3 of ‘Other’ ethnic origin. There were no current suspects identified for 5 of these victims, 3 of who were White, 1 Black and 1 ‘Other’.” Anyone whose only news source was the BBC would be amazed to learn from the same Home Office figures (Table 3.6) that for every non-white person killed by a white person in England and Wales, two whites are killed by non-whites.

But it all changed last week. Kriss Donald Trial 2 got the full treatment denied Trial 1. An extended seach returns 82 stories – the majority dating from after the first trial. Why ?

Everyone will have their views on this – mine are not relevant here. I’m just grateful that victims are starting to be treated more equally, no matter what their skin colour. More rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner, and all that.

But the BBC’s Mark Eason does attempt an explanation-cum-justification for this sudden about-turn – which is unintentionally revealing (although yet again poor Isiah Young-Sam is ignored).

Racism was once defined as “prejudice plus power” – a definition which, in a British context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.

Yes, racism was once defined that way – in left-wing sociology and social services departments between, say, the Brixton riots and the 7/7 bombings. And “tended to exclude all but the white population” boils down in practice to “only whites can be racist“. In other words, the attitude underlying the BBCs discriminatory reporting up until last week. Mr Easton’s rather let the cat out of the bag there. Thanks for being so upfront about it.

To everyone else the definition of racism remained what it had always been – judging someone on the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character.

PS – Mr Easton’s piece is worthy of a full fisking, but I’ll just take one small poke :

“The far right has tried to exploit what it claims is the untold story of racial attacks on white people. On the National Front website they feature a long list of “The Fallen”, white people they say were killed by non-whites.”

It is absolutely true that the paucity of coverage of the Kriss Donald murder – arguably by far the worst racist murder ever committed in Britain (at least since the sectarian barbarities of the Shankill Butchers), has been a propaganda gift to parties like the BNP. But it’s a gift that was handed them by the BBC. If the BBC doesn’t report something which is of interest to large numbers of people, other organisations will attempt to fill the void. There are some murders which are only documented at various far-right sites – and it is a disgrace that the BBC don’t report them, leaving such sites as literally the only sources of information. I’ll be interested to see if the BBC cover the Charlene Downes murder trial next year.

Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:


Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

Roundup

  • Government manipulation of the Beeb in Northern Ireland? Slugger O’Toole reports on a case of “vigorous counter-briefing of the BBC from a very senior government figure.”
  • I was hacked off that this article on the red poppy/white poppy controversy describes Ekklesia as merely “a Christian lobby group”. That may be why some of the comments in the associated Have Your Say slag off “the Christians” or “the Church” for sticking their noses in, when the Church as a whole said no such thing. Ekklesia is a left wing (or as it describes itself, “progressive”) Christian lobby group. Whenever a right-wing Christian lobby group says something controversial its right-wingness is shouted from the rooftops. The BBC’s article conforms to a trend whereby left-wing bodies are described in neutral terms unlike their counterparts on the right.
  • Nep Nederlander and The Policeman’s Blog both discuss experiences of being filmed by a BBC crew. Nep Nederlander’s rancher friends felt they’d been shafted; the various responses to the Coppersblog post told tales of both good and bad treatment. Hat tip to “1327” for the latter link.
  • An interesting letter in Monday’s Media Guardian:

    Mourning the loss of impartiality on the BBC

    Like John Simpson, who this week leapt to the defence of BBC “impartiality”, I began my near 40-year broadcast career in BBC TV news. It was impartial then; it certainly isn’t now. I have seen my own visual material presented in an entirely different timeline, totally distorting the actual event that I witnessed, and at no time did the intellectually lazy journalists ask me what I witnessed. I also have seen raw camera material destined for both BBC and ITN come out in completely different forms on air. The bias in both cases was pro-establishment during the Thatcher years.

    As we expect politicians to declare an interest, should we not expect ourselves to do the same when asked to comment on a system that has provided succour to ourselves and our families as it has in John’s case?

    I believe that few employed by the BBC can have a truly objective view of the BBC’s political and social bias.

    We on the outside do not like the PC Stalinism, urban bias, sloppy technical, artistic and journalistic standards that BBC News now represents, and if you really want examples, I can point to a Newsnight interview with the PM on a train. Neither the cameraman, reporter, editor, sub or indeed tea lady noticed that between cutaways and the body of the interview the train direction reversed. It is called crossing the line, it is as basic in TV news as learning your alphabet. That the BBC sought to defend its gross incompetence is again a glaring example of how those within have lost all objectivity about the system that they are in. Precision with words and pictures is vital in a political world that seeks to distort both.

    Chris Harnett, Southampton

    via Drinking from Home.

    Gained in translation.

    Pulling back from the fray for a moment, allow me to highlight two new blogs. Besides the interest in BBC bias that caused the authors to comment here, both have also have an interest in – I was about to say “foreign” languages, but had I done so certain members of my family would have told me rather firmly that the tongue of the Britons was spoken in these islands long before the Angles or the Saxons came. Both have an interest in languages other than English, then.

  • Nep Nederland is a blog by a Dutch-speaking British expat in the Netherlands. He has a detailed post discussing his views on BBC bias here.

    … the oh so helpful BBC went further and explained that this wasn’t really so bad for whites because whites make up over 90% of the population, and racial minorities are still more likely to be victims of racist attacks than whites. That’s all right then, we have not yet upset the BBC weltanschauung. Move along, nothing more to see here. For the BBC, this was ENDEX.

    Read the rest. He mentions that Dutch viewers (who nearly all speak English) can get BBC1 and BBC2 as standard, and most of the other BBC channels on digital. I hope he will post further on how the BBC’s output is received in Holland and Europe.

  • The author of The Shattered Realm, “Afagddu”, is a Welshman with an interest in the works of Tolkien. He touches on the BBC’s Welsh language service here.

    Here in Wales for instance there is a very strong Welsh language bias evident in the BBC that makes it difficult for monoglot English speakers to get jobs there even though the vast majority of its output is in English. In its actual broadcasting there is a faux, and clearly enforced, policy of over-pronunciating Welsh names and places that verges on parody.

    This are clear political motivations at stake in this. Practically speaking it is NOT necessary to speak Welsh to do the huge majority of jobs in Wales. Realistically speaking it is not even a real necessity to speak Welsh at all in the workplace as there are no monoglot Welsh speakers left – all Welsh speakers are bilingual these days. Although I support the preservation of the language it should not be carried out through one of the worst aspects of political correctness – reverse discrimination.

    Both these blogs mention the coming expansion of the BBC’s Arabic and Farsi services.

    Nep Nederlander:

    Is it perhaps that they are expanding their operations in the Middle East, and even Iran, and desire to be viewed kindly by the Islamist regimes which rule the region and control the purse strings?

    Afagddu:

    To gain some kind of persepective of its pandering to the Islamic World take a look at the interview with BBC Arabic TV’s News Director Salah Najm over at This Sceptred Isle.

    Talking of which, this Little Green Footballs post says, citing a Google translation, that LGF was described as “an extreme right wing” site on the BBC’s Arabic service. I can think of a few commenters who probably speak Arabic – would anyone care to comment on the translation, or on the Arabic service generally? (I would also welcome views on the Farsi service.) LGF puts in one place many news stories about Jihadism. Quite a few of the comments there would and will get deleted by me if they show up here. But I don’t see what’s so “extreme right-wing” about the posts. Most of them are merely brief introductions to a link to a news story. Unless it’s extremist merely to keep such news stories coming in quick succession? Before 9/11 LGF was a mildly geeky blog mostly about cycling and software.

  • Rebels are always anti-war, right?

    Ceefax, page 125 3/4 says (emphasis added):

    The Senate seat in Connecticut went to Joe Lieberman who stood as an independent on an anti-war platform after losing the Democratic primary.

    Wrong. Ned Lamont won in the Democratic primary because Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war was unpopular with the committed Democratic voters who make up the constituency for a Democratic primary. However with voters as a whole, the pro-war Lieberman was much more popular which is why even running as an independent he was able to defeat the official Democratic Party candidate, Lamont.

    UPDATE: Ah, I see the equivalent story on the website has half a clue:

    The Senate seat in Connecticut has gone to Joe Lieberman, who stood as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont amid strong anti-war feeling. He has said he will align himself with the Democrats.

    “Amid strong anti-war feeling”: what a masterpiece of ambiguity. This does better than the Ceefax story in that it is not flat-out wrong. However a reader who did not already know the story would have to work very hard to deduce that Lamont was the anti-war one and Lieberman the pro-war one.

    ANOTHER UPDATE: Ceefax now has a longer and more accurate explanation. However commenter “pounce” preserved an image of the original.