… wails John Humphrys (RealAudio) on the Today programme.

This blog isn’t a place to discuss gun control. Nor American culture. Nor Islamic culture, come to that.

But there does seem to be a pattern here. When a few Americans do bad things, be it at Columbine or Abu Ghraib, the question is always asked – what does this tell us about U.S. society and culture ?

Not so for the bad actions of a few from other cultures. As Dumb Jon says “don’t expect anyone to be referencing the vast majority of peaceful Yanks anytime soon.”

The Today programme like to think that they don’t just report the news, that they “help to set the agenda” – and to a great extent they’re correct. You can hear Humphrys or Naughtie worrying away at a point like a terrier with a rat. hoping to get an admission which will make the NEXT news headlines.

“In an interview on the BBC Today programme, the Minister revealed that …”

But there are scoops and scoops. The BBC has an institutional bias towards a pro-abortion viewpoint – I’m sorry, the approved BBC term is ‘pro-choice’, and against the pro-life viewpoint – I’m sorry, that should have read ‘anti-abortion’.

Which might explain why this remarkable interview (RealAudio, 25 minutes in) with ‘pro-choice’ Dr Stuart Derbyshire wasn’t the main headline at nine-o’clock, and would just have been quietly forgotten before the Web.

Dr Derbyshire argued that babies did not feel pain until they were up to several months old, an argument which seems to fly in the face of common sense and human experience, as John Humphrys acknowledged. Such a bizarre claim made by a proponent of an unpopular (to liberals) ideology would have been picked up and amplified by the BBC, used to discredit their cause. The two sides of bias are promoting that which supports a view and ignoring or suppressing that which discredits it.

I can imagine how a pro-life BBC would have spun it.

“A pro-abortion doctor today claimed that babies cannot feel pain until up to several months after birth. Controversial psychologist Dr Stuart Derbyshire – who has previously claimed that vivisectionists have no duty to care for laboratory animals beyond what is necessary for successful experimentation, said that …”

Here’s the transcript (note Humphrys’ self-correction of ‘baby’ to ‘foetus’, so characteristic of the BBC):

John Humphrys : “Right – so your contention is that the baby – er, the foetus, cannot feel pain until … ?”

Dr Stuart Derbyshire, psychologist : “Until it’s had an opportunity to undergo some sort of learning process – until it’s had an opportunity to undergo a process whereby pointing and showing occurs”

Humphrys (interrupting) – “But that would suggest it’s weeks – possibly months – after birth – and surely that’s nonsense, isn’t it ?”

Derbyshire : “It possibly is weeks, possibly months – I mean it’s very difficult of course to ever draw a line as to precisely when it happens – but I do think we can draw a line and say that it is vitally dependent upon a process that’s going to take place outside of the womb. Pain – in the same way – all experience is in a sense social – it’s dependent on other people, and that doesn’t occur until the point of birth.”

Humphrys : “Dr Derbyshire, many thanks”

Dr Derbyshire was propounding an identical theory in the magazine Living Marxism ten years ago. Why is the BBC suddenly publicising him ?

“The US is considering legislation to make doctors tell women seeking an abortion it will cause the foetus pain.”

Ah, the Great Satan. Now I understand. Happy Easter.

New Labour evangelist Tim Allan must have been having a good old chuckle this morning after the results of his dirty work against the BBC bore fruit. Allan was, of course, the PR man who leaked a tape of the memorably injudicious speech that BBC sacred site John Humphrys made at a PR forum.

Humphrys must have realised that the scorn he poured on the government during the address left himself vulnerable to attack, and so it proved to be when the great man measured up to David Blunkett on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 and queried a tabloid story about the pensions secretary’s private life.

“Can you carry on doing your job in the cabinet with the kind of publicity that you’re getting?” Humphrys asked, which led to this instant Blunkett riposte: “Can you carry on doing your job at the BBC with the kind of publicity that you’ve been getting?”

Monkey’s match report: Blunkett 1, Humphrys 0.

Touché! See also Thompson spooked by Sky News, as noted by Ritter in the B-BBC comments:

Someone tell the producers on BBC1 drama Spooks they aren’t helping director general Mark Thompson’s crusade to boost News 24. Mark says he’s tired of turning up in newsrooms and studios to find Sky News on the monitors, rather than News 24.

You might want to have a chat with Peter Fincham then, Mark. Despite protestations a couple of years ago from ex-controller Lorraine Heggessey that Spooks doesn’t plug Sky News, last night’s episode of the latest series of the hit MI5 drama featured no less than five – count ’em – Sky News presenters. If even MI5 tunes into Sky to find out the latest news then what hope does News 24 have?

Presumably Mark’s staff prefer Sky so they can be first with the news too!

The BBC’s John Humphrys shot his mouth off about some politicians in a speech to a bunch of PR men on a cruise. Now he faces an exhaustive internal enquiry. Naughty Humphrys. He owes most of his fame to his role with the BBC, so he really ought to wear the mask. Still, boys will be boys, and the internal enquiry would be better directed at what he says on air rather than off it. Sage words from the Times:

Like it or not — and on the whole he seems to like it — Humphrys is a public figure. His views are therefore a matter of legitimate interest. What they are not is a suitable subject for an exhaustive internal BBC inquiry. Michael Grade, the corporation’s Chairman, is said to have requested a full transcript of the cruise ship speech. He should read it, chuckle and move on: he has the more serious issue of institutional bias to confront, and on this score the BBC’s frontline presenters are far from blameless.

And

Humphrys has argued that the journalist’s chief responsibility is to challenge authority. This is necessary, and extremely easy. It is far harder for the journalist to ensure that his own views do not interfere with the presentation, and BBC presenters are all too often impatient with anything other than a soft-left world-view. Humphrys’ performance as an onboard entertainer should not be exploited by the Government to settle old scores, nor by Mr Grade to improve relations with the Government. But it might usefully prompt sober introspection by the BBC’s most senior journalists.

BBC ready for Radio Four-letter words

BBC RADIO 4 must challenge political correctness to satisfy an audience that no longer “wears tweeds and plays golf”, its controller says.
Mark Damazer has declared that the principles underlying the station during his stewardship will be “dissent, excitement, thrills and fun”.

Addressing the Broadcasting Press Guild, Mr Damazer also backed the Today programme, including the forceful questioning style of John Humphrys. He said: “Today is a large beast in the jungle and big beasts do not tread lightly.”

There was room for sex, not least in The Archers, ripe language and a commitment to find new comedy talent. The station, which has an average listener age of 54, will challenge the assumed liberal values of its audience.

Mr Damazer, a former BBC news chief, said: “Dissent must be one of the qualities of Radio 4. There should be a lack of political correctness and a willingness to challenge the foundations of political ideas. We won’t be afraid of the politically unorthodox.”

Does that mean you’ll be bringing back Frederick Forsyth, sacked because “BBC executives… objected to his political stance”, then Mark?

Angry viewers rap 0870 call costs

Government agencies make millions of pounds because people have to call 0870 numbers, newspaper reports claim. But they’re not the only ones using them – BBC News does as well, something that annoys viewers.

Brian Taylor told NewsWatch that the BBC should be more open how much the calls cost and, below, Michael Stock of Audience Services supplied some answers.

And rightly so – the proliferation of 0870 so-called ‘national rate’ numbers (in reality disguised premium rate numbers) is one of the biggest and best of all the scams that BT have managed to slip by the plodding regulators at Ofcom (and its comatose predecessor, Oftel). Even the BBC’s own consumer affairs programme, Watchdog, has the gall to use an 0870 number! But, amazingly, even with the huge potential revenue that 0870 nos. present to an organisation with as many callers as the BBC, get this, “the BBC doesn’t make any money from these calls. A rebate is available to organisations who use 0870 numbers – but the BBC has waived its right to this in return for better telephone services for the audience”. Utter clowns! Someone’s laughing all the way to the bank, and it’s not the telly-tax payers or phone bill payers!

And finally, now that the dust has settled (see Crime never pays – except when the BBC is newly flush with telly-taxpayers cash):

Burglar documentary to be shown

A documentary about Tony Martin, who was jailed for shooting dead a burglar, will be shown on the BBC despite controversy over payment to a criminal.

Brendan Fearon, who was wounded in the shooting after breaking into Martin’s Norfolk home, was paid £4,500 by the BBC to appear in The Tony Martin Story.

Interestingly, whilst Tony Martin’s conviction is covered at length, Brendan Fearon’s lifelong criminal record is barely mentioned, presumably for reasons of space.

More importantly, for concerned viewers, telly-tax payers and decent people everywhere, what of the idiot(s) who deigned to offer money to Fearon the lifelong career criminal in the first place (i.e. the real scandal here)? Have they been fired, disciplined or reprimanded? Is the ever accountable BBC going to tell us whether it has learnt the lesson of its Cash for Criminals scandal yet?

(from Blithering Bunny)

An extraordinary letter from Peter Mandelson to Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC), obtained by The Times:

PETER MANDELSON, the European Trade Commissioner, has mounted an attack on John Humphrys, the Today programme journalist, complaining to the BBC of his “virulently anti-European” views and claiming that the “anti-European bias” of some BBC presenters is a “problem”.

In a stinging letter, obtained by The Times, to Michael Grade, the BBC Chairman, Mr Mandelson accused the BBC of failing in its charter obligation to promote “understanding” of European affairs and declared: “I do not think the present BBC coverage is good enough.”

He said the BBC gave too much coverage to moderate Eurosceptics and should instead give more coverage to extreme Eurosceptics such as UKIP, who wanted to take Britain out of the EU altogether.

Mr Humphrys last night dismissed the criticism as political opportunism. “It’s delightful for once to be accused of being Eurosceptic when we’re usually accused at the Today programme of being Europhiles,” he said. “It’s interesting that Peter Mandelson has any idea of what my views on the subject are.

Read the rest here, including this:

His comments that “UKIP views are, if anything, under-represented” was seen by one leading moderate Eurosceptic yesterday as a cynical ploy. “It just shows how cynical the Government is, wanting to make all Eurosceptics seem like loonies,” he said.

If Mandelson – who is employed by the EC, let us not forget – is right about one thing, it is that the BBC has mostly ignored the EU issue, giving it sketchy, superficial and inadequate coverage. But Mandelson’s grasp on reality, always shaky, appears weaker than ever if thinks that the BBC is anti-EU and Humphreys “virulently anti-EU”.

The timing of the public release of this letter, which was supposed to be confidential (why? Was he worried that people would laugh at his views?) is particularly embarrassing for Mandelson, coming as it did after a recent inquiry into the BBC found that the culture at BBC News led to a “reluctance to question pro-EU assumptions”, and the day after the BBC ran a negative documentary on Kilroy in his UKIP days.

But of course this letter is just the filip the pro-Europeans at the BBC need. Now they can push for even more pro-EU coverage, on the basis that Mandelson has decreed that they’re not pro-EU enough.

P.S. Richard North has also seen this story:

This is undoubtedly a “spoiler” by Mandelson, who undoubtedly correctly assesses that if he can engineer a complaint against the BBC, its corporate tendency is to suggest that, if it is getting complaints from both sides, then its coverage must be about right – even though the review panel rejected this suggestion… Mandelson, with his known tactical skills, is obviously making an early attempt to tilt the coverage in favour of the “yes” campaign.

P.P.S. Reader Bill Collins informs me that “back in June the BBC dug up and publicized a claim that the BBC was biased in favor of Israel. The article doesn’t mention that the BBC has been accused of bias in the other direction”.

Cross-posted at Blithering Bunny.

I have only intermittent access to a computer. So here’s some quick links without my usual waffle – nice people will refrain from writing in and saying it’s an improvement.

Go see new blog The Ultra Moderate. Check out the cool statement of belief top right.

The Daily Ablution hangs John Humphrys out to dry.

Read Melanie Phillips on an exchange between John Humphrys and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s top diplomat in Iraq.

Humphrys: ‘Doesn’t that rather weaken the argument for having gone to war in the first place? If he didn’t have support in the Arab world; if he didn’t have (as we must assume in the absence of any evidence that he didn’t have WMD)…’

Eh? What an astonishing series of non sequiturs! Saddam was a threat because he wanted to overthrow his neighbours, not because he was always round there watching a video with them. He had regional ambitions to rule the Arab world. By definition that would imply the Arab world wouldn’t have been too keen on him. And as for the ‘assumption’ that because WMD haven’t been found, they never existed — for heaven’s sake, is there absolutely no-one in the whole of the BBC’s editorial hierarchy who can tell Humphrys that this argument, which he loses no opportunity to make, is simply idiotic? Or do they all share this obsessional delusion?