It's the same old song

Not Tom Watson

By Thursday night's Newsnight  we were getting the following from Evan Davis:

For our European colleagues the British situation raises all sorts of questions - not always very welcome ones. And now they find themselves working with a foreign secretary who has, over the years, treated the EU with derision. 

A little earlier I spoke to the Lithuanian foreign secretary, Linas Linkevicius. What does he think of Boris Johnson's past indiscretions? And will they make it difficult to take him or British foreign policy seriously? 

It's the same question - and tone - as Gavin Esler and Chris Mason this morning.

More 'Newsnight'

That same (Wednesday) edition of Newsnight also had several discussions with non-BBC guests on Brexit-related matters. 

The first discussion was balanced 1:1 between a Leave supporter (Peter Lilley) and a Remain supporter (Heidi Allen).

The second discussion had a 2:1 imbalance in favour of Remain (with Rupert Harrison and  Mariana Mazzucato on the Remain side and Gerard Lyons on the Leave side).

The final discussion has a 3:1 imbalance in favour of Remain (with Polly Toynbee, Matthew Parris and Anne McElvoy on the Remain side and Charles Moore on the Leave side).

What happened when four 'Newsnight' editors gathered around Evan's cauldron...

Beginning to catch up with Wednesday's and Thursday's editions of Newsnight, I'd just say that if you want to sample BBC bias over Brexit in full flow you only need to watch the opening discussion between Evan Davis and the four Newsnight 'editors' on Wednesday night's programme...

This, of course, came on the day that Mrs May became PM, and it began with Evan Davis talking of the "disconcertingly turbulent" last three weeks and how the ritual of the handover of power might have proved "reassuring" and provided "some calm at last".

James O'Brien pursues a line...

If there's one thing I picked up on earlier (from commenters on Twitter and at Biased BBC, Guido Fawkes, The Spectator, etc) is just how strongly James O'Brien stood out today for pushing a particularly aggressive line on the Nice atrocity on his LBC programme.

He provoked considerable ire for so doing (as befits a shock jock). 

Cutting off at least one caller (apparently), he ranted for ages (apparently) on the subject of why it's wrong to blame Muslims for such things as the Nice massacre (a matter that - apparently - mattered to him above all else).

newspapers and It's the same old songnewspapers

Not Tom Watson

By Thursday night's Newsnight  we were getting the following from Evan Davis:

For our European colleagues the British situation raises all sorts of questions - not always very welcome ones. And now they find themselves working with a foreign secretary who has, over the years, treated the EU with derision. 

A little earlier I spoke to the Lithuanian foreign secretary, Linas Linkevicius. What does he think of Boris Johnson's past indiscretions? And will they make it difficult to take him or British foreign policy seriously? 

It's the same question - and tone - as Gavin Esler and Chris Mason this morning.

And how did Evan go on from that? By asking Mr Linkevicius the following question: 

The German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called some of the things he had said in the Referendum campaign "irresponsible and monstrous". And it is true that Boris Johnson has been (laughing), well, a critic of the European Union...let's say. Does that bother you? Does that make it harder to work with him, do you think?

Mr Linkevicius (who sounded a whole lot nicer than Tom Watson) said Britain leaving the EU "leaves a small hole in the hearts" of Lithuanians. "We belong together", he said. "I'm hearing your message very clearly. Linas Linkevicius, thanks very much for talking to us", said Evan.

******

That same edition of Newsnight also featured the booing of Boris at the French embassy (at some length) in its introduction, with Evan quipping (somewhat gloatingly to my ears), "But at the French embassy tonight the Foreign Secretary was already experiencing life on the outside".

newspapers and More 'Newsnight'newspapers

That same (Wednesday) edition of Newsnight also had several discussions with non-BBC guests on Brexit-related matters. 

The first discussion was balanced 1:1 between a Leave supporter (Peter Lilley) and a Remain supporter (Heidi Allen).

The second discussion had a 2:1 imbalance in favour of Remain (with Rupert Harrison and  Mariana Mazzucato on the Remain side and Gerard Lyons on the Leave side).

The final discussion has a 3:1 imbalance in favour of Remain (with Polly Toynbee, Matthew Parris and Anne McElvoy on the Remain side and Charles Moore on the Leave side).

That, of course, is the programme's pre-Referendum imbalance on steroids.

******

This edition of Newsnight also backed up my feeling (as mentioned in an earlier post) that the BBC took to Theresa May's coronation in an 'intensely relaxed' way.

Take this from Evan Davis:

One thing's that painfully obvious is how divided the country's been over the last few months - not to mention the Conservative Party itself. Suddenly Theresa May has risen to the top, powered by a remarkable sense of unity. It's not just the goodwill that offered to a new inhabitant of Downing Street. She's not stabbed anyone, stamped on anyone's head or questioned their ability to govern on account of their family circumstances. By universal acclaim she was the grown-up in the kindergarten.

And he said that last sentence in an entirely serious way, wearing this face as he did so:

Nick Watt's report featured only admiring 'talking heads' and ended by saying "friends say the country will soon warm to their new prime minister."

******

The only real criticism of Mrs May came in Katie Razzall's report on immigration (in light of Brexit and Mrs May's entry into Downing Street).

It came from the public.

******

Katie's report, however, was striking in a different kind of imbalance.

It featured contrasting voices on the issue of mass immigration. Counting the time given to each side, it worked out thus:

For mass immigration: 1m 38s

Against mass immigration: 21s

All four pro-mass immigration voices were successful ethnic minority people involved in business or the charity sector (shown at art galleries or at their business), while both anti-mass immigration voices were white UKIP activists (down the pub). 

And at the heart of Katie's report was this:

There's no doubt immigration played a key role in the Referendum. Almost all the West Midlands region voted Leave, including multicultural Birmingham...Across the Midlands and both hate crimes rose after Brexit, like at this halal shop fire-bombed in Walsall.  

******

This edition of Newsnight, like every other recent edition of Newsnight (post-Referendum) wasn't exactly lacking in bias (to put it mildly).

newspapers and What happened when four 'Newsnight' editors gathered around Evan's cauldron...newspapers

Beginning to catch up with Wednesday's and Thursday's editions of Newsnight, I'd just say that if you want to sample BBC bias over Brexit in full flow you only need to watch the opening discussion between Evan Davis and the four Newsnight 'editors' on Wednesday night's programme...

This, of course, came on the day that Mrs May became PM, and it began with Evan Davis talking of the "disconcertingly turbulent" last three weeks and how the ritual of the handover of power might have proved "reassuring" and provided "some calm at last". 

Leaning in, he added "but only up to a point"...

...before talking of the "national adventure" we are now embarking on and adding, with a chuckle, "For one thing Boris Johnson is foreign secretary!"....

....and this is the exact facial expression he adopted as he ended that thought:

Then his gathering of Newsnight editors began their review of the day.

Nick Watt was perky and jokey; Helen Thomas (shall we say?) less so. 

Evan asked the latter: 

The economy and the fiscal position...cos Theresa May was describing quite an ambitious kind of agenda...the economy may not be working to her favour for all that.

And Helen replied "No, absolutely" and talked (as is her way) of the "uncertainty", "a weakening economy" and "what damage has been done, what damage may be done...by Brexit". 

And then they turned to Boris. Evan kept chuckling and said, "Who would have thought it?" to Mark Urban. 

And Mark said that people on Twitter had found it "gagtastic" before adding that, as Mayor of London, "he had a rather unsuccessful trip to Israel and Palestine" before then saying "the best he can do" is to be ambassador selling the country to the world. 

Evan then stopped chuckling for a while and said:

Yeah. I mean, look, we need to talk about the Boris style of diplomacy. 

And he has history, doesn't he I mean, you know..just read you a couple of quotes.. 

On the Queen and the Commonwealth: "It supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies/ The tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles." 

Now, that was a long time ago, so you might forgive that. 

But, you know, just a couple of months ago his limerick about the president of Turkey: "There was a young fellow from Ankara/Who was a terrific wankerer/Till he sowed his wild oats/With the help of a goat/But he didn�t even stop to thankera". He won a prize in the Spectator magazine for that...er...poetry. 

I mean, are people outside of Britain..I mean, we all know Boris is Boris..will people outside Britain take him seriously?

Mark Urban replied: "They'll have to, in a way". 

And then - to much chuckling from Evan - he raised the much-mooted suggestion that the trio of Brexiteers (Boris, David Davis and Liam Fox" would take the rap if Brexit trade deals proved "too hard"....

...and he (Mark) sarcastically called them "those three experts", pausing before 'experts' to signal the implied inverted commas even more.

Then Chris Cook applied a little irony to David Davis and the article DD had written outlining his take on Brexit:  

He actually this week published an article on Conservative Home about his vision. And, I mean, I'm not a trade expert. I think whoever wrote that...it may not be Mr Davis himself...isn't a trade expert either. There are some fairly fundamental problems with it.

Chris then went on to rubbish it, describing one of DD's ideas (in Yes. Minister terms) as "quite ambitious", describing him as "very, very nonchalant" about another idea, and then saying he "talked an awful lot" about something else,...

...pulling the following face as he did so:

Evan chuckled again.

I very much doubt that a single one of those five BBC journalists voted to Leave the EU. And, if so (like there's any doubt!), it showed.

A thoroughly biased-filled BBC discussion from start to finish.

newspapers and James O'Brien pursues a line...newspapers

If there's one thing I picked up on earlier (from commenters on Twitter and at Biased BBC, Guido Fawkes, The Spectator, etc) is just how strongly James O'Brien stood out today for pushing a particularly aggressive line on the Nice atrocity on his LBC programme.

He provoked considerable ire for so doing (as befits a shock jock). 

Cutting off at least one caller (apparently), he ranted for ages (apparently) on the subject of why it's wrong to blame Muslims for such things as the Nice massacre (a matter that - apparently - mattered to him above all else). 

Of course, as an LBC presenter, he's entitled to rant as much as he likes. (It's partly what he's there to do.) But, having read so much today about how far he'd gone in being biased today, I seriously gulped when I saw that he'd be presenting tonight's Newsnight tonight...of all nights. 

Would his very open bias at LBC (where he's allowed to be out-and-out biased) feed into his presentation of Newsnight? Or would be hang up his views (Hugh Sykes-style), as required, on the BBC's coat-peg of 'impartiality'?

Well, Newsnight first invited on Alain Richard, a French socialist. James O'Brien, respectfully, asked him (without interruption) why France has been hit more than other European countries and how divided he thinks his country is. M. Richard said he didn't want France's Muslim community to be discriminated against/opposed by the rest of French society. And that was that.

JO'B then talked to a man from the French National Front, Marc Etienne Lansade. The video connection was absolutely terrible, so M. Lansade really struggled to even hear JO'B's questions tonight. The interview soon collapsed.

That, of course, didn't stop J'OB from pursuing (in full voice) a particular line of questioning with M. Lansade - a line of questioning curiously 'of a piece' with the line he'd (allegedly) been taking so very strongly at LBC:

You just heard, I hope, the former defence minister Alain Richard suggest that Islamic State want to see more division in France and would particularly like to see French Muslims discriminated against more. Do you agree with him? 

I'll have one more attempt. My apologies to you, monsieur. Alain Richard, the former defence minister, suggest that Islamic State want to see French Muslims discriminated against more. Do you agree with his analysis?

I understand your answer although the question really was about the response politically in France to people not perhaps responsible for the spread of Salafi-ism (sic) or Wahhabism. Do you feel French Muslims feel less safe now, because not only are they are the risk of being victim to terror attacks, they are also, in some quarters perhaps, at risk of being blamed for them? 

I think the technology has defeated us....

Hmm, very much still pushing a line I think (on the 'impartial' BBC).

******

P.S. Controversial Newnight reporter Secunder Kermani's report then stressed how questionable are the claims of an Islamic motive for Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel (not religious, liked alcohol). There's "no concrete evidence" that his attack was jihadi-inspired.

So Newsnight as a whole seemed to be pushing a line here.

newspapers and Breaking news....breaking news....newspapers

Is the Turkish army staging a coup against the "wankerer...from Ankara" (to avenge the honour of Turkey's goats perhaps)?

Gulp.

Unlikely to succeed. 'Interesting times'. 

Update, 22:34. Mark Urban on Newsnight suggests it's the colonels and brigadiers trying to seize power. James O'Brien suggest it might lead to civil war. 

22:37. Mark is wondering: is it (Islamist) G�lenists or (secular) Kemalists? He reckons it's Kemalists.

22:38. Newsnight's guest, Ibrahim Dogus - quite obviously an opponent of President Erdogan - suggests it's G�lenists, Kemalists and others joining together.

newspapers and More 'Newsnight'newspapers

Keeping up with Newsnight's post-Referendum coverage (whilst, uncharacteristically, trying to be as brief as possible)...

The past couple of editions of the programme have focused far more on party-political infighting than on more substantial, Brexit-related matters (the things we really need to be thinking about). 

At least that's mostly spared us all the heavy Brexit-related scaremongering and 'can Brexit be averted?'-pushing which marked out most of last week's editions of Newsnight. 

The one huge exception came on last night's edition in the form of a gloomy piece from Chris Cook, reporting the anti-Brexit doom-mongering of some senior university voices. (I wouldn't have expected anything less from Chris). "Brexit hits the universities" was the Newsnight website's headline...

...though Monday night's edition did have a bit more gloomy 'economic analysis' from the eternally-worried looking Newsnight newbie Helen Thomas (who Evan introduced as "Helen Thompson"!), heralding by Evan and his talk of "clear uncertainty" for business. Helen duly talked of business confidence "cratering" post-Brexit.

Here she is, wearing her usual Newsnight expression. (Doesn't she like her new job? Or is it a case of a Europhile former FT journalist-turned BBC journalist (like Chris Cook) suffering a bad case of PRS (Post-Referendum Stress disorder)? Whatever it is, I think she needs to be given a box of chocolates, or flowers, or a boxed set of Eddie Izzard, or something, to lift her spirits, poor thing):

What I'm still waiting for is something which begins to seriously address the most important issue in the UK at the moment: Given that we've voted to leave the EU and, therefore, will be leaving the EU sometime soon, how should we best make Brexit work for us?

That's hardly an unreasonable request, is it?

It's not even as if I'm asking for something positive about the pro-Brexit vote (perish the thought at the BBC!)

******

I'm trying not to 'expand' too much, so I'll be brief and hope you have the time to quickly catch up on the relevant editions: 

Monday's edition discussed the future of UKIP with three UKIP people.  Evan Davis began by asking them to say whether they'd be standing to replace Nigel Farage. He then moved onto his main question. Can you guess what that was? I bet you can. And, yes, you're right: It was about UKIP's tone, Nigel Farage's language, and that poster. Only after that did Evan ask about the future direction of UKIP. (At least he didn't mention Paddington Bear this time).

It also had a piece by divorce expert Ayesha Vardag on the 'breaking up' aspect of Brexit. From Ayesha's piece I wasn't wholly surprised to find that she's just posted a piece for the Telegraph headlined: I voted for Brexit, but now I regret the terrifying chaos I have unleashed.

Tuesday's edition (besides all the Labour Party stuff) had a Tory leadership discussion between David Davis, surprisingly backing Theresa May, and Tim Loughton, not-so-surprisingly backing Andrea Leadsom. Evan Davis oh-so-impartially raised the 'Establishment' question. 

Watch, see and compare for yourselves just what he asked pro-Andrea Tim and what he asked pro-Theresa David. I'll just say that Evan asked two clear-as-a-bell and very unhelpful questions to Tim Loughton but just asked one, bizarrely mangled question to David Davis. 

Quotes would doubtless help here, but I've not got the time. 

Basically, the questions to pro-Andrea Tim focused on her personal history and tried to paint her as 'Establishment' while the question to pro-Theresa David said that she'd been in office for a long time and had made many failures relating to the defeat of the Remain campaign...

Oh, I'm probably going to have to quote that after all:

(To David Davis, about Theresa May): Your candidate has been in office for so many years and associated with all sorts of failures that are associated with the defeat of the referendum campaign on whose side she was.

And, keeping on quoting, compare that convoluted and barely comprehensible question to Evan's sharp questions to the other side:

(To Tim Loughton, about Andrea Leadsom): Let's start with you, Tim. Andrea Leadsom - investment banker, City worker...I think she went to Warwick. She was a member of a black-tie dining club. She was with The Patricians. You were a member of it, I think....[Mr Laughton said he was no such thing and didn't think Mrs, Leadsom was either]. 

(To Tim Loughton, interrupting, about Andrea Leadsom): Is it fair to say that an investment banker is the candidate is....?

Evan's earlier line of questioning, to all and sundry, had repeatedly floated the idea that Mrs. May's large vote of Conservative MPs was so convincing that the other contenders had probably best stand down. (Agenda? What agenda?)

Newsnight is still not doing itself any favours with a huge swathe of the viewing population (very few of whom watch Newsnight, whether part of the 52% or the 48%). 

newspapers and Will 'More or Less' give James O'Brien a fisking?newspapers

If you recall, I found last Friday's Newsnight - the one with James O'Brien - to be deeply biased. 

David Keighley at News-watch doesn't just agree, he's also put a huge stick of dynamite under the programme's deeply dodgy use of statistics. 

It's a must-read post. 

Newsnight and Ipsos MORI had co-operated on a post-Referendum poll and that night's Newsnight gave its take on the findings. 

Here's an extract from James O'Brien's introduction:

And what about buyer�s remorse? All those voters who supposedly want to change their minds? Well, maybe not. 92% of respondents said they would definitely vote the same way. But of them, 5% of Leave voters did say they would now change their vote, compared to just 2% of Remain voters. 

Note the 'maybe' in "maybe not" there and the big "But". And note the statement that "5% of Leave voters did say they would now change their vote, compared to just 2% of Remain voters" - a 'finding' highly relevant to the programme's later discussions about overturning the 23 June referendum, perhaps with a second referendum.

Newsnight used the following graphic to illustrate the point: 

Here's how David outlines the problem: 

Third � and even worse, perhaps � two separate statistics of polling information were conflated so as to overemphasise the numbers who said they would change their vote. 

92% of the Ipsos Mori respondents said they would not change their minds if asked to vote in a second referendum (with 4% saying they would change their vote, 3% saying they didn�t know, and 1% saying they wouldn�t vote) 

Newsnight presented this 92% figure in the graphic shown above. However, O�Brien then introduced an additional statistic: that 5% of Remain voters and 2% of Leave voters said they would now change their vote. Two smaller circles were duly placed on the chart to reflect this, despite these numbers having no direct correlation to the initial 92% figure. Therefore, the graphics and commentary suggested 7% wishing to change their votes, whereas the Ipsos Mori data itself had given a figure of just 4%. 

Further, the two smaller circles of 5% and 2% cannot even be fairly compared to each other, given that more voted to Leave in the referendum than voted to Remain. The only way to have fairly reflected this difference would have been to have introduced a second chart, showing the overall numbers of Leave and Remain voters, and how potential shifts in voting intention might have affected the totals. 

A closer inspection of the Ipsos Mori data also reveals that, to produce the 5% and 2% figures, two responses were combined: those who would �definitely� change their vote, and those who �probably� change their vote. 

Had Newsnight focused only on those who were certain to change their votes, then the chart and commentary would have been even less striking: only 1.1% of those polled would definitely change their Leave vote, and just 0.4% would definitely change their Remain vote � a far less dramatic statistic than the one selected. 

Put another way � bringing in the unweighted sample size of 935 voters who were actual consulted to reach these findings �  only FIVE  people told Ipsos Mori that they would definitely change their mind from �remain� to �out� and two people said they would definitely switch from �remain� to �leave�. On that highly tenuous basis, Newsnight told its viewers, in effect  that 5% of total �leave� vote of 17.4m was considering changing sides. This was a preposterous extrapolation.

Please read the polling results for yourselves. You will see that David is correct. 

Q3 is specific. As you can see for yourselves, only 1% of Leave voters said they "would definitely change their vote". 

So when James O'Brien told Newsnight viewers that "5% of Leave voters did say they would now change their vote", he wasn't giving them an honest representation of the poll's actual results. 

What he should have said is:

And what about buyer�s remorse? All those voters who supposedly want to change their minds? Well, almost certainly not. 92% of respondents said they would definitely vote the same way, 4% said they would change their vote, 3% said they didn't know and 1% said they wouldn't vote. And a separate question revealed that just 1% of Leave voters would definitely change their vote and 0% of Remain voters would change their vote. 

Once you've read those Ipsos Mori findings for yourself, wouldn't you agree that my re-write of James O'Brien's spin on the results is much closer to the reality of those results?

******

And another thought that struck me is that - were Newsnight biased in the other direction - they could (and with more justification) have spun the findings of Q2. which asked, "And as you may know the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Do you think that was the right decision or the wrong decision for the United Kingdom?" 

The curious result of those findings is that 4% of Remain voters now say that it's the "Right decision" and 3% Leave voters now say it's the "Wrong decision" - a result that could very easily be spun to show that it's actually Remain voters who are suffering buyer's remorse.

******

Was the conflating of 'apples and pears' in that graphic merely sloppy or proof of bias?

Was the hyping and distorting of the 'buyer's remorse' findings merely sloppy or proof of bias?

Was the failure to point out the curious finding of Q2 merely sloppy or proof of bias?

All I'd say is that I've heard and seen how James O'Brien spun it on Newsnight and I've read the very careful Ipsos Mori presentation of the findings and, to my mind, Newsnight presented the findings in a reckless fashion. 

On top of the extraordinary levels of anti-Brexit bias recorded on this very blog last week, I'm far less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that I might have been before. 

This is shoddy journalism either way though.

newspapers and Theresa May; a counterbalancing postnewspapers

I sent a message to Craig about Newsnight. I made some derogatory comments about Theresa May, and he said I should post it to counterbalance his moderately positive take on her. 

I was going to hide it btl  in case I disagree with myself tomorrow. Precautionary measure. But the article in question has moved so far down the page due to Craig�s astonishing productivity that I have been forced to post it up front.

Here�s the gist of it:

�I keep falling asleep as soon as Newsnight comes on, so I missed the last couple of editions. The episode you describe sounds super-bad. It really is as though they've cast all pretensions of impartiality aside. In for a pound in for a penny, they must have said.
Evan is becoming ever more cadaver-like. He was unwatchably aggressive with Crispin B. the other night and next minute he was attentive and interested while interviewing Jonathan Freedland and (surprise) Melanie Phillips. 

 I can't fathom the reasoning behind Newsnight hiring James O'B. either. He's ugly and his delivery is totally devoid of authority. A third rate shock jock. 

Newsnight is slowly poisoning itself to death. Maybe not slowly. Put it out of its misery, I say.  

 By the way, have you read all the negative stuff about Theresa May? Doesn't it put you off her?  I never liked her, ever since her early appearances on QT. She used to wear jackets that looked as if they were made out of polystyrene, and her comments were feeble, dull and unimaginative. Always. And Theresa, if you become PM, please, no more above the knee skirts and for god's sake put yer tits away.  

The thought of her as PM is deeply depressing. Soft on Sharia, and one of the deluded politicians who insist Islam is the R.O.P.  - and I.S. is nothing to do with Islam. Since Islam is one of the greatest threats we face at the moment (coupled with economic melt-down) I don't feel optimistic. If the BBC can't be impartial it should be 'talking us up' instead of sabotaging us. If you must be biased at least use the bias constructively, why not.( Maybe I shouldn't be talking down Theresa in that case. Maybe, if elected, she'd rise to the occasion.)

polystyrene-wear

I blame David Cameron for plunging us into this unnecessary instability. While people are publishing avalanches of �gotchas� about those contradictory statements made by Michael Gove, why don�t they push some of Cameron�s misleading and dishonest assurances about �not being quitters� and so on.  Eh?

newspapers and "And who will speak for the 48%?"newspapers

Considerably more about this tomorrow (possibly), but tonight's Newsnight took this past week's levels of anti-Brexit bias and simply multiplied them. My jaw dropped even more.

Bed beckons, so this is merely a sketch of what I've just witnessed and been appalled by.

The closing discussion, debating the post-Brexit situation, featured a pro-Remain Lib Dem, a pro-Remain Blairite and a pro-Remain far-left former BBC reporter (close to Jeremy Corbyn's circle).

That discussion was prefaced by Newsnight presenter James O'Brien explicitly making the case for the 48%. "Who will speak for the 48%?" was his question. 

Before that came a report from France which featured voice after voice after voice expressing regret and despair at Britain's Leave vote - except for a short section on the Front National, which was immediately qualified by an academic putting their views in context. Given that I've read reports about polls showing a majority of French people wanting a referendum on French EU membership, it surely can't just be 'the far-right' who aren't weeping over our Brexit vote, can it?

And before that came an unchallenged interview with (Remain-supporting) The Remains of the Day author Kazuo Ishiguro, bemoaning (with James O'Brien's help) the consequences of the Brexit vote for Britain's multiculturalism. He sees "Neo-Nazism" as resulting from the result. Some Leave voters are racist, he says. He wants a second referendum.

And before that came a report from Burnley on why people there voted Leave, and what they think now. Minor-key music provided the background. Ordinary people spoke, some still backing Leave, a few still backing Remain, some sounding equivocal. Someone said, 'we're not stupid'. The next 'vox pop' sounded as if she hadn't a clue. I felt deeply suspicious of it.

And to start things off we had some questionable-sounding spin on polling 'evidence' from Ipsos MORI for the BBC.

Please watch and judge for yourselves. I will rewatch it tomorrow, just in case my initial impressions have misled me.

******

"And who will speak for the 48%?"

Here was James O'Brien's framing of the final discussion:

Lose by 4% in a general election and you find yourself in strong opposition with a fighting chance of halting legislation and embarrassing the government. Win 48% of the vote in a referendum and you find yourself with absolutely nothing. Politically your position is, in many ways, no stronger than if you'd won 0%. With all the Conservative leadership candidates now fully committed to Brexit and the winner, of course, guaranteed to govern, what will opposition even look like? And who will speak for the 48%? 

****** 

P.S. Here's a comment seen elsewhere that strikes a chord with me (given what I've seen):

Evan Davis, all this week on Newsnight (BBC2) (and James O�Brien last night on the same show), seems to have refashioned the flagship current affairs programme as both a progressive pro-EU safe space and as a working group dedicated only to bad-mouthing Brexit and seeking ways (any way) to undo it.

newspapers and Get Gove!newspapers

Last night's Newsnight was an absolute shocker, and I'm frankly amazed that there's been so little fuss about it. 

It was a 'Get Gove!' edition, pretty much from start to finish. 

******

It began with a video montage of yesterday's 'Tory Party drama' set to the accompaniment of Bob Dylan's Positively 4th Street - a song about a treacherous friend. 

Can you guess who the 'treacherous friend' was referring to? 

Well, Newsnight left absolutely no doubt about that: A clip of Michael Gove smiling behind a speech-making Boris was accompanied by Bob Dylan singing "You've got a lotta nerve to say you are my friend". 

The next clip saw Michael Gove grinning alongside Boris and Bob Dylan singing, "When I was down you just stood there grinnin'".

Then came a dizzying barrage of short clips of Mr. Gove saying he didn't want to be and wasn't up to being PM, followed by him saying yesterday that he intended to stand to become PM, immediately 'commented upon' by Bob Dylan - to more past images of happy Michael & Boris - with the lyrics, "You just want to be on the side that's winnin'"... 

I think that might be described as preparatory 'mood music' for what followed.. 

******

Evan Davis continued to fixate on the 'treachery' issue throughout, raising it with pretty much everyone he interviewed. He pressed it on them, again and again. 

******

That might be understandable, but much more questionable was the stark contrast between the programme's treatment of Mr. Gove compared to that given to Theresa May. 

Newsnight gave overwhelmingly negative coverage for the former and overwhelmingly positive coverage for the latter. 

The two reports profiling them are worth watching to see that contrast at its sharpest. 

******

Katie Razzall's take on Mrs. May was overwhelmingly favourable. It included lots of positive language about her from the BBC reporter, and only included admiring 'talking heads' (two Tory fans, one Labour admirer). 

Katie painted a portrait of Mrs. May as a pragmatic, hard-working woman with a great grasp of detail who has risen through the Conservative ranks, telling her "toxic" party some home truths along the.way. And she's done so, said Katie, by not playing by the normal rules of politics. After linking her to Winston Churchill, Katie them said her tough negotiating abilities are "skills" that "will appear useful as Brexit looms". 

If Mrs. May had stayed up to watch that report she would surely have been tickled pink by it.

******

Interesting use of the word "looms" there, by the way, in connection with Brexit. (It was the final word of Katie Razzall's report.)

"Loom" is not a positive word". "Looming" things are, by definition, "threatening" things. And "threatening" things are negative things.

******

Chris Cook's take on Mr. Gove, in contrast, was overwhelmingly hostile, with lots of negative language almost from the word go (including "total weirdness"). 

It was, in fact, nothing more and nothing less than a hatchet job. 

It began rather mockingly, and included a few cringe-worthy clips of Mr. Gove (at various stages of his life). Michael Gove's time as education secretary was then covered mostly through the hostility of teachers, including a clip of an (unpleasant) insult from one teacher going down an absolute storm at a union conference. His time as justice secretary was passed over in favour of Chris focusing, at length, on Mr. Gove's "hardline" views on the peace process in Northern Ireland. Labour advisor Jonathan Powell denounced Mr' Gove's past views as "pretty far-out" before both he and Chris Cook worried about what those "hardline" views would mean, post-Brexit, for a "tense" Northern Ireland now. Mr. Gove's past support for the Iraq War was also held against him. That support was "so" extreme Mr. Gove even denounced the Daily Mail back in 2004 for being too soft. That leaked email from Mrs. Gove followed - "wrongly" thinking the Mail might back him over the leadership. (Chris struck me as gloating there). And as for that great bogeyman, Rupert Murdoch, Chris Cook then splashed dozens and dozens of dizzying images showing how often Michael Gove has met Murdoch and various Murdoch associates "time and time again". 

Mud was being slung - every piece of mud Chris could find - at Michael Gove here.

And then it got personal. Chris Cook said there's a "wrinkle" in Mr. Gove's reputation for courteousness; Those who cross him often face "quite bizarrely vitriolic press coverage". 

And he included himself among Mr. Gove's victims.

In a remarkable passage of BBC broadcasting, Chris Cook told his personal story (without counterbalance). 

He himself came very well out of his own telling of it. Michael Gove came very badly out of it. The BBC man said that, as a result of crossing Mr. Gove , 'friends of Michael Gove' had tried to get him fired from the FT.

Chris then went after Dominic Cummings of Vote Leave - Mr. Gove's one-time close advisor - using language like "less polite", "aggressive" and "bigwig" about him. 

A final semi-mocking comment then brought this remarkable piece to a close.

Note that the 'talking heads' here were comprised of one supportive Conservative (very briefly), one hostile Labour type (at length) and an ambiguous Lib Dem. 

******

In years of watching the BBC I don't think I've ever seen two more sharply contrasted reports than these, placed side by side. The bias was palpable.

Tin foil hats are not needed here. The Theresa May report was kind to Mrs. May (who took the Remain side in the EU referendum). The Michael Gove report was unkind to Mr. Gove (who took the Leave side in the EU referendum). I can't see any room for doubt about that. And there must be a reason for that contrast. What could that reason be? 

******

As for the rest of last night's Newsnight, we had a selection of Conservative activists - two of whom supported Mrs. May, one of whom backed Mr. Gove, another of.whom backed Andrea Leadsom (who hardly got a mention until the non-BBC guest started talking about her), and the final one of whom was undecided. 

Evan also interviewed a pro-Theresa May Conservative MP (Matthew Hancock).

He later jointly interviewed a second pro-Theresa May Conservative MP (Nadhim Zahawi) alongside a pro-Michael Gove MP (Jacob Rees Mogg), and - following a now-familiar pattern with Evan Davis - the BBC man challenged Mr. Rees Mogg noticeably more strongly than he challenged Mr. Zahawi.

Later came a discussion with three journalists (Matthew Parris, Isabel Hardman and Stephen Glover) - one of whom (Isabel H) didn't express an opinion on who she wanted as PM, but two of whom (Matthew P and Stephen G) did: They both want Mrs. May. 

So that's 4/5 of the main (UK) interviewees who want Theresa May to be our next PM (something Newsnight evidently knew in advance, given the conversations during the programme).

An EU Commissioner also appeared, talking questionable, scary stuff about pro-Brexit EU-UK trade.

******

Now, I'm aware that this might appear to be as much of a hatchet job on Newsnight as Chris Cook's piece was a hatchet job on Michael Gove, but you are all free here (as ever) to watch it for yourselves and point out where I've gone wrong.

Plus - and I don't know why I even hesitate to say this - I'm not saying this because of my own bias. My own bias here is for Mrs. May. I'm actually 'on Newsnight's side' here. (Unlike most people who write for/comment on 'blogs like this' I don't think 'Teresa the Appeaser' is the scum of the earth.)

You could say I'm arguing against my own position here - except that I'm doing no such thing.

This post isn't about my view of the the respective virtues and vices of Michael Gove and Theresa May. It's simply about BBC bias.

It's (almost) always about BBC bias here.

[Update: There are other views about Mrs. May though (obviously), including a piece Guido Fawkes reports got pulled by the Telegraph after pressure from Mrs. May's team - a dramatic story in itself. Reading it has given me pause for thought re the Home Secretary's suitability to be PM. Wonder if the BBC will follow this story through?]

newspapers and Editorialnewspapers

A few minutes after his successful attempt to talk over Crispin Blunt, Evan turned to camera and delivered what can only be described as "an editorial":

Now, economic forecasts are not very likely to be reliable but I thought you might be interested to hear how the City economists have changed their view about economic growth over this year and next. 

The group Consensus Economics track all the reputable forecasts and average them up. And since the Brexit vote the average forecast for this year's British growth has been downgraded - this year by half a percentage point, next year the growth downgraded by 1.7%.   

Now, what does that mean? If you believe the forecasts (you may not) by the end of next year the economy will be 2.2% smaller than it would have been if we'd chosen to remain. 

And his (Brexit-campaign-bashing) punchline?

And I've been asked: What is a loss of 2.2% of national income? Well, you remember the famous bus - �350 million a week we were said to be paying to the EU? 2.2% of national income is �350 million every two or three days. 

The BBC man appears to be on a mission at the moment (and quite how it relates to 'BBC impartiality' is something of a mystery to me).

newspapers and A talkative Evan Davisnewspapers

Here's a curious stat about the interview between Evan Davis and pro-Boris/pro-Leave Tory MP Crispin Blunt on last night's Newsnight. 

The interview - a hostile one on Evan's part - last  6m 07s from start to finish. Evan talked - and talked over Mr Blunt - for 2m 48s. In other words, Evan Davis talked for 46% of the interview, interrupting frequently (getting on for 18 times). 

He ended the interview with the words, "That is a very long way of saying you don't know whether it will go up of not. Crispin Blunt, sorry about that, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much".

The days when Evan was criticising Jeremy Paxman's aggressive interviewing style as "outworn" and "overdone" and slamming journalists (like Paxo) whose concern was in "getting the scalp" and "tripping people into gaffes" appear to be over - at least as regards interviews with pro-Brexit MPs.

newspapers and "Could we overturn last Thursday?" (Part II)newspapers

Good Grief! And after last night's Newsnight (see earlier tonight) we've now had Evan Davis and Lord Heseltine teaming up for this tonight:

Evan Davis: And this is why who want us to see exactly what Out looks like and then have a second referendum which chooses between In and Out again? Is that correct?  

Lord Heseltine: I want something just a little different, but fundamentally so. I want to put Boris Johnson and his colleagues in charge of the negotiations. Now, he doesn't need to be the Prime Minister of the leader of the Conservative Party to do that but he got us into this mess and he got us into this mess on a range of platitudes about how glorious the future would be. Let him show us what that future is. My own view - it has to be shown - is that it will be totally unattractive to the majority of members of Parliament...

Evan Davis: Hence the second referendum in the... 

Lord Heseltine: And so how do you carry out the will of the people in this referendum - which I believe you should. The only way is to negotiate so that the members of the House of Commons, where sovereignty lies, can come to a judgement about whether they will vote for it. My view is they won't. But they must be given the chance. And when it comes to it there are only two ways to do that: one is to have a general election; the other is to have a second referendum. 

Evan Davis: And overturn the first referendum...? 

Lord Heseltine: Make sure the will of the people is seen to have momentum. 

Evan Davis: Lord Heseltine, thank you very much.

****** 

As well as that (and some Corbyn stuff), the rest of the post-EU referendum stuff on tonight's Newsnight consisted of:

(a) a Mark Urban report (including some ominous music) on how angry some EU politicians are about Brexit, especially about Nigel Farage and his "Nazi" campaigning - and about how others really want us to stay and think we will choose to stay, given time and an overturning of the referendum result.

(b) an interview with Marine le Pen, introduced thus (by Evan):

Not many political leaders in Europe have welcomed the British referendum result but one who did is Marine le Pen, the leader of the French Front National - the far-right party that commanded the support of about a quarter of French voters in the last election there. 

and (c) an extraordinarily downbeat joint interview about the economic effects of the Leave vote, featuring Gillian Tett, formerly of the FT, finding very few silver linings, saying that banks have "clearly been very badly damaged" and are "now in the dust", that "interest rate expectations have collapsed in the last few days", that it's "a self-inflicted wound on an extraordinary scale", that there will be "years of soggy growth", that the financial sector has had "a heart attack", etc, etc, and ex-Barclays boss Antony Jenkins, sounding hardly any more positive!

"Let's just be clear about the potential for short-term financial contagion - the Lehmans Effect, all those kind of things. Antony, you're worried about the next six months, and getting through it", asked Evan, cheerfully.

And, to get us in the mood for all this doom and gloom, the start of tonight's Newsnight coverage of what Evan Davis called "our impending divorce" from the EU was accompanied by the Sex Pistol's Anarchy in the UK, including that famous ending viciously lingering on the word "Destroy!"

Sleep well!

newspapers and "Could we overturn last Thursday?"newspapers

�Does my right honourable friend agree we still have a parliamentary democracy and it would be the duty of each Member of Parliament to judge each measure in the light of what each man and woman regards as the national interest, and not to take broad guidance from a plebiscite which has produced a small majority on a broad question after a bad-tempered and ill-informed debate?". 

                 (Ken Clarke MP, House of Commons, yesterday.)

I caught up last night, via Parliament TV, with David Cameron's statement about the EU referendum vote. Besides the obvious dramatic moments (the outgoing PM's jokes and the jeering at Jeremy Corbyn from his own side), the thing that stood out for me - and sent a chill down my democratic spine - was just how little respect many Remain-supporting MPs evidently had for the result of the referendum.

From both sides of the House (and from several parties) came calls for the result to be resisted, whether by simply ignoring it as 'merely advisory' (eg Ken Clarke), or by overturning it though a second democratic method: a new general election (the Lib Dems), or a second referendum. Where David Lammy and his talk of "madness" and "the rule of the mob" led over the weekend, others followed.

And watching last night's Newsnight I noted that Evan Davis & Co. made a cool, clear attempt to 'normalise' such possibilities.

Here's how Evan Davis himself framed the programme's central section:

Well, when the dust settles on the politics the big issue will be 'What is our relationship with the EU and how is it going to be decided upon?'  

Essentially there are three broad outcomes: (1) That we leave properly, exiting the EU and the free market, meaning that we'd no longer have free movement. (2) That we part-leave by going into the European Economic Area, the Norwegian model - that's outside the EU, in the single market and with free movement. And then (3), which must be least likely, is that we somehow remain within the EU. Three possible destinations.  

There are also three roads to those destinations. Parliament and government could make the decision. MPs would probably choose Norway at this point, if they could. Then there's the possibility of a general election to decide with parties pitching their views to the voters. The Lib Dems, for example, have said they'll campaign to overturn the referendum. Then there's the second referendum option: that we talk to the Europeans and have a vote at the end of it. Could we overturn last Thursday? 

And in the closing discussion with two Remain-supporting journalists, Zoe Williams of the Guardian and Tom Newton Dunn of the Sun, Evan pursued the theme again after Zoe mooted an broad alliance against the "sheer vandalism", the "incredibly vandalistic act",  of the UK's 'Leave' vote. Evan intervened to wonder:

Hold an election and say, 'Look, overturn the referendum. Elect us and we stay in the EU"? 

He then asked:

Do you think Labour could campaign and say, 'Let's stay in'? Is that a plausible thing, to overturn the referendum in an election? 

Is this how an inexorable campaign by the losers of the Referendum to overturn the people's vote last Thursday begins? 

And will we look back on this in, say, ten years time, when we're still inside the EU, and say 'And look what part the BBC played in overturning that vote, and just how soon after the 'first referendum' they started doing so?'

newspapers and Petitioningnewspapers

In giving Evan Davis a little credit at the end of that last post for behaving himself more on last night's Newsnight special (after he behaved so badly on Friday night's Newsnight), I forgot the bit where he (seriously) plugged that petition calling for a second referendum (at 26:55):

Evan Davis, plugging that petition

As soon as I heard about that seriously undemocratic petition (long before Evan mentioned it on Newsnight) I thought it had better reach around the 18 million mark - and then have to be checked very thoroughly for massive fraud - before anyone in their right mind would even begin to start to take it seriously.  

And yet here was Evan plugging it, with a serious face.

I've been trying so hard to catch up today that I've fallen a long way behind, so I'm relying (if you don't mind!) on you for help....

Has the BBC kept on plugging this petulant, childish petition without raising all the obvious caveats about fraud (and charges of fraud are being widely made about this petition now) or raising the even more obvious points about how undemocratic such a petition is? 

(If it has, good on it. If it hasn't, shame on it).

P.S. I see Alan at Biased BBC is saying that "the BBC seems to be trying to incite a civil war and the overturning of democracy", which would be quite something.

newspapers and And on we go (starring Evan Davis)....newspapers

Would Monet have been for Frexit?

Impressions, Sunrise (or Sunset)...

The first Newsnight since the referendum result was declared (Friday night's edition) was punctuated by a series of reports, all of which (even Mark Urban's) featured melancholy background music and wistful images. Such music couldn't help but convey a mood of regret.

(Were you thinking what they were thinking? - to paraphrase an old UK election poster).

The programme's newest edition - its new business editor Helen Thomas (once of the FT) - looked weary and depressed while reporting on "the plunge" of the pound:

Helen Thomas, looking happy

Of course, she could just have been tired (having - like me - stayed up all night the previous night, perhaps?).

Then there was Evan Davis, who didn't seem tired at all.

In the three-way discussion between Remainers Ken Clarke and Tristram Hunt and Leaver Suzanne Evans, it was Suzanne Evans who got the tougher challenges from Evan. 

And Evan and Ken Clarke chatted like sad old friends reminiscing, poor things.

And when Dan Hannan duly appeared, Evan outperformed Emily Maitlis. 

He went for Dan over immigration, suggesting that Dan and the Leave campaign had misled the public over dramatically cutting the numbers of migrants once we leave the EU. 

Evan kept putting his head in his hands to demonstrate his disbelief at the sheer dishonesty of the Leave campaign (despite Dan not having said anything different that night to what he's ever said before - and I've been 'following' Mr Hannan for some time, so I know that). 

Of course, I can see the point Evan Davis was trying to make. I know (from talking to them) that quite a lot of the people up here in Morecambe and Lancaster who voted Out did so in the expectation that the number of migrants coming into the UK would be cut substantially after we left the EU. 

That Dan Hannan has never argued that - despite Evan's heavy and repeated implying that he has - is something known to me (and, probably, you) but perhaps not to most Leave voters. 

Dan has always been openly pro-immigration and has always been clear that, for him, it's about us being able to control our own immigration and choose who we want to come in, even if that amounts to huge amounts of people. 

That could prove to be a problem with voters up here - and elsewhere. Most of them don't want that at all.

That, however, is beside the point of this post. Its point is that Evan Davis gave the impression of being petulant and spiteful towards Dan Hannan...

Evan, in full flow on Friday

...and, after all his theatrics and heavy hints about Mr Hannan's dishonesty, he concluded the interview by saying "Wow!" to Dan's final answer, and then saying: 

Dan Hannan, thank you very much. Christine Ockrent, thank you. I had meant to come back to you Christine. We're out of time. But I hit a nerve there with Dan Hannan. Thank you.

He then moved on. 

If there's any BBC presenter I expect pro-EU bias from it's Evan Davis. His performance that night didn't snap me out of that expectation. 

His performance on last night's 'Life after Brexit' Newsnight special was much better. Maybe he'd calmed down a bit.

Well, those are my impressions anyhow.