Friday, November 17, 2017

Andrew Neil: the mask slips

Amid the mindless hysteria about Alex Salmond's perfectly reasonable decision to run his show on an Ofcom-regulated UK television channel (it's on Freeview, for pity's sake!), there is also a slightly more thoughtful 'middle position' being taken by some.  Basically that position is: "No, of course Alex Salmond hasn't done anything terribly wrong, and of course it's not true that the mainstream British broadcast media is as pure as the driven snow while RT is evil incarnate.  But that's not to say there is no distinction between the two.  RT's news coverage deliberately pursues a political agenda, in contrast to the BBC and ITN, where any bias is usually unconscious or unintended."

That's quite a seductive argument, but for it to have validity, you'd be entitled to expect that the BBC would react with a degree of concern and reflectiveness if the more partisan channel ever succeeded in showing it up - by, for example, broadcasting an interview that was overwhelmingly in the public interest, but that the BBC had inexplicably neglected to conduct.  One of the most common observations on social media about Alex Salmond's interview with Carles Puigdemont was just how bizarre it was that no British broadcaster had previously shown a full-length interview with the exiled Catalan president.  You'd have hoped that the BBC bosses watching would have had a light-bulb moment and thought "Damn, we should have done that on the Andrew Marr Show.  It was an oversight and we'd better put it right now."  That would have been the reaction of an organisation that truly has only unconscious biases, and rectifies them when they're identified.

Troublingly, however, if Andrew Neil's extraordinary rant at an RT host on last night's This Week is at all representative of the wider BBC, their reaction seems to be entirely different and highly belligerent -

"The whole point of Russia Today...is all focused to undermine our faith in our democratic institutions, and to divide us....I went on to your website before we came on tonight and they're all stories that try to undermine our faith in our society.  They're all trying to divide us, you give prominence to Catalonia, to Scottish independence, you're trying to divide us."

So the reaction is not "we should have done that interview ourselves", but rather "no decent broadcaster should have given Puigdemont the oxygen of publicity because Catalan nationalism is bad". There, unwittingly, Neil has vindicated the argument that RT and the BBC are two sides of the same coin - ie. that RT pursues a political agenda by giving prominence to the Catalan and Scottish independence movements (thus "dividing us") while the BBC pursues the opposite agenda by starving those movements of attention where possible (thus "bringing us together").  That would of course be entirely in keeping with the BBC charter requirement that the corporation must operate in the interests of the United Kingdom's cohesion, but if that is what's going on, it's murderously hard to see how the BBC can ever cover the Scottish independence debate fairly and impartially.  For both the BBC's sake and for the sake of democracy, we must hope that Neil was speaking for himself only.

Where he probably was speaking on behalf of many of his colleagues was in his extraordinary "heads I win, tails you lose" attitude to the regulation of broadcasters.  When it was pointed out to him that RT is regulated by Ofcom in much the same way that the BBC is, he argued that this meant that RT was probably going to lose its licence - in other words the fact that RT won and has so far retained its licence is somehow proof that the channel is just about to be taken off the air.  If anyone made a claim like that about the BBC, you'd question their sanity, and rightly so. When it was pointed out to him that the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg had been censured by a regulatory body in much the same way that RT has occasionally been censured by Ofcom, he reacted as if someone had just defended a serial killer.  "Laura Kuenssberg is a very fine journalist", he said quietly, with the subtext being that an attack on Laura Kuenssberg (even by the BBC's own regulators) is an attack on journalism itself.  In other words, RT being censured by their regulators is proof that RT is a Kremlin propaganda machine, and the BBC being censured by their regulators is proof that BBC journalism is the victim of persecution.  Yup, that all seems pretty clear-sighted and fair.

*  *  *

I don't generally offer betting tips on this blog, and I'm not going to start now...but I maybe would have done if Ladbrokes hadn't just closed their books on the Scottish Labour leadership contest.  The 7/1 they were offering on Anas Sarwar earlier today just seemed like crazy odds.  All the mood music from both camps implies that Leonard is the more likely winner but that it's too close to call.  If you buy into the Neil Edward Lovatt theory that betting odds are a predictive God, you'd have to conclude that Ladbrokes or their punters know something we don't, but more likely is that they don't have any inside information and are just lazily assuming that a comfortable victory for the Corbynite is logical.  7/1 definitely looked like a value bet - but (perhaps thankfully) it's too late to put that to the test.

*  *  *

I was all set to defend Kezia Dugdale's decision to take part in I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! until I remembered that she's still a sitting MSP and that it's therefore a completely ridiculous thing for her to be doing.  She's supposed to be representing the voters of Lothian in parliamentary votes and debates, and helping them if they contact her with a problem.  She will self-evidently be neglecting those responsibilities for the entire duration of her stay in Australia.  I trust the mainstream media will muster at least twice as much hysteria for Kezia as they managed for Alex Salmond, because there's no doubt over which of those two has made the truly indefensible decision in pursuit of attention.

Whether deservedly or otherwise, Kezia had until now looked set to emulate David Steel by "passing from rising hope to elder statesman without any intervening period whatsoever" (as Michael Foot famously put it).  But I suspect she may have permanently destroyed her credibility with this single act.

18 comments:

  1. Larry King respected American journalist has been on RT months - bbc or msm not a squeek

    ReplyDelete
  2. MSM journalists are going the way of leeries down the (g) WC.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RT is much more interesting than the BBC or ITV which is news at its shallowest with no wider perspective. I look forward to Alex Salmond's new show!

    ReplyDelete
  4. As Russia rewrites history and attempts to send the Revolution into the dustbin of history Kim Yung joins in to line his pockets. Sad man who will die some day and will not be remembered.
    Trotsky and Lenin will. As the story goes Judas hung himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As nonsense posts go, you outdid yourself.

      Delete
    2. I have tae say J.R. TOMLIN I do appreciate that you nat sis are doing your best tae keep us jock peasants aff ra cheap booze while you partake in the low alcohol Champagne. SIR.

      Delete
    3. CWC2 is your hostility for everybody who has a show on RT or just the Salmond show?

      Delete
  5. Propagandists like Neil are getting worried, because media like this blog, expose them mercilessly to the light. They have nowhere to hide. Like Steel they are moving from monopoly broadcasters to utter irrelevance without any intervening period. I don't have tv and I don't listen anything political.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know Neil is worried or is it just hope that he is?

      Delete
  6. If the MSM won't mention that Ruth Davidson is neglecting her duties as an MSP while she is actually still here, I doubt very much they'll say anything about Kezia.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alex's show was the first time I have dipped into RT. I don't watch much TV news and politics shows because I generally find they illuminate little. I enjoyed the show and RT seemed OK. Less dreary than the BBC and a bit more interesting than ITV. If I am catching up on news I tend to look at Bloomberg for business news and C4 and AJ for more general stuff. I can add RT to the mix.

    Of course RT comes from a specific stand point as does AJ but that doesn't mean their non Russian/Arabic news is flawed. On the contrary they seem determined to try hard to be credible. That is something the BBC seems to think they don't have to do.it is something the UK press makes no effort towards at all. Freddie Starr ate my news.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RT foreign news provides interesting informative programmes, do watch them now and then

      Delete
  8. Watched Alex's show , for a first show it was very good .He has good interviews lined up , that is why Andrew Neil and the BBC in general are doing their best to bring him down , they let their affiliation to British government policies , be they right or wrong , decide their agenda , that is where their bias comes in . As for Dugdale going onto Celebrity , it has always been this way with Labour ,once they get a bit of power it goes to their heads ,the people that voted them in can go to pot , it's all me, me, me , it's in their DNA , they can't help themselves ,they love the limelight even though they never do anything constructive to gain it . The public have found that out the hard way , Kezia will be out at the next election . Hope someone brings this up at FMQ .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Russia invades Georgia and the Ukraine. Russia annexes the Crimea. Thousands killed.
    Eck and his nat sis oppose intervention in Syria. The Russians intervene in Syria and Eck and the nat sis remain silent.
    Andrew Neil invades our telly and the Jocko Nat sis get upset.
    Wee Eck must have been devastated when the Berlin Wall came down and the Gulags and prisons were exposed. But Eck is in denial and joins the Putin funded RT. Eck gives public support to Catelonia and ignores the majority in Spain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did he? Aye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od81wRtqJik

      Delete
  10. re long odds on Sarwar, suggested conspiracy theory. Leonard wins by a landslide, so did the bookies have inside information? They are necessarily cautious people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Think they must have had some sort information , but from whom , and how did they know what the outcome would be !

    ReplyDelete
  12. When they say
    "The whole point of Russia Today...is all focused to undermine our faith in our democratic institutions"
    Which democratic institution are they referring to, the monarchy or the House of Lords?

    ReplyDelete