Category: BBC

  • A number of audience members suggested it’s the Conservative Party that is extreme on Question Time. The panel and audience were discussing the government’s new extremism definition.

    The definition does not criminalise, but seeks to prevent ‘extremist’ groups receiving government funding or meeting ministers.

    “If that is not extremism, I don’t know what is”

    Audience members pointed out that Conservative Party donor Frank Hester is extreme:

    Hester said that when he sees “Diane Abbott on the TV” he wants to “hate all black women” and thinks “she should be shot”. Hester – a private healthcare CEO – has not only donated £15m to the Conservatives in under a year, but he also previously received £400m in government contracts from the ruling Conservatives.

    On Question Time, another audience member agreed:

    I think with that definition of extremism, what would the Tory Party say then about what Frank Hester said about Diane Abbott… It’s extremism, it’s racism

    Tory ministers initially claimed that Hester’s comment was not “race-based” or “gender-based”. Then on Question Time, Conservative minister Lee Rowley reiterated that the party will not give back Hester’s donation:

    I don’t think we are giving that money back no

    The donation is almost as much as the entire £16m the Conservatives spent on their 2019 election campaign.

    Does the new definition fit Hester?

    The new definition of extremism does seem to apply to Hester’s comments. It states that extremism is

    the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

    1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or

    2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or

    3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

    For Hester, the hateful and intolerant ideology would be a racism that undermines and threatens UK parliament’s first black female MP.

    Question Time: zero support for Gove

    On Question Time, host Fiona Bruce asked if anyone in the audience supported Conservative Communities Secretary Michael Gove’s approach to extremism:

    It’s not a surprise no one in the audience supports the Conservative approach if they can’t act against party donors who are extremist.

    Elite extremism

    The Conservative government doesn’t tend to hold extremists to account when, like Hester, they are part of the elite. The government itself continues to support Israel while it breaks international law and massacres Palestinian civilian families. That could be classed as extremist and racist.

    Or take former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair who has been paraded around like some kind of elder statesman when he is responsible for over a million people dead in Iraq.

    Chilcot Inquiry evidence revealed the government deliberately invaded Iraq through false propaganda – the ‘dodgy dossier’ – and the UK media lapped up the lies. One could view that as extremist and racist.

    Or there’s foreign minister David Cameron who as prime minister intervened in Libya, which left the country in ruin. A foreign affairs select committee report found this intervention to ultimately be an “opportunist policy of regime change”. That could be viewed as extremism and racism.

    From the attitude to Hester and other elites, it’s clear the government cannot be trusted to use an even hand on extremism. On Question Time, not a single audience member agreed with their approach. Instead, they called out the government for failing to hold extremists to account when it benefits them.

    Featured image via BBC Question Time

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Conservative Baroness Jacqueline Foster has paid damages and apologised to a doctoral student. Foster claimed Melika Gorgianeh and her team’s cuddly octopus mascot on University Challenge was antisemitic. This in itself is perhaps the most ludicrous psy op to date.

    Baroness Foster: that octopus is antisemitic!

    The psy op is part of a longstanding wider campaign to shut down free speech and expression on Israel and Palestine. But it’s clear this campaign is reaching bizarre new heights. For instance, Labour’s Keir Starmer continues to target left-wing Jewish people for alleged antisemitism.

    Antisemitism is a real issue and octopuses have been use in antisemitic posters. But the weaponisation of antisemitism to try and scare the public in to silence is also a problem. Context is everything – it’s literally a cuddly toy with zero antisemitic setting. And this was upheld in the courts.

    Gorgianeh said:

    The false allegation of antisemitism has had a profound and deeply damaging impact on my life. I was a student appearing on my favourite TV quiz show. All of a sudden, lies told about me, and only me, led to me receiving death threats and to my mental health deteriorating.

    Backing the government’s pro-genocide position

    Tory peer Foster is openly backing the Tory government in its support of Israel’s in-motion genocide in Palestine. She does this while accusing a Muslim student of antisemitism for a soft toy Octopus mascot.

    On top of this, the Conservatives are still licensing arms sales to Israel while the International Court of Justice has said there is a case the state is committing genocide in Gaza. Exporting arms when there’s a risk they could be used to violate international law is against the UK’s own law.

    Foster accused countries supporting the genocide investigation as having a ‘financial interest in South Africa’, which led the case.

    Shutting down free speech

    The corporate media, from the Guardian to the Mail, participates in the campaign to shut down free speech and expression. Academics at the Media Reform Coalition found the corporate media to have presided over a “disinformation paradigm” when it reported on alleged antisemitism in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.

    The case study found 29 outright false statements, 66 clear distortions and overwhelming source imbalance in favour of those attacking the Corbyn-led movement. They analysed 250 articles and televised news segments.

    Additionally, the Guardian has fired numerous employees for criticising Israel.

    Baroness Foster: ludicrous

    Baroness Foster supports the government’s position on the genocide of brown people in Palestine. Then she accuses a Muslim student of antisemitism for a cuddly toy octopus. The double standard is earth shattering and racist.

    This accusation is part of a psy op campaign that now looks nothing short of hysterical. And it represents how ridiculous the weaponisation of antisemitism has become.

    Featured image via Miqdaad Versi- X

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • RNZ News

    Television New Zealand will start talks from tomorrow with staff who will lose their jobs in the state broadcaster’s bid to stay “sustainable”.

    It is proposed that up to 68 jobs will be cut which equates to 9 percent of its staff.

    TVNZ chief executive Jodi O’Donnell told staff today that “tough economic conditions and structural challenges within the media sector” have hit the company’s revenue.

    She said “difficult choices need to be made” to ensure the broadcaster remained “sustainable”.

    Changes like those proposed today were incredibly hard, but TVNZ needed to ensure it was in a stronger position to transform the business to meet the needs of viewers in a digital world.

    RNZ understands a hui for all TVNZ news and current affairs staff will be held at 1pm tomorrow. This follows separate morning meetings for Re: News, Fair Go, and Sunday.

    A TVNZ staffer told RNZ it was not yet clear what the meetings meant for those programmes — whether they were to be fully cut or face significant redundancies.

    RNZ also understands 1News Tonight might also be affected.

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said of the job cuts: “It’s incredibly unsettling”.

    He said he felt for the staff there and acknowledged some would be at his media standup in Wellington.

    Luxon said all media companies here and around the world were wrestling with a changing media environment.

    Minister Shane Jones interrupted and said “a vibrant economy will be good for the media, bye bye”.

    Former prime minister Helen Clark said on X it was becoming increasingly hard for free to air public broadcasters to survive commercially.

    She asked if it was time to accept that, as with the BBC and ABC, public broadcasting should be publicly funded.

    ‘Dire implications for our democracy’
    Sunday presenter Miriama Kamo said the news of jobs possibly being axed was “awful”.

    “It’s devastating not just for our business, it’s devastating for what it means for our wider society.”

    She said along with the likely demise of Newshub it had “dire implications for our democracy”.

    When cuts were being made in news programmes at the state broadcaster that indicated how dire things had become.

    “I’m very very concerned about what the landscape looks like going forward.”

    A TVNZ news staffer who spoke to RNZ on the condition of anonymity said the most disappointing part of the process was finding out there would be job cuts via other media, such as RNZ and The New Zealand Herald.

    “Our bosses didn’t have the decency to be transparent about what was going on. You know, they say that they’ve been forthcoming over the past month over what’s going to happen in this company and whatnot — they haven’t.

    ‘What sort of vision?’
    “So it’ll be an interesting day tomorrow to see how widely the team’s affected, and to see what sort of vision they have for TVNZ, because in the time that I’ve been working there they keep talking about this digital transformation, and I haven’t seen any transformation yet.”

    The mood among current staff this morning was “pretty pissy”, particularly from those affected.

    “Obviously, not impressed,” the person said.

    Media commentator Duncan Greive said some TVNZ staff were hopeful an argument could be made against the job losses.

    Greive, who also founded The Spinoff, told RNZ’s Midday Report TVNZ staff working on Fair Go, Sunday and Re: News were invited to meetings today, and told to bring support people.

    He said staff have told him the news was devastating, but said they didn’t yet know how deep and widespread the cuts would be — leaving them hopeful their teams would not be as impacted on as they feared.

    Meanwhile, an organisation supporting news media staff said the hundreds of people facing redunancy would struggle to find new work in the industry.

    Deeply unsettling
    Media chaplaincy general manager Elesha Gordon said it was deeply unsettling for those whose livelihoods were on the line.

    She said 368 people (from Newshub and TVNZ) with very specialised skillsets would be stepping out into an industry that would not have jobs for them.

    Gordon said the proposed cuts were a “cruel and unfair symptom” of the industry’s financial state.

    Last week, TVNZ flagged further cost cutting as it posted a first half-year loss linked to reduced revenue and asset write-offs.

    The state-owned broadcaster’s interim financial results showed total revenue had fallen 13.5 percent from last year to $155.9 million.

    Its net loss for the six months ended December was $16.8m compared to a profit of $4.8m the year before.

    O’Donnell said the broadcaster’s management had tried to cut operating costs over the last year but there was now no option other than to look at job losses.

    ‘No easy answers’
    “There are no easy answers, and media organisations locally and globally are grappling with the same issues. Our priority is to support our people through the change process — we’ll take the next few weeks to collect, consider and respond to feedback from TVNZers before making any final decisions.”

    A confirmed structure is expected to be finalised by early April.

    TVNZ staff in Auckland
    TVNZ staff arrive to hear the news from their bosses. Image: RNZ/Marika Khabazi

    The layoffs at TVNZ have come one week after the shock announcement by the US corporation Warner Bros Discovery that it intended closing its Newshub operation in New Zealand by the end of June.

    It means up to 300 people will lose their jobs.

    Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee told RNZ Checkpoint yesterday she had spoken to TVNZ bosses last week but it was not up to her to reveal details of the conversation.

    She declined to comment on Newshub’s offer to TVNZ to team up in some ways to cut costs, nor suggestions TVNZ could cut its 6pm news to half-an-hour or cancel current affairs programming.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The BBC‘s Laura Kuenssberg is either Britain’s shallowest thinker or a disturbed proponent of the billionaire ‘death cult’ mentality. If that sounds like word salad, just look at her latest headline:

    That’s right, she’s asking if listening to the decades of research and pursuing a habitable planet is no longer trendy.

    You see what we mean?

    Because this could only be the product of a nincompoop or a person who wants to watch the world burn.

    Kuenssberg and the Death Cult Corporation

    Kuenssberg’s articles aren’t just intellectually abysmal; they’re also embarrassing to read, as this opening demonstrates:

    What’s in vogue? Not just Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in this month’s glossy mag, or news that “discreet chic” is back and flamboyant “statement gowns” are out!

    Politics has fashions too – what’s in and out. It’s not so long ago that world leaders were jostling to be pictured with celebs like Leonardo diCaprio, Stella McCartney or Emma Watson at the huge COP26 climate conference in Glasgow where Boris Johnson played host.

    You shouldn’t write like this unless you’re a child or you’re penning a piece at gun point. Her article continues – seemingly without end – tightening around your mind like a mental thumbscrew:

    This week however it’s been the Labour leadership’s turn, finally getting rid of its vow to spend £28bn a year to help the country go green.

    Kuenssberg wasn’t the only person to phrase it like this – just look at this headline from the Independent:

    If you question Kuenssberg or the Independent about this, I’m sure they’d tell you that ‘finally’ references the months of speculation before Labour pulled the plug. If you’re in journalism, however, you understand you’re writing to people who closely follow politics and people who do not. To the second audience, the obvious reading of ‘finally’ is that ditching the green investment was inevitable; that it couldn’t have gone any other way.

    Who benefits from that thinking, you should ask yourselves?

    Because it certainly isn’t you.

    Reassuring

    The next section of Kuenssberg’s article gets to the heart of her argument – an argument as un-fleshed out as it is wrong:

    Without adding to the vast acreage of coverage about this decision, it shows above all that Labour wants to reassure voters it would be careful with their cash over anything else.

    As noted by Pippa Crerar from 2023, however, voters see the climate crisis as something we should be spending money on:

    The perception that “red wall” voters do not care about the issue is not backed up by the evidence. In fact, the opposite is true, with polls suggesting this group cares more deeply than others about the impact of rising temperatures on their families, jobs and country.

    “Blue wall” voters also believe that getting to net zero should be a priority, and adopting green technology such as electric vehicles and heat pumps is increasingly becoming part of their identity.

    What most people realise is that not spending money now means we spend considerably more later. The following article from the Institute for Government covers how much we stand to save:

    How much will it cost to reach net zero?

    The upfront investment required will be substantial. Only around £10bn of public and private investment in the UK in 2020 went towards low-carbon projects, but the independent Climate Change Committee think this needs to rise to about £50bn per year by the late 2020s – mostly on transport, renewables and buildings – and stay around that level until 2050.

    But the savings will be substantial, too. By the late 2030s, the CCC thinks this extra investment (capital expenditure) will be offset by reductions in day-to-day spending (operational expenditure), including due to the extra efficiency of electric vehicles. …

    Other analyses have come to broadly similar conclusions. In a July 2021 report on fiscal risks, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated a net cost of the UK reaching net zero by 2050 to be £321bn, or just over £10bn per year. This is made up of around £1.4trn in costs, offset by around £1.1trn in savings.

    Here’s all that in graph form:

    In other words, abandoning climate commitments is not ‘being careful with your cash’ – not unless you’re an elderly billionaire who expects to die before the shit hits the fan.

    Contention

    At the back end of her article, Kuenssberg does acknowledge the following:

    Polling consistently shows that action on climate change is near the top of voters’ concerns – at number three on research group More In Common’s list behind the cost of living and the health service, and not just among those on the left or the under-40s.

    But then she gets straight into this:

    But as we move closer to the 2050 and 2030 targets the practical realities of the move to a greener economy will hit closer to home.

    As one of the architects of the 2050 law, a former senior Conservative figure, said now “we’ve got to the point where it is starting to affect individual families it was always going to become politically contentious”.

    The public wants action generically, but might not like the effect of them – or as it was put to me: “Voters are allowed to be hypocrites – they can say ‘I want you to do more’ but then when you do, they say ‘oh I didn’t mean that’.”

    You can be horrified by what’s happening to the planet round the world, but not be too eager to pay thousands for a new boiler at home.

    This suggests politicians have tackled climate politics in the only way they could have done.

    That is not the case.

    First of all, why has she presented it as if climate measures inevitably have to hit working people; why no talk of windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies, or higher tax rates for the mega rich?

    Secondly, there’s no reason why climate measures can’t benefit people. ULEZ is unpopular because the impression is that it punishes people for getting by. If you combined it with free public transport, however, they’d simultaneously have an alternative, as well as more money to spend in the local economy.

    Similarly, we could massively expand free insulation, creating jobs and reducing people’s heating bills while getting money out of the hands of energy companies – companies we should arguably nationalise, with any profits fed into climate measures.

    While politicians and journalists would have you believe otherwise, austerity doesn’t work, and has always led to worse outcomes when compared to recoveries in which we boosted public investment. Here we have a golden opportunity to boost the economy, avert the climate catastrophe, and make people’s lives more liveable.

    A golden opportunity that Kuenssberg would have you believe is a shower of piss.

    Kuenssberg: ignoring the cost

    Kuenssberg’s closer is as stupid as it is borderline unreadable:

    Maybe our conversations about the climate are becoming less about emotion and more about the economy. The problem is real. Now the political arguments are here to stay.

    As we’ve discussed, not tackling the climate crisis will mean that every year we spend more money dealing with the effects of said crisis. According to Kuenssberg, to point that out is ’emotional’.

    People will have an emotional reaction, of course, because only someone without emotions could not be infuriated by this drivel. And much like the climate bill, this anger will grow year on year.

    In other words, fury is going to be in fashion.

    Featured image via BBCStockvault

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The BBC has been issuing stock responses to chronically ill people over a now-notorious episode of Dragon’s Den that featured the Acu Seeds product. A lot of people living with the disease the programme discussed, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) are too unwell to keep having to jump through the BBC‘s complaint hoops just to have their voices heard.

    So, here’s a summary of how to follow up your SECOND complaint to the BBC – along with a response you can copy and paste, which should fit most people’s complaints.

    As the Canary previously reported, there has been a scandal over Giselle Boxer’s Acu Seeds product and the BBC giving it a platform. In short, Boxer claimed these ear seeds helped cure her ME. The dragons lapped this up. However, this angered the chronic illness community – because it is highly unlikely that Acu Seeds did anything for Boxer’s illness.

    What is ME?

    ME is a chronic disease that affects almost every system in people’s bodies – like the immune, nervous, digestive, and hormonal systems. Many of its symptoms majorly impact a patient’s day-to-day life – like cognitive impairment, profound and disabling fatigue, influenza-like symptoms, heart, lung, temperature, and blood pressure dysfunction, hypersensitivities, and digestive dysfunction.

    However, the main symptom which sets ME aside from other illnesses is called post-exertional malaise (PEM), the NHS Scotland website says. Oddly, NHS England’s website makes no mention of this. PEM is a worsening of many, if not all, the body’s systems, as well as symptoms, after physical, mental, or emotional exertion.

    Research has shown people with ME have a worse quality of life than many cancer patients, people living with type I diabetes, and stroke survivors.

    In its worst form, people with severe or very severe ME often cannot eat or drink, are permanently bedbound or hospitalised, cannot sit or stand up, and are completely reliant on others for their care. However, crucially ME can kill people – and has.

    In 2021, Maeve Boothby O’Neill died from very severe ME at the age of 27 after the NHS allegedly neglected her. Doctors denied her a feeding tube, and later denied total parenteral nutrition, which could have saved her life. An inquest into Maeve’s case is ongoing. Her father, journalist Sean O’Neill, wrote about his daughter’s story for the Times.

    The BBC: issuing stock responses to complaints over Acu Seeds

    So, Acu Seeds’ Dragon’s Den appearance rightly caused outrage and upset in the chronic illness community. Nearly 500 people used campaign group the Chronic Collaboration and the Canary‘s interactive complaint form to formally take the issue up with Ofcom. However, on social media people were unhappy with the BBC‘s response when they complained to it initially.

    The response from the broadcaster was to issue people with a statement identical to the one on its website.

    Now, people are unhappy with the BBC‘s response when they complained to it for a second time, to follow up on their initial complaint.

    This is what the BBC sent one complainant:

    Essentially, this is the BBC saying ‘well, clearly you were upset; we put a note on the programme, so SURELY you must be happy now?’ Of course, this is not good enough at all – as Boxer’s product is still on the Dragon’s Den episode, and the note the BBC added to the show in no way goes far enough to address the myriad issues with it.

    So, if you have complained to the BBC for a second time, and it’s sent you an unacceptable response, here’s how to follow it up.

    The BBC complaints framework consists of three stages:

    1. You directly complain to the BBC via its website here.
    2. If you are not happy with its response, you must complain again via the BBC website stating why you want it to reconsider your original complaint (you cannot complain about new things).
    3. If you are not happy with the next response they give, you then complain to the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). When the BBC responds to part two, it should tell you how to complain to the ECU.

    You can read the full BBC Complaints Framework here.

    Here’s how to complain to the BBC

    So, here’s how to do part three of the above process – complaining to the ECU – assuming you’ve already done parts one and two.

    1. Follow the link you were sent by the BBC in its follow up email to your complaint.
    2. Enter your email and it will ask you to verify this.
    3. Where it says “Please enter your complaint”, firstly put in what you previously complained about – but summarise it if possible, sticking to key points like “the Dragon’s Den episode was not impartial”, “the episode provided inaccurate information”, and so on. Then, copy and paste the following (this hopefully should cover most people’s complaints):

    Specifically, I believe the programme breached the following parts of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    One) section 3 “Accuracy”, subsection 3, paragraph 9 (“Reporting Statistics and Risk”). 

    Episode 3 (series 21) of Dragon’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds’ segment, would fall under these guidelines. The founder’s claims on the programme could encourage people living with ME/CFS to believe that Acu Seeds could treat or cure their illness – which may lead to psychological distress and potential health side effects (due to Acu Seeds not having been medically tested). Moreover, ME/CFS has no known cause, treatment, or cure – therefore Dragon’s Den promoting Acu Seeds as a treatment for it could cause individuals to alter their behaviour etc etc.

    Therefore, we believe this episode of Dragon’s Den breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, as the episode was inaccurate. 

    Two) section 3 “Accuracy“, subsection 3, paragraph 16 (“Avoiding Misleading Audiences”).

    Episode 3 (series 21) of Dragon’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds’ segment, would fall under these guidelines. Specifically, the founder’s claims and the BBC’s additional information it added on screen to the episode still serve to mislead audience members. The founder’s claims on the programme could encourage people living with ME/CFS to believe that Acu Seeds could treat or cure their illness – which may lead to psychological distress and potential health side effects (due to Acu Seeds not having been medically tested). Then, the BBC’s additional information it added on screen specifically states “Acu Seeds are not intended as a cure for any medical condition”. However, this still leaves viewers under the impression Acu Seeds could be a treatment for a medical condition – specifically, due to the founder’s claims around it and ME/CFS – thus misleading the audience. 

    Therefore, we believe this episode of Dragon’s Den breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, as the episode was inaccurate. 

    Three) section 4 “Impartiality”, subsection 3, paragraph 26 (“Drama, Entertainment and Culture”). 

    Episode 3 (series 21) of Dragon’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds’ segment, would fall under science as a controversial subject – therefore, section 4, subsection 3, paragraph 26 would therefore apply in this instance, as the episode was not impartial. 

    ME/CFS is a controversial subject in science – as there is no agreed cause, treatment, or cure. The founder’s claims on the programme could lead the audience to believe there was a treatment and/or cure for ME/CFS when one currently does not exist. Dragon’s Den therefore should have applied section 4, subsection3, paragraph 26 of the editorial guidelines.

    Therefore, we believe this episode of Dragon’s Den again breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    Try to keep all this under 1,000 words, as per the BBC guidelines.

    The Canary hopes this will be enough to cover most people’s complaints.

    In the next section, the BBC complaints website asks you for the case number (of the complaint, this should be in the BBC‘s response to you).

    You can then review your answers and send it off.

    Acu Seeds: let’s see what happens next

    The BBC Complaints Framework states it should respond to your second complaint within 20 working days.

    Once it responds again, you can escalate it to the ECU.

    Spoiler alert: it’s likely the BBC will dismiss people’s follow-up complaints, and send out stock responses to everyone again. Don’t think it’s anything you’ve done. This is just what our supposed public service broadcaster does.

    If you want more support with doing this, please email editors(at)thecanary.co

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Keir Starmer is infamous for dropping pledges. While it’s common that politicians don’t follow through, Starmer is noteworthy for abandoning his pledges before taking power. This has given rise to the opinion that Starmer is untrustworthy (or a liar, if you prefer), as this poll from YouGov demonstrates:

    What’s the situation here?

    Did Starmer deceptively present himself as a progressive politician to become Labour leader, or is he simply a bit wishy washy?

    By suggesting the latter without entertaining the former, the BBC‘s Laura Kuenssberg is doing Starmer a massive favour.

    Trust in Keir

    Kuenssberg was interviewing Labour shadow minister Jonathan Reynolds. If you’re unfamiliar with this absolute ghoul, we last covered him in a story with the following headline:

    Labour use crumbling schools to promote austerity as Reynolds smirks like a demon’s possessed him

    Here’s some text from that article to give you an idea of what sort of person we’re dealing with:

    For context, this is what Reynolds looked like when he was introduced as the returning shadow secretary for business (following this week’s reshuffle). Imaging being this smug when your job is to tell an audience of millions that their kids can get fucked:

    It would be hyperbolic to suggest that actual demons have infested this man; it would also be naïve, as Satan would at least have the sense not to smirk.

    How does a person turn into this? Maybe Reynolds has an awareness of all the freebies that Keir Starmer has accepted from wealthy interests – more than every Labour leader since 1997 combined according to openDemocracy – and he knows he’s on the same gravy train? Maybe he just hates young people because of their flagrant hairlines?

    Even after looking at the decades of evidence we have on austerity not working, some people will still be squealing that tired refrain: ‘but there’s no money‘. As people have pointed out, however, there’s loads of money – it’s just concentrated in the hands of the few:

    The man is an absolute toerag, which is fitting, because he literally looks like a toe.

    Lying = changing your mind, apparently

    With that context given, we’ll get into what Kuenssberg asked him – specifically:

    Keir Starmer has also dropped a whole host of pledges that he made in his leadership campaign; we’ve discussed them in this studio lots of times, and he’s changed his mind on how fast he would bring in that £28bn a year of [green] investment.

    Now whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing for him to change his mind, do you accept that it has created that perception – for some people – that he doesn’t quite know what he’s about; that he changes his mind all the time, and therefore they’re not quite sure.

    Some people might think that. Others are of the opinion that he’s a liar who told lies to attain power.

    Case in point for the latter, before Starmer became Labour leader, he wasn’t openly taking advice from Peter Mandelson – an arch-Blairite, neoliberal monster, who was also an associate of deceased international paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (more on that latter link here).

    What do you think is more likely – that post-leadership election, Starmer looked at a country blighted by neoliberalism and thought ‘what this country needs is more paedo-adjacent neoliberalism’, or that he actually held those opinions all along, and he simply lied through his teeth?

    Propaganda

    Indecisiveness is not something you could level against Starmer.

    What you can say is that Starmer in the leadership election had a very clear political stance, and Starmer after the leadership election had a very clear political stance. These two stances are a million miles away from one another, but each is internally cohesive, and any journalist with integrity would point these things out.

    Featured image via BBC

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • If you live with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), know someone who does, or just happen to use social media, you cannot have missed the storm over the Acu Seeds product that appeared on Dragon’s Den. People are rightly furious. So, the Canary is supporting a campaign group to help people complain to Ofcom about the BBC.

    However, this story isn’t as straightforward as that. This is because at its heart, you have a decades-long drama of psychologisation, lies, fraud – and a society that has accepted all of this as truth.

    Acu Seeds x Dragon’s Den: what’s the problem?

    In short, Giselle Boxer was a entrepreneur on Dragon’s Den; the episode which aired on 18 January 2024. She was pitching ear seeds: an acupuncture-style treatment but without the needles. Boxer claimed that these, along with full acupuncture, diet, and Chinese medicine, helped cure her ME. Her story and the pitch ended up securing six dragons making offers. Boxer eventually went with Steven Bartlett.

    The corporate media initially lapped the story up – glamourising Boxer, her story, and her business. However, there was also an immediate backlash from people living with ME. Namely this was because there is no recognised cause, treatment, or cure for the illness.

    Moreover, the severity of ME means that ear seeds are highly unlikely to change it.

    ME: it literally kills people

    At its worst, ME – a a debilitating and poorly-treated chronic, systemic neuroimmune disease that affects every aspect of the patient’s life – has killed people in its severest form. As the Canary previously wrote:

    In 2021, Maeve Boothby O’Neill died from severe ME at the age of 27 after the NHS essentially let her starve to death. Doctors denied her a feeding tube, and later denied total parenteral nutrition, which likely would have saved her life. An inquest into Maeve’s situation is ongoing.

    ME’s main symptom is post-exertional malaise (PEM) – a severe worsening of other symptoms after any form of physical, mental, and/or emotional exertion. This can leave a patient bedbound for days, weeks, months, or sometime permanently worsen their health.

    Plus, people were angry as ear seeds are not a placebo-tested treatment, nor is there any research into their effect on ME. In short, many people said Boxer was selling snake oil.

    Yet despite all this, the BBC reportedly approached Boxer to go on the programme – and then allowed her to pitch without any caveats for the audience about her product or ME. Moreover, it’s now come out that a rival firm allegedly warned Dragon’s Den that Boxer wasn’t a trained acupuncture therapist. If this is true, then producers ignored the individual’s concerns.

    So, before getting into the detail of the story, what can people do right now over this?

    Complain to Ofcom in just a few clicks

    Well, campaign group the Chronic Collaboration is doing what used to be called a Twitter storm, on Wednesday 24 January at 8pm. Using the hashtag #DragonsDenConnedME, it wants people to tweet at @Ofcom, telling it to investigate the Dragon’s Den episode and why it must:

    Now, the Canary has got involved. We are supporting the Chronic Collaboration, and the ME community, to go one step further.

    Below, you can enter your details and send a pre-formatted complaint letter directly to Ofcom via email. There’s more information on this further down the article. Your details are secure, as per usual Canary GDPR practices. You can click in the “Read the Petition” box to read the email. Please make sure you fill in all the details. You will get a copy of the email:

    #DragonsDenConnedME: write to Ofcom to complain about Acu Seeds

    Acu Seeds appearance on Dragon\’s Den must be investigated by Ofcom

    To whom it may concern,

    I wish to formally complain about the episode of Dragon’s Den (series 21, episode 3) first aired on 18 January 2024. This is specifically relating to the pitch from Giselle Boxer and her Acu Seeds product as a treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, CFS). I am doing this under Ofcom\’s \”Fairness and Privacy complaints on BBC broadcasting services and BBC on demand programme services\” guidelines, as reinforced by Ofcom’s “fairness code” set under section 107 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and the BBC Charter and Agreement.

    I believe that the episode breached both the BBC\’s Editorial Guidelines and Ofcom\’s Broadcasting Code – on the latter, specifically around fairness.

    Please find below the following required information as set out in your guidelines (section 1, paragraph 14):

    Dragon\’s Den.

    8pm (2000), Thursday 18 January 2024.

    BBC One.

    I have not submitted a complaint to the BBC.

    The matter I am complaining about is not currently subject to legal proceedings.

    I am the person affected, as I live with the illness (referred to as ME/CFS in this document) discussed, and the programme has had a serious, distressing, and negative impact on me. As per the Broadcasting Act 1996 and your guidelines (section 1, paragraph 24), this means I am \”a person who, whether such a participant or not, had a direct interest in the subject-matter of that [unfair] treatment\”.

    My name, postal address, and email are at the bottom of this document.

    I understand and agree to the terms of your declaration as laid out on your website here.

    Specifically, I believe the programme firstly breached the following parts of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    One) section 3 “Accuracy”, subsection 3, paragraph 9 (“Reporting Statistics and Risk”). This states:

    The reporting of risk can have an impact on the public’s perception of that risk, particularly with health or crime stories. We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly and contextualise our reports to be clear about the likelihood of the risk occurring. This is particularly true in reporting health stories that may cause individuals to alter their behaviour in ways that could be harmful. We should consider the emotional impact pictures and personal testimony can have, particularly on perceptions of risk”.

    Episode 3 (series 21) of Dragon’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds’ segment, would fall under these guidelines. The founder’s claims on the programme could encourage people living with ME/CFS to believe that Acu Seeds could treat or cure their illness – which may lead to psychological distress and potential health side effects (due to Acu Seeds not having been medically tested). Moreover, ME/CFS has no known cause, treatment, or cure – therefore Dragon’s Den promoting Acu Seeds as a treatment for it could cause individuals to alter their behaviour etc etc.

    Therefore, I believe this episode of Dragon’s Den breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    Two) section 4 “Impartiality”, subsection 3, paragraph 26 (“Drama, Entertainment and Culture”). This states:

    The audience expects artists, writers and entertainers to have scope for individual expression in drama, entertainment and cultural output. The BBC is committed to offering it. Where this covers matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or other ‘controversial subjects’, services should consider reflecting a broad range of the available perspectives over time. Consideration should be given to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting those other perspectives and whether or not they need to be included in connected and/or signposted output taking account of the nature of the controversy and the subject matter. We should also consider whether any conflicts of interest may arise”.

    Further, in section 4, subsection 3, paragraph 4 a “controversial subject” is described as being:

    a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics or any other matter”.

    Episode 3 (series 21) of Dragon’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds’ segment, would fall under science as a controversial subject – therefore, section 4, subsection 3, paragraph 26 would therefore apply in this instance.

    ME/CFS is a controversial subject in science – as there is no agreed cause, treatment, or cure. The founder’s claims on the programme could lead the audience to believe there was a treatment and/or cure for ME/CFS when one currently does not exist. Dragon’s Den therefore should, as per section 4, subsection3, paragraph 26 of the editorial guidelines, given:

    Consideration… to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting those other perspectives [on ME/CFS] and whether or not they need to be included in connected and/or signposted output taking account of the nature of the controversy and the subject matter”.

    Therefore, I believe this episode of Dragon’s Den again breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    Further to this, I also believe this episode of Dragon\’s Den breached Ofcom\’s Broadcasting Code.

    Section seven: Fairness, paragraph 10. This states:

    \”Programmes – such as dramas and factually-based dramas – should not portray facts, events, individuals or organisations in a way which is unfair to an individual or organisation\”.

    Dragon\’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds segment, was grossly unfair to the majority of people living with ME – including myself, the \”Person Affected\”. It presented the product as a treatment for the illness, without offering any scientific proof, or counter-argument to its claims. Ergo, it is also arguable that Dragon\’s Den breached Section seven: Fairness, paragraph 9 of Ofcom\’s Broadcasting Code – as Acu Seeds was presented with omissions in terms of the lack of scientific and medical evidence surrounding them, therefore leading to unfairness for me, the \”Person Affected\”.

    Overall, the BBC should not be platforming untested treatments for a serious chronic illness factually on a light entertainment show. Would the corporation have allowed an entrepreneur to pitch Acu Seeds as a treatment for cancer? It is highly unlikely. Therefore, why did the production team of Dragon’s Den think it acceptable to platform the product for ME/CFS?

    I consider that the BBC must put out an immediate apology for including Acu Seeds in the programme and include within this a statement explaining that ME/CFS has no known cause, treatment, or cure – and therefore it was irresponsible for the show, and Acu Seeds, to give an impression to the contrary.

    %%your signature%%

    35 signatures

    Share this with your friends:

     

    So, Acu Seeds has caused a storm. Yet it’s not really Boxer who is at fault, here.

    Don’t shoot the Acu Seeds messenger

    We live in a (capitalist) society that encourages the individual to prioritise their own wants and desires over our collective wellbeing as a species. So, on that basis who wouldn’t flog some bits of tat with a five-day shelf life on the internet for a 900% profit margin? Boxer is – buying the Acu Seeds for £3 and selling them for £30.

    Moreover, some of the discourse we’re seeing online about Boxer is uncomfortable, at best.

    A stranger on social media does not have the right to question whether someone’s illness was or is genuine – nor question the decisions they make about their health. To call Boxer a con-artist, for example, lowers yourself to the same level as the psych lobby (Simon Wessely et al) who helped foment the notions of modern-day malingering in the first place.

    Boxer clearly was unwell. We should not be debating that – as we need to do better.

    Moreover, chronically ill people ripping into other chronically ill people without substantial evidence is just playing into the hands of the forces that would seek to divide us – like the aforementioned psych lobby. We’ve seen it before, with the Sickness and Lies documentary. All witch hunting does is end up making everyone witches; all targets for a good dunking or the fiery stake.

    By all means we should question her product, her company/commercial ethics, and her business practices. However, Boxer personally is not the target, here.

    The BBC: in the thick of it, as always

    The blame for this particularly horrific episode lies solely with the BBC.

    It should not have invited nor allowed Boxer on the show at all – given she was selling Acu Seeds under the guise of them “aiding [a person’s] recovery [from ME] in 12 months” (her words). To say that this is irresponsible would be an understatement.

    The BBC‘s Editorial Guidelines state:

    The reporting of risk can have an impact on the public’s perception of that risk, particularly with health or crime stories… This is particularly true in reporting health stories that may cause individuals to alter their behaviour in ways that could be harmful. We should consider the emotional impact pictures and personal testimony can have, particularly on perceptions of risk.

    This is the Dragon’s Den/Acu Seeds debacle in a nutshell. Boxer’s claims on the programme could encourage people living with ME, their friends, and their family, to believe that Acu Seeds could treat or cure their illness. This may lead to severe psychological distress (when Acu Seeds don’t work) and potential health side effects (due to Acu Seeds not having been medically tested).

    It seems unfathomable that the BBC let Boxer and Acu Seeds on. Would it have allowed an entrepreneur to pitch Acu Seeds as a treatment for cancer? For dementia? It is highly unlikely. Yet after the episode, the resulting chaos was equally unfathomable.

    The fallout: round in circles we go

    The fallout from the episode has been predictably painful to watch, as well. It goes something like this:

    1. Corporate media/government/institution betrays, smears, and undermines chronically ill and disabled people.
    2. Corporate media (not involved in point one) fail to spot this.
    3. Chronically ill and disabled people campaign on social media for days to try and control the narrative.
    4. Charities finally stop navel-gazing and issue a half-arsed press release.
    5. Said press release isn’t up to the job, and the corporate media that do pay attention to it flunk the story – calling ME, for example, “extreme tiredness”, failing to say it kills people etc.
    6. Narrative is still out of control.
    7. Chronically ill and disabled people thank said charities, as they know their limp response is as good as it’s going to get.
    8. Chronically ill and disabled people wait for the next scandal.
    9. Go back to point one and start the process again.

    Bored of this yet? You’d be right to be.

    Charities and corporate media: the worst kind of bedfellows

    For example, yes the major ME charities sent out a press release – but it was one that followed a PR/comms template from circa 2015. That is – it clearly left journalists with no knowledge of ME to write the story, with the actual press release being mostly just commentary around the programme and its consequences – hence “extreme tiredness” lifted from the NHS website.

    When ME is systematically misrepresented in the media, charities should be on point when they interact with journalists. Any press release needs to be a ready-to-go article that includes the definition of ME, correct descriptions of symptoms, commentary about severe ME and how it kills people, and so on – all with links to research to back up these claims.

    As journalists, the Canary knows that if we got that kind of press release then we’d print most of it verbatim – ergo the narrative around ME in the article would be correct for the community.

    In 2024, when many journalists are now ‘churnalists’, content is driven by SEO requirements, and AI is infiltrating newsrooms – anything less than a press release that is actually a pre-made, fully formatted article is going to cause problems for the people it’s supposed to represent.

    The charities should know this – if they bothered to get their heads out of the 2010s. Seemingly, they don’t, as one charity admitted on Facebook. Yet still, they beg people for money and patients are supposed to be grateful for their advocacy. It would be hilarious – if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    What to do about Acu Seeds, Dragon’s Den, and the BBC?

    Unfortunately, so far what needs to happen hasn’t. That it, the BBC has not issued an apology, held itself accountable for its dire error of judgement, nor put out a prominent statement explaining that Acu Seeds will in no way work as a treatment for ME.

    There might be a way to force the broadcaster to do that.

    What we can do immediately – after the Chronic Collaboration did some digging in legislation from 1996 – is complain directly to Ofcom. Hand-wringing statements from charities and weak corporate media coverage won’t hold the BBC to account. Only Ofcom can do that.

    Ofcom’s website makes out you can’t complain directly to it about the BBC – you have to complain to it, first, and then got to Ofcom. However, that is not strictly true. The regulator’s rules (buried in guidance) around fairness and privacy complaints about the BBC create a loophole to circumvent this – which is what the Chronic Collaboration has done.

    So, here once again is the email you can send to the broadcasting regulator making a formal complaint about the Acu Seeds episode of Dragon’s Den.

    #DragonsDenConnedME: write to Ofcom to complain about Acu Seeds

    Acu Seeds appearance on Dragon\’s Den must be investigated by Ofcom

    To whom it may concern,

    I wish to formally complain about the episode of Dragon’s Den (series 21, episode 3) first aired on 18 January 2024. This is specifically relating to the pitch from Giselle Boxer and her Acu Seeds product as a treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, CFS). I am doing this under Ofcom\’s \”Fairness and Privacy complaints on BBC broadcasting services and BBC on demand programme services\” guidelines, as reinforced by Ofcom’s “fairness code” set under section 107 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and the BBC Charter and Agreement.

    I believe that the episode breached both the BBC\’s Editorial Guidelines and Ofcom\’s Broadcasting Code – on the latter, specifically around fairness.

    Please find below the following required information as set out in your guidelines (section 1, paragraph 14):

    Dragon\’s Den.

    8pm (2000), Thursday 18 January 2024.

    BBC One.

    I have not submitted a complaint to the BBC.

    The matter I am complaining about is not currently subject to legal proceedings.

    I am the person affected, as I live with the illness (referred to as ME/CFS in this document) discussed, and the programme has had a serious, distressing, and negative impact on me. As per the Broadcasting Act 1996 and your guidelines (section 1, paragraph 24), this means I am \”a person who, whether such a participant or not, had a direct interest in the subject-matter of that [unfair] treatment\”.

    My name, postal address, and email are at the bottom of this document.

    I understand and agree to the terms of your declaration as laid out on your website here.

    Specifically, I believe the programme firstly breached the following parts of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    One) section 3 “Accuracy”, subsection 3, paragraph 9 (“Reporting Statistics and Risk”). This states:

    The reporting of risk can have an impact on the public’s perception of that risk, particularly with health or crime stories. We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly and contextualise our reports to be clear about the likelihood of the risk occurring. This is particularly true in reporting health stories that may cause individuals to alter their behaviour in ways that could be harmful. We should consider the emotional impact pictures and personal testimony can have, particularly on perceptions of risk”.

    Episode 3 (series 21) of Dragon’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds’ segment, would fall under these guidelines. The founder’s claims on the programme could encourage people living with ME/CFS to believe that Acu Seeds could treat or cure their illness – which may lead to psychological distress and potential health side effects (due to Acu Seeds not having been medically tested). Moreover, ME/CFS has no known cause, treatment, or cure – therefore Dragon’s Den promoting Acu Seeds as a treatment for it could cause individuals to alter their behaviour etc etc.

    Therefore, I believe this episode of Dragon’s Den breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    Two) section 4 “Impartiality”, subsection 3, paragraph 26 (“Drama, Entertainment and Culture”). This states:

    The audience expects artists, writers and entertainers to have scope for individual expression in drama, entertainment and cultural output. The BBC is committed to offering it. Where this covers matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or other ‘controversial subjects’, services should consider reflecting a broad range of the available perspectives over time. Consideration should be given to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting those other perspectives and whether or not they need to be included in connected and/or signposted output taking account of the nature of the controversy and the subject matter. We should also consider whether any conflicts of interest may arise”.

    Further, in section 4, subsection 3, paragraph 4 a “controversial subject” is described as being:

    a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics or any other matter”.

    Episode 3 (series 21) of Dragon’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds’ segment, would fall under science as a controversial subject – therefore, section 4, subsection 3, paragraph 26 would therefore apply in this instance.

    ME/CFS is a controversial subject in science – as there is no agreed cause, treatment, or cure. The founder’s claims on the programme could lead the audience to believe there was a treatment and/or cure for ME/CFS when one currently does not exist. Dragon’s Den therefore should, as per section 4, subsection3, paragraph 26 of the editorial guidelines, given:

    Consideration… to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting those other perspectives [on ME/CFS] and whether or not they need to be included in connected and/or signposted output taking account of the nature of the controversy and the subject matter”.

    Therefore, I believe this episode of Dragon’s Den again breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    Further to this, I also believe this episode of Dragon\’s Den breached Ofcom\’s Broadcasting Code.

    Section seven: Fairness, paragraph 10. This states:

    \”Programmes – such as dramas and factually-based dramas – should not portray facts, events, individuals or organisations in a way which is unfair to an individual or organisation\”.

    Dragon\’s Den, specifically the Acu Seeds segment, was grossly unfair to the majority of people living with ME – including myself, the \”Person Affected\”. It presented the product as a treatment for the illness, without offering any scientific proof, or counter-argument to its claims. Ergo, it is also arguable that Dragon\’s Den breached Section seven: Fairness, paragraph 9 of Ofcom\’s Broadcasting Code – as Acu Seeds was presented with omissions in terms of the lack of scientific and medical evidence surrounding them, therefore leading to unfairness for me, the \”Person Affected\”.

    Overall, the BBC should not be platforming untested treatments for a serious chronic illness factually on a light entertainment show. Would the corporation have allowed an entrepreneur to pitch Acu Seeds as a treatment for cancer? It is highly unlikely. Therefore, why did the production team of Dragon’s Den think it acceptable to platform the product for ME/CFS?

    I consider that the BBC must put out an immediate apology for including Acu Seeds in the programme and include within this a statement explaining that ME/CFS has no known cause, treatment, or cure – and therefore it was irresponsible for the show, and Acu Seeds, to give an impression to the contrary.

    %%your signature%%

    35 signatures

    Share this with your friends:

    Blame the organ grinders, not the monkey

    However, none of this gets to the root of the problem either. This is because, ultimately, a group of producers at the BBC knew so little about ME (and therefore by association other illnesses like long Covid), that they didn’t see the problem with Acu Seeds in the first place.

    So, we’re back to that enduring question: who are the real villains in this saga? As with Boris Johnson’s long Covid “bollocks” scandal, it’s the people who have psychologised physical health in the first place.

    As the Canary previously wrote, the idea that a physical illness can actually have a psychological cause (‘all in people’s heads’) has seeped into society’s consciousness. The notorious PACE trial – a fraudulent study which claimed exercise and talking therapy could cure ME (they can’t) – was one part of this. However, the psychologisation of physical illness runs far deeper than just that alone.

    When will ME stop being ‘all in people’s heads’?

    From ME to Gulf War syndrome and now via long Covid, psychiatrists have actively fomented this belief – and the mud has stuck. The Acu Seeds scandal has been another example of just how a falsehood can be fed to society as the truth – and society dutifully believes it.

    The BBC platformed Boxer because producers didn’t even see the problem – because ME is ‘all in people’s heads’. The corporate media initially praised Acu Seeds – because ME is ‘all in people’s heads’. Then, that same media called ME “extreme tiredness” – because… you know what comes next.

    Until the idea that illness can be ‘all in people’s heads’ is consigned to the dustbin of medical history, then we have to keep fighting back every time it rears its ugly head. With Acu Seeds, this is making sure the BBC is held to account – sadly, until the next time ME is stigmatised and delegitimised, and patients are thrown under the bus.

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • When people heard about the PPE profiteering – notably Michelle Mone – that went on during the coronavirus pandemic, most people immediately knew it was wrong – and not just wrong, corrupt. Would you believe the BBC‘s political figurehead Laura Kuenssberg has found something other than blatant corruption to blame the fiasco on?

    Mone PPE: how odd she would lie

    Kuenssberg and her panel of guests on Sunday With… on 21 January were discussing Tory baroness Mone, who was involved in a very prominent PPE scandal (as summarised here by the Guardian):

    The Department of Health and Social Care granted a newly formed company, PPE Medpro Ltd, two contracts worth a total of £203m in May and June 2020. The first, for £80.85m, was to supply 210m face masks, and the second was to supply 25m sterile surgical gowns, for which the government paid £122m.

    The contracts were processed via the “VIP lane”, which gave high priority and fast-tracked PPE offers from companies introduced by people with connections to the government…

    PPE Medpro had clear links to Barrowman’s Knox group, but after the contracts were published in the autumn of 2020, and in response to questions from the Guardian, Mone and Barrowman fiercely denied being involved.

    Turns out they were involved and stood to make tens of millions – something they later confessed to.

    Odd that they’d lie, no? Almost as if they always knew it was wrong, and they didn’t need hindsight in the first place.

    Hindsight

    Kuenssberg was speaking to guest Tom Hunter, who like Michelle Mone is a Scottish ‘entrepreneur’ (i.e. someone who’s very good at making money from other people’s labour). Kuenssberg asked him:

    Do you think she’s been treated fairly? She’s very clear that she’s been made a scapegoat.

    Given the widespread nature of the PPE scandal, there’s a strong argument to be made that she’s a scapegoat. However, that doesn’t mean she’s being treated unfairly – just that everyone else is being treated more favourably than they deserve.

    Kuenssberg continued:

    Or do you look at her and think ‘it’s just a terribly sad mess, but she may have made mistakes’ – what do you think?

    The eagle-eyed among you may have noticed that Kuenssberg provided Hunter with a choice of two answers – said answers being:

    • Mone was unfairly scapegoated.
    • Mone made mistakes.

    Personally, we think it’s a weird interview technique to provide ready-made answers – some might say a leading technique. Putting that to one side, surely it should have been a choice between:

    • She was treated unfairly/she made mistakes/she accidentally did a multi-million pound deal somehow.
    • She’s corrupt/she done it on purpose/she’s a wrong ‘un.

    Against BBC etiquette, Hunter responded with some thoughts of his own:

    I think she’s her own worst enemy. I think she has – in her interview with yourself – you know – it was a car crash interview. Why did she decide to do it – you must be very persuasive.

    Kuenssberg laughed deeply at this, although her face did turn suddenly serious – perhaps realising it wouldn’t do to have politicians thinking she’s making a mug of them. While politicians on her show do frequently come off terribly, that’s 99% their own doing; they’d come across much worse if it wasn’t for Kuenssberg’s interventions.

    Hunter continued:

    But she is not the only one who benefitted. If I had been running the government – thank god I’m not – I would have said can you help us, but I’m putting a cap on the profits you can make. Because there’s something above profit here. Our country is in dire straits; we need your help as entrepreneur, but let’s cap the profits.

    An unhappy Kuenssberg responded (bold and all-caps added for emphasis):

    ALRIGHT, WELL HINDSIGHT MIGHT BE A WONDERFUL THING.

    No-sight

    Yes, Laura – absolutely no one had ever raised the alarm about capitalism run amok before the pandemic. Famously, Karl Marx didn’t write Das Kapital until 2023, and buy ‘wrote’ we of course mean ‘lip synced it on Tik Tok’, because no one writes books anymore.

    Sadly, we also didn’t have words like ‘corruption’, ‘cronyism’, or ‘blatant malfeasance’ either. If we had, maybe the people in charge would have said to themselves, ‘perhaps this corrupt cronyism we’re doing is actually a blatant malfeasance’.

    People had some things to say, anyway:

    Mone PPE: Kuenssberg covers again

    ‘Hindsight’ applies to situations like when you drive down a country road only to discover it’s flooded and you can’t pass. It doesn’t apply to a situation in which you drive into a river you’ve always known was there because you thought it would be a quicker route to the other side.

    It’s funny that ‘hindsight’ only functions as a talking point in relation to the misdeeds of the wealthy – like the Mone PPE scandal. And by ‘funny’, we of course mean ‘blatantly crooked’.

    Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, Kuenssberg will one day look back at her career and realise what an absolute joke it was.

    Featured image via BBC

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Keir Starmer U-turns so often that he should probably be interviewed on a roundabout. His dedication to gyration was on full display this Sunday when Laura Kuenssberg asked him about the so-called ‘conflict’ in the Middle East:

    A man of (non-military) action

    Kuenssberg showed Starmer the following video:

    Starmer responded, as reported by the BBC:

    Sir Keir insisted there was “no inconsistency” between his previous comments and his support for the air strikes in Yemen, telling the programme that there is a difference between this action on Houthi targets and “sustained” military action.

    A couple of problems with this.

    Firstly, that wasn’t a distinction he made previously. Secondly, how do we know the strikes against Yemen aren’t going to result in “sustained” military action? You can’t punch someone in the nose then act surprised when a fight ensues. Or maybe he could? Because – let’s face it – the man is either completely without shame or an idiot.

    People had a lot to say about Starmer’s latest interview:

     

    Starmer was already attracting criticism beforehand:

    And the embarrassment is spreading:

     

    Arms for the rich

    Starmer managed to slip another U-turn into his interview – this time on arming Saudi Arabia:

    The BBC reported:

    Separately pressed on whether he had changed commitment to stop the UK selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Sir Keir said he supported a review into all UK arms sales which will “make clear” what Labour’s position is.

    Once again, Starmer was confronted by his own words from 2020 when he said (as reported by the National):

    the UK “should stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia” over concerns about their use in the Yemen civil war.

    In response to his own stance, Mr Robot repeated:

    We will do a review to look at the sales, look at the countries and the relationships we have.

    And then just:

    We will do a review.

    When you need to carry out a review to confirm if you’re planning to do what you said you would, things are clearly very far from “clear”:

     

    A man of his word (just not the words he literally says)

    So here’s the question: is it really Starmer’s fault if people take him at his literal word, and not the second, unspoken meaning he secretly thinks in his head?

    The answer to that question is ‘no’. Although, in true Starmer-style, by ‘no’, we actually mean ‘yes’.

    Featured image via BBC

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The BBC is supposedly governed by a charter which ensures balanced political reporting. As we all know, what they actually do is split their time equally between:

    • The party of the status quo (i.e. the government).
    • The wannabe party of the status quo (i.e. the ‘opposition’).
    • Whatever party Nigel Farage is involved with.

    What this means is that there’s little – and often zero – time given to parties that challenge the status quo. And when you read the Green Party deputy leader’s roundup of this week’s political shows, it’s clear that this is a party which is challenging the status quo:

    Side one of the same arse: David Cameron

    Some of you may be old enough to remember that foreign secretary David Cameron was once the prime minister. He arguably didn’t resign in ‘disgrace’, but he certainly resigned having fucked up a massive political gamble – namely on the Brexit referendum. He’d certainly behaved disgracefully when in government, of course, and he also behaved disgracefully after; most notably in the ‘Greensill Scandal’.

    As we wrote in 2021 (back when Andrew Marr was washing the government’s dirty laundry every Sunday):

    David Cameron is at the heart of it, and people have accused him of corruption. This is because of his lobbying for his mate Lex Greensill, who was the owner of Greensill Capital. Greensill worked for Cameron as an adviser when Cameron was PM.

    Then, when Cameron quit, he in turn went to work for Greensill. During the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, Cameron got in touch with his mates in government. He asked for them to help Greensill get access to a coronavirus loan scheme. But the Tories didn’t give Greensill one, so it went bust.

    The story just keeps on getting more toxic. Chancellor Rishi Sunak and health secretary Matt Hancock have both been implicated. And as the Canary’s Tom Coburg wrote, the stink of corruption keeps deepening. This is because Boris Johnson has put fellow Tories in charge of the investigation into Greensill.

    So, if all of this was making senior Tories squirm – fear not. Because Andrew Marr has got their backs.

    Given Cameron’s history of demonstrable incompetence and alleged corruption, you might be surprised to see him back in government. Not if you work at the BBC, of course, beyond some tepid softball questioning with zero follow up. As Green Party deputy leader Zack Polanski commented:

    Polanski also pointed out the one thing no one is talking about in the refugee debate:

    The weaselly British government thinks we can shirk our international responsibilities by virtue of us being an island. Amnesty International explains ‘four truths’ when it comes to the matter:

    • “TRUTH 1: The Government allows nobody to make a claim for asylum in the UK unless they are physically present in the UK”.
    • “TRUTH 2: It is impossible to come to the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum in any way permitted by the Government’s immigration rules”.
    • “TRUTH 3: The Government makes almost no safe and legal route available to any refugee other than someone from Ukraine”.
    • “TRUTH 4: Seeking asylum from persecution is lawful – refugees don’t need anyone’s permission to do so”.

    In other words, Polanski is right. If we want to protect refugees and ‘smash’ smuggling gangs, there needs to be a safe way refugees can reach us. For all the fuss it causes in the British media and political space, we already receive significantly fewer asylum applicants than our neighbours, as reported by UNHCR:

    In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+ for the same period, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44,190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population.

    Germany, France, Spain, and Italy accounted for around 70% of all first-time applicants in the EU-27. These figures include all asylum applicants, not just main applicants (i.e. including  children and other dependents). World-wide around  85%  of all refugees live in developing regions, not in wealthy industrialised countries, and 73% of refugees displaced abroad live in countries neighbouring their countries of origin.

    The issue is that people in the UK think we shouldn’t have to hold ourselves to the same standards as other countries, and that people fleeing persecution can go whistle (even if the persecution they’re facing is in a region of the world we played a pivotal role in destabilising).

    And do you know who else holds these opinions?

    Side two of the same arse: Keir Starmer

    It won’t surprise you to learn that Keir Starmer is repeating the same talking points as the right-wing media, our right-wing government, and every right-wing loser in every shithole pub. Polanski noted:

    Looking at it sensibly, how are we going to ‘stop the boats’? There are only two options:

    • We stop them on the water (i.e. we commit sea murder).
    • We stop them setting off in the first place.

    The problem with the first is that it’s – well – we probably don’t need to explain. The problem with the second is that the boats are setting off from a country other than our own. How arsed do you think the French are when they know:

    • They’re already doing more than us.
    • If we created safe routes – as we legally should – this wouldn’t be an issue.

    In other words, Starmer is another cowardly bullshit artist who will say anything to avoid a bad headline in the Daily Mail.

    And talking of bullshit:

    Ah yes, it wasn’t a military action, it was simply an action carried out by our military. We actually didn’t realise our militaries were now available for non-military work. If they are, they could come round to one of the Canary writer’s houses and do a non-military action on the mess in our yard.

    Pig to man: man to pig

    Green Party MP Caroline Lucas pointed out that Cameron had some equally nonsensical opinions on the strikes:

    And talking of planets, Polanksi wondered what Starmer is doing for the one we live on:

    Green Parties are often criticised for not having a fleshed-out socialist platform (or for not being socialist at all). The UK Green Party might not be the party with all the answers we need, but they are at least engaging with the questions. As such, it’s detrimental to national discourse that they’re frozen out of the conversation.

    Featured image via YouTube – BBC

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Baroness Michelle Mone has achieved what few politicians have – by becoming embroiled in a corruption scandal so laughable that even the British media can’t cover up for her. This is so much the case that even Laura Kuenssberg – the worst journalist to have ever existed – is now dunking on the woman:

    PPEgate

    Mone has links to PPE Medpro, a company which supplied Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to the government during the Coronavirus pandemic. While that doesn’t sound too bad, don’t worry – it soon will. According to the BBC:

    PPE Medpro is being sued by the UK government for £122m plus costs for “breach of contract and unjust enrichment”.

    It is also being investigated by the National Crime Agency (NCA).

    As reported by the Canary, a lot of companies did dodgy PPE deals during the pandemic. The issue around PPE Medpro is that Mone got the company fast-tracked onto their contract, and was subsequently owed tens of millions in compensation.

    The Guardian revealed in 2022:

    The Conservative peer Michelle Mone and her children secretly received £29m originating from the profits of a PPE business that was awarded large government contracts after she recommended it to ministers, documents seen by the Guardian indicate.

    Lady Mone’s support helped the company, PPE Medpro, secure a place in a “VIP lane” the government used during the coronavirus pandemic to prioritise companies that had political connections. It then secured contracts worth more than £200m.

    Oh, and she did all this secretly – you know – like you do when you know you’re ethically and legally in the right. The Guardian reported at the time:

    Asked by the Guardian last year why Mone did not include PPE Medpro in her House of Lords register of financial interests, her lawyer replied: “Baroness Mone did not declare any interest as she did not benefit financially and was not connected to PPE Medpro in any capacity.”

    Except. That. Wasn’t. True.

    Shocked?

    You shouldn’t be.

    Mone herself revealed she’d been telling porkies a week ago, as reported by the BBC:

    Michelle Mone says she “regrets” not being more transparent about her links with a company that had UK government contracts during the pandemic.

    The outlet added:

    The Scottish businesswoman has now spoken publicly for the first time – in a Youtube documentary – since the story emerged.

    The production is funded by PPE Medpro – the company at the centre of the controversy.

    This was a bit late given that in 2021:

    the UK government revealed that Baroness Mone was the “source of referral” for the company getting a place on the so-called “VIP lane” for offers of personal protective equipment for the NHS.

    Given all the lying, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Mone had done something wrong. According to the woman herself, though, she actually hasn’t. Other than the lying, of course, although that isn’t illegal – not according to Mone, anyway.

    Nothing wrong

    In the interview with Kuenssberg, Mone insisted:

    I don’t honestly see there is a case to answer. I can’t see what we have done wrong.

    She added:

    we’ve only done one thing, which was lie to the press to say we weren’t involved

    Paradoxically, she also said:

    I wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes

    I don’t think she understands what that phrase means – that or she’s lying (again).

    Unsurprisingly, the interview has not gone down well with those who had the misfortune of watching it:

    A Tory apart?

    Anna Soubry – either the stupidest or most dishonest MP the Tory Party has ever produced – questioned how Mone ended up in the House of Lords:

    Soubry was a Tory MP for nine years – a role which required her to wade through waist-deep sleaze and corruption on a daily basis. She can’t genuinely be surprised about what Mone did. Or maybe she can be, and she’s thick as shit?

    In reality, Mone isn’t any more corrupt than the rest of our political class; she’s just unfortunate enough to have committed one of the few dodgy acts that our capricious media and legal systems deem worthy of further investigation. She does deserve it, of course, and as such we here at the Canary wish her a legally culpable Christmas and an incarceratory new year.

    Featured image via BBC

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content, after we reached our 20,000th article. Here, in June 2017 we looked at the BBC not showing a crucial speech by Jeremy Corbyn – days before the election. This article was read by nearly 400,000 people. 

    On Sunday 4 June, Jeremy Corbyn delivered the speech that could win the Labour Party the general election. Speaking in the aftermath of the London attacks, Corbyn laid the blame firmly with Theresa May. Not only for her cuts in policing, but for her cosy relationship with Saudi Arabia. The BBC, however, appears to not want to show it. Instead, the public broadcaster showed May’s full speech, while just including a snippet from Corbyn’s.

    The speech

    Corbyn started by having a minute’s silence for the victims, and expressing “love and solidarity” to the people killed and affected by the London attacks. And he praised the emergency services for their response.

    But he also attacked the cutting of police numbers that he has repeatedly called May out on:

    You cannot protect the public on the cheap. The police and the security services must get the resources they need. Not 20,000 police cuts. Theresa May was warned by the Police Federation but she accused them of ‘crying wolf’.

    And he set out the clear choice voters are facing on 8 June:

    The choice you face on 8 June is a Conservative Party which has made it clear that it will press on with another five years of austerity and cuts to essential public services to pay for even more tax handouts to the richest and the biggest corporations.

    Or the Labour Party, which is guaranteeing that 95% of taxpayers will pay no extra tax, but is asking the best off and the largest companies to pay a bit more to fund our hospitals, police, schools, decent pensions, and childcare.

    ‘Difficult questions’

    Corbyn also stated the difficult questions that need to be asked:

    And yes, we do need to have some difficult conversations. Starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who have funded and fuelled extremist ideology. It’s no good Theresa May suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups. We have to get serious about cutting off their funding to these terror networks, including Isis [Daesh] here and in the Middle East.

    These are incredibly difficult questions for May, and ones she would much prefer not to answer. After all, the Home Office has recently sought to suppress an inquiry into terrorist funding because it reportedly highlights the role Saudi Arabia plays in funding terror. And May is a strong supporter of Saudi Arabia, with her government recently approving £3.5bn worth of arms export licences.

    You can watch the full speech here:

    The BBC

    Unfortunately, Corbyn’s speech was apparently not shown in full on the BBC, whereas May’s full speech was, as many on Twitter pointed out:

    But Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg was willing to repeat smears about Corbyn’s shoot-to-kill policy:

    He also tried to counter perceptions that he is soft on security, including his earlier stance on shoot-to-kill, which he questioned days after the Paris attack at the Bataclan.

    In fact, Corbyn’s shoot-to-kill policy hasn’t changed. Kuenssberg was found by the BBC Trust to have misrepresented Corbyn’s views. And Kuenssberg was found to have breached the BBC‘s impartiality guidelines with her coverage of Corbyn’s comments. But that doesn’t seem to have stopped her from continually repeating them.

    The bigger picture

    But while the reaction from the BBC is disappointing, it is also unsurprising, given recent coverage. Despite this, Corbyn is showing that he is defeating the Tories in one of the areas where they are traditionally stronger – law and order. And it is telling that the party which brought us “strong and stable” and “magic money tree” accused Corbyn of:

    desperate promises and evasive soundbites.

    There was nothing “desperate” or “evasive” about Corbyn’s speech. It was packed not only with empathy, but with clear policy commitments. On the other hand, May is desperate to curtail our freedoms over the concept of “extremism”, a term that she has repeatedly been unable to define. All while suppressing a report into the funding of terrorism and refusing to have those difficult conversations about the billions of pounds in arms sales that her government is authorising to Saudi Arabia.

    This could be the speech that wins Corbyn the election. And we all need to make sure that, despite the BBC‘s best efforts, everyone gets to see it.

    Get Involved!

    – Vote on 8 June. And encourage others to do the same.

    – Discuss the key policy issues with family members, colleagues and neighbours. And organise! Join (and participate in the activities of) a union, an activist group, and/or a political party.

    – See more Canary articles on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the arms trade and the 2017 general election.

    – Support The Canary if you value the work we do.

    Featured image via screengrab and Wikimedia

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in May 2016 we took a look at just what makes the BBC tick. This article was read by over 500,000 people. 

    EDITORIAL

    The BBC and its political editor Laura Kuenssberg are under fire this week, following local election coverage which has been dismissed as nothing short of propaganda by people across the country. But how did we get here?

    Who runs the BBC?

    624
    Rona Fairhead, Chair of the BBC Trust, and board member of HSBC (image via BBC)

    The current abysmal state of BBC News and Politics makes much more sense when you see who has been appointed to plot its editorial course.

    The BBC Trust is responsible for granting licenses to all BBC outlets and stations, managing value for money on licence fee payments and ‘the direction of BBC editorial and creative output’. The Trust consists of 12 Trustees and is headed by Rona Fairhead – who also happens to have been a longtime board member of HSBC bank.

    As The Canary’s James Wright reported earlier this year:

    Fairhead has entrenched ties to the Tory government. In fact, she and Osborne are old friends. Fairhead worked for the Conservative government as a cabinet office member, until being appointed by the previous Conservative culture secretary – Sajid Javid – as the new head of the BBC Trust. She is still business ambassador for David Cameron.

    Fairhead has also sat on the board of HSBC directors for a long time. And what is even more shocking than her other Conservative links are claims that she was actually appointed chairwoman of the BBC Trust to keep a lid on Cameron’s involvement in covering up a £1bn fraudulent HSBC scam on British shoppers. Whistle-blower Nicholas Wilson made various freedom of information requests that confirmed that Fairhead’s appointment did not follow proper procedure. She was rushed to the position after the application date closed, with no mention of her on any contemporary media shortlist.

    Her appointment does not coincide with the normal process, and many questioned why a business tycoon was right for the job. What it did coincide with was a string of interconnected visits from the BBC, HSBC, the Houses of Parliament and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to Wilson’s website where he details the scam and the FCA and Cameron’s involvement in covering it up.

     

    But the conflicts of interest do not stop at Fairhead.

    The Director of News and Current Affairs at the BBC, James Harding, is a former employee of the Murdoch Press. While Editor of The Times newspaper, he was responsible for exposing the identity of police blogger NightJack by hacking the blogger’s email accounts – which his legal team then covered up during a court case against the action. Harding has also gone on the record as ‘pro Israel’.

    This is the calibre of the figures responsible for hiring the news teams, presenters and journalists who will report on matters of hacking, privacy, and the Middle East.

    These are not trivial conflicts of interests. The two individuals primarily responsible for driving the News and Politics agenda for the BBC, are instead driving forward their personal and professional causes – and the licence fee payer is footing the bill.

    What is the impact on reporting?

     BBC3

    These conflicts of interest affect the reporting of News and Politics at the BBC in a very real way. In 2013, researchers at Cardiff University undertook a major content analysis of BBC coverage – funded in part by the BBC Trust. They studied the impartiality of BBC reporting across several areas, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, the EU, business and economics, and politics.

    The findings revealed that:

    • Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
    • On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012.
    • When it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.

    On top of this, BBC reporting of Israel-Palestine has been woefully partisan – and in 2013, we found out one reason why.

    In 2013, a devastating report by Electronic Intifada, revealed that Raffi Berg, online editor for BBC News, was instructing journalists to skew reports on Israel-Palestine in favour of Israel. While hundreds of Palestinians were losing their lives during Israel’s eight day assault on the Gaza strip in 2012, Berg was emailing journalists with ‘guidance’ to maintain a pro-Israel tone in their reports. This from the report:

    In one, he asked BBC colleagues to word their stories in a way which does not blame or “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the prolonged attacks. Instead, he encouraged journalists to promote the Israeli government line that the “offensive” was “aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza.”

    This was despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire when it attacked Gaza on 14 November, a ceasefire which the Palestinians had been observing — firing no rockets into Israel.

    In a second email, sent during the same period, Berg told BBC journalists:

    “Please remember, Israel doesn’t maintain a blockade around Gaza. Egypt controls the southern border.”

    He omitted to mention that the United Nations views Israel as the occupying power in Gaza and has called on Israel to end its siege of the Strip. Israel’s refusal to do so is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860.”

    Berg is still in his role.

    All that’s left is propaganda

    Recently, these two vested interests – pro-neoliberalism and pro-Israel – converged on an area of common interest: opposition to Jeremy Corbyn.

    This united bitter Blairites, Conservatives and pro-Israel groups – who ran perhaps the most toxic smear campaign against the Labour party and its leader in living memory. In the run up to the local elections on May 5, the headlines across the BBC and wider media’s flagship television and radio programs was not the 1 million people in the UK reliant on food banks to eat, but the intrigue of the smear campaign.

    Prior to the elections, the reporting by Kuenssberg was dominated almost exclusively by claims of crisis within Labour, providing a platform to a minority of bitter Blairites, and applying pressure on Corbyn to stand aside – or at the very least prepare to.

    On Friday morning – when Corbyn’s vote had not collapsed, but increased, compared to Miliband’s general election performance of 2015 – there was no apology for the wrongful prediction. Instead, the narrative wheeled on regardless. While the SNP lost their majority in Scotland, and Labour advanced in England and Wales – this was the BBC website’s response.

    The situation brings to mind the moment when the BBC’s Andrew Marr interviewed Noam Chomsky about the role of the mainstream media as a propaganda service. Chomsky was discussing the role of self-censorship by journalists, and Marr repudiated the claim, asking:

    “How can you know if I am self-censoring?” Arguing he had never been censored, or told what to think.

    Chomsky calmly responds, as if he were explaining the non-existence of Santa Claus to a child:

    “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying, but what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

    And therein lies the rub with the role of the BBC, and the wider mainstream media, as a vehicle by which to advance the causes of those who own and run them. There is a monopoly of wealth and power in our society which translates directly into a monopoly of the media. The result is a staggering lack of diversity and pluralism of voices and opinions in the mainstream space. The media has become little more than a monotonous, relentless monologue – when as a country, and a world, we need to be having a conversation.

    Featured Image via Screengrab

     

    By Kerry-Anne Mendoza

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in February 2017 we took aim at Newsnight over one of its guests. This article was read by over 500,000 people. 

    Last night, BBC Newsnight featured a segment on the NHS in which cancer specialist Dr Karol Sikora called the health service “the last bastion of communism”. While dissenting views on the NHS are fine, it is important to know the financial interests and background of the speaker. Sikora has financial interests in privatising the NHS, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    The NHS attack on BBC Newsnight

    The NHS segment opens with Sikora introduced only by name. There is no mention of his experience, or interests. He launches into the standard argument for privatising the NHS. He claims that while it was a laudable idea, it has become a “religion”. That is now unsustainable and needs to be challenged.

    Sikora’s view, and his right to share it, is entirely legitimate. And yes, BBC Newsnight is right to share differing views. But what is critical is that we know the background of the person sharing those views, and if they have arrived at their view objectively. In Sikora’s case, he is effectively being granted a platform to lobby for his personal financial interests.

    Who is Karol Sikora?

    Sikora is the Medical Director of private health firm Proton Partners Ltd, based in the tax haven of the Bahamas. He took part in a series of anti-NHS attack ads for the US Republican Party aimed at killing off President Obama’s healthcare plans. In the videos, it is claimed that NHS rationing boards routinely deny life-saving care to vulnerable British patients.

    This is lobbying.

    Sikora also has links with the Prince Charles Foundation for Integrated Medicine (FIM). The foundation promoted the Prince’s somewhat left-field views on alternative medicine. And Sikora has been accused of exploiting the vulnerability of desperately ill people, in order to promote expensive bogus therapies like homeopathy. Ultimately, FIM was shut down after its finance director stole more than £250,000 from the charity. But the scheme was reborn as the College of Medicine just months later.

    Imperial College London also took legal advice after Sikora made repeated public claims that he holds an honorary professorship at the prestigious institution. He does not.

    Viewers, however, were quick to spot the issue.

    But is Sikora right?

    Even if Sikora had a natural bias, he might also be right. Sikora claims the NHS is unsustainable as a taxpayer-funded system, due to rising demand and technological advancement. Is this true?

    Has there been an unsustainable rise in demand? No. Demand has risen in line with population growth.

    As The Canary’s John Nedham writes:

    In short, it defies logic to claim, as the population grows and the average age increases, that a rise in demand for medical services has come as a surprise. Whatever the assorted word-jugglers and political spin doctors might like you to believe, if there are more people there will be more patients. And those patients’ expectations are no more unreasonable than they have ever been.

    Then why is the NHS in crisis? The government chose to underfund the service, providing it with less money than it required. The crisis was entirely predictable. Responding to the government’s 10-year budget forecast in 2015, the King’s Fund warned:

    The ten years up to 2020/21 are likely to see the largest sustained fall in NHS spending as a share of GDP in any period since 1951.

    As a result the NHS is struggling to meet its obligations to patients.

    What makes this all the more unnecessary is that the funds the NHS requires are entirely affordable. In 2014, the Commonwealth Fund still judged the NHS the best healthcare system in the world, and the most cost effective too.

    The secret to a decent NHS

    Any analysis of the NHS which neglects the impact of debt-laden PFI hospitals and chronic underfunding is at best incomplete, and at worst dangerous. It allows politicians and the media to scapegoat patients, staff, and the concept of the NHS itself, rather than take responsibility for a crisis of their own making. The UK has a GDP (amount of wealth we produce each year) of over £2tn a year. The NHS costs us just £116bn. UK citizens pay less money, for better care, than almost any other healthcare system in the world.

    Sikora argues we can’t afford to keep the NHS. The truth is, we can’t afford not to.

    Get Involved!

    – Read more Canary articles on the NHS, and more from The Canary’Health section.

    – Support the Save Our NHS campaign, and other NHS campaigns.

    Featured image via YouTube Screengrab

    By Kerry-Anne Mendoza

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Sunday 29 October, Peter Kyle (shadow secretary for science, innovation, and technology) appeared on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. He was asked about Israel’s invasion of Gaza, and specifically about whether he supports it. Guest host Victoria Derbyshire asked Kyle:

    do you support, then, Israel’s ground operation as the only way to eliminate Hamas?

    Smirking and looking nervous, Kyle responded:

    You are asking me to make judgements on military operations that are unfolding now.

    That’s correct, yes. You are being asked to make judgements on things which are happening politically. Because you’re a politician. And you’re on a political talk show, being interviewed about the most important political story of the moment.

    The question is this: is ‘wait and see’ Labour’s official stance on all conflict now, or was Kyle out of his depth and simply didn’t know how to justify his party’s terrible position?

    Who is Peter Kyle?

    Given the seriousness of the unfolding situation in Gaza, you may be wondering why Kyle – a guy you’ve likely never heard of – was sent out to answer questions. Could it be that no one else wanted to go out and defend Keir Starmer’s position? Given that he’s a vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Kyle is one of the MPs who are most likely to agree with Starmer on this matter. According to Kyle himself, Labour is actually very united right now, as he said:

    We are united as a party.

    Derbyshire immediately responded:

    Derbyshire had good reason to be so assertive, as she’d just noted:

    You’ve just seen there the mayor of London Sadiq Khan, the leader of Scottish Labour Anas Sarwar, and your front bench colleague Yasmin Qureshi all calling for a ceasefire: why are they wrong?

    Those of you with a basic grasp of the English language will understand that people who hold the opposite opinions to one another are not to be described as ‘united’. United in their disagreement, maybe, but that’s not what Derbyshire asked.

    Pause for thought

    Kyle waffled on about all the ways in which the Labour Party is allegedly united – none of which answered the question. Largely he talked about Starmer’s call for a ‘humanitarian pause’:

    If you’re not sure what a humanitarian pause is, it’s a brief window in which the world will treat Palestinians humanely, to be followed by more of Israel’s inhumane treatment we’re witnessing right now. It’s unclear what the point of this would be other than to give Palestinians a misleading glimmer of hope between the airstrikes. Arguably the pause would be crueller than simply allowing the horror to continue unchecked. Clearly the only point would be to give the illusion that those calling for it have some shred of humanity:

    Politically vacant

    It’s probably not going to be Labour’s official stance that it will ‘wait and see what happens’ when one country invades another territory, because it already isn’t that. Just look at their criticism of Russia invading Ukraine. Starmer and Co. aren’t waiting to see what happens there, because it’s obviously wrong; much like it’s obviously wrong in Gaza.

    Featured image via BBC – screengrab

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The boss of the BBC privately met with the Tory Party’s 1922 committee to discuss the broadcaster. At the meeting, MPs grilled director general Tim Davie over the BBC‘s coverage of the Hamas attacks on Israel, and Israel’s subsequent war crimes in Gaza. The main topic of this discussion was the broadcaster’s refusal to brand Hamas ‘terrorists’.

    Of course, it’s no surprise Davie attended a private Tory Party meeting – given he was a prominent Conservative himself. However, it appears MPs metaphorically gave him a thrashing in an attempt to turn the BBC into some sort of GB News imitation.

    BBC boss having private meetings with Tory MPs

    As Sky News reported, Davie attended the 1922 Committee on Wednesday 25 October:

    Speaking to journalists before and after the meeting, a BBC spokesperson said Mr Davie visited the committee after it was arranged in July as part of regular discussions with parliamentarians.

    The spokesman said Mr Davie would have “tackled head-on some of the criticisms that he will undoubtedly have had in the room” and stressed “why the institution matters”.

    ‘Regular discussions with parliamentarians’ usually involve going before select committees or ministers. They don’t involve going to private, partisan, party-political old boys’ clubs. This is, however, former Tory Party councillor candidate Tim Davie, who – as Byline Times‘s Adam Bienkov pointed out – also works with another former Tory at the BBC:

    Lee Anderson had a ‘face like thunder’. Is that not his usual face?

    At the meeting, Sky News reported that the BBC‘s coverage of Hamas was discussed. The Sun‘s political editor/gossip columnist and all-round right-wing foghorn Harry Cole noted that, when one minister asked Davie to change the BBC‘s policy on calling the group ‘terrorists’, Davie “rebuffed” him:

    Meanwhile, the Tory deputy chairman Lee ’30p’ Anderson slammed Davie’s appearance after walking out reportedly with a “face like thunder”. We’re not sure how you tell the difference between that and his resting face, mind. Regardless, Anderson told the Express:

    Mr Davie should cancel his TV licence as he obviously does not watch his own channels.

    The BBC is suffering from a cost of confidence crisis.

    Of course, far-right dullard Anderson knows all about journalistic values – given he works for GB News, which currently facing 12 investigations by regulator Ofcom for potential impartiality rule breaches. 30p Lee’s comments were similar to that of other Tory MPs at the meeting. Clearly, right-wing Davie is no longer right wing enough for some Tories.

    Little wonder, then, that he also revealed the BBC is reviewing how it reports on refugees. That is, the Tories think the broadcaster is too sympathetic:

    This point, and the Tories’ outrage at the BBC‘s coverage of Hamas, sum up the problem.

    Pushing Aunty into the shit-drenched abyss of GB News

    Davie is hardly a woke brocialist – nor is the BBC left-leaning. It is a state broadcaster in all but name – serving as a government mouthpiece since its inception. However, for the far-right mob that’s taken over the Tory Party, even this is no longer good enough.

    Clearly, the likes of Anderson think the already-compromised BBC should descend into the immoral, shit-drenched abyss that GB News inhabits – where far-right talking points are passed off as impartial news and Tory MPs interview Tory MPs like that’s a perfectly normal thing for a TV broadcaster to do.

    It comes to something when Davie – an arch-Tory through and through – looks moderately reasonable in the face of the current, talentless dregs of the Conservative Party that now masquerade as MPs. But, here we are.

    The BBC: a withered, zombified corpse of the British empire

    No doubt before Rishi Sunak and the rest of the sewer-pipe detritus we now call the Tories are booted out of office, they’ll make sure the BBC is further under the right-wing thumb than it already is. Then, the new wave of Tories – disguised as the Labour Party – will take over and probably continue this trend.

    But who cares, anyway?

    The BBC died a death years ago. Arguably, its news and current affairs coverage has never actually been truly alive – being more a journalistic Frankenstein’s monster of the British empire.

    However, the Tories are not even hammering the final nail into its coffin. No – they’re trying to turn the BBC into a zombie bride of GB News.

    If these far-right miscreants get their way, the broadcaster’s withered cadaver will wail ‘public service broadcasting’ for the final time. Then, journalistic standards will draw their last breath, Aunty will be damned for all eternity – and Davie will be forced to appoint Anderson as host of Question Time.

    Good riddance, really – but even by the BBC‘s standards, the Tories have taken things too far this time.

    Featured image via BBC News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The UN has described the Israeli occupation of Palestinians as “apartheid”, and likened the situation in Gaza to an “open-air prison”. Israeli forces have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians. And yet the media is almost always more favourable towards Israeli politicians than it is towards Palestinian ones.

    On Sunday 22 October, veteran Palestinian politician Dr Hanan Ashrawi laid out the issue in an interview with the BBC‘s Victoria Derbyshire:

    Double standards

    In the interview, Derbyshire said:

    I wonder if you do have to acknowledge the barbarity – the brutality – of the attack on Israelis in Southern Israel by Hamas before this can move forwards?

    Ashrawi responded:

    Oh god [shakes head]. I mean I can’t believe I’m hearing this same thing over and over again. This is a preoccupation with the Western media because something happened to Israel for the first time in its history everybody’s up in arms, and its [Palestinian] victims have to condemn themselves.

    While it’s hardly the “first time” something has happened to Israelis, the attack did result in Hamas killing an unprecedented number of Israelis – 1,405. On the Palestinian side, of course, high casualty counts are the norm. The following chart – provided by Statista – shows the unbalanced nature of the situation over a 12-year period:

    Ashrawi continued [0:29]:

    Israel has been doing this to us for decades. Piecemeal, day in, day out, people killed, homes demolished. And we’re telling you how many Palestinians have been killed by a brutal Israeli occupation. Total siege on Gaza; total destruction and land theft in the West Bank. Nobody brings… Israeli spokespeople and says ‘do you condemn this? Isn’t this brutal? Isn’t this genocide?’ No. But the moment people under siege look at Gaza – it’s an area where people haven’t had a day of normal life – and then, when they lash out; when they break out, immediately all sorts of horrific labels are used.

    Ignoring all that, Derbyshire asked:

    Were the Israeli citizens legitimate targets?

    After a short exchange, Ashrawi answered:

    No, I don’t believe in civilians being legitimate targets at all – at all. In the same way as we are not legitimate targets of Israel. Our homes, our lands are not at [Israel’s] disposal; our freedom, our rights have been denied. No, don’t put words in my mouth.

    “Okay” Derbyshire responded quietly before Ashrawi continued:

    Civilians are never legitimate targets, but what I’m talking about is the double standard. Israel is an occupying power. This has to be acknowledged. Israel has been torturing the Palestinians since 1947. It is time this stops, without constantly looking for excuses and blaming the victim.

    The future

    The ideal situation for all is one in which Palestinians do not have to live in “apartheid” conditions. It’s a situation which will be impossible to realise unless the oppressive conditions that Israel is subjecting Palestinians to are openly acknowledged.

    Featured image via BBC – screengrab

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Tories have managed the British economy since 2010 – more than 13 years. Unless you’re a seller of defective PPE or a slumlord, you’re probably not of the opinion that things have improved over that period. We’ve witnessed the death of high streets; multiple cost of living crises; the rise of precarious work; ever lower wages; overall increases to poverty, and a massive increase in the need for foodbanks – all of which demonstrate a country in serious economic decline.

    Given that, you’d think the Tories would frame their abilities on something other than their (always dubious) economic credentials. Or – to be more accurate – you’d think that if you didn’t understand the Tories are all shameless weasels:

    Perhaps the only surprising thing is that even the British media can’t ignore the Tories’ failures anymore – including the BBC, when a Tory minister appeared on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.

    Trust in them?

    In the interview, immigration minister Robert Jenrick said:

    You can trust the Conservatives to make sensible, prudent decisions on the future of the economy

    A surprised host Victoria Derbyshire interjected:

    Can we? Have you forgotten about Liz Truss a year ago?

    Jenrick continued:

    Well look at the difference that we’ve seen in the last 12 months under Rishi Sunak

    Ah yes, everything is famously going very well now. Jenrick claimed this is all down to:

    the fact that we have stabilised the economy; that it’s growing; that inflation is falling

    Inflation is more stable than in 2022, certainly. However, it hit a 41-year high of 11.1% in 2022. So, ‘stable’ isn’t really saying much. It was 6.7% this past month, which would still have been a 23-year high. That is, it’s still very, very bad. When it comes to the economy, the Canary wrote the following in a recent piece:

    If you watch, read, or listen to the news, you’ll know that ‘gross domestic product’ (GDP) is used as a measure of how well the country is doing. But does it measure how well the country is doing, or does it actually show how well the rich are doing?

    To sum up, the Tories have done a bad job historically; they’re doing a bad job right now, and they’ll continue doing a bad job until they’re booted out of office. If you watched this interview, however, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the Tories’ problems with the economy began and ended with Truss.

    Trussonomics

    It could be that Derbyshire has a more rounded opinion on Tory economic prowess (or lack thereof). However, the example she used was the Truss PM speed run rather than the Tories’ overall record in office. It’s arguably the latter which is more important. Truss was never at odds with Tory ideology; she simply tried to do the same stuff but faster.

    Other leaders have been smart enough to recognise that the UK is a Jenga tower, and the aim is to carefully pinch as many blocks as you can. Truss approached the same Jenga tower as if it were a game of Hungry, Hungry Hippos, and of course this led to an economic collapse that even the UK’s freakish media couldn’t ignore.

    Hope on the horizon?

    The Tories have been terrible for Britain, but would Labour be any different under Keir Starmer? According to Starmer, the answer is no. Labour isn’t proposing to do anything differently; the plan is to do all the stuff we know doesn’t work, but to do it so efficiently that it works somehow. Good luck with that! Although, to be fair, Labour could literally have 13 years of failure before a British journalist notices something amiss.

    Featured image via BBC – screengrab

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • BBC News Arabic has taken six of their own reporters off air for liking or publishing pro-Palestine posts on social media. “As Palestinians lose their lives, Western media loses the last shreds of its credibility,” independent journalist Alan MacLeod said on social media in response to the news. The suspension of these BBC journalists follows the removal of three Muslim anchors from the airwaves…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Israel has been blamed for the bombing of the Al-Ahli hospital in northern Gaza. At the time of publication, the attack had killed hundreds of people.

    Israel has claimed it was a Palestinian rocket that hit the hospital. But many people are accusing Israel of lying – and it wouldn’t be a surprise if it was. Because in 2014, it used the exact same arguments when it killed dozens of people at a UN shelter.

    Al-Ahli hospital: Israel’s ever-changing story

    Israel has repeatedly changed its story over what was clearly its attack on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. In the immediate aftermath, media advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu Hananya Naftali tweeted that it was an Israeli airstrike that hit the hospital. However, he then quickly deleted it:

    Then, some Israeli commentators as well the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) were that positing it might have been a failed Hamas rocket:

    After this, the IDF began to claim it was a rogue rocket from the group Islamic Jihad. However, even this claim looked suspicious – given the IDF shared video as evidence which it then had to delete, because people noticed it had been filmed after the attack:

    However, people were not buying the Israeli narrative – including some corporate media journalists:

    Moreover, bosses at the Al-Ahli hospital – which Israel had, in fact, already bombed two days prior – also claim Israel pre-warned them it would attack it.

    As of 2pm on Wednesday 18 October, the IDF was sticking to its line that a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket hit the Al-Ahli Hospital, saying it had plenty of evidence for this claim. However, replies to these tweets showed that people still weren’t buying it.

    The problem with Israel’s claims is that it has form on lying about atrocities it’s committed – and then backtracking once the initial outrage has passed:

    A perfect example of this was a similar incident during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge assault on Gaza during the summer of 2014.

    The Beit Hanoun massacre: using the textbook again

    On 24 July 2014, 15 people, including children, were killed at the Beit Hanoun Elementary school in Gaza, and more than 200 were injured. The school was being used as a UN shelter.

    UN workers had asked the IDF for a window to evacuate staff and civilians which they effectively refused to grant. The massacre happened when mortar hit people waiting in the car park to leave. Immediately, Israel said it was a Hamas missile that killed and injured people. However, it eventually admitted that it was an IDF mortar that hit the school. Yet even when Israel did confess, it still tried to lie. As Relief Web wrote:

    The Israeli military alleged that Hamas fighters had “operated adjacent to” the school. After coming under fire with anti-tank missiles, soldiers responded by “firing several mortars in their direction.” The military said a “single errant mortar” hit the school courtyard, which was “completely empty” – a claim disputed by seven witnesses who separately spoke to Human Rights Watch.

    Witnesses described at least four shells striking in and around the compound within a few minutes…

    So, we’re seeing a textbook response from Israel over the Al-Ahli hospital – the one it always uses. However, what we’re also seeing is the same, wicked manipulation of the situation from Israeli spokespeople.

    Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s senior adviser, was on Sky News in the aftermath of the Al-Ahli attack. Anchor Anna Botting asked Regev “how many civilian buildings” Israel had destroyed in Gaza. Regev said:

    We don’t target civilian structures. That is incorrect what you’ve said. We don’t target civilian structures…

    Botting immediately came back at Regev:

    So what are those high-rise buildings we’ve seen destroyed?

    Regev claimed:

    They are Hamas targets.

    Botting seemed disgusted by Regev’s denials:

    Sadly, Regev’s lying and Israel’s wider manipulation of the narrative is the same MO they had in 2014 – as a Newsnight interview with Regev at the time showed.

    Regev: cold and calculated

    Former Newsnight host Emily Maitlis grilled Regev over the Beit Hanoun Elementary school massacre – and nine years ago, he was using the exact same script we saw in the aftermath of the Al-Ahli bombing. He claimed, just as he did on 17 October 2023 to Sky News, that:

    Israel does not want to see any civilian casualties in our operation – not one.

    A visibly furious Maitlis, who had been pushing Regev already for nearly five minutes, at one point put it to Regev that:

    But you said you were going to hit it. You hit it. You killed them. You knew there were children in that building.

    Regev replied:

    Sorry, how do you know? The UN itself reported that there was Hamas rocket fire falling in Beit Hanoun…

    We of course now know Regev was lying:

    The echoes of 2014 with the Al-Ahli bombing are clear: a civilian building, which Israel had told to evacuate, then gets hit – and Israel immediately blames the Palestinians.

    Israel: sociopaths and liars

    Overall, at the time of publication, Israel was still denying responsibility for the Al-Ahli massacre – with US president Joe Biden reportedly agreeing. However, as journalist Ben Smoke said on Twitter:

    The level of Israel’s dehumanisation of Palestinian people during this time has bordered on the sociopathic. Minutes after the attack on Al-Ahli Hospital, Israel’s national security minister tweeted:

    As long as Hamas does not release the hostages in its hands – the only thing that needs to enter Gaza are hundreds of tons of explosives from the Air Force, not an ounce of humanitarian aid. [Translated from Hebrew via Google]

    Israel has committed clear war crimes in Gaza – and has clear genocidal intent. For it to deny the Al-Ahli massacre is almost irrelevant at this point, because with its history of habitual lying, why would anyone – except its far-right, fascistic supporters – believe a word the Israeli government says?

    Featured image via BBC Newsnight – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • BBC News had to issue an on-air correction after it branded pro-Palestine marches in the UK as being ‘pro-Hamas’ – twice. However, it was just that – a correction; in no way was it an apology. Moreover, it came against a backdrop of ongoing BBC bias towards Israel and against Gaza and the Palestinians.

    When are pro-Palestine supporters pro-Hamas? When the BBC says so

    During a live broadcast on Monday 16 October, BBC anchor Samantha Simmonds said:

    Here in the UK, the prime minister Rishi Sunak… visited a Jewish school in London to underline his support for the community. The visit followed several demonstrations across Britain during which people voiced their backing for Hamas, which many countries including the UK and US consider a terrorist organisation.

    The demonstrations Simmonds was referring to were, of course, pro-Palestinian ones. As the Canary previously reported:

    Tens of thousands of people across the UK took to the streets in support of Palestine. Whilst many of the rallies successfully provided space for Palestinian voices, some were marred by antagonistic policing…

    As Israel continued bombing Gaza, Palestinian solidarity groups across the country called for rallies on 14 October. The biggest and most significant of these was in London, where an estimated more than 100,000 people turned out.

    However, not to let facts get in the way of some well-placed propaganda – BBC News host Maryam Moshiri repeated the broadcaster’s claim later on 16 October:

    People on X were immediately furious:

    Clearly, the BBC noticed the uproar. Later on 16 October it issued a retraction:

    We accept that this was poorly-phrased and was a misleading description of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Now, here’s the weather…

    Not an apology for tacitly labelling tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people as Hamas supporters, which under UK law may make you a criminal. No – the BBC issued a correction. Despite this, Moshiri’s sister – a former corporate journalist – told people not to place blame:

    A “mistake” is getting your maths homework wrong, or making a grammatical error in an article. A “mistake” is not the BBC writing an autocue, which must have had editorial oversight, and then allowing it to be read out not once but twice.

    However, given the BBC‘s track record during Israel’s assault on Gaza, as well as historically, it’s of little surprise the BBC would present these lies which favour Israel.

    The BBC: a history of being a colonialist state mouthpiece

    Not long before it issued its retraction, the BBC was still spreading what people considered to be propaganda:

    As the Canary previously reported, the BBC uses the passive voice when referring to Israel’s killing of Palestinians. People mysteriously “died” in Gaza – but in Israel they’re “killed”:

    The BBC has been enacting this kind of bias for years. As the Canary reported in December 2015, BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme misled listeners about deaths in the Occupied Territories and Gaza:

    a Today broadcast on 19 October saw John Humphrys and Middle East correspondent Kevin Connolly imply that all of those who had been killed in that month’s violence had been Israeli – a suggestion that was untrue.

    In fact, Israel had killed more than 40 Palestinians, while Palestinians had killed less than 10 Israelis.

    On top of all this, the BBC‘s bias extends well beyond laying cover for Israeli war crimes. As the Canary previously wrote:

    during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic the BBC went onto a war footing. It was a similar MO to the one it had during WWII. It’s also the same one that led it to it being directly involved in espionage during the 1953 Iranian coup. It’s the same MO that led Marr to stand outside Downing Street at the end of the Iraq invasion in 2003 and say:

    “it would be entirely ungracious, even for [Tony Blair’s] critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result”.

    And it’s the same MO that saw the government fund the BBC to push Western propaganda in North Korea. The point being, the BBC has often worked as a propaganda arm of government; regardless of whether that government is Tory or Labour.

    The BBC will defend the colonialist state, and the system, at any costs – whether that be propping up the UK political narrative about Israel, or pushing Tory coronavirus policy. In the context of Gaza, though, it participates in the sickening villainisation of the Palestinian people Israel is currently killing.

    Featured image via Saul Staniworth – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • … while Lord Sydenham warned: “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

    It extends all the way to this horror-show 106 years later.

    What the latest phase of the Palestine-Israel struggle teaches us is that UK and other Western media are determined to bully anyone with pro-Palestine views into condemning Hamas as terrorists.

    Even the Palestinian ambassador to Britain, Husam Zomlot, was cruelly treated in this way by a BBC interviewer only hours after several of the poor man’s family had been indiscriminately killed in an Israeli revenge attack.

    And political leaders, acting like the Zionist Inquisition, are threatening anyone who voices criticism of Israel with expulsion from their party.

    Even the BBC has been pressured by the Government’s culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, to call Hamas “terrorists” instead of “militants”. The BBC (so far) has resisted her silliness. Ms Frazer is Jewish and served an internship with the Israeli Ministry of Justice.

    And while our Government was projecting an image of the Israeli flag onto the front of 10 Downing Street to emphasise solidarity with the apartheid regime our home secretary, Suella Braverman, was threatening Palestinian flag wavers with prosecution.

    Our monarch King Charles III has graciously favoured us with a royal opinion. “His Majesty is appalled by and condemns the barbaric acts of terrorism in Israel,” a palace spokesperson said. And a spokes for Prince William and his wife, Kate, said they were “profoundly distressed by the devastating events that have unfolded in the past days. The horrors inflicted by Hamas’ terrorist attack upon Israel are appalling; they utterly condemn them. As Israel exercises its right of self-defence, all Israelis and Palestinians will continue to be stalked by grief, fear and anger in the time to come.” No mention of the “barbaric” day-to-day terror tactics by Israel which led up to the present crisis. Or the Palestinians’ right of self-defence.

    A response to these attempts to humiliate and punish could simply be: “and when did you last condemn Israel for its 75 years of atrocities?” Or “if Hamas committed war crimes why is Israel responding with even bigger war crimes?”

    The crisis has brought from the US an unforgettably half-witted speech which conjured up the priceless image of Biden supergluing himself to Netanyahu’s backside in a pathetic show of undying unity.

    And after all the nonsense uttered in high places sincere thanks go to Moeen Ali, the England cricket vice-captain, who posted on social media a quote from Malcolm X: “If you’re not careful the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” Sadly it has already happened.

    So what exactly is driving our Establishment élite to defend and revere a criminal regime whose inhumane policies disgust ordinary folk?

    Who started it all?

    Should we go back 106 years and pin it on Balfour? Or 75 years when Zionist militias rampaged through Palestine massacring, pillaging and driving local residents from their homes as they pursued ‘Plan Dalet’, their ethnic cleansing blueprint for a violent and bloody takeover of the Holy Land? Or 2006 when Israel (backed by US and UK) began the siege of Gaza after Hamas won the 2006 elections fair and square according to international observers.

    It helps to understand a little of the earlier history too. There was a Jewish state in the Holy Land some 3,000 years ago, but the Canaanites and Philistines were there first. The Jews, one of several invading groups, left and returned several times, and were expelled by the Roman occupation in 70AD and again in 135AD. Since the 7th century Palestine has been mainly Arabic, coming under Ottoman rule in 1516.

    During the First World War the country was ‘liberated’ from the Turkish Ottomans after the Allied Powers, in correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca in 1915, promised independence to Arab leaders in return for their help in defeating Germany’s ally, Turkey. However, a new Jewish political movement called Zionism was finding favour among the ruling élite in London, and the British Government was persuaded by the Zionists’ chief spokesman, Chaim Weizman, to surrender Palestine for their new Jewish homeland. Hardly a thought, it seems, was given to the earlier pledge to the Arabs, who had occupied and owned the land for 1,500 years – longer than the Jews ever did.

    The Zionists, fuelled by the notion that an ancient Biblical prophecy gave them the title deeds, aimed to push the Arabs out by populating the area with millions of Eastern European Jews. They had already set up farm communities and founded a new city, Tel Aviv, but by 1914 Jews still numbered only 85,000 to the Arabs’ 615,000.

    The infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917 – actually a letter from the British foreign secretary, Lord Balfour, to the most senior Jew in England, Lord Rothschild – pledged assistance for the Zionist cause with no regard for the consequences to the native majority.

    Calling itself a “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations”, it said:

    His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing and non-Jewish communities…

    Balfour, a Zionist convert and arrogant with it, wrote: “In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now occupy that land.”

    There was opposition, of course. Lord Sydenham warned: “The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied. What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

    And Lord Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the Cabinet, was strongly opposed to the whole idea and to Zionism itself, which he called “a mischievous political creed”. He wrote to his Cabinet colleagues:

    …I assume that it means that Mahommedans [Muslims] and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test.

    Nevertheless his Zionist cousin Herbert Samuel was appointed the first High Commissioner of the British Mandate of Palestine, a choice that showed impartiality was never a priority.

    The American King-Crane Commission of 1919 thought it a gross violation of principle. “No British officers consulted by the Commissioners believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. That, of itself, is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme.”

    There were other reasons why the British were courting disaster. A secret deal, called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, had been concluded in 1916 between France and Britain, in consultation with Russia, to re-draw the map of the Middle Eastern territories won from Turkey. Britain was to take Jordan, Iraq and Haifa. The area now referred to as Palestine was declared an international zone.

    The Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration and the promises made earlier in the McMahon-Hussein letters all cut across each other. It seems to have been a case of the left hand not knowing what the right was doing in the confusion of war.

    After the Russian Revolution of 1917 Lenin released a copy of the confidential Sykes-Picot Agreement into the public domain, sowing seeds of distrust among the Arabs. Thus the unfolding story had all the makings of a major tragedy.

    And now another spanner has been tossed into the works. Law expert Dr Ralph Wilde argues that Article 22 of the 1923 League of Nations ‘Mandate Agreement’ for Palestine required provisional independence to be conferred on Palestine and that this could not be lawfully bypassed. Britain’s failure, as the Mandated power, to comply was a violation of international law then with ongoing consequences now, and is therefore a basis for action today.

    Article 22 says that those colonies and territories which, as a consequence of World War 1, ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and are not yet able to stand by themselves should come under the tutelage of “advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League…. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognizedsubject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatoryuntil such time as they are able to stand alone.”

    So Britain’s underhandedness is exposed again.

    And who started the Palestine-Israel war that inevitably broke out 25 years later? Read the history – it’s all documented. And no, they don’t teach it in schools, it’s far too embarrassing for this ‘great power’.

    The slaughter has been horrific

    Today, propaganda would have us believe that Israelis have continuously suffered at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. But it’s actually the other way around. Don’t take my word for it, just look at the figures supplied by Israeli NGO B’Tselem which was established in 1989 by a group of Israeli lawyers, doctors and academics to document human rights violations in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and combat any denial that such violations happened. The previous year had seen the First Intifada (uprising) in which Israeli forces killed 311 Palestinians, 53 of whom were under the age of 17.

    The figures compiled by B’Tselem run from 29 September 2000 (the start of the Second Intifada) to 27 September 2023.

    • Palestinians killed by Israeli forces 10,555
    • Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians 96
    • Palestinians Killed by unknowns 16
    • Total 10,667
    • Israeli forces killed by Palestinians 449
    • Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians 881
    • Total 1,330

    So Israelis are far more proficient at killing fellow humans and they’ve been killing Palestinians at the rate of 8:1. Worse still is the butchery of children. The figures show 2,270 Palestinian children killed versus 145 Israeli children, a ratio of nearly 16:1. And when it comes to women it’s 656 Palestinians to 261 Israelis, about 2.5:1.

    These statistics are available to everyone. What’s extraordinary is the large number of senior politicians who, with one voice it seems, condemn Hamas and sympathise with Israel. Why would they rush to protect the feelings of an apartheid state that has been brutally oppressing, murdering, dispossessing and generally making life unbearable for Palestinian in their own homeland?

    That said, nobody is approving Hamas’s methods (if they have been reported accurately) which may have alienated a lot of otherwise sympathetic supporters and damaged the Palestinian cause. But the facts show that what they did a few days ago was nothing compared to the Israelis’ 75 years of terror and oppression.

    Israel is notorious for its disinformation, or ‘hasbara’, and Hamas say their fighters have been targeting Israeli military and security posts and bases – all of which are legitimate targets – and seeking to avoid hurting civilians. They call on Western mainstream media “to seek both truth and accuracy in reporting on the ongoing Israeli aggression against the besieged Gaza Strip”.

    But this is an era of false flags, deception and plain bad journalism, as we’ve seen from Ukraine, so mainstream media cannot be trusted. I’ve watched the media eagerly interviewing Israeli families who live close to the Gaza border and commiserating their loss. But, on reflection, what do you think of people who have spent years nextdoor to a security fence on the other side of which their government has cruelly incarcerated another people for 17 years, denying them essential power supplies, water, food, medicines, goods, and freedom of movement, while bombing them regularly in a diabolical policy called “mowing the grass”, and even limiting access to their own coastal waters and blocking access to their marine gasfield…. and don’t seem in the least concerned that such hideous crimes are perpetrated in their name? How innocent are they?

    Self-defence?

    Then there’s the endlessly repeated claim the Israel has a right to defend itself. But Israel is illegally occupying the Palestinians’ homeland and using military force to maintain its grip and to tightly control every aspect of the Palestinians’ increasingly miserable lives. As for Israel’s armed squatters, they have been implanted outside their own territory and are classified as war criminals. Like Israel’s army of ongoing occupation they are the aggressors and have no right of self-defence. The Palestinians on the other hand, being subjected to an illegal military occupation, are the ones with the right under international law to defend themselves.

    What gives them that right is United Nations Resolution 37/43 of 3 December 1982 which is concerned with “the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights…. Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the people of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security, [the Resolution]

    1. Calls upon all States to implement fully and faithfully all the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by peoples under colonial and foreign domination;

    2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”

    It goes on to strongly condemn “the constant and deliberate violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, as well as the expansionist activities of Israel in the Middle East, which constitute an obstacle to the achievement of self-determination and independence by the Palestinian people and a threat to peace and stability in the region.”

    That we are still waiting after 40+ years for these fine principles to be implemented shows how useless the UN really is and how little the major powers value international law unless it happens to suit their own often questionable purposes.

    Jewish voices

    JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) has sent me their latest statement:

    We wholeheartedly agree with leading Palestinian rights groups: the massacres committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians are horrific war crimes. There is no justification in international law for the indiscriminate killing of civilians or the holding of civilian hostages.

    And now, horrifyingly, the Israeli and American governments are weaponizing these deaths to fuel a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, pledging to “open the gates of hell.” This war is a continuation of the Nakba, when in 1948, tens of thousands of Palestinians fleeing violence sought refuge in Gaza. It’s a continuation of 75 years of Israeli occupation and apartheid.

    Already this week, over 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. The Israeli government has wrought complete and total devastation on Palestinians across Gaza, attacking hospitals, schools, mosques, marketplaces, and apartment buildings.

    As we write, the Israeli government has shut off all electricity to Gaza. Hospitals cannot save lives, the internet will collapse, people will have no phones to communicate with the outside world, and drinking water for two million people will run out. Gaza will be plunged into darkness as Israel turns its neighborhoods to rubble. Still worse, Israel has openly stated an intention to commit mass atrocities and even genocide, with Prime Minister Netanyahu saying the Israeli response will “reverberate for generations.

    And right now, the U.S. government is enabling the Israeli government’s atrocities, sending weapons, moving U.S. warships into proximity and sending U.S.-made munitions, and pledging blanket support and international cover for any actions taken by the Israeli government. Furthermore, the U.S. government officials are spreading racist, hateful, and incendiary rhetoric that will fuel mass atrocities and genocide.

    The loss of Israeli lives is being used by our government to justify the rush to genocide, to provide moral cover for the immoral push for more weapons and more death. Palestinians are being dehumanized by our own government, by the media, by far too many U.S. Jewish institutions. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said that Israel is “fighting human animals” and should “act accordingly,” As Jews, we know what happens when people are called animals.

    We can and we must stop this. Never again means never again — for anyone. [bold added]

    Thank you JVP. Amen to that.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • With Laura Kuenssberg once again taking the weekend off, we were treated to a Sunday with… show hosted by Victoria Derbyshire. Her guests included one Keir Starmer – leader of the Labour Party and purveyor of a ‘business first’ political approach. In their interview, Derbyshire highlighted one of the issues with Starmer’s agenda:

    Mr. Nothing

    On the show, Starmer was shown a word cloud covering what people think he stands for:

    While it’s funny that most people think he stands for “nothing”, it really isn’t true. Starmer stands for corporate interests, and Derbyshire’s questioning helped highlight that.

    Referring to a pledge to not borrow money to fund the NHS, Derbyshire said:

    as you’ve just said this morning a number of times, ‘the way to fund the public services is through growth’. If you don’t get that growth, that means there will be no money – extra money – for public services, correct?

    Starmer – who’s looking increasingly like a wax puppet of himself – responded:

    I’m confident we can get the growth… we have worked through a plan that tells you how we’re going to get the growth; the people that we need; the skills that we need – we’ve set out a policy on skills just this morning to get the skills in the right area.

    After repeating the word ‘skills’ over and over, he highlighted:

    the partnership with business – this is crucial – this will not be state-controlled; it won’t be pure free markets – it will be a partnership with business.

    Starmer smirked when he said “this will not be state-controlled” as if the issue in Britain is that the government has too much control over its brief. For reference, you know the HS2 project in which we’re building half a stretch of railway over several decades? That’s the result of the government essentially just leaving the process up to hundreds of private companies. This is what China has achieved in considerably less time:

    Opinions will differ around HS2 and the socialist credentials of China, but one thing is certain – China’s refusal to become subservient to business interests means it can actually get things done. Copying everything China does would be a bad idea (imagine Starmer with the unfettered power of Xi Jinping), but clearly businesses shouldn’t be partners in the running of a country.

    After Starmer waffled on about the importance of business some more, Derbyshire said:

    Let me come back to my question if I may. If you don’t get that growth, that means there’ll be no extra money for public services – yes?

    Starmer once again assured her of his ‘confidence’. An exasperated Derbyshire eventually said:

    Confident? That’s like crossing your fingers.

    Starmer’s approach has problems beyond the wishy-washiness, however. Specifically, his agenda makes two key assumptions – both of which have been proven repeatedly wrong throughout history (including very recent history):

    1. Funding public services is a drain on the economy.
    2. The economy is a measure of how well the country is doing.

    Let’s look at both now.

    Are public services a drain on the economy?

    The act of de-funding public services to benefit the economy is called austerity. Austerity doesn’t work. How do we know it doesn’t work? Because whenever we implement it, it doesn’t work. As Raoul Martinez wrote for Novara Media in 2017:

    When the [2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat] Coalition came to power, neither history nor mainstream economic theory provided any support for the claim that cuts were the only way to reduce the deficit. Cutting spending in a recession has been tried many times and – without exception – failed. For instance, in the aftermath of the First World War, the US, Britain, Sweden, Germany, Japan and France all adopted austerity policies with devastating impacts on their economies. President Herbert Hoover’s austerity response to the 1929 economic crash was followed by the Great Depression.

    The historical failure of austerity as a response to economic crises resulted in a widespread consensus among academic economists that, since recessions are caused by a reduction in demand (and when there is no room to offset cuts by reducing interest rates), cutting spending only makes the situation worse. The textbook response to economic downturns, as any student of the subject knows, is to increase spending. By spending more in the short term, a government can reduce public debt faster because smart spending creates jobs, increases tax revenues and releases more people more quickly from dependency on the state.

    However, as governments began to embrace austerity, a handful of economists produced research telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.

    This is something Starmer understands too, as he said this in 2021:

    The first thing I’d say is don’t make the mistake we made in 2010 after the financial crash, which was to think that the way through this is to go for austerity and really severe cuts to public services.

    That was a complete mistake in my view, it stripped away our public services, stripped away our local authorities and what they could do, increased inequality massively.

    He also said (emphasis added):

    I think not only did that create a lot of inequality and make inequality a lot worse for people, it also didn’t allow the economy to recover and put us in a bad position for this pandemic.

    He additionally said this – showing that he knows his current arguments about economic balance are drivel:

    The old argument that you need to balance the books as quickly as possible just isn’t right anymore.

    Starmer knows that not funding services directly will be worse for the country. So, what changed? Well, for a start the amount of money coming into Labour from big business has rocketed, as reported by openDemocracy. And, as it turns out, businesses can do very well even when a country is failing.

    Does the economy measure how well a country is doing?

    If you watch, read, or listen to the news, you’ll know that ‘gross domestic product’ (GDP) is used as a measure of how well the country is doing. But does it measure how well the country is doing, or does it actually show how well the rich are doing?

    Between 2010 and 2019, GDP went up every year. Do you know what else went up?

    • Child poverty.
    • Child deprivation.
    • In-work poverty.
    • The number of foodbanks.
    • Homelessness.
    • Pensioner poverty.
    • Disability poverty.

    You know what went down?

    • Wages.
    • Disposable income.
    • Savings.

    So if the economy went up but overall poverty increased, who benefitted? The New Economics Foundation reported some startling figures on that in 2022:

    Importantly, you can see that while most people in the UK suffered through austerity, the wealthy enjoyed pretty much constant growth:

    And how much wealth do they possess exactly? Enough to solve all our current problems and then some:

    Crucially, the New Economics Foundation highlights that GDP has become increasingly detached from the material conditions of regular people:

    Starmernomics

    So, if the economy primarily benefits the rich and funding public services will boost the economy, why wouldn’t Starmer just fund them if he is indeed in the pocket of these people? Because there’s something else you need to bear in mind. The wealthy did so well under austerity because it was used as cover to transfer the public good into the hands of the private few. As Labour List wrote of a 2016 Tory budget:

    The Budget contained spending cuts amounting to £9.6bn over the life of the parliament including cuts to the most vulnerable – although Osborne was subsequently forced to perform a u-turn on disability cuts.

    At the same time the was a £3.3bn net giveaway in tax cuts for businesses. The actual content of austerity could not be clearer. It is in reality a transfer of incomes from poor to rich and from ordinary people and workers to business.

    Starmer is clearly angling for the same sort of transfer now. The economy – i.e. businesses and the rich – must come first, and once they’re satisfied, the rest of us will get a taste. It’s ‘trickle-down economics‘ essentially, but as we all know – wealth doesn’t drip down; it gushes up.

    Coming after several austerity-pushing Conservative government’s, Starmer’s mission is clearly to normalise this as the default political position. In other words, Business First Britain will be here for the foreseeable future if Labour wins the next election.

    Featured image via BBC – screengrab

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Just Stop Oil and was authored by Just Stop Oil.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Just Stop Oil and was authored by Just Stop Oil.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Recent leaks suggest Rishi Sunak is going to cancel the HS2 link to Manchester. Given the intense speculation on HS2‘s future, the most obvious question on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg was always going to be ‘what’s going on?’. As ever, Sunak showed himself to be a man without answers:

    HS2

    As reported by the Manchester Evening News, Sunak refused to answer whether HS2 will make it all the way to the North. To be specific, he repeatedly refused to answer. To make things even more awkward, Sunak is literally in Manchester right now for the annual Tory Party conference. Kuenssberg asked him:

    We are sitting in Salford right next to Manchester. Yes or no: will HS2, high-speed rail, come to this part of the world?

    Slippery Sunak responded:

    Look, there’s already spades in the ground and we’re getting on with delivering it.

    He didn’t elaborate on whether these spades were actually being operated. When Kuenssberg pointed out she hadn’t asked him about his shovels, Sunak answered as follows (that’s ‘answered’ in the loosest sense of the word, obviously):

    I’m not going to comment on all this speculation. We’ve got a project, we’ve got spades in the ground, and we’re getting on with it but it’s right to focus on levelling up.

    Unexpectedly, Kuenssberg didn’t respond with her famous catchphrase – ‘I want to move on‘. Instead, she actually pressed him on the matter:

    Prime minister, can I just stop you there? You are the Prime Minister of this country.

    This is not asking you about speculation, you’re not a columnist, you’re not a backbencher with an axe to grind, you’re not someone from the rail industry, you are the prime minister of this country, this is your decision. Is this going to happen or not?

    Sunak once again didn’t answer:

    As I said, we’ve got space in the ground, I’m not going to comment on further speculation. But what I can tell you is we are absolutely committed to levelling up across this country.

    Just today, we’ve announced a new plan, a long term plan actually, to focus on people in towns. More live in towns than live in big cities in our country and they don’t get the attention that they deserve.

    And my view is we need to focus on the long term things that will make our towns better places to live, put local people in control and that’s why we’re backing them with a billion pounds of funding to help 55 towns across the country level up, better high streets, more security, less homelessness and making sure they protect civic assets

    It’s somewhat less than reassuring that the guy in charge of the country can’t confirm whether he is or is not going to build a massive railway. This lack of clarity has no doubt shaped the public’s perception of ‘Wriggly Rishi’.

    The voice of the people

    In another uncharacteristically good move, the BBC asked members of the public what they thought of Sunak and turned it into a word cloud. Would you be unsurprised to learn that it was primarily just the word ‘rich’?

    To be fair, it wasn’t solely the word ‘rich’ – it also contained synonyms like ‘wealthy’, ‘greed’, and ‘Conservative’.

    Sunak’s latest appearance gave people more to say about the man – none of it flattering:

    One comment was unfair in the sense that dictators generally have some semblance of a plan; Sunak has all the direction of a weather vane in a tumble dryer:

    Sunak’s ‘flip-flopping’ hasn’t been lost on the Tories’ big donors:

    At this point, Sunak is literally a laughing stock:

    A new BBC?

    Who can say what spurned Kuenssberg to actually do her job. Maybe she was left embarrassed by Victoria Derbyshire, who filled in for her last Sunday and showed everyone what a competent interviewer looks like? Maybe her trip to Manchester has got her feeling ‘mad for it’? Either way, we wouldn’t expect more going forwards.

    Kuenssberg didn’t go after Sunak because of a sudden desire to speak truth to power; she did so because Sunak is clearly PM in name only. How long he’ll hang on depends solely on how much he enjoys humiliation.

    Featured image via BBC – screengrab

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Just Stop Oil and was authored by Just Stop Oil.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Not a week goes by without far-right foghorn amplifier GB News being in some sort of hot water. Now, after station bosses suspended two presenters for misogyny, broadcasting watchdog Ofcom is investigating.

    Ofcom also recently ruled against the channel for having two Conservative MPs interview a third Tory on their show. GB News‘ response? To laugh in the regulator’s face with yet another display of Conservative Party PR between the Tory chair ’30p Lee’ Anderson and home secretary Suella Braverman – because it knows it will get away with it.

    Laurence Fox: how could this possibly happen?

    As BBC News reported, GB News has once again caused uproar due to its presenters’ actions:

    Dan Wootton has been suspended from GB News following comments made on his show by Laurence Fox, who asked what “self-respecting man” would “climb into bed” with reporter Ava Evans.

    The broadcaster had earlier suspended Fox for his remarks about PoliticsJOE’s Evans during a live show.

    Fox’s comments were in response to assertions Evans made about men’s mental health during the BBC Politics Live show on Monday 25 September. Whilst Fox initially said that he stood “by every word of what I said”, he later caved and joined Wooton in apologising for their misogyny.

    Meanwhile, Evans told PoliticsJOE:

    For a long time that man [Fox] has said some pretty despicable things about women. I mean there’s the comments about asking a fellow journalist what colour knickers she’s wearing, or there’s another commentator where he put out a tweet being like ‘oh god you wouldn’t want to be her girlfriend’ [sic] or whatever…

    I just think it speaks to a wider power dynamic that is falling away now but definitely used to be there in the last few years. It’s like an antiquated practice of not being able to properly challenge a woman on her words and so just going for her level of attractiveness, or her ‘shagability’.

    GB News‘ boss has condemned both presenters. Of course, most people know Fox is a dickhead. However, Wooton also has a history of rampant misogyny:

    There’s also the not-so small matter of the recent Byline Times investigation into him over sexual abuse allegations:

    So, as one person asked on X:

    Of course, Fox and Wooton’s actions come against a backdrop of controversy for GB News.

    Ofcom: if at first you don’t succeed…

    Ofcom has launched an investigation into the pair’s comments – on top of the 12 investigations it’s currently running regarding the channel.

    As the Canary previously reported, the regulator recently ruled against GB News over two Tory MPs interviewing Tory chancellor Jeremy Hunt on the channel. As we previously wrote, Ofcom said GB News breached part of its code regarding broadcasters presenting a wide range of opinions:

    That is: Tories were interviewing a Tory, and offering no alternative views.

    You know it’s bad when even Tory MPs are distancing themselves from GB News – or rather, pretending to – even after appearing repeatedly on the channel. Thank goodness for X community notes:

    But while Ofcom has ruled against GB News (and likely will in the case of Fox and Wooton), the regulator is still not addressing the elephant in the room.

    That elephant is nicely summed up by the following GB News show:

    Once again, people are outraged and calling for the regulator to act. However, Ofcom only actually ruled against GB News for failing to air alternative views. It didn’t rule against Tory MPs interviewing Tory MPs – despite what high-profile people like Carol Vorderman on X are saying:

    The ‘get out of broadcasting jail free card’ for GB News is that when these Tories interview other Tories, it’s classed as current affairs, not news (according to Ofcom, anyway). Therefore, they’re not breaching any rules. As some corporate journalists have pointed out, it’s almost like GB News is now staging the Braverman interview to purposefully taunt Ofcom:

    Or it’s just doing it for the clicks:

    Herein lies the problem.

    GB News: it’s not its right-wing views that are the problem

    If GB News wants to be a right-wing news channel, that’s up to it. The broadcaster allowing far-right hate-peddlers like Fox to spout what probably constitutes hate speech live on air is clearly unacceptable – and Ofcom should act. However, the regulator acting over the channel not presenting a balance of opinions is really neither here nor there, when it doesn’t address that elephant in the room.

    The channel exists to act as a PR service for the hard-right wing of the Tory Party. The things it presents as current affairs are simply Conservative Party political broadcasts. Yet due to Ofcom’s own preposterously complex rules, the channel can get away with it.

    We already have a broadcaster acting as a mouthpiece for the state (the BBC), thanks very much. The UK certainly doesn’t need the dystopian, Orwellian nightmare that is GB News acting as a marketing agency for the Tories. Yet Ofcom seems incapable of acting on this. Until it does, everything else is tokenistic – and the channel will continue to get away with it.

    Featured image via the Telegraph – YouTube, and Lee Anderson – Twitter 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The harrowing floods in Libya have already killed thousands, with over 10,000 people still missing as of Friday 15 September. While the focus has rightly been on immediate support for the people affected, the BBC has also given its analysis of why the floods caused so much devastation. Typically, the British state broadcaster managed to shoehorn in UK colonialist propaganda – by completely downplaying Britain’s role in destroying the country in the previous decade.

    Libya floods: up to 20,000 people may be dead

    Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported on 15 September that, so far, flash flooding in east Libya caused by Storm Daniel has left nearly 4,000 people dead, 10,000 missing, and entire neighbourhoods in ruins.

    The storm tore through the coastal city of Derna, which has a population of around 100,000 people. Derna lies in a river valley 560 miles east of the capital, Tripoli. Storm Daniel caused two dams around Derna to burst, unleashing torrents of water that destroyed bridges and swept away entire neighbourhoods before spilling into the Mediterranean.

    Officials in the east of the divided country give different toll estimates, with one speaking of at least 3,840 dead. However, many fear the figure will be far higher – nearer to 20,000. Meanwhile, the UN humanitarian agency OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) stated that an estimated 884,000 people directly impacted by the storm and flash floods need assistance.

    Storm Daniel appears to be a result of the climate crisis. It grew in the Mediterranean because of the heatwave – where sea temperatures broke records. Climate science professor at the University of Bristol Lizzie Kendon told AFP that Storm Daniel was:

    illustrative of the type of devastating flooding event we may expect increasingly in the future

    However, the devastating impact of the storm on Libya can’t just be viewed through the lens of the climate crisis. That said, the lens the BBC viewed it through was completely biased towards the British state.

    The BBC: why is Libya such a mess?

    BBC News Africa tweeted on 13 September:

    The article started out with a generic description of Libya:

    Once one of Africa’s most prosperous countries, years of lawlessness have left it a fragile, divided state – ill-prepared to cope with the forces unleashed by a natural disaster.

    Then, it specifically stated that:

    The vast majority of deaths from the flooding have occurred in Derna – a city emblematic of Libya’s breakdown. It has received little investment for decades and a government minister in the area admitted that one of the dams that burst had not been maintained “for a while”.

    The BBC also pointed to the fact that Libya has two rival governments that have been in conflict for years. However, when it came to the ‘whys’ of Libya being a mess, the BBC couldn’t bring itself to say the reality out loud. It wrote that:

    Libya has been beset by chaos since forces backed by the West’s Nato military alliance overthrew long-serving ruler Col Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011.

    Of course, this framing is not quite the way the West’s invasion of Libya played out – as people on X pointed out:

    As the Canary reported in 2016:

    Libya is a mess following the western military intervention that started in 2011. We were told it was necessary because there was an evil dictator who had to be taken out as he was massacring his own people…

    Muammar Gaddafi did have much blood on his hands – from the so-called Toyota War (or Chadian-Libyan conflict) to taking responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. Not to mention his handy role in George W. Bush’s extraordinary rendition program

    When anti-Gaddafi protesters took to the streets of Libya in the midst of the ‘Arab Spring’, the UK, US, and France declared Gaddafi’s rule illegitimate. The soon-to-follow NATO military intervention on behalf of Libyan rebel militants ended with the brutal execution of Gaddafi on the road out of Sirte – ironically, the very city which Libyan Daesh (Isis/Isil) fighters have now made their de facto headquarters.

    Propping up Western colonialist interests

    Of course, the reasons for the West getting involved weren’t ‘humanitarian’. It also knew the invasion would fuel groups like al-Qaida. As the Canary wrote, secret government communications that were leaked revealed:

    • “France wanted control over Gaddafi’s billions in gold and silver bullion”.
    • “The US and UK knew al-Qaida members were embedded in rebel groups, yet armed them anyway”.
    • “[Hillary] Clinton was informed there was no real humanitarian basis for NATO’s bombing, but NATO would continue its devastating bombing of Libya for another seven months anyway”.

    Back on X, someone noted the BBC‘s role in 2011:

    As a research paper into the BBC and Al Jazeera‘s coverage, specifically their framing, of the West’s invasion of Libya noted:

    the coverage of both these networks was aligned with the national and foreign policy interests of their home countries, making their political contexts the main influence on their news agendas. News frames across the sample reflected coverage that was largely supportive of the aims of opposition and the intervention.

    In other words, the BBC was not impartial in the situation. It was merely parroting what the British state, and other Western governments, were saying. None of this is new for the broadcaster. With its current reporting on Libya’s floods, the BBC is still maintaining that pro-Western colonialist stance to this day.

    Featured image via BBC News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

  • By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

    A review of RNZ’s online news has called for greater oversight and enforcement of standards after a crisis sparked by a single staffer making “inappropriate” edits to international news online.

    RNZ Mediawatch asks RNZ’s chief executive if this was the result of a digital shift done on the cheap — and how he’ll put right what he himself called “pro-Kremlin garbage”.

    “An RNZ digital journalist has been stood down after it emerged they’d been editing news stories on the broadcaster’s website to give them a pro-Russian slant,” host Jeremy Corbett told 7 Days viewers back in June when the story first hit the headlines.

    “You’d never get infiltration like that on 7 Days. Our security is too strong. Strong like a bear. Strong like the glorious Russian state and its leader Putin,” he said.

    It’s never good for a serious news outlet when comedians are taking aim.

    '7 Days' comedians have a laugh at RNZ against the backdrop of the Kremlin in last Thursday night's episode.
    7 Days’ comedians have a laugh at RNZ against the backdrop of the Kremlin in last Thursday night’s episode. Image: Screenshot /Thre

    It was just a joke of course, but at the time some wondered whether Kremlin campaigns could have been behind the unapproved editing of RNZ’s online world news.

    Pro-Russian perspectives and some loaded language inserted into news agency stories relating to the war in Ukraine were first spotted overseas.

    RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson called it “pro-Kremlin garbage” and some politicians asked if RNZ might be carrying foreign propaganda.

    RNZ tightened editorial checks and stood down one online journalist, who later resigned. He told RNZ Checkpoint that he had edited news reports “in that way for years” and no one had ever queried it or told him to stop.

    An RNZ audit of stories he edited eventually discovered 49 — mostly supplied by Reuters — which RNZ deemed to be inappropriately edited.

    External experts were then appointed to look at the problem and how RNZ should respond.

    Former RNZ political editor Brent Edwards, currently political editor at NBR, drew on his experience as RNZ’s newsgathering chief to pinpoint a key problem.

    “I technically had no responsibility whatsoever for what went on the web. I always thought that that news should have run ‘Digital,’” Edwards said.

    “Maybe one of the recommendations  . . . would be that ‘Digital’ should be integrated into the news division – and therefore a lot more editorial control imposed on what goes on the web,” he said

    That was indeed a key suggestion when the expert panel reported back this week.

    What the independent experts found
    The Independent External Review of RNZ Editorial Processes (PDF) confirmed once and for all it was just one journalist — who mostly worked remotely — responsible for the breach of standards. But RNZ was responsible too.

    “What we found was a journalist who acted in breach of both editorial standards and RNZ’s contract with Reuters — and an organisation that facilitated the conditions for a journalist to do so,” the panel concluded.

    It also cited poorly-resourced digital news team members not adequately supervised or trained, outdated technology and organisational silos as factors that “reduced the oversight of editorial standards.”

    “The training materials we reviewed were basic and staff had not engaged with them. Training in editorial standards  . . . lacked consistency and effectiveness,” the report said.

    “I have empathy for the journalist and his situation. He felt that he was doing the right thing he’d been doing for a long period of time,” RNZ’s chair Dr Jim Mather told Checkpoint on Wednesday when asked if the journalist was ‘a fall guy’.

    “The report clearly identifies he didn’t receive the required level of training, support and oversight. So I think there’s some significant questions that we need to be asking ourselves,” he said.

    The co-editor of Newsroom.co.nz Mark Jennings — formerly the long-serving news chief at TV3 — was not so forgiving.

    “(The panel members) seem to believe that he was a misguided soul with no deliberate intent to breach editorial standards,” he told RNZ’s Morning Report on Thursday.

    “He was inserting his own opinions. I’ve got no doubt about that. And it wasn’t just pro-Kremlin. It was pro-China. It was anti-America and anti-Israel,” he said.

    This week RNZ said it has accepted the panel’s 22 recommendations, including a new role focused on editorial standards and building trust. It also said it was already planning some of the changes, such as updating aged in-house editorial technology.

    In the end, the panel didn’t agree all 49 of the stories RNZ identified were inappropriately edited. It also said there was no intention to misform or propagandise, but RNZ’s reputation for accurate and balanced journalism had been damaged.

    “That has to be a concern. When there is a breach, it really hurts to go backwards a little bit in the estimation of some of the public,” RNZ CEO Paul Thompson told Mediawatch.

    “But it was 49 stories and in the end — and it was one person. If we get those things in place . . . I think that the trust will be there,” he said.

    The report said Thompson himself amplified the alarm and perception of damage to trust by calling the stories “pro-Kremlin garbage”.

    “The panel is entitled to its opinion on my use of language, but my view of what happened and the panel’s view is the same – the editing was inappropriate and it affected the balance. It introduced unreliable information and there was a pro-Russian bias in the copy. They didn’t like the fact that I used a very strong term to describe it,” he told Mediawatch.

    Putting it right

    RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson
    RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson . . . “This division [between news and digital] . . . was common in many organisations, particularly public broadcasters, in the early days of the internet.” Image: RNZ

    Paul Thompson confirmed online news would now be under the supervision of RNZ’s news division, as the report recommended.

    “This division . . . was common in many organisations, particularly public broadcasters, in the early days of the internet. Online news was a new emerging area but those days are long gone,” the report says.

    Thompson is an experienced newsroom leader. Shouldn’t he have addressed this earlier?

    “We’re integrated across RNZ. Everyone works across platforms — that’s how we do podcasts and social media and have a functioning website,” he said.

    “So what we’re talking about is that function of editing news and the benefits of that being brought together where everyone is editing news. In May we wrestled with this and decided it was time to make that change — and within a couple of weeks we were thrown into this crisis,” he said.

    “Should we have got on to it sooner? Probably. And I’ll take responsibility for that,” he said.

    The report also says the journalist responsible for the inappropriate editing had himself suggested additional editing positions to ease the workload and improve oversight.

    “In both cases one of the key factors cited and not proceeding was a lack of funding and resources,” the report said.

    Thompson championed online expansion as soon as he took over at RNZ in 2013, setting stretch goals to attract new and bigger audiences.

    Yet it wasn’t until 2017 that RNZ emerged from a lengthy funding freeze. Was this crisis a consequence of a digital transition done quickly and on the cheap?

    “We have been constrained on funding and we just couldn’t ‘magic’ up those positions. Even if we agreed with his suggestion . . . it probably wouldn’t have stopped him doing what he did — and he’s the one who did the editing,” Thompson told Mediawatch.

    “We have been stretched  – but the counterfactual is if we hadn’t pushed ourselves to move into those areas, even though it has been hard, we’d be way behind where we need to be in terms of looking after audiences,” he said.

    “It’s a fair comment. But the good part is that we’ve now received that material funding increase. It kicked in a month ago and it will mean that we can resource digital for the first time to the level that it needs to be,” he said.

    A big bill
    RNZ’s chair has said the bill for the review is around $230,000.

    Broadcasting minister Willie Jackson told Newshub Nation on Saturday the government had no regrets.

    “We had no choice. You’re almost talking about national security here. I don’t think it’ll happen again. They’re going to cover the gaps,” Jackson said.

    “It’s the only way that you can remove any doubt that there’s any lingering issues that we haven’t resolved. It’s all being flushed out.

    “The recommendations  . . . are sensible and pragmatic. We need to make sure we use this as an opportunity to make ourselves even stronger,” Paul Thompson told Mediawatch.