Watching Terrorvision

Suddenly, impartiality matters.

My earliest memory, at least the first one I can remember, is the Apollo 13 splashdown on April 17, 1970.

After their spacecraft blew the equivalent of a gasket on its way to the Moon, and dumped most of its precious oxygen into the black vacuum of space, the three astronauts, James Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert had no choice but to abandon their mission and return home.

But they couldn’t just turn their leaky bottle rocket around and make a dash for it. Space travel doesn’t work like that. So instead they had to come back home. The long way.

The astronauts were forced to keep speeding away from the Earth, even as their air supply dwindled, then sling shot round the Moon, and hope that a combination of NASA ingenuity, jury rigged air filters, and The Right Stuff would conspire to keep them alive on the long, cold, journey home.

At 240,000 miles above the surface of the Earth you don’t get much higher drama than that.

Three days later, as the Apollo 13 capsule finally re entered the atmosphere, the suffocating astronauts lost contact with Mission Control during a nail biting six minutes of radio silence.

The entire World literally held its breath and waited to discover what exactly had returned home, a spaceship, or simply a coffin?

This story must have made quite the impact on the four year old me because now, over fifty years later, even thinking about this genuinely jaw dropping tale of derring do and human perseverance brings a tear to my eye.

I don’t remember the actual splashdown of course. I was too little to go to Somoa for the event. Or so Mum insisted. Instead what I remember, is seeing it on TV.

Which means that my earliest memory, is of watching the BBC.

The world gathered around its screens to witness another extraordinary set of heart stopping events this week.

And the BBC proved it still has the power to move, amaze, astound and educate me.

To reveal that sometimes even seemingly straightforward incidents are more multifaceted, knotty and complex than they might at first seem.

For instance it has taught me, that sometimes, when you are made aware of the indiscriminate slaughter of elderly people at bus stops, party loving teenagers at music festivals and tiny babies in a kibbutz, you should take a balanced approach, stop yourself making knee jerk reactions, and avoid jumping to conclusions.

You should certainly be careful, for instance, not to misname militants, gun men and fighters, as ‘terrorists’.

Not everyone has been completely on board with the BBC’s clearheaded, dispassionate approach to these brutal attacks.

Former Director of BBC Televison, Danny Cohen, wrote an article in the Telegraph asking why the BBC continues to insist on referring to these terrorists, who committed unquestionable acts of terror, in a terrorist raid, as ‘militants’.

But veteran BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson was quick to respond, explaining on Twitter/X that ‘calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality’.

Of course John Simpson is correct, the BBC should not be seen to be taking sides, because as he goes on to point out, it is trusted across the World for its unwavering commitment to balance and fairness.

It tirelessly strives to treat all stories, current events, and contested issues, as far as it can, with ‘due impartiality’. Well that is a noble aim, and definitely something worth striving for.

So let’s take a moment to consider a few recent examples, not just from the BBC, but also from our entire mainstream media. And see how scrupulous our various media outlets have been in ensuring that we receive a plurality of opinion, a mixture of views, and exposure to both sides of every story.

Who remembers COVID? Of course you do! You may recall how the government locked us all up in our homes regardless of our age, state of health or other risk factors. How it destroyed the economy, and terrified the entire country into demanding it took away every last one of our freedoms.

And how the impartial BBC, along with Sky News, was so desperate to cover every aspect of the story, and consider the full gamut of scientific opinion, that they failed to give any serious platform to alternative points of view or strategies. Such as, just for example, the Great Barrington Declaration.

An alternative plan put together by some of the World’s Top epidemiologists, like Professor Sunetra Gupta, who suggested that maybe we should concentrate on shielding the elderly and vulnerable, while allowing the rest of society to continue functioning, with certain self imposed restrictions, but more or less normally. (Hello Sweden!)

Yes, Prof Sunetra Gupta was occasionally allowed on the BBC, but it seems only so her crackpot plan could be summarily rejected by presenters.

On the BBC, and SKY News, ‘due impartiality’ seemed to mean offering a platform to two just types of experts. On the one hand those who wanted to lockdown, and on the other hand those who shrilly demanded we lockdown harder, faster and for longer. See? Both sides.

But what was the problem? After all, the science was settled.

Top boffins Patrick Valance and Chris Whitty had the needlessly scary and incorrect graphs to prove it. This was a simple issue of protecting the public. Any consideration of the effects of these lockdown policies on the economy was simply putting profit before people. There was no need for debate. No space for dangerous disinformation. This was no time to be impartial. Lives were at stake. Don’t provide a bully pulpit for lockdown scepticism. Don’t kill your metaphorical granny.

It wasn’t like say, shooting actual old ladies at bus stops. Sure at first blush that might seem like an obvious act of indiscriminate terrorism. But let’s not be too hasty here. Let’s not jump to conclusions. Have you considered putting these deaths into their proper geopolitical context? I know. Makes you think right? Let’s remain impartial.

Climate change became Climate Emergency became Climate Disaster became the Climate Apocalypse, and now most recently, Global Boiling. And of course with a global catastrophe inevitable in less than fifty years, forty years, twenty years, five bloody years!!!!-there is no room on the BBC for an alternative view.

In fact the BBC even has a handy How-To Guide, to help plan a struggle session with climate deniers, (Boo!) in your own family.

There’s no space for those who suggest, that just like the coming population explosion of the 1970s. Global cooling. Or the arrival of Peak Oil. That perhaps this latest impending apocalypse is not inevitable either.

That climate change is a problem sure, but a problem which can be solved with a level headed and proportionate response. A position taken by sceptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg who suggests that just like with every other impending calamity we have faced, humanity will find a way.

Perhaps the job of our news media should be to properly interrogate our politicians, to ensure their sums add up, and that their plans to reshape our entire economy around environmental extremism are really in voters’ interests.

But instead of questioning who is really benefiting from this incessant scaremongering, (Spoiler Alert: Not you.) the BBC and our entire journalist class simply accepts that there is only one way to save the planet, and that is through the de-growth policies (Code: You get poorer and colder) of Net Zero.

There is no need to be impartial. Dissenting voices are just spewing misinformation, climate denialism, and engaged in far right rabble rousing. So why bother presenting both sides of the argument, when on the other side sits only nut jobs, conspiracy theorists, white van drivers and greedy greedy greedo oil companies?

It is not like the murder of 260 young people at a music festival. Usually yes. Probably bad. But if that music festival takes place in the desert in Israel….Well maybe we should take a moment to look again at the harrowing footage of children fleeing for their lives under indiscriminate machine gun fire, but this time through the lens of history. There are two sides to this story.  We should take care to remain impartial.

Trans women are women. That is unequivocal. Anyone, especially any cis woman who does not accept this fact is a TERF. Period. And as the song which the BBC happily played on Radio 6 Music says, we should ‘kick TERFS all day long’. That’s not incitement to violence Silly, that’s Free Speech, which incidentally, I thought you LOVED?

Sure there are some far right hate mongering women who think that transwomen do not belong in female changing rooms, female prisons, female wards in hospitals or rape crisis centres. Among them controversial figures like singer Roisin Murphy who definitely didn’t have a special night of her music pulled by the BBC after she said the wrong thing about puberty blockers on her personal Facebook page.

But this is no time for the mainstream media to indulge in dangerous mealy mouthed equivocation. It’s not about finding a balanced approach, it’s about not wanting to find yourself on the Wrong Side of History. And whilst it can be a difficult process for many parents, the experts agree that gender affirming care is almost always the best for all involved. It’s pretty straightforward. You have a choice. A dead daughter or a live son.

It is not like when whole families are gunned down in their homes. Mothers, fathers, children, babes in arms. It can be easy to rush to judgement sure. But there might be more to this than meets the eye. There is the issue of provocation to consider. A horrible incident of course. But not one without nuance, we must take care to be impartial.

The list goes on.

Trump on Jan 6th? It was an insurrection, a genuine threat to democracy. So much more than a protest which got out of hand. All reasonable people accept Trump is an Ultra MAGA monster, so there is only one side to this story.

Mass immigration. There simply isn’t enough of it. As Gary Lineker says, any attempt to deport illegal immigrants, or criminals, is exactly the same as the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany during the 1930s. This is not a complex issue, it’s simply good vs evil.

The NHS is the envy of the world. OK, so there are currently almost 8 million people, 12% of the British public, on an NHS waiting list. But there’s no need to consider alternative, non socialist health systems. NHS collapse is simply down to government mismanagement and Tory cuts. It’s not complicated. There is nothing to be impartial about. 

You get the idea.

The point is that when it comes to almost every major news story or social issue, the BBC, and the mainstream media in general, balk at the idea of offering us, the thicko, low information voter, a genuine debate, range of voices, or diversity of opinion.

Look, I am sure you could point to counter examples for all these stories. I’m not suggesting we live in a total mono culture. There is, even on the mainstream, the occasional contrary voice.

And of course there is the alternative media too. After all, you’re reading this aren’t you? And I thank you for it.

But it’s clear that when taken as a whole, the make up of discussion panels, the sneering attitude of the presenters (Shout out to Emily Maitlis-so glad she has now left the BBC so we can finally discover what she REALLY thinks) the subjects chosen for documentaries, radio reports, and the story lines of dramas. The current affairs issues our news media chooses to cover, those it chooses to underplay or ignore, and how those stories are reported on screen and online, leave you in no doubt about what exactly is the approved narrative.

And what on the other hand, is considered a heterodox abomination. (Here’s one of my favourite examples, a delightfully exasperated and clearly shell shocked Rod Liddle getting it from both barrels when attempting to promote his Brexit book on Newsnight. (Yes, I bought it. After Rod went through all this, I felt morally obliged.)

For the most part the mainstream media eschews complexity, and instead presents us with a simple narrative, almost a morality play. Complete with clearly defined goodies (Lineker. Greta. Zelensky. All Migrants.), and baddies (Farage. Musk. Trump. All Tories). Each following a straightforward script which leaves little doubt, about who exactly you should be rooting for.

‘The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting,” John Simpson posted.

Great, now, if only someone would let it know.

Our news media in general, and the BBC in particular is not setting itself up as an impartial reporter. It has appointed itself as our moral arbiter.

At least, it has done, with pretty much every news story up until this one.

The unprecedented and brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on Jewish families, children, old people and babies.

Suddenly the BBC seems desperately keen on impartiality. The home of Lineker, Maitlis, Robinson, and that news reader who openly laughed at Johnson getting the boot from the Tory leadership contest chooses this, as the moment to finally take a stand and insist on hearing both sides.

It finally embraces the dispassionate, balanced approach, and puts its foot down by refusing to label a group of murderers and rapists, who systematically killed men, women, babies and old people, as ‘terrorists’.

Maybe it should get its own ‘fact checkers’ on it. Hamas is a proscribed organisation in the UK, and is defined as a terrorist group by both the EU, and the US government.

The Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis has said if the BBC refuses to brand Hamas terrorists then “we are losing our moral compass”.

The brutal and sadistic murder of over 1500 innocent Jewish people is not a multi faceted moral maze. Except apparently, in this week’s episode of BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze.  (If you listen, it’s worth listening to the end, when Giles Fraser finally loses patience at the whole mistimed and mealy mouthed call for even handedness.)

The point is, the BBC isn’t impartial at all, ever. It takes a side on almost every important issue of the day. Though it probably assumes it is being neutral, genuinely believing, on most of these issues, that there is only one sensible, reasonable, common sense, position to take.

In reality it simply represents a liberal, or increasingly, post liberal, consensus, and presents it as the natural order of things, inevitable. It speaks unto the Nation, the group think of the elite.

Everything else is discounted as an outlier. Low information. Conspiracy driven or simply, bad faith or misinformation.

Usually the BBC cannot wait to tell us plebs what to think

But why in this particular instance is the BBC so keen to highlight another point of view? So eager to avoid voicing an opinion? So quick to hide behind its own impartiality?

The BBC is unequivocally a progressive, left wing organisation. Of course it is, when you consider who runs it and how it is funded, it could hardly be otherwise. And the progressive left, as Corbynite Labour showed, has let’s say, a ‘problematic’ relationship with Jews, and the Jewish state.

(Keir Starmer’s clear condemnation of the attacks has been refreshing. I do shudder to think what would have been the official Labour line if these horrendous crimes had been committed while the party had been under Corbyn’s leadership.)

Perhaps the BBC really is trying to be balanced, to show these attacks in context. Or maybe many in the organisation are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and see Hamas as an unfortunate, but necessary instrument of change. Perhaps there are other reasons.

As John Simpson suggests, I can only present the facts as I see them to you, my audience, and let you decide what you think, honestly and without ranting. (Well, maybe with a little bit of ranting.)

The actions of Hamas terrorists in Israel this week were pure evil.

And I say that with all due impartiality.

*************************

Thank you for reading Low Status Opinions.

I’d usually post next Tuesday. But I thought I should get this out a little earlier.

This is a difficult subject, and a highly emotional and upsetting one. I have tried to avoid being too flippant, whilst still making my points in my usual way.

If you enjoyed this article, please share it, or subscribe. It’s free and really helps me out.

Please feel free to comment as ever.

I’d prefer to talk about media bias and ‘impartiality’ rather than the events in Israel to be honest. I don’t feel qualified to say much more than I already have above.

Though I would suggest that if you don’t know much about the Arab Israeli conflict and want to learn a little more, the tragedy of tit for tat violence in the region is laid bare in chilling detail in Rise And Kill First by Ronen Bergman.

I don’t however claim to be very well read on the subject.

I hope all is good with you and yours, and my very best goes out to any of you who have friends or relatives affected by this week’s horrific events.

Thanks again for reading.