Newsnight

I agree with the BBC's statement. The introduction to Newsnight is meant to summarise what they're going to be talking about, rather than a chance for the anchor to deliver a monologue. The style of Maitlis' opener put me in mind of something normally seen on US cable news and despite agreeing with every word, it made me uncomfortable.

Yet despite this, I still despair at the cack-handed way the BBC have handled it (yet again).

Some truths are self-evident and don't need the clarification of an authority. For instance, take a look at the infographic half way down this article from shortly after the lockdown was announced: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52012432. It states "no unnecessary journeys". As soon as Cummings announced at the weekend that he had driven to Barnard Castle in order to test his eyesight, he had broken this rule as well as the DVLA's rules. That was self-evident. It is not necessary to test your eyes by driving, you should consult a medical professional. And to drive while you are knowingly medically impaired is against the law, anyway. You shouldn't even get behind the wheel if you have any doubts about your fitness to drive. So, Emily Maitlis' statement was factual at the time of broadcast. It didn't necessarily need Durham police to confirm it.

I don't believe the BBC guidelines enable the use of self-evidency in news reporting in this way. There is a whole section in the guidelines on this around language and tone and to not accept consensus as fact or self-evident.

The thing that concerns me about the Maitlis monologue is that the people who supported her are those who are supporting based on their belief rather than looking at the implications for impartial news.

While I believe what Emily said the other day to be largely accurate, it was more like an editorial comment in a newspaper which doesn't have impartiality rules than a PSB news bulletin.

If the opening was factual, accurate, truthful, then why are we so hung up on this damn idea of being "impartial"???

There's nothing "impartial" or "objective" about reporting both the truth, and a lie about it, and treating them as though they have equal weight. If one is obviously true, and the other is obviously false, it should be reported as such, or better still, don't report the lie at all.

The reason Fox News and others like them exist is because they took this idea of "objectivity" and "impartiality" and corrupted it into making sure that lies get reported in the same way that the truth is, and given equal importance, therefore almost nobody actually knows what the damn truth is anymore. So then the likes of Fox News, Infowars, Newsmax and others come along and claim to have the "actual" truth that the "mainstream media doesn't want you to know about", which in reality is little more than fantasies their fevered overactive imaginations have cooked up.

I'd much rather the media just reported the actual facts of the story. Be accurate, be factual, be truthful, and damn the false god of objectivity that has done more damage to the media and to journalism as a whole than a mountain of actual propaganda ever could.

This is what Emily actually said...

“Dominic Cummings broke the rules, the country can see that, and it's shocking the Government cannot. He should understand that public mood now. One of fury, contempt and anguish.

"He made those who struggled to keep to the rules feel like fools, and has allowed many more to assume they can now flout them.

"The Prime Minister knows all this, but despite the resignation of one minister, growing unease from his backbenchers, a dramatic early warning from the polls, and a deep national disquiet, Boris Johnson has chosen to ignore it.

"Tonight we consider what this blind loyalty tells us about the workings of Number 10."

There are multiple parts of this opening whose "truth" is patently not objective.

Durham Police have decided not to prosecute - the evidence is, it would seem, not strong enough. Where is the evidence that the "public mood...is of fury, contempt, and anguish"? Who has decided that it's "shocking"? Where is the evidence that "many more (will) assume that they can flout the rules".

Your statement about "fantasies their fevered overactive imaginations have cooked up" applies just as much to this as it does to Infowars, Newsmax, etc.

I could go on.

Whether or not people agree with the sentiments expressed, this is Fox News/Daily Mail/Guardian-style editiorialisation. Just look at the emotively loaded language - "broke the rules", "fury, contempt, and anguish", "flout", "dramatic early warning", "deep national disquiet", "chosen to ignore it", and "blind loyalty".

We're all intelligent enough here to know that facts can be presented in such a way to create an impression and this was clearly Emily's goal in delivering this opening.

I'm no fan of Boris or Cummings - I am also no fan of the BBC editorialising. And, right now more than ever, it puts the BBC in danger.

Putting aside whether or not Cummings broke the law, her assertion that the public mood is "one of fury, contempt and anguish", is pure comment, and not fact. And quite honestly who the hell is anyone to state as fact the public mood in a political situation?

It's not "The Sun Says", it's a BBC News programme.

Emily Maitlis is a fantastic broadcaster, but that opener does not sit well with me. Regardless of whether you agree with her commentary or not, it’s a really slippery slope. These things also reflect on the entire BBC output, not just Newsnight, so I believe they were correct in putting out a statement on the subject.

I'd actually say it has gone beyond that and she has been supported by people you wouldn't usually suspect. Of course though this has been a gift for BBC bashers who could fault them for airing it initially then the next day fault them for reprimanding themselves fir airing it.

As I said, this is about much more than whether or not Cummings broke the rules.

This is what the opening monologue stated as fact :

1. Dominic Cummings broke the rules
2. The country can see that Dominic Cummings broke the rules
3. The country is shocked that the government cannot see that Dominic Cummings broke the rules
4. The longer the government backs Cummings, the more angry the response will be
5. Dominic Cummings always understood the public mood previously.
6. Dominic Cummings tagged the label of ‘elite’ on those that disagreed.
7. The label of ‘elite’ is lazy.
8. The public mood is one of fury, contempt and anguish
9. He made those that kept to the rules feel like fools.
10. Those that kept to the rules struggled to do so.
11. He has allowed many more people to assume they can now flout the rules.
12. The Prime Minister knows this as fact.
13. The Prime Minister has had a dramatic early warning from the polls.
14. There is a deep national disquiet.
15. The Prime Minister has chosen to ignore all the above.
16. The Prime Minister’s motivation for the defence of Dominic Cummings is blind loyalty.

Great analysis. And people are really saying that Emily was impartial???



Yes, yes, yes. And it all started because Emily wanted to share her subjective analysis with the audience.

I remember listening to an edition of Feedback, where they got I believe Nick Robinson and the "Head of News", whoever they were, to outline how the BBC reports its stories, and one of the main points made were that the BBC "does not, should not, and will not use emotive and strong language" and they gave examples such as calling someone a "liar". I think it's clear here that Emily didn't follow this.