Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply
Posted by: Steven Rose
Date/Time: 12/11/25 23:27:00

I have read Aaronovich’s article twice through, Jonathan, following your recommmendation.

Let’s start with David Aaronovich himself, someone who on 1 July last year tweeted, ‘If I were Biden, I ‘d hurry up and have Trump murdered on  the basis that he is a threat to America’s security’. Donald Trump was the victim of an assassination attempt 10 days later. Aaronovich subsequently justified his tweet as ‘satire’.  Do you think a comment like that gives one any confidence in Aaronovich as a reliable commentator on any matter relating to Trump? I would describe his tweet  as hate speech, worthy of a visit from the police.

Aaronovich makes several unsubstantiated accusations against Michael Prescott in the course of his article:

1) He asserts that Prescott’s letter was ‘probably’ intended for public consumption. No evidence is provided for this assertion. In fact Prescott received the original report from the Editorial Committee last January when it was also made available to the Board. For three months nothing happened. In April  Prescott summarised its contents in a letter to the Board. His letter was discussed at a meeting in May where his allegations of bias at the BBC were largely dismissed. Even the distortion of Trump’s speech was condoned as ‘normal practice’. Frustrated by the BBC’s failure to tackle the problem of bias, Prescott finally sent a copy of his letter to MPs last summer. The ‘Telegraph’ only obtained a copy last week. Rather than seeking publicity, the evidence suggests that Prescott patiently observed confidentiality until the inaction of the BBC forced him to blow the whistle, and  even then not to the newspapers but to Parliament.

2) Aaronovich accuses Prescott of ‘constantly and selectively’ referencing the independent report on bias produced by the BBC’s Editorial Committee, chaired by David Grossman.  Aaronovich’s use of the word ‘constantly’ in this context is absurd. Of course Prescott quoted Grossman’s report extensively. He actually commissioned the report from the Editorial Committee. What other source should he have used? As to selective quotation, Aaronovich provides no evidence that Prescott deliberately omitted material  in the report that was favourable to the BBC.

3) Aaronovich concedes that Prescott was right to object to the distortion of Trump’s speech, though he fails to emphasise that the Chairman of the Board and the Director General, who were present at the  meeting in May  when the issue was discussed, accepted  the view that the edit was ‘normal practice.  But then Aaronovich basically accuses Trump of having inspired the riot in any case, precisely the mindset which let to the dishonest edit.

4) Aaronovich dismisses  Prescott’s charge that the BBC failed to point out that Trump’s opponents  were engaging in a  form  of ‘lawfare’ during  the election campaign. Aaronovich implies that lawfare’ was a partisan slur propagated by  Republicans. Well whatever you think of Trump, and I am not an admirer, there is no doubt that Trump’s opponents tried to use the legal system to prevent him running.  What  other word than ‘lawfare’ can be used to describe this (failed) strategy?

4) Aaronovich ignores the  appalling fact, revealed by Grossman’s report  and highlighted in Prescott’s  letter, that BBC Arabic  consistently  employed  virulently anti-Semitic Hamas supporters to comment on the conflict in Gaza.  The work of the Arabic  service was particularly praised by the Director General.

5) Aaronovich  also accuses Prescott of  omitting to mention the fact that the  BBC has been accused of bias by pro-Palestinian groups. This is in fact untrue. Prescott did mention this fact but said that the Editorial Committee could not find a single example where Israel’s conduct of the war was glossed over or its actions condoned. Can you, Jonathan, think of any such example?

6) Aaronovich admits that the BBC indulged in the fashion for transgenderism but accuses Prescott of exaggerating the problem. He provides  one example , the BBC’s work on the Tavistock Clinic, to counter the accusation but does not deal with the evidence that a  desk within the BBC consistently prevented criticism of transgender rights.

7) He dismisses the complaint that the BBC consistently adopts an anti-colonial stance . He rubbishes the work  of distinguished academics (mentioned by Prescott) who  have sought to defend,at least in part, Britain’s imperial  past, describing these historians as right wing Brexiteers. A prejudiced view, no?

Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Irony alert!09/11/25 09:17:00 Jonathan Callaway
   Re:Irony alert!09/11/25 10:25:00 Robert Wheeler
      Re:Re:Irony alert!09/11/25 12:27:00 Ivonne Holliday
         Re:Re:Re:Irony alert!09/11/25 12:54:00 Ivonne Holliday
   Re:Irony alert!09/11/25 12:14:00 Ivonne Holliday
      Reply09/11/25 12:26:00 Sue Hammond
         Irony upon irony09/11/25 12:46:00 Jonathan Callaway
            Re:Irony upon irony09/11/25 12:59:00 Ivonne Holliday
               Reply09/11/25 16:53:00 Sue Hammond
            Reply09/11/25 15:34:00 Sue Hammond
               Re:Reply09/11/25 18:13:00 Steven Rose
                  Re:Re:Reply09/11/25 19:23:00 Jonathan Callaway
   Reply09/11/25 18:24:00 Michael Ixer
      Reply09/11/25 19:07:00 Michael Ixer
         Re:Reply09/11/25 19:22:00 Robert Wheeler
            Re:Re:Reply09/11/25 21:43:00 Steven Rose
               Re:Re:Re:Reply09/11/25 22:33:00 Sue Hammond
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply10/11/25 00:02:00 Steven Rose
               Re:Re:Re:Reply10/11/25 12:37:00 Ivonne Holliday
            Reply10/11/25 00:22:00 Michael Ixer
               Re:Reply10/11/25 11:47:00 John Hawkes
                  Reply10/11/25 12:19:00 Michael Ixer
               Re:Reply10/11/25 12:28:00 John Hawkes
                  Reply10/11/25 13:31:00 Michael Ixer
         Re:Reply10/11/25 09:13:00 Lucille Grant
            Re:Re:Reply10/11/25 09:37:00 Jonathan Callaway
               Re:Re:Re:Reply10/11/25 10:06:00 Andy Pike
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply10/11/25 10:17:00 Robert Wheeler
            Reply10/11/25 10:52:00 Michael Ixer
               Re:Reply10/11/25 11:36:00 Andy Pike
                  Reply10/11/25 12:22:00 Michael Ixer
                     Re: Brexit10/11/25 12:50:00 Lucille Grant
                     Re:Reply10/11/25 13:06:00 Steven Rose
                        Reply10/11/25 14:12:00 Michael Ixer
                           Re:Reply10/11/25 14:16:00 Gerry Boyce
                           Re:Reply10/11/25 15:13:00 John Hawkes
                        Re:Re:Reply11/11/25 20:39:00 Jonathan Callaway
                           Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 11:50:00 John Hawkes
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 19:12:00 Jonathan Callaway
                     Re:Reply10/11/25 14:34:00 Andy Pike
                        Re:Re:Reply10/11/25 15:54:00 Lucille Grant
                           Re:Re:Re:Reply11/11/25 21:47:00 Steven Rose
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply12/11/25 20:40:00 Jonathan Callaway
                           Re:Re:Re:Reply11/11/25 22:30:00 Andy Pike
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply12/11/25 23:27:00 Steven Rose
                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply13/11/25 22:52:00 Jonathan Callaway
                                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 02:41:00 Steven Rose
                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 12:20:00 Ivonne Holliday
                                          Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 12:30:00 John Hawkes
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 12:58:00 Ivonne Holliday
                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 13:57:00 John Hawkes
                                          Reply14/11/25 12:38:00 Sue Hammond
                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 19:30:00 Jonathan Callaway
                                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 12:17:00 John Hawkes
                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 16:35:00 Steven Rose
                                          Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 19:52:00 Jonathan Callaway
                                          Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 10:47:00 Richard Carter
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 12:05:00 John Hawkes
                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 19:40:00 Jonathan Callaway
                                          Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 21:25:00 Steven Rose
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 22:07:00 Jonathan Callaway
                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply14/11/25 22:10:00 Jonathan Callaway
                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 11:53:00 John Hawkes
                                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 13:08:00 Jonathan Callaway
                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 13:44:00 John Hawkes
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 11:44:00 John Hawkes
                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 12:22:00 Steven Rose
                                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 13:00:00 John Hawkes
                                          Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 11:31:00 John Hawkes
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply15/11/25 13:19:00 Steven Rose
   Reply15/11/25 13:53:00 Michael Ixer

Forum Home