Monday to Friday, morning ritual, along with the bodily stuff, is Today on Radio 4. And, over the years, I have shouted, whinged and cheered at the radio in equal measure.
But I have also noticed over time a change in approach, a change in attitude, and a change in on-the-fly editing which, within short timeframes, completely alters the actual to the ‘official’ soundbite.
A shadow – as in Labour Party – minister was being interviewed this morning, with the main topic of discussion being the previous evening’s Andrew Neil interview with Jeremy Corbyn.
In that interview, there were certainly stumbles over proposed tax changes, and where funding would come from for a last minute pledge to support pension-cheated women. But answers were provided.
However, Neil decided that, as is his grandstanding style, he wanted an apology from Corbyn for anti-semitism in the Labour Party. This was not forthcoming.
This morning, the question was raised again. A clear answer was provided, stating very clearly that, over the past 2 years Corbyn has apologised for any hurt that anyone may have received from anyone with any association with the Labour Party.
Within a ten minute time frame, this was reduced to Corbyn refused to apologise. Not a true statement either, as he avoided the question. Pedantic, but a big difference.
I have never been happy with how the problem of anti-semitism has been dealt with in the Labour Party, but I also do not consider that Corbyn is anti-semitic. He does need to acknowledge a less than effective approach previously, but that is a long way from the accusations by the Chief Rabbi, and the distortions from Radio 4.
Contrast that with an excerpt of an interview with Sajid Javid, regarding Islamophobia in the Tory Party. It is being investigated, on more general terms than originally promised, and yet at no stage was there a demand for an apology.
The basic rules of job interviews require the candidates to be asked the same questions. It would be good if the BBC could manage that.
The impact of that difference is immense. And an answer that the matter is dealt with in other programming doesn’t wash.
You present both sides of a contentious point at the same time – or you do not.
Otherwise you create bias, and misinterpretation, and false news!
cherokoffdotcom 