Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
EMILY MAITLIS HAS said the BBC “sought to pacify” Number 10 by issuing a swift apology for her Newsnight monologue about Dominic Cummings as she said the programme’s introduction received “way more attention than in truth it ever deserved”.
The journalist, who left the broadcaster this year for rival media group Global, used the annual MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival to highlight what she described as the “normalising” of populist ideas by the media.
Referencing both former US President Donald Trump and the Brexit debate, Maitlis described her “thesis” as being that both “political actors” and politics itself have changed but journalists are yet to catch up.
In her lecture, which she called ‘Boiling Frog: Why We Have To Stop Normalising The Absurd’, she criticised the BBC’s response to the 2020 Newsnight instalment in which she opened the episode by saying Cummings, then Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, had “broken the rules” with a lockdown trip to Durham and “the country can see that, and it’s shocked the Government cannot”.
The broadcaster received more than 20,000 complaints and ruled Maitlis breached impartiality rules, saying in a statement: “We believe the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality.”
Maitlis said the programme initially “passed off with a few pleasant texts from BBC editors and frankly little else”.
She said: “It was only the next morning that the wheels fell off. A phone call of complaint was made from Downing Street to the BBC News management.
“This – for context – is not unusual. It wasn’t unusual in the Blair days – far from it – in the Brown days, in the Cameron days. What I’m saying is it’s normal for government spin doctors to vocalise their displeasure to journalists.
“What was not foreseen was the speed with which the BBC sought to pacify the complainant. Within hours, a very public apology was made, the programme was accused of a failure of impartiality, the recording disappeared from the iPlayer, and there were paparazzi outside my front door.”
Maitlis said the media shows its impartiality when it reports “without fear or favour” and “when we are not scared to hold power to account, even when it feels uncomfortable to do so”.
She added: “When we understand that if we’ve covered rule-breaking by a Scottish chief medical officer or an English government scientist then journalistic rigour should be applied to those who make policy within Number 10.
“The one person – ironically – who understood this was Dominic Cummings himself, who texted me that very evening to offer his wry support.
“So, back to the speed of response. Why had the BBC immediately and publicly sought to confirm the Government spokesman’s opinion, without any kind of due process?
“It makes no sense for an organisation that is, admirably, famously rigorous about procedure – unless it was perhaps sending a message of reassurance directly to the Government itself?”
In an apparent reference to Theresa May’s former communications director Sir Robbie Gibb, Maitlis added: “Put this in the context of the BBC Board, where another active agent of the Conservative party – former Downing Street spin doctor and former adviser to BBC rival GB News – now sits, acting as the arbiter of BBC impartiality.”
Robert De Niro
Maitlis, who joined the BBC in 2001 and presented Newsnight from 2006 until earlier this year, also claimed journalists are now self-censoring to avoid “backlash” for their work.
She recalled feeling conflicted over a 2020 interview she conducted with Hollywood star Robert De Niro in which he “raged” about Trump’s “mishandling of the pandemic”.
After describing how she tried to balance the actor’s claims about Trump, she said: “We finish the pre-recorded interview; Adam Cumiskey is the output editor and he’s a big film buff. But as we are heading up in the lift I turn to Adam and say, ‘We can’t possibly put this out. It’s too anti-Trump.’
“Adam looks at me to see if I’m joking, and I’m not. I am terrified that by putting out the interview as it stands we will be seen as biased.
“De Niro is a world-famous actor, and a New Yorker, and has chosen our programme, Newsnight, as the place to land his thoughts quite carefully.
“So why do I feel unable to let him say it without trying to find an equally world-famous actor who that same night is miraculously going to tell us the opposite?
“And wouldn’t I be tumbling into both-sideism – false equivalence – even if we had?”
Maitlis apologised to those who thought she would speak about her headline-grabbing interview with the Duke of York, adding: “That will have to wait ’til next time.”
During the November 2019 interview, Andrew was grilled over his relationship with billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the interview went on to win the scoop of the year at the Royal Television Society Awards in 2020, with Maitlis also named network presenter of the year.
In February, she and Jon Sopel announced they were leaving the BBC to join Global, where they host a podcast, The News Agents, and a radio show on LBC.
A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC places the highest value on due impartiality and accuracy and we apply these principles to our reporting on all issues.
“As we have made clear previously in relation to Newsnight we did not take action as a result of any pressure from Number 10 or Government and to suggest otherwise is wrong.
“The BBC found the programme breached its editorial standards and that decision still stands.”
A Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport spokesman said: “Sir Robbie Gibb is an experienced broadcaster who spent many years working in the media sector, including as the head of BBC Westminster and the deputy editor of Newsnight.
“He was appointed to the BBC Board following a fair and open competition, after demonstrating his commitment to the independence, mission and public purposes of the BBC, and the rules state political activity should not be a bar to appointment.
“The BBC’s director-general has acknowledged the corporation needs to improve the impartiality of its news output and Sir Robbie’s vast experience will make a valuable contribution to that aim.”
The MacTaggart Lecture has formed the centrepiece of the Edinburgh TV Festival since 1976 and has been delivered by a host of notable figures, including actress and writer Michaela Coel, broadcaster Jon Snow, and fellow former Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
No mention of the American culture of working every hour god sends. This means parents spend very little time with their kids. They are raised by strangers and shipped of to camps during holidays etc. the majority of these shooters are white middle class from hard working families.
Very interesting thought Paul.
Simple- the more guns you have freely available in a society will have killings with guns
Very true, but I think the article also hints that even with tight gun control there will still be some kinds of incidents.
The silence from US politicians is embarrassing; anyone with an ounce of sense can see that the gun trade in America is making money from death, not protection.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
I agree entirely with Barry – the ancient and outdated ‘freedom to bear arms’, in the USA, is used as the justification of the arms manufacturers to allow retail and online sale of virtually any kind of weapon ( of mass destruction ).
I witnessed it myself in the Shopping Malls of America , where buying over the counter is as natural as buying a mobile phone.
Until the laws are changed in every State , unfortunately the huge numbers of murders and shootings will prosper!
It’s all about the magic Dollar – where the manufacturers are concerned and their highly organised gun lobby!
I think the medication for their depression can sometimes have adverse effects on the minds of theses young men . I read that Harris had come off his meds which he himself admitted made him more aggressive .
Medication is handed out too easily in America to solve emotional problems .
That comment makes no sense to me – you’re saying that a guy who was prescribed medication went off the meds and then killed 13 people – but while he was on them he was more aggressive?
Rather than blame the medication, I think maybe Eric Harris could have been more pro-active about communicating with his doctor about how the medication affected him. Sometimes medication is not suitable and can be changed but coming off medication is a step to take very carefully and always under advice of the doctor.
I meant that the effects of coming off the meds having been on them for sometime . He was apparently on medication for some time and used to come off them without telling anybody . He talked about it in his journals .
I’m not saying it was the medication that made him do it but it may have have been a contributing factor . That’s all I’m saying .
Oh just to mention there is evidence out there that suggests that some anti psychotic drugs can have adverse effects if you come off them . You need to be weaned off them gradually .
America needs to examine its relationship with guns. The second amendment is completely out of date and unnecessary in the modern world where there are more civilised ways of holding a government to account. The free availability of weapons designed to kill humans is at odds to what America purports to represent.
“More civilised ways of holding a government to account”. And that’s working very well now, isn’t it?
What do you suggest? Armed uprisings ?
No, what I’m suggesting to you is that executive power in the US is gradually exerting its influence over every element of the lives of ordinary people the, in the name of “national security”. Governments might be toppled in elections, but policies rarely change (look at the two candidates with the best chance of winning the next election). The US government has also learned the lessons of 1963, and students in the US are more passive than ever before. Occupy Wall Street was easily eclipsed by the Tea Party, a protest essentially in favour of big business. This passivity is brought about by high education costs, which forces students to be on their best behaviour, so as to not waste their investment. Debt keeps people nice and compliant.
Sure, this isn’t enough to merit an armed and blopdy uprising (unless you think along communist lines), but the only way of drastically changing US Government policies is by extra-parliamentary agitation of SOME kind.
No, what I’m suggesting to you is that executive power in the US is gradually exerting its influence over every element of the lives of ordinary people the, in the name of “national security”. Governments might be toppled in elections, but policies rarely change (look at the two candidates with the best chance of winning the next election). The US government has also learned the lessons of 1963, and students in the US are more passive than ever before. Occupy Wall Street was easily eclipsed by the Tea Party, a protest essentially in favour of big business. This passivity is brought about by high education costs, which forces students to be on their best behaviour, so as to not waste their investment. Debt keeps people nice and compliant.
Sure, this isn’t enough to merit an armed and bloody uprising (unless you think along communist lines), but the only way of drastically changing US Government policies is by extra-parliamentary agitation of SOME kind.
Just look at the number of US films in particular that use guns and other weapons. Many of these films are simply gunfire and mayhem interspersed with bits of dialogue. The glorification of killing using tools made specifically to kill a fellow human being, must have an effect of desensitising the general population and for a number of people who are mentally unstable it seems that using a gun to wreak vengeance is the only way out – just like their heroes on the big screen.
We watch same movies in Europe. I dont see any mass murders over here
Forgotten Utøya already?
Anyway, as the article says, the causes are always complex. Desensitisation isn’t the only cause, but must be a factor.
Good point Fergus. I guess the point I was trying to make is that we cant blame movies! What happened in Norway was awful
And Dunblane?
In any event, the number of revenge movies that have come out and the influence they have on people barely matches the kind of disgusting bloodthirst seen on forums and comment sections of news sites just like this one where calls for killing the perpetrator(s) of such massacres before they’ve even been formally charged is prolific.
I should have stated as many instead of ‘any’ mass murders. I this the Americans need to examine their gun laws. Easy access to guns doesnt help
Harassment and isolation play a role in many shootings. Columbine was a classic case of kids bullied striking back. It is the American way.
The common thread is they are all mentally disturbed! End of.
Seriously, what kind of comment is that.
The legal availability of guns is not the issue, lots of countries have high levels of gun ownership yet tis sort of tragedy never happens.
Bottom line is that if someone decides to kill on a large scale, they should manage it one way or another, be it obtaining illegal firearms or some other method.
Thejournal.ie really needs to quit with its clearly ultra pro-feminist, left leaning agenda.
For the record, I appreciate that this’ll get loads of red thumbs, I find it ironic that a core of these will be from Shinners that actively supported a terrorist organisation that dealt in death and illegal firearms running for decades!
So Holmes’s alleged schizophrenia had nothing to do with it? It’s all about drugs and nothing to do with any other environmental factors, psychological factors, personality factors or stressor’s. There is no one particular factor that causes actions like this but a complex combination that come together that cause an individual or individuals to carry out rampages like this.
If as you assert drugs were the cause of Holmes’s rampage and assuming that he wasn’t the only person taking them, then why haven’t there been a massive outbreak of mass killings throughout the US?
American society was built on violence and is maintained with violence. We shouldn’t be surprised when it’s citizens act in a violent manner.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this. You can equally say that the Irish nation was built upon violence, a valid opinion, but we clearly do not expect violence in Irish society as inevitable.
The real reasons: http://goo.gl/O2RBt
Prescription Drugs. But Big Pharma will tell you otherwise.
Take a look at US foreign policy and the atrocious violence it uses to establish the nations self interest, take a look at the violent computer games the country churns out. The US has normalised violence in order to destroy all those little brown men who live on their rightful oil deposits in the middle east
The violence in films and games is an old hobby-horse, at least w’ve dropped “popular music” from the unholy trinity. It’s a fallacy to say violent computer games are produced only in the US, the games may have a US shine to them, but the games themselves are produced and developed worldwide; GTA in Scotland ( I think ) Crysis in Germany, Deus Ex in Canada, etc. the link between violence in entertainment is only anecdotal.
How much does the US spend on their military every year hundreds of billions who are they protecting themselves from? The US government is obsessed with weapons and violence .One or two incidents wont make them change anything regarding gun laws they endorse the use of guns and violence.
I just love the violent imagery in games / movies argument.. Isn’t that what the age ratings are designed for?
If kids are getting 18 rated games it’s either because staff in shops aren’t doing their jobs right or because parents aren’t supervising what games their kids play / movies they watch..
Having said that, most people with some grasp on reality are able to differentiate between games / movies and reality fairly early on.. If they can’t then why didn’t anyone explain it to them?
The Columbine Shooter and Virginia Tech shooter mentioned in the piece above were both taking SSRI medication.
As was the shooter at Fort Hood. That Chinese guy that massacred a load of kids in a school in China, Shane Clancy from Bray who murdered his ex’s new fella before killing himself, Raoul Moat, and so many others..
We await Dr Fentons testimony to see if the Aurora shooter was too..
The listed side effects for many psychiatric drugs include:
“may increase the risk of violence and / or suicide”
If you will visit http://www.ssristories.com you will see the ever increasing list of events linked with these drugs.
Bear in mind that schools and universities in the US have staff psychiatrists. Anti depressant medication is not supposed to be prescribed to adolescents (see the package inserts if you do not believe me) but they are prescribed to children as young as 4 in the US (and animals too, Reconcile is the brand name for doggie Prozac).
There is a common cause.. The fact that these drugs can have adverse side effects in some people, and should be prescribed with far more caution and supervision than they are at present.
yes Hugh there is. experts repeatedly ask that news organizations not report on them but you can’t help yourselves can you.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Bad guys are always going to have firearms whether they are bought legally or illegally, why shouldn’t innocent citizen be allowed posses them for protection?
Didn’t realise the NRA were so active on the journal. While I agree that people kill people it wouldn’t be as easy without access to automatic weapons.
Faceless he didn’t use automatic weapons , he used semi-automatic weapons which are also available in Ireland through gun dealers. He used an AR-15, a Glock 40 and a pump action shot gun none of which are classed as automatic weapons.
American kids are wrapped in cotton wool. They live in a bubble world and cant handle when something goes wrong in life. Unfortunately sometimes they go bananas and take it out on innocents.
Its too late to change the gun laws but give them back their kinder eggs and stop coddling them.
Maybe they’ll handle the “hardships” of their yuppie lives if they grow up with some more reality checks. Everyone has problems. Killing lots of people because life didnt turn out rosy is cowardly. The common theme is cowardice in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that Harris had a rifle with a drum magazine, a shotgun, 2 pistols with 6000 rounds all legally bought. Surely some database somewhere should have flagged this and he should have been checked on.
Someone brought up Dunblaine. In the aftermath the British government clamped right down on guns and such a massacre has never been repeated.
are you sure about that? wasnt there one only about 2 years ago.
It should be a criminal offense to disarm your workforce like they did at the Naval Yard. This shooting, by one account, took thirty minutes to conclude! In the first few seconds you have panic and shock, but after that someone should have been able to do something! We should be able to prepare for it, and then react when it happens. I even just read a book on it, Fight, Flight, or Hide, by John Forsythe, but I’m sure there’s lots of resources out there that would be just as helpful.
http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Flight-Surviving-Shooting-ebook/dp/B00B9J8FL2
If somebody wishes to use a gun in a criminal act, then they’ll find one. About all you can do is to restrict the sale of the most dangerous, and unneccesary firearms (who needs an assault rifle for hunting?). While maintaining legal access for legitimate gun owners (for hunting, sports shooting, or “self defence”).
There should also be stricter screening and registration/licensing for those who wish to lawfully posess firearms. Rather than a free for all like kids in a candy store.
You’ll never stop gun crime from occurring. But you can minimize it’s impact in such cases, and hopefully cut down on the frequency of such incidents.
its quite simple
have your say