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?
Steven Rose ● 1d