cricket and football

I have a confession: I’m an England cricket supporter. I want England to regain the Ashes this year.

But on the other hand, I’m less than enthusiastic (that’s as diplomatic as I can get) at the prospect of England winning the football World Cup in 2010, something that now seems a real possibility.

Despite the win against Iceland last week, it’s unlikely that Scotland will make the finals in South Africa. This is doubly bad news – not only will we have failed to qualify for the finals of a major tournament again, but we will also be subjected to that other national pastime – endless, pointless discussion over why Scots refuse to support Engerland.

I am only just recovering from the mass of coverage devoted to this topic during the 2008 European Championships. Remember that item on Newsnight, recording the reaction of Glaswegians to a car festooned with England colours in order to find out just how bigoted we are?

The more boring reality is that we are talking about football here and football supporters do not want their fiercest rivals to win. Hearts want Hibs to lose and Celtic love it when Rangers get beaten. The fact that many Scots cheer on anybody but England is basically the same as Ipswich Town supporters enjoying a Norwich City defeat. It really doesn’t mean that much.

It’s got nothing to do with our self-confidence, or lack of it, as a nation, and it doesn’t say anything about our wider relationship with England. It’s just football.

When it comes to cricket, I have always supported England. I am not quite sure why, but it’s probably to do with the fact that Scotland are not a Test playing nation which means we are not serious rivals. Scots – like the Welsh and Irish – have also played cricket for England so in some sense the England cricket team is a GB team. But that does not explain why I have followed England, because to be honest I am not a big supporter of other British sporting teams.

In truth, this is about sport and decisions taken about what teams people support can often look a little irrational. Many SNP supporters, for example, are Rangers fans, which seems unlikely given the sheer number of Union flags and renditions of Rule Britannia that accompany match days at Ibrox.

When I worked for the SNP, I remember being bemused at a colleague’s support for Tim Henman, when the rest of us in the office were not exactly regulars on Henman Hill. What did that tell us about anything other than which tennis players we liked? Nothing.

Much more interesting and meaningful in this regard, is the reaction in the London media to the troubles faced by the Scottish financial sector.

One of the more demeaning aspects to Gordon Brown’s premiership has been his constant references to British values – liberty and fairness – and the way they are presented as being unique to the United Kingdom. His real motivation, of course, is to convince voters in England that he is not really all that Scottish and that together we have forged what he calls a “British genius”.

Unfortunately some of his more trenchant critics in the so-called national (ie London) press now see the very fact that he is indeed Scottish as legitimate grounds for criticism.

The term “Scottish bankers” is now used as an explanation for the current recession. The fact that politicians born in Scotland were at the helm during the age of irresponsibility only adds to the sense that we as a nation are collectively to blame. Some of the writing in the traditional right-wing press has been astonishing in its invective, but even left-wing commentators have joined in.

After the break-up of the Dunfermline Building Society, the BBC broadcast an item on the ten o’clock news, highlighting the Scottish nature of banking failures. Fair enough, you might say, but I don’t remember a similar piece about Yorkshire following the disasters at the Bradford and Bingley and the Halifax.

Despite this onslaught, the heartening aspect is that very little of this has been picked up by ordinary Englishmen and women. Outside of the minds of excitable columnists, I don’t detect any rise in anti-Scottish sentiment, just as there has been no English backlash over the West Lothian Question or the contested levels of public spending in Scotland.

This gives me great hope that debates over the constitutional future of this country will not be dominated by unpleasantness on either side of the border over identity politics but by sensible argument over the best political and economic arrangement for both our countries.

decisions, decisions…

There were two massive stories for news organisations to cover this week – the G20 and the tragic helicopter crash in the  North Sea.

One of these – the G20 summit in London – would have been the subject of massive preparation – particularly by the BBC and other broadcasters.

The other, the helicopter tragedy, was the kind of news event that  requires quick and difficult decisions – both in terms of how to cover the story and where to place it in running orders.

Looking back over the week I still find it hard to believe that the BBC Ten o’  Clock  News decided to lead on Wednesday night with a long, long preview of the G20 rather than the North Sea disaster.

It seemed a clear case of  ”we’ve done the planning and we’re not changing it now, no matter what.”  But it revealed once again the metropolitan mind-set that can warp news values. 

 Nothing of substance had been announced from the G20 – because the actual summit had not even started – and there had been some demonstrations with limited violence in the City of London.  But this was indeed happening in London – and that surely can be the only reason why news editors decided that this was a more important story at that point  (I’m not belittling the importance of the G20 as a whole) than the terrible events off the coast of Scotland.

I didn’t see it myself but I know that some journalists in Scotland were outraged by the BBC News Channel’s coverage of  the First Minister’s statement on the helicopter disaster – essentially, I am told, cutting away from it to discuss among other things Michelle Obama’s dress-sense.

Last night, when admittedly something had actually happened at the summit, the BBC at one stage seemed to use most of its foreign staff to deliver pointless, mini-reports on the reaction in various capitals around the world: “James, can you explain China to us in 20 seconds?”

The tone of the coverage between the BBC Ten and Newsnight was also instructive – cheer-leading on the main news compared with greater scepticism from Paul Mason.

By the way, for a brilliant analysis, try this from The Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliot.

I’m not saying the BBC’s coverage of the G20 wasn’t slick or well-presented, but it seemed to lack substance and ultimately, demonstrated that it wasn’t only the Prime Minister who got carried away by  over-blown talk of the world coming together.

Not quite on the Jonathan Ross scale, but still…

I realise that a political blog isn’t the best place to complain about rudeness but I was taken aback by Andrew Neil’s handling of the discussion between Derek Draper and Guido Fawkes on the Daily Politics.

Iain Dale, rightly points out that the debate between the two bloggers was not the best showcase for political blogging. But, sadly, given their history there can have been few surprises that it degenerated into a petty slagging match.

Much worse, I thought was the sight of a Neil telling one of his guests, in this case Draper, to “shut up”.  There will be plenty of people of course who would have enjoyed that moment. But regardless of who the guest is, I think it is utterly unacceptable for a BBC interviewer to be so blatantly and aggressively rude.

Andrew Neil can be an effective interviewer, but his desire to be a player rather than a mere questioner is inappropriate. His views on Scottish nationalism for example should disqualify him immediately from a role that requires at least the pretence of impartiality.

GMS or Today?

Such is the inferiority complex of so many journalists in Scotland that they will treat Good Morning Scotland as if it is some Alan Partridge type community radio station up against the mighty Radio 4 Today.

This says more about their self-loathing than the quality of the respective programmes: if it’s Scottish it must be crap.

That’s not to say that GMS is not without its faults. As a former producer of the programme I was probably personally responsible for quite a few of those.  Since I left, an obsession has developed with conducting pointless “lives” on stories that simply don’t merit inclusion in a national news programme. Last week, there was what seemed like an endless series of interviews  about a school whose pupils were entering a competition to make salads for M and S.   Why?

But when Radio Scotland’s news output really breaks down is when it relies on editorial lines formulated in London. Today was a classic case in point. The news bulletins were running strongly on the line that there was massive snow disruption in England but Scotland had “escaped the worst.” That must have been interesting news to those stuck on the M8 or M77 trying to cope with horrendous driving conditions.  I suspect that this was a cue essentially cut and pasted from London with a Scottish paragraph added in. It seemed a combination of journalistic laziness (not bothering to re-write the top line) and an example of the Scottish cringe – it must be more important if it’s happening in England.

On the whole though, GMS is still the only programme worth listening to if you are actually interested in what is happening in Scotland. Today will have the occasional Jock-slots but you know, and they know , this is out of duty and because they have been told to get out of the M25 by the BBC Trust.

The occasions when GMS is in a genuinely no-win situation is when there is a major UK story or a story for which a UK Cabinet minister is the best interviewee. The story has to be covered but the producers know they are going to get a second division guest. This was the case today when Today interviewed Lord Mandelson about “British jobs for British workers” and GMS wheeled out Brian Wilson. 

Incidentally both John Humphrys and Jim Naughtie are clearly high-quality journalists and broadcasters.  But there is a real element of parody to their performances now. Naughtie’s “message to the nation” style reports on President Obama’s inauguration just seemed at times like a series of lectures, albeit stylishly delivered.

Humphrys’ assaults on politicians now just seem ritualistic. Today he tried to press the Business Secretary on what it must feel like for someone on Tyneside (ie short-hand for working-class, struggling) who fears having their job “nicked” (his words) by someone from, I think, Poland. I understand that he’s only asking questions, but to use that kind of language – the idea that “our” jobs are being stolen by the foreigners is just distasteful.

Oh and by the way – both programmes are doing really well according to the latest RAJARS – so what do I know?

Glasgow East – random thoughts

Before getting on to the politics, two odd things about BBC Scotland’s coverage of the Glasgow East by-election. First of all, and in a truly bizarre editorial decision, last night’s 1030pm Reporting Scotland seemed to virtually ignore this massive developing story. No insert from a reporter at the count; nothing with a political corr, just a trail to Newsnight on BBC2. It was left to the network news to suggest that something spectacular was on the cards.

Then today on Radio Scotland, there was massive excitement that David Cameron was calling for an election. This started to lead the news from about 0830 on. On a night when the story was all about the SNP/Labour you can’t blame Cameron for wanting to get into the story – but did his intervention really justify the top line?

As for the politics, once again this contest showed how out of touch the commentariat can be. Margaret Curran was an excellent candidate apparently – really? She’s a skilled politician used to dealing with the media, but her never-ending mantra that she would be fighting for the East End cleary irritated voters who knew that she and the Labour Party as a whole had taken them for granted for decades. 

The other main media misconception is that there was no demand for Independence. In fact the SNP established that a large number of Labour voters (maybe a majority) actually backed Independence even if they weren’t voting for the SNP. If there had been a mini-referendum on Independence in this seat, my guess is that there would have been a big Yes vote. That, however, is not part of the media narrative – protest vote, disaster for Gordon Brown – so it gets ingored. If journalists actually started to talk to voters their stories and comments might be rather different and more accurate.

Bucking the trend – or why Scottish newsdesks need to get better

Apart from communities “coming to terms with” tragedy there are few more over-used journalistic cliches than the idea of “bucking the trend”. In Scotland, in particular no story on house prices (and no newspaper or programme is complete these days without one) can be written without the observation that property north of the border is bucking the UK trend of plummeting prices. Good Morning Scotland were at it again this morning. This isn’t just rubbish language, it’s also rubbish journalism which reveals the inferiority complex of far too many Scottish news producers and news editors.

First of all, notice how Scottish house prices are only a story in relation to what’s going on in England. The reality of house price rises or falls in Scotland is not deemed interesting enough unless it is better than/worse than the situation in England. 

But the real issue I have with this “bucking the trend” nonsense is that Scotland is just different. In other words, if you like this kind of thing, the Scottish market nearly always “bucks the UK trend”. We bucked the trend because prices did not rise as fast as in London, we bucked the trend because Scots tend to spend a smaller proportion of their salary than people in England and therefore we are not susceptible to quite the same huge rises and falls as exist south of the border.  It would be unusual in fact if the market in Scotland started to behave the same way as in England. All this is explained by the FT, who unfortunately still can’t resist the inevitable bucking the trend reference.

What’s really needed is for journalists in Scotland – particularly BBC Scotland news editors - to stop looking at the London prospects and putting  a kilt on each story.  Another current example of this is knife crime. Although knife crime in Scotland has been a massive problem for years, and is still disproportionately higher than in England (yes, we buck the trend on that one too – in fact I saw some statistics recently that suggest the rate of knife crime in Scotland may now be falling)  the story is getting massive licks because it is a major issue in London in particular. 

Wouldn’t it be great if news executives in Scotland started to buck the trend for once and started to think for themselves?

Sources, news scandals and embarrassing secrets

The story running strongly on Radio Scotland this morning about the Iraqi interpreter now living in Glasgow tells us a lot about  BBC journalism and even more about the Labour Party.

First of all BBC journalism. This story first ran, to the best of my knowledge on June 13, in The Times, detailing how Iraqis who risked their lives working for the British Army were now living in squalid tower blocks in Glasgow.  If it was picked up at all by BBC Scotland – which I don’t think it was – it was given minimal coverage. 

Three weeks on and guess what – the story appears  on the network ten o’clock news last night; no doubt as part of the production team’s orders for more Jock-slots to appease those moaning Scots. This morning the story is leading the Radio Scotland bulletins and the Good Morning Scotland programme.

 Why is this now deemed the number one story in Scotland when three weeks ago it got barely a mention? There are two possibilities – first of all the BBC Scotland planning desk simply missed the original story, which can happen. More likely is that this is an example of the lack of self-confidence and subservient mindset that pervades BBC Scotland – all of a sudden it’s a big story because the network has picked it up.   If London thinks it’s big – let’s go for it.  Network interest is the only thing that appears to have made the decision-makers at Pacific Quay think this issue should be propelled from non-story to huge story.

As for Labour – what an indictment of decades of Labour government in Glasgow and dominance in Scotland that housing in our largest city is deemed so bad that Iraqis fleeing terror are disgusted at the conditions they are being asked to live in. This is not some sort of camp where asylum seekers are told to go - it is an ordinary tower block. The same kind of thought struck me watching Question Time last night when Scotland Office minister David Cairns was asked about the fact that life expectancy in the east end of Glasgow was lower than in the Gaza Strip. Mr Cairns replied that such comparisons were “unhelpful”. Yes, unhelpful to Labour who have to explain why they have allowed to such a dreadful situation to arise.

It’s as if poor housing and appalling life expectancy figures are embarrassing secrets which don’t fit in with the New Labour or New Glasgow narrative and therefore shouldn’t be shared with others.  These are major stories which deserve air-time in Scotland – regardless of pending by-elections or slots on the ten o’clock news.

Government abuse of state broadcasting

The news that the French president, Mr Carla Bruni, is seeking to tighten his grip on France’s state television service  seems alarming. The proposal that he and his Cabinet, rather than an independent body,  appoint the head of the public servcice broadcaster opens the door to direct political interference.  Opponents of Mr Sarkozy are already making comparisons with Silvio Berlusconi’s, albeit more direct, control of national TV.

Thanks goodness that there could be no question of the government of the day and the state broadcaster in this country colluding to damage the government’s political opponents.  Except that  perhaps the most blatant example of such a thing in any western democracy has taken place at the very highest level of the BBC. When the idea of a Scottish Six was first mooted – replacing the BBC’s six o’clock news with a programme produced from Scotland, the then director-general John Birt worked closely with Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson to scupper the plans, with the sole purpose  of damaging the SNP and Scottish Independence.

Birt subsequently boasted about this in his autobiography. Imagine if such a thing happened in France (or even Italy) – the Prime Minister of the day conducting a joint campaign with the head of the state broadcaster in order to damage an opposition party.  It all makes Mr Sarkozy’s plans look tame in comparison. 

More on BBC and Zimbabwe

On a different tack to my post yesterday, Danny Finkelstein, of The Times, also has concerns about the BBC’s reporting of the situation in Zimbabwe. He’s critical of the language used by the corporation’s World Affairs editor, John Simpson. Simpson’s remarks may have originally been taken from a two-way, where inevitably scripting is not going to be as tight as a written voice-piece or package script. I think Finkelstein still has a point, however, particularly over the word - outmanoeuvred. 

“Balanced” reporting on Zimbabwe

Listening to the excellent Good Morning Scotland programme this morning, which you can find here by navigating to the Listen Again button, I was struck by the programme’s coverage of Zimbabwe – in particular the question of balance and impartiality that it raised.  For some time now both professional journalists (most notably Martin Bell) and academics have debated the extent to which the key public service journalism ethic of balance should apply. This morning GMS seemed to cover the Zimbabwe story in classic “on the one hand, but on the other” style. After eight o’clock, a clip was played of the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, followed by an interview with the deputy information minister in the Zimbabwe government. An academic was then invited to essentially give his verdict on the competing claims. In particular he was asked by one of the presenters, Ken McDonald (incidentally one of BBC Scotland’s best journalists),  a question which went like this: “Both sides are blaming each other for the violence … how do we know where the truth lies?”  The interviewee gave a very firm response hostile to the government. But does the BBC really need to frame questions in this way – as if the claims made by the murderous regime of Robert Mugabe have any equivalence with those of the opposition. There are some instances when the notion of balance becomes ludicrous – for example, when one side is clearly lying to cover up a programme of systematic political murder.  Do we really need to hear those lies? I should declare an interest here – I used to produce Good Morning Scotland and also wrestled with these very issues; most notably during the Balkans wars. I remember regularly booking an articulate spokesman for the Serbs, who of course - as was his job -  put forward the point of view of Milosevic. At the time it seemed the obvious thing to do, to get their side of the story or to at least put their claims under scrutiny.  But looking back I don’t think I thought clearly enough about the proper nature and notion of journalistic balance.