Mandela – BBC To Blame

[Update at end of post]

The papers have turned over page after page of every edition since the passing of Nelson Mandela was announced to coverage of his life, the struggle for democracy in South Africa, reaction from around the world, and the never-ending stream of tributes. But one media outlet cannot mark the occasion without the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre going in with both feet.

What's f***ing wrong with kicking the BBC, c***?!?

Yes, there can never be too much Mandela coverage, unless that coverage comes from the hated BBC. Then it becomes A Very Bad Thing Indeed. “BBC receives 1,350 complaints about 'excessive' coverage of Mandela's death after viewers are angered by decision to interrupt Mrs Brown's Boys and lack of time on storm” thundered yesterday’s headline.

So what was the problem? “More than 1,000 viewers have complained about 'excessive' coverage of Nelson Mandela's death on BBC services, including some who grumbled about a repeat of Mrs Brown's Boys being interrupted”. Er, hold it right there. That was a repeat that got interrupted? A repeat, as in the kind of thing that the Mail likes to kick the Beeb for?

For instance, there’s “And now on the BBC, another repeat: 63% of programmes on corporation's channels last year had been shown before” from last June, or on a more up-to-date seasonal note, there’s “Not again! TV's Christmas reheats: Almost half of BBC's festive schedule will be repeats... and rivals don't fare much better” from last Friday. But now repeats are sacrosanct!

And, as the man said, there’s more: passed-over Major Dominic Lawson has scraped the barrel for “Mandela was a giant - but how absurd for the BBC to compare him to Christ”. And did they? “Over the weekend, the BBC presenter Evan Davis suggested that the late Nelson Mandela should be ranked alongside Jesus Christ in the pantheon of virtue”.

Aren’t we being a teensy bit selective and slanted there, Dom? Go on, spit it out: “Admittedly, this came in the form of a question”. So nobody even “suggested” it, and you’re just full of crap. Besides, if you’re going to hammer anyone making that comparison, why not kick Peter Oborne for “Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was one”?

Ah, but that suggests even-handedness, and that isn’t the Mail’s game, which brings us to the tedious and unfunny Richard Littlejohn. “The BBC went berserk, clearing the schedules. If they’d approached the death of Mandela in the same way they handled Mrs Thatcher’s funeral, they would have invited on a few white supremacists in the interests of ‘balance’”. No thanks, I don’t want to look over there.

So it’s the usual display of rank hypocrisy. No surprise there, then.

[UPDATE 1840 hours: the Mail has doubled down on its BBC bashing by deliberately misleading readers as to how many staff the Corporation sent to South Africa to cover Mandela's memorial service today.

"BBC took 120 crew to cover Mandela memorial" read the headline, contrasted with "ITV has sent just nine staff". So what is the actual figure? We aren't told, as the Mail does not actually know.

Here's what the Beeb actually said: "Over a ten-day period, we expect to have deployed around 120 journalists, technicians and support staff to work on this huge international story".

Note how "deployed" becomes "sent to South Africa" in the retelling. Only at the end of the piece are readers told that the 120 "are providing coverage of the events from a number of different locations across TV, radio and online".

Which does not mean they're all being sent to South Africa. That's Dacre attack doggery at its finest]