I want to add my voice to those suffering disquiet at the treatment of Laura Kuenssberg that has required her to have bodyguards at the Labour Party conference.
Ignore for a minute that this is a party preparing for government and what this says about some of its supporters.
Ignore too the supposed right wing bias of the BBC, simply because the right think the exact reverse which suggests that overall it might be doing its job of alienating everyone (and I know the climate change argument that makes a mockery of the requirement for BBC balance, and the academic studies that suggest the bias is really to the right).
Look instead at the difference between Kuenssberg and Nick Robinson. Robinson is pretty disliked in Scotland. It is widely thought there that his coverage of the 2014 referendum was biased. Many are not inclined to forgive him. But as far as I know on an issue where passions are high he does not require a bodyguard.
I have to conclude that Laura Kuenssberg is being targeted because she is a woman. And that is unacceptable anywhere on the political spectrum.
But so too is any comment that moves beyond disagreement to abuse. I know a bit about this. I get it, often. And I have developed a sense for it: I can almost always anticipate the comment that will quickly turn into abuse. An example came from someone calling himself William of Ockham on this site yesterday: the innocuous turned into a personal diatribe very quickly, and that was a pretty innocuous one.
Much abuse here comes from the right. But let's be clear: it also comes from the left. Two years ago I was Jeremy Corbyn's guest at the Labour Party conference and now I am not. I have not changed one iota of my opinion on the way. But the abuse certainly happened: even John McDonnell issued an attack on my credibility as an economist in parliament when my main disagreement with him was over his initial, disastrous, backing for George Osborne's 2015 fiscal charter that led to such an embarrassing U-turn.
It's easy to attack the person and not the idea. I see the right doing it all the time, but I am certain the left is not exempt. And Laura Kuenssberg has suffered. You may not like her. You may not like her opinion. You may not like the BBC. And you can say all three. That's fair. But as for personal attacks, they're way out of bounds.
I am not saying I always get everything right: far from it. But when people accuse me (usually but not always from the right) of censoring this blog what they're actually saying is I keep those who abuse off it. Damned right I do. And I have every intention of continuing to do so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There may well be elements of sexism in some of the abuse thrown her way, but from what I can see the bulk of the criticism stems from the fact that she is an appallingly biased journalist, who clearly takes delight in running down the Labour party and in supporting the Tories.
This is simply not acceptable from a political editor at the BBC. It’s not just that she is biased but also that she has such a smug face when doing so. I can’t think of an example of another BBC journalist, male or female, getting similar stick…
This is the main issue, as far as I am concerned, and not her gender.
I would have thought the main issue was that threats of violence are unacceptable.
By ‘main issue’ i mean the main factor behind all the abuse and criticism she is getting.
I would 100% agree that if there have been physical threats to Laura Kuenssberg it is totally unacceptable. But have there been? I don’t include hissing / booing as such a threat, albeit that is clearly unpleasant. I’ve not read anything about what threats have been made that caused a decision to have bodyguards. Or is this just a way of smearing Labour / Corbyn supporters? Laura Kuenssberg has been found on at least 2 occasions to have acted in a very definitely anti Corbyn way- the editing of Corbyn’s comments on the use of shoot to kill, for which the BBC acknowledged the wrong doing, and the resignation of a Labour MP on air.
I have not the slightest doubt there have been very violent threats
When I’ve had them I am one hundred percent sure she has, many times over
Your main claim is that K is being targeted with violent threats because she is a woman, but when challenged as to whether she has really received threats, your argument that she has, is actually that you yourself have received such threats. But the fact is you are not a woman.
If you are getting such threats, isn’t the idea that K gets them because she is a woman, somewhat discredited?
I have to say I am of the view that this is almost entirely got up, and for political reasons. You are not asking or getting police protection. Acceptance of that protection, and more especially the reporting of it, is to make a political point.
I recall when there was that petition against K, which was quickly taken down, after supposedly an avalanche of hostile sexist tweets, and looking to find them and find it almost impossible to find any. Lots of criticism, and one “cow”, but nothing more.
Disappointed you are buying into this narrative.
I am deeply disappointed that you can write such a comment
Do some basic research and it takes seconds to realise that women received abuse on a scale vastly greater than men do: I was making that point clear and you chose to ignore that
You might want to reflect on that
And for the record, the police have discussed protection with me in the past
I am deeply disappointed by your tone
Sorry you are disappointed. I think a little research would however actually bear out my point.
A Demos study in 2014 found that male celebrities, politicians and journalists actually received rather more abuse than their female counterparts – https://www.demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-male-celebrities-receive-more-abuse-on-twitter-than-women-2/.
My own “research” – looking for all those offensive tweets about K -, as I mentioned, drew a blank.
Craig Murray did something similar but in more detail, and similarly struggled to find offensive material – various pieces from last year and https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/manufactured-smears-establishment/
Pew has some research – http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/14/men-women-experience-and-view-online-harassment-differently/ – suggesting that men and women react to abuse in different ways – men are less bothered by it – but I think it is simply not true to say “that women received abuse on a scale vastly greater than men do.”
Needless to say this isn’t the picture you’d get reading the Guardian.
My point however is not to diss the Guardian – they are hardly alone – but to make the point that this is got up for political purposes. The same I’d suggest goes for rows on anti-semitism.
It isn’t the impression I get from talking to large numbers of women
Many of whom won’t go near social media for fear of abuse. But you and Craig Murray aren’t sensible enough to appreciate that and live in your own little male bubbles
Respectfully, what I think to be your misogyny is not appearing here again
Well said.
I’m no misogynist thank you very much.
But I’ve watched Ms K very carefully over the years and I am heartily sick of her double standards. I’ve grown sick of her sneering at those who are trying to make a better world and being respectful to those who perpetrate unfairness. I was fascinated watching how uncomfortable she was during the last election as the Labour vote came in. There she was like coiled spring – just waiting to stick the boot into Corbyn as May ‘wiped the floor with Labour’.
Instead she ended being rendered almost speechless by what actually happened. I was there that night – I watched her. Cowed does not describe it. For all her alleged insight she did not have a clue what was going on. That is because she was one of those who believed (and spread the word perhaps) that Labour would be destroyed. ‘Ever heard of hubris Laura?’ I said to myself. Poor thing – for once she was not the news or the news she felt we ought to hear. Instead we got real news for once that night.
Nick Robinson should not be a BBC reporter. Anyone who has been in politics should be forbidden to be a correspondent. He’s a pure libertarian in the Buchanan sense. Hear him berate people fighting for their jobs for being ‘self interested’. He ignores the self interest of course of those driving reductions in wages and rights at work – just like a good Bucho-libertarian would. But I ask you – who wouldn’t fight to keep their job or their rights? He should be dismissed.
Having said all of this, you are right though Richard. Robinson does not deserve his recent health problems. Ms K should be able go about her business free from fear of being physically assaulted. Such sentiment is unwarranted. There are thugs both in the Left and the Right.
But this does not alter the fact that both so-called ‘political correspondents’ have sought to undermine efforts to stop the economic violence being dealt out to the weakest people in society by representing the left as not credible.
I wouldn’t harm Ms K if I met her but I’d certainly tell her what I thought about the ‘quality’ of her work (the same with Robinson).
Both Robinson and Kuenssberg share the same faults: they bring too much of their personal political baggage into work with them and there is too much emphasis on THEIR opinion. There have been better correspondents. We are ill served at present. Have you been interviewed by either of them? If so, how did you feel they treated you?
I’m rather bothered by you not being a guest of the Labour party this year but not that surprised. You are your own man. I’d just love to see you ideas tried that’s all.
There is no one who is objective
No one who is a political commentator is objective
And no one who criticises anyone in politics is above criticism themselves
But Kuenssberg I’d hated by UKIP and not much loved by many Tories
And look what she did to Trump
Of course she and Robinson are not perfect
But heaven forbid we get US style reporting, and we don’t
I agree with every word you’ve written.
I would add that it seems to me that Dianne Abbott was the first to call out yesterday’s abuse and need for protection. As the recent victim of truly vile abuse, that was, I believe, to her enduring credit.
But its interesting that as far as I know Diane Abbot has not required a body guard. Or if she has she has not made it public.
Well,
This is the Guardian “pick” from a busy BTL forum on this topic that is (worryingly) already closed at a mere 501 comments:
“Guardian Pick:
You’re confusing criticism of her politics (perfectly valid, and because she is a tory) with general abuse and misogyny (from nutters, and nothing to do with politics whatsoever).
The reason a body guard has been ascribed to her is because the bbc have made the same mistake as you. The overlap between labour party conference delegates and internet trolls is likely to be zero – she will be safer there than walking down the road.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/laura-kuenssberg-bodyguard-abuse-female-political-journalist-abuse
I don’t know enough about this to comment, except perhaps to say that the BBC may be right in erring on the side of caution.
I think they are
I’m no admirer but it is nothing short of outrageous that a reporter going about their business at conference should require protection.
I’m glad that Dianne Abbott, who herself has been a victim of horrendous abuse, has come out in support.
We really need to take the vitriol and plain nastiness out of our politics.
Ed Comment:
This comment was deleted for falling below acceptable standards
Just to put everyones’ mind at rest according to the BBC this morning Robinson was also given a bodyguard in Scotland.
Orla Guerin, who ran as a candidate for the Irish Labour Party for the European Parliament some years ago, is the BBC’s finest reporter and the best reason why those previously involved in politics should not be excluded from becoming reporters.
I think it’s possible for a journalist to have an opinion without being partial. This sometimes confuses many of Laura Kuenssberg’s critics. She is clearly excellently sourced and is a fine journalist.
“She is clearly excellently sourced and is a fine journalist.” She’s clearly very capable, but she is certainly far from a fine journalist as to bring the BBC into disrepute. Take for just one example her report of Nicola Sturgeon’s call for a second independence referendum after having failed to get any meaningful engagement from the UK Govt on the subject of Brexit and Scotland having voted overwhelmingly to remain: Sturgeon was explicit about the timing, that it could only happen once the negotiations has been completed and we knew what we were dealing with. Laura Kuenssberg tweeted that ‘sources’ had confirmed Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon would ask Scotland to ‘vote blind’ on independence (meaning they would have to vote without knowing the terms of the UK’s Brexit deal.) The tweet was shared over a thousand times, and became a popular story in the Westminster media. And it echoed the allegations of Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May. When challenged with Sturgeon’s actual and publically stated position, she replied that she was only reporting that sources had said it (presumably, someone close to either the Tories or L.abour?) That is so far short of acceptable standards of journalism as to bring the BBC into disrepute.
Is she really thought to be in danger? I had assumed assigning her bodyguards to be propaganda -based theatre.
Which begs the question: will she be assigned body guards at the Tory conference? (or the lib dems for that matter)? BTW I agree 100% with what Pilgrim said – spot on.
All abuse of this kind is appalling. One of the drawbacks of the internet is that people post what formerly they would have confined to boozy nights in the pub.
There is a serious problem at the BBC (and of course the print media are even worse and out of control) and that is of bias. It’s not good enough to say, “well both side complain so it must be about right”. Nor is it sufficient to admit that everyone has their biases. When criticised, the BBC always defaults to the “impartiality” mantra, but never produces any independent, research evidence to support its contention.
I’ve mentioned Tom Mills’ “The BBC: Myth of a Public Service” before. As an institution is was born as part of the establishment and remains so.
Or you could wonder whether the story had proper journalistic scrutiny:
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssberg-bodyguard-really.html
Also see Craig Murray: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/manufactured-smears-establishment/
A selection of ‘best rated’ Daily Mail comments from a couple of articles about Diane Abbott and the racist/misogynistic abuse she has suffered vs. a couple of more recent articles about Laura Kuennsberg and the misogynistic abuse she has suffered…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Diane Abbott abuse:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4227154/Racist-sexist-abuse-putting-women-Diane-Abbott.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4239316/Diane-Abbott-reveals-daily-racist-sexist-abuse.html
“The only ‘racist’ keeping women away from politics is Diane Abbott..”
“No people don’t like you because of what you are, how you act and how two faced you are”
“Such individuals ALWAYS accuse others of their own faults.”
“I think the abuse she has suffered is because she is useless. Nothing more, nothing less.”
“People who cant get ahead by their own merits will always play the race/gender/minority card. It’s how they excuse their own incompetence.”
“May I suggest ms Abbot that to stop the abuse you stand up for great Britain stop being a hypoctite remove yourself from front line politics because from my standing I find what you say abusive and offensive.”
“This is smoke and mirrors to deflect from incompetence.”
“May I suggest ms Abbot that to stop the abuse you stand up for great Britain stop being a hypoctite remove yourself from front line politics because from my standing I find what you say abusive and offensive.”
“Typical Abbot, play the racist card for all of her many failings”
“Do us ALL a favour and give it up then. The public would rejoice. Horrendous woman.”
“Let’s face it, as far as the liberal elite are concerned, she’s bullet-proof. Any criticism of her – or her political views – can simply be dismissed as what they call ‘misogynoir’, ie, sexist and anti-black.”
“I don’t like the woman so does that mean I am racist, I don’t like little kranky up north and she isn’t black, sometimes she has no sensible reply so she pulls the racist card, I’m not saying she is lying because there are certain people who will always be like that but not all of us are racist we just don’t like her and what she does.”
“Now playing the victim?”
Laura Kuennsberg abuse:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4920454/Diane-Abbott-slams-trolling-Laura-Kuenssberg.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4914312/Laura-Kuenssberg-shielded-security-Labour-meeting.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4916908/McDonnell-vows-sort-abuse-BBC-s-Kuenssberg.html
“Yes the Labour Party is for sure, the real nasty party, it always has been the party for aggression!”
“Did you know that immigrants often spit on our armed forces when they parade. I suppose Corbyn and his nasty mob would support this too.”
“What a disgusting bunch they really are. God help the country should this rabble ever get into power again.”
“The compassionate, caring, inclusive, tolerant preaching Left – you’ve got to love them.”
“The announcer does not need a bodygaurd just a bar of carbolic soap to wash away the stench of hypocrisy coming from the labour party. They released they vile attack dogs now their trying to rein them in following their vile campaign of harrasment.”
“The ‘people’s party’. Think not”
“Well that says everything you need to know about the current state of the Labour Party. Speak against Lord Jezza and spend the rest of your days hounded and needing bodyguards just to do you your job.”
“Bunch of thugs.”
“The Left, who demonise the Right at the drop of a hat, but if you try and demonise them they threaten your life.
“Oh dear! After all Kuenssberg and the BBC have done for Labour the least you’d expect is a bit of gratitude!!! If this is how they treat their supporters their opponents stand no chance!!!”
“She’s an excellent journalist and the Labour taliban have no right to abuse or intimidate someone merely for disagreeing with them. We’re supposed to be a democracy.”
“Regardless of this twit from the BBC clearly the NLP (Nasty Labour Party) are intimidating people, go to a Labour Rally, try to have a sensible discussion on important matters and see what happens. Speaks volumes”
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
It seems some types of abuse are more acceptable than others?
I do not condone misogyny or racism in any form, nor do I deny that there are likely individuals affiliated with the Labour party and left wing politics more generally who are responsible for disgusting hate speech.
But do I think there is a horrific imbalance in the way this debate is covered in the media, with the left consistently portrayed as having an issue with abuse and thuggery, whilst such acts are mostly brushed under the carpet (or at least receive far less criticism) when they come from the right.
Looking at the articles linked to above, for example, there is a clear difference in the way the abuse levied at Diane Abbott is framed versus the abuse levied at Laura Kuenssberg.
The Diane Abbott articles comprise mostly of quotes from Diane Abbott, and do not contain a single criticism or judgement of those responsible for this abuse from the Mail itself. Nor do they attribute this abuse to right-wing politics.
In the Kuenssberg articles though, the Mail freely uses prose like:
“Ms Kuenssberg has been subjected to a tirade of abuse from left-wing supporters in the past 18 months for her alleged bias against Jeremy Corbyn”
[Note, it is not just ‘alleged bias’ as the BBC Trust found her coverage of Corbyn’s “shoot to kill” comments to breach impartiality and accuracy guidelines]
“She has received a barrage of abuse for her coverage of Mr Corbyn, dating back to his dismal cabinet reshuffle at the start of 2016”
“BBC political editor given protection after wave of abuse from Corbynistas”
“As Labour faced pressure to act to curb the vitriol today…”
There is abuse from all sides
I condemn it and those who promote it
And let’s stop making doing so a sided issue
Richard, of course such abuse should be condemned universally and without caveat. And I do just that.
But this inevitably becomes a ‘sided issue’ when different standards are applied to left and right in the public sphere as a result of political bias, whether that bias is intended or not. Do you not recognise that?
What alternative is there? For those disproportionately castigated to not acknowledge or respond to the very uneven playing field they are playing on?
This is not a defense or promotion of behaviour most of us find abhorrent no matter what colour rosette the perpetrator is wearing. Just like it wouldn’t be seen as a defense of armed robbery to highlight the unjustness of one armed robber receiving a sentence of 20 years only to find out that his cellmate, who committed a similar armed robbery under similar circumstances, was sentenced a week earlier and only received 10 years for essentially the same crime.
You can criticise the BBC
You can criticise specific reports
But to abuse the journalist is not on
The issues are entirely different
Hear hear, Richard.
I am reminded of this essay by Charles Eisenstein on the consequences of dehumanising the opponent: this is how war begins, he warns. The essay has US politics as its context but the message is clearly universal.
“Dehumanization is a predecessor of war. When you see your opponents as subhuman in their morals, conscience, or intelligence, then you will have to defeat them by force. Moral or rational persuasion won’t do it. That is what the above-quoted comments imply.
The dehumanization runs top to bottom, from the headlines in major news outlets to the comments on Facebook and Twitter. Photos of political candidates chosen to provoke contempt, statements taken deliberately out of context… the no-holds-barred tactics of war. Both sides feature the most outrageous comments made by partisans of the other side, seeking to indict all of them through guilt by association.”
https://charleseisenstein.net/essays/this-is-how-war-begins/
This is a genuine question for Richard: have you ever felt that you were under actual threat of physical abuse, that the written (and verbal?) abuse you receive would translate into actual physical harm? I have a theory behind that question, which is that the underlying enabler of this is degrees of anonymity – the dehumanising mentioned above in Ian’s post. Electronic communication, even when using identifiable names, very easily turns the other person into an abstract. I’m not so sure that this translates into person-to-person violence very easily (though clearly, it does happen in extremis.)
Yes, I did
A suggestion;
“have you ever felt that you were under actual threat of physical abuse”
is probably a non-useful question to ask of a person because, with the greatest of respect to Richard, almost everyone has a very inaccurate perception of risk/threat to themselves. Remember, many, many people are afraid of zombies, ghosts and vampires and they don’t exist.
The better assessment might come from a practiced and professional person in risk management or personal security, the intelligence services or the police sections trained in threat assessment. I have no data for the particular circumstances in which Richard felt in danger but in many dealings with those professionals listed above their overwhelming conclusion is that the risks/threats were minimal in almost all social circumstances. The risks are normally very slight and easily avoided. And almost everybody does not have the ability themselves to assess that risk realistically.
I have no doubts at all that Kuennsberg walking around the Labour conference halls and surrounds does so under no real danger at all as a number of the links and information posted above indicate.
Interestingly blithe comment on the risk and security industry. Which is massive and growing and extremely expensive and very unreliable. Think ‘War on terror’.
The security industry thrives on the insecurity issues of its paymasters. Those who don’t pay are generally just being paranoid or hysterical.
It is a valid point that human beings are not well equipped to evaluate risk. The gambling industry would not exist otherwise.
Evaluating risk is complicated. It’s not enough to calculate odds, consideration must also be given to the consequences of making the wrong call. People buy lottery tickets against massive odds, but risk little on the punt. If there was a booby prize (at the same odds) of sudden (literal) death the risk equation would be different in most people’s estimation.
It’s also worth noting that (if I understand this correctly) the only source for the story of her needing a bodyguard is the Sun – I believe that neither she nor the BBC have made any comment on it.
Thoughts?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/manufactured-smears-establishment/
Craig Murray is a fantasist living in his own little bubble
A Tim Worstall for the left
Every movement has to attract such people
I’ve been reading his blog on and off for a year or so and have found him pretty straight forward and not inclined to any more fantasy than a lot of other prominent bloggers. He often includes references to back up his statements. But unfortunately, the nature of blogging inclines towards sound-bites rather than considered argument.
Anyway, he’s likely to become bankrupt thanks to English libel laws which seem to be a gravey train for those who don’t like certain opinions and serve to discourage “fearless investigation” as evidenced by the “Bouncing Czech”, Saville and others.
I regret the libel action – I hate the libel laws
But I have rarely found his opinions worth noting
Multiple reports and sightings of Laura at Labour conference completely debunk the idea that she needs a bodyguard. It would appear that the S*n has been making up stories again useing there tried and tested ‘source’ (note the singular).
https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssberg-bodyguard-really.html?m=1
But to be absolutely clear. No one should intimidate or threaten another person. It is not now and never will be acceptable.
Regarding Kuenssberg, it probably doesn’t reflect well on me that I’ve become so cynical about the motives and actions of the BBC ‘News’ operation that I think it entirely likely that this is a manufactured story.
Of course, equally, this doesn’t reflect well on Ms Kuenssberg, her predecessor and the BBC News operation as a whole whose actions in recent years have been so appallingly unbalanced
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are that it is one. Everything we’ve seen from Kuenssberg, Robinson et al points to them following a distinctly right-wing agenda.
Unless you’re right wing
When you think the opposite
Hi,
Couple of important points
re: BBC Bias
Your contention that the BBC alienate everyone and therefore are not biased is a common one. The BBC is made up of individuals, each of which will show varying levels of bias. It has been shown that the BBC as a whole is economically conservative to the centre-right and socially liberal to the centre-left.
As a simple example this means, in general, the Today programme coverage of Politics and news is biased to the centre-right whilst the News quiz is to the left. This is extremely important to recognise, since the consequences are significant.
re: Laura K
As an individual she is highly professional and works damned hard for not enough money. The *need* for a bodyguard is highly debatable. That the BBC have chosen to be cautious does not make this neccessary. It is a judgement they have made.
I would like to know if there have been any circumstances this week where they feel vindicated by this decision at the conference in Brighton. Because if not, this should be equally widely reported and debated.
Mark
Factual note: Nick Robinson said on BBC Radio 4’s PM today (27 Sep) that he did have a bodyguard during the 2014 Scottish referendum.
That’s an interesting one, and plays into AllanW’s comment on the perception vs reality of risk. I can’t say about the issue of Brexit, but I can say for sure that the violence in the Scottish referendum was almost exclusively one way (and police charging and convictions back that up): as the Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation remarked just before the vote, it was a campaign noteworthy for the loverwhelmingly civil but passionate way it was conducted (indeed, he released this statement to the media as a rebuttal to accusations in a newspaper article quoting the then Scottish Labour leader suggesting that Scotland was about to descend into carnage, and went on to warn that “Politicians and supporters of whichever point of view need to be mindful of the potential impact of intemperate, inflammatory and exaggerated language, lest they be seen to seek to create a self fulfilling prophecy”) Which of course has a lot to do with that perception too…
I know it’s just a keying error, but I just have to remark on the creation of a new word which just might catch :
“LOVERWHELMINGLY”.
We need this word. It’s beautiful.
🙂
Sir I have not been receiving your emails for very long but have yet to read anything from you anything about the abuse against Dianne Abbott which has been vitriolic .
I am well aware it has been
And I condemn it
For exactly the same reasons that Jeremy Corbyn objected to all abuse today
I agree with him