BBC`s unsurprising inconsistency.

Unsurprisingly, Johnson "rejected calls for Mr Cummings to face an inquiry over his lockdown-breaking trip" (Star, 28/05/20), and similarly, Emily Maitlis was reprimanded by the BBC for her introduction to the same subject on Newsnight. How dare she seem to suggest that Cummings`s excuse for his obviously illegal trip to Barnard Castle, an on-the -road eye test, was laughable, or that the government`s refusal to sack him was undermining government policy, and reducing further any trust people might ever have had in their incompetent prime minister?

          For many years, certainly since 2010, the BBC`s definition of "impartiality" appears to have become massively distorted, equating its meaning with the need to avoid upsetting the government with any justifiable criticism. By stating the obvious fact, accepted by a very large majority of the country, that Cummings "broke the rules", Maitlis was clearly doing her job well, and preparing the viewers for the inevitable discussion and analysis which would follow. 

         Again without any surprise whatsoever, the BBC did not adopt the same stance and reprimand the Newsnight presenter when she obviously breached the BBC`s  impartiality rules interviewing Barry Gardiner just prior to December`s election; Gardiner was barely able to make any points, or even finish sentences, so often and rude were the interruptions, and Maitlis`s criticism of all things Labour harsh, and clearly biased.

       Of course there was no breach of the rules when Cummings`s wife was invited on to the BBC`s Today programme on 25th April, coincidentally the day after her husband was reported in the Guardian as having attended Sage meetings where scientific and supposedly non-political advice on how to deal with the coronavirus crisis is discussed. After reading from her Spectator article, infamous now for its many factual inaccuracies, like not mentioning the Durham trip at all, neither she nor the programme`s presenters believed it necessary to warn listeners that the extract did not constitute even a summary of what actually had happened, and that all the accompanying evidence would be closely examined in the rest of the programme. That`s why Maitlis got into trouble, but the Today presenters and editor didn`t. Who could have guessed that the BBC could be so inconsistent??