KIM'S NO RONGER SO RONERY

The visit of Bill Clinton to the hellhole-that-is-North-Korea has been widely reported across the BBC today. It secured the release of two female American journalists sentenced to 12 years hard labour for 'illegal filming' (as I say, a hellhole). For that we can all be thankful. Except that it's not that simple...

*

On 'PM' today Eddie Mair went so far as to editorialise, calling the trip a "diplomatic success". (Is that for him to say?)

*

What does this 'diplomatic success' amount to? Kim Jong-Il kidnaps a couple of female American journalists to use as a bargaining chip with the US. The Obama administration finds out what Kim wants in return for their release. Kim demands a very high-profile visit from a famous American. The administration decides to give him just what he wants. Clinton visits Kim. Kim gets his photo-op. The journalists are freed. Kim's starving, imprisoned people remain not one jot less tyrannised. His neighbours remain not one joy less threatened. Is this what passes for a "diplomatic success" at the BBC these days?

*

What has been so conspicuous about today's coverage is the absence (so far) of any voices critical of the Clinton trip. Not one second of precious BBC air-time has been granted to a sceptical voice. The BBC website has been similarly free of dissent. Why?

*

Whether or not the Clinton trip is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing, a success or a failure, it is not for the BBC to say. Moreover, those very questions should be the meat and drink of the BBC's coverage, with supporters and critics clashing across the airwaves.

*

On 'Today' we had supporters only: John Everard, Labour's former ambassador to Pyonyang, and sociologist and Korean expert Aidan Foster-Carter of Leeds University (who writes for the 'Guardian'/'Observer') and on 'PM' there was another supporter, Miguel Marquez of ABC, former aide to Democratic senator Bill Richardson (who went to North Korea when Clinton was president).

*

Foster-Carter said "I know that already the predictable people are opposing all this and so on". He may know this, but Radio 4 listeners were not so fortunate. They ought to have been able to hear from the 'predictable people' too. F-C also said "Everyone should welcome the contact. The contact does no harm, although some would say that it's a concession and so on", but again no listener was able to hear a word from those 'some' who 'would say that it's a concession', and so on...

*

...and so on...

*

As well as praising Bill Clinton as that "sharp-eyed man", Jim Naughtie posed this leading question to his colleague: "This morning I spoke to our correspondent in Washington, Jonathan Beale, and asked him whether the Obama administration would view the visit as a success." Beale replied, " It's got the desired result. It's got the release of these two journalists."

&

And, thus, we end up back where we started.

*

NEWSNIGHT SAVES THE DAY, DESPITE KIRSTY

*

Finally Newsnight broke the silence & saved the BBC from total shame over this story!

*

Gordon Carrera's report gently raised some of the reservations expressed above and, at last, a 'predictable' voice was allowed to debate - and powerfully so. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and former Clinton advisor Jack Caravelli discussed the day's events with slurry Kirsty Wark. Mr Gaffney outlined the critics' case with considerable force and Mr Caravelli was a thoughtful and intelligent counterweight. The discussion was only marred by Kirsty Wark and her half-baked, Boosh-bashing questions.