Censoring Arab journalists

A Middle East­ern journ­al­ist friend recently had an oppor­tun­ity to sit round a table with a senior polit­ical fig­ure from the region.

He asked the man a fair, but crit­ical ques­tion. The politi­cian brushed it aside. When the meet­ing ended, the politi­cian sought him out for a quiet word, along the lines of:

Your own­ers sup­port our pos­i­tion on this mat­ter. They would be very unhappy to know that you are ask­ing such things.

The threat was clear. So when do you stop ask­ing questions?

Breaks off News At Ten

News At Ten returned. With no com­mer­cial break. Delib­er­ate? Per­man­ent? Odd feel­ing in what was oth­er­wise a very famil­iar pro­gramme pack­age (well, I did work on it years ago). But down to busi­ness. You want an old-fashioned cri­tique of an old-fashioned show? Start with the Bongs (the head­lines).

  • Hasnat Khan exclusive/Diana
  • Geor­gina Edmonds murder
  • Ant­arc­tic spe­cial report
  • Fabio Capello

Edmonds after Diana felt like too much crime at the top, and going through the show you have a lot of crime in the faux part one.

1. Hasnat Khan speaks — Neil Con­nery VT
2. Diana inquest — James Mates VT
3. North­ern Rock — Tom Bradby VT + live

4. Wrap: Ipswich murder/Peter Hain/Weddell reax

5. Edmonds murder — Penny Mar­shall VT

Still to come: Capello/Lifeboat rescue

[Place where the break should have been…]

6. Spe­cial Assign­ment — Bill Neely VT + live
Promo: Neely vlog

7. Capello — Geraint Vin­cent VT

Recap

8. Life­boat Res­cue — Tim Rogers VT

So seven pack­ages, two lives and a wrap — two of the pack­ages themed, “Spe­cial Assign­ment” plus “And finally.”

The style was spare and unin­trus­ive. Khan was a good get, but needed some con­text to shake the dust off his rather dull pro­nounce­ments. Diana going to live in Pakistan! Tell me more…

The story bal­ance made it feel a little too crime-time for prime time. The Neely vlog promo (which looked inter­est­ing) was given a lacklustre promo. But a very simple, clean, deliv­er­able programme.

The Life­boat Res­cue felt awk­ward as an “And finally.” Not exactly life-affirming — more an RTA on an inter­na­tional sea lane.

The only thing it lacked was a little of wit. Doubt­less that will come with time. The big audi­ence test will come on day two. For ITN’s sake, I hope it works.

There’s not much not to like here — which isn’t to damn with faint praise, but simply to point out that with news view­ers the less you can do to drive them away, the more will stay. But like bat­tery chick­ens, the odd sur­prise is good for them.

You can watch the Beeb altern­at­ive here. The set piece is John Simpson in Zim­b­abwe. Big old name plus big inter­na­tional story lead­ing equals state­ment of intent, and a con­ser­vat­ive reply to a con­ser­vat­ive challenge.

P.S. Re-read John Hockenberry’s cry of pain — You Don’t Under­stand Our Audi­ence — in case you think any of this really will shore up the crum­bling edifice.

The return of News At Ten

The old wis­dom would have been that the com­ing News At Ten battle is between two types of tele­vi­sion news. One side, the Beeb, driven by the need to inform. At its best patri­cian and pro­voc­at­ive. At its worst dull. The other side, ITN, driven by the need to tell stor­ies, at its best emo­tion­ally enga­ging, at its worst crass. And so let battle commence.

Except that time has mixed it all up. On the BBC side is former ITN golden boy Craig Oliver, who knows News At Ten so well he rein­ven­ted it for BBC1. On ITV’s, Alex Chand­ler, who has worked his way up through the ITV News ranks, and who has spent more time at ITN when News At Ten was off air than when it was on.

The real battle to cre­ate two news pro­grammes is not between the edit­ors but between two com­pletely dif­fer­ent meth­ods of pro­du­cing the news on television.

Take the BBC. Its 10pm news has a rel­at­ively mod­est budget, but it draws on the resources of the entire cor­por­a­tion – the world’s biggest broad­cast news­gath­er­ing out­fit – to fill half an hour.

The editor can order from long menus of home or for­eign news filtered and pre­pared by exper­i­enced teams. It’s the edit­or­ial equi­val­ent of din­ing at a hotel buf­fet, where suc­cess is meas­ured not by how beau­ti­fully the food is presen­ted on the plate, but by the quant­ity which has been stacked upon it.

So the job of the editor is not fill a run­ning order from those lists, but to act upon them and to shape the stor­ies in con­ver­sa­tions with report­ers. The ten­sion is between the incre­mental changes in a story and the need for a pro­gramme to tell it coher­ently. Without that ten­sion, an algorithm could con­struct a run­ning order.

And this is where the sheer size of the BBC com­plic­ates the job. The very range of stor­ies it can cover — the scale of its report­ing oper­a­tion — means that the 10pm is just one of a num­ber of outlets.

The uni­form “BBC-ness” of the mater­ial com­ing into a pro­gramme can over­whelm any indi­vidual char­ac­ter the bul­letin might aspire to. Craig Oliver has sharpened up the 10 no end but at the BBC, his is one edit­or­ial voice among many import­ant voices.

The BBC has strength in depth. You can rely on the play­ers to per­form. But where you can’t, chan­ging them is dif­fi­cult. Report­ers report on dif­fer­ent lines to dif­fer­ent managers.

The con­trast at ITN couldn’t be greater. News At Ten was the oper­a­tional focus of a bespoke news­gath­er­ing machine. Its report­ers were a family.

There were so few of them that they had to get on air reg­u­larly. An editor would know their indi­vidual strengths and weak­nesses so well that assign­ments could almost be tailored to them.

The small­ness meant that many of the con­ver­sa­tions were unne­ces­sary. The machine worked slickly and quickly. Report­ers knew what was expec­ted of them. When they failed to meet expect­a­tions, retri­bu­tion was swift.

And unlike the BBC where par­al­lel teams might col­lide, ITN report­ers knew that if they didn’t get the story, no one else would.

So how will the new News At Ten line up? On a good night the pro­gramme will be able to line up the likes of Bill Neely, Penny Mar­shall, Tom Bradby, Julian Manyon, Jon Irvine, Keir Sim­mons and half a dozen more besides.

The names are impress­ive, but they are a thin blue line. Report­ers have to make air. Fewer stor­ies can afford to fall down. If a big story fails to make the grade at the Beeb there are many oth­ers wait­ing in line to take its place.

The money that ITN gets to make the national and inter­na­tional news is just £30 mil­lion, and that cash has to fund other bul­let­ins too.

Whilst cash can still be found for presenter salar­ies, the budget for news­gath­er­ing stretches ever tighter. To bal­ance the books the tap will have to be turned off some weeks. View­ers don’t get told. No graphic appears to say that this week the news is run­ning on empty.

For­eign news suf­fers most. Every pound spent has to be seen on air. No bad thing, ITV bosses might say, and few would argue that ITN is not adept at parsi­mony. Fewer still would argue that parsi­mony has given way simply to poverty.

So, for Patrick O’Brian fans, the con­test shapes up as an under­manned sloop against an unwieldy ship of the line.

But to look at the battle purely in journ­al­istic terms is to miss the point. This is not an encounter the audi­ence is cry­ing out for. It watched News At Ten come and go with barely a mur­mur. Its mod­ern incarn­a­tion is a far cry from the pro­gramme that sat in the top ten and com­manded a reg­u­lar audi­ence of 12 mil­lion five nights a week in the late 1960s.

So will this be tele­vi­sion news’ mel­an­choly, long, with­draw­ing roar? Let’s hope that amid the cuts, there’s still some thrust.

[My column from Press Gaz­ette]

What’s gone wrong at Al Jazeera English?

Check out the anonym­ous piece below on Al Jaz­eera Eng­lish, pos­ted — bizar­rely — in the com­ments sec­tion of a Dubai media blog on 26 Decem­ber, 2007. It cer­tainly chimes with some of the things I’ve heard. And fur­ther below, more on soft-pedalling re. Saudi Ara­bia at AJE’s Arabic sis­ter chan­nel:

What’s gone wrong at Al Jaz­eera English?

Al Jaz­eera Eng­lish, a one bil­lion dol­lar pro­ject fin­anced by the Emir of Qatar and based in the small Ara­bian Pen­in­su­lar, prom­ised a fresh per­spect­ive on world news. The crit­ics may have hailed the chan­nel and com­pli­men­ted its unbiased report­ing, but behind the scenes things have not been nearly so suc­cess­ful with mor­ale at the sta­tion on the decline for the past year.

Al Jaz­eera Eng­lish (AJE) prom­ised to give voices to the voice­less. Unfor­tu­nately for staff at the Doha base of AJE, the voice­less have turned out to be the very staff try­ing to pro­duce the news.

In an extraordin­ary meet­ing held last Thursday, a tired look­ing Nigel Par­sons, Man­aging Dir­ector of AJE, took ques­tions from an angry group of over 100 from all levels of the com­pany. Up to then, staff have had to keep their com­plaints to them­selves. Unfor­tu­nately for Nigel Par­sons he walked straight into a vol­ley of extraordin­ar­ily upset staff who were not hold­ing back with their venom.

What has happened at AJE? What led to Nigel walk­ing into the verbal equi­val­ent of a lynching?

Delayed for over 18 months, it began trans­mit­ting on 1 Novem­ber, 2006, but much like some of the new build­ings in Doha, almost imme­di­ately cracks began to emerge. If one was to pin­point the exact moment a nail was hammered into the heart of AJE, it was per­haps in the 48 hours before launch, when a fate­ful decision was made, to change the name from Al Jaz­eera Inter­na­tional to Al Jaz­eera Eng­lish — a small change on the face of it, but behind the scenes the change was more than just a name.

It was at this moment that AJE would no longer be a stand alone chan­nel with all of its own in-house ser­vices but would become part of the Al Jaz­eera Net­work, this Net­work includes sports, doc­u­ment­ary and children’s channels.

Overnight senior depart­mental man­agers and their staff became obsol­ete. Man­agers of fin­ance, pro­gram­ming, per­son­nel, tech­no­logy, engin­eer­ing and oth­ers sud­denly found them­selves answer­ing to exist­ing man­agers with their own staff. None sur­vived 12 months.

Imme­di­ately the qual­ity of ser­vice dropped. This came as no sur­prise to staff in Doha, and what was clear to staff seemed unex­pec­ted to the new man­agers. With no new staff, exist­ing teams of people used to deal­ing only with Arabic Al Jaz­eera, now had over 400 new staff — mainly from West­ern Europe — to deal with. The depart­ments most under stress were also the most import­ant ones — per­son­nel and finance.

This added work­load res­ul­ted in long delays to fam­ily visas, med­ical check-ups (man­dat­ory for expats in Qatar) and con­tract issu­ance. Now many people accep­ted the ini­tial delays as part of doing busi­ness in the Gulf, a place where gla­cial is the term used to describe any busi­ness activ­ity. Only the ser­vice didn’t get any bet­ter, and things deteri­or­ated further.

The lack of a ded­ic­ated per­son­nel depart­ment has meant chronic delays in hir­ing addi­tional staff. This, coupled with an unof­fi­cial ban on any staff being hired from Europe/Australia/NZ, meant man­agers were forced to scrabble through CVs to find people fit­ting the new profile.

Also man­agers were forced to obtain a clear­ance from the board of dir­ect­ors for all new mem­bers of staff, and if the board rejec­ted your choice for a pos­i­tion you were forced to go back to square one.

In addi­tion to this, and almost unbe­liev­ably, no one at AJE has been given a con­tract since June 2006, and the staff that were issued con­tracts were told shortly after they arrived that the prom­ised bene­fits were not guaranteed.

It was shortly after June that the cuts began — two flights home became one, full med­ical bene­fits sud­denly became sub­sid­ized only, and most con­tro­ver­sially, rumours star­ted fly­ing that school fees would no longer be paid. A dev­ast­at­ing blow to the many people who had brought their chil­dren to the Qatari desert. Many with large fam­il­ies now faced crip­pling costs of sky high school fees, forced up by an influx of expats that have flocked to the coun­try in the last couple of years.

Fam­il­ies that only 18 months ago were pre­par­ing a for new life in the desert King­dom now have to face the fact that they will have to return to their respect­ive coun­tries much sooner than planned.

Along with the imme­di­ate loss of bene­fits and the fin­an­cial implic­a­tions this has on staff a more fun­da­mental prob­lem exists at AJE.

Since the integ­ra­tion into the Net­work, AJE has found itself slowly being drawn into the archaic ways that the Arabic chan­nel had always run on. Thus, in 2007, the chan­nel was now being forced into work­ing prac­tices not seen in tele­vi­sion since the 1980s.

One of the fun­da­mental prob­lems was the idea of multi-skilling. In a mod­ern news­room it’s unheard of for an indi­vidual to hold a single role, journ­al­ists now edit pack­ages, a dir­ector can vis­ion mix, a cam­era oper­ator does sound, a sound-man does autocue, etc. News is now based around the idea. The res­ult of this and the mod­ern tech­no­logy involved in the new chan­nel, is a staff level half that of its sis­ter chan­nel, but the wage bill is not half.

A point of dis­agree­ment at the Arab chan­nel. For an out­sider it seems obvi­ous that it’s bet­ter to pay a single Director/Vision Mixer £40k p.a. rather than pay a Dir­ector £40k and the Vis­ion Mixer £40k — to any­one the sav­ing was clear, how­ever, to the bosses at the Arabic sta­tion these were unheard of sums to be paid to an individual.

To this end all salar­ies offered to staff since June 2006 have been sig­ni­fic­antly lower than ones offered before that date. This has com­poun­ded the employ­ment prob­lems of man­agers who face hav­ing to hire staff on some­times half the ori­ginal wage of their colleagues.

The prob­lem is that £40k for a Vis­ion Mixer/Director was already on the low side of industry scales and the same held true across AJE. Remem­ber these roles are based in Doha, Qatar, not cent­ral London.

Con­trary to industry assump­tions the com­pany were not hand­ing out gold bars at the arrivals lounge, the wages have only ever been con­sidered aver­age, what made the wage accept­able to many was the over­all pack­age of bene­fits includ­ing hous­ing, and the fact that due to Qatar’s huge oil wealth there is no income tax.

Now, of course, no tax may have attrac­ted a few, but talk to staff and the over­rid­ing feel­ing is that staff signed up to be part a his­toric chan­nel launch. It is this that has kept the chan­nel going des­pite the now chronic staff short­ages and the gradual erod­ing of benefits.

Now though it seems that the staff have had enough. Its not quite clear what the straw that broke the camels back actu­ally was, school­ing per­haps or the fact that in a coun­try where infla­tion runs at 15%, the com­pany seems to have ruled out any pay rises. Or it may have been the over­whelm­ing feel­ing that des­pite many mem­bers of staff put­ting in over 70 hour weeks and not tak­ing leave for over a year, Al Jaz­eera doesn’t really seem to care.

It seems that the ded­ic­a­tion of the staff that’s pro­duced the award win­ning pro­gram­ming no longer have any respect from the Al Jaz­eera Man­age­ment, the feel­ing that “we are being used” was a pop­u­lar sen­ti­ment of the meet­ing. Pas­sions are run­ning so high that when one mem­ber of staff sug­ges­ted a 24-hour strike a ripple of “hear, hears” filled the room.

And it seems that the voices and con­cerns raised in the past year have been fall­ing on deaf ears. It tran­spired early in the meet­ing that Nigel Par­sons, the Man­aging Dir­ector, is not invited to Al Jaz­eera board­room meetings.

Instead he admit­ted to a stunned room that he gained his inform­a­tion through his sec­ret­ary who talks to another sec­ret­ary who sits in on the board­room meet­ings. It would appear that even at the highest levels there seems to be a lack of respect.

And it didn’t not go unnoticed that when a Man­aging Dir­ector gets his inform­a­tion from his sec­ret­ary there must be fun­da­mental prob­lems with the com­pany structure.

And the res­ult of the reduc­tion in bene­fits, and a seem­ingly uncar­ing atti­tude from the Net­work, over 13 resig­na­tions this week alone.

The MD is bra­cing for more as many people joined on two year con­tracts between Novem­ber 2005 and June 2006. Al Jaz­eera could be facing a ser­i­ous staff­ing crisis.

Clearly some­thing has to give, with your staff threat­en­ing walkout, and resign­ing at an alarm­ing rate it would appear that things will only get worse before they get better.

The ques­tion is though, with a Man­aging Dir­ector seem­ingly cut out of any decision mak­ing pro­cesses, how much worse will it get.

Will the chan­nel become a one bil­lion dol­lar white ele­phant before it cel­eb­rates its second birthday?

Whilst mean­while, at Al Jaz­eera Arabic, accus­a­tions in the New York Times that it has — as pre­dicted — softened its tone in report­ing on Saudi Ara­bia:

The newly cau­tious tone appears to have been dic­tated to Al Jazeera’s man­age­ment by the rulers of Qatar, where Al Jaz­eera has its headquar­ters. Although those rulers estab­lished the chan­nel a dec­ade ago in large part as a forum for crit­ics of the Saudi gov­ern­ment, they now seem to feel they can­not con­tinue to ali­en­ate Saudi Ara­bia — a fel­low Sunni nation — in light of the threat from Iran across the Per­sian Gulf.

The spectre of Iran’s nuc­lear ambi­tions may be par­tic­u­larly daunt­ing to tiny Qatar, which also is the site of a major Amer­ican mil­it­ary base.

The new policy is the latest chapter in a gradual domest­ic­a­tion of Al Jaz­eera, once reviled by Amer­ican offi­cials as little more than a ter­ror­ist pro­pa­ganda out­let. Al Jazeera’s broad­casts no longer routinely refer to Iraqi insur­gents as the “res­ist­ance,” or vic­tims of Amer­ican fire­power as “martyrs.”

The policy also illus­trates the way the Arab media, des­pite the new freedoms intro­duced by Al Jaz­eera itself a dec­ade ago, are still often treated as polit­ical tools by the region’s auto­cratic rulers.

Do Readers Know What They Want?

That was the title of a speech by Vinod Mehta, editor of Indian magazine Out­look, as he picked up the Inter­na­tional Press Insti­tute award for expos­ing cor­rup­tion and incom­pet­ence in the Indian navy.

Here is a little excerpt:

[C]ontent is a mix of what the reader wants and what he does not want. The trick is to marry the two and make money.

Accom­pa­ny­ing the man­tra, is much loose talk that the old journ­al­ism is dead and a new journ­al­ism has been born. This new journ­al­ism is entirely based on reader or viewer demands. So, we are told the reader is king and it is the job of a respons­ible media organ­isa­tion to provide cent per cent satisfaction.

This pro­pos­i­tion is now so widely accep­ted that to argue against it is like whist­ling in the dark. Those who believe oth­er­wise are seen as cranks, out of touch with the con­tem­por­ary mar­ket — in other words the reader. If journ­al­ism is a con­sump­tion item like but­ter chicken, then why not give the cus­tomer the fla­vour and taste he wants. That, after all, is the first rule of free mar­ket capitalism.

I will just provide three examples of the con­fu­sion in read­ers’ minds regard­ing their expect­a­tions from the media.

One. Research shows unam­bigu­ously that most read­ers desire to read more inter­na­tional news. Yet, the inter­na­tional pages of a paper are the least read. Inter­na­tional news may be good for the soul but it does noth­ing for circulation.

Two. Read­ers insist that the price of their morn­ing paper does not mat­ter. It is such a vital part of their life that they would hap­pily pay the extra rupee for it. Yet, as Mr Rupert Mur­doch and Mr Samir Jain have demon­strated, print pub­lic­a­tions are extremely price sens­it­ive. You can bleed the oppos­i­tion by cover price cuts. The phrase ‘invit­a­tion price’ ter­ri­fies rival publishers.

Three. Read­ers will tell you that they want a single-section, com­pact morn­ing paper. They don’t want sec­tions and sup­ple­ments drop­ping out. Yet the oppos­ite is true. Papers with multi-sections prosper, oth­ers suffer.

I think I have made my point. We must lead read­ers, not be led by them. Really great journ­al­ism must do more than merely give people what they want. There has to be room for the unex­pec­ted, for stor­ies the pub­lic has no idea it wants until it sees them.

The reader is a para­dox. He fre­quently com­plains about neg­at­ive news being con­stantly repor­ted. But for all his clam­our­ing for pos­it­ive news, sur­veys show that people are more inter­ested in neg­at­ive news, sen­sa­tional news, news about crime, viol­ence and cor­rup­tion. The reader, ladies and gen­tle­men, is not king; actu­ally he is a nice hypocrite.

Policy Exchange vs. Newsnight: Round 2

Here is Policy Exchange chair­man Charles Moore using his Tele­graph column to attack News­night editor Peter Bar­ron in round 2 of the pop­u­lar Think Tank vs. BBC battle. Moore, a former editor of the Spec­tator, the Sunday and the Daily Tele­graph does not do him­self any favours, as you can see.

Over the sum­mer, Policy Exchange pro­duced the most com­pre­hens­ive report so far on the extent to which extrem­ist lit­er­at­ure is avail­able in Brit­ish mosques and Islamic insti­tu­tions. It is called The Hijack­ing of Brit­ish Islam. [pdf]

Muslim under­cover research­ers vis­ited nearly 100 mosques. In 26 of them, they found extrem­ist mater­ial — titles such as Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell (for answer­ing their hus­bands back), vir­u­lent insults of Jews and homo­sexu­als, pur­it­an­ical attacks on mod­er­ate Muslims, calls for the com­plete rejec­tion of West­ern soci­ety etc.

It was a big story, and as I shall make clear, none of News­night’s claims this week has dimin­ished its dimensions.

This is an unprom­ising start.

Policy Exchange had ori­gin­ally offered it to News­night exclusively.

News­night’s people were enthu­si­astic, but on the late after­noon of the inten­ded broad­cast, they sud­denly changed their tune.

Policy Exchange had offered them many of the receipts it had col­lec­ted from mosques as evid­ence of pur­chase; now they said that they had shown the receipts to mosques and that there were doubts about the authen­ti­city of one or two of them.

Given that the report was being pub­lished that night, the obvi­ous thing for News­night to do was to broad­cast Policy Exchange’s find­ings at once, allow­ing the mosques to have their say about the receipts.

There was no need for News­night to claim “own­er­ship” of the report. Instead, the editor, Peter Bar­ron, decided to run noth­ing. His decision meant the Policy Exchange report was not touched by the BBC at all.

What is extraordin­ary is that Policy Exchange went ahead and pub­lished it. Extraordin­ary, too, that they did not sub­sequently alert news­pa­pers that had run the story to the ser­i­ous ques­tions over their own research.

Bar­ron writes:

Mr Moore says the right thing to have done at this point would have been to “broad­cast Policy Exchange’s find­ings at once, allow­ing the mosques to have their say.” I dis­agree. I con­cluded it would be wholly wrong to give such prom­in­ence to the report without resolv­ing these doubts.

As you can see below, News­night hardly avoids such stories:


Moore con­tin­ues:

Mr Barron’s judg­ment of the Policy Exchange report came under attack from col­leagues [any names Charles?]: his flawed meth­od­o­logy — the ori­ginal decision not to broad­cast — had lost the entire cor­por­a­tion an import­ant story.

Mr Bar­ron decided to try to prove him­self right. In the private sec­tor, there is some­thing called “van­ity pub­lish­ing,” where people pay for their own works to be published.

Mr Barron’s van­ity broad­cast­ing was, of course, at the expense of the licence-fee payer. He put the crew of the flag­ship on to invest­ig­at­ing Policy Exchange’s receipts. For six weeks, they turned on the staff of Policy Exchange, who had come to them in good faith in the first place, and treated them like criminals.

The receipts that Policy Exchange had lent to them were impoun­ded, and cop­ies were dis­trib­uted to oth­ers without permission.

They were sub­jec­ted to com­plic­ated forensic tests. One of these, allegedly the most damning, was com­pleted over a week before Wednesday’s broad­cast, but with­held from Policy Exchange.

Although there was no scream­ing news urgency about the item, a cour­ier car­ry­ing the test res­ults sat out­side the offices of Policy Exchange’s law­yers on Wed­nes­day even­ing with the mes­sage that the think-tank could see the res­ults only if it agreed, before see­ing them, that it would go on air that night to answer News­night’s charges.

Of course, any alleg­a­tions about receipts are, in prin­ciple, a ser­i­ous mat­ter for a think-tank.

Policy Exchange bases its work on evid­ence, and so its evid­ence must be sound. The BBC did not give the think-tank the chance to invest­ig­ate its com­plic­ated alleg­a­tions prop­erly. Policy Exchange will now do so.

One com­ment on Moore’s column sums it all up:

If Policy Exchange did fake the receipts, then they are solely to blame for turn­ing them­selves into the story and obscur­ing the issue they were investigating…

And BBC cor­res­pond­ent Richard Wat­son (appar­ently) adds his own com­ment below:

We have never argued that there is no prob­lem with the dis­sem­in­a­tion of extrem­ist lit­er­at­ure in Bri­tain. I have broad­cast many reports on this sub­ject for News­night. But if some research­ers have fab­ric­ated even a minor­ity of receipts then what reli­ance should the pub­lic place on the testi­mony of the research team?

It is Moore, not Bar­ron, who should be con­sid­er­ing his position.