Questions have been raised yet again about the impartiality of Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC's former political editor and current presenter of the BBC's flagship Sunday Morning Politics Show after she cancelled a scheduled interview with Boris Johnson after admitting on Twitter that she had "accidentally" sent her briefing notes to him in a message meant for her team.
Johnson currently has a new book to promote and was due to be interviewed this evening for 30 minutes on BBC One as part of a promotional tour for his memoir “Unleashed,” which is published Oct. 10.
There are all sorts of questions here, not the least of which is why is the BBC giving Johnson 30 minutes of primetime airtime on its lead TV channel in order to promote his book.
Especially since the BBC is supposedly impartial and Laura Kuenssberg has long been accused of being far too close to Johnson and has consistently made excuses for him.
READ MORE: Subscribe to The National for £10 to enjoy fantastic puzzles and perks
The disgraced former prime minister Johnson stands to make £4 million from his book deal and the BBC seems not only determined to help him cash in but also, and more importantly, assist him in his political rehabilitation.
The BBC News Press Team followed up Kuenssberg's admission with a Tweet saying that the gaffe made an interview “untenable” and “both the BBC and Mr Johnson’s team have agreed this is the best way forward.” The interview has already been filmed, but will now not be broadcast. Eastenders will be on instead, one soap opera replacing another.
Just how exactly could Kuenssberg send the briefing notes to Johnson "by mistake"? If it was a team group or a distribution list, why was Johnson on it in the first place? Kuenssberg is one of the BBC's highest placed and highly paid political journalists yet she still makes such a rookie error? It beggars belief.
No, this incident smacks very strongly of a different scenario - someone found out that Kuenssberg had sent the briefing notes to Johnson and was about to spill the beans. Kuenssberg probably thought getting it out there first would be a preemptive strike and neutralise a damaging story. Is this the first time that Kuenssberg has prepped Johnson? Or is it merely the first time that she's been found out?
Kuenssberg has long faced multiple allegations of bias during her career at the BBC, in particular that she makes little secret of her disdain for the left of the Labour Party and has often been accused of cosying up to the Conservatives when they were in government.
In 2017, the BBC Trust concluded that Kuenssberg had broken impartiality and accuracy guidelines while interviewing then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. She had falsely reported that Corbyn disagreed with the use of firearms by police in emergency incidents such as the terrorist attacks in Paris – later comparing Theresa May’s anti-terrorism policies. However, the Trust later stated there was no evidence of intention to mislead.
In 2019 she falsely claimed that a Tory staffer had been assaulted by a Labour activist outside Leeds General Infirmary where then health secretary Matt Hancock was meeting with bosses. After the meeting, Hancock was booed and jeered by a small group of protestors. Kuenssberg retweeted Tory press office claims, later proven to be false, that a Labour activist had assaulted one of Hancock's aides as he made his way out of the meeting.
In May 2020, Kuenssberg faced criticism after appearing to quickly jump to Cummings’ defence over the Barnard Castle scandal. Cummings had broken lockdown regulations to drive to Barnard Castle. It was revealed by the Guardian and the Mirror that Cummings had travelled 250 miles from London to Durham to visit his parents while sick with coronavirus.
Kuenssberg tweeted a defence of Cummings saying: "Source says his trip was within guidelines as Cummings went to stay with his parents so they could help with childcare while he and his wife were ill - they insist no breach of lockdown."
It later transpired that her "source" was Cummings himself.
Cummings gave an evidence session to MPs on the joint Health and Science Committee in May 2021 saying he “drove the media mad” the previous year because he “essentially stopped talking to almost all journalists almost all the time” during the pandemic – except for Kuenssberg. He told MPs the BBC political editor was his main point of contact, having “unauthorised” discussions with her to keep her up to date on what was going on in government.
READ MORE: Laura Kuenssberg worst moments, from Boris Johnson to deleted tweets
Kuenssberg's latest admission once again raises questions about BBC's impartiality and the nature of the relationship between the public broadcaster and the government.
Former Sun journalist Russell Findlay had his first outing as Scottish Tory leader at First Minister's Questions today and was not best pleased when John Swinney countered his attack on the proposed new Scottish Care Service by reminding MSPs of Findlay's previous enthusiastic support for Liz Truss.
Findlay demanded that the Scottish Government put more money into frontline care.
To heckles from the Tory benches - Tory MSPs are continuing the boorish behaviour enabled by Douglas Ross - the First Minister said: “The Conservatives obviously don’t like hearing that Mr Findlay was a supporter of Liz Truss, whose economic and fiscal policies have undermined the public finances of Scotland. That is the reality that I’m going to point out to Mr Findlay.”
He added: “If Mr Findlay wants a lesson in reality, then I will tell him that I will not follow in the discredited and failed policies of the Conservative Party. We will make our choices here in Scotland to invest in our public services and to protect the people of our country.”
Once again all roads lead back to Westminster, in a report published in January, the Scottish Fiscal Commission noted that the “gap” in what the Scottish Government spent on devolved benefits versus what it got from the UK Government in the block grant was forecast to rise to £1.5bn by 2029. It is nonsensical of the Conservatives and Labour to pretend that this is not a reality.
This piece is an extract from today’s REAL Scottish Politics newsletter, which is emailed out at 7pm every weekday with a round-up of the day's top stories and exclusive analysis from the Wee Ginger Dug.
To receive our full newsletter including this analysis straight to your email inbox, click HERE and click the "+" sign-up symbol for the REAL Scottish Politics.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here