This man is the real Wallender

BAFTA may have got it right with best actress for Julie Walters as Mo and recognition for Mad Men and The Thick of It. But what could have possessed them to award Kenneth Branagh Best Actor for his simpering, unreal portrayal of Kurt Wallender? (There are many other series in which Branagh has been superb, just not this one). Don't the Academy know that there is only one actor who captures Mankel's brilliant Swedish detective perfectly - and that is Krister Henriksson (left), who has played the part in the Swedish series that is infinitely better than the BBC version. Thanks to BBC 4, we know this. Why doesn't BAFTA?

The BBC's boost for the BNP

I had deliberately avoided saying much about the Nick Griffin show before Question Time was broadcast, and only caught up with the whole thing last night on the Virgin + player. Having seen the resulting car crash, I am now firmly with Peter Hain in his view that this charade should never have been broadcast.

Of course, the BBC should give the minimum airtime required by statute to the BNP and their loathsome leader on news programmes. But this need not extend to Question Time, and it was utterly crass and self-defeating to turn the whole thing into a forum where an admittedly poorly prepared, ignorant and sweaty Griffin was made to seem like the victim of a liberal elite ambush.

This was the BBC at its absolute worst. First, it generates oceans of publicity to swell interest in the BNP and attract eight million viewers. Then, instead of either running a normal version of Question Time where the BNP leader's mediocrity might shine through without any semblance of victimhood, or introducing a savvy comedian to prick his pompous self-regard, the programme deliberately sought an unrepresentative audience and handpicked questions guaranteed to elevate the third-rate Griffin to martyrdom among a significant portion of the audience. [The idea that the producers don't decide in advance what questions they want is laughably absurd.]

It was frankly the worst of all worlds. When Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand engaged in their mindless antics with Andrew Sachs, they were penalised for their stupid stunt. The controller of BBC Radio 2 was forced to resign. But this exercise has been far more damaging as a vehicle for publicity for a racist and evil organisation than makes hundreds of thousands of minority community lives a misery. Who will take responsibility for that?

Poll position?

The BBC has been reporting an Ipsos-Mori poll showing Labour lagging the Liberal Democrats on the 25-27 September, not for the first time, as Anthony Wells points out. I have no wish to underestimate the challenge facing the party, but why did it not also report a more recent daily tracking poll from YouGov conducted on 27-28 September suggesting Labour is ten points ahead of the LibDems, having risen five points at the start of the conference? The BBC should either resume their former habit of ignoring polls, or avoid picking and choosing the ones that suit their narrative.

Andrew Marr's descent into the gutter

It is quite extraordinary to hear the justifications being made for Andrew Marr's decision to ask Gordon Brown whether he took pills for depression yesterday, even after the rumours spread on some blogs had been categorically denied by Downing Street. I am astonished that my old friend Barney Jones, who edits the programme, thought this fair game. This was the sort of gutter journalism from which the programme is usually immune, and its absence is one reason I watch the programme fairly religiously.

The sole purpose of the question was to embarrass the Prime Minister and ensure that any headlines in today's newspapers focused on this issue rather than what was otherwise a strong interview by the PM with a good policy announcement on the banks attached to it. As Alastair Campbell put it on his blog:

I know it will give him the passing satisfaction of pats on the back from journos whose backs he pats when they come on to do their 'excellent, as ever' reviews of the papers. But it was low stuff. I'm sure Andrew would agree that everyone has certain areas of their life that they'd prefer not to be asked about live on TV.

We pay the licence fee for programmes like The Street

I've just been watching the sheer brilliance of Jimmy McGovern's latest series of The Street on BBC 1, with superb performances by Bob Hoskins, Liam Cunningham, Frances Barber, Ger Ryan and Timothy Spall in a tale of one landlord's principled stance - and sweet revenge - against a local gangster's bullying. As with earlier series, the acting is great, the storyline gripping and the drama intense. It is everything that good TV should be. And it is for this - rather than the dismal makeover and 'reality' shows that too often dominate the schedules - that we pay our licence fee.

What's up with the BBC's coverage of the European elections in Ireland?

In the midst of last night's BBC European election coverage, which was typically light on factual information particularly outside the UK, the Irish results got a brief mention.

Having miscalculated support for Declan Ganley, setting up a live feed from Castlebar in Co Mayo, they were bit bereft when he seemed unlikely to win a seat in Ireland North West. So, the programme presented an utterly absurd graphic of what was happening in the Republic's elections. A similar graphic has graced the BBC website for the best part of the last day.

If one is to believe the BBC, the following has happened:

* Fianna Fail has gained three seats, as its Liberal grouping is shown doing just that. Now it is true that FF is joining that grouping after these elections, so I suppose that's a gain. In fact Fianna Fail has lost one of its seats and 5.4% of its vote. However, Marian Harkin, an Independent in Ireland North West who sits with the Liberal group is also likely to hold her seat in spite of Ganley, so the Liberals will probably have four Irish seats.

* Fine Gael has lost 8% of the vote, as the EPP is shown doing that. In fact, its support in Europe is a little up on what it was last time, at 29%.

* The socialists are shown as having a gain of one seat. That is likely to happen with Nessa Childers in Ireland East, though Labour is still just ahead as counting continues for the third seat in Ireland South, so two gains are still possible.

* The Left is shown as having two seats. Joe Higgins in Dublin is certainly a gain for his Socialist Party. But since Sinn Fein lost their seat to him, the Left still has only one seat (if Labour doesn't take the third seat in Ireland South, Sinn Fein might do so, giving the Left two seats, though it is the less likely result).

For the record, the final result based on the latest counts is now likely to be as follows

Fine Gael/EPP 4 seats (-1)
Lab/Soc 3 seats (+2)
FF/Ind/Lib 4 seats (-1)
SP/Left 1 seat (nc)
Ind/Dem group 0 seats (-1)

I do wonder about the rest of the election material on the BBC's wizzo website?

9pm UPDATE: Labour's Alan Kelly has taken that seat in Ireland South, so my earlier projection was correct.

Full disclosure

Well done to George Foulkes for his pricking the pomposity of BBC interviewers in this gem from News 24. MPs earn £64,000 a year; but News 24 presenters get £92,000, reveals Carrie Gracie. She will be popular in the BBC News canteen.

Isn't there a good reason why so few top Tories appear on Marr?

Iain is fulminating again about the dearth of shadow ministers on the BBC. But it isn't the BBC's fault that the Shadow Cabinet is so lacking in strong figures, is it? Apart from William Hague, Kenneth Clarke and Michael Gove, they are a bunch of lightweights with far fewer strong politicians than the cabinet.

The Marr programme is intended to feature interesting interviews, not PPBs, though I concede that we should see Andrew Lansley properly interrogated about why he thinks the best thing for the NHS would be to allow arrogant consultants to dump on patients from a great height or Theresa May questioned about the Tories' backtracking on welfare reform (though I suspect that's not what Iain has in mind).

But given the choice between having a minister who is doing something and a shadow minister who has nothing original to say, who can blame Marr for having Ian Rankin or Hugh Orde on instead. The truth is that the dearth of interesting shadow ministers says more about the Tories than the BBC.

BBC and Sky have every right not to broadcast the DEC appeal

The Disasters Emergency Committee is an invaluable organisation that helps co-ordinate the fundraising efforts of leading charities during natural disasters and famines. Its efforts in Darfur or after the Asian tsunami ensured more aid got to where it was most needed. There is also clearly a humanitarian need for aid and rebuilding in Gaza after the recent conflict. And the DEC is right to want to help co-ordinate such efforts. Indeed, I would encourage people to donate to their appeal using the embedded link here.

But it is wholly wrong to seek to bully broadcasters like the BBC and Sky, with large international audiences, into running the Committee's advertisements where to do so could damage the perceived impartiality of their news operations. Gaza is patently not a situation about which there is a clear consensus. Indeed, as Andrew Roberts pointed out this morning, some of the DEC charities have taken very clear sides in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I would argue that it is their right to do so, within the bounds of charity law, but it is most certainly not the role of news organisations.

So, I think Douglas Alexander and his Tory counterpart Andrew Mitchell were wrong to join the likes of George Galloway and Tony Benn in denouncing the BBC. And Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, was absolutely right not to intervene. Of course, the BBC has a bigger problem when it comes to impartiality in the Middle East, as its reports from the region sometimes show (exemplified in a piece by Tim Llewellyn yesterday, as noted by Danny Finkelstein).

But on this occasion it has taken a difficult but principled decision. And it has no reason to apologise for making it.

Ed Stourton's departure

The decision by the Today programme to sack Ed Stourton - a voice of calm moderation, intelligence and reason on a programme too often privy to sensationalism and pointless interruption - seems but another sign of the sorry state of the BBC these days. The manner of his dismissal - without telling him - is particularly outrageous. I think the BBC will regret it.

Of course, there have to be changes in personnel on such programmes. Personally, I think it is good - and very timely - to have someone with economic literacy on the programme in the shape of Evan Davis. I have no strong views about Justin Webb, one way or the other.

What I do know is that Ed Stourton has his supporters - perhaps a lot more than the BBC imagines. This morning a lady at my local station overheard our conversation about a newspaper story related to Stourton's sacking, and came over to say how outraged she was, and though never having written to the BBC before, planned to do so now.

I doubt she is alone. The BBC takes its listeners for granted at their peril. There is little enough on air to justify the licence fee - BBC Four and Radio 4 aside - and they can ill afford to continue to alienate the views of so many of those who pay it.

Sundays are for costume dramas

The BBC's adaptation of Little Dorrit is one of its best Victorian dramas in years, with a superlative cast and great atmospherics. Yet the Independent on Sunday reports that it is losing viewers by the week. There is no mystery about this. The production is natural Sunday night fare, like Cranford and Tess, yet the Beeb are showing it first midweek on Wednesday and Thursday evenings; I only remember to watch it because I record it on my DVR. If they put it in its proper spot, there would be no problem getting the desired audiences.

What on earth is the BBC up to?

Could the Director General explain why the BBC believes it needs to waste thousands of pounds of taxpayer money sending hundreds of hacks to provide inferior coverage of the US elections, instead of running a feed from one of the US networks? It is a complete waste of money in these days of satellite and digital TV, when any sane person would turn to CNN's excellent coverage (or Fox, if that's your poison) instead.

Let the Tories play to their obvious strengths

David Cameron and his shadow cabinet have been far more effective in venting their outrage at the crass calls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand than at advancing a single useful suggestion for dealing with the global economic crisis. Perhaps, rather than entrusting the clearly unprepared Opposition with the nation's governance, they could chair the BBC Trust instead? There is clearly a vacancy at the top there, and one that plays to the Opposition's true interests and strengths.

Spare us this BBC tokenism

It had started on this morning's 8.00 Radio 4 news. Kim Catcheside's report about skills accounts for youngsters in England (with "England" repeated several times) was accompanied by news of apprenticeships in the Welsh valleys. The former is a genuine innovation; the latter was the sort of filler that normally gets a decent airing in a local evening paper. Apprenticeships like this are being offered across the UK. The Welsh story was not even strong enough in its own right to get a headline on the BBC Wales Online News website (at least as of 9.37 this morning).

The reason for this sudden interest in the Valleys? A report from the BBC Trust whose chairman Sir Michael Lyons tells us: "The good news is that the public have told us that they want to learn about other parts of the UK. This should inspire the BBC to meet this challenge and search for opportunities to make what is happening in different parts of the UK relevant and interesting to all audiences." What Sir Michael has decided this means is that we need to be told what's happening in Swansea, Aberdeen and Derry every time we learn about schools or hospitals in England, whether it is genuinely of wider interest or not.

Now, I happen to agree that where there is a genuine innovation in a nation or region, the BBC could do more to tell us about it. Maybe they should have reported the Welsh and Scottish elections more fully. And I have a bigger beef about the BBC World News which generally regards British news as inferior and chooses to report even less news about the UK than CNN.

But the idea that what the public wants are lots of tokenistic out-takes from dismal regional news bulletins is fanciful. Why don't the BBC sharpen up their regional and national news rather than patronising us with tokenistic stories that would not make the UK bulletins on their own merits?

Are we witnessing the dumbing-up of television?

After a decade of round-the-clock 'reality' TV shows and schedules hijacked by home and fashion makeover shows, can we really be witnessing a dumbing up of terrestrial television? Tonight sees the return of News at Ten, while last night, BBC 1's schedules included an entertaining adaptation of Flora Thompson's Victorian rural drama, Lark Rise to Candleford, the final episode of Andrew Davies's delightful Sense and Sensibility adaptation and the classy Glenn Close legal drama Damages. Cranford enjoyed audiences to match anything else on TV when it was on. Meanwhile, Big Brother has been exiled to E4. It is true that we are still stuck with a very inferior version of Panorama, and there remains a lot of dross in the schedules; but these must be hopeful signs that the TV bosses have recognised that they underestimated the intelligence of their viewers for too long, and must now make amends. Exiles to BBC 4 should now be free to return to the mainstream (at least occasionally).

Time for Dave to face a few tough questions

Former PR man turned Tory leader David Cameron knows a good thing when he sees it. So it is no wonder he has taken to sharing his increasingly unoriginal thoughts with Radio 4 Today listeners on an almost weekly basis, in the sure knowledge that the questioning will be little more threatening than had he been doing the exercise for a Tory PPB. I'm with Ben Brogan on this: or is it only Labour ministers who get a tough time on Today?

Save the (BBC) World

Reports that the BBC is determined to save BBC World from cuts despite 'losses' of £15m a year miss the point. It is important that the BBC retains its international TV as well as its radio service, which is often a beacon of truthful reporting in countries lacking independent media. But its news bulletins could be sharper, and license fee-payers might feel more affinity with the service if it provided even as much UK news as CNN does. BBC World has a fetish about ignoring British news, even though many of its viewers are British tourists watching in hotel rooms. That should change. And why can't we watch BBC World on digital TV here except for the odd bulletin on News 24 or BBC 4? The radio world service is now available in the UK on digital. TV should be too.

The real problem with the BBC

David Aaronovitch is spot on when he identifies the real problem with the BBC as being not the misnaming of the Blue Peter cat, but

The far greater problem is a gradual and long-term erosion of journalistic standards and seriousness in favour of the sensational and the meretricious, and the incredible self-deceptions that executives have to go to in order to justify this trend.