A TRUE FRIEND OF LABOUR

*
Yesterday, according to Michael Crick on Newsnight, David Miliband's friends were letting the world know that he 'genuinely' doesn't want the new foreign minister's post in the post-Lisbon European empire. Crick, ever the friend of Labour, was at the same game, spreading the message that Miliband's much-doubted denials were 'true'.
*
In a report featuring only Labour's friends - i.e. Sir Stephen Wall, former Europe advisor to Tony Blair, and Paul Richards, former Labour strategist - Crick's tone throughout remained free from sarcasm or scepticism or accusation. He chased no-one and engaged in no mischief-making. How utterly different to all his reports on those despicable 'Tories'!
*

HAS ALAN LITTLE JUST SMEARED THE LATVIANS?

*
The Labour Party must have loved this morning's Today programme.
*
The BBC continues its endless crusade against the Conservative Party's new allies in Europe, whilst completely ignoring the revolting aspects of some of Labour's allies - 9/11 denial, anti-semitism, homophobia, corruption, terrorism, secret police activity, Communist pasts. (Please click on the label European allies for more on this.)
*
This morning's programme featured a long piece from Latvia by Alan Little, which had in its sights the country's For Fatherland and Freedom party, now allied to David Cameron's party in the European parliament. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8349000/8349786.stm.

It was an extraordinary piece of polemic that strayed well beyond mere reporting. If what Little implies is true, it is indeed appalling that the Conservative Party should be allied to such a party, and they should be shamed into breaking with them and also denounce them in no uncertain terms. If what he implies is not true, this will rank as one of the most disgraceful and biased reports ever to appear on the BBC.
**
The Today website records much of Justin Webb's introductory remarks, including yet another darkening of the name of Michal Kaminski: "The row over whether or not the Conservatives should be allied in the European Parliament with Michal Kaminski, a polish MEP with a far right background," (long ago, when he was a teenager) "has overshadowed some of the other members of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group to which British Tories now belong. Allan Little reports from Latvia on the activities and views of the For Fatherland and Freedom Party."
*
Little recalled Nazi crimes against Latvia's Jewish population, and noted that Latvians as well as Germans were responsible. On March 16th each year members of the Latvian Legion march through Riga. "These men marched alongside Hitler's Waffen SS." The main governing party at the height of Latvia's "ethnic triumphalism" (1998) was For Fatherland and Freedom. "They declared March 16th Latvian Legion Day and a public holiday". When the party's only MEP Roberts Zile claims that "there is no historical evidence that the Latvian legion fought alongside the Waffen SS" Little challenges him on the point. Zile points out that the US and UK governments of the time (Truman and Atlee) accepted the truth of this, and Little concedes the point and features a man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust but who believes that, as Little puts it, "the Latvian Legion parade, in itself, is inoffensive." So what exact point is Alan Little trying to make here? Is this not smoke-without-fire?
*
Dan Hannan has pointed out something that Little did not mention: "They don’t “celebrate Waffen SS veterans”. They attend an annual commemoration of all Latvia’s war victims, a commemoration attended by every party in Latvia except the Russian ones. Let me repeat that: attended by every party in Latvia, from the Christian Democrats to the Greens." Why did Little fail to mention this? We hear time and time again (not least from David Miliband and the BBC) that it's For Fatherland and Freedom that 'celebrates the Waffen SS', but we aren't told that 'every party in Latvia except the Russian ones' attends the 'celebration' too. Knowing that casts things in a very different light, doesn't it?
**
Little moved on the discuss the anti-Soviet sentiment that swept Latvia when Communism fell (though he didn't explain why there was such a strong anti-Soviet feeling): "For many Latvians the fall of the Soviet Union was a chance to take their country back from the Russians. This was the popular sentiment that For Fatherland and Freedom thrived on. Many turned on Latvia's Russian-speaking minority." A clip of an old Latvian soldier followed, egged on by Little, saying that all Russians should leave Latvia. Little said slowly and carefully: "Be clear about this. It is a call for mass deportations. There are nearly a million Russians living in Latvia, 40% of the population. In the 1990s For Fatherland and Freedom introduced a law that would deny citizenship to most of those Russians, leaving them stateless." (This is not the same thing as mass deportation). But, Mr Little, can we be clear about this too: Did (or does) For Fatherland and Freedom also call for the mass deportation of Russians? Was what this old soldier says what the party said (or says) too? Or not? That was not at all clear from your report. If they didn't say that then why forcefully imply that they did? That would be a lie and a smear. If you say they did say that, please provide some evidence to support it. (Little, incidentally, forgot to mention that the Russians mass-deported Latvians to Russia at the end of the war).
*
We then heard from Miroslav Mitrophanov. He is, according to Little, "a member of Latvia's parliament and an ethnic Russian" who "remembers the atmosphere of ethnic intolerance in the Fatherland and Freedom years of the late 1990s." What Little fails to mention is that his own party has a pretty dark past of its own, as For Human Rights in United Latvia is a left-wing party many of whose main leaders were members of the old Communist Party and that it's widely hated by ethnic Latvians for that very reason. (The party is allied to our very own Greens).
*
Little goes on, "The Latvian parliament is a noisy, chaotic, irreverent place. The main centre-right party is called New Era. It sits in the mainstream bloc in the European parliament." ('Mainstream', of course, as opposed to 'extreme' -we know who sits there!!) Little's characterisation of the party is sharply at variance with Wikipedia: "New Era has later been characterized as a social democratic party, but it does not call itself social democratic. Until 2007, New Era Party used to define itself as "right-of-centre" in its program, but it no longer does that now." Which is right - Alan Little or Wikipedia? Whoever's right, we heard from one of its spokemen in Little's report. Little asked him what he thought of For Fatherland and Freedom now. He slagged it off something rotten.
*
Having set up a lot of smoke but no fire whatsoever, Little moved to this remarkable statement: "For Fatherland and Freedom appeals rhetorically to much that is dark and dangerous in Latvian popular sentiment." Well, that's Alan Little's opinion. "It drags its World War Two baggage heavilly into the present day." Well, that's also Alan Little's opinion. These are both heavy charges which needed a lot more evidence than Little actually provided to justify.
*
Maris Riekstins, the socialist foreign minister of Latvia has complained about all this party-political mud-slinging at For Fatherland and Freedom and the other allies of the Conservative Party in Eastern Europe. The BBC will doubtless ignore him and continue to insinuate that David Cameron is in bed politically with a bunch of far-right extremists.

DISILLUSIONING STEFAN

*
Contradicting Stefan-at-the-BBC's naive belief that "all BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach", Shirin Wheeler continues to treat her Conservative guests (usually poor Timothy Kirkhope) less kindly than she treats her other guests. Further to my earlier post (on 'Thatcherophobia'), the other studio discussion on The Record: Europe was yet another gang-up-on-the-Tory session, with Timothy Kirkhope being attacked by all three of the other guests - Graham Watson (Lib Dem), Derek Clarke (UKIP) and Glenis Willmott (Labour) - and, of course, Shirin Wheeler herself.
*
Unusually she did interrupt all of her other guests. This is the first time I've heard her interrupt a Labour or Lib Dem speaker. (Only UKIP and the Conservatives are usually interrupted.) But...she only interrupted the Labour and UKIP spokesman once, and Mr Watson of the Lib Dems twice - because he ignored her first interruption! In contrast, she interrupted Mr Kirkhope 4 times (I.C. of 1.3)!!
*
Timothy Kirkhope also received most questions, and all of the questions were specifically directed to Conservative strategy and challenging in nature. Only Mr Clarke for UKIP also received a question targeted at his own party, as both Mr Watson and Glenis Willmott (who looked uncannily like Lady Kinnock) were also asked about Conservative strategy but never about Labour or Lib Dem responsibilities.
*
And there's more...
*
I've pointed out before that Shirin has a habit of casting a contradictory or sarcastic comment at a (right-of-centre) guest then moving on to another (left-of-centre) guest without giving them a chance to reply. She did it again, first to Mr Kirkhope, saying drily "Well we heard a policy anyway at least. Graham Watson, do you agree, do you think..." (Yes, that really was the whole of her question to the Lib Dem! Challenging, eh???!!!). She later contadicted Mr Kirkhope when he attempted to rebutt an attack by the Labour spokeslady. Within 7 seconds of his beginning his answer she barged in, contradicted him and moved on to Graham Watson again ("She was talking about the new financial committee but let me just ask Graham this. Graham just let me ask you this point.") The only other guest she contradicted was Mr Clarke of UKIP ("Well, perhaps he does know what he's talking about" in response to Mr Clarke ending with "He doesn't know what he's talking about.")
*
Oh Stefan, sorry to shatter your happy illusions about BBC interviewers. Shirin was not abiding by the guidelines, nor being scrupulously even-handed today, nor last week, nor the week before...(etc).

THE BBC REPLIES...

*
Well, here's the reply to my complaint to the BBC:

Dear Sir

Thanks for your e-mail.

I was interested to read the findings of your survey. I understand that your calculations have found there to be a bias against Conservative MPs in our broadcasts.

Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our news and current affairs output and we ensure all our correspondents and production teams are aware of this to help us deliver fair and balanced coverage for all the stories we report. We seek neither to denigrate nor promote any particular view, rather we present the relevant facts and allow our audience to make up their own minds based on them.

All BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach.

Many interviewees are very adept at evading questions and following their own agenda when replying. It's part of a professional interviewer's role to ensure that they're reminded, when appropriate, of the original question or pressed on points that are of particular interest.

This being said, it's always difficult to find a presenter who will appeal to all viewers/listeners and the attributes which appeal to some viewers/listeners may sometimes strike others as wholly inappropriate.

I realise you may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias within the BBC. Therefore, let me assure you I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

All feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always appreciated.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.

Regards

Stefan
BBC Complaints




Here's an open reply, while I think of my next steps:

Thanks for your reply Stefan. I'm glad you found my results interesting. You are correct in understanding that my calculations have found there to be a bias against Conservative MPs in our broadcasts. (Not just MPs mind you, and they also showed bias against UKIP.)

Your statement about impartiality is as it should be and welcome. When you say that "all BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach", my findings demonstrate that this is sadly not true. Many of them (including Andrew Marr, Carolyn Quinn, James Naughtie, John Humphrys, Adrian Masters, Kirsty Wark, Anita Anand, Glenn Campbell, Shirin Wheeler, Gavin Esler and Jo Coburn) do not.

I know very well that many interviewees try to evade questions and push their own agenda, but that's no revelant here. Nor is the likability of particular interviewers of any relevance to the issue in hand.

When you say that you "realise I may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias within the BBC", you are not mistaken!

I'm glad my complaint will be put on the audience log (I think) and might be read more widely. I don't feel, however, that you have answered any of my concerns and will be taking the matter further.

Regards
Craig

UPDATE

*

For starters I have re-submitted my complaint with lots more supporting detail. Unfortunately, the BBC's e-mail response refuses to allow you to reply by e-mail, so you have to start all over again! Nor could I attach my full spreadsheet. Just another annoying thing about the biased BBC.

THATCHEROPHOBIA

*
This week's The Record: Europe featured a section recalling the wonderful events of 1989. Presenter Shirin Wheeler began the section with a 'canter through the events' of that year, from Hungary in May to Romania in December. Ah, I remember it well. Happy, hopeful days!
*
The report was going swimmingly when this happened: "But there was caution from some unexpected quarters about what was happening in the East and where it would lead, worry about the reunification of Germany and changes to the world order - not least from the British prime minister of the time, Margaret Thatcher." After a short, context-free clip the earlier mood of celebration resumed. Now I do remember Mrs Thatcher's caution over German reunification, though I certainly don't recall her being anything other than delighted at the events in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006tt0f
*
Anyhow, I was going to let that pass. Then the studio discussion began.
*
Again all was going well, with a question each to the three guests (a German Liberal Alexandra Thein, the British Conservative Charles Tannock and the Polish centre-right MP (for Civil Platform) Jacek Saryucz-Wolski (yes, 2 centre-right guests to one liberal - and a pro-business German Liberal at that!!). Then came question 4, asked to the attactive Alexandra: "And we assume everyone was delighted at this prospect, and yet the reality was sometimes a little different. I mean we heard Margaret Thatcher there sounding a little cautious. But even in Germany there were West Germans who were worried about the whole idea of suddenly taking in all these new people." Back to Mrs Thatcher! Oh, the strange workings of the left-wing mind!!
*
You would have thought that would have been the last mention of the hated Mrs T. - but no, the next question, put to Mr Tannock, was this: "I mean Margaret Thatcher there, Charles Tannock, when you hear that sort of sentiment, how do you feel?" Mr Tannock responded well, and talked of Mrs Thatcher "being at the forefront of rejoicing" (which I remember she was!). For this misdeed he got himself well and truly interrupted by the lovely Shirin: "But the real worry was about a unified Germany and an overdominant Germany." Please watch the programme on the BBC i-player (as linked to above) and see the icy look of disapproval on Shirin's face as Mr Tannock finishes his defence of Mrs Thatcher. It's a sight well worth seeing.
*
So three questions in a row fixated on Mrs Thatcher. Surely when she asked her eighth question, to Mr Saryucz-Wolski, there couldn't be another? Think again: "I mean, Mr Saryucz-Wolski, it's true, isn't it, it wasn't just Margaret Thatcher who was worried about an overdominant Germany? I mean Mitterand as well. You know, Helmut Kohl has a big job getting that past them." Of a grand total of 9 questions, 4 were fixated on Mrs Thatcher - 3 mentioning her by name. Isn't that extraordinary? Well, not really. The undying hatred of some on the Left for the Iron Lady is just a fact of life. As I say, it's just the strange workings of the left-wing mind!!

SOME MINORS GO MISSING, BUT THE POLICE AREN'T NEEDED

*
A couple of weeks ago, the Politics Show: Scotland (hosted by Glenn Campbell) held a debate between the candidates for Scotland's four main political parties for the forthcoming Glasgow North East by-election (the one to replace arch-trougher Speaker Michael Martin, now scandalously ennobled by the Labour government as Baron Martin of Springburn) - SNP, Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
*
Today it featured three short video presentations by some of the minor parties. Which minor parties? Well, firstly the far-left Solidarity (Tommy Sheridan), then the far-left Greens and finally the far-left Scottish Socialist Party. I aha-ed at this, thinking 'That's left-wing bias, if ever I saw it.' At the end came a list of the other candidates who didn't get a spot on the programme, including the BNP, the Jury Team (that admirable brainchild of Sir Paul Judge), a blind chap called Mikey who appeared on Big Brother and a rag-bag of other mysterious names. Why weren't they selected? Were they not left-wing enough?
*
Well, looking at the programme's website , all the candidates are given a video spot there and those mysterious candidates all turn out to be yet more far-leftists. Frankly, I can't get too worked up about them not getting a spot on the main TV programme, nor the BNP for that matter. It would have been nice to hear from The Jury Team (and maybe even Mikey). Still, democracy is democracy and if three of the nonentities get a place on the TV, why not all of them?*

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW THAT, ESPECIALLY IF MARR DOESN'T ASK

*

This morning's Andrew Marr Show was less infuriating than usual. Naturally much of it was given over to the subject of the Afghan War & this gave it a somewhat different tone. I think it's safe to say that Marr is opposed to our involvement in the Afghan War, as his questions over many months have tended overwhelmingly to come from that particular stance - and today's interview with Sir Jock Stirrup was no exception. During the paper review, he was 'mmm'-ing and nodding his head at much of what Kate Hoey had to say on the need for opponents of the war to overcome their fear and speak out, and joined her in praising the Independent's 'yes, very' experienced anti-war correspondent Patrick Cockburn. There was much less 'mmm'ing when she went on to praise Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph and his view that politicians need to be honest about the fact that we are in a European federal superstate. (Hurray for Kate Hoey!)

*

His big political interview was with William Hague, and this was far less aggressive than those with David Cameron or Liam Fox (to mention but two other recent Tory guests). The opening section dealt with Afghanistan (3 interruptions), then moved on to Europe (10 interruptions), followed by Sir Ian Kennedy and MPs' expenses (1 interruption) and finally - and for no reasons of topicality whatsoever, but only because it's a Labour/Guardian/BBC obsession - the tax affairs of Lord Ashcroft (which quickly garnered 5 more interruptions) . The resultant I.C. was 1.3.

*

I was all agog to hear what Sir Michael Caine had to say about the recently reported announcement that he was switching from Labour to the Conservatives at the next election: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6480576/Michael-Caine-switches-allegiance-to-Conservatives.html). In a strange turn of events, Andrew Marr did not ask him about that. I wonder why, as he's usually so willing to talk politics with his (left-wing) celebrity guests.

ESLER SITS WITH THE LEFT AGAIN

*
Today's Dateline: London panel was much more balanced than usual, with two right-of-centre voices (Janet Daley of the Sunday Telegraph and the ever-excellent Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt) being set against two left-of-centre voices (Stryker Maguire of Newsweek and the ever-appalling Abdul Bari Atwan of al Quds). The balance was, however, swung emphatically to the Left by the presenter, Gavin Esler. As the panel is normally strongly weighted towards the Left anyhow, Esler's bias is usually somewhat disguised. Not so here. He was a vigorously active participant on the Left's side of each argument. Even David Dimbleby would have had to gasp with admiration at the sheer brazenness of Esler's bias.
*
This need spelling out in some detail.
*
The first topic up for discussion was Afghanistan. Janet Daley spoke first, then Thomas Kielinger. Next up was Stryker Maguire and, as he spoke, Esler supportively echoed him (..."while saying we're committed to stay, which is a..."). When Janet responded, Maguire interrupted, telling her "It doesn't matter!" and Esler grinned and laughed with him. Atwan followed and, again, his views were echoed by Esler ("He's told Gordon Brown he's going to root out corruption", to which Atwan replied "Exactly.").
*
When Janet Daley could take no more of Atwan's extremist drivel there began a 50-second stretch that showed Esler's bias to its fullest extent. He interrupted her 5 times. The first four interruptions all flatly contradicted her. The fifth cut her off to ask Maguire a fresh question. At one stage during this short stretch, it was 3 against 1 - Atwan, Maguire and Esler ganging up against Janet Daley. Esler was sat so close to Maguire, that they looked a little like a double-act (which they sort-of were).
*
The story so far then is that Esler has been actively supporting the two left-wingers but repeatedly interrupting and contradicting one of the right-wingers.
*
His question to Maguire concerned the American president's slow response to General MyCrystal's request for more troops: "Let me..is Obama being very judicious and thinking about it, or is he dithering?" When Maguire poured scorn on suggestions of a parallel with the Cuban Missile Crisis, saying it's not like that at all, Esler chimed in again with a supportive comment ("It's not that. And it's winter as well, which is not the er.."). Like a loving, married couple they were completing each other's thoughts!
*
This was just the first 6 or so minutes of the show!!!
*
When Thomas Keilinger spoke next, he was in turn interrupted and opposed by Esler - and opposed from the stance of one of the other (left-wing) guests: "Indeed, but Bari's point...just to put it even more brutally...you know, Afghanistan, do we not suffer from this delusion that Afghanistan was ever a functioning country...". Janet sprang back in but Esler was soon interrupting her again, with first a heckle ("to a fully functioning country?") and then with another hostile interruption: "But why then get hung up on the democratic process, because it's a nonsense." He soon stopped her again and handed the debate back to Atwan, with a supportive question: "But then when there's cause in it Bari, I suppose you would argue we just look at Karzai and think why are we fighting for this chap?"
*
When Janet finishes her come-back to Bari Atwan, Esler lands an emphatic "But.." and speaks for Bari yet again: "But, you know, the First World War and the Second World War were existential threats to this country. The reason why Bari's quoting those opinion polls is a lot of people don't see it as an existential threat that's going to effect this country..." (Atwan vigorously nodded his head at this.)
*
*
When the topic turned to the resignation of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Esler first invited Atwan to comment, and let him do so - without interruption - at some length. When he had finished he turned to Stryker Maguire and, to more nods of agreement from Abdul Bari Atwan: "Stryker, we did this programme from the Gulf last week and they thought it was an absolute disaster for what we call the peace process. It's finished basically." (I saw that programme. It was stuffed with Israel-bashers.)
*
Later Gavin Esler's pro-Democrat bias (and long-standing Clinton-worship) surfaced as he put this point to Atwan: "Hillary, who's one of the brighest women around and also Senator Mitchell who knows a thing or two, have they fallen into this trap?" ('Hillary', indeed!). And there was more later, as he described Hillary's support team has having "no lack of talent".
*

*
Yet again Gavin Esler, ostensibly the discussion's neutral chairman, was a protagonist in the debate. The physical layout of the panel, with Atwan, McGuire and Esler on one side - the left-side! - and Janet Daley and Thomas Kielinger on the other could not have been more apt. As I keep on saying, let Esler resign and appear as a guest himself. Then he could spout left-wing opinions to his heart's desire. Let someone who values impartiality take over the chairmanship of 'Dateline London' instead.
*
Even on one of those rare occasions when the programme's panel balances Left and Right, it just cannot be fair to the Right.

CAMPBELL'S PHONE-A-FRIEND

*
The Daily Telegraph is reporting that "Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, the head of the independent watchdog charged with reforming MPs’ expenses and restoring public trust in Parliament, is a close friend of Alastair Campbell." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6516741/Sir-Ian-Kennedy-the-man-reforming-MPs-expenses-is-Alastair-Campbells-friend.html)

This is the man who, the paper says, "plans to rip up the proposed reforms to the discredited system of Commons allowances put forward earlier this week by Sir Christopher Kelly."

The Telegraph goes on, "So close is Sir Ian, the new head of the Independent Parliament Standards Authority (IPSA), to Mr Campbell that he helped advise him on his appearance before the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the government scientist. Mr Campbell still regularly advises Number 10 and is highly likely to be part of the central Labour strategy team aiming for a fourth general election victory."

Visiting the BBC website to see how it's reporting this potentially explosive story, I find that it reports aspects of the Telegraph's coverage - just not this part of the story (as of 9.54am Sat 7 Nov): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8347945.stm. Its focus is solely on the expenses issue: "Proposed reforms of MPs' expenses are in doubt after the head of the body charged with rewriting the rules said he might not implement them all. The Daily Telegraph said Prof Sir Ian Kennedy was unhappy with standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly's plans. Sir Ian was quoted as saying he had "no obligation" to accept everything that Sir Christopher suggested."

Surely the BBC isn't deliberately ignoring the one part of the story that might be deeply embarrassing for the Labour Party? Heaven forbid.
*
Odd though, isn't it?
*

WHERE DOES ANITA STAND?

*
The Daily Politics ran a short piece about Conservative Barnet council's new funding experiment - so called 'easy councils', where essential services will be paid for out of council tax but that a whole range of other services (also currently paid for through council tax) will be offered only if wanted and if people are willing for pay for them. The analogy, of course, is with the no-thrills airline Easy Jet.
*
This was followed by a studio discussion, hosted by Anita Anand. What was Anita's view? Were she unbiased we would, of course, never know, as she would simply ask devil's advocate questions from a stance of opposition to supporters of the scheme and ask devil's advocate questions from a supportive position to opponents of the scheme.
*
She certainly started by asking questions from a stance of opposition to a qualified supporter of the scheme - the ever-excellent Susie Squire of the Taxpayers' Alliance. First came "So, he said it was popular but is it right? Is it morally right? And is it what we really want in our society?". Next she asked, "So how do you then police against the example that was given...'I don't walk that street. I'm not paying anything for the cleaning of that street. That's up to them.'?"
*
Next she turned to Kate Green of the Child Poverty Action Group, an outright opponent of the scheme. Yes, Anita's first question was put from a stance of support, in true devil's advocate fashion: "Oh well Kate Green, you protect what's important and those things that are a matter of choice, a memorial bench, you could survive without that, you know, pay extra if that's what you want?" But then, with her second question, she gave up devil's advocacy and switched to asking a question (or making a statement) from a stance of opposition to an opponent of the scheme: "There are those who also fear the complexity of a system like this." Kate Green, unsurprisingly, shared this concern. (Who are "those" people, by the way?). Then she turned to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of The Independent (oh yes, her!) and asked this doyenne of the Left, "You know I started off asking Susie is this good for society. It sounded like a lofty question, but the thing is shouldn't we actually care about everyone who lives in our area? Shouldn't we think actually it's up to me to pay for that as well?". Yasmin, unsurprisingly, shared Anita's concern. She then asked Sarah Sands of The Evening Standard a general question about whether she welcomed the scheme, then turning back to Susie Squire opined that "altruism will be trumped by economy-saving measures."
*
So out of the first 7 questions, one was general, one was asked from a stance supportive of the scheme, and five were asked from a position opposed to the scheme. All the passion was in the latter. Can you guess, therefore, where Anita Anand stands on the issue?
*
Now the final question raised the total of 'supportive' questions to two, but it was loaded with praise for her very-left-wing guest: "Would you be more comfortable, Kate Green, if there were good people like yourself on this council of the wise, who would decide, look, this is indispensable, this is important but, you know, these are things you could pay for and here's a price list?"
*

DIMBLE BIAS 2

*
This week's Question Time gathered together Robert-Kilroy Silk, the Conservative Nick Herbert, PC ex-P.C. Sir Ian Blair, comedienne Natalie Haynes and Labour's Peter Hain.
*
The first question was on the Tories' climbdown over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In this section of the programme Nick Herbert was interrupted 6 times by David Dimbleby. If you watch the programme on the BBC i-player, you will see that his answer begins at 3.39. The first interruption follows at 4.05, the second at 4.11, the third at 4.15, the fourth at 4.50 and the fifth at 5.50. The answer to the one at 4.05 ("Might have been able?") was accompanied by a quizzical expression from Dimbleby, as if it was not a good answer. The interruption at 4.50 came as Mr Herbert began to attack Labour and the Lib Dems for reneging on their promises of a referendum ("But surely, wait a minute..yep, wait a moment Nick, wait a moment...Wait a moment Nick..") and a new question followed, accompanied by one of those smirks Dimbleby likes to wear when mugging a Tory. When Mr Herbert tried again later, Dimbleby pounced again (12.35): "All right, we're going round in a circle here. You said that at the beginning" and went to the audience.
*
Contrast this with Dimbleby's treatment of Peter Hain here. He got two bites of the cherry (a particularly juicy cherry for him), but was not interrupted once. You would have thought that a mischievous Dimbleby would have put the point about Labour reneging on a referendum to Peter Hain. Not a bit of it.
*
After most of the audience had clapped Sir Ian Blair's pro-EU guff to the skies (where do they get these audiences from?) Dimbleby went back to the audience with these words, "Let's go back to the question.The question was about the damage that might be done, or would be done, to the Conservative party by this. Let me just take a couple of points to that then we'll go on." When the first audience member fails to make the expected point, Dimbleby prompted him, "So do you think there'll be damage to the Tories because of what Cameron said?". "I think so", replied the lukewarm audience member to a murmur of "right!" from Dimbleby. (Job sort-of-done!). Amusingly, things got even worse for him. He picked another member of the audience out and, against all the odds, this one attacked Labour. When Hain replies, the audience member argued back. Dimbleby leaped in to stop the audience member: "All right, all right, let's not go back, all right, the women in pink there...". By incredible ill-luck Dimbleby had picked another member of the audience who was going to attack Labour! "OK I think we'll move on to another question", Dimblely said quickly.
*
The only other panelist interrupted during this question was, naturally, Robert Kilroy Silk (twice).
*
The next question was on Afghanistan. This time Nick Herbert was interrupted twice. Then , having taken 2 minutes to answer, Dimbleby went to the audience - but not before asking the panelists to make their answers briefer. We couldn't see Nick Herbert, but he must have bridled because Dimbleby quickly added: "That's not a rebuke to you. It's a general point." Well, that's as may be - but Peter Hain's answer (which came soon after) lasted a good deal longer than Nick Herbert's. Dimbleby did not repeat his request though.
*
Again, throughout this question Hain was not once interrupted by Dimbleby. Why?
8*
Mr Kilroy Silk said that the terrorists who committed terrorist attacks here were home-grown ("They come from Birmingham, Bradford, Glasgow. They're home-grown terrorists. Which one has come from Afghanistan?"), not from Afghanistan. When Peter Hain says that they were trained in Afghanistan, Mr Kilroy Silk says it was not Afghanistan, "Pakistan maybe but not Afghanistan", then repeats "Ah, Pakistan" and nods his head to signal that 'Pakistan's the right answer. Note, however, how Dimbleby misrepresents the dispute between the two tanned gentlemen: "Ian Blair. Robert Kilroy Silk and Peter Hain were arguing about where terrorists were trained. He says it's here in Bradford (pointing to RKS), he says it's in Pakistan (gesturing towards PH). You know about this...Where do you think the training is coming from, and is Afghanistan central to it?" No, that's not what Robert Kilroy Silk said at all. Quite the opposite in fact. Bias on Dimbleby's part, or just a lapse of concentration/understanding? Take your pick. Whatever it was, I wish Robert Kilroy Silk had picked him up on it & corrected him.
*
Things were more evenly balanced during the third question (on MPs pay). Here both Nick Herbert and Peter Hain were interrupted twice - though those against Nick Herbert were put sternly whereas those against Hain were put more gently.
*
The final question was on immigration. Here more windy idealism from Sir Ian Blair brought prolonged clapping from the audience (no really, where do they get them from?). At last a tiny semblance of balance was restored, as here it was Peter Hain who was interrupted 5 times by Dimbleby. (Hain got his revenge by persistently interrupting Nick Herbert later.) The last of these came as Dimbleby gloated over his appearance on the show, despite the threat of a boycott over Nick Griffin's invite.

ANOINTING A NEW KING

*

There have been several strong contenders for the title of King of Bias for October, but standing out from the crowd, waving a big red flag, has been Andrew Marr. I'm sure you'll all agree that he's a more than worthy winner!

*

CONGRATULATIONS TO

*

ANDREW MARR

King of Bias, October 2009

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - JOHN HUMPHRYS

*
Last but never far from least comes John Humphrys. John is such an old leftie, as his tender interview with outgoing Old Labour first minister of Wales Rhodri Morgan showed. He is not keen on Tories, as these startlingly clear figures demonstrate:
*
03/10 Andrew Lansley Conservative 1.8
22/10 Ken Clarke Conservative 1.7
09/10 Greg Clark Conservative 1.6
13/10 Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 1.6
24/10 George Osborne Conservative 1.3
28/10 Roger Gale Conservative 0.9
14/10 Harriet Harman Labour 0.9
28/10 Stuart Bell Labour 0.7
01/10 Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0.7
10/10 Bob Stewart Conservative 0.6
10/10 Peter Kilfoyle Labour 0.4
13/10 David Blunkett Labour 0.4
02/10 Rhodri Morgan Labour 0.3
13/10 Sir Stuart Bell Labour 0
14/10 Stephen Pound Labour 0
*
His averages for October say it all about his recent behaviour:
*
Conservatives - 1.36
Lib Dems - 0.7
Labour - 0.39
*
Looked at over a 5-month period, however, Humphrys has also put in some powerful work against New Labour too, as his super-averages show (which is why it's sometimes easy to forgive him):
*
Conservatives (25) - 1.0
SNP (1) - 1.0
Labour (25) - 0.78
Lib Dems (3) 0.23
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - JAMES NAUGHTIE

*
Among Evan's rival dragons on the Today programme, James Naughtie is never going to be at risk of being called 'the unbiased one'! For a hefty selection of anecdotes on this former King of Bias, please click here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Naughtie
*
What was he up to last month?
*
29/10 William Hague Conservative 1.4
19/10 Barry Sheerman Labour 1.2
09/10 Harriet Harman Labour 1
17/10 Lord Goldsmith Labour 0.6
19/10 Nick Herbert Conservative 0.6
31/10 Adam Holloway Conservative 0.3
19/10 Derek Clarke UKIP 0.3
15/10 Jim Fitzpatrick Labour 0.3
29/10 David Miliband Labour 0.1
21/10 Baroness Miller Lib Dem 0
21/10 David Miliband Labour 0
31/10 Jeffrey Donaldson DUP 0
*
The 1.2 score against Barry Sheerman, incidentally, was the one where Mr Sheerman called that bully Ed Balls a 'bully'. The David Miliband ones (0.1 and 0) were classic Naughtie, and his encounter with William Hague (discussed in great detail here!) no less so.
*
His averages for October translate as:
*
Conservatives - 0.77
Labour - 0.53
Lib Dem - 0
DUP - 0
*
Judged over the long term, Jim Naughtie's bias against the Conservatives is obvious. He is nearly twice as likely to interrupt them than he is a Labour politician. We all know he's pro-Labour, but he's not meant to show it. Here are his super-averages:
*
Conservatives (16) - 0.84
Greens (1) - 0.7
Labour (34) - 0.43
SNP (2) - 0.4
UKIP (1) - 0.3
Lib Dems (6) - 0.07
DUP (1) - 0

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - EVAN DAVIS

*
The other Today newbie, Evan Davis, has been busier. (A clearly impressed Craig just said that Evan Davis has been busier than Justin Webb. Is he now about to say 'Here are his results for October?)
*
Here are his results for October:
*
06/10 David Cameron Conservative 0.8
12/10 Peter Mandelson Labour 0.6
20/10 John McFall Labour 0.5
27/10 Bridget Prentice Labour 0.5
06/10 Lord Falconer Labour 0.4
07/10 David Mundell Conservative 0.4
07/10 George Osborne Conservative 0.4
12/10 Sir George Young Conservative 0.4
05/10 Michael Gove Conservative 0.3
07/10 Stuart Hosie SNP 0.3
29/10 Kit Malthouse Conservative 0.3
05/10 Dominic Grieve Conservative 0
*
His averages for October then are:
*
Labour - 0.5
Conservatives - 0.37
SNP - 0.3
*
Is Evan shaping up to the 'the unbiased one' on the Today programme? Well, looking back since his arrival (aptly enough in June), we find these super-averages:
*
Labour (30) - 0.47
Conservatives (12) - 0.44
SNP (1) - 0.3
Lib Dems (7) - 0.06
Greens (1) - 0
*
I think it's going to be a case of keeping our fingers crossed with Evan Davis. He needs to toughen up though against the Lib Dems.

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - JUSTIN WEBB

*
Former (?) worshipper of Barack Obama, Justin Webb has only conducted a few domestic interviews since he joined the programme in September. Here are his October I.C.s:
*
02/10 Douglas Alexander Labour 0
07/10 Mike Foster Labour 0
16/10 Nicola Sturgeon SNP 0
*
As a newcomer to the programme, it's probably far too early to pass judgement on him. Here, nonetheless, are his super-averages:
*
Conservatives (2) - 0.95
Labour (4) - 0.3
Lib Dem (1) - 0
SDLP (1) - 0
SNP (1) - 0
*
If he continues to record anything like these super-averages though, judgement will be passed - and it will be 'guilty!'.

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - SARAH MONTAGUE

*
That just leaves the guys and gal from the Today programme - the Beeb's flagship for bias. No Ed Stourton in October, so let's begin with Sarah Montague. Here are her I.C.s for a quiet October:
*
28/10 Liam Fox Conservative 0.7
01/10 Bob Ainsworth Labour 0.5
15/10 David Willetts Conservative 0.4
22/10 Ken Livingstone Labour 0.3
28/10 Vince Cable Lib Dem 0
21/10 David Kidney Labour 0
28/10 John McFall Labour 0
28/10 David Heathcoat-Amory Conservative 0
*
The averages here are:
*
Conservatives - 0.37
Labour - 0.2
Lib Dems - 0
*
Sarah seems to mostly interview people from the Left, but here nonetheless are her super-averages for the last 5 months, showing an inclination against the Right:
*
UKIP (2) - 1.15
Conservatives (11) - 0.65
Labour (24) - 0.53
Lib Dems (13) - 0.36
Greens (1) - 0
*
As for her treatment of UKIP, I think this post of mine is strongly suggestive of a certain attitude: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/sniggering-at-nigel-farage.html

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - EMILY MAITLIS AND GAVIN ESLER

*
It's been a very quiet month for Newsnight's Emily Maitlis, with only 4 interviews to record:
*
14/10 Bill Rammell Labour 1.3
14/10 Caroline Lucas Green 0.9
14/10 Zak Goldsmith Conservative 0.7
16/10 David Miliband Labour 0.5
*
From the 21 interviews covered since June, we can derive these super-averages for Emily:
*
UKIP (1) - 1.5
Labour (8) - 0.86
Conservatives (5) - 0.68
Greens (2) - 0.45
Lib Dems (3) - 0.3
*
*
*
*
Gavin Esler has been another near-absentee in October, with only one interview:
*
15/10 Emily Thornberry Labour 2.3

Looking at all of Gav's interviews over the last 5 months, this one was not typical (as you would expect, I suspect!). Here are his super-averages:
*
Conservatives (6) - 1.27
SNP (2) - 1.05
Labour (16) - 0.82
Lib Dems (1) - 0.8
*
That an anti-Conservative bias is indicated is hardly surprising. Gavin is a known leftie. (For more, please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Gavin%20Esler).

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - SHIRIN WHEELER

*
Viewable on the BBC News Channel and Parliament Channel and on the BBC i-player, The Record Europe is proving to be a particularly bias-prone corner of the Beeb's current affairs output. (See http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Shirin%20Wheeler). Its host is Shirin Wheeler (daughter of Charles Wheeler).
*
Here are her figures for October, and (unlike her own figure) they are not a pleasant sight:
*
11/10 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.5
11/10 Nigel Farage UKIP 0.9
04/10 Syed Kamall Conservative 0.3
25/10 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.2
04/10 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0
11/10 Fiona Hall Lib Dem 0
11/10 Richard Howitt Labour 0
25/10 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
04/10 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0
25/10 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
18/10 Caroline Lucas Green 0
*
Only guests from centre-right parties received any interruptions at all. So these are Shirin's averages for October:
*
UKIP - 0.9
Conservatives - 0.67
Lib Dems - 0
Labour - 0
Greens - 0
*
Having only just begun to cover the programme when the Euro parliament's new term began, I have only one other interview from the relevant period: a whopping 1.9 scored against (guess who?) Timothy Kirkhope. Her super-averages remain as above except for the Conservative average, which leaps up to 0.98.

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - GLENN CAMPBELL

*
Usually available nationwide on the BBC's Parliament Channel (Sundays) and always on the BBC i-player The Politics Show: Scotland is very much the counterpart of its UK sibling - though its host Glenn Campbell is, in my view, more clearly biased than Jon Sopel. I have been suggesting for a while that he seems to be softer on Labour and the Lib Dems than the SNP and the Conservatives. (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/im-so-biased-i-could-cry.html and http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/bias-on-my-mind.html).
*
Here's what he got up to last month:
*
11/10 Nicola Sturgeon SNP 1.8
11/10 Ruth Davidson Conservative 1.4
04/10 John Swinney SNP 1.4
11/10 Willie Bain Labour 1.3
04/10 David Mundell Conservative 1.3
11/10 David Kerr SNP 1
18/10 David Mundell Conservative 0.9
11/10 Steven Purcell Labour 0.6
11/10 Alistair Darling Labour 0.6
18/10 John McFall Labour 0.4
18/10 Alex Salmond SNP 0.1
11/10 Eileen Baxendale Lib Dem 0
18/10 Michael Moore Lib Dem 0
25/10 Brian Wilson Labour 0
*
His averages are:
*
Conservatives - 1.2
SNP - 1.08
Labour - 0.58
Lib Dems - 0
*
They seem pretty clear-cut, don't they? Well, even more clear-cut are his super-averages since June (covering 30 interviews):
*
Conservatives (6) - 1.67
SNP (8) - 1.05
Labour (13) - 0.51
Lib Dems (3) - 0
*
If you are a Conservative politician you are 3 times more likely to be interrupted than a Labour politician, and if you are an SNP politician you are twice as likely to be interrupted than a Labour politician. It pays to be a Labour politician - or a Lib Dem - when being interviewed by biased Glenn Campbell!
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - EDDIE MAIR

*
Eddie Mair (of PM fame) continues to plough his own idiosyncratic path. He roasted Lord George Foulkes, badgered Ken Clarke and harried Nick Clegg. His interview with the useless Lord Drayton (who got into a spot of bother over defence procurement) was wonderfully lethal.
*
These are his I.C.s for October:
**
07/10 Lord George Foulkes Labour 1.1
12/10 Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.1
19/10 Ken Clarke Conservative 1
07/10 Eric Joyce Labour 0.7
21/10 George Osborne Conservative 0.7
15/10 Lord Drayton Labour 0.5
22/10 Margaret Hodge Labour 0.5
13/10 Richard Caborn Labour 0.5
20/10 Hilary Benn Labour 0.4
22/10 Dominic Grieve Conservative 0.3
13/10 Harriet Harman Labour 0.2
07/10 Ed Miliband Labour 0
21/10 John Robertson Labour 0
05/10 David Ford Alliance 0
*
This translates into the following averages for October:

Lib Dems - 1.1
Conservatives - 0.67
Labour - 0.43
Alliance - 0
*L
Looking across all of his 53 interviews since June, we find even more evidence of the man's idiosyncrasy.
*
SNP (4) - 0.83
Lib Dems (7) - 0.57
Labour (27) - 0.55
Conservatives (15) - 0.36

These are the sort of figures you don't often find from a BBC interviewer!
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - JON SOPEL

*
The Politics Show offers its viewers a Sunday lunch quite often piled high with biased reporting (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Jon%20Sopel). Do Jon Sopel's interruption coefficients confirm this:
*
18/10 Lord Adonis Labour 2.1
04/10 Nigel Farage UKIP 1.2
11/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 1.2
18/10 Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.9
04/10 David Miliband Labour 0.8
11/10 Hilary Benn Labour 0.7
25/10 Ken Clarke Conservative 0.6
04/10 Eric Pickles Conservative 0.6
18/10 Mark Hoban Conservative 0.2
*
No, they don't. (Well, you can't win 'em all!) Here are his surprising averages for October:
*
UKIP - 1.2
Labour - 1.2
Lib Dems - 0.9
Conservatives - 0.65
*
Does a survey of all 27 of Jon Sopel's interviews since June tell the same baffling story?
*
UKIP (1) - 1.2
Conservatives (8) - 1.08
Labour (11) - 0.85
Lib Dems (4) - 0.55
*
That's more like it! Still, Jon Sopel has been away for a very long summer break. Covering a lot more interviews should clarify matters further. The jury is still out.
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - ANDREW MARR

*
Now we come to Andrew Marr. Huge swathes of this blog have been spent describing his biased deeds. (You can review them all here, if you have a spare hour or two!:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Marr)
*
What do October's interruption coefficients tell us that we don't already know about this Tory-bashing, Labour-stroking Beeboid?
*
04/10 David Cameron Conservative 2.1
18/10 Liam Fox Conservative 1.8
18/10 Lord Myners Labour 1
11/10 Alan Johnson Labour 0.6
25/10 David Miliband Labour 0.3
18/10 Alex Salmond SNP 0.2
18/10 Helena Kennedy Labour 0
*
Who's really surprised that his averages for October are as follows?:
*
Conservatives - 1.95
Labour - 0.48
SNP - 0.2
*
The results for all of the 28 interviews covered since June are not as sharp - how could they be?! -, due to two gentle interviews with old timers John Major and Tom King, but they still provide absolute proof of outright bias against the Conservatives:
*
Conservatives (8) - 1.08
Labour (14) - 0.65
Lib Dems (4) - 0.48
SNP (1) - 0.2
UKIP (1) - 0
*
*
*
For more on Marr (and with a tip of the hat to Robin at the Biased BBC blog), please have a little read of what Charles Moore thinks of his latest left-wing TV series:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/6491340/Andrew-Marrs-The-Making-of-Modern-Britain-is-a-patronising-and-ignorant-piece-of-history.html

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - JEREMY PAXMAN

*
Newsnight's master of ceremonies Jeremy Paxman was rampant throughout much of October, and among his many memorable encounters was a highly entertaining tussle with Boris Johnson (where Boris turned the tables and the Newsnight team were accused of tinkering with the tape to save some of Jeremy's blushes!) and a catfight with the odious Denis MacShane over the sex-trade.
*
20/10 Denis MacShane Labour 2.7
07/10 Phil Woolas Labour 2
19/10 Peter Hain Labour 1.7
05/10 Boris Johnson Conservative 1.6
05/10 Theresa May Conservative 1.5
29/10 Jeremy Hunt Conservative 1.4
07/10 George Osborne Conservative 1.4
06/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 1.3
12/10 Sir Stuart Bell Labour 1
12/10 Tony Wright Labour 1
21/10 Barbara Follett Labour 1
29/10 Gary Titley Labour 0.9
13/10 Sir George Young Conservative 0.6
07/10 Bob Stewart Conservative 0.6
28/10 Shaun Woodward Labour 0.5
28/10 Gerry Kelly Sinn Fein 0.3
19/10 Ed Miliband Labour 0.2
29/10 Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 0
28/10 Bob Ainsworth Labour 0
13/10 Anne Begg Labour 0
*
The averages for October are:
*
Conservatives - 1.05
Labour - 1
Sinn Fein - 0.3
*
The figures here provide no proof of bias. What about the 56 interviews I've reviewed since June? Well, nor do these:

SNP (1) - 2.6
Labour (34) - 1.39
Conservatives (15) - 1.38
Lib Dems (5) - 0.98
Sinn Fein (1) - 0.3
*
The remarkably similar scores between Labour and the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems not far behind, is very striking. That is what all these results should look like!!*
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - ANITA ANAND

*
Andrew Neil's left-wing co-host on the Daily Politics Anita Anand can usually be relied on to beat up on a Tory, or UKIPer, or English Democrat - especially when left to her own devices. October was no exception in that respect:

08/10 Alun Cairns Conservative 2.9
30/10 Mark Field Conservative 1.8
14/10 John Hutton Labour 1.7
02/10 Greg Clark Conservative 1.5
28/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 1.2
20/10 Alan Duncan Conservative 1.1
28/10 Peter Hain Labour 0.9
12/10 Dan Hannan Conservative 0.9
08/10 Ruth Davidson Conservative 0.8
02/10 Margaret Beckett Labour 0.7
16/10 Khalid Mahmood Labour 0.6
21/10 Caroline Flint Labour 0.6
21/10 Nick Herbert Conservative 0.5
30/10 Lord Desai Labour 0.4
07/10 David Davis Conservative 0.4
16/10 Alex Salmond SNP 0.4
13/10 Richard Kemp Lib Dem 0.3
19/10 Lord Myners Labour 0.2
06/10 Michael Portillo Conservative 0.2
20/10 John McFall Labour 0
14/10 Theresa May Conservative 0

The high I.C. scored against John Hutton has skewed the results slightly because Anita vehemently attacked him over Sir Thomas Legg - for defending Sir Thomas against all those poor hard-done-to Labour MPs. This was not an anti-Labour attack. Far from it. (Similarly, her remarkably aggressive assault on Labour's Barry Gardiner yesterday was an assault on his defence of the sacking of the horse-riding-averse, not-so-cannabis-averse Dr David Nutt and Mr Gardiner's own hard-line on drugs.)
*
Still, these are Anita's interruption coefficients for October:
* over
Conservatives - 1.03
Labour - 0.64
SNP - 0.4
Lib Dems - 0.3
*
This seem pretty clear-cut, but what of her behaviour over the last five months? There are 53 interviews to consider and these are even stronger proof of active bias:
*
UKIP (1) - 2.8
Conservatives (18) - 0.98
English Democrats (1) - 0.8
Labour (22) - 0.5
Lib Dems (7) - 0.43
SNP (3) - 0.4
Greens (1) - 0
*
This emphatically demonstrates left-wing bias against the three right-of-centre parties, and a far softer line on those of the Left. Quelle surprise!

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - ANDREW NEIL

*
Andrew Neil (in his Daily Politics incarnation), widely considered to be the only right-winger among the Beeb's band of interviewers, headed the BBC's party conference coverage, so there are a lot of interviews to list for October, when the end of the Labour conference and the whole of the Conservative conference took place:
*
28/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 3.3
06/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 3.1
06/10 Andrew Lansley Conservative 2.9
27/10 Jeremy Hunt Conservative 2.8
13/10 Evan Harris Lib Dem 2.4
05/10 Boris Johnson Conservative 2.2
12/10 Stuart Bell Labour 2.2
19/10 Hilary Benn Labour 2.1
07/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 2
05/10 Dan Hannan Conservative 1.6
12/10 Lord Oakeshott Lib Dem 1.6
15/10 Mark Simmonds Conservative 1.5
29/10 Nick Gibb Conservative 1.4
08/10 William Hague Conservative 1.4
21/10 Nick Herbert Conservative 1.4
07/10 Michael Gove Conservative 1.3
08/10 Theresa May Conservative 1.3
12/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 1
01/10 Bill Rammell Labour 1
22/10 John Hutton Labour 1
15/10 Tony McNulty Labour 1
28/10 Peter Hain Labour 0.9
01/10 Phil Woolas Labour 0.8
19/10 John Mann Labour 0.7
29/10 Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.7
08/10 George Osborne Conservative 0.7
13/10 Norman Baker Lib Dem 0.6
21/10 Caroline Flint Labour 0.6
05/10 David Cameron Conservative 0.5
14/10 John Hutton Labour 0.4
26/10 Austin Mitchell Labour 0.4
14/10 Theresa May Conservative 0.2
05/10 Ian Taylor Conservative 0
01/10 Tony McNulty Labour 0
05/10 Nigel Farage UKIP 0
*
The resultant averages for October are intriguing:
*
Conservatives - 1.6
Lib Dems - 1.33
Labour - 0.93
UKIP - 0
*
This result is not untypical. Here are the super-averages over all 77 of his interviews since I began my study:
*
Conservatives (24) - 1.82
SNP (3) - 1.23
Lib Dems (16) - 1.19
Labour (33) - 1.04
UKIP (1) - 0
*
Surprised? Well, at least no lefties can accuse Andrew of pro-Tory bias!!!
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - ROBIN LUSTIG

*
Ritula's World Tonight buddy Robin Lustig is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal-leftie, but is he a biased interviewer? There are not many figures for October, as Robin is largely a foreign-affairs man and interviews with domestic politicians are not high on his agenda. Still:
*
20/10 Michael Fallon Conservative 0.9
14/10 John Walker BNP 0.7
28/10 Mike Hancock Lib Dem 0.4
14/10 Sir Menzies Campbell Lib Dem 0.3
22/10 Sayeeda Warsi Conservative 0
14/10 John Cruddas Labour 0
22/10 Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0
*
This translates into:
*
BNP - 0.7
Conservatives - 0.45
Lib Dems - 0.23
Labour - 0
*
Viewed over the long-term (which in this case is needed!), we have 26 interviews to consider:
*
BNP (1) - 0.7
Conservatives (6) - 0.27
Labour (13) - 0.21
Lib Dems (7) - 0.14
Plaid Cymru (1) - 0
*
As you can see Robin Lustig is not a great interrupter (except, perhaps, against the BNP!). The jury is still out on this one (though a charge of fondness for the Lib Dems is likely to stick!)

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - RITULA SHAH

**
Ritula Shah of The World Tonight and PM is not generally one of life's most aggressive interviewers - though she has her moments.
*
Anecdotally, this month provided a classic case of biased left-wing interviewing, as outlined here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/ritulaistic-bit-of-tory-bating.html.
*
What though of her interruption coefficients for October?
*
07/10 Phil Woolas Labour 1.2
23/10 Philip Hammond Conservative 1
13/10 Sir George Young Conservative 1
02/10 Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 0.4
06/10 Eric Pickles Conservative 0.3
19/10 Ed Miliband Labour 0.3
07/10 William Hague Conservative 0.2
23/10 Vince Cable Lib Dem 0
08/10 Michael Gove Conservative 0
12/10 Geraldine Smith Labour 0
10/10 Desmond Swayne Conservative 0
13/10 Barry Sheerman Labour 0
*
Her averages for October show that it's pretty much even-stevens between Labour and the Conservatives, though there's an almost obligatory I.C. of 0 for Vince Cable!:
*
Conservatives - 0.41
Labour - 0.38
Lib Dems - 0
*
How typical is this? Well, looking back at the 41 interviews I've covered since June, it's fairly typical. They reveal a slight anti-Tory bias, and a bit of a soft spot for the Liberal Democrats:
*
Conservatives (15) - 0.42
Labour (21) - 0.31
Lib Dems (5) - 0.08

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - CAROLYN QUINN

*
Long before embarking on this survey, I thought Carolyn Quinn (of Westminster Hour and PM) was a particularly biased BBC interviewer. October's clear-cut results reveal a good deal of such left-wing bias:

04/10 Douglas Carswell Conservative 1.9
05/10 Eric Pickles Conservative 1.5
17/10 Angus Robertson SNP 1.4
06/10 Ken Clarke Conservative 1.1
07/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 1
11/10 Tom Harris Labour 0.7
18/10 Pete Wishart SNP 0.6
25/10 Paul Holmes Lib Dem 0.4
11/10 Ed Vazey Conservative 0.4
18/10 John Mann Labour 0.4
16/10 Baroness Uddin Labour 0.4
04/10 Evan Harris Lib Dem 0.4
17/10 Nick Harvey Lib Dem 0.3
18/10 Mark Field Conservative 0.3
16/10 Vernon Coaker Labour 0.3
25/10 Denis MacShane Labour 0.3
04/10 Emily Thornberry Labour 0.3
16/10 David Miliband Labour 0.2
25/10 Roger Helmer Conservative 0.2
09/10 John Hutton Labour 0.2
28/10 Diana Wallis Lib Dem 0
04/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 0
05/10 Roger Helmer Conservative 0
02/10 Ken Livingstone Labour 0
08/10 George Osborne Conservative 0
11/10 Norman Baker Lib Dem 0
28/10 Angus Robertson SNP 0
*
No less clear-cut are her monthly averages for October:
*
SNP - 0.67
Conservatives - 0.64
Labour - 0.31
Lib Dems - 0.22

This is no aberration, as the super-averages from all 92 of Carolyn's interviews since June prove:
*
SNP (3) - 0.67
Conservatives (29) - 0.63
Green (1) - 0.5
Labour (40) - 0.36
Lib Dems (19) - 0.33
*
I think a 'guilty as charged' verdict is inescapable here.
*

NOT RUBBING THE LEFT'S NOSE IN IT

*
Last night's Newsnight discussed immigration in the wake of Alan Johnson's speech on the subject. Michael Crick's report featured 3 talking heads. Among them were the Conservative Chris Grayling (not praising Mr Johnson) and Labour's Frank Field (praising Mr Johnson). The other head was someone Crick introduced as an "immigration analyst". This made him sound like an independent expert - another classic example of bias by labelling (see label for types of bias). It was actually Tim Finch of the left-of-centre, Labour-aligned think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, who did criticise Alan Johnson, but did so from a stance of sympathetic understanding and, of course, from a left-wing, pro-immigration perspective. Why not some-one from, say, Migration Watch? Because this is a Michael Crick report, that's why. Of course he'd rather go to the IPPR.
*
Where was the pro-Labour bias in a report that might, at first glance, seem more balanced than usual?
*
It came when he mentioned the controversy caused by comments by a former Blair advisor, Andrew Neather:
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
See also http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/10/mass-immigration-under-labour-was-not.html).
*
This was the story, as told by the Telegraph:

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a
politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country
and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former
adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s."

How did the Labour-loving Crick report this? "Last month Andrew Neather, a former aide to Tony Blair, caused a fuss by saying that in its early years Labour had eased immigration controls to help business but also encourage multiculturalism."
*
And that was it!
*
No mention, you will have noticed, of the "politically motivated attempt by ministers...to "rub the Right's nose in diversity"". Crick here is positively Alistair Campbell/Malcolm Tucker-like in his spinning of a story harmful to the Labour government. (And from the same stable, note also the use of the word 'fuss' to downplay the story even more.)