BBC Complaints: The link you need!

Sunday, 19 July 2009


Students of Media Studies should be encouraged to compare and contrast the two main political interviews on this morning's 'Andrew Marr Show'. One was gentle and friendly, the other aggressive. If I tell you that the interviews were with Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson and the Conservative Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, can you guess which was which?

The Osborne interview came first. It lasted 12 minutes 43 seconds. The first 4 minutes 24 seconds were spent discussing financial regulation, with the remaining 8 minutes 18 seconds spent discussing Conservative spending plans - ie. cuts. Raising the issue of 'Conservative spending cuts' is the Labour Party's main political strategy at the moment, so I'm sure they would have been delighted that Marr's questioning focused overwhelmingly on that subject.

Marr interrupted George Osborne 17 times in the course of the interview, scoring an I.C. of 1.3.

The Johnson interview lasted 13 minutes 10 seconds, of which his new responsibilities at the Home Office - knife crime, anti-social behaviour, and Islamist terrorists - were covered in the first 7 minutes 59 seconds, along with a question on immigration and a related question on the BNP. Mr Johnson's old responsibility, health, was then discussed - specifically swine flu - for a further 2 minutes 34 seconds, with Afghanistan (1 minute 15) and the latest opinion polls (22 seconds) to finish. This was wide ranging - but not wide-ranging enough to spend any time on Labour spending plans - ie. cuts.

Marr interrupted Alan Johnson 7 times in the course of the interview, scoring an I.C. of 0.5.


I thought I might try out a new approach here, presenting the anatomy of each interview for comparison, so as to try to tease out why one sounded so aggressive and the other so gentle. Alongside interruptions (my main tool, and always used only when they stop the interviewee from speaking, or force him to change tack), I will now introduce those common signs of a friendly interview, the 'hmm' of agreement and the supportive echoing of the interviewee's words, and (from the other side of the coin) that great sign of an aggressive interview, the abortive interruption (an interruption that tries but fails to stop the speaker from continuing). Also, I would like to introduce the helpful comment and the unhelpful comment (both are another kind of interruption, but are not designed to stop the interviewee's flow).

The Alan Johnson Interview
0.17-0.34 Question 1
0.34-1.43 Answer 1
1.19 hmm
1.43-2.23 Question 2
2.23-2.52 Answer 2
1.33 echo
2.51-3.09 Interruption 1/Question 3
3.09-3.31 Answer 3
3.14 hmm
3.31-3.35 Interruption 2
3.35-4.52 Answer 4
3.55 echo
4.08 hmm
4.30 helpful comment
4.52-5.18 Question 4
5.18-6.25 Answer 5
6.08 abortive interruption
6.25-6.48 Question 5
6.48-8.07 Answer 6 (this was where Johnson attached the BNP)
6.56 hmm
7.04 hmm
7.11 helpful comment
7.18 hmm
7.44 helpful comment
8.07-8.29 Question 6
8.29-8.37 Answer 7
8.36-8.39 Interruption 3
8.39-8.56 Answer 8
8.55-8.58 Interruption 4 (really a question for information)
8.58-9.13 Answer 9
9.06 hmm
9.08 hmm
9.13-9.28 Question 7 (swine flu)
9.28-9.57 Answer 10
9.56-10.12 Interruption 5/Question 8 (for medical advice only)
10.12-10.29 Answer 11
10.28-10.40 Interruption 6/Question 9 (for medical advice only)
10.40-11.44 Answer 12
10.53 laugh at joke
11.22 hmm
11.32 hmm
11.44-11.56 Question 10 (Afghanistan)
11.56-12.08 Answer 13
12.08-12.11 Interruption 7
12.11-13.04 Answer 14
12.27 hmm
13.04-13.11 Question 11
13.11-13.25 Answer 15

The George Osborne Interview

0.51-1.09 Question 1
1.09-1.50 Answer 1
1.44 hmm
1.50-1.59 Question 2
1.59-2.34 Answer 2
2.34-2.47 Interruption 1/Question3
2.47-3.35 Answer 3
3.18 abortive interruption
3.35-3.53 Question 4
3,.53-4.20 Answer 4
3.58 hmm
4.19-4.23 Interruption 2/Question 4
4.23-5.03 Answer 5
4.51 abortive interruption
4.54 abortive interruption
5.03-5.38 Interruption 3/Question 5
5.38-5.49 Answer 6
5.49-5.51 Interruption 4/Question 6
5.51-6.33 Answer 7
6.14 abortive interruption
6.17 abortive interruption
6.20 abortive interruption
6.23 abortive interruption
6.33-6.44 Interruption 5/Question 7
6.44-6.59 Answer 8
6.58-7.01 Interruption 6/Question 8
7.01-7.07 Answer 9
7.07-7.10 Interruption 7/Question 9
7.10-7.21 Answer 10
7.20-7.25 Interruption 8
7.25-7.43 Answer 11
7.29 unhelpful comment
7.38 abortive interruption
7.41-7.47 Interruption 9/Question 10
7.47-8.20 Answer 12
8.16 hmm
8.18-8.24 Interruption 10/Question 11
8.24-8.54 Answer 13
8.53-8.57 Interruption 11/Question 12
8.57-9.27 Answer 14
9.11 abortive interruption
9.26-9.28 Interruption 12/Question 13
9.28-9.30 Answer 15
9.30-9.34 Interruption 13/Question 14
9.34-10.09 Answer 16
9.52 abortive interruption
10.06 abortive interruption
10.09-10.48 Interruption 14/Question 15
10.48-11.30 Answer 17
10.51 unhelpful comment
11.30-11.33 Question 16
11.33-11.43 Answer 18
11.43-11.46 Interruption 15
11.46-12.10 Answer 19
11.53 abortive interruption
12.09-12.18 Interruption 16/Question 17
12.18-12.22 Answer 20
12.21-12.23 Interruption 17
12.23-13.34 Answer 21
12.53 abortive interruption

The contrast could hardly be more clear!!!!


Reviewing the two interviews and looking at their tone I was intrigued to see Andrew Marr's body language. I'm not one for TV pop-science baloney about body language, but true science has valuable things to say about it. Not being a scientist, here's a bit of pop-science baloney instead!!

During the Osborne interview (but especially after the conversation turned to public spending) Marr's hands were flying about the studio, jabbing and gesturing at at Osborne, his face smirked and gurned during interruptions and he kept leaning forwards towards his victim.

During the Johnson interview, Marr's body language was much more restrained, at times even meek and subservient.

Watch the programme again on the BBC i-Player (if you aren't worried about your blood-pressure) & see what you think!


Marr's meekness during the Johnson interview is reflected in the qualifications contained in his questions. Here's an example, where critical points are topped and tailed by praise for the Labour government:

"When New-Labour first came in there was plenty of money and there appears to have been plenty of will to tackle anti-social behaviour, to make the streets calmer, quieter, less threatening. ASBOs were brought in & it hasn't really worked...after 10 years of money and 10 years of no-doubt serious politicians".

(What a suck-up!)

That the bias contained in Marr's questioning was pre-meditated is revealed by his exact repetition of "...after 10 years of money and 10 years of no-doubt serious politicians" at the end of his next question!


Marr's aggression towards George Osborne further betrayed itself in what can only be called 'heckling', and in smirking contempt.

There were lots of interruptions of this kind: "So what can you do about it?", "How do you do that?", "And how do you do that? That's the question." Also "Can you, can you give me..." and "Can you give me any examples at all?"

There were jeers like "Easy to say..!" and sarcasm, as in "That might be the right thing for you to do, but it's not going to save you £20 billion" and "That's what I'm asking about!" Marr's sarcasm reached its zenith with his interruption, "Let's optimistically tick that box and move on!" and with this: "Well, let's move on from talking about telling the public the truth to telling the public the truth!"

Marr's bullying tone is further evidenced in his interruption of Osborne (who was obviously well aware of the way the interview was going - though, typically of the masochistic Tory party, he didn't protest!) when the shadow chancellor said, "Well, we've set out..I know you are going to say you've heard them all before...". Marr pounced on him, "If I've heard them all before let's move on...," (at which Marr gave a derisive snort) "...with respect."

What is wrong with the Conservative Party that they don't protest about the sheer extravagence of bias displayed by Andrew Marr?

They are betraying themselves...and, much more importantly, betraying our democracy.


  1. Sad isn't it to see a formerly great institution sink to such depths?

  2. True. Can it rise again? It would be good to think it could, but it's got a hell of a long way to rise.

  3. Did you notice the rather strange introduction Andrew Marr made at the start of his program towards George Osborne?

    " will be others taking the hard decisions, above all George Osborne Shadow Chancellor who would have to break the bad news to us about spending and taxes, well he is here too and perhaps we will get a sneak preview of the horrors ahead so if there are any children watching look away during George Osborne's interview"


    So it's true then, the Tories do eat babies and must kidnap and torture little children! Shock horror!

    Alistair Darling is on next week, I wonder if he too will be introduced as "probably giving us horrific news in the future". I doubt it. His inevitable cuts would be described as sugar coated Labour kindness.

    Also I see the newspaper reviewers were balanced as usual - Jane Moore, isn't she a leftie? and a Labour Peer.

  4. Llew, yes. I wonder if Osborne shuddered as soon as he heard Marr say that!

    The submissive behaviour of Conservative frontbenchers in the face of blindingly obvious BBC bias is hard to fathom, isn't it? If I were them, I'd give the likes of Andrew Marr both barrels. Osborne just took it & sat on the sofa at the end as if everything was fine.

    Looking closely at this has made me angry on George Osborne's behalf. I don't get angry very often. Why wasn't Osborne angry? Was he, but just too cowardly to say so?

    Oh and Helena Kennedy, the leftie's leftie, given 5 minutes 24 seconds to speak to the nation, uninterrupted! She's one of Marr's regulars.

    If Marr doesn't grill Darling next week, I'm going to copy-and-paste this whole thread onto a complaint to the BBC. That will do no good, but at least, by having to reply to it, I'll have taken up a Beeboid's time and energy!!

  5. The problem is not that the Tories don't know what is going to happen to them each time they are "interviewed" at the the BBC, its that Tory ministers just do not have any convictions and therefore cannot argue their point.

    Marrs job is made much easier by politicians from all sides who are just bland clones of each other.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.