A SHOCKING CASE OF BIAS

*
Last night's Westminster Hour was a shocker even by the Beeb's biased standards.
*
It began with Carolyn Quinn discussing the Chilcott Inquiry and the Pre-Budget Report with Toby Helm, political editor of the left-liberal Observer. I will be tracking this from now on, as the last time a newspaper journalist was on the show (two weeks ago) it was Nick Watts of the left-liberal Guardian in this same spot (and I think another leftie was on the week before, but I can't be sure). Helm used his chance to communicate Labour's hostile stance on Conservative proposals on Inheritance Tax.
*
Then came the Politics Panel. It wasn't much of a panel, consisting of two left-liberal politicians, both of whom were opposed to the Iraq War: Labour's Emily Thornberry and the Lib Dem's Jo Swinson. Emily got 6 minutes 52 seconds to speak, and was interrupted just once (I.C. of 0.2) whereas Jo got 5 minutes 3 seconds to speak, and was interrupted only once (I.C. of 0.2).
There was no Conservative Party guest, despite there being three attacks on the Tories by Jo Swinson and two by Emily Thornberry! Not only was there no Conservative spokesman there to defend the party, but Carolyn Quinn refused to butt in to stop the attacks, and - worse still - she asked each of her guests a question about the Conservatives, positively inciting those attacks. Carolyn Quinn can be a disgracefully biased interviewer some times. ('Odious' is the word!)
*
Her strongest interruption was made against Jo Swinson and, just like last week, the intervention was made to stick up for the Labour Party. When Jo condemned the government for its protocol defining 9 reasons for not publishing evidence during the Chilcott Inquiry, Carolyn barged in saying "But there must be limitations, government would argue." Couldn't she have let Labour's Emily Thornberry launch the case for the government instead of launching it herself?
*
The third section of the programme was about the Conservatives, but it was an astonishingly unbalanced piece of reporting by the Beeb's Mandy Baker. The issue was how the Conservatives would cope, should they win the election, with a House of Lords that is now a 'hung parliament' (with Labour as the largest party). An interesting question, but the bias contained within the report rendered it beyond repair.
*
There were four guests, of whom three were Lords (or Ladies!):
*
Lord Norton, Conservative peer.
Baroness D'Souza, convener of the cross-benchers in the House of Lords.
Lord Lipsey, Labour peer.
*
The fourth (and most frequently-featured) of the 'talking heads' was Dr Meg Russell. She was introduced merely as being from the Constitutional Unit at University College, London, and was the constitutional 'expert' of the piece. An independent expert? I'm sure that's what Mandy wanted us to believe. Well, as I listened I thought to myself, "This woman doesn't like the Tories". Looking her up, it turns out she's not remotely independent. She's a doyenne of the Fabian Society, openDemocracy and Compass - i.e. a fully paid-up leftie. Not to label an 'expert' as being affiliated to a particular political standpoint is a key tell-tale sign of biased reporting. Mandy Baker should have supplied some of this background so that we, the listener, would know where Meg Russell was coming from ideologically. If she'd have been with Reform or the CPS we'd have known about it for sure!! So let's re-colour-code her as Dr Meg Russell.
*
And there's more.
*
This is the order in which they got to speak:
*
Meg Russell
Lord Norton
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Meg Russell
Lord Lipsey
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
Lord Norton
Lord Lipsey
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
*
Does that look fair?
*
Count up the time each got to speak and the sheer unfairness is demonstrated yet again:
*
Meg Russell - 1 minute 27 seconds
Lord Lipsey - 1 minute 26 seconds
Lord Norton - 1 minute 12 seconds
Baroness D'Souza - 1 minute 3 seconds
*
In a report about how the Conservatives would react to the House of Lords after the election (should they win), the Conservative spokesman got 1 minute 12 seconds!!!! Unbelievable!!
*
Mandy Baker has form, as you can read here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/mandy-baker-lets-team-down.html
*
Of course 1 minute 12 seconds is also all they got in the entire programme, despite being talked about (and criticised) a lot!!
*
Indefensible bias.
*

A NOT SO LOVABLE EXPERIENCE FOR ANNABEL GOLDIE

*
Bias on a single edition of a programme is at its most obvious when there are interviewees from a range of political parties being interviewed by just one interviewer. Such a situation was afforded by today's Politics Show: Scotland, hosted by Glenn Campbell (who now does an occasional stint on Radio 4's PM as well).
*
The first interviewee was Labour's Susan Deacon, a former Scottish health minister. Glenn did not interrupt her once in 4 minutes 37 seconds (I.C., obviously, of 0).
*
The closing interviews featured Mike Russell of the SNP and the Labour leader in the Scottish parliament, Iain Gray. Russell was interrupted 4 times, but got 6 minutes 23 seconds of the interview (I.C. of 0.6). Gray was interrupted only twice, but got less time, namely 3 minutes 46 seconds (I.C. of 0.6). The I.C.s here don't quite reflect the intensity of Glenn's interview with Mr Russell (who carried on talking regardless, as at one stage did Glenn Campbell).
*
In between came the fine Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie. She got 7 minutes 2 seconds of Glenn's precious time but was interrupted no less than 10 times (I.C. of 1.4)!!
*
It's the usual pattern with this man.
&

FOOLS RUSH IN

*
Given the flak that poor Sue over on the Biased BBC website gets from all-sorted loons over her posts on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I tread a little gingerly here in pursuing this point. (I always have, oh cowardly me!) Oh well, what the heck!!

Today's The World This Weekend featured a glowing report from Brian Hanrahan on Marwan Barghouti.

"One of the sticking points appears to be the release of Marwan Barghouti, seen as a leader with the potential to unify the feuding Palestinian factions. He's an important figure in Palestinian politics, but he's serving a life sentence for murdering five Israelis. His trial made him a contentious figure in Israel but a hero to the Palestinians".

I had to use the Internet to find out what those murders involved. You might wish to do the same.
*
Those who know him, said Hanrahan, describe him as "a man of great political skill and considerable charm" but "shy away" from the "frequently-made" comparisons to Nelson Mandela. *
*
The 'talking heads' in Hanrahan's report seem to me to show bias. What do you think?

They were:

Ghada Karmi, University of Exeter (who knows Barghouti's wife apparently). She spoke warmly about him.

Devorah Chen, chief prosecutor in Barghouti's trial. She was the 'sop to impartiality', though not quite the sop she seemed, as Hanrahan used her words to end his report. The words were "I will accept it" if Barghouti is released.

Alistair Crooke, head of the European Secuity Team, who has kept in touch with Barghouti in prison & speaks of his potential as a leader.

Richard Burden, Labour MP, head of the Britain Palestinian All-Party Group, who also spoke well of Barghouti.

So that's 3 against 1.

Counting up the times each spoke for in the report seems to confirm the bias:

Ghada Karmi (pro-Barghouti): 2 minutes 9 seconds
Devorah Chan (anti-Barghouti): 42 seconds
Alistair Crooke (pro-Barghouti): 17 seconds
Richard Burden (pro-Barghouti): 1 minutes 3 seconds

Or to put it another way:

Pro-Barghouti: 3 minutes 29 seconds
Anti-Barghouti: 42 seconds

Methinks the BBC is taking sides. How unusual!!
****

OCH, NOT ANOTHER LEFT-WINGER!

*
Even when discussing matters Scottish the BBC cannot resist seeking journalistic comment from a left-wing rather than a centrist or centre-right newspaper. Today's The World This Weekend featured a report from Brian Hanrahan on the SNP's proposed referendum bill on independence. As well as interviewing socialist Nationalist MSP Margo McDonald, Labour's secretary of state for Scotland Jim Murphy (I.C. of 0) and Nicola Sturgeon, deputy leader of the SNP (I.C. of 0), Hanrahan sought the expertise of Robin Dinwoodie, chief political correspondent of the centre-left Herald newspaper. That's the BBC for you!

HATE MAIL

*
Broadcasting House today was not without its laughs and presenter Paddy O'Connell was mostly on fine form - and it read out in full Shelley's wonderful Oxymandias. It was not beyond criticism however. (Sorry Paddy, I may be feeling benign today, but there are limits!).
**
During his benign interview with Labour health minister Mike O'Brien, in the wake of Dr Foster's report on poor hospital standards, Paddy intervened to proclaim the glory of our beloved National Health Service (may it live forever): "Absolutely. And let me go further than you have. Millions of treatments are carried out with great skill, professionalism, and people are very happy. And our listener will want us to say that." Another ritual proclamation of love for the divinely-inspired N.H.S. The N.H.S. may do great things, and I have experienced a few of them, but I've also recently heard a few horror stories from my friends in recent weeks that suggest that rank incompetence and rudeness are surprisingly common within the organisation and causing considerable distress. So Paddy, don't presume to speak for your listener.
*
The paper review featured actress Diana Rigg (Emma Peel), who launched a scathing attack on The Daily Mail (so scathing Paddy had to interrupt to stop it for legal reasons), and snotty, snooty Modernist art critic Ben Lewis, who joined in the attack, calling it "The Hate Mail" and going on to say, "I'm not a big fan of The Daily Mail. I don't think it's a force for goodness in Britain. I think it's a stain on our national character". (Jeez!!) The third guest was Labour lord Chris Smith. Ah, the joys of hearing the liberal-left in full cry!!

JUST ONE BRICKBAT FOR 'THE POLITICS SHOW'

*
Small-scale bloggers should never get big ideas about their influence, so I won't delude myself into believing that the makers of The Politics Show avidly read this blog each week, with trembling limbs, in anticipation of my latest damning verdict; but, indulging this delusion for just a moment, imagine that they do. Might that account for today's extraordinarily balanced Jon Sopel interviews with Liam Fox (Conservative) and Liam Byrne (Labour)? Almost identical interview times, an identical number of questions, an identical number of interruptions and identical I.C.s - a remarkable contrast to last week and the contrasting treatment of Yvette Cooper and Theresa May. Scrupulously fair then, with only the tiniest blemish when Sopel criticized Dr Fox for attacking Labour ("Yes, there are easy political points to be made there") but not Mr Byrne for attacking the Tories. This is how political interviewing should be - fair and unshowy. Would Sopel were like that more often!
*
Alex Salmond got a slightly rougher ride (with four interruptions, I.C. of o.6), but I don't think he (or his opponents) would have much grounds for complaint here and I only note (as a minor quibble) that Colette McBeth's short introductory report featured only one 'talking head' - that of the-even-further-Left-than-Alex-Salmond nationalist Jim Sillars.
*
Having Conservative blogger Iain Dale on at the end to discuss the coming week was also a further feather in the programme's cap.
*
My only real reservations concern David Thompson's latest report from the Stourbridge constituency, more precisely the way the feature was trailed throughout the programme. This might have led the viewer to expect actual proof of criminal activity on the part of the Conservative candidate, whereas Labour allegations of 'treating' were, as sitting Labour MP Lynda Waltho made clear, 'questions' rather than 'accusations'. Ms Waltho was allowed her say, and the Conservative candidate Margot James was allowed hers. I have other reservations though - firstly about the way Jon Sopel introduced Margot as "millionaire businesswoman Margot James" (as happened last time she appeared) and, secondly, the way Labour's donations were presented as 'unglamorous' and largely collected not from the unions and rich donors but from volunteers through tombolas and garden parties - as if to show that Lynda Waltho is a true woman of the people, unlike the 'millionaire businesswoman Tory'.
*
What was most heartening though was the results of a poll of young people (aged 14-24), carried out by the Citizenship Foundation, which showed how sensible they are in their opinions. Very interesting. I bet the results would have disappointed a fair few of the life-long lefties in the audience. Ha!*

MARR CHATS TO CAROLINE AND WEE DOUGIE

*
This morning's Marr Show was, you won't be surprised to hear, strongly weighted towards the Left. We had far-left media-type Mariella Frostrup on the paper review, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti discussing the extradition of Gary McKinnon, Green leader Caroline Lucas and close Brown ally Douglas Alexander as the 'big' interviewee. Matthew Parris of The Times was the only voice allowed on from the other side of the political spectrum.
*
The interview with Caroline Lucas was a very soft one (scoring a low interruption coefficient of 0.3), heralded by the friendly greeting, "Welcome! Thank you for coming in Caroline." Asking her questions about what she wants from the Copenhagen summit and letting her off the hook on nuclear power (despite some self-contradictory points that a decent interviewer would have picked up on and challenged, had he been so inclined), Marr did at least bring up the scandal over those leaked East Anglian e-mails - though clearly only because he felt he had to ("I must ask you about the big row...") and chose not to press the matter by any other questions on the subject. This is not unsurprising, as he didn't bring it up at all during the paper review (when Mariella was waxing hyperbolic on global warming) or during the section of his interview with Wee Dougie when Copenhagen was discussed. He did bring up Nick Griffin and the BNP (Caroline Lucas replied very sensibly to that) and fished for a little praise for his Labour Party chums: "What about the British government then? What about Ed Miliband? He's had a fairly good press for sort-of trying to push quite hard. Generally speaking, in the past the British government would boast about being one of the leaders on sort-of emission targets and cutting and so on. What's your appraisal at the moment?"
*
With regards to the interview with Douglas Alexander, this was scarcely any tougher, scoring another low I.C. of 0.4 (only 4 interruptions in 11 minutes). When Marr brings up Labour's lag in the opinion polls he always talks about Gordon Brown's personal unpopularity - as he did twice here - whereas surely Labour as a whole are unpopular for being a bunch of dangerous, incompetent and corrupt liars who've sunk us up to our eyeballs in debt by spending all our hard-earned money like a gang of greedy, drunken idiots as well as changing our country for the worse in too many ways to mention. Talking merely of Brown's personal unpopularity is a total distraction, and so the sort of thing I'd expect from Labour-friendly Andrew Marr. (You can come out now. Rant over!). And guess what? He brought up that Observer opinion poll from last week again (which showed a mere 6% gap between Labour and the Conservatives) before discussing hung parliaments. He's still chasing that dream!
*

AGITPROP STILL CASTS ITS SPELL ON THE BBC

*
Being an avant-garde Classical composer these days means having to get noticed (given how many there are of them and how 'select' the audiences are for that kind of highly dissonant music). The best way of getting noticed is to tie your piece of music, however gratuitously, to a right-on political cause. This has been going on for a long time now, but it still occasionally does the trick. Richard Barrett, a 'New Complexity' composer, got five minutes of Friday's PM to talk about his latest work, which is being premiered at the Huddersfield Festival of Contemporary Music (and which was broadcast on Radio 3 last night.) Result!
*
The reason for the programme's extremely unusual demonstration of interest in the toughest kind of brand-new Modernist music? Well, the piece was called 'Mesopotamia', and it was part of a self-proclaimed protest against the Iraq War.
*
Nigel Wrench went to rehearsals & chatted to Barrett about what he was protesting about. Amusingly, Barrett waffled on about the 'destruction of time' as if auditioning for Pseud's Corner, which leads me to suspect that his 'political anger' is largely a marketing ploy - especially as you would never guess from just hearing the piece itself (which you can listen to - if you so choose - on Hear and Now via the BBC i-Player) that it was 'about' any such thing.
*
Left-wing protest art, though, still gets the BBC's juices flowing.
*

AN INDEX ON CENSORSHIP OF THE RIGHT?

*
Last night's The World Tonight with Robin Lustig was as heavy as ever with guests from the Left and as light as ever with guests from the Right.
*
It began by reviewing the day's proceedings at the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq War. It then discussed the issues raised with two people, BBC regular Oliver Miles (former ambassador, opponent of the war, and writer for The Guardian) and John Kampfner, former editor of The New Statesman and now chief executive of Index on Censorship (also an opponent of the war). Why two anti-war voices were invited to comment is beyond me.
*
The issue of European Union arrest warrants was discussed with Labour minister Jim Knight (I.C. of 0) and then with Jago Russell of the campaign group Fair Trails International (and previously a policy officer at Shami's Liberty.) Jago was, naturally, not against the idea of EU arrest warrants in principle, only in practise!
*
David Rennie of The Economist provided some relief, even though he had bad news to tell us about the free-market-loathing, London-loathing Frenchman newly appointed as the EU's new trade supremo (in the wake of the post-Lisbon carve-up) and an almost-as-bad German protectionist installed as energy commissioner. What a nightmare!
*

ALL FRIENDS TOGETHER

*
The blurb on the Today programme website for Monday (26/11) ran:
"In his new book 'How Markets Fail', John Cassidy claims that the economic calamity of 2008 did not shatter principles of capitalism as there is not a static set of capitalist principles to destroy. John Cassidy and Executive vice chair of the Work Foundation, Will Hutton, debate who got it most wrong in the Credit Crunch."
*
John Cassidy is that liberal chap from The New Yorker (mentioned a couple of days ago), and we all know Beeb-friendly leftie Will Hutton. After Cassidy had stated his case (attacking Reagan and Thatcher in the process), James Naughtie asked, "Does that analysis attract you Will Hutton?" Hutton replied (as might have been expected) "Yes."

A WEBB OF CONCEIT

*
The blurb on the Today programme website for Tuesday's programme (24/11) runs as follows:
"The main party leaders have been setting out their visions of how to restore growth to the economy after the recession. A report by the left leaning pressure group Compass, criticises the policy of cutting public spending to curtail the recession. The group says gaps in public finances should instead be plugged by tax rises on the richest 10% of society. The report's author Richard Murphy, and a Conservative member of the Treasury Select Committee, Michael Fallon, debate the road to economic recovery."
*
Justin Webb put the first question to Mr Murphy. His first answer ran to 1 minute 3 seconds, uninterrupted. Mr Fallon's first answer, in contrast, was interrupted after only 22 seconds, and then quibbled with. That's Justin Webb for you!

SMALL ACORNS

*
What with those climate scientists over in East Anglia getting into a spot of hot water (man-made!) over their dodgy e-mails, it was interesting - and heartening - to hear a sceptical voice on yesterday's The World At One with Brian Hanrahan. The sceptical voice belonged to Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation. Of course, this is the BBC so he was teamed up for the interview with Saleemul Huq from the green think-tank The International Institute for Environment and Development. This is as it should be, of course.
*
However, I note that, unlike Dr Peiser, Saleemul Huq was introduced by Brian Hanrahan with these words of commendation: "He's an authority on the threat of climate change to developing nations". A classic sign of bias that, to promote the expertise of someone of whose view you approve (ah, assonance!) but not to promote the expertise of someone of whose views you don't approve.
*
Moreover, before we reached this discussion we had already heard two other full-length interviews, - and both were with other strong proponents of the theory of Man-Made Global Warming: Professor John Agard of the University of the West Indies (who wants 'binding targets across the board') and Bob Brown, leader of Australia's Green Party.
*
Oh well. Rome wasn't built in a day.
*
Please see the Biased BBC website at http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ and Not a Sheep at http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/ for lots more on this gripping story - and how the BBC has been handling it.

DISPUTING ACTUALLY

*
Here's a telling excerpt from Justin Webb's interview with Lord Pearson (the newly-elected leader of UKIP) on this morning's Today programme.
*
Lord Pearson: "Don't forget, most of our national law is now made in Brussels in a secret process..."
Justin Webb (interrupting): "Well, that's disputed, isn't it actually?"
Lord Pearson: "No, it's not disputed actually..."
Justin Webb (interrupting again): "Well, they have an input into our national law, they don't make national laws."
Lord Pearson: "The German government says 84% of our national law..."
*

DIMBLEBY GOES FOR MELANIE PHILLIPS

Last night's Question Time from Edinburgh showed yet again the peculiar nature of the programme's audiences. Judging by the applause they all seemed to be anti-Iraq-War, pro-Global-Warming (with one exception), anti-banker and pro-minimum pricing for alcohol. A Scottish audience might be expected to be more left-wing I suppose (given how they vote these days), still surely they can't all agree on everything!!
*
David Dimbleby's habitual bias this week was focused on Melanie Phillips. As she was the most right-wing of all the panellists, this is hardly surprising.
*
Melanie was speaking complete sense on the question of the Supreme Court's dismissal of a case against the banks for charges on unarranged overdrafts. She was saying, "In fairness people should be rewarded for being prudent and should pay some kind of forfeit for being imprudent", when Dimbleby interrupted her and used a member of the audience to try and undermine her perfectly valid and morally spot-on point. "Is that fair Melanie?", he asked afterwards. "I think that is unfair. As I already said David I think that is disproportionate." She had indeed already said it.
*
This may have been intentionally disruptive but at least it wasn't rude. He had been rude earlier, when man-made global warming was discussed. Melanie thinks it's a scam &, facing down a hostile audience, said so forcefully. She also attacked BBC bias on the issue. David Dimbleby was not going to let her get away with that and, with that nasty smirk of his (the smirk of a bully), he interrupted her and said "Melanie Phillips, come to the point and get on with it please then we can have other people involved in the discussion". The audience laughed and applauded.
*
Do the timings for each contributors back up Dimbleby's charge that she was hogging the limelight? Of course not. She got 7 minutes 45 seconds in total to speak, whereas Lord Falconer got 12 minutes 46 seconds - i.e. five minutes more!!!
*
When the questioner backed Melanie Phillips up, the audience responded with stony silence and shortly after, without allowing Melanie back in, Dimbleby changed the subject: "We must go on."
*
We must always go on.
*

'RICHARD' AND 'GAVE' ONLY

*
Thursday's The World At One, with Shaun Ley, was characteristically tilted towards the Left.
*
The BBC has (for some time now) been brainwashing us (along with its favourite economic commentators Vince Cable and John McFall) that bankers are the sole cause of all the economic woes that have so wounded this country in the last couple of years (absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our own Labour government of course, despite its remarkable and well-document closeness to those very bankers throughout its long, long years in power). Should all those guilty-as-charged bankers who earn more than £1 million be named and shamed? That was Shaun's question. Who did he interview to explore the issue? Labour MP Jim Cousins, who is responsible for a Commons motion calling for a charge on banks that have received public help - a 'peoples' dividend', he calls it (I.C. of 0), and Labour peer Lord Paul Myners (I.C. of 0.5). All of Shaun's questions to Myners came from a 'name those names' standpoint. The brainwashing continues - as does the dominance of the Left in the BBC's worldview.
*
Greens dominate the BBC's worldview too, of course. The programme's discussion of China's promises on reducing carbon emissions was introduced with these typical words: "Expert comment this morning praised China's move as a gesture and a morale-booster." 'Expert comment' indeed! Who did he mean? Come on Shaun, name names!!
*
The issue was then discussed in interviews with Ailun Yang, head of Greenpeace China's Climate and Energy Campaign ("I think it's a very positive step"), and Charles McElwee, who "teaches environmental law at Shanghai University and has advised the Chinese government on the environment, though not on climate change. He stresses that today's move falls short of actual emission cuts" ("It's significant for a number of reasons. I think it shows a growing maturity on the part of the Chinese leadership.") So, both praised China's 'green' commitments but both wanted even more. Shaun Ley interrupted neither.
*
The third topic up for discussion was 'The Special Relationship' in the age of President Obama. It was discussed with Gavin Esler's chum from Dateline London, Stryker Maguire of Newsweek, and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Blair's man at the U.N. Maguire is always soft on Obama, but so it seems is Sir Jeremy: "Most of Europe, including the U.K.. welcome the fact that there is a president in the Whitehouse who knows the world and seems to understand the outside world."
*
I'm not Shaun Ley and that was The World At One yesterday lunchtime.

EVER DECREASING CIRCLES

*
The same edition of Newsnight (26/11) also reported on the evidence of Sir Christopher Meyer at the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq War. Afterwards Gavin Esler interviewed that pro-Iraq-War Labour rogue Lord George Foulkes and Carne Ross, a liberal-minded, anti-Iraq-War diplomat who has written articles for The New Statesman, The Observer and even that most liberal (in the American sense only) of liberal U.S. blogs, The Huffington Post.
*
Yet another lively debate on the biased Beeb, for which left-wingers alone need apply.
*
As soon as the debate ended, Esler scanned through tomorrow's front pages, starting - of course - with The Guardian. The headlines from the F.T. and, naturally, The Independent followed. That's Gavin Esler for you!

WHAT'S LABOUR'S VIEW OF THE TORIES THEN?

*
Last night's Newsnight spent much of its time navel-gazing. Part of this exercise was a joint interview, hosted by Gavin Esler, between Ben Bradshaw and his Conservative shadow Jeremy Hunt. This was a chance to find out exactly what each of the main parties believes about the future of the BBC, but it was an opportunity that (by and large) went begging. The focus of most of Esler's questioning fell on Conservative policy, with 8 questions to Jeremy Hunt and only 5 to Ben Bradshaw - and of those five, as you will see, three were also about the Conservatives rather than Labour policy. Esler interrupted Jeremy Hunt 6 times, either asking him another question or talking over the end of his answer to ask Ben Bradshaw a question. Bradshaw, on the other hand, was not interrupted even once by Gavin Esler - including when he was attacking the Tories at length (as he spent most of his time doing).
*
Here's an outline of the interview:
*
21.31 Question 1 (to Jeremy Hunt): "Is the BBC too big?"
21.32 Answer 1 (JH)
22.10 Interruption of JH 1/Q2 (to JH): "How far would you go with...I'm sorry to interrupt...but BBC3? BBC4? I mean some people see these as peripheral. It depends where you define the boundaries, as Mark Thompson was talking about. Are they peripheral?"
22.17 Answer 2 (JH)
22.29 Question 3 (to Ben Bradshaw:) "Do you think the BBC's too big?"
22.31 Answer 3 (BB)
23.o4 Question 4 (to Jeremy Hunt): "But is there a big philosophical difference between y...I mean do you think if the BBC duplicates things that could be done quite easily commercially, the BBC shouldn't do it?
23.13 Answer 4 (JH)
23.38 Question 5 (to Ben Bradshaw:) "You said this week, or you were quoted in the Media Guardian as saying, that there's no doubt there's a deal between the Tories who've basically subcontracted their media and broadcasting policy to News International and Rupert Murdoch. I mean, do you really have any evidence of that?"
23.49 Answer 5 (BB) (Bradshaw attacks the Tories)
24.32 Question 6 (to Jeremy Hunt:) "Is this purely a coincidence that you just happen to be, you know, two brains but with a single thought?"
24.35 Answer 6 (JH)
25.14 Interruption of JH 2/Question 7 (to Jeremy Hunt): "But are there some areas of broadcasting policy where Rupert Murdoch is just wrong?"
25.19 Answer 7 (JH)
25.37 Question 8 (to Ben Bradshaw): "Rupert Murdoch is wrong on something as major as the licence fee, therefore they're not in lock-step?"
25.41 Answer 8 (BB) (Bradshaw attacks the Tories)
26.08 JH continues
(Interruption by BB at 26.11)
26.39 Interruption of JH 3/Question 9 to Jeremy Hunt) "OK, let's return in the next few minutes to the main part of this conversation, which was about the future of the BBC and what kind of future that will be. I mean, in terms of the licence fee you suggested in September that given the economic circumstances the BBC should just say 'We can't have an inflationary increase in the money that we take. We should just waive that.' I mean, is it your policy or is it ever likely to be your policy to freeze the licence fee, or is that simply something that you want the BBC to do because it's morally right, for some reason, because of inflation, and because some people are hurting?"
27.10 Answer 9 (JH)
27.22 Interruption by BB, attacking the Tories
27.30 JH continues
27.42 Interruption of JH 4/Question 10 (to Jeremy Hunt): "But you suggested freezing it - am I right? - in May" (BB vigorously nods his head and 'mmm's in agreement)
27.44 Answer 10 (JH)
28.00 Question 11 (to Ben Bradshaw): "It's ridiculous for the BBC to take an inflationary rise when people are hurting, when there is zero inflation?"
28.05 Answer 11 (BB), attacking the Tories
28.27 JH continues
28.40 Interruption of JH 5/Question 12 (to Ben Bradshaw): "But the implication of what Jeremy Hunt is saying is in ten years time the BBC will be just as safe under a Conservative government as it would be under a Labour government, but both will continue to criticise it - and that's perfectly right."
28.52 Answer 12 (BB), attacking the Tories
29.06 JH interrupts BB, & takes over
29.31 Interruption of JH 6/Question 13 (to Jeremy Hunt): "Which you would split?"
29.35 Answer 13 (JH)
29.47 "Thank you both very much."
*

NO FIGHT NEEDED HERE TO DECIDE WHICH IS BETTER!

*
BBC News, considered as a single organism, strongly approves of Barack Obama but is also highly sympathetic to green causes, especially Anthropocentric Global Warming. David ('the science is extremely clear') Shukman, their enviromental(ist) correspondent, successfully managed to combine both positions on Wednesday night's The World Tonight, praising President Obama's offer to cut the U.S.'s greenhouse gas emissions by 17% (a "very useful" announcement, he said) while simultaneously giving voice to environmentalist reservations that it isn't enough ("scientists say" it should be 40%).
*
The programme as a whole achieved the same feat by featuring as its main (and only) interviewee on the issue, Daniel C. Esty, professor of environment policy at Yale. He was described as a "former Whitehouse advisor", though precisely who he advised was not mentioned. The Huffington Post, featuring a blog from the professor, supplies the answer: "Professor Esty advised the Obama Campaign on energy and environmental issues and served on the Obama Transition Team." Clearly a greenie and a believer in AGW, Esty was also an advisor to Barack Obama. What more could the BBC want from a guest!!

THE BEEB'S FAVOURITE DOUBLE-ACT

*
Who was invited to discuss the issue of the government's secret loans to RBS and Lloyds on Tuesday's PM programme? Well, first up was Vince Cable, then straight afterwards Labour's John McFall. They appear together so often on the Beeb that they should thinking about buying a tandem.
*
*

**
PLEASE THINK OF THE YOUNG ADULTS!

*
This edition of the programme also gave a platform to T2A, an alliance convened by the 'social justice charity' the Barrow Cadbury Trust that aims to promote non-custodial sentences for young adult criminals (aged 18-24). "Custody is not the answer for this age group," said its deputy stool, Shan Nicholas. She would prefer 'treatment' and 'community sentences'. (More on the alliance can be found in the article Shan wrote for - it almost goes without saying! - The Guardian: http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk/young-adults-criminalisation). The sympathetic reporter was Andrew Bomford, the BBC's social(ist) affairs correspondent. Bomford is keen on the Barrow Cadbury Trust, as you can see from this BBC News website article from last year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7391532.stm.

FINGER-PRINTING THE POLICE

*
Are people being arrested just so that the police can put their genetic fingerprints on the national database? A shocking thing, if true. The aspect of the story Tuesday's Newsnight concentrated on was the claim that 75% of young black men may now be on the DNA register. Remarkable, if true. Obviously working on the assumption that it is true, "Richard Watson has been trying to find out how they (i.e. black people) feel about it," said Jeremy Paxman in his introduction.
*
Richard Watson began by posing this question about the 75% figure: "Could it be explained by the fact that black young men are disproportionately guilty of crime or is it evidence that the police are disproportionately targeting this ethnic minority?"

It can't be said that much attention was paid to the first possibility.
*
Who were Watson's 'talking heads'? Were they, as is usual in a BBC report, Left-heavy? I'll let you judge (with a little colour-coordinated prompting, of course!)
*
First up was James Easy, "a (black) university graduate with a first class degree in politics", who believes he's still on the database following a caution for "a minor playground fight when he was just eleven"; Brian Paddick, Lib Dem former deputy assistant of the Met (and, along with Sir Ian Blair, the Beeb's favourite liberal ex-copper); Charles Crichlow, president of the left-dominated Black Police Federation; various people (including the editor) from Live magazine (a community magazine mentored by journalists from The Guardian and The Observer) and Gavin Phillipson, professor of law at Durham University.
*
I suppose balance for all this was provided by Jeremy Paxman's interview with Chris Grayling . This was a high-scorer on the interruption coefficient chart, achieving an I.C. of 2.1.

SAME OLD SAME OLD

*
Attacks on the Tories and nuclear energy were to the fore on last night's Newsnight. beginning with
*
Phillip Blond, 'the Red Tory', was the subject of the latest Conservative-focused report from Michael Crick. Being yet again about the Conservatives (or Tories, as they are known), it had all Crick's usual tricksy mannerisms and that contemptuous tone of voice he affects when talking about the Tories. (Does he talk in his sleep about them too? 'David Cameron...zzz...a disgrace...zzz....all Tories should be strung up...zzz...George Osborne...zzz...Gordon, you're great...zzz...Lord Ashcroft...zzz'). Crick's report featured Mr Blond himself, as well as Iain Dale. Also appearing were Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society and Neal Lawson of the left-wing think-tank Compass. This is fair enough, especially as they were further balanced by the post-Crick discussion between Jeremy Paxman, Danny Finkelstein and John Redwood. Still, Crick was up to his old trick of stirring things up: "But could Cameron soon find Blond a dangerous loose-cannon, Blond's hostility to gay marriage and adoption won't sit easily with David Cameron's support for gay rights." Michael Crick would prosper in Putin's Russia, as his attention and criticism is mostly directed at the opposition rather than the government of the day.
**
Meanwhile, the programme's absurd and smug 'ethical man' Justin Rowlatt was in Finland (presumably having cycled there to keep his carbon footprint low), highlighting the cost and danger of nuclear power.
*
Same old same old.
*

LULA'S THE ONE

*
Following on from Jonty Bloom's paean to Brazil's socialist President Lula on the 5th November's edition of The World Tonight (http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/world-tonight.html) fellow BBC reporter Stephen Evans was back there for last night's edition of the programme, doing much the same sort of thing .
*
Lula may be a socialist, but he's following sound conservative economic policies and it's these (not socialist economic policies) that are helping fuel Brazil's "breakneck economic growth".
*
Evans didn't put it quite like that, of course! He was keen to stress Lula's social policies: "I climb the steps to meet a single mother who's benefited from Lula's social programmes."
*
All fair enough. It's what happened next that shows that Stephen Evans is a true BBC reporter: "Lula's critics on the Right say he's giving money to the poor who then vote for him - naked populism -, and also that benefits remove the incentive to work. The Left says that massive inequality remains, despite the programmes. Leda Paulani of São Paulo University."
*
Leda Paulani is, naturally, of the Left and used almost exactly the same words Evans had just used to voice the self-same left-wing criticism.
*
So, Evans outlines two types of criticism - criticism from the Right and criticism from the Left, but it's only the Left we get to hear from. Typical!
*
Evans then flew above São Paulo and backed Leda's point, asking the helicopter-taxi driver "Is it good for the city if all the rich people are up there, and all the poor people are down here?".
*
So Lula may be great, but he's still got more to do to please Stephen Evans and the Left.

THE DAILY POLITICS

*
The Daily Politics is undoubtedly the most unpredictable of the Beeb's current affairs programmes, with a decent balance of presenters between the right-of-centre Andrew Neil and the left-of-centre Anita Anand and Jo Coburn - though, as their respective interruption coefficients clearly demonstrate, Andrew Neil is by some way the most likely of the three to interrupt his 'own side' - and, therefore, the least biased. (Please click on their respective labels for the proofs of this).

That said, the programme is not completely free of the corporation's strong bias towards the Left, as a look at the last three days reveals.
*
Monday's was the most balanced of the three shows, in several respects. The main guest was John Cassidy, a liberal English journalist on The New Yorker. The Chilcott Inquiry, on the other hand, was discussed with Michael Howard and the fearless Andrew Gilligan. Then came a remarkable debate on climate change with a warmist, Professor Bob Watson, and a sceptic, Professor Fred Singer. That's the sort of debate the Beeb should stage much more often.
*
Yesterday's programme was far less balanced in its choice of guests. To discuss parliamentary reform, the producers invited on the Conservative Sir George Young. The main guest, however, was the sort of businessman the BBC likes - a liberal one, an ardent green, keen on keeping the ban on fox-hunting and pro-pacifism. This was Mark Constantine of the 'natural cosmetics' store Lush. He also got to present his own film. Then to discuss the row between the Local Government Association and OFSTED there was a Labour MP, Barry Sheerman (interviewed by Anita Anand, I.C. of 0). Then, to cap it all, came a discussion on hung parliaments. between yet more voices from the Left, the 'Independent Labour' MP Clare Short and snooty Michael White of The Guardian.
*
Today's PMQs-centre edition was much more wide-ranging, with Ken Clarke and Jacqui Smith as main guests. Matthew Oakeshott of the Lib Dems was on hand to discuss the government's secret loans to RBS and Lloyds (and got a roasting from Andrew Neil in the process, I.C. of 1.9). The Calman Commission on Scottish devolution was then discussed with Mike Russell of the SNP. I suppose you could say that that's three for the Left, and one for the Right - but at least it's fair across the parties (except UKIP). The tilt to the Left was clearest though with the choice of Bianca Jagger, a true left-winger's left winger, as the programme's final guest. She also got to present her own film (another bit of green propaganda).
*
So, although The Daily Politics is the best the BBC can do, it's not perfect by any means.

THE MOSS INQUIRY

*
Monday's The World Tonight featured an anticipatory report on the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq War by Paul Moss. The war has always been controversial across the political spectrum, dividing opinion in all sorts of unexpected ways. Moss's report drew on a number of voices, saying what they wanted from Chilcott, but they mostly came from one side of the argument, and from the Left.
*
There was Rose Gentle, the anti-war campaigner (co-founder with Reg Keys of Military Families Against the War) and candidate for the Spectre Party in next year's general election. Her son George was killed in the war. Next came Philippe Sands, lawyer and professor of law at University College London, author of books attacking the war, and Bush and Rumsfeld in particular, a man married to the daughter of American socialist André Schiffrin. Then there was retired British ambassador Oliver Miles, who has campaigned for a change of policy in the Middle East and written a long series of articles for The Guardian. Next up was Amyas Godfrey, a Fellow of Royal United Services Institute, who served in Iraq (and on whose political stance I'm unable to comment). Finally, there was a voice from the centre-right, Matthew D'Ancona of the Sunday Telegraph (and until recently editor of The Spectator).
*
As a revealing (if trivial) aside, I noticed that Mr D'Ancona alone was extended the discourtesy of being referred to only by his surname. Here is a list of all the proper names used in Moss's report, exactly as Moss used them (yeah, I know!):
*
Sir John Chilcott
John Chilcott
Gordon Brown
John Chilcott
John Chilcott
Sir John Chilcott
Rose Gentle
Philippe Sands
Lord Goldsmith
Lord Goldsmith
Tony Blair
Oliver Miles
Amyas Godfrey
Tony Blair
Matthew D'Ancona
Tony Blair
D'Ancona
Sir John Chilcott
Tony Blair
*

KAMINSKI AGAIN

*
The BBC's bottomless obsession with the European allies of the Conservative Party, especially Michal Kaminski, was on display again on last night's Newsnight. It featured a long, very strongly-worded report from Tim Whewell - a sustained denunciation of Mr Kaminski and everything he and his party stand for. If Whewell is to be believed (and his case is full potential holes) these are very unpleasant people, and the Conservatives should have nothing to do with them. If he's not, and if - as Dan Hannan says - this was a "partial" and "in parts disgraceful" report - a piece of shameless left-wing propaganda -, the Conservative Party should play merry hell about this and campaign vigorously for heads to roll, especially Whewell's.
**
Jeremy Paxman's introduction only gave the slightest foretaste of the vitriol to come: "Now when David Cameron promised the Eurosceptics in his party that he'd form a new alliance with Conservative MEPs in the European parliament, he thought he'd solved a problem. It turns out he's just given himself another headache. (Given it himself? Or had it given to him by the Left - i.e. the intimate circle that includes Labour, the Guardian, New Statesman and the BBC (etc)?) The group that Tory MEPs have formed is led by a man who claims (note only 'claims') he's wedded to a very British form of conservatism, but the accusation is (accusation by whom exactly? what are their motives?) that Michal Kaminski, the Pole who leads the group, is an anti-semite, a homophobe and a former Neo-Nazi, all of which he strongly denies. Senior figures in Washington (which ones? are they representative?) now wonder whether the Obama administration can possibly have dealings with a British political leader who has such bedfellows. Tim Whewell reports."
*
Whewell's report is far too long to go into detail but can be seen here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight
*
If you watch it, please then go on to read the BBC News website 'write-up'. You'll see it's much more than a mere write-up. It's a far tamer version of the Newsnight report - as if the BBC were deliberately being much more circumspect with what they put in written form. Compare and contrast the two versions and see if you agree:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8374686.stm
*
Neither touched on most of the points raised in Jeremy's introduction. Why the disconnect?
*
All of Whewell's 'talking heads' were deeply hostile to Mr Kaminski. It was a prosecution case, pure and simple. Aleksander Kwaśniewski, the ex-Communist former president, was (interestingly) the only exception. No voices for the defence were allowed.
*
I am suspicious of Tim Whewell. He's the sort of left-wing BBC reporter who calls a right-wing newspaper "the right-wing newspaper Nasza Polska" but calls a left-wing newspaper only "the leading Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza" (this is called 'bias by labelling'). (In fact, Gazeta Wyborcza is not the leading Polish daily, if by that you mean the best-selling. The leading Polish daily is Fakt.) One of this left-wing paper's founders, Anna Bikont, was among Whewell's main witnesses. Whewell is also the sort of left-wing BBC reporter who occasionally writes for The New Statesman and The Guardian (of which his father, Harry, was once an editor), but not for The Spectator or the Daily Telegraph.
*
After this prosecution case had been made, Jeremy Paxman conducted a double-interview with the only witness for the defence, Dan Hannan, and smearer-in-chief Denis MacShane. After such a sustained attack, was another prosecution witness (MacShane) really necessary? As is his way, MacShane kept on interrupting Dan Hannan, spreading smear upon smear. Dan got in 3 1/2 minutes of defence in a segment that, in total, lasted over a quarter of an hour.
*
I will be watching Tim Whewell very carefully from now on.

'LABOUR' YOU SAY MICHAEL?

*
Michael Crick gave a very straight report on the four parliamentarians referred by police to the Crown Prosecution Service (last night's Newsnight). As he had no concrete information on who they are he could only speculate, mentioning the names of the most likely candidates. Who were they? "Perhaps the two most prominent names that crop up are David Chaytor, the Bury MP, and the former minister Elliott Morley. Another name that's often mentioned, Jim Devine, the Scottish..er..Labour MP. Baroness Uddin is another name that's often been mentioned." So that's one Labour MP, and a former Labour minister, a Scottish Labour MP and a Labour peer. Would viewers necessarily have known that both David Chaytor and Baroness Uddin were Labour? Shouldn't Michael Crick have told them that? Wouldn't the words 'Tory' and 'Conservative' (particularly the former) have been chucked about like confetti were they Conservative MPs and peers facing criminal investigation? Even the one mention of the word 'Labour' seemed hesitant.

WHY LABOUR SHOULD SEND CAROLYN QUINN A CHRISTMAS CARD

*
The 'politics panel' on last night's Westminster Hour featured Green leader Caroline Lucas, Labour's Tom Harris and Mark Field for the Conservatives. Proceedings were chaired by Carolyn Quinn.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/default.stm
*
Let the statistics speak for themselves:

Interviewee***Number of interruptions***I.C.

Mark Field*** 3*** 0.6

Tom Harris*** 1*** 0.3

Caroline Lucas*** 1*** 0.2

*

The topics covered were:
*
The Copenhagen climate change conference
David Cameron, all-women shortlists and Liz Truss (trouble for the Tories)
That opinion poll again that showed the Tory lead over Labour narrowing (more trouble for the Tories)
Hung parliaments
*
The interruptions of both Tom Harris and Caroline Lucas were hardly interruptions at all, but the first against Mark Field was prompted by his attack on the Labour prime minister's 'delay and dithering' over Copenhagen. Carolyn interrupted him with a mock-exasperated "Oh come on!" and proceeded to defend Gordon Brown's actions ("Gordon Brown has written to the Danish prime minister (etc)...). Later (in a question to Tom Harris) she also praised Ed Miliband: "We've seen Ed Miliband working hard at measures like the energy bill and streamlining planning rules".
*
Later in the programme came a long, strikingly sympathetic interview between Carolyn Quinn and the politician she twice called 'Dr Tony Wright'. If the double-use of that title suggests a reverential tone on Carolyn's part, the suggestion was more than fully realised by the interview itself. Over 8 minutes long, with no interruptions, it was as unchallenging as the sort of chat you might have with, say, the father of one of your favourite work colleagues - oh, of course, that's exactly what the father of BBC political correspondent Ben Wright is to Carolyn Quinn! *

QUEL PLONQUER!

*
Yesterday's Broadcasting House afforded an amusing glimpse into the Europhile mindset of a bog-standard BBC interviewer. Paddy O'Connell was in Brussels, spending some quality time with Dan Hannan.
*
Paddy was asking whether there was anything he liked about the city, at which Dan launched into an impassioned paean to Flanders "which has produced for me the greatest art and portraiture in the corpus of human achievement".
*
This left our Beeboid at a loss for words: "I'm a bit surprised. I...I..thought...I...maybe I thought...er...er...you wouldn't tell me that."
*
Why not? Does Paddy think all Eurosceptics are knuckle-dragging xenophobes? Probably.
*
Dan responded "Like I say all Eurosceptics are terribly European. I read French novels, German philosophy and listen to Italian music, which is why it's sometimes a bit irksome to be told that we're xenophobes by people who would struggle with a French menu."
*
Full marks for Paddy O'Connell for keeping what followed in - and which rather proved Dan Hannan's point. Paddy began asking people if they were Belgian and, if so, what they thought of the new EU president, Mr van Rumpuy. He was getting some confused responses, including the odd 'Pardon?'. After about four goes, Dan informed him he was asking not 'Are you Belgian?' but 'Are you Belgium?' (Paddy also used the joke-phrase 'the grand fromage' when asking one of the Belgiums a question!! Jeez.)

LEFT-WINGERS ALL THE WAY

*
The left-liberal bias at the BBC was also on display in a report on Dutch attitudes to the Afghan War featured on today's The World This Weekend.

It purported to offer a cross-section of opinion, but turned out to be a debate between voices from the Dutch Left (not that they were described as such). Ed Stourton interviewed Dick Pels, a sociologist and head of the left-liberal think-tank Waterland; Martijn van Dam of the Dutch Labour Party; and Wim van den Burg of the left-wing AFMP union. Only the final interviewee was not obviously left-wing, being Jan Kleian of the moderate ACOM union. The Netherlands has a vibrant Right-of-Centre. Why was it ignored?
*
*
*
Later on the same programme the forthcoming Iraq inquiry was discussed with that old BBC favourite, Professor Peter Hennessy - always an interesting guest, but a man who also hails from the left-side of politics. Then on came the obligatory Sir Ming Campbell and that old Labour rogue Lord George Foulkes to complete the cast-list of liberals and lefties.

UKIP GET THE FULL SOPEL TREATMENT

*
The Conservatives certainly received unfair treatment from Jon Sopel on today's The Politics Show, but they can at least be thankful they weren't the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP may have inflicted a few wounds on themselves in the course of Sopel's report but most of the wounds resulted from Sopey's left-wing bias. He had clearly gone there with the firm intention of doing them as much damage as possible.
*
We began with mockery: "So we've got three MEPs, a millionaire peer and the chairman, yes a chairman, of a parish council in Wiltshire." Snippets of various election speeches were interlaced with shots of the audience, lingering long on a man with a fine handlebar moustache. (The handlebar moustache, and a Union Jackie dickie-bow tie, also got a mention on a Today programme report earlier in the week.)
*
Short extracts from interviews with each of the candidates for the leadership of UKIP followed. I would love to know how long the actual interviews lasted from which these crumbs were drawn and what questions were asked. Here the focus, initially, was firmly on immigration - and Sopel had the clear aim of painted UKIP as a far-right party analogous to the BNP.
*
First came Gerard Batten MEP. He said that immigration should be reduced to a trickle and that Sharia Law is unacceptable in this country. An unhappy-looking Sopel said "I 'm sure that Nick Griffin wouldn't disagree with anything you've just said."
*
Next came front-runner Lord Pearson, who Sopel clearly had in his sights. He was labelled a "former Tory" (boo!) and "old Etonian" (boo!), and a "field sports campaigner" (boo!)" and as the man who invited Geert Wilders to the Houses of Parliament (boo!). Wearing a sour expression, Sopel asked him "So is there a danger you could be confused, UKIP and the BNP?" When the lord answered (slowly), Sopey interrupted and twisted his words: "Are you saying that there's a fine line between UKIP and the BNP?" The over-polite peer should have replied "No, you twit, of course not - and, unless you're thick, you know I didn't."
*
The mere councillor came next, Alan Wood - "chairman of Fittleton Parish council", a man who "breeds spaniels". "Do you respect Lord Pearson?" asked Sopel. "No I don't", replied Mr Wood. "Are you saying that if he's elected people will think you're too close to the BNP?", asked Sopel. "Yes", replied Mr Wood. Job done for Sopel!
*
Next up was Mike Nattrass MEP. He was labelled a "former member of the right-wing New Britain"(boo!). 'Right-wing' is usually BBC code for a fascist nut. Mr Nattrass is absolutely no such thing, but how are BBC viewers to know that the 'right-wing' New Britain was not a fascist organisation, like the BNP? This is a low subliminal smear. Mike disagrees with Lord Pearson over whether there should be co-operation with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs (he thinks there shouldn't be) and Sopel, with mock incredulity, interrupted him to ask "Sorry I just dont...Sorry to interrupt, I just don't understand how you can work with somebody, Lord Pearson, if you disagree with the cornerstone of his policy, this idea of deals." Mike Nattrass replied, reasonably, that that's called 'democracy'. UKIP are nothing if not keen on democracy.
*
Finally, there was Nikki Sinclaire MEP. She "worked in the US to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger" (boo!). The beauty of being a biased BBC reporter is that you can nip and tuck all your interviews to validate your point of view and, having doubtless done just that, Jon Sopel could fairly ask Nikki: "Your party has got a bit of history of kind-of infighting." His other questions pursued the point with a vengeance: "Are you worried there's going to be a bloodbath after this election?" and "It almost sounds as a party as if you could do with some group therapy."
*
Having presented the party as being too close to the BNP - i.e. racist - Sopey ended by clinching his other point - that UKIP is bitterly divided: "Do get the impression (he asked us) that the United Kingdom Independence Party is a party at ease with itself, where they all really like each other?". He then answered his own rhetorical (?) question: "Probably not."
*
I, though a floating centre-right voter, am very sympathetic to UKIP. They are not helping themselves, however, by talking about each other in this way, but they can surely all unite in one thing - their fury at the disgraceful way the BBC treats them.
*

SOPEL SHOWS HIS HAND AGAIN

*
If The Andrew Marr Show was not as obtrusively biased as usual, the same cannot be said for The Politics Show with Jon Sopel. (I was pre-warned about this by reading an outraged Llew on the B-BBC website http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-thread_18.html#comments who says pretty much all that I'm about to say - but much more succinctly!)
*
Sopel mentioned viewers chucking things at the T.V. I wanted to chuck something at him.
*
His initial interview with Labour dronette Yvette Cooper was soft. Lasting well over four minutes, it contained only 2 interruptions) and neither of those interruptions came during the answers to Sopel's last two questions - the first of which brought up that Observer poll again (see my last post), which Sopey was at pains to point out shows a "big narrowing of the gap", and the second of which asked about an emergency budget in the light of Conservative proposals to hold one within 50 days of coming into office. Both questions got fairly long answers (33 seconds and 26 seconds respectively), and both answers strongly attacked the Conservatives. The second answer ignored the nub of Sopel's question and Sopey didn't think it appropriate to either point that out or re-ask the question.
*
Later Yvette Cooper returned for a joint interview with her Conservative shadow Theresa May. You might have thought -if only out of a sense of fair play - that Jon Sopel would have also interviewed Mrs May alone first. Not only did that not happen, but he allowed Yvette Cooper to dominate this second interview too!
*
The stats show this clearly. She got exactly 5 minutes of the joint interview, whereas Theresa May only got 2 minutes 42 seconds - i.e. Yvette got almost twice as long to speak as Theresa. Moreover, if you add that time to her earlier interview you get 9 minutes 42 seconds - exactly 7 minutes more. That's hardly fair, is it?
*
Yes, the interruption coefficients were identical (0.8) and Sopel pressed Yvette Cooper on several points in this later part of the programme but the questions he put to Therasa May had the edge on rudeness. After a 52 second-long first answer from Yvette Cooper, listing Labour's glorious achievements, Sopel asked this: "And, Theresa May, isn't that a record the Tories simply couldn't compete with when they were last in office, when there was very little help?" (By God, what a biased question!). He also interrupted Theresa's second answer after only 8 seconds, with "Let's not go onto VAT. Deal with the issue."
*
Theresa May also faced an onslaught of interruptions from Yvette Cooper, which Sopel was hardly at pains to curtail. (Yvette got to finish every single one of her points). When Theresa tried to do the same (just once), Sopey did not withdraw for once (as he did - twice - when Yvette Cooper persisted in speaking), holding out his arm and making a 'stop' gesture to Mrs May and saying "Hang on, hang on, one at a time". *
*
Also, when Yvette launched yet another of her attacks on the Tories, Sopel just let it run. He's making a habit of this now.
*
Beeb bias? I'll say!

MARR CHASES A SWALLOW

*
One swallow does not make a summer, as the saying goes, but Andrew Marr wasn't going to allow himself to be put off by a mere proverb. Out he came at the very start of the programme, cradling The Observer. Why? Well, as Marr himself put it, "After a general consensus that the Tories are coasting to victory in next year's general election, today's Observer reports a poll cutting their lead to single figures - the narrowest gap between those parties in nearly a year."
*
That was not the last we heard of the poll. It was there as he read the front pages of some of the newspapers at the start of this paper review ("And the poll I was mentioning right at the beginning is in The Observer.") It was brought up again in his interview with Nick Clegg: "Now you've been very critical of Gordon Brown just now, can I ask you about the opinion poll this morning that (shows it) may be closer to a hung parliament that we all thought." When Clegg replied "I think it's a really good thing...that these polls..there is a suggestion that it's not a shoe-in election", Andrew Marr went "mmm, mmm" approvingly (as is his way. He just can't stop himself.) Then when introducing David Cameron, he said "A poll this morning reminds us that David Cameron has not beaten Gordon Brown's Labour Party yet." Later in the interview, the poll made its fifth and final appearance on the programme: "Do you look at the poll this morning and think 'maybe all that tough talk has been extremely unpopular and we are really in a fight to the close with the Labour Party...All those people talking about the Conservative Party being a shoe-in for a decent majority, all of that's gone."
*
Single opinion polls don't usually get such attention on the Andrew Marr Show.
*
*

******

*
Remarkably the interview with David Cameron was surprisingly low on interruptions - only 8 (resulting in a low I.C. of 0.6) - and the interview with Nick Clegg was the tougher of the two (I.C. of 1). Cameron's low score was in complete contrast to the massive 2.1 achieved last time. Why was this? Too much flak for the naked bias displayed last time, and (like Kirsty Wark with Alex Salmond) a need to be seen to make amends this time? Or am I being too cynical here?
*
*
*

******

*
When Clegg launched a stringing attack on Gordon Brown over Afghanistan ("What angers me so much is that Gordon Brown has failed to make this case. He's failed as a war leader"), he drew a surprising comparison, comparing Brown's lack of investment in explaining the mission unfavourably with the Conservative government's strong investment of political capital, time and energy in explaining the Falkland's War to be British public. As soon as Clegg started, I though to myself Marr will have to interrupt this and indeed, just as Clegg was reaching his rhetorical climax ("It shows..."), he did just that, derailing the Lib Dem leader's point & moving it on to something far more congenial to Andrew Marr - the public's disapproval of the Afghan War. It would do to allow praise for Mrs Thatcher's government to go unchecked, would it?*

ESLER SOUNDS OFF. AGAIN.

*
Gavin Esler, the supposedly impartial BBC presenter, has just been sharing his opinions with us yet again on Dateline London.
*
On those absurd EU appointments, he told us (in keeping with what seems to be the Beeb's new standard line on the issue) "One way of looking at it is that Sarkozy and Merkel, and maybe Brown and Berlusconi and the others, want it to be - what did the French used to call it? - a 'union des patries', a union of sovereign states, which is what it is . So it's shot the idea that there's some federal superstate in the offing".
*
Having taken sides against the Eurosceptics, he returned to the fray later, saying this: "I rarely hear the federalist superstate argument except for people who say they're opposed to it. You never hear anyone saying they want it."
*
What will, say, UKIP make of such criticisms from a supposedly neutral BBC presenter?

I WONDER WHAT FELICITY'S LIKE TO HAVE A DRINK WITH

*
I'm slowing catching up on my programmes here, so it's back now to last night's The World Tonight and the second appearance (if you ignore strict chronology) of Labour's Joyce Quin (friend of Baroness Ashton, and a baroness herself). Joycie was interviewed by young Felicity Evans.
*
Here are the questions she was asked:
*
1. "She's obviously someone who's been involved in the nitty-gritty of the recent negotiations over Lisbon, but she isn't someone necessarily that many people will have heard of."
*
2. "How important is it for you that a woman is being elevated to such a prominent role within the EU?"
*
3. "There are those though who may express concern about the fact that she's never been elected as a political representative. What would you say to those concerns?"
*
4. "And what about her as a person, as a character? Can you give us an idea about what she'd be like to have a drink with?"
*
Hardly Andrew Neil is she!!
*

ALL HAIL THE NOBODY!

*
The rise of the Labour placewoman Baroness Ashton to Europe's new foreign ministry, without ever deigning to be elected by the general public, is an insult to democracy. If you listened to Justin Webb's reports from Brussels on this morning's Today programme, however, you would have got a very different impression of the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8369000/8369748.stm
*
The feature at 7.34 featured short bites of praise from Gordon Brown, David Rennie of The Economist (38 seconds) and former Labour MP Kerry Pollard (defeated 2005) (23 seconds), as well as a short bite of tepid criticism from the Conservative leader in the European parliament Timothy Kirkhope (26 seconds). The main feature here though was a remarkable interview with the failed Labour leader Lord Kinnock. This gooey confection lasted 4 mins 30 seconds, with Justin chuckling away at the not-so-noble lord's little jokes at democracy's expense. Justin added warm words of his own too: "Since her arrival in Brussels she's impressed people with her diligence and her diplomacy." Who are these "people"? Are they "all people", "most people", "some people", "a small number of people"? *
*
A full-scale interview between Justin Webb and Cathy Ashton herself followed at 8.10. This was no toughie either, with plenty of softly-struck questions and few critical interruptions. The democratic deficit was not dwelt on for long (passed over in less than a minute).
*
Our friends at the BBC seem to want us to believe that the Euro-sceptic belief that European federalism is alive and kicking and that the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution) has breathed new fire into it has been refuted by the installation of these nobodies. Webb put this very point to Baroness Ashton: "What do you make of the idea that your appointment, and Mr Van Rumpuy's as well, suggest that the Eurosceptics are wrong, that the idea of a kind of federal state emerging and Europe having powerful people of stature who go around speaking for Europe, that that's all been rather given up on now. European people like you are going to speak for Europe but in amongst all the other foreign ministers and nation states?" He then pursued the point with the Beeb's new Europe editor Gavin Hewitt: "Is this the end of federalism Gavin? Is this a kind of sea-change, a moment where Europe has looked at a route and decided not to go down it?" Hewitt told us "that the person they (the EU leaders) were looking for was a low-profile chairman, a coordinator" and went on to say "for some Eurosceptics today, they are celebrating because the big powerful president who would impact on the world stage that hasn't happened." I'm not sure Hewitt is qualified to speak for Eurosceptics. He doesn't speak for me, nor for many others I'd wager: http://derekbennetteu-sceptic.blogspot.com/2009/11/nonenities-to-fore.html.*

QUESTION TIMINGS

*
Counting up the amount of time each of the guests on last night's Question Time got to speak reveals that it was, as it seemed, the Phil Woolas Show. He certainly received the lion's share of Dimbleby's interruptions, but was compensated by being allowed the lion's share (one-third) of the programme!
*
Total amount of time each guest spoke for - including the time taken by Dimbleby's questions(percentage of total time):
*
Phil Woolas (Labour) - 15 minutes 19 seconds (33.3%)
Ming Campbell (Lib Dem) - 10 minutes 8 seconds (22.4%)
Clare Short (Left-wing independent) - 8 minutes 19 seconds (18.1%)
Nick Ferrari (Right-wing commentator) - 6 minutes 24 seconds (14.3%)
Chris Grayling (Conservative) - 5 minutes 31 seconds (11.9%)
*
The combined voices of the Left therefore got 73.8% of the show, whereas the combined voices of the Right got 26.2%.
*
Woolas had interrupted Chris Grayling at every opportunity throughout the programme and when Mr Grayling interrupted him back for once in crashed Dimbleby with "One at a time please. Don't just argue over each other. Just finish your point..." and allowed Woolas to go on attacking the Conservatives for quite some time.
**
As Woolas was about to push his percentage up even further, Dimbleby finally called time: "Our time is up Phil. I'm sorry, you've had many chances to speak." I should say he had!!!

SPARING HARRIET'S BLUSHES

(*
Sorry, but it's back to him again!
*
When Gavin Esler said in the programme's introduction that "The Tory MP in charge of helping to fix the expenses scandal, David Curry, is forced to quit after revelations about this own arrangements", I immediately thought to myself, "Aahh, I bet that will be one for Michael Crick." Of course, it was!
*
The story (in the Telegraph) involves claims for a cottage where Curry was not living, allegedly, due to his wife's demands that he move out after he was caught having an affair with a local headmistress. Now that's a story for Michael Crick to come onto Newsnight and crow about if ever there was one! And crow he certainly did: "But it's hugely embarrassing this." "That he's had to step down after a few weeks isn't just embarrassing for the Conservatives - although he's not a very mainstream Conservative, he's very pro-European - but embarrassing to MPs and parliament as a whole."
*
As for the other main story in the Telegraph and most other papers - Harriet Harman 's prosecution for allegedly crashing into another car while using a mobile phone (a crime under legislation passed while she was Solicitor General!) - that was not mentioned by Michael Crick. What a surprise! I'd have thought the story was 'hugely embarrassing, not just for her but for the Labour Party.' It flashed by (in about 10 seconds) during Gavin Esler's brief news summary before the final features. Also flashing by were the latest appalling government borrowing figures - which are naturally far less important for a BBC political editor to talk about than a scandalous Tory!!
* figur