BURKAS IN BELGIUM AND BERKS AT THE BBC

*
In a move hailed by UKIP, a Belgian parliamentary committee has called for the banning of the burka in public places.
*
The BBC's take on this provides an insight into their thinking on this sort of subject and another example of bias by labelling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8597142.stm
*
Here's the passage that particularly caught my eye:

Denis Ducarme, from the Belgian centre-right Reformist
Movement that proposed the bill, said he was "proud that Belgium would be the
first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter".

What puzzles me is that by calling the Reformist Movement "centre-right" readers might take it to be the Belgian equivalent of either UKIP or the Conservative Party. It's no such thing. It's a liberal party and sits with Chris Huhne's party in the European parliament, being - like the Lib Dems - a member of Liberal International.
*
So this policy was proposed by the Belgian (Walloon) equivalent of the Liberal Democrats yet the BBC seems reluctant to mention that. Why?
*
Indeed all five parties in the current coalition government back the move. They are:
*
- The Flemish Christian Democrats (CD & V)
- The Walloon Christian Democrats (CdH)
- The Flemish Liberals (VLD)
- The Walloon Liberals (MR)
- The Walloon Socialists (PS)
*
And who are the Walloon Socialists allied to in the European parliament? Denis MacShane and the Labour Party of course.
*
Why did the BBC article not make it plain that this proposed measure has widespread support across the Belgian political spectrum? Why only mention the 'centre-right' proponents of the ban?
*

UPDATE Looking through the online newspapers is intriguing here (in a nerdy sort of way).
*
Here's the Telegraph, not downplaying the cross-party nature of the support and correctly identifying the 'liberal' identity of the Reformist Movement:

The unanimous decision by senior home affairs legislators, with the support of Belgium's main political parties, has paved the way for a full Belgian parliament vote on a ban to be held in three weeks.
Denis Ducarme, a Belgian MP for the liberal Reformist Movement party that
drafted the ban, predicted that legislation would receive full parliamentary
backing on April 22.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/7541430/Belgium-could-be-first-country-to-ban-the-burka.html

The Times also reports that "Belgium's main parties are united behind the move and the influential home affairs committee voted for it unanimously today," though it joins the BBC in labeling the Reformist movement as 'centre-right'. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7083103.ece
*
Curiously though The Daily Mail places Mr Ducarme correctly as a 'liberal' but positions him somewhere quite different on the political spectrum:

"Left-wing MP Denis Ducarme left no doubt the rules were targeting-Muslim extremists. The French- speaking liberals who have proposed the law argue that an inability to identify people presents a security risk and that the veil is a ‘walking prison’ for women." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1262545/Belgium-set-European-country-ban-burka.html#ixzz0jmqY78ZN

Wikipedia suggests that the party of Mr Ducarme has been drifting leftwards in recent years, under the influence of social liberal Dirk Verhofstadt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Verhofstadt
*

ESLER COMES OUT FIGHTING FOR TONY BLAIR

*
With Kirsty Wark, Gavin Esler is the most blatantly biased of the Newsnight presenters. His performance on last night's programme saw him act without restraint as a partisan for Tony Blair. He praised the former prime minister and defended him (alongside John Prescott, not pictured) against Eric Pickles and the ubiquitous Chris Huhne with a passion unbecoming of a supposedly impartial interviewer. He interrupted Eric Pickles relentlessly and, when Mr Huhne turned his always-withering fire on TB's business activities, turned on him too, calling his remarks 'outrageous'. Esler was so actively involved in backing Tony Blair that he exercised little or no control over the debate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
*
The interruption coefficients here tell part of the story:
*
Eric Pickles - 1.6
Chris Huhne - 0.8
John Prescott - 0.6
*

...AND BACK AGAIN

*
That revised article about the Chancellors debate has certain features you would expect from the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8593509.stm
*
There are videos for all three politicians. How long does each last?
*
Alistair Darling - 2 minutes 13 seeconds
Vince Cable - 2 minutes 9 seconds
George Osborne - 1 minute 40 seconds
*
Also, only one politician is granted the honour of a 'blockquote' in a box on the right hand side of the page - Alistair Darling, attacking George Osborne.
*
The only other 'blockquote' belongs to Stephanie Flanders, the BBC's biased economics editor and links to her blog, Stephanomics. Go there and you find...not a review of the debate as such but just another of her many articles questioning Conservative economic policy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/03/osbornes_tricky_balance.html
*

OSBORNE ATTACKS DARLING'S PLANS...OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY...

*
The 'Chancellors Debate' on Channel 4 is over. The spinning from all sides begins.
*
The BBC News website home page leads with the story. What is its angle?
*
Well, its headline is Darling launches Tory tax attack
*
And the summary beneath reads Chancellor Alistair Darling labels Tory economic policy "irresponsible" in a TV debate with rivals George Osborne and Vince Cable.
*
Fancy that, the BBC presenting the story from Labour's perspective!
*
8
UPDATE 21.55 pm Guess what? The BBC News website has 'revised' its home page.
*
Getting rid of the biased headline quoted above, it has replaced it with the far better Chancellors square up in debate.
*
The summary beneath now reads Alistair Darling clashes with his Tory and Lib Dem counterparts over tax rises and spending cuts in a live TV debate.
*
That is what it should have said in the first place.
*
Who complained to make this happen, I wonder?

CAROLYN QUINN

YOU AIN'T HEARD NOTHING LIKE THE FLIGHTY QUINN

*
I've fumed many times before about Radio 4's Westminster Hour. The levels of bias to be found on this programme sometimes make even the Today programme seem like a model of impartiality in comparison.
*
Carolyn Quinn 's handling of last night's politics panel was par for the course - odious!
*
She began by making mischief for the Conservative panelist Ed Vaizey over his 'SamCam votes Labour' blunder. Then she got serious and began making mischief for the Conservatives in general, beginning the discussion proper with this question: "Now look, let's talk about the poster campaign tomorrow though Ed, Conservatives using their substantial election warchest, aren't they, with a poster war, really going for the jugular with a highly personalised attack on Gordon Brown?"
*
I fumed about Carolyn pursuing this line of attack before. Labour have been engaging in savage personal attacks on David Cameron and George Osborne for years without being on the receiving end of such accusations from Carolyn Quinn.
*
Ed Vaizey responded by denying it was 'highly personalised' and said the poster campaign is about Brown's record not Brown's personality - as indeed it is.
*
Carolyn wasn't to be dissuaded and decided to plough on, asking Labour's excellent Tom Harris (and the words 'Labour' and 'excellent' don't often go together!) "Tom, what are you going to do to fight back when you see the Conservatives tearing lumps out of the prime minister?" Disappointingly for her, Tom replied "I wouldn't actually say that this is necessarily a personal attack on Gordon. Actually I kind of agree with what Ed has just been saying, that these are policy issues they're raising...But overall I don't think it's a personal attack but I don't think it's going to be particularly effective."
*
Carolyn Quinn still wasn't going to be dissuaded and decided to plough on again, outrageously, asking"Matthew, do you think the public likes it what it gets personal like this?" Nothing was going to stop her from smearing the Tories!!
*
This time she got the answer she wanted from the more-Labour-than-Labour Lib Dem treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott - a man who often has nice things to say about Labour and always has harsh things to say about the Conservatives. Oakeshott took the moral highground, calling the Conservatives 'sneaky', railing against 'punch-and-judy politics' and calling for a more positive campaign. When all this humbuggery had ended, Carolyn Quinn turned back to Ed Vaizey and asked in an incredulous tone "Ed, I thought initially that David Cameron wanted a positive campaign?" As I say, nothing was going to stop her.

Thankfully, both Ed and Tom then cracked up with laughter at Lord Oakeshott's expense. They know, as do I, that Oakeshott - that arch-baiter of Lord Ashcroft and the Tories - is a 'punch-and-judy' man to the core and that his prissy remarks were just pure humbug. They pointed that out, of course (humorously), not Carolyn Quinn. She was only interested in making mischief for the Tories.
*
Ed then defended the Conservative strategy again.
*
If you still remain to be convinced that Carolyn Quinn is one of the BBC's most biased presenters just read what she said next, to Tom Harris: "You've got this...you don't think it's a personalised
campaign. People will think it is a change of tack and a personalised campaign against Gordon Brown." Isn't that outrageous bias?

Now she did then go on to say "...but Labour want to focus the attention back on George Osborne, don't they? Don't they see George Osborne as the weak link?" You could say that after all that has gone before this is a belated attempt to restore an ounce of balance, making a link to a forthcoming 'highly personalised' attack by Labour (and you can bet that Labour's really will be a 'highly personalised' attack!). But note that she didn't explicitly make that point and that she, instead, asked about Labour's perceptions of George Osborne, inviting an attack from Tom Harris.
*
When Tom, repeating in the process that he thought the Conservative posters were 'negative' but not 'personal', then talked of the 'unrelentingly positive' Labour campaign of 1997. Instead of countering this, Carolyn chipped in supportively "'Britain deserves better', wasn't that the slogan?" Tom then proceeded, as you would expect, to attack George Osborne (not too harshly though).
*
When the issue of tonight's Channel 4 debate between Darling, Osborne and Cable came up, Ed Vaizey began to criticise Labour's record, saying "Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown sold our gold at the bottom of the market." This is one of the great under-reported scandals of this government. What did Carolyn Quinn interject here, with mock weariness? "Oh you're not going back to the gold sale again!!" Yes Carolyn, let's always go back to the gold sale again. She then tried to stop him continuing the point and when he continued on a different point barracked him again.
*
Carolyn then went on to quote praise for Alistair Darling and later for Vince Cable. No praise for George Osborne of course ever passed her lips.
*
She is something else.

MORE BS

*
Last week's Broadcasting House featured a report on trade unions from a socialist historian. This week we got an 'alternative budget statement' from 'ethical champion' Ed Mayo (yes, not Egg Mayo), head of Cooperatives UK, and a member of countless other 'third sector' - ie left-wing - organisations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Mayo).
*
Mr Mayo does not approve of 'consumerism'.
*
Later BH attended the launch of a new feminist organisation, UK Feminista. One old-time feminist reminded us how bad Mrs Thatcher was before we heard from left-wing Hannah Pool of The Guardian.

At least Paddy O'Connell read out the Sunday Times's revelations about the two Labour ex-ministers during his programme's paper review.

MORE TAXIS...CONTINUED

*
Sometime between 10-11 am, the story of the next pair of Labour ex-ministers caught offering themselves as cabbies finally appeared on the BBC News website (last on parade): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8591485.stm
*
It is now the third-placed story on the Politics page. I will keep checking as the afternoon goes on and see how soon it slips down the running order and when it vanishes.
*
It bears the standard wording of a BBC website headline whenever Labour MPs gets accused of scandalous behaviour:
8*
******Ex-ministers deny wrongdoing over lobbying claims
*
Why not 'More Labour ex-ministers accused of wrongdoing over lobbying'?
*
History is repeating itself. Once again the BBC begins by ignoring the story, if it's a story that's unhelpful to Labour. (The always-worth-reading Beeboidal on the Biased BBC website did find a mention of it buried away near the bottom of the website's review of the Sunday papers). Then it moves on to stage two. Having to report the story, it does so later than anyone else and presents it as a story of Labour (though they usually avoid that word in any headline) denying wrongdoing. The denial is placed front stage, not the accusations. There are two block quotes placed to the right of the article, each from one of the two Labour 'wrongdoers' - again, their denials are quoted and placed front stage.
*
If the story continues to grow, it will doubtless be time for the BBC to get Mark Easton to pull a rabbit out of the hat again, as he did last Monday. Has he a spare rabbit to hand?
*
Spin, spin, and yet more spin from the biased BBC.
*
*
UPDATE Mon 29/3 7.15am Well, the story is still on the Politics page, hanging on by its fingertips (the next to last on the right hand column). A couple more nudges and it will fall into oblivion (doubtless some time this morning), never to be heard of again.

CERIMANDERING

*
A special-listener panel...and the Today editor Ceri Thomas were gathered together by Feedback. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006slnx
*
One of the listeners challenged Mr Thomas about biased reporting, comparing the downplaying of Gordon Brown's retraction of his lies to the Chilcot Inquiry over defence spending with the acres of coverage given to the latest twist over Lord Ashcroft on 18/3. Mr Thomas, being a typical BBC editor, rejected the criticism. The lying prime minister's correction was a 'one-fact story' that broke the previous day and was widely covered (he said) by Radio 4's other current affairs programmes on the day itself. "Once he had said "I'd made a mistake" there wasn't a great deal more for us to explore...", said Thomas, ignoring the question of whether the "mistake", as Thomas kept calling it, was a deliberate one or not. That might have been worth exploring.
*
Thomas then said that the main reason they covered Lord Ashcroft so much on the 18/3 edition was that the Conservatives had rung Today at 6.15am, offering up William Hague, who Today had been trying to get "for some time". He didn't mention that Today had previously announced (at 6.00) that it had been leaked a secret cabinet document about Lord Ashcroft (by some Labour lackey no doubt). The idea that they wouldn't have made a mountain out of that, with or without Mr Hague, is laughable.
*
He continued, "I think a definition of impartiality is not in the end radio by numbers. It doesn't mean that we have to do the same amount on stories that have to relate to two different political parties". Or report them fairly, or interview politicians from the political parties in a balanced way, or base stories on reports from a broad spectrum of think tanks and pressure groups, etc?
*
The other two listeners on the panels indeed sounded like Guardian-reading types. The woman on the panel wanted a 'gender balance' on the programme and much time was spent discussing this.

Regardless, Mr Thomas rejected all criticism. He's a BBC editor after all.

EVEN ANDREW MARR CAN'T TAKE SUCH A LOT OF BALLS

*
Andrew Marr interviewed Michael Gove and Ed Balls today - and he gave Balls the hard time! Will wonders never cease!
*
Balls was on blood-boilingly bad form today, turning every answer into an attack on the Conservatives, lying shamelessly about Michael Gove (saying that Mr Gove had spent most of his interview attacking Labour, which he most certainly had not! Andrew Marr picked up on this and pointed it out. Well done Andrew!) and generally behaving like a spoiled kid. Even the bit on the sofa and the end saw three digs from Balls at Michael Gove (including a nasty class gibe at the end). Only Ed Balls could use a discussion about daylight saving to attack the Tories over trades unions! Even Andrew Marr couldn't take this embarrassingly unpleasant performance lying down. He strongly challenged Balls's myriad evasions over cuts and over the BA strike and tried again and again to get him to talk about Labour policy.
*
In contrast Michael Gove was reasonableness personified and the interview was good natured and positive.
*
The interruption coefficients were these:
*
***Michael Gove - 0.8
***Ed Balls - 1.6
*
If Andrew Marr were like this every week - not just once in a blue moon -, going for any party's spokesman who is being evasive and discussing rationally with any party's spokesman who answers honestly and rationally, there would be no problem with his programme.
*

MORE TAXIS...

*
The Sunday Times today spotlights two more Labour ex-ministers who are keen to be 'cabs for hire' - former defence minister Adam Ingram and former sports minister Richard Caborn. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7076041.ece
**
Let's see how this is covered by the biased BBC.
*
9.40 am (BST!) The story is now being reported by the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7531303/Two-more-former-ministers-Adam-Ingram-and-Richard-Caborn-embroiled-in-Lobbygate.html
*
It is also one of the TOP STORIES on the Sky News website: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Two-Former-Labour-Ministers-Recorded-Apparently-Offering-Contacts-And-Expertise-For-Cash/Article/201003415585984?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15585984_Two_Former_Labour_Ministers_Recorded_Apparently_Offering_Contacts_And_Expertise_For_Cash *
*
Even the Observer reports the story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/28/lobbying-sting-former-labour-ministers
*
Surprise, suprise - still nothing on the BBC News website! (Are they waiting until they get the official Labour line?)
*
10.50 am Though the headline is of kind you might expect the BBC to use, (Two more 'in lobbying scandal'), even the pro-Labour Independent now carries the Labour-embarrassing story
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/two-more-in-lobbying-scandal-1929560.html
*
Only the BBC website is still staying silent.
*

A TASTER

*
Just a few more days of March remain and my monthly list of interruption coefficients will be out. So far nine out of the top ten most interruption-riven interviews are with Conservatives, only one with Labour. This looks set to be the most dramatic set of results yet. As the election nears the BBC is gearing itself up for a final onslaught on behalf of the party it loves.
*

BROWN FIDDLES THE FIGURES, THE BBC FIDDLES THE STORY

*
Over on the Biased BBC blogsite The All-Seeing Eye (prompted by that other all-seeing eye, George R) draws our attention to another instance of bias in the BBC's choice of headlines.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/fun-with-immigration-figures.html
*
The issue at hand is Gordon Brown's latest dodge with statistics. He's been caught out again, this time spinning migration figures. Who's caught him out? Well, Channel 4 News for starters. Here's Cathy Newman:

Gordon Brown has done it again. The statistics he used for 2009 are an under-estimate, because they don’t include all migrants. The figures he used for 2007 and 2008, however, do. So he’s misled the public by comparing the most flattering data for the latest year with the most unflattering data in the previous years.
The full year figures for 2009 aren’t yet available, so until we see them, we won’t know for certain if the prime minister’s claim that immigration is falling is true or not.
But he doesn’t have the figures to make that claim either. And in the meantime, the
statistics we do have so far show that after falling in 2008, immigration is on the way up in 2009.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/2010/03/26/browns-migration-muddle/#more-822

The first point to be made here is that this again shows Channel 4 to be performing a greater public service role than the BBC. Channel 4 News's Fact Check blog is turning up all sorts of fascinating abuses of statistics by all the parties. Why isn't, say, Newsnight or Today performing 'fact checks' on politicians' use of statistics? I suppose though that in some ways it's no bad thing they aren't as if they did they would doubtless concentrate heavily on the Conservatives' use of statistics. (See Mark Easton!)
*
Now, as the all-seeing eyes at the Biased BBC site note, this is how the story is reported in some of the papers:
"How Gordon Brown's podcast turned an immigration rise into a fall" - Daily Mail
"Gordon Brown accused of fiddling immigration figures" - Daily Telegraph
*
Neither paper quotes Channel 4 News as the source of the story, but instead present the discovery of Brown's latest dissemblance as the work of MigrationWatch (which it may well be, as great minds often think alike and MigrationWatch are unlikely not to have noticed such fiddling!)
*
The BBC however (discreetly tucking the story away beneath a much more prominent article on its Politics page) headlines it: "Row over PM migration figures". This is a far less interesting headline & it distorts the story. The story is that Brown got it wrong again, not that there's a row.
*
The article that follows then tries to mislead its readers into thinking that the allegations of dishonesty originate with the Conservatives:
*
The Conservatives have accused Gordon Brown of "dishonesty" over immigration figures used in a Number 10 podcast.

Mr Brown said net migration into the UK fell from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and provisionally 147,000 in 2009.

The Tories said the figure for 2009 was only for the year up to June, and excluded asylum seekers and people overstaying their original visas.

A Downing Street spokesman said the prime minister had made it clear he was using a provisional figure for 2009.

The Conservatives' interpretation of the figures has been confirmed by the Office for National Statistics.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling called it "another extraordinary example of Gordon Brown's dishonesty".


Nowhere is either Channel 4 News or Migration Watch mentioned. Any reader would assume that the figures were initially disputed by the Conservatives. This might very well tempt readers to dismiss it as just another superficial party political row - Tories accuse Labour, Labour accuse the Tories - rather thatn see it for what it really is. That's dishonest reporting from the BBC.
*
The underlying intent is clear. It's to say "Move along, nothing to see here."
*
*
Not a sheep is getting more than fed up about this sort of thing. Please have a read and see if you don't share his rage:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/gordon-brown-lies-again-and-bbc-dont.html

THAT'S A BIT BETTER!

*
As ever Saturday morning means the Newsnight 'front pages review', listed in order of mention. Though The Guardian maintains its unique unbroken run of mentions, this week's programmes have featured a much more balanced selection from the broadsheets. (Hardly any mentions for the tabloids. No Daily Mail for instance).
*
Fri 26/3 Gavin Esler
1. The Times
2. The Financial Times
3. The Guardian
4. The Daily Telegraph
5. The Independent
*
Thu 25/3 Kirsty Wark
1. The Daily Telegraph
2. The Times
3. The Guardian
4. The Financial Times
*
Wed 24/3 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Financial Times
2. The Guardian
3. The Daily Telegraph
4. The Independent
5. The Daily Star
*
Tue 23/3 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Guardian
2. The Independent
3. The Daily Telegraph
4. The Financial Times
5. The Times
*
Mon 22/3 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Financial Times
2. The Guardian
3. The Daily Telegraph
4. The Times
*

DIMBLEDATA FROM GLASGOW

*
This week's dull-as-ditchwater edition of Question Time from Glasgow produced the following rather more interesting set of Dimbledata:
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Liam Byrne (Lab) - 13 minutes 8 seconds
2. Martin Sorrell (businessman) - 11 minutes 55 seconds
3. Alex Salmond (SNP) - 8 minutes 12 seconds
4. Julia Goldsworthy (Lib Dem) - 6 minutes 51 seconds
5. Baroness Warsi (Con) - 5 minutes 53 seconds
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Liam Byrne - 14
2. Martin Sorrell - 7
3. Baroness Warsi - 6
4. Julia Goldsworthy - 4
5. Alex Salmond - 1
**
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Baroness Warsi - 1.1
2. Liam Byrne - 1.1
3. Julia Goldsworthy - 0.6
4. Martin Sorrell - 0.6
5. Alex Salmond - 0.1
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Liam Byrne - 17
2. Martin Sorrell - 11
3. Baroness Warsi - 5
4. Julia Goldworthy - 5
5. Alex Salmond - 2
*

DON'T FORGET THE SENIOR TORY (WHO?)

*
Geoff Hoon got a long, not unsympathetic interview this morning with Jim Naughtie (I.C. of 0.6) on this morning's Today programme.
*
Naughtie was extremely sparing with the word 'Labour' - it occurred just once in the course of an interview that lasted 14 1/2 minutes. What of the word 'Conservative'? That occurred twice, (once at the very beginning):

"And this week there was more. Three former cabinet ministers and a senior Conservative MP were filmed secretly by the Dispatches programme for Channel 4..."

"But the problem here is that you were filmed and Patricia Hewitt and Stephen Byers were filmed secretly, Sir John Butterfield, Conservative MP, sitting there, chattering about what you could do for these companies..."

ANOTHER WARK ON THE BIASED SIDE

*
Only a few days ago I warned of the dangers for Conservative spokesmen of being interviewed with their Labour and Lib Dem opposite numbers by Kirsty Wark. Last night's short Newsnight debate provided more proof of that.
*
The issue was policing and the guests were David Hanson (Labour), Chris Grayling (Conservative) and the ubiquitous Chris Huhne (Lib Dem).
*
The interruptions flew, and they flew mostly at Mr Grayling (called 'Christopher' throughout by Kirsty).
*
Who received the most interruptions?
***Chris(topher) Grayling - 6 (I.C. of 2.6)
***Chris 'Huhnework' Huhne - 3 (I.C. of 1.9)
***David Hanson - 2 (I.C. of 1.0)
*
The interruptions were only one aspect of the bias. As ever, Kirsty aimed her fire at the Tory:
*
Who was questioned the hardest?
***Chris Grayling - 8 questions
***David Hanson - 4 questions
***Chris Huhne - 3 questions
*
She also ended one of her volleys against Mr Grayling with a classic editorial criticism of his final answer before moving straight on to another guest (without giving him the chance to defend himself against her criticism).
*
All of this was easily predictable. Kirsty Wark is one of the worst interviewers on the BBC.

AND BEFORE I FORGET...

*
Time for one of my apologies for a blogging drought again today.
*
Just time to return to Andrew Marr's latest programme and bring out something I should have brought out more fully on Sunday. I mentioned that Marr often says nice things about Alistair Darling to Alistair Darling (and via him to us the voting public)
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/marr-on-very-biased-form.html
*
The specific compliment that Marr keeps on giving Mr Darling is this: "You famously gave a gloomy but accurate account of what might be coming ahead of the recession as it was about to hit us and you were pretty much proved right..."
*
How different this is to the lesson drawn by Alex Brummer The Daily Mail:
Indeed, a consistent theme of Darling's budgets has been his rose-tinted economic forecasts. The most misleading occurred in the spring of 2008 when he predicted only a minor downturn. In fact, Britain and the global economy was heading into the deepest slump since the 1930s.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1260470/Budget-2010-Smoke-mirrors-politics-spite.html#ixzz0jAbeodAt
*
Mr Darling smiled appreciately at Andrew Marr's latest paean to his wisdom and foresight, as well he might.

CRICK LIES LOW

*
The most recent post on Michael Crick's blog remains his little quip about Stephen Byers not having a driving licence.
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/crick-cuts-to-heart-of-story.html
*
Newsnight's pro-Labour political editor found time to write serious, full-length posts about Lord Ashcroft recently, yet the cat seems to have got his tongue over this story.
*
I wonder why.
*
I see that he also took to the hills yesterday, handing over his Newsnight responsibilities to David Grossman again - after doing his little spin-job on Monday. I've noted his Macavity tendencies before, when there's trouble for Labour.
*
Don't worry Michael, it's Budget Day today. You can come out of purdah and spin for the government again to your heart's content. This scandal will go away. Your colleagues are working very hard on that already. The story has already disappeared from the homepage of the BBC News website. Relax!

HIM AGAIN

*
I blogged yesterday about one of the ways the BBC was trying to deflect the latest parliamentary scandal away from Labour - by turning from Labour to the issue of lobbying, bringing in the left-wing Alliance for Lobbying Transparency to generalise the story and attack the Tories. http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-ways-to-deflect-story.html
*
Professor David Miller from the organisation was on yesterday's Today programme. He was back again on today's World at One, talking to Martha Kearney. Which party, despite its not being the party most culpable in the current scandal. was on the receiving end of the corporate-bashing prof's stringent criticism?: "There are about 60 prospective parliamentary candidates in the coming election who have not yet been elected who have links to the lobbying industry, who work as lobbyists. Of those the large bulk of them are Conservatives." Prof Miller then aggressively attacked some of these Conservative candidates, singling out "David Cameron's former press secretary George Eustace" and Priti Patel. He is clearly no independent expert.
*
Earlier a Labour activist called John Knight railed against his MP Geoff Hoon and those middle-class Blairites who had "usurped" his party, and acted against the working class.
*
Sir Christopher Kelly followed.

WHAT A TWITTER!

*
I've been vaguely aware of BBC bias ever since I was a teenager, even in my politically apathetic middle years, but I've always sensed that Matt Frei is in something of a league of his own.
*
DB on the Biased BBC blogsite catches this humdinger of a twitter from the man:
*
Could the GOP now define itself in its reaction to healthcare reform in a way it might regret later in this year. Remember Tories=Nasty Party
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/nasty-party-narrative-dusted-off.html

NORM!

*
The rage of righteous Labour against its wrongdoing elders, reported by John Humphrys, was I note also the theme of blog favourite Norman Smith. Noble Labour, betrayed by a few errant sheep! "What's striking is that the real anger about this whole saga is not to be found on the opposition benches, it's not David Cameron or Nick Clegg, it is among Labour MPs."
*
'Is it going to be hard for Gordon Brown to resist calls for a parliamentary inquiry?', asked John Humphrys. "No, I don't think so", replied Norm.
*

JOHN, MARK AND JUSTIN

*
At least Today didn't entirely swallow The World Tonight's deviant line!
*
Continuing on from my earlier posts, there was confirmation that Labour is (paradoxically) keen to hear the BBC discuss Mark Easton's holiday freebies story rather than the far-more-damaging-to-Labour lobbying story from the characteristically unsure-footed Sir Stuart Bell on this morning's Today programme.
*
Labour veteran Sir Stuart gave the game away, saying in answer to a question from Justin Webb, "Well I think the Labour Party meeting last night was more to do with the three cabinet ministers rather than the question of 20 MPs who had not declared their interests on foreign trips. So essentially what I'm talking about today is this further error of judgement in our colleagues, twenty of them, which unfortunately means that 646 MPs are now tarred with the same brush..." To his credit, Justin (who was not reading from the prescribed Mark Easton/Michael Crick/The World Tonight script) pulled him back to the cabinet ministers and pressed him on it! Not that Sir Stuart gave any real answers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582281.stm
*
Still the narrative, a "cross-party affair" (as Justin called it), was back in place soon after with the appearance of the man himself, Mark 'Stick-the-knife-into-the-Tories' Easton. In outlining the rules to John Humphrys he used a far-from-hypothetical example of an MP who, say, goes to the Maldives. There is such an MP, and he's a Conservative, David Amess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582305.stm. Andrew Dismore (the sacrificial Labour lamb) followed, as he did with Michael Crick and on The World Tonight. He's the one on the Parliamentary Committee on Standards and Privileges. Then Easton went back to the Maldives guy, Mr Amess (this time naming him). As Sir Stuart said, Labour is much more comfortable here, where the guilt is spread much more widely across the parties.
*
John Humphrys returned though to the big story at 8.10, but he spun it in the expected way.
*
He began by saying that their was anger at the former cabinet ministers not just from the opposition but "not only on the opposition benches. There was plenty of anger among Labour MPs too. Well now the government has reacted. The three ministers involved have been suspended from the Labour Party". So there you go, Labour is outraged and has taken strong action against the three . Labour's all right really, it's only a few rotten eggs.
*
Interviewing Jack Straw, John Humphrys first discussed the individuals then questioned the rules. Shouldn't the rules the changed? The rules, the rules, it's the fault of the rules. After the few rotten eggs came the generalities. The government's thinking on the generalities was where the bulk of the interview lay. So the discussion moved from three individuals from the Labour Party to parliament as a whole without dwelling on the in-between i.e. the Labour Party itself, which is riddled with sleaze.
*

ONE-PART-OF-THE-WORLD-IN-PARTICULAR TONIGHT

*
After discussing Mark Easton's 'they're all as bad as each other, so Labour's not the worst of the lot by a long way as you might think' story, The World Tonight moved swiftly on to discuss its favourite subject, Israel (the subject is its favourite of course, not Israel!)
*
It was discussed, inevitably, with a liberal American academic, Michele Dunne, senior research associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (the programme's favourite US think tank) before yet another report on this plight of the Palestinians - this time from Paul Wood on how "unarmed" Palestinians, "just coming home from college", were being shot with real (rather than rubber) bullets by the wicked Israelis. A Palestinian medic said, yes, he was sure they were shot with real bullets. The Palestinian case was made at considerable length, the Israeli denial considerably more concisely.
*
The BBC are just obsessed about this. I am deeply, deeply bored by their obsession. I want to hear about Cambodia, or Gambia, or Canada, or Tunisia, or Fiji...there's a whole world out there BBC! Let's hear about it!
*
(The World Tonight at least does spread its wings a bit wider than its companion programmes.)

*

DEFLECTOR SHIELDS TO MAXIMUM!

*
If you thought Newsnight was bad....
*
Further to my previous post, Mark Easton's attention-deflecting story about MPs and their freebie holidays amazingly led last night's The World Tonight instead of what even Michael Crick on Newsnight admitted what a more serious story, the case of the 5 Labour/1 Conservative politicians caught out by Dispatches over cash for access, the sort of thing that brought down the forces of hell on Neil Hamilton & co in the mid 1990s: "It's ten o'clock. This is 'The World Tonight' with Ritula Shah. A BBC investigation has found widespread abuse of Commons rules by MPs who've failed to declare in full trips paid for by foreign governments. We'll be hearing from the former parliamentary standards watchdog."

How stupid to they think we are? Do they think we can't see that this remarkable coincidence of timing - two sleaze stories on the same day - is far too convenient for Labour and its supporters? That we can't see which is worse (though both are bad)? I'm not a man for conspiracy theories, but this really smacks of conspiracy!
*
Ritula continued, "Downing Street has said there's no need for a government inquiry into claims that former ministers secured changes in policy on behalf of private companies." Ah well, that's all right then! As usual the BBC quotes the Labour denial first.
*
The news bulletin that followed made the point the BBC wants us to take onboard from its new story: "The research identifies more than 20 MPs representing all the major parties".
*
The BBC has a woeful record over investigating MPs expenses. The Daily Telegraph and Channel 4, whose Dispatches featured the glorious Heather Brooke (the real heroine of the story) some time before the Great Expenses Scandal erupted last year, have been the media pioneers here. The BBC has much preferred to pass over the issue. It has never been a leader. Now suddenly, on the very evening of Channel 4's latest moment of glory over the issue, out comes this (less important) story, which just happens to catch Conservatives as well as Labour MPs. How long have the BBC been sitting on the results of their 'investigation'? Have they been waiting for just this moment, when their beloved Labour Party is hit especially hard by an expenses story? Did they release the results tonight merely as a spoiler aimed at Channel 4 - which is the most charitable interpretation I can think of? Or did they scramble through the Register of Members' Interests today to cobble something together? Watching how the BBC has been spinning this story so far leads me to only one conclusion as to their motive here - to help the Labour Party in its hour of need.
*

'NEWSNIGHT' TAKES THE FIGHT TO THE TORIES

*
Thirty minutes into last night's Newsnight the programme turned to the issues raised by Dispatches (why don't the BBC have such a programme? Panorama is not in the same league these days). After telling us that Byers, Hewitt and Hoon have been suspended from the Labour Party in the wake of tonight's fresh revelations (which would doubtless have given Gordon Brown a great deal of pleasure!), Jeremy Paxman read this from his autocue: "The BBC's home affairs editor has also disclosed tonight that dozens of MPs from all major parties have broken rules requiring them to register and declare trips abroad at the expense of foreign governments". Ah yes, it's the 'they're all as bad as each other' point made whenever Labour gets itself in the mire, though strangely not made when the Conservatives are under fire. Fancy Mark Easton having something up his sleeve to pull out just as damaging news flies hard at the Labour Party (despite John Butterfill, for whom Dispatches raised a Baroness Morgan), something that hits all major parties! What a surprise!
*
Cue Crick. "Amid revelations that some MPs (and a Labour peer Michael! You forgot Baroness Morgan) are open for hire like taxis, dramatic news tonight as three former members of the Labour cabinet are suspended from the party. Rarely has any party taken such strong action against three such senior figures." Yes, it's 'Labour to the rescue!' time again.
*
Mr Byer's 'taxi for hire' claim gave Crick all the excuse he needed to bring up Neil Hamilton. ('They're all as bad as each other', you see).
*
Byers's retraction today of those claims which could be damaging to Labour Lords Adonis and Mandelson was reported by Michael Crick as if it was to be taken at face value - 'Byers has owned up. He exaggerated. Adonis and Mandelson are in the clear, and that's that. Move along now please.' I doubt Michael Crick's tone would have been the same had a Conservative miscreant recanted!
*
Crick then briefly reviewed Geoff 'Hoon Work' Hoon, Patricia Hewitt and (you could see this coming)
"the senior Tory John Butterfill". (I'd never heard of him before). What happened to Labour's Baroness Morgan though? Why did Crick not mention her starring role in Dispatches?
*
Then Crick turned to Mark Easton's conveniently timed revelations about MPs and their foreign hospitalities. Labour MP Andrew Dismore and Conservative David Amess were singled out. 'They're all as bad as each other', you see. Well almost because, this being Crick, David Amess was spotlighted (rather than Mr Dismore) with an embarrassing clip and lots more criticism. Also Mr Dismore's denials of wrongdoing were quoted. As further proof of bias, here (if more proof be needed) Crick spent 16 seconds on Mr Dismore but spent 46 seconds on Mr Amess! That's Michael Crick for you!
*
Jeremy Paxman then asked Peter Mandelson about the Tesco claims (briefly) and Ken Clarke about Mark Easton's Labour-saving investigation, mentioning Theresa Villiers.
*
What is Newsnight? Is it merely a branch of Downing Street's Rebuttals Unit?

CRICK CUTS TO THE HEART OF THE STORY

*
I don't know about you but I'm all agog to hear what Michael Crick has to say on tonight's Newsnight about Labour and the 'cash for access' scandal.
*
Here's what he's written on his blog today about the story (in its entirety):

Stephen Byers notoriously spoke of himself as being like a "cab-for-hire" at £5,000 a time.

I'm not sure I'd be interested in hiring that particular cab given that during his time as transport secretary Byers caused quite a stir when it was revealed that he couldn't drive and had no driving licence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/03/no_licence_to_drive.html
*

TWO WAYS TO DEFLECT AN UNWELCOME STORY

*
Fair's fair, Norman Smith was on this morning's Today to talk to John Humphrys about the 'cash for access' scandal involving those senior Labour figures, and Nick Robinson discussed it with Justin Webb.
*
The 7.10 spot today, however, showed the BBC moving firmly to change the focus away from Labour and onto the evils of lobbying itself. JH talked to Prof David Miller of Strathclyde University, one of the founders of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency. This alliance's definition of 'lobbying' seems to mean 'corporate lobbying'. Here are its members:

Action Aid
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom
Corporate Watch
enough'senough.org
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
National Union of Journalists
Pesticides Action Network
Platform
SPEAK Network
SpinWatch
Unlock Democracy
War on Want
World Development Movement

Yes, it's that sort of alliance! http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/content/view/2/7/. Don't these groups lobby too?

*

Prof Miller said, "I see yesterday the Labour Party said it was introducing a manifesto commitment so the question now is 'What would the other parties do?'" - which would have surely pleased any Labour Party people listening!

*

The second predictable strand of the BBC's approach to this story (predicted by Cassandra on the Biased BBC blogsite as early as yesterday morning) was that it would try to say that all the political parties are at it, the Conservatives as much as Labour. Over the many, many months that the BBC pursued the Conservatives over Lord Ashcroft I don't recall hearing many BBC interviewers adopting this 'they're all as bad as each other' line - at least until they had too in the last couple of weeks! Only when Labour get caught in the mire do the likes of Justin Webb start pushing it to the fore.

*

Here are two of Justin's question to Sir George Young:

*

"There is a convenient distinction, isn't there though, that is made between advice that is given and lobbying? One of the things that Geoff Hoon appears to have said is that 'one of the challenges I'm really looking forward too', this is a direct quotation, 'is translating my knowledge and contacts about the international scene into something that frankly makes money'. Well that's what former ministers of both parties have done for decades. I mean Lady Thatcher became advisor to Philip Morris." (If in doubt blame Mrs Thatcher!!)

**

"But just on the wider point though, a lot of people will see it only as a difference of degree. The fact is that a lot of former cabinet ministers of both parties (his emphasis) advise and have advised companies and what they're selling is access."

*

And here's one he put to Nick Robinson:

*

"I do wonder though whether the public really see much of a distinction between this issue of lobbying on specific issues, going to government, saying 'I on behalf of a company want you to do this, that and the other' and the sort of general advice that, as I was suggesting to Sir George Young, cabinet ministers and former cabinet ministers have done for decades."

*

Justin Webb's interview with Sir George Young (Conservative) resulted in an interruption coefficient of 1.2. His interview with Labour's Kevin Brennan on the same subject resulted merely in an I.C. of 0.4. That's Justin Webb for you!

*

*

The Today programme (and its website) was keen to stress throughout that the calls for an investigation into Stephen Byers were coming from the Conservative Party. This neglects the fact that the Lib Dems are also making those calls and risks falsely implanting in the public's mind the idea that this whole story is turning into a party-political point-scoring exercise by the Tories. Perish the thought that anyone at the BBC would think of trying to imply that!!

*

*

UPDATE: The World at One, in fairness to the BBC, is leading with the Stephen Byers story and digging into his discussions with Lord Adonis. Martha Kearney interviewed a questioning Norman Baker of the Lib Dems (I.C. of 0), the BBC's favourite transport expert Christian Wolmar, who glossed things favourably for Lord Adonis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Wolmar), and Labour loyalist Tony 'Father of Ben' Wright MP (I.C. of 0), who will doubtless find his knighthood in the post soon after the general election and who kept trying to implicate the Conservatives.

FISHY BEHAVIOUR

*
Another week, another display of rampant bias from Shirin Wheeler on The Record Europe.
*
At the risk of seeming like a broken record on this one (or one of those cds that sticks), guess who came out worst, and not just in terms of interruptions, from a discussion on the common fisheries policy out of this list of guests?
*
- Isabella Lovin, a Swedish Green
- Ian Hudghton, SNP
- John Bufton, UKIP
- Kriton Arsenis, a Greek Socialist
*
Yes, it was Mr Bufton.
*
Whenever Shirin interviews someone from UKIP, as regular readers will know, the interruptions come thick and fast. John Bufton was on the receiving end of 9 interruptions (I.C.of 2.2). That said, the score against Mr Hudghton was pretty high too. This is the first time anyone from the SNP has appeared on the programme since I started reviewing it last autumn. He was interrupted 3 times (I.C. of 1.2). Like Mr Bufton, he's no fan of the common fisheries policy.
The attractive Swedish Green was only interrupted once and the Greek Socialist wasn't interrupted at all. Par for the course with this interviewer.
*
With the interruptions comes rudeness. Shirin is, of course, often rude to Conservatives but she's even ruder towards UKIP. The first interruption - a contradiction - came 18 seconds into his first answer. The next - another contradiction - came 16 seconds later. Mr Bufton is very passionate about recreational sea-angling (as his blog makes clear) and tried to bring this into the discussion, but was cut off in full-flow so that Shirin could pass the conversation onto the Swedish Green. Mr Bufton quickly sneaked in another point during the hiatus, but was determined to return to and finish his point about recreational sea-angling. As soon as he intervened, Shirin crashed in with "Briefly. Don't go back to angling and spread-net fishing!!". He tried to do just that though, pointing out contradictions between what the new fisheries commissioner was saying to different audiences but had barely got going when Shirin descended like a very pretty ton of bricks on him, saying "OK , that's enough of that then John! Let me ask Isabella first of all though..." When he turned to the EU's morally questionable behaviour towards the fishing stocks of West Africa , speaking passionately again on a subject that clearly means a lot to him, Shirin squashed his flow again. He tried again, but was again interrupted with "You must presumably John, given that you represent fishing communities in Wales, now, you must be pleased as an elected representative, you now under the Lisbon Treaty have the power to actually represent those people in a meaningful way." (This rather misses the point of UKIP. UKIP wants to represent those people in a meaningful way by establishing full, independent UK control of our fisheries.) As soon as he began replying, "And I'll do that, of course I will", she interrupted again with "So you support that change under the Lisbon Treaty?" He began to make the point I was making (in parentheses) above but again was immediately interrupted with "But until you do (leave the EU), until you do, are you...?" He battled on to the end of his point before she could stop him again.
*
The respectful way Shirin Wheeler treats representatives of the parties of the Left (except, it seems, the SNP) contracts so sharply with often rather disrespectful treatment of representatives of the parties of the Right remains one of the clearest cases of BBC bias on offer.
*

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

*
On Thursday, when the BBC went mad about Lord Ashcroft again, The World at One relagated news about the BA strike to second place in its news bulletin in favour of the Lord Ashcroft story. In third place came the latest government borrowing figures, which reached a new record high. Nothing was going to get in the way of the BBC's mission that day and the programme then spent many minutes discussing Lord Ashcroft.
*
Today, when Labour are in the mire, the news bulletin of its sister programme The World This Weekend's news bulletin was led by the BA strike - though only some remarks of Tony Woodley of Unite. Next on today's bulletin came Alistair Darling's comments about VAT, followed by a former senior army commander's important call for changes to the Ministry of Defence. In fourth place came the Labour's 'cash for influence' story. The programme thereafter ignored the Labour scandal, prefering to report from 'Derry' on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, spending a good ten minutes on it.

UPDATE. David Preiser, on the Biased BBC blogsite, has spotted this article by BBC political correspondent Brian Wheeler (who's a new one on me) on the BBC News website. It's as clear an example of the BBC playing down a story as you could ever hope to get, and it manages to get in some digs at the Conservatives for good measure:

Politicians on all sides have been falling over each other to say how "shocked" and "appalled" they are about claims former Labour ministers have been offering to influence government policy for cash.

Stephen Byers said he had overplayed his influence to an undercover reporter
With an election weeks away, they know just how bad this sort of stuff looks to voters already reeling from last year's expenses scandal.

And although it might be Labour MPs in the spotlight today, they also know that stories about alleged "sleaze" tarnish the entire political class. The Conservatives, when they were in power, also had their share of lobbying scandals.
*******************************************
And the clamour by lobbyists to sign up former politicians and advisers with links to the Conservative Party, in anticipation of Tory victory in the general election, suggests it is not about to go away any time soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8578788.stm

PADDY HAS NO TIME FOR CERTAIN STORIES

*
Talking of Broadcasting House, I've recorded a fair few instances now of pro-Labour bias on the part of the programme's presenter Paddy O'Connell. This one from today's edition is less clear-cut perhaps.
*
The story of the day, the Labour cabinet ministers 'stung' by The Sunday Times and Dispatches, was missed out from Paddy's opening presentation at the start of the programme's paper review. I thought 'aye, aye, there he goes again!' But the issue did come up.
*
Paddy said, "Alain de Botton, all papers are picking up from a joint Channel 4/Dispatches investigation. You want to review it. Go ahead." He didn't sound too enthusiastic though.
*
Before any further discussion could begin, Paddy intervened to say, "And I will just put before our listener what the MPs have said. Patricia Hewitt said she made it plain she'd only work in this way after she was no longer an MP and Stephen Byers wrote an e-mail saying he'd overstated his case, but you've stated yours and you've reviewed the paper for us there so let's leave that if you don't mind, just for the sake of time at this point."

What raises my suspicions here is that the programme's paper review has a somewhat rambling structure and time pressures are not usually insisted upon so soon after a topic has been brought up or before the topic has been discussed by the whole panel. Moreover the paper review went on for four more minutes and spend much of it discussing the fashions of the 1970s. Amusingly Zandra Rhodes's final contribution was this: "...against the headline that's in The Sunday Times which says 'Gordon's doing Sweet BA because of his pay-off from Unite's cash.'" That brought another response from Paddy, this time saying "right, well we certainly haven't got time to go there!" Funny that!
*
(For everything else I have on Paddy O'Connell, please click the label at the bottom.)
*

'BH' ON BA

*

Broadcasting House (R4) featured a fascinating ICM poll that shows that only 25% of the general public support the BA cabin crew strike, with 60% opposed. The issue was discussed with Bob Crowe and former GOAT Lord Digby Jones after a report from "John Kelly, professor of industrial relations at Birkbeck College." Professor Kelly would be one among the 25% minority, as it was quite clear from what he said that he was a strong union supporter. A little research shows him to be just another of the BBC's vast cast of left-wing academics. He's a member of the Socialist History Society, for example. His report was accompanied by a song by Billy Bragg.

MARR ON VERY BIASED FORM

*
What a contrast in greetings!

Andrew Marr began his interview with Alistair Darling with words that would have fallen sweetly on the chancellor's ears: "Last week's better than expected figures on the public deficit does make Wednesday's budget more intriguing that it might otherwise have been." I've noted before Marr's warm words in his introductions to Alistair Darling. At least this time there was no personal praise, as on previous occasions! (That came later in today's interview). "Well. I'm joined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer now. Welcome!" "Good morning," replied Mr Darling. "Good morning," replied Marr. How civilised!
*
The first question was then bowled, underarm: "Let's start by asking about the bank issue, the bank tax. Your government has said pretty clearly that you want to move by international agreement. The Conservatives have said they will move on a bank levy even if there isn't international agreement. Don't they have a point that it's time to take a lead on this?"
*
Compare that to the treatment handed out beforehand to his Conservative shadow Philip Hammond.
*
There were no warm introductory words here, only mischief-making: "The Conservative said if they win the general election they would introduce a unilateral tax on banks regardless of whether or not it gets international agreement. That will be news, or would have been news, to the Chief Secretary of (sic) the Treasury Philip Hammond because...shadow chief secretary I should say...because this is what he said not so long ago, a few weeks ago, on Newsnight." A clip followed of Mr Hammond (being harried by Jeremy Paxman) saying that international agreement would be necessary before such a tax was brought in here. Fair enough, you might say, but surely only if a similar embarrassing clip had been played before Alistair Darling's interview - there must be a large stock of such clips where the chancellor said one thing then and another thing now! No, the trap was set just for the Tory.
*
When the clip ended, Marr turned to Mr Hammond and said "Philip Hammond joins me now." He didn't get any 'welcome!' Mr Hammond nonetheless politely said "Good morning", but he got nothing in return - except the first question, which was bowled fast: "So a huge change of tack. Why?"
*
Also compare how Marr behaved during the first answers given by each interviewee. Mr Hammond's was interrupted after just twenty seconds. Mr Darling's first answer, which culminated - as the question clearly invited it to do - in an attack on the Tories, lasted exactly 1 minute 22 seconds, uninterrupted!! Several more very long, interrupted answers were to come and Marr's first interruption came with an apology for interrupting! Marr's holding back during this part of the interview - where the economy was discussed at length - was something to behold. Only when the trivia of politics was discussed (for just one minute) did two trivial interruptions come flying in close succession.
*
Comparing the timings each got, Alistair Darling got twice as long as Philip Hammond (13 minutes on the dot to just under 6 1/2 minutes for Mr Hammond). Yet he was far less closely questioned, receiving 15 questions in that time as compared to 12 questions for Mr Hammond. Mr Hammond was questioned in detail, Mr Darling more generally.
*
Pure unadulterated bias!

UPDATE ON THE SAME STORY

The article has just been 'revised'.

The new headline reads Darling anger over 'MPs for Hire'. The quote on the right-hand side has also changed to 'Chancellor Alistair Darling' saying "It's just ridiculous". Darling's views and those of 'a Labour spokesman' - the case for the defence - are then quoted at length. Still no mention of the Conservatives' refusal to accept the fake deal.

LABOUR RIDES TO THE RESCUE...SAYS THE BBC

*
So Channel 4's Dispatches (the sort of programme the BBC's Panorama should be) and The Sunday Times have caught a number of former Labour cabinets ministers in a sting over cash for influence. Big news. Even Andrew Marr discussed it in his paper review.
*
The Sunday Times headline reads Revealed: Labour’s cash for influence scandal http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7068820.ece

The Daily Mail has 'Pay £5,000 a day and you can meet Tony': Four top Labour MPs trapped in TV sting by fake lobby firm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259485/Top-Labour-MPs-trapped-TV-sting.html

The Observer/Guardian drops the word 'Labour' but knows where the heart of the story lies: MPs targeted in undercover sting over cash for influence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/21/mps-targeted-undercover-sting

But what of the BBC News website? How does it splash the story on its home page?

*********Labour pledges lobbying crackdown

I nearly missed the story, even though it's the second item on the home page, because of this remarkably mundane headline. Only because I immediately recognised the face of Stephen Byers (which puts me in a tiny minority of the population!) did it click with me that this was the very story I was after. It's not a headline that's going to grab many browsers of the BBC site by the lapels and say 'Read me!', is it? Which, I suspect, is the point. They may not want it to be too widely read. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8578597.stm

*
This pro-Labour gloss is pretty standard stuff. It was almost inevitable than the BBC News website would produce a headline like this.
*
Click into the article itself and you'll see that it pursues the same gloss from the very start: Labour has promised to introduce stricter rules for lobbyists following claims three former cabinet ministers had offered their services for money.

They then move straight on to the BBC's standard practice whenever Labour MPs get caught out over anything, to frame it as them 'denying' any wrongdoing. (The same slant is not so often applied to Conservatives, who are usually 'accused' of wrongdoing with the denials coming much later in the story). Here we get: "Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have denied any wrongdoing after they were secretly recorded for a Channel 4 documentary."

It came out during Andrew Marr's paper review that the Conservatives who were approached by the 'stingers' turned them down. That casts the Conservatives in a better light than Labour. The BBC News website ignores this aspect of the story.

To complete this spin-job, the only 'blockquote' put in a box at the side of the article is from a 'Labour spokesman', blandly reading What this case shows is that we need moretransparency in the entire lobbying system.

WAXING LYRICAL

*
The BBC's defence of Baroness Ashton is ongoing, but the Features, Views, Analysis section of the home page of the BBC News website is led today by a piece on her boss, EU president Herman Van Rompuy. 'The love of haiku' by Stephen Mulvey is wholly sympathetic to its subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8577506.stm
*
UPDATE: The ever-eagle-eyed DB spotted the same puff-piece and his post about it on the Biased BBC blogsite (with a generous nod in my direction) has started what I hope is going to be a long chain of satirical haiku there! http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-eu-public-relations.html#comments

THIS WEEK'S DIMBLEDATA

*
Time for some Dimbledata, in the wake of Thursday's Question Time from here in the North West:
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Margaret Beckett (Lab) - 10 minutes 26 seconds
2. Andrew Lansley (Con) - 9 minutes 38 seconds
3. Charles Kennedy (LD) - 9 minutes 14 seconds
4. Caroline Lucas (Green) - 8 minutes 23 seconds
5. David Starkey (historian) - 7 minutes 35 seconds
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Andrew Lansley (Con) - 5
2. Caroline Lucas (Green) - 4
3. David Starkey - 2
4. Margaret Beckett (Lab) - 2
5. Charles Kennedy (LD) - 1
*
**
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Andrew Lansley (Con) - 0.5
2. Caroline Lucas (Green) - 0.5
3. David Starkey - 0.3
4. Margaret Beckett (Lab) - 0.2
5. Charles Kennedy (LD) - 0.1
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Margaret Beckett (Lab) - 7
2. Caroline Lucas - 6
3. Andrew Lansley - 4
4. David Starkey - 2
5. Charles Kennedy - 1
*
*
Commentators in the Biased BBC blogsite's running commentary were amazed in the early stages of the programme at David Dimbleby's hot pursuit of Mrs Beckett over her own links to Unite, wondering if DD had been replaced by a double! He didn't trouble her much again thereafter, turning more of his attention (also surprisingly) towards Caroline Lucas. Andrew Lansley fared as badly. Charles Kennedy was left at ease. David Starkey is more than a match for any presenter and was on sparkling form (as ever).

WARKING WITH POLITICIANS

*
I'm quite often a day or two behind the times, so it's back now to Thursday night's Newsnight and its social care special, hosted by Kirsty Wark.
*
Being Kirsty, there were plenty of interruptions for the politicians but one fared far worse than the others. Also being Kirsty, that was the Conservative.
*
Baroness Walmsley (Lib Dem) - 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.3
Baroness Morgan (Labour) - 8 interruptions, I.C. of 1.5
Tim Loughton (Conservative) - 12 interruptions, I.C. of 3.0
*
This was the second of the pre-election debates. The last one was the education debate on 10/3, hosted by Jeremy Paxman. This was much more balanced:
*
David Laws (Lib Dem) - 6 interruptions, I.C. of 1.8
Ed Balls (Labour) - 19 interruptions, I.C. of 2.1
Michael Gove (Conservative) - 12 interruptions, I.C. of 2.2
*
(For any newbies, the I.C. (interruption coefficient is simply the number of interruptions divided by the length of the interview. So Ed Balls got 9m 8s to speak, as compared to 5m 37s for Michael Gove and a mere 3m 37s for David Laws.)
*
Several more pre-election specials are to come. The Conservatives should pray that Kirsty Wark isn't hosting too many of them!
*

LABOUR/UNITE, SINN FEIN/IRA, GUARDIAN/BBC?

*
What better way to start a Saturday morning that with my weekly check-up on how Newsnight deals with the newspaper front pages?

Here are this week's lists, as ever recording each mention in order of mention:

Fri 19/3 Gavin Esler
1. The Times
2. The Guardian
3. The Telegraph
4. The Independent

Thu 18/3 Kirsty Wark
1. The Guardian
2. The Financial Times
3. Daily Telegraph
4. The Times
5. The Independent

Wed 17/3 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Times
2. The Financial Times
3. The Independent
4. The Daily Mail
5. The Guardian

Tue 16/3 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Independent
2. The Guardian
3. The Times
4. The Daily Telegraph

Mon 15/3 Jeremy Paxman
1. The Financial Times
2. The Guardian
3. The Daily Telegraph
4. The Daily Mail


Despite a nail-biting finish to Wednesday's edition, The Guardian continues its unbroken run, being the only newspaper to be featured in every single review since records began (on 8/2/10).


The tally that answers the question 'Which is the newspaper Newsnight most often begins its front pages review with?' now records:

1. The Guardian - 11 first mentions
2. The Independent - 5 first mentions
3. The Times - 4 first mentions
4. The Daily Telegraph & The Financial Times - 3 first mentions each


So after 6 weeks, the running total for all mentions produces this list:

1. The Guardian - 26 mentions
2. The Independent & The Daily Telegraph - 19 mentions each
3. The Financial Times - 17 mentions
4. The Daily Mail - 12 mentions
5. The Times - 9 mentions
6. The Sun - 3 mentions
7. The Daily Express - 2 mentions

The Guardian, the inky wing of the BBC, remains at the front of the field, with a strong lead over its nearest rivals. (The Sun might like to note how it and its sibling The Times fare in comparison!)

THE 'SUN' BREAKS THROUGH THE CLOUDS OF BIAS

Has The Sun paid me a visit? I do hope so.
*
As Andy C. notes, the paper has just launched a powerful attack on BBC bias. Tom Newton Dunn, its political editor, and Kevin Schofield, its political correspondent outline the case against the broadcaster, under a banner a little like my own:
*

Blatantly

Biased against

Conservatives

*
The article runs as follows:

A SUN investigation has unearthed an alarming BBC bias against the Tories in the run up to the Election.

Covert smears on David Cameron's Conservatives are being made right across the state-owned network - sparking hundreds of viewers' complaints.

News coverage, chat shows and even kids' TV are guilty. We found:

BBC News gave disproportionate coverage to the row over Tory donor Lord Ashcroft's tax status;

LABOUR panellists were given more time to speak on flagship political show Question Time;

A POLL on The One Show ignored issues with Gordon Brown to ask only, Is David Cameron too much of a toff to be PM?

THE Tory leader was stitched up when footage of him adjusting his hair was sneakily fed to all broadcasters;

THE Basil Brush Show featured a school election with a cheat called Dave wearing a blue rosette.

Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell said: "The BBC is in the hands of a left-wing elite. They're a privileged organisation run for the interests of the few not the many - which is why their views are closer to a broadcast version of the Guardian rather than a popular paper."

Watchdog Mediawatch-UK director Vivienne Pattison stressed: "Under the BBC charter they are required to be neutral. It's important - after all, we fund them."

The BBC's Lord Ashcroft coverage alone triggered 104 complaints.

When the row over his "non-dom" status broke three weeks ago it led the Beeb's TV and radio bulletins for up to six days - long after commercial broadcasters dropped it.

But controversy over the similar status of up to eight Labour donors got just a fraction of the coverage.

One listener to Radio Four's Feedback programme emailed: "You have fallen for Mandelson's spin again."

A total of 219 viewers complained about The One Show poll, which followed a five-minute piece about Mr Cameron's "posh" upbringing.

Dozens more wrote on the show's blog.

One said: "The BBC should be ashamed of its blatant electioneering."

The Sun's analysis showed Labour politicians on Question Time were allowed to speak for a full minute longer than Tory counterparts.

On March 11 ex-Labour minister Caroline Flint got SIX minutes more than Tory Justine Greenings (sic).

And on February 18 Labour veteran Roy Hattersley spoke for nearly three minutes longer than Tory Rory Stewart.

Last week bosses tried to make Mr Cameron look a laughing stock by putting out footage of him checking his hair in the wind before making a serious statement on Northern Ireland.

Party chiefs complained.

Then last Sunday BBC2's Basil Brush Show featured nasty "Dave" - complete with blue rosette.

He beat nice Rosie, with a purple rosette, by promising free ice cream but was arrested because it was out of date.

Last night the BBC admitted the One Show slot was "not as good as it should have been".

But a spokeswoman insisted: "The notion that the BBC is biased in is palpably not true. Our news coverage scrutinises all parties with rigour and impartiality."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898713/Sun-unearths-alarming-smears-against-Tories-by-state-owned-BBC.html#ixzz0ieT6PVX2
*
As Not a sheep observes:

"OK I didn't know about the Basil Brush incident but the rest have been covered here, at Biased-BBC and at Beeb Bias Craig. The latter site being quite possibly also responsible for this section:

"The Sun's analysis showed Labour politicians on Question Time were allowed to speak for a full minute longer than Tory counterparts.

On March 11 ex-Labour minister Caroline Flint got SIX minutes more than Tory Justine Greenings.

And on February 18 Labour veteran Roy Hattersley spoke for nearly three minutes longer than Tory Rory Stewart."

Like Not a sheep, I'm inclined to believe that 'the Sun's analysis' in particular suggests that they have passed through this site and not left empty-handed. The figures used for 'Question Time' are exactly the same as mine (as they would be, of course, if The Sun did the analysis itself - which they could easily have done. All you need is a little patience, a spreadsheet and the ability to do some basic arithmetic).
*
Here are the links to the relevant posts:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/ladies-night-with-david-dimbleby.html
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/this-weeks-dimbledata_20.html

And if they they have 'borrowed' my findings, I couldn't be happier! For as Not a sheep goes on to say "Well who cares who broke the stories so long as the news about BBC bias gets spread beyond us bloggers and into the real world." http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/sun-finally-catch-on.html
*
Indeed, if they are only at the beginning of a determined campaign against BBC bias they will need as much ammunition as they can get. I have plenty here, Not a sheep has plenty more and, of course, the Biased BBC blogsite is crammed to the rafters with countless more examples (covering a much broader field than I could even think of covering) http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/. We would all be willing to help.
*
So, if anyone from The Sun (or anywhere else) wishes to use anything here, they have my full blessing to do so. They can even pass it off as their own work too if they like! I really don't mind in the least! This is a cause dear to my heart and if anyone can help further the cause, let them raid away to their heart's content!!
*
Of course, The Sun might not have been this way, and might have come up with all this entirely independently. If so, keep at it lads and lasses!