Thursday, 4 March 2010

JUST ANOTHER DAY AT THE BIASED BBC

*
Tom Bradby, political editor at ITN, challenged Liam Fox over Lord Ashcroft on tonight's 6.30 News. He also challenged Lord Mandelson, quizzing him on Labour money-bags Sir Ronald Cohen. Is Sir Ronnie also a non-dom? "Labour ministers are desperate to keep this story going," said Tom, before adding "but not so good at answering their own questions." Given Labour's own poor record on dodgy donations in recent years and the ongoing questions about many of their present big-money donors, Tom noted that it was "a bit rich" for them to try and take the moral high-ground on this story. (Many Labour figures are shameless enough to do anything.) Tom added, "the Liberal Democrats are frankly not much better." The difference between this (questioning all sides) and the BBC's out-and-out side-taking is startling.
*
Lord Ashcroft has been cleared of wrong-doing today by the Electoral Commission.
*
This morning's Today paper reviews again only featured critics of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives from the press.
*
Indeed, being the pairing of James Naughtie and Justin Webb, a tally of mentions from the pick of the papers (over the three paper reviews of the day, at 6.10, 6.45 and 7.43) produces a predictable list:
*
The Guardian - 7 mentions
The Independent - 6 mentions
The Times - 4 mentions
The Daily Telegraph - 3 mentions
The Daily Mirror - 2 mentions
The Daily Mail - 2 mentions
The Sun - 1 mention
The Daily Express - 1 mention
*
That's the same total for The Guardian and The Independent as all the others put together!
*
Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Affairs Correspondent, was back, chatting to Justin about Lord Ashcroft (of course). Accusations against the Conservatives were aired, questions were raised of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservative Party. At least Justin Webb asked about whether the Cabinet Office's full-knowledge of the deal let the Conservative Party off the hook. Norm said "only partially I think" (clearly meaning 'No!") and, without dwelling on the implications for Labour of Justin's question, simply went back to his job of putting the Labour case: "I think the reason it doesn't entirely get the party of the hook is that the view certainly among Labour politicians is that William Hague should have asked an awful lot more questions", he began. Then came the usual bit of outright spin, complete with Norm's characteristic hyperbole: "But as I say for the Tory Party, you know, they are it seems to me suffering now considerable collateral damage from this whole affair." No mention of Sir Ronnie Cohen there then, nor any questions for Labour.*
*
Later extended clips were played of past encounters on the issue between the BBC (Paxman, Marr and Lustig) and William Hague. If ever the day comes to question Harriet Harman about any of its donors, how many clips will the BBC be able to play back then? Any?
*
Nick Robinson again stressed the importance of the story at some length, adopting a high moral tone, despite the deficit and the war in Afghanistan. In contrast Tom Bradby on ITV News tonight expressed considerable scepticism about its importance. Nick again ignored any questions for Labour. He accused and raised questions only of the Tories. He speculated about how damaging it would be if the Electoral Commission found against Lord Ashcroft on the legality of his donations, saying it would be 'dynamite' if it judged his actions illegal. Well, it didn't and they aren't, so that's that!!
*
Norman Smith was on again as news broke of the Electoral Commission's judgement in favour of Lord Ashcroft. He discussed it with Martha Kearney on The World at One. Norm outlined the allegations against Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives with some fervour before (and it must have choked him to say it!) conceding that the EC gave them a clean bill of health, and that it would be "a huge, huge relief" for the Conservative Party. From what Martin says on the Biased BBC blogsite Jon Sopel, interviewing Jenny Watson on the EC, was not so willing to concede anything to the Conservatives.
*
Martha then interviewed the man who brought the case to the Electoral Commission, Labour's John Mann. Now, all credit to her, she did ask him (briefly) about Labour donors. Conservative donor Lord Kalms was also interviewed and duly criticised Lord Ashcroft. Worst here was a disgraceful piece from a reporter called Bob Walker from the marginal of Loughborough. He staged an anti-Tory stunt to highlight what Lord Ashcroft's money is achieving (though, given the small amount he now gives to the Conservative Party, it quite likely not to have been his money at all). Some clever Conservative leaflets were held up to public contempt by the stentorian Mr Walker.
*
More questions came on PM from Ross Hawkins. Ross did hint that Labour and the Lib Dems were electioneering (as is the BBC!) and spoke to a former Conservative MP who is calling for Lord Ashcroft to resign, Barry Legg (who lost his seat in 1997). Carolyn Quinn then spoke to another former Conservative MP who is calling for Lord Ashcroft to resign, Elizabeth Peacock (who also lost her seat in 1997). They must be ringing around! Carolyn mentioned, very much in passing, that Labour had its own questionable donors. That she felt she had to mention it a few times suggests that the BBC now realises that it's been on dodgy ground in terms of bias so far on this story (to put it very mildly), but the fact that she only mentioned it very briefly in passing suggests that this is a cynical attempt to try and build a small database of quotes for the BBC to call upon should they be very seriously challenged by the Conservatives over this.
*
Carolyn Quinn then turned her odious attention to the question of how all this might play with the voters. Cue a pollster. Guess who? Yes, back after just a couple of days absence from Radio 4 was Lady Ashton's husband, Labour-supporting Peter Kellner of YouGov. His links were not mentioned, but then again they never are! If the Ashcroft story runs into next week, Mr Kellner said, "it might become very bad news for David Cameron." He mentioned "the old Watergate question, 'who knew what and when'".
*
Still to come is Question Time of course. And will Michael Crick make it four nights in a row on Newsnight?
*
Just another day at the biased BBC.
*

1 comment:

  1. Yesterday on the Toady Programme there was a barrage of quotes from the Gruniard. Complaints must have been made because there was not one in the 06-30 am Toady reading of papers this morning.
    Did not hear any more as it was the usual boring dribble from loony left beeboids and switched off - do they not monitor the lack of interest in their constant bias?

    ReplyDelete

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