FULL OF EASTON BIAS

*
What does a BBC home affairs editor who is shameless enough to interrupt a Conservative spokeman 8 times and a Lib Dem spokesman 3 times (asking them 17 and 4 questions respectively), while interrupting a Labour home secretary just once (and asking him a mere two questions) during a single TV debate, what does that sort of man do for an encore?
*
Well, if he's Mark Easton he posts yet another article attacking the Conservatives and the Lib Dems whilst leaving Labour completely unscathed:

New figures released today have thrown an incendiary into the election debate on violent crime.
Analysis of hospital data for England and Wales, by academics at Cardiff University [191KB PDF], shows there were 64,000 fewer violence-related attendances in emergency departments last year than in 2001 - a fall of just over 15%.
This contrasts with Conservative claims that violent crime has increased by 44% since 2002. It also appears to contradict Liberal Democrat analysis that hospital admissions for assault are rising.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/violent_crime_falling_says_new.html *
*
Easton's graph-filled piece contrasts with The Daily Telegraph 's take on the same report - to a startling degree:
*
Violent assaults risen by 21,000, A&E figures show
The number of people needing hospital treatment after violent assaults has risen by 21,000 in the past year, according to new research which blames the first increase in years on binge drinking. An estimated 960 people-a-day are hospitalised nationwide having suffered serious attacks, figures from Accident and Emergency departments show.

Binge drinking in town and city centres is blamed for the total number of assaults resulting in hospital treatment going up by seven per cent, driven by large increases in attacks on women and people aged between 31-50. In addition, 24-hour drinking was introduced in 2005, in changes in licensing laws which allowed some pubs and clubs to stay open 24 hours a day. It is the first rise in serious violence in the seven years that hospital admissions have been officially recorded.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5194726/Violent-assaults-risen-by-21000-AandE-figures-show.html
*
The Conservative-supporting newspaper spotlights the bad news for Labour in the report; the Labour-supporting BBC reporter spotlights the good news for Labour (and bad news for their political opponents) in the report. Both are spinning.
*
Easton does mention the part of the report that The Telegraph concentrates on - the rise of 21,000 in the past year - but only in passing, and without that scary-sounding number, describing it as "the slight rise in violent incidents identified in the Cardiff graph for that period".
*
So Easton trumpets the 64,000 fall since 2001, but calls last year's rise "a slight rise". Is 21,000 really a "slight rise", being as it is almost exactly one third of the fall over the previous seven years? Surely it's a "dramatic spike"? It wouldn't help Labour to say though, would it?
*
CCHQ will be livid!!
*
*

David Preiser over at Biased BBC is also on the case, reaching the same conclusion as me - that "Mark Easton is playing with violence statistics again in support of Labour." A characteristically fine critique follows.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_19.html