WORK IN PROGRESS

*
I once tried out an over-elaborate system to try and track the Today paper review's perceived tendency to name-check certain (left-wing) newspapers in preference to other (right-wing) papers. For a few weeks now I've been trying again, this time with a far simpler system - just recording which newpapers are mentioned in every paper review, and by whom. I will give it a few more weeks before counting them all up, but the trends are becoming clear. Certain days see more mentions of The Guardian, The Independent and even The Mirror than others. Those days tend to feature a certain James Naughtie. (Things seem worst when he teams up with Justin Webb). The statistical significance of this is getting sharper by the week. The other Today presenters are less clear-cut (so far) and John Humphrys is proving highly, surprisingly and commendably unpredictable, some days going big on The Guardian, other days not. Another month or two will provide enough evidence for a clearer overview to be provided.
*

THE 'TODAY' PAPER REVIEW INDEX - HOW IT WORKS AND A TEST CASE

*
Steel yourselves please, it's time for some more statistics!!! Yes, they are not perfect - but if combined I think their imperfections should cancel each other out.
*
PLEASE SEE MY LAST POST FOR THE REASONS BEHIND ALL THIS TOMFOOLERY!!!

*
Here are the measures that go into each Today programme newspaper review index.

Each newspaper scores:

1 point for every mention in a paper review

3 bonus points for being the first newspaper mentioned in each paper review
2 bonus points for being the second newspaper mentioned in each paper review
1 bonus point for being the third newspaper mentioned in each paper review

1 Bonus point for being the first-discussed source for each story subsequent to the main one (usually marked by a change of presenter)

1 bonus point for any review of a paper's story that lasts longer than 30 seconds

-1 point every time the story is a frivolous one ( i.e. humorous or non-political)
*
*
The daily index is simply the total of each newspaper scores at the end of each programme (which has 3 paper reviews on weekdays & 2 on Saturday).
Obviously the higher the overall score the more attention the paper has been given by the Today programme.*If particular newspapers receive high scores on a regular basis a pattern of bias in favour of those newspapers will have been strongly suggested, maybe even proven.
*
This will show if any particular newspaper(s) receive preferential treatment - or not!




Here's the first case and an example (in full) of how it works:

Friday 18th September
*
6.12am review
1. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Barack Obama's scrapping of 'Star Wars' (significant story)
Times (13.17-13.45) Scores 1 point for mention, 3 bonus points for leading the review
Guardian (13.46-13.58) Scores 1 point for mention, 2 bonus points for being mentioned second
2. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Baroness Scotland's illegal immigrant home-help (significant story)
Daily Mail (14.10-14.43) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for being mentioned third, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, 1 bonus point for its mention lasting longer than 30 seconds
(Telegraph mentioned in passing) Scores 1 point for mention
JUSTIN WEBB - Story: How you can tell if someone is telling you the truth by their handwriting (fluff)
Daily Mail (14.44-14.59) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous

Sub-total:

Times - 4 points
Guardian - 3 points
Daily Mail - 5 points
Telegraph - 1 point

6.37am review
1. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Baroness Scotland's illegal immigrant home-help (significant story)
Daily Mail (43.08-43.16) Scores 1 point for mention, 3 bonus points for leading the review
Telegraph (43.17-43.22) Scores 1 point for mention, 2 bonus points for being mentioned second
The Sun (43.23-43.27) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for being mentioned third
JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Baroness Scotland's illegal immigrant home-help, continued
Mail (43.22-43.36) Scores 1 point for mention
The Sun (43.37-43.48) Scores 1 point for mention
2. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Barack Obama's scrapping of 'Star Wars' (significant story)
Guardian (43.57-44.05) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
Financial Times (44.05-44.13 Scores 1 point for mention
The Times (44.13-44.17) Scores 1 point for mention
3. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Kenyan drought (significant story)
Guardian (44.17-44.34) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
4. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: A boy who's having a sex change (fluff)
The Sun (44.34-44.07 Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, 1 point for its mention lasting longer than 30 seconds, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
5. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: A road where learner-drivers like to learn to drive (fluff)
Daily Express (45.14-45.31) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
The Sun (45.33-45.37) Scores 1 point for mention, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous

Sub-total

Daily Mail - 5
Telegraph - 3
The Sun - 5
Guardian - 4
Financial Times - 1
The Times -1
Daily Express - 1


7.37am review
1. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Barack Obama's scrapping of 'Star Wars' (significant story)
Independent (1.42.50-1.42.53) Scores 1 point for mention, 3 bonus points for leading review
Daily Mirror (1.42.53-1.42.57) Scores 1 point for mention, 2 bonus points for being mentioned second
Guardian (1.42.57-1.43.03) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for being mentioned third
Telegraph (1.43.03-1.43.07) Scores 1 point for mention
2. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: Nick Clegg's statement that the Lib Dems will replace Labour (significant story)
Telegraph (1.43.07-1.43.29) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
3. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: Interview with the Iraqi who threw a shoe at Bush (significant story)
Guardian (1.43.29-1.43.55) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story
4. JUSTIN WEBB - Story: River Thames back on Tube map (fluff)
Independent (1.43.55-1.44.15) Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
5. SARAH MONTAGUE - Story: winding up a clock v. health & safety (fluff)
Telegraph (1.44.21-1.44.29)Scores 1 point for mention, 1 bonus point for leading a new story, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
Daily Mail (1.44.30-1.44.38) Scores 1 point for mention, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous
The Sun (1.44.38-1.44.45) Scores 1 point for mention, but loses 1 point for the story being frivolous

Sub-Total

Independent - 5
Daily Mirror - 3
Guardian - 4
Telegraph - 4
Daily Mail - 0
The Sun - 0


Daily Index Totals -

Telegraph - 8
Guardian - 11
Independent - 5
The Times - 5
The Financial Times - 1
Daily Mail - 10
Daily Express - 1
The Sun - 5
Daily Mirror - 3

So there you go! A narrow victory over the Daily Mail for the Guardian. I duly crown the Guardian as the first winner of the Today Newspaper Review Index.

THE 'TODAY' PROGRAMME PAPER-REVIEW REVIEW

*
I am trying to work out a way to measure the bias (if there is any) in the Today programme's newspaper reviews. Do the left-leaning newspapers, especially the Guardian and the Independent, tend to be mentioned first? Or more often? Are serious stories in the right-leaning papers neglected in favour of fluffier ones?
*
Anecdotally presented, the 17th September edition of the programme, hosted by John Humphrys and Sarah Montague contained the following.
*
The 6.12am paper review, leading off with the Guardian and following with the Independent (both on the Trafigura story), and only then moving on to the Telegraph (for Andy Burnham's announcement about patients choosing GPs and a story about the Queen Mum!)
*
At 6.39am came the second paper review, again led by serious stories from the Guardian (a story about China and carbon emissions) and the Independent (a story about a sugar tax in the U.S.). Third again came the Telegraph, but this time it was only the Queen Mum story!
*
At least the paper review at 7.38am was not led by the Guardian but by the Telegraph (talking about the Obama race row), though the Independent again came second (with the same story).
*
Of the other papers mentioned, the Times was quoted for a story about Nick Clegg wanting the Lib Dems to replace Labour (yeah, like that‘s gonna happen), the Mail about Mrs Thatcher being unnamed on a list of women's achievements (a story shared with the 'Independent') & whether 'Royal' might be prefixed to Wootton Bassett, and the Express for a story about the world's tallest man.
*
Is this typical? Only time and a bit of measurement will tell.
*
*
By coincidence (?), I notice that Newnight's closing paper review (with Gavin Esler) also led off with as story from the Guardian.