*
More evidence that the BBC and The Guardian are almost joined at the hip:
*
Last week I noted that Sunday's Westminster Hour (with Carolyn Quinn) abandoned its usual politics panel and featured throughout a pair of pundits instead, who commented on all the issues raised. They were Nick Watt of The Guardian and Professor Philip Cowley, who worked (until last year!) as an advisor in the Treasury's policy unit. (Prof Cowley is set to be the new David Butler, the BBC's former chief election night pundit.) Though I've chronicled the programme's overwhelming tendency to call on voices from the Left (specifically the left-leaning newspapers) to act as it 'all-seeing eyes' for months now, I was still prepared for a right-wing voice to appear this week. After all there's an election on and they'd surely want to be fair. (Ha!)
*
Not a bit of it. This week's pundits, again commenting on all subjects throughout the programme, were Nick Watt of The Guardian and Professor Philip Cowley. It looks as if they are going to be fixtures right up to election day. They were joined by Tony Travers of the LSE (no Tory he).
Unsurprisingly, any Conservatives listening would have drawn little comfort from their conversation.
*
Showing posts with label Carolyn Quinn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carolyn Quinn. Show all posts
Monday, 19 April 2010
Thursday, 15 April 2010
WESTMINSTER SHOWER
*
Sunday's Westminster Hour abandoned its usual politics panel and featured throughout a pair of pundits instead. They commented on all the issues raised. They were Nick Watt of The Guardian and Professor Philip Cowley, who works as an advisor in the Treasury's policy unit. Prof Cowley is set to be the new David Butler, the BBC's former chief election night pundit. One of the subjects was class. David Cameron's poshness came under sustained attack. Election or no election, Westminster Hour never changes.
Sunday's Westminster Hour abandoned its usual politics panel and featured throughout a pair of pundits instead. They commented on all the issues raised. They were Nick Watt of The Guardian and Professor Philip Cowley, who works as an advisor in the Treasury's policy unit. Prof Cowley is set to be the new David Butler, the BBC's former chief election night pundit. One of the subjects was class. David Cameron's poshness came under sustained attack. Election or no election, Westminster Hour never changes.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
DR QUINN, BIAS WOMAN
*
Just time for one quick post and a spot of catching up (from Friday!).
*
Carolyn Quinn was up to her old tricks on PM.
*
Reporting on the election in Wales, she went to the constituency of The Vale of Glamorgan and interviewed the four main candidates. I will transcribe all the questions she put to them:
**
To Alana Davies (Lab): Q1: How many people have said, 'Thanks Labour government for the last couple of years' or how many are saying 'we blame you for everything that's going wrong with the economy'?
Q2: You must be getting a bit of the blame though?
*
To Ian James Johnson (Plaid): Q1: The fact that you're in coalition with Labour in the assembly, doesn't that make it difficult for you, because if people want to cast an anti-Labour vote they're going to clump you along with Labour here, aren't they, and they may choose the Conservatives as their anti-Labour vote?
*
To Eluned Parrott (LD): No question, just an 'answer'!!
*
To Alun Cairns (Con): Q1: The Conservatives are saying there are going to have to be big cuts in public services and that's going to effect a lot of people round here?
Q2 (interrupting Mr Cairns): Exactly, which is why people will be very concerned if they think the Conservative government's going to come in and start slashing jobs."
*
If you were a politician, which of these sets of questions would you least like to the on the receiving end of? Me too!
Just time for one quick post and a spot of catching up (from Friday!).
*
Carolyn Quinn was up to her old tricks on PM.
*
Reporting on the election in Wales, she went to the constituency of The Vale of Glamorgan and interviewed the four main candidates. I will transcribe all the questions she put to them:
**
To Alana Davies (Lab): Q1: How many people have said, 'Thanks Labour government for the last couple of years' or how many are saying 'we blame you for everything that's going wrong with the economy'?
Q2: You must be getting a bit of the blame though?
*
To Ian James Johnson (Plaid): Q1: The fact that you're in coalition with Labour in the assembly, doesn't that make it difficult for you, because if people want to cast an anti-Labour vote they're going to clump you along with Labour here, aren't they, and they may choose the Conservatives as their anti-Labour vote?
*
To Eluned Parrott (LD): No question, just an 'answer'!!
*
To Alun Cairns (Con): Q1: The Conservatives are saying there are going to have to be big cuts in public services and that's going to effect a lot of people round here?
Q2 (interrupting Mr Cairns): Exactly, which is why people will be very concerned if they think the Conservative government's going to come in and start slashing jobs."
*
If you were a politician, which of these sets of questions would you least like to the on the receiving end of? Me too!
Sunday, 4 April 2010
AND DID YOU FORGET SOMETHING CAROLYN?
*
And before I forget, for about three months now Carolyn Quinn has brought up the latest opinion polls - or to be more exact, the latest opinion polls that show the gap between Labour and the Tories narrowing - with tedious regularity. No other programme on Radio 4 has been more fixated on them, at least since the start of the year when things began turning against the Conservatives (a bit). This week, when the gap has significantly widened again, nothing, absolutely nothing. What a surprise!
*
And before I forget, for about three months now Carolyn Quinn has brought up the latest opinion polls - or to be more exact, the latest opinion polls that show the gap between Labour and the Tories narrowing - with tedious regularity. No other programme on Radio 4 has been more fixated on them, at least since the start of the year when things began turning against the Conservatives (a bit). This week, when the gap has significantly widened again, nothing, absolutely nothing. What a surprise!
*
CAROLYN QUINN GETS HER MAN
*
Carolyn Quinn is beyond a joke.
Tonight's Westminster Hour saw the final politicians' panel before the general election, with Janet Anderson for Labour, Charles Walker for the Conservatives and Elfyn Llwyd for Plaid Cymru. It provided a last chance for Carolyn to stage a Tory ambush.
*
With so much to discuss, she spent a surprising amount of time early on discussing the 1992 election when the party that was expected to win the election failed to win the election. (I wonder what the point of that was!) It was all very jokey in tone.
*
This is Westminster Hour, however, so Tory-baiting just had to come and the topic that took up most time was Chris Grayling remarks about gays, faith and B&Bs; indeed it took up over 5 minutes (far longer than the time spent on the economy).
*
Carolyn began by outlining the story then asked Elfyn Llwyd "What do you think of that?" As you might guess, he didn't think much of that and said so at some length. An odd decision that, not to go to Mr Walker first, don't you think? Typical of Carolyn Quinn though.
*
What had been a lighthearted discussion had turned serious. In a sorrowful tone, Carolyn then said "Charles?" Mr Walker tried to defend Chris Grayling but no defence was going to stop Carolyn's next question, which could have been anticipated even before the programme even began: "But you know that people within the Labour Party, within the Liberal Democrat Party have been saying, and Elfyn Llwyd as well, you just heard him say, it shows that the Conservatives haven't really changed, that they say one thing when the cameras are on and then they say something else when they don't think anybody's watching."
*
Carolyn then brought Janet Anderson in to join Mr Llwyd in the anti-Tory attack. After she had made her point, Carolyn said "Charles?", again in a sorrowful voice, rather like a headmistress talking to a schoolboy whose friends have behaved very, very badly.
*
Mr Walker's next defence was followed by another attack from Mr Llwyd.
*
What happened next? Carolyn Quinn said this: "And the last couple of seconds to you Janet." Janet used those last couple of seconds (actually somewhat longer than that) to stick the boot into the Tories one last time. With a sigh (doubtless at the wickedness of the Conservatives), the presenter then recited the names of her guests and thanked them all very, very much.
*
So, no final right to reply for the defendant in this mini-show trial!
*
This was one of Carolyn Quinn's finest Tory ambushes, staged perfectly.
*
The woman is beyond a joke.
*
Carolyn Quinn is beyond a joke.
Tonight's Westminster Hour saw the final politicians' panel before the general election, with Janet Anderson for Labour, Charles Walker for the Conservatives and Elfyn Llwyd for Plaid Cymru. It provided a last chance for Carolyn to stage a Tory ambush.
*
With so much to discuss, she spent a surprising amount of time early on discussing the 1992 election when the party that was expected to win the election failed to win the election. (I wonder what the point of that was!) It was all very jokey in tone.
*
This is Westminster Hour, however, so Tory-baiting just had to come and the topic that took up most time was Chris Grayling remarks about gays, faith and B&Bs; indeed it took up over 5 minutes (far longer than the time spent on the economy).
*
Carolyn began by outlining the story then asked Elfyn Llwyd "What do you think of that?" As you might guess, he didn't think much of that and said so at some length. An odd decision that, not to go to Mr Walker first, don't you think? Typical of Carolyn Quinn though.
*
What had been a lighthearted discussion had turned serious. In a sorrowful tone, Carolyn then said "Charles?" Mr Walker tried to defend Chris Grayling but no defence was going to stop Carolyn's next question, which could have been anticipated even before the programme even began: "But you know that people within the Labour Party, within the Liberal Democrat Party have been saying, and Elfyn Llwyd as well, you just heard him say, it shows that the Conservatives haven't really changed, that they say one thing when the cameras are on and then they say something else when they don't think anybody's watching."
*
Carolyn then brought Janet Anderson in to join Mr Llwyd in the anti-Tory attack. After she had made her point, Carolyn said "Charles?", again in a sorrowful voice, rather like a headmistress talking to a schoolboy whose friends have behaved very, very badly.
*
Mr Walker's next defence was followed by another attack from Mr Llwyd.
*
What happened next? Carolyn Quinn said this: "And the last couple of seconds to you Janet." Janet used those last couple of seconds (actually somewhat longer than that) to stick the boot into the Tories one last time. With a sigh (doubtless at the wickedness of the Conservatives), the presenter then recited the names of her guests and thanked them all very, very much.
*
So, no final right to reply for the defendant in this mini-show trial!
*
This was one of Carolyn Quinn's finest Tory ambushes, staged perfectly.
*
The woman is beyond a joke.
*
Monday, 29 March 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, 11 March 2010
CAROLYN AND CAROLINE COMBINE TO SPIN
*
Spot a detail that's missing from Carolyn Quinn's introduction to the story of the three Labour MPs and one Conservative peer who faced their day in court today, facing fraud charges:
Jane Peel also studiously avoided mentioning the word 'Labour'.
*
CeannP & David H on the Biased BBC blogsite also spotted this. Hopefully large numbers of other PM listeners noticed it too.
*
This was not the only problem with this edition of the programme. The Unite union, who fund Labour on a very large scale, are agitating for another BA cabin crew strike. Carolyn interviewed Labour MP Kevin Barron and Conservative MP Ken Clarke. She behaved odiously towards Mr Clarke, interrupting him with determination and questioning him far more than she questioned the Unite-backed Mr Barron (7 questions to Ken, 3 to Kev). The resultant I.C. for Ken Clarke was 1.6. Her treatment of Mr Barron was less strenuous (I.C. of 0.9), and included an 'indeed' for one of the points he was making against Ken Clarke - which is rather naughty for a supposedly impartial interviewer.
*
Next came a 'four-minute hate' against the new 'world's richest man' (according to Forbes), Mexican media mogul Carlos Slim. This self-made man, a son of Lebanese immigrants, must be a remarkable figure. Not that Caroline Hawley's hate piece paid him any tributes. Far from it. She didn't even grant him the courtesy of a balanced report. I would have liked to have heard something of his story. What a waste!
*
As well as Steve Forbes, whose magazine compiles the rankings, we heard only from people who clearly hate Mr Slim. Then, waxing righteous herself, Caroline opined "Well a gap of 500 million (between Mr Slim's fortune and that of Bill Gates) certainly isn't very narrow to you or me, or to the vast majority of Mexicans and in a country where millions of people live in poverty Carlos Slim is obscenely rich." (Her emphasis).
*
The whole programme can be heard here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r407k
Spot a detail that's missing from Carolyn Quinn's introduction to the story of the three Labour MPs and one Conservative peer who faced their day in court today, facing fraud charges:
"They left the court to jeers from a few members of the public - three MPs, one Conservative peer making a notorious mark on history as the first to face court action over their expenses claims. Jane Peel was watching as Lord Hanningfield, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine appeared before City of Westminster Magistrates court."
Jane Peel also studiously avoided mentioning the word 'Labour'.
*
CeannP & David H on the Biased BBC blogsite also spotted this. Hopefully large numbers of other PM listeners noticed it too.
*
This was not the only problem with this edition of the programme. The Unite union, who fund Labour on a very large scale, are agitating for another BA cabin crew strike. Carolyn interviewed Labour MP Kevin Barron and Conservative MP Ken Clarke. She behaved odiously towards Mr Clarke, interrupting him with determination and questioning him far more than she questioned the Unite-backed Mr Barron (7 questions to Ken, 3 to Kev). The resultant I.C. for Ken Clarke was 1.6. Her treatment of Mr Barron was less strenuous (I.C. of 0.9), and included an 'indeed' for one of the points he was making against Ken Clarke - which is rather naughty for a supposedly impartial interviewer.
*
Next came a 'four-minute hate' against the new 'world's richest man' (according to Forbes), Mexican media mogul Carlos Slim. This self-made man, a son of Lebanese immigrants, must be a remarkable figure. Not that Caroline Hawley's hate piece paid him any tributes. Far from it. She didn't even grant him the courtesy of a balanced report. I would have liked to have heard something of his story. What a waste!
*
As well as Steve Forbes, whose magazine compiles the rankings, we heard only from people who clearly hate Mr Slim. Then, waxing righteous herself, Caroline opined "Well a gap of 500 million (between Mr Slim's fortune and that of Bill Gates) certainly isn't very narrow to you or me, or to the vast majority of Mexicans and in a country where millions of people live in poverty Carlos Slim is obscenely rich." (Her emphasis).
*
The whole programme can be heard here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r407k
Monday, 8 March 2010
CAROLYN SPIN
*
Last night's Westminster Hour talked 'trouble for the Tories' again. That has been its main focus every week so far this year.
*
Of Lord Ashcroft much was said. Of the army's row with Gordon Brown in the wake of his dodgy evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, surely the far bigger story, there was not a single word. That shows where the programme's heart lies.
*
As in a way does this: Two weeks ago the first Conservative-supporting all-seeing journalist appeared on the programme but, as I pointed out then, he was accompanied by a Lib Dem-supporting pollster - thus getting only half the time that the a-s-j usually gets. That was only the second time that the week's all-seeing journalist didn't have Carolyn Quinn all to himself. Last week, when the programme reported from the Conservative Spring Conference, Mr Forsyth of the Spectator returned, but again he was placed in tandem with a Torysceptic journalist, Jean Eaglesham of the FT. Last night thing returned to normal and Andrew Grice of The Indie was the a-s-j - and he shared Carolyn and the programmes' precious air-time with no-one!
*
Here's that list again:
*
7/3/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
28/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times/James Forsyth of the Spectator
21/2/10 James Forsyth of the Spectator
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
Last night's Westminster Hour talked 'trouble for the Tories' again. That has been its main focus every week so far this year.
*
Of Lord Ashcroft much was said. Of the army's row with Gordon Brown in the wake of his dodgy evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, surely the far bigger story, there was not a single word. That shows where the programme's heart lies.
*
As in a way does this: Two weeks ago the first Conservative-supporting all-seeing journalist appeared on the programme but, as I pointed out then, he was accompanied by a Lib Dem-supporting pollster - thus getting only half the time that the a-s-j usually gets. That was only the second time that the week's all-seeing journalist didn't have Carolyn Quinn all to himself. Last week, when the programme reported from the Conservative Spring Conference, Mr Forsyth of the Spectator returned, but again he was placed in tandem with a Torysceptic journalist, Jean Eaglesham of the FT. Last night thing returned to normal and Andrew Grice of The Indie was the a-s-j - and he shared Carolyn and the programmes' precious air-time with no-one!
*
Here's that list again:
*
7/3/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
28/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times/James Forsyth of the Spectator
21/2/10 James Forsyth of the Spectator
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
Sunday, 7 March 2010
YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME
*
Going back in time to Friday and Carolyn Quinn on PM, who did we get to talk about the prime minister's performance at the Chilcot Inquiry? First Labour advisor David Clark (who worked with Robin Cook and John Reid), then Colonel Richard Kemp and then the odious Denis MacShane MP, whose every appearance contains at least one childish insult (here "Liam Fox...needs to grow up"). MacShane spun so brazenly for Gordon Brown here that even Nick Robinson, who followed, felt obliged to say that many listeners would be throwing things at the radio on hearing what MacShane he'd said!
*
Unlike earlier in the week, when the Conservatives were under fire, no political opponents appeared on this programme. Why not?
*
Here's the programme (for a few more days):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qzrlh
In fairness to the programme, just listen to the comments from listeners in the closing quarter of an hour. They suggest that the overwhelming response to the Lord Ashcroft story has been that people either didn't think it was news at all or that they were angry at the Beeb's bias over the issue. How delicious to have the very biased Carolyn Quinn read them out!
Going back in time to Friday and Carolyn Quinn on PM, who did we get to talk about the prime minister's performance at the Chilcot Inquiry? First Labour advisor David Clark (who worked with Robin Cook and John Reid), then Colonel Richard Kemp and then the odious Denis MacShane MP, whose every appearance contains at least one childish insult (here "Liam Fox...needs to grow up"). MacShane spun so brazenly for Gordon Brown here that even Nick Robinson, who followed, felt obliged to say that many listeners would be throwing things at the radio on hearing what MacShane he'd said!
*
Unlike earlier in the week, when the Conservatives were under fire, no political opponents appeared on this programme. Why not?
*
Here's the programme (for a few more days):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qzrlh
In fairness to the programme, just listen to the comments from listeners in the closing quarter of an hour. They suggest that the overwhelming response to the Lord Ashcroft story has been that people either didn't think it was news at all or that they were angry at the Beeb's bias over the issue. How delicious to have the very biased Carolyn Quinn read them out!
Monday, 22 February 2010
YOU AIN'T HEARD NOTHING LIKE THE BIASED QUINN
*
Only Westminster Hour would choose to begin last night's programme with bad poll news for the Tories. On a day dominated by a deeply embarrassing story for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, Carolyn Quinn kicked off the discussion between Mr Forsyth and Mr Smithson with news of the the shrinkage of the Conservative lead over Labour to just 6%.
8
This, however, was not the worst of it. Carolyn seemed deternimed to play down the bullying story at every turn. Her question to Mike Smithson, "Will they (the Labour Party) be helped or hindered by today's revelations?", was an odd one for starters. Then to James Forsyth came "James, there have been denials of course from Number 10 about the allegations. I've spoken to senior cabinet ministers who 'well my eye-witness account is not that he's violent, but then there are the charges that he's aggressive to more junior staff?" Then came "Mike, the prime minister's response, he's strong-willed, he's determined, isn't that a good response to this, that yes he gets angry, but he gets angry for a purpose, he gets angry with himself?" When the politics panel came (late) to the topic, there came this question to Conservative Douglas Carswell: "And if we're talking about anger, about anger management, I mean let's face it, there must be times when David Cameron and Nick Clegg have had a bit of a temper tantrum, haven't they Douglas? Have you ever seen David Cameron lose his temper?"
**
Last Monday I pointed out that, given that last week's panel featured only a Labour and Lib Dem spokesman, this week it would probably be just a Conservative and a representative from a smaller party. Well no. We got the Tory (Mr Carswell) but we also got Labour again (Tom Harris) and another Lib Dem (Matthew Oakeshott). I'm keeping count, and that means that the Tories are now behind and owed one. Lord Oakeshott had plenty of goes at George Osborne and David Cameron, and praised Gordon Brown. The Lib-Lab pact grows stronger by the week.
*
The sheer viciousness of the Labour Party, from the Smeargate Affair to the sickening bullying of the lady at the Anti-Bullying helpline today (I've just witnessed John Prescott getting particularly smeary about her on Sky), via all the myriad personal attacks on David Cameron over the last couple of years, might lead a BBC prcsenter to steer clear of pointing the finger at the Tories over the issue of negative campaigning. Of course not. William Hague's accusation that Brown is pushing the UK yet deeper into debt as a scorched earth policy to make life tough for an incoming Tory government lead Carolyn to ask "Douglas, are you happy with that tack?" and then interrupt him to ask "But do you like negative campaigning like that?" Carolyn Quinn has been engaged in negative campaigning against the Conservatives for years.
*
Only Westminster Hour would choose to begin last night's programme with bad poll news for the Tories. On a day dominated by a deeply embarrassing story for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, Carolyn Quinn kicked off the discussion between Mr Forsyth and Mr Smithson with news of the the shrinkage of the Conservative lead over Labour to just 6%.
8
This, however, was not the worst of it. Carolyn seemed deternimed to play down the bullying story at every turn. Her question to Mike Smithson, "Will they (the Labour Party) be helped or hindered by today's revelations?", was an odd one for starters. Then to James Forsyth came "James, there have been denials of course from Number 10 about the allegations. I've spoken to senior cabinet ministers who 'well my eye-witness account is not that he's violent, but then there are the charges that he's aggressive to more junior staff?" Then came "Mike, the prime minister's response, he's strong-willed, he's determined, isn't that a good response to this, that yes he gets angry, but he gets angry for a purpose, he gets angry with himself?" When the politics panel came (late) to the topic, there came this question to Conservative Douglas Carswell: "And if we're talking about anger, about anger management, I mean let's face it, there must be times when David Cameron and Nick Clegg have had a bit of a temper tantrum, haven't they Douglas? Have you ever seen David Cameron lose his temper?"
**
Last Monday I pointed out that, given that last week's panel featured only a Labour and Lib Dem spokesman, this week it would probably be just a Conservative and a representative from a smaller party. Well no. We got the Tory (Mr Carswell) but we also got Labour again (Tom Harris) and another Lib Dem (Matthew Oakeshott). I'm keeping count, and that means that the Tories are now behind and owed one. Lord Oakeshott had plenty of goes at George Osborne and David Cameron, and praised Gordon Brown. The Lib-Lab pact grows stronger by the week.
*
The sheer viciousness of the Labour Party, from the Smeargate Affair to the sickening bullying of the lady at the Anti-Bullying helpline today (I've just witnessed John Prescott getting particularly smeary about her on Sky), via all the myriad personal attacks on David Cameron over the last couple of years, might lead a BBC prcsenter to steer clear of pointing the finger at the Tories over the issue of negative campaigning. Of course not. William Hague's accusation that Brown is pushing the UK yet deeper into debt as a scorched earth policy to make life tough for an incoming Tory government lead Carolyn to ask "Douglas, are you happy with that tack?" and then interrupt him to ask "But do you like negative campaigning like that?" Carolyn Quinn has been engaged in negative campaigning against the Conservatives for years.
*
HALLELUJAH!!
*
The day has come at long last. I can now add a Conservative-supporting journalist from a Conservative-supporting magazine to my list of the all-seeing journalists on Radio 4's Westminster Hour!
*
Here's that list again, with its newest member.
*
21/2/10 James Forsyth of the Spectator
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
That said, it must be pointed out that, unlike every single one of the left-leaning journos on this list - with the sole exception of Kev Maguire on 24/1 - Mr Forsyth was not alone with Carolyn Quinn. He had the Lib Dem-supporting pollster Mike Smithson for company. One consequence of this was that James got much less time to speak that all those other left-wing journalists. How typical is that!!! You wait weeks for a Conservative-supporting all-seeing journalist to appear on the programme, then when he turns up he's chaperoned by a Lib Dem and, therefore, isn't even allowed to be all-seeing!!!
*
The day has come at long last. I can now add a Conservative-supporting journalist from a Conservative-supporting magazine to my list of the all-seeing journalists on Radio 4's Westminster Hour!
*
Here's that list again, with its newest member.
*
21/2/10 James Forsyth of the Spectator
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
That said, it must be pointed out that, unlike every single one of the left-leaning journos on this list - with the sole exception of Kev Maguire on 24/1 - Mr Forsyth was not alone with Carolyn Quinn. He had the Lib Dem-supporting pollster Mike Smithson for company. One consequence of this was that James got much less time to speak that all those other left-wing journalists. How typical is that!!! You wait weeks for a Conservative-supporting all-seeing journalist to appear on the programme, then when he turns up he's chaperoned by a Lib Dem and, therefore, isn't even allowed to be all-seeing!!!
*
Saturday, 20 February 2010
DON'T LEAVE US AGAIN EDDIE!
*
While Eddie's away the Quinns will play! Yesterday's PM, presented by leftie lassie Carolyn Quinn, was one of the worst I've heard for ages.
*
It featured an extremely soft interview by BBC economics 'guru' Nils Blythe of Peter Mandelson in the wake of Brown's right-wing-bashing speech at the Policy Network conference. Three easy questions and no interruptions from Nils, lots of Brown-nosing and attacks on the Tories from Mandy.
*
A report by Andrew Harding from Argentina on that country's posturing over the Falkland Islands saw Andy neglect to mention that Argentina's posturing (but beautiful) president is a socialist. Had the fair Cristina (pictured with all the inevitability of a Paxman sneer) been a right-winger you can bet your bottom peso he'd have thought it worth mentioning - especially as there was criticism of her from various Argentinians.
*
The programme then mounted the green platform and spent what seemed like an eternity discussing a row between the government (represented by Lord Hunt) and an electricity generator that wants subsidies to transfer from coal to renewable 'biomass' energy. Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson stuck his oar in here. Carolyn's questions tended towards Darren's position while she was interviewing the Labour lord.
*
The programme stayed on the same platform for a report by BBC science correspondent Palab Gosh on electric cars in America, and how they could save us from our gas-guzzling cars, which are "pouring carbon dioxide into the planet's atmosphere." He talked to a broccoli-juice drinking (no, honestly!) Californian couple who believe their solar-panel fitted sports car points the way to the future.
*
While Eddie's away the Quinns will play! Yesterday's PM, presented by leftie lassie Carolyn Quinn, was one of the worst I've heard for ages.
*
It featured an extremely soft interview by BBC economics 'guru' Nils Blythe of Peter Mandelson in the wake of Brown's right-wing-bashing speech at the Policy Network conference. Three easy questions and no interruptions from Nils, lots of Brown-nosing and attacks on the Tories from Mandy.
*
A report by Andrew Harding from Argentina on that country's posturing over the Falkland Islands saw Andy neglect to mention that Argentina's posturing (but beautiful) president is a socialist. Had the fair Cristina (pictured with all the inevitability of a Paxman sneer) been a right-winger you can bet your bottom peso he'd have thought it worth mentioning - especially as there was criticism of her from various Argentinians.
*
The programme then mounted the green platform and spent what seemed like an eternity discussing a row between the government (represented by Lord Hunt) and an electricity generator that wants subsidies to transfer from coal to renewable 'biomass' energy. Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson stuck his oar in here. Carolyn's questions tended towards Darren's position while she was interviewing the Labour lord.
*
The programme stayed on the same platform for a report by BBC science correspondent Palab Gosh on electric cars in America, and how they could save us from our gas-guzzling cars, which are "pouring carbon dioxide into the planet's atmosphere." He talked to a broccoli-juice drinking (no, honestly!) Californian couple who believe their solar-panel fitted sports car points the way to the future.
*
Monday, 15 February 2010
WESTSPINSTER HOUR
*
We last met left-leaning academic Professor Robert Hazell of University Collegee London in last Monday's anti-Tory report from Michael Crick (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search?q=Hazell). He was back on the BBC for last night's Westminster Hour. His topic? The Conservative Party's constitutional agenda. He foresaw many problems facing the Tories over devolution, their plans to enshine European referenda in law and so on, outlining them all to a receptive Carolyn Quinn.
*
More talk of Tories, no actual Tories.
*
The politics panel this week also talked about the Tories, but contained no actual Tories - it consisted of Labour's Paul Flynn and Lib Dem Evan Harris.
*
The programme, as noted before, is now staggering the parties so as to allow the smaller parties a chance. So next week should, if the programme is being fair, sent an invite to the Conservatives (who are now owed a week - oh yes, I'm keeping score!!) and I guess, going off previous guests from the Greens, UKIP and the cross-benches, to someone from the SNP, BNP or Plaid Cymru. We'll see.*
*
We last met left-leaning academic Professor Robert Hazell of University Collegee London in last Monday's anti-Tory report from Michael Crick (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search?q=Hazell). He was back on the BBC for last night's Westminster Hour. His topic? The Conservative Party's constitutional agenda. He foresaw many problems facing the Tories over devolution, their plans to enshine European referenda in law and so on, outlining them all to a receptive Carolyn Quinn.
*
More talk of Tories, no actual Tories.
*
The politics panel this week also talked about the Tories, but contained no actual Tories - it consisted of Labour's Paul Flynn and Lib Dem Evan Harris.
*
The programme, as noted before, is now staggering the parties so as to allow the smaller parties a chance. So next week should, if the programme is being fair, sent an invite to the Conservatives (who are now owed a week - oh yes, I'm keeping score!!) and I guess, going off previous guests from the Greens, UKIP and the cross-benches, to someone from the SNP, BNP or Plaid Cymru. We'll see.*
*
Monday, 8 February 2010
QUINN-TESSENTIALLY BIASED
*
Radio 4's Westminster Hour continues to spit in the face of impartiality.
*
This being Monday morning it's time for that (ever-growing) list again! This week's all-seeing journalist was Nick Watt of The Guardian, back again to discuss the political week with Carolyn Quinn (pictured).
*
Last week I wrote:
Fat chance!
*
Here's the list, complete with its latest member:
*
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
As it has done for the whole of the last month, the programme began by discussing on the 'woes' of the Conservative Party: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/8503270.stm
*
This being Monday morning it's time for that (ever-growing) list again! This week's all-seeing journalist was Nick Watt of The Guardian, back again to discuss the political week with Carolyn Quinn (pictured).
*
Last week I wrote:
"When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes? Surely next week?"
Fat chance!
*
Here's the list, complete with its latest member:
*
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
As it has done for the whole of the last month, the programme began by discussing on the 'woes' of the Conservative Party: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/8503270.stm
*
So for weeks now Westminster Hour has opened its political coverage with overviews from almost exclusively Left-leaning, Labour-supporting journalists. Not a single Conservative supporting journalist has been invited - no Peter Oborne, no Ben Brogan, no Matthew Parris.
*
And it isn't as if Carolyn Quinn tries to play devil's advocate. Her questions are hardly calculated to help the Conservative Party - far from it! Her first question to Nick Watt was about whether the Tories had 'wobbled' this week and if so why? Her second was about whether their austerity message had been 'undermined'. Her third question talked of a 'rowing back' by the Tories and asked if the public services could now 'relax a little bit' because they won't immediately face 'swingeing cuts under the Conservatives'.
*
Monday, 1 February 2010
IT'S SOOO UNFAIR!
*
Last night's Westminster Hour was largely devoted to the Conservatives, although no Conservative politicians were present.
*
This week's all-seeing journalist was George Parker of the Financial Times. In no way can George or the F.T. be called ideologically left-wing but they have aligned themselves with the Labour Party for years now and Mr Parker was critical of David Cameron and the Conservatives here. Anyone tuning into Westminster Hour will have heard criticism of David Cameron and the Conservatives from the week's all-seeing journalist for weeks on end now!
*
When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes? Surely next week?
*
Here's that (growing) list again:
*
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
The politics panel consisted of:
*
Tom Harris (Labour)
Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrats)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
*
This is the second time that the Conservatives have been dropped so far this year. Labour and the Lib Dems have each been dropped once and should, if fairness is a guiding criteria at Westminster Hour (!), each be dropped in turn over the next couple of weeks (and if not why not?). I will be listening to see that this happens.
*
Despite there being no Conservative spokesman to defend their corner, Carolyn Quinn asked her three left-of-centre guests what they thought of David Cameron's policy on tackling burglars. They all rubbished the policy and slagged off the Tories. Is that a fair thing for Carolyn Quinn to have done? No!
*
The main section of the programme closed with a review of recent Conservative Party history with Dr Tim Bale of Sussex University. Though he had a downbeat story to tell (made even more downbeat by Carolyn's slanting of it) at least he's not an opponent of the Conservative Party. That's something at least.
*
*
I will listen to the Sunday Supplement when I get home (early) from work because it's the second part of Dr David Runciman's 'Turkeys Voting for Christmas' (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-obamas-critics-are-stupid-and.html). Very ominously its subject is Inheritance Tax, that hottest of British political hot potatoes. Will it be as biased and dishonest as last week's take on American politics?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/default.stm
*
Last night's Westminster Hour was largely devoted to the Conservatives, although no Conservative politicians were present.
*
This week's all-seeing journalist was George Parker of the Financial Times. In no way can George or the F.T. be called ideologically left-wing but they have aligned themselves with the Labour Party for years now and Mr Parker was critical of David Cameron and the Conservatives here. Anyone tuning into Westminster Hour will have heard criticism of David Cameron and the Conservatives from the week's all-seeing journalist for weeks on end now!
*
When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes? Surely next week?
*
Here's that (growing) list again:
*
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
The politics panel consisted of:
*
Tom Harris (Labour)
Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrats)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
*
This is the second time that the Conservatives have been dropped so far this year. Labour and the Lib Dems have each been dropped once and should, if fairness is a guiding criteria at Westminster Hour (!), each be dropped in turn over the next couple of weeks (and if not why not?). I will be listening to see that this happens.
*
Despite there being no Conservative spokesman to defend their corner, Carolyn Quinn asked her three left-of-centre guests what they thought of David Cameron's policy on tackling burglars. They all rubbished the policy and slagged off the Tories. Is that a fair thing for Carolyn Quinn to have done? No!
*
The main section of the programme closed with a review of recent Conservative Party history with Dr Tim Bale of Sussex University. Though he had a downbeat story to tell (made even more downbeat by Carolyn's slanting of it) at least he's not an opponent of the Conservative Party. That's something at least.
*
*
I will listen to the Sunday Supplement when I get home (early) from work because it's the second part of Dr David Runciman's 'Turkeys Voting for Christmas' (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-obamas-critics-are-stupid-and.html). Very ominously its subject is Inheritance Tax, that hottest of British political hot potatoes. Will it be as biased and dishonest as last week's take on American politics?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/default.stm
*
Monday, 18 January 2010
INDEPENDENT HOUR
*
Here's an update on something I blogged last Monday. This is what I wrote in its entirity (how's that for re-cycling!):
*
Any chance of someone from the Times or the Telegraph getting a look in any time soon?
Here's an update on something I blogged last Monday. This is what I wrote in its entirity (how's that for re-cycling!):
Most editions of Radio 4's Westminster Hour feature a political journalist, whoWell, the trend continues. This week (17/1/10) it was Andrew Grice of the Independent. He was, unsurprisingly, much more critical of the Conservatives than of Labour.
usually casts an eye over some key event or other in a one-to-one chat with
presenter Carolyn Quinn. On 30th November it dawned on me that the featured
journalists seemed to be coming disproportionately from the UK's left-liberal
newspapers. So I began to note down who was getting the invitations.
*
This is the story so far:
*
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
Case proven?
*
Any chance of someone from the Times or the Telegraph getting a look in any time soon?
Monday, 11 January 2010
GUARDIAN HOUR
*
Most editions of Radio 4's Westminster Hour feature a political journalist, who usually casts an eye over some key event or other in a one-to-one chat with presenter Carolyn Quinn. On 30th November it dawned on me that the featured journalists seemed to be coming disproportionately from the UK's left-liberal newspapers. So I began to note down who was getting the invitations.
*
This is the story so far:
*
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
Case proven?
Most editions of Radio 4's Westminster Hour feature a political journalist, who usually casts an eye over some key event or other in a one-to-one chat with presenter Carolyn Quinn. On 30th November it dawned on me that the featured journalists seemed to be coming disproportionately from the UK's left-liberal newspapers. So I began to note down who was getting the invitations.
*
This is the story so far:
*
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
Case proven?
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CAROLYN
* Tonight's PM, again hosted by Carolyn Quinn (pictured right), followed the lead set by every other BBC Radio 4 current affairs programme so far & discussed the Chinese execution of 'bipolar Brit' Akmal Shaikh with a Left-Liberal type - in this case the foggy-minded Nick Clegg of the Left-Liberal Democrats (I.C. of 0.3).
*
Afghanistan was discussed with two military men - Col. Wayne Shanks, the public affairs officer with US and NATO forces (a short interview, during which all Carolyn's questions could be summed up with the words 'Woe,woe and thrice woe!') and Alasdair Ross of 2 Rifles (a very sympathetic 7-minute interview). The interview with Col. Shanks was brisk and business-like, whereas the interview with Mr Ross (who's also a Labour councillor in Ipswich) was leisurely and involving.
*
A remarkable report from Terry Stiasny followed. Terry returned to a school in Islington to see what echoes lingered of the Countenance Divine whose sainted feet trod on England's mountains green last April - i.e. Michelle Obama. She recalled "the first lady's hugs and spontaneity", and pressed a student to "go back, if you're in need of a bit of inspiration" to recall that great day when She walked among us. The pupils may have needed a little prodding to wax lyrical. Not so Terry Stiasny.
*
Much of the final part of PM today was devoted to an end-of-year round-up of the political scene, compered by Carolyn herself, between Labour's John Cruddas (I.C. of 0.2), Lib Dem Ed Davey (I.C. of 0.3) and Conservative Andrew Pirie (I.C. of 0.3). The interruption coefficients here are much of a muchness. Considering my (inferior) side measure, the questions coefficient, though and you will get a sense that things weren't quite as balanced as those figures suggest - 0.9 for Mr Davey, 1.2 for Mr Cruddas but 2.4 for Mr Pirie.
*
And so clearly was Carolyn Quinn aiming most of her specific questions at Mr Pirie that I can introduce a fresh measure here - the specific/general questions ratio. Under specific questions come ones that ask about the interviewee's party in particular - or his own personal responsibilities. These are, naturally, tougher questions. Under general questions, however, come questions unrelated to the interviewee's own political party, or his personal responsibilities (eg. questions about the BNP, or how all the political parties have been hit by the expenses scandal, or about Lords reform, etc). Looked at in this way, here's how things pan out:
*
Interviewee****General questions*** Specific questions
John Cruddas*********** 3***********************1
Andrew Pirie************3***********************5
Ed Davey*************** 3********************** 1
*
The single specific question aimed at Mr Cruddas concerned his earlier comments about Gordon Brown's prospects, whereas the single specific question aimed at Mr Davey was a typical Carolyn Quinn-style question: "And of course your party's got a problem because it...(sic)...not that many women, no ethnic minorities in the Commons at the moment." There were, as you can see, five specific questions aimed at Mr Pirie, including the interruption "David Cameron's got a presidential style has he?", as well as "What is the Conservative view of that?", " So you didn't go far enough?", "You've got David Cameron trying to force through all-women shortlists & coming up against quite a lot of opposition from the party", & "Where do you think the Conservatives are left then because sealing the deal is something David Cameron recognises hasn't been done yet?" All Carolyn Quinn's recent politics panels on 'Westminster Hour' have followed a similar pattern, boxing the Conservative guest in with specific questions but allowing the left-of-centre politicians much more open questions and, therefore, a freer scope and an easier time.
*
Monday, 28 December 2009
THE CRUEL BARBARITY OF CAROLYN QUINN
*
Tonight's PM with Carolyn Quinn began by exploring the story of Akmal Shaikh, the British drug smuggler facing execution in Communist China. The issue was discussed with someone who's "an expert in human rights", Saul Lehrfreund of The Death Penalty Project. This is not an organisation that campaigns for the death penalty, you won't be surprised to hear. Mr Lehrfreund and Carolyn got on like a house on fire.
*
If you'd expect Carolyn to share Mr Lehhfreund's opposition to the death penalty, you'd also surely expect her not to be in favour of further 'profiling' of terrorist suspects - after all that might risk offending the Muslims (who, for some unfathomable reason, people suspect of being ever so slightly more likely to want to blow up aeroplanes, with people on them). Her line of questioning to Philip Baum, an airline security expert with Green Light Ltd showed that to be a very reasonable expectation.
*
The ever-entertaining Eric Pickles was up next, love-bombing an unwooable Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats. Carolyn interrupted Eric to ask about...guess what?....inheritance tax, then, when the interview ended read out one e-mail from 'a listener' who said he'd never vote Tory because of the "the cruel barbarity of fox, deer and hare hunting".
*
We then had yet another report about Gaza. Gaza, Gaza, Gaza, day in day out on the BBC. I couldn't care less about Gaza. I'd like to hear about Japan, or Mongolia, or New Zealand, or Tunisia, or Congo, or Canada, or Mexico...anywhere except Gaza. The BBC are obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians.
*
Eddie Mair (my favourite BBC interviewer, unlike Carolyn Quinn) then continued his series of full-length interviews with retiring MPs. These have all been interesting, with Eddie extracting a fine confession from John Hutton last Tuesday. (Good man John Hutton. He characterised Gordon Brown's prospects as prime minister perfectly, and in the circumstances his swearing was understandable!!). So far though, he's talked to Labour's John Hutton (last Tuesday), Labour's Bob Marshall-Andrews (last Thursday) and Independent Labour MP Clare Short (today). Hopefully, PM's producers will set Eddie up with a few retiring Conservative MPs later. (If not, why not?)
Tonight's PM with Carolyn Quinn began by exploring the story of Akmal Shaikh, the British drug smuggler facing execution in Communist China. The issue was discussed with someone who's "an expert in human rights", Saul Lehrfreund of The Death Penalty Project. This is not an organisation that campaigns for the death penalty, you won't be surprised to hear. Mr Lehrfreund and Carolyn got on like a house on fire.
*
If you'd expect Carolyn to share Mr Lehhfreund's opposition to the death penalty, you'd also surely expect her not to be in favour of further 'profiling' of terrorist suspects - after all that might risk offending the Muslims (who, for some unfathomable reason, people suspect of being ever so slightly more likely to want to blow up aeroplanes, with people on them). Her line of questioning to Philip Baum, an airline security expert with Green Light Ltd showed that to be a very reasonable expectation.
*
The ever-entertaining Eric Pickles was up next, love-bombing an unwooable Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats. Carolyn interrupted Eric to ask about...guess what?....inheritance tax, then, when the interview ended read out one e-mail from 'a listener' who said he'd never vote Tory because of the "the cruel barbarity of fox, deer and hare hunting".
*
We then had yet another report about Gaza. Gaza, Gaza, Gaza, day in day out on the BBC. I couldn't care less about Gaza. I'd like to hear about Japan, or Mongolia, or New Zealand, or Tunisia, or Congo, or Canada, or Mexico...anywhere except Gaza. The BBC are obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians.
*
Eddie Mair (my favourite BBC interviewer, unlike Carolyn Quinn) then continued his series of full-length interviews with retiring MPs. These have all been interesting, with Eddie extracting a fine confession from John Hutton last Tuesday. (Good man John Hutton. He characterised Gordon Brown's prospects as prime minister perfectly, and in the circumstances his swearing was understandable!!). So far though, he's talked to Labour's John Hutton (last Tuesday), Labour's Bob Marshall-Andrews (last Thursday) and Independent Labour MP Clare Short (today). Hopefully, PM's producers will set Eddie up with a few retiring Conservative MPs later. (If not, why not?)
Monday, 30 November 2009
A SHOCKING CASE OF BIAS
*
Last night's Westminster Hour was a shocker even by the Beeb's biased standards.
*
It began with Carolyn Quinn discussing the Chilcott Inquiry and the Pre-Budget Report with Toby Helm, political editor of the left-liberal Observer. I will be tracking this from now on, as the last time a newspaper journalist was on the show (two weeks ago) it was Nick Watts of the left-liberal Guardian in this same spot (and I think another leftie was on the week before, but I can't be sure). Helm used his chance to communicate Labour's hostile stance on Conservative proposals on Inheritance Tax.
*
Then came the Politics Panel. It wasn't much of a panel, consisting of two left-liberal politicians, both of whom were opposed to the Iraq War: Labour's Emily Thornberry and the Lib Dem's Jo Swinson. Emily got 6 minutes 52 seconds to speak, and was interrupted just once (I.C. of 0.2) whereas Jo got 5 minutes 3 seconds to speak, and was interrupted only once (I.C. of 0.2).
There was no Conservative Party guest, despite there being three attacks on the Tories by Jo Swinson and two by Emily Thornberry! Not only was there no Conservative spokesman there to defend the party, but Carolyn Quinn refused to butt in to stop the attacks, and - worse still - she asked each of her guests a question about the Conservatives, positively inciting those attacks. Carolyn Quinn can be a disgracefully biased interviewer some times. ('Odious' is the word!)
*
Her strongest interruption was made against Jo Swinson and, just like last week, the intervention was made to stick up for the Labour Party. When Jo condemned the government for its protocol defining 9 reasons for not publishing evidence during the Chilcott Inquiry, Carolyn barged in saying "But there must be limitations, government would argue." Couldn't she have let Labour's Emily Thornberry launch the case for the government instead of launching it herself?
*
The third section of the programme was about the Conservatives, but it was an astonishingly unbalanced piece of reporting by the Beeb's Mandy Baker. The issue was how the Conservatives would cope, should they win the election, with a House of Lords that is now a 'hung parliament' (with Labour as the largest party). An interesting question, but the bias contained within the report rendered it beyond repair.
*
There were four guests, of whom three were Lords (or Ladies!):
*
Lord Norton, Conservative peer.
Baroness D'Souza, convener of the cross-benchers in the House of Lords.
Lord Lipsey, Labour peer.
*
The fourth (and most frequently-featured) of the 'talking heads' was Dr Meg Russell. She was introduced merely as being from the Constitutional Unit at University College, London, and was the constitutional 'expert' of the piece. An independent expert? I'm sure that's what Mandy wanted us to believe. Well, as I listened I thought to myself, "This woman doesn't like the Tories". Looking her up, it turns out she's not remotely independent. She's a doyenne of the Fabian Society, openDemocracy and Compass - i.e. a fully paid-up leftie. Not to label an 'expert' as being affiliated to a particular political standpoint is a key tell-tale sign of biased reporting. Mandy Baker should have supplied some of this background so that we, the listener, would know where Meg Russell was coming from ideologically. If she'd have been with Reform or the CPS we'd have known about it for sure!! So let's re-colour-code her as Dr Meg Russell.
*
And there's more.
*
This is the order in which they got to speak:
*
Meg Russell
Lord Norton
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Meg Russell
Lord Lipsey
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
Lord Norton
Lord Lipsey
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
*
Does that look fair?
*
Count up the time each got to speak and the sheer unfairness is demonstrated yet again:
*
Meg Russell - 1 minute 27 seconds
Lord Lipsey - 1 minute 26 seconds
Lord Norton - 1 minute 12 seconds
Baroness D'Souza - 1 minute 3 seconds
*
In a report about how the Conservatives would react to the House of Lords after the election (should they win), the Conservative spokesman got 1 minute 12 seconds!!!! Unbelievable!!
*
Mandy Baker has form, as you can read here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/mandy-baker-lets-team-down.html
*
Of course 1 minute 12 seconds is also all they got in the entire programme, despite being talked about (and criticised) a lot!!
*
Indefensible bias.
*
Last night's Westminster Hour was a shocker even by the Beeb's biased standards.
*
It began with Carolyn Quinn discussing the Chilcott Inquiry and the Pre-Budget Report with Toby Helm, political editor of the left-liberal Observer. I will be tracking this from now on, as the last time a newspaper journalist was on the show (two weeks ago) it was Nick Watts of the left-liberal Guardian in this same spot (and I think another leftie was on the week before, but I can't be sure). Helm used his chance to communicate Labour's hostile stance on Conservative proposals on Inheritance Tax.
*
Then came the Politics Panel. It wasn't much of a panel, consisting of two left-liberal politicians, both of whom were opposed to the Iraq War: Labour's Emily Thornberry and the Lib Dem's Jo Swinson. Emily got 6 minutes 52 seconds to speak, and was interrupted just once (I.C. of 0.2) whereas Jo got 5 minutes 3 seconds to speak, and was interrupted only once (I.C. of 0.2).
There was no Conservative Party guest, despite there being three attacks on the Tories by Jo Swinson and two by Emily Thornberry! Not only was there no Conservative spokesman there to defend the party, but Carolyn Quinn refused to butt in to stop the attacks, and - worse still - she asked each of her guests a question about the Conservatives, positively inciting those attacks. Carolyn Quinn can be a disgracefully biased interviewer some times. ('Odious' is the word!)
*
Her strongest interruption was made against Jo Swinson and, just like last week, the intervention was made to stick up for the Labour Party. When Jo condemned the government for its protocol defining 9 reasons for not publishing evidence during the Chilcott Inquiry, Carolyn barged in saying "But there must be limitations, government would argue." Couldn't she have let Labour's Emily Thornberry launch the case for the government instead of launching it herself?
*
The third section of the programme was about the Conservatives, but it was an astonishingly unbalanced piece of reporting by the Beeb's Mandy Baker. The issue was how the Conservatives would cope, should they win the election, with a House of Lords that is now a 'hung parliament' (with Labour as the largest party). An interesting question, but the bias contained within the report rendered it beyond repair.
*
There were four guests, of whom three were Lords (or Ladies!):
*
Lord Norton, Conservative peer.
Baroness D'Souza, convener of the cross-benchers in the House of Lords.
Lord Lipsey, Labour peer.
*
The fourth (and most frequently-featured) of the 'talking heads' was Dr Meg Russell. She was introduced merely as being from the Constitutional Unit at University College, London, and was the constitutional 'expert' of the piece. An independent expert? I'm sure that's what Mandy wanted us to believe. Well, as I listened I thought to myself, "This woman doesn't like the Tories". Looking her up, it turns out she's not remotely independent. She's a doyenne of the Fabian Society, openDemocracy and Compass - i.e. a fully paid-up leftie. Not to label an 'expert' as being affiliated to a particular political standpoint is a key tell-tale sign of biased reporting. Mandy Baker should have supplied some of this background so that we, the listener, would know where Meg Russell was coming from ideologically. If she'd have been with Reform or the CPS we'd have known about it for sure!! So let's re-colour-code her as Dr Meg Russell.
*
And there's more.
*
This is the order in which they got to speak:
*
Meg Russell
Lord Norton
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Meg Russell
Lord Lipsey
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
Lord Norton
Lord Lipsey
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
*
Does that look fair?
*
Count up the time each got to speak and the sheer unfairness is demonstrated yet again:
*
Meg Russell - 1 minute 27 seconds
Lord Lipsey - 1 minute 26 seconds
Lord Norton - 1 minute 12 seconds
Baroness D'Souza - 1 minute 3 seconds
*
In a report about how the Conservatives would react to the House of Lords after the election (should they win), the Conservative spokesman got 1 minute 12 seconds!!!! Unbelievable!!
*
Mandy Baker has form, as you can read here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/mandy-baker-lets-team-down.html
*
Of course 1 minute 12 seconds is also all they got in the entire programme, despite being talked about (and criticised) a lot!!
*
Indefensible bias.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
