*
My complaint...
*
Whenever David Cameron is interviewed by Andrew Marr, Mr Marr concentrates on asking him about Conservative cuts, yet when Gordon Brown was on this Sunday Andrew Marr did not ask him about cuts at all.
For months now, Conservative politicians have faced questions from Mr Marr about cuts. Why didn't he ask the Labour leader about what cuts he will make, how much will be cut from each spending department, how many jobs will be lost as a consequence?
Why does Andrew Marr seem to want to connect the idea of 'cuts' just with the Conservatives rather than with Labour?
The interview with Gordon Brown lasted 25 minutes. There was time.
...elicited this response...
*
Dear Mr
Thanks for your e-mail about 'The Andrew Marr Show' shown on 18 April.
I understand that you feel that Andrew Marr consistently asks David Cameron about Conservative cuts when he appears on the show, but you believe he didn't ask Gordon Brown the same questions about Labour cuts when he was a guest on the show on 18 April. I note that you believe that Andrew seems to be trying to connect the idea of cuts with the Conservative Party rather than the Labour Party.
We've raised your concerns with the Editor of 'The Andrew Marr Show' and he's provided the following response:
"Senior Labour politicians have been asked about cuts - and tax rises - on the Marr show over the past few months. The truth is there will be budget cuts whoever is in power after the election.
It is also true that David Cameron has said that Labour's plans for reducing planned spending and working to reduce the deficit were inadequate and that a Conservative government would implement reductions "faster and deeper".
Being even handed and applying the same rigorous approach to each party does not mean asking each politician the same questions. For instance the issue in the first debate where Gordon Brown provided answers that were least appreciated by those polled afterwards - the area where all the indications are that he performed least well compared to his two fellow leaders - was on immigration...so the producers decided that they would begin the interview with Gordon Brown with this topic. There would not be a similar reason to choose the same topic with David Cameron whose responses on this subject met with more popular approval."
We do appreciate your taking the time to express your concerns and so please be assured that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Once again, thanks for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
L....... B........
BBC Complaints
Showing posts with label Complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Complaint. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Thursday, 22 April 2010
RIGHT TO REPLY
*
This is a complaint I made to the BBC:
Throughout the general election 'Westminster Hour' is featuring Nick Watt of 'The Guardian' as one of its two main pundits, along with ex-Treasury advisor (until 2009) Prof Philip Cowley. As Mr Watt is an opponent of the Conservatives and Prof Cowley advised the Labour government, do you not think that this shows bias against the Conservative Party?
This is not new for 'Westminster Hour', which has featured few right-of-centre journalists since late last year but lots of left-of-centre ones.
I would have hoped that his pattern of bias would stop for the general election. It clearly hasn't. Please can a right-of-centre journalist replace Mr Watt for the remainder of the election? That would only be fair.
Here's their reply:
Dear Mr
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'The Westminster Hour'.
'The Westminster Hour' is featuring Nick Watt during the election campaign but not as a 'left-of-centre' commentator. Nick isn't a commentator - he's a political reporter covering the campaign on a day to day basis and there's nothing to suggest that he is being biased against the Conservatives either in his reporting or in his comments on the programme. Indeed you have not provided any examples of occasions when you believe his reporting has been biased.
Similarly, you object to the programme featuring Professor Cowley because he has previously advised the Treasury. However, Government departments take on academics for short periods of time to give them specific advice about very narrowly-defined issues. Professor Cowley was not in any shape or form providing political advice during his time as a policy specialist.
Professor Cowley is a renowned expert on British politics who is trusted by all three main political parties and has regular contact with all of them.
He has also appeared on the programme many times in recent years and again there is no evidence to suggest that he is in any way biased against the Conservatives or in favour of Labour.
You also allege that the programme has only been using centre left journalists in recent months. I raised this issue with the Editor, who explained:
"To a large extent, it's horses for courses. For example, during the many occasions when there's been speculation that an attempt will be made within the Labour Party to remove Mr Brown from power, I've felt that a centre left commentator is usually better placed to comment because they tend to have very good contacts within the Labour Party. If it's a story about the Conservatives, I ask for comment from someone from the centre right. So, for example, when the Conservatives had their Spring conference we spoke to the political editor of the centre right Spectator magazine, James Forsyth. The Sunday before the election was called we spoke to a centre right commentator Iain Martin to ask him about his views of the Conservative strategy.
I should add that what I'm after more than anything else is quality. All the commentators, journalists and academics that I use have to be credible. They have reputations to protect. They want to get it right and provide accurate analysis and commentary."
I'd like to assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
Regards
Gemma McAleer
BBC Complaints
Yes, I think she's right about Prof Cowley. That's a good answer. I've doubtless done him a disservice.
I think she's wrong though about Nick Watt. It's true I didn't provide any evidence (as I was trying to be brief). I should have done. To say that he is only a 'reporter' and not a left-of-centre 'commentator', however, is absurd. Why do programmes like 'The Daily Politics' always set Mr Watt alongside a 'reporter' who might be considered right-of-centre? Because he is a left-of-centre 'reporter'/'commentator' and they clearly think it right to balance his opinions with someone from a contrasting perspective. Not 'Westminster Hour' though.
*
If you compare what I wrote with how Gemma re-writes what I wrote, you'll see that she has misrepresented my final point, turning it into a straw man:
I wrote: This is not new for 'Westminster Hour', which has featured few right-of-centre journalists since late last year but lots of left-of-centre ones.
She wrote: You also allege that the programme has only been using centre left journalists in recent months.
*
Earlier in the year I chronicled 4 months worth of such journalists and found Mr Forsyth (2 appearances) and Mr Martin (1 appearance) to be the only voices from the centre-right to act as the programme's 'all-seeing eyes'. Nick Watt, Kevin Maguire, Andrew Grice, Michael Savage and Toby Helm, all left-of-centre 'reporters', have dominated the programme's airwaves.
And, though the programme did indeed use Mr Forsyth for the Conservative Spring Conference (carefully chaperoned by Torysceptic Jean Eaglesham of the FT) and Mr Martin before the start of the election, it is hardly true to say "If it's a story about the Conservatives, I ask for comment from someone from the centre right." I have shown in some detail here how the programme has led again and again on stories that harm the Conservatives and it has not sought comment from someone from the centre right. For example, the 7/2 the programme opened with a discussion of the Conservative 'wobble' and whether their austerity message had been 'undermined', before moving on to discuss whether there had been a 'rowing back' on 'swingeing cuts'. Who was the chosen journalist? Nick Watt.
*
Time to reply.
This is a complaint I made to the BBC:
Throughout the general election 'Westminster Hour' is featuring Nick Watt of 'The Guardian' as one of its two main pundits, along with ex-Treasury advisor (until 2009) Prof Philip Cowley. As Mr Watt is an opponent of the Conservatives and Prof Cowley advised the Labour government, do you not think that this shows bias against the Conservative Party?
This is not new for 'Westminster Hour', which has featured few right-of-centre journalists since late last year but lots of left-of-centre ones.
I would have hoped that his pattern of bias would stop for the general election. It clearly hasn't. Please can a right-of-centre journalist replace Mr Watt for the remainder of the election? That would only be fair.
Here's their reply:
Dear Mr
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'The Westminster Hour'.
'The Westminster Hour' is featuring Nick Watt during the election campaign but not as a 'left-of-centre' commentator. Nick isn't a commentator - he's a political reporter covering the campaign on a day to day basis and there's nothing to suggest that he is being biased against the Conservatives either in his reporting or in his comments on the programme. Indeed you have not provided any examples of occasions when you believe his reporting has been biased.
Similarly, you object to the programme featuring Professor Cowley because he has previously advised the Treasury. However, Government departments take on academics for short periods of time to give them specific advice about very narrowly-defined issues. Professor Cowley was not in any shape or form providing political advice during his time as a policy specialist.
Professor Cowley is a renowned expert on British politics who is trusted by all three main political parties and has regular contact with all of them.
He has also appeared on the programme many times in recent years and again there is no evidence to suggest that he is in any way biased against the Conservatives or in favour of Labour.
You also allege that the programme has only been using centre left journalists in recent months. I raised this issue with the Editor, who explained:
"To a large extent, it's horses for courses. For example, during the many occasions when there's been speculation that an attempt will be made within the Labour Party to remove Mr Brown from power, I've felt that a centre left commentator is usually better placed to comment because they tend to have very good contacts within the Labour Party. If it's a story about the Conservatives, I ask for comment from someone from the centre right. So, for example, when the Conservatives had their Spring conference we spoke to the political editor of the centre right Spectator magazine, James Forsyth. The Sunday before the election was called we spoke to a centre right commentator Iain Martin to ask him about his views of the Conservative strategy.
I should add that what I'm after more than anything else is quality. All the commentators, journalists and academics that I use have to be credible. They have reputations to protect. They want to get it right and provide accurate analysis and commentary."
I'd like to assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
Regards
Gemma McAleer
BBC Complaints
Yes, I think she's right about Prof Cowley. That's a good answer. I've doubtless done him a disservice.
I think she's wrong though about Nick Watt. It's true I didn't provide any evidence (as I was trying to be brief). I should have done. To say that he is only a 'reporter' and not a left-of-centre 'commentator', however, is absurd. Why do programmes like 'The Daily Politics' always set Mr Watt alongside a 'reporter' who might be considered right-of-centre? Because he is a left-of-centre 'reporter'/'commentator' and they clearly think it right to balance his opinions with someone from a contrasting perspective. Not 'Westminster Hour' though.
*
If you compare what I wrote with how Gemma re-writes what I wrote, you'll see that she has misrepresented my final point, turning it into a straw man:
I wrote: This is not new for 'Westminster Hour', which has featured few right-of-centre journalists since late last year but lots of left-of-centre ones.
She wrote: You also allege that the programme has only been using centre left journalists in recent months.
*
Earlier in the year I chronicled 4 months worth of such journalists and found Mr Forsyth (2 appearances) and Mr Martin (1 appearance) to be the only voices from the centre-right to act as the programme's 'all-seeing eyes'. Nick Watt, Kevin Maguire, Andrew Grice, Michael Savage and Toby Helm, all left-of-centre 'reporters', have dominated the programme's airwaves.
And, though the programme did indeed use Mr Forsyth for the Conservative Spring Conference (carefully chaperoned by Torysceptic Jean Eaglesham of the FT) and Mr Martin before the start of the election, it is hardly true to say "If it's a story about the Conservatives, I ask for comment from someone from the centre right." I have shown in some detail here how the programme has led again and again on stories that harm the Conservatives and it has not sought comment from someone from the centre right. For example, the 7/2 the programme opened with a discussion of the Conservative 'wobble' and whether their austerity message had been 'undermined', before moving on to discuss whether there had been a 'rowing back' on 'swingeing cuts'. Who was the chosen journalist? Nick Watt.
*
Time to reply.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
HOW THINGS STAND
*
Well, I'd had quite a number of replies to my e-mails from senior (and not so senior) Conservatives in recent days (trust me not to have gone into my e-mail for about four days!). Some fall into the 'thank you, that's very interesting, regards' category but others suggest that the Conservatives are at last really 'getting it' and, more than that, doing something about it. (The recent behaviour of Kirsty Wark is one of the issues that is rightly exercising their attention at the moment.) The angrier they get about BBC bias the better, and I think I'm helping to raise their blood pressure a little over the issue. (Then again just switching on the radio or the TV should make that happen already on a daily basis). The Biased BBC blogsite's new weekly digests (e-mailed far and wide) will help spread the message and, hopefully, spur more direct action from the Conservatives..
*
And talking of complaints, I've at last had a reply from the BBC about one of my lesser complaints. I'd half forgotten about this one. (I haven't heard about my big complaint for a while now.) This was prompted by one of James Naughtie 's rude interviews with George Osborne - the one where Naughtie lied about what he'd said earlier in the interview when GO challenged him over it (15th Feb).
*
This was my complaint:
*
I wish to complain about James Naughtie's behaviour towards George Osborne during this morning's edition of 'Today'.
After badgering Mr Osborne over the Conservatives' Co-operative scheme, Mr Naughtie moved onto the issue of the deficit.
The Labour Party has been bandying about the phrase 'swingeing cuts' in connection with the Conservatives and James Naughtie began this section of the interview by bandying it about too.
He is what he said:
"Just let me turn to what happens to public spending after the election. We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down. There won't be swingeing cuts, it was said, but there will be very strong efforts to control public spending."
He later pursued the point, saying, "I don't doubt that anyone reading it (the letter from the economists) can doubt that it's an interesting and important letter but surely what it means is that there needs to be, in the view of those economists, 'swingeing cuts', which is precisely what David Cameron, presumably to avoid scaring people, said there wouldn't be. Who's right, the economists or your leader?"
Mr Osborne begin his answer but within 4 seconds (!) Jim Naughtie barged in again with "they want 'swingeing cuts!'
This, understandably, was too much for Mr Osborne.
This is how the exchange went on from that point:
Osborne: "You keep using this word 'swingeing', which you first attributed to David Cameron and he never used, now attribute it to the economists, and I've got the letter in front on me and..."
Naughtie (interrupting:) "I'm sorry, if I'm wrong about that I apologize, but I thought he said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'?
Osborne: "Exactly. He said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts', he...
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "So he did say used the word 'swingeing'. Sorry, let's be clear about this. You said I said he used the word 'swingeing' and he didn't. He did!"
Osborne: "Jim, er, this is a semantic point but earlier you were saying David Cameron had said there would be 'swingeing cuts', then you said that the economists were saying there will be 'swingeing cuts', let's get to the key..."
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "No. Let's be clear about this. David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts' and I was suggesting to you that the economists' letter and you own approach suggested that there would be such cuts, because they were necessary and because Ken Clarke had said we would have to have a deeper attack on public spending than under Margaret Thatcher, that's the argument..."
Osborne: "Let's move on from the semantic point and concentrate on the central point here..."
As you can very clearly see, every single word of what George Osborne said here was 100% correct:
- Mr Naughtie had kept using the word 'swingeing'
- Mr Naughtie had "first attributed" the word to David Cameron ("We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down.")
- Mr Naughtie had, therefore, not just used it earlier in the interview (as he claimed) in connection with Cameron's 'after' policy (i.e. when "David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'") but with his 'before' policy too.
George Osborne had caught James Naughtie out. Mr Naughtie lied and blustered in response. This is absolutely shameful behaviour. I hope he has the guts to apologize to Mr Osborne.
The interview lasted 7 minutes, and contained 11 interruptions.
Later in the same hour came an interview with Mr Osborne's opposite number, Alistair Darling. It was a strikingly less aggressive affair. Though this interview lasted 2 minutes more than the interview with Mr Osborne it contained 5 fewer interruptions.
This pattern is far from unusual with this interviewer (for which I can supply plenty of evidence should you need it).
It's clear that Mr Naughtie is not fit to conduct political interviews during a general election campaign. He is simply too partisan. As soon as the election is called he should (a) be removed from the 'Today' programme for the duration or (b) not allowed to conduct any political interviews, sticking (say) to arts or science stories. For an organisation that is constitutionally pledged to impartiality to allow Naughtie free range to bully Conservative and UKIP spokesmen during the general election would be bonkers.
*
*
It's a typical BBC reply, but there's a tiny, tiny concession contained in it:
Dear Mr...
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Today' broadcast on 15 February.
Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry you've had to wait on this occasion.
I understand you objected to what you viewed as James Naughtie's inappropriate behaviour towards George Osborne.
We forwarded your complaint to Dominic Groves, one of the output editors for the 'Today' programme who explained in response that:
"Broadly speaking the point Jim Naughtie was trying to raise was that the Conservatives had appeared to backtrack on their original commitment to sharp cuts in public spending but that sharp (or swingeing) cuts was exactly what the economists in the Sunday Times letter were calling for. I think Jim could have phrased the question more exactly but the general
point was clearly understood and was an important one on which to press George Osborne. As to the general tone of the interview it was tough but fair - nothing a politician of Mr Osborne's rank would not have expected and in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties."
In addition to the programme having seen and acknowledged your concerns, I'd like to take this opportunity to assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for contacting us with your thoughts.
Regards
Ciaran
BBC Complaints
Well, conceding that Naughtie 'could have phrased the question more exactly' doesn't answer my point that he lied, was caught out lying and blustered about it in response. And as regards the toughness of the interview, and Dominic's comment that it was "in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties" skirts the issue of the significantly drop in toughness that occurred during James Naughtie's other interview - the one with Alistair Darling. I should have forwarded my list of figures on Naughtie to scupper that one, but I'd already used them in my big complaint (the one that uses the interruption coefficients) and didn't want to overegg the pudding!
*
I've drawn a few conclusions from my experiences, which you may have drawn too if you've ever complained to the Beeb about bias.
*
Complaints to the BBC rarely get the likes of me anywhere, but - if only for sheer nuisance value - they are always worth making. All complaints should be copy and pasted onto e-mails and forwarded on to interested parties (eg. the Conservatives or UKIP). You could just save time and send all your complaints straight to the interested parties and encourage them to complain. They have direct means of access to the BBC. We don't. The BBC will also be more worried, of course, if it comes from people who might have the power to do 'bad things' to them.
Well, I'd had quite a number of replies to my e-mails from senior (and not so senior) Conservatives in recent days (trust me not to have gone into my e-mail for about four days!). Some fall into the 'thank you, that's very interesting, regards' category but others suggest that the Conservatives are at last really 'getting it' and, more than that, doing something about it. (The recent behaviour of Kirsty Wark is one of the issues that is rightly exercising their attention at the moment.) The angrier they get about BBC bias the better, and I think I'm helping to raise their blood pressure a little over the issue. (Then again just switching on the radio or the TV should make that happen already on a daily basis). The Biased BBC blogsite's new weekly digests (e-mailed far and wide) will help spread the message and, hopefully, spur more direct action from the Conservatives..
*
And talking of complaints, I've at last had a reply from the BBC about one of my lesser complaints. I'd half forgotten about this one. (I haven't heard about my big complaint for a while now.) This was prompted by one of James Naughtie 's rude interviews with George Osborne - the one where Naughtie lied about what he'd said earlier in the interview when GO challenged him over it (15th Feb).
*
This was my complaint:
*
I wish to complain about James Naughtie's behaviour towards George Osborne during this morning's edition of 'Today'.
After badgering Mr Osborne over the Conservatives' Co-operative scheme, Mr Naughtie moved onto the issue of the deficit.
The Labour Party has been bandying about the phrase 'swingeing cuts' in connection with the Conservatives and James Naughtie began this section of the interview by bandying it about too.
He is what he said:
"Just let me turn to what happens to public spending after the election. We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down. There won't be swingeing cuts, it was said, but there will be very strong efforts to control public spending."
He later pursued the point, saying, "I don't doubt that anyone reading it (the letter from the economists) can doubt that it's an interesting and important letter but surely what it means is that there needs to be, in the view of those economists, 'swingeing cuts', which is precisely what David Cameron, presumably to avoid scaring people, said there wouldn't be. Who's right, the economists or your leader?"
Mr Osborne begin his answer but within 4 seconds (!) Jim Naughtie barged in again with "they want 'swingeing cuts!'
This, understandably, was too much for Mr Osborne.
This is how the exchange went on from that point:
Osborne: "You keep using this word 'swingeing', which you first attributed to David Cameron and he never used, now attribute it to the economists, and I've got the letter in front on me and..."
Naughtie (interrupting:) "I'm sorry, if I'm wrong about that I apologize, but I thought he said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'?
Osborne: "Exactly. He said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts', he...
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "So he did say used the word 'swingeing'. Sorry, let's be clear about this. You said I said he used the word 'swingeing' and he didn't. He did!"
Osborne: "Jim, er, this is a semantic point but earlier you were saying David Cameron had said there would be 'swingeing cuts', then you said that the economists were saying there will be 'swingeing cuts', let's get to the key..."
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "No. Let's be clear about this. David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts' and I was suggesting to you that the economists' letter and you own approach suggested that there would be such cuts, because they were necessary and because Ken Clarke had said we would have to have a deeper attack on public spending than under Margaret Thatcher, that's the argument..."
Osborne: "Let's move on from the semantic point and concentrate on the central point here..."
As you can very clearly see, every single word of what George Osborne said here was 100% correct:
- Mr Naughtie had kept using the word 'swingeing'
- Mr Naughtie had "first attributed" the word to David Cameron ("We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down.")
- Mr Naughtie had, therefore, not just used it earlier in the interview (as he claimed) in connection with Cameron's 'after' policy (i.e. when "David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'") but with his 'before' policy too.
George Osborne had caught James Naughtie out. Mr Naughtie lied and blustered in response. This is absolutely shameful behaviour. I hope he has the guts to apologize to Mr Osborne.
The interview lasted 7 minutes, and contained 11 interruptions.
Later in the same hour came an interview with Mr Osborne's opposite number, Alistair Darling. It was a strikingly less aggressive affair. Though this interview lasted 2 minutes more than the interview with Mr Osborne it contained 5 fewer interruptions.
This pattern is far from unusual with this interviewer (for which I can supply plenty of evidence should you need it).
It's clear that Mr Naughtie is not fit to conduct political interviews during a general election campaign. He is simply too partisan. As soon as the election is called he should (a) be removed from the 'Today' programme for the duration or (b) not allowed to conduct any political interviews, sticking (say) to arts or science stories. For an organisation that is constitutionally pledged to impartiality to allow Naughtie free range to bully Conservative and UKIP spokesmen during the general election would be bonkers.
*
*
It's a typical BBC reply, but there's a tiny, tiny concession contained in it:
Dear Mr...
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Today' broadcast on 15 February.
Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry you've had to wait on this occasion.
I understand you objected to what you viewed as James Naughtie's inappropriate behaviour towards George Osborne.
We forwarded your complaint to Dominic Groves, one of the output editors for the 'Today' programme who explained in response that:
"Broadly speaking the point Jim Naughtie was trying to raise was that the Conservatives had appeared to backtrack on their original commitment to sharp cuts in public spending but that sharp (or swingeing) cuts was exactly what the economists in the Sunday Times letter were calling for. I think Jim could have phrased the question more exactly but the general
point was clearly understood and was an important one on which to press George Osborne. As to the general tone of the interview it was tough but fair - nothing a politician of Mr Osborne's rank would not have expected and in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties."
In addition to the programme having seen and acknowledged your concerns, I'd like to take this opportunity to assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for contacting us with your thoughts.
Regards
Ciaran
BBC Complaints
Well, conceding that Naughtie 'could have phrased the question more exactly' doesn't answer my point that he lied, was caught out lying and blustered about it in response. And as regards the toughness of the interview, and Dominic's comment that it was "in keeping with many other interviews we've done with politicians of all parties" skirts the issue of the significantly drop in toughness that occurred during James Naughtie's other interview - the one with Alistair Darling. I should have forwarded my list of figures on Naughtie to scupper that one, but I'd already used them in my big complaint (the one that uses the interruption coefficients) and didn't want to overegg the pudding!
*
I've drawn a few conclusions from my experiences, which you may have drawn too if you've ever complained to the Beeb about bias.
*
Complaints to the BBC rarely get the likes of me anywhere, but - if only for sheer nuisance value - they are always worth making. All complaints should be copy and pasted onto e-mails and forwarded on to interested parties (eg. the Conservatives or UKIP). You could just save time and send all your complaints straight to the interested parties and encourage them to complain. They have direct means of access to the BBC. We don't. The BBC will also be more worried, of course, if it comes from people who might have the power to do 'bad things' to them.
Thursday, 18 February 2010
COMPLAINTS ABOUT JIM NAUGHTIE? SURELY NOT!
*
Poor Jim Naughtie! I think we can gather from his discussion with BBC media correspondent Torin Douglas (at about 6.40am this morning) that he's had a fair few complaints in recent days, doubtless about his outrageous behaviour during his interview with George Osborne - and not just my strongly-worded complaint by the sounds of it!
*
The issue at hand was the rejection by the Press Complaints Commission of a complaint about Jan Moir of the Mail and her 'homophobic' article about dead singer Stephen Gateley. Largely because of a Twitter campaign, the number of complaints reached 25,000. "It's bigger now by Twitter and so on of course," said Jim. "And that happens." To which Torin said, "It's much easier now for people to complain, as we've found about broadcast as well as newspaper articles". The pause between "as" and "newspaper" brought a mirthless laugh from Naughtie, and at "article" he give a wistful "yes!"
*
It is indeed much easier to complain. It's far, far, far less easy, however, to get the BBC to admit they've done anything wrong though!!
*
Poor Jim Naughtie! I think we can gather from his discussion with BBC media correspondent Torin Douglas (at about 6.40am this morning) that he's had a fair few complaints in recent days, doubtless about his outrageous behaviour during his interview with George Osborne - and not just my strongly-worded complaint by the sounds of it!
*
The issue at hand was the rejection by the Press Complaints Commission of a complaint about Jan Moir of the Mail and her 'homophobic' article about dead singer Stephen Gateley. Largely because of a Twitter campaign, the number of complaints reached 25,000. "It's bigger now by Twitter and so on of course," said Jim. "And that happens." To which Torin said, "It's much easier now for people to complain, as we've found about broadcast as well as newspaper articles". The pause between "as" and "newspaper" brought a mirthless laugh from Naughtie, and at "article" he give a wistful "yes!"
*
It is indeed much easier to complain. It's far, far, far less easy, however, to get the BBC to admit they've done anything wrong though!!
*
Sunday, 14 February 2010
HERE WE GO AGAIN
*
My general complaint to the BBC is still ongoing. Here's all the correspondence so far, started with my latest missive (which uses my previous post as Exhibit A!). As you can see, so far it's been about as successful as most complaints to the BBC about bias!
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your considered reply.
I cannot accept, however, that the number of interruptions during an interview is irrelevant - if it forms part of a large survey of such interviews (which was my original point).
Surely if an interviewer interrupts representatives of one particular political party far more than he/she interrupts representatives on another political party, this is highly suggestive of bias. How else can it be accounted for?
When you say that it's not possible to judge an interview by the number of interruptions, you are surely right - but that's not my point. I don't consider individual interviews in isolation. I have surveyed ALL the interviews by that interviewer. If a strong trend emerges your argument loses all its power.
When you say somewhat dismissively say that "ultimately, our view is that impartiality cannot be judged solely on the number of times representatives of any party are interrupted during
interviews", I would say that my view is that it can.
Complaints about bias can be dismissed because they are usually subjective. An objective measure, such as the number of times an interviewee is interrupted by an interviewer/divided by the length of the interview, removes subjectivity. Were you to argue that bias is in the eye of the beholder, I could then counter that interruptions are interruptions and have very little to be with subjectivity.
If you don't accept this as a valid measure, what objective measure would you accept?
Here is a detailed example that proves the value of this sort of analysis.
I could complain that Shirin Wheeler on 'The Record Europe' tends to ask questions from a strongly pro-European position, or that she is rude to centre-right British politicians but respectful towards centre-left British politicians. You could reply that that's just my opinion.
Now if you calculate interruption coefficients (number of interruptions/length of interview) for all Shirin Wheeler's interviews with British politicians since, say, September last year you achieve this set of staggering clear results:
31/01/2010 Lord Dartmouth UKIP 2.4
21/09/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.9
11/10/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.5
06/12/2009 David Campbell-Bannerman UKIP 1.5
20/12/2009 Vicky Ford Conservative 1.5
14/02/2010 John Bufton UKIP 1.4
08/11/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.2
15/11/2009 Martha Andreasen UKIP 1.2
11/10/2009 Nigel Farage UKIP 0.9
14/02/2010 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.9
01/11/2009 Paul Nuttall UKIP 0.7
08/11/2009 Charles Tannock Conservative 0.7
08/11/2009 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0.7
07/02/2010 Nirj Diva Conservative 0.7
08/11/2009 Derek Clarke UKIP 0.6
08/11/2009 Glenis Willmott Labour 0.5
06/12/2009 Lord Roper Lib Dem 0.4
17/01/2010 Glenis Willmott Labour 0.4
31/01/2010 Richard Howitt Labour 0.4
24/01/2010 Claude Moraes Labour 0.3
04/10/2009 Syed Kamall Conservative 0.3
06/12/2009 Richard Howitt Labour 0.3
20/12/2009 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0.3
17/01/2010 Geoffrey Van Orden Conservative 0.3
07/02/2010 Michael Cashman Labour 0.3
25/10/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.2
18/10/2009 Caroline Lucas Green 0
31/01/2010 Mary Honeyball Labour 0
22/11/2009 Cathy Ashton Labour 0
17/01/2010 Jean Lambert Green 0
31/01/2010 Kay Swinburne Conservative 0
04/10/2009 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0
11/10/2009 Fiona Hall Lib Dem 0
11/10/2009 Richard Howitt Labour 0
25/10/2009 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
20/12/2009 Sharon Bowles Lib Dem 0
06/12/2009 Michael Connarty Labour 0
20/12/2009 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
04/10/2009 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0
25/10/2009 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
15/11/2009 Derek Vaughan Labour 0
24/01/2010 Andrew Duff Lib Dem 0
15/11/2009 Vicky Ford Conservative 0
01/11/2009 Jean Lambert Green 0
07/02/2010 Richard Corbett Labour 0
14/02/2010 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
Working out average interruption coefficients for each party proves my point:
UKIP (7 interviews) - 1.24
Conservatives (12 interviews) - 0.77
Labour (16 interviews) - 0.16
Lib Dems (8 interviews) - 0.14
Greens (3 interviews) - 0.0
These figures show that politicians from UKIP and the Conservative Party are significantly more likely to be interrupted by Shirin Wheeler than politicians from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
How does this NOT show bias toward the (pro-European)parties of the Left and against the (Eurosceptic) parties of the Right? This is surely worthy of a QED!!
Shirin Wheeler is but one example I could have used.
All of this answers your other points too.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best wishes,
Craig
--- On Fri, 5/2/10, complaintresponse@bbc.co.ukwrote:
From: complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk
Subject: BBC Complaints
To:
Date: Friday, 5 February, 2010, 15:19
Dear Mr B
Thanks for your further e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the delay
in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and
we're sorry that you've had to wait on this occasion.
We note that you were unhappy with the response that you received to your
initial complaint of 1 November, in which you claimed ongoing bias against
particular political parties.
Whilst we appreciate your further concerns, Mr B, it's not possible
to judge an interview by the number of interruptions, nor by the
superficial tone of questioning. Different interviews demand different
approaches and while a direct ''no holds barred'' interview may
superficially appear more rigorous (and will sometimes be the appropriate
approach to take), sometimes a more discursive approach can be as revealing
and more difficult for a politician to handle.
In addition, presenters have their own style - without which the interviews
and discussions on our news programmes would quickly become predictable.
For example, it might be worth adding something that 'Today' presenter Evan
Davis said about his personal interviewing style in an interview:
''…what I'd like to think I do is give people the licence to admit the
difficulty of their position.....the hope is that by giving them the
licence to admit that it's been difficult, you might get them to admit what
they might not if you were too rigid with them…'
Ultimately, our view is that impartiality cannot be judged solely on the
number of times representatives of any party are interrupted during
interviews. However, we do appreciate your feedback and observations and we
can assure you that senior figures at BBC News have been made aware of them.
We'd also like to assure you that we've registered your additional
complaint on our audience log.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Jonathan C
BBC Complaints
________________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/
------------Original Message---------------
{Complaint:} Dear Stefan,
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you found my results interesting. You are
correct in understanding that my calculations have found there to be a bias
against Conservative MPs in our broadcasts. (Not just MPs mind you, and they
also showed bias against UKIP.)
Your statement about impartiality is as it should be and welcome. When you
say that "all BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established
interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach",
my findings demonstrate that this is sadly not true. Many of them
(including Andrew Marr, Carolyn Quinn, James Naughtie, John Humphrys, Adrian
Masters, Kirsty Wark, Anita Anand, Glenn Campbell, Shirin Wheeler, Gavin
Esler, Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn) do not - as my figures also clearly show.
I would have attached the speadsheet with the full list of interruption
coefficients since June, had the e-mail I received allowed me to reply. This
format does not permit it either.
For example, considering the 15 interviews with UK politicians conducted by
John Humphrys in October, these were the interruption coefficients:
03/10 Andrew Lansley Conservative 1.8
22/10 Ken Clarke Conservative 1.7
09/10 Greg Clark Conservative 1.6
13/10 Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 1.6
24/10 George Osborne Conservative 1.3
28/10 Roger Gale Conservative 0.9
14/10 Harriet Harman Labour 0.9
28/10 Stuart Bell Labour 0.7
01/10 Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0.7
10/10 Bob Stewart Conservative 0.6
10/10 Peter Kilfoyle Labour 0.4
13/10 David Blunkett Labour 0.4
02/10 Rhodri Morgan Labour 0.3
13/10 Sir Stuart Bell Labour 0
14/10 Stephen Pound Labour 0
His averages for each political party therefore translate as:
Conservatives - 1.36
Lib Dems - 0.7
Labour - 0.39
Thus, a Conservative politician in October was more than 3 times as likelyto be interrupted by John Humphrys than a Labour politician.
I can now judge each interviewer over a 5-month period (and the survey is ongoing).
Here for example, are James Naughtie's figures from June-October 2009 (with the number of interviews with each party in brackets):
Conservatives (16) - 0.84
Greens (1) - 0.7
Labour (34) - 0.43
SNP (2) - 0.4
UKIP (1) - 0.3
Lib Dems (6) - 0.07
DUP (1) - 0
This shows a strong anti-Conservative bias, with the Conservative Party
receiving almost double the number of interruptions (proportional to the
length of the interview) that the Labour Party received.
Time after time it is either the Conservatives or UKIP who come out with the
highest interruption coefficients. (There are exceptions, such as the
excellent Eddie Mair).
I know very well that many interviewees try to evade questions and push
their own agenda, but that's not revelant here. Nor is the likability of
particular interviewers of any relevance to the issue in hand. I actually
like most of them. I only wish they weren't biased.
So when you say that you "realise I may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias within the BBC", you are not mistaken!
I'm glad my complaint will be put on the audience log and might be read more
widely. I don't feel, however, that you have really answered any of my
concerns. I would be grateful for a more considered response.
Regards
Craig
--- On Sat, 7/11/09, complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
From: complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk
Subject: BBC Complaints [T2009110100K7S010Z6927411]
To: Date: Saturday, 7 November, 2009, 15:42
Dear Mr B
Thanks for your e-mail.
I was interested to read the findings of your survey. I understand that your
calculations have found there to be a bias against Conservative MPs in our
broadcasts.
Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our news and current affairs output
and we ensure all our correspondents and production teams are aware of this
to help us deliver fair and balanced coverage for all the stories we report.
We seek neither to denigrate nor promote any particular view, rather we
present the relevant facts and allow our audience to make up their own minds
based on them.
All BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing
guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach.
Many interviewees are very adept at evading questions and following their
own agenda when replying. It's part of a professional interviewer's role to
ensure that they're reminded, when appropriate, of the original question or
pressed on points that are of particular interest.
This being said, it's always difficult to find a presenter who will appeal
to all viewers/listeners and the attributes which appeal to some
viewers/listeners may sometimes strike others as wholly inappropriate.
I realise you may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias
within the BBC. Therefore, let me assure you I've registered your comments
on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's
circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board,
channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape
decisions about future programming and content.
All feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always
appreciated.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.
Regards
Stefan C
BBC Complaints
__________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
-----Original Message-----
So far, since beginning my survey of BBC in June this year,
>I've reviewed 1129 interviews with UK politicians.
>
>My main tool is the Interruption Coefficient. Interruption Coefficients
>(I.C.s) are calculated by dividing the number of interruptions by the
length
> of the interview. This provides a measure of the aggressiveness of an
>interview. The higher the I.C. the tougher the interview (as a rule). I.C.s
>of 0 have contained no interruptions!
>
>I have covered every edition of the following programmes:
>
>Today
>The Daily Politics
>The World At One
>PM
>The World Tonight
>Newsnight
>The Andrew Marr Show
>Broadcasting House
>The Politics Show
>The World This Weekend
>The Politics Show: Scotland
>Dragon's Eye
>The Record: Europe
>Westminster Hour
>
>Simply by calculating a 'super-average' (i.e. adding all the interruption
>coefficients for each political party then dividing the total by the
number
> of interviews granted to each party) I have been able to derive a simple
>measure for each each political party.
>
>The results are revealing - and not a little damning. Of course the more
>interviews I've surveyed for each political party the firmer the evidence
of
> bias (so the figures for Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are
>very firm, and those for UKIP, the Greens and, above all, the SNP pretty
>compelling!).
>
>Here are the results for the whole period:
>
>UKIP (12 interviews) - 0.90
>Plaid Cymru (6 interviews) - 0.88
>Conservatives (312 interviews) - 0.84
>English Democrats (1 interview) - 0.8
>SNP (39 interviews) - 0.76
>Sinn Fein (2 interviews) - 0.75
>BNP (4 interviews) - 0.65
>Labour (557 interviews) - 0.57
>Liberal Democrats (167 interviews) - 0.41
>DUP (3 interviews) - 0.27
>Greens (9 interviews) - 0.24
>UUP (1 interview) - 0
>Alliance (1 interview) - 0
>SDLP (1 interview) - 0
>
>This show that Conservative politicians are substantially more likely to be
>interrupted by BBC interviewers than Labour or Liberal Democrat
politicians.
>
>Full details of all this are available on my blog:
>http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com
>
>I have full spreadsheets containing all the details for each interview.
>
>This seems to be a strong case of institutional bias, which needs urgent
>attention - especially as we near a general election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
My general complaint to the BBC is still ongoing. Here's all the correspondence so far, started with my latest missive (which uses my previous post as Exhibit A!). As you can see, so far it's been about as successful as most complaints to the BBC about bias!
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your considered reply.
I cannot accept, however, that the number of interruptions during an interview is irrelevant - if it forms part of a large survey of such interviews (which was my original point).
Surely if an interviewer interrupts representatives of one particular political party far more than he/she interrupts representatives on another political party, this is highly suggestive of bias. How else can it be accounted for?
When you say that it's not possible to judge an interview by the number of interruptions, you are surely right - but that's not my point. I don't consider individual interviews in isolation. I have surveyed ALL the interviews by that interviewer. If a strong trend emerges your argument loses all its power.
When you say somewhat dismissively say that "ultimately, our view is that impartiality cannot be judged solely on the number of times representatives of any party are interrupted during
interviews", I would say that my view is that it can.
Complaints about bias can be dismissed because they are usually subjective. An objective measure, such as the number of times an interviewee is interrupted by an interviewer/divided by the length of the interview, removes subjectivity. Were you to argue that bias is in the eye of the beholder, I could then counter that interruptions are interruptions and have very little to be with subjectivity.
If you don't accept this as a valid measure, what objective measure would you accept?
Here is a detailed example that proves the value of this sort of analysis.
I could complain that Shirin Wheeler on 'The Record Europe' tends to ask questions from a strongly pro-European position, or that she is rude to centre-right British politicians but respectful towards centre-left British politicians. You could reply that that's just my opinion.
Now if you calculate interruption coefficients (number of interruptions/length of interview) for all Shirin Wheeler's interviews with British politicians since, say, September last year you achieve this set of staggering clear results:
31/01/2010 Lord Dartmouth UKIP 2.4
21/09/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.9
11/10/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.5
06/12/2009 David Campbell-Bannerman UKIP 1.5
20/12/2009 Vicky Ford Conservative 1.5
14/02/2010 John Bufton UKIP 1.4
08/11/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.2
15/11/2009 Martha Andreasen UKIP 1.2
11/10/2009 Nigel Farage UKIP 0.9
14/02/2010 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.9
01/11/2009 Paul Nuttall UKIP 0.7
08/11/2009 Charles Tannock Conservative 0.7
08/11/2009 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0.7
07/02/2010 Nirj Diva Conservative 0.7
08/11/2009 Derek Clarke UKIP 0.6
08/11/2009 Glenis Willmott Labour 0.5
06/12/2009 Lord Roper Lib Dem 0.4
17/01/2010 Glenis Willmott Labour 0.4
31/01/2010 Richard Howitt Labour 0.4
24/01/2010 Claude Moraes Labour 0.3
04/10/2009 Syed Kamall Conservative 0.3
06/12/2009 Richard Howitt Labour 0.3
20/12/2009 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0.3
17/01/2010 Geoffrey Van Orden Conservative 0.3
07/02/2010 Michael Cashman Labour 0.3
25/10/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.2
18/10/2009 Caroline Lucas Green 0
31/01/2010 Mary Honeyball Labour 0
22/11/2009 Cathy Ashton Labour 0
17/01/2010 Jean Lambert Green 0
31/01/2010 Kay Swinburne Conservative 0
04/10/2009 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0
11/10/2009 Fiona Hall Lib Dem 0
11/10/2009 Richard Howitt Labour 0
25/10/2009 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
20/12/2009 Sharon Bowles Lib Dem 0
06/12/2009 Michael Connarty Labour 0
20/12/2009 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
04/10/2009 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0
25/10/2009 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
15/11/2009 Derek Vaughan Labour 0
24/01/2010 Andrew Duff Lib Dem 0
15/11/2009 Vicky Ford Conservative 0
01/11/2009 Jean Lambert Green 0
07/02/2010 Richard Corbett Labour 0
14/02/2010 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
Working out average interruption coefficients for each party proves my point:
UKIP (7 interviews) - 1.24
Conservatives (12 interviews) - 0.77
Labour (16 interviews) - 0.16
Lib Dems (8 interviews) - 0.14
Greens (3 interviews) - 0.0
These figures show that politicians from UKIP and the Conservative Party are significantly more likely to be interrupted by Shirin Wheeler than politicians from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
How does this NOT show bias toward the (pro-European)parties of the Left and against the (Eurosceptic) parties of the Right? This is surely worthy of a QED!!
Shirin Wheeler is but one example I could have used.
All of this answers your other points too.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best wishes,
Craig
--- On Fri, 5/2/10, complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk
From: complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk
Subject: BBC Complaints
To:
Date: Friday, 5 February, 2010, 15:19
Dear Mr B
Thanks for your further e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the delay
in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and
we're sorry that you've had to wait on this occasion.
We note that you were unhappy with the response that you received to your
initial complaint of 1 November, in which you claimed ongoing bias against
particular political parties.
Whilst we appreciate your further concerns, Mr B, it's not possible
to judge an interview by the number of interruptions, nor by the
superficial tone of questioning. Different interviews demand different
approaches and while a direct ''no holds barred'' interview may
superficially appear more rigorous (and will sometimes be the appropriate
approach to take), sometimes a more discursive approach can be as revealing
and more difficult for a politician to handle.
In addition, presenters have their own style - without which the interviews
and discussions on our news programmes would quickly become predictable.
For example, it might be worth adding something that 'Today' presenter Evan
Davis said about his personal interviewing style in an interview:
''…what I'd like to think I do is give people the licence to admit the
difficulty of their position.....the hope is that by giving them the
licence to admit that it's been difficult, you might get them to admit what
they might not if you were too rigid with them…'
Ultimately, our view is that impartiality cannot be judged solely on the
number of times representatives of any party are interrupted during
interviews. However, we do appreciate your feedback and observations and we
can assure you that senior figures at BBC News have been made aware of them.
We'd also like to assure you that we've registered your additional
complaint on our audience log.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Jonathan C
BBC Complaints
________________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/
------------Original Message---------------
{Complaint:} Dear Stefan,
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you found my results interesting. You are
correct in understanding that my calculations have found there to be a bias
against Conservative MPs in our broadcasts. (Not just MPs mind you, and they
also showed bias against UKIP.)
Your statement about impartiality is as it should be and welcome. When you
say that "all BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established
interviewing guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach",
my findings demonstrate that this is sadly not true. Many of them
(including Andrew Marr, Carolyn Quinn, James Naughtie, John Humphrys, Adrian
Masters, Kirsty Wark, Anita Anand, Glenn Campbell, Shirin Wheeler, Gavin
Esler, Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn) do not - as my figures also clearly show.
I would have attached the speadsheet with the full list of interruption
coefficients since June, had the e-mail I received allowed me to reply. This
format does not permit it either.
For example, considering the 15 interviews with UK politicians conducted by
John Humphrys in October, these were the interruption coefficients:
03/10 Andrew Lansley Conservative 1.8
22/10 Ken Clarke Conservative 1.7
09/10 Greg Clark Conservative 1.6
13/10 Sir Patrick Cormack Conservative 1.6
24/10 George Osborne Conservative 1.3
28/10 Roger Gale Conservative 0.9
14/10 Harriet Harman Labour 0.9
28/10 Stuart Bell Labour 0.7
01/10 Norman Lamb Lib Dem 0.7
10/10 Bob Stewart Conservative 0.6
10/10 Peter Kilfoyle Labour 0.4
13/10 David Blunkett Labour 0.4
02/10 Rhodri Morgan Labour 0.3
13/10 Sir Stuart Bell Labour 0
14/10 Stephen Pound Labour 0
His averages for each political party therefore translate as:
Conservatives - 1.36
Lib Dems - 0.7
Labour - 0.39
Thus, a Conservative politician in October was more than 3 times as likelyto be interrupted by John Humphrys than a Labour politician.
I can now judge each interviewer over a 5-month period (and the survey is ongoing).
Here for example, are James Naughtie's figures from June-October 2009 (with the number of interviews with each party in brackets):
Conservatives (16) - 0.84
Greens (1) - 0.7
Labour (34) - 0.43
SNP (2) - 0.4
UKIP (1) - 0.3
Lib Dems (6) - 0.07
DUP (1) - 0
This shows a strong anti-Conservative bias, with the Conservative Party
receiving almost double the number of interruptions (proportional to the
length of the interview) that the Labour Party received.
Time after time it is either the Conservatives or UKIP who come out with the
highest interruption coefficients. (There are exceptions, such as the
excellent Eddie Mair).
I know very well that many interviewees try to evade questions and push
their own agenda, but that's not revelant here. Nor is the likability of
particular interviewers of any relevance to the issue in hand. I actually
like most of them. I only wish they weren't biased.
So when you say that you "realise I may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias within the BBC", you are not mistaken!
I'm glad my complaint will be put on the audience log and might be read more
widely. I don't feel, however, that you have really answered any of my
concerns. I would be grateful for a more considered response.
Regards
Craig
--- On Sat, 7/11/09, complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk
From: complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk
Subject: BBC Complaints [T2009110100K7S010Z6927411]
To: Date: Saturday, 7 November, 2009, 15:42
Dear Mr B
Thanks for your e-mail.
I was interested to read the findings of your survey. I understand that your
calculations have found there to be a bias against Conservative MPs in our
broadcasts.
Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our news and current affairs output
and we ensure all our correspondents and production teams are aware of this
to help us deliver fair and balanced coverage for all the stories we report.
We seek neither to denigrate nor promote any particular view, rather we
present the relevant facts and allow our audience to make up their own minds
based on them.
All BBC interviewers are careful to abide by well-established interviewing
guidelines that prescribe a scrupulously even-handed approach.
Many interviewees are very adept at evading questions and following their
own agenda when replying. It's part of a professional interviewer's role to
ensure that they're reminded, when appropriate, of the original question or
pressed on points that are of particular interest.
This being said, it's always difficult to find a presenter who will appeal
to all viewers/listeners and the attributes which appeal to some
viewers/listeners may sometimes strike others as wholly inappropriate.
I realise you may continue to feel there's a culture of institutional bias
within the BBC. Therefore, let me assure you I've registered your comments
on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's
circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board,
channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape
decisions about future programming and content.
All feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always
appreciated.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.
Regards
Stefan C
BBC Complaints
__________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
-----Original Message-----
So far, since beginning my survey of BBC in June this year,
>I've reviewed 1129 interviews with UK politicians.
>
>My main tool is the Interruption Coefficient. Interruption Coefficients
>(I.C.s) are calculated by dividing the number of interruptions by the
length
> of the interview. This provides a measure of the aggressiveness of an
>interview. The higher the I.C. the tougher the interview (as a rule). I.C.s
>of 0 have contained no interruptions!
>
>I have covered every edition of the following programmes:
>
>Today
>The Daily Politics
>The World At One
>PM
>The World Tonight
>Newsnight
>The Andrew Marr Show
>Broadcasting House
>The Politics Show
>The World This Weekend
>The Politics Show: Scotland
>Dragon's Eye
>The Record: Europe
>Westminster Hour
>
>Simply by calculating a 'super-average' (i.e. adding all the interruption
>coefficients for each political party then dividing the total by the
number
> of interviews granted to each party) I have been able to derive a simple
>measure for each each political party.
>
>The results are revealing - and not a little damning. Of course the more
>interviews I've surveyed for each political party the firmer the evidence
of
> bias (so the figures for Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are
>very firm, and those for UKIP, the Greens and, above all, the SNP pretty
>compelling!).
>
>Here are the results for the whole period:
>
>UKIP (12 interviews) - 0.90
>Plaid Cymru (6 interviews) - 0.88
>Conservatives (312 interviews) - 0.84
>English Democrats (1 interview) - 0.8
>SNP (39 interviews) - 0.76
>Sinn Fein (2 interviews) - 0.75
>BNP (4 interviews) - 0.65
>Labour (557 interviews) - 0.57
>Liberal Democrats (167 interviews) - 0.41
>DUP (3 interviews) - 0.27
>Greens (9 interviews) - 0.24
>UUP (1 interview) - 0
>Alliance (1 interview) - 0
>SDLP (1 interview) - 0
>
>This show that Conservative politicians are substantially more likely to be
>interrupted by BBC interviewers than Labour or Liberal Democrat
politicians.
>
>Full details of all this are available on my blog:
>http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com
>
>I have full spreadsheets containing all the details for each interview.
>
>This seems to be a strong case of institutional bias, which needs urgent
>attention - especially as we near a general election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
