STUFFING THE TORY

*
At least later in Newsnight there were three sides of the argument present, as Jeremy Paxman grilled Andy Burnham (Lab), Andrew Lansley (Con) and Norman Lamb (LD) over the NHS.
ov
This was a bit of a ding-dong at times, but Andrew Lansley (who ding-dongs with the best of them) was on the end of more than his fair share of questions (twice as many as Andy Burnham, even though they got an identical amount of interview time - partly due to being the target of some of those short repeated questions that Paxo is famous for) and more than his fair share of interruptions (even though he himself did plenty of interrupting himself).
*
The interruption coefficients here were:
*
Andrew Lansley - 2.5
Norman Lamb - 1.4
Andy Burnham - 1.4
*
(For comparison, the I.C. for Liam Byrne earlier in the programme was just 0.8).

YES WE CAAN!

*
Was it bias or blunder? What David Vance on Biased BBC rightly calls a 'Newsnight disgrace'
(http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/newsnight-disgracei.html) witnessed a discussion on national insurance between Labour's Liam Byrne and Dragon's Den star James Caan, who was billed as a former government advisor who is now backing the Tories on the issue. The result on the night though was two people strongly arguing against the Conservative position!!!!
*
This followed on from a post on the BBC's web blog:

1829: The Conservatives now have a Dragon on their side. James Caan, entrepreneur and one of the stars of the BBC's Dragons' Den, has joined the list of business types backing the Tory plan to block any rise in National Insurance. Mr Caan said an increase would cost "thousands of jobs" and
claimed Labour's recent Budget had been based on "exaggerated" growth figures.

Following on from Mr Caan's Newsnight performance, which was everything Labour could have wished for - and a whole lot more! -, the BBC blog posted this retraction:

2255: James Caan, entrepreneur and star of the BBC's Dragons' Den, doesn't seem to be backing the Tories as we'd previously thought he was. He says Labour's National Insurance rise would only add £15 to the cost of employing someone, and that wouldn't realistically be enough to put him off filling a vacancy that needed filling.

After Mr Caan's sustained attack on the Tories, Jeremy Paxman turned back to Liam Byrne and said "Well, that must be music to your ears, I suppose?" I should say it was!
*
Well, wasn't that all a big boost for labour and a blow for the Tories! Conspiracy or cock-up? Bias or blunder? If the latter, why on earth didn't they check and make sure what Mr Caan's position really was?
*
To add insult to injury, Jeremy Paxman was (by his standards) very gentle with Mr Byrne - just 3 interruptions and a light-hearted manner!!

GETTING THINGS IN PROPORTION

*
Well, the 'proportionality' thing didn't quite work out on Newsnight.
*
If you watched last night's three-way discussion, lorded over by Jeremy Paxman, you might have felt that the Conservative didn't get his fair share. Your feeling would have been right:
*
Douglas Alexander (Lab) - 3 minutes 54 seconds
Simon Hughes (LD) - 3 minutes (precisely)
Jeremy Hunt (Con) - 1 minute 55 seconds
*
Wee Dougie got twice as long as Mr Hunt.
*
Despite that, Jeremy Hunt wasn't interrupted to any less a degree than anyone else (indeed, his I.C. was 3.2, compared to 2.7 for Mr Hughes and 2.0 for Mr Alexander).
*
The BBC guidelines state that 'proportionality' within a programme should best be judged over a week, so any imbalance early on ought to be re-balanced later in the week. We'll see.
*

WARKING WITH POLITICIANS

*
I'm quite often a day or two behind the times, so it's back now to Thursday night's Newsnight and its social care special, hosted by Kirsty Wark.
*
Being Kirsty, there were plenty of interruptions for the politicians but one fared far worse than the others. Also being Kirsty, that was the Conservative.
*
Baroness Walmsley (Lib Dem) - 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.3
Baroness Morgan (Labour) - 8 interruptions, I.C. of 1.5
Tim Loughton (Conservative) - 12 interruptions, I.C. of 3.0
*
This was the second of the pre-election debates. The last one was the education debate on 10/3, hosted by Jeremy Paxman. This was much more balanced:
*
David Laws (Lib Dem) - 6 interruptions, I.C. of 1.8
Ed Balls (Labour) - 19 interruptions, I.C. of 2.1
Michael Gove (Conservative) - 12 interruptions, I.C. of 2.2
*
(For any newbies, the I.C. (interruption coefficient is simply the number of interruptions divided by the length of the interview. So Ed Balls got 9m 8s to speak, as compared to 5m 37s for Michael Gove and a mere 3m 37s for David Laws.)
*
Several more pre-election specials are to come. The Conservatives should pray that Kirsty Wark isn't hosting too many of them!
*

PAXO STUFFS LORD ADONIS

*
Following in the footsteps (or tracks) of Today, Newsnight discussed the Tories' decision to pull out of Labour's 'consensus' on high-speed rail. Reporter Matt Prodger outlined the story, featuring Tory critics Norman Baker of the Lib Dems and Kate Henderon of the Town and Country Planning Association (about whom see http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/kate-henderson/13/845/a26). No Tory came onto the programme, so Lord Adonis (pictured) was invited to face Jeremy Paxman instead (big mistake!). Where Today refused to, and Matt Prodger failed to go, Jeremy Paxman went and gave Lord Adonis a good going over. For the first time, thanks to Jeremy, I understood why the Conservatives refused to go along with the 'consensus' yesterday. It was a Labour trap! Naughtie's failure to even hint at what Jeremy Paxman pointed out shows just what a biased piece of work James Naughtie really is. *

*

PAXO HAMMERS HAMMOND AGAIN

*
Unlike Radio 4's The World Tonight, which characteristically discussed the economy with Vince Cable only, Newsnight gathered Lord Myners, Philip Hammond and, yes, Vince Cable to chew over banking reform. Jeremy Paxman's interruptions (as ever on such occasions) were not fairly distributed, as the interruption coefficients show very clearly:
*
Philip Hammond - 10 interruptions, I.C of 3.2
Vince Cable - 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.3
Lord Myners - 4 interruptions, I.C. of 1.2
*
This had followed a bank-bashing report by Paul Mason, featuring a new BBC favourite, former high-flying banker and 'City Boy' author Geraint Anderson (son of Labour MP Donald Anderson), now a sharp critic of the bankers.
*

WISE VOICES ON NEWSNIGHT

*
Last night's Newsnight contained a scorching interview of Labour's Mike O'Brien by Jeremy Paxman on the NHS Out Of Hours service (I.C. of 3.2, the highest so far this month - one ahead of Philip Hammond on 3.1). This shows again that Paxo lands punches across the political spectrum - except on 'wise' Dr Vince Cable of course. Vince was on the programme discussing bank bonuses, and was (as so often) treated as an independent economist rather than as a Liberal Democrat politician. He was in discussion with the American author Janet Tavakoki. This followed a report on America and the bankers by 'former' Trot Paul Mason ("While Wall Street wallows in bonus billions here in the job centres there is real economic pain") and featured as his star witness Robert Kuttner, co-editor of the liberal American Prospect magazine. Later still Peter Taylor's report about Alki Ada in Yemen featured the ubiquitous (on the BBC) Michael Scheuer - the former CIA agent who wants the West to repudiate the Bush Administration's war on terror and adopt an approach centred on removing Moslem grievances, especially by getting very tough on Israel.

AN OLD FRIENDS RETURNS TO 'NEWSNIGHT'

*
Last night's Newsnight was like a walk down memory lane. The main topic was the Iraq Inquiry, and the evidence of Alistair Campbell (the man who did so much to destroy the idea of decency in government, with a little help from his friends.) On hand, as throughout the Iraq War itself, was Sir Ming Campbell. He joined Jeremy Paxman in a 'shock and awe' attack on Lord Falconer. Ah happy days, when Sir Ming acted as the Beeb's chief foreign affairs correspondent, present on every single programme that discussed the Iraq War (or so it seemed), always being treated like an independent foreign affairs expert rather than a partisan Lib Dem politician - just because he shared the BBC's antipathy towards the conflict! Last night's I.C.s? 2 against his lordship, and 0 against Sir Ming. Takes you back, doesn't it?

AN 'OUTSIDER' AT A LABOUR MEETING

*
Last night's Newsnight featured a characteristically supportive report for Gordon Brown from Michael Crick, then an interview between Jeremy Paxman and former Labour deputy leader John Prescott (not pictured). This, in turn, was followed by an interview with former Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley (who shares Prescott's views) and a man Paxo introduced as "Richard Reeves, director of the independent think-tank Demos." This is a classic instance of bias by labeling:

One type of media bias has been called 'Bias by Labeling'. Part of this involves labeling a person the reporter or commentator disapproves of as, say, 'right-wing' but, conversely, not labeling someone the commentator approves of as 'left-wing' but instead, say, describing them as 'independent' or an 'expert'.
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/07/bias-by-labelling-case-of-injostice.html

Demos is not part of the Labour Party but it is a centre-left think tank close to Labour. (You could say much the same about the BBC!!)
*
"You're an outsider in all this," Jeremy said to Mr Reeves (a phrase Baron Hattersley took up). Well, up to a point Jeremy, up to a point.

CLEAR PROOF OF BEEB BIAS

*
Now having recorded the interruption coefficients of over 1700 interviews with UK politicians since the start of June 2009, I've built up a lot of data. Being a quiet, slippy Sunday, I thought I'd pool all my monthly speadsheets into a single superspreadsheet & see what that showed me now.
*
The thing that stood out straightaway (as it will to you too) was the colour-coordination of the Top 30 interviews - i.e. the toughest of the tough. Here is that chart, grouped by political party:
*
Andrew Neil Philip Hammond Conservative 5.7
Andrew Neil Phillip Hammond Conservative 3.9
Jo Coburn Phillip Hammond Conservative 3.6
Jeremy Paxman Philip Hammond Conservative 3.6
James Naughtie Phillip Hammond Conservative 3.5
Andrew Neil Chris Grayling Conservative 3.3
Jeremy Paxman Philip Hammond Conservative 3.1
Andrew Neil Philip Hammond Conservative 3.1
Andrew Neil Damian Green Conservative 3
Andrew Neil Andrew Lansley Conservative 2.9
Glenn Campbell David Mundell Conservative 2.9
Anita Anand Alun Cairns Conservative 2.9
Andrew Neil Jeremy Hunt Conservative 2.8
Jo Coburn Justine Greening Conservative 2.8
Andrew Neil Phillip Hammond Conservative 2.8
John Humphrys George Osborne Conservative 2.8
Kirsty Wark Greg Clark Conservative 2.7
Jo Coburn Grant Shapps Conservative 2.5
Adrian Masters Andrew RT Davies Conservative 2.5
Jeremy Paxman Michael Gove Conservative 2.5
Andrew Neil Mark Hoban Conservative 2.5

Jeremy Paxman Liam Byrne Labour 3.7
Jeremy Paxman Phil Woolas Labour 3.4
Jeremy Paxman Bill Rammell Labour 2.9
Jeremy Paxman Ben Bradshaw Labour 2.8
Jeremy Paxman Lord West Goat 2.8
Jeremy Paxman Denis MacShane Labour 2.7

Andrew Neil Jo Swinson Lib Dem 2.9

Jeremy Paxman Alex Salmond SNP 2.6

Anita Anand Glenn Tingle UKIP 2.8

*
As you can see 21 of the 30 toughest interviews on the BBC have been against Conservative MPs, with one against UKIP - making that 22/30 against right-of-centre politicians. That's proof of BBC bias if you ever needed it.
*
Also remarkable is the range of interviewers interrupting Conservatives and UKIP, as compared to only Jeremy Paxman (respect to him!) for Labour!!!! That's even more proof of BBC bias (but also a feather in Paxo's cap).
*
Also standing out is the name of Philip Hammond. One thing this shows me is that I haven't always spelled his christian name properly! The other is that he gets a far worse time of it on the BBC than his Labour opposite number, that slippery, giggling rascal Liam Byrne. (I think that might strengthen my case with Mr Hammond!)
*

PAXO STUFFS HAMMOND AFTER GIVEN HIM A BYRNE

*
Except at weekends and when I'm on holiday (like last week) this blog is squeezed in before and after work, so there's sometimes a big time-lag between the programme being discussed and my reaction to it!! So, I've only just watched last night's Newsnight and some naughty interviewing by Jeremy Paxman. I rather like Paxo, but his behaviour here was far from fair.
*)
There was another ding-dong debate between treasury spokesmen Philip Hammond (Conservative) and Liam Byrne (Labour). The issue was Labour's dossier on the Conservatives 'pledges' (an attack document typical of the New Nasty Party). Both MPs were challenged and repeatedly interrupted by Paxo but Mr Hammond came off significantly worse (an I.C. of 3.1 compared to 2.1 for Liam Byrne), being relentlessly harried - especially at the beginning of the interview.
*
What was naughty here was that Jeremy Paxman shamelessly took sides. When Philip Hammond began an attempt to say why Labour's attack was misguided he was stopped immediately and firmly (not to say rudely) told: "No, I'm not interested in what the Labour...I'm asking you what you are going to do." Mr Hammond tried again, but straight away was stopped again: "I'm not interested. I didn't ask you that. I'm asking you about your...Do they make your policy for you? No they don't." (In fact that is exactly what Labour were doing in their dossier!) Philip Hammond got to make his point a few minutes later and it wasn't an attack on Labour that he'd been trying to make, it was a defence of the Conservative position from Labour's attack. And even if it hadn't been just a defence, why shouldn't Hammond have made an attack on Labour when the starting point of the whole debate was a Labour attack on the Tories - and especially when Mr Byrne then went on to make repeated attacks on the Conservatives, without being immediately stopped in his tracks by Jeremy Paxman??!! If Paxman had stopped Liam Byrne on any occasion from attacking the Tories, his earlier actions would have been justified. He didn't and they weren't.
*
What followed was even worse, as Jeremy Paxman not only failed to stop one such attack but actually abetted Liam Byrne in making it!! Byrne was challenging Hammond, "But you tell me then what (is) the difference between a pledge, a commitment, a promise, a number one priority.." when Jeremy added "Or something that is to be in the queue!", which Byrne gratefully took up and continued "Or indeed something that is in the queue!". Liam Byrne was so grateful, indeed, that he repeated the 'something that is in the queue' gibe later on in the interview! (I hope he sent Paxman a bottle of port afterwards as a 'thankyou'!)
*
As so often in these encounters, Mr Hammond looked cowed and unhappy at the end of the debate. You would think that he'd be furious about it (as it keeps on happening) and kick up a massive fuss that would echo like thunder through Broadcasting House. It seems not. And the next time round, you can bet that Philip Hammond will be sat there again, taking it up wherever politicians take it, never complaining, and ending up yet again looking cowed and unhappy. Why won't he act, before it's too late?
*
I will ask him that myself (by e-mail).

KAMINSKI AGAIN

*
The BBC's bottomless obsession with the European allies of the Conservative Party, especially Michal Kaminski, was on display again on last night's Newsnight. It featured a long, very strongly-worded report from Tim Whewell - a sustained denunciation of Mr Kaminski and everything he and his party stand for. If Whewell is to be believed (and his case is full potential holes) these are very unpleasant people, and the Conservatives should have nothing to do with them. If he's not, and if - as Dan Hannan says - this was a "partial" and "in parts disgraceful" report - a piece of shameless left-wing propaganda -, the Conservative Party should play merry hell about this and campaign vigorously for heads to roll, especially Whewell's.
**
Jeremy Paxman's introduction only gave the slightest foretaste of the vitriol to come: "Now when David Cameron promised the Eurosceptics in his party that he'd form a new alliance with Conservative MEPs in the European parliament, he thought he'd solved a problem. It turns out he's just given himself another headache. (Given it himself? Or had it given to him by the Left - i.e. the intimate circle that includes Labour, the Guardian, New Statesman and the BBC (etc)?) The group that Tory MEPs have formed is led by a man who claims (note only 'claims') he's wedded to a very British form of conservatism, but the accusation is (accusation by whom exactly? what are their motives?) that Michal Kaminski, the Pole who leads the group, is an anti-semite, a homophobe and a former Neo-Nazi, all of which he strongly denies. Senior figures in Washington (which ones? are they representative?) now wonder whether the Obama administration can possibly have dealings with a British political leader who has such bedfellows. Tim Whewell reports."
*
Whewell's report is far too long to go into detail but can be seen here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight
*
If you watch it, please then go on to read the BBC News website 'write-up'. You'll see it's much more than a mere write-up. It's a far tamer version of the Newsnight report - as if the BBC were deliberately being much more circumspect with what they put in written form. Compare and contrast the two versions and see if you agree:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8374686.stm
*
Neither touched on most of the points raised in Jeremy's introduction. Why the disconnect?
*
All of Whewell's 'talking heads' were deeply hostile to Mr Kaminski. It was a prosecution case, pure and simple. Aleksander Kwaśniewski, the ex-Communist former president, was (interestingly) the only exception. No voices for the defence were allowed.
*
I am suspicious of Tim Whewell. He's the sort of left-wing BBC reporter who calls a right-wing newspaper "the right-wing newspaper Nasza Polska" but calls a left-wing newspaper only "the leading Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza" (this is called 'bias by labelling'). (In fact, Gazeta Wyborcza is not the leading Polish daily, if by that you mean the best-selling. The leading Polish daily is Fakt.) One of this left-wing paper's founders, Anna Bikont, was among Whewell's main witnesses. Whewell is also the sort of left-wing BBC reporter who occasionally writes for The New Statesman and The Guardian (of which his father, Harry, was once an editor), but not for The Spectator or the Daily Telegraph.
*
After this prosecution case had been made, Jeremy Paxman conducted a double-interview with the only witness for the defence, Dan Hannan, and smearer-in-chief Denis MacShane. After such a sustained attack, was another prosecution witness (MacShane) really necessary? As is his way, MacShane kept on interrupting Dan Hannan, spreading smear upon smear. Dan got in 3 1/2 minutes of defence in a segment that, in total, lasted over a quarter of an hour.
*
I will be watching Tim Whewell very carefully from now on.

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - JEREMY PAXMAN

*
Newsnight's master of ceremonies Jeremy Paxman was rampant throughout much of October, and among his many memorable encounters was a highly entertaining tussle with Boris Johnson (where Boris turned the tables and the Newsnight team were accused of tinkering with the tape to save some of Jeremy's blushes!) and a catfight with the odious Denis MacShane over the sex-trade.
*
20/10 Denis MacShane Labour 2.7
07/10 Phil Woolas Labour 2
19/10 Peter Hain Labour 1.7
05/10 Boris Johnson Conservative 1.6
05/10 Theresa May Conservative 1.5
29/10 Jeremy Hunt Conservative 1.4
07/10 George Osborne Conservative 1.4
06/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 1.3
12/10 Sir Stuart Bell Labour 1
12/10 Tony Wright Labour 1
21/10 Barbara Follett Labour 1
29/10 Gary Titley Labour 0.9
13/10 Sir George Young Conservative 0.6
07/10 Bob Stewart Conservative 0.6
28/10 Shaun Woodward Labour 0.5
28/10 Gerry Kelly Sinn Fein 0.3
19/10 Ed Miliband Labour 0.2
29/10 Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 0
28/10 Bob Ainsworth Labour 0
13/10 Anne Begg Labour 0
*
The averages for October are:
*
Conservatives - 1.05
Labour - 1
Sinn Fein - 0.3
*
The figures here provide no proof of bias. What about the 56 interviews I've reviewed since June? Well, nor do these:

SNP (1) - 2.6
Labour (34) - 1.39
Conservatives (15) - 1.38
Lib Dems (5) - 0.98
Sinn Fein (1) - 0.3
*
The remarkably similar scores between Labour and the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems not far behind, is very striking. That is what all these results should look like!!*
*

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - JEREMY PAXMAN

*
Jeremy Paxman was on fine snarling form this past month, and showed himself to be an interrupter-for-all-seasons:

Phil Woolas Labour 3.4
Lord West Goat 2.8
Alex Salmond SNP 2.6
Liam Byrne Labour 2.3
Philip Hammond Conservative 2.3
Mike Gapes Labour 2.1
Vince Cable Lib Dem 1.8
Ed Miliband Labour 1.7
Chuka Ummuna Labour 1.6
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 1.6
Norman Lamont Conservative 1.4
Ed Miliband Labour 1.4
Ben Bradshaw Labour 1.2
Alistair Darling Labour 1.1
Paul Flynn Labour 1
Frank Dobson Labour 1
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.9
David Miliband Labour 0.9
Margaret Beckett Labour 0.9
Peter Mandelson Labour 0.9
Tony Blair Labour 0.7
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.6
Charles Clarke Labour 0.5
Lord Gilbert Labour 0.5
Damian Green Conservative 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:
SNP - 2.6
Labour - 1.3
Conservatives - 1.2
Lib Dems - 1.2

CUTTING THE CONSERVATIVES

*
Not a particularly balanced edition of Newsnight last night, though it opened promisingly. Peter Mandelson was heard slamming the Tories over spending cuts. Cue the snearing voice of Jeremy Paxman, saying "And there'd be no cuts under Labour? Come off it!", followed by the programme's opening credits.
*
This promise of a fair look at both Conservative and Labour was partly delivered in the opening report by David Grossman.
*
The promise was completely betrayed, however, by the studio discussion that followed between Jeremy and Newsnight's business editor Paul Mason, which concentrated almost exclusively on Tory spending/cutting plans - complete with graphs and all. Why?
*
What followed was even worse. An interview with ex-BBC Labour minister Ben Bradshaw, lasting 4 minutes 23 seconds, was quite soft - especially as it went on - for Jeremy Paxman (I.C. of 1.2). Bradshaw repeatedly attacked the Tories throughout.
*
To balance that a Conservative was needed, and provided in the shape of Norman Lamont. But, oddly, this sop to fairness was cancelled out by having Labour's Frank Dobson join him in the discussion. Dobson dominated proceedings (being a bit of a bully) - though Lord Lamont got the last laugh! (Watch and see!). The extent of that domination can be seen if we compare the timings for the double-interview:
*
Lamont - 1 minute 42 seconds
Dobson - 3 minutes 11 seconds
*
If we tot these figures up, that (obviously) means that Labour got 7 minutes 34 seconds of interview time to make its case, whereas the Conservatives only got 1 minute 42 seconds. Hardly fair, is it?

The Interruption Coefficients add insults to injury, as not only did Lamont get least time he was also interrupted most often:
**
Lamont - 1.4
Bradshaw - 1.2
Dobson - 1
*

PAXO LIBERALIS

*
Even Jeremy Paxman eases off on the Liberal Democrats.

Tonight's Newsnight discussion about spending cuts was a gladatorial contest between Labour's Liam Byrne, the Conservative's Philip Hammond and Vince Cable of the Lib Dems.

Compare the Interruption Coefficients:
*
Byrne - 2.3
Hammond - 2.3
Cable - 0.9

Then again the Great Sage was at least answering Paxo's questions, whereas Philip Hammond answered only some of them and Liam Byrne answered none of them!!

JULY'S I.C.s - JEREMY PAXMAN

Another one keeping a low profile on Newsnight in July, Jeremy Paxman can lay claim to just four interviews this month.

Here are Paxo's interruption...oh, come on!...coefficients for July:

Bill Rammell, Labour (13/7) - 2.9
Lord Myners, Labour (1/7) - 1.4
Adam Holloway, Conservative (13/7) - 0.6
Vince Cable, Lib Dem (1/7) - 0

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Labour - 2.2

Conservative - 0.6

Lib Dems - 0

"Are you seriously expecting us to believe that?"

How do these stats compare to June's? There his averages were 2.7 for the Conservatives (over 3 interviews) as compared to 2.0 for Labour (over 4 interviews).

So, no pattern of bias for Jeremy Paxman has yet emerged.