*
Too much to catch up on, so I won't even try! So just a vignette.
*
Many of us suspected that the rumours (circulating for some time now) - that the last government acted a bit like previous Greek governments and deliberately hid the true scale of our national debt - were true. What is already a national scandal - the present level of our national indebtedness - (though it is not being treated as such by the political class or the BBC) may well be far worse than we feared. There have been statements from senior figures in the new coalition this week that suggest that they're finding lots of evidence for this. Sadly, they aren't producing it for us. If there is proof of systematic fiddling of our national accounts by Labour, our new government shouldn't act like members of a clubby, opportunistic political elite and merely suggest as much but then move on without seeking to punish the guilty parties (or party!). They should lay all the evidence before us and then call in the fraud squad. If Labour has been fiddling the books then calling in the fraud squad is hardly an unreasonable or an extreme response!!
*
Imagine for a moment that the rumours are true. Wouldn't you expect the BBC, regardless of who was in power then or now, to flood our airwaves with Panorama or Analysis specials investigating the scandal? Wouldn't you expect Today to pry and probe day in and day out to get at the truth? If the rumours are true and the coalition government produces the evidence in great detail and with complete candour, how could even the generally pro-Labour BBC fail not to investigate further?
*
These speculations arise as a result of the following depressing exchanges between John Humphrys and Norman Smith at 6.32am last Monday.
*
Discussing George Osborne's remarks about already having found skeletons in the cupboard, John and Norm immediately ditched this discussion and concentrated instead on the cuts the coalition would soon be enforcing - their scope and their immediacy, and their falling on "Mr and Mrs Average" - as well as the setting up of an Office of Budget Responsibility. Here Norm did at least mention, in passing, that economic experts thought that Alistair Darling's growth predictions were "bluntly bordering on the heroic". (It would have been far blunter though to say they were absolute rubbish, of course. And blunter still to say (with a hat-tip to Tarzan) they were complete Ed Balls. And, being even more blunt, to say that, far from being 'heroic', they were much more likely to have been extremely 'cowardly' in their reluctance to admit reality to the voting public prior to a general election.)
*
The really depressing bit follows, and it begins with a question from John Humprhys:
"And I suppose if one were being desperately cynical one might suggest that they've discovered all these skeletons in the closet at a convenient time because it enables them to say 'Look, we don't have any choice. Don't blame us for all these cuts and tax increases and all the rest of it. It's the other lot's fault. It's what they left us with."
*
It's odd, isn't it, that John Humphrys's 'desperate cyninism' anticipates, to an eerie degree, Alistair Darling's "It's the oldest trick in the book, blaming the last government" defence put forward on The World At One on the same day?
*
Is this going to be how the BBC reacts should evidence emerge that Labour has been systematically fiddling the books? To say that the Tories are just playing the oldest trick in the book, trying to deflect the blame for all these cuts and tax increases away from themselves and onto the last Labour government?
*
This is, very obviously, to ignore the fact that the present government isn't responsible for our national debt and isn't responsible for the cuts and tax increases that are going to happen. It is Labour, Labour, Labour that is responsible. Obviously and undeniably Gordon Brown's responsibility.
*
Well, not obviously and undeniably for the BBC, if Humph's question is anything to go by.
*
And how did Norman Smith respond to Humph's question? By countering it, or qualifying it, or softening it? No, by agreeing with it: "I mean, of course there is an element of politicking here and of course the new coalition administration will want to apportion as much blame as possible onto Gordon Brown's administration..." Well, to quote Not a sheep again 'No shit Sherlock'. But also to quote myself, 'Norman Smith is a Labour apologist.' To concede that there is an 'element of politicking' here is to state an opinion - an opinion harmful to the coalition. There may well be an 'element of politicking' here (or there may not be), but that doesn't mean that the coalition aren't correct in their charge against Labour. And more importantly, why should we have to pay to hear Norman Smith give us his opinion that there is an 'element of politicking' here? He should, like John Humphrys, keep his opinions to himself.
*
Moreover, if Gordon Brown's administration is to blame for the JAW-DROPPING level of national debt that our country and its taxpayers are liable for, and for the sheer scale of "the pain ahead" (as Norm put it) - and if it isn't no other party in the UK is! - why is it wrong to say so?
*#
No, if Labour are proven to have fiddled the nation's books to a scandalous degree I suspect that there won't be many Panorama or Analysis specials, nor much probing by Today.
Showing posts with label John Humphrys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Humphrys. Show all posts
Friday, 21 May 2010
Friday, 14 May 2010
TOMORROW IS JUST ANOTHER TODAY
*
The main 'controversy' of the day - the 55% threshold for any precipitous dissolution of parliament - was one of yesterday's main stories on Today. (I posted this first thing on Saturday morning!!)
*
John Humphrys kicked off the 6.10 paper review with some Tory-bashing from The Daily Mirror (9.37-10.12) followed by some more Coalition-bashing from The Independent (10.12-10.51). Evan Davis was next, discussing the 'debate' on the Left about how to respond to the coalition - starting with some sour-grapes Tory-bashing from Johann Hari of The Independent (10.59-11.31), followed by Martin Kettle of The Guardian (11.31-12.08) hoping for salvation from the 'reactionaries' courtesy of the Lib Dems. Finally, John Humphrys turned to The Sun's interview with David Cameron. (12.08-12.40). So the anti-government Left got 82% of the action, the pro-government Right just 18%.
*
Next John Humphrys turned to BBC political correspondent Peter Hunt. His first "question to Mr Hunt? "It is hitting a few problems Peter, the government?" Peter's reply? "Yes." The 55% threshold "is causing concern at the moment in public from senior Labour figures, some Conservative privately. And I think that's not going to go away, the concern". Mr Hunt then quoted the criticisms of Lord Falconer. And a half-hearted attempt to put into words what supporters of the move are saying (especially the Lib Dems), he then returned to the attack: "But it's the devil of this 55% that is concerning constitutional experts, senior Labour figures...I mean one constitutional expert said "they're doctoring the constitution, they're priming the pitch" and senior Tories in private...I think the problems for the government will be if senior Tories come out in public to express their views."
*
Nick Cosgrove, one of the BBC's gaggle of left-wing business correspondents, was flagging up more problems for the new government - and seeing who saluted. After talking of 'grim times' for private equity companies, part of that 'grimness' arising from the "proposal by the new coalition government to raise capital gains tax", Cosgrove went hard at it with his main guest Keith Ludeman, CEO of the rail and bus operating company The Go-Ahead Group. Straight away we got "You've got a new transport secretary Philip Hammond to deal with in the new government. Are you optimistic about the coalition and its attitude to your industry?" Mr Ludeman was not going to be drawn into party politics but welcomed some of the coalition's priorities. "That may be the case," replied Nick sceptically, "but transport is going to be low down the list of priorities, below things like health and the police, so we're going to see cuts in the transport budget". (As if we weren't under Labour!!). "Cos the Liberal Democrats actually wanted real cuts in rail fares in their manifesto, which would be disastrous for you?" was the next question. Then Cosgrove bigged up a Labour policy: "What about the free bus passes for the over 60s? I mean that's been very popular. Do you think we can afford them as a nation? Should they be ditched?" He then quipped "I'm sure you get free fares in any case." Mr Ludeman didn't snigger back, probably because he doesn't and wouldn't think of abusing his position in that way. (He's a private sector boss after all, not a public sector manager). Mr Ludeman refused to bite on any of Cosgrove's hooks and was an impressive guest.
*
John Humphrys (6.29am): "Over the next couple of weeks Radio 4 will be taking us back to the 1980s. Here's Carolyn Brown." What did Carolyn say? "We'll have three dramas set against the momentous events of that decade. We begin tonight with a satirical look at the Wapping dispute." The title of the play? "Greed All About It." Do you suspect that all the remaining dramas are going to be similarly negative about that evil decade of Conservative rule? Coming up on 17th May, according to The Radio Times, we will get: "Afternoon Play: The End of the World: It's 1983: The Cold War is raging, Thatcher is in government, Britain is in recession and 17-year old Simon, living in the shadow of Sellafield, is haunted by fears of nuclear holocaust. When he falls in love with Tasha, a beautiful anti-nuclear activist, he sees his chance to make a difference." Is a play on the Miners' Strike (from the perspective of the striking miners naturally) or about the sinking of the Belgrano (not The Falklands Play I bet!) still to come? The BBC have their view of the 1980s. I have mine.
*
With the 6.41 paper review, would fairness win out and the Conservative-backing papers get both the first crack of the whip and the lion's share? Well, no. Still this review was certainly an improvement on the one half an hour earlier. It began again though with the Mirror's Tory-bashing attack over the 55% bar (41.26-41.48) followed by more critical comments from the Guardian (41.48-41.52). The Daily Mail calls it "a shabby stitch-up", so it too got a mention (41.52-41.56). The Cameron interview with the Sun followed (41.56-42.14) with John Humphrys repeating what he said last time but at less length, then came the Telegraph's news of Sam Cam's own "drastic pay cut" (42.14-42.31). Evan then brought us the Independent on Bercow (42.38-42.44). It wouldn't be a Today paper review featuring John Humphrys without the Independent!
*
Humph then discussed DC's first trip as PM to the "potentially more hostile territory of Scotland" with Scotland editor Brian Taylor. (Neither forgot to mention that the Tories have just one seat up there). We were treated to Mr Taylor's opinion that Mr Cameron's statement that he's "going to govern Scotland with respect" (quoted by Humph in a tone of total incredulity) is "a bit vacuous".
*
The ever-present Peter Hennessy was present after 7 o'clock to discuss the protocol for new prime ministers, according to the Today website, but actually was mainly there to discuss the 55% bar. He was "very, very surprised" at the "very, very iffy politics" of the proposal. We learn from his use of the "prime the pitch" phrase that he was the constitutional expert quoted earlier by Peter Hunt (as I suspected). "I really don't think it's on and I'm not in the least bit surprised that people are very worried indeed about it. It creates a very, very poor impression for the new politics". (He's been in too many studios with Norman Smith recently, as the hyperbole is catching).
*
The next section was about Labour: After losing power for the first time in 13 years, is the New Labour project finally over? Two newly-elected Labour MPs, Rachel Reeves (I.C. of 0) and Chris Williamson (I.C.of 0.7), discuss how the party is trying to re-invent itself. John Humphrys presided, asking among other things: "And what about that word 'progressive', that Chris Williamson just used, and people are using all the time now? Maybe you should call yourselves 'The Progressive Labour Party' or 'Labour progressives' or something?"
Humph talked sarcastically about "Nick and Dave" "loving each other" and "almost physically hugging each other"
*
The 7.41 paper review began with another attack on the new government from the Guardian: 41.47-42.00, but the Telegraph followed (42.00-42.20) & then we got the FT's take (briefly) on Europe's economic woes (42.20-42.29). Humph took over and went straight to the Independent and its attacks on the coalition (42.29-42.42). He read this out in a serious tone before adopting a larky tone as to read out the Sun's enthusiastic response to the coalition's first few days (42.42-42.48). Evan Davis took over again & went straight back to the Indie (42.48-43.02) for its take on the first cabinet meeting...before he turned to the Times (43.01-43.11) for a description of Baroness Warsi's dress! John Humph took over again and it was straight back again to the Indie (43.11-43.49), this time for a justice story. They do like the Independent!
*
I mentioned the following segment in my previous post - actually, due to my topsy-turvy methods of composition, it seems like a subsequent post!! - (and note the opening sentence of the Today blurb, which should surely have read "A number of MPs, mostly from the Labour Party, have condemned..."):
0821
MPs have condemned the new government's plans to introduce fixed-term five-year parliaments and raise the threshold at which parliament can be dissolved to 55 percent of a Commons vote. Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit, UCL, and John Gummer (I.C. of 0), a former Tory minister and party chairman, examine the pros and cons of the proposals.
I would just add that Prof Hazell, who has been quite keen in the past to attack the Conservatives over their constitutional agenda - and has been, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, a regular on the BBC doing just that -, by pouring cold water on the fuss over 55% ensured that he, unlike Prof Hennessy, wouldn't get a mention in Clare Spencer's article.
The main 'controversy' of the day - the 55% threshold for any precipitous dissolution of parliament - was one of yesterday's main stories on Today. (I posted this first thing on Saturday morning!!)
*
John Humphrys kicked off the 6.10 paper review with some Tory-bashing from The Daily Mirror (9.37-10.12) followed by some more Coalition-bashing from The Independent (10.12-10.51). Evan Davis was next, discussing the 'debate' on the Left about how to respond to the coalition - starting with some sour-grapes Tory-bashing from Johann Hari of The Independent (10.59-11.31), followed by Martin Kettle of The Guardian (11.31-12.08) hoping for salvation from the 'reactionaries' courtesy of the Lib Dems. Finally, John Humphrys turned to The Sun's interview with David Cameron. (12.08-12.40). So the anti-government Left got 82% of the action, the pro-government Right just 18%.
*
Next John Humphrys turned to BBC political correspondent Peter Hunt. His first "question to Mr Hunt? "It is hitting a few problems Peter, the government?" Peter's reply? "Yes." The 55% threshold "is causing concern at the moment in public from senior Labour figures, some Conservative privately. And I think that's not going to go away, the concern". Mr Hunt then quoted the criticisms of Lord Falconer. And a half-hearted attempt to put into words what supporters of the move are saying (especially the Lib Dems), he then returned to the attack: "But it's the devil of this 55% that is concerning constitutional experts, senior Labour figures...I mean one constitutional expert said "they're doctoring the constitution, they're priming the pitch" and senior Tories in private...I think the problems for the government will be if senior Tories come out in public to express their views."
*
Nick Cosgrove, one of the BBC's gaggle of left-wing business correspondents, was flagging up more problems for the new government - and seeing who saluted. After talking of 'grim times' for private equity companies, part of that 'grimness' arising from the "proposal by the new coalition government to raise capital gains tax", Cosgrove went hard at it with his main guest Keith Ludeman, CEO of the rail and bus operating company The Go-Ahead Group. Straight away we got "You've got a new transport secretary Philip Hammond to deal with in the new government. Are you optimistic about the coalition and its attitude to your industry?" Mr Ludeman was not going to be drawn into party politics but welcomed some of the coalition's priorities. "That may be the case," replied Nick sceptically, "but transport is going to be low down the list of priorities, below things like health and the police, so we're going to see cuts in the transport budget". (As if we weren't under Labour!!). "Cos the Liberal Democrats actually wanted real cuts in rail fares in their manifesto, which would be disastrous for you?" was the next question. Then Cosgrove bigged up a Labour policy: "What about the free bus passes for the over 60s? I mean that's been very popular. Do you think we can afford them as a nation? Should they be ditched?" He then quipped "I'm sure you get free fares in any case." Mr Ludeman didn't snigger back, probably because he doesn't and wouldn't think of abusing his position in that way. (He's a private sector boss after all, not a public sector manager). Mr Ludeman refused to bite on any of Cosgrove's hooks and was an impressive guest.
*
John Humphrys (6.29am): "Over the next couple of weeks Radio 4 will be taking us back to the 1980s. Here's Carolyn Brown." What did Carolyn say? "We'll have three dramas set against the momentous events of that decade. We begin tonight with a satirical look at the Wapping dispute." The title of the play? "Greed All About It." Do you suspect that all the remaining dramas are going to be similarly negative about that evil decade of Conservative rule? Coming up on 17th May, according to The Radio Times, we will get: "Afternoon Play: The End of the World: It's 1983: The Cold War is raging, Thatcher is in government, Britain is in recession and 17-year old Simon, living in the shadow of Sellafield, is haunted by fears of nuclear holocaust. When he falls in love with Tasha, a beautiful anti-nuclear activist, he sees his chance to make a difference." Is a play on the Miners' Strike (from the perspective of the striking miners naturally) or about the sinking of the Belgrano (not The Falklands Play I bet!) still to come? The BBC have their view of the 1980s. I have mine.
*
With the 6.41 paper review, would fairness win out and the Conservative-backing papers get both the first crack of the whip and the lion's share? Well, no. Still this review was certainly an improvement on the one half an hour earlier. It began again though with the Mirror's Tory-bashing attack over the 55% bar (41.26-41.48) followed by more critical comments from the Guardian (41.48-41.52). The Daily Mail calls it "a shabby stitch-up", so it too got a mention (41.52-41.56). The Cameron interview with the Sun followed (41.56-42.14) with John Humphrys repeating what he said last time but at less length, then came the Telegraph's news of Sam Cam's own "drastic pay cut" (42.14-42.31). Evan then brought us the Independent on Bercow (42.38-42.44). It wouldn't be a Today paper review featuring John Humphrys without the Independent!
*
Humph then discussed DC's first trip as PM to the "potentially more hostile territory of Scotland" with Scotland editor Brian Taylor. (Neither forgot to mention that the Tories have just one seat up there). We were treated to Mr Taylor's opinion that Mr Cameron's statement that he's "going to govern Scotland with respect" (quoted by Humph in a tone of total incredulity) is "a bit vacuous".
*
The ever-present Peter Hennessy was present after 7 o'clock to discuss the protocol for new prime ministers, according to the Today website, but actually was mainly there to discuss the 55% bar. He was "very, very surprised" at the "very, very iffy politics" of the proposal. We learn from his use of the "prime the pitch" phrase that he was the constitutional expert quoted earlier by Peter Hunt (as I suspected). "I really don't think it's on and I'm not in the least bit surprised that people are very worried indeed about it. It creates a very, very poor impression for the new politics". (He's been in too many studios with Norman Smith recently, as the hyperbole is catching).
*
The next section was about Labour: After losing power for the first time in 13 years, is the New Labour project finally over? Two newly-elected Labour MPs, Rachel Reeves (I.C. of 0) and Chris Williamson (I.C.of 0.7), discuss how the party is trying to re-invent itself. John Humphrys presided, asking among other things: "And what about that word 'progressive', that Chris Williamson just used, and people are using all the time now? Maybe you should call yourselves 'The Progressive Labour Party' or 'Labour progressives' or something?"
Humph talked sarcastically about "Nick and Dave" "loving each other" and "almost physically hugging each other"
*
The 7.41 paper review began with another attack on the new government from the Guardian: 41.47-42.00, but the Telegraph followed (42.00-42.20) & then we got the FT's take (briefly) on Europe's economic woes (42.20-42.29). Humph took over and went straight to the Independent and its attacks on the coalition (42.29-42.42). He read this out in a serious tone before adopting a larky tone as to read out the Sun's enthusiastic response to the coalition's first few days (42.42-42.48). Evan Davis took over again & went straight back to the Indie (42.48-43.02) for its take on the first cabinet meeting...before he turned to the Times (43.01-43.11) for a description of Baroness Warsi's dress! John Humph took over again and it was straight back again to the Indie (43.11-43.49), this time for a justice story. They do like the Independent!
*
I mentioned the following segment in my previous post - actually, due to my topsy-turvy methods of composition, it seems like a subsequent post!! - (and note the opening sentence of the Today blurb, which should surely have read "A number of MPs, mostly from the Labour Party, have condemned..."):
0821
MPs have condemned the new government's plans to introduce fixed-term five-year parliaments and raise the threshold at which parliament can be dissolved to 55 percent of a Commons vote. Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit, UCL, and John Gummer (I.C. of 0), a former Tory minister and party chairman, examine the pros and cons of the proposals.
I would just add that Prof Hazell, who has been quite keen in the past to attack the Conservatives over their constitutional agenda - and has been, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, a regular on the BBC doing just that -, by pouring cold water on the fuss over 55% ensured that he, unlike Prof Hennessy, wouldn't get a mention in Clare Spencer's article.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
GOVING IT TO 'EM AGAIN
*
I know from reading the comments on the B-BBC blogsite that I am far from alone in finding this morning's Today programme deeply biased.
*
The continuous talk/promotion of hung parliaments (right up to the bitter end - or as some call her 'Mary Riddell'), coalitions and proportional representation was one source of irritation. That the panel of voters from Birmingham and from the Labour stronghold of Manchester were also inclined towards hung parliaments, coalitions and proportional representation - and, it seems, towards Labour - was another.
*
Then there was the latest left-sided broadside from the programme's regular election contributor Will Self, chatting to Labour's Geoffrey Robinson and promoting a socialist worldview. Why exactly has he been the programme's regular election guest? Why only him?
*
Then there was Steve Hewlett of The Guardian (and Radio 4's Media Show) chatting about the press's influence on the election with Emily Bell of...The Guardian and Labour-supporting Times journalist David Aaronovich.
*
Above all though, it was the contrasting treatment of the party spokesmen that made this such a fitting finale to Today's biased election campaign. The contrast between John Humphrys's aggressive interview with Michael Gove (6 interruptions, I.C. of 1.1) and Sarah Montague's gentle interview with Alan Johnson (0 interruptions, I.C. of 0) could hardly have been stronger - and falls into the standard pattern not just for this election but for the last year (at least) on Today. Oddly though, her interview with Vince Cable was the strongest on interruptions (6, with an I.C. of 1.7) though it wasn't a tetchy one by any stretch of the imagination.
There was hope though for us all in Michael Gove's latest scrap with John Humphrys. Michael Gove certainly has 'got it'. Here's the interview's scheme, with some choice quotations:
*
9.13 Q1
9.16 A1
9.24 Interruption 1/Q2
9.34 A2
(9.39 muttered comment)
9.55 Interruption 2/Q3
10.13 A3
11.02 Interruption 3/ Q4: (JH:) "As you say there is this sense of change in the air. People want change. And what's extraordinary, and we found it ourselves from the groups of people we've been talking to...they actually want, HUGE number of people, those many undecided of course, but they also want a hung parliament, which proves that they're desperately unhappy with the electoral system that we have now, and what you're NOT prepared to say to them is 'We will change that electoral system so that voting is fair and every vote counts' and that's something that you - alone of the three main Westminster parties are not prepared to say."
11.43 A4 (MG): "We will change the voting system to make every vote count, we will make it fairer.."
11.47 Interruption 3 (JH:) "No you won't. You won't have PR."
11.49 A4 (continued) (MG:) "We will make sure...That's your preferred method. We will make sure that every vote matters in the same way by making sure that every constituency is the same size..." (etc)
12.09 Interruption 4
JH "No, no, forgive me, I'm not going to let you do another little party political there. It's fine.."
MG: "Will you let me answer any question?"
JH: "Well, I..I.."
MG: "You've interrupted every single one of them so far John"
JH: "Ooooh, no, no. Not true but never mind. You always say that when you come on. We expect that. Now look..."
MG: "But you always interrupt me."
JH: (laughing grimly) "Can I ask a question?"
MG: "Of course."
JH: "Good."
12.25 Q5: (JH) "Let me challenge what you've just said about your fair voting proposals because of all the academic research that's been done, all of the serious academic research that's been done, says it not the size of the constituencies or the make-up of the constituencies that affects whether a vote is fair or not. You know that and I know that. So what I am asking you is why you will not introduce or at least allow a referendum on a system that the academics, disinterested academics, regard as being fair, which is proportional representation. You might not like the outcome of PR but whether you should give people the opportunity to vote for or against it is the question."
13.08 A5
13.12 Interruption 5
13.19 A5 (continued)
13.41 Interruption 6/Q6 (JH:) "You're treating the audience like fools! You're treating the voters like idiots!"
13.45 A6
13.59 Q7 (JH:) "I was suggesting merely that you give the electorate a chance to vote on this and the reason you won't, you know and I know, is that if you did your party would be ripped apart. They'd take your head off or they'd slice you up like a banana, if you prefer than metaphor."
14.15 A7, beginning: (MG:) "Once again John, a magnificently eloquent question, which would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation."
15.09 Interview ends
Of Michael Gove's first charge - that John Humphrys had so far interrupted his every answer (which Mr H denied) - Mr Gove was quite correct.
*
Of Mr Gove's second charge that PR is Mr Humphrys's - or the BBC's - "preferred method", I think we can say that this certainly seems to be the case!
*
Of Mr Gove's third charge - that JH's questions "would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation" - I think that anyone reading the above questions, with all their loaded terms of phrase, their disinterested academics and "all serious research", their "you know and I know"s (etc) will have to say "Spot on!" to that too.
*
Another 'Attaboy!' is in order.
I know from reading the comments on the B-BBC blogsite that I am far from alone in finding this morning's Today programme deeply biased.
*
The continuous talk/promotion of hung parliaments (right up to the bitter end - or as some call her 'Mary Riddell'), coalitions and proportional representation was one source of irritation. That the panel of voters from Birmingham and from the Labour stronghold of Manchester were also inclined towards hung parliaments, coalitions and proportional representation - and, it seems, towards Labour - was another.
*
Then there was the latest left-sided broadside from the programme's regular election contributor Will Self, chatting to Labour's Geoffrey Robinson and promoting a socialist worldview. Why exactly has he been the programme's regular election guest? Why only him?
*
Then there was Steve Hewlett of The Guardian (and Radio 4's Media Show) chatting about the press's influence on the election with Emily Bell of...The Guardian and Labour-supporting Times journalist David Aaronovich.
*
Above all though, it was the contrasting treatment of the party spokesmen that made this such a fitting finale to Today's biased election campaign. The contrast between John Humphrys's aggressive interview with Michael Gove (6 interruptions, I.C. of 1.1) and Sarah Montague's gentle interview with Alan Johnson (0 interruptions, I.C. of 0) could hardly have been stronger - and falls into the standard pattern not just for this election but for the last year (at least) on Today. Oddly though, her interview with Vince Cable was the strongest on interruptions (6, with an I.C. of 1.7) though it wasn't a tetchy one by any stretch of the imagination.
There was hope though for us all in Michael Gove's latest scrap with John Humphrys. Michael Gove certainly has 'got it'. Here's the interview's scheme, with some choice quotations:
*
9.13 Q1
9.16 A1
9.24 Interruption 1/Q2
9.34 A2
(9.39 muttered comment)
9.55 Interruption 2/Q3
10.13 A3
11.02 Interruption 3/ Q4: (JH:) "As you say there is this sense of change in the air. People want change. And what's extraordinary, and we found it ourselves from the groups of people we've been talking to...they actually want, HUGE number of people, those many undecided of course, but they also want a hung parliament, which proves that they're desperately unhappy with the electoral system that we have now, and what you're NOT prepared to say to them is 'We will change that electoral system so that voting is fair and every vote counts' and that's something that you - alone of the three main Westminster parties are not prepared to say."
11.43 A4 (MG): "We will change the voting system to make every vote count, we will make it fairer.."
11.47 Interruption 3 (JH:) "No you won't. You won't have PR."
11.49 A4 (continued) (MG:) "We will make sure...That's your preferred method. We will make sure that every vote matters in the same way by making sure that every constituency is the same size..." (etc)
12.09 Interruption 4
JH "No, no, forgive me, I'm not going to let you do another little party political there. It's fine.."
MG: "Will you let me answer any question?"
JH: "Well, I..I.."
MG: "You've interrupted every single one of them so far John"
JH: "Ooooh, no, no. Not true but never mind. You always say that when you come on. We expect that. Now look..."
MG: "But you always interrupt me."
JH: (laughing grimly) "Can I ask a question?"
MG: "Of course."
JH: "Good."
12.25 Q5: (JH) "Let me challenge what you've just said about your fair voting proposals because of all the academic research that's been done, all of the serious academic research that's been done, says it not the size of the constituencies or the make-up of the constituencies that affects whether a vote is fair or not. You know that and I know that. So what I am asking you is why you will not introduce or at least allow a referendum on a system that the academics, disinterested academics, regard as being fair, which is proportional representation. You might not like the outcome of PR but whether you should give people the opportunity to vote for or against it is the question."
13.08 A5
13.12 Interruption 5
13.19 A5 (continued)
13.41 Interruption 6/Q6 (JH:) "You're treating the audience like fools! You're treating the voters like idiots!"
13.45 A6
13.59 Q7 (JH:) "I was suggesting merely that you give the electorate a chance to vote on this and the reason you won't, you know and I know, is that if you did your party would be ripped apart. They'd take your head off or they'd slice you up like a banana, if you prefer than metaphor."
14.15 A7, beginning: (MG:) "Once again John, a magnificently eloquent question, which would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation."
15.09 Interview ends
Of Michael Gove's first charge - that John Humphrys had so far interrupted his every answer (which Mr H denied) - Mr Gove was quite correct.
*
Of Mr Gove's second charge that PR is Mr Humphrys's - or the BBC's - "preferred method", I think we can say that this certainly seems to be the case!
*
Of Mr Gove's third charge - that JH's questions "would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation" - I think that anyone reading the above questions, with all their loaded terms of phrase, their disinterested academics and "all serious research", their "you know and I know"s (etc) will have to say "Spot on!" to that too.
*
Another 'Attaboy!' is in order.
Monday, 26 April 2010
GOVING AS GOOD AS HE GETS
*
B-BBC readers will be up on this story already (and there have been some excellents comments there about this already), but a few more things can be said.
*
Today this morning decided that the biggest story of the day was some criticism of Conservative education policy made by a Conservative council leader, Paul Carter from Kent. As the programme began, John Humprhys read "The news headlines this morning. A Conservative council leader has said that Tory plans to allow parents in England to set up their own schools could damage state schools."
*
As the newsreader read out the gist of the story I immediately spotted some misreporting: "Free schools, as they are known, would be established outside local authority control, using money that would have been allocated to the state sector." My understanding, based on a little reading on the subject and from watching an otherwise incredibly biased Newsnight report on the subject a couple of months ago, was that 'free schools' were state schools - albeit state schools outside local authority control. That's what the Conservatives have always said. That's what Michael Gove went on to repeat to John Humphrys.
*
Gillian Hargreaves, the BBC's education(al establishment) correspondent, then reported, saying "this intervention is embarrassing." She emphasized that Mr Carter "isn't against choice in education but he thinks the funding of free schools could be unfair to councils because money will be diverted from local education authorities". She continued, "He's not alone in his unease. The head of Hampshire's children's services, who is also a Conservative, says local councils must have the chance to turn a school around rather than give parents and charities the immediate right to set up a new school."
*
Gillian's full report can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8640576.stm
*
It details the concerns of both men at some length. Several things quickly become clear from reading the men's carefully filleted words (rather than merely attending to the BBC reporter's framing of them). Both men's concerns are nuanced, even in the excerpts we get (and, unsurprisingly, their support for the concept of free schools is skirted over very briefly in indirect quotation while their reservations are dwelt on across several paragraphs in direct quotation. (I wish we could hear the full interviews with both men). Also Cllr Carter is just as concerned about Labour's academies as he is about Conservative free schools. You wouldn't have got any sense of that from just listening to the Today programme.
*
Then we here from that trusty stand-by in times of need - the unnamed man, who goes a lot further than either of the named councillors:
*
Another Conservative councillor who runs education services in one of England's cities, but who does not want to be named, says he "is not a fan of the free schools policy".
He points out (which makes it sound as if he is just stating the fact of the matter) if parents were able to set up free schools in his area - a city with a growing population - it would make strategic planning a nightmare.
What of Michael Gove's rejection of the story? It gets one short paragraph!!!!
*
What follows in the rest of the article, which still leads the BBC's Education page and, amazingly, which still hasn't been updated since 7:05 GMT? We hear a steam of criticism of the Conservative plans.
&
There are two paragraphs from The Institute for Fiscal Studies then, under the sub-heading 'Privilege the few', we get four paragraphs of pure Ballsian Tory-bashing bile from Ed Balls. Next come two 'attack paragraphs' from Lib Dem Sarah Teather. Then two more from head NUTter Christine Blower.
*
UPDATE (even before I've published this post!). Gillian has now updated her article (18.16 GMT). Michael Gove now gets two short paragraphs to defend his position (and a short video clip)!!! WOW!!!. Generous eh?!
Why hasn't she outlined the robust defence Mr Gove gave on the Today programme? What happened to the idea of a right to reply? Surely a half dozen paragraphs at the very least from Michael Gove would only have been fair, given the length of the article and the sheer amount of criticism contained in it - all of which remains from this morning, except that Ed Balls loses one of his four paragraphs (he still has one more than Michael Gove!!!) - and given the scope of Mr Gove's case as made (under fire) this morning.
*
Just from reading this article (in both versions) you can tell that Gillian Hargreaves might not be the most impartial of reporters.
Gillian Hargreaves had a little chat with Justin Webb at 6.36am, giving only the criticisms without the nuances. The chat ended with Justin saying "Briefly Gillian. A bit of a blow?" "Yes", she replied. "It is embarrassing for the Conservatives and privately several councillors have told me this policy has not been thought out properly, certainly not when it comes to funding ".
*
The Daily Mail's take on this includes these points - which (if they are all true!) raise yet more questions about the BBC's behaviour:
*
The BBC was criticised today for claiming senior Tory council figures have reservations about plans to let parents and charities set up their own schools.
With just 10 days to go before polling day, leader of Kent County Council Paul Carter accused the broadcaster of attempting to create division in Conservative ranks.
It contacted Tory council chiefs in an apparent bid to drum up any criticism about the party's education scheme and then, to the delight of Labour, led with Mr Carter's comments in its news bulletins this morning.
The BBC leapt on comments from Mr Carter, which simply repeated concerns he had already raised earlier this year, to argue that he was calling into question Tory plans.
Mr Gove insisted that existing schools' budgets will be untouched because the plans would be funded by slashing waste in the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
And other council chiefs, including Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Merrick Cockell, and Stephen Castle from Essex County Council, also fully backed them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268885/General-Election-2010-BBC-claiming-Tories-divided-flagship-schools-plan.html
Well, didn't Michael Gove do well! We are in what Hippiepooter would call 'Attaboy!' territory! Trouncing John Humphrys (I.C. of 2.2), correcting the BBC's distortions and getting the message across about BBC bias with force, intelligence and good humour, he showed his colleagues the right way to deal with the Beeb. It has given me hope that the Conservative leadership isn't as sanguine about BBC bias as we (with ample justification) thought. Listen again here, and enjoy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8643000/8643459.stm
*
B-BBC readers will be up on this story already (and there have been some excellents comments there about this already), but a few more things can be said.
*
Today this morning decided that the biggest story of the day was some criticism of Conservative education policy made by a Conservative council leader, Paul Carter from Kent. As the programme began, John Humprhys read "The news headlines this morning. A Conservative council leader has said that Tory plans to allow parents in England to set up their own schools could damage state schools."
*
As the newsreader read out the gist of the story I immediately spotted some misreporting: "Free schools, as they are known, would be established outside local authority control, using money that would have been allocated to the state sector." My understanding, based on a little reading on the subject and from watching an otherwise incredibly biased Newsnight report on the subject a couple of months ago, was that 'free schools' were state schools - albeit state schools outside local authority control. That's what the Conservatives have always said. That's what Michael Gove went on to repeat to John Humphrys.
*
Gillian Hargreaves, the BBC's education(al establishment) correspondent, then reported, saying "this intervention is embarrassing." She emphasized that Mr Carter "isn't against choice in education but he thinks the funding of free schools could be unfair to councils because money will be diverted from local education authorities". She continued, "He's not alone in his unease. The head of Hampshire's children's services, who is also a Conservative, says local councils must have the chance to turn a school around rather than give parents and charities the immediate right to set up a new school."
*
Gillian's full report can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8640576.stm
*
It details the concerns of both men at some length. Several things quickly become clear from reading the men's carefully filleted words (rather than merely attending to the BBC reporter's framing of them). Both men's concerns are nuanced, even in the excerpts we get (and, unsurprisingly, their support for the concept of free schools is skirted over very briefly in indirect quotation while their reservations are dwelt on across several paragraphs in direct quotation. (I wish we could hear the full interviews with both men). Also Cllr Carter is just as concerned about Labour's academies as he is about Conservative free schools. You wouldn't have got any sense of that from just listening to the Today programme.
*
Then we here from that trusty stand-by in times of need - the unnamed man, who goes a lot further than either of the named councillors:
*
Another Conservative councillor who runs education services in one of England's cities, but who does not want to be named, says he "is not a fan of the free schools policy".
He points out (which makes it sound as if he is just stating the fact of the matter) if parents were able to set up free schools in his area - a city with a growing population - it would make strategic planning a nightmare.
What of Michael Gove's rejection of the story? It gets one short paragraph!!!!
*
What follows in the rest of the article, which still leads the BBC's Education page and, amazingly, which still hasn't been updated since 7:05 GMT? We hear a steam of criticism of the Conservative plans.
&
There are two paragraphs from The Institute for Fiscal Studies then, under the sub-heading 'Privilege the few', we get four paragraphs of pure Ballsian Tory-bashing bile from Ed Balls. Next come two 'attack paragraphs' from Lib Dem Sarah Teather. Then two more from head NUTter Christine Blower.
*
UPDATE (even before I've published this post!). Gillian has now updated her article (18.16 GMT). Michael Gove now gets two short paragraphs to defend his position (and a short video clip)!!! WOW!!!. Generous eh?!
Why hasn't she outlined the robust defence Mr Gove gave on the Today programme? What happened to the idea of a right to reply? Surely a half dozen paragraphs at the very least from Michael Gove would only have been fair, given the length of the article and the sheer amount of criticism contained in it - all of which remains from this morning, except that Ed Balls loses one of his four paragraphs (he still has one more than Michael Gove!!!) - and given the scope of Mr Gove's case as made (under fire) this morning.
*
Just from reading this article (in both versions) you can tell that Gillian Hargreaves might not be the most impartial of reporters.
Gillian Hargreaves had a little chat with Justin Webb at 6.36am, giving only the criticisms without the nuances. The chat ended with Justin saying "Briefly Gillian. A bit of a blow?" "Yes", she replied. "It is embarrassing for the Conservatives and privately several councillors have told me this policy has not been thought out properly, certainly not when it comes to funding ".
*
The Daily Mail's take on this includes these points - which (if they are all true!) raise yet more questions about the BBC's behaviour:
*
The BBC was criticised today for claiming senior Tory council figures have reservations about plans to let parents and charities set up their own schools.
With just 10 days to go before polling day, leader of Kent County Council Paul Carter accused the broadcaster of attempting to create division in Conservative ranks.
It contacted Tory council chiefs in an apparent bid to drum up any criticism about the party's education scheme and then, to the delight of Labour, led with Mr Carter's comments in its news bulletins this morning.
The BBC leapt on comments from Mr Carter, which simply repeated concerns he had already raised earlier this year, to argue that he was calling into question Tory plans.
Mr Gove insisted that existing schools' budgets will be untouched because the plans would be funded by slashing waste in the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
And other council chiefs, including Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Merrick Cockell, and Stephen Castle from Essex County Council, also fully backed them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268885/General-Election-2010-BBC-claiming-Tories-divided-flagship-schools-plan.html
*
******
******
*
*Well, didn't Michael Gove do well! We are in what Hippiepooter would call 'Attaboy!' territory! Trouncing John Humphrys (I.C. of 2.2), correcting the BBC's distortions and getting the message across about BBC bias with force, intelligence and good humour, he showed his colleagues the right way to deal with the Beeb. It has given me hope that the Conservative leadership isn't as sanguine about BBC bias as we (with ample justification) thought. Listen again here, and enjoy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8643000/8643459.stm
*
Friday, 23 April 2010
LUCKY DOUGIE
*
Spokesmen for the parties who took part in last night's prime ministerial debate took to the Today programme this morning. Labour's Douglas Alexander struck gold in getting an unusually gentle Sarah Montague (I.C. of just 0.2), whereas both Danny Alexander from the Lib Dems (I.C. of 0.6) and William Hague (I.C. of 1.2) got John Humphrys! The interruption coefficients tell much of the story here.
*
Spokesmen for the parties who took part in last night's prime ministerial debate took to the Today programme this morning. Labour's Douglas Alexander struck gold in getting an unusually gentle Sarah Montague (I.C. of just 0.2), whereas both Danny Alexander from the Lib Dems (I.C. of 0.6) and William Hague (I.C. of 1.2) got John Humphrys! The interruption coefficients tell much of the story here.
*
Thursday, 8 April 2010
NO BROWN-NOSING TODAY
*
If you want to know why John Humphrys gets far, far fewer mentions on this blog than, say, James Naughtie, the reason can be heard here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8608000/8608788.stm
*
I hope they'd hidden the Today programme staplers away before that interview!
*
Full marks for Mr Humphrys!
If you want to know why John Humphrys gets far, far fewer mentions on this blog than, say, James Naughtie, the reason can be heard here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8608000/8608788.stm
*
I hope they'd hidden the Today programme staplers away before that interview!
*
Full marks for Mr Humphrys!
Monday, 5 April 2010
TODAY
*
Ah, Bank Holiday Monday! The rain pouring outside, as tradition dictates, but still...no work today. I think I'll put on Today and listen to the 7 0'clock news.
*
What's the lead story? A professor from a think tank attacks Tory plans. Oh dear. That's bad news for the Tories. In response to the independent professor from the independent think tank's criticisms, the Tories "insist" their plans hold up, says the BBC. Those Tories sound very defensive about it, don't they?
*
What's next? Ah, Gordon Brown saying something or other. Here's Norman Smith to report just what Gordon Brown is saying. Yes, Brown's saying that Labour is great and the Tories are rubbish. Oh Norman, while you're there, has Peter Mandelson said something nasty about David Cameron? He has! Then you better tell us about that too. Clearly nothing bad has been said about Labour, or you would have reported that as well, wouldn't you?
*
What's next? The Lib Dems, the party of the all-seeing Mr Cable. The Lib Dems are promising untold delights for rail travellers. Here's Joe Lynam to tell us about it and faithfully report that it all adds up. The magic beans have been carefully costed and the beanstalks will carry us all as quick as we can say 'abracadabra' to anywhere we want to go in Fairyland. How wonderful!
*
I shall now get out of the wrong side of the bed and make breakfast. Then I'll sit down and listen to James Naughtie. That will improve my mood no end. Andrew Lansley is on at 8.10. Naughtie or Humphrys? I'm sure whichever one of them gets to interview the Tory spokesman will give him a fair hearing. Now where are my tablets?
*
8
UPDATE 8.12am It's John Humphrys and he has already egged the pudding by calling the think tank that is criticising the Tories "highly respected". They're always "highly respected" when they are criticising the Tories.
*
8.16am The interruptions are really flying at Andrew Lansley and John Humprhys has repeated that the critical think tank is "highly respected". Mr Lansley must be feeling like one of those people in Scotland caught up in that freak hailstorm last week.
*
8.18am Humphrys is really hammering away at Mr Lansley, slapping him down like a naughty schoolboy for daring (for the first time) to mention Labour. This is a very aggressive interview.
*
8.21am Well, it's over. After not saying 'good morning' to Andrew Lansley at the beginning (until Mr Lansley said 'good morning' to him, and then doing so with a laugh) to saying 'thank you' at the end in as unfriendly a way as possible, John Humphrys hardly paused for breath there. It's a wonder he didn't rupture a blood vessel.
*
That interview lasted 7 minutes 11 seconds, and contained 19 interruptions, resulting in a massive interruption coefficient of 2.7.
*
FURTHER UPDATE The Today website headlines this story 'Sleight of hand' over Tory cancer drugs pledge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603174.stm
Ah, Bank Holiday Monday! The rain pouring outside, as tradition dictates, but still...no work today. I think I'll put on Today and listen to the 7 0'clock news.
*
What's the lead story? A professor from a think tank attacks Tory plans. Oh dear. That's bad news for the Tories. In response to the independent professor from the independent think tank's criticisms, the Tories "insist" their plans hold up, says the BBC. Those Tories sound very defensive about it, don't they?
*
What's next? Ah, Gordon Brown saying something or other. Here's Norman Smith to report just what Gordon Brown is saying. Yes, Brown's saying that Labour is great and the Tories are rubbish. Oh Norman, while you're there, has Peter Mandelson said something nasty about David Cameron? He has! Then you better tell us about that too. Clearly nothing bad has been said about Labour, or you would have reported that as well, wouldn't you?
*
What's next? The Lib Dems, the party of the all-seeing Mr Cable. The Lib Dems are promising untold delights for rail travellers. Here's Joe Lynam to tell us about it and faithfully report that it all adds up. The magic beans have been carefully costed and the beanstalks will carry us all as quick as we can say 'abracadabra' to anywhere we want to go in Fairyland. How wonderful!
*
I shall now get out of the wrong side of the bed and make breakfast. Then I'll sit down and listen to James Naughtie. That will improve my mood no end. Andrew Lansley is on at 8.10. Naughtie or Humphrys? I'm sure whichever one of them gets to interview the Tory spokesman will give him a fair hearing. Now where are my tablets?
*
8
UPDATE 8.12am It's John Humphrys and he has already egged the pudding by calling the think tank that is criticising the Tories "highly respected". They're always "highly respected" when they are criticising the Tories.
*
8.16am The interruptions are really flying at Andrew Lansley and John Humprhys has repeated that the critical think tank is "highly respected". Mr Lansley must be feeling like one of those people in Scotland caught up in that freak hailstorm last week.
*
8.18am Humphrys is really hammering away at Mr Lansley, slapping him down like a naughty schoolboy for daring (for the first time) to mention Labour. This is a very aggressive interview.
*
8.21am Well, it's over. After not saying 'good morning' to Andrew Lansley at the beginning (until Mr Lansley said 'good morning' to him, and then doing so with a laugh) to saying 'thank you' at the end in as unfriendly a way as possible, John Humphrys hardly paused for breath there. It's a wonder he didn't rupture a blood vessel.
*
That interview lasted 7 minutes 11 seconds, and contained 19 interruptions, resulting in a massive interruption coefficient of 2.7.
*
FURTHER UPDATE The Today website headlines this story 'Sleight of hand' over Tory cancer drugs pledge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603174.stm
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
JOHN, MARK AND JUSTIN
*
At least Today didn't entirely swallow The World Tonight's deviant line!
*
Continuing on from my earlier posts, there was confirmation that Labour is (paradoxically) keen to hear the BBC discuss Mark Easton's holiday freebies story rather than the far-more-damaging-to-Labour lobbying story from the characteristically unsure-footed Sir Stuart Bell on this morning's Today programme.
*
Labour veteran Sir Stuart gave the game away, saying in answer to a question from Justin Webb, "Well I think the Labour Party meeting last night was more to do with the three cabinet ministers rather than the question of 20 MPs who had not declared their interests on foreign trips. So essentially what I'm talking about today is this further error of judgement in our colleagues, twenty of them, which unfortunately means that 646 MPs are now tarred with the same brush..." To his credit, Justin (who was not reading from the prescribed Mark Easton/Michael Crick/The World Tonight script) pulled him back to the cabinet ministers and pressed him on it! Not that Sir Stuart gave any real answers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582281.stm
*
Still the narrative, a "cross-party affair" (as Justin called it), was back in place soon after with the appearance of the man himself, Mark 'Stick-the-knife-into-the-Tories' Easton. In outlining the rules to John Humphrys he used a far-from-hypothetical example of an MP who, say, goes to the Maldives. There is such an MP, and he's a Conservative, David Amess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582305.stm. Andrew Dismore (the sacrificial Labour lamb) followed, as he did with Michael Crick and on The World Tonight. He's the one on the Parliamentary Committee on Standards and Privileges. Then Easton went back to the Maldives guy, Mr Amess (this time naming him). As Sir Stuart said, Labour is much more comfortable here, where the guilt is spread much more widely across the parties.
*
John Humphrys returned though to the big story at 8.10, but he spun it in the expected way.
*
He began by saying that their was anger at the former cabinet ministers not just from the opposition but "not only on the opposition benches. There was plenty of anger among Labour MPs too. Well now the government has reacted. The three ministers involved have been suspended from the Labour Party". So there you go, Labour is outraged and has taken strong action against the three . Labour's all right really, it's only a few rotten eggs.
*
Interviewing Jack Straw, John Humphrys first discussed the individuals then questioned the rules. Shouldn't the rules the changed? The rules, the rules, it's the fault of the rules. After the few rotten eggs came the generalities. The government's thinking on the generalities was where the bulk of the interview lay. So the discussion moved from three individuals from the Labour Party to parliament as a whole without dwelling on the in-between i.e. the Labour Party itself, which is riddled with sleaze.
*
At least Today didn't entirely swallow The World Tonight's deviant line!
*
Continuing on from my earlier posts, there was confirmation that Labour is (paradoxically) keen to hear the BBC discuss Mark Easton's holiday freebies story rather than the far-more-damaging-to-Labour lobbying story from the characteristically unsure-footed Sir Stuart Bell on this morning's Today programme.
*
Labour veteran Sir Stuart gave the game away, saying in answer to a question from Justin Webb, "Well I think the Labour Party meeting last night was more to do with the three cabinet ministers rather than the question of 20 MPs who had not declared their interests on foreign trips. So essentially what I'm talking about today is this further error of judgement in our colleagues, twenty of them, which unfortunately means that 646 MPs are now tarred with the same brush..." To his credit, Justin (who was not reading from the prescribed Mark Easton/Michael Crick/The World Tonight script) pulled him back to the cabinet ministers and pressed him on it! Not that Sir Stuart gave any real answers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582281.stm
*
Still the narrative, a "cross-party affair" (as Justin called it), was back in place soon after with the appearance of the man himself, Mark 'Stick-the-knife-into-the-Tories' Easton. In outlining the rules to John Humphrys he used a far-from-hypothetical example of an MP who, say, goes to the Maldives. There is such an MP, and he's a Conservative, David Amess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8582000/8582305.stm. Andrew Dismore (the sacrificial Labour lamb) followed, as he did with Michael Crick and on The World Tonight. He's the one on the Parliamentary Committee on Standards and Privileges. Then Easton went back to the Maldives guy, Mr Amess (this time naming him). As Sir Stuart said, Labour is much more comfortable here, where the guilt is spread much more widely across the parties.
*
John Humphrys returned though to the big story at 8.10, but he spun it in the expected way.
*
He began by saying that their was anger at the former cabinet ministers not just from the opposition but "not only on the opposition benches. There was plenty of anger among Labour MPs too. Well now the government has reacted. The three ministers involved have been suspended from the Labour Party". So there you go, Labour is outraged and has taken strong action against the three . Labour's all right really, it's only a few rotten eggs.
*
Interviewing Jack Straw, John Humphrys first discussed the individuals then questioned the rules. Shouldn't the rules the changed? The rules, the rules, it's the fault of the rules. After the few rotten eggs came the generalities. The government's thinking on the generalities was where the bulk of the interview lay. So the discussion moved from three individuals from the Labour Party to parliament as a whole without dwelling on the in-between i.e. the Labour Party itself, which is riddled with sleaze.
*
Monday, 8 March 2010
LABOUR LIST
*
After last week's shock of hearing a centre-right campaign group and a Eurosceptic think tank both appearing on the same edition of Today - where you're usually unlikely to hear a squeak from either for weeks on end - it was back to business as usual today with a story based on a report by a left-of-centre think tank, The Young Foundation. Robin Murray from that organisation was Evan Davis's guest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8555000/8555077.stm
(How about a 'complaints choir' to protest against left-wing bias at the BBC?)
*
It was quite a day for lefties on this morning's programme. We also had Mark Serwotka of the PCS union - Britain's most left-wing trades union leader (against tough competition). He attacked Mrs Thatcher, among other things.
*
Jack Straw joined Phil Hope for a Labour Day. The interview between Mr Straw and John Humphrys was good-natured and full of mutual understanding (I.C. of 0.9).
*
Small-scale hydroelectric schemes and their possibly damaging effects on wildlife were discussed with New Labour-type Tony Grayling, head of climate change at the Environment agency and a former associate director of the BBC's favourite think tank, the Labour-aligned IPPR, and Mark Lloyd of the non-aligned Angling Trust.*
After last week's shock of hearing a centre-right campaign group and a Eurosceptic think tank both appearing on the same edition of Today - where you're usually unlikely to hear a squeak from either for weeks on end - it was back to business as usual today with a story based on a report by a left-of-centre think tank, The Young Foundation. Robin Murray from that organisation was Evan Davis's guest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8555000/8555077.stm
(How about a 'complaints choir' to protest against left-wing bias at the BBC?)
*
It was quite a day for lefties on this morning's programme. We also had Mark Serwotka of the PCS union - Britain's most left-wing trades union leader (against tough competition). He attacked Mrs Thatcher, among other things.
*
Jack Straw joined Phil Hope for a Labour Day. The interview between Mr Straw and John Humphrys was good-natured and full of mutual understanding (I.C. of 0.9).
*
Small-scale hydroelectric schemes and their possibly damaging effects on wildlife were discussed with New Labour-type Tony Grayling, head of climate change at the Environment agency and a former associate director of the BBC's favourite think tank, the Labour-aligned IPPR, and Mark Lloyd of the non-aligned Angling Trust.*
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
STEARING US TOWARDS ONE SIDE
*
Fairness was discussed at 7.19 on this morning's Today programme:
The programme's treatment of the dispute, however, was far from fair. As you can see from the above blurb, only one side of the dispute was present. Councillor Stears, given a sympathetic hearing by John Humphrys, is a Lib Dem and Sutton is a Lib Dem council. Hammersmith & Fulham, however, is a Conservative council. Why was no-one from Hammersmith & Fulham invited on to give their side of the story?
Fairness was discussed at 7.19 on this morning's Today programme:
Who should pick up the bill if a mentally ill person is put in a care home outside the area where they live? That is the question that will be argued in the High Court today in a dispute between two local authorities: the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and Sutton Council. Colin Stears of Sutton Council outlines the issue.
The programme's treatment of the dispute, however, was far from fair. As you can see from the above blurb, only one side of the dispute was present. Councillor Stears, given a sympathetic hearing by John Humphrys, is a Lib Dem and Sutton is a Lib Dem council. Hammersmith & Fulham, however, is a Conservative council. Why was no-one from Hammersmith & Fulham invited on to give their side of the story?
THE 'TODAY' PAPER REVIEW REVIEW
*
Another day's worth of biased paper reviews from Today began (at 6.12) with James Naughtie and the Bulger-killer story, concentrating on the Mirror's account. Then came John Humphrys on the BBC. He dealt with the Mail's anti-BBC perspective in just four seconds before moving on to the pro-BBC Guardian, dwelling on that for a full 30 seconds before moving on to spend time with Hamish McRae of the Independent. At least he then quoted from the Telegraph. Naughtie was up next with the Lord Ashcroft story, spending 3o seconds on a critical take from the Guardian before moving on to another critical take from the Times. No non-critical takes, naturally.
*
The second paper review (at 6.43) began with Naughtie and news of the televised leaders' debates, quoting at most length from the Independent, before John Humphrys returned to the subject of the BBC, beginning by quoting from Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian (and BBC Radio 4) but moving on to the Times and, at greater length, the Mail. Naughtie was having no such truck with right-wing newspapers and moved on to an appraisal of Dr Paisley from the Guardian before Humphrys turned to American politics and Democrat-hopeful Jerry Brown, courtesy of a story in the Independent. Naughtie did at least spend some time with the Telegraph, with a story about a bull and viagra.
*
At 7.43 (the final paper review) Naughtie kicked off with the Ashcroft story, again quoting only from hostile newspapers, firstly the Times (which accused the Tories of 'complacency') and then the Mirror, quoting a violent attack on the Tories by none other than Kevin Maguire. No contrary views were given the time of day. John Humphrys then read a fluffy story from the Mail about quadruplets before Naughtie turned to the Times for the story of Hillary Clinton's trip to Buenos Aires. "She gets a rough ride" from that paper, said Naughtie.
**
8
*
The Lord Ashcroft story cropped up again at 8.23. Nick Robinson discussed it with James Naughtie. The headline on the Today website reads 'Questions remain on Ashcroft status'. Nick raised those questions here, but did note that the story was also continuing because the Conservatives' enemies - Labour and the Lib Dems - are keen to keep it going. Of course, he didn't include the BBC is that list of enemies - even though it should be top of the list.
*
That the BBC are going to keep on and on and on about this right up to polling day was also made clear by the BBC's Carole Walker on tonight's PM , talking to Carolyn Quinn. She said that the Tories have been questioned about this for the past ten years before adding "as I'm sure they'll be again and again now". I don't doubt it. The Conservatives' 'maintain radio silence' strategy is not working. They are leaving open goals all across the BBC. PM suggests this might be about to change as it played a short clip from tonight's The World Tonight, which will broadcast an interview between Robin Lustig and William Hague (a short clip, but one already containing a sharp interruption from Lustig!). If William Hague performs as well as he did at Prime Minister's Question Time today he should give Lustig a roasting. Fingers crossed!
Another day's worth of biased paper reviews from Today began (at 6.12) with James Naughtie and the Bulger-killer story, concentrating on the Mirror's account. Then came John Humphrys on the BBC. He dealt with the Mail's anti-BBC perspective in just four seconds before moving on to the pro-BBC Guardian, dwelling on that for a full 30 seconds before moving on to spend time with Hamish McRae of the Independent. At least he then quoted from the Telegraph. Naughtie was up next with the Lord Ashcroft story, spending 3o seconds on a critical take from the Guardian before moving on to another critical take from the Times. No non-critical takes, naturally.
*
The second paper review (at 6.43) began with Naughtie and news of the televised leaders' debates, quoting at most length from the Independent, before John Humphrys returned to the subject of the BBC, beginning by quoting from Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian (and BBC Radio 4) but moving on to the Times and, at greater length, the Mail. Naughtie was having no such truck with right-wing newspapers and moved on to an appraisal of Dr Paisley from the Guardian before Humphrys turned to American politics and Democrat-hopeful Jerry Brown, courtesy of a story in the Independent. Naughtie did at least spend some time with the Telegraph, with a story about a bull and viagra.
*
At 7.43 (the final paper review) Naughtie kicked off with the Ashcroft story, again quoting only from hostile newspapers, firstly the Times (which accused the Tories of 'complacency') and then the Mirror, quoting a violent attack on the Tories by none other than Kevin Maguire. No contrary views were given the time of day. John Humphrys then read a fluffy story from the Mail about quadruplets before Naughtie turned to the Times for the story of Hillary Clinton's trip to Buenos Aires. "She gets a rough ride" from that paper, said Naughtie.
**
8
*
The Lord Ashcroft story cropped up again at 8.23. Nick Robinson discussed it with James Naughtie. The headline on the Today website reads 'Questions remain on Ashcroft status'. Nick raised those questions here, but did note that the story was also continuing because the Conservatives' enemies - Labour and the Lib Dems - are keen to keep it going. Of course, he didn't include the BBC is that list of enemies - even though it should be top of the list.
*
That the BBC are going to keep on and on and on about this right up to polling day was also made clear by the BBC's Carole Walker on tonight's PM , talking to Carolyn Quinn. She said that the Tories have been questioned about this for the past ten years before adding "as I'm sure they'll be again and again now". I don't doubt it. The Conservatives' 'maintain radio silence' strategy is not working. They are leaving open goals all across the BBC. PM suggests this might be about to change as it played a short clip from tonight's The World Tonight, which will broadcast an interview between Robin Lustig and William Hague (a short clip, but one already containing a sharp interruption from Lustig!). If William Hague performs as well as he did at Prime Minister's Question Time today he should give Lustig a roasting. Fingers crossed!
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
THE ASHCROFT PAPERS
*
At the risk of harping 
on about James Naughtie, his contributions to the first paper review of this morning (6.12 am) began with the Lord Ashcroft story. He started with The Times (yes, not The Guardian for once!). The Times has been heavily critical of Lord Ashcroft, so Naughtie read its headline, then a short extract from the accompanying article, then a longer extract from its condemnatory main leader. Then he moved on very briefly to The Daily Mirror (anti-Tory) and The Sun (pro-Tory). His second appearance mentioned the FT's report on the falling pound. Naughtie adopted an incredulous tone and said "It makes the assertion that this is entirely because of the shrinking Conservative lead in the opinion polls." The way he emphasized the word "assertion" showed what he thought of the idea.
on about James Naughtie, his contributions to the first paper review of this morning (6.12 am) began with the Lord Ashcroft story. He started with The Times (yes, not The Guardian for once!). The Times has been heavily critical of Lord Ashcroft, so Naughtie read its headline, then a short extract from the accompanying article, then a longer extract from its condemnatory main leader. Then he moved on very briefly to The Daily Mirror (anti-Tory) and The Sun (pro-Tory). His second appearance mentioned the FT's report on the falling pound. Naughtie adopted an incredulous tone and said "It makes the assertion that this is entirely because of the shrinking Conservative lead in the opinion polls." The way he emphasized the word "assertion" showed what he thought of the idea. *
In the second paper review (6.44), after John Humphrys had dealt with The Daily Telegraph's support for Lord Ashcroft, Naughtie reviewed the anti-Ashcroft papers, The Guardian, The Mirror, The Independent and The Times, dwelling this time on the Independent's leader column.
*
In the third paper review (7.40) The Telegraph's (and Sun's) support vanished, leaving us merely with a litany of anti-Ashcroft opinion from of The Guardian, The Independent, The Mirror and The Times, read out by by John Humphrys. Naughtie, following on from John Humprhys, moved on to another story altogether. Could he not bring himself to read out something supportive of the Tories from, say, The Telegraph? He was soon to find time for Greg Dyke in The Guardian though.
*
Monday, 22 February 2010
I'M NOT HAPPY!
John Humphrys, about whom I wrote a few complimentary things recently, blotted his copy-book this morning by treating Christine Pratt, the head of the anti-bullying helpline, to an inquisition of the Spanish variety while (despite plenty of interruptions) giving Anne Snelgrove, Labour MP and member of Brown's inner circle a far less rigorous going-over. That Ms Snelgrove had handed over e-mails critical of Mrs Pratt and her husband to the Today programme while refusing to commit herself to any of the allegations they contain, and then accused Mrs Pratt of making unsubstantiated allegations against Brown, all the time refusing (like a petulant child) to share the same interview with her, tells you all you need to know about Anne Snelgrove and the sort of company the prime minister keeps. John Humphrys was lamentably weak in pushing these points. Not so though in his handling of Mrs Pratt. The senior politician was treated much better than the far less powerful member of society in this interview - how apt given the allegations against Gordzilla! The I.C. for Anne Snelgrove was 1.6, that for Mrs Pratt 2.1. Shame on John Humphrys! Then there was Sarah Montague's crack to Nick Clegg about many of our best prime ministers being bullies. Shame on Sarah Montague! The political class are a disgrace, aren't they?
*
Sorry for waxing a bit hot there. I'm not in a jolly mood. There's something of the mafia mentality about this government, and some of their media supporters. Coming in from work and seeing that disgusting, smeary Prescott interview really got me going. You just know that the likes of Mandelson, Brown, McBride, Prescott, Draper, Watson, Maguire, Snelgrove, Balls et al would stop at very little to stay in power. The Conservatives lack that killer instinct, which is probably why they won't win power. Funny old world isn't it?
Sticking the knife in tonight (though the crime figures won't show it) is BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/02/bullying_helpline_under_scruti.html. Yes, there's no doubt about it, this lady is going to be destroyed.
Wo'
Worse may still be to come. Michael Crick must surely make an appearance on Newsnight. Surely somehow this will all be made to look very bad for David Cameron and the Tories. (UPDATE: I called that one wrong! Despite beginning his report with news of Tory support falling in the polls, he didn't attack over the story.)
*
Saturday, 20 February 2010
HUMPH
*
Wendy's brother Douglas Alexander was on 'Today' this morning talking to John Humphrys about the election. Labour's new slogan is 'A Future Fair for All'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8525000/8525831.stm
*
Wouldn't that make a great slogan for the 'Today' programme itself? Whenever James Naughtie faces a Conservative spokesman and a Labour spokesman in the same studio, he could look up to a large poster on the wall of the 'Today' studio and think to himself, 'Yes, I will be fair to all, today and for ever more! I will mend my ways!'
*
Well you can hope!!
*
He already has an example to look too. John Humphrys is, like Naughtie, a known leftie but he rarely features on this little blog of mine as he's clearly conscious that it's his duty to try to be impartial when interviewing. Yes, he may sound off sometimes (usually about bankers!) and certainly can let his opinions shine through his questioning (as tends to happen whenever Iraq and Afghanistan are under discussion!) and, yes, he does on the whole interrupt Conservatives more than Labour politicians, but against all this can be set such interviews as this morning's with Mr Alexander. He asked a lot of tough, spot-on questions about the economy and scored a high interruption coefficient of 1.8 against him.
*
That's the way to do it Jim! It's called professionalism!
*
Wendy's brother Douglas Alexander was on 'Today' this morning talking to John Humphrys about the election. Labour's new slogan is 'A Future Fair for All'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8525000/8525831.stm
*
Wouldn't that make a great slogan for the 'Today' programme itself? Whenever James Naughtie faces a Conservative spokesman and a Labour spokesman in the same studio, he could look up to a large poster on the wall of the 'Today' studio and think to himself, 'Yes, I will be fair to all, today and for ever more! I will mend my ways!'
*
Well you can hope!!
*
He already has an example to look too. John Humphrys is, like Naughtie, a known leftie but he rarely features on this little blog of mine as he's clearly conscious that it's his duty to try to be impartial when interviewing. Yes, he may sound off sometimes (usually about bankers!) and certainly can let his opinions shine through his questioning (as tends to happen whenever Iraq and Afghanistan are under discussion!) and, yes, he does on the whole interrupt Conservatives more than Labour politicians, but against all this can be set such interviews as this morning's with Mr Alexander. He asked a lot of tough, spot-on questions about the economy and scored a high interruption coefficient of 1.8 against him.
*
That's the way to do it Jim! It's called professionalism!
*
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
TODAY TODAY
*
This morning's Today programme was noticeably left-liberal in its orientation again.
*
At 7.09 John Humphrys discussed British social attitudes with sociologist Alison Park of the National Centre for Social Research. The results show that "Britain has become more liberal over the last 25 years with greater tolerance of homosexuality and co-habitation. The report also found that for the first time in 20 years more people identify themselves as Conservative and not Labour supporters." John Humphrys chose to focus the interview on the former (especially attitudes towards homosexuality) rather than the latter, though not before Alison had chose as examples of the "recent swing more towards the right" the fact that "people have become less sympathetic towards the poor, less accepting of the need to reduce inequality between rich and poor." That this lady is also a Fabian is hardly surprising.
*
The greater tolerance towards homosexuality was discussed with another left-winger, high tribal Labour MEP Michael Cashman, former Eastenders actor and gay rights campaigner (I.C. of 0.5 for John Humphrys), though here he was joined by former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie.
The issue of climate change (meaning 'global warming') was dominant. There were plenty of weasel words over the IPCC's discredited claims over the alleged melting glaciers of the Himalayas from Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele of the IPCC at 7.12. He claimed (counter-intuitively) that the scandal "could increase the credibility of the IPCC." That was not strong enough however for the Today programme's website who ignore the "could" in the professor's statement and go not just for dead certainty but also for a completely unwarranted use of the past tense: "Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chair of the IPCC, told Sarah Montague that the IPCC had gained credibility from its ability to admit its mistakes and argued that the other claims in the report were "very strong"." That is not what he said.
*
This issue was revisited later in the programme (8.53) with an environment campaigner and a leading climate sceptic. Only joking! Of course there was no 'climate sceptic'! Instead we had Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, and a highly intolerant Tony Juniper, climate change campaigner and former director of Friends of the Earth (and a Green Party parliamentary candidate). Both backed the IPCC. The discussion was presided over by John Humphrys. (Would that Andrew Neil had been in charge of it instead!!)
(Even this wasn't enough, so we had a report from Tom Fielden (at 8.44) on 'ocean acidification', "an issue biologists have dubbed the "elephant in the corner" of the climate change debate", according to the Today programme's website.)
*
Assisted suicide was discussed (at 7.16) by Sarah Montague with a Labour peer, Lord Joffe, "who has campaigned for a long time to get the law on assisted suicide changed" - of course in favour of a more liberal approach (I.C. of 0.3)
*
Mark Mardell reported on the rise of the Tea Party movement in America (at 7.23). The 'elephant in the room' in American politics is no longer being ignored (as it no longer can be ignored, even by the most dogged Democrat supporter at the BBC). This being Mark Mardell a totally straight, totally unbiased report was out of the question. He asked a Tea Party-goer this deeply loaded question: "How much is it a movement of 'the people' or how much is it a movement of largely white, largely quite well off people?" Are there strong grounds for that allegation, or is it just a smear?
*
EXTRA: Please have a read of the wonderful David Preiser's comments on this on the Biased BBC website: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-thread_23.html#comments
**
Who's "not helping the talks today" in Northern Ireland, according to Nick Robinson (at 8.20)? The Conservatives and their 'secret talks' with the UUP and DUP, that's who! Robinson reported on the suspicions and 'anger' of Labour and their allies the SDLP (and the Alliance Party) at David Cameron, with Sarah Montague pushing those suspicions even further forward. You can bank on old Nick to act as a faithful mouthpiece for Downing Street. For some good sense on this, please red Benedict Brogan: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100023701/david-cameron-is-a-unionist-remember/
*
All in a morning's work at the Today programme.
This morning's Today programme was noticeably left-liberal in its orientation again.
*
At 7.09 John Humphrys discussed British social attitudes with sociologist Alison Park of the National Centre for Social Research. The results show that "Britain has become more liberal over the last 25 years with greater tolerance of homosexuality and co-habitation. The report also found that for the first time in 20 years more people identify themselves as Conservative and not Labour supporters." John Humphrys chose to focus the interview on the former (especially attitudes towards homosexuality) rather than the latter, though not before Alison had chose as examples of the "recent swing more towards the right" the fact that "people have become less sympathetic towards the poor, less accepting of the need to reduce inequality between rich and poor." That this lady is also a Fabian is hardly surprising.
*
The greater tolerance towards homosexuality was discussed with another left-winger, high tribal Labour MEP Michael Cashman, former Eastenders actor and gay rights campaigner (I.C. of 0.5 for John Humphrys), though here he was joined by former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie.
The issue of climate change (meaning 'global warming') was dominant. There were plenty of weasel words over the IPCC's discredited claims over the alleged melting glaciers of the Himalayas from Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele of the IPCC at 7.12. He claimed (counter-intuitively) that the scandal "could increase the credibility of the IPCC." That was not strong enough however for the Today programme's website who ignore the "could" in the professor's statement and go not just for dead certainty but also for a completely unwarranted use of the past tense: "Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chair of the IPCC, told Sarah Montague that the IPCC had gained credibility from its ability to admit its mistakes and argued that the other claims in the report were "very strong"." That is not what he said.
*
This issue was revisited later in the programme (8.53) with an environment campaigner and a leading climate sceptic. Only joking! Of course there was no 'climate sceptic'! Instead we had Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, and a highly intolerant Tony Juniper, climate change campaigner and former director of Friends of the Earth (and a Green Party parliamentary candidate). Both backed the IPCC. The discussion was presided over by John Humphrys. (Would that Andrew Neil had been in charge of it instead!!)
(Even this wasn't enough, so we had a report from Tom Fielden (at 8.44) on 'ocean acidification', "an issue biologists have dubbed the "elephant in the corner" of the climate change debate", according to the Today programme's website.)
*
Assisted suicide was discussed (at 7.16) by Sarah Montague with a Labour peer, Lord Joffe, "who has campaigned for a long time to get the law on assisted suicide changed" - of course in favour of a more liberal approach (I.C. of 0.3)
*
Mark Mardell reported on the rise of the Tea Party movement in America (at 7.23). The 'elephant in the room' in American politics is no longer being ignored (as it no longer can be ignored, even by the most dogged Democrat supporter at the BBC). This being Mark Mardell a totally straight, totally unbiased report was out of the question. He asked a Tea Party-goer this deeply loaded question: "How much is it a movement of 'the people' or how much is it a movement of largely white, largely quite well off people?" Are there strong grounds for that allegation, or is it just a smear?
*
EXTRA: Please have a read of the wonderful David Preiser's comments on this on the Biased BBC website: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-thread_23.html#comments
**
Who's "not helping the talks today" in Northern Ireland, according to Nick Robinson (at 8.20)? The Conservatives and their 'secret talks' with the UUP and DUP, that's who! Robinson reported on the suspicions and 'anger' of Labour and their allies the SDLP (and the Alliance Party) at David Cameron, with Sarah Montague pushing those suspicions even further forward. You can bank on old Nick to act as a faithful mouthpiece for Downing Street. For some good sense on this, please red Benedict Brogan: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100023701/david-cameron-is-a-unionist-remember/
*
All in a morning's work at the Today programme.
Monday, 25 January 2010
JOHN HUMPHRYS REFUSES TO BE AWAY WITH THE AIRY FAIRIES
*
The tendency of the Today programme to base its stories more on the findings of left-of-centre think tanks than their right-of-centre counterparts was in evidence again today.
*
At 6.49 John Humphrys discussed economic growth with Andrew Simms of the New Economic Foundation, a red-green think tank. Mr Simms's central point was this: "We've looked at how much economic growth the world can get away with while it stays the right side of dangerous climate change and the results are not good. It's extremely difficult if not impossible to square the circle." We have to free ourselves as much as possible from the need for fossil fuels, he said, and we should re-order our economy, giving up on the idea of perpetual economic growth.
*
The programme's producers may have been on board with all this guff but, to his credit, John Humphrys was having none of it, calling it "airy-fairy". Being very much an Old Left man, JH is not in tune with the wishy-washy utopianism of the New Left. He wasn't much in tune with Mr Simms's line of analogy either (which was funny!).
*
The tendency of the Today programme to base its stories more on the findings of left-of-centre think tanks than their right-of-centre counterparts was in evidence again today.
*
At 6.49 John Humphrys discussed economic growth with Andrew Simms of the New Economic Foundation, a red-green think tank. Mr Simms's central point was this: "We've looked at how much economic growth the world can get away with while it stays the right side of dangerous climate change and the results are not good. It's extremely difficult if not impossible to square the circle." We have to free ourselves as much as possible from the need for fossil fuels, he said, and we should re-order our economy, giving up on the idea of perpetual economic growth.
*
The programme's producers may have been on board with all this guff but, to his credit, John Humphrys was having none of it, calling it "airy-fairy". Being very much an Old Left man, JH is not in tune with the wishy-washy utopianism of the New Left. He wasn't much in tune with Mr Simms's line of analogy either (which was funny!).
*
Thursday, 21 January 2010
WHO'S LEFT IN?
*
This morning's Today was almost completely free of right-of-centre voices.
*
Charges for online newspapers were discussed with Tim Luckhurst, "Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent and a former editor of the Scotsman" in the words of the programme. If the name is familiar to you it's because he used to report for the BBC. He had previously worked for the Labour Party (standing for them in the 1987 general election) and now writes for The Guardian, which he praised on today's programme as "a great British newspaper". He also praised the Guardian's ideological soulmate, the BBC for its "excellent journalism" (sic) .
*
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Wallace was invited on to discuss government cuts to funding for counter-terrorism programmes in Pakistan (with Brown being caught out again by a blundering admission of reality from Her Ladyship Kinnock), though he was more interested in attacking David Cameron (for some reason). John Humphrys's interruption coefficient here was a paltry 0.2 (Lord Wallace not being a Tory). Later Labour MP Kim Howells came on to respond (I.C. of 0.5).
*
The abuse of the internet by rogue governments was discussed by Sarah Montague with a lawyer Robert Amsterdam and Labour MP Tom Watson (a ex-crony of McBride in Brown's inner circle), I.C of 0.5.
*
Obama's popularity (or increasing lack of it) was discussed with left-wing Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who made every possible excuse (unconvincingly) for the president.
*
I will pass over Observer film critic and BBC presenter Mark Kermode discussing the BAFTAs - as he's a BBC institution now, offering left-wing film reviews to all and sundry.
*
On at the end was a (presumably) right-of-centre voice featured, in duet with another (definite) left-winger: Richard Exell, labour market expert for the TUC (praising the government, warning against a change of government), and Katja Hall, director of employment policy at the CBI.
This morning's Today was almost completely free of right-of-centre voices.
*
Charges for online newspapers were discussed with Tim Luckhurst, "Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent and a former editor of the Scotsman" in the words of the programme. If the name is familiar to you it's because he used to report for the BBC. He had previously worked for the Labour Party (standing for them in the 1987 general election) and now writes for The Guardian, which he praised on today's programme as "a great British newspaper". He also praised the Guardian's ideological soulmate, the BBC for its "excellent journalism" (sic) .
*
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Wallace was invited on to discuss government cuts to funding for counter-terrorism programmes in Pakistan (with Brown being caught out again by a blundering admission of reality from Her Ladyship Kinnock), though he was more interested in attacking David Cameron (for some reason). John Humphrys's interruption coefficient here was a paltry 0.2 (Lord Wallace not being a Tory). Later Labour MP Kim Howells came on to respond (I.C. of 0.5).
*
The abuse of the internet by rogue governments was discussed by Sarah Montague with a lawyer Robert Amsterdam and Labour MP Tom Watson (a ex-crony of McBride in Brown's inner circle), I.C of 0.5.
*
Obama's popularity (or increasing lack of it) was discussed with left-wing Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who made every possible excuse (unconvincingly) for the president.
*
I will pass over Observer film critic and BBC presenter Mark Kermode discussing the BAFTAs - as he's a BBC institution now, offering left-wing film reviews to all and sundry.
*
On at the end was a (presumably) right-of-centre voice featured, in duet with another (definite) left-winger: Richard Exell, labour market expert for the TUC (praising the government, warning against a change of government), and Katja Hall, director of employment policy at the CBI.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
DAVID WILLETTS SPEAKS FOR THE TORIES, AND SO DOES ED BALLS
*
Here's some of this morning blurb on the Today website:
This is not a true description. Ed Balls didn't discuss his party's policies at all. Both he and David Willetts discussed Conservative policies!
*
As for John Humphrys, well, he certainly tried to get Ed Balls to talk about his own party's policies (unsuccessfully). However, the interruption coefficients for each guest are an accurate reflection of his partiality during the affair: 2.3 against David Willetts, 1.3 against Ed Balls. He let one of Balls's answers go on for an age and allowed some of that overgrown kid's anti-Tory attacks to go on well beyond the point where most other interviewers would have felt the need to step in.
*
John Humphrys, incidentally, also got to see some Van Goghs (lucky man). Here's one of my favourites, 'Red Vineyards.'
*
Here's some of this morning blurb on the Today website:
The pre-election campaign moves onto families today. The government is to launch its green paper on families as the Conservatives publish the families section of their draft manifesto. Ed Balls, Secretary for Children, Schools and Families,
and his shadow David Willetts, discuss their party's policies.
This is not a true description. Ed Balls didn't discuss his party's policies at all. Both he and David Willetts discussed Conservative policies!
*
As for John Humphrys, well, he certainly tried to get Ed Balls to talk about his own party's policies (unsuccessfully). However, the interruption coefficients for each guest are an accurate reflection of his partiality during the affair: 2.3 against David Willetts, 1.3 against Ed Balls. He let one of Balls's answers go on for an age and allowed some of that overgrown kid's anti-Tory attacks to go on well beyond the point where most other interviewers would have felt the need to step in.
*
John Humphrys, incidentally, also got to see some Van Goghs (lucky man). Here's one of my favourites, 'Red Vineyards.'
*
Thursday, 14 January 2010
WHERE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTIES GONE?
*
It's been a busy week this week, so apologies for the falling-off in the amount of blogging I've been able to do. A quick skim through the past 24 hours follows!
*
Tonight's PM discussed Obama's moves against bankers with...a Labour MP, John Mann. That's who you'd issue your only invitation to discuss Obama's moves with, isn't it? Thankfully Eddie Mair was on hand to insure that the sometimes excellent/sometimes deeply mistaken Mr Mann was made to work for his supper!
*
The other political section was given over to a report by Ross Hawkins on political caretakers, inspired by Arlene Foster's assumption of the DUP leadership. As well as (rightly) talking to Vince Cable and Margaret Beckett, the two most recent caretaker leaders, he also sought the advice of Sir Michael White of The Guardian. How typical of young Ross to seek wisdom from the likes of Sir Michael! This lunchtime's WATO sought the expertise of the Independent's former Latin American editor Colin Harding on Haiti. It's funny how often journalists from those two particular newspapers crop up on BBC programmes.
*
This tendency to tilt reports towards the Left is a common trait of BBC bias. Paul Moss's report on Irish emigration on last night's The World Tonight talked to Parias MacEnri, a lecturer in migration studies, and novelist Colm Toibin, but also to a politician, Senator Alex White (naturally) of the Labour Party. Similarly, Giles Dilnot's report on the future of the BBC, featured Peter Bazalgette, the man who brought us Big Brother, and someone introduced as Carole Tongue of the Citizen's Coalition for Public Service Broadcasting - an ominous-sounding organisation if I ever heard one!! She's a former Labour MEP, and like many a former Labour MP/MEP, has fingers in a huge number of pies.
*
John Humphrys returned this morning and his first political interview was with Sir Alan Beith (just before 7.00). The topic was prisons. Sir Alan, being a good liberal, is not keen on them. Neither, being a good leftie, is John Humphrys, so they got on together without a single interruption.
*
Voices from the Right-of-Centre have been conspicious by their absence.
It's been a busy week this week, so apologies for the falling-off in the amount of blogging I've been able to do. A quick skim through the past 24 hours follows!
*
Tonight's PM discussed Obama's moves against bankers with...a Labour MP, John Mann. That's who you'd issue your only invitation to discuss Obama's moves with, isn't it? Thankfully Eddie Mair was on hand to insure that the sometimes excellent/sometimes deeply mistaken Mr Mann was made to work for his supper!
*
The other political section was given over to a report by Ross Hawkins on political caretakers, inspired by Arlene Foster's assumption of the DUP leadership. As well as (rightly) talking to Vince Cable and Margaret Beckett, the two most recent caretaker leaders, he also sought the advice of Sir Michael White of The Guardian. How typical of young Ross to seek wisdom from the likes of Sir Michael! This lunchtime's WATO sought the expertise of the Independent's former Latin American editor Colin Harding on Haiti. It's funny how often journalists from those two particular newspapers crop up on BBC programmes.
*
This tendency to tilt reports towards the Left is a common trait of BBC bias. Paul Moss's report on Irish emigration on last night's The World Tonight talked to Parias MacEnri, a lecturer in migration studies, and novelist Colm Toibin, but also to a politician, Senator Alex White (naturally) of the Labour Party. Similarly, Giles Dilnot's report on the future of the BBC, featured Peter Bazalgette, the man who brought us Big Brother, and someone introduced as Carole Tongue of the Citizen's Coalition for Public Service Broadcasting - an ominous-sounding organisation if I ever heard one!! She's a former Labour MEP, and like many a former Labour MP/MEP, has fingers in a huge number of pies.
*
John Humphrys returned this morning and his first political interview was with Sir Alan Beith (just before 7.00). The topic was prisons. Sir Alan, being a good liberal, is not keen on them. Neither, being a good leftie, is John Humphrys, so they got on together without a single interruption.
*
Voices from the Right-of-Centre have been conspicious by their absence.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS STRIKES PAST
*
Unite, the union at my own workplace (of which I am not a member), are continuing their campaign to return Britain to the 1970s. Following on from their set-back over B.A., this morning's Today highlighted that they are also leading a strike of electronics workers at Fujitsu. Correspondent Judy Hobson spoke first to two of the workers, then John Humphrys spoke to "Roger Seifert, professor of Industrial Relations at Wolverhampton Business School", asking him, "Is there anything in what that lady said there that they're just using the recession, companies like that, to push down wages and conditions?" Prof Seifert replied, "Oh absolutely true" and went on to attack business ("big multi nationals"). He sounded like a true old-style leftie and, checking him out, it turns out that he's just that - an academic 'socialist' (see
http://solidaritymagazine.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/hazards-conference-2008/ and http://www.sochealth.co.uk/confs/labreform.htm). He was so far-left even John Humphrys baulked at some of the simplistic things he was saying! (A professor! God help his students!)
*
*
*
Evan Davis discussed serial killers with another leftie academic, introduced as "Professor David Wilson, a criminologist at Birmingham City University and author of A History of British Serial Killing". He often pops up on the BBC whenever a serial killer is in the news, discussing the subject from a left-liberal perspective - just how regularly can be guaged by his reaction to Evan's salutation, "Good morning": "Good morning Evan, nice to talk to you again." Not mentioned, though, is the fact that he's also 'Vice-Chair of the Howard League for Penal Reform'. (The BBC are always talking to them again!). Today though he pretty much struck to telling stories about serial killers past.
*
Unite, the union at my own workplace (of which I am not a member), are continuing their campaign to return Britain to the 1970s. Following on from their set-back over B.A., this morning's Today highlighted that they are also leading a strike of electronics workers at Fujitsu. Correspondent Judy Hobson spoke first to two of the workers, then John Humphrys spoke to "Roger Seifert, professor of Industrial Relations at Wolverhampton Business School", asking him, "Is there anything in what that lady said there that they're just using the recession, companies like that, to push down wages and conditions?" Prof Seifert replied, "Oh absolutely true" and went on to attack business ("big multi nationals"). He sounded like a true old-style leftie and, checking him out, it turns out that he's just that - an academic 'socialist' (see
http://solidaritymagazine.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/hazards-conference-2008/ and http://www.sochealth.co.uk/confs/labreform.htm). He was so far-left even John Humphrys baulked at some of the simplistic things he was saying! (A professor! God help his students!)
*
*
*****
**
Evan Davis discussed serial killers with another leftie academic, introduced as "Professor David Wilson, a criminologist at Birmingham City University and author of A History of British Serial Killing". He often pops up on the BBC whenever a serial killer is in the news, discussing the subject from a left-liberal perspective - just how regularly can be guaged by his reaction to Evan's salutation, "Good morning": "Good morning Evan, nice to talk to you again." Not mentioned, though, is the fact that he's also 'Vice-Chair of the Howard League for Penal Reform'. (The BBC are always talking to them again!). Today though he pretty much struck to telling stories about serial killers past.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
