A WARK DOWN (BAD) MEMORY LANE

*
Last night's Newsnight contained a few echoes of one of the programme's most biased pre-election editions, chronicled here:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/liz-mckeans-very-biased-report-gavin.html
*
To mark David Cameron's first foreign trip as prime minister, meeting President Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace, Peter Marshall followed him to Paris. As soon as I heard Mr Marshall talk about "a history of upsets and insults", I thought 'They're bound to bring up George Osborne's joke about Sarko's height' ("the Sarkozy box" remark), from which particular molehill the programme had made almost as much of a mountain as the French. It wasn't too long in coming: "If British Euroscepticism has deep roots, there's a current bete noire here in Paris and he's the new British chancellor. It was the moment last August when Mr Osborne, at a business conference, poked fun at President Sarkozy's stature. That very personal insult appalled the French, whatever their political stripe. They felt it unforgivably rude" (Molehill, mountain). Cue a French leftist (not introduced as such of course), former Europe minister Noelle Lenoir, who called Mr Osborne "immature". Oh well, I suppose they had to bring it up, didn't they? And seek out someone from the Left to comment on it as well? As well at Mme Lenoir, Peter Marshall also sought out Cameron's "old sparring partner" Jean-Francois Cope of the Europhile UMP.
*
Who did Kirsty Wark talk to in the wake of this Tory-free report? The German ambassador , the French ambassador and...Chris Bryant, shadow minister for Europe. (Why Chris Bryant?)
*
And what was Kirsty's first question to the French ambassador "Ambassador, before we go on and talk about the future, let's talk about the state of the relationship before David Cameron came to power yesterday (sic), the unfortunate comments by George Osborne about President Sarkozy's stature, and on the other side what Sarkozy said about the fact that the Tories left the EPP, said that was "autistic and sad". The relationship has not been of the best up till now, has it?" M Gourdault-Montagne, being an ambassador (a role the presenter clearly doesn't understand), refused to play along and make the second part of his surname out of any more molehills but Kirsty Wark, never the diplomat, soon crashed into his answer and tried again: "And yet, and yet just months ago, sorry to interrupt you (yeah, sure you are!) and yet..are you telling me now that when President Sarkozy said it was "sad and autistic" of the Tories to leave the EPP, he was telling fibs?" When he replied diplomatically, she laughed at him derisively.
*
And on she went, turning next to the German ambassador and saying "And by the same token Angela Merkel was clearly very angry as well when the Conservatives left the EPP. She was supposedly furious about it. How do you create a relationship where you're saying that you actually want Britain to be part of the European discussions about what happens to the Eurozone but you don't believe, as it were, that they're in the right position?" Herr Boomgaarden gave the answer Mr Gourdault-Montagne should have given when Kirsty laughed at his answer: "I'm an ambassador of a country not of a party. That means I don't comment on party-party relations." Exactly.
*
I like Ambassador Boomgaarden. I've talked before about the BBC's keenness to get British taxpayers to fork out lots of money to save (a) the Greeks and (b) the Euro. When Kirsty shot off down this increasingly familiar line of BBC questioning, like a ferret down a spacious pair of trousers, he responded in a way that (however convincing you find it) made my wallet feel a lot happier:
*
Kirsty (interrupting): "And how do you exactly see evidence of that 'constructive new relationship'? Could it be down to how much Britain is prepared to put in to help the Eurozone's financial problems?"
Ambassador: "This sounds as if we need help for the Euro..."
Kirsty: "Do you not?"
Ambassador: "No we do not. The Euro is a firm, stable and wonderful monetary unit. It works. It went up today."
*
Again, like a determined ferret in the late, great Cyril Smith's trousers, Kirsty wasn't going to be deflected. My wallet looked worried again as she turned to the French ambassador and asked: "How do you want Britain to proceed? You already have this promise from Alistair Darling of the 8 billion euros (my wallet had forgotten about that!). Do you think there should be a further financial contribution from the British?" M Gourdault-Montagne said, sensibly enough, that the important thing was for Britain, and all other EU countries, to tackle its deficit - as that is the root of the problem. (Yes, cheers Gordon for making ours among the worst of all!!)
*
At least putting a question for once from a devil's advocate position, Kirsty's next question (another interruption) to the French ambassador again showed her complete inability to grasp the concept of ambassadorship and ask questions appropriate to a diplomatic role: "But ambassador, do you think Britain actually in the end...Britain was right to stay outside the Eurozone, wasn't she?" That's a question you should ask a politician, not an ambassador. "It's not up to us to say", he replied, speaking for the French nation but perhaps also speaking for ambassadors as a breed!
*
That she was playing devil's advocate (as all BBC interviewers should be doing at all appropriate times) was suggested by the way she put her next question: "Just finally Chris Bryant. You absolutely sure that Britain was right to stay outside the Eurozone for now and all time?" (Mr Bryant attacked the Conservatives and the coalition in both his answers, as if the election were still going on. Now how's that for "mature" politics? What would Mme Lenoir make of that? Thank goodness he's now a shadow of his former self!)

P.S. Why do BBC journalists think it's the done thing to remind foreign ambassadors about reasons to be angry with the British Conservatives? Who does that help? The French and Germans? No. The British? No. The British opposition? Perhaps. It's a strange practice, isn't it?

YET ANOTHER WARK ON THE BIASED SIDE

*
That "Cadbury's Law" which sounds so tasty to that BBC reporter was the main subject on last night's Newsnight, the basic gist of which can be copied and pasted from the live blog itself:

2248: Newsnight's political editor Michael Crick says Cadbury's Law will be a hard policy for the Conservatives to criticise. It's a patriotic issue - protecting UK firms from predatory foreign companies - and is likely to appeal to many traditional Tory voters, he says.
2242: "Cadbury's Law" is set to be a feature of the Labour manifesto, BBC Newsnight has learned. The policy has been prompted by the Kraft takeover of British chocolate giant Cadbury - American firm Kraft promised to keep the main factory open before the deal was agreed, but then changed its mind afterwards. Under Cadbury's Law, it would be harder for overseas takeovers of UK companies to happen - requiring two thirds of shareholders to agree, not 50% as it is now. Newsnight's economic editor Paul Mason says it's the main concession to the Unite union in the Labour manifesto.

Ah, a little Old Labour protectionism to warm the cockles of a Beeboid's heart, fire-proofed against Tory attack - according to Michael Crick! On the programme itself he called it "a very tricky issue for the Conservatives". (Guess what though? The Lib Dems support Labour on this!)
*
What though of the other measure discussed in the programme - "Tory marriage plans"? Kirsty Wark turned to Crick and asked "More ideology that actual effect, or what?" In response, Crick emphasized the "symbolism" of the move, especially in trying to show "the Conservative commitment under David Cameron to civil partnerships, to gay marriage - and that's particularly important after the trouble they had only a few days ago, after Chris Graying's comments about bed and breakfasts being allowed to refuse gay couples staying." Ah, back to that again! What a surprise!
*
Kirsty then turned to Paul Mason (who had earlier downplayed the importance of Unite to Labour's anti-Kraftwerk wheeze), and again asked a question from a stance hostile to the Tories' plans (this time from a feminist angle): "Is this an encouragement for one of the marriage (sic), probably the woman, to stay at home?"
*
Interviewing Ed Davey of the Lib Dems, Kirsty, Newsnight's most biased interviewer, turned to the subject of the Tory marriage proposals and asked Mr Davey this testing question: "And how are we on the tax break in the Liberal Democrats then?" Mr Davey, being a Lib Dem, laid into the Tory plan with a vengeance. "Let's see how ludicrous this proposal is," he ended. "If you've been widowed, you're there in bereavement, you're going to have this take break taken away from you at that point? That surely can't be right." Any half-decent interviewer, acting at all times as devil's advocate, would then surely have felt it their obvious duty to ask the next question from a stance supportive of the Conservative position. This is Kirsty Wark though, so instead she merely echoed Ed Davey's point, and asked "And presumably the same will happen if couples split up and the the woman is left behind, she loses out as well." Well might Mr Davey have begun his reply "Absolutely!"
*
Kirsty is both incompetent and deeply biased. Mere guidelines on impartiality during a general election mean nothing to her.

ANOTHER WARK ON THE BIASED SIDE

*
Only a few days ago I warned of the dangers for Conservative spokesmen of being interviewed with their Labour and Lib Dem opposite numbers by Kirsty Wark. Last night's short Newsnight debate provided more proof of that.
*
The issue was policing and the guests were David Hanson (Labour), Chris Grayling (Conservative) and the ubiquitous Chris Huhne (Lib Dem).
*
The interruptions flew, and they flew mostly at Mr Grayling (called 'Christopher' throughout by Kirsty).
*
Who received the most interruptions?
***Chris(topher) Grayling - 6 (I.C. of 2.6)
***Chris 'Huhnework' Huhne - 3 (I.C. of 1.9)
***David Hanson - 2 (I.C. of 1.0)
*
The interruptions were only one aspect of the bias. As ever, Kirsty aimed her fire at the Tory:
*
Who was questioned the hardest?
***Chris Grayling - 8 questions
***David Hanson - 4 questions
***Chris Huhne - 3 questions
*
She also ended one of her volleys against Mr Grayling with a classic editorial criticism of his final answer before moving straight on to another guest (without giving him the chance to defend himself against her criticism).
*
All of this was easily predictable. Kirsty Wark is one of the worst interviewers on the BBC.

WARKING WITH POLITICIANS

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

KIRSTY GOES A-ROVING

*
Time to begin catching up.
*
Thursday's Newsnight began on the theme of high-speed rail. The transport spokesmen - and spokeslady - from the three biggest parties were gathered for interview by Kirsty Wark. Here's how the statistics break down for the encounter - and they're hardly surprising ones, given the interviewer:
*
Theresa Villiers (Con) - 5 interruptions, I.C. of 2.1
Lord Adonis (Lab) - 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.3
Norman Baker (LD) - 2 interruptions, I.C. of 0.9
*
Then Peter Marshall, ignoring the present (including all those embarrassing scandals for the Democrats), turned back to the Bush era for an unflattering portrait of Karl Rove. There were three talking heads:
*
- Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
- Wayne Slater, author Bush's Brain
- Paul Glastris, President Clinton's speechwriter, 1998-2001
*
Mr Ornstein's one-and-only contribution consisted of little more than some uncontroversial general comments about how Mr Rove helped George Bush. Mr Ornstein, according to Wikipedia is "generally considered to be a liberal", even though he is with a conservative-leaning think tank. (Also see http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/norman-ornstein)
*
Mr Slater of The Dallas Morning News is an out-and-out opponent and, if a Google-trawl is anything to go by, not popular with American conservatives. (The follow-up to Bush's Brain bears the title Rove Exposed: How Bush's Brain Fooled America). Here he attacked the 'viciousness' of Rove's campaign tactics. He got two bites of the cherry.
*
That Mr Glastris, having being Bill's speechwriter and also being editor in chief of the left-leaning Washington Monthly, might also be a critic is hardly surprising.
*
I've not reviewed too many of Peter Marshall's reports on this blog, having usually fast-forwarded through them (through lack of time), but those I have watched have tended very strongly towards the Left in their choice of 'talking heads': http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search?q=Peter+Marshall
*
Kirsty then interviewed Mr Rove & concentrated her questions on (a) WMD, (b) water-boarding and (c) 'turd-blossom'.
*

MICHAEL GOVE STRIKES BACK

*
It's finally happened - possibly too late, but hopefully not!

Michael Gove put the biased BBC on notice that the Conservative Party will be watching it closely from now on. Last night's Newsnight inevitably led with Lord Ashcroft, and a report by Michael Crick. Then Michael Gove came on to be interviewed by Kirsty Wark. All Kirsty's guns were fired, resulting in a very high I.C. of 2.3, but Mr Gove not only stood his ground but fired back. He demanded to know why the BBC had not been pursuing Labour and the Lib Dems over their non-dom donors and when Kirsty kept weakly repeating that she was sure all parties would be questioned over everything over the coming weeks (which in itself would hardly make up for years of anti-Tory bias on this issue!) he made it clear that his party would be on their case if this isn't so.
*
Good! About time!
*
I'm only human, so forgive me for hoping that all my e-mails to the Conservatives in recent weeks (including a few to Mr Gove) might just have helped sow a few seeds in them about BBC bias. Maybe, maybe not. Then again, the sheer scale of the BBC's anti-Conservative bias over this issue (as over so many others) hardly needs me to point it out to them and, hopefully, huge numbers of other people have been telling them similar things (though they shouldn't have needed either telling or prodding).
*
Let's hope that every Conservative and UKIP politician from now on fires back in the same way against BBC bias. It's the only way.
*

THERE'LL BE NO WELCOME IN THE STUDIOS

*
It was 'haves' and 'have-nots' on last night's Newsnight, which can only mean one thing - a report from old commie Paul Mason. The 'haves' were the wicked bankers making their evil profits, the 'have nots' were the public sector workers, ground beneath the heel of top-hatted capitalism and its running dogs.
*
As with yesterday's Greek report, Paul began at a protest with striking workers. We heard from two union members and their far-far-left leader Mark Serwotka (PCS union). For a change of perspective Mason then turned to...the TUC! We heard from Ken Mulkearn , editor of their IDS Pay Review, saying all going's to be well for the private sector but not for the public sector (well, he would say that, wouldn't he!) Marc Ostwald, strategist at Monument Securities, came next. Quite what his politics are I can't say! He was on to support Paul's contention that 'output theory' is 'wearing thin'. Then, with all the inevitability of a Bruce Forsyth catchphrase, on came Vince Cable to provide his 'expert' view.
*
At least Vince wasn't one of the guests in the following discussion with Kirsty Wark. Surprisingly that was John Redwood. Mr Redwood may not know the words of the Welsh national anthem (as the BBC still likes to remind us from time to time) but he is a wise voice, worthy of as many invites to the studios of the BBC as Vince himself (but getting VASTLY fewer such invites). He put up a characteristically strong performance. He was up against the aforementioned Mark Serwotka. John Redwood was interrupted three times (I.C. of 0.7). Kirsty's characteristically dumb questions to him went on about 'injustice'. Her first question to Mr Serwotka tempted him to attack the Tories (why not bite the Labour bullet Mark or face a pay freeze under the Tories?) and a later question showed yet again her sheer ineptness as an interviewer. I'm no expert on trade unions but even I already knew that the PCS union is not affiliated to the Labour Party (Labour's far too right-wing for Mr Serwotka and friends). Slursty didn't: "What do you think of the position of your union, for example? Do you think you should just set aside your relations with Labour in the hope than an incoming Conservative government's going to treat you better?"
*

KIRSTY TREATS THE TORY WORST

*
During last night's boisterous Newsnight discussion on electoral reform (AV) Kirsty Wark asked Eric Pickles 8 questions, Chris Huhne 6 and Peter Hain only 3. Fancy a BBC interviewer giving the Labour politician the easiest ride!
*
She interrupted Eric Pickles 5 times, Chris Huhne 3 times and Peter Hain only once. Fancy a BBC interviewer giving the Labour politician the easiest ride!
*
The resultant I.C.s were 2.0 for Eric Pickles, 1.3 for Chris Huhne and 0.7 for Peter Hain. Fancy a BBC interviewer giving the Labour politician the easiest ride!
*

ESLER DOESN'T QUITE GET IT

*
Opening question from Gavin Esler on today's Dateline: London: "First of all, why is he (Barack Obama) in so much trouble, because people outside the United States don't quite get this, I think?"
Well if all they'd been listening to (over the last couple of years) is the BBC, it would be hardly surprising they don't 'get it'. The Beeb's coverage of Barack Obama has been almost completely favourable, at times nearing adulation.
* '
There's an excellent take on the BBC's inability to 'quite get it' from DB on the Biased BBC website, prompted by an article by John Lloyd: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-lloyd-on-bbc-obama-bias.html. DB links to this excellent article by Brian Micklethwait, which was provoked by an Obama love-in on Kirsty Wark's new Review programme: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2010/01/bbc_thoughts_an.html. Brian points out, along the way, the sheer lack of competence in Kirsty's interviewing technique (something I've noted here before): "My third impression was that the chairing of this discussion was incompetent to the point of being ridiculous. Kirsty Wark should be giving a real talking-to. She was far too keen on joining in the discussion with her own opinions, instead of ensuring that all the other people present refrained from all talking at once." 'Far too keen on joining in the discussion with her own opinions' reminds me of Gavin Esler himself, though he is a far more competent interviewer than Kirsty Wark.
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - KIRSTY WARK

*
Kirsty Wark has not been overly busy lately but what she's lacked in quantity she's more than made up for in anti-Tory energy, as these very clear-cut results demonstrate:
*
09/10 Greg Clark Conservative 2.7
08/10 Jeremy Hunt Conservative 2.1
26/10 Mark Francois Conservative 1.5
09/10 Ed Miliband Labour 1
26/10 Chris Bryant Labour 0.6
27/10 Tony Wright Labour 0.3
*
(To put some anecdotal flesh on these damning figures, please click here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/blairs-long-wark-towards-europe.html
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/greg-clark-is-struck-by-two-low-fronts.html)

As far as averages for October go, these work out at:
*
Conservatives - 2.1
Labour - 0.6
*
Now this has been an extreme month for Kirsty! Looking over the longer term of 5 months and all of her 28 interviews though, the bias has hardly ever been any less extreme:

Conservatives (6) - 1.73
Labour (15) - 0.77
UKIP (1) - 0.7
Lib Dems (4) - 0.6
SNP (2) - 0.3
*
This is pretty damning. If Martha Kearney is a saint, Kirsty Wark is very definitely a sinner!

BLAIR'S LONG WARK TOWARDS EUROPE

*
Robin Horbury on the Biased BBC website pointed out that David Miliband got a very easy ride on yesterday's The World at One (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/10/pushover-for-miliband.html). He certainly did. The interview lasted just under 6 minutes and Martha Kearney did not interrupt him once, nor were the questions especially tough (I.C. of 0). When Martha interviewed George Osborne later, in a 4 1/2 minute interview, she interrupted him twice (I.C. of 0.5), and told him off for repeating himself!
*
This contrast in treatment was as nothing compared to the Newsnight discussion between Labour's Chris Bryant and the Conservatives' Mark Francois, as conducted by Kirsty Wark. The issue was 'Blair 4 EU president' and the interview was nakedly one-sided, with Kirsteen attacking Mr Francois - who opposes Blair's presidency -, asking him 10 questions, while letting Mr Bryant almost completely off the hook, asking him a mere 2 questions - despite both guests getting similar amounts of time to speak!
*
As for interruptions, Bryant was interrupted twice (though the second of these was so that Kirsty could have another go at Mark Francois), scoring her an I.C. of 0.6 for him, whereas Francois was interrupted 5 times, scoring her an I.C. for him of 1.5 (all to ask him more questions).
*
She also took up Mr Bryant's accusations against Mr Francois, and put them to him as a question, but she did not take up any of Mr Francois's counter-accusations and put them back to Mr Bryant - such as the point that Tony Blair has hardly been a great success in his job as Middle East envoy (which surely she ought to have put to him).
*
All in all, a pair of clearly biased interviews from the clearly biased Beeb.
**

BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE SOME BIAS?

*
Last night's Newsnight was a special from New York on the Great Depression and its lessons for today. If ever a programme demonstrated the BBC's left-wing cultural and political bias this was it.
*
The opening report from Paul Mason on the economic lessons of the Great Depression featured as its main expert Max Fraad-Wolff, a left-liberal economist from the 'progressive university' The New School and a regular blogger on the ultra-liberal Huffington Post website. The other two 'talking heads' were Professor Mark Gertler of New York University, a 'New Keynesian' economist, and Professor Alan Brinkley, 'progressive historian' of the New Deal at Columbia University.
*
The following roundtable discussion, hosted by Kirsty Wark, featured one of America's leading left-liberal voices, Arianna Huffington herself (of Huffington Post fame). Alongside her was our own Simon Schama, who left-wing views are well known. With these voices of the Left were Liaquat Ahamed, author of 'Lords of Finance', and Andrew Ross Sirkin, author of 'Too Big to Fail'. Mr Ahamed made plenty of left-wing noises, but the oft-interrupted Mr Sirkin sounded less shrill.
*
Next came another report from Paul Mason, this time looking at the cultural lessons of the Great Depression. Its main talking heads were cultural historian Morris Dickstein, author of 'Dancing in the Dark' and a proud, self-professed liberal, and one of Newsnight Review's regular gaggle of yakking lefties, the literature lecturer and frequent contributor to The Guardian and The Independent Sarah Churchwell. The third voice was the Obama-supporting head of the America's National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman.
*
For Kirsty's other roundtable discussion, guess who remained? Arianna Huffington and Simon Schama, of course. They were joined by another occasional Guardianista and Newsnight Review leftie, Hari Hunzru.and a cultural critic called David D'Arcy. What a left-wing love-in followed!
*
Even by the standards of Newsnight, this was a tour-de-force of bias.
*

GREG CLARK IS STRUCK BY TWO COLD FRONTS

*
3 hard questions were put to Ed Miliband on tonight's Newsnight by Kirsty Wark, with 3 interruptions, scoring her an I.C. of 1.0.
*
Then she turned to his Conservative shadow Greg Clark. From then on Ed Miliband had it easy, interrupting Mr Clark whenever he felt like it, having Kirsty Wark follow his agenda and take up his challenge to Greg Clark over wind turbines, and receiving no more hard questions.

Mr Clark, in contrast, got 7 hard questions and was interrupted 7 times by Kirsty Wark. Her I.C. here was a whopping 2.7.

Greg Clark must have felt under attack on two fronts.

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - KIRSTY WARK

*
A very quiet month for Kirsty Wark, with only two relevant interviews:

Alistair Darling Labour 1.4
Nigel Farage UKIP 0.7

BLINK AND YOU'LL MISS HIM!

**
Kirsty Wark's interview with Nigel Farage, following Crick's report, lasted all of 1 minute 34 seconds. Astonishing! With so much to ask Mr Farage about, especially his decision to stand down as leader of UKIP in the UK (which was not asked about), and with his party holding it's annual conference, you would have expected (and been right to expect) a longer interview.

Now, despite giving him only 1 minute 34 seconds of her precious time, Kirsty still went on to interrupt Nigel Farage! Her I.C. was 0.7.

Her questions were hostile in tone:

"Why not make this a fair fight if you want to be taken seriously for Westminster and go into a constituency where candidates actually campaign?"

"So basically it's a publicity stunt, as you've said." (As NF pointed out, he'd said no such thing.)

"Oh, but, but, if you look what UKIP did... 2 1/2% of the electorate supported UKIP last time round. You're never going to make a mark on that seat!"

Kirsty's "Thank you very much" at the end was abrupt and stern in tone. Her face was like thunder. Please watch it on the Newsnight website & you'll see what I mean!
*
P.S. As she also mentioned that Newsnight had tried to get John Bercow himself on (but that he wasn't available), I have a strong suspicion that Nigel Farage would not have received an invitation to appear at all had Bercow been prepared to appear.
**
***********************
*
Sadly not having the time to cover the BBC website as well (as I work full-time) I'm making a rare comment about it here. The Beeb's very young political correspondent Ross Hawkins reports on Nigel Farage's decision to step down as UKIP's domestic leader here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8237728.stm
It's a good piece, not at all hostile to UKIP. I enjoyed reading it. Well done, young man!
*
My congratulations most definitely don't extend to the piece's sub-headings (which would not be Ross's doing). These are ''Wild men'' and 'Tough'. Who the hell wrote these sub-headings? Why pick on two negatives? They are hardly representative of the piece itself. And why pick on two such irrelevant sub-headings? Truly bizarre - and another sign of the BBC's bias against the Right. Poor show, mystery sub-editor!

AUGUST'S I.C.s - KIRSTY WARK

*
Kirsty Wark had quite a busy August. Her figures for the month are agreeably unexpected.

25/8 Tessa Jowell, Labour - 1.7
17/8 Vince Cable, Lib Dem - 1.6
10/8 Hilary Benn, Labour - 1.2
12/8 Angela Eagle, Labour - 0.9
11/8 Ivan Lewis, Labour - 0.8
19/8 Douglas Alexander, Labour - 0.7
12/8 John Redwood, Conservative - 0.6
3/8 Vince Cable, Lib Dem - 0.5
3/8 John McFall, Labour - 0.4
5/8 Christine Graham, SNP - 0.4
10/8 Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem - 0.3
24/8 Alex Salmond, SNP - 0.2
26/8 Douglas Alexander, Labour - 0.2
4/8 Philip Hammond, Conservative - 0
12/8 Vince Cable, Lib Dem - 0


Average number of interruptions per political party:
********Labour - 0.8
********Lib Dems - 0.6
********Conservatives - 0.3
********SNP - 0.3

Who would have expected that? The SNP on 0.3, Kirsty's friends in Labour 0.8!! Credit where credit is due, well done Kirsty and keep it up!

DOCTOR GROSSMAN 'S DIAGNOSIS

*
David Grossman's report into the day's goings-on at Holyrood (Newsnight) is worth a comment or two.

Who did Grossman interview to make his report? Scottish Labour, that's who! Was the report about Scottish Labour's response to Megrahi's release? No, it was about the Kenny MacAskill and the SNP. So why interview Labour MSPs only? Odd, isn't it?

We heard from Scottish Labour leader, Iain Gray (briefly), then (at greater length) Dr Richard Simpson MSP, Labour, deputy justice minister 2001-2002, and finally (and briefly) Lord George Foulkes MSP (Labour). Now, Lord George was asked about Big Broon's silence over Megrahi's release (though not, of course, about England's victory in the Ashes!), but this topic took up all of 52 seconds of Grossman's report. The rest fixed squarely on the SNP and Labour's Dr Simpson was Grossman's trump-card in the report's central thrust - to challenge the 'under-three-months-to-live' prognosis that underlay MacAskill's grounds for 'compassion'. The Labour doc was "well qualified to comment", in Grossman's words, being "a GP who studied prostate cancer and ran a hospice". (He is, indeed, well-qualified to comment!). He cast doubt on the 'less-than-three-months-to-live' judgement - as did the report itself. This could only be harmful to the SNP.

Grossman's report was followed by an interview between Kirsty Wark and Alex Salmond which, surprisingly given the fireworks that went off during their most famous (or notorious) previous encounter, was a very modest affair with an I.C. of only 0.2. Kirsty was slagged off something rotten following that previous encounter, & was treading very carefully here. In question after question she kept calling Big Al 'first minister', in a way that made me laugh. It was as if she was trying too hard to be on her best behaviour!!

UNUSUAL BEHAVIOUR ALL ROUND

*
What's going on here?! The second post in a row about atypical behaviour at the BBC - and another compliment!

(I've not just begun a course of Prozac, honestly).

Firstly, Vince Cable of the Lib Dems got a thorough fisking by Kirsty Wark on Newsnight, earning her a 1.6 I.C. against the Great Sage and placing her in second place on my spreadsheet for this month (so far). Well done, Kirsty!

That said, it was, remarkably, the dancing doc's 8th appearance on my BBC list this month alone - 5 more than anyone else - which equates to an invitation to be interviewed by the BBC every other day!! So the Beeb still loves you really Vince!!

Secondly, Michael Crick did a report on bankers' bonuses, prompted (like the Cable interview) by the left-wing pressure group Compass's calls for a 'high-pay commission'. So, not a report about those wicked Tories. Amazing!!!

His report featured a snippet of Alistair Darling for Labour and Mark Hoban for the Conservatives, and was largely about the issue and its implications for politicians in general. Maybe the chance to drive about in a smart car & use lots of phrases like 'excess', 'bonus-laden' ,'bling', 'city slickers' & 'city whizz-kids' was enough fun for him.

That also said, today's Crick Count was:
*****Tory - 2
*****Conservative - 0

SLURSTY WARK AND THE LOCKERBIE BOMBER

Newsnight featured a discussion about the fate of convicted Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi. It was staged between the SNP's Christine Graham, who believes him to be innocent and wants him returned to Libya, and Frank Duggan, spokesman for the Lockerbie Victims, who emphatically does not.

Doing the interviewing was Kirsty Wark. She began by asking the MSP a series of questions, the first of which was wide-open and the second and third of which were essentially requests for factual information. So not a hard time.

Q1 (to Christine Graham): "You visited Al Megrahi regularly and most recently within the last two months. What makes you so sure he should be going home now?"

Q2 (to Christine Graham): "So ish his health deteriorated (sic) substantially since the last time you saw him?"

Q3 (to Christine Graham): "So just to be quite clear about this. He would bepared" (she meant 'be prepared') "to give up the appeal so therefore die a guilty man?"

When the time came to question Mr Duggan, however, the character of the interviewing changed. Both questions were closed ones, and the first was a heavilly-loaded one.

Q4 (to Frank Duggan): "So Frank Duggan, do you have any compassion for this convicted killer who is dying of cancer?"

Q5 (to Frank Duggan): "So tell me then, the fact that the UN observer at the time at the trial Hans Kochler believes that he should be allowed to go home, that has no sway with you?"

When Kirsty Wark turned back to Christine Graham she called her 'Christine' - a telling lapse into first-name terms from a presenter far too close to political power in Scotland.

Only her final question gave Mr Duggan the luxury of an open question...

Q6 (to Frank Duggan): "If Al Magrahi goes home what do you think will be the impact on the families?"

...but as "we're running out of time here", he was forcefully stopped in his tracks from giving an open answer! (So why ask the damn question in the first place then Kirsty?)

Kirsteen Ann Wark is a rubbish interviewer and I think I can guess where her sympathies lie on this issue - and I doubt I'm the only one.

KIM'S NO RONGER SO RONERY

The visit of Bill Clinton to the hellhole-that-is-North-Korea has been widely reported across the BBC today. It secured the release of two female American journalists sentenced to 12 years hard labour for 'illegal filming' (as I say, a hellhole). For that we can all be thankful. Except that it's not that simple...

*

On 'PM' today Eddie Mair went so far as to editorialise, calling the trip a "diplomatic success". (Is that for him to say?)

*

What does this 'diplomatic success' amount to? Kim Jong-Il kidnaps a couple of female American journalists to use as a bargaining chip with the US. The Obama administration finds out what Kim wants in return for their release. Kim demands a very high-profile visit from a famous American. The administration decides to give him just what he wants. Clinton visits Kim. Kim gets his photo-op. The journalists are freed. Kim's starving, imprisoned people remain not one jot less tyrannised. His neighbours remain not one joy less threatened. Is this what passes for a "diplomatic success" at the BBC these days?

*

What has been so conspicuous about today's coverage is the absence (so far) of any voices critical of the Clinton trip. Not one second of precious BBC air-time has been granted to a sceptical voice. The BBC website has been similarly free of dissent. Why?

*

Whether or not the Clinton trip is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing, a success or a failure, it is not for the BBC to say. Moreover, those very questions should be the meat and drink of the BBC's coverage, with supporters and critics clashing across the airwaves.

*

On 'Today' we had supporters only: John Everard, Labour's former ambassador to Pyonyang, and sociologist and Korean expert Aidan Foster-Carter of Leeds University (who writes for the 'Guardian'/'Observer') and on 'PM' there was another supporter, Miguel Marquez of ABC, former aide to Democratic senator Bill Richardson (who went to North Korea when Clinton was president).

*

Foster-Carter said "I know that already the predictable people are opposing all this and so on". He may know this, but Radio 4 listeners were not so fortunate. They ought to have been able to hear from the 'predictable people' too. F-C also said "Everyone should welcome the contact. The contact does no harm, although some would say that it's a concession and so on", but again no listener was able to hear a word from those 'some' who 'would say that it's a concession', and so on...

*

...and so on...

*

As well as praising Bill Clinton as that "sharp-eyed man", Jim Naughtie posed this leading question to his colleague: "This morning I spoke to our correspondent in Washington, Jonathan Beale, and asked him whether the Obama administration would view the visit as a success." Beale replied, " It's got the desired result. It's got the release of these two journalists."

&

And, thus, we end up back where we started.

*

NEWSNIGHT SAVES THE DAY, DESPITE KIRSTY

*

Finally Newsnight broke the silence & saved the BBC from total shame over this story!

*

Gordon Carrera's report gently raised some of the reservations expressed above and, at last, a 'predictable' voice was allowed to debate - and powerfully so. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and former Clinton advisor Jack Caravelli discussed the day's events with slurry Kirsty Wark. Mr Gaffney outlined the critics' case with considerable force and Mr Caravelli was a thoughtful and intelligent counterweight. The discussion was only marred by Kirsty Wark and her half-baked, Boosh-bashing questions.