EUROPIA THE BEAUTIFUL

*
Arch-Europhile James Naughtie discussed "what lies ahead for the EU" this morning with arch-Europhile and former VP of the European Commission Lord Brittan and arch-Europhile historian (and consequent Lib Dem supporter) Timothy Garton-Ash. The discussion was thoughtful, not without interest and, inevitably, given the current 'existential threats' to the Euro, not entirely free from angst either, but nonetheless it was a meeting of Europhile minds of the kind an unbiased broadcaster might not have considered entirely acceptable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8698000/8698581.stm
*
Incidentally, our old friend James Naughtie gave us a fine Freudian slip this morning (highlighted, aptly, in red), asking Leon Brittan: "Sort of intrigued about the arrival of Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister. Not as intrigued as you will be since he used to work in your office in Brussels. (Why doesn't that surprise me?) Were you surprised when you saw the deal unravel and have you offered him any advice?" You can hope, Labour Jim, you can hope!
*
Lord Brittan, no less incidentally, was delighted, clearly preferring the ConLib coalition to a Conservatives-only government (Why doesn't that surprise me either?)
*
*
Coda: The Today website's headline for this piece is classic BBC:
*
********Eurozone 'must keep the show on the road'
*
As a summary of the BBC narrative, this can hardly be bettered!!
*

JIMS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

*
Labour MP, and joint chair (hopefully not bought from John Lewis at our expense) of the Unite parliamentary group, Jim Sheridan was on Today this morning bellyaching about Ipsa (the "vindictive" Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority). James Naughtie was quick to "make it clear that this (the complaint against Ipsa) comes from all parties". Mr Sheridan got a sympathetic hearing. And more than that, he was extended a courtesy which I suspect might not have been extended to a Conservative MP with a comparable expenses record - Naughtie chose not to bring up any of his controversial expense claims - the plasma TV, the coffee table, the ivory leather bed, the Memory foam mattress, the new shower (etc), not to mention his enthusiastic use of the second home's allowance. He was also a very strong supporter of Speaker Martin, the Chief Trougher who famously fought tooth and nail against Freedom Of Information campaigners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5354087/Jim-Sheridan-claimed-for-plasma-TV-and-leather-bed.html
*
A new parliament, but not a new MP and not a new story.

OUT OF KILTER

*
The balance between the individual and the state was the theme of this morning's Today programme. The balance between the Today's programme's treatment of the three old parties is mine.
*
There were three big political interviews.
*
The first was a thoughtful one conducted between James Naughtie and Labour's John Denham, all very civilised on Jim's part, all very party political on John's.
*
The last was a less philosophical one between James Naughtie and the engaging Lib Dem David Laws, where Naughtie seemed more interesting in tying the Lib Dems to the Tories. Still, it was far from being a hostile interview.
*
What of the central interview? This was between Evan Davis and Conserative Michael Gove. Evan is more than capable of thoughtful interviewing (it used to be his forte) but this was no thoughtful interview, being full of aggressive interruptions and cynical comments. Michael Gove eventually had to criticise him for being so cynical - entirely reasonably - and then, good man!, went on to say that Today (among many other programmes) always concentrates on government initiatives and that he was glad today to get the rare chance to talk on the programme about exciting non-government initiatives. He's not wrong about that.
*
John Anderson (whose ideas, when I first began looking at how to use interruption coefficients a year or so ago, have helped shape all my subsequent actions) notes, over at B-BBC:
The intro was that Tory ideas are a "hodgepotch". Now that's a nice unbiased start! Then described as a "great fluff". And "half-baked".
*
What do the interruption coefficients tell us here?
*
John Denham (James Naughtie) - 0.4
David Laws (James Naughtie) - 0.5
Michael Gove (Evan Davis) - 1.4
*
Breaking down the Denham and Gove interviews shows the following:
*
John Denham

34.14 Q1
34.22 A1
34.58 Q2 (long & ponderous)
35.37 A2
36.13 Interruption 1/Q3
36.17 A3
36.30 Interruption 2/Q4
36.46 A4
37.38 Q5
37.54 A5
38.37 Q6
38.47 A6
39.27 Q7
39.40 A7
40.03 Interview ends

Michael Gove

10.47 Q1
11.00 A1
12.o2 Q2
12.30 A2
12.44 Interruption 1/Q3
12.54 A3
12.57 Interruption 2/Q4
13.05 A4
13.16 Interruption 3/Q5
13.35 A5
13.39 Interruption 4
13.42 A5 (continued)
13.44 Interruption 5/Q6
13.52 A6
14.13 Interruption 6/Q7
14.25 A7
14.27 Interruption 7
14.34 A7 (continued)
14.42 Interruption 8/Q8
14.49 A8
15.00 Q9
15.18 A9
15.22 Q10
15.26 A10
15.28 Interruption 9/Q11
15.45 A11
15.51 Interruption 10/Q12
16.09 A12
17.28 Q13
17.41 A13
17.48 Interruption 11/Q14
18.02 A14
18.06 Interruption 12
18.09 A14 (continued) - a brilliant answer!
19.34 Interview ends

It other words, it's the standard Today programme pattern.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8657000/8657637.stm

ONE PALTRY FACT

*
Another vignette from this morning's Today programme...
*
I think Jim Naughtie wanted us to learn a fact today - that the Conservatives are running fourth in Scotland, according to the opinion polls. He told us that before 7 o'clock. He repeated it as he introduced us to the SNP-Conservative marginal of Angus at 7.40. Then he repeated in again at the end of the programme (8.55). I will quote just one example, the final one, just to give you a flavour: "Decision day a week away. One element in the overall picture is going to be the result from Scotland, a distinct political community. To summarise, 59 seats, 1 of them held by the Tories in the last parliament, but they're running fourth in the polls. Labour are well ahead." (Earlier he described the Tory strength in parliament as "one paltry seat").
*
Naughtie's ponderous on-air essay from Angus would have had both SNP and UKIP listeners fuming, as it was both Unionist and pro-European in tone. (The SNP less so, as Naughtie was talking them up at the expense of the Conservatives). Naughtie said that past concerns about EU fishing quotas were now outweighed by the realisation that Europe (especially the French and Spanish markets) is vital for the area's economic success.
*

FRIENDS OF GORDON

*
So how did this morning's 'Today' deal with Bigotgate?
*
Norman Smith was in his usual 6.32 spot, and preferred to talk about tonight's election debate, discussing Brown's gaffe in that context only before moving on to Nick Clegg and David Cameron. Except for the obligatory paper reviews, that was all there was about the story in the first hour.
*
Gordon Brown didn't need to 'phone a friend'. Today did it for him. James Naughtie turned to the big story at 7.09: "The most painful aspect of the affair for Gordon Brown may well be the accusation from his opponents that this reveals the truth about his personality. Is that fair?" (Is it "fair", incidentally, for Naughtie to say that it is just his opponents who are saying this? Plenty of journalists and commentators from across the political spectrum and across the media have been saying it too.) "Well, we're joined from Shetland, as it happens, by an old friend of the prime minister's, who was a student with him when he started on the long political road that has lead to this moment, Dr Jonathan Wills."
*
"I don't recognise this monster that we get from people like Andrew Rawnsley of The Observer and Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun this morning.," he began. "It doesn't really help to demonise people. It's more important to understand them." He went on to talk about "the son of the manse". (I don't know about you, but if I hear that phrase one more time my radio might find itself flying half way to Gambia!)
*
And that was it for the second hour. A friend of Gordon (being interviewed by a friend of Labour).
*
At 8.10 Nick Robinson appeared and talked to James Naughtie. Nick appraised the situation fairly enough, pointing out why yesterday was so bad for Brown but why tonight still gives him the chance to turn things round again.
*
Who was up next? A political opponent? A pair of journalists from each wing of the political spectrum? A friend of Mrs Duffy's? No. After Gordon's friend came Labour's Alan Johnson. Mr Johnson defended both Mrs Duffy and Gordon Brown. Brown's an "unspun politician", was Mr Johnson's angle. (This is the quote now headlining the Today website, so it's their angle too). Naughtie asked some pertinent questions at the beginning of the interview, interrupting Mr Johnson five times, but the pressure was hardly intense and Naughtie quickly ceased fire. He then agreed with him that people will understand Brown's two-faced behaviour ('Who hasn't done it?', they both said), then stood back helpfully as Mr Johnson made his long "unspun politician" speech. The interruptions, by this stage had stopped. They didn't restart.
*
One late question shows just how useful to Labour James Naughtie can be in a tight spot: "Finally, isn't it clear that across the country something remarkable is happening? Now after yesterday it's a time for straight talking, after that episode. That's meant to be your forte". (Where's Diane Abbott and those sucky-sucky sounds she made to Keith Vaz when you need her?). 'Where's he going with this?', the listener would have been wondering. Is he going to ask something that would really put Mr Johnson on the spot at last? Hardly. This was the question that demanded such a straight answer: "Isn't this the oddest election you've known? What's going to happen in the next week?" Famously the shortest phrase in the King James Bible is "Jesus wept." I couldn't help remembering that nugget of information at just that moment.
*
And that was it for the third hour and for the programme.
*

BIAS IN TRIPLICATE

*
From this morning's Today:
*
0853
Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats want to replace the regional development agencies. In north-east England, the RDA has been more popular than some of its counterparts elsewhere. Professor John Tomaney, director for the Centre for urban and regional development at Newcastle University, and Ed Cox, director of the northern office of the think tank The Institute for Public Policy Research, analyses the dangers of similar products. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8631000/8631670.stm
*
It usually is the IPPR, the IPPR it usually is!
*
As ever James Naughtie merely named the organisation as a think tank, without adding any labels - such as 'left-leaning' or 'Labour-aligned'.
*
Ed Cox from the IPPR was clearly on the side of Labour's RDAs, presenting the case against as essentially being an argument put forward by London and the South East, which see "easy pickings" as far as savings are concerned, and adding "Well, the National Audit Office, which is an independent organisation, has recently reviewed the role of RDAs and has concluded that they are good value for money, that every pound they spend that three additional pounds are brought in." He was, prior to becoming director of IPPR North, policy advisor to Hazel Blears.
*
His other guest, Prof Tomaney, was also on the side of Labour's RDAs and enthusiastically so. Indeed, he is one of the leading advocates for them. Here are some facts about Prof Tomaney that James Naughtie chose not to mention:
*
- He wrote a report with former Labour MP David Marquand called 'Democratising England' for the 'Campaign for English Regions', which he chaired.
- He wrote 'Empowering the English Regions', with Michelle Mitchell of left-wing pressure group Charter 88 (now Unlock Democracy).
- He wrote a report with John Adams of the IPPR (oh yes!!!!) called 'Restoring the Balance', backing Labour's white paper on regional government.
- He has just been appointed a research fellow at The Smith Institute, the controversial 'charity' named after the late Labour leader John Smith and said to be extremely close to Gordon Brown.
*
This level of (hidden) bias is completely unacceptable.
*
And there's more too.
*
Prof Tomaney and Mr Cox weren't the only supporters of Labour's RDAs. Another famous Labour supporter came out in support - James Naughtie. Though one question essayed a devil's advocacy of the anti-RDA Case, the whole package was full of these sort of helpful questions, which leave no doubt as to his true feelings:
*
"What is it that the RDA has done here leaves it with, as far as I can judge anyway - and people generally agree with this -, a fairly good reputation in the region?"
*
"And I suppose we've gone through a period of profound industrial change in the North East, from shipbuilding and steel and mining to something quite different. I mean I was in Sunderland the other day and the difference is palpable, and looking what Nissan are doing there and so on, I mean, it's a place that's had to undergo a quite often very, very painful transition, so a body like that in those circumstances is probably appreciated." ("Absolutely", replied Prof Tomaney.)
*
"And the question Ed Cox would be if it were properly directed people might say it was money well spent . I mean it could be well spent or badly spent."
*
He also swung his devil's advocate question from "the critics" in general to "the Conservatives", giving Mr Cox his chance to present it as a case of South East English Conservatives looking for spending cuts and seeing the opportunity to "salami-slice" the money going to the Great Northern Peoples' Assembly.
*
So another Labour love-in on Today, and during a general election too.
*
Have they no shame?
*

BUT HE'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LEHMAN BROTHERS!

*
The BBC are really keen on recalling the 1992 election, when the incumbent government won the election against expectation. After Carolyn Quinn last night came James Naughtie this morning, revisiting that election with Lord Heseltine. You would think that the BBC are praying that history will repeat itself!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603220.stm
*
Naughtie himself said "a lot of people, I think, on the Labour side would like to think that this is an election like 1992. There was John Major, you know, unpopular, Tories been in for 13 years, people said 'Oh that Kinnock's a nice man' and so on and Labour thought they were going to win and John Major came back and he pulled it off, and they say the same thing could happen to Gordon Brown. Why not?"
*
The reason, said Lord Heseltine, is Gordon Brown.
*
Naughtie responded, "You think it's what people think of him, not his toughness or his capacity, it's what they think of him?"
*
His "toughness"? His "capacity"? 'People' doubt he really has much of either. Naughtie misread Lord Heseltine's answer. His answer already embraced much more than mere matters of personality.
*
Lord Heseltine also amusingly saw off Naughtie's attempts to dredge up the row over David Cameron's decision to withdraw the Tories from the EPP grouping in the European parliament.
*
Incidentally, Naughtie's "people said, 'Oh, that Kinnock's a nice man'" provoked laughter in my household. I can't say I remember many people saying that myself. Nor for that matter was John Major personally "unpopular". Still, Jim's a Labour man and his memories and perceptions are coloured by that fact.
*
Lord Heseltine's brilliant analysis of Gordon Brown's record provoked this comment from Naughtie: "But he's not responsible for Lehman Brothers!" Yes, lest we forget: It All Started In America!
*

JUDGE AND JURY

*
If you remember the excuse made by Today editor Ceri Thomas on Feedback for why Gordon Brown's admission of a 'mistake' over defence spending statistics was not covered by his programme, it ran something like this: It was a 'one-fact story' that broke the previous day and was widely covered by Radio 4 throughout that day, so there was no need for Today to cover it too. "Once he had said "I'd made a mistake" there wasn't a great deal more for us to explore...", he said. http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/cerimandering.html
*
It seems that the Chris Grayling story doesn't fall into this category, for despite being widely covered across Radio 4 yesterday and despite no new facts emerging, Today returned to the story this morning, inviting for interview one of the two gay men (Michael Black) refused a room by the Berkshire B&B in the story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603188.stm *
*
Also invited on was Mike Judge from the "traditionalist" Christian Institute, who supports Mr Grayling's line. James Naughtie gave him a hard time. As evidence of this Mr Judge felt the need to say, "Now you may not like their view..." at which Naughtie protested "No, no, I'm not taking a view on it one way or the other, I'm just asking you...I want to pull the argument out". Yeah right!
*

NAUGHTIE STEPS IN...BUT THE HORSE HAS ALREADY BOLTED

*
While Andrew Lansley got slapped down for just once mentioning the Labour Party, Alistair Darling was allowed to get away with attack after attack on the Tories by James Naughtie - until, after over-six-minutes-worth of such attacks, Naughtie finally decided he ought to say that they'd ask the Tories themselves about Tory policy so let's stick to Labour policy.
*
One of the cliches most used by the political class is "That's a bit like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted." Well, the horse had bolted six minutes earlier and had been merrily running around the field rogering the Tory fillies ever since.
*
The I.C. here was 1.1 - substantially smaller than that for Mr Lansley.
*
Anyhow, we know where Today's interests lie. Their headline for this section reads "Cameron 'manifestly wrong' on cuts". Ah, that's just the message the rampant Alistair Darling was trying to make all along!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8603000/8603165.stm

NAUGHTIE'S SPEECH ON GAZA

*
David Preiser on the B-BBC blogsite draws our attention to more bias from James Naughtie - this time over Israel. Naughtie's opinions are rarely far from the surface so his explicitness here is just one step further. He should keep his opinions to himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8600000/8600503.stm

There's a real problem here for people looking in on it. Leave to one side for a moment the plight of people living in Gaza, which is a very disturbing one to people in the outside world because they're being kept there effectively in prison for a very long time, but it is said in some quarters...that of course there are different groups operating in Gaza, as you say planning attacks against Israeli citizens, not all connected directly with Hamas, and some people say there is evidence that Hamas, which runs Gaza of course, is trying to get control of some of these groups and these people, and the argument goes that retaliation on this scale might actually make that more difficult. In other words the outcome may well be that Israeli citizens are put n more danger not in less.

David's comment is worth quoting in full:

James Naughtie spells out the BBC Narrative on Israel very clearly. Gazans are "kept there, effectively in prison, for a very long time", and Israel should not retaliate on the scale that they do. In fact, Naughtie suggests, many of these missiles and terror attacks on Israel aren't done by Hamas, and retaliation just makes peace more difficult.

Any chance Naughtie sees to discredit Israel, he takes. Gaza is a prison, Hamas is
trying to control these other factions so that they don't interfere with the peace process (I can't stop laughing at that one), and Israel is just making it worse by saying that they'll retaliate if soldiers are killed. In other words, Hamas is really trying to work for peace and Israelis need to roll over and die in greater numbers before they should retaliate.

Now that George Bush is out of office, no other government in the world is challenged so aggressively by the BBC.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread.html

*

(If you scroll down you'll also see David's fine dissection of Matt Frei's latest bit of propaganda and Hippiepooter's reply. Typical Frei, typical (unlabelled) use of a liberal talking head).

DON'T FORGET THE SENIOR TORY (WHO?)

*
Geoff Hoon got a long, not unsympathetic interview this morning with Jim Naughtie (I.C. of 0.6) on this morning's Today programme.
*
Naughtie was extremely sparing with the word 'Labour' - it occurred just once in the course of an interview that lasted 14 1/2 minutes. What of the word 'Conservative'? That occurred twice, (once at the very beginning):

"And this week there was more. Three former cabinet ministers and a senior Conservative MP were filmed secretly by the Dispatches programme for Channel 4..."

"But the problem here is that you were filmed and Patricia Hewitt and Stephen Byers were filmed secretly, Sir John Butterfield, Conservative MP, sitting there, chattering about what you could do for these companies..."

ALL PREM AND PROPER

*
Prem Sikka, professor of accounting at the University of Essex, was on this morning's Today programme, talking to James Naughtie about Lehman Brothers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8565000/8565669.stm
*
Prem and Jim got on like a house on fire.
*
Prof Sikka was also recently on The World Tonight (1/3/10), causing mischief for the Tories over the issue of non-doms and tax. You may not be surprised to learn that Prem Sikka also blogs for The Guardian and holds left-wing views - for a full flavour of which please click here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/premsikka.

DON'T DO IT NICK! PLEASE DON'T BACK THE TORIES!

*
Just listen to the easy ride James Naughtie gave Nick Clegg on this morning's Today programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8565000/8565697.stm
*
Mr Clegg's first answer, in which (at Naughtie's invitation) he listed his party's four main priorities, lasted 1 minute 15 seconds. It wasn't interrupted. Can you imagine James Naughtie allowing David Cameron such a soft start? Not in a million years! The whole interview lasted over 8 minutes, contained 4 interruptions and resulted in a low I.C. of 0.5.
*
Naughtie is known for being a very biased interviewer and banged away at one point in particular: Why won't the Liberal Democrats rule out supporting a minority government after the election if the other party is committed to implementing 'masochistic' cuts this year? He meant, of course, the Conservative Party. Though the interview was generally friendly, a little warmth could be heard in Labour Jim's voice as he demanded to know the answer to this. It was blindingly obvious what answer he wanted to hear! He even returned to the same question after apparently having moved on to something else and even his last question was just another way of putting the same thing!
*
I did have to laugh though at his hasty withdrawal from an attempted interruption (03.25 into the clip) at the very second when he realised that Nick Clegg was being mean about the Tories and clearly decided to let him go with the attack!
*

JUST ANOTHER DAY AT THE BIASED BBC

*
Tom Bradby, political editor at ITN, challenged Liam Fox over Lord Ashcroft on tonight's 6.30 News. He also challenged Lord Mandelson, quizzing him on Labour money-bags Sir Ronald Cohen. Is Sir Ronnie also a non-dom? "Labour ministers are desperate to keep this story going," said Tom, before adding "but not so good at answering their own questions." Given Labour's own poor record on dodgy donations in recent years and the ongoing questions about many of their present big-money donors, Tom noted that it was "a bit rich" for them to try and take the moral high-ground on this story. (Many Labour figures are shameless enough to do anything.) Tom added, "the Liberal Democrats are frankly not much better." The difference between this (questioning all sides) and the BBC's out-and-out side-taking is startling.
*
Lord Ashcroft has been cleared of wrong-doing today by the Electoral Commission.
*
This morning's Today paper reviews again only featured critics of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives from the press.
*
Indeed, being the pairing of James Naughtie and Justin Webb, a tally of mentions from the pick of the papers (over the three paper reviews of the day, at 6.10, 6.45 and 7.43) produces a predictable list:
*
The Guardian - 7 mentions
The Independent - 6 mentions
The Times - 4 mentions
The Daily Telegraph - 3 mentions
The Daily Mirror - 2 mentions
The Daily Mail - 2 mentions
The Sun - 1 mention
The Daily Express - 1 mention
*
That's the same total for The Guardian and The Independent as all the others put together!
*
Norman Smith, the BBC's Anti-Tory Affairs Correspondent, was back, chatting to Justin about Lord Ashcroft (of course). Accusations against the Conservatives were aired, questions were raised of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservative Party. At least Justin Webb asked about whether the Cabinet Office's full-knowledge of the deal let the Conservative Party off the hook. Norm said "only partially I think" (clearly meaning 'No!") and, without dwelling on the implications for Labour of Justin's question, simply went back to his job of putting the Labour case: "I think the reason it doesn't entirely get the party of the hook is that the view certainly among Labour politicians is that William Hague should have asked an awful lot more questions", he began. Then came the usual bit of outright spin, complete with Norm's characteristic hyperbole: "But as I say for the Tory Party, you know, they are it seems to me suffering now considerable collateral damage from this whole affair." No mention of Sir Ronnie Cohen there then, nor any questions for Labour.*
*
Later extended clips were played of past encounters on the issue between the BBC (Paxman, Marr and Lustig) and William Hague. If ever the day comes to question Harriet Harman about any of its donors, how many clips will the BBC be able to play back then? Any?
*
Nick Robinson again stressed the importance of the story at some length, adopting a high moral tone, despite the deficit and the war in Afghanistan. In contrast Tom Bradby on ITV News tonight expressed considerable scepticism about its importance. Nick again ignored any questions for Labour. He accused and raised questions only of the Tories. He speculated about how damaging it would be if the Electoral Commission found against Lord Ashcroft on the legality of his donations, saying it would be 'dynamite' if it judged his actions illegal. Well, it didn't and they aren't, so that's that!!
*
Norman Smith was on again as news broke of the Electoral Commission's judgement in favour of Lord Ashcroft. He discussed it with Martha Kearney on The World at One. Norm outlined the allegations against Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives with some fervour before (and it must have choked him to say it!) conceding that the EC gave them a clean bill of health, and that it would be "a huge, huge relief" for the Conservative Party. From what Martin says on the Biased BBC blogsite Jon Sopel, interviewing Jenny Watson on the EC, was not so willing to concede anything to the Conservatives.
*
Martha then interviewed the man who brought the case to the Electoral Commission, Labour's John Mann. Now, all credit to her, she did ask him (briefly) about Labour donors. Conservative donor Lord Kalms was also interviewed and duly criticised Lord Ashcroft. Worst here was a disgraceful piece from a reporter called Bob Walker from the marginal of Loughborough. He staged an anti-Tory stunt to highlight what Lord Ashcroft's money is achieving (though, given the small amount he now gives to the Conservative Party, it quite likely not to have been his money at all). Some clever Conservative leaflets were held up to public contempt by the stentorian Mr Walker.
*
More questions came on PM from Ross Hawkins. Ross did hint that Labour and the Lib Dems were electioneering (as is the BBC!) and spoke to a former Conservative MP who is calling for Lord Ashcroft to resign, Barry Legg (who lost his seat in 1997). Carolyn Quinn then spoke to another former Conservative MP who is calling for Lord Ashcroft to resign, Elizabeth Peacock (who also lost her seat in 1997). They must be ringing around! Carolyn mentioned, very much in passing, that Labour had its own questionable donors. That she felt she had to mention it a few times suggests that the BBC now realises that it's been on dodgy ground in terms of bias so far on this story (to put it very mildly), but the fact that she only mentioned it very briefly in passing suggests that this is a cynical attempt to try and build a small database of quotes for the BBC to call upon should they be very seriously challenged by the Conservatives over this.
*
Carolyn Quinn then turned her odious attention to the question of how all this might play with the voters. Cue a pollster. Guess who? Yes, back after just a couple of days absence from Radio 4 was Lady Ashton's husband, Labour-supporting Peter Kellner of YouGov. His links were not mentioned, but then again they never are! If the Ashcroft story runs into next week, Mr Kellner said, "it might become very bad news for David Cameron." He mentioned "the old Watergate question, 'who knew what and when'".
*
Still to come is Question Time of course. And will Michael Crick make it four nights in a row on Newsnight?
*
Just another day at the biased BBC.
*

SNIPING AT BARONESS ASHTON

*
The BBC News website's Politics Page contains an article called 'Under fire', and the sub-heading 'Brussels sniping tests Lady Ashton's EU diplomatic skill'. The word sniping implies malice and underhand behaviour. (To snipe is 'to attack a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. anonymously or from a safe distance.'). The BBC sub-heading thus casts an aspersion on Lady Ashton's many critics - an aspersion which, if you read the article proper, is completely unwarranted. Her critics are very open and very serious:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8546108.stm
*
The baroness was interviewed on this morning's Today by man of the moment James Naughtie. I can do no better here than quote DB's spot-on headline on the Biased BBC blogsite: 'Naughtie: Can I Plump Your Pillows, Lady Ashton?' http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/naughtie-can-i-plump-your-pillows-lady.html No interruptions and no challenges, and this obsequious question: "You're a hundred days into the new job now. I mean, this is the kind of long term work that you have to do. Do you feel at all drained by some of the arguments that have been erupting in Europe about the settlement after the Lisbon Treaty was ratified and the way the appointments were made and so on?" DB dryly comments, "What touching concern for her "long term work" and the wearisome distractions she has had to endure, the poor never-elected thing." Indeed!

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!

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.

*

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.

*

A POST THAT STARTS WITH ANDREW NEIL BUT THEN GOES BACK TO JAMES NAUGHTIE

*
Bouncing back in time again, Andrew Neil on yesterday's The Daily Politics did exactly what James Naughtie studiously avoided doing this morning. He grilled John Denham over Labour's non-doms, correcting his factual errors, noting his sly change of tack (mid-argument) and pointing out the richness of the Labour Party crying foul over large donations from non-doms. Andrew Neil is the exception that proves the rule at the BBC. He's right-wing (which is exceptional enough), but (unlike Naughtie) he takes no prisoners from any political party. Tories have much to fear from an encounter with Andrew Neil, as do Labour and even the Lib Dems.
*
I forgot to mention in my last post that Naughtie, in complete contrast, tried to bamboozle his listeners this morning by stating that Labour got a significant proportion of its money from the trade unions, ignoring the fact that (though it's certainly true that Labour does get sack loads of money from the unions, in exchange for...something) Labour also gets masses of money from rich donors, several of them non-doms - indeed markedly more than the Tories got from Lord Ashcroft in recent years. Naughtie surely knew that, so why 'forget' to mention it?
*

NAUGHTIE RUNS AMOK WHILE THE TORIES LIE LOW

*
Oh dear! In contrast to their spirited behaviour yesterday no-one from the Conservative Party was willing to go onto the Today programme this morning to discuss Lord Ashcroft with James Naughtie. (Naughtie told us that himself, naturally.) Perhaps the Conservative Party believes that the story should not be fed and that it will go away. If they believe that then they're clearly 'bonkers' (as Jim himself would put it). It won't go away, because the BBC (and their various allies) won't let it go away.
*
By not putting someone up to take on Naughtie and have a right good brawl with him about BBC bias, the Today programme's most blatantly pro-Labour presenter was allowed free range to skew the story to his own political ends. This being James Naughtie, that's precisely what he did.
*
Listeners, of whom there are a few million (many perhaps still floating voters), were therefore deprived of a Conservative perspective. Indeed, beyond his BBC colleagues Naughtie only discussed the matter with one man, the pollster Peter Kellner - another well-known Labour supporter and husband of the until-recently-completely-unknown EU foreign minister Baroness Ashton. (Couldn't they have sought a Conservative defender in the press or the blogosphere to put the Tory case? Why didn't they do so?)
*
Naughtie took all three sections on the story, and was clearly up for it.
*
First came his discussion at 6.35 with anti-Tory BBC political reporter Norman Smith. Norm began by saying, "well, my sense is there are still a number of loose threads flapping in the wind", which is what Labour and the Lib Dems are also saying. He picked at a fair few of those threads, as Labour and the Lib Dems are doing. Indeed, all Norman Smith did here was to outline the criticisms of the Tories from Labour and the Lib Dems. He didn't even bother to try and put the Tory response. Naughtie, supposedly the impartial interviewer, joined Norm in outlining yet more of these criticisms, describing such questions as "politically explosive". Neither Norm nor Naughtie mentioned any of those non-doms whose wide pockets have been laid open to Labour and the Lib Dems. Nor did they so much as hint at the hypocrisy of both of those parties over this issue. It sounded like a Labour strategy meeting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qzgyk
*
Naughtie began the 7.09 section with the words "There are at least two sides to the story of Lord Ashcroft". That sounded promising. Was he going to say, "There are the criticism of Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives, but there are also questions for Labour and the Lib Dems to answer"? Though this is indeed the case, anyone who thought that this interviewer would say anything like that would be truly 'bonkers'! No, the 'two sides' worthy of mention were, for Jim, firstly, whether Lord Ashcroft had failed to honour his promises and, secondly, when David Cameron first knew of his non-dom status. Let's now replay that opening clause: "There are at least two sides to the story of Lord Ashcroft." Now we can see that each of the 'two sides' mentioned by Labour Boy Jim is anti-Tory one! http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8544000/8544691.stm
&*
Labour Boy Jim went on to assess, with Lady Ashton's husband, the influence that Lord Ashcroft's money has had in the marginals. Even The Independent found (rather embarrassingly for them) that Lord Ashcroft had only given a small proportion of donations to the Conservative Party since David Cameron became Conservative leader. Most had come from small donations from ordinary folk. Everywhere yesterday were Conservative voices pointing out that Labour has significantly more rich non-dom donors than the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems have (at least) one too. And that's not even considering the money (and bought influence) from the trade unions. (The comments on Nick Robinson's blog absolutely rout Nick, Labour and Lib Dems, on these points). Naughtie, of course, mentioned none of this. He only wanted to talk about Lord Ashcroft and "disproportionate spending" by the Conservatives. Ed Balls could not have been more focused on 'getting' the Conservatives. I keep trying to tell Tory politicians (by e-mail) that Naughtie really is out to get them. He really is out to get them!
*
Lord Ashcroft and his "great deal of money" are "certainly a bit of an embarrassment" for the Tories, said Naughtie, returning to the subject with Nick Robinson at at 8.23. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8544000/8544821.stm An excited Naughtie called it "The Ashcroft Affair". He again chose not to bring up the Labour and Lib Dem donors. At least Nick Robinson touched (ever so indirectly) on the issue of Labour's own non-doms, if only to argue, very unconvincingly, that Lord Ashcroft's story is the most important. His case is different certainly, and he's an influential man for sure, but necessarily more important? That is open to debate Nick, as the comments on your blog show.
*

NAUGHTIE LANDS A CHEAP SHOT...AND GETS AWAY WITH IT

*
More outrageous cheek from James Naughtie on this morning's Today programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8536000/8536028.stm

Interviewing George Osborne again, Naughtie recalled their last encounter (where he was caught out by Mr Osborne and tried to bluster and lie his way out of trouble in response) but instead of apologising to Mr Osborne for this The-Beeb's-Most-Biased said: "Well let me ask you for a straight answer to this question. I put it to you the other day and, with all respect to you (yeah, right!!), you didn't give a terribly straight answer because you went wandering off, as people sometimes do."

"Because you went wandering off"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For what really happened, please click here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/george-stands-up-to-bully.html.

Last week, Mr Osborne busted Naughtie. Today, sadly, he reverted to type and took this gratuitous and dishonest insult on the chin without a murmur. He should not have done so. I can't begin to think why he did do so. I'm getting sick of complaining about this to the BBC and Mr Osborne's office. Come on George, please do something about it!!