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.
*

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.
*

CLEAN NAILS TODAY FROM NICK

*
Credit where credit is due, Nick Robinson was masterly on today's Daily Politics in his handling of Labour spiv Sadiq Khan. His steely grasp of language enabled him to completely pull the rug from under all of Mr Khan's clammy spin. Sir Gus O'Donnell's cautiously-worded admission to a Commons select committee that he had had a word with Brown after all about the prime minister's behaviour towards junior staff ('breaking news' as the programme was on air) was set out by Nick with great precision and all of Mr Khan's many attempts to rebut him and twist the facts were swatted aside with deadly politeness. Of course it helps having Andrew Neil on your side!

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.

A MORE BALANCED SPLASH

*
Today this morning was guest-edited by the wonderful David Hockney, That's why we got to hear from the (very French) conservative philosopher Alain Finkielkraut on jogging (like Mr Hockney, he's not a fan!). We also got to hear from a left-wing historian David Kynaston on smoking (of which Mr Hockney is very much a fan!) That's how Today should be edited every day - with the guiding principle of political balance to the fore.
*
Away from David Hockney and smoking, the programme featured futile condemnation of the Chinese government's execution of the drug-trafficking Brit, Akmal Shaikh, from Labour minister Ivan Lewis (I.C. of 0 for Evan Davis). It also featured an interview with another anti-death-penalty campaigner, the UN's Philip Alston. (You might be suspected of thinking that the BBC is not in favour of capital punishment!)
*
Talking of cruel, authoritarian regimes, our own beloved Labour government's record on the issue of personal freedom is hardly a glowing one & (following a report from Nick Robinson that gave one bite of the cherry each to Bob Marshall-Andrews (Labour) and David Willetts (Conservative) and, naturally, two bites of the cherry to Lib Dem Chris Huhne) ol' Justin Webb challenged David Blunkett about the issue, albeit with good humour (he's not a Tory after all) (I.C. of 0.4). *
*

JULY'S I.C.s - NICK ROBINSON

*
A three-day spell at presenting 'Newsnight' gave 'Toenails' Nick his place in this survey. I have written warmly about one of his interviews (please click on the label for Nick Robinson for more).

From his 6 interviews with politicians, here are Nick Robinson's interruption coefficients for July:
*
Mike O'Brien, Labour (27/7) - 1.7
Peter Mandelson, Labour (28/7) - 1.2
Steve O'Brien, Conservatives (27/7) - 0.8
Kevan Jones, Labour (28/7) - 0.7
Lord Darzi, Labour-supporting 'Goat' (27/7) - 0.2
Ed Miliband, Labour (28/7) - 0.2
*

Average number of interruptions per political party

Labour - 0.8

Conservatives - 0.8

*

That's the way things should be!

CLEAN TOENAILS

Nick Robinson's over-closeness to the political class is undeniable and a real problem. Sometimes this leads him to over-closeness to the government of Gordon Brown (earning him the nickname of 'Toenails' which, as I would like to keep this blog clean, I will refrain from explaining!)

Credit where credit is due, however, Nick Robinson's 'Newsnight' interview with Peter Mandelson was a model of fine interviewing, from which the programme's regular cast could learn a lot. He asked the questions I would have asked (if I'd have thought of them) and persisted politely but effectively when Mandy stonewalled. I've heard several interviews with the noble lord in recent weeks (across the BBC) and this one was, by a mile, the best.

Nick questioned the provenance of that plucked-out-of-the-air 'half-a-million-jobs-saved-by-the-government' figure (which Gordon Brown has been bandying about recently) and, without rudeness, asked and answered the question about how many people have been helped by the mortgage protection scheme, announced last September - as the good lord was not going to answer it himself, feigning the old 'its-not-my-area' excuse. (The answer, by the way, is 6). He fenced with Mandelson over the word 'cuts' with considerable charm and ingenuity. He allowed Mandelson to talk when it was right to let him talk and interrupted him when he needed interrupting. He said nice things, and challenging things. Exemplary.

So sack Esler, sack Paxman, sack Kirsty Wark and sack Emily Maitlis (and, while you're at it, sack Michael Crick). Nick Robinson should do this job every day.