GOVING IT TO 'EM AGAIN

*
I know from reading the comments on the B-BBC blogsite that I am far from alone in finding this morning's Today programme deeply biased.
*
The continuous talk/promotion of hung parliaments (right up to the bitter end - or as some call her 'Mary Riddell'), coalitions and proportional representation was one source of irritation. That the panel of voters from Birmingham and from the Labour stronghold of Manchester were also inclined towards hung parliaments, coalitions and proportional representation - and, it seems, towards Labour - was another.
*
Then there was the latest left-sided broadside from the programme's regular election contributor Will Self, chatting to Labour's Geoffrey Robinson and promoting a socialist worldview. Why exactly has he been the programme's regular election guest? Why only him?
*
Then there was Steve Hewlett of The Guardian (and Radio 4's Media Show) chatting about the press's influence on the election with Emily Bell of...The Guardian and Labour-supporting Times journalist David Aaronovich.
*
Above all though, it was the contrasting treatment of the party spokesmen that made this such a fitting finale to Today's biased election campaign. The contrast between John Humphrys's aggressive interview with Michael Gove (6 interruptions, I.C. of 1.1) and Sarah Montague's gentle interview with Alan Johnson (0 interruptions, I.C. of 0) could hardly have been stronger - and falls into the standard pattern not just for this election but for the last year (at least) on Today. Oddly though, her interview with Vince Cable was the strongest on interruptions (6, with an I.C. of 1.7) though it wasn't a tetchy one by any stretch of the imagination.

There was hope though for us all in Michael Gove's latest scrap with John Humphrys. Michael Gove certainly has 'got it'. Here's the interview's scheme, with some choice quotations:
*
9.13 Q1
9.16 A1
9.24 Interruption 1/Q2
9.34 A2
(9.39 muttered comment)
9.55 Interruption 2/Q3
10.13 A3
11.02 Interruption 3/ Q4: (JH:) "As you say there is this sense of change in the air. People want change. And what's extraordinary, and we found it ourselves from the groups of people we've been talking to...they actually want, HUGE number of people, those many undecided of course, but they also want a hung parliament, which proves that they're desperately unhappy with the electoral system that we have now, and what you're NOT prepared to say to them is 'We will change that electoral system so that voting is fair and every vote counts' and that's something that you - alone of the three main Westminster parties are not prepared to say."
11.43 A4 (MG): "We will change the voting system to make every vote count, we will make it fairer.."
11.47 Interruption 3 (JH:) "No you won't. You won't have PR."
11.49 A4 (continued) (MG:) "We will make sure...That's your preferred method. We will make sure that every vote matters in the same way by making sure that every constituency is the same size..." (etc)
12.09 Interruption 4
JH "No, no, forgive me, I'm not going to let you do another little party political there. It's fine.."
MG: "Will you let me answer any question?"
JH: "Well, I..I.."
MG: "You've interrupted every single one of them so far John"
JH: "Ooooh, no, no. Not true but never mind. You always say that when you come on. We expect that. Now look..."
MG: "But you always interrupt me."
JH: (laughing grimly) "Can I ask a question?"
MG: "Of course."
JH: "Good."
12.25 Q5: (JH) "Let me challenge what you've just said about your fair voting proposals because of all the academic research that's been done, all of the serious academic research that's been done, says it not the size of the constituencies or the make-up of the constituencies that affects whether a vote is fair or not. You know that and I know that. So what I am asking you is why you will not introduce or at least allow a referendum on a system that the academics, disinterested academics, regard as being fair, which is proportional representation. You might not like the outcome of PR but whether you should give people the opportunity to vote for or against it is the question."
13.08 A5
13.12 Interruption 5
13.19 A5 (continued)
13.41 Interruption 6/Q6 (JH:) "You're treating the audience like fools! You're treating the voters like idiots!"
13.45 A6
13.59 Q7 (JH:) "I was suggesting merely that you give the electorate a chance to vote on this and the reason you won't, you know and I know, is that if you did your party would be ripped apart. They'd take your head off or they'd slice you up like a banana, if you prefer than metaphor."
14.15 A7, beginning: (MG:) "Once again John, a magnificently eloquent question, which would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation."
15.09 Interview ends

Of Michael Gove's first charge - that John Humphrys had so far interrupted his every answer (which Mr H denied) - Mr Gove was quite correct.
*
Of Mr Gove's second charge that PR is Mr Humphrys's - or the BBC's - "preferred method", I think we can say that this certainly seems to be the case!
*
Of Mr Gove's third charge - that JH's questions "would be better suited to a party political platform than to a neutral interrogation" - I think that anyone reading the above questions, with all their loaded terms of phrase, their disinterested academics and "all serious research", their "you know and I know"s (etc) will have to say "Spot on!" to that too.
*
Another 'Attaboy!' is in order.

LUCKY DOUGIE

*
Spokesmen for the parties who took part in last night's prime ministerial debate took to the Today programme this morning. Labour's Douglas Alexander struck gold in getting an unusually gentle Sarah Montague (I.C. of just 0.2), whereas both Danny Alexander from the Lib Dems (I.C. of 0.6) and William Hague (I.C. of 1.2) got John Humphrys! The interruption coefficients tell much of the story here.
*

CHIPS WITH EVERYTHING

*

Having got over the surprise of hearing Evan Davis interviewing someone from a Eurosceptic think tank, the centre-right listener to yesterday's Today programme would have been shocked again to hear a few minutes later a story based on a report by a right-of centre campaign group, Big Brother Watch, an offshoot of the Taxpayers' Alliance. Alex Deane from Big Brother Watch came on to discuss the issue of microchips in council bins (and any resultant stealth taxes) with Gary Hopkins, a Lib Dem councillor from Bristol (pictured).
*
Have a listen to the segment and you will hear how Sarah Montague gives Mr Deane a significantly rougher ride than Cllr Hopkins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8551000/8551033.stm
*
The website for Big Brother Watch is linked to here: http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home

I'M NOT HAPPY!

John Humphrys, about whom I wrote a few complimentary things recently, blotted his copy-book this morning by treating Christine Pratt, the head of the anti-bullying helpline, to an inquisition of the Spanish variety while (despite plenty of interruptions) giving Anne Snelgrove, Labour MP and member of Brown's inner circle a far less rigorous going-over. That Ms Snelgrove had handed over e-mails critical of Mrs Pratt and her husband to the Today programme while refusing to commit herself to any of the allegations they contain, and then accused Mrs Pratt of making unsubstantiated allegations against Brown, all the time refusing (like a petulant child) to share the same interview with her, tells you all you need to know about Anne Snelgrove and the sort of company the prime minister keeps. John Humphrys was lamentably weak in pushing these points. Not so though in his handling of Mrs Pratt. The senior politician was treated much better than the far less powerful member of society in this interview - how apt given the allegations against Gordzilla! The I.C. for Anne Snelgrove was 1.6, that for Mrs Pratt 2.1. Shame on John Humphrys! Then there was Sarah Montague's crack to Nick Clegg about many of our best prime ministers being bullies. Shame on Sarah Montague! The political class are a disgrace, aren't they?
*
Sorry for waxing a bit hot there. I'm not in a jolly mood. There's something of the mafia mentality about this government, and some of their media supporters. Coming in from work and seeing that disgusting, smeary Prescott interview really got me going. You just know that the likes of Mandelson, Brown, McBride, Prescott, Draper, Watson, Maguire, Snelgrove, Balls et al would stop at very little to stay in power. The Conservatives lack that killer instinct, which is probably why they won't win power. Funny old world isn't it?

Sticking the knife in tonight (though the crime figures won't show it) is BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/02/bullying_helpline_under_scruti.html. Yes, there's no doubt about it, this lady is going to be destroyed.
Wo'
Worse may still be to come. Michael Crick must surely make an appearance on Newsnight. Surely somehow this will all be made to look very bad for David Cameron and the Tories. (UPDATE: I called that one wrong! Despite beginning his report with news of Tory support falling in the polls, he didn't attack over the story.)
*

THE STRANGE CASE OF EVAN JEKYLL AND EVAN HYDE

*
The issue of parliamentary privelege was discussed with Sir George Young for the Conservatives and Harriet Harman for Labour on this morning's Today programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8503000/8503608.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8503000/8503686.stm
*
Harriet Harman faced Sarah Montague, was interrupted twice and scored an Interruption Coefficient of 0.6. Sir George Young faced Evan Davis, was interrupted seven times and scored an Interruption Coefficient of 1.3. The I.C.s suggest that Sir George's interview was at least twice as tough as Hattie's, and this is certainly how it felt listening to both interviews.
*
Evan, as when interviewing Chris Grayling on 3/2/10, was not the quiet, thoughtful Evan Davis we know from his interviews with Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, but an aggressive, mocking, opinionated character. The man is turning into James 'Jekyll-when-talking-to-Labour,-Hyde-when-talking-to-the-Tories' Naughtie.
*
The bulk of Evan's interview with Sir George did not focus on parliamentary privilege at all, but instead hammered away at the BBC-Guardian-Labour Axis's favourite obsession, Lord Ashcroft. 38.5% of the interview discussed the former, topical issue, whereas 61.5% of the interview fixated on Lord Ashcroft.
*
The sheer scale of BBC bias is now growing week by week. There must be an election in the offing.
*

PLANET'S WORST FRIEND

*
The Today website introduces today's closing discussion in this way:
"Some scientists are questioning the environmental cost of owning a pet, saying that pet lovers have a higher carbon footprint than people without pets. There are an estimated 20m domestic cats and dogs in the UK. Dr John Barrett, research associate at the Stockholm Environment Institute, York University, and Tony Juniper, an environmental campaigner, consider the environmental impact of man's best friend." http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8501000/8501780.stm

*

The professor from the green policy institute argues that fewer carnivorous pets (like the enemies of the planet pictured above) would significantly help reduce our 'carbon footprint', whereas Mr Juniper from the Green Party, who owns cats and dogs, disagrees (like a good nimby) and would rather deny us other pleasures instead and tax us more too - and who has a problem with the practice of keeping caged birds as pets.
*
If only Andrew Neil rather than Sarah Montague had been in charge of this interview! Sarah never thought to challenge the underlying assumptions shared by both of her guests, and treated the topic as if it wasn't slightly absurd.

**

INEQUALITY IN THE 'TODAY' STUDIO

*
Today's Today was driven by a report on inequality from the National Equality Panel, set up in 2008 by Harriet Harman. This organisation is headed by John Hills, Professor of Social Policy at the BBC's beloved London School of Economics.
*
There was certainly a great deal of inequality about the amount of time each of the political parties got to make their cases on the issue. Theresa May (pictured left and right) for the Conservatives got least (3 minutes 42 seconds). David Laws for the Lib Dems did slightly better (4 minutes 8 seconds). Taking the lion's share, however, (and some of the leopard's too), was Labour's Harriet Harman (7 minutes 5 seconds), getting almost twice as long to wow the nation as Mrs May.
*
You might have expected that Harriet Harman would have been given a rougher ride, if only to balance out this inherent unfairness. Not a bit of it. The respective interruption coefficients for the three politicians were 0.6, 0.5 and 0.6.
*
Sarah Montague did the interview with Theresa May. Here's one of her questions: "But what's clear from this report is that it's been a problem of the last forty years, that at the time when the Conservatives were in power, it rose, the gap between top and bottom, from 3 times earnings in the '70s, rose to 4 times in the '80s, and the report makes it clear that there are things that the Labour government have done which have made a difference, they just haven't on the scale required." Mrs May's attempt to answer this was soon interrupted by an "OK, what would you do?". Theresa bridled a little at this, saying "Well, that's what I'm just about to come onto, thankyou." A lot more of that attitude is needed! She then began to list what the Conservatives would do but was interrupted again with another abrupt question, "And the abolition of inheritance tax?" As Theresa May immediately pointed out (and how can Sarah Montague really not have known this?), "Well, nobody's abolishing inheritance tax. We will be raising the threshhold on inheritance tax." That was a pretty simple error for a top interviewer to have made - if error it be.
*
Neither Harriet Harman nor David Laws had to face anything like that. They were interviewed by Justin Webb. Both got to attack the Tories - and were not interrupted while they did so.
*

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.

ALL HAIL THE UNITED NATIONS!

*
Here's a clear example of the BBC's everlasting pro-UN, anti-US line (a line that has even survived the election of the sainted Barack Obama), courtesy of Sarah Montague on this morning's Today programme (in an interview with Labour's Douglas Alexander): "When you see the American troops on the ground and the criticism of them, this fear that some people immediately voiced about their role there, did you think that perhaps that was a role that should have been done by a United Nations standing army?" Well at least she didn't ask for an EU standing army!
*

WHO'S LEFT IN?

*
This morning's Today was almost completely free of right-of-centre voices.
*
Charges for online newspapers were discussed with Tim Luckhurst, "Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent and a former editor of the Scotsman" in the words of the programme. If the name is familiar to you it's because he used to report for the BBC. He had previously worked for the Labour Party (standing for them in the 1987 general election) and now writes for The Guardian, which he praised on today's programme as "a great British newspaper". He also praised the Guardian's ideological soulmate, the BBC for its "excellent journalism" (sic) .
*
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Wallace was invited on to discuss government cuts to funding for counter-terrorism programmes in Pakistan (with Brown being caught out again by a blundering admission of reality from Her Ladyship Kinnock), though he was more interested in attacking David Cameron (for some reason). John Humphrys's interruption coefficient here was a paltry 0.2 (Lord Wallace not being a Tory). Later Labour MP Kim Howells came on to respond (I.C. of 0.5).
*
The abuse of the internet by rogue governments was discussed by Sarah Montague with a lawyer Robert Amsterdam and Labour MP Tom Watson (a ex-crony of McBride in Brown's inner circle), I.C of 0.5.
*
Obama's popularity (or increasing lack of it) was discussed with left-wing Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who made every possible excuse (unconvincingly) for the president.
*
I will pass over Observer film critic and BBC presenter Mark Kermode discussing the BAFTAs - as he's a BBC institution now, offering left-wing film reviews to all and sundry.
*
On at the end was a (presumably) right-of-centre voice featured, in duet with another (definite) left-winger: Richard Exell, labour market expert for the TUC (praising the government, warning against a change of government), and Katja Hall, director of employment policy at the CBI.

START THE DAY WITH A YAWN!

*
This morning deadly dull edition of the Today programme featured another double-debate, this time between Polly Toynbee of The Guardian an ex-head of the Centre for Policy Studies Ruth Lea. The latter was on the end of a bad telephone line and kept apologising for not being able to hear - so all Sarah Montague 's interruptions went for nothing, as Ruth couldn't hear them! Polly got the first and the last word.
*
Sarah Montague's interview with Labour's Douglas Alexander contained no interruptions.
*
That's about as interesting as the programme got.
*
'Anti-capitalist'/Green protesters in Copenhagen were heard from in a report from Tom Fielden. They were not challenged (except by the Danish police!!). John Humphrys later interviewed the Bolivian 'climate change' negotiator Angelica Navarro, without challenging her either.

THE ILL LUCK OF THE IRISH

*
The decisive public spending cuts made by the Irish government (in contrast to our own Labour government) came under the critical eye of this morning's Today programme:

The Irish economy - once the Celtic Tiger - is one of the worst-hit by the
worldwide recession. Unemployment currently stands at 12% and the country is
12bn Euros in debt. Last week the Irish government brought in what many are
calling the severest budget in the nation's history. Wages for public sector
workers were cut, and welfare spending was reduced, and anger is growing that
the country's poor seem to be paying for the mistakes of the rich. Correspondent
Mike Thomson reports from Dublin.

You might have expected that a balanced report would have followed this introduction (though that would suggest that you don't know the biased Beeb very well!). Mike Thompson's report, in fact, turned out to be woefully biased against the Irish government and its actions - and by extension the actions of any party (the Conservatives? UKIP?) that might consider following their example here in the U.K. It was pure left-wing propaganda.
*
Adopting a concerned tone of voice throughout, Thompson roamed around Dublin. He talked first to "Fintan O'Toole, veteran columnist of the Irish Times". The Irish Times is Ireland's equivalent of The Guardian, and Wikipedia notes that Mr O'Toole holds "generally left-wing views." He attacked the Irish government for deflecting blame away from itself and onto "an allegedly underperforming and overpaid public sector" (in Thompson's words). A teacher, Ann English, followed. "She too believes that...public sector workers here have been unfairly blamed for all the country's ills". Father Peter McVerry followed and denounced "cuts in dole money, child benefits and a host of other social services. This he insists is both wrong and unjust." (He also attacked the rich. Checking him out he's "a socialist, activist, author and Jesuit".) Many of the red priest's 'troubled youths' added further criticisms. Then, to bolster his contention that "trouble could be on the way" - Thompson talked to Jack O'Connor, president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. To the sound of a merry-go-round, Thompson then reached his point: "And what goes round might also come around for the people of Britain. Fintan O'Toole." O'Toole backed his point.
*
Not a Sheep points out a few lessons from this:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/12/bbc-today-programme-always-something.html
*
To give some redress, later in the programme Sarah Montague interviewed Ireland's Europe minister Dick Roche. The interview lasted just less than half the time that Thompson's totally oppositional report took to make its case. Is that fair?
*
This is not the first instance of this. Please see here http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/12/robin-leftig.html
and you'll see what I mean. I suspect it won't be the last either.
*

SIBERIAN SNOW FALLS ON ANDREW LILICO

*
Where James Naughtie and Justin Webb went yesterday, Sarah Montague went today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8413000/8413170.stm
*
Go to the Today programme website (see above) and you'll see this:

7.48 The government has praised its own policies for better than expected
unemployment figures, and has said that future unemployment would have been
even higher without government action. Professor of human geography at
the University of Sheffield, Daniel Dorling, discusses the
government's claims

You can click on the 'listen' icon and hear all that the left-wing professor (and frequent Today programme guest) has to say, as he praises Labour and condemns the Conservatives, advocates public spending and deprecates cuts.
*
Look further down the page and you see this:

0847 Professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield, Daniel
Dorling, said on the programme that cutting public spending and public sector
jobs was not an inevitable or efficient way of reducing the deficit. Andrew
Lilico, who sits on the shadow Monetary Policy Committee run by the Institute of
Economic Affairs, reacts to Professor Dorling's comments.

Inexplicably, here you cannot click on a 'listen' icon. There isn't one! To hear it you must go to the 'listen to full programme' option (how many people ever do that?) and scroll forward 2hrs and 48 minutes!! What possible reason could there be for not allowing the same sort of easy access to this interview that was granted to all the other interviews between 7.00 and 9.00am. It's almost as if the pro-government expert were being placed in the limelight at a parade in Red Square while the anti-government expert was being sent to the radio equivalent of Siberia. Truly bizarre.
*
This is not all.
*
Danny Dorling of the Left, got 4 minutes 29 seconds' worth of interview time, whereas Mr Lilico of the Right, got only 2 minutes 27 seconds (i.e. two minutes less).
*
Danny Dorling of the Left was interrupted once, whereas Mr Lilico of the Right was interrupted twice.
*
Danny Dorling of the Left therefore earned Sarah Montague of the BBC an I.C. of 0.2, whereas Mr Lilico of the Right earned her an I.C. of 0.9.
*

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - SARAH MONTAGUE

*
That just leaves the guys and gal from the Today programme - the Beeb's flagship for bias. No Ed Stourton in October, so let's begin with Sarah Montague. Here are her I.C.s for a quiet October:
*
28/10 Liam Fox Conservative 0.7
01/10 Bob Ainsworth Labour 0.5
15/10 David Willetts Conservative 0.4
22/10 Ken Livingstone Labour 0.3
28/10 Vince Cable Lib Dem 0
21/10 David Kidney Labour 0
28/10 John McFall Labour 0
28/10 David Heathcoat-Amory Conservative 0
*
The averages here are:
*
Conservatives - 0.37
Labour - 0.2
Lib Dems - 0
*
Sarah seems to mostly interview people from the Left, but here nonetheless are her super-averages for the last 5 months, showing an inclination against the Right:
*
UKIP (2) - 1.15
Conservatives (11) - 0.65
Labour (24) - 0.53
Lib Dems (13) - 0.36
Greens (1) - 0
*
As for her treatment of UKIP, I think this post of mine is strongly suggestive of a certain attitude: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/sniggering-at-nigel-farage.html

SEPTEMBER'S I.C.s - SARAH MONTAGUE

Today's Sarah Montague in has scored interestingly in September:

Tony McNulty Labour 1.1
Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.9
Chris Huhne Lib Dem 0.7
Nigel Farage UKIP 0.7
Ming Campbell Lib Dem 0.2
Vince Cable Lib Dem 0.2
Eric Pickles Conservative 3.18 0
Caroline Lucas Green 0
Sir Malcolm Rifkind Conservative 0
Denis MacShane Labour 0
Paddy Ashdown Lib Dem 0
Brian Wilson Labour 0
Shirley Williams Lib Dem 0

&&Average number of interruptions per political party
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&**UKIP - 0.7
************************Labour - 0.4
************************Lib Dems - 0.3
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Greens - 0

************************Conservatives - 0

Hands up who saw that coming!

SNIGGERING AT NIGEL FARAGE?

*
Nigel Farage got longer to speak on Friday's Today - over five minutes in fact. Interviewed by Sarah Montague, he was only interrupted 3 times (I.C. of 0.7).

Questions of bias arise, however, because of Sarah Montague's bizarre sniggering.

I'll transcribe what Nigel was saying & place his interviewer's sniggers in context. Give it a listen (via the link provided) and see what you think.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8237000/8237283.stm

"As UKIP's grown, it's really become just too difficult, the party's now become too big (snigger) to do two jobs." (0.53 into the Today clip)

"Let's use the election in Buckingham to have a proper national debate about how (snigger) we're governed." (2.26 into the Today clip)

"I will be the parliamentary leader. I intend and (snigger) want to stay on as spokesman."
(5.13 into the Today clip)
*
Shortly after this final snigger, Sarah interrupted with "You're not standing down as anything!" and burst out laughing.
*

**********************

*
By contrast, though a shorter interviewer (lasting only 2 mins 51), Sarah Montague's interview with Green leader Caroline Lucas contained no interruptions and no sniggering.

AUGUST'S I.C.s - SARAH MONTAGUE

*
The much-loved Today presenter Sarah Montague was off for most of August. Here's all that she got up to:

4/8 Ivan Lewis, Labour - 1
3/8 Phil Woolas, Labour - 0.6
4/8 Andrew Dismore, Labour - 0
3/8 Phil Willis, Lib Dem - 0

This gives her an average I.C. of 0.5 for Labour.

POINTS OF CONTENTION

The government's plan to expand the Australian-style points system to encompass qualification for British citizenship was discussed on this morning's 'Today' programme.

It's funny how the BBC fixes on certain aspects of a story and hammers away at them at the expense of everything else. A Home Office source, quoted in the 'News of the World', says that an example of point-losing 'bad behaviour' (in Alan Johnson's phrase) would be the behaviour of those Islamic bigots who hurled abuse at soldiers during their homecoming parades.

Quite why did Sarah Montague think the 'free speech' of such people was worth four questions out of a total of nine to immigration minister Phil Woolas? Woolas himself was forced to say, "Let's not get hung up on one issue".

Sarah's Guardianesque mindset (or should that, these days, be simply Beeboid mindset) made her final question almost inevitable: "Isn't there a danger that...you would end up only allowing white, Christian possibly, middle-class, professional people into the country, and anyone who falls outside that..." (adopting a silly voice) "...oooh, you're not quite...". Mr Woolas interrupted this drivel, and rightly so.

&

Earlier Norman Smith (BBC correspondent) discussed the issue with Ms. Montague and was as delicate as Sarah herself about the identity of these "anti-war protesters", calling the potential 'free speech' victims "those who took part in anti-war protest or that sort of thing". Do you mean Muslim extremists by any chance Norman?

*

The BBC has a habit of avoiding the 'M' word whenever negative images of the 'M' community or potential members of that community are involved in a story.

JULY'S I.C.s - SARAH MONTAGUE

Today's Sarah Montague has always struck me as being hostile to the political right. Her July interruption coefficients offer some support for that feeling:

*

Liam Fox, Conservative (17/7) - 1.3

Lord Jopling, Conservative (22/7) - 1.2

Bob Ainsworth, Labour (30/7) - 1.1

Chris Bryant, Labour (2/7) - 0.7

Dawn Primarola, Labour (28/7) - 0.7

Ming Campbell, Lib Dem (30/7) - 0.5

Shaun Bailey, Conservative (21/7) - 0.4

Alan Milburn, Labour (21/7) - 0.4

Baroness Prosser, Labour (29/7) - 0.3

Paddy Ashdown, Lib Dem (27/7) - 0.3

Nick Clegg, Lib Dem (9/7) - 0.3

Charles Clarke, Labour (9/7) - 0.2

Donald Anderson, Labour (30/7) - 0

Douglas Alexander, Labour (27/7) - 0

*

Average number of interruptions per political party:

Conservatives - 1.0

Labour - 0.4

Lib Dems - 0.3

*

In June Sarah's average for the Conservatives was also 1.0, but so was her average for the Labour Party and her average was the Lib Dems was 0.8. This provides complicating counter-evidence. However, tilting the bias back against the right was her UKIP score - 1.6.

ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO,zzzzzzzz

My daily beat through the Radio 4 news neighbourhood has (with 'The World Tonight' still to come) been dominated by Labour and the Lib Dems, and no-one at the BBC has been mugging any of them. What a lot of soft, boring interviews with puny interruption coefficients to match!

Jim Naughtie talked to boring Alan Beith of the Lib Dems for 3 minutes 25 seconds, asked him only three questions and let him drone on without interuption, scoring a perfect 0. He only asked Labour's John McFall (another BBC favourite) two questions, despite a 2 minute 27 second-long interview, again without interruption (another perfect 0).

Even Sarah Montague was as gentle as a lamb. She also scored an I.C. of 0 with the dullest of interviews with Labour's international development minister and prize bore Douglas Alexander (which went on..and on..for only 4 minutes 42 seconds). She did interrupt ex-Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown once (achieving a 0.3 IC), but this interruption was not a challenging (more a clarifying) one.

Martha Kearney on 'The World at One' was hanging with her boys, David Miliband and Peter Mandelson. Labour and Labour. Miliband got 6 minutes and 28 seconds and was interrupted (oh so gently) just once (resulting in a tiny 0.2 IC) while Mandy got 5 minutes and 53 seconds with no interruptions, scoring an I.C. of, you guessed it, 0 (There's no such thing as a free lunch - except when your a leftie appearing on 'The World at One'.)

Even Eddie Mair was laying off the stimulants on 'PM', interrupting Labour's armed forces minister Bill Rammell only once in 3 minutes 26 seconds (0.3) and his business colleague Nils Blythe gave Alistair Darling 4 minutes 53 seconds of our precious time and another free ride to boot (0 yet again).

Will the 'World Tonight' kick some political ass? Will any leftwing interviewee be interrupted more than once? Will any Tory, or UKIPer put in an appearance on Radio 4 today? I can hardly wait to find out. Goodnight. zzzzzzzzzzz

********

UPDATE: There were no politicians interviewed on the 'World Tonight'.