FOR ROBIN, ENGLAND AND ST. GEORGE!

*
I've been curious to see how the manifesto launch of the English Democrats would be covered today. The BBC are legally obliged to cover it, and they duly did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8627185.stm
*
The English Democrats regard themselves as the (non-left-wing) version of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, but English Nats are even less to the BBC's tastes than Scots Nats or Welsh Nats. You can see the truth of that from the perfunctory nature of the article, the way the BBC puts 'English interests' in inverted commas and the way they say "The party polled just over 250,000 votes at the European Parliament elections last June" when it in fact scored 279,801 votes, which is not "just" over 25o,ooo votes - indeed, it's more like "just under 300,0o0 votes".
*
The BBC live election blog also gives the launch a mention, and uses quotation marks again to cast doubt on a particular word:
*
1527: The English Democrats have launched their campaign at an event in Dartford, Kent. The party, which wants a parliament for England and a withdrawal from the European Union, is promising to be a "moderate" voice representing English interests. It says it will put up more than 100 candidates at the election.
*

HIM AGAIN

*
In one of my posts yesterday I mentioned that BBC favourite Prof Colin Talbot had been one of the World at One guests lined up to attack the Tories' plans for efficiency savings and NI. Well, blow me down with a feather if he wasn't back on Radio 4 this morning attacking the Tories again!
*
Prof Talbot said their plans could be "pretty disastrous" (he said this twice in the course of the interview) Even that wasn't strong enough for the BBC though, as the Today website headline-writer tweaks this remark to make it even harsher on the Conservatives:
********Tory plans 'potentially disastrous'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8610000/8610785.stm
*

BROWN FIDDLES THE FIGURES, THE BBC FIDDLES THE STORY

*
Over on the Biased BBC blogsite The All-Seeing Eye (prompted by that other all-seeing eye, George R) draws our attention to another instance of bias in the BBC's choice of headlines.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/fun-with-immigration-figures.html
*
The issue at hand is Gordon Brown's latest dodge with statistics. He's been caught out again, this time spinning migration figures. Who's caught him out? Well, Channel 4 News for starters. Here's Cathy Newman:

Gordon Brown has done it again. The statistics he used for 2009 are an under-estimate, because they don’t include all migrants. The figures he used for 2007 and 2008, however, do. So he’s misled the public by comparing the most flattering data for the latest year with the most unflattering data in the previous years.
The full year figures for 2009 aren’t yet available, so until we see them, we won’t know for certain if the prime minister’s claim that immigration is falling is true or not.
But he doesn’t have the figures to make that claim either. And in the meantime, the
statistics we do have so far show that after falling in 2008, immigration is on the way up in 2009.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/2010/03/26/browns-migration-muddle/#more-822

The first point to be made here is that this again shows Channel 4 to be performing a greater public service role than the BBC. Channel 4 News's Fact Check blog is turning up all sorts of fascinating abuses of statistics by all the parties. Why isn't, say, Newsnight or Today performing 'fact checks' on politicians' use of statistics? I suppose though that in some ways it's no bad thing they aren't as if they did they would doubtless concentrate heavily on the Conservatives' use of statistics. (See Mark Easton!)
*
Now, as the all-seeing eyes at the Biased BBC site note, this is how the story is reported in some of the papers:
"How Gordon Brown's podcast turned an immigration rise into a fall" - Daily Mail
"Gordon Brown accused of fiddling immigration figures" - Daily Telegraph
*
Neither paper quotes Channel 4 News as the source of the story, but instead present the discovery of Brown's latest dissemblance as the work of MigrationWatch (which it may well be, as great minds often think alike and MigrationWatch are unlikely not to have noticed such fiddling!)
*
The BBC however (discreetly tucking the story away beneath a much more prominent article on its Politics page) headlines it: "Row over PM migration figures". This is a far less interesting headline & it distorts the story. The story is that Brown got it wrong again, not that there's a row.
*
The article that follows then tries to mislead its readers into thinking that the allegations of dishonesty originate with the Conservatives:
*
The Conservatives have accused Gordon Brown of "dishonesty" over immigration figures used in a Number 10 podcast.

Mr Brown said net migration into the UK fell from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and provisionally 147,000 in 2009.

The Tories said the figure for 2009 was only for the year up to June, and excluded asylum seekers and people overstaying their original visas.

A Downing Street spokesman said the prime minister had made it clear he was using a provisional figure for 2009.

The Conservatives' interpretation of the figures has been confirmed by the Office for National Statistics.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling called it "another extraordinary example of Gordon Brown's dishonesty".


Nowhere is either Channel 4 News or Migration Watch mentioned. Any reader would assume that the figures were initially disputed by the Conservatives. This might very well tempt readers to dismiss it as just another superficial party political row - Tories accuse Labour, Labour accuse the Tories - rather thatn see it for what it really is. That's dishonest reporting from the BBC.
*
The underlying intent is clear. It's to say "Move along, nothing to see here."
*
*
Not a sheep is getting more than fed up about this sort of thing. Please have a read and see if you don't share his rage:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/gordon-brown-lies-again-and-bbc-dont.html

JUST IN TIME

*
The Advertising Standards Agency has given young Ed Miliband a red face by ruling that two government adverts using nursery rhymes exaggerated the threat posed to Britain by 'global warming'. This newsworthy story was reported in the Sunday papers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7440664/Government-rebuked-over-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-adverts.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7061162.ece
*
The BBC held off on the story for a few days before launching a series of defensive manoeuvres.
*
Catch while you can Justin Webb's Today discussion with Torin Douglas (6.43am)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
*
Justin here spins the story to put Labour in the least embarrassing light possible: "So just in a few words Torin, this is sort of a score draw, isn't it, between the government and those who complained? Some of the adverts passed and a couple, on almost a technicality, not." Torin replied, "I think you're right on that. Yep."
*
Justin returned to the subject later, first closely questioning Guy Parker of the ASA then very gently interviewing Ed Miliband himself. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571728.stm
*
Give Justin a Tory to interview and the interruptions will fly, but present him with a Labour Climate Change secretary and you'll hear very few interruptions (just one today). There were few questions and they were all bowled underarm.
*
That belated BBC News website article on the story has already been relegated to the margins of the Science and Environment page. Look for 'Monkeys learn more from females' (actually much more my sort of story!) and go down two items: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm. It is also clinging precariously to the margins of the Politics Page after a short stay there too http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm).
*
The links to other newspapers in the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm)
do not include either The Times or The Telegraph, which were running the story four days ago - doubtless for that very reason i.e. that they'd already covered it four days ago!! Fellow laggards like The Independent, however, do receive links. Mr Miliband's defence is quoted at length and his interview with Justin Webb is also linked too - though not the preceding interview with Mr Parker of the ASA for some (guessable) reason. One of the 'cleared' government ads is featured in full, so you can enjoy this public 'information' film at your own leisure!
*
The BBC has grudgingly done its bit by covering the story (days late) and playing down its embarrassing aspects for Labour. Now it can move on and never mention it again.

CON-TEXT

*
I know that I'm far from alone in having noticed that the BBC has a bit of a soft spot for poor never-elected-to-anything, completely-out-of-her-depth Cathy 'Go Home' Ashton.
*
The BBC's Europe editor Gavin Hewitt presented a short report on the continued 'sniping' (yes, he used that word again) against Baroness Ashton, the EUseless foreign minister, on this morning's Today programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8559000/8559141.stm
*
The only direct critic was "Tory MEP Charles Tannock" - not that we heard any actual criticisms from him in the very short extract featured. Indeed, in the sporting spirit I expect from Mr Tannock (a fine Eurosceptic Tory), he said he still wished her the best of British luck, and added "she may surprise us all, and I hope she does", clearly said more in hope than expectation.
*
That, however, was all the pretext someone at the Today website needed to yank Mr Tannock's words out of context and headline the piece
*
**** ***Ashton 'may surprise us all'
*
Have they no shame?