RIGHT ANGLES

*
Another evolving angle on the BBC's attack on the new government has been to highlight the opposition to the coalition from Lib Dem supporters. This has already been noticed by several commentators on the B-BBC website.
*
Just considering the Today programme, the obvious point to make here is that Today has shown itself not to be interested in finding out how Conservative supporters are reacting to having to share power with the Lib Dems - even though there are three million more of them than their are Lib Dem voters. Not one report on Today this week has looked at that angle. Why not?
*
Here's all there has been:
*
MON 10/5
0835
What do Liberal Democrat members make of the negotiations with the Conservatives to form a coalition? Justin Webb reports from St Albans, where the battle for the parliamentary seat saw the Lib Dems jumping Labour to take second place.
*
WED 12/5
0713
The Liberal Democrats have taken up four cabinet posts and their leader Nick Clegg is David Cameron's deputy in the new coalition government. Today presenter Justin Webb investigates how the Lib Dems feel about the new alliance.
*
SAT 15/5
0810
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will address a special conference of his Liberal Democrat party this weekend in an effort to get members to endorse the coalition deal with the Tories. Many members have threatened to leave the party over the deal. Nick Starling a party member, and Simon Hughes MP and former president of the party, analyse how members have reacted to party's new relationship with the Tories.
*
*
Now, as Laban has posted, at B-BBC, Dan Hannan notes that the BBC are interested in hearing from right-wing Conservative politicians:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/05/its-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100039829/its-the-bbc-here-wed-like-you-to-say-something-angry-stupid-and-preferably-racist-about-the-new-government

TOMORROW IS JUST ANOTHER TODAY

*
The main 'controversy' of the day - the 55% threshold for any precipitous dissolution of parliament - was one of yesterday's main stories on Today. (I posted this first thing on Saturday morning!!)
*
John Humphrys kicked off the 6.10 paper review with some Tory-bashing from The Daily Mirror (9.37-10.12) followed by some more Coalition-bashing from The Independent (10.12-10.51). Evan Davis was next, discussing the 'debate' on the Left about how to respond to the coalition - starting with some sour-grapes Tory-bashing from Johann Hari of The Independent (10.59-11.31), followed by Martin Kettle of The Guardian (11.31-12.08) hoping for salvation from the 'reactionaries' courtesy of the Lib Dems. Finally, John Humphrys turned to The Sun's interview with David Cameron. (12.08-12.40). So the anti-government Left got 82% of the action, the pro-government Right just 18%.
*
Next John Humphrys turned to BBC political correspondent Peter Hunt. His first "question to Mr Hunt? "It is hitting a few problems Peter, the government?" Peter's reply? "Yes." The 55% threshold "is causing concern at the moment in public from senior Labour figures, some Conservative privately. And I think that's not going to go away, the concern". Mr Hunt then quoted the criticisms of Lord Falconer. And a half-hearted attempt to put into words what supporters of the move are saying (especially the Lib Dems), he then returned to the attack: "But it's the devil of this 55% that is concerning constitutional experts, senior Labour figures...I mean one constitutional expert said "they're doctoring the constitution, they're priming the pitch" and senior Tories in private...I think the problems for the government will be if senior Tories come out in public to express their views."
*
Nick Cosgrove, one of the BBC's gaggle of left-wing business correspondents, was flagging up more problems for the new government - and seeing who saluted. After talking of 'grim times' for private equity companies, part of that 'grimness' arising from the "proposal by the new coalition government to raise capital gains tax", Cosgrove went hard at it with his main guest Keith Ludeman, CEO of the rail and bus operating company The Go-Ahead Group. Straight away we got "You've got a new transport secretary Philip Hammond to deal with in the new government. Are you optimistic about the coalition and its attitude to your industry?" Mr Ludeman was not going to be drawn into party politics but welcomed some of the coalition's priorities. "That may be the case," replied Nick sceptically, "but transport is going to be low down the list of priorities, below things like health and the police, so we're going to see cuts in the transport budget". (As if we weren't under Labour!!). "Cos the Liberal Democrats actually wanted real cuts in rail fares in their manifesto, which would be disastrous for you?" was the next question. Then Cosgrove bigged up a Labour policy: "What about the free bus passes for the over 60s? I mean that's been very popular. Do you think we can afford them as a nation? Should they be ditched?" He then quipped "I'm sure you get free fares in any case." Mr Ludeman didn't snigger back, probably because he doesn't and wouldn't think of abusing his position in that way. (He's a private sector boss after all, not a public sector manager). Mr Ludeman refused to bite on any of Cosgrove's hooks and was an impressive guest.
*
John Humphrys (6.29am): "Over the next couple of weeks Radio 4 will be taking us back to the 1980s. Here's Carolyn Brown." What did Carolyn say? "We'll have three dramas set against the momentous events of that decade. We begin tonight with a satirical look at the Wapping dispute." The title of the play? "Greed All About It." Do you suspect that all the remaining dramas are going to be similarly negative about that evil decade of Conservative rule? Coming up on 17th May, according to The Radio Times, we will get: "Afternoon Play: The End of the World: It's 1983: The Cold War is raging, Thatcher is in government, Britain is in recession and 17-year old Simon, living in the shadow of Sellafield, is haunted by fears of nuclear holocaust. When he falls in love with Tasha, a beautiful anti-nuclear activist, he sees his chance to make a difference." Is a play on the Miners' Strike (from the perspective of the striking miners naturally) or about the sinking of the Belgrano (not The Falklands Play I bet!) still to come? The BBC have their view of the 1980s. I have mine.
*
With the 6.41 paper review, would fairness win out and the Conservative-backing papers get both the first crack of the whip and the lion's share? Well, no. Still this review was certainly an improvement on the one half an hour earlier. It began again though with the Mirror's Tory-bashing attack over the 55% bar (41.26-41.48) followed by more critical comments from the Guardian (41.48-41.52). The Daily Mail calls it "a shabby stitch-up", so it too got a mention (41.52-41.56). The Cameron interview with the Sun followed (41.56-42.14) with John Humphrys repeating what he said last time but at less length, then came the Telegraph's news of Sam Cam's own "drastic pay cut" (42.14-42.31). Evan then brought us the Independent on Bercow (42.38-42.44). It wouldn't be a Today paper review featuring John Humphrys without the Independent!
*
Humph then discussed DC's first trip as PM to the "potentially more hostile territory of Scotland" with Scotland editor Brian Taylor. (Neither forgot to mention that the Tories have just one seat up there). We were treated to Mr Taylor's opinion that Mr Cameron's statement that he's "going to govern Scotland with respect" (quoted by Humph in a tone of total incredulity) is "a bit vacuous".
*
The ever-present Peter Hennessy was present after 7 o'clock to discuss the protocol for new prime ministers, according to the Today website, but actually was mainly there to discuss the 55% bar. He was "very, very surprised" at the "very, very iffy politics" of the proposal. We learn from his use of the "prime the pitch" phrase that he was the constitutional expert quoted earlier by Peter Hunt (as I suspected). "I really don't think it's on and I'm not in the least bit surprised that people are very worried indeed about it. It creates a very, very poor impression for the new politics". (He's been in too many studios with Norman Smith recently, as the hyperbole is catching).
*
The next section was about Labour: After losing power for the first time in 13 years, is the New Labour project finally over? Two newly-elected Labour MPs, Rachel Reeves (I.C. of 0) and Chris Williamson (I.C.of 0.7), discuss how the party is trying to re-invent itself. John Humphrys presided, asking among other things: "And what about that word 'progressive', that Chris Williamson just used, and people are using all the time now? Maybe you should call yourselves 'The Progressive Labour Party' or 'Labour progressives' or something?"
Humph talked sarcastically about "Nick and Dave" "loving each other" and "almost physically hugging each other"
*
The 7.41 paper review began with another attack on the new government from the Guardian: 41.47-42.00, but the Telegraph followed (42.00-42.20) & then we got the FT's take (briefly) on Europe's economic woes (42.20-42.29). Humph took over and went straight to the Independent and its attacks on the coalition (42.29-42.42). He read this out in a serious tone before adopting a larky tone as to read out the Sun's enthusiastic response to the coalition's first few days (42.42-42.48). Evan Davis took over again & went straight back to the Indie (42.48-43.02) for its take on the first cabinet meeting...before he turned to the Times (43.01-43.11) for a description of Baroness Warsi's dress! John Humph took over again and it was straight back again to the Indie (43.11-43.49), this time for a justice story. They do like the Independent!
*
I mentioned the following segment in my previous post - actually, due to my topsy-turvy methods of composition, it seems like a subsequent post!! - (and note the opening sentence of the Today blurb, which should surely have read "A number of MPs, mostly from the Labour Party, have condemned..."):
0821
MPs have condemned the new government's plans to introduce fixed-term five-year parliaments and raise the threshold at which parliament can be dissolved to 55 percent of a Commons vote. Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit, UCL, and John Gummer (I.C. of 0), a former Tory minister and party chairman, examine the pros and cons of the proposals.
I would just add that Prof Hazell, who has been quite keen in the past to attack the Conservatives over their constitutional agenda - and has been, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, a regular on the BBC doing just that -, by pouring cold water on the fuss over 55% ensured that he, unlike Prof Hennessy, wouldn't get a mention in Clare Spencer's article.

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

NOT MAKING FRIENDS WITH NIGEL

*
There are several ways to look at the remarkable levels of bias in this morning's Today programme.
*
The first is to compare the respective lengths of each interview with a party politician. Given how many parties were interviewed, this comparison becomes especially telling. Here are the results in descending order::
*
1. Peter Mandelson (Labour) - 11m 12s
2. Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) - 4m 29s
3. Caroline Lucas (Green) - 4m 16s
4. Vince Cable (Lib Dem) - 4m 5s
5. William Hague (Con) - 4m 0s
6. Nigel Farage (UKIP) - 3m 44s
*
Why was Mandy given getting on for three times more air-time than anyone else? Why was Nigel Farage granted the least time? Why did William Hague get less time than either Nicola Sturgeon or Caroline Lucas?
*
Note also that Mandy got the prize spot at 8.10, the spot all politicians want.
*
The second way is to compare the interruption coefficients (the number of interruptions/the length of the interview.) Again these make dramatic reading, particularly for one party, and will be given in descending order:
*
1. Nigel Farage (Evan Davis) - 2.3
2. Vince Cable (Evan Davis) - 1.2
3. Nicola Sturgeon (James Naughtie) - 0.9
4. William Hague (Evan Davis) - 0. 5
4. Peter Mandelson - (Evan Davis) - 0.5
5. Caroline Lucas (Evan Davis) - 0.2
*
If that suggests that Nigel Farage got a HUGELY rougher ride from Evan Davis than either Peter Mandelson or William Hague, or anyone else for that matter, well the suggestion is borne out by the facts. (The William Hague interview might have contained a lot more interruptions but it was conducted down a phone with a very audible one-second delay, which always makes interrupting tricky). Nigel Farage was interrupted 8 times, Caroline Lucas just once.
*
A third way is to compare the interviews schematically. I haven't the time to do schemes for them all, so I'll just compare the two most extreme interviews - Evan's interviews with Nigel Farage (go Nigel!) and Caroline Lucas:
*
Nigel Farage:
*
0.22 Q1
0.29 A1 (24s)
0.53 Q2
1.05 A2 (4s)
1.09 Interruption 1/Q3
1.16 A3 (1s)
1.17 Interruption 2/Q4
1.19 A4 (6s)
1.25 Interruption 3/Q5
1.28 A5 (17s)
1.45 Interruption 4
1.49 Q6
2.05 A6 (2s)
2.07 Interruption 5/Q7
2.20 A7 (19s)
2.39 Q8
2.48 A8 (7s)
2.55 Interruption 6/Q9
3.17 A9 (8s)
3.25 Interruption 7/Q10
3.28 A10 (16s)
3.44 Interruption 8/Q11
3.47 A11 (4s)
3.51 Interview ends

Caroline Lucas:
*
0.22 Q1
0.28 A1 (45s)
1.13 Q2
1.34 A2 (41s)
2.15 Q3
2.45 A3 (46s)
3.31 Interruption 1/Q4
3.55 A4 (37s)
4.32 Interview ends
*
The contrast could hardly be sharper. Caroline Lucas was allowed to be expansive in her answers and to put across her vision at the end (before she ran out of time). Nigel Farage was barely allowed to string a couple of sentences together without being disrupted by interruptions. Indeed he spoke for 51.5% of the interview, while Evan Davis spoke for 48.5%. Call that interviewing? Debating - or arguing - more like!
**
A fourth way, and just sticking with these two interviews, is to compare the substance of the questions (or points) put by the interview. Are they hostile, contradictory, neutral or supportive?
*
Here are Evan's contributions:

Caroline Lucas

1. Have you been disappointed by the intensity with which environment issues have been debated during this campaign?
2. Right, so it is clear you are different to the other parties. One of the key things about the Green Party, as I understand it, are ultimately you think we ought to put less emphasis on material consumption. We have, if you like, to reconfigure the culture of consumption. Am I right in that?
3. Well give me a scale of how big an impact a Green vision or a Green government would be if we had one. Let's take the example of flights. You know, what sort of number of flights, what sort of change in the number of flights would you expect in say after ten years of a Green government? Are we talking a 100% reduction in the number of flights, a 5o% reduction, a 10% reduction, a lower growth rate in the number..? Just give me some sense of the scale of impact you want to have.
4. But you're sounding a little less ambitious than I might have thought. I mean if it is just a matter of saying no more flights, we replace the domestic flights with trains and some of the near-continental flights with fast trains, that's not going to do it, is it? That's not going to give us human beings kind of an extra twenty minutes on this planet in terms of the scale at which we're burning the resources and putting them into the atmosphere.

Nigel Farage

1. Do you think there's been enough honesty from the other parties about their plans about taxation and spending in this election campaign?
2. Well, 50 billion pounds in Year One plus honesty means you will be able to tell us in an amount of detail what we are going to lose in Year One of our UKIP government.
3. No the 45 million, no the 45 million...is it 45 million? Isn't that a gross figure not a net figure?
4. Right, so that's a bogus figure then, isn't it? The net figure is the relevant figure.
5. OK, so the first thing that goes is everything we've spent on...
6. But Mr Farage you were the one who said we need honesty, you're the one who said we need to cut 50 billion out of public spending straight away and then citing you're example you come up with something like the Equality and Human Rights Commission! It's not going to be 50 billion! We don't spend 50 billion of quangos like the Equality and Human Rights Commission...
7. We also...we spend tens of millions of pounds on the quangos but some of them are ones that are actually providing very substantive services, they're not just ones that are providing equality and human rights and things like that.
8. Do you think it's really that easy (laughing) to draw a line between front line services and back office services? I mean you're probably counting a teacher as a front line service presumably....
9. Yes, but a lot of those MOD people are kind of engineers and others who are repairing vehicles or testing things, scientists. I mean, these are not people who are useless. They are people who are doing a very important job. Of course there probably are some bureaucrats, aren't there. You don't really have any idea do you how many are doing useless activity and how many are doing useful activity because you haven't...
10. And how much does that take you towards your 50 billion in the first year?
11. You haven't told us either. You haven't given us the detail either, any more than the others have!
*
With the Green leader Evan Davis was thoughtful and spoke quietly and slowly. With the UKIP legend he was excitable, aggressive and loud. He spent almost all of his interview with Nigel F contradicting his every statement. His tone with Caroline was friendly, with Nigel it was full of scorn and felt at times more like a dressing down than an interview.
*
There are doubtless several other ways of recording such extraordinary bias but that's enough for now. I can't listen to that interview again, lest my temples explode!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm

ALL ROADS LEAD TO BIAS

*
Crime was the theme of this morning's Today programme, and several acts of GBH were carried out against the Conservatives during the course of it. Indeed, the whole programme seemed to be structured in such a way as to make the mugging of Chris Grayling at 8.15 its focal point.
*
It began with Mark Easton telling Justin Webb that Labour were right about the crime figures, and that crime shot up under Ma Thatcher and the Conservative Gang but fell back again after Labour's Untouchables came to power. After initially sketching each party's view of whether crime is rising or falling, Justin turned to Easton and joked "I wasn't going to ask you who's right and who's wrong Mark." He might as well have done. Easton's description of what has happened to crime over the last thirty years would have been music to Alan Johnson's ears. The stats he used are those of the opinion-poll-like British Crime Survey, recommended by Easton as the best way of judging the figures.
*
Justin Webb then interviewed Chris Huhne. He gave him a very easy ride, but got him to agree with Easton that crime has been falling significantly under Labour. Just one interruption in five minutes saw a very low interruption coefficient here of 0.2.
*
Alan Johnson came on at 7.33. There were no audio clips from crime victims before his interview, no academics critical of Labour's record, indeed no pre-prepared ambushes whatsoever. He was simply interviewed. Evan Davis was the interviewer and he did plenty of interrupting (achieving an IC of 1.5). As to why the public remains unconvinced by the official statistics, he got Mr Johnson to concede that it wasn't just the Tories who were guilty, but when Al said it was the Conservative-supporting media (ie. 'The Daily Mail'!) as well Evan gave an 'Ah!' and let matters rest - for the time being. His next interruption was merely to say "'It's all working now' would be your perception?"
*
The next phase of the interview did get a concession that not everything was rosy in the garden, though it was laced with a repetition of the good news: "Just want to clarify. Because we are saying that crime is down and violent crime is down I think it's very fair to point out, I thought you'd like to comment on this, that the drop in violent crime is primarily domestic crime, acquaintance violence. If you look at muggings or violence committed by strangers, I know you would want to clarify, that has really barely budged over the last 15 years. It just carries on more or less level, doesn't it?" When Mr Johnson said that domestic violence has gone down by 50%, Evan chipped in supportively "Very dramatic." Mr Johnson repeated "Very dramatic." Still Evan did get him to admit that muggings were "stable" and "not going down".
*
He next returned to his original point and said, as well as the Conservatives and the media, maybe you have contributed to the public's fear by all those law and order bill...and promptly wasted the rest of the interview (two minutes) ploughing this minor point - a minor point which only served to reinforce the BBC narrative: Crime has fallen since the Conservatives left office. The Conservatives are lying over the crime statistics. Vote Lib-Lab. Shouldn't Evan have used those remaining minutes to interrogate Mr Johnson over some of his manifesto pledges?
*
Before Chris Grayling came on we heard an audio clip from an OBE-winning woman from Bristol, Mary Smith, who said that crime has dramatically fallen in her area, then an interview with Prof Rod Martin, a crimologist at Bristol University. "Can we nail this business of violent crime first of all," said Justin Webb. "I don't want to get bogged down in statistics and want to talk about other things, but when the Conservatives say we live in a more dangerous country thanwhen Labour came to power, I mean in so far as we can say, can we say that that's true or false?" Prof Martin thinks the Conservative position is "not defensible". That, surely, is why Today invited him onto the programme!!! To reinforce the message, Justin asked "So they are simply flat wrong when they make that allegation?" "Yes", replied Mr Martin. Such were the tripwires laid in front of Mr Grayling.
*
Everything in this programme seemed to lead to this interview. Mark Easton's initial 'analysis' of the crime figures, which 'refuted' the Conservatives and showed that crime has fallen significantly under Labour, the easy interview with Chris Huhne (which plugged away at the same point), the part-flattering, part-probing (but far from hostile) interview with Alan Johnson (which plugged away at the same point), Mrs Smith saying that crime has fallen on her estate, Prof Martin saying that crime has fallen significantly under Labour...all leading to 8.15, Evan Davis and Chris Grayling.
*
The interruptions flew again, even more so that with Alan Johnson (I.C. of 1.8). This time, however, it was straight down to business, there were no supportive interruptions and Evan's tone (and I like Evan Davis, so I'd rather not say this) was noticably tarter than with Alan Johnson. He debated which crime figures to trust with Mr Grayling, advocating the British Crime Survey (asserting, at one stage - in echo of Easton, that they are "the best statistics") against Mr Grayling's preference for the recorded crime figures. This was a dialogue of the deaf. Evan Davis later rubbished Mr Grayling's anecdotes, heckled him ("We always have!") and did that thing I always think interviewers should NOT do - disagree with their interviewee then change the subject without granting him a right to reply ("Well, we've had gangs, we've had problems with teenagers for as long as we've recognised the existence of teenagers. Just to follow up with a quick, specific policy proposal of yours, I think on knife crime...")
*
The Today programme's aim was clearly to show that the Conservatives are wrong on crime. Listeners would be forgiven for believing them. I have to admit I found myself being persuaded by the BBC line. Chris Grayling's inability to get past Evan Davis's constant interruptions didn't help. I am armour-plated against BBC bias, so if even I find myself struggling to believe the Tories on this one, either the Tories are very wrong...or the biased BBC has done a very good job indeed. I think I know which it is. The whole thing stank of a set-up.
*
Like yesterday.
*

'TODAY'

*
It's inspired, it's funny and it's spot on (and its now the background on my laptop). Please click here for DB's latest post at Biased BBC:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/today-progs-speed-dial-numbers.html

DECLINE AND FALL

*
How did the Today programme deal with last night's debate?
*
Well, Norman Smith, chatting to Evan Davis, agreed with the general view that Nick Clegg won. Being Norman Smith though, he also tried to boost Gordon Brown (who all but one poll - duly mentioned by Evan - shows to have clearly lost the debate) and diminish David Cameron. Of Brown's 'controlled aggression' (as he described it), Norm said "I think that by and large worked for him." So a measured success for Brown. Cameron, however. was at a 'disadvantage' on three separate counts, which (we were told) all "conspired to work against him last night." (Sometimes I wonder if Norman Smith is just Charlie Whelan in disguise!)
*
Of course while the election is going on (and on) the BBC's very other biases bubble along as usual. The left-leaning think-tanks are still taking centre-stage, with an interview based on a report on terrorism by Jamie Bartlett of Demos. The BBC rule seems to be: If it's not the IPPR it's Demos.
*
At 7.10 James Naughtie discussed the technological aspects of the response to the debate with Steve Hewlett, the Guardian writer who fronts the BBC's Media Show. The polls said Naughtie "came up with several conclusions but one standing out - that Nick Clegg...had had a good night". That Brown had had a bad night was a conclusion that didn't stand out for Naughtie. Among other things they discussed "the worm" - the heart-monitor-like impression-gatherer. Ben Page of MORI last night (on the BBC' 1o o'clock News and Newsnight) confirmed that Gordon Brown came out worst on this measure too, winning much a more "muted" level of approval throughout. Messers Naughtie and Hewitt ignored this and instead chose to emphasize that Gordon Brown "by and large outpaced the others both of the others" on the economy.
*
Next up we were in Manchester with Evan Davis and Paddy Ashdown. Paddy was given the gentlest of rides (I.C. of 0), being asked for instance to "adjudicate" between Brown and Cameron's performances, and agreeing with Evan that Nick Clegg "hurt" Mr Cameron more. "I think that's a very interesting point Evan, " he said. "I think that's dead right". I, however, remember Mr Clegg's exasperated snort at Brown's umteenth attempt to butter him up, which blew sand in the face of Brown's bleedingly obvious strategy.
*
I refer you to Not a sheep for the next segment, where a panel of ordinary voters were gathered:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/04/unbiased-vox-pop.html
*
What followed was frankly infuriating: A piece on a play called Posh about the Bullingdon Club, which gave BBC's arts editor Will Gompertz the chance to talk about "an unflattering portrayal" of "young priveleged men" and remind us that "the Bullingdon Club featured Cameron and Osborne and Johnson". It mirrors Evelyn Waugh's Decline and Fall, he said. "This is the decline and fall of this generation of aristocrats and social elite who feel they are owed everything they have and a living". "It's about the upper classes deriding the poorer people". This was merely a description of the play of course. Nothing more. Perish the thought. Harry Mount, a writer and former Bullingdon member, was then interviewed - so as to prolong the theme - and encouraged to say that it was a silly thing to do to join the club. Mr Mount is David Cameron's cousin.
*

For another take on this, here's Stuart at Biased BBC:

I listened to the Today program this morning on Radio 4. We had Pope Clegg being talked up, a discussion about the Bullington Club - a play - a tinge of tory bashing, and finally we had 4 or 5 people from the (hardly politically well balanced) streets of Manchester talking to Evan Davis on what they felt about the TV debate last night. (I lived in Manchester for many years and its great, but it wasn't politically balanced).

I hope the BBC are going to examine the communist connections in the Labour party when the candidates were 19 (or even better, produce a play), they do a show somewhere in Buckinghamshire where they invite people off the streets of a beautiful English village somewhere to comment on politics, and finally, stop broadcasting their biased views of the performances last night - Mr Robinson you are the weakest link.
*
*
UPDATE (17/4 11.15am) Here's more from Stuart:
*
I heard the Today program again this morning. Evan Davis has moved from Manchester where he interviewed people regarding polical opinion, to another more politically balanced location, Liverpool where he interviewed people in Toxteth regarding their voting tendances.
*
Where next for Evan? Glasgow?

EVAN'S ABOVE!

*

Well, David Cameron won that skirmish with Evan Davis all hands down! http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8610000/8610852.stm
*
For the first few minutes the interruptions flew (and Evan's voice got higher and higher) as he he pressed the Conservative leader to say that there would be lots of job losses in the public sector if the Tories won the election, much more than if Labour got back into power. Then Evan Davis pretty much stopped interrupting and the interview calmed down into a much more gentle attack on the Tories' poster about Labour widening equality (Evan defended Brown's record, Mr Cameron scuppered it). At the end it was even quite good-humoured as Evan asked him what his favourite paper is. (At least he didn't ask him what his favourite colour is!)
*
David Cameron was very lucky to get Evan Davis, the least aggressive and the least overtly biased of the five Today presenters. Just imagine if he'd have been up against Justin Webb, Sarah Montague, John Humphrys or, God forbid, the rabid James Naughtie!
*
How's this for an unexpected set of interruption coefficients?
*
7/4 James Naughtie - Nick Clegg - 1.4
8/4 John Humphrys - Gordon Brown - 2.1
9/4 Evan Davis - David Cameron - 1.1
*

FAREWELL TO ALL THAT

*
For a little light reading as Gordon Brown finally makes his reluctant way to Buckingham Palace, here are the BBC's guidelines for the election (thanks to John Horne Tooke on the Biased BBC open thread):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/consult/election_guidance/election_guidance.pdf
*
The essence for the BBC is 'proportionality' (i.e. fair shares) within programmes and across networks over a given week.
*
This should mean that we no longer get this kind of 'disproportionality':
*
The Today programme's interviews with party elder statesmen:
*
Sat 3/4 Charles Kennedy (Lib Dem) - 8.51am - 4 minutes 40 seconds
Mon 5/4 Lord Heseltine (Con) - 8.54am - 5 minutes 55 seconds
Tue 6/4 Lord Kinnock (Lab) - 8.10am - 8 minutes 56 seconds
*
Here Labour got much longer than either the Conservatives or the Lib Dems and was given the prestigious, primetime 8.10am spot as well.
*
Nothing like that will happen again for the next four weeks, according to the BBC. Happy days! (Now where are my tablets again?)
*
*
Coda: If you fancy a laugh at Gordon Brown's expense (and if you listened to Lord Kinnock on this morning's Today you might well be in need of a laugh), please have a read of this wonderfully funny piece by Iain Martin of The Wall Street Journal (hat-tip to Not a sheep)
http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/04/05/election-exclusive-inside-no-10-as-gordon-brown-prepares-historic-trip-to-palace

THE MINDSET OF THE 'TODAY' PROGRAMME LAID BARE

*
Over on the Biased BBC blogsite DB and John Anderson point bias watchers towards an important article in today's Telegraph.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/stomach-turning.html#comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7549570/BBC-plunged-into-BNP-election-row.html
*

A new directive issued by corporation executives forces the editors of flagship news programmes to give airtime to minority parties, including the BNP, immediately after the live debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Insiders have revealed they are deeply unhappy and believe that the edict – overseen by the BBC's deputy director general and head of journalism Mark Byford – could wreck proper reporting of the debates.

The editors and presenters on Radio 4's Today programme have been told they must interview representatives of the BNP, Ukip, the Green party, SNP and Plaid Cymru on the same show, the morning after the debates.

Sources said this will leave almost no room for serious discussion of how the mainstream leaders performed.

One source said:
"We're all spitting feathers here. This is further proof that the BBC's obsession with 'compliance' is destroying its news coverage and journalism.

"The only result of this directive from Mark Byford and the rest of the overpaid detached senior management is that listeners will simply switch off in droves.

"The idea of having to interview the Ukip leader Nigel Farage – let alone Nick Griffin – is turning people's stomachs."

Another senior source added: "People are very angry indeed. The Today programme has an audience of 6.5 million people and everybody knows it is easily the most important of the BBC's morning news programmes.

"And yet it is being treated like the man at the Lord Mayor's Show who has to walk behind the main parade sweeping up the muck with a bucket and a shovel.

"The Today programme is being used to assuage the minority parties rather than doing what it is meant to which is analysing the performance of the three main party leaders."

That is infuriating, isn't it?
*
DB's comment is spot on:

No Alka Seltzer needed for the leaders of the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, just the BNP and UKIP. So even the party that came second in the European elections is beyond the pale as far as sophisticated metropolitan BBC journalists are concerned. Too stupid to know that UKIP's leader is Lord Pearson, not Nigel Farage, though.

As is this comment by Hippiepooter:
*
Yes, I noticed this BBC guy casting UKIP beyond the pale together with the Nazi BNP. Shows just what a far-left agitprop mindset exists in BBC newsrooms when a legitimate party like UKIP is gratuitously insulted in this way.
*
And this from Phil:

Some of these BBC types simply don't get it do they? They choose to work for a state funded broadcaster which is charged with the responsibility of producing balanced, fair news and then they moan that doing exactly that turns peoples stomachs.

Well, if doing the job you chose to do and which you are paid to do turns your stomach then tough! Either get on with it or quit. These BBC staff seem amazed that they can't just pick and choose the parts of their jobs which they find amenable. How arrogant can you get?
*
My sentiments precisely!
*
***

All of which reminds me of something from last September and deepens the strong suspicions I had then that Sarah Montague was sniggering at Nigel Farage throughout the interview that followed his announcement that he was stepping down as UKIP leader:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/sniggering-at-nigel-farage.html