RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!

8
BBC Europe editor Gavin Hewitt provides a neat example of bias by labeling in one of his recent blog articles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt. Though mostly quoting Charles Grant of the Beeb's favouite European think tank, the Centre for European Reform, Gavin ends by giving us a pearl of wisdom from a man he calls "the respected economist Paul Krugman". I wonder if this is part of the reason why Gavin uses the word 'respected' about Mr Krugman: "Krugman describes himself as liberal. He has explained that he views the term "liberal" in the American context to mean "more or less what social democratic means in Europe. Krugman has praised Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, asserting that he "defined the character of the worldwide [financial] rescue effort" and has since urged British voters not to support the opposition Conservative Party, arguing their Party Leader David Cameron "has had little to offer other than to raise the red flag of fiscal panic." (Wikipedia)

AN 'OUTSIDER' AT A LABOUR MEETING

*
Last night's Newsnight featured a characteristically supportive report for Gordon Brown from Michael Crick, then an interview between Jeremy Paxman and former Labour deputy leader John Prescott (not pictured). This, in turn, was followed by an interview with former Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley (who shares Prescott's views) and a man Paxo introduced as "Richard Reeves, director of the independent think-tank Demos." This is a classic instance of bias by labeling:

One type of media bias has been called 'Bias by Labeling'. Part of this involves labeling a person the reporter or commentator disapproves of as, say, 'right-wing' but, conversely, not labeling someone the commentator approves of as 'left-wing' but instead, say, describing them as 'independent' or an 'expert'.
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/07/bias-by-labelling-case-of-injostice.html

Demos is not part of the Labour Party but it is a centre-left think tank close to Labour. (You could say much the same about the BBC!!)
*
"You're an outsider in all this," Jeremy said to Mr Reeves (a phrase Baron Hattersley took up). Well, up to a point Jeremy, up to a point.

ARIANNA'S IN A LEFT-WING HUFF

8
Barack Obama's recent poll ratings have been going the way of the temperature in the North Eastern United States in Washington - sharply downwards. Yesterday's Today programme set out to find out why with an interview between James Naughtie and BBC favourite Arianna Huffington. (The Biased BBC website covers this in some detail, with a fine comment from the fabulous David Preiser, so I won't dwell on it http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/12/so-how-is-obama-doing.html#comments) except to note that the Today website describes this leftie lady as "Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post". Had the Huff Post not been a left-liberal affair it would surely have been described as 'conservative' or 'right-wing', or some such label. There was no mention of 'liberal' or 'left-wing' here. Naughtie's introductory words, however, did add an adjective to this description - "influential"!
*
Unsuspecting listeners might assume that Arianna is a moderate, non-partisan, influential-with-a-whole-range-of-people type of commentator. She's none of the above. This was a perspective on President Obama from the American far-Left - and that's the only place where Today's attempts to find out why the polls are worsening for the One took them.
*
This is a small example of bias by labeling.

ROBIN LEFTIG (2)

*
Now back to Thursday's The World Tonight, again presented by Robin Lustig. This began by discussing the meeting of minds between President Sarkozy and Gordon Brown (because Gordon is now following Sarko's line on regulation). Who did Robin invite on to discuss the issue. "I asked the French MEP Sylvie Goulard should we now believe them when they say they agree?" Sylvie had a bit of a dig at Sarko and praised the EU. I've complained about this before (http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/world-tonight.html). Again Lustig neglected to tell us where she stands politically. Like last time (4/11), he did not tell us that she is a French Liberal MEP. (She's also president of the ultra-Europhile French European Movement). This is 'bias by (not) labeling'. The other guest was centrist Financial Times foreign editor Gideon Rachman.
*
An initiative by three U.S. senators on 'climate change' (ie. man-made global warming) was discussed with Rob Bradley of The World Resources Institute, "an environmental think-tank in Washington" and the BBC's environment(alist) correspondent Richard Black.
*
The World Tonight is particularly obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians. The Egyptian government's moves against tunnels into Gaza, which Lustig helpfully reminded us is thought of by every single one of its 11/2 million inhabitants as "the world's biggest open-air prison", were discussed with one man, Chris Gunness of the UN agency UNRWA. You may recognise the name, as Chris was a former BBC correspondent. He regards Israel as an "occupying power."
*

NOT RUBBING THE LEFT'S NOSE IN IT

*
Last night's Newsnight discussed immigration in the wake of Alan Johnson's speech on the subject. Michael Crick's report featured 3 talking heads. Among them were the Conservative Chris Grayling (not praising Mr Johnson) and Labour's Frank Field (praising Mr Johnson). The other head was someone Crick introduced as an "immigration analyst". This made him sound like an independent expert - another classic example of bias by labelling (see label for types of bias). It was actually Tim Finch of the left-of-centre, Labour-aligned think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, who did criticise Alan Johnson, but did so from a stance of sympathetic understanding and, of course, from a left-wing, pro-immigration perspective. Why not some-one from, say, Migration Watch? Because this is a Michael Crick report, that's why. Of course he'd rather go to the IPPR.
*
Where was the pro-Labour bias in a report that might, at first glance, seem more balanced than usual?
*
It came when he mentioned the controversy caused by comments by a former Blair advisor, Andrew Neather:
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
See also http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/10/mass-immigration-under-labour-was-not.html).
*
This was the story, as told by the Telegraph:

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a
politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country
and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former
adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s."

How did the Labour-loving Crick report this? "Last month Andrew Neather, a former aide to Tony Blair, caused a fuss by saying that in its early years Labour had eased immigration controls to help business but also encourage multiculturalism."
*
And that was it!
*
No mention, you will have noticed, of the "politically motivated attempt by ministers...to "rub the Right's nose in diversity"". Crick here is positively Alistair Campbell/Malcolm Tucker-like in his spinning of a story harmful to the Labour government. (And from the same stable, note also the use of the word 'fuss' to downplay the story even more.)

CRICK THE RIPPER STRIKES AGAIN!...AGAIN!

Michael Crick can openly attack the Conservatives with impugnity now, as the BBC is currently having yet another of its periodic anti-Tory fits. The latest feeding-frenzy has centred on the comments (on Fox News) of Daniel Hannan, the refreshingly independent-minded (and genuinely conservative) Conservative MEP, concerning the shortcomings of our National Health Service. Labour have pounced (with predictable and rather puerile glee) on Dan's remarks, using them to score points against the Conservatives in general, and Messers Cameron and Lansley in particular. Labour really are the 'new nasty party'. The aim is obvious - to undermine the successful-seeming Cameroon strategy of saying only nice things about the NHS and to try to convince voters that the Tories really dislike the NHS and want it to undergo (as Esler put it) "a good dose of private medicine". And, of course, that old ploy - to paint them as divided ("Tory splits.)

Of course where Labour goes, Crick goes too.

Tonight's Newsnight left us with another crime-scene, and Crick's fingerprints were all over it. It's his second anti-Tory report of the week. He will be pleased. After playing short clips of Mr Hannan's previously appearance on Fox ("It's not as if Daniel Hannan hasn't denounced the NHS on Fox TV before"), he said "Indeed the Euro MP's become a star hit with Rupert Murdoch's avowedly right-wing presenters." (Nice little example of bias by labelling there).

Crick continued, "All very embarrassing for the Conservative who could quite soon become prime minister". Note the Crickian use of the word 'very' (to heighten Tory embarrassment), in contrast to the minimising 'pretty' in the following passage: "A big aim of the Cameron project has been to try and neutralise Labour's traditional big lead on health in much the same way that during the 1990s Tony Blair successful neutralised the Tories historic lead on tax and the economy. And in recent years there are signs that David Cameron's been pretty successful at doing that; indeed some polls have put the Tories ahead of Labour on health. The danger is, from Mr Cameron's point of view, is that Labour could now snatch back what used to be its ace card."

"Yet while the Tory leader may call Daniel Hannan 'eccentric', Mr Cameron knows that the MEP and his views are very popular with the Tory grassroots;" (and with floating right-of-centre voters like yours truly) "indeed at the Conservative spring conference this April Hannan got prime billing, ahead of nearly all the shadow cabinet".

Crick then reported on the pro-NHS campaign launched on twitter, with Labour folk gushing out their undying love for our glorious health service. Cue lovable John Prescott, and his characteristic attacks on both Dan Hannan and David Cameron. He was followed by another Tory-bashing 'talking head' , the Lib Dem Norman Lamb, opining that the Tory grassroots (in the party and in the blogosphere) would make the Conservative leadership change its policy if it won power. Why does this show bias on Crick's part? Well, where were the opposition voices in Crick's last report on the Labour party's leadership? They were absent. (See label for 'Crick' ).

"The skirmishes over health these last 48 hours could overshadow and perhaps freeze a big debate that's raged within Tory ranks - over whether party leaders should ditch, or at least dilute, their pledge to ringfence spending on the NHS whilst making big cuts almost everywhere else." Ah yes, Tory splits and Tory spending cuts.

Peter Hoskin, web editor of the Spectator, was the only conservative voice in the report, and he was only there as a tool to help Crick make his point that the party leadership's emphasis on 'ringfencing' strategy is going to make it hard for them to "row back from this position, should they want to" after the general election. "I rather suspect they will want to row back from it when they're in government given the scale of Gordon Brown's debt crisis." Unintentionally (and whilst making a valid point), Mr Hoskin here makes himself Crick's 'useful idiot'.

"Twice this week David Cameron's squashed colleagues who's views may be publically unpalatable but chime with many Tories. First Alan Duncan, now Daniel Hannan." This seems to me to be a bare-faced twisting of the truth. Alan Duncan's views chimed with many MPs from other parties too & I strongly suspect that the Conservative grassroots were almost completely chime-free on this issue, in fact much more likely to have been furious with Mr Duncan.

Crick's punchline was characteristically unfriendly to the Conservative Party: "Both men have now shut up. But thanks to the internet opposition parties will no doubt in the months ahead exploit Duncan and Hannan as if they were a firm of undertakers." They will & so will you Crick! I will be watching to see if you do.

*

*

Here's a new count, just for Michael Crick. It will track how many times he uses the word Tory (or Tories) compared to the number of times he uses the word Conservative (or Conservatives). Here's today's tally:

Tory - 6

Conservative - 2

Except for John Prescott, is there anyone else in the political class who uses the word 'Tories' with such frequency and with such venom as Michael Crick?

LEYNE AND MORE TORY AYATOLLAHS

What's the connection between these three revolutionary tyrants?

They're all conservatives.

Now here'a fun game for all the family. See how many times Jon Leyne, the BBC's expelled Tehran correspondent, uses the word 'conservative' in a single appearance. This morning, on 'Today', he only used it 3 times. 6 is the record, from what I've heard. Others, like Ali Ansari on the same programme, call the 'badies' in Iran 'hardliners'. Leyne nearly always calls them 'conservatives'. I would call them 'radicals'!
I call that another case of 'bias by labeling'!

Of course, I know what he means - and so do you. Still...words have connotations...

BTW, the conservatives in Iran are now more split than they've been since the row over the Maastricht Treaty, when Grand Ayatollah Major faced a challenge from the MP for the Holy City of Qom, Hojatoleslam Cash.

EVAN IS STINGY WITH THE LABELS

*
Evan Davis gave us a nice little example of Bias by Labeling this morning.

This is where a politically identifying label is given to a group of which the interviewer/reporter is not sympathetic in contrast to no politically identifying label being attached to a group of which he is sympathetic - thus giving the former a partisan (negative) tag, while the latter has an independent/politically neutral (positive) tag attached to it.

Here's what Evan said: "Let's discuss what Harriet Harman said yesterday with Yvonne Roberts, who's a senior associate at the Young Foundation, which is a social innovation think tank, and Jill Kirby, who's the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, which is a right-of-centre think tank."

Evan should surely have said "...at the Young Foundation, which is a left-of-centre think tank..." (The Young Foundation, indeed, is just that, & is headed by a former Blair director of policy and Brown chief policy advisor, Geoff Mulgan.)

By his 'bias by labeling' Evan Davis could be misleading his listeners into thinking that the CPS is close to the Conservative Party while the YF is independent of party politics.

A TEMPLATE FOR BIAS

Imagine you were a biased BBC reporter, working for an organisation bound to the idea of impartiality, & that you were compiling a report on, shall we say, Barrack Obama's healthcare reforms, how should you best proceed?

I think this is a pretty good strategy:

Begin by telling a hard-luck story, preferably involving a type of 'ordinary' individual likely to engage the listener's emotions, eg. a young mother. Ensure that she is articulate enough to make the points you want her to make in favour of the position of which you approve.

Next feature an articulate campaigner who speaks in favour of the position of which you approve.

Having established the case you wish (covertly) to make, then cover yourself against the charge of bias by introducing a third voice, this time speaking against the position of which you approve (eg. a businesswoman). Ensure that there is at least one detail about her or in what she says that can be used to support your prefered position & pick up on that detail to pivot back to the 'true' narrative.

Return to the hard-luck story and the young mother, and hammer home the point that what Obama wants (and of which you approve) will save her. Say that what's at stake is her and her family's future & try (as subtly as possible) to have a little dig at Obama's Republican opponents whilst your at it.

That strategy was followed to the letter by Kevin Connolly on last night's 'The World Tonight'.

*******

"At stake is the issue of how America sees itself", began Connolly. "Is a free market always the best way of rationing resources, or has the time come for the government, which already provides health care for the old and the poor, to do more?"

Casting it in those terms makes it sounds like a choice between silly right-wing dogmatism and sensible, incremental pragmatism. It's a loaded characterisation of the debate.

"To Kathy Hunter," Connolly continues, "one of the 47 million Americans who have no private health insurance, that's what her teenage children would call a 'no-brainer'." (Connolly would clearly love to be able to call it a 'no-brainer' too!)

Kathy's story is being told by Connolly to persuade us (and the Beeb's US listeners) that it's time for the American government to provide a state scheme to cover the uninsured.

Connolly continues, "This is the issue which will define the Obama presidency. It's stories like Kathy's which he tells to persuade Americans that it's time for the government to provide a state scheme to cover the uninsured. Jim Duffett from the Illinois Campaign for Better Healthcare has known Mr Obama since he was a young state senator. He says they broadly agree on the diagnosis of what's going wrong."

The case has now essentially been made. This, however, is the impartial BBC, so opposing voices must be heard - safely, as the unhealthy filling between two substantial slices of wholemeal bread.

"Democrats often argue that opposition to change comes from insurance & drug companies what do well out of the existing system. But it's not quite that simple." This, of course, is a classic manoeuvre - to subtly support your friends's (here the Democrats') position by criticising it for being only partly (or only mostly) right!

"Most of the time for most Americans the system does work, and here's how: Employers, like Sandy Weston-Dennahan, offer health insurance as part of their employment package."

"Sandy wouldn't have it any other way. She can't be pigeon-holed as a conservative, but she shares the instinctive horror that most American conservatives feel at the idea of the government taking over the health system".

Is it only American conservatives who feel that way? Do others oppose Obama's plan? Note also the suggestion of the unthinking, irrational nature of the opposition (to Obama's sensible, rational proposals) contained in the words "instinctive" and "horror".

"To her that's 'socialised medicine' and it means a rationing of resources & bureaucratic interference between doctor and patient".

Kathy, not being in the position of most Americans, is not eligable for Sandy's sort of package - and that's Connolly's pivot.

"None of that, of course, is much help to Kathy Hunter, who's self-employed. She hopes Barrack Obama will stick to his promise to find a way of providing health coverage for people like her."

Now it's time for Connolly to crescendo emotionally: "Until he does she has to live with the possibility that she's one hospital visit away from bankruptcy and homelessness".

'No, not Kathy!!', we cry.

And then it's time for Connolly to hammer out his climax: "What is at stake here, of course, is the future of people like Kathy Hunter and her family."

(Think of the children, won't somebody please think of the children!!!)

"But there's something else too," Connolly adds, getting ready to hint that the Republican opponents of Obama's plan are opposing not on principle but as a partisan political game: "Republicans sense if they defeat him on healthcare, then the momentum will be gone from his presidency."

Of course (as Connolly would say!) it's not quite that simple. A good number of Democrats in Congress also voted against Obama's healthcare plan - but let's not dwell on that, eh Kevin?

*******

Bias? What bias?

BIAS BY LABELLING - A CASE OF INJOSTICE

One type of media bias has been called 'Bias by Labelling'. Part of this involves labelling a person the reporter or commentator disapproves of as, say, 'right-wing' but, conversely, not labelling someone the commentator approves of as 'left-wing' but instead, say, describing them as 'independent' or an 'expert'. (Thanks to John Horne Tooke for this information).

There was a textbook example of this on tonight's 'PM' programme.

Kenneth Jost, Law Professor at Washington University and author of 'The Supreme Court A to Z', was invited on to give a short talk about the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, & the Senate hearings that will scrutinise and approve her appointment. This was a lecture-in-miniature. No alternative viewpoints were sought. No questions were asked.

Is he the impartial, dispassionate academic 'PM' would have us believe?

Here's the passage that gives the game away:

"Republicans and conservative advocacy groups are calling Sotomayor 'a liberal judicial activist'. Independent experts say her decisions stick closely to the facts and to precedent."

A little look around the internet leads you to a recent article by Professor Jost, which confirms that he is opposed to the 'Republicans and conservative advocacy groups', & on the side of the 'independent experts', on this issue at least:
http://jostonjustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-choice-belies-critics.html

Jost's bias, then, is matched by the BBC's bias. Just as he would have us believe that those in favour of Sonia Sotomayor's appointment are 'independent experts', so they too would have us believe that Professor Jost is an 'independent expert' too. (In a sense - his own sense - he is!)