THE GREAT MARDELL

*
It's been a scandal-filled week for the American Democratic Party, according to The Daily Telegraph:

Eric Massa, a Democratic congressman, has announced his resignation after it emerged that the House ethics committee is investigating allegations that he sexually harassed a male staff member. Congressman Charles Rangel stood down as head of the powerful tax-writing ways and means committee after the ethics committee criticised him for violating House rules by taking Caribbean trips sponsored by corporations. And David Paterson, the New York governor, was clinging to power amid reports that he intervened in a domestic violence case involving an aide and sought free tickets to a Yankees baseball game. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7380316/Democrat-Eric-Massa-to-quit-amid-sexual-harassment-claims.html

There's no mention of Mr Massa's plight on the BBC News website. Mr Rangel's appointment was reported back on 4/1/07, but news of his resignation is also missing from the BBC News website. There have been no updates about Mr Paterson since that article I quoted on 26/2/10, which managed to forget to tell us that Mr Paterson is a Democrat.
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/which-party-did-you-say.html
*
Mark Mardell's blog certainly doesn't mention any of this. His latest post discusses the 'dirtiness' of the coming mid-term elections in the US, highlighting (and mocking) a Republican 'Powerpoint presentation' in the process:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell
*
Referring to its portrayal of Harry Reid as Scooby-Doo, Mark makes this thoroughly biased statement: "It's true Scooby is the least loveable and most irritating cartoon character ever". Really? What about Tweetie Pie? Or Woody Woodpecker? Or the Roadrunner? And what about the Great Gazoo from The Flintstones? He was a pain in the neck! Surely the Great Gazoo (a green-coloured Ed Balls in a helmet who used to bully Michael Go..., no sorry, Fred Flintstone) is far less lovable and far more irritating than poor Scooby? And as for Scrappy-Doo (though somewhat after my time)!!!!!! Mark's poor judgement here, on an issue of international importance, surely reflects very badly on his overall judgement!
*

IT'S WINTER STILL FOR THE ENG DEMS

*
Did anyone hear anything about the English Democrats' spring conference on the BBC? Both Today and the BBC News website reported those of the Green Party and Plaid Cymru, and Today featured interviews with their respective party leaders. There's been nothing equivalent for the Eng Dems. This despite them winning a similar number of votes in last year's European elections as the SNP and more than twice the number of Plaid. As they are being comprehensively ignored by the BBC (as far as I'm aware) you could probably guess that they are a right-of-centre political party!

NOT WAVING BUT DROWNING

*
The Record Europe's main topic this week was 'Climate Change', specifically how the EU could speak with a common voice on the issue in the wake of all the acrimony at Copenhagen.
*
Shirin Wheeler's introductory report (complete with icebergs, but thankfully no polar bears) featured just one 'talking head' - Sonja Meister of Friends of the Earth Europe. That's par for the course.
*
The studio discussion featured five guests, only one of them a sceptic - Roger Helmer.
*
Not unlike this post (!), things took a predictable path. Here are the stats:
*
Length of time each guest got to speak
*
Rebecca Harms (German Green) - 3 minutes 35 seconds
Dan Jorgensen (Danish Social Democrat) - 3 minutes 15 seconds
Sirpa Pletikainen (Finnish Centre Right) - 2 minutes 59 seconds
Chris Davies (British Lib Dem) - 2 minutes 28 seconds
Roger Helmer (British Conservative) - 2 minutes 20 seconds
*
Despite that the only uses of the command 'Briefly!' by Shirin were directly at the sceptical Tory (twice)! (That's as it always is on this programme!)
*
Interruption Coefficients
*
Roger Helmer - 0.9
Sirpa Pletkainen - 0.8
Dan Jorgensen - 0.3
Rebecca Harms - 0.3
Chris Davies - 0
*
So the centre-right comes of worse, yet again.
*
The only politician to be contradicted by Shirin was Mr Helmer.
*
When he argued that "everyone from the Maldives to China sees this as a way of getting money from the West", she interrupted to say "But I mean we've spoken to the prime minister of Tuvalu, who travelled all the way to Brussels to say that his island is drowning. And we've seen pictures of it! He's not making it up!" Her point is perhaps weakened by the fact that Tuvalu is a chain of islands, not a single island. Moreover, the rise in sea level around the nine islands is not, as she assumes, necessarily caused by 'global warming', even according to our old friend Wikipedia: "This concern is compounded by the effects of subsidence which causes the islands naturally to sink into the sea, and non-natural land use (such as farming) which causes soil compaction. And to further complicate matters, it has been difficult to accurately measure to what degree each of these causes is affecting the observed rise in sea level. Global warming may not be the primary cause for the rise in local measurements." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tuvalu. Mr Helmer was having none of it anyway, and discussed the case of the Maldives.
*
Behind the Green lady was a window and through the window snow-flakes fell.
*

PITCHING TO THE LEFT

*
Thursday night's Newsnight discussed the elderly care issue. Gavin Esler asked three people to pitch their favoured schemes to the government's egalitarianism-loving independent advisor Joan Bakewell and Emma Soames of Saga magazine.
*
Who were the three 'pitchers'?
*
1. James Lloyd, of the Blairite Social Market Foundation. He wants a national voluntary insurance scheme.
2. Stephen Burke, of the charity Counsel and Care, who tried to become the Labour Party's candidate for Scunthorpe in the 2010 general election. He favours the 'Death Tax'.
3. Dr Anna Dixon (pictured) chief executive of The King's Foundation (formerly of the L.S.E.), who acted as a policy advisor to the government from 2003-4. She wants it largely paid for out of taxation.
*
Gavin Esler had previously interviewed Andrew Lansley, scoring a high I.C. against him of 1.9.
*
When attention turned to Sino-American relations, who did Gavin Esler turn to for an American point of view? Nina Hachigian of the liberal Centre for American Progress. That think tank keeps cropping up in my surveys. It must be the American equivalent of the IPPR!
*
You could never accuse the BBC of ignoring the Liberal-Left!

MASONS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

*
'Former' Trot Paul Mason was back in Greece for last night's Newsnight, talking again to the Greek Far Left.
*
We heard from all manner of leftist strikers, agitators and students, and Paul talked up the risk of severe unrest, even revolution. He was clearly in his element.
*
He then went on to very briefly interview George Alogoskoufis, finance minister of the previous conservative New Democracy government, adopting an accusatory tone and blaming his party alone for the crisis. (He'd absolved the 'social democrat' PASOK from blame earlier in the report, despite their long periods in office throughout the last thirty years.)
*
This was extraordinary stuff, complete with its incidental talk of 'posh people' and their 'Gucci' culture. Citizen Smith ('Power to the people!') would surely have compiled a report just like this one!
*
I was surprised to hear someone on PM last week (I can't remember who) stating that, contrary to the impresson Mason has been giving during the last couple of weeks, the Greek public is broadly understanding and largely supportive of strong austerity measures. A little research shows this to be true:

Greek Polls Register Public Support For Austerity Measures

A number of public opinion polls released over the weekend showed increased public support for the Greek government’s reform measures as it tries to shape the country’s struggling public finances.

As Dow Jones Newswires reports, four separate polls show public approval for tough measures at a rate that exceeds 60%, and in some cases, they even register support for harsher reforms, while also showing relatively little support for recent farmer protests or upcoming strikes by civil servants.

In a poll in Sunday’s To Vima newspaper, 64.1% of participants say the reforms are in the "right direction" while 64.3% note that the measures were necessary.

In a separate poll for Sunday newspaper Proto Thema, between 54.6% and 71.4% of respondants supported for different specific measures ranging from a freeze on public sector wages, to an increase in the retirement age and an increase in the fuel tax.

A poll conducted for the Saturday edition of financial daily Imerisia shows that 68.9% of the public think the measures are necessary for the country to emerge from the crisis.

A poll for Skai radio and television shows that 62% of the public opinion believes the government is capable of dealing with the crisis and 60% say that the three-year austerity plan will deliver.

http://english.capital.gr/news.asp?id=903774
*
You would have thought that Paul Mason might have mentioned this, if only in passing. I've been listening to him on this subject very carefully, and I can't recall him ever mentioning this. His far-Left 'past' probably makes him deaf to this sort of (for him) unwelcome news.
*
Postscript:
In fairness to Mr Mason, his blog covers the same story in much greater detail and does (briefly) mention those opinion polls that show support for austerity measures.

MUCH TALK OF TORIES, BUT NO ACTUAL TORIES

*
Who was the all-seeing journalist on Radio 4's Westminster Hour this week?
*
Well, here's that list again, with its newest member.
*
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian

To my perennial question "When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes?", comes the answer "Well, not this week - again!!!."
*

FEBRUARY FOOLS' DAY

*
At exactly the same time as the two (or, with Andrew Marr, three) Lefties were reviewing the papers on The Andrew Marr Show, Radio 4's Broadcasting House was giving us its treatment of the elderly care story, first looking at the political squabble over the issue in a report from Norman Smith that cast the Tories in the worst light (what a surprise!).
*
Then the programme turned to the issue itself with an essay on the subject by Philippa Stroud of the centre-right think tank The Centre for Social Justice, which argued that inheritance of wealth and property is no sin.
*
Do you believe me? Or am I pulling that annoying stunt yet again where, in the spirit of April Fools' Day, I mislead you into thinking that the BBC has surprisingly gone against all its left-wing instincts when it in fact hasn't?
*
Yes, I'm afraid that's exactly what I've done again. (I promise not to do it again, or it could become very tiresome!!)
*
Philippa Stroud did not appear on the programme, not did anyone else from a centre-right think tank. Instead the essay on Broadcasting House was given by Richard Reeves of the centre-left think Demos, and he argued against the 'madness' of our favourable attitudes towards inheritance.
*
No balancing voice was heard.
*
I'm at the stage now where I don't really expect one anymore.
*

HITTING THE BUFTONS

*
Much as I'd love to be sending Shirin Wheeler, presenter of The Record Europe, a Valentine's Day card today (and getting one back), I'm afraid I'm going to have to throw another brickbat at the lady instead. She was, yet again, on severely biased form again this week.
*
The first topic was the approval of the latest European Commission by the European Parliament. In Shirin's introductory report she played us back-to-back clips of the reactions of the leaders of the European Liberals, Socialists and the federalist EPP. Then her voice returned to lead us to the next clip from the parliamentary chamber, saying with a definite note of weariness, "In some quarters the opposition was predictable". Cue Nigel Farage (on fantastic form).
*
The usual studio discussion followed, with the usual results. I'll list the statistics first:
*
John Bufton (UKIP) - 3 interruptions, I.C. of 1.4
Timothy Kirkhope (Conservative) - 2 interruptions, I.C. of 0.9
Corlen Wortman Kool (EPP) - 0 interruptions, I.C. of 0
Alex Lambsdorf (German Liberal) - 0 interruptions, I.C. of 0
Stephen Hughes (Labour) - 0 interruptions, I.C. of 0
*
These results are pure Shirin Wheeler.
*
Stephen Hughes, like all her Labour guests, was not probed about Labour policy, was treated with friendly respect and was not interrupted.
*
Mr Kirkhope, who nearly always fares badly at the lovely hands of Shirin, was accused of 'sitting on the fence' and 'not standing up', was interrupted and contradicted over his support for President Barossa and later cut off again before he could finish his point.
*
Still, he fared a great deal better than John Bufton of UKIP, who got the full Shirin treatment.
*
Her first question to him was pretty extraordinary in itself, being laden with bias: "Now that for members of your party John (i.e. the idea of more 'leadership' from the Commission) is not going to come as great news. Mind you, nothing much does here. Nigel Farage, you know, had what some would say was a pretty extraordinary outburst about this. Do you agree with him?"
*
John's answer lasted just 19 seconds before the first interruption came. The interruption was the sort of interruption only Shirin's right-of-centre guests ever seem to be on the receiving end of - a telling-off: "But leave the labels aside and the, you know, emotive terms aside for a moment." Ouch! The question that followed was said v e r y s l o w l y , as if she were speaking to a dim child: "Isn't this about finding solutions to concrete problems that effect people's lives, like losing their jobs and things like that?"
*
In answer he complained that the people had not been consulted in a referendum, which brought Shirin crashing back in after just 13 seconds with her second interruption. This was a contradiction, delivered with a grin/grimace: "Well they do have a say because they elected you and that's fair enough!" 'Fair enough'? That's big of her! At least she doesn't want UKIP banned!!
*
John's answer to this was also interrupted (after 35 seconds) with another telling-off: "Oh let's not get bogged down by domestic politics!" she exclaimed.
*
In a later exchange between Mr Bufton and Mrs Worman Kool, where the former made the point that the European Commission are unelected and the latter started to quibble, Shirin intervened to disagree with him again, snapping "They went through a thorough hearing process as well. Let's hear from Alex now."
*
A classic Shirin Wheeler performance all round.
*
No set of interruption coefficients is more damning in its proof of left-wing bias than hers:
*
31/01/2010 Lord Dartmouth UKIP 2.4
21/09/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.9
11/10/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.5
06/12/2009 David Campbell-Bannerman UKIP 1.5
20/12/2009 Vicky Ford Conservative 1.5
14/02/2010 John Bufton UKIP 1.4
08/11/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 1.2
15/11/2009 Martha Andreasen UKIP 1.2
11/10/2009 Nigel Farage UKIP 0.9
14/02/2010 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.9
01/11/2009 Paul Nuttall UKIP 0.7
08/11/2009 Charles Tannock Conservative 0.7
08/11/2009 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0.7
07/02/2010 Nirj Diva Conservative 0.7
08/11/2009 Derek Clarke UKIP 0.6
08/11/2009 Glenis Willmott Labour 0.5
06/12/2009 Lord Roper Lib Dem 0.4
17/01/2010 Glenis Willmott Labour 0.4
31/01/2010 Richard Howitt Labour 0.4
24/01/2010 Claude Moraes Labour 0.3
04/10/2009 Syed Kamall Conservative 0.3
06/12/2009 Richard Howitt Labour 0.3
20/12/2009 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0.3
17/01/2010 Geoffrey Van Orden Conservative 0.3
07/02/2010 Michael Cashman Labour 0.3
25/10/2009 Timothy Kirkhope Conservative 0.2
18/10/2009 Caroline Lucas Green 0
31/01/2010 Mary Honeyball Labour 0
22/11/2009 Cathy Ashton Labour 0
17/01/2010 Jean Lambert Green 0
31/01/2010 Kay Swinburne Conservative 0
04/10/2009 Graham Watson Lib Dem 0
11/10/2009 Fiona Hall Lib Dem 0
11/10/2009 Richard Howitt Labour 0
25/10/2009 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
20/12/2009 Sharon Bowles Lib Dem 0
06/12/2009 Michael Connarty Labour 0
20/12/2009 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
04/10/2009 Arlene McCarthy Labour 0
25/10/2009 Chris Davies Lib Dem 0
15/11/2009 Derek Vaughan Labour 0
24/01/2010 Andrew Duff Lib Dem 0
15/11/2009 Vicky Ford Conservative 0
01/11/2009 Jean Lambert Green 0
07/02/2010 Richard Corbett Labour 0
14/02/2010 Stephen Hughes Labour 0
*
Her averages say it all:
*
UKIP (7 interviews) - 1.24
Conservatives (12 interviews) - 0.77
Labour (16 interviews) - 0.16
Lib Dems (8 interviews) - 0.14
Greens (3 interviews) - 0.0
*
Pretty extraordinary, wouldn't you say?
*

GLEES GETS CLUBBED BY LUSTIG

*

I'm still catching up from last week!

*

Wednesday's The World Tonight began by discussing the case of Ethopian pain-in-the-bottom Binyam Mohamed (and he may, or may not, have received some pain there himself). What was surprising here was drippingly-liberal presenter Robin Lustig's unusually aggressive interviewing of an academic. The academics usually invited onto The World Tonight, generally being a left-liberal lot, are rarely interrupted. What did Professor Anthony Glees, Professor of Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingam, do to deserve three feisty interruptions from Robin Lustig? He condemned judges for being harsh on the security forces and condemned Liberty (whose Guardian girl Corinna Ferguson (pictured) had just been given the gentle treatment from Lusty Robin). Lustig was clearly aghast.

*

Tapping 'Anthony Glees' into my search engine brings up, first of all, a site called SpinProfiles that calls the professor "a right-wing British academic considered an expert on terrorism and radicalism" - and it doesn't mean that as a term of praise!

*

Anthony Glees, the first 'right-wing' academic invited onto The World Tonight for some time, is given the full interruption treatment from Robin Lustig. That kind of says it all really.

*

In fact, Professor Glees was completely reasonable and spot-on in what he said. Reasonable commentary is clearly not what the BBC wants to hear about its favourite Ethopian.

*

*

*

Talking of the Binman, Friday's Daily Politics (the edition without Andrew Neil) discussed the issue with, of all people, sleazy Labour MP Keith Vaz. Pouting Jo Coburn's interruption coefficient here was a teeny-weeny 0.2.

*

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

*
Talking of favoured newspapers, here are a list of all the rags mentioned this week, in the order they were mentioned, during the headlines preview at the end of each edition of Newsnight. Do you spot any favoured papers here?
*
Fri 12/2 - Gavin Esler
1. Guardian
2. FT
3. Independent

Thurs 11/2 - Gavin Esler
1. Guardian
2. FT
3. Telegraph
4. Independent

Wed 10/2 - Gavin Esler
1. Guardian
2. Mail
3. Telegraph
4. Independent
5. FT

Tue 9/2 - Emily Maitlis
1. FT
2. Guardian

Mon 8/2 - Emily Maitlis
No time for papers

BLOOM AND THE BABY BOOMERS

*
I blogged a couple of weeks ago about a certain BBC reporter:

Whenever I listen to a Jonty Bloom report on 'The World Tonight' I start to feel anxious about my wallet. Jonty's always after more public spending, and that means he's after my money.

Well he was at it again on tonight's programme.
*
The topic was the 'unfairness' of the disparity in wealth between the baby boomer generation and the younger generation and Bloom was back on some of his favourite themes. As ever he had a leftie professor to back him up, this time John Hills of the L.S.E. (more about whom can be found here http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/j.hills@lse.ac.uk).
*
"Much of that unfairness will be sorted out over time", said Jonty. "Many young people will inherit a lot of money when their parents die; however that won't be evenly or fairly spread around, says Professor Hills" (as indeed he does).
*
Bloom goes on. "Such inequalities between the generations and in coming years between those who inherit and those who don't can, of course, be sorted out by government action". Bloom is always after more government action (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-wallet-trembles.html and http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/12/pre-budget-bias.html).
*
What does he mean? Well, we know Jonty likes Inheritance Tax and is not ashamed to let us know about it (even though most of us don't agree, according to polls that the BBC doesn't like) - see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-bloomin-bias.html - so he continues, "by, for instance, making baby boomers pay more inheritance tax or capital gains tax on their homes, work longer or have smaller pensions".
*
"You might think it would be a brave government that suggested such things," he says, "but John Pawsey and Janet Galley (who he meets in a West End hotel) would be willing to help others". Indeed (they say) they would, Janet adding "I don't have a problem with using taxation to support the population generally." How lucky for Jonty to have met a couple who (say they) support his love of taxes (more about which please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/10/bloomin-bias.html). Of course, people always say this sort of thing & we all know hardly any of them really mean it!! People tend to be in favour of other people paying taxes. (How cynical of me!)

After this piece of naked left-wing propaganda came a political discussion on the same subjected, hosted by Ritula Shah. It featured David Willetts for the Tories, Kitty Ussher for Labour and Stephen Williams for the Lib Dems. Mr Willetts was asked 5 questions and interrupted twice, Kitty was asked 3 questions and interrupted once, Mr Williams was asked 3 questions and not interrupted at all.
*

HOT AIR BLOWS IN FROM THE LEFT

*
Today's World at One saw the return of Shaun Ley (after a long absence). With him came a deluge of left-liberal opinion.
*
Eurostar's difficulties with the snow were discussed with Tunde Olatunji of the government's subsidy-supporting rail watchdog Passenger Focus and critical Labour MP Louise Ellman (I.C. of 0.3).
*
MI5's robust defence of itself over allegations of collusion in torture was discussed with the government's terrorism tsar and Lib Dem lord Alex Carlile, who said exactly what you'd expect him to say (I.C. of 0).
*
The row over elderly care (see previous post) was discussed with Dame Joan Bakewell, who Shaun said "was appointed by ministers to champion the interests of older people, but stresses she's independent of government". (The whole programme was full of people of whom that could also have been said!). Joan is, of course, about as left-liberal as left-liberals get. She attacked the Tory R.I.P. poster as "grotesque" and "an insult to everybody".
*
The final slab of the programme turned to the issue of the 'recovery' and announced its intention of looking at the topic of growth areas for jobs over the coming months. On the day that the 0.5% growth figure came out I noted that both Michael Buchanon on the World at One and Jonty Bloom on The World Tonight concentrated on renewable energy companies, especially wind turbines, in their respective reports on the 'recovery'. The BBC's pushing of wind turbines is relentless. Today, when the topic re-surfaced (after going quiet for a while), guess what? Sometime-Tory-basher Ray Furlong trotted northwards to look at how wind-turbine companies could lead us out of recovery. We heard from various directors of various wind-turbine companies and just one other person..."Chris Goodall, writer, environmentalist and Green Party candidate for parliament."
*

QUINN-TESSENTIALLY BIASED

*

Radio 4's Westminster Hour continues to spit in the face of impartiality.
*
This being Monday morning it's time for that (ever-growing) list again! This week's all-seeing journalist was Nick Watt of The Guardian, back again to discuss the political week with Carolyn Quinn (pictured).
*
Last week I wrote:

"When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes? Surely next week?"

Fat chance!
*
Here's the list, complete with its latest member:
*
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
As it has done for the whole of the last month, the programme began by discussing on the 'woes' of the Conservative Party: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/8503270.stm

*

So for weeks now Westminster Hour has opened its political coverage with overviews from almost exclusively Left-leaning, Labour-supporting journalists. Not a single Conservative supporting journalist has been invited - no Peter Oborne, no Ben Brogan, no Matthew Parris.

*

And it isn't as if Carolyn Quinn tries to play devil's advocate. Her questions are hardly calculated to help the Conservative Party - far from it! Her first question to Nick Watt was about whether the Tories had 'wobbled' this week and if so why? Her second was about whether their austerity message had been 'undermined'. Her third question talked of a 'rowing back' by the Tories and asked if the public services could now 'relax a little bit' because they won't immediately face 'swingeing cuts under the Conservatives'.

*

SPOILING THE PARTY

*
This morning's Today programme discussed America's Tea Party movement with "Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican Governor of New Jersey and co-chair of the moderate Republican group the Republican Leadership Council". That was a little surprising.
*
Not remotely surprising however was The World Tonight's treatment of the same subject on Thursday night's edition of the programme.
*
This consisted of a discussion between Robin Lustig and Professor Stephen Wayne of Georgetown University. Prof. Wayne was extremely sniffy about the Tea Partygoers, downplaying the numbers who attend their meetings as well as questioning how representative they are of the public mood. Financed by "wealthy backers", they show, he said, that "we are still in the era of Ronald Reagan" (and he didn't mean that in a good way). Then came the inevitable: "There may be an element in this that's racial in character" with people who are "angry that there is a black man who they view in a very suspicious way" and about whom they have "some fantastic ideas".
*
You can always rely on The World Tonight to dig out some liberal American academic to back the Democrats and reinforce the programme's left-wing world view.
*
*
*
This same edition of the programme ended with a report from Southern Italy on the problems facing illegal immigrants in the wake of violent clashes with local people. BBC reporter Emma Wallis made no secret about whose side she was on, talking to a Catholic missionary who works with the illegal immigrants, three of the illegals and a sympathetic centre-left regional councillor, with only the local police chief standing out (very briefly) from the crowd. Emma referred to the 'hardline' Italian interior minister and how the 'centre right government', in the wake of the riots, is now 'paying lip service' to the 'centre left' policies of the regional council (of whom she so clearly approves).
*

WHICH LEFTIE SHALL WE INVITE ON THIS WEEK GAVIN?

*
Left-wing Polly Toynbee of The Guardian was the Brit on today's Dateline panel. Last week it was New Labour-loving David Aaronovitch of The Times. The week before it was left-winger Yasmin Alibhai Brown of The Independent. Previously, it was far-left Isabel Hilton of The Guardian. The week before that it was snooty leftie Sir Michael White of The Guardian. Only when we get back to 2nd January do we find a right-winger, Peter Oborne of The Daily Mail. And on it goes...the last edition of 2009 featured Polly Toynbee again, preceded by David Aaronovitch again. On 12/12 we find a second right-winger, Janet Daley of The Sunday Telegraph. And then Isabel Hilton, preceded by Yasmin Alibhai Brown again...and on and on...
*
So of the last 11 editions of Dateline to feature a Brit (and all but one Washington-based special have), 9 have been left-wingers and only 2 right-wingers.
*
As Dateline regularly discusses British politics, this matters.
*
That's clear Beeb bias in action.
*

THE ROAD ALWAYS TAKEN

*
Unlike Newsnight, which gave us the unusual luxury of two Conservative politicians last night (Dan Hannan and Michael Portillo), The World Tonight trod its usual left-liberal path.
*
The government's defence green paper was discussed with Andrew Dorman of King's College London, and "committed European" Philippe Morillon, who served as a French Liberal MEP. A report from Chavez's Venezuela was followed by an interview on the same topic with former Costa Rican vice president (and interim president) Kevin Casas Zamora, a social democrat. Finally, President Obama's decision not to attend the latest US-EU summit in Spain was discussed with Spanish writer Miguel Morado, who the programme always turns to (exclusively) to discuss Spanish politics, and Dr Daniel Hamilton of John Hopkins University, who made noises supportive of Obama and who, it transpires, worked in Bill Clinton's State Department.
*
Robin Lustig presided, liberally.
*

IT'S SOOO UNFAIR!

*
Last night's Westminster Hour was largely devoted to the Conservatives, although no Conservative politicians were present.
*
This week's all-seeing journalist was George Parker of the Financial Times. In no way can George or the F.T. be called ideologically left-wing but they have aligned themselves with the Labour Party for years now and Mr Parker was critical of David Cameron and the Conservatives here. Anyone tuning into Westminster Hour will have heard criticism of David Cameron and the Conservatives from the week's all-seeing journalist for weeks on end now!
*
When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes? Surely next week?
*
Here's that (growing) list again:
*
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
*
The politics panel consisted of:
*
Tom Harris (Labour)
Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrats)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
*
This is the second time that the Conservatives have been dropped so far this year. Labour and the Lib Dems have each been dropped once and should, if fairness is a guiding criteria at Westminster Hour (!), each be dropped in turn over the next couple of weeks (and if not why not?). I will be listening to see that this happens.
*
Despite there being no Conservative spokesman to defend their corner, Carolyn Quinn asked her three left-of-centre guests what they thought of David Cameron's policy on tackling burglars. They all rubbished the policy and slagged off the Tories. Is that a fair thing for Carolyn Quinn to have done? No!
*
The main section of the programme closed with a review of recent Conservative Party history with Dr Tim Bale of Sussex University. Though he had a downbeat story to tell (made even more downbeat by Carolyn's slanting of it) at least he's not an opponent of the Conservative Party. That's something at least.
*
*
I will listen to the Sunday Supplement when I get home (early) from work because it's the second part of Dr David Runciman's 'Turkeys Voting for Christmas' (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-obamas-critics-are-stupid-and.html). Very ominously its subject is Inheritance Tax, that hottest of British political hot potatoes. Will it be as biased and dishonest as last week's take on American politics?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/default.stm
*

DO YOU WANT WAR, FAMINE AND PLAGUE LORD DARTMOUTH?

*

This week's Record: Europe with 'widely respected' Shirin Wheeler began by discussing further EU enlargement. As soon as I saw the panel she'd lined up - a Romanian Socialist, a British Labour MEP, a Slovenian Liberal and a member of UKIP - I thought straight off that the interruptions would soon be flying, and flying towards just one member of the panel. Can you guess which one?
*
Yes, it was the Romanian Socialist.



Only teasing.
*
It was of course the UKIP MEP, William Dartmouth. His interruption coefficient was a stonking 2.4 (with 5 interruptions), whereas that for the Labour MEP Richard Howitt was merely 0.4 (with 1 interruption). Shirin really does not like UKIP, and this showed up in more rude behaviour towards Lord Dartmouth.
*
Mr Howitt's only interruption came after an answer that had lasted without previous interruption for 59 seconds (his second answer lasted uninterrupted, with Shirin's protection from Lord Dartmouth, for 1 minute 14 seconds and turned into a highly rhetorical speech).
*
Compare that to her treatment of William Dartmouth. His first answer was interrupted and contradicted by Shirin after just 13 seconds. She interrupted him again 5 seconds later, then again 7 seconds later. His second answer was interrupted after just 2 seconds (joined by another later)!!! His second answer was not allowed to reach its final cadence without Shirin gesturing at Richard Howitt to begin speaking and saying "Well let's hear from Richard." When Richard immediately attacked UKIP and Lord Dartmouth responded, Shirin stopped him and said again, "Let's hear from Richard". When the Romanian Socialist (Adrian Severin) attacked UKIP (and the absent British Conservatives, like Mr Howitt before him) and Lord Dartmouth tried to respond, Shirin interrupted and said "You've had your say" and handed the discussion over to the Slovene Liberal (Telko Kacin).
*
But had William Dartmouth had his say? Not really, as he got least time to speak:
*
Telko Kacin (Liberal) - 2 minutes 59 seconds
Richard Howitt (Labour) - 2 minutes 49 seconds
Adrian Severin (Socialist) - 2 minutes 31 seconds
William Dartmouth (UKIP) - 2 minutes 12 seconds
*
What's more, Shirin's tone towards Lord Dartmouth was markedly more unfriendly, and she asked him this straw man question about the accession of Serbia: "Do you want to see stability and peace in the Western Balkans?". As soon as he said he did, she interrupted and asked "Do you not see this as the key to bringing that?"
*
Another of her interruptions/contradictions came when William Dartmouth warned of the risk of massive immigration from Serbia and Turkey should they accede to the EU. She simply interjected "or vice versa".
*
Shirin Wheeler is never nice to UKIP. She has to talk to them now, as they won a substantial number of seats in last year's European elections. She may want to ignore them, but UKIP can't be ignored.
*
Here are my other posts on Shirin's bias against and rudeness towards UKIP:

http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/12/bias-with-brown-eyes.html
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/but-shirins-at-helm-actually.html
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/two-against-one-twice.html
*

JUST FOR THE SAKE OF COMPARISON...

*
I'm outlined quite a few of Jim Naughtie's aggressive, occasionally downright rude interviews with centre-right politicians (many readilly accessible if you click on the label Naughtie at the bottom of this post!). Just for the sake of comparison, here's an outline of his far gentler interview on this morning's Today with Chris Huhne of the Lib Dems. This is typical of his interviews with centre-left/left politicians. The issue was Sarah's Law, prompted by a protest in Weymouth which wants this piece of anti-paedophile legislation rolled out nationwide. The interruption coefficient was a very low one, 0.3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8488000/8488822.stm
*
1.11 An exchange of 'good mornings'.
1.13 Q1: "First of all, what about this protest and the idea that this demonstrates it should happen elsewhere?"
1.20 A1
(2.19 An abortive interruption, "In other words...", which Naughtie pulls out of letting Huhne continue till the end of his answer. He doesn't do this with Tories.)
2.34 Q2: "So the law that pretends to improve the situation actually makes it worse." This picks up on what Huhne has just said and supports it. (The choice of "pretends" strongly suggests where Naughtie stands on the issue. He's against.)
2.40 A2 (beginning, as you might expect, "That's absolutely right.")
3.06 Interruption 1/Q3. Listen to the clip here and you'll hear that Naughtie's interruption is an accidental one. He thinks Huhne has finished, having reached a firm end to his sentence: "The trouble of course is if you hear somebody like Mr Riggs there (a leading demonstator) you can understand what they're saying. They're saying "look, especially in a seaside town awash with children, in the summer especially obviously", they say "hang on, this is a sort of paradise for paedophiles, and it seems reasonable that we should, you know...so you can see where he's coming from?" This, you will have noticed, is Naughtie first (and only) question that puts the opposing case to Chris Huhne. If this were an interview with a Conservative or UKIP politician you can be certain that nearly all - if not all - of the questions came from an opposing stance. Moreover, this was not a forcefully put, challenging question. Centre-right politicians face those from Naughtie whenever they are interviewed by him.
3.29 A3 (an answer of 1 minute 6 seconds, uninterrupted).
4.35 Interview ends, politely (unlike so many of those frosty ends to interviews with Tories.)
*
*
Incidentally, Evan Davis's interview with Alistair Darling did ask somewhat more probing questions, but was (all in all) even gentler, scoring a puny 0.2.

WHY OBAMA'S CRITICS ARE STUPID AND EMOTIONAL

*
I missed the Radio 4 programme 'Turkeys Voting for Christmas', but the BBC News website writes it up, introducing it thus:

The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US. Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.

Dr David Runciman, who writes columns for the Guardian, argues that President Obama's healthcare reforms are sensible but that, paradoxically, those most enraged by his plans are those who would benefit from them most: "Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?"
*
Dr Runciman interviews two experts (and only two experts), and both are Democrat supporters. Why? Why no Republican experts? Why no thought of fairness or balance?
*
He begins with "psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat" who "tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side." An example from the Bush-Gore debates of 2000 is used, and this conclusion drawn: "Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
Dr Runciman's second expert is "Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas" who "is an even more exasperated Democrat". "He goes further than Mr Westen", says Runciman - and he's not kidding! "He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest."
*
The arrogance of the Left is breathtaking.
*
*
*******************UPDATE
*
Please check out Natalie's excellent fisking of this same article on the Biased BBC website:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/those-crazy-republicans-explained-bbc.html#comments
And the ever-alert (and often very funny) Martin has a comment that shows the sheer dishonesty of this article, which is worth quoting in full (and he reaches the same punch-line as me!!):
*
Martin
*
The article also has another distortion. Here's a quote he used. He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:

Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers."
LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME Turkeys Voting for Christmas BBC Radio 4, Wednesday 27 January at 2045 GMT Or listen via the iPlayer

"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
However, the full comment given by Bush was not included (funny that).
*
GOV. BUSH: Look. This is a man who's got great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet but he invented the calculator. (Laughter.) It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan, that he continues to criticize, I said a third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check.
But I also drop the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, because by far the vast majority of that help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a family of four in Massachusetts making $50,000, you get a 50 percent cut in the federal income taxes you pay. It's from $4,000 to about $2,000. Now, the difference in our plans is I want that $2,000 to go to you.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/1stdebate1.html
*
If you take a quote out of context or don't include it all no wonder it makes no sense. I just love liberals, they are SO arrogant.
*
No Beeboid (or BBC-sponsored academic) can escape Martin's eagle-eye for bias! He's caught Dr Runciman red-handed!
*