DRESSING TO THE LEFT

It's funny how the left-wing BBC drops labels when it isn't convenient - and how only a little research (on Wikipedia) can catch them at it.

Their 'Romanian mayor in Nazi dress row story' tells us of a 'Romanian mayor' who has been 'strongly criticised by Jewish groups after appearing dressed in a Nazi uniform at a local fashion show.' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8161570.stm

Is Radu Mazare an 'ultra-nationalist', or a 'far-right' politician? Is he a conservative or a liberal?

The BBC report does not say - unusually. That raised my suspicions.

If you look Mazare up on Wikipedia, guess what? He's a member of the Social Democratic Party (heirs to the old Romanian Communist Party) - a party that sits with the Socialist group of MEPs and an ally of the British Labour Party.

It wouldn't do to mention that, would it Beeboids?

Does anyone imagine that the BBC would not have mentioned Mr Mazare's political affiliations had he been politically to the right of centre?

Just imagine the fuss had he been a member of, say, the Polish Law and Justice Party (allied to the Conservatives) or the Dutch Christian Union (affiliated to UKIP). There would have been a feeding-frenzy and the associated British political party would have been caught up in it.

Such double-standards are exasperating.

CRICKGATE CONTINUES...

The Beeb has been at it again, stirring the embers of the Coulson/'News of the World' phone-hacking 'story'.

This time there was a story to report, as both News International and Andy Coulson ("the now-head of Tory communications and one of David Cameron's closest allies", in slurry Kirsty Wark's words) have just appeared before the Culture & Media select committee , but the story was - as before - that nothing new has been revealed.

It remains a non-story.

Matt Prodger's 'Newsnight' report admitted as much, but such is the BBC's investment in the story that non-existent rats were still being smelt.

To MPs' probing on the Guardian's allegations Colin Myler, current editor of the 'NOTW', asked (reasonably) "Where is the evidence?". To which Prodger said, "Evidence may yet surface to back up the Guardian's claim that as many at 3,000 public figures had their phones hacked into. Yet, try as they might, the MPs struggled to breach News International's defences."

So, as I say, a non-story. As for "evidence may yet surface to back up the Guardian's claim", I would say "and it may not!"

Prodger's report went on, "But the star attraction was Andy Coulson, former NOTW editor and now, of course, David Cameron's right-hand media man". Try as they might, MPs stuggled to breach his defences too! "Those looking forward to Mr Coulson tripping up" (who would that be, BBC?) "were disappointed," said Prodger. "His job with the Conservatives looks safe." As I say, a non-story then, but...

...still the BBC will not throw in the towel: "The committee hearings will continue though, with more News International figures to be questioned, The story, as they say, has legs."

The story never had legs, Matt.

*******

Earlier in the day, on 'The World at One' Martha Kearney interviewed (naturally) a Lib Dem. Chris Huhne was allowed over four minutes to talk about the non-story. He insinuated a lot, but offered very, very little - other than the old 'but there can be no smoke without fire' argument. Until there is a fire, Mr Huhne, stop spreading smears! Prove it, or shut up!

HOW ABOUT A PANEL ON FAIR ACCESS TO THE BBC?

A new report on social mobility by the 'Panel on Fair Access to the Professions', chaired by Labour's 'czar' Alan Milburn, has provoked a good deal of favourable coverage from the BBC.

Last night's 'The World Tonight', presented by Carolyn Quinn, devoted a third of the programme to the report. The fact that Labour has been in power for the last twelve years was downplayed by everyone - except the left-wing Labour MP, John McDonnell, who was interrupted in mid flow for his pains!

Carolyn Quinn's introduction began,"There was a golden age of social mobility in the 1950s, when the birth of the welfare state and the growth in professional jobs swelled the middle classes, but since then social mobility, it seems, has stagnated. In 21st century Britain, class inequality remains dominant." A report from the London School of Economics, backed by the Sutton Trust, was aluded to as proof.

My parents were unquestionably 'working class'. I've no idea what I am, but I went to university & so I recognise that when such a statement is made it should be followed by the word, "Discuss."

Many would argue, for instance, that grammar schools were another vital component in the growth of social mobility in the third quarter of the 20th century. Among those 'many' you will not find Alan Milburn nor the BBC. Silence reigned. (There were attacks on private schools though).

After a report from an innovatory project at a city law firm, which has given work experience to a hundred children from 'poor' backgrounds, Carolyn Quinn moved on to interview Geoffrey Vos, one of the members of Milburn's panel and chairman of the Social Mobility Foundation (whose opinions are favoured by Polly Toynbee). Did a voice from the Right follow? Of course not. What followed was a discussion between Mr. McDonnell (leading voice of Labour's Campaign group) and Lee Elliot Major, research director of the Sutton Trust, a charity that promotes social mobility. The latter blamed Thatcher, locating the problem firmly in the 1980s.

Variety is the spice of life, so can't we hear other voices on the BBC than those of the Left?

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

Sarah Montague interviewed the man himself, big Al Milburn, on 'Today' this morning. It was a gentle affair, lasting 8 minutes 45 seconds. Only 3 interruptions, I.C. of 0.4.

Sarah sounded a little smitten with Mr. Milburn - or maybe it was his ideas that softened her heart.

THAT'S BETTER!

Some of the recent photos on this blog have been grim - to say the least. So it's time for more Joanna Gosling (and a excited Beeboid male). (Click on it for a closer look!) The 'BBC 2' - that is, Joanna's legs - are on display. They have not been seen since. A campaign has been launched to free them.

ENTER STAGE LEFT

The BBC's 'drama commissioning controller' Ben Stephenson (pictured right) has told the 'Guardian' that the BBC drama output is biased - and he's proud of the fact:

"We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking". http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jul/16/ben-stephenson-tony-garner

The 'Biased BBC' thread on this says almost all that needs saying: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/07/we-need-more-leftist-thinking.html

As the man-in-charge has said, plainly and simply, that BBC drama is intentionally biased towards the Left and against the Right, this blog no longer even needs to think about providing evidence of BBC bias in 'Judge John Deed', 'Spooks', and all the other rubbish that passes for great drama on today's BBC. The case is proven, straight out of the horse's smug gob.

Stephenson's comments are not a trivial matter. He is in favour of one-sided propaganda - and he's the boss of drama at Great Britain's taxpayer-funded state broadcaster.

Come on all you lazy Tory MPs, complain, complain and complain again about Ben Stephenson until (a) you get an apology - at the very least - from the man himself and (b) a commitment from the BBC that it will respect the fact that the United Kingdom is a democracy & offer its viewers and listeners drama from the broadest range of political standpoints. Get some spines! Let this go, & you will be useless tools of the BBC and the rest of the leftwing political class that runs this country. You will be part of the problem (if you aren't already).

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

UPDATE

This story is now taking off wonderfully, thanks to a 'Biased BBC blogger', the excellent DB . DB's comments were picked up on by Jonathan Isaby at the 'Centre Right' blog (Conservative Home) . This, in turn, was picked up by the 'Daily Telegraph'. Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary, has now asked for "an immediate retraction and apology".

Result!

The 'Telegraph' reports two responses from a clearly rattled BBC.

The first was from Stephenson himself, denying that he'd "meant the comment to have a political meaning", adding that he meant it to mean, like 'left-field', a "completely new perspective". Do you believe him?

Amusingly, an anonymous 'troll' on the 'Biased BBC' website had tried this defence in the early hours of this morning (as you will see if you click on the link above). Did Ben Stephenson read the 'Biased BBC' blog and think, "Aha, that might do the trick!"? It's amusing to think so!!

The second response is even funnier, and in its own right.

Again, I quote from the 'Telegraph': "A BBC source said that executives believed that their casting of Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London, in an episode of 'Eastenders', proved that they did not have a left-wing bias."

I've been chuckling at that all afternoon!

LABOUR'S FRIENDS 3

Another Labour ally in the European Parliament is Romania's Social Democratic Party. This, of course, is stuffed with ex-Communists. It, too, holds the sort of 'conservative' views on gay-rights that Denis McShane and the Conservative-bashers at the BBC have been so exercised about.

When Traian Basescu was running in the 2004 presidential election he said that he saw nothing wrong with same sex marriage. The Social Democratic Party stood against him and, according to Wikipedia, "used his comments against him" during the campaign. Indeed, the Social Democrats have stated that they would "not initiate and would not support" legislation to legalise same-sex marriage.

I trust that Jim Naughtie will be pressing Labour Party spokemen on the matter shortly.

SERGAY - LABOUR'S FRIENDS 2

Taking another look at Labour's European allies we find the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP). This is the successor to the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader is Sergei Stanishev.

Describing Bulgaria's first gay pride parade, Mr Stanishev said that he didn't approve of "the manifestation and demonstration of such orientations".

What would Denis McShane, the Europhile Labour MP who has been leading the ongoing assault on the Conservative Party and its European allies - charging them with 'homophobia' - make of Mr Stanishev's anti-gay comments? What what the BBC's Ray Furlong and Adam Easton, both fresh from their assaults on alleged 'homophobic' comments by Polish and Lithuanian conservatives, make of Mr Stanishev's anti-gay comments? Surely, they would all be outraged and demand that the 'socially liberal' Labour Party disassociate themselves from the BSP. They wouldn't want to be accused of double-standards, would they? Or bias?

What are they waiting for?

SMERING IT ALL OVER - LABOUR'S FRIENDS 1

Take a look through the members of the Labour group in the European Parliament (the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) and you find Direction-Social Democracy (SMER) from Slovakia. This party is led by a left-wing populist, Robert Fico. Following the 2006 Slovak general election, this ex-Communist led SMER into coalition government with the People's Party of the deeply unpleasant Vladimir Meciar and, worse still, with the Slovak National Party (SNS) of the even more unpleasant Jan Slota, a man with a violent criminal past and views that would make Nick Griffin blush. The SNS is violently anti-Roma, hysterically anti-Hungarian and strongly anti-homosexual. Slota himself has fulsomely praised Jozef Tiso, the wartime ruler of fascist Slovakia. Its logo is pictured above. Does it remind you of anything?

Why does the Labour Party sit with SMER, a party that considers such extremists worthy partners in government? Why hasn't the BBC hammered the Labour Party for allowing SMER to remain in the European Socialist group? Why is the BBC silent over this unholy alliance? Where's Adam Easton? Where's Ray Furlong? Come on Shaun Ley, sink your fangs into this story!

A TALE OF TWO INTERVIEWS

Students of Media Studies should be encouraged to compare and contrast the two main political interviews on this morning's 'Andrew Marr Show'. One was gentle and friendly, the other aggressive. If I tell you that the interviews were with Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson and the Conservative Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, can you guess which was which?



The Osborne interview came first. It lasted 12 minutes 43 seconds. The first 4 minutes 24 seconds were spent discussing financial regulation, with the remaining 8 minutes 18 seconds spent discussing Conservative spending plans - ie. cuts. Raising the issue of 'Conservative spending cuts' is the Labour Party's main political strategy at the moment, so I'm sure they would have been delighted that Marr's questioning focused overwhelmingly on that subject.

Marr interrupted George Osborne 17 times in the course of the interview, scoring an I.C. of 1.3.

The Johnson interview lasted 13 minutes 10 seconds, of which his new responsibilities at the Home Office - knife crime, anti-social behaviour, and Islamist terrorists - were covered in the first 7 minutes 59 seconds, along with a question on immigration and a related question on the BNP. Mr Johnson's old responsibility, health, was then discussed - specifically swine flu - for a further 2 minutes 34 seconds, with Afghanistan (1 minute 15) and the latest opinion polls (22 seconds) to finish. This was wide ranging - but not wide-ranging enough to spend any time on Labour spending plans - ie. cuts.

Marr interrupted Alan Johnson 7 times in the course of the interview, scoring an I.C. of 0.5.


ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT THE SAME THING

I thought I might try out a new approach here, presenting the anatomy of each interview for comparison, so as to try to tease out why one sounded so aggressive and the other so gentle. Alongside interruptions (my main tool, and always used only when they stop the interviewee from speaking, or force him to change tack), I will now introduce those common signs of a friendly interview, the 'hmm' of agreement and the supportive echoing of the interviewee's words, and (from the other side of the coin) that great sign of an aggressive interview, the abortive interruption (an interruption that tries but fails to stop the speaker from continuing). Also, I would like to introduce the helpful comment and the unhelpful comment (both are another kind of interruption, but are not designed to stop the interviewee's flow).


The Alan Johnson Interview
0.17-0.34 Question 1
0.34-1.43 Answer 1
1.19 hmm
1.43-2.23 Question 2
2.23-2.52 Answer 2
1.33 echo
2.51-3.09 Interruption 1/Question 3
3.09-3.31 Answer 3
3.14 hmm
3.31-3.35 Interruption 2
3.35-4.52 Answer 4
3.55 echo
4.08 hmm
4.30 helpful comment
4.52-5.18 Question 4
5.18-6.25 Answer 5
6.08 abortive interruption
6.25-6.48 Question 5
6.48-8.07 Answer 6 (this was where Johnson attached the BNP)
6.56 hmm
7.04 hmm
7.11 helpful comment
7.18 hmm
7.44 helpful comment
8.07-8.29 Question 6
8.29-8.37 Answer 7
8.36-8.39 Interruption 3
8.39-8.56 Answer 8
8.55-8.58 Interruption 4 (really a question for information)
8.58-9.13 Answer 9
9.06 hmm
9.08 hmm
9.13-9.28 Question 7 (swine flu)
9.28-9.57 Answer 10
9.56-10.12 Interruption 5/Question 8 (for medical advice only)
10.12-10.29 Answer 11
10.28-10.40 Interruption 6/Question 9 (for medical advice only)
10.40-11.44 Answer 12
10.53 laugh at joke
11.22 hmm
11.32 hmm
11.44-11.56 Question 10 (Afghanistan)
11.56-12.08 Answer 13
12.08-12.11 Interruption 7
12.11-13.04 Answer 14
12.27 hmm
13.04-13.11 Question 11
13.11-13.25 Answer 15

The George Osborne Interview

0.51-1.09 Question 1
1.09-1.50 Answer 1
1.44 hmm
1.50-1.59 Question 2
1.59-2.34 Answer 2
2.34-2.47 Interruption 1/Question3
2.47-3.35 Answer 3
3.18 abortive interruption
3.35-3.53 Question 4
3,.53-4.20 Answer 4
3.58 hmm
4.19-4.23 Interruption 2/Question 4
4.23-5.03 Answer 5
4.51 abortive interruption
4.54 abortive interruption
5.03-5.38 Interruption 3/Question 5
5.38-5.49 Answer 6
5.49-5.51 Interruption 4/Question 6
5.51-6.33 Answer 7
6.14 abortive interruption
6.17 abortive interruption
6.20 abortive interruption
6.23 abortive interruption
6.33-6.44 Interruption 5/Question 7
6.44-6.59 Answer 8
6.58-7.01 Interruption 6/Question 8
7.01-7.07 Answer 9
7.07-7.10 Interruption 7/Question 9
7.10-7.21 Answer 10
7.20-7.25 Interruption 8
7.25-7.43 Answer 11
7.29 unhelpful comment
7.38 abortive interruption
7.41-7.47 Interruption 9/Question 10
7.47-8.20 Answer 12
8.16 hmm
8.18-8.24 Interruption 10/Question 11
8.24-8.54 Answer 13
8.53-8.57 Interruption 11/Question 12
8.57-9.27 Answer 14
9.11 abortive interruption
9.26-9.28 Interruption 12/Question 13
9.28-9.30 Answer 15
9.30-9.34 Interruption 13/Question 14
9.34-10.09 Answer 16
9.52 abortive interruption
10.06 abortive interruption
10.09-10.48 Interruption 14/Question 15
10.48-11.30 Answer 17
10.51 unhelpful comment
11.30-11.33 Question 16
11.33-11.43 Answer 18
11.43-11.46 Interruption 15
11.46-12.10 Answer 19
11.53 abortive interruption
12.09-12.18 Interruption 16/Question 17
12.18-12.22 Answer 20
12.21-12.23 Interruption 17
12.23-13.34 Answer 21
12.53 abortive interruption

The contrast could hardly be more clear!!!!


A THIRD WAY OF LOOKING AT THE SAME THING

Reviewing the two interviews and looking at their tone I was intrigued to see Andrew Marr's body language. I'm not one for TV pop-science baloney about body language, but true science has valuable things to say about it. Not being a scientist, here's a bit of pop-science baloney instead!!

During the Osborne interview (but especially after the conversation turned to public spending) Marr's hands were flying about the studio, jabbing and gesturing at at Osborne, his face smirked and gurned during interruptions and he kept leaning forwards towards his victim.

During the Johnson interview, Marr's body language was much more restrained, at times even meek and subservient.

Watch the programme again on the BBC i-Player (if you aren't worried about your blood-pressure) & see what you think!


AND THERE'S MORE...

Marr's meekness during the Johnson interview is reflected in the qualifications contained in his questions. Here's an example, where critical points are topped and tailed by praise for the Labour government:

"When New-Labour first came in there was plenty of money and there appears to have been plenty of will to tackle anti-social behaviour, to make the streets calmer, quieter, less threatening. ASBOs were brought in & it hasn't really worked...after 10 years of money and 10 years of no-doubt serious politicians".

(What a suck-up!)

That the bias contained in Marr's questioning was pre-meditated is revealed by his exact repetition of "...after 10 years of money and 10 years of no-doubt serious politicians" at the end of his next question!

AND THERE'S EVEN MORE...

Marr's aggression towards George Osborne further betrayed itself in what can only be called 'heckling', and in smirking contempt.

There were lots of interruptions of this kind: "So what can you do about it?", "How do you do that?", "And how do you do that? That's the question." Also "Can you, can you give me..." and "Can you give me any examples at all?"

There were jeers like "Easy to say..!" and sarcasm, as in "That might be the right thing for you to do, but it's not going to save you £20 billion" and "That's what I'm asking about!" Marr's sarcasm reached its zenith with his interruption, "Let's optimistically tick that box and move on!" and with this: "Well, let's move on from talking about telling the public the truth to telling the public the truth!"

Marr's bullying tone is further evidenced in his interruption of Osborne (who was obviously well aware of the way the interview was going - though, typically of the masochistic Tory party, he didn't protest!) when the shadow chancellor said, "Well, we've set out..I know you are going to say you've heard them all before...". Marr pounced on him, "If I've heard them all before let's move on...," (at which Marr gave a derisive snort) "...with respect."

What is wrong with the Conservative Party that they don't protest about the sheer extravagence of bias displayed by Andrew Marr?

They are betraying themselves...and, much more importantly, betraying our democracy.

ESLER AND THE CASE OF 'SOME' BIAS

Saturday's 'Today' programme passed on strong rumours (now known to be true) that the new defence secretary Bob Ainsworth had called for Labour colleagues to stop briefing against General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff. Sir Richard has been calling for extra resources for our troops fighting in Afghanistan. That there's been a campaign against the General by elements within the Labour Party would not be surprising. That's the new 'nasty party' all over. But do they have a helper at the BBC?

On Friday night's 'Newsnight', Gavin Esler and Michael Crick teamed up to tell their viewers about the tensions between General Dannatt and Downing Street.

This is how Esler began the segment: "There is some quite clear tension tonight between the government and senior military commanders over what some see as the army playing politics. It centres on the growing military campaign, not in Afghanistan but in Whitehall, for more resources to be used against the Taleban. Our political editor Michael Crick has some new insights tonight."

This use of the unhelpfully-vague word 'some' implies that other people outside the Labour government share its view that the army is "playing politics". Not specifying who these people are leaves open the question of their number and their political standpoint &, therefore, gives the impression that they could be 'many' and that they may be 'independent'. The obvious implication for unsuspecting 'Newsnight' viewers is that, if lots of independent people outside the government agree with the government's grouse against the army, then the Labour government must have grounds for that grouse - in other words, that the government is right. If Esler merely meant "some inside the Labour Party" he should have said so.

In such tiny but telling details lies bias.

LITHUANIA v ISRAEL

Check out the BBC News website & you will see a new story about Israel and the Palestinians almost every day - and sometimes several new stories on a single day. Since the beginning of July, I have counted over twenty (nineteen of them critical of Israel). This suggests to me that the BBC are obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians.

As I've been researching Lithuania for another thread, I thought I might compare the relentless coverage of Israel and the Palestinians with the BBC's coverage of our EU friends in Lithuania.

Would you believe it, there are only 5 articles about Lithuania from the whole of 2009 (never mind just July) on the BBC website! Compared to the coverage of tiny Israel and those pesky Palestinians, isn't that extraordinary?

********

The subject-matter of those five articles is very revealing about the news priorities of the BBC.

14 July 2009 Lithuania backs child censor bill
Correspondents say homosexuality is frowned upon by many in Lithuania, where the majority of the 3.3 million population is Catholic.
This, of course, is a gay-rights story &, therefore, of great interest to the BBC. Note the prominence of the word 'censor'. 'Censor' is a strongly-loaded word.

6 July 2009 How Lithuania grasped freedom
Home-grown leader Lithuania has come a long way since then. The EU here is more visible than in many other countries of Europe - it's a statement, an affirmation of where Lithuania belongs.
The BBC is relentlessly pro-EU. This article shows how great the EU has been for Lithuania.

19 May 2009 Lithuania set for energy rethink
The size of her victory also gave her authority and "moral power" in Lithuania, she said. Like its Baltic neighbours, Lithuania has been hit hard by the global economic downturn.
The BBC has never been keen on nucleur power. This article pounces on 'good news' on that front.

18 May 2009 Lithuania's new leader: Your views
There is lots of excitement nowadays in Lithuania. That is my opinion as a citizen of Lithuania.
A selection of comments.

18 May 2009 Lithuania gets first woman leader
After enjoying years of impressive growth since in joined the European Union in 2004, Lithuania is experiencing double digit economic contraction and rising unemployment.
Feminists rejoice!

The BBC views everything through the prism of its own left-wing prejudices. Were it not a taxpayer-funded news outlet, this would be fine. Being a taxpayer-funded news outlet, it is anti-democratic and a disgrace.

********

In its articles about Lithuania's first woman leader, the excellent-sounding Dalia Grybauskaite, the BBC calls her an 'independent' but neglects to mention that she was supported by the dominant Conservative Party, a party from the right of centre. Worse, she even cites Mrs Thatcher as an inspiration, according to Wikipedia. These are inconvenient truths, not in tune with the BBC's narrative. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8054053.stm.

Adam Easton, the BBC's correspondent, says "Ms Grybauskaite has been critical of the way the economy has been handled by goverments of the past." Easton is here being economical with the truth. Dalia's aim was much more specific than that. According again to Wikipedia, this fine lady "frequently criticized the Lithuanian government, headed by Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas, for its lack of response to the approaching financial crisis."

Surprise, surprise Kirkilas is an ex-communist & a member of the group in the European parliament that contains the British Labour Party. Why the silence, Beeboids? Is it because someone from the Left would be cast in a bad light, and this might reflect badly on the Labour government?

The article is also silent about why Dalia Grybauskaite has the reputation of being "the EU's tough-talking budget commissioner". She was 'tough-talking' because she denounced the protectionist Common Agricultural Policy and emphasized competitiveness.

Can anyone dispute that the BBC is being biased here, not to mention dishonest?

SMEARING IT ALL OVER - UPDATE

The BBC knows what it's up to.
Commentators on the 'Biased BBC' website - and myself - have accused the BBC of serious bias/double-standards, by ignoring equally 'controversial' MEPs in the Labour and Liberal groupings within the European parliament, & homing in on allies of the Conservatives only.
Shaun Ley's interview with Timothy Kirkhope is reported in their latest web article, 'Tory anger at "anti-gay" claims'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8156187.stm.
If you click on the link, you will see that the article fails to report one of the most important points Mr Kirkhope made:
"And of course some of those former communists, who sit with the Labour MEPs in the European parliament, I presume you'd want to look into, as well as the allies which we have."
Dream on Mr Kirkhope!
This air-brushing-out of a serious point shows that, as I say, the BBC knows what it's up to.

AYATOLLAHS AND TORIES

The Beeboid mind works in strange ways sometimes. Here's a minor example.

Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, made some cryptic criticisms about the fairness of the recent elections in his country. These are being taken as signs of continuing tension within the theocratic regime.

Evan Davis asked the BBC's expelled Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne, "It's interesting that the debate seems to be occuring in public. Do we have any idea how the Iranian media are covering this & whether the debate is really in the open?"

Leyne's reply was, "Well, of course it's all conducted in code. It's a bit like debates used to be in the old-fashioned Tory party I suppose. Nobody actually openly comes out & says they hate the leader & that he should be deposed."

Yes, I'm sure that's the analogy that springs to most peoples' minds!

FOX HUNTING

The Labour Party's crumbling strategy of painting the Tories as the party of 10% spending cuts - by repeated the phrase "10% cuts" at every opportunity - received a small boost on yesterday's 'Today' programme, courtesy of Sarah Montague.

Interviewing the wily shadow defence spokeman, Liam Fox, all of Sarah's first four questions were about Conservative 'cuts', culminating in this question:

"We know that from the overall figures there's a 7% cut required across all departments & if you ring-fence health and aid then it's a 10% cut. Can you say that you will not cut defence by 10%?"

This could have come straight out of a Labour Party briefing note!

There were 4 interruptions throughout this interview, and an I.C. of 1.3 - though the tone was more hostile than this suggests.

SMEARING IT ALL OVER

The BBC is presently engaged in a smear campaign against some of the new allies of the British Conservative Party in the European parliament. This is part of a larger smear campaign against the Conservative Party - and conservative parties in general. This is ongoing.

This new front began long before June's European election, but grew in intensity as June 4th approached, peaking in the days after after the election results emerged. It has not gone away since, but the withdrawal of the Tory whip from Edward McMillan-Scott - following his successful challenge to the Conservative's preferred candidate for a vice-presidential post in the new parliament, the Pole Michal Kaminski - provoked a new flare-up this week, a flare-up of even greater intensity. The BBC are still in a post-Coulson frenzy.

Michal Kaminski himself has been the main target of the BBC.

APPLYING THE PEDAL

Last night's 'PM' fixed on some remarks of Kaminski's, a leading member of Poland's Law and Justice Party, made 9 years ago. The reporter, Ray Furlong, admitted that the context for the interview was not clear but, regardless of the risk of taking them out of context, presented them to his listeners in an English translation that rendered the Polish word 'pedal' as 'fag'. 'Fag' is surely the worst of all derogatory terms for homosexuals. Had the translation offered by the BBC used the word 'queer' or the word 'poof', would it have sounded anywhere near as offensive? Online Polish-English dictionaries suggest that 'pedal' can be translated as 'queer, poof, fag'. By choosing to use the latter, the BBC ensures that Mr Kaminski's (context-free) remarks are cast in the worst possible light. The accusation of committing the sin of homophobia is, thereby, made an open-and-shut case.

EASTON EUROPE

Furlong said that he had been ringing Michal Kaminski's office all day, requesting an interview. He had also been talking to gay-rights groups. But it's not just one BBC reporter who is on Kaminski's case. The BBC News website shows that two of its reporters (at least) are now working flat out on this story - a story that can only harm the Conservative Party and the European Right in general. Adam Easton is also in Poland and has talked to lots of people about Kaminski, including the 'Campaign Against Homophobia' (KPH). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8154670.stm

GAY FURLONG

Today's 'World at One' continued the war with another anti-Kaminski report by Ray Furlong. This one concentrated first on cases of homophobia in Poland & then interviewed Marta Abramowicz, president of (guess what?) the 'Campaign Against Homophobia'. Furlong told us that Marta was "incredulous" that the British Conservatives were now in alliance with the Law and Justice Party. The link is being made, the link is being made...

Next we heard a radio broadcast over which Furlong said, "This is one of the many sources of homophobia in Poland - Radio Maria, where prayers are broadcast before the news & 'Thought for the Day' is usually anti-abortion, anti-Europe and anti-gay. It is closely linked to Law and Justice, the party which David Cameron has forged an alliance with in Europe."

(Isn't this anti-Catholic?)

Furlong went on, "Law and Justice themselves insist they're not homophobes but social conservatives opposed to civil partnerships or gay adoptions, but how can it sit with the more socially liberal message of Mr Cameron's party?"

Now, aren't there some British Labour MPs (my own MP, Geraldine Smith, included) who are closer to Law and Justice on these issues than David Cameron? Why doesn't the BBC point that out, or question the Labour Party about it? Why only investigate the Tories?

In another instance of bias by labelling, the BBC presents the 'Campaign Against Homophobia' (KPH) as a non-partisan organisation, neglecting to mention that it has, according to Wikipedia, "several links" with "post-communist or socialist political parties". Had Furlong made this clear to his listeners, they might have seen the comments of Marta Abramowicz in a different, maybe less positive light.

SHAUN GAY

The edition of 'The World at One' was presented by this blog's old friend, the serially-biased Shaun Ley, who followed Furlong's shameful report with a hostile interview with Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the British Conservatives MEPs. Ley's opening question was: "Michal Kaminski's remarks - the translation was 'queers' and 'fags' - may be a reflection of social attitudes in Poland, but is there a danger that you're going to be judged by your friends?" (Isn't that just what you want, Ley?).

Mr Kirkhope was interrupted four times in an interview that lasted 3 minutes 31 seconds, giving it an I.C. of 1.2. Contrast this with the two other politician-based interviews on the programme:
Lord Gilbert (Labour), 3 minutes 32 seconds, 0 interruptions, I.C. of 0.
Lord Peter Mandelson (Labour), 6 minutes 32 seconds, 1 interruption, I.C. of 0.2.

If this doesn't show bias, what does?

LITH AND LET LIE

As a side-dish on last night's 'PM', Ray Furlong served up another nasty 'right-winger':

"But Mr Kaminski is not the only embarrassment for the new Conservative group. A Lithuanian MEP, Waldemar Tomaszewski, who has also joined Mr Cameron's group, belongs to the party which voted two days ago in the Lithuanian parliament to pass a law banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools - rather reminiscent of Clause 28 in this country which, of course, Mr Cameron has just apologised for."

Wikipedia, however, describes this party - 'Election Action of Poles in Lithuania' - as "centrist."

And elsewhere the BBC let's the cat out of the bag, admitting that only 6 out of 141 Lithuanian parliamentarians voted against the bill. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8150616.stm
That is worth further investigating. Which parties supported the bill? Which voted against? In which grouping of the European parliament do they sit? And with which British parties do they sit?

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

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Each grouping within the European Parliament has dodgy elements. Labour, the Lib Dem, the EPP all contain people that the BBC could easilly make controversial. There are homophobes and anti-abortionists across the European Parliament. There are people who oppose civil partnerships and gay adoption across the European political spectrum. More than this, there are ex-fascists and ex-communists and supporters of terrorism, and all manner of ripe targets for investigation and/or smear. Why are they not put in the spotlight by the BBC? Why only the Conservatives?

This is in-your-face BBC bias at its most shameless.

FREE THE BBC TWO!

The BBC News channel is also biased against lecherous men (and maybe ladies) who would like to see Joanna Gosling's legs. They are hidden away from sight, day after day (like criticism of AGW). This is unacceptable. Free the BBC two!

NO CHANGE

Last night's 'The World Tonight', ignoring the wisdom of Peter Sissons, discussed climate change from a single, wholly biased perspective.

The issue was feed-in tariffs.

These are incentives to encourage people to adopt renewable energy, such as solar panels or wind turbines. Anyone who contributes excess electricity & feeds it back into the national grid will receive a dividend.

Every contributor was in favour of them. No-one questioned the need for them. The presumption of man-made global warming (AGW) was taken as read by all.

First, the BBC's environment 'analyst' Roger Harrabin, a committed supporter of AGW, was on hand to trumpet the triumph of the feed-in tariffs scheme in Germany: "It's been extremely successful in Germany, where they've vastly increased their amount of renewable energy".

Another fan followed as next up came Hermann Scheer, "the German MP" known as 'the father of feed-in tariffs'. (Presenter Robin Lustig failed to mention, naturally, that Scheer is a Social Democrat - in a fresh case of Bias by Labeling (or, in this case, not labeling)), who waxed lyrical in favour of his child. His one bone of contention with the British Labour government's adoption of this policy is, as you might expect, that they should pay a higher dividend (say 40p rather than 30p). Scheer is Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy & president of EUROSOLAR.

Did a dissenting voice follow? No, instead we got a discussion between Lord Philip Hunt, the Labour minister for climate change (one of the ministers responsible for the proposed legislation) & Jeremy Leggatt, chairman of the solar energy company Solarcentury, who (unsurprising) made it clear that "We love feed-in tariffs!". Again, Leggatt's only beef with the government was that it wasn't going far enough & also wanted a higher dividend.

On what planet would this be considered a balanced discussion?

Robin Lustig's questions were also wholly concerned with the scale of the incentives, rather than in questioning the concepts behind them. He talked of "small is beautiful" and the "micro" and the "macro". The stance from which every one of his questions came was entirely at one with that of Harrabin, Scheer and Leggatt.

This should be unacceptable.

MID-MONTH REVIEW

It's the middle of the month, so here's an update on the the Interruption Coefficient findings for July, looked at from three angles.

So far I've covered 151 interviews.


AIRTIME

Totalling up the lengths of all the interviews I've been able to work out an exact percentage for the amount of airtime each party has been granted by the BBC so far this month:

Labour 57.1%
Conservatives 24.8%
Lib Dems 9.9%
SNP 3.2%
Greens 1.4%
Crossbench 1.3%
BNP 1.3%
UKIP 0.6%
Plaid Cymru 0.4%

This certainly looks to me like rampant institutional pro-Labour bias. Even granted that they are the governing party &, thus, liable for greater questioning, the staggering scale of the Labour Party's dominance of the BBC airwaves (an absolute majority, a landslide, more than all the other parties combined) is surely anti-democratic.

Incidentally, the UKIP figure of 0.6% is a disgrace. In the last nationwide election (June's European election) they gained 16.5% of the vote. You would have thought that this would have entitled them to more airtime on the Beeb. Not a bit of it.

The cross-bench figure is for Lord Owen, who is a non-aligned member in the House of Lords.


NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS GRANTED TO EACH PARTY

BNP - 1
Conservatives - 39
Crossbench - 1
Green - 4
Labour - 76
Lib Dems - 22
Plaid Cymru - 1
SNP - 5
UKIP - 2

Note here how the Lib Dem and Conservative figures rise in relation to Labour, revealing the fact that the Labour Party interviews tended to be longer. Again though, Labour is dominant.


AVERAGE NUMBER OF INTERRUPTIONS PER PARTY

This is in many ways going to be one of the Interruption Coefficient's most telling results. These figures are obtained by simply adding all the interruptions contained in all the interviews with a particular party together & then working out an average (by dividing it by the number of interviews granted to each party).

BNP - 8
Plaid Cymru - 5
SNP - 5
Conservatives - 3.5
Labour -3
UKIP - 2
Lib Dems - 1.5
Green - 0.5
Crossbench - 0

So though, as stated above, you might expect the governing Labour Party to receive a little more airtime, so that they can be questioned on government policy, these results reveal that Her Majesty's official opposition, in fact, receive tougher questioning than Her Majesty's government. So much for that potential BBC excuse!

Note the Liberal Democrat and Green figures & see what an easy ride they are given. This seems to me to be a particularly telling result.

All the nationalist parties fair badly, a trend I noticed last month too.


FINAL THOUGHT

All this goes to show that "there is a democratic deficit in this country which is getting more dangerous by the year" (as someone, I can't think who!, said recently) & the BBC is a big part of the problem.

At this month's end, I will try to use these figures to help further the fight against BBC bias. I have received some invaluable advice from fellow bloggers on how to do this - and do it I will.
Will it do any good? Only time will tell.

OLD TIMES

How the elderly (us now, or us in the future) are looked after was discussed on last night's 'The World Tonight'. The issue is an involving one - for all of us. This blog's main concern is in tracking BBC bias, so this post doesn't discuss the issue of care for the elderly, only the treatment of the issue by the BBC.

Again, the BBC's institutional bias towards the Left becomes apparent, despite the semblance of balance.

The first segment of the programme's package was an interview with former Scottish first minister, Labour's Henry McLeish. Then comes Stephen Burke of 'Counsel and Care', an organisation close to the Labour government (and keen on 'social insurance' and 'central taxation'). Finally comes a discussion between Right and Left, with Labour Party NEC member Tony Robinson (aka Baldrick) and Patrick Nolan of the centre-right think-tank Reform.

So, a balanced debate between Right and Left? Hardly.

The 3 voices of the Left got 6 minutes 33 airtime.
The 1 voice of the Right got 1 minute 51 airtime.

At least, the Right did get some say!!

GET PADDICK

Who thought it was a good idea to invite 2 Liberal Democrats onto 'The Daily Politics' today to discuss the phone-hacking allegations against the 'News of the World'?

Andrew Neil jointly interviewed Simon Hughes MP and Brian Paddick (failed Lib Dem candidate for London mayor). Hughes got 5 minutes 20 to speak (I.C. 0.4) & Paddick 2 minutes 45 (I.C. o.4).

Brian Paddick is becoming quite a regular on the BBC. Only counting the programmes I review on this blog (see 'Interruption Coefficients - a guide' for the list), he has appeared, discussing this story, on:

Newsnight 7.7.09
World Tonight 9.7.09
Newsnight 9.7.09
Daily Politics 14.07.09

The BBC sometimes seems to have a very small political address book.