CLOSE-UPS ON LAST NIGHT'S LEADERS DEBATE

*
A curious question raised by several contributors to last night's live debate at Biased BBC (and other sites) was why the BBC seemed to be turning its cameras onto Gordon Brown disproportionately as he shook his head or laughed derisively at something one of his opponents (nearly always David Cameron) said.
*
Well, being a countaholic, I've gone back and added up all the close-up reaction shots. (Don't worry, I had some great music on in the background, by my lookalike!)
*
In the first twenty minutes, it was pretty much horses for courses between Brown and Cameron (12 close-up reactions for Cameron, 13 for Brown). Watching live, I too had originally thought that Brown was getting more. However, this wasn't the case (at this stage!) and I think I can say why. Cameron kept his head very still during his close-ups, while Brown's head was up to all sorts of whacky, attention-seeking (and getting) antics. That made his close-ups hard to miss, while Cameron's were far less conspicuous and easy to miss.
*
In the second twenty minute period, it was 4 to Brown and 2 to Cameron and in the third twenty minute period it was 5 to Brown and 4 to Cameron.
*
So, so far only very small leads for Brown and not much evidence of BBC bias in its up of close-up reaction shots.
*
The last half an hour, however, was very different. This is why Llew & co were getting hot under the collar - and rightly so.
*
Here there were no close-up reaction shots of David Cameron shaking his head or laughing at some silly thing Gordon Brown (or Nick Clegg) was saying. None at all. There were, however, ten of Gordon Brown doing just that.
*
So, Brown got 31 in total, Cameron 18 - moving towards double.
*
And Nick Clegg? He was way behind either!
*

FULL OF EASTON PROMISE

*
Mark Easton used The Daily Politics Crime Debate to launch a sustained assault on the Conservatives (17 questions, 8 interruptions), and a lesser assault on the Lib Dems (4 questions, 3 interruptions). He left Labour alone (2 questions, 1 interruption). Observers of Mark Easton know that this is far from untypical. Still, the BBC's live election blog promised today that he had blogged about the use of inaccurate statistics by the three big parties, so I clicked expectantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston
*
He certainly mentions 'the three big Westminster parties', but whose figures does he look at in detail? The Lib Dems and, you guessed it, the Conservatives. You will not find the word 'Labour' anywhere in his article.
*
This man is biased to the core and he is far from ashamed to show it.

NOT MAKING FRIENDS WITH NIGEL

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

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

Caroline Lucas

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

Nigel Farage

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

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

WHAT DID THEY THINK IN A LABOUR STRONGHOLD?

*
If you remember, last week's The World Tonight post-debate analysis took Ritula Shah to Reading University to talk to voters - four students, one the head of the uni's Labour Society - to get a "completely unscientific" survey of reactions to the second, with predictable anti-Tory results. Where did she go last night? She went to a working men's club in Stoke-on-Trent, which she described as a "Labour stronghold".
*
She talked to four more voters (with apologies to them for having to guess the spellings of their names) - club committee member Anthony Munday, who "has been a Labour voter all (his) life", unemployed student Stephen Mulluck, small businessman Tony Wally, who has always been "a proud Labour voter", and Bill Cawley "who lives in neighbouring Leek but who is involved in local politics here in Stoke." (I looked him up. He's a Green). There was a mix of views about who performed best, but the general view (except for the Green) was that David Cameron did worst and that Gordon Brown got the best of it. Who were they going to vote for though? Well, the results were intriguing (so not a completely pointless exercise). Stephen, the unemployed student from Liverpool, said "I've always been pin-pointed on what my decision is going to be. It's got to be Labour for me." However, Mr Munday refused to say (I suspect BNP!) and Mr Wally said he was still undecided. Oddly, the Green Party councillor Mr Cawley said he was undecided too. (Is there no Green candidate in Stoke-on-Trent?)

Why didn't Ritula canvas opinion in a marginal?

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 23

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians.
*
Thur 29/4
*
Labour - 55
Conservatives - 50
Lib Dems - 44
SNP - 6
UKIP - 3
Plaid Cymru - 3
Greens - 2
BNP - 1
English Democrats - 1
Social Democrats - 1
*
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 23 days? Well, Labour are now clearly unassailable:
*
Labour - 611
Conservatives - 480
Lib Dems - 397
SNP - 64
UKIP - 37
Plaid Cymru - 32
Greens - 25
BNP - 17
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
English Democrats - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1
Social Democrats - 1

MORE INSTANT REACTIONS

*
After the previous pair of debates the BBC's live election blog reported most of the instant polls.
*
This week they only reported one:
*
2224: Some instant reaction. A ComRes poll suggests David Cameron did best, with 35% of respondents saying so, with Nick Clegg on 33% and Gordon Brown on 26%.
*
They ignored:
*
YouGov: Cameron (41%), Clegg (32%), Brown (25%)
Populus: Cameron (38%), Clegg (38%), Brown (25%)
ICM: Cameron (35%), Brown (29%), Clegg (27%)
*
YouGov was out as early as Comres. Isn't it revealing that Pravda chose not to include it?
*
They do have this though:
*
2202: The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones tweets: Tories say David Cameron is well ahead in the betting market, Tweetminster say Clegg is ahead on sentiment. Read Rory Cellan-Jones's tweets
*
And this:
*
2225: Mixed reactions to the debate are coming in on the BBC's Have Your Say website. David O'Brien thinks "Cameron has a solid team, they have a strong heritage and they look energised to make things happen," while J McGhee believes "Brown is the only one who knows what he's talking about". Clyons agrees with the LibDem Leader: "Clegg is right - we need a German style coalition". Have Your Say
*
And, perhaps as a present to his colleague Sarah, the BBC blogger chooses this:
*
2254: I am 20 years old, I did all the things the government says you should do. Go to College, get qualifications, earn more money, and save. And yet, I'm working part-time in Burger King, desperately trying to move in with my partner. So, my vote is going with Clegg. The £10,000 tax limit will help me loads. Have Your Say
*
If the BBC has any integrity, it will begin its internet coverage today with a listing of all the polls.
*
*
INSTANT UPDATE: Well, it has! It's grudging though, isn't it?
*
0619 Good morning. The post-debate analysis is already underway. Some "instant poll" news. They suggest David Cameron did best last night - YouGov for The Sun put him on 41%, against Nick Clegg on 32% and Gordon Brown on 25%. But a ComRes poll for ITV News suggested the result had been much closer with Mr Cameron on 35% to 33% for Mr Clegg and 26% for Mr Brown. (Not that much closer for Brown though!!) The BBC's poll expert David Cowling said we'll have to wait for the weekend polls to see if it's likely to have any affect on voting day.

0623 Our expert says the ComRes and YouGov polls registered no change for Nick Clegg from the second debate, an increase of 5 points for David Cameron and a drop of 4 points for Gordon Brown. Meanwhile a Sky News poll of polls had the Tory and Lib Dem leaders tied with an average of 33% against the PM on 27%. That's probably enough polls for now...

I bet it is!

INSTANT REACTION

*
Norman Smith, after some initial hedging, calls it for Gordon Brown and then explains why at some length. He came back again and again to Gordon Brown, and his attacks on the Tories.
*
The initial polls disagree:
*
Comres
Cameron 35%
Clegg 33%
Brown 24%
*
YouGov/Sun
Cameron 41%
Clegg 32%
Brown 25%
*

BEWARE THE EADES OF APRIL

*
So Today talked only to Friends of Gordon...What about last night's The World Tonight?
*
David Eades talked to...Matthew Taylor, the very likable but Labour-supporting blogger and former party general secretary (and former director of the IPPR). Matthew was, as you would expect, saddened but saw chinks of light. He was as fair-minded as ever. What though of the BBC's David Eades? He seemed much more supportive of Gordon Brown than even Matthew Taylor (a Blairite, of course), intervening to say "He was quick to make amends though. That clearly must have helped?" The rumours that Mrs Duffy might sell her story to the papers and that she has been signed up to a PR agency were eagerly mentioned by Mr Eades (nudge nudge, wink wink) and his next question wanted Matthew to speculate on which paper Mrs Duffy might sell her story too. Yes, let's discredit Mrs Duffy!
*
After a report from Dartford, Kent by Paul Moss about voter (or non-voter) opinion about immigration, Mr Eades returned to Matthew Taylor and if "the parties...get it"? Not 'Does Labour get it?' of course. Matthew spoke up for Labour on the issue (whilst being fair-minded about the problem facing politicians in general.)
*
And that was it on the story of the day!!!!

ONE PALTRY FACT

*
Another vignette from this morning's Today programme...
*
I think Jim Naughtie wanted us to learn a fact today - that the Conservatives are running fourth in Scotland, according to the opinion polls. He told us that before 7 o'clock. He repeated it as he introduced us to the SNP-Conservative marginal of Angus at 7.40. Then he repeated in again at the end of the programme (8.55). I will quote just one example, the final one, just to give you a flavour: "Decision day a week away. One element in the overall picture is going to be the result from Scotland, a distinct political community. To summarise, 59 seats, 1 of them held by the Tories in the last parliament, but they're running fourth in the polls. Labour are well ahead." (Earlier he described the Tory strength in parliament as "one paltry seat").
*
Naughtie's ponderous on-air essay from Angus would have had both SNP and UKIP listeners fuming, as it was both Unionist and pro-European in tone. (The SNP less so, as Naughtie was talking them up at the expense of the Conservatives). Naughtie said that past concerns about EU fishing quotas were now outweighed by the realisation that Europe (especially the French and Spanish markets) is vital for the area's economic success.
*

FRIENDS OF GORDON

*
So how did this morning's 'Today' deal with Bigotgate?
*
Norman Smith was in his usual 6.32 spot, and preferred to talk about tonight's election debate, discussing Brown's gaffe in that context only before moving on to Nick Clegg and David Cameron. Except for the obligatory paper reviews, that was all there was about the story in the first hour.
*
Gordon Brown didn't need to 'phone a friend'. Today did it for him. James Naughtie turned to the big story at 7.09: "The most painful aspect of the affair for Gordon Brown may well be the accusation from his opponents that this reveals the truth about his personality. Is that fair?" (Is it "fair", incidentally, for Naughtie to say that it is just his opponents who are saying this? Plenty of journalists and commentators from across the political spectrum and across the media have been saying it too.) "Well, we're joined from Shetland, as it happens, by an old friend of the prime minister's, who was a student with him when he started on the long political road that has lead to this moment, Dr Jonathan Wills."
*
"I don't recognise this monster that we get from people like Andrew Rawnsley of The Observer and Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun this morning.," he began. "It doesn't really help to demonise people. It's more important to understand them." He went on to talk about "the son of the manse". (I don't know about you, but if I hear that phrase one more time my radio might find itself flying half way to Gambia!)
*
And that was it for the second hour. A friend of Gordon (being interviewed by a friend of Labour).
*
At 8.10 Nick Robinson appeared and talked to James Naughtie. Nick appraised the situation fairly enough, pointing out why yesterday was so bad for Brown but why tonight still gives him the chance to turn things round again.
*
Who was up next? A political opponent? A pair of journalists from each wing of the political spectrum? A friend of Mrs Duffy's? No. After Gordon's friend came Labour's Alan Johnson. Mr Johnson defended both Mrs Duffy and Gordon Brown. Brown's an "unspun politician", was Mr Johnson's angle. (This is the quote now headlining the Today website, so it's their angle too). Naughtie asked some pertinent questions at the beginning of the interview, interrupting Mr Johnson five times, but the pressure was hardly intense and Naughtie quickly ceased fire. He then agreed with him that people will understand Brown's two-faced behaviour ('Who hasn't done it?', they both said), then stood back helpfully as Mr Johnson made his long "unspun politician" speech. The interruptions, by this stage had stopped. They didn't restart.
*
One late question shows just how useful to Labour James Naughtie can be in a tight spot: "Finally, isn't it clear that across the country something remarkable is happening? Now after yesterday it's a time for straight talking, after that episode. That's meant to be your forte". (Where's Diane Abbott and those sucky-sucky sounds she made to Keith Vaz when you need her?). 'Where's he going with this?', the listener would have been wondering. Is he going to ask something that would really put Mr Johnson on the spot at last? Hardly. This was the question that demanded such a straight answer: "Isn't this the oddest election you've known? What's going to happen in the next week?" Famously the shortest phrase in the King James Bible is "Jesus wept." I couldn't help remembering that nugget of information at just that moment.
*
And that was it for the third hour and for the programme.
*

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 22

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. As you can see, Labour won by several miles. They got off to a flying start, then (after Bigotgate had got into its stride) they were quoted again and again and again, defending the oh-so-contrite, oh-so-hard-done-by Brown.
*
Tues 27/4
*
Labour - 36
Conservatives - 9
Lib Dems - 7
UKIP - 2
SNP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 22 days?
*
Labour - 556
Conservatives - 430
Lib Dems - 353
SNP - 58
UKIP - 34
Plaid Cymru - 29
Greens - 23
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1

BIGOTGATE IS RUBBISHED

*
The BBC blog went into overdrive last night to 'protect the emperor'. Any lingering semblance of balance vanished:

2125: Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman says "gaffe" is the wrong word to describe Gordon Brown's comments about Gillian Duffy. She tells the BBC News Channel's Campaign Show he will be "very concerned" at the hurt he has caused.

2146: Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy says "real people" have been "unanimous" in saying the Gordon Brown episode will not influence their votes.
(About which, please see Paul's comments about The Campaign Show on the Biased BBC Open Thread)

2148: Former Labour deputy leader Margaret Beckett says the media are using Gordon Brown's comments and apology as an excuse not to talk about policy.

2153: Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, says Gordon Brown has made character an issue during the election campaign, meaning it is not easy for Labour to say now to reverse that decision.

2330: Asked about the furore over Mr Brown's comments to pensioner Gillian Duffy, immigration minister Phil Woolas tells the BBC that "obviously it was not the best point in the campaign". But he says Labour will be able to move on from it and he does not believe it will affect the outcome of the election

And then, yet another have-you-sayer sticking up for Brown:

2249: Neil Scott from Walsall, UK, writes: What I've "learned" today is that Gordon Brown has a different private face to his public face, just like everyone else. I'm tempted to change my mind and vote Labour now, just to show how sick I am with the holier-than-thou media who think the general public are idiots who need drip-fed opinions and treat people like Mrs Duffy as pawns. Have Your Say

Again I ask, was this sort of thing the ONLY thing tweeters and have-you-sayers were saying?

Checking out Have Your Say (with all its 'removed by the moderator' comments), there are a lot of Brown defenders and Labour supporters there for sure (as one commentator Phil Thomas noted "Either I'm out of touch with the public or this board has been hijacked by the Labour press office."), saying what a shame it is for him, that Sky's to blame, it's all hype, that Mrs Duffy is probably a bigot, vote Gordon, etc.. but there is also quite a lot of criticism of Brown too, plenty for the folk at the BBC blog to pick from to provide a spread of public opinion. They chose not too. How the hell can they justify that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/gordon_browns_remarks_your_rea.html?page=2#comments

BIGOTGATE BREAKS

*
The running commentary at B-BBC shows the BBC in confusion over 'Bigotgate' http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_27.html. The comments on the 'mother ship' blog are fascinating, reflecting closely the shifts and turns in the BBC's coverage of the story.

All I can add is a complementary review of the BBC's own running commentary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent

How did the BBC's live election blog cover the unfolding story of 'Bigotgate'? Well, for the first few minutes they veered uneasily between reporting the breaking news and ploughing on with what they had been doing all morning - plugging Labour's agenda (here reporting Gordon Brown's policy statements on The Jeremy Vine Show).

Then something remarkable happened. The BBC behaved for the following few hours like an impartial broadcaster! It didn't last long, but it was good while it lasted.
*
Reaction began to come in and first blood went to the Conservatives:

1308: Conservative Party chairman Eric Pickles tweets on what is now known as #BigotGate on Twitter: "Every voter should know that Brown's view of the electorate is you either agree with him or you are the enemy." Read Eric Pickles's tweets

This was the first we heard of the word "bigot" - and it came not from a BBC reporter but from Eric Pickles. (Mr Pickles breaks news faster than the Beeb it seems!) Did they know about Brown's use of the word "bigot" before then? If so, why hadn't they mentioned it earlier?

Then it was over to a Labour defender, Joan Ruddock, then another (a "Labour spokesman".) From then on a judicious balance of pro- and anti- Brown voices were heard. (Mandy got two bites of the cherry, of course). I would describe the mix of views offered by the BBC blog as exemplary, and it stayed that way until about 4.30pm.

There was no spin from Nick Robinson either, except that he didn't mention the fact that Brown called Mrs Duffy a "bigot":

1329: It's a disaster for the prime minister because Mrs Duffy is typical of the white working class traditional Labour voter Gordon Brown needs to hold on to. Now she is saying she won't be voting Labour, says BBC political editor Nick Robinson. What we have seen is no huge surprise, as he often flairs up in private. If we hadn't had heard the off-camera words, this would've been a lively election moment, which would've been to the prime minister's credit.

Rory Cellan-Jones later became the first BBC reporter to use the b-word:

1355: A firm which tracks "sentiment" on Twitter says Gordon Brown's ratings plunged deep into negative territory after the "bigot" incident. Lexalytics' chart shows his score falling to the lowest levels we've seen in this campaign. The volume of tweets also hit very high levels, increasing tenfold in 20 minutes, says the BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones.

The comments on the Biased BBC blog show that this was happening on the BBC News Channel too, though not for quite as long. The tone of the comments from my eagle-eyed allies began to change as the afternoon wore on - and so did the BBC's blog.
*
Pro-Labour Bias returned - with a vengeance.

It sounds as if it was gradual on the BBC News Channel. On the BBC blog it was sudden and dramatic. At 16.38 a pro-Brown deluge began (featuring, among others, actor Simon Pegg, Labour-supporting pollster Peter Kellner and Alistair Campbell) and it continued for over two hours.

Suddenly, the tweeters and have-your-sayers all began to speak up for Brown - all of them!!:

1638: Regarding the coverage of #BigotGate, Enhughesiasm tweets: And to think the media were getting so close to having to actually talk about policies. They must be delighted. Read Enhughesiasm's tweets

1739: Regarding Gordon Brown's "bigot" gaffe, Michael Driscoll from Walton-on-Thames writes: What a storm in a tea cup. I'm a floating voter and this event would have no bearing whatsoever on my vote. Surely policies are the right benchmark to cast your vote on. The press seem thrilled to have got this soundbite.Have Your Say

1758: Bruno writes: I can't say I'm Mr Brown's biggest fan, but I do think that anyone's private conversation should remain so - private. If you go earwigging you should expect to hear things you don't like. Have Your Say

1910: Paul From Oakley Vale writes: As an ex-BBC producer and former sound recordist myself I want to know when the reprimand will be applied to a) the sound recordist who carried on recording when a prime minister was clearly "off-camera" and in the private confines of his own car. And b) the reprimand to the opportunist news producer who exploited the sound recordists mistake for their own aggrandizement. Standards of decency and professional conduct have clearly been breached here. Have Your Say

2022Ruralwoman writes: While I look forward to crash Gordon taking a long holiday in a few days' time, I actually feel quite sorry for him. That grumpy off-the-record comment will haunt him forever. Have Your Say (well, that one is support of a back-handed kind!!)
*
Is that really typical? Does the whole nation (except us) feel sorry for Gordon Brown, as this suggests? Are all the millions and millions and millions of "bigots" out there really happy at being regarded as such by the Labour leader?
*
The early afternoon showed what the BBC could be if it tried. The late afternoon and early evening showed what the BBC is, sadly.

THE MORNING BEFORE...

*
Reviewing the BBC's live election blog (so far) today reveals fascinating insights into BBC bias.
*
The first substantial post of the day began at 6.45 with "Have unveiled their secret weapon?" Their "secret weapon" turned about to be Sir Alex Ferguson, who is well-known as a Labour supporter, so hardly "secret."
*
What followed througout the morning was a long sequence of posts that quoted Labour figures advancing their party's cause, or (more often) attacking their opponents. On and on they went. From 8.00 until 12.15 (when a short post gave the first hint of the catastrophe for Labour to come) there were 9 posts that meet my criteria of using direct or indirect quotes from Labour politicians, and many others about Labour that don't. I think they are all worth quoting for the sake of posterity:

1147: Gordon Brown defends his policies on education, immigration, the deficit, health and "helping people" in a sparky exchange with a woman in Rochdale. Starting off with heckling from a distance, the woman ended up telling him about her grandchildren and travel delays from ash. Mr Brown even complimented her choice of coat today - red. DESCRIPTIVE

1133: From hairdressers to tree-trimmers, Gordon Brown continues his push to meet the voters with a visit to a community scheme in Rochdale. DESCRIPTIVE

1109: Mr Brown takes up the offer of a visit to the hairdressers in Oldham, but declines a trim, opting instead to talk business. The customer in the chair looked quite bemused, as a media scrum surrounded the small shop, reports Jane Hill. DESCRIPTIVE

1017: An entrepreneurial Oldham hairdresser comes right out and offers Mr Brown a haircut if he has five minutes to walk across the road to her salon. He'll even get a discount. He does have a TV debate coming up on Thursday...DESCRIPTIVE

1011: Phil Woolas is relishing his job as compere, saying he'll be like Robert Kilroy-Silk - talkshow host, reality show contestant and former MEP. Presumably Mr Woolas isn't planning an appearance on Big Brother. TRIVIAL

1003: PM Gordon Brown praises the success of neighbourhood policing, saying it's important to him that everyone feels safe in their homes and streets. In an echo of his predecessor, he says: "We are the party that is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime." SIGNIFICANT

0954: Phil Woolas gets a rousing round of applause as he introduces "the boss" (that's Gordon Brown, in case you were unsure) to the audience at the Oldham community centre. DESCRIPTIVE

0944: The community centre in Oldham has been festooned with red balloons and rosettes for the visit of the prime minister, reports Jane Hill. His question-and-answer session could take about 45 minutes. DESCRIPTIVE

0930: While his ministers have been explaining crime and spending pledges to reporters in London, Gordon Brown is on the verge of a visit to a CCTV monitoring centre in Oldham, where he'll also take questions from the public. DESCRIPTIVE

0903: Lord Mandelson comments on continuing speculation about a hung parliament. With a straight face, he says Lib Dem Nick Clegg is sometimes talking to "the man in the moon, happy to go into a coalition with him". SIGNIFICANT

0853: Greek troubles are mentioned again, and Lord Mandelson is asked: Could we go the way of Greece? He says that it shows the "fragility" of the situation, so it would be wrong to take risks with the recovery. "Britain is not Greece," he says. SIGNIFICANT

0846: Katie Piper appears after Alan Johnson and outlines the role CCTV played in her case. She was badly injured when an attacker threw acid on her face on a busy high street in daylight. CCTV was key to securing a conviction. She says when she feels uncomfortable in public, she'll move to be near a CCTV camera. SIGNIFICANT

0843: Home Secretary Alan Johnson outlines the problems, including binge drinking and teenage pregnancy, but says Labour has the solution. He then moves on to CCTV and its role in policing. People could have the right to request CCTV in some areas, he says. SIGNIFICANT

0837: Labour's Lord Mandelson says Britain needs answers to problems it faces. He begins his speech with criticism of the Tories about its "misuse" of crime statistics. SIGNIFICANT

0831: The Labour press conference is about to get under way with Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Communities Secretary John Denham in a "rare appearance," reports Laura Kuenssberg. They'll be focussing on CCTV and cutting down on crime. Appearing with them will be Katie Piper, who was badly hurt in an acid attack by a boyfriend. DESCRIPTIVE

0822: "Fantasy politics" is how David Miliband describes the Tories and Liberal Democrats when the issue of a hung parliament is put to him on the BBC Today programme. How about sharing Downing St with Nick Clegg? "Our leader is Gordon Brown, we have chosen our leader. We're not having the leader of other parties telling us who our leader should be." DESCRIPTIVE

0819: With the stock exchange nervous about events in Greece, Foreign Secretary David Miliband praises the IMF for action on helping the Eurozone country during its financial crisis, but he criticised David Cameron for comparing the British and Greek situations as similar. "Let's put the Greek bit out of this equation," he said. SIGNIFICANT

0808: Following Tuesday's appearance of an ex-EastEnders actress at a Tory event, another one has stepped into the campaign. Michelle Collins, aka Cindy Beale, is fronting a video criticising Tory plans to give tax breaks to married couples. DESCRIPTIVE
*
As you can see, that's a lot of coverage (18 posts) - and it's almost entirely free from criticism (the one exception being the slight dig at John Denham), or indeed of any clouds of negativity. All is sunshine and friendly banter with the public (oh, how deliciously ironic!) Labour could hardly have wished for better coverage. Moreover, as you can see, Labour's campaign messages are quoted across a wide range of subjects. That could only be seen as a great success for them.
*
*
How does this compare to the BBC blog's treatment of the Conservatives between those hours? I think you'll agree it could hardly be more different:
*
1210: Shadow chancellor George Osborne tells the Institute of Directors that under a future Tory government, there will be a new sign erected over the country, saying "Britain is open for business". He also wants to see a more balanced economy, with a banking sector that supports the British economy rather than one which "enslaves" it. SIGNIFICANT

1159: Shadow chancellor George Osborne sets out his stall on the economy at the Institute of Directors conference. The parties have been defending their spending plans amid claims they are not being upfront about the scale of future cuts. DESCRIPTIVE

1049: A thirsty Mr Cameron thanks his hosts, makers of a world-famous beverage, and then drops a heavy hint - "they haven't given me any yet". Campaign donations have increased since the televised debates began, so maybe he's hoping for a bit more in the final few days. TRIVIAL

1037: David Cameron is facing some tough questions from the Coca-Cola workers. Immigration, child tax credits, homeownership, the benefit system, foreign takeovers of British companies, and planned cuts have all been raised. DESCRIPTIVE

1025: David Cameron asked workers at Coca Cola in Wakefield what the secret recipe was for Coke. They answered that's the $60m question. TRIVIAL
*
And that's it! Only one post (out of a not-so-grand total of 5!!!) reports a Conservative politician putting across a campaign message.
*
The posts at 10.25 and 10.49 fall within my criteria of using direct/indirect quotations, despite being utterly trivial and not very helpful to the Conservative cause (compared to all those serious points being made by Labour), and so they will have to appear in my figures tomorrow. They don't deserve to!!
*
Moreover, unlike with Labour, Mr Cameron is reported as "facing some tough questions". It's not all sunshine and friendly banter here. The post at 11.59 frames George Osborne's coming speech with general comments about criticisms of the parties over their not being "upfront" about spending cuts. Why mention that in this particular post, rather than in a separate post? To tie the idea of "not being upfront" about spending cuts to Mr Osborne in particular perhaps? Most importantly of all though, why was nothing other than the quip of Mr Cameron's about not being offered a drink quoted from Mr Cameron. It seems he answered a lot of questions on a lot of subjects. The BBC saw fit not to report any of them!!

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 21

*
Left for work very early this morning (startling blackirds and security guards in the process), so there was no time for this. So, better late than never, here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians
*
Tues 27/4
*
Conservatives - 23
Labour - 22
Lib Dems - 17
SNP - 7
Greens - 2
Plaid Cymru - 1
UKIP - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 21 very long days?
*
Labour - 520
Conservatives - 421
Lib Dems - 346
SNP - 57
UKIP - 32
Plaid Cymru - 28
Greens - 23
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Mebyon Kernow - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1

SCHADENFREUDE

**
Nothing whatsoever to do with BBC bias this (as I've been away all day and have missed all the fun, so entertainingly chronicled on the Biased BBC blog) but here's a rare non-BBC-based post ....
*
A very long day at work, but not unenjoyable. And then to come home, switch on ITV News and see Gordon Brown's gaffe, life-long Labour voter Mrs Duffy's double-take on hearing what he had said about her, Brown's visible wilting as the tape was played back to him on The Jeremy Vine Show and his absurd forced grin/gurn as he emerged from Mrs Duffy's house after rushing back to apologise to her. Ah, happy, happy days!! In the immortal words of Nelson, May the Great God, whom I worship, grant to my Country and for the benefit of Europe in general a great and glorious victory...Whoops, wrong Nelson. I mean't:

And now we know, as Tom Bradby said on ITV News, that Gordon Brown believes that anyone who raises concerns about immigration is "a bigot" - which, given that most people in the country (according to all the polls) hold such concerns, makes a large majority of voters "bigots" in his eyes.
*

PS I was clearly far from alone from having this reaction. Here's North Northwester's take (which which I wholly agree):
http://theyrejokingarentthey.blogspot.com/2010/04/bigotry.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theyre-joking%2Farent-they+%28They%27re+Joking%2C+Aren%27t+They%3F%29

BALLS AND OPEN GOALS

*
Catching up with yesterday's The World at One finds Martha Kearney interviewing Ed Balls and beginning her interview not by asking about matters relating to the Labour Party but about something relating to the Conservatives: "I began by asking him about the criticism raised about the Conservatives' schools policy by the Tory leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter. He told the BBC today that he had some concerns over the impact the Conservatives' planned foundation schools could have on the funding of other schools in the area."
*
In response did Ed Balls say, 'Sorry Martha, I'll pass on that one. Let's talk about our policies instead'? Amazingly, he didn't!! No, he attacked David Cameron and Michael Gove. I never saw that coming! Nor did I forsee that he'd spend most of the rest of the interview attacking the Tories too. I'd always thought he was such a pleasant, positive chap. Martha must have been so surprised at Ed Balls's uncharacteristically nasty behaviour that she let his attacks go on unchecked. Yes, that must be the explanation.
*
Nurse!

PHOBIAS

*
A Tory candidate (Philip Lardner) has been suspended from his party today for making a 'homophobic' remark on a website. Yesterday a Labour candidate (John Cowan) was suspended from his party for making an 'Islamophobic' remark on a website.
*
Someone who didn't report the John Cowan story yesterday was our old friend Michael Crick. He made no mention of it on Newsnight. He did blog about it though. However, I note that he only posted about Mr Cowan at 16.08 today &, of course, he coupled the old news about Mr Cowan with the breaking news about Mr Lardner. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/latest_candidate_suspensions.html *
*
So, Michael Crick didn't think Labour's Mr Cowan worth mentioning yesterday, or this morning, or early this afternoon. Yet within minutes (possibly seconds) of news breaking of a Tory candidate being suspended he rushes panting to his laptop, doubtless sending cats and kids flying in all directions, and his fingers become a blur of activity. Suddenly, he remembers Mr Cowan. Well, he could hardly not mention him if he were about to mention the errant Tory Mr Lardner!
*
Another prediction: Michael Crick might mention the 'racist' John Cowan on tonight's Newsnight (a day late), but only because he will almost certainly feel the overwhelming urge to mention - and doubtless dwell on - the 'homophobic' Philip Lardner.
**
*
UPDATE The BBC website covers both stories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8647206.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8644018.stm
*
Note how the Labour one features only the comments of people from the Labour Party, and highlights a Labour Party spokesman's 'anger'. The Conservative one, however, features the violently hostile views of a political opponent, Labour's Chris Bryant, and chooses to highlight them too!
*
This pattern has been observed before.
*
The BBC article on Mr Lardner begins: Tory election candidate Philip Lardner has been suspended for describing gay people on his website as "not normal", the party has confirmed.
*
The article goes on to quote the 'offending' words (which don't describe gay people as "not normal", as the BBC alleges, only their behaviour. Can they not see the difference?)
*
"As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.

"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it.

"Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

CLAPTRAP

*
The lead election story on the BBC News website tonight is 'Election: Parties battle over family and crime plans'. This has three sub-headings:
*
*****************Cuts questions
*****************'Toddler tax'
*****************'Claptrap'
*
The latter pair are direct quotes from Labour attacks on the Conservatives. 'Claptrap' immediately preceeds excerpts from a speech by David Cameron on the 'broken society'. It is a quote from Alan Johnson featured four paragraphs later, after the Cameron extracts (thus book-ending them)!
*
Labour and Lib Dem spokesman "attack", "tell", "argue" and "say". Only the Conservatives have to "defend" themselves:
*
In south London, Mr Cameron defended his depiction of British society as "broken".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8645508.stm

*

A typical BBC article.

ALL ROADS LEAD TO BIAS

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

WELL HUNG

*
Before I leave for a second longer-than-usual day at work, here's the latest post on the BBC's live election blog:

0621: Three new polls out today show how close the race is now between the three biggest parties - with only 4- 5% between them. A ComRes poll for ITV News puts the Tories on 32%, Lib Dems on 31% and Labour on 28%. An ICM poll for the Guardian puts the Tories on 33%, Lib Dems on 30% and Labour on 28% and a YouGov survey for the Sun puts the Tories on 33%, Lib Dems on 29% and Labour on 28%. A three-horse race it is then - expect the hung parliament chatter to continue.

They mentioned these polls yesterday evening (as did Michael Crick, who was almost salivating over them). Now they mention them again. They haven't done that before. I (rhetorically) wonder why!

That last sentence in the BBC post (and can't you just smell the enthusiasm in it!!) - "A three-horse race it is then - expect the hung parliament chatter to continue" - is a prediction anyone could have made, given the sheer amount of chatter on the subject across the BBC yesterday.

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 20

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. Labour are now 100 posts ahead of the Conservatives.
*
Mon 26/4
*
Labour - 26
Conservatives - 20
Lib Dems - 17
Greens - 3
SNP - 1
UUP - 1
Plaid Cymru - 1
Respect - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 20 days?
*
Labour - 498
Conservatives - 398
Lib Dems - 329
SNP - 50
UKIP - 31
Plaid Cymru - 27
Greens - 21
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
Respect - 1
*

UNJUST(IN) BEHAVIOUR

*
Bupendra at B-BBC (good man!) picked up on some more biased behaviour on the Today programme:
*
Same old, same old on The Toady Programme.

Justin Webb interviewing Tory Nick Herbert and a couple of others I'd never heard of about The Countryside.

Webb straight into Nick Herbert with...

Can I ask you first of all, Nick Herbert, are you the party of the hunt?

And how important is the reinstatement of hunting with hounds to that general picture?

Ok. We'll come to those things (reviving the rural economy, rural unemployment and rural services, which Mr Herbert had brought up) in a second. Let's get hunting out of the way out of the way first of all.

It is a fact, isn't it Nick Herbert, that your party leader wants to bring it back. He's not going to force his party down that road, but he wants it back?

But he personally wants it back...

Yeah alright, Justin, we get it. The Tories are very bad people who want to kill foxes. Now if you want to talk about the countryside how about the economy, housing, education, services, farming etc. You know, relevant, important stuff rather than stuff you can use (you think) as a stick to beat the Tories with.

Credit to Nick Herbert who swatted Justin away.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread_8124.html
*
A spot-on analysis.
*
This debate on rural policy lasted 9m 33s. The first 3m 28s were spent on fox hunting.
*
After this interruption-filled probing of Nick Herbert and a lesser grilling for the 'third way-over-fox-hunting'-advocating Lib Dem David Heath (one of my favourite Lib Dems - as I've mentioned before. He was one of the few Lib Dems to go against his party and honour his election pledge on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty), Justin Webb turned to Hilary Benn (who had already had his chance to slag off the Tories over fox hunting).
*
What searing question did he ask Wedgie Jnr?: "Ten thousand homes, Hilary Benn, ten thousand homes in rural areas and homes coming soon. This is what you're promising?" Reading out a manifesto pledge is hardly a demanding question!! Nick Herbert gets grilled on fox hunting; Hilary Benn gets a Labour manifesto pledge read out! Amazing!
*
What happened next was scarcely less amazing. Did Justin return to Nick Herbert and read out one of his party's proposals? No he didn't. He read out another of Labour's lovely promises to bring sunshine and smiles to the nation: "Nick Herbert, two things. The homes and the broadband. Labour promising a potentially large-scale home buildings (sic), as Hilary Benn says, which in a sense has already started. But also the idea that in rural communities it is just no acceptable in the future for you not to have access to high-speed broadband."
*
What do the interruption coefficients tell us? Things are bad enough already for Justin, surely they can't show any further bias, can they? Oh yes they can!
*
Nick Herbert - 1.2
Hilary Benn - 0.8
David Heath - 0.7
*

GOVING AS GOOD AS HE GETS

*
B-BBC readers will be up on this story already (and there have been some excellents comments there about this already), but a few more things can be said.
*
Today this morning decided that the biggest story of the day was some criticism of Conservative education policy made by a Conservative council leader, Paul Carter from Kent. As the programme began, John Humprhys read "The news headlines this morning. A Conservative council leader has said that Tory plans to allow parents in England to set up their own schools could damage state schools."
*
As the newsreader read out the gist of the story I immediately spotted some misreporting: "Free schools, as they are known, would be established outside local authority control, using money that would have been allocated to the state sector." My understanding, based on a little reading on the subject and from watching an otherwise incredibly biased Newsnight report on the subject a couple of months ago, was that 'free schools' were state schools - albeit state schools outside local authority control. That's what the Conservatives have always said. That's what Michael Gove went on to repeat to John Humphrys.
*
Gillian Hargreaves, the BBC's education(al establishment) correspondent, then reported, saying "this intervention is embarrassing." She emphasized that Mr Carter "isn't against choice in education but he thinks the funding of free schools could be unfair to councils because money will be diverted from local education authorities". She continued, "He's not alone in his unease. The head of Hampshire's children's services, who is also a Conservative, says local councils must have the chance to turn a school around rather than give parents and charities the immediate right to set up a new school."
*
Gillian's full report can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8640576.stm
*
It details the concerns of both men at some length. Several things quickly become clear from reading the men's carefully filleted words (rather than merely attending to the BBC reporter's framing of them). Both men's concerns are nuanced, even in the excerpts we get (and, unsurprisingly, their support for the concept of free schools is skirted over very briefly in indirect quotation while their reservations are dwelt on across several paragraphs in direct quotation. (I wish we could hear the full interviews with both men). Also Cllr Carter is just as concerned about Labour's academies as he is about Conservative free schools. You wouldn't have got any sense of that from just listening to the Today programme.
*
Then we here from that trusty stand-by in times of need - the unnamed man, who goes a lot further than either of the named councillors:
*
Another Conservative councillor who runs education services in one of England's cities, but who does not want to be named, says he "is not a fan of the free schools policy".

He points out (which makes it sound as if he is just stating the fact of the matter) if parents were able to set up free schools in his area - a city with a growing population - it would make strategic planning a nightmare.

What of Michael Gove's rejection of the story? It gets one short paragraph!!!!
*
What follows in the rest of the article, which still leads the BBC's Education page and, amazingly, which still hasn't been updated since 7:05 GMT? We hear a steam of criticism of the Conservative plans.
&
There are two paragraphs from The Institute for Fiscal Studies then, under the sub-heading 'Privilege the few', we get four paragraphs of pure Ballsian Tory-bashing bile from Ed Balls. Next come two 'attack paragraphs' from Lib Dem Sarah Teather. Then two more from head NUTter Christine Blower.
*
UPDATE (even before I've published this post!). Gillian has now updated her article (18.16 GMT). Michael Gove now gets two short paragraphs to defend his position (and a short video clip)!!! WOW!!!. Generous eh?!

Why hasn't she outlined the robust defence Mr Gove gave on the Today programme? What happened to the idea of a right to reply? Surely a half dozen paragraphs at the very least from Michael Gove would only have been fair, given the length of the article and the sheer amount of criticism contained in it - all of which remains from this morning, except that Ed Balls loses one of his four paragraphs (he still has one more than Michael Gove!!!) - and given the scope of Mr Gove's case as made (under fire) this morning.
*
Just from reading this article (in both versions) you can tell that Gillian Hargreaves might not be the most impartial of reporters.

Gillian Hargreaves had a little chat with Justin Webb at 6.36am, giving only the criticisms without the nuances. The chat ended with Justin saying "Briefly Gillian. A bit of a blow?" "Yes", she replied. "It is embarrassing for the Conservatives and privately several councillors have told me this policy has not been thought out properly, certainly not when it comes to funding ".
*
The Daily Mail's take on this includes these points - which (if they are all true!) raise yet more questions about the BBC's behaviour:
*
The BBC was criticised today for claiming senior Tory council figures have reservations about plans to let parents and charities set up their own schools.
With just 10 days to go before polling day, leader of Kent County Council Paul Carter accused the broadcaster of attempting to create division in Conservative ranks.
It contacted Tory council chiefs in an apparent bid to drum up any criticism about the party's education scheme and then, to the delight of Labour, led with Mr Carter's comments in its news bulletins this morning.
The BBC leapt on comments from Mr Carter, which simply repeated concerns he had already raised earlier this year, to argue that he was calling into question Tory plans.
Mr Gove insisted that existing schools' budgets will be untouched because the plans would be funded by slashing waste in the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
And other council chiefs, including Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Merrick Cockell, and Stephen Castle from Essex County Council, also fully backed them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268885/General-Election-2010-BBC-claiming-Tories-divided-flagship-schools-plan.html

*
******

*

*

Well, didn't Michael Gove do well! We are in what Hippiepooter would call 'Attaboy!' territory! Trouncing John Humphrys (I.C. of 2.2), correcting the BBC's distortions and getting the message across about BBC bias with force, intelligence and good humour, he showed his colleagues the right way to deal with the Beeb. It has given me hope that the Conservative leadership isn't as sanguine about BBC bias as we (with ample justification) thought. Listen again here, and enjoy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8643000/8643459.stm
*

THE BBC'S LIVE ELECTION BLAG

*
There was a lot about consitutional change on the BBC's live election blog yesterday and, with just one exception, all the posts on this theme were in favour of it.
*
Here is a selection from last night's blog, including (gratuitously on my part) something you might like to know about Ed Balls and one or two other things besides:
*
2354: Michael Kay, Reading writes: Politicians are talking about electoral reform as if it's assumed that 51% of MPs should be able to change the constitution for ever. The real reform we need is to create a written constitution that can't be changed at the whim of the current government. Have Your Say

2224: So much for a relaxing day with the kids. It turns out Nick Clegg spent part of his day off in the casualty department of Kingston Hospital, south-west London. His wife Miriam fell and fractured her left elbow while shopping on Saturday afternoon. The Lib Dem leader had intended to spend the day with his three young sons, who he hadn't seen for three weeks after they became stranded in Spain during the flight ban. It never rains, as they say.

2155: Children's Secretary Ed Balls has been issued with a £60 fine for driving while using a mobile phone, it has emerged. Mr Balls told the Daily Mirror it happened last Sunday when he was driving from Yorkshire to London with his wife, fellow Cabinet minister Yvette Cooper, and their children. He did not want to wake the kids, he explained, so took the phone off its hands-free cradle - and was almost immediately spotted by police. He says he supports the law 100%.

2120: Harry Naylor from Birmingham writes: A number of politicians seem to be talking about a hung parliament as if it is something the country will have decided upon if the election on May 6th produced that result. Surely if we end up with a hung parliament it will be because the country can't reach a consensus on who should be in charge?Have Your Say

2051: His party may be behind in the polls but at least one survey has given Gordon Brown something to smile about. He was voted the politician with the most trustworthy grin by those well-known pollsters at, ahem, Jurys Inn. Some 4,000 people in the UK were shown photos of 20 celebrity smiles - top half of the face covered - and asked to choose which they trusted most. The PM finished sixth behind winner Stephen Fry, David Beckham and Cheryl Cole but was seven spots ahead of David Cameron, with Nick Clegg languishing in 17th. And to think people mocked his YouTube videos.

2010: YvonneConnell from Bexleyheath in Kent writes: Ignored and disenfranchised - that's how I feel, living in a constituency that no political party is targeting. The Tories presumably expect to win the seat so, given that I'm not a Tory, what's my incentive to vote? Where are the candidates? I need more than a bland leaflet to judge their suitability as my representative in parliament, but how do I get to see and hear these invisible candidates?Have Your

1932: Philip Justice from Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire writes: A hung parliament may not look so good in six months when the party not in power is whining on and the other two are breaking all their promises and blaming each other. Put someone in charge and hold them responsible for what they do.Have Your Say

1905: andypic tweets: Whatever else happens in this election, I earnestly hope it's the last ever in the UK with first-past-the-post systemRead andypic's tweets

1849: Jeremy from Greenwich writes: If first past the post can allow a party with 28% to have the most seats then it is wrong. Why are the Conservatives against change?Have Your Say

1833: The SNP is more than half-way to its target of raising £50,000 by the end of Monday to fund its planned legal action to force the BBC to include a Scottish representative in Thursday's prime ministerial debate on the economy. Deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon says it has now received more than £26,000 in donations.

1746: Lord Owen reckons Nick Clegg is the first Lib Dem leader to put himself in a position to deal with either Labour or the Tories. "If you can't work with one, you can't bargain with the other. This puts him in a much better negotiating situation." The former Labour cabinet minister, SDP leader and ally of the old Liberal Party adds that a coalition speaking for more than 50% of the electorate could deal more effectively with the economic deficit than a party with a slim majority.

1730: Support for independence would rise in Scotland if the Tories win the general election, a new poll has suggested. The YouGov survey of 1,001 people for Sky News found that 31% of voters would vote for independence if a referendum was held now, with 54% saying they would vote "no". People were then quizzed about how they would vote if the Conservatives won and a referendum on independence were held two or three years later - then, 40% of voters said they would back independence, with 43% voting "no".

'LIVE EVENT BLOG' TALLY: DAY 19

*
Here is yesterday's tally of the number of posts on the BBC's live election blog that report comments (direct/indirect quotations) from party politicians. Normal BBC bias persists!
*
Sun 25/4
*
Labour - 15
Conservatives - 8
Lib Dems - 7
SNP - 6
DUP - 2
Plaid Cymru - 1
*
Now for the running total for the whole campaign. How do things stand after 19 (long) days?
*
Labour - 472
Conservatives - 378
Lib Dems - 312
SNP - 49
UKIP - 31
Plaid Cymru - 26
Greens - 18
BNP - 16
Independents - 4
DUP - 6
Independent Network - 2
Monster Raving Loony - 1
Communist Party - 1
Sinn Fein - 1
Mebyon Kernow - 1
Socialist Labour - 1
Liberal - 1
English Democrats - 1
Christian Party - 1
Christian Peoples Alliance - 1
*
Labour are now within a whisker of achieving a century over the Conservatives.
*

BLITHE BELLS

*
The Lib Dems are having a great day on the BBC's live election blog.
*
As well as getting the first mention of the day (mentioning their 'greenness'), they receive four problem-free posts on Nick Clegg's performance on The Andrew Marr Show, followed by a tweet that could have come straight out of the mouth of the BBC's Sarah Bell herself:
*
1017: nitawol tweets: I wish Andrew Marr would let Nick Clegg answer his questions and stop interrupting all the time.
*
You might expect other 'tweeters' or 'have your sayers' to be quoted criticising the Lib Dems, just for the sake of balance. No such thing happens. Instead we only get more posts supportive of the Lib Dems, including:
*
1421: Another senior defence figure has added his support to the Liberal Democrat policy on the Trident nuclear deterrent system. Four days ago, four former generals said Britain should be prepared to scrap it. The former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, said tough decisions had to be taken on future defence budgets. "I would like us to see us looking far, far more seriously at a cheaper version so that we can stay as a nuclear power," he told BBC Radio 4's the World This Weekend.
*
This is old news. Lord Guthrie called for such a review days ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8632619.stm
*
Ryan reports that notorious Lib Dem-supporting beebette Sarah Bell is working on the blog today.
*
*
UPDATE To be fair, I see that an anti-Lib Dem 'Have Your Say' is now on the blog:
*
1719: David in Surrey writes: Nick Clegg is beginning to sound arrogant and petulant. It is not his decision to choose the PM. It is very dangerous when you begin to believe your own hype. Inexperience is starting to show through.
*

STITCHED UP LIKE A U-KIPPER (Part 2)

*
So how did The Politics Show deal with UKIP's Maddy Westrop? Remember what Maddy told us: "I don't know why they interviewed me yesterday and I don't know what they are going to edit me to be saying. Everything was deliberately confused and I felt manipulated...Really they had their own agenda."
*
What was BBC reporter David Thompson up to? Let's compare how he introduced 'the others' in the Stourbridge election.
*
"Will Duckworth's the Green candidate here, but get this...the Lib Dems have actually asked him to stand down." Cue Will's moment of glory, as he got his own back on the Lib Dems!
*
"UKIP's Maddy Westrop thinks her old mate Nigel Farage was a bit too rude to the president of the European Council when he told him he looked like a low-grade bank clerk. Maddy's not afraid to speak her mind. " Cue Maddy, and her 14 seconds of airtime. (14 seconds!!)
*
"And local businessman Alun Nicholas is standing as an independent." Cue Alun.
*
Now we know what the BBC were up to. "They said Nigel F was rude", reported Maddy. David Thompson said that very thing in his introduction &, as Maddy so accurately put up, "manipulated her" into getting her to say what they wanted her to say - that Nigel Farage was rude. That is a fascinating insight into BBC bias (for which, thanks to Maddy!). Mr Thompson wanted to get at Nigel Farage and UKIP, and worked his socks off to get Maddy to say something he could use against them. Isn't that disgraceful?

Maddy said, "they also had me and the Green candidate right there (amicably) arguing about energy policy and they didn't want to record any of it. They don't want the public to know our policies at all. Our stance against global warming alarmism is a complete vote winner and we can't put it across."
*
As Maddy also forewarned us, "then they wanted a shot of me and the Green guy and an independent candidate (with five aston martins and a bit of an attitude) to be filmed looking through a window at a party - excluded from the party they were having with the three big parties.
I refused. They got very stroppy and said I didn't understand television. I said I was married to a BBC journalist and did. I pointed out we came first in the election just a year a go and they are ignoring us and not allowing the electorate to know our policies. They want to make the story instead of finding it!" Seeing Thompson's silly film, with its party imagery, I am so glad Maddy scuppered it. Hence, perhaps, Thompson's snide and patronising "Maddy's not afraid to speak her mind."
*
Maddy finished her e-mail "I have no idea what they will do with the footage they got. I suspect traps and distortions. Do tell everyone that they misled us and set us up for a fall."
*
Yes. Yes they did.
*
*
P.S. Next week the three 'main parties' get a final fling on the show. I make another prediction. David Thompson will mention that Margot James, the Conservative candidate in Stourbridge, is a millionaire.
*