MORE PRO-LABOUR SPIN FROM THE BBC

*
The BBC are incorrigible....
*
(My uninventive title might earn me a 'No Shit Sherlock' award from Not a sheep!)
*
Going back to my final post from yesterday, I haven't been watching the BBC much this week but, despite that, I've already heard several disapproving/sarcastic mentions of the new coalition cabinet's lack of women, so I suspect there have been many more and that you will have heard some of them too.
*
This lunchtime's Politics Show provided only the latest example, as Jon Sopel said sarcastically, "Compensating for the lack of women in the cabinet, we're joined now by Sarah Sands and Miranda Green".
*
So we have a big problem, according to the BBC. The BBC likes to quote the killer figure - a cabinet of 23, featuring just 4 women.
*
Here's what they mean, with helpful colour-coordination (colours chosen at random!)

Prime Minister The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Deputy Prime Minister The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Foreign Secretary The Rt Hon William Hague MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon George Osborne MP
Secretary of State for Justice The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP
Home Secretary The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Secretary of State for Defence The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change The Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP
Secretary of State for Health The Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP
Secretary of State for Education The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP
Secretary of State for Transport The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP
Secretary of State for Environment The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP
Secretary of State for International Development The Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland The Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP
Secretary of State for Scotland The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Wales The Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury The Rt Hon David Laws MP
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster The Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC
Minister without Portfolio (Minister of State) The Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC
*
The BBC, however, must take us for complete idiots - and, given that no-one seems to be pointing this out to them whenever they complain about the 'gender balance' of the new cabinet, perhaps with some justification - but this alleged 'terrible step backwards for women', about which they are getting so worked up, neglects one killer fact: The last Labour cabinet also contained just 4 women out of a cabinet of 23!!

Prime Minister The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
Leader of the House of Commons The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
First Secretary of State The Rt Hon The Lord Mandelson PC
Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs The Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Justice The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for International Development The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government The Rt Hon John Denham MP
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Health The Rt Hon Andrew Burnham MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland The Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP
Leader of the House of Lords The Rt Hon The Baroness Royall of Blaisdon PC
Minister for the Cabinet Office The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP
Secretary of State for Scotland The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury The Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP
Secretary of State for Wales The Rt Hon Peter Hain MP
Secretary of State for Defence The Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP
Secretary of State for Transport The Rt Hon The Lord Adonis MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP
*
The BBC are trying to pull the wool over our eyes on this issue. They are condemning and mocking our new government for something Brown's last cabinet was no less guilty of. They didn't scream blue murder then, so why are they doing it now? And how dare they think we wouldn't notice?

It look as if they are going to chuck anything they can at this new government (especially one part of it) and will clearly not let any ideas of fairness or honesty get in their way. (Why change the habit of a lifetime?)
*
Labour got a honeymoon from the BBC in 1997 that just went on and on and on (arguably for 13 years, with a brief blip during the Iraq War). The ConLibs haven't even had a day's grace from the biased BBC.
*
UPDATE: After the Susana report (reviewed above), Sopel returned to his earlier point, in his sarcastic introduction to Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny (as opposed to Dougie) Alexander: "Well, in this new era of new politics we have something entirely new - Lib Dem cabinet ministers. Five of them. All men. "Male and pale" to use the phrase." A phrase, as I say, not used by Sopel and his kind about the no less 'male' or 'pale' final Labour cabinet. The BBC are truly, truly shameless. (And on the 'pale' front, I'll match lonely Baroness Scotland (1) with Baroness Warsi (1) No, the new government is no less 'hideously white' than its predecessor, despite what the BBC is trying to insinuate here).
*
PS Just a thought. Given that, as in this case, the Lib Dems (previously much favoured by the BBC) are now witnessing some collateral damage resulting from fire aimed at their coalition partners, the Conservatives, in the new spirit of the times, even they might begin to see the BBC in a new and less favourable light. I think a few e-mails to them are in order too.

SOPEL BOX

*
The debate between the potential foreign secretaries and the voters of Stourbridge on today's Politics Show found William Hague on the receiving end of the lion's share on Jon Sopel's interruptions and questions. Discounting those interruptions where Jon Sopel cut his guests short for reasons of time or to go to the audience, William Hague was interrupted 9 times, while both David Miliband and Ed Davey were interrupted just 4 times.
*
David Miliband wasn't so lucky with the audience!
*
P.S. It says something about the BBC's live election blog that they saw fit to quote only one of the three politicians on the show. Can you guess which one? Clue: he always pronounces the word 'year' as 'yah' and his daddy was a Marxist professor.

SMEARING UKIP

*
UKIP have been complaining for some time about the BBC's attempts to link them in the public's mind with the BNP.
*
Hippiepooter has brought to my attention some examples of this, both from BBC political correspondent Brian Wheeler. The first comes from his review of the BNP's latest party election broadcast:

The UK Independence Party must have thought it had cornered the market in the anti-politics vote with its "sod the lot, vote UKIP" poster.

But in this election broadcast, BNP leader Nick Griffin goes further still, urging people to use their vote to "get your own back" on the entire political class.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8647630.stm

His second comes from a review of UKIP's latest party election broadcast (and a very snide piece of reporting it is too):
*
The theme of the broadcast is "straight talking" - like the BNP in their broadcast, Ukip are starting from the premise that the public now think all mainstream politicians are liars and crooks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8651489.stm
*
And I can add Mark Easton to the list of smearers:

The big three Westminster parties have tended to brush to one side the point that lots of our inward migration comes from the EU and none of their policies would do anything about that. Only UKIP and the BNP would withdraw from the European Union, a prerequisite for restricting Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians from coming to work in Britain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html

And now BoBs on the latest B-BBC open thread has picked up on possibly the worst of the lot. As he notes, "The ever helpful BBC informs us that the BNP and UKIP are basically the same party ... WTF". It begins:
*
Two parties who have entered the Westminster election race in the hope of winning their first seats are the British National Party and the UK Independence Party.
Central to both organisations is the notion of being British, however that has often led to the BNP being accused of racism and UKIP being accused of being anti-European.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/scotland/8653809.stm
*
The worst case I know of this came during an edition of The Politics Show courtesy of Jon Sopel. Sorry for doing this, but I'll have to quote myself here at some length:
*
Short extracts from interviews with each of the candidates for the leadership of UKIP followed. I would love to know how long the actual interviews lasted from which these crumbs were drawn and what questions were asked. Here the focus, initially, was firmly on immigration - and Sopel had the clear aim of painted UKIP as a far-right party analogous to the BNP.
*
First came Gerard Batten MEP. He said that immigration should be reduced to a trickle and that Sharia Law is unacceptable in this country. An unhappy-looking Sopel said "I'm sure that Nick Griffin wouldn't disagree with anything you've just said."
*
Next came front-runner Lord Pearson, who Sopel clearly had in his sights. He was labelled a "former Tory" (boo!) and "old Etonian" (boo!), and a "field sports campaigner" (boo!)" and as the man who invited Geert Wilders to the Houses of Parliament (boo!). Wearing a sour expression, Sopel asked him "So is there a danger you could be confused, UKIP and the BNP?" When the lord answered (slowly), Sopey interrupted and twisted his words: "Are you saying that there's a fine line between UKIP and the BNP?" The over-polite peer should have replied "No, you twit, of course not - and, unless you're thick, you know I didn't."
*
The mere councillor came next, Alan Wood - "chairman of Fittleton Parish council", a man who "breeds spaniels". "Do you respect Lord Pearson?" asked Sopel. "No I don't", replied Mr Wood. "Are you saying that if he's elected people will think you're too close to the BNP?", asked Sopel. "Yes", replied Mr Wood. Job done for Sopel!
*
Next up was Mike Nattrass MEP. He was labelled a "former member of the right-wing New Britain"(boo!). 'Right-wing' is usually BBC code for a fascist nut. Mr Nattrass is absolutely no such thing, but how are BBC viewers to know that the 'right-wing' New Britain was not a fascist organisation, like the BNP? This is a low subliminal smear. *
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/ukip-get-full-sopel-treatment.html
*
I think we should all be on the alert for more examples of this.
*
P.S. Here's another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/regions/west_midlands/8578858.stm
*
And another from Stephanie Flanders:
The UK Independence Party and the British National Party also often focus on the economic impact of immigration: on wages, productivity and jobs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8634469.stm

STITCHED UP LIKE A U-KIPPER

*
I have never before seen The Politics Show feature extended highlights from another BBC programme, but that's what we got today in a section ostensibly devoted to looking at 'the smaller parties'. There were several minutes worth of extracts from Lord Pearson's encounter with Jon Sopel on the BBC's News Channel's Campaign Show. They were carefully filleted extracts of course, specially cut to make Lord Pearson look as silly as possible, complete with ludicrous looks of mock-bewilderment from Sopey himself.
*

WHAT DO YOU WANT DARLING?

*

Alistair Darling hardly broke into a sweat during his interview with Jon Sopel. No wonder, as Sopel's questioning was temperate in character - in both style and content (I.C. of 0.9). The coming budget, spending cuts, defence, Iceland and Charlie Whelan were discussed. No time though for anything on Labour's donors of course. Had George Osborne been there instead of Mr Darling it's a pretty safe bet that time would have found to talk about Tory donors.

*

The Politics Show's Max Cotton (the cocky one!) then trotted off to Buckingham to look at Speaker Bercow's challenge from Nigel Farage (go Nigel!!). Conflict within the Conservative Party over the challenge was Max's main concern. Problems for the Conservative Party are an obsession with the folk at The Politics Show. Lord Tebbit was one of the stars of the show (he always is). He dropped big hints that he would vote for Nigel, were he himself a constituent of Bercow's Buckingham seat. (As would I!). The BBC, as my I.C. survey has shown, dislikes UKIP and Max had a few digs here: "But Nigel Farage was perhaps too strident when he addressed the new president of the EU, Mr van Rumpuy in these terms..." (followed by a very short clip). "I asked the Speaker of the House of Commons what he thought of this outburst". In response Bercow accused Nigel of not behaving in a grown-up way and accused him of "simple, rabid personal abuse". He's also accused Nigel of campaigning in too many pubs. Nigel didn't get a chance in Max's report to defend himself over the van Rumpus over his speech in the Eurolandic parliament, but he did get a chance to defend himself over the "glorified pub crawl" allegation & did so with good sense and good humour: "So for him to make this comment , it's kind of a sneaky, backbiting way of operating. I don't work like that. I stab people in the front." Even Max liked that!

*

Later Paola Buonadonna reported on 'What Women Want'. Her starting point was a survey by The Fawcett Society, a 'registered charity' and feminist organisation. We heard from Ceri Goddard of that left-wing pressure group, then three female candidates: Priti Patel (Conservative, pictured for some reason), Rushanara Ali (Labour) and Katy Gordon (Lib Dem). They discussed various issues, but the only one raised by Paola was the Tory policy on recognising marriage through the tax system, which prompted the inevitable ganging-up on Priti by the others. Isn't that typical!

*

BALLS!

*
"He didn't want to debate with Labour", said Jon Sopel of Michael Gove at the beginning of the main section of today's Politics Show. Both Sopel and Ed Balls made much of this, to Mr Gove's disadvantage. So Michael Gove and Ed 'Bully' Balls were interviewed separately. I strongly suspect that Mr Gove meant that he didn't want to debate with Balls specifically, as Balls always interrupts him relentlessly during such double-interviews (often questioning him in tandem with the BBC interviewer) whereas, being another of those nice Tories, Mr Gove is far too polite to respond in kind. (It didn't stop Balls from heckling though.)
*
As so often on the Politics Show Conservative policy came under close scrutiny whereas Labour policy was treated as secondary to personality issues. Also, as so often, the Labour attacks on the Tories were allowed to run on, but Tory attacks on Labour were stopped (here accompanied by a telling-off for Mr Gove). Balls for allowed to return after the close of the Gove interview for one last (uninterrupted) blast at the Conservatives.
*
As there was a delay on the link between Mr Gove and the studio many attempted interruptions by Jon Sopel went for nothing. Even so, he was still successfully interrupted more often that Ed Balls, who had by far the easier time of it in the studio (despite a momentary display of bravado from Sopel).
*
Although the polls suggest (and the popularity of Simon Cowell confirms) that lots of Brits clearly love a shit, I can't think that prolonged public exposure to Ed Balls could do Labour anything but harm, so Michael Gove really ought to be more masochistic and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous behaviour by engaging with him whenever possible. Yes, he won't be allowed to make any positive case because of Balls's deliberate tactic of sustained disruption, but he might (if he remains good-humoured) make a more favourable impression on the public - if that's all politics amounts to these days!!

GENETIC BIAS

*

The Politics Show today featured a discussion about the D.N.A. database between Alan Johnson, Chris Grayling and Chris Huhne.

*

Now I'd have expected the BBC's left-liberal instincts (especially the latter) to come through and lead to wholesale questioning by Jon Sopel of the idea of keeping any innocent person's genetic information. Not a bit of it. None of his questions came from that angle. He interrupted Chris Grayling twice (I.C. of 0.8), which was expected, but he always interrupted Chris Huhne twice, and tried to interrupt him more times as well (also an I.C. of 0.8), which I wasn't expecting. Only Alan Johnson, returning from an earlier interview on 'Bully' Brown, emerged relatively unscathed (I.C. of 0.3 here).

*

This followed a short introductory package by Sopel in which he featured a chief constable, Chris Sims, who supported the government's position, as well as the mother of Sally Ann Bowman, who also supported the government's position - though she wanted it to go even further. Where was Liberty? They always ask Liberty usually!! Only supporters of the Labour government's position then, oddly. Just before the end of his introduction, Sopel said of the Scottish model (pictured) "This is the system the Conservatives would like to see in the rest of the country but there's a warning from the police", at which Mr Sims returned to give that warning. So not just only supporters of the Labour government's position, but a warning about adopting the Conservatives' favoured approach!

*

That must be why The Politics Show denied its Guardianesque instincts and embraced the government's illiberal position on the DNA database: There's an election due! Every other consideration must be set aside until after the election.

**

LANSLEYS TO THE SLAUGHTER AGAIN

*
This lunchtime's Politics Show saw a real ding-dong that set Andrew Lansley for the Conservatives against Labour's Andy Burnham, Lib Dem Norman Lamb and presenter Jon Sopel. The issue was elderly care and Mr Lansley was ganged up on in a way that Conservative spokesmen seem to being ganged up on by the Lib-Lab pact and the BBC these days on a pretty regular basis. Andrew Lansley tried to give as good as he got, talking over everyone else in a clear attempt to stay afloat. He didn't win through though. Sopel's interruption coefficients here were 0.7 for Mr Burnham (5 interruptions), 0.8 for Mr Lamb (2 interruptions), and 2.1 for Mr Lansley (13 interruptions).
*
This bust-up is reported on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8514762.stm
Here our biased Beeboid friends treat us to their highly partial take on the encounter. The views of Andy Burnham come first, then Norman Lamb and, thirdly, Andrew Lansley. Direct quotes from all three are given. Those of Mr Lamb are the most bountiful, followed by Mr Burnham with Mr Lansley predictably lagging in third place. The story is, thus, shaped for maximum anti-Tory effect.
*
The language of the piece shows that it was written by an anti-Tory Beeboid: "But Mr Lansley admitted the "RIP" poster about Labour's plans had been based on a story in the Guardian newspaper, which had been denied by the government." (Fancy the BBC disrespecting its ideological soulmate The Guardian!)
*
The article also features this passage, which scores a genuine bullseye against the Conservatives and suggests that its writer is not merely anti-Tory but also a Labour supporter: "And Shadow Education Secretary Michael Gove has also weighed in, with a personal attack on Andy Burnham. Mr Gove, who is two years younger than the health secretary and has been an MP for less time, told BBC One's Andrew Marr programme Mr Burnham was a "young politician, idealistic, but he has a lot to learn." That is the sort of thing I'd have liked to have written about Andy Burnham! Kudos to the Labour-supporting Beeboid for writing it! No kudos to the Labour-supporting Beeboid, however, for the anti-Tory bias of the report as a whole, as the BBC is supposed to be impartial!
*

SETTING A CAP ON BEEB BIAS

*
Today's The Politics Show focused on immigration and staged a debate between Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems in the programme's chosen constituency of Stourbridge. Jon Sopel, of course, presided.
*
The audience were certainly more balanced than a Question Time audience but centre-right viewers will have noticed that the Conservative spokesman, mild-mannered Damian Green, spoke less and was questioned and interrupted by Jon Sopel more than his more aggressive left-of-centre counterparts.
*
Here are the statistics:
*
Damian Green (Conservative)
Number of questions - 7
Number of interruptions by Jon Sopel - 3
Time allowed to speak - 3 minutes 58 seconds
Interruption Coefficient - 0.8
*
Phil Woolas (Labour)
Number of questions - 4
Number of interruptions by Jon Sopel - 2
Time allowed to speak - 5 minutes 41 seconds
Interruption Coefficient - 0.4
*
Chris Huhne (Lib Dem)
Number of questions - 3
Number of interruptions by Jon Sopel - 2
Time allowed to speak - 4 minutes 24 seconds
Interruption coefficient - 0.5

MANDY GETS THE SOFT SOPEL TREATMENT

*
Well, Jon Sopel's two big political interviews on today's The Politics Show could not have been more different.
*
We had a strange, strange interview with Peter Mandelson, in which Mandy mounted his high and hypocritical horse and charged repeatedly at David Cameron and George Osborne over their 'unpatriotic' behaviour at Davos. He was helped by Jon Sopel, who offered his Lordship a string of questions asking about the Conservatives - Tory policy on homeowners' rights, Tory dealings with the Unionist parties, David Cameron's personality - which were nothing more than invitations to attack them even more (which Mandelson did with relish). Sopel was oddly passive throughout. The interruption coefficient was 0.5 (so 'high' primarily due to two last minute interruptions).
*
Sopel's encounter with David Cameron was a world away from this in character. The interviewer was back to his old hyper-animated self and was, if anything, even more excitable than usual. There were no questions here that invited Mr C. to attack Gordon Brown! The resultant interruption coefficient was 1.2, which doesn't quite do justice to the interview's tone and content, with criticisms lacing most of the questions.
*
Clear bias.
*

POLITICS SHOW 24/1/10

*
Today's Politics Show featured an 8-minute-long, one-to-one interview between Jon Sopel and Harriet Harman (I.C. of 0.9), mirroring last week's 12-minute-long, one-to-one interview with Ed Balls. Poor Chris Grayling, however, had to share his interview with a critic of his policy, barrister Michael Wolkind, thus only getting 5 minutes of interview time (and an I.C. of 1),. This mirrored the fate of Nigel Farage last week, who had to share his interview with a critic of his policy, Salma Yaqoob of Respect. Is this a new trend? Mr Wolkind got away with not answering Jon Sopel's question about whether his client Munir Hussain favours a change in the law (unlike himself). He does, as does Mr Hussain's solicitor Razi Shah.
*
Elsewhere there was an interesting report from David Thompson on the Conservative's 'free school' policy. The aim, as emphasized by David's commentary, was probably to highlight 'Tory splits' (a running theme in his reports for The Politics Show).
*
Credit where credit is due though. Unlike Westminster Hour (see elsewhere), The Politics Show is (so far) being fair in its use of journalists to preview the week ahead. Last week it was Allegra Stratton of The Guardian. This week it was Julia Hartley-Brewer of The Sunday Express. A similar pattern was discernable towards the close of last year. I will (of course) be watching to see if this continues. (I will be listening to Westminster Hour too. Not even they would dare to feature yet another Guardianista-type tonight, surely.)
*

JON SOPEL MAKES A BURQA OF HIMSELF

*
UKIP's call for the banning of the burqa was bound to lead the BBC to attack it. Today's The Politics Show was staged so that UKIP's case, as presented by Nigel Farage, would be bombarded from all sides.
*
The section began with a report from a burqa-clad woman, Rehana Sidat. She made the case for being allowed to wear the burqa. It was her choice, she said. She feels comfortable in it. (As I'm sure do members of the Ku Klux Klan in their spacious white robes and hoods).
*
Next came Jon Sopel's interview with Mr Farage, but Nigel was not alone. With him was Salma Yaqoob of Respect. Sopel treated Salma with a great deal of respect, not interrupting her once. Not so with Nigel Farage, who was interrupted 6 times (I.C. of 1.1). Moreover, Sopey asked Salma just 2 questions, whilst asking Nigel 15 questions. Amusingly, two of those questions began with the statements "No, Nigel Farage, let me put a point to you here" and "Nigel Farage, let me put a question to you." Nigel let Jon Sopel put 15 points/questions to him!!
*
During the interview, a highly animated Sopel returned to the agenda he was pushing so aggressively in a previous edition of the programme (please see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/11/ukip-get-full-sopel-treatment.html), trying to tar UKIP with the BNP brush: "This isn't playing to the BNP is it?", he asked, after angling after that point with his previous question.
*
Later Jon Sopel asked Ed Balls about the matter. You won't be surprised to hear that Balls launched a vicious little attack on UKIP as a result. As the BBC News website reports it 'But Schools Secretary Ed Balls said it was "not British" to tell people what to wear in the street (oh, the Ku Klux Klan will be delighted to hear that too!), and accused UKIP of indulging in "unpleasant politics"' (well, he'd know all about that, wouldn't he?).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8464124.stm
*

JUST ONE BRICKBAT FOR 'THE POLITICS SHOW'

*
Small-scale bloggers should never get big ideas about their influence, so I won't delude myself into believing that the makers of The Politics Show avidly read this blog each week, with trembling limbs, in anticipation of my latest damning verdict; but, indulging this delusion for just a moment, imagine that they do. Might that account for today's extraordinarily balanced Jon Sopel interviews with Liam Fox (Conservative) and Liam Byrne (Labour)? Almost identical interview times, an identical number of questions, an identical number of interruptions and identical I.C.s - a remarkable contrast to last week and the contrasting treatment of Yvette Cooper and Theresa May. Scrupulously fair then, with only the tiniest blemish when Sopel criticized Dr Fox for attacking Labour ("Yes, there are easy political points to be made there") but not Mr Byrne for attacking the Tories. This is how political interviewing should be - fair and unshowy. Would Sopel were like that more often!
*
Alex Salmond got a slightly rougher ride (with four interruptions, I.C. of o.6), but I don't think he (or his opponents) would have much grounds for complaint here and I only note (as a minor quibble) that Colette McBeth's short introductory report featured only one 'talking head' - that of the-even-further-Left-than-Alex-Salmond nationalist Jim Sillars.
*
Having Conservative blogger Iain Dale on at the end to discuss the coming week was also a further feather in the programme's cap.
*
My only real reservations concern David Thompson's latest report from the Stourbridge constituency, more precisely the way the feature was trailed throughout the programme. This might have led the viewer to expect actual proof of criminal activity on the part of the Conservative candidate, whereas Labour allegations of 'treating' were, as sitting Labour MP Lynda Waltho made clear, 'questions' rather than 'accusations'. Ms Waltho was allowed her say, and the Conservative candidate Margot James was allowed hers. I have other reservations though - firstly about the way Jon Sopel introduced Margot as "millionaire businesswoman Margot James" (as happened last time she appeared) and, secondly, the way Labour's donations were presented as 'unglamorous' and largely collected not from the unions and rich donors but from volunteers through tombolas and garden parties - as if to show that Lynda Waltho is a true woman of the people, unlike the 'millionaire businesswoman Tory'.
*
What was most heartening though was the results of a poll of young people (aged 14-24), carried out by the Citizenship Foundation, which showed how sensible they are in their opinions. Very interesting. I bet the results would have disappointed a fair few of the life-long lefties in the audience. Ha!*

UKIP GET THE FULL SOPEL TREATMENT

*
The Conservatives certainly received unfair treatment from Jon Sopel on today's The Politics Show, but they can at least be thankful they weren't the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP may have inflicted a few wounds on themselves in the course of Sopel's report but most of the wounds resulted from Sopey's left-wing bias. He had clearly gone there with the firm intention of doing them as much damage as possible.
*
We began with mockery: "So we've got three MEPs, a millionaire peer and the chairman, yes a chairman, of a parish council in Wiltshire." Snippets of various election speeches were interlaced with shots of the audience, lingering long on a man with a fine handlebar moustache. (The handlebar moustache, and a Union Jackie dickie-bow tie, also got a mention on a Today programme report earlier in the week.)
*
Short extracts from interviews with each of the candidates for the leadership of UKIP followed. I would love to know how long the actual interviews lasted from which these crumbs were drawn and what questions were asked. Here the focus, initially, was firmly on immigration - and Sopel had the clear aim of painted UKIP as a far-right party analogous to the BNP.
*
First came Gerard Batten MEP. He said that immigration should be reduced to a trickle and that Sharia Law is unacceptable in this country. An unhappy-looking Sopel said "I 'm sure that Nick Griffin wouldn't disagree with anything you've just said."
*
Next came front-runner Lord Pearson, who Sopel clearly had in his sights. He was labelled a "former Tory" (boo!) and "old Etonian" (boo!), and a "field sports campaigner" (boo!)" and as the man who invited Geert Wilders to the Houses of Parliament (boo!). Wearing a sour expression, Sopel asked him "So is there a danger you could be confused, UKIP and the BNP?" When the lord answered (slowly), Sopey interrupted and twisted his words: "Are you saying that there's a fine line between UKIP and the BNP?" The over-polite peer should have replied "No, you twit, of course not - and, unless you're thick, you know I didn't."
*
The mere councillor came next, Alan Wood - "chairman of Fittleton Parish council", a man who "breeds spaniels". "Do you respect Lord Pearson?" asked Sopel. "No I don't", replied Mr Wood. "Are you saying that if he's elected people will think you're too close to the BNP?", asked Sopel. "Yes", replied Mr Wood. Job done for Sopel!
*
Next up was Mike Nattrass MEP. He was labelled a "former member of the right-wing New Britain"(boo!). 'Right-wing' is usually BBC code for a fascist nut. Mr Nattrass is absolutely no such thing, but how are BBC viewers to know that the 'right-wing' New Britain was not a fascist organisation, like the BNP? This is a low subliminal smear. Mike disagrees with Lord Pearson over whether there should be co-operation with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs (he thinks there shouldn't be) and Sopel, with mock incredulity, interrupted him to ask "Sorry I just dont...Sorry to interrupt, I just don't understand how you can work with somebody, Lord Pearson, if you disagree with the cornerstone of his policy, this idea of deals." Mike Nattrass replied, reasonably, that that's called 'democracy'. UKIP are nothing if not keen on democracy.
*
Finally, there was Nikki Sinclaire MEP. She "worked in the US to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger" (boo!). The beauty of being a biased BBC reporter is that you can nip and tuck all your interviews to validate your point of view and, having doubtless done just that, Jon Sopel could fairly ask Nikki: "Your party has got a bit of history of kind-of infighting." His other questions pursued the point with a vengeance: "Are you worried there's going to be a bloodbath after this election?" and "It almost sounds as a party as if you could do with some group therapy."
*
Having presented the party as being too close to the BNP - i.e. racist - Sopey ended by clinching his other point - that UKIP is bitterly divided: "Do get the impression (he asked us) that the United Kingdom Independence Party is a party at ease with itself, where they all really like each other?". He then answered his own rhetorical (?) question: "Probably not."
*
I, though a floating centre-right voter, am very sympathetic to UKIP. They are not helping themselves, however, by talking about each other in this way, but they can surely all unite in one thing - their fury at the disgraceful way the BBC treats them.
*

SOPEL SHOWS HIS HAND AGAIN

*
If The Andrew Marr Show was not as obtrusively biased as usual, the same cannot be said for The Politics Show with Jon Sopel. (I was pre-warned about this by reading an outraged Llew on the B-BBC website http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-thread_18.html#comments who says pretty much all that I'm about to say - but much more succinctly!)
*
Sopel mentioned viewers chucking things at the T.V. I wanted to chuck something at him.
*
His initial interview with Labour dronette Yvette Cooper was soft. Lasting well over four minutes, it contained only 2 interruptions) and neither of those interruptions came during the answers to Sopel's last two questions - the first of which brought up that Observer poll again (see my last post), which Sopey was at pains to point out shows a "big narrowing of the gap", and the second of which asked about an emergency budget in the light of Conservative proposals to hold one within 50 days of coming into office. Both questions got fairly long answers (33 seconds and 26 seconds respectively), and both answers strongly attacked the Conservatives. The second answer ignored the nub of Sopel's question and Sopey didn't think it appropriate to either point that out or re-ask the question.
*
Later Yvette Cooper returned for a joint interview with her Conservative shadow Theresa May. You might have thought -if only out of a sense of fair play - that Jon Sopel would have also interviewed Mrs May alone first. Not only did that not happen, but he allowed Yvette Cooper to dominate this second interview too!
*
The stats show this clearly. She got exactly 5 minutes of the joint interview, whereas Theresa May only got 2 minutes 42 seconds - i.e. Yvette got almost twice as long to speak as Theresa. Moreover, if you add that time to her earlier interview you get 9 minutes 42 seconds - exactly 7 minutes more. That's hardly fair, is it?
*
Yes, the interruption coefficients were identical (0.8) and Sopel pressed Yvette Cooper on several points in this later part of the programme but the questions he put to Therasa May had the edge on rudeness. After a 52 second-long first answer from Yvette Cooper, listing Labour's glorious achievements, Sopel asked this: "And, Theresa May, isn't that a record the Tories simply couldn't compete with when they were last in office, when there was very little help?" (By God, what a biased question!). He also interrupted Theresa's second answer after only 8 seconds, with "Let's not go onto VAT. Deal with the issue."
*
Theresa May also faced an onslaught of interruptions from Yvette Cooper, which Sopel was hardly at pains to curtail. (Yvette got to finish every single one of her points). When Theresa tried to do the same (just once), Sopey did not withdraw for once (as he did - twice - when Yvette Cooper persisted in speaking), holding out his arm and making a 'stop' gesture to Mrs May and saying "Hang on, hang on, one at a time". *
*
Also, when Yvette launched yet another of her attacks on the Tories, Sopel just let it run. He's making a habit of this now.
*
Beeb bias? I'll say!

PLASTIC BAGS, NEANDERTHALS AND LANCASTER CANAL

*
Today's Politics Show doesn't call for much comment - though that won't stop me.
*
It began by covering the proposed high-speed rail line that should connect our major conurbations within the next few decades, centring on an interview with Lord Adonis (a man who really shouldn't be in the Labour Party), scoring Jon Sopel an I.C. of 1.1.
*
It ended with talk of plastic bags. Sopel discussed this with Beebette Gillian Hargreaves. The underlying assumption that plastic bags are a major problem that effects climate change - and that limiting their use will cut carbon emissions - was not challenged. The only talking head in the piece was, naturally, an environmentalist - Green MEP Jean Lambert, who (of course) wants a tax on plastic bags and lots and lots of left-wing compulsion.
*
Beeboid Andrew Sinclair was in S.W. Norfolk to discuss the spot of local bother for brainy beauty Elizabeth Truss and her stalled ambitions to be selected as the Conservative candidate there. Any story that damages the Tories, by showing splits and Neanderthal attitudes, is an absolute gift to the BBC - and Sinclair seemed very eager to open it. The word 'nasty' was batted about between him and Sopel at regular intervals. (The 'nasty party', you may recall, was what Labour used to call the Tories). Sopel called the story 'extraordinary' and said ominously "We'll be following it very closely." I bet they will!!*
*
Cocky Max Cotton's latest report was an interesting one on Treasury plans to sell off British Waterways's £500m property portfolio (so as to help cut the insanely high deficit this reckless government has built up - not that Max put it that way, of course). The case against such a move was made by many of the people who use our magical canal network. (As you might guess from the use of the word 'magical' I love our canals too. Lancaster Canal, here in NorthNorthwesterLand, is just pure magic - except when it passes through Lancaster!) Max played devil's advocate, as he should. (Well done!). The piece's only lapse into bias came as Max spun for Labour: "Many Labour MPs have a real problem with selling off British Waterways assets. They see canals as a Labour success story". Cue Alun Michael MP, claiming that "since 1997" Labour had turned the canals around, turning them from the terrible state they were in under the wicked Tories ("badly maintained") into a "national asset". Is there any truth in this? Max certainly didn't dispute the claim, or comment any further on it. My canal, however, has always been beautiful in my eyes - even, my Beeboid friends, during that fearful time when the land lay under the dreadful sway of the evil Mrs Thatcher. *

OCTOBER'S I.C.s - JON SOPEL

*
The Politics Show offers its viewers a Sunday lunch quite often piled high with biased reporting (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Jon%20Sopel). Do Jon Sopel's interruption coefficients confirm this:
*
18/10 Lord Adonis Labour 2.1
04/10 Nigel Farage UKIP 1.2
11/10 Chris Grayling Conservative 1.2
18/10 Nick Clegg Lib Dem 0.9
04/10 David Miliband Labour 0.8
11/10 Hilary Benn Labour 0.7
25/10 Ken Clarke Conservative 0.6
04/10 Eric Pickles Conservative 0.6
18/10 Mark Hoban Conservative 0.2
*
No, they don't. (Well, you can't win 'em all!) Here are his surprising averages for October:
*
UKIP - 1.2
Labour - 1.2
Lib Dems - 0.9
Conservatives - 0.65
*
Does a survey of all 27 of Jon Sopel's interviews since June tell the same baffling story?
*
UKIP (1) - 1.2
Conservatives (8) - 1.08
Labour (11) - 0.85
Lib Dems (4) - 0.55
*
That's more like it! Still, Jon Sopel has been away for a very long summer break. Covering a lot more interviews should clarify matters further. The jury is still out.
*

DUCK-HOUSES AND MOATS...

*
Back from watching the Politics Show.
*
I was very pleasantly surprised by the programme's discussion of the electoral commission's shamefully different treatment of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats over their respectative dodgy donations. (The Lib Dem case is, by a considerable way, the dodgier - and the programme made that crystal clear. The electoral commission, however, is treading very softly with the Lib Dems, but coming down like a ton of bricks on UKIP. Why?) I wasn't expecting that, nor the sympathetic (if short) interview with Nigel Farage that followed (I.C. of 0.4).
*
Nigel had already been on (briefly) in a double-interview with Dan Hannan. The subject for discussion was 'what will the Conservatives do when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by President Klaus?' (Nigel only ever seems to to get an invite when Tory policy on Europe is under discussion!) Jon Sopel interrupted Dan three times in quick succession, giving the interview an I.C. of 0.8. There were plenty of what I call 'abortive interruptions' too, as there would be. Dan Hannan was being hurried and harried.
*
The big interview, though, was with Alistair Darling. It lasted nearly 15 minutes. The I.C. for this one was a surprisingly high 0.7. How come? Well, most of the interview (the early stretch discussing banking, and the closing stretch discussing Afghanistan and MPs expenses) was gentle, with few interruptions - and whatever interruptions there were of the clarifying kind (such as 'What timescale?' or 'Do Tesco or Virgin want to become banks?') rather than challenging ones. Only for a short spell in the middle of the interview (when the topic changed to the recovery, or lack of it , and the climbdown on the Territorial Army) was there a quick succession of confrontational interruptions - 4 out of the 6 of which were the same question put four times!
*
The programme ended with an 'amusing' Johnny-Morris-style scene of ducks on a (Tory) duck-house discussing whether claiming for a (Tory) moat was right or not. Duck-houses and moats. Duck-houses and moats. Duck-houses and moats....
*

A FAIRER 'POLITICS SHOW'

*
As I always do a review of The Politics Show on Sunday afternoons, I can't really miss out on it this week, even when I've found only minor evidence of bias in it. That would be unfair of me.
&
Today's The Politics Show was much better behaved. Indeed the Conservative interviewee, Mark Hoban (one of the party's least able TV performers), was only interrupted once (I.C. of 0.2) - though he was ambushed (like other recent Tory guests) with something personally embarrassing, which Jon Sopel admitted his team had dug around for (a quote over demutualisation, in this case). In contrast Labour's Lord Adonis was interrupted 13 times (I.C. of 2.1). The big interview though was with Nick Clegg. This was not especially tough, especially when the questions moved onto bankers' bonuses and the postal strike, and contained 8 interruptions (I.C. of 0.9).*
*
Both the programme's reports were about the Conservatives. I've seen much worse (many, many times) on the BBC.
*
The first was about Boris's plans for an airport in the Thames Estuary, and the pros and cons were well discussed by David Thompson (and his various Conservative talking heads) - once we got beyond all the 'Fantasy Island' nonsense. Of course, the issue of Tory splits was doubtless in the minds of the programme's makers - and Lord Adonis praised the report for clearly showing just that! - and the 'Boris-is-an-idiot' element was probably also in their minds - and Lord Adonis also praised the report for clearing showing just what a daft idea it was! - but, contrary to the appreciative Lord Adonis, I didn't find it especially biased against the Conservatives, nor particularly unfair to Boris's big idea. Fair dues.
*
The second report was decent enough too. It looked at Conservative-run Essex County Council's intriguing plans to share many of its key responsibilities with private companies. Now yes, Jon Sopel's introduction was a little loaded in its language ("Essex Council calls it 'transformation', others see it as the effective privatisation of the council itself") and reporter Gillian Hargreaves's questions to the council leader Lord Hanningfield did seem to have the agenda of highlighting resultant job losses ("And how many will be working directly for you?", "So it would go from 7000 workers down to about 3500 directly employed by the council?"), but each side of the argument was heard. Saying that though, to each of Lord Hanningfield's two bites of the 'talking head' cherry, there were also two bites from a skeptical Tony Travers of the LSE, as well as a hostile bite from Heather Wakefield of the Silurian-era union UNISON. Still, as I say, I've seen much worse, many, many times, on the BBC.
*

MUG A TORY

*
It would be far too cynical to say that the reason today's The Politics Show ran an item on 'hugging hoodies' was to have the opportunity to get an interview with Chris Grayling and try to damage him with repeated questions about his gaffe over General Dannett's recruitment by the Conservatives. Far too cynical, so I won't say it.
*
That said, that's what happened. Jon Sopel's arms were in an animated mood as he questioned Grayling about whether 'hug a hoodie' has become 'mug a hoodie' before launching an inquisition into the gaffe and then launching another inquisition into Mr Grayling's own personal parliamentary expense claims, into which the team at the The Politics Show had been digging, in the further hope of embarrassing him: "...the last train, we looked at, we looked at, the last train goes at 11.42...."
*
It's certainly not too cynical to claim that The Politics Show was out to embarrass the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary. It most definitely was!
*
The interview's I.C. was 1.2.
*
By contrast Jon Sopel, with arms almost entirely motionless, was noticably less aggressive towards Labour's Hilary Benn (on to talk about recycling). The I.C. here was only 0.7. Amusingly, Sopel actually said to Mr Benn "I don't want to keep interrupting you". He certainly didn't say that to Chris Grayling!!!
*
Most of Sopel's questions came from one angle. Instead of asking, say, about the EU's role in fining us for failing to meet its recycling targets or asking about the serious flaws in the practise of recycling, he kept asking why there wasn't going to be much more legal compulsion.
*