A SHOCKING CASE OF BIAS

*
Last night's Westminster Hour was a shocker even by the Beeb's biased standards.
*
It began with Carolyn Quinn discussing the Chilcott Inquiry and the Pre-Budget Report with Toby Helm, political editor of the left-liberal Observer. I will be tracking this from now on, as the last time a newspaper journalist was on the show (two weeks ago) it was Nick Watts of the left-liberal Guardian in this same spot (and I think another leftie was on the week before, but I can't be sure). Helm used his chance to communicate Labour's hostile stance on Conservative proposals on Inheritance Tax.
*
Then came the Politics Panel. It wasn't much of a panel, consisting of two left-liberal politicians, both of whom were opposed to the Iraq War: Labour's Emily Thornberry and the Lib Dem's Jo Swinson. Emily got 6 minutes 52 seconds to speak, and was interrupted just once (I.C. of 0.2) whereas Jo got 5 minutes 3 seconds to speak, and was interrupted only once (I.C. of 0.2).
There was no Conservative Party guest, despite there being three attacks on the Tories by Jo Swinson and two by Emily Thornberry! Not only was there no Conservative spokesman there to defend the party, but Carolyn Quinn refused to butt in to stop the attacks, and - worse still - she asked each of her guests a question about the Conservatives, positively inciting those attacks. Carolyn Quinn can be a disgracefully biased interviewer some times. ('Odious' is the word!)
*
Her strongest interruption was made against Jo Swinson and, just like last week, the intervention was made to stick up for the Labour Party. When Jo condemned the government for its protocol defining 9 reasons for not publishing evidence during the Chilcott Inquiry, Carolyn barged in saying "But there must be limitations, government would argue." Couldn't she have let Labour's Emily Thornberry launch the case for the government instead of launching it herself?
*
The third section of the programme was about the Conservatives, but it was an astonishingly unbalanced piece of reporting by the Beeb's Mandy Baker. The issue was how the Conservatives would cope, should they win the election, with a House of Lords that is now a 'hung parliament' (with Labour as the largest party). An interesting question, but the bias contained within the report rendered it beyond repair.
*
There were four guests, of whom three were Lords (or Ladies!):
*
Lord Norton, Conservative peer.
Baroness D'Souza, convener of the cross-benchers in the House of Lords.
Lord Lipsey, Labour peer.
*
The fourth (and most frequently-featured) of the 'talking heads' was Dr Meg Russell. She was introduced merely as being from the Constitutional Unit at University College, London, and was the constitutional 'expert' of the piece. An independent expert? I'm sure that's what Mandy wanted us to believe. Well, as I listened I thought to myself, "This woman doesn't like the Tories". Looking her up, it turns out she's not remotely independent. She's a doyenne of the Fabian Society, openDemocracy and Compass - i.e. a fully paid-up leftie. Not to label an 'expert' as being affiliated to a particular political standpoint is a key tell-tale sign of biased reporting. Mandy Baker should have supplied some of this background so that we, the listener, would know where Meg Russell was coming from ideologically. If she'd have been with Reform or the CPS we'd have known about it for sure!! So let's re-colour-code her as Dr Meg Russell.
*
And there's more.
*
This is the order in which they got to speak:
*
Meg Russell
Lord Norton
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Meg Russell
Lord Lipsey
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
Lord Norton
Lord Lipsey
Meg Russell
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Lipsey
*
Does that look fair?
*
Count up the time each got to speak and the sheer unfairness is demonstrated yet again:
*
Meg Russell - 1 minute 27 seconds
Lord Lipsey - 1 minute 26 seconds
Lord Norton - 1 minute 12 seconds
Baroness D'Souza - 1 minute 3 seconds
*
In a report about how the Conservatives would react to the House of Lords after the election (should they win), the Conservative spokesman got 1 minute 12 seconds!!!! Unbelievable!!
*
Mandy Baker has form, as you can read here: http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2009/09/mandy-baker-lets-team-down.html
*
Of course 1 minute 12 seconds is also all they got in the entire programme, despite being talked about (and criticised) a lot!!
*
Indefensible bias.
*

MANDY LETS THE SIDE DOWN

*
Maybe Carolyn Quinn has read my paeans to Laura Kuennsberg's impartial presentation style during her absence from Westminster Hour, because she did a good job on the programme's 13 September edition. (Don't worry, I'm not daft enough to think she really has!) Besides the usual 'politics panel' segment, featuring Ed Vaizey (Conservative) and Emily Thornberry (Labour), there was an interview with a left-wing professor on Labour and the trades unions, which was balanced by a double-interview (of similar length) with two members of Conservative think-tanks.
*
The only package that raised a little concern over bias was the final report from Mandy Baker (pictured here with unfunny, late thirty-something snowboarder Marcus Brigstocke), which looked at the life experiences of prospective MPs at the next general election i.e. have they any beyond politics?
*
Here's a list of the talking heads. Can you spot an imbalance?
*
Ronnie Campbell, Labour MP
Lorely Burt, Lib Dem MP
Meg Munn, Labour MP
Professor Byron Criddle
George Eustace, prospective Conservative candidate
Emma Reynolds, prospective Labour candidate
*
(I'm sure Brigstocke would have approved!)