*
I blogged on Saturday that the BBC News website was, characteristically, ignoring several stories about big Democratic Party scandals in the US (The Great Mardell, http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/great-mardell.html).
*
The Financial Times is the latest media source to review the cases of Messers Massa, Rangel and Paterson. The FT says that the case of Mr Massa in particular "has Washington enthralled" and tells us that "Democratic leaders are worried that the scandals could tar Democrats with the brush of corruption during the November mid-term elections".
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5698b9c-2c70-11df-be45-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
*
The story remains absent, however, on the BBC News website. It may be gripping the Washington village, but it's not gripping the BBC. Or maybe it is but they're just not bothering to tell us about it.
*
The story of Mr Massa, however, also appears in The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7053292.ece
And in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/09/eric-massa-groped-male-staff
As well as where I first saw it, in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7380316/Democrat-Eric-Massa-to-quit-amid-sexual-harassment-claims.html
*
Will Mark Mardell & co ever get round to mentioning any of this? They find time to tell us about so many things, so it's not as if they're lazy.
*
UPDATE (11/3): This has now also been spotted by DB on the biased BBC blogsite:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-if-they-were-republicans.html
Showing posts with label Obama-love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama-love. Show all posts
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Friday, 26 February 2010
WHICH PARTY DID YOU SAY?
*
The BBC News website is so predictable (for us bias-watchers). Take U.S. politics. If there's a scandal that hits the Republican Party the article will 'remember' to mention the Republican Party. If there's a scandal that hits the Democratic Party, the article will 'forget' to mention the Democratic Party. Today features a classic case of the latter:
What the article 'forgot' to mention is that both Mr Paterson and Mr Spitzer are Democrats. 'Democrat' is not a long word. I'm sure there was space for it.
The BBC News website is so predictable (for us bias-watchers). Take U.S. politics. If there's a scandal that hits the Republican Party the article will 'remember' to mention the Republican Party. If there's a scandal that hits the Democratic Party, the article will 'forget' to mention the Democratic Party. Today features a classic case of the latter:
NY governor withdraws from racehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8540049.stm
New York Governor David Paterson has withdrawn from the race for state governor amid a scandal involving one of his aides.
He had announced his campaign formally only last weekend but had faced pressure to quit.
He said he had never abused his office, but was "being realistic about politics".
There had been criticism over how he handled allegations about an aide and domestic abuse.
Explaining his decision, Mr Paterson said: "It hasn't been the latest distraction.... It's been an accumulation of obstacles that have obfuscated me from bringing my message to the public."
Mr Paterson was seeking a full four-year term, having become governor in 2008 when former Gov Eliot Spitzer quit amid a prostitution scandal.
He was sworn in to serve the remainder of Mr Spitzer's term.
He said on Friday he would not quit his post, but continue "fighting for the state of New York".
When he was sworn in in March 2008, Mr Paterson made history as New York's first African-American governor and as the first legally blind person to hold such a post permanently.
What the article 'forgot' to mention is that both Mr Paterson and Mr Spitzer are Democrats. 'Democrat' is not a long word. I'm sure there was space for it.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
POLL TRACKER: USA
*
President Obama's popularity continues to fall. "More than half of U.S. voters believe Barack Obama does not deserve to be reelected", according to a new CNN poll. 52% said he hadn't done enough to deserve a second term, compared to 44% who said he had.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251754/A-year-President-half-U-S-voters-believe-Obama-does-deserve-reelected.html#ixzz0fop7qOGX).
*
You won't be surprised to hear that there is nothing about this poll on the BBC News website and that Mark Mardell has not yet blogged about it. Will it ever be mentioned?
*
President Obama's popularity continues to fall. "More than half of U.S. voters believe Barack Obama does not deserve to be reelected", according to a new CNN poll. 52% said he hadn't done enough to deserve a second term, compared to 44% who said he had.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251754/A-year-President-half-U-S-voters-believe-Obama-does-deserve-reelected.html#ixzz0fop7qOGX).
*
You won't be surprised to hear that there is nothing about this poll on the BBC News website and that Mark Mardell has not yet blogged about it. Will it ever be mentioned?
*
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
FREI'S OBAMA DELIGHT
*
Matt Frei can always be relied upon to provide a biased point of view on his diary. Just have a look at this gem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8494796.stm
*
So Newt Gingrich's Contract with America was "a dodgy deal", the Tea Party movement consists of "Braveheart warriors", Bill Clinton was a "magician" and "Tony Blair his best understudy" in the admirable tactic of "triangulation" and Barack Obama's presidency "is turning out to be a masterclass in triangulation". "Triangulation" (and "The Third Way") "appeals to his elegant intellect". "The current president is a man whose quiet self-confidence is the result of having always triumphed as the outsider...Obama was always the talented misfit." (Sounds like a character in a liberal Hollywood movie, doesn't he?). Frei talks of how Obama "seduced this country":
"We saw a reminder of Obama the candidate in his State of the Union speech last week. As the usually raucous ranks were reduced to a hush, hanging on words delivered with the cadence of a preacher, there must have been a few Republicans who wondered if they should delay their run for the White House by another four years." Must there? "A chastened President Obama should carry on triangulating, making deals, rejecting ideology and govern from the centre, but couch his complex method into a simpler message." #
*
Matt Frei can always be relied upon to provide a biased point of view on his diary. Just have a look at this gem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8494796.stm
*
So Newt Gingrich's Contract with America was "a dodgy deal", the Tea Party movement consists of "Braveheart warriors", Bill Clinton was a "magician" and "Tony Blair his best understudy" in the admirable tactic of "triangulation" and Barack Obama's presidency "is turning out to be a masterclass in triangulation". "Triangulation" (and "The Third Way") "appeals to his elegant intellect". "The current president is a man whose quiet self-confidence is the result of having always triumphed as the outsider...Obama was always the talented misfit." (Sounds like a character in a liberal Hollywood movie, doesn't he?). Frei talks of how Obama "seduced this country":
"We saw a reminder of Obama the candidate in his State of the Union speech last week. As the usually raucous ranks were reduced to a hush, hanging on words delivered with the cadence of a preacher, there must have been a few Republicans who wondered if they should delay their run for the White House by another four years." Must there? "A chastened President Obama should carry on triangulating, making deals, rejecting ideology and govern from the centre, but couch his complex method into a simpler message." #
*
Saturday, 30 January 2010
WHY OBAMA'S CRITICS ARE STUPID AND EMOTIONAL
*
I missed the Radio 4 programme 'Turkeys Voting for Christmas', but the BBC News website writes it up, introducing it thus:
Dr David Runciman, who writes columns for the Guardian, argues that President Obama's healthcare reforms are sensible but that, paradoxically, those most enraged by his plans are those who would benefit from them most: "Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?"
*
Dr Runciman interviews two experts (and only two experts), and both are Democrat supporters. Why? Why no Republican experts? Why no thought of fairness or balance?
*
He begins with "psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat" who "tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side." An example from the Bush-Gore debates of 2000 is used, and this conclusion drawn: "Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
Dr Runciman's second expert is "Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas" who "is an even more exasperated Democrat". "He goes further than Mr Westen", says Runciman - and he's not kidding! "He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest."
*
The arrogance of the Left is breathtaking.
*
*
*******************UPDATE
*
Please check out Natalie's excellent fisking of this same article on the Biased BBC website:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/those-crazy-republicans-explained-bbc.html#comments
And the ever-alert (and often very funny) Martin has a comment that shows the sheer dishonesty of this article, which is worth quoting in full (and he reaches the same punch-line as me!!):
*
Martin
*
The article also has another distortion. Here's a quote he used. He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers."
LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME Turkeys Voting for Christmas BBC Radio 4, Wednesday 27 January at 2045 GMT Or listen via the iPlayer
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
However, the full comment given by Bush was not included (funny that).
*
GOV. BUSH: Look. This is a man who's got great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet but he invented the calculator. (Laughter.) It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan, that he continues to criticize, I said a third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check.
But I also drop the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, because by far the vast majority of that help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a family of four in Massachusetts making $50,000, you get a 50 percent cut in the federal income taxes you pay. It's from $4,000 to about $2,000. Now, the difference in our plans is I want that $2,000 to go to you.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/1stdebate1.html
*
If you take a quote out of context or don't include it all no wonder it makes no sense. I just love liberals, they are SO arrogant.
*
No Beeboid (or BBC-sponsored academic) can escape Martin's eagle-eye for bias! He's caught Dr Runciman red-handed!
*
I missed the Radio 4 programme 'Turkeys Voting for Christmas', but the BBC News website writes it up, introducing it thus:
The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US. Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Dr David Runciman, who writes columns for the Guardian, argues that President Obama's healthcare reforms are sensible but that, paradoxically, those most enraged by his plans are those who would benefit from them most: "Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?"
*
Dr Runciman interviews two experts (and only two experts), and both are Democrat supporters. Why? Why no Republican experts? Why no thought of fairness or balance?
*
He begins with "psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat" who "tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side." An example from the Bush-Gore debates of 2000 is used, and this conclusion drawn: "Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
Dr Runciman's second expert is "Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas" who "is an even more exasperated Democrat". "He goes further than Mr Westen", says Runciman - and he's not kidding! "He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest."
*
The arrogance of the Left is breathtaking.
*
*
*******************UPDATE
*
Please check out Natalie's excellent fisking of this same article on the Biased BBC website:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/those-crazy-republicans-explained-bbc.html#comments
And the ever-alert (and often very funny) Martin has a comment that shows the sheer dishonesty of this article, which is worth quoting in full (and he reaches the same punch-line as me!!):
*
Martin
*
The article also has another distortion. Here's a quote he used. He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers."
LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME Turkeys Voting for Christmas BBC Radio 4, Wednesday 27 January at 2045 GMT Or listen via the iPlayer "I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
However, the full comment given by Bush was not included (funny that).
*
GOV. BUSH: Look. This is a man who's got great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet but he invented the calculator. (Laughter.) It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan, that he continues to criticize, I said a third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check.
But I also drop the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, because by far the vast majority of that help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a family of four in Massachusetts making $50,000, you get a 50 percent cut in the federal income taxes you pay. It's from $4,000 to about $2,000. Now, the difference in our plans is I want that $2,000 to go to you.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/1stdebate1.html
*
If you take a quote out of context or don't include it all no wonder it makes no sense. I just love liberals, they are SO arrogant.
*
No Beeboid (or BBC-sponsored academic) can escape Martin's eagle-eye for bias! He's caught Dr Runciman red-handed!
*
Friday, 29 January 2010
WE LOVE OBAMA!
*
The BBC News website has a page devoted to its American readers' reactions:
There are four short articles from each reader.
*
First up is a pro-Obama university student:
So far so balanced. Then the BBC reverts to type. Next up is another critic of Obama, but a Republican-hating critic from the Left:
The BBC is simply incapable of being fair to the American Right. They are so instinctively pro-Democrat and pro-Obama that they doubtless think this selection is a fair and balanced one.
The BBC News website has a page devoted to its American readers' reactions:
Americans give verdict on Obama's State of Union speech
BBC News website readers in the United States assess President Obama's first State of the Union address.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8485810.stm
There are four short articles from each reader.
*
First up is a pro-Obama university student:
Obama was amazing last night, he reduced me to tears. I think he's too good for Washington. I voted for him in 2008.Next an anti-Obama self-employed lady:
He's got this ability to tell people exactly what he is thinking. Bush gave a ton of rhetoric and lied to us for eight years - that's just my view of course - but Obama laid it out plainly.
I voted for the opposition, not Obama. I live in a town of very high house repossessions and unemployment - and it hasn't improved.
The speech sounded like he was still campaigning instead of telling us what has been done over the past year.
So far so balanced. Then the BBC reverts to type. Next up is another critic of Obama, but a Republican-hating critic from the Left:
Many of us progressives who worked for his election feel we have been conned. He's great at speeches, but nothing ever happens.And finally it's back to another pro-Obama reader:
I don't see any difference with the Republicans.
No-one is standing up to the big business interests.
It's wonderful to see a black man running the country. The Republicans damaged the country so badly he was able to get elected, but he's squandering it all.
What struck me most about Obama's speech was his reaching out across the
aisle to get Congress working.
Republicans so far would rather see him fail than achieve anything that would help the country.
The Republicans are holding the nation hostage. Obama has been very diplomatic and tactful, but it's time to take the gloves off. I think he was starting to do that last night.
The BBC is simply incapable of being fair to the American Right. They are so instinctively pro-Democrat and pro-Obama that they doubtless think this selection is a fair and balanced one.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
CRAIG'S STATE OF THE 'TODAY' PROGRAMME ADDRESS
*
President Obama's State of the Nation speech to the U.S. Congress was discussed on this morning Today programme.
*
First came Mark Mardell's description of the speech with clips. Bizarrely, the Today programme website mis-described his report again (as they did yesterday): "North America editor Mark Mardell watched the speech with US voters." Well, listen to the clip for yourself. Where are the voters?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8484000/8484575.stm
*
The discussion came at the end of the programme. James Naughtie presided. Who was invited? A Republican supporter and a Democrat supporter perhaps? A right-leaning journalist and a left-leaning journalist maybe? That would seem fair and proper. This though is the BBC, who find it quite hard to be fair and proper. First we got a Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland (or "Jonny", as Naughtie called him) - so that's the Democrat-supporting leftie taken care of. The other guest, however, was no Republican-supporting rightie but Gavin Esler's friend from Dateline: London Stryker Mcguire of Newsweek. Stryker is no partisan, but he too inclines leftwards (writing many articles for The New Statesman, Guardian and Observer). That's not balanced, is it? Especially when Naughtie himself was hardly a neutral, making noises supportive of Obama and raising tough questions only for the Republicans. If a pro-Republican reporter had been present, Naughtie could have asked him about the latter and found out how the party would respond to Obama's challenge. Instead, all we got was 'Jonny' attacking the Republicans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/news/8484741.stm
*
UPDATE
*
For more of this please read DB on the Biased BBC website, who has noticed this too: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/sotu-on-today.html
President Obama's State of the Nation speech to the U.S. Congress was discussed on this morning Today programme.
*
First came Mark Mardell's description of the speech with clips. Bizarrely, the Today programme website mis-described his report again (as they did yesterday): "North America editor Mark Mardell watched the speech with US voters." Well, listen to the clip for yourself. Where are the voters?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8484000/8484575.stm
*
The discussion came at the end of the programme. James Naughtie presided. Who was invited? A Republican supporter and a Democrat supporter perhaps? A right-leaning journalist and a left-leaning journalist maybe? That would seem fair and proper. This though is the BBC, who find it quite hard to be fair and proper. First we got a Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland (or "Jonny", as Naughtie called him) - so that's the Democrat-supporting leftie taken care of. The other guest, however, was no Republican-supporting rightie but Gavin Esler's friend from Dateline: London Stryker Mcguire of Newsweek. Stryker is no partisan, but he too inclines leftwards (writing many articles for The New Statesman, Guardian and Observer). That's not balanced, is it? Especially when Naughtie himself was hardly a neutral, making noises supportive of Obama and raising tough questions only for the Republicans. If a pro-Republican reporter had been present, Naughtie could have asked him about the latter and found out how the party would respond to Obama's challenge. Instead, all we got was 'Jonny' attacking the Republicans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/news/8484741.stm
*
UPDATE
*
For more of this please read DB on the Biased BBC website, who has noticed this too: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/sotu-on-today.html
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
WHERE'S THAT TRADES DESCRIPTIONS ACT?
*
Here's the blurb on the Today website for Mark Mardell's latest report:
*
Mark Mardell is clearly a worthy replacement as North America editor for Justin Webb. He's just as bad and just as biased.
Here's the blurb on the Today website for Mark Mardell's latest report:
President Obama is to deliver his first state of the union speech tonight, and is expected to explain why unemployment is so high despite billions of dollars being pumped into the economy.I thought on reading this that Mark Mardell might actually be going to be fair today, letting us hear the voices of people who oppose what the Obama administration is doing - without criticism of them! - as well as voices who oppose statist solutions in general. Take a listen for yourselves, and you'll find that the product bears little relation to the packaging. There are no voices that argue that "government solutions do not work", and the harshest criticism of Obama we get is one brief comment from a "man in a hard hat" who wants "something more from the president" - some "actual factuals", not just words. Elsewhere, we had a policeman and a policewoman grateful for some gizmos "courtesy of the stimulus", then Scott Peterson from the (Democrat) mayor's office also praising the gracious gift of the gizmos ("As the president's always said, it's about innovation") and a trained nursing assistant at a job centre who "thinks the president is doing a good job" though "she'd like to hear him get tougher on the banks".
Some Americans believe that the money is not being spent properly and that government-led solutions do not work.
North America editor Mark Mardell reports from Baltimore.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8482000/8482377.stm
*
Mark Mardell is clearly a worthy replacement as North America editor for Justin Webb. He's just as bad and just as biased.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
ESLER DOESN'T QUITE GET IT
*
Opening question from Gavin Esler on today's Dateline: London: "First of all, why is he (Barack Obama) in so much trouble, because people outside the United States don't quite get this, I think?"
Well if all they'd been listening to (over the last couple of years) is the BBC, it would be hardly surprising they don't 'get it'. The Beeb's coverage of Barack Obama has been almost completely favourable, at times nearing adulation.
* '
There's an excellent take on the BBC's inability to 'quite get it' from DB on the Biased BBC website, prompted by an article by John Lloyd: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-lloyd-on-bbc-obama-bias.html. DB links to this excellent article by Brian Micklethwait, which was provoked by an Obama love-in on Kirsty Wark's new Review programme: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2010/01/bbc_thoughts_an.html. Brian points out, along the way, the sheer lack of competence in Kirsty's interviewing technique (something I've noted here before): "My third impression was that the chairing of this discussion was incompetent to the point of being ridiculous. Kirsty Wark should be giving a real talking-to. She was far too keen on joining in the discussion with her own opinions, instead of ensuring that all the other people present refrained from all talking at once." 'Far too keen on joining in the discussion with her own opinions' reminds me of Gavin Esler himself, though he is a far more competent interviewer than Kirsty Wark.
*
Opening question from Gavin Esler on today's Dateline: London: "First of all, why is he (Barack Obama) in so much trouble, because people outside the United States don't quite get this, I think?"
Well if all they'd been listening to (over the last couple of years) is the BBC, it would be hardly surprising they don't 'get it'. The Beeb's coverage of Barack Obama has been almost completely favourable, at times nearing adulation.
* '
There's an excellent take on the BBC's inability to 'quite get it' from DB on the Biased BBC website, prompted by an article by John Lloyd: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-lloyd-on-bbc-obama-bias.html. DB links to this excellent article by Brian Micklethwait, which was provoked by an Obama love-in on Kirsty Wark's new Review programme: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2010/01/bbc_thoughts_an.html. Brian points out, along the way, the sheer lack of competence in Kirsty's interviewing technique (something I've noted here before): "My third impression was that the chairing of this discussion was incompetent to the point of being ridiculous. Kirsty Wark should be giving a real talking-to. She was far too keen on joining in the discussion with her own opinions, instead of ensuring that all the other people present refrained from all talking at once." 'Far too keen on joining in the discussion with her own opinions' reminds me of Gavin Esler himself, though he is a far more competent interviewer than Kirsty Wark.
*
Thursday, 21 January 2010
KATTY CLAWS THE REPUBLICANS
*
Back at work again today means some more late, late blogging! 20 hours after Newsnight's post-mortem on the Massachusetts defeat for the Democrats I've finally got round to watching it. Almost immediately my hackles were raised by Katty Kay, a particularly biased specimen of BBC reporter.
*
Even Mark Mardell would baulk at this bit of characteristic anti-Republican spin, right at the beginning of her Newsnight piece: "This is not a good vote for Barack Obama, but it's not necessarily a good vote for Republicans either." Her reasoning for this remarkable statement? "Yes, Scott Brown ran on a Republican ticket but he didn't use the Republican name in any of his ads or in any of his leafleting." Some might call that clutching at straws! "And more than anything else this is a vote from the angry middle ground of America against the existing political heirarchy". So not mainly against the Democrats then? (It's the new BBC line in evidence again).
*
It is interesting though that the BBC, even Katty Kay herself, is now acknowledging the Tea Party movement, that "fiercely conservative...band of self-declared patriots" (in Katty's words) that is leading the charge against big government in the United States, and even acknowledging its huge popularity. It took them an age to do so.
*
Back at work again today means some more late, late blogging! 20 hours after Newsnight's post-mortem on the Massachusetts defeat for the Democrats I've finally got round to watching it. Almost immediately my hackles were raised by Katty Kay, a particularly biased specimen of BBC reporter.
*
Even Mark Mardell would baulk at this bit of characteristic anti-Republican spin, right at the beginning of her Newsnight piece: "This is not a good vote for Barack Obama, but it's not necessarily a good vote for Republicans either." Her reasoning for this remarkable statement? "Yes, Scott Brown ran on a Republican ticket but he didn't use the Republican name in any of his ads or in any of his leafleting." Some might call that clutching at straws! "And more than anything else this is a vote from the angry middle ground of America against the existing political heirarchy". So not mainly against the Democrats then? (It's the new BBC line in evidence again).
*
It is interesting though that the BBC, even Katty Kay herself, is now acknowledging the Tea Party movement, that "fiercely conservative...band of self-declared patriots" (in Katty's words) that is leading the charge against big government in the United States, and even acknowledging its huge popularity. It took them an age to do so.
*
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
NO MARKS FOR MARDELL
* 
I know it's unseemly to gloat, but...
*
Mark Mardell got it wrong!: "It would be a grievous blow for Obama if this seat went Republican for the first time since JFK took it for the Democrats in 1953: especially as the result will come on the eve of the anniversary of his inauguration next week. I don't actually think they will lose the seat..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/the_ifs_of_the_massachusetts_e.html *
*
Well, they did lose the seat in Massachusetts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8466995.stm
*
This was not quite on a par with Matt Frei's classic prediction (during a 'Correspondents Look Ahead' sometime during President George W. Bush's first term) that he thought Bush was likely to be a one-term president! But it is another example of BBC hope triumphing over good judgement!
*
Mardell now promises to learn from his mistake (not that he's conceding that he made a wrong call of course): "It will be a part of my job in the coming months to try and discern what the mood really is." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/what_a_difference_a_year_makes.html
*
Yes, indeed it will.
*
But in the meantime why not just bandy about the 'p' word instead? (The 'p' word is a BBC bogey words). "Not for the first time the race to be the biggest populist on the block is on."
*
*
*
******************UPDATE & AFTERTHOUGHT
*
Paul Adams on Today's 7.00 News was presenting the Massachusetts result as an 'anti-establishment' one rather than an anti-Democrat one.*
*
This could be a new line for the BBC to take whenever Democrats lose over the next few months (leaving open the nuclear option of playing the race card should they lose the mid-term elections in November).
*
Going off the point a little (though not totally), this takes me back to the BBC's coverage of the 2004 European elections. This was when the BBC was most feverish in its hostility to the Iraq War. When the results came in from across Europe, Dimbleby and co. put all the swings against national governments who supported the war (in Italy, Spain, the UK etc) down to public opposition to their support for the war, but when the results came in from France and Germany, who strongly opposed the war, showing a similar swing against each national government, they did not put this down to public opposition to their opposition to the war but to an anti-incumbency mood in those countries. They were so hooked on their line that they couldn't see the staggering flaws in their logic. I spend quite a bit of the night shaking my head in disbelief. Were they merely being stupid or were they being deliberately disingenuous? Well, at least some of the people in that studio were certainly not stupid.
I know it's unseemly to gloat, but...
*
Mark Mardell got it wrong!: "It would be a grievous blow for Obama if this seat went Republican for the first time since JFK took it for the Democrats in 1953: especially as the result will come on the eve of the anniversary of his inauguration next week. I don't actually think they will lose the seat..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/the_ifs_of_the_massachusetts_e.html *
*
Well, they did lose the seat in Massachusetts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8466995.stm
*
This was not quite on a par with Matt Frei's classic prediction (during a 'Correspondents Look Ahead' sometime during President George W. Bush's first term) that he thought Bush was likely to be a one-term president! But it is another example of BBC hope triumphing over good judgement!
*
Mardell now promises to learn from his mistake (not that he's conceding that he made a wrong call of course): "It will be a part of my job in the coming months to try and discern what the mood really is." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/what_a_difference_a_year_makes.html
*
Yes, indeed it will.
*
But in the meantime why not just bandy about the 'p' word instead? (The 'p' word is a BBC bogey words). "Not for the first time the race to be the biggest populist on the block is on."
*
*
*
******************UPDATE & AFTERTHOUGHT
*
Paul Adams on Today's 7.00 News was presenting the Massachusetts result as an 'anti-establishment' one rather than an anti-Democrat one.*
*
This could be a new line for the BBC to take whenever Democrats lose over the next few months (leaving open the nuclear option of playing the race card should they lose the mid-term elections in November).
*
Going off the point a little (though not totally), this takes me back to the BBC's coverage of the 2004 European elections. This was when the BBC was most feverish in its hostility to the Iraq War. When the results came in from across Europe, Dimbleby and co. put all the swings against national governments who supported the war (in Italy, Spain, the UK etc) down to public opposition to their support for the war, but when the results came in from France and Germany, who strongly opposed the war, showing a similar swing against each national government, they did not put this down to public opposition to their opposition to the war but to an anti-incumbency mood in those countries. They were so hooked on their line that they couldn't see the staggering flaws in their logic. I spend quite a bit of the night shaking my head in disbelief. Were they merely being stupid or were they being deliberately disingenuous? Well, at least some of the people in that studio were certainly not stupid.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
ANOTHER DATELINE
*
Saturday on this blog means Dateline: London with Gavin Esler. Today's panel discussed the failed coup against Gordon Brown (some laughter at the expense of Hoon and Hewitt) 
before going on to slag off the Conservative Party (as usual). Then, discussing US intelligence in the wake of the failed Christmas Day massacre, they all defended and/or praised Barack Obama & condemned Rumsfeld and the Bush administration (including, naturally, the supposedly impartial presenter Gavin Esler). Finally, Dubai was up for discussion - and here, for the first time, there was disagreement among the panel. One of the lefties (pragmatic Sir Michael White of The Guardian) was characteristically majestic in his indifference to the plight of the poor S.E. Asian workers exploited by the Gulf pharoahs in their bid to build their new megatower - a plight characteristically brought up by one of the other lefties, the far-left Portuguese writer and broadcaster Eunice Goes (one of Gavin's regular cast of Eurobabes, who - for some reason! - is pictured above), who, after waxing righteous on the subject, was not impressed (being a very ideological lady) by Sir Mike's laxity on the issue. Michael Goldfarb of globalpost.com was on Eunice's side. The final guest, veteran Egyptian journalist Abdellah Homouda, edged his bets. He was the only one, during the section on the Conservatives, to balance his criticism of the Tories with criticism of Labour.
before going on to slag off the Conservative Party (as usual). Then, discussing US intelligence in the wake of the failed Christmas Day massacre, they all defended and/or praised Barack Obama & condemned Rumsfeld and the Bush administration (including, naturally, the supposedly impartial presenter Gavin Esler). Finally, Dubai was up for discussion - and here, for the first time, there was disagreement among the panel. One of the lefties (pragmatic Sir Michael White of The Guardian) was characteristically majestic in his indifference to the plight of the poor S.E. Asian workers exploited by the Gulf pharoahs in their bid to build their new megatower - a plight characteristically brought up by one of the other lefties, the far-left Portuguese writer and broadcaster Eunice Goes (one of Gavin's regular cast of Eurobabes, who - for some reason! - is pictured above), who, after waxing righteous on the subject, was not impressed (being a very ideological lady) by Sir Mike's laxity on the issue. Michael Goldfarb of globalpost.com was on Eunice's side. The final guest, veteran Egyptian journalist Abdellah Homouda, edged his bets. He was the only one, during the section on the Conservatives, to balance his criticism of the Tories with criticism of Labour. *
Week in week out, the left-liberal bias keeps on coming. For instance, there had never yet been (in the couple of years that I've been watching) a single American contributor who could be said to come from the Right side of American politics. And there have been lots of American contributors. And there have been many editions which have excluded anyone from the right-of-political-centre completely. There has never been an edition (in the period that I've been watching) that did not have at least two left-of-centre guests on it (and usually there are three, sometimes four). The programme is in severe need of being refreshed.
*
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
JUSTIN TIME TO DEFEND OBAMA
*
It's intriguing how certain commentators keep cropping up on the BBC.
*
Last night's The World Tonight featured Michael Scheuer, the former CIA officer who launched the Extraordinary Rendition programme back in 1995 under the Clinton administration, discussing Barack Obama and the Nigerian plane bomber. This was not Mr Scheuer's first appearance on the programme. (His last appearance was on 1oth December, discussing Osama Bin Laden).
*
Then, tuning in to the Today programme this morning, he was there again (introduced by Justin Webb as "one of the architects of America's rendition programme"). This is not necessarily a bad thing of course. Mr Scheuer is an interesting if controversial guy, and author of the influential Imperial Hubris. He was a strong critic of American foreign policy under the Bush Administration, but is far from uncritical of President Obama.
*
Voicing criticism of Barack Obama was virtually guaranteed to bring Obama-worshipper Justin Webb crashing in, not just to put the president's point of view, but to defend it too: "Yeah but...on that point, that it should have been passed on, what President Obama (..all praise President Obama!..) says is that this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community. In other words, having received the information from the father in Nigeria it appears to have gone further but then says it was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name onto a no-fly list. Now, that does actually fit the president's description, doesn't it, of a systemic failure?"*
It's intriguing how certain commentators keep cropping up on the BBC.
*
Last night's The World Tonight featured Michael Scheuer, the former CIA officer who launched the Extraordinary Rendition programme back in 1995 under the Clinton administration, discussing Barack Obama and the Nigerian plane bomber. This was not Mr Scheuer's first appearance on the programme. (His last appearance was on 1oth December, discussing Osama Bin Laden).
*
Then, tuning in to the Today programme this morning, he was there again (introduced by Justin Webb as "one of the architects of America's rendition programme"). This is not necessarily a bad thing of course. Mr Scheuer is an interesting if controversial guy, and author of the influential Imperial Hubris. He was a strong critic of American foreign policy under the Bush Administration, but is far from uncritical of President Obama.
*
Voicing criticism of Barack Obama was virtually guaranteed to bring Obama-worshipper Justin Webb crashing in, not just to put the president's point of view, but to defend it too: "Yeah but...on that point, that it should have been passed on, what President Obama (..all praise President Obama!..) says is that this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community. In other words, having received the information from the father in Nigeria it appears to have gone further but then says it was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name onto a no-fly list. Now, that does actually fit the president's description, doesn't it, of a systemic failure?"*
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CAROLYN
* Tonight's PM, again hosted by Carolyn Quinn (pictured right), followed the lead set by every other BBC Radio 4 current affairs programme so far & discussed the Chinese execution of 'bipolar Brit' Akmal Shaikh with a Left-Liberal type - in this case the foggy-minded Nick Clegg of the Left-Liberal Democrats (I.C. of 0.3).
*
Afghanistan was discussed with two military men - Col. Wayne Shanks, the public affairs officer with US and NATO forces (a short interview, during which all Carolyn's questions could be summed up with the words 'Woe,woe and thrice woe!') and Alasdair Ross of 2 Rifles (a very sympathetic 7-minute interview). The interview with Col. Shanks was brisk and business-like, whereas the interview with Mr Ross (who's also a Labour councillor in Ipswich) was leisurely and involving.
*
A remarkable report from Terry Stiasny followed. Terry returned to a school in Islington to see what echoes lingered of the Countenance Divine whose sainted feet trod on England's mountains green last April - i.e. Michelle Obama. She recalled "the first lady's hugs and spontaneity", and pressed a student to "go back, if you're in need of a bit of inspiration" to recall that great day when She walked among us. The pupils may have needed a little prodding to wax lyrical. Not so Terry Stiasny.
*
Much of the final part of PM today was devoted to an end-of-year round-up of the political scene, compered by Carolyn herself, between Labour's John Cruddas (I.C. of 0.2), Lib Dem Ed Davey (I.C. of 0.3) and Conservative Andrew Pirie (I.C. of 0.3). The interruption coefficients here are much of a muchness. Considering my (inferior) side measure, the questions coefficient, though and you will get a sense that things weren't quite as balanced as those figures suggest - 0.9 for Mr Davey, 1.2 for Mr Cruddas but 2.4 for Mr Pirie.
*
And so clearly was Carolyn Quinn aiming most of her specific questions at Mr Pirie that I can introduce a fresh measure here - the specific/general questions ratio. Under specific questions come ones that ask about the interviewee's party in particular - or his own personal responsibilities. These are, naturally, tougher questions. Under general questions, however, come questions unrelated to the interviewee's own political party, or his personal responsibilities (eg. questions about the BNP, or how all the political parties have been hit by the expenses scandal, or about Lords reform, etc). Looked at in this way, here's how things pan out:
*
Interviewee****General questions*** Specific questions
John Cruddas*********** 3***********************1
Andrew Pirie************3***********************5
Ed Davey*************** 3********************** 1
*
The single specific question aimed at Mr Cruddas concerned his earlier comments about Gordon Brown's prospects, whereas the single specific question aimed at Mr Davey was a typical Carolyn Quinn-style question: "And of course your party's got a problem because it...(sic)...not that many women, no ethnic minorities in the Commons at the moment." There were, as you can see, five specific questions aimed at Mr Pirie, including the interruption "David Cameron's got a presidential style has he?", as well as "What is the Conservative view of that?", " So you didn't go far enough?", "You've got David Cameron trying to force through all-women shortlists & coming up against quite a lot of opposition from the party", & "Where do you think the Conservatives are left then because sealing the deal is something David Cameron recognises hasn't been done yet?" All Carolyn Quinn's recent politics panels on 'Westminster Hour' have followed a similar pattern, boxing the Conservative guest in with specific questions but allowing the left-of-centre politicians much more open questions and, therefore, a freer scope and an easier time.
*
Thursday, 24 December 2009
ARIANNA'S IN A LEFT-WING HUFF
8
Barack Obama's recent poll ratings have been going the way of the temperature in the North Eastern United States in Washington - sharply downwards. Yesterday's Today programme set out to find out why with an interview between James Naughtie and BBC favourite Arianna Huffington. (The Biased BBC website covers this in some detail, with a fine comment from the fabulous David Preiser, so I won't dwell on it http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/12/so-how-is-obama-doing.html#comments) except to note that the Today website describes this leftie lady as "Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post". Had the Huff Post not been a left-liberal affair it would surely have been described as 'conservative' or 'right-wing', or some such label. There was no mention of 'liberal' or 'left-wing' here. Naughtie's introductory words, however, did add an adjective to this description - "influential"!
*
Unsuspecting listeners might assume that Arianna is a moderate, non-partisan, influential-with-a-whole-range-of-people type of commentator. She's none of the above. This was a perspective on President Obama from the American far-Left - and that's the only place where Today's attempts to find out why the polls are worsening for the One took them.
*
This is a small example of bias by labeling.
Barack Obama's recent poll ratings have been going the way of the temperature in the North Eastern United States in Washington - sharply downwards. Yesterday's Today programme set out to find out why with an interview between James Naughtie and BBC favourite Arianna Huffington. (The Biased BBC website covers this in some detail, with a fine comment from the fabulous David Preiser, so I won't dwell on it http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/12/so-how-is-obama-doing.html#comments) except to note that the Today website describes this leftie lady as "Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post". Had the Huff Post not been a left-liberal affair it would surely have been described as 'conservative' or 'right-wing', or some such label. There was no mention of 'liberal' or 'left-wing' here. Naughtie's introductory words, however, did add an adjective to this description - "influential"!
*
Unsuspecting listeners might assume that Arianna is a moderate, non-partisan, influential-with-a-whole-range-of-people type of commentator. She's none of the above. This was a perspective on President Obama from the American far-Left - and that's the only place where Today's attempts to find out why the polls are worsening for the One took them.
*
This is a small example of bias by labeling.
Saturday, 12 December 2009
GAVIN SHOW HIS HAND YET AGAIN
*
Today's Dateline London with Gavin Esler pitted the always-good-value right-winger Janet Daley against three left-wingers, the ghastly Abdel Bari Atwan, Obama-fan Greg Katz, and the BBC's favourite commentator on Pakistan, Shahed Sadullah (a left-winger with both charm and intelligence) - and, of course, Gavin Esler.
*
Gavin Esler was up to his usual tricks, defending Barack Obama whenever needs called. Even his first question contained a nugget of praise for the Democratic president: "Barack Obama was humble when he collected his Nobel peace prize but he was clear that there is such a thing as a just war, necessary to preserve peace." OK.
*
When Janet Daley said Obama's speech was aimed at the home market and aimed at "satisfying the lobby" that thought he was "dithering", Esler interrupted to say "And they were satisfied" before losing heart a little and adding (in a trailing-off fashion) "some of them, I mean..." (which Janet wisely picked up on).
*
Gavin then got into this exchange with Greg Katz:
Esler: "Greg, should he have got it?"
Katz: "No, no..."
Esler: "He possibly thinks that, of course"
Of course Gavin. Barack is ever so 'umble.
*
The four-against-one situation arose over the issue of the Iraq War, where all three of the other guests rounded on Janet Daley. Esler did not stick up for her (by playing devil's advocate on her behalf); instead he joined the attack: "But Greg was pointing out that many of us just bought it". Janet pointed out that he'd misunderstood her point - as he had. Fancy that, a liberal Beeboid not listening properly to one of his right-of-centre guests!
*
Janet is also a 'climate change denier', in BBC parlance (of course, she's no such thing - she's a global warming sceptic). I must note here the little exchange between Gavin and his appalling friend Bari (Atwan) here. Esler, playing devil's advocate, said " There are some people who think that this whole climate change thing (no, Gav, man-made global warming thing!) is a way of transferring money from rich countries to poor countries" but as Atwan was beginning to reply Esler added, with a smile, "Palestine is not included in that." Sucking up to that odious extremist Atwan and socking it to the Israelis at the same - result Gavin!!
*
Unusually Gavin Esler did interrupt Atwan at one stage, but only to defend Gordon Brown. Bari was attacking our prime minister for giving loads of money to the banks but not giving as much to poor countries, when Gavin interrupted with a laugh "Well, you could say without saving the banking system (just the banking system, surely the world?) there'd be no money for poor countries, no money for anything."
*
After Janet had launched an assault on the hypothesis of man-made global warming Esler asked Mr Sadullah "As you know, the alternative view - and there is an alternative view! - by the supposedly majority of the scientists consulted by the U.N. is that countries like Bangladesh, for example, will really suffer because tides will rise, it's a low country, there'll be more storms. That's the beef." As Janet Daley commented, "Maybe."
*
The final topic was bankers and their bonuses. Here Gavin Esler released his inner leftie and bashed away without even a show of balance (though not much coherence either): "Well that seems to me to be the interesting question. Do we expect bankers or is it that some of the bankers just don't get it or is it something that people will just give up banking and take up, you know, become street buskers if they don't get their huge bonuses?" (Well put!) "Well I understand this doesn't effect those who've got it written in their contract that they get a bonus, which is a lot of them" (Is it?) "...in Switzerland or something."
*
Today's Dateline London with Gavin Esler pitted the always-good-value right-winger Janet Daley against three left-wingers, the ghastly Abdel Bari Atwan, Obama-fan Greg Katz, and the BBC's favourite commentator on Pakistan, Shahed Sadullah (a left-winger with both charm and intelligence) - and, of course, Gavin Esler.
*
Gavin Esler was up to his usual tricks, defending Barack Obama whenever needs called. Even his first question contained a nugget of praise for the Democratic president: "Barack Obama was humble when he collected his Nobel peace prize but he was clear that there is such a thing as a just war, necessary to preserve peace." OK.
*
When Janet Daley said Obama's speech was aimed at the home market and aimed at "satisfying the lobby" that thought he was "dithering", Esler interrupted to say "And they were satisfied" before losing heart a little and adding (in a trailing-off fashion) "some of them, I mean..." (which Janet wisely picked up on).
*
Gavin then got into this exchange with Greg Katz:
Esler: "Greg, should he have got it?"
Katz: "No, no..."
Esler: "He possibly thinks that, of course"
Of course Gavin. Barack is ever so 'umble.
*
The four-against-one situation arose over the issue of the Iraq War, where all three of the other guests rounded on Janet Daley. Esler did not stick up for her (by playing devil's advocate on her behalf); instead he joined the attack: "But Greg was pointing out that many of us just bought it". Janet pointed out that he'd misunderstood her point - as he had. Fancy that, a liberal Beeboid not listening properly to one of his right-of-centre guests!
*
Janet is also a 'climate change denier', in BBC parlance (of course, she's no such thing - she's a global warming sceptic). I must note here the little exchange between Gavin and his appalling friend Bari (Atwan) here. Esler, playing devil's advocate, said " There are some people who think that this whole climate change thing (no, Gav, man-made global warming thing!) is a way of transferring money from rich countries to poor countries" but as Atwan was beginning to reply Esler added, with a smile, "Palestine is not included in that." Sucking up to that odious extremist Atwan and socking it to the Israelis at the same - result Gavin!!
*
Unusually Gavin Esler did interrupt Atwan at one stage, but only to defend Gordon Brown. Bari was attacking our prime minister for giving loads of money to the banks but not giving as much to poor countries, when Gavin interrupted with a laugh "Well, you could say without saving the banking system (just the banking system, surely the world?) there'd be no money for poor countries, no money for anything."
*
After Janet had launched an assault on the hypothesis of man-made global warming Esler asked Mr Sadullah "As you know, the alternative view - and there is an alternative view! - by the supposedly majority of the scientists consulted by the U.N. is that countries like Bangladesh, for example, will really suffer because tides will rise, it's a low country, there'll be more storms. That's the beef." As Janet Daley commented, "Maybe."
*
The final topic was bankers and their bonuses. Here Gavin Esler released his inner leftie and bashed away without even a show of balance (though not much coherence either): "Well that seems to me to be the interesting question. Do we expect bankers or is it that some of the bankers just don't get it or is it something that people will just give up banking and take up, you know, become street buskers if they don't get their huge bonuses?" (Well put!) "Well I understand this doesn't effect those who've got it written in their contract that they get a bonus, which is a lot of them" (Is it?) "...in Switzerland or something."
*
Friday, 27 November 2009
'RICHARD' AND 'GAVE' ONLY
*
Thursday's The World At One, with Shaun Ley, was characteristically tilted towards the Left.
*
The BBC has (for some time now) been brainwashing us (along with its favourite economic commentators Vince Cable and John McFall) that bankers are the sole cause of all the economic woes that have so wounded this country in the last couple of years (absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our own Labour government of course, despite its remarkable and well-document closeness to those very bankers throughout its long, long years in power). Should all those guilty-as-charged bankers who earn more than £1 million be named and shamed? That was Shaun's question. Who did he interview to explore the issue? Labour MP Jim Cousins, who is responsible for a Commons motion calling for a charge on banks that have received public help - a 'peoples' dividend', he calls it (I.C. of 0), and Labour peer Lord Paul Myners (I.C. of 0.5). All of Shaun's questions to Myners came from a 'name those names' standpoint. The brainwashing continues - as does the dominance of the Left in the BBC's worldview.
*
Greens dominate the BBC's worldview too, of course. The programme's discussion of China's promises on reducing carbon emissions was introduced with these typical words: "Expert comment this morning praised China's move as a gesture and a morale-booster." 'Expert comment' indeed! Who did he mean? Come on Shaun, name names!!
*
The issue was then discussed in interviews with Ailun Yang, head of Greenpeace China's Climate and Energy Campaign ("I think it's a very positive step"), and Charles McElwee, who "teaches environmental law at Shanghai University and has advised the Chinese government on the environment, though not on climate change. He stresses that today's move falls short of actual emission cuts" ("It's significant for a number of reasons. I think it shows a growing maturity on the part of the Chinese leadership.") So, both praised China's 'green' commitments but both wanted even more. Shaun Ley interrupted neither.
*
The third topic up for discussion was 'The Special Relationship' in the age of President Obama. It was discussed with Gavin Esler's chum from Dateline London, Stryker Maguire of Newsweek, and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Blair's man at the U.N. Maguire is always soft on Obama, but so it seems is Sir Jeremy: "Most of Europe, including the U.K.. welcome the fact that there is a president in the Whitehouse who knows the world and seems to understand the outside world."
*
I'm not Shaun Ley and that was The World At One yesterday lunchtime.
Thursday's The World At One, with Shaun Ley, was characteristically tilted towards the Left.
*
The BBC has (for some time now) been brainwashing us (along with its favourite economic commentators Vince Cable and John McFall) that bankers are the sole cause of all the economic woes that have so wounded this country in the last couple of years (absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our own Labour government of course, despite its remarkable and well-document closeness to those very bankers throughout its long, long years in power). Should all those guilty-as-charged bankers who earn more than £1 million be named and shamed? That was Shaun's question. Who did he interview to explore the issue? Labour MP Jim Cousins, who is responsible for a Commons motion calling for a charge on banks that have received public help - a 'peoples' dividend', he calls it (I.C. of 0), and Labour peer Lord Paul Myners (I.C. of 0.5). All of Shaun's questions to Myners came from a 'name those names' standpoint. The brainwashing continues - as does the dominance of the Left in the BBC's worldview.
*
Greens dominate the BBC's worldview too, of course. The programme's discussion of China's promises on reducing carbon emissions was introduced with these typical words: "Expert comment this morning praised China's move as a gesture and a morale-booster." 'Expert comment' indeed! Who did he mean? Come on Shaun, name names!!
*
The issue was then discussed in interviews with Ailun Yang, head of Greenpeace China's Climate and Energy Campaign ("I think it's a very positive step"), and Charles McElwee, who "teaches environmental law at Shanghai University and has advised the Chinese government on the environment, though not on climate change. He stresses that today's move falls short of actual emission cuts" ("It's significant for a number of reasons. I think it shows a growing maturity on the part of the Chinese leadership.") So, both praised China's 'green' commitments but both wanted even more. Shaun Ley interrupted neither.
*
The third topic up for discussion was 'The Special Relationship' in the age of President Obama. It was discussed with Gavin Esler's chum from Dateline London, Stryker Maguire of Newsweek, and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Blair's man at the U.N. Maguire is always soft on Obama, but so it seems is Sir Jeremy: "Most of Europe, including the U.K.. welcome the fact that there is a president in the Whitehouse who knows the world and seems to understand the outside world."
*
I'm not Shaun Ley and that was The World At One yesterday lunchtime.
NO FIGHT NEEDED HERE TO DECIDE WHICH IS BETTER!
*
BBC News, considered as a single organism, strongly approves of Barack Obama but is also highly sympathetic to green causes, especially Anthropocentric Global Warming. David ('the science is extremely clear') Shukman, their enviromental(ist) correspondent, successfully managed to combine both positions on Wednesday night's The World Tonight, praising President Obama's offer to cut the U.S.'s greenhouse gas emissions by 17% (a "very useful" announcement, he said) while simultaneously giving voice to environmentalist reservations that it isn't enough ("scientists say" it should be 40%).
*
The programme as a whole achieved the same feat by featuring as its main (and only) interviewee on the issue, Daniel C. Esty, professor of environment policy at Yale. He was described as a "former Whitehouse advisor", though precisely who he advised was not mentioned. The Huffington Post, featuring a blog from the professor, supplies the answer: "Professor Esty advised the Obama Campaign on energy and environmental issues and served on the Obama Transition Team." Clearly a greenie and a believer in AGW, Esty was also an advisor to Barack Obama. What more could the BBC want from a guest!!
BBC News, considered as a single organism, strongly approves of Barack Obama but is also highly sympathetic to green causes, especially Anthropocentric Global Warming. David ('the science is extremely clear') Shukman, their enviromental(ist) correspondent, successfully managed to combine both positions on Wednesday night's The World Tonight, praising President Obama's offer to cut the U.S.'s greenhouse gas emissions by 17% (a "very useful" announcement, he said) while simultaneously giving voice to environmentalist reservations that it isn't enough ("scientists say" it should be 40%).
*
The programme as a whole achieved the same feat by featuring as its main (and only) interviewee on the issue, Daniel C. Esty, professor of environment policy at Yale. He was described as a "former Whitehouse advisor", though precisely who he advised was not mentioned. The Huffington Post, featuring a blog from the professor, supplies the answer: "Professor Esty advised the Obama Campaign on energy and environmental issues and served on the Obama Transition Team." Clearly a greenie and a believer in AGW, Esty was also an advisor to Barack Obama. What more could the BBC want from a guest!!
Sunday, 15 November 2009
BROADCASTING GROUSE
*
This morning's Broadcasting House on Radio 4 (9.00am) began by discussing the forthcoming apologies from Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd for the Child Migrants' Programme that saw many UK children sent to Australia between 1930 and 1970, and which led to a lot of suffering. The issue was, as you'd expect with the BBC, discussed with the director of the campaign group responsible for bringing the matter to the notice of politicians, Margaret Humphries of the Child Migrants' Trust. Presenter Paddy O'Connell conducted an entirely sympathetic interview with her, and didn't just confine himself to asking questions. He also supported her position, as when he commented "This is the State lying".
*
Obama's dithering/prudent pondering over General McChrystal's request for more troops for Afghanistan was discussed, and placed in a historical context, with Sir Malcolm Rifkind and John Hutton, not uninterestingly. Intriguingly Mr Hutton was harder on Obama than Sir Malcolm. Paddy O'Connell's views on the matter were easy to guess. When Sir Malcolm said "I don't think he's dithering at all. Not only is it a crucially important decision...", Paddy interjected a "yeah" of agreement and the only interruption came when John Hutton gently criticized Obama for not fully explaining the delay. Paddy barged into his answer with this defence: "Well, we heard him earlier say he wants to get it right, it's money, it's lives, and it's about the safety of the U.S. at home." I think Paddy likes President Obama, and ain't too keen to hear criticism of him!
*
Talking of left-liberal Americans, a report from Kevin Connolly (a left-liberal Brit) looked at 'what makes us happy', considering the Grant Study, set up at Harvard in 1941 to follow a sample of people throughout their lives and find out the key to happiness. Which volunteer did Connolly talk too? Ben Bradley, "the Washington Post editor whose questions brought down the Nixon Administration over Watergate". The Study's director Professor George Valliant had a dig at Nixon too. Who's likely to be the happiest person, according to him? "Someone who has devoted themselves to other people." He says you'll feel better if you give some money to OXFAM. "Being rich doesn't make you happy," said Connolly. "Being nice does." So there you go.
*
When it came to the paper review, Paddy gave us a short run-down of the headlines, beginning with the left-of-centre Independent on Sunday, followed by the left-of-centre Observer, then the left-of-centre Sunday Mirror then, finally, the right-of-centre Mail on Sunday. And that was it!
*
His first guest on the paper review was British business reporter Richard Quest of CNN (who Wikipedia tells us worked with Paddy O'Connell on BBC News 24). Then there was Virginia Ironside of, inevitably, The Independent. Finally, there was Camilla Batmangheldjh of the charity Kids Company, who started the review with a childcare report from The Observer.
*
Paddy prodded Mr Quest to go after the bankers while discussing Equitable Life: "Richard, what I think you're getting at is, people who saved are being punished by not being compensated from the Equitable Life fiasco, whereas people who borrowed, and bankers who've misled. are effectively having the tab picked up" and went on to say "Do keep with your selections Richard. You've gone to the Sunday Telegraph on bankers as well."
*
This morning's Broadcasting House on Radio 4 (9.00am) began by discussing the forthcoming apologies from Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd for the Child Migrants' Programme that saw many UK children sent to Australia between 1930 and 1970, and which led to a lot of suffering. The issue was, as you'd expect with the BBC, discussed with the director of the campaign group responsible for bringing the matter to the notice of politicians, Margaret Humphries of the Child Migrants' Trust. Presenter Paddy O'Connell conducted an entirely sympathetic interview with her, and didn't just confine himself to asking questions. He also supported her position, as when he commented "This is the State lying".
*
Obama's dithering/prudent pondering over General McChrystal's request for more troops for Afghanistan was discussed, and placed in a historical context, with Sir Malcolm Rifkind and John Hutton, not uninterestingly. Intriguingly Mr Hutton was harder on Obama than Sir Malcolm. Paddy O'Connell's views on the matter were easy to guess. When Sir Malcolm said "I don't think he's dithering at all. Not only is it a crucially important decision...", Paddy interjected a "yeah" of agreement and the only interruption came when John Hutton gently criticized Obama for not fully explaining the delay. Paddy barged into his answer with this defence: "Well, we heard him earlier say he wants to get it right, it's money, it's lives, and it's about the safety of the U.S. at home." I think Paddy likes President Obama, and ain't too keen to hear criticism of him!
*
Talking of left-liberal Americans, a report from Kevin Connolly (a left-liberal Brit) looked at 'what makes us happy', considering the Grant Study, set up at Harvard in 1941 to follow a sample of people throughout their lives and find out the key to happiness. Which volunteer did Connolly talk too? Ben Bradley, "the Washington Post editor whose questions brought down the Nixon Administration over Watergate". The Study's director Professor George Valliant had a dig at Nixon too. Who's likely to be the happiest person, according to him? "Someone who has devoted themselves to other people." He says you'll feel better if you give some money to OXFAM. "Being rich doesn't make you happy," said Connolly. "Being nice does." So there you go.
*
When it came to the paper review, Paddy gave us a short run-down of the headlines, beginning with the left-of-centre Independent on Sunday, followed by the left-of-centre Observer, then the left-of-centre Sunday Mirror then, finally, the right-of-centre Mail on Sunday. And that was it!
*
His first guest on the paper review was British business reporter Richard Quest of CNN (who Wikipedia tells us worked with Paddy O'Connell on BBC News 24). Then there was Virginia Ironside of, inevitably, The Independent. Finally, there was Camilla Batmangheldjh of the charity Kids Company, who started the review with a childcare report from The Observer.
*
Paddy prodded Mr Quest to go after the bankers while discussing Equitable Life: "Richard, what I think you're getting at is, people who saved are being punished by not being compensated from the Equitable Life fiasco, whereas people who borrowed, and bankers who've misled. are effectively having the tab picked up" and went on to say "Do keep with your selections Richard. You've gone to the Sunday Telegraph on bankers as well."
*
Saturday, 14 November 2009
THE WORLD TONIGHT
*
The World Tonight is the thoughtful, foreign-affairs-dominated mainstay of Radio 4's current affairs coverage. It's a kind of idealised version of The Guardian and, like The Guardian, has a pronounced left-liberal bias. Or is that just how it seems? Though I've had a busy working week (with overtime!) & haven't had much time to blog (only to count interruptions), I've recorded the contents of all of the last eight editions of the programme to see just exactly what it covers and just who the programme invites to speak. This is what I found.
*
4/11 This edition began with Afghanistan and featured an interview by Robin Lustig with a sceptical Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (I.C. of 0.3). The following discussion of MPs expenses & spouses featured one of the few MPs willing to whinge about it in public, Charles Walker of the Conservative Party. The interview was somewhat challenging (I.C. of 0.8). The issue was then discussed with Allegra Stratton of The Guardian. After a discussion of opposition protests in Iran with BBC regular, Professor Ali Ansari of St Andrews University (a frequent contributor to The Guardian, Independent and Observer), the focus turned to the Tories and their European policy. The matter was discussed with a highly critical Sylvie Goulard. Robin introduced her as a 'French MEP and president of the French European Movement'. Though we can infer that she's an ardent Europhile, Robin forgot to tell us which party she belongs to. It turns out that she's a Liberal (as regulars could have guessed already from my colour-coding of her name!). So, all in all, a strong left-liberal bias on this edition.
*
5/11 This edition was not so clear-cut. We had an interview with a female Afghan charity worker who wanted coalition troops to stay in her country and a report on the Fort Hood killings. Then the government's policy of Quantitative Easing (Q.E.) - i.e. printing money - was discussed with two people who were (with reservations) supportive of it (George Magnus and Jan Raldolph). Paul Moss then reported from Germany, where he chatted to former bosses of the communist GDR who are still proud and unrepentant about their dour old tyranny. The Trafigura story was then discussed with a lawyer called Martin Day and a Ivorian chap called Claude Gohourou, who claims to speak for the toxic poisoning victims. Finally came a hymn of praise to President Lula of Brazil, a centre-left president obviously, by the BBC's own centre-left economics correspondent Jonty Bloom. More hagiography than report, it would have brought a blush to Lula's bearded cheeks if he'd have heard it!
*
6/11 Afghanistan again led this edition and Robin Lustig discussed the matter with (a) someone who advised President Obama during his election campaign, Marvin Weinbaum, and then (b) Patricia DeGennaro, a professor at NYU who regularly blogs for the left-liberal Huffington Post. A spot of left-liberal bias there for sure. More on the Fort Hood killings and a report on whether TV helped bring down the Berlin Wall (and a piece on Santa School - yes, about training santas) led to a bit of AGW chat with the head of the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer. An interesting report on the U.N.'s conference on migration in Athens by the Beeb's Malcolm Brabant quarantined a couple of sage voices from the Third World (protesters) who opposed migration on the grounds that it harmed their countries (depriving them of skilled people) between two advocates for migration, William L. Swing of the International Organisation for Migration and the U.N.'s Peter Sutherland, who got the last word (hymning the glories of migration). (Note that no-one from, say, Migration Watch got a look-in here).
*(Not
9/11 Ritula Shah took over for this edition and the opening discussion of nuclear power centred on interviews with Lib Dem leftie Simon Hughes, an opponent of nuclear power, and a newly-converted Stephen Tindale (former head of Greenpeace) - who supports it to 'save the planet'. A balanced argument on nuclear power certainly, but a debate between people on the Left nonetheless. The BBC's Roger Harribin then added this thoughts. Next up came a discussion on the fall of the Berlin Wall between the Economist's liberal-minded Edward Lucas (formerly of the BBC and The Independent) and left-wing Neal Ascherson of The Observer. This was followed by a report on the Tories and poverty by Jonty Bloom - an ill-informed piece in which Jonty referred to "the Tory party of Wilberforce and Gladstone" . Now, does anyone with an interest in British history spot what's wrong with that statement? (Clue: check Wikipedia's entry for the famous Liberal Party prime-minister W.E. Gladstone!). A discussion about Yemen with Ginny Hill of Chatham House and The Guardian (naturally) and an interesting piece on China and Africa rounded off the programme. Left-liberal bias here? Yes, in spades.
*
10/11 This was a remarkable edition of the programme. It opened by discussing Gordon Brown, a grieving mother and The Sun with Charlie Beckett of the L.S.E.'s journalism think-tank POLIS. Presenter David Eades might have been expecting a defence of Brown and an attack on The Sun from such a source. He didn't get either and the result was a satisfyingly testy encounter. A piece on those poor Palestinians followed from Bethany Bell (complete with obligatory side-sweeps at wicked Israel) and Mahmoud Abbas's declaration that he intends to cease being Palestinian president was discussed with one of his chums, Ziad Asali of the American Taskforce for Palestine. The bulk of the programme, however, was a debate at Chatham House, hosted by Robin Lustig, on the Copenhagen Climate Change conference. It was prefaced by a report from the BBC's enviromental(ist) correspondent Richard (Since Kyoto "the scientific case for man-made climate change has strengthened significantly") Black and featured the voices of various Green activists, as well as Joan Ruddick, Labour's climate change minister, a climate-scarer from Grenada and someone from the Union of Concerned Scientists. All four of Robin's guests fully bought into the AGW agenda too, and every single one of Robin Lustig's questions came from the same stance. The panel consisted of disgraced Labour ex-minister Elliot Morley (though his career-sinking expense claims were not brought up); Steve Rayner, professor of science and civilisation at Oxford University; Mike Hume, professor of climate change and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia; and Cleo Paskal of the Energy, Environment & Development programme at Chatham House (and the liberal Toronto Star).
*
11/11 With Robin Lustig back in charge, this edition looked at the economy and interviewed John Philpott of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and John Cridland of the C.B.I., as well as featuring a report from Bishops Stortford by our old friend Jonty Bloom. Bishops Stortford has one of the lowest rates of unemployment, so that was obviously the place for the BBC to go on a day when the latest unemployment figures came out. Divided Cyprus, the Glasgow North East by-election (due the following day), and aliens and Christian theology were also discussed. Orla Guerin reported from Pakistan (a report that sounded exactly like every other report she's ever filed). Today's Afghanistan spot consisted of an interview with Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, yet another voice from the liberal wing of American politics.
*
12/11 At last, another centre-right voice (the first since Charles Walker)! Immigration was the hot topic and Robin Lustig conducted a joint interview between Labour's omnipresent Phil Woolas and Harriet Sergeant of the Centre for Policy Studies. Other pieces examined ivory trading in Zambia, Japan's relations with the U.S. and the thoughts of Russia's President Medvedev. Afghanistan today was discussed by (you guessed it!) two more voices from the left-liberal end of U.S. politics - former Clinton administration official Karl Inderfuth and long-term Bush-basher David Corn of liberal-progressive magazine Mother Jones. Any chance of hearing any American interviewee who isn't from that end of U.S. politics on The World Tonight some time soon?
*
13/11 The Obama administration's decision to try the 9/11 Guantanamo inmates in civilian courts in New York was first up for discussion. Doing the discussing with Robin Lustig were (a) a lawyer for the Guantanamo crowd, Tara Murray of Reprieve and (b) Tony Ortega of the very-liberal Village Voice (described by the very-liberal Robin Lustig as a "venerable New York newspaper", who praised the current administration and bashed Bush. More voices from just one side of U.S. politics. The undoubtedly venerable Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was the sage consulted over Asia-U.S. relations. I don't know what his politics are (though he wrote this, which is suggestive: "Obama decided early on that among the many messes he inherited from George W. Bush, China policy was not one of them.") Also discussed were time-zones, local elections in Kosovo, China and its carbon emissions, the Glasgow North East by-election result (discussed with Hamish McDonnell, formerly of The Scotsman) and the government-owned rail company, East Coast, which has taken over the running of the mainline on the East Coast from National Express.
*
I think all this conclusively proves that there really is a left-liberal bias at the BBCs The World Tonight.
The World Tonight is the thoughtful, foreign-affairs-dominated mainstay of Radio 4's current affairs coverage. It's a kind of idealised version of The Guardian and, like The Guardian, has a pronounced left-liberal bias. Or is that just how it seems? Though I've had a busy working week (with overtime!) & haven't had much time to blog (only to count interruptions), I've recorded the contents of all of the last eight editions of the programme to see just exactly what it covers and just who the programme invites to speak. This is what I found.
*
4/11 This edition began with Afghanistan and featured an interview by Robin Lustig with a sceptical Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (I.C. of 0.3). The following discussion of MPs expenses & spouses featured one of the few MPs willing to whinge about it in public, Charles Walker of the Conservative Party. The interview was somewhat challenging (I.C. of 0.8). The issue was then discussed with Allegra Stratton of The Guardian. After a discussion of opposition protests in Iran with BBC regular, Professor Ali Ansari of St Andrews University (a frequent contributor to The Guardian, Independent and Observer), the focus turned to the Tories and their European policy. The matter was discussed with a highly critical Sylvie Goulard. Robin introduced her as a 'French MEP and president of the French European Movement'. Though we can infer that she's an ardent Europhile, Robin forgot to tell us which party she belongs to. It turns out that she's a Liberal (as regulars could have guessed already from my colour-coding of her name!). So, all in all, a strong left-liberal bias on this edition.
*
5/11 This edition was not so clear-cut. We had an interview with a female Afghan charity worker who wanted coalition troops to stay in her country and a report on the Fort Hood killings. Then the government's policy of Quantitative Easing (Q.E.) - i.e. printing money - was discussed with two people who were (with reservations) supportive of it (George Magnus and Jan Raldolph). Paul Moss then reported from Germany, where he chatted to former bosses of the communist GDR who are still proud and unrepentant about their dour old tyranny. The Trafigura story was then discussed with a lawyer called Martin Day and a Ivorian chap called Claude Gohourou, who claims to speak for the toxic poisoning victims. Finally came a hymn of praise to President Lula of Brazil, a centre-left president obviously, by the BBC's own centre-left economics correspondent Jonty Bloom. More hagiography than report, it would have brought a blush to Lula's bearded cheeks if he'd have heard it!
*
6/11 Afghanistan again led this edition and Robin Lustig discussed the matter with (a) someone who advised President Obama during his election campaign, Marvin Weinbaum, and then (b) Patricia DeGennaro, a professor at NYU who regularly blogs for the left-liberal Huffington Post. A spot of left-liberal bias there for sure. More on the Fort Hood killings and a report on whether TV helped bring down the Berlin Wall (and a piece on Santa School - yes, about training santas) led to a bit of AGW chat with the head of the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer. An interesting report on the U.N.'s conference on migration in Athens by the Beeb's Malcolm Brabant quarantined a couple of sage voices from the Third World (protesters) who opposed migration on the grounds that it harmed their countries (depriving them of skilled people) between two advocates for migration, William L. Swing of the International Organisation for Migration and the U.N.'s Peter Sutherland, who got the last word (hymning the glories of migration). (Note that no-one from, say, Migration Watch got a look-in here).
*(Not
9/11 Ritula Shah took over for this edition and the opening discussion of nuclear power centred on interviews with Lib Dem leftie Simon Hughes, an opponent of nuclear power, and a newly-converted Stephen Tindale (former head of Greenpeace) - who supports it to 'save the planet'. A balanced argument on nuclear power certainly, but a debate between people on the Left nonetheless. The BBC's Roger Harribin then added this thoughts. Next up came a discussion on the fall of the Berlin Wall between the Economist's liberal-minded Edward Lucas (formerly of the BBC and The Independent) and left-wing Neal Ascherson of The Observer. This was followed by a report on the Tories and poverty by Jonty Bloom - an ill-informed piece in which Jonty referred to "the Tory party of Wilberforce and Gladstone" . Now, does anyone with an interest in British history spot what's wrong with that statement? (Clue: check Wikipedia's entry for the famous Liberal Party prime-minister W.E. Gladstone!). A discussion about Yemen with Ginny Hill of Chatham House and The Guardian (naturally) and an interesting piece on China and Africa rounded off the programme. Left-liberal bias here? Yes, in spades.
*
10/11 This was a remarkable edition of the programme. It opened by discussing Gordon Brown, a grieving mother and The Sun with Charlie Beckett of the L.S.E.'s journalism think-tank POLIS. Presenter David Eades might have been expecting a defence of Brown and an attack on The Sun from such a source. He didn't get either and the result was a satisfyingly testy encounter. A piece on those poor Palestinians followed from Bethany Bell (complete with obligatory side-sweeps at wicked Israel) and Mahmoud Abbas's declaration that he intends to cease being Palestinian president was discussed with one of his chums, Ziad Asali of the American Taskforce for Palestine. The bulk of the programme, however, was a debate at Chatham House, hosted by Robin Lustig, on the Copenhagen Climate Change conference. It was prefaced by a report from the BBC's enviromental(ist) correspondent Richard (Since Kyoto "the scientific case for man-made climate change has strengthened significantly") Black and featured the voices of various Green activists, as well as Joan Ruddick, Labour's climate change minister, a climate-scarer from Grenada and someone from the Union of Concerned Scientists. All four of Robin's guests fully bought into the AGW agenda too, and every single one of Robin Lustig's questions came from the same stance. The panel consisted of disgraced Labour ex-minister Elliot Morley (though his career-sinking expense claims were not brought up); Steve Rayner, professor of science and civilisation at Oxford University; Mike Hume, professor of climate change and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia; and Cleo Paskal of the Energy, Environment & Development programme at Chatham House (and the liberal Toronto Star).
*
11/11 With Robin Lustig back in charge, this edition looked at the economy and interviewed John Philpott of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and John Cridland of the C.B.I., as well as featuring a report from Bishops Stortford by our old friend Jonty Bloom. Bishops Stortford has one of the lowest rates of unemployment, so that was obviously the place for the BBC to go on a day when the latest unemployment figures came out. Divided Cyprus, the Glasgow North East by-election (due the following day), and aliens and Christian theology were also discussed. Orla Guerin reported from Pakistan (a report that sounded exactly like every other report she's ever filed). Today's Afghanistan spot consisted of an interview with Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, yet another voice from the liberal wing of American politics.
*
12/11 At last, another centre-right voice (the first since Charles Walker)! Immigration was the hot topic and Robin Lustig conducted a joint interview between Labour's omnipresent Phil Woolas and Harriet Sergeant of the Centre for Policy Studies. Other pieces examined ivory trading in Zambia, Japan's relations with the U.S. and the thoughts of Russia's President Medvedev. Afghanistan today was discussed by (you guessed it!) two more voices from the left-liberal end of U.S. politics - former Clinton administration official Karl Inderfuth and long-term Bush-basher David Corn of liberal-progressive magazine Mother Jones. Any chance of hearing any American interviewee who isn't from that end of U.S. politics on The World Tonight some time soon?
*
13/11 The Obama administration's decision to try the 9/11 Guantanamo inmates in civilian courts in New York was first up for discussion. Doing the discussing with Robin Lustig were (a) a lawyer for the Guantanamo crowd, Tara Murray of Reprieve and (b) Tony Ortega of the very-liberal Village Voice (described by the very-liberal Robin Lustig as a "venerable New York newspaper", who praised the current administration and bashed Bush. More voices from just one side of U.S. politics. The undoubtedly venerable Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was the sage consulted over Asia-U.S. relations. I don't know what his politics are (though he wrote this, which is suggestive: "Obama decided early on that among the many messes he inherited from George W. Bush, China policy was not one of them.") Also discussed were time-zones, local elections in Kosovo, China and its carbon emissions, the Glasgow North East by-election result (discussed with Hamish McDonnell, formerly of The Scotsman) and the government-owned rail company, East Coast, which has taken over the running of the mainline on the East Coast from National Express.
*
I think all this conclusively proves that there really is a left-liberal bias at the BBCs The World Tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
