*
I've had a long-standing allergy to watching the BBC's Question Time. The audiences always used to seem so patently stacked against anyone from the centre-right that I would find myself getting too annoyed. So I gave up watching. Over the last year or so I've watched it at one remove through reading the hilarious commentaries on it on the Biased BBC website, with only a couple of forays into watching the programme itself. (Can you guess which ones?) I've now given it a proper try, and it's no so gruesome after all - if you're watching out for bias. The bias of David Dimbleby is a thing to behold.
*
Now, it's true that he gave Labour's Jacqui Smith a hard time on expenses (though when an audience member asked about the claim for pornographic films he tried to move on, saying "No, I think we've been around this"), and got in a sarcastic comment about Gordon Brown and the recovery-that-isn't ("You're saying Gordon Brown got the Americans out of the recession but can't get us out of recession"), but it was his treatment of the Conservative member of the panel - and the only one who wasn't from the political left-of-centre - that really got my goat. For most of the time he did not mock Jacqui Smith, but he certainly mocked Cheryl Gillan on several occasions.
*
Watch the programme and see Dimbleby pull a face (at 6.38) - a mock double-take - at Cheryl Gillan's answer to his first interruption. The topic here was Blair and the EU presidency. He went on to interrupt her 3 more times on this single question, contradicting her ("He did say that!"), then, when she talked of an inaccurate quotation, saying "Back to last week!" - 'humorously' drawing a comparison between what she had just said and what Nick Griffin had said! He got a handful of sniggers from the audience and the camera showed him with a very smug expression, laughing at his own quip.
*
Note that Lib Dem Lembit Opik was never interrupted, but Dimbleby twice quoted something he'd said - once at Jacqui Smith and once at Cheryl Gillan. To Ms Smith, he said "Lembit said this was Mrs Thatcher's idea to pay people and you didn't actually have to pay the money solely for your expenses. Was that why you named the wrong house as your home...?" . Then, later, to Cheryl came "what Lembit said was this was designed by a Tory government because they didn't dare put up MPs salaries...Is that true?" As has been widely reported, it was in the early 2000's that further changes to expenses opened a new sluice - and Mrs Thatcher wasn't in power then! Why only ask about what Mrs Thatcher did?
*
Dimbleby had prefaced this bit of Thatch-bashing with another leering dig at Cheryl Gillan: "Let's bring Cheryl Gillan in and let's not forget £4.47 tins for dog food, charged to all of us "(with a hand gesture to the audience). Did he mention any of Lembit Opik's dodgy claims? Or Elfyn Llwyd's? No, of course he didn't. No, it was 'let's embarrass the Tory' (as it wouldn't do to let all the disfavour fall on poor Jacqui Smith, and let's not embarrass the Lib Dems).
*
A final point. When John Sargeant launched another of his anti-Conservative attacks, and when this was followed by a sustained attack on Cheryl Gillan by Lembit Opik, you would have thought that common decency would have prevailed and that Dimbleby would have given her a right to reply. Not a bit of it. He went straight to the audience, then allowed Elfyn Llwyd to speak. Only when she insisted on having a say did he allow her to do so, though not before saying "Very briefly..."
*
Question Time is not for the faint-hearted right-of-centre viewer. A stiff drink may be needed.
*
Saturday, 31 October 2009
DREAM ON!
*
I had to smile at the start of last night's Newsnight, as Michael Crick said "I'm here with eight people who've just resigned from Somerton Town Council because they're angry about the persistent criticism of one local blogger". Michael Crick himself has been the target of persistent criticism from one particular blogger:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Crick
Is it too much to hope he'll be resigning too?
I had to smile at the start of last night's Newsnight, as Michael Crick said "I'm here with eight people who've just resigned from Somerton Town Council because they're angry about the persistent criticism of one local blogger". Michael Crick himself has been the target of persistent criticism from one particular blogger:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search/label/Crick
Is it too much to hope he'll be resigning too?
Friday, 30 October 2009
MORE BLOOMIN' BIAS
*
Wednesday night's The World Tonight featured another report from Jonty Bloom that crossed the line between simple reporting and outright advocacy. The issue was a highly political one - inheritance tax.
*
Robin Lustig introduced the report thus: "Unpopular the tax may be, but as our economics correspondent Jonty Bloom reports, there are economists who argue it's actually rather a good thing." If that had been how Bloom's report functioned, all would have been well. The problem of bias arises because Bloom himself used the views of those economists to himself argue that inheritance tax is "actually rather a good thing".
*
The first of Bloom's talking heads was "Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, which has been at the forefront of such free-market thinking and is named after the father of laissez-faire economics, Adam Smith."
*
Dr Butler made the case for scrapping inheritance tax for just 9 seconds before Bloom sprang his trap, asking him: "That's not what Adam Smith actually thought is it?" Dr Butler's answer lasted a further 13 seconds - and that was it. We never heard from him again. Having contradicted Dr Butler during the brief interview clip, Bloom then contradicted him again after the clip had ended!: "Adam Smith might have thought that, but what he said about inheritance tax is that it's the most absurd of all suppositions that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth".
*
By giving the opposite point of view from that of which he approves so short a shrift, and simultaneously undermining its advocate - twice! -, Bloom shows the true propagandist's knack for manipulating a story to his own ends.
*
He went on from that last quotation to make the point he wanted to make: "i.e. that passing on wealth to your children creates an increasingly unfair society and destroys the idea of a level playing field with equal opportunity for all". How can the poor ever catch up if the rich leave ever larger amounts of money to their children?"
*
As connoisseurs of bias will know, biased reporters have a habit of 'bigging up' the expertise of those whose views tally with theirs - and Bloom gave a plum instance of this before introducing his next talking head:
*
"That's one reason Irwin Steltzer believes in inheritance tax. And that matters, because he's listened to by governments on both sides of the Atlantic, including Gordon Brown's, and is sometimes known as Rupert Murdoch's representative on earth. Dr Steltzer believes that inheritance tax is fair - especially if these days it hits people whose wealth has been built up not by hard work and industry but just because they own the family home."
(
(Note, incidentally, that Bloom gives Steltzer his title 'Dr', which he did not apply to Dr Butler. I gave him his proper title!)
*
The third talking head also supported Bloom's argument: "And that isn't the only economic argument in favour of inheritance tax. In America the tax is supported by some of the richest in society, including Bill Gates Snr, the founder of the father of Microsoft. His argument is that self-made billionaires, like his son, owe a debt to society because they couldn't have made all that money in the first place without its help."
*
Note that, unlike in the case of Dr Butler, neither Dr Steltzer not Mr Gates Snr were (a) questioned or (b) contradicted.
*
And unlike Dr Butler, Dr Steltzer got a second bite of the cherry: "Making a lot of money then giving most of it away has long been a tradition of American billionaires and, although as Irwin Steltzer points out, not many of their children end up living in poverty, there is a wider social and economic good to be gained from taxing inheritance."
Bloom then proceeds to his conclusions, and here his advocacy for inheritance tax is full-on:
*
"Leaving millions of pounds to your own children, tax-free, always sounds like a brilliant idea, but if virtually no-one - no matter how rich - has to pay inheritance tax then we all have a problem. And that's increasingly what is happening. Inheritance is a tax that the very rich can afford to avoid, which doesn't effect the vast majority of us at all. In fact, fewer and fewer of us are paying it every year. And that is not necessarily a good thing because inheriting wealth destroys the incentive for future generations to study hard, make new discoveries, improve themselves, invest in new businesses and take entrepreneurial risks. As a society and an economy we should worry if increasingly large numbers of people don't have to work at all because the living is easy."
*
The political implications of all this were not neglected - for who, besides the 'free-market' Dr Butler, were against inheritance tax?
*
"At this year's Conservative Party conference it was hard to find anyone to say a good word about inheritance tax."
*
Ah, yes, it's the Tories who are wrong too.
*
This is not the only side-taking report from Jonty Bloom - as you'll click if you click on the label 'Jonty Bloom' below. The obvious and natural desire of parents to leave their children a good future was not considered, but, as an instinct, I'd guess it's nearly universal - except among the very rich, and left-wing BBC reporters.
*
Wednesday night's The World Tonight featured another report from Jonty Bloom that crossed the line between simple reporting and outright advocacy. The issue was a highly political one - inheritance tax.
*
Robin Lustig introduced the report thus: "Unpopular the tax may be, but as our economics correspondent Jonty Bloom reports, there are economists who argue it's actually rather a good thing." If that had been how Bloom's report functioned, all would have been well. The problem of bias arises because Bloom himself used the views of those economists to himself argue that inheritance tax is "actually rather a good thing".
*
The first of Bloom's talking heads was "Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, which has been at the forefront of such free-market thinking and is named after the father of laissez-faire economics, Adam Smith."
*
Dr Butler made the case for scrapping inheritance tax for just 9 seconds before Bloom sprang his trap, asking him: "That's not what Adam Smith actually thought is it?" Dr Butler's answer lasted a further 13 seconds - and that was it. We never heard from him again. Having contradicted Dr Butler during the brief interview clip, Bloom then contradicted him again after the clip had ended!: "Adam Smith might have thought that, but what he said about inheritance tax is that it's the most absurd of all suppositions that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth".
*
By giving the opposite point of view from that of which he approves so short a shrift, and simultaneously undermining its advocate - twice! -, Bloom shows the true propagandist's knack for manipulating a story to his own ends.
*
He went on from that last quotation to make the point he wanted to make: "i.e. that passing on wealth to your children creates an increasingly unfair society and destroys the idea of a level playing field with equal opportunity for all". How can the poor ever catch up if the rich leave ever larger amounts of money to their children?"
*
As connoisseurs of bias will know, biased reporters have a habit of 'bigging up' the expertise of those whose views tally with theirs - and Bloom gave a plum instance of this before introducing his next talking head:
*
"That's one reason Irwin Steltzer believes in inheritance tax. And that matters, because he's listened to by governments on both sides of the Atlantic, including Gordon Brown's, and is sometimes known as Rupert Murdoch's representative on earth. Dr Steltzer believes that inheritance tax is fair - especially if these days it hits people whose wealth has been built up not by hard work and industry but just because they own the family home."
(
(Note, incidentally, that Bloom gives Steltzer his title 'Dr', which he did not apply to Dr Butler. I gave him his proper title!)
*
The third talking head also supported Bloom's argument: "And that isn't the only economic argument in favour of inheritance tax. In America the tax is supported by some of the richest in society, including Bill Gates Snr, the founder of the father of Microsoft. His argument is that self-made billionaires, like his son, owe a debt to society because they couldn't have made all that money in the first place without its help."
*
Note that, unlike in the case of Dr Butler, neither Dr Steltzer not Mr Gates Snr were (a) questioned or (b) contradicted.
*
And unlike Dr Butler, Dr Steltzer got a second bite of the cherry: "Making a lot of money then giving most of it away has long been a tradition of American billionaires and, although as Irwin Steltzer points out, not many of their children end up living in poverty, there is a wider social and economic good to be gained from taxing inheritance."
Bloom then proceeds to his conclusions, and here his advocacy for inheritance tax is full-on:
*
"Leaving millions of pounds to your own children, tax-free, always sounds like a brilliant idea, but if virtually no-one - no matter how rich - has to pay inheritance tax then we all have a problem. And that's increasingly what is happening. Inheritance is a tax that the very rich can afford to avoid, which doesn't effect the vast majority of us at all. In fact, fewer and fewer of us are paying it every year. And that is not necessarily a good thing because inheriting wealth destroys the incentive for future generations to study hard, make new discoveries, improve themselves, invest in new businesses and take entrepreneurial risks. As a society and an economy we should worry if increasingly large numbers of people don't have to work at all because the living is easy."
*
The political implications of all this were not neglected - for who, besides the 'free-market' Dr Butler, were against inheritance tax?
*
"At this year's Conservative Party conference it was hard to find anyone to say a good word about inheritance tax."
*
Ah, yes, it's the Tories who are wrong too.
*
This is not the only side-taking report from Jonty Bloom - as you'll click if you click on the label 'Jonty Bloom' below. The obvious and natural desire of parents to leave their children a good future was not considered, but, as an instinct, I'd guess it's nearly universal - except among the very rich, and left-wing BBC reporters.
*
Thursday, 29 October 2009
YOU HAD A SECOND POINT MR MILIBAND?
*
This morning's double-interview between David Miliband and William Hague on the Today programme was not a pleasant thing to hear. Regardless of the content of the interview and the distasteful smear tactics employed by our foreign secretary (which cannot but do harm to our country's reputation in Eastern Europe), what concerns me is the pro-Labour bias again demonstrated by Jim Naughtie.
*
The interruption coefficients tell a part of the story, with that for Mr Miliband being a puny 0.1, while that for Mr Hague was a beefy 1.4.
*
William Hague was interrupted 9 times more often than David Miliband!
*
Miliband also got the lion's share of the interview (over 10 1/2 minutes compared to under 7 minutes f0r Mr Hague) and was asked fewer questions too.
*
Here is an outline of the interview (the colour-coordination marks the point at which the guests begin speaking):
0.00 Introduction
1.03 Question 1 (to Hague)
1.29 Answer 1 (Hague)
1.45 Abortive interruption
2.00 Question 2 (to Hague)
2.19 Answer 2 (Hague)
2.35 Naughtie heckles "Oh, come on!"
2.45 Answer 3 (to Hague)
2.57 Interruption (of Hague) 1/Question 3 (to Hague)
3.25 Abortive interruption
3.32 Interruption (of Hague) 2/Question 4 (to Miliband)
4.11 Answer 4 (Miliband) (which went on, without a murmur, for 1 min 23 secs before a faint abortive interruption!)
5.34 (faint) Abortive interruption
5.40 Question 5 (to Hague)
5.45 Answer 5 (Hague)
6.33 Abortive interruption
6.37 Non-question "Foreign secretary?" (to Miliband)
6.38 'Answer' (Miliband)
7.25 Interruption (of Milaband) 3/Question 6 (to Miliband)
7.51 Answer 6 (Miliband)
8.02 Abortive interruption
8.15 Abortive interruption
8.19 Hague takes over
8.45 'Clarifying' interruption
8.51 Abortive interruption
8.54 Interruption (of Hague) 4/Question 7 (to Miliband)
9.28 Answer 7 (Miliband)
10.00 Abortive interruption
10.36 Question 8 (to Miliband)
11.39 Answer 8 (Miliband)
12.50 Abortive interruption
12.57 Abortive interruption
13.01 Abortive interruption
13.19 Abortive interruption
All 4 of these half-hearted attempts to interrupt did not in anyway impede Miliband's flow, which continued for 1 min 40 seconds right through to its natural end!!
13.22 Question 9 (to Miliband)
13.46 Answer 9 (Miliband)
14.07 Abortive interruption
14.14 Comment, then non-Question (to Hague) "Mr Hague?"
14.17 'Answer' (Hague)
14.36 Abortive interruption
14.38 Abortive interruption
14.39 Interruption (of Hague) 5/Question 10 (to Hague)
14.43 Answer 10
14.45 Interruption (of Hague) 6/Question 11 (to Hague)
14.46 Answer 11
15.00 'Latvia, yes'
15.08 Abortive interruption
15.13 Question 12 (to Hague)
15.27 Answer 12 (Hague)
15.30 Interruption (of Hague) 7"Mainstream?"
15.48 Interruption (of Hague) 8/Non-question (to Miliband) "Mr Miliband?"
(Naughtie intervenes to let Miliband crash into Hague's answer)
15.52 'Answer' (Miliband)
16.10 Non-question (to Hague) "Mr Hague?" (Naughtie thought Miliband had finished - though he had another point to make).
16.12 re-puts non question "Mr Hague?"
16.13 'Answer' (Hague)
16.18 Miliband interrupts and takes over
16.26 Hague interrupts and takes over
16.31 Miliband interrupts again and takes over again
16.39 Hague interrupts and takes over
16.46 Interruption (of Hague) 9 to allow Miliband to make the point he hadn't got to make earlier!: "You had a second point Mr Miliband?".
16.48 Miliband continues the attack
17.04 Non-question (to Hague) "Mr Hague?"
17.06 'Answer' (Hague)
17.42 Interruption 10 (to allow Miliband to speak again - and get the last word!): "Last word, foreign secretary?"
17.44 'Answer' (Miliband)
17.51 (Hague)
17.54 (Miliband)
17.56 (Hague)
18.03 (Miliband)
18.22 Question 12 (to Hague)
18.26 Answer 12 (Hague)
18.29 Interview ends.
A disgraceful display by both David Miliband and Jim Naughtie.
*
This morning's double-interview between David Miliband and William Hague on the Today programme was not a pleasant thing to hear. Regardless of the content of the interview and the distasteful smear tactics employed by our foreign secretary (which cannot but do harm to our country's reputation in Eastern Europe), what concerns me is the pro-Labour bias again demonstrated by Jim Naughtie.
*
The interruption coefficients tell a part of the story, with that for Mr Miliband being a puny 0.1, while that for Mr Hague was a beefy 1.4.
*
William Hague was interrupted 9 times more often than David Miliband!
*
Miliband also got the lion's share of the interview (over 10 1/2 minutes compared to under 7 minutes f0r Mr Hague) and was asked fewer questions too.
*
Here is an outline of the interview (the colour-coordination marks the point at which the guests begin speaking):
0.00 Introduction
1.03 Question 1 (to Hague)
1.29 Answer 1 (Hague)
1.45 Abortive interruption
2.00 Question 2 (to Hague)
2.19 Answer 2 (Hague)
2.35 Naughtie heckles "Oh, come on!"
2.45 Answer 3 (to Hague)
2.57 Interruption (of Hague) 1/Question 3 (to Hague)
3.25 Abortive interruption
3.32 Interruption (of Hague) 2/Question 4 (to Miliband)
4.11 Answer 4 (Miliband) (which went on, without a murmur, for 1 min 23 secs before a faint abortive interruption!)
5.34 (faint) Abortive interruption
5.40 Question 5 (to Hague)
5.45 Answer 5 (Hague)
6.33 Abortive interruption
6.37 Non-question "Foreign secretary?" (to Miliband)
6.38 'Answer' (Miliband)
7.25 Interruption (of Milaband) 3/Question 6 (to Miliband)
7.51 Answer 6 (Miliband)
8.02 Abortive interruption
8.15 Abortive interruption
8.19 Hague takes over
8.45 'Clarifying' interruption
8.51 Abortive interruption
8.54 Interruption (of Hague) 4/Question 7 (to Miliband)
9.28 Answer 7 (Miliband)
10.00 Abortive interruption
10.36 Question 8 (to Miliband)
11.39 Answer 8 (Miliband)
12.50 Abortive interruption
12.57 Abortive interruption
13.01 Abortive interruption
13.19 Abortive interruption
All 4 of these half-hearted attempts to interrupt did not in anyway impede Miliband's flow, which continued for 1 min 40 seconds right through to its natural end!!
13.22 Question 9 (to Miliband)
13.46 Answer 9 (Miliband)
14.07 Abortive interruption
14.14 Comment, then non-Question (to Hague) "Mr Hague?"
14.17 'Answer' (Hague)
14.36 Abortive interruption
14.38 Abortive interruption
14.39 Interruption (of Hague) 5/Question 10 (to Hague)
14.43 Answer 10
14.45 Interruption (of Hague) 6/Question 11 (to Hague)
14.46 Answer 11
15.00 'Latvia, yes'
15.08 Abortive interruption
15.13 Question 12 (to Hague)
15.27 Answer 12 (Hague)
15.30 Interruption (of Hague) 7"Mainstream?"
15.48 Interruption (of Hague) 8/Non-question (to Miliband) "Mr Miliband?"
(Naughtie intervenes to let Miliband crash into Hague's answer)
15.52 'Answer' (Miliband)
16.10 Non-question (to Hague) "Mr Hague?" (Naughtie thought Miliband had finished - though he had another point to make).
16.12 re-puts non question "Mr Hague?"
16.13 'Answer' (Hague)
16.18 Miliband interrupts and takes over
16.26 Hague interrupts and takes over
16.31 Miliband interrupts again and takes over again
16.39 Hague interrupts and takes over
16.46 Interruption (of Hague) 9 to allow Miliband to make the point he hadn't got to make earlier!: "You had a second point Mr Miliband?".
16.48 Miliband continues the attack
17.04 Non-question (to Hague) "Mr Hague?"
17.06 'Answer' (Hague)
17.42 Interruption 10 (to allow Miliband to speak again - and get the last word!): "Last word, foreign secretary?"
17.44 'Answer' (Miliband)
17.51 (Hague)
17.54 (Miliband)
17.56 (Hague)
18.03 (Miliband)
18.22 Question 12 (to Hague)
18.26 Answer 12 (Hague)
18.29 Interview ends.
A disgraceful display by both David Miliband and Jim Naughtie.
*
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
MALE CHAUVINIST TORIES
*
A couple of recent blogs from Michael Crick show him up to his old tricks.
***
In 'Personally, I blame the kids' he seems to me to be trying to solicit our sympathy for a particular social group - Labour ministers:
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/10/personally_i_blame_the_kids.html * *
Why do many leading Labour figures seem to be "exhausted full stop"?
"Personally I blame the kids. No seriously. An interesting feature of the Blair and Brown governments is just how many leading ministers have young children (by which I mean children under 10).
"Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been in this category, of course, and among Mr Brown's senior colleagues, both of the Milibands, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper and Douglas Alexander all have young children, and those are just the ministers I can think of off the top of my head."
"In the past the children of leading politicians tended to be either teenagers or grown up. And there is another obvious factor, too. These days fathers are expected to play a much bigger role in childcare. Children cannot just be left with the wife or nanny all day, and every day.
Crick sympathizes:
"I know, as the father of a three-year old, just how difficult it is to get any time to do serious reading at home, let alone have a quiet think and plan ahead. Weekends are fully occupied, and the only spare time is the late evenings when one is already pretty tired. It must be a lot worse for busy ministers with full diaries, constant public pressure, media attention and constituency duties.
"Young children are no great respecters of parental sleep. You have to wake up when they wake up. Worse still are those occasions in the middle of the night when they insist on clambering into bed with you, as happens, I'm told, with one senior minister."
Three days later he follows up the theme of this tender-hearted post with a piece entitled 'Sympathy for the modern political parent':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/10/not_alone_in_blaming_the_kids.html *
This is a typical Crick anecdote:
*
"I bumped into one of John Major's old Cabinet colleagues this afternoon and ran past him my theory that this government may partly be exhausted because so many of them have young children.
"Oh yes," he said. "In my day you could simply farm all that out to your wife."'
*
Not a particularly funny story it has to be said, but at least it casts the Conservative Party in a bad, 'unreconstructed' light - so job done.
*
*
For all I've written about Michael Crick, it never dawned on me to look him up on Wikipedia. Having now remedied that omission, I read the following:
*
"Crick, a known Labour supporter, is known for his investigations of Conservative politicians and followed then Tory leader, Michael Howard around during the 2005 election campaign as part of his research for his biography of Howard, published the same year. Since then, Crick has investigated Conservative Party Chairman, Caroline Spelman for abuse of expenses."
*
They know him so well!!!!
*
A couple of recent blogs from Michael Crick show him up to his old tricks.
***
In 'Personally, I blame the kids' he seems to me to be trying to solicit our sympathy for a particular social group - Labour ministers:
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/10/personally_i_blame_the_kids.html * *
Why do many leading Labour figures seem to be "exhausted full stop"?
"Personally I blame the kids. No seriously. An interesting feature of the Blair and Brown governments is just how many leading ministers have young children (by which I mean children under 10).
"Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been in this category, of course, and among Mr Brown's senior colleagues, both of the Milibands, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper and Douglas Alexander all have young children, and those are just the ministers I can think of off the top of my head."
"In the past the children of leading politicians tended to be either teenagers or grown up. And there is another obvious factor, too. These days fathers are expected to play a much bigger role in childcare. Children cannot just be left with the wife or nanny all day, and every day.
Crick sympathizes:
"I know, as the father of a three-year old, just how difficult it is to get any time to do serious reading at home, let alone have a quiet think and plan ahead. Weekends are fully occupied, and the only spare time is the late evenings when one is already pretty tired. It must be a lot worse for busy ministers with full diaries, constant public pressure, media attention and constituency duties.
"Young children are no great respecters of parental sleep. You have to wake up when they wake up. Worse still are those occasions in the middle of the night when they insist on clambering into bed with you, as happens, I'm told, with one senior minister."
Three days later he follows up the theme of this tender-hearted post with a piece entitled 'Sympathy for the modern political parent':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/10/not_alone_in_blaming_the_kids.html *
This is a typical Crick anecdote:
*
"I bumped into one of John Major's old Cabinet colleagues this afternoon and ran past him my theory that this government may partly be exhausted because so many of them have young children.
"Oh yes," he said. "In my day you could simply farm all that out to your wife."'
*
Not a particularly funny story it has to be said, but at least it casts the Conservative Party in a bad, 'unreconstructed' light - so job done.
*
*
For all I've written about Michael Crick, it never dawned on me to look him up on Wikipedia. Having now remedied that omission, I read the following:
*
"Crick, a known Labour supporter, is known for his investigations of Conservative politicians and followed then Tory leader, Michael Howard around during the 2005 election campaign as part of his research for his biography of Howard, published the same year. Since then, Crick has investigated Conservative Party Chairman, Caroline Spelman for abuse of expenses."
*
They know him so well!!!!
*
BLAIR'S LONG WARK TOWARDS EUROPE
*
Robin Horbury on the Biased BBC website pointed out that David Miliband got a very easy ride on yesterday's The World at One (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/10/pushover-for-miliband.html). He certainly did. The interview lasted just under 6 minutes and Martha Kearney did not interrupt him once, nor were the questions especially tough (I.C. of 0). When Martha interviewed George Osborne later, in a 4 1/2 minute interview, she interrupted him twice (I.C. of 0.5), and told him off for repeating himself!
*
This contrast in treatment was as nothing compared to the Newsnight discussion between Labour's Chris Bryant and the Conservatives' Mark Francois, as conducted by Kirsty Wark. The issue was 'Blair 4 EU president' and the interview was nakedly one-sided, with Kirsteen attacking Mr Francois - who opposes Blair's presidency -, asking him 10 questions, while letting Mr Bryant almost completely off the hook, asking him a mere 2 questions - despite both guests getting similar amounts of time to speak!
*
As for interruptions, Bryant was interrupted twice (though the second of these was so that Kirsty could have another go at Mark Francois), scoring her an I.C. of 0.6 for him, whereas Francois was interrupted 5 times, scoring her an I.C. for him of 1.5 (all to ask him more questions).
*
She also took up Mr Bryant's accusations against Mr Francois, and put them to him as a question, but she did not take up any of Mr Francois's counter-accusations and put them back to Mr Bryant - such as the point that Tony Blair has hardly been a great success in his job as Middle East envoy (which surely she ought to have put to him).
*
All in all, a pair of clearly biased interviews from the clearly biased Beeb.
**
Robin Horbury on the Biased BBC website pointed out that David Miliband got a very easy ride on yesterday's The World at One (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/10/pushover-for-miliband.html). He certainly did. The interview lasted just under 6 minutes and Martha Kearney did not interrupt him once, nor were the questions especially tough (I.C. of 0). When Martha interviewed George Osborne later, in a 4 1/2 minute interview, she interrupted him twice (I.C. of 0.5), and told him off for repeating himself!
*
This contrast in treatment was as nothing compared to the Newsnight discussion between Labour's Chris Bryant and the Conservatives' Mark Francois, as conducted by Kirsty Wark. The issue was 'Blair 4 EU president' and the interview was nakedly one-sided, with Kirsteen attacking Mr Francois - who opposes Blair's presidency -, asking him 10 questions, while letting Mr Bryant almost completely off the hook, asking him a mere 2 questions - despite both guests getting similar amounts of time to speak!
*
As for interruptions, Bryant was interrupted twice (though the second of these was so that Kirsty could have another go at Mark Francois), scoring her an I.C. of 0.6 for him, whereas Francois was interrupted 5 times, scoring her an I.C. for him of 1.5 (all to ask him more questions).
*
She also took up Mr Bryant's accusations against Mr Francois, and put them to him as a question, but she did not take up any of Mr Francois's counter-accusations and put them back to Mr Bryant - such as the point that Tony Blair has hardly been a great success in his job as Middle East envoy (which surely she ought to have put to him).
*
All in all, a pair of clearly biased interviews from the clearly biased Beeb.
**
Sunday, 25 October 2009
DIZZY THINKS...
*
On the subject of the BNP and Question Time, I think this is all that really needs saying:
http://dizzythinks.net/2009/10/sanity-has-left-building-bring-it-back.html#idc-container
*
On the subject of the BNP and Question Time, I think this is all that really needs saying:
http://dizzythinks.net/2009/10/sanity-has-left-building-bring-it-back.html#idc-container
*
HERE'S MAXY!!!
*
Today's The Politics Show was back on the Conservatives' case again, sending cocky Max Cotton out to Prague to show off in front of the cameras and show up David Cameron. His immediate target was the excellent Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who holds what Max called "unorthodox" views on man-made global warming and European integration. "I've been racking my brains trying to think who he's like", he continued. His answer? "A sort of cross between Thatcher and Berlusconi, with a dash of Jack Nicholson" (before doing a cringe-making impersonation of the latter in 'The Shining').
*
This is all well and good, but nothing much to do with bias. That begins to emerge when Max informs us that "I'm told that the BBC have requested ten separate interviews with Mr Klaus in the last few days". I wonder why they're so keen. Is it just because of Mr Klaus's delaying tactics over the Lisbon treaty, and the need to find an answer to the burning question of if or when he will ratify it? I suspect not - if Max's report is typical.
*
Here was the point: "What has shocked pundits in the Czech Republic is David Cameron's intervention in what they see as their affairs." (What, all of them?!) He gathered a couple of people in a cafe to support his contention. One was the sociologist Jiri Pehe, advisor to former president Vaclav Havel (who had a very tense relationship with Mr Klaus), who focused his criticism of the letter sent by Mr Cameron to President Klaus on President Klaus. The other, Tom Clifford of The Prague Post, turned his fire on Mr Cameron - encouraged by Max Cotton:
*
Max C: "And Tom, you think Cameron is making a mistake here?"
*
Max C: "He doesn't understand the Czech Republic?"
*
Tom Clifford criticized away before moving the story on to where the BBC is happiest: "Cameron and the Tories are allying themselves with far-right parties in Central and Middle Europe."
*
Ah yes, we're back to those European allies again.
*
After interviewing two critics of Klaus and Cameron, Cotton went on to interview a third - Dr Lubomir Zaoralek, labelled as the 'Shadow Foreign Minister'. He, looking him up on the internet, is a member of the Labour-aligned Czech Social Democrat Party.
*
The simple question here is this: Why did Max Cotton interview 3 critics of President Klaus (and David Cameron), but no supporters? Is this balanced?
*
Today's The Politics Show was back on the Conservatives' case again, sending cocky Max Cotton out to Prague to show off in front of the cameras and show up David Cameron. His immediate target was the excellent Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who holds what Max called "unorthodox" views on man-made global warming and European integration. "I've been racking my brains trying to think who he's like", he continued. His answer? "A sort of cross between Thatcher and Berlusconi, with a dash of Jack Nicholson" (before doing a cringe-making impersonation of the latter in 'The Shining').
*
This is all well and good, but nothing much to do with bias. That begins to emerge when Max informs us that "I'm told that the BBC have requested ten separate interviews with Mr Klaus in the last few days". I wonder why they're so keen. Is it just because of Mr Klaus's delaying tactics over the Lisbon treaty, and the need to find an answer to the burning question of if or when he will ratify it? I suspect not - if Max's report is typical.
*
Here was the point: "What has shocked pundits in the Czech Republic is David Cameron's intervention in what they see as their affairs." (What, all of them?!) He gathered a couple of people in a cafe to support his contention. One was the sociologist Jiri Pehe, advisor to former president Vaclav Havel (who had a very tense relationship with Mr Klaus), who focused his criticism of the letter sent by Mr Cameron to President Klaus on President Klaus. The other, Tom Clifford of The Prague Post, turned his fire on Mr Cameron - encouraged by Max Cotton:
*
Max C: "And Tom, you think Cameron is making a mistake here?"
*
Max C: "He doesn't understand the Czech Republic?"
*
Tom Clifford criticized away before moving the story on to where the BBC is happiest: "Cameron and the Tories are allying themselves with far-right parties in Central and Middle Europe."
*
Ah yes, we're back to those European allies again.
*
After interviewing two critics of Klaus and Cameron, Cotton went on to interview a third - Dr Lubomir Zaoralek, labelled as the 'Shadow Foreign Minister'. He, looking him up on the internet, is a member of the Labour-aligned Czech Social Democrat Party.
*
The simple question here is this: Why did Max Cotton interview 3 critics of President Klaus (and David Cameron), but no supporters? Is this balanced?
*
ANOTHER MARRED SUNDAY MORNING
*
It's Sunday morning, so it must be the ever-biased Andrew Marr...
Compare and contrast this week with last week.
*
Last week's big political interview with the Conservative's Liam Fox saw Andrew Marr score a high Interruption Coefficient of 1.8, with 17 interruptions in an interview that lasted under 10 minutes. The equivalent interview this week with Labour toff David Miliband also lasted around 9 1/2 minutes but this time contained only 3 interruptions, scoring Marr a very low I.C. of 0.3. So, a very tough interview with a Tory spokesman one week and a very soft interview with a Labour spokesman the following week. That's Andrew Marr for you!
*
Last week Marr interviewed Billy Hayes, leader of the Communication Workers' Union, about the postal strike. This week he interviewed the boss of Royal Mail, Adam Crozier. How do these interviews compare? Well, Marr only interrupted the far-left union leader once but he interrupted the big-businessman 19 times!!!! Again, that's Andrew Marr for you!
*
Finally, when Clive James (on the paper review) brought up a story in The Sunday Times about Boris's 'plans' for a post-Olympic Games tower ('Look out Paris, Boris plans a 'Piffle Tower''), Marr yet again expressed a partisan personal opinion: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, it is - if true - an astonishing and worrying story, I would have thought." To which the only response should be, "Keep your opinions to yourself Andrew!" Why is he not censured for this sort of thing? He was clearly excited about the story, telling Clive "Hold it so they can see the picture!" At the end of the programme, we were told that Ken Livingstone's favourite policeman Sir Ian Blair is going to be on next week's show, so expect even more Boris-bashing then!!
*
Another dreadful edition of The Andrew Marr Show.
It's Sunday morning, so it must be the ever-biased Andrew Marr...
Compare and contrast this week with last week.
*
Last week's big political interview with the Conservative's Liam Fox saw Andrew Marr score a high Interruption Coefficient of 1.8, with 17 interruptions in an interview that lasted under 10 minutes. The equivalent interview this week with Labour toff David Miliband also lasted around 9 1/2 minutes but this time contained only 3 interruptions, scoring Marr a very low I.C. of 0.3. So, a very tough interview with a Tory spokesman one week and a very soft interview with a Labour spokesman the following week. That's Andrew Marr for you!
*
Last week Marr interviewed Billy Hayes, leader of the Communication Workers' Union, about the postal strike. This week he interviewed the boss of Royal Mail, Adam Crozier. How do these interviews compare? Well, Marr only interrupted the far-left union leader once but he interrupted the big-businessman 19 times!!!! Again, that's Andrew Marr for you!
*
Finally, when Clive James (on the paper review) brought up a story in The Sunday Times about Boris's 'plans' for a post-Olympic Games tower ('Look out Paris, Boris plans a 'Piffle Tower''), Marr yet again expressed a partisan personal opinion: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, it is - if true - an astonishing and worrying story, I would have thought." To which the only response should be, "Keep your opinions to yourself Andrew!" Why is he not censured for this sort of thing? He was clearly excited about the story, telling Clive "Hold it so they can see the picture!" At the end of the programme, we were told that Ken Livingstone's favourite policeman Sir Ian Blair is going to be on next week's show, so expect even more Boris-bashing then!!
*
Another dreadful edition of The Andrew Marr Show.
Saturday, 24 October 2009
BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE SOME BIAS?
*
Last night's Newsnight was a special from New York on the Great Depression and its lessons for today. If ever a programme demonstrated the BBC's left-wing cultural and political bias this was it.
*
The opening report from Paul Mason on the economic lessons of the Great Depression featured as its main expert Max Fraad-Wolff, a left-liberal economist from the 'progressive university' The New School and a regular blogger on the ultra-liberal Huffington Post website. The other two 'talking heads' were Professor Mark Gertler of New York University, a 'New Keynesian' economist, and Professor Alan Brinkley, 'progressive historian' of the New Deal at Columbia University.
*
The following roundtable discussion, hosted by Kirsty Wark, featured one of America's leading left-liberal voices, Arianna Huffington herself (of Huffington Post fame). Alongside her was our own Simon Schama, who left-wing views are well known. With these voices of the Left were Liaquat Ahamed, author of 'Lords of Finance', and Andrew Ross Sirkin, author of 'Too Big to Fail'. Mr Ahamed made plenty of left-wing noises, but the oft-interrupted Mr Sirkin sounded less shrill.
*
Next came another report from Paul Mason, this time looking at the cultural lessons of the Great Depression. Its main talking heads were cultural historian Morris Dickstein, author of 'Dancing in the Dark' and a proud, self-professed liberal, and one of Newsnight Review's regular gaggle of yakking lefties, the literature lecturer and frequent contributor to The Guardian and The Independent Sarah Churchwell. The third voice was the Obama-supporting head of the America's National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman.
*
For Kirsty's other roundtable discussion, guess who remained? Arianna Huffington and Simon Schama, of course. They were joined by another occasional Guardianista and Newsnight Review leftie, Hari Hunzru.and a cultural critic called David D'Arcy. What a left-wing love-in followed!
*
Even by the standards of Newsnight, this was a tour-de-force of bias.
*
Last night's Newsnight was a special from New York on the Great Depression and its lessons for today. If ever a programme demonstrated the BBC's left-wing cultural and political bias this was it.
*
The opening report from Paul Mason on the economic lessons of the Great Depression featured as its main expert Max Fraad-Wolff, a left-liberal economist from the 'progressive university' The New School and a regular blogger on the ultra-liberal Huffington Post website. The other two 'talking heads' were Professor Mark Gertler of New York University, a 'New Keynesian' economist, and Professor Alan Brinkley, 'progressive historian' of the New Deal at Columbia University.
*
The following roundtable discussion, hosted by Kirsty Wark, featured one of America's leading left-liberal voices, Arianna Huffington herself (of Huffington Post fame). Alongside her was our own Simon Schama, who left-wing views are well known. With these voices of the Left were Liaquat Ahamed, author of 'Lords of Finance', and Andrew Ross Sirkin, author of 'Too Big to Fail'. Mr Ahamed made plenty of left-wing noises, but the oft-interrupted Mr Sirkin sounded less shrill.
*
Next came another report from Paul Mason, this time looking at the cultural lessons of the Great Depression. Its main talking heads were cultural historian Morris Dickstein, author of 'Dancing in the Dark' and a proud, self-professed liberal, and one of Newsnight Review's regular gaggle of yakking lefties, the literature lecturer and frequent contributor to The Guardian and The Independent Sarah Churchwell. The third voice was the Obama-supporting head of the America's National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman.
*
For Kirsty's other roundtable discussion, guess who remained? Arianna Huffington and Simon Schama, of course. They were joined by another occasional Guardianista and Newsnight Review leftie, Hari Hunzru.and a cultural critic called David D'Arcy. What a left-wing love-in followed!
*
Even by the standards of Newsnight, this was a tour-de-force of bias.
*
A RITULAISTIC BIT OF TORY-BATING
*
Ritula Shah (of Radio 4's The World Tonight) conducted a double interview last night with Philip Hammond of the Conservatives and Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats. The topic was the economic recovery, or lack of it. Ritula was not even-handed in her interviewing (to put it mildly), both in the contrasting treatment of her guests and in the pro-government-intervention stance that all her questions came from (to both interviewees, even the pro-government-intervention Dr Cable). http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3
*
Here is an outline of how it went:
*
14.25 Question 1 (to PH): "Philip Hammond, now is not the time to put the brake on government spending. That's what Danny Blanchflower seems to be saying there. Isn't that borne out by today's GDP figures?"
14.57 (abortive interruption) "But they're already 0 point.."
15.06 Question 2 (to PH): "But they're already at 0.5% and there isn't any growth as yet".
15.50 Question 3 (to VC): "Vince Cable, is fiscal deficit the priority or should we be looking at more quantatative easing?"
16.16 Question 4 (to VC): "But that's overall government intervention though?"
16.30 Question 5 (to VC): "Where do we go from here?"
17.08 Question 6 (to PH): "Would you support that point of view?"
17.32 (abortive interruption) "But..."
17.46 (interruption/Question 7 (to PH)): "But what concrete steps would you take if you held the reins? For instance would you put VAT back up in January?"
18.13 (abortive interruption) "But what..."
18.20 (interruption/Question 8 (to PH)): "But what would you say to somebody like Danny Blanchflower who says that steps like that could tip us into depression?"
18.47 (abortive interruption) "Vi..."
18.53 (interruption/'Question' 9 (to VC): "Vince Cable?"
*
As you can see, Ritula Shah interrupted Philip Hammond three times (scoring her an I.C. of 1.0), whereas she did not interrupt Vince Cable even once (I.C. of 0). She also tried to interrupt Mr Hammond on four more occasions, which she never once did to Dr Cable!
*
Moreover, note that most of Ritula's questions to Philip Hammond asked about matters specific to Conservative Party policy (including criticisms from Danny Blanchflower), unlike the very general questions asked to Vince Cable (who was, as so often, treated more like an independent economist than a party politician).
*
All in all, a clear-cut case of Beeb bias.
*
Ritula Shah (of Radio 4's The World Tonight) conducted a double interview last night with Philip Hammond of the Conservatives and Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats. The topic was the economic recovery, or lack of it. Ritula was not even-handed in her interviewing (to put it mildly), both in the contrasting treatment of her guests and in the pro-government-intervention stance that all her questions came from (to both interviewees, even the pro-government-intervention Dr Cable). http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3
*
Here is an outline of how it went:
*
14.25 Question 1 (to PH): "Philip Hammond, now is not the time to put the brake on government spending. That's what Danny Blanchflower seems to be saying there. Isn't that borne out by today's GDP figures?"
14.57 (abortive interruption) "But they're already 0 point.."
15.06 Question 2 (to PH): "But they're already at 0.5% and there isn't any growth as yet".
15.50 Question 3 (to VC): "Vince Cable, is fiscal deficit the priority or should we be looking at more quantatative easing?"
16.16 Question 4 (to VC): "But that's overall government intervention though?"
16.30 Question 5 (to VC): "Where do we go from here?"
17.08 Question 6 (to PH): "Would you support that point of view?"
17.32 (abortive interruption) "But..."
17.46 (interruption/Question 7 (to PH)): "But what concrete steps would you take if you held the reins? For instance would you put VAT back up in January?"
18.13 (abortive interruption) "But what..."
18.20 (interruption/Question 8 (to PH)): "But what would you say to somebody like Danny Blanchflower who says that steps like that could tip us into depression?"
18.47 (abortive interruption) "Vi..."
18.53 (interruption/'Question' 9 (to VC): "Vince Cable?"
*
As you can see, Ritula Shah interrupted Philip Hammond three times (scoring her an I.C. of 1.0), whereas she did not interrupt Vince Cable even once (I.C. of 0). She also tried to interrupt Mr Hammond on four more occasions, which she never once did to Dr Cable!
*
Moreover, note that most of Ritula's questions to Philip Hammond asked about matters specific to Conservative Party policy (including criticisms from Danny Blanchflower), unlike the very general questions asked to Vince Cable (who was, as so often, treated more like an independent economist than a party politician).
*
All in all, a clear-cut case of Beeb bias.
*
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
WELL DONE MICHAEL CRICK!
*
Yes, you read that right. Michael Crick has published a post on his blog worthy of a political editor, and has hit the nail on the head about an obvious injustice towards UKIP:
*
Yes, you read that right. Michael Crick has published a post on his blog worthy of a political editor, and has hit the nail on the head about an obvious injustice towards UKIP:
*
Alan Bown and Michael Brown - spot the difference(s)
Spot the difference(s)
Case A: Alan Bown gave a political party
£363,697
1) It was his money
2) He had a business trading in this
country, making him eligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral
register when he donated although he was the year before, and also the year
afterwards.
Case B: Michael Brown gave a political party £2.4m
1) It
was not his money, he had defrauded it
2) His business was not trading in
the UK, so therefore he was ineligible to donate money
3) He was not on the
electoral register; neither was he the year afterwards, nor the year before.
Do you see the difference(s)?
Well the main difference is that the
Electoral Commission has doggedly pursued the Alan Bown donation, and today won
an appeal forcing the party to give up the money, despite a judge previously
ruling that the political party that received it had acted in good faith.
In the Michael Brown case the Electoral Commission has always maintained
the political party acted in good faith and need not repay money. Although
following the criminal proceedings against Mr Brown they have re-opened an
investigation, it has not had yet had any result and they have not managed to
say when, if ever, it will.
Oh yes there is one other difference:
This year the Political Parties and Elections Act went through
Parliament, and among other things it restructured the Electoral Commission and
gave it new funding and powers.
The political party in Case A, UKIP, has
no MPs and only three representatives in the House of Lords (where the
government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).
The political party in Case B, the Liberal Democrats, has 63 MPs and 71
members of the House of Lords (where the Government has no majority and is
particularly vulnerable to amendments).
At least those are the
difference that I can see. Perhaps you can you suggest others?"
Sunday, 18 October 2009
I'M SO BIASED I COULD CRY
*
If the UK-wide Politics Show was on less biased form that usual, the same may not be said of The Politics Show: Scotland. A three-way discussion on the future of Scotland's banks between Michael Moore for the Liberal Democrats, John McFall for Labour and David Mundell for the Conservatives resulted in the following interruption coefficients for presenter Glenn Campbell:
*
David Mundell - 0.9
John McFall - 0.4
Michael Moore - 0
*
One of the Mr Mundell's interruptions was a classic Politics Show ambush, quoting some mischief-making about his position from the centre-left The Sunday Herald.
*
*
Worse was to come.
*
**
Here's how Glenn began the next segment: "Now, MPs expenses are back in the news with Gordon Brown, David Cameron and others being ordered to pay back money they'd claimed."
*
This is simply untrue. Sir Thomas Legg did indeed suggest that Gordon Brown should pay back more than £12,000, but he did not suggest David Cameron should pay back a single penny, only asking for more information about a £200 payment.
*
My suspicions that Glenn Campbell dislikes the Conservatives and is not too keen on the SNP either, but has quite a soft spot for Labour and the Lib Dems grows stronger by the week.
*
If the UK-wide Politics Show was on less biased form that usual, the same may not be said of The Politics Show: Scotland. A three-way discussion on the future of Scotland's banks between Michael Moore for the Liberal Democrats, John McFall for Labour and David Mundell for the Conservatives resulted in the following interruption coefficients for presenter Glenn Campbell:
*
David Mundell - 0.9
John McFall - 0.4
Michael Moore - 0
*
One of the Mr Mundell's interruptions was a classic Politics Show ambush, quoting some mischief-making about his position from the centre-left The Sunday Herald.
*
*
Worse was to come.
*
**
Here's how Glenn began the next segment: "Now, MPs expenses are back in the news with Gordon Brown, David Cameron and others being ordered to pay back money they'd claimed."
*
This is simply untrue. Sir Thomas Legg did indeed suggest that Gordon Brown should pay back more than £12,000, but he did not suggest David Cameron should pay back a single penny, only asking for more information about a £200 payment.
*
My suspicions that Glenn Campbell dislikes the Conservatives and is not too keen on the SNP either, but has quite a soft spot for Labour and the Lib Dems grows stronger by the week.
*
GREEN MONITOR
*
How did they fare at the fair Shirin's lovely hands?
*
Time to speak:
Caroline Lucas - 4 minutes 10 seconds
Jo Leinen - 3 minutes 49 seconds
Mark Littlewood - 3 minutes 25 seconds
*
Number of interruptions:
Caroline Lucas - 0
Jo Leinen - 0
Mark Littlewood - 3
*
Interruption Coefficients:
Caroline Lucas - 0
Jo Leinen - 0
Mark Littlewood - 0.9
8
One of Shirin Wheeler's interruptions was simply a cut-off to pass the conversation on to another speaker, but the other two were much more telling of bias.
*
When Mark said "I'm not as persuaded by all the science surrounding this...", Shirin interrupted him, saying "What, what do you mean you're not persuaded by all the science?"
*
Even more typical of a true believer, she later went on to stop him in mid-flow when he began saying something she really didn't want to hear. He was saying "Caroline talks about the science as if it's so black and white. Climatology is still in its infancy. I'm not trying to dismiss those that..." when Shirin butted in with "Well, let's not go back to the science argument" and then said "Jo", passing the baton back to the pro-Green socialist.
*
*
Still, at least a mild AGW sceptic got a look in here. Later in the programme the focus turned to those wicked multi-national oil companies and their wicked doings in the developing world. Who did Shirin Wheeler discuss this topic with? Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth International and Claude Turmes, a Luxembourgeois Green MEP. Why interview one Green when you can interview two!!
*
This week's The Record: Europe was unmistakably biased in favour of one particular side of the environment debate -the Green side.
*
Presenter-in-boots Shirin Wheeler 
introduced the opening discussion about the forthcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change with a report full of images of melting icecaps and more alarming stories about the future. She stated firmly"The world needs to find a successor to the Kyoto Protocol" and reminded us of those climate scientists who "go on charting rising temperatures around the globe". As a long-term watcher of this programme, I think it's fair to say that Shirin is a devout believer in all this sort of thing.
introduced the opening discussion about the forthcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change with a report full of images of melting icecaps and more alarming stories about the future. She stated firmly"The world needs to find a successor to the Kyoto Protocol" and reminded us of those climate scientists who "go on charting rising temperatures around the globe". As a long-term watcher of this programme, I think it's fair to say that Shirin is a devout believer in all this sort of thing. *
The roundtable discussion that followed featured Green leader Caroline Lucas MEP, the head of the European parliament's Environment Committee and German Social Democrat Jo Leinen, and former head of media for the Liberal Democrats Mark Littlewood, who is now a leading figure in Green Monitor, a group that intends to keep a careful eye on the excesses of the Green movement - and a mild AGW sceptic. (He contradicated Shirin's figures, saying that there has been no overall rise in global temperature between 1998-2008.)
**
How did they fare at the fair Shirin's lovely hands?
*
Time to speak:
Caroline Lucas - 4 minutes 10 seconds
Jo Leinen - 3 minutes 49 seconds
Mark Littlewood - 3 minutes 25 seconds
*
Number of interruptions:
Caroline Lucas - 0
Jo Leinen - 0
Mark Littlewood - 3
*
Interruption Coefficients:
Caroline Lucas - 0
Jo Leinen - 0
Mark Littlewood - 0.9
8
One of Shirin Wheeler's interruptions was simply a cut-off to pass the conversation on to another speaker, but the other two were much more telling of bias.
*
When Mark said "I'm not as persuaded by all the science surrounding this...", Shirin interrupted him, saying "What, what do you mean you're not persuaded by all the science?"
*
Even more typical of a true believer, she later went on to stop him in mid-flow when he began saying something she really didn't want to hear. He was saying "Caroline talks about the science as if it's so black and white. Climatology is still in its infancy. I'm not trying to dismiss those that..." when Shirin butted in with "Well, let's not go back to the science argument" and then said "Jo", passing the baton back to the pro-Green socialist.
*
*
Still, at least a mild AGW sceptic got a look in here. Later in the programme the focus turned to those wicked multi-national oil companies and their wicked doings in the developing world. Who did Shirin Wheeler discuss this topic with? Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth International and Claude Turmes, a Luxembourgeois Green MEP. Why interview one Green when you can interview two!!
*
A TALE OF TWO PROGRAMMES
*
Two of Radio 4's Sunday presenters have been out and about this week -with very different results.
*
The World This Weekend's main story came from Macklesfield (which, for any Southern readers, is in Cheshire). Shaun Ley went there in hot pursuit of an embarrassing story for the Labour Party...no, sorry, I got that wrong...for the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have been experimenting with 'open primaries', but the rush to replace Sir Nicholas Winterton in a particularly safe seat has generated anger and Tory splits. Cue Shaun Ley: "What happens when the constituency association and the national party don't agree over who should be on the shortlist?", he asked. "Bad feelings and accusations of interference from London linger, leaving some with the sense this process may have been less than democratic". How embarrassing for the Conservative Party! Job done Shaun.
*
In contrast Paddy O'Connell on Broadcasting House presented what virtually amounted to an audio election-leaflet for Jack Straw. His report from Blackburn (in the fine county of Lancashire) featured lengthy excerpts from one of Jack's public meetings, where he mounts a soapbox and answers questions from all comers. This is admirable, and Paddy wasn't above saying so to Jack's face. 3 out of 4 of the chosen vox-pops agreed, describing Mr Straw's meetings as 'brilliant' and 'fantastic', and saying that it was 'splendid that he comes' and that he's 'a different brand to other politicians'. I have to say the answers I heard didn't sound very different from the usual answers politicians tend to give, but at least he stood there ready to take the flak. (You see, I'm falling for it too!!) There was also a gentle interview (I.C. of 0) with Jack Straw.
*
Paddy ended by giving a promise: "We'll follow other parties in the coming months". As Paddy is probably vain enough to google up this blog, let me say that I'll be listening to see that you live up to that pledge - and that you are just as kind to your other chosen politicians.
Two of Radio 4's Sunday presenters have been out and about this week -with very different results.
*
The World This Weekend's main story came from Macklesfield (which, for any Southern readers, is in Cheshire). Shaun Ley went there in hot pursuit of an embarrassing story for the Labour Party...no, sorry, I got that wrong...for the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have been experimenting with 'open primaries', but the rush to replace Sir Nicholas Winterton in a particularly safe seat has generated anger and Tory splits. Cue Shaun Ley: "What happens when the constituency association and the national party don't agree over who should be on the shortlist?", he asked. "Bad feelings and accusations of interference from London linger, leaving some with the sense this process may have been less than democratic". How embarrassing for the Conservative Party! Job done Shaun.
*
In contrast Paddy O'Connell on Broadcasting House presented what virtually amounted to an audio election-leaflet for Jack Straw. His report from Blackburn (in the fine county of Lancashire) featured lengthy excerpts from one of Jack's public meetings, where he mounts a soapbox and answers questions from all comers. This is admirable, and Paddy wasn't above saying so to Jack's face. 3 out of 4 of the chosen vox-pops agreed, describing Mr Straw's meetings as 'brilliant' and 'fantastic', and saying that it was 'splendid that he comes' and that he's 'a different brand to other politicians'. I have to say the answers I heard didn't sound very different from the usual answers politicians tend to give, but at least he stood there ready to take the flak. (You see, I'm falling for it too!!) There was also a gentle interview (I.C. of 0) with Jack Straw.
*
Paddy ended by giving a promise: "We'll follow other parties in the coming months". As Paddy is probably vain enough to google up this blog, let me say that I'll be listening to see that you live up to that pledge - and that you are just as kind to your other chosen politicians.
A FAIRER 'POLITICS SHOW'
*
As I always do a review of The Politics Show on Sunday afternoons, I can't really miss out on it this week, even when I've found only minor evidence of bias in it. That would be unfair of me.
&
Today's The Politics Show was much better behaved. Indeed the Conservative interviewee, Mark Hoban (one of the party's least able TV performers), was only interrupted once (I.C. of 0.2) - though he was ambushed (like other recent Tory guests) with something personally embarrassing, which Jon Sopel admitted his team had dug around for (a quote over demutualisation, in this case). In contrast Labour's Lord Adonis was interrupted 13 times (I.C. of 2.1). The big interview though was with Nick Clegg. This was not especially tough, especially when the questions moved onto bankers' bonuses and the postal strike, and contained 8 interruptions (I.C. of 0.9).*
*
Both the programme's reports were about the Conservatives. I've seen much worse (many, many times) on the BBC.
*
The first was about Boris's plans for an airport in the Thames Estuary, and the pros and cons were well discussed by David Thompson (and his various Conservative talking heads) - once we got beyond all the 'Fantasy Island' nonsense. Of course, the issue of Tory splits was doubtless in the minds of the programme's makers - and Lord Adonis praised the report for clearly showing just that! - and the 'Boris-is-an-idiot' element was probably also in their minds - and Lord Adonis also praised the report for clearing showing just what a daft idea it was! - but, contrary to the appreciative Lord Adonis, I didn't find it especially biased against the Conservatives, nor particularly unfair to Boris's big idea. Fair dues.
*
The second report was decent enough too. It looked at Conservative-run Essex County Council's intriguing plans to share many of its key responsibilities with private companies. Now yes, Jon Sopel's introduction was a little loaded in its language ("Essex Council calls it 'transformation', others see it as the effective privatisation of the council itself") and reporter Gillian Hargreaves's questions to the council leader Lord Hanningfield did seem to have the agenda of highlighting resultant job losses ("And how many will be working directly for you?", "So it would go from 7000 workers down to about 3500 directly employed by the council?"), but each side of the argument was heard. Saying that though, to each of Lord Hanningfield's two bites of the 'talking head' cherry, there were also two bites from a skeptical Tony Travers of the LSE, as well as a hostile bite from Heather Wakefield of the Silurian-era union UNISON. Still, as I say, I've seen much worse, many, many times, on the BBC.
*
As I always do a review of The Politics Show on Sunday afternoons, I can't really miss out on it this week, even when I've found only minor evidence of bias in it. That would be unfair of me.
&
Today's The Politics Show was much better behaved. Indeed the Conservative interviewee, Mark Hoban (one of the party's least able TV performers), was only interrupted once (I.C. of 0.2) - though he was ambushed (like other recent Tory guests) with something personally embarrassing, which Jon Sopel admitted his team had dug around for (a quote over demutualisation, in this case). In contrast Labour's Lord Adonis was interrupted 13 times (I.C. of 2.1). The big interview though was with Nick Clegg. This was not especially tough, especially when the questions moved onto bankers' bonuses and the postal strike, and contained 8 interruptions (I.C. of 0.9).*
*
Both the programme's reports were about the Conservatives. I've seen much worse (many, many times) on the BBC.
*
The first was about Boris's plans for an airport in the Thames Estuary, and the pros and cons were well discussed by David Thompson (and his various Conservative talking heads) - once we got beyond all the 'Fantasy Island' nonsense. Of course, the issue of Tory splits was doubtless in the minds of the programme's makers - and Lord Adonis praised the report for clearly showing just that! - and the 'Boris-is-an-idiot' element was probably also in their minds - and Lord Adonis also praised the report for clearing showing just what a daft idea it was! - but, contrary to the appreciative Lord Adonis, I didn't find it especially biased against the Conservatives, nor particularly unfair to Boris's big idea. Fair dues.
*
The second report was decent enough too. It looked at Conservative-run Essex County Council's intriguing plans to share many of its key responsibilities with private companies. Now yes, Jon Sopel's introduction was a little loaded in its language ("Essex Council calls it 'transformation', others see it as the effective privatisation of the council itself") and reporter Gillian Hargreaves's questions to the council leader Lord Hanningfield did seem to have the agenda of highlighting resultant job losses ("And how many will be working directly for you?", "So it would go from 7000 workers down to about 3500 directly employed by the council?"), but each side of the argument was heard. Saying that though, to each of Lord Hanningfield's two bites of the 'talking head' cherry, there were also two bites from a skeptical Tony Travers of the LSE, as well as a hostile bite from Heather Wakefield of the Silurian-era union UNISON. Still, as I say, I've seen much worse, many, many times, on the BBC.
*
A RED SOFA
*
The spread of guests on this morning's Andrew Marr Show was pretty broad, with two Labour politicians (Baroness Helena Kennedy and Lord Myners) and a Labour-affliliated union leader (Billy Hayes of the CWU), a Conservative politician (Liam Fox) and a Conservative-supporting actor (Julian Fellowes), as well as the leader on the SNP (Alex Salmond) and the historian/BBC presenter Dan Snow. Why then was the usual bit at the end on the sofa a gathering of all the Labour guests only. Couldn't (Shouldn't?) Liam Fox have replaced Helena Kennedy on the couch? It would have been interesting to hear what he had to say to Billy Hayes.
*
I will let the Interruption Coefficients do the talking now:
*
Liam Fox (Conservative) - 1.8 (with 17 interruptions)
Lord Myners (Labour) - 1.0 (with 6 interruptions)
Alex Salmond (SNP) - 0.2 (with 1 interruption)
Baroness Kennedy (Labour) - 0
*
Again, the Conservative gets the roughest ride.
*
*
On the paper review, Andrew Marr was openly agreeing again with left-wing sentiments. When the Baroness said "The focus goes off. Here we are. We're blaming post office workers, we're blaming public service workers, and we've lost our focus on the fact that it was the bankers who led us in the crisis that we're currently in, and that focus should not be lost", Marr added "Yeah, absolutely." When she criticized Afghanistan's President Karzai, he 'mmm'-ed supportively twice before adding another "Absolutely."
The spread of guests on this morning's Andrew Marr Show was pretty broad, with two Labour politicians (Baroness Helena Kennedy and Lord Myners) and a Labour-affliliated union leader (Billy Hayes of the CWU), a Conservative politician (Liam Fox) and a Conservative-supporting actor (Julian Fellowes), as well as the leader on the SNP (Alex Salmond) and the historian/BBC presenter Dan Snow. Why then was the usual bit at the end on the sofa a gathering of all the Labour guests only. Couldn't (Shouldn't?) Liam Fox have replaced Helena Kennedy on the couch? It would have been interesting to hear what he had to say to Billy Hayes.
*
I will let the Interruption Coefficients do the talking now:
*
Liam Fox (Conservative) - 1.8 (with 17 interruptions)
Lord Myners (Labour) - 1.0 (with 6 interruptions)
Alex Salmond (SNP) - 0.2 (with 1 interruption)
Baroness Kennedy (Labour) - 0
*
Again, the Conservative gets the roughest ride.
*
*
On the paper review, Andrew Marr was openly agreeing again with left-wing sentiments. When the Baroness said "The focus goes off. Here we are. We're blaming post office workers, we're blaming public service workers, and we've lost our focus on the fact that it was the bankers who led us in the crisis that we're currently in, and that focus should not be lost", Marr added "Yeah, absolutely." When she criticized Afghanistan's President Karzai, he 'mmm'-ed supportively twice before adding another "Absolutely."
Saturday, 17 October 2009
ANOTHER DATE WITH THE LEFT
*
Was today's panel on 'Dateline: London' any more balanced than last week's?
*
Well, in place of Johann Hari of 'The Independent' we had the ubiquitous Steve Richards of 'The Independent'. (Have the programme's producers never heard of 'The Times'?). Mark that up as one for the Left.
Then there was this week's Eurobabe, Agnes Poirier of La vie, who also writes regularly for 'The Guardian'. Mark that up as two for the Left.
*
Then there was one of the programme's most regular of regulars, Abdul Bari Atwan of al Quds, a left-wing Palestinian known for his shocking anti-Israeli comments. (He was treated with the utmost respect, as usual, by Gavin Esler - despite, as the fourth guest showed, talking utter nonsense about Pakistan's Taleban). Mark that up as three for the Left.
*
Finally, that fourth guest, was Shahed Sadullah of Pakistan's The Daily Jang. I have always assumed (from all his other appearances) that he too was a man of the liberal Left, but he talked such good sense throughout the whole programme that he surely can't be!! So mark that up as three and a half for the Left!!
*
Finally, throw in Gavin Esler - and that's four and a half for the Left!!!
*
As for the show's discussion of MPs and their expenses, it was typical of what I've seen and heard in recent days. Poor bloody MPs! "They are really angry", said Gavin to Steve Richards, the Political Class's apologist-in-chief. "They have good cause to be angry", opined Steve, who (as he always does) stuck up for MPs with a vengeance, damning our 'hysteria' over the issue and sharply criticising Sir Thomas Legg (or as Richards sniffily - and unpleasantly - called him "someone called Sir Thomas Legg", and later "this figure".) When he mentioned how MPs outside London might not even get second home allowance, Gavin Esler joined him in commiserating with them: "And that is a financial burden. There's no question that's a financial pain." When Richards derisively brought up the popular idea that MPs should be housed in a "dormitory" or "youth hostel", Esler laughed and joined him in the derision: "..which some people would like, wearing hair-shirts and a prison uniform." Delightfully, Mr Sadullah said that Pakistan's MPs are housed in a hostel - and that it's a good idea! That put a cat among the pigeons! It is a good idea. Gavin Esler should keep his opinions to himself.
*
Incidentally, the lovely Agnes was in full agreement with Steve and Gavin: "It's gone too far now", she said, talking of "the tyranny of transparency" and going on to drivel "It's very dangerous for democracy. There is something slightly fascistic to go after them again." She also asked a rhetorical question, "Why should you not get a kit-kat on the taxpayers?". The answer, Agnes, is that you should pay for it out of your already more than adequate wages, that's why. Journalists, like politicians, seem to have a much more 'flexible' attitude to the morality of claiming expenses than most people who work in the private sector.
*
*
Returning to the theme of this morning's post, 'Dateline' also touched on the report from the Cambridge Primary Review, with Steve Richards describing it as "good" and Gavin Esler trotting out the case against early testing again, asserting: "Steve, I mean, some surveys have said that, of the developed countries, British children are among the unhappiest, or the unhappiest, and there is a problem." (He's certainly putting those surveys to some use!). Esler ended by saying, "We'll leave it there. I'm glad I don't have to do any more exams." As I've said before, if he wants to give his opinions, let him resign and go onto the programme as a guest. Given the sort of guests the producers usually invite onto it, I don't doubt he'd be a regular!
Was today's panel on 'Dateline: London' any more balanced than last week's?
*
Well, in place of Johann Hari of 'The Independent' we had the ubiquitous Steve Richards of 'The Independent'. (Have the programme's producers never heard of 'The Times'?). Mark that up as one for the Left.
Then there was this week's Eurobabe, Agnes Poirier of La vie, who also writes regularly for 'The Guardian'. Mark that up as two for the Left.
*
Then there was one of the programme's most regular of regulars, Abdul Bari Atwan of al Quds, a left-wing Palestinian known for his shocking anti-Israeli comments. (He was treated with the utmost respect, as usual, by Gavin Esler - despite, as the fourth guest showed, talking utter nonsense about Pakistan's Taleban). Mark that up as three for the Left.
*
Finally, that fourth guest, was Shahed Sadullah of Pakistan's The Daily Jang. I have always assumed (from all his other appearances) that he too was a man of the liberal Left, but he talked such good sense throughout the whole programme that he surely can't be!! So mark that up as three and a half for the Left!!
*
Finally, throw in Gavin Esler - and that's four and a half for the Left!!!
*
As for the show's discussion of MPs and their expenses, it was typical of what I've seen and heard in recent days. Poor bloody MPs! "They are really angry", said Gavin to Steve Richards, the Political Class's apologist-in-chief. "They have good cause to be angry", opined Steve, who (as he always does) stuck up for MPs with a vengeance, damning our 'hysteria' over the issue and sharply criticising Sir Thomas Legg (or as Richards sniffily - and unpleasantly - called him "someone called Sir Thomas Legg", and later "this figure".) When he mentioned how MPs outside London might not even get second home allowance, Gavin Esler joined him in commiserating with them: "And that is a financial burden. There's no question that's a financial pain." When Richards derisively brought up the popular idea that MPs should be housed in a "dormitory" or "youth hostel", Esler laughed and joined him in the derision: "..which some people would like, wearing hair-shirts and a prison uniform." Delightfully, Mr Sadullah said that Pakistan's MPs are housed in a hostel - and that it's a good idea! That put a cat among the pigeons! It is a good idea. Gavin Esler should keep his opinions to himself.
*
Incidentally, the lovely Agnes was in full agreement with Steve and Gavin: "It's gone too far now", she said, talking of "the tyranny of transparency" and going on to drivel "It's very dangerous for democracy. There is something slightly fascistic to go after them again." She also asked a rhetorical question, "Why should you not get a kit-kat on the taxpayers?". The answer, Agnes, is that you should pay for it out of your already more than adequate wages, that's why. Journalists, like politicians, seem to have a much more 'flexible' attitude to the morality of claiming expenses than most people who work in the private sector.
*
*
Returning to the theme of this morning's post, 'Dateline' also touched on the report from the Cambridge Primary Review, with Steve Richards describing it as "good" and Gavin Esler trotting out the case against early testing again, asserting: "Steve, I mean, some surveys have said that, of the developed countries, British children are among the unhappiest, or the unhappiest, and there is a problem." (He's certainly putting those surveys to some use!). Esler ended by saying, "We'll leave it there. I'm glad I don't have to do any more exams." As I've said before, if he wants to give his opinions, let him resign and go onto the programme as a guest. Given the sort of guests the producers usually invite onto it, I don't doubt he'd be a regular!
THAT'S 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 7, 8 IN FAVOUR, 1 AGAINST
*
The liberal educational establishment released a report yesterday. The Cambridge Primary Review was all over the BBC, and the coverage it received was one-sided - to say the least. Wherever I turned, the BBC seemed to be backing its recommendations to the hilt.
*
Sarah Campbell's Today report came from Brentside School in West London. We heard from its headteacher, Melody Moran, who was an advisor to the Cambridge Review team. She argued for the advance of informal play-based learning - 'learning through play' - until the age of six. Sarah argued that play-based learning "doesn't dispense with literacy and numeracy skills." She asked Melody about SATS? She doesn't approve of them.
**
You would have presumed that the next segment of the programme to deal with the topic would have featured a dissenting voice. Not so, it was a long, sympathetic interview between Jim Naughtie and the report's lead author Professor Robin Alexander (a long-time high-up in the liberal Educational Establishment). Fair enough, of course - if dissenting voices were to appear later.
*
Characteristically, Naughtie prefaced his introduction with praise for the Labour government: "It [the report] finds a system it says has many good features and is in good heart, but the authors challenge the government head on about exams, about the scope of the curriculum, about the way children are introduced to formal learning - and when." He encouraged more in his first question, to which Prof Alexander replied, "We have a very good system of primary education" and "standards have risen". He went on, "What we're talking about is improving that system". In other words, Labour's done well but could do better - by following the advice of the liberal Educational Establishment all the way! Scrap SATS, league tables, and advance informal teaching and it will be full marks and a prize for Labour.
*
Naughtie was not neutral, as you can tell from this editorial (disguised, unconvincingly, as a question): "A cry goes up from parents and many teachers that there are simply too many exams and that means that the schools, whether they like it or not, not least because they know it will turn up in league tables, and parents are encouraged to believe league tables, teach to exams, and the weight of that pressure is so great that it actually disturbs the educational process and it distorts it because they teach for the papers. Now do you believe that?"
To which Professor Alexander replied, "Yes."
*
If you were waiting to hear an opposing point of view on Today, you would have been disappointed.
*
*
Tuning into the BBC News Channel between 5.00 and 6.00 again, it was the same story. We had another report from Sarah Campbell which featured two 'talking heads'. The first was Claire Jones, head of Tref-y-Rhys Primary School, who supported the Cambridge Review: "It's a well-known fact that children do tend to learn more through play because they're enjoying themselves." "That's a view, said Sarah, "echoed by the Cambridge Review", whose other leader, Dame Gillian Pugh, then appeared as the other 'talking head'.
*
The report was followed by an interview between a sympathetic Gavin Esler and Keith Towler, Children's Commissioner for Wales, who - surprise, surprise - was very keen on learning through play, and dead against SATS.
*
Later in the same hour, Esler discussed the issue again. This was a joint interview with two supporters of learning through play - a 'parent', Beverly Huby, and a 'primary school headteacher', Gail Larkin. Gail mentioned in passing that she is also on the national council of the headteachers' union, the NAHT. The BBC didn't think it germane to tell us that at the outset.
Esler (unlike Naughtie) at least had the good grace to admit that he was biased on the issue of testing: "Do you think therefore, it's a kind of leading question, but there must be no coincidence then that some surveys suggest that British children are among the unhappiest in the world?". Gail Larkin did indeed think that they are the "most tested and the most unhappy."
*
At the same time, on the PM programme, Elizabeth Owen, head of Tref-y-Rhyg Primary School, was interviewed by Carolyn Quinn. Last year the school dropped the entire primary curriculum for the strategies "essentially advocated in today's Cambridge Report". Unsurprisingly, she thought learning through play was proving a great success (but it's surely to early to say, I'd suggest!).
*
Carolyn Quinn then interviewed schools minister Vernon Coaker (the only person on any of the programmes I review who dissented from this liberal consensus). All her questions came from one side of the argument.
*
*
Are there no educationalists, parents, teachers, 'independent experts', journalists, tank-thinkers, etc, who think the Cambridge Primary Review is talking woolly liberal nonsense? If there are, shouldn't we have heard from them?
*
The liberal educational establishment released a report yesterday. The Cambridge Primary Review was all over the BBC, and the coverage it received was one-sided - to say the least. Wherever I turned, the BBC seemed to be backing its recommendations to the hilt.
*
Sarah Campbell's Today report came from Brentside School in West London. We heard from its headteacher, Melody Moran, who was an advisor to the Cambridge Review team. She argued for the advance of informal play-based learning - 'learning through play' - until the age of six. Sarah argued that play-based learning "doesn't dispense with literacy and numeracy skills." She asked Melody about SATS? She doesn't approve of them.
**
You would have presumed that the next segment of the programme to deal with the topic would have featured a dissenting voice. Not so, it was a long, sympathetic interview between Jim Naughtie and the report's lead author Professor Robin Alexander (a long-time high-up in the liberal Educational Establishment). Fair enough, of course - if dissenting voices were to appear later.
*
Characteristically, Naughtie prefaced his introduction with praise for the Labour government: "It [the report] finds a system it says has many good features and is in good heart, but the authors challenge the government head on about exams, about the scope of the curriculum, about the way children are introduced to formal learning - and when." He encouraged more in his first question, to which Prof Alexander replied, "We have a very good system of primary education" and "standards have risen". He went on, "What we're talking about is improving that system". In other words, Labour's done well but could do better - by following the advice of the liberal Educational Establishment all the way! Scrap SATS, league tables, and advance informal teaching and it will be full marks and a prize for Labour.
*
Naughtie was not neutral, as you can tell from this editorial (disguised, unconvincingly, as a question): "A cry goes up from parents and many teachers that there are simply too many exams and that means that the schools, whether they like it or not, not least because they know it will turn up in league tables, and parents are encouraged to believe league tables, teach to exams, and the weight of that pressure is so great that it actually disturbs the educational process and it distorts it because they teach for the papers. Now do you believe that?"
To which Professor Alexander replied, "Yes."
*
If you were waiting to hear an opposing point of view on Today, you would have been disappointed.
*
*
Tuning into the BBC News Channel between 5.00 and 6.00 again, it was the same story. We had another report from Sarah Campbell which featured two 'talking heads'. The first was Claire Jones, head of Tref-y-Rhys Primary School, who supported the Cambridge Review: "It's a well-known fact that children do tend to learn more through play because they're enjoying themselves." "That's a view, said Sarah, "echoed by the Cambridge Review", whose other leader, Dame Gillian Pugh, then appeared as the other 'talking head'.
*
The report was followed by an interview between a sympathetic Gavin Esler and Keith Towler, Children's Commissioner for Wales, who - surprise, surprise - was very keen on learning through play, and dead against SATS.
*
Later in the same hour, Esler discussed the issue again. This was a joint interview with two supporters of learning through play - a 'parent', Beverly Huby, and a 'primary school headteacher', Gail Larkin. Gail mentioned in passing that she is also on the national council of the headteachers' union, the NAHT. The BBC didn't think it germane to tell us that at the outset.
Esler (unlike Naughtie) at least had the good grace to admit that he was biased on the issue of testing: "Do you think therefore, it's a kind of leading question, but there must be no coincidence then that some surveys suggest that British children are among the unhappiest in the world?". Gail Larkin did indeed think that they are the "most tested and the most unhappy."
*
At the same time, on the PM programme, Elizabeth Owen, head of Tref-y-Rhyg Primary School, was interviewed by Carolyn Quinn. Last year the school dropped the entire primary curriculum for the strategies "essentially advocated in today's Cambridge Report". Unsurprisingly, she thought learning through play was proving a great success (but it's surely to early to say, I'd suggest!).
*
Carolyn Quinn then interviewed schools minister Vernon Coaker (the only person on any of the programmes I review who dissented from this liberal consensus). All her questions came from one side of the argument.
*
*
Are there no educationalists, parents, teachers, 'independent experts', journalists, tank-thinkers, etc, who think the Cambridge Primary Review is talking woolly liberal nonsense? If there are, shouldn't we have heard from them?
*
Friday, 16 October 2009
IS THE BBC ALSO BIASED AGAINST THE SNP?
*
The Scots Nats have a real bee in their bonnet about bias at the BBC. (That's rich, coming from me!!) Witness today's entertaining tussle between Alex Salmond and Anita Anand on The Daily Politics, following a piece by news reporter Adam Fleming.
*
The report featured (as usual) the pro-SNP singer Pat Kane (of Hue and Cry fame), as well as an anti-independence businessman and a skeptical academic. What particularly got Big Al's goat though was the straw poll young Adam conducted in a carriage on the Glasgow underground. Less than a third supported independence, and when the show of hands came for those in support of the union, Adam Fleming cried "Ooh, a big majority don't want independence in this carriage!"
*
Alex Salmond was at his most sarcastic in the exchanges that followed, describing the straw poll as "highly scientific" and began his interview with the words "Wow! The usual impartiality of the British Brainwashing Corporation at its best!"
*
Tell us about it Alex!
*
*
The Scots Nats have a real bee in their bonnet about bias at the BBC. (That's rich, coming from me!!) Witness today's entertaining tussle between Alex Salmond and Anita Anand on The Daily Politics, following a piece by news reporter Adam Fleming.
*
The report featured (as usual) the pro-SNP singer Pat Kane (of Hue and Cry fame), as well as an anti-independence businessman and a skeptical academic. What particularly got Big Al's goat though was the straw poll young Adam conducted in a carriage on the Glasgow underground. Less than a third supported independence, and when the show of hands came for those in support of the union, Adam Fleming cried "Ooh, a big majority don't want independence in this carriage!"
*
Alex Salmond was at his most sarcastic in the exchanges that followed, describing the straw poll as "highly scientific" and began his interview with the words "Wow! The usual impartiality of the British Brainwashing Corporation at its best!"
*
Tell us about it Alex!
*
*
*UPDATE
*
The sparring between the SNP and the BBC continued on Sunday 18th October's The Politics Show: Scotland, when Alex Salmond reacted to a report from the lovely Catriona Renton with these words: "Quite a remarkable report. You'd almost think it were a Labour councillor reporting from our conference!"
*
Tell us about it Alex!
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
ON THE SCENT OF BIAS?
*
Following on from my last posting, I tried the 5.00-6.00 pm slice of the BBC News Channel again to see if yesterday - with its 3 Labour MPs and 2 Labour-supporting union leaders - was typical. It looks as if it wasn't. The only political type on today's edition (again hosted by Huw Edwards) was the Conservative defence spokesman, Dr Liam Fox. Like all those Labour folk on yesterday's programme, he wasn't interrupted either. So no signs of bias?
*
Well, Liam Fox was invited onto the channel to comment on Gordon Brown's Afghan statement, and the provisional decision to send more of our troops to Afghanistan. His interview lasted less than 2 minutes (1 min 56 secs to be exact). For such an important subject, surely more time should have been provided to hear what the shadow defence secretary thinks about the issue. With a feature on the premiere of (of all things) 'Fantastic Mr Fox' still to come, it was not as if there was a lack of available time!
*
Being an inveterate counter of things, I would just compare that miserly interview time with those given to yesterday's (Labour Party) interviewees:
*
Harriet Harman - 4 mins 29 secs
Peter Mandelson - 5 mins 32 secs
Bill Etherington - 2 mins 28 secs
Dave Ward - 3 mins 17 secs
Tony Woodley - 3 mins 52 secs (actually interviewed by a business reporter called Dominic).
*
Total - 19 mins 38 secs
As a perhaps trivial sideline, I noticed that Huw ended his interview with Liam Fox with a matter-of-fact delivery of the line, "Liam Fox, thank you very much". My ears may not be as sharp as a fox's, but they pricked up at that, as I remembered how effusively he thanked his Labour guests yesterday. The contrast sounded striking. Thankfully, I had not deleted my recordings of yesterday's programme and can transcribe Huw's goodbyes. Though you won't, of course, hear the tone of the comments you will be able to spot the difference in his actual words :
*
"Harriet Harman, good to talk to you. Thank you very much."
*
"Lord Mandelson, good to talk to you. Thank you very much."
*
"Mr Ward, good to talk to you. Thank you very much for joining us."
*
(To Bill Etherington:) "It's good of you to join us. Thank you very much."
(He also, incidentally, called Harriet Harman "Harriet".)
*
Is Huw Edwards friendlier to Labour folk than to Conservative folk?
*
I think Huw (and his 5.00 colleagues and producers) may still need watching. Only a large sample of the channel's programmes (for just this one hour each day) will show if there really is demonstrable bias here - or not. These could still be atypical. We'll see.
*
Following on from my last posting, I tried the 5.00-6.00 pm slice of the BBC News Channel again to see if yesterday - with its 3 Labour MPs and 2 Labour-supporting union leaders - was typical. It looks as if it wasn't. The only political type on today's edition (again hosted by Huw Edwards) was the Conservative defence spokesman, Dr Liam Fox. Like all those Labour folk on yesterday's programme, he wasn't interrupted either. So no signs of bias?
*
Well, Liam Fox was invited onto the channel to comment on Gordon Brown's Afghan statement, and the provisional decision to send more of our troops to Afghanistan. His interview lasted less than 2 minutes (1 min 56 secs to be exact). For such an important subject, surely more time should have been provided to hear what the shadow defence secretary thinks about the issue. With a feature on the premiere of (of all things) 'Fantastic Mr Fox' still to come, it was not as if there was a lack of available time!
*
Being an inveterate counter of things, I would just compare that miserly interview time with those given to yesterday's (Labour Party) interviewees:
*
Harriet Harman - 4 mins 29 secs
Peter Mandelson - 5 mins 32 secs
Bill Etherington - 2 mins 28 secs
Dave Ward - 3 mins 17 secs
Tony Woodley - 3 mins 52 secs (actually interviewed by a business reporter called Dominic).
*
Total - 19 mins 38 secs
As a perhaps trivial sideline, I noticed that Huw ended his interview with Liam Fox with a matter-of-fact delivery of the line, "Liam Fox, thank you very much". My ears may not be as sharp as a fox's, but they pricked up at that, as I remembered how effusively he thanked his Labour guests yesterday. The contrast sounded striking. Thankfully, I had not deleted my recordings of yesterday's programme and can transcribe Huw's goodbyes. Though you won't, of course, hear the tone of the comments you will be able to spot the difference in his actual words :
*
"Harriet Harman, good to talk to you. Thank you very much."
*
"Lord Mandelson, good to talk to you. Thank you very much."
*
"Mr Ward, good to talk to you. Thank you very much for joining us."
*
(To Bill Etherington:) "It's good of you to join us. Thank you very much."
(He also, incidentally, called Harriet Harman "Harriet".)
*
Is Huw Edwards friendlier to Labour folk than to Conservative folk?
*
I think Huw (and his 5.00 colleagues and producers) may still need watching. Only a large sample of the channel's programmes (for just this one hour each day) will show if there really is demonstrable bias here - or not. These could still be atypical. We'll see.
*
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
NOW, JUST WHAT DO ALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE IN COMMON?
*
Not having time to watch the BBC's 24-hour News Channel much these days, I rarely comment on it, but - as an experiment - I thought I'd dip my toes in the water again today & see what happened between 5.00 and 6.00 when Huw Edwards is its presenter. All I will say is that we had full interviews with Labour's Harriet Harman, Labour's Peter Mandelson and Labour's Bill Etherington MP, as well as an interview with Tony Woodley, leader of the Labour-affiliated UNITE union and one with Dave Ward, deputy leader of the Labour-affiliated Communication Workers' Union. There's something they all have in common, but I just can't put my finger on it...
*
Huw didn't interrupt any of them.
*
I hope this is not typical. I may have to start covering the 5.00-6.00 pm slot each day if it is!
Not having time to watch the BBC's 24-hour News Channel much these days, I rarely comment on it, but - as an experiment - I thought I'd dip my toes in the water again today & see what happened between 5.00 and 6.00 when Huw Edwards is its presenter. All I will say is that we had full interviews with Labour's Harriet Harman, Labour's Peter Mandelson and Labour's Bill Etherington MP, as well as an interview with Tony Woodley, leader of the Labour-affiliated UNITE union and one with Dave Ward, deputy leader of the Labour-affiliated Communication Workers' Union. There's something they all have in common, but I just can't put my finger on it...
*
Huw didn't interrupt any of them.
*
I hope this is not typical. I may have to start covering the 5.00-6.00 pm slot each day if it is!
WHAT'S PETER FROM HARTLEPOOL GOT TO SAY, ANITA?
*
Today's The Daily Politics must have received a lot of e-mails on the subject of MPs' expenses. As Anita Anand said, "It's one of those subjects when people e-mail even before we've come on air!" I wonder how many they actually received. I think it would be interesting to know. Even better, they should all be put on their website, so that we can see exactly what their viewers are saying. That way no-one will think that Anita is being selective (in the bad sense of the word) when she chooses just two of those e-mails to read out on air, and one contains an attack on the Tories.
*
Here they are in full:
*
"The MPs should repay the money. They morally knew they shouldn't have been claiming in the first place. Their egos, their greed are now deflecting precious time and energy from the nation's serious problems".
"Although many claims, made by MPs can be seen as outrageous and greedy, the really big scandal is still not making the headlines - mortgage claims, capital gains on second homes. Please, please put a politician, particularly a Tory, on the spot over the issue and explain why it's right that an MP makes a sometimes hefty capital gain from financial transactions that could be largely funded by the taxpayer".
*
So, one makes a general point about MPs as a whole, while the other one makes an attack on the Conservatives! Did no-one specifically attack Labour? What proportion of all the e-mails received attacked the political class as a whole? What percentages (roughly, or precisely) attacked each party? How representative was the second e-mail? How will we ever know if it was actually highly unrepresentative, and if Anita Anand chose it only because she saw that it contained a dig at the Tories? I am deeply suspicious about this. (What's new?!)
*
Today's The Daily Politics must have received a lot of e-mails on the subject of MPs' expenses. As Anita Anand said, "It's one of those subjects when people e-mail even before we've come on air!" I wonder how many they actually received. I think it would be interesting to know. Even better, they should all be put on their website, so that we can see exactly what their viewers are saying. That way no-one will think that Anita is being selective (in the bad sense of the word) when she chooses just two of those e-mails to read out on air, and one contains an attack on the Tories.
*
Here they are in full:
*
"The MPs should repay the money. They morally knew they shouldn't have been claiming in the first place. Their egos, their greed are now deflecting precious time and energy from the nation's serious problems".
"Although many claims, made by MPs can be seen as outrageous and greedy, the really big scandal is still not making the headlines - mortgage claims, capital gains on second homes. Please, please put a politician, particularly a Tory, on the spot over the issue and explain why it's right that an MP makes a sometimes hefty capital gain from financial transactions that could be largely funded by the taxpayer".
*
So, one makes a general point about MPs as a whole, while the other one makes an attack on the Conservatives! Did no-one specifically attack Labour? What proportion of all the e-mails received attacked the political class as a whole? What percentages (roughly, or precisely) attacked each party? How representative was the second e-mail? How will we ever know if it was actually highly unrepresentative, and if Anita Anand chose it only because she saw that it contained a dig at the Tories? I am deeply suspicious about this. (What's new?!)
*
ONLY CONNECT
*
Sunday's The World This Weekend went to a Conservative constituency (Bracknell), home of expense-scandal-hit Andrew Mackie. On this morning's Today "reporter Jack Izzard went to the Huntingdon constituency of the Conservative MP Jonathon Djanogly, who did not break the rules but has volunteered to pay back £25,000, to see if his constituents have any sympathy for MPs" (the programme's own blurb). Izzard made sure to mention that Mr Djanogly is a "millionaire". Which Conservative-held constituency is next?
Sunday's The World This Weekend went to a Conservative constituency (Bracknell), home of expense-scandal-hit Andrew Mackie. On this morning's Today "reporter Jack Izzard went to the Huntingdon constituency of the Conservative MP Jonathon Djanogly, who did not break the rules but has volunteered to pay back £25,000, to see if his constituents have any sympathy for MPs" (the programme's own blurb). Izzard made sure to mention that Mr Djanogly is a "millionaire". Which Conservative-held constituency is next?
Monday, 12 October 2009
OUR MAIN STORY IS...
*
The big breaking news story between 4.00-5.00 on Monday 12th September 2009 was the arrival of the first of Sir Thomas Legg's letters to MPs. The three main party leaders were handed their letters first. David Cameron came out best, with a request for more information on £200-worth of mortgage payments that he paid back some time ago. Nick Clegg, however, was told to repay £910. By far the worst was Gordon Brown, who Sir Thomas told to pay back £12, 415.10. Ouch! Also in this hour, former Labour home secretary Jacqui Smith had to apologise to parliament over her expense claims. Big news, breaking like a tidal wave.
*
So when the BBC News Channel's 5.00 programme with Huw Edwards began I (and surely every viewer) was expecting it to be the lead story. (It certainly was on Sky's 5.00 news programme). No, amazingly it wasn't.
*
Surely to the sound of jaws dropping across the country, Huw said "Our main story is that Vanessa George, the nursery worker from Plymouth convicted of sexually abusing children in her care, described her own behaviour as 'vile' and admitted that she knew she was doing wrong."
*
Only in some strange parallel universe should this have been considered the main story at 5.00 on Monday 12th September 2009!! In what sense is it even a big story at all?
*
On the day when we found that yet more of our national assets are to be sold off (doubtless, like our gold reserves, at a knock-down price), and when a 13-year old suicide bomber killed dozens in Pakistan, and when a sitting Labour prime minister was ordered to pay back over £12,000 of taxpayer's money, and when legions of other MPs are about to find them being shown again to be troughers they are, and when lots of shameless Labour MPs are going around grousing about Sir Thomas Legg, on that very day the BBC New Channel chooses to lead its 5 o'clock broadcast with a convicted paedophile saying she knew she was doing wrong.
*
Absolutely staggering!
*
Now, the main story at 5.00pm should obviously have been about Gordon Brown, our prime minister. Is it really too cynical to think that the BBC put a (relative) non-story as its main story because it wanted to downplay the importance of a potentially very damaging story for the Labour Party? Is that really too cynical?
*
The big breaking news story between 4.00-5.00 on Monday 12th September 2009 was the arrival of the first of Sir Thomas Legg's letters to MPs. The three main party leaders were handed their letters first. David Cameron came out best, with a request for more information on £200-worth of mortgage payments that he paid back some time ago. Nick Clegg, however, was told to repay £910. By far the worst was Gordon Brown, who Sir Thomas told to pay back £12, 415.10. Ouch! Also in this hour, former Labour home secretary Jacqui Smith had to apologise to parliament over her expense claims. Big news, breaking like a tidal wave.
*
So when the BBC News Channel's 5.00 programme with Huw Edwards began I (and surely every viewer) was expecting it to be the lead story. (It certainly was on Sky's 5.00 news programme). No, amazingly it wasn't.
*
Surely to the sound of jaws dropping across the country, Huw said "Our main story is that Vanessa George, the nursery worker from Plymouth convicted of sexually abusing children in her care, described her own behaviour as 'vile' and admitted that she knew she was doing wrong."
*
Only in some strange parallel universe should this have been considered the main story at 5.00 on Monday 12th September 2009!! In what sense is it even a big story at all?
*
On the day when we found that yet more of our national assets are to be sold off (doubtless, like our gold reserves, at a knock-down price), and when a 13-year old suicide bomber killed dozens in Pakistan, and when a sitting Labour prime minister was ordered to pay back over £12,000 of taxpayer's money, and when legions of other MPs are about to find them being shown again to be troughers they are, and when lots of shameless Labour MPs are going around grousing about Sir Thomas Legg, on that very day the BBC New Channel chooses to lead its 5 o'clock broadcast with a convicted paedophile saying she knew she was doing wrong.
*
Absolutely staggering!
*
Now, the main story at 5.00pm should obviously have been about Gordon Brown, our prime minister. Is it really too cynical to think that the BBC put a (relative) non-story as its main story because it wanted to downplay the importance of a potentially very damaging story for the Labour Party? Is that really too cynical?
*
UPDATE
*
It looks as if it is too cynical, because ITN's 6.30 News has also just led with the Vanessa George story! Tabloid news values rather than bias seem to have driven this otherwise truly bizarre decision. To the BBC's credit then, it's 6.00 News did lead with the Expenses story!
*
*
MICHAEL CRICK ON 'NEWSNIGHT'
*
Not even Michael Crick could make this one look worse for David Cameron than for Gordon Brown, you'd think! In his report, he didn't even try. But being Michael Crick, there was this: "There were a lot of smiling faces. Presumably they'd been cleared. But one senior Conservative, a former leadership contender I saw, looked absolutely furious. He tore up his brown envelope and stomped off into the Commons chamber." A senior Conservative caught out on expenses and getting into a strop about it? What a surprise that Crick saw that!
*
Now, though, think again! When Jeremy Paxman chatted to him after the report, the attack on Cameron and the Conservatives came - along with a defence of Labour MPs: "But there is fury, particularly among Labour MPs, who think that Sir Thomas Legg has treated them unfairly by putting a cap on gardening costs and cleaning costs, but not putting any cap on mortgage interest costs. And there are more Conservative MPs who have claimed bigger amounts on mortgage interest, among them David Cameron who's claimed nearly all of his second-home allowance for mortgage interest, and they feel that Labour is being treated unfairly in that regard."
*
And on he went in the same vein: "There are senior ministers, I think, who think it's very unfair what Sir Thomas Legg has done in applying this retrospective cap."
*
Poor Labour! Wicked Conservatives!
*
Absolutely staggering!
*
(Note also that it was David Grossman and not Michael Crick who covered the embarrassing story about Jacqui Smith. Surprise, surprise!)
Sunday, 11 October 2009
FOUR AGAINST ONE
*
In the interests of seeing whether UKIP got fair coverage following their great success in the European elections I introduced The Record: Europe to my list of programmes (which, given the beauty of its presenter, Shirin Wheeler, is no hardship!).
*
This week's edition did indeed see Nigel Farage take part in a studio discussion with Timothy Kirkhope (Conservative), Fiona Hall (Liberal Democrat) and Richard Howitt (Labour).
*
I'll let the Interruption Coefficients speak first:
*
Timothy Kirkhope - 1.5
Nigel Farage - 0.9
Fiona Hall - 0
Richard Howitt - 0
*
From a related angle, these are the number of Shirin's interruptions:
*
Timothy Kirkhope - 8
Nigel Farage - 2
Fiona Hall - 0
Richard Howitt - 0
*
Note how clearly this shows the two parties of the centre-right receiving a rougher ride than those of the centre-left.
*
Nigel Farage was certainly interrupted (though, of course, he gave as good as he got).
*
Poor old Timothy Kirkhope, however, was on the end not only of a barrage of interruptions from Shirin Wheeler but also from the three other guests. (The Conservatives need to change their 'Not let matters rest there' tune if they want to breathe a little more easily during these sort of interviews!).
*
He also got all the hard questions (nine in all). Compare that with the Lib Dem leader, whose questions generally amounted to "Fiona?" and "Fiona, what do you think?". The Labour chap was only asked one question! (He had plenty to say though.)
*
Shirin also committed the cardinal sin of interviewing - twice! - when she interrupted Mr Kirkhope, made a criticism of him (or his position) and then, instead of giving him a chance to respond, invited someone else to comment!! I will transcribe both examples:
*
(interrupting) "I wonder, in fact, whether you're misleading people, suggesting that you can. Fiona, what do you think?"
*
"No, but...(pause)...isn't the natural conclusion of what you're suggesting actually putting Britain in a position where it might leave the European Union, which is what Nigel wants" (pointing at Nigel and inviting him to respond).
*
Essentially, what was meant to be a four-way discussion chaired by a presenter turned into an tough interview between Shirin Wheeler and Timothy Kirkhope, with other hostile questions flying at him from all three of her other guests!
In the interests of seeing whether UKIP got fair coverage following their great success in the European elections I introduced The Record: Europe to my list of programmes (which, given the beauty of its presenter, Shirin Wheeler, is no hardship!).
*
This week's edition did indeed see Nigel Farage take part in a studio discussion with Timothy Kirkhope (Conservative), Fiona Hall (Liberal Democrat) and Richard Howitt (Labour).
*
I'll let the Interruption Coefficients speak first:
*
Timothy Kirkhope - 1.5
Nigel Farage - 0.9
Fiona Hall - 0
Richard Howitt - 0
*
From a related angle, these are the number of Shirin's interruptions:
*
Timothy Kirkhope - 8
Nigel Farage - 2
Fiona Hall - 0
Richard Howitt - 0
*
Note how clearly this shows the two parties of the centre-right receiving a rougher ride than those of the centre-left.
*
Nigel Farage was certainly interrupted (though, of course, he gave as good as he got).
*
Poor old Timothy Kirkhope, however, was on the end not only of a barrage of interruptions from Shirin Wheeler but also from the three other guests. (The Conservatives need to change their 'Not let matters rest there' tune if they want to breathe a little more easily during these sort of interviews!).
*
He also got all the hard questions (nine in all). Compare that with the Lib Dem leader, whose questions generally amounted to "Fiona?" and "Fiona, what do you think?". The Labour chap was only asked one question! (He had plenty to say though.)
*
Shirin also committed the cardinal sin of interviewing - twice! - when she interrupted Mr Kirkhope, made a criticism of him (or his position) and then, instead of giving him a chance to respond, invited someone else to comment!! I will transcribe both examples:
*
(interrupting) "I wonder, in fact, whether you're misleading people, suggesting that you can. Fiona, what do you think?"
*
"No, but...(pause)...isn't the natural conclusion of what you're suggesting actually putting Britain in a position where it might leave the European Union, which is what Nigel wants" (pointing at Nigel and inviting him to respond).
*
Essentially, what was meant to be a four-way discussion chaired by a presenter turned into an tough interview between Shirin Wheeler and Timothy Kirkhope, with other hostile questions flying at him from all three of her other guests!
BIAS ON MY MIND
*
My suspicions about The Politics Show: Scotland's presenter Glenn Campbell seem to be being bourne out. Essentially, these are that he is softer on Labour and the Liberal Democrats than on the Conservatives and the SNP.
Today's programme featured a pretty gentle interview with Alistair Darling (I.C. of 0.6). Glenn interrupted Darling a few times during his answers to questions about a public sector pay freeze. (That does seem to exercise BBC employees, for some reason). When Glenn asked about Conservative proposals, however, and Darling repeatedly turned his fire on the wicked Tories - there were no interruptions whatsoever (in answer after answer). Uncanny!
Regarding Labour and the SNP, we witnessed a joint interview with the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council Steven Purcell and the SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon. Both got to talk for a similar amount of time and on the same topics but, whereas the Labour man was only interrupted twice, Nicola was interrupted 6 times. (In terms of I.C.s, that's 0.6 for Steven Purcell and 1.8 for Nicola Sturgeon).
Somewhat countering my suspicions though were the I.C.s accrued by Glenn Campbell during a debate between the four main candidates in the forthcoming Glasgow North East by-election - though not the one about the Conservatives nor the one about the Liberal Democrats!:
*
Ruth Davidson (Conservative) - 1.4
Willie Bain (Labour) - 1.3
David Kerr (SNP) - 1
Eileen Baxendale (Lib Dem) - 0
My suspicions about The Politics Show: Scotland's presenter Glenn Campbell seem to be being bourne out. Essentially, these are that he is softer on Labour and the Liberal Democrats than on the Conservatives and the SNP.
Today's programme featured a pretty gentle interview with Alistair Darling (I.C. of 0.6). Glenn interrupted Darling a few times during his answers to questions about a public sector pay freeze. (That does seem to exercise BBC employees, for some reason). When Glenn asked about Conservative proposals, however, and Darling repeatedly turned his fire on the wicked Tories - there were no interruptions whatsoever (in answer after answer). Uncanny!
Regarding Labour and the SNP, we witnessed a joint interview with the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council Steven Purcell and the SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon. Both got to talk for a similar amount of time and on the same topics but, whereas the Labour man was only interrupted twice, Nicola was interrupted 6 times. (In terms of I.C.s, that's 0.6 for Steven Purcell and 1.8 for Nicola Sturgeon).
Somewhat countering my suspicions though were the I.C.s accrued by Glenn Campbell during a debate between the four main candidates in the forthcoming Glasgow North East by-election - though not the one about the Conservatives nor the one about the Liberal Democrats!:
*
Ruth Davidson (Conservative) - 1.4
Willie Bain (Labour) - 1.3
David Kerr (SNP) - 1
Eileen Baxendale (Lib Dem) - 0
A HANDBAG?
*
The World This Weekend with Shaun Ley went beyond Westminster to consider the continuing repercussions of the expenses scandal. To where exactly? "I've been to a constituency in Berkshire where..." (wait for it!...) "...the Conservatives hope an open selection for a new candidate will neutralise the controversy over the expenses of their existing MP." Fancy that, going to a constituency with a scandal-hit Conservative MP, not a Labour one!
*
Shaun garnered a few vox-pops in the constinuency (Bracknell, held by Andrew MacKie). The first three were unimpressed with the Conservatives' selection plans, whereas the fourth - a posh chap, shortly off to the Caribbean - was supportive. A representative sample? We'll never know. How was the question phrased? We'll never know.
*
The World This Weekend with Shaun Ley went beyond Westminster to consider the continuing repercussions of the expenses scandal. To where exactly? "I've been to a constituency in Berkshire where..." (wait for it!...) "...the Conservatives hope an open selection for a new candidate will neutralise the controversy over the expenses of their existing MP." Fancy that, going to a constituency with a scandal-hit Conservative MP, not a Labour one!
*
Shaun garnered a few vox-pops in the constinuency (Bracknell, held by Andrew MacKie). The first three were unimpressed with the Conservatives' selection plans, whereas the fourth - a posh chap, shortly off to the Caribbean - was supportive. A representative sample? We'll never know. How was the question phrased? We'll never know.
*
****
In an intriguing instance where bias was avoided, take Paddy O'Connell on this morning's Broadcasting House. The BBC's discovery that Gordon Brown may be one of those who has to pay back some more expenses money after tomorrow was discussed with a political correspondent called Tim. Paddy helpfully interjected, "And of course David Cameron also had to pay back money as well." I just wonder though, had the story been about Cameron whether Paddy would have been quite so keen to mention Brown's previous pay-back.
MUG A TORY
*
It would be far too cynical to say that the reason today's The Politics Show ran an item on 'hugging hoodies' was to have the opportunity to get an interview with Chris Grayling and try to damage him with repeated questions about his gaffe over General Dannett's recruitment by the Conservatives. Far too cynical, so I won't say it.
*
That said, that's what happened. Jon Sopel's arms were in an animated mood as he questioned Grayling about whether 'hug a hoodie' has become 'mug a hoodie' before launching an inquisition into the gaffe and then launching another inquisition into Mr Grayling's own personal parliamentary expense claims, into which the team at the The Politics Show had been digging, in the further hope of embarrassing him: "...the last train, we looked at, we looked at, the last train goes at 11.42...."
*
It's certainly not too cynical to claim that The Politics Show was out to embarrass the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary. It most definitely was!
*
The interview's I.C. was 1.2.
*
By contrast Jon Sopel, with arms almost entirely motionless, was noticably less aggressive towards Labour's Hilary Benn (on to talk about recycling). The I.C. here was only 0.7. Amusingly, Sopel actually said to Mr Benn "I don't want to keep interrupting you". He certainly didn't say that to Chris Grayling!!!
*
Most of Sopel's questions came from one angle. Instead of asking, say, about the EU's role in fining us for failing to meet its recycling targets or asking about the serious flaws in the practise of recycling, he kept asking why there wasn't going to be much more legal compulsion.
*
It would be far too cynical to say that the reason today's The Politics Show ran an item on 'hugging hoodies' was to have the opportunity to get an interview with Chris Grayling and try to damage him with repeated questions about his gaffe over General Dannett's recruitment by the Conservatives. Far too cynical, so I won't say it.
*
That said, that's what happened. Jon Sopel's arms were in an animated mood as he questioned Grayling about whether 'hug a hoodie' has become 'mug a hoodie' before launching an inquisition into the gaffe and then launching another inquisition into Mr Grayling's own personal parliamentary expense claims, into which the team at the The Politics Show had been digging, in the further hope of embarrassing him: "...the last train, we looked at, we looked at, the last train goes at 11.42...."
*
It's certainly not too cynical to claim that The Politics Show was out to embarrass the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary. It most definitely was!
*
The interview's I.C. was 1.2.
*
By contrast Jon Sopel, with arms almost entirely motionless, was noticably less aggressive towards Labour's Hilary Benn (on to talk about recycling). The I.C. here was only 0.7. Amusingly, Sopel actually said to Mr Benn "I don't want to keep interrupting you". He certainly didn't say that to Chris Grayling!!!
*
Most of Sopel's questions came from one angle. Instead of asking, say, about the EU's role in fining us for failing to meet its recycling targets or asking about the serious flaws in the practise of recycling, he kept asking why there wasn't going to be much more legal compulsion.
*
MORE ON MARR
*
Continuing on the subject of this morning's Andrew Marr Show, there were even more signs of bias throughout the paper review.
Here's the charge-list:
1. That he began his initial skim through the papers with an anti-Conservative story from The Observer (naturally), "Miliband in fresh attack on Tory links to far right".
2. That when he read out the Sunday Times's headline, "Brown's millionaire lord and £38,000 in 'dodgy' expenses", he 'failed to see' or read out the word "Brown's": "The Sunday Times has got the story about Lord Paul, millionaire lord and expenses". That's all he said. He then moved swiftly onto (and spent a lot more time on) the paper's second main story!
3. That he brought up the story about Brown's eyesight only to launch a surprisingly passionate defence of Gordon Brown: "But a lot of what he's criticized for, you know, the kind of slightly frozen facial expressions from time to time, apparently blanking people, is down to the eyesight problems actually". And his throwing things when he gets in a temper, and his surrounding himself with the nastiest of the nasty, and his dishonesty, and his incompetence, are they all explained away by this too? Then when Jane Moore of The Sun agreed, he added softly "It is very difficult for him". All together now, "Aaah!"
4. That he then turned on the Tories, and encouraged adverse comments about them with this generous question: "On the other hand the Conservatives are beginning to get a bit of a tougher time too, I notice, in the papers". (They've never had anything else from Andrew Marr!).
8
5. That he stayed on the Tories, and encouraged more adverse comments about them in his following question too: "I mean the Independent On Sunday has devoted much of its coverage to attacking Cameron's speech, you know, a few days later."
6. That when Labour-supporting author Robert Harris made adverse comments (in answer to this question) about the Tories, Marr 'mmm'-ed approvingly four times (one a particularly heartfelt sounding sign of agreement - an "mmmmmmmm"!)
7. That he stayed on the Tories and encourage yet more adverse comments about them in his next question too: "I notice the Sunday Express has a big couple of pages about the Conservatives and unemployment for instance, you know, what is going to be the jobless effect and so on. There's just a slight turn in the mood of the coverage."
8. That when Robert Harris brought up the subject of the Tories. toffs and fox-hunting, Marr "yeah"ed approvingly, and interjected "It's said he (David Cameron) went fox-hunting himself and indeed there's pictures of him somewhere".
I pronounce him 'guilty' of bias!
Continuing on the subject of this morning's Andrew Marr Show, there were even more signs of bias throughout the paper review.
Here's the charge-list:
1. That he began his initial skim through the papers with an anti-Conservative story from The Observer (naturally), "Miliband in fresh attack on Tory links to far right".
2. That when he read out the Sunday Times's headline, "Brown's millionaire lord and £38,000 in 'dodgy' expenses", he 'failed to see' or read out the word "Brown's": "The Sunday Times has got the story about Lord Paul, millionaire lord and expenses". That's all he said. He then moved swiftly onto (and spent a lot more time on) the paper's second main story!
3. That he brought up the story about Brown's eyesight only to launch a surprisingly passionate defence of Gordon Brown: "But a lot of what he's criticized for, you know, the kind of slightly frozen facial expressions from time to time, apparently blanking people, is down to the eyesight problems actually". And his throwing things when he gets in a temper, and his surrounding himself with the nastiest of the nasty, and his dishonesty, and his incompetence, are they all explained away by this too? Then when Jane Moore of The Sun agreed, he added softly "It is very difficult for him". All together now, "Aaah!"
4. That he then turned on the Tories, and encouraged adverse comments about them with this generous question: "On the other hand the Conservatives are beginning to get a bit of a tougher time too, I notice, in the papers". (They've never had anything else from Andrew Marr!).
8
5. That he stayed on the Tories, and encouraged more adverse comments about them in his following question too: "I mean the Independent On Sunday has devoted much of its coverage to attacking Cameron's speech, you know, a few days later."
6. That when Labour-supporting author Robert Harris made adverse comments (in answer to this question) about the Tories, Marr 'mmm'-ed approvingly four times (one a particularly heartfelt sounding sign of agreement - an "mmmmmmmm"!)
7. That he stayed on the Tories and encourage yet more adverse comments about them in his next question too: "I notice the Sunday Express has a big couple of pages about the Conservatives and unemployment for instance, you know, what is going to be the jobless effect and so on. There's just a slight turn in the mood of the coverage."
8. That when Robert Harris brought up the subject of the Tories. toffs and fox-hunting, Marr "yeah"ed approvingly, and interjected "It's said he (David Cameron) went fox-hunting himself and indeed there's pictures of him somewhere".
I pronounce him 'guilty' of bias!
OH ALAN, YOU'RE MARR-VELLOUS!
*
What a difference a week makes!
*
Last week Andrew Marr was hammering away at David Cameron, scoring a very high Interruption Coefficicient of 2.1 (as contrasted with a much smaller I.C. of 1.0 for Gordon Brown). Today is was the turn of Labour's Great White Hope, Alan Johnson.
*
The ever-pithy David Vance on the Biased-BBC website sums up the mood of this interview thus: "Andrew Marr virtually hugs Alan Johnson on his programme." The very mediocre I.C. of 0.6 backs this up.
*
If you didn't catch it, please watch the programme on the BBC i-Player & watch Andrew Marr's body language towards Mr Johnson. Then (presuming that you saw last week's programme) compare it with Marr's body language towards David Cameron. Last week Marr was highly mobile, thrusting his body forward and flinging his arms about, pulling faces and being, all in all, the very model of an aggressive interviewer. This week he was remarkably still, immobile even. His arms were kept well under control and his facial expressions were restrained. It was gentle behaviour for a gentle interview.
*
There were few abortive interruptions, no heckles and lots of assenting "mmm"s, "sure"s and noddings of the head, and a little friendly banter too.
*
What a difference a week makes!
*
What a difference a week makes!
*
Last week Andrew Marr was hammering away at David Cameron, scoring a very high Interruption Coefficicient of 2.1 (as contrasted with a much smaller I.C. of 1.0 for Gordon Brown). Today is was the turn of Labour's Great White Hope, Alan Johnson.
*
The ever-pithy David Vance on the Biased-BBC website sums up the mood of this interview thus: "Andrew Marr virtually hugs Alan Johnson on his programme." The very mediocre I.C. of 0.6 backs this up.
*
If you didn't catch it, please watch the programme on the BBC i-Player & watch Andrew Marr's body language towards Mr Johnson. Then (presuming that you saw last week's programme) compare it with Marr's body language towards David Cameron. Last week Marr was highly mobile, thrusting his body forward and flinging his arms about, pulling faces and being, all in all, the very model of an aggressive interviewer. This week he was remarkably still, immobile even. His arms were kept well under control and his facial expressions were restrained. It was gentle behaviour for a gentle interview.
*
There were few abortive interruptions, no heckles and lots of assenting "mmm"s, "sure"s and noddings of the head, and a little friendly banter too.
*
What a difference a week makes!
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
