*
Not even the BBC could ignore Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley's revelations about the sheer unpleasantness of Gordon Brown. They can, of course, try to take the sting out of it though.
*
Paddy O'Connell on 'Broadcasting House' (Radio 4 at the same time as Marr) interrupted Lance Price, who was telling us about Brown's behaviour towards secretaries, typists and drivers, to say "I should say that, as I've read it this morning, the book says he's also got a softer side, being incredibly solicitous at times of family emergency and bereavement".
*
He then tried to dismiss it all: "I wonder if the fair-minded listener thinks here's a book, here's a new look newspaper, here are the chattering classes chattering".
*
After the next piece (on the Irish economy), O'Connell read out an e-mail from "Simon Gough, who's our listener", saying "This is a media obsession. The electorate are more interested in politics than in personality". That was the only e-mail he read out.
*
The programme's paper review ignored the story completely. The guests must have been told not to talk about it. Or, given what a left-wing bunch they were, they chose not to talk about it.
*
*
The section on the Irish economy took the form of an interview with Irish finance minister Martin Mansergh. It was prefaced by remarks from O'Connell that are absolutely in keeping with the BBC's narrative on this story.
*
I've noted here before - in fact every time I've heard the BBC report on the strong actions taken by the Irish government to tackle their economic disaster - that they frame the debate in such a way as to present the Irish government and its actions in the worst possible light. Several of these reports have only featured critical voices and voices from the Left, especially the trade unions. Why? Because the Irish government's resolute cutting of public spending and its urgency are not something that the BBC (or the Labour Party) wants to present in a good light. Paddy said that the Irish government "has already instituted a package of tax rises and of spending cuts that union leaders say is a charter for exploitation. One said 'take one job at any price or emigrate'."
*
The interview went so badly that at first I really did think it was a spoof! Mr Mansergh, however, mustn't be used to being interviewed by the likes of the BBC. He even got told off by Paddy O'Connell. Paddy brought up the conflict between our economists over the issue of when to start cutting in earnest. When Mr Mansergh said, "Yes I read read the Financial Times this morning..." and began laughing, for some reason, O'Connell interrupted and said in a very disapproving tone of voice "Yes, and you're laughing. It's no laughing matter, is it?" "No it isn't", replied Mr Mansergh contritely. "Let's just run through the cuts that you made...", Paddy said and moved on to do just that.
*
*
This whole edition of the programme stank with bias. After reading out that e-mail about the listener's request for serious discussion of policy (i.e. leave off Brown), O'Connell brought up David Cameron's Woman's Hour interview with Jenny Murray and the Conservative leader's statement that 'a broader conservation at home' is the best kind of conversation. This was followed by an actual spoof on what Cameron had said - though not a very funny one - from Helen Lederer and Howard Ward.
*
And this wasn't the only dig at the Tories. More subtle (and interesting) was the programme's Who Do You Think You Archive section, which featured transsexual Nina Smith (formerly Nigel Smith), who wanted to hear a clip from the 1970 Conservative Party conference where Nina, then Nigel, spoke out against the Conservatives' proposal to lift the arms embargo on South Africa. This reminded BH listeners of the Conservatives' past transgressions over apartheid. Nigel Smith left the Conservative Party in 1972.
*
Then came the paper review. We had Susannah Clapp, doyenne of left-wing critics at The Observer (who attacked Boris Johnson), Kathy Lette, an avowed Labour supporter and all-round self-parody of a mouthy Australian feminist comedienne ("I think Cameron's a charisma wrap in a vacuum, so I'm glad Labour is doing well", she said) and, finally, left-wing journalist and novelist John Lanchester, who also had a dig at the Tories. What a balanced crowd that what! A Labour election rally couldn't have contained more lefties!!
*
Sunday, 21 February 2010
MARR PROSTRATES HIMSELF BEFORE THE GREEK KING
*
David Vance, guiding genius the Biased BBC website, describes this morning's Andrew Marr interview with George Papandreou, socialist Greek prime minister (and third king of the Papandreou Dynasty), with characteristic pithiness, as "fawning". http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/greece-not-so-bad.html#comments. Marr let so many questions go begging that a new vagrancy law should be brought in just to deal with this man's interviewing technique. Then came his interview with Peter Mandelson, which result in a high I.C. of 1.4 but let so many questions go begging on Labour's astonishing mishandling of the economy as to constitute a whole army of missed opportunities. As well as David's post, the comments are very well worth reading - as they form a fascinating mini-debate on how best to take the battle to the BBC. (And you get to read Martin's latest comment about 5Live as a bonus!)
*
David Vance, guiding genius the Biased BBC website, describes this morning's Andrew Marr interview with George Papandreou, socialist Greek prime minister (and third king of the Papandreou Dynasty), with characteristic pithiness, as "fawning". http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/greece-not-so-bad.html#comments. Marr let so many questions go begging that a new vagrancy law should be brought in just to deal with this man's interviewing technique. Then came his interview with Peter Mandelson, which result in a high I.C. of 1.4 but let so many questions go begging on Labour's astonishing mishandling of the economy as to constitute a whole army of missed opportunities. As well as David's post, the comments are very well worth reading - as they form a fascinating mini-debate on how best to take the battle to the BBC. (And you get to read Martin's latest comment about 5Live as a bonus!)
*
NOT WAVING BUT DROWNING
*
The Record Europe's main topic this week was 'Climate Change', specifically how the EU could speak with a common voice on the issue in the wake of all the acrimony at Copenhagen.
*
Shirin Wheeler's introductory report (complete with icebergs, but thankfully no polar bears) featured just one 'talking head' - Sonja Meister of Friends of the Earth Europe. That's par for the course.
*
The studio discussion featured five guests, only one of them a sceptic - Roger Helmer.
*
Not unlike this post (!), things took a predictable path. Here are the stats:
*
Length of time each guest got to speak
*
Rebecca Harms (German Green) - 3 minutes 35 seconds
Dan Jorgensen (Danish Social Democrat) - 3 minutes 15 seconds
Sirpa Pletikainen (Finnish Centre Right) - 2 minutes 59 seconds
Chris Davies (British Lib Dem) - 2 minutes 28 seconds
Roger Helmer (British Conservative) - 2 minutes 20 seconds
*
Despite that the only uses of the command 'Briefly!' by Shirin were directly at the sceptical Tory (twice)! (That's as it always is on this programme!)
*
Interruption Coefficients
*
Roger Helmer - 0.9
Sirpa Pletkainen - 0.8
Dan Jorgensen - 0.3
Rebecca Harms - 0.3
Chris Davies - 0
*
So the centre-right comes of worse, yet again.
*
The only politician to be contradicted by Shirin was Mr Helmer.
*
When he argued that "everyone from the Maldives to China sees this as a way of getting money from the West", she interrupted to say "But I mean we've spoken to the prime minister of Tuvalu, who travelled all the way to Brussels to say that his island is drowning. And we've seen pictures of it! He's not making it up!" Her point is perhaps weakened by the fact that Tuvalu is a chain of islands, not a single island. Moreover, the rise in sea level around the nine islands is not, as she assumes, necessarily caused by 'global warming', even according to our old friend Wikipedia: "This concern is compounded by the effects of subsidence which causes the islands naturally to sink into the sea, and non-natural land use (such as farming) which causes soil compaction. And to further complicate matters, it has been difficult to accurately measure to what degree each of these causes is affecting the observed rise in sea level. Global warming may not be the primary cause for the rise in local measurements." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tuvalu. Mr Helmer was having none of it anyway, and discussed the case of the Maldives.
*
Behind the Green lady was a window and through the window snow-flakes fell.
*
The Record Europe's main topic this week was 'Climate Change', specifically how the EU could speak with a common voice on the issue in the wake of all the acrimony at Copenhagen.
*
Shirin Wheeler's introductory report (complete with icebergs, but thankfully no polar bears) featured just one 'talking head' - Sonja Meister of Friends of the Earth Europe. That's par for the course.
*
The studio discussion featured five guests, only one of them a sceptic - Roger Helmer.
*
Not unlike this post (!), things took a predictable path. Here are the stats:
*
Length of time each guest got to speak
*
Rebecca Harms (German Green) - 3 minutes 35 seconds
Dan Jorgensen (Danish Social Democrat) - 3 minutes 15 seconds
Sirpa Pletikainen (Finnish Centre Right) - 2 minutes 59 seconds
Chris Davies (British Lib Dem) - 2 minutes 28 seconds
Roger Helmer (British Conservative) - 2 minutes 20 seconds
*
Despite that the only uses of the command 'Briefly!' by Shirin were directly at the sceptical Tory (twice)! (That's as it always is on this programme!)
*
Interruption Coefficients
*
Roger Helmer - 0.9
Sirpa Pletkainen - 0.8
Dan Jorgensen - 0.3
Rebecca Harms - 0.3
Chris Davies - 0
*
So the centre-right comes of worse, yet again.
*
The only politician to be contradicted by Shirin was Mr Helmer.
*
When he argued that "everyone from the Maldives to China sees this as a way of getting money from the West", she interrupted to say "But I mean we've spoken to the prime minister of Tuvalu, who travelled all the way to Brussels to say that his island is drowning. And we've seen pictures of it! He's not making it up!" Her point is perhaps weakened by the fact that Tuvalu is a chain of islands, not a single island. Moreover, the rise in sea level around the nine islands is not, as she assumes, necessarily caused by 'global warming', even according to our old friend Wikipedia: "This concern is compounded by the effects of subsidence which causes the islands naturally to sink into the sea, and non-natural land use (such as farming) which causes soil compaction. And to further complicate matters, it has been difficult to accurately measure to what degree each of these causes is affecting the observed rise in sea level. Global warming may not be the primary cause for the rise in local measurements." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tuvalu. Mr Helmer was having none of it anyway, and discussed the case of the Maldives.
*
Behind the Green lady was a window and through the window snow-flakes fell.
*
WHO DOES LABOUR VOTE WITH IN EUROLAND?
*
The Record Europe introduced what sounds like a very detailed piece of statistical research into voting patterns at the European Parliament. Professor Simon Hix of the L.S.E. explained that political parties from across Europe are voting with their European groups far more than they are voting on national grounds. So a British Liberal will vote with Spanish and German liberals far more than they will vote with their national colleagues from other political parties. (I think I could have guessed that, if asked!)
*
Professor Hix of the L.S.E. (who recently worked in the UK cabinet office) is one of the founders of a non-partisan website called VoteWatchEU, along with fellow L.S.E. prof and former policy advisor at the pro-European think tank the European Policy Centre Dr Sara Hagemann (pictured), Doru Frantescu of the pro-European Young European Federalists and Brussel-based prof Abdul G. Noury.
Their website is at http://www.votewatch.eu.
The Record Europe introduced what sounds like a very detailed piece of statistical research into voting patterns at the European Parliament. Professor Simon Hix of the L.S.E. explained that political parties from across Europe are voting with their European groups far more than they are voting on national grounds. So a British Liberal will vote with Spanish and German liberals far more than they will vote with their national colleagues from other political parties. (I think I could have guessed that, if asked!)
*
Professor Hix of the L.S.E. (who recently worked in the UK cabinet office) is one of the founders of a non-partisan website called VoteWatchEU, along with fellow L.S.E. prof and former policy advisor at the pro-European think tank the European Policy Centre Dr Sara Hagemann (pictured), Doru Frantescu of the pro-European Young European Federalists and Brussel-based prof Abdul G. Noury.Their website is at http://www.votewatch.eu.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
PAXO STUFFS LORD ADONIS
*
Following in the footsteps (or tracks) of Today, Newsnight discussed the Tories' decision to pull out of Labour's 'consensus' on high-speed rail. Reporter Matt Prodger outlined the story, featuring Tory critics Norman Baker of the Lib Dems and Kate Henderon of the Town and Country Planning Association (about whom see http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/kate-
henderson/13/845/a26). No Tory came onto the programme, so Lord Adonis (pictured) was invited to face Jeremy Paxman instead (big mistake!). Where Today refused to, and Matt Prodger failed to go, Jeremy Paxman went and gave Lord Adonis a good going over. For the first time, thanks to Jeremy, I understood why the Conservatives refused to go along with the 'consensus' yesterday. It was a Labour trap! Naughtie's failure to even hint at what Jeremy Paxman pointed out shows just what a biased piece of work James Naughtie really is. *
Following in the footsteps (or tracks) of Today, Newsnight discussed the Tories' decision to pull out of Labour's 'consensus' on high-speed rail. Reporter Matt Prodger outlined the story, featuring Tory critics Norman Baker of the Lib Dems and Kate Henderon of the Town and Country Planning Association (about whom see http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/kate-
henderson/13/845/a26). No Tory came onto the programme, so Lord Adonis (pictured) was invited to face Jeremy Paxman instead (big mistake!). Where Today refused to, and Matt Prodger failed to go, Jeremy Paxman went and gave Lord Adonis a good going over. For the first time, thanks to Jeremy, I understood why the Conservatives refused to go along with the 'consensus' yesterday. It was a Labour trap! Naughtie's failure to even hint at what Jeremy Paxman pointed out shows just what a biased piece of work James Naughtie really is. **
DON'T LEAVE US AGAIN EDDIE!
*
While Eddie's away the Quinns will play! Yesterday's PM, presented by leftie lassie Carolyn Quinn, was one of the worst I've heard for ages.
*
It featured an extremely soft interview by BBC economics 'guru' Nils Blythe of Peter Mandelson in the wake of Brown's right-wing-bashing speech at the Policy Network conference. Three easy questions and no interruptions from Nils, lots of Brown-nosing and attacks on the Tories from Mandy.
*
A report by Andrew Harding from Argentina on that country's posturing over the Falkland Islands saw Andy neglect to mention that Argentina's posturing (but beautiful) president is a socialist. Had the fair Cristina (pictured with all the inevitability of a Paxman sneer) been a right-winger you can bet your bottom peso he'd have thought it worth mentioning - especially as there was criticism of her from various Argentinians.
*
The programme then mounted the green platform and spent what seemed like an eternity discussing a row between the government (represented by Lord Hunt) and an electricity generator that wants subsidies to transfer from coal to renewable 'biomass' energy. Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson stuck his oar in here. Carolyn's questions tended towards Darren's position while she was interviewing the Labour lord.
*
The programme stayed on the same platform for a report by BBC science correspondent Palab Gosh on electric cars in America, and how they could save us from our gas-guzzling cars, which are "pouring carbon dioxide into the planet's atmosphere." He talked to a broccoli-juice drinking (no, honestly!) Californian couple who believe their solar-panel fitted sports car points the way to the future.
*
While Eddie's away the Quinns will play! Yesterday's PM, presented by leftie lassie Carolyn Quinn, was one of the worst I've heard for ages.
*
It featured an extremely soft interview by BBC economics 'guru' Nils Blythe of Peter Mandelson in the wake of Brown's right-wing-bashing speech at the Policy Network conference. Three easy questions and no interruptions from Nils, lots of Brown-nosing and attacks on the Tories from Mandy.
*
A report by Andrew Harding from Argentina on that country's posturing over the Falkland Islands saw Andy neglect to mention that Argentina's posturing (but beautiful) president is a socialist. Had the fair Cristina (pictured with all the inevitability of a Paxman sneer) been a right-winger you can bet your bottom peso he'd have thought it worth mentioning - especially as there was criticism of her from various Argentinians.
*
The programme then mounted the green platform and spent what seemed like an eternity discussing a row between the government (represented by Lord Hunt) and an electricity generator that wants subsidies to transfer from coal to renewable 'biomass' energy. Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson stuck his oar in here. Carolyn's questions tended towards Darren's position while she was interviewing the Labour lord.
*
The programme stayed on the same platform for a report by BBC science correspondent Palab Gosh on electric cars in America, and how they could save us from our gas-guzzling cars, which are "pouring carbon dioxide into the planet's atmosphere." He talked to a broccoli-juice drinking (no, honestly!) Californian couple who believe their solar-panel fitted sports car points the way to the future.
*
ENOUGH ALREADY!
*
Though finding myself again a bit overwhelmed by the sheer amount of BBC bias at the moment I think I must make time just to put on record a few more examples of the BBC's brain-defying obsession with Israel and the Palestinians (zzzzzzzzzzzz!). (For more on which always see Sue on the Biased BBC website).
*
Tuesday's The World Tonight had a report on how the 'age-old' ways of Palestinian fishermen in Gaza are being destroyed by wicked Israeli restrictions. The reporter spoke to some of those fishermen and to a Palestinian economist, who denounced Israel.
*
Yesterday (before 7.00am) the BBC's Lucy Williamson (pictured) reported from the West Bank on a British charity's donation of olive trees to Palestinians in Nablus. The Palestinians were angry because Israeli restrictions (specifically an electric fence erected by settlers) made it hard for them to plant the olive trees.
*
I've said it before and I'll say it again, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
*
THIS WEEK'S DIMBLEDATA
*
Here is this week's Dimbledata for Thursday's Question Time:
**
18th February 2010
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 10 minutes 30 seconds
2. Rory Stewart (Con) - 7 minutes 35 seconds
3. Ruth Lea (economist)- 7 minutes 20 seconds
4. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 5 minutes 51 seconds
5. Tom Conti (actor) - 5 minutes 51 seconds
6. A trade unionist in the audience - 2 minutes 52 seconds
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 3
2. Ruth Lea (economist) - 3
3. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 2
4. Tom Conti (actor) - 1
5. Rory Stewart (Con) - 0
*
**
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 0.5
2. Ruth Lea (economist) - 0.4
3. Tom Conti (actor) - 0.2
4. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 0.2
5. Rory Stewart (Con) - 0.0
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Ruth Lea (economist) - 7
2. Rory Stewart (Con) - 6
3. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 5
4. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 5
5. Tom Conti (actor) - 0
*
*
It's not every week that the Tory scores the lowest I.C.! Note though that this was one of Dimbleby's most restrained performances, with no-one scoring a high I.C., and that the two right-of-centre guests, Ruth Lea and Rory Stewart (with Ruth closer to the right and Rory much closer to the centre!) were the most closely questioned by Dimbleby.
*
Here is this week's Dimbledata for Thursday's Question Time:
**
18th February 2010
*
*
Who got most time to speak?
*
1. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 10 minutes 30 seconds
2. Rory Stewart (Con) - 7 minutes 35 seconds
3. Ruth Lea (economist)- 7 minutes 20 seconds
4. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 5 minutes 51 seconds
5. Tom Conti (actor) - 5 minutes 51 seconds
6. A trade unionist in the audience - 2 minutes 52 seconds
*
*
Who received the most interruptions from David Dimbleby?
*
1. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 3
2. Ruth Lea (economist) - 3
3. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 2
4. Tom Conti (actor) - 1
5. Rory Stewart (Con) - 0
*
**
Who scored the highest interruption coefficient?
*
1. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 0.5
2. Ruth Lea (economist) - 0.4
3. Tom Conti (actor) - 0.2
4. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 0.2
5. Rory Stewart (Con) - 0.0
*
*
Who was asked the most supplementary questions by David Dimbleby?
*
1. Ruth Lea (economist) - 7
2. Rory Stewart (Con) - 6
3. Lynne Featherstone (LD) - 5
4. Roy Hattersley (Lab) - 5
5. Tom Conti (actor) - 0
*
*
It's not every week that the Tory scores the lowest I.C.! Note though that this was one of Dimbleby's most restrained performances, with no-one scoring a high I.C., and that the two right-of-centre guests, Ruth Lea and Rory Stewart (with Ruth closer to the right and Rory much closer to the centre!) were the most closely questioned by Dimbleby.
*
THE WORLD TONIGHT'S TYPE OF ACADEMIC
*
The tendency of The World Tonight to tilt
strongly towards the Liberal Left makes it the Leaning Tower of Pisa among the various Radio 4 current affairs programmes -though Today can of course make a strong case for the same status too. (Though in saying that said, this week has seen two Conservative politicians appearing on the programme. That doesn't happen very often!)
strongly towards the Liberal Left makes it the Leaning Tower of Pisa among the various Radio 4 current affairs programmes -though Today can of course make a strong case for the same status too. (Though in saying that said, this week has seen two Conservative politicians appearing on the programme. That doesn't happen very often!)*
When last night's programme discussed the coolness between China and the US over Obama and the Lama, Robin Lustig talked to two American experts. The first was Ken Lieberthal, former advisor to Bill Clinton and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. The second was George Perkovich, a former aide to Joe Biden who now heads the Nonproliferation Program(me) at the liberal-learning Carnegie Institute for International Peace. Both sounded like serious figures, but both come from the same place, politically-speaking.
**
THINK TANKS AGAIN
*
Last night's The World Tonight discussed the reasons why the Eurozone is deep in the mire at the moment.
*
Reporting on the subject was the programme's economics correspondent Jonty Bloom. His report featured three talking heads:
*
- Olaf Cramme, "director of the international think tank 'Policy Network'"
- Otmar Issing, a former board member of the European Central Bank and founding father of the Euro
- Charles Grant, "director of the Centre for European Reform"
*
What sort of international think tank is Policy Network? It's a centre-left one, "dedicated to promoting progressive policies and the renewal of social democracy" - i.e. the BBC's sort of think tank. Its president is one Peter Mandelson.
*
The Centre for European Reform is a pro-European think tank.
*
No Eurosceptics were invited to Jonty's report.
*
Last night's The World Tonight discussed the reasons why the Eurozone is deep in the mire at the moment.
*
Reporting on the subject was the programme's economics correspondent Jonty Bloom. His report featured three talking heads:
*
- Olaf Cramme, "director of the international think tank 'Policy Network'"
- Otmar Issing, a former board member of the European Central Bank and founding father of the Euro
- Charles Grant, "director of the Centre for European Reform"
*
What sort of international think tank is Policy Network? It's a centre-left one, "dedicated to promoting progressive policies and the renewal of social democracy" - i.e. the BBC's sort of think tank. Its president is one Peter Mandelson.
*
The Centre for European Reform is a pro-European think tank.
*
No Eurosceptics were invited to Jonty's report.
*
A DATE FOR THE DIARY
*
We've heard in the past week on the Today programme from two Spring Conferences (even though it's still winter) and the respective party leaders - those of the Green Party (Caroline Lucas) and Plaid Cyrmu (Ieuan Wyn Jones). I'm pencilling in my diary the date March 19th. That's when UKIP's Spring Conference begins (much more logically!). Will the Today programme interview Lord Pearson? And if it does, will it be as nice to him as it was to those left-wingers, Ms Lucas and Mr Jones?
*
We've heard in the past week on the Today programme from two Spring Conferences (even though it's still winter) and the respective party leaders - those of the Green Party (Caroline Lucas) and Plaid Cyrmu (Ieuan Wyn Jones). I'm pencilling in my diary the date March 19th. That's when UKIP's Spring Conference begins (much more logically!). Will the Today programme interview Lord Pearson? And if it does, will it be as nice to him as it was to those left-wingers, Ms Lucas and Mr Jones?
*
HUMPH
*
Wendy's brother Douglas Alexander was on 'Today' this morning talking to John Humphrys about the election. Labour's new slogan is 'A Future Fair for All'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8525000/8525831.stm
*
Wouldn't that make a great slogan for the 'Today' programme itself? Whenever James Naughtie faces a Conservative spokesman and a Labour spokesman in the same studio, he could look up to a large poster on the wall of the 'Today' studio and think to himself, 'Yes, I will be fair to all, today and for ever more! I will mend my ways!'
*
Well you can hope!!
*
He already has an example to look too. John Humphrys is, like Naughtie, a known leftie but he rarely features on this little blog of mine as he's clearly conscious that it's his duty to try to be impartial when interviewing. Yes, he may sound off sometimes (usually about bankers!) and certainly can let his opinions shine through his questioning (as tends to happen whenever Iraq and Afghanistan are under discussion!) and, yes, he does on the whole interrupt Conservatives more than Labour politicians, but against all this can be set such interviews as this morning's with Mr Alexander. He asked a lot of tough, spot-on questions about the economy and scored a high interruption coefficient of 1.8 against him.
*
That's the way to do it Jim! It's called professionalism!
*
Wendy's brother Douglas Alexander was on 'Today' this morning talking to John Humphrys about the election. Labour's new slogan is 'A Future Fair for All'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8525000/8525831.stm
*
Wouldn't that make a great slogan for the 'Today' programme itself? Whenever James Naughtie faces a Conservative spokesman and a Labour spokesman in the same studio, he could look up to a large poster on the wall of the 'Today' studio and think to himself, 'Yes, I will be fair to all, today and for ever more! I will mend my ways!'
*
Well you can hope!!
*
He already has an example to look too. John Humphrys is, like Naughtie, a known leftie but he rarely features on this little blog of mine as he's clearly conscious that it's his duty to try to be impartial when interviewing. Yes, he may sound off sometimes (usually about bankers!) and certainly can let his opinions shine through his questioning (as tends to happen whenever Iraq and Afghanistan are under discussion!) and, yes, he does on the whole interrupt Conservatives more than Labour politicians, but against all this can be set such interviews as this morning's with Mr Alexander. He asked a lot of tough, spot-on questions about the economy and scored a high interruption coefficient of 1.8 against him.
*
That's the way to do it Jim! It's called professionalism!
*
DEJA VU
*
Wednesday's Today heard Evan Davis chatting to John Wadham of the Equality and Human Right's Commission (and former director of Liberty). Then he whinged about body scanners at airports, specifically the Muslim Community's fears of discrimination. Well, he was back on the programme this morning, this time talking to John Humphrys. Now he wants an inquiry into allegations "that the government knew of the torture of Britons being held abroad." (That would assumably exclude an investigation into the case of the Ethiopian Binyam Mohamed).
*
Wednesday's Today heard Evan Davis chatting to John Wadham of the Equality and Human Right's Commission (and former director of Liberty). Then he whinged about body scanners at airports, specifically the Muslim Community's fears of discrimination. Well, he was back on the programme this morning, this time talking to John Humphrys. Now he wants an inquiry into allegations "that the government knew of the torture of Britons being held abroad." (That would assumably exclude an investigation into the case of the Ethiopian Binyam Mohamed).
*
WILL 'ALWAYS HAVE WORK AT THE BBC' HUTTON AND CO.
*
Back into the Tardis again for a trip back to Wednesday's Newsnight.
*
As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the BBC's unique take on the latest set of economic figures (which even The Guardian didn't put a positive spin on) led to this generally favourable introduction from Gavin Esler: "The unemployment rate actually fell a little in the last month and even better news the percentage of British people out of work is lower than that in other relatively wealthy countries in the Eurozone, but the number claiming benefits has gone up to the highest since Labour came to power in 1997."
*
The BBC's obsession with left-wing think tanks was much in evidence in what followed. A report by Terry Stiastny (pictured, with friend) not only featured Dr Anna Coote of the red-green New Economics Foundation but also Ian Brinkley of The Work Foundation (formerly chief economist of the TUC from 1996-2006). Then, as if one Leftie from The Work Foundation wasn't enough, on came the omnipresent Will Hutton from The Work Foundation, to discuss the matter with Esler and James Caan of Dragon's Den. As ever, neither think tank was labelled as 'left-wing' by the BBC.
*
When Mr Caan interjected a note of realism into all the Panglossian, pro-Labour (and anti-Tory) guff flowing from the mouth of Mr Hutton, saying "I think we're making too much out of these statistics. When you actually look at the statistics , we've only had a drop of 3000. When you've got a workforce of 20 million let's not get too carried away. I think when you're looking at temp...", Esler interrupted to say "It's better than going up though, isn't it, which we all agree?" Many of Esler's questions came from this same 'things are getting better' perspective.
*
Back into the Tardis again for a trip back to Wednesday's Newsnight.
*
As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the BBC's unique take on the latest set of economic figures (which even The Guardian didn't put a positive spin on) led to this generally favourable introduction from Gavin Esler: "The unemployment rate actually fell a little in the last month and even better news the percentage of British people out of work is lower than that in other relatively wealthy countries in the Eurozone, but the number claiming benefits has gone up to the highest since Labour came to power in 1997."
*
The BBC's obsession with left-wing think tanks was much in evidence in what followed. A report by Terry Stiastny (pictured, with friend) not only featured Dr Anna Coote of the red-green New Economics Foundation but also Ian Brinkley of The Work Foundation (formerly chief economist of the TUC from 1996-2006). Then, as if one Leftie from The Work Foundation wasn't enough, on came the omnipresent Will Hutton from The Work Foundation, to discuss the matter with Esler and James Caan of Dragon's Den. As ever, neither think tank was labelled as 'left-wing' by the BBC.*
When Mr Caan interjected a note of realism into all the Panglossian, pro-Labour (and anti-Tory) guff flowing from the mouth of Mr Hutton, saying "I think we're making too much out of these statistics. When you actually look at the statistics , we've only had a drop of 3000. When you've got a workforce of 20 million let's not get too carried away. I think when you're looking at temp...", Esler interrupted to say "It's better than going up though, isn't it, which we all agree?" Many of Esler's questions came from this same 'things are getting better' perspective.
*
PITCHING TO THE LEFT
*
Thursday night's Newsnight discussed the elderly care issue. Gavin Esler asked three people to pitch their favoured schemes to the government's egalitarianism-loving independent advisor Joan Bakewell and Emma Soames of Saga magazine.
*
Who were the three 'pitchers'?
*
1. James Lloyd, of the Blairite Social Market Foundation. He wants a national voluntary insurance scheme.
2. Stephen Burke, of the charity Counsel and Care, who tried to become the Labour Party's candidate for Scunthorpe in the 2010 general election. He favours the 'Death Tax'.
3. Dr Anna Dixon (pictured) chief executive of The King's Foundation (formerly of the L.S.E.), who acted as a policy advisor to the government from 2003-4. She wants it largely paid for out of taxation.
*
Gavin Esler had previously interviewed Andrew Lansley, scoring a high I.C. against him of 1.9.
*
When attention turned to Sino-American relations, who did Gavin Esler turn to for an American point of view? Nina Hachigian of the liberal Centre for American Progress. That think tank keeps cropping up in my surveys. It must be the American equivalent of the IPPR!
*
You could never accuse the BBC of ignoring the Liberal-Left!
Thursday night's Newsnight discussed the elderly care issue. Gavin Esler asked three people to pitch their favoured schemes to the government's egalitarianism-loving independent advisor Joan Bakewell and Emma Soames of Saga magazine.
*
Who were the three 'pitchers'?
*
1. James Lloyd, of the Blairite Social Market Foundation. He wants a national voluntary insurance scheme.
2. Stephen Burke, of the charity Counsel and Care, who tried to become the Labour Party's candidate for Scunthorpe in the 2010 general election. He favours the 'Death Tax'.
3. Dr Anna Dixon (pictured) chief executive of The King's Foundation (formerly of the L.S.E.), who acted as a policy advisor to the government from 2003-4. She wants it largely paid for out of taxation.*
Gavin Esler had previously interviewed Andrew Lansley, scoring a high I.C. against him of 1.9.
*
When attention turned to Sino-American relations, who did Gavin Esler turn to for an American point of view? Nina Hachigian of the liberal Centre for American Progress. That think tank keeps cropping up in my surveys. It must be the American equivalent of the IPPR!
*
You could never accuse the BBC of ignoring the Liberal-Left!
'NEWSNIGHT' HEADLINES
*
A week ago today I said I'd begin to list all the rags mentioned during the week, in the order they were mentioned, during the headlines preview at the end of each edition of Newsnight. Last week saw The Guardian winning the race for best coverage, especially when Gavin Esler was presenting. How will it fare this week?
*
Fri 19/2 - Jeremy Paxman
1. Telegraph
2. Guardian
3. Mail
4. Independent
5. Sun
Thurs 18/2 - Gavin Esler
1. Independent
2. Guardian
Wed 17/2 - Gavin Esler
1. Guardian
2. Independent
3. Telegraph
4. Mail
5. FT
Tue 16/2 - Kirsty Wark
1. Telegraph
2. Guardian
3. Independent
4. Mail
5. Times
Mon 15/2 - Gavin Esler
1. FT
2. Guardian
3. Telegraph
4. Independent
A week ago today I said I'd begin to list all the rags mentioned during the week, in the order they were mentioned, during the headlines preview at the end of each edition of Newsnight. Last week saw The Guardian winning the race for best coverage, especially when Gavin Esler was presenting. How will it fare this week?
*
Fri 19/2 - Jeremy Paxman
1. Telegraph
2. Guardian
3. Mail
4. Independent
5. Sun
Thurs 18/2 - Gavin Esler
1. Independent
2. Guardian
Wed 17/2 - Gavin Esler
1. Guardian
2. Independent
3. Telegraph
4. Mail
5. FT
Tue 16/2 - Kirsty Wark
1. Telegraph
2. Guardian
3. Independent
4. Mail
5. Times
Mon 15/2 - Gavin Esler
1. FT
2. Guardian
3. Telegraph
4. Independent
Friday, 19 February 2010
WHO ASKED THIS OF A RUNNING DOG OF INTERNATIONAL CAPITALISM?
*
Now, it wasn't just James Naughtie who was flying the red flag so enthusiastically on this morning's Today programme. Another BBC staff member asked this question to Edmund King, president of the AA:
*
"The union say that AA staff have worked flat out through the worst winter conditions in 30 years only to be told by their gluttonous private equity fat cats that they want to squeeze more blood out of the stone to line their own pockets, what do you say to that?"
*
To find out who asked this remarkable question you will need to click here:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com
*
Now, it wasn't just James Naughtie who was flying the red flag so enthusiastically on this morning's Today programme. Another BBC staff member asked this question to Edmund King, president of the AA:
*
"The union say that AA staff have worked flat out through the worst winter conditions in 30 years only to be told by their gluttonous private equity fat cats that they want to squeeze more blood out of the stone to line their own pockets, what do you say to that?"
*
To find out who asked this remarkable question you will need to click here:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com
*
ALLYSON POLLOCK AND JIM PILLOCK
*
Who did James Naughtie talk to about Scotland's social care service, which was to be discussed at Andy Burnham's 'emergency conference' today?
*
He talked to Allyson Pollock of the Centre for International Public Health Policy at Edinburgh University. She campaigns against private involvement in the NHS (not that Naughtie told us that, of course, when introducing her) and writes for two left-wing newspapers, The Guardian and The Herald.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8523000/8523441.stm
**
You might expect her pro-public-sector views (reflected in Scotland's system) to chime with Jim's and you'd be dead right. He asked her no hard questions at all. Several of those he did ask merely invited her to explain how the system works. His question about the cost brought the statement from Allyson that "there are huge savings in this because...", at which Naughtie leapt in enthusiastically to back her up, "Well, that's the point that's often not made. It's a way of saving money in other costs." Well might her immediate response have been "Indeed it is!" If you thought that was a pretty biased intervention, try Naughtie's next question: "In other words what lies behind your argument is if you decide that you want to do it and it's a good thing it can be done and it is affordable." Again, how could begin her answer with any other word but 'indeed!' Allyson Pollock if anything sounded a bit startled. She's was clearly not expecting such openly supportive interviewing. Still, she immediately relaxed again (as well she might) and went on.
*
Naughtie's performance on today's Today was awful.
*
In advance of the interview Naughtie talked of Mr Burnham's wish for cross-party consensus and reminded his listeners that the wicked Tories 'broke off' private discussions on the subject last week. , b*
*
UPDATE
*
Interestingly Thursday night's Newnight also mentioned this glorious Scottish care system, but (and all credit to him for this) Gavin Esler asked "I mean Scotland has it's own system, which is quite different but which is also proving to be quite expensive, because it's very difficult to finance it." Now that's something Naughtie didn't point out. Quite the reverse.
Who did James Naughtie talk to about Scotland's social care service, which was to be discussed at Andy Burnham's 'emergency conference' today?
*
He talked to Allyson Pollock of the Centre for International Public Health Policy at Edinburgh University. She campaigns against private involvement in the NHS (not that Naughtie told us that, of course, when introducing her) and writes for two left-wing newspapers, The Guardian and The Herald.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8523000/8523441.stm
**
You might expect her pro-public-sector views (reflected in Scotland's system) to chime with Jim's and you'd be dead right. He asked her no hard questions at all. Several of those he did ask merely invited her to explain how the system works. His question about the cost brought the statement from Allyson that "there are huge savings in this because...", at which Naughtie leapt in enthusiastically to back her up, "Well, that's the point that's often not made. It's a way of saving money in other costs." Well might her immediate response have been "Indeed it is!" If you thought that was a pretty biased intervention, try Naughtie's next question: "In other words what lies behind your argument is if you decide that you want to do it and it's a good thing it can be done and it is affordable." Again, how could begin her answer with any other word but 'indeed!' Allyson Pollock if anything sounded a bit startled. She's was clearly not expecting such openly supportive interviewing. Still, she immediately relaxed again (as well she might) and went on.
*
Naughtie's performance on today's Today was awful.
*
In advance of the interview Naughtie talked of Mr Burnham's wish for cross-party consensus and reminded his listeners that the wicked Tories 'broke off' private discussions on the subject last week. , b*
*
UPDATE
*
Interestingly Thursday night's Newnight also mentioned this glorious Scottish care system, but (and all credit to him for this) Gavin Esler asked "I mean Scotland has it's own system, which is quite different but which is also proving to be quite expensive, because it's very difficult to finance it." Now that's something Naughtie didn't point out. Quite the reverse.
SIR WITLESS WINTERTON AND A JAMES NAUGHTIE JOKE
*
Sir Nicholas Winterton's highly ill-judged comments also came under the purview of Jim Naughtie, who had a lot of fun with them at the beginning of his discussion with Matthew Parris. The Times columnist then recalled a very similar gaffe made many years ago by another Conservative MP. Naughtie leapt in to name him as Roger Freeman. (Fancy him remembering that!) Matthew joined him in the joshing, but then - for the sake of fairness - added "He's actually a very nice man Nick Winterton. He's worked very, very hard in his constituen..." but was straight away interrupted by an excitable Naughtie, who clearly wasn't having anything nice said about a nasty Tory: "Well, the other thing of course", he said, talking over Matthew Parris, "the bizarre thing, as so ever in these little fandangos that come up, is that he's wrong anyway." He then went on an inordinate length to explain just why Winterton was wrong. Later, when Matthew Parris began joking about the irony of Old Nick complaining about noise, given his own loud voice and propensity to speak everywhere as if he's addressing an auditorium, Naughtie joined in the joke but, being a Tory-hater, turned it sour: "He could empty a first-class carriage on his own, couldn't he?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8523000/8523417.stm
*
Sir Nicholas Winterton's highly ill-judged comments also came under the purview of Jim Naughtie, who had a lot of fun with them at the beginning of his discussion with Matthew Parris. The Times columnist then recalled a very similar gaffe made many years ago by another Conservative MP. Naughtie leapt in to name him as Roger Freeman. (Fancy him remembering that!) Matthew joined him in the joshing, but then - for the sake of fairness - added "He's actually a very nice man Nick Winterton. He's worked very, very hard in his constituen..." but was straight away interrupted by an excitable Naughtie, who clearly wasn't having anything nice said about a nasty Tory: "Well, the other thing of course", he said, talking over Matthew Parris, "the bizarre thing, as so ever in these little fandangos that come up, is that he's wrong anyway." He then went on an inordinate length to explain just why Winterton was wrong. Later, when Matthew Parris began joking about the irony of Old Nick complaining about noise, given his own loud voice and propensity to speak everywhere as if he's addressing an auditorium, Naughtie joined in the joke but, being a Tory-hater, turned it sour: "He could empty a first-class carriage on his own, couldn't he?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8523000/8523417.stm
*
NO GENTLEMAN JIM
*
James Naughtie has long passed beyond merely being a bad joke over the sheer scale of his bias against the Conservative Party. This morning provided yet more evidence for that (not that any more evidence is needed). His interview with Conservative transport spokesman Theresa Villiers was, nonetheless, shockingly bad - so shockingly bad that I can't believe that the Conservative Party doesn't now realise it's going to be far, far better to throw caution to the wind and demand Naughtie's suspension (or sacking) from the programme than to meekly accept his shameless pro-Labour behaviour day in day out. (I'm glad I didn't hear it before going to work!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8523000/8523531.stm
**
This is worth outlining in some detail.
*
Having set up the Tories in his long, introductory comments, and having quoted from his favourite paper The Guardian, he interviewed "expert on all things rail" Christian Woolmer. As the Today programme website puts it, 'Mr Wolmar outlined that a return the Tories' plans to abolish the Planning Commission responsible for the project would "take us back to the days of 3-4 year public inquiries into every aspect of national infrastructure"'. He was prompted in that direction by Naughtie and his "and that's got a lot of support right across politics. I mean that's not just a Labour thing."
*
Then Theresa Villiers entered the Labour lion's den. It began gently enough but before long...
*
3.38 Naughtie: "Can we get one thing clear first? You, in your speech to the last party conference, made it clear that you linked your opposition to a third runway at Heathrow to a commitment to new high speed rail lines, one going up to Birmingham, eventually to Manchester and further north. Is that still your policy and your commitment?"
3.59 Theresa answers
4.22 Naughtie: "But it is reported this morning that the government has offered to let you see an advance copy of the rail white paper, which is going to be published next month, and that you've refused. Is that true?"
4.33 Theresa answers
4.41 Naughtie (interrupting): "Why would it close it down? You're getting to see it. I mean, the argument is that this takes it out of, you know, what David Cameron calls punch and judy politics and actually take serious issues of national planning on which principle the two big parties agree - and I think the Liberal Democrats too as a matter of fact - erm, and surely this is grown-up politics, which is what you're supposed to be arguing for."
5.01 Theresa answers
5.05 Naughtie (interrupting): "But why not look at the white paper?"
5.06 Theresa answers
5.25 Naughtie (interrupting, loudly): "Well, exactly!" (Laughing derisively), "Precisely! But that's the whole point! I mean if it is one of the most important things you've got to get right it's going to be a huge thing for twenty or thirty years. The government's saying, 'look, we're really trying to be grown up about this, which is what you say you want to be. Here's the white paper, a have a look at it. It's got the route.' And you say 'no', people are going to say 'what are you playing at!!'"
5.49 Theresa answers
5.51 Naughtie (interrupting): "Why not look at it?"
5.52 Theresa continues trying to answer
5.58 Naughtie (interrupting): "But you can see it now if you want!"
5.59 Theresa struggles on
6.03 Naughtie (interrupting): "Why is it closing down the options to look at it?"
6.06 Theresa tries to begin again
6.07 Naughtie (interrupting): "Because some constituents might be effected that you hope might would vote for you!"
6.10 Theresa struggles on
6.30 Naughtie: "But there's nothing in looking at the white paper that would close your options at all, and people will draw the conclusion, and 'The Guardian' quotes a Conservative source saying 'We don't want to lose ten seats backing a route blindly'. It makes it look as if it is you, the party committed not to punch and judy politics but to grown up politics, that it's playing politics with an issue on long-term national significance, and nobody (sic) else."
6.56 Theresa answers
7.10 Naughtie (abortively interrupting): "But you have no doubt you will..."
7.11 Theresa goes on
7.21 Naughtie (talking over the close of her answer): "Of course, but you were critical of the time it took to get Terminal 5 at Heathrow and you're proposing to abolish the commission which reduces the time that these public enquiries will take. Don't you accept that what this means is if you're going to fiddle with the route and go to the old system it's going to take much much longer to do what you say is a national priority, given that you see it as an alternative to the third run-way at Heathrow?
7.53 Theresa answers
8.03 Naughtie (interrupting, tartly): "When would that be?"
8.04 Theresa answers
8.29 Naughtie: "But you still don't want to see it even though it's been offered to you?"
8.32 Theresa answers
8.43 Naughtie: "Theresa Villiers, thank you."
*
7 interruptions in just over 5 minutes results in an I.C. of 1.6. Even this high interruption coefficient fails to do justice to the extent that Naughtie dominated the interview. That can be guaged by counting up exactly how long each participant got to speak. These are the remarkable results:
*
James Naughtie - 2 minutes 31 seconds
Theresa Villiers - 2 minutes 38 seconds
*
And this is supposed to be 'interviewing'???
*
It would have been better had the lady fought back of course.
*
This man is so beyond shameless he's surely now got to go.
James Naughtie has long passed beyond merely being a bad joke over the sheer scale of his bias against the Conservative Party. This morning provided yet more evidence for that (not that any more evidence is needed). His interview with Conservative transport spokesman Theresa Villiers was, nonetheless, shockingly bad - so shockingly bad that I can't believe that the Conservative Party doesn't now realise it's going to be far, far better to throw caution to the wind and demand Naughtie's suspension (or sacking) from the programme than to meekly accept his shameless pro-Labour behaviour day in day out. (I'm glad I didn't hear it before going to work!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8523000/8523531.stm
**
This is worth outlining in some detail.
*
Having set up the Tories in his long, introductory comments, and having quoted from his favourite paper The Guardian, he interviewed "expert on all things rail" Christian Woolmer. As the Today programme website puts it, 'Mr Wolmar outlined that a return the Tories' plans to abolish the Planning Commission responsible for the project would "take us back to the days of 3-4 year public inquiries into every aspect of national infrastructure"'. He was prompted in that direction by Naughtie and his "and that's got a lot of support right across politics. I mean that's not just a Labour thing."
*
Then Theresa Villiers entered the Labour lion's den. It began gently enough but before long...
*
3.38 Naughtie: "Can we get one thing clear first? You, in your speech to the last party conference, made it clear that you linked your opposition to a third runway at Heathrow to a commitment to new high speed rail lines, one going up to Birmingham, eventually to Manchester and further north. Is that still your policy and your commitment?"
3.59 Theresa answers
4.22 Naughtie: "But it is reported this morning that the government has offered to let you see an advance copy of the rail white paper, which is going to be published next month, and that you've refused. Is that true?"
4.33 Theresa answers
4.41 Naughtie (interrupting): "Why would it close it down? You're getting to see it. I mean, the argument is that this takes it out of, you know, what David Cameron calls punch and judy politics and actually take serious issues of national planning on which principle the two big parties agree - and I think the Liberal Democrats too as a matter of fact - erm, and surely this is grown-up politics, which is what you're supposed to be arguing for."
5.01 Theresa answers
5.05 Naughtie (interrupting): "But why not look at the white paper?"
5.06 Theresa answers
5.25 Naughtie (interrupting, loudly): "Well, exactly!" (Laughing derisively), "Precisely! But that's the whole point! I mean if it is one of the most important things you've got to get right it's going to be a huge thing for twenty or thirty years. The government's saying, 'look, we're really trying to be grown up about this, which is what you say you want to be. Here's the white paper, a have a look at it. It's got the route.' And you say 'no', people are going to say 'what are you playing at!!'"
5.49 Theresa answers
5.51 Naughtie (interrupting): "Why not look at it?"
5.52 Theresa continues trying to answer
5.58 Naughtie (interrupting): "But you can see it now if you want!"
5.59 Theresa struggles on
6.03 Naughtie (interrupting): "Why is it closing down the options to look at it?"
6.06 Theresa tries to begin again
6.07 Naughtie (interrupting): "Because some constituents might be effected that you hope might would vote for you!"
6.10 Theresa struggles on
6.30 Naughtie: "But there's nothing in looking at the white paper that would close your options at all, and people will draw the conclusion, and 'The Guardian' quotes a Conservative source saying 'We don't want to lose ten seats backing a route blindly'. It makes it look as if it is you, the party committed not to punch and judy politics but to grown up politics, that it's playing politics with an issue on long-term national significance, and nobody (sic) else."
6.56 Theresa answers
7.10 Naughtie (abortively interrupting): "But you have no doubt you will..."
7.11 Theresa goes on
7.21 Naughtie (talking over the close of her answer): "Of course, but you were critical of the time it took to get Terminal 5 at Heathrow and you're proposing to abolish the commission which reduces the time that these public enquiries will take. Don't you accept that what this means is if you're going to fiddle with the route and go to the old system it's going to take much much longer to do what you say is a national priority, given that you see it as an alternative to the third run-way at Heathrow?
7.53 Theresa answers
8.03 Naughtie (interrupting, tartly): "When would that be?"
8.04 Theresa answers
8.29 Naughtie: "But you still don't want to see it even though it's been offered to you?"
8.32 Theresa answers
8.43 Naughtie: "Theresa Villiers, thank you."
*
7 interruptions in just over 5 minutes results in an I.C. of 1.6. Even this high interruption coefficient fails to do justice to the extent that Naughtie dominated the interview. That can be guaged by counting up exactly how long each participant got to speak. These are the remarkable results:
*
James Naughtie - 2 minutes 31 seconds
Theresa Villiers - 2 minutes 38 seconds
*
And this is supposed to be 'interviewing'???
*
It would have been better had the lady fought back of course.
*
This man is so beyond shameless he's surely now got to go.
SUDDEN VOLTE-FACE FROM CRAIG
*
Besides watching Question Time and gathering this week's Dimbledata, my pre-work agenda today included putting on record my happy surprise at there being two right-of-centre guests in a two-handed discussion on a BBC programme. This is a thing rarely heard of. Yesterday's PM featured a discussion between Peter Hitchens and Conservative blogger Iain Dale , chaired (without hostility) by blog favourite Eddie Mair.
*
So 'well done!' to the producers of PM? Well, so I thought until the time came to begin writing. It's just hit me. Given that the discussion was about journalism and causing offense (in the wake of the Jan Moir story), why would you only invite guests from right-wing newspapers/websites to such a debate? Perhaps because you think right-wing newspapers/websites are more likely to be offensive than left-wing ones? Perhaps because you want to associate the idea of offensiveness only with right-wing newspapers/websites? So far from showing a rare glimpse of indulgence to centre-right opinion, does this not actually show yet more left-wing bias from the BBC?
*
Or am I being far too cynical here?
*
Besides watching Question Time and gathering this week's Dimbledata, my pre-work agenda today included putting on record my happy surprise at there being two right-of-centre guests in a two-handed discussion on a BBC programme. This is a thing rarely heard of. Yesterday's PM featured a discussion between Peter Hitchens and Conservative blogger Iain Dale , chaired (without hostility) by blog favourite Eddie Mair.
*
So 'well done!' to the producers of PM? Well, so I thought until the time came to begin writing. It's just hit me. Given that the discussion was about journalism and causing offense (in the wake of the Jan Moir story), why would you only invite guests from right-wing newspapers/websites to such a debate? Perhaps because you think right-wing newspapers/websites are more likely to be offensive than left-wing ones? Perhaps because you want to associate the idea of offensiveness only with right-wing newspapers/websites? So far from showing a rare glimpse of indulgence to centre-right opinion, does this not actually show yet more left-wing bias from the BBC?
*
Or am I being far too cynical here?
*
AH, NOW THE BBC IS INTERESTED!
*
It's only a few days since 20 leading economists wrote a letter critical of the Labour government's handling of the deficit. This story was buried away by the lads and lasses at the BBC News website and downplayed right across the BBC - just like yesterday's bad economic news. When I wake up this morning, however, what is the main story on the BBC News website?
*
It's only a few days since 20 leading economists wrote a letter critical of the Labour government's handling of the deficit. This story was buried away by the lads and lasses at the BBC News website and downplayed right across the BBC - just like yesterday's bad economic news. When I wake up this morning, however, what is the main story on the BBC News website?
Economists back delay on government spending cuts http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8523034.stmThe BBC is beyond shameless!
*
Thursday, 18 February 2010
THE SWEDISH MODEL
*
Following Newsnight's flawed onslaught on the Swedish schools model favoured by the Conservatives (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/liz-is-too-mackeen-to-attack-tories.html), the BBC News website has another go, using a report from The Centre for Economic Performance (who?):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8520208.stm
The C.E.P. (which turns out to be part of the L.S.E) gets 14 paragraphs and another critic, leftie Swedish bureaucrat Per Thulberg, gets 3 more. The Conservative response (mostly squeezed in the middle) gets just 4 (generally very short) paragraphs and a photo! (I have a photo too - of another Swedish model. Sorry, but some puns just have to be made!!).
*
Hardly a balanced article.
*
More on the C.E.P. can be found here: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/about/default.asp. Its co-founder (and key member) is Labour peer Lord Layard (of whom Wikipedia - which is infallible! - says 'He advocated many of the policies which have characterised the New Labour government, partly by founding the influential Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.' ) No wonder the BBC article names no names at the C.E.P.
*
Following Newsnight's flawed onslaught on the Swedish schools model favoured by the Conservatives (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/liz-is-too-mackeen-to-attack-tories.html), the BBC News website has another go, using a report from The Centre for Economic Performance (who?):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8520208.stm
The C.E.P. (which turns out to be part of the L.S.E) gets 14 paragraphs and another critic, leftie Swedish bureaucrat Per Thulberg, gets 3 more. The Conservative response (mostly squeezed in the middle) gets just 4 (generally very short) paragraphs and a photo! (I have a photo too - of another Swedish model. Sorry, but some puns just have to be made!!).
*
Hardly a balanced article.
*
More on the C.E.P. can be found here: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/about/default.asp. Its co-founder (and key member) is Labour peer Lord Layard (of whom Wikipedia - which is infallible! - says 'He advocated many of the policies which have characterised the New Labour government, partly by founding the influential Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.' ) No wonder the BBC article names no names at the C.E.P.
*
COMRADE BREZHNEV VISITS HAPPY CHILDEN IN GRATEFUL NORTH
*
This morning's first paper review on Today brought a brief mention for the Times's story about Labour's shameful misuse of its Cabinet tour (and, of course, public money) for party political purposes http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election_2010/article7031402.ece.
*
James Naughtie clearly didn't think much of it as a story, saying sniffily that "The Times has gone to town on that this morning." The Today programme certainly didn't go to town on it. Nor did the BBC News website. Here's its article on the subject, scintillatingly entitled 'Gordon Brown's cabinet meets in Durham city school' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8521450.stm
*
As it's short I'll quote the whole thing, and you'll see again how the BBC deals with embarrassing news for Labour - by burying it deep inside a pro-Labour puff-piece:
*
Gordon Brown is holding his first Cabinet meeting in a school during a visit by his ministers to Durham.
The prime minister was shown round the £24m Durham Johnston School on Thursday by pupils who gave up part of their half-term holiday.
Security was tight at the school in the Crossgate Moor area of the city, with a strong police presence outside.
* *
The Conservatives have accused Labour of using the taxpayer-funded regional Cabinet meetings for electioneering.
Mr Brown looked impressed with the modern facilities at the 1,500-pupil school on the outskirts of Durham City.
Officially opening the school, he said: "It is the first time the Cabinet has ever met in a school. It is the first time the Cabinet has ever met in the North East.
"I am very pleased to do so at what is an absolutely brilliant school. It is a real privilege for us to be here."
The prime minister watched chemistry students carry out an experiment using Bunsen burners, then chatted to year nine pupils in the library.
Mr Brown introduced the idea of holding the meetings outside Westminster in September 2008, when Birmingham hosted the first such regional gathering since 1921.
This morning's first paper review on Today brought a brief mention for the Times's story about Labour's shameful misuse of its Cabinet tour (and, of course, public money) for party political purposes http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election_2010/article7031402.ece.
*
James Naughtie clearly didn't think much of it as a story, saying sniffily that "The Times has gone to town on that this morning." The Today programme certainly didn't go to town on it. Nor did the BBC News website. Here's its article on the subject, scintillatingly entitled 'Gordon Brown's cabinet meets in Durham city school' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8521450.stm
*
As it's short I'll quote the whole thing, and you'll see again how the BBC deals with embarrassing news for Labour - by burying it deep inside a pro-Labour puff-piece:
*
Gordon Brown is holding his first Cabinet meeting in a school during a visit by his ministers to Durham.
The prime minister was shown round the £24m Durham Johnston School on Thursday by pupils who gave up part of their half-term holiday.
Security was tight at the school in the Crossgate Moor area of the city, with a strong police presence outside.
* *
The Conservatives have accused Labour of using the taxpayer-funded regional Cabinet meetings for electioneering.
Mr Brown looked impressed with the modern facilities at the 1,500-pupil school on the outskirts of Durham City.
Officially opening the school, he said: "It is the first time the Cabinet has ever met in a school. It is the first time the Cabinet has ever met in the North East.
"I am very pleased to do so at what is an absolutely brilliant school. It is a real privilege for us to be here."
The prime minister watched chemistry students carry out an experiment using Bunsen burners, then chatted to year nine pupils in the library.
Mr Brown introduced the idea of holding the meetings outside Westminster in September 2008, when Birmingham hosted the first such regional gathering since 1921.
FIND THE BAD NEWS
*
This might be pure laziness on my part but I'm going to lift another article straight from Not a sheep. He puts it so well that I don't need to add a word (except for the ones I've already written):
*
Thursday, 18 February 2010
BBC in full hide the bad news mode
For the first time since records began in 1993, the government had to borrow money in January, a month that usually sees huge Corporation Tax income. Economists were said to have been expecting a small surplus of around £2bn in January's budget, allowing a small start to repaying the UK's huge debts. However tax receipts dropped 11.8% compared with January last year, when the government was able to repay £5.3bn.
Appalling news, really dreadful and so the BBC have been leading news bulletins today with the claims that Israel were behind the 'execution' of a terrorist (oops sorry militant) leader in Dubai and on Radio London behind the Nicholas Winterton story. Meanwhile on the BBC News website the parlous state of the UK economy doesn't even merit a place in the top three stories but currently sits at number 2 in the "OTHER TOP STORIES" section. Somehow I doubt that the BBC would have been so quick to minimise coverage of such "pretty ghastly" figures had they emerged under a Conservative government, indeed I seem to remember coverage of bad economic news being lengthy, in-depth and repeated ad-nauseum during the 1980s.
The BBC are moving towards full election mode at present and are concentrating on setting "the narrative" to be as pro-Labour and anti-Tory as possible. Unfortunately it seems that 5Live is to be the flag-bearer for this campaign and with broadcasters like Stephen Nolan on-board the bias will be heavy and hard to avoid.
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-in-full-hide-bad-news-mode.html
*tH
The World at One decided not to discuss the subject, prefering to dwell on the assassination in Dubai and private involvement in the NHS instead. PM did at least discuss the issue. After spending over 18 minutes on the assassination in Dubai, Hugh Pym came into the studio to tell Eddie Mair the news about the unprecedented borrowing. This section lasted just over 2 1/2 minutes. Hugh reported the words of Alistair Darling about how the government's economic forecasts remain 'on track' and added that "there are some economists who agree with that". Who doesn't agree with that, asked Eddie. Pym's answer? The Conservatives, who you wouldn't expect to - as he said. Anyone else Hugh? He wasn't saying. And are there some economists who agree with the Conservative Party's on the government's economic forecasts? He wasn't saying anything at that either. Hugh needs watching.
*
This might be pure laziness on my part but I'm going to lift another article straight from Not a sheep. He puts it so well that I don't need to add a word (except for the ones I've already written):
*
Thursday, 18 February 2010
BBC in full hide the bad news mode
For the first time since records began in 1993, the government had to borrow money in January, a month that usually sees huge Corporation Tax income. Economists were said to have been expecting a small surplus of around £2bn in January's budget, allowing a small start to repaying the UK's huge debts. However tax receipts dropped 11.8% compared with January last year, when the government was able to repay £5.3bn.
Appalling news, really dreadful and so the BBC have been leading news bulletins today with the claims that Israel were behind the 'execution' of a terrorist (oops sorry militant) leader in Dubai and on Radio London behind the Nicholas Winterton story. Meanwhile on the BBC News website the parlous state of the UK economy doesn't even merit a place in the top three stories but currently sits at number 2 in the "OTHER TOP STORIES" section. Somehow I doubt that the BBC would have been so quick to minimise coverage of such "pretty ghastly" figures had they emerged under a Conservative government, indeed I seem to remember coverage of bad economic news being lengthy, in-depth and repeated ad-nauseum during the 1980s.
The BBC are moving towards full election mode at present and are concentrating on setting "the narrative" to be as pro-Labour and anti-Tory as possible. Unfortunately it seems that 5Live is to be the flag-bearer for this campaign and with broadcasters like Stephen Nolan on-board the bias will be heavy and hard to avoid.
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-in-full-hide-bad-news-mode.html
*tH
The World at One decided not to discuss the subject, prefering to dwell on the assassination in Dubai and private involvement in the NHS instead. PM did at least discuss the issue. After spending over 18 minutes on the assassination in Dubai, Hugh Pym came into the studio to tell Eddie Mair the news about the unprecedented borrowing. This section lasted just over 2 1/2 minutes. Hugh reported the words of Alistair Darling about how the government's economic forecasts remain 'on track' and added that "there are some economists who agree with that". Who doesn't agree with that, asked Eddie. Pym's answer? The Conservatives, who you wouldn't expect to - as he said. Anyone else Hugh? He wasn't saying. And are there some economists who agree with the Conservative Party's on the government's economic forecasts? He wasn't saying anything at that either. Hugh needs watching.
*
COMPLAINTS ABOUT JIM NAUGHTIE? SURELY NOT!
*
Poor Jim Naughtie! I think we can gather from his discussion with BBC media correspondent Torin Douglas (at about 6.40am this morning) that he's had a fair few complaints in recent days, doubtless about his outrageous behaviour during his interview with George Osborne - and not just my strongly-worded complaint by the sounds of it!
*
The issue at hand was the rejection by the Press Complaints Commission of a complaint about Jan Moir of the Mail and her 'homophobic' article about dead singer Stephen Gateley. Largely because of a Twitter campaign, the number of complaints reached 25,000. "It's bigger now by Twitter and so on of course," said Jim. "And that happens." To which Torin said, "It's much easier now for people to complain, as we've found about broadcast as well as newspaper articles". The pause between "as" and "newspaper" brought a mirthless laugh from Naughtie, and at "article" he give a wistful "yes!"
*
It is indeed much easier to complain. It's far, far, far less easy, however, to get the BBC to admit they've done anything wrong though!!
*
Poor Jim Naughtie! I think we can gather from his discussion with BBC media correspondent Torin Douglas (at about 6.40am this morning) that he's had a fair few complaints in recent days, doubtless about his outrageous behaviour during his interview with George Osborne - and not just my strongly-worded complaint by the sounds of it!
*
The issue at hand was the rejection by the Press Complaints Commission of a complaint about Jan Moir of the Mail and her 'homophobic' article about dead singer Stephen Gateley. Largely because of a Twitter campaign, the number of complaints reached 25,000. "It's bigger now by Twitter and so on of course," said Jim. "And that happens." To which Torin said, "It's much easier now for people to complain, as we've found about broadcast as well as newspaper articles". The pause between "as" and "newspaper" brought a mirthless laugh from Naughtie, and at "article" he give a wistful "yes!"
*
It is indeed much easier to complain. It's far, far, far less easy, however, to get the BBC to admit they've done anything wrong though!!
*
IT'S TORY-HUNTING TIME, SO TALLY-HO!
*
The Labour farmer whistles and the BBC sheepdog comes running.
*
Hilary Benn, in a blatant bit of electioning, wrote an 'open letter' to David Cameron asking why he supported a repeal of the hunting ban. The Today programme heard its master's call and ran with the story throughout this morning's programme.
*
At 6.35 James Naughtie and Norman Smith (or Crick Jnr, as I call him) previewed the issue. Norm always points out the dangers for the Tories in whatever they're proposing, and today was no different: "There are I think risks for the Tories here because there is a danger that they find themselves pinned into a sort of core vote corner (as if Benn wasn't aiming at his core vote with this 'open letter'!) or enable Labour to accuse them of a core-vote strategy (which, thinking on his feet, you'll notice Smithie has already 'sort of' done) by saying, "Well look, well here you have the Tories, they're going on about fox-hunting and inheritance tax and marriage and Europe and so on" (and, if Labour doesn't say that, Norman Smith certainly will - as he did here). In other words they get up and running the 'same old Tories' argument. And there is also the very practical danger that if you have a Tory government do they really want to get bogged down in a row over fox-hunting..."
*
Like a good mini-me-Crick Smith used 'Tory/Tories' 9 times and 'Conservative/Conservatives' just once.
*
Then at At 7.34 Andrew Hosken presented a 'balanced report' on the subject. The report began by spending time with two 'monitors' from the League Against Cruel Sports. The 'monitors' spoke and Hosken didn't challenge them in any of his questions. The middle part of the report was spent at a hunt. Here Hosken talked to huntsmen (and ladies) but, unlike with the anti-hunt guys, he did ask challenging questions. The report then returned to the guys from the League.
*
Hosken did, however, point out that the Police said that there have been only three successful prosecutions under the act. This ran counter to claims by anti-hunting groups which Norman Smith was keen to mention in the earlier discussion, in a cack-handed attempt to weaken the Tory position: "The Conservatives view it as a grotesque waste of police time, though I have to say on the police prosecution side of things there's no agreement there either because while opponents (sic!!) of fox hunting say there's only been a handful of prosecutions, if you talk to the anti-hunting people (as Norm clearly has been) they say there's been more than a hundred successful prosecutions." Who's right? Norm's anti-hunting people, or the Conservatives and the police?
*
Then at 8.50 came the coup-de-grace - an interview with Hilary Benn himself, who was invited on to (as the Today programme website puts it) "explain the thinking behind his letter." We know what the thinking is. There's a general election coming. The interview was conducted by James 'When we win the election' Naughtie (I.C. of 0.8). "Fox-hunting is back on the political agenda", he said. Of course it is. The BBC is a very well-trained sheepdog.
*
*
*
The BBC News website also heard the call and immediately began rounding up the Tory sheep: 'Labour presses Cameron on plans to repeal hunting ban' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8521030.stm. This gives lifelong politician Hilary Benn and his supporters the fox's share of the article, even interrupting the closing section - where the Conservative pack is allowed a brief say - with yet more anti-hunt/anti-Tory opinion. And not for the first time there's a reminder of a Tory's past that's clearly planted in an attempt to undermine his position: "In October, shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert - who once worked for the British Field Sports Society - described the hunting ban as an "affront" to civil liberties and "completely unworkable"."
*
Norman Smith's young colleague Ross Hawkins also obeyed Labour's whistle. Here's his article on the BBC News website (yes, there's two today!!):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8521072.stm. At least he's fairer than his colleagues.
*
The Labour farmer whistles and the BBC sheepdog comes running.
*
Hilary Benn, in a blatant bit of electioning, wrote an 'open letter' to David Cameron asking why he supported a repeal of the hunting ban. The Today programme heard its master's call and ran with the story throughout this morning's programme.
*
At 6.35 James Naughtie and Norman Smith (or Crick Jnr, as I call him) previewed the issue. Norm always points out the dangers for the Tories in whatever they're proposing, and today was no different: "There are I think risks for the Tories here because there is a danger that they find themselves pinned into a sort of core vote corner (as if Benn wasn't aiming at his core vote with this 'open letter'!) or enable Labour to accuse them of a core-vote strategy (which, thinking on his feet, you'll notice Smithie has already 'sort of' done) by saying, "Well look, well here you have the Tories, they're going on about fox-hunting and inheritance tax and marriage and Europe and so on" (and, if Labour doesn't say that, Norman Smith certainly will - as he did here). In other words they get up and running the 'same old Tories' argument. And there is also the very practical danger that if you have a Tory government do they really want to get bogged down in a row over fox-hunting..."
*
Like a good mini-me-Crick Smith used 'Tory/Tories' 9 times and 'Conservative/Conservatives' just once.
*
Then at At 7.34 Andrew Hosken presented a 'balanced report' on the subject. The report began by spending time with two 'monitors' from the League Against Cruel Sports. The 'monitors' spoke and Hosken didn't challenge them in any of his questions. The middle part of the report was spent at a hunt. Here Hosken talked to huntsmen (and ladies) but, unlike with the anti-hunt guys, he did ask challenging questions. The report then returned to the guys from the League.
*
Hosken did, however, point out that the Police said that there have been only three successful prosecutions under the act. This ran counter to claims by anti-hunting groups which Norman Smith was keen to mention in the earlier discussion, in a cack-handed attempt to weaken the Tory position: "The Conservatives view it as a grotesque waste of police time, though I have to say on the police prosecution side of things there's no agreement there either because while opponents (sic!!) of fox hunting say there's only been a handful of prosecutions, if you talk to the anti-hunting people (as Norm clearly has been) they say there's been more than a hundred successful prosecutions." Who's right? Norm's anti-hunting people, or the Conservatives and the police?
*
Then at 8.50 came the coup-de-grace - an interview with Hilary Benn himself, who was invited on to (as the Today programme website puts it) "explain the thinking behind his letter." We know what the thinking is. There's a general election coming. The interview was conducted by James 'When we win the election' Naughtie (I.C. of 0.8). "Fox-hunting is back on the political agenda", he said. Of course it is. The BBC is a very well-trained sheepdog.
*
*
*
The BBC News website also heard the call and immediately began rounding up the Tory sheep: 'Labour presses Cameron on plans to repeal hunting ban' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8521030.stm. This gives lifelong politician Hilary Benn and his supporters the fox's share of the article, even interrupting the closing section - where the Conservative pack is allowed a brief say - with yet more anti-hunt/anti-Tory opinion. And not for the first time there's a reminder of a Tory's past that's clearly planted in an attempt to undermine his position: "In October, shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert - who once worked for the British Field Sports Society - described the hunting ban as an "affront" to civil liberties and "completely unworkable"."
*
Norman Smith's young colleague Ross Hawkins also obeyed Labour's whistle. Here's his article on the BBC News website (yes, there's two today!!):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8521072.stm. At least he's fairer than his colleagues.
*
POETRY CORNER
*
Having a spare moment at work this morning, I thought up this little
limerick. (God help me!)
Crick's motive in all of his stories
Is how best to damage the Tories.
Of Labour's worse slips
No word leaves his lips.
He'd rather be singing their 'glories'.
*
As you can see (left, where else?), at least Crick likes it!
Having a spare moment at work this morning, I thought up this little
limerick. (God help me!)Crick's motive in all of his stories
Is how best to damage the Tories.
Of Labour's worse slips
No word leaves his lips.
He'd rather be singing their 'glories'.
*
As you can see (left, where else?), at least Crick likes it!
'GUARDIAN' BOY IS BACK! WATCH OUT ISRAEL!
*
Reading the BBC News website's various stories on the assassination in Dubai of Hamas leader Mahmoud al Mabhouh - and watching Gavin Esler and Peter Marshall on Newsnight last night - you would be hard pressed to know why al Mabhouh is such a controversial figure, beyond what seems to be his involvement in arms deals with Iran (apparently why he was in Dubai) and his high-up position in Hamas. Sky News, however, tells us in its report on the story, "Last month Hamas admitted al Mabhouh, a founder member of Hamas' military wing, was involved in the kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers in 1989." That's an important detail, isn't it? It surely throws some light on what might have happened and why. So why is the BBC being so coy about it?
*
Newsnight featured a discussion on the story between Clinton-era official and former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and the ubiquitous Sir Ming Campbell. Esler was far from even-handed and showed his hand throughout (as ever). He and Sir Ming were naturally on good terms, but Abdul Bari Atwan's pal Esler was downright rude to the pro-Israeli Mr Indyk, asking him bitterly sarcastic questions and regularly interrupting him. (Will Gav and 'Bari' be together again on this week's Dateline, slagging off Israel? 'Bari' was on last week, so this shouldn't be the case - but we'll see if Esler and his producer can resist temptation!).
*
Talking of biased Esler, as I showed recently each of his three appearances on last week's Newsnight saw him kick off the newspaper headlines at the end with The Guardian. Last night was his first appearance this week and, with all the inevitability of a wink from Anne Robinson, he kicked off last night's newspaper headlines with, yes you guessed it, The Guardian (followed by The Independent of course). Gavin Esler is the Naughtie of Newsnight.
*
Reading the BBC News website's various stories on the assassination in Dubai of Hamas leader Mahmoud al Mabhouh - and watching Gavin Esler and Peter Marshall on Newsnight last night - you would be hard pressed to know why al Mabhouh is such a controversial figure, beyond what seems to be his involvement in arms deals with Iran (apparently why he was in Dubai) and his high-up position in Hamas. Sky News, however, tells us in its report on the story, "Last month Hamas admitted al Mabhouh, a founder member of Hamas' military wing, was involved in the kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers in 1989." That's an important detail, isn't it? It surely throws some light on what might have happened and why. So why is the BBC being so coy about it?
*
Newsnight featured a discussion on the story between Clinton-era official and former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and the ubiquitous Sir Ming Campbell. Esler was far from even-handed and showed his hand throughout (as ever). He and Sir Ming were naturally on good terms, but Abdul Bari Atwan's pal Esler was downright rude to the pro-Israeli Mr Indyk, asking him bitterly sarcastic questions and regularly interrupting him. (Will Gav and 'Bari' be together again on this week's Dateline, slagging off Israel? 'Bari' was on last week, so this shouldn't be the case - but we'll see if Esler and his producer can resist temptation!).
*
Talking of biased Esler, as I showed recently each of his three appearances on last week's Newsnight saw him kick off the newspaper headlines at the end with The Guardian. Last night was his first appearance this week and, with all the inevitability of a wink from Anne Robinson, he kicked off last night's newspaper headlines with, yes you guessed it, The Guardian (followed by The Independent of course). Gavin Esler is the Naughtie of Newsnight.
*
BBC: ALL'S WELL IN LABOUR'S BRITAIN. VOTE LABOUR.
*
The All-Seeing Eye (inevitably, given his name) and contributor Robin Greer on the Biased BBC website have spotted yet more Labour spin on the BBC News website:
Compare and contrast the following headlines today:
Daily Telegraph: Long-term unemployment highest since 1997
The Times: Number of people on the dole hits 13-year high
Guardian: Unemployment claimant count rises again
ITN: Long-term jobless total soars
BBC: UK unemployment falls for second month in a row
Saving Gordoom....it's what we do.
*
A Guest adds three more headlines on the same story:
*
Bloomberg: U.K. Unemployment Claims Jump to Highest Since 1997
Financial Times: Jobless claimant count reaches 13-year high
Wall Street Journal: U.K. Unemployment Jumps
*
The All-Seeing Eye (inevitably, given his name) and contributor Robin Greer on the Biased BBC website have spotted yet more Labour spin on the BBC News website:
Compare and contrast the following headlines today:
Daily Telegraph: Long-term unemployment highest since 1997
The Times: Number of people on the dole hits 13-year high
Guardian: Unemployment claimant count rises again
ITN: Long-term jobless total soars
BBC: UK unemployment falls for second month in a row
Saving Gordoom....it's what we do.
*
A Guest adds three more headlines on the same story:
*
Bloomberg: U.K. Unemployment Claims Jump to Highest Since 1997
Financial Times: Jobless claimant count reaches 13-year high
Wall Street Journal: U.K. Unemployment Jumps
*
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
POLL TRACKER: USA
*
President Obama's popularity continues to fall. "More than half of U.S. voters believe Barack Obama does not deserve to be reelected", according to a new CNN poll. 52% said he hadn't done enough to deserve a second term, compared to 44% who said he had.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251754/A-year-President-half-U-S-voters-believe-Obama-does-deserve-reelected.html#ixzz0fop7qOGX).
*
You won't be surprised to hear that there is nothing about this poll on the BBC News website and that Mark Mardell has not yet blogged about it. Will it ever be mentioned?
*
President Obama's popularity continues to fall. "More than half of U.S. voters believe Barack Obama does not deserve to be reelected", according to a new CNN poll. 52% said he hadn't done enough to deserve a second term, compared to 44% who said he had.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251754/A-year-President-half-U-S-voters-believe-Obama-does-deserve-reelected.html#ixzz0fop7qOGX).
*
You won't be surprised to hear that there is nothing about this poll on the BBC News website and that Mark Mardell has not yet blogged about it. Will it ever be mentioned?
*
NOT THE IPPR
*
Today's The World at One reported on the disappointing unemployment figures, which show that things are still in a bad place. Its opening report from Andrew Bomford began by citing a recent study by the Centre for Cities. I'd never heard of them, so I looked them and and, would you adam and eve it, this is what I found: "The Centre for Cities was launched in March 2005 as part of the IPPR, which has strong connections to the Labour Party. The Centre for Cities became independent of IPPR in October 2007 and has no formal connection to a political party." A child of the BBC's beloved IPPR! Who would have thought it? Its leading figures still include many a leading Leftie, including self-professed preacher for reform and radicalism Dermot Finch and Labour-supporting historian Tristram Hunt. It's chairman is Tom Bloxham, who also founded Urban Splash - whose other projects, incidentally, include the renovation of the Midland Hotel here in sunny Morecambe:
It's always sunny in Morecambe. (That's a Jim-Naughtie-style fact!)
*
Today's The World at One reported on the disappointing unemployment figures, which show that things are still in a bad place. Its opening report from Andrew Bomford began by citing a recent study by the Centre for Cities. I'd never heard of them, so I looked them and and, would you adam and eve it, this is what I found: "The Centre for Cities was launched in March 2005 as part of the IPPR, which has strong connections to the Labour Party. The Centre for Cities became independent of IPPR in October 2007 and has no formal connection to a political party." A child of the BBC's beloved IPPR! Who would have thought it? Its leading figures still include many a leading Leftie, including self-professed preacher for reform and radicalism Dermot Finch and Labour-supporting historian Tristram Hunt. It's chairman is Tom Bloxham, who also founded Urban Splash - whose other projects, incidentally, include the renovation of the Midland Hotel here in sunny Morecambe:
It's always sunny in Morecambe. (That's a Jim-Naughtie-style fact!)
*
THE EARLY BIRD CATCHES THE LEFT-WING BIAS
*
For early-bird Today listeners, the period from about 6.45-7.00 am tends to be the time when some of the most important agenda-setting interviews with Leftie interest groups tend to take place. These are not available on the Today website (which only offers interviews from 7.00 onwards) and so tend to be missed by other listeners.
*
On Monday there was Michael Fairclough of the Labour-aligned Cooperative Movement, campaigning to give 16-year-olds the vote (presumably because, if they can be bothered to vote, he thinks they'll vote Labour - though as recent research suggests this is no longer necessarily the case.) Guess who he talked to? James Naughtie of course. Mr Fairclough was followed by Louise Ellman, Labour MP and charlady of the Commons Transport select committee, chatting to Sarah Montague about integrated transport policy. Then came Lee Elliott Major of the Sutton Trust, again chatting to Naughtie: "The gap in vocabulary and learning skills between children from low income backgrounds and others is greater by the age of five than some previously thought," said Knockers, "according to the Sutton Trust, the schools' charity." This is far from being Mr Elliott Major's first appearance on the Today programme.
*
Yesterday heard Evan Davis chatting to John Wadham of the Equality and Human Right's Commission, former director of Liberty. He was whinging about body scanners at airports. Privacy was a secondary issue for him. What do you think was his main concern? The Muslim Community's fears of discrimination of course (as if they have anything to do with Islamic terrorism).
*
Today the spot featured 'third sector' (ie. left-wing) organisation Better Banking 's Faisel Rahmen (a regular contributor to The Guardian, of course) complaining about banks and talking up his group's involvement with 'community organisations and anti-poverty organisations'. He chatted to a sympathetic Evan Davis.
*
For early-bird Today listeners, the period from about 6.45-7.00 am tends to be the time when some of the most important agenda-setting interviews with Leftie interest groups tend to take place. These are not available on the Today website (which only offers interviews from 7.00 onwards) and so tend to be missed by other listeners.
*
On Monday there was Michael Fairclough of the Labour-aligned Cooperative Movement, campaigning to give 16-year-olds the vote (presumably because, if they can be bothered to vote, he thinks they'll vote Labour - though as recent research suggests this is no longer necessarily the case.) Guess who he talked to? James Naughtie of course. Mr Fairclough was followed by Louise Ellman, Labour MP and charlady of the Commons Transport select committee, chatting to Sarah Montague about integrated transport policy. Then came Lee Elliott Major of the Sutton Trust, again chatting to Naughtie: "The gap in vocabulary and learning skills between children from low income backgrounds and others is greater by the age of five than some previously thought," said Knockers, "according to the Sutton Trust, the schools' charity." This is far from being Mr Elliott Major's first appearance on the Today programme.
*
Yesterday heard Evan Davis chatting to John Wadham of the Equality and Human Right's Commission, former director of Liberty. He was whinging about body scanners at airports. Privacy was a secondary issue for him. What do you think was his main concern? The Muslim Community's fears of discrimination of course (as if they have anything to do with Islamic terrorism).
*
Today the spot featured 'third sector' (ie. left-wing) organisation Better Banking 's Faisel Rahmen (a regular contributor to The Guardian, of course) complaining about banks and talking up his group's involvement with 'community organisations and anti-poverty organisations'. He chatted to a sympathetic Evan Davis.
*
THERE'LL BE NO WELCOME IN THE STUDIOS
*
It was 'haves' and 'have-nots' on last night's Newsnight, which can only mean one thing - a report from old commie Paul Mason. The 'haves' were the wicked bankers making their evil profits, the 'have nots' were the public sector workers, ground beneath the heel of top-hatted capitalism and its running dogs.
*
As with yesterday's Greek report, Paul began at a protest with striking workers. We heard from two union members and their far-far-left leader Mark Serwotka (PCS union). For a change of perspective Mason then turned to...the TUC! We heard from Ken Mulkearn , editor of their IDS Pay Review, saying all going's to be well for the private sector but not for the public sector (well, he would say that, wouldn't he!) Marc Ostwald, strategist at Monument Securities, came next. Quite what his politics are I can't say! He was on to support Paul's contention that 'output theory' is 'wearing thin'. Then, with all the inevitability of a Bruce Forsyth catchphrase, on came Vince Cable to provide his 'expert' view.
*
At least Vince wasn't one of the guests in the following discussion with Kirsty Wark. Surprisingly that was John Redwood. Mr Redwood may not know the words of the Welsh national anthem (as the BBC still likes to remind us from time to time) but he is a wise voice, worthy of as many invites to the studios of the BBC as Vince himself (but getting VASTLY fewer such invites). He put up a characteristically strong performance. He was up against the aforementioned Mark Serwotka. John Redwood was interrupted three times (I.C. of 0.7). Kirsty's characteristically dumb questions to him went on about 'injustice'. Her first question to Mr Serwotka tempted him to attack the Tories (why not bite the Labour bullet Mark or face a pay freeze under the Tories?) and a later question showed yet again her sheer ineptness as an interviewer. I'm no expert on trade unions but even I already knew that the PCS union is not affiliated to the Labour Party (Labour's far too right-wing for Mr Serwotka and friends). Slursty didn't: "What do you think of the position of your union, for example? Do you think you should just set aside your relations with Labour in the hope than an incoming Conservative government's going to treat you better?"
*
It was 'haves' and 'have-nots' on last night's Newsnight, which can only mean one thing - a report from old commie Paul Mason. The 'haves' were the wicked bankers making their evil profits, the 'have nots' were the public sector workers, ground beneath the heel of top-hatted capitalism and its running dogs.
*
As with yesterday's Greek report, Paul began at a protest with striking workers. We heard from two union members and their far-far-left leader Mark Serwotka (PCS union). For a change of perspective Mason then turned to...the TUC! We heard from Ken Mulkearn , editor of their IDS Pay Review, saying all going's to be well for the private sector but not for the public sector (well, he would say that, wouldn't he!) Marc Ostwald, strategist at Monument Securities, came next. Quite what his politics are I can't say! He was on to support Paul's contention that 'output theory' is 'wearing thin'. Then, with all the inevitability of a Bruce Forsyth catchphrase, on came Vince Cable to provide his 'expert' view.
*
At least Vince wasn't one of the guests in the following discussion with Kirsty Wark. Surprisingly that was John Redwood. Mr Redwood may not know the words of the Welsh national anthem (as the BBC still likes to remind us from time to time) but he is a wise voice, worthy of as many invites to the studios of the BBC as Vince himself (but getting VASTLY fewer such invites). He put up a characteristically strong performance. He was up against the aforementioned Mark Serwotka. John Redwood was interrupted three times (I.C. of 0.7). Kirsty's characteristically dumb questions to him went on about 'injustice'. Her first question to Mr Serwotka tempted him to attack the Tories (why not bite the Labour bullet Mark or face a pay freeze under the Tories?) and a later question showed yet again her sheer ineptness as an interviewer. I'm no expert on trade unions but even I already knew that the PCS union is not affiliated to the Labour Party (Labour's far too right-wing for Mr Serwotka and friends). Slursty didn't: "What do you think of the position of your union, for example? Do you think you should just set aside your relations with Labour in the hope than an incoming Conservative government's going to treat you better?"
*
BURYING BAD POLLS
*
An ongoing story on Not a Sheep's blog is the way the BBC News website's POLL TRACKER fails to be quickly updated (or not updated at all) whenever the Conservatives' poll lead over Labour widens. I can do no better than lift the entire latest installment of the story and plant it here:
*
It would seem that the BBC are back to their old tricks as their Poll Tracker has not yet been updated with this weekend's Com Res poll that showed the Conservatives up 2% at 40%, Labour down 2% at 29% and the Lib Dems up 2% at 21%. The BBC are still showing as their latest poll the Populus poll from 8 Feb that showed Labour narrowing the gap and formed the basis of more Labour catching the Tories stories and speculation about hung Parliaments.
I have complained to the BBC again, I wonder if I will receive the same reply that I received the first time I complained "Regrettably this poll was missed, but it has now been added to the polltracker." or the one I received the last time I complained "We have had some minor technical problems with the polltracker which are being rectified this morning. Both polls will shortly appear. Please be assured there is no intent to distort the data in favour of any of the main parties."
I will report back...
Meanwhile it is interesting that Poll Tracker has been moved from its prominent position under "FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS" just under the headline stories on the Politics news home page to one near the bottom of that page. I wonder if this is in readiness for reporting bad polling news for Labour and if it will return to prominence when a positive for Labour poll appears? I will report back...
Thanks to commentator Llew for the spot that the BBC were up to their old tricks again. http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/poll-tracker-update.html
*
This was at 8 o'clock last night. Ten hours later & there's still no update to the Poll Tracker - four days after the ComRes poll came out in 'The Independent'!
An ongoing story on Not a Sheep's blog is the way the BBC News website's POLL TRACKER fails to be quickly updated (or not updated at all) whenever the Conservatives' poll lead over Labour widens. I can do no better than lift the entire latest installment of the story and plant it here:
*
It would seem that the BBC are back to their old tricks as their Poll Tracker has not yet been updated with this weekend's Com Res poll that showed the Conservatives up 2% at 40%, Labour down 2% at 29% and the Lib Dems up 2% at 21%. The BBC are still showing as their latest poll the Populus poll from 8 Feb that showed Labour narrowing the gap and formed the basis of more Labour catching the Tories stories and speculation about hung Parliaments.
I have complained to the BBC again, I wonder if I will receive the same reply that I received the first time I complained "Regrettably this poll was missed, but it has now been added to the polltracker." or the one I received the last time I complained "We have had some minor technical problems with the polltracker which are being rectified this morning. Both polls will shortly appear. Please be assured there is no intent to distort the data in favour of any of the main parties."
I will report back...
Meanwhile it is interesting that Poll Tracker has been moved from its prominent position under "FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS" just under the headline stories on the Politics news home page to one near the bottom of that page. I wonder if this is in readiness for reporting bad polling news for Labour and if it will return to prominence when a positive for Labour poll appears? I will report back...
Thanks to commentator Llew for the spot that the BBC were up to their old tricks again. http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/poll-tracker-update.html
*
This was at 8 o'clock last night. Ten hours later & there's still no update to the Poll Tracker - four days after the ComRes poll came out in 'The Independent'!
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
UNIVERSAL VINCE
*
The inconsistent drawl of Robert Peston is less in evidence these days, at least on the programmes I review. You are most likely to hear him on the Today programme (as today). Much more familiar, and regularly heard across the BBC's output, are the steady nasal tones of Vince Cable. When yesterday's The World at One discussed UKFI (the weakest link in the government's tripartite system of financial regulation), who did the programme turn to for expert advice? Vince, of course. This morning, when Barclays announced huge profits, who did Today turn to for expert advice? Vince, of course.
*
Vince was the treasury spokesman missing from yesterday's Today programme, when an I.C. of 1.7 was scored against George Osborne, as compared to only 0.7 against Alistair Darling. How did Vince fare in comparison. His I.C. (from Evan Davis) was just 0.4 (2 interruption in just over 5 minutes).
The inconsistent drawl of Robert Peston is less in evidence these days, at least on the programmes I review. You are most likely to hear him on the Today programme (as today). Much more familiar, and regularly heard across the BBC's output, are the steady nasal tones of Vince Cable. When yesterday's The World at One discussed UKFI (the weakest link in the government's tripartite system of financial regulation), who did the programme turn to for expert advice? Vince, of course. This morning, when Barclays announced huge profits, who did Today turn to for expert advice? Vince, of course.
*
Vince was the treasury spokesman missing from yesterday's Today programme, when an I.C. of 1.7 was scored against George Osborne, as compared to only 0.7 against Alistair Darling. How did Vince fare in comparison. His I.C. (from Evan Davis) was just 0.4 (2 interruption in just over 5 minutes).
BY GEORGE!
**
I had a pleasant surprise while listening to today's The World at One, though the surprise didn't last very long. The rise of inflation to 3.5% prompted an interview with someone from a think-tank and, to my
amazement, it wasn't someone from the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) or Demos, it was George Trefgarne of the centre-right Centre for Policy Studies (pictured right). I haven't heard anyone from the CPS on the BBC for ages. I thought, "I'll have to blog about this and give credit where credit is due to 
The World at One." The interview ended and the topic changed to fuel poverty and - and I did have to laugh out loud about this! - who was invited on to comment? Lisa Harker of the IPPR(pictured left)!!! She had a report out on the subject. I've blogged many times now about the number of BBC stories based on reports from the IPPR. This was just the latest example. You just have to laugh! The BBC just couldn't bring itself to allow only someone from a centre-right think-tank onto one of its programmes. That would be unthinkable.
amazement, it wasn't someone from the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) or Demos, it was George Trefgarne of the centre-right Centre for Policy Studies (pictured right). I haven't heard anyone from the CPS on the BBC for ages. I thought, "I'll have to blog about this and give credit where credit is due to 
The World at One." The interview ended and the topic changed to fuel poverty and - and I did have to laugh out loud about this! - who was invited on to comment? Lisa Harker of the IPPR(pictured left)!!! She had a report out on the subject. I've blogged many times now about the number of BBC stories based on reports from the IPPR. This was just the latest example. You just have to laugh! The BBC just couldn't bring itself to allow only someone from a centre-right think-tank onto one of its programmes. That would be unthinkable.*
MASONS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
*
'Former' Trot Paul Mason was back in Greece for last night's Newsnight, talking again to the Greek Far Left.
*
We heard from all manner of leftist strikers, agitators and students, and Paul talked up the risk of severe unrest, even revolution. He was clearly in his element.
*
He then went on to very briefly interview George Alogoskoufis, finance minister of the previous conservative New Democracy government, adopting an accusatory tone and blaming his party alone for the crisis. (He'd absolved the 'social democrat' PASOK from blame earlier in the report, despite their long periods in office throughout the last thirty years.)
*
This was extraordinary stuff, complete with its incidental talk of 'posh people' and their 'Gucci' culture. Citizen Smith ('Power to the people!') would surely have compiled a report just like this one!
*
I was surprised to hear someone on PM last week (I can't remember who) stating that, contrary to the impresson Mason has been giving during the last couple of weeks, the Greek public is broadly understanding and largely supportive of strong austerity measures. A little research shows this to be true:
Greek Polls Register Public Support For Austerity Measures
A number of public opinion polls released over the weekend showed increased public support for the Greek government’s reform measures as it tries to shape the country’s struggling public finances.
As Dow Jones Newswires reports, four separate polls show public approval for tough measures at a rate that exceeds 60%, and in some cases, they even register support for harsher reforms, while also showing relatively little support for recent farmer protests or upcoming strikes by civil servants.
In a poll in Sunday’s To Vima newspaper, 64.1% of participants say the reforms are in the "right direction" while 64.3% note that the measures were necessary.
In a separate poll for Sunday newspaper Proto Thema, between 54.6% and 71.4% of respondants supported for different specific measures ranging from a freeze on public sector wages, to an increase in the retirement age and an increase in the fuel tax.
A poll conducted for the Saturday edition of financial daily Imerisia shows that 68.9% of the public think the measures are necessary for the country to emerge from the crisis.
A poll for Skai radio and television shows that 62% of the public opinion believes the government is capable of dealing with the crisis and 60% say that the three-year austerity plan will deliver.
http://english.capital.gr/news.asp?id=903774
*
You would have thought that Paul Mason might have mentioned this, if only in passing. I've been listening to him on this subject very carefully, and I can't recall him ever mentioning this. His far-Left 'past' probably makes him deaf to this sort of (for him) unwelcome news.
*
Postscript:
In fairness to Mr Mason, his blog covers the same story in much greater detail and does (briefly) mention those opinion polls that show support for austerity measures.
'Former' Trot Paul Mason was back in Greece for last night's Newsnight, talking again to the Greek Far Left.
*
We heard from all manner of leftist strikers, agitators and students, and Paul talked up the risk of severe unrest, even revolution. He was clearly in his element.
*
He then went on to very briefly interview George Alogoskoufis, finance minister of the previous conservative New Democracy government, adopting an accusatory tone and blaming his party alone for the crisis. (He'd absolved the 'social democrat' PASOK from blame earlier in the report, despite their long periods in office throughout the last thirty years.)
*
This was extraordinary stuff, complete with its incidental talk of 'posh people' and their 'Gucci' culture. Citizen Smith ('Power to the people!') would surely have compiled a report just like this one!
*
I was surprised to hear someone on PM last week (I can't remember who) stating that, contrary to the impresson Mason has been giving during the last couple of weeks, the Greek public is broadly understanding and largely supportive of strong austerity measures. A little research shows this to be true:
Greek Polls Register Public Support For Austerity Measures
A number of public opinion polls released over the weekend showed increased public support for the Greek government’s reform measures as it tries to shape the country’s struggling public finances.
As Dow Jones Newswires reports, four separate polls show public approval for tough measures at a rate that exceeds 60%, and in some cases, they even register support for harsher reforms, while also showing relatively little support for recent farmer protests or upcoming strikes by civil servants.
In a poll in Sunday’s To Vima newspaper, 64.1% of participants say the reforms are in the "right direction" while 64.3% note that the measures were necessary.
In a separate poll for Sunday newspaper Proto Thema, between 54.6% and 71.4% of respondants supported for different specific measures ranging from a freeze on public sector wages, to an increase in the retirement age and an increase in the fuel tax.
A poll conducted for the Saturday edition of financial daily Imerisia shows that 68.9% of the public think the measures are necessary for the country to emerge from the crisis.
A poll for Skai radio and television shows that 62% of the public opinion believes the government is capable of dealing with the crisis and 60% say that the three-year austerity plan will deliver.
http://english.capital.gr/news.asp?id=903774
*
You would have thought that Paul Mason might have mentioned this, if only in passing. I've been listening to him on this subject very carefully, and I can't recall him ever mentioning this. His far-Left 'past' probably makes him deaf to this sort of (for him) unwelcome news.
*
Postscript:
In fairness to Mr Mason, his blog covers the same story in much greater detail and does (briefly) mention those opinion polls that show support for austerity measures.
Monday, 15 February 2010
AFTERTHOUGHT TO MY PREVIOUS POST
*
It's clear that James Naughtie is not fit to conduct political interviews during a general election campaign. He is simply too partisan. As soon as the election is called he should (a) be removed from the Today programme for the duration or (b) not allowed to conduct any political interviews, sticking (say) to arts or science stories. For an organisation that is constitutionally pledged to impartiality (ha!) to allow Naughtie free range to bully Conservative and UKIP spokesmen during the general election would be bonkers!
*
I've complained (again) to the Beeb about this & e-mailed a copy of my complaint to George Osborne.
*
My spreadsheets reveal that of the 58 interviews Naughtie has conducted with UK politicians since June 2009 seven out of ten of 'The Top 10 Most Interrupted By James Naughtie' are Tories, but even more remarkable is the fact that not a single Conservative interviewee has not been interrupted by this deeply biased interviewer - not one!!! The same cannot be said of the Labour and the Lib Dems!
*
It's clear that James Naughtie is not fit to conduct political interviews during a general election campaign. He is simply too partisan. As soon as the election is called he should (a) be removed from the Today programme for the duration or (b) not allowed to conduct any political interviews, sticking (say) to arts or science stories. For an organisation that is constitutionally pledged to impartiality (ha!) to allow Naughtie free range to bully Conservative and UKIP spokesmen during the general election would be bonkers!
*
I've complained (again) to the Beeb about this & e-mailed a copy of my complaint to George Osborne.
*
My spreadsheets reveal that of the 58 interviews Naughtie has conducted with UK politicians since June 2009 seven out of ten of 'The Top 10 Most Interrupted By James Naughtie' are Tories, but even more remarkable is the fact that not a single Conservative interviewee has not been interrupted by this deeply biased interviewer - not one!!! The same cannot be said of the Labour and the Lib Dems!
*
NAUGHTIE GETS BUSTED BY GEORGE OSBORNE
*
There was a full-blown bust-up on this morning's Today programme between ultra-biased James Naughtie and George Osborne. Naughtie was on fully-biased form again, badgering Mr Osborne over the Conservatives' Co-operative scheme before moving onto the issue of the deficit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8515000/8515699.stm
*
The bust-up was still to come though.
*
Labour has been bandying about the phrase 'swingeing cuts' in connection with the Conservatives and Naughtie began the section on tackling the deficit by bandying it about too (it's at 3.38 on the clip linked to above). He is what he said: "Just let me turn to what happens to public spending after the election. We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down. There won't be swingeing cuts, it was said, but there will be very strong efforts to control public spending."
*
At 5.13 Naughtie pursued the point, saying, "I don't doubt that anyone reading it (the letter from the economists) can doubt that it's an interesting and important letter but surely what it means is that there needs to be, in the view of those economists, 'swingeing cuts', which is precisely what David Cameron, presumably to avoid scaring people, said there wouldn't be. Who's right, the economists or your leader?"
*
Mr Osborne begin his answer but within 4 seconds (!) Naughtie barged in again with "they want 'swingeing cuts!'
*
This was too much for Mr Osborne. At last the worm turned! (And not before time!!)
&
This is how the exchange went from then on:
Osborne: "You keep using this word 'swingeing', which you first attributed to David Cameron and he never used, now attribute it to the economists, and I've got the letter in front on me and..."
Naughtie (interrupting:) "I'm sorry, if I'm wrong about that I apologize, but I thought he said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'?
Osborne: "Exactly. He said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts', he...
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "So he did say used the word 'swingeing'. Sorry, let's be clear about this. You said I said he used the word 'swingeing' and he didn't. He did!"
Osborne: "Jim, er, this is a semantic point but earlier you were saying David Cameron had said there would be 'swingeing cuts', then you said that the economists were saying there will be 'swingeing cuts', let's get to the key..."
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "No. Let's be clear about this. David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts' and I was suggesting to you that the economists' letter and you own approach suggested that there would be such cuts, because they were necessary and because Ken Clarke had said we would have to have a deeper attack on public spending than under Margaret Thatcher, that's the argument..."
Osborne: "Let's move on from the semantic point and concentrate on the central point here..."
*
As you can very clearly see , every single word of what George Osborne said here was 100% correct:
- Naughtie had kept using the word 'swingeing'
- Naughtie had "first attributed" the word to David Cameron ("We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down.")
- He had, therefore, not just used it earlier in the interview (as he claimed) in connection with Cameron's 'after' policy (i.e. when "David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'") but with his 'before' policy too.
*
George Osborne had caught Naughtie out. Naughtie lied and blustered in response. Absolutely shameful behaviour.
**
The interview lasted 7 minutes, contained 11 interruptions and resulted in an I.C. of 1.7.
*
******
There was a full-blown bust-up on this morning's Today programme between ultra-biased James Naughtie and George Osborne. Naughtie was on fully-biased form again, badgering Mr Osborne over the Conservatives' Co-operative scheme before moving onto the issue of the deficit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8515000/8515699.stm
*
The bust-up was still to come though.
*
Labour has been bandying about the phrase 'swingeing cuts' in connection with the Conservatives and Naughtie began the section on tackling the deficit by bandying it about too (it's at 3.38 on the clip linked to above). He is what he said: "Just let me turn to what happens to public spending after the election. We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down. There won't be swingeing cuts, it was said, but there will be very strong efforts to control public spending."
*
At 5.13 Naughtie pursued the point, saying, "I don't doubt that anyone reading it (the letter from the economists) can doubt that it's an interesting and important letter but surely what it means is that there needs to be, in the view of those economists, 'swingeing cuts', which is precisely what David Cameron, presumably to avoid scaring people, said there wouldn't be. Who's right, the economists or your leader?"
*
Mr Osborne begin his answer but within 4 seconds (!) Naughtie barged in again with "they want 'swingeing cuts!'
*
This was too much for Mr Osborne. At last the worm turned! (And not before time!!)
&
This is how the exchange went from then on:
Osborne: "You keep using this word 'swingeing', which you first attributed to David Cameron and he never used, now attribute it to the economists, and I've got the letter in front on me and..."
Naughtie (interrupting:) "I'm sorry, if I'm wrong about that I apologize, but I thought he said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'?
Osborne: "Exactly. He said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts', he...
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "So he did say used the word 'swingeing'. Sorry, let's be clear about this. You said I said he used the word 'swingeing' and he didn't. He did!"
Osborne: "Jim, er, this is a semantic point but earlier you were saying David Cameron had said there would be 'swingeing cuts', then you said that the economists were saying there will be 'swingeing cuts', let's get to the key..."
Naughtie (interrupting angrily): "No. Let's be clear about this. David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts' and I was suggesting to you that the economists' letter and you own approach suggested that there would be such cuts, because they were necessary and because Ken Clarke had said we would have to have a deeper attack on public spending than under Margaret Thatcher, that's the argument..."
Osborne: "Let's move on from the semantic point and concentrate on the central point here..."
*
As you can very clearly see , every single word of what George Osborne said here was 100% correct:
- Naughtie had kept using the word 'swingeing'
- Naughtie had "first attributed" the word to David Cameron ("We've had David Cameron talking about 'swingeing cuts' and then that was slightly watered down.")
- He had, therefore, not just used it earlier in the interview (as he claimed) in connection with Cameron's 'after' policy (i.e. when "David Cameron had said there wouldn't be 'swingeing cuts'") but with his 'before' policy too.
*
George Osborne had caught Naughtie out. Naughtie lied and blustered in response. Absolutely shameful behaviour.
**
The interview lasted 7 minutes, contained 11 interruptions and resulted in an I.C. of 1.7.
*
******
PART TWO: NAUGHTIE TALKS TO ALISTAIR DARLING
**
Later in the same hour Naughtie interviewed Mr Osborne's opposite number, Alistair Darling. The interview lasted a couple of minutes more than the one with George Osborne but contained significantly fewer interruptions - 6 as compared to the 11 against Mr Osborne. The resultant I.C. was 0.7 compared to 1.7. Naughtie's tone during the interview was odd, as you can hear here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8515000/8515775.stm
Had his producers had a quiet word in the mean time and told him that he's been caught out and might be in trouble? Was that a nervous laugh at 7.04? He seemed to be trying to sound more forceful with Mr Darling that he would usually be but without much success - he merely sounded wimpish and unconvincing! His natural reluctance to make trouble for his party (Labour)triumphed over what seemed to be his desire to make some amends for his earlier transgressions. Have a listen and see what you think.
WESTSPINSTER HOUR
*
We last met left-leaning academic Professor Robert Hazell of University Collegee London in last Monday's anti-Tory report from Michael Crick (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search?q=Hazell). He was back on the BBC for last night's Westminster Hour. His topic? The Conservative Party's constitutional agenda. He foresaw many problems facing the Tories over devolution, their plans to enshine European referenda in law and so on, outlining them all to a receptive Carolyn Quinn.
*
More talk of Tories, no actual Tories.
*
The politics panel this week also talked about the Tories, but contained no actual Tories - it consisted of Labour's Paul Flynn and Lib Dem Evan Harris.
*
The programme, as noted before, is now staggering the parties so as to allow the smaller parties a chance. So next week should, if the programme is being fair, sent an invite to the Conservatives (who are now owed a week - oh yes, I'm keeping score!!) and I guess, going off previous guests from the Greens, UKIP and the cross-benches, to someone from the SNP, BNP or Plaid Cymru. We'll see.*
*
We last met left-leaning academic Professor Robert Hazell of University Collegee London in last Monday's anti-Tory report from Michael Crick (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search?q=Hazell). He was back on the BBC for last night's Westminster Hour. His topic? The Conservative Party's constitutional agenda. He foresaw many problems facing the Tories over devolution, their plans to enshine European referenda in law and so on, outlining them all to a receptive Carolyn Quinn.
*
More talk of Tories, no actual Tories.
*
The politics panel this week also talked about the Tories, but contained no actual Tories - it consisted of Labour's Paul Flynn and Lib Dem Evan Harris.
*
The programme, as noted before, is now staggering the parties so as to allow the smaller parties a chance. So next week should, if the programme is being fair, sent an invite to the Conservatives (who are now owed a week - oh yes, I'm keeping score!!) and I guess, going off previous guests from the Greens, UKIP and the cross-benches, to someone from the SNP, BNP or Plaid Cymru. We'll see.*
*
MUCH TALK OF TORIES, BUT NO ACTUAL TORIES
*
Who was the all-seeing journalist on Radio 4's Westminster Hour this week?
*
Well, here's that list again, with its newest member.
*
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
To my perennial question "When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes?", comes the answer "Well, not this week - again!!!."
*
Who was the all-seeing journalist on Radio 4's Westminster Hour this week?
*
Well, here's that list again, with its newest member.
*
14/2/10 Jean Eaglesham of the Financial Times
7/2/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
31/1/10 George Parker of the Financial Times
24/1/10 Kevin Maguire of the Mirror
17/1/10 Andrew Grice of the Independent
10/1/10 Nick Watt of the Guardian
3/1/10 Michael Savage of the Independent
27/12/09 no programme
20/12/09 no journalist
13/12/09 Andrew Miller of the Economist
6/12/09 George Parker of the Financial Times
29/11/09 Toby Helm of the Observer
22/11/09 no journalist
15/11/09 Nick Watt of the Guardian
To my perennial question "When can we expect a Conservative (or UKIP) supporting journalist from the Times, the Telegraph or the Mail to receive an invite to appear on this most unbalanced of BBC programmes?", comes the answer "Well, not this week - again!!!."
*
Sunday, 14 February 2010
11% LESS COVERAGE
*
A minor point maybe but we've heard a heck of a lot on The Andrew Marr Show, The Politics Show and many other BBC programmes about opinion polls recently. These opinion polls tend to show the gap between Labour and the Conservatives narrowing (the ones that show the most narrowing getting the most coverage at the BBC). Today's Comres poll for The Independent, which shows the Tory lead widening again to 11%, is however receiving very little coverage. Sky News are covering it though:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/George-Osborne-And-David-Miliband-Dismiss-Opinion-Poll-Showing-Tory-Lead-Widening/Article/201002215548765?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15548765_George_Osborne_And_David_Miliband_Dismiss_Opinion_Poll_Showing_Tory_Lead_Widening
*
A minor point maybe but we've heard a heck of a lot on The Andrew Marr Show, The Politics Show and many other BBC programmes about opinion polls recently. These opinion polls tend to show the gap between Labour and the Conservatives narrowing (the ones that show the most narrowing getting the most coverage at the BBC). Today's Comres poll for The Independent, which shows the Tory lead widening again to 11%, is however receiving very little coverage. Sky News are covering it though:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/George-Osborne-And-David-Miliband-Dismiss-Opinion-Poll-Showing-Tory-Lead-Widening/Article/201002215548765?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15548765_George_Osborne_And_David_Miliband_Dismiss_Opinion_Poll_Showing_Tory_Lead_Widening
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
