The BBC's response to accusations of bias

Back in May, just before the general election I lodged a complaint with the BBC about the serious bias shown by Andrew Marr during his interviews with the three main party leaders. In case you have forgotten, here's what I wrote in my complaint:

'... Andrew Marr's interview with Gordon Brown broke down between subjects thus:
Hung parliaments, campaign, the Queen - 12m 18s (48.5%)
Immigration - 5m 21s (21%)
Bankers - 3m 11s (12.5%)
Ash cloud - 2m 40s (10.5%)
Afghanistan - 1m 56s (7.5%)
Cuts, deficit - 0 m 0s (0%)

Andrew Marr's interview with Nick Clegg broke down between subjects thus:
Hung parliaments, Clegg personally - 11m 7s (49.7%)
Immigration - 7m 32s (33.7%)
Trident - 3m 42s (16.6%)
Cuts, deficit - 0m os (0%)

Andrew Marr's interview with David Cameron broke down between subjects thus:
Cuts, deficit - 15m 26s (67%)
Priorities - 3m 20s (14.5%)
Hung parliament, campaign - 3 m 0s (13%)
Living Wage - 1m 18s (5.5%)


So Andrew Marr spent 2/3 of the whole interview discussing with David Cameron a subject that he chose not to raise with Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown at all. If the subject of 'cuts' was so important as to warrant 2/3 of the interview with David Cameron, why was it not important enough to raise with Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg? Does Andrew Marr believe that only the Conservatives will make cuts or is that just the perception he would like to leave viewers with?


Andrew Marr's position as one of the BBC's lead interviewer is compromised by such blatant bias; what action will the BBC Trust take against him now that you have proof of his anti-Conservative bias?


The percentages are sourced from http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-on-marr.html - If you disagree with the figures, do please correct them.'

And here's what I predicted at the time would be the BBC's response:

'Somehow I doubt that the BBC will address my substantive points but will instead point to a duty to be balanced across programmes.'

I have received a reply from the BBC and blow me down, if I wasn't right (my comments in italics):

'Dear Mr SHEEP
- Mr NotaSheep actually, but I suppose that's the BBC's form's fault.

Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'The Andrew Marr Show'.

I'm sorry for the delay in replying to your complaint. - Just over a month!

With regards to your concerns, unless we specifically say they are - interviews do not follow a strict formula or are timed on subject matters as you suggest. I didn't say that a strict formula should have been followed, I was pointing out the clear bias in the subjects chosen to be discussed.

Interviews are fluid and conversational as any normal conversation would be - the topics covered and the amount of time on different issues will of course naturally vary between different people discussing different parties and their differing policies and approaches to such matters. So you maintain that Andrew Marr spending 0% of the time allocated to the interviews discussing cuts or the deficit with Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg but 67% discussing cuts and the deficit with David Cameron are natural? These interviews are not 'conversations', as you claim, as the subjects raised are decided by just one party, Andrew Marr, not both parties. As Andrew Marr decides what subjects to raise, why did he think cuts and the deficit was really important to discuss with David Cameron but not with Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg?

That being the case, the figures provide no evidence whatsoever of any "bias" because interviews are not judged on such criteria. The BBC has a remit to be unbiased, if the subject of 'cuts' was so important as to warrant 2/3 of the interview with David Cameron, why was it not important enough to even raise with Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg? Did Andrew Marr believe that only the Conservatives will make cuts or is that just the perception he would like to leave viewers with?

The BBC editorial guidelines make it perfectly clear in explaining that impartiality "does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view" As I predicted

the bbc has no view on the content of http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-on-marr.html which represents the personal views of someone called Craig - and in any case, in light of the above explanation it is not relevant to comment on any figures they quote.Nicely side-stepped.

I hope this addresses your concerns and I'd like to assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC. It certainly does not and I will be replying.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.

Kind Regards

Sarah Wilson'

I intend to reply to Sarah Wilson at the weekend, what points do you think I should make to try and elicit a more satisfactory response?