Disarming Hillary Clinton's bodyguards

I was going to post a piece pointing out the blatant bias and misrepresentation in the BBC's report on Donald Trump's comments about Hillary Clinton's bodyguards entitled 'US election: Clinton security should be disarmed, says Trump.' however the wonderful Craig at Isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk has done a great job already, read it here http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/seriously-bbc.html

BBC Double Standards

Beeb Bias Craig was one of my favourite sites and isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk is a fine followup.

This article http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/double-standards.html is almost precisely what I wanted to write, so I'll link to it instead! 

'The example of the BBC's swift (and heavy) reporting of the 'Britain First!' cry reporting in the murder of Jo Cox, in contrast to their widely-noted reluctance to quote cries of 'Allahu Akbar' in several recent murders (including mass murders) of the continent, shows a ongoing and alarming double standard in the BBC's reporting.'

Well said Craig.

A litle physics humour to mark Professor Peter Higgs's Nobel Prize (shared)

A Higgs Boson walks into a Catholic Church one Sunday morning. The priest looks up from the altar, sees the boson, points to the sanctuary door, and yells, "We don't allow your kind in here!"
The Higgs Boson protests, replying, "But Father! You can't have mass without me!"


Thanks to Craig at Is The BBC Biased for that.

Interruptions, interruptions

Beeb Bias Craig  is back with a stonking piece of analysis of BBC bias. Take a read, it's well worth it.

Beeb Bias Craig is back!

One of my favourite blogs was Beeb Bias Craig, the blog of Craig a man of Morecambe descent who analysed BBC bias with a degree of forensic detail that I could only marvel at.

He closed his blog on 26 May 2010 and started contributing more at Biased BBC (now here) .

He did promise me that he'd resurrect his blog but instead I learn today that Craig and Sue have been posting on a new blog Is the BBC biased?. I will take a detailed look around the site later but at first glance the detailed investiagtive work you'd expect from Craig is much in evidence.

The Resolution Foundation

I don't normally do this but Craig (ex Beeb Bias Craig) has posted some fascinating points  in the comments of a Biased BBC article and I think that they are a fine example of how the BBC/Labour coalition manufacture 'news' and set the agenda from a firm left of centre position.So here is his analysis, with all due thanks to Biased-BBC. and Craig.

'So 'Newsnight' mentions a report from the Resolution Foundation think tank about the plight of 'The Squeezed Middle', the Ed Miliband phrase used by reporter David Grossman.

The guy who appeared from the Resolution Foundation was Gavin Kelly. What Grossman didn't mention is that he was Gordon Brown's Deputy Chief of Staff as prime minister, having previously worked in Tony Blair's Policy Unit.

That Resolution Foundation is the sort of think tank the BBC likes to call "independent". How 'independent' is it?

Digging a bit more into that Resolution Foundation think tank, which 'Newsnight' was touting last night without letting on that their expert 'talking head' was a former advisor to Gordon Brown and that the BBC News website repeatedly presents as 'independent', reveals that they receive a fair amount of coverage from the BBC.

Looking back, when Miliband began his 'squeezed middle' campaign in November 2010, the BBC quoted a report by "the Resolution Foundation think-tank", as if it were co-incidental.

When Miliband made a speech attacking Tory cuts in February 2011 he was reported by the BBC as addressing "the Resolution Foundation, a think tank". By a remarkable co-incidence, Today interviewed someone from "The Resolution Foundation" on that very day on the very subject of Miliband's speech, and so did 5 Live .

Cameron's cuts threaten welfare reform, warned the Resolution Foundation, "a think tank", back in May 2011. Labour's Stephen Timms was on hand to agree with them. 

"The Resolution Foundation says wage inequality is getting worse" on 5Live in October 2011.

Cuts in tax credits are under attack from "an organisation" called The Resolution Foundation last November. 

In December 2011, Radio 5 Live has on someone from the "research group, the Resolution Foundation" to talk about living standards. 6 days later the same guy was back on 5 Live calling for regulation of letting agents, this time representing a "group, which represents people on low to middle incomes". The same theme was brought up on the same day's You and Yours, where the organisation was just given its name.

They've had lots of coverage this year, first in an article on inequality which calls them "a new independent think tank", then getting publicity for their latest report on personal spending where they are called a "think tank" and "the independent think tank, the Resolution Foundation".

The only programme that comes a little bit clean is The Week in Westminster, back in April 2011, where "Gavin Kelly of the think tank the Resolution Foundation" is described as "formerly an adviser to Gordon Brown".

How 'independent' are they? Who are 'the team' behind the independent Resolution Foundation think tank?

Well, there's chief executive Gavin Kelly, former advisor to prime minister Gordon Brown, for starters. 

Then there's Vidhya Alakeson, research and strategy director, who has worked for several left-leaning think tanks (some with links to Labour, such as Policy Network and the Social Market Foundation) and, like Mr Kelly. also worked in the prime minister's policy unit under Labour. 

There's also James Plunkett, Secretary to the Commission on Living Standards, who has written for the Guardian attacking Michael Gove's education policies as "tired old Tory ideology" and elsewhere attacking the "malevolence" of "the Nasty Party". He worked in Gordon Brown's strategy unit from 2008-09.

Then there's senior economist Matthew Whittaker, who also serves as a "wise man" on the Labour-aligned IPPR's New Era Economics panel.

Also Felicity Dennistoun, external affair assistant, who was a parliamentary assistant to Labour's Emily Thornberry, andJoe Coward, research and communications assistant, who came from the centre-left Demos think tank.

Guido got the main piece of the jigsaw quite some time back. The man who founded the Resolution Foundation, insurance tycoon Clive Cowdery, is a Labour Party donor.

The Resolution Foundation looks set to join the IPPR and Demos as a favoured think tank of the BBC. Given the links so many of its key figures have to the last Labour government and their ties to other left-of-centre think tanks, would it be too much to ask BBC presenters/reporters to say things like, "A report today from the left-leaning think tank, the Resolution Foundation, found that...." or "Former advisor to Gordon Brown, Gavin Kelly/James Plunkett of the Resolution Foundation, said...."?'

Can you think of any excuse for the above deceit by the BBC; I cannot.

Compare and contrast media attention (an update)

I have received a few derogatory posts from anonymous commenters, some of which I posted and some of which I deemed not worthy of your time or my space. Once comment that I did post is from Biased-BBC's Craig  who has posted this relevant piece about the very different ways that the BBC have reported the Tea Party protests and those of Occupy Wall Street.

As so often is the case with the BBC, the bias is clear and obvious to anyone with an open mind. Unfortunately there are too many people in the UK (some of whom insist on infesting this blog) who have made up their minds that the BBC's impartiality is beyond question and that I and others who point out their insidious bias are in some way deluded.

Compare and contrast media attention

Family Security Matters contrasts the largely positive coverage by the big three American news outlets (ABC, CBS and NBC) of the Occupy Wall Street protestors with the same outlets' coverage of the Tea Party protests:

'In just the first eleven days of October, ABC, CBS and NBC flooded their morning and evening newscasts with a whopping 33 full stories or interview segments on the protesters. This was a far cry from the greeting the Tea Party received from the Big Three as that conservative protest movement was initially ignored (only 13 total stories in all of 2009) and then reviled.

Where the Tea Party was met with skeptical claims of their motivations -- with some reporters claiming they were merely corporate backed puppets and others implying they were spurred on by their racist opposition to the first black president - the Occupy Wall Street crowd was depicted as an almost genial "grassroots" movement...'

I haven't the slightest doubt that the BBC's coverage has been just as biased; maybe Beeb Bias Craig has the proof?

The BBC's coverage of the Labour and Conservative party conferences has been analysed

I knew Beeb Bias Craig would not let us down and he hasn't. On Biased BBC Craig has some very detailed analysis of the way the BBC Radio 4 Today programme covered the Labour and Conservative party conferences. It's a long but very rewarding read, here's the conclusion but do go and read the whole piece:

'A comparison of the 'Today' programme's coverage of the Labour Party and Conservative Party conferences reveals a significant degree of pro-Labour bias. Though only a few items, such as the Danny Shaw report, screamed 'bias!', the cumulative effect of the different moods established by the two respective presenters, the severe skewing of the commentariat towards the Labour Party, the unhelpfulness of the reports towards one party in particular, the presence of other unhelpful items towards that party (in contrast to a helpful one towards the other party), the framing of interviews, and the programme's initial agenda-setting (always followed through), all adds up to coverage that is much more favourable to one party than to another. I have tried to be as fair as fair can be towards the programme here but there is always the possibility that my own biases are blinding me to flaws in my own study. So, though I think I'm correct in all my judgements, please check the links (to whatever is still accessible on the 'Today' website) and see if you think I really am!

Of course, the question 'Does any of this really matter?' arises, especially when the Conservative Party itself shows little or no concern about biased BBC reporting. The related question 'Who cares?' may also cross your mind. (It crossed mine several times while writing this!) Still, the BBC has an obligation to impartiality and boasts that it is impartial. It it fails on that score, it must be called out. '

The incestuousess of the BBC and Labour

Stephanie Flanders' previous dalliances with Labour's Ed Balls and Ed Miliband are not that well known to the general public, even if readers of this blog do know. I was however shocked to read that the Labour/media links do not end there:

'After a sound montage of Ed's leadership, we got the views of Patrick Wintour of the Guardian (inevitably) and Jenni Russell of the Sunday Times. Jenni Russell was surprisingly nice about Ed. Googling her, it turns out that there's a good reason for that - Ed Miliband is her child's godfather!'

Thanks to Craig at Biased-BBC for that info.

That charmless man

I heard the BBC Radio 4 Toady programme's interview with Ed 'second choice' Balls yesterday morning. What a sycophantic interview by James "If we win the election" Naughtie. Interviews by Naughtie and Humphrys with Conservative ministers are full of interruptions to break the interviewee's train of thought and aggressive questions.This interview was far more genial. There were some tough questions but these were put almost apologetically, in the spirit of 'I hope you know that I have to ask this question but don't worry I won't pursue the matter, whatever you respond.'

The general tone of the interview was very matey, talk of football and gentle ribbing; in the way that friends or workmates do.  I doubt that George Osborne will be similarly treated as one of the gang next week.


I do hope that (Beed Biased) Craig was listening to the interview and will be comparing it with the one that George Osborne will be subjected to next week. I expect the interruption coefficients to be very different.

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?

Complaining to the BBC about the Andrew Marr Show's blatant bias

Back on 3 May I made a complaint to the BBC about the Andrew Marr Show's bias:

'... 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.''

Today I received a response, but not much of one:

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

We're still looking in to your complaint about the above programme, however I hope you understand that the General Election period has resulted in significant audience correspondence and we are currently dealing with a number of complaints.

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this e-mail - in the meantime, we would like to thank you for again for contacting us with your concerns and appreciate your patience in awaiting a response

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

Andrew Hannah'

So that's almost a month not to answer my original complaint and this response is basically a 'stop bothering us, we'll get back to you in our own time' email.

The BBC happy to take our money, not willing to answer for their misdemeanours.

Who will be next?

A week ago Letters From a Tory ceased his daily letter writing and the blogosphere lost a talent. Today Beeb Bias Craig has announced that his blog is 'now officially closed' and the blogosphere has lost an even bigger talent.

Whilst LFAT was a must read and gave interesting insights, Beeb Bias Craig was one of my favourite bloggers; his quantifying of the BBC's bias was the proof that we needed that the BBC were indeed biased in their political coverage. I fear that the likes of James Naughtie, Andrew Marr and Kirsty Wark will rest easier tonight knowing that they will no longer be subject to Craig's interruption coefficients and detailed timings.

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell; 'to lose one favourite blogger, Mr NotaSheep, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose two looks like...'

If a third favourite blogger retires then I may even have to dredge up my favourite Goldfinger quotation!

The BBC and their U2/Bono obsession

The BBC and their U2/Bono obsession just never fails to deliver. The BBC's third most important article on their website is that

'Bono has emergency spinal surgery, putting U2's upcoming concert dates, including Glastonbury, in jeopardy.'

This is important news? More important than the economy in free-fall, the Labour leadership wrangles, etc.? I think not.

However the BBC are obsessed by Bono, he's a living saint and of course Glastonbury is one of the great BBC staff outings.


UPDATE:
Beeb Bias Craig has posted a helpful comment looking at Sky News and ITN's news front pages that I repost here:

'Sky News has 'Mum admits killing her children in Spain, 'Royal Marine dies in Afghanistan blast', 'BA reveals record annual loss of £531m' and 'Outlaws gang leader jailed over drugs.' Bono doesn't feature anywhere on their homepage, despite their having dozens of stories there.

ITN has 'Massacre in Pakistan', 'BA's fighting talk', 'Cameron's veto hint', 'MI5 at terror inquest' and 'Statins doing damage'. Again, Bono isn't even mentioned.

As you say, what is it about the BBC and Bono? To be placed third (after 'Confessions over Spain killings' and 'No more powers to EU, says Cameron') is just unreal.'

'Male and pale'

The BBC are pushing 'the narrative' that the Conservative/LibDem cabinet is 'male and pale'. 'So what' I thought but Beeb Bias Craig has done the necessary analysis and has discovered that whilst the Conservative/LibDem cabinet of 23 features just 4 women, the last Labour government by way of contrast 'also contained just 4 women out of a cabinet of 23'; so that's the 'male' part dealt with. Beeb Bias Craig also looks at the 'pale' part of the double charge 'I'll match lonely Baroness Scotland (1) with Baroness Warsi (1)'

So will that stop the BBC/Labour attacks on the 'male and pale' front? No, of course not', there is a 'narrative' to establish.

You must read in the final week of the general election campaign

The Beeb Bias Craig blog has come of age in this general election campaign. Craig's ceaseless analysis of the extent of the BBC's bias has been most impressive both in its scope and the level of detail recorded. There are too may articles for me to chose one, so go and read the lot and make sure Beeb Bias Craig is a daily read.

BBC Poll Tracker related news

Now that the opinion polls seem to show a small but clear Conservative lead, albeit at a lower level than some months ago, it seems that the BBC have stopped reporting that the polls show the Conservatives with no lead and instead resort to comments such as

'2205: Two of the latest polls show that only 5% separates the parties in first and third place, while in the other the gap is just 4%, says David Cowling, editor of BBC political research. "All three polls keep this election firmly in hung parliament territory, with Labour the largest party," he says. "It is still a genuinely close three-horse race."'

Surely any other news agency would be reporting that the current government party is in third place in the opinion polls and that democracy would be ill-served by such a party being 'the largest party'.


Thanks to Beeb Bias Craig for the '2205' spot.

Vote yellow get Brown

Subrosa lists Lib Dem policies that Gordon Brown will acquiesce with in order to keep his snotty hands on the levers of power:

'We will not waste taxpayer subsidies on nuclear power and we will block any plans for dirty coal power stations.

A zero-carbon Britain – We are the first party to aim for a carbon neutral Britain so we don't contribute at all to global warming - making the British economy carbon neutral overall by 2050, reducing carbon emissions in the UK by over 40% of 1990 levels by 2020 as a step on the way.

Share the security burden through more defence co-operation with allies – European
countries need to work together more effectively on defence and security. There are huge savings to be made by buying in bulk and sharing military assets. With the defence budget under terrible strain, it would be irresponsible not to do this.

The Euro – Liberal Democrats believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the Euro.'

The BBC/Labour alliance have decided that to save Britain from 'the same old Tories' an alliance of Labour and the Lib Dems is the best option and they are actively working towards that end. The supine Conservatives have left it too late to complain about the BBC's bias that I, Biased-BBC and Beeb Bias Craig have been documenting for so long - they almost deserve to lose this election- the complacent fools.

The BBC deciding the 'narrative'

Beeb Bias Craig has spotted something very revealing.

'David Cowling, editor of the BBC Political Research Unit, has posted this today on the BBC website's Poll Watch:

Analysis:
*
SATURDAY UPDATE:

A Sun newspaper poll, carried out after the TV debate, suggests Labour are in third place on 28% (down 3%), with the Lib Dems on 30% (up 8%) and the Conservatives 33% (down 4%). Applying the figures from The Sun poll, which came from a YouGov survey of 1,290 people, to the BBC News website's election seat calculator, results in the following: Labour 276 seats; Conservatives 245 seats; Lib Dems 100 seats; Others 29 seats.

This is the first national poll sampled after Thursday's debate. Clearly the findings, if confirmed by the polls expected on Sunday, are important. It is worth pointing out that the two point difference between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is within normal sampling error, so it does not mean Labour is definitively in third place.

Although the headline focus may be on the Liberal Democrats appearing ahead of Labour we should not ignore the poll's suggestion that the Conservative fall in support is bigger than Labour's.

Perhaps it is best to consider this single poll as an immediate referendum on Thursday night's debate, until we have evidence, if any, that it represents the settled will of British voters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8626154.stm

*
Why does Mr Cowling emphasize the possibility of a sampling error concerning the 2% Lib Dem lead over Labour but ignore it when foregrounding the additional 1% fall in support by the Conservatives (4% compared to 3% for Labour)? Surely we 'should not ignore' that the 'normal sampling error' also 'does not mean' 'that the Conservative fall in support is' 'definitively' ' bigger than Labour's'.'

I think Beeb Bias Craig knows as well as I do why Mr Cowling wants to place emphasis in the way that he says; the BBC need to keep the pressure on the Conservatives and minimise the pressure on Labour.