MarrShow: Diane Abbott car crash interview on antisemitism (01May16)

https://youtu.be/Z4Sw5Er2Xp4

Watch the interview, listen to the excuses of Diane Abbott, ask yourself if you believe her. 

But then ask yourself where Andrew Marr gets the right to just accept that the State of Israel is responsible for the hatred against Jews. Iranians hang homosexuals, Islam must not be blamed. Saudi Arabian authorities let female students burn to death in a school, Islam must not be blamed. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis live as slaves across the Gulf, Islam must not be blamed. BUT Pallywood and the anti Semitic scum of the West exaggerate, lie and lie and lie again about Israel and that's why antisemitism exists?

BBC Andrew Marr's Tory Lord Coke Freudian Slip

It's so part of the BBC psyche

Andrew Marr lied to the Prime Minister, he was found out and had to issue a grudging apology

Andrew Marr lied to the Prime Minister, he was found out and had to issue a grudging apology



Of course last week's claim went uncorrected at the time, so at least some of the mud slung stuck. So job done BBC, get the message out - VOTE LABOUR

If Andrew Marr wasn't such a leftie

We can but dream.

Andrew Marr and BBC impartiality

We are told that the BBC is impartial, indeed Helen Boaden said that 'impartiality was in their genes'. So with the spotlight currently on Andrew Marr, albeit for something that is of little or no interest to me, I thought it a good time to repeat what he said in the Daily Mail on 21 Oct 2006.

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"

So which of Andrew Marr and Helen Boaden were telling the truth and which not; is the BBC impartial or not? Your thoughts Helen Boaden and Andrew Marr would be welcome...

Googling

A lot of visitors have come to this site today having googled Andrew Marr but oddly one also came having googled 'andrew sachs granddaughter'. There's a subject that I had all but forgotten about - the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross/Andrew Sachs/Georgina Baillie story.

Here's the lady in question...

Meanwhile the Andrew Marr searches have been along the lines of 'andrew marr's mistress name' even though I have not named her although I not that others on the web have.

Andrew Marr - oh dear

The news that Andrew Marr has decided to become the first public figure to voluntarily admit previously trying to conceal his infidelity via a super-injunction/gagging order comes as no real surprise. I doubt that there were many people who if interested had not managed to discover who the male celebrity, previously only hinted at in news reports, was. Andrew Marr managed to impose a High Court injunction in January 2008 so as to suppress any reporting of a relationship with a fellow journalist five years earlier. At the time Andrew Marr believed he had fathered a child with the woman and so was making maintenance payments. A fairly recent DNA test showed that he was not in fact the girl's father. Private Eye has dropped heavy hints in the past, indeed the current issue continues that pattern, and I believe was planning to challenge the injunction.

Now Andrew Marr has made the odd comment that "I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists"; but that is just what you did do Andrew.

However I am not really concerned by Andrew Marr's private life, his infidelity, his mistress or his love-child (or not). I am more concerned by the way that a former member of the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory whilst at Cambridge University, a former self-confessed 'raving leftie' nicknamed 'Red Andy' and the current husband of the political journalist at the left-wing Guardian Jackie Ashley has become one of the chief political interviewers at the 'impartial' BBC.

Andrew Marr's infidelities and gagging orders are of no real interest to me but his blatant pro-Labour/anti-Conservative bias in interviews is. Here is what I wrote in June 2010:

'Here is the text of a complaint that I have just lodged at the BBC Trust's complaint's page re the bias shown by Andrew Marr in his interviews with the three main party leaders:

'... 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.'

You can read about the BBC's response and my response to that here.

Anyway now that Andrew Marr has decided to come clean about his personal life do you think he will do the same about his political bias?

How many more of Tony Blair's secret deals are going to emerge and will the BBC report the stories?

Today I read in The Telegraph this headline

'Libya: Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in 'deal in the desert’

Tony Blair used his final foreign trip as prime minister to sign a confidential deal with Muammar Gaddafi to train Libyan special forces and supply him with Nato secrets.'

The whole report is quite illuminating about how Tony Blair either so completely misread Gaddafi & the Libyan regime or didn't care as he wanted oil exploration rights for his friends in big business. Here's an extract:

'A copy of the accord obtained by The Daily Telegraph shows that the two leaders agreed to co-operate on defence matters in a range of areas, including exchanging information about defence structures and technology.

It was signed during the former Labour prime minister’s “Blair-well” tour of Africa in May 2007, in Gaddafi’s tent in the Libyan desert.

Included in the document was an agreement on “co-operation in the training of specialised military units, special forces and border security units”. They also signed up to “exchanges of information on Nato and EU military and civil security organisations”. The document was personally signed by Mr Blair and Gaddafi.

A passing reference to it was contained in a joint communiqué between the

two countries, which was issued at the time and posted on the Foreign Office website before being removed a few weeks ago.

The full version of the accord makes clear the extent to which Mr Blair agreed to co-operate with the Gaddafi regime on defence matters.

Under the terms of the deal, Britain was committed to “exchanges of information and views on defence structures, military and security organisations; exchanges of visits by experts and exchange of printed materials in the field of military education and science; exchanges of information on current and developing military concepts, principles and best practice, and the conduct of joint exercises’’.

The two countries also agreed to co-operate in “training in operational planning processes, staff training, and command and control; training of personnel in peace support operations; training co-operation relating to software, communications security, technology and the function of equipment and systems; exchanges of information and experience in the laws of armed conflict; and the acquisition of equipment and defence systems’’'

On the BBC not a word about this story but they do manage to find space to allow Peter Mandelson to make the case for the defence - video here. Is there any act of Tony Blair's that Peter Mandelson will not support? There is something about watching Peter Mandelson that makes my skin crawl and I do not understand why such a discredited man is allowed to spout his crap on the BBC without ever being properly challenged. Actually I do understand why Andrew Marr allows it, likewise James Naughtie, likewise.............. The BBC what an organisation!


The end of The Telegraph article also reports an exchange between  Ed Miliband and David Cameron:

'Asked by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, to say sorry for the faltering evacuation of Britons from Libya last week, the Prime Minister hit back: “Perhaps if apologies are in order you should think about one – the appalling dodgy dealing with Libya under the last government.'

I can see no mentionon the BBC of this exchange either.

As Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP, said: "The events of the last few days show just how misjudged many of Tony Blair’s judgements were. Just four years on from when he got into bed with Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator is now on the run. I wonder if the former Prime Minister now feels that this accord with Gaddafi really was such a triumph."

I think that we will have to wait a very long time for Tony Blair to answer that point and forever for him to come clean.

Can you imagine the BBC's headline coverage if links were found between a former Conservative Prime Minister and such a regime as Libya's but as this is an ex-Labour Prime Minister..... shhhhhhh.

Marxists in the Labour (shadow) Cabinet - off on a slight tangent

The subject of (former) Marxists such as Peter Mandelson and Alistair Darling serving in the last Labour cabinet is one that I have covered before and will again when I have got around to analysing the present mottley crew. However as an aside I have just read George Galloway in the Daily Record state that:

'Andrew Marr is a Scotsman and when I first met him he was a raving Marxist - a bit like Alistair Darling and Dr John Reid...

Nowadays Marr, the BBC man, is of course a pet poodle of the Establishment against which he once barked as a Scots terrier.

...

But it was when Andrew Marr - the former seller of Trotskyite newspapers - started laying in to Arthur Scargill that smoke came from my ears.

"Scargill was... a Marxist," exclaimed Marr in disgust, as if most miners' leaders throughout the 20th century hadn't been Marxists. And, of course, as if he hadn't been a Marxist himself.

...

a quarter of a century ago, I myself had a conversation with Andrew 'Marxist' Marr about this very subject, the destruction of the mining communities, this very man Scargill and, indeed, these very 'delusions' - that another world was possible but you had to fight for it.

Let's just say Marr, like Saul of Tarsus, has experienced a great conversion from one point of view to its diametric opposite. In which case he should be a man about it and, AJP Taylor-like, he should stand up in front of the cameras and state his case...

How he, a clever young Cambridge man, had spent years of his life as an absolutely deluded insurrectionist. But he knows better now.

Come to think of it, he's not a poor man's Taylor, he's a poor man's Andrew Roberts, the rabid, right-wing historian.'

An interesting accusation to make about Andrew Marr, I wonder how he would respond to such a claim about him having a Marxist past... Now having quoted George Galloway to support me, I feel I need a wash.

Answering Andrew Marr

Andrew Marr recently stated, at the Cheltenham Literary Festival, that: "A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people."


Let's see how accurate he is:

'socially inadequate' - Not Guilty

'pimpled' - Not for many years

'single' - Happily married

'slightly seedy' - I am not sure how to react to this one, what is 'slightly seedy'? Would Andrew Marr's definition of 'slightly seedy' include .... with a .... not my .... trying to hide .... with a super-....?

'bald' - Well, balding

'cauliflower-nosed' - What is a cauliflower nose? I have heard of boxers having cauliflower ears but never noses. Is this some sort of drugs reference?

'young men' - Middle aged

'sitting in their mother's basements' - Normally in my bedroom, sitting room or office

'ranting' - I try not to rant but maybe expressing views contrary to those of Andrew Marr and his clique is classified by him as ranting?

'They are very angry people.' - Guilty as charged, but there is a lot to be angry about especially the bias shown by the BBC.

A reminder of the evasiveness of Gordon Brown and the active connivance of the BBC

From last September:

'The BBC report that:

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that there has been "absolutely no deterioration'" in his eyesight.

He discussed his "handicap", which resulted from a childhood rugby accident, with Andrew Marr in Brighton prior to the Labour Party conference. "

Is that all that Andrew Marr asked about in that segment of the interview? Watch the interview here and you will see what Andrew Marr actually asked. He brought up the eyesight question and then said

"Let me ask you about something else...A lot of people in this country use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through, are you one of those people?"

Gordon Brown decides to talk about his eyesight but not a mention of painkillers or anti-depressants. Andrew Marr says "What about my other question?" And Gordon Brown replies "I answered you're other question" Really, did you, when?


Do watch the whole interview and you will see a very determined Gordon Brown try and bluster his way through the interview. Note the fake smiles (when he remembers), the sweaty forehead, the fake sincerity, the dodgy statistics, the usual evasive answers and the confusion in the eyes that Andrew Marr is daring to ask difficult questions. The sweat really starts to pour when the interview moves onto Gadaffi, Libya and al-Megrahi. Now watch Gordon Brown's face when Andrew Marr starts to ask the questions about his health, juddering jaw, puzzlement and disbelief for a start but also a sort of fear that the question asked might be too specific to wriggle out of. Of course this was Andrew Marr and the questions were vague enough and not pushed hard enough to give Gordon Brown enough wriggle room.'

The adoration of the Miliband

The BBC are off to an early start, their hom epage and their news home page show ed Miliband looking powerful and in control and the headline is almost beyond belief: 'Miliband 'to defend middle class'. Yes the man who was part of the Labour government that squeezed the British middle class like no other but used an engineered house price boom to make them feel richer, is now claiming to be their champion. The BBC are so desperate for a Labour govenmnet that they would report adoringly on any new labour leader, but for one who claims to be left-wing they will move mountains; expect the BBC to ramp up the pro-Labour bias. This morning watch to see how easy a ride Andrew Marr gives Ed Miliband...

I predict a real Labour love-in as the former member of the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory whilst at Cambridge University, the former self-confessed 'raving leftie' nicknamed 'Red Andy' and current husband of the political journalist at the left-wing Guardian Jackie Ashley interviews Ed Miliband.

The BBC's response to my accusations of bias (update)

I have replied to the BBC's response to my complaint about bias on the Andrew Marr programme. In the interests of my readers I reproduce my email below:

'Thank you for your response but it doesn't really address my complaint does it?

I accept that interviews do not follow a strict formula, such that identical times are spent on each subject. However I do not accept your characterisation of interviews as 'conversational'. The subjectes discussed were raised are decided by just one party, Andrew Marr, not by both parties. As Andrew Marr decided 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?

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 would make cuts or was that just the perception he wanted to leave viewers with?

The figures I quoted are not 'the personal views of someone called Craig', they are timings of the interviews. Timings are not 'personal views' they are objective facts. Do you disagree with his timings? Was Craig wrong and Andrew Marr did in fact discuss cuts and the deficit with Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg?

I am afraid that your email does not address my concerns and I would appreciate a proper answer to an accusation of bias in one of the BBC's flagship programmes rather than another fobbing off email.

Both myself and Craig pay the licence fee and I think that means that we are entitled to hold the BBC to account when it strays so far from its committment to impartiality. In case you are not aware, the BBC's 'Editorial Guidelines' say that 'Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences' and that ' The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate'

I look forward to your rather more prompt response than last time and to you actually addressing my questions.

Kind regards

NotaSheep'

I await a reply and trust that the BBC's public service remit will extend to actually answering my original complaint.

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.

Complaining to the BBC about the bias of the Andrew Marr Show

Here is the text of a complaint that I have just lodged at the BBC Trust's complaint's page re the bias shown by Andrew Marr in his interviews with the three main party leaders:

'... 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.'

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

I am not sure which is worse the BBC's bias or the Conservative party's unwillingness to tackle them on it.

Peter Watt on Andrew Marr

Wow, that was one heck of an interview; even Andrew Marr couldn't hide his amazement at some of Peter Watt's revelations. Odd how the interview wasn't pre-publicised on the BBC website.

Beeb Bias Craig holds Andrew Marr to account and marks his card for next week

Beeb Bias Craig analyses Andrew Marr's interview of Gordon Brown:

"Today's 0.8 figure for Brown shows that it was a somewhat softer interview this time than it was last time (the interview with the eye-sight question!). Indeed, 15 of those 25 interruptions came in just 10 minutes, as the topic turned to the economy - leaving only 10 interruptions for the remaining 20 minutes (and 3 of those were used on 'the playing fields of Eton', where Marr got the chance to say that Cameron was a 'Tory toff' and repeat that there are too many old Etonians at the top of the Tory party!!). This is not unusual when Marr interviews a senior Labour politician. Brown, therefore, got plenty of time to talk, without much interruption, for a large part of the interview, while only facing a few minutes of concentrated fire. He also got a lot of time to project himself as an international statesman. If Cameron becomes prime minister, what will he do about Yemen, or Somalia, or Afghanistan? Will Marr ask him about this next week? Or will he not give Cameron the chance to pose as an international-statesman-in-waiting, and stick to questioning him almost exclusively on domestic issues instead (cuts, cuts, cuts, Eton, cuts)? "

And then warns Andrew Marr for next week's interview with David Cameron:

"We'll see next week what happens to David Cameron this time round & whether or not this will provide further proof of pro-Labour bias on Marr's part - a bias previously displayed most keenly prior to the June 2009 elections and during the party conferences seasons i.e. when it most matters. We're now at the beginning of the year of the general election, so it matters again.
*
Over to you then Andrew Marr! I will be watching (and counting) next Sunday. Behave yourself, score an I.C. somewhere around 0.8 & you'll prove me wrong!!! "

Beeb Bias Craig is only six months old (the blog not the man) and is already one of my must read blogs. The blogs analysis quantifies some of the bias that many of us knew was there but couldn't prove. More power to you Beeb Bias Craig, keep it up.

"stupefying lack of imagination"

"What is so irritating about all of this? Not so much its political slant (though it goes almost without saying that the BBC would never have put out a comparable series from a Right-wing point of view). It is more its ineffable complacency, its stupefying lack of imagination."

That's Charles Moore on Andrew Marr's "The Making of Modern Britain". Charles Moore's piece is entitled "Andrew Marr's The Making of Modern Britain is a patronising and ignorant piece of history", but what else does anyone expect from a BBC political commentator, especially one so firmly aligned with liberal-leftist thought?

The BBC in full ant-Conservative mode this morning

Andrew Marr's interview of David Cameron and most of The Politics Show showed how the BBC/Labour alliance will play the game from now on. Attack the Conservatives from the left and the right, try and get the word "extremist" associated with the Conservative party and portray David Cameron as a rich toff.