The one hundred and seventy second weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award or a Conservative MP gets it

The Telegraph report this:

'Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the Public Administration Committee, appeared to accuse the broadcaster of bias as he was asked about splits within the Conservative Party on Europe.

He predicted that James Naughtie, his interviewer on BBC Radio Four's Today Programme, would be more deferential to the next guest, Lord Brittan, a former member of the European Commission and ex-Home Secretary.

"I appreciate the BBC wants to talk about the the Conservative Party but let's talk about the issue," he said.

Told he was being "silly", Mr Jenkin hit back: "I bet you're going to treat Leon Brittan with a lot more deference than you treat me because the BBC is not exactly a haven for Eurosceptics as we know

Mr Naughtie responded to the jibe by saying: "Oh for goodness sake, let's try to be serious about this".'

The BBC more respectful of Europhiles than Eurosceptics? "No shit, Sherlock"

But will this revelation encourage Bernard Jenkin or the Conservative Party  to tackle the BBC on its bias? I doubt it.

As for James Naughtie deploying the "Oh for goodness sake, let's try to be serious about this".' line, remember that James Naughtie is hardly politically impartial... Remember this slip?

An "outrageous slur" on the BBC or the uncomfortable truth?

The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh asking a very sensible question of the BBC's former director of editorial policy, Phil Harding. Trevor Kavanagh is right isn't he? The whole Today programme interview can be heard here.

I do love it when a Today interviewee strays off-message

Sir Terry Leahy was interviewed on Radio 4's ever so politically correct Today programme this morning. Much to my pleasure and I am sure the programme's displeasure he was not following 'the narrative'. He credited much of his success and social mobility on his stable family background and the opportunities provided by being able to attend a grammar school. All perfectly correct but oh so off-message. I am sure the Today programme will redouble their efforts to propagandise against grammar schools and two parent families later this week.

Feedback to the Today programme and a complaint

Further to my earlier post about the BBC's non-correction of misleading information on the Today programme I gave emailed feedback to the Today programme and also made a formal complaint to the BBC.

Here is the email that I sent the Today programme:

'Yesterday the BBC Radio 4 Today programme broadcast an interview with  Dr Aryeh Kontorovich who lives in Beersheva in southern Israel and Dr Mona El-Farra, vice president of the Red Crescent in Gaza. This morning's news summary at 07:30 included very little about the situation other than that has now been  a ceasefire which has resulted in Israel stopping attacking Gaza and that 200 rockets had been fired from Gaza at Israel since Friday. This is deliberately misleading as it makes it seem as though the rockets only started on Friday and are as a result of retaliations after Israel's attack of Friday on Gaza terrorists (or in BBC language - 'militants'). This is not a minor matter as it neatly turns the blame for starting this latest violence onto Israel, when the blame should be laid squarely on the terrorist groups operating within Gaza who have been firing potentially lethal rockets at Israeli civilians for many months.

It is not as though this information is hard to come by. The BBC could subscribe to the Twitter feed from QassamCount for updates every time a rocket is fired at Israel. The BBC could look at the feed from Challah Huakbar or even just 'Challah's Gaza Rocket Counter' on the same site. For even more detailed information the BBC could even look at this list - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Palestinian_ceasefire_violations_since_end_Operation_Cast_Lead.htm - of 'Palestinian ceasefire violations since the end of Operation Cast Lead'.

The real figures and facts are easily obtainable so why do the BBC allow interviewees such as Mona El-Farra to state that there have been no rocket attacks from Gaza.
"let me tell you that for the last four months there were no rockets against Israel and Palestinians respected the cease-fire."

Where was the correction from John Humphrys at the time or subsequently?'

I have also complained via the new BBC complaints website:

'Your Complaint
Type of complaint: Radio
Choose station: Radio 4
Programme title: Today
Featured in the programme: No
Transmission date: 12/03/2012
Broadcast type: Recorded/On demand
How long in to the show: 07:23
Complaint category: Factual error or inaccuracy
Contacted us before: No
Complaint title: Allowing deliberately misleading claims to be made
Complaint description:
Yesterday the BBC Radio 4 Today programme broadcast an interview with Mona El-Farra, vice president of the Red Crescent in Gaza. During this interview, Mona El-Farra was allowed to state that there have been no rocket attacks from Gaza prior to Friday's attack on Gaza by Israel: "let me tell you that for the last four months there were no rockets against Israel and Palestinians respected the cease-fire." This is factually untrue, so where was the correction from John Humphrys at the time or subsequently?' This morning's news summary at 07:30 stated that that 200 rockets had been fired from Gaza at Israel since Friday. This is also deliberately misleading as it makes it seem as though the rockets only started on Friday and are as a result of retaliations after Israel's attack of Friday on terrorists in Gaza. This misdirection is important as it neatly turns the blame for starting this latest violence onto Israel, when the blame should be laid squarely on the terrorist groups operating within Gaza who have been firing potentially lethal rockets at Israeli civilians for many months. It is not as though the information is hard to come by. The BBC could subscribe to the Twitter feed from QassamCount for updates every time a rocket is fired at Israel or look at one of the other sites that keeps track of such attacks. Were the Today programme unaware that Mona El-Farra was lying or are they not interested in the truth? At the very least a correction should be broadcast.

Your Details
Receive a reply: Yes
Email address: notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com
Title: Mr
First name: NotaSheep
Last name: MaybeaGoat
Under 13: No
Location: England
First half of UK Postcode: W1'

I await the BBC's reply/replies...

BBC Today programme still deliberately misleading its listeners re latest Israeli Palestinian conflict and ceasefire

Yesterday the BBC Radio 4 Today programme broadcast an interview with  Dr Aryeh Kontorovich who lives in Beersheva in southern Israel and Dr Mona El-Farra, vice president of the Red Crescent in Gaza. This followed the usual biased BBC introduction. I won't comment on the interview as you can read all about in the article and comments at Biased BBC but I will remark that this morning's news summary at 07:30 included very little about the situation other than that has now been  a ceasefire which has resulted in Israel stopping attacking Gaza and that 200 rockets had been fired from Gaza at Israel since Friday. This is deliberately misleading as it makes it seem as though the rockets only started on Friday and are as a result of retaliations after Israel's attack of Friday on Gaza terrorists (or in BBC language - 'militants'). This is not a minor matter as it neatly turns the blame for starting this latest violence onto Israel, when the blame should be laid squarely on the terrorist groups operating within Gaza who have been firing potentially lethal rockets at Israeli civilians for many months.

It is not as though this information is hard to come by. The BBC could subscribe to the Twitter feed from QassamCount for updates every time a rocket is fired at Israel. The BBC could look at the feed from Challah Huakbar or even just '
Challah's Gaza Rocket Counter' on the same site. Alternatively the BBC could look at this Wikipedia page that lists Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2012. For even more detailed information the BBC could even look at this list of 'Palestinian ceasefire violations since the end of Operation Cast Lead'.

The real figures and facts are easily obtainable so why do the BBC allow interviewees such as Mona El-Farra to state that there have been no rocket attacks from Gaza.

"let me tell you that for the last four months there were no rockets against Israel and Palestinians respected the cease-fire."

Where was the correction from John Humphrys at the time or subsequently?

This is not a minor matter, by deliberately misleading their listeners Radio 4 push the Palestinian narrative of an evil, aggressive Israel opressing innocent Palestinians. It's not true and to pretend it is, is dangerous.

The BBC - not every power source is held to the same standards

Prior to the today I had stopped listening to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme as I found it bad for my blood pressure and temper in the morning. Unfortunately I left my car tuned to Radio 4 last night and when I got in this morning it was at the start of a piece about the Cadarache nuclear fusion research centre in Provence, something that I thought might be interesting. The language used (by Evan Davis?) in this report was so biased that I turned off after under a minute. First the project was described as a 'huge gamble' and then we were told that it would be many decades before we knew if this power source was 'economically viable'. Those two statements in isolation would be just about acceptable but ask yourself when the BBC last questioned whether the building of wind farms (especially offshore ones) was 'economically viable', without the huge subsidies they currently receive? Likewise when did the BBC last question whether these wind farms were a practical proposition when they fail to produce power all year round and often fail to do so when it is most needed, thus necessitating the building of other more reliable power producing plants in any case? 


I think a return to my previous policy re the Today programme may be in order...

"The Euro-sceptic press"

Yesterday morning I heard someone on the Radio 4 Today programme (I think it was Nick Robinson) refer disparagingly to the "Eurosceptic press", I presume referring to The Telegraph, Mail etc. Oddly I have never heard the BBC refer to The Guardian, Independent and Financial Times as the "Eurofanatic press".

Have the BBC lost Shami Chakrabarti's telephone number?

Shami Chakrabarti is a regular guest on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, I would hazard a guess that she may even be the most regular guest. Oddly she has not been asked on the programme this week to explain why she sat on the London School of Economics' Council whilst the LSE happily took money from the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi. Have the BBC asked Shami Chakrabarti to explain this position and how she reconciled it with her usual standpoints on human rights and civil liberties? Why are Libyans not deserving of the same human rights and civil liberties as the British?

Liberty  partly describe Shami Chakrabarti thus:

'Since becoming Liberty’s Director she has written, spoken and broadcast widely on the importance of the post-WW2 human rights framework as an essential component of democratic society.'

If human rights are that essential a component  of democratic society why was she happy for the LSE to take money from Colonel Gaddafi's Libya and allow Saif Gaddafi to speak at the LSE? Was Shami Chakrabarti ignorant of the state of human rights in Libya or did she not care?

An unbiased news organisation would ask these questions of one of its frequent guests, that the BBC have not done so speaks volumes.

But not in every case

John Humphrys on the BBC Today programme at around 07:40 was discussing the replacement of Judge Eady with Judge Tugendhat to (in effect) run the libel case register. John Humphrys was making his usual approving noises about freedom of information overriding 'super-injunctions' and mentioned the case of John Terry that Justice Tugendhat allowed to be made public. I wonder where John Humphrys stands on the 'super-injunction' taken out some time ago by one of his BBC colleagues. I am of course unable to say who took out the super-injunction or why, but you can easily find the information on the internet if you so desire.

A super-injunction means that not only are the press stopped from publishing a story but that they are also banned from even alluding to the gagging order being placed upon them. This is on the grounds that if the press were allowed to report the injunction, it would probably run a piece accusing the claimant of trying to muzzle the press; which of course is exactly what they are doing.

Even Castro turns against the Cuban model and the BBC wail...

Feel the BBC's pain as they report:

'Cuban model no longer works, says Fidel Castro

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has said the Cuban model no longer works.

He made the comment in an interview with a US journalist, who asked him if Cuba's model was still worth exporting to other countries.

In a previous interview with the same journalist, he criticised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for what he called his anti-Semitic attitudes.

Mr Castro also questioned his own actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Mr Castro was speaking to Jeffrey Goldberg, a journalist with The Atlantic magazine based in Washington, DC, whom he personally invited to Cuba.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he told him.

With this comment, it is clear Mr Castro is not abandoning the principles of socialist revolution, says the BBC's Will Grant: rather, it is an overt acceptance by the 84-year-old former leader that state control of the economy in Cuba is gradually being loosened.

The comment came as the current Cuban leader, Fidel's younger brother, Raul Castro, is reducing the state's control of the economy and allowing private ownership on the communist island.

Last month, Raul Castro announced to the National Assembly that small businesses would now be permitted and small business owners would have the right to employ and pay employees.

Recent examples include hairdressers, who are now allowed to run their businesses as private entities, as well as a growing number of taxis and buses. Agriculture and tourism have also opened up to private investment. '

Cuban socialism is not worthwhile exporting admits Castro, I wonder if the Today programme will acknowledge this?

I also note that the BBC report that:

'Over the course of a five-hour discussion, Mr Castro "repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism", and criticised Mr Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust.

"The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust," the former president said.

Mr Castro said that Iran could further the cause of peace by "acknowledging the 'unique' history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence", Mr Goldberg wrote'

What is the world coming to when a BBC hero goes off message in such a way?

The BBC/Labour agenda

I listened to just under an hour of this morning's BBC Radio 4 Today programme and the contrast in the way 'believers' & 'non-believers' were treated and the way the Labour/BBC narrative was promoted was almost unbelievable. Listen for yourself and note the way that Financial Secretary to the Treasury Mark Hoban was aggressively interviewed and contrast that with the way that the IEA's Mark Littlewood was pushed to say the right things. Nobody raised the possibility that Harriet Harman's Equality Act 2010 was passed so as to give the Labour/BBC alliance a line of attack on any future Conservative government's cuts programme.

If you can't stomach listening to the whole programme, here's excerpts to show how the BBC set a narrative to keep the country on the true path...


From the Today running order:
07:09 - Fresh analysis of the June budget suggests the poorest families will be among those who are left worst off, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The institute's James Browne explains why the tax changes might hit the poorest households more than those in the upper-middle class. Set the agenda

07:55 - Was the emergency coalition budget published in June fair? Financial Secretary to the Treasury Mark Hoban responds to a report from the IFS claiming that the budget's impact will hit the poorest hardest. Attack the Conservative/Lib Dem government and try and catch the spokesman out.

08:43 - Is there a rift within the coalition government over welfare reform? Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs analyses the possible futures for middle-class benefits. Use a left-leaning expert to 'impartially' analyse the story.

08:47 - How effective are new economic theories? Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz explains why he believes we are in need of a new paradigm to help overcome the current economic crisis. Explain how the old economic system does not work and what should replace it.


You have to admire the BBC's tenacity but why do the Conservatives not challenge the bias?

Coming at a news story from just one point of view

BBC Today programme 07:00 news and a short item that said that (I paraphrase) children in poor areas are more likely to be killed by cars than those in rich areas and that it was unclear if this was due to the relative lack of places to play in poorer areas or because richer children were carried everywhere in big cars. Of course, I shouted at the car radio, it could also be because drivers in poor areas drove less carefully but somehow I doubt that such a thought would be allowed to be expressed on the impeccably left-of-centre BBC Today programme. The result was that I turned on the radio to hear the news and turned it off within 30 seconds; is there an alternative source of morning news that I will find less biased?

Ed Balls talking 'balls'

The Spectator has a transcript of this morning's BBC Today interview with Ed Balls and a fascinating read it is too. It is incredible that Ed Balls is still trying to push the discredited Gordon Brown line that they created new jobs when most of these jobs can be accounted for by immigration. Ed Balls also ignores his responsibility for creating the cheap money that put the government and the rest of the economy on a debt binge. Finally he deliberately confuses debt and the deficit, it's an old trick and one that still seems to work on some people.

BBC Radio 4 Today programme under a Conservative/Lib Dem government and more

Quite amusing to listen to as the Today programme tried to be unbiased but just could not. So many examples but one that I found most endearing was that the programme reported that the markets were down a bit despite the election of a Conservative lead government, the trouble was that by 08:45 the markets were up a bit and 'the narrative' was already was out of date.

Last night some Labour bigwig was stating clearly that Gordon Brown would continue as an MP, as public service was so important to him. This morning it slips out that he is in fact to resign as an MP. Public service, pah; Gordon Brown wanted power, he craved power, he needed power. As soon as he lost power he's off to ruin some other organisation or people's lives. Gordon Brown has changed his mind so many times over the last few days but still the BBC praise his consistency.

Then there was Neil Kinnock on the Today programme allowed to make ridiculous claims about Gordon Brown's abilities and achievements with not even a hint of a quibble form the presenters. You can bet your life that if a Conservative had praised Margaret Thatcher in 1990 the BBC presenter would have been straight back with the criticisms 'for the sake of balance'. Incidentally did I hear something correctly? Did a phone ring during Neil Kinnock's interview and he immediately say "It wasn't me" and then when it rang again in the latter segment and the interviewer say that was your phone, Kinnock say "Well it wasn't me, it was my phone". If correct that sums up Labour politicians, lying is instinctive to them and when found out they just resort to questioning the definitions; well it worked for Bill Clinton in the US and for Tony Blair for years over here, and don't get me started on Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell.

Unbiased Vox Pop?

The 07:00 Radio 4 news this morning included three interview with people who were in the audience for the leaders' debate last night. Two thought Nick CLegg had done best and might swap to vote Lib Dem, one had been impressed by all of them especially Gordon Brown. Noone plumped for David Cameron; I wonder how many people in total were questioned by the BBC and how those three were selected? There is after all a 'narrative' to push.


I turned on my radio about 30 seconds before hearing that piece, the Today programme is nothing if not reliable in its bias.

Blimey, what happened?

The Today interview with David Cameron was a surprise. Evan Davis pushed but not too much, was politely aggressive but interrupted less than I expected and certainly less than John Humphrys interrupted Gordon Brown in yesterday's equivalent interview.

What struck me was how much better an interviewee David Cameron is than Gordon Brown. David Cameron sounds controlled and engaged, rather than in a temper and dismissive of criticism. There is warmth in David Cameron's voice, maybe too much 'sincerity' but he sounds human and actually reacts to questioning, whereas Gordon Brown just bags on and on and on and on on his chosen line and ignores the actual question.

To sum up, a good interview by Evan Davis and, apart from his jokey "Daily Star" favourite newspaper answer, I think David Cameron came out ahead and I'm not even a great fan of his. I wonder how Gordon Brown would have reacted when asked what his favourite newspaper was?

I have used a new label for this post - 'BBC impartiality', I hope this won't be the only time I can do so in this election campaign, but somehow I think it will feature less than 'BBC bias' and 'BBC/NuLab'.

The Today programme interview today with David Cameron

I shall be listening with great interest to this morning's Radio 4 Today 08:00 interview with David Cameron and comparing it with yesterday's with Gordon Brown. Unfortunately I will be driving and so unable to blog about it until later this morning. I have expectations that the interview will be more confrontational than yesterday's and probably more personal as well, but no doubt Beeb Bias Craig will provide analysis.

Gordon Brown takes responsibilty, without accepting he was responsible

John Humphrys actually tried to take Gordon Brown to task in his 08:10 interview, a lot of the interview was about Gordon Brown's culpability for the financial crisis in the UK and do listen as Gordon Brown says he takes responsibility without really accepting responsibility. Gordon Brown also refused to explain why the 60+ business leaders were deceived and still claimed that the 2.5 million new jobs are not primarily made up of immigrants - here Migration Watch explains the truth of that statement.

The BBC news bulletin immediately after the interview, of course, summarised the interview from a very positive angle of what Gordon Brown claimed.


As an aside who would you trust on economic matters: Gordon Brown who is sees a 0.4% rise in GDP as a positive sign that we are coming out of recession or Sir Stuart Rose who managed his company to a 5.1% rise in sales in the last quarter.

"We'd just mutter a bit..."

The BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning had John Humphrys interviewing Chris Patten and others about the built-in anti-Conservative bias in the way constituency boundaries are constituted. John Humphrys ran the discussion as an interesting academic discussion. Somehow I think that if the system favoured the Conservative party and left the Labour party needing proportionally more votes per elected MP than the Conservatives, then the discussion with a Labour greybeard would have had more urgency and claims of unfairness. You see Conservatives (and the Republicans in the US) are meant to just 'suck it up' when they are the victims of unfairness whilst Labour (and the Democrats in the US) moan, whinge, whine and maybe 'man the barricades' in protest.

Question: When is a split not a split?

Answer: When it's a Labour debate.

Can you imagine the furore on the BBC if George Osborne and David Cameron or Ken Clarke put a slightly difference of emphasis on taxation or public spending? There would be, indeed in the past there have been, strong interviews on the Today programme , detailed analysis on the web and maybe even Michael Crick waving his microphone in front of their faces demanding 'answers'. Today there seems to be a guge difference in approach between Alistair Darling and Liam Byrne and that is seen only as worthy of a short comment in the newspaper review.

It would seem that in the BBC, any Tory policy disagreements are vitally important and show a deeply divided party, whilst Labour policy disagreements are merely a matter to note and move on from.

The BBC's cheerleading and setting 'the narrative' for Labour is increasing in intensity and the Conservative leadership seem powerless to say or do anything to stop them. Either David Cameron and his team get off their arses and do something or we will face a re-elected Gordon Brown.