"They call Economics 'the dismal science'.
Today the Nobel Committee seemed to agree. They gave their prize in Economics to three different economists - one for proving that markets are always rational and efficient, and another for proving they are most certainly not, and a third who proved it was impossible to tell."
So said Kirsty Wark on last night's Newsnight.
Now, I try (almost like an idealised BBC reporter) to be even-handed - Sometimes. When the mood takes me - but (like a non-idealised BBC reporter) I'm biased. Inevitably.
For example, economically-speaking, I'm pro-market.
Thus, whilst watching last night's Newsnight, I wanted to hear from the guy who "proved" that markets "are always rational and efficient."
Newsnight, however, gave me the man who "proved they are most certainly not" - Robert Shiller.
I wasn't surprised by that.
Nor was I surprised when Radio 4's The World at One also interviewed the least pro-market of the Nobel Prize winners, Robert Shiller.
Now, is that because I'm biased? Or is it because the BBC is biased?
Was Prof Shiller the only one of the three Nobel Prize winners available to speak to the BBC? Or was Prof Shiller the only one of the three Nobel Prize winners the BBC particularly wanted to speak to?
If so, why? And, also if so, is that evidence that the BBC is biased?
Feel free to decide for yourselves.
As if you were members of the Nobel Prize committee.