BBC 'balance'

Well, the review of the year on today's The Week in Westminster was certainly biased against Brexit.

It was a typical BBC panel on the subject.

You had Steve Richards, Helen Lewis and George Parker on one side, and James Forsyth on the other, and the anti-Brexit threesome were more passionate in their opinions on the subject than the Spectator man  (with the New Statesman's Helen getting hot under the collar at one point and talking of people dying because of the focus on Brexit). 

Groundhog Post

I really didn't want to post this post, as I feel as completely exhausted by all of this kind of absolute drivel as the BBC's Rob Burley must surely feel about it...

...but...

This week's line-up for The Andrew Marr Show consists of Penny Mordaunt MP, Andrew Gwynne MP, Henry Bolton, Anna Soubry MP, Chuka Umunna MP, Ayesha Hazarika, Julia Hartley Brewer and The Spitfires. 

That's a decent balance of guests, isn't it?

For those happy few of us who are really interested in politics, there's somebody for almost everyone here.

Corbynistas ought to be happy. So should pro-Brexit Tories. And anti-Brexit Tories. And pro-EU Blairites. And UKIP supporters. And fans of The Spitfires.

Even on Brexit, the balance works out well, and everyone's a winner.

Hmm. A reasonable person would surely think so...

...but...

'Over And Over Again' is the title of The Spitfires's most high-profile song (and very likeable it is too), and the phrase 'Over And Over Again' - or 'Groundhog Weekend' - sprung to my mind when reading the usual onslaught of tweets to The Andrew Marr Show's editor Rob Burley, and I bet you can guess what's been happening today, Twitter-wise... 

Yes, rampaging hordes of politically-engaged people have been complaining, sourly, about BBC bias simply because The Andrew Marr Show has had the temerity to invite on someone they don't like.

UKIP's Henry Bolton, Julia Hartley Brewer and Anna Soubry seem to be especially objectionable to the Twitterati (especially the latter pair of female political opposites on the Brexit issue).

UKIP, Julia HB and Anna Soubry are all on the BBC far too much, apparently, and they jolly well shouldn't be!

Rob tweeted:

I agree with Rob (which probably won't help him)...

...but...

...earlier came a sarcastic tweet from Tim Montgomerie about a different BBC programme...

...which draw a response from Anushka Asthana, the Guardian journalist presenting that programme this week.

An interesting exchange ensued:

Anushka Asthana: It’s about the Week in Westminster in a week that Anna Soubry has made news, and her interview came after an interview with strong Brexit supporter Anne Marie Trevalyan.

Tim Montgomerie: There's always a good reason for individual appearances but the multitude of slots...? So lazy and rewarding of her extravagant, made-for-Milbank remarks.

Anushka Asthana: People who are outspoken tend to get aired a lot. I’m pretty sure I quote Jacob Rees Mogg as much as Anna S, if not more, and we’re the Guardian. BBC will be actually counting to make sure balance.

Tim Montgomerie: That's your justification?! JRM is a SLIGHTLY bigger deal than AS. He leads the @ConHome grassroots poll for next leader. Soubry might even struggle to get her papers signed by a couple of colleagues and (twice) couldn't get elected to the Brexit select ctte.

Anushka Asthana: If anything the news amplification of Tory MP voices (I appreciate this may not be same for membership) is disproportionately in favour of those wanting hardest break.

Tim Montgomerie: That is also true but doesn't excuse us having to endlessly hear her insisting she respects the ref outcome while dissing it in her every action. ENDS! 

Wasn't Tim Montgomerie falling foul of Rob's Golden Rule, 'So, here's the thing, people you don't agree with will sometimes be on TV', here?

Well, even if he was (and he probably was), he certainly wasn't wrong about Anna Soubry being on the BBC an awful lot, including over the past week.

After her appearance on Monday's Newsnight, she was on Victoria Derbyshire on Tuesday and This Week on Thursday, as well as today's The Week in Westminster. (Yes, I've done my homework).

And, via Rob Burley's Twitter feed, I subsequently spotted something that probably wouldn't go down too well with Montie either. Yes, as mentioned earlier, the (in)famous Anna will be on The Andrew Marr Show tomorrow too:

Is she on because she's made the news this week (with Newsnight's help), or because she's outspoken and outspoken people tend to get aired a lot? And, if the latter, is that lazy journalism which amplifies a marginal voice disproportionately and distorts the news? Or is it good journalism that grabs a news-leading maverick and makes the most of her?

I really don't know what I think about this, so if you can help in the comments below please do.

Incidentally, as regular readers will know, Anushka isn't correct about the BBC "actually counting to make sure balance". (In)Famously, the BBC publicly disapproves of "bean counting" as a way of monitoring bias.


Update: Fresh in -

Is it Maoist to complain about BBC bias?

Back in April, I looked into a tweet by Tim Montgomerie that asked "Are all presenters of Radio 4's Week in Westminster Remainers?" and found that, though they weren't all Remainers, Tim did have a point about the balance of Remainers and Leavers. 

Out of the 26 episodes between the EU referendum and then only 2 episodes had been fronted by an open Leave supporter (Peter Oborne) while 14 episodes had been fronted by open Remain supporters. 

Tim has returned to the fray today with another such tweet: 

Well, the regular presenters when I last looked in April were: Steve Richards, George Parker (FT), Tom Newton Dunn (Sun), Helen Lewis (New Statesman), Peter Oborne (Daily Mail), Anushka Asthana (Guardian), Isabel Hardman (Spectator) and Jim Waterson (Buzzfeed). Since then there's also been Anne McElvoy (Economist), Paul Waugh (HuffPost) and Sam Coates (Times). 

Tim remains wrong about "not one of them" backing Brexit, given that Peter Oborne is still a regular presenter, but the overall balance - especially with the likes of Steve Richards, Tom Newton Dunn, Helen Lewis and Anne McElvoy being on - remains very heavily pro-Remain and he still has a point....though making it is, apparently, "Maoist":

Tim Montgomerie: Nine (I think) regular presenters of BBC Radio 4’s #WeekinWestminster. Not one of them back Brexit. At least five are Remainers.
Nick Cohen: Tory Maoism (cont).
Tim Montgomerie: Poor Nick. Can’t tell the difference between a Brexiteer wanting balance on a publicly funding broadcaster and a communist tyrant of an undemocratic superstate who killed millions.

I've never thought of myself as a Maoist before just for complaining about BBC bias. That said, I'm off out in a few minutes (despite the wintry showers) to advance courageously under the guidance of the red flag of Mao Zedong thought, and do a bit of shopping.

(P.S. If any of the 70% of 16-24 year olds who Survation found had never heard of Mao are passing by, please write to your present or former schools and complain!). 

Digby Jones has "had it up to here" with the BBC

Here's an exchange from this morning's The Week in Westminster, presented by the FT's George Parker and featuring Lord Digby Jones and Roland Rudd.

(N.B. The Leave-backing Digby attacks the BBC, the Remain-backing Roland backs the BBC here.)

Digby Jones: I have had it up to here with the propaganda sheets otherwise known as the BBC and the Financial Times just willing, just willing this country to fail.
Georger Parker: Digby, we were getting on so well until then!
Digby Jones: I was just going to say, I do need a bit more unbiased reporting from the Beeb and the FT.  I very rarely read a pro-Brexit story in the FT and I very rarely see Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC saying anything but gloating in the failure of something on Brexit. I just wish...
Roland Rudd: (interrupting) Well, come on!
Georger Parker: Roland, are you going to defend the FT and the BBC?
Roland Rudd: Definitely! We have to deal in facts...

Background checks

Project Fear

I did wonder why, on first getting up this morning, the story of James Chapman criticising Theresa May for being too inflexible over Brexit was the second story on both Today and the BBC News website. 

As the various reports mentioned that his comments were featured on today's The Week in Westminster, I assumed this was the BBC getting in a dig at Mrs May and Brexit whilst simultaneously plugging an upcoming BBC programme (as the BBC are wont to do in their news bulletins). 

The name James Chapman only rang a very vague bell (thinking back though I now recall it from his Daily Mail days), but as the BBC only described him as a former advisor to Brexit Secretary David Davis and he was appearing on TWIW, I assumed - as I suspect many others would also have assumed - that he's a backbench MP. 

Until I read Alan's piece at Biased BBC tonight ("So who is James Chapman?", Alan begins) I'd no idea at all that Mr Chapman's background has much more to it than just being "a former advisor to David Davis", as the BBC kept on described him today. 

For yes, there's definitely much more to Mr Chapman than him being a former aide of David Davis. 

He was also a former aide to George Osborne and one of the key architects of 'Project Fear' for the Remain side in the EU referendum. ("The man who helped run Project Fear is now a key figure in Brexit negotiations. Exclusive: Bizarre twist sees former Osborne aide take top job with Brexit Secretary David Davis", as the Independent put it at the time).

And yet here he was, via the BBC's The Week in Westminster, all across the BBC panoply of platforms today, getting next-to-top billing for his pro-'flexibility' views regarding Brexit - and all without the BBC thinking it worthwhile filling in its readers, listeners or viewers on the other highly relevant details of his recent past. Shouldn't they have done so?

What was he doing there? Who at the BBC invited him? Why did they invite him? 

Answers on a postcard to Lord Hall.

Mr Chapman himself is not happy about this kind of reaction though:

That doesn't let the BBC off the hook though. Those questions remain: What was he doing there? Who at the BBC invited him? Why did they invite him? 

To which can be added: Are the BBC still engaged on Project Fear?

(No answers on a postcard to anyone for that one!)

"Are all presenters of Radio 4's Week in Westminster Remainers?"

Here's a BBC bias-related question posed on Twitter today by Tim Montgomerie:

Well, going back through the Week at Westminster archive shows the following as having been presenters since the EU referendum last June: 

Steve Richards (7 editions)

George Parker, FT (6 editions)

Tom Newton Dunn, Sun (4 editions)

Helen Lewis, New Statesman (3 editions)

Peter Oborne, Daily Mail (2 editions)

Anushka Asthana, Guardian (2 editions)

Isabel Hardman, Spectator (1 edition)

Jim Waterson, Buzzfeed (1 edition)

Now, several of those TWAW presenters were undoubtedly staunchly pro-Remain - namely Steve Richards, Tom Newton Dunn and Helen Lewis. 

Four of the others are harder to place with total certainty. [Please fill in the gaps if you can though]. I'm assuming with some confidence however, rightly or wrongly, that George Parker, Anushka Asthana and Jim Waterson were Remainers while Isabel Hardman was probably pro-Leave. 

The only staunchly pro-Leave Week In Westminster presenter, therefore, has been Peter Oborne - and he's only presented two editions since the referendum, thus giving the programme as a whole a very pronounced pro-Remain slant, presenter-wise. 

From that then, I'd say that Tim has a point.

The 'Weak' in Westminster

I was idly listening to the Week in Westminster this morning.  Peter Oborne seems to have a soft spot for UKIP. Is he jumping on the winners’ bandwagon? Does he sympathise with Nigel Farage merely because he’s been demonised by Oborne’s media colleagues? Or is it that defending UKIP is a one-size-fits-all easy peasy way of denouncing all current mainstream politics and politicians?

Come to think of it, the system forces all mainstream politicians to toe the party line, and when it comes to inflammatory issues like immigration your common or garden party politician has no alternative but to duck and dive in the way that the public heartily dislikes.

If Ukip ever becomes mainstream, how can it not succumb to the same thing? As soon as they cobble together some coherent policies and assume adult responsibilities they’ll have to present a united front just like everyone else.

When people say a vote for UKIP is a protest vote, they’re quite right. Nigel Farage can still afford to be blunt in the same way that Nick Clegg thought he could promise the earth, that is until he was taken by surprise by the weight of the burden of actual responsibility. We all know that it's not until UKIP gets to be part of a coalition or acquires a proper governmental role that they’ll find out how deliverable or undeliverable their pre-election policies are. Because we know this we might not risk voting UKIP next time round.

If we want to know how to get to the ideal world that many of us want, as the Irishman famously said, we wouldn’t start from here.

The same old problems remain. Mainly, it’s that toxic word racism. The immigration issue has been divided into two because of the need to side-step those ‘stopper’/ death-blow accusations of racism. 

The strictly rational argument, that immigrants are taking our jobs, using our resources, draining our economy etc is always answered by seemingly rational counter claims; that immigrants pay taxes, keep our low-paid services running, are of overall economic benefit. That type of argument is permissible because it’s seen as a logical non-racist way of addressing the topic of immigration. 

The issue that is impossible to articulate freely without appearing, or actually being racist - is the Muslim issue. The euphemistic “changes to local communities that have come about" that are mysteriously alluded to. What is that really about? For ‘changes’ read Islamisation, but saying so is deemed racist and has therefore been declared out of bounds for nice tolerant British people.

Discussing the reason for UKIP’s poor performance in London, most pundits, even UKIPers themselves, side-step openly stating the obvious truth, namely that expecting voters in an area comprising a 60% immigrant populace to vote for UKIP is tantamount to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, because saying such a thing exposes them to being declared racist. 

However, probably emboldened by UKIP's success, several callers on this afternoon’s Any Answers pointed out, much to the obvious discomfort of the BBC’s Julian Worricker, that London is a lost cause. It’s too late for them. The situation is unfortunate; the problem too big. Too big to fail, like a failing bank.  What most people don’t want is for it to be too late for the whole of the UK. 

One politically correct caller to Any Answers said that people outside multicultural areas are simply afraid of the unknown. It’s true, they certainly are afraid of the unknown, but it’s not the unknown unknown they fear; it’s the known unknown, e.g. the underhand shenanigans in Tower Hamlets, the illegal voter intimidation in predominantly Asian areas, the secretive, stealthy Trojan Horse phenomenon, the Islamisation of universities, the things that are quietly changing the face of the country and pulling the rug out from under the feet of ordinary Brits. The leftwing lobby defends the ‘rights' of the so-called indigeny, but only if they’re foreign. Not if they happen to be British.

Even UKIP is afraid to say much of this openly because the term racist has been redefined to cover any generalisation appertaining to any grouping, with or without legitimate, statistic-based justification. All generalising is officially racist, and being thought ‘racist’ disqualifies one from everything. Like being ‘out‘ when you’re playing a game.  “You’re out!” and you can’t play any more.

All the post-election media chatter I've heard has been predictable. The Week in Westminster, Any Questions, Today, and so on.  

Peter Oborne’s odd delivery is aggravating, (emphasising random words by spluttering them out after a short pause) but he was fair today, at least he gave all participants a chance to speak. 

“MPs Mark Field, Steve Reed, Jenny Willott and Ukip European candidate Diane James discuss Ukip's success in the local elections.”

The fact that they said little or nothing new was disappointing. You’d think at least they’d have the good grace to sound startled after being decisively UKIPped..

Of the media’s campaign to vilify Nigel Farage, Stephen Glover said: “The media class (including the BBC) was as out of kilter with the general public as the political class.”

Yes indeed.

Is 'The Week in Westminster' biased?

There's been an amusing exchange about Radio 4's The Week at Westminster at Biased BBC this weekend, which I thought I'd reproduce here: 

Thoughtful says:

May 10, 2014 at 11:30 am

An unbelievable piece on radio 4 where the left wing New Statesman hack Helen Lewis is allowed to front a program talking about the Tory appeal to BME voters.

The amazing comment that ‘when the last wave of migrants arrived here in the 1960s and worked hard, settled down and integrated ! Integrated ??? So if that’s true why is there a need for multiculturalism to be invented?

Then it’s on to an explanation of the what the 30MPs who wrote a letter asking for renationalisation of the railways really wanted. This time a Tory is allowed to explain that they have used a specific single example of a franchised which failed because it was badly managed, and that all the others are managing quite well thank you.

This is supposed to be the week in Westminster and not an excuse to discuss left wing policies and dewy eyed dreams of revisionism and lies !

   24 likes

Reply Report comment

• Scott says:

  May 10, 2014 at 11:47 am

  the left wing New Statesman hack Helen Lewis is allowed to front a program talking about the Tory appeal to BME voters

  That’ll be The Week in Westminster, then, which is fronted by a different journalist each week, including from such hard left publications as The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times.

  Wow. Such bias.

     7 likes

  Reply Report comment
  • Thoughtful says:

    May 10, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    You’ll probably find that the other correspondents stick to the subject a bit more instead of using the platform as a tool for political advantage.

    Having subscribed in the past to the FT I don’t believe it has any political bias, if it did it wouldn’t be a reliable source of information.

       15 likes

    Reply Report comment
  • CCE says:

    May 10, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Scott, I’m not sure if I have ever heard a review of the week in Westminster by anyone from the Salisbury Review or standpoint magazine. Perhaps you could check with the BBC and let me know as The New Statesman (that magazine with a proud history of apology for the blood soaked psychopathic regimes of the East Bloc) has a circulation so small that I can’t even find it and I would like to know why they selected them for the review.

    I heard it by the way and it was foaming marxist bilge………. But then I am a loony bigot because I sometimes post comments on this site.

    **Bless** (for the avoidance of doubt that **Bless* had nothing to do with undisclosed cultural practices in abattoirs)

       14 likes

    Reply Report comment

That calls for a classic Is the BBC biased? investigation, doesn't it? Is The Week in Westminster a good place to look for proof of left-wing bias at the BBC?

All such investigations seem to begin with a list, so here's a complete list of all the presenters of The Week in Westminster and the publications they work for since the start of 2012:

2014

17/5 George Parker, FT

10/5 Helen Lewis, New Statesman

3/5 Jackie Ashley, Guardian 

12/4 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

5/4 Isabel Hardman, Spectator

29/3 George Parker, FT

22/3 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

15/3 Steve Richards, Independent

8/3 Isabel Hardman, Spectator

1/3 George Parker, FT

15/2 Jackie Ashley, Guardian 

8/2 Steve Richards, Independent

1/2 Isabel Hardman, Spectator

25/1 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

18/1 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

11/1 George Parker, FT

2013

21/12 Jackie Ashley, Guardian 

14/12 Isabel Hardman, Spectator

7/12 Steve Richards, Independent

30/11 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

23/11 George Parker, FT

9/11 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

2/11 Steve Richards, Independent

26/10 Jackie Ashley, Guardian

19/10 George Parker, FT

12/10 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

14/9 Steve Richards, Independent

7/9 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

27/7 Jackie Ashley, Guardian

20/7 Steve Richards, Independent

13/7 George Parker, FT

6/7 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

29/6 Steve Richards, Independent

22/6 Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail

15/6 Tom Newton-Dunn, Sun

8/6 George Parker, FT

25/5 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

18/5 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

11/5 Anne McElvoy, Economist

4/5 Steve Richards, Independent

27/4 George Parker, FT

20/4 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

23/3 George Parker, FT

16/3 Steve Richards, Independent

9/3 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

2/3 Fraser Nelson, Spectator 

16/2 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

9/2 Steve Richards, Independent

2/2 George Parker, FT

26/1 Anne McElvoy, Economist

19/1 Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail

12/1 Steve Richards, Independent

2012 

22/12 George Parker, FT

15/12 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

8/12 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

1/12 George Parker, FT

24/11 Fraser Nelson, Spectator 

17/11 Steve Richards, Independent

10/11 Iain Martin, Daily Telegraph 

3/11 Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail

27/10 Steve Richards, Independent

20/10 George Parker, FT

13/10 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

15/9 Steve Richards, Independent

8/9 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

28/7 George Parker, FT

21/7 Steve Richards, Independent

14/7 Jackie Ashley, Guardian 

7/7 George Parker, FT

30/6 Fraser Nelson, Spectator 

23/6 Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail

16/6 Steve Richards, Independent

26/5 Anne McElvoy, Economist

19/5 Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail

12/5 Steve Richards, Independent

5/5 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

28/4 George Parker, FT

21/4 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

31/3 Steve Richards, Independent

24/3 Fraser Nelson, Spectator 

17/3 Jackie Ashley, Guardian

10/3 George Parker, FT

3/3 Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail

25/2 Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

11/2 George Parker, FT

4/2 Sue Cameron, Daily Telegraph 

28/1 Fraser Nelson, Spectator 

21/1 Jackie Ashley, Guardian

14/1 Steve Richards, Independent

How does that break down by publication? Well, the results are a little surprising (to me):

Daily Telegraph = 23

FT = 19

Independent = 19 

Spectator = 9 

Guardian = 8

Daily Mail = 6

The Economist = 3

New Statesman = 1

The Sun = 1

By presenter it breaks down like this:

• George Parker & Steve Richards = 19 appearances each
• Sue Cameron & Peter Oborne  = 11 appearances each
• Jackie Ashley = 8 appearances 
• Andrew Pierce = 6 appearances 
• Fraser Nelson = 5 appearances 
• Isabel Hardman = 4 appearances
• Anne McElvoy = 3 appearances
• Iain Martin & Helen Lewis & Tom Newton-Dunn = 1 appearance each

How to assess that for left-wing/right-wing bias then? 

Well, if we go off the political orientation of the publications, it gets a bit frought because there's a fair bit of dispute about where some stand. The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Spectator and the Sun clearly lie on the Right, while the Independent, Guardian and New Statesman clearly lie on the Left (and only the most hardcore left-wingers and right-wingers would try to deny that), but where do the Economist and the FT lie? They would (and do) both claim to be neither left nor right (though firm partisans on both sides assert they lean one way or the other from time to time), and if we go along with that the following stats result: 

• Pro-right = 39
• Pro-left = 28
• Neither = 22 

If assessed by the apparent political orientation of the particular presenters, the results would be something similar, with the only question arising over Anne McElvoy, whose political orientation seems to lie on the left of the Conservative Party (so far as I can judge).

I don't think The Week in Westminster is the place to look for proof of left-wing bias (and don't tell Owen Jones about these results!).

How biased the presenters behave while presenting the programme is surely up to them, though the programme's production team is presumably meant to ensure that they tone it down if they go too far.