Keeping tabs on 'The World Tonight'

As well as looking at Newsnight's coverage of the EU referendum, I've also been taking a look at its counterpart on Radio 4, The World Tonight, reviewing all the editions since the announcement of the date of the EU referendum to see how they've covered it. 

I'll also go out on a limb and pass judgement on the bias (or lack of bias) found on each episode. (Feel free to question any of them).

******

The first post-announcement edition, on Monday 22 February, had three features on the subject. 

First came an interview with Alex Forsyth, BBC political correspondent. This discussed the story from the angle of "profound" party splits, especially for the Conservatives.

Then came the first joint interview, introduced like this: 

But how is the renegotiation and the prospect of a referendum viewed by European politicians? We brought together three former senior figures. all of whom agreed they wanted the UK to remain in the union but had rather different views of what might lie ahead"

The guests were Dick Roche, former Irish minister for European affairs; Edith Cresson, former French PM; and Jacek Rostowski, former finance minister of Poland  

As the presenter said, all three supported Britain remaining in the EU. No anti-EU voices from inside the EU were included.

Then came a report asking, Could football be an important factor in the final outcome of the referendum? Its talking heads were: Keir Radnedge, sports reporter; Mark Perryman, Philosophy Football; Charlie Whelan, former advisor to Gordon Brown; and Mark Field, Conservative MP. Its closing line went to the (pro-REMAIN) Mr Field: 

The perception of most voters is that we in politics are in a bit of an ivory tower and it looks, therefore, if you're trying to play that footballing card that somehow you're doing it in a rather inauthentic way. But I still think it's quite possible that sporting success, as peripheral as it might seem, at the margins these things might just make a difference.

The report, which didn't focus on the substance of the issue, suggested that if the home nations do well in EURO 2016 it might book the 'Remain' vote while if we go out early it might boost the 'Leave' vote. 

Especially because of the raft of anti-Brexit non-British politicians this must result in a...

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

******

Next, on Thursday 25 February, came a joint interview with polling expert John Curtice of Strathclyde University and pollster Damian Lyons Lowe of Survation, on the topic:

What about the migration crisis in Europe? Will voters be swayed to leave or remain depending on how European countries handle the growing numbers of arrivals?

Naturally, as polling experts, neither nailed their own colours to the mast here on the question of 'In' or 'Out'.

Bias conclusion: n/a

******

On to Friday 26 February and a joint interview between David Cameron biographer Isabel Oakeshott of the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson biographer Andrew Gimson of  ConservativeHome. They were invited on...:

For a flavour of the different points of view already being expressed by senior figures in the Conservative Party on the EU referendum...

This wasn't focused on the substance of the issue. 

Were I to guess I'd say Miss Oakeshott was pro-Leave and Mr Gimson pro-Remain, but I'm not sure. So...

Bias conclusion: n/a

******

The second week began with a report on Monday 29 February. The choice of subject was highly favourable to the 'Remain' side, as it's one of their chosen themes - the threat to the ex-pat community of a Brexit:

Forget for a moment the immigrants. What about the emigrants? That concern was flagged up by the government today as it published its assessment of the exit process should voters choose to leave the EU in the referendum. The report warned that British people who've emigrated but still live within the EU could lose many of their rights. So, 2 million risk losing the right to work abroad, but also the right to free healthcare in their adopted countries. The report's been dismissed by Out campaigners as just more scaremongering. But what about the views of ex-pats themselves? The EU country with the most ex-pats is Spain, many of them living on the Costa del Sol. The World Tonight's Paul Moss has been there to canvas local opinion.

Paul Moss's report did, however, offer a balance of pro-Remain and pro-Leave 'vox pops', though more time (47.5% of the interview) was given to the Remain supporters than to the Leave supporters (who got 35.8% of the interview). The last part of the report was given over to Simon Manley, the UK's ambassador to Spain, who got the closing line: 

We have Facebook channels, we have Twitter channels, to spread the message from the Electoral Commission that the referendum is a really important decision for all of our country and I think it's important that Britons wherever they live have that opportunity to exercise that vote.

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

******

Wednesday 2 March's edition also picked a helpful story for the Remain side - a remain business making the anti-Brexit case. The point was made in an interview with Simon Jack, the BBC's business editor: 

Management at BMW have tonight waded into the debate over Britain's membership of the EU. It's been revealed that workers at Rolls-Royce Motor Cars in the UK have received an email from the German parent company apparently highlighting the risks posted to the company by a vote for the UK to leave the European Union.

The interview did discuss criticisms of the company for its behaviour but the choice of subject (for me) results in a...

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

******

There wasn't a section about the EU referendum on the Friday 4 March edition, but the substance of the issue was raised during an interview with the (pro-REMAIN) former SNP leader Alex Salmond. 

The issue at hand was Mr Salmond's involvement in getting Iran to change its policy on the death penalty for drug traffickers. Mr Salmond used the opportunity to score an anti-Brexit point, arguing that the EU was vital in bringing this about and that individual countries could not have achieved what the EU achieved.

This wasn't really the programme's 'fault' (though he wasn't contradicted by the BBC interviewer), so this will probably have to be....

Bias conclusion: n/a.

******

Onto last week and a couple of features on the Monday 7 March edition. 

The first of these was an interview on the topic of "Is paralysis [in parliament] possibly the knock-on effect of the upcoming EU referendum?" with Peter Riddell, director of the Institute for Government. This stuck to procedural matters. 

Then came a report on a topic highly favourable to the pro-Leave side - i.e one of their chosen themes - namely the EU's negative effect on British fishing:

When it comes to voting in the EU referendum, what issues will decide it for you? Trade? Perhaps sovereignty? How about fishing? The fishing industry is a relatively small part of this country's economy but it's one that's long complained that membership of the European Union is damaging to business, and members of the anti-EU campaign have now said they'll give fishing a prominent position in their attempt to win over wavering voters. Our reporter Paul Moss has been to Scotland's main fishing port of Peterhead to hear which way the argument's blowing.

Paul Moss's report did, however, offer a mix of pro-Remain and pro-Leave 'vox pops', this time with more time (57%) going to the Leave supporters and less time (43%) to the Remain supporters (the percentages here not counting the report's opening scene-setting passage). The closing line went to one of the pro-Remain 'vox pops': 

We've got long-standing historic ties with Europe. It would be terrible if we break them.

Despite giving the last word to the pro-Remain side and presenter Ritula Shah's introductory counter-point that "the fishing industry is a relatively small part of this country's economy", this has to be given a...

Bias conclusion: Pro-Leave

******

The EU referendum-related joint interview on the Wednesday 9 March edition was on the topic of who's allowed to give a view on the subject rather than on the substance of the issue itself: 

This morning's headline in The Sun read 'Queen Backs Brexit'. Now, in a rare move, Buckingham Palace has complained about the article to the press watchdog. The Palace says the Queen is and remains politically neutral. But at the beginning of the week, John Longworth resigned as director general of the British Chambers of Commerce after facing criticism for declaring his personal views about the Europe referendum during the BCC's conference. And the Charity Commission's been criticised for telling voluntary organisations they can only enter the referendum debate in exceptional circumstances. Yet David Cameron's freed his MPs and cabinet ministers from collective responsibility. In other words they can openly support and campaign for whichever side of the Europe debate - in or out - they choose. So with more than 3 months until the EU referendum actually takes place who should be allowed to take part in the public debate? Well, Adam Ramsay is co-editor of Open Democracy UK and Dave Penman is general secretary of the FDA - the union for senior managers and professionals in the public service".

However, some of the things said by the two guests - Adam Ramsay of Open Democracy (who talked about Britain having the chance to finally lay its colonial past to rest) and FDA union general secretary Dave Penman (who backed the sacking of the boss of the BCC for his pro-Brexit comments) - led me to check. Adam has blogged that he will be voting to 'Remain' while Dave's union's press release makes it pretty clear where his union stands too (backing the government line on staying in a reformed Europe).

Somewhat hesitantly then, that must be given a... 

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

******

No hesitation is needed over the final item though - an interview on the Friday 11 March edition with Alan Johnson, head of the Labour Party's 'In' campaign:

Now, as leader of the Labour Party's In campaign in the EU referendum the former home secretary Alan Johnson wouldn't call himself a reluctant European but that's how he describes the man he says is his hero - the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson.

You won't be surprised to hear that Mr Johnson used the opportunity to wax poetic about the virtues of the EU and the UK remaining in the EU. And he received little challenge either.

So that's a firm: 

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

******

Now, of course, none of these 'Bias conclusions' mean that any particular edition of The World Tonight was deliberately biased - or badly biased. It's just my judgement that they had a bias in a particular direction. 

And it's a matter of interpretation, obviously. 

On that basis then...I make it 5 editions with a pro-Remain bias and 1 edition with a pro-Leave bias. 

I'd say though that the opening edition's gathering of three people from outside the UK all trying to persuade us to stay in the EU and the final edition's unchallenging interview with Alan Johnson were the strongest cases of bias, and that an overall trend of 'Pro-Remain bias' is becoming clear.

There's still over 3 months to go though.

A difference of interpretation

Grassroots Out (GO!) received coverage from both of the BBC's nightly current affairs staples - The World Tonight on Radio 4 and Newsnight on BBC Two.

Intriguingly Paul Moss for Radio 4 didn't even mention George Galloway, whereas Newsnight's very own GG, Gabriel Gatehouse, not only began his report with the row over the Gorgeous One but also went back to it later on. 

(In other words, one reporter made it the main pivot of his report while the other reporter ignored it completely.)

That's not the only difference.

Here's The World Tonight's Paul Moss, pointing out the diversity of the speakers: 

Grassroots Out were keen to show off their diverse membership. Speakers included the owner of a small manufacturing company and a London black cab driver who told the audience Uber was killing his trade and that the EU had facilitated this. 

And (accompanied by images of Peter Bone and Bill Cash), here's Gabriel Gatehouse on Newsnight doing the opposite:

The problem for Grassroots Out is that it isn't really a grassroots movement. Not yet anyway. It's only a month old, it's got only about 5,000 followers on Twitter, and most of tonight's speakers are familiar faces from inside what they themselves dismiss as 'the Westminster Bubble'.

I suspect Grassroots Out supporters would have been happier with Paul Moss's reporting here.

More on Corbyn

It could be because I've barely slept for three weeks or that I've barely watched (or listened to) any BBC coverage of the news, but I've got a horrible feeling that I'm really losing the plot.

For starters: I really don't know what to make of the BBC's coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. (Do you?)

I've seen countless assertions on Twitter that the BBC has been heavily biased against Mr Corbyn (often accompanied by claims that the BBC is pro-Tory), but I've also seen the exact opposite assertion (on other blogs) that the BBC is actually flying the red flag for Jeremy Corbyn. 

So is the BBC biased against Mr Corbyn, or in favour of Mr Corbyn? Or is it unbiased?

As so often in such cases, the BBC is so huge that one sleep-deprived blogger sitting in front of a laptop is never going to answer that question to anyone's satisfaction, but that's never stopped a blogger before, and it's not going to stop this one now!...

...so, deep breath!!...

*****

The one test I set myself to judge this question was to look at how the BBC's three 10 pm news programmes covered Jeremy Corbyn's speech at the Labour Party conferenzzzzzz.....

...namely Tuesday night's BBC One News at Ten, BBC Two's Snoozenight and Radio 4's (supposedly insomnia-busting) The World Tonight. 

News at Ten (no longer available to watch again) featured a report from the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg, a piece featuring 'vox pops' from Bedworth, North Warwickshire from Sian Lloyd, and a chat between the aforementioned Laura and Huw Edwards. 

Laura K's main report offered quite a few clips from the new Labour leader's speech, before saying:

There were huge roars of applause from Labour's growing crowds. What they didn't know was that nostalgic message had been written long ago for former Labour leaders.

That was a reference, of course, to the much-reported fact that quite a lot of Mr Corbyn's speech was lifted from a piece by someone who had sent the same speech to previous Labour leaders (including Ed Miliband) and had always, previously, been rebuffed. So I wouldn't put that down as being pro-Corbyn.

Sian Lloyd's piece was a classic of BBC impartiality, as it's 'meant' to be. Five 'vox pops' were heard from. Two said things in favour of Jeremy Corbyn (that he's "proper Labour" and a "breath of fresh air", and that his plans to renationalise the railways are a good thing), two said things against Jeremy Corbyn (that JC "doesn't get" that people have got to pay for his plans, and that JC hasn't answered the question: Where's the money coming from?) and the fifth said something in favour and something against Jeremy Corbyn (that he's "personable", but how is he going to pay for it all?) 

As so often with scrupulously 'balanced' vox pops, what exactly did they prove? How representative were they? What was the point of them?

Then came Laura to Huw, summing things up:

This was campaigner Corbyn. A political phenomenon, yes, but comfort zone Corbyn too. And there's not much concrete sign yet that this is a leader at this stage who's ready to find a way to talk to those millions of voters in the middle. And the political rules he's trying to disprove suggest it's still those votes that win general elections.

Now, I'm not classing that as 'pro-Corbyn'!

What then of Newsnight? 

Here came a report from the progamme's political editor Allegra Stratton, followed by an interview with pro-Corbyn union leader Len McCluskey, and then a three-way discussion between three Labour sympathisers: Peter Kellner of YouGov, Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian and (pro-Corbyn) Ellie Mae O'Hagan of the Guardian. 

The spread of guests between formerly-mainstream Labour and pro-Corbyn Labour was 'fair'. Presumably next week's speech by David Cameron will have a four-way Tory divide for balance...and two right-wing columnists from the Telegraph or Spectator.

As for Allegra's reporting, here are her most personal bits:

But was this all authentic Corbyn? It emerged afterwards that sections had been written by a Labour supporter sent in four years earlier for Ed Miliband but rejected by the then Labour leader.

Jeremy Corbyn there, gloriously unplugged. I thought he would trim his message a little bit for the audience outside the hall, but not a bit of it. Instead he took the audience on a tour of all the issues he's care about over a lifetime. It wasn't, however, mainstream politics and it wasn't a platform for government.

Many thought the man himself would today move to broaden his appeal. In the end the 66 year old returned to a happy place.

Again, I'm not classing that as 'pro-Corbyn'! 

As regards Tuesday night's exciting edition of The World Tonight...

Clips of Mr Corbyn speaking were followed by a series of reactions gathered by BBC reporter Paul Moss. 

Here's my two-days'-late 'live blogging' of Paul's report:

Paul sounded oddly sceptical, saying that the audience "certainly seemed happy, euphoric even", and that they "insisted they really were delighted by what their leader said". One such Labour activist then appeared, saying (in her own words) that he was "inspiring". Paul asked her if that was "the danger": that he says "what you want to hear but he doesn't necessarily say what's going to win you elections"...

...at which point I spotted something you might also have spotted: three BBC reporters (Laura K, Allegra S and Paul M) on three different BBC programmes (News at Ten, Newsnight and The World Tonight) all posing exactly the same question/making exactly the same point: that Jeremy Corbyn made a speech that went down well with his audience at the conference but didn't speak to the mainstream electorate.

A second pro-Corbyn activist said it was the socialist speech people had been waiting for "for the last twenty years." Paul pointed out that he had a beard and asked him if he was pleased that JC praised beard-wearers.

Then Paul interviewed former "New Labour personified" minister Geoffrey Robinson, looking "less happy" (according to Paul) said he hadn't been won over by Mr C. but that it's "our" job to win Jeremy Corbyn over and show him how to do it.

Then Paul focused on a MORI fringe conference that seemed to thown "a bucket of cold water" over the faces of the Labour audience. The polls didn't look good. Gideon Skinner of MORI said that JC's speech "added almost othing" to Labour's electability - though his "considered" tone went down well. 

Then Paul featured a clip and an interview with Daily Telegraph columnist and former Labour activist Dan Hodges who pursued Paul's earlier point that Jeremy Corbyn's speech was just speaking to the hall, not the electorate at large. Dan dismissed his attempts to play the "patriotic" route.

Paul then went outside the conference hall, to Brighton Pier, to discuss that patriotism point. His first vox pop said Jeremy Corbyn wasn't being patriotic by being disrespectful to the Queen. His second vox pop said he should "bend a bit" and "follow a few rules", especially towards the Queen. 

No, I wouldn't class that as pro-Corbyn reporting either! Would you?

Then came an interview with a pro-Corbyn Labour activist and her anti-Corbyn retired Labour councillor dad. She was enthusiastic about Jeremy Corbyn. He wasn't.

Then came a section focusing on that part of JC's speech which dealt with the Labour leader's criticisms of Saudi Arabia. 

This featured an interview with Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi who strongly criticised Mr Corbyn, accusing him of playing party politics over Saudi Arabia (whilst, even to my sleep-deprived ears, pretty blatantly playing party politics himself over the same issue). Presenter Ritula Shah pressed the Conservative MP pretty hard on this issue.

And that was that, as I heard it. 

Good night.

The UK's future in Europe

As a fairly regular listener (for over a quarter of a century) to Radio 4's The World Tonight I often find myself viewing its homepage. For several weeks now, prominently positioned just beneath its 'Latest episode' link, the homepage has been showcasing one particular edition of the programme, from last December:

The UK's future in Europe

Can the UK prosper outside Europe and can Europe prosper without the UK?

I presume the reason for featuring this special edition so prominently and for so long must be because they are especially proud of it and think it represents The World Tonight at its best, dealing as it does with a charged political issue. 

The charge that the BBC is biased in favour of the European Union is an often-made one. (I've been known to make it myself from time to time!) The corporation's admission that it received nearly £3 million of funding from the EU has only served to fuel such concerns. Does this edition of The World Tonight supply any evidence for such a bias? Did it provide a range and balance of views - some arguing that the UK can prosper outside Europe, with others disagreeing?


John Jungclaussen's report

The programme began with a 'point of view'-style report from John Jungclaussen, London Correspondent of Die Zeit - a "a self-confessed Anglophile and Europhile".  Dr Jungclaussen is "very worried" about Britain's possible divorce from the EU.

He talked first to the joky Eurosceptic Quentin Letts of The Daily Mail, getting in the charge that the British media is "highly emotive" in its misleading of the British people and, after Quentin had finished, mentioning the "Little Englander" charge made against people like Mr Letts (whilst personally distancing himself from it).

Dr Jungclaussen continued that Britain leaving the EU would be "catastrophic". The EU is the UK's biggest customer. What about the "special relationship" with the US? Won't that "save" us? Not according to an American "business analyst who had lived in London for a long time" (Glenda Geeves?). Dr Jungclaussen ask her a splendidly leading question: "So for American business how important is it for Britain to be in the UK (sic - he meant EU!) and offer a gateway into the European Union. I mean, after all, one of the largest markets in the world?" "It is extremely important," she replied, agreeing with the thrust of Dr Jungclaussen's question and said that the UK would be as "attractive as before" for the US if it were no longer in the EU.

He then argued that the UK's departure "would be terrible for Europe as well" as Britain has long been "the voice of reason in the EU". The "Europhile" cross-bench peer Lord Haskins was summoned to back up this point. Lord Haskins praised Britain's role in building the single market and said he would be "sad and shocked" if the UK left the EU. He remembers why the EU was formed, after the most devastating war in human history.

To the strains of "Silent Night", Dr Jungclaussen expresses his own fears that the UK will leave the EU. "A disaster for Britain and a disaster for Europe" he calls it.


'Interview' with Radosław Sikorski

OK, so that's one side of the argument put. What's next? A European voice which shares Britain's Euroscepticism perhaps? No, rather remarkably, it was an interview with Radosław Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister - another European who believes precisely what John Jungclaussen believes, that Britain should stay in the EU. Mr Sikorski talked to presenter Ritula Shah. "He explained why he felt so strongly about the need for the UK to remain within the European Union," said Ritula. And so he did. This section took the form of an interview, though Mr Sikorski's answer was more like a speech. It went on, uninterrupted and unchallenged for  2 minutes and 42 seconds.

Essentially, we had the same case put twice in the opening twenty minutes of the programme.

Paul Moss's report

Instead of allowing a third voice to put the counter-argument (either as a report by that person or as an uninterrupted talk/interview), the programme then proceeded straight to a report by the BBC's Paul Moss.

Paul went to Cornwall to investigate British Euroscepticism. Ritula Shah's introduction to his report framed the argument thus:

"Are the critics right in their concerns or is it simply a misunderstanding about the purpose of Europe?" 

As far as I'm concerned, Paul Moss made no attempt to show that the sceptics could be "right in their concerns" and every attempt to show that there is indeed a lot of "misunderstanding about the purpose of Europe". It was an argument - and, in my opinion, a pro-EU argument being advanced by the impartial BBC reporter.

Amazingly, this report was the only section of the programme where voices were heard expressing arguments in favour of the UK exiting the European Union. Why "amazing"? Because in a programme whose stated aim was the air this very issue, the relegation of this particular side of the argument to a few fleeting vox pops in a report is highly questionable.

Paul Moss went to meet some UKIP supporters in a pub. We heard from two of them, very briefly. We then heard from the local UKIP candidate Stephanie McWilliam, who Paul mis-introduced as "Steph McWilliams". She said UKIP is now on a roll. In less than one and a half minutes, UKIP disappeared, and were not heard from again. That was it - in a three-quarters-on-an-hour-long programme on the subject of Britain's membership of the European Union.

Paul then went off "in search of someone who might put the other side of the argument" and found John Teagle, a local company director who "is a big fan of the European Single Market" because it makes exporting to Europe (his biggest market) easier. "Case closed, you might think", said Paul, after choosing not to challenge Mr Teagle over this aspect of his comments. Paul Moss continued

"But not quite, because it turned out that John Teagle is not actually a fan of the European Union itself. He cited one thing he particularly disliked about the power of Brussels. What he said wasn't actually true, but represents perhaps a commonly held belief." 

This attempted to fatally undermine Mr Teagle's point even before he'd made it. Mr Teagle's "untrue" point was this:

"Brussels is imposing on us under the Human Rights legislation. There's debate now on whether prisoners in the UK should be able to vote at general elections."

Paul Moss pounced, firmly:

"What's that got to do with the EU? It's actually to do with the Council of Europe, nothing at all to do with the EU."

Poor Mr Teagle was taken aback and sounded embarrassed, laughing nervously:

"Ah, OK, er..but, no, but it is difficult for Joe Public to tell the difference between one aspect of Europe and another."

He stood corrected.

Or did he? Well, not according to Mary Ellen Synon at the Daily Mail:

Yet the fact is that Teagle had it exactly right, and Moss had it exactly wrong. The Lisbon Treaty incorporated the European Council's Court of Human Rights into the EU.
I won't go into the full trainspotting details, but for a start the preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, one part of the Lisbon Treaty, states: 'The Charter reaffirms...the Social Charters adopted by the Union and the Council of Europe and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.'
The EU has made it legally impossible for any member state to operate outside the demands of the European Court of Human Rights. The EU has nailed Britain and every other EU member state to it.
So for a BBC reporter such as Moss to tell Joe Public that the ECHR is 'nothing at all to do with the EU' is, and this is the best gloss I can put on it, deeply ignorant.
As I say, I hope Teagle demands a correction and an apology from the BBC. 

Having made his point about Mr Teagle's misunderstanding of the EU (if such it was), Paul Moss went to talk to the Cornish band Road Runners who "were also not exactly sure about what the European Union does."

Before we heard from them, Paul told us that the community centre in Redruth where they record their music (the Elms Centre) was "set up with the help of an EU grant". Paul ask the band's singers what the words "European Union" meant to them. They were pretty positive to begin with - "Community. Community trying to be together. All working for the same goal, trying to make a better place for the whole of Europe" - but went on to say that different countries want different things. Paul was ready for them:

"And yet no more here seems to be aware that this whole thing was funded by the European Union". 

The band members took the bait:

"Maybe it's a marketing problem for themselves."

"Maybe it's something they need to start letting know that they're funding it, if you know what I mean, so that people like us will know where it's coming from and then we can give...."

"Gratitude!"

"Yeah. They'll get thanks for it, if you know what I mean."

"That is exactly what the European Union is trying to do", continued Paul as he assumed his commentary. He helped the EU along even more by then detailing other grants the EU is giving to help Cornwall before speaking to Nigel Ashcroft,  the man who runs the superfast broadband project in Cornwall and who says the EU should do even more to "blow its funding trumpet":

"We should really be making sure that everybody in Cornwall knows that the money that's coming from Europe is really going to accelerate our economy." 

You can, I hope, see how Paul Moss's report has gone so far. After letting us hear very briefly from some UKIP supporters, none of whom was giving time to make the case against the EU- never mind the case for withdrawal from the EU - we heard from a businessman who was used to show how (supposedly) ignorant people are about the EU and then from three beneficiaries of EU largesse who are used to amplify this point about how we don't understand the EU and then used once more to blow the EU's trumpet.

Finally, what about the Common Fisheries Policy? Paul then talked to some fishermen, all anti-EU. We heard from some of them, voicing their concerns. Paul countered their concerns in his introduction and in his questions to them - pointing out that Brits can fish in French and Spanish waters and reminding them of all those project being funded by the EU ("an awful lot" of them), for example. He didn't get very far though in convincing them!

Closing discussion


We still hadn't heard a sustained argument against Britain's continued membership of the European Union. We'd heard two sustained argument for though. Would the closing discussion with three members of parliament change that?

No. None of Ritula Shah's three guests were in favour of Britain leaving the EU. Given that the programme was specifically about the question of whether the UK should leave the EU - an issue challenged by Dr Jungclaussen and Mr Sikorski - I would have though that it would have been only right and proper to have at least one guest in this final discussion willing to make the case for the UK's exit. I would have said that was obvious. Evidently the producers of The World Tonight thought otherwise. If they thought about it at all.

We did have a Eurosceptic though, given that the first guest was Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom. She wants us to stay inside the EU but favours renegotiating a looser relationship with Europe.

To compound the clear imbalance in the programme so far, she was put up against two more European  pro-Europeans who would stick up for the EU and criticise British Euroscepticism. At least they differed, however, on the question of the UK's continued membership of the EU. Otto Fricke of the German liberal FDP wanted us to stay but the French socialist Axelle Lemaire was prepared to shrug her shoulders if we left.

Still, at least Andrea Leadsom challenged some of their arguments - and Paul Moss's argument about the generosity of EU funding - and put across plenty of Eurosceptic points and Ritula Shah conducted the discussion fairly enough.


Conclusions

By featuring this edition of the programme (from just before Christmas last year) so prominently on its homepage - even more prominently that the latest edition! -, Radio 4's The World Tonight is clearly wanting as many of its listeners as possible to hear it - and re-hear it. Why? Is it simply because they think it's a 'gold standard' edition of the programme, something that it can proudly recommend to its audience, or is it because they want the pro-European message I believe it seeks to project to be heard, again and again? My trusting side says the former; my sceptical side (in more senses than one) says the latter. You must make up your own minds on that, of course.

I've dipped into this territory before as far as The World Tonight is concerned, but dipping really doesn't cut it with the BBC.  Is this edition typical (if you agree that it's as biased as I'm saying it is), or merely a blip? You can't judge a single edition of a BBC programme - as the BBC is the first to tell complainants. You have to take the programme's output as a whole into account. That being the case, this may need a more systematic examination. Does it keep happening? Are there enough counter-examples to neutralise it if it does?


Coda: Book of the Week

The pushing of this edition of the programme puts me in mind of another quirk of Radio 4's 'Listen again' facility.

If you fancy trawling the Book of the Week archive and listening to some of the past editions (this past week's book has been a biography of Hugo Chavez by the Guardian's Rory Carroll), you can trawl through the whole of 2012 and find not one Book of the Week you can re-listen to. Same for 2011...with two exceptions: a biography of Charles Dickens from November 2011 and a collection of essays of the state of the European Union from the same month. This latter book (if book if is), State of the Union, was serialised  (if serialised it was) in five daily essays.

Rather like a standard Dateline London panel, it gathered five writers (journalists, historians, novelists) from five different countries - Italy, Germany, France, Ireland and Greece. Unfortunately, also like on Dateline London, it gathered together five like-minded people. All are strong pro-Europeans: journalist Beppe Severgnini, Chancellor Kohl's former advisor Michael Stürmer, French commentator Agnes Poirier, Irish writer Fintan O'Toole and (less obviously) Greek novelist Ersi Sotiropoulos.

Is it not intriguing that they should choose to keep this particular pro-European Book of the Week available for listeners to listen again for getting on for one and a half years now whilst making no other book - except that biography of Dickens - available for the same purpose? I'd call that odd, at the very least. Wouldn't you?

'The World Tonight' - and last night, and the night before...

Continuing to review the past week's editions of BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight, I want to surf my way over the choppy waters of the last five days and see how often the shark of bias lurks beneath, ready to bite off the leg of impartiality. So to speak.

19/11/2012

Besides the Israel-Gaza conflict, this edition looked at Burma in the light of President Obama's visit to the Asian nation. Is the West seeking to draw Burma away from its traditional ties to China? Carolyn Quinn spoke to Josh Kurlantzick from the American think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, about the country's foreign relations. It was an interesting interview. 

Then there was a report by James Reynolds on anti-Assad Syrian refugees in Turkey. They don't like Bashar one bit. There have been repeated accusations that the BBC has been far too embedded - literally and emotionally - with the Syrian rebels. This report won't have undermined that impression (however unfair it may be). Its themes were the plight of refugee children, the badness of the Assad regime, the eagerness of the rebels, the unease of the Turkish state. 

The impending rebel seizure of Goma in Eastern Congo (DRC) was next up for discussion. Gabriel Gatehouse talked to Carolyn. The under-reporting of the various wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last couple of decades remains one of the scandals of modern reporting. Compare it to the saturation coverage of events in Gaza or the West Bank. Deaths in the DRC since 1996 appear to have topped the 5 million mark (at least) - an extraordinary tally of human suffering. It tells you something that when you do a simple search on the BBC News website, the 'News' results bring up 6,793 results for "Congo" (with includes results for the other Congo - Congo Brazzaville - too) and   14,984 for "Israel". If you assume the figure to be 5 million dead in the DRC over that period and compare it to the figure (14,500) given by Wikipedia for deaths in the Israel-Palestinian conflict since 1948 (i.e. over a far longer period) you find that the recent wars in the Congo have killed some 370 times more people - in other words, VASTLY more. The BBC, of course, has been far from alone in under-reporting the plight of the Congolese and massively over-reporting the 'plight' of the Palestinians. Still, a myriad numbers of wrongs doesn't make a right. That is all a preamble to saying 'Well done!' to The World Tonight for giving up under five minutes of Monday's edition to the story. That said, they spent 16 minutes on Israel-Gaza (over 3 times as long). 

The programme ended with a report from the BBC's Guy De Launey on the growing friendship between a U.S. stealth fighter pilot (Dale Zelko) and the Serb artillery operator (Zoltan Dani) who shot him down in 1999 - the subject of a documentary called 'The Second Meeting'.  We heard from the two men and the director. Interesting. 

20/11/2012

As well as the women bishops and the Gaza sections (reviewed in earlier posts), Tuesday's edition discussed Afghanistan. Paddy Ashdown says Western nation-building has failed in the country (said host Ritula Shah). There have been failures galore, but there has been some good done...by the European Union. Paul Moss reported on the EU's involvement in training the ill-reputed Afghan police force. The Afghan people are grateful. The EU trainers are pleased with their work. The EU's top man in this field is pleased too. Where the US and Britain have failed, the EU is succeeding it seems. That was one of the messages of that report, I think. It's very rare to hear a positive report about Western intervention in Afghanistan. Interesting that it reflects so well on the European Union, isn't it?