So what happened next?

It only seems like yesterday, but was actually two days ago, that I wondered aloud whether the BBC's capitulation to a complainant's call for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) to be labelled when introduced (e.g. as 'free-market') would lead to think tanks from other parts of the political spectrum receiving similar treatment. 

I specifically mentioned BBC favourite the Resolution Foundation. 

Well, the BBC is making headline news of another Resolution Foundation report today under the headline Levelling up to cost billions more than government thinks, says think tank and, no, there's not a label in sight in that article. It's simply 'the Resolution Foundation' and 'the think tank'. 

Much as could have been guessed. 

Other media outlets go with 'left-leaning'.

War!

Theresa May, picking a tank to take to Salford

The Mail on Sunday says that "Theresa May has gone to war with the BBC":

Downing Street has made a furious complaint to the broadcaster after it led its Radio 4 bulletins with claims from a Left-leaning think-tank that the measures unveiled by Chancellor Philip Hammond would mainly benefit the rich. One aide described the report on Tuesday’s Today programme as ‘the most biased bulletin in history’. 

The row erupted after the flagship news show highlighted research by the Resolution Foundation without revealing that its director, Torsten Bell, was head of policy for former Labour leader Ed Miliband.

It continues:

The 7am bulletin declared that ‘an independent analysis of the Budget has said that despite moves to end austerity, low and middle income families face a continued squeeze’. 

It repeated the claim in its 8am bulletin – but minus the word ‘independent’. 

Of course "the BBC refused to apologise for its coverage", saying that the research was "the first detailed analysis of the Budget" and that it was "clearly attributed to the Resolution Foundation".

The headlines in question ran as follows:

It's 7 o'clock on Tuesday 30th October. The headlines. An independent analysis of the Budget has said that, despite moves to end austerity, low and middle income families face a continued squeeze. 

It's 8 o'clock on Tuesday 30th October. The headlines. An analysis of the Budget, which was billed as the beginning of the end of austerity, has suggested low and middle income families won't feel much of a benefit.

Both bulletins did, however, go on to describe the Resolution Foundation as "left-leaning",which is an improvement on how they used to describe it (or, more accurately, not describe it). I used to write a lot about their failure to give such context to Resolution Foundation reports (which they are unusually keen on), so that's good. 

Anyhow, with Mrs May "going to war" with them, the BBC must be trembling in its leather formal chukka boots.

Is the IFS biased?

Here's something I thought you might enjoy from Charles Moore's latest Spectator's Notes:

Saturday’s Guardian carried a long interview with Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He came across as a well-informed, public-spirited man. He did not come across as impartial. He seemed a typical social democrat. He thinks more public spending is better than less, doesn’t like first-past-the-post politics because it weakens the middle ground, and wants tax penalties for second homes. Above all, he is anti-Brexit: ‘The economics are obvious. If you make trade with your richest trading partner more expensive, you will make yourself worse off.’ He says there is no economic case for Brexit, just a ‘controlling-immigration case’ (no mention of the key sovereignty/democracy case). Mr Johnson is entitled to all these opinions, but he and his IFS are given lots of BBC airtime as unbiased experts. Yet they are just as viewy as the IEA or the Centre for Policy Studies. The difference is a) that they don’t declare it and b) that their ‘objective’ beliefs chime with those of the BBC. To think that the case for Remain is an objective one and the case for Leave isn’t is the most out-and-out Remainer view of them all. Neither case is objective, nor should it be. On its website, the IFS describes itself as having, during the referendum, provided ‘a vital impartial voice in the debate’. It is bad for our public culture that such flat untruths can be smugly asserted by people earning their livings as ‘experts’.

To label or not to label?

I'm just starting to listen to that Nick Robinson/Jacob Rees-Mogg interview now and was immediately brought up short by Nick's introduction to his two guests - Jacob R-M and Charles Grant from the pro-European think tank the Centre for European Reform:

(Jacob Rees-Mogg) is chair of the European Research Group, a pro-Brexit Conservative Party organisation, and Charles Grant is the man who he claimed had said all this, head of the Centre for the (sic) European Reform, a think tank. 

As for the 'complaints from both sides'-related point from barrister Tim Baldwin quoted in the previous post about Nick Robinson "not challenging JR-M head on in promulgating this acknowledged lie", well, it shows the nonsense of the 'complaints from both sides' argument. Mr Baldwin, despite being a barrister, was just plain wrong. Nick Robinson didn't just challenge Mr Rees-Mogg head on, he placed him in the firing line and kept on firing (hectoring him, you might say). If anything, the bias went in the exact opposite direction to that claimed by Mr Baldwin, especially as Charles Grant didn't get anything like so rough a ride from his BBC interviewer.

New Year's Resolution Foundation

For those who recall the BBC's fondness for reports from the Resolution Foundation, here's a bit of festive gloom from the main headlines on their News website this morning:

And guess what's to blame? Yes, the Brexit vote.

Here's to 2018!

Think tanks, newspapers and Twitter

Here are some fascinating graphs drawn from a statistical study of the political influence/orientation of British political think tanks carried out by economist Andrew Whitby - a study based on Twitter. 

Using the property of homophily - the tendency we human birds have to flock together with those who share our outlook and opinions - Andrew Whitby trailed all the Westminster MPs who use Twitter and noted down all the UK think tanks they chose to 'follow'.

The assumption here is that, in general terms, "you are likely to have similar views to those people that you follow or are followed by (or retweet or are retweeted by)." 

Measuring the difference between the proportions of Labour and Conservative MPs who follow each think tank could, therefore, give the world a strong indication of where that particular think tank stands on the political spectrum. 

The resultant graph rings true with me. See if it does with you too. 

There's only one possibly surprising result in that graph - namely the apparent left orientation of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a body which is usually described (by the BBC) as 'respected', 'influential' and 'independent'. 

Andrew Whitby then conducted a similar study of whom MPs follow on Twitter, this time concentrating on the UK's newspapers, producing this graph:

That rings true too.

Such techniques remain useful for measuring bias as well, of course - and some have tried them already. 

The Centre for Policy Studies report into BBC bias, which many of you will remember, noted citations of think tanks by the BBC News website. It claimed to have found objective proof of BBC bias.

Its measure of left-right orientation, however, was somewhat unusual: It was based on how often those think tanks were cited by the (right-wing) Daily Telegraph and the (left-wing) Guardian - a technique which produced this rather bizarre chart:

Now, that doesn't ring true, by and large. The IPPR is NOT more right-wing than the Adam Smith Institute. Demos is left-leaning but most certainly not THE most left-wing think tank, or to the left of Compass. ResPublica isn't more left-wing than the Fabian Society - and nor is the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The Institute of Economic Affairs is most certainly NOT to the left of the Work Foundation either - etc, etc. 

For a statistical survey to really hit home it has to have very stable roots and not produce lots of obviously wrong results. 

The CPS went down a fruitful path by investigating BBC bias in this way, but undermined their own case because of this not-entirely-convincing way of defining left-leaning and right-leaning think tanks. They, thus, found themselves easily - and widely - dismissed. 

Maybe they should try again, using Andrew Whitby's Twitter results. Or someone else should try instead.