“…To make the universities do what they should.”

A reader writes:

Wanted to draw your attention to another case of BBC bias on the Today Programme this morning. [Monday 8 November] In an interview with the Director of OFFA, Sir Martin Harris, the BBC presenter attacked OFFA from a left-wing point of view. No mention at all was made of the argument that favouring state school pupils might lead to a lowering of standards. The only criticism from the right was a mention that Chris Patten and Michael Beloff had said that this was a crude form of social engineering; note the implied position that Oxford is being elitist – others have made the same criticism of OFFA, but curiously were not mentioned. A transcript of the presenter’s questions is below. You can see how many questions were left wing attacks, compared with the one right wing criticism. Note that Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, and Michael Beloff, President of Trinity College, Oxford, also appeared on the programme later on, and the same presenter let them say what they wanted to say.

Here are the presenter’s questions:

“You’ve said that you hope universities can be persuaded to spend £200 million a year on bursaries. Will that be enough to encourage a broader spread of admissions?”

“Wouldn’t it make more of a difference if you could actually control admissions? You can’t do that can you, you do have limited powers to control these bursaries but you’ve already been criticised because you don’t have enough powers.”

“But is there any real onus on the universities to increase and broaden the spread of admissions because if you can’t actually affect the admissions policy, if you can’t put quotas, for example, down, what is there to make the universities do what they should?”

“Well, do they, though?” [in response to Sir Martin’s point that universities respond to incentives and challenges]

“But how do you respond to the criticism that you’ve faced already so far. It’s like you’re damned before you even begin. For example, Michael Beloff, President of Trinity College Oxford, and Chris Patten, the new Chancellor of Oxford University, they say that this type of meddling is a shoddy attempt by the Government at social engineering”.

“Are you prepared to impose fines and at what point will you make that decision?”

“You’re sounding very reasonable [Sir Martin’s point that disadvantaged students will have a better change of getting to university], but that’s exactly why some people have criticised a softly softly approach, and they would like somebody like you to come down hard on the universities and say ‘you have to take in a certain number of students from poorer backgrounds.’”

“Are you a little too close, though, to the institutions that you’re supposed to be monitoring? You are a former Vice-Chancellor of the leading Russell Group universities.”

“You won’t find it too hard to impose your restrictions on your former colleagues?”

It’s a mistake to concentrate only on the answers given in an interview. The questions asked are often just as revealing. – NS

The Power of Camera Tricks

– the picture below (in a radical new departure for Biased BBC) is an unretouched screen grab of Richard Perle being interviewed in the third part of the BBC’s recent series The Power of Nightmares*. Note how Perle was filmed with a bright window behind him and little, if any, lighting in front of him – leaving one side of his face washed out and mis-shapen, the other dark and sinister, like a thug with a black-eye.

The Power of Camera Tricks – Richard Perle with a BBC style black eye.

Needless to say, no other interviews in the same episode were filmed as poorly as this. Co-incidentally, the programme credits list the same name for ‘Camera’ and ‘Assistant Producer’.

There are many manipulative camera tricks that sharp-eyed viewers can spot from time to time in the media, including using unusual camera angles, fish-eye style lens filters (to subtly distort facial features) and so on – do keep an eye out for them!

* – a subject to which I intend to return when I have time. Suffice it to say for now that it was a mish-mash of opinion presented as if it was a factual documentary.

Tory collusion? or just another BBC News Online smear?

On Friday morning BBC Views Online’s front page News Ticker’s headlines included:


Commons speaker’s press chief quits after secretly colluding with the Conservatives

This then linked to a story headlined Speaker’s aide quits in Tory row.

Both of these headlines suggest some Conservative, sorry Beeboids, Tory skulduggery or wrongdoing.

The real story – in fact, there are three real stories – is that, according to the BBC’s own report (once you read through the spin), John Stonborough, an employee of Michael Martin, the Commons’ Speaker, tried to send an email to the Conservatives’ Guy Black, following last week’s publication of MPs expenses, suggesting that the Conservatives attack the Labour Party over their MPs expenses because “Most of the abuse was Labour”.

Except that the clot sent the email to ‘T. Black’ – Teresa Black, who works for a Labour MP – thus prompting his resignation because the Speaker and his office are supposed to be impartial (link for the benefit of Beeboids!).

Now this is where it gets complicated Beeboids – collusion means:


A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

Given that the message was unsolicited (there is no evidence to suggest otherwise) and given that it didn’t get to its intended recipient anyway, where then is the collusion? Why is it a ‘Tory row’ rather than a ‘Speaker’s row’ or somesuch? Is it too hard to resist the urge to spin the facts into ‘Tory collusion’ and ‘Tory row’?

And what of the second and third stories I alluded to? Well, the second story is precisely what Mr. Stonborough attempted to highlight – that Labour MPs appear to abuse, sorry, claim more expenses than other MPs – which isn’t something that the BBC have gone out of their way to investigate. The third aspect is that it is, to coin a phrase, widely believed that the political parties agreed not to attack each other over MPs expenses – presumably because they think they are as bad as each other when it comes to snouts in the trough. That, Beeboids, is where the real story of collusion, if any, exists.

News Online’s first version of the story, timestamped 10.14, was the same as the second version, timestamped 11.56, save for the addition of the final paragraph in the latter – “Mr Black later stressed he had neither requested, nor received, any information from Mr Stonborough.” – which, for alert and persistent readers at least, rather highlights the BBC News Online spin in the story and its headlines.

Grinning and bearing it

: with the partial (in both senses of that word) exception of Matt Frei (the BBC’s Washington corespondent, already often featured on this blog), and within the usual limitations of their analysis, the BBC 10’o’clock news handled Bush’s reelection more calmly than his doings in Iraq. I think this is because elections are a part of the world that the BBC accepts; somehow the concept of impartiality in reporting an election is not as alien to them as in reporting a war.

“America keeps faith with George Bush … He won more votes than any president in history … George Bush has won a convincing victory …”

The tone was very sober but you could not complain the chosen words betrayed any bias.

“If Kerry had won, Tony Blair would have been the last war leader left standing”

was a silly remark (Australia’s recent election obviously doesn’t count, or for that matter the other countries where leaders who supported Bush are still in place), but to be fair the same man who said it (Mark, standing outside Westminster), went on to say that:

“Many labour MPs think that only a few weeks ago Tony Blair moved British troops to help Bush’s campaign. I’ve never believed that, I don’t believe that at all but they believe it …”

so he isn’t swallowing every left-wing statement. Even Matt Frei mentioned something he could have omitted. As Bush was declared the next president:

“Sweet words (pause) again and after this election vistory they must sound so much sweeter (pause) to him and to them. [tone makes clear, not to Matt] … George Bush now has a very clear mandate. The question is will he use it to unite (significant pause) or to divide.”

but further on Matt gave us, even if incredulously, an interesting fact:

“There is a curious irony. The Republicans did what the Democrats used to do so well, organising the party from the grass roots. They spent less than the Democrats, can you believe it !!!”

Matt spoke of republican success in reaching out to the blue collar vote

“although Kerry said again and again [emphasis as Matt’s impatience broke through] ‘no tax cuts for the rich, we must help the poor.”

The tone betrayed his incomprehension of those stupid blue collar voters who don’t understand their own interests as well as Matt does, but the facts were welcome. Kerry and Kerry supporters got the lion’s share of the time but perhaps that is not so unfair; we’ll be hearing lots about Bush hereafter. The BBC’s general analysis was of course unable to step outside their worldview. There were many remarks along the lines of:

“… middle America that, just as Matt has been saying, surrounds itself with the flag …”

and much talk of Bush’s ‘radical’ view (implicitly contrasted to Kerry’s, or the BBC’s, moderate one), plus the

usual talk on Israel and on Europe

“… no doubting the interational pressure on George Bush to adjust his tone and tactics …”

However John Simpson’s discussion was, as often, rational and not marked by one-sided bias;

“… they (France and Germany) would have had a much harder time if Kerry had won; then they would have to help out in Iraq …”

John explained that instead they could now continue to do nothing. They had managed without close ties with the U.S. over the last few years and would continue to get along O.K. without such ties. The U.S. equally would manage to do without them. By the time he had finished talking, the divisions that had been much mentioned in the rest of the programme sounded hopeless, but not serious.

It’s a wrap!

Stephen Pollard was on a roll as he reviewed parts of BBC coverage of the US elections.


Some trademark Beebisms on display, from ‘no-one wanted to believe this was happening’ to ‘it was the religious nuts wot done it’ to ‘anyway, back to the ‘so-called’ war on terror’ to ‘didn’t everyone want Bush to lose anyway?’. Great stuff, if one can use that phrase about responses to blatant bias.

Glenn Reynolds

of Instapundit fame has up a column in the Guardian that makes some good points and links to this blog. (A good point in itself, we always think.) Here’s a quote:

Those of you across the Atlantic may wish to take a lesson from this. As the BBC’s atrocious handling of the Gilligan affair – and, indeed, its war coverage generally – illustrates, media bias is hardly limited to the United States. In fact, it’s probably stronger elsewhere, and less noted, because there are fewer alternatives. Most countries have nothing like American-style talk radio, for example, because it poses far too great a threat to elites to be permitted. Still, British blogs like Samizdata, Biased BBC, Harry’s Place and Normblog are providing alternative voices. Since I don’t think that elite media have done a very good job during the decades of their dominance, I look forward to seeing alternative media make a difference around the world.

B-BBC US Election special:

Hannah Bayman, a BBC journalist, well known to longstanding BBBC readers, has her own blog at bayman.blogspot.com. Hannah’s posts are usually quite banal, but yesterday’s post, reproduced here in full, offers an interesting glimpse into the thoughts and objectivity of a doubtless up and coming BBC journalist:

Only hours to go before the Land of the Free starts to vote and I already have butterflies in my stomach.

My mother emigrated from the US to Britain in 1966 when she was 21, after falling in love with Harold Wilson and The Beatles. My brother and I are both joint passport holders and the three of us registered to vote for the first time especially for this election.

I registered at my uncle’s house in Philadelphia, PA, and have since found out that Pennyslvania is one of the key three swing states, with Ohio and Florida.

But who knows if the vote I posted for Kerry and Edwards last week will even be counted.

Another close family member has voted for Nader. With most polls I’ve seen so far putting Bush 49%, Kerry 48% and Nader at 1%, I’m struggling to see this as anything but a vote for Bush.

Yeah, yeah, Kerry and Bush are both baddies if you’re a left-wing purist, but they are the only two horses in the race.

There is only one question in this election: do you want Bush in or out of the White House?

Let’s hope the US chooses a candidate who stands for international relationships, abortion rights, medical research, secular values and taxes on the richest…

…instead of a warmongering, oil-grubbing, vote-rigging, drink-driving – haven’t you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? – weapons-of-mass-destruction-buying, Kyoto-smashing, bible-bashing, chimp.

Fingers crossed polling is fair as possible. If, as predicted, there is not enough time for everyone to vote in some precincts, or many find themselves wrongly barred from voting lists, there could be serious unrest.

So who are you rooting for? Or if you have a vote, which way is it going?

I wonder how typical Hannah’s opinion of George Bush (“a warmongering, oil-grubbing, vote-rigging, drink-driving – haven’t you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? – weapons-of-mass-destruction-buying, Kyoto-smashing, bible-bashing, chimp”) is among BBC journalists? And given Hannah’s opinion of Bush, is it appropriate for her (or anyone with similar views) to report on anything to do with Bush or matters relating to the US or US policy without at least declaring their opinion up front? Can one hold such strong views and yet remain impartial and objective?

Moreover, given that Hannah was born (if I recall correctly from her past comments here), brought up and educated in Britain and continues to live and pay taxes here, it surprises me that she feels it appropriate to cast a vote in the US election, even if it is legal for her to do so under US law (if the situation were reversed I don’t think she could legally vote in the UK) – and I doubt very much that Hannah will desist from voting in the next UK general election either.

Remember, to paraphrase Rageh Omaar, it’s not your BBC, it’s their BBC!

Update: A couple of excerpts from Hannah’s follow-up posts, first, this charming effort:

So it is all about Ohio, the third of the swing states. NBC and Fox have already called Ohio for the chimp, but I think I will wait for my colleagues at BBC News Online (remember Fahrenheit 9/11).

Ah yes, better to wait for a reliable news outlet Hannah. And the tear-jerking:

I was woken first thing by two pessimistic texts from a colleague working the early shift at BBC Telly Centre, saying it would take a miracle for a Kerry victory

Oh to have a fly-on-the-wall webcam inside the BBC’s Newsrooms this morning!

P.S. While we’re on the subject of leftie journalists, if you will indulge me a little, congratulations must go to The Guardian for their splendid Operation Clark County – in 2000, according to The Grauniad, the good people of Clark County voted for Al Gore by a margin of 1% (~324 votes). Following the combined letter-writing efforts of Guardian readers I’m pleased to report that Clark County voted for Bush this time, by a margin of 2.4% (1,622 votes, by my reckoning). To paraphrase another newspaper in another election, it was The Guardian wot won it!

I have just picked up a little of the BBC1 coverage of the US election.

Seems OK. As so often when the BBC is concentrating it is pretty good, it’s the off-the-cuff remarks that let it down. I haven’t seen enough to make any better assessment than that. More interesting by far than the TV was this real-time vote counting thingy that clocked up the votes as Bush took Florida. This similar doodad for Ohio says that Bush is likely to take that state, too – and hence the US.

The BBC seemed slow to mention developing results within crucial states although millions followed the count via Drudge or by clicking on the state concerned on the BBC’s own map. To be fair, the other channels – even Fox (on the internet) – were just as cautious, and after the too-early call for Gore in 2000 maybe better safe than sorry.

ADDED LATER: Any hopes I might have had of posting the above in the wee small hours and reporting on the news as it happens were dashed by the fact that several million other Blogger users were trying to do the same.