Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[freakybacon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35204398

Interesting one here, not because older man falling into honey trap texting teenage slapper, but because labour is stated immediately in the headline. Usually if it's a labour politician in trouble, the party membership is hidden in the text or not mentioned at all.

I wonder who he has upset?

[scenario8]

Scientifically proven no doubt and in no way whatsoever confirmation bias at play.

[turbobloke]

With BBC bias on continuous loop play there's no need.

[turbobloke]

Hol said:

So we all agree it's biased then?

BBC people do, from top presenters to top brass, but anyone can feel free to disagree with all of them for whatever perverse reason they wish to create!

[eccles]

freakybacon said:

Usually if it's a labour politician in trouble, the party membership is hidden in the text or not mentioned at all.

Care to back that up with any facts, or is it just the usual right wing guff.

[andymadmak]

I don't know if it counts as bias but Sarah Montague's interview of Zach Goldsmith ( Conservative candidate for London mayor) this morning on the R4 Today program was appalling. She spent much of the interview simply shouting over Goldsmith and interrupting him as soon as he started to speak. Now I am all for challenging politicians robustly, but this interview was in marked contrast to the somewhat soft ride that Saddiq Khan (Labour candidate for Londonmayor) got yesterday!

Montague even tried to parrot Khan's pathetic attempt to play the R card in reference to Goldsmiths use of the word radical.

It was disturbing to listen to.

[Perik Omo]

I got really, really annoyed with that too and ended up switching to Radio 2, that Montague woman is an irritating b*tch who thinks that shouting over the interviewee is a good interviewing method.

[K12beano]

andymadmak said:

... Sarah Montague's ... appalling ... and ... disturbing to listen to.

Have to agree!

[Europa1]

andymadmak said:

I don't know if it counts as bias but Sarah Montague's interview of Zach Goldsmith ( Conservative candidate for London mayor) this morning on the R4 Today program was appalling. She spent much of the interview simply shouting over Goldsmith and interrupting him as soon as he started to speak. Now I am all for challenging politicians robustly, but this interview was in marked contrast to the somewhat soft ride that Saddiq Khan (Labour candidate for Londonmayor) got yesterday!

Montague even tried to parrot Khan's pathetic attempt to play the R card in reference to Goldsmiths use of the word radical.

It was disturbing to listen to.

I have to agree with you; i thought it was pretty shocking, and yes, i thought it was biased when set against the way Saddiq Khan was treated yesterday. Yesterday's interview was much more focussed on what he would be like as mayor of London, whereas today's veered off into the EU referendum, apparently on the basis that Zac Goldsmith's father was "a well know Euroceptic".

[davidball]

What a load of bks. Sarah Montague had every right to challenge Goldsmith. I suspect he is fully aware that calling a Muslim "radical" would be interpreted in the way it has. If he is not aware of it he is a fool.

[FiF]

You've missed the point that the previous posters have made. Yesterday she effectively allowed Saddiq Khan to make an uninterrupted manifesto speech. There were some feeble attempts near then end to move the conversation on but she pathetically allowed him to finish. Today was in complete contrast.

I have no problem in politicians being given some tough questions but the difference between the two interviews was like chalk and cheese.

BBC continues to show that it has completely reneged on the objectivity and impartiality elements of the original charter. Needs to be brought to heel. Firstly Montague should be disciplined for those interviews.

[don4l]

davidball said:

What a load of bks. Sarah Montague had every right to challenge Goldsmith. I suspect he is fully aware that calling a Muslim "radical" would be interpreted in the way it has. If he is not aware of it he is a fool.

You"re missing the point.

There is nothing wrong with challenging a politician.

However, they should challenge politicians of all parties.

The BBC seem to treat the Conservatives quite differently to Labour.

[The Don of Croy]

I was more interested in what Zac-baby had to say about the Heathrow debacle. If he's right and the air pollution test cannot be passed then it could be yet another ridiculous delay while they cobble togther another scheme...

Mr. Khan did have a much better interview yesterday. As I'd never heard from him, it did at least give me some idea of who the man is.

Save your ire for Jeremy Hardy appearing on ISIHAC again.

[motco]

Montague was certainly behaving like a John Humphries clone with a hang-over, but I was even more disturbed by the 07:20 (approx) extreme weather piece with a member of a 'climate somethingorother' institute in Oxford. I'll try to find it on i-Player and post a link later. If I smoked a pipe I'd have bitten it in half this morning!

ETA Today listen from 1hr 20min

Edited by motco on Tuesday 5th January 09:49

[andymadmak]

davidball said:

What a load of bks. Sarah Montague had every right to challenge Goldsmith. I suspect he is fully aware that calling a Muslim "radical" would be interpreted in the way it has. If he is not aware of it he is a fool.

Of course she has a right to challenge Goldsmith... and he has a right to reply - except she gave him precious little opportunity to reply. She was boorish and aggressive, repeatedly spoke over him and became more strident as he tried to answer her questions. And a line of questioning based on "your dad was a Eurosceptic so how can you vote anything but no?" is just plain silly. Is everyone supposed to just follow the same path as their father in life?

People use the word radical in the political sense all the time. The Labour party is currently in the hands of a radical left wing leadership group, and is undergoing some pretty radical changes, by any measure. If you are saying that the word cannot be used in relation to a candidate who happens to be Muslim then frankly you are the one being foolish. Words cannot be "off limits" just because the hard of thinking will struggle to understand them, or those with another agenda will deliberately seek to misinterpret them for their own ends. Khan's, Montague's and now your attempt to smear Goldsmith for his use of the word (despite his very articulate description of the context, delivered in the face of Montague's spittle flecked onslaught) is simply wrong.

[andymadmak]

motco said:

Montague was certainly behaving like a John Humphries clone with a hang-over, but I was even more disturbed by the 07:20 (approx) extreme weather piece with a member of a 'climate somethingorother' institute in Oxford. I'll try to find it on i-Player and post a link later. If I smoked a pipe I'd have bitten it in half this morning!

ETA Today listen from 1hr 20min

Edited by motco on Tuesday 5th January 09:49

Yes I heard that one too. A very strange interview that seemed to be setting up an explanation for the future as to why things may yet get colder even if they are getting warmer - doped athletes, stacked odds etc etc and its ALL down to man's activities according to the "scientist". . All completely unchallenged

[longblackcoat]

andymadmak said:

davidball said:

What a load of bks. Sarah Montague had every right to challenge Goldsmith. I suspect he is fully aware that calling a Muslim "radical" would be interpreted in the way it has. If he is not aware of it he is a fool.

Of course she has a right to challenge Goldsmith... and he has a right to reply - except she gave him precious little opportunity to reply. She was boorish and aggressive, repeatedly spoke over him and became more strident as he tried to answer her questions. And a line of questioning based on "your dad was a Eurosceptic so how can you vote anything but no?" is just plain silly. Is everyone supposed to just follow the same path as their father in life?

People use the word radical in the political sense all the time. The Labour party is currently in the hands of a radical left wing leadership group, and is undergoing some pretty radical changes, by any measure. If you are saying that the word cannot be used in relation to a candidate who happens to be Muslim then frankly you are the one being foolish. Words cannot be "off limits" just because the hard of thinking will struggle to understand them, or those with another agenda will deliberately seek to misinterpret them for their own ends. Khan's, Montague's and now your attempt to smear Goldsmith for his use of the word (despite his very articulate description of the context, delivered in the face of Montague's spittle flecked onslaught) is simply wrong.

I think Khan was overplaying it; Zac Goldsmith was entirely right in his response, and it clearly answers the question raised. It's fair that Goldsmith was asked the question though; Khan (unfairly, in my view) put something out there, and Goldsmith got the chance to articulately respond.

Your description of Montague as "spittle-flecked" is utterly inaccurate and simply fanciful; disagree with her interviewing style if you like, but making stuff up does you no favours. It was also no "onslaught"; Goldsmith gets well over 90% of the talk-time in the interview, so although she interrupted him at times, it's fair to say that he got his say.

It's also fair to ask him about his Euroscepticism; he put up an essay in the Spectator in February this year stating "How my Dad saved Britain" so it's fair to assume he supported his father's views. In that context, the average listener might well ask the question that Montague posed. His response was pretty straight, I thought; it's an important issue but he's not a die-in-the-ditch Eurosceptic.

Overall, I was impressed with Goldsmith. He's the sort of Tory I like, regardless of policy differences.

[andymadmak]

longblackcoat said:

andymadmak said:

davidball said:

What a load of bks. Sarah Montague had every right to challenge Goldsmith. I suspect he is fully aware that calling a Muslim "radical" would be interpreted in the way it has. If he is not aware of it he is a fool.

Of course she has a right to challenge Goldsmith... and he has a right to reply - except she gave him precious little opportunity to reply. She was boorish and aggressive, repeatedly spoke over him and became more strident as he tried to answer her questions. And a line of questioning based on "your dad was a Eurosceptic so how can you vote anything but no?" is just plain silly. Is everyone supposed to just follow the same path as their father in life?

People use the word radical in the political sense all the time. The Labour party is currently in the hands of a radical left wing leadership group, and is undergoing some pretty radical changes, by any measure. If you are saying that the word cannot be used in relation to a candidate who happens to be Muslim then frankly you are the one being foolish. Words cannot be "off limits" just because the hard of thinking will struggle to understand them, or those with another agenda will deliberately seek to misinterpret them for their own ends. Khan's, Montague's and now your attempt to smear Goldsmith for his use of the word (despite his very articulate description of the context, delivered in the face of Montague's spittle flecked onslaught) is simply wrong.

I think Khan was overplaying it; Zac Goldsmith was entirely right in his response, and it clearly answers the question raised. It's fair that Goldsmith was asked the question though; Khan (unfairly, in my view) put something out there, and Goldsmith got the chance to articulately respond.

Your description of Montague as "spittle-flecked" is utterly inaccurate and simply fanciful; disagree with her interviewing style if you like, but making stuff up does you no favours. It was also no "onslaught"; Goldsmith gets well over 90% of the talk-time in the interview, so although she interrupted him at times, it's fair to say that he got his say.

It's also fair to ask him about his Euroscepticism; he put up an essay in the Spectator in February this year stating "How my Dad saved Britain" so it's fair to assume he supported his father's views. In that context, the average listener might well ask the question that Montague posed. His response was pretty straight, I thought; it's an important issue but he's not a die-in-the-ditch Eurosceptic.

Overall, I was impressed with Goldsmith. He's the sort of Tory I like, regardless of policy differences.

OK, if today was an example of her interviewing style then why did she not use the same style with Mr Khan yesterday?

I concede that perhaps spittle flecked is the wrong descriptor. But equally there is no doubting Montagues agitation on the radical question. How many times did Goldsmith have to start his reply? How many times did she shout over him? That simply did not occur yesterday with Khan. The nearest she got to challenging Khan was when she asked him about Khan claiming that he did not want to attack Goldsmith personally whilst he was doing the exact opposite, and even then she barely questioned Khans pathetic response, and she certainly did not take Khan to task for his deliberate misinterpretation of the radical word. (If you're gonna question one side about it surely you should question the other?)

Even on the question of his father and the subject of Euroscepticism she could barely let him answer without talking over him - something she barely did to Khan yesterday. Indeed, Khan was allowed quite a free reign to espouse his vision for London under his Mayorship, was Goldsmith offered the same opportunity?

[FiF]

andymadmak said:

OK, if today was an example of her interviewing style then why did she not use the same style with Mr Khan yesterday?

I concede that perhaps spittle flecked is the wrong descriptor. But equally there is no doubting Montagues agitation on the radical question. How many times did Goldsmith have to start his reply? How many times did she shout over him? That simply did not occur yesterday with Khan. The nearest she got to challenging Khan was when she asked him about Khan claiming that he did not want to attack Goldsmith personally whilst he was doing the exact opposite, and even then she barely questioned Khans pathetic response, and she certainly did not take Khan to task for his deliberate misinterpretation of the radical word. (If you're gonna question one side about it surely you should question the other?)

Even on the question of his father and the subject of Euroscepticism she could barely let him answer without talking over him - something she barely did to Khan yesterday. Indeed, Khan was allowed quite a free reign to espouse his vision for London under his Mayorship, was Goldsmith offered the same opportunity?

Indeed, she even made light jokey comment about his political broadcast.

I've put in a complaint about the uneven treatment. Neither of them, Khan nor Goldsmith, are my favourite politicians for a whole host of reasons, and don't support either of their parties, so I feel that my view is about as independent as I can get. It was, in short, a disgrace.

[poocherama]

LBC - We heard very different interviews. You could almost feel the blood rushing to her head.