Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[iphonedyou]

The whole 'radical' thing was obviously total rubbish - religion, or its followers - of any sort - don't own the word. It was a cheap, sadly predictable shot.

It did rather feel like Kahn was pushing Islam and its followers under a bus in pursuit of cheap point scoring, mind. With Montague assisting. It does nobody any favours, but it wasn't Goldsmith that came out of it looking badly.

[AstonZagato]

andymadmak said:

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

The scientist seemed to be making a case that any large building or infrastructure project must now model climate change effects as part of the process. I wonder who could perform that consulting service for them?

[andymadmak]

The interview with Zach Goldsmith is here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06trcg0
Starts at 1hour 49mins in

The interview starts ok. But within minutes Montague begins to increasingly talk over Goldsmith.
The really disgraceful stuff starts about 1.55 and the question about the use of the word radical. And he never gets a chance to talk about his vision for London

Compare and contrast with yesterdays interview with Saddiq Khan :http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tqsbx#play

starts at 1 hour 51 minutes in

From the outset Khan is given a chance to wax lyrical about his family, his vision for London. Even Montague eventually feels compelled to interrupt his party political broadcast!
Some minor interruptions, but then Khan is invited to talk at length about his plans for rent controls (another opportunity to put forward his agenda, something Goldsmith was denied) and then he is given an opportunity to attack Goldsmith personally.

Does anyone really think the treatment of both candidates was the same? Goldsmith is kept almost entirely on the defensive throughout his interview and is frequently spoken over or interrupted. Khans interview was a series of opportunities to espouse his vision and then to criticise his opponent - all delivered with very few interruptions.

[poocherama]

As mentioned above ZG also came out of it looking pretty good, very calm and articulate. Think he'll give SK a run for his money.

[don4l]

Sarah Montague said:

We are in a world where there is huge amount of coverage of the concerns of Islamic terrorism, and you are calling the Muslim candidate, your rival, radical and divisive. Do you think that is wise?

Bloody hell! That question was very deliberately framed in a way that would paint Goldsmith in a bad light. Any idiot can see that Goldsmith was referring to Khan's left wing views. To try to present him as being anti-muslim is utterly disgusting.

The BBC doesn't even pretend to be impartial these days.

[Europa1]

don4l said:

Sarah Montague said:

We are in a world where there is huge amount of coverage of the concerns of Islamic terrorism, and you are calling the Muslim candidate, your rival, radical and divisive. Do you think that is wise?

Bloody hell! That question was very deliberately framed in a way that would paint Goldsmith in a bad light. Any idiot can see that Goldsmith was referring to Khan's left wing views. To try to present him as being anti-muslim is utterly disgusting.

The BBC doesn't even pretend to be impartial these days.

That was one of many jarring notes - I thought Saddiq Khan was the Labour candidate, not "the muslim candidate".

[0000]

don4l said:

Sarah Montague said:

We are in a world where there is huge amount of coverage of the concerns of Islamic terrorism, and you are calling the Muslim candidate, your rival, radical and divisive. Do you think that is wise?

Bloody hell! That question was very deliberately framed in a way that would paint Goldsmith in a bad light. Any idiot can see that Goldsmith was referring to Khan's left wing views. To try to present him as being anti-muslim is utterly disgusting.

The BBC doesn't even pretend to be impartial these days.

Yeah, that statement doesn't really deserve a question mark.

[don4l]

andymadmak said:

The interview with Zach Goldsmith is here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06trcg0
Starts at 1hour 49mins in

The interview starts ok. But within minutes Montague begins to increasingly talk over Goldsmith.
The really disgraceful stuff starts about 1.55 and the question about the use of the word radical. And he never gets a chance to talk about his vision for London

Compare and contrast with yesterdays interview with Saddiq Khan :http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tqsbx#play

starts at 1 hour 51 minutes in

From the outset Khan is given a chance to wax lyrical about his family, his vision for London. Even Montague eventually feels compelled to interrupt his party political broadcast!
Some minor interruptions, but then Khan is invited to talk at length about his plans for rent controls (another opportunity to put forward his agenda, something Goldsmith was denied) and then he is given an opportunity to attack Goldsmith personally.

Does anyone really think the treatment of both candidates was the same? Goldsmith is kept almost entirely on the defensive throughout his interview and is frequently spoken over or interrupted. Khans interview was a series of opportunities to espouse his vision and then to criticise his opponent - all delivered with very few interruptions.

Thanks for the links.

I've done a little objective analysis on both segments.

Khan was on air for 6m 04s. He was interrupted or questioned 8 times. His average speaking time without interruption was 35 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 38s.


Goldsmith was on air for 8m 23s. He was interrupted or questioned 19 times. His average time without interruption was 15 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 40s.


So, Goldsmith was on air for 2.5 minutes longer than Khan, but was only able to speak for 2 seconds more.

That is rather blatent.

[longblackcoat]

don4l said:

Thanks for the links.

I've done a little objective analysis on both segments.

Khan was on air for 6m 04s. He was interrupted or questioned 8 times. His average speaking time without interruption was 35 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 38s.


Goldsmith was on air for 8m 23s. He was interrupted or questioned 19 times. His average time without interruption was 15 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 40s.


So, Goldsmith was on air for 2.5 minutes longer than Khan, but was only able to speak for 2 seconds more.

That is rather blatent.

So the BBC gave 2 seconds more to the Conservative candidate, suing your methodology. Or, just taking the total time on air, 2.5 minutes more.

Clear bias to Labour, as you point out.

[Europa1]

longblackcoat said:

don4l said:

Thanks for the links.

I've done a little objective analysis on both segments.

Khan was on air for 6m 04s. He was interrupted or questioned 8 times. His average speaking time without interruption was 35 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 38s.


Goldsmith was on air for 8m 23s. He was interrupted or questioned 19 times. His average time without interruption was 15 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 40s.


So, Goldsmith was on air for 2.5 minutes longer than Khan, but was only able to speak for 2 seconds more.

That is rather blatent.

So the BBC gave 2 seconds more to the Conservative candidate, suing your methodology. Or, just taking the total time on air, 2.5 minutes more.

Clear bias to Labour, as you point out.

You conveniently ignore the number of questions/interruptions, and time allowed to speak without interruption.

[don4l]

longblackcoat said:

don4l said:

Thanks for the links.

I've done a little objective analysis on both segments.

Khan was on air for 6m 04s. He was interrupted or questioned 8 times. His average speaking time without interruption was 35 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 38s.


Goldsmith was on air for 8m 23s. He was interrupted or questioned 19 times. His average time without interruption was 15 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 40s.


So, Goldsmith was on air for 2.5 minutes longer than Khan, but was only able to speak for 2 seconds more.

That is rather blatent.

So the BBC gave 2 seconds more to the Conservative candidate, suing your methodology. Or, just taking the total time on air, 2.5 minutes more.

Clear bias to Labour, as you point out.

Let me simplify it for you.

Average time without interruption for Conservative - 15 seconds.

Average time without interruption for Labour - 35 seconds.

[The Don of Croy]

Europa1 said:

don4l said:

Sarah Montague said:

We are in a world where there is huge amount of coverage of the concerns of Islamic terrorism, and you are calling the Muslim candidate, your rival, radical and divisive. Do you think that is wise?

Bloody hell! That question was very deliberately framed in a way that would paint Goldsmith in a bad light. Any idiot can see that Goldsmith was referring to Khan's left wing views. To try to present him as being anti-muslim is utterly disgusting.

The BBC doesn't even pretend to be impartial these days.

That was one of many jarring notes - I thought Saddiq Khan was the Labour candidate, not "the muslim candidate".

Perhaps Zac should have told the interviewer to 'eff off' seeing as how his close family have intimate dealings with Pakistan, and one would expect he has some knowledge in that area (his sister Jemima etc).

But then again it's good broadcasting to stoke the fires - might get a response etc. As a white middle/upper class straight bloke there's pretty much no off limits area for questioning...

[andymadmak]

don4l said:

longblackcoat said:

don4l said:

Thanks for the links.

I've done a little objective analysis on both segments.

Khan was on air for 6m 04s. He was interrupted or questioned 8 times. His average speaking time without interruption was 35 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 38s.


Goldsmith was on air for 8m 23s. He was interrupted or questioned 19 times. His average time without interruption was 15 seconds. His total speaking time was 4m 40s.


So, Goldsmith was on air for 2.5 minutes longer than Khan, but was only able to speak for 2 seconds more.

That is rather blatent.

So the BBC gave 2 seconds more to the Conservative candidate, suing your methodology. Or, just taking the total time on air, 2.5 minutes more.

Clear bias to Labour, as you point out.

Let me simplify it for you.

Average time without interruption for Conservative - 15 seconds.

Average time without interruption for Labour - 35 seconds.

And that's before you get to the actual nature of the questions:

ZG: Asked whether he will resign about third runway at heathrow, challenged over whether he will support his father's position ref the EU, challenged about his use of the word radical etc

SK: allowed to wax lyrical about his vision for London, his family links to London etc. Allowed to expand on his policy about social rents, allowed to attack the other candidate largely unchallenged... etc etc

If you REALLY cannot see the difference in the interview approach or even the style (given the level of interruptions) then I am stunned.

[Smiler.]

I missed the Goldsmith interview earlier but did think that Khan had a fairly free ride in the interview yesterday.


I actually liked his idea on housing, not sure how practical it is but as a sound-bite, will do well with the electorate.

[andymadmak]

Smiler. said:

I missed the Goldsmith interview earlier but did think that Khan had a fairly free ride in the interview yesterday.


I actually liked his idea on housing, not sure how practical it is but as a sound-bite, will do well with the electorate.

The interview with Zach Goldsmith is here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06trcg0
Starts at 1hour 49mins in

[Pesty]

andymadmak said:

And that's before you get to the actual nature of the questions:

ZG: Asked whether he will resign about third runway at heathrow, challenged over whether he will support his father's position ref the EU, challenged about his use of the word radical etc

SK: allowed to wax lyrical about his vision for London, his family links to London etc. Allowed to expand on his policy about social rents, allowed to attack the other candidate largely unchallenged... etc etc

If you REALLY cannot see the difference in the interview approach or even the style (given the level of interruptions) then I am stunned.

Have you not read any of his post before ?

[andymadmak]

Pesty said:

Have you not read any of his post before ?

I assume you mean LBC's post, and if so, yes. What is your point?

[FiF]

Not quite as bad this morning, Greens got an easy and thankfully short ride. But she showed her colours again in the moderation of the Chukka Umunna / Nigel Lawson EU debate. Recovered slightly at the end by stopping herself from continuing to weigh in hectoring Lawson and interrupting but finally told Umunna to let Lawson make his point, only to terminate the entire discussion shortly after.

Again, needs disciplining.

[Pesty]

andymadmak said:

Pesty said:

Have you not read any of his post before ?

I assume you mean LBC's post, and if so, yes. What is your point?

That you shouldn't be stunned.

[andymadmak]

Pesty said:

andymadmak said:

Pesty said:

Have you not read any of his post before ?

I assume you mean LBC's post, and if so, yes. What is your point?

That you shouldn't be stunned.

Ahh, I see. Sorry, I'm a bit slow this morning!

To be fair to LBC he and I have crossed paths in the past and I have generally found him to be a reasonable chap. Perhaps not on my political wavelength, (unsurprisingly he does not share my view about left wingers!) but he rarely resorts to the sort of name calling and smearing that Countdown and the others seem so keen on.

In fact I really do think in this instance that the contrasting view of the interviews from LBC REALLY demonstrates just how difficult it is for the left to see that the BBC as biased in their favour. The basic failure to recognise even the differences in tone and approach adopted by Montague in the two interviews is startling. One interview accommodating and providing a largely uninterrupted platform for the interviewee to speak and the other an aggressive, confrontational interruption fest with little opportunity for the interviewee to get off his back foot and deliver a positive message. It's as if LBC thinks that this is normal, that this represents the centreline, and if that is the case then it's no wonder he sees no bias! . That ZG did well, despite Montague's efforts, is of little comfort. He simply should not have been treated differently to SK.

The interview with the Green Party lady this morning was also poor. By all means ask about housing policy for London, but questioning her about Green Party national housing policy and the performance of the GP leader on the subject during the last General Election was silly. Labours melt down at the last election was not thrust in SKs face, was it?

I don't like bias in either direction from the BBC. Had I been the editor planning these interviews I would have been scrupulous in ensuring that time allocated to aggressive challenging and the time allocated to allow the interviewee to platform would have been the same for all interviewees.