from a cynical one:
“I propose that the BBC is biased. No, no, hear me out. We all know the BBC is biased of course, but I propose specifically that it is biased in favour of the Democratic party of the USA. To test my theory, I will be keeping a count each day of how many stories it runs focussing on each of the two parties. If any third parties are focussed on, I will count those too. I will be excluding stories pertaining to the current regime, as obviously that will weight things in favour of the Republicans. Instead I shall only count stories on party politics, not government. I will be looking at the Americas section of BBC News to make the count and I will include video reports, ‘in pictures’ features etc. I will do this for one week, that’s 7 days including yesterday (23rd July).”
Whew! A week of BBC reporting and it seems the BBC cover the Democratic Party 1,300% more than the Republican Party. Something is not right there I think!
I think it would be better put “13 times more frequently”, but I’m no statistician. Certainly since there are campaigns running on both sides of the political spectrum, the observation is a significant one. But you just know the BBC love Obama-Hillary, don’t you?
Errr, that’s an awful metric. They also probably cover Iraq 1,300 times more than they cover Darfur, but does that mean they’re pro-Iraq war?
But Josh, someone who produces such a bad comparison surely shouldn’t be making noises about it?
I should have thought the fact that there are British soldiers are in Iraq but not in Darfur would be an adequate reason for more coverage. That’s just silly. I dare say they cover Iraq more than Tibet as well. But what is the reason for giving more air space to Democrat candidates in the United States than to Republican ones? And that is not even going in the way these subjects are covered. Only bad news from Iraq, only jeers and sneers about Republicans.
Ed, do you think your results might have been the teeniest bit skewed by the fact you chose to sample a week in which the Democrats’ leading candidates held a national TV debate while the Republicans did not?
Tip: you might find a similar phenomenon in convention weeks too.
JR- the debates have been taking place with a bewildering frequency; they are only one part of what is going on at any time (and often a quite boring part). If you followed the situation closely you’d realise that. There is therefore no excuse for the extent of the imbalance. I made no comment about the results (leaving that to our cynic) save to say that there was campaigning on both sides of the political divide; I’ve noticed that the BBC barely have a moment for Fred! or Mitt!, both of whom are making strong efforts (Well, Fred!’s not yet declared, but he’s more than a dark horse). In this sense the Repub. race is much different to the Dem race. There are only two, at maximum three candidates in the Dem. race; at least four still in the Repub. one (unless you discount McCain). It’s the BBC’s lack of interest which is at fault- the idea that the only stars worthy of attention are Obama and Clinton (with a nod to Rudy) is an invention of the Democratic MSM which is lapped up by the BBC, of course.
Ed
JR- the debates have been taking place with a bewildering frequency
Be bewildered no longer. Here’s a handy cut-out-and-keep guide to past and scheduled debates:
Democrat
o April 26, 2007 • Orangeburg, South Carolina
o June 3, 2007 • Manchester, New Hampshire
o June 28, 2007 • Washington, D.C.
o July 12, 2007 • N.A.A.C.P. Convention
o July 23, 2007 • Charleston, South Carolina
o August 4, 2007 • Chicago, Illinois
o August 7, 2007 • Chicago, Illinois
o August 9, 2007 • Los Angeles, California
o August 19, 2007 • Des Moines, Iowa
o September 26, 2007 • Hanover, New Hampshire
o October 30, 2007 • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
o November 15, 2007 • Las Vegas, Nevada
o December 10, 2007 • Los Angeles, California
o January 6, 2008 • Johnson County, Iowa
o January 15, 2008 • Las Vegas, Nevada
o January 31, 2008 • Los Angeles, California
Republican
o May 3, 2007 – Simi Valley, California
o May 15, 2007 – Columbia, South Carolina
o June 5, 2007 – Manchester, New Hampshire
o August 5, 2007 – Des Moines, Iowa
o August 20, 2007 – Reno, Nevada
o September 17, 2007 – Saint Petersburg, Florida
o September 27, 2007 – Hanover, New Hampshire
o October 14, 2007 – Manchester, New Hampshire
o October 21, 2007 – Orlando, Florida
o November 6, 2007 – Ames, Iowa
o January 5, 2008 – Johnson County, Iowa
o January 30, 2008 – Los Angeles, California
There is therefore no excuse for the extent of the imbalance.
You should check out the US papers for the same period. The Washington Post only has one substantial piece on Giuliani in that period. The Washington Times • ditto. The Washington Times also has one Mitt Romney piece • and three about Newt. A quiet week for Republican campaigning.
(Btw: I do follow these things very closely indeed.)
And you followed my comments so closely that you responded to just one of my points…
But you did give me a list. Very impressive, JR. If you looked at the CL’s post, you’d see that he indicates 1-2 stories on every day for 7 days. Yes, one Dem debate occurred on the 23rd, but he lists 1-2 or even 3 reports per day over seven days. I could understand 2-3 reports referring to the debate on the 23rd, but the discrepancy isn’t explained by that.
My general observation of the BBC (following as I do, closely), is that the CL wasn’t just unfortunate in the week he chose.
Btw, I feel sure there is a bit of gap in your figures JR- a two month hiatus between June and August in Repub. debates? Maybe, but I could have sworn I’d seen debate footage from that period.
Here’s something that might help you understand the CL’s post better:
http://cynlib.blogspot.com/search/label/BBC
ed | 10.08.07 – 2:22 pm
you responded to just one of my points…
No, I responded to three of your points. (Bewilderment/imbalance/how closely I follow the story)
I could understand 2-3 reports referring to the debate on the 23rd, but the discrepancy isn’t explained by that.
Well there was one on the 23rd and two on the 24th about the debate. Amounting to almost 25% of all the stories your cynic found about Dems in his sample week.
Moreover, on day 5 your cynic appears to have dozed off • saying ‘whoops…I missed a day.’
A significant lapse, as it happens, because he missed a piece featuring Mike Huckabee. Which made a 100% difference to his conclusion.
My general observation of the BBC (following as I do, closely), is that the CL wasn’t just unfortunate in the week he chose.
Well • if he’d chosen say the 11th and 12 July he’d have had 3 Republican stories in 24 hours. So it depends what you mean by ‘unfortunate’.
You are wrong about the extent to which the debates affect coverage. 32 of 57 Washington Post items featuring keywords {Obama Clinton} in the same week also feature keyword: {debate}. Of those that do not, around 12 are non-campaign related.
The idea that events affect news coverage is hardly novel. I’m amazed you contest it.
Check out the coverage of Obama’s pledge to go into Pakistan after al Qaeda if necessary. That’s been all over US TV ever since.
So now ask yourself: would he have got all that coverage if he hadn’t said it?
Earlier you made brief mention of Fred T, who hasn’t announced yet.
Nevertheless, there’s a long profile of him on the BBC’s Vote 2008 site and he’s included in brief round-ups of the main candidates.
….actually, come to think of it ….your cynic left the Vote 2008 site out of his survey. How stupid was that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6709389.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5006788.stm#thompson
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2008/vote_usa_2008/default.stm
JR- I love the loose definition you have of “points”.
Thanks for the analysis of BBC coverage on different dates. I wonder if you got that information via a search? The BBC’s public search facility doesn’t offer a search by date. In fact it is much inferior to the old search facility which enabled journalists to be searched for and an effective list of their work to be found. What I’ve just now alluded is a slight digression, but reinfores the fact that the BBC’s search engine is so poor that it seems deliberately intended to put off purposeful enquiry. Being publicly funded, this seems a tad un-public spirited (especially because the old one actually used to mollify me towards the Beeb, being so transparent as it was). Besides, it actually necessitates the kind of thing the CL attempted. So, next time you sneer at a blogger’s work, remember that it’s your organisation, which the blogger may help to fund, which helps to make such endeavours necessary (its own search mechanism making such enquiry possible only manually).
Besides, adding in the Huckebee report would obviously only make things slightly better for your side John.
“The idea that events affect news coverage is hardly novel. I’m amazed you contest it.”
I don’t know why you say this except for effect- obviously events are important, but as I said the debates are rather boring, because they are synthetic. The same can be said the soundbytes they produce. That the BBC would admit to being limited to them is very telling in itself. But I think we’ve established it goes beyond that, anyway, as by your own suggestion the debate garnered a maximum of 3 reports.
After all your excuses, the discrepancy remains at about 2-1 in the Dems’ favour (assuming I accepted the excuses, that is). Here we are debating numbers, let alone tone, content, pictures etc, which are the grist to the mill of the BBC’s biased journalism.
And btw, Obama’s comments about Pakistan came after the period in question. Hope you weren’t trying to muddy the waters JR. Not like you, that.
I think the CL’s point holds up- the fact that he’s even looking in this manner seems to disturb you JR. It’s the most basic thing imaginable yet you can’t deflect effectively the criticism as it stood at the beginning. Why don’t you address the underlying issue: that that BBC don’t like Republicans by and large, don’t respect or understand “Red” America, and consider Republican politics a kind of anachronism which is about as relevant to the politics of the future as the neanderthals were to the human race.
Probably one of your own, Justin Webb, would agree with me there. Just as long as you keep all criticism “in house”, eh?
Yep, if it weren’t for the inconvenient facts, I might agree with you.
But just the fact that David Frum, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney and Richard Perle account for more than 200 items in the archive of Newsnight alone suggests that the Republicans do occasionally get a chance to put their points across.
Reith-
All the people you mention could be described as “neo-cons” (and we all know the kind of scrutiny that lot get at the hands of journalists like Greg Pallast on Newsnight, don’t we?). Got any Republicans to speak of?
Ps. Will respond to your post in the Any Questions thread tomorrow sometime. Bit late for philosophizing about ideal audiences etc.
Boys and girls, all you have to remember is Matt Frei’s comical coverage of Hurricane Katrina (which didn’t hit down in New Orleans, which just got a little brush of it, but hit down in a REPUBLICAN state of Mississippi).
New Orleans got the fringes, that is all. Katrina hit down in Mississippi.
The problem was, NO levies had been sold out to corrupt construction companies. Oh, gosh! This would happen in Louisiana? What a shock!
But Federal Aid could have taken care of the worst at once, if corrupt Governor Blanco and corrupt Mayor Nagins had asked Mr Bush for federal help immediately.
Encouraged by the BBC, the British do not understand that the US President is not the boss of the states.
It’s not a corporate pyramid whereby all the governors “report” to the President. The states are independent entities and the president has zero power to interfere in their administrations. He/she is the head of the Federal Government. Only.
The states are 50 independent entities. The president begged the governor of Lousiana to ask for Federal aid. It was lined up and ready to go.
Not according to a sulky, petty-faced Matt Frei, his silly little face screwed up with so much disapproval it made my intestines hurt, of course, who referred to the President sleeping in AIR CONDITIONING in the White House when the people in NO who had experienced THE FRINGE of the hurricane were living in Superdome Hell. [Why hadn’t they left a day or two earlier, when they had the warnings? Plenty of black middle class, and black very rich people, made their own arrangements and fled, some black people in their private planes, duh.] This is how racist the BBC is. Black people are welfare dependent and feckless. They don’t have private planes.
Just a point of interest, everyone, the brave and quick thinking Mayor Nagins moved his family – yes, they were not residents of the Superdome – to Houston pronto. And guess what, they’re still there!
Weird, or what? Two years later and Mayor Nagins’ family is still in Houston? Many people in Houston find this a bit strange. Perhaps Matt Frei, who is so in the loop it is painful, could free up a minute to let us know?
Plus, what difference does it make how many times the Beeb mentions Reps vs Dems? The Americans don’t pay a licence fee.
The Beeb has nothing to do with the United States. They can mention Reps and Dems as many times as they want to, in whatever context they feel like, and they can be as prejudiced as they like, because in the US, they have no American paymaster.