Monthly Archives: October 2008

Iain Dale has an amusing insight into how the Beeb “balances” the panel on Question Time. He reveals that UKIP’s Nigel Farage was bumped off the panel in preference to the CBI’s Richard Lambert, the former FT editor who famously got the newspaper to back Labour in the 1992 election (although he seems less keen on them now):

So why don’t you bump Janet Street Porter instead, pleaded Nigel, pointing out that he has many years experience of in the City of London. No, we can’t do that, said the person from Question Time. “We need to keep our gender balance.”

Just a quick one – My favourite part from the coverage of the Palin Biden debate so far has to be Webb’s first thoughts on his live blog. He begins by criticising the choice of moderator, Obama fellow traveller Gwen Ifill, thus demonstrating an almost total lack of self-awareness. “What were they all thinking?” splutters the man who is tipped to take over Letter from America. Well, quite.

Of all the examples in the comments yesterday of the different treatment given to Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Conference to Brown’s at Labour’s, perhaps the most simple and compelling for me was the running order on Radio 4’s flagship, Today*. Following Brown’s speech, the programme led with it as their first item and revisited it again in the prime 8.10am spot. And again just before 9am. Following Cameron’s they ignored it entirely. It was a similar story with the web coverage, where Gordon’s speech lingered prominently for an age to be followed by a pointless puff piece to keep it in the headlines. Cameron’s quickly disappeared to the bottom of the politics page. On the bright side, the bias is being noted. As Guido Fawkes points out, the UK’s best-selling paper, the Sun, at one point had a pop at “the Labour-supporting BBC”, before evidently thinking better of picking a fight with the country’s most powerful and best resourced new group. And that possibly answers a question posed in the comment a fair bit yesterday: Why don’t the Conservatives do anything about it?

*Thanks to Snooze 24

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

Party speech-writer…’

Seasoned members of the BBC audience will know immediately from that introduction – with the political affiliation rammed to the forefront – that the following story will not reflect well on the Conservatives. Even they, though, might be surprised just how insignificant, and how old, the ‘scandal’ it reports is. However, for the trusty BBC team it is, of course, front page news.

There’s been much already written about the difference in treatment the BBC has shown to the Conservative and Labour conferences, and it is a real contrast. Even less arguable, though, is the extent of the coverage. Look at the website, where this is easiest to evaluate. By this stage in the Labour conference last week, and in fact earlier than that, there wasn’t a single mention of the opposition parties on the politics page. Every one of the 40+ stories related to Labour – and most related to the conference. Now, with the Conservative conference ready to close, well less than half focus on them. And it’s not just the bank bailouts: strip away the stories relating to that and there’s still room for concerns about plans for 42 detention; the Ghurka’s battle to stay in the UK; the millions of young in poverty; Afghan talks; observations on Lembit Opik’s facebook page; and Cherie Blair’s relief she didn’t have to pose with Carla Bruni.

The point is not that these shouldn’t be covered (well, apart from the one about Cherie Blair), but to illustrate just how over-the-top the BBC’s enthusiasm and interest in Labour politics is and the extent to which this is never shared in its attitude to the official opposition.