Thick Skin Bias

It's tough at the top. In national politics, you get all sorts flung at you. Whether it's Evan Harris smeared as Dr Death (a cheap nickname previously reserved for the likes of the serial killer Harold Shipman or Nazi concentration camp doctor Aribert Heim), Elwyn Watkins smeared as being in cahoots with Muslim extremists by the odious Phil Woolas (and he's rightly taking Woolas to court over it), or David Laws who was forced into revealing his sexuality because of an unfair expenses rule (and has felt forced to resign), you have to be prepared for this kind of personal rough and tumble if you want to participate at the top level of the UK's (pseudo-)democratic process.

I'm sure the perpetrators of these attacks feel fully justified in making these attacks. But all these kinds of incidents mean that the only people who will ever succeed in politics are those with thick skins. I'm not sure this is positive. I'm sure there are many potential politicians out there who would be dedicated, persuasive and highly intelligent contributors, but will never get seriously involved because of what they would personally have to put themselves through. Perhaps this will always be an inevitable consequence of having a competitive democracy, but I fear we are unnecessarily shrinking the political gene-pool by insisting our MPs have thick skins.

What Guido Didn't Show

Last week, Guido recently uploaded a video apparently showing Gordon Brown being snubbed when stretching his hand. But he cut it before the handshaking.

I have no love for Brown, and would love to see the back of him as PM. The reason I upload this is because I want blogging to have some integrity. Cheap spin by the likes of Guido undermine us all.

Jeremy Hunt: BBC-Bashing Coward

The Conservative Shadow Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is developing a worrying habit. In his two years in the post, he has come out with numerous criticisms of the operation of the BBC. These include:

• Jonathan Ross being paid too much.
• Scheduling Strictly Come Dancing at the same time as The X-Factor.
• Spending too much on its newer digital platforms.

While these comments did raise an eyebrow (the left one, to be precise), I let these go as they are criticisms on economic grounds... two are about cutting costs and the other about competition.

However his criticism today can't go unchallenged. Hunt has said that the BBC has an "innate liberal bias" and should increase the number of conservatives to their news-gathering team.

This crosses an important line. Given that it is funded by government via the licence fee (something I disagree with by the way), the BBC must be impartial from government interference in terms of its editorial policy. Similarly, the BBC must remain politically impartial given the way it is funded by force.

By no means is the BBC perfect. Their reports do on occasion contain bias. However this bias varies in its political outlook: sometimes statist, sometimes liberal; sometimes socialist, sometimes conservative; too often centrist. However there is no other organisation that does impartiality as well as the BBC. ITV News's constant moral outrage drives a statist agenda. Sky News's frequently yet subtly pushes its right-wing owner's motives. And of course newspapers don't even try.

So I reject Hunt's assessment. However I object much more strongly to him adding pressure on the BBC to bend to his political persuasion. In all likelihood he will be the Culture Secretary within a year's time, and behaviour like this will cast doubt on the BBC's political neutrality. Of course, this may be Hunt's real agenda: to weaken the BBC so that it can be cast to the scrapheap.

It is also incredibly cowardly of Hunt to choose to point his daggers at the BBC. Because it must remain impartial, it can't defend itself. Meanwhile, the rest of the media hates it as it is an untopplable competitor, and smears it at every opportunity.

Conversely, the genuinely biased news outlets get a free ride: politicians daren't criticise the constant distortions and fabrications of the newspapers, because they fear reprisals. Most newspapers are rabidly right-wing; I wonder why he chooses not to criticise them?

If Hunt genuinely wants to sort out bias, he would gain much more credibility of he spoke out about the huge distortions in the press, rather than attacking the animal that can't fight back.

The Media Third-Rails Compassion

The media, including the BBC, has clearly decided that Megrahi should not have been released. For the record, I disagree, and while my opinion has motivated this headblurt, the rights and wrongs of the decision are not what this is about. I want the media to hold all politicians to account and give all opinions a fair fight. I have found the media to be severely lacking in the debate over the Megrahi release.

The only politician to defend the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds was the decision-maker himself. MacAskill gave many interviews and faced robust questioning over the decision. Good.

No other politician has made the case for compassion. The 'not our decision' position taken by Gordon Brown and his Cabinet, and also by MacAskill's fellow Scottish Ministers, has also been robustly challenged by the media. Again, rightly so.

The other postion adopted, most prominently by David Cameron (so much for compassionate conservatism) and Nick Clegg, is the anti-release position. They argue that Megrahi's crimes were so terrible that dying in prison is the only just option. I have yet to hear Cameron, Clegg or any other politician arguing for Megrahi's continued detention during an interview have their position challenged. (Please please please point out any examples contrary to this statement that I have missed; I have been dying for an interviewer to question this opinion.)

The media has decided that not releasing Megrahi is the correct answer. On this evening's BBC News at Ten, Nick Robinson finished his analysis by remarking:

The one thing that I was struck [by] as I went through every word of this is at no stage did anyone suggest: why don't we simply say,

(dramatic pause)

"no, we won't release him".

His words clearly implied that the compassionate option was the wrong decision and that the politcal implications would be far less severe if Megrahi had not been released. Whether the political agenda would have moved on by now if a different position had been taken can only be speculated upon, but if Nick Robinson is right, the conclusion must be that if the government wants an easy time from the media, show no compassion.