Why dropping me is not bias
I had rather more sympathy than usual with the politician, whom I know to be a highly intelligent chap with very well-developed powers of analysis, as he aimlessly wandered around failing to make his point in a radio interview at the weekend.
I was still feeling a bit annoyed with myself for my performance on Radio Four鈥檚 Feedback programme.
Not that the interview was anything other than courteous and gentle, but on listening back to myself, I felt I was too busy agreeing with listeners who felt we should do more on European politics and not enough explaining how much we do in fact do.
But the complaints the programme had taken up were interesting. One strand was about the lack of coverage of the Lisbon treaty in Parliament which I have written about before.
But Charles Bell had a more specific complaint. I like specific complaints: unlike general accusations of bias, you can do a bit of soul searching or simple research and answer them.
His argument was that the 大象传媒 didn鈥檛 lie, but revealed pro-EU bias by editorial decisions that suppress certain European stories. He singled out the recent revelations .
I鈥檓 going to give you chapter and verse on this because I think, in general, while we at the 大象传媒 are good at engaging in quasi-philosophical arguments about coverage, I think we sometimes shy away from discussing the nuts and bolts of decision-making. 
This can give the impression of a monolithic institution where all heads nod at the same time, rather than the seething arguments and sometimes chaotic process that exist in the real world. Mr Bell says he did not hear the story mentioned on Radio Four.
My colleague Dominic Hughes broadcast a news report on the 7am bulletin on Radio Four and the story was also in a number of newspapers. Today interviewed the . A portion of this interview was then used on the 8am bulletin.
It was immediately obvious that this was a story that the editors liked.
Someone once described a news story along the lines of something surprising, but not too surprising. This story fitted that cynical definition.
Fat cats
It chimed with the perception of the MEPs as fat cats, and was a good follow-on to the about MP Derek Conway鈥檚 office expenses.
I was phoned by the editors of both the TV news at Six and Ten and we agreed that this was likely to be a better story than , which was happening later that day.
News 24 did a live interview with Chris Davies and leader of the , and I recorded them for my planned piece. 
Just as I was leaving the office for Gordon Brown鈥檚 news conference, an important story broke: the foreign secretary鈥檚
This would push us down the bulletin鈥檚 running order but the editors assured me they still wanted to run with the MEPs鈥 expenses.
A few hours later, I was justabout to put my coat on and go down to the Parliament in Brussels to do some pieces to cameras, when the news broke of .
I realised immediately the game was up. Both the Six and the Ten would want to run extensive reports and background pieces. MEPs鈥 expenses would be squeezed out.
The editors took a little while longer changing their running orders, but I knew the 鈥榩hone-call was coming. The Radio Four Six o鈥檆lock bulletin took the same decision, although they kept a piece I had done on Brown鈥檚 visit.
Editorial choices
Editors have limited time in their bulletins and have to make difficult choices. Personally, I am at least as interested in MEPs鈥 expenses as the murders, especially when the question 鈥渨hy did he do it?鈥 can鈥檛 be answered.
But I know I鈥檓 weird. If I had been in the hot seat and editing TV bulletins I would have easily overcome my own dislike of crime stories and would have made exactly the same decision.
That鈥檚 not quite the end of the tale. Rather to my surprise the Today Programme liked the story so much that they did it again on Saturday, even though nothing had really changed.
So, no pro-European bias, rather the reverse: initial enthusiasm for a story that backed up a stereotype which fell victim to something that happened: otherwise known as a much stronger news story.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 大象传媒's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Mark,
"Editors have limited time ..."
That's the trouble with TV, radio and printed news - it has to fit a fixed format and therefore exactly the same amount of 'news' happens each day.
Maybe I'm very interested in a Tsunami in the south Pacific but if the editor is more concerned about swinefever in Suffolk then we don't get to hear about much else. That's why internet news is so important - plus it gives us a chance for feedback and follow-up.
Keep up the good work.
Whilst agreeing with steveh, I do wonder sometimes about the amounts of air time given to slightly interesting but largely inconsequential stories (eg "background", etc to big sports wins, with endless replays, interviews and so on). Especially when, as Mark says, there are so many more important (in terms of our daily lives) things going on in the wider world.
Mark,
When will the 大象传媒 (and you) begin a serious and detailed expose of this corrupt and increasingly dangerous organisation called the EU?
The liberal-lefties who still run the 大象传媒 and try hard to be without bias on this are clearly failing in their duty.
If this had been an 'evil' US corporation or a British political scandal (conservative, of course) we wouldn't have heard the last of it.
No amount of 'explanation' can excuse the goings on in Brussels. We don't need 'education' about the EU, we need the truth and not through a liberal-left filter.
When will the 大象传媒 be making this investigation? Only then can its EU coverage be declared as 'fair' and 'unbiased'. Please stop prentending otherwise.
Mark Mardell wrote: "So, no pro-European bias, rather the reverse: initial enthusiasm for a story that backed up a stereotype which fell victim to something that happened: otherwise known as a much stronger news story."
Sounds good -but I'm sorry, I'm not very heartened by this. Although I am grateful for more insight into the "nuts and bolts".
Actually, I agree with you about the murder story. So the real underlying question, that certainly never seems to be seriously debated publically is: What is a "good" news story?
Presumably, for a jaded hack -a good story needs to be (made) "sexy" (in the sense that the
famous WMD report was(n't)....
From various books on American media -it is clear that "news" is basically "entertainment" (or "content" as the new Orwellians call it) -and its only function is to create an audience that can be sold (in traditional feudal terms) to the advertising industry. At present the internet industry is still searching for the magic formula that can make it as successful an advertising medium as TV.
The practical results of this must surely be obvious when one hears/reads the views of many Americans regarding important (global) political issues. Things that directly affect the lives, living conditions and the "pursuit of hapiness" of millions of people around the orld. Things such as the American invasion of Iraq, the American view on the position of Hamas in the ME, the way the American based global economy functions, etc. America is supposed to be the "prime defender" of democracy -and yet the information provided to its citizens via the commercial (feudal) news/entertainment system appears to be completely inadequate for a true democracy to funtion in an honest way: A democracy based on open debate and decision making by informed people.
Presumably, within an "entertainment" (bread and circuses) system -murder is far more fascinating that humble politics. However, people's lives, their living conditions and perhape even their security from violent crime are more dependant on the less exciting day to day activities of politicians than on the occasional excesses of a murderer.
In a commercial system -designed to produce "content" that seduces the public into being willing victims for the advertising industry -one must expect that murder and mayhem takes precendence over more serious issues. However, from a public broadcasting system one might reasonably expect different standards of "newsworthyness"....
Surely, the public has a right to expect from the 大象传媒 standards that reject trivial sensationalism and instead support the public need to understand the world that is being created in their name -as part of the normal functioning of a democracy.
I'm sure the Beeb will get another chance to do the MEP expenses story in the future, whereas the Suffolk murder trial can only end once! Conscientious MEPs ought to be publishing their own expenses off their own backs now, as the mud is about to start flying, and complete openness is the only way forward.
This all sounds very well, and we understand that this kind of thing can happen - the problem is that over a long period the trend can lean quite noticeably in one direction. Make one decision, fine. Make the same decision every day, that's different.
It's symptomatic of an appalling trend in 大象传媒 television news to put "human interest" stories first, second and third and relegate real (often non-British) news to the end, if even there. Earth-shattering events may be taking place beyond the Straits of Dover but the 大象传媒 six o'clock news can still be relied upon to inform us first of all that a new study has revealed that pre-packed sandwiches contain much more salt and fat than had previously been thought.
For accurate, unbiased coverage of international news I (Brussels-based) turn to the Belgian, German or even French channels. I'm afraid that not even you, Mark, stand a chance against the dumbers-down at the 大象传媒.
Your "explanation" rings hollow.
MEPs' piggish behaviour is a story that still has validity today, tomorrow, and every day until the MEPs stop feeding at the trough.
So yes, there could be an argument that the report lost its' place on the original day. But that argument fails for the next day, and the day after, and the day after ...
However, ERPs' pork consumption remains a story. So why has it remained in a pro-EU memory hole? There is a hole in your argument you could fly a parliament-full of corrupt politicians through!
Personally i would rather they had run with your story. how does the Suffolk murder affect me it doesn't really sure they should have had a piece on it saying bout the sentence but all the background stuff had been done to death during the trial and i was thoroughly sick of it in fact i turned the news off (a rare occurrence) because it was so overdone. MEP's wasting public money does affect me as it is my tax's along with others that fund it therefore i think your editors need to get their priorities straight and broadcast important news and leave the titilating of peoples morbid obssesion with death to the tabloids
I am afriad I cannot agree with Mark about the 大象传媒s Pro EU-bias. As many others have said before, this is so endemic that it is almost unrealised by those working for the corporation.
A good example was yesterday's piece on the pro referendum votes in 10 contituencies which produced overwhelming support for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and almost 90% saying they would vote against the treaty.
In the earliest incarnations of teh article - which only stayed on the site for a few minutes, there was a quote from Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report stating that the turnout was exceptional and was higher than in many local elections.
This was very quickly replaced by a quote from the Pro EU minister Bill Rammel saying that the turnout was very low and was lower than in any local elections he had ever taken part in.
Then within a few hours the story had moved off the main pages completely since it seemed that even mentioning the referenda was too much for the 大象传媒.
So why the changes, which clearly placed a more Pro EU slant on the whole report?
That's exactly one of the main problems of the British media - they're so focused on domestic issues!
An insignificant statement by an undersecretary for sport will be more likely to catch headlines than a fall of government in Italy.
And then I read that '88% want Lisbon Treaty referendum'. Do they even know where Lisbon is?
Really nice explanation of how these things work, thanks Mark.
It's precisely because bulletins are so short and editors are forced to make these decisions that the 大象传媒 and other media outlets should aim for diversity in their output across channels.
Unfortunately you all chase the same stories most of the time and there are very few places which offer a consistent editorial preference for complex analysis (by which I don't mean the 大象传媒's painting by numbers explanations of what's going on), most preferring the big headlines, many of which are just today's press releases regurgitated with little or no journalistic effort and certainly without challenge.
Today is an exception, as is PM most of the time. Newsnight does a reasonable job, but for serious independent news the web has you all beaten by miles.
Perhaps 大象传媒 would care to explain a rational of 88% of polled Brits demanding a referendum on Lisbon Treaty, rather than amplifying claims that "the poll was flawed"?
Hi Mark,
I heard the MEPs expenses story on Radio 4 and thought 'not again'! But I wasn't surprised to not see it run elsewhere. There's only so much so-called sleaze we can take, although I accept your more complicated yet understandable analysis (re. Rendition and Suffolk murders).
One thing I really wanted to say is that it's time for you to come home and give some clarity to our own political journalism scene. With Guto Harri going, your colleagues could do with a bit of quality support. And your bosses, chance to re-jig who's worth keeping and in what jobs!
Coverage is always a problem but so is good interviewing. The recent coverage over the weekend from those who want a vote on the EU treaty shows a very large number of people who have no idea what is in the treaty but want a vote on it anyway even though politicans have been hired to do that job for us. How many of those who want a vote have ever read this or any other treaty and how many journalists have ever asked? None, as far as I can remember but then I don't have a TV so can't say. So far none on the radio and no 大象传媒i story.
- Marky
I certainly think that Mark's reports on the EU are as unbiased as anybody's - arguing pros and cons. That is as it should be. Even if it is a fact that (allegedly) the majority of the people in this country are (say) against further European integration, this does not mean that the 大象传媒 should necessarily reflect that majority view - for the majority may themselves be biased.
In fact, the 大象传媒 are one the few news organisations in the UK that does attempt to put a balanced view across on this subject. If you want to find bias, look to the Daily Telegraph, the Sun and the Mail.
I do believe the 大象传媒 (including Mark Mardell) has a pro-EU bias. On the day of the pro-referendum rally outside Parliament last October the 大象传媒 ignored the EU rally completely while giving extensive coverage on News24 to an anti-abortion rally held the same day at the same place. At no time before or since has the 大象传媒 reported anything on the abortion issue, which is not a major issue in British politics.
Last week several thousand protested lawfully at Parliament by lobbying their MPs to vote for the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that the vast majority of MPs promised in their 2005 election manifestoes. Five anti-airport protesters got onto the roof of Parliament and again the 大象传媒 gave prominent coverage to the side show while ignoring the main event.
Mark Mardell uses this blog to faithfully relay the EU line and its self-aggrandizing agenda. Consider for example the recent piece on Gordon Brown鈥檚 visit to Brussels. Mark dutifully repeats the Brussels mantra that the British Prime Minister has failed in not emulating the German and French leaders in making quick visits to Brussels after assuming office. Nowhere in Mark鈥檚 piece is there any consideration that British foreign policy priorities may legitimately differ from those of France or Germany. The entire tone of Mark鈥檚 article is that the Commission is a bit miffed and Brown had better be nice to them now (i.e. support its self-aggrandizing agenda) or it will be tempted to block the nationalisation of Northern Rock out of spite rather than on any legitimate grounds of competition policy. Nowhere does Mark question if the Commission should act in that way preferring to underscore the message with visual imagery of a forelock-tugging Brown and a stern-looking Commissioner.
That said, I think discussing 大象传媒-bias is something of a distraction. The EU Commission has a 200 million euro 鈥榗ommunications鈥 (i.e. propaganda) budget to make its case. It has the support of the majority of the political class in most EU countries. If money could buy it love, the EU would be the most popular international organisation that ever existed, and a little extra help from the 大象传媒 will not change that much. That the EU is unpopular despite all these advantages is due to the strength of the arguments against it and the paucity of ideas from its supporters who seem incapable of anything more than mumbling inanities such as 鈥渢he constitutional concept has been abandoned鈥.
This might be a reply more suited to the Editors blog than to Mark's euro one... I remember hearing once that the working title of the Ch4 comedy "drop the dead donkey" had been "Dead Belgians don't count". This plays out time and again, the editors might choose the story they think we want to hear but often with a case like the dreadful Suffolk murders dwell too long on it. It took far too much of 6pm news which was was then repeated at greater length on the 大象传媒 East local news, which I receive despite being 95 miles (in a straight line) from the Norwich newsroom. Both stories matter, it could have been my local town rather than Ipswich where those women were attacked, yet how those we send to Brussels also is also important, but further away ergo it will always lose the coverage. It's an impossible task for the editors but I'd far prefer a number of short reports than a one detailed examination, which will be repeated locally,especially as much of the report has already been mentioned in news bulletins that week, or at the time of the event.
If you want to see something depressing look every day at the 5 top read stories on the 大象传媒 news website. With trivialities catching majority interest it is unsurprising that we are forced to watch events of staggering unimportance on the evening news.
The explanation is not a valid excuse for a news agency that aspires to be world class. The verdict of the Suffolk murders could - and should - have been covered in a couple of sentences. Any further coverage is sensationalism unworthy of serious journalism.
But then, why do I expect more from the 大象传媒.... ?
the bbc should tell the truth about the eu nad how its bad for britain we can survive with out it
Was it not the 大象传媒 that was only a year or two ago criticised in a report on coverage of European issues as having an anti-EU bias along with the majority of the mainstream British media? Accused of not giving enough (or any) attention to positive European stories and being all to keen to cover the negative ones? Perhaps this has changed to some degree...I doubt it has much though.
Another story bumped and still largely ignored....
The Czech government furious about EU's ineptness and inertia signed its own accord with Washington last Tuesday under which Czech citizens could travel to US visa-free with a electronic permit.
Criticised by EU, which threatened legal action, Czech foreign minister was unrepentant. "I'm a free human being in Europe, and I'm not a slave of the European Commission," Mr Langer said.
[It is believed that more EU members - Hungary, Lithuania and Estonia - would follow suit.]
So much for a myth that Czechs never stand up to anybody. :-)
Had the comment been carried, it would have reflected bias on the part of the 大象传媒 as still another inconsequential 'shock horror' story from the iniquitous European Union.
The government of the United Kingdom is signing up to the Treaty of Lisbon for the reasons outlined by Prime Minister Brown during his recent Brussels visit. In short, it is in the interests of the UK to do so.
Why not try and address some of the fundamental choices facing Europe?
Germany does not have a housing bubble problem (although some of its banks do as they were sold dud loan books by the US) because it is very conservative in the matter of domestic housing loans (large deposits and fixed interst and period loans).
Germany's domination of the Euro Area, fear of inflation, coupled with an enormous visible trade surplus, means that perhaps impossible tensions are growing within the Euro Area, especially as the dollar continues to drop vis-a-vis the euro.
Countries such as Spain and the UK (and Ireland, if on a smaller scale) face the consequences of a classic housing bubble which, on the evidence of the Japanese experience, will take decades to resolve.
Citizens of a country do not become rich by selling houses to each other. They become rich by producing things and selling them abroad.
Vorsprung durch technik.
This is a tricky balance. Does the media put out the news that they think will interest the maximum amount of people or do they put out what they perceive as being truly important? The fact is most people live their lives with little or no interest on what will truly alter their and their children's lives, mainly because momentous events are only momentous in hindsight and the few that are obviously historical are usually to complex for the average Joe to grasp. European integration and all the issues surrounding it is probably the most important event in present Europeans lives, yet the majority shows a huge indifference to it because the whole issue is complex. The irony is that in this day and age information as never been more accessible. I can easily find information about the EU and it's institutions. It's way easier to know what the EU is up to than what any national government is up to. It just takes some effort.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto, Canada
Rather to my surprise the Today Programme liked the story so much that they did it again on Saturday, even though nothing had really changed.
That's good.
However, you have demonstrated a bias we all share: in favour of recent breaking news.
Logically, it should make no difference, on a slowish moving story like MEP expenses, whether we hear it the day it breaks, or the day after. But it does, because we aren't logical - a characteristic which will yet kill us all.
Dear Mark,
This is not a direct comment but a suggestion of a line to follow up if you are interested. You occasionally use the word "we" as shorthand for the British people in "our" very ambivalent approach to Europe.
I wonder if you'd like to check if "we Scots" are a lot more Euro-centric than our English cousins who are actually closer to the European mainland? Mind you, we Scots are emotionaly close to all the fishing nations in the European peripheral regions and good friends with the French and Germans (even if only because they have a better chance at stuffing the English at football than we have), not to mention real experts in punching above our weight in scrounging European cash from Brussells - so much so the Strathclyde European Partnership actually gave lessons to our other regional counterparts some years ago how to do this efficiently and with probity.
Just a thought as to another reason "we" in Scotland wonder if we might do better being Scottish Europeans and not British Euro-skeptics.
大象传媒's pro-EU bias? Don't make me laugh. Compared to the hard-core europhobes, maybe.
As long as your news anchors speak of the EU as "Brussels" I cannot take the 大象传媒 seriously. Mark is the only one who puts the facts first, and see how much flak he is getting for that.
No, my friends: Ignorance rules mightily in the UK when it comes to "Europe" (another sloppy piece of language).
Maybe we on the continent should just accept the superiority of the Brits, if only we had any evidence for that.
WE MUST HAVE AN INVESTIGATION, AND ANY M.P OF THE E,U,WHO IS FOUND GUILTY, MUST BE SACKED, FOR TOO LONG HAVE WE STOOD FOR THE FOULEST OF SPIN AND CORRUPTION. SACK THE TROUGH SWILLERS, AND MAKE SURE IN FUTURE, WE KEEP ALL SLIMY PIGS OUT OF THE TROUGH, TO BE CONVICTED AND JAILED, COULD HELP IN THAT DIRECTION.
Mark,
just listened to the Radio 5 live Drive show. It included a piece on the debate in Parliament due to take place tomrrow, about the call for a referendum and the constitution. I listened with interest, this will show the 大象传媒 is not biased.
I was expecting analysis and political insight. What did we get ? Apparently the debate is going to be shown live at a cinema. Okay, I could live with this, perhaps an interesting discussion about bringing politics to the public. With all the things the commentator could have asked she decided the thing the great British Public wanted to know was whether you could get popcorn and pop at the cinema !
Wow, so glad I pay my license fee to get this high class journalism. The only other thing mentioned was William Hagues joke about Blair being president of the E.U.
Seriously Mark, how did that inform the debate ? Far from informing it, it creates a sub text that the whole thing is humorous and not worthy of serious debate. The presenter concerned is an intelligent person, she is either aware of what she is saying or is she unconsciously institutionally prejudiced against any one who may argue for a referendum? Can you imagine for one minute a similar tone being taken during the debates over devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or the Iraq war debate. Mark, that is what I mean by 大象传媒 bias
I was wondering if there was not a place here on the 大象传媒 website for all the stories, such as Mark mentions, that have been spiked by editors so that listeners could set their own editorial priorities: Suffolk murders or Brown visit?
It seems we have some unanimity for the 1st time in the European debate. Both pro-EU and anti-EU seem to agree that Mark Mardell has a pro-EU bias. And with perfect timing Mark Mardell publishes another piece on 鈥渢ax havens鈥 in which he unquestioningly pushes the latest moves in the long-running integration-by-stealth saga; advocating changes designed to lead towards an economic governance of Europe in innocuous sounding steps. The Commission has been itching to harmonize taxes for a decade or more already, but would we know this from Mark who reports blandly that 鈥渢he commission is, in theory, keen on toughening up the rules鈥?
Mark does not seek to balance the piece with any analysis, for example as to whether other European countries benefit when the state (Germany) with the least efficient system tries to avoid putting its own house in order by using the EU to protect a failing high-tax regime from which its own citizens are trying to escape. Even the notoriously pro-EU FT wonders if the main beneficiaries of such changes will be countries outside Europe like Singapore.
Mark has previously said that the position he prefers to adapt is 鈥渢riangulated above the mean鈥. But the EU differs from national politics in that there is no opposition, and there is a gulf between the political elites in Brussels and the peoples of Europe. Mark triangulates using just one point, that of the Brussels-insider, which is why his articles seem pro-EU to his readership.
I used to work in the European Parliament and I was (and still am) consistently frustrated by how little coverage or understanding of it there is given the increasing influence it has on our lives (e.g. environment policy). I am not anti EU, but working closely with the EU has made me far more cynical about how it operates and frustrated that many of the important decisions that affect us are obscured by lazy journalism or knee jerk anti-EU diatribes.
We have MEP elections next year and this could be a significant opportunity to increase the UK public's understanding of how the EU works. If the 大象传媒 wanted to increase the quantity and improve the quality of its coverage (notwithstanding Mark's excellent efforts), why not do some documentaries on how the EU Institutions in Brussels work / don't work? A series of hour long programmes on 大象传媒1 or 2 looking at how the Parliament, Commission and Council work, involving both critics and supporters, could help explain the background so that people can make up their own minds. It would also help avoid being squeezed out by breaking news stories. Now that would be a good demonstration of the 大象传媒's public service ethic and an opportunity for journalists like Mark to explore things in a bit more detail.
How about it, Mark?
Have just watched the main 6 PM 大象传媒 news. To be fair the coverage of the vote was reasonably fair, although it did concentrate more on the problems of the liberals rather than the substantive issue itself. However I do not want to be picky.
But the coverage only lasted a fraction under 4 minutes, almost identical time to that given to the unfortunate acrobat fom the Chinese state circus who has been paralysed. Of course I feel sorry for her and of course it was a tragedy for her.But at the end of the day it was one person who had an accident and was in financial difficulties.
Surely this major debate on something that could effect the future of this country demands more time than this. That is what I mean by bias Mark, unfortunatley I think the 大象传媒 is so institutionally riddled with pro E.U. staff, they do not even recognise it. The ITV news did give 10 minutes to this important subject, pity a commercial channel has to be the standard bearer of quality news reporting
This stuff is exactly why politicians and the many 'progressive' hangers on they have love the EU. An unlimited possibility for fraud, theft, self-enrichment and all that, and the best part: most EU politicians are unelected and completely unaccountable.
This is the main reason also why many countries outside seem to want to join: the politicial elites of Croatia, Bosnia ea all want to ride on what is possibly the biggest gravy train of all time, who wouldn't fancy a job where one doesn't have to pay any income tax?
Mark - apologies for not reading through all the other comments, which may mean this is "repetition".
However, picking up steveh's point about the Internet etc., why didn't you just go ahead and do your piece, and then post it on the website - instead of having to be driven by the Editors and the events of the day?
Surely you and your crew are paid full-time by the 大象传媒 to report, and therefore the marginal cost of filing and posting to the Web would have been very low?
The whole point of the Web is that it frees us from the "tyranny" of Editors etc. control our access to news!