Robinson gets his facts wrong

BBC political editor Nick Robinson comes in for some critisism over his reporting of the alleged Labour backtracking on the fiscal rules.

Over at Comment is Free-Frank Fisher says

less than heartening to see Nick Robinson at the BBC ignoring the foundation for an effective Q&A format: if there's one thing guaranteed to produce a wrong answer, it's a wrong question.

Fisher looking at his performance on last night's Ten o,clock news says

His response to the suggestion that Gordon Brown is to abandon his key fiscal rule, extending government borrowing beyond the 40% mark, was to put in the public's mind this quandary Brown, or any other PM, faces: "Do nothing and the government would be faced with a stark choice - tax us more to make up the shortfall or borrow more and break their fiscal rules."

adding that he

could almost sense a million angry middle-aged men shouting at the telly, in true pantomime style: "Oh no it bloody isn't!" The third choice, cutting spending, the prudent response to any overspend, national or personal, didn't get a look-in

.

Again this morning on the today programme he maintained the same line as the previous evening.Why is this the case asks Fisher?

the BBC could spin the line that while the choice isn't restricted to two options in a wider reality, in a political reality it is – but that simply doesn't wash. Not only do viewers expect a more detached analysis of facts, not spun facts, from a supposedly independent broadcaster, but those are not even political facts.

What the media commentators are saying

Not suprisingly the Harry affair dominates.In the Independent Steven Glover reflects on the episode

A surprising number of people, not all of them diehard republicans, think the media were wrong not to report Prince Harry's front-line role in Afghanistan. They point out that there was no issue of national security at stake.

But he thinks that the blackout was justified

After Prince Harry was prevented from fighting in Iraq last year, it was clear that he could only avoid unacceptable risks in Afghanistan if his presence there was not publicised..... It is difficult to see how anyone, apart from the Taliban, has suffered."

Peter Wilby in the Guardian though is less complementary and perhaps a touch cynical

Kings and princes used to go into battle at the head of their soldiers, standards flying. Nobody thought it right to hide Henry V or Richard III while they were doing battle with the enemy. But the modern military wants the symbolic benefits of royal leadership without undue risk to the royal personage. In the case of Prince Harry, the Ministry of Defence had its cake and was allowed by the media to eat it as well.

Staying with the Guardian Emily Bell asks

What happens when anyone can publish anything, about anyone, anywhere at any time? It is an interesting philosophical and legal minefield which we pick our way through on a daily basis, tin hats awry. One thing in a world of uncertainty is certain - the old levers of control are inadequate - and this is becoming apparent to the most obtuse controller.

Refering to

Nick Robinson's online comments on the row about House of Commons speaker

she says the furore surrounding it was

an intense overreaction to a new type of journalism - Robinson, after all, was summing up the issues around the case on an open blog rather than presenting them as a bulletin item.

Matthew Norman at the Independent looks back to the Mail's campaign on bin bags and asks

Has there ever been a more spectacular smash-and-grab raid on any issue than the Daily Mail's thunderous campaign against the plastic carrier bag? Suppressing a wry grin at the chutzpah isn't easy. Papers such as this one bang on about green matters day after day, year after year, while the Mail prefers the insights of such revered global warming sceptics as Richard Littlejohn, Mad Mel Phillips and Professor Tom Utley, FRS, the climatological autodidact who slew false fears about melting ice caps with the observation (regarded in the scientific community as the most important of its kind since Archimedes took his bath) that when the ice in his G&T melts, the liquid doesn't flood over the side of the glass

FinallyMaggie Brown at the Guardian gives some useful tips to Peter Fincham on what to do with ITV,

Fincham will need more than good luck - that is no secret. But what exactly lies in store? And what do senior figures in the television industry see as the greatest challenges facing him?

I didn't know you cared

I have just been reading Nick Robinson's blog as he followed Gordon Brown to the States.Nick has aquired a rather love hate realtionship with Dubya after his last visit when he asked the President whether he might be in denial over the latest outbreak of insurgent violence in Iraq.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/07/still_guessing.html

This time Nick relates their latest encounter

"He said to me clearly remembering our last encounter...."You still hanging around.....At the end of today's meeting he looked at me sweating in the swampy conditions and said" next time you should cover your bald head.I made the fatal error of answering a quip with a quip"I didn't know you cared" to which the President said as quick as a flash "I don't

Are Political journalists too close to their subject

I have written a couple of pieces about journalists relationships with the people that they cover and the theme continued last night when the political blogger Guido Fawkes appeared in a five minute piece on Newsnight last night.

He accused journalists such as Jeremy Paxman and Nick Robinson of timidity,of hiding behind the impartiality line and of not wanting to upset what he described as "cosy relationships with politicans"

Whereas bloggers such as himself can effectively go after politicans,it is something that you rarely see in commercial broadcasting.The reason why is that he doesnt have to do political interviews and can jeopodize his relationships with politicians.

He cites the example of Sky sending a junior reporter to interview David Cameron,when the newly elected Tory leader lost both his thread and temper.As a consequence,Sky lost access to the inner world of Tory politics for several weeks.

Journalists should break more stories than simply toeing the party line.

Nick Robinson who was interviewed for the piece is less than happy with its conclusions

"Attempting to engage with him in a grown up way I told "Guido" the truth. Namely, that in order for specialist journalists (whether health or legal or political reporters) to know their subject inside out they have to build working relationships with those they report on. Having worked at Panorama for some years, I know that it is sometimes easier for someone coming from outside to make the big "mother of a blow out" investigation without fear of burning their contacts. I went on to argue that this does not stop me asking the big and tough questions when they need asking.
Silly me. "Guido" uses my interview to argue that I don't "need to be so craven" and that "I should worry less about my relationship with politicians and more about my relations with viewers".

Guido's response

"Nick Robinson regrets speaking to Guido, well that may be, he probably won't give Guido an interview again. Bovvered.Maybe he thinks Guido should "pull his punches"?