To depoliticise the debate in this way and replace it with opinion is a descent into the standards of the gutter press.

I didn't see the report, so I can't comment on it unfortunately.  You may possibly have a point. 

However, this problem is by no means unique to one side.  The BBC have for years shown favouritism towards Labour - Jane Garvey's admission that there were 'champagne bottles littered all over the floor of the BBC' on May 2 1997 says it all. 

The fact that journalists are now taking the Tories seriously is testament to how well Blair was at keeping the debate on his terms, and the opposition shackled.  This certainly isn't something one could say of Brown.

There was also the Alistair Darling misquote story that he launched in Feb after a Tory press release with a truncated Hansard quote was issued 2.5 hours earlier. To be fair you did have to read Hansard closely in the full context to understand properly what Darling meant, but you'd rather expect that of a BBC Political Editor wouldn't you.

Personally I find the right-wing views of Andrew Neil, which he has severe trouble hiding, more annoying. He really does push the right-wing think tank agenda along in the mainstream (if you regard The Daily Politics as mainstream).

 

Don't worry about the tiresome details of politics, let's just concentrate on some gossip. And don't worry about thinking - we can do that for you...

In this case - furthering the debate about who's biased and which way they are biased pretty much asks people to take the thinking out of their politics too.
 
People ignorantly dismiss interviews where their political heroes faltered under fair questioning – it happens in the US all the time and the excuse for ineptitude usually is: the journalist was biased.

The Tories have been saying about the BBC for years.

I am heartily sick of Tories whining about the BBC. I dread the idea that we may go in for it now.

In the case of the BBC - it's clearly a matter of interpretation and where people see a broadcaster drawing an interpretive line beyond where one activist or another considers it to be unfair.

The shot of his hands is (to me) fair enough because he's bitten them to the quick as is his habit and as a man with an undeniable amount to be anxious about. Same thing with the tired eyes. It’s not gossip. It’s not deceitful. It’s not out of context.

I actually thought the interview was fair enough and, for the first time in ages, thought Brown gave a passably good account of himself.

This is (nearly) the way it’s supposed to work. Tough questions by the top journalists and acceptable answers by the top representatives or politicians.

Explaining my first statement: when everything can be discounted by the offended party because the interviewer was ‘biased’ - one way or another – it leads to a less informed discussion. If Cameron was cut up by a Guardian interviewer, it wouldn’t matter to any Tory apologist as the “they’re biased” excuse comes so easily. Same thing applies here but Nick Robinson’s work is not biased in my opinion (and I read much of the print and online media every day).

Even if he was a Tory voter with a big poster of Mrs Thatcher in his study (or owns a John Major pencil case or Ronald Reagan pyjamas!) - his work is very fair and that’s what matters as far as I can see.

I'm not sure the beeb is as biased to Labour as people say it is. The only major politics coverage is chaired by a clearly biased Andrew Neil (you know, the union busting Murdoch employee). There are some who I have heard are leaning towards the left, Andrew Neil, Natasha Kaplinsky, David Dimbledy and others. But there are also those leaning towards the right, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson and Clarkson.

I think Nick Robinson is fine most of the time. And I can never get too worked up about bias at the BBC. I'm a member of Republic, an organisation that often complains about what it sees as the BBC's defential coverage of the monarchy. I'm sympathetic to this view, but just don't think, overall, it's a big deal. Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against their own views, and no one's ever going to be completely happy that the BBC is completely impartial. And the point about ITV is important; compared to ITV the BBC comes across as a model of objectiveness.

Incidentally, I think Andrew Marr sets a really good example when it comes to impartiality. (And did anyone else see him on Jonathan Ross? He's wonderful, isn't he?)