BBC: Left, Right, Left, Right

I recently found an article in the Daily Telegraph that claimed to show statistical evidence that the BBC was biased to the left wing. A friend of mine criticised the article, and eventually cited an article from the New Statesman that claimed to show right wing bias in the BBC, again based on statistical evidence. So I thought I'd examine the reports on which each article was based side by side.

Report 1: Bias at the Beeb? A quantitative study of bias in online reporting.
Author: Oiver Latham, Centre for Policy Studies (a "think tank" whose output is generally right wing)
Sources used: BBC online reporting, 1 June 2010-31 May 2013
What was studied:
1/ Whether the BBC's online reporting draws more on left wing sources or right wing sources;
2/ Whether "think tanks" referred to by the BBC were described as right wing (or similar), left wing (or similar), or independent.
Main conclusions:
1/ BBC online reporting draws on left wing sources more than right wing; the ratio is about 7:3
2/ Left wing think tanks are much more likely to be described as 'independent' than right wing think tanks (average 95% vs 58%).

Report 2: BBC Breadth of Opinion Review
Authors: Many authors from the Cardiff School of Journalism
Sources: Three BBC TV news programmes and 3 BBC radio programmes; also ITV and Channel 4 news. October 15-Nov 15 2007 and October 15-November 15 2012.
What was studied:
1/ Whether the sources that the BBC uses for news represent a wide range of opinion/of political affiliations;
2/ Whether BBC reporting shows any particular bias on three topics: immigration; religion; and the EU.
Main conclusions:
1/ Conservative and Labour politicians dominate as sources. The ratio in 2007 was about 2:1 Labour:Tory; in 2012, it was about 4:1 Tory:Labour. Minor parties and pressure groups got very little airtime.
2/ The BBC's reporting of the three selected topics is typically framed by their impact on party politics (though less so for religion) and therefore reflects the views of the two main parties. The only obvious bias is a negative view of Islam.

Okay, let's ask a few semi-statistical questions about the two reports.

1. Were the samples big enough to be statistically valid?

For report one, three years'worth of material is plenty, For report two, two months' worth of material is not ideal, especially regarding the news topics, since the same topics are likely to recur over several days.

2. Was the sample broad enough to be statistically valid?

Report two looked at BBC TV and radio, and also briefly at social media comment, so the answer is yes. Report one only looked at BBC online reporting, and so its validity depends on the assumption that BBC online reporting is reflective of BBC reporting in general.

3. Did the samples use fair measures of left wing and right wing?

Report one relied on publication in the Guardian or the Telegraph as measures of being left wing or right wing, which seems fair to me. Report two used membership of a political party as a measure, which again seems pretty good.

4. Could the results in the studies have been produced by other factors?

For report one, it's hard to think of any. For report two, however, there could be many conflating factors:
1/ The higher ratio of Tory:Labour in 2012 than Labour:Tory in 2007 could be explained by the governments being at different stages of their political lives (a point which the report acknowledges).
2/ The predominance of politicians as sources (and the predominance of Church of England issues in religious topics) could be explained by the BBC having a bias towards the establishment.
3/ The predominance of "party political" views on the EU in particular could be explained by the BBC being pro-British.

In summary, the first report does indeed seem to show that the BBC is biased to the left -- or more precisely, that BBC online reporting is biased towards material reported in the Guardian rather than the Telegraph, and is more likely to consider the Guardian to be using 'independent' sources. The claim that the second report shows a bias to the right is unproven; the study period wasn't long enough to determine if the majority of Conservative politicians over Labour was due to political bias or other factors. And the claim that the second report shows no political bias in reporting of three key issues is misleading; what the second report does seem to show is that the reporting of these three issues is driven by a bias to the Establishment and a pro-British bias. Again, however, the data set was collected over too short a period to come up with firm conclusions.

British English vs American English

So which is better: British English or American English? I thought I’d look at some British English versus American English words, and give them marks out of 5 for appropriateness.

DIFFERENT WORDS FOR THE SAME THING

1.     British: SKIPPING ROPE American: JUMP ROPE

5/5 for both definitions. It’s a rope that you skip over. Or jump over.  If I had to award a prize, I’d give it to American English because you don’t actually have to skip over the rope, whereas you do have to jump over it.

2.      British: SEESAW American: TEETER-TOTTER

SEESAW gets 1/5. It seems to be based on changes in field of vision (I’m up, I see you; I’m down, I saw you). What an obscure definition!

TEETER-TOTTER: 2/5. This word suggests that this piece of playground equipment is a permanent health and safety hazard, with children always on the verge of falling off. But since it does suggest falling from height, I’ll give it an extra mark.

3.      British: SPANNER American: WRENCH

SPANNER: 1/5. What does it span? The width of the nut? (And while we’re on the subject, why call it a “nut” instead of something like “screw fastener”? What kind of tree grows hexagonal nuts with holes in the middle?)

WRENCH: 3/5. Actually wrenching the tool is bad practice, but at least the word describes the action of using the tool to some extent.

4.      British: CAR American: AUTOMOBILE

CAR: 3/5. Short for ‘carriage’. A car does indeed carry people around, but the name says nothing about how it does so.

AUTOMOBILE: 4/5. This means ‘something that moves by itself’, which describes a motor vehicle pretty accurately if you leave the handbrake off. It doesn’t say why it moves, which CAR does, but I still give AUTOMOBILE the higher mark.

5.      British: BONNET American: HOOD

Both score 4/5. If you assume that the engine is the ‘head’ of a car, then calling its covering  a ‘bonnet’ or a ‘hood’ is equally sensible. The British word BONNET would seem to suggest that cars are female; this may have been coined by someone who found British cars attractive to look at but sometimes  temperamental …

6.      British: BOOT American: TRUNK

BOOT: 1/5. Presumably named because it’s at the opposite end to the bonnet. But who carries around their luggage in their shoes?

TRUNK: 4/5. It performs the same function as a sea or air passenger’s trunk.

7.      British: WELLINGTON BOOTS American: GALOSHES

WELLINGTON BOOTS: 3/5. They’re really rubber boots, so naming them after a British general is pretty random, but they are boots.

GALOSHES: 4/5. The word means waterproof overshoes, which describes their function pretty well. 

SAME WORDS, DIFFERENT MEANINGS:

            ENJOIN. British: to urge strongly. American: to forbid.

British 4/5, American 2/5. JOIN usually means to begin to participate in some activity, so ENJOIN sounds like encouragement to do something. The American word means almost the opposite, so I’ve given it the opposite score.

CHIPS. British: French fries (but bigger). American: Crisps.

British 5/5. Potato chips are, indeed, bits chipped off a potato.

American: 3/5. American potato chips are thin slices of a potato, which are then fried almost beyond recognition.

JELLY. British: Jell-o (or fruit-free jelly). American: Jam or other preserves.

British: 4/5. The word means a substance that is made with gelatine. The British version is gelatine, water, and (hopefully) fruit juice.

American: 3/5. Using the same word for gelatine-based foodstuffs with or without fruit is unnecessarily confusing. British English even has a third word – marmalade – which used to distinguish sharper-tasting preserves made with citrus fruits from jam made with sweeter fruits.

FOOTBALL. British: soccer. American: gridiron.

British 5/5, American 2/5.

British English wins again. The American name may be ultimately the fault of an English schoolboy from Rugby, but I refuse to call any game ‘football’ when 98% of the players never touch the ball with their feet. 

CONCLUSION

Where the Americans have gone the American way, inventing their own words, they have had logical ideas and have put them into practice more successfully than the British. But where the Americans have tried to do things the same way the British do, the Brits win easily.

Sounds like the rest of life, really ...

Unashamed football geek: the story of the last day of the 2012-13 season in the Championship

Okay, this is unashamedly football-geeky. I’m going to tell the story of the last day of the season in the Championship (aka the Second Division) … which is (trivia) the fourth most supported division in Europe, apparently. If you haven’t heard how it went, I hope you’ll find the story as well-constructed and tense as I did, following it at the time.

It’s one of those stories with three simultaneous and interdependent threads, with different characters, whom I shall now introduce. At the top of the table, fighting for one automatic promotion to the Premier League, were Hull City and Watford. Hull had slumped in recent weeks, but still remained one point above Watford, so if both teams got the same result, Hull would go up. They had identical goal differences, so if Hull lost and Watford drew, Watford would go up. Hull were playing the division champions, Cardiff City; Watford faced once-great Leeds United, who had ended the season strongly.

Thread Two involved two places in the end-of-season play-offs for the final promotion place. Four teams were fighting for two places: Crystal Palace, Bolton, Nottingham Forest, and Leicester. With four points separating these four teams, Palace could afford to draw unless Bolton and Forest both won, while up and coming Leicester needed Forest to lose, and Bolton to draw or lose. Leicester were playing Forest, which added some winner-takes-all spice to an already intense local derby.

Thread Three involved teams facing relegation, of whom there were no fewer than seven: five main players and two bit-part players. The  bit-part players, 51-point Wolverhampton Wanderers and 57-point Blackburn, needed a combination of unlikely circumstances and a goal deluge to change their status – and no such miracles occurred, so Wolves went down and Blackburn were safe. But this left 5 teams separated by 3 points: Barnsley (54), occupying the final relegation spot at the start of the day; Peterborough (54); Sheffield Wednesday (55); FA Cup semi-finalists Millwall (56); and Huddersfield (57, but with the poorest goal difference of all 5 teams). To add spice, Barnsley were playing Huddersfield (another local derby), while Peterborough were trying to put a dent in Crystal Palace’s promotion hopes.

As is normal on the last day of the season, all the matches started simultaneously, so that no team would find itself ending its game knowing exactly how many goals they had to score to achieve their goal. And for anyone completely new to English football, teams get three points for a win and one point for a draw; if teams are level on points then the placings are decided by goal difference (total goals scored minus total goals conceded).

And now, the drama begins …

5 minutes: Notts Forest 1 Leicester 0. Forest move above Bolton into the play-off zone.

11 minutes: Sheffield Wednesday 1 Middlesbrough 0. Wednesday climb to the top of the pack of those trying to avoid relegation.

16 minutes: Huddersfield 0 Barnsley 1. Peterborough drop into the relegation zone; but if Peterborough score, Huddersfield will drop four places in the table (that kind of move is normally seen only in the early season)  into the relegation slot.

25 minutes: 

Bolton 0 Blackpool 1

N Forest 1 Leicester 1

Despite conceding a goal, Bolton still sneak back into the play-off place, above Forest on goal difference. 

30 minutes: Crystal Palace 0 Peterborough 1. Is the mass escape on? Huddersfield drop into the relegation zone!  Palace’s position is unchanged, for now.

32 minutes: 

Sheffield Wednesday 2 Middlesbrough 0

Bolton 0 Blackpool 2. 

Bolton still hold the final play-off place, but a goal for either Leicester or Forest would eject them.

In other potentially significant news: Watford lost their first choice goalkeeper with an injury in training before the match. Now their second choice keeper has been hurt quite badly. Their third choice goalkeeper, a teenager, comes on. And the length of time spent treating the injury means that Watford’s match is now running fifteen minutes behind all the others. 

35 minutes: Hull’s top scorer Jay Simpson has to be substituted. His replacement, Nick Proschwitz, has only scored four goals all season. This is not good news for a team who haven’t scored any goals in their previous three games.

42-45 minutes (except at Watford):

N Forest 1 Leicester 2

Watford 0 Leeds 1

Bolton 1 Blackpool 2

Crystal Palace 1 Peterborough 1

Bolton 2 Blackpool 2

Whew! Leicester’s goal knocks Bolton out of the play-offs, but  two goals in two minutes for Bolton mean Leicester are hanging on to a play-off place by goal difference. Leeds’ goal means that Hull, still drawing 0-0 with Cardiff, can afford to lose and still be promoted. And Palace’s goal maintains their position at the head of the four play-off contenders, and drops Peterborough back into the relegation zone.

42-45 minutes (at Watford):

Watford 1 Leeds 1. We’re back to the situation where If Watford score or Hull concede, Watford will take the automatic promotion place.

The Interval: Thread One, arguably the most important, has been quiet up till now, but there has been plenty of action in Threads Two and Three; the key positions have changed hands three or four times already, and the five teams fighting to avoid relegation are still separated by three points, but in a different order!  So are you ready for the second half?

55-60 minutes:

N Forest 2 Leicester 2

Hull 0 Cardiff 1

Huddersfield  1 Barnsley 1

Watford now occupy the promotion place, and Bolton the last play-off place. And Barnsley drop back into the relegation spot, below Peterborough on goal difference.

60 minutes: Proschwitz misses a sitter. Hull remain 1-0 down.

60-75 minutes:

Hull 1 Cardiff 1

Hull 2 Cardiff 1

Crystal Palace 1 Peterborough 2

Promotion is Hull’s again, with two goals in four minutes, the first from Proschwitz. If they win, there’s nothing Watford can do to catch them. And are Peterborough now safe?

75-80 minutes: Huddersfield 1 Barnsley 2. Now just one point covers the five teams trying to avoid relegation, and once again it’s Huddersfield at the bottom of the pile.

65 minutes at Watford: Watford have a man sent off.

80 minutes:

Huddersfield 2 Barnsley 2. Once again, Barnsley replace Huddersfield as relegation candidates.

Crystal Palace 2 Peterborough 2. And once again, Peterborough require goal difference to keep them out of the relegation spot.

Derby 1 Millwall 0. If Barnsley and Peterborough both take the lead again, it’ll now be Millwall in the relegation zone rather than Huddersfield.

85 minutes:

Crystal Palace 3 Peterborough 2

N Forest 2 Leicester 3

Five minutes to play, and the sixth change to the relegation zone this afternoon sees Peterborough holding the unwanted prize. And Leicester are back in the play-offs, along with Crystal Palace. 

88 minutes:

Penalty to Hull! It’s taken by Proschwitz and … it’s saved! Cardiff break down to the other end, and in the ping-pong chaos of Hull’s penalty area, one of their defenders handles the ball. Penalty to Cardiff!

90 minutes:

Hull 2 Cardiff 2. And the final whistle goes here, and in all the other matches apart from Watford’s. Watford have fifteen minutes to score one goal that would see them promoted to the Premier League.

85 minutes at Watford: Still 1-1. Some Hull players are watching TV; others cannot bear to watch, and are sitting with their heads in their hands or are walking up and down corridors. 

88 minutes at Watford: There’s a goal! And it’s gone to … Leeds! A mistake by Watford’s third choice goalkeeper lets Ross MacCormack in for a goal that surely seals Hull’s promotion to the Premier League!

90 minutes at Watford: The final whistle sees despair at Watford and jubilation in Hull. Hull City have been promoted to the Premier League; in a newspaper article the next day, Hull’s manager calls their promotion “ridiculous”. Leicester achieve the combination of results that they needed to grab the last play-off place, along with Crystal Palace. And the churning washing machine at the bottom of the league finally spits out Peterborough as the losers in the race to avoid relegation.

So the curtain falls for another season. Apart from the play-offs, that is. Watford against Leicester could be quite a game …