The post you are reporting:
From the link in #1
"Responses to Common Critiques/Questions
General Questions
1. "So What?"
Firstly, I think that the results are interesting in their own right: they provide objective, quantitative evidence of slant in both the amount and tone of the BBC's coverage of think-tanks. Secondly, the results reinforce the existing anecdotal allegations of bias at the organization and so suggest that these views should be taken more seriously."
What possible justification can there be for any 'think-tank' to insist that it gets the coverage it desires?
2. "Isn't the CPS even more biased than the BBC? How can we trust you?"
It is inevitable that, if an organization like the CPS criticises the BBC, it will be accused of ulterior motives. That is why I tried to use methods with clear (and I hope) uncontroversial assumptions. By removing much of the subjective element from measuring slant, my hope is that people will read the report, assess the assumptions and then draw their own conclusions.
It seems that people have done just that.
Questions About the Comparison between the BBC and the Telegraph/Guardian
1. "The BBC's coverage should be more similar to the Guardian than the Telegraph, one is a reliable news source, the other is outrageously right-wing."
I think that my choice of reference newspapers is reasonable.
He may, others (me) are less certain.
2. "Maybe everyone treats right-of-centre sources in this way and so you're singling the BBC out unfairly? How do the newspapers treat the think-tanks in your sample?"
We took Demos and the CPS as representative left-of-centre and right-of-centre sources and did a quick check of the Guardian and Telegraph's use of health warnings. Demos received a health warning 4% of the time in the Guardian and 20% of the time in the Telegraph. In contrast, the CPS received a health warning 71% of the time in the Guardian and 22% of the time in the Telegraph. It would be foolish to take too much from this observation, but it is fair to say that...
Foolish it may be, but he is willing to do it as far as it suits him.
3. "The right-of-centre CSJ was referred to as "independent" more often than any other think-tank. Doesn't this suggest that the BBC is being fair?"
The CSJ was a tricky think-tank to deal with because the BBC nearly always referred to its foundation by Iain Duncan Smith, but then often combined this with another health warning like "right of centre", or a reference to its "independence". This led to introductions like "The CSJ, an independent think-tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith". The result was that it received both more "independents" and more health warnings than anyone else. References to its independence were probably undermined somewhat by the accompanying health warning, but it is impossible to know by how much.
So much is impossible to know, but throw in enough caveats and innuendos and chalk becomes oh-so cheesy.
