Russ McBee

London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced a deal today with some interesting terms. Venezuela has agreed to sell a certain quantity of oil to the UK at a 20 percent discount, as long as it's used only for London's public transportation system. In exchange, the London mayor agreed to give 50 percent discounts on public transportation fares to Londoners below the poverty line. London also agreed to send over some of its experts in public transportation, city planning, tourism, and environmental protection and set them up in residence in Caracas as consultants for the Venezuelan government.

This sounds like a win-win situation all around: the London public transit authority gets discounted fuel, the poor in London get a break on transportation costs in that breathtakingly expensive city, and the people of Venezuela benefit from the expertise of people who know how to plan and manage a world-class city.

I found the reportage of this story in the British press rather interesting.

The left-leaning Guardian opened its story this way:

Up to a million people on income support will be eligible for half fares on London's buses under Ken Livingstone's oil deal with Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's president.

Single parents, carers, the long-term sick and disabled people will benefit from the plan, first mooted during Mr Chávez's visit to the UK last year, paying 50p for a single journey if they use an Oystercard.

In exchange for a 20% oil discount to fuel London buses, an office will be set up in Caracas, Venezuela's capital, where London officials will offer expertise in town planning, tourism, public transport and environmental protection.

Notice how they opened the story with the facts of the deal?

Here's how the BBC opened the story:

Londoners on income support will be required to pay only half the fare on buses, Mayor Ken Livingstone has said.

At least 250,000 people, including single parents, carers and disabled people, will benefit from the low fares costing 50p for a single journey.

Venezuela and Chavez aren't mentioned until the third paragraph, but they are mentioned. Its opening two paragraphs read like a Livingstone campaign commercial.

The right-leaning (and Rupert Murdoch-owned) Times reported the story in a tiny blurb buried on a "News In Brief" page; the single paragraph describing the deal falls between two seemingly random stories: one on an argument between an artist and a parking garage attendant, and another about a guy distributing leaflets with swastikas on them. Here's the entire Times version:

Ken Livingstone’s controversial oil deal will give up to a million Londoners half-price bus and tram travel. Those claiming income support will benefit from the Mayor’s scheme, in which a single bus journey will cost 50p, after an agreement with President Chávez of Venezuela for cheap oil.

Notice how a story that could have a significant impact on London's poor is buried as a non-story, the third word of which is "controversial" and the penultimate word of which is "cheap"?

The Telegraph (which is farther to the right than The Times) didn't seem to report the story at all. At least, I can't find any story containing both "Livingstone" and "Venezuela" posted today.

I also find it interesting that the story was given such short shrift by two London papers (The Times and the Telegraph), while the most detailed report on the story came from a newspaper based in Manchester.

Both the Guardian and the BBC quoted a local elected official from the Conservative Party who voiced opposition to the deal. The two right-wing papers didn't even bother to do that.

The Brits have the same problem we have in the US: in most outlets, in most markets, and in most media, news is filtered by conservative-leaning corporate management, and the editorialists for those same corporate entities then turn around and whine about "liberal" bias.

Is it biased to report the facts of the story, or to not report it at all?