A comical series of counter comments runs through this article.
One of the things Auntie doesn’t like is that it might seem to boost the Republicans. Remember, Arnold was only running on a ‘Republican ticket’, whatever they are (something to do with trains or whatever). Remember too, Arnold, you’ve been ‘short on detail and “big” on promises’, but also that you’ve got by by ‘not promising very much of anything’. In general, Auntie doesn’t feel you deserve your victory (that’s scarcely mentioning your wandering hands). She hopes you’ll bear that in mind as your economy outgrows that of the United Kingdom.
OK, let me state that everyday I hear bias on the BBC, on the usual subjects covered in this blog – conflict in the middle east, immigration, the role of the state, tax is good etc etc. I’ve posted comments here a few times also.
I have to disagree with the B-BBC article here though. Unless they’ve stealth edited it, it looks like a pretty sober account to me. I believe the BBC comments about a lack of detail hold true, at least based on what I’ve read on ‘Join Arnold’ web site. Other non-BBC sources have made this point too.
As for the ‘wandering hands’ it is legitimate to mention this I think in a summary, as it made big news across all networks.
Cheers,
There has been some stealth editing going on: my comment about ‘Republican ticket’ has been invalidated to readers: they’ve taken away the ‘on a Republican ticket’ and turned it into ‘as a Republican’. Do they read this site?
You know, there are questions raised by this article. For instance, why give two correspondents the chance to make the same negative point about Arnie’s campaign? Even then they fluff it between them. My question: what’s the main story today: Arnie’s lack of detailed campaigning or his victory over the financially grubby Grey Davis?
The LA Times, meanwhile, is scarcely a respectable newspaper at the moment.
My chief objection is the downplaying of the amazing Democrat incompetence which has turned their heartland against them. This theme runs through much of their coverage. The Mark Steyn article highlighted below gets to where the anger at Grey Davis is centred.
Funny how the Democrats and Feminists now regard sexual harrassment and groping as a matter of public interest…I seem to recall that they were silent during Mr. Clinton’s indiscretions.
And of course, only Democrat Hollywood stars have the right to speak on politics.
Arnold’s election does not bode well for Democracy, however. He seems to have won on star power (and the Democrats incompetence) alone.
I have to disagree that Arnold’s victory does not bode well for democracy. On the contrary, it sends a stark message to the insiders, party hacks, arrogant civil servants and other assorted members of the self-proclaimed big government nomenklatura: shape up and listen to, and act upon, the people’s wishes, or you’ll be out on your ear.
Arnold’s task is to clean house, resist the “advisers” who tell him it can’t be done, and go on facing down the media that believes itself to be above mere government. The BBC is a prime example of a body that believes government should answer to it rather than to the citizens. Mind you, the interviews by ABC, NBC and CBS anchors of Arnold in the last few days would give even Paxo pause!
PB
Yes, indeed, sour grapes have been well in evidence today. Check out this one from R2’s noon bulletin: Davies lost because he was ‘blamed for a slump in the state’s economy’.
So there. Davo is an innocent scapegoat, the dog ate his economy and the public didn’t have any actual issues with his conduct or policies, they were just thrashing out mindlessly. Of course.
They goofed up so many facts and names in their reprotage, it was silly – even to the point where the governor was repeatedly called “Greg” Davis, and the assuption that Arnold was taking this as a stepping stone to the presidency.
If a dancing bear was sent to report on US politics, they would realize within a week that a candidate for president must have been born within the borders of the US.
Gack!
Ah, thanks for this link! It finally gives me a hard example of a news story that cites a BBC correspondent’s personal opinion, complete with sneer quotes.
In the US, reporters can push their biases by selecting data that supports their views, but they _must_ find the data. Editors generally do not permit reporters to announce their opinions per-se in a news article, and journalism schools are adamant that the reporter should never be part of the story. BBC has no such ethical hangups.