I’d say the BBC has been quite muted. Obviously there’s a lot of politicking involved- you are not getting a glimpse into anyone’s soul- but from the BBC you would think that the whole thing was hollow as an easter egg.
Take what were generally regarded as quite powerful speeches on the opening night. Rob Watson had his own way of presenting them.
On John McCain, he said ‘what John McCain has done, when faced with a choice, is stick with his party.’
No cynicism there then.
On the generally rapturously received Rudi Guiliani, he had another formula ready,
‘The Republican Party faithful did not come to New York to hear nice things about John Kerry.
They came here to see the other side get bashed, and tonight John Kerry got a good bashing.
And he got that bashing from a man seen as a moderate Republican, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.’
You have to notice that phrase ‘seen as a moderate Republican’ to appreciate what Watson is about here. It’d be wrong to suggest that there really was such a thing as a moderate Republican.
For a real, though partial, take on the Guiliani speech I thought Powerline did very well.
If you’re going to talk about a moderate Republican, you have to say first of all how weird and extreme the unmoderate ones are. For that we can turn to Michael Buchanan, who gives some helpful hints:
‘The written platform of the party remains solidly conservative, but the moderates have been on display during the convention. Some moderates, such as the gay Log Cabin Republicans, have spoken out against positions against same-sex marriage and gays in the military.’
On the subject of ‘bashing’, referred to above, I am brought to reflect on the oddity of the BBC’s notion of impartiality (which is not impartially applied, I ought to add). It seems that because Bush-bashing, involving Bush-Hitler type mudslinging, undeniably exists (and has for ages), the anti-Kerry stuff must be de facto ‘bashing’ Kerry. The fact that most Bush-bashing has been for years been practically worthy of an asylum, but criticism of Kerry is relatively recent and based in undeniable facts about his voting record- and his boasting record- seems to go over the BBC’s head.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3616868.stm
Killing & hostage taking in S Russia.
The word terrorist does not appear in the article.
How vile must the action of these “gunmen”, “fighters” & “gangmembers” get before they are recognised as terrorists?
I though they did a reasonable job – inasmuch as they have done so much to let us build absolutely NO expectations. I was with the Protest Warriors (follow the link), and at least they put us on the World Service yelling ‘4 more years… 4 more years…”
We were nearly killed by peaceniks, but it was a good day all in all.
Good for you Joe- yeah, low expectations sometimes makes me grateful for what Auntie provides too.
She might want to take the lemon out of her mouth and visit: http://www.communistsforkerry.com/
I don’t know how much of it is really bashing. Reading the entry I was reminded of a Harry Truman quote: “I don’t give ’em hell. I just tell the truth on ’em, and they think it’s hell.”
Perhaps they’re not bashing Kerry but teling the truth and it looks like bashing.
There’s more in that article that Rob posted: “The attack comes amid heightened security in Russia after a suspected suicide bombing in Moscow on Tuesday night and the mid-air explosions of two passenger planes last week.” The aircraft explosions are not a mystery, though it seems mysterious to the Beeb. As to the “suspected suicide bombing”, what does it take to convince them that it was indeed a suicide bombing? Perhaps it was a cooking lesson gone horribly wrong. (We need an eye roll icon.)
I was going to voice wonder at who’s side the Beeb is on, but I think it’s apparent.
Whilst the BBC has previously appeared to cut Kerry a bit more slack than Bush the reporting of the Republican convention has been pretty much straight down the line. This post just looks like a desperate and hollow attempt to drum something up.
The last para just demonstrates your own ‘bias’ (or political opinion). Most people can come up with plenty of rational reasons to ‘bash’ both Bush and Kerry. That the BBC reports both bashings isn’t bias – what are they supposed to do – declare Bush the only sane choice for president?
To Stinkerr:Re: Russian Terrorism/ Air crash.
The investigation hasn’t finished yet, reporting the cause before this would be speculation. Note that the investigators have found traces of explosives, this does not automatically mean this is a “suicide bomb”.
theghostofredken
The suicide bombing was a separate incident about which there is no doubt.
Democratic Senator Miller’s speech at the convention was an attack on everything Kerry stands for and could be a defining moment in the campaign.
I can’t help feeling that had this been the other way round then the BBC would be handling it a whole lot differently
My mistake on the last one, misread StinKerr’s post.
From a non-“lefty” website:
George Bush Junior, Tuesday: “I don’t think you can win this type of war.”
George Bush Junior, Wednesday: “In this kind of war we may never sit down at a peace table but make no mistake about it, we are winning it and we will win.”
yoy,
I didn’t think that Kerry stood for anything.
Which at least makes him an improvement on Bush.
Well, ghost, my lefty friends have been calling ages for some nuance from the president, to show he knows what he’s doing etc. etc. Then he gives them some and it’s suddenly contradiction.
The second quote you give is part of GWB’s explanation of the first.
This really is nitpicking. It would be fine if you could make the case for Bush’s indecision based on irrefutable (or difficult to refute) evidence- but nitpicking a couple of interviews isn’t it.
The point about Kerry’s indecision is that the moment people are accused of nitpicking interviews (which they certainly do) they can retreat behind the Kerry voting record and say they’re just saying Kerry has form, and speculating where that form will show itself next. So, if you want to defend Kerry, pick some firmer ground and work the battle on that ground, if you can.
BTW I don’t believe it’s being partisan to say that. Democrat -leaners like Jeff Jarvis have intimated similarly.
Rich
In your world perhaps.
The BBC has totally failed to track the weaknesses in the Kerry campaign. Now they are going to have to explain aw2ay the time poll that gives Bush 52 against Kerry 41. With the current average of polls showing already showing a 5-point gap (Bush 48.3, Kerry 43.7, Nader 3.0)