Miller time at the Convention.
Naturally I’m not going to say the BBC is worse in some of its US political coverage than other media- after all, they have less at stake than the US networks. Also, today I watched an appallingly cut report on ITV that gave the only articulate lines to Michael Moore- the rest was frenzied Repugnican ‘whooping’. Furthermore, the only reason I am led to make comments about the BBC’s US coverage here is that the BBC clearly make it an important part of their output- and that makes it of concern to B-BBC.
However, and I think it’s a big ‘however’, there were two major speeches last night- Cheney and Zell Miller, Georgia Democratic Senator- and Miller’s amazing performance was cut down to two quotes in a BBC report focussing on Cheney, both ones that I had marked out as contentious from Miller’s speech (and which other media outlets have since criticised):
‘ “Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations,” Mr Miller said.”Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.” ‘
In fact Miller’s speech was an indictment of the record of the kind of Democrat who is running affairs in that party today. It included a point by point analysis of Kerry’s voting record, comparing the attitude such voting projected with a traditional Democratic attitude that underpinned the likes of Truman and Kennedy, and which assisted Reagan in strengthening the US military to face down the USSR. In other words it was a ‘why I’m a Democrat who can’t support Kerry speech’.
Naturally this was a controversial argument, but that is what conventions are about. I am relating the controversy that was in evidence last night- talking about its nature and quality- because that is what the BBC are failing to do, despite being ideally placed as apparently and self-proclaimed impartial, external observers. The points they highlight would be among my top tips for places to start in trying to refute Miller’s speech, which says a lot, I think.
Miller fares even worse in this opinion piece from John Shields (which again makes its focus the Cheney speech- which was fairly predictable fare, although effective and in keeping with conventions).
Talk about the BBC’s belief in the Right being the ‘nasty party’!
You might have thought that as a traditional Southern Democrat who gave the keynote address endorsing Bill Clinton in 1992 (takes me to point this kind of thing out, see?), and no longer seeking office, Zell Miller’s performance might have been accorded some respect. Not a chance.
According to Shields,
‘Mr Cheney and Mr Miller are the only major speakers at the convention who have no presidential ambitions of their own, so they were able to turn nasty without fear of the consequences.’
What a way to smear Miller- and inaccurate about Cheney (and what about Arnold, technically ineligible?). Why should Cheney aspire any higher than pulling the strings for GWB (if we are to believe the caricature)? Won’t it damage Cheney if ‘negativism’ rebounds against the Republicans this time ’round?
Not content with a smear job, and under-reporting Miller’s credentials, Shields then misrepresents his message (tying neatly with the quotes they latched on in their main report):
‘Mr Kerry’s respect for the United Nations was derided with loud boos’.
Beeb-brains! It wasn’t Kerry’s ‘respect’ for the UN that was on the agenda, it was his subservience to it (which, ok, is a matter of debate, except that Shields doesn’t debate, he imposes).
Then, we get this classic dismissal of a very proud record (good enough for Bill Clinton 12 years ago):
‘His political acrobatics have earned him the nickname Zig Zag Zell among Georgia Democrats.’
Hence, opines, Shields, nothing to worry about (for the Democrats).
Something tells me that Miller’s speech, condemning Kerry while proudly and carefully steering clear of Republicanism, would be very bad news indeed for Senator Kerry’s election chances if fate decreed it to be widely known and published- but then such matters of ‘fate’ are largely decreed by the big media, aren’t they?
B.T.W. Powerline’s comments demonstrate that the BBC and the New York Times have much in common in their view of US politics- and I assume we know what that means.
Also by the way, the text of Senator Zell Miller’s speech to the convention can’t be found on the BBC site (it also expired on Yahoo news). Zell’s so yesterday he’s practically out of sight.
Meanwhile, Michael Barone thought Zell was ‘electrifying‘
Zell gave ’em the truth and they thought it was hell. 😆
It’s a shame the ‘Ministry of Truth’ …er… I mean the BBC doesn’t provide a transcript, it was a stem-winder. I watched/listened to it tiwce.
Here’s a transcript: http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-wfsection+article+articleid-1439.html
“B.T.W. Powerline’s comments demonstrate that the BBC and the New York Times have much in common in their view of US politics- and I assume we know what that means.”
Actually I think the BBC may be somewhat to the left of the NY Times -if such a thing is possible! But over here nobody has to pay for the Times who doesn’t want it – unlike you poor Brits.
Oops, I didn’t follow all of your links so I didn’t realize you had already linked to a transcript. Sorry. 🙂
Even better was Miller’s put-down Chris Matthews, the MSNBC interviewer.
Miller’s dramatic keynote speech at the convention got extensive coverage in US media, mainstream as well as on the net. Typical of the BBC to largely ignore it. They just don’t seem to have the pulse of America any more. Alastair Cooke must be spinning ……
I have found that much of BBC’s coverage of the campaign is trite, biased – and VERY incomplete.
“trite,biased-and VERY incomplete”
Agree entirely.
By reporting the campaign in this way ,highlighting every bit of good news for Kerry while practically ignoring things like Miller’s speech and the Swift Boat Veterans,they are contributing to what will be a sense of astonishment in this country if Bush wins.
A Bush win-otherwise inexplicable-will then be put down to the stupidity or insularity of US voters,thus adding a bit more distance to the growing gap between British and US attitudes to the war and much else besides.
I don’t think anybody in the UK will be remotely surprised when Bush wins. The majority of people in the UK and elsewhere outside the States dislike Bush because of the perceived negative impact of his policies globally and the fact that his personality grates with a non US audience. I think most intelligent people can differentiate that from whether his policies have benefitted the US or not, which after all is what he’s elected to do.
Those who aren’t politically sophisticated enough to grasp that are those who won’t have heard of Kerry anyway, much less appraised his policies (or lack of).
“contributing to what will be a sense of astonishment in this country if Bush wins”
Like the old pre-TV days. The UK radio audience thought that Cockell was holding his own against Marciano.
Unfortunately Marciano got in 50 or 60 lucky punches.
It’s a little known fact that Marciano lost a supposedly amateur bout between his first and second pro fights, therefore his legendary undefeated record is a bit dubious.
Much like Bush’s undefeated Presidential election record.
Yes, yes, so Miller’s a democrat but in the wider scheme of things he’s a nobody (relatively speaking, I’m sure he does some fine work for the people of Georgia)compaired to Cheney. From a European perspective it makes sense from a ‘news values’ perspective that the focus was on Dick. I also wholeheartedly agree with this bloke on the impact of Miller’s speech:
“Tom Wrobleski, writer for the Staten Island Advance said that delegates who spoke with him said barring a big Bush splash Thursday night, they were still waiting for “that kind of buzz, or kind of juice, the really transcendent speech,” at the Republican confab.
People were talking about Zell Miller’s speech, but I’m not sure that’s going to endure, partly because it was so partisan. It was aimed at one guy,” he said. “No one has had that kind of edifying, national moment.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131335,00.html
Had to raise: Even better was Miller’s put-down Chris Matthews, the MSNBC interviewer..
Not sure whether you mean ‘of’ or ‘by’ here – my take on the MSNBC interview was very much that Miller went stark staring bonkers at Matthews’ reasonable questions, and then defended the revolting Michelle Malkin (yup, a true Democrat is Zell…)
Excerpts from Zell Miller’s book:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012641/posts
What Zell is angry about(and note he didn’t pause for applause, a sign that he was very much expressing his feelings), is the Democrat leadership’s Elitist attitude towards Southerners and Appalachians.
The Dems are more interested in pleasing their Feminist and NAACP masters than in their traditional working class base, which they have all but abandoned.
The BBC has not mentioned the issue of Democrat Elitism.
My grandfather and Rocky Marciano were close friends. Unlike leftists, Rocky knew well enough to quit while he was ahead. He also had a heart as big as his punch, by the way…
Found! The one man who thought Miller was put down by Matthews
Great analysis john b
As a matter of interest, do you think Malkin is more or less revolting than Stalin?
johnb
The web was alive with stories of Chris matthews being deflated by Miller – because Miller wouldn’t let him keep interrupting. Didn’t you hear the crowd in the street cheering Miller on ?
The blinkers you clearly wear are more obvious on this one than usual.
For several days now, lots on the web and in parts of the mainstream media have been discussing the possible/likely implosion of the Kerry campaign. Even traditionally Dem newspapers have discussed it. But NOT the BBC. They take the Michael Moore line that Bush is bad therefore he must be losing.
So how are they going to exp-lain away the Time poll that gives Bush a double-digit lead ? A poll taken mostly BEFORE the last 2 days of the Rep convention. Did James Naughtie warn us ? More to the point – did any of the many BBC researchers warn him ? How come we knew BEFORE the BBC knew ? They tax us to tell us the news – but then fail to keep abreast of the news.
If you want to judge for yourself here’s a link that gives part of Zell’s interview with Mathews:
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/
Scroll down)
Mathews tries to put words in Zell’s mouth, like he did with Michelle Malkin, but Zell isn’t having any of it.
I’ll look for another one that gives a longer version. Anyway, in my opinion, Zell tamed Mathews by the end of that interview.
Stinkerr
Click ‘Homepage’ on my last comment for the full interview.
Thanks yoy.
The Senator was awesomely cool for a man his age. I was so impressed he didn’t say ‘now look young man…’ and instead he was on his toes the whole interview. I’d read the transcript but I didn’t realise how well controlled and channelled his anger was.
Thanks, yoy, I didn’t realize you had posted the link that way.