Hannah Bayman, a BBC journalist, well known to longstanding BBBC readers, has her own blog at bayman.blogspot.com. Hannah’s posts are usually quite banal, but yesterday’s post, reproduced here in full, offers an interesting glimpse into the thoughts and objectivity of a doubtless up and coming BBC journalist:
Only hours to go before the Land of the Free starts to vote and I already have butterflies in my stomach.
My mother emigrated from the US to Britain in 1966 when she was 21, after falling in love with Harold Wilson and The Beatles. My brother and I are both joint passport holders and the three of us registered to vote for the first time especially for this election.
I registered at my uncle’s house in Philadelphia, PA, and have since found out that Pennyslvania is one of the key three swing states, with Ohio and Florida.
But who knows if the vote I posted for Kerry and Edwards last week will even be counted.
Another close family member has voted for Nader. With most polls I’ve seen so far putting Bush 49%, Kerry 48% and Nader at 1%, I’m struggling to see this as anything but a vote for Bush.
Yeah, yeah, Kerry and Bush are both baddies if you’re a left-wing purist, but they are the only two horses in the race.
There is only one question in this election: do you want Bush in or out of the White House?
Let’s hope the US chooses a candidate who stands for international relationships, abortion rights, medical research, secular values and taxes on the richest…
…instead of a warmongering, oil-grubbing, vote-rigging, drink-driving – haven’t you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? – weapons-of-mass-destruction-buying, Kyoto-smashing, bible-bashing, chimp.
Fingers crossed polling is fair as possible. If, as predicted, there is not enough time for everyone to vote in some precincts, or many find themselves wrongly barred from voting lists, there could be serious unrest.
So who are you rooting for? Or if you have a vote, which way is it going?
I wonder how typical Hannah’s opinion of George Bush (“a warmongering, oil-grubbing, vote-rigging, drink-driving – haven’t you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? – weapons-of-mass-destruction-buying, Kyoto-smashing, bible-bashing, chimp”) is among BBC journalists? And given Hannah’s opinion of Bush, is it appropriate for her (or anyone with similar views) to report on anything to do with Bush or matters relating to the US or US policy without at least declaring their opinion up front? Can one hold such strong views and yet remain impartial and objective?
Moreover, given that Hannah was born (if I recall correctly from her past comments here), brought up and educated in Britain and continues to live and pay taxes here, it surprises me that she feels it appropriate to cast a vote in the US election, even if it is legal for her to do so under US law (if the situation were reversed I don’t think she could legally vote in the UK) – and I doubt very much that Hannah will desist from voting in the next UK general election either.
Remember, to paraphrase Rageh Omaar, it’s not your BBC, it’s their BBC!
Update: A couple of excerpts from Hannah’s follow-up posts, first, this charming effort:
So it is all about Ohio, the third of the swing states. NBC and Fox have already called Ohio for the chimp, but I think I will wait for my colleagues at BBC News Online (remember Fahrenheit 9/11).
Ah yes, better to wait for a reliable news outlet Hannah. And the tear-jerking:
I was woken first thing by two pessimistic texts from a colleague working the early shift at BBC Telly Centre, saying it would take a miracle for a Kerry victory
Oh to have a fly-on-the-wall webcam inside the BBC’s Newsrooms this morning!
P.S. While we’re on the subject of leftie journalists, if you will indulge me a little, congratulations must go to The Guardian for their splendid Operation Clark County – in 2000, according to The Grauniad, the good people of Clark County voted for Al Gore by a margin of 1% (~324 votes). Following the combined letter-writing efforts of Guardian readers I’m pleased to report that Clark County voted for Bush this time, by a margin of 2.4% (1,622 votes, by my reckoning). To paraphrase another newspaper in another election, it was The Guardian wot won it!
It’s cute to think that Michael Moore’s excesses probably lost the election for the dems.
And that the Guardian’s crass intervention possibly swung the balance against Kerry in Ohio.
And George Soros just lost an awful lot of money.
Nice one Swiftees !!!
Redken: “Are you suggesting its all lies?” (wrt lack of references on websites).
Well redken, are you suggesting that it’s all true?
Susan: Look, I find religious intolerance distasteful wherever it originates from. You may not feel like I’ve convinced you, fair enough. But the arguments you’ve put forward to counteract could be levelled at virtually any non-secular society. Is the M.E. as socially tolerant as the West? No and wouldn’t say that, but neither is Africa (mostly), neither is Asia (in certain areas). Do these people contribute nothing to world? Of course not! I don’t think you single out any country/race and say it’s contributed nothing to world, even if some countries have contributed more than others.
ps. I’ve just thought of something… Saudi A. is one biggest foreign investors in the US (if not the biggest), I’m sure there would be substantial deficit in the US economy if this wasn’t the case. And, before you say ‘oil money’, Saudi is home to some the of worlds biggest construction companies.
pps. John: Where do you think Persia is?
“pps. John: Where do you think Persia is?”
GORK: read what John said:
“The Arabs did NOT invent Maths. They synthsised stuff already developed in Persia…”
Persia is not an Arab country. Arabs are a minority in that nation. And furthermore, Persian mathematical advances predate the Prophet Mohammed.
Persia was an ancient civilisation. Equates geographically with modern-day Iran.
That civilisation contributed far more to maths and medicine etc than the Arabs.
“They synthsised stuff already developed in Persia…”
Whether this is true or not, John didn’t say ‘Kurds in Persia’.
Google “Arab mathematicians” and see what you get. I got 13,800 hits, so I’m sure you’ll find something with the sufficient references to quell your objections.
If you want to play those games I googled “Arab intolerance” and got 78,800 hits
The point of all this is that the smarmy, perma-tanned, presenter of brain-dead TV shows Kilroy-Silk was sacked from the Beeb for an article that neither you nor your fellow pro-Beeb trolls can effectively repudiate. Meanwhile the likes of Tom Paulin ARE seen on screen.
That is the point of all this – the BBC’s hypocrisy.
No sign of Jeremy Hardy being sacked/dropped ?
Red Ken: Saudi oil was discovered by Western & American geologists, and is extracted by Western-developed technology. Get a clue. And Persians are definitely NOT Arabs. Call an Iranian/Persian an Arab and you’ll be given a rude look at best and a knuckle sandwich at worst. They are Indo-European people, not Semites. Yes, it is true the Arabs invaded Persia and left some of their spawn behind, but the Persians kicked most of their asses out after a couple of centuries and reclaimed what was left of their civilization. Did you never read Ferdowsi?
Sheesh.
“If you want to play those games I googled “Arab intolerance” and got 78,800 hits”
Well done. That wasn’t the point of what I of me bringing up the google hit, I just thought you might like to research it in your own time. But never mind, I feel like we’re going round in circles anyway.
“Kilroy-Silk was sacked from the Beeb for an article that neither you nor your fellow pro-Beeb trolls can effectively repudiate.”
I’ve tried too but I think your blinkers are on too tight.
And just because I disagree with you, doesn’t make me troll.
“I’ve tried too but I think your blinkers are on too tight.”
No, all you can produce are references to what Arabs were doing some 8 or 9 centuries ago. I consider that Mr Kilroy-Silk’s remarks have withstood your best shot since all you can do is throw ad hominems.
It doesn’t really matter whether K-S was correct or not.
What matters is — as always — the BBC’s blatant double standards when it comes to free speech as well as its approach to coverting certain religions.
Jeremy Hardy was on BBC Radio 4 again tonight. Tom Paulin is on BBC TV Newsnight nearly every Thursday still.
It doesn’t really matter if Kilroy’s sweeping generalisations and lazy prejudice contained one grain of truth or two.
The point is, he was employed by the Beeb as a talk show host, a referee between opposing viewpoints each morning.
Once his own views became the big story, he ceased to be able to do that job properly.
Trisha (not THE Trisha???),
Kilroy was able to host his talk show for xxx editions despite his former career as a LABOUR MP!
But, if he talks about the Arab world, he can no longer do shows about obesity, the paranormal, or other daytime TV drivel?
Now we know Natasha Kaplinsky’s views on Dubya, will that prevent her presenting political discussions on Breatfast TV?
What are her views on Dubya? I’m intrigued. Think she should stick to dancing rather than talking though.
“What are her views on Dubya? ”
See the above post by David 11.04.04 – 9:17 am
Or take a look at the following URL mentioned elsewhere on Biased-BBC:
http://www.stephenpollard.net/001849.html
O/T
My favourite Kaplinsky Colemanballs quote is this gem:
“We now join Caroline Wyatt at British military headquarters • who like all correspondents is not allowed to disclose her precise location or operational details. Caroline, where are you and what plans have they got for today?”
Source: http://www.military-quotes.com/Iraq.htm
Kaplinsky is truly, truly awful. She doesn’t listen to the answers when she asks people questions.
Hannah, I am a bit surprised your employers allow you to write such stuff. I work in journalism and I can assure you that I would lose my job pretty fast if I wrote my views under my own name without at least making it very clear that my opinions were my own.
“Hannah, I am a bit surprised your employers allow you to write such stuff.”
Bearing in mind who her employers are I am not surprised.
Tom, I **did** make it clear that my views were my own – they were on my own personal blog for goodness sakes! You say you are a journalist, didn’t you spot that? It couldn’t have been clearer. Nevertheless, I was naive to publish my view and took it down soon after.