Ceefax, page 125 3/4 says (emphasis added):
The Senate seat in Connecticut went to Joe Lieberman who stood as an independent on an anti-war platform after losing the Democratic primary.
Wrong. Ned Lamont won in the Democratic primary because Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war was unpopular with the committed Democratic voters who make up the constituency for a Democratic primary. However with voters as a whole, the pro-war Lieberman was much more popular which is why even running as an independent he was able to defeat the official Democratic Party candidate, Lamont.
UPDATE: Ah, I see the equivalent story on the website has half a clue:
The Senate seat in Connecticut has gone to Joe Lieberman, who stood as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont amid strong anti-war feeling. He has said he will align himself with the Democrats.
“Amid strong anti-war feeling”: what a masterpiece of ambiguity. This does better than the Ceefax story in that it is not flat-out wrong. However a reader who did not already know the story would have to work very hard to deduce that Lamont was the anti-war one and Lieberman the pro-war one.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Ceefax now has a longer and more accurate explanation. However commenter “pounce” preserved an image of the original.
Last night and this morning were obviously good ones for the BBC as they bathed in a glow of a Democratic victory in contrast to the funereal atmosphere, particularly on the “Today” programme, of 2 years ago as it became clear that the US electorate had returned Bush to power for four more years. I am sure that they can also feel justified in their expenditure on and coverage of elections that most people in this country feel are peripheral at best and irrelevant at worse. I notice also that a contributor to the C4 blogsite has asked whether flying Jon Snow over to Washington conflicts with their global warming agenda – the response is very weak and unconvincing but at least they didn’t deny they had an agenda:
http://www.channel4.com/apps26/blogs/page/newsroom?entry=did_we_really_have_to
However the coverage by the BBC & MSM contrasts with the last time the US Congress changed hands in 1994 when there was a Democratic President in the White House and there was a bigger swing against the incumbent party despite the fact that the US was not engaged in any foreign war. It was presented as a “hissy fit” and “temper tantrum” by the American electorate who didn’t know what was good for them (before the elections Mrs Clinton, the newly-dubbed “President-in-waiting” after her success in the present campaign, had had to withdraw her health care proposals due to lack of public support). It may be too long ago but it would be interesting to compare and contrast the BBC’s coverage of the two elections.
And there is me thinking that I had become Winston Smith in a world were black is white and Saddam was a humane ruler.
I’m therefore glad that people are starting to realise that we’ve been fed horse manure.
So for my first contribution to this blog I would like to pose a question to Mr Reith.
What happens if let say tommorow that a Sarin gas attack takes place in say for arguments sake Baghdad.
How on earth is the BBC going to spin the “fact” about WMD “not being in Iraq”.
Now before you launch into the parrotted “there isn’t WMD in Iraq” or “illegal invasion”,”dodgy documents”,”poddle Blair” et al I’ll let you into a tiny little secret.
I’ve actually read ISG report and subsequent additions FULLY (as required if you have a passing interest in military and political affairs)-and you and I know that the “headline” isn’t really what the Survey said.
Human experiments,labs found without the UN knowing about them,”looted” labs,half a paper trail, “old” stockpiles turning up everywhere.
Worrying isn’t it?
And just to help you a little further Mr Reith- I actually worked for a major media company (were I recieved tellphone calls from “researchers” from the Beeb) and to say “cherrypicking” of facts would be an understatement.
Even more worrying huh?
In fact I would suggest that the editorial line comes directly from Seymour Hersh’s “Chain of Command” with it’s many “unnamed sources”.
You see Mr Reith I’m not suffering from “election fever”, nor am I a rabid Daily Mail reader (I’m even left of centre),but I do not like being spun a load of rubbish.
Especially on a subject that will dominate international affairs for years to come.
Of course like all Mcworlds press,as long as there is discourse (as seen in this election) then the viewing figures rise,never mind the implications on what the Beeb prints.
In the end of the day all this “electioneering” with all the “facts” presented to us, when the sh*t hits the fan and a terrorist attack does take place using NBCR weapons, people WILL be demanding answers…..
And I shall be pointing them in the direction of Broadcasting House.
I don’t know how to tip off Natalie, but take a look at this BBC article “Bush Diminished as a World Leader” by Paul Reynolds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6129350.stm
containing an odd disconnected paraphrased quote of Oscar Wilde. I am well aware how sound bites such as these are tempting targets for BBC “journalist” plagerists. So of course I googled it. Sure enough, I found the Wilde quote in its original form (but used in the same Anti-Bush context) in a multi-country wire story by a journalist named Gwynne. It ran a week or so ago. Ok, what are the odds? Heh.
“As another example, my Dem voting buddy in Seattle (no not Bill Gates!) thinks they were also concentrating on the wrong things such as the Iraq War. If they really DO start pushing for early withdrawal or cut and run as it has been termed then they will discover just how many Dems and floating voters actually do think that the US needs to stay the course and will vote accordingly. Indeed may of the Dems elected are what they call ‘Blue Dog’ Dems in that they support some Republican/bipartisan policies so Bush might actually find it easier to get some policies through!”
I love you Dave t, you are really cheering me up! I must remember the frothing mouth get-Bushies are not the entire Democratic party even if they do dominate.
Steve E. and Richard (and Heron)
Steve E:
“Which actually makes my point about the bias inherent in the BBC (and obviously, yourself) because the quote “among voters who said terrorism is “extremely important” to their vote the Republicans held only a 53-46 percent advantage” appears nowhere.”
I actually cited Fox showing that uneven split in my last post and have linked to 2 stories spelling out the republican advantage. To see why it certainly doesn’t support your case read on:
In a variety of exit polls voters were asked to identify the issues most important to their vote and then how they actually voted.
The pollsters were then able to number-crunch and find out which issues split which way and by how much.
That tells us which issues were decisive in terms of securing the result and which were not.
According to AP 70% of all voters cited terrorism. They split 50-50.
If AP is right, the outcome was NOT decided by this issue. It was electorally ‘neutral’ in its effect.
To claim that ‘the Democrats won because of terrorism’ would be plain wrong .
Fox says that in its poll only 39% cited terrorism as a key issue in deciding whom to support.
What’s more Fox says that this group (39% strong) did not split evenly. It split in the Republicans’ favour. In fact, the Republicans scored a seven point advantage on this issue.
So concern about terrorism may well explain why Republicans HELD some seats (if Fox is right) but it doesn’t explain why Democrats won seats.
So when BBC correspondents were asked to explain DEMOCRAT GAINS they were correct to focus on Iraq/Bush (as Fox did). Why? Because these issues were cited by a majority of voters AND the votes split in the Democrats’ favour.
Does the war alone explain the result?
Probably not. According to the AP figures other issues had to come into play. Fox says – “56 percent disapprove of the war in Iraq, and those voters overwhelmingly favored the Democratic candidate……”
So which issues look as if they may have impacted the result? The big ones where the Democrats won the split.
Fox says corruption was cited by 41% but split in favour of the Democrats in a proportion of 60 – 38. Certainly a runner then.
Fox says: ‘Economy voters favored the Democrats by 20 percentage points’ (but it doesn’t say how many voters cited the economy). Looks a probable.
But Fox -homes in on 2 biggies that incontrovertibly affected the outcome: Bush and the war – saying that ‘that Iraq war voters backed the Democrats by over 20 points.’
When the BBC said the same thing you accused it of mendacious spin.
It wasn’t. It was accurate.
NB Heron – the Washington Post item I linked to was on the Washington Post website, but the Analysis was written by an AP staffer – it was their poll. So I think you can set aside your suspicion of the WP editorial stance.
Keith Thomas
You’re picking an argument with the wrong person.
Before the liberation of Iraq I thought there was plenty of WMD to be found there (though not missiles capable of reaching Cyprus).
I was surprised that so little ( not ‘none’ note) was discovered. It didn’t affect my personal view that expedition was worthwhile. I had always argued privately for regime change on its own merits – particularly the Kurdish merit.
I still worry they hid some WMD somewhere and it may get into the hands of terrorists.
The BBC has no corporate editorial line on this – or anything else. And it certainly doesn’t take dictation from Seymour Hersh.
You appear to be writing in green ink, so I’ll leave it there.
US elections – HA HA HA HA HA.
Goodbye Bush, goodbye Rumsfeld, goodbye neo-Cons, you have been a disaster and your time is up!
No go away, put your own house in order and stop criticising the BBC for accuratley and steadfastly highlighting your failings.
Mr John Reith wrote;
Before the liberation of Iraq I thought there was plenty of WMD to be found there (though not missiles capable of reaching Cyprus).
Actually the main reason why military personal based in Cyprus during 1991 got the Gulf war medal was simply because Iraq could have hit UK military bases there if she had wanted to.
Before you ask I didn’t get to Cyprus until 1994
“The most likely explanation is that the person who keys stuff into Ceefax typed ‘anti-war’ when he/she meant to write ‘pro-war’.”
Thanks J.R for the biggest laugh I’ve had today. Please keep them coming …your comments are an invaluable source of humour in these testing times.
C4 news – in fairness – just highlighted the fact that many of the “Democrats” that were electeed are actually conservative. They highlighted the Missouri rep who was more “right wing” than her Republican opponent.
I breath easier.
channel4.
I found the sight of jon snow slagging off Donald Rumsfeld rather sickening.
As has been pointed out before on this site, js failed his A levels and didn’t complete his degree course.
Contrast this with DR, who was a US Navy jet pilot and instructor, the youngest Defence Secretary and a successful industrialist who is clearly several notches higher in IQ than the inarticulate jon (well I mean) snow.
And that insubstantial, similarly inarticulate squirt jonathan rugman had a go too.
A giant being criticised by pygmies.
I found the sight of jon snow slagging off Donald Rumsfeld rather sickening.
I saw that. I agree with you, sickening.
@terry johnson
It’s the humour on this site that makes this place priceless. Why can’t people on the right be funny? It’s like the forced laughter of a thousand braying Tory MP’s after John Major cracked a “joke”
We know that the BBC drives the language and we know the BBC De-Branded the Conservative Party.Know we know the internet is being brought under regulation there’s no escape.So it looks like the only alternative is to expose the BBC for the wide open to abuse monolith that it is.
It’s far too soon to leap to conclusions about the vote.
Exit polls are at best raw material not holy writ. By the time the variables that affect the ‘findings — time, place, tone, integrity among many others — have been filtered through biased MSM and party hacks, the sausage that emerges is nearly worthless (e.g., the Gore and Florida/national exit poll ‘predictions’ in 2000, or Reith’s ramblings on this thread).
The ritual is familiar and tedious. Pundits on deadline pose and cherry-pick the data then toss in a pinch or two of self-aggrandizing hunches/gut feelings/’my personal opinion’ remarks…and then it’s all forgotten within a couple of news cycles.
The exit polling and analysis that matters is the proprietary stuff done by the parties. It’s expensive, time consuming, highly secret and way above the BBC’s pay grade.
You and I won’t get to read it.
The turnout figures are rather more instructive.
Anon 1042.
Funny that – I always thought it was the left that were a bunch of humourless Nanny state goons who want us to eat our greens, give money to idle layabouts and not be allowed to enjoy life as it is meant to be lived….I mean come on! Ben Elton? Leftie loovie comic? Nuff said…!
PS Have you noticed how the Dems and the Beeb have suddenly stopped crying about wonky voting machines and electoral fraud? Hey if Bush stole the last two elections how come he didn’t take this one as well? Answers on a postcard please!
John Reith quotes me as saying, “Ceefax now has a longer and more accurate explanation. However commenter “pounce” preserved an image of the original” and asks, “What for I wonder? Onanistic purposes?”
Because, shocking as it may seem to you, there are people out there who would actually claim that posters or commenters to this website might be mistaken or lying. Despite the rudeness of your reference to “onanistic purposes” the fact that you could not spontaneously see any more mundane reason than sexual gratification for Pounce to make or me to display a record of the evidence is a compliment from you to us. To you, obviously, the fact that something is asserted on Biased BBC is enough to remove all doubt.
“PS Have you noticed how the Dems and the Beeb have suddenly stopped crying about wonky voting machines and electoral fraud?”
As someone who watched Spurs beat Chelsea last weekend I can confirm that an opponent’s horrendous cheating, dirty tricks and general unpleasantness is rendered unimportant by the sweetness of victory.
I’m still none the wiser about what the Democrat’s policy agenda is. In this ‘Why Democrats Won’ piece the Beeb manages to avoid even a sentence on policies that voters might have actually been enthused by. It’s entirely reasons why the Republicans are so unpopular. Presumably if you extrapolate from this, the ideal US political party would just go to the pub and avoid saying or doing anything whatsoever throughout it’s term of office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6126176.stm
An apt headline to describe the recent US election results and the reactions of the anti-US/Bush consensus would, I suggest, be •
Breaking News – “Dogs capture motorcycle”
The US electorate and the world now expect positive and successful results on •
1. US Government corruption/scandals.
2. International terrorism.
3. The US economy.
4. Iraq.
Given that the Democrats never had and still don’t have any discernable policies or plans on any of these matters ——-
I , for one, won’t be holding my breath.
A question I haven’t heard asked is what influence the BBC itself has had on the US elections.
The Corporation has been loudly trumpeting its inroads into the American media market. Many Americans will have been encouraged to visit the BBC website. Whilst in domestic politics the BBC is barred from overt party bias it’s antagonism to the Republicans and its overt endorsement of the Democrat cause has been blatant
It’s worth looking at the voting figures from across the Atlantic. Some seats have been won on remarkably small margins, notably Virginia where the majority will end up as a few thousands.
How many Americans, concerned about partisan journalism in their homeland, have sought further afield for a ‘reputable world broadcaster able to supply an unbiased perspective’?
Could it have been the BBC “what won it”?
Presumably if you extrapolate from this, the ideal US political party would just go to the pub and avoid saying or doing anything whatsoever throughout it’s term of office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…cas/ 6126176.stm
RB | 09.11.06 – 9:07 am | #
A policy similar to the one currently adopted by Call Me Dave Cameron then?
Haha – it’s been pretty successful so far.
Further to the above:
I first became aware of the BBC attempting to influence the democratic process abroad during the French presidential elections. During the campaign the National Front candidature of Jean-Marie Le Pen came under sustained villification. FN policies were never discussed except in terms of their ‘threat’. The possibility that Le Pen might actually win was treated with horror.
Whilst the French presidency is a matter for the French electorate the incumbency would have profound ramifications for France’s EU partners, particularly the UK. By backing one dog in the fight, or at least handicapping another, the BBC was effectively influencing UK domestic politics.
PJ,
I vaguely remember that in the last Presidential election the Grauniad ran a campaign in which lots of British beardies wrote Americans to instruct them not to vote for Bush. Funnily enough it went down like a lead balloon. Maybe it was the Beeb wot nearly lost it.
Cockney:
Point taken, but despite being often regarded as the BBC in print, the Graun doesn’t assume a posture of being in lofty isolation above any partisan loyalty – a bringer of truth to the world- by virtue of its unique funding arrangement.
Another thought on the recent US election results.
Observing the various anti-Republican commentators, correspondents, pundits and analysts in the biased media last night & today. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, but now that the euphoria of winning is beginning to wear off I seem to detect signs of nervous panic and uncertainty setting in as full realization begins to dawn on them.
They’ve got the ball now (or part of it) and folk’s will be expecting them to “deliver”
— soon •
the honeymoon period will be dreadfully short.
‘the honeymoon period will be dreadfully short’
Only if the MSM are half as critical as they were with the GOP.
Natalie Solent | Homepage | 09.11.06 – 8:13 am
On reflection I can see why you might want to install evidence of a typing error in your virtual trophy room.
Otherwise – as per Andrew Marr May 11th 2001 – the shelves would be entirely bare.
DennisTheMenace,
I expect it will be business as usual.
Clinton had low unemployment at 5.0% and Bush had high unemployment at 4.8%.
The DJIA has been topping records for weeks now and some strong daily rises, yet on election day, it was “Record Dow on Democrat wins” with a rather mixed days trading.
I say this with the knowledge that the American economy has problems (but not the ones on the “news”).
AntiCitizenOne : 09.11.06 – 10:31 am.
Your points are valid, however consider the following •
1. Prior to the election, Bush and the Republican government were the problem and the Democrats were the putative solution. Now they become part of the problem, no more excuses, they HAVE to deliver, collectively.
2. Now, as a part of the government and inside the ‘glasshouse’ their various media ‘pimps’ will have difficulty deploying their ‘disinformation’ blast bombs and grenades without causing significant collateral damage to their pals. Nonetheless the media’s natural instincts will make it impossible for them not to do so.
3. The likely probability is that the US electorate will now be provided with a ‘bickerfest’ of monumental proportions consisting of a ‘lame duck’ president (so we’re told) ably aided and abetted by a ‘headless chicken’ congress.
As I alluded, I foresee interesting times ahead.
very nice summary page of the election results over at the left-of-centre “talkingpointsmemo”
http://www.tpmcafe.com/race/overview
The BBC De-Branded the Conservative Party and as a result we’ve got the worst Prime Minister (greatest lier) in living memory and a Government that’s crushing parliament.Worse than a typo imo.With the improvement of computer technology it’s going to be more possible to keep an eye on broadcasts and collate for political emphasis.I had hoped the internet would have allowed the escape from the BBC but as this is no longer a likelihood it’s imperative that an extreme scrutiny of all broadcasts is maintained and especially in the months running up to an election.
I am mainly upset because Democrat Charles Rangel, who lied in the Congress forms and who went to trips in Cuba sponsored by the dictator fidel castro, is now the Chairman of the Ways and Means Comittee.
If this kind of %$@# is what the Dems are proposing, then they are just what I expected them to be.
Diana
We have a circus side show freak called Ken Livingstone (mayor of London) who has just returned from an outing to Cuba (at London taxpayers expense).
TPO-
What “peacemaker” Red Ken…..
The man who has just done a deal for cheap oil from Chavez so he can purchase the latest varient of the MiG 29, Chinese copies of the AK and other such toy’s….
And there is me under the impression that only evil “neo-cons” would sell ANYTHING for Oil…
I can’t wait to get my banner out with.
NO BLOOD FOR OIL MR LIVINGSTONE
or
NOT WITH MY OVER THE TOP COUNCIL TAX MR LIVINGSTONE.
Any other suggestions for banners people?
John Reith-
“And it certainly doesn’t take dictation from Seymour Hersh”
Pleeeese don’t insult my intelligence!!!
I can almost spot where Natasha and Sophie cribed there notes from.
I mean Hersh is afterall a “truth seeker” and with all the “Veitnam” links that the Beeb keeps telling us,naturally Hersh is the main reference point.
I mean he “exposed” Mi Lai afterall huh?
Just like the Mirror “exposed” UK soldiers “abusing” Iraqi’s in Preston.
Or Andrew “I’m not telling porkies” Gilligan claiming he spoke to a senior intelligence officer, Dr David Kelly.
.
What “peacemaker” Red Ken…..
“We don’t forget, Ken”
“Mr Livingstone has repeatedly defended the views of the Muslim cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and even invited him to City Hall to share his wisdom. Mr Livingstone has proudly hugged him in public. In doing so, the mayor shows himself to be a keen fellow traveller of a man who can be described with some precision as evil”.
More.. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-1689022,00.html
I’m getting depressed again. The columns in the paper this morning were all chanting the Democratic mantra; Iraq is a failure, get our boys home.
Like I said, they *want* a vietnam.
Keith Thomas | 09.11.06 – 5:08 pm
‘cribed there notes from.’
‘afterall’
“Veitnam”
(Better watch out KT or Natalie’ll be wanting a screengrab.)
“Pleeeese don’t insult my intelligence!!!”
?
He works for a £multi-billion organisation which filches money from lone mothers under threat (frequently implemented) of imprisonment for failure to pay, and this is the best attack he can make against contributors to this site!
Please, John Reith. Don’t insult our intelligence.
Way to go JR, supporting your arguments against BBC bias by proving to all and sundry that you are, in fact, a merchant banker.
Maybe you should be concentrating on conveying the BBC’s typo’s back to those that are paid large amounts by the public to be able to write without errors (a qualification not required for this site).
Roxana
Sheer up, thanks to the checks and balances there’s a presidential veto 🙂
Besides the Republicans hold 49 seats in the Senate.
As for the media, just ignore them, you know how they love the left.
My relief is that I live in Florida and the Republicans won here.
John Reith,
You say that it was just a typo, someone wrote anti for pro – but that does not make sense. Replacing “anti-war” with “pro-war” in that particular sentence results in a description of Lieberman’s position scarcely better than what went before. Although he supported it, the war was not the centrepiece of his platform. His opponent wanted to focus on it, he didn’t.
Nor was it a conspiracy. You always say how the least likely option is a conspiracy – however often everyone agrees with you. No conspiracy. OK.
It was something in between, something that happens every day; the political equivalent of a Freudian slip.
John Reith again,
You write, “On reflection I can see why you might want to install evidence of a typing error in your virtual trophy room.
Otherwise – as per Andrew Marr May 11th 2001 – the shelves would be entirely bare.”
In fact Andrew Marr October 21st 2006 is the one I really like polishing.
“No Newts for Chavez Nukes”?
Diana: My relief is that I live in Florida and the Republicans won here.
I’m a Floridian too, and it is indeed a joy and comfort to have a Republican administration.
Must be upsetting the Dems something awful too given the ‘Gay affair with a convict’ rumor they’ve been circulating about Crist.
According to Robert Spencer of
http://www.jihadwatch.org, :
“With the Democratic victory in the midterm elections, one big winner was the Council on American Islamic Relations ( CAIR ). The American Islamic Pressure group now has a chance to advance its agenda in numerous ways”…read it all at –
http://www.frontpagemag.com (13 Nov.)
Title: ‘CAIR’s Congress’.
I trust that the BBC will report on
Robert Spencer’s prognostication,
amid the Democrats’ celebrations,
and beyond.
Support of the Lou Zhu, Lou Zhu worked hard
Signature——————————————————————————————————————–
Nothing is impossible for a willing heart.
ugg classic cardy