What they cover, and why

When the US lower House votes on a military funding deadline (a long acknowledged and anticipated event), the BBC has no need, and I would argue, no right, to make that its headline. Yet it does.

It is internal US politicking, and given the primacy of both President and Congress, of little moment.

Meanwhile, to the right on the BBC front page is a totally pointless video entitled “Dubya Dances”. Notwithstanding the inappropriateness of using Bush’s ill-intentioned nickname, it’s simply a clip of Bush dancing at an African anti-malarial meeting. Not only does this have no purpose save to make Bush look ridiculous excerpted from context, it also demeans the seriousness of his program to help Africa with malaria (which, I should add, they do cover, in routine fashion), and would no doubt irritate many US conservatives at a time when the lefty politicians are rooting for US defeat in Iraq.

It tallies quite well with the BBC’s general desire to caricature Bush though, after the fashion of the BushHitler posterthey gave such pride of place to.

Ps. I wonder where they get their “Dubya dancing” fancies from? Not things like this, I hope?

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to What they cover, and why

  1. rightofcentre says:

    The trouble is, The BBC has become so warped and unreliable as a news source, that if the headline was:
    “The Sky is up, and rain falls down”
    I would have to go outside and check.


  2. Biodegradable says:

    … from what I saw here on Spanish tv.
    Hippiepooter | 26.04.07 – 12:06 pm

    I’m near Alicante, where are you?


  3. Andrew says:

    I’m near Alicante, where are you?

    Still banned on sight is where he is, until he’s man enough to:

    a) apologise for all his abusive postings about me over the years;

    b) acknowledges that he is on private property here and that we have the right to moderate posting as we see fit.

    It was his unwelcome posts that caused your own access to be inadvertantly blocked for a time.


  4. David Preiser says:

    IMHO, the headline is okay. Naturally, the BBC minions are hoping against hope that the Dems will succed in surrendering to barbarism, so they use scare quotes to make sure the reader understands that any criticism of the vote is suspect. But this is all to be expected, really. Of course if the US surrenders the BBC will have won its own war.

    What’s worse is the ‘Dubya Dance’ video – the kind of thing shown only on the usual anti-Bush sites run by American moonbats. There is no reason for that video to be posted anywhere on a supposedly serious news site. One can only assume that this clip is given prominence over three actual news clips of real international importance for the most childish of reasons.

    An equally grave error in judgment by BBC editors is the title for the video/audio link currently attached to a clip about the vote itself. The title reads: “US votes for Iraq deadline”, which is an outright lie. The US House of Representatives voted, rather narrowly, to surrender to the various cavemen causing trouble in Iraq. As this bears no resemblance whatsoever to a national referendum or plebicite on the war, the title as it currently stands is a lie. One could say that the headline was shortened due to space constraints, but “US House votes for Iraq deadline” would still fit, as would “US Reps vote….”.


  5. Biodegradable says:

    Still banned on sight is where he is… It was his unwelcome posts that caused your own access to be inadvertantly blocked for a time.
    Andrew | Homepage | 26.04.07 – 1:33 pm

    Thanks for that Andrew, I wasn’t aware of all that. Please don’t give him my email address in that case 😉


  6. Michael says:

    It appears the BBC just cannot control its bias. Last night, they referred to George Bush having to deal with a “Democratically Elected” Congress and House of Representatives. I thought in my innocence that in the US they had always had elected politicians, apparently not…


  7. Oscar says:

    On the subject of the Dubya dance clip – I just happened to catch the end of ‘Newsround’ yesterday (not something I make a habit of) and was amazed at the sheer anti American indoctrination they indulged in. The clip of Bush dancing (which beeboids find so funny it was featured again on today’s Daily Politics) was followed by clips of Bush opening the wrong door (it turned out to be a cupboard – remember that one?) in I think Japan, followed by images of him with a voiceover cataloguing his other mistakes which included choking on a pretzel and some incident where he apparently dropped a dog. (they’d really done their research to get together this exercise in jeering). The carefully edited piece then ended with the statement (and I paraphrase) – ‘Well at least Bush won’t be in power forever. Soon he’ll have to step down as President and then he may take up his true vocation as a comedian.”

    So girls and boys – that’s your anti-American lesson for today. Vile.


  8. David Preiser says:

    Michael said,

    “Last night, they referred to George Bush having to deal with a “Democratically Elected” Congress and House of Representatives. I thought in my innocence that in the US they had always had elected politicians, apparently not…”

    Too right. Of course, the implication is that Bush was not. Alternatively (or more likely, in addtion), they are trying to present the inevitable veto by the President – something he is Constitutionally permitted to do as part of the fundamental structure of the US government – is a de facto act against “the will of the American people”. Something done by every President throughout US history is now being presented to the British public – most of whom will not be well-versed in the workings of the US government – as something it is not.

    I cannot see any legitimate reason to use the term “democratically elected”. The comrades at the BBC are drinking the American Left Kool-Aid again. More pork pies vomited upon those who are forced to pay for it.


  9. Jack Hughes says:

    Newsround is at the extreme end of the spectrum of BBC bias – like a lot of children’s TV.


  10. Joe says:

    This is possibly THE most ridiculous accusation of bias I’ve seen yet. This is a joke right?
    The ‘Dubya Dancing’ clip is funny! It was covered by most broadcasters in the UK. Its funny to see world leaders behaving like that, just as there have been lots of showings of that Yeltsin clip where he conducts the orchestra or gropes the secretary. To suggest this is done to ridicule Bush is nonsense. I, like most on this planet am not a huge fan of Bush, but I actually think these kind of clips make politicians seem more human and shows them in a different light. As a viewer you come to your own conclusions.
    As for the suggestion that it is biased to cover the House of Representatives vote – well, thats pathetic.


  11. Anonymous says:

    “As for the suggestion that it is biased to cover the House of Representatives vote”

    No one was objecting to it being covered. The post objected to it being the headline.


  12. Oscar says:

    Joe – I know your reasoning powers are limited – but you have totally missed the point. Why was a clip of Dubya dancing – which could have been presented as a bit of fun, I agree, on Newsround – turned into a fullscale attack on President Bush, complete with a full archive of supposed ‘mistakes’ and rounded up with an overtly snide statement that he should be a comedian. That is not ‘a bit of fun’ – that is propaganda. Derision is in fact a great propaganda tool. Bear in mind one of the most undermining attacks on Hitler by the Brits was derision.

    Newsround should have highlighted the US contribution to stamping out malaria in Africa and maybe finished with a spot of Dubya dancing – which showed that he was a sport and happy to join in. The attempt to use it as a platform for a sneering exercise in smearing him was a pure case of anti-American/anti-Bush bias.


  13. David Preiser says:


    It’s all about context, isn’t it? Leading with that video on a serious front page, not far from a misleading headline and an article which implies that the US Congress is democratically elected while the President was not (creating a bogus context in which to portray the inevitable veto), is different than posting it in a section of lighter news. Show that video on another page, alongside a funny animal and other lighter news items, and we all have a laugh.