You have to admire the BBC’s devotion to Obama. Following the media firestorm ignited by the comments of Obama’s long standing spiritual guru, the Reverend “God damn America” Wright, the Senator has been forced into make further statements on his relationship with this raving bigot. Obama has desperately tried to dampen this down but has so far only succeeded in raising more questions. However the BBC drools over his speech with such comments as “It was a broad – some would say brave – point” and “it may have been too nuanced”. Best of all is the pay-off line “The Illinois senator is often accused of avoiding tough decisions; of skipping important votes. On this occasion, though, he did the presidential thing.” Pass the sick bucket! Obama has been forced into making these dissembling explanations. The idea that it is “Presidential” to damn America’s past may fit in with the endemic anti-Americanism motif that runs through the BBC, but were this a Republican candidate, does anyone think the BBC would be quite so charitable, quite so effusive in its desire to understand,? I don’t think so for a moment. The BBC is infatuated with the idea of a having a black left wing American President, (Although I can remember the BBC playing along with the idea that Bill Clinton was the first, wasn’t he?) and THAT is why it provides such gushing coverage of Obama’s shame.
“I don’t think inappropriate pro-Obama editorial comment should really be used to balance facts that happen to reflect badly on him. I don’t think that’s what people mean by balance.”
I never said it was an impartial, well-written or even-handed article. I said it was anyone’s guess if it was biased for or against Obama.
Incidentally, a less odd way of looking at the juxtaposition of the picture and its caption is that the picture has been given a caption that works to counteract it. After all, it’s the caption that accompanies the picture, not the other way around.
Inconsistent whichever way you look at it.
Alex:
“I never said it was an impartial, well-written or even-handed article. I said it was anyone’s guess if it was biased for or against Obama.”
Do you really not see a problem with that paragraph?
Alex | Homepage | 20.03.08 – 1:00 pm |
Depends how you feel about the white working classes. I think Obama’s general feeling is that he needs their votes.
No, it depends on how the BBC feels about the white, working class. Justin and Matt, to name just two, have made their opinions of American white working class people on their blogs, and in their reports. It’s very clear what we’re meant to think.
Yewhat? This is a quote in your book? You might as well say “This comes from the BBC website, therefore all of it is a quote from hardcore Obama supporters”.
You said it, not me.
He says it’s ‘presidential’. Obama is a presidential candidate and attempting to react like a president. This is neutral language, at best reflecting an optimistic strategy. If I can remind you, the “presidential thing” for the past sixteen years has been lie about what you did with your intern and kick out misbehaving White House advisers by the bucketload.
This is just false. When you turn a noun into an adjective, it modifies its subject according to the meaning of the original noun. It is a descriptive term, and most certainly not neutral. Giving someone a “Lewinsky” doesn’t mean that “Lewinsky” is a neutral term, either. It refers to a specific act, done by a specific person. Your defense of a similar use of “Presidential” is misguided and based on false logic.
“And showing us a white person from Allentown who was turned off by Wright’s remarks is yet another of the BBC’s favorite moves: United Statesians are too racist to elect him.”
Where does it mention that she was white?
In the part just before they bring her up when they say that Pennsylvania is mostly white, and that white people might get turned off by Wright’s speeches. If you are trying to say that there is no reason to expect that the woman is white, I seriously question your ability to think critically. You cannot possibly believe that it does not logically follow that they’re going to get a quote from a white person to support their point. It would make no sense whatsoever to say that Pennsylvania is mostly white, white people might get turned off by Wright’s screeds, and then interview a non-white person as a follow-up opinion on how Wright’s screeds would affect her support for Obama. That is ridiculous on its face, and I will not accept that an intelligent, rational person can think otherwise. You are letting your reflexive attack mode get the better of your judgment.
Can you give me any reason why you think there is a real possibility that the woman wasn’t white, other than pure contrarianism?
There might well be some bias in this article, but whether it is pro-Obama or anti-Obama is beyond me.
Alex | Homepage | 20.03.08 – 2:09 pm | #
Yes Alex I think we all realised that you were unable to identify when bias when you were young and angry.
And most of us come here because we’re sick to the back teeth of bias on the BBC. And yet what we get is your patronising incessant pish that shows you aren’t even fit to critique Nicky Campbell.
Look, I’ve read a few of your posts that have been excellent – because they are based around facts and you clearly have some skill at analysing. But this is another example where you’ve strayed off the reservation, had your inaccuracies pointed out to you, and then in typically ironic fashion behave as bullish and egotistical as the very organisation we are all here to criticise.
That’s not patronising David. That’s pointing out that you clearly aren’t capable of behaving honestly on a more adult blog like this one.
Mr Bungle,
Strayed off the reservation? Maybe you didn’t get the memo, I don’t accept any reservations. Try harder.
What? Have you been on the sauce?
Mr. and Mrs. Obama have proven themselves to be reverse racists with enormous chips on their shoulders.
As has been pointed out, if they were white Republicans the BBC would be tearing into them mercilessly. The BBC is biased to the hilt.
The Rev Wright is clearly revealed as a ranter and hater of the first order. How could any reasonable person attend such a church for twenty years and not express disapproval- till now. Yet someone who did just that is attempting to be president. I don’t think the BBC have picked up adequately on this so far.
Play Fair: you just don’t get it. Saint Obama “sat in the church for 20 years, but did not inhale”
š
Yeah, and the heady atmosphere of anti-white bigotry therefore did not affect him in the slightest. He was actually there as a silent, one-man protest against people who do inhale.
So here we have a black couple who have made it good in a mostly-white environment in what is probably the most non-racist country in the world still steeped in the blame whitey and stoke white guilt attitudes.
And the BBC thinks Obama’s mealy-mouthed
“explanation” for his racism is “presidential?”
Dunno what’ll happen if this guy becomes president of the greatest country on the planet. We’ll probably be in deep fertiliser.
Better than Hilary, though, surely? I mean, whatever else you can say about him, he’s not Hilary. Not being Hilary is something I admire in any politician.
Better the devil we know….
Better no devil, you know.
Melanie Phillips has this:
” The candidate, his pastor and Hamas ”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/568116/the-candidate-his-pastor-and-hamas.thtml
“– I never said it was an impartial, well-written or even-handed article. I said it was anyone’s guess if it was biased for or against Obama.
– Do you really not see a problem with that paragraph?”
Not really. The article doesn’t have a particularly neutral tone, but it does not show any political leaning more than any other.
“In the part just before they bring her up when they say that Pennsylvania is mostly white, and that white people might get turned off by Wright’s speeches…You cannot possibly believe that it does not logically follow that they’re going to get a quote from a white person to support their point.”
I am assuming that she was white, yes, as the BBC implied that it was the white vote that was being compromised. But what part of the article focused on this woman’s race, or portrayed her in any kind of negative light? If it wanted to show that white people are ghastly racists and hate Obama for having the wrong skin, surely they would have picked someone who didn’t initially support him? If they wanted to show that he was losing votes, they would pick a voter who previously supported him but is no longer sure. So what makes you think this article is insulting the woman or emphasising her race?
Alex:”- I never said it was an impartial, well-written or even-handed article. I said it was anyone’s guess if it was biased for or against Obama.
Alex, what do you think bias means? If it’s impossible to say what the journalists view on Obama is, how can it possibly be biased?
Well that’s sort of my point. There are parts of the article that are biased one way, parts biased another. Overall it did very badly in avoiding bias, but the article itself is not biased.
David “The Fury” Vance skipped over the anti-Obama bits and found a “gushing” article.
Yes, the parts that are “biased” against him are the facts (he’s got a close relationship with someone who seems fairly racist and it might hurt him in the polls). That parts that are biased for him are the editorial comment (he acted presidentially; only those who are not sophisticated enough to understand his argument would fail to be persuaded by his excuses).
And in other news today, terrorists crashed two planes into the twin towers today killing thousands of innocent people. They probably had good reason to do so.
There we go – no telling which way that’s biased.
“He also snuck in an admission that he had – contrary to what he had earlier implied – been present when Reverend Wright gave some of his controversial sermons.”
Note the use of the deceitful, cunning word word, ‘snuck’. He didn’t ‘admit’ or ‘come clean’. He ‘snuck in an admission’.
And among those ‘facts’ that are biased is the one, sole quote from a disillusioned supporter. What ‘facts’ haven’t been reported? Hear from anybody that this “presidential” speech won over? Thought not.
Better no devil, you know.
David Vance | Homepage | 21.03.08 – 9:45 am
True. Helluvah choice America has, though. McCain, who acts more like a Democrat than a Republican against either Obama or Clinton.
“The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud”
(Charles Krauthammer)
An excellent critique of Obama and his use of 1.) ‘moral equivalence’, and 2.)’white guilt’.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017.html?hpid=opinionsbox1