This letter was recently sent to the BBC by my friend Andrew McCann and I thought it might be worth sharing with you. He has not had a reply.
FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE BBC COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT
Has the American presidential election already reached its conclusion? I have to ask since the evaporation of coverage on the BBC news since the confirmation of Barack Obama as Democrat nominee has been noted by many. The British Broadcasting Corporation was quite happy to flood news bulletins with ‘Presidential’ campaign happenings during the ‘beauty’ contest between Clinton and Obama. However, now that the BBC might just have to turn its attention to a more balanced coverage of the campaign by including Republican candidate, John McCain (remember him?), it suddenly has lost all interest.
Oh, what a beauty contest the Democrat race proved to be: both candidates filled every ‘tick-box’ on the social profiling sheet of the average Guardianista. One was a woman; the other was black. ‘Whoopee’ cried the anti-Israeli, anti-American, tree hugging news teams at the BBC. What did it matter that a potential leader of the free world should have more suitably meritocratic attributes such as intelligence, political nous, first-hand experience of America’s military engagements, an appreciation of realpolitik, and integrity? The sum total of the BBC’s analysis was preoccupied with the gender of one and the ethnicity of the other. As for the Grand Old Party, they might as well have shuffled off stage-left. The BBC, like the other Left-leaning, liberal ‘luvvies’ which dominate the European media scene, want a Democrat in the White House. Why don’t you just be honest and admit it?
I am a BBC licence payer (for my sins). I want to see a Republican returned to power in the United States. I certainly do not want to see someone whose paternal ancestry shares the same religion as the evil-doers who killed 3,000 people in New York City seven years ago: a man who is prepared to ‘combat’ the rise of evil terrorist Islamism by sitting down and having cosy little chats with some of its principal protagonists. When are my preferences going to be incorporated in the so-called impartial coverage your organisation is (dubiously) renowned for?
If and, as I expect, when John McCain is voted the 44th President of the United States will we be offered the sort of ethno-centric spite-laden coverage I expect? The sort which will feebly attempt to portray the American electorate as bunch of subliminal Alabamaesque red-necks who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for poor old Barack because he was black? I am prepared to bet money on it. For in the final analysis it is those of the Left who lionise on the basis of sociological labels, and it is those of us on the Right who prefer to view people on their genuine merits.
Yours truly
ANDREW MCCANN
Good to see that the standard of US political debate has improved since the last election.
NOW with added RANDOM capital LETTERS.
I’d be a bit ashamed to admit to being a friend of someone who wrote letters like this one!
This thread seriously stinks, now I’m off too…
Geddit? LIBTARDS because they’re liberal and also retarded oh ho ho god damn am I one wit-machine
Cockney, were you attempting to make a point or to debate?
It didn’t work. If that’s the best you’ve got, I pity you.
Wow. That letter really got up the noses of some people didn’t it.
this site is dying.
The apologists for the BBC can scream and shout as much as they want about an individuals letter. It does not alter the fact that what comes out of the BBC is consistently anti-Western, anti-British, anti-US, anti-Islraeli, anti-Christian, pro extreme liberal left wing, pro-Iranian, pro-Islamic and unashamedly appeases terrorists and their activities. That in my book makes it a biased organisation and one which I, if I had a choice that is, would not pay for.
pretty sure the opinions of this blog used to at least somewhat be given consideration by the bbc, i think i remember it being mentioned in an editors blog
of course it hasn’t bee there for quite a while (since the whole anti-islam / general seething hatefest thing really got going)
Martin
“Cassis: You say that but I pointed out on Radio 5 that a BLACK WOMAN has had one of the most senior jobs in the Bush administration for some time but the BBC ignore her success. The answer was she’s a Republican and therefore not as appealing.”
Exactly.
Some years back I hoped that she would be the next Presidential candidate – but she disappointed for all kinds of reasons – obviously not race.
However there is Bobby Jindall on the horizon.
What this blog needs is some serious stats. How often was Obama referenced compared to Billary? How often was McCain referenced? If you seriously want to fuck the BBC then you need to get ammunition not wet-dream your way through some rant. No matter how right you are a rant is a rant is a rant. Rants are just simply not enough, cathartic though they be.
Oh, BTW of course the ‘black’ man gets the BBC vote. It’s a win-win for them. If he wins it’s trebles all round. If he loses it’s ‘aren’t those damned rednecks evil’ etc.
C’mon it’s a no brainer, surely?
As to those opposed to Obama because he’s black or a mooslim twicety-third removed. FOAD! WGAS?
I think this letter, and much of the recent posting has become slightly more extreme because of our increasing desperation at the direction this country is being taken by this hopeless Labour government, supported and abetted by the tax funded BBC. A large section of the population has been marginalised and ignored by the MSM who are dominated by the liberal left and do not speak in my name. The reason this is so important is that the BBC has a legal responsibility to present my point of view. It rarely does. Instead it sides with minority viewpoints and makes it seem as they are mainstream.
Take this as an example. There are three people, X, Y and Z. Now Z has been up to no good, and X thinks Z is a terrorist. However, Y thinks Z is a freedom fighter. What does the BBC do? The BBC ignores X’s view, and instead takes Y’s view, and refuses to call Z a terrorist. This is, logically, blatant bias, and we see it everyday from the BBC, and nothing is ever done about it. Never does the BBC take X’s viewpoint and present it. The BBC’s news output is baised against X.
So we keep taking ever more extreme positions and spout ever greater hyperbole in the hope that finally someone in a position of power takes notice and acts on it.
One day change will happen. It will have to happen, as people can only be pushed so far. The liberal left won’t like it one bit, as the change will be ferocious. The BBC will have its throat sliced one day (metaphorically for the Marc Wadworth’s out there), as it rightly should.
A number of points:
1. I am not interested in whether the BBC replies to my letter or not. I admire those whose naivete leads them to believe that any sort of dissent, no matter whether it be terse or schmaltz-laden, will steer Auntie Beeb in a more impartial direction. The BBC is Left wing and will not change. Dressing up my points in a less ‘aggressive’ manner isn’t going to alter anything.
2. I find it rather laughable that people can come on to a blog, criticise a contributor for being, lets face it, open and honest with their opinions without resorting to profanity, and yet they themselves hide behind the cowardice of a nom de plume.
3. ‘Subliminal’ means ‘below the threshold of conscious perception’. In order words, the Beeb will seek to portray Americans as subconsciously racist. Get it?
4. I wasn’t suggesting some sort of direct linkage between Obama and 9/11. However, when you have a religion that is incapable of living in peace with ‘non-believers’ just about everywhere in the world; a religion that has ghettoised large areas of urban Britain due to its disgusting reluctance to integrate; and a religion that produces a significant minority (according to polls and research) that sympathise with the aims and/or methods of terrorism, I think that should make anyone in the United States very reluctant to allow anyone associated with Islam within 500 yards of the White House.
5. Had Condoleeza Rice been running for the Republicans, I would have supported her all the way. Now, how does that make me ‘racist’?
6. It is nice to know that someone like me, who prefers to tell it as I see it, still has some support amongst a general population that is either in denial, or insipid to the point of cowardice when it comes to tackling issues of our time.
the BBC can dream all they like – America is never going to vote for guy who has connections to Islam, and who’s own church is a centre of black anti-American socialism.
aint going to happen – period.
obama also associates with a former member of the communist terrorist organisation “The Weathermen”.
its not beyond the realm of possibility that the CIA are building up a rather big file for McCain to peruse through.
Defence of the realm is taken a bit more seriously across the pond.
Andrew McCann:
Your aim is true. Its a good rant. But its a bit like when the wife picks up on a minor domestic misdemeanour you have committed, fair cop, but then proceeds to unload with everything you have ever done wrong in thirty years, because “that’s the sort of person you are”.
Hi All,,
My my but didn’t Andrew’s letter stir the pot?
Here is MY point. Andrew, like every other commentator here, is welcome to his point of view. Diversity of opinion is key. The BBC does not embrace this concept – that is part of the problem. Clear?
Andrew McCann,
Obama has no association with Islam. You are incorrect to say he has a linkage that should scare us away, and doubly incorrect for your reason for making that association for him.
His very real and public associations are quite enough to put me off him, not to mention his policies and voting record.
I support your other contentions, but the Islam canard basically ruined your letter for me.
Andrew McCann lit up LIBTARDS as if they were the proverbial Christmas Tree OOOOOOPS, I mean HOLIDAY TREE.
It’s fun to watch the Nancy Party lads get indignant at twitter on in anger.
Gaping Maw, you are correct as usual my friend. Obama is close friends with 2 TERRORISTS. Actual real LIVE terrorists. I’d like to see both of them hung. Not Obama. Hanging Obama would be racist.
Andrew McCann:
I am not interested in whether the BBC replies to my letter or not.
Excellent. Protest and be ignored. Valuable slogan.
Dressing up my points in a less ‘aggressive’ manner isn’t going to alter anything.
Possibly. But dressing them up in a credible manner might do the trick.
I find it rather laughable that people can come on to a blog, criticise a contributor … without resorting to profanity…
Full marks for not swearing.
‘Subliminal’ means ‘below the threshold of conscious perception’. In order words, the Beeb will seek to portray Americans as subconsciously racist. Get it?
It still makes no sense. Try subliminally Alabamaesque rednecks.
I wasn’t suggesting some sort of direct linkage between Obama and 9/11.
Of course not. You just had to mention it. The way you did. Like anyone would.
However, when you have a religion that is incapable of living in peace with ‘non-believers’…
Not in any was hyperbolic. Not a bit.
… ghettoised large areas of urban Britain…disgusting reluctance to integrate…significant minority that sympathise with terrorism
Don’t sugar-coat it. It never works.
I think that should make anyone in the United States very reluctant to allow anyone associated with Islam within 500 yards of the White House.
Your view. But what does it have to do with the Christian Mr Obama?
Had Condoleeza Rice been running for the Republicans, I would have supported her all the way. Now, how does that make me ‘racist’?
Just, um, dim.
It is nice to know that someone like me, who prefers to tell it as I see it, still has some support amongst a general population that is either in denial, or insipid to the point of cowardice when it comes to tackling issues of our time.
Not exactly overwhelming, though.
Is it?
Cattle Prod:
Is that some sort of code?
It would be very easy to demonstrate with chapter and verse the BBC bias for Obama on, for example, Newsnight. It got to be that I knew as soon as anything about the American election came up, the first mention would be of Obama. I used to idly play a game of guessing how long it would be in any discussion before Jeremy Paxman got in a question or a comment about Obama. It was funny how predictable it became and ridiculous to see the famed BBC attack dog turn into a fawning poodle, yelping about Obama at every pull of his master’s string.
I recall an interview with David Cameron in which he was suddenly asked out of the blue a question about whether he had met Obama. He was taken aback momentarily by the question before going on to say that he had met John McCain and to talk about that. Why exactly was he asked about Obama and not about the candidates in general or about McCain?
Then there was the Newsnight announcement that the BBC would be doing a special programme about whether America could elect a black President. Why not a programme about whether a woman could be President? Or what about a man or woman over the age of 70?
The BBC has been quite open and unashamed about its obvious bias on this subject. I do believe the editor of Newsnight should be sacked from that post or from any role in coverage of political news.
Not that it is confined to Newsnight, however. The same thing has been evident on Andrew Neil’s programmes where they openly declared that they wanted Obama to win the nomination. After he was selected, AN was crowing and delighting in having acquired Obama badges.
Don’t get me started on the BBC crowd over in America and their excitability over anything to do with Obama.
I find it alarming that there are no internal controls within the BBC to prevent this sort of bias. The BBC just seems to be a law unto itself. Its journalistic standards and lack of impartiality would disgrace a first-year student.
Millie Tant,
Spot on – I agree.
Mrs Rooney,
Obama may be Christian as you allege but since his long time spiritual guide was the bigoted terrorist-apologising US-hating Rev Wright, you may be wrong.
Cassis: Oh hang on I forgot Colin Powell as well. Oh hang on a minute he was a Republican as well (well he worked for George Boosh, so that’s bad enough for the BBC)
So in Bush’s 8 years we’ve had to senior black figures, yet for some reason the BBC ignores that and spouts on about Obama. A man who has a CV shorter than Nicki Campbell’s
David Vance:
Obama may be Christian as you allege
A curious use of allege. Obama is clear about his Christian stance.
but since his long time spiritual guide was the bigoted terrorist-apologising US-hating Rev Wright, you may be wrong.
The Rev Wright is a Muslim? Has anyone told the Trinity United Church of Christ?
Ferret face. It’s possible that you are the dumbest human being in Britain. Very possible.
Please tell me one CHRISTIAN attribute that empty suit Obama has displayed.
Abortion?
Race baiting?
Sitting through 20 years of Jeremiah Wright?
Throwing friends and family under the bus?
Or is it his associations with CONVICTED FELONS and TERRORISTS that proves his assertions.
This is not a trick question dumbo.
gus:
Please tell me one CHRISTIAN attribute that empty suit Obama has displayed.
Since you embody every subtlety of the Beatitudes, we must defer to your judgement.
Blessed are the gussies. For they carry the true word about, um, abortion. And buses.
And they alone see into the hearts of Obama. And his preacher. And their – are we sure? – friends.
Amen.
In spite of all the shit being shoveled up on Obama, and the BBC’s insufferable obsession with him and his campaign, I really don’t he will live up to their socialist expectations in the event of a win:
“… the US will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel”
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3806933
He talks of a “phased redeployment” of troops in Iraq – not the same as a withdrawal and does not rule out military strikes against Iran:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302-aipac_policy_fo/index.php
He also writes of policies that “lead to a dynamic free market … entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility … we should be guided by what works.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-131
Be careful what you wish for Beeb, this guy ain’t no socialist.
i’m quite perplexed by the cognitive dissonance required to believe that obama is both a muslim, and goes to a radical christian church
Hillhunt morphs into Colin Chase who morphs into Mrs. Rooney’s Ferret.
Who’s next?
Anonymous | 24.06.08 – 11:01 pm | #
Be careful what you wish for Beeb, this guy ain’t no socialist.
The more I see of Obama the more I realize that he is just an ambitious politician, saying whatever will gain favour with his direct audience and backtracking when necessary.
Personally I prefer honest Socialists – at least they’re predictable.
Another offensive post and truly offensive remarks abour Barrack Obama from another dyed in the wool, would,nt have a fenian about the place, loyalist.So filed with hate and bile, blaming all muslims for 9/11 and conveniantly ignoring the fact that the man is a CHRISTIAN.Unfortunatly its our lot in life to have to live with/listen to these muppets here in N.I. the wider world should give them the bums rush they so clearly deserve
‘Excellent. Protest and be ignored. Valuable slogan.’
Neither of us know whether I’m going to be ignored or not. I certainly haven’t been ignored here.
‘Try subliminally Alabamaesque rednecks.’
By the way, ‘Rev.’ has a full stop after it when abbreviated like this. I can be pedantic as well.
‘Not in any was hyperbolic. Not a bit.’
No, just factual!
Don’t sugar-coat.
I prefer to call it the icing of real-life experience.
‘Just, um, dim.’
A contention that is as ludicrous as your pseudonym.
‘Not exactly overwhelming, though.’
82 responses and counting. I’d say for the average blog that is pretty overwhelming.
Andrew McCann:
By your way of thinking Ayaan Hirsi Ali would have “associations” with Islam. Her “paternal ancestry” shared the same religion as the 9/11 terrorists too. You made other good points but that was the part that spoilt the rest. What if a writer said a politician’s father was Christian or Jewish or Atheist as a reason to oppose him?
‘What if a writer said a politician’s father was Christian or Jewish or Atheist.’
I respect your opinion. But you have to realise that Islam is in a totally different league to the above.
In my opinoin Islam is the biggest threat to world peace and security since the Nazis (they hated the Jews, too!).
Not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terrorists are Muslims. Not only can they not live in peace with ‘non-believers’, they can’t even live in peace with each other.
I don’t want someone associated with that ‘religion’ in the White House, irrespective of how tenuous some people on here believe that association to be.
However, I admire the way you can disagree with me without lowering yourself by resorting to personal attacks. It is a shame others on here couldn’t do the same.
Not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terrorists are Muslims.
Even if that is true, that doesn’t make Obama a terrorist.
I think Obama’s wackery has nothing to do with his muslim past but more to do with the Marxism he’s infused with.
Mr McCann, go ahead and congratulate yourself on the level of response you’ve provoked here; but don’t forget that on a site specifically dedicated to the discussion BBC bias, a majority of the regulars (who see and despise BBC bias) think your letter was a ranting waste of time which hardly deserved the billing it was given by your friend.
Mr Vance, your perhaps slightly embarrassed pride at Mr McCann’s “stirring the pot” is one thing, but when the majority of B-BBC contributors and readers think he has gone in a direction which is counterproductive and wrong-headed, you might have to do the unthinkable and at least consider the possibility that it was a misjudgement on your part.
Too much stirring can sometimes ruin a recipe. Either this site has a purpose or it does not. To degenerate into immoderate ranting on the basis that polite complaints have achieved nothing so far is the surest way to render this site absolutely meaningless.
So are you saying, Andrew, that the religion of a person’s father should preclude them from high office?
beeboids, pure 100% unadulterated scum
Mr Vance cant help himself, Northern Irish bigots run in packs
Hey a car crash attracts a lot of people to stare at it.
‘go ahead and congratulate yourself on the level of response you’ve provoked here..’
It was an observation, not a congratulation.
‘…think your letter was a ranting waste of time which hardly deserved the billing it was given by your friend….’
They are entitled to their opinion. And I’m entitled to mine.
‘So are you saying, Andrew, that the religion of a person’s father should preclude them from high office?’
I’m saying that ANY association with Islam, whose paw-print on American socity can still be seen at Ground Zero, should automatically preclude someone from leadership of the free world.
‘Hey a car crash attracts a lot of people to stare at it.’
Wouldn’t know. I find rubbernecking a rather disgusting spectator sport.
Andrew, you say “ANY association with Islam, whose paw-print on American socity can still be seen at Ground Zero, should automatically preclude someone from leadership of the free world.”
I’m struggling to square that with the assertion in your letter that “those of us on the Right prefer to view people on their genuine merits.” Perhaps you meant, “those of us on the Right prefer to view people on their genuine merits, unless someone in their family is associated with a religion I don’t like.”
Quite simple, Sheila. I don’t regard Islam as being of ‘merit’.
His colour should not be an issue when it comes to holding high office. His Islamic connections, in the context of what has happened in the US in the name of that creed, most certainly should.
Not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terrorists are Muslims.
A newer version of not all catholics’ are terrorists, but all IRA men are catholics.
How many long wars is David Vance going to fight? A lot, it earns him notoriety, and notoriety is publicity, and publicity can be translated into cash. Does McCann want a cut?
Of course you could have added: ‘..but all IRA men are Catholics….and all those who elevate terrorists to power in NI and, thus, santise their past deeds, are also Catholics.’
I don’t do protests for the cash. I’m not interested in money.
If you don’t write letters in pursuit of a cash generating position as some sort of Happy Shopper own brand Melanie Phillips, and yet you’re not interested in getting a response from the recipient either then I’m struggling to see what the point of investing the 25 seconds that this one must’ve taken to churn out on autopilot actually was?
And what sort of person on the right isn’t interested in money? Money is great!
‘..Happy Shopper own brand Melanie Phillips’
I’d prefer to see myself as a Marks & Spencer own brand Richard Littlejohn, thanks very much.
Why do I do it? Because someone in the upper echelons of the BBC is going to know that I do not intend to become ensnared by the corporation’s political proselytisation.
’25 seconds’? ‘autopilot’? Presumptuous and erroneous at the same time. You’ve excelled yourself.
Andrew McCann:
Psychology GCSE: Test paper on cognitive dissonance in patients with a record of religious exclusivity:
The Patient, A, has committed to print a wildly unreasonable tirade against a national broadcaster, featuring unjustifiable allegations against a leading public figure. This letter is then published with approval on a weblog, where it draws a wide-ranging chorus of disapproval.
The patient responds thus: It is nice to know that someone like me, who prefers to tell it as I see it, still has some support amongst a general population .
An interlocutor suggests that this support is Not exactly overwhelming, though. Is it?
To which A responds: 82 responses and counting. I’d say for the average blog that is pretty overwhelming. The vast majority of these 82 replies criticise his letter.
1. Can you explain why the patient sees so many disapproving replies as pretty overwhelming…. support?
2. Can you suggest why a blog which seeks to expose bias in a large public institution would give free rein to such woefully warped views?
3. What do you think that A and the moderator of the weblog might have in common?
4. Can you think of other examples of overwhleming support for such views?
“They are entitled to their opinion. And I’m entitled to mine.”
Mr McCann, that goes without saying. A slightly more interesting response might have been to engage with the substance of the point I was making, which was that the majority of the anti-BBC readers here thought your letter (largely due to its tone, and its now discredited attempts to link the Christian Obama to islam) did not serve any purpose whatsoever – except as a personal protest. That’s fine as far as it goes, but if that really is its sole purpose, why has your friend Mr Vance seen fit to give it such prominence here, to the detriment of the site?
The question yourself, Mr Vance, and every contributor here has to ask themselves is – is this site a serious weapon to be used against BBC bias, or a place where we can all come to let off steam and cathartically rant about lefties, “libtards”, homosexuals, Irish Republicans, etc etc?