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
I think Obama’s wackery has nothing to do with his muslim past but more to do with the Marxism he’s infused with.
rrtypeleo | 25.06.08 – 9:21 am | #
Good point.
Barack Hussein Obama is a boilerplate neo-Marxist, leftist.
Nothing new here… especially in the UK, just look around to see the immense damage they’ve done to us… the Institutionally Leftist BBC, for one.
But in American politics he’s the most brazen of his type ever to run for the highest office.
That’s new. Though the reactionary socialism he’s peddling is at least 100 years old.
apologies, that should, of course, have read, ‘cathartically rant about lefties, “LIBTARDS”, homosexuals, Irish Republicans, etc etc?’
I wondered how long it would be before the ‘psychological’ paradigm was introduced into the equation. When you’ve no other ammunition to hand, question or intimate about the mental capacity of your opponent.
Pathetic!!
‘Can you explain why the ‘patient’ sees so many disapproving replies as pretty overwhelming…. support?’
I never said I had garnered support. I suggested that I’d provoked a debate. Whether the prevaling substance of that debate is for or against me is irrelevant (I hope that answers the points made by ‘Anonymous’, also)
‘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?’
I’d say an attempt to impugn my mental capacity as a substitute for reasoned argument suggests a far more ‘warped’ mind, wouldn’t you?
It’s called ‘free speech’. Something that millions fought and died for, and which is still very much alive notwithstanding 11 years of socialist nanny-statism.
‘What do you think that A and the moderator of the weblog might have in common?’
A friendship. Nothing more or less.
DV has done at least 2 posts hostile to Protestant terrorists in NI.
But, on the subject of this post, what Sheila said at 9:51 am.
I suggested that I’d provoked a debate. Whether the prevaling substance of that debate is for or against me is irrelevant (I hope that answers the points made by ‘Anonymous’, also)
No, frankly it does not.
If yourself or Mr Vance were to post items here which argued that Homosexuality is a sin against God and against nature, that the BBC is part of a Communist plot, that microwave ovens can influence LIBTARDS to kill children, or that no Muslim can be considered a decent human being – all of these would provoke argument and debate – and harm the credibility of the site.
The question I asked was whether or not provoking such argument (by insinuating some Islamic component in Obama’s genetics etc) was good for this site or merely a personal rant. I hope you can understand that you have not answered that question by resorting to such commonplance aphorisms as “I am entitled to my opinion” or “provoking argument is good in itself”.
My opinion is that when people who suspect liberal bias in the BBC find this website, they might well conclude that the enemies of the BBC are such cranks that things are better left as they are. I intend no personal attack when I state that things did not used to be this way. It’s happened in recent months. The site is dying under the weight of the anti-LIBTARD rhetoric that a recent change of editorial tone has encouraged.
Mrs Rooney’s Ferret, Jesus for Libtards, Raj Pesaud’s Ghostwriter, and friends of the above,
I read the case notes you brought to our attention with interest. One thing springs to mind though. The 82 responses you use in your analysis as ‘control’, are from a group whose opinions you normally regard as insane. In your esteemed view, have the lunatics taken over the asylum?
Or is there a more sinister explanation.
So, just so I’m clear on this, Andrew:
1) You believe a person should be judged on their individual merits and what they achieve as a person, rather than judged on “sociological labels” EXCEPT…
2)… If someone in their family (although not actually the person themselves) is associated with a religion that falls under the “sociological label” of Islam.
The idea that “this site” is dying under the input of yours truly is an odd assertion. Site traffic is at a twelve month high, commenting is at a twelve month high, so to all those little trolls led by the multi-personality Hillhunt that like to pretend that if only a more “measured” approach was taken we would be so much better off since the BBC would take us so more seriously, forget it.
In fact, there will be MAJOR announcement happening very shortly which I hope will encourage all sensible readers who seek to challenge BBC bias in an authoritative and comprehensive manner – via a new media.
Stick with it gang, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
I am not perfect, not every post is as good as I want it to be, but like the vast majority of others who come here, my aim is true.
DV
Keep up the good work. Those carping critics that go on about this site going downhill are either:
1. Precious souls far too sensitive to be reading blogs
or
2. Wish to sanitize / emasculate this site.
I favour honest dialog over tact and diplomacy any day.
Boss Hogg – how right you are; anyone who prefers rational debate over ranting must be a sensitive soul not cut out for the hurly burly of the real world. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I too “favour” honest dialogue, though why you think that quality is mutually exclusive of either tact or diplomacy is beyond me – but still, it gave your comment that closing fanfare of plain-speaking righteousness you no doubt wanted.
I favour honest dialogue including tact and diplomacy, but excluding lies and distortions about Obama’s beliefs. There are genuine reasons aplenty to utterly reject Obama without these disortions. That is called honest dialogue. Which of course, you favour. So you agree with me.
To be fair, Mr Hogg, I don’t feel I’m guilty of carping: I was just asking Mr McCann how he feels he can match his belief in judging
individuals on their own merits with his belief that a person should be
automatically debarred from high office if one of their relatives (not
the person themselves) is of a particular religion.
In fact if Mr McCann would be kind enough to spare the time, I would be grateful if he could clarify his argument further:
1) Is it only President that is excluded owing to the religion of a
relative, or other power levels? (Would a Vice-President with a Muslim father be acceptable, for example? If not, Secretatry Of State? Lower? Mayor perhaps? What is the cut-off point?)
2) At which remove – father, grandfather, cousin, etc – does the religion of a relative count?
3) If your rule came in and it later came to light that someone was in office who had been keeping their religion secret in order to avoid being prevented from achieving their ambitions, would you advocate their immediate removal from their post? Would there be any additional
punishment?
Much obliged.
Raj Persaud’s Ghostwriter | 25.06.08 – 10:33 am |
Professor Richard Bentall, I presume? Glad you’re here. There’s a commenter among us with sings of Dissociative Identity Disorder, who also exhibits some traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. We think he just craves the attention to in order to maintain a syntonic ego state, but one can never be too sure.
Are you available, say, next Thursday?
D’oh! Signs of…..
“the sort of thing that DV and a lot of these commenters get pissed off over just makes me think what a bunch of unpleasant fuckers they are. Just leave these paranoid shits to seeth by themselves.
Simon | 24.06.08 – 10:00 am”
“Only by continual pressure from rational, clear-thinking posters who do not engage in ad hominem attacks will this blog maintain the credibility required to be taken seriously.
simon | 25.06.08 – 8:41 am”
‘Simon Says’ or have you really changed your opinion so dramatically so quickly?
Everyone on this site except me is probably Hillhunt.
Even ‘me’ might be him tomorrow.
Sue,
I’m Hillhunt, and so’s my wife.
We are all Hillhunt now!
Sheila
Islam isn’t a sociological label, it’s a religious one. Hence the distinction at the end of my letter.
You are attempting to generalise a point I intended, and argued, as particular to the US: namely that someone associated with a religion that not only has carried out the most devastating attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour, but also attacks American values throughout the world, should not hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.
Anonymous
I’ll criticise Obama on grounds I consider necessary and relevant. Not on conditions or parameters of argument you deem acceptable.
I’m Hillhunt too – and so is this site.
Mr McCann.
Your response to almost every detailed or specific question seems to be merely to reiterate your position with even less specificity but with added vehemence. A touch of the old Ulthter Sezz Gnaaw syndrome?
It must smart slightly that, probably expecting a rousing cheer for your polemic from this of all sites, it has instead bombed so terribly (no pun intended, re Obama’s terrorist associates).
I’ll criticise Obama on grounds I consider necessary and relevant.
So will I, and most others here too, but without including nonsense about “tree-huggers” or accusations that his Christianity is somehow compromised by his paternal genes. If, as you are careful to point out, religion is an ideology rather than a racial issue, then his paternal lineage has nothing whatsoever to do with it. He is a Christian, however unpleasant his church. Your insinuation linking him with 9-11 by association through a relative who shares the religious background of those who committed the act (but who has committed no such violence nor as far as you know endorsed it) is agreed by a large number of commenters above to have fatally compromised your letter. Does that not even for one moment give you pause for thought? Most of these people are critical of Islam, know exactly what it stands for, and also dislike and distrust Obama; yet mostly they think you got it wrong.
Not on conditions or parameters of argument you deem acceptable.
I don’t deem anything acceptable or unacceptable Mr McCann. How haughty you sound with your straw man arguments! I merely think your letter was profoundly miscalculated and tactically inept. Your responses to even well-meaning criticism have done nothing to disabuse me of that opinion.
Cheerio.
No, my answers indicate that I will not waste more time than is necessary dealing with a so-called ‘anonymity’ (incidentally the most interesting aspect of your presence here) who will continue to disagree with the points I have made.
I am not in the business of attempting to change your mind about what I wrote. To do so would be to credit you with more importance than you deserve. However, nobody on here will change my mind, either. Obama is unfit for US leadership partly because he is linked to a religion which, in the round, despises America and American values.
Au revoir!
Ben Bernanke is IMHO unfit for any high office in America; the man is a crook and a liar who has given TAXPAYERS money to JP MORGAN and used it to pay for Bear Sterns CEOs bonuses.
Why is the Fed giving welfare handouts to Jamie Dimon, Amercia’s biggest welfare recipient?
The Federal Reserve are a bunch of crooks. Sadly only Ron Paul is fit to to be President and rid us of these crooks.
because he is linked to a religion which, in the round, despises America and American values.
No he isn’t. Not in any real way. That’s the point you have not “dealt” with.
And neither is anonymity interesting. As I’m sure you’re aware, there are many reasons why the majority post here under assumed names or IDs. I’ve now given myself a name, which should enable you to concentrate more on the substance of an argument than on the meaningless distraction of my irrelevant anonymity.
However, nobody on here will change my mind, either.
What a tremenedous attitude to take. It certainly saves all that time that might otherwise be wasted thinking, reasoning, evaluating facts and evidence, learning from others, etc etc.
You don’t refuse to answer specific questions because of some high-minded refusal to engage with an anonymity; you refuse because you don’t have the answers and you are miffed that the response to your letter was so overwhelmingly critical.
Which is a shame, because I agree with the majority here: your letter made many decent points but in a truly risible way.
I agree with you that Obama is unelectable to any thinking person: his complete lack of experience, his troublingly racist Christian congregation, his naivety re foreign affairs, his known association with domestic marxist terrorists and fraudsters; and I agree with you that the BBC will do all they can to ignore all of that and all but endorse him openly, on the basis that he is a Democrat and is not a white male.
So you see, there’s no point pretending that the issue is trying to convince people here of his unelectability or of the BBC’s very predictable bias in his favour. We all agree with you more or less. The issue is whether this site benefits from having these points admixed with slurs and inaccurate innuendos about his genetic religious “associations” that are easily disproved or dismissed, and with language like “tree hugging” which makes it impossible even for thinking people on the Right to stand by your letter without embarrassment.
That might sound harsh towards you personally, but no doubt you’ll prove yourself sufficiently thick-skinned to overcome the irritation, and in any case, the issue is what is good for this site, not what we think of you or you of us.