Well, the celebrations following Obama’s historic election as US President continued unabated on the BBC today. What’s that you say? He hasn’t been elected yet? Mmm..hard to tell when it comes to the Barack Broadcasting Corporation this morning! Two interviews ln less than 30 minutes this morning from the BBC with no pretence of balance – just pure Obamania.
At 7.13am we had an interview with the Democrat economics adviser Professor James Galbraith of Harvard University. Galbraith was allowed to waffle about the dire state of the US economy with nary a mention of the fact that the US economy has just enjoyed surging growth of 3.3% in the last quarter. (Wanna compare THAT with the Eurozone performance, Beeboids?) Galbraith spouted the usual half-baked left wing economics that Democrats always advocate, even being invited by the BBC interviewer to compare Obama’s protectionist plans to those of the “New Deal”. Any student of economics with any will understand just how profoundly flawed THAT was and yet the BBC was hailing it as economic success incarnate and the good Professor grabbed the rhetorical ball and happily ran with it.
Next up at 7.40am we had Justin Webb with his daily dose of pro-Obama propaganda followed by James Naughtie interviewing Sam Liebermam, chairman of the Democrat Party of Nevada. Naughtie concluded by wishing Lieberman “good luck”. We get the picture. Listen to the BBC – Vote Obama.
Yes the coverage on the Today program this morning really was abhorrent. I noticed that towards the end of the last Obama related piece by Naughtie he managed a few short sentences about John McCain choosing a ‘running mate’ and then it was back to Obama! Quite ridiculous; but almost not worth commenting on because we have come to expect this from the BBC.
The BBC are good at backing losers. So matter what crap they spout, John McCain will be the next US President.
I wonder if we will get live wall to wall coverage of MCain’s VP pick today?
What makes me think we won’t?
At least Sky News had Charlie Wolf on for an alternative viewpoint!
Does anyone know what the BBC love-in for the Obamessiah is costing us?
I’d love to know how much WE have paid for reporters and hangers-on to fly out there – and what their flights, bar bills, prostitutes and cocaine have cost ME on their expense claims.
Maybe a Freedom Of Information request might be in order?
Counterpoint re rhetoric, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/opinion/29brooks.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
…author is NYT’s token R of center white guy w/ a tie. Not quite an antidote to the shark-jumped BBC, but helps with context. You may not get one or two cultural references to US life but the meaning’s clear.
What’s truly bizarre is the economics critique – surely Obama’s nakedly populist protectionism can only ever be bad for Britain. In the unlikely event that it helps US jobs in the long term it means that British workers are screwed and presumably that we’ll be mired in WTO disputes forever. In the more likely event that it f***s the US economy even more that Bush’s ineptitude has managed then we catch the fallout. What’s to like?
The only benefit for this country from Obama is that there might be a surge in foreign policy progress on the basis of mass global relief that he doesn’t have Cheney lurking around.
Obamarama mania will be a weapon against the BBC if they do not show a decent Republican coverage.
I am hoping the the Republicans will ostracize or even ban Naughty for the loony left biased beeboid he is.
BBC junkets are costing us plenty, what with the Olympics and now the USA scene into November.
It would be interesting to have kept a log simply of the glowing adjectives used about Obama this week – spectacular, thrilling etc etc. Not just from the “BBC” staff but also from all the sycophants they had on.
And then a log of next week’s coverage.
(The same might apply to coverage of the UK party conferences. The tone of the adjectives is a quick measure of the overall tone.)
The “BBC” have told us nothing about Obama’s highly dody past –
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304815221276808
I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for the Today programme to be heavy with Obama supporters during the Democratic conference. Let’s see what they do next week.
However, on the TV news this week (of which I confess I have not watched very much) it has been noticeable that on Sky, the occcasonal Republican pundit has turned up, plus there were snippets of coverage of the Republican sniping operation in Denver. Romney and Giuliani giving little press conferences, bits of McCain videos, and the little war room with the slogan “A mile high and an inch deep.” I’ve seen nothing of the kind on the BBC News (or BBC at all.) Maybe it’s been there when I wasn’t watching, but I’ve watched about the same amount of Sky News and BBC News, and Sky is where I’ve seen some Republicans.
Lee Moore: There will not be the same level of coverage on the BBC and the coverage that there will be will be pushed right down the new agenda.
The BBC are not obliged to show balance with the US elections.
Indeed. I see in my RSS feed that Barack Obama has launched a “historic” campaign. How can something happening today be considered “historic”. Only time can tell if this is true.
The BBC is pro-Obama. No doubt about it.
There may be a hidden agenda, The BBC are seeing what they can get away with. When the UK have the next general election Labour will have all the good publicity and equal time will be given to the Tories but they will have all the bad publicity. The USA elections are a test case for BBC.
The hideously white, Leftoid liberal arts graduates who do the reporting and producing are in love with The Story. They also fully support the Obamessiah’s redistributionist, full-surrender-in-Iraq policies, but that’s beside the point right now. He’s photogenic as well, which media darlings love, and people respond more positively to those to whom they find physically attractive.
The on-air Beeboids declared early and often that this would be the last chance to defeat George Bush, as well as that the majority of United Statesians are too racist to elect a black man. They have been consistent in their emotions, but it’s all about The Story.
There’s no question that it’s an historic moment for a black person (regardless of his lack of an actual US slave heritage) to be an actual major party nominee.
But make no mistake: it’s a bit phony because a greenhorn Senator with no record of public achievement outside a small area of Chicago would have been recruited if he was white.
However, the irony of all this is that it’s supposed to be historic because this means we will have moved past judging someone solely by the color of their skin, yet we are constantly told that we must vote for him because of the color of his skin.
They’re too shallow at the BBC’s US bureau to realize that, so they just carry on as usual. They’ll continue to swoon, and either lie to you all or just withhold the truth about his policies, and the actual political reasons people don’t want to vote for the Obamessiah. Utterly clueless, utterly unprofessional. Obviously there will be no emotional reasons for the Beeboids to get excited over McCain, so the tone of coverage will be dramatically different. Not much anyone can do about that. Of course, the key will be how McCain’s campaign is presented in the next week or so, especially the amount of coverage given it.
hopefully this’ll be the end of all this obama bin who bollox
A lot of rumors that McCain might have chosen Sarah Palin as his VP. Some guy that tipped correctly Biden reckons it’s her.
I just wonder how the BBC would respond to that? Judging how they’ve ignored a highly successful black woman (Condi Rice) I’m guessing they’d just sneer.
Oh and if you want to know about McCain don’t bother watching BBC News 24.
It’s all over. No need to report on McCain it appears.
At least Sky give us the other side.
Surely someone out there in the Republican Party can counter this obvious bias.
One obvious case is to be aggressive and demanding of the BBC “interviewers” as to BBC bias, and bring up their coverage of the Democratic Denver party.
This worked for the Republicans in the USA on Obamerama’s European Grand Tour.
I have no reverence for McCain, but the pro-Obama bias at the BBC simply beggars belief. It reminds one of the mass hysteria of a controlled media in a totalitarian state.
The blog from Justin Webb is unbelieveable given the BBCs so called commitment to impartiality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/
“What a shame that would be for John McCain.”
Cassandrina: You’re having a larf! Listen to Radio 5 lite. Simon Mayo is on this afternoon. I guarantee that McCain will get almost no mention, whilst Obama will get the full monty and Mayo will get a few liberal guests on to “bash Boosh” and talk up the “black JFK!”
I heard some Beeboid jerk off saying that Obama is just like JFK as neither had any experience beofre being elected to office.
Well of course JFK was a war hero and whilst that does not automatically mean you are qualified to lead a Country, it does show the true character of a man.
Cockney | 29.08.08 – 10:34 am
What’s truly bizarre is the economics critique –
I thought Hillary made quite a good point when she described George W. Bush’s economic policy as “borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Saudis”.
Americans don’t like either.
As someone who doesn’t really care who wins the US presidential election, I nevertheless will be rooting for McCain on the grounds that it will piss off the BBC no end!
Plus on the basis that the BBC always underestimate the right wing vote in elections, I would say McCain has a good chance. It’ll be a lot closer than the Beeb think anyway.
Tom: Very true but what did Clinton and Gore do about it for 8 years?
Hillary and Obama slag off McCain’s healthcare plans. But Hillary screwed up the reform of healthcare in the USA when she was first lady.
The dems have had 8 years before Bush to make the changes. They did SFA.
David Gowers Love Child: The BBC are frightened to admit that whilst the sainted one is good on speeches full of hot air, the moment you get him one on one answering questions his empty head shows up.
The reason Hillary got so pissed off (and not reported by the BBC) was that the US media gave Obama an easy ride. Even the night time talk shows took the piss out of the US media for giving Obama an easy time.
Only towards the end did the media feel rather embarassed about how soft they’d been on Obama and got a little tougher on him, that’s when Hillary started to make a come back and the Obama supporters tried to get her to fold.
That can’t happen with McCain and Obama. News companies like Fox News will get their chance at Obama (he’s still dodging Bill O’Reilly for instance) and as Saddleback showed (again ignored by the BBC) when Obama has to answer off the top of his head, he can’t!
McCain’s biggest strengths are his experience and ability to give straight answers. Those are Obama’s greatest weakness.
The BBC just don’t point this simple fact out. They don’t want to. They don’t want to give any credit to McCain.
Their bottom line will be (if McCain wins) that White Americans are racists (even though most blacks will vote for Obama) or that McCain cheated (we will get the hanging chads lies from the BBC again)
A BBC reporter was telling the Radio 5 audience how intelligent Obama is. I think that means he agreed with what Obama says.
Cool message on the BBC’s HYS:
Added: Friday, 29 August, 2008, 09:13 GMT 10:13 UK
Would the BBC (Barack Broadcasting Company) please find someone with an alternative viewpoint and bring a bit of balance back into this election coverage.
Thank you!
MrAngry Liverpool
RECOMMENDED
Recommended by 37 people
BBC 1pm news was a joke. I noted that McCain has a huge range of possible VP’s but the scumbag beeboid only mentioned two. Romney and Pawlenty. Why those two? When the beeboid scumbag said Romney MORMON, Pawlenty strong CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN. Get the drift?
No mention of Sarah Palin (a possible woman VP would that not be news BBC?)
sarah palin and her whole department are pretty darn corrupt and several including her have been under investigation
James: Links please
Martin:
I’m sure that in the same way as Colin Powell and Condi Rice were considered by the media to be ‘not really black’, Sarah Palin, if chosen as McCain’s VP, will be declared as not really a woman.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/palin-mccain-vp.html
I like the idea of Sarah Palin as VP. Young, female, pro drilling in ANWR. If McCain chooses her he’ll win the election.
James: Oh dear is that the best you ca come up with? READ the articles and links. It’s a storm in a tea cup. She’s clearly pissed some people off for being very anti corruption.
READ THE ARTICLES!!!!
If anything – the 1pm news on Radio 4 was even worse than the Today prog.
Banging on about McCain’s age, nil balanced comment on Obama’s speech.
Right now I think McCain’s VP choice is Sarah palin. It is rumoured that she has arrived in Ohio with her two sons – the announcement is due at Dayton at noon Ohio time. Neither Pawlenty nor Rpmney nor Huckabee are expected to be in Ohio. Fred Thomson has ruled himself out, Jindal will be busy on the louisiana hurricane (Has that idiot Nagin got his bus drivers lined up?). That leaves Joe Lieberman not accounted for.
James: we’ve seen one unfounded allegation.
You are on record as calling her “pretty darn corrupt”.
Evidence?
Palin certainly isn’t corrupt. Quite the opposite.
I’m a “conservative-for-Obama” but someone like Palin would tempt me back.
If it weren’t for this:
Rush Limbaugh started the push for Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, right down to designing a logo for a McCain-Palin ticket.
http://www.squidoo.com/sarah-palin
spare a moment recall the gushing bbc coverage of the supreme leader’s speech to the labour conference in sept 2007.
hailed at the time by beeboids as a masterful visionary speech it has come to be seen as the very highest point after which he developed permanent reverse midas touch syndrome.
Rapix: RL wanted someone pro life. I understand that RL and many other Repubs didn’t like Romney for flip flopping on abortion?
Martin | 29.08.08 – 2:07 pm
Rapix: RL wanted someone pro life
I like pro-life too. What I can’t stand is anything that lard-arsed drug addict is first to endorse.
Choosing Palin would help put the spotlight on the refusal by Obama and the Dems to allow oil drilling. b Except in duff areas of course – a typical leftie nonsense.
And it would be easy to show that the VP choice has much more executive experience than Obama.
Above all – this would be attractive to lots of the unhappy Clinton supporters. A lot of them remain anti-Obama, not just because of the way she was trashed by the media, but also because the saintly Obama campaign p[layed down-and-dirty in the local caucuses.
I understand that this is The Most Important Election In Human History, but is an HYS for the British Public about the Obamessiah’s speech really necessary?
Obama speech: Your views
The Democratic Party’s nominee for the White House, Barack Obama, has given an impassioned speech setting out his vision for the country’s future. Did he impress you?
….
Did you watch his speech? Did he say what you wanted to hear? What impact will the speech have on the presidential election? Do you think the Democratic convention was a success?
Did he say what you wanted to hear, citizens of Grimsby and Strathclyde? What about everyone in Tunbridge Wells and Morecambe? Your verdict on the success or failure of the Dem convention means a lot. Really.
Why not just do an HYS on whether or not the world will finally be able to defeat George Bush? Idiocy at its finest.
Ha! Dems double standards again. Apparently the great party that belives in “green issues” has left tons and tons of rubbish behind in the stadium as people refused to use the recycle bins.
Perhaps recycling failed policies from Obama was enough?
Of course the “BBC” will be later than most networks to bring us the VP news.
And when they do – if it is Palin they will be all adrift, won’t know anything about her. No clue about how she might play against the Dem ticket.
So here’s a few pointers :
http://garnetspy.com/2008/08/27/360/
I hope it’s Palin: http://townhall.com/blog
JohnA | 29.08.08 – 2:15 pm
much more executive experience
18 months more. Is that “much” more?
James
Still waiting for your evidence of Sarah Palin’s corruptness?
Do get back to us when you can, old boy.
And she ran a town as mayor. Apparently successfully.
The only thing Obama ever ran, part-time, was an educational charity. Which itself admits it was a failure. $50 million dollars down the tubes on Ayers’ revolutionary-leftist theories.
As I can’t vote in the US elections, and neither can any of the sicophants at the Beeb, why should I give a fuck who wins the next presidential election until after it’s done?
Money well spent at the Beeb.
I can’t get me head round reporters interviewing reporters. Whenever I turn up at a meeting and one of my colleagues is there we toss a coin for who buggers off as it’s embarrassing highlighting the fact that there’s no co-ordination.
Choo Choo – all aboard the junket train.
18 months is 18 months more than Obama has.
The fawning over Obama on newsnight and news bulletin was stomach churning. The bias shown to McCain is quite breathtaking and it’s done quite unashamedly. On the BBC website, the Obama campaign link and the democrat conference link come before the McCain link. The nasty asides about republicans are quite distasteful to any fair minded person.
I also looked at the BBC Trust site and did not see any complaints made about the US elections. I wonder if more of us who see real bias of the BBC shd complain formally.
So much money spent to maintain people like Justin Webb in America – there was also this snippet a couple of nights ago with a BBC reporter on a balloon flight somewhere in the US filming the landscape with some totally irrelevant remark about the elections. Do we need to PAY for his balloon trip for a useless and trite point about the US elections.
JohnA: I think Obama has a run a bath a few times. Mind you that would have gone down the plug hole as well!!
I can’t believe that lefties STILL tout FDR’s New Deal as the economic savior it so obviously was not.
Much work has been done in recent years to OBJECTIVELY assess the effect of his policies during the Depression – and the conclusion is clear – The New Deal greatly prolonged the Depression and stopped the American economy getting back on its feet for years, thereby causing the unnecessary suffering of millions of poor people.
What’s more, FDR repeatedly used the Depression and the New Deal as a political tool, bribing states in which his support was poor with more “government” money.
Then, I love it when lefties claim that “greedy speculators” were the cause of the Depression. In fact, it was state interventionism, mainly on the part of the newly formed Federal Reserve, which caused it. Government insiders caused the crash, and government insiders became rich from the crash while their countrymen went broke all around them.
There is NO better case against government economic interventionism than the Great Depression. And here we have lefties hailing Obama for basically carrying the torch of economic meddling.