Yes, I know I said I was finished with the US election for the week but the BBC were at their work again this morning and I will not let it pass. Just after 7.15am, Ed Stourton and Sarah Montague were doing a quick review of the papers. They mentioned the unfortunate fact (for them) that the Palin bounce had moved McCain equal to the Chosen One in the polls but Ed went on to trail the Independent’s pathetic hatchet-job on Palin today, with Montague sniggering at the suggestion that Palin’s environmental record was “even worse that that of Bush”. Then, to finish the week, Naughtie was wheeled on to share his summary of the events of the past two weeks. This distilled down to the fact in his view the candidates had more in common than you might think (rubbish!) and that on the downside, McCain did have the “age” issue and the reputation of being cranky whereas Obama has the “otherness” of his race. Come on Jim, just have the guts to come out and say that along with the rest of the loathsome BBC, you worship Obama and have been stung at what McCain/Palin have achieved this past week. 60 days to go, 60 more days to indulge in more sly and not so subtle character assassination. I’ll be here to make damn sure it is documented.

Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to POSTSCRIPT.

  1. Anonymous says:

    I agree with the comments about the BBC being pro-Obama, but your comments are so full of political bias / ideological leanings, that it undermines your argument.


  2. David Vance says:


    Unlike the BBC, I do NOT claim to be impartial. Further, I don’t force you to pay a tax to read this, unlike the BBC. So whilst I accept MY bias, I see no reason to hide it since that would be dishonest and I hope you may accept the thrust of the points made.


  3. Anat (Israel) says:

    Anonymous | 06.09.08 – 9:10 am | #
    FYI, David is entitled to his bias; he is not getting public funds on condition of objective reporting.

    A bit different for the BBC, don’t you think?


  4. Shirley Tipper says:

    Well said David Vance and Anat. This is the point: people in the UK are forced by law to pay the BBC a fee if they wish to have a TV.

    The BBC could put any slant they liked on any topic, provided they did so with their own money – NOT OURS.


  5. scott carpenter says:

    I second that emotion, I am just waiting for the bbc to call her a chav.

    Meanwhile the Negro messiah appreciation society continues unabated.

    Is anyone keeping tabs on the Olympic reporting? The domestic spectacle not the state sanctioned authoritarian communist one.

    The bbc is nothing more than welfare for the middle classes discuss 500 words.


  6. libertus says:

    David Cameron can’t come out and say it, but I do so hope that the privatisation of the BBC is part of their secret manifesto.
    Such a move is long overdue, even if the BBC were not so egregiously biased, as nobody can deny.
    In a digital and satelite world, there is simply no justification for state compulsion in broadcasting today. It doesn’t exist in the US or Down Under (I don’t know about the status of CBC). The only laws that should pertain are the existing ones governing speech: libel, decency, confidentiality and so forth.
    I hope (against hope) that a new Tory government would transition the BBC into becoming a private company (with public shares) within five years.


  7. libertus says:

    On public shares: as I’ve paid in excess of £2500 to the BBC in the past 20 years or so, I would like soem return from my investment (just as I got from the AA when it was sold off). I am not an avaricious man; I understand there will be redundancies (like Jonathan Ross) and I will settle for £1000 in shares or cash.


  8. Jack says:

    Here in America, today was the first day I noticed the press warming up to our Sarah. Not nearly as snarky as the last few days. I really sense that obama has peaked and these last 60 days will be mostly dedicated to the McCain/Palin ticket. Also I can’t wait for the debates. McCain does best on the fly in a question and answer forum. In that same forum obama stutters and says “uh,um,aw” about 30 times per minute. Big Mac will stomp the One. Bazooka joe biden can’t open his mouth without some lie popping out. Sarah-cuda will destroy him. America will be safe from the marxist for at least 4 more years.


  9. Lurker in a Burqua says:

    Five-figure payout for BBC reporter taken off the TV news ‘because he was blind’


  10. Anonymous says:

    Re: Anon/David

    By putting your own bias on the reports of bias, you undermine your own arguments. Publicly funded or not, people pay more attention to what appears to be objective review than to what can sometimes come across as a rant. If one was a self-confessed racist for example, and then commented on black-on-black crime statistics, the perceived bias would outweigh any serious point to be made.

    This is something that I’m sure you have all been frustrated with, and you probably don’t want to ‘pander’ to political correctness. However, put simply, if your posts contained less vitriol then your points would be considered more significant. You’re essentially researching whether the BBC is biased in the same way that an independent commission might, but without the scientific and objective language that anyone with no knowledge of the subject would expect to help them understand the issue.


  11. David Vance says:


    Not too happy about your racist analogy but we’ll let it pass.

    Now, on the substantive issue, this site is not some sort of academic think tank that debates how many biased angels can dance on the head of a BBC pin. It exists to expose, to reveal, to explain, to amplify, to interrogate, to eviscerate – BBS bias. If I write in the vitriolic terms you allege, in what way does that invalidate the bias of the State Broadcaster? As it happens, I suggest to you that I do not use vitriol, I try to use humour and wit, and care nothing for political correctness. Since when did it become de rigeur to adopt po-faced neutrality on these issues? This blog is at its best when our great readers weigh in after I, Ed, Hugh or any other writer, stimulate a story. I therefore understand your criticisms but reject them. BBB bias is real, it is vicious on occassion, and worst of all, we are forced to fund it. Should that get us engaged in a lively manner? You bet…!


  12. Martin says:

    Anon: It’s sometimes hard not to totally despise the BBC when you get talentless women like emily Maitlis who has never achieved anything of note in her life, attacking a woman like Sarah Palin who has raised a family and been elected as the FIRST female Governor of Alaska.

    It’s the liberal sneering, the continual snide attacks from shitheads like Justin Webb (neck out BBC Newswatch to see him trying to defend his reporting) and Matt Frei that are ful lof opinion.

    If these halfwits want to give opinion, then they should jack their jobs in at the BBC and get a job in talk radio or a newspaper.


  13. James says:

    @ scott

    negro? am i the only one here who thinks that’s a totally unacceptable term?


  14. Cassandra says:


    David Vance has never pretended to be impartial and his views are shared by many here.
    The BBC has to be impartial, non partisan and apolitical BY LAW, the fact that it flouts these rules so often is bad enough but when the taxpayer has to fund this endemic bias it drives people crazy with frustration!
    A private BBC could be as biased as it likes because nobody would be forced to pay for it.
    The maddening thing is that it flouts the law and its own guidlines with such arrogant disregard and ignores those who complain, the BBC is the epitomy of a state funded socialist monolith set up for the dispertion and disemination of its own political prejudices and rigged to serve the inhabitants of the monolith, is it just a coincidence that the all of the top level and the vast majority of the lower levels are socialist/leftist/Marxist sympathisers and activists?
    It comes down to trust, who do you trust to present the facts uncorrupted by a political agenda, I, like many trust David more than the BBC, now I may disagree with David on some issues BUT I trust his word.
    That many do is a sorry indictment of the BBC!


  15. Hugh says:

    James – no. I’ll see if there’s anything we can do.


  16. Gordon BrownStuff says:

    One angle the BBC has suprisingly not pursued is actually one of the biggest issues in the States, if not in politics in any country: the importance for the separation of the Church and the State. Such a combination is a death knell to individual freedom.

    Perhaps one reason for this is that Obama is appealling to the Religious right to get their necessary votes he needs to win.

    In contrast, the McCain-Palin ticket si at risk of alienating the secular republicans in States such as Colorado which he must win.


  17. David S says:

    Last night on BBC 4, two feminists on the panel had the audacity to attack Palin (it was visceral and nasty), after having spent the previous few minutes lamenting the state of women in business and politics and the institutional sexism that keeps them down. An American on the panel responded to their onslaught (they went after her make-up, her hair, her beliefs – tossing around the creationism slur in a way they wouldn’t dream of if she was, say, Muslim) observing that apparently the feminist cause only extends to women who share the same narrow political view – true, true. The topic was changed immediately after his revelation – no follow up.

    It dawned on my listening to this latest bit of left wing hate speech that their displeasure with Palin lies in the fact she is self made: mother of five, twice elected, a reformer who doesn’t back away from a fight. I find myself wondering, are there any women like her in the UK? I honestly can’t think of any self-made mavericks on this side of the pond and I think it’s her independence and freedom, a living testament to the American dream, that they hate so much. After all, we poor plebs aren’t even permitted to vote for our head of state. Raw democracy as we see in the US is something the Beeb elites just can’t get their collective heads around.

    The same American also noted an exchange he listened to from St. Paul involving a group of Republican women and a female BBC reporter. Apparently the Beeb reporter stated that a women with five kids couldn’t possibly manage the VP job. One of the GOP women asked if she would be making that statement if Palin was a man…the interview ended.

    The BBC, where sexism and misogyny live.


  18. Eboreg says:

    To James
    I think the people at the United Negro College Fund (a well know organization here in the US) would disagree.


  19. El Cid says:


    Why stop at “negro?” Surely you must be offended by Asian, Caucasian, Oriental, Occidental, black, white…and what about the term “human?” Surely it’s a bit judgemental, egocentric and speciesist?


  20. Lady of the Lake says:

    Right James and Hugh. Here is the OED’s definition of Negro.

    “A member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to sub-Saharan Africa; a person of black African origin or descent. In early use also applied to other dark-skinned peoples, esp. Moors.”

    1) I believe that B Obhama is part Negro. So what is your problem?

    2)If as I suspect, this is about some PC loony world of fake offence – then I suggest you take a look at some of the extremely offensive words that have been used by socialist/left-wing commentators in the media and BBC about Sarah Palin and her family. One being ‘redneck’. Not said in a descriptive way, as in negro in the comment above, but one that is slang for someone of an undesirable lifestyle.

    So, either you ban all offensive names for people, or you accept that is just the way things are – freedom of speech and all that, and leave the speaker and listener to make up their minds.

    Oh, and just for your information, the OED says “Negro is still, used in positive contexts as part of the names of certain organizations, particularly the United Negro College Fund, and in historical context, with reference to baseball’s Negro Leagues.”


  21. Niallster says:

    MSN inclundg Al BBC still not reporting on the Obama Ayers connection particularly regarding the $50m ‘charity’ they ran together that Obama now says he can’t remember.

    8,000 pages of documents just released under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Going to be big.


  22. James says:

    so what reaction would you expect if you described a black person to their face as a negro

    and now compare that to what you would expect if you said asian or black or white person

    i think i can spot a difference there


  23. Martin says:

    Niallster: Should be interesteg as next week Bill O’Reilly is running the interview with Obama and he specifically asks him about Ayres. It should be interesting to see if Obama’s excuses match the truth.

    However, don’t expcet anyone other than Fox to investigate it.


  24. Little Black Sambo says:

    “Negro? am I the only one here who thinks that’s a totally unacceptable term?”
    Probably. I hope so.


  25. Hugh says:

    Lady of the Lake: I don’t have a copy handy, but does that quote from the OED end: “But, in the UK at least, is only now heard in old films starring Sydney Poitier and Rod Steiger”?
    I’m not very PC but “Negro messiah” had a racist ring to my ears. My apologies if it was not intended.


  26. Eboreg says:

    To James:
    I guess I would say I would expect a variety of reactions. Does this hypothetical black person himself use “racist” language or not? I would expect a different reaction under these two different situations.

    I know people who have told me they prefer to be called African-Americans as opposed to “blacks” or vice-versa. Similarly, I have met people who think the word “niggardly” is pejorative when it clearly is not. I guess in the US it is mostly considered archaic but not pejorative much like “colored” and is still occasionally used by older persons and Spanish speaking persons.


  27. Jack Bauer says:

    @ scott

    negro? am i the only one here who thinks that’s a totally unacceptable term?
    James | 06.09.08 – 1:01 pm | #

    Last year, when the black political establishment (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrkhand et al.) thought Obama wasn’t “black” enough, and wasn’t “down with the struggle” their media surrogates were deployed to cast doubt on the Obamessiah.

    David Ehrenstein from the LA Times ( a black man himself) wrote an article headlined BARACK THE MAGIC NEGRO.

    So… if it’s good enough for him.

    And this phrase was famously parodied by Rush Limbaugh in in a song to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon sung by Paul Shanklin.


  28. Mailman says:

    Niallster, the actual amount you are after is over $110million.

    And after all that money had been shared with Democratic self interest groups, no one could actually guage an improvement in schooling in Chicago.



  29. Lady of the Lake says:


    Last sentence in the OED is the one I gave on the current use of Negro. People today use it to distinguish black Africans from white Africans.

    I take negro to mean black of African descent, and messiah to be a subjective description of the status others give him without thinking.

    Rascist, is when you hate people just because of their race. OED – “a person whose words or actions display racial prejudice or discrimination.” I don’t think the writer was discriminating against negros, I think he was making the point that Mr Obhama is supported by some just because he is black – that actually is racial prejudice!!

    I’ll say again, if you want to start banning words that show prejudice and discrimination then you will have to ban a whole lot of very unpleasant terms that the left called the right – including I would suggest Nazi. Partial banning is in itself discrimination.


  30. Lady of the Lake says:

    James 2.45pm

    I think context would be important don’t you? Personally I’m not in the habit of using any term of race to someone’s face in an abusive way – that’s just good manners.

    However, I would use the term negro to describe black africans in the company of black africans – there is no other term if you want to be precise. And neither would I be offended if an Australian called me a ‘pom’ to my face!! What I might be offended by, is if they said it in abusive way. But, that’s between me and them, it’s not up to anyone else to ban the word ‘pom’.


  31. Hugh says:

    LoL: Please stop giving me definitions for words I know the meaning of.
    My point was that it is archaic but where it is still used it tends to be in relation to organisations and movements that date from a few decades ago – or pejoratively. As I say, I don’t have an OED here, but your quote rather suggests this by starting “”Negro is still used in positive contexts…” That would seem to suggest that: A) it’s not normally used nowadays; B) Where it is, it’s not usually in a positive context. I’d be interested in seeing the full entry.

    Less high brow, but here’s Wikipedia: “Prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s, the appellation was accepted as a normal neutral formal term both by those of Black African descent as well as non-African blacks. Now it is often considered an ethnic slur.”


  32. disillusioned_german says:

    Hm, interesting general discussion. I personally wouldn’t use the term “negro” because it has a lot of negative connotations – I prefer “black person”. I’ve got too many black friends whose feelings I don’t want to hurt. And that’s not being politically correct – it’s about not being rude.

    I don’t consider Obama a threat because he’s black but because he’s a Leftie.


  33. Lady of the Lake says:

    But Hugh, if we are putting subjective meaning into words, then we need to define them again for a sensible discussion. I don’t think your meaning of negro and mine are the same. You inject it with ‘ethnic slur’, I don’t. Which is why I define it so we can discuss it.

    So back to my main point, I don’t think that the writer was being racist, in the way I’ve defined the term racist. And if you want to ban words that may or may not offend people you need to take an even hand. Other wise you are being biased – just as the BBC are.


  34. Devil's Advocate says:

    BBC Newswatch, the programme where licence fee payers get to interrogate examples of bias, focussed on the pro-Obama stance this week. Here it is if you want to watch:

    If you don’t, it’s basically a jittery half-wit who comes on, totally unprepared (nerves too, bless him) and gets walked all over by Mr Vance’s favourite Stateside Beeb correspondant.

    As someone who regularly fails to get insensed to the degree that people on here do, it says something when I am getting sick of a particular type of coverage.

    And yes, whenever there’s a report relating to Palin, even if it starts off positive, there’s always a remark or two that puts her down.

    I’d be embarrassed to be so blazen.


  35. Hugh says:

    By linking to Wikipedia, I was trying to be clear that it’s not just my definition of negro that has it as an ethnic slur. What does your OED actually say, by the way? As I said, at the very least I’ll wager it says it’s archaic; and I also have a hunch it might suggest its use nowadays is not normally in a “positive” context – otherwise I can’t understand why it says “it’s still used in a positive context”.
    Bottom line, though: someone says “negro” when they’re not Spanish or 80 years old and I wonder why they didn’t just say “black”.


  36. JohnA says:

    I liked this one :

    I have still not heard any proper account from the BBC of Plin’s experience in executive decisions. It is a key theme of the campaign – but the BBC dodges it. They keep trying to present Palin as an someone with a strong religious tinge – THAT is not her claim to fame in Alaskan politics, that is not why she has so much popular support. Her support comes from he significant achievements in trying to promote CLEAN, LEAN government. And that is primatily why McCain chose her as No 2, not because she is a social conservative.

    Nor have I heard the BBC presenting propely John NcCain’s record of attacking big-interest politics, even though they tag him the Maverick.

    And the reson why the BBC fails to present these facts ? Becuase they know that Obama is devoid of any significant achievement – let alone anything on his CV about executive responsibility.


  37. betyangelo usa says:

    Ya’ll forget to mention “cracker” in the list of racial slurs. I think I might be offended “sniff”.


  38. Cassandra says:

    Thought control is a favourite tool of the Marxist, control what people think and say and youre half way to a socialist paradise!
    The BBCs ideal nation is Cuba and its a criminal offence to have anti revolutionary thoughts, I kid you not!
    To the socialist all roads lead to 1984!


  39. JohnA says:

    I wonder how Frei, Webb, Nauchtie et al would go down with this crowd :

    The left media – and the slimeballs who tried to smear Sarah Palin – have simply caused a big kick-back in the US. Record viewing figures for both Palin and McCain, polling signs that any Obama bounce has been snuffed out, much greater determination and enthusiasn in the Repub side – plus finance plus volunteers for election work.

    Joe Biden is already dead meat, I think, a nonentity in this fight. I would not be surprised if Palin progressively destroys Obama – she has got the attention of the middle ground now, and they are bound to wonder “if she says Obama is totally inexperienced, maybe we’d better check out his record some more – who actually is this guy ?”.

    Also, some adverse backround information on Obama – his appalling associations in the muck of Chicago politics – is only just beginning to emerge. They can’t keep the lid on it any more. Stanley Kurtz is soon (I reckon) going to publish what he has found in the 8000 pages of the Anneberg files and the activities / failures of Obama and William Ayers. And Bill O’Reilly will be raising Ayers in his interview with Obama, the lid is coming off.

    Of course BBC viewers and listeners will be the last to be told about Ayers, just as it was very late before the BBC started mentioning the notorious Jeremiah Wright.

    The BBC has been casting Palin basically as extremist (ie someone who does not accept the BBC goupthink), and has largely ignored her track record of effective executive achievement, her drive overall for clean-and-lean government.

    But it s Obama who is the real extremist. His associations and his true beliefs and attitudes will prove toxic to his chances on 4 November. With more loony characters emerging from the shadows :

    An anagram of Sarah Palin is “Sharp Nail”. She now has maximum attention for relentless attacks on Obama – popping his balloon.

    Even the BBC will be forced to cover some of it.

    The UK press is quickly picking up on Palin’s talents and Obama’s essential shallowness. It is about time the BBC quit the snide remarks about her and focussed on her real record, and also on Obama’s. For much of the past week, BBC reporting has been patronising, sneering – and basically false.


  40. Martin says:

    What’s pissed the BBC off is that they thought that Osama getting 38 million viewers was going to be the highlight.

    The fact that not just Palin whooped him but McCain did as well and McCain was up against a big American football game (Skins V Giants)

    Osama the next President? I think not.


  41. Niallster says:

    O’Reilly nailed The Messiah on Wright.

    Bambi waffled that he had never heard the things the media were saying Wright said come from Wrights mouth thereby implying it was a media slur.

    O’Reilly said he could do so by buying the tapes that Wright sells at a stall in the front of the church.

    Bambi said ‘I can’t respond to that’.


  42. Original Robin says:

    David S; 2.02pm

    I particularly liked it when one of the feminists said that she looked forward to the media unearthing a scandal about Sarah Palin!
    Then everyone quickly moved on.


  43. David Vance says:


    The word “negro” has bugger all to do with what I was saying so let’s not get diverted from substance.


  44. George R says:

    It’s not only the BBC and the political left:

    “Arabs, Muslims ‘chilled’ at the thought of McCain-Palin in White House”


  45. Omega Man says:

    Good article about how the lies from the left, faithfully repeated by the BBC, have actually helped Sarah Palin through sheer disgust at her treatment by the media.

    Off topic: Anyone else noticed pictures of her in the window at Vision Express ?


  46. betyangelo usa says:

    It’s not only the BBC and the political left:

    “Arabs, Muslims ‘chilled’ at the thought of McCain-Palin in White House”

    Chilled is not the word, why not use the word petulant? Because a McCain/Palin White House is going to continue the war that could end easily if they would stand up and take care of their own religious extremists, but they will not. They leave that to us, a predictably cowardly practice consistant with the refusal to stand up and denounce their own. About all they ever say is “Islam is a religion of peace”, as if it were some kind of explaination.

    Sarah Palin will be the first woman president. What are Saudis and Iranians going to do when that happens? I hope she’s wearing a mini skirt and red lipstick when she kicks their asses.


  47. JohnA says:

    I like this essay about how the intelligentsia / left fails to understad the tribal support for Sarah Palin :

    And here is someone who explains why she gets so much support in Alaska – a DACT, ie people recognise a woman of ability and achievement, driven by a sense of the public good :

    Click to access Palin%20Letter.pdf


  48. JohnA says:

    sorry for the typos in the previous post !

    Melanie Phillips has written a piece on Palin – “A Star is Born”. I wonder what she would have thought about the BBC’s biased reporting, and also about Justin Webb’s moderated blog carrying all those smears about the baby.

    Much of the press eg Sun and Telegraph as well as US media) is now stating flatly that there was a clear smear – and stating it to be false.

    They report it because the spreading and then rebuttal of the rumour has been a significant event in the election – helping to galvanise support for Palin.

    The BBC does not report this fact. It simply allowed the smear to circulate.

    Was the smear carried or discussed on Radio 5 Live ? As far as I can see the BBC has had no formal report about the smear – it has all been undercurrent stuff, certainly at Webb’s blog, but was it also carried in tittle-tattle phone-ins ?


  49. George R says:

    “Mainstream Media diverting Terrorism Reporters into Political Investigations” (of Sarah Palin):

    “I see one after another of the mainstream media outlets which have made important contributions to the factual underpinnings of the counter-terrorism effort dropping off that beat. Editors in the print media are shifting terrorism experts on their staffs towards investigations of political candidates. At least three such reporters at three major papers are now chasing Sarah Palin stories (I haven’t had time to chase down everybody in ‘the business’.)” (Andrew Cochran.)