I have not watched the Palin/Biden debate yet, but I can only assume Palin has done very well indeed. The reason I say this is that listening to the BBC’s coverage of this event on the Today programme this morning the entire tone was that Palin had not fouled up. Essentially the BBC line was that “gaffe-prone” Palin had managed to just about hold her own, though she wobbled “a bit” on climate change and Iraq. Biden was painted as having glided serenely through the debate. So, if we believe the BBC, instead of being a total train-wreck, Palin just about got through. Talk about raising and lowering expectations. The BBC, like their soul-mates in the Democrat Party, are scare senseless of the values Palin stand for and so they have spent the last several weeks mocking her. Meanwhile, back in the real world, I can but assume that Sarah walloped slow Joe.
THE TROUBLE FOR SARAH.
Bookmark the permalink.
The world according to barf.
gtit
The BBC, CNN, AP and every other major news organization are “in the bag” for Obama,
Thank you for acknowledging that obvious fact.
Here is an example of CNN bias. After the VP debate they did a count of hands- who won ?
Just count the hands raised – 13 for Biden, 11 for Palin. But the CNN presenter Solded O’Brien described this as an overwhelming win for Biden.
Who do you believe – a biased network presenter or your own lying eyes ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/05/video-bidens-overwhelming-win-in-the-cnn-focus-group/
Heck – even the moderator of the VP debate has a vested financialinterest in Obama winning – an interest she failed to declare. And when it was raised – she was brazen enough not to withdraw – bias is seen as entirely normal, acceptable.
Bias is not restricted to the TV channels. The majpr press media (NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes) are totally in the tank for Obama. (When I visit LA I am always amazed that such a huge city has only one big newspaper.) The latest trick has been by Associated Press (the terrorists’ friend) saying that Palin’s remarks yesterday about Obama and Bill Ayers were tinged with racism. Never has AP or any of the leftie media looked into Obama’s background properly – it took Palin’s remarks to force them to “report” on the topic.
LOL. Did you actually watch that video? I just watched it again. EIGHT in frame people put their hands up to say Palin won. so the on-screen count was 13-8. That’s pretty overwhelming. And rememeber, the journalist said she was asking people to show their hands again so they already knew the result.
As for the moderator, everyone knew she had a book coming out and the McCain them a didn’t object.
You know what is incredible… If anyone reports anything you don’t like you think they are “biased” against you.
And yet you think Fox is “fair and Balanced”.
You JohnA and JackB are quite the monst unhinged people I’ve come across for quite some time.
You’ve provided me with plenty of comedy material to ridicule your ilk for a very long time.
Thanks.
It was NOT common knowledge that Gwen Ifill had a book coming out.
More to the point – she failed to notify the Commission running the debates. The onus was on her to declare a material interest – she did not do so.
Just count the hands in the photos – it is 13 to 11. Not 13 to 8.
I don’t say Fox is balanced. It leans right – and says so. But it tries much harder than the others to have balance on a lot of its news programmes. What programme is there in ANY of the other channels that matches Hannity and Colmes in having one from each side ? Why does Kirsten Powers appear so often on the O’Reilly programme ?
And ptet – you fail to produce anything to show that the other channels are not biased. You fail to deal with that ridiculous AP report claiming that Palin is racist for attcking Obama. All you do is resort to stupid insults – which don’t wash.
An old but true article about Obama :
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell041508.php3
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 05.10.08 – 11:35 am |
PATHETIC.
True but a valid question all the same.
Who does fund this site and its contributors? If it is not a secret is there any harm in us knowing?
Or is that a question one just does not ask?
For goodness sake – “who is paying ?
This site has been running for years, it is an amateur effort. The posts are by people who are convinced that the BBC has systemic bias. Posters come and go.
If it was professional – it would have an editor, and it would be far more tightly run, probably less posts, lots of video links, much more slick.
JohnA | 05.10.08 – 9:14 pm |
Thank you for the info , if not the tone. What’s the harm in asking? Why the attitude? Do you think I’m off message ?
I ask not as a shill for the BBC (muppets take note) but because, every now and then, it needs pointing out. Especially as the side bar disclaimer is way down the screen and easily missed (it’s under the heading ‘Tell us about examples of BBC bias that you see and hear’). And since when did we believe everything we read?
As for it being better(!!) if it was professionally run. Are you sure of that? There’s plenty of ‘professional’ crap on the web so, personnaly, I think the guys that run this are doing rather well, preofessional or not.
CPOD
I didn’t say it would be better if professionally run. I said it would be different.
Your question seemed odd, is all. It implied someone was paying people to run this site.
JohnA | 05.10.08 – 10:14 pm |
Your question seemed odd, is all. It implied someone was paying people to run this site.
No, I was asking for clarification. Where’s the harm in that?
CPOD
On hill stood coo
Shifted, nae here noo.
Not Burns, but same sense
World service, 2.30 am. BBC reports in 8 seconds palin’s comment5s on Abama and Bill Ayers. 15 next seconds say plin is under accusation in Alaska for fiting the police chief.
FACT – what Palin said about Obama
NOT FACT – Palin did no wrong in Alaska.
Which BBC news editor inserted the Alaska stuff ?
I have just had a total brush-off by the BBC telephone complaints service.
But it has now got worse.
BBC World Service is giving as first headline the “Troopergate” stuff. As if this was headline news. At 3.30am .
No mention of the dynamite accusations by Palin about Obama and Bill Ayers.
In the tank for Obama – or what ?
Or is that a question one just does not ask?
The Cattle Prod of Destiny | 05.10.08 – 9:06 pm | #
Who cares. I only know it’s not me who funds Biased BBC. Unlike the BBC. which I am forced to fund.
I truly fail to see the point. But whoever funds it clearly does it on a shoestring budget. Or NOTHING.
FUNDING seems to be… err..
1. WEB DESIGNER. £NOWT, as it looks like it was put together on the back of a matchbox a decade ago. No offense. But please.
2. DOMAIN NAME. £NOWT. It doesn’t have one. But if it did, it would cost $49 via REGISTER.COM for one year. Discounts on multiple years buys.
2. WEB HOST £NOWT. As it use a FREE blog Hoster. But if it had its own domain name, about $99 per annum, if it’s anything like my TOP US web hoster LUNARPAGES.COM.
3. WEB MAINTENANCE £NOWT.
Or are you thinking this is a top line website, with cutting edge technology using it’s own banks of servers? In which case, you need to visit more web sites to see how primitive it is.
Seriously, anyone asking who funds a blogsite that clearly costs nothing to run is delusional.
AP said: “Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.”
Given the anti-Obama ranting I’ve seen here and elsewhere, I think that’s a fair point. I’ve seen seperate polls indicating that 20% of americans say they’d never vote for a black candidate – so it’s certainly an issue.
The Obama/Ayers “allegations” are compeletely ludicrous. Palin is babblingly incoherent when she’s off her talking points. AP/BBC/CNN aren’t perfect, but they at least try to be editorially objective. Fox News (while it has some excellent journalists) is absurdly & obscenely editorially biased – and its painful to see you people try to justify that on the simple basis that other news organizations don’t jump when you want them to.
ptet
You say the Ayers stuff is ludicrous. Others say it is a serious mark against Obama’s character and judgment- and part of a pattern. We won’t agree, no point arguing.
But the point of this thread is that the BBC is constantly “running interference” for the Obama campaign. The latest being their dropping very quickly the Ayers stuff – which they had NEVER before mentioned – and playig the Troopergate line. Troopergate is not in all the headlines yesteray ad today in the US media – it was Ayers. One has to conclude that folks at the BBC try to muffle anything critical of Obama. Bringing up Troopergate is an irrelevance – so who planted the idea at the BBC?
Your idea that CNN and BBC and AP “try to be editorially objective” is absurd. As regards the BBC, there are years of archives right here at this website showing that the BBC twists the news by commission or by omission all the time.
Seriously, anyone asking who funds a blogsite that clearly costs nothing to run is delusional.
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 06.10.08 – 10:59 am |
I can’t be sure, as it might have been a genuine, um, line of questioning, but I do think a point was being attempted. And, like most of its type, rather ended up with egg on its face.
Watch out for ‘we know here you live’ next.
Peter | Homepage | 06.10.08 – 6:24 pm |
Watch out for ‘we know here you live’ next.
I don’t care where you live, as long as it’s nowhere near me. 🙂
My point, if there was one, other than idle curiousity, was simple. Why the hostility over such an asinine question? If Mr Bauer had simply pointed out the side bar that would have been enough but instead, like you, he resorted to facile insults.
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 06.10.08 – 10:59 am |
You’ve been listening to too much Tammy Wynette old chap. Lighten up.
Palin did better than expected but avoided several questions. She talked a lot about energy but refused to accept the US’s considerable contribution to global warming and this simply confirmed our suspicions that she is hand in glove with big energy in her home state of Alaska.
She admitted her love for Israel despite all its many sins, and this must have turned her off for most thinking people.
Palin’s cheesy winks to Joe Six Pack was an afront to all sensible people and confirmed our idea that she is a bimbo hockey mom.
Joe Biden was polished and was a gentleman by not asking Palin about her ideas regarding Creationalism or her having voted for rape victims to be obliged to pay for their emergency medical care.
In all Auntie made a pretty fair job of assessing these two.
Robbo | 07.10.08 – 12:02 am |
Joe Biden was polished and was a gentleman by not asking Palin about her ideas regarding Creationalism or her having voted for rape victims to be obliged to pay for their emergency medical care.
In all Auntie made a pretty fair job of assessing these two.
Looks like we have another victim of BBC brainwashing.
Robbo, you’ve been lied to.
You believe a lie about the rape victim deal.
You also believe a lie about Sarah Palin and “Creationalism”. There is a wide range of Christian and Jewish belief about whether or not there is a Creator. They range from 6000 year-old Earth/God created everything just as it is now, to the belief that there is a Creator, but allows for actual history and evolution. Those people tend to believe that whatever makes humans different from animals is the Divine contribution, or words to that effect.
The reason you believe that Sarah Palin believes in the anti-all Science and 6000 year-old Earth fairy story is that people like Justin Webb have told you so. She doesn’t. She’s more moderate, much more so than the Muslims whom your beloved BBC refer to as moderate.
Further, the reason you fear her is because the BBC and others perpetuate the lie that she wants “Creationalism” taught as the truth. This is also a lie. She’s more one of those people who doesn’t want schools teaching children that religious belief is false. She will not outlaw science in schools, which is what people like you think will happen.
Which other religious beliefs do you believe disqualify someone from holding public office? Would you care to state that for the record?
While we’re at it, here are some other lies about Sarah Palin that have been debunked:
The Swift-Skirting of Sarah Palin
She doesn’t want millions of Israeli Jews to be wiped off the face of the earth. Is that wrong? There’s a huge difference between that and saying Israel is %100 right on everything, denying any faults. You really need to understand the difference. Criticizing Israel is not the same thing as wanting it destroyed, accepting the resulting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths. Supporting Israel’s right to exist is not the same thing as approving of every single action Israel has ever taken.
If you are saying that “most thinking people” believe that Israel should cease to exist, you’re going to have a hard time defending that statement.
I don’t care where you live, as long as it’s nowhere near me.
Why the hostility over such an asinine question? If Mr Bauer had simply pointed out the side bar that would have been enough but instead, like you, he resorted to facile insults.
The Cattle Prod of Destiny | 06.10.08 – 7:24 pm |
Well, being it’s a blog, who knows who lives where, or next to whom, eh?
I wouldn’t use that expression on some sites, mind, it could be deemed ‘ist’. Or, possibly, a hint of hostility or even an insult.
In the spirit of playing the point rather than the person, I’d be hard-pressed to call my comment (Mr. Bauer has his way, and, I am sure, will defend it if so moved) ‘hostile’. More a mild way of replying to ‘an asinine question’ that to me read as less foolish than trying to create a back story of darkly-funded support… on a free to visit or leave blog… that is hard to credit. Seems to be a trend at the ‘mo. If that was not your intention.. my bad.
But, equally, I’d have question the accusation implied by the word ‘insult’ too. Can you insult a statement? Which makes the adjective preceding it moot, but in any case still a subjective view of, so far, one.
Sorry to have touched a raw nerve.
“But the point of this thread is that the BBC is constantly “running interference” for the Obama campaign. The latest being their dropping very quickly the Ayers stuff – which they had NEVER before mentioned”
That’s just your paranoia playing tricks on you. Once again, just because a news organization is not following the talking points of your candidates campaign, that does not mean they are out to get you. Sheesh – Fox *actively* follows Republican talking points. But you think that’s OK.
Look, I worked in news media for quite awhile. Part of what I did was work to ensure balance in reporting. Sure, there were slips and favourites and people aren’t perfect and mistakes happen… But to characterise CNN, the BBC, and AP as “biased” because they don’t parrot the Republican party line is odious – and a direct attack on the freedom of the press.
Freedom of the press means sometimes things are reported which you don’t like. Them’s the breaks.
“You believe a lie about the rape victim deal.”
Alaska has a horrible rate of sexual assaults. Palin actively supported the idea of charging (insurance companies) for rape kits. So you are raped, right, and the first thing you’re asked at the hospital is “can we have your health insurance details”. How’s that going to work out for you? This is an issue of attitudes towards sexual assault & women in general.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html
“You also believe a lie about Sarah Palin and “Creationalism”. “
Sigh. Then why did she promote creationist candidates for school boards?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/print.html
“She doesn’t want millions of Israeli Jews to be wiped off the face of the earth.”
No, but until she was 38 she attended a church which actively teaches that the end days are imminent, and that Russia will be decimated in a nuclear war in the middle east. What do you think they imagine happens to Israel? take a wild guess.
ptit — The Huffington Dolt is not the “news media.”
It’s an extreme loony left blog opinion site. So quoting it as a source, just shows what part of the alleged “media” for whom you used to propaganidize.
But it explains a lot about the sorry state of affairs as exemplified by the Institutionally Leftist BBC.
And the rape fantasy about Sarah Palin is a lie. As has been shown by actual “news media.” You might want to understand that quoting loony left shites to bolster your extreme views, like SALON, HUFFINGTON, just produces sighs and laughter.
Hey Jack – You really the are the biggest asshole I’ve come across in a long time. Its no surprise that you completely ignore any information you don’t like. That’s how you stay so stuningly ignorant. Salon is a “loony lefty shite”? What will there be left to read, I wonder, when Fox and Malkin and Drudge become too soft for you? Have fun in paranoid-whackjob land.