Point one: in your comment about the Right’s remarkable anger against Obama (highlighted by David here) you clearly show you are, as they say, “in the tank” for Obama. It’s easily demonstrable as your accusation precisely reflects what avowedly right-wing journalists like Michelle Malkin say is “another false narrative: The narrative of the McCain “mob” ” that is being developed by the liberal-left media. Your narrative now, Justin. If balance lies in being in the middle of the opposing poles- you aren’t there.
Point two: in case you think you can justify your claims of one-sided partisan anger, there is plentiful evidence available of Leftist hate- look at Malkin’s site here, and at the above thankfully blurred photo of disgraceful hateful activism. What’s spite and anger if that isn’t?
That looks like the BBC newsroom to me.
A couple of days ago the sidebar to Gavin Hewitt’s blog stated “I’m Gavin Hewitt, following Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. My colleague, Justin Webb, is doing the same for John McCain.”
Webb obviously didn’t feel happy in this role • too much pressure to tone down the anti-McCain/Palin rhetoric knowing he has to meet the great unwashed Republican voters. Matthew Price is now the official McCain campaign blogger.
Just how many BBC hacks are there in the US at the moment? Here’s a quick starter list • please add if you spot others:
Justin Webb, Matt Frei, Katty Kay, Matthew Price, Gavin Hewitt, Peter Marshall, Jonathan Marcus,
Rajini Vaidyanathan, Richard Lister, Steve Chittenden, Rajesh Mirchandani, Laura Trevelyan, and of course Greg Palast.
And not one of them – apart from the ludicrous Palast – has bothered to mention the ACORN voter registration scandal.
Rachel Harvey
Jon Kelly, Robert Plummer
Martin Luther King once said, “We (African Americans) should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skins”.
While the BBC reporters listed above have constantly referred to Obama’s color have any of them ever examined his character.
If they haven’t, then by MLK’s own definition they are racists.
There are numerous others. Kevin Connolly and Philippa Thomas are two that I can recall.
There are others who seem to pay flying visits. Last week there was a blog by someone called, I think, Peter Marshall. And Kirsty Wark had hauled Newsnight over the pond for an edition from Washington.
A classic blinkered leftie review of the newspapers towards the end of ‘Broadcasting House, Sunday 12th October (listen from minute 52:30).
The usual sneers at Palin, ” .. the hockey mom .. has nothing else … she has no quaifications ..etc, etc”. The best was at the end, however, when Alvin Hall (the rather strange financial ‘guru’), talking of the presidential election, said (and I quote verbatim) “I think there will be a mandate in the States. I think if you look at Obama’s numbers [I presume he means poll numbers], if he is elected, it will be mandate. If McCain is elected, it will not be a mandate. It will be just people going after the safe choice because of, to put it bluntly, the scare of having a black man in charge of America”.
Astonishing.
Millie Tant | 13.10.08 – 3:33 pm
Kevin Connolly and Philippa Thomas – of course! Another is Radio One’s Sima Kotecha.
John Pienaar, Richard Bacon, Lesley Ashmall and Rhod Sharp are all lined up to report for R5L from the US on election night. Naughtie’s bound to be over there, as will a few from Newsnight (maybe Gavin Esler can take his new bird along to keep them all entertained)
It’s a good job nothing worth reporting is happening in Europe at the moment, isn’t it? The combined investigative genius of Mark Mardell and Jonny Dymond have got all that covered.
Add Simon Mayo, he was out there all last week.
Melanie Phillips:
“Everyone’s out to destroy Palin – but it’s Obama’s past we should examine”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076957/MELANIE-PHILIPS-Everyone-destroy-Palin–Obamas-past-examine.html
The BBC is at FULL THROTTLE now in its blatant propaganda of: pro-Obama, anti-Palin campaign.
I think we know what to expect from the ‘Panorama’ propaganda tonight, even from the very biased title:
“Obama and the Pitbull: An American Tale”
Yes, that’s BBC impartality: call your favoured Presidential candidate by his name, but compare him not to his oppositional Presidential candiate, McCain, but to the oppositional Vice President, who is not given the repect of her name of Palin by the BBC, but is titled by this anti-Republican ‘Panorama’ as PITBULL!!!A BBC insult.
The BBC should apologise to the Republican Party on behalf of the UK licencepayers, who have as much say in the running of the BBC as they do in allowing Labour’s peerage for the unelected Mandelson.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7658981.stm
Cause no-one would ever make any offensive anti-Obama stuff, right?
And the “c” word could only ever be used to be *sexist*, right?
Oh wait – what about these examples?
http://ptet.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-is-ct-shocker.html
ptet | Homepage | 13.10.08 – 5:09 pm |
Which means that nothing Leftoids do is wrong? “You do it, too” is not a defense. It’s a deflection. Especially since the deranged behavior, intimidation, and threats of violence against Bush…er…Palin…er…McCain far outweighs that against The Obamessiah.
But go on, point out all the naughty things Republican supporters have said lately. You can’t hide the truth.
“titled by this anti-Republican ‘Panorama’ as PITBULL!!!A BBC insult.”
Did I miss something? Palin has repeatedly joked about herself being a pitbull with lipstick.
Now various American newspapers are endorsing Obama, and saying that McCain’s pick of Palin was reckless and was a major plank of them rejecting McCain. So the Panorama report seems a pretty fair reflection of what’s happened so far.
Of course the BBC gets things wrong. But to say that it’s somehow distorting what’s going on in the campaign seems silly to me.
Especially since the deranged behavior, intimidation, and threats of violence against Bush…er…Palin…er…McCain far outweighs that against The Obamessiah.”
Where’s your evidence for that?
There’s only one set of supporters calling a candidate a “arab” “muslim” “terrorist” and “kill him”… And that isn’t Obama supporters, is it?
Can you show any evidence whatsoever of threats of violence from Obama supporters. or are you just talking out of your ass?
And FFS, no one says the leftoids are perfect. That’s just you being silly.
Ptet, the point of the original post was to refute BBC journalist Justin Webb’s assertion that the Republicans loathe the Democrats in a uniquely fanatical way which is not reciprocated by the Democrats.
So your statement “Cause no-one would ever make any offensive anti-Obama stuff, right?” gets to the point, they both do it. So why did Webb claim the Democrats are somehow purer?
I complained to the BBC about the Panorama title.
The reply will be ‘we do not need to be impartial in a single programme….’
Check out the Panorama web site, they are haedly making any pretence of impartiality.
I would not like to be anything throwable and breakable at the BBC if Saint Obama Loses.
Cause no-one would ever make any offensive anti-Obama stuff, right?
ptet | Homepage | 13.10.08 – 5:09 pm
When the BBC equates the hatred of a few moronic Obama supporters with the wider Democrat base you’ll have a point.
Returning to an earlier point, I’m willing to bet that the ACORN story is about to break on the BBC. According to the Huffington Post (ignore all the bullshit and scroll down to the last two paragraphs):
On Monday, Obama’s communication’s shop is expected to go on the offense on issues of voter protection after a week in which Republicans cried foul about registration efforts in various states and painted the community organizing group ACORN as a criminal enterprise.
Obama aides will attack Republicans over efforts to disenfranchise voters in several states, and announce a voter protection campaign involving hundreds of volunteer lawyers around the country.
BBC journalists will be happy to report on this now that the Obama campaign has given them some partisan propaganda to use. Look out for Democrat talking points. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me to see Greg Palast’s Newsnight piece being used by the Democrats.
Yes Ptet.
One man shouted “kill him” at a Republican rally.
But we don’t know his political affiliations, do we?
He might be a democrat.
Why don’t you google “Cui bono”?
Ron Todd:
I’m already on the case with the BBC over this. They always claim they are balanced in thier output, so if that’s the case the BBC should be able to prove it should they not?
They should be able to tell us how much time each main political party gets how many guests from each political party appear on the BBC and how many journalists from the Guardian appear on every BBC show.
If they don’t monitor or can’t prove the above how do they know their output is balanced?
Their statements that they are would be meaningless as they would be an opinion only not a factual statement.
ptet | Homepage | 13.10.08 – 5:38 pm |
Where’s your evidence for that?
There’s only one set of supporters calling a candidate a “arab” “muslim” “terrorist” and “kill him”… And that isn’t Obama supporters, is it?
Can you show any evidence whatsoever of threats of violence from Obama supporters. or are you just talking out of your ass?
Haven’t you been following the comments section of this blog? This has been posted at least once already, and some of the incidents have been mentioned individually:
Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”
This has been known for a while now, yet you’re not only unaware of it, you don’t believe any of this could exist. I find that a little frightening.
And FFS, no one says the leftoids are perfect. That’s just you being silly.
Then why did you try to use “Republicans do it, too” as a defense?
Look, your rightwing candidate is shyte, his running mate is a naive loon, and his supporters are a murderous mob who think nothing of shouting “off with his head!” at Repugnant – sorry Republican – rallies.
Conservatism is collapsing under the weight of its obvious and bloated contradictions, and a darned good thing that is too.
Throwing around paranoid accusations about the priceless BBC simply fixes the blinkered nature of rightwingers. It’s everyone elses fsult but your own! Awww, diddums.
The Right never knows how to bear responsibility, particularly when the failings are pinned so easily on the Right’s feeble shoulders.
“the priceless BBC”
That’s some funny shit right there.
That’s characteristically desperate stuff Mr Presier!
The only wing in this race yelling for harm to be meted out on the opposing candidate is the mad, swivel-eyed Right Wing.
This election, Americans aren’t buying the crazed anger that attaches to those of rightwing views. They aren’t buying the smears driven by the sheer desperation of the Right as power slips from its incompetent, corrupt, nepotistic grasp (besides, thickie Palin’s husband is associated with an actual, dyed in the wool America-hater! The lack of focus on this scandal explodes infantile rightwing whining about Liberal coverage in broadcast news).
The right is bombed out. It has always been intellectually bankrupt (as well as morally bankrupt) – the illusion of wealth generated by reckless bankers keeping the whole conservative movement on life support for a decade longer than was healthy for it. The credit crunch sees the people at last switching the machine off.
Neither candidate inspires much confidence. The American voters are between a rock and a hard place.
I would love to know what exactly Simon Schama thinks is so great about The One.
All those smears are one thing, but what are the positives? Change? Hope and Change? Is that it? A vote for Not Bush?
It’s obvious that everyone has projected what they want onto a blank canvas.
If Obama wins, what happens when various hopes and dreams don’t quite turn out the way they deluded themselves they would. And with the predicted mandate, there will be no excuses for falling short. What disappointments are in store for those whose hopes and dreams were pinned on their own particular fantasy of the meaning of change and hope?
I can’t get The Plot against America by Philip Roth out of my mind.
BenM | 13.10.08 – 7:38 pm |
Someone’s not taken their medication today. Sometimes I wish we had an “ignore” button here.
Mike Davies:
Ptet, the point of the original post was to refute BBC journalist Justin Webb’s assertion that the Republicans loathe the Democrats in a uniquely fanatical way which is not reciprocated by the Democrats.”
Mike… The hatred some Republicans are showing for Obama is surreal. They are saying he lied about the place of his birth; his upbringing; his father, his religion, his politics, his race. There are rumors being spread that he is HIV positive, that he is a muslim, arab, terrorist. He is being compared to Osama Bin Laden.
The hatred shown towards Obama is not the same as the ridicule being shown towards Sarah Palin, and if you cannot tell the difference then, really, I despair for you.
Another thing – the anti-Palin jokes are home grown. The anti-Obama stuff is being parroted by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and (as we’ve seen from the 70s little old lady) RNC official campaign offices.
Jeez louise, we even have Bill Kristol of all people today pointing out in the New York Times that the negative campaigning by McCain/Palin is driving away independents & moderates and losing McCain votes.
Here’s a quoe from a CNN anchor I’ve been saving for my blog:
”
From a profile on CNN anchor Campbell Brown:
…when you have Candidate A saying the sky is blue, and Candidate B saying it’s a cloudy day, I look outside and I see, well, it’s a cloudy day. I should be able to tell my viewers, ‘Candidate A is wrong, Candidate B is right.’ And not have to say, ‘Well, you decide.’ Then it would be like I’m an idiot. And I’d be treating the audience like idiots.”
You are asking that Panorama treat it’s audience like idiots, by ignoring the reality of what’s hapening on the ground in this election campaign…
You are asking for the BBC to “balance” it’s report by pretending that the Democratic campaign is doing things which there is no evidence of whatsoever.
Gordon:
Yes Ptet.
One man shouted “kill him” at a Republican rally.
But we don’t know his political affiliations, do we?
He might be a democrat.
Why don’t you google “Cui bono”?
FFS that is utterly delusional. We know the political affiliation of the little old lady who said Obama was an “arab”. Why didn’t McCain & Palin stop the shouts of “terrorist” and “kill him” at rallies? Why did McCain get booed by a section of the crowd when he said he wanted a civilized campaign?
By Gordon’s argument Rush Limbaugh must be a left-wing plant…
BenM:
“incompetent, corrupt, nepotistic grasp”….”thickie Palin’s husband”…”rightwing views”
Tedious leftist script: insults are not arguments, Ben haven’t you learned that yet? BTW how old are you, really?
Just another left-hand-drive by shooting.
ptet | Homepage | 13.10.08 – 7:49 pm |
The hatred shown towards Obama is not the same as the ridicule being shown towards Sarah Palin, and if you cannot tell the difference then, really, I despair for you.
Calling her dangerous isn’t the same thing. Are you denying that people are calling Sarah Palin dangerous? Are you denying that there has been a smear campaign going on – which the BBC happily reported based solely on rumor – about her new baby not being hers, and some ridiculous cover-up for her teenage daughter? Is that just fine by you?
Another thing – the anti-Palin jokes are home grown. The anti-Obama stuff is being parroted by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and (as we’ve seen from the 70s little old lady) RNC official campaign offices.
So now you’re just denying that The Obamessiah has made public statements about wealth redistribution, that he lied about his association with Ayers and ACORN, and that he did not go behind his own government’s back to convince the Iraqi government to delay an agreement to aid his election? In other words, you’re saying just because a right-winger is saying it, that these are all lies?
Jeez louise, we even have Bill Kristol of all people today pointing out in the New York Times that the negative campaigning by McCain/Palin is driving away independents & moderates and losing McCain votes.
Bill Kristol is caught up in the same false hysteria you are.
You are asking that Panorama treat it’s audience like idiots, by ignoring the reality of what’s hapening on the ground in this election campaign…
You are asking for the BBC to “balance” it’s report by pretending that the Democratic campaign is doing things which there is no evidence of whatsoever.
Now you’re just lying. Lots of evidence has already been provided to you. You’re lying about that. There’s a link to the evidence in the main post.
Also, some of us are asking that the BBC doesn’t allow its talent to state on air that people should be disqualified from public office for holding certain religious beliefs. Or do you think that’s great, too?
ptet 5:33 pm
You choose to miss the blindingly obvious bias in even the ‘Panorama’ title.
The title is:
NOT: ‘Obama v. McCain’,
NOT: ‘Biden v. Palin’,
NOT: ‘Obama v. Palin’
NOT: ‘McCain v. Biden’
But IT IS: ‘Obama v. Pitbull’
Hi Andrewsouthlondon,
Another one who’s swallowed conservative guff wholesale and cannot wake up.
The right has nothing to say. Its economics in flames (it lost the social argument decades ago); so its acolytes scream with indignant rage about their perceived treatment in the media while more and more people rightly ignore the movement.
The irony is, that given the power the Right has had at its disposal these last 30 years, the descent into irrelevance is even more marked. And funny.
Wow, yet more Obama-worshiping anti-capitalist pro-commie leftists that just *heart* the BBC.
It’s as if the BBC is biased or something.
Melanie Phillips on issues which the hordes of BBC subsidised Obama supporter/ ‘reporters’ in America studiously avoid:
1.)”Truth goes under the bus”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2216706/truth-goes-under-the-bus.thtml
2.)”Through a glass darkly”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2216966/through-a-glass-darkly.thtml
BenM @ 8:17pm
“The right has nothing to say.”
So true; and neither has the left – both offer more of the same old poison of state interference in everyone’s lives.
McCain offers NATIONAL Socialism
Obama offers national SOCIALISM.
Different sides of the same old bankrupt coin.
Get outside the bubble of the false alternatives of left and right and see the real alternative.
As for the Beeb; it is a disgrace.
ed thomas – > even i am getting hateful messages – from my own relatives!
“how can you NOT support obama.. you right wing sh*t…”
is the general gist of it.
bit shocked about it really. my pointing out that mccain is actually one heck of moderate falls on deaf ears.
remember mccain wanting to make all illegals legal? and he worked with lieberman to get that bill passed (but it failed)
thats not a right wing nutcase. thats a centrist who is relatively moderate…
thats why i cant understand the hate.
now if Palin was running for Pres, then yeah – its roll up the shirtshelves and get stuck in…
BenM | 13.10.08 – 7:38 pm
Desperate
Yelling
Mad
Swivel-eyed
Crazed anger
Smears
Sheer desperation
Incompetent
Corrupt
Nepotistic
Thickie
America-hater
Scandal
Infantile
Whining
Bombed out
Intellectually bankrupt
Morally bankrupt
Illusion
Reckless
With all that it’s amazing you still managed to make a point or two.
archduke | 13.10.08 – 8:53 pm,
If these relatives of yours are not American just shows how deep and widespread the passions are regarding this election.
George R | 13.10.08 – 4:34 pm,
Excellent article fom Melanie Phillips, as usual.
Bryan | 13.10.08 – 9:12 pm
yeah.. that worries me. they are irish. which is normally a pro-american country.
seems like the euro msm have gotten to them in a big way.
bryan – one more thing.
i convinced my brother that mccain would be a good pres. he’s in ireland and probably the only pro-mccain guy over there.
but it took a lot of effort – lots of emails, texts and urls…
then again – there’s me thinking – why the fuck cant mccain do that?
thinking of it – mccain has run a lousy campaign.I shouldnt have to sell mccain.
i can understand the booos when mccain said that obama was a decent bloke – the booos werent directed at obama.
they were at mccain.
don’t pray mad mel in aid. she’s the only mainstream political commentator in the uk who believes intelligent design provides an alternative explanation to evolution through natural selection. Alongside her view on mmr, this renders her a yahoo of the lowest order. her husband’s a good journo though. ex-auntie i think
BenM,
You have shown your colours by spouting the Dem talking point about the economic problems being the result of Republicans.
You see this is the ironic thing. The MSM is going on about the economy being Obama’s strong point YET the fact is Obama is complicit in ensuring measures WERE NOT put in place to control Fanny/Freddy.
It is a fact that Obama took their money to ensure measures were NOT passed by the Senate.
These are not lies (well I guess they are if you are a Dem) BUT the fact you are spouting Democratic propogranda just proves the point that if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the “truth”.
Mailman
whitewineliberal | 13.10.08 – 10:10 pm |
don’t pray mad mel in aid. she’s the only mainstream political commentator in the uk who believes intelligent design provides an alternative explanation to evolution through natural selection. Alongside her view on mmr, this renders her a yahoo of the lowest order. her husband’s a good journo though. ex-auntie i think
Which other religious beliefs would you categorize in this way? Do you feel, like Justin Webb, that this alone should disqualify her from holding public office? What other religious beliefs would you categorize that way? Do you approve of BBC reporters making similar remarks on air?
Dearb God this whole thing is pitiful. The serious press in the UK (i..e the FT and Economist these days) has it about right. They’re two decent enough blokes either of which would make a reasonable President, but their poor performances recently in the credit-crunch context suggest neither would make a great one.
All this hysteria is beyond me. This is what happens when a nation doesn’t have proper sports – boggle eyed rage, wishings of death and wild accusations of extreme perversions should be saved and directed at anyone associated with Arsenal FC.
cockney – spot on
david – it’s her scientific belief, that’s the problem. it disqualifies her from being taken seriously.
Oh come on, the Sarah Palin is a C**t t-shirts are dripping in irony – they are a response the Republicans’ slurs taken to the extreme. The slurs, exaggeration and outright lies told by the Republicans are far worse than anything from the Democrat camp so far.
You might not appreciate the humour, but the lefties taking the piss out of Sarah Palin are shooting fish in a barrel. How can they NOT make fun of someone so stupid she thinks the world is a few thousand years old (as proven 100%, no shadow of a doubt to be billions of years old)? How can sensible, educated “normal” people vote for a party whose substitute president – potentially the most powerful (ergo dangerous) person in the world – genuinely believes men and dinosaurs shared air? If Obama’s association with a shamed preacher is cause for concern, why is Sarah Palin’s fantasy world not?
As for the supporters, there are nuts on both sides. I’d rather have a “C**t” t-shirt than than this guy: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry4515246.shtml (yeah, yeah “the race card”, but if he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong, why remove the sticker
when he noticed the camera?)
Okay, my political views notwithstanding (I don’t consider myself a leftie, but Palin scares the crap out of me so much I couldn’t care less about McCain), I agree whole-heartedly that the BBC should not in any way be promoting Obama over McCain, and I agree that they are currently doing just that. However, were they 100% objective in reporting this election Sarah Palin would still come across as a nut. But we’d get more negative stuff on Obama.
On a side note, I think B-BBC needs to get back on message. This site seems to have become increasingly a screeching anti-left site, NOT one that highlights the BBC’s leftie bias. It’s more “the BBC are lefties, I hate lefties, here’s why:” And I just realised I’m guilty of it too. Damn.
On last night’s news one of the plague of BBC reporters ‘reporting’ on the US election showed people leaving a McCain rally early while he was speaking. The implication given was that even his supporters were moving away from McCain.
Of course he didn’t check who they were, or why they were leaving.
If having strange beliefs really disqualifies you from being taken seriously or being in high office we would have lost the services of Conan Doyle, Churchill, Wellington, Brunel, and Darwin.
“Wow, yet more Obama-worshiping anti-capitalist pro-commie leftists that just *heart* the BBC.”
What a truly idiotic thing to say.
“Dearb God this whole thing is pitiful. The serious press in the UK (i..e the FT and Economist these days) has it about right. They’re two decent enough blokes either of which would make a reasonable President”
Now that’s much more like it.
The BBC’s job is to be independent. That means sometimes it will report things that you don’t like, and that I don’t like. It will make mistakes. It will require watching and scolding.
But to pretend that it’s “extreme” because it’s not a mirror of Fox News is more than slightly odd. it’s stupid.
You don’t need to be a “leftoid” to criticize Sarah Palin. Right-wingers have done that and gotten death threats for doing so. You don’t have to be a leftoid to paint her as a “pitbull”. She called herself that.
This blog is interesting and makes valid points… But the suggestions of some commentators that there is some sort of conspiracy at the BBC to hurt McCain and get Obama elected just makes them look like idiots.
“On last night’s news one of the plague of BBC reporters ‘reporting’ on the US election showed people leaving a McCain rally early while he was speaking. The implication given was that even his supporters were moving away from McCain.”
Suggestion? Implication? Is that how you read it? So you’re saying the BBC shouldn’t have shown the people leaving, because it “suggested” and “implicated” to you things you didn’t ant to hear? Thanks for that inciteful and useful bit of analysis.
We’ll get Justin Webb to run everything he right past you first, shall we, to make sure you’re happy that your and only your political views are reported by the Beeb.