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?
archduke | 13.10.08 – 9:28 pm
I tend to agree that McCain has run a lousy campaign but he really does have his back to the wall with all the anti-conservative hysteria in the US and worldwide.
Hate to say this, but there is something unconvincing about McCain, as if he is playing the role of a contender for president rather than being genuinely convinced of his calling. I also hope he drops this “my friends” talk in the final debate. Far better to talk straight. People don’t want a friendly president, they want someone who can help get the country out of the sh*t.
david frum’s no leftie –
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjNiOTBhN2IwMmU1YjJiOTkzZDMxN2VjNWQ5NmFmOTc=
Why do British reporters have any bloody view at all? Why can’t they just do their job? Is that too much to bloody ask?
There must be about 100 or so of the cretinous 5th formers over there – there’s Alan Little (I think) riding around on a bus. They even have Steven Fry driving round in a cab (although, he didn’t seem to give much of a toss).
I’m as political as the next dude but I’ve never given a monkey’s about foreign elections – not my business – probably ain’t ever gonna be my business but I love elections for what they represent. These are just left wing meeja clones all reporting on what reporters of reporters are saying rather than, shock – horror – reporting what the candidates & campaigns have said.
Why can’t there just be 8 reporters – 4 for each campaign churning out copy for all the various outlets that the BBC operates? Don’t get this kind of reporting from France or Ireland – but in Yanksville it’s a bloody jamboree. Duplication on a massive publicly funded scale. Wasteful tossers.
I feel sorry for the poor fucker who wins.
Devil’s Advocate | 14.10.08 – 10:06 am
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.
How very post-modern. Thanks for the laugh.
Ptet,
All I want from the BBC reporters covering the election is balanced reporting, with proper investigations of the policies and characters of both sides, not silly tricks.
Dick,
New Zealand and Canada are both in the midst of elections and the BBC’s coverage has been almost non existant.
An interesting piece about the background of Barack Obama, why have we not heard any of this on the BBC. Particularly the fact that he was elected to the Senate by the simple expedient of getting all his opponents and the sitting incumbent disqualified.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077345/Ive-lost-faith-The-Messiah-How-EDWARD-HEATHCOAT-AMORY-lost-Obama-mania.html
arthur – we have, including at some length on
panorama last night.
DB,
There is a large herd of beeboids sitting expensively in the US. Just why are we paying them when all they visibly and audibly do is parrot the American media? We can read the origninal on the internet and listen and watch radio and TV from many outlets, and they do by definition a far better job than a bunch of overpaid and wastefully maintained ignorant British hacks.
Why do no left-wingers ever post on this site complaining that the BBC is biased ?
they post on medialens,
Devil’s Advocate
So you don’t know the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Can’t say I’m surprised.
Devils Advocate:
When you posted your comments I imagined you foaming at the mouth, sitting in a huge recycled plastic chair, in a huge solar powered dome that rose out of the atlantic ocean, while various homosexual workers in green boiler suits rushed around behind you, busying themselves painting placards, while you stroked a big furry non-white cat in your lap going:
“mwah, mwah, mwah mwaaaahhhhhh!”
arthur – we have, including at some length on panorama last night
So the BBC finally got around to something that appears to have been in the US media for weeks. Did they put it on the news (they find time to promote every single Palin smear on the news) or include it in a documentary that relatively few people will watch. They didn’t even trail the Panorama stories in the news which is what they usually do if they want to draw attention to something. Funny that don’t you think?
Devil’s Advocate | 14.10.08 – 10:06 am |
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/ 200…ry4515246.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?)
A response? All this viciousness is merely a response? What sort of nonsense is that? Why do ascribe full nastiness only to one side, while excusing the other entirely?
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.
Why does she scare you more than someone who went to a church for 20 years where they preached that Jesus was black? Why does she scare you more than someone who has said outright that he will seize money from whomever he sees fit to redistribute to his pet projects? Why does she scare you more than someone who goes behind his own government’s back, and used US soldiers as pawns for his own election? (Before you say anything about Boooosh, Palin never did that. In fact, her own son is over there right now.) Why does she scare you more than someone whose economic policy is being protested by hundreds of economists? Why does she scare you more than someone who has for years been associated with what is now known to be an organization continuously engaged in criminal acts? Why does she scare you more than someone who supports radical, far-left educational programs, designed to indoctrinate children in favor of Socialism?
Why, exactly, does Sarah Palin scare the crap out of you? Is it because of one particular religious belief – one which you interpret slightly wrong, and, worse, one which she has stated several times she would never use her position to force on anyone? Unlike The Obamessiah? One belief? Or, more accurately, one small aspect of her belief? Is that all you got?
Unless we see a real explanation of why she scares the crap out of you more than someone whom I’ve described above, that fear is pretty worthless, and based on your own bigotry.
Excellent comment, Mr Preiser. Every Beeboid should read it.
“Why does she scare you more than someone whose economic policy is being protested by hundreds of economists?”
Not paraticularly scientific and certianly from a skewed sample, but in a poll for The Economist a large majority of economists preferred Obama’s economic policy (the mag itself has been critical of both for having sums which don’t add up which is pretty much my view also).
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127
“Why do British reporters have any bloody view at all? Why can’t they just do their job? Is that too much to bloody ask?”
Bloody hell. What do you want? Faceless robot parroting whatever the political masters of the day tell them? A journalists job is to distill down facts, opinions and events into a report. Yes the report should be balanced and truthful. yes reporters get things wrong and can be critisized for that… but that comment shows a disturbing lack of insight into how events occur, never mind anything else.
“Why do no left-wingers ever post on this site complaining that the BBC is biased ?”
Because this site is a haven, it seems, for frothing-at-the-mouth right wingers (and everyone else of course :)) At this time in the cycle of things, it’s the conseevatives who are looking shaky – what with the US elections and the near collapse of capitalism (that’s the IMF saying that not me)… So it’s conservatives who feel aggrieved.
“Just why are we paying them when all they visibly and audibly do is parrot the American media?”
I follow the American media very closely and I don’t think the BBC is parroting. Were getting a British slant.
You know what? Obama is just another policitician, and I don’t see him getting a free ride by the BBC. What I see is the McCain/Palin camp making many of the stupid and avoidable mistakes of the kind that reporters like to report – because as we all know if it bleeds it leads.
If there WAS any juice to the Ayers/Wright/Rezko/BirthCeritifcate stories the US media would be all over them and the BBC would be too. Sheesh – Hilary Clinton would have used them to crish the Obama candidancy back in the primaries.
That’s not to say something new won;t come out…
But for the moment, we have what we have. Generally in campaigns no matter what is happening those falling behind look shaky and make more mistakes, and that’s wat we’re seeing from McCain/Palin.
The BBC is far from perfect… But sheesh, it’s better than a lot of the US media, and if you do’t like the Beed there’s l=plenty of other places you can go for news.
Sure, we pay for the Beeb in a way we don’t pay for other news – but that’s an entirely different point from the one I see made here over and over again, which is a general complaint that the American political CAMPAIGN isn’t going the way some people want…
Cockney | 14.10.08 – 4:29 pm |
the mag itself has been critical of both for having sums which don’t add up which is pretty much my view also).
Too right they don’t. Start with the magical 95% tax cut, and work down from there. A poll of professional Economist readers isn’t exactly scientific either.
ptet | Homepage | 14.10.08 – 4:30 pm |
Sure, we pay for the Beeb in a way we don’t pay for other news – but that’s an entirely different point from the one I see made here over and over again, which is a general complaint that the American political CAMPAIGN isn’t going the way some people want…
You’ve revealed your own prejudices here, I’m afraid. The complaints about BBC bias would be there even if McCain was ahead by 50 points. I know you’d prefer to look at it as sour grapes, but then why would anyone have been complaining about bias during the Democrat primary? Why would there be complaints about the way the BBC is reporting the bank crisis? You’ll need to offer actual proof that there is a COMPLAINT about that here, rather than a few people thinking that to themselves.
cockney and ptet – what you said.
And ptet, i like the blog.
“The complaints about BBC bias would be there even if McCain was ahead by 50 points.”
You miss the point, David. the reporting would be very different if McCain was 50 points ahead.
Look at McCain/Palin supporters in America. they complain that the American media has a left-wing bias, that CNN and the mainstream media and even AP are “in the bag” for Obama.
I have no problem with complaints about the way the BBC is covering the banking crisis, or the election, or anything else. Complaining is what we British do. this blog was around long before the US election and it’ll be around long after.
What I find ludicrous is the notion that the BBC is somehow “pro-Obama”. Do you think the BBC is “pro-Bank” or “anti-capitalism” because of the way it reports the banking crisis?
And fine, I have bias. I run a satirical blog where I wear what amuses me on my sleeve.
You’re the one, David, who pretended that little old lady who called McCain an “arab” was some kind of freak aberration, and wants us to believe that there isn’t a sizable chunk of McCain/Supporters going around implying that Obama is some sort of “muslim”(whether they are doing so out of mischief, malice or stupidity).
Now Palin scare me because she is totally clueless. She’d be a cypher for heaven knows what.
Obama on the other hand, I think (my opnion) is pretty much a mainstream left-wing politician. Shrug.
You know what tho? We both think the monkey-sticker guy was an asshat, so we’re probably closer than we think on lots of issues 🙂
Best wishes
We were complaining here about anti-palin and anti-McCain bias when the polls were even.
It is ridiculous to suggest that media coverage in the US is balanced.
EG some recent statistics on the TV channels – strongly pro-Obama slanting of the “news”:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/14/study-big-3-networks-still-fixated-on-first-love-o/
I notice that if Obama says anything about the economy, the BBC is likely to report it. If McCain says something – for instance the crisis was caused primarily by Fannie Mae and the Dems, the BBC chooses not to report it – it swerves across to some minor Palin story.
WWL 1:55
I just checked out Medialens, and you are right. There are some really extreme left wing nutters posting there who think the BBC is biased towards the Right.
One crazy guy actually thought the BBC reporting of the war in Georgia was biased AGAINST Russia. Amazing !
Like this you mean – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7668931.stm
ptet 5:23
I find it almost incredible that you do not think the BBC is biased towards Obama.
Palin scares you “because she is totally clueless”. But, then so is Biden, who is thick as two short planks. But then, he is a democrat so it is ok.
Further to Stravaig | 14.10.08 – 2:00 pm:
Intelligent Design does not appear to follow the Biblical line on the age of the Earth:
“Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature.”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design
Before you ask, Atheist.
I remember 28 years ago all the usual left wing idiots were saying exactly the same thing about Reagan that they are now saying about Palin on the “ignorance” front. Only, then it was he was to old while she is just stupid, ignorant and “unqualified”. They did the same in the UK – demeaning Thatcher as just a grocer’s daughter.
They seems to think that anything that doesn’t come with a left wing sticker out of an Ivy League university is worthless and open to ridicule. Well, look at what all those “qualified” and super-intelligent smart ass Democrats like Barney Franks have done for the US economy. Look also at Obama’s Democrat-run Illinois budget deficit (800 million and counting) and look at San Francisco’s finances, buckling under the weight of a European-style cradle to grave entitlement program introduced by the Democrats.
Smart these Democrats are, eh?
ptet | Homepage | 14.10.08 – 5:23 pm |
You miss the point, David. the reporting would be very different if McCain was 50 points ahead.
Not so. The BBC would have to report that McCain was ahead, but they would still insult his running mate, Matt Frei would still have held a panel discussion last year swooning over the possibility of a Clinton in the White House, Newsnight would still tell lies about voter fraud (probably even more so), the “US is racist” theme would be ramped up exponentially, etc.
What you fail to understand is that the complaint is not about reporting The Obamessiah is ahead, but the reporting on the entire process, and including slander by the BBC. None of that has anything to do with who is ahead or not. As JohnA points out, people here were complaining about BBC bias when the polls were even. Further, we were complaining about it before the entire election process began.
Look at McCain/Palin supporters in America. they complain that the American media has a left-wing bias, that CNN and the mainstream media and even AP are “in the bag” for Obama.
This has been proved already. What’s your point?
I have no problem with complaints about the way the BBC is covering the banking crisis, or the election, or anything else. Complaining is what we British do. this blog was around long before the US election and it’ll be around long after.
Yes, and there was BBC bias then, now, and will be until it’s shut down or rebuilt from the ground up. It’s the BBC’s own fault for flogging this as The Most Important Election In Human History, and the fianl chance to defeat George Bush. At the beginning of this year, there were complaints from innocent UK citizens that the BBC was spending a disproportionate amount of time covering the elections. It wasn’t just here. This blog reacts to what the BBC does. Events, dear boy, events. Are we supposed to ignore it all just because you don’t like it? You’re tired of hearing the complaints, but that’s your problem, not ours. Other than that, what’s your point?
What I find ludicrous is the notion that the BBC is somehow “pro-Obama”. Do you think the BBC is “pro-Bank” or “anti-capitalism” because of the way it reports the banking crisis?
Okay, now you’ve lost all credibility as a critical thinker. What part of “The End of Capitalism” would anyone think is “pro-Bank”? What part of “The End of Capitalism” can be interpreted as anything other than “anti-capitalism”?
And fine, I have bias. I run a satirical blog where I wear what amuses me on my sleeve.
Irrelevant.
You’re the one, David, who pretended that little old lady who called McCain an “arab” was some kind of freak aberration, and wants us to believe that there isn’t a sizable chunk of McCain/Supporters going around implying that Obama is some sort of “muslim”(whether they are doing so out of mischief, malice or stupidity).
You have no proof that there’s a “sizable chunk”, haven’t offered any, and have, in fact, lied more than once about there not being any of this from the Left. Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say at this point?
Now Palin scare me because she is totally clueless. She’d be a cypher for heaven knows what.
A cypher? What sort of silliness is that?
Obama on the other hand, I think (my opnion) is pretty much a mainstream left-wing politician. Shrug.
Shrug? I have to assume that this means you don’t care that he knowingly associates with a criminal organization, goes behind his government’s back to renegotiate war plans with the government of another country, supports groups that want to tear down the current government system, and wants to engage in neo-Marxist wealth redistribution. Mainstream, eh? Shrug? That’s pretty scary.
You know what tho? We both think the monkey-sticker guy was an asshat, so we’re probably closer than we think on lots of issues
Don’t kid yourself. I live in the real world.
Best wishes
“What a truly idiotic thing to say.”
What a truly idiotic thing to say.
I’m pretty sure none of those four people has been laid yet.
“the “US is racist” theme would be ramped up exponentially, etc.”
Palin is clueless. To report otherwise is to deny reality. if she’d performed well in her interviews and proved herself otherwise, then the BBC would be reporting otherwise. Racism is a serious issue in the election because it’s being used to play up the “Obama is a muslim terrorist” issue. to report otherwise is to deny reality.
What ‘slander” by the BBC? The work you want is “libel” anyway, and if there was libel, then why isn’t anyone suing?
“This has been proved already. What’s your point?”
You think there is systematic bias amongst AP and CNN for Obama? Bwahahahahahaha. No seriously. Bwahahahahahaha. “Proved already”. Oh deary me.
“It’s the BBC’s own fault for flogging this as The Most Important Election In Human History, and the fianl chance to defeat George Bush.”
Earth calling David… Earth calling David… Where did anyone say anyhting remotely like that, except in your fevered imagination?
“Okay, now you’ve lost all credibility as a critical thinker. What part of “The End of Capitalism” would anyone think is “pro-Bank”? What part of “The End of Capitalism” can be interpreted as anything other than “anti-capitalism”?
I was riffing on the IMF’s line that the world capitalist system was in danger. If you don’t follow what economists say, David, don’t blame me. Just who has the economic reporting by the BBC meant to be biased against?
“You have no proof that there’s a “sizable chunk”, haven’t offered any, and have, in fact, lied more than once about there not being any of this from the Left. Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say at this point?”
LOL. Around 8% of Americans (Gallup) won’t vote for a black candidate not matter hwat. Extrapolate from that. And what on earth are you talking aobut me lying about there being nothing ike this from the left? Where has the left been racist about McCan/Palin? I think you are losing it mate.
Where have I “lied”?
“…supports groups that want to tear down the current government system, and wants to engage in neo-Marxist wealth redistribution. Mainstream, eh? Shrug? That’s pretty scary….’
And yet most economists (FT/Economist/US media too) say his economic plans are more coherent and cogent than McCain’s. You want to smear Obama with right-wing propaganda, fair enough. Don’t expect anyone else to have to play along.
“Don’t kid yourself. I live in the real world.”
O RLY.
I’m surprised Obama’s chum Odinga doesn’t get more of a mention.
Mailman,
These economic problems are just the fault of mad Republicans, althought they bear the greatest reposnsibility.
The fault belongs to all rightwing anglo-saxon Political Parties (including New Labour, but more so the incompetenmt Tories) who have screamed their economic ideology throught their bullying media for thirty years.
There’s going to be retrenchment, much stiffer regulatuion and tax. And the best thing is, the Right brought all this on themselves.
Always remember that all US economic downturns since the War have occurred under Republican presidents. This happens so often it cannot be passed off as coincidence any longer. If Americans want general prosperity, the history books scream “vote Democrat”.
If on their other hand you have your head shoved so firmly up your jacksie that the only things that matter to you are the absurdly abstract notions of “faith, family and flag”, then go ahead and vote Republican – just don’t complain if you cannot get food on the table.
BenM…..I gave up being courteous to thick,leftwing shits years ago,so do us all a favour and fuck off…for good!
JeffD… BenM said “US economic downturns since the War have occurred under Republican presidents.” this is indisputably true.
You may have given up being courteous years ago but you’ve yet to grasp the concept that no matter how far and fast you throw your toys out of the pram, the world isn’t always going to be as you like.
It’s easy to be a jerk under cover of the internet, as you so spectacularly show.
whitewineliberal: ty 🙂
Palin is clueless. To report otherwise is to deny reality. if she’d performed well in her interviews and proved herself otherwise, then the BBC would be reporting otherwise.
The BBC isn’t reporting that she’s clueless, they’re reporting that she’s dangerous, that all rational people can’t stand her, and that a specific religious belief should disqualify her from holding public office. Other than that, it’s fair to say she wasn’t exactly brilliant in the debate. They really have no other leg to stand on except for her one debut speech, which is what sparked their fear. I don’t think anyone who has been elected Governor can be that stupid and a mere vessel for evil to fill. Not too bright, and wrong-headed maybe (like Evan Meacham in Arizona), but nothing like your description. I’ve seen this kind of thing up close, and she’s not that bad. Also, she would have four years to learn how to walk and talk with the big boys. The VP is a pretty toothless position, so nobody rational is scared of a VP. Cheney doesn’t count because he was an adviser first and acted like it when he was VP. He took advantage of the office, which Palin certainly wouldn’t do after all that fuss.
Racism is a serious issue in the election because it’s being used to play up the “Obama is a muslim terrorist” issue. to report otherwise is to deny reality.
Racism is a serious issue only in reports about the election, to those hoping to shame or bully the rest of us into voting for The Obamessiah, and to create yet another atmosphere of illegitimacy should a Republican win again.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Nobody who is actually racist enough not to vote for a black man, full stop, either would never vote Democrat anyway (if we’re going to play the game that only right-wingers are bigots), or is a racist Democrat. Are you really saying that the problem lies with racist liberals?
What ‘slander” by the BBC? The work you want is “libel” anyway, and if there was libel, then why isn’t anyone suing?
Actually, it’s both. There’s no provision for libel tourism so far as I know, and the BBC pretends that blogs and commentary pieces don’t count. And it would be a huge distraction, require way too much effort, and wouldn’t accomplish anything anyways, as you know. So that’s a red herring.
If you don’t follow what economists say, David, don’t blame me. Just who has the economic reporting by the BBC meant to be biased against?
Clearly I do follow what some economists say. Your phrasing didn’t make sense to me. In any case, the BBC’s economic is meant to be biased against the US, against Capitalism in general, and in favor of Mr. Brown.
Where have I “lied”?
You lied yesterday evening when you said that there was no evidence whatsoever for vicious behavior from Dem supporters, even after I had already posted evidence twice (once in direct response to one of your claims that there wasn’t any), and which RR had posted the day before I did. I’m not even going to bother to look back further.
You want to smear Obama with right-wing propaganda, fair enough.
Please explain what I want which could be considered either smear or right-wing propaganda, and would not be true. Don’t tell me about the “he’s a Muslim” thing, because I’m already on record here as saying he isn’t one, and that it’s nonsense. Don’t tell me about the citizenship issue, because that’s also nonsense, and I’ve never said he wasn’t a citizen, or that I was remotely suspicious.
If it’s true, it ain’t slander or “propaganda”. If you consider any criticism of anything The Obamessiah says or does to be either of those things, I suggest we end this now.
ptet – The English language is a beautiful and capable mechanism for distilling facts without sneering at McCain/Palin like a scorned schoolgirl.
And if anyone can explain why there are probably abot 200 hacks & hangers on trolling around Yanksville on my cash then I’d be interested. Why do we need so much coverage when there already is so much – internet, cable TV, newspapers & 200 BBC oiks. It’s blatant vulgarity & BBC largesse – because they give a shit and it’s a good gig then they go mental. It’s like the Olympics – was it really necessary for the BBC to send more people to China than the Olympic team?
I guess it’s money that Gordon hasn’t burned yet.
It gets scarier:
Racine schools hand out textbooks with 15 page Obama love-fest
My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son’s new (copyright 2008 ) Wisconsin – McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.
I was shocked – No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush – Just Barack Obama. I’m wondering how it is that Obama’s story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his “Life of Service”. Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an http://www.obama2004.com sign
Photo at the link.
And people wonder why I call him The Obamessiah. Oh, but he’ll make a fine President. No worries about the people he’ll enable.
“The BBC isn’t reporting that she’s clueless, they’re reporting that she’s dangerous, that all rational people can’t stand her, and that a specific religious belief should disqualify her from holding public office.”
That’s a succinct summary of the problem here ptet. I personally perceive Palin’s image to be a bad joke on the basis of what I’ve seen to date, from her “folksy” played up illiteracy, through strange religious beliefs etc etc. But I’m not a member of the US electorate so why should anyone give a sh*t what I think of her image. There’s nothing in her administrative record to suggest she’s “dangerous” in a position of power.
The BBC isn’t some tabloid or (supposed to be) some smarmy liberal thoughtsheet. It’s the national broadcaster. It should be offering a detatched view of the policies with balanced input from US commentators to enable intelligent Brits to make up their mind whose they prefer. Instead it seems to have turned into a contest on who’d look most ridiculous in a smart bar in Soho (and incidentally on that front I’ve yet to see any sign that Obama actually has a personality – at least Palin looks like she’d be fun if you got her pissed).
Last night on the teatime news we had an in depth report on campaigning in some Republican state in the arse end of god knows where which is apparrantly turning blue. Glum looking Republicans at a sparsely attended rally, clean cut Dems calling gleeful voters. It’s all over it would appear. Happy happy voiceover. It was pointless, biased and made me angry, and if you put me on the spot with a gun against my head I’d probably rather Obama won (just).
Cockney | 15.10.08 – 7:56 am | #
Along with the comment you applaud, neatly put.
Ain’t no way to run a uniquely-funded, publicly-funded national broadcaster, though, is it?
Oh, as with us in 1-2 years’ time, I pity the poor US electorate that they are faced with such choices.
You’d think we could crank out better from 60M and they from 300+M, but it’s a new world order I guess.
The blatent bias of the BBC shocks me but what suprises me even more are the people who see no bias.
Perhaps there are a few beeboids who lack the self awareness to see the big picture, I suspect Justin Webb to be one of these people. I think he honestly does not know how ridiculous his reporting has become.
The BBC are a complete joke, but that joke isn’t funny anymore. It’s now really sinister and dangerous.
On his blog Justin Webb has finally acknowledged that there’s something going on with ACORN but, predictably, says it doesn’t matter. He calls it the “fraudulent fraud ‘issue'” and backs his claim by linking to Obama-supporting blogger Matthew Yglesias.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/10/no_more_flailing.html
Yglesias fisked here:
http://www.rovianconspiracy.com/2008/10/matthew-yglesias-useful-idiot-or-just.html
David
“The BBC isn’t reporting that she’s clueless, they’re reporting that she’s dangerous, that all rational people can’t stand her, and that a specific religious belief should disqualify her from holding public office”
Your hyperbole doesn’t make things true. She is clueless. Many on the right say so. It’s fair to say she’s been ridiculed by much of the intelligentsia . her actions while in power bear humorously little relation to what she claims happened. She’s in complete denial about her ethical lapse over troopergate. The rest you just made up.
“Racism is a serious issue only in reports about the election, to those hoping to shame or bully the rest of us into voting for The Obamessiah, and to create yet another atmosphere of illegitimacy should a Republican win again.”
Racism allows unscrupulous Rovian campaigners to play of the base fears of a sizeable chunk of the electorate. I know *you* know Obama isn’t a muslim; but at mcCain/Palin rallies everywhere you see banners saying “Obama Bin Laden” and implying that Obama is a Muslim, and arab, and a terrorist.
“There’s no provision for libel tourism so far as I know and the BBC pretends that blogs and commentary pieces don’t count.”
Complete gibberish. So ludicrous it’s not even wrong. Go and read a book.
“In any case, the BBC’s economic is meant to be biased against the US, against Capitalism in general, and in favor of Mr. Brown.”
Absolute balderdash. The BBC is pro-establishment, yes. That’s an entirely different thing.
“You lied yesterday evening when you said that there was no evidence whatsoever for vicious behavior from Dem supporters”
Fucking bullshit. I said nothing of the sort.
Please explain what I want which could be considered either smear or right-wing propaganda, and would not be true.”
That CNN, the BBC and AP are systematically biased against conservatism? that the BBC is “logging this as The Most Important Election In Human History, and the final chance to defeat George Bush”?
Dick: “And if anyone can explain why there are probably abot 200 hacks & hangers on trolling around Yanksville on my cash then I’d be interested.”
A reasonable question, but nothing to do with bias.
Anonymous: “The blatent bias of the BBC shocks me but what suprises me even more are the people who see no bias.”
Sigh. If people on all sides see different bias, then doesn’t that rather weaken the argument that there’s systematic one-way bias against whatever your position is?
DB: “On his blog Justin Webb has finally acknowledged that there’s something going on with ACORN but, predictably, says it doesn’t matter.”
Most analysts I’ve read in the US agree with him. it wont affect the election. You know that McCain was a speaker at an Acorn event back in 2006, right? he was happy to be associated with them then.
http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain+acorn
I have no problem with complaints about bad reporting. I heard an item on Radio 4 this morning where some lobbyist for women’s rights made me want to throw my radio out of the window because of her vacuous patronising stupidity.
But so many commentators here want to replace the BBC with some sort of castrated bastardised fox news… They’re exactly the sort of green-ink spouters who give people who complain about TV programs a bad name.
More on ACORN. This is hilarious.
The McCain supporting Cleveland Plan Dealer today has a front-page above-the-fold story about alleged ACORN voter fraud.
Shock horror! They found 73 dubious voter registrations. Out of 65,000 total forms. All this led to 2 registration cancellations, and 1 person being told to vote provisional. LOL. And you guys want this story to be front page on the BBC? Maybe it should be – but only in that the McCain allegations of voter fraud have turned out to be so stupid.
http://tinyurl.com/42t567
Melanie Phillips:
“Pinch yourself”
[Extract]:
“The contrast between, on the one hand, the huge amount of material about Obama’s radical associations that has been published in on-line journals and in a few brave newspapers, and on the other the refusal by big media” [ including we-know-who]”to address it and to vilify those who do, becomes more astounding by the day. The Obamaniacs are spinning the relationship between Obama and William Ayers, former of Weather Undergound Terrorism Inc, as of no consequence because this was supposedly a chance acquaintance and because the educational project they worked on, the Annenberg Challenge, was a worthy one.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2293196/pinch-yourself.thtml
Election boards are admitting they don’t have the resources to deal adequately with the problems caused by ACORN-facilitated fake registrations. Perhaps this fraud (which is what it is) is just another harmless example of the lovable Democrats being ironic again, like those heart-in-the-right-place people with their “Sarah Palin is a C**t” T-shirts, bless them.
George R
Obama sat on the board of a charity with Ayers, alongside former members of the Reagan administration. They were sponsored by a conservative donor.
But you want us to listen to Melanie Phillips, a Daily Mail columnist who’s other greatest hits include whipping up hysteria about MMR and cheerleadng for Intelligent Design.
What if Obama had just this year addressed the convention of a secessionist organization who’s founder refused to be buried “under the US flag” and told them to “keep up the good work”?
What if Obama was tied to an organization that a former UK Tory MP described as “largely a collection of Nazis, Fascists, anti-Semites, sellers of forgeries, vicious racialists, and corrupt self-seekers.”?
That would be terrible, wouldn’t it? That would be the end of the election for him, wouldn’t it? But for McCain and Palin to do these things? No problem at all.
As for Acorn… Dubious registrations don;t mean dubious votes. What about the problem of electronic voting machines which leave no audit trail whatsoever? I don’t see you guys complaining about them.
You see, that’s the problem with the allegations of “bias” on this site. You’re not asking for balance. You are asking for one agenda to be followed to the exclusion of all others. That’s what makes you green inkers.
Ah. ‘Sarah Palin is a cunt’. Charming. Lefties are naturally bigoted, brimming with hate, and angry though. So they don’t really know any better. Take away those things and all they’ve got left are sandals, crying and copromania. Look on the bright side: better ‘ironic’ t-shirts than running concentration camps and trying to take the world by force like their ideological ancestors.
Anywho, I don’t get to vote in the US general election since I’m not an American. However, if I did, it’d be a cold day in hell before I voted for Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama. Not because he’s got no experience other than in running for office (I’m not counting ‘community organiser’, whatever the fuck that is, because that’s like listing an A-Level in General Studies on your UCAS form or a job application form). Or that his political career was forged in Chicago, which automatically makes him shadier than the dark side of the moon. Or because he’s got associations with gangsters, domestic terrorists and dictators. Or because he’s a 20-year veteran of a Black Supremacist ‘church’. Or because he’s showed terrible judgement in marrying his vile, miserable, racist wife of his. Or because he’s a meaningless platitude-chanting empty suit whose veneer melts away to reveal a jabbering, stuttering fool in the event of his teleprompter going on the fritz. Or because the worst, most cruel and unusual dictators in some of the most backward, repressive shitholes in the planet have taken time away from their dictatorial, repressive shenanigans to gushingly endorse him. Or because he’s built up a weird, creepy personality cult with himself as the central figure, which he’s using to try to get elected with. Or because he changes his mind on important decisions with a frequency that’s enough to make microprocessor designers green with envy.
No, I wouldn’t vote for Barry because he apparently doesn’t know how many states there are in America. Call me old fashioned but things like that, i.e. remedial knowledge of the country you’re running for the highest office of, tend to matter to me.
‘Uh…my name is, uh, Barry– uh, Barack, uh, Hu– uh, Obama and, uh, I, uh, want you, uh, to vote, uh…to vote, uh, for me, uh, to be the next, uh, president of, uh, the United, uh…the United…of whatever, uh, place this is…uh…Hope n’Change!’
A basic understanding of the American psyche has been lost in a good deal of blather here. I’m calling it blather because if you don’t grasp this important issue, all premise are false, conclusions erroneous.
The forefathers gave us the right to bear arms: private citizens may own guns, they are expected tot ake responsibility for their own safety. More, the right to bear arms places the protection of the nation with the individual, not the state. Hence our superior military is entirely a volunteer force.
Aside from these facts, think about the pschology at work. Think of these facts as the basis of the idea of freedom held dear by Americans. Even those who do not own a gun understand that this right removed = tryanny by government.
The psychology is based in the idea of sovereignty as a self-governing state, i.e., me being born to the right to self-sovereignty. As regards the right to bear arms: If a robber comes to my window and breaks in, I will call the cops AFTER I shoot him. I do not call the cops to come and save me, I save myself.
This is the problem freedom loving Americans have with Obama, and why we love Sarah Palin: she is one of us. Obama represents the tyranny of government, in that he represents the hand out to the miniority who give up their self sovereignty for a house, food stamps, free this and free that…if that sounds racist, tough shit.
What we have now with ACORN’s fraud, the media’s bias, global pressure to elect Obama, is an attempted coup against our sovereignty, both national and individual.
That’s why we love Sarah Palin.