For those non-Swahilli speakers who visit this site (there must be at least a few), the first part of the title above means “give a little something”- and is a common expression in Kenya, used in particular when a policeman wants a little bribe. Well, I should imagine the inhabitants of Kisumu, West Kenya, could be using the expression once the One has won as is clearly the wont of the BBC. We’re had the centenarian nun, voting messiah; now comes the airport request. Oh, and meanwhile, while the Obama-Kenya story is filed in Africa (as though the BBC normally concern themselves with regional African airport proposals), back in their “election coverage” we find out the effects a One victory would have on dancers in Harlem.
The incessant drip, drip, drip of PrObamaganda continues with the BBC showcasingthe One to illustrate his (purportedly) self-deprecating humour, as he refuted suggestions that he was born in a manger by saying he was actually born on Krypton. It was excerpted from a slightly stilted, acceptably witty speech Obama gave to a charity dinner audience on Thursday, which McCain also addressed- only McCain actually got the lion’s share of the laughs (he was frankly quite unleashed and hilarious- recommended viewing). Yet the BBC offered us a three minute segment of Obama’s speech which loads automatically when the frontpage-featured link is clicked. McCain’s very funny speech was freighted with uproarious stuff, yet is reduced by the BBC to two very short segments. In total, Obama gets 5 minutes plus direct frontpage access. McCain gets 2 minutes, split into two parts, hidden below the One’s contribution. The ratio 5:2 with frontpage versus fourth-page treatment seems about right as a summary of the BBC’s partiality for Obama over McCain.
The BBC’s article about Joe the Plumber was the most important story on the BBC Americas page this morning, holding the prime headline position. Now? Vanished. The story is still there but all links to it from the BBC Americas page have gone. Why? Out of embarrassment, I hope. Take this brief section as an example:
However, a bit of media digging has uncovered that Mr Wurzelbacher’s first name is actually Samuel and he does not have a plumber’s licence, although the company he works for does. According to Tony Herrera, of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 50 in Toledo, Ohio, Mr Wurzelbacher cannot practise in Toledo without a licence – although he can work for someone with a master’s licence or in outlying areas that do not require a licence. According to local court records, Mr Wurzelbacher also owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income tax.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7675278.stm
“a bit of media digging” The understatement of the year.
“Mr Wurzelbacher’s first name is actually Samuel” Yes, Samuel J Wurzelbacher. J as in Joseph, as in Joe, as in Joe the Plumber. The BBC article leaves it at Samuel, implying all manner of conspiratorial nefariousness.
“he does not have a plumber’s licence, although the company he works for does” Which is all that is required.
“According to Tony Herrera, of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 50 in Toledo, Ohio, Mr Wurzelbacher cannot practise in Toledo without a licence – although he can work for someone with a master’s licence or in outlying areas that do not require a licence.” But apparently: “Not one of the officers of Local 50 of the union shop of plumbers is on the list of licensees.”
“According to local court records, Mr Wurzelbacher also owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income tax.” Barack Obama’s own campaign treasurer owes more.
And all of this bullshit swamps the real story • here’s a guy with aspirations to better things who doesn’t want to be punished if he succeeds, but because he dared to ask Obama a challenging question about taxes the partisan media tried to destroy him. That bloke ruling North Korea must be envious.
If The One loses, there will be riots by blacks demanding to know why He was cheated by whitey. If The One wins, there will be riots of joy by blacks ‘sticking it to whitey’. In any case, the propagandising by the BBC for Obama will fuel whichever of these happens, and it will be falsely reported.
This temporary Kenya awareness by the BBC wouldn’t include any stories about how The Obamessiah blew off his half-brother, who lives in a shack, barely surviving, would it?
Aside from that, come on defenders of the indefensible, explain to us all how that 5:2 ratio isn’t BBC bias, but rather merely reporting that the election isn’t going the way we want it.
Crikey that’s thin.
Open up the bbc’s us election page and the the first story has a beautiful picture of McCain, showing off his WASP loveliness. The article leads with his plans for Florida and includes a picture of Obama looking like a Marxist (eg no tie). You’ve even got go Webb linking to the yahoos at Pajamasmedia.
What more you want?
whitewhineliberal,
you’re not very scrupulous, are you? The “beautiful” picture of McCain you talk of is a glancing, blurred shot of him on stage. The no-tie shot of Obama captions him “cool Obama”. Observation is one thing (you could even try arguing the point, I guess), and bullshitting is another.
Did or did not OB appear tieless in that photo.
A simple yes or no.
I rest my case.
BBC 10 o c clock news led its item on the speeches with McCain’s clip before the one of OB. McCain being funnier too.
Pro GOP filth.
I’m not sure i can take this anymore
[audio src="http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3" /]
It’s a radio recording, in Harlem. Funny but scarey.
DB,
Excellent points.
Coverage on 10 o clock news gave prominence to McCain’s speech, although it played excerpts from both. It even edited OB’s “Hussein” joke.
I have cracked one of my molars with anger.
There are at least two dozen BBC journalists in the US right now, and yet I can’t seem to find the “Obama Treasurer Owes Taxes” story. In fact I can’t find the “FBI Launches Nationwide Investigation Into ACORN” story, or the “FBI Investigates Sex Scandal Florida Democrat Congressman Mahoney” story, or the “Joe Biden Can’t Count” story, or any number of stories which, if they were about Republicans, would be big news in BBC land.
DB:
Great post on the Plumber. I wondered if he wishes he had never opened his mouth. I love his other comments –
He was asked what he hopes for his son’s future:
“I want him to live in an America that he’s proud of. I’m tired of people downing America, saying that we’re this bad country. I mean, that upsets me and my friends greatly. You know, we are the greatest country in the world. Stop apologizing for it! I mean, really. It just… (sigh) I get real mad about that. I’m not sorry for being an American, I’m not sorry for having the things I have. I’m not sorry for any of those things. I’m not sorry that we’re in Iraq. Has it kept us safe? Absolutely! I believe in that 100%. WMDs or not, I don’t care. You know, we took the fight to them. We’ve done a pretty good job there. Could we have done better? Yeah, sure. But, you know, it’s easy to be an armchair quarterback. You know, and hindsight they say is 20/20…”
To his credit, he’s done more interviews than Sarah Palin. What are the odds on her doing a press conference before the election?
Mind you Whitewineliberal, with the current excellent state of the dental services in this country you should be able to get that molar replaced in about 2012 🙂
Mailman
WWL:
Sarah Palin is wisely keeping her peace toward the media. Why should she give them one minute of her time? She is in public plenty, she’s all over the place. She’s here in my state this weekend, I think.
Sarah Palin is running for VICE president. You want to see her, because you are curious, admit it. Yesterday on the radio I heard some numb skull say she was a prop for McCain. His comment was sexist beyond belief – he was basically saying a gorgeous woman cannot also be smart and be a leader. Gorgeous woman are not smart enough, is what he said!
Are you going to say something like that, too?
I agree she’s all over the place. Call me traditional, but i think if you’re running for VP in a democracy you might be expected to front up to the press now and again.
Why?
“if you’re running for VP in a democracy you might be expected to front up to the press now and again” … where you can say things of such spectacular idiocy that you might expect to wake up the following morning and find the media mocking your campaign into oblivion. Unless you’re a Democrat. J-O-B-S is a three letter word.
LOL!
DB:
He kept repeating it! No egagement between brain and mouth. ‘Course his elevator don’t go all the way to the top…
DB: “That bloke running North Korea must be envious”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry- probably as the state of the BBC’s coverage is so partisan, the latter emotion is more appropriate. It is appalling that the media have essentially shielded Obama from answering any tough questions regarding what his presidency would look like. To be honest, he’s just as inexperienced as Sarah Palin, and not as appealing to the eye…
Teflon Tony had more substance than Obama, but I guess anyone opposing John “Mini-Bush” McCain would get the Beeb’s vote
Here’s something else the BBC doesn’t want you to know about The Obamessiah and the effect ACORN’s voter fraud has on elections:
Obama Lawyer Asks for Probe Into Voter-Fraud Claims
Here’s how it works:
Step 1) ACORN and other Obamessiah associated/supporting groups register umpteen phony voters in Statetown, USA.
Step 2) The state, by law, has people who check registrations to make sure they’re legal. They find umpteen numbers of fake voters on the rolls.
Step 3) Now they have to start checking everybody because they know their rolls are now compromised.
Step 4) ACORN and Greg Palast cry “Foul! Voter Suppression!”
Step 5) The Obamessiah wants people investigated for reporting voter fraud by his supporters, because that’s really vote suppression (as in the article linked above). He also says that due to nasty Republican voter suppression, nobody better be checking IDs at the polls.
Step 6) The BBC and other Leftoids agree with him, and tell you so. Nothing to see here.
Step 7) People are afraid to report voter fraud for fear of harrassment, prosecution, and physical violence.
Step 8 ) Due to all the whining about “voter suppression”, registrations found to be fraudulent will not be removed from the rolls. Worse, polling stations in certain areas will not be checking IDs, allowing anyone and their mother to come in and vote, whether they’re registered or not, quite possibly as many times as they want. This is the main goal of our game.
Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found.
There are two possible outcomes.
Step 9A) Chaos and violence ensues if McCain wins, because we have all these cries of “voter suppression” on everyone’s minds, and The Obamessiah can point to all those Democrats on the rolls, who surely must have voted for him. The Republicans stole the election again.
Step 9B) The Obamessiah wins by a very thin margin in Statetown, due to the homeless people, felons, and others whom ACORN and their kind pay to vote under fake names.
But, hey, Newsnight and Justin Webb say there’s no evidence, and it’s really nasty Republicans who want to disenfranchise blacks and poor people. And as we all know, no black or working class person ever voted anything other than Democrat, or could possibly want to.
Giving disproportionate coverage to the less noteworthy, less witty speech is just another of the many ways they have of giving precedence to the Omessiah.
Another one I have noticed is their habitual practice of reversing the expected alphabetical order of the names McCain and Obama when referring to the candidates.
Those pathetic Beebies are silly bandwagon jumpers behaving like robots that have been programmed to squeal “Omessiah” at every turn. Do they wake up squawking “Omessiah”?
On any programme, as soon as you hear them mention the US election, you just know they are going to come out with it first. And out it comes like clockwork. You groan inwardly and think “Here we go again. And again…ad nauseam.”
I mentioned in an earlier thread their trick of disproportionately featuring the Omessiah’s remarks on the text strip at the bottom of the TV screen.
Some of these things can be just unobtrusive enough to escape general attention, unless people have “got their eye in” and have got wise to the relentless game of bias.
a beautiful picture of McCain, showing off his WASP loveliness
Whitewineliberal – McCain, for all his failings, was a warrior. He flew a Skyhawk during the Vietnam war and endured real torture as a POW ( not that torture-lite version where some Jihadi in Guantanamo is forced to look at a pair of womens breasts )
Attitudes like yours are why I don’t enter into debate with lefty twats in the real world, I just tell your kind to fuck off and stop speaking to me or I’ll put your lights out.
Step outside your bubble sometime and see how real people think.
Do they wake up squawking “Omessiah”?
Maybe. But only after they’ve said, ‘Oh, I was having the most horrible nightmare: I was having to work a job which was subject to rules and guidelines, ones that couldn’t be ignored, and to economic forces, and didn’t have a guaranteed income. Oh, terrible, just terrible. Hey, why am I handcuffed to this bed and surrounded by empty amyl nitrate bottles and double-enders? And who’s this guy in a gimp costume?…Oh, now I remember…’
The BBC doesnt do polls right? Er well yes and no, yes when they concur with the inhouse agenda and no when they dont!
When Obama was ahead in some polls it was blared out with alacrity, as the polls show the reality of a tight race the BBC will all of a sudden clench their collective butt cheeks, so to speak!
Remember the Canadian conservative election victory coverage and the usual post election examination of the meaning on the BBC? No? Thats beacause when the result was not what the BBC wanted they pulled the plug, the election was fought on the ‘green agenda’ and the losers backed a radical green agenda, the voters saw this and voted against it, the BBC were all set to laud a socialist victory and ready to shout out to the world how the Canadians lead the world in greenery blah blah, the greenies were destroyed at the box office,so to speak, the BBC then all of a sudden ‘forgot’ Canada exists
at all!
The BBC were very keen on the Canadian result ONLY if it fell in with its own prejudice, that tells you all you need to know about the BB bloody C.
A quick note to HSLD,
Kitten 8wks now and thriving by some miracle the little man made it! He is almost ready for adoption now, he was very ill for a while but the meds and 24hr care paid off.
Just thought you would want to know. He is called curly because of his curly ears.
A quick rest and its onto the next one!
Whitewineliberal….I know that you work for the BBC.And you know I know!
I wish I did. they pay well. but I don’t, as i’ve made clear before. you calling me a fibber? outside, now.
hsld – what makes mccain a truly great man is that, despite or perhaps because of his experience, he has taken such a princpled stand against torture in the war
on terror.
wwl 10:01
Are you still maintaining that the BBC is not backing Obama ? I have been away from the website for a couple of days.
I see no evidence they are backing him. fox clearly back mccain, and the daily show obama. there’s nothing like that. so eg at least two of the debates were called for mccain by the beeb, which didn’t reflect polls or, when the dust settled, the reality. not the behaviour of a biased broadcaster. I think j webb’s coverage has been pretty balanced too, but that will get the derision going here!
Did the interviews involving Sarah Palin not end up with heavy ‘editing’ by the MSM stations involved? I’d reckon that Palin may have insisted that henceforth there shall be independent footage which would show what the MSM do, and they refused.
it was hard to get coverage of couric’s interview on
the british media. a biased bbc would have focused heavily on that disaster, but didn’t, I don’t think.
Allan@Aberdeen: The ABC interview was hevily edited. The comment that Palin was supposed to have made about “I can see Russia…” was actually a reply ot a question by Gibson about Russia being so close ot Alaska. That bit was edited out. It was only shown ithe transcript.
As for the Couric interview, I don’t know if they’ve rleased the transcript.
But what about Biden? He’s not exactly all over the media is he? Obama probably has him tied and gagged somwhere.
wwl 10:53
You see no evidence that the BBC are backing Obama !
With all due respect, you must be taking the piss. You are having a laugh, surely, aren’t you ? Please tell me !
But, seriously, can you recommend a left-wing website where I can post and take the mickey out of lefties ?
Not the BBC website, obviously, as they just censor anything which doesn’t agree with their narrow-minded political position.
Anyway, if you can, I would be grateful. I would like to do a sort of whitewineliberal in reverse !
PS. Admire your staying power. Do you know when you will be going off duty and who your replacement will be ?
try medialens.
Grant: The beeboids tend to read the Huffington Post, Media Matters, Moveon.org and the Daily kos.
Those site should provide enough fun for you.
I’m with wwl, the bias just isn’t there. Statistical poll analysis has Obama in the lead, and forecasts show he will win. Even McCain jokes about being behind but ready to fight back.
I’ve just watched both speeches, and thought they were both very good. Maybe McCain’s delivery was better – more deadpan. I was stunned at how good natured the whole thing genuinely seemed to be. But I’ve been trying to imagine Brown and Cameron doing the same thing, and I just can’t. I really can’t.
ipreferred:
I’m with wwl, the bias just isn’t there.”
No bias, eh? How much did the BBC bitch about the war? How much anti American sentiment did the BBC spew about Iraq? Yet, read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html
There is NOTHING like it reported on BBC. This news is HUGE! This news is good, monumental, it should be on all the front pages all over the globe.
Why isn’t it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7677551.stm
Instead you get that article, full of garbage.
“Under the agreement US troops would withdraw by 2011, and Iraq would have the right to prosecute Americans who commit crimes while off-duty.”
Garbage. There is no such thing as “off duty.” It s a war zone. What the hell are they talking about?
I am ashamed of the BBC. The people protesting – where did they get that right? WE gave it to them. Report that!
No bias, eh? This bias is sickening. And if they will not cover the war with any integrity, what makes you think they would cover the election with any sense of honor? You have become their fool.
Note to defenders of the indefensible:
Nobody here is complaining about the BBC reporting that The Obamessiah is ahead in the polls, or that McCain needs to catch up. It seems like the vast majority of your defense tactics seem to include accusing everyone of wanting the BBC to report that McCain is ahead, or just tell lies in favor of Conservative issues, and other garbage about how we want the BBC to be slanted in our favor at all times.
That’s not the case. How many times do we have to go through this? You won’t be able to find a single comment by any of us along those lines. Making false accusations against us simply does not constitute a defense against BBC bias.
There are now countless comments here demonstrating how the BBC misrepresents, ignores, and tells actual lies on side, yet not on the other. And all you guys do is say, “McCain is losing, the BBC are reporting as such. What’s the problem?”
None of you will even address Ed’s point about the 5:2 ratio. Whitewineliberal attempted to distract from that by pointing out a McCain photo on the US election page. That’s a false argument because Ed’s point was about the speeches. Photos on the election front page rotate. The opening sequence of a video clip doesn’t. And what about the Obamessiah-supporting nun? Where’s the McCain equivalent? I would add to Ed’s points that the BBC has done at least three articles about getting out the Democrat vote amongst ex-pats, but not a single one about Republicans or Independents or Libertarians. But you won’t be able to touch that one, either.
Webb’s coverage is balanced? Where are the insulting personal remarks about either The Obamessiah or Biden? How do you excuse panel discussions about how wonderful it would be to have a Democrat – specifically a Clinton – in the White House? Where are the unsubstantiated rumors about Dems, when the BBC and ol’ Justin are happy to spout them about McCain and Palin? Stating that Webb’s coverage is balanced, then metaphorically ducking your head behind the parapet doesn’t count as debate, and convinces no one of anything other than your willful denial.
You’re all going to have to start showing real evidence, or at least explaining in detail how someone’s claim of bias is wrong. Merely saying that you don’t see bias is not the same thing as debating the issue, nor does inspire respect or confidence.
I’m sorry to go on like this, but it’s always the same thing, and it’s really, really, boring.
The One is vowing to “change the world” – not the first time he’s said something like this. Doesn’t this smack of good old fashioned “American Imperialism” to those US-hating Beeboids? Shouldn’t they be tearing the Messiah down for saying stuff like this? Or are they waiting till after the election when the normal service of hate and envy can resume?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3219308/Barack-Obama-vows-to-change-the-world.html
I always try to cite evidence to buttress what I say. the bbc calling two debates for mccain I cited as counterfactual.the article about expats drumming up voters mentioned both reps and dems. I was joking about the mccain picture and the tieless ergo marxist obama t illustrate how preposterous it was to see conspiracy in everything the bbc does. I find the bbc’s election coverage extensive and balanced. articles about nuns and prominence of video clips really doesn’t an argument make. there’s so much counterfactual. anti-us? webb’s about to publish a pro-us book, and i’ve heard him defend the us, under fire, many times. stephens fry and schama too are deeply pro us, although liberal to the core I agree. but then the large majority in the uk favour the dems. it’s not quite as simple as you make out david.
per above, see for instance how i’ve dished all comers on
the iranian thread with my stunning use of counterfactual.
whitewineliberal | 18.10.08 – 6:14 pm |
webb’s about to publish a pro-us book, and i’ve heard him defend the us, under fire, many times. stephens fry and schama too are deeply pro us, although liberal to the core I agree.
No, ol’ Justin is coming out with a book which will damn the US with faint praise. Unless you expect me to believe that his book will somehow be the exact opposite of the the opinions he professes on his blog and on air. Sorry, can’t see it. John Reith said something similar about Matt Frei and his BBC World News America about a month before that launched, and look how that turned out.
Schama and Fry are as deeply pro-US as the rest of the BBC: they are pro an imaginary US of their idealism, which does not, and never has existed, but one they suspect will exist under The Obamessiah. People like these three always say how they love United Statesians, then go on to insult practically everything they do and stand for. Just because they’re not overtly anti-US doesn’t mean they’re deeply pro.
Mr Preiser’s remark reminds me how I nearly laughed myself to tears on Friday when, on Mayo’s R5 show, Schama was actually trying to suggest Jimmy Carter had been ‘ahead of his time’ and ‘a visionary’.
Anyone looking to hang a ‘worst ever POTUS’ sign around George Bush’s neck will have some fancy footwork to do, explaining away Carter’s legendary hopelessness!
Free speech in America. A talk show host critical of Obama has been reprimanded on air by his boss and had his 3 hour time slot offered to the Obama campaign.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78327
When will these stupid Americans learn that they must not oppose the Chosen One?
http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%2010_14_08.htm
Thank you DB….WWL that link above comes from DB’s link, and it is the result of a media study studying itself showing proof that Obama gets more positive coverage than McCain.
DB: This is an attempt at a bloodless coup. This, and ACORN voter fraud.
Here is a sad note: My husband is 29 years Army, he will spend his last year in the service in Iraq. My son just finished his tour in the AF, my nephew is a marine, he leaves for Afghanistan in spring, and my brother in law is just back from someplace he can’t say or he has to kill me. Anyway, that’s not the sad part, I love my menfolk. The sad part is them saying the same thing, repeating what they hear from fellow servicemen and women: they will not serve under Barrack the Obamination. They believe he will dismantle the military anyway, as Clinton did, creating the circumstance whereby wahabi have grown to distributte terror at will over the globe.
WWL: You said, “I always try to cite evidence to buttress what I say.”
A quote for you, “Try not, Do, or do not!”
Yoda
Meaning, I personally haven’t seen much to substatiate your claim at solid substance. Though perhaps I missed something.
betyangelo | 18.10.08 – 8:29 pm
I’m humbled by families like yours.
Got Rake’s progress on radio and Timewatch on BBC2 – ain’t too bothered about bias – the lass doing Timewatch is fit as fuck – seriously, top drawer totty.
Soz, couldn’t give a monkeys about Yanksville erections.
Hmm – lower that there tone.
Occasional smile wouldn’t hurt any