Fascinating to read this example of character assassination the BBC runs on Joe Wurzelbacher aka “Joe the Plumber”. The way this US election has turned out, the BBC has become a partisan propagandist for Democrat talking points. At every point away, it has chosen to run the Democrat perspective on every issue and when an unscheduled item such as Joe the Plumber breaks through the MSM filter – and challenges Obama – the knives are out. I’m sure B-BBC well read readers will know that criticisms repeated here of Mr Wurzelbacher are spurious but they are part of a well co-ordinated attack dog strategy by the Democrats and the BBC obliges by parroting them.
Added by Natalie Solent: I trust David won’t mind if I add to this post, as the same BBC story had also attracted my attention. The BBC’s title (Doubts raised on US ‘plumber Joe’) came close to being libellous in my opinion. Its use of quotes around “plumber Joe” implied that Mr Wurzelbacher was a fake – either that he was not really a plumber at all, or at the very least that he was not really an ordinary member of the public but some sort of Republican plant.
Yet the worst the tireless investigators of the BBC, who as we all know were pulled away from their feverish round-the-clock investigations of the financial affairs of the front-runner for President of the United States to attend to this vital matter, could uncover was that he was not a licensed plumber and that he owed back taxes. Oh, and he prefers the name “Joe” to that of “Samuel”. That these facts are trivial is covered well in this comment by DB. My point is not so much their triviality, but their irrelevance to the BBC’s claim that
Doubt has been cast over the story of “Joe the plumber”, the man who unexpectedly became the star of this week’s US presidential debate.
What story was this, BBC? What words did Mr Wurzelbacher say that constituted a “story” that, it now emerges, is dubious? Alternatively, what part his “story” as told by the world’s press – that of an ordinary citizen who simply answered frankly when Senator Obama approached him – is subject to the BBC’s ever-passive “doubt has been cast”? If the BBC had offered some evidence that Mr Wurzelbacher was a Republican operative with a pre-arranged plan to trap Senator Obama, then it would be justified to refer to doubts being cast over his story in that sense. (In fact such tactics are commonplace in US politics, and have been exposed repeatedly – but since the plants were Democrats pretending to be undecided or to be “lifelong Republicans” the story was of no interest to the BBC.)
As things stand, both of the two possible readings of the BBC’s first paragraph are unfair to an ordinary man whose crime was not to know his place.
Fox carried a similar article, as did most news organisations
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-owes-taxes/
whitewineliberal
As I have said before you are a bbc employee being paid to be an apologist on this site for them.I know it because I know you.
There are numerous leftwing sites out there but I don’t frequent them as they are not my cup of tea.So why exactly would you want to come on here to counteract nearly every valid point?
Tell us more jeffD. Just saying “I know you” is hardly proof.
And whitewineliberal – We are NOT FORCED under pain of fine or imprisonment to pay for Fox or any other news organization to promote their bias.
Why is it the BBC apologists never seem to grasp such a glaringly simple fact?
The point was HIS question to Obama was valid.
Obama is a Socialist. When the BBC says they were “digging” around, I think they mean a visit to the hate sites like the Kos, Huffington Post etc.
The guy’s middle name is Joseph (Joe) and the Treasurer for Obama’s campaign owes even more taxes.
But I can’t find this story on the BBC. Perhaps WWL might provide a link?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/17/guess-who-else-has-tax-liens/
As I have said before you are a bbc employee being paid to be an apologist on this site for them.I know it because I know you.
There are numerous leftwing sites out there but I don’t frequent them as they are not my cup of tea.So why exactly would you want to come on here to counteract nearly every valid point?
jeffD | 19.10.08 – 12:08 pm | #
Firstly, do you have any evidence for this? Secondly, is this a right wing site? I thought it was supposed to be about bias.
Kill the Beeb
I’ve seen at least five attempts to get whitewineliberal to see that the problem is the TAXATION and in each instance he fails to acknowledge that fact and presses on with his remit.
We’re blessed that most of his posts are short and require limited scrolling.
Thank goodness journalists at the BBC have finally spoke truth to plumbers.
Who the hell does this working class schmo Joe think he is, questioning his betters, fantasizing about buying his own business without the help of the Great Leader Obama. My God, he doesn’t even drink a decaf Latte.
How dare he even enter the Great Leaders orbit.
By the way… this is how Karl Rove “planted” Joe to be in a position for the Great Leader to approach him in all his saintliness
1. Three years ago, Rove used his time machine to discover where the Great Leader Obama would be on this week.
2. Returning back in 2005, he bought the house, and imported “Joe” and his fake family.
3. Using his black-ops hypno-toad, he implanted in Obama’s brain the idea to FIND JOE… that’s how Biden inadvertently got picked as VP.
3. He sat back and waited. And it WORKED! Obama fell into his trap.
Seriously, anyone looking forward to an America where a President approaches you, (or a Britain where a Prime Minister approaches you) and because he doesn’t like your tone, his thuggish supporters, and the whole power of the Institutionally Leftist Media, is unleashed to destroy you and your credibility?
But then, we already know this about the BBC, who will go to any length to defend our GREAT LEADER, and his five year plan.
Why is it the BBC apologists never seem to grasp such a glaringly simple fact?
Kill the Beeb | 19.10.08 – 12:24 pm | #
I think his point is that it’s a common belief here that the BBC is left wing, and if the conservative Fox carries takes the same line on things, it undermines the argument that the BBC is biased. Articles in the MSM are often cited as evidence of BBC bias (through omission), so it seems rather unfair not to be able to use it the other way. It seems a reasonable way in testing out the accusations, unless you just want to rely on the opinion of bloggers.
I don’t believe whitewineliberal is a Beeboid. Nor do I believe anyone has ever been paid or co-erced into coming here to post. But I do think whitewineliberal is the brethren of your average beeboid.
I can well imagine him living in a typically predominantly white part of the home counties (or a ‘fashionable’ metropolitan part of London), working in the public sector, having landed the job due to reeling in his nepotistic contacts.
He’s a smug, conceited twat because he has absolutely nothing to worry about in his safe, easy middle class life. So he adopts the worries and concerns of others (or rather what he percieves as the worries and concerns of others) to lance his guilt of such undeserved privilege.
The hallmark of all socialists.
Richard Lancaster:
I don’t think anyone here is so dumb as to believe that other news orginastions are not heavily biased. Although I couldn’t imagine anyone is as dumb enough to believe that there could be anyone MORE biased than the BBC.
I’m also not of the ilk that if the majority of the mainstream media report it in the same way, it disproves bias. WTF? The MSM is infested and infected with student socialists, so why wouldn’t bias seep everywhere?
The point is, If we didn’t have to PAY for BBC bias, this blog wouldn’t exist. Nobody gives a toss about anything other than the BBC is extorting money from it’s viewers and breaking almost every rule in it’s charter to let it’s student politics over-ride it’s output.
And I’m sure WWL is old enough and ugly enough to speak for himself, without you doing it for him.
The argument about the licence fee being an anachronism is a strong one, on which my mind is not settled. But this site isn’t about that: it’s about bias. Feasibly you could sign up to the critique, but be for the fee.
I can assure everyone on this site I have no professional or financial interest in the beeb. I just rather like it. I like this site too. At it’s best it is a vibrant gadfly of a blog, with, in the main, some intelligent and challenging correspondents.
Kill the Beeb | 19.10.08 – 1:03 pm | #
Then I look forward to you criticising the citing of articles in the MSM in future.
whitewineliberal:
The argument about the licence fee being an anachronism is a strong one, on which my mind is not settled. But this site isn’t about that: it’s about bias. Feasibly you could sign up to the critique, but be for the fee.
whitewineliberal | 19.10.08 – 1:03 pm | #
——————————————–
True in theory, but the two are linked in that we are compelled by law to pay the licenece fee, whether we like it or not and thus have to subsidise that bias.
So, I don’t see why I should have to pay for a service that doesn’t seem to understand the meanings of the words, impartiality, neutrality and balance.
Feasibly you could sign up to the critique, but be for the fee.
whitewineliberal | 19.10.08 – 1:03 pm | #
Indeed, I think there are a few on here who have less of a problem with the fee than what they perceive as bias.
Kill The Beeb —
Really?
My problem with the BBC is that I am forced to fund it, and I don’t like it’s extreme loony left world view.
Much as I hate the Grauniad. But then I have a simple solution there. I don’t buy it. Literally and figuratively.
KTB, jeffd – you’re not my wife are you?
The only reason the left see Fox as biased is they don’t tow the liberal line on everything.
However, if you wantch Fox, they ALWAYS give liberals the right of reply on the shows they do.
They either do head to heads or they do a left/right interview straight after each other.
This does not happen with the BBC. Where typically the left is given the dominant view.
For example this weeks Question time had THREE Labour supporters on the panel. Why did the BBC feel that was justified? They know Caan is a Labour supporter, so why not dump Clare Short?
“Much as I hate the Grauniad. But then I have a simple solution there. I don’t buy it.”
Maybe not, but you still have to pay for it. The Guardian is funded almost entirely by public-sector advertising, including the advertising of BBC jobs, paid for out of your taxes.
The solution to this problem is to end the TV licence tax, and to put a cap on public-sector advertising budgets. The latter could also be carried on the Internet.
“Maybe not, but you still have to pay for it. The Guardian is funded almost entirely by public-sector advertising, including the advertising of BBC jobs, paid for out of your taxes.
Actually I know that, and I’ve mentioned this subject here before. My brother is a sub on the Manchester Evening News (part of the Guardian Media Group) and he has filled me in on the how the Grauniad operates.
It’s the perfect middle class socialist paradigm. Each copy sells at a loss, despite it huge cover price, and free government cheese.
The working class readership of the MEN actually subsidizes the Grauniad. While profitable assets of the group are sold to subsidize the paper.
Yes, once again the white, middle-class socialist Green Shirts screw the working man.
True story — the editor of the Grauniad has 12 assistants, flunkies, etc running around after him.
What is the daily circulation of the Guardian? I last saw it being around 300,000. Is that a close figure?
If so it’s nothing is it.
I often find Fox biased, and worse, tabloid-ish, though it seems that by “fair and balanced”, they mean that they are also willing to publish positive articles about the war, such as the one I posted in another thread – and that article was not published in other news that really are completely biased, such as the BBC, CNN.
So, WWL – if you are saying that if it’s on Fox then that proves it isn’t biased, or if you read Fox and think they are way on the right, then you really are a far lefty. Far lefties swallow hook, line and sinker all the propaganda spewed by the media as gospel truth when it comes to denigrating or invalidating anything conservative.
And they love it, they love the whispery nuance of the elitist tone, twisting to create insinuation and bend opinions.
Look at what they are doing to Joe the Plumber. Who gives a fat rat’s ass if he uses Joe or Sam? There is absolutely NO story here, but they are pretending there is.
WHY? The insinuation is that he is not really who he says he is, therefore he is a liar. Whose business is it if he owes taxes? A lot of people owe taxes. Are they reporting that he once owed $5,000, but that he has been paying on it for six months and has whittled it down to $1,200?
No, they would rather insinuate that he is a cheat. A liar and a cheat, a gun toting bible clinging idiot who drinks Bud lite and kicks his dog and probably can’t spell. And what is his crime? He has a dream and he told the Obamination that he has a dream, and that the Obamination’s tax plan was wrong to limit his dream.
A person making 250 a year is at present only taking home 125 of it. Under the Obamination, they will probably take home 100. 100k a year in these times is not a lot. You can have a decent house, two cars, a couple of kids, and a dog. Nobody will starve and you can wear new clothes, but that’s about it.
whitewineliberal:
KTB, jeffd – you’re not my wife are you?
whitewineliberal | 19.10.08 – 1:23 pm
Civil partnership?
Everyone else.
I for one would still not be happy with a biased BBC even if the licence fee was abolished. Not until the lag effect of its once deserved reputation for integrity and reliability wears off. Because that’s why it still has so much influence.
The Guardian’s readership is considerably less than the tally of those who went on the Coutryside March.
Jack Bauer has demonstrated why the character assassination of Joe the Plumber is a vicious – and pointless – smear in an attempt to distract from the awful truth that The Obamessiah’s statement gave away. He also exposes this outright lie in the BBC report:
A week earlier, he had confronted Mr Obama at a rally, questioning the Democratic candidate on tax plans that would see him taxed more if a plumbing business he hoped to buy earned more than $250,000 a year.
No, BBC the guy was standing on his own property, and The Obamessiah was doing a door-to-door. This just encourages the conspiracy theorists that the guy was a plant. Why else would Joe the Plumber’s personal business be important to the story? But we’ve seen the BBC casually leave the door open to conspiracy theories before, haven’t we?
A citizen standing on his own property has a right to ask a politician running for office anything he wants. The Obamessiah exposed what I believe is his greatest weakness for all to see, and that must be silenced at all costs.
As for the BBC, the license fee isn’t your only problem. While I understand that the idea here is “End the license fee – privatize the BBC”, that’s probably not what’s going to happen. If the license fee were to end, the government would merely fund the BBC straight out of your taxes anyway, and the whole thing would stay exactly as it is.
It would still be your Official State Broadcaster, with its special place in society, taking sides on certain issues, and instructing the populace how to think. It would still take advantage of the legacy of trust and quality earned over the decades, and the News division would stay the same. Your problems will still exist, and you’ll still be forced to pay for it. The only difference is that you won’t see the annual extortion letter reminding you that you pay for it. I guess that will make it feel less of an affront, but the overall problem will remain exactly as it is.
Fox News isn’t the Official Broadcaster of anything. And even though the talking heads are all biased away from the Left, they still ran a report about Joe the Plumber’s flaws. The BBC is actually lying in its report about him. He never said he was a licensed plumber, yet the BBC is portraying the fact that he isn’t as some sort of gotcha. And, as Martin has already pointed out, the BBC is censoring the information that The Obamessiah’s own campaign manager owes even more back taxes.
Your Official State Ministry of Truth hard at work.
Richard Lancaster:
“Then I look forward to you criticising the citing of articles in the MSM in future.”
Why would I do that here Richard? It’s the ‘Biased BBC’. Not the ‘Biased MSM’.
Jack Bauer:
“Really?
My problem with the BBC is that I am forced to fund it, and I don’t like it’s extreme loony left world view.”
Really what? Your second point is exactly what I stated. However, I don’t fund the BBC and I find it disheartening that so many people here do.
whitewineliberal:
“At it’s best it is a vibrant gadfly of a blog, with, in the main, some intelligent and challenging correspondents.”
You also are an intelligent and fairly reasonable debater wwl, but do lay off the patronizing flattery. It really DOES make you sound like a Beeboid. And it’s incredibly insincere when put into perspective with some of the other comments you’ve made.
Sometimes I think David Vance must be living in a cocoon. To seriously suggest covering this story indicates a bias is so stupid, it’s funny.
Besides why is covering it pro-Obama? Both candidates talked about Joe the Plumber. Overnight he became one of the most famous men in the States.
I think you’re always going to be on shaky ground when you allege the BBC is biased because of the choice of news stories.
I always fing Google News is a good way of sorting that out:
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=uk&q=joe+the+plumber
I think this site would be mush better off posting less quantity and more quality. Because this really is a load of guff.
Jole | Homepage | 19.10.08 – 3:47 pm |
I think this site would be mush better off posting less quantity and more quality. Because this really is a load of guff.
You’ve missed the point completely. The BBC is reprinting the US media’s smear of Joe the Plumber – including the bold-faced lie that the encounter occurred at a rally and not in the man’s own neighborhood – in an effort to obscure the revelation of The Obamessiah’s greatest weakness.
It’s not that the BBC is reporting on this story at all, but the way in which they’re reporting it: dishonestly.
“I think this site would be mush better off posting less quantity and more quality. Because this really is a load of guff.”
Sometimes this place does seem to have a conveyor belt attitude toward BBC bias. Updated purely out of habit, rather than for any undeniable point of bias.
But then it’s deserved karma for the BBC seeing as they are a conveyor belt of lefty swill, a 1000 times more prolific and needless than B-BBC will ever be.
And we don’t have to pay for this site.
Bet David Vance pays his licence fee though.
actually , the bigger point about the joe the plumber encounter is obama’s response – “spread the wealth around”…
THATS the big story. not whether joe is a friggin plumber or not.
its typical bbc though – just replay what the U.S. leftie MSM are reporting – rather than taking a genuinely non-partisan approach and examining the issue from a afar.
“They either do head to heads or they do a left/right interview straight after each other.”
Martin | 19.10.08 – 1:51 pm
i can confirm that – i regularly listen to Fox News radio – and the show “Brian & The Judge”… brian is the GOPer, Judge is the Dem…
and boy does it make for great radio as both sides take chunks out of each other.
and to be fair – the Judge does get some digs in at the Repubs… its great radio.
we simply dont have that over here.
here’s the obama v joe the plumber encounter…
in short – obama is endorsing socialism.
tax the people who are successful even more…
Well said, Natalie.
When are they going to mention Obama could possibly be an illegal immigrant?
Philip J Berg lawsuit:
http://www.americasright.com/
joe the plumber on fox news
“his answer scared me”
“he said he wants to distribute wealth… thats kind of a socialist viewpoint..”
Nonty | 19.10.08 – 4:41 pm
when hell freezes over.
compare and contrast with the endless LIES spewed out about Palin…
David Preiser writes:
“As for the BBC, the license fee isn’t your only problem. While I understand that the idea here is “End the license fee – privatize the BBC”, that’s probably not what’s going to happen. If the license fee were to end, the government would merely fund the BBC straight out of your taxes anyway, and the whole thing would stay exactly as it is.”
But if the BBC was directly funded out of taxation, it would be subject to more political scrutiny that at present (questions in Parliament etc) – and I think this would lead to more ‘balance’ or neutrality over contentious matter. & the expenditure would have to be justified in debate as well. Its ‘public corporation’ status tends to keep it alof from such mucky matters.
“compare and contrast with the endless LIES spewed out about Palin…”
That’s not really fair. If David Vance wants to think that the woman is even vaguely competent enough to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (the heartbeat of a septuagenarian cancer survivor, furthermore) then you should let him.
Scott: And what makes you think that Obama is competent to be President? Or Al Bore?
Kill the Beeb: What is your obsession about who pay their TV licence? I bet you pay yours. It’s easy to come on hear and spout bollocks that you don’t pay it. Prove it.
“Scott: And what makes you think that Obama is competent to be President?”
Nice to see you’ve finally realised that misspelling somebody’s name doesn’t make it funny, Martin.
“Or Al Bore?”
Oh, well.
“That’s not really fair. If David Vance wants to think that the woman is even vaguely competent enough to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (the heartbeat of a septuagenarian cancer survivor, furthermore) then you should let him.”
US Presidents seem to live a long time, if they don’t get shot first – and even that didn’t dispatch septuagenarian Ronald Reagan. McCain suffered more in 6 years of prison than most of us will in a lifetime. I am unenthusiastic about Palin, even though I share her Christian ethical outlook. I would have preferred Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Or better, Mike Huckabee, an intelligent, articulate man, 10 years as Governor of Arkansas, and pretty good on bass. But I also remember all the apocalyptic BS spouted by leftists in the UK in 1980 that Reagan was an ignorant, trigger happy B movie actor who would start a nuclear war (that he’d been twice Governor of California was conveniently ignored).
How wrong the leftocracy was.
But there is no doubt from his voting record (when he showed up to vote) that Obama would be the most leftwing and most pro-abortion president in US history. That Rezko, Ayres and Wright have been so formative of this man (with Soros in the background) is deeply disturbing. But I don’t expect the BBC ever to deal with that.
I think libertus is wrong about the licence fee. As it stands, the yearly bill serves as a reminder that we are being forced to pay for this tosh.
Were the BBC funded directly by the government, the sum would be less obvious, lost in the great ocean of taxation that is siphoned out of our pockets.
Consider, as an example, the regional governments foisted on us by Prescot and the EU. They do nothing, save provide lucrative sinecures for ZaNuLabour’s lackeys, and they cost millions.
If people had to pay separately for them, with individual bills, there would be an outcry. As it is, the swindle goes unnoticed by most.
In that sense, I feel, the licence fee should stay until the entire edifice is brought down. And the sooner the better!
What is the daily circulation of the Guardian? I last saw it being around 300,000. Is that a close figure?
If so it’s nothing is it.
348,878 per day for September ’08. That’s 3.12% of the total newspaper circulation for that month. Only The Independent does worse than The Guardian. And that’s like The Guardian’s gayer, more annoying little brother. Go figure.
Even that despised, incompetent fool with no mandate, Gordon something or other, is more popular than The Guardian.
Scott, you didn’t answer the question. You were asked a legitimate question, this questoin has been posed over and over – What has Barrak Hussein Obama done to warrant his election as president of the US?
Palin is running for VP. As VP for four years, she will have plenty of experience when she runs for president in 2012. Will Obama run again? Will the Obamination take another stab at it?
Obama is a lawyer. Palin is a governor. Governors are preferred to lawyers.
What’s the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a bottom dwelling scum sucking scavanger, and the other a fish.
Scott: Again, what qualifies Obama to be President? What experience does he have ABOVE Palin (apart from having delivered a spech to some Germans or shook the hand on the one eyed one) to run the USA?
None of these candidates do the job on their own. They have a team of advisers around them.
For some reason the left seem to think John McCain is going to pop his clogs if he gets elected. Where’s the evidence for that? His mother is still alive as far as I’m aware. That’s usually a good sign I’d suggest.
And as Hillary Clinton pointed out, Obama could get slotted by someone, leaving America with Joe Biden.
He’s such a good candidate no one voted for his when he ran in the Primarys last time.
“I think libertus is wrong about the licence fee. As it stands, the yearly bill serves as a reminder that we are being forced to pay for this tosh.”
Well, maybe. My preferred option would be a staged privatisation of the BBC, rather than tax-funded. Or if there has to be publicly funded broadcasting, it should be basically public information.
“Were the BBC funded directly by the government, the sum would be less obvious, lost in the great ocean of taxation that is siphoned out of our pockets.”
But it would become a party issue, as a matter of public expenditure.
“Consider, as an example, the regional governments foisted on us by Prescot and the EU. They do nothing, save provide lucrative sinecures for ZaNuLabour’s lackeys, and they cost millions.”
Which is why I would scrap them too. Whenever peopel have had a vote on these, they’ve rejected them.
Gibby Haynes: I’m betting most of the copies of the Guardian are sold to beeboids and other public sector workers.
libertus | 19.10.08 – 6:10 pm |
Well, maybe. My preferred option would be a staged privatisation of the BBC, rather than tax-funded. Or if there has to be publicly funded broadcasting, it should be basically public information.
If the BBC ends up being privatized, would that also end its special, elevated position as the State Broadcaster, with the accompanying legacy?
The one thing obama has done that no republican has done is beat a clinton. I see powell’s just endorsed him.
“If the BBC ends up being privatized, would that also end its special, elevated position as the State Broadcaster, with the accompanying legacy?”
I would hope so. AFAIK, New Zealand gave up state broadcasting; not sure abotu status of CBC in Canada.
Of course, it’s all up to the Tories in the UK. I fear Cameron isn’t as radical as the situation calls for to undo all the damage of the Blair-Brown years.