I see that Simon Schama, he who the BBC is using to present “The American Future” series is of the opinion that America has to choose Obama – or certain doom. Clearly no hint of bias there.
OBAMA OR DOOM.
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 13:01
Weekend 21st December 2024
A bit more on Captagon in this article: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/the-captagon-controversy-and-why-it-captivates The question being was it used to turn hamas into monsters… - Guest Who Dec 22, 12:59
Weekend 21st December 2024
Germans are also, historically, more prone to get with the gummint program. With the U.K. seemingly catching up fast, bar… - Mrs Kitty Dec 22, 12:51
Weekend 21st December 2024
@Pug at 11.04 Depending on who you speak to all three of those names have carried the terrorist badge. - Jeff Dec 22, 12:04
Weekend 21st December 2024
So, the German authorities received “multiple warnings” from the Saudi government, telling politicians that this man was a danger to… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:41
Weekend 21st December 2024
If we change “Christmas Markets” to “Festival Events” we can end the attack by upset Islamists and save lives. -… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:23
Weekend 21st December 2024
Cosy, green & cost effective heat pumps Installation from £500 including a £7,500 government grant with Britain’s favourite heat pump… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Rishi has proved to be a diligent constituency MP and it was no surprise to see him re-elected in 2017,… - pugnazious Dec 22, 11:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Same with EV cars which might be more polluting than normal ones…not forgetting we have to scrap all those cars… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
Assisted Dying on the NHS – free POD for those who want to save the planet.
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Schama’s series presents his own view. It is by defintion “biased”, just as niall ferguson’s “empire” was. He’s not a news reporter.
At least the title saves you the time of bothering to read it…a small kindness.
Schama’s ‘own view’ is all over the BBC like a rash.
There is no counter argument. That’s bias.
R4 news at noon, Sunday – headline stories. Sarah Palin meets her impersonator.
Oh, happy world, when so little takes place…
No bias there, of course.
Schama…Obama… vomitorama…
Chances of the conservative writer Mark Steyn being commissioned to produce a BBC series on the glories of America… about the same as John Humphrys being sympathetic to Israel.
Jack,
Or John Simpson being positive about the benefits of regime change in Iraq.
Norris Mcwhirter on
Record Breakers? I rest my case
What I find remarkable about this article is that in it, Schama shows every sign of having very clear insights regarding McCain’s decency and experience, as well as the disturbingly airy taxation proposals Obama is offering (Schama even dismisses Obama’s plans for a green economy as a spurious type of mysticism, for those who cannot be bothered to read past the headline.)
And yet, despite all of that, he willingly swallows the Obama rhetoric and deduces that we have reached a moment of historical change, that Obama is a symbol of that moment, just as Kennedy was.
I’m saddened by that. Schama is a superb historian – his “Citizens” (an account of the French Revolution) is one of the finest books of history published in the last few decades. His monograph on Rembrandt is also a wonderful and insightful work. Perhaps it becomes second nature for a historian to look for historical “moments”, to sense (or imagine) those shifts in the tide. Given that he is rightly so suspicious of Obama’s economic policies, and given that an economic crisis is upon us, it’s hard to imagine by what means Schama imagines the new Presidency will constitute a historical moment.
Perhaps it may represent the last time that an electorate responds to simplistic emotional manipulation rather than doing the maths on the policies. But when someone as insightful as Schama is suspicious of the maths but is nevertheless willing to swallow the rhetoric and go with the flow, that seems over-optimistic.
I respect Schama a great deal, but this surpises and disappoints me. Not that he supports Obama – that’s his right – but that he does so despite such sensible misgivings, and on such spurious grounds.
I posted a comment, let’s see if they put it up.
WWL: I just don’t understand you. Can you not see that the BBC (as well all the other networks) openly WANT Obama in office? They are openly cheering for him to the extent that they are planning parties, and have even gone as far as proclaiming his victory before the election? They want him so bad that they cannot imagine losing!
Why can’t you see that? Isn’t the title of this article “Obama or certain doom” a big hint? The author may not be a reporter, but there is the article. Where is another about McCain just like it “McCain or certain doom”?
For those who have access, and strong stomachs, Schama’s ‘The American Future’ is repeated on BBC 2 at 7pm tonight. This part 2, subheaded, ‘American War’, in its ‘coverage’ of the years since 1900 concentrates only on that part of US military history which Schama considers to be reprehensibly ‘imperialist’; so he largely omits content on World War 1, World War 2 and Korean War. (Note the subliminal use of film from Vietnam war to cover earlier Philippines war.)
Schama’s view of US history and politics fits perfectly with that of the BBC’s pro-Democrat Party, pro-Obama political stance.
The BBC not only presents Schama’s partisan views on US history unchallenged, with no counter-view allowed; but Schama continues his propaganda for Obama on BBC radio, TV, and on BBC election night coverage. He donates to the Obama campaign. If the BBC were a newspaper he’d be writing its editorials.
While I respect Simon Schama as an historian, why the hell should I listen to his opinion on energy policy or on who is going to lead the US out of an economic crisis?
That’s the problem with giving too much prominence to any expert in any field, I guess. Once the floor is ceded to them, they get to expound on any subject they like, regardless of their area of expertise. Because they’re respected for the one thing, it’s like we’re automatically supposed to assume they’re right about everything else. Sort of like Linus Pauling and his massive Vitamin C dosage theories.
I will grant that, as an historian, he will be well aware – and qualified to speak about – past civilizations and cultures who collapsed because they used up their resources. Easter Island is a classic example. But he has no expertise on which to base his opinion about Sarah Palin’s Alaska. The rest of his position sounds rather Watermelony to me.
Schama does make some very intelligent statements about the development of the US psyche – even understanding certain things better than Justin Webb – that’s from his historian’s-eye view of the interweaving tapestry of events and individuals. That’s what historians do, and he’s good at it. In fact, I believe this is the only place I’ve ever seen the BBC allow someone to mention that The Obamessiah has also had his views shaped at all by (*giggle*) religious faith. This also seems to be the only time the BBC allows someone to speak positively about how Sarah Palin appeals to ordinary voters, rather than the religious bigotry and personal insults we usually get.
That doesn’t qualify him as useful for election coverage. I’m sure he could do a very nice piece on historical elections as a lead-in. No problem there. But I suspect it’s his “Electing a black man will redeem America” ideas that got him doing election night punditry. Why else would an historian be on air during that time? Will he be chiming in every few minutes to mention how racist the US has been, how wonderful that a black man has a chance, etc.? I hope he’s not there just to prime the pump for the charges of racism if McCain wins.
Even if that’s not Schama’s intention going in, the BBC could certainly use him that way.
Simon Oschama or Simon Sham?
Just goes to show that even supposedly intelligent people can be dumb at times.
I do enjoy his historical works, but I wont be going to Schama for his political views.
Mailman
He is an interesting man in many ways and a very intelligent one, but has the air of one who is a little too susceptible to the swirl around him and has suddenly thrown away his critical faculties to leap on the bandwagon of mania.
Has his head been turned by all this TV exposure and courtship by the BBC? I wonder if he is at heart a fame seeker and loves the limelight a little too much.
Speaking of intelligent people doing dumb things;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/
And all because McCain and Palin dared to point out a few home truths about “The One” ™.
Mailman
since Mr Schama has been given a full page article on the bbc website for his views, its only reasonable that someone like Bill Kristol be given an entire page for his views on Obama.
somehow, i dont think that will happen.
I enjoyed the Dead Ringers impressions of Simon Schama.
Also he has aged really bad. He looks about 80
Mailman;
Thanks for the link. I love the sharing of info here!
For a minute, reading that article, I thought, “Ah! He’s wanting his old job back!”
Then I got down to the bottom and saw, he actually suggested the Obamination had a better handle on the economy, and endorsed the Obaminations plan to negotiate with terrorists!
I think he must be smoking pot in his retirement.
Churchhill said if you are not a liberal in your youth, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative in your age, you have no brain. What, I wonder, would he say about a man a conservative in his youth and a liberal in his age??
That he’s smoking pot. I rest my case.
They are not going to put up my comment on Schama’s article. All I said was that in a choice between Obama and doom, everybody I know is choosing doom.
What’s wrong with that??
I actually gave Schama’s TV programme a go the other day, but I had to turn it off when he sneared the line “Roosevelt was now President” like the man was some sort of kiddy-fidler Nazi. Ask Americans who they think was their greatest President, and Teddy will probably be in the Top 5.
betyangelo.
LOL! Doom is it.
David, to be fair I dont think Schama was snearing…its just how his delivery comes across.
Mailman
Mailman, I’m not so sure. I felt he painted Teddy as some sort of gun-toting, ranching, race hatin’ nutcake throughout pretty much the entire episode. I agree that’s Schama’s manner, but I felt real resentment and disgust on top of that.
Snearing, Swearing, sneering?
Posted a comment that historians, like politicians, are not naturally endowed with wisdom – will see if it takes.
Schama does put enough caveats into his dirge to escape ridicule if Obama not only becomes President, but as I more than suspect turns out to be another Tony Blair – all promises and sparkle but no delivery.
David | 19.10.08 – 8:39 pm |
I felt he painted Teddy as some sort of gun-toting, ranching, race hatin’ nutcake throughout pretty much the entire episode. I agree that’s Schama’s manner, but I felt real resentment and disgust on top of that.
That raises an interesting point. I haven’t seen this current show, of course, but I have seen two other shows that Schama has done. It’s funny how Liberal historians like him – and cultural relativists – like to abjure us not to judge people and societies of the past by modern, Liberal moral standards.
Except when they’re white and United Statesian, of course. Everyone else is allowed to be a product of their time.
Mailman’s link raises some points which the BBC will ignore.
– “I don’t believe [Palin] is ready to be president of the United States,” Powell said flatly. By contrast, Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, “is ready to be president on day one.”
Presumably Obama cannot be ready to be President from day one because he has less experience than Palin.
– Powell also said he was “troubled” by Republican personal attacks on Obama, especially false intimations that Obama was Muslim and Republicans’ recent focus on Obama’s alleged connections to William Ayers, the founder of the radical ’60 Weather Underground.
‘Alleged’? Obama’s links to Ayers are facts.
– Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.
But Obama is not a life-long Christian. In order to be educated at a muslim school in Indonesia, he had to be a nominal muslim.
Norris Mcwhirter on
Record Breakers? I rest my case
whitewineliberal | 19.10.08 – 1:29 pm |
Is that the case for the defence – I have never heard Norris Mcwhirter saying that people in America should vote for the Republicans on Record Breakers. As far as I can remember McWhirter judged if a record had been broken or not.
No doubt if the BBC show Day of the Jackel by Fredrick Forsyth WWL will say that this shows the BBCs balance.
Stephen Fry’s travelogue is very pro-American, though.
Just as Fry’s BBC public lecture was sycophantic towards the BBC:
“Stephen Fry’s BBC oration is ‘tosh'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/10/do1007.xml
Allan,
Im not sure that is the case. Barry’s enrollment card says he was registered at one of them schools in whereeverland as a christian.
I really think this is right up there with 9/11 truth conspiracies.
The problem here is Powell lumped in rubbish about Republicans calling him a muslim with allegations his connections to Ayers are only alleged.
Right there is the problem. He wipes away Obama’s links to an unrepentant terrorist by lumping it in with unsubstantiated slurs about Republicans calling Barry a moslim.
That says all you need to know about Powell.
Mailman
Interesting how Schama in his show opines that in 1968 there was a Republican “landslide”. A look at the numbers reveals that Nixon got 43.4% of the popular vote and Humphrey 42.7%, with the third party George Wallace taking 13.5%. Some landslide.
Interesting too that Schama only applauds opposition to wars when it suits him. The America First movement of 1940-41 didn’t get a mention, despite the fact that it was lead by notables such as Charles Lindbergh. It was hugely successful – but for Pearl Harbour we might still have been waiting for the US to enter the war in 1945. Perhaps he doesn’t want to raise the possibility that opposition to wars, however principled, can in fact be mistaken. That would be a bit damaging to his argument.
RR — clearly Simon Oschama has his DATES wrong. Not too clever for an alleged historian.
Maybe he means Nixon’s 1972 landslide against McGovern.
Who know. Certainly not Sham.
Just remembered. Since the 1960’s modern socialist historians have been against the teaching of history as “dates.”
That explains it.
Jack Bauer:
Simon Schama was my director of studies in a different age and place and dates were very much out of fashion. Narratives were in. “History as the novel, the novel as history”, as Norman Mailer put it. Think of Schama as journalist rather than as a historian and you’ll be nearer the mark.
In episode 3 of SCHAMA’s BBC 2’s 4- part TV series ‘American Future’, this week, his theme is religion, and includes, (from the BBC’ s blurb):
“Simon also looks at the remarkable role the black church has played, first in the liberation of the slaves in the 1800s, and again in the civil rights movement of the 1960s; neither would have happened without its religious activists. It is this very church that has been the inspiration for Barak Obama, who traces the roots of his political inspiration to his faith.”
So we can expect a Schama critique of Reverend Wright and Obama’s twenty year close association with his pastor?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f4zgd
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Wonder if he’ll make much, or even anything, of the religious freedom enjoyed by members of the Jewish faith, a freedom unheard-of by his forebears fleeing pogroms in civilised old Europe?
Nah. Don’t fit the narrative.
It doesn’t matter, the facts will always come to surface. Ivy-League illuminati don’t think about those outside of their group. If that doesn’t spell doomed, I don’t know what does.
I’m confused as to how we must choose the liberal mantra or be doomed, when the left-wing illuminati have been in control for the passed two years. Where is the logic in that?