With the election finally over, let’s take a moment to review the Beeb’s coverage before we move on. This is possibly one for the train spotters, but it’s important not least because of the Beeb’s claim that individual examples of bias aren’t persuasive as they are trying to achieve balance over time. How the Beeb does so is anyone’s guess, as there’s no evidence they monitor it. However, let’s be radical: let’s assume they’re not lying. So let’s look at the coverage of the election (okay, from the moment Palin was selected) on Justin Webb’s blog. And let’s take with the treatment of Palin. To anticipate a few preliminary objections:
- Why Webb? Well, he’s the North American Editor, so it seems reasonable.
- Why the blog? I don’t think the Beeb’s going to let me have all the tapes of Webb’s broadcast coverage. And, frankly, I don’t want them. But not to worry: we know that the same rules regarding impartiality apply, so the blog entries should, if Webb’s doing his job, present a balanced and impartial view.
- Why Palin? Webb’s blogged on her a lot, which means there’s a decent sample. And she’s someone on which there are significantly differing views, which we should therefore expect to see reflected in the coverage. As Webb puts it, she is immensely grating on those who do not like her, but immensely pleasing to those who do.
So let’s look at the balance:
As for Sarah Palin! Her creationist views are bound to become an issue (can you really have a president who denies basic truths about the world?)
So Webb’s coverage of Palin begins, and with characteristic style – ignoring the fact that, as the Beeb’s admitted, she’s not a creationist, and that she’s not running for president. I’m going to chalk that one up as a negative comment.
However, I’m going to exclude those comments that are neutral – and I’m using the term loosely. Comments such as these:
- My prediction: she will be a brilliant candidate or blow up and take the whole party down with her. Not sure which.
- A view of Sarah Palin here that suggests she has an ability to crash and burn or remind us all of Ronnie (Reagan, that is) at his best: just dunno which yet.
As well as these posts: on the pregnancy; agreeing she is not the new Eagleton; and his entry about lipstickgate.
So what’s that leave us with? Well, here are the postive comments, such as they are:
- Palins Punches: I liked the parliamentary-style jabs at Obama and they have peppered the news coverage, though I still think she is skating on thin ice.
- America’s Answer to Thatcher: with that quote about being grating or pleasing (I’m trying to be generous)
- Two posts about Palin getting more cheers than McCain: Disappointment? and Regan, Clinton, W and Obama. These really seem like digs at McCain, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
- And an admission that She is not the harbinger of some dark witch-burning retreat into superstition and irrationality.
And on the negative side:
- Eagleton
- The rumour that she wants to ban books – not true, says Webb, but reported anyway.
- Hagel questions Palin’s experience.
- Should McCain have picked Romney, he asks. And at about this point he entirely loses it…
- She’s the woman rational, educated Americans regard with ever-increasing horror
- Will she still debate? He asks, for no apparent reason. The answer, not surprisingly, is “yes”.
- Her voice cuts glass.
- Her world view is essentially ignorant.
- She’s not funny and she’s not clever; and
- She’s the preferred outcome for those who hate America… she pals around with people who believe in witches.
So, on balance, and over time, do you reckon that Webb thinks Palin would have: made a brilliant VP; been an awful one; or do those rules on impartiality and his professionalism make it just impossible to tell?
I can’t quite see what you are getting at here, Hugh.
To me, it is as clear as day that overall, everything taken into account over a prolonged period the BBC’s coverage was biased.
But your post serves only to demonstrate that Webb’s blog reflected a variety of viewpoints about Palin (supportive, neutral and hostile).
Given that the BBC isn’t required to give equal time to every viewpoint, but is obliged to reflect the range of significant ones, it looks like you are giving Webb a clean bill of health.
I don’t know what it is, but there must be something wrong with this methodology.
I suspect a closer textual analysis would give us a better result.
Saying that Palin ‘has a strong appeal to nasty people who torture cats’ isn’t, after all, an unvarnished ‘positive’.
Perhaps it is a bit too subtle – my point is that in fact there is not a single truly positive post about here: click through to the entries and that’s clear. The negative entries by contrast are damning and largely unqualified.
do you reckon that Webb thinks Palin would have: made a brilliant VP; been an awful one; or do those rules on impartiality and his professionalism make it just impossible to tell?
Wrong question.
Webb is not obliged to recuse himself from delivering any judgments or coming to any conclusions, he’s merely required not to be partisan in the way approaches his work.
Hugh
Loved the comment “Let’s be radical, let’s assume they are not lying”. Sorry, but that is just too radical for me !
Caro- quite obviously the balance of his reporting is wrong. In a year of economic crisis under a Republican, Bush, Sarah Palin motivated a large slice of Americans- not enough, but enough to avoid an Obama blowout. Now, evidently Webb doesn’t recognise the views of those people, as he quickly turned against Palin and became almost unrelentingly negative about her. It’s not whether he has views, it’s whether he let those views dominate his reporting. He did.
Caro – that’s nonsense. By your definition Webb could say he supports the Democrats as long as he gives reasons and assures us he started with an open mind. What the guidelines tell us is he can give analysis but not opinion. His comments that Palin has energised the core vote but lost some of the centrist support is analysis. “She’s not funny and not clever”; “her voice cuts glass”; “her world view is ignorant” – that’s opinion.
I love the way Webb starts his pro-Palin comment with “At the risk of losing some friends…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/09/too_kind_to_burn_witches.html
He didn’t start any of his anti-Palin comments with such a phrase! Which says it all about his bias and his choice of friends.
BBC scribes – not living in an echo chamber, oh no!
Hugh | 06.11.08 – 11:46 am
By your definition Webb could say he supports the Democrats as long as….
No, that’s precisely what he cannot do.
Try changing the referent to something a little less topical and emotive:
Shouldn’t a BBC foreign editor be able to say any of the following •
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant
Mengistu was a brutal leader
Arafat was an untrustworthy negotiating partner
Mugabe is a cunning fox
Castro, beneath the avuncular exterior, could be a thug, even a calculating killer, if it was expedient to be so
Putin has a ruthless streak
etc. etc.
All quite different from ‘I support so-and-so’ or (worse even) ‘you should support so and so’…
Partiality (taking sides) involves the exercise of an option…. a positive choice, but a judgment or ‘considered opinion’ involves experience, analysis, observation etc. Quite different.
I should have added that I agree Webb is in breach with this :
Don’t be ridiculous: If someone is thick; their voice cuts glass; they are the prime choice for the enemies of America; essentially ignorant; and rational, educated people regard them with horror, then you’re not going to support them are you? It is taking sides, because the only sensible response is to vote for the opposition. What are people meant to conclude?
And it’s precisely because it’s topical and emotive that the Beeb has to be more careful (that’s in the guidelines as well).
Furthermore, comparison’s to Mugabe and Hussein aren’t valid becaues there’s not a significant, serious body of opinion (none with credibility, anyway) arguing they’re not tyrants and bullies. There is, however, a significant body of opinion in the US that doesn’t think Palin is bloody awful.
Finally, here are the guidelines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/
“In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: “the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting”…”Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters”.
So, do you reckon you can’t tell what his personal view is?
Her creationist views are bound to become an issue (can you really have a president who denies basic truths about the world?).
….in breach of the accuracy rule, not the impartiality one.
Or to put it another way: “Cameron is thick, rational people regard him with horror, and he sounds like he has a plum in his mouth” are all fine as long as you don’t spell out that you’re not supporting him.
Hugh | 06.11.08 – 1:24 pm
So, do you reckon you can’t tell what his personal view is?
Well, if the only blog entry you’d read by Webb on Palin was the one that said:
She is not the harbinger of some dark witch-burning retreat into superstition and irrationality.
she {Sarah Palin} is a politician (yippee!) and well capable of bending with the flow
you might conclude he was rather pro-Palin. Just as you might conclude the opposite if you had only read the one you mention about horrifying rational and educated people.
comparisons to Mugabe and Hussein aren’t valid because there’s not a significant, serious body of opinion (none with credibility, anyway) arguing they’re not tyrants and bullies.
Aha! What a double-standard.
Actually, I think you’ll find the Baath Party and Zanu-PF are/were both ‘significant’ bodies of opinion , each with a locus in their own individual story.
As to whether they are ‘credible’ • surely that’s not for you or the BBC to say, but for the reader/viewer to conclude?
As for
“Cameron is thick, rational people regard him with horror,
try substituting ‘Prescott’ for Cameron and see if that’s so bad.
Caro.
The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit have upheld a complaint about JW’s use of the creationist word to describe SP – see previous postings.
It was something he repeated many times. Why would he wish to repeat such an unsubstantiated charge so many times if it was not to belittle her in the eyes of the listening/watching public.
If DV does write his book on BBC bias I am hoping he will request a copy of the ECU’s letter to use.
That time he said that she believed dinosaurs walked the earth together with human beings only 2000 years ago!
To say that was only an inaccuracy is patent nonsense. He must have dreamed that with only one purpose in mind!
Get real.
At last a BBC show that is very funny about the U. S. election taking the mickey out of all the candidates, but why did we have to wait until after the election for it. There was plenty of “cutting edge” humour only about one side before the result was known. Any suggestion about which side Caro?
The programme receiving the honourable mention is “The 15 minute musical” broadcast on Radio 4 last night at 11.00 p.m. Well worth a “listen again” if you can.
The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit have upheld a complaint about JW’s use of the creationist word to describe SP – see previous postings.
It was something he repeated many times.
A BBC hack using repeated mentions of a phrase or description that was untrue and that he was unprofessional enough to NOT to check out?
Say it isn’t so!
And this is from the BBC’s North American editor no less. Sloppy, unprofessional AND biased.
“She is not the harbinger of some dark witch-burning retreat into superstition and irrationality.”
Yes, very pro-Palin: She’s not Satan. In fact, his point is not that Palin wouldn’t want a retreat to superstition and irrationality, just that she wouldn’t get it. And as I think my post made clear, if you read all his posts they are overwhelmingly negative about Palin.
As for Mugabe and Hussein, it’s not a double standard; the BBC can’t and shouldn’t entirely ignore contemporary mores. They’re not impartial on paedophilia either, but it’s an area no one would want them to be. When it comes to candidates for mainstream parties in mature democracies, however, the Beeb is expected not to pass judgment.
And yes, the beeb would also be breaking its code on impartiality if it said Prescott was thick and filled rational people with horror – which is an opinion, rather than stating he often mangles his words, which is a fact. (If, however, they mentioned this every time when talking about Prescott, there would be a valid complaint.) That is why, I think you’ll find, they’ve never done so.
Gerald Brown | 06.11.08 – 1:49 pm
The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit have upheld a complaint about JW’s use of the creationist word
Yes I know. And they upheld it as a breach of the obligation to be accurate, not as a breach of the impartiality rule.
Why would he wish to repeat such an unsubstantiated charge so many times ….
Probably because he genuinely believed it to be true.
Are you seriously suggesting Webb repeated this charge, knowing it to be false?
Caro,
If you believe the BBC has been impartial, please do point out where Webb and co have gone after Obama with the same zeal?
And while you are at it, can you also point out the articles on Obama’s deliberate credit card fraud (or do you think they were side tracked by the GOP spending money on clothes for Palin)?
Face it, the reporting showed bias from day one, the double standards were amazing!
Plenty of articles on the $150k price tag for Palins clothes but nothing on the $140k price tag for the greek tragedy that was Obama’s coronation.
Lots of talk about Palin being a dumb arse, BUT absolutely nothing about Obama capaigning in an extra 7 states! 🙂
In the last week was even an article about McCain not being able to read off cue BUT not a single thing about Obama’s stubmles when his prompter goes out.
And lets not forget continual references to McCains age while reminding us that a vote for the white guy is a racist vote.
No, maybe you are right. THere aint no bias problems 😉
Mailman
Mailman | 06.11.08 – 2:35 pm
I never said the BBC’s coverage of this election had been impartial.
Actually, I think it was very markedly biased towards the Democrats at every stage, and particularly towards Obama after he won the nomination.
But it’s bias we should complain about, not correspondents doing their job by forming and expressing judgments. Different thing.
Hugh – are you suggesting that the pro and anti comment on Palin should be in equal proportion? Would it accurately affect the views of the American public if that was the case?
(59% of voters considered her unfit to be VP.)
I’m not necessarily saying this is the answer to balance over time in this case, but Webb did not paint an entirely negative view of her and actually comes across as quite fond of her in my opinion.
I also think many of his comments are an ironic comment on the kind of people making them (eg the witch ones – that is more a dig at liberals than conservatives) but that kind of ironic dig does not translate to this bit of the blogosphere very well in my experience which is too often literal and po-faced.
Caro
Unfortunately you can only refer to the ECU a single narrow matter, not generalisations or repeat offences.
I believe there is a foreword to one of the James Bond books along the lines of “once – chance, twice – coincidence, three times – enemy action”. As JW committed this “inaccuracy” many times that counts as enemy action in my book if not yours.
I was pleased that you knew the complaint was upheld for “inaccuracy” because I did not mention it here on this strand and I do not recall lots of previous postings by you.Did you see the report at work? At the BBC?
Hugh,
This is excellent work. Now we just need to combine it with a few quotes of his from various radio and TV appearances, and the case will be made.
Justin Webb’s negative comments are not criticisms of her policies or her performance as mayor or governor. If he had said that she was a book-burning tyrant who tried to push her own religious agenda in the schools while in a position of power, then the analogy to calling Saddam and Mugabe tyrants would be valid. That’s so not what is going on here.
In fact, ol’ Justin did try to push the book-banning story as fact, until it was proven false loudly enough that he noticed.
That may be inaccurate rather than biased, but how can anyone defend Webb’s statement that her religious beliefs (even as he misrepresented them) disqualify her from holding public office?
That’s not a criticism of her candidacy, that’s religious bigotry. All of Webb’s criticisms were personal remarks. Never did he discuss her political activity, or her performance as mayor or governor.
All of his so-called reporting and blogging was about superficial, personal faults, real or imagined.
That’s not reporting: that’s trying to bring somebody down. Worse, it’s openly stating personal opinion about someone’s religious beliefs, and class background. Webb doesn’t like her accent or her religion. Would anyone suggest that he would be allowed to say anything remotely similar about a black person who didn’t speak as mellifluously as The Obamessiah? What about saying that a Muslim’s beliefs disqualified him from holding public office? How is that defensible in any way?
Defenses of ol’ Justin will have to go much farther than asking if the negative comments should be balanced with an equal number of positive or neutral ones. The problem likes in the nature of the comments, and his justification for them.
Sarah Jane: “are you suggesting that the pro and anti comment on Palin should be in equal proportion?”
No, I’m suggesting comments that she’s not funny or clever, her voice cuts glass and her world view is essentially ignorant shouldn’t be made at all by the North American editor. They’re well beyond analysis: they’re emotive and derogatory language value judgements, and they’re straight opinion. They’re also entirely unnecessary. Would the audience suffer if they didn’t know Webb found her voice annoying? Is it really acceptable to say that Palin’s supporters are irrational and uneducated?
I’m also interested in where you see his affection for her? I’ve linked to every one of his posts.
I really do struggle to understand how you think character assassination doesn’t breach the guidelines. As far as you and Caro are concerned it seems anything goes as long as you don’t slap on a rosette and declare your support. In which case, what is the point of the BBC? Certainly there is none for the website. All we have to do is remove the leader pages from the Telegraph and Guardian and we’ve got the same product.
More addressing the technical abilities than the opinions, but these are addressed too (and in the case of the Telegraph Mr. Webb comes out quite well, at least to the author of this piece). FYI.
US election on television: BBC TV’s election coverage teeters on the brink of farce
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/11/06/nosplit/bvtvreview-0611.xml
How 175 BBC staff got it wrong
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083448/How-175-BBC-staff-got-wrong.html
Which is why, as a shareholder, beyond the damage to the reputation of the country whose name it bears that the professional standards of reporting and editorial seem to be inflicting, I have to query the value for money ‘we’ are getting to send so many into the field of jolliedom, to get so little right… for so few.
This is the woman who thought africa was a country, according to new information that’s come to light from a mccain aide
I think you are being way too generous to Justin Webb. He clearly lost it on day one when he heard that Palin had said she was OK with schools teaching creationism if they wanted to. What she in fact said was :
“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
Webb leapt to the conclusion from this that she was a creationist, someone who “denies basic science” and that has coloured his views throughout the campaign. By the time the BBC agreed that there was no evidence at all that she was a creationist, and Webb shouldn’t have claimed she was • they presumably mentioned this point to him • his views on her had set in concrete. If there was anything positive about her it was simply her possible ability to rouse Republican rabbles, with glass-cutting talk about God, the end time, and witches. There basically weren’t any positive comments about her, throughout his blog. They were all negative, or one the one hand, on the other hand stuff. There were links to speculations about her, and there were clearly a few times when Webb got very angry indeed • he obviously felt “palling around with terrorists” was grossly unfair and produced the stuff about palling around with people who believe in witches.
It must be noted that Webb’s style is slightly jokey and world weary cynical • but on the very rare occasions that his sense of humour or cynicism is aimed at someone other than McCain or Palin, it is very gentle and friendly. Mostly though, it’s aimed at Palin, and there is nothing friendly or gentle about it. The overwhelming impression is that of fear, disbelief, loathing and contempt.
Here are a few comments on specific items :
1. But far more politically explosive will be her views on abortion, apparently against it in ALL circumstances
This is not in fact true (ie like Palin’s creationism, it’s another Webb invention) • she accepts abortion where the mother’s life is at stake • which is entirely orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine by the way, not Alaska Church of Wacko. Her views are barely distinguishable from any mainstream Republican candidate, including Bush and McCain • and the tiny distinction wouldn’t shift a single vote. Her views on abortion are indeed politically explosive • for liberals (in the American sense) such as BBC journalists and editors. But there is no evidence that her views on abortion were politically explosive – abortion was hardly a campaign issue. Her views •- while unpopular (roughly 20% support) are about as unpopular as Obama’s on the same subject (abortion any time any place, up to birth, and including support for partial birth abortion.) In short she is marginally more extreme on abortion than Bush and McCain, roughly equally extreme as Obama in the other direction, and exactly as extreme as the Roman Catholic church. So what we have from Webb is the absolutely orthodox Guardian line • Oh My God she’s anti-abortion, which makes her a wacko extremist. They’ll be telling us she’s got doubts about the perfection of the UN next.
continuing –
2. My prediction : she will be a brilliant candidate or blow up and take the whole party down with her. Not sure which.
This is part of setting the bar high for her. Either she’s brilliant or she’s a disaster. Well it turned out she was good in parts. And her effect on the result ? Nada. She might have added a million votes, or lost ‘em. But in the end, the result was a point or two better for the Republicans than they stood at in the polls immediately before she was nominated. (And that after a major financial crash.) Webb wrong again.
3. I suspect they made a mistake in getting a highly educated woman to be the surrogate Palin figure in the practice sessions for Mr Biden. The whole point of Mrs Palin (her degree is in journalism for goodness sake !) and her strength until the party hacks got to her was that she was unschooled, unsmooth, imperfect.
Bollocks – ie she’s uneducated (the journalism joke is a self deprecating joke about himself too) and her strong point is that she’s unschooled, unsmooth and imperfect. The words that he is desperately running away from here are normal, natural, down to earth. “Unsmooth” and “imperfect” fly directly in the face of the obvious fact that she’s a very good (and smooth) public speaker (if not interviewee.)
4. The news of Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy is gut-wrenching for Republicans
Except that it wasn’t. The Dems and the media hoped it would be, but as Webb acknowledges in an update :
I talked to a handful of people all of whom said it was a private family matter. Plenty more listened in and did not seek to differ
His initial reaction was quite wrong, and well done him for correcting it. But what does it tell you that his initial reaction is always the same as the people who write the New York Times ?
5. Hugh calls this neutral :
I agree with those who say she is not the new Eagleton : ditching her would destroy the McCain campaign
But it’s not neutral. Webb raised Eagleton in the first place. His conclusion that she’s not Eagleton is based not on the analysis that • unlike Eagleton • there’s no reason to drop her, but on the analysis that dropping her would be more damaging than keeping her. It in no way contradicts his using the Eagleton reference to keep chipping away at his oft repeated theme that she’s not up to it.
6. On lippygate, again he’s not neutral. He links to a Democratic view (which he labels sympathetic but over academic) and a Republican view (which he labels trenchant) • but even the Republican view says ” I don’t think [Obama] meant to call her a pig” !
But lots of Republicans thought he did mean to call her a pig, But there’s no link to that view. In fact lots of Dems thought that too, which is why they laughed so much. This is one of those traditional BBC balances. “Here in the studio we have Mr Softee of the crime reduction charity “Empty the Jails” and debating him will be Mr Hardface, a former prison officer who now appreciates that prison serves no useful purpose. Tell me, gentlemen, why is prison so useless ?”
7. Whatever you think about her, and her role in the campaign, the speech at the convention was the highlight that everyone, even the Dems and the Dem media recognised as a triumph. Webb produced this, which unaccountably Hugh marked as positive !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/09/palins_punches.html
there’s one single equivocal line on the speech
I liked the parliamentary-style jabs at Obama and they have peppered the news coverage, though I still think she is skating on thin ice.
Webb then completed his post with (a) a comment supporting as entirely reasonable, the querying of whether Palin should be running for office what with her maternal duties (b) a link to a speculative story about Palin’s water’s breaking • no, really –
Is she tough or reckless. This is downright strange if it is true
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/sarah-palin-broken-water-and-h.html
and ( c) a paragraph about why his favourite Republican says this is not the way to select VP candidates
8. On McCain’s speech, the comment “The biggest cheers were for Sarah Palin” was as Hugh says not to praise Palin but to damn McCain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/09/disappointment.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/10/reagan_clinton_w_and_obama.html
But Webb continues :
She after all disagrees with him on one central platform item (man made climate change)
which is back on his hobby horse that she’s an anti-science weirdo. In fact her views on climate change and its causes are perfectly sensible • yes, there is climate change; yes, humans are probably a factor; no, I’m not convinced that humans are necessarily the major cause of it.
I suppose we have to give Webb a pass here. As the sidebar indicates, anything other than utter subjection to the “global warming is down to humans and we must close down industry NOW !” line is taboo at the BBC
9. Now we get to another anti-Palin tirade which Hugh amazingly scores as positive :
She is not the harbinger of some dark witch-burning retreat into superstition and irrationality
But not because she doesn’t want to send the country back into witch burning, superstition and reality ! It’s just because even if she does get in, the Dems will control Congress, and anyway the votes aren’t there for it :
Even if she became President the Democrats would control Congress and anyway her views (on abortion for instance) are simply unpopular in the nation as a whole
He continues, in supercynical vein • a vein to which of course Obama has not been exposed for a microsecond :
The changes of heart on the Bridge to Nowhere et al suggest as well that she is a politician (yippee !) and well capable of bending with the flow, so don’t expect her to call for witches to be burned if that doesn’t play too well in the focus groups
10. Let’s not forget those Palin-friendly blog headings :
Palin under pressure
and
Palin disaster
A headline he has been itching to write ever since he produced :
she will be a brilliant candidate or blow up and take the whole party down with her. Not sure which
Webb’s analysis of the “Palin disaster” begins thus :
Palin is indeed a disaster for the presidential ambitions of John Mccain. This is not opinion; it is fact
It is of course not a statement of fact, but a statement of opinion. And an entirely wrong one • again. (see 2 above.) And one which coincides precisely with the opinion of the New York Times et al. Again. (see 2 above.)
11. Let’s move on to Webb’s VP debate blogging :
“I may not answer the questions but I want to talk straight to the American people” she says. And leaps into a prepared spiel. Gosh yes, let’s ditch the questions.
This is exactly what all anti-Palin reporters reported. In Webb’s case I am willing to cut him some slack as I think he’s basically trying to be balanced, but just can’t manage it. His problem is that he’s an honest man, with progressive sympathies, who caught Palin Derangement Syndrome very badly. So I’m willing to accept that his brain made him hear Palin say she wasn’t going to answer the questions. When in fact what she said was :
And I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people
Moving on :
She says she is tolerant • Hmm. Not of witches
Oh tee-hee Justin.
And let’s look at the difference in tone between the rude remarks about Biden in the debate, and the rude remarks about Palin :
Biden : Old codger alert • Biden is waffling • Biden is off again on the Middle East • he is off on a “McCain is no maverick” attack
Palin : Completely at sea • insulting frankly to any serious viewer – oh dear she is off again on energy • she is off on another memorised rant
The Palin comments are much ruder and more emotionally charged. Webb is genuinely exasperated. Look at the four uses of the “off again” expression. Biden just goes “off again.”
With Palin it’s “oh dear she’s off again” and “off again on another memorised rant.”
12. Webb’s take on Troopergate, before the reports came out :
No shortage of material that suggests a clean-cut hockey mom image is about to be destroyed
Hmm. Wonder which side he’s on ? (In the end the two reports went in opposite directions. But the anti-Palin one was rushed into print more quickly.)
13. and on and on :
[McCain’s] problem is that he is all tactics, Sarah Palin being proof of that
In the end, the BBC’s campaign for Obama had no effect on the election. But • like its campaign against Bush • it has had an effect on British public opinion. Even right-wing British people in the UK think Palin is a wacko halfwit.
I actually feel slightly ashamed on Webb’s behalf. I think he genuinely tried to understand what the Americans he didn’t agree with and who he didn’t naturally meet, actually thought. He never caught Bush Derangement Syndrome. But he totally lost it on this campaign. He acquired a caricature Daily Kos fixation about Palin on day one and never recovered. Not only has he poo-ed in his own bed as far as his reputation is concerned • irretrievably • but he has also shown that his attempt to understand flyover zone Americans has failed completely.
In the end he has been the counterpoint to the 1950s Southern white racist who tries hard to understand and empathise with the coloured folk. He tries and tries, but when he hears that his daughter has been seen with a black man he reverts to type and can think of nothing but “Filthy N*****s !”
For Webb, it’s been an effort to understand and empathise with the god-fearing and conservative. But suddenly confronted with a real one, up close and personal and standing for election, his instinct has taken over and he can think of nothing but “Aaargh • this is just like Deliverance • but it’s real ! Get me back to the Big City”
“(59% of voters considered her unfit to be VP.)”
Sarah Jane, because the media told them so! They never shut up about it. And I think your data is whack. Where did you get that number?
James: “This is the woman who thought africa was a country”
And The Great O thinks there are 57 states, never heard anything his pastor said for 20 years, and was in no way influenced by the terrorist neighbors he bar-b-qued weenies with on Saturday afternoons. Ya.
James and others: For the sake of clarity; I don’t think Palin was a good VP candidate. I think – though I know some disagree – that she was poor in the interviews, and I don’t think she’s sharp enough. I also liked McCain but suspected sounding like Grandpa Simpson would be a disadvantage when it came to campaigning. But, importantly, I’m not the Beeb’s North American Editor, so I’m free to give my opinion.
Lee Moore:
You very neatly cataloged Webb’s snobbery.
‘Evening Standard’ Londoner’s Diary:
“Maybe it’s time to put Dimbleby out to grass”
Diary Comment on Frei:
“Meanwhile, BBC Washington reporter Matt Frei, also in the studio, could barely disguise his support for Obama, enthusing about how he had conducted his campaign. No wonder US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, a Bush supporter, sitting next to Schama and opposite Frei, looked pained at the bias in favour of Obama. ‘I know this is the BBC but …’
Diary Comment on Webb:
* THE BBC’s North America editor, Justin Webb, seems to have branched out from writing intemperate criticism of Sarah Palin to patronising the American people at large. ‘It’s wonderful to see – and to meet – so many Americans taking this so seriously. This is a nation of fast food, of short attention spans …’ he blogged last night.”
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2008/11/maybe-time-to-p.html
Webb was only joining the bbc bandwagon including endless Today programme coverage in attacking Sarah Palin. Yet they never touched Biden.
One can almost tell the day and hour that the bbc ditched Clinton and chose Obama. At the same time to suddenly have another, and better looking woman join the party made them immediately decide to vilify her, as were the Democrats and their media supporters.
This attack must have been sanctioned or at least condoned by the fat bbc controllers.
Yet she came through OK, and possibly has learnt a lot from this baptism of fire. I for one will follow her progress over the coming 12 months.
What makes me weep, is the men, but especially the many women who said she was stupid, but they will never reach her current position in their lifetimes. So who is right?
Could this be a major justification for the glass ceiling? I think so.
The BBC sends 175 people to cover the election and all they can do is produce an amateurish farce? What’s the point of them?
As for Dimblebore not recognising the 2000 VP candidate for ‘his’ party, well, what a disgrace.
“I don’t think Palin was a good VP candidate. I think – though I know some disagree – that she was poor in the interviews, and I don’t think she’s sharp enough.”
Hugh:
In an America where we care about the scrutiny of others far more sophistique, she was not, perhaps. Or in an America where the east coast elite dictate the nation – she was a poor choice.
But to the rest of us she is a real American, with a solidly honest heart, loyal to family and country, and the kind you want as a neighbor – a what you see is what you get kind of woman, and we want her to lead us. She won’t lie, show off, put her own interests first, she could give a rats hinney about what others think of what she says; she is real.
She is a great choice, and she will be back. We like her, and now she has four years to get polished up. You can learn all the savvy, but you cannot learn to be real like Sarah is real. Her kind of real is what a person IS.
“Webb did not paint an entirely negative view of her and actually comes across as quite fond of her in my opinion”
I think that Webb is generally quite “fond” of the bits of the US which don’t fit his presumably Londoncentric view of what a first world country should resemble. I’ve never found the “anti-American” accusations convincing.
That’s not the point though, which is that patronising someone is as effective a way of passing on the fact that you view them as inferior as outright abuse is. Personally I found her to be extraordinarily unimpressive as the campaign unwound and in retrospect she doesn’t seem to have had much of a positive impact on McCain’s chances overall, but I managed to make my own mind up on that over several weeks. The Beeb treated her as a Prescott-esque regional comedy act from day one and we’ve had 12 years to conclude that Prescott is a moron.
If we’re talking about traditional bases for patronising people then ethnicity and (lack of) “real world” experience usually counts for as much as gender, accent and being from the arse end of nowhere, but Obama had nothing but respect throughout. I think the Beeb needs to challenge themselves with how they’d respond to a “look at the skinny black bloke from the local council – isn’t it great that he can read an autocue and look cheerful at the same time. bless” approach. Makes the “fond” approach look less acceptable doesn’t it?
“Could this be a major justification for the glass ceiling? I think so.”
Cassandrina:
Well said, and I think so too. Sarah was ABUSED, and there is no way around it. She was maltreated immediately because of her looks, and jealously is worse and more powerful than any other emotion. More so than anger, wrath – you cannot appease the jealous because they eat themselve up from the inside out. They were jealous of her beauty and accomplishments, and the fact that she walks a straight line of common sense leadership.
We haven’t seen the last of Sarah. I’d like to see her teamed up with Bobby Jindal of LA – what a team, and both successful conservative governors who kicked liberal butt in their state.
Matt Frei tells us all what to think about the election and the campaign.
Washington diary: America’s future
It all seems very cogent and insightful, until one realizes just what he’s leaving out, dodging, or pretending didn’t happen.
I’m talking about things like this:
Racial prejudice will not end tomorrow. But the debate about it will surely become more honest.
Like BBC reporting about it, for example? How many times did Matty and Katty and Justin scowl at the camera, asking if the US was, in fact, too racist to elect a black man? The legions of Beeboids sure as hell looked in every cave and under every rock to find people who were willing to admit that their neighbors might be racist. In fact, according to all of the BBC’s extensive, year-long coverage of the election, the only reason anyone was going to vote against The Obamessiah was racism. As we all know, no one knew of any questionable policies he may have, and all questionable associations were mythological at best. So there could be no other reason for educated, rational people not to vote for him.
We can finally bury the Bradley effect, which had been analysed ad nauseam on cable TV and the web.
You mean, by you on your own BBC World Propaganda America, nearly once a week since January? Who does he think he’s kidding. Never mind, I know the answer to that.
Americans voted for Barack Obama for a variety of reasons. Some because he was an African-American. Others because he was young, cool and clever.
Well, at least that part is true.
But almost everyone who did vote for him surely came to the conclusion that this was a man with sober judgement.
That’s because your US media buddies lied to them and covered up for their Messiah so people would think that. But no Beeboid would ever understand that, never mind admit it.
Frei Boy goes on to praise the sheer genius of The Obamessiah, failing to mention (because he truly doesn’t see it) that it was, in fact, the media who hung the Bush albatross around the entire Republican Party starting in the middle of 2007. Any fool should be able to grasp that the eventual nominee had to take that with him after the Party Convention. Yet Frei wants you to think that this was some clever tactic by the Democrat campaign. No mention whatsoever of the historic effort of the media to defeat George Bush. No mention of how it got so bad that MSNBC had to remove their two biggest talking heads from the flagship election coverage show. No mention how the US mainstream media has lost what little credibility they had left. It’s out there now, but nobody at the BBC will agree, never mind report that some United Statesians might think that these days.
Then there’s the part where Frei speaks glowingly of all that money The Obamessiah Campaign raised, yet fails to mention even a hint that they disabled the credit card security feature on their website, deliberately opening the door for millions of dollars in illegal donations. The BBC never mentioned that, did they?
I could go on, but the Frei’s self-delusion is greater even than mine.
Meanwhile, here’s something else the genius experts at the BBC will not tell you about the election results:
Not So Green: Voters Nix Most Environmental State Ballot Measures
Among five major energy and environmental ballot initiatives from California to Missouri, all but one were voted down.
Oops. United Statesians are opponents of the consensus! Don’t expect to learn this from the BBC:
Ambitious renewable-energy targets didn’t even win in San Francisco, where Proposition H lost. The measure would have mandated rapid increases in the city’s use of clean energy, including a requirement to be 100% renewable by 2040. But it also meant another stab at taking over the city’s private electricity company, a measure which never fails to fail. Even San Francisco’s famously green mayor, Gavin Newsom, opposed the measure.
That will never pass a Beeboids lips. Nor will this:
Florida, California voters approve gay-marriage bans
Oh dear. And if anyone remembers the last Presidential debate, even President-elect Obamessiah said he was against legalizing gay marriage. I guess the BBC’s virulent Bush and/or Palin Derangement Syndrome caused them to overlook that bit. And fail to report on it.
So it looks like the US hasn’t magically transformed into happy puppies and unicorns. But at least the white people who voted for the winner aren’t racist anymore.
betyangelo,
Did you get the impression that a large part of the dislike for Gov. Palin was due to class/regional accent prejudice?
Her accent may not sound odd, or be a sign of stupidity to you or I, as it’s not so far from a Southwestern or Four Corners regional accent. But to ol’ Justin (even if he thinks his youngest’s Maryland/Mid-Atlantic accent is cute), as well as the rest of the Beeboids and coastal elite US media talking heads, her accent is annoying (grating, glass-cutting?), and makes them think she’s less intelligent than she may be. She may not have been as fully informed about all the most important global problems, but that’s not what a VP is for. Of course, we’re all supposed to pretend it’s something different.
In any case, I think a good portion of the BBC’s problem with her was sheer prejudice against her accent and manner of speech.
Huh?
Are journalists expected to make up stories, or cover non-stories, just to get “balance”?
Palin was a ludicrous choice. Watch for the dumping on her over the next few days by people from within the McCain camp.
Does “biased BBC” think that journalists should have covered up negative stories on Palin which they had every reason to believe were true? (e.g. she was utterly clueless not only on foreign policy but also national issues)?
Does “Biased BBC” think that the BBC should have put time and effort into covering ludicrous stories about Obama (birth certificate? muslim? “terrorist”) which had been debunked during the primary campaign, just because of “balance”?
Apparently “Biased BBC” thinks just these things.
Shrug. The BBC gets things wrong. The election night coverage itself was woefully amateurish. Dimbleby wasn’t nearly sharp enough. Too old. John Bolton, hilariously, had a point about the embarassing interview from kansas he complained about.
Slap the BBC for getting things wrong.
But it’s not “bias” to say that grass is green; that snow is white; that obama ran a masterful campaign; that McCain wasn’t comfortable with the “conservative christian” base of his support; or that sarah palin is, to all practical intents and purposes, an idiot…
Ptet writes: “Does “biased BBC” think that journalists should have covered up negative stories on Palin which they had every reason to believe were true”
Well, they certainly covered up plenty about Obama, didn’t they?
As for idiocy – I think most of us here can conclude for ourselves where that description fits best.
ptet: Yes, that’s right, how could Webb not have covered Palin’s voice being annoying; her not being funny or clever; the massive talking point that enemies of America wanted her elected; the entirely imaginary doubts whether she would do the debate; the fake story that she wanted to ban books.
These weren’t stories he needed to cover, they were gratuitous swipes. He could have quite easily made it clear that she had plenty of flaws, as well as attributes for a good chunk of the electorate, through balanced analysis – and taking the odd talking point from the right. Instead he decided to mimic the Daily Kos.
ptet:
Still an ass, eh?
David P:
“Did you get the impression that a large part of the dislike for Gov. Palin was due to class/regional accent prejudice?”
Absolutely. She scares them out of a comfort zone where real America’s character is comfortably as distant as the movie screen, and jsut as pretend.
If I had been able to coach Sarah, this is what I would have immediately had her do, and it would have changed a lot for her – add “ing” to the end of the verb. Omitting it – (read, “omitten'”) stereotypes a person for those with an ivy league education, and it is not classic American.
I am originaly from Florida, and I learned this the hard way when I was a broker. And while the jabby southern cadences throughout the SW and into far western rural areas are the best for delivery of humor, (‘O Brother Where Art Thou) it does not work when you need to be taken seriously. (Then I move out here to NM ten years ago, and they actually say “ink”!) Crazy.
Sarah was not told to use the full form of the verb, and I heard it and cringed, and thought it a subtle sabotage, a betrayal of her.
Classic – “Thinking”
Sarah’s accent (and mine) – “Thinkin'”
Or Nm – “Thinkink”
GCooper: Well, they certainly covered up plenty about Obama, didn’t they?
No they didn’t. If there was any real dirt on Obama, don’t you think Hillary Clinton would have found it?
“Hugh: ptet: Yes, that’s right, how could Webb not have covered Palin’s voice being annoying blah blah blah…”
But that’s what most commentators in the US said – including many conservatives. The BBC and other news media had plenty of coverage from Palin supporters. Palin was hoisted by her own petard of cheerful ignorace.
“betyangelo: ptet: Still an ass, eh?”
As much as i ever was, I’m sure.
“Sarah’s accent (and mine) – “Thinkin'”
Good on you. Do you always speak like that, or did you develop it after your career in sports broadcasting journalism, like Sarah Palin did? I imagine the former.
I take it you also know the difference between “South Africa” and “Africa”; which countries make up North America; what NAFTA is and who Hamas are.
According to reports on Fox Frikkin’ News and elsewhere Sarah Palin didn’t.
If Sarah Palin had turned out to be dynamite on pro-life issues, foreign policy, domestic affairs and whatever else the political press woud have loved her. She didn’t and the media reported what it saw.
Sarah Palin exemplifies the political idea that politicians shouldn’t know about the issues because that just gets in the way of implementing ideology. (Who cares about Roe v Wade? Let’s just ban abortion. Who cares about why bombing Iran might not be a good idea? Let’s just bomb Iran…)
If you think that’s what politicians should be, then you’re in good company. Join Bill Kristol and much of the rest of the Neocon movement which gave us George W Bush and what followed.
The American public chose otherwise.
Good post, Hugh.
Thanks.
“Sarah Palin exemplifies the political idea that politicians shouldn’t know about the issues because that just gets in the way of implementing ideology”
ptet:
The woman is a successful governor of a wealthy state, with an 80% approval rate. The O, who has done diddly, thinks there are 57 states.
The media did NOT report what it saw or heard – not as it should.
Did the BBC show you the above? The fact that The His Greatness attended a church for 20 years and denied knowledge of Wrights’ radical racism?
The fact is that the media was racist and sexist in it’s reporting about Sarah Palin. She seemed like an idiot because they painted her that way. She was, and still is, a threat. She is the only reason McCain got my vote, and I am not alone.
There is no way you can say with honesty and conviction that you believe the media are innocent and do not daily make or break images. You cannot. And they set out to destroy this woman, with real purpose.
You are so bent on her negatives. Tell me her positives then, if your image of her is balanced.
“The O, who has done diddly, thinks there are 57 states. “
Obama doesn’t think there are 57 states. That’s just stupid.
He was President of the Harvard Law review. He’s been a US senator for four years. He was very upfront about his experience and lack of experience. He was elected anyway.
“Did the BBC show you the above? The fact that The His Greatness attended a church for 20 years and denied knowledge of Wrights’ radical racism?”
I sure I saw that very clip on the BBC, just as I’m sure I saw it on Sky and elsewhere. Sure, they didn;t show it wall to wall, but hey, tough for you.
The clip shows an angry black man complaining about how badly the US treated African Americans.
John McCain refused to bring up the Rev Wright in the campaign, because he knew to do so would be to unleash a tide of racist ignorance which would divide and harm America.
Since the clip you’ve linked to was very widely seen, your argument is ridiculous.
“The fact is that the media was racist and sexist in it’s reporting about Sarah Palin. She seemed like an idiot because they painted her that way. She was, and still is, a threat. She is the only reason McCain got my vote, and I am not alone.”
The polls show most viewers rejected Sarah Palin as a good VP choice. Many conservatives including people at Fox news say Sarah Palin was an idiot.
You are so bent on her negatives. Tell me her positives then, if your image of her is balanced.
Sarah Palin is immensely charismatic. she has a great populist feel. She is not frightened or putoff by any sense or fear of being out of her depth. If you are a conservative christian, she is ideologically ideal as a candidate. If you are pro-gun and pro-life, she is perfect.
Sarah Palin was not ridiculed for any of these things. Sure, she was defined by them, but that is how she defined herself.
Whether you like Sarah Palin or not, the indisputable fact is that John McCain took a huge gamble picking her as a VP candidate. She wasn’t on his prospective list, She wasn’t vetted properly. Don’t take this from me – take it from Fox news.
John McCain’s gamble didn’t pay off.
I saw on Fox today analysis that McCain’s poll numbers crashed after the Katie Couric interviews. they never recovered. The economic disaster was the nail in McCain’s coffin.
If Sarah Palin had been able to wow, impress or even B.S. Katie Couric and the American public, she’d have been a massive success win or lose, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Instead… Well, we all know what happened instead.
So now define Obama. Who is he?