E
By the way, did you read the BBC report detailing how the Church where the Obama family go to worship has been burned down in a suspected arson attempt? Alright then, it didn’t happen but if it did, I figure it would be splashed across the BBC. Fair bet? So, isn’t it interesting that when the Church where Sarah Palin worships is torched, not a word from the BBC. Maybe she never existed?
Let’s see if I can explain this one. The BBC hate Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular whilst supporting the Democratic party and indeed loving Barack Obama. There you go, not too tricky.
You can of course replace Republican with Conservative, Democratic with Labour and Barack Obama with Gordon Brown and get the same blatant bias in the UK.
David, with all due respect I can’t go with you on this one. Firstly, Obama will be President of the United States, while Sarah Palin is someone who would’ve been Vice President had the guy who didn’t win the election won the election. It’s not really comparable, whatever your personal preferences.
And besides, B-BBC isn’t going to persuade many people if we continue to churn out non-stories based on the old formula – “The BBC would react differently if this happened to group A instead of Group B, which it hasn’t, but we know the BBC would react differently because they’re biased, and part of the evidence for that bias is that they would react differently if this happened to Group A instead of Group B…
I hoped McCain would win, but damage to a church building frequented by a failed former Vice-Presidential candidate is not news, even in my book – not at this stage of the investigation anyway.
HenryF,
This story is of interest because of who Palin is (possible VP of America).
What is interesting is the fact Al Beeb choose not to air the story as if it holds no interest aye? Pitty they didnt extend the same kind of editorial decision making to the grandson smears eh.
Mailman
Have to agree with henry there, you’re not proving anything, just opinionating.
Mailman, my point is precisely that Palin is NOT “possible VP of America”. She is Governor of Alaska, and non-fatal damage to the church attended by the Governor of Alaska is not necessarily international headline news. (When the cause is discovered it may become newsworthy, certainly).
Even David’s comparison is unfair – He deliberately compares the situation with hypothetical damage to a building attended by Obama, not by Biden. Were Biden’s church damaged by fire, I wouldn’t expect the BBC to cover it, and he WILL be VP, Palin will not.
Henryflower
You are right this fire is not newsworthy for the BBC.
This is because the parishioners are mostly white.
Had the congregation been entirely black, it would have been news.
A landmark church known as the birthplace of American gospel music has been destroyed in a fire in Chicago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4590574.stm
A Baptist church in Alabama has been severely damaged by fire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4707778.stm
Three students arrested over nine church arsons in Alabama started some of the fires as a joke, officials say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4786754.stm
Anonymous: fair point, well made.
In fact, anonymous – your contribution is a model of what the post should’ve been. David – any chance of incorporating those links into the article, for the benefit of those who don’t trawl the comments?
Henry,
Palin is a high interest individual who ran for the highest office in the world only a few weeks ago.
The BBC ran so many non story’s on this woman, not to mention deliberately spreading lies from the Kos kids over her son being her grandson.
It is with that in mind that I believe this story should also be run (obviously not front page material but never the less, it should still be on the North American news page as it is news).
I see where you are coming from, but if the beeb was so keen to run non-events as news only a month ago…why the sudden change in heart? Palin helped win Georgia for the Republicans and has been campaigning hard in Minnesotta, so its not like she has disappeared.
Regards
Mailman
Mailman, that’s fair enough, I take your point. As far as I’m concerned, if a former failed Vice Presidential candidate is sufficiently important that we must be told about it when she is uninjured and, indeed, not present when a building she sometimes enters is damaged by a fire with so-far unknown causes, causing no injuries and no fatalities, then I want to read this story at public expense on the BBC as much as the next man.
DV claims they would cover the story if Obama’s church was subjected to an arson attack – which demonstrates their bias. Surely a more reasonable hypothetical bias-detecting question is: would they cover the story if George W. Bush’s church were similarly attacked by arsonists?
henry,
I take your points – but Palin is the most high profile FEMALE politician in the States at the moment so I find it odd that her Church is burnt down and not a whisper from the Beeb. I also agree that Anonymous makes several additional vital points and if I get the chance I will certainly add them in.
Palin is still big news in the US,
still getting more coverage than any politico other than The One, all the networks have been interviewing her, and she was been campaigning in the Georgia run-off. The Palin church fire was headline news in the US, I think it is worth at least a mention on the BBC pages. The BBC normally likes publishing “wierd” stuff from the US.
Incidentally – has dear Justin reported that his lib allies at the LA Times, Chicago Herald-Trib and the Baltimore Sun have gone into bankruptcy protection, while the New York Times is teetering on the edge with its bonds rated at “junk” status ? Or any mention of the excoriation from all quarters, including his own colleagues, that Andrew Sullivan has been receiving for his obsession about the Palin grandchild that Justin was happy to flag up.
Sarah who?
DV you’ve picked a straw man to beat up. Maybe the BBC should have covered the story – maybe not. Personally I feel Sarah Palin is yesterday’s beat-up.
It is a fair best that the hypothetical burning of Obama’s church would be a BBC story for all sorts of reasons.
* It would show BO hasn’t cut ties with Rev. Wright as he claimed.
* It would be an attack on a major congregation in a major city.
* There may have been witnesses.
* There is an Obama connection.
On the other hand churches are burnt down all the time, all over the world and the BBC doesn’t cover the story.
Well, they (Al Beeb) reported on her quite a bit after the election but this incident is not newsworthy? I’m with David Vance on this one. I betcha they would have reported it if had been the church of some democratic Governor.
I’m with DV on this one. Palin was front page news – down to how much her wardrobe cost, and every minute and even ficticious detail of background and beliefs, page after page. Stand-ups trying to make her look ridiculous. Feminist hatred and smear was rife. The BBC sneered its biggest sneer.
Now they wouldn’t want anyone to see her for a moment as a victim or a twinge of sympathy – she is only to be sneered at and to be apalled by. This story doesn’t lean in the right direction, so it doesn’t go.
I asume it was arson, or some thing less sinister? Seems as newsworthy as some of the other tosh they put up.
Andrew: I just checked… Al Beeb also ran the “Palin Turkey pardon scandal” story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7742689.stm
so why not the church fire story? Definetely a double standard.
Also, this woman is news worthy because she could be the first female president of America in four years time.
Mailman
BTW, if there is any more “point taking” to be had, Im sure we will have an influx of new members in 9 months time! 😉
Mailman
Palin WAS news, but that was then (when there was an election on), but this is now (when it’s all over).
The Republican Party seems to have decided that Palin was a big reason why their guy lost, so her chances of becoming the first woman President in 4 years time seem to be close to zero.
Yes, it is true that the US networks are still avidly covering all things Palin. But that’s because they have a liberal bias and cover Palin only because they think she discredits the Republican cause.
The BBC’s decision to let up on the Palin coverage is the first UN-biased thing they’ve done on US politics in an age.
Tom | 15.12.08 – 3:26 pm |
The BBC’s decision to let up on the Palin coverage is the first UN-biased thing they’ve done on US politics in an age.
No, the BBC just doesn’t see any value in reporting something that would make Gov. Palin and her fellow ghastly, frightening, Creationist-Nazi, Evangelical church-goers as victims for whom one might have a tiny bit of sympathy.
Disillusioned German and an Anonymous commenter have already provided evidence above that the BBC has a different view of other stories either presenting Palin as entirely unsympathetic, and members of an approved victim class as sympathetic victims of church arson.
What did Gabby Logan say when it was mentioned that the absence of GWB would give the BBC’s ‘comedians’ less material: “there’s always Sarah Palin”. Why not “there’s always Barack Obama”?
DG and anonymous have got this correct.
I think it’s unfair that the BBC continue to sneer at Sarah Palin because of what she chooses to wear and her daughter’s pregnancy.
surely it would be better to sneer at her for being a creationist?
surely it would be better to sneer at her for being a creationist?
Anonymous | 15.12.08 – 5:18 pm
Have you a link to substantiate that claim?
Mailman – I see what you mean. Please retract your “point” and I’ll pretend I never took it 😉
To be serious, while I’ve changed my mind slightly since this morning, I still think we are basing our case in this instance on pure speculation about the reasons for the non-reporting of what is so far (and I stress that) a very minor story.
But the links above from anon 10.13am ably demonstrate that church fires are news when the identity politics fit the progressive agenda, so maybe I’m in two minds about this one…
What I wonder is, say they had reported it, or say Bush’s church were attacked: would we watch subjectively, and come here claiming that the BBC had reported it “with glee”, that they could “scarcely hide their pleasure”, that they had gone out of their way to “highlight” the violent dislike stirred up by those Republicans? I sometimes wonder if they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t, simply because we know that the bias exists.
Because don’t get me wrong – I know they’re biased, and I know the media and the BBC have never covered an election in so unashamedly biased a way as the 08 Presidential election. I can’t imagine, in fact, how they could ever top it for bias; unless next time round the Democrat candidate has Palestinian ancestry.
Allan@oslo: Why not “there’s always Barack Obama”?
Absolutely. Damn right.
Tom,
Unfortunately for you and the lefty media, Palin aint going away anytime soon.
Get used to the idea of her being around because in 4 years time she will be running against the light worker ™ for the top job in the world.
Imagine the line the lefty msm will have to toe here. I mean, who will they hate…the first black president or the first female president?
I guess if she was a black lesbo tree hugger that would be the perfect out come for Al beeb 🙂
Anon, you may not have been around but Al Beeb has already been shot down in flames for claiming Palin was a creationist when no credible evidence to support such an absurd claim could be found. This is a big deal as it was Al Beeb that found against itself!
Mailman
mailman
Nope. The Republicans will go for Bobby Jindal, America’s first Brown President.
More to the point in the way of stories that have gone walkabout……
has the BBC deigned to report today’s Times splash about the Met employing as an advisor on Muslim affairs a bloke who’s on the Interpol wanted list for al-Qaeda related matters?
If the church a losing black vise presidential candidate went to was damaged it would have been on the BBC
mailman
I really hope that Palin doesn’t stand in 2012. If she does, I fear we will suffer Obama-mania for a further four years. I had high hopes for McCain this year but I have no doubt as to why he lost. Whether we like it or not, she caused an awful lot of damage to the Republican party and I have real concerns about her ability to lead. She will kill our party stone-dead if she stands again, mark my words. As far as I am concerned, she is our Tony Blair. All charm but no substance.
The damage to the Republican party was caused by McCain who, whilst a decent guy, is just not a Republican. I note that NYT was very supportive of him until he got the nomination, and then the NYT reverted to the Dems after having got its man into the Republican nomination. Palin is a very good candidate who stands her ground and, unlike ‘teleprompt’ Obama, she can argue on her feet.
A similar thing happened over here when the BBC/Guardian suddenly discovered that David Cameron was an excellent candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party – much better that that old-fashioned David Davis. Sure enough, the membership of the Conservative Party voted as the BBC guided (members of the Conservative Party are none-too-bright).
Apologies for going OT, but the nearest open thread is a long way down and I do suffer from Vertigo.
I’m trying to get a handle on the EU, and I wondered if there is a good sensible site that gathers in one place what exactly is wrong with the EU, particularly its accounts and undemocratic mechanisms.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.
Tom
How on earth can you say that Palin has lost credibility with the Repubs, that they blame her for the defeat?
That is just so untrue – try reading the polls among Repubs.
henryflower:
try
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
I agree with Henry Flower. The difference of news worthiness between a President-Elect and a failed VP candidate is massive. Historically most VP candidates are forgotten very quickly. Even VP-Elect Biden has been lost to the news.
Amazing
JohnA
Myself and a great number of my Republican friends are convinced that Palin screwed our chances. I am not entirely a McCain fan (he was a little too liberal in some respects), but he was the best chance we had. There is no doubt whatsoever that Palin divided rather than united the Republican party. To continue down this path will tear the party in two.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/
justine is fed up with all this hoo ha about the democrats very close to obamessiah found to be corrupt.
needless to say, we would not have heard the end of this, if this was alaska.
justien always manages to sound very petulant and fey, i find.
unbelieveable.
i am tired of Webb
“The unexplained fire at Wasilla Bible Church in Wasilla, Alaska, where unsuccessful Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a member, has excited much speculation, since the authorities are inclined to believe it was an act of arson. Inevitably the incident, which caused more than $1 million worth of damage, has been linked to Palin’s high political profile.”
“…the growing consensus is that arson has been committed and that it relates to Sarah Palin’s candidature. The Governor herself has apologised to one of the assistant pastors in case the fire resulted from “undeserved negative attention” incurred during her campaign.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/12/15/if_sarah_palins_church_was_burned_by_arsonists_it_is_a_warning_to_christians
DEJ – just the ticket, thank you
“I hoped McCain would win, but damage to a church building frequented by a failed former Vice-Presidential candidate is not news, even in my book – not at this stage of the investigation anyway.”
Sarah Palin has some 63% Republican support to run for president in 2012.
Important enough?
“As far as I am concerned, she is our Tony Blair. All charm but no substance.”
Barack Hussein Obama is your Tony Bliar,haven’t you sussed yet.
The Republicans lost because of two wars and a devastating financial meltdown,rising unemployment and a candidate that couldn’t/wouldn’t fight his corner.Palin lifted the campaign but the chicanery over the bailout by the Democrats was too big a hurdle.
Garden Trash,
Please don’t feed the Moby.
The financial meltdown was predicted by many economists, Bush deserves much of the blame for appointing an idiot (and scheming crook) Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary.
Bush’s socialist spending spree was not very smart either.
Bush, by giving huge welfare handouts Wall Street, effectively proved he is a socialist. Had the Republicans opposed the bailout they would have regained credibility (abolishing the Federal Reserve would have been a vote winner).
O/T BBC World Service leading with some minion appointed to Obama’s cabinet as energy sec. Later on – oh yes, loads of people dying of cholera and massive drug wars in Mexico. Anyway – back to some irrelevant cunt.
The BBC are turning into a fucking joke. If global warming really is going on – surely we should be investing in defences rather than multi billion pound nuclear power stations?
Billybob,
Palin was the only person keeping the Republicans in the race.
There are plenty of examples of why Palin would be good for america (fighting corruption instead of being part of it) but the thing I liked the most about her is that of all the candidates in this years race, she was the only one that wasnt a millionair!
But please do point out examples of failed leadership because clearly the 90% of Alaskans that approve of her governorship must be wrong?
Well, Obama might be the first black pres, Palin the first female and Jandel the first brown one…but what about the first white president since Bush? 🙂
Mailman
Is this post what people on the Interweb call a strawman?
Where you make up something that doesn’t exist then argue with it?
Zevilyn – scratch the surface of any neo-con and you will find a statist itching to get out. Neither can resist imposing their views on other people.
Garden Trash: “Sarah Palin has some 63% Republican support to run for president in 2012.
Important enough?”
Absolutely! That 63% rating among Republicans proves conclusively that the fire was arson and was connected with Palin’s attendance at the church.
From Gerald Warner’s Telegraph blog:
“The first point that has to be made is that arson has not yet been established, though it is strongly suspected. If an electrical fault turns out to be the cause, much heated speculation will be discredited. Even if it was an act of arson, private grudges and vendettas are not unknown among religious congregations.”
I’ll be as happy as the next man to call it “Palin Derangement Syndrome” if it’s shown to be so. Until it is, it’s a fire in a church in Alaska, and not an international news story. Until it is, I don’t think the BBC’s failure to report it is demonstrably biased. If it is proved to be arson, I’ll be in total agreement with you.