Ok, we all know that the BBC is going overboard as it hypes up the inauguration of Obama tomorrow. I thought it might be good to gather as many example of this as possible. I happened to catch Thought for the Day this morning to hear The One being compared to Moses. That was quite impressive. The Abe Lincoln comparisons have been coming thick and heavy as well! Any catch your attention? I have to be honest and say my stomach is not strong enough to watch the BBC Obama-fest even though, like you, we are forced to pay for this indulgence.
THE ADORATION OF THE OBAMESSIAH
Bookmark the permalink.
My box is off and it will stay off. I want to keep my breakfast where it belongs – inside.
The government has agreed to a BBC request to make tomorrow a 36-hour day so it can fit in all its reports about how great Obama is for the world.
weirdvis,
Sound advice.
Isn’t there any little scintilla of any of your minds that considers the inauguration of the first black man into (arguably) the world’s most powerful job as quite a significant news story?
our Dear Leader must be made up with the coverage Al Beeb is giving to the chosen one.
its going to be a very good month or two to bury bad news
The poster formerly known as B | 19.01.09 – 10:00 am |
no’ i’m colour blind.
I didn’t watch Bush’s inaurguation either. Nor Clinton’s. You saying I should make Obama an exception to the rule because of his skin tone?
I must have fallen asleep and missed the wall to wall coverage of lots of former Presidents inaugurations. This worship at the alter of Obama is just dumb. He’s just ‘zis guy you know’. He ain’t gonna walk on water or cure lepers puhleese!
He’s from a dubious past vis a vis Chicago vote hustling /gerrymandering and in his time in these various offices he’s done bu99er all as far as I can see. Is ‘it cos I is black’? Why yes it is.
I think the US is in for some deep disappointments when their new ‘Jebus’ fails to save the world in an afternoon. Besides didn’t our own Dear Leader ‘save the world’ already? Delusional f*ckwit that he is.
Gaza, Hamas spells out terms of the ceasefire. OK yeah right- the losers set the agenda. Thats happenned in the past hasn’t it.
May 1945 – BBC reports that New Reichs Chancellor Herr Doenitz has today ordered a ceasefire. The Allies are to withdraw from Reich Territory to their 1936 borders within one week. Reparations amounting to five trillion Reichmarks are to be paid to Germany within four months and Mr Churchill and Mr Truman will appearing at the Hague War Crimes tribunal in due course.
Course Losers always get top dictate the terms of the Hudna don’t they?
Any idea of the cost to the taxpayer of the BBC’s coverage of the Obama inaugaration? Would they like to tell us? Perhaps or perhaps not. In any case I guarantee it will be excessive , unjustifiable and at total variance with the new austerity forced on the rest of us. They ,the BBC, do bring a whole new meaning to the phrase “ancien regime’
We don’t need to watch the coverage of the Inauguration.
Just open our hymn books and join together in a rendition of the great Advent hymn, “Lo He comes with clouds descending”.
Well, Justin Webb on Today at about 7:15 this morning ran a very good and downbeat piece on the mismatch between expectations and what BO could reasonably be expected deliver. First two commentators were ex-Bush administration people. A very thoughtful and balanced piece.
Oh no! Just when you think things coulnt get worse. “Obama concert inspires supporters …people of all ages and races gathered under the marble gaze of President Abraham Lincoln”…subheadings “Belief” “Patriotism” “Living in Hope”
Sick bag quick!!!
Do you think Obama is channelling ol’ Abe? From the hysteria of their commentary, the BBC does!
BBC Obama celebrity overkill:
Stars bring glitz to Washington
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7835965.stm
In pictures: We Are One concert
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7837294.stm
Obama concert inspires supporters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/obama_inauguration/7836730.stm
Concert marks Obama inauguration
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7836723.stm
Obama tells rally of hope for US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/obama_inauguration/7836315.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/obama_inauguration/7836315.stm
(That last article was so important it had to be posted twice)
A political and religious connection not referred to by worshipping Beeoids:
‘Jihadwatch’:
“Spencer: Obama selects a Muslim with ties to Hamas to pray at inauguration”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024467.php
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10648.html
gene robinson..god,we give you thanks for your child barack.
if you were in any doubt that he is the messiah..
now i really am going to puke.
Unlike the BBC:
“Ignoring the Inauguration”
(Lawrence Auster):
“If you’ve seen very little about our incoming president at this website recently, it’s because I’m simply not interested. As someone who hardly ever watches TV and gets his news about the world primarily from the Internet, where one chooses what one reads about and does not have things shoved into one’s face, I am aware, in a vague, distant sense, that there is this obsessive Obama phenomenon going on. And I know, without looking into it, that it’s 100 percent hype. And the hype includes the inauguration itself, which I do not intend to watch. I may view it at some later point on tape, but I decline to participate in the collective orchestrated orgasm of the inauguration of the first nonwhite president. (I might have been reluctantly willing to watch it, but was decisively turned off by Obama’s selection of the anti-American leftist Joseph Lowery and the sodomite bishop Gene Robinson, whose ordination destroyed my church, to deliver prayers as part of the inaugural event.) The hype and the ecstasy will pass, and then there will be the reality of Obama as president. At that point I’ll start paying attention.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012331.html
Also-
‘Daily Mail’
“I’m sorry, Obama is no Lincoln”
(by Peter McKay)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1121324/PETER-MCKAY-Im-sorry-Obama-Lincoln-Honest-Abe-man.html
Dave S – ”Any idea of the cost to the taxpayer of the BBC’s coverage of the Obama inaugaration?”
Given that millions will watch it, and given that the BBC is not funding the inauguration, I wouldnt imagine it costed much at all. what a pointless remark you make. its a huge interest story. history books will remember this inaguration, and yet some of you are too bitter to just appreciate it.
I’m still waiting for the BBC in-depth analysis on what looks like a protectionist policy towards global trade – the main thing that will impact on Brits in the next 4 years.
Lots of hysterical fluff though. Ho hum.
Cockney,
Good point but I think the BBC are more interested in Broooce Springsteen.
“too bitter to just appreciate it”
MilkyWay | 19.01.09 – 2:46 pm
Too level-headed to get swept up by the media-inspired mass hysteria, more like.
DB: “Too level-headed to get swept up by the media-inspired mass hysteria, more like.”
Absolutely. Anyone would think that Obamadrama is the only happening story anywhere.
The Beeboids will be ejaculting at this time tomorrow !
The poster formerly known as B | 19.01.09 – 10:00 am |
Isn’t there any little scintilla of any of your minds that considers the inauguration of the first black man into (arguably) the world’s most powerful job as quite a significant news story?
Of course there is. Don’t be silly. But that’s not really all that’s going on here, is it? You and Jon Stewart can pretend that your only joy is that an American of African descent is going to be President of a country in which he would have been a slave at the time of its creation, and would have experienced severe discrimination in many parts of the country for at least 150 years.
We in the US are glad to move beyond that era. We already have, but nobody will believe us until we elect a black man, so there you are.
However, that’s only one small part of the story here, which is used as the fig leaf to cover everything else. What’s really going on is a celebration of the final defeat of George Bush. Many BBC presenters have said on-air and in print on the website that this is the final repudiation of the Bush policies, the US can now be respected again, it’s cool to fly the flag again, that world peace will be possible again, that, in the words of Matt Frei, “the last grim eight years of the Bush Administration” will have finally come to an end, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
There is absolutely no journalistic reason for the BBC – the taxpayer-funded, official state broadcaster of the UK – to spend such an inordinate amount of time covering the celebrations and inauguration of another country, even one as great as the US. Nobody here is saying that the BBC shouldn’t cover it at all. But to believe you would be to believe that the BBC is celebrating the idea that electing a black man in the US will lead to some new era of for the entire world.
That’s utter nonsense. Before you call that a strawman argument, please go back and look at the Beeboids’ own words. That’s what they say. The only “new era” the BBC will be entering is one in which they can’t call us racist anymore, which they did – and went out of their way to do – throughout the election cycle.
It’s way more than the fact that we’ve elected a black man. That’s great, it proves what I’ve thought for the last twenty five years, and will finally force a few young black men to take responsibility for themselves and less white people will be afraid of being called racist.
The BBC is doing such massive coverage of the inauguration because they view this as an historic event. Not so much because it’s a black man being sworn in, but because it’s the defeat of their arch-enemy: George W. Bush. Can you name any other country over which the BBC would spend so much effort celebrating regime change? They’re way out of line.
Now, I suppose you can go on pretending that we’re all racist and don’t like celebrating a black man’s election, but now you know that will be a lie you tell to yourself.
MilkyWay
I would just like to know how much the BBC is spending . Then we can compare it with other TV companies world wide. As they will all be there I suppose.
3 to 1 on the BBC is spending more than anyone else. No privately funded media outfit can match the ability of the BBC to spend our money.
news 24 are hailing bama because he has just painted a wall. they are all swooning.
help!!
DB: relax. Soon the celebrities will return home to their imaginary lives. For us the real world awaits. That is the true Obama challenge.
Yes they keep on showing the Great One painting a wall.
To the background of simpering, fawning adulation from the besotted BBC “news”readers
weirdvis, theyve actually devoted most of the days coverage on BBC 24 and 5live to the financial crisis, not obama.
Dave S:
based on what? you can’t criticise the BBC for covering a news story that millions will want to see. plus, if you have no evidence at all, then you are speculating/making things up.
and is no one mentioning ken clarke? i thought the BBCs coverage of his return has been quite balanced. havent heard/seen any evidence they are biased against him so far. but i bet someone here has looked hard enough and found something…
The BBC is doing such massive coverage of the inauguration because they view this as an historic event. Not so much because it’s a black man being sworn in, but because it’s the defeat of their arch-enemy: George W. Bush.
David Preiser (USA) | 19.01.09 – 3:51 pm
And on that theme, from the morning and afternoon shows on Radio Five Live today…
Victoria Derbyshire:
What should the world thank President Bush for? With comedian and impersonator Rory Bremner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/victoriaderbyshire/2009/01/what_should_the_world_thank_pr.html
Simon Mayo:
2.30pm: Simon speaks to comedian Harry Shearer about why he will miss the comedy value of George Bush, and whether Barack Obama will provide as much entertainment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml
This is the umpteenth time Mayo has had this discussion recently (it’s not even the first time he’s discussed it with Harry Shearer in the past few weeks). Perhaps a better question would be “Why are the lame-brained editors at Radio Five Live so lacking in originality?”
There is an agenda to push and by George (pardon the pun) the BBC are going to push it.
The most frustrating and annoying aspect of this is the total – and I mean total – lack of objectivity that has been applied to the ascension of The One. No questions are asked by a fawning media and no questions are tolerated (the ‘racist! trump card is always at hand).
We pay our money to the BBC and I believe we are entitled to see it act in ALL of our interests: and that means behaving as a news organisation, and not the international cheerleaders for a man of remarkably few concrete achievements (writing 2 books about yourself doesn’t qualify), irrespective of his skin colour.
Drummerman:
unitl he was elected, obamas inexperience was always mentioned by the BBC. obviously they dont mention it as much now cos hes got the job. remember back in 2000 there wasnt all that much talk about bushs inexperience either, and lord knows he had no relevant experience.
(and before the post telling me that bush was governor of texas, its a position that even texans admit is largely ceremonial and involves doing fuck all most of the year)
Just caught sight of BBC world news having an orgasm over Obama painting the wall of a house. I don’t think I can stand five minutes of this, let alone the next 4 years…..
MilkyWay | 19.01.09 – 4:50 pm |
unitl he was elected, obamas inexperience was always mentioned by the BBC.
got any links to back up your bullshit.
DB | 19.01.09 – 4:38 pm |
They’re acting like this whole thing has been a defeat of George W. Bush, when in fact his term was up, and he had no VP or anyone else running as a successor to his Administration. That’s the real BBC Narrative. The racial angle is a bonus. They – and their supporters – can hide behind that forever.
MilkyWay | 19.01.09 – 4:50 pm |
(and before the post telling me that bush was governor of texas, its a position that even texans admit is largely ceremonial and involves doing fuck all most of the year)
I call BS. Which Texans?
believe it or not sean, ‘links’ are only for the internet. i am talking about the tv and the radio, where most people get their BBC news from. if you ever listened to five live/ R4, or watched the tv news, you will have seen that the beeb often called obama inexperienced in the run up to the election.
MilkyWay
It is very simple. How much is the BBC spending covering the event? 100pounds 1000 pounds or 1,000,000 pounds? All their money is taxpayer’s money.
If you know the answer let us all know.
I can have no confidence in an organisation which pays it’s leader in excess of 10grand a week and it’s top pensioners a pension greater than the PM’s salary.
Indeed. I cited earlier an example of a Justin Webb piece this morning on Today which was measured, balanced, and sceptical about Obama’s ability to deliver against expectations. He interviewed two ex Bush people on this.
You really must consider pieces like this alongside the inevitable fluff if you’re to comment sensibly on whether or not the BBC’s coverage is balanced and impartial.
The BBC’s Anita Anand in Washington for the inauguration:
http://i43.tinypic.com/mki135.jpg
MilkyWay | 19.01.09 – 4:32 pm
The BBC’s coverage of the return of KC has been an utter disgrace. At every turn they have tried to open old wounds over Europe.
Tom
thats not bad reporting, its stating the fact. clarke is one of (the only?) pro euro in the senior ranks of the tory party. so, of course there are issues of a potential clash. read the economist this week ,it says the same. talk of this is no bias against the tories.
ow i do think that they should make more of labours split over the euro, but the story isnt about that at the moment, its correctly about clarke, so its perfectly normal to talk about his views being at odds with his party.
I cited earlier an example of a Justin Webb piece this morning on Today
mikewineliberal | 19.01.09 – 5:30 pm
From that Justin Webb item:
Clip of Peter Wehner, former Bush official: The expectations of Obama are enormous. They’re higher for Obama than for anyone I can ever remember, higher than any political figure I can remember. Now he set that bar high himself.
Justin Webb: Whether or not he actually encouraged that view…
Whether or not he encouraged that view?!! Good grief. How’s this for starters from his victory speech after winning the Democratic nomination?
“…we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7434843.stm
And yet BBC types think there’s nothing about Obama to mock.
BBC radio 4 ‘PM’ today- take the last 5 minutes- tries to compare as many British political issues as possible, unfavourably, with Obamessiah. E.g. on the campaign to get as many non-white, women and disabled people as MPs (regardless of ability) so as to achieve, some sort of ‘diversity’ utopia, listeners have thrown at them, on the ‘day that in America Barack Obama becomes President’; and in discussion of the re-appointment of Kenneth Clark to the Shadow Cabinet, he is questioned as being too old, compared with Barak Obama! (Little recognising the ‘ageism’ of the question!)
The fact is that Obama has been voted in on the same electoral margins as Bush.
The Democrats needed the most unpopular president in history, a collapsing economy, a pantomime opposition of a geriatric and a fundie, and two wars before they could be considered electable by the slimmest of margins.
But that doesn’t stop the MSM, especially the BBC projecting a view of a massive liberal surge and volte face in the US.
But America isn’t getting more liberal, just anti-Bush and anti free-market. The demographic collapse of liberals in the US is the same as liberals in Europe, it’s just that they have immigration of the kind that expects the government to sort things out in a Latin American manner.
The BBC are no different to plenty of idiots around the world, projecting onto empty words and vacuous platitudes their own world view.
Re my above comment – missed a bit off the end of Peter Wehner’s clip. It should’ve read:
Wehner: The expectations of Obama are enormous. They’re higher for Obama than for anyone I can ever remember, higher than any political figure I can remember. Now he set that bar high himself not simply in terms of his policies, but almost mystical power.
Justin Webb: Whether or not he actually encouraged that view…