I’m afraid I wasn’t paying complete attention during the inaugural speech. Too busy scanning the skies waiting for the mothership to descend. But it seemed pretty inclusive. Bush was thanked for “his service to our country.” Lots of mention of “our forebears” and George Washington, to make it very clear that Obama knows what country he is president of and, despite certain unfortunate remarks, fully identifies with it. Yeah, there was some slightly partisan stuff about “We are ready to lead once more” but, look, you can scarcely come in as a new president having campaigned on a slogan of “change” then say, “well on second thoughts, I am now firmly resolved to run things in exactly the same way as the previous administration,” can you?
It was all so nice. (I also liked the bit where there were no explosions.) I’m not sure I didn’t have a sentimental tear in my eye as I wandered out into the kitchen to inaugurate a celebratory packet of digestive biscuits.
So twenty seconds after the man calls it a wrap with “… and God bless the United States of America” down stomps the BBC in size eleven hob-nailed Doc Martins. The first, the very first, thing that comes out of the post-speech commentary just had to be that Obama’s comment blah blah blah was “a missile into the heart of the previous administration.” Something like that anyway, and I think, but only think, it was Huw Edwards doing the idioting. Like I said, by this time my attention had wandered. So after all that I missed the moment when the prophecies were fulfilled: because, surely brothers, the BBC was destined to speak thus.
Obama did no more than indulge in some standard “new dawn” rhetoric. The man may be an economic ignoramus but – and this skill at performance may bring us good or ill – he knows very well indeed how to vary his demeanour to match the mood of the occasion. The BBC doesn’t.
No they didn’t mention Clinton, but you have to be reasonable here, it wasn’t relevant really was it? The story was about the incoming and the outgoing president, the Clinton transition doesn’r really have relevance. I don’t think the BBC choose not to mention it out of any desire to praise Clinton, they just did not consider to have any relevance to the story.
Gus Haynes | 21.01.09 – 6:09 pm |
I think it is relevant. Of course, no rational person would expect anything other than a very helpful, smooth transition. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of Bush would know that his people would be 100 times more generous than Clinton’s were.
The BBC portrays this transition as out of the ordinary. Yet, the only real reason it’s out of the ordinary is the fact that the previous transition was a disaster. The BBC doesn’t provide that key context.
Whenever I feel a little low, I just watch Obama gaffes on YouTube !
I’m sorry, I just disagree David. I take your point, but it seems to me that you have an agenda here; to bash Clinton, and praise Bush. Your problem doesn’t seem to really be about BBC bias in regards to this (very trivial) issue, more that you want the BBC to put Clinton down. At the Obama/Bush changeover, the Clinton transition is really quite irrelevant, and while yes, maybe the BBC should mention the Clinton transition in passing, it’s hardly a major priority, and it does not show an obvious bias on the side of the BBC.
Gus Haynes | 21.01.09 – 8:04 pm |
Well, otherwise the whole focus on the friendliness of the transition seems completely out of the blue, out of context. Unless it’s really just evidence that the BBC thinks Bush is so evil that they expected a fight, and are surprised how helpful and respectful he was.
In that case, you’re right: no need to bash Clinton.
‘Spectator’
“The Post-Racial Nirvana” (by Melanie Phillips).
In this piece, she points to political biases in the area of race of the BBC’s own American Obama worshipper,
SIMON SCHAMA:
Extract:
“And what is the reaction of the fabulously politically correct Simon Schama to this bit of racist demagoguery “[of Lowery’s ‘poetry’ at the inauguration]? “It ‘plucks the strings of the heart’. Of course • because worshippers at the shrine of Obama know that the One is the embodiment of what is Right; and so what all those who are not worshippers and therefore Wrong think is bad • such as black racism — must be Good.
Orwell is surely revolving in his grave.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3277516/the-postracial-nirvana.thtml
I found this BBC news article from January 20th, 2001 – an analysis of Bush’s inauguration speech from Nick Bryant.
It’s incredible to contrast it with the soaring praise and gushing adoration heaped upon Obama’s speech.
Some highlights:
“November’s disputed election provided the subtext for the speech. ”
“Large portions of the rest of the speech seemed to be targeted at Americans who had voted for Mr Gore.”
“A line included very high up in the speech – “while many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise – even the justice – of our own country” – would have reverberated in some Florida counties, where many African-Americans think they were unfairly denied the vote. ”
“The speech was solemn and short on applause lines – in this sense it read more like a sermon than a political speech. “
When the media try and ask politicians questions to catch them out they should reply with another general knowledge question back to the reporter.
Eg “Who is the president of ….?”
Just reply “And I’ve got one for you, who is the president of …?”
All they need to learn is a few obscure capitals, presidents, local newspapers and spellings.