of imbalance
Via a number of blogs, including the excellent Augean Stables, from figures discussed here, the casualty “footprints” of two ongoing conflicts. The BBC is obsessed with one of these conflicts. Can you guess which?
As one blogger says:
“My only hope is that, forty years from now, this scandal will be seen as a problem of the past. As a symptom of the problems of a society -our developed one- that, with time, changed for better. I hope to talk about it to my grandsons in the same way afroamerican grandparents talk nowadays about Rosa Parks. Like talking about an evident problem that finally, one day, one person dared to face. And changed for good.”
I understand the arithmetic ratio is one casualty in Israel / Palestine gets the same coverage as 49,000 casualties in the Congo.
49,000 to 1 !
And how much aid per capita to the Palis compared to the aid to the Congolese ?
This analysis of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) coverage of wars comes to a similar conclusion.
Dr. Fishman concluded the following from his figures:
*When Europeans kill Europeans (Bosnia), the BMJ allocates one citation for every 2000 deaths.
*When Africans kill Africans (Rwanda), the BMJ allocates one citation for every 4000 deaths.
*When Muslim Arabs kill Black Africans (Darfur), the BMJ allocates one citation for every (minimum) 7000 Dafurians who are killed.
*When Israelis, in the process of combating terrorists, kill Palestinians, the BMJ allocates one citation for every 13 Palestinians killed (including terrorist combatants).
*When Arab Muslims kill Kurds, the BMJ fails to give this any attention whatsoever.
Although I haven’t tried to do a similar survey for the BBC I doubt the conclusion the BBC is obsessed with Palestine would be in doubt.
Why? IMHO the BBC is obsessed because the Muslims are similarly obsessed and therefore the Left/Islamic alliance is obsessed.
Abso-f’ing-lutely correct. I’d be very very interested to see this statistic put to someone at the BBC.
What you are all overlooking is the fact that the BBC’s bias is oh so PC. The Jewish population of Israel is largely Caucasian/Semitic and are therefore easy and available targets. The Congo story is African versus African and one daren’t go there – dare one?
“What you are all overlooking is the fact that the BBC’s bias is oh so PC.”
I think this is the last thing that B-BBC could ever be accused of “overlooking”. A bigger truth might be that for all the intrepid bravery of BBC reporters there’s a total lack of high quality hotels in North Kivu for relaxing between pompous pontifications.
Mind you, the only time I talk about the Rosa Parks affair is to tell my kids what a total set-up it was.
Blacks good – Israelis bad – no matter that Africa is in a total mess…..
I’m not sure about this.
It seems to me the BBC coverage corresponds with political reality.
Hillary Clinton is in the Middle East at the moment – but does she ever plan to go to Congo? I doubt it.
Condi Rice was always popping in to Israel and neighbouring countries – but I don’t recall her going to Congo either.
There are many Brits with family in Israel – precious few with any connection to Congo.
And, let’s not forget, Israel is in the Eurovision song contest. 🙂
Personally, I want regular reports on the ME. I am interested in them and watch them.
The BBC is anti Jewish. That’s the truth.
The only aspect of Africa that interests the BBC today is “slavery” over two centuries ago. The other reason not to go there is the moral difficulty of fitting “tribalism” into the context of “racism”. To the liberal mind white vs black is clearly “racism” but what to make of black tribes that hate and slaughter each other, have militia and political parties established on tribal loyalties. Can’t be “racism” but we haven’t a word for it, it just doesn’t fit. Better ignore it.
Tom
Good points – and i dont know about BBC being anti-jewish – an awful lot of presenters are jewish….
LP Gasse: Plenty of BBC presenters are white English but still hate England and everything white and traditional about England.
Did you know that since 1997 its thought that over 4 million people have died in the conflict in the DRC? And yet most people still don’t know anything about it. It’s the biggest loss of life in a war since WW2. So that’s why the BBC cover it, though not enough in my opinion.
The implication here is that the Israeli onflict gets less attention for anti-Semitic or pro-Arab reasons, which is pure claptrap. The Israeli conflict has been on the nightly news far more over the years than a far greater tragedy in central Africa, how many people in Britain today know that 4 million have died in the DRC in little over 10 years? I bet you not many. Stop getting on the ‘BBC hates Jews’ high horse and focus on reality; the DRC conflict has been a far worse war than any the world has seen in 50 years, and it deserves far more attention.
Thinking about it more, this post seems even dafter than an hour ago.
Were the MSM wrong to focus on the Hungarian uprising in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in ’68 on the grounds that comparatively few died?
Just as these places were at various times the front line of the Cold War, Israel-Palestine is one of the fronts (Pakistan and Afghanistan are others) in the war against blood-crazed jihadis. It needs reporting!
Besides, Congo’s historic associations are with France and Belgium, while the Palestine Mandate was British.
If bodycount was the main criterion for newsworthiness, then – as Robin Aitken explains in a fascinating article in the current Standpoint – the news should be wall-to-wall suicide stories:
Here is a question: which kills more people worldwide – homicide, suicide or warfare? The surprising truth is that suicide is a much greater killer than the other two. There are now more than one million suicides a year (murders, by contrast, account for about 500,000) and some forecasts estimate this will rise to about 1.5 million by 2020. The number of deaths through warfare is – unsurprisingly – the most variable of the three but most years it doesn’t exceed the one million mark.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/a-strange-rush-for-the-exit-march-09-suicide
Britain’s mandate in palestine was for very few years. Palestine is not significant in terms of the old Empire. Nepal is far more significant – but was and is under-reported.
And the BBC does not cover Gaza as the front line against jihadis. It covers it as a place where “poor Palestinian victims are rising up against their oppressors.”
Marlo – I think you have it back to front. The implication is that Gaza gets far too much attention, and that the Congo should get much more.
And standards have changed over the years. In Lumumba’s time the Congo was never out of the news.
That’s the rub – if the Beeb want to analyse the geopolitical consequences of the Gazan situation these are undoubtedly of wider significance that civil war if DRC.
But if it wants to cover it by way of a morbid bloke standing in front of maimed kids talking about human tragedy then DRC would provide a much more dramatic/horrific spectacle.
It’s certainly part of the rub. But who still has confidence in analysis by the BBC?
Also, in Africa, that ‘morbid bloke’ is often Orla Guerin, not a name associated with truth, balance or integrity, though she does do morbid, true enough.
A similar comparison could be made about the BBC’s relative lack of concern about the Islamic jihad atrocities committed in the Darfur region of Africa, compared with the stock BBC anti-Israel political stance on Gaza.
Today, Darfur is ‘in the news’ because of the impending international decision about legal action against President Bashir of Sudan on war crimes charges. So, apparently the Sudanese (Muslim) people are ‘tense’, according to the BBC:
“Tense Sudan awaits court decision”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7922705.stm
‘Jihadwatch'(Feb. 2009) assesses reporting on Darfur differently:
“If the Darfur genocide was being carried out by Jews or Christians instead of Arab Muslims, would we see a different response?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024680.php
africa = blacks killing blacks.
not our problem. oh wait, who commits the knife and gun crime in the UK? blacks killing blacks on our streets too… sounds familiar. shame the meeja is too racist to call it like it is.
Excellent use of a graphical representation to put things into perspective.
A good way of hammering home the point into thick leftist skulls, not the BBC would care less.
I have often wondered how the Meeja (not just the BBC) decides how much attention to give to stories. The casualty count as the figures show doesn’t seem to be the answer.
There are many Brits with family in Israel – precious few with any connection to Congo.
Tom | 04.03.09 – 9:54 am
With respect that doesn’t seem to be the answer either. Since WWII the major sources of immigration (i.e. people with family remaining) would seem to be the Caribbean, Ireland, India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh Sub-Saharan Africa and the European Community. All of these places seem under reported compared to the percentage of expats in the British population. I would guess that far more Brits have family in Australia, New Zealand and Canada than Israel but I think they too are under reported.
Tom
You may be surprised by how many people in the U.K. have family in the Congo. Under the dispersal of refugees my not over large city of residence has a fair number of Congolese. Having met several I do not think that they will be expecting the laws of our nation to be altered to accommodate their religious beliefs!
I used to live in north London and there were congolese everywhere. I get it that they wanna leave their war torn country but why do we have to let em in? same for the Somalis
I don’t know how accurate this is (but I suspect it has been provided by the BBC).
List of BBC newsreaders and reporters
Foreign correspondents
World Affairs
John Simpson – Editor; Andrew North – Baghdad; Jim Muir – Baghdad; Crispin Thorold – Baghdad; Ian Pannell – Kabul; Mike Wooldridge; Allan Little; David Loyn – Developing World; Jon Leyne – Tehran; Humphrey Hawksley; Rachel Harvey; Nick Childs; Charles Haviland; Wendy Urquhart
Jannat Jalil
Middle East
Jeremy Bowen – Editor; Aleem Maqbool – Gaza; Christian Fraser- Cairo; Mike Sergeant – Beirut; Tim Franks – Jerusalem; Katya Adler – Jerusalem; Paul Wood – Jerusalem; Dan Isaacs
U.S
Justin Webb – North America Editor; Adam Brookes • Washington; Jonathan Beale – Washington; Kim Ghattas – Washington; Richard Lister – Washington; Kevin Conolly – Washington; Rajini Vaidyanathan – Washington; Rajesh Mirchandani – L.A; David Willis – L.A; Matthew Price – New York; Heather Alexander – New York; Dumeetha Luthra – New York; Laura Trevelyan – United Nations; James Coomarasamy; Claire Marshall • South America; Andy Gallacher – Miami; Greg Wood – North American Business
Europe
Mark Mardell – Editor; Clive Myrie; Jonny Dymond; Emma Jane Kirby • Paris; David Chezan – Paris; Rupert Wingfield-Hayes – Moscow; James Rodgers – Moscow; Richard Galpin – Moscow; Steve Rosenberg – Berlin; Tristana Moore – Berlin; Sarah Rainsford – Istanbul; Duncan Kennedy – Rome; David Willey – Rome; Malcolm Brabant – Athens; Steve Kingstone – Southern Europe; Nick Thorpe – Eastern Europe; Dominic Hughes – Brussels; Alix Kroeger – Brussels
Helen Fawkes – Brussels; Bethany Bell – Vienna; Imogen Foulkes – Geneva; Danny Wood – Madrid; Alison Roberts – Lisbon
Asia
James Reynolds – Beijing; Quentin Sommerville – Beijing; Chris Hogg – Shanghai; Barbara Plett – Islamabad; Jonathan Head – Bangkok; Damian Grammaticas – Delhi; Chris Morris – South East Asia; Roland Buerk – Tokyo; John Sudworth • Tokyo; Robin Brant – Malaysia; Lucy Williamson – Jakarta
Africa
Orla Guerin; Andrew Harding; Karen Allen – Nairobi; Peter Biles – Southern Africa; Peter Greste – Johannesburg; Jonah Fisher – Johannesburg; Adam Mynott – Eastern Africa; Will Ross – West Africa
Australia
Nick Bryant; Phil Mercer
Some interesting analysis comes from this list.
*The BBC don’t have a single foreign correspondent stationed in Canada.
*The BBC regards Iraq, Iran and Afganistan as ‘World’ rather than Middle East.
*The Middle East seems to stop at Egypt leaving North Africa unrepresented. Turkey and Syria both seem to be after thoughts.
*The entire continent of South America is graced by one BBC foreign correspondent (what a carbon footprint he must have).
*Middle America doesn’t seem important as most everybody is stationed Washington, New York and L.A.
*The former Communist bloc has one permanent correspondent (also with big carbon feet).
The BBC is biased as a bowling ball is biased by putting more weight in some areas than others. But why?
I’m fairly new here. Whats MSM?
I’m fairly new here. Whats MSM?
Bobzilla | 04.03.09 – 2:18 pm
Mainstream media.
The BBC excelled itself on the Ipm news. They interviewed several people about the indictment on genocide and other crimes of the Sudanese president. But not once did they mention that the genocide was committed by ARAB MOSLEMS!!!!! Over 300,000 blacks have been slaughtered by these Moslems which puts the death toll in Gaza into perspective. In evwery BBC reoort the deaths in Gaza were always blamed on the Israelis. How many reports from Darfur itself have we had from the BBC so far this year, any?
thing with darfur is; it doesnt fit nicely into the mainstream media pattern. there is no obvious enemy that we already dislike (except when america gets blamed for not doing enough to stop genocide). the leader of sudan, bashir(?) is a war criminal, and a moslem, yet like you say dagobert, the media are pretty even handed towards him.
I assume that everyone has see the continuing series on the BB website about life in Gaza? Each day a different slant on how the evil Israelis have and are oppressing the poor Palestinians.
The content may well be factually true, but the lack of context or perspective is positively evil. No wonder modern day Medieval Passion Plays can be staged on the London stage at tax payers expense warning of the hidden danger from the Jews/Zionists/Israel Lobby.
The BBC is only interested in ‘Geo-politics’ not humanity itself. To them, injustice only exists where it may serve their liberal agenda.
Israel is backed by ‘the Great Satan’ capitalist America, thus the Left-wing BBC applys, unsuprisingly, an old Arab saying ‘the enemy of my enemy, is my friend’
To describe what the BBC produce as ‘news’ or even informative is ridiculous. They don’t report news, they distort facts, usually by ommission, but often by creative editing, i.e global warming.
It’s pure propaganda, insidious, disingenuous & self serving. Israel or any other American ally is never going to be reported fairly until we accept the BBC is at war and truth is ‘collateral damage’
Can I just say that I am not that interested in the goings on in the Congo and I would rather the BBC greatly scale down its obsessive coverage of the Middle east wars to equalise matters.
Foreign news coverage is BBC self-indulgence at its most extreme. Most surveys show that the public isn’t very interested in it yet the BBC persists in spending vast amounts on it and the associated dubious ‘analysis’.
What about the donation/aid footprint?
Israel gets hammered on al-bbc because it is institutionally racist and also don’t forget, there are no British Congolese threatening to blow themselves up here either.
There are 4 million Muslims in the UK. That is a BIG block vote for the Liebour party.
Remember BBC = Liebour official publicity machine
I watch news in France fairly often and I notice the national news is exactly that – national ie French. Its often that doings in the Middle East appear, as around item five , if that. I get back to the UK and item ONE on national news is not matters in England but matters in some marxist fantasists onanistic dream of world jihad, salary courtesy of British taxpayers.
Let’s face reality…Al-BBC is virulenty anti-semitic and pro-muslim. The effect of Al-BBC’s morbid obsession with Gaza is a constant drip, drip of anti-Jewish propaganda in to almost every home in Britain. A combination of upper middle class management (traditionally anti-semitic ) and muslim-heavy staffing at lower levels means that anti-semitic “reporting” is the life blood of the Korporation.
Terry Johnson | 05.03.09 – 1:06 am
Yes – but – maybe
I often argue that people who actively support the Palestinian cause are antisemitic because they unconditionally join groups that are openly and proudly antisemitic e.g. the Islamists and target the one country in the world that is Jewish while giving little or no attention to other countries with much worse records. Especially they exclude their Arab allies. In addition they tend to recycle traditional antisemitic tropes, as Jews control the press; world finance; have hooked noses and wear broad black hats, etc. all the while pretending they are only attacking Israel not Jews in general.
However that is a big jump from institutional antisemitism. My observation of the BBC is that it gives British Jews about as much attention as their numbers in the population demand. (On the other hand it gives British Muslims far more than their numbers demand).
The BBC are patronizing rather than openly antisemitic. Jews are good when they can be reduced to strange recipes and customs or alternately as victims of the Nazis (the last ‘good’ war). Jews are bad when they identify with Israel. Unfortunately the official Jewish ‘leadership’ play along with this by a ‘give no offense – keep your heads down’ position.
It is difficult to know how many Jews work for the BBC. Journalism is one of the traditional Jewish professions, after all. It may also depend how you define Jews.
It is a safe bet that most of the ‘Jews’ have little or no Jewish connection, either religious or political. Some may be actively anti Israel. Some pretend neutrality. They haven’t changed their names (or their father, grandfather did) to fit in but they don’t expect their children to remain Jewish. Nor do they care.
It is hard to believe that a proud Jewish BBC employee would remain there given the known biases of the organisation but the human capacity for self delusion knows no bounds and good jobs on the same pay scale are hard to find.
The BBC should commission some independent research into its audience’s appetite for foreign news.
The corporation has already realised that the public desires TV that is overwhelmingly downmarket – that’s why it gives us Eastenders, Celebrity Cash in the Attic and Jonathan Ross etc. BBC TV news should reflect the tastes of people who like such TV product – a bit of serious home news, plenty of sensational coverage of hideous crimes, next to no foreign news, vast amounts of ‘gossip’ about celebrities and extensive coverage of major sports like football and cricket.
The BBC is guilty of running TV news as a self-indulgent hobby for its staff.
Regarding the discussion about why the BBC hates Israel.
IMO it is not based on a hatred of Jews, (although I accept that many people do hate Jews).
If the BBC simply hated Jews, they would not always be so sympathetic to holocaust victims – Anne Frank Diaries for example.
There must be another reason why the BBC hates Israel.
Basically it is just because Israelis are like Westerners, ie civilised and successful. The socialist mind cannot stand anything which is better or superior, whether this is a grammar school or a nation which is better than other nations. Hence in the UK the socialists also hate Britain itself.
The hit list of hate countries used to be:
Number 1 S.Rhodesia
Number 2 White South Africa
Number 3 Israel
Number 4 Britain, US, English speaking countries
Now countries 1 and 2 have been dealt with (and are now much ‘fairer’ societies) Israel is at position number 1 on the hate list.
Many Jews themselves do not support Israel. IMO it is more to do with being left or right wing than anti-Jewish.
Jewish MP Sir Gerald Kaufman said regarding his grandmother shot by Germans ‘my grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza’ (Metro Jan 16 09)
good post by deegee re survey by Dr Fishman
If the muslims were living here peacefully and quietly and trying to integrate, the BBC would soon lose interest in them.
As it is the muslims are getting more over-excited and extreme so the BBC love to egg them on and wish there were more of them.
Hence when the government approved a deal which could allow 5,000 halal butchers from Pakistan to travel to this country to take up work. (Sun Express 8 Feb 09) this is not exposed as a scandal by the BBC.
Todays BBC headlines!
“Digger driver shot in Jerusalem”
Is that the story or should the headline be???!!!!!
“Digger Attack in Jerusalem”
But the BBC are certainly NOT biased!!
“Digger driver shot in Jerusalem”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6505187989945890180/#453796
Déjà vue revisited.
Me beat me to the punch. After the criticism for Deadly Jerusalem bulldozer attack (the bulldozer attacked) you would have thought the BBC had learnt is lesson – but no.
WOW!!! That was fast!
They’ve changed the headline!!!!!!!!!
“‘New digger attack’ in Jerusalem “
‘Africa = blacks killing blacks’ well yes in Congo, but no in Darfur, not always in Nigeria or Sudan either.
Either way though the victims are black, so the RBC (Racist Broadcasting Company) doesn’t give a flying.
It hates Jews and usually Americans though so that gets maximum coverage.
Obviously now Obama is in they are in a bind, they hate Americans but he is black (well half black, so I’m sure after a while they will get to ignoring him and only bringing up how ‘disappointed’ they are with him after an appropriate length of time), but then in line with the above once they get over the initial love in they can get on with treating him too like he does not exist.
For the BBC its black people who are the elephants in the room.
Thats why there are so few in any position of power or influence in the BBC despite all their supposed pc statements.
The BBCs pc really only seems to extend to the muslim race (yes they seem to think it is a race), but not blacks, they are best ignored.
caveman | 05.03.09 – 12:08 pm |
Beeboids are anti-Israel because they form their opinion on base emotions and not on reality. They fret over the body count. They watch footage of Palestinians running around in rubble and reaching for aid rations, and they see only the most emotional, sensational angle. Of course, they would have to be totally callous and nasty like me not to sympathize with the suffering of the Palestinians. But they watch this stuff the way normal people watch nature documentaries, and feel sorry for the baby gazelle when it gets eaten by the lions. The problem is that this is mostly how they view Israel and the Palestinians.
I would bet that half the employees in BBC News rooms believe that Hamas is sort of a necessary evil, and that the Palestinians need someone to stand up to Israel. The way they describe Israel’s motives and historical actions, there is a pattern of BBC belief that Israel really is a land-hungry aggressor, and would push the Palestinians across the Jordan River and into the Sinai Peninsula if nobody stood up to them. So Hamas, like Arafat and the PLO before them, are really defending the Palestinians first, and killing Israeli civilians out of necessity. Ever heard the BBC challenge anyone’s claim of genocide against the Palestinians? The body-count fixation supports this belief system. And as they prove time and time again with their reporting, nearly all of them are ignorant of history, or actually believe some of the myths. But that’s ignorance and emotionalism, not anti-Semitism. It’s a more modern, intellectual demonization.
The result of all this is that Israel is demonized. That’s not the same thing as just saying that Israel is in the wrong. It’s saying that not only is Israel wrong, but it’s also tainted and immoral. This kind of thinking results in Beeboids asking Israeli spokesmen of they’re “proud” of killing Palestinians. Or stating that it’s “impossible to know” the true story as long as the fighting continues. Only after a truce can we have an independent inquiry to find out just how many war crimes Israel committed, according to Sanchia Berg. It’s also evidenced in the way they report the body count, almost never distinguishing between civilian and Hamas members or others engaged in “militant” activity. They seriously doubt Israeli claims.
So it’s solidly anti-Israel, but not anti-Jew. However, the BBC is notably insensitive to Jewish sensibilities, while even the Director General admits that they must be especially sensitive to Muslims. The BBC’s callous attitude towards Jews is the result of their own intellectual shallowness and wrong-mindedness, not actual anti-Semitism, even if the result sometimes looks similar. I would say, though, that there is major hypocrisy in saying that they don’t blame all Jews for Israel’s sins, while reporting that Jews are under attack because of Israel’s bad image.
They don’t get it, because they’re still stuck on the body count, which just reinforces the negative image they have of Israel, based on their erroneous knowledge of the region’s history. Tragically, they are so focused on that basic emotional angle that they really don’t care if Jews in the UK are harmed as a result. Even though they would deny with their last breath that they think all Jews should suffer for Israel’s sins, and that they don’t accuse Jews of dual loyalty, most Beeboids will probably think it’s perfectly understandable that Jews in Britain and elsewhere will be attacked out of anger at Israel. Not that they like it, but they understand it perfectly well. Yet, they themselves would surely not say out loud that Jews sort of have it coming to them because of Israel. It’s not really historical anti-semitism, but rather the more modern demonization of a people through intellectual and emotional fascism.
Iraq, Gaza and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.
4 million muslim voters a block vote for labour.
Dont make me laugh
First there aren’t 4 million muslim adult electors, nowhere near it, you have been taken in by propaganda.
Second lots of them hate labour now.
You dont help a cause with statements like these.
BBC’s Mark Easton has a long blog article:
“The sinister world of statistics”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/03/the_sinister_world_of_statisti.html
In Easton’s long article, he does not once refer explicitly to what the numbers for UK residents born overseas actually are.
Let the ‘Daily Mail’ remedy his glaring omission, which could be taken as revealing a certain pro-Labour political partiality by Easton:
[Extract]:
“Mr Woolas was embroiled in a row with official statisticians after questioning their motives in publishing figures showing one in nine UK residents was born overseas.
“He was last night urged to withdraw his ‘smear’ against the independent statistics body or resign.”
From ‘Mail’ article:
‘Immigration minister urged to withdraw “smear” against statistics chief or resign’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158958/Immigration-minister-urged-withdraw-smear-statistics-chief-resign.html
yeah the Muslim vote won’t be going to Labour any time soon. I used to work in polling, and Muslims statistically will vote Lib Dem or not vote at all.
‘Spectator blog’
Melanie Phillips:
“Science Pogrom Week”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3410611/science-pogrom-week.thtml
There is quite a fuss building up about another aspect of the dissing of Brown by Obama.
On Headof State visits, gifts are exchanged. (The recipient does not get to keep them after leaving office).
Brown gave Obama a desk pen set carved from timber from a British warship used in the anti-slavery campaign.
Plus a first edition of Martin Gilbert’s 11-volume biog of Churchill.
Obama gave Brown a boxed set of 25 movies. Available from Amazon at about $20. They may even be wrong-area DVDs – in NTSC rather than PAL format ? And as Brown has very poor sight – hardly a thoughtful gift ?
If Bush had been so classless, so insulting to the rep of the best ally the US has, the press would have been all over it – and the BBC.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/283816.php
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/05/obama-the-cheapskate-25-dvds-for-gordon-brown/