I wonder if the BBC can realise just how pandering this Kevin Connolly article is to Gordon Brown’s chosen narrative of his trip to Washington?
Right from the beginning it takes the Brown line:
“Even as the Prime Minister grapples with the catastrophic economic fallout of globalisation, he has been suffering at the hands of the media’s own version of it.”
Attacks on Brown’s blatant showboating are described as “unkind”. Brown’s economic responsibility is summed up passively and yet personally. Imagine if “you were at the helm when the seeds of recession were sewn”. Just imagine. How do you feel about your low poll ratings by the way? Oh, you don’t have any poll ratings? Well, try to sympathise with poor Mr Brown, please.
Connolly deserves an anti-Orwell award simply for the risible mixed metaphor of being at the helm when the seeds were sown. You can see why the licence fee is necessary to fund such talent, can’t you?
and on, and on until the pathetic “bottom line”. In this case it is a Brown bottom. And it stinks of bullshit:
The bottom line for Britain is that lots of foreign leaders come here and any absence of column inches reflects more on Britain’s standing than Gordon Brown’s
Yeah, right- it is because we is unimportant, not because Gordon’s future is as unpromising as his past.
What makes the helm/seeds mixed metaphor even worse is that seeds are ‘sown’, not ‘sewn’. Unless Connolly means that Brown was at the command centre of a ship, doing things to seeds with a needle and thread.
Spot on Chuffs- I unconsciously corrected the error in reporting…
I often find the BBC’s reporting mystifyingly bad in spelling etc. Not that I am immune from errors of course. I think there’s probably a feeling in BBC circles that since they work to deadlines any kind of error is understandable. As a motormouth typist myself I would beg to differ.
What is Gordon “at the helm of”? The Titanic would appear to be the nearest I can think of. Where was he prior to being “at the helm”? Wasn’t he the chief navigating officer….on the Titanic.
Perhaps like Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagan he was unable to see the signals…..
I tried to suspend my horror of pro-Brown bias in the tone of reporting — and then I could savour the torrent of Brown’s empty waffle — just bloody silly –and embarrassing.
” at the helm when the seeds were sewn ”
go to be in the colemanballs column in the next issue of private eye !
beeboids , please don’t change the page
How about the hilarious ‘only the 5th British PM to address Congress’ ?
Fuck me, thats about every single one since transatlantic travel was invented !
There’s nothing more dangerous than a desperate beeboid, Bruce !
Brown has a cunning plan, ‘quantative easing’ is the name of the game(printing fake money) and the BBC are reporting that its a “leap in the unknown”! Hmmmmmm, Wiemar Germany tried it when the great depression was underway and it ran out of cash to pay the reparations bill, this led to hyper inflation and wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread!
Zimbabwe tried it to make up for the crash in food production/exports leading to an apartheid between the bloated state sector and the impoverished private enterprise sector, this led to the highest inflation in the world and mass starvation.
Various banana republics in south america have tried it and suffered(still suffer)for it.
Brown is printing fake money to make up for the crash in tax revenues rather than cut the grossly bloated state sector, this will lead to an apartheid between an impoverished wealth creating sector and the non productive parasitical bloated state state sector.
Interest rates cut to zero has hurt millions of savers who rely on small savings to pay their way, privte pensions destroyed so leads to more captive clients for the state to look after, see where this is leading? The BBC says that the desperate gamble(cunning plan)is a leap into the unknown when in fact there is a mountain of historical evidence to show what is likely to happen.
The BBCs hero Chavez is busy indulging in the same plan to support his bloated state sector powerbase because oil revenues have collapsed, this is destroying the Venezualen economy very quickly, the BBC it seems are either unable to see plain facts OR the BBC have been ordered to keep the obvious dangers hidden from the public.
Printing fake money to support a bloated and unproductive state sector and/or pay off foreign/domestic debts ALWAYS leads to disaster ALWAYS, this is a plain and simple historical fact, its NOT a ‘leap into the unknown’.
The BBC are protecting their newlabour masters in the face of good evidence that they are sabotaging the UK and their short termist policies will have disasterous and long term consequences, this could be interpreted as treason!
Ignorance or stupidity? a complete inabillity to learn the lessons of history or premeditated sabotage?
At least with the BBC if you’re looking for a beeboid you only have ot check Brown’s arse out. There will always be at least one up there and more waiting their turn.
Some top comments here!
When I was at PRIMARY school in the 50s and early 60s – we were told of the horrors of Germany’s printing money excercise – with hilarious photos of folks with wheelbarrows full of money.
Oh how we laughed! – those daft foreigners! – the implication was that we in Britain – who had just won the war – were far too sensible to do anything like that – and that you will, never, ever, ever, ever get something for nothing.
Today’s Beeboids are the graduates of the 1960s Marxist education revolution, which dictated that ideas like ‘correct spelling’ are outdated and worthless.
I went on a sub-editing course once, and was genuinely astonished at how all the others on the course seemed to have missed the very basics of grammar, punctuation and spelling – what I (and many of you) would call ‘O’ Level English Language. I suppose the concept of a mixed metaphor is degree level nowadays.
[Must check post for errors!]
Shame he didn’t stay away.
The USA has “The Right Stuff” we just have “The Brown Stuff” and we’re all
in it up to our necks!
Usuall bbc bloated billhooks corp crap in the ‘news’. I prefer something you can trust a little more like Page 3 of the Sun. More truth there than on the BBC!
There is no mention of Brown’s speech on the front page on the NY Times online. There is, however, a piece about how Obama is getting his first grey hairs. That just about sums up how important Brown is in the United States.
That the BBC are treating his speech as the beginnings of a new “grand bargain” is frankly risible.
I still think it was a damn cheek for Obama to be offhand with Brown. His apparent disrespect was towards Britain – not just Brown.
Ignorance or stupidity? a complete inabillity to learn the lessons of history or premeditated sabotage?
Cassandra | 05.03.09 – 8:40 am | #
Premeditated sabotage.
Nothing is more important than ‘the project’. It must be protected at any cost. And the BBC is in the front line of the propaganda. If the message is changed, maybe, just maybe, the plebs might wake up to the bull they’ve been served up for the last 12 years.
Well, maybe.
quantitative easing will lead to “slight inflation” according to economists–the same economists who missed the boom and bust scenario, ignored the FSAs bleatings about financial bubbles and commended Brown on his stewardship of the economy.
I think I’ll ask my border collie for financial advice instead
“Quantitive easing” is a truly sinister example of the power structure misusing language for it’s own advantage and in order to directly water down the nation’s wealth.
Who gets these billions when the money is printed? Do the bankrupt banks get it? Where does it go? Does anybody know?
That speech was grovelling crap mixed with dewey eyed liberal rubbish. The yanks went for the grovelling but would not get the looney lefty crap. The looney lefty crap is what got us in to this terrible mess in the first place. The yanks will never be blinded by their ideology to the extent of Brown and his derranged party.
They say it will buy assets from institutions – like property etc – thus putting money in the system – which supposedy will flood into the economy – and hey presto!
–but supposing it doesnt quite work – then theyll print a bit more – then a bit more – then therel be green shoots – so theyll invent some more – then the pound will be on parity with the Matabele gumbo bean – let alone the euro.
Your money will be worthless and institutions will have offloaded their redundant buildings/stock etc. – which the taxpayer will then own – which, somewhere down the line – when nobodys looking – will be sold cheap to ‘entrepreneurs’.
Quantatative easing has 2 possible effects;
1) the pound is devalued and inflation rockets–literally the pound in your pocket is worth less
2) no effect at all as the banks hold onto capital to increase their balance sheets
A better alternative could be financial stricture where we actuallly print less money.
This might increase the pounds international reputation and hence it’s value. This would mean that imports would be cheaper . It would affect exports but our balance of trade is pretty poor anyway
Oh dear.
Reality check here, from an unlikely source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303660.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Most Americans would agree the WaPo is well left of center, perhaps more Grauniad than Independent, but well left (both senses).
Brown, BTW, was at the helm when the seeds of recession were sown: see gold sales; Canute-like proclamations about the abolition of the business cycle; squandering surpluses; N Sea oil, etc., etc.
The BBC is rotten and incompetent to the core.
Quantative easing is a mad idea. But if labour had any sense thay should give the monopoly money straight to voters and hey presto more labour votes.
ITV are just as bad.
Isn’t there any news channel that’s not pro New Labour?
Quantitive easing. I have a horrible suspicion I know who is going to pick up the tab for this.
Anybody who has a few bob in savings and/or not receiving an inflation proof pension.
Frankos @ 10.13 a.m.
A clever bloke called Milton Friedman came up with a theory called monetarism that advocated greater control of the money supply – not that Labour’s neo-Keynesian halfwits would ever countenance that. If quantitative easing worked then the invention of the printing press would have wiped out poverty years ago.
the current set of jokers in power; Obama, Sarkowsky, Merkel Brown etc remind me of a gamblers at the biggest poker game in history, willing to bet everthing away on a pretty crappy hand.
The BBC meanwhile is the pretty little hostess bringing them drinks and encouraging them to bet even more.
I think I feel a little ill now!
laughing at gordon
Yes Friedman was Thatchers model. Beats Galbraithian gobbledygook!
The BBC can try and elevate Brown to some Olympian God if they wish, but there is only one problem no one believes them.
I think the Americans fell for the charisma and power of personality of Obama like we fell for Blair – thats the power of blokes as individuals.
Brown has always looked like an ineffectual windbag clubjoiner – even before his/their lies and bollocks policies.
Because he is such a prick – maybe the public will finally say ‘who do they think we are?’ – but i fear things are being manipulated towards the election.
LOOK!!!!!!
12.23 – ‘sewn’ has become ‘sown’!
Well i hope they read all this!
Seems the BBC will try anything to save Labour
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7925552.stm
Which other anniversaries will the BBC observe
What about this
5 March 1976 – The British pound fell below the equivalent of $2 for the first time in history.
Under a Labour Government.
Todays BBC headlines!
“Digger driver shot in Jerusalem”
Is that the story or should the headline be???!!!!!
“Digger Attack in Jerusalem”
I just dont get these guys!
Sorry, wrong comment thread!
Jon | 05.03.09 – 12:32 pm
From your link
“so called scabs – who chose to return to work”
Funny how the BBC described the strike at Total incessantly as ‘illegal’, even though the unions wouldn’t have a vote because they knew the workers would vote for a strike. And hurt Labour.
Yet when they get all nostalgic about the miner’s strike they don’t seem to remember that that was illegal and the reason the unions didn’t have a vote was because most miners wanted to work. And help the Conservatives. In fact a lot of ‘scabs’ didn’t ‘return to work’ a lot never stopped working.
James T | 05.03.09 – 1:40 pm |
This is just nostalgia for the BBC – accuracy doesn’t come into it. What the BBC says and the reality are always different. Scargill and his mafia tried to force all the miners out to try and bring down the government, just like Gormely when he forced Heath to call an election in 1974.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/7/newsid_4054000/4054793.stm
The miners were just a political tool to him. It was about power, nothing to do with workers pay and conditions.
There is going to be a lot more pro-Labour bias before May 2010.
“a peculiarly British combination of touchiness and paranoia”
yea, the bbcs idea of Britishness:
‘repression’, paranoia, touchiness, odd
oh how they loath the population they extort. If only we could be more like them, stop beating our wifes, stop discriminating against helpless BMEs and stop wanting Britain to do well when we should be worried about Africa.
There is going to be a lot more pro-Labour bias before May 2010.
Jon | 05.03.09 – 1:59 pm
More? Is that possible?
Here’s the truth: Brown is being treated politely and firmly dismissed by Obama (no press conference). President Jesus knows that Brown is not going to be around long so why bother? A pat on the head, a mutter about special relationships, and thanks buddy. The Obama crowd are all about the politics of looking good and Brown is not someone who make Honest Obe look like a winner. Sorry Gordon. The BBC is on your side – but that’s all.
John Bosworth | 05.03.09 – 4:18 pm |
President Obamessiah is focused solely on starting the revolution at home. That’s why he was willing to let Hillary out on her own in foreign policy, so she couldn’t meddle in his domestic schemes about her pet policies (like health care). It’s also why he sent back the bust of Churchill that Blair had given Bush (technically on special loan). The British government offered to extend this to The Obamessiah, but he said no thanks, and replaced it with Lincoln.
Gordon Brown isn’t out the door next week or anything, and I seriously doubt anyone in the Obamessiah Administration was saying, “Brown will be out of power shortly, ignore him.” It’s more arrogance and narrow-mindedness from the White House than any judgment on Brown’s political future.
Contrary to what Matt Frei and Justin Webb and every other Beeboid reported to you about the joys of the coming Obamessianic Age, the new President doesn’t give a damn about reaching out to anyone, unless it’s a way to further his own domestic political goals. Which is how a US President is supposed to behave (whether I personally agree with his goals or not). Not the change the BBC had hoped for, I’m sure. Well, at least Matty gets to report on Hillary’s world travels.
Of course, if Bush had done this, the BBC would be whining about the snub by the cowboy unilateralist. Not so with the Obamessiah.
I see the emails have come out about the fat one eyed one and 5 bellies lying about knife crime.
but classic from Mark (Sheena) Easton on his blog.
“…The electronic exchange shows how it is possible for a special advisor in Gordon Brown’s office to overrule the anxieties of senior statisticians…”
BOLLOCKS Easton. The fat one eyed one was behind this along with 5 bellies and have been caught red handed.
And YOU EASTON you turd were with Liebour every inch of the way telling us that knife crime is falling. You were caught out spinning this shit you moron.
Can we expect the man who never washes on Newsnight to investigate?
Well I think we know the answer there don’t we?
But the BBc is anti coal which as we know is the black evil poisoning our planet.
So how can the BBC on one hand spout on about the miners yet with the other support the unwashed eco loons that were protesting about Kingsnorth power station?
The answer to Martin (above) is that the BBC are a collection of fatuous Guardian-reading leftists, living off the tax-payer, who have no need to be consistent or even intelligent, as long as they can continue to collect their hand-outs.
Whether that situation will continue depends on the next Conservative government.
“The coverage of Brown’s trip on American broadcast networks – what little coverage there was – was humiliatingly bad for Gordon. This excerpt gives you an idea. This broadcaster used words like:”
‘Wounded at home … wanted a news conference… got a low key meeting … didn’t seem to mind being the American President’s poodle …. Brown is desperate … the President pointedly didn’t make any promises about a global new deal…'”
http://www.order-order.com/2009/03/how-cnn-reported-gordons-obama-meeting.html
By the way: I had an informal conversation with a BBC pal from the old days while I was in the UK recently and he actually tried to justify the Jonathan Ross affair thus:
1. Brand truly had slept with Manuel’s grandaughter…
2. The grandaughter is managed by max Clifford and welcomed the publicity…
3. Manuel has a book coming out and welcomed the publicity…
4. There were only three complaints about the interview until the nasty BBC hating Daily mail puffed up the story…
5. Ross has said much worse in the past…
I was amazed by all this and asked: “let’s assume everything you say is right, was it correct to do the interview?” The reply was a sheepish shake of the head.
Beeboids have no shame.
John Bosworth
I think the problem is a mix of arrogance and nil moral compass
Brown sucking up to Obama has been painful to watch, most Americans don’t know who he is.
The bbcbiased aspect has been a bit dishonest though – I don’t doubt this one report might be favourable to the PM, but most of the BBCs reporting on the trip to DC has been balanced enough. I don’t think one example of bias/poor reporting should outweigh plenty of other cases of non-bias. It would be biased in itself to focus on just one case of bias!
Gus Haynes | Homepage | 06.03.09 – 12:20 am |
“It would be biased in itself to focus on just one case of bias!”
Give us a break.
After 12 year in power A Hitler was still blaming the destruction of German cities and the deaths of millions on the world war Germany just happened to have been dragged into by Jewish conspirators in the United States and he would fight on to protect Germany from such undeserved attacks.
Maybe Brown is simply detached from reality – Pervitin anyone ?
The BBC does not mention the British Labour government’s contribution to the prosperity of over one million (non-EU) immigrants to Britain in the past decade or so, by providing jobs for them:
‘Mail’
“A million jobs taken by non-EU workers as official figures lay bare the scale of foreign labour”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1159835/A-million-jobs-taken-non-EU-workers-official-figures-lay-bare-scale-foreign-labour.html
Watchman:
ITV are just as bad.
Isn’t there any news channel that’s not pro New Labour?
Watchman | 05.03.09 – 11:03 am | #
I suggest you have a little look at who’s buying a lot of prime time advertising at the moment. ITV seesm to be flooded with adverts for various government (NHS, Training and Skills Council etc etc.)initiatives.
As Michael Grade admitted earlier this week, commercial advertising revenues have been going down the tube
recently. How fortunate that the Government is there to make up the shortfall.
Conflict of interest perhaps?