Did you catch Hillary Clinton being “interviewed” by John Humphyrs on Today this morning. Note the deep respect afforded to the US Secretary of State and the absence of interruptions. I can’t quite recall the same toadying silence afforded to representatives of the Bush regime, do you? I wonder was Humphyrs on his knees during the series of monologues from La Clinton? It’s amazing to observe the difference in tone from the BBC now that the Nobel Laureate is in the White House. Of course they have always been in love with the Clintons.
RESPECT, RESPECT
Bookmark the permalink.
Listening to BBC news today reporting what Hilary Clinton had said:
Those who would try to disrupt the peace of people going about their daily lives are out of step and out of time
and that
… the best we can tell is that those who try to inflict harm on others and cause damage are funding their evil enterprise from criminal gains and we hope to see an end to all of that.”
She was actually talking about policing in Northern Ireland, and it struck me that this rhetoric could equally apply to Islamic terrorists in Palestine, yet while there back in March, she made no such equation.
The BBC were happy to highlight the quotes above in reference to Irish terrorists, and it markedly showed the difference when reporting on Israel and the Palestinians. Why isn’t the same view being applied – by both the present left liberal US and the BBC?
<!– google_ad_section_end –>
Another comment of mine has vanished.
2nd Attempt.
There was no toadying from Humphrys, in my opinion. However, the interview was still biased. At first, I agree, it seemed like it was just a chance for the Obamessiah Administration to promote its side of the story at length. But, after letting Hillary spout boiler-plate the first time, Humphrys did repeat his question about the White House being “leisurely” regarding a plan for Afghanistan. That caught her out, and she danced some more.
The quesiton itself is biased, even though it was presented as a criticism from McCain (Boooosh Part 2, if one was to believe the BBC during the election) and, by extension, the Right. That was a neat bit of sleight-of-hand from the Today producers. The answer Humphrys wanted was not the same one McCain and the Right want. His follow-up questions were all from the BBC Islington Dinner Party Playbook: Afghanistan is a failure, hurry up and find a way out.
That same bias made Humphrys allow Hillary to give that bogus song and dance routine about how not all Taliban are really bad, we need to sort that out, and that’s why we don’t have that “clarity” she kept going on about. Unwittingly, Hillary played right into the BBC Narrative that the Taliban aren’t all so bad, we must talk to them, bring them into the government, etc. She was giving a vague, evasive answer full of distracting buzz words.
The thing is, Humphrys did interrupt her, and tried to even more, during the last third of the interview. Most ridiculous of all was his attempt to nail her down on a commitment regarding military action against Iran. Hillary Clinton is an experienced evader and triangulator, and would never fall for such a cheap stunt question. Weren’t the Today producers paying attention during the election? Yes, that was a challenging question, but from the Left, as we all know that the Beeboids are not in favor of any military action against Iran.
All of Humphrys questions and objections were from the Left. So while I don’t agree there was any toadying, the usual BBC bias was on display.