Obama’s plunging approval ratings HAD to be eventually covered by the BBC and so it came about this morning, at 8.33, that in a sublime example of BBC bias, Today trundled on Arianna Huffington of the left wing Huffington Post. Her take, unsurprisingly, was that Obama had not been radical enough and all that pesky “compromise” (?) had disillusioned some supporters. IF the BBC was serious about balance – which it is not, of course – it should also have allowed someone from say National Review or indeed even some one like Ann Coulter to deliver an alternate take on Obama. But, from the BBC perspective, having a radical leftist pronounce judgement on the leftist President seems very logical.
SO, HOW IS OBAMA DOING?
Bookmark the permalink.
Arianna Huffington is never introduced as a leftie by the BBC. They love her. It’s where Frei and turd sniffer Webb got all their Sarah Palin hate lies from during the US election.
Oh and didn’t Huffington’s husband turn out to be a homosexual or something? I’m not surprised being married to that old hag.
But Martin, the BBC is “middle of the road” (in its dreams). In the BBC’s eyes, you and I are right-wing extremists and, horrors, probably climate change deniers. So the discussion with Arianna was between two people with, in the BBC world, mainstream opinions so how could there be bias? After all, Arianna espouses opinions which are identical to those expressed without challenge at fashionable Islington dinner parties – what could be more mainstream than that?
Criticism of The Obamessiah can be found at the BBC: criticism from the Left, of course.
And it’s nice that the Today producers have a political position on the domestic US health care debate: “It should be an historic moment…” This means that whoever wrote the segment blurb on the website has taken sides in the debate. The BBC in general obviously has as well since all reports on the issue are written from the default perspective that the most extreme Dems have it right, and that the plan is generally a good thing. They don’t even bother concealing their disappointment, so blind are they to their own personal bias. It’s just taken for granted that there is one correct opinion on the matter, and it’s from the Left.
Naturally, even though the BBC can mention that His approval numbers are low and that people are disappointed, it certainly can’t be His fault. Huffington spends more time blaming special interests than Him for any failure. (Note to defenders of the indefensible: reporting that people are disappointed is not the same thing as reporting from a critical perspective.)
Even Naughtie said that the health care plan “didn’t go as far as many of us would like.” So he betrays his own opinion on the issue. There is no possible way to deny that the Today producers, Naughtie, Mark Mardell, and any other Beeboid reporting on the issue have displayed their personal bias on this story.
Does anyone else find it strange, never mind objectionable, that the state broadcaster of the UK spends so much time on a domestic issue of a foreign country, an issue which has no international implications whatsoever? Except for an affect on ther beloved Obamessiah’s political success and reputation, that is.
Do any defenders of the indefensible care to point out domestic issues in other countries about which the BBC dutifully reports every twist and turn, all from one perspective? (China’s policy on Tibet doesn’t count.)
They are not informing you of the news, but they are informing you of their opinion.
Nail on the head. Good Post!
I think Naughtie actually says (in the clip at 0820 here http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8427000/8427644.stm 1m05s in ) “… many of <b>his supporters</b> would like ….” .
You’re right, I must have misheard. The rest of my comment still stands.
Even Naughtie said that the health care plan “didn’t go as far as many of us would like.” ….
Does anyone else find it strange, never mind objectionable, that the state broadcaster of the UK spends so much time on a domestic issue of a foreign country…
DP — on the surface yes. But don’t forget that the BBC has spent the past 60 years brainwashing the public with the line that.
“The NHS? Envy of the world mate.”
Which is a bit odd, as the BBC gives it’s staff private healthcare. Except it doesn’t like to put that in ads.
People like Naughtie either
1. Have no idea at the shiteness of the NHS, and how it steals staff from 3rd world shit holes in order to offer some sort of service. But wait intil the US starts down that road and takes all those imports we have been taking. Then the NHS shit is really going to hit the fan
Or…
2. They know perfectly well, but as champagne socialist statists who don’t themselves need to partake of the glory that is the NHS, nevertheless are ideologically driven to lie.
“Does anyone else find it strange, never mind objectionable, that the state broadcaster of the UK spends so much time on a domestic issue of a foreign country”
Good point David. I have often wondered the same. Why should Radio 4 give the British wall to wall reporting on the US? The US domestic politics has no interest at all to the average Briton. So who in Britain cares if Barry has won a debate on US Health Care? Does it have some unkown impact on waiting times at the NHS?
Every political debate in the UK mostly involve trivial matters as the policies have already been decided in Brussels. So what else can the BBC report? Well there is Brown attending a global conference with other “world leaders”. I suppose.
This is as much about the BBC’s obsession with His every move more than anything else. Many, many Beeboids in the News/Current Affairs scene have a huge emotional investment in His success and reputation. They think you have the same interest in His policy goals as they do.
Anyone else noticed that since the cold weather the BBC have laid off climate change crap? Where is Harrabin and shitman? Stuck in the snow?
Probably comforting thier mate Phil.
You don’t even have to click on this link to guess what religion was involved. But you won’t find this on the BBC. Anyone want to bet if a white Christian had done this the BBC would be foaming at the mouth?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237839/Father-jailed-encouraging-teenage-son-rape-marry-cousin-12.html
You’re right, but Ann Coulter to represent an opposite view?
Christ, that WOULD be bias. Obama’s disapproval would be halted right in its tracks if anyone heard it.
I believe the fragrant Ariana was introduced as running the “influential” HuffPo.
Yes – very influential in the sense that it has a direct and everyday influencwe on the direction of BBC reporting. All those idlers we pay for in the US ever do is scan the OPINION columns of the Washington Post and the New York Times, plus a couple of blogs like HuffPo and Daily Kos – and they have their story-lines already written. Mardell seems to have fallen into the same idle pattern. So – we spend a million dollars a year or more on the BBC’s “news” operation, and all we get is second-=hand opinions.
I believe many readers of this site are 10 times better informed about the intricacies of the ObamaCare stuff than any of the BBC staff. And NONE of it from the BBC.
OT – It;s Christmas – we want our next slice of MARCUS !!!
Even Naughtie said that the health care plan “didn’t go as far as many of us would like.”
Does anyone else find it strange, never mind objectionable, that the state broadcaster of the UK spends so much time on a domestic issue of a foreign country, an issue which has no international implications whatsoever? Except for an affect on ther beloved Obamessiah’s political success and reputation, that is.
========================================
“Many of us would like” is an extraordinary thing to come out with. Us? What’s it to us? It’s another example of how they “domesticate” the affairs of another country. The BBC does this to Ireland all the time. It’s as if they think certain countries still come under ownership of the British Empire. The BBC still thinks and acts in that mode: sees itself bestriding the world in its own insufferable swaggering arrogant way.
It’s long past time that it was cut down to size.
The BBC has a version of impartial reporting, well two versions actually.
One impartial method is called the arse licking creeping method for its friends and allies and heroes, garnished with lashings of BBC selective reporting.
The other method is reserved for the BBCs political and social enemies who get the full on hate treatment with lashings of spiteful aggression.
If the BBC want the dirt digging on class enemies like Sarah Palin they go to the Huffington post which will supply any poisonous smears and rumours regardless of whether they are true or not(mostly not) however when the BBC want to lay on the creamy praise for Obama it goes to the Huffington post which is a fanatical supporter of Obama, see the difference?
Fawning praise and excuses by the bucket load and enough of it to gag a maggot for Obama and poisonous smears spiteful rumour peddling for Sarah Palin.
The actions of the BBC are so transparent and obvious that if the BBC trust was not a bought offf stooge puppet body perverted to assist the BBC propaganda then it would be issuing warnings by the crate load.
I never listen to Naughtie but if he did say “as many of us would like ” then that is just dreadful reporting. As others have ably pointed out this is an American affair in which British reporters should display no personal view.
Emotional commitment to Obama, MMGW, Gaza, multiculturalism and a host of other unrealities is what is has come down to for the BBC.
An increasingly strident attempt to convince themselves that the ideal world they seek to bring about is really going to happen.
All left leaning revolutionaries start in idealism and promises of a beautiful future. They end up despairing of the lack of fervour shown by the people and then comes the tryanny and hatred as their dreams evaporate.
They would do well to remember that suspicion of and never ending scepticism of those who have power is a basic safeguard of a free society. This is the prime function of a free press.
Suspicion of and criticism of the powerful.
Never trust them and rarely believe them.
Someone posted a link to a new opinion poll at PoliticalBetting yesterday which showed Obama had the lowest rating of any President at this stage than any going back to, I think, LBJ. I’ll see if I can dig it up. Much like the BBC’s poll tracker dying a death whenever the Tories start doing well, bad-for-O polls are also ignored.
Blimey! just watching dinnerjacket on Channel 4 news. First time I have to agree with him. He said how can the BBC not be a propaganda machine of the Government!
Blimey he should post on this blog!!!
This is certainly not BBC ‘Newsnight! (Thank goodness.)
Mark Steyn interviews John Bolton, re-Obama foreign policy (Fox News):-
http://video.foxnews.com/12751686/obamas-world?category_id=a438e1cadef5a5c9211932781b14d6587b08d851