Have you read Mark Mardell’s item on the fierce battle taking place in the USA for the senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy? Mark seems quietly confident that the Dem’s will win this which strikes me as a bit odd since most other commentators are suggesting that Scott Brown is ahead in the polls and that Obama has been forced to do all he can to keep this iconic seat in the control of the Dems. Should the GOP win, it will be a terrible low for the BBC, as Obama’s unpopularity will become all too visceral. His radical leftism may excite the BBC but evidently a significant section of the electorate thinks otherwise. How could this be – when the God-King is but within his first year? Mardell and the rest of the pro-Dem sycophants at the BBC better get used to this pattern of losing Dems – roll on the mid-terms.
AND THE LIGHTS ALL WENT OUT IN MASSACHUSETTS!
Bookmark the permalink.
I talk regularly to freinds in the US and they are clear and concise; Obama is hated and despised. Many who would never be called racist have actually now said openly that he was elected because of the colour of his skin and not in spite of it, and that is a serious indictment. They think he is a red socialist scumbag.
But what do they know ehen we have politicians over here, MP’s, who have actually said their lives are complete and it has been months of undiluted joy to think that the US elected a black man. Again, they make a race and skin colour issue, but the yanks are beginning to realise that it is not so simple.
The Dems may be out bevause the yanks are not in deial like the BBC; they still think he can do no wrong because he is black.
If he does not get re-elected, or the dems do lose Mass, will the BBC headline accuse the yanks of returning to racist ways?
Unfortunately the result is still close enough to be within the margin of Acorn.
The dead shall rise and they shall vote Democrat. Apparently Senator Ted Kennedy has already voted 47 times by absentee ballot.
Joking apart, even if Brown falls slightly short, the fact that he was even in the race will send a tsunami of fear through Congressional Democrats.
Whether that will be enough to prevent the lemmings leaping over the Socialized Nationalized Healthcare cliff, is still to be determined.
Probably not.
Perhaps if you had read the date of Mark’s piece (13th January) you would realise why he states that “Most opinion polls give her a clear lead, but one has her opponent Scott Brown ahead by a neck.” This was because those were the facts last Wednesday. By waiting until 5 days later before you comment on it, the situation has now changed and of course Mark’s piece is out of step with more recent reports.
Its also difficult to find what the perceived bias is. He states that the Democrats are struggling to regain what was previously a safe seat. He also states that this is more than likely due to the health bill and that the loss of the seat would be a huge blow. A pretty fair reading of the situation as it was last Wednesday.
This is the only piece the BBC website have on the Massachusett(e)s race! Mardell nor anyone else at the BBC think the turnaround is newsworthy, why not? Bias by omission is no better than bias.
Guest
By your measure the Daily Mail is the most pro-Democrat of the British press as it doesn’t appear to carry a single story about the election… Indeed over the last couple of weeks, there has been barely a handful of stories on the subject from the British media. This is pretty consistent with previous non-presidential elections and singling out the BBC alone for not breathlessly following every twist and turn seems fairly petty.
It strikes me as a legitimate argument to compare coverage between (say) the Mail and the Telegraph as like-for like (newspapers with websites, pay for the dead-tree version, open editorial bias), but the BBC surely can be considered in isolation…due to the “unique way it is funded”, public service remit, etc etc.
The analogy is ridiculously weak, the Daily Mail does not have an interest in internal US politics. The BBC has a TV channel in the US and spends huge amounts on its American presence.
The BBC has an expensive presence in many countries. BBC America is a joint venture with a US company, Discovery Communications. The only “original” programming on it is Matt Frei’s nightly low-budget propaganda show, for which nearly half the hour is filled by segments you see on your evening BBC news. The rest of it is Frei or Katty Kay in the tiny, poorly lit studio talking to various guests. The pieces in the field produced by Mark Mardell or Kevin Connolly are usually also shown on News 24 and other places.
The other 23 hours a day, and all hours of the weekend, is filled with recycled material from not only the mother ship, but from Channel 4 as well.
In other words, the BBC barely has more of a vested interest in the US news scene than in any other country in which they broadcast. If their “serious interest in internal US politics” was due to their investment in BBC America, they’d do a damn better job of it.
The Beeboids are making more noise about US domestic policies which have no effect on the UK whatsoever than they do about other countries because of their heavy emotional investment in the President of the US.
Utter rubbish. Only a few weeks ago the Dems were 30 points up in the polls, THIRTY POINTS. They’ve been on the slide ever since, yet the fat shit Mardell can’t seem to work out why. A Democrat losing Massachusetts is about as likely as a beeboid turning down a line of Charlie.
Everyone knows blue dog Dems and independents are fed up with Barry’s form of Socialism, yet the drug addled beeboids keep painting those that oppose Barry as simple red necks.
It’s why the BBC is so full of shit like Mardell.
I’m afraid Mardell is in love. Did you hear him on “Over to you”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/overtoyou
tearfully providing excuses as to why The One isn’t quite as popular amongst his electorate as the BBC demands?
Astonishingly biased bilge.
Here is my take (of course completely ignored by Mardell):
Obama isn’t actually that good a President, and what’s more he has quickly lost his appeal as he comes over as cold and robotic. Love him or hate him, at least Dubya has a certain warmth.
What the fat shit Mardell doesn’t mention is the dopey Dem was 30 points ahead only a few weeks ago and the Republicans are ahead in most polls, I’m betting the BBC use the same polls that keep showing Liebour neck and neck with the Tories. I call it the Cocaine poll.
The Democrats should be no where near to losing this seat, but it’s an anti Barry vote from bloe dog Dems and independents who don’t like Barry’s form of Socialism. Who can blame them when they look at Europe?
Combine this with Mardell’s piece on Today this morning, which Roland Deschain noticed here.
Mardell goes to The Obamessiah’s political home turf of Chicago, to talk to black people. The BBC’s race-obsession on full display. By focusing on race, Mardell diminishes valid political issues. It’s just about the least unbiased way possible to do a report on how white voters in Massachussetts might be disillusioned with Him, and the Democratic Party in general.
Of course, The Obamessiah is spending more of His personal political capital on this Senate race. He’s 0 for 3 so far in local elections, so expect the BBC to lash out at anyone and everyone if the Democrat loses. The fact that there’s even a chance a Republican could win in this state shows just how low the Democrats have sunk, and just how much The Obamessiah and the Dems have screwed things up. But that won’t be the main focus of reporting by the BBC, as that would require actual knowledge and insight rather than partisan spin.
Mardell goes to The Obamessiah’s political home turf of Chicago, to talk to black people.
Are they same ones who are waiting for Obama to send them “government” money from his “stash”?
Obama is the black Jimmy Carter – a one-term disaster for the US and the rest of us. Looking forward to watching his worshipers at al Beeb squirm when the bad results start coming in, and sooner or later they will!
Looking forward to watching his worshipers at al Beeb squirm when the bad results start coming in
But they have race get out of jail free card to play. If he loses it will be because he is black. They will actually revel in it.
I was watching C-Span the other day and they showed the campaign ads for the two parties. I picked up two things from the DNC=paid ad: they’re i) very desperate and ii) very nasty. They managed to not use any Nazi imagery, but only just. Only just.
The BBC is in a state of shock about President Obama’s unpopularity with some of the US electorate. What else can explain the Gary Younge series on those who don’t approve of Obama and don’t like him as their leader? Most people take it for granted that in a democracy there are plenty of people who didn’t vote for and don’t particularly like the current elected leader.
The BBC obviously thinks that Obama is a special case and should be revered by everyone, much in the way Castro allegedly is.
Beeboid scum
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/news/a197096/bbc-apologises-for-biased-the-one-show.html
Obama can kiss goodbye to his ill-conceived health bill and every other daft, authoritarian, Lefty idea his administration has ever come up with if Brown wins on Tuesday – good! 😛
The BBC is reporting a “nasty, anti-establishment environment” in Massachusets. I don’t recall the opposition to the previous administration being labelled “nasty”..
Here we go again. It’s the same smear Kevin Connolly did the one time the BBC reported on the existence of Tea Party protests in the US. An anti-government position is de facto negative. Blatant bias.
BBC editorial policy seems to be as follows: Protesting against Booooosh isn’t anti-government: it’s a moral imperative. Protesting against The Obamessiah is a sign of questionable moral character.
On the Today Program this morning there was an astonishingly ignorant report by Paul (the son of Michael the anti-Semite) Adams.
He said that the Republican, Brown, is little known outside Massachusetts. Doesn’t this conceited, ill-informed beeboid know that people outside Massachusetts are not voting in this contest?
But the BBC don’t know who he is, and the BBC matter you know.
Well in their dreams they do.
Martha Coakley, the Democrat whom the Beeboids are supporting, was one of only six Attorneys General in the US to receive the coveted “A+” rating from ACORN in 2008.
So it’s not exactly a stretch to see a connection between that and the fact that there have been more than 105,000 requests in Mass. for absentee ballots. That’s a key tactic in ACORN’s game plan, so expect this race to be much closer than polls project. And if it’s really close, expect a similar recount debacle to the Minnesota election that was stolen with this tactic for Al Franken. The BBC never told you about that, though, did they?
But the BBC doesn’t want you to know any of that. They also won’t tell you that one quarter of the poplulation suspects that ACORN might steal the election for Coakley with their dirty tricks.
If Brown wins, it will be because the people of Massachussetts are still too racist and have had their democratic voice overrun by nefarious out-of-state far-right extremists, tea-baggers, etc. If Coakely wins, it will be because the people have spoken, they really do want ObamaCare, all is right with the world, phew!