The concluding, take-this-away-as-your-final-thought, paragraphs of a BBC article on the reaction to Obama’s support for the Ground Zero mosque:
“It was a bold decision – Obama could have stayed out of what is ostensibly a local matter,” wrote polling analyst Nate Silver on the political website FiveThirtyEight.com.
“But a careful evaluation of the polls reveals it to be less politically risky than it might at first appear.”
That would be the same Nate Silver who admitted recently his participation in Journolist, the controversial exclusive email list for Democrat-supporting hacks:
Almost always, I made exactly the points in these discussions that I made on FiveThirtyEight. Sometimes, I used the phrasing “we” when participating in these discussions, which I would not ordinarily use on the blog. I’ve disclosed from the first day of FiveThirtyEight’s existence that I’m usually a Democratic voter, and Journolist’s membership consisted of mostly Democrats, so this seemed fairly natural.
The anonymous BBC journalist’s description of a “polling analyst” from a “political website” doesn’t really do justice, does it? One of the new intake, perhaps, or just an old BBC hand? Same difference either way, I guess.
Hat tips to commenters David Preiser and Craig, the latter adding this:
That article’s use of polling evidence leaves a lot to be desired too:
“While polling suggests a majority of Americans oppose plans to build the mosque, a Fox News poll released on Friday suggested 61% supported the developer’s right to build the mosque.”
That poll comes in two parts, and the second part (the one the BBC quotes) needs to be seen in context:
36. A group of Muslims plans to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center a few blocks from the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. Do you think it is appropriate to build a mosque and Islamic center near ground zero, or do you think it would be wrong to do so?
30% Appropriate
64% Wrong
37. Regardless of whether you think it is appropriate to build a mosque near ground zero, do you think the Muslim group has the right to build a mosque there, or don’t they have that right?
61% Yes, they have the right
34% No, they don’t have the right
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/081310_MosquePoll.pdf
All in all, quite a tendentious piece of Obama back-covering. Still, what’s new?
Update 20.00. I think we have our answer as to which BBC journalist is trying hard to spin this story in Obama’s favour – former Newsweek political correspondent (and Twitter follower of Nate Silver) Katie Connolly.
Nice spot guys, sooner or later a beeboid has got to turn up on Journolist
Even if Katie Connolly was a JournoLista, it means only that the BBC recently hired someone who was part of it (probably knowingly), and is still clearly tied in with them. She’s not helping her credibility at all by constantly linking to her JournoLista buddies.
That’s bad enough, but what I’m most interested in is finding out if there was a BBC employee on the JournoList during the election. That would be the most damning of all. Whoever it turns out to be will most likely have hired Katie Connolly, who in turn brought in others who worked on behalf of their beloved Obamessiah during the election.
That’s what I’m after here.
Exactly David, I’m sure one of the scumbag’s is on it, if not more.
I don’t think there will be a BBC name in the JournoList leftie groupies. But what has become clear from the known JournoList names is that the BBC turns far to often to them for comment – without revealing they are lefties. Nate Silver is actually rated pretty well as a poll analyst – but he is self-proclaimed Dem, and should be described as “the Democratic opinion analyst”.
And when Silver comes out with devastating poll analyses for the November mid-term elections – I bet the BBC don’t publish his stuff.
Main thing is – we now KNOW the overwhelming BBC bias in turning to JournoListas for comments – as well as their reliance on the Washington Post, New York Times and Huffpo and their avoidance of stuff from Fox or right-wing journalists and blogs.
For example – any assessment of informed opinion in the US should be mentioning Krauthammer, or Kristol. Hell, they don’t even print Kirsten Powers’ (a Dem journalist) devasytating criticism of Michell “Let Them Eat Cake” Obama.
They didn’t mention anyone supporting Michelle Obama either. They cenosred the entire story.
John, it’s quite revealing to search the BBC website for the name ‘Charles Krauthammer’ (as you say classed as one of the leading commentators on US politics, but from a conservative perspective). There aren’t many results:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=toolbar&q=Charles+Krauthammer
The first one links to an interview on PM between Mr Krauthammer and JournOLister Michael Tomasky of the ‘Guardian’.
This tells you all you need to know about the BBC, as there are no links provided on the PM website to Mr Krauthammer’s columns, only to …
…the ‘Guardian’
The ‘Guardian’ again
The ‘Guardian’ yet again
The ‘Huffington Post’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2010/06/helen_thomas.shtml
Craig
That search on Krauthammer is amazing – 6 mentions in 7 years ! And on the Helen Thomas interview – Eddie Mair’s links are as you say solely to the Guardian and Huffington Post – they do not even have the grace to link to the articles Krauthammer wrote on Helen Thomas at that time.
Silver comes across as a clever guy but unfortunetly he also appears to be in love with Obama and I fear that will stop him analysing the poll data for November in a dispassionate way.
Incidentally what is it with the Obama man crush thing. I usually glance at Andrew Sullivans column in the Sunday Times but week in week out its like a love letter to Obama. If he is wiped out in the November elections Sullivan will still say it is part of a cunning Obama plan.
David,
Have you considered contacting Tucker Carlson at the Daily Caller who seems to have a good set of the JournoList emails? Of course I have no way of knowing, but I suspect he is sitting on some of them for use closer to the election. Perhaps he would let you, or this blog, know if there were any BBC types on it?
I did think about it, actually, seeing as how the JournoList story itself seems to have been successfully smothered by…er…the JournoList-infested mainstream media. I guess Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don’t have the power over the public about which the Leftoids like to scare everyone. JournoLista and Guardian blogger Michael Tomasky stated during one email thread that he was “genuinely scared” of the power of Fox News, while also telling his Guardian readers that the JournoList was pure as the driven snow. So he really is delusional, not to mention a liar.
In any case, apparently Carlson has said that they’re not ever going to release the whole thing, and won’t name all the names (so says a JournoLista and comrade of Katie Connolly). To me, that means they don’t have all of it, maybe don’t even have much more than they’ve already published. Perhaps that’s all his mole could get before they sussed him and shut it down. I can’t think of any other logical reason not to do it, especially since there has been almost zero actual fallout from this. Nobody’s career ended, no media outlet suffering consequences. Unless one of the JournoListas has something on him? You’d think they would have played that card by now, though.
Maybe a campaign can be started to encourage Carlson to release the names, or to get Breitbart to do it. I don’t know.
Either way, should there be enough information released through whatever sources to reveal a BBC employee on the list, either a recent hire who was on it before it ended, or (preferably, in my view) one who was working for the BBC and on the JournoList during the election. That simple fact, combined with the endless stream of evidence we’re gathering about the coordinated narratives, might just be enough proof of collusion to show that the entire BBC US division is compromised.
Much more work to be done, obviously.
The BBC article is still attempting to portray the oppostion as “right Wing” It won’t work and Obama must have realised this by now, hence his backtracking.
The BBC seems to forget that the US President is not the all powerful figure our PM is. The beeboids seem unaware of the constitution of the US and how it works and above all ignorant of anything other than a card carrying libleft viewpoint. Another by product of a recruitment process that puts ideology above competence or basic intelligence.
“Nuanced”? I see Connolly is spinning the same poll figures Craig criticized the other article for on the Open Thread. Agenda? What agenda?
The following sort of analysis (in this 2 page article) is censored out of existence by Islam Not BBC (INBBC):
” Obama’s Mosque Misjudgment”
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/16/obama%e2%80%99s-mosque-misjudgment/
re. the poll figures on the mosque – it looks like only hardcore Dems agree it should happen. Nearly ALL Republicans will oppose – and it looks like nearly ALL “Independents” are also against. It is the Indys who decide most elections, they swung behind Obama more than McCain in 2008 – but the BBC every week fails to tell us that it appears Obama has forfeited their support, bigtime.
Doesn’t look like there has been any bounce back following Obama’s “I din’t support the specific issue of this mosque only mosque building in general” defence.
The man in charge of the Obamaniacs (Katie Connolly, Daniel Nasaw and Matt Danzico) and the rest of the 10-man team at the BBC’s online Washington bureau is Matthew Davis. Whether he hired them or is merely the ‘team leader’ placed in charge of them after the event is an unanswered question.
Doing a DB and checking who he follows on Twitter is suggestive but I don’t think it’s the smoking gun.
He follows 121 Twitter sites.
Some are the sort of sites you’d expect the boss of the BBC’s Washington outfit to follow – top politicians of both main US parties, journalism schools, major news organisations and. of course, lots of fellow BBC journalists.
The full list that follows (broken down as best as I can) shows though that he’s very much a man of the Left.
His newspaper of choice in the UK is clearly ‘The Guardian’. He follows two sites at the ‘Huffington Post’. He follows many of the main news organisations, but not – of course – Fox News.
His choice of political blogs/websites is more personal, and strongly biased to the Left – Wonkette being a particular favourite. He follows no right-leaning blogs. Similarly, he follows a number of leading (and not so leading) journalists, many of them liberals and only one of them from the Right – David Frum (and even he’s often described as a conservative-in-name-only).
And of course he follows a sprinkling of JournOListers – including Nate Silver.
The one surprise on there was William Hague, but he’s doubtless only there because he’s foreign secretary!
Good work, Craig! If nothing else, it’s proof that this is one seriously biased Beeboid. He doesn’t follow a single blog or commentator that does not conform to his world view. I bet the rest of them add up the same way. And this is the kind of mentality the BBC expects you to trust for your information on the US.
There’s yet another aspect of this story that the BBC is keeping from you: the State Dept. is sending the imam behind the project on a taxpayer-funded trip to the Middle East on some sort of outreach tour. Apparently the government is now keeping his agenda secret.
I don’t know what this is all about, but it smells of political donor corruption.
Robert Spencer of ‘Jihadwatch’ on FOX NEWS talking about the devious Imam Rauf (video clip):
Spencer on Hannity on the Islamic supremacist Ground Zero Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
l
Repeat. The GMZ controversy is not about the GMZ mosque, or even the triumphalist proclamation of Islam on the site of its first North American victory, but an opportunity for keeping Islam preeminent in the public eye. That is always the objective for all Muslims, Always. Obama may backtrack now, but that is not the point. He has succeeded in raising the profile of Islam to the highest international level, which was never there in the first place. He can now withdraw his comments, as his main purpose has been accomplished.
The best way forward is to seize the opportunity that the GMZ proponents have created to raise Islam, and use it to expose the reality of Islam. As they say, “never let a crisis go to waste”.
I’ve been stuck with US TV for the last few days. CNN, CBS (and, of course, Fox) coverage is all pretty much in agreement that Obama has made a huge gaffe here; first of all by getting involved, but then even more by trying to back away from his earlier comments.
Of note, all 3 of these news channels are remarkably (and, for me, surprisingly) even-handed in their questioning and scrutiny of studio guests and interviewees. Many ‘commentators’ clearly have their own view and make this clear – but the news anchors appear neutral and consistent, and the overall news coverage is generally of a much higher standard than the UK equivalents.
… Although it is funny that they all refer to the Pakistan floods as being “of Biblical proportions” – you’d NEVER get that from the beeb!
Has anyone heard anything whatsoever on the BBC that reflects general opinion on all sides in the US that Obama has made a monumental political gaffe by raising the mosque issue to national focus, by appearing to back the mosque and then appearing to back away ? A repeat of his stupid remarks on the black professor and the Harvard policeman, when he dived in without cause or proper thought.
Obama is obviously the dumbest, most out-of-touch President since Carter – if not worse. Plus, Carter always seemed a bit folksy, maybe a bit forgivable, whereas Obama is increasingly seen as an arrogant sourpuss as well as incompetent.
One of the US commentators over the weekend pointed out that the outlook according to the best pollsters is a 202-202 split between the Dems and Republicans on seats in the House that look callable – leaving 31 seats up for grabs, 30 of which are Dem. There could be a bloodbath. The Senate could fall too.
None of this is coming through clearly on the BBC. How are they going to explain away a Dem disaster in November ? Climate warming, maybe ?
The BBC has kept even its own people ignorant about the true nature and weaknesses of Obama. So the Obama-fixation that runs right through the BBC will drift on until the Dem party implodes in November.
At which point most of the BBC’s US staff should be sacked for incompetent reporting. Yeah, sure.
“Obama is obviously the dumbest, most out-of-touch President since Carter – if not worse…”
I was thinking exactly that the other day. I never thought I would live to see the day when an incumbent US President would make Carter look effective. Considering that Obama was marketed as a smart-arse and fawned on by the left as an intellectual, it’s even more remarkable.
He had no executive experience, and no leadership experience where he wasn’t part of a committee or working with someone else. He just might be the most unprepared to govern of any President in history. Executive management experience matters, and this President proves it every day.
And the Leftoids, the sexists and bigots at the BBC, and our old defenders of the indefensible used to constantly whine about Sarah Palin’s alleged lack of experience. Remarkable indeed.
Suffering neither from Bush Derangement Syndrome nor it’s Obama and Palin mutation I would have to say Sarah Palin is unsuitable to elected President for exactly the same reasons that Obama shouldn’t have been elected. She is in many ways ‘the One’s’ mirror image – attractive smoke and little substance.
DP
” . . . no executive experience, and no leadership experience where he wasn’t part of a committee or working with someone else . . “
But but he was a “community organiser”: surely that is sufficient experience. After all, He organised a sinecure for Michelle – on the public payroll natch – which She dumped immediately He got a better job. He also organised it so that His Harvard thesis and birth certificate are not available in the public domain. What can’t He accomplish?
The irony is that Carter and Obama are probably in terms of IQ and academic achievement the smartest US presidents of all time. I guess it’s back to Howard Gardner.
As far as I know, Carter is the only US Pres to have publicly released his IQ score. Obama has degrees in politics and law, while the left’s figure of derision, George Bush, has an MBA in business from Harvard.
JohnW,
It will be because Obama hasn’t been “radical enough”.
The BBC’s excuse if the Dems do badly in November, I mean.
No, whatever goes wrong, it will not be His fault. Blame will always lie elsewhere: racists, radical right-wingers, or – worst of all – the failure of the faithful to believe in Him and work for Him.
Another story you will never read or see on the BBC – the FT has Obama’s number:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8abc1c18-a968-11df-a6f2-00144feabdc0.html
November cannot come soon enough.
I see the original ‘anonymous’ article (probably by Katie Connolly) has been re-written to take into account the criticisms of the planned mosque by Harry Reid (the unpopular Democrat Senate Majority):
Leader):
Reid speaks out against Ground Zero mosque location
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10994421
It’s also dropped some of the worst stuff, as if some BBC editor has gone through it with a red pen, realising that the article’s bias was damagingly obvious.
The first article’s deeply misleading opening paragraph, where it talked of plans “to build a mosque blocks from Ground Zero in New York”, which (just as if you said “miles from Ground Zero”) implies a large number of blocks away so ‘what’s all the fuss about?’, has been replaced by a paragraph that talks of plans “to build it only blocks from Ground Zero in New York.”
Someone must have complained.
Also, the anonymous source from JournOLister-infested Politico and JournOLister pollster Nate Silver have been dropped, as have references to ‘a host of conservative pundits’ & the sly use of a Republican to say “Intellectually, the president may be right.”
The new article though makes sure to mention – twice! – that Reid is in a tight senate race, implying that he’s going against the mosque/community centre purely for personal advantage (which might very well be true!). Not even Harry Reid can be allowed to disrespect the Cordoba Initiative and Barack Obama.
BBC guilty by ommission yet again.
What the BBC doesn’t say is that Reid was silent on the mosque issue and only came out with his statement against building it AFTER he had been challenged to state his position by his Republican opponent who is running for Senate!
How come the armies of BBC journalists can’t find this out and report it?
Nice catch, Craig. Looks like somebody at the BBC is paying attention.
Different Connolly – Kevin of that ilk – was on Toady at about 6:40 this morning reporting on hard times in Luray, Virginia. And yes, times are hard. It seemed a little odd, however, that he didn’t get round to asking what impact Obamster’s $787 billion “stimulus” (aka boondoggle) Federal spending package has had on the economy. In fact he didn’t mention Obama once. Funny, that…..
Yeah funny that eh?
No questions about the Presidents performance and just how ordinary Americans feel about thim and his regime, in fact the change from cynical exploitation of discontent when Bush was in power and the US was going through hard times was clear. In his report we have plucky and optimistic Joe sixpack riding out the storm with an eye to better times and the narrative is nobody is to blame you see, no critisisms and no hard questions about where the money and jobs has gone.
If it had been a republican president then the knives would be out and harsh critisism would be piled on.
In fact Obama was conspicous by his invisibility, the BBC has to protect him just as the journolist toadies do, birds of a feather eh?
e BBC continues to suggest that it is only the Republicans who oppose the mosque. Last figure I saw – 70% of Independents oppose it too. Also – 54% of Democrats oppose. So this is yet another issue where the BBC is flat-out lying.
Dingy Harry Reid will not be the only Dem candidate forced on to the defensive by President Potato-Head’s stupid intervention and backpedalling. It is now suggested that the mosque could become a litmus issue in the forthcoming elections – “are you with the President, or with the broad mass of the people?”.
And once Dem candidates start disowning Obama on the mosque – what else will they disown ? Healthcare ? Carbon tax ? Immigration ? And if they move away from him on policy issues – how can they then back him if they manage to get elected ?
Polling in Pennsylvania, for example, shows a direct correlation between Obama voters now disapproving him and their intentions not to vote Dem this time. It would not now be surprising to see Obama’s approval rartings slip down into the 30%s.
What is really needed in the whole debate is closer scrutiny of the people behind the mosque, something the BBC will deliberately avoid.
Anyway – if the mosque becomes a touchstone issue for the November elections – fine, it will decimate Obama’s party and leave him looking as stupid as in fact he is. Total lack of judgment leading to electoral disaster, could even be worse than 1994. Putting the skids under Obama for the following 2 years.
Also it will show the Muslims involved with the mosque project to be thoroughly nasty pieces of work.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/the-ground-zero-mosque-litmus-test/?cid=bs:archive1
Charles Krauthammer gets it exactly right.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/08/17/krauthammer_obama_alienated_all_sides_with_mosque_comments-comments.html
That is the Krauthammer widely recognised as one of the top political commentators on the right – the Krauthammer the BBC has a virtual veto on. 6 hits on the BBC website in 7 years – no in-depth interviews, just the odd quote.
By contrast here is the long list of in-depth stuff the BBC has taken in just the past year or so from Paul Krugman, as an example :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/paul_krugman
Remarkable, isn’t it? There were more than 6 hits for Krugman just in June 2010 alone!
Is this a foretaste of Katie Connolly’s next ‘Mosque’ piece for the BBC?
GOPer who supported mosque removes post from facebook page (maybe because of nasty comments) http://bit.ly/aufE2t via@hambypCNN about 3 hours ago via Seesmic (tweeted today)
http://twitter.com/katiemconnolly
I can see it now: “Bigoted, un-American Republicans use religious discrimination as campaign platform, force all candidates to toe the Party line or lose all national support.”
Katie apparently thinks the debate is “more nuanced” than the polls show. No, it’s only “nuanced” if you’re on the other side.