BBC editors were clearly concerned that their coverage of Christine O’Donnell’s youthful activities wasn’t getting the traffic they hoped, and so for much of yesterday and this morning this was the main news story on the BBC.co.uk front page (h/t Cassandra):
The carefully chosen “cackling” photo is a nice touch, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, yesterday evening this story appeared on the BBC’s website:
Eight people, including the mayor and ex-city manager, have been arrested after a probe into excessive local government pay in Bell, California.
There was outrage earlier this summer after it was revealed that the city manager was being paid almost $800,000 (£500,000).
The others arrested were former and current council members.
The investigation has looked into allegations of voter fraud, corruption, and misuse of public funds.
Nowhere in the article does it mention any party affiliation of the elected officials involved. No prizes for guessing why. (Read More…)
In July the Orange County Register apologised to its readers when it too had failed to identify the party ties of those in the scandal:
In the wake of the Bell salary scandal, our readers noticed one part of the story has been left out by virtually all media sources, including our related editorials and columns: the political party affiliations of the five city council members who not only failed to protect city coffers, but participated in what amounts to shameless, if apparently legal, self-dealing.
All five council members are members of the Democratic Party.
In its defence the Register claimed that Bell voters are represented only by Democrats “in every level of government” but conceded that wasn’t a good enough excuse for ignoring the fact. A local paper thinks it’s wrong not to mention that these were Democrats, but for some reason the BBC – with its worldwide audience unaware of the local political scene – thinks differently.
Would the Beeb have neglected to point out Republican Party membership in similar circumstances? Of course not – it would have been the main thrust of the story. But with Democrats involved we have to adopt Pravda-reading strategies to figure out the full picture.
And I haven’t seen anything about this on the BBC yet either:
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. directed a major political fund-raiser to offer former Gov. Rod Blagojevich millions of dollars in campaign cash in return for an appointment to the U.S. Senate, sources said the fund-raiser has told federal authorities.
Nothing to see here, move along, might deal with it after the midterms.
I think the BBC needs a bigger gene pool. Better yet, a disinfectant.
Surely a mere oversight on the BBC’s part . Unless, of course, you are suggesting the BBC is biased !
Whenever there is a democreep in trouble the beeboids will be there to help, wherever a socialist needs assistance and help the beeboids are on the case.
If you are a democrat there is no end to the help you can get to hide and cover up your crimes and sins and its all financed by the taxslave in the UK.
If you are a right wing republican then watch out because the beeboids are after you, no sin and crime is too small and petty when the beeboids need a story, there is no forgiveness and there is no time limit. The democreeps will root through your bins and they will root htrough your entire life for dirt they can use and when they find that dirt the BBC are ready and waiting for the call to duty.
THE BBC: WE PEDDLE SMEARS AND WE HELP OUR FRIENDS, ITS WHAT WE DO!
The BBC wants you all to focus exclusively on one or two fringe candidates to cover up the fact that the Tea Party movement is doing so well that quite a few Democrats are now actively campaigning against ObamaCare.
Blue Dog Democrats Use Health Care Overhaul as Campaign Punching Bag
Members of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition are railing against the health care bill, and other Democrat-sponsored spending packages, in a bid to highlight their independence from the Washington establishment. In a year when spending is a top voter concern and incumbency can translate to liability, Democrats in moderate-to-conservative districts are using their ads, websites and public appearances to condemn their party’s marquee legislative achievement in the closing weeks of the campaign.
“The majority of the American people are against it. I believe that our nation can’t afford it. And I didn’t vote for it,” Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., told Fox News in reference to the health care bill.
Taylor last week went further than any of his Democratic colleagues in speaking out against the law. He joined dozens of congressional Republicans in calling for a repeal of the package, the first Democrat to do so.
This one candidate from Delaware is practically meaningless in the big picture. Sarah Palin backed more candidates than just O’Donnell, there are quite a few more Tea Party-backed candidates leading the polls in actually important states, and even Democrats are getting the message.
Instead, the BBC is saying, “Look over there! Isn’t that crazy?” They not only don’t actually understand what’s going on in the US right now, but they’re actively working to hide it from you.
Every time you see a BBC report about Christine O’Donnell, just assume that somewhere else in the country a Tea Party candidate is making gains or a Democrat is moving further and further away from being in thrall to The Obamessiah.
The more O’Donnell is demonised, the more people will focus not just on her negatives but also on what she is saying. And they will focus on the record of her fiscally incompetent Marxist opponent
But that’s only a couple hundred thousand people in Delaware. It’s meaningless compared to all the other Tea Party-backed candidates across the country. The rest of the country doesn’t need to care about her, and can’t do anything about it anyways (unless the shade of ACORN buses in a few homeless people, I suppose). Even if 200 million people loathed her, she could still win because only people in Delaware can vote on her. States are at their core individual countries. That’s probably not included in the rapport with the US the BBC wants to create for you.
She doesn’t represent any other candidate anywhere else in the country. Nobody is going to have second thoughts voting for Paladino in New York just because Christine O’Donnoll is a lightweight and confused about sexuality.
What about Marco Rubio for Senate and Rick Scott for Governor in FL, or Jesse Kelly for Representative in AZ, or the candidates for both Senate and Governor in Colorado, or Sharron Angle, who is running against top Kommisar Harry Reid in Nevada? O’Donnell is just one of many, but of course she’s getting the most attention because she has a few…er…special beliefs that make Leftoids freak out.
The media is using her as a will-o’-the-wisp story. Most Beeboids are as bigoted as Justin Webb, so of course she’s going to be this November’s Sarah Palin.
In the end, this type of bias by omission is clearly self-defeating. Omit party affiliation in the US in respect of a report on corruption – you know it’s Democrat: omit religion/race in the UK in respect of a particularly brutal crime – its black/Moslem; omit party/party affiliation in the UK in respect of conspicuous troughing/corruption – it’s Labour (possibly LibDem but only if the LibDem in question is anti-coalition): omit perps in respect of insignifican rocket damage in the Mideast (only one or two Israelis injured/killed) – it’s Hamas/Hezbollah. Even Mrs U, who was a big fan of the BBC and still gets upset by my shouting at the screen during BBC1 News or at the radio during Today, recognises that if the BBC omits a significant aspect of a news item then the BBC is seeking to protect one of its chosen clients.
Not only that, but the BBC omits entire stories to protect their chosen One.
DV / Whoever is Cap’n of this fine ship currently . It strikes me that you should send out an ‘Editors Choice’ daily e-mail, containing your favourite story of bbc bias, copied to the news desks of all the msm papers.
Just in % terms we’re bound to get a few stories used out of 365 !
…and I should have said, it will reinforce our message that there is persistent daily bias.
‘Editor’s Choice’ is a brilliant idea. Also, don’t forget to include IC’s – Interruption Coefficients – and Craig’s other systematic statistical proofs of bias. Maybe we could get them on the Today programme the following day?
Regarding the party affiliation of those California mandarins, apparently municipal officials like this don’t run and aren’t elected on party tickets. Of course they’re all Democrats, but there’s no “D” on the ballot when people vote for them. I don’t think any news services bothered, either, and the BBC just copied and pasted.
What’s great about this incident is that it’s an example of local citizens getting fed up with paying for the lavish lifestyles of the ruling class. As a bonus, they’re not even white, and not associated with any Tea Party organization.
So much for the BBC Narrative that it’s only middle-aged white people who don’t like being oppressed by taxes. Notice there’s no fretting about nasty “anti-government” types in this story. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an astute BBC analyst to make the comparison.
But as Ed Morrisey says they ARE all Dems, and “omitting a common thread among them seems rather suspicious. This appears to be a conspiracy, so why would the media ignore that common thread in its reporting?”
Substantive point – if they’d all been Republicans, regardless of whether it appeared on the ballot, it would have been mentioned by Associated Press, the BBC, and all the rest of the copy n paste merchants.
And the OC Register acknowledges: “On balance, though, party affiliations of elected officials should be noted and easily accessible so voters can make informed decisions about who they elect to public office.”
DB, that’s true, but the real point here is that even people with brown skin can get fed up with Big Government and crushing taxation.
If they were Republicans or had once met Sarah Palin you know the BBC would make it the headline.
Heh. If you follow a God please thank him for, and ask him to bless, Dale Peterson for me.
Maybe I am wrong, but somehow I don’t think Dale will appeal to the BBC folks. He is from flyover country, not their bubble-scene.
Isn’t it lovely when BBC types go walkabout away from Washington, NYC or bankrupt California ? You can hear them squirming.
I noticed that in passing the BBC mentioned that Obama’s administration might be ‘split’ on Afghanistan? (a book by Bob Woodward) really? This has been going on for months yet only now does the BBC sort of gently acknowledge that Barry’s plans for Afghanistan might be at odds with his Generals.
OK Barry, they are just white racists as well. No doubt the BBC will be claiming that the US Generals have been infiltrated by the Tea Party.
Regarding the Christine O’Donnell bit, has anyone seen that Simpson’s episode where Krusty runs for US House of Representatives, and there’s a take on Fox News smearing his opponent? They have his (Krusty’s opponent) photo on with a CCCP flag background, with horns drawn on him and the interviewer refers to him as ‘comrade’ and such.
Well this is a bit like that. Only real.
Hey BBC. You wish you were of the calibre of Fox News. Not only are they better looking, more professional, and smarter than you, but they’re also better journalists. In fact you’re not even journalists. You’re just a bunch of English and Media Studies graduates that McDonalds would have to think long and hard about employing.
Nick Cohen on BBC bias:
How Broadcasting Bias Works (1)
The rigged debate.
I like Nick Cohen. But why does he describe Roger Graef, a filmaker, as an expert on criminal policy ? The BBC puts him on as an “expert” but this is so obviously spurious that any decent editor would have asked for comeone else to be interviewed.
And he’s a Leftoid. How will defenders of the indefensible ever be able to tell us that we only think the BBC is biased because we only want to hear our won opinions now?
I thought this was quite a stunning example of Beeb bias:
“US senators have rejected attempts to open a debate on a bill which included a provision allowing the repeal of the ban on openly gay military personnel.
Just 56 senators voted in favour of debating the defence authorisation bill, four short of the 60 required.
Gay people can serve in the military, but face expulsion if they reveal their sexuality. US President Barack Obama has promised to scrap the policy.
Democrats could still try again later this year to pass the legislation.
Continue reading the main storyRelated storiesUS eases rule on military gay banUS military gay ban ‘should go’A gay fighter pilot faces possible discharge
Reacting to the vote – which split largely along Republican-Democrat party lines – White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: “We’re disappointed at not being able to proceed on the legislation, but we’ll keep trying.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11383753
Erm, don’t the Democrats have a majority in the Senate? You have to read on to discover that in fact a number of Democrats voted against, but the clear implication in the preamble is Republican = homophobe, Democrat = liberated modern thinking people.
woodentop
Shouldn’t the BBC have mentioned that the Democrats tacked this thing on to a vote for military expenditure – a “supply motion” in UK terms to pay for the troops. Harry Reid added this contentious issue, plus the “Dream Act” to give amnesty to about 2 million immigrants. Of course it was blocked. It was a fraud.
Will the BBC report that the Democrats in control of Congress are seeking to adjourn without having a budget ? Because they are scared of revealing even worse fiscal plans.
Can anyone imagine the House of Commons saying – “We don’t want Mr Osborne to have a budget. And even if he has one in policy terms – we do not want it revealed, we do not want to vote on it.
Budget in UK terms is of course the biggest item of the Parliamentary year. 5 days of debates in each House, with votes at the end. Any idea of the ruling party saying “sorry, not yet, let’s wait until after these elections” would cause a riot.
Christine O’Donnell live for 15 minutes, answering the smears that her opponents are putting around. OK it is on Fox – but I would vote for this gal in a heartbeat compared with a Dem Marxist who is afraid to debate the issues with her :
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/21/quotes-of-the-day-460/