If you’re getting your information about the US midterms only from the BBC you are no doubt aware that Republicans are outspending the Democrats by millions of dollars. Yesterday’s report by Katty Kay on campaign funding focused almost entirely on Republican spending (there’s a very brief mention about union support for Democrats, but the thrust of the piece is clear – Republicans and their supporters are trying to buy the election. See short version here, longer version here). When Matt Frei blogged about the subject he name-checked only Republican candidates.
Hang on though, what’s this? Politico, 26 October:
To hear top Democrats tell it, the party is being wildly outgunned this year in the fight for campaign cash as Republicans rely on outside groups to funnel money to GOP contenders.
But the numbers tell a different story.
It’s true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rivals. But the Democrats still have a sizable cash advantage in their party committees – making this year’s elections a lot more of a fair fight than Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let on.
And this? New York Times, 26 October:
Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.
The Times article also points out that Democrat-supporting third party groups have now begun splashing the cash around big-time:
Last week, for example, [America’s Families First Action Fund] spent $362,000 on a television ad attacking Steve Southerland, the Republican challenger to Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida.
None of this fits the BBC’s narrative, therefore it is ignored. They’re not going to let the facts get in the way of their relentless anti-Republican propaganda.
Update. Check out Matt Frei’s chat with Jimmy Carter. Not a single assertion by Carter is challenged. It’s like one of those obsequious 1950s political interviews (“Is there anything you’d like to say to the British people, Minister?”). Pathetic.
you can find endless stories reported on the internet like this one. Why can’t the BBC find them?
ALBANY — It’s good to be a Democrat these days, at least when it comes to raising campaign cash in New York.
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Democrats-ride-money-wave-579169.php
Jimmy Carter hates Israel, the BBC hates Israel – it’s a match made in hell.
A fairly clear case of confirmation bias……reports what he wants to see, not what is. The world of Frei is a objectivity free zone…..he exhibits:
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypothesis regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
And we pay for that through our Licence Fee.
Nice one, DB.
Maybe someone can correct me, but from memory in 2008 I think the Democrats raised and spent more money on campaigning than the Republicans ?
If so, was the extra spending by the Democrats pointed out at every opportunity by the famously impartial, balanced BBC ?
(As I recall, plenty of BBC staff covering the 2008 election seemed to get photographed wearing Obama baseball caps and/or t-shirts — but don’t worry, Helen Boaden insists impartiality is in the Beeboid genetic code)
Not only that, but the Democrats are actually raising more money than the Republicans this time as well. And this doesn’t count the tens of millions George Soros has pumped into MediaMatters, MoveOn.org, and suchlike.
But that doesn’t help the rapport with the US the BBC wants to create for you.
Thank you David — yes, exactly as I thought. BBC US coverage as slanted and deliberately misleading as always
Ah, Jimmy Carter, the second greatest President in US history after Obama. What a man !
No, the BBC loves Bill Clinton more than Carter. Carter is just more useful to a certain facet of their agenda.
The second greatest one-term President in US history.