Monthly Archives: November 2010

WHO HAS FINLO INVITED TO THE TEA PARTY?

By | | , ,
15 Comments

Just as another (very late on parade) epilogue to David P.’s superb coverage of the American midterm elections, BBC Online‘s post-U.S. midterm election coverage featured some ‘analysis’ by Finlo Rohrer, one of the BBC’s Washington contingent. It makes for a largely downbeat reading for both Tea Party supporters and Republicans alike. In partial explanation of that I want to concentrate on the article’s use of ‘independent experts’, typical of the BBC.

Four academics are called on to access the Tea Party’s impact.
Read more..

They are introduced like this:

“Prof Wendy Schiller, from Brown University.” (She is the chief analyst, and talks of the need for a good-looking, charismatic leader for the Tea Party. She predicts “conflict within the Republican Party.”)

“Jill Lepore, American historian, New Yorker writer and author of The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle over American History.” (A quote from her predicting that the Tea Party could easily become hated is used as a block-quote. She also says the Tea Party movement is likely to be disappointed, however much they “loudly shoot down every measure”.)

“Kate Zernike, author of Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America.” (She says the Tea Party movement is “looking for pretty quick answers” and criticises their unwillingness to compromise.)

“Prof Jay Barth, of Hendrix College.” He comments on the Tea Party’s relationship with the Republican Party, seeing problems particularly for the latter.

Here’s what Finlo Rohrer of the BBC doesn’t tell his readers about his ‘independent experts’:

Prof Schiller, once of the liberal-leaning Brookings Institute, was an assistant to Senator Daniel P. Moynihan (Democrat) and Governor Mario Cuomo (Democrat).

Jill Lepore is deeply hostile to the Tea Party movement, regarding it as “far-right” – as the blurb from her university website reveals:

This book tells the story of the centuries-long struggle over the meaning of the nation’s founding, including the battle waged by the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and evangelical Christians to “take back America.” Jill Lepore, Harvard historian and New Yorker staff writer, offers a wry and bemused look at American history according to the far right. Along the way, she provides rare insight into the eighteenth-century struggle for independence–the real one, that is. Lepore traces the roots of the far right’s reactionary history to the bicentennial in the 1970s, when no one could agree on what story a divided nation should tell about its unruly beginnings. Behind the Tea Party’s Revolution, she argues, lies a nostalgic and even heartbreaking yearning for an imagined past–a time less troubled by ambiguity, strife, and uncertainty–a yearning for an America that never was. The Whites of Their Eyes reveals that the far right has embraced a narrative about America’s founding that is not only a fable but is also, finally, a variety of fundamentalism–anti-intellectual, antihistorical, and dangerously antipluralist.

Kate Zernike of the New York Times is a particular ‘favourite’ of this site’s American equivalent Newsbusters, who justifiably highlight “her obsession with rooting out alleged Tea Party racism”. She is one of the American journalists most hostile to the Tea Party. Finlo Rohrer would surely have known that.

As for Finlo’s final ‘independent expert’, Jay Barth “of Hendrix College”, all Finlo needed to do was pop Jay Barth into an internet service provider to find the first entry titled “Democrat Jay Barth for Senate 2010”. Defenders of the indefensible will surely find it hard to account for a BBC reporter failing to mention that his chosen academic wanted to run for Congress in THIS election for the Democrats (in Arkansas) and yet was his choice to be presented as if he were a non-partisan commentator on Tea Party-Republican Party relations.

So, four ‘experts’, all unfriendly to the Tea Party, as anyone with access to the internet could easily discover, and yet all invited to ‘analyse’ the Tea Party for a single BBC article – without any deeply relevant background information being provided.

Finlo Rohrer is clearly a worthy companion-in-bias for every-JournOLister’s friend Katie Connolly, Obama 2008 campaigner Matt Danzico, ex-Guardian Palin-mocker Daniel Nasaw, Iain MacKenzie and all the rest of the impartiality-adverse BBC Washington crew.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

HAGUE THE HOPELESS

By | |
13 Comments

I listened to William Hague interviewed on the Marr programme and, to be honest I cringed at his evasions and ameliorations. This man is not a Conservative as I recognise it. To think that the Conservative Party will ever tackle the BBC hegemony is pure folly.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

RE-WRITING THE HISTORY BOOKS…

By | |
19 Comments

I am so busy that sometimes I don’t get the time to read all that you folks write here on the topic of BBC bias but I came across this and wanted to share more broadly. It’s by Biased BBC reader Dave S and you should all give it a read;

Without any hope of enlightenment I listened to the “debate” on BBC Radio4 on immigration at 10.15pm. 

Pointless apart from Douglas Murray attempting to try to move the debate into the real world and being ignored.  I suppose the BBC thought it was being bold by discussing a matter usually well off limits. What I did glean from the vapid drivel spouted was that;

1. Immigration is primarily an economic matter and what is good for GB PLC is by definition good for us all. 

2. That England Wales and Scotland do not and have never really existed let alone possess indigineous peoples and very defined and particular cultures. Apparently Britain is a place on the world’s surface unique in not possessing ,or allowed to possess, a defined culture created by the flow of generations. It is now always year one of the libbie dream state. 

3. We have no history other than that the libbies deem “appropriate” and following from that we can safely ignore any achievements of our past generations that might lead us to maintain a sense of identity and pride in ourselves. 

Be tolerant or else was the message and anyway you can’t do anything about it. 

I wonder how the dull monocultural country they castigated that was old England ever managed to make such a mark in the world for so many centuries? No doubt when they have rewritten the history books I will learn the truth.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Journo Wars

By | |
22 Comments

We’ve been despairing over the BBC’s Middle East reporting for donkey’s years, but it’s still pretty shocking to read what Israel’s outgoing press officer Danny Seaman has to say about the difficulties of dealing with both foreign and home-grown journalists.(Hat tip Elder of Ziyon)

Woe betide an outsider who joins in criticism of a beloved family member, because the same words assume a different cloak when the critic lacks intimacy, understanding or underlying affection for the subject.
However much one may deplore our current society’s mad morals or the leniency of our judiciary, running off to complain about these things to a bunch of hostile individuals who are vigorously pushing for Sharia or the end of democracy would not be the wisest move. Similarly, Israeli journalists should realise that criticisms suitable for internal debate turn toxic when picked up by ill-intentioned outsiders.

Too many left-wing Israelis, particularly recent émigrés from the UK, ferret out weaknesses in their new country and present impassioned articles to UK newspapers like the Guardian, which are on permanent standby, like a pack of vultures, ready willing and able to exploit every last drop. Much as both parties might like to pretend they are working for some greater good, the media’s misplaced moral posturing and the journalists’ betrayal simply amounts to malevolent meddling.
But worst of all is the foreign press. The sad fact is that reporters nowadays are basically ill-informed. They come with preconceived ideas, and are resistant to curiosity or objectivity. They know what story is required, and they are there to provide it. If they did not do so, their editors would find someone else who did.
Danny Seaman:

“Part of my problem with the foreign press – and I’ve been accused of being combative and feisty in fighting them – is that you have journalists coming in here not having the faintest idea of what is going on.”

“The narrative has shifted. They’ll adopt the Palestinian narrative. That has become the bon ton. They’ll talk about “the Palestinian right of return.” There is no such thing. They talk about what the Palestinians call “Israel’s violations of Oslo.” What exactly are they talking about? They have no knowledge about the facts.”

Israel has made many blunders in its dealings with the foreign press, and most of all this has resulted in allowing the Palestinians to triumph in the propaganda war. Anyone who doubts this should read “The Other War.” by Stephanie Gutmann. Reporters themselves and their bosses back home have already made up their minds whose word to believe and whose word to surround with scare quotes.

This could have been aimed specifically at the BBC:

“The media outfits that employ them are giving them automatic backing. And when the media doesn’t exercise its checks and balances, they’re failing in their job.”
…Israel is always active. Other things just “happen.” Missiles “rain down” on Israel. But where Israel is concerned, and I’m quoting from some media reports, they even adopt Nazi terminology: “Israel’s blitzkrieg.”

Always using negatives and very aggressive terms.

“By contrast, the suffering Israel endures is always caused by some obscure [force]. It’s never quite clear what’s happening, and who is responsible. The number of ways that Israel is depicted negatively is, astoundingly, much greater than with Hizbullah. Hizbullah is a terrorist organization! It is considered so by every country in the world, including the United Nations. [Yet I found foreign media] to be taking their word, their narrative as fact.”

Lazy, ill-informed journalists regurgitate myths and lies. The BBC was once regarded as the world’s most respected news organ, today’s BBC rests on those laurels.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC Mid-Term Election Epilogue

By | | , , , , , ,
11 Comments

Check out this election wrap-up by Matt Frei and Katty Kay, who co-anchored the BBC’s coverage of the second-most important election in human history. Their bias is there for all to see. Frei’s personal bias and unwavering support for the President gets even more outrageous in his blog post.

Their first point is about all the money spent on the campaign. I completely agree – as do most people in the US – that it’s gotten ridiculous, but Matty and Katty reveal their political bias here. The only names mentioned in association with high spending are Republican multi-millionaires who spent their own cash, both of whom lost their races. Katty calls this “divine retribution”, although Matty quickly corrects her editorializing. But two things are missing from their comments.

Ted Koppel actually pointed out to Katty on Tuesday night when she was whining about this issue that her comparison to British elections are completely unfair because the campaigns are of drastically different lengths. British general elections go for a few weeks, while the US production can start as early as anyone likes and seems to go on for 18 months at least these days. I don’t like it any more than Katty does, but that’s how it is. Then there are the dramatic differences in both geography and media outlets. Several states are larger than the entire area of the UK. Statewide candidates (for Governor and Senator) have a huge amount of ground to cover, and in some states have a large number of local media outlets to hit and local newspapers in which to buy a seemingly endless stream of full-page ads. This would cost far more money that the UK spends even if the election campaigns lasted the same amount of time. So they’re making a completely false analogy.

Secondly, notice that Matty and Katty do not mention the tens of millions George Soros spent on his pet organizations, nor the fact that Comedy Central donated several hours of free air time and got sponsors to spend a huge amount of cash on St. Jon Stewart’s “March to Restore Smugness”. Which seems to have been an epic fail on a much larger scale than any individual race. But the BBC has been totally silent on that, as it confuses the Narrative.

When Matty and Katty fret about gridlock, notice that Katty is concerned only that there will be no progress on her pet issues towards the Left. When she talks about making progress on the issues of energy and climate change, she is of course not concerned about progess in a non-Left direction.

Both Beeboids speak with great sympathy for the President, which really goes beyond analysis betrays their personal emotions. At one point, Frei tells the same lie he puts forth in his blog post, that the President is always admitting His mistakes and taking responsibility. In fact, his blog post opens with this:

President Obama is no stranger to contrition. At the beginning of his term, he didn’t shy away from saying that he had messed up, screwed up, made mistakes and so on. But he was apologising about the small stuff from a position of supreme confidence. The buck stops with me, he was fond of saying serenely, confident that the buck wouldn’t give him too much trouble.

Oh, really? Let’s remind ourselves of certain things the BBC censored from their reporting.

When it became glaringly obvious that the public was not happy with what ObamaCare was going to do to the country, the President took the same line of defense that the BBC and the EU mandarins took when the Irish voted against Lisbon: they just don’t understand it well enough. When the President accepted blame for people being upset, He said that it was His fault for not explaining it well enough. This isn’t the same thing as admitting an actual mistake. We heard the same thing from Him during His audience with St. Jon Stewart two weeks ago.

As recently as Sunday, the President was singing the same song:

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

This is not the talk of a man capable of contrition, nor of one who will feel “chastened” by the election results.

In fact, any time there has been a mistake with His Administration, His first instinct is to blame someone else. Problems with the clean-up effort for the BP oil spill? Distract by blaming Bush for it in the first place. People unhappy with the Stimulus? Blame Republicans for not letting Him spend even more money. Caught up in a controversy over a criminal act by the Governor in His home state? Lie and say He hasn’t been involved. Air Force One causes an outcry by buzzing lower Manhattan near Ground Zero just to please a few wealthy donors? Blame somebody else. Can’t get every single bit of legislation rammed through Congress fast enough? Don’t admit it’s a mistake to be so impetuous at a crucial time: blame Fox News instead.

Where’s the contrition? Where’s the willingness to admit mistakes? It doesn’t exist. Matt Frei still has such huge respect for Him that he just imagines it does.

As for Matty and Katty fretting over gridlock in Washington, Katty does just barely admit that the President “doesn’t find it very easy to reach out to the other side”. Where were you in 2008, Katty? Oh, that’s right – back then the BBC was telling us that He was going to be bi-partisan and end the awful politics of Washington.

Instead, immediately after the taking office, the President was in a meeting with Republican leadership about His Stimulus Plans for Us. When Republicans complained about it, He dismissed them by saying, “I won”. This is not the attitude of someone willing to work together with anyone. But the BBC censored that news.

I guess Katty Kay should have encouraged her colleagues to take her own advice and not placed the President on a pedestal, as doing so makes it very difficult to report when He gets things wrong.

She didn’t say it in this clip, but on Tuesday night Katty couldn’t shut up about the one person not holding or running for any office: Sarah Palin. Here’s a little something from Katty herself which reveals her struggle with Palin Derangement Syndrome:

‘Katty, tell me they think Palin’s crazy’

In the blog post itself, Matt Frei still gets it wrong about the President’s efforts in closing Guantanamo Bay.

On day one, President Obama signed the bill to shut down Guantanamo Bay, using his left hand. “Get used to it!” he said. “I am a lefty.”

Wrong. It wasn’t a bill, but an Executive Order. Frei actually was closer to the truth in his Diary post from the time, when he said that the President expressed his “intention to close” Guantanamo within one year “with a flick of a pen”. Of course, we all know how well that’s working out for Him.

Frei also claims that, during the transition period before taking office, the President assembled His team “in a flash”. Also not true. Even the Washington Post was worried about how long it was taking Him, more than a month after He took office. I may make a mistake or misremember something I should have checked, but I’m not paid 100 grand a year to do this, nor do I have any research staff to help me.

This is the bias anchoring BBC World News America every night of the week, from the people whom you are expected to trust for news on US issues.

BBC:You Know Palin’s Latest Video Shows She’s Still Shallow But Oh So Cunning..

By | | ,
13 Comments

Of course there is an element of snark in this BBC piece on the latest Palin video but there is also a reluctant admission

It is one minute and nine seconds of pure advertising genius – a dazzling calling card from the woman who, most now agree, wants to be president.

The writer, Paul Adams, is naturally sniffy about the imagery, calling it “political bromide”. That had me laughing into my morning cuppa as I recalled the hours of relentless left/liberal twaddle pumped out by the beeb, not to mention those 2008 Obama hopey/changey speeches (available in a discount bin near you…)

You know that within what would be described as the “brain” of Adams the BBC chip is frantically signalling the official media elite line on Palin – irrelevant, ignorant, shallow – and the stock phrases come out

“an apparent rainbow coalition of candidates favoured by Ms Palin” (she’s really a racist)
“a populist jab at Washington politics.” (she’s appealing to the great unwashed of America)
“a shameless reference to the most famous three words ever uttered by the man who once made everyone feel good, Ronald Reagan.” (she’ll milk anything to make a point)

But the chip is sometimes suppressed by vestiges of his pre-programmed mind

We’re going to get back to the time-tested truths that made this country great,” she says.
These, Sarah Palin seems to be saying, are my people. My coalition. Not just the honest, hard-working, flag-waving Americans seen throughout, but the candidates just elected to office on a wave of Tea Party fervour – and all those pictured celebrating on election night.
The true brilliance, apart from the sheer speed with which the piece was put together, lies in an apparent rainbow coalition of candidates favoured by Ms Palin – Latinos, Marco Rubio in Florida and Susana Martinez in New Mexico; African Americans, Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina and an Indian American, Nikki Hayley in South Carolina.
It’s a collection of faces clearly designed to puncture the Tea Party’s images as solidly white.

In actual fact I think that Adams has been embedded with the MK II PDS chip now emanating from Washington and obviously delivered to the comrades at the BBC. For the MSM she remains, of course, essentially vapid, ignorant and devoid of ideas but she is no longer stupid. If you read between the lines of the Adams article the message coming out is that she is cunning – or, as Blackadder once said “As cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University”

They still want to bring her down but time has taught them to extremely wary of her which, in a way, is a mark of respect for her power.

Strange conduct indeed for people who claim to see a Palin candidacy as a surefire conduit towards Obama’s re-election…..

cross posted at The Aged P

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

TEA PARTY ARE RACISTS?

By | |
26 Comments

Anyone catch moonbat Amanda Foreman on with Brillo Pad on “This Week” last night? I was impressed by the utter delusionalism of her analysis of the US Mid-terms and one can understand WHY the BBC lined her up. With Jacqui Smith and Portillo lining up to mostly agree with Foreman, we had the BBC view manifest. Obama won, the Tea Party lost. All is well. You couldn’t make it up

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.