Sometimes The BBC Doesn’t Censor News From The US – When It’s An Approved Thought

Most people here will be well aware that the BBC censored news of the beginnings of the Tea Party movement in the US for about two months before the reality of nationwide, simultaneous protests on April 15, involving hundreds of thousands of people, forced them to report it. I first mentioned the issue on an open thread here back on Feb. 19, 2009, even before anyone started calling them “tea parties”. They were anti-tax protests first and always. And even when the BBC at last reported it, Kevin Connolly worked to discredit the participants by hinting at dark forces behind it, suggesting that this was not, in fact, an independent, spontaneous grassroots movement. Connolly went further than that, and highlighted the skin color of the majority of participants, implying a racist element behind the motivation of the people involved.

And then, of course, he insulted all of us with a sexual innuendo, which remains on the BBC website to this day.

After that, the BBC again ignored the growing movement, and refused to acknowledge its success in affecting local issues and elections, until Scott Brown surprised them. At that point, the BBC occasionally acknowledged the existence of the Tea Party movement, but – with the lone exception of one video report by Katty Kay – their reports were uniformly negative, suggested racism, and tried to portray extreme fringe elements as representative of the entire movement. You all heard about Christine O’Donnell nearly every day for weeks and weeks, yet during the campaign the BBC censored any mention of Col. Allen West until a few days before the election. Even Katty’s report from January focused on “anger”, and the majority of BBC reports at the time were full of quips about “boiling anger” and whatnot. Anger is okay when it’s against things the Beeboids don’t like, but not when it’s against their beloved Obamessiah.

The BBC’s censorship and subsequent attempts to minimize the impact of the Tea Party movement in the minds of their audience got so bad that it led to Emily Maitlis declaring during the BBC’s coverage on the night of the recent mid-term elections that the Tea Party movement had “come out of nowhere”. Only to those who trusted the BBC for their news on US issues, dear. The link to Katty Kay’s report from Jan. 2010 refers to the Tea Party movement as “new” (fourth one down), even though it was nearly a year old by then and had had some political success. I’m sure most here will remember just how biased and negative their reporting was during the weeks before the election. They spent more time looking for racists under the bed than covering the issues at hand.

In stark contrast, the BBC wasted no time at all in enthusiastically reporting an alleged grassroots anti-Tea Party movement calling itself the “Coffee Party”. Contrary to the BBC’s portrayal as an innocent group of people, it was in fact started by a former New York Times hack and dedicated campaigner for The Obamessiah’s Presidential bid, who used her media connections to gain support and hype. Hardly the grassroots darlings the BBC wanted you to believe they were. The article also quoted one of her own colleagues in support, even though that colleague was well aware of the Coffee Party’s partisan makeup. Of course, Kate Zernicke was quoted because she had written a partisan hit book about the Tea Party movement.

Still, the BBC reported the existence of the movement within days of its launch. However, as the movement was not in fact a genuine grassroots movement and was merely yet another partisan group competing for the attention of loyal Democrats and far-Left activists, it was more or less stillborn, and went nowhere. The BBC’s utter silence on the Coffee Party after that initial glowing report is testament to how useless it was, for if there was even one tiny success the BBC surely would have reported it with equal vigor.

Now there’s another non-partisan group, calling themselves “No Labels”. There was a forum held in New York City on Monday, presenting itself as a non-partisan group of people dedicated to reaching across the aisle and “working together”. The BBC, of course, sent Katty Kay to cover it, and set about informing you immediately, declaring the group’s desire to reduce partisanship for the common good. Once again their editorial double standard is revealed.

Funny how this notion that we should stop the partisanship and work together for the common good is exactly what St. Jon Stewart wanted with his “Rally to Restore Smugness”, for which the BBC gave prominent and favorable coverage when it happened (but remained completely silent after it clearly didn’t have the effect they’d hoped). And funny how suddenly everyone wants to work together now that the Democrat President is in trouble. Where were all these people a few years ago? No, it’s only good to work together when it benefits the Left, which is why the BBC immediately reported this as a true movement for bi-partisan happiness.

Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know:

The BBC website article says the founder is Mark McKinnon, “Republican consultant”. In fact, it was founded by political consultants from both sides, including former finance director of the Democratic National Committee Nancy Jacobson, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s failed Presidential bid. Oh, and that Republican guy worked for Bush and on McCain’s campaign, but dropped out of working on campaigns in 2008 because he didn’t “want to work against an Obama Presidency”.

So the truth is that both founders want to support the Democrat way. The BBC censored not only McKinnon’s support for Him, but also censored the fact that someone besides a Republican founded and came up with the idea for the group.

Without these key pieces of information, the BBC audience has no idea that this might be anything other than an actual bi-partisan group. Something else the BBC decided you didn’t need to know was that the discussion panels were moderated by MSNBC talking heads. MSNBC is a dedicated opponent of the Tea Party movement and its prime-time stars are as hyper-partisan as it gets. But hiding this information allows the BBC to present the “No Labels” event as something other than what it actually is. And nowhere does a single one of the many astute BBC correspondents in the US dare suggest that this sudden desire for bi-partisanship has anything to do with supporting a Democrat President. Oh, and they also misrepresented Mayor Bloomberg’s political leanings. He’s a life-long Democrat who switched to Republican for his first run for mayor (no bribing of Democrat Brooklyn and Queens leaders required), and then declared himself Independent recently when he went back on his promise and against the will of the people and ran for a third term. He’s only non-partisan in that he stands for himself and his own desire to create a legacy for himself more than for any political party.

Katty actually talks to Joe Scarborough, but does not mention his MSNBC association. One positive point here: she allows him to speak of his disappointment that the President is more partisan than we were made to believe. He admits that he initially bought into the Hope and Change™, so not much of a Republican these days. Oh, but that point is deducted right away because this is followed by a statement by the President about His desire to work together. Whew! A narrow escape, there. The BBC almost let a tiny criticism of Him slip through unchallenged.

Naturally, Katty Kay takes time in the accompanying video report to remind everyone of the “angry, energetic extremes of the Tea Party movement” (guess whose name appears on the signs her editor chose to put in at that moment), and that “the point” here is to be lovely and work together. She’s clearly advocating for a cause here. None of the “activists” she speaks to are identified, yet they all share the dream of working together to advance the President’s agenda, “for the good of the country”. Why aren’t any of them named and affiliations displayed on screen, I wonder?

But guess what? The Tea Party movement is also made up of not only Republicans but a healthy percentage of Democrats, and Independents. As many as four in ten, as it happens. Tea Party groups even backed a few Democrats in the election. The BBC never told you about any of that, did they? No, because the Tea Party movement stands for fiscal conservatism, and against the President’s and Democrat leadership’s massive tax and spending policies, policies which the BBC supports.

The BBC censors news they don’t like, and then works to discredit the people involved when reality forces them to report it, while eagerly and immediately announcing it when people hold approved thoughts. All at your expense.

Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.

Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Sometimes The BBC Doesn’t Censor News From The US – When It’s An Approved Thought

  1. John Anderson says:

    As you say – one can never, never trust the BBC reporting on US issues.  They are a busted flush,  the whole damn lot of them.


  2. D B says:

    I’ve already tweeted Katty a couple of questions about her No Labels report. As usual, I’m not expecting a reply.


  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Apparenlty the “No Labels” people aren’t even honest or clever enough to come up with their own designs.  They stole their t-shirt logo from a Brooklyn artist.

    Compare and contrast…or not…artwork by Thomas Porostocky published in 2005 with the “No Labels” t-shirt.


    • deegee says:

      I like Thomas Porostocky’s responseHe said, “To be honest with you, I’m pretty surprised that something like this was even attempted considering their relatively high profile. It’s just an extremely lazy and careless way to launch your organization. There’s no need to rip people off when there are plenty out there who are willing to work with you legitimately.”


  4. dave s says:

    A very clear and convincing post. All I can add is that the hive mindset of the BBC reporters is such that they are literally unable to understand any events that are in conflict with their preferred narrative. They cannot see what is in plain sight to the rest of us. This makes for the bad reporting that you point out.
    Unless the BBC can somehow recruit real independent minded reporters then as a news organisation it is doomed. The internet age has no use for these blinkered second raters.


  5. Craig says:

    Impressive piece David.  
    You might be intrugued to discover (if you don’t already know) that one of the so-called citizen leaders of No Labels is Daisy Khan, wife of Feisal Abdul Rauf of Ground Zero Mosque fame.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I had no idea, Craig.  Good catch.  I’m shocked, shocked to learn that she’s involved in this curiously-timed movement for non-partisan togetherness.


  6. Jim Hanson says:

    You mention Bloomberg. There’s more than a passing suspicion among some people in the U.S. that the no Labels group is just an organization around which he could try to build the third party run in 2012.

    If what you say about Katty is true (I’m an American and don’t watch the BBC, just read this site because you aare an entertaining lot of commenters) that’s pretty funny, because the we all know the republicans and Democrats are going to be in their usual back alley knife fight, so Bloomberg is just trying to set the stage where he could swipe Obama’s post-partisan schtck for his own Presidential challenge.

    Regardless, considering the number of partisan attacks the creattors of No Labels have left in the record to date, they don’t pass the laugh test. Soon they’ll be battling with the Coffee Party folks over a broom closet hold their National Convention in.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      “If” what I say is true?  I’ve provided a direct link to the page with the dishonest summary article and her video report on this “No Labels” noise, as well as to her earlier report about the Tea Party movement.  You can read, watch. and judge for yourself.

      I don’t think Bloomberg is going to run for President.  I know he’s considered it for a long time (and why wouldn’t he, really). But I think he chose instead to buy a third term in NYC because that was a much surer and more cost-efficient way to leave his legacy than the insane crap-shoot that a Presidential run would be for a short Jew with a squeaky voice.  
      I’m very pleased that he did much to straighten out the city’s finances after losing so much after 9/11, and a few public services, but he should have walked away after his legal and promised limit of two terms.  If a billionaire conservative had used his wealth and influence to fix the rules and buy a third term, the BBC would never be portraying him as an independent poster boy.  They’d tack more qualifiers on him than there are days in the week.  
      When it comes to the national issues of the day, he’s got very clear positions, so it’s pretty pathetic to portray him as a bastion of reaching across the aisle.  He’s just like the rest of them:  let’s reach across the aisle so we can achieve my specific agenda, not yours.  
      But I think you raise a valid concern that at least someone on the Left might like to harness this non-partisan trip for a run in 2012.  If nothing else, it’s a good media weapon agianst the Tea Party people.  “We’re really the ones who want what’s best for this country, not these angry extremists”, etc.  
      Having said all that, even if you’re a United Statesian living in the US (like myself), the BBC is harmful to you.  BBC World News America, featuring the sneeringly partisan Matt Frei, the loudly partisan Katty Kay, and the witless partisan Mark Mardell, is on BBC America every weeknight, and includes plenty of biased broadcasting borrowed from BBC News in Britain.  You can watch that through most cable or satellite providers.  
      Worse, the BBC influences the minds of the British public, our greatest allies on the planet.  They cause harm to that relationship by poisining the minds of the public in certain directions.  You should be concerned.  I wouldn’t necessarily recommend that you start watching, as that could be bad for your blood pressure.


      • Jim Hanson says:


        I think you misunderstood the beginning of my post, I wasn’t questioning what you said, I was just pointing out that I rarely watch the BBC and wasn’t familiar with the woman.

        From the little I’ve watched BBC news (it’s on cable), and from the discussions I’ve read in here, I’m aware of the fact that they just air tedious leftist flapdoodle. Frankly, I’m not too worried about their influence in the States since nobody watches their news (if I’m not mistaken, they’ve had to cancel several of their newscasts and are endlessly tinkering with what remains trying to get their audiance within shouting distance of MSNBC). To be honest, in the States I worry far, far more about Univision’s reach than the BBC.

        I do agree that their influence on the British public is of concern to Americans. 

        As for Bloomberg, yes he’s likely not to run, but if he decides that Obama is dead in the water and the republicans pick an iffy candidate he may just decide its all the window he’ll ever get.


        • Roland Deschain says:

          tedious leftist flapdoodle“.  What a wonderful phrase.  I must slip that into a conversation some time!


          • Millie Tant says:

            Yes, I love JH’s punchy style with its American idiom and wonderful turns of speech.


        • John Anderson says:

          It sounds as though the BBC reaches a pitiful level of audience in the US.

          So how is this lunacy being paid for ?


          • Millie Tant says:

            On the subject of lunacy, have you see how Frei Boy has described what they are doing with their news programme in America? Some high-flown nonsense from the pompous twit about American rapport with the rest of the world. Funnily enough, I always thought that was the responsibility of Americans. Is Matty Boy now in charge?  Who elected him to this grand position of responsibility for American foreign affairs?


            • David Preiser (USA) says:

              I’m well aware of Frei’s BBC mission statement. He was talking about the website as much as anything else.  I got the impression at the time that he was a little put out that he had to stoop so low as to try to blog daily as opposed to weekly. I assume he was also referring to the hiring of JournoList groupie Katie Connolly and the subsequent recruiting of several Democrat activists to provide all the great content for the website we’ve seen, such as Franz Strasser’s dishonest celebration of immigrants, all those wonderful pictures of Christine O’Donnell (and almost no other Tea Party-backed candidates), and more timely celebrity gossip.

              Here’s the salient part of his statement (emphases are mine):

              So as we re-launch our BBC News website I will throw myself into the gushing maelstrom of a daily blog, updated at meal-times.

              Its mission will be not dissimilar to the mission of BBC World News America.

              We will try to create a connection, an understanding, a rapport between the world’s most powerful country and everyone else.

              As a friendly broadcaster with global tentacles, the BBC is perhaps in a unique position to connect those global dots.

              For better or for worse my job will be to facilitate this.

              It means recalibrating my mind to think, frequently, in short nugatory bursts. This should be no problem for someone suffering, as I do, from PDD, patience deficit disorder.

              I’ll also be pointing you toward videos, articles and analysis that we think you’ll find intriguing.

              And needless to say all these offerings will be part of a “conversation” between you and me.

              They actually think they’re going to be the gatekeepers between the US and the rest of the f@#$ing planet.  Dangerous on so many levels.

              Anybody see the words “inform” or “facts”?  They are story-tellers, not journalists.


              • John Anderson says:

                Matt Frei says he will be thinking in short nugatory bursts.

                Nugatory means “of little or no importance, trifling, having no force,  invalid,  of no value, to no purpose, futile”.

                That about sums up the quality of journalism from BBC US staff.


                • Millie Tant says:

                  I know. I laughed when I read that para. In fact, at first I thought that David P had made up by way of satire! Then I realised that it must be an actual Frei Boy piece, given his peculiar way with prose. Nugatory bursts. Who else would think that or write that? Then, if they are nugatory, it wouldn’t be sensible programming your mind to do them. They would be better not done at all. 


                  • John Anderson says:

                    Do you think Matt Frei realises what a pompous fool he seems to be  ?

                    He is obviously oblivious to his bias.

                    Because it is in his genes ?


                    • David Preiser (USA) says:

                      He thinks he’s being light-hearted and irreverent.  I’ve been called pompous on more than one occasion, but I’m aware of my bias.  It’s one of the techniques for slipping in personal opinions.  Almost all the Beeboid bloggers do it.  “It’s only a joke, not serious, can’t quote me or prove that it transfers to my reporting.”


  7. D B says:

    Yep, there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s wearing a sundress.
    Sorry: “No labels” may be the most un-American thing since soccer.
    Telling us they “will establish lines no one should cross?” A bunch of media hacks telling the rest of us that we are “on notice?”
    To that I say “Ha.” Followed by “Ha Ha.”

    I do like Greg Guttfeld.


  8. Cassandra King says:

    Brilliant post David!

    The BBC jas become a news filter, I see an organisation determined and desperate to fabricate the illusion of news from the bits and pieces its censors allow trough the news room editing suite.

    Its like watching a heavily edited for TV 18 film when you have seen the original. You can clearly notice the missing content and can only wonder at the mindset of the beeboid swine who think nobody will notice.

    Letters from America? David P has become our correspondent from across the pond 😀


  9. David Jones says:

    Excellent post. Could we not have the “like” option attached to the main post as well as the comments? I don’t want to rate posts but it would be a way to show appreciation for good thought and a lot of effort.


  10. Beeboidal says:

    Seeing that Katty got an interview with Joe Scarborough, I wonder if she quizzed him on the matter of top Democrats believing that Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. If she did, I’m sure it was for her own personal curiosity. It will not feature in any of Katty or the BBC’s future output.


    • John Anderson says:

      A couple of days ago,  when commenting on the federal judge’s decision that the mandating proivisions in ObamaCare are unconstitutional as the Commerce Clause gives no such power to federal government – Joe Scarborough (on his programme on leftie MSNBC) asked – “why in this sort of decision that has gone against the liberals  is it always mentioned that the judge was a Bush or Reagan appointee ?   We never hear reference to judges being Clinton appointees if a decision goes in favour of a liberal cause.”


  11. Craig says:

    Trawling through the list of the 74 Citizen leaders of No Labels suggests that the ‘movement’ is largely a Democrat supporters affair, contrary to how it’s being presented – especially by a BBC article that leads who to think that its main founder is a Republican.

    More than half of them (44/74) are Democrat donors, many for Obama or Hillary Clinton. A significant subset of these are also Democrat politicians/activists, and so are a further 5 out of the list of 74. Intriguingly, there are a surprising number of Clintonites in that list.  

    Conversely, only 8 out of the 74 are Republican donors (one a Democrat politician) – and three of those donate to a good number of Democrats but to only one Republican. Only two are just Republican donors.  Of the small number of Republicans on the list, some – such as Brink Lindsey and Mickey Edwards, an ex-Congressman – openly voted for Obama in 2008.

    So of the 74 Citizen Leaders of No Labels, some two-thirds are indentifiable as Democrat supporters. The Republicans and Independents are swamped by them.

    Reading through the short bios on the No Labels website, little of this would be guessed. A few hours of Googling and the use of the Huff Post’s invaluable Fundrace Database are all that’s needed though to cast this project in a somewhat different light – a light that seems to bear out the suspicions David has about this so-called bi-partisan citizens group.

    Presumably the MSM and those beeboids in Washington have also been busy ferreting out all this background information. If not, why not?


  12. Craig says:

    Here is the full list, with some additional information about those who Googling shows to have political sympathies. (The two in brackets are in brackets because you probably shouldn’t deduce a woman’s voting habits from her husband’s donations – so I haven’t!)

    Adam Mendelson, Deputy Chief of Staff for California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
    Adele Wick (her husband clinton Frederick Miller donated $3,300 to Obama)
    Alan Rudy, $600 donation to Obama
    Andrei Cherny, aide in the Clinton White House, donations to Democratic candidates in Arizona
    Andrés Martinez
    Anne-Marie Fowler
    Anthony Pratkanis, $50 & $881 donations to Hillary Clinton
    Binta Niambi Brown, former advisor to Hillary Clinton, large number of donations to Hillary and her campaign
    Bob Bixby
    Bob Franken
    Brad Hirschfield
    Brian Clarke, $500 donation to Democrat Mark Pera
    Brink Lindsey, registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008
    Brook Byers, large number of donations to Democrats, including £30,400 to Democratic Congressional Campgain, and two donations of £2,300 to Obama
    Cal Dooley, former Democrat representative (donations to Democrats but has made some donations to Republican candidates too)
    Cari Shane Parven, (Huff Post regular, her husband Scott is a regular donor to Democrat candidates)
    Cynthia Drew, donation of $2,281 to Hillary Clinton
    Daisy Khan, wife of the imam behind the Ground Zero Mosque
    Dan Esty, donation of $2,300 to Obama
    David DesRosiers, policy advisor to Mayor Bloomberg, $2,300 donation to Rudy Giuliani,
    Don Baer, White House Director of Strategic Planning and Communications for Bill Clinton, $4,600 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Dr Debra Hauser, Democrat candidate in Connecticut, $7,900 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Dr. Zenon Christodoulou, $1,000 to Joe Biden, $2,000 to Hillary Clinton
    Emanuel Pleitez, Designated Federal Officer of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, $4,710 donation to Obama, £2,300 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Erin Vilardi
    Eugene Steuerle, advisor to the President Obama’s debt commission
    Fred Duval, deputy campaign manager Clinton/Gore 96, $2,000 donations to Harry Reid, $500 to Obama
    Gary Shapiro, some donations to Republicans, some to Democrats
    James P. Pinkerton, domestic policy aide in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses, Mick Huckabee advisor
    Jane Hoffman, Democrat candidate for Lieutenant Governor of NY,$1,000 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Janne Nolan, $500 to Obama,$500 to Hillary Clinton
    Jerry Howe
    Jim Kessler, Policy Director to Democrat congressman Chuck Schumer, 6 donations to Democrats, including $226 to Hillary Clinton
    Joel Klein, several high legal position under Clinton, Bloomberg official, 4 donations to Democrat candidates
    John Graham, 19 donations to Democrat candidates
    Jonathan Crane, domestic policy adviser to Al Gore, $2,297 donation to Obama
    Jun H. Choi, former Democrat Mayor of Edison, NJ, 2 donations to Democrat candidates
    Karen Hardee, active volunteer for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, $4,650 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Kenneth R. Weinstein, $400 donation to McCain
    Kevin A. Freeman
    Laura Cartwright Hardy
    Len Kennedy, $2,300 donation to Obama
    Linda Bilmes, various posts in the Clinton administration, $2,300 donation to Obama
    Loranne Ausley, Florida Democratic candidate, $5,100 donataion to Obama


  13. Craig says:

    Marie C. Wilson, $1,500 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Mark Nunnelly, $2,300 donation to Obama
    Mark R. Yzaguirre, $4,600 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Matt Miller, senior advisor in the Clinton White House
    Mickey Edwards, ex-Republican congressman who voted for Obama in 2008
    Mike Gelb, $850 donation to Joe Biden
    Nancy Conrad, $28,400 donation to DNC
    Nick Lampson, donations to Democrat congressional candidates only
    Norman Ornstein
    Paula Stern, $4,600 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Philip K. Howard, $1,000 donatation to Obama (his donations go to several major figures in both parties)
    Reshma Saujani, Democrat congressional candidate , $1,600 donation to Hillary
    Richard Lamm, former Democrat governor of Colorado, $400  donation to Obama
    Robert Kallen, $500 donation to Obama, $1000 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Ron Shaich, $1000 donation to Obama
    Rosa Scarcelli, former Democratic candidate for governor, many donations to her own campaign
    Sacha Millstone, large number of donations to Democrats, including $4,600 to Hillary
    Sarah Serling Clapp, coordinator for Democrat Rosa Scarcelli’s 2010 Maine gubernatorial primary campaign
    Stephanie Rudy, $2,300 donation to Obama
    Steve Marchand, Democrat candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2007
    Sue Castner, former Clinton aide, $4,600 donation to Hillary Clinton
    Susannah Shakow, $1,000 donation to Obama, £250 to Hillary Clinton
    Tad Devine, senior advisor in Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004 campaigns
    Tamera Luzzatto, former Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, 5 donations to Democrats
    Ted Buerger
    Tom Davis, former Republican Virginia congressman
    Virginia Davies, $4,600 donation to Obama
    Wade Garard
    Warren Wright
    Will Marshall, founder of the New Democrat Movement


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      That’s excellent work, Craig.  Thanks.

      It was clear to me from the start what this was really about.  Any time anyone starts talking like this these days, you know what their actual goals are.  Especially on the heels of St. Jon’s failed smugfest, which pretended to be the same thing.

      When I read about this in the Washington Times and NY Times, I just knew the BBC would leap at the opportunity to save the President’s agenda from extreme, angry people like myself.  I wasn’t disappointed.

      You’ve revealed the label that nearly all these people want to hide behind their stolen logo.  All these people think we’re too stupid to realize it, and that a new set of slogans and platitudes will bring us on board.  Promptly and enthusiastically promoted by the BBC.


      • David Jones says:

        Shouldn’t Craig’s work be introduced to Fox News or Big Journalism? I’m sure they’d jump on it. David, any contacts?


  14. Guest Who says:

    Meanwhile, over the pond…’s-media-elites-are-still-batting-for-barack-obama/

    Editorial by omission?

    That is surely a bridge too far, and I very much doubt that major British publications of the same stature would do the same in a similar situation.’

    The. Very. Idea.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      No surprise there.  The Washington Post admitted that they deliberately tossed aside journalism ethics to support The Obamessiah’s campaign for President.

      In July 2009, the publisher apologized for letting the paper set up an influence-peddling scheme of “policy dinners at her home” where people could pay them as much as $250,000 to meet with members of Congress and Obamessiah Administration officials.

      And this past July, the paper’s ombudsman apologized to the readers for the paper’s deliberate censorship of the Justice Dept.’s refusal to prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation case.

      This is also the paper which hired Leftoid JournoLista Dave Weigel and pretended he was a conservative. This was the story that began the undoing of the JournoList.  Ezra Klein, the far-Left founder of the JournoList is also a WaPo blogger.

      The Washington Post is about as reliable as Jeremy Clarkson.  Yet the Beeboids still look to it as a trusted source of how to think about US issues.