It’s that time of year when Handel’s Messiah is performed all over the place, so I thought it would be an appropriate time to look at how the BBC has been reporting on their beloved Obamessiah. After the kicking He and the Democrats got in the mid-term election, there was much worrying in certain quarters about whether or not He would be able to rise again after the stinging defeat of the Democrats in the recent mid-term election. Matt Frei was concerned about whether He would be able to rekindle the connection with the masses, and continue to promote His agenda against a Republican-led House of Representatives and a tiny Democrat majority in the Senate.
There’s been quite a bit of activity in Congress during this lame-duck session, so naturally the British Public must be informed of every detail of the domestic agenda of a foreign country. So, how is He doing?
Unhappy about extending Bush’s tax cuts for the evil rich? Not to worry, this is His Plan For Us now. The President worked out a compromise with the Republican leadership and extended the tax cuts, as well as giving businesses a break in payroll taxes, while getting in return some extension of unemployment benefits and more subsidies of green energy boondoggles. Most people view this as an overall victory for the voters who let their elected representatives know that they needed to drop the ideology and get fiscally responsible. Even departing Treasury guru (and Keynesian former boss of BBC economics editor, Stephanie Flanders) Larry Summers told the President this needed to happen. The President who spent months attacking the evil rich and declaring how He would never accept what He called tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires” caved, yet somehow the BBC sees this as a triumph for Him. The report is full of the Democrat talking points, but nothing from a voice discussing how this would actually help the economy recover. In fact, the one time the BBC does mention that businesses think this will help, it comes from a Democrat who shrugs his shoulders and acts as if this is a gamble.
According to the BBC, it’s all about tax cuts for the wealthiest. Class warfare is the Narrative, as usual. At no time in their coverage of this issue has the BBC given time to the point of view that the Democrats wanted to hold the middle classes and small businesses hostage over the ideological point of attacking the wealthy. If the Dems had gotten their way, taxes would have gone up for everybody, not only the evil rich, simply to score an ideological point which has nothing to do with economic necessity – unless one is a pure tax-and-spend ideologue. Which is the viewpoint through which BBC reporting on this issue is filtered.
Mark Mardell, of course, sees this as a success for Him, a shrewd political move of which he approves. He also shows his personal, blind bias about his Obamessiah when he says this:
True, Obama has greatly angered the left of his own party. In the House, 112 Democrats voted against the package. Some say he’s a bad negotiator and has betrayed his principles. Well, annoying the left may be a cheap trick for leaders of left-of-centre parties (cf Tony Blair) but it often goes down well with voters in the middle ground. Or even on the right. Time and time again, even at Tea Party meetings, I’ve heard that President Obama has not governed as he was elected, that he’s been captured by the “Pelosi-Reid agenda”. This is his answer.
According to Mardell, it’s not the Tea Party movement successfully influencing the President: He’s making a shrewd move to fool them for a little while. Seriously, how can anyone think that the candidate who notoriously told Joe the Plumber that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody “ is a centrist who was “captured” by the far-Left Democrat leadership? You know he’s not really saying that The Obamessiah is a shyster like Blair. No, Mardell sees this as a shrewd political move so He can attack tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Which will be difficult seeing as He’ll just come across as a weak leader who was forced to make a bad deal. I suppose the fact that He had to bring in Bill Clinton to convince enough Dems to vote for it is also a display of His ability to lead? But Mardell sees only strength and cleverness.
So does Paul Adams, in the inset “Analysis” of the report I’ve linked to above.
But the fact remains that six weeks after disastrous mid-term elections, Barack Obama seems to be reasserting his authority.
Reasserting Clinton’s authority, maybe. Oh, that’s right the BBC censored the part where the President took a powder during that press conference and let Clinton take over, so maybe Adams – the BBC’s man in the White House press corps – has wiped that from his own memory as well.
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 40:5)
His real triumph, though is something Congress did, not Him: repealing Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The President, who campaigned against this in 2008, could have used an executive order to get rid of this any time He wanted. But He passed the buck to Congress on this one, and they used the giddiness of the lame-duck session to take care of it. To hear it from a certain Beeboid in the US, though, it’s still His achievement.
The BBC’s Iain Mackenzie in Washington says the vote is a major victory for Mr Obama, who had made overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell” a key policy objective.
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; and they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. (Isaiah 9:2)
There’s one other big issue which came up for a vote: the DREAM Act, which is about creating a path to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. This is seen by some as a first step towards amnesty for all illegals, as this would inevitably be used to permit illegals to remain in the country if they have what naughty people refer to as “anchor babies”. Does this sound familiar? It’s a very relevant issue to what’s going on in Britain right now.
Yet the BBC has censored news of this. Why? Because it was defeated.
The Leftoids are just as outraged over this as they are about the tax cuts for the evil rich. Subcommander Markos is not pleased:
Anybody who votes to punish innocent kids is an asshole. Plain and simple. And while I expect it from Democrats like Ben Nelson and C-Street denizen Mark Pryor, I honestly thought Jon Tester was different. I was wrong. I am now embarrassed that I worked so hard to help get him elected in 2006. I feel personally betrayed.
I’ll refrain from making a sarcastic retort about how I guess now we should be releasing all criminals from prison if they have kids, as imprisonment of these criminals is clearly also punishing innocent kids.
Other people on the Left are angry as well. Worse, the President apparently lobbied pretty strongly for this, yet it still failed. Where’s that authority and leadership now, BBC? Why so shy about reporting this?
The BBC spent a huge amount of effort bashing Arizona over its immigration law, and told you that opposing illegal immigration is tantamount to racism. Just like they do about the problem in Britain, they used the smokescreen tactic of saying “immigration is good, it’s silly to be against immigration”, always leaving out the “illegal” part and misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. In the US, they hired a German immigrant, Franz Strasser, to travel around the country making a dishonest series of reports about immigrants in the US. I complained about it here at the time (actually several times). Strasser also censored the word “illegal” from his series of reports. His trip even took him to two Sanctuary Cities, which had official policies of deliberately flouting immigration laws, yet he refused to mention the fact that they were designated as such. The whole series was a smokescreen.
So now the DREAM Act failed, and the BBC is silent.
The Democrats’ massive, pork-laden spending bill also failed. As I said on Thursday’s Open Thread, the BBC reported it from the Democrats’ point of view, that it was a vital spending plan needed to keep the country running. They did not allow through a viewpoint that possibly the Tea Party movement had any influence on politicians’ behavior. In fact, pretty much every BBC report about what’s going on in Congress right now is free of any mention of the movement. They did, though, worry about how “time was running out”, but from the Democrat perspective, as if it was the only one.
Where’s His authority and leadership on this one, BBC? *Looks at floor and shuffles feet*
Come see the bias inherent in the system. The BBC spins the news to promote the accomplishments of a leader of a foreign country, and censors news which detracts from that Narrative.
The Lord gave the word: Great was the company of preachers. (Psalm 68:11)
PS: All Biblical quotes appear in the Messiah. Post written while listening to the recording by the late, great Richard Hickox, featuring Joan Rodgers, Philip Langridge, Bryn Terfel, and others.
Great piece David.
I see that Paul Adams mentions “the noted conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer” and that Mardell links to the same piece. We’ve noted before that Mr Krauthammer is one of the leading conservative voices the BBC has ignored like the plague for years, preferring minor left-wing hacks. Suddenly they recognize his existence, and all because he’s saying “that the president’s 2010 tax deal may mark the beginning of his comeback”.
Comfort ye, comfort ye. My people.
Time and time again, even at Tea Party meetings …
As Mardell himself wrote They’re mad as hell, but that doesn’t make them crazy.
You don’t undertand the Obama relationship with these BBC commentators. Its not a crush, its not just affection, they are in love with Obama. It is true love. They want to tend his wounds, nurture him back to good health. He can do no wrong, even when He does. Love is blind.
Tangentially related.
Kevin Connolly’s guide to American culture
The BBC’s America correspondent Kevin Connolly is packing his bags for a new post in the Middle East. During his three years in the US he has visited 46 out of 50 states and covered the country’s election of its first black president. The important event – 🙂 bama!!!!!!!!
Check out the picture. He knows how to prepare for the Middle East. He’s wearing a burqa.
Thanks for reminding me to look at this. I keep meaning to check it out, but have been too distracted to get around to it. I’m not sure whether to be pleased that the man who insulted me and hundreds of thousands of people with a sexual innuendo is no longer going to be misinforming you about the US, or that he will now be misinforming you about Israel.
But how nice of Connolly to finally admit the reality of the Tea Party movement is more than racism and far-right extremists.
The Tea Party movement is successful because it taps into the deep American suspicion that all federal government apart from defence spending, is a kind of bureaucratic boondoggle, dreamed up by larcenous conspiracists in Washington to allow them to line their pockets by picking ours.
Gee, thanks, Kev. Only took you over a year and a half. Too bad you couldn’t be bothered to listen to people telling you this back in April 2009. Although that idea that the politicians in Washington don’t have any right to redistribute our money on a whim goes back to the foundation of the country. It’s not imagined, not just about pols lining their pockets, and it’s not something to laugh at as if it’s not a valid concern.
And I like how Connolly spends so much time bashing US writing in newspapers and elsewhere, then closes with this:
De Tocqueville toiled on higher slopes of creativity than me and did a pretty good job of understanding and explaining Americans, even though they get riled at the idea that foreigners can ever understand or explain them.
Wrong pronoun, Kev. I guess some of that there bad ‘mericuhn talkin’ has rubbed off a mite bit.
And it’s not that we get riled at the idea that foreigners can ever understand or explain us: we get riled when foreigners think they do, but don’t because they didn’t listen to what we were telling them for almost two years. Or when they, you know, lie about and insult us.
Hey, Kevin, since you’re so taken with the folksly charm of our banter, here’s a parting bit of it for you:
So long, and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
One can only imagine what wonders his replacement holds for us.
DP
Excellent post but, sorry to disappoint, whoever the new guy from Pravda Central is will have drunk deep at the well of “the US – well, the non-Democratic and all points non-left, US – is the fount of all evil“. But you knew that already!
BTW the moral of the Tea Party success is not lost on the major parties over here. The Tea Party succeeded by forcing its favoured candidates onto the Republicans via the primary system and thus ensured, to an extent, that the new Congress will not be “business as usual”. Over here (with one or two exceptions) genuine primaries hardly exist: the few so-called “primaries” are held on the basis of a centrally approved/mandated shortlist. Accordingly it’s “business as usual” with the “new” government.
Umbongo, if I have seriously low expectations, can I really be disappointed? 😀
The Democrats’ massive, pork-laden spending bill also failed.
This is the story of most significance. The OmniPork bill was the 2011 budget. Since it failed, they’ll pass a continuing resoltion which just funds the governent operation for a few months at current levels.
This means that Obama care has no funding at the moment. Couple that with Judge Hudson’s decision that the Individual Mandate violates the Constitution (a finding that is likely to be repeated in a separate case involving Florida and 20 other States) means that Obamacare is in serious trouble.
By the way, in case the BBC hasn’t reported; John Boener, the incoming Speaker of the House, plans on splitting the American Budget into 12 bills. This will allow the Republicans to decouple health care funding from other issues — such as defense and so forth. They’ll be able to have a very narrow battle over funding Obamacare while not impacting other government services.
I think Mark Mardell might have had a little too much to drink at Kevin Connolly’s going away party before hitting the laptop, as his latest blog post is pretty messed up.
Poor Mardell is so unhappy with The Obamessiah’s results that he’s confused about what’s been happening.
A tax deal cobbled together. Pop. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” snuffed out. Pop. A new treaty with Russia – START looks at least possible, as does an early Christmas present for the kids of illegal immigrants, the Dream act.
The tax deal is more or less a win for the incoming Tea Party Republicans, not a legacy act of the defeated Democrat majority. But since the evil rich got their tax break, Mardell is unhappy and sees this as a bad deal, not understanding that this is the opposite of a lame duck egg (to continue his metaphor).
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” passed. Didn’t he read the HuffingtonPost yesterday or this morning?
The DREAM Act failed over the weekend. Hasn’t Mardell seen his copy of the Washington Post yet? Also, notice Mardell’s choice of words betrays his positive opinion of it. The President’s great leadership, about which Mardell was salivating hopefully only the other day, was nowhere to be seen. The vote died in the Senate on Saturday, yet Mardell thinks there’s still a chance.
As for the START treaty, Mardell speaks of that from a Democrat perspective. It’s not merely a new treaty. It could be either good or bad, but Mardell approaches it from the angle that new = good.
So he’s got it exactly backwards on three out of four items. And he completely left out the death of the pork-infested spending bill. That would have been the ultimate example of the unseemliness at which Mardell’s clucking his tongue here. His confusion continues:
Republicans don’t like the lame duck flying so high. They are grumbling that the Democrats are trying to do too much, pushing through the undone bits and pieces that have long been high on their wish list. This resentment exists even though the Democrats have just lost an election and so their legitimacy.
“even though” the Democrats lost? No, Mark, it’s because the Dems lost. He was drunk when he posted this, I’m sure of it.
Aww, but the BBC North America editor thinks the whole procedure is unseemly. Well, yes it is. But does anyone think he’d be so grumpy if the results weren’t more lumps of coal for the President but were instead the successes He was hoping for? Oh, and notice that it’s the seedy Congressmen Mardell is frowing at, no mention whatsoever that his beloved, cool, brilliant Obamessiah is the one doing the arm-twisting for them to ram through these votes.
What’s the point of having a BBC North America editor if he’s so uninformed?
What’s the point of having a BBC North America editor if he’s so uninformed?
The BBC has a difficulty here. During the Soviet regime, Pravda (and Radio Moscow?) had their correspondents in London who were perfectly well aware of what was going on (but ignorant of the way democracy actually worked). As Guest Who implies, in the same way that genuine reportage would have endangered the Radio Moscow message, analogously, genuine journalism from its reps in the US would cause consternation at Broadcasting House.
As every one of DP’s posts illustrate, the BBC “journalists” are always on (pro-Obama, anti-Republican) message. There is no pretence at objectivity but, much worse, they really have no idea how the US political system works.
I lived in the US, off and on, for about 10 years. I was interested in the US political system both locally and nationally and, you know, it’s different from ours. The US arrangements at local, state and national levels are completely unlike our local, regional and national set-up. At its most basic, our local and regional authorities are creatures purely of statute and subject to diktat from the centre. The US states have political power in their own right and cannot be pushed around – even by Him.
There are many superficial similarities between the way Americans and Brits govern themselves of course, but there used to be two profound similarities: respect for the rule of law and an appreciation for the common law. Both those are dying – or dead – here. Moreover, it’s difficult to convey – and the BBC doesn’t try – how devoted Americans are to “law”. They despise lawyers (who doesn’t?) but viscerally Americans are people to whom law is (whether they know it or not in their everyday lives) central. After all, their history really began with a legal document which, after 200+ years, Americans still deeply revere.
Similarly, most people in the UK have little detailed idea how, for instance, the French or German systems work (and care less, I might add). However, I have never heard any explanation from the BBC correspondents in Paris of the effect of the constitutional niceties which make the relationship between Sarkozy and the National Assembly tick or how the Bundestag and the lander governments work together. Why? Because the BBC reps probably don’t know either and, certainly, care less.
The BBC considers that, pre-election, sending an ignoramus round the US in a nice car giving his (grossly skewed) impressions of the country constitutes “coverage” of that great country’s political process. Even if the BBC weren’t biased, its incompetence alone would be a scandal.
‘What’s the point of having a BBC North America editor if he’s so uninformed?’
I think it’s part of the job spec. Actually having journalistic competence and integrity at the BBc could result in too much O/T when the commissars in the edit suite get back from school hols and need to stealth edit the output.