Anyone catch Mark Mardell and Justin Webb on “Today” just after 7am? They were discussing Obama’s speech in Tucson, Arizona and boy was it PURE undisguished Obama worship. For starters the BBC neutral headline was “Obama saves his Presidency”….that set the tone. Mardell warbled about the “healer in chief” and explained how deep his words were. When the words “Sarah Palin” were used, there was a visceral sneer (Naturally no coverage of her speech, so I think I will post it below).; This is not political commentary from Webb and Mardell, it is a juvenile fan club that still desperately wants Obama to be President and it is so unbecoming for an organisation that pretends it is impartial. Here’s the speeech the BBC doesn’t want to talk about, why should it when the healer in chief is about?
THE HEALER IN CHIEF
Bookmark the permalink.
I heard this too – and noted that, even when their Cherished One, says we need to unite and rise above unpleasant rhetoric, the beeboids still had to get in their repeated Palin references!
I too heard JW and MM this morning and was disgusted with their level of reporting – their inability to report objectively and their obvious love of Obama.
Let me put another view on it – here was an opportunstic lameduck President making the most out of a tragedy. His political use of a memorial service was vile. And his report of Ms Gifford opening her eyes after he left suggests that he believes he has messianic powers. (Now could have imagined Today reporting it that way??)
Thank you also for putting Sarah Palin’s speech up as of course the only part the BBC managed was the part about blood libel and taking it out of context. At 8:50 or there abouts JW was suggesting to a Republican Senator (who he admitted was no friend of Sarah Palin’s) that this shooting may have made Sarah Palin’s nomination for POTUS now impossible. I am not sure what sort of logic JW was using to think that ie that a left-leaning madman shooting a Democrat could result in Sarah Palin unable to stand for President.
Had you been listening to the World Service, before Toady comes on air, you would have heard a throw away reference to the number of Mexicans shot last year by drug gangs – 15,000. I’ll just repeat that number, 15,000.
Perhaps the beeboids can explain why the 6 people killed in Arizona, are so much more newsworthy than the 15,000 in Mexico, because objectively I can’t see why ?
Were any of the Mexicans a Democrat politician ?
I echo the two comments above, especially Deborah as I too was struck when I relaised the blood libel phrase has been taken completely out of context.
At 8:15, or thereabouts, we Today broadcast a 2 minutes (it seemed like 2 hours) excerpt from His speech. In their respect and awe for the Great Peacemaker I have no doubt all in the Today studio stood up for His speech. I’m only surprised that Webb didn’t ask the listeners to be upstanding as the Great Redeemer read out from his sacred text.
It was one of the most disgusting episodes of BBC love bombing I’ve experienced. Bias? It’s beyond bias. It is overt propagandising for Him and explicit and implicit demonising of any non pro-Obama (particul;arly Tea Party) thoughts, words or actions.
‘It was one of the most disgusting episodes of BBC love bombing I’ve experienced. ‘
The odd thing is, I can’t fathom the practical motives, though the personal emotional incontinence on display is evident.
Whilst interested in things American, I doubt most BBC audience members care about party politics that much, and certianly can’t DO anything, especially vote.
So really all they have managed is to highlight their idealogical biases and professional lack of competence and integrity, as folk get to equate the facts with the rhetoric.
So… OK.
BBC raqdio 4 have been pushing the Obama speech all morning from 6am. playing it for extended periods every half hour. They obviously think this speech shows him to be a compasionate and strong leader.
To my mind it is the usual Obama rhetoric. Lots of placatory words and no content. ” Can we talk for 20 minutes and say a lot and do sod all? YES WE CAN.”
At 8:15, or thereabouts, Today broadcast a 2 minutes (it seemed like 2 hours) excerpt from His speech. In their respect and awe for the Great Peacemaker I have no doubt all in the Today studio stood up for His speech. I’m only surprised that Webb didn’t ask the listeners to be upstanding as the Great Redeemer read out from his sacred text.
It was one of the most disgusting episodes of BBC love bombing I’ve experienced. Bias? It’s beyond bias. It is overt propagandising for Him and explicit and implicit demonising of any non pro-Obama (particul;arly Tea Party) thoughts, words or actions.
The teleprompter behaved itself, this time, presumably?
I think he spoke without one, politics aside I thought his speech was quite good, I think the media need to be ashamed of themselves though for he way Palin has been treated.
Martin, it sounds like you and Mardell listened to two completely different speeches.
Mardell’s take was – amazingly enough (not!) – projecting his own thoughts into Obama’s mouth to give Mardell self-justification for acting like an utter piece of garbage all week
As well as healing the sick – Arizona. I paraphrase as closely to the words as I can remember -‘President Obama said that the had visited Congresswoman Gifford and that she had just opened her eyes for the first time’
Yes, the Obamamessiah is back and now he can heal the sick!
Also take a look at Mark Mardell’s piece on Barack Obama’s speech, I have had a gentle fisk here – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/01/he-really-is-obamamessiah-he-can-open.html
Whilst Mark Mardell thinks that Barack Obama rose above party politics, something that I do not see, Mark Mardell sees no reason to do so in his article.
Mark Mardell once again shows why he is not an unbiased commenter on American politics but a partisan supporter of Barack Obama. And the BBC show that they are institutionally biased in favour of the US Democratic party.
Healing? Is this the same Obama who said during the 2008 election:”If they come with knives, we’ll come with guns”?
Sorry for the double entry, I thought I’d deleted the first one and then re-submitted. I’ll blame js-kit!!
Umbongo,
Don’t worry, I’ve done the same thing ! I am more concerned about the people who clicked “like” both times !!!! Yes, you know who you are !!!!!
On Wenesday’s 6pm News the BBC covered the Palin speech by first showing her waving and smiling to a large enthusiastic crowd of supporters before cutting to a her actual speech about the shootings.
Clearly the showing of the wildly cheering supporters was deliberately designed to put her and her Party in a bad light; unless of course you read the date on the top left of the video..March 2010!!
Why did the BBC trail her actual speech with this out of context viseo?
Of course no such out of date, out of context crowds cheering Obama, was inserted before his speech.
And that’s how the Nazi propaganda machine was so successful, a bit at a time, juxstaposing unrelated images or bits of speech to give totally the wrong impression. In normal circumstances pick the most unflattering pictures of your opponent, or play a verbal slip without the immediate auto-correction to imply that the opponent hasn’t got a clue (however never show verbal slips by your gods-on-earth even when they don’t know how many states there are in their own country).
I am fascinated by the way people can manipulate other peoples’ minds. The BBC propaganda department (covering news, current affairs, drama and comedy) have become experts at this manipulation. Some very intelligent people still actually believe, foe instance, that Thatcher created the mess that she sorted out and that she had an ideological reason for making people unemployed and was constantly attacking the working class, whereas through Council House sales and other measures improved the lot of the people at the lower end of society.
To get an idea of how the BBC are doing this, you really need to see the Derren Brown programmes where he can make honest people do things like rob a security guard near the Bank of England by pointing a replica gun at them. He explains a lot of his techniques – and this is how the BBC attempt to manipulate us. They need to be stopped.
“BBC propaganda… Some very intelligent people still actually believe, foe instance, that Thatcher created the mess that she sorted out…”
in 1979 when Thatcher came into power with the slogan; “Labour isn’t Working”, there were 1.4 million unemployed. In the space of four years it more than doubled to 3.3 million.
She clung onto the dogma of monetarism long after it was obvious to just about everyone else that it was making a bad situation even worse.
For the first time it became common-place to see young people sleeping in shop door-ways and begging for money on the street. It was unheard of at the time; now it’s kind of taken for granted (although much reduced).
The general infrastructure was left to rot due to lack of investment. Major roads were pot-holed; railways close to the inevitable collapse that followed; classrooms in leaking port-a-cabins; NHS waiting times of two years or more taken for granted.
Vast swathes off the North of England were totally decimated and have taken a good twenty years to fully recover.
I was living there at the time. I saw what happened and know for a fact that your attempts to re-write history are based in pure fantasy.
Perhaps that’s the real reason why you find “some very intelligent people” disagreeing with you.
Nice try Dez except of course the UK was in total decline right through the 1970’s. When Thatcher came into power she had to break the Trade Unions which had destroyed the UK and certainly most of our manufacturing was in serious decline.
If you bother to check your facts you will find that Thatcher spent plenty of money but she didn’t over spend and run the economy into huge debt.
The north was badly hit, especially with the closure of the mines, closures that were inevitable in most cases and surely Dez you approve?
Are you one of these wet liberals who thinks working in a coal mine is a good job? Dropping dead at 60 from some awful disease?
I’m happy to open the coal mines again Dez but I want it to be made compulsory that all males between the ages of 18 and 24 do two years national services working in a mine, I’m sure you’d approve Dez, after all surely you don’t just think the working class should do the shit dirty dangerous jobs?
The car industry was shit, Ford and BL couldn’t make a decent car between them and the workers deserved to lose their jobs.
I taught in the Northern Ruhr in the late Seventies and early Eighties. (Paid in solid Deutsch Marks). I also had a contract at the Mining College in Bergkamen. The Mining Engineers talked about the state of the British Mining Industry. They were scathing about the overmanning and technical backwardness of the NCB estate. The pro -miner output was, they commented, comparable with pre-war German figures despite there being perfect and geologically easy seams to follow. The industry was overmanned and underskilled. They said it was doomed in the face of cheap opencast Polish and Australian coal.
The British motor industry was similarly moribund…caught up in union practices making it impossible to compete.
Thatcher was forced to clean this up.
Martin,
Lefties like Dez are quite happy for other people to work down coalmines.
Dez,
How is it that , after 13 years of Labour government, there are still people begging and sleeping in the street ? I guess Labour just needed more time to sort out the mess left by Thatcher.
Education. Portacabins, maybe, but at least we still had the semblance of an education system. Now, despite all the ludicrously expensive schools and facilities, we have a system dumbed down to the point of no return. 13 years of child abise by Labour.
“abuse” !
I was living there at the time too so knew exactly what was going on, and had been living in the North since the 1960s and knew what real poverty looked like in England. The massaged unemployment figures may have shown 1.4 million but Labour had adjusted the figures at least twice to make it look less, but it was still rising anyway. Many, many more people were being propped up by the taxpayer in non-jobs which the country could not longerafford. Without resolving this the country would have had many millions more unemployed than it did have.
More mines were closed when Wedgie Benn was Energy minister than at any other time. Most of the mines were closed due to vindictive and political action by the NUM and the lack of competitiveness caused by constantly raising wages (also causing massive inflation) and by a major mining industry strike every two years.
Your use of the term investment is exactly the same as Gordon Brown’s, that is throw money away and pretend it’s a good thing. Inflation under Callaghan (caused by this “investment”) hit 27% and caused many more people to lose their jobs.
Monetarism was the policy that finally turned this country round from being the sick man of Europe with strikes being called “The English Disease” on the continent.
As far as people sleeping on the streets, this was a phenomenon not caused by Thatcher’s government policies because this had been going on for years. Before Thatcher came to power, the poor, desperate people had been on the streets but tried to remain obtrusive. When she came into power, these people became political objects by the left and were placed as obtrusively as possible. There had always been people on the streets but now they were being used as political pawns.
You have rather proved my point, Dezzie, by still believing the lies that were said at the time, and have since been constantly repeated. The mess that Thatcher cleared up had been created for 15 years before she came to power. The cure was painful but it would have been far worse for this country if she hadn’t done it.
Invicta,
Surely the BBC were not trying to give the impression that Palin supporters were cheering the shooting ? Even the BBC wouldn’t stoop that low, would they…………. Er…..
I thought what used to be called The Board of Governors would take the BBC to task over this continued move to the left. The BBC are totaly out of control and are not fit to enjoy the privileged positon they have.
The Board of Governors never have done anything to kerb the Leftism of the BBC, how can they? Any attempt would cause the BBC to use their overwhelming output facilities to claim the Governors were trying to interfere with their bogus ‘impartiality,’
It has gone too far now and nobody can get a position within the BBC unless they toe the Lefty line.
Without even looking at the names of the Governors, I KNOW the majority will be Lefties !
Just listened to Sarah Palin’s video and she is good, just can not see why she is being criticized for it.
I have tried very hard to listen to Barack Obamas speeches and find him rambling, sometimes incoherent and in the end I loose interest. It’s probably me not being on his wavelength. Its certainly not because he is black because I find Alan West riveting.
I conclude the BBC are engaged in a huge propaganda drive to sell Obama and sink Palin.
What gets me is why they want to finish off Sarah Palin, the Democrats claim that if she were the Republican candidate for President in 2012 Obama would win easily, so why don’t they big her up instead?
What I think they dislike about her is the fact that she’s a right wing woman who ‘thinks like a man’, I remember another right wing female politician here in the UK who was also demonised for that. Remember her?
Basically women in America should be left wing lesbians, men haters or ugly hags.
Thing is Congresswoman Gifford loved her guns as well, I’d like to read some of the stuff the leftie press wrote about her before she got shot, I bet they were not that keen on her then.
The Beeboids hate Sarah Palin because in their bigoted minds – yes, I am calling Justin Webb and Mark Mardell bigots, as are most of the rest of them – she represents everything they fear most:
The average, non-New York/LA/SanFran/DC United Statesian, whom they all look down upon as the lord of the manor does to those “downstairs”. Justin Webb may play the role of someone who really does like Americans deep down, but he sees most of us as being backwards, beneath him. He’s remarked in the past that Palins’ voice is highly irritating to him, but that’s his class prejudice showing. The accent and plain speaking annoys him. Now, if she had that Atlanta or Texas drawl, he’d love it as much as most Brits do. He’d still hate her politics and what he thinks her religious beliefs are, but he wouldn’t insult her personally so much.
Mardell, of course, walks around holding a scented handkerchief to his nose.
Christians who are not ashamed that their beliefs aren’t soft and squishy or harmless fluff like the Vicar of Dibley.
Social conservatives (which ol’ Justin said in his book were finished forever, so he has a vested, personal interest in seeing her fail).
A return to what Matt Frei has referred to on air as “the grim last eight years of the Bush Administration”.
Palin represents everything they fear most, in their bigoted minds, anyway.
If they strike her down now, she’ll become more powerful than they could ever imagine.
Spot on David , a charismatic right winger from the boondocks , capable of putting food on the table for her family by the ‘direct’ method , whats not to denigrate, if your an urban sophisticate beeboid !
He’s remarked in the past that Palins’ voice is highly irritating to him, but that’s his class prejudice showing.
I’m surprised by this becasue Obama has the most annoying voice of any current US politician, he just can’t do highs and lows so you get this monotonous drawl that turns me off after only a couple of sentences. Like Charlie I think Palin spoke very well, was totally misquoted re the blood libel.
It’s Palin’s accent and non-elite jargon that grates on ol’ Justin. The Obamessiah has a well-practiced orators enunciation, learned over years of being a lecturer and Community Organizer speechifier. The Beeboids – particularly Justin – focus on superficial aspects. They’re in media, after all, so the superficial is most important. That’s why the Beeboids absolutely die over The Obamessiah’s speechifying, but hate the way Palin talks. “You betcha” makes their skin crawl due to their class and parochial bigotry.
I’m surprised by this becasue Obama has the most annoying voice of any current US politician.
Spot on.
I agree. There is a rough raw edge to his voice and that flat delivery which combined make his speech rather hard to listen to. I prefer to read the text of his speeches.
David P,
Mardell “holding a scented handkerchief to his nose”.
Come on Mark, try taking a shower now and again, you won’t drown.
as an aside, I can no longer watch Vicar of Dibley. The first series was bad enough (the wife likes it), but after that, it became a tory baiting, lefty, right-on nightmare, like all Richard Curtis crap. That bloke is such a bore.
Chairman, I actually liked the show for a good while. The last couple of years were pretty weak, but I always liked the villagers. I mentioned the Vicar of Dibley because that’s one show where the BBC doesn’t make fun of Christians with faith, because the faith as portrayed on that show is very trendy and lightweight. The only time faith was permitted to bind the community was when it was for right-on reasons like accepting a female vicar, or the service for pets (and wink, wink, nudge, nudge at the promiscuous homosexual bishop – common knowledge, right?) Obviously the concept itself is first and foremost a stab in the eye of the more traditional-minded Anglicans who are uncomfortable with the idea of female clergy. Very, very brave, that. I’ll be more impressed when the do a show with a female Imam in Bradford, mind.
Look at it this way: they could have done a show about a bunch of Catholic priests where one of them is a recidivist of weak faith, one who thinks being a priest is grand because he’s a child-like idiot, and the rest are drunken perverts. Oh, wait……
For me I find it takes a lot of effort and concentration to like ugly old hags. I’m against it.
I found the Obama speech reminiscent in structure to the “healing” message by Ronald Reagan directly after the Challenger Shuttle disaster in 1986. But Obama spoke for much longer, of course, and his remarks immediately after the Tucson shootings were pretty poor.
To be fair, I thought the Obama speech was pretty good, except for the jumping in puddles bit – he needed to be bipartisan and he was. But the BBC still needed to get the odd anti-Palin dig, despite Obama’s call not to “use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility.” Humility’s not terribly visible in BBC news programming.
Laban, please, please do listen to Mardell’s take on Obama’s
speech today. Did someone say ‘cognitive dissonance’?
Here’s a video showing some of the Twitter rage that followed the rush to blame Palin (the original version of that video was removed by YouTube so I don’t know how long this one will last).
But remember, it’s the Palin right that “perfected hatred“.
YouTube removed the original video because of a complaint from the woman who posted the tweet “I think Palin should get shot instead of Gifford” at 1:50. Happy to tell the world she wants Palin shot, not so happy when it’s repeated by others. Legal Insurrection has background, and has also posted the same video via Vimeo in case YouTube takes this one down too. The same blog has more on death wishes against Palin
.
Richard Bacon just doesn’t let up does he? On His Twitter feed:
Today: Donald Sutherland tells me why the likes of Sarah Palin ARE to blame for the Arizona shooting. Plus Trevor Eve. Jo Brand. HELP #5live
What do you expect from Richard Bacon, the man who has stopped me from listening the 5Live in the early afternoons…
Jo “only white people can be racist” Brand.
Christ, it just wont let up. QI is a lefty love-a thon. Bacon is a confused druggie who belongs in jail, not presenting on behalf of the state propaganda machine. I just give up.
The speech was okay (a very slight, nearly hidden in flowery language point about the media rushing to judgment and placing blame unfairly), but there’s one very important point left unspoken by the Obamessiah worshipers at the BBC:
The country doesn’t need healing or whatever because it was torn apart by this act of murder. If anything, the Leftoid media and bloggers tore it apart due to their vicious, baseless, hyper-partisan venom over what was in reality the non-partisan act of a madman. There would be no need for healing if the media hadn’t been so very evil. Of course, that’s not how the hyper-partisan, dishonest hacks at the BBC would see it.
Funny how Mardell and Webb forgot to mention the crassness of the slogan and logo created for the event, and the unseemly cheering of the crowd for Him. It’s all very sad, and very predictable.
Actually, Mardell does say on his blog “The audience whooped and hollered during the speech. But there was no doubt they were local people, and I presume this was a sort of cathartic release after days of horrible tension.”
I thought this was a strange thing to do, but since they’re local I guess it’s OK.
If they’re cheering for Him, it must be good. Your North America editor showing his expert analysis there.
My God, Mardell really is a pitiful creature. I would feel sorry for him if he wasn’t paid so much.
But DP, Mardell did mention the clapping and cheering, but he assured us that it wasn’t in an unseemly we. I’m glad he straightened that one out.
Britain elects a UKIP style government, withdraws from the EU, seals the gaping holes in her borders and stands side by side with the Palin Presidency.
Sorry, I must stop daydreaming 🙂
Richard Bacon just had Donald Sutherland on, needles to say they went on a rant about the evils of Sarah Palin (it’s all her fault apparently and something to do with machine guns, the old druk shit was well away) Fox News, Bill O’Reilly and so on.
“needles”?…well, Bacon is a prick.
Jared Loughner’s friend says suspect, “Did not watch tv…disliked the news”
So now we know that the BBC is promoting a lie. Across the spectrum of broadcasting, not just on the news.
What, Jared didn’t watch the BBC ? Typical right-wing Philistine…. Er, wait a minute …….
Shock news just in:
The BBC isn’t the Drudge Report.
This worrying development follows sensational reports that the BBC isn’t Fox News.
We’ll bring you more on this story as it happens – every time the BBC mentions Obama, or Palin, or the Tea Party
Any interest in actually debating the issues? This is a meaningless string of non sequiturs.
Presumably, by saying “The BBC is not Fox News” you mean that the BBC don’t have to uphold any standards of journalistic integrity.
How do you defend this constantly repeated lie that it was Palin’s fault? I don’t expect you to answer this at all because there is no defence for the disgustings slanders and libels that have come from the BBC against Palin, particularly since the shooting.
Considering the mountains of evidence that the vast majority of the violence has come from the left, and that the murderer was probably hardly even aware of Palin, the BBC keep pushing their lies. I would love you try to defend the BBC but I doubt you will even try.
There are two questions that have been conflated in the aftermath of the shootings:
Was Laughner influenced by right wing rhetoric?
Is Rightwing rhetoric fear-mongering, creating an atmosphere of loathing and hatred?
The answer to the first question is No, in all probability. The shooter was, apparently, apolitical. He was influenced heavily by the conspiracy theory discourse. A former friend mentions the film Zeitgeist and its influence over the shooter. Having seen that film, I can see how that fits -perfectly.
The answer to second question is undoubtedly yes. One only has to listen to Savage, Limbough and all the rest of them. They exude hatred and half-truth. It is self-evident. Palin, of course, does not reach their level – she has en eye on the WHite House after all. But she profits from the fear and loathing, obviously.
As a leftie myself, I can readily admit there was unseemly haste from the left to pin it on her in the immediate aftermath. Nevertheless, I wish those right wing shock jocks would tone it down and stick to facts (fat chance).
“As a leftie myself, I can readily admit there was unseemly haste from the left to pin it on her in the immediate aftermath. Nevertheless, I wish those right wing shock jocks would tone it down and stick to facts (fat chance).”
At least you admit there was haste to pin it on her, there has been no haste to apologise now they have been proved wrong – no, in fact they continue with the lie knowing it is one. The violence from the left is not something to behold, it is too frightening.
As far as the “right wing shock jocks” toning it down and sticking to the facts – I think the leftwing nutjobs should start by listening to The Leader who has, properly, called for restraint on accusations. They are the shrillest tones and are the ones who are lying constantly. Maybe if you suggested that they stick to the facts you would have more credibility.
So the violence and violent language that lasted for the full 8 years of Bush’s presidency and only came from the left doesn’t count, and the only violent language that should be attacked is the right defending itself from the constant attack they have been under for years.
Now give some examples of these facts that the shock jocks have not stuck to, bearing in mind that there is plenty of evidence of more lies and violence from the left.
‘The violence from the left is not something to behold, it is too fightening’
??!
How is the rhetoric form the left any less intemperate or shrill than that from the right? Have you ever listened to Mike Savage or Glenn Beck? How can you say Beck is reasonable and the left wing pundits are not? I simply cannot understand this reasoning. It’s delusional.
Simon says,
The answer to the first question is No, in all probability.
That’s the whole point. The second question was raised for partisan purposes to take advantage of a tragedy in order to score political points. This second question is irrelevant to the main debate here: the BBC is wrong to blame Sarah Palin and right-wing rhetoric for the murders of a madman.
I notice that you haven’t acknowledged that Loughner targeted Rep. Giffords at least several months before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin. In spite of the known facts, the BBC is pushing your second question to score political points.
The other issue you still haven’t been able to debate is the fact that the BBC’s reporting on this story is drastically different from all the murders and attempted murders by radical Muslims. In those cases, they demur from placing blame, yet in this case they led the charge to do so. Any thoughts, Simon?
Radical Muslims? what? How did we…get here?
Help me out…the BBC demurs from placing blame on whom, exactly? Radical Muslims?
Anyway, the BBC didn’t ‘lead the charge’. The debate is raging in the US, in case you hadn’t noticed.
Simon, apparently you came in late to the discussion and have not been paying attention. No wonder you’re focused on blaming Sarah Palin and whatnot.
Please see my post about the real issue here, then get back to me.
If you’re not interested in debating the real issue, then at least explain how someone can be blamed for inspiring violent anger several months before anyone ever heard of her.
“No wonder you’re focused on blaming Sarah Palin and whatnot.”
Whaat!? Didn’t I just say that “there was unseemly haste from the left to pin it on her in the immediate aftermath.”
I’ve just read your previous post. I think it is somewhat over-egging things to compare this with the Dreyfus Affair. As far as I’m aware, only the shooter is in custody- or have I missed something?
Your post contained a number of links to all sorts of places, but none, as far as I could see, linked to actual BBC content BLAMING Palin or the right wing rhetoric directly. Again, I may have missed something.
There is a consistent tendency here to confuse Twitter with the BBC, I notice. I don’t follow ‘Tweets’ or have a twitter account, or a Facebook account or any of that nonsense, so forgive me if I’m not so keen to supposed biased transgressions of BBC personnel in places that aren’t the BBC. I have better things to do.
Again, your comments on the BBC’s coverage of radical muslims had only one link to actual BBC content, in which Mark Mardell writes, ‘Still, people will speculate – as I am doing.’ which seems fair enough to me – for op-ed. The rest were all links to this blog – classic.
Simon Kisby, you clearly did not understand what the links were. Those were links to evidence that the BBC was far more cautious when reporting on violent incidents inspired by Islamic Jihad (or the Palestinian vs. Jews equivalent, in the case of the bulldozer guy). In fact, Mark Mardell himself urged against leaping to conclusions and baseless speculation in the case of the murdering Muslim of Ft. Hood. Yet, when reporting on the Tucson shooting, Mardell was among the first (when I say the BBC led the charge, I meant amongst UK media – the US media is a different issuem and not the point of this website) to blame Sarah Palin and “violent rhetoric” on the Right, in direct defiance of his own advice.
The primary issue here is that the BBC clearly has one editorial policy – and a genetic tendency to impartiality, to hear Helen Boaden tell it – in several instances when there is a specific socio-political issue involved, while behaving in the exact opposite fashion when concerned with another specific socio-political issue.
It’s a double standard, and highlights the bias endemic at the BBC. In all those cases involving Mohammedans – including the recent shootings on that train in India – the BBC made sure to inform the public that these acts were not connected to radical Islam or Islamic Jihad or Mohammedans of any kind. However, the exact opposite occured on Friday. In that case, the BBC went to town long before any facts were widely known, and immediately placed blame where it didn’t belong, simply due to their personal political biases.
You said yourself that the murderer in Tucson was not influenced by Sarah Palin or any mainstream political rhetoric. Yet the BBC blamed her and the Tea Party movement and the usual Rightie suspects anyway, without a scrap of evidence. They continue to push that Narrative in spite of the known facts that the lunatic is Left-wing and could not have been influenced by the very people the BBC is accusing of inspiring him. They’re using a tragedy to make political points. The fact that Paul Krugman is also doing it is not a good defense of the BBC.
It’s bias at the BBC, plain and simple.
Help me out…the BBC demurs from placing blame on whom, exactly? Radical Muslims?
Funny you should say that. I posted a link to just such a question, hypothetical of course, to what the BBC would have said/done/reported had the shooter beeen a radical Muslim (or called Mohammed to be exact)…what do YOU think they would have said?
You are a little, selective, a little…em…partial, shall we say?
What is it that could be missing from your questions and your comments? Um…what could it be?
/ scratches head
That’s very grand of you Simon. Yeah, those dreadful right wing shock jocks. As soon as it emerged from Loughner’s old school friends that he was left wing they wasted no time blaming the hatespeak of Leftist hatejocks like Olbermann for inciting the attempted murder of the pro-gun, pro-immigration control blue dog Democrat. Oh, hold on .. Have I got that the wrong way round somehow?
Your co-religionists on the left didn’t wait for anything to emerge before they dived head first into exploiting a national tragedy for political gain. That’s something that noone on the Right even came close to doing, even after facts emerged that could have fitted that picture. What it seems you’re having a great deal of difficulty in coming to terms with Mr Kisby is the abject moral debauchery of you co-religionists on the left.
Tone it down? What say you to this:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/blatant-anti-palin-bias-in-the-liberal-media-a-collection/
Presumably, Kisby, by the logic you employ in the second question, the fact that I’m sickened by hearing left-wing ranters like Ken Livingstone and George Galloway, it’s quite OK to blame them for “Hatred”. Then, if I decide one day to take it further and saunter on over to my nearest Labour MP and blow his face off with a gun, they wuill be held responsible.
Are you OK with that?
Muppet.
Simon,
And your point is ?
Even though we know it’s a lie, the Beeboids on the News Channel right now are STILL speculating that the “vitriolic political discourse” in the US may have played a part in the shootings.
Even while discussing how the President said we shouldn’t do stuff like that.
Meanwhile, here’s a whole bunch of death threats against Sarah Palin on the BBC’s favorite social media network that they sure as hell won’t be telling you about. While the biased Beeboids are suggesting that the nasty rightwingers won’t listen to the President’s wise words, they will not tell you that the Leftoids aren’t listening.
BBC = Scum.
Let’s listen to the Sainted Sarah, Our Lady of Lock ‘n’ Load:
Hi folks. When I criticise the Left, it’s what our hallowed Founding Fathers intended.
When the Left criticise me, it’s Blood Libel.
Any thoughts on why it’s wrong to blame someone for the acts of a mentally disturbed person who targeted his victim long before anyone ever heard of the person being blamed for incitement? Any thoughts on why it’s wrong to blame someone for the acts of a mentally disturbed person when that mentally disturbed person did not watch tv or follow news and so could not possibly have been aware of, never mind inspired by, anything the person being blamed has done?
Any interest in debating the actual issue? Come on, Simon, let’s see you explain how a madman who did not follow the news or tv or the Tea Party and was Left wing was inspired by Sarah Palin almost a year before anyone ever heard of her.
You’re pathetic. Answer why you think it’s right to accuse someone of involvement in murder, when you know you’re lying. Even if you haven’t actually said it yourself, please try try to make it clearer to those of us not possessed of the tiny leftward mind how Mardell and the rest of the BBC can continue to accuse her of responsibilty for a murder she was not remotely involved in.
Rather than your stupid little comments, try to discuss why we have to pay for such a dishonest, libellous service that we neither need nor want.
Demon, You don’t have to pay for the service. It’s entirely up to you. Take control rather than whine like a helpless little victim
Detune your TV, or buy a monitor. Hook a box to your computer, download all your favourite programmes. No more infuriating leftwing bias -simple!
You’re still failing to answer the main questions. Please give it a try or give up with your pathetic comments
Simon, nice to see a lefty demonstrating his command of basic facts. This Blog is about BBC bias, one of the fundamental complaints we have is that we f***ing well do have to pay for this ocean of biased and partial reporting presented by the BBC
“It’s against the law to watch or record TV programmes as they’re being shown on TV without a valid licence. This includes the use of devices such as a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
Watching TV without a valid licence is a criminal offence. This can lead to prosecution, a court appearance and a fine of up to £1,000 (not including legal costs). The exceptions are in Guernsey where the maximum fine is £2,000 and Jersey it is £500.
It costs £145.50 for a colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.”
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/detection-and-penalties-top5/
“take control rather than whine like a helpless little victim” – You might as well tell people to stop whinining about the cost of electricity and advise us to generate our own. Simplistic, purile, patronising and missing the point
“It’s against the law to watch or record TV programmes as they’re being shown on TV without a valid licence.”
I’ll grant you the language on tvlicensing.com is purposefully obscure. but if you read carefully, you will see it refers to broadcast material. (all the guff about “mobile phone, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.” is just a smokescreen.)
If you don’t feel safe merely de-tuning your TV, buy a monitor – ie- a TV screen without a receiver -to be absolutely sure, DVD/VHS players likewise. Then, they can’t touch you. Oh, and avoid software like Zatoo on your computer. (if you’re going to be dumb enough to show them around your hard-drive.)
Sometimes, I get the feeling you folks prefer imagining you’re helpless, just so you can whine…and whine.
Simon K, I’m glad that you agree that the BBC has a Left-wing bias. That’s why you made your initial comment about it not being Fox News or Drudge, right?
Simon,
Why the hell should we go to all that trouble just to avoid paying a tax to a broadcaster which we hate,just so that we can watch all the other broadcasters.
Imagine how you would feel if you had to pay an annual fee to the Conservative Party before you could vote in elections. Geddit ????
Thank you Simon for admitting that the BBC has an infuriating left-wing bias.
Simon,
What on earth are you on about ? Has Sarah Palin ever accused a Democrat politician of being responsible for a mentally deranged gunman killing people ?
Nonsense Simon, if the criticism is fair that’s fine but as others have pointed out the dead were still on the ground and the left were at it.
Why do you think the Sheriff made his mad rant? Why to deflect attention from the fact that the Police and other authorities knew he was a dangerous nutter and they may well have been able to stop this guy.
Don’t you think it would be good to find out what the truth is? Wouldn’t the press be better off asking why the Police didn’t act or any of the warnings about this guy who it was clear not only knew Giffords long before Sarah Palin came on the scene but also was brought to the attention of the US military when he got turned down and the local college.
Erm, Simon, you seem to be suffering from Logic Deficit Syndrome here. Quite common amongst sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome as well, I find.
Please oh please do tell me how Sarah Palin, or any Conservative Politician or pundit, has sought to blame the left for inciting Jared Loughner to murder?
You leftists do take a great deal of egotistic satisfaction in believing in you own moral superiority, but the sense I’m getting here in the wake of the patent moral debauchery of the left in response to a national tragedy is your struggling with that concept now.
BBC emotional correspondent Jonny Dymond reports this about the President’s speech in Tucson:
Instead he called, not for the first time, for change – a change in the way that people speak of what matters to them.
I’m guessing the man the BBC keeps on staff after being busted for drugs isn’t aware of the following statement by the President:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Was Loughner inspired by that, perhaps? Defenders of the indefensible are unavailable for comment.
Dymond is probably also unaware that the White House gave the following inspiration to Democrats in Congress:
“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard”.
“Is America’s vicious atmos the result of having no broadcasting impartiality rules? Wonder if Arizona has made changes in UK less likely?”
Tweets by todayjustin
This idiot really thinks the BBC is impartial. Has the “impartiality” rules stopped the BBC spreading anti-Isreali propaganda. Have they held back on their love for all things left in case they should appear bias?
Webb and his kind think that being left wing means impartial. Anyone who speaks up for the right is bias. This bias will not stop and only get worse unless a furture government disbands the lot of them. The BBC are not conducive to a healty democracy.
By the way what is this “vicious atmos”? and who started it? Could it possibly be the result of someone being accused iciting murder, even before the poor people who were shot had been driven away in an ambulance.
The left wing bigots stir up the trouble and then demonsie anyone who disagrees with their deliberate smears and somehow they are to blame for this “vicious atmos”. Perfect propaganda technique, but the left wing are masters at it.
The Obama love-in was in full force of the Jeremy Vine show too, (R2 12.00 GMT) with brief clips from the two speeches followed by a spiel from speed-dial-ready friend-of-the-Beeb Bonnie Greer that cast Palin as a pale cruddy imitation of the greatness that is Barry. This was followed by a number of listeners’ messages bigging up The One’s world-healing peacemaking initiative, one of them even explicitly quoting Che Guevara apparently without irony. No attempt at balance whatsoever.
“Obama will pay lingering tribute to the victims, but draw wider lessons. It’s very emotional : many will end up in tears.”
“Palin won’t be muzzled talks of dueling and blood libel”
Mardell (BBC North American propagandist in cheif)
Tweets by MarkMardell
Does this pass the bias test.?
THIS IS BEYOND PARODY
Jonny Dymond BBC News, Tucson
It was a night of prickling emotions in the McKale Memorial Center. Many of the 14,000 within – and those filling the overflow area – had queued for hours.
As they waited inside the centre cheers went up, for the doctors from the University Medical Center, relatives of the injured, state and national representatives. A huge cheer – almost a howl of pleasure and longing – went up for Barack and Michelle Obama as they came in.
The president of the University of Arizona, Robert Shelton, spoke of Tucson as a small college town – “in the truest and best sense of the word, a community” – and it felt like that inside the arena. It felt like a city aching to come together after a grievous blow.
And the president? Grim-faced, he took the platform as the crowd stood and applauded. Repeatedly, he invoked the scriptures. He paid homage to the fallen, to the injured and to the heroes of that sunny Saturday morning.
“There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts,” he said. He was right. But he came close
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12179495
“Repeatedly, he invoked the scriptures.”
I’m surprised Dymond didn’t accuse him of being a right-wing fanatic for doing that. Or does that only apply when Palin quotes the scriptures?
Unbelivable (well it would be if Boedan had been telling the truth)
My God (oops) but this is vomit-inducing tosh. The BBC pay this moron?
Maybe he had a “splif” before he started writing ( or would he dictate to a secretary)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580845/BBCs-Jonny-Dymond-caught-with-cannabis.html
Note he wasn’t sacked from the BBC as he commited the crime “in his own time”. Thats OK then
Does anybody read RAWK? It is a site for deranged Liverpool fans; no sensible Liverpool fan would ever go near it. Every now and then someone will fly off into bouts of hyperbole and good old-fashioned verbal dairrhoea. This output from Dymond would fit right into the RAWK mentality, I wonder what team he supports?
RAWK is truly hilaious – it’s the equivalent of the Daily Kos for Liverpool fans. Well, as a Man Utd fan I have to declare my bias here – it’s in my genes!
Me too, I read an open United forum which pulls apart RAWK. It does make you wonder if their rants and disconnection with reality, and the same with Beboids reporting on Obama is connected. In other words are the BBC left-wing extremists all people who write on RAWK?
It’s all too much,
That is hilarious, even by Beeboid standards. They are a bunch of nutters !
I’ve just heard Mardell’s take on President Obama’s address. Nauseating.
Instead of honouring the occasion it was just Mardell pushing Obama, in such hushed, reverential tones it was truly sickly.
He really excelled himself towards the end. To my growing amazement he spoke approvingly of the the ‘deft way’ Obama rebuked those on his side who had sought to blame Palin and those on the Right, and then amazingly in the next breath went on to say that Obama then agreed with what they’d been saying. I think the mental gymnastics he’s performing to skew people’s perceptions are literallyleaving Mardell in a state of insanity. I got the same disturbed feeling listening to him as I did when reading Jared Loughner’s insane ramblings on youtube.
His closing comment was beyond parody and disgrace:-
“And he’s also saying about his opponents rhetoric that when its at its most successful its still a moral failure”.
Did anyone else get this from President Obama’s address today? I haven’t heard it all, but from the snippets Mardell played to justify his thesis, all I could see was Mardell projecting his own thought’s into Obama’s mouth. As far as I can see, Obama has been faultless in his handling of this matter, whereas, well, Mardell has been an obscenity on legs.
FOX NEWS sanity:
“Krauthammer Analyzes Arizona Shooting Suspect”
(5 min video from Bill O’Reilly’s show)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4492971/krauthammer-analyzes-arizona-shooting-suspect
Krauthammer describes those who try and link the murders to Palin as acting out of malice. That may be true for some in the US. I think those at the BBC where acting out of ignorance. Looking at their ridiculous twitters over this episode convinces me that they really do believe what they say.
They are Obama worshippers (they probably have no idea what he stands for, not being Bush is enough)
“Barack Obama’s speech at the memorial service. It’s REALLY worth seeing in full.” [notice the capitals for emphasis]
Tweets by richardpbacon
“Huge cheer for Obama ..it feels more like a rally at the moment” [Can you see the look of glee on his face as he waits to meet the One?]
“Inside Stadium waiting for Obama. Blue “together we thrive” T shirts on the seats.” [No doubt he took some home for his collection]
BUT
“Regan Library to host first debate for Republican presidential candidates next spring. How many chairs will they need ?” [I probably won’t go myself I’ll just base my piece on someone else’s]
9:47 PM Nov 11th, 2010
http://twitter.com/markmardell
So when the suggestion goes around that Palin is somehow linked to the murderous attack in Arizona, it is taken as true, no need to ask questions, no need to wait for any clarification. It must be true. With people like that at the BBC how can any of their “news” be believed?
As the BBC College of Journalism puts it:
“For BBC journalists, accuracy is more important than speed – especially on matters that might cause public anxiety.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/ethics-and-values/truth-accuracy/speed-versus-accuracy.shtml
I think Mardell’s take on President Obama’s address today stands psychiatric analysis.
The difference between Fox News and the other US news networks is like chalk and cheese. Fox has analysts and commentators from both left and right and gives roughky equal time to both. Their political analysis is way ahead of anything the BBC has done in decades in terms of both depth and impartiality.
The comedy channels such as MSNBC and CNN and the like are invariably puerile, shallow – and blatantly pro-Democrat by comparison. In fact, just like the BBC.
I don’t know if anyone here has read Mardells blog recently, but I came across this comment from one of his followers.
41. At 5:51pm on 12 Jan 2011, Dancin Pagan The Mad Kiltie wrote:
Other quotes from Ms Palin,
“We need a final solution to the problem of higher taxes.
We need to send our kids to concentration camps so they can improve their study habits.
I’ve always wanted my lebensraum done in early American.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/01/for_sarah_palin_best_defence_i.html#comments
I have sent a complaint, the BBC must have no idea of the Hitler references in this obnoxious posting. The others seem bad but this one stuck out as really beyond the pale.
“My previous blog, as the BBC’s man in Europe, taught me one thing at least: your comments are key. I read them all, so please have your say. ”
Either he is lying, ignorant or approves of the messages.
JHT, doesn’t it strike you this person has posted parody of Mardell’s ‘journalism’?
It’s hard to tell from some of the fruitcakes that add comments to his invective.
Reading it again you might be right. But as Demon1001 says it is hard to tell.
Good objective Reporting from the Arizona Republic here,* although I think they greatly underplay the danger Loughner was perceived to pose at college. At least one of his teachers had professed a fear he would carry out a campus shooting.
That said, if the BBC wasn’t so obsessed in pushing the agenda of maligning Palin with this tragedy, this is the reporting they’d be doing. They’re not covering the story, they’re pushing a blood libel. Truly evil.
*Hat tip to DP for putting me onto this paper, they ran a great editorial censoring Sherrif Dupnik for politicising the tragedy.
Mardell has somewhat given the game away on the political nature of this event.
It followed pretty much the pattern of every other Obama rally I have been to.
The BBC are now omitting to cover the growing observation that this was indeed a rally. They’re missing the growing furore over the t-shirts, the slogan and the fact that the White House is being questioned on this.
Given this, if this is what passes for analysis it’s a poor showing. Whilst Obama’s speech was another example of what he does best and what helped get him elected in the first place, Mardell would surely question why he should bring politics to an event when it is politics that many are still saying caused this tragedy.
Also by pointing out that his speech was subtly political, does Mardell not have the wit to suggest that speech will therefore come across as follows:
We should rise above it all and have a more reasoned discourse about the nature of politics – but its all their fault and they started it
Not very Presedential is it?
Not very Presdidential if you take Mardell’s word for it. From what I’ve read, President Obama’s conservative critics have virtually to a man and woman lauded the content of his speech.
This is Mardell projecting his wish fulfillment, wanting to see Obama roll in the gutter with him.
Obama didn’t. It’s still very stark just how covered in toxic waste Mardell is. His coverage of the Arizona shootings is more than enough to see him sacked alone, if most of BBC ‘High Command’ were’nt in the gutter with him.
Most people in the US – even the President’s “opponents” – inferred that He was saying that the media’s rush to blame was wrong. He even said explicitly that the political rhetoric which so infuriates the Beeboids did not cause the shootings.
If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy–it did not–but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.
Yet Mardell hears only words directed at political opponents. How biased can you get?
Tee shirts slogans ?? what in gods name is his string pullers on ? we should do this over here say get ‘three world wars and one world cup ‘ tee shirts for next November the 11th i’m sure the beeeb will love that not.
This could have been a solemn reflection on the frailness of human life and helping those left behind to try to gain some peace if they can! but no it’s just a sham political rabble rouser for a failed and damaged president who will jump at any straw passing no matter how deranged ,I have a feeling this will drop his approval rating even more as he can hear the cheers in the room but the country is silent and cut off from him .
And as for the BBC the spectacle of 3 news [that’s the one for drunken fee’s protesters!] saying after oboes visit ‘there was a medical miracle!’ had me in fits or maybe religious rapture at the great one, mind it could have been the spitting me coffee up me nose laughing ?.
OT-ish, but I’ll allow it (well, I hope the site owners will, being a little less anal than Aunty’s mod squad), partly because he is a favoured BBC ‘guest’ and partly because it goes to the mindsets that seem to play in the red corner.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-my-grandmother-deserved-a-better-ending-than-this-2184337.html
A potentially worthy non-partisan share, with worthy personal experience included, turned into a complete inflammatory mess by an inability to resist trying to insert clunky petty tribal politics bolt-ons to suit (and by igrnoring relevant timeframes, creating a massive foot shoot taboot).
Classy. not.
Sound familiar?