I’m sorry to keep making posts about this, but this time the BBC has really gone too far in their deceitfulness.
Wisconsin budget cuts: Madison rally attracts thousands
On the fifth day of such protests, opponents of the Republican state Governor, Scott Walker, outnumbered supporters of the bill.
The bill introduced in the Wisconsin congress would cut sharply the wages and benefits of public sector workers, and curtail collective bargaining.
Saturday’s rallies were peaceful despite angry chants on both sides.
“Sharply cut the wages and benefits” is union talking points. Same use of emotional, partisan language, just different choice of words than last time. But that’s not the worst part. Notice the “angry chants” were “on both sides”.
This is where the BBC disgusts me. Their Narrative about the Tea Party movement, as I’ve been reminding everyone for the last few days focused on the “anger”. There was never a raised Beeboid eyebrow at the anger of anti-Bush protests, and until now there hasn’t been a single mention about the anger of these union supporters. Until now, since they can pin blame equally on either side, thus mitigating any damage done to the Left.
But that’s still not even the worst part. This is:
Anti-Walker protester Jim Schneider, 69, waved a sign with “Hosni Mubarak?” written next to a picture of the governor, who has refused to negotiate with the unions.
Now, you might be thinking to yourself, “Hey, Dave, this is actually progress. The BBC is finally reporting on this kind of stuff when the Left does it. Not sure I agree with you here.” But then you’ll read this:
“The Egyptians have been a great example to us,” the retired teacher said. “What happens here is going to be very important to what happens in a lot of other states, just like the thing that happened in Egypt had an effect on a lot of other countries in the Middle East.”
The BBC even provides space to support this kind of behavior. They agree with the sentiment, of course. I’d like to point out, however, that for some reason the BBC decided to censor the image of the actual poster. I don’t know if it’s either of these two (Craig posted the one on the right in a comment to my last Wisconsin post), but I suspect it’s the one on the left:
In which case the BBC forgot to tell you that this guy is calling Walker a dictator. I’m sure that doesn’t help the Narrative that these area all good people, “workers”, salt of the earth, on the side of the angels. And if you missed which side you’re supposed to support, they make sure to mention that the governor “has refused to negotiate with the unions”.
And that’s it. Nothing else from the BBC about any signage or angry rhetoric. No mention of Hitler signs or union supporters comparing Governor Walker with Nazis. Instead, the BBC tries to play it as the anger being equal from both sides.
Not only that, but notice also how the only speaker for the Tea Party group was “Joe the Plumber” (for whom the BBC made sure to spell out his real name, a reminder of the moment when the BBC and Leftoid media tried to smear him as being a fake), but no mention at all of Herman Cain. Cain is an actual pundit and has a very large following. His name is even tossed around in discussions of 2012.
Why censor the news about Mr. Cain, BBC? Is it ’cause he is black?
There’s one more bit of information about these protests that’s been censored by the BBC: apparently a few alleged physicians (some actually med students) are handing out fake sick notes so the protesters can get off work. One of them even gave a sick note to Andrew Breitbart. Needless to say, this is a violation of federal law. But the BBC will keep quiet. Just like they’re keeping shtum about the fact that their beloved Obamessiah has sent His minions (Organizing for America) to help rouse the rabbles.
Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.
David — as you know, the Wisconsin ruckus is hugely important, there is focus on it from all over the US because it epitomises the major fault line – taxpayers objecting to having to fund over-generous pension and health provisions for public sector workers, this is driving states towards bankruptcy.
The BBC report starts with a total lie. Scott Walker is NOT trying to cut wages. He is trying to make eg the teachers pay a moderate contribution towards their pension and health costs. Same as with Chris Christie in New Jersey, same as other Governors.
The difference in Wisconsin is the out-of-order behaviour of the protestors. Unions like the SIEU are bussing people in from out-of-state, 40% of the teachers claimed they were “sick” – and people were handing out fake sick notes for them, many teachers took their classes along – and meanwhile the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate decamped to a luxury resort in Illinois to avoid being at Madison to take part in votes on the Governor’s measure.
Here is the Governor at a press conference explaining why his policies are necessary – and that they had been endorsed at the November election.
Note – he explains everything clearly, no teleprompter !
Correct, John. Walker’s plan will affect the union members’ take-home pay, but that’s not the same thing as salaries (wages). Unless one uses the union definitions, of course.
The plan will cut the state (employer) contribution to pension and medical and other benefits, but not salaries, from what I can tell. This means that the employees will have to be like the private sector and actually pay something out of their own pockets, thud reducing the amount they take home. Most of us in the real world have had to deal with that at one time or another, and it’s not pleasant. But it’s how the other half lives. The nomenklatura never like that, which is why the Beeboids’ own union squealed when they had to pony up. They think they’re above it, that they deserve more than the rest of us.
The BBC copy editor here uses union talking points.
Followed the link on Herman Cain.
The BBC would have a seizure if his profile were to rise. Rest assured until they absolutely have to, they won’t let it register.
Words like these:
“For the last couple of days, America has heard from ten percent of the workforce. It’s now time for them to hear from the [other] 90 percent of the workforce,” Cain told the crowd. “Maybe the ten percent has forgotten that we pay the bills.”
…would have the effect of sunlight on Dracula for the Beeboid psyche.
Even liberal commentators in the US have stated that the Governor’s policy is reasonable :
School boards face a straight choice – either the costs per teacher are reduced, with teachers being required to make a SMALL contribution to their health cover and pensions, far less that people in the private sector contribute – or the numbers of teachers will have to be reduced. The teachers’ union is resisting any change – even though this threatens the jobs of many of their members.
All the polling I have seen suggest that the people of Wisconsin are backing the Governor. As Obama once said – elections have consequences !
Many of the signs carried by the protestors against the Govgernor are despicable :
Plus the protestors against the Governor left an awful lot of trash behind :
Compare that mess to the way the Tea Party folks cleared up everything after the big rally in Washington.
apparently a few alleged physicians (some actually med students) are handing out fake sick notes so the protesters can get off work.
Surely they can be struck off for that? Or prevented becoming doctors if still only students. If this is true it needs investigating and appropriate action taken.
In BBC land there’s a world of difference between righteous lefty anger however intemperately it is expressed and good old-fashioned bitter and twisted right of centre anger.
The former is motivated by altruism and compassion, the latter by greed and ignorance.
The BBC has a duty to educate about this vital difference.
You used 42.86% too mnay words in your concluding sentence. ‘Don’t trust the BBC’ would have sufficed!
I’ve looked and looked and looked on the BBC site and all that I’m given to understand is:
“The bill introduced in the Wisconsin congress would cut sharply the wages and benefits of public sector workers, and curtail collective bargaining.”
I looked elsewhere for my information and what do I find:
“Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, estimates the state budget deficit for the rest of this fiscal year at $137 million and for the next two fiscal years under its biannual budget at $3.3 billion.
He wants state workers to increase contributions to pensions to 5.8 per cent of salary and double contributions to health insurance premiums to 12.6 per cent.
The proposal would limit collective bargaining to the issue of wages and cap increases to the rate of inflation, with a voter referendum needed for bigger increases.
It also would end government collection of union dues, allow workers to opt out of unions, and require unions to hold recertification votes every year. Walker said the alternative is to lay off more than 10,000 public employees.”
Now, no thanks to the BBC, I can see what it is all about.
Good, old-fashioned union power using its political collective muscle against a democratically recently mandated State government confronted by tough choices based on fairness to the many, many tax payers who themselves are facing tough choices.
Walker is clearly doing the right thing.
But the BBC leaves us with the impression that somehow its personal (a Hosni Mubarack clone).
“Governor Walker insists he has the backing of the state’s voters, arguing that the bill is necessary to avoid painful job cuts.”
BBC, he has and he must.
Actually, the largest effect of the bill is removing unions from bargaining over benefits and retirement packages.
Benefit and retirement packages are managed, and largely funded, by the State. Walker is saying that there is no need for the State to negotiate with unions over them (as you can imagine, the unions skim a percentage off of those negotiations). Rather, the taxpayers, through their representatives, will determine the benefits packages they are willing to fund.
This is a bit hard to explain to a non-American, but this all ties into the Tea Party’s notion of shifting political authority as close to the local level as is reasonable (in the US you have: Federal>State>County>Municipal governments).
Teachers contract are probably negotiated on the County level (each County has a School Board that manages their schoools). However, collective bargaining means that the benefuts package, which is a huge portion of their staff expenses, is negotiated at the State level. Hence, local School Boards have their hands tied.
By removing unions from the benefits packages, County governments will be able to exert an upward pressure on the State which they currently don’t have as long as unions maintain control of the process.
The ‘use’ and abuse of ‘anger’, selectively, by the BBC is getting beyond a joke.
‘Reporters’ start off interviews with ‘Just how angry are you…’ or ‘How much anger is there on the streets…’
Oddly, this seems mainly to be the case if it revolves around issues when they see themselves as speaking for the masses.
This is a straightforward news item. The “battle lines” are clearly drawn. The major news providers and gatherers in the US – even Reuters – give a relatively consistent picture of both what is happening and why. However, as David Preiser and commenters on this thread note, the BBC fails to provide a disinterested view of what’s actually happening let alone the whys and wherefores.
Mind you, the BBC – if it can get away with it – ignores anything which disturbs the narrative. For instance, the assault on CBS’s Logan were misreported (the shouts of “Jew Jew” were missed from the BBC report – even as a “CBS claims” put-down) despite BBC’s finest – well Bowen – being present in Cairo. The lesson to be learned and spread as widely as possible is that if you are interested in the truth, any report on any subject from the BBC must be checked against other news and background sources to ensure that a more or less accurate picture can be obtained. The BBC has set aside the “facts are sacred” element of journalism and opts for a biased choice of which facts to report. Accordingly, its editing, although ostensibly devoted to sorting the wheat from the chaff, is organised to result in the broadcasting of the chaff which fits the BBC narrative. As bad, the BBC specialist correspondents (eg by Bowen and Black) consistently present a grossly distorted picture of both the facts in play and the political and/or scientific background to those matters in which the BBC puts them forward as “experts”.
Unfortunately, the BBC maintains – and is even expanding – its unrivalled influence on the making of opinion in the UK. The “cuts” theme as interpreted through the lens of BBC “public=good private=bad” bile has triumphed and the coalition will suffer mightily at the fortcoming local elections. FWIW and IMHO the coalition should suffer: not because the cuts are too deep but because, in reality, they do not exist: it is the direction of public expenditure, not its extent, which has marginally changed.
A journalist here points out that Obama was far quicker to condemn the Wisconsin Governor than he was to criticise Mubarak ! Plus Obama’s political organisation helped mobilise protestors to the State Capitol.
That is – Obama acting in his typical “community organiser” fashion. The Governor is telling him to butt out – and go fix the federal budget properly.
This clip alos points out how crucial Wisconsin is to Obama’s chances of re-election – this could be Ground Zero, if he loses the argument in Wisconsin, he’ll lose it all over the US.
It is the taxpayers who voted thios Governor in versus the stranglehold of organised labour in monopoly activities like education. US education standards and results are applling (just like here) but teachers earn handsomely and get better perks than private sector workers.
sorry – here’s the link to the ABC panel discussion :
Come to think of it, He spoke out faster here than He did after the Gulf Oil Spill. One can always tell what He really cares about.
Foreign policy to achieve long-term US goals? No.
Illegal immigration? Nah.
Fiscal responsibility to preserve the future success of the country? Nope.
Pushing a neo-Marxist domestic agenda at every opportunity, regardless of the laws of the country? You betcha.