The Knives Are Out At The BBC: It’s U.S. Election Time Again

The second-most important election in human history is a mere 445 days away, and the BBC is already focused on informing you how awful the President’s potential opponents are. They’re especially focused on telling you how awful the people are who will vote against Him.

The BBC Narrative picks up right where it left off after the mid-term elections last November: racialism and fear-mongering about Christian Evangelicals.

The first sentence of Jane O’Brien’s report on the poll features her calling the winner, Michelle Bachmann, “the latest darling of the Tea Party”. I’m still waiting for a defender of the indefensible to show me an example of any Beeboid referring to a Labour or Democrat figure as anyone’s “darling”. It’s a pejorative, plain and simple, yet seems to be firmly established in the BBC style guide and is used time and again in this fashion with apparently full approval by the BBC’s editorial policy. And this is what’s used to start a BBC report allegedly intending to impartially inform you about a story.

Bachmann, O’Brien informs us, “narrowly” won the poll. How narrow? We aren’t told. Who came in second? We aren’t told. The next potential opponent of the President O’Brien mentions wasn’t even in the poll: Rick Perry. The only other name mentioned is Mitt Romney, who also didn’t even take part in the Iowa poll. Already the actual agenda is revealed here. This isn’t a report about the Iowa poll at all, or what the results mean: it’s about casting a harsh light on threats to The Obamessiah.

The BBC actually did a whole separate report on Perry already, so what’s the point of bringing him into what’s supposed to be a report about the Iowa scene? Iowa wasn’t the point at all, of course. It’s just an excuse for a BBC editor to tell his correspondent to do a quick report on who might be the potential threat to the President. Which they’re already doing elsewhere, as we’ll see in a moment. In other words, this was a complete waste of time, unless one has a specific agenda.

In fact, Michelle Bachmann won by a mere 152 votes. Congressman Ron Paul came in a close second. Tim Pawlenty came in third, and then dropped out of the race altogether. He never had much of a chance anyway. The three candidates pictured in this HuffingtonPost article aren’t even mentioned by the BBC at all. The actual results, out of a possible 16,892 votes:

1. Rep. Michelle Bachmann: 4,823 (29%)

2. Rep. Ron Paul: 4,671 (28%)

3. Tim Pawlenty: 2,293 (14%)

4. Rick Santorum: 1,657 (1o%)

5. Herman Cain: 1,456 (9%)

6. Write-in votes for Rick Perry, who wasn’t even a candidate yet: 781

7. Write-in votes for Mitt Romney, who skipped Iowa entirely: 567

8. Newt Gingrich: 385

9. Write-in votes for John Hunstman, Jr. who also skipped Iowa: 69

10. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter: 35

Notice who came in 5th, and remember it for later.

So Rep. Paul came in a very close second, barely off the margin of error, and not a single word about him from the BBC. Why? Quite simply because they’ve already written him off. Remember, the Beeboids believe that their mission isn’t really to inform you but to interpret stories for you, so you know what to think about them. You don’t need to know what actually happened at all. Paul has a devoted following. His advocates are very dedicated, hardcore, and like all extremely motivated groups are able to put a good number of bodies on the ground for things like this. That doesn’t mean his result here will translate into equal results on a national scale, but it’s worth telling you that. Imagine if he does rather better for a while than the BBC expects. He’ll be up there as a top contender, and you’ll all be going: “Who the hell is that? I thought Rick Perry came in second in Iowa or something?” Just like, for so many at the BBC, the Tea Party movement “came out of nowhere” (© Emily Maitlis during mid-term election coverage for BBC News on Nov. 2, 2010).

This is the inherent danger of trying to create, as the departed Matt Frei put it, “a rapport” with an entire country, rather than just straight-up reporting. The BBC should have just done a simple news brief on the actual results, with a couple paragraphs about the whos and whys of the top three or five. Job done, public informed, context provided for the larger picture, then move on to the big fish.

As others have already pointed out on the latest Open Thread, the first thing on Jonny Dymond’s agenda (after scoring some drugs, that is) is to tell you that the Iowa Straw Poll attendees are mostly white. Apparently he’s the new North America correspondent to replace Kevin “Teabaggers” Connolly, who has taken his own bias to the Middle East.

The reason to point out their skin color, of course, is simple: to create the impression that, whatever these voters want, it’s not “representative”, as Dymond makes sure to point out, of the rest of the country. Also, ultimately there is a racist subtext here, as we must always remember that racism is of course a primary motivating factor in opponents of the President. But, you may well ask, why didn’t Dymond or any other Beeboid cry “racism” about Herman Cain’s fifth place showing? Well, they don’t like him because he stated in the last debate that he didn’t want Shariah Law to become part of US law, and previously said that he’d want to know if any potential Muslim cabinet member of his supported jihad. You see, the BBC is capable occasionally of seeing past skin color when it suits them. But, as we saw over and over again in the BBC’s reporting on the 2008 Presidential election (the most important election in human history, from the way they covered it), and in their early reporting on the Tea Party movement, when it comes to a black man who holds the approved thoughts, any opponents have racism as at least a partial motivation. Like when Dymond describes the crowd as “white” in the same sentence he says they “really, really want to get rid” of the President. There is no escaping what he’s done here. Racism is clearly a card for them to play at the appropriate time, and their opinion on the matter is based on emotion and not facts.

Although, sometimes the BBC approves of and understands people who vote for their own ethnic group.

As for the demonization of the candidates themselves, note how Dymond and his editor frame their statements. Do the Beeboids ever use the term “red meat” when reporting on Labour or Democrat events? Dymond gets in an early scary code word: “revivalist” as a sort of subliminal set-up for the Narrative. It’s interesting that twice we hear the word “freedom” from the unnamed speaker celebrating Bachmann’s victory, yet the Narrative you’re given from Dymond and the rest of the Beeboids covering this is that religion is the key.

The problem is that the three vox pops featured have nothing to do with race or religion, but talk instead about economic concerns. It’s very clever how the BBC plays this. They give you the vox pops, the actual opinions of the voters, so they can claim impartiality in that they’ve provided the balance of opposing views. But Dymond and his editor bookend these statements with his racialist qualifier and then afterward by saying that Bachmann is popular because she’s a “social conservative”. Did anyone hear that given as a reason in the vox pops? No. It’s almost as if the BBC is telling you not to listen to them. The Beeboids sure as hell don’t, so why should you, eh?

Naturally, the bit of Bachmann’s speech they let you hear is the religious stuff. This is the BBC Narrative in action, making you forget all about the actual statements of the voters. Then he skips the rest of Iowa to talk about the same thing O’Brien did: someone they see as the real potential threat to their beloved Obamessiah, Rick Perry. In case there’s any doubt about the agenda here, the title of Dymond’s piece is about how the Republicans “lash Obama”. Do you need to know what happened? What the voters really want? What the candidates are really about? No. All you need to know is that they’re white, Christian, and are attacking the President. All this silly economics stuff the country has been talking about is by the by. Social Conservatism is the real issue here for the BBC. I guess that means Justin Webb’s book about its “strange death” was a load of BS? Nah, it was that kind of brilliant insight which got him the Today seat.

In case there are any lingering doubts about the BBC’s agenda here, and what they want you to think is the real problem, just read the first words at the top of their piece on Rick Perry:

Perry led 30,000 worshipers at a prayer rally

Yes, of course the excuse here is that the video clip is of Perry at a prayer rally. What about his actual track record as Governor of Texas? Did he turn the state into an Evangelical theocracy or what?

To his supporters, he’s the man who fixed Texas and can answer the country’s economic prayers. Could Rick Perry, who has announced his intention to enter the presidential race, overcome his doubters and end up in the White House?

Oops, the focus is on the economy here. Must switch gears.

The Texas governor ticks many of the boxes on the party’s wishlist. He’s a socially conservative Christian with a record of cutting spending, who can boast that he restored to health the finances of the second largest state in the US, without raising taxes.

There, that’s better. But hey, what’s that about solving the state’s economic problems without raising taxes? The BBC never mentioned this during the whole debt ceiling agreement saga. Curious.

Mr Perry also shares one important quality with his other main Republican rival, Michele Bachmann, who topped a straw poll in the crucial state of Iowa at the weekend. They can both fire up an audience, as he demonstrated a week ago at a prayer rally in Houston which left some of the 30,000 worshippers in tears.

Prayer. And, horrifyingly, he left people in tears over whatever Christian stuff he was talking about. See, it was okay when The Obamessiah went to church. It was okay when He spoke with black church leaders. Did anyone ever see such an emphasis on His Christianity? No. In fact, it had to be played down a bit because of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright problem.

Here’s the thing. I’m not saying that the religion and social conservative thing is a non-issue in the US, or trying to make you think that it’s not at all important to non-Leftoid voters or anything of the sort. What I’m saying is that it’s not the most important issue at all, and that over and over again we hear from the public that the economy is the number one concern which dwarfs all other issues, while the BBC continues to frame things as being the other way round.

Getting back to the piece on Perry, though, it’s amusing to see the BBC suddenly remember that someone was fixing economic problems with the kind of small-government attitude the BBC was denigrating so recently. The problem for the BBC here, though, is that Perry might start looking too good to the reader, so they make sure to bring out the big guns: he’s only “Bush on steroids”. This is enough to strike fear into the heart of any Beeboid, and they expect in your hearts as well. Actually, Bush was barely a small-government kind of President. He let Congress ramp up all kinds of debt under his watch, and was too powerless to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Frank/Dodd to blow up the mortgage bubble which led to all our current woes. But that’s not what the BBC wants you to remember. Just remember how much you hated Bush for being a Christian and a social conservative.

When it comes to Michelle Bachmann, the Beeboids are confused about what to do with her. They’ve already admitted that they can’t play her as a buffoon like they do with Sarah Palin. But they’re clearly scared of her, and it makes their reporting look a little silly at times. Rajesh Mirchandani (how many Beeboids are covering the US scene these days?) opens his report by speaking of her “fiery rhetoric”. And what bit of this rhetoric does the BBC provide for you in the video?

“Barack Obama will be a one-term President!”

Oooh, scary. This is only “fiery rhetoric” if one is a die-hard supporter of the President whom she’s trying to unseat. Surely with all the footage available of her the BBC could have found something a little stronger. That would mean, though, that they think this isn’t strong enough. Clearly they do, and went with it, which is a bit silly.

But hey, at least he only called her a “favorite” of the Tea Party movement and not a “darling”. Then Mirchandani is off to talk about Perry again. Redundancy ‘R’ Us at the BBC. That’s now three Beeboids making the exact same report but with slightly different words. The only thing different is the aegis under which each report is made. The results, though, seem to be exactly the same.

No discussion of the BBC’s coverage of the US (read: coverage of anything which might affect the President) is complete without the BBC North America editor, Mark Mardell. Just back from his hols, Mardell gives us an idea of the impression he’s gotten of the public mood.

The Republican race has moved a little closer to the finishing line while I’ve been taking a few days’ break on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Bad timing, but it reinforced some of my views about next year’s election. More on that in a moment.

Um, has anything not reinforced his views on the US? Ever? Mardell says this about Bachmann and Perry:

They are tailoring their message to the times.

Are they, now?

But for all the Tea Party movement’s insistence that it is about fiscal responsibility and economic conservatism, these two candidates are both evangelical Christians, with a strong line on social conservatism. Perry signed a law that makes a woman about to have an abortion look at an image of her foetus. The stand out question to Bachmann in last week’s debate was whether she still believed, for religious reasons, that a woman should be “submissive” to her husband, and how that would touch the authority of the commander in chief.

Bingo! That’s all three elements on my score card: Evangelical Christian, social conservatism, and abortion. Narrative? What Narrative? What about the economy? Jobs? Small government? Nope, not interested. Scare-mongering against Christians is what works best. Wake me up when a Beeboid takes a similar tone about a Muslim candidate in Britain. But see, Mardell knows all too well what he’s doing, and has a handy riposte:

The right has attacked the media for focusing on such questions. But it is the media’s job to look at weakness, and it may be that social conservatism is not the priority of most Americans right now.

Yes, it may be. But that’s not stopping him as he simply doesn’t care. His opinions have been reinforced, remember. Mardell gives a brief description – in class war terms, naturally – of the area in which he vacationed, and then says this:

We didn’t meet anyone who was following the Republican race. But we did meet plenty of bewilderment at DC politicians and the state of the economy.

Well, thank goodness he didn’t run into any nasty old Republicans to ruin his vacation. And notice how he cleverly makes the problem into a bi-partisan one, shifting blame as always away from the President.

There was a couple running a bar who still seemed slightly surprised they were having their best three business years ever, but worried about what would happen next. There was the woman in the state park depressed and ashamed about the state of America, its education system, and the difficultly of setting up a business.

Whose fault are these oppressive regulations and taxes on small businesses, Mark? It sure ain’t the Republicans, who have been calling for less and less of it. But he still tries to play it as just a generic Washington problem.

There were late night drinks on the balcony of a motel with a Democrat who still had faith in Obama, but shook his head over the state of the economy.

They do seek out their own kind, don’t they? I’m sure Mardell doesn’t even realize what this says about him.

There is huge uncertainty in this country. Wise candidates will focus on that, as well as the more concrete issue of jobs.

Then why the constant focus on Evangelical Christians and social conservatism? Oh, that’s right, since the BBC audience can’t vote in US elections, the real agenda is to demonize the lot of them, and the voters along with them, so you know whom to hate and why when we don’t vote for The Obamessiah.

The stage is now set for future BBC reporting on the 2012 election. All these reports, all these Beeboids working on your dime, one clear Narrative.

Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to The Knives Are Out At The BBC: It’s U.S. Election Time Again

  1. Martin says:

    Just wrote a shitty email to Sky as well when the moron presenter called Bachmann an ‘extremist’

    Sky seem to be trying to outdo the BBC at the moment.


  2. john in cheshire says:

    It would be informative to be told what the churchgoing history is of all Democrats and when (if, of course the are) they started attending church on a regular basis.


  3. London Calling says:

    Any chance that American national TV anchors will start referring to Milliband as a dangerous Marxist extremist, darling of Maoist urban guerillas, with close links to Islamic fundementalist zealots? 

    What’s sauce for the goose y’know…If impartial reporting no longer matters to the BBC, and any smear goes, let battle commence.


  4. Daniel Clucas says:

    God help us if Palin declares. I think I would have to give up all news until after the election :-[


  5. Louis Robinson says:

    David, a perfect posting for setting the scene for 2012.

    I believe we are witnessing is a seismic shift in our political and media culture. In the past, the political and media gate-keepers (so often the same people – if not related to each other) followed straight-forward paths to power and influence. They attended the same private schools, Oxbridge and red brick universities, the civil service, the BBC, “Fleet Street”. So cozy.  So comfortable.  The hoops to jump through were clearly defined.  Thus was born a ruling class that ignored and despised the common man. A defining moment that illustrated this for me was as a new recruit to the BBC, I was asked casually which ‘college’ I attended? The implication was I must have gone to Oxford. In fact, having been sent to work by my family at 18, I have no university degree at all. (I wonder how I slipped through the net?)

    But this orthodoxy – the Ivy League equivalent of Eton, Oxford and influence – is now being challenged by a new class of political activist in the US. The term “Tea Party member” hides the real nature of this grass roots citizen activist.  But why, I’ve been asking myself, is the BBC (and other mainstream media outlets) so anti-Tea Party? Mardell, Webb and Frei have tried to de-legitimize it at every moment in the last two years. Isn’t the Tea Party simply a bunch of right wing “community organizers”?

    UK readers of this might find it hard to understand how powerful this movement is because the phenomenon hasn’t quite arrived in its full force in the UK yet.   But born out of frustration, it will.

    Here in middle-America, in “fly-over” country, in every bar, breakfast diner, church group and social event, there is animated political talk from people who have never played an active role in politics.  As a Brit I find it amazing to listen in to these conversations and hear not the raving rants the BBC would have you believe, but careful and thoughtful discussions from increasingly well-informed people. This new class of activist is obsessed with “holding politicians accountable”. They feel betrayed by Washington and want to control what happens next in their lives, their jobs, their towns. They have no desire to be crowned by the elites; they don’t seek legitimacy at cocktail parties or in magazine articles; they have no desire for knighthoods and honours. They simply want to storm the ballot box
    Imagine how threatened the political Ancien Regime is by them? They are a threat to the status quo. How unimportant a BBC reporter must feel when faced with people who don’t share the very basic assumptions that a nice Liberal Eng. Lit. University graduate holds. Justice? Freedom? You actually believe all that? Good God, you can’t. It’s like an alien world. And thus it is reported.

    The BBC’s job – if I may be so bold – should be to help Briton’s understand what is going on here. The appeal of the Christian Right, the anti-Obama sentiment, the pleas for fiscal responsibility and the beliefs of the Tea Party is more than just the usual clichés to be brushed aside – racism and ignorance being the two most popular excuses. These are people crying out to be heard. Listen to them honestly. But when the media is part of the game being played out, one cannot expect the media to be a referee. It is a player – and playing for its life.

    I suggest, David, you keep these lengthy postings coming. If they are not relevant to Biased BBC, perhaps you can post them elsewhere. But I would love my friends in the UK to get an informed view of the battle to come.  Mardell and co. are a waste of time.

    In closing, I urge everyone to read this article by Victor Davis Hanson. It does a better job than I can ever do of explaining the big picture.

    Thank you. 


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      If the BBC’s job is to help you understand what’s going on, they’re doing a very poor job of it.  What they’re mostly doing is interpreting and filtering the events according to their own very narrow, very partisan mindset.  And it shows.


    • cjhartnett says:

      Excellent post Louis!


      • cjhartnett says:

        Reread it again Louis…and looked at the link you gave.
        Your account is actually better in my opinion!
        Reckon with Daivid and yourself, there`s a Dream Ticket Nomination in 2016 if Michelle/Sarah or those you cite don`t deliver!
        In the meantime…if you want a few postal votes to get the FCO gig here…let us know!


        • Louis Robinson says:

          Thanks cjhartnett. A dream ticket? I’ll take VP. Preiser (USA) can be POTUS. Presidents age. Vice Presidents just shmooze. 


          • Span Ows says:

            Here in middle-America, in “fly-over” country, in every bar, breakfast diner, church group and social event, there is animated political talk from people who have never played an active role in politics.  As a Brit I find it amazing to listen in to these conversations and hear not the raving rants the BBC would have you believe, but careful and thoughtful discussions from increasingly well-informed people”

            Can I second that? It is my own personal experience also.

            P.S. David, another great post. Is there the possiblity of a blog collating all the US posts? I don’t mean taking traffic away from BBBC but, like Craig’s analysis of hours/minutes/interruptions etc on various BBC programmes that basically rips to shreads any defence of the BBC not being bias – it would be nice to have it all together.


            • Millie Tant says:

              v-Bulletin software would enable the organisation of threads by topic, so all the American election posts and comments could be kept together and readily retrieved and added to as needed.

              / stuck-record-like muttering…v-Bulletin software, v-Bulletin…


    • Maturecheese says:

      I have one question, and I have to admit I am not well informed on American politics, why hasn’t Col Allen West stood for nomination?  From what media coverage via You Tube I have seen, he would be a great President.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Col. West has only just been elected to his very first term in the House.  Way too soon.  Give him time.


  6. Millie Tant says:

    Thank you, David P. Very interesting post makes telling points about the game the Beeboids play with politics.  


  7. London Calling says:

    A calm clear insightful exposition, compared with the malicious cheerleading drivel pouring out the BBC.

    I have a dream. One day we will get this quality of analysis and reporting from our own state broadcaster. Hat-tip to the Internet, without which we wouldn’t get it at all. And fear for a country in which 75% of the population turn to the BBC for its News.

    Cameron’s wilfull blindness to the rotten state of the BBC is to his eternal shame.


  8. cjhartnett says:

    David…just the man!
    Now that Alistair Cookie has left his flip flops unoccupied since 2004( he was a Salford lad you know!), and you have fired the gun( Obama still lets you doesn`t he?) on this landmark election to come…I wonder if you could pop down Pennsylvania Ave next time you`re summonsed and have a word?

    Tell the US Homeland Security that a wagon full of treacherous sneery third rate jobbies are already planning visas, Club Class and a window to lay a wreath at the death of the career prospects of DSK!
    Ther maids of NYC deserve a break from our fat seedy hypocritical blokes…EU or BBC types…
    Snow, Paxo, Nightie…like mink in a knicker drawer and desperate to claim expense bragging rights in the Press Club( virtual of course,now Rupert closed his tab ).
    Everyone of them is putting our 2020 Carbon Emissions Targets at risk, and Dominique found that Gaia exacts her price!

    Due to Health and Safety worries…all those guns, fast food and low grade accents and stuff…I beg you to ensure these parasitic patriots get no visas. They`re a bit fat,smug and privileged these days and we need to mock them here!
    As you`re there already-Ann, Glen and the like as well …why not send usJonStewart, Michael Moore so we know where all the global cabbages are at one and the same time!
    Have a word David…a lot of traitorous smugbags over here…who should NOT be given the chance to shit their ball bearings and venom under the Sarahs, Michelles and the likeover there.
    Jenni Murray may yet find it in her capacious handbag to thank me…sexism like terrorism should not be exported (so I believe!)


  9. Cassandra King says:

    Thanks for a brilliant insightful post David P.

    The left are deserate, truly desperate. They see their man set to lose and they cannot bear the thought, the man they tried so hard to pimp as the second coming a faliure.

    The left has decided on an attack strategy, a combined intense and concerted effort via the leftist MSM in the form of the BBC/NUJ etc to concentrate on the religious beliefs of the Republian candidates, it is an easy attck line, they can easily portray them as bigoted, divisive, intolerant. All through the next year we will be bombarded with the Republican candidates religious beliefs and they will be protrayed as extremist conservative.

    Another attack stratey will be the trusty old internal division smears, as Mardell states, the Repuplican leadership are concerned that “non of the candidates are up to the job, none have got what it takes” Who actually gave Mardell his info is not clear, nor will it ever be because it is simply not true, he has already sunk to lying and this is just the start.

    So the BBC is bringing us a democrat interpretation of reality, a perverted version of reality that has nothing to do with reality at all. We are being presented with a vision of Republican candidates as fierce intolerant, divisive, bigoted, religious nut cases, not up to the job. You can bet the farm that the democrat bin divers and smear merchants will be working closely with the BBC to spin the truth, dig up unfounded smears and enact a series of highly coordinated attacks. The stage is set, the participants are gearing up for the dirtiest fight yet.

    At least we have David P (USA) to guide us through the poisonous fog being created by the left 😀 . BTW the BBC has yet to admit that O’Bama had a super majority for two years which he squandered and yet it is the Republicans that will be blamed for O’Bamas failures.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Cassie, the President and the BBC told me that it’s Washington and “our politics” that are broken.  I guess that super-majority was only good for slamming ObamaCare through and a Spendulus bill, and it wasn’t really working properly after all.  *DONT_KNOW*


      • bettyann says:

        David, he says our politics are broken because he cannot abide the obstruction of presidential powers: he was educated abroad. He did not pay attention in civics 101. He wanted to be king. Instead, the ground swell of the power of citizenry, by a people with an unclouded vision of America, has unblalanced him, and frightened him as well as his minions.

        The conservative ascendency has begun. We’ll be getting that Churchill bust back from you shortly. Keep it dusted! 😉


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Exactly, bettyann.  It’s only “broken” when the Leftoids don’t get what they want.  It’s just like before the mid-terms, with St. Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Smugness”:  we must all work together.  When it’s to support the Democrats’ plans only, that is.


  10. TooTrue says:

    David, great post exposing the agenda-pushing BBC. If Obama is reelected, BBC political journalists will be tripping over empty champagne bottles in the corridors and nursing hangovers for days.

    How tall is Bachmann?  I don’t think she’ll have a chance to be president if she’s short. America is a country of tall people. I guess if you take the average height of all US presidents and subract 6 inches because she’s a woman, it’ll become clear whether or not she’ll be in the running. People need to look up to leaders.

    This is my contribution to the debate on the future president. It makes as much sence as the BBC’s. Perhaps more.


    • Millie Tant says:

      It was obvious that Hillary had the height disadvantage. Her fatal mistake was not to wear high heels. Trotting around in those sensible one-inch-heel flatties and trouser suits was futile when what was needed was a storming six-inch stiletto, bouffant hair and an extravagant skycraping fascinator atop the lot.


  11. TooTrue says:

    That should be SENSE, of course.


  12. deegee says:

    Obama is a self-declared Christian. I wonder if the BBC and the Obama reelection campaign will treat that as they do his middle name, something to be pulled out when advantageous and hidden when not?


    • ltwf1964 says:

      judging by the “church” he attended and the race hustler who “preached ” in it,i SERIOUSLY doubt it


  13. Phil says:

    There are a couple of Mormons in that list of Republicans.

    The BBC hasn’t mentioned that much yet. Perhaps that’s because they are searching for a way to correctly ‘analyse’ a Christian linked religion which favours polygamy and male domination without drawing obvious parallels with the one religion it doesn’t regard as a form of mental illness.  


    • RGH says:

      Muslims like Mormons…from a distance and propose that Mormons are moving in their direction….no Trinity, Jesus as God and all that. Plus predestination.  Tricky for the BBC. Very tricky.

      Similarities exist between the origins of Islam and those of Mormonism:
      Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were reportedly inspired to start their movements by angelic visits: the Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel) in the case of Muhammed, and the Angel Moroni for Joseph Smith (following a visit Smith claimed to have received from God and Jesus Christ three years earlier). In each event, the angel in question helped to prepare the prophet to receive a series of revelations from God.Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith left behind authorized books they claimed to be direct revelations from God, books that their followers accept as Scripture.Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were persecuted by hostile locals and later forced to relocate (from Mecca to Medina, and from Missouri to Illinois, respectively) during the formative periods of their careers.Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith established theocratic city-states during their respective ministries, Muhammad being invited to take the rule of Medina, while Joseph Smith would found Nauvoo, Illinois. Later under Brigham Young the trek to the Great Salt Lake.


      • bettyann says:

        This is all very true. Mitt will not be elected, partly due to his religion, but mostly due to his willingness to compromise. The Tea Party will not compromise, nor suffer any who suggest it.


  14. cjhartnett says:

    Might be worth finding out haw many BBC stringers we are paying to say the same few things on behalf of the BBCs Department of Truth and Nice Things.
    Any chance of a beauty contest  type show where only the objective and unbiased Beeber gets to stay after three days?…Homeland Security surely have enough real problems apart from our refugees from reality spitting popcorn dowm the back of your necks?
    Maybe just some knowledge of the country and its “real” history might sift them out for you.
    Send the boys home-we need `em on the Home Front here!


  15. Deborah says:

    Thanks to both David P and Louis R – with posts like these we are so much better informed than the £3 billion state broadcaster ever delivers.


  16. D B says:

    Justin Webb‘s first post-holiday tweet is a sneering take on the current Republican field:

    Back from hols and focussed on the riot that is the Republican pres race: are they serious? Only Jeb Bush can save the party from disaster

    So Mr Supercilious can’t take anyone other than Jeb Bush seriously. Impartial reporting is therefore unlikely, wouldn’t you say?


  17. Louis Robinson says:

    There was an interesting exchange between ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and reporter Jake Tapper on Monday. 

    Stephanopoulos said, “I was talking to a White House official…their strategy will be to lash whoever gets the Republican nomination” to the Republican Congress and “former President Bush.” A few seconds later Stephanopoulos asserted, “ALREADY IN THE POPULAR CULTURE, the idea is taking hold that he (Rick Perry) is a carbon copy of George W. Bush.”From White House talking point to “popular culture” in ten seconds. Wow!

    When you hear the “Perry is a carbon copy of Bush” storyline on the BBC remember it’s a Democratic election talking point not an idea that is “part of the popular culture”.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Good catch, Louis.  Stephanopoulos should know a White House talking point being pushed when he sees one, as that’s exactly what his job was in the Clinton White House.

      But ‘carbon copy’?  Hardly.  It just shows how much it’s a manufactured bit of propaganda.

      I’m sure that will be part of the Leftoid blog culture by this afternoon, and it’s already part of the BBC culture.  Mirchandani pushed the “Bush on steroids” line.


    • wild says:

      “Like wealthy people in the Middle Ages who bought indulgences instead of truly repenting their sins, the more our elites preached about egalitarian politics…the less badly they felt about their own …conniving for privilege and status.”  
      As a rule of thumb the more a member of the elite “redistributes” from the taxpayer into their own pockets, the more they protest about social unjustice.  
      A Guardian reader is essentially a leech.  
      In their fantasy world everybody is equally poor (but themselves) everybody is equally ignorant (but themselves) everybody is equally unfree (except themselves) and the enemy (the eternal enemy) is a free society, in which (horror of horror) Sun readers go on holidays to Tuscany, in which Daily Telegraph readers opt out of sending their children to the State school, and where Daily Express readers give plays in which people dressed in black march around the stage shouting that Murdoch is a Fascist, and spend their money on a musical about singing nuns instead.  
      “In large part the present re-set..arises because our political and cultural leaders exercised influence that by any rational standard they had never earned.”  
      I do not recall being asked if I want to pay wealthy Newsnight presenters to tell me their Leftist creed, about why they think I should vote Labour, because if asked I might point out that in my opinion (I do apologise) they give the impression that they are ignorant bigots talking about things they know nothing about, in tones which make it clear that illumination (not the least their own)  is far from their minds.  
      All they have mastered (other than the ability to read an autocue) is the art of sneering at anything which subverts their very comfortable worldview.  
      A worldview in which they despise a society in which people have the freedom to say “I would rather not be forced to pay your holiday home in the Algarve thank you very much, I would rather spend my money on a translation of Thucydides by Enoch Powell, in the hope that I might (in the few hours when I am not working to pay off the bills run up by you and other leeches in the Leftist establishment) learning something about the world. A world in which Lenin is not a hero but a pathetic little man who (with the support of people like you) was responsible for the death of millions. Like you care. 


      • cjhartnett says:

        Blisteringly well put again wild!
        Will read this whenever I find myself somehow wanting to pick at the BBC positions…just not worth it!
        Why bother even looking at their bleeding hearts and trailing consciences? I know we`re paying to be so slapped…but the more I read pieces like this-the more the necessary groundswell is gathering to wash the BBC off the nations face.
        Sense we`ll soon be going from water pistols to a water cannon!
        Thanks for this!


      • ltwf1964 says:

        excellent post wild


      • Louis Robinson says:

        Well done wild (Wilde).

        Your description of elites reminds me of a conversation some years ago with a Yorkshire TV executive over a very expensive lunch in London. I asked how “real” or “gritty” the location of the script I was working on should be. He replied, “Make it the sort of place we write about but would be loathed to live in.” Then, he added, unaware of the irony from a YTV man, “you know, somewhere up north”. 


  18. cjhartnett says:

    With the level of theology and US current affairs that the likes of David and Louis have brought out here, I only wish that  BBC reporters would get out of their transit lounges and Hooters bars and actually TALK to some real Americans…and if they know none, at least some people who just might like the country enough to live there and stop sneering at their hosts!
    I`ve said this before…but if not for the USA, we`d not even know what a free country aspires to be…let alone have been sheltered and inspired by in the face of the Euroslime that our elite seem to think is wanted.
    I know that the elite want the Soviets back in EU giuse…and that Chinese methods of control appeal, but -as ever-REAL people know love and respect the USA and all it stands for as an ideal.
    It gets it wrong…but is right too often in too important areas for us not to be thankful!
    God Bless the USA!


    • bettyann says:

      As an American and a member of the Tea Party, which is not a party per se, but an attitude (we are not a third party, and do not aspire to be one) I do not understand the BBC’s preoccupation in reporting to BBC watchers on the theological aspects of being furious at our government’s veering from the founding. Unless, the reason maybe to give Britons a distaste for smouldering righteous conservative rage. They have it all wrong, as David points out, and as cj here points out as well, they sneer.

      The Tea Party is about you, brothers. Your riots are constantly on conservative talk outlets here, new media and old. We look to Britain our motherland, the land where human justice was born, where government evolved from kingship into the realm of humanity as the bastion of civility, the rock of moral fortitude, of tenacious courage in the face of overwhelming enemy: your tea party is coming. We will export it to you. Stand fast. And God bless Great Britain.  


      • Reed says:

        Unfortunately, Bettyann, many of the aspects that you admire about Britain have been undermined greatly in recent years, thanks mostly to our previous Labour government. Natural justice for the majority is regularly trumped by the human rights of the minority in the court of so-called social justice ; civility replaced with a sneer ; fortitude and courage with victimhood and entitlement.
        Hopefully the decent majority will awake and make themselves much more audible in the near future. That any of our leaders might pay attention is another matter altogether.


  19. Gerald says:

    Wonderful thread. I hope all 300+ who are signed up and the many who aren’t who dip into BBBC read this one and mark as many other people’s cards over what to expect over the coming months from the BBC. I find if you tell people what to look out for in BBC coverage the penny starts to drop.

    Undoubtedly the Mormon connection will be played up in a disparaging way, but loved the link above to another religion with similar views. It will give me a good “in” at work when it gets mentioned on the news to ask which other religion is like the Mormons but the BBC doesn’t disparage them


    • cjhartnett says:

      Yes-I too loved this Muslim/Mormon link!
      “Who`d a thunk it” as a wise woman above once said!


  20. John Anderson says:

    The problem as ever is that we get the BBC saying what they allege the candidates to be saying and standing for – we seldom get to hear the candidates themselves.  On the Internet I can immediately find Bachmann,  Romney and now Parry enunciating their beliefs and proposals.   Byut virtually damn-all live stuff on the BBC.

    Quite the opposite when Obama speaks.   Beeboids seem to just love His voice.


    And the same thing applies this side of the pond.  I have heard endless commentary on what Cameron is supposed to have been saying about the riots – but far too little clean tape-recording of what he is actually saying,  and how he is saying it.   Just the odd soundbite – and then on comes some BBC talking head.

    The whole point of radio and TV is that we can and should be able to hear our politicians speak for themselves.   We don’t need the “reporter” to tell us what they are saying.  We have our own eyes and ears.

    We truly don’t want the endless prism of BBC commentary.


    • ltwf1964 says:

      you’ll wait a while before you see this video of o’barmy on the beeb

      for those who have never seen it-



  21. Umbongo says:

    As usual, we get more information about the US political scene from this posting by one gifted amateur than from all the over-generously rewarded Stasi wannabees at the BBC.  The rot started to gain serious traction at the BBC when the “mission to inform” was replaced by the “mission to explain”.  At that point, it became open season for all the bien pensant crapola with access to a microphone at the BBC to “interpret” the news rather than simply convey it and any lingering notion of separating fact from opinion disappeared down the memory hole.

    Worse, the “mission” has morphed into a process in which, if the news cannot be interpreted in line with the BBC narrative, it’s either ignored or twisted or just replaced with lies.  Unfortunately, until a government is elected which is prepared to effect a cure for the malignant cancer on the body politic that the BBC has become, it can only get worse.


    • ltwf1964 says:

      don’t be holding your breath for cameroon to do the job

      hasn’t the balls he was born with