The BBC has managed to squeeze two items out of a Washington Post story on Marco Rubio’s family history, with a news report and an accompanying bit of pointless padding from Daniel “let’s defend Obama” Nasaw (unsurprisingly both pieces make prominent reference to Rubio’s status as a Tea Party favourite). Thanks to the internet we can get a different perspective, and Hot Air provides us with a statement from the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies:
The Washington Post seems to have very little understanding of the Cuban exile experience and what it means to be an exile. Marco Rubio’s family was forced to stay in America because they refused to live under a communist system. That makes them exiles. It makes no difference what year you first arrived. The fundamental Cuban exile experience is not defined according to what year Cubans left, but rather by the simple, painful reality that they could not return to their homelands to live freely.
It’s so predictable that the pro-Democrat BBC would cover the Rubio story in the way it has and yet totally ignore Joe Biden’s recent outrageous claims that opposition to Obama’s jobs bill will lead to increased rape and murder. We know from the Rubio articles that BBC journalists have been reading the Washington Post this week; it’s stretching the bounds of credulity to believe not one of them saw the paper’s Fact Check column in which Biden’s statements were debunked and awarded the highest mark of Four Pinocchios.
It’s also revealing of BBC priorities that there’s been no follow-up to Fast and Furious since August, and that it hasn’t touched the Solyndra story in over three weeks, despite more revelations in both scandals. And goodness how the BBC’s US journos are suddenly quiet about the Occupy movement since it all started going Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm. They were queuing up to cover it a week ago. [*See updates]
When Bush was in power the BBC went out looking for political scandal (for example agenda-driven conspiracy-peddling left-wing activist Greg Palast – who recently told a crowd of lefties they should urinate on Republicans – was a regular reporter on Newsnight). Can anybody think of a single example of BBC journalists digging up dirt on the current administration? Has there been any scuffed BBC shoe-leather in pursuit of Democrat scandal? Some of Mark Mardell’s efforts read like they’ve been dictated to him by White House press secretary Jay Carney (who is, let’s not forget, husband to the co-author of Katty Kay’s book Womenomics). The BBC really should drop the laughable pretence of impartiality and just declare its hand:
[*] UPDATE 13:40. Related to the Occupy Wall Street protests – here’s another story from this week’s Washington Post which the BBC chose not to pick up:
Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data.
UPDATE 14:00. H/t John Anderson:
Yes, and yesterday they found the space to publish a negative article about Michele Bachmann.
As for this Marco Rubio story, wonder if Daniel Nasaw was alerted to it by the man he quotes in his piece, historian Rick Perlstein. Perlstein also appeared in another Nasaw piece last month. Very cosy, using the same ‘expert’ in various reports.
Perlstein, incidentally, like a couple of Nasaw’s former colleagues at the Guardian (Michael Tomasky and Daniel Davies), was a known member of the JournOList (the once-secret emailing list of Ezra Klein used to coodinate attacks on the Republicans and defend Obama during the 2008 election). Perlstein might still be up to the same tricks. 2/3 of the people on that list are stlll unaccounted for. Wonder if anyone else then working at theGuardian was on it?
More top spotting, Craig.
“Wonder if anyone else then working at theGuardian was on it?”
Well, we can ask.
Just to add a little more smoke to the fire …a second ‘expert’ in the other report from ex-Guardianista Daniel, “sociologist Prof Todd Gitlin of the Columbia University journalism school”, was another member of the JournOList”. That’s quite a co-incidence.
A little background on this item:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47026
The WaPo has already been smacked around over this. If people didn’t already understand that the BBC looks to this biased rag as a thought leader for what to report about the US, then this should be the final proof needed. All Simon Wilson and his minions need to see is the front page, and they’re off and running.
What’s really amusing is that the Beeboids apparently can’t grasp that this is the very kind of political asylum they so often champion. The Cubans in Florida could care less exactly when they left. All that matters is they didn’t want to live in Castro’s utopian paradise (the one the BBC celebrated for years). There’s also the way the BBC and their fellow travellers at the WaPo hate anyone who opposed Castro. And to think the BBC won an award for this kind of sh!t. Well, considering the award was given out by far-Left media types, I shouldn’t be surprised. Thompson and Boaden decided to cut coverage in lots of other places so they could ramp up their US division, and this is the inevitable result.
Pathetic BBC. Oh, and once again the dopey Beeboids give far more attention to Bachmann, who has yet to win anything or lead any poll, than they have to Herman Cain. Is it cos he is black?
Heh.
Hmm, out of the 170 people Daniel Nasaw follows on Twitter, 12 of them are known members of the JournOList:
Spencer Ackerman, Wired
Brian Beutler, Media Consortium
David Corn, Mother Jones
Eve Fairbanks, New Republic
Dana Goldstein, Daily Beast
Ezra Klein, Washington Post
Nico Pitney, Huffington Post
Nate Silver, fivethirtyeight
Ben Smith, Politico
Michael Tomasky, Guardian
Dave Wiegel, Slate
Matthew Ygelias, Think Progress
He has been in Twitter contact with several of them. So, we can add them to Rick Perlstein and Todd Gitlin as people he has had contact with. Hmm.
That’s not even 10 percent. I’d be more interested in who the other media people are he follows. If they’re all of the Left, he’d be another Jane Bradley, albeit even less self-aware.
Nice work again, Craig. I’ve got a feeling Nasaw won’t be replying to my question.
No, I bet he won’t!
yep nice one
Wow, the desperate squirming of B-BBC regulars is as hilarious as it is pitiful.
Marco Rubio caught out; “getting a few dates wrong…”.
Complain about him being linked to the tea party (because he’s been found out). Drop in a little ad-hom about the BBC reporter. Link to a rightwing blog site. And then thrash around desperately trying to change the subject…
“Greg Palast – who recently told a crowd of lefties they should urinate on Republicans”
Yeah right…
But never mind. Nothing to do do with Marco Rubio; let’s all blame Daniel Nasaw instead.
Pathetic.
Pathetic Dez.
It’s not desperate to point out the simple fact that the BBC chooses to ignore certain stories – eg Biden gaffes, details of Obama campaign donations, embarrassing difficulites for the Occupy movement – but never misses a chance to get in some Republican bashing. And pointing out past political statements of BBC reporters is not ad hom, it’s background.
Greg Palast is a Republican-hating left-wing activist. Newsnight employed him for years. Would a BBC editor even consider commissioning, say, Andrew Breitbart to produce investigations into the Democrats? No. Never. Go figure.
DB, ok I looked up “Biden gaffes”; pretty meagure stuff.
Obama campaign donations;
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp
Solyndra has been reported by the BBC, but apparenty because that was three weeks ago it doesn’t count.
I don’t know which “embarrassing difficulites for the Occupy movement” you are refering to, so can’t comment either way.
“And pointing out past political statements of BBC reporters is not ad hom, it’s background”.
Maybe, but listing 12 out of the 170 people Daniel Nasaw ‘follows’ on twitter sounds remarkably like an an attack on Daniel Nasaw rather than on what he’s written for the BBC.
DB, ok I looked up “Biden gaffes”; pretty meagure stuff.
The VP misrepresenting rape data in the cause of political point-scoring is hardly meagre. Lesser gaffes by less important Republican politicians have been reported with enthusiasm by the BBC.
“Obama campaign donations;
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp“
My point relates to a Washington Post article from last week which highlights Obama’s campaign donations from financial employees. Your response concerns claims about foreign financing from 2008. Poor, even by your standards.
Solyndra has been reported by the BBC, but apparenty because that was three weeks ago it doesn’t count.
There have been developments in both Solyndra and Fast and Furious (which I note you don’t mention) since the BBC last reported on them. It is inconceivable that such foot-dragging would’ve occurred had these scandals happened under a Republican administration.
I don’t know which “embarrassing difficulites for the Occupy movement” you are refering to, so can’t comment either way.
Well, the ones I link to in the blog for starters.
“And pointing out past political statements of BBC reporters is not ad hom, it’s background”.
Maybe, but listing 12 out of the 170 people Daniel Nasaw ‘follows’ on twitter sounds remarkably like an an attack on Daniel Nasaw rather than on what he’s written for the BBC
Rather than deal with specific points in the blog you did a general search for other Biden gaffes which you then claim in your wisdom were “meagure”, you link to a 3-year-old article refuting a claim I haven’t made, you completely ignore other relevant points from the my original blog, and then finally you try to back up your argument by moaning about comments made by others in the thread. Why did you even bother, Dez? Were you high?
On Fast and Furious, there are several demands for Obama’s Attorney General to resign – and continued criticism of the Dept of Justice for failing to cooperate with the Congressional enquiries. Not new news ?
On Solyndra, it has now become clear that the US taxpayers have lost the entire half-billion dollars. Not new news ?
On Biden disgraceful and repeated slur accusing the Republicans of wanting more rapes – far worse than a “gaffe” – the Washington Post’s factcheck awarded him 4 Pinochios – LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. And Biden has dug himself deeper into the mire by trying to have a journalist struck off access to Congress for having the temerity to ask Biden a direct question about his slurs. Not new news ? – normally the BBC follows pretty slavishly the Washington Post’s line.
And why shouldn’t we attack individual journalists, if the evidencepoints to strong bias in their “reporting”.
The standard approach of the BBC is – if there are attacks on Republican politicians, play them up on the BBC, whether the attacks are fair or not. And play down any rebuttals.
But if there are attacks on Democratic politicians – especially members of Obama’s administration – play them down, under-report them, bury them. Is the BBC talking truth to power ? It looks more like ass-licking, and it applies to virtually all the BBC’s “reporters” in the US, who simply follow Democrat talking points and the editorial line of Democrat media.
………………
I LOVE the BBC logo with the Obama 2012 campaign logo stuck on it. Suims up the BBC to a T.
One day in 2009, those who relied on the BBC for their news woke up to find that Obama ‘Green Jobs Czar’, Van Jones, had resigned. They had no idea that Jones was in trouble because the BBC had not reported it. If memory serves, a Beeboid apologised (sort of) for failing to report Jones’ diffculties. Reluctance to report Democrat difficuties hadn’t changed that much by 2011 when DB invited us to spot the difference.