First, let’s celebrate the fact that Mark Mardell has actually linked to two conservative publications in one blog post! Must be a new record, and probably takes care of his quota for the next six months. In any case, as usual, Mardell is wrong about most of what he writes, and pushes White House propaganda instead of the truth. Although, there’s actually one – very rare – criticism of the President from the US President editor.
Whatever happened to the reset button?
Mardell reminisces about the pathetic “Reset Button” incident where Hillary Clinton was sent to Russia as part of the President’s attempts to prove to everyone that He’s not George Bush. He actually pokes fun at the translation fiasco, calling the whole display “cheesy”. It’s nice to hear him actually criticize something about The Obamessiah Administration, even if it’s nearly three years after the fact. He was still Europe editor at the time, so no record of his opinion then, although curiously his predecessor, Justin Webb, didn’t bother to comment on his blog. Actually, the first BBC report about it, from Paul Reynolds, censored news of the error, and it was only later after Hillary caught some heat in the US media for it that the BBC dared discuss it.
Obviously things are not going well these days between the US and Russia, so the BBC US President editor has to explain why it’s not really the President’s fault.
The first excuse is actually valid: Sec. of State Hillary correctly criticized Russia for the rigged election. There’s a hint of disappointment from the US President editor as well, which is pretty rare, about how His Administration spoke out against Russia much faster than against Iran or Bahrain. This is where Mardell links to the non-Left Washington Times (I had to look out my window to check for airborne pigs) for a negative opinion on the President’s reluctance to speak out against those governments.
It’s not really His fault that relations are bad right now, you see, because both Russia and the US have been in the middle of an election cycle. So naturally the rhetoric spikes up on both sides, ruffling feathers everywhere. This, of course, excuses the President for not having His Administration speak up sooner about Iran and Bahrain. It also kind of gives the idea that Hillary’s criticism wasn’t that serious, in part just a bit of noise to please the home crowd in an election cycle. An unintentional error by Mardell there, I think.
Then Mardell tries to prove that the President really has had some successes in dealing with Russia. First, he tells us that Dmitry Medvedev is the President’s best friend among world leaders. That’s a really, really bad sign of His priorities and diplomacy if true. What’s funny is that this apparent fact makes Mardell and his Beltway buddies utterly confused about why Russia is reacting so strongly to Hillary’s scolding. Maybe Medvedev is actually useless and has no real influence and does not speak for Russia except as a figurehead to sign treaties? Anyone ever thought of that?
Now the spin really starts. Sensing that there’s concern about the President’s apparent lack of success in negotiating with Russia, Mardell points out what he claims are three successes.
First is the START Treaty. Mardell shamelessly links to the White House’s own propaganda page on it. He must be hoping that nobody has any idea that in reality the President caved in to Russia and told our allies in Eastern Europe that we were going to ditch the plans for a missile defense system there in exchange for Russia signing on to…um…agreeing to think about considering not making more nuclear weapons for a while. When even the BBC’s favorite rent-a-Leftoid from the US, Michael Goldfarb, says it’s not cool, you know it’s pretty bad.
Basically, we got schooled. Yet the person the BBC tells you to trust for an insight into US issues denies it and shoves actual White House propaganda down your throats instead. Couldn’t he find a nice JournoLista article about how it was a triumph?
Next up is the trumpeting of a joint-military action against some Taliban heroin traders. Here Mardell links to the second conservative publication (miraculous), the Telegraph, except instead of an “important agreement”, it’s apparently one operation and not much else. Grasping at straws there.
Lastly, Mardell portrays Russia agreeing to let yet another NATO country move military equipment (really just a step-up of a pre-existing agreement) through its territory into Afghanistan (a country they have an interest in keeping to heel) as a special success for the President.
Assuming that nobody bothered to look any of this up and his readers believe the propaganda, Mardell continues to defend the President. It’s also not His fault because He really is pushing that missile defense set-up in Europe against Iran. Russia feels threatened and is behaving badly. Wait: isn’t this the missile defense system the President caved on already? Anybody think Russia is really scared this time?
Another sad effort from the BBC US President editor.
Slightly off-topic. Unsubstantiated rumours have been fair game for the BBC where Republicans are concerned, but you can bet your licence fee they won’t be going anywhere near this…
The Globe magazine just released a bombshell and is reporting that Michelle Obama is having a “steamy secret affair” with a Secret Service Agent. According to The Globe, rumors started to circulate that Obama may be having an affair after her recent admission to NBC’s Al Roker that she frequently “sneaks out” of the White House; and the ever increasing time she is spending away from the White House may be a cover to hide “a sizzling affair she’s carrying on with a Secret Service agent.”
Sadly no News of the World when you need them.
But Fox et-al may well take an interest in Democrats behaving badly even if the BBC think Michelle is still a virgin and Newt is made out of semtex.
I would steer clear of this until it is more than a rumour. it sounds like a trap for the right wing blogosphere to walk into to then be soundly slapped down, thereby taking the shine/sting off other future revalations/stories in the 2012 POTUS run up.
The allegations date back several years – I think that press conference was during the 2008 Presidential election campaign.
O/T but interesting
MPs demand BBC reveals details of commercial deals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072645/MPs-say-BBC-reveal-details-journalists-commercial-deals.html
Bear with me while I link the last two posts: Europe and Mardell
1. In the long line of negative images painted by the BBC of David Cameron comes one more on “The World Tonight” which starred one of the BBC’s high priestesses of radical chic, Ms Jude Kelly – the woman who created “Metal” which “provides a platform where creative hunches and ideas can be pursued” and involves “cross-art collaborations and developing strategic projects to affect the built environment, people, communities and philosophies” – whatever the hell that all means? Anyway, we were told of the lonely British Prime Minister sitting alone in a chamber clutching a glass of water while all the other heads of state had left.
2. On 77 WABC New York I heard an analysis of the new (old) reality: Britain – isolated from Europe – turning to the ‘special relationship’ with the USA.
So Mark Mardell, the President’s explainer-in-chief, has a problem. Obama shuns Britain and, no doubt still smarting over the treatment of his grandfather in Kenya’s Mau Mau uprising, has destroyed trust between the two counties.
But Obama, in Mardell’s eyes, is always right, isn’t he? A future Republican president will leap at the opportunity of rebuilding bridges with the UK. But the Republicans are always wrong, aren’t they? How will he spin this? Is he so pro-Obama he will be anti a UK/US rapprochement?
My guess is he’ll follow the BBC line and back Obama against a new friendship between the UK and the US especially if it involves the conservative and republican parties. After all, the British Liberal Elite loves a lefty, even a failed one like Obama. Scratch that: ESPECIALLY a failed one.
OK,
How can you tell a BBC political enemy?
They will always state that the will “capitalize” AKA take selfish advantage of a situation for their own ends. This happens all the time with the US Republican party and it happens with those people and parties that find themselves on the BBC black list.
This morning on the BBC toady show the BBC did a report about Geert Wilders and the PVV, all the usual tricks were pulled by the BBC leaving us in doubt their hatred of him and his party. He was not allowed to put his case, his party was not allowed to put their case.
We heard from their political enemies and even an ex member supposedly thrown out for questiong the party power structure. But what we didnt get was a fair and impartial report.
Now when you consider that the BBC has no problem allowing the taliban islamofascists airtime to peddle their evil, hamas gets a free pedestal from which they spew their racism, the supporters of suicide killers get airtime. In fact when you consider the evil vermin the BBC allows a worldwide MSM platform on the basis of impartial reporting, isnt it strange that a democratically elected European party is not given the same access as the taliban?
The BBC is perverted enough to believe the taliban is more acceptable than the PVV. Here we have a BBC that claims to be impartial and ruled by guidlines for that purpose deciding who and what political party can have free and fair airtime to defend themselves against their enemies.
Funnily enough the PVV is now polling so high that if an election were called it would come 2nd, I hope that the election in Holland is called soon so we can see the real BBC in action.
Slightly OT, but Mr Mardell has a new post out. Knives out for Newt Gingrich, Republican frontrunner.
Well, they certainly are at the BBC. I just heard the broadcast version of this post on Today in the car with my jaw getting closer to the brake pedal by the second. Even by Mr Mardell’s standards it was quite openly biased.
I can only recall him saying one sentence of positive things about Mr Gingrich, and it was followed up by “at least in his own smug estimation”. That was not news, or aimed to inform. It was partisan opinion pure and simple. The rest of the article was one long list of what his enemies say is wrong with him.
I don’t have enough knowledge of the US political scene to make comment on the veracity of what was said, although I’m sure I recall that David Preiser has shown in the past that the tale of him leaving his wife whilst she had cancer is incorrect. But I can recognise a one-sided hatchet job when I hear it.
Yes, the lie about the fist divorce has been well and treuly scotched. Mardell should know that.
Does anyone have a link to the Today item ? I heard the trailer, that was bad enough, but not the item itself. (There was a a later hatchet job on Alabama policy towards Mexican immigration by Jonny Diamond).
The Gingrich campaign ought to be told about the BBC hatchet job. This is the first substantive mention by the BBC of the Gingrich campaign, even though he has been leading for about 3 weeks now. As you say, the knives are out, and Gingrich’s people should learn this. Gingrich is well able to slap down the BBC if he chooses.
Here’s the link. I got the quote slightly wrong. It’s “in his own smugly arrogant estimation” at around 1:40.
Yes, I heard that MARDELL political insult to Newt GINGRICH too.
Will Mardell be reprimanded for this by his ‘editors’ at BBC-Democrat? Of course not: Mardell has free rein to grovel to Obama, and to insult Gingrich.
And now, Islam Not BBC(INBBC) is politically aligned with the Arab League against Newt Gingrich; but they are unable to deny the truth of Gingrich’s comments on the nature of the Islamic opposition to Israel.
And, of course, IN BBC has a vested political interest in trying to expand its Middle East Arabic/Islamic broadcasting empire- via Mecca-facing Arabic TV, based in Broadcasting House, London , costing £25m a year to British people for anti-Israel propaganda , aimed to please Middle East Arabs/Muslims.
“Gingrich Stands Firm: Palestinians Are An Invented People”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/39499
That story about Gingrich calling the Palestinians an “invented” people, they are really Arabs but Arab states want to make political use of them, has been top news in the US – and it cropped up again at the Saturday night Republican line-up of candidates from which Martdell took other quotes. I wonder why he didn’t use that top-story quote too ? Because it cuts across the BBC narrative on Israel ?
Here’s the Saturday clip :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/10/newt_gingrich_palestinians_are_terrorists.html
So far Mardell has deliberately ignored Gingrich even though he has rocked Romney’s campaign for weeks now. First story he does – he dives into Gingrich’s personal life.
The BBC resolutely avoided almost any mention of the far more serious “personal” issues in Obama’s life – his America-hating pastor Rev Wright, his palling around with proven and unrepentant terrorists in Chicago, his dodgy property purchase etc etc.
What sounded really stupid from Mardell this morning was his snide remark about Gingrich CLAIMING he is an historian. What a fool Mardell is – Gingrich is an historian – that is why he can talk about the Palestinian remarks with an historical perspective.
Gingrich has already been really acid towards various TV reporterds and presenters. He could rip a new one for Mardell without batting an eyelid, Mardell would be totally out of his depth, a biased and lazy hack.
I’ve just listened to Mardell’s Today piece on Gingrich. His “smugly arrogant” modifier is clear bias, a breach of the BBC guidelines. Especially the way Mardell sets it up by referring to him as a statesman, intellectual, etc. The Obamessiah is equally smug and arrogant, yet Mardell wouldn’t dream of calling Him on it. He never has done. Clear bias.
Humphrys’ introduction was also questionable. Gingrich can hardly be said to be the most controversial candidate. Ron Paul would qualify for that. I’ll be very generous and assume the Today producer who wrote that meant that there’s just more noise about Gingrich now because he’s the front-runner, not that he’s particularly more controversial than Paul or possibly Bachmann.
The laundry list of negatives is typical BBC. There was no such rundown of Senator Obamessiah. No, everything was glowingly positive, never mind how they worked furiously to defend Him against the controversy over Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. But what a giveaway that Mardell got a White House consultant to talk about a possible opponent. Couldn’t he have found somebody even slightly less partisan?
Mardell didn’t quite push a lie about Gingrich’s ex-wife and cancer. The divorce did go through while she was recovering from cancer, although the divorce discussion and proceedings started before she was ill. So Mardell cleverly gestures towards the lie, knowing full well that the audience will already have been informed about it and will draw their own conclusions about what he meant. Mardell is disgusting, but he and his producers are shrewd. The lie has been debunked many times in the last couple months, even in the Washington Post. Mardell knows exactly what he’s done here. It’s very disingenuous, leads the audience into remembering a lie, but isn’t quite the lie itself.
Gingrich is a flawed candidate, and it’s not as if I disagree with most of the negatives spewed out here. He can’t defeat The Obamessiah in an election, so I’d prefer he not be the candidate. But this hardly counts as an objective report. It’s obviously a partisan hit piece, written and produced by people who don’t like Gingrich and want to get a specific message out about him. The White House press machine couldn’t do a better job of it.
Your license fee hard at work, delivering quality first.