Sometimes, bias is revealed in small ways. This morning, I heard the BBC talk about the likely results of the Iowa caucuses as concerns the GOP candidates in the running there. What got me was that they said that Republican candidates were hoping ” to prevent ” President Obama winning a second term. Subtle language, instantly casting the GOP candidates as being negative, seeking to stop something happening. They could just as easily have presented this in a positive way, saying the Republicans candidates were hoping to win the Presidency. Naturally as we go through 2012 the BBC will get increasingly vexed about the chances of Obama and so I forecast we will see plenty of more overt bias to come.
THE RACE IS ON…
Bookmark the permalink.
My favourite BBC Newspeak is “Tory Press”. They will cheerfully describe the Telegraph or Mail as “the Tory press”, but I somehow never hear them describe The Mirror or The Grauniad as the Labour press.
Fatty Nolan made me laugh last night on 5 live. He was talking about Obama to a Republican and Democrat and fatty stated that “the Republicans had blocked Obama getting anything done”. I kid you not.
It was laughingly the Democrat who stated to Nolan that Obama had a Democrat House and Senate for the first two years of his office.
That one comment to me just showed the bias at the BBC.
Nolan believes it, Martin. He genuinely believes it. The loon lives in a little leftist bubble that reality completely fails to penetrate. I admire you for being able to listen to his drivel. I gave up on Nolan, Bacon and VD long ago. My blood pressure simply couldn’t take the strain.
It’s all about Him.
It’s always all about him.
Very pleased to see you cover this David, as I thought exactly the same thing when I heard it this morning. But without web access I couldn’t sound off about it.
In the same segment, Rick Santorum – a Catholic – was described as an ‘evangelical Christian’, presumably to paint him as some kind of fundamentalist who needs to be stopped at all costs.
They do the same for the Baptist, Ron Paul. The difference between Ron Paul and Santorum? When Paul calls for small government he means it and has a 30 year record of consistently voting for it, Santorrum voted for bailouts amd is every bit as much of a corporatist as Romney and Obama. Even members of his own family have defected to the Ron Paul campaign today! That is in addition to the former head of the CIA unit dedicated to hunting Osama Bin Laden who has endorsed Ron’s foreign Policy.
Santorum is definitely a Nanny State/Big Government social conservative. He doesn’t believe in individual freedom, thinks the Government should impose. He was bad news as Senate Majority Leader under Bush.
What’s amusing, though, is how much Paul gets a pass for his pro-life stance. Paul and Santorum are currently fighting to see who’s more pro-life.
Don’t forget that picture that’s turned up of Ron Paul with the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
Heard three reporters spouting off about the US elections-Mardell, Dymond and now, Robbins!
How many bagmen does Barak need then?
Time to call the boys home…and let Mr P keep us all informed on this site instead.
That ought to bring the fee down to £145-with many more chances to clip the wings of the Big Bird Corporation( it thinks its an eagle!)
Don’t forget Brian Wheeler, Steve Kingston (on the News Channel) and Katty Kay. How many Beeboids does it take to cover the Iowa Caucus? As many as humanly possible, delivering quality first. Has anyone from R4 or R5 swanned in for a special?
Plus, as if all those Beeboids aren’t enough, the BBC licensed a piece from Public Radio International (BBC Worldwide has a co-production and distribution deal with them) featuring carefully selected Iowa voices. The segment was produced by one Jason Margolis, who – what a shock – has a master’s in journalism from the University of the Democratic People’s Republic of Berkeley. Ah, the wonders of intellectual diversity. Not.
Remember, they’re no longer doing it for domestic British consumption only. The BBC is trying to expand and attract a US audience and the accompanying advertising revenue.
Mark Mardell’s report was an utter corporatist one sided endorsement of Mitt Romney to take on and lose to Obama, claiming repeatedly that the Iowan’s are turned off by all the Republican candidates, complete with scenes of bored voters looking unimpressed at Romney rallies.
Clearly Mark Mardell has never been to a Ron Paul meeting, If he had, he would have seen loads of very enthusiastic supporters relishing the election battle ahead, full of optimism, drive and purpose.
I saw it as Mardell singing the same song as always: “We in the Beltway media have always thought Romney would be the nominee, and all you unwashed mouth-breathers who support other candidates are fringe lunatics.”
Mardell has been saying this for ages and ages, just like the mainstream Leftoid media has. Sadly, the conventional wisdom is turning out to be right, but only by accident, really. Let’s not forget that only one candidate who was high in the polls was undermined by something other than his policies or personality, a reality that gets lost in this “not Romney” crap they talk.
Mardell did attend a Paul gathering. He remarked that there was almost nobody over 40, and that many of his followers looked like they belonged in an Occupy encampment. He even found a Paul supporter who was an Occupier. Mardell dismisses Paul’s chances for more or less the same reasons I do. He views the “optimism, drive and purpose” you claim as all very nice, but wasted effort.
I did notice just how much Mardell spoke approvingly of Paul’s policies outside the economy. No snark or disdain here, contrary to how he writes about the rest of them.
I keep forgetting to express my disdain for Mardell’s editorializing re: “these bizarre primary contests”. As usual, we see this highly-paid, highly-respected-by-the-BBC bigot expressing his distaste as he walks among us, perfumed handkerchief clasped to his mug.
Yeah, it’s bizarre alright. We lower-order United Statesians have this quaint notion that we the effin’ people get to choose our candidates, rather than having them parachuted in from Party HQ on high. No all-female short lists in Iowa. If we do parachute in a legacy candidate from a political family, it’s usually a local one. Not that I like that either, but they still have to get the requisite signatures and win the primary regardless of their DNA.
Since I’m in a generous mood, I’ll grant the ludicrous US President editor that the Iowa Caucus is a bit different because the vote is not binding on the state’s delegates. The thing is, Iowa is a bit different from other states in that each district has its own rules about what its electors do. That’s why it’s described as non-binding, not because the vote doesn’t mean anything at all. But I’m struggling to find an example of an Iowa winner who didn’t ultimately get the state’s votes at the convention. Which, I should point out, is not the same thing as winning the nomination. Long story.
If anyone really wants an unfiltered explanation of how this all works, I’ll be happy to provide one. Suffice to say for now that Iowa’s situation may be unusual, but it’s all part of the wonderful world of States’ Rights, and it doesn’t actually mean that Iowa is totally meaningless.
What’s really irritating is that Mardell is expressing his opinion that – once again – something we do in the US is inferior. Hardly the best man to inform you properly about what’s going on over here. And I bet he doesn’t even understand it properly.
Now that I think of it, though, this matches up with what Paul Mason apparently told the Guardian: advocacy journalism is accpetable, even defensible, so long as the “journalist” doesn’t write his personal beliefs down on paper for all to see.
In any case, it’s a clear case of bias for Mardell to define the US primary system as “bizarre”. He expects you all think like he does, and so his disparagement will be met with nods of approval and not raised eyebrows at blatant opinion-mongering.
Keep posting Mr P…saves me lots of time and peptic ulcers just to read you for my information from the USA.
An Alistair Cooke for the electronic age, but without his affectations and wine bill!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16386176
I also like the BBC’s edit from before when the title included the Viewpoint. Obviously the bbc believes that is now fact that Republicans are crazy.
Next up: Is Barack Obama the messiah?
PS: When discussing Ron Paul, Mardell should have mentioned those newsletters and his anti-Israel stance, not the fact that somebody over which he has no control endorsed him. That’s very lazy, and I doubt Mardell would say his beloved Obamessiah is tainted because Bill Ayers endorsed Him.
I’ve saved the best Mardell fail for last:
There is absolutely no equivalent in Britain and the focus in American politics on religious views of matters sexual seems very alien.
Maybe not in the elite London white Left, no. I’m sure people here can think of a couple examples of reality.
My God, but Mardell is a $^&#.
And we Brits have a bit of a record of patronisingly shaking our heads at American quirkiness.
Which he does all the time. In his last blog post he called the US primary system “bizarre”. But today, curiously (did someone point it out to him?), he refers to it as “admirable”. Get a grip, man.
When discussing Gingrich here, he speaks of a “narrow zeitgeist”. he also makes sure to remind you that the US is “several notches to the right” of Britain. And a few notches below, juding from his tone. Anyone who saw his performance at the BBC College of Journalism last September will know that Mardell is as patronizing as it gets.
This statement is revealing of his political hackery, that he’s stuck in an ivory tower mindset:
Having lost supporters and members from the middle ground, the core who remain were furious with their leaders, and decided the problem was a lack of ideological purity.
Mardell spoke of “purity” a few times last year when “reporting” on the Tea Party movement. As a man of the far-Left, he saw the Tea Party people as extremists, far, far to the right of sanity. So it’s only natural that he’d see that as the Republican Party retrenching, reverting to core principles, in the way that Labour has been more openly farther Left since losing in an attempt to re-energize the base. In the lazy political hack’s world, the two are equivalent. Except they’re not.
The Tea Party movement was not started by the Republican Party to return to some sort of ideological purity. It was started by unaffiliated individuals as an anti-tax, anti-big government movement which focused on local politics. It grew to be something else which did transform the Republican Party to a degree, but NOT about social conservative values at all, or about foreign policy. Even Mardell admits that the movement specifically avoided that stuff. So where does he get off saying it was a Republican Party returning to purity? It wasn’t. He made it up. Name me one election where Republican candidates didn’t have to prove their social conservative bona fides.
He also picked about the weakest Bachmann quote there is. She was speaking about John Quincy Adams, not all Founding Fathers. Granted, she got that slightly wrong as well, since he was a kid working for his father during the Revolution and wasn’t technically a Founding Father. But he did work to end slavery.
If Mardell wasn’t a lazy bigot, he’d have used the quote which really did tank Bachmann’s campaign a while back: the misguided statement about the HPV vaccine causing mental retardation. Contrary to what the BBC and the Leftoid media tell you, the Tea Party movement and the non-Left in the US are not “anti-science”.
Then Mardell runs down all the candidates by suggesting that nobody of any value wants to run for President any more. Message: all the candidates except Hunstman (who?) and Romney are disasters.
Contrary to the US President editor’s musings, Jeb Bush didn’t run because he knows we’re not going to reinstall that family dynasty, and Chris Christie didn’t run because he’s intelligent enough to know he needs to finish one term as governor first so he can run on actual accomplishments. Perhaps Mardell is too thick to know this, or just spouts what he reads in the WaPo and HuffPo.
Oh, FFS. The first US talking head on the News Channel to talk about the Iowa results is JournoLista and Huffington Post maven, Michael Blumenthal.
Stage Performer Maitlis’ first question: “Is the Tea Party over?”
Note to BBC News producers and stage performers: Michelle Bachmann is not the Tea Party movement, even though she heads the Tea Party Caucus in the House. Get a clue, BBC.
And more of that condescension Mardell was talking about. Maitlis just said this was “pretty arcane stuff”, and you Brits have a hard time getting your heads round it.
Should we just let the party leaders select candidates for us and parachute cronies into Northern constituencies and safe seats? Piss off, BBC.
mailtess
I HATE that cow
She’s by far the worst of them sitting in the anchor chair on the News Channel.
Lots of BBC coverage of the Iowa results. However, even though the main report twice mentions the number of votes cast, not a single Beeboid has bothered to tell you that this was a record turnout.
Funny how the BBC made sure to inform you about the increase in Democrat votes in Iowa back when The Obamessiah won the Caucus vote.
Bias? What bias?
The headline to the Mardell piece “Are all Republican candidates crazy” really says it all about Mardell and the whole damn BBC clique. They combine ignorance with patronising bias. Alaistair Cooke must be spinning in his grave – I thought Matt Frei was bad enough, but Mardell seems worse.