BBC Bias And Wisconsin – Again

So the Union-led petition to force a recall election against Republican Gov. Scott Walker has gathered 1 million signatures. That’s nearly twice what’s required to force the recall. Of course, that’s only if the signatures are valid. If you get your information on this story from the BBC, you’d have no idea there’s even a hint of impropriety. The BBC news brief sanitizes the whole thing, spins it to make Walker look bad, and even misleads the reader about the result of the recall elections from last summer.

Let’s start with how the BBC spins it to make Walker look bad.

The governor has become a conservative hero and put the Midwest state at the centre of the US labour rights debate.

The BBC News Online sub-editor decided to leave it as an anti-Unions thing, and censor the news that Walker balanced the state budget for the first time in ages. That’s actually what has earned Walker respect from conservatives. Curbing public sector union powers helped him do that, sure. But it’s about fixing the state economy, not just attacking unions. The BBC leaves out how this is about fixing the economy, leaving Walker looking like a villain. They do it again a couple sentences later:

The governor’s opponents are also angry at the $800m (£521m) in budget cuts to schools passed under him.

 But they leave out the fact that this actually improved things. Of course, the BBC has form on censoring news about this issue in Wisconsin. What the BBC didn’t want you to know at the time is that schools have saved well over $100 million since Walker cut down union power and passed his budget. In fact, one school district went from a major deficit to a budget surplus thanks to Walker’s plan. Instead, the BBC spins it so you think he hurt the schools. Does that sound familiar?
The BBC says this about the previous round of recalls:

Two Republican state senators were recalled in earlier elections.

What the BBC censors because it hurts the Narrative is that the other five Republicans kept their seats, and the Republicans kept their majority – albeit just barely – in the legislature. But that fact won’t help lead you to think that this new petition means the people of Wisconsin want the Republicans out, so the BBC leaves it out.

One last bit of anti-Walker spin is where the article mentions that he’s raised over $5 million for the fight, taking care to point out that half of it is from out of state. What the BBC doesn’t want you to know is that out-of-state Unions and other partisan PACs are pouring money into it for the Democrat cause. In last summer’s recall elections, Democrat-supporting groups from out of state even outspent Republican groups from out of state, to the tune of $23.4 million to $20.5 million. Does anyone think this time will be any different? So it’s grossly dishonest for the BBC to mention only Walker’s out-of-state money. But that helps the Narrative of “the hard-working innocent lambs against nasty Republicans and their moneymen”.

Now let’s look at the worst part of all this: the 1 million signatures. What the BBC doesn’t want you to know is that there’s most likely a massive amount of fraud going on.  The state board overseeing the whole thing has already admitted there’s going to be a problem with duplicate signatures. It sure doesn’t help matters that the far-Left group, One Wisconsin Now, actually encouraged people to sign multiple petitions, knowing that they won’t all be caught. One guy has even proudly claimed to have signed 80 times. Not a word about this from the BBC.

Then there’s the fact that the Government Accountability Board (GAB) is admitting they won’t be trying to dismiss all those Adolf Hitler and Mickey Mouse signatures if they have Wisconsin addresses and are dated properly. So there’s voter fraud built into the system, to help Democrats. But remember, kids, according to the BBC, only Republicans engage in voter fraud.  In fact, things are so bad that the GAB is hiring a bunch of temporary staff to sort through all this crap. The GAB, however, is an independent group. So when the BBC reports this:

Supporters of the governor are being trained to spot any duplicate or falsified signatures.

You have to say they’re lying. Only supporters of the governor are being trained? No, BBC, it’s the staff of the independent GAB. This is meant to create the suspicion in your mind that it’s only a Republican plot to disenfranchise honest Democrats, nothing to do with massive Democrat fraud. There isn’t even a hint of suspicion raised here, not a single eyebrow raised. Why do you think it’s going to take 60 days to sort this out?

Sure, it’s only an unsigned news brief, no time to mention all the details, right? So why are the details the piece does mention so dishonest? You can read about previous examples of BBC censorship and dishonesty about the goings on in Wisconsin here, here, and here. Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to BBC Bias And Wisconsin – Again

  1. Buggy says:

    Has anyone checked the signatrures on the petition against all those mysterious Illinois JFK voters ? Next door , after all……


  2. ian says:

    Just a little rminder of another petition, this one re. abolishing the TV license.


  3. Martin says:

    Expect more as we get into the election campaign.


  4. Span Ows says:

    This Wisconsin business is as good an example as any of the great work that DP does re US matters and the great diservice the BBC is undertaking: looking at the various links and reading the reports highlights how selective the BBC is: this is the UK national broadcaster that BY LAW is meant to be non partisan; this is clearly not the case: to quote David in what he always writes, something that ‘sounds’ unbelievable but is in fact no exaggeration: “Don’t trust the BBC on US issues”.


  5. dave s says:

    DP- I ssume the BBC will not be covering the crisis in Detroit or will be spinning it their way. What exactly is going on there? It appears to be on the verge of chaos.


  6. Phil says:

    The BBC seems to adopt the Guardian’s approach to petitions and e-petitions.

    If they are calling for something like the return of capital punishment or withdrawal from the EU they are ignored or painted as unrepresentative and examples of populist rabble-rousing.

    As soon as one is in favour of something the BBC approves of, it is  a genuine and important expression of concern and obviously done with the most altruistic of motives. 


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Yep, and if the public votes against a given issue, it’s only because they don’t understand it properly.


  7. cjhartnett says:

    Brillaint piece this,i in that it is in this accumulation of lies, deceits and insinuations that merely uses Wisconsin as another vector for all that the BBC detest.
    1. America
    2. Anything that unsettles their Karl Marx/Clement Freud callibrations of what is “appropriate” for any elected government that they presume to judge daily…they`re now too big to “hold any government to account”/…they see their role as much more than that these days, now that Blair and Clinton have been turfed out.
    3. Anything where the little people get autonomy…the fraud is always done with “the purest of motives”.
    4. Hence they despise the uncultured and herdlike Tea Party/UKIP/EDY…when the BBC sanction their version of opposition, who sanctions these oiks to go all feral on us all…where is THEIR license to bleat and coin it in on the backs of the “squeezed middle”.

    Important this sleight of news Stateside…they do it all the time and we can get so used to it.
    A worldwide Davos Mindset here-maybe the BBCs bonuses don`t make the Today show, bacause the bankers can be the lightning rod for their own hypocrisy.
    Bankers just ripping off “too far and too fast”…I`m sure Sigmund would see something in all this!


  8. D B says:

    I see John Sweeney has been making a film about the Republican primaries for the BBC. His producer has been Kathleen Osborn; surprise surprise she’s a Tea Party-hating, Reagan-despising lefty.

    Can anyone recall the BBC doing any shoe-leather investigative journalism into any aspects of the Obama administration? I can’t.