David Preiser has received a reply from Stuart Hughes’ boss:
Having looked into this I do think Stuart got this wrong and have told him so.
Read the rest in the comments to the original post here. [Click the title to see the link – the blog’s template doesn’t seem to like links on the main page.]
Well, well, well. After ten days, reality has at last forced the BBC to acknowledge the big joke about the President being fed dog as a child. How many of us here have noted that they’ve refused to touch this story? BBC US President editor Mark Mardell finally decided to address it.
Nobody is really taking it too seriously as a negative on the President, but it has been an effective counter against Democrat attacks on Romney for that one story about the dog on the car roof.
Two obvious examples of bias in Mardell’s post:
1. When acknowledging that the dog-eating story plays into the “larger Narrative” (a Beeboid knows a Narrative when he sees one, eh?) that the President is too foreign, he either doesn’t understand or refused to admit that this was the whole point of putting that anecdote in His autobiography. The intent was to make Him seem in tune with the whole world and not just a parochial, isolationist American. In fact, even the BBC told us that His world experience was a selling point. Mardell has either forgotten that, or just doesn’t want you to remember.
2. So it’s pathetic and biased for Mardell to then say, “But I fear more politicians may try to make dogs a touchstone of the American way.” He admits bias right there in the open. If you sell yourself as being Post-American, don’t blame someone else for pointing it out. Instead, Mardell tries to defend his beloved Obamessiah.
(UPDATE: See my comment below) I was going to comment about this in the open thread, but in the light of today’s noise about the housing benefit shuffle in Newham causing “social cleansing” and allegedly inspiring right-wing extremism, I thought it was worth a full post. I’m talking about the BBC’s revelation that immigration from Mexico into the US is being reversed.
Mexico-US migration slips after 40 years of growth
The rate of Mexican immigration to the US has stalled or maybe even gone into reverse, an analysis shows, ending a four-decade-long trend.
Not may, it has. The Pew figures (NB: pdf file automatic download) quoted by the BBC pretty much show that. The reason I’m bringing it up is because of the illegal factor. It’s important to remember that the BBC has generally taken the activists’ line and used their language in reporting on the issue in the US. Remember Mark Mardell’s jaunt to the Arizona border (page 4 of the open thread) and the other reports trying to tell you it was all about racism against people with brown skin and a Mexican accent? Then there are the other reports siding with illegals and playing the race game. The fact that these people are in the US illegally is somehow not their fault, but the fault of unfair laws which magically make them illegal ex post facto or something. The real objection wasn’t, of course, about immigration of non-whites, but about illegal immigration.
Activists – mostly Hispanic – always play that qualifier down, if not wipe it from the discussion entirely. And the BBC played right along. So it must have come as something of a shock to the BBC News Online producer who had to skim through the Pew report and discover that last year there were more illegal Mexicans in the US than legal ones: 6.1 million to 5.8 million. So why didn’t the BBC ever discuss that disparity last year when they were freaking out about the Arizona law and all those other states trying to stem the tide of illegals? The rest of us knew the problem was about illegals, and said so at the time. Yet the BBC tried to play it as racism anyway. When Mark Mardell tries to whip up a little anger by shoving in your face Pat Buchanan’s racialist diatribe about losing “white America” to the Mexicans, it’s all part of this Narrative. Forget about the illegal issue and focus on race. It ends the debate before it begins. But the BBC approves when Hispanics vote for their own kind based solely on ethnicity.
It must also come as a shock to those who rely on the BBC for the news on US issues to learn that the first black President has in fact been deporting record numbers of illegals with brown skin back to Mexico. How can that be racism, BBC? Is He a puppet or something on this issue? I’d love to know how they square this with their belief in Him. I remember when Mardell was actually for a moment trying to defend the President (page 8 of the open thread) against charges that He wasn’t protecting the border properly. Obviously He wasn’t, since there were more illegals than legals last year. Mardell is silent, of course.
It’s important to make this distinction when reporting on the US issue of immigration law, because, as the Newham article doesn’t show, the problem in Britain is about mostly quite legal immigration. There’s a huge difference in the cause and effect in the UK from what’s been happening in the US. Which is why it’s wrong for the BBC to conflate the two situations and play racialist games.
If xenophobia is (I’m speaking hypothetically for the moment) a primary factor in British objection to seemingly unlimited legal immigration of third-world Mohammedans, this still has nothing to do with US objection to illegal immigration of Mexicans. There is a world of difference between the two. Why has the BBC been unable to make this distinction? I say it’s because they’re viscerally opposed to restrictions on immigration simply out of reflexive fealty to the abstract notions of diversity and multiculturalism, as well as a reflexive opposition to any nominally conservative policy.
I’ve previously mentioned how the BBC hired German immigrant Franz Strasser (middle of page 4 of the open thread) to tour the country reporting on immigration in the US in all its various colors. The reason I criticized every single report in that series was because he and his editor dishonestly censored the word “illegal” (middle of page 7) out of the whole picture. Even when he was doing reports from two different “Sanctuary Cities” (middle of page 4 of that same thread), which deliberately flouted US immigration law to harbor illegals. He acted as if this didn’t exist. The whole series was conceived and design to whitewash (see what I did there) the illegal issue so that you’d all think any objection to immigration had to be based in racism. Now here are hard figures to show that there really has been a problem with illegal immigration.
The BBC article about the Pew study notes that “immigration” is going to be a big issue in this election year, but still cannot bring themselves to add the “illegal” qualifier, which is actually what it’s all about. The situation is not the same, yet they still pretend it is.
Now that illegal immigration is down, even seeing a negative trend, one has to suspect that the policies have been working. Too bad Britain doesn’t even have the level of sovereignty that Arizona does. Oh, and I guess this means that Global Warming won’t be driving all of them into the US after all.
Still, it’s nice to see the BBC at last revealing even the tiniest bit of truth about what’s been going on over here. But it’s a shame that they don’t make an effort to correct the false impression they’ve been creating about the concern over illegal immigration in the US.
I’m away very early tomorrow morning so here’s a very early Monday morning OPEN THREAD to start the week for your edification. Enjoy.
The battle for London Mayor is in the finishing straight and the BBC are doing what they can for Ken but between you and me, I don’t think it is going to be enough. Biased BBC’s Alan exposes this instance of BBC selective reporting…
The BBC didn’t bother to investigate Ken Livingstone’s fake tears nor his fake video but they have had time for a jokey take down of Boris….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17758245
They look at ‘branding’ of the candidates…or rather ‘candidate’ for only Boris gets the treatment….just another way of the BBC to give the other candidates free propaganda.
Wouldn’t Ken’s fake tears merit a look under ‘branding’ for they were clearly an attempt to portray himself as a man of the people who’ cares” too much?
However fortunately for us a small local paper has found the time and resources the BBC couldn’t to have a look at Ken’s little local difficulty.
Here is Ken’s video…obviously scripted….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpZaEVgNyDQ
And here is what the local journalist had to say…via Harry’s Place:
‘Local Micham journalist, Omar Oakes, has something of an exclusive.
Some of the people it seems were locals recruited near a community centre used by the local Labour Party, however…
Several actors were also filmed at various spots within Imperial Fields, such as a man sitting in the stadium itself, a builder having a cup of tea during the building of the club’s new all-weather pitch and a man speaking from the player’s tunnel, and a boxing trainer speaking from a newly built boxing club.
The most interesting case is the one involving “the mechanic”. It seems this man is not a mechanic. The real mechanic’s garage was hired by the ad agency who made the video. The real mechanic is not even a Labour supporter:
Neil McMullen, who has run the garage for 12 years, said he was approached by the agency on the Saturday before and they brought in an actor for the filming on Tuesday.
He said: “I was happy to help but I am not really interested in what politicians do – they are all the same aren’t they?
“He did fluff his lines a bit. He was reading from one of those cards that had his lines written on it.” ‘
This is his original:
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/9659155.Made_in_Mitcham__Truth_about_Ken_s_video/
A Labour politician fakes tears and a video but the Labour supporting BBC don’t report it.
Guess with all this global warming we can soon grow bananas just like any other banana republic…we’ve already got the corrupt politicans and fellow travellers in the media.
So, the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande managed to outpoll Sarkozy in the first round of the French Presidential race. And aren’t the BBC happy about it? I suggest that the idea of a French President determined to raise upper tax threshold to 75%, increase the number of State Workers whilst raising the minimum wage and thus ignoring the concept of fiscal austerity is their kind of guy. I can only imagine how the BBC will treat this item tomorrow morning on the Today programme! I’m going to be out of the UK for the next few days so will do my best to post here but hope fellow writers can step up whilst I am gone! Au revoir…
Those swines in the Coalition. How DARE they support Academies that better meet the needs of local parents and pupils without the dead hand of Government telling them what to do, how to do it, when to do it by and how often to do it! I mean if people get the idea that Education can prosper without the State, where might it all end? Health…god forbid even Broadcasting? So, thank goodness the BBC have picked up on Jamie Oliver’s allegation that Academy schools are endangering the health of pupils by not providing appropriate State designated nutritional needs. How unlike the veritable gourmet nirvana that is the State system…
PS Couldn’t resist the BBC image used to accompany the story. Suggestions for a caption?
Orla Guerin. Two words that one instantly associates with BBC bias at its very worst. Here Biased BBC’s Alan provides us with a little amble down memory lane with the oh-so-selective Orla,
‘Israel says its troops are here to crush the militants, to stop the suicide bombers. But Palestinians in Jenin say civilians are paying a high price. Before we could see too many more scenes like this the army hustled us away.’
Orla Guerin, BBC News, Jenin 2002.
BBC News headlined a report on April 18th as “Jenin Massacre Evidence Growing.”
UN says no massacre in Jenin
1 August
A United Nations investigation rejects claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel\’s attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin.
However all this did happen…..
Militants bomb Israeli bus
21 October
An explosion rips through a bus in northern Israel, killing at least 15 people and injuring more than 30 others. The Israeli Government blames the Palestinian Authority, but Yasser Arafat condemns the bombing. The Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
Another suicide bomb rocks Jerusalem
19 June 2002
A suicide bomber kills seven people in Jerusalem, the second such attack in two days. The explosion occurred at a commuter bus stop on a busy road in the French Hill neighbourhood. US President George Bush put his new peace plan on hold as a result of the attack.
Nineteen dead in Jerusalem bomb blast
18 June 2002
Many commuters and school children died in a suicide bomb attack on a bus during morning rush hour in Jerusalem. The bomber was among the dead. The incident comes as US President George W Bush prepares to announce a strategy to relaunch the Middle East peace process.
Suicide bomber kills 16 Israelis
5 June 2002
The bomber pulled up alongside the bus at Megiddo junction, near the West Bank, during the rush hour, before detonating the explosives in his car. The bus was reduced to a scorched metal skeleton and 16 Israelis, mainly soldiers, were killed along with the bomber.
Bomb shatters Israeli calm
19 May 2002
A suicide bomber strikes in the Israeli coastal resort of Netanya on Sunday afternoon, killing four people, including himself. The Palestinian Authority has moved quickly to condemn the attack.
Suicide bomb disrupts Sharon visit
07 May 2002
At least 16 people are killed in a suicide bomb attack on a crowded social club on the southern outskirts of Tel Aviv. The blast went off as Ariel Sharon was beginning a meeting in Washington with President Bush. The Israeli Prime Minister returned early to Israel.
Israel struck by bus bomb
10 April 2002
Ten people are killed and more than a dozen injured in a suicide attack on a bus near the Israeli city of Haifa. Israel calls off any further military withdrawals from West Bank towns saying the anti-terror operations it is conducting there are not yet complete.
Israel hits back after suicide attack
10 March
Israel helicopters and gunboats have totally destroyed the headquarters of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in Gaza. The operation came early on Sunday morning, hours after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 11 and injured more than 50 at a busy cafe in West Jerusalem.
Suicide bomber strikes Orthodox district
2 March
At least nine people are killed – including several children – in a suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem. Dozens of others were injured in the blast which happened on the edge of Me’a She’arim, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish district which borders on Arab East Jerusalem.
Female suicide bomber kills two
27 January
Police are working on the basis that the bomber was a Palestinian woman. If so, this would be the first time a woman has carried out such an attack. The bomb went off in one of Jerusalem’s busiest shopping streets.
Party attack kills seven
17 January
Israeli police say seven Israelis have been killed and at least twenty wounded in a Palestinian suicide attack in northern Israel. Eyewitnesses say the man entered a crowded wedding hall in the town of Hadera and tried to detonate explosives strapped to his body.
And of course this continued year after year along with thousands of rockets being launched at Israel….which is why in 2009 Israel launched its assault on hamas in gaza and built a security barrier to keep out the suicide bombers..
And yet the BBC presents Israel as the aggressor in its coverage.
The content of ‘journalist ” Guerin’s ‘scoop’ is of course pure and simply ‘crap’.
I’m trying something a bit new and different here. After asking David Vance and the All Seeing Eye, I’m starting a real rebuttal to the BBC’s lame output about US issues. I can’t compete with the “bespoke” video magazine pieces, but I can provide a bit more information and analysis of real US issues that get spun by the BBC or simply censored out of existence. There’s much more to what’s going on over here than what affects the President or the latest racial issue or celebrity gossip, and there seems to be a vacuum which needs filling. So this is my humble attempt.
It’s not possible to provide a proper rebuttal in fifteen minutes, but consider this an opening salvo. If enough people agree, I’d like to expand this from just me providing some info to a live audio or video discussion, where everyone here can call in or whatever, beginning next week. But more on that later.
I’m also going to try and provide sources for everything I talk about, so everyone here can decide for themselves what’s going on. The BBC may not be held accountable for their actions, but the inhabitants of this blog deserve better. Hey, if you don’t want to listen to the audio, just check out these links instead.
Hmmm. Embed not working. Link to audio file on EyeTube below:
Listen to “Life In These United States No. 1” on EyeTube
Audio hosted on EyeTube. My thanks to ASE.
SOURCES:
BBC article on the President defending against criticism about Romney’s wife
USA Today/Gallup poll the BBC references without naming
April 12 poll showing Romney over the President
NBC/Wall St. Journal showing the President over Romney
Media Matters coordinating with the White House and feeding stories to the mainstream media
More on Media Matters working with the Administration – DOJ
Maldives/Malvinas Betrayal Gaffe
Mardell at Obamessiah Chicago HQ
Jake Tapper admits media influenced election
New York Times admits killing ACORN story
Joe Scarborough admits media in the tank
Time Magazine says bias was disgusting
Washington Post Publisher selling access
Poll showing it’s the economy, stupid
Wisconsin plus here, here, and here.
The President telling people not to go to Vegas
Sen. Hatch is forced into primary
Alternative States’ Rights health care reform
Romney at Philadelphia Tea Party
This was withheld for one day in case something tragic happened during the Grand Prix. Better safe than sorry, if one *May* say so.
Cartoon.
a) “A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption.”
b) “A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon.”
At best, a cartoonist will capture a facial expression or encapsulate a situation with humour, brevity and élan, while at worst he will produce a laboured, racist, malicious, libelous, unfunny, overworked, overrated visual polemic.
On Saturday’s early morning paper review a cartoon was mentioned, depicting a car belonging to Bernie Ecclestone being filled up with blood. Which category that fits into depends on the outlook of the beholder.
F1 racing is cartoon-like, right from the starting grid. Cars, drivers, costumes, commentators in Groucho face-masks and the octogenarian pixie Bernie Ecclestone who was obviously startled at being asked for a political opinion, politics having never occurred to him until that moment.
The hooha over Bahrain has a cartoon-like quality. The name of the capital sounds like ‘banana.’ Direct-Action Boycott/Divestment/Sanction is an ill-conceived concept that usually amounts to pointless, illogical, vigilante posturing.
I don’t know much about the Bahraini Royal family, but they sound at least as charming as the Saudi Royals who we suck up to, or the Chinese whose human rights abuses we set aside for the sake of sport, or the Pakistanis who I believe we play cricket with.
A likeable Bahraini Prince was interviewed on the BBC. He spoke with a cultured English accent, like a respectable British businessman; the tea towel on his head was set at a jaunty, possibly ironic, angle. The protesters, who are they? His Royal Highness compared them to our own rioting protesters, a theory that gains credence with every molotov cocktail.
The QT panel were all for the boycott. George Galloway was off colour that day but even he managed to outdo his own hypocrisy. As if he doesn’t habitually suck up to murdering dictators.
John Humphrys interviewed another pleasant Bahraini spokesman yesterday morning who sounded extremely plausible. Humph was taken aback when this gentleman refused to cave in at the very mention of Amnesty International and human rights abuses. He was far too polite to say bad things about such an inherently virtuous body, but he stood his ground.
The Any Questions panel were all for the boycott. All except Alan Duncan. Far be it for me or anyone else to agree with Alan Duncan, but by the same token if Andy Slaughter and the odious Jeremy Corbyn are campaigning against F1 in Bahrain, I’m all for it.
Go Lewis!!
