BBC economics editor (and former advisor to Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers) Stephanie Flanders offers an insight into the BBC’s narrative for the rest of the election campaign:
Ryan is risky VP choice for Romney. Republicans now so extreme, his main appeal 4 swing voters was record as a moderate. Ryan anything but.
— Stephanie Flanders (@BBCStephanie) August 11, 2012
Impartiality is in our genes.
Well she has been in both Ed Miliband’s and Ed Balls jeans before and couldn’t make her mind up who was smaller, so…
She’s certainly flattened some Labour grass in her time that’s for sure.
From Open Thread:
David Preiser (USA) says:
August 11, 2012 at 5:15 pm
As predicted above, no sooner has Rep. Paul Ryan been named Romney’s running mate than the BBC gets the knives out for him. The first words out of Mark Mardell’s mouth have negative connotations, and are immediately followed by the White House propaganda line on Ryan.
.BBC North America editor Mark Mardell says the decision is a bold and ideological choice.
The Obama campaign said Mr Ryan stood for “flawed” economic policies that would repeat “catastrophic” mistakes.
This is why I call Mardell the BBC’s US President editor. He knows all too well that Ryan’s economic prowess scares the living hell out of the Obamessiah Campaign. He can’t even allow a single word about Ryan’s background or credentials before rolling out the attack points from the White House. Sad.
And the BBC News Online editor even gets in a mention of the little Romney gaffe:
In a slip of the tongue, the former Massachusetts governor introduced Mr Ryan as “the next president of the United States”, before correcting himself to say he meant vice-president.
The BBC has yet to allow The Obamessiah’s “57 States” line – a far more egregious error – through the censors. But this they rush to tell you.
Fortunately, the BBC does allow through a couple lines from Ryan’s speech. The last line they quote surely sent shivers through every single Beeboid spine:
Prompting one of the loudest cheers from onlookers, he said: “Our rights come from nature and God, not from government.”
Oh, the horror. Such ideology must be stopped at all costs, eh, BBC?
Analysts say Mr Romney needs to regain momentum after a series of pro-Obama campaign advertisements attacking his record.
Which have backfired spectacularly. The Obamessiah Campaign has had to scramble to backtrack on the sick ad falsely blaming Romney for a steelworker’s wife dying of cancer, Senate leader Harry Reid’s unsubstantiated rumor about Romney not paying taxes, and only yesterday the new bogus claim about tax dodging.
Of course, the BBC has censored all news of it, so their regular audience would have no idea.
This careful elision of reality allows the BBC to get away with such awful partisan behavior.
Of course, what the BBC really, really doesn’t want you to know is that, while Ryan has solid fiscal bona fides, the Congress which was controlled by Democrats for two years, and is still blocked by the Democrat-led Senate and the looming Veto Pen of the United States has not passed a real budget (except for that Stimulus, which kinda sorta counts because it allocates spending) the entire time He’s been in office. This is madness – it’s like we’re worse than Belgium, FFS – but Mardell twists Ryan’s credentials:
Mr Ryan is best-known for a controversial alternative budget which he produced to counter President Obama’s plans in 2011 and 2012.
It’s only “controversial” because the President didn’t like it, but that’s good enough for Mardell. The House passed it.
The last three paras are also White House attack points. So predictable, BBC. Your license fee hard at work, promoting the political agenda of the leader of a foreign country.
Mr Ryan is best-known for a controversial alternative budget which he produced to counter President Obama’s plans in 2011 and 2012.
It’s only “controversial” because the President didn’t like it, but that’s good enough for Mardell. The House passed it
Look, you can’t let an inconvenient fact get in the way of a beeboid narative !
Compare and contrast the first report on the Ryan pick (about which I was talking above) with this first one about Joe Biden from 2008.
Not a single negative, not a single opinion from the opposition until the very end, whereas the piece about Ryan practically starts out with it. Mostly this nothing but a straightforward profile. Balance my ass.
Remember, these were written by entirely different Beeboids, four years apart. But the same bias is there for all to see. Even if there’s no top-down memo, no directive from on high making them do this, it’s still an institutional bias because it’s so consistent.
Supplementary.
Mardell and Flanders, as Obama supplicants, label Ryan an ‘extremist’, but, in fact, he seems to be in the tradition of English philosopher, John LOCKE:
“‘OUR RIGHTS COME FROM NATURE AND GOD, NOT GOVERNMENT’: PAUL RYAN CHANNELS PHILOSOPHER JOHN LOCKE IN ANNOUNCEMENT SPEECH”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/our-rights-come-from-nature-and-god-not-government-paul-ryan-channels-philosopher-john-locke-in-announcement-speech/
Risky? “Two Eds” is a partisan fool. Since the even more popular candidates (Chris Christie, Rep. Allen West, Sen. Marco Rubio) were in all honesty not quite ready for prime time (or in Christie’s case, not finished with his first term and shouldn’t do a Palin), Ryan is probably the best choice out of the active list.
He’s Catholic, which helps those worried that Romney wasn’t enough of a Social Conservative, and especially will invigorate those upset by ObamaCare’s attack on religious freedom, but more importantly he has serious budgets under his belt and has been pushing for spending reforms for years. To the BBC’s horror, this is going to help Romney gain Tea Party support.
The Republicans are now “extreme” when viewed from the Left of Gramsci, but that’s the BBC perspective for you. From now on, everything will be colored that way.
Tea Party = dangerous types who probably wear white hoods, as per bbc insinuation.
Had two relatives over from the States last week during the site’s meltdown, happened to say I quite liked what I had heard of the Tea Party – look of horror on their faces. “But they are right-wing nuts!” my guest opined without qualification.
I see what damage the activist liberal media have done to political debate. Smear-merchants effectively control what many people think. I used to think the worst profession were the lawyers, but activist-journalists have set the bar even lower.
LC, if your relatives thought the Tea Party people are so far out, what did they think of the Occupiers? Were they even aware of how extreme and violent they became?
Discussing American politics with “Americans” was like running blindfold through a minefield. Immune here to media programming, some of us have an objective view of what is what; but you are talking to people who have just picked up and echo White House “talking points” from the MSM without any real understanding of anything. They mean well, but they are intellectually lazy. They are against “extremes” but lack a compass to navigate their way through the misinformation mire.
The endgame was this. Republicans only care about the rich. Democrats are the only ones who care about the poor. If you are on the Right you want millions to become homeless and starve or die. This from a grown man who should know better. I gave up. You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. I find it frightening so many people are so much sheep. They think they are the nice ones – the narcissism of the Left – but they are ultimately the enemies of the poor.
Exactly. Who are always the lawless and ridiculously irrational acting idiots that end up throwing stones, rocks, bricks, bottles, eggs, petrol bombs, placard sticks, darts, sections of metal fencing and start smashing windows and vandalising everything around them when they don’t get their way? – Yes, THE LEFT AND “EXTREME” LEFT! When the pathetic leftie thugs don’t get their way then any respect they might’ve had for democracy and law and order suddenly goes straight out the window.
DP – Not a protestant between them, will this help or hinder Romney’s election chances?
It helps. Evangelicals at least think Catholics are Christians of some kind.
I’m no expert but here’s what I think. The President and VP are usually protestants (as are usually the challengers and their running mates) eg Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore, Reagan/Quayle etc. Since Biden, the VP has been Catholic and if Romney wins the VP will be Catholic again. I think that Romney is pretty sure he’ll get the protestant vote in Republican states and thus seeks the white Catholic, working class vote in those states around The Great Lakes (Penn. Ohio etc) that are crucial to victory. I think I read that the white Catholic swing voters there have decided the last few elections. Romney has gone for a Irish/German Catholic conservative from Wisconsin to help him get their vote. Interestingly, they’ll all northerners too which probably indicates that the South is no longer seen as crucial to victory.
Hey “Two Eds”: If the country wants “moderate”, how come we put so many “extreme” Republicans in the House of Reps and Governors’ mansions and State legislatures in 2010?
I will never see how the BBC reconcile their commitment to “impartiality” with allowing their staff to blatantly publicise their political leanings. The “It’s ok because Tweets are private views…” bollocks just doesn’t cut it.
They don’t even pretend to be impartial. Are we to believe that as soon as they sit down in their “thinking space” or whatever the BBC call an office, they immediately become wholly unbiased so as to only put out their famously, and “genetically”, even handed reports?
The problem with nailing them on these tweets, though, is that it doesn’t necessarily prove bias in their actual reporting. Paul Mason and Robert Peston and Justin Webb can publish openly partisan books and get away with it because it’s all out of school.
However, I believe that a compilation of biased tweets can at least begin to demonstrate that there’s an overwhelming lack of intellectual (read: political) diversity at the BBC. It’s a statistically impossible lack of diversity, I’d say, and that’s a first step on the road to getting real movement towards reform. They don’t really know how to handle Twitter internally, so long ago threw their hands up and declared it the Wild West, free-for-all, can’t possibly hold anyone responsible for it unless they’ve got a BBC logo on the page and official approval from upstairs.
Beeboids like to claim that there really is a wide range of views in the corporation, but it’s really a wide range within a narrow spectrum, from center-left to far-left. If one is in the middle of that spectrum – probably most Beeboids – then sure, it can seem like one is surrounded by a wide range of views.
Leveson is meant to be looking at the practices and organisational culture of the media. I take it that means News International and not of the BBC. Someone carefully managed the terms of reference to exclude the biggest media organisation of them all, the BBC. Not hacking, just lying.
‘how the BBC reconcile their commitment to “impartiality” with allowing their staff to blatantly publicise their political leanings.’
The short answer is they obviously can’t, but feel they don’t need to worry about failing to do so, and hence simply bare-faced make claims that fly in the face of what’s obvious.
Hence this famous outing by Hugs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html
And then when her staff failed to live up to the hype, her now infamous plea for them to make nice… at least in front of the public… which was so epically derided and ignored.
The thing is the level of facile delusion. Of course they are not impartial. Every individual is partial one way or the other.
Now it is possible that some truly professional media types do manage to separate the personal from their jobs, and this is testament to their skills. These are the few where you really don’t know where their allegiances lie as they manage to do their jobs by simply reporting.
However, throughout the BBC’s senior editorial staff it’s pretty clear where they are coming from, beyond well documented instances of where they have been (which in Nick R’s case is doubly funny as the DOTTI – defenders of the truly indefensible – see nothing daft in reaching back selectively to his young and silly days to hang the label they need on his ideological commitments whilst ignoring what he says and does, daily, now. Ms. Flanders career path seems to have remained more consistent, to be sure, with this outburst explained if not excused by her CV).
And for a corporate entity so often obsessed by quotas, they seem curiously sanguine that the staff political tally appears to be Andrew Neil and Jeremy Clarkson in a ‘BBC split’ balanced by 19,998 others.
What I can’t figure out is why they are so vocal and overt in showing their hand with such as US politics.
Really what is said by the BBC here can surely have little actual influence over in the USA, while over here it will either get ignored… or serve merely to highlight just how bent they are in their views.
For a lead BBC editor to be flat out deploying the analytical term ‘extreme’, in the way shown here, offers little advantage to her save a few pats from within glee-clubbers the bubble, but for sure provides further written evidence of just how skewed they are and how oblivious to the consequences of flaunting it.
In the US this line is INline with the rest of the Obama-loving MSM. Extreme has been in several other places including CNN and NBC (no surprises!) Looks like this POTUS campaign is going to be a 2nd helping of the last one: gross, blatant, cringe-worthy obvious Obama-worship in the form of all out ad hominem and lies.
e.g. read this without laughing if you can:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13234565-obama-gets-his-target-with-pick-of-ryan?lite
And this: uses ‘extreme’ in the article but the headline takes the biscuit:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/11/opinion/brazile-romney-ryan/index.html?iref=allsearch
“Paul Ryan’s dangerous vision”
“The extreme plan proposed by this year’s Republican ticket would bring huge tax breaks to millionaires, paid for by tax hikes on the middle class, and massive cuts to investments that strengthen the middle class — priorities like education, health care, energy and scientific and medical research. Whether you are a college student trying to pay for school, a veteran worried about your health benefits, or a senior worried about retirement security, the Romney-Ryan plan is bad news. It would have devastating real-world effects on people young and old across the country.”
I certainly agree with you and David P. All journalists, all people, are biased one way or another. I think what really irks me is the blatant advertising of their political allegiances (both on Twitter and on air) without a hint of embarrassment and with no fear of retribution from their “impartial”, public funded, employer.
The BBC are so good at that. It is in their genes. There is never a moment of contrition with them. They can produce something like the Jubilee celebration coverage, have it almost universally panned and then say something along the lines of “we got it just about right”. They have such power that they know that they are immune from government criticism, let alone actual sanctions for their appalling behaviour. Maybe it is because everyone at Westminster and the BBC live in the same bubble and it is high time that the bubble burst.
As for their stance on American politics – firstly there is a desire to broadcast their disapproval of anything deemed right wing, free market (republicans) and their approval of anything left wing (Obama).
Secondly, it is particularly important for them to shout down (republican) America because, as the number one advert for a free market and society, a country that has never truly lived under the jack boot of socialism, they really screw up the left wing narrative.
First to spot a right-wing tweet from a BBC correspondent gets the gold medal in Impartiality Spotting.
LoL. A competition. I think I hear some Beeboids heads exploding.
On the one hand there is the default knee-jerk to any such challenge and get the weekend interns to fire up the archive to find at least two as ‘balance’ for the thousands posted here so far, but by offering a reward this is of course counter to all principles they hold dear.
[grabs popcorn]
If a BBC employee were to tweet something along the lines of “mass immigration has been a disaster for the UK” do you think that it would be:
a) regarded by the BBC as a “personal opinion” outside of their control and interest or
b) the person concerned would be hauled up before management and sent off for reprogramming or, even, sacked?
There is a precedent for this – In the pre-twitter age, both David Bellamy and Johnny Ball made themselves unemployable by questioning the “climate consensus”.
My point being that the BBC are quite happy that their employee express personal views – as long as they correspond with the views of the corporation.
Given that expressing a particular viewpoint resulted in Ball & Bellamy departing the payroll we can deduce that if you express a view without being sacked (or even a comment from the BBC management) then the BBC is effectively endorsing that view. So everything they spout on Twitter really is management approved despite claims that the views on twitter are “personal” and nothing to do with their employer.
‘everything they spout on Twitter really is management approved despite claims that the views on twitter are “personal” and nothing to do with their employer’
Indeed. Though it is all smoke & mirrors, with implausible denying going on around it all all the time.
From a management culture that defines hiring through promotion (or demotion/firing – think of the double standards applied to Carole Thatcher) to benign tolerance on ‘anything goes’ on their de facto new media outlets of choice, there is what is said… vs. what is done.
The £400k Hugs Boaden email being a good example.
She made play of ‘requesting’ folk didn’t make so plain their tribal affiliations on twitter, and was immediately ignored and/or derided.
To the best of my knowledge (Drs. Scezandy, fire up your servers), there has been nothing tangible done since (possibly mention of another ‘Trust’ talkfest). Not even a knuckle-rapping much less actual disciplining. Our family has just acquired a puppy. If he chews the trainers and you do nothing, he will move on to the sofa.
BBC staff tweets are big steaming piles on the carpet, and the market rates seem to feel a monthly Frebreezy ‘we are impartial because we say we are’ posting on The Editors will cover the stink.
It won’t, no matter how uniquely they pretend it will.
Impartiality is right out of the window where US politics are concerned. Useful in a way because we get to know what the Beeboids would say about the UK if their hands were not just a little more tied.
I think you may have answered my query on why they are so overt in this with so many downsides vs. few actual pros.
It’s a release valve.
As you say, try any such thing in a political sense here and even the most dopey apologist may have to dig a cellar in the bunker and never come out.
But by a spurious geographical one degree of separation (at least in their minds) they can vent as partisanly as they like and it’s sort of OK.
Still, the old most trusted worldwide media monopoly rep. must still be taking a hit every time.
I think it’s worse than that. If Mardell’s infamous appearance at the BBC College of Journalism is anything to go by, they all think the same thing about the US, and about all the main political issues. So the BBC bosses don’t think the reporting is biased because they see it instead as being correct on all those issues.
For example, I doubt there’s a single person at the BBC who would suggest that calling Ryan “extreme” is biased. They think that’s a correct assessment. That’s the inherent danger of groupthink and their self-selecting hiring practices.
No disagreement here, David.
But to return to my original confusion on what they are getting out of this, what does such clearly partisan ‘reporting’ gain them?
Over here it may sway a small segment of public opinion, and hence spineless political policy, but as it appears clear the US cares about zero about what happens this side of the pond the downsides appear to outweigh any positives.
Equally, while over there such sycophancy may have resulted in slightly tastier scraps than before, and even a nod from the Administration whose world vision they love and love to be loved by, is such a compromise really worth it considering the huge damage to already blown credibility?
The US MSM is already derided for its near-deranged support for Obama no matter what. For the BBC to be vying to excel on brown-nosing amongst this tainted cheerleading crowd seems extraordinary.
It gains them the approval of the bosses and promotions later on (e.g. Justin Webb’s elevation to Today).
The BBC may have zero influence over here now, but they’re trying to increase that. They’re spending a lot more money on the US part of the website, especially all those “bespoke” magazine-style video pieces, in order to attract more US eyeballs and the accompanying ad revenue. Mark Thompson told Andrew Marr earlier this year that he foresaw more of this, and that they were working on an iPad app to offer iPlayer subscriptions to the US.
There’s no question the BBC desires, as Jeremy Paxman said recently, to spread influence with its broadcasting.
If it’s not dangerous now, it will be if left unchecked.
Tx David. makes (a rather horrible) sense.
I just wish they were not so easily able to dip into my pocket to uniquely fund such ambition without my permission or approval.
It’s both not cricket and un-American.
I think the answer, partly, is ‘because they can’. No-one ever stops the BBC staff using our money to push their own socialist views. So, regardless of the context, that’s what they do.
But also, partly, I think it’s all part of the drip, drip feed of non-stop socialist dogma. If they keep saying it often enough, more and more of the unthinking masses will accept it as the truth.
After all, that’s how ‘political correctness’ moved from left-field (literally) to mainstream; and now it’s very difficult for anyone to counter.
How can Paul Ryan be described by the biased idiots Flanders and Mardell as “extreme”.
He wants to tackle properly the deficit and debt problems of the US, he wants to stop the decline. How is that extreme ?
He wants honesty about public spending – across the board, including ObamaCare., He wants to tell the US citizens the real truth, the hard facts. How is that extreme ?
When he sets out budget plans – they are true accounting, not fudges and deceptions and lies. How is that extreme ?
It is Obama who is extreme – driving the US economy over the cliff. Paul Ryan has taken a brave and often unpopular path on fiscal responsibility, Obama and the Dems have been a wrecking crew.
I love the second clip on this link – Paul Ryan right in Obama’s face, telling him across the conference room that he is a fool and a deceiver.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/11/videos-paul-ryan-is-totally-ready-for-his-close-up/
There’s your answer. Only an extremist would take that attitude with the Chosen One.
Thanks for the link. I remember some of that, but somehow missed Ryan tearing ObamaCare and the President’s joke budget apart.
But that also brought to my attention another main reason Ryan is the VP pick. It’s so obvious I’m ashamed that I missed it and obviously keep forgetting: Ryan is from Wisconsin. People here will know just how much of an indicator Wisconsin has been in the last year or so.
The VP announcement was made on the USS Wisconsin for good reason.
Ms Flanders, it seems, is politically embedded with Labour,
and with U.S Democrats.
At least two labour members have been embedded in Ms Flanders.
Brilliant!
Three in a bed? But what would Stephanie find to do to while away the time: fiddle with her iPad?
Well, well, well. Check out the first adjective at the opening of this White House attack ad against Ryan:
Paul Ryan is the mastermind behind the extreme GOP budget plan”
I’m shocked, shocked to learn that the BBC’s economics editor parroted a White House talking point.
Stephanie Flanders – extreme bias.
No, just some dopy beeboid on the take from the taxpayer. Feed the beast!
Rebecca Tyrrel:
“Stephanie and the two Labour Eds would not make for a happy ménage à trois”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/rebecca-tyrrel/rebecca-tyrrel-stephanie-and-the-two-labour-eds-would-not-make-for-a-happy-mnage–trois-8022922.html
Main US media all out attack too, CNN opinion could have been written by Obama, Ryan plan all old and sick out of work etc will be tortured, cut up and fed to the rich.
Does anyone actually listen to gives ed flounders I mean how can anyone take what she says as serious knowing what certain socialists have put in her mouth [words I mean honest ] ! mind it is interesting that she was trying to get Clinton to shower her with his wisdom !
The Obama campaign (and therefore the BBC) have no choice but to fight the election ad hominem. What are they going to do? Fight it on Obama’s record in his first term?
Seems Ms. Flanders has inspired competition not only amongst the girls at the BBC in this regard, but also with fellow anchorettes.
At least if my recent twitter surf is any guide.
Seems a lady called Micha Hussain (sp.?) had a chance to ‘interview’ David Cameron and… let’s just say she appears to have dug a hole for herself, beneath the headstone to any pretence of BBC impartiality.
And also managed to drag in the prizes for all notion, which is currently sooooo gaining traction.
To blow it so badly simply trying to diss Mr. Cameron (who has had a terrible Olympics – that posed fireside TV watching shot was a PR cringe of epic proportion) really shows them for the nasty bunch of partisan snipers they are.
Memo from the DG in aisle 9?
That ridiculous interview was at about 9.15am on BBC1. Mishal Husain has always been a nasty piece of work, very biased.
So in Steph’s worldview any VP who wants to stop the USA going bankrupt is extreme.
This is madness. She ought to be in a straitjacket!
Here’;s what genius Steph had to say on the euro:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/?view=mosaic#!/2012/05/almost-perfect.html
Shouldn’t always being wrong disqualify her in some way?
Maybe the BBC Economics 2xEd should in future take a leaf out of the BBC style book in other areas… say… ME politics.
Mr. Ryan could be not so much described as ‘extreme’ but more ‘daring’ or ‘audacious’.
Or is that too uniquely reserved for when trying to spin solely on behalf of those deemed Friends Of Aunty?
Some value judgements are more equal than others…depending upon whom they are applied.
Ryan would have to blow up a few Israelis before the BBC would call him audacious.
To my mind, increasing the national debt by $5 trillion, adding $4 billion per day, taking the total to more than 100% of the nation’s GDP… all in less than one term!! – without batting an eyelid – is the real extremism. In comparison, those wishing to end this madness would seem to be the rational ones.
…but with beeboids and leftists in general, there is the customary inversion of reality to explain their perverse outlook…government is the economy, debt is growth, taxation is wealth creation. Is it any wonder that the likes of Ms. Flanders are such dreadfully hopeless economic ‘analysts’.
But the Beeboids all feel that was the correct strategy. He’s been doing the best He can, you see. Rome wasn’t rebuilt in a day, He needs more time, etc. Especially with the extremist Tea Party Republicans blocking His every attempt to save us.
That’s the BBC perspective, and they don’t realize it’s not the middle ground.
‘the BBC perspective, and they don’t realize it’s not the middle ground.’
When the ‘BBC perspective’ moved from reporting and letting me make up my own mind to ediorialising to enhance the narrative (to move it to where they think it needs to be) by telling me what they believe and all others need to as well, was when I realised why such as this site is needed.
Acting as de facto correctives to anything politically via proactive influence has blown any trust I may have had in the BBC’s abilities or intentions.
And as a £4Bpa media monopoly devoted to propaganda backed by censorship, with NO accountability, that… is a concern.
I may just ask BBC CECUTT what they think about Ms. Flander’s little outing. By now they have been kind enough to serve back to me enough of their fondly held ‘rules’ & ‘guidelines’, and this one seems to have blown most of them out of the water.
…and with Obama, time is money – the longer he’s in office the more he’ll go through. I do hope you’ve all planted orchards full of those magic money trees.
It used to be said that the UK was a few years behind the USA, and that what happened there would eventually be replicated here. I think, politically at least, there has been a reversal of this adage. Obama appears to be a combination of the worst characteristics of both Blair and Brown – the media darling who’s turned out to be an empty, shallow, conceited egotist – combined with the spendthrift wrecking ball whose extremely thin skin and resentful arrogance makes him resistant to any form of criticism. All of them malignant narcissists. I hope your answer to this problem performs better than our coalition.
Oops – that’s in reply to David Preiser (USA) @ 3:14 PM
So do I, Reed. So do I.
Mark Mardell calls Stephanie Flanders an “Obama supporter”. Well, not by name, but….
But President Obama’s supporters are already calling him an extremist ideologue who would hurt most Americans and help only billionaires.
LoL.
In QED terms, the BBC has (when it suits) inferred a lot more of those it has has on its norty list with a lot less.
Just for fun, and as the BBC does seem to like a nicely stirred piece of controversy (if by it and not at it) let me reprise the relevant pieces of transcript, again ironically from BBC sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19230046
‘President Obama’s supporters are already calling him an extremist ideologue..”
Tweets by bbcstephanie
Stephanie Flanders @BBCStephanie
Ryan is risky VP choice for Romney. Republicans now so extreme, his main appeal 4 swing voters was record as a moderate. Ryan anything but.?
Seems a pretty clear connection being made there.
Now, putting on my best Jezza sneer…
‘How do you answer the claim that you are a tribal Democratic party advocate based on your tweets under the BBC banner, Ms. Flanders? Is that professional? Is that even showing the slightest semblance of impartiality in such a high profile role that in theory would demand it? Are your employers reeeeeallly going to try and claim these views are acceptable to articulate in such a way as you label yourself, without the usual qualifying weasel we usually hide behind, ‘Economics Editor for the BBC’, a supposedly unpartisan organisation? Hmmn? Let me ask you again…’
More unbalanced coverage of the Ryan pick here.
The first two are Republicans figures, but the rest are Left, Left, Left, Left, and Left again. This is how the BBC wants you to see the conventional wisdom.
The IBBC gets more worser everyday. About time there was a mass campaign of non-payment of their compulsary licence fee.
Full video clip of Romney’s slip of the tongue when introducing Ryan is worth publishing. But where’s the video of Candidate Obamessiah and the 57 States, BBC? Or Hawaii being in Asia? Or the “intercontinental railroad”? Or that He would be President for the next “eight to ten years”? The list of what the BBC refused to publish goes on and on. But this is worthy of a unique url.
If Mark Mardell considers Paul Ryan to be “extreme”, his bank manager had better beware. Ryan’s policy is for fiscal responsibility, a reduction of debt, a growing economy and the end to wasteful spending. I wonder which of these “extreme” views Mr Mardell rejects when organizing his own household budget. But I suspect Mardell sees a big difference between spending his own money and squandering the wealth of others.
Mardell’s “own” money is the wealth of others….poor bloody licence payers.
I’ve noticed how the BBC last night described Paul Ryan’s financial policies as ‘controversial’, but conspicuously didn’t describe President Obama’s health care policies as controversial. So, I can only assume the debate in the US on health care is now over and the President got his way. Or am I being led to a false conclusion ….
Obamacare will fail sooner or later. It is not sustainable. If the Republicans win they say they will repeal it and try and reform (not replace) the current health care system. If Obama wins the system will go ahead – already my health care provider has upped the premiums – 100,000 doctors will retire because they’re sick to death of this stuff, fewer people will enter the profession, insurance companies will withdraw from healthcare and, by default, a fully fledged national health service will ensue. With millions of extra patients, fewer doctors, no money for research – eventually the system will fail.
But, dear flexdream, if you think Obamacare is about health – it isn’t. It’s about control. It is now a criminal offence to be without health care. Thus, in order to pursue wrongdoers, the US Inland revenue service, the feared IRS, now has responsibility for collecting the fines for non-payment, so on behalf of Obamacare they can access health records. Government is now everywhere, even in our bedpans.
The result will be, of course, as usual the rich will get private health care somewhere else – some other country or some hospital aircraft carrier off the coast outside legal limits. its we poor schmucks who will end up paying more and getting less.
Now, looking back on what I just wrote I noticed something interesting: I described the two sides in this dispute as “the Republicans” and “Obama”. Where is the old Democratic party. Can you hear the crickets? They don’t know that after the far left has eaten the Republicans they’ll eat the democrats.
Meanwhile Mardell’s myopic view of life here in the US is the standard for BBC viewers and listeners.
Yes, Flexdream, you are being led on. One man’s triumph is another man’s controversial policy. Just like one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
ObamaCare is law, albeit slightly altered, and with loads of waivers already granted to favored constituents, and the real burdens start to kick in next year. Since Chief Justice Roberts caved for whatever reason, the Judicial Branch path is closed. Now it’ll take a serious amount of work in Congress to repeal it, meaning not until after the election. A huge, possibly insurmountable obstacle.
But there’s no excuse for the BBC to declare one controversial but not the other, considering the amount and volume of objection to it.
“former advisor to Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers” (news to me!), whenever there is a disaster a lefty is nearby. Clinton’s legislation about loans for the poor, was the foundation of the subprime disaster. So close to the events , but she cannot connect the dots, for some reason.
Can’t or won’t? After all, “Two Eds” used to work for Summers and she considers him something of a mentor. I knew you’d be shocked.
Given the anything BUT impartial broadcaster “Two Eds” Flanders works for, she’d know all about “extreme”.
Me the other day:
To the BBC’s horror, this is going to help Romney gain Tea Party support.
Today, the Democratic National Committee:
I just got this disturbing report: Yesterday’s Romney-Ryan rally in North Carolina pulled in an overflow crowd of 15,000 people.
There’s no spinning that number. It’s a LOT of people, and the Republican base in energized.
And that’s not all. Since the VP announcement, Romney’s campaign has brought in over 70,000 donations from his Tea Party base.
We’ve got to step up our game and mobilize our supporters — starting right now.
BBC today:
Republicans say voter engagement in the race has soared since Mr Ryan was announced as Mr Romney’s vice-presidential candidate on Saturday, including $3.5m (£2.2m) in donations in 24 hours.
It’s only a Republican claim, eh? Notice also just how much the report is weighted towards the President. We even get a video of an Obamessiah campaign ad, while Romney’s side rates merely a brief summary of one of his ads, plus a not exactly flattering bio of Ryan. He’s apparently the author of a “controversial” budget proposal as was voted Biggest Brown Noser in school and a catfish noodler. Oh how the Beeboid eyes must have rolled at the latter.
Still, we can see the panic in the BBC offices as well. Quick, tweet that Ryan is “extreme”. Check. Quick, roll out the White House talking points in two articles. Check. Quick, get someone who claims to be Conservative to trash Ryan. Check. Quick, find someone, anyone to say a single positive word about Ryan, and I mean more than just “Republican supporters say”. Ch-……er…Quick, report on the huge crowds greeting Ryan. Zzzzzzzzzzz.
This is what Mark Mardell sees as an interesting viewpoint for his audience:
Ryan sharpens the ideological choice but will it put off voters who only want solutions ? ABC’s @amywalter argues so http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/the-note/ …
Once again we see Mardell views Ryan as “extreme”, and that his budget proposals – passed by the House – are not valid solutions. Democrats have solutions, Republicans have ideology, right, Mark?
Blimmin’ cheek…cheeks…
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1525/guardian_repeats_paul_ryan_slur_without_fact_checking
Still, the BBC Economics 2xEd does get another namecheck for her ‘unique’ views.
Imagine if this paper was one of the major, some might say too often sole source of leads for the world’s most trusted professional ‘new..views’ organisation?
Oh..
Oo, look, it hasn’t in any way rattled some market rate sensibilities at all…
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
Which newspaper does the BBC buy more than any other? Find out over on @MediaGuido: http://order-order.com/2012/08/14/bbc-buys-the-guardian-more-than-any-other-paper/.
Kevin Bakhurst @kevinbakhurst
@GuidoFawkes Keep going-someone may bite on the (non)story at some point. Try Times/Telegraph/Sun/Mail nos vs Guardian/Mirror/Indy 🙂
Guido Fawkes
@GuidoFawkes
@kevinbakhurst Sun actually. The days when the BBC got to define what is news are long gone mate.
Kevin Bakhurst @kevinbakhurst
@GuidoFawkes sorry – forget to say “mate”
Oddly, invoking faux friendships seems not appreciated in this instance.
And I suspect not destined to endure as this media p*ssing contest between a free niche blog owner and the editor of a national broadcaster evolves.
I am rather rooting for Kev, because the BBC certainly still seems to define what it wants the news to be as far as I can gather. With £4Bpa to promote it.
And if he fights that corner, and wins, maybe then the debate can get back to what that definition is, and how representative of the UK public compelled to fund it, it actually is too.
[grabs popcorn]
Flanders and Mardell must be choking on their lattes. The Guardian has dared to suggest that Obama isn’t a saint after all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/14/swiftboating-mitt-romney-disgraces-barack-obama
Since the opinion piece starts out by saying that He saved the world, and the use of “swiftboating” makes it a statement that the Republicans started it, and were actually much worse, I seriously doubt Mardell and Co. would object to this at all.