Paul Mason On Paul Ryan

Newsnight economics editor Paul Mason has put together a little hit piece on Paul Ryan. Under the pretext of examining whether or not Ryan’s budget proposals will help the US in fiscal crisis, Mason attacks and demonizes.

Could Paul Ryan’s plans fix US debt?

Hands up all those who think we’re going to get an honest examination of those plans. Nobody?

Mason’s opening salvo tells you it’s an attack. Right away he claims that in a matter of days Ryan has “polarized US politics”. What? Haven’t Mardell and the rest of them been telling us that the country’s politics have been polarized and more divided than ever before since the nasty Tea Party got busy? All of a sudden we’re polarized?

The video clip of Ryan is cut short before we get to actual policy points, allowing through just a statement about cutting spending in general. So far, you’re not informed at all about the actual plans.

First expert commentator: this benefits the President. How does this help examine whether or not Ryan’s plans will benefit or harm the country? Don’t be silly: that’s not what Mason’s goal is at all. His real goal is show that Ryan is bad for the country, and a bad choice for Romney. Whether or not Ryan’s policies help the President in campaign rhetoric is irrelevant to a discussion about Ryan’s plans fixing the debt. But that’s what Mason gives you.

Then Mason plays an excerpt of Ryan giving the President a hard time over budget issues. This video has been making the rounds of the Rightosphere lately, as evidence of why Romney chose him. So the Beeboids do pay attention after all. But listen to what Mason says next. Ryan wants to cut Welfare and Food Stamps, apparently. And, “says, Ryan, growth would follow.” So that’s it, is it? Crushing the poorest and most vulnerable is Ryan’s recipe for success, eh?

It’s the simplest trick in the world: use the most general terms possible, no details, and claim “accuracy”. In fact, even the mandarins at the government program themselves admit that it’s more about putting back some means-testing as a way to get spending back to 2008 levels. Sure, they describe it as the cruel wresting of vital support for “low-income families”, but that’s their job. They’re not about fixing the debt problem. Mason is giving you a talking point more than he’s giving you a useful fact. Of course, the BBC can claim “accuracy” here, because Ryan’s plan would, in fact, cut expenditure on these programs. The hows and whys are apparently irrelevant.

But that’s not even the real point, is it? This is supposed to be about whether or not Ryan’s budget ideas will save the country. Mason, it seems, has no interest in giving you any information with which to decide for yourselves. Instead, he’s giving you partisan attack points. Then the biased reporting really kicks in.

Mason next shows a clip from Ryan’s recent stump appearance in Iowa. He got heckled, and Mason uses this as proof that “the Democrat half of the country” doesn’t like him. Again, we get no policy statement from him, just the bit where he gets heckled.

I’d like to pause for a moment and ask defenders of the indefensible to show me examples of the BBC showing the President getting heckled and reporting it as proof that a portion of the country has a legitimate objection to His policies.

As for the Ryan clip, all we see is him criticizing the hecklers, which is followed immediately by footage of the President having a great old time meeting some other Iowans. He’s at ease, smiling and pressing the flesh, complimenting the local prowess in sno-cone making, and nearly kissing a baby. No hecklers, no negatives, no hint that part of the country might object to any of His policies.

However, I have to ask if this footage was included in the interests of “balance”? If so, why? This is supposed to be about Ryan and his budget ideas. Actually, Mason cleverly uses this as a segue to support his rather fatuous statement that this election is suddenly about “where you’re from”. It’s bogus because Ryan was teasing. Anybody who doesn’t rely on or trust the BBC for their news on US issues will know very well about just how ugly and violent the Democrats in Wisconsin can get when they don’t like a politician. Ryan wasn’t seriously saying those hecklers could never be from Iowa or Wisconsin. He was just making a weak crack about them being rude. For Mason to take that and spin it into a larger issue of some kind of regional divide is even weaker. Now, one could make a case for the South not being so supportive of the President, but that’s all racism, according to the Left and the BBC, and not because they think Ryan’s budget ideas are sound. But that’s another argument altogether, and won’t help Mason’s agenda.

Then we get a liar from the Washington Post. She plays the class war game, much beloved by Mason and the BBC. The WaPo hack claims that choosing Ryan is proof that Romney wants to cut taxes on the rich, full stop. Once again the BBC can claim the vaguest definition of “accuracy” here, because a tax cut across the board – for everyone – will by definition include tax cuts for the rich. This is, in fact, Romney’s plan, something the BBC leaves out in order to seriously mislead you and grossly misrepresent the facts. Mason gets away with it this time because it’s some US mouthpiece saying it and not him. So where’s the balance, the explanation of even one single relevant detail of Ryan’s or Romney’s plan never mind whether or not it will help fix the debt crisis? Don’t make me laugh.

After this, Mason gives us another White House talking point: it’s Congress’s fault. No mention that the Republican-led House has passed a budget – twice – while the Democrat-led Senate has blocked it and failed to pass one in three years and counting. No mention that the President’s own offerings have been such a joke that the CBO couldn’t even score it and His Plan For Us never passed the laugh test enough for anyone in Congress to even consider it.

Mason gives us one last generality, that Ryan wants to cut spending in order to promote growth. “But that is one major throw of the dice.” Yes, that’s one opinion: Paul Mason’s. Which is the whole reason the BBC has these titled “editor” positions. It gives them an excuse to allow opinion-mongering in place of real reporting. Not a single second of actual reporting is in evidence here. Instead, it’s carefully selected and edited footage to support Mason’s opinion of Ryan’s fiscal conservatism.

Now that I’ve spent time playing the ball, it’s time to play the man. We know for a fact that Mason is a Marxist, and supports the Occupy movement. We know his political opinions from his tweets and his books and his support for and participation in far-Left organizations and conferences. All that on its own would be enough to cause concern over his capability for impartial reporting, except the BBC doesn’t accept that. Yet now we see his opinion being offered on air, and it’s the same one we see from his extracurricular activities. His personal political bias informs his “reporting”. It’s as plain as day.

Your license fee hard at work, promoting the domestic agenda of the leader of a foreign country.

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Paul Mason On Paul Ryan

  1. LondonCalling says:

    Perhaps Paul Mason could go and join Mark Thompson at NYT? He is such a worthless leftie-tosser we would all be better off without his take on the world.


  2. Alex says:

    On the subject of Paul Mason – and Newsnight as a whole – did anyone else feel that the sneering, anti-capitalist tone towards the Government from both Mason and Esler tonight (and every night), was highly infuriating but just so typically predictable of what to expect from a biased and statist media organization that has ‘big government intervention’ written into its very DNA? Mason is such a ‘radical’ lefty it’s untrue! I just don’t know how the BBC can state impartiality (especially when this former music teacher-turned-senior economics editor vociferously and openly waxes lyrical about crappy socialist utopian movements).
    They never adopt this aggressive attitude with lefties or Liebour. Also, why is it that when Newsnight/Paul Mason chooses a business to use as a case-in-point, they are usually full of ethnic minorities and urban trendies?

    Newsnight, in my opinion, encapsulates how the BBC lefty elites are manipulating the public’s social, political and economical perceptions in an attempt to maintain the ever-burgeoning socialist agendas and power structure. Ever so subtle but deadly subliminal indoctrination! Again, in my opinion, the £145 TV License Fee has now become practically an enforced vote for an institution that defines an ever more repressive society.


    • Span Ows says:

      Trouble is that they (probably) genuinely think they are ‘normal’. They hear the leftie elite claims but they don’t recognise it as themselves! This is the problem.


  3. Demon says:

    I would love to see the Cherry Pickers defend Mason’s activities on this, and explain why an openly marxist politico giving marxist views can be claimed as unbiased.

    Helen Boaden’s minions, yes that’s you Mr Gregory, Dezzie, Scottie etc., please argue the above point by point. Vague generalisations and personal attacks are not required. Thank you.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      ” Vague generalisations and personal attacks are not required.”

      That’s Mason out, then.


      • Guest Who says:

        Not for nothing is Mr. Mason’s new role as Newsnight’s ‘Anger & Protests Editor’ ever more secured.
        Helen Boaden’s minions… please argue the above point by point
        Good luck with that.
        Cherries to pick, straw men to argue… elsewhere.
        I think you have rendered this thread safe as they don’t like being caught in the open where it doesn’t suit.


  4. Louis Robinson says:

    Move over Paul Mason, here comes Mark Mardell…
    How could anyone think, says Obama’s propaganda chief (UK), that Biden’s “they’re going to put y’all in chains” comment has racial overtones?

    Well, for starters, Mark, ask the former Democratic African American governor being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN right now. He thinks they were inappropriate comments. And Mark, just for the record, slaves were chained together in the USA before emancipation. What, Mark? Oh, that was during the time of the Civil War. That was a conflict within the USA, Mark. Oh, hell, just go read a history book!
    By the way, “They’re going to put Y’ALL in chains” implies that Biden doesn’t count himself as one of “Y’all”. Of course he isn’t. he’s an elite career politician. And slightly off his rocker.
    With every day that passes Mark Mardell looks more and more out of touch with his subject. That’s a qualification for promotion, isn’t it?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      You beat me to it, Louis. This really is a disgraceful display from the US President editor, isn’t it? Anyone suggesting this was in appropriate is overreacting, he says. Uneffingbelievable.

      I’d love to see Mardell say this to The Obamessiah’s 2008 campaign co-chair, Artur Davis’, face. This comes from the same sick bastard who suggested that Sarah Palin should take some responsibility for that ambi-political lunatic murdering several people in his attempt to assassinate Rep. Giffords.

      Sometimes Mardell really does sicken me. Justin Webb used to anger me rather often, but Mardell actually sickens me at times.


      • Louis Robinson says:

        The BBC reports from Washington DC: “Police say a man was restrained and disarmed after opening fire in the lobby of the Family Research Council at 10:45 local time (14:45 GMT).”
        For once the omission of the identifying features of the “man” is not because he is a Muslim. For the full story we have to turn to – and do you know much it hurts me to say this – the Associated Press.
        “A man who had been a volunteer at a community center for gays walked into the lobby of a conservative political organization, made a negative comment about what the group stands for, pulled a gun and opened fire, authorities said. “
        To be fair, the gay, lesbian, transgender alliance has condemned the shooting. He is obviously another nut job.
        But my beef is with the media. Once again there’s a blackout on any information that makes the left look bad.
        I’d call that corruption.


    • George R says:

      If ex-D.G. of BBC, M Thompson can move seamlessly to become CEO of ‘New York Times’, why cannot BBC’s North America editor, M Mardell move seamlessly to become chief official propagandist for Obama?


  5. Leftie-Loather says:

    With that always bunged up sounding, almost cartoon character voice of his, I can never take anything Mason says seriously.
    The self righteous leftie bore belongs more in commercials for Tunes cough sweets.


  6. Umbongo says:

    As a general point, although it touches on Mason’s partiality, what do we get from the “Conservatives” who are the fall-guys for much of this bias? Nothing! Even Daniel Hannan in his article on BBC bias in Tuesday’s Telegraph ends with this load of fatuous nonsense: “One thing I’ve learnt about the BBC is that, when an example of partiality is drawn to their attention, they try to correct it. Seriously: have a go.”
    Where has the guy been? It might be – I’m sure it’s so – that when a politician with a fairly high profile makes a complaint someone at the BBC reacts even if the general bias continues uncorrected. OTOH when one – or lots – of the “little people” makes a complaint there’s the initial brush-off, followed (after endless trips through the maze of the BBC’s deliberately tortuous complaints process) by the final “we got it about right”.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘they try to correct it. Seriously: have a go’
      Cripes, I thought he was being sarky. Just goes to show.
      Your final para perfectly summarises CECUT process.
      I made the mistake of telling a seemingly chummy Complaints Director I was off an hols and guess what… a load of ‘decisions’ flooded in while I was away that had deadlines to respond which expired before my return.
      No matter that some had been sat on by the BBC for months.


      • Roland Deschain says:

        Use that to your advantage next time. Tell them you’re off on holiday when you aren’t, to speed things along a little.

        Unless your holiday was longer than Nick Robinson’s, the deadlines must have been unreasonable and I hope you tell them where to stick them.


        • Guest Who says:

          I like your thinking!
          The one that seems to be ‘stuck’ in the system as the entire Trust holidays with the NUT high command and Nick ‘phone it in from the villa’ Robinson, is still the one where a minion decided to go the extra mile and try to cross-index complainants to them internally and complainants about them externally. Rather foolishly in writing, with quotes.
          I still await Trust feedback on staff behaving like East German apartment block supers, and how this falls under BBC Charter remit.


  7. gaon says:

    Your perceptive comment sums it all up nicely: “opinion-mongering in place of real reporting.”
    So seriously, what can this ineffective, but otherwise interesting site do to reform and/or eliminate the state broadcaster?


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Who says it’s ineffective? There’s a hell of a long way to go, but public perception of BBC bias is much greater than it used to be. You see far more stories about it in the press than used to be the case.


    • Brother Duquette says:

      “So seriously, what can this ineffective, but otherwise interesting site do to reform and/or eliminate the state broadcaster?”

      Well, for a start, we could not respond to negative comments such as yours.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The site does affect change in small ways. The BBC is more alert to problems with staff tweets (account have been closed, tweets removed, staff scolded, because of this blog), the CBBC special section on 9/11 and Bin Laden has been dramatically improved, and online articles stealth-edited in reaction.

      The blog does raise awareness elsewhere, too. There just needs to be a lot more of it.


      • Louis Robinson says:

        Beeboids are drawn to this site like moths to a flame. Being narcissists they can’t bear not reading about themselves – even if its bad.


  8. Alan says:

    The site may be small but it is read by many people from all walks of life…and many in the media.

    It can of course not do any real damage on its own to the monolithic BBC which is its own judge and jury when it comes to complaints with the Trust aiming to protect the BBC and look after its interests whilst at the same time supposedly be a keen eyed critic and regulator…just a slight conflict of interest.

    However the site does score a few hits occasionally with the MSM picking up a few stories or lines. It should also be taken as a part of a whole….there is a veritable barrage of articles criticising the BBC that has been sustained over a period of time by the MSM….eventually that will tell and politicians will have to take note…perhaps the BBC will go too far in taking sides on a poltical issue…or rather make it too obvious, as we all know which side it does take and the Tories will find some courage and do the necessary.

    The key is of course the public’s attitude…as long as they keep ‘loving’ the BBC’s general output…wildlife, sport and drama they will not be keen on the BBC being restructured in any way…especially by politicans.

    That is why the Balen Report was kept under wraps…it clearly contained something so damaging to the BBC’s reputation and its public image that to release it would make it vulnerable to ‘attack’ and reform.

    Without a ‘scandal’ you won’t change attitudes.


  9. Alan says:

    ….and it should be noted that much of the Press, especially the ‘Tory’ Telegraph, has decided that Cameron is toast…or they wish to make him so….and are not inclined to ‘protect’ him from the BBC.