Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns today. Included in the details was the fact that he paid $4m to charity – 30% of his income.
Follow Newssniffer to see the partisan priorities BBC journalists are placing on this story. As I write there have been two versions of the article so far and still no mention of charitable donations.
UPDATE Just a reminder – still nothing on the BBC website about the unravelling of the Obama administration’s Benghazi narrative. Even David Frum – a favourite of BBC tweeters when he attacks the GOP – says the White House is lying. No BBC journalists are linking to that article though. Funny, that.
The third update now mentions charitable donations, albeit way down towards the bottom of the article. Was it something I said?
‘Watertight oversight’ seems a flexible concept at best.
Creating an accurate, impartial version only for an legacy archive few will read does the BBC little credit on any basis.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/09/21/1173031/presidential-optics-vs-the-tax-code/
No mention by the BBC of the donation.
Also no mention that deductions could have been higher had the donation been larger.
So where Romney has said in the past said has paid “all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more”, he actually could have paid LESS tax.
Wonder if the BBC will mention this as part of their analysis?
This also makes me think back to Osborne and the cock up over charitable donations in the budget….
It’s probably not been mentioned because the BBC can’t have a pop at Romney for the reduction in his tax bill due to charitable donations, having provided a platform criticising Osborne for trying to stop wealthy people in the UK doing the same?
The donation has been mentioned towards the end of the 3rd edit of the article!
Even with the third edit it’s a struggle to see how a BBC hack could portray the facts in a less flattering light. It’s so clearly written with an anti-Romney agenda I am genuinely astonished not one editor at the BBC sees it. The groupthink is wide and deep.
On ‘Update’ above:
LIBYA and Muslim Brotherhood:-
“US Relied on Muslim Brotherhood for Benghazi Consulate Security”
– by Daniel Greenfield.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/us-relied-on-muslim-brotherhood-for-benghazi-consulate-security/
Of course the BBC mentions nothing about leading Dem Harry Reid’s lie that Romney had paid no tax at all in the last ten years.
… and Harry Reid (Democratic) refuses to make public his own tax returns. How cynical and hypocritical is that!
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/07/surprise_harry_reid_refuses_to_release_his_tax_returns
Nice one, DB. The BBC was obviously wait until the facts were verified before reporting the charitable donations.
Here’s what the usually hostile Politico has to say on the subject. A welcome parade of facts:
“Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was far more generous to charities than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden last year, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income, tax return data Romney’s campaign released Friday indicate.
Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.
President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama gave 21.8 percent of their income to charitable organizations last year, donating $172,130 out of the $789,674 they made.
Biden and his wife, Jill, gave 1.5 percent of their income away in 2011, with charitable donations totaling $5,540 out of $379,035.
Republicans have mocked Obama and especially Biden for being unusually tight-fisted when it comes to making charitable gifts.
When the Obama campaign released past tax returns for Biden in 2008, it was revealed that the Bidens donated just $3,690 to charity over 10 years — an average of $369 a year.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81529.html
Now why couldn’t the BBC say it simply like that?
Nice one. Personally I’d like to learn more about Obama’s charitable donations.
I mean donations to Obama.
Obama and Romney both gave interviews to Spanish language network Univision this week. During his appearance Obama lied about Fast and Furious, which the BBC – being an impartial news organisation with the highest journalistic standards – has reported.
I’m kidding of course. What the BBC has actually done is post an article that digs up some old Spanish language slips that Romney has made in the past (not on Unvision this week – we’re talking 5 year old stuff here). Obama has also made Spanish gaffes (he once referred to Cinco De Mayo as “Cinco de Cuatro” for example) but that’s not mentioned in the article.
The bias is relentless.
‘Tax law experts say the release of the 2011 return – and the summary of the past 20 years – will do little to silence questions about Mr Romney’s past tax liability, ‘
A nasty llittle sting in the tail of the article. The sort of slur the BBC love to use against anyone on the right.
Contrast their coverage with the Ken Livingstone tax avoidance. What little coverage the BBC gave to it was mainly Livingstone spin.. eg ‘Livingstone denies any wrongdoing’. And no coverage at all of Ken’s proven lies about his tax affairs.
Great article from the Blessed Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph this morning.
It points out that the liberal medias pigpile onto the “gaffes” of Mitt Romney was just a blowhard festival of liberal dopes, fantasising about the rest of America giving a damn about their agenda.
Still-we can expect it to run like pee down the legs of Polly Toynbee, for as long as it convinces the rest of us that Romneys a clown.
Sadly it doesnt, but the BBC won`t let up-let`s hope the Guardian still have all those Ohio voters to “influence” as in 2004.
Thanks for alerting me to this. I’m usually not very impressed by Janet Daley’s writing or appearances, but this bit made me laugh out loud:
If you think the BBC is out of touch with the views of ordinary British people, believe me – the US network news is on another planet from most of middle America. The failure to appreciate this fact accounts to a huge degree for the inanity of much British commentary on US politics. (How grateful American voters must be to receive all that confident advice and interpretation from foreigners who know nothing at all about the rather significant portion of the US that lies between New York and California. You may recall how enthusiastically they embraced the Guardian’s urgent demand that they elect John Kerry to the White House.)
*sound of nail being hit on the head*
The bBBC World Service were at pains to point out that Mitt Romney only paid 14% tax on his income, which, they pointed out, is a smaller percentage of his income than far less well off Americans. They too conveniently forgot to mention the 30% of his income he voluntarily gave away to charity.
Katty Kay tweeted about the tax rate, but declined to tweet about the charitable donations. What a shock. Meanwhile, she herself continues to personally contribute to the country’s income inequality.