I chose the word “lie” with great care, after long consideration. But I can come to no other conclusion. If one has wrong information and then makes a statement based on that faulty info, it’s not telling a lie. If one has the correct information but knowingly makes a statement contradicting that, it’s a lie. I think that’s what Mardell is doing here.
US election: Is foreign policy Romney’s best chance?
The short blog post is mainly about trying to push the idea that Romney’s campaign is in disarray, and that triangulating on a perceived foreign policy stumble regarding the Benghazi fiasco might help his chances. The BBC’s US President editor – a lifelong political junkie who should know better – actually wants you to believe that taking advantage of a new opportunity is the same thing as completely overhauling a campaign because the other ideas aren’t working.
Naturally, Mardell’s conclusion is the one you probably guessed: no, it won’t help Romney in the end anyway, because the people actually care more about the economy than anything else. Why this brilliant bit of obviousness took him 434 words to say instead of two short paragraphs, I have no idea. Since this is Mardell, though, there’s usually a gem amongst the paste. He sets up the notion that Romney’s campaign is desperately spinning wheels trying to find some traction by saying this:
Some in Mitt Romney’s camp are tempted to switch focus to foreign affairs.
As if they never had any plans to mention it, and as if events, dear boy, didn’t provide an opportunity. To back it up, he then says this:
No-one doubts now that the opinion polls show Mr Romney in a whole heap of trouble.
He didn’t say, “most” or “the conventional wisdom” or “expert analysts” or even “no-one with half a brain”. He said “no-one”. This is a lie, because by October 1 Mardell knew all about the following, but chooses to tell you they don’t exist:
Obama and Romney are basically tied in Virginia
What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls
The presidential race remains competitive even though voters still trust Mitt Romney slightly more than President Obama when it comes to handling economic matters. Will Wednesday night’s first presidential debate make a difference?
With a race this close, possibly but not likely, Scott Rasmussen argues in his latest weekly syndicated column. “Events in the real world matter more than debates,” Scott writes. “Only in the absence of other news could a slight change in the race coming out of the debates be decisive.”
(More on the debate issue in a moment)
Gallup on Romney’s terrible month
Also, this is registered voters. Likely voters probably favors Romney.
Morning Jay: Are the Polls Tilted Toward Obama?
One important “tell” in my opinion, is this president’s continued weak position with independent voters, who remain the true swing vote.
But wait, there’s more.
Only fools and partisans think Obama has it locked up.
Obama and Romney Neck in Neck in OH Poll… WITH D+10 SAMPLE!
What to Make of Declining Democratic Registration?
Basically, there’s a big discussion going on right now about the polls being skewed or otherwise unrepresentative of reality. And Mardell knew it. He just decided none of this was worth a damn and that you should think “no-one” doubts that Romney is in desperate straits.
Before any itchy fingers start trying to tell me that Mardell is right that Romney is in trouble, let me remind you that it’s irrelevant. I’m talking specifically about the fact that he said “no-one doubts”, which is patently false. A lie. At best, dismissing Rasmussen and Gallup and the Wall Street Journal as well as the local stuff, and saying that none of what I’ve linked to is worthy of respect, which just means he’s as biased as we say he is. Only fools and partisans, indeed.
Do I think a lot of this noise can be put down to sour grapes? Sure. Every time I hear someone complaining about skewed polls, that’s what I’m wondering. But that’s not the point. The point is that a lot of otherwise reasonable, respectable people think things are a lot closer than they really are. Also, let’s remember that in 2008 when Candidate Obamessiah had a similar lead over Sen. McCain, the Beeboids were fretting that the polls were skewed due to lying racists and the Bradley Effect. Ah, good times….good times. Funny how we’re not so racist now. Any bets that we will be racists again if Romney wins?
Now about tonight’s debate. The new Narrative in the US mainstream media (whom Mardell has admitted are mostly liberal) is that the debates don’t mean anything. It’s a clever pre-emptive strike at the bounce Romney will most likely get. There’s also been an attempt to revive the myth surrounding that Nixon-JFK debate where supposedly people who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won, while those who listened on the radio thought Nixon did. In other words, since most everyone is going to be watching it, don’t believe your lying eyes if you think Romney won.
Mardell dutifully follows suit. A draw will be a successful result for the President. He also throws in an appeal to authority and has some academic say that the debates don’t usually change anyone’s mind, but at least leave the voters better informed. I’d like some maple syrup on that waffle, please.
At least Adam Blenford’s full-length piece on the debate issues and candidates is pretty well balanced and not obviously biased. I even think that the weaknesses listed for both men can be considered different versions of the same thing. He didn’t mention the President’s whining about having to rehearse and study for it, but never mind.
Mardell will be tweeting during the debate and then blogging his pearls of wisdom afterwards. Joy.
Love the piece on Breakfast this morning the power of mis enscene – Background to interview with Democrat – busy office, many diff. races in view ‘Latinos for Obama’ and ‘Women for O posters in background
Repub.s on a stage with a few exclusively white and middle-aged men in background and a bizarre banner with Proud to be a cowboy on it.
Transparent unsubtle but I bet a few adolescent giggles could be heard by those oh so clever film teams.
Hmmmm … interesting analysis and links, but I’m not sure that it’s a ‘lie’. To lie one has to know what the truth is, and choose to say the opposite.
I suspect that Mardell, like most in our (bBBC) employ, spends much of his time immersed in like-minded groupspeak, surrounded by people who think like him, and he is too uncritical to question the propaganda.
That’s a damning indictment of a news correspondent of course. But I honestly think he is just too dim to think that there might be another answer.
Sir Arthur, I have to disagree. Mardell knows that these voices are out there. At the very least he’s heard from his Beltway Bubble comrades that the Rightosphere is bitching about it out of desperation. But he chose to claim that this isn’t happening, or that – at best – they’re all non-persons. This is a lie, not ignorance.
It’s his opinion that they’re wrong, yes. He might even be correct in that assumption. But that’s not the same thing as nobody thinking/saying it. He should have said something like, “Romney’s supporters may think the polls are skewed, but they would say that/it smacks of grasping at straws,” or something like that. He didn’t.
Mardell isn’t stupid, isn’t green, has been in the business a very long time. He knows exactly what’s out there and chose his words deliberately.
Well, the French aren’t unbiased neither. The main news on practically all free to air channels contained pretty a Mardell style piece. Also showing polls highly in favor of O. And showing an ad made by famous actors supporting O in lyrical terms against the famous out of context 47% Romney snafu pretty much saying has was moron rather then a mormon.
Well you’re missing the point. I’ve already explained that there are plenty of people questioning the validity of the polls, contrary to Mardell’s assertion. The French press reporting that Romney is losing is irrelevant. Who is leading and who is behind is irrelevant. The point is about whether or not Mardell is being honest when he says no-one thinks Romney isn’t in trouble because of the polls.
Please re-read my post, particularly the part where I said this.
I wonder when Mardell will break the story that Obama is a homosexual, and Michelle is his ‘beard’? Maybe after he loses the election, and retires in January to his new, $35m estate in Hawaii just bought for him by grateful, leftist multi-millionaires on Wall Street.
Perhaps that’s too much to ask…
I don’t believe the homosexual rumors for a second. Seen too many pictures of the President ogling some woman.
However, that story about them buying that place in Hawaii – true as far as I know – is an odd sign.
Get back to me in ten years when it all comes out…
Once again Mardell translates his collectivist, liberal, simplistic British Broadcasting sensibilities into his vision of politics in the USA.
But you can’t do that. American conservatism in NOT British conservatism. (Maybe that’s why the Daily Telegraph reporting is so anti-Romney).
I have lived in the USA around 8 years now, I was a political junkie in the UK and am one in the USA too. I remember the blind hatred of Reagan and Thatcher in the production offices of R4. I know the conversations I had in the corridors of Broadcasting House with Mardell types. They voted labour, lived on expenses accounts and were NEVER wrong.
My advice? They need to read more: from the Federalist papers to the letters and speeches of Ronald Reagan. But to Beeboids, American Conservatism always be linked to Barry Goldwater.
This doesn’t excuse Mardell unquestioningly adopting the latest Obama narrative. This states that even though the polls (skewered towards Democratic samples) are saying its a 50/50 tie between the candidates, Obama’s ringmaster David Alexrod is spreading it around that the election is all over and Obama has won – a message Mardell seems to have bought hook, line and sinker.
Looking back, the most important thing you posted here on B-BBC, David, was the “BBC Academy” conference in which Mardell explained his views on the US election BEFORE anything happened. The fact is he came into the campaign with his mind made up and he has cherry-picked the news to prove himself right.
In general, the British media is ill served by its US outposts, the result of the ignorance of partisans, the laziness of well-fed hacks and a touch of plain ol’ anti-American bias.
Obamacare in action
I’m pretty sure this qualifies as racist in Mardell’s world. This is the kind of thing that confirms his belief that all opposition to the President is based on racism on some level. Our defenders of the indefensible inhabit that same world, so I’m sure they’ll be along shortly to condemn this from the highest horse and declare me a racist for not censoring it, entire blog history discredited.
Perhaps Randy Newman can write a song about it too!
What does it matter what Mardell says? He is hardly influencing anything and the fact that the BBC like most of the media in Europe supports Obama doesn’t means that it is bias, just that most Europeans of all viewpoints find Obama broadly acceptable.
The fact is nobody in Europe has much interest in the US election as the financial crisis is the issue and US seems as bereft of ideas as the rest of us. The long term decline in the US that started under Clinton and Bush is now making the US of far less interest and importance. The bias in the BBC is that it continues to waste airtime on this spent force rather than on the new economies. It hasn’t caught up with global realities, like those old Kemlin watchers who hope for a revival of the USSR.
Why do I know the names of plenty of US politicians but damn few Chinese ones?
I’m glad you admit that Mardell’s reporting is biased. Can I quote you on that?
‘Why do I know the names of plenty of US politicians but damn few Chinese ones? ‘ – Ignorance?
“The bias in the BBC is that it continues to waste airtime on this [economic] spent force…It hasn’t caught up with global realities”
Prole has been using that line for as long as he could write his name on his Labour Party membership card. So original.
“What does it matter what Mardell says?”
If the BBC doesn’t matter you won’t mind it being scrapped then will you.
You guys might like to see this, courtesy of Terry Smith. The bias is probably worst in UK, due to the BBC monopoly, but the consequences of 4 more years of Obama are far worse for the USA.
Marvell not happy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19825146
Poor little lamb.
Mardell not happy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19825146
Poor little lamb.
Sorry. Thought I’d caught that. Obviously didn’t mean the metaphysical poet.
Despite the claim by the BBC that Obama is a brilliant orator ( as they claimed for Michael Foot and every left wing politician both here and in the USA) he has again proved that without his auto cue he is a inarticulate ditherer. He has not got the mental capacity to react to questions on the hoof. Without his elaborate pre speech preparations transcribed to auto cue his lack of ability is exposed .
Just go to ‘You Tube’ and enter ” Obama without auto cue” to see what I mean.
Sorry that should read ” Teleprompter” not auto cue.
This is a bit of a round up :-