As if all the other BBC reporting isn’t enough, they got their (freelance) World Service economics correspondent to ask, in the usual manner of journalists posing a question to which they’ve already decided the answer, if the poor US economy is the President’s fault.
US economy: Who to blame for poor economic performance?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: The economy really isn’t that bad if you consider it in historical context, and no, only some people say it’s His fault for not doing enough to fix it.
The opening section is devoted to telling you how the economy really isn’t as all that bad from an historical perspective. Moreover, the US doesn’t look so bad at all compared to the current European situation, as well as Japan. In fact, the latest quarterly figures show the US has made up all lost ground, and is now doing better than before the recession! Never mind the massive debt, or the continuously rising deficit, or the fact that the latest GDP bump is mostly due to the Fed printing more money we don’t have. So before we even get to assigning blame, we’ve softened the blow considerably, and in fact might even cause some people to wonder what’s the point of assigning blame at all.
This follows on Walker’s report from the other day defending the President on unemployment, where he dutifully regurgitated the latest jobs report without mentioning that previous jobs figures keep getting revised down. So when he then tells you that Romney will be lying if he now claims that the President has presided over a net jobs loss, you don’t actually know the whole truth. Interestingly, the last two lines of that piece are actually a set-up for this one.
In any case, now that Walker has established his premise that the economy really isn’t so bad if you think about it, he sets about pretending to ask if the President is to blame.
For the “It’s not His fault, you see” side, he links to a Bloomberg opinion piece by two economic academics explaining the historical context, and declaring that the current doldrums are nothing unusual. In fact, they say, history tells us this was always going to be the case after such a bad financial crisis. It’s not His fault, you see.
For the racist side blaming the President’s policies, Walker mentions two other economic academics, but links only to a PDF file of the “Romney Plan” on the Romney campaign website. It’s written by the people he mentions, but this is obviously going to raise a red flag with readers. It’s a partisan campaign manifesto, so not to be taken as seriously as the view Walker offers from the other side. Even though he allows as how the other economics experts are sympathetic to the President, an independently researched and published book and opinion piece isn’t even remotely the same thing as an actual party platform. It’s rather disingenuous to present these as apples-to-apples.
I suppose it would be churlish to compare word counts here, like they did for the debates. This is just one more piece to support the BBC’s overall Narrative that there is no legitimate opposition to the President’s policies, and that those who express the desire to vote against Him are motivated by something else.
For a hint at Walker’s personal political views, see this old piece where he sanitizes the political views and writings of that well-known eugenics fan and Stalinist, Bernard Shaw.
The link to the article seems to have gone awry: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20206794
I find it is often useful to turn a question around: if the US economy had been doing well, would Obama have got (gotten?), or taken, the credit?
Thanks. Fixed.
OT – I asked Hugh Sykes why the BBC hasn’t been covering the latest revelations about Benghazi. His response – “which ‘latest’?” I gave him some links, and he conceded it was “odd” if the BBC isn’t reporting it. Well the BBC isn’t reporting it, so I guess that makes it odd.
LOL. Bubble…echo chamber….groupthink….
This is the same as Jim Dandy’s assertion that because the BBC reported on the original incident at the time that they’ve got it about right and we’re wrong to claim that the BBC hasn’t been reporting on the growing scandal.
Well the BBC isn’t reporting it, so I guess that makes it odd.
If, to them, in a unique way, which somehow makes it ‘not odd’ if they say so.
This is the guy doing the BBC’s statistical analysis for its election coverage tomorrow:
If the President is re-elected, 100% of the year will be Christmas at the BBC.
“104.62%” – Jeremy Vine.
Heh, Vine’s just redone his figures on Christmas. Off to a great start.
The number crunching game is just one of the ways the entire sorry crowd are desperately trying to fill 24/7 dead air space with a bunch of stuff they have no more clue about than fly in the air.
But the MSM’s desperate milking of the US election on unknowns just got funny. A SKY ‘reporter’ microphone toter live in a diner, just went over to some folk having supper for one of those endless ‘what do you think’ fillers that means zippy… and got told in no uncertain terms to sod off as they were eating!
Best laugh of the whole sorry coverage.
I think the main point re the BBC (and one that DP has pointed out countless times) is that in the USA the poor economic situation and the lack of/minor inroads is all down to the previous administration (4 years and more ago) yet here in the UK ‘how long can you keep blaming the previous government’ is the shrill cry (after 2 years but they were saying this before 1 year was up). My opinion is that we can blame New Labour until at least 2032 considering how St. and Lady MT is still to blame for any and every ill in the UK.
On that last point (re MT) on every news bulletin I have heard the phrase ‘Thatcher era MP’ or high up Tory from the Thatcher era or some similar idiocy, it reminded me of right-wing extremist Christian in that it stands out when compared to comparisons ‘the other way’.
Yes, I noticed Radio2 used that expression on every news bulletin throughout the day.
Strangely, Channel4 News used exactly the same words.
Many times I’ve had the feeling that there’s some collusion between them. They are certainly on the same political wavelength.
Impartial BBC journalist Daniel Nasaw:
Impartial and a liar…or merely mistaken.
What about the two years of total Democrat control of Congress? Which party still controls the Senate to this day? I forget. Year Zero is 2010 for this biased liar.
Go on, defenders of the indefensible: tell us it isn’t so.
On the subject of cross party co-operation, Obama to Eric Cantor at the first bi-partisan meeting of O’s presidency: “I don’t think you guys understand. I won. You lost”
And with that the Republicans went home.
Nice to see who these guys are…
http://www.danielnasaw.com/post/10806248145/my-appearance-on-rts-the-big-picture-with-thom
I don’t think he qualifies as a “BBC journalist” – he is a commentator.
He thinks the Occupiers were just a bunch of people with jobs spending a fun couple of days off? Did he actually go there and talk to them like I did? There were quite a few hangers-on like that around the edges of the park, but there was a hardcore group at the heart of it. What a joke. I believe Nasaw was hired specifically to write features for the BBC online magazine, and has started doing those “bespoke” video pieces for them. It takes a special kind of talent….
I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that” Jane Garvey
Corks will no doubt be popping if (when?) He wins.
David you haven’t heard the latest economic gossip from Andrew Sullivan …..
‘This is an election to win. Whoever gets the keys to the Whitehouse inherits an economy that is poised for takeoff.’
Has he not heard of Taxmageddon?
Or is he just realising that Romney might win….and if the economy did pick up is Sullivan trying to ‘predistribute’ , to coin a phrase, the credit for that?…to Obama of course.
If the economy is poised for takeoff – and it’s a big “if”, which I doubt – it surely wouldn’t have anything to do with the Republican House stopping His worst shenanigans for nearly two years, would it? I mean, the BBC has been telling us since January 2011 that they’ve been so evil as to block His every move. Alternatively, if I’m expected to believe the economy is poised for takeoff, why are we going to hit the debt ceiling again by the end of the year, and why is the Fed still printing money?
Sullivan doesn’t understand the ramifications of ObamaCare, nor does he understand what all those looming, obligatory, poorly thought out, across-the-board tax cuts from that ridiculous debt agreement are going to do. He also believes that if you take a map of all the States supporting Romney and superimpose it over a map from 1861 you’ll get the Confederacy.
Yet Sarah Palin’s personal womb inspector is still considered a top quality commentator by folks like Katty Kay.
It’s official, Susan ‘Raynauds’, Today’s newsreader this morning forgot to unplug herself from Big Brother as she slipped and said the American voters have to ‘elect’ Osama today or else….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01npjsb
at 1hr 28m 16 seconds.
Freudian slip?