On this morning’s Today programme BBC Washington correspondent Paul Adams admitted that Benghazi was a “huge issue” in the US election. Funny that, because at the time the BBC clearly thought it was a non-story, best ignored. During the final weeks of the election campaign, as more and more evidence emerged showing contradictions in official claims over what really happened and Republican politicians demanded to know the truth, the staff at the BBC’s Washington bureau decided to bury the story and reported none of the new developments.
But today Adams told us that Benghazi had after all been a big deal during the campaign, explaining that the Republicans hoped “it would undermine Barack Obama”. And there’s the reason the BBC’s pro-Obama editors and journalists ignored the story during those final weeks of the campaign – they had no desire to give any publicity to something that could help the GOP against their guy.
Today programme 16/11/2012 (approx 44.30 in)
Sarah Montague: Now David Petraeus is up before Congress today on another matter isn’t he?
Paul Adams: He certainly is and this is of rather more concern, actually, to most politicians here in Washington and that is what exactly he knew about the attack on the US consulate building and CIA annex in the Libyan city of Benghazi which resulted in the death of the American ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Now this was a huge issue that the Republicans were running with before the election in the hope that it would undermine Barack Obama. They are still pursuing it. There is a lot of anger about what the Republicans regard as essentially a cover up, an attempt by the administration – various bits of the administration – to portray this as simply a mob attack in the wake of publication of that notorious internet video about Mohammed rather than call it what it was which was an organised terrorist attack by groups allied to al-Qaeda. And they also want to know exactly what the CIA was doing there in Benghazi at that annex and what steps were taken to try and relieve the situation once that attack began.
Of course Petraeus is big news now, and the BBC can no longer pretend there’s nothing to report. Hence the whiplash-inducing reassessment of recent history.
A few days before the election I asked BBC foreign correspondent Hugh Sykes (who wasn’t covering the US elections) why the BBC had been ignoring the latest Benghazi developments. He said it was “odd” if the BBC was indeed not reporting it:
@4d2b which ‘latest’? I tried to get meaningful Benghazi access last week when in Tripoli, but logistics (and resources) prevented it.
— HughSykes (@HughSykes) November 4, 2012
@hughsykes This sort of stuff tocuhed on here washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-sec… and here abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics…
— DB (@4d2b) November 4, 2012
@4d2b I think I’ve heard it discussed on BBC, but when?? -I tend to have it on constantly. But yes odd if not. Do you watch? Listen?
— HughSykes (@HughSykes) November 4, 2012
@4d2b PS I 90% radio listen 10% TV. And: In Tripoli, one contact wondered why no extra precautions were taken as it was after all Sept 11th.
— HughSykes (@HughSykes) November 4, 2012
@hughsykes I’m radio/BBC online, almost no TV. Last BBC report re Beng security I hear/read was Hillary “taking responsibility”, Oct 16.
— DB (@4d2b) November 4, 2012
By the time of our exchange the BBC had pretty much given up reporting the story. “Odd” indeed.
And while I’m on a Twitter splurge, BBC newsreader Alice Arnold was on holiday in America with her partner Clare Balding when the election was on. She played golf with a Texan guy – good company, apart from his politics:
@tammy_who played golf with a Texan today. He was a republican but apart from that great company !
— Alice Arnold (@alicearnold1) November 5, 2012
Phrases you won’t find BBC journalists tweeting: “He was a Democrat but apart from that…” “He was an Obama supporter but apart from that…”
And here’s BBC news producer Richard Bowen (ex-Washington, now London) exchanging a little joke with a friend on the day after the election:
Obama over & it’s back to reality for the Sun MT @thesunnewspaper Mum says baby is possessed by devil & breathes fire bitly.com/RT25qV
— Richard Bowen (@Casholini) November 7, 2012
@sibelsham or vote Republican!!!
— Richard Bowen (@Casholini) November 7, 2012
The ultimate horror – a Republican voter! Still, could be worse – the kid might grow up to be a BBC journalist.
That may look like bias but, what that is, is…er…..the tweet was sub-contracted to the Bureau of Non-Biased Tweeting who…er….BBC management were on holiday…er….at a conference….er…..shoddy tweeting….er….er….basic checks not followed…..er….best scientific minds…..lessons learned….outrageous slur….er…er….er….
I am soooo stealing that!
Given Mr. Sykes’ admission… I seem to recall Data was prone to saying ‘Odd Captain’ a fair bit?
BBC report on Petraeus’ evidence to House Intelligence Committee gives impression that he has contradicted himself and also focuses on issue of when the situation was seen as a planned attack and not a protest. No mention of who told potential back up forces to stand down. The report insists on making one thing clear at the outset;
“Gen Petraeus has said he left his post at the CIA only because of his extramarital affair with biographer Paula Broadwell, and not because of the CIA’s handling of the attack.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20362941
So no speculation along the lines of “Are Petraeus and Allen, Obama’s von Bomberg and von Fritsch?” then.
oops_ should have been ‘von Blomberg’
http://www.mahalo.com/blombergfritsch-affair/
So how did this have any effect on the election and Clare Balding slumming it with a Republican?
Why is Paul Adams now saying it was a “huge issue” when the BBC treated it as a marginal-to-non issue during the closing weeks of the campaign?
The Arnold and Bowen tweets are included to show – once again – how BBC journos feel totally at ease expressing their anti-Republican prejudices. The BBC mindset.
It didn’t have any impact on the result and neither did the BBC.
Nor did Clare Balding playing golf.
I think you’ve lost us all.
So it’s no longer about whether the BBC is biased, it’s about the measurable effect of that bias? Good, now we’re just haggling over the price.
It’s about evidence of groupthink and a lack of intellectual diversity. They’re all at it, from top to bottom, across all channels and departments.
Not only that, but the BBC has recently reminded staff that even with the get-out-of-bias-free disclaimer, they still represent the BBC and need to stop the political opinions.
They’ve been under fire for some time about this, in large part thanks to DB and this blog, and the straw that broke the camel’s back was some idiot Strictly contestant tweeting a result the day before air.
Your absence of a denial that it reflects widespread BBC bias is noted. As for the effect it had on the US elections, well that’s a toss up, but the whole purpose is to demonise the Right as a whole.
Prole – The BBC website did not carry a word on Benghazi for weeks after the attack and, in particular, not the statement from the families of the other dead (i.e. not that of Ambassador Stevens) saying they were horrified by Clinton and Obama’s remarks when the bodies were met in the US.
Presumably Mardell chose to ignore it – he must surely have read about them unless the NYT censored them as well.
The BBC went into total clampdown and of course when Romney was incorrect contradicted by the facilitator of the second debate they never even looked back to see what Obama had said the day after the deaths.
He did not say it was a terrorist attack. He added at the end some generalised remark about opposing terrorism.
I think that Benghazi is rapidly becoming Obama’s second term curse. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan has Iran Contra, Clinton had Monica, Bush (Junior) had Iraqi. Now Obama has Benghazi.
Unfortunately, this will all be played as partisan sour grapes, the media will continue to protect the President at all costs, and will be less successful than the Whitewater investigation against Clinton.
What were those words again?
Read my lips….I did not have sex with that..woman …yada yada yada…
ROFL
This is similar to Whitewater is my guess.
If the stories about Obama’s vacillation and pusillanimity at the time of the bin Laden operation are correct then it’s likely he will do something like this again.
Similar to Whitewater in all the wrong ways…..
“Petraeus testifies that CIA reported al-Qaeda involvement in Benghazi attack, but that line was removed”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/petraeus-testifies-that-cia-reported-al-qaeda-involvement-in-benghazi-attack-but-that-line-was-remov.html
Here’s why Benghazi has always been a “big deal”.
Q. Before the attack the “embassy” asked repeatedly for help. Why did they not get it?
Q. During the attack the service members on the ground asked for help. Why did they not get any?
Q. After the attack an elaborate lie was spread about a YOUTUBE video being responsible. Why?
In a different universe, with a different media, this would be not only a news story but a sensational Pulitzer award winning investigation, a bestselling novel and an academy award winning movie (with the part of Hugh Sykes played by Colin Firth.)
With President Obama looking more and more like the second coming of Richard Nixon, the BBC and others had better get their heads out if his butt and do some real journalistic work.
More worrying is the effect this scandal is having on the morale of the US military, who are now not sure if help is ever on the way – especially before an election.
Very True. But can you ever see the American liberal media whipping up a shit storm a la Nixon with the Chosen one as its epicenter? Even if the US media did the BBC would never follow. Its simply not the narrative. It will be ignored.
And, of course, Nixon was EVIL and had uncovered leftist entry-ism in the media and academia and actually done something about it.
Unforgivable.
“In a different universe, with a different media, this would be not only a news story but a sensational Pulitzer award winning investigation”
I said much the same to the BBC’s Daniel Nasaw yesterday:
LOL @ Bizarro World.
Old: Bush lied, people died.
New: People died, Obama lied.
The BBC and their US counterparts are playing a fully conscious role in Obama’s cover-up. Strewth, it even extended into the second Presidential debate.
Oh for heaven’s sake, Sykes is still going with the smokescreen and not the real issue. The real story is not whether or not there was an intelligence failure preventing a lack of security. The real story is that the CIA and the State Dept. and the President knew within a few hours that the attack had nothing to do with the damn video, and then they all lied about it for two weeks.
The CIA’s story was, at first, the truth, and the the White House made them change it until the truth came out. Which is why the FBI waited until after the election to take down Gen. Petraeus.
CBS actually censored the part of the President’s interview on 60 minutes which aired on Sept. 23 (filmed on Sept 12, not long after the Rose Garden speech) when He said it was “too early to tell” if it was terrorism. It was a lie as we all now know. For the next couple of weeks, though, Amb. Rice, Sec. Clinton, and various mouthpieces said it was all about the video. Clinton even assured the grieving father of one of the fallen men that she was going after the filmmaker, as did VP Biden. A massive, Administration-wide lie, to cover up the security failure. The entire mainstream media has been covering for Him the whole time.
By the time the second debate rolled around, it was already clear that it was not about the video, and the White House was scrambling to cover. Candy Crowley lied on air during the second debate about the President’s retcon, in order to help Him, then retracted and corrected herself after it was over. Which, of course, got played down the next day by her friends.
The filmmaker (using that term loosely) was arrested on a very weak charge of parole violation and tried, but sentence was magically withheld until after the election. He’s now in jail for a year.
Sykes attempting to focus on the consulate security issue is THE red herring. It’s now the secondary issue, because the big lie in an attempt to cover up the security issue is now the main story. Either he knows it and is being disingenuous and unprofessional, or – to be very generous – his boss has sent him to investigate that aspect of things, and that’s all he’ll talk about. Otherwise, he’s so ignorant that he should be removed from his position.
A big lie, covered up by the White House and the mainstream media, all to help re-elect the President.
The BBC spiked this story during the election campaign much as a Pravda apparatchik would have spiked a story about famine in the Steppes. One almost has to admire the BBC’s balls as it now claims this was after all a big deal, look at us, here we are, the BBC, covering it.
What we’re basically seeing in the western world is a media coup.
Ms Arnold’s politics should come as no surprise. A report on her marriage to Caire Balding included the sentence: “Alice, 42, is the former partner of comedienne and radio presenter Sandi Toksvig.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405769/Balding-finally-steps-lesbian-lover.html#ixzz2CPYwVxDP
So they’re no different than the heterosexual Beeboids who sleep with each other, then.
The news story is Petraeus’s congress appearance. The BBC are covering that. The article says it was a huge issue for the Republicans which it was. For a UK audience, this really had no legs during the election, although the BBC did cover it. It now has legs because of what Petraeus is saying.
“it was a huge issue for the Republicans” – which, as I said in my blog post, is the very reason the BBC chose not to cover it.
“For a UK audience, this really had no legs during the election” Yes, because the BBC – the most influential news organisation in the world – decided to bury the story. BBC journalists decide which stories to hype and which to ignore. Funny how they tend to ignore the stories with the potential to reflect badly on the Democrats in general and Obama in particular.
The Democrat head of the Senate Intelligence Committee also smells something fishy.
Of course, the press is going to play the sour grapes thing for all it’s worth.
Jim, old pal, EVERYONE except you and BBC knows what’s going on. It’s “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” meets The Wild Geese”. Except for the fact that PEOPLE ARE DEAD!!!! I don’t want to spoil your fun so let the plot unravel in time – and be prepared for an unexpected ending.
You gotta be kidding Jim. This story had more legs than a centipede. The BBC did not want to diss the anointed one so they kept quiet.
Along with all other serious networks.
As things stand, this is an anti-Obama spin job started by FoxI just don’t get where the line goes back to him. It’s clearly a fearful cock up at operational level, with some backside covering. But it’s essentially an intelligence failure with no Predidential culpability.
Reagan and Beirut: now there’s a dreadful foul up, with clear presidential culpability.
Obama lied about about Benghazi, but you’re right that the BBC doesn’t see that as important. I mean, it’s not as big an issue for them as something like Sarah Palin’s emails, is it?
Jim, how can you reach such firm conclusions?
Very early on there was very good reason to believe that there had been a huge cover-up over the Obama failings. So much so, that Hillary Clinton said ‘the buck stops with me’.
What you call ‘the serious media’ is a correctnick cabal conducting a rolling media coup against democracy.
You’re saying Fox is biased? They dont pretend. Their rivals do.
“Along with all other serious networks.”
left wing networks I think you mean
The media is the battlespace. With very few exceptions, no one personally knows what is going on, they know only what the media tells them is going on. The media is now part of the grand deception, not the “Fourth Estate” of Bernstein and Woodward. Horrendous loss making newspapers and State Broadcaster pump out liberal left orthodoxy. The license fee is the ultimate insult. You pay to be misinformed, much as following Russian state execution they would send the widow the bill for the bullets.
The media were hijacked long ago. No reason to buy a “newspaper”, Lebedev’s Metro will mislead you for free. All I can say is thank god for Internet, as yet the one area of freedom of speech they can not control. No doubt they are working on it.
They are indeed working on it, in ways that should be obvious to supporters of this site.
Piano wire; lamp posts. Treasonous effing bastards.