The BBC’s top story all day, and on its World page and of course on the US page, was its ‘Obama’ hatchet job on Trump on the Today show…following on from George Osborne [anti-Brexit] being the guest editor’s apparent choice of interviewee [for the life of me can’t think why a Spanish dancer should want to talk to Osborne]….guess the guest editors get some ‘guidance’ from the Today show on who to pick and what questions to ask.
As well as his less than subtle attack on Trump he gave us an extraordinarily patronising attack on people whom Obama thinks are rather stupid and live in echo chambers with no contact with the outside world…he suggest they must get out more and meet other people.
“Social media is a really powerful tool for people of common interests to convene and get to know each other and connect.
“But then it’s important for them to get offline, meet in a pub, meet at a place of worship, meet in a neighbourhood and get to know each other.
“Because the truth is that on the internet, everything is simplified and when you meet people face-to-face it turns out they’re complicated.”
Gosh, really? Who’d a thunk? Life is complicated!
Rather think it is lefty liberals like himself who create these echo chambers with the deliberate creation of identity politics and the ghettoisation of whole communities and thus the resultant antagonism and conflict that arises from that as each group is encouraged to demand more and more ‘rights’ and privileges for themselves…naturally at the cost of other groups.
Trump may tweet undiplomatic and strongly worded criticisms and messages but he didn’t run from Iraq and let ISIS take over and allow Assad to force millions of refugees to flee into Europe, he didn’t hand Iran billions of dollars, let them start trading again [thus raising more cash for weapons] and allow them to keep their nuclear programme on track whilst promising everyone they had stopped it, he didn’t preside over an increasingly divided and racially tense America, something that Obama helped create.
Obama was invited onto the Today programme deliberately to attack Trump….just the usual shallow, partisan rubbish that passes for news at the BBC.
Remember James Cook’s highly opinionated attack piece on Trump? There was another similar hatchet job a month earlier from the BBC’s Nick Bryant…The time when America stopped being great.
If America ever did stop being great apparently it is all the Republican’s fault as Bryant can barely find a word of criticism for the Democrats…and indeed dismisses Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky affair as merely a ‘frivolous distraction’…and an ‘ostensible’ one at that….does the BBC doubt the affair?
He can though find much to criticise Reagan for…apparently he, like Trump, is a racist who played to the racist white southerners to get elected….and of course if you are white and southern…you’re definitely a racist….
Reagan’s sunniness was sullied by the launch of his 1980 campaign with a call for “states’ rights”, which sounded to many like a dog-whistle for denial of civil rights. His chosen venue was Philadelphia, but not the city of brotherly love, the cradle of the Declaration of Independence, but rather Philadelphia, Mississippi, a rural backwater close to where three civil rights workers had been murdered by white supremacists in 1964. Reagan, like Nixon, pursued the southern strategy, which exploited white fears about black advance.
Trouble is, not only are Bryant’s facts wrong his interpretation is wrong also….the speech was not in Philadelphia but 7 miles away, nowhere near the murder site and at the Neshoba County Fair which attracted 10’s of thousands of visitors in a state that was closely contested by the two parties….and immediately afterwards Reagan spent a week pitching his case to black voters in the North stating…
“I am committed to the protection of the civil rights of black Americans,” Reagan told the Urban League. “That commitment is interwoven into every phase of the programs I will propose.”
Why does Bryant not accuse him of pro-Black racism as he targets black voters? Why does Bryant not mention that Carter opened his election campaign in the KKK’s homeland…
Meanwhile, President Carter opened his general election campaign in Tuscumbia, Alabama, then the national headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan (there was a Klan rally the day Carter came to Tuscumbia).
Reagan in fact launched his campaign nine months earlier from the Mississippi speech and he made almost exactly the same comments about taking back power for the states as he did in Mississippi….Here’s that part of his speech on national TV...absolutely nothing to do with race….
The 10th article of the Bill of Rights is explicit in pointing out that the federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain with the states or the people. We haven’t been observing that 10th article of late. The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities and a transfer with them of the sources of taxation to pay for them.The savings in administrative would be considerable and certainly there would be increased efficiency and less bureaucracy.
Here’s his words from Mississippi…read the speech….I defy you to find anything racist in it….
I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].
I believe in state’s rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I’m looking for, I’m going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.
Bryant is peddling Democrat black propaganda about Reagan which is easily disproven…if one can be bothered to look, which Bryant obviously didn’t feel inclined to do…why let the facts spoil a good fake news story about a ‘racist’ right-wing politician?
Where is Bryant’s claimed ‘exploitation of white fears of black advance’ in the speech? There is none, it’s a lie. Bryant bases his claim that Reagan was racist on this…‘a call for “states’ rights”, which sounded to many like a dog-whistle for denial of civil rights.’ As we can see ‘state’s rights’ had nothing to do with race [essentially just like devolution here], and who is this ‘to many’?….does he mean to Democrat propagandists? Once again the BBC adapting their stock phrase, ‘many might think’, to create the false idea that it was widespread amongst all right-thinking folk that they thought a particular way about an issue…such as in this case Reagan was a racist….which is a lie.
Bryant then goes on of course to trash Trump, the real aim of this piece…Obama is excused any blame….he inherited a terrible situation and the Republicans, of course, created a level of dysfunctional government unprecedented in US history…a ‘crisis of governance’…poor old Obama…just how did he cope?….
Barack Hussein Obama. His improbable success story seemed uniquely American.
Although his presidency did much to rescue the economy, he couldn’t repair a fractured country. The creation of a post-partisan nation, which Obama outlined in his breakthrough speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, proved just as illusory as the emergence of a post-racial society, which he always knew was beyond him.
During the Obama years, Washington descended into a level of dysfunction unprecedented in post-war America.
“My number one priority is making sure President Obama’s a one-term president,” declared then-Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, summing up the obstructionist mood of his Republican colleagues. It led to a crisis of governance.
Not only that but all opposition to Obama was due to racism…a ‘whitelash’…
Beyond Capitol Hill, there was a whitelash to the first black president, seen in the rise of the Birther movement and in elements of the Tea Party movement.
Bryant dismisses Trump’s success as down to his TV appearances…thus doing what Obama does, labelling voters stupid, shallow and unthinking…
Norman Mailer once said of Reagan, that the 40th president understood “the President of the United States was the leading soap opera figure in the great American drama, and one had better possess star value”. Trump understood this, and it explained much of his success, even if his star power came from reality TV rather than Hollywood B-movies.
Nothing to do with his policies then?…Oh wait….his campaign was one based on grievance and identity….a dark campaign…
His politics of grievance, and the fist-shaking anger it fed off, struck a different tone than the Gipper’s more positive pitch. It played on a shared sense of personal and national victimhood that would have been alien to Reagan.
In the space of just three decades, then, the United States had gone from “It’s morning in America again” to something much darker: “American Carnage”, the most memorable phrase from Trump’s inaugural address.
Actually it is the Left that campaigns on such identity politics…Trump spoke to the whole nation about ‘America’ and making it ‘great again’….the BBC likes to say Trump only talks to his ‘base’ [white supremacists of course] but that is far from the truth.
Bryant set out to attack Trump….the whole piece is about setting Trump up as the bad guy who has betrayed America….
Few countries look anymore to Trump’s America as a global exemplar, the “city upon a hill” Reagan spoke of in his farewell address to the nation.
Hmmm…since when has the US been a ‘global exemplar’? The BBC et al have hated the US and everything it stood for for decades….South America? Plenty of states there that hate America, and what of the Middle East, Russia, China? Did they all love America pre-Trump?
Bryant’s interpretation is based upon his own prejudice and how he thinks the world should be. This is just another of these anti-Trump opinion pieces that BBC journalists churn out at regular intervals channelling their own bigotry and ignorance and pretending it is news.
You have nailed it there, Alan. Thanks.
Wouldn’t it be great if in 2018 the lefties, especially the far-left bbc, put aside all of their hatred and learned to love a few things for a change. They might even feel better about themselves, including the white hating whites who are among them.
That’s not going to happen.
Leftist ideology is based on the notion that the only worthwhile currency in society is that of power. It is group vs group in an endless power struggle. In the Marxist-Leninist world, it was Proletariat vs Bourgeoisie, to the modern Left it is Victim vs Oppressor.
No negotiation is possible; acquisition and maintenance of power is everything, so the ends justify the means. Which is why the Left always lies.
The Left’s political survival depends on it continually sowing the seeds of division, envy, hatred and spite.
Leftists are unhappy selfish angry people. The collective noun for a group of Leftists is a “hate of Leftists”. That is why they “virtue signal” all the time. Being a good person is too hard for them, because they were born malignant narcissists, so they go on a marches against war or poverty or whatever to convince themselves the unlovely person in the mirror is not them.
They think the solution to their problem lies outside them.
“If the world was fair“, they tell themselves, “then I would be happy.”
They’re looking in the wrong place. The unhappiness is inside them, in their wretched personalities.
The hypocrisy (including that of the BBC) never ceases to amaze. During the past few years, after the election successes of, e.g. Mr. Obama, M. Macron, and Mr. Corbyn, much acclaim was heaped on them and their electoral advisors/supporters for their use of ‘social media’ as an effective campaigning tool, and the ‘cleverness and acuity’ of these groups for employing such tools to communicate with people they wouldn’t reach through other media. …..until, that is, someone they don’t like, such as Mr Trump, cleverly uses the same sorts of media to reach people who can’t easily be reached otherwise in a country where the mainstream media are ceaselessly opposed to anyone not of the Left.
Then, of course, it’s harmful behaviour.
In Lefty parlance its known as “populism”. The AB of Cant too believes that a democratic vote that goes against their sainted marxist lefty opinions, is populist.
Worthy complement:
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/bbc-news-itself-is-impartial-and-does.html
What about when Obama said we would go to the back of the queue for trade deals if we voted to leave the EU? A brazen and shameful attempt to interfere in our democracy, worse than any of the ‘Russian interference’ they pretend is such a big deal.
“There was another similar hatchet job a month earlier from the BBC’s Nick Bryant… The time when America stopped being great.”
“another of these anti-Trump opinion pieces”
Indeed there was Alan.
I have already noted on this site that the Bryant article appeared in the NEWS section.
When it should have been in the OPINION section, in accordance with the treason broadcaster’s policy document.
The Bryant article has been repeated – still as NEWS.
Obama, is, of course, a once in a century asshole, with the biggest chips on his shoulder since Paul Robeson decided that the best policy was to kill all white people.
Listened to it yesterday and my immediate reaction was that Harry Windsor is now in play as far as politics is concerned .
Al beebs constant attack on a foreign Ally will always be a blemish on an already dirty organisation hiding behind past glories when it really was British .
It retains , I think , an international reputation but that will go in time too.
All their negative words count for little imho because people hear what they want too and use al beebs views to reinforce their own .
Al beeb is not alone – PBS has a two parter art tack on President Putin which morphs into an attack on President Trump . MSM all the same
Prince Harry is an honest soul, but not a clever guy. Anyone who can only just scrape two A Levels after an Eton education is not exactly a brain box.
I think he likes Obama because the guy always seems friendly and kind to him. I doubt he has any insight into what Obama stands for at all. But his advisers, if he has any, should have steered him away from Obama. They are doing him no favours. He seems to have a good heart, and should be allowed to get on with his charitable efforts. If he is allowed to stumble into politics it will turn into a disaster.
I agree young Mr Windsor’s advisers should have given him better advice, particularly since there’s a good chance that Bathhouse Barry will be charged with some of the crimes he committed when he occupied the White House.
Of course the upcoming marriage is a fake too so even if I had any sympathy for Mr Windsor, I have now lost it.
Don’t know if it is fake or not but I suspect ‘fraught’ will be an understatement.
They seem/ed pretty sweet on each other, so a babe and a prince living happily ever after was fine by me if I didn’t have to pay and it brought in some tourist wonga.
However, Harry’s people have allowed Barry’s people and the BBC to turn that politely soft monarchist notion right on its head.
This has been made overtly political and is now a can of worms inside a Pandora’s Box with the bloody doors blown off, with a Raider’s of the Lost Ark genie uncorked and hurtling around in spirals already.
If true love on Meg’s part then one can only hope a few home truths will have been shared and she was still cool with it.
So instead of a minor Hollywood TV starlet with a few mill in the bank and the freedom to blow it as desired, with only Harvey’s successors to dodge to get the next juicy role, she now becomes the property of The Firm, Fleet St. and the US MSM.
Good luck with that, luv.
Guest – I expect that even now channel 4 and the tabloids will be licking their lips at the possibility of another Royal “expose” ten years down the line when the ginger one realises he has bitten off more than he can chew with Megan the soon to be PC Princess.
I just hope he never buys her “Max Mosely play costume” for the bedroom as I think that there is a fair possibility that this may not be viewed very favourably.
I am afraid young Harry if he is not careful is rapidly becoming a “Prince of Fools”
FFS – He is not in his twenties he is a mature man of 33 . All I can think is that his “advisers” have been appointed by Papa “the plant whisperer” rather than someone normal.
Yes Harry you are more than entitled to speak out on the army or on disabled servicemen but you would be well advised to steer clear of amoral and corrupt globalists with silken voices and hidden agendas who will take any opportunity to meddle in our domestic politics.
You are playing a dangerous game and risk throwing away much of the affection, regard and loyalty for the Royal Family that your grandparents have worked so hard to achieve.
Decent bloke or not in these turbulent times I think the monarchy should be looking towards its real friends and not those such as Barry and the BBC who have no more regard for it than a used condom to be chucked in the bushes and disregarded when it is of no more use.
Loyalty once squandered is not easily replaced. Whilst I still think that the existence of a monarchy in the UK generally is a force for good – I am starting to worry (as I am sure the Queen is) – Who the hell will she be able to pass it onto when she dies.
For me (and probably many others) – it will not take too many more stunts like this to think – OK maybe a republic is not such a bad thing after all – And just maybe this was the BBC s intention all along.
Brilliant essay Alan.
It is really disgusting to see these BBC journos before the camera, so in love with themselves. They are full of their self-importance and righteousness.
They also seem to think that their high salaries is proof of their worth.
https://order-order.com/2017/12/28/remain-groups-shared-shared-data-suppliers-and-campaign-materials/?
Wow. Can’t wait to see what the BBC and its raft of ‘editors’ and presenters (Nick (Clegg or Robbo… same diff), James, etc) impartially make of this if and when they return from the slopes. Or ski resorts.
Or, maybe, just maybe, decide there is no time or space to cover such trivia when there is… this!:
Man reunited with Christmas bonus after social media appeal
A superb exposure of the filthy leftist bias of the race-baiting, anti-white, anti-West, anti-capitalist BBC through its shamelessly partisan journalists. My God you can smell their putrid Marxist halitosis every time they open their gobs on your TV screen.
Well done, Alan.
And suck on that, Maxincony – wherever you are (probably still on your extended celebration of Eid).
I recently watched an HBO one-off drama about President Johnson. It was fairly well done, with the Breaking Bad bloke playing LBJ (boorish and bullying wishy-washy Hubert Humphrey). J Edgar Hoover is portrayed as usual as a sweaty and sinister figure. Of course it had a leftist slant, but it was well acted.
It centred on Martin Luther King (saintly obviously) and his attempts to get the Civil Rights Bill enacted without it being watered down by those old racist dinosaur Dems from the South (boo! hiss!). LBJ just wanted to get re-elected, and ultimately knew where a majority of his votes would come from.
It made me wonder how many young people nowadays would realise that only 3 or 4 generations ago it was the Democrats who were more likely to be the evil lynching segregationists – as indeed they were considered the ‘baddies’ in the civil war.
When I say young people I meant young Americans. If you ask most young Brits they wouldn’t have slightest clue about it. And if they had actually done a uni module on American Studies all they would say was Nixon = bad, Reagan = bad, Bush = bad, and Trump = the devil incarnate.
https://www.hbo.com/movies/all-the-way
Imay
I think I saw it too – if you couple it with the Vietnam documentary you can see easily it was for the politicians jfk Johnson Nixon to fuck up their country for 2 decades .
It still amazes me that Harold Wilson kept Blighty out of nam even when Johnson screwed the British economy after our refusal . Lucky for the yanks they only lost 58 thousand – the same ish number as we lost on the first day of the Somme
Breitbart has good coverage
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/27/obama-slams-irresponsible-social-media-use-prince-harry-interview/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/27/barack-obama-bbc-prince-harry-hashtags-dont-bring-change/
BreitbartLondon Twitter feed has good list of stories
Bryant revealed another of his prejudices when Pope Benedict XVI visited Australia in 2008. All that Bryant thought that was important to talk about was clerical abuse of children by priests in the Catholic Church.
It is now totally clear that BBC journalists are no longer trained to present news in a balanced way. Instead they are now hired on the basis of their prejudices so that they can report the news according to those prejudices. As far as the BBC is concerned, as long as you have the right prejudices their reporters can be as prejudiced as they like.