Author Archives: David Preiser (USA)

The BBC and the Dreyfus Affair

By | | , , , , , , , ,
22 Comments

On January 13, 1898, an open letter by renowned writer Émile Zola was published in the French newspaper L’Aurore. Zola reacting to the unlawful conviction and imprisonment of a Jewish officer in the French Army, Alfred Dreyfus. He accused the government (and, one was meant to extrapolate, the press and society) of anti-Semitism, and declared that this prejudice is what led to Dreyfus’s imprisonment in spite of the facts of the case. It’s still known today as “The Dreyfus Affair”.

In his letter, Zola pointed out judicial errors and highlighted the lack of real evidence in the case. He went on to condemn the general anti-Semitic attitude of the government and many in society which led to the false accusation of espionage. He also stated that the General in charge of the investigation withheld key evidence which would prove the charges were false. In fact, Zola found that another man was to blame for the crime, but since charging him would also have implicated the Army brass, they sat on the story. Someone had to be a scapegoat, and they pointed the finger at someone, simply out of the convenience of prejudice. The Army even tried and acquitted the actual guilty man. Stop me if any of this is starting to sound familiar.

Another dimension to Zola’s point was that the entrenched anti-Semitism in the government, army, and society in general is what caused the crime against Dreyfus. Unfortunately, he was soon convicted of libel for it, and was sentenced to prison. He fled to England, where he stayed until the sitting French Government fell apart. Dreyfus served time at Devil’s Island, but eventually was able to get his case retried. He got a happy result in the end, but it took years and a lot of struggle.

Like the French Army more than a century ago, the BBC is blaming an innocent person for inciting a crime perpetrated by someone else. Even in the face of evidence that the murderer in Tucson had completely different influences, the BBC still accuses Sarah Palin of inciting him to attempt the assassination of a government official. In fact, the BBC tried to censor the news that Jared Loughner was left-wing and had been angry with his intended victim since 2007, long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin. In other words, in spite of all the evidence telling them that there’s no possible way the perpetrator of the crime could have been inspired by the words and deeds of Sarah Palin, they accuse her anyway. By extension, they are accusing the Tea Party movement and pundits and leading figures on the political Right for these murders. But they need a scapegoat for the story they want to tell, and found one out of convenience. All in the face of the evidence, and all due to their political and personal prejudices.

Let’s get the first line of defense out of the way. The BBC believes itself to be a special organization, one which stands apart from the rest of the worlds’ media. It’s at least part of their justification for the license fee. Thus, I would say that it would be unacceptable for them to claim that, as the rest of the media is making the story about political rhetoric, so too should the BBC, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for them to ignore the facts of the case and change the story to suit the Narrative.

If we’re to accept the BBC is what they claim it to be, then we expect that the BBC ought to rise above petty politics in the case of a tragedy which was so clearly due to mental illness. Mark Mardell should have followed his own advice from back when that Muslim Major committed mass murder at Ft. Hood, and demurred from pointing fingers at easy targets. The BBC News producers should have held their staff back from declaring a Right-wing cause for this crime in the exact same manner in which they restrained their staff from immediately blaming Islamic Jihad on such crimes when reporting on that Palestinian with a bulldozer, the attempted bombing of Times Square, the attempted bombing of that London night club, when MP Stephen Timms was stabbed, and Maj. Nidal. In those cases, the BBC was among the last to associate the crimes with the influence of Islamic Jihad, and often even warned against such a connection. All in stark contrast to the way they’ve reported on this case in Tucson.

Or did they not have to be reminded of their duty to journalistic integrity in those cases? Is there an instinctive move to defend in some cases, but attack in others, regardless of the facts involved?

Now, the BBC seems to be relentless in this attack of convenience on their political enemies. In spite of the evidence that Loughner was clearly mentally disturbed and dangerous, and had targeted Rep. Giffords since 2007, the BBC still wants to make the story about Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, and many others on the Right of the political spectrum. They surely haven’t failed to take advantage of a crisis. A weak attempt to make this about the larger issue of the nature of political rhetoric in the US doesn’t alter the basis of their reporting, or the overall tone of the coverage across the spectrum.

I submit that this behavior is due to an inherent political prejudice at the BBC, specifically in the News department. I include World News in this, as they all share footage and resources so much as to be virtually indistinguishable when reporting on international stories. They all sign off as reporting for BBC News in any case.

In spite of known facts that the murderer in Tucson had no connection to Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement or Fox News, and was in reality mentally disturbed and had a wide range of influences, they are making the story about the non-Left elements only. Why not discuss his interest in Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto, BBC? Why not use this as an opportunity to discuss how society needs to improve the way we look after the mentally ill? No, instead the BBC uses this as a chance to attack their political enemies.

The fact that the BBC is now giving air time to Keith Olbermann, someone who is known not for his journalistic integrity but almost exclusively these days for his venomous political vitriol, tells you all you need to know about the bias at the BBC.

It’s an intellectual failure, and a failure of integrity. It’s not enough to start admitting after two or three days of stories focusing exclusively on blaming political rhetoric from the Right that the murderer had other issues. The damage is done, and the real story buried deep beneath a mass of political attacks. The BBC has done an equivalent of the Dreyfus Affair here by accusing and convicting Sarah Palin and Right-wing pundits of directly inciting murder, in the face of known evidence to the contrary. They leapt to accuse before the facts were out, then ignored and suppressed the facts which pointed in another direction, simply because that would hurt the Narrative, the story they wanted to tell.

In short: BBC, j’accuse!

Nothing short of an apology from the BBC is going to fix this, and nothing short of a wholesale change in personnel at BBC News is going to prevent this from happening again and again in the future. They should start with those in the US.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Matt Frei’s Partisan Humor

By | | , , , , , , ,
13 Comments

Matt Frei simply cannot help himself. In his latest blogpost, he reveals his political bias when he says this:

I know John Boehner has the Tea Party Taliban breathing down his neck

Ha, ha, very droll. Just one more bit of slander from a BBC employee. I’m sure Helen Boaden is proud.

Not to mention the fact that Frei’s piece is generally a humorous dressing down of the new Speaker of the House. You know, I don’t recall Frei or any other Beeboid doing something even remotely similar about Nancy Pelosi, or, in fact, any Democrat. No, all their “humor” is reserved for Republicans.

And what a surprise – Nancy Pelosi made a snide remark about the size of Boehner’s gavel, just like Frei and BBC North America editor, Mark Mardell. However, Pelosi made her remark on the floor of the House of Representatives, while in session, as she handed over the gavel to him. Pretty crass, yet the BBC’s humor is reserved for the Republican who exhibited far more class than Pelosi or any Beeboid.

While Frei and Mardell and other partisans focused on superficial personal details of the Republican, they missed an opportunity to inform you of the difference between the outgoing Speaker and the new one. Pelosi gave a little speech before she handed the gavel over, and Boehner gave one after receiving it. Both speeches can be viewed in full here.

Pelosi’s speech was full of self-aggrandizement, celebrating herself. Not only that, but she crowed about the Democrats’ recent accomplishments, the very ones which led to her party getting soundly defeated last November, as if she has no connection to reality.

In contrast, Boehner was more humble, more grounded:

“The American people have humbled us. They have refreshed our memories as to just how temporary the privilege to serve is. They have reminded us that everything here is on loan from them. That includes this gavel, which I accept cheerfully and gratefully, knowing I am but its caretaker. After all, this is the people’s House. This is their Congress. It’s about them, not us. What they want is a government that is honest, accountable and responsive to their needs. A government that respects individual liberty, honors our heritage, and bows before the public it serves.”

Yet Matt Frei and his colleagues see fit only to ridicule.

As we’ve seen over the last few days, the Beeboids are deathly afraid of the non-Left’s new-found strength. They view Boehner and the Republican majority in the House as a threat to the President. In fact, they’re so afraid that they seem to be exaggerating reality. Frei’s interview with Tom Cole (video at the bottom of his post) is an example. Here’s his description of the interview:

Today, I spoke to Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma about the party’s plans for their new power.

Power? They control the proceedings in one House of Congress, not both, and certainly don’t control the Presidency. They can’t do all that much without actual bi-partisan cooperation. But the Beeboids are afraid.

Naturally, the first words out of Frei’s mouth are about the size of Boehner’s gavel. His line of questioning begins by assuming that the Republicans will be hyper-partisan. Then Frei sneers at Boehner’s humble speech. Rep. Cole, fortunately, corrects Frei every step of the way. Every single question is an attack, and nearly every answer begins with a variation of “No, actually….”

Matt Frei’s partisanship is clear. This is the man who leads the BBC’s nightly news broadcast targeted directly at the US (BBC World News America), and is a main conduit between the license fee payers and news about US issues. I’d say “caveat emptor”, but as you’re forced to pay for the BBC it’s not appropriate.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The US Constitution Makes A Comeback

By | | , , , , ,
10 Comments

On Thursday, when the new Congress is seated and begins work, there will be an historic moment, something that hasn’t happened since the founding of United States: the US Constitution will be read out in the House of Representatives. It’s a statement by the newly-elected and Tea Party-influenced Republican majority that they heard the voters and they’re realigning their priorities.

Naturally, the Left is shocked and outraged. Ezra Klein, founder of the notorious but thankfully defunct JournoList (source of the majority of viewpoints on US issues the BBC fed you for the better part of two years), has gone so far as to say that we shouldn’t pay so much attention to the Constitution as it was written over 100 years ago and thus is too “confusing” and so nobody can understand or relate to it anymore. The BBC correspondents assigned to the US will be aware of this, and some of them at least will be aware of its significance. Yet, they haven’t reported it so far. Possibly, they’re waiting until it happens so they can report on the reaction and portray the Republicans as hyper-partisans intent on forcing their ideology on Congress.

The primary reason the Republicans want to have a public reading of the Constitution can be found in this BBC report about ObamaCare:

US healthcare law: Republicans bid to overturn reform

I think we can guess the angle from which the BBC is going to approach this, no?

What remains to be seen is whether this is simply a symbolic flexing of muscles by the Republicans, or whether it sets the tone for two years of party-political acrimony, our correspondent says.

Excuse me? All of a sudden we’re going to have party-political acrimony now that Republicans want to do something? What do you call what’s been going on for the last two years? This is written from the Democrats’ point of view.

With power in Congress divided, Democrats and Republicans must work together if new laws are to be passed.

Naturally. Just like I’ve been saying for some time now, the BBC wants you to think that bi-partisanship is good: when it involves advancing The Obamessiah’s agenda. When it’s something someone else wants, suddenly the Beeboids hold their noses and cast aspersions.

And what do you know, the President Himself wants us all to work together.

On Tuesday Mr Obama appealed to Republican congressional leaders on to put partisan politics aside to rebuild the US economy.

You see, He wants to fix the economy, while the nasty Republicans are willing to destroy it for ideological purposes. Funny how so many in the business world think He’s the one destroying the economy due to ideology. Not that you’d ever hear that viewpoint allowed through over the BBC airwaves or online.

I feel a statement from the White House coming on….

Speaking on board Air Force One as he travelled back to Washington from a holiday in Hawaii, Mr Obama said: “You know, I think that there’s going to be politics. That’s what happens in Washington – that they [Republicans] are going to play to their base for a certain period of time.

“But I’m pretty confident that they’re going to recognise that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we’re creating a competitive economy for the 21st Century, not just for this generation but for the next one.”

This from the man who responded to the first Republican who objected to one of His ideas by saying, “I won.”

But the BBC doesn’t want you to know that. They’re intent on maintaining this phony impression in your minds that one side has bad intentions while the President is a force for good.

Any evidence of actual reasons the Republicans have given for wanting to repeal ObamaCare? No, all we get is the equivalent of “critics are critical”. All you need to know is that whoever objects is simply on the other side, and of course it’s only natural that they’d object. It’s a slick way of dismissing the opposing viewpoint altogether.

One amusing thing about this BBC article is that they are at last telling the truth about what ObamaCare actually is: a law (or series of laws) forcing citizens to purchase a particular product from government-approved vendors according to government-enforced rules. Okay, they weren’t quite that honest about it:

The US healthcare reform law was approved in March last year, making it compulsory for Americans to buy medical insurance and illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to customers with pre-existing conditions.

You know, it’s funny, but I remember when the BBC was trying to create the impression that ObamaCare was going to provide health care for all those millions of uninsured for whom we were supposed to have sympathy, and not that it was merely a law to make it compulsory to buy it. But anytime the government tries to make any behavior compulsory, people are going to be understandably concerned (What, you mean it was actually about a policy and not just racism? -ed.). The BBC did quietly report about one challenge from the State of Virginia. Which brings me to the point of this post.

The United States is a Republic made of individual States. When the Founding Fathers created this country and wrote the Constitution, each of them viewed their State as their country. There’s an inherent idea of autonomy, and the rights of States and limits of the Federal Government are entrenched in the Constitution. ObamaCare and other Obamessiah and Pelosi/Reid/far-Left policies (such as allowing the EPA to cross over into another branch of government and control things normally left to the Legislative branch) can be considered un-Constitutional.

For quite some time there has been a growing argument about whether or not the Constitution is a “living document”, to be watered down or ignored on a whim whenever the wind of modern culture changes. Of course, those who advocate such a position suddenly get all protective when it’s nasty Republicans wanting to add an Amendment. In fact, that’s exactly what’s happening over the growing noise about a proposed “Federalist” Amendment to give States the power to declare a Federal law un-Constitutional by each of their legislatures voting on it. Giving power back to the States (or, more accurately, allowing the States to exercise the power they had from Day One but which has been leeched away) is a challenge to the supreme executive power, a challenge to the strong man leader so many on the Left wish we had. Perhaps if this comes to pass Matt Frei will once again pine for a bit of Chinese-style autocracy, and folks like Woody Allen will wish the President could be a supreme dictator, if only for a few years.

This is why the Republicans want to have the Constitution read out to start the new session of Congress. It’s much more than a challenge to ObamaCare. It’s a statement of priorities, of respect for the rule of law, and a stand against the Democrats (and a few old-guard Republican leadership) and their attempts to force their most extreme desires on the country against the wishes of the public. In other words, it’s a statement about what they think the Unites States is all about.

I await the BBC’s reporting on the matter, fully aware that this doesn’t help that particular rapport with the US they want to create for you.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Mark Mardell And The Golden Age

By | | , , , ,
5 Comments

Mark Mardell is basking in The President’s glory in his latest blog post, and getting things completely wrong, as usual. Although Mardell is aware that He isn’t really as magical and all-powerful as He once was, he still wants his audience to know just how incredible His Rule has been for us all.

A Golden Age in the White House come to an end?

The only chink in His armor, to hear Mardell tell it, is the “horse trading” deal with the Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts. That was the one where the President had to call in Bill Clinton to convince enough Dems to vote for it and not screw everyone over for purely ideological purposes. But what Mardell doesn’t want you to know is that this was such a problem for Him that He has now banned the use of of the word “triangulating” by His staff. How pathetic is that?

What’s really ridiculous here is that, while Mardell is preaching so enthusiastically about His accomplishments, it was only a week ago that he was clucking his tongue at how these same accomplishments he’s praising now were rammed through during the lame-duck session of Congress in a way that looked “unseemly” to outsiders like him.

But that’s all forgotten now, I suppose, while we bask in His glory. This has been a magical year for the US, one in which He brought us one step further out of the darkness.

Will you remember the 111th Congress as a Golden Age? I suspect Mr Obama wants the American people to learn to feel nostalgia for the past two years.

So do you, Mark, which is why you and your colleagues always promote the White House talking points.

Of course, Republicans regard it as a period of unmitigated disaster.

Only Republicans? Once again Mardell displays either his ignorance or his deliberate dishonesty. What about all those independents who regretted voting for Him the first time and went Republican in November? What about all those Democrat candidates who ran against ObamaCare and higher taxes? The Tea Party movement wasn’t an exclusively far-right Republican club the BBC kept trying to tell you it was. Yet Mardell is still stuck in hyper-partisan mode.

Many Americans will regard it as a period of much muddle and unnecessary politicking.

No, that’s only those on the far Left who supported even the most extreme parts of the President’s and Democrat leadership’s agenda. Much of the rest of the country hit the streets to protest it, and/or voted in November to kick many of them out. Only far-Left ideologues like Mark Mardell think that the Tea Party movement and politicians starting to listen to the people was “unnecessary”. As usual, the mindset is “Let’s all work together: when it’s my idea. When you want your way, that’s nasty politicking and bad for the country.” Mardell is speaking from one side of the argument.

Even die-hard Democrats don’t feel a huge amount of pride in its achievements.

Ah, so Mardell does remember his blog post from last week. But why wouldn’t they feel much pride? Because so much of it was ultimately bad for the country? Is it because the really far-Left voices are angry that the President hasn’t done enough to move the country further to the Left? Mardell isn’t going to tell you. He’s only projecting his own disappointment that it wasn’t all glorious and everyone is ecstatic about His Administration. Why isn’t Mardell asking if the President and Pelosi and Reid maybe went too far to the Left for the nation’s comfort? It’s because he agrees with the ideology behind all of it, and thinks that anyone against it is a Republican stooge.

Yet Mr Obama said that it was “the most productive two years that we’ve had in generations”. He wants the day to be remembered as a time when things got done, when people could agree, when progress could be made. It is going to be an interesting new year.

See? “When people could agree”. It was a Democrat-controlled Congress. They got their way a lot. Nobody in the country thinks the last two years were about bi-partisan loveliness. That’s an absolute joke. The President and His staff know perfectly well that they had to force everything through, and that they won’t be able to do it in a real bi-partisan atmosphere. It’s moronic to suggest otherwise. The President spent two years denigrating His “enemies”. And Mardell believes He wants everyone to think it was all friendly reaching across the aisle? The President wants everyone to realize how great He is, not how bi-partisan Washington has become. Mardell’s rewriting history at an alarming rate.

Even in the lame-duck session, the only thing besides the tax bill which was bi-partisan was the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and enough Republicans were happy to do it that He didn’t have to actually do anything. He passed the buck to Congress on this one, and they did it themselves. Yet we’re all supposed to think it’s one of His triumphs. He had very little to do with this, but don’t expect Mardell to tell you the truth.

No mention, of course, of the failed gargantuan spending bill, or the DREAM Act, which died because the Tea Party movement put Republicans and a few Dems on notice. No, we only hear about His successes. No mention of the defeat in November because that’s all been wiped away by the passage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, right? Take that, hecklers! If the country voted overwhelmingly against so much of what the President and the Congress achieved these past two years, why would they remember it as a Golden Age? It’s silly to even think such a thing, unless one is a Democrat ideologue.

It’s echoes of St. Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Smugness”: Let’s all work together – for the Democrat agenda. Working together is good – for the Democrat agenda. Mardell whines about it when he’s worried it doesn’t make his beloved Obamessiah look good, but then leaps at the chance to celebrate it when it suits his message.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Hallelujah, For The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth

By | | , , ,
11 Comments

It’s that time of year when Handel’s Messiah is performed all over the place, so I thought it would be an appropriate time to look at how the BBC has been reporting on their beloved Obamessiah. After the kicking He and the Democrats got in the mid-term election, there was much worrying in certain quarters about whether or not He would be able to rise again after the stinging defeat of the Democrats in the recent mid-term election. Matt Frei was concerned about whether He would be able to rekindle the connection with the masses, and continue to promote His agenda against a Republican-led House of Representatives and a tiny Democrat majority in the Senate.

There’s been quite a bit of activity in Congress during this lame-duck session, so naturally the British Public must be informed of every detail of the domestic agenda of a foreign country. So, how is He doing?

Unhappy about extending Bush’s tax cuts for the evil rich? Not to worry, this is His Plan For Us now. The President worked out a compromise with the Republican leadership and extended the tax cuts, as well as giving businesses a break in payroll taxes, while getting in return some extension of unemployment benefits and more subsidies of green energy boondoggles. Most people view this as an overall victory for the voters who let their elected representatives know that they needed to drop the ideology and get fiscally responsible. Even departing Treasury guru (and Keynesian former boss of BBC economics editor, Stephanie Flanders) Larry Summers told the President this needed to happen. The President who spent months attacking the evil rich and declaring how He would never accept what He called tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires” caved, yet somehow the BBC sees this as a triumph for Him. The report is full of the Democrat talking points, but nothing from a voice discussing how this would actually help the economy recover. In fact, the one time the BBC does mention that businesses think this will help, it comes from a Democrat who shrugs his shoulders and acts as if this is a gamble.

According to the BBC, it’s all about tax cuts for the wealthiest. Class warfare is the Narrative, as usual. At no time in their coverage of this issue has the BBC given time to the point of view that the Democrats wanted to hold the middle classes and small businesses hostage over the ideological point of attacking the wealthy. If the Dems had gotten their way, taxes would have gone up for everybody, not only the evil rich, simply to score an ideological point which has nothing to do with economic necessity – unless one is a pure tax-and-spend ideologue. Which is the viewpoint through which BBC reporting on this issue is filtered.

Mark Mardell, of course, sees this as a success for Him, a shrewd political move of which he approves. He also shows his personal, blind bias about his Obamessiah when he says this:

True, Obama has greatly angered the left of his own party. In the House, 112 Democrats voted against the package. Some say he’s a bad negotiator and has betrayed his principles. Well, annoying the left may be a cheap trick for leaders of left-of-centre parties (cf Tony Blair) but it often goes down well with voters in the middle ground. Or even on the right. Time and time again, even at Tea Party meetings, I’ve heard that President Obama has not governed as he was elected, that he’s been captured by the “Pelosi-Reid agenda”. This is his answer.


According to Mardell, it’s not the Tea Party movement successfully influencing the President: He’s making a shrewd move to fool them for a little while. Seriously, how can anyone think that the candidate who notoriously told Joe the Plumber that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody “ is a centrist who was “captured” by the far-Left Democrat leadership? You know he’s not really saying that The Obamessiah is a shyster like Blair. No, Mardell sees this as a shrewd political move so He can attack tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Which will be difficult seeing as He’ll just come across as a weak leader who was forced to make a bad deal. I suppose the fact that He had to bring in Bill Clinton to convince enough Dems to vote for it is also a display of His ability to lead? But Mardell sees only strength and cleverness.

So does Paul Adams, in the inset “Analysis” of the report I’ve linked to above.

But the fact remains that six weeks after disastrous mid-term elections, Barack Obama seems to be reasserting his authority.

Reasserting Clinton’s authority, maybe. Oh, that’s right the BBC censored the part where the President took a powder during that press conference and let Clinton take over, so maybe Adams – the BBC’s man in the White House press corps – has wiped that from his own memory as well.

And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 40:5)

His real triumph, though is something Congress did, not Him: repealing Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The President, who campaigned against this in 2008, could have used an executive order to get rid of this any time He wanted. But He passed the buck to Congress on this one, and they used the giddiness of the lame-duck session to take care of it. To hear it from a certain Beeboid in the US, though, it’s still His achievement.

The BBC’s Iain Mackenzie in Washington says the vote is a major victory for Mr Obama, who had made overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell” a key policy objective.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; and they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. (Isaiah 9:2)

There’s one other big issue which came up for a vote: the DREAM Act, which is about creating a path to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. This is seen by some as a first step towards amnesty for all illegals, as this would inevitably be used to permit illegals to remain in the country if they have what naughty people refer to as “anchor babies”. Does this sound familiar? It’s a very relevant issue to what’s going on in Britain right now.

Yet the BBC has censored news of this. Why? Because it was defeated.

The Leftoids are just as outraged over this as they are about the tax cuts for the evil rich. Subcommander Markos is not pleased:

Anybody who votes to punish innocent kids is an asshole. Plain and simple. And while I expect it from Democrats like Ben Nelson and C-Street denizen Mark Pryor, I honestly thought Jon Tester was different. I was wrong. I am now embarrassed that I worked so hard to help get him elected in 2006. I feel personally betrayed.

I’ll refrain from making a sarcastic retort about how I guess now we should be releasing all criminals from prison if they have kids, as imprisonment of these criminals is clearly also punishing innocent kids.

Other people on the Left are angry as well. Worse, the President apparently lobbied pretty strongly for this, yet it still failed. Where’s that authority and leadership now, BBC? Why so shy about reporting this?

The BBC spent a huge amount of effort bashing Arizona over its immigration law, and told you that opposing illegal immigration is tantamount to racism. Just like they do about the problem in Britain, they used the smokescreen tactic of saying “immigration is good, it’s silly to be against immigration”, always leaving out the “illegal” part and misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. In the US, they hired a German immigrant, Franz Strasser, to travel around the country making a dishonest series of reports about immigrants in the US. I complained about it here at the time (actually several times). Strasser also censored the word “illegal” from his series of reports. His trip even took him to two Sanctuary Cities, which had official policies of deliberately flouting immigration laws, yet he refused to mention the fact that they were designated as such. The whole series was a smokescreen.

So now the DREAM Act failed, and the BBC is silent.

The Democrats’ massive, pork-laden spending bill also failed. As I said on Thursday’s Open Thread, the BBC reported it from the Democrats’ point of view, that it was a vital spending plan needed to keep the country running. They did not allow through a viewpoint that possibly the Tea Party movement had any influence on politicians’ behavior. In fact, pretty much every BBC report about what’s going on in Congress right now is free of any mention of the movement. They did, though, worry about how “time was running out”, but from the Democrat perspective, as if it was the only one.

Where’s His authority and leadership on this one, BBC? *Looks at floor and shuffles feet*

Come see the bias inherent in the system. The BBC spins the news to promote the accomplishments of a leader of a foreign country, and censors news which detracts from that Narrative.

The Lord gave the word: Great was the company of preachers. (Psalm 68:11)

PS: All Biblical quotes appear in the Messiah. Post written while listening to the recording by the late, great Richard Hickox, featuring Joan Rodgers, Philip Langridge, Bryn Terfel, and others.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Sometimes The BBC Doesn’t Censor News From The US – When It’s An Approved Thought

By | | , , , , , ,
32 Comments

Most people here will be well aware that the BBC censored news of the beginnings of the Tea Party movement in the US for about two months before the reality of nationwide, simultaneous protests on April 15, involving hundreds of thousands of people, forced them to report it. I first mentioned the issue on an open thread here back on Feb. 19, 2009, even before anyone started calling them “tea parties”. They were anti-tax protests first and always. And even when the BBC at last reported it, Kevin Connolly worked to discredit the participants by hinting at dark forces behind it, suggesting that this was not, in fact, an independent, spontaneous grassroots movement. Connolly went further than that, and highlighted the skin color of the majority of participants, implying a racist element behind the motivation of the people involved.

And then, of course, he insulted all of us with a sexual innuendo, which remains on the BBC website to this day.

After that, the BBC again ignored the growing movement, and refused to acknowledge its success in affecting local issues and elections, until Scott Brown surprised them. At that point, the BBC occasionally acknowledged the existence of the Tea Party movement, but – with the lone exception of one video report by Katty Kay – their reports were uniformly negative, suggested racism, and tried to portray extreme fringe elements as representative of the entire movement. You all heard about Christine O’Donnell nearly every day for weeks and weeks, yet during the campaign the BBC censored any mention of Col. Allen West until a few days before the election. Even Katty’s report from January focused on “anger”, and the majority of BBC reports at the time were full of quips about “boiling anger” and whatnot. Anger is okay when it’s against things the Beeboids don’t like, but not when it’s against their beloved Obamessiah.

The BBC’s censorship and subsequent attempts to minimize the impact of the Tea Party movement in the minds of their audience got so bad that it led to Emily Maitlis declaring during the BBC’s coverage on the night of the recent mid-term elections that the Tea Party movement had “come out of nowhere”. Only to those who trusted the BBC for their news on US issues, dear. The link to Katty Kay’s report from Jan. 2010 refers to the Tea Party movement as “new” (fourth one down), even though it was nearly a year old by then and had had some political success. I’m sure most here will remember just how biased and negative their reporting was during the weeks before the election. They spent more time looking for racists under the bed than covering the issues at hand.

In stark contrast, the BBC wasted no time at all in enthusiastically reporting an alleged grassroots anti-Tea Party movement calling itself the “Coffee Party”. Contrary to the BBC’s portrayal as an innocent group of people, it was in fact started by a former New York Times hack and dedicated campaigner for The Obamessiah’s Presidential bid, who used her media connections to gain support and hype. Hardly the grassroots darlings the BBC wanted you to believe they were. The article also quoted one of her own colleagues in support, even though that colleague was well aware of the Coffee Party’s partisan makeup. Of course, Kate Zernicke was quoted because she had written a partisan hit book about the Tea Party movement.

Still, the BBC reported the existence of the movement within days of its launch. However, as the movement was not in fact a genuine grassroots movement and was merely yet another partisan group competing for the attention of loyal Democrats and far-Left activists, it was more or less stillborn, and went nowhere. The BBC’s utter silence on the Coffee Party after that initial glowing report is testament to how useless it was, for if there was even one tiny success the BBC surely would have reported it with equal vigor.

Now there’s another non-partisan group, calling themselves “No Labels”. There was a forum held in New York City on Monday, presenting itself as a non-partisan group of people dedicated to reaching across the aisle and “working together”. The BBC, of course, sent Katty Kay to cover it, and set about informing you immediately, declaring the group’s desire to reduce partisanship for the common good. Once again their editorial double standard is revealed.

Funny how this notion that we should stop the partisanship and work together for the common good is exactly what St. Jon Stewart wanted with his “Rally to Restore Smugness”, for which the BBC gave prominent and favorable coverage when it happened (but remained completely silent after it clearly didn’t have the effect they’d hoped). And funny how suddenly everyone wants to work together now that the Democrat President is in trouble. Where were all these people a few years ago? No, it’s only good to work together when it benefits the Left, which is why the BBC immediately reported this as a true movement for bi-partisan happiness.

Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know:

The BBC website article says the founder is Mark McKinnon, “Republican consultant”. In fact, it was founded by political consultants from both sides, including former finance director of the Democratic National Committee Nancy Jacobson, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s failed Presidential bid. Oh, and that Republican guy worked for Bush and on McCain’s campaign, but dropped out of working on campaigns in 2008 because he didn’t “want to work against an Obama Presidency”.

So the truth is that both founders want to support the Democrat way. The BBC censored not only McKinnon’s support for Him, but also censored the fact that someone besides a Republican founded and came up with the idea for the group.

Without these key pieces of information, the BBC audience has no idea that this might be anything other than an actual bi-partisan group. Something else the BBC decided you didn’t need to know was that the discussion panels were moderated by MSNBC talking heads. MSNBC is a dedicated opponent of the Tea Party movement and its prime-time stars are as hyper-partisan as it gets. But hiding this information allows the BBC to present the “No Labels” event as something other than what it actually is. And nowhere does a single one of the many astute BBC correspondents in the US dare suggest that this sudden desire for bi-partisanship has anything to do with supporting a Democrat President. Oh, and they also misrepresented Mayor Bloomberg’s political leanings. He’s a life-long Democrat who switched to Republican for his first run for mayor (no bribing of Democrat Brooklyn and Queens leaders required), and then declared himself Independent recently when he went back on his promise and against the will of the people and ran for a third term. He’s only non-partisan in that he stands for himself and his own desire to create a legacy for himself more than for any political party.

Katty actually talks to Joe Scarborough, but does not mention his MSNBC association. One positive point here: she allows him to speak of his disappointment that the President is more partisan than we were made to believe. He admits that he initially bought into the Hope and Change™, so not much of a Republican these days. Oh, but that point is deducted right away because this is followed by a statement by the President about His desire to work together. Whew! A narrow escape, there. The BBC almost let a tiny criticism of Him slip through unchallenged.

Naturally, Katty Kay takes time in the accompanying video report to remind everyone of the “angry, energetic extremes of the Tea Party movement” (guess whose name appears on the signs her editor chose to put in at that moment), and that “the point” here is to be lovely and work together. She’s clearly advocating for a cause here. None of the “activists” she speaks to are identified, yet they all share the dream of working together to advance the President’s agenda, “for the good of the country”. Why aren’t any of them named and affiliations displayed on screen, I wonder?

But guess what? The Tea Party movement is also made up of not only Republicans but a healthy percentage of Democrats, and Independents. As many as four in ten, as it happens. Tea Party groups even backed a few Democrats in the election. The BBC never told you about any of that, did they? No, because the Tea Party movement stands for fiscal conservatism, and against the President’s and Democrat leadership’s massive tax and spending policies, policies which the BBC supports.

The BBC censors news they don’t like, and then works to discredit the people involved when reality forces them to report it, while eagerly and immediately announcing it when people hold approved thoughts. All at your expense.

Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC Censorship: WikiHacks Edition

By | | ,
39 Comments

Last week, as the BBC ramped up its mission to downplay the potential consequences of the stolen documents published by hacker and alleged rapist Julian Assange, JournoList groupie and partisan Katie Connolly produced the following article:

Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

Following the open angry statements by various US officials is a series of foot-shuffling and “can’t say, guv”s. In short, the message here is there’s no way to be sure or prove that there is blood on this innocent lamb’s hands.

Except here’s what Connolly and the BBC don’t want you to know: Assange has form.

Back in 2007, WikiHacks released documents about corruption in Kenya.

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. “1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,” says Assange. It’s a chilling statistic, but then he states: “On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased.”

A responsible, honest news organization would mention this little fact in an article asking in its headline if WikiHacks cost lives. Yet the BBC chose to censor this information. In fact, unless it was covered in some broadcast or other now lost to the ether (and/or BBC archives inaccessible to the public without an FOI request), they only mentioned what WikiHacks did in Kenya once, and – what a shock – chose to play down any consequences.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The BBC’s Censoring of News on the Gulf Oil Spill – Part 2

By | | , , , , ,
5 Comments

Last month, I wrote a post about how the BBC censored news of the US Government editing an independent report so that it showed scientists backing the offshore drilling ban. It turned out that the President who was supposed to be superior to George Bush in that He would now put science before ideology has in fact put ideology – in this case, Watermelon-style anti-oil ideology – above science. Yet the BBC has remained silent about it.

Now that the US Government is extending the offshore drilling ban, the BBC put up a news brief about it. The ban was supposedly going to be for six months, as a response to the big oil spill in the Gulf. When the President put the ban into place, we were told that this was vital so we could learn from the disaster. We were further told that we must wait until the Government experts learned more about the dangers of offshore drilling before any more could begin. Now it seems that the ban will remain in place until 2017. Why?

When the ban was postponed, the BBC’s news brief helpfully linked directly to the US Government’s own explanation of how the “revised strategy” will still help the US meet its energy requirements while placing further regulation and restrictions on the oil industry. Naturally, the BBC tells us that the oil companies are upset, as are the President’s Republican enemies. This is dog bites man stuff, unremarkable and unenlightening. All we get from this is the White House talking point that offshore drilling is still being considered by the Government, but nothing is going to happen without further restrictions put into place for everyone’s safety, and for the safety of the environment.

On top of this, BBC man in Washington, Paul Adams, has done a “From Our Own Correspondent” piece about how the oil spill disaster may have permanently damaged the oyster beds of Louisiana, destroying the livelihoods of poor fishermen still reeling from the devastation of Katrina. It’s all very depressing, with no hope in sight. Adams does mention that the damage seems to have been done when the coastal area was flooded with fresh water as a bulwark against the incoming oil. There is no blame placed on the strategy, only on BP for causing the spill. Whether or not the fresh water strategy was necessary, or if it was done wrong or at the wrong time is left unexamined. Oddly, the BBC has missed a chance to blame Republican Governor Bobby Jindal for it, as the New York Times did back in July.

I suppose some may think I’d be glad that the BBC chose to censor news which makes an opponent of the President look bad, as this provides a small step towards balancing out the fact that they censored all news of the President’s mishandling of the cleanup effort and collusion with BP to block media access to key areas.

But I’m not glad, because I don’t like it when the BBC censors things which get in the way of the story they’re trying to tell.

The reason why who is responsible for the fresh water damage gets in the way here is that it would distract from focusing on the hardship suffered by fishermen due to the oil spill. If we got bogged down in placing blame on someone other than nasty old Big Oil, we’d lose the Narrative. Not only that, but the Narrative would be further damaged by leaving the door open to wondering if the oysters would have been better off if Jindal hadn’t ordered the flooding, maybe the disaster wasn’t as bad as we were made to believe and maybe the ban on offshore drilling is unnecessary. We can’t have that, so Adams carefully makes sure our focus remains where it belongs.

But if the first setback was an act of God, the second was an act of industry – an industry that is much bigger and more commercially important to Louisiana than Nick’s delicious oysters, an industry that sits off this fragile, mysterious landscape of channels and marshes, and produces the stuff that Americans really cannot get enough off.

I like the Freudian typo there: “the stuff that Americans cannot get enough off”. Agenda slipping into view momentarily.

So we’ve established that the ban is necessary, look at the all the damage it does, we need to regroup and rethink and re-regulate if we’re going to allow any new developments. Thank Gaia for The Obamessiah, He’s going to do it properly and carefully, and only nasty Big Oil and Republicans object.

Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know about the ban:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is well known for his anti-Big Oil leanings. It’s becoming increasingly clear that he and the President never meant to lift the ban at all, and were merely maneuvering into position for a more permanent ban. He promised that offshore drilling would end and that more would start up now that risks have been “significantly reduced”, but now – what a shock! – the ban will continue for seven years. All thanks to the President putting ideology before science. Wasn’t that supposed to be a big problem of George Bush? The masses don’t need to know about it. It’s no surprise that Salazar was favored by anti-oil activists even back in 2009.

But it’s worse than that. While Paul Adams is wringing his hands over a few oystermen in Louisiana, the BBC is censoring news that the drilling ban itself is actually beginning to cause economic damage.

Less than a year ago, struggling states and coastal towns saw crude exploration off the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboard as economic salvation.

Yet the backlash from the BP oil spill — most recently the Obama administration’s decision this week not to open up some of that area to new drilling — has residents wondering if the industry will ever thrive again in U.S. waters.

Some fear an exodus of oil rigs in search of friendlier waters overseas. And with each passing day, folks that rely on deepwater drilling say the damage is multiplying, creating a ripple affect from blue-collar Main Street to beachside drives. They warn it will only get worse.

“Deepwater was the future,” said Lori Davis, owner of Rig-Chem, a Houma, La., business that sells chemicals to oil companies. If there’s less new exploratory drilling, everyone from industry suppliers to doctor’s offices who treat oil field workers will have less business.

Davis has already cut a consultant, reduced a profit-sharing plan for workers and left a recent job vacancy unfilled. “Today, we have to rethink that because we have an administration that’s clueless, with no interest in supporting oil and gas,” she said.

Sure, the Government previously stated that predicted job losses during the initial six month ban weren’t so bad (well, they would do), but that was when everyone thought it was only temporary. What about now that it’s more or less permanent? Well, oil prices are already up because of it, hitting a two-year high. That doesn’t help those struggling businessmen at all, nor does it help anyone else except nasty old Big Oil.

Unfortunately, the BBC doesn’t feel like examining any of this. All they care about is supporting the President’s ideology-based ban, and ignoring details which interfere with the Narrative.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

God And Man At The White House

By | | , , , , , , ,
9 Comments

During his entire Presidency, the BBC criticized, or gave plenty of unchallenged air time to critics of, George Bush’s religious faith. Sure, he wore it on his sleeve up to a point, but no more than many people in the US. For many people, this is an act of humility, an acknowledgment of a power greater than oneself. This kind of behavior is an anathema to most at the BBC, so it was always treated with disdain.

I’m sure everyone remembers Jeremy Paxman asking Tony Blair if his shared sense of faith with Bush bonded them, and giggled when asking if Blair had actually prayed with him. Most at the BBC never really understood Bush’s religious leanings, and in fact were quite frightened and concerned about the damage he did because of it. Justin Webb’s criticisms over his stopping federal funding for using embryos for stem-cell research come to mind.

In any case, the BBC was never shy about shining a harsh light on the religious faith of George Bush.

Now the current President also has a problem about public perception of His religious faith. We’ve all heard the BBC reminding us constantly that so many foolish United Statesians think He’s a Muslim. The fact is – and we learned this just recently on Today – that the President was now Christian because He went through a conversion.

With this in mind, one would think the astute producers in the BBC News division would leap at the chance to prove once and for all that these fools are wrong and that the President is really a Christian, and has just as much faith as George Bush. On Friday, the President gave an interview in which He stated that He prays “every night” and reads the Bible.

Praying and reading the Bible are part of his everyday life, President Obama said in a wide-ranging interview broadcast Friday.

Speaking with Barbara Walters, Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama also described how they involve their daughters in daily prayer.

“Michelle and I have not only benefited from our prayer life, but I think the girls have too,” the president told Walters. “We say grace before we eat dinner every night. We take turns.”

What a sickening display of religiosity, eh? I’m sure all the comedians on various BBC shows will be taking notes. And it gets worse:

When asked if he prays himself, the president said: “I do. Every night.”

Oh dear, oh dear. I await the howls of laughter echoing through the halls of Broadcasting House.

Why isn’t the BBC reporting this? Why isn’t the BBC making a fuss about His faith? Could it be that they don’t like such low behavior and don’t wish to call attention to it? Does this make the President less appealing to them and their fellow travelers? As they censor nearly every other bit of news which might cause consternation at the right kind of dinner parties, I won’t hold my breath on this one.

But wait, there’s more new proof on offer that the President is not a Muslim. It’s Haj time in the Mohammedan world, and the President’s grandmother has been caught lamenting that He needs to come back to the fold:

Grandma prays for Obama to embrace Islam

The Kenyan grandmother of US President Barack Obama who was on Haj pilgrimage to Makkah has said that she prayed for the American leader to convert to Islam, a newspaper said on Thursday.

“I prayed for my grandson Barack to convert to Islam,” said Haja Sarah Omar, 88, in an interview with Al-Watan daily held in Jeddah after she had performed Haj.

The paper said that Haja Omar was in Saudi Arabia on pilgrimage along with her son, Obama’s uncle Saeed Hussein Obama, and four of her grandchildren as guests of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

And there you have it: Incontrovertible proof that the President is not a Muslim. Plus, there’s new proof that the President prays every night, reads the Bible, and seems to be as comfortable with His faith as Bush.

BBC: ZZzzzzzzzz

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.