SHOCKER: Mark Mardell Spins Romney, Then Plays An Obamessiah Campaign Video

This is why I call Mardell the BBC’s US President editor instead of his official title, BBC North America editor. Mardell’s report about Romney’s trip to Israel leaves out the most important thing he said, and the second half of it is devoted to defending the President on the domestic economy issue.

Mitt Romney: US will stand with Israel

In the accompanying blurb, the BBC mentions that Romney said that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Yet Mardell strangely left that out. Why? He instead says that Romney’s show of support for Israel and strong stance against Iran is less about appeasing US Jews and more about portraying him as being stronger on foreign policy than the President. This is actually correct, and I’m left wondering why Mardell strayed off the BBC reservation here. He’s previously fretted over the Jewish Lobby, so it’s interesting that he doesn’t see them as the main factor here.

First, though, let me whine for a moment about Mardell’s offensive use of the term “Wailing Wall”. While I don’t expect him or any Beeboid to use the Hebrew, ha Kotel (literally, “the Wall”), as showing that much respect is reserved for Muslim holy sites, I do expect him to use the correct English term, “Western Wall”. The “Wailing Wall” is an outmoded stereotype, which comes from non-Jews observing the orthodox Jews’ style of praying. To the uninformed, it was said to sound like wailing. Plus, there’s the historical emotional connotation of this being the only part left standing of the Holy Temple, the only actual holy site in all of Judaism. This is also the only part of the Temple Mount at which Jews are allowed to pray, or even wear religious garb. Mardell should show more respect, and the BBC ought to educate it’s staff better, the way they do for Muslim issues. To many Jews today, the term “Wailing Wall” is offensive. The New York Times (admittedly with more concern for its Jewish audience than the BBC ever could have) uses the term “Western Wall”, and Mardell has no problem taking a page from their playbook when he refers to Bibi Netanyahu as Romeny’s “old friend”, so one would have thought he’d at least get that right as well. But no, he uses an outmoded stereotype temr instead. Whine ends.

It’s especially curious because he fails to mention Romney’s statement about Jerusalem, which is meant to speak to Jews everywhere, and specifically US Jews who are worried about the President’s increasing betrayal of our ally on this issue. Did I say “betrayal”? Yes I did. Has the BBC reported this? Of course not.

We all know by know that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not approved by the BBC’s editorial policy. Several people here have shown how they refuse to show it on, for example, the Olympics page for Israel. Yes, everyone knows it’s “controversial” because the Palestinians don’t accept it, and that the Muslim World hates it and wants Jerusalem to be Judenrein, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Knesset is in Jerusalem and it’s the functioning capital of the country. Outside factors do not decide the capital for any country. The BBC, of course, bows to the Muslim position here, and decides not to acknowledge Israel’s sovereignty on the matter.

Fortunately, the BBC has reported elsewhere that Romney said that about Jerusalem, and used the dodge of reporting other press reports about it as a means of showing how awful it was without having to make any messy editorial decisions themselves. Yes, the Muslim press is all about anger at appeasing the Jewish Lobby. So why does Mardell omit what many see as the most important statement Romney made? Could it be because he knows this will highlight the President’s increasing betrayal of a US ally on this issue?

I say betrayal because that’s exactly what it is. In 2008, when running for President, Candidate Obamessiah said Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Now, He’s been distancing Himself increasingly from that position. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that His press secretary (personal friend of BBC Washington correspondent and anchor of BBC World News Ameirca, Katty Kay, and husband of her friend and business partner) refused to answer reporters questions about it. Watch the video below:

Yes, you saw that bit at the end right: the President now says that Jerusalem is up for grabs, going back on His word. No wonder the BBC’s US President editor didn’t want to admit what Romney said. If any defenders of the indefensible want to say that doesn’t matter because it’s in the blurb or on that other website page featuring Muslim anger about it, remember that most people will see only Mardell’s video report and not the website text, and so most will remain blissfully unaware of it. And for those wishing to play the source and not the ball, attempting to dismiss this because of who made that video, dispute this quote if you can, and dispute the video evidence above of the President’s original statements and Carney’s sad display.

In reality, Romney’s trip to Israel was meant to show everyone in the US who cares – remember, we hear about how evil Evangelical Christians are equally concerned about Israel’s safety just like the nasty old dual-loyalty Jews are – that he will not betray Israel like the President has been doing. Regardless of which side of the issue one is on, the facts of both candidates’ positions and behavior are there. Mardell spun all that away very nicely.

But that was only a fraction more than half of Mardell’s report. The rest was spent defending the President against the charges that He can’t handle the economy. In fact, Mardell merely states a few words of Romney’s criticism – the only acknowledgment by the BBC anywhere of that “You didn’t build that” gaffe!!! – then plays about ten seconds of the President’s own campaign video rebuttal, complete with the President Himself smiling and speaking to the camera. This is the BBC’s tacit admission that it was a big deal after all. Mardell then closes his report by saying what he thinks Romney’s stop in Poland will cover.

Basically, the President gets a chance to speak for Himself in a report about Romney, while Romney’s campaign gets only Mardell uttering one sentence from their side. In the end, Mardell spins away Romney’s trip to Israel, refusing to mention the most important issue from it.

UPDATE: Oh, dear, it seems I’m 100% wrong on this one. As we know, the standard line on things like this from defenders of the indefensible is that the BBC can’t be biased because other media outlets are reporting the same way. The killer line:

Instead of sending political reporters who report on politics, the foreign affairs reporters might have given us serious reporting on the international issues raised when the Republican nominee for president traveled abroad.

While Romney was in Israel, for example, he proposed a U.S. policy fundamentally different from the one President Obama has given us. Most of the political reporters on the trip missed the significance of the announcement.

Missed, or censored? So either Mardell is a useless tool who just follows along with what his DC Beltway colleagues say, he deliberately censored the key bit out to protect the President, or he’s just a poor political analyst and doesn’t deserve his job. But the BBC expects you to trust him anyway.


Abu Qatada, the Islamic extremist

“The BBC has told its journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the al-Qaeda preacher, an “extremist” in order to avoid making a “value judgment”, the corporation’s managers have ruled that he can only be described as “radical”. Journalists were also cautioned against using images suggesting the preacher is overweight. A judge ruled this week that the Muslim preacher, once described as “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”, should be released from a British jail, angering ministers and MPs. Adding to the row, Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, yesterday insisted that Qatada “has not committed any crime” and said his release has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile in the gravity based community a British court has called Qatada a “truly dangerous individual” and even his defence team has suggested he poses a “grave risk” to national security. Some might say that by pretending this Jihad preacher is NOT extreme the BBC is a “grave risk” to the Nation.


Azad Ali
Anyone catch this interview on the BBC this morning? It concerns the government plan to tackle Islamic extremism and in brings the BBC Former security minister Baroness Neville-Jones and Azad Ali, chair of the Muslim Safety Forum and an adviser to the previous Labour government. Azad plays the role of outraged moderate Muslim except that is not quite the entire picture.

Mayor Boris Johnson has given at least £30,000 of taxpayers’ money to an organisation co-controlled by an Islamist “extremist”, the Standard can reveal. Azad Ali praises a spiritual leader of al Qaeda on his blog, denies the Mumbai attacks were “terrorism” and quotes, apparently approvingly, a statement advocating the killing of British troops in Iraq. He also criticises those Muslims who “tell people that Islam is a religion of peace”. He describes non-Muslims as “sinners” and says Muslims should “hate [non-Muslims’] disbelieving actions”.

Is it possible that the BBC is actually promoting the views of an Islamic extremist whilst pretending to have a reasoned debate? Surely not?


My goodness, has the Coalition taken umbrage against ageing Monty Python stars? Phew, no, not THAT Terry Jones but rather the US Pastor guy who had threatened to burn the Koran on the last anniversary of 9/11, to the chagrin of many. In my view, Jones is a nutter but in a democracy we must be tolerant of all views. I wondered what you thought of John Humphyrs interview with Jones this morning? I wonder would an Islamic Mullah be afforded the same questioning>


Well, the Religion of Peace strikes again, this time in Stockholm. I notice that the BBC is quick to play UP the “terrorist” angle whilst being careful to play down the Islamic one. It must gut them when it is clear that this vicious act of cruel terror WAS carried out by Islamists proud of their hatred of all things Western. It’s going to be tough for the BBC to hang the motivations of this one of “British Foreign Policy” but then again I suppose those wicked Swedes DID allow the publication of caricatures of Mighty Mo? The BBC does everything possible to try and downplay the motivation behind Islamic terrorism, namely Islam. Shame on them for their craven spinelessness.


The relationships between Iran, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon are complex, but it would seem that the Lebanese government is in great danger of being toppled by Hezbollah.

A UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is about to issue indictments for four top Hezbolla commanders for the murder in 2005 of the former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri.

“debkafile’s sources say that the tribunal’s special prosecutor, Daniel Bellemare, has obtained proof that on the day of the Hariri assassination, the four Hizballah officials named here had set up a makeshift command center for running the operation – a huge explosion which killed another 22 people.”

Jew-hating Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, has warned that he would “cut off the hand” of anyone who tried to arrest any of its members.
Now, a documentary series made by ORTV, a British-Saudi production company, originally commissioned by al-Arabiyya TV, a Saudi-owned satellite channel, but dropped because Saudi wanted to ‘improve relations with Syria’, has been adapted and re-edited for us, dear reader, we listeners to the BBC. But hey, you know the rest. The film has been expurgated, expunged, pulled.

The producer Christopher Mitchell said “the trigger for the decision by the BBC seemed to have been a front-page article in Al Akhbar, a pro-Hizbollah newspaper, attacking the film for blaming the organisation.”

The BBC has decided, at the twelfth hour, just before the clock strikes
half past yer hands chopped off, that the film was too hot to handle.
The BBC said the film had not yet complied with its editorial guidelines.

The relationships between the BBC, the government, the licence-fee paying public and Islam are complex, but I wonder if the BBC is in great danger of being toppled by Hezbolla?


A Biased BBC reader writes..

“The remarkable burst of pro-Muslim extremist eulogies are continuing to issue forth from the BBC almost daily….not bad considering there are less than 2 million Muslims in this country…why the blanket coverage for this favoured section of the community?

The BBC has broadcast 4 programmes whitewashing Muslim extremism….omitting important facts whilst elevating others to undue prominence in the name of community peace and harmony.

Programmes telling us the Muslim Brotherhood are ‘mostly harmless’ and probably best if we engage with them, then Newsnight gave us a limited and one sided view of why the Niqab is being worn more in Britain, Radio 4 gave Moazzam Begg a platform for his defence as an innocent victim of Crusading Western aggression which is besieging Islam, and now we have a programme purporting to give us the history of the East London Mosque as a beacon of tolerance and interfaith dialogue but was in reality merely a vehicle for another pro-Muslim programme telling us that Islam is harmless. See here

All very true. The sanitisation of Islamic extremism seems to be a core value for the BBC these days and it part of the daily broadcast output. 

My own view is that whilst we must not generalise, the fact remains that pretty much every terror threat facing our country (excluding Northern Ireland, natch) comes from those who have a dedication to the Religion of Peace. I also think that for Newsnight to try and suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood is anything other than a hate-driven malignancy is surreal. Why can the BBC just  not accept that even Islam has a problem with Islam and the rest of us definitely have an issue with those who would seek to kill us in the name of Mohammed? Has the BBC become dhimmified from within (Yes) and if so, how? Can’t the liberals see that THEY would be the very first victims of a Sharia-fied UK? None so blind…


Interesting catch here…

“I was able to get quite close to the Muslims against Crusaders. The one with the loudhailer was going on about how dare the Royal Anglians “Come to this Muslim area”. A man near me yelled at him “This is a Christian area”. I yelled, “There was a Christian Abbey here in the year 600, (before Mohammed)” at which point a police officer asked me to move along. He did call me Madam and said please.

A camera and microphone was shoved in my face from the Muslim against Crusader side of the barrier. “What do you think of all this?” “I think it’s appalling, and by the way who are you with” I asked?

I’m with the BBC he said “Making a documentary”. “Well, it’s disgusting, that the Royal Anglians coming home are faced with this” “What would you say if I told you that my brother (or Step brother) like me, is a convert and is demonstrating with the others. “Then I feel very sorry for him and will pray that he turns back to Christ. I have nothing more to say” Except I made him have his picture taken, as he had filmed me. There he is below, BBC documentary maker and fellow traveller.

So, who is this guy? Does he work for the BBC and if so, can he explain what he said? 


Interesting BBC treatment of the Spanish past. On the one hand, in this programme “The Art of Spain” the BBC proclaims the glorious Islamic rule that Spain enjoyed and how much we owe to that missed Muslim golden age. Then, on the other hand in this programme “The Dark Heart” we learn of the evils of Catholic Spain. Meme is simple; Islam = Good. Christian = bad.