Porn for the Palin-hating chattering class.
Porn for the Palin-hating chattering class.
Doug Stanhope is encouraging his adoring fanbase to contact the BBC to defend Richard Bacon. In trademark foul-mouthed style he rants against the “fuck-mouth” at the Down’s Syndrome Association who wrote Friday’s official statement, saying the person “is not fit to protect the retarded. Oh… and go fuck yourself in the head.”
He just doesn’t give a fuck, does he? In case you miss the point, he even says it: “I don’t give a fuck.” That’s his thing, not giving a fuck.
He offers this argument in defence of Bacon:
Imagine if Richard Bacon had actress Sasha Grey as a guest, someone who is known for her cross-over from pornography. He warns the audience over and over that some of her x-rated work would be upsetting. You race to your computer to watch, then blame Mr Bacon and implore folks to file complaints saying that Richard Bacon was “directing” you to do so?
For the comparison to work Bacon would tell his listeners: “Sasha Grey is here. Just a remarkable actress. If you haven’t seen her and want a flavour of what she’s like go to a search engine now and type “Sasha Grey Anal Cavity” [laughs] and get back to me.” I somehow doubt Bacon would feel comfortable about that, realising it might overstep a line or two at the BBC.
Here’s a more direct analogy. Stanhope describes his stuff as “flat out shock humour”. Imagine he’s got a shock routine, equal in depravity to the Palin one, only this time it’s about one of the Obama kids. On Stanhope’s terms it could be defended as a satire on politicians using their children in politics or something. For argument’s sake, let’s say it’s an expletive-filled violent pornographic fantasy revelling in the prospect of raping one of the young Obamas. Is that about on a par with fantasising about shooting Palin’s child in the head as it’s born? I don’t know, but we’re playing imagine so let’s imagine it is. Now, would Richard Bacon have said to listeners, “If you want a flavour of what he’s like, go to YouTube and type ‘Doug Stanhope Barack Obama'” knowing full well that’s what people would find? No, of course not. It’s the fact that Stanhope’s target was Palin’s child that made it OK to mention because hey, that shit’s cool and hip right there. Stuff about underage Obamas – man, that would be just sick.
Interestingly, if you do a YouTube search for “Doug Stanhope Barack Obama” it turns up a video which includes a clip of him discussing his choice for president in 2008. He says he’d like to vote libertarian but can’t bring himself to do so. His choice instead?
“Barack Obama’s my fucking dude. He’s fucking cool to watch, so why not? It’d fucking make us look better to the rest of the world when I go to play in fucking Norway next time or England or the UK. They won’t spit in my sandwich because they heard my accent and think I’m an asshole.”
For someone who doesn’t give a fuck he seems unduly worried what right-on Euroweenies think of him. Still, it’s one more reason for Richard Bacon to like him.
Oh, and before any Stanhope fans come on here and tell me I don’t “get” him – don’t bother. I do. So go fuck yourself in the head instead.
UPDATE 17.30. Apology to the DSA from BBC 5 Live and Richard Bacon:
The Down’s Syndrome Association has today received and accepted a full apology from Radio 5 Live and Broadcaster Richard Bacon following his show on Thursday 4th August. The official statement and letter are printed below.
Statement on behalf of 5 live:
“During a live interview on Thursday 4th August with American comedian Doug Stanhope, Richard Bacon made an unscripted comment referencing an online clip of one of his guest’s stand-up performances.
“Richard has apologised for referring his listeners to the video of his guest. At no stage did he or does he condone the offensive material in that sketch, none of which was broadcast on 5 live. It was still unacceptable to highlight the clip and he fully accepts that it was inappropriate. It falls below the standards our audience expects from us and both he and 5 live apologise unreservedly for any offence caused.”
Letter from Richard Bacon:
I am writing to apologise for any offence caused by my live interview with the American comedian, Doug Stanhope, on the 5 live radio show on Thursday 4 August.
In order to illustrate the comedic style of Stanhope’s stand-up performances, I referenced available You Tube clips. This was a poor recommendation and I whole heartedly accept that this reference was inappropriate because of the subject matter. I full well understand my responsibilities as a broadcaster and such a reference fell below the standards I set myself personally in my broadcasting.
I am sorry if the reference has caused offence to anyone in anyway. I shouldn’t have done it.
Further to yesterday’s blog post, the Down’s Syndrome Association has issued the following statement:
DSA make official complaint following Richard Bacon’s Radio 5 Live Show
The Down’s Syndrome Association is shocked that a BBC employee has publicised the work of a comedian which is nothing more than a vile offensive rant and conflicts with BBC guidelines which state a responsibility to ‘protect the vulnerable and avoid unjustifiable offence’. During Richard Bacon’s BBC 5 show yesterday afternoon he directed listeners to a video of Doug Stanhope discussing the son of Sarah Palin on YouTube. The child was born with Down’s syndrome and Mr Stanhope’s comments about him were abhorrent.
As a public body the BBC should not be promoting the work of such an individual. Therefore the Down’s Syndrome Association has logged an official complaint with the BBC. We encourage everyone to do to the same using the link below –
On Twitter yesterday Bacon stated:
I don’t like what he said in that clip. And I don’t endorse it. I meant only for people to see his STYLE.
Make up your own minds.
Here’s Richard Bacon introducing one of his guests this afternoon:
“Doug Stanhope is here. Just a remarkable stand-up comic. If you haven’t seen him and want a flavour of what he’s like go to YouTube now and type “Doug Stanhope Sarah Palin” [laughs] and get back to me.”
Bacon could have recommended any Stanhope routine, but it was the Palin one he wanted his listeners to hear. Here’s the meat of it:
Sarah Palin is the most fucking horrible, horrible [sic] – on so many levels…
Sarah Palin is this woman – she’s the mother of five, two of whom are retarded. One of them has Down’s Syndrome and the other volunteered for Iraq. She’s got a baby with Down’s Syndrome for Christ’s sake. How do you expect America to get behind her when even God hates her…
…after that last fucking retard baby came out of her – did you see the size of the head on that thing? The alien skull on that fucking retard baby had to tear her apart. Can you imagine the carnage, the violence of that thing coming out of her. It’s like someone stood at the foot of her cunt and yelled “Hey Kool Aid!” They [sic] bursting through her. That baby had to do more damage to her undercarriage than the Viet Cong did to McCain’s entire upper torso. I believe that if she were in the White House when she tried to deliver that child the secret service would’ve had to shoot it in the soft spot as it was crowning to save her… I think the Democratic Party is really dropping the ball if they don’t hammer the big cunt retard baby issues for the rest of this campaign and just stay on point. Don’t get distracted with all the other nonsense. Stay on point. Bring everything back to big cunt retard baby. They shoulda done that in the vice presidential debates and Biden dropped the ball. Everything shoulda come back to – whatever red herring she tries to throw at you – “Well I broke up the old boy network when I was the governor of Alaska” ” I heard the only thing you broke up was that sorry cunt of yours when you fucking threw that spastic out of your tard launcher, that’s what I heard.” And the moderator would’ve said “You have two minutes to rebut the big cunt retard baby allegations” and she’ll throw some other nonsense – “How’s your campaign equipped to deal with that proverbial 3am phone call?” And he goes “I don’t know but we’re not going to have some fucking waterhead running around kicking the phone of the hook so it goes straight to voicemail with his tongue on the button. I know that! What’s up with that?” And then the moderator would chastise the crowd to hold their applause to the end and remain seated. “What’s your record on earmarks?” “What’s your record on spitting out fucking bulb-headed [laughs] – I heard your fucking snatch is so split open they had to put a tent zipper on your snatch so your guts don’t shoot out when you sneeze. That’s what I heard.”
The routine ends with Stanhope saying: “Fuck you, go blog about it.” Thanks, I am doing.
This hateful shit is amusing to Bacon because it’s about Palin. The fact that he felt comfortable recommending it to his listeners speaks volumes about the groupthink that pervades the BBC/media luvvy world he inhabits.
This recent retweet by Newsnight’s Gavin Esler reveals the same mindset:
If anybody thinks the BBC’s coverage of the 2012 presidential election will be impartial I’ve got something they might like to buy.
(I read somewhere that Richard Bacon’s wife is pregnant. I hope she has a safe pregnancy, an easy birth and a healthy child.)
Screengrab from the BBC’s US & Canada page:
Pretty rich, huh?
Here’s the report by Tom Brook. How very different to the BBC’s treatment of the Obama documentary We The People which even the Obama-friendly Washington Post described as a “stultifyingly naive, please-drink-a-little-more-Kool-Aid paean” and “a very long commercial for Obama”. The BBC didn’t assign a journalist to cast a critical eye over that film, chosing instead to broadcast it as part of its teenage fan-club Obama season on the first anniversary of his, like, totally awesome victory.
Agenda driven indeed.
A short while ago I posted the following in the Open Thread:
I see the Guardian is going balls deep over the Palin emails. They’ve even got a dedicated Twitter account about it, FFS. And if something is big news to the Guardian you can guarantee it will be big news to the BBC.
Right on cue, here’s an exchange of tweets between Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis and the Guardian’s Ian Katz:
Don’t you just love that “(of course). (yiippee)”? They hate her. They really hate her.
UPDATE. They’re searching urgently for something really bad:
And just for good measure, also on Newsnight tonight:
Finding BBC bias – like shooting fish in a barrel.
I was having a look at Katty Kay’s Twitter page, wondering if she had said anything about Sarah Palin lately. Not only is Palin on tour (as we know from Mark Mardell’s sneering the other day), but she said something yesterday about Paul Revere which raised a few eyebrows. It turns out Palin was actually correct and, as usual, a few Leftoid media dopes made fools of themselves laughing at her so-called ignorance.
Katty, the most hyper-partisan of all BBC employees working the US beat (yes, she’s worse than Mardell) now that Katie Connolly has done the honest thing and gone to work for a Democrat strategy group, didn’t say anything about Palin’s Revere remark, but still she did not disappoint anyone looking for her to reveal her personal political bias. Tweeting from her iPad, Katty sent her readers two links to hit pieces on Palin, both from the JournoList-infested Politico.
This Politico article is full of adjectives like “cartoon-ish”, “circus”, and “spectacle”. Oh, and the actual title is “Sarah Palin takes the media for a ride”. Katty editorialized that down to a sexist pejorative. Nice one, Katty. Notice also that the response from her reader makes it clear which side she’s on, as nobody would ask such a question if they thought Katty was either impartial or not far Left and a Palin hater. Katty does have form attacking Sarah Palin on air. The other tweet is equally amusing.
This Politico article is about how some in the GOP establishment aren’t pleased. Which is exactly what Palin’s supporters want, but of course Katty thinks it’s a bad sign for her. Partisan blindness. We can see where the Beeboids go to inform their opinions on US issues. The vicious atmosphere of Katty’s Twitter feed and her followers is again revealed in the reply. If Katty wasn’t openly partisan and anti-Palin, her reader wouldn’t feel free to make such a reply.
Further down on her Twitter page, Katty also retweets a Palin attack piece by none other than Andrew Sullivan (not going to give him a link – look him up if you want), notorious for his own version of a “birther” conspiracy (he still thinks Palin faked giving birth to Trig, while her daughter is the real mother). There is no greater hater of Sarah Palin than Sullivan, and Katty not only follows him but thinks his musings are important enough to share on her BBC-labeled Twitter account. This fact alone tells you all you need to know about Katty Kay.
If that’s not enough to get a scolding email from Helen Boaden, Katty also makes a tweet which combines her personal business interest – “Womenomics” – with her BBC profile.
This is clearly a violation of BBC protocol. Yet Katty often uses her position at the BBC as a platform to advocate for her personal pet issues (see here and here), including the women in business angle. It’s also worth reminding everyone that Katty’s partner in Womenomics is Claire Shipman, whose husband is the current White House Press Secretary.
There’s another tweet on the page about an article discussing how women are oppressed in oil-rich Muslim countries. It’s not US news, just something she’s personally interested in, and uses her BBC credentials as a platform to promote it. She even ironically tweets about “women who take a stand” having their morals questioned. That’s pretty rich coming from someone who called Sarah Palin a tease for doing just that.
Another overtly partisan BBC employee in the US who is not fit for purpose.
Sorry, did I say “comedy genius”?
What I meant was “intellectually insecure BBC tosser fishing for anti-Palin sentiment from like-minded unfunny condescending arseholes on Twitter”:
Orwell wrote a couple of classic books highlighting the dangers of overbearing government, he despised the snobbishness and anti-patriotism of the intellectual left, and he spoke out against the incessant lies of the press. Not much there to appeal to Sarah Palin, eh?
The fact that Esler even mentions Palin in his plug for the Dubai literary festival shows just how deeply embedded she is within the media luvvie psyche. Her very existence is screwing with their heads, God bless her.
More of Esler’s smug disdain for Palin can be heard on this week’s London Dateline (15 mins in, available on iPlayer for 5 more days). A senior BBC journalist laughing along to childish insults – it’s all part of the superior political discourse we in the UK get thanks to our impartiality rules.
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.
She said “blood libel”. BBC hacks begin the pile on:
Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds used the same phrase earlier this week and has explained why to Politico’s Ben Smith. However, I’m not expecting nuance from the BBC on this one.
UPDATE 17.30. BBC Twitter Tutor Sue Llewellyn retweets Guardian.co.uk editor Janine Gibson. There’s a PDS epidemic in the leftie echo chamber.
UPDATE 18.50. The National Review lists previous uses of the term “blood libel” in American political discourse.