It’s the ugly question that won’t go away – “will the question of race in America ever become something BBC journalists can resist pontificating about?”

The evidence suggests not.

The new North America editor Mark Mardell clearly can’t quite believe his luck. He’s barely got his feet under the desk (or in his case the restaurant table) and already he’s had an excuse to do numerous news reports and a couple of blog posts on a topic dear to BBC hearts: racist America. His predecessor Justin Webb must be thinking “Lucky bastard!”

I particularly like this description from his latest blog entry:

One large man, bull-necked, shaven-headen, with old fashioned braces (or suspenders, to use the American term) holding up his suit trousers, looks like an oppressive law-man from a liberal movie about the Deep South.

Has Maximum Mark looked in a mirror lately? Let’s just say I don’t think it’s a coincidence that so much of his reporting comes from places selling food.

But let’s leave Mardell feeding his prejudices (and his face) amidst the confederate memorabilia of Piggy Park restaurant and head over to Kevin Connolly’s article. Uber-liberal Connolly seems to have taken Joe Wilson’s outburst against his beloved Obama somewhat to heart. As far as Connolly is concerned Wilson looked “a little wild-eyed with passion”, if you catch his drift. He’s off his rocker that Wilson, nudge nudge. Connolly then brings up Maureen Dowd’s ludicrous New York Times column in which she admitted to hearing racist voices in her head although that’s not quite how Kev describes it (nothing mad about her, oh no):

Columnist Maureen Dowd wrote of “hearing” the unspoken word “boy” on the end of Mr Wilson’s phrase – in American racial politics a belittling epithet that reeks of the cotton-field and the slaver’s plantation.

BBC hacks are obviously very taken with this idea as Maximum Mark has also made numerous references to Dowd’s article. In another echo of Mardell, Connolly offers a brief history of Joe Wilson, mentioning his vote in favour of keeping the confederate flag flying over the South Carolina state house and the fact that he was once an aide to one-time segregationist Storm Thurmond. Unlike Kev, Mardell at least pointed out that this “was a long time ago”. Even so, we’ve got two BBC correspondents with enough time to go over exactly the same the points on exactly the same news story. I wonder how much one less US correspondent would save the licence payer. I mean, it’s not as if there’s other stuff to report on ( ACORN).

Connolly then offers this observation:

It does not really matter whether Joe Wilson is really a racist or not.
Whatever his motives, his words are a brutal reminder that the election of Barack Obama did not usher in a new age of post-racial politics in the US if anyone was naive enough to think that it might.

So, we don’t know if Wilson’s a racist or not but his words (“You lie!”) are a “brutal reminder” of racism. Got that? Connolly clearly sides with Maureen Dowd on this one. Just for good measure Our Kev concludes his piece by comparing Joe Wilson and the present day electorate of South Carolina with their 1850s counterparts:

And if history is any judge, you need not worry about Mr Wilson’s prospects of re-election, by the way. South Carolina was traditionally a place apart in such matters.
In 1856, a pro-slavery representative from the state called Preston Brooks took a gold-tipped cane and beat the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner half-to-death while an accomplice held off any would-be rescuers with a firearm.
Mr Brooks of course, was forced to resign his seat, but when fresh elections were held, his constituents simply re-elected him and sent him back to Washington

Connolly fully expects Wilson to be re-elected by the people of South Carolina, and in doing so they will prove that they’re no better than their predecessors who supported a pro-slavery thug more than a 150 years ago.

Meanwhile over at the Daily Mail, the BBC’s Gavin Essler has offered his invaluable insight into the whole affair. He brings up the Obama/Hitler pictures, the umpteenth BBC journalist to do so. What conveniently short memories these people have. And no BBC hack can discuss Joe Wilson without mentioning Thurmond and the confederate flag. Essler doesn’t disappoint, but goes on to trump his BBC colleagues by raising the prospect of Obama’s assassination. Later on he offers this telling sentence:

In all the enthusiasm for Barack Obama in Britain and Europe, we need to remember that even when up against John McCain – a relatively elderly candidate from a Republican party in disarray – he did not win in a landslide.

We? Speak for yourself Essler. Hard as it may be to believe from inside the BBC bubble, but we aren’t all enthusiastic about Obama.

He concludes:

But for a minority, even in the 21st century, a black President is still unacceptable. Obama has changed much in America, but not even his oratory and skill can change that.

Shouldn’t that be “not even His oratory”?

I’m surprised we haven’t heard the views of the BBC’s Sydney correspondent Nick Bryant, as he sees himself as a bit of an expert on American civil rights. I note from the antepenultimate paragraph of his latest blog entry that he’s in America at the moment so it’s only a matter of time.

The BBC’s news coverage of this story has been extensive and its journalists are falling over themselves to pass comment. In contrast (as I hinted above) the Beeb is yet to mention the scandals surrounding ACORN. But of course BBC correspondents don’t go to America to report on the nefarious activities of community activist groups; they go there to report on white racism.


Just off the BBC and what was the usual very short period of debate with both the opening words and last words being handed to my opponent (natch) as well as the host attacking me for the use of the words “race hustler” in connection to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton! Talk about pricking a balloon. We talk here about BBC bias here but when you are in the crucible itself and you dare attack the BBC meme that “fighting racism” is good and virtuous then you are yourself portrayed as a racist! (The National Front was dragged in by Trade Unions (!) opponent as a direct attempt to label those who hold my view as fascists) It’s so frustrating to have so little time to challenge this groupthink but, I did my best.

An alternative view

The great thing about guest columns on the Beeb’s website is that they allow different voices to give their take on the big events of the moment – voices we might not normally hear, such as this piece by [democrat, arch-Obama supporter and] “social commentator” Nancy Giles. So, instead of the usual left-leaning commentary on the significance of Obama’s win on race relations in the US that we’re used to, the Beeb treats us to some full on left-wing commentary on the significance of Obama’s win on race relations in the US. What a fantastic idea!


One long-running narrative the BBC pushes down our throats is that British Policing is “institutionally racist.” This bizarre left-wing guilt-fest seems to get the Beeboids excited as they imagine all sorts of intrigue going on to keep the racial minorities in their place. The Metropolitan Police, in particular, is most often in the firing line, a situation that is exacerbated by the race hustlers in the Black Police Association (Isn’t that, be definition, a racist body or is it open to all races I wonder?) I caught an interview this morning at around 7.20am on Today and despite the meek mannered approach of the Met spokesperson the BBC line was still that we have a race problem in the Met and that ethnic minorities are suffering as a consequence. I wonder would the BBC permit an interview with someone who thinks that what we have here is pathetic race baiting by the State Broadcaster and race hustling by the BPA which are distractions from the key issue of ensuring the delivery of effective policing in our capital city. Or is it cos I is white that I might think like that?

Nothing to see here- routine BBC race policing…

If anyone wonders why Boris Johnson allowed the resignation of his advisor James McGrath over alleged racist comments one ought to consider the blatant misrepresenation which the BBC made in their initial report of the affair. In the poisonous media environment we live in, most often cheer-led by the BBC, potentially racist comments will be misrepresented maliciously- indeed they will be fabricated where it is possible.

The BBC reported, in quotes, that McGrath said “Black people who didn’t like it here should go back”. Ignore personal feelings for a moment- consider that this doesn’t even sound like a quote but was reported as one in the sensitive conditions we live in.

In fact they changed their article, without admitting their “error”, and said that (as was closer to the fact) ‘“Responding to a claim that some black people might leave the UK if Mr Johnson became mayor, James McGrath said: “Let them go if they don’t like it here.”‘. This “error” would probably not have come to light were it not for the observation and screen save of Tony Sharp.

Though not as bad, the latest BBC version is disingenuous- article here. The question posed by the journalist Mark Wadsworth was referring to a previous comment from Darkus Howe about whether older Carribean migrants might leave if Boris Johnson won the Mayoralty. Now this a detailed scenario in fact, and the BBC had (and still have really) wilfully simplified it.

Of course the fact was that this was a journalistic “sting” operation by a moronic sub-public interest leftist. The BBC fully approves.


I was watching the BBC News last evening as it was in full Obama cheer-leading mode. One of the things that struck me was that the BBC instantly played the race card, showing images going back to the 1950’s of the discrimination faced by coloured people then. This was followed by images showing the rise of the Civil Rights movement. In the BBC mind, if Martin Luther King was John the Baptist, a President Obama would be Jesus Christ. It’s all about race and the enlightenment of (at least some) American people, or so the BBC would have you believe . However when the hated George W Bush promoted both Colin Powell and then Condi Rice to the very senior position of Secretary of State, I don’t seem to recall similar BBC euphoria. Then the skin colour did not matter so much. I read somewhere that people should not vote for Obama because of his skin. I fully agree. Not because it is black (which is neither here nor there for any civilised person) but because it is too thin. Obama reacts badly to any criticism and between now and November you can be certain that the BBC will flay those who point out his many defects. If only Obama was gay then I suspect the BBC would be in 7th heaven. Instead , when he is beaten byMcCain to the horror of the BBC, they will be in hell. Can’t wait.