: with the partial (in both senses of that word) exception of Matt Frei (the BBC’s Washington corespondent, already often featured on this blog), and within the usual limitations of their analysis, the BBC 10’o’clock news handled Bush’s reelection more calmly than his doings in Iraq. I think this is because elections are a part of the world that the BBC accepts; somehow the concept of impartiality in reporting an … Continue reading →

: BBC are determined to say Bush’s inevitable screwup in Iraq will cause high oil prices. Markets think differently Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Stephen Pollard was on a roll as he reviewed parts of BBC coverage of the US elections. Some trademark Beebisms on display, from ‘no-one wanted to believe this was happening’ to ‘it was the religious nuts wot done it’ to ‘anyway, back to the ‘so-called’ war on terror’ to ‘didn’t everyone want Bush to lose anyway?’. Great stuff, if one can use that phrase about responses to blatant bias. Click … Continue reading →

of Instapundit fame has up a column in the Guardian that makes some good points and links to this blog. (A good point in itself, we always think.) Here’s a quote: Those of you across the Atlantic may wish to take a lesson from this. As the BBC’s atrocious handling of the Gilligan affair – and, indeed, its war coverage generally – illustrates, media bias is hardly limited to the … Continue reading →

Hannah Bayman, a BBC journalist, well known to longstanding BBBC readers, has her own blog at bayman.blogspot.com. Hannah’s posts are usually quite banal, but yesterday’s post, reproduced here in full, offers an interesting glimpse into the thoughts and objectivity of a doubtless up and coming BBC journalist: Only hours to go before the Land of the Free starts to vote and I already have butterflies in my stomach. My mother … Continue reading →

Seems OK. As so often when the BBC is concentrating it is pretty good, it’s the off-the-cuff remarks that let it down. I haven’t seen enough to make any better assessment than that. More interesting by far than the TV was this real-time vote counting thingy that clocked up the votes as Bush took Florida. This similar doodad for Ohio says that Bush is likely to take that state, too … Continue reading →

Blithering Bunny points out some politically parochial comments by Peter Jay, former Economics Editor of the BBC. Can he really think that “…there are for all practical purposes no conservative ‘have-nots.’”? Or that “Conservatism is not and can never be a philosophy”? Given Jay’s eminence I would have thought better of him. The title of his review, which I stole for this post, would apply to its writer. I’m trying … Continue reading →

starting with the usual preamble about Bush and Kerry being “neck and neck” and the election being “too close to call”. This may be true, but most of the polls I’ve seen have Bush leading consistently by a point or two or three. Whilst this is certainly within the margin of error, I can’t help thinking that were the position reversed the BBC would be reminding us at each Bulletin … Continue reading →

Norm couldn’t help but notice. (via Instapundit) UPDATE: (8 Nov) Barbara Plett’s tears continue to draw attention and remind the public of previous BBC bias. (via Drudge) Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

is a most amusing BBC related post on Laban Tall’s blog just now – do read it. In passing, Laban also links to another excellent Guardian bashorama by Scott Burgess on his excellent Daily Ablution blog. Bashing the Guardian might be like shooting fish in a barrel – but Scott pulls off a seemingly endless variety of witty fish skewering trick shots time after time. Meanwhile, back at the ever … Continue reading →