This letter was recently sent to the BBC by my friend Andrew McCann and I thought it might be worth sharing with you. He has not had a reply.


Has the American presidential election already reached its conclusion? I have to ask since the evaporation of coverage on the BBC news since the confirmation of Barack Obama as Democrat nominee has been noted by many. The British Broadcasting Corporation was quite happy to flood news bulletins with ‘Presidential’ campaign happenings during the ‘beauty’ contest between Clinton and Obama. However, now that the BBC might just have to turn its attention to a more balanced coverage of the campaign by including Republican candidate, John McCain (remember him?), it suddenly has lost all interest.

Oh, what a beauty contest the Democrat race proved to be: both candidates filled every ‘tick-box’ on the social profiling sheet of the average Guardianista. One was a woman; the other was black. ‘Whoopee’ cried the anti-Israeli, anti-American, tree hugging news teams at the BBC. What did it matter that a potential leader of the free world should have more suitably meritocratic attributes such as intelligence, political nous, first-hand experience of America’s military engagements, an appreciation of realpolitik, and integrity? The sum total of the BBC’s analysis was preoccupied with the gender of one and the ethnicity of the other. As for the Grand Old Party, they might as well have shuffled off stage-left. The BBC, like the other Left-leaning, liberal ‘luvvies’ which dominate the European media scene, want a Democrat in the White House. Why don’t you just be honest and admit it?

I am a BBC licence payer (for my sins). I want to see a Republican returned to power in the United States. I certainly do not want to see someone whose paternal ancestry shares the same religion as the evil-doers who killed 3,000 people in New York City seven years ago: a man who is prepared to ‘combat’ the rise of evil terrorist Islamism by sitting down and having cosy little chats with some of its principal protagonists. When are my preferences going to be incorporated in the so-called impartial coverage your organisation is (dubiously) renowned for?

If and, as I expect, when John McCain is voted the 44th President of the United States will we be offered the sort of ethno-centric spite-laden coverage I expect? The sort which will feebly attempt to portray the American electorate as bunch of subliminal Alabamaesque red-necks who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for poor old Barack because he was black? I am prepared to bet money on it. For in the final analysis it is those of the Left who lionise on the basis of sociological labels, and it is those of us on the Right who prefer to view people on their genuine merits.

Yours truly


Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to A LETTER TO THE BBC

  1. Anonymous says:

    I guess this letter would have carried more moral force if it had not appeared on this site the morning after BBC News ran a long feature on McCain, majoring on his virtues of courage and magnanimity, on its main news programme.


  2. mailman says:

    I think you are pushing sh1t up a hill with this complaint.

    Al Beeb will pay this letter about as much attention as they have paid the Bailen (sp??) report.



  3. Joel says:

    It’s got nothing to do with bias and everything to do with news values. The Republican race finished some time ago, the Democrat race was close run until very recently. That’s why it’s had more coverage recently, it’s about what’s newsworthy.

    ‘I certainly do not want to see someone whose paternal ancestry shares the same religion as the evil-doers who killed 3,000 people in New York City seven years ago’ – This goes to show what a nutjob this guy is.


  4. Simon says:

    Well done for highlighting that last paragraph Joel. Yes the BBC does display bias but the sort of thing that DV and a lot of these commenters get pissed off over just makes me think what a bunch of unpleasant fuckers they are. Just leave these paranoid shits to seeth by themselves.


  5. Beppo says:

    bunch of subliminal Alabamaesque …

    What does ‘subliminal’mean in this context?

    I know what it means normally, but that sense doesn’t seem to fit here.

    Am I being slow on the uptake, or has the writer chosen the wrong word.

    If the latter, any clue as to what he actually meant to say?


  6. Ben says:

    I heard he was sworn in on a Koran too..


  7. dropkick murphy says:


    Did yer man pen this silly rant in green ink….or orange?


  8. Simon says:

    Ben, he’s keeping his other three wives under wraps until he’s in the oval office


  9. Cockney says:

    was this written in green ink? several commentators on here have flagged stories of sensible complaints pursued with dignity which disgracefully have got nowhere. this sure as hell isn’t one of them.


  10. Millie Tant says:

    The BBC’s coverage of the American election nomination has been very one-sided and not even in the direction of the Democrats, but purely fixated on Obama – in fact not even on Obama himself as a person or a politician, but purely on the fact that he is in their eyes, a black man.
    (he is of course as much white as black, but that doesn’t count, because he passes for black.)

    The BBC had no comparable interest in Clinton as a woman standing for election nomination – indeed Juvenile Justin used the fact to sneer and deride her – and once Obama was on the scene, the BBC edit was relentlessly hostile and negative towards her. This was evident across a range of BBC programmes – TV news 24, Newsnight, BBC 1 news, that ghastly prog with the confusing title presented by the supercilious Frei; The Week (where luvvy-in-chief Andrew Neil openly and unashamedly declared he was for Obama many weeks ago) even Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour got on a black woman supporter to declare her allegiance to Obama and deride Clinton; the programme on Sundays at 12 presented by that peculiar man whose name I forget – the list goes on, but everywhere was the same knee-jerk Obama obsession and luvviedom.

    So the position is actually worse than was laid out in the letter quoted by DV, for the BBC’s interest wasn’t in the social characteristics of the candidates but of only one of them. The BBC has no interest whatsoever in whether a woman could become nominee or President or whether an older person could. Their sole interest is in whether a “black” man could. Therein you have both the shallowness, the lack of balance or perspective and the distorted values of the BBC.


  11. Mrs. Rooney's Ferret says:

    It is good that you are supportive of your friends, David Vance, but sometimes it’s more supportive to have a quiet word and advise them against making a fool of themselves in public.


  12. deegee says:

    David Vance, please use this letter as an example of what not to do to either achieve change or even receive a polite answer from any organization.

    No figures, no links to specific BBC programmes, statements or policy, sarcasm, rudeness, complaints based on predictions for the future and no concrete recommendations.

    No chance that the complaint will be taken seriously 🙁


  13. Simon says:

    Millie tant, I agree with you about the slant of the BBC coverage (pro Obama/anti-Clinton) but if the letter DV had quoted had put the point across in a more eloquent way (much as you have done) and hadn’t devoted so much time to his own ridiculous ranting polemic it might justify more serious consideration.


  14. Joel says:

    They would still get the same answer, regardless of whether they are polite or not, reasonable or not or completely insane, the answer will be the same.


  15. Will86 says:

    The letter has a point, but frankly if I received such a sarcastic, rude and generally facetious complaint I don’t think I’d bother to reply. Why he expects the BBC to do so is beyond me.

    Probably a great example of how not to complain, as several have pointed out. It simply confirms for the BBC what they already “knew”: anyone who disagrees with them is a closet wierdo with facist tendencies and a tendency to exaggerate.


  16. Yaffle says:

    I’ve complained to the BBC a couple of times, though not on questions of bias, and had courteous replies.

    I shouldn’t think they’d bother to reply to Andrew McCann’s scatter-gun rant though, and I can’t say I’d blame them.

    In fact I suspect the BBC now ignore this blog too, for similar reasons. Dispassionate assemblages of facts to back up a case are likely to be taken seriously. Mere gobbing off isn’t (hello, David Vance).


  17. mailman says:

    Millie Tant,

    The problem for Al Beeb is this. Usually they would be supporting a woman doing anything BUT in their eyes, the greater “good” would be to support the black guy.

    So in essence, to Al Beeb, being black trumps being a woman.

    Imagine though, if Mrs Obama was running for office…oh my god, an Al Beeb wet dream (woman, black AND muslim!).



  18. Anonymous says:

    Millie Tant | 24.06.08 – 11:00 am

    How short memories here are.

    At the early stages of the race (when it looked like Hillary would win) there were loads of posts on this blog saying the Beeb was shilling for Hillary – and some actually complaining they were biased against Obama.


  19. Gibby Haynes says:

    Right. It’s true, but it’s not the way to write a letter of complaint. There are rules, and one must abide by them even if – as is the case with the BBC – you’re complaining to an organisation which propagates blood libels and is indirectly responsible for death and suffering.


  20. Roland Deschain says:

    Judging Barack Obama by his “paternal ancestry” is way out of line.


  21. David says:

    Fair points*, appallingly made.

    *Except for the whole ‘Obama is a Mooooslim’ thing.


  22. Hugh says:

    Joel: “They would still get the same answer, regardless of whether they are polite or not, reasonable or not or completely insane, the answer will be the same.”

    It’s good to see you share our lack of faith in the BBC’s complaints handling. You’re coming round.


  23. Cheeta says:

    Of all the complaints I have ever made to the BBC – usually to do with the coverage of Israel and in all types of parlance and tone – all are generally met with a similar theme including: “Thank you…etc…we take impartial reporting very seriously…etc…on this occassion we disagree with your suggestion that…etc…Be assured that we have noted your concern.

    If anyone else has received any actual admission of error or fault by the BBC, I’d love to hear of it.


  24. Rab. C. Nesbitt. says:

    Does anyone remember Brian Walker from the BBC? Scene around six? BBC NI then he moved to England. He is a former BBC editor, and now he posts on slugger o’toole. He engages, (politely) with all re the bbc and other issues. Perhaps some of you ought to engage with him, and inquire re your bbc bias.

    David Vance (& Andrew McCann), would certainly benefit. One he could teach David Vance on what the BBC is and perhaps show him how to construct a post on the subject of the bbc. And how to stick to the subject, and how not to post your own bias, but actual bias.

    Perhaps some of you could teach Andrew McCann how to write a letter.

    Both men appear to ‘interact’ on the internet, but when it comes to humans they are a little out of their depth.

    I’d recommed a good book for both, ‘how to win friends and influence people’, as to Andrew McCann, at least this latest effort at writing doesn’t come close to incitement.


  25. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    For everyone except simon

    Even though there are some true facts in this I just don’t accept it as a whole.

    Yes, the BBC does seem to have made it clear its strong preference for a democrat victory which is bias, but replacing it with republican bias is not the answer.

    Having a go at Obama for his paternal ancestry’s religious or ethnic background is totally unacceptable.

    It is true that the BBC’s wall to wall coverage has suddenly dropped to a whimper, but keeping at that high all the way to the election in November would kill us all, so a hiatus is actually not so bad.

    Also those ‘on the right’ rather than ‘on the left’ is a strange comment, given the number of conservatives I have heard saying mccain is no conservative, even some saying they would rather vote for hilary, and some hilaryliberals saying they would rather vote for mccain than obama.

    There are BBC biases about this US election, but this complaint is a disservice to that cause.

    For simon

    Dull shithead so called ‘contributor’ go fuck yourself, you ignorant disrespectful twat.

    For David Vance

    Please feel free to edit out the above when you have deleted simons foul ‘contribution’ to this blog.


  26. Millie Tant says:

    Mailman: I agree that a black man is a greater object of veneration than a mere woman. If a woman is black, she is more worthy in their eyes but I still don’t think it counts for as much as a black man does in the BBC hierarchy of worship.


  27. Millie Tant says:

    Anonymous 11 am post re short memories:

    I wasn’t paying attention to the BBC coverage of the US election / nomination campaign (or reading the Biased BBC blog) until the primaries from February onwards.

    So I cannot comment on the coverage before then or whether the posters were right about the BBC promoting Clinton before then.

    I don’t always agree with what is written here, but if they were promoting her, I would have no difficulty in saying so. It is still BBC bias, whoever they are promoting. They have no business promoting anyone in an American election.

    I expect better quality journalism from the BBC than we are getting. It is outrageous how they conduct themselves and what they get away with purely because there is no effective means of penalising them for blatant bias.


  28. Simon says:


    Ain’t the internet wonderful!

    I’m glad there are people who do want to contribute some good arguments to this blog. I don’t include myself in that group anymore – I have in the past but I’m just bored with it now. (This has actually been a particularly good thread from an unpromising start.)

    Quick parting shot to mailman though
    “(woman, black AND muslim!).” This is a joke right? She’s not waiting to slip into a Burqa if Bassa gets to the White House is she?


  29. mandy rice-d says:

    the BBC’s wall to wall coverage has suddenly dropped to a whimper

    Well it would, wouldn’t it.

    The primaries are over. Doh.


  30. Martin says:

    The real complaint about “Osama bin Barack” and his BBC coverage should have been about his links with Reverand Wright (you can’t go to a church and sit there with a raving loon like that and NOT notice he’s a racist!!) and the Chicago terrorists.

    Additionally, “Osama” has been backtracking like crazy.

    1. Not to take state funding

    2. Now he’s the best friend of Israel

    3. Troops out straight away (looks like that’s about to go away as well)

    4. No drilling off the Florida coast. If he doesn’t backtrack on this he’ll lose the election. There are TWO things you don’t take off an American, his gun and his SUV.

    5. “Change”. Means sod all now he’s got to face McCain.

    6. He told McCain he’d meet with him and debate any time and place. So McCain offered a series of town hall style debates. Osama has refused except I believe one on the 4th of July where of course no American will be watching.

    “GO GO OSAMA!” as they say in Tehran and Tora Bora!


  31. haddock says:

    Judging Barack Obama by his “paternal ancestry” is way out of line.
    Roland Deschain

    He is judged to be black.

    It is just that ancestry that makes him ‘black’, although the arab descriptor would be more accurate than african-american.


  32. Roland Deschain says:

    In the letter he is being judged by the religion of his paternal ancestry, not his colour.

    You can choose your religion, not your colour. (Unless you’re Michael Jackson.)


  33. Anonymous says:

    Roland Deschain | 24.06.08 – 3:21 pm

    You can choose your religion, not your colour.

    But not your father’s religion.


  34. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Okay, a couple of things here are just ridiculous. The BBC has been saying for months that we shouldn’t worry about the non-stop Democratic primary coverage because they would lay off quite a bit once the nominations were in place. That even makes a bit of sense. I really can’t see how somebody can complain that the BBC has decided to stop covering the election just because Obama is going to be the Dem nominee.

    The real complaint is the massive slant in coverage of a Dem versus a Republican, as Millie Tant has so nicely explained above. They have been in the tank for the Democrats since the very beginning, often saying on air that this is what the world wants, and would be the most desirable outcome for the future of the country. That is extremely biased behavior, and probably violates international law when they do it on the World Service or Matt Frei’s low-budget dog and pony show on BBC America.

    Having said that, I find this part rather disgusting:

    ‘I certainly do not want to see someone whose paternal ancestry shares the same religion as the evil-doers who killed 3,000 people in New York City seven years ago’

    I take second place to no one in my anger at the BBC for the way they have reported not only on the atrocities of 9/11, but on the way they report on subsequent events directly related to it. I have ranted many times in these pages about how they get it wrong, and how important this is to me. Yet, I absolutely cannot countenance this bullshit. It’s also very un-American. (Yes, that’s right, I said it. Voting against Obama for this reason is un-American.) I think this ruins the entire letter, which is otherwise on solid ground (except the bit about the “evaporation of coverage”), albeit somewhat rough around the edges.

    I don’t want Obama as President for a long list of reasons, but the only part of his ancestry which makes me question him is the fact that his father and mother are both Marxists or neo-Marxists, and obviously passed that on to him. But that’s immediate environmental influence, not genetic. More than that, he has associated with Marxists as a young man, and continues to exhibit a few neo-Marxist tendencies. So my concerns are really about his behavior, not his ancestry. There is no logical reason to be concerned about the religion of his father’s family. If Obama had any Muslim in him, he wouldn’t have sat for 20 years listening to sermons about how Jesus was a Black Man just like him. There is, however, a logical reason to be very concerned about someone who wants to be President of the US but thinks it’s cool to read The Post-American World.

    David Vance, add me to the list of commenters here who say please tell your friend that he’s absolutely right about the BBC’s biased coverage, but that he seriously needs to rethink his ideas on Obama’s background. That is just not acceptable. This is the kind of thing the BBC and all Leftoids like to highlight as an example with which to tar the rest of us.


  35. Roland Deschain says:

    But not your father’s religion.
    Anonymous | 24.06.08 – 3:28 pm |

    This is getting ridiculous. Of course you can’t choose your father’s religion. Which is why I said it was out of order to judge Barack Obama by it.


  36. cassis says:


    So in essence, to Al Beeb, being black trumps being a woman.

    Imagine though, if Mrs Obama was running for office…oh my god, an Al Beeb wet dream.

    Not if it was Condi Rice.


  37. knacker says:

    Mr P: I often agree with you, in substance if not style, but I think you’ve dropped a clunker here.

    Let the guy rant and let folks think their way through it. Most of what he says is unexceptionable. Do you really think folks need a convoluted roadmap for every sentence you feel the need to parse for three paragraphs?

    Certainly it’s repugnant to tar Obama with his parents’ past, but questions about his early life remain and won’t go away.

    Worse, nannyish opinions about what is acceptable and permissible sound very leftish to me, even un-American. I forget who said it, but the kind of leftoid you seem to be inadvertently emulating doesn’t really care what people do as long as it’s compulsory. How un-American is that?

    More bluntly, you’re starting to sound like you hold the keys to the kingdom. You don’t.


  38. Martin says:

    Cassis: You say that but I pointed out on Radio 5 that a BLACK WOMAN has had one of the most senior jobs in the Bush administration for some time but the BBC ignore her success. The answer was she’s a Republican and therefore not as appealing.

    Regarding Obama. McCain delivered a live speech last night covered on Fox News (about 6:30 UK time) it was NOT mentioned on BBC News 24.

    The last Obama one was.

    I know Obama also gave a speech last night, but I didn’t see News 24 if it was covered then.

    It might be helpful if people note when McCain is covered live and when Obama is. I’m betting money that Obama gets more live coverage than does McCain.

    As I also pointed out yesterday, the BBC tried a bit of a smear job on McCain’s military past. They were rather “economical with the facts”

    Was he tortured? Well perhaps (they made NO mention of the problem he has raising his arms above shoulder height due to the beatings and torture)

    They failed to mention that he was given a chance of freedom but refused it knowing it would be used as propaganda. They failed ot mention his time of the Firrestal when she had a deck fire.

    I could go on. It was a badly researched article and in my view gave a view of his war service a rather poor light.


  39. gus says:

    I’d like to list Obama’s accomplishments since he finished his affirmative action education.
    But I can’t find any accomplishments.
    No legislation.
    No business experience.
    No leadership.
    No track record of accomplishment.

    Oh!!! He smokes cigarettes!! Is that an accomplishment??


  40. David Preiser (USA) says:

    knacker | 24.06.08 – 4:19 pm |

    More bluntly, you’re starting to sound like you hold the keys to the kingdom. You don’t.

    Duly noted. As I am a humorless jerk, I need to be reminded of this. Are there any other things I should be aware of so I can live up to your standards?


  41. gus says:

    Has anyone here noticed that the people that the Obama’s have CHOSEN to hang around with are SCUM BAGS?
    Jeremiah Wright a sick freak, and screeching racist. Was Obama’s spiritual advisor and his minister/Uncle figure for 20 years.
    Do any of you retarded liberals (LIBTARDS) believe that Obama and his bitter wife DID NOT NOTICE, Wrights obvious hate?? Of course you don’t.
    Bill Ayers. Obama’s pal set off bombs at the Pentagon and the New York City Police dept. His current wife did as well. They both admit it and do not apologize. Ayers former girlfriend and part of his terror group (the weathermen) blew herself and a few others up, while making bombs in Greenwich Village.
    Father Pfleger, a race baiting white Catholic Priest who uses a “pretend” black urban accent when spreading his hate.
    TONY REZKO, UMPTEEN FELONY CONVICTIONS for corruption, and political fixing. Rezko gave Obama a piece of property.

    Their closest friends are [email protected]#ing shit bags.

    Wake up morons.


  42. Anonymous says:

    gus | 24.06.08 – 4:31 pm

    I can’t find any accomplishments.

    Whaddya expect? The guys a lawyer. 🙂


  43. gus says:

    Anonymous. What did he accomplish as a lawyer?

    The guy is a nobody. A complete nobody.
    He’s got 2 college degrees. BFD.


  44. James says:


    haha you are so witty

    (just kidding you’re actually racists)


  45. gus says:

    James, get your panties out of a twist.
    You LIBTARDS are racists. Race doesn’t matter to the rest of us.
    It does matter to you.
    Why is that? Guilty conscience?


  46. Jose says:

    The correspondence from Andrew McCann seemed to disintegrate from a valid opinion in the first paragraph to a rant in the final sections.

    I do not doubt for one minute that the BBC has a left-wing slant in how it reports news events, however, I also doubt that the BBC was overly biased in it’s presentation of the US primaries.

    As for Andrew’s comment linking Obama to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, is unfair, racist and lacking in any evidence, this particular comment should ensure that Andrew’s letter is treated with the contempt it deserves.


  47. field.size says:

    For Christ’s sake drop the bloody stupid tag of “racist” onto anything you do not like. Disliking anything to do with ANY Religious belief is not racism.


  48. gus says:

    I agree with you Jose. Linking Obama through his Muslim father and Obama’s own Muslim past to 9/11 is unfair. It’s uncalled for. Obama is clearly not a terrorist. His friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are TERRORISTS. Obama has friends who are REAL LIFE, UNREPENTANT, bomb making domestic terrorists.

    Are you folks in the U.K. aware that Obama is personal friends with 2 terrorists, admitted terrorists, who were on the F.B.I.s most wanted list for bombing the Pentagon and the New York Police dept.
    Are you aware that his 2 pals got off because of technicalities.

    Think about that LIBTARDS.


  49. gus says:

    Jose is a racist.


  50. Ben says: