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.
You’ll note that the usual 7 question weekly news quiz they are trailing Palin as “how did she rewrite history” and the question is about what she said but they seem to have missed the bit where she was shown to be right…and that was 2 weeks ago so they can’t claim they don’t know.
It’s quiz time
How did Sarah Palin rewrite American history?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13712372
I cannot get the link to work. I get to the BBC site, click on the link – it thinks about it but then brings me back to where I started. You don’t think one of them has read your comment and they are trying to hide their spiteful incompetence do you?
No Demon, it’s just the way the page loads. First the questions are laid out below but as the page fully loads they ping back into the frame and you have to click the >> by the globe to start the quiz and answer the questions.
btw, the news the BBC seem to have missed:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/06/06/sarah-palin-was-right-about-paul-revere
I wonder if Sarah Palin knows how easy it is in Britain to sue for libel.
Oh boy! To quote my old mate Kevin Keegan “I’d just love it to see that!”
(Or words to that effect. 😀 )
To Emily and Katty (and the rest).
Illiterate bbc scheisse can’t even remember that it’s spelled ‘wonka’.
As it is the BBC, I think ‘wanka’ would be more appropriate.
Having a little fun helping the Guardian with its crowdsourcing.
Is it true Palin has recruited Prof Phil Jones to manage the release of these emails?
Far more people are taking the piss out of the MSM on the #palinemails Twitter tag than are actaully trawling the emails for dirt. Most amusing.
What can Labour learn from The Obamessiah’s mentor? Saul Alinsky tactics and how to join forces with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. Stay classy, Emily.
But why is Stage Performer Maitlis interested only in what Labour can learn? Why not any British political party?
I have since learned that Labour has hired the guy, so that explains why the focus is only on Labour. Good luck with the Chicago Way.
They hate Sarah like we love life….
Even if I hated Sarah Palin, I’d love her because of the bbc. To paraphrase someone else : whatever they (the effulgent bbc, haha) think they are they’re not.
The Maitlis interview with the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington in Alaska was hilarious. He had nothing! Something about tanning beds, FFS! And Palin uses folksy language in her emails! STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!
The newsrooms of the BBC and Guardian must be so pissed off right now with the utter failure to turn up anything of any significance. Heh.
Oh no, wait. The agenda-driven wankers at Newsnight are pushing this as significant:
“She talks about asking God for guidance on how to push through the state budget”
Pitiful, barrel-scraping attempt to create a story.
This is worthy of Newsnight? FFS. What an utter waste of time. Some flagship. She’s not a candidate, while others have declared their candidacy already. Palin hasn’t done anything except a few lightweight photo ops.
Newt Gingrich’s staff has quit en masse because he made them fly coach and then went on vacation for a week. BBC: ZZZzzzz
Who’s Herman Cain, BBC? Who’s Rick Perry, BBC? Who’s Ron Paul, BBC? Who’s Tim Pawlenty, BBC?
What a useless news organization. Palin Derangement Syndrome on display. Is this value for money?
the show has long needed a re-naming
SHITENITE I think fits the bill nicely
Don’t forget the bears DB – Ed Pilkington’s “favourite” so far! Sarah Palin was invited to join a public information campaign in Alaska to teach people about safety around bears, he said.
Am I missing something? Why did he think that was (a) funny, (b) interesting or (c) damaging? There are bears in Alaska and they can be dangerous and it’s hardly surprising that some organisation would invite the governor to join a campaign to highlight safety issues.
What goes on a Guardianista’s mind? I don’t get it.
I’ve just listened to the hateful BBC. It’s Maitlis on Newsnight and true to form she has a three way interview with Peter Hain, some petrified Conservative female and some non-entity called Arnie Graf….who he? Well it seems he is some low life liberal American fascist who has been hired by Ed Millislime to puff up Labour. So let’s see … that’s 2 against 1. QED.
Yes, a three-way interview where two of the guests – Hain and “Arnie” (as Emily Maitlis kept calling him) – are big fans of Ed Miliband. Shouldn’t one of the pro-Labour guests have been a Miliband sceptic?
Twenty minutes spent on Labour, with just a single non-Labour voice – and even she didn’t get much time: Conservative Elizabeth Truss spoke in that 3-way interview for just 2 minutes and 2 seconds, whereas Miliband advisor “Arnie” got 4 minutes 12 seconds to speak and Peter Hain got 3 minutes 45 seconds. Both the Labour supporters attacked the Tories.
Peter Hain ? Talk about a blast from the past !
Quentin Letts in yesterday’s Mail was trying to start a Peter Hain for labour leader bandwagon.
Hilary Benn’s name cropped up as a possible leader. Someone is really taking the p*** !
Nothing hooks a “Liberal” better than a “Nigga” or a “woa-mn” that declines to play the victimhood status card offered by the Liberal Left, and plays it the other way.
Emily Maitlis is an utter t*rd compared to Palin yet still she mocks her to her Liberal mates on Twitter. Emily, you are nothing. Period. We mock you. Let’s see all your emails from the last ten years.
That is really pathetic from the Beeboid Maitlis. How can anyone take such people seriously as impartial journalists? The level of self-indulgent crowing and bias is plain disgusting.
The Ed Pilkington interview did seem like a blatant plug for the Guardian. It followed on from another plug for the Guardian from Emily and Michael Crick earlier, when they discussed an interview in the paper with David Miliband.
Ian Katz, whoever he is, tweets that “our crack team has taken possession of the goods ” confirming what many of us have long suspected of the BBC. PC Plod, take note.
But, it is not just the blatant bias, it is the sheer childishness of Beeboids. Each of them has a mental age of about 13 1/2. What is their problem ?
Beeboids, grow up !
“crack” team
as opposed to their ordinary conventional cocaine team I take it
Itwf,
Yes, exactly !
Katz is useful Jew from the Guardian, no? Who is possibly colluding with…sorry…working with Maitlis and Newsnight.
Should I ever run short (highly unlikely) of examples of the infantilisation of this country, then I only have to follow the tweets of ‘See Emily Play’ Maitlis. Her gushing little messages remind me of teenage daughters, rightfully, in their case, getting excited about an upcoming party. Maitlis is in her ‘roaring forties’. She reminds me of a young woman I knew many years ago, who would do anything to ingratiate herself with a group she considered to be ‘in/hip/cool’ – often to the extent of making herself into a figure of ridicule. Whether she actually believes all this froth is debatable. From photographs of her at glitzy functions, I would say she, primarily, enjoys the high-life, & will go along with the Beeboid/Guardianista groupthink to ensure her place at the publicly-funded trough. I’m sure she considers herself to be an annointed holder of ‘nuanced opinions’, but on the evidence so far, I think it likely that you would find more ‘diversity’ of thought in a breeze block.
“Infantile” is the word for it.
For a top presenter on one of the BBC’s flagship current affairs programmes to ask a Guardian journalist “What are your top faves so far Ed?” almost beggars belief.
Unflippingbelievable B.S. from the BBC!
On sober reflection, Craig, now last night’s Panamanian sherry has worn off, I would like to nominate ‘our Emily’ for a special award, she is, against stiff opposition, undoubtedly, the Beeboids’ very own….Lady Gaga.
If you read the comments on the Guardian website they are getting a lot of shit for this whole e mail thing. Even from their own types! I would highly recommend you all get over to their website and let them know what a bunch of tossers they really are. The Guardian journalists are desperately trying to defend themselves in the comments section.
They’ve now started a live blog on it and the brickbats are starting to fly there too!!
I cannot be arsed registering with the daily andrex
but anyone who has should highlight the OBAMAGAFFES
like 57 states in the USA and post some youtube links like the autocue fail
It’s going so badly for the Guardian in the comments that their Laura Oliver is pleading there for readers to stop complaining and join in the Palin-bashing instead: “But let’s keep this thread for those who are interested in it and for discussion of what emerges from the details and the reaction.”
Live coverage of reading emails of someone who’s never committed a crime, held any kind of national office, never harmed anyone, and isn’t running for office now? If there are some Guardian readers who actually see this for the idiocy that it is, there may yet be hope for Britain.
Good link, Craig. Thanks. Nice to see the commenters have a bit more seriousness and standards about them than the Guardian and the BBC.
I liked this comment:
What have you got to show for this latest witch-hunt? You’ve removed the filter lens that you use to portray her and now we get to see a more rounded figure, not a caricature. In turn, the focus flips back onto the Guardian. What do we get to see through the haze? A bigoted, hate-filled rag. A left-wing version of the Daily Mail for liberal bien peasants.
Talking about the Guardian, Newsnight seems to be still up to its old game of giving it a daily mention during its nightly review of the newspaper front pages.
From 27/5/11 to 11/6/11 – ten editions – the mentions stack up as follow:
Guardian – 10
Times – 8
FT – 7
Daily Telegraph – 7
Daily Mail – 3
Independent – 2
Daily Mirror – 2
Just another piece in a very large jigsaw of BBC pro-Guardian bias!
Of course, call me half-crazy, but that’s ‘just one, out of context day… er… week, er…’
Where are Scottie and Dezzie to reclassify the Times and FT as “right-wing” ?
Oh dear oh dear…
I can’t account for your own peculiar definition of ‘left’ & ‘right’; but The Times and The FT both currently support the Conservative Party. Hadn’t you noticed? Do try and catch up ;p
So that’s 25 mentions for Conservative supporting newspapers and 14 for Labour/LibDem supporting newspapers.
How very inconvenient; can’t complain about political bias anymore – so lets complain about Guardian bias instead!
As sad as it is pathetic. Biased-BBC desperately searching for something to complain about. ;p
Dez, did you happen to notice the tweets from Maitlis posted up top? No bias there?
When you are reduced to trawling through tweets in a desperate effort to find left-wing bias – then you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Never mind that Craig has demonstrated that Newsnight’s paper reviews have a blatant pro-conservative bias… LOOK OVER HERE – THERE’S BIAS IN THE TWEETS!
Thanks for dodging the question, Dez. It’s not a desparate attempt at all. Checking the first page of many Beeboids’ tweets will show bias. You can set your watch by some of them.
Maitlis was obviously not happy having to deal with a Sarah Palin story, but I would dearly love to hear your explanation of why it’s because she has journalistic integrity and not because she hates the woman. It would be very interesting to hear you then explain how that squares with her willingness to work with the Guardian on it.
you’ll be waiting a while
troll boy doesn’t do explanations doncha know
this says it all about Maitless
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/18/article-0-0C1E5077000005DC-164_634x467.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/18/article-0-0C1E507F000005DC-459_634x468.jpg
She ain’t going to pull there though itwf!!
errrrmmmm
no
🙂
We should really have a BBBC caption competition for these photos !
that is a very good idea!
Newsnight, it turned the news of the Labour Party memos scandal into a where do we…erm…sorry where does the Labour Party go from here discussion?
The Today programme certainly tip toed around the Ed Balls up affair.
Evan Davies had to tell us that the DT has a certain take on political matters before starting.
Lets all hope that that presages a new BBC policy of pointing out where Polly Toynbee and all the Guardian hacks and stories are centred in the political spectrum before continuing with the item.
Is that a whole squadron of pigs I can see flying past?
They also seemed to struggle with the Palin e-mails such that you wondered why they bothered. Hang on it is being lead by the Guardian so must be given lots of air time!
This is NOT the BBC-Democrat emphasis on Sarah Palin:
‘Telegraph’:
“Sarah Palin emails: Enemies sent a series of death threats. The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/8569680/Sarah-Palin-emails-Enemies-sent-a-series-of-death-threats.html
The BBC-Democrat political line is to try to divert attention from the back-biting (including e-mails) of its Labour ‘leaders’: Balls, E. Miliband, Brown and Blair, e.g.:
Brown and Balls ignored economic advice and squandered billions
Yes, even the Guardian‘s live blog coverage of the Sarah Palin e-mails very briefly mentions the death threats. Not so the BBC, whose slavishly-loyal-to-the-Graun-attack-line article has been updated but, unsurprisingly, still fails to make any mention of the death threats – which are surely the only really newsworthy thing to emerge from the e-mails.
The caption under the video report on that BBC article still reads “Critics say the e-mails may damage Palin’s presidential chances”. Despite the crossed fingers at the BBC, it looks as if the opposite may be happening, given the comments over at the Guardian.
The video report by Tom Burridge (BBC Washington correspondent) admits nothing juicy has emerged, but it doesn’t stop him having a dig at her use of language – “some new words like ‘unflippinbelievable'” (technically not a new word Tom, merely tmesis, absobloodylutely a very widely used figure of speech ).
The cheekiest part of Tom Burridge’s report comes when he says “but it all feeds into the obsession with the former vice presidential candidate”. Whose obsession? The BBC and the Guardian‘s, that’s who!
“but it all feeds into the obsession with the former vice presidential candidate” says beeboid Tom Burridge…
…who’s Twitter account tells us
TomBurridgebbc Tom Burridge
Covering @SarahPalinUSA bus tour launch on sunday – publicity #palin career stunt? Or calculated step on road to #2012?
28 May
Obsession indeed.
I suppose they’ll start in again blaming Sarah Palin for cleverly linserting herself into the news. As if it’s her fault.
If you want a fun filled afternoon get across to the guardian Palin emails page , they are quite rightly getting a total scudding with this witch hunt gone wrong
Paddy, I have just taken your advice and looked at the comments (the ones that havn’t been moderated in true Guardian freedom of speech style). There is little I find more amusing than watching a left-fest imploding.
They are being hit from all sides. It’s hilarious (and serves them right).
The scale of the censorship though is quite something. The BBC and the Guardian don’t just share a soul – they share the same style of comment moderation.
How’s the Guardian ‘Palin-leaks’ thing going BBC? Hit any pay dirt yet? Or are you a bit disappointed and quietly dropping the story?
The Beeboids never learn, do they? If you strike her down now, she’ll become more powerful than you can ever imagine.
Got to give them 0:10 for this one which, after Operation Clark County, is becoming somewhat of a trend in certain genetically impartial quarters.
The funny part is that the sheer inertia of the BBC machine means that even as it is obvious now to one and all this is another spectacular both barrels in both feet, they cannot rein in the bandwagon they have jumped on in support of the Graun, who has already realised the sheer horror of what they have managed to unleash.
For one more petty, catty spiteful play to the cheap seats, a world of hurt has come back in the form of loyal readers telling them they have lost the plot.
And that means fewer papers bought or eyeballs on pages. And trust blown.
A salutary experience from which the BBC is, uniquely, immune.
Oops. The graun have put me on the naughty step. Mind you I got in about ten pithy and insiteful comments before they showed me the door. I haven’t had so much fun since Newcastle got relegated. Marvellous sport. One thing that was amazing was that in six pages of comment there were only about three comments pro the guardian.
They overstepped the Mark and got their toes shot off.
What larks Pip , what larks!
re reg using a proxy server and a different email address and hit them again
easy peasy
When the emails were leaked from the UEA the Guardian had a right old tizzy despte the fact that they showed clear attempts to manipulate the science.
Now they are going orgasmic over the release of Palin’s emails and are getting upset because there is nothing.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Any chance of Obama’s emails being released ?
Or His writing and school records from Harvard.
I popped over to the live blog and it’s hilarious
they have really shot themselves in both feet this time
joy of joys
complete lefty meltdown……..how long before they “do a toenails” and close it?
The Guardian has basically pulled this e mail story now. They have an article from the deputy editor trying to explain why they did it. I think anyone who contributed to the comments sections on their website can give themselves a pat on the back. The Guardian has been well and truly done over on this one.
beat it right up them
The editor is too ashamed to show his face! Puts up the deputy to face the music. Nice.
The BBC’s own piece on tne emails is pretty pathetic. The top line:
Critics say the e-mails may damage Palin’s presidential chances
“Critics” said that before even seeing them, because they fully expected that there just had to be something awful there, just because it’s her. Except there’s nothing. It’s very revealing of the BBC mindset that they see nothing wrong with the New York Times an the WaPo asking readers to go through them all, as if there is a juciy story there if only we can dig it out. Of course, the BBC sub-editor forgot to mention that their friends at the Guardian have beclowned themselves.
They mention that Palin writes in her” rademark folksy manner”, which they hate. Justin Webb and others couldn’t stop making negative remarks about it in 2008, so there’s no question about how they feel. At one point, l’ Justin even blogged that her voice “cuts glass”. (@2155)
And the BBC makes sure to defend this whole embarrassing circus by pointing out that lots of media organizations requested the emeails, and there are, gosh, just so many of them that this is just the beginning. Anybody think the Beeboids will ever criticize their Guardian friends over this the way they constantly insult the Mail or Fox?
‘Anybody think the Beeboids will ever criticize their Guardian friends over this’
Wrong kind of critics on the line. Just sayin’.
Unique.
The BBC criticise the Guardian ? Well that’s tantamount to self abuse.
Wait a minute
On second thought…
A stroll through NewsSniffer shows that despite the massive changes various sub-editors have made to this article, not once did the BBC ever mention the Guardian, even though it’s making the biggest noise in Britain about it. The most they allowed was along the lines of “Reporters from a number of news organizations”. I see that as a slight improvement, actually, because earlier versions used the term “journalist”. No journalists worth the name are doing this. Only Beeboids and Guardianistas and their fellow travelers in the US.
Anyone with a few mintues to spare should look through the 12 (at last count) versions and see just how crazy and vindictive the Beeboids are when it comes to Sarah Palin. It gets watered down quite a bit in later versions.
“American Way: Sarah Palin email frenzy backfires on her media antagonists ”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100091820/american-way-sarah-palin-email-frenzy-backfires-on-her-media-antagonists/
Seriously, if you haven’t been to the Grauniads site to look at te reaction to these email then you are missing out. It’s a hoot.
All those lefties finding themselves astonished that they’ve been lied to but STILL hating Palin! It’s astonishing.
Sadly it will vanish into the vapourware of the internet as the left clean house so it can’t be used to enlighten future generations. Pity. 😉
Does enliven a wet sunday afternoon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/11/sarah-palin-emails?
This was a good one;
‘What on earth are passing as thought processes at the Guardian these days? “Oh look, we got flamed (justifiably) yesterday in relation to the Palin e-mails what shall we do today. I know, let’s get a nonentity of whom almost nobody will have heard write a piece which is nothing more than smug personal abuse, that should get us back in everyone’s “progressive” books right enough!”
Or, as it is known in BBC-land, ‘We think we got it about right’.
Wonder how Ms. Maitless is feeling, having padlocked her dinghy to the Titanic?
A few days ago the Guardian reported that Mrs Thatcher had scornfully refused a meeting with Sarah Palin.
As might be expected, this looks like an utter lie by the Guardian :
http://bigjournalism.com/jhoft/2011/06/12/thatcher-foundation-responds-to-the-palin-was-snubbed-report-saying-the-guardian-has-minimal-credibility/