For a supposedly impartial journalist BBC News interactive’s business and technology editor Tim Weber likes to spin US news in a rather skewed direction (h/t Jeff Waters). I think it’s safe to say he’s not a fan of the Republican Party:
The BBC’s business section – spinning for Obama, along with the rest of the BBC.
DB
Another classic find ?
On your trawls of Bebboids Twitters – you must have tracked down a couple of dozen of them. Have you founbd a single one with non-liberal tendencies ?
(But of course – we must remember that their Twit-Tweets do not reflect any BBC groupthink!)
I believe it is time for a new Helen Boaden ‘Don’t get caught; it makes us look bad’ email for them to ignore.
‘Have you found a single one with non-liberal tendencies ?’ It’s easy to say ‘don’t be so naive’ (after the laughter fit has subsided) but really this is just more evidence of the bias many of us perceive. The BBC presumably approve of, or at least don’t discourage their correspondents from expressing their personal views on Twitter or wherever. In which case, they should have no complaints when the likes of DB unearth comments such as the above which only ever show political bias in a leftwards direction.
BBC online editors can’t spell Colombia (the country)…
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c61/SpanOws/BBCNews-USCanada.png
News you won’t catch on the BBC:
“[I]f you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” That is what Barack Obama said when he accepted his party’s presidential nomination in 2008. Four years later, it reads like a prophetic description of his re-election campaign.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/04/examiner-editorial-obama-goes-negative-side-step-his-sorry-record/483421
“How much will Obamacare — call it the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if you like — cost over the next 10 years?
More than you’ve been led to believe, reports Charles Blahous of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. To be specific, he projects it will add $1,160 billion to net federal spending over the next 10 years and at least $340 billion to federal budget deficits in that time.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/16/ouch_decade_of_obamacare_will_cost_1160_billion_113848.html
I wonder how Waters would attempt to spin this video, “progressive Socialist thinking” year after year.
I wouldn’t know where to begin, but luckily I’m not a spin doctor nor a BBC journalist, so I don’t have to spin for the left! 🙂 I think you’re confusing me with Tim Weber! LOL!
Jeff
Nice one, DB. Another batch of biased Beeboid tweets for the collection.
The bank bailouts started under Bush, not the current President. Not that Weber or the Beeboids will note, except when it’s convenient to shift blame away from Him.
As for the gas prices, it’s well known that the President’s Warmist ideology is a major factor. His moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, blocking Keystone, blocking work in Ohio, excessive regulations causing refineries to shut down have all contributed to higher fuel prices. The world market affects prices for crude, not refined gas. That’s a domestic problem, and it’s naive and ill-informed to claim that it’s all down to the world market. Not that Weber or the Beeboids will note.
Then there’s the fact that the President’s Energy Secretary is on record saying he wanted extremely high, Europe-level gas prices in order to force public behavioral change. Sec. Chu has since recanted somewhat. The President Himself also knew that His carbon cap policies would necessarily lead to higher gas prices. Not that Weber or the Beeboids will note.
Mortgages? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were primary causes for the housing bubble and crash, as well as the outrageous variable-rate mortgages which people can no longer pay, hence the foreclosures. This was driven and perpetuated by Democrats, against Bush’s advice. Slightly amused that Weber is so ignorant, and that your license fee pays his wages to push this BS.
It’s so easy to be ignorant, so easy to mislead when there’s no rebuttal possible. The UK audience desperately needs one. All of his has been covered on this blog, of course, so we know Weber is full of it.
Sorry, I should have said, “Nice one, Jeff W.” Morning tea not compensating for allergy-clouded head.
Sorry, I should have said, “Nice one, Jeff W.” Morning tea not compensating for allergy-clouded head.
You were right the first time; I just found a single quote. 🙂
Jeff
“Mortgages? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were primary causes for the housing bubble and crash, as well as the outrageous variable-rate mortgages which people can no longer pay, hence the foreclosures. This was driven and perpetuated by Democrats, against Bush’s advice.”
And wasn’t it Clinton that finally signed off on Glass Steagal Act ‘repeal’ (admittedly with bipartisan approval) that led to bigger banks and high-risk casino banking?
Exactly – our “progressive” friends putting their ill thought through ideology front and centre.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan
I once saw this kind of thinking as akin to a practical joker who shouts “fire” in a crowded cinema and then when someone gets killed in the resulting stampede, tries to claim it had nothing to do with them.
“I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”
—Democrat Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, September 25, 2003
I wonder whether the BBC will now be dressing to the left…or to the far left?
In other words, will the likes of Tim Weber be taking on Lord Ahmed…LORD Ahmed thanks to Bliar and Broon…or will it draw a discreet niqab veil over his rumblings from his tribal seat in regard of wanting Obama arrested, and he would pay for this?
Ahmed is a Labour peer I believe….any comments from Harriet and chums…or are we to Livingstone it away?
‘Livingstone it away’. Love that. I think you have just invented the verb ‘to Livingstone’ (only ever to be used in a B-BBC context, of course).
DB. Well done. Shameless stuff from Britain’s great neutral broadcaster.
The full article on the BBC website (which Weber tweets, so we can assume he wrote it) censors the party responsible for starting TARP. Because we know the Beeboids read the HuffingtonPost, I’ll post the HuffPo link to the actual US News & World Report piece about the facts the BBC knows but doesn’t want you to:
How TARP Began: An Exclusive Inside View
When it first came into existence last September, TARP–the troubled assets relief program–sounded like just another ungainly government acronym. But since then, it has become an integral–and controversial–part of America’s recession economy.
That’s September 2008, boys and girls. Before The Obamessiah was even elected. Ben Bernanke was working for George Bush then, and he was kept on by the next President for obvious reasons. He’s the curiously unnamed bearded fellow next to Timmy Giethner in the accompanying photo. Bernanke was the Fed Chairman at the time, and Giethner was head of the New York Fed. The way Weber writes this, one is led to believe that it all started under the Democrat President.
Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.
David, thought you might like this:
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-us-recovery-episode-93-foreclosure-filings-leap-upwards/
But that isn’t the point of this piece. The self-evident point of this piece is that the US is not in recovery, and to be honest even if it was, the size of US debt coupled with the coming eurovirus would swamp even the Chinese economy, let alone the American one.
Too right. Funny how the BBC has mostly been telling you the US economy just keeps moving from strength to strength.
Mostly
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17638570
Thank you for providing the exception that proves the rule. I think if you look at the big picture of BBC reporting on the US economy, you’ll find little besides positive spin or shifting blame.
Still, that “fewer than expected” wasn’t exactly Weber’s take on the scene, was it?
‘Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.’
And on current evidence, not just on US issues, or mostly. Simply… nearly anything, at all.
It really is as bad as that, Jim.
Oo look, a cherry…
Tim Weber:
“Trust is at the heart of our brand value. Social media, with their tools for sharing, retweets and ‘likes’, create a virtuous circle: the trust placed in our reporting is enhanced by the trust audience members have in their social networks.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Vicious circle, more like.
What has Obama got in common with God?
Neither has a birth certificate.
Re the Obama Maldives gaffe. The BBC hasn’t reported it of course – only Republican gaffes get the full BBC sneering treatment – but what’s quite remarkable is the fact that no BBC US journalist appears to have even mentioned it on Twitter. They post snarky tweets about Republicans at the drop of a hat, but can’t bring themselves to say anything negative about Obama. Even North Korean state media reports the occasional blunder these days, but not so BBC when it comes to The One.
And that’s what informs the BBC on which US issues to cover, and how to cover them. The US Beeboids follow the lead of US mainstream media, all of whom (with the lone exception of Fox News and a handful of hated radio talking heads) were in the tank for Candidate Obamessiah and continue to cover for Him to this day. So the BBC excuse is always that they’re merely reporting what everyone else reports, and ignoring what everyone else ignores.
Basically, except for those “bespoke” lightweight video magazine pieces, or a kind of fish-out-of-water angle, or reporting from the perspective of the Victorian landed gentry walking amongst the unwashed with scented handkerchief clasped firmly to their noses, the BBC is about as useful as a news aggregator. And less trustworthy.
If Romney wins in November it will be fascinating to see how long it takes the BBC’s US arm to rediscover a need for investigation journalism about the ruling administration. The hacks will have to go on refresher courses: “I remember we used to do something like this under Bush, but I’m not sure how it goes.”
It’ll be worth it just to see the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Either way, they’ll probably send in a new US President editor. Can’t wait.
“rending of garments”
Please…not Mardell!!!!