A Biased BBC reader writes…
“James Jones and the entire crew for THE MORMON CANDIDATE are masters of deceit and editing wizardry. I have Mormons living all around me. One has two daughters who left the faith and they are loved as much or more by their parents than their other four children. None is shunned or intimidated. Most Mormon families have some kids who bow out of the faith, and I’ve never seen any of them treat the non-believers as outcasts or personas non grata. Jones and Sweeney interview ex-Mormons like Romney’s cousin (seemingly paranoid) for “unbiased” views on the church. It’s clear that BBC’s raving lunatic Sweeney is manufacturing sensationalism, and he has a very clear agenda before he feigns doing journalism. Where’s the white paper on socialist president Obama and his “God Damn America” mentor, Reverend Wright? High school news junkies could be more objective than this team of idiots.”
Guess the BBC will not be anytime soon screening the Manchurian version, given its main topic of mysterious missing, or revised aspects of history for the person vying to be, or remain the most powerful leader on the planet.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/mor.html
BTW I once heard a lapsed Anglican-agnostic, ex-pat resident of Fiji, (if memory serves me correctly), explain why of all the religious groups actively seeking converts he most respected the Mormons. He said that native converts didn’t smoke, drink or take drugs, valued honest labour and treated their women with respect.
It seems America could do with a bit of that.
Look, I come from a Mormon family that lives in a Mormon strong hold in New Zealand. I have NEVER seen anyone treated any different if they were lapses Mormons or from a different religion.
Mailman
I grew up around them and, religious beliefs aside, it’s difficult to think of a better system for turning out decent, upstanding citizens who contribute to their community. It’s a far cry better than the one that keeps turning out these degenerate Beeboids.
I find the mormon faith spooky, but one thing I will say is the US LDS prisoners in Vietnam acquited themselves magnificently.
I read a book quite some years ago on US captives in Vietnam, and the LDS guys were the bravest of the brave.
I’m with you on that Hippie. I find the faith itself creepy BUT I loved the Mormons around me as they were my family when I was growing up. I knew nothing other than love and respect from the Mormons in my family and my community.
Then again I spent many years trying to get it on with a Mormon hottie too…getting shot down scarred me 🙂
It seems perfectly legitimate to me to raise questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs. But only if an equally searching light was being shone one Obama, whose history appears to become more unfathomable by the week.
Interesting to see Guest Who refer to hm as ‘Manchurian’ – I’ve been using that analogy since he first appeared as a runner for the presidency. Just who is this guy? And who is pulling his strings?
Actually, another notion inspired by this coy ‘The..’ spin was this one (surprised the BBC don’t actually use that music every time they mention Gov. Romney.. ‘for effect’)…
Kind of old news, but let’s recall that even though his predecessor, Justin Webb is bigoted against people with certain religious beliefs (or what he thinks those beliefs are, anyway), scowled at this film, Mark Mardell has said that a Mormon candidate in Britain “would indeed be questioned” over their religious beliefs. Mardell also spelled out some of them in a disparaging manner, something he wouldn’t be permitted to do, never mind think of doing it, if Romney was a Mohammedan. Webb, on the other hand, has said that he’s never met a Mormon he “didn’t hugely like”.
Mardell’s own prejudices come to the surface rather often. Without a hint of irony, he sneered not long ago at this typo from religious folk:
This, combined with the BBC’s desire to commission such a film, tells me that the US is more tolerant than Britain. The way Webb’s article from 2006 was written, defending Mormons from this kind of bigotry, confirms that. It was written, of course, because Romney was running for the Republican nomination at the time. This particular bigotry seems to be tolerated at the BBC.
It’s sad when I have to hold up ol’ Justin, of all people, as an example of open-minded tolerance.
Remember when Mardell was tying to tell you that these Presidential debates don’t really change anyone’s mind? Well, that was before the President triumphed like Wellington at Waterloo in the second one (to hear the Beeboids tell it, anyway). I wonder if the fact that the BBC hasn’t updated their “Who’s In The Lead” poll-tracking page since the 7th has anything to do with the effect the debates have had? No polls in 11 days, BBC? They know Romney improved in the polls because they say so here. So why not publish any newer figures?
I know they’re just waiting for another couple days to see if their beloved Obamessiah got a bounce from the other night, right?
Meanwhile, the BBC’s US President editor has a new excuse ready for when it becomes apparent that the President didn’t get much of a boost from the 2nd debate: all that alpha-male aggression – mostly started by Romney, naturally – might turn voters off altogether. Mardell really ought to quit journalism and become a spin doctor and campaign adviser. His abilities would be put to much better use there.
Romney 52 Obama 45 is the latest Gallup poll, Romney up a point from yesteday. Rasmussen showing a 2-point lead for Romney.
These are regarded as the most important polls because they come out daily. DAILY. So the BBC can’t see what has been happening ? Quelle surprise.
According to the BBC viz 17.10 its Obama by a point. Can’t wait to see what BBC Online shows for today’s update!
Nate Silver will tell you how the election is going. Quoting individual polls that favour your hopes is asinine.
Nate Silver, former JournoLista, whose methodology is kept secret from us, and whose posts at the NY Times make him sound like Cpl Jones to the Left’s Capt. Manwaring, and is often wrong on close State races? He’s everyone’s darling now, but beware putting him on that pedestal.
Is the BBC being asinine by citing an individual poll here, here, here, or here? Or is that label reserved for special occasions?
The BBC’s (LSE’s) own poll-of-polls methodology shows Romney in the lead – if one uses more updated data than they do. Their page is a mess. The polls they show in the list are way out of date compared to the chart at the top, so we have to take it on faith that the chart is more accurate. I did the numbers myself (assuming I understood how to do it) yesterday based on the latest from the four polls the BBC combines (from their own sites, not from the BBC), and got figures showing Romney in the lead by one, not the President.
Still, funny now there’s been almost nothing from the BBC in the last week about Romney’s surge. Matt Danzico, one of the battalion of Beeboids working the US scene, was shocked to learn about it from the Washington Post yesterday. BBC audiences will probably be similarly in the dark, thanks to the BBC not making it a headline. They were so certain of an insurmountable lead for the President by now, it’s curious that Romney’s daily improvement hasn’t been major news on the website, at the very least.
No, Mardell’s spinning is far more effective under the guise of BBC ‘impartiality’.
I was hoping to find something from you on the BBC’s coverage of the 2nd debate but I guess I’m going to have to live with the disappointment.
I’ve just checked out BBC Online and the main piece and what Mardell wrote seems pretty balanced.
I found Candy Crowley’s intervention on behalf of Obama on Bhengazi an outrage against American democracy. One that Obama fully encouraged, which to my mind says a lot about what the future holds for America and the world if he gets re-elected.
When Obama urged M/s Crowley to say more loudly that he’s right and Romney’s wrong, in my view it would have been great if Romney had countered ‘No, what you need to say loudly is an apology for taking sides in a Presidential debate’.
I think Romney was put off his stride by this patent partisanship by Crowley, and it affected him in the rest of the debate.
If this was the only incident of apparant partisanship from Crowley one might have taken the view it was down to clumsiness on her part, but twice during the debate she tried to confine Romney to addressing issues on Obama’s terms, and I think Romney slapped her down really well both times, but dealing with the outrage she perpetrated clearly wasn’t in the Romney game plan. We had bias with a smile from Crowley andd the impression that I got is she’d been having ‘previouses’ with the Obama camp.
The third debate I guess will have the anticipation of Ali – Frazier in Madison Square in ’71.
Obama won the second debate because he was the better performer, benefitting from the advantage of having a bent moderator batting for him. The ballot box will show though who Americans think has the best arguments and ability to perform as President. The polls on the 2nd debate, in this regard, favour Romney by a significant margin.
Hopefully in the 3rd debate Romney wont let Obama get under his skin and his Team will be signalling loud and clear beforehand that any similar outrage by the moderator on the Crowley scale will be blasted down and pursued afterwards.
Being moderate in one’s stance might be a great way to capture swing voters, but sometimes it hamstrings you and I think Romney fell into that trap the other night.
David Preiser;
“Remember when Mardell was tying to tell you that these Presidential debates don’t really change anyone’s mind?”
Â
Oh there’s that Preiser-Translation-Device again.
From the report you linked to:
“The experts I have been talking to say that, yes, in a close election the debates can matter.”
FAIL
Â
That’s not the impression Mardell wants to leave you with, though. This is:
But the debates serve another purpose.
One of my most interesting recent interviews was with a professor of political communication, Kathleen Jamieson, who made the point that while debates only occasionally change minds, they do leave voters much better informed.
I don’t think anyone came away more informed from this last debate with both candidates getting things wrong and the “moderator” acting about as impartial as a Today presenter, but that’s another story. He’s also playing it down by highlighting the media myth about JFK and Nixon. That’s about the superficial, not the substance, and certainly isn’t relevant to the current race. This is followed by one of his experts saying it’s all superficial, the only things that stick are body language and zingers, which don’t change elections very often. In other words, not substance. And that link goes to a NY Times article saying it’s difficult for debates to have a real affect. What message is that meant to give, do you think?
He waters it all down then closes with that “most interesting” point that the debates don’t really change minds much. Mardell was clearly looking for a way out for the President because he’d heard all about the lack of preparation from his Beltway buddies.
I think David is genuine in his interpretation. But as you point out he takes some bizarre inferences which the text does not support. The longest, most erudite and yet bizarrely skewed fisking you will ever see.
Jim, the way I see it is that Mardell presented a viewpoint, then proceeded to knock it down. All the evidence there about debate incidents which do change momentum are things that are extremely unlikely to happen this time. The end result is the impression that the first debate (or all of them in general) is unlikely to have any effect.
If a Mormon does something naughty I’m sure there are Mormon ‘scholars’ and ‘community leaders’ who could convince me it is not in accordance with the Mormon scriptures and not how most Mormons behave.
Gallup: Romney leads 52%-45%
BBC: It’s neck-and-neck! They’ve updated the “Poll of Polls” at last, to include the Gallup poll from, er, ten days ago.
The BBC combines four polls: Gallup, Pew, ABC/WaPo, and Reuters/Ipsos. In addition to Gallup, Pew has Romney leading as well, by four points. The other two have the President in the lead, 49-46 and 46-43 respectively. The latest Reuters poll actually shows improvement for the President, so Romney was doing even better in their poll until the other day.
Actually, it’s rather unclear to me just what they’re doing here. The dates they show in the big highlighted one in the upper right for individual polls (changes on page refresh) don’t fully match what they list in the compilation. Newer ones are showing up in the upper right feature, but not in that list.
If we take same LSE method the BBC uses (the smoothing method, not the highly selective updating bit) – assuming I understand it correctly of course – the latest results give Romney the lead by at least one point. I don’t know if they round up or what, but assuming they do it’s 48-47. That’s neck-and-neck alright, but somehow I don’t hear the BBC telling you who’s on top.
I welcome corrections to my math, but please show your work.
As I said earlier, David – the Gallup and Rasmussen DAILY polls are regarded by many as the best guide to movements. A lot of other poll samples have a serious imbalance that includes more Dems than they should.
Gallup is showing a 7-point lead for Romney today, margin-of-error 2 points.
The RealClearPolitics poll-of-polls – averaging all the major polls – has shown a Romney lead for many days now.
Mardell and the BBC are way behind the curve as ever.
No they’re not: they’re notoriously inaccurate. Read 538 and nothing else.
Yes, the BBC poll of polls seems to be really mixed up, and the list of polls they use is way out of date (mostly September).
But my understanding is that there are two types of poll result, depending on whether you take account of how likely the voters are to turn out. Democrats like to quote the ‘registered voters’ (RV) because they often hold a lead, but their supporters are less likely to bother to vote (same is true of Labour in the UK). Republicans emphasise the ‘likely voters’ (LV) polls.
The BBC jumbles the two types. RealClearPolitics, for instance, only uses likely voters. RCP is also cautious about the margin of error, quoting, say, even Pennsylvania as ‘toss-up’ when Obama has a 5-point lead.
The outcome of the electoral college is not at all obvious. Exciting times.
BBC reporting on US politics has been atrocious for years now. It is a mixture of bias by commission, bias by omission. A lot of it is frankly pig-ignorant. Or way out of date. All augmented this side of the pond by dumb presenters on the Today programme, 5Live etc.
People who follow stuff posted here by David Preiser, Louis Robinson and others probably get for free a better and more timely overview of what is happening than they can get from the entire and very expensive BBC US operation.
Why not shut the whole damn operation down ?
I think David has suggested before that in the Internet age all we need from the BBC is a news-aggregation service with links to all the important video-clips and political articles. Can I expand this a little ?
For BALANCE – an aggregation service could post links to the RealClearPolitics poll page for how US voters are trending. Plus say the top 10 stories on the Web each day from the Dem side and the Repub side. Plus the top 10 video clips for each side. Easy-peasy.
NO insertion of opinions from BBC hacks. Mardell is bad enough, and Frei and Webb before him were also useless. Stir in Katty Kay, Jonny Diamond and the other clowns and the BBC service is truly atrocious.
Alastair Cooke must be spinning in his grave.
Let’s just here what THE AMERICANS themselves are saying – the politicians and the pundits. And what the polls are indicating.
You could run this sort of operation on a shoestring. From here in London. It would need a very small team of middle-grade staff for 24-hour rolling service. Maybe with an editor in charge – but under strict instructions to draw an equal amounbt of stuff from each side.
I think you would get a far more complete and balanced overview of US politics for peanuts than we are getting from all the overpaid BBC hacks.
Or even – just delegate it to RealClearPolitics for selecting all the key articles from each side, they already do that twice a day.
A quite good piece on Candy Crowley’s bias:-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/yes-the-debate-moderator-screwed-up-that-s-life.html
Here is a fine speech from the Mormon candidate which the BBC will not be showing, as he is willy, intelligent and reveals qualities of a President.
I should have said witty. Sorry
Oh, and I dont know what happened with your youtube link, but it missed the first minute of Romney’s speech which was worth catching:-
Most enjoyable. On a human level, I also enjoyed this from President Obama:-
As far as I’m aware the BBC always cover this event. BBC Online has this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20000056
You might note that in the clip they show Romney gets 1:08 and Obama 1:40.
Does that say anything? I think it does. I would have been perfectly happy for the BBC to only feature Romney for 1:09 mins if it was the excerpt of him having a dig at media bias (5:55-7:04 in the youtube link I’ve posted).
‘In recent years, the Republican party has undergone a profound and rapid transformation, lurching to the right under the conservative Tea Party movement’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19976747
‘Lurch to the right’ – Interesting choice of words…
Jeff
It’s reassuring to know that a party whose President is a well document (at the very least) far-left fellow traveller who has appointed far leftists to head Government departments is no indication of a lurch to the left in the Democratic Party.