Here’s the BBC’s North America editor Mark Mardell on today’s From Our Own Correspondent explaining why Benghazi hasn’t been a big deal for journalists such as himself:
Conservatives have long suggested a cover-up, that the authorities removed words the State Department objected to, particularly the word “terrorism”. Conservatives contend that what they call the Mainstream Media, and sometimes label the Lamestream Media, have ignored this and other stories. And that is largely the case. The trouble is from the very get-go the President’s critics eagerly build on uncertain evidential sands a tottering tower of such baroque design that anyone simply looking for the facts is a bit put off. The websites making much of Benghazi usually stress the president’s middle name – Barack HUSSEIN Obama – and hint he is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
“usually stress the president’s middle name… hint he is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood”? I’ve been following the story since the attacks happened and none of the websites I’ve been reading make such claims. Mardell is spewing nonsense, although in his defence he does admit facts are hard and he is easily “put off”. It’s difficult work, proper journalism.
Talking of which – on MSNBC yesterday Bob Woodward, a reporter not unfamiliar with the occasional cover-up, compared Benghazi with Watergate (via Weekly Standard)
“And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
Mardell didn’t think it necessary to include the views of an actual Watergate journalist in today’s report, even though he mentioned Watergate in his link:
Conspiracy in DC – Watergate, Black Helicopters and the White House – listen to my from our own correspondent bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01…
— Mark Mardell (@BBCMarkMardell) May 18, 2013
I guess Woodward must be one of those nutters who thinks Obama is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Whatever Woodward’s reasons for his interest in Benghazi, at least he isn’t the sort of journalist who is “a bit put off” when the facts are a little complicated. If Mardell had got the tip-off about Watergate all those years ago Nixon would have seen out his term of office without a problem.
‘..facts are hard and he is easily “put off”.’
Can’t wait for some of the DOTIs camped here to share the results of their challenging him to front up the overwhelming evidence of his core claim, on source media of some heft, as this rather goes beyond what an objective journalist should be trying to put out on this issue, surely.
It reads like a defensive smokescreen from a crisis management PR team more than sensible analysis from an objective reporter.
What on earth is ” a tottering tower of such baroque design”? I suggest that it is meaningless but when it has such words as “critics” and “uncertain evidential sands” it appears to be erudite, scholarly and therefore true and negative towards the writer’s enemy. The intent is not to impart information but rather to instill certain emotions; in this case, antipathy towards those who are suspicious of the incumbent American President. And for me this is a clear example of why the bbc must be considered a dangerous organism.
…a dangerous organism full of onanism.
“a bit put off, when the facts are a little complicated” 😀
evidently! … must be the reason lard, is no good as a journo or as a correspondent then
This was much, much more serious than Watergate back in Sept/Oct when Glenn beck et al were telling the truth and outing Obama, Clinton and Rice…and he has been proven right even about the ‘conspiracy’ details.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/24/exposed-e-mails-reveal-white-house-knew-al-qaeda-linked-group-led-attacks-on-embassy/
And does Mardell mean those anti-Muslim websites like Reuters?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
It would save time if Obama was to kill his own diplomats in future, under cover of a Mardell smokescreen.
quiet confusing story comrades ,unless your mark mardell,,,,nobody in there right mind would suggest that barack HUSSEIN obama is a secret admirer of the muslim brotherhood,,,why would they,,,ok,,,some people might say look at eygpt…barack HUSSEIN obama has just sent the muslim brotherhood goverment 350 tanks and 26 jet fighters there…does that mean barack HUSSEIN obama is a secret admirer of the muslim brotherhood goverment in eygpt,,,,who knows…..i dont….is barack HUSSEIN a secret muslim anyway,,,i dont know,,,do you………
i would love to know what the view is of the ordinary american on the steet over this benghazi incident,apart from this website there is virtually no coverage of this story in the british media.
‘Fox News’:-
“Is Obama a bystander?”
(video clip.)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2392477739001/is-obama-a-bystander-or-observer/?playlist_id=928378949001
Mardell was talking flatulent rubbish – as usual.
He MUST have seen the 5 Sunday interviews that Susan Rice gave to all the US TV channels – claiming it was all down to a spontaneous riot over the stupid anti-Mohammed video. He MUST have seen the :Libyan Prime Minister declare that same day that it was a preplanned attack by terrorists.
The mere idea that spontaneious demonstrators – a street mob – turn up armed with rocket-propelled mortars, that they start a firefight lasting 7 or more hours – is ridiculous on its face.
The tinfoil-hat wearer is Mardell, for thinking Susan Rice’s explanation, repeated some days later by Obama at the UN, has any plausibility.
And he lies when he claims that the cover-up was being challenged only on nutty websites that habitually implied that Obama is a Muslim. Like DBm I was hearing the allegations all over the shop – from sane websites like Powerline and Hotair.
The whole matter was a real failure by much of the media – a willingness to cover for Obama during the election. And Mardell and the BBC are part of it – tawdry “journalism” by the damn lot of them.
Mardell is a constant stream of misinformation about US politics, utterly biased. He ought to be sacked for incompetence and lazy “reporting”.
Haven’t heard it yet but if that’s what he said it’s astonishing.
Does the BBC’s North America Editor not do his own journalism…why does he seem only to rely on ‘conservative’ blogs for his sources?
Guess David Preiser was right about Mardell..he’s not there to do journalism…just to give us the benefit of his own meandering thoughts…when he can be bothered…if it’s not too complicated.
Paddington Bear in Washington.
Mardell is a bloated, waste of space, why is he employed by the BBC if he finds ‘facts are hard and he is easily “put off”.’?
So bloody unprofessional.
Ah, yeah, a lack of morals and professionalism is what the BBC do best.
I think that you will find that only facts which don’t fit with the liberal left BBC narrative put him off. I am sure that if he thought he could nail a Republican he would work hard until he had done his job.
Typical BBC , you can’t trust them to give a factual report , its all full of spin to suit their own politics. Why oh why do the British put up with this rubbish.
I much prefer Mark Levin’s middle name for Barack Hussein Obama… for years, he’s been calling him Barack Milhous Obama in memory of Richard Milhous Nixon. 🙂
This story is a shining example of why the BBC needs to be broken up. I don’t know how the BBC funds its US operations, but I suspect that a core part of its funding in the US is not based on license payer fees (i.e. they use advertising or sales of programmes).
In the degree to which BBC US operations are not license fee funded, I would argue that they are the same as other rabidly left wing media organisations in the US (such as MSNBC etc), and what Mardell says would be par for the course on such channels.
However, the problem is the association with the core BBC organisation, which has a duty to impartiality. Rubbish like Mardell spews is bolstered by association with the core BBC, and the result is anger from both the americans, who quite rightly don’t want foreign media interfering in their affairs, and from the british, who have to pay for this drivel.
If/When the BBC is broken up, the worldwide parts should be clearly identified as the commercial organsiations they are (maybe they could be called CBB, Commercial British Broadcasting) with a strict chinese wall between their operations and the BBC’s, along with arms-length arrangements for the use of programmes or other content developed using license fee revenues.
Finally, if Mardell really is part of the ‘core’ BBC organisation, it seems obvious that he is breaking the non-partisan remit that they theoretically operate under. Sadly, with the useless Cameron in charge of the tories (who seems to have some kind of schoolgirl infatuation with Obama), the chances of the BBC being called to task for this are zero.
+1000
‘anyone simply looking for the facts is a bit put off.’
He does not ‘admit facts are hard and he is easily “put off”.’
I wonder sometimes why authors/commentators here struggle so much with written English.
I wonder what Mardell’s take on ‘Fast and Furious’ is then?
Just a naff film for chavs so not worth reporting on?
The man’s an imbecile.
Well said, DB. I heard this the other day and have been too angry to make a coherent post about it. Naturally, Mardell takes a couple of fringe elements and tars millions of people with the actions of a Tiny Minority™. Defenders of the indefensible will not be criticizing him for it, though. I think Rush Limbaugh used to do the Hussein thing as well, but that’s no excuse for Mardell pretending that this isn’t being discussed by legitimate news organizations. I guess Mardell wants you to believe that this behavior is only on the Right and the Left wasn’t full of whacked out fears over Bush declaring martial law and suspending elections, sending the black helicopters at political opinions, colluding with the Saudis over 9/11 or whatever the latest theory is over at CBBC. It’s a joke.
Again with the crypto-racism schtick. It’s getting really old. As usual, there can be no legitimate opposition to anything He’s done or any of His policies. All opposition is somehow based on a sinister impulse of some kind. How can anyone take him seriously?
The facts about Benghazi are not “simple” at all. He left out the part about how we knew at the time that Hillary and the President were lying about the video. It wasn’t conspiracy theory. For Mardell to blame Republicans and people on the Right for his own failure to do proper journalism is pretty depressing. Even when he admits he got something very slightly wrong, he still has to smear millions of people whose political opinions he dislikes.
“Increasingly dis-United States”, eh, Mardell? Again with the “most polarized ever” Narrative. Again, none of this is His fault. He’s not the divisive one, no, sir. The BBC’s US President editor has been telling essentially the same story for four years. So consistent, but so wrong.
OPEN LETTER TO MARK MARDELL
Dear Mr Mardell
I am linking to an interview being given by one Dan Pfieffer to Chris Wallace of Fox News on the subject of the President’s whereabouts on the night of Benghazi attack on 9/11.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-aide-irrelevant-fact-where-president-was-during-benghazi-attacks_724882.html
May I suggest you arrange an interview with POTUS and ask the following questions:
1. Mr President, we know where you were on the night Osama bin Laden was killed. We saw a photograph of you in the situation room, watching a live feed of the event. So it is not unfair to ask: where were you on the night four Americans were killed in Benghazi?
2. Mr Pffeiffer says: “the president was kept up to date throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end” So you were contactable. Where did they contact you?
3. He says you were in the White House. “I don’t know what room he was in that night. that’s a largely irrelevant fact”. So where were you?”
4. In one of Chris Wallace’s question he says: “the president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. no forces are deployed.” Why not? If someone changed your order, who was it? in other words, who was running the country while you were…where???
Pffeiffer channels Kate Adie when he cites “a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened” in order to discredit a perfectly legitimate question and Tony Benn (yes Tony Benn!) in a classic Benn tactic “the question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn’t happen again?”
Mr Mardell, every journalistic hair on the back of your neck should be up, and you should be very curious. Remember, news is what people don’t want you to to know, the rest is propaganda.
I’m sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation from the President. But why are you not asking the question allowing him to free himself from these “conspiracy theories”? It is a true service you could perform for him.
Best wishes, etc.
Louis
I too was going to link to that excellent interview by Chris Wallace – where the hell was Obama when Americans were under siege ?
Of course Mardell might say “This is only Fox News” – but Wallace is a highly respected journalist, he was not implying anything about Obama’s personal background, he did not even mention the fact that President Bystander flew off next morning for a fundraising event in Las Vegas.
The cover-up story “it was all just a street demo” is bad, indeed disghraceful that the President and all the rest of them tried to keep up that pretence and deflect from the truth as briefed to them by bthe CIA and FBI – and the President of Libya – that it was a pre-planned terrorost attack.
In the Watergate case it was the cover-up by the White House that eventually brought Nixon down. Benghazi is surely more serious – the cover-up was blatant, and they are still trying to cover up the cover-up ! But much worse were the failure by the State Department to provide adequate security in Benghazi – they reduced it when the Ambassador was pleading with them to increase it. And they failed to send in any help on the night – not even the local people standing by in Tripoli, let alone flying some jets overhead as a show of strength. It is ludicrous to claim that this is all a conspiracy theory by the Republicans. Over 60% of Americans want Benghazi investigated.
The real conspiracy was by Obama and his high officials trying to pretend it was not a terrorist attack linked with Al Qaeda, because this cut across the Obama election line that he had killed Bin Laden and A; Q was no longer an effective force. A conspiracy at the top of the Obama administration – aided and abetted by much of the media including the BBC that tried to ignore the raft of evidence that bad things had happened.
Mardell is only now starting to focus on the story – in a highly anti-Republican way – becasue the lid has been blown off it all.
‘May I suggest you arrange an interview with POTUS’
Sure, I’ll ask him what he’s doing Monday.
Aren’t the first 3 questions the same? Bit of a waste of interview time with POTUS?
Thanks John
And here’s Mardell’s latest distraction
Conspiracy in DC – Watergate, Black Helicopters and the White House – listen to my from our own correspondent http://t.co/Ympb0wMNWz
One other Watergate comparison – there was never any evidence that Nixon himself, had any prior knowledge of the burglary of Democratic Party offices. The cover-up started well after the event. On Benghazi, the Omaba administration was at fault BEFORE the event in not providing adequate security even after terrorist attacks in Benghazi on the British ambassador and the Red Cross, , DURING the event in not even trying to deploy support for the belagured Americans (either from Italy or from Tripoli), as well as AFTER in fiddling the detailed speaking notes drafted immediately by the CIA that showed exactly what the cause was – and was not.
Plus – the Watergate burglary was a relatively minor affair with no seriously adverse consequences to the Dems – it was more of a fishing expedition.. Whereas Benghazi involved dozens of Americans under highly-organised armed attack, and the death of the ambassador and 3 others.
Any “news” organisation like the BBC that sweeps this under the carpet for 8 months is a disgrace. So why should we be forced under threat of jail to pay for it ?
A reprise.
“Obamastan”
By Melanie Phillips.
http://melaniephillips.com/obamastan
Nice one, Mike. Back in the old days, someone told me that in the end you can sum up a person’s career with one quote: “We shall fight them on the beaches”, “The pound in your pocket”, “Crisis? What crisis?”, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” etc. and you immediately know who is speaking. I’m sure Hilary’s lifetime quote will be “What difference does it make?”.
It’s still a fun game worth playing and clarifies the worth of a man (or woman).
Mardell’s political propaganda for the mass immigration, ‘Hispanic’ colonisation of America:
“America’s Latino future”
[Mardell’s Conclusion]-
“But I came away with a strong sense of one vision of America – that it is a project still in motion, and that the more it mirrors the world, rather than reflects a European identity that others have to squeeze into, the stronger it is.”
-And this is what Beeboids are politically engineering for Britain.
(For word ‘Hispanic’ above, substitute word ‘Islamic’.)
I saw this, and was not surprised to read that closing line, which jibes perfectly with the disgusting false choice he offered a couple weeks ago.
Is it a melting pot of immigrants from many lands, some unwilling, where Korean and black and Hispanic culture is celebrated every bit as an English or German heritage?
Or should newcomers, bring no more than a few folk songs from their old home, and squeeze into a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of what it is to be American?
Disgusting, and displays a profound misunderstanding. He’s speaking as if the main view of what it means to be an American he’s heard in the four+ years he’s been in the US is parochial and whites-only, and he’s learned here that it’s wrong. Here’s a better explanation than anything you’ll hear from the biased Mardell:
Mardell and Brussels.
For all the years Mardell was based in Brussels, he avoided this:-
“Brussels: European capital or Islamic center?”
By Michael Curtis.
http://www.heritagefl.com/story/2013/05/17/news/brussels-european-capital-or-islamic-center/733.html