NO REPUBLICAN SCANDALS TO REPORT, SO NOTHING TO SEE HERE

*
I blogged on Saturday that the BBC News website was, characteristically, ignoring several stories about big Democratic Party scandals in the US (The Great Mardell, http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/great-mardell.html).
*
The Financial Times is the latest media source to review the cases of Messers Massa, Rangel and Paterson. The FT says that the case of Mr Massa in particular "has Washington enthralled" and tells us that "Democratic leaders are worried that the scandals could tar Democrats with the brush of corruption during the November mid-term elections".
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5698b9c-2c70-11df-be45-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
*
The story remains absent, however, on the BBC News website. It may be gripping the Washington village, but it's not gripping the BBC. Or maybe it is but they're just not bothering to tell us about it.
*
The story of Mr Massa, however, also appears in The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7053292.ece
And in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/09/eric-massa-groped-male-staff
As well as where I first saw it, in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7380316/Democrat-Eric-Massa-to-quit-amid-sexual-harassment-claims.html
*
Will Mark Mardell & co ever get round to mentioning any of this? They find time to tell us about so many things, so it's not as if they're lazy.
*

UPDATE (11/3): This has now also been spotted by DB on the biased BBC blogsite:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-if-they-were-republicans.html

THE GREAT MARDELL

*
It's been a scandal-filled week for the American Democratic Party, according to The Daily Telegraph:

Eric Massa, a Democratic congressman, has announced his resignation after it emerged that the House ethics committee is investigating allegations that he sexually harassed a male staff member. Congressman Charles Rangel stood down as head of the powerful tax-writing ways and means committee after the ethics committee criticised him for violating House rules by taking Caribbean trips sponsored by corporations. And David Paterson, the New York governor, was clinging to power amid reports that he intervened in a domestic violence case involving an aide and sought free tickets to a Yankees baseball game. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7380316/Democrat-Eric-Massa-to-quit-amid-sexual-harassment-claims.html

There's no mention of Mr Massa's plight on the BBC News website. Mr Rangel's appointment was reported back on 4/1/07, but news of his resignation is also missing from the BBC News website. There have been no updates about Mr Paterson since that article I quoted on 26/2/10, which managed to forget to tell us that Mr Paterson is a Democrat.
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/02/which-party-did-you-say.html
*
Mark Mardell's blog certainly doesn't mention any of this. His latest post discusses the 'dirtiness' of the coming mid-term elections in the US, highlighting (and mocking) a Republican 'Powerpoint presentation' in the process:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell
*
Referring to its portrayal of Harry Reid as Scooby-Doo, Mark makes this thoroughly biased statement: "It's true Scooby is the least loveable and most irritating cartoon character ever". Really? What about Tweetie Pie? Or Woody Woodpecker? Or the Roadrunner? And what about the Great Gazoo from The Flintstones? He was a pain in the neck! Surely the Great Gazoo (a green-coloured Ed Balls in a helmet who used to bully Michael Go..., no sorry, Fred Flintstone) is far less lovable and far more irritating than poor Scooby? And as for Scrappy-Doo (though somewhat after my time)!!!!!! Mark's poor judgement here, on an issue of international importance, surely reflects very badly on his overall judgement!
*

POLL TRACKER: USA

*
President Obama's popularity continues to fall. "More than half of U.S. voters believe Barack Obama does not deserve to be reelected", according to a new CNN poll. 52% said he hadn't done enough to deserve a second term, compared to 44% who said he had.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251754/A-year-President-half-U-S-voters-believe-Obama-does-deserve-reelected.html#ixzz0fop7qOGX).
*
You won't be surprised to hear that there is nothing about this poll on the BBC News website and that Mark Mardell has not yet blogged about it. Will it ever be mentioned?
*

CRAIG'S STATE OF THE 'TODAY' PROGRAMME ADDRESS

*
President Obama's State of the Nation speech to the U.S. Congress was discussed on this morning Today programme.
*
First came Mark Mardell's description of the speech with clips. Bizarrely, the Today programme website mis-described his report again (as they did yesterday): "North America editor Mark Mardell watched the speech with US voters." Well, listen to the clip for yourself. Where are the voters?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8484000/8484575.stm
*
The discussion came at the end of the programme. James Naughtie presided. Who was invited? A Republican supporter and a Democrat supporter perhaps? A right-leaning journalist and a left-leaning journalist maybe? That would seem fair and proper. This though is the BBC, who find it quite hard to be fair and proper. First we got a Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland (or "Jonny", as Naughtie called him) - so that's the Democrat-supporting leftie taken care of. The other guest, however, was no Republican-supporting rightie but Gavin Esler's friend from Dateline: London Stryker Mcguire of Newsweek. Stryker is no partisan, but he too inclines leftwards (writing many articles for The New Statesman, Guardian and Observer). That's not balanced, is it? Especially when Naughtie himself was hardly a neutral, making noises supportive of Obama and raising tough questions only for the Republicans. If a pro-Republican reporter had been present, Naughtie could have asked him about the latter and found out how the party would respond to Obama's challenge. Instead, all we got was 'Jonny' attacking the Republicans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/news/8484741.stm
*
UPDATE
*
For more of this please read DB on the Biased BBC website, who has noticed this too: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/sotu-on-today.html

WHERE'S THAT TRADES DESCRIPTIONS ACT?

*
Here's the blurb on the Today website for Mark Mardell's latest report:

President Obama is to deliver his first state of the union speech tonight, and is expected to explain why unemployment is so high despite billions of dollars being pumped into the economy.
Some Americans believe that the money is not being spent properly and that government-led solutions do not work.
North America editor Mark Mardell reports from Baltimore.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8482000/8482377.stm

I thought on reading this that Mark Mardell might actually be going to be fair today, letting us hear the voices of people who oppose what the Obama administration is doing - without criticism of them! - as well as voices who oppose statist solutions in general. Take a listen for yourselves, and you'll find that the product bears little relation to the packaging. There are no voices that argue that "government solutions do not work", and the harshest criticism of Obama we get is one brief comment from a "man in a hard hat" who wants "something more from the president" - some "actual factuals", not just words. Elsewhere, we had a policeman and a policewoman grateful for some gizmos "courtesy of the stimulus", then Scott Peterson from the (Democrat) mayor's office also praising the gracious gift of the gizmos ("As the president's always said, it's about innovation") and a trained nursing assistant at a job centre who "thinks the president is doing a good job" though "she'd like to hear him get tougher on the banks".
*
Mark Mardell is clearly a worthy replacement as North America editor for Justin Webb. He's just as bad and just as biased.

TODAY TODAY

*
This morning's Today programme was noticeably left-liberal in its orientation again.
*
At 7.09 John Humphrys discussed British social attitudes with sociologist Alison Park of the National Centre for Social Research. The results show that "Britain has become more liberal over the last 25 years with greater tolerance of homosexuality and co-habitation. The report also found that for the first time in 20 years more people identify themselves as Conservative and not Labour supporters." John Humphrys chose to focus the interview on the former (especially attitudes towards homosexuality) rather than the latter, though not before Alison had chose as examples of the "recent swing more towards the right" the fact that "people have become less sympathetic towards the poor, less accepting of the need to reduce inequality between rich and poor." That this lady is also a Fabian is hardly surprising.
*
The greater tolerance towards homosexuality was discussed with another left-winger, high tribal Labour MEP Michael Cashman, former Eastenders actor and gay rights campaigner (I.C. of 0.5 for John Humphrys), though here he was joined by former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie.

The issue of climate change (meaning 'global warming') was dominant. There were plenty of weasel words over the IPCC's discredited claims over the alleged melting glaciers of the Himalayas from Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele of the IPCC at 7.12. He claimed (counter-intuitively) that the scandal "could increase the credibility of the IPCC." That was not strong enough however for the Today programme's website who ignore the "could" in the professor's statement and go not just for dead certainty but also for a completely unwarranted use of the past tense: "Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chair of the IPCC, told Sarah Montague that the IPCC had gained credibility from its ability to admit its mistakes and argued that the other claims in the report were "very strong"." That is not what he said.
*
This issue was revisited later in the programme (8.53) with an environment campaigner and a leading climate sceptic. Only joking! Of course there was no 'climate sceptic'! Instead we had Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, and a highly intolerant Tony Juniper, climate change campaigner and former director of Friends of the Earth (and a Green Party parliamentary candidate). Both backed the IPCC. The discussion was presided over by John Humphrys. (Would that Andrew Neil had been in charge of it instead!!)

(Even this wasn't enough, so we had a report from Tom Fielden (at 8.44) on 'ocean acidification', "an issue biologists have dubbed the "elephant in the corner" of the climate change debate", according to the Today programme's website.)
*
Assisted suicide was discussed (at 7.16) by Sarah Montague with a Labour peer, Lord Joffe, "who has campaigned for a long time to get the law on assisted suicide changed" - of course in favour of a more liberal approach (I.C. of 0.3)
*
Mark Mardell reported on the rise of the Tea Party movement in America (at 7.23). The 'elephant in the room' in American politics is no longer being ignored (as it no longer can be ignored, even by the most dogged Democrat supporter at the BBC). This being Mark Mardell a totally straight, totally unbiased report was out of the question. He asked a Tea Party-goer this deeply loaded question: "How much is it a movement of 'the people' or how much is it a movement of largely white, largely quite well off people?" Are there strong grounds for that allegation, or is it just a smear?
*
EXTRA: Please have a read of the wonderful David Preiser's comments on this on the Biased BBC website: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-thread_23.html#comments
**
Who's "not helping the talks today" in Northern Ireland, according to Nick Robinson (at 8.20)? The Conservatives and their 'secret talks' with the UUP and DUP, that's who! Robinson reported on the suspicions and 'anger' of Labour and their allies the SDLP (and the Alliance Party) at David Cameron, with Sarah Montague pushing those suspicions even further forward. You can bank on old Nick to act as a faithful mouthpiece for Downing Street. For some good sense on this, please red Benedict Brogan: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100023701/david-cameron-is-a-unionist-remember/
*
All in a morning's work at the Today programme.

NO MARKS FOR MARDELL

*
I know it's unseemly to gloat, but...
*
Mark Mardell got it wrong!: "It would be a grievous blow for Obama if this seat went Republican for the first time since JFK took it for the Democrats in 1953: especially as the result will come on the eve of the anniversary of his inauguration next week. I don't actually think they will lose the seat..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/the_ifs_of_the_massachusetts_e.html *
*
Well, they did lose the seat in Massachusetts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8466995.stm
*
This was not quite on a par with Matt Frei's classic prediction (during a 'Correspondents Look Ahead' sometime during President George W. Bush's first term) that he thought Bush was likely to be a one-term president! But it is another example of BBC hope triumphing over good judgement!
*
Mardell now promises to learn from his mistake (not that he's conceding that he made a wrong call of course): "It will be a part of my job in the coming months to try and discern what the mood really is." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/what_a_difference_a_year_makes.html
*
Yes, indeed it will.
*
But in the meantime why not just bandy about the 'p' word instead? (The 'p' word is a BBC bogey words). "Not for the first time the race to be the biggest populist on the block is on."
*
*
*
******************UPDATE & AFTERTHOUGHT
*
Paul Adams on Today's 7.00 News was presenting the Massachusetts result as an 'anti-establishment' one rather than an anti-Democrat one.*
*
This could be a new line for the BBC to take whenever Democrats lose over the next few months (leaving open the nuclear option of playing the race card should they lose the mid-term elections in November).
*
Going off the point a little (though not totally), this takes me back to the BBC's coverage of the 2004 European elections. This was when the BBC was most feverish in its hostility to the Iraq War. When the results came in from across Europe, Dimbleby and co. put all the swings against national governments who supported the war (in Italy, Spain, the UK etc) down to public opposition to their support for the war, but when the results came in from France and Germany, who strongly opposed the war, showing a similar swing against each national government, they did not put this down to public opposition to their opposition to the war but to an anti-incumbency mood in those countries. They were so hooked on their line that they couldn't see the staggering flaws in their logic. I spend quite a bit of the night shaking my head in disbelief. Were they merely being stupid or were they being deliberately disingenuous? Well, at least some of the people in that studio were certainly not stupid.

THE TARDIS FLIES BACK TO MAY - AND MARDELL ON UKIP

*
I'm digging back gradually through the Today programme archive to see how they handled the run-up to the June elections. In a recent post I showed how James Naughtie tried hard to undermine David Cameron, whereas that nice Evan Davis was all sweetness and light (as, in fairness, he tends to be in general) with Gordon Brown. Going back to May 30th, and we find Today doing its bit to damage UKIP. Here's the link, so you too can re-live a classic instance of BBC bias. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8074000/8074968.stm
*
The interview between John Humphrys and Nigel Farage (I.C. of 0.9) is not really the problem. The problem was Mark Mardell, then the BBC's Europe editor, and his dreadful report. Nigel Farage called it 'grossly unfair' - and he was dead right. UKIP can bless their lucky stars that Mardell has moved his large frame over to the USA & won't be smearing them come the 2010 general election.
*
Here are some of Mardell's classic lines from the piece:
*
"Most members of the European parliament regard UKIP as profoundly unserious pranksters with a weird obsession."
*
"Mr Farage admits that he's spent a lot of time fighting off a takeover by the far-right. That must say something about the sympathies of some members."
*
"UKIP condemns the EU gravy train but a good proportion seem to have prominent gravy stains all down their blazers."
*
"The European Parliament, for all its bad reputation, is a place where the politicians have a serious job, modifying, tweaking, even kicking out proposed new laws. UKIP don't boast of any achievements on this front and their opponents say they've voted against Britain's interests in a host of areas from fishing to trade talks."
*
"If not the BNP in blazers then there is something of the golf-club militant
about UKIP."
*
"In a parliament that's about quiet conciliation not gestures they make a lot of noise."

BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU GO FOR LUNCH!

*
And on it goes (as predicted yesterday)...
*
The Today programme website has this blurb: "US President Barack Obama does not believe current criticism of his policies is based on the colour of his skin, the White House has said. North America editor Mark Mardell visits South Carolina to gauge reaction to the outburst in Congress against Mr Obama that led to the rebuke of Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson."
*
Mardell's report can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8260000/8260229.stm

What a surprise that Mardell rushed down to South Carolina! What a shame Obama pulled the rug out from under him! Still, as Mardell had taken all that trouble to get down there, why not run with the story anyhow?!

Even handed? Well, he gave both sides a voice - two black supporters of Obama, two white opponents of Obama (though the former got longer to speak) - but see how he undermines one of the 'conservatives':
*
"There's no doubt some conservatives feel personally affronted. This man, eating his lunch in a diner surrounded by Confederate memorabia, says no past president knows what's in his heart."
*
How convenient that this man was eating in a diner surrounded by Confederate memorabia. A 'good old boy', I think Mardell wants us to safely assume.
*
Expect much, much, much more of this from Mark Mardell and co.

PLAYING THE RACE CARD?

**
Here's a report that you'll find 00.47.27 into the full 3-hour version of Today on the BBC i-Player (Wednesday 16 September).
**
Ex-US President Jimmy Carter has accused some of Barack Obama’s opponents on healthcare reform of running a “dastardly” racist campaign against him. His specific target was South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson, who yelled ‘You lie!’ at the president during his address to both houses of Congress.
**
Jim Naughtie discussed the significance of Carter’s intervention with the Beeb’s new North America editor, Mark Mardell. Now Mardell's reporting is not without merit (and he's a likable chap) and he does make concessions to balance but still I have reservations. (Surprise, surprise!!)
**
I'll transcribe the bulk of what he said (marking out the bits I think suggest bias) & comment along the way.
**
“What he said is that he thinks an overwhelming proportion of what he calls ‘the intensely demonstrated animosity’ towards President Obama is based on the fact he’s a black man. Obviously President Carter comes from the South. He’s seen this. He’s seen it bubbling up for a long while. And there’s a belief among many white people, he says, not just in the South, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this country, America, and he calls it ‘abominable’."
**
Has Mardell "seen it" too? For himself? Did Mardell not think to ask whether Carter really has "seen it"? Does "it" really exist? If the intense racism of the past has been 'bubbling up' again in the South recently, Mardell should investigate. It would be an interesting story. Until then he should reserve judgement.
**
Moreover, how widespread is this this "belief among many white people...that African-Americans are not qualified to lead...America"? Shocking, if true - but how true is it? How many is "many"?
**
"Now, what’s been happening over the summer, and even more recently in Washington at a big demonstration, is people attacking President Obama with a level of vitriol that I think people have been thrashing around trying to discover what’s behind it."
**
Who are these 'people' who 'have been thrashing around trying to discover what’s behind it'? Does he mean liberals? Or Democrats? Or BBC journalists? A sign of bias if not to label those of whose opinions you approve whilst labeling those of whose opinions you don't approve (as Mark does later when he talks of 'conservatives'.)
**
On a separate point, plenty of 'vitriol' was aimed at George W. Bush without racism being the cause.
**
Mardell's phrase 'thrashing about' is a good one, however, to describe the predicament many of the Left must feel about Obama's fall in popularity. How tempting for them to put it down to racism!
**
"It’s nominally about tax and about health care - and it may for many people but exactly and only about those issues - but, listening to the demonstration at the weekend, people were talking about fighting his tyranny, taking back America from this un-American president. Now it’s perfectly possible there are other reasons about the nature of the debate about the role of the state and governance in America that are behind this level of anger but some people are saying it is plainly about race. Some people think it’s illegitimate for a black person to be a president.”
**
Again, who are these "some people"?
**
Jim Naughtie then asked Mardell about the censuring of Joe Wilson.
**
“This is one of places of the debate where this has bubbled up. Over the weekend we saw people pointing out that he was once a rather junior aide to a segregationist politician and that he was one of the few politicians to vote for the confederate flag to fly over the state congress in his own state. And then one commentator said that what he meant was not “You lie!” but “You lie boy!” and that really brought everything to a head."
**
Which 'commentator' said that? Shouldn't we have been told? If we knew who it was we could judge for ourselves whether the source of this comment - which smacks of 'mind-reading', not to mention 'mud-slinging'! - is one of whom we, the listeners, can either trust or approve of.
**
"Now Mr Wilson hasn’t made any comments about his motivation, beyond saying that he thought the president was telling an untruth and that’s all there was behind it. He hasn’t answered these allegations."
**
I don't know about you but that sounds like all the comment 'about his motivation' that Mr Wilson - if he isn't a racist - needs to make. Why does Mark Mardell assume that more is needed?
**
"But another Democratic member from Georgia, Henry Johnson, has said that if this was allowed to go unpunished then people would soon be riding through the streets in hoods and sheets. Now that shows the sort of level of debate that is going on, the level of fear and anger, and of course the conservatives on the other side are furious, that they regard their opponents of playing the race card. They say it’s a cheap shot and that because it’s the worst insult you can hurl at some one in America in some ways is that they’re a racist and they feel that President Obama’s friends are really just playing dirty tricks on them.”
**
Here Mardell partially redeems himself. Johnson's extreme remark is on a par with the extreme remarks made by some of Obama's opponents and he reports the opposing side's point of view succinctly.
**
Yet note the labeling of the president's healthcare opponents as 'conservatives'. Are they all 'conservatives' in the sense Americans mean when they use the word (and when reporters about America use the word)? Might not some be libertarians? Or centrists?
**
Carter's comments obviously needed reporting & Mark Mardell has certainly done his job in doing that. He has, however, treated them as pearls of wisdom rather than as assertions.
*
*
*
LATER IN THE DAY....
*
The race-card was played again on PM, where Kevin Connelly played a now-familiar clip and then said, "That was Representative Joe Wilson, white, Southern and Republican, shouting 'You lie!' to the president. To most Americans that is a shocking breach of protocol, like heckling the Queen's Speech."

"But to many Americans there was much more to Mr Wilson's two-word tour-de-force. African-Americans saw it as straightforwardly racist."

When I heard that I thought, how many is "many" and who are the "many"? And to the second point I thought, "What, all of them?"

Connolly went on, "Now the former president Jimmy Carter has raised the stakes in the whole debate, telling an interviewer from N.B.C. that most people who oppose Barack Obama do so just because he's black."
&

(Memo to Gordon Brown: Stress your Scottishness. Then get your spin-doctors to say that anyone who opposes you is a racist English supremacist.)

*
Have the Democrats started trying to shut down the debate and are their media friends following close on? If so, and if Connolly's closing words are anything to go by, the BBC will be joining them:
*
"Expect this angry, bubbling sub-current to rise closer to the surface as next year's mid-term elections loom ever closer."
*
In other words, if the Democrats do badly in 2010 it's the racists wot did it! If they do well of course, the healing hands of the sainted Obama will be seen still to have their magic touch. Either way, it's a win-win for Barack Obama.

**

The only talking head in Connolly's piece was Mark Kelly-Tyler, "a black minister from Philadelphia", whose mother told him how to deal with "racially-motivated criticism".

*

**

Gavin Esler on Newsnight was keeping the flag flying for this story: "Jimmy Carter said what many Americans has been thinking." Those "many Americans" again! His introductory piece re-played many of the phrases used by Mardell and Connolly.

**

Unfortunately for the Beeb, he then he interviewed some Americans and the story flew off the rails...!!!

**

Esler interviewed a former Clinton aide, Jennifer Palmiera, who criticised her fellow Democrats for this 'dangerous' playing of the race card and said that the White House didn't accept what Jimmy Carter had said, adding that he was out of touch ("a generational thing"). She said Hillary Clinton would have received similar hostile treatment. The other guest, Armstrong Williams, described by Esler - in a typical case of bias by labeling - as a "conservative broadcaster", didn't believe it either. He jokingly put Carter's comments down to senility. He's black, which shows that Connolly's bold statement that all African-Americans saw Wilson's comments as "straightforwardly racist" was not strictly true!

Jennifer Palmiera's comments were a welcome breath of reasonableness. Inadvertently, she dropped the BBC in it by telling Esler that his introduction had neglected to mention the White House's rejection of President Carter's slurs. It had indeed!

Ritula Shah on the World Tonight (which did mention the White House's rejection of the slurs) talked to only one side of the argument, Paul Waldman of the liberal American Prospect magazine, who (ignoring the point) kept the accusations coming.

In summary, the above-mentioned BBC reporters had, I feel, got overly excited about a story that they so wanted to believe and ran with it beyond reason. Call me a pessimist, but I suspect that the words of the guests on Newsnight will be ignored & the 'Obama's-opponents-are-racists' angle will continue to run and run at the biased BBC.