It must be very lonely being the BBC North America editor when the rest of the world also happens to be focusing on the same topic as you. For the BBC’s Mark Mardell, it means the usual formula of casual bias, loaded verbiage and perspective delivered through a Demmocrat Party prism could easily be exposed for what it was, leaving him in a space all his own in the mediascape.
So it was in the early hours of this morning as Mardell filed his analysis of the US Presidental debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Mardell clearly saw how poorly Obama had been without the comfort of a teleprompter and how effectively Romney had rebutted Obama’s claims and landed blows on taxation and the economy.
But Operation Save Barack was in full flow on Mardell’s keyboard as he submitted his analysis to the BBC write up of the debate – a story which itself took nearly three hours from first publication under the headline ‘US election: Obama and Romney clash in Denver’ to grudgingly acknowledge what less partisan observers were saying from the moment the debate ended, resulting in a change of headline to ‘US election: Polls show Romney won TV debate with Obama’. Here is Mardell’s analysis posted at 04:30 UTC…
Mitt Romney had been practising hard. And it paid off. He was animated, in command of his information, overriding the moderator and interrupting the president. He seemed to be in charge and enjoying the scrap.
On the other hand, President Obama started out looking very nervous, and although he warmed up and got into his stride, he ended up giving overlong, mini-lectures straight to camera rather than engaging and arguing.
He seemed unwilling to actually debate with his opponent and missed a few obvious openings when he should have challenged. This may be deliberate. Perhaps his team decided that he shouldn’t get riled, so it was best not to get into a fight. If so, he held back too much.
If Mr Romney clearly won this debate, in terms of style at least, he can’t celebrate too hard just yet. If the polls don’t move after a win, then he really is in trouble.
Having seen how far removed his version of the story was from all other reports of the debate , yet determined to remain as defensive as possible of the BBC’s preferred candidate without being quite so obvious where his favour rests, his analysis has been heavily edited, through one assumes gritted teeth, to now read thus in version 7 of the story…
As theatre, a battle of image and confidence, Mitt Romney was the clear winner. He had obviously practised so hard and so long that he was nearly hoarse. But not quite. Instead his voice was a touch deeper. No bad thing.
He looked Mr Obama in the eyes as he interrupted with animation, overriding the moderator, insisting on a comeback. He didn’t seem rude. He did seem in command and to be enjoying the scrap.
President Obama on the other hand looked as though he’d much rather be out celebrating his wedding anniversary with his wife. He started out looking very nervous, swallowing hard, not the confident performer we are used to seeing.
Republicans certainly feel that they have used the debate to shift the perception of their candidate, shake up the etch-a-sketch and talk about his passion for job creation and focus on the middle classes.
The next string of opinion polls could hardly matter more. If they narrow or he starts moving ahead of Mr Obama, that will be a huge boost for his campaign, and suggest he could win the White House. However if after an acclaimed victory the opinion polls hardly budge, then it would mean he is in a very serious hole indeed.
There is no surprise here, this is the BBC at work after all. But it does underline the lack of trust BBC viewers and readers should have in the editorial position of key staff.
Perhaps the driver of this is a simple desire to once again wear woolly Obama hats in Washington DC in January at what the Beeboids hope will be the start of Obama’s second term in office. But somehow when BBC coverage of North America is examined we see time and again the same distorted, leftist and authoritarian viewpoint being relayed to this side of the Atlantic at the expense of balanced and impartial reporting.
The aggravating factor in all this as always is the fact we are compelled to pay for this propaganda and have no say in how our money is spent, and no entitlement to receive information freely on request about the behind the scenes editorial discussions that drive such biased coverage. We continue to complain, but the political class has no interest in taking on the corporation, vast, powerful and overbearing as it now is.
Autonomous Mind 
The most blatant example of BBC one-sidedness when it comes to American politics came the day before the 2004 Presidential election, the final report on the campaign as aired on news bulletins that night read as President Bush’s political obituary, noting his resigned body language, the sad reassurance he gave his wife and all delivered with a general tone that conveyed “this is the end of this disastrous experiment as the result tomorrow is a foregone conclusion”.
Cue a volte-face so rapid it almost gave you whiplash the following day when Bush wiped the floor with his opponent and grabbed the overwhelming mandate it was possible to argue he lacked for his first term. It was a massive egg on face moment for the supposedly impartial political commentators who had nailed their colours to completely the wrong mast.
The Americans too have to put up with their vast media bias toward the Democrat party. The twistered facts, half truths, or downright lies all seem part of the lefts determination to win at all costs. It certainly says what a great job the infiltration networks have done to get the whole magazine, newspaper, comedy performances, and TV, to spread their propaganda.
The media bias in the US is far beyond simply noticeable. It is overwhelming and continuous. The largest flaws in Obama are quickly swept under the rug while his opposition is eviscerated for the smallest flaws. Half-truths and outright falsehoods are employed to bolster the image of Obama and break down his critics. They have been busted editing video to make Obama look better and his opposition bad on numerous occasions. They are getting so bold they don’t even bother apologizing when they are caught. Our main-street media has ZERO credibility!!!
That is why everyone was taken back by the results of the debate. Romney came across far better than people had thought and Obama far worse. There were no members of the media to cover for Obama and smear Romney. It was a simple and open head to head, man to man challange.
Of course today the media is in full swing rying to re-write the results of the debate in the minds of the American people and covering for Obama once again.
What depresses me and annoys me in equal measure is that SKY News (particularly – though not exclusively – their morning news) is going the same way.
It is now predominantly an entertainment channel but when it pretends to do real news it has clearly started to exhibit precisely the same left-wing/green bias evidenced on the BBC.
I have tried and failed to identify the editorial/production/management teams on SKY News.
Well said, AM. Mardell casually slipped in a White House talking point as well, pretending it was his own analysis. He suggests it “may have been deliberate” for the President to hold back from appearing too aggressive, but he knows damn well this is a White House talking point released quickly after it was over. Mardell’s dishonesty knows no limits.
@letmethink 05/10/2012 at 1:00 pm
Truly, it is the same thing happening with ITV1 and with John Snow’s lot , see Matt Frei that old bbc Marxist div is now their democrat clarion
biascorrespondent.I do not doubt for a minute, that the masters in the EU are slowly turning the censorship screw a little here and by a tad there. Eventually, until all we will have is Pravda a state rendition of tractor production.
Or Fm frequency radio broadcasts [received on banned analogue radios] from ‘free Iran’ and the USA – providing Muslim-in-chief doesn’t get back in.
@Edward
He won’t (despite faking the unemployment numbers) . . . :)
You all do realise that we need a General Pinochet to help to bring our country back to normality? Now, what did he do to his socialists?