Sunday 8 November 2015

Mark Mardell's take on the American Dream

Sticking with matters North American (and with another hat-tip to commenters at Biased BBC), this really is quite something, bias-wise...

It's a report from The Tab, Cambridge University's student news site, recording what was said at a debate on the question: 'This House Believes the American Dream is Colour Blind'. 

Various well-known guests took part, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Bonnie Greer (the Greer who is allowed to talk to UK students!) and Miss America 2014, Nina Davuluri. 

The Rev. spoke against the motion while The Acceptable Ms Greer and Miss America spoke in favour of it.

Also present was the BBC's Mark Mardell. Can you guess which side he was on? 

Go on, I bet you can. 

Here's how the student reporters described the BBC man's contribution:
BBC journalist Mark Mardell sided with Jesse Jackson in the debate, arguing that the number of opportunities offered to people of colour compared to white people is too unequal for the American Dream to be colour blind. 
The shootings of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is a terrible display of how differently people of colour are treated to white people. Mardell argues that under-age drinking, smoking a spliff or even using a fake ID are considered a “rite of passage for white teenagers” but become “a pathway to criminality for black teenagers”. 
Those African Americans wishing to attain the American Dream must face the reality that “the entrance price to the Dream is that your parents are twice as good and you path needs to be straighter”. 
This isn’t exactly the promise of opportunity the American Dream is supposed to represent.
The race angle to the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is, as many of you will know, highly disputed - as is the actual ethnic identity of Mr Zimmerman. Mark Mardell, however, is unequivocally sticking to the Jesse Jackson line on this - as on everything else it seems. 

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that this is his position on the question posed by the Cambridge debate, having followed Mark Mardell's reporting on such matters for years.

It's a viewpoint that's held across swatches of the BBC too, from all that I've seen and heard over the years from their reporting of U.S. stories....

....and that kind of thing has a name: BBC bias.


  1. Doesn't it become very hard to maintain the illusion that one is an impartial reporter if one takes part in such a debate?

    I guess his view is that his opinion is intrinsically 'impartial', it's the rest of us that are biased!

    1. Yes. Mardell is an 'expert', and so his opinion is beyond bias. Or some such utter BBC BS.

      The whole concept of BBC titled editors is an excuse for bias, and they continue to get away with it because it's so-called explanatory journalism. Yet another foul legacy of John Birt and his disciples.

    2. Certainly his apparent (tried checking but his twitter feed is neutral... if amazingly free of any comments) immediate thoughts on the possibly late lamented British Jihadi's shuffling off this mortal coil reeked of... 'expertise' on par with the Labour opposition leader.

      So all good.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.