Saturday 17 September 2016

Seriously, BBC?

I was reading Biased BBC and came across a series of astonished comments about a new BBC News website article on Donald Trump headlined US election: Clinton security should be disarmed, says Trump

Its opening paragraph reads:

...and the article reads as if there might be some truth in this criticism (and is thoroughly one-sided from start to finish).

The point being made at B-BBC is that when you watch the video of Mr Trump saying what he said.... should be patently obvious to anyone (who isn't merely intent on twisting his words) that Mr Trump wasn't seriously calling for Hillary's bodyguards to be disarmed.

He was being sarcastic and making a point.

And he certainly wasn't hinting at the assassination of Mrs Clinton or "inciting violence" against her either.

His point was that Mrs Clinton, an advocate of gun control, believes in guns well enough to be surrounded by a large body of gun-carrying bodyguards. She knows the danger she'd face in if her bodyguards gave up their guns, so that's why she won't disarm them.

I can't put it any better than those B-BBC commenters here:

  • MartinW
    Any sensible person would have immediately known that Trump was merely making a point, and not actually advocating that Clinton should be deprived of armed protection. After all, the same would have had to apply to all candidates. The BBC is either stupid (which it is not) or malevolent and politically biased (which it very much is). And if day-listeners to the BBC are furious at BBC bias, lies and omissions, they should try listening to the reporting of the US election by its ‘World Service’. That is more extremely anti-Trump and Clinton-supporting, and unbearable to those of us who want truth and honesty.
  • Roland Deschain
    I came on here to comment on that article, but it doesn’t surprise me that someone else has got there first. It really is a masterclass, not just in bias but in trying to convince yourself of something you know isn’t true. It’s quite obvious what Trump meant, even to those who might not support him but the BBC is pretending to itself that it can be spun as advocating assassination.
    I’m actually rather heartened by this as this level of self-deluding bias must be becoming increasingly obvious far beyond those of us who frequent this site. It smacks of desperation.


  1. Not surprisingly it was a Guardian article first....

    Problem is they don't broadcast what he actually says and for some reason people believe the headlines about Trump. Even when they my think the rest of the BBC output is biased, my better half is a case in point.

  2. I knew this would happen the moment Trump said it. The US Leftoid media (whom the BBC use as an excuse for either reporting something or not reporting it) have been making a mountain out of this molehill as well. Trump only said what thousands of other gun-rights advocates have been saying for years. This is about pointing out the hypocrisy of celebrities and nanny-state politicians who say we the people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, and only the police and military should have them, yet they themselves should be allowed to have them and heavily armed private body guards. Rights for the few, not for the many.

    It is nothing to do with wanting personal harm to befall Hillary Clinton.

  3. Trump's exact words were:

    "Now, you know she's very much against the Second Amendment. She wants to destroy your Second Amendment. Guns, guns, guns, right. I think what we should do is...She goes around with armed bodyguards like you've never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm. Right? I think they should disarm, immediately. What do you think? Yes? Yes. Yeah. Take their guns away! She doesn't want guns. Take their...Let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK? It would be very dangerous."

    Listening to 'PM' tonight, that kept getting edited - bits vanishing here, reappearing there, eliding together somewhere else. The opening edit made it sound particularly bad. The "It would be very dangerous" bit never got quoted.

    It was disappointing to hear Caroline Wyatt following the US Leftoid media/BBC line to the letter and giving such credence to the assassination/promoting violence against Hillary idea. Her strongly anti-Trump guest didn't attempt to put the obvious context either. It's as if everyone's so partisan about this that they just can't stand back and be reasonable - which isn't how the BBC ought to be behaving (not that it's ever stopped them before when it comes to US politics).


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