Monday 14 November 2016

"America's Most Hated President?"

Did you see tonight's Panorama

It was originally going to be called America's Most Hated President? but the BBC clearly had second thoughts about this inflammatory title and changed it to Trump's New America instead.

The programme itself remained pretty inflammatory however, with reporter Hilary Andersson stoking up racial tensions throughout. 

There was a recent report on Newsnight where the chosen Trump supporters were part of a fringe, survivalist group. That seemed a bit odd at the time. It seems a little less odd now though because tonight's Panorama did much the same by going to a gun-toting, white, male, middle-aged Texan civil defence group to find its 'typical' Trump supporters. 

The Twitter reaction has been striking and surprising. It has been largely negative and full of people saying this was the most biased BBC programme they've ever seen. I agree with a lot of their criticisms and will share them with you here.

A lot of them focused on this "stereotyping" of Trump supporters as "redneck males", eg: 
Really lazy and stereotypical reporting. Rednecks with guns don't make up the 60 million votes that Trump achieved. 
"Who shall we interview about Trump? I know, let's go to Lone Star Texas and interview some gun nuts. That's representative."
Watched @BBCPanorama. The redneck male Trump supporter is not the full story - he was also propelled to power by 53% white women. 
@BBCPanorama Disgraceful stereotyping of Trump supporters. I am no fan of Trump but some well-educated people voted for him. #propaganda. 
How will #bbcpanorama portray the Trump vote? Outset: already selective: ill-educated rednecks then 'educated middle class'...

Of course, the Trump-supporting rednecks weren't the real focus on Hilary Andersson's Panorama. It was those who hate or fear a Donald Trump presidency that were her main focus. Cue people on Twitter again:
Hilary Anderson's report was biased to the point of inciting hatred. She chose an all black/Latino group to discuss racism.
Anderson focused on uneducated white Trump voters and on lefty, coloured college-educated Clinton voters? BBC agenda is vile.
And the programme ended with Black Lives Matter and some highly tendentious reporting from Ms Andersson which the following tweets capture quite accurately:
More biased bullshit from our "trusted" BBC. This time Trump is the cause for police brutality on blacks. Obama's police!
To be clear what's your programme about: Trump or police shootings? Sloppy reporting. One argument doesn't prove the other.
Somehow trying to blame pre-Trump police shootings of black US citizens on Trump...Great journalism.
And to conclude, here's a final selection of tweets about tonight's Panorama:
Not recognisable from the brilliant programme it used to be, ruined by political correctness - as most @bbc programmes are.
I'm no Trump fan but, @BBCPanorama, what happened to quality reporting? This is liberal sob story nonsense.
Only wanted to get a balanced impression of "Trump's New America". That was an appalling programme. Thoroughly negative & one-sided.
Shows MSM still haven't got it. Programme dominated by guns and threat of civil war. Little mention of opportunity of new Presidency.
Can I have the part of my licence fee back that paid for the lefty American to go home all expenses paid please? One sided!


  1. It's going to be the exact opposite of the BBC's orgasmic First 100 Days love fest for The Obamessiah, isn't it?

  2. Inflammatory is the right word. The BBC is effectively prepared to start a race war in order to defeat right wing populism.

    Once upon a time, long ago, the BBC was a beacon of liberal democracy, when it shone its light through the the Iron Curtain. Now? It no longer shines a light for democracy. Democracy has to be mediated by the high priests of political correctness: left wing commentators, politicised judges, human rights lawyers, community spokespeople and gender activists.

    Liberalism has also been sacrificed on the leftist altar: the BBC that did so much to advance free speech now fears speech. "Have Your Say" is a joke, as are its representative panels of ordinary viewers or its responses to complaints from listeners and viewers.

    The radical reform or removal of the BBC is now a matter of national urgency.

  3. On LBC* today I heard the appalling James O'Brien - the squinty-eyed regular sub for Newsnight presenter job - actually say that Donald Trump was a KKK member...perhaps...Not even Evan or Emily would dare come out with that - but because he's not on the BBC staff it seems he has a licence to come out with any old tosh.

    * Not a regular listener thank God - seems to be as biased as the BBC but without any mitigating characteristics such as occasional flashes of wit.

  4. Every Christmas, my letter box fills up with brochures from gizmo companies, flogging tat of dubious function or value.

    Almost every page has a headline 'Could this be the... ever?'

    The reason is, it isn't. But by making it a question they turn it into a statement.

    One that can be challenged of course, and if trying it on, withdrawn... eventually. But of course by then the damage is done. Along with the job.

    Totally unethical of course, but effective.

    Just like BBC #editorialintegrity.

  5. I find the prospect of an isolationist America under a Trump presidency extremely worrying. I also find Trump’s apparent support for Putin extremely disturbing, but the response from the BBC has been ridiculous. They knew exactly how a British audience would respond to an image of a gun toting “redneck” skinning a deer - although, despite the efforts of the interviewer, the “redneck” in question was actually quite reasonable in his replies. But from the point of view of the programme maker it didn't really matter what he said. The message was plain to see, rednecks + guns = Trump.

    I am beginning to see BBC current affairs as a branch of their fiction department.


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