Following Twitter tonight it's clear that those interested in US politics have quite a breaking story on their hands today, courtesy of The Washington Post.
The paper claims that "The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin" - something Mrs Clinton's campaign and the DNC have long denied.
Juicy stuff (for those who care about such things), and, it seems, very much not fake news.
President Trump might care to note that The Washington Post is behaving creditably here, and that mainstream reporters, like his least-favourite paper The New York Times's Maggie Haberman, are also doing their journalistic duty by putting on record that "Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year".
And how is the BBC reporting this tonight?
Well, for starters, it is reporting it. But, weirdly, its sketchy, rather skeletal report begins with the words, "US President Donald Trump has seized on reports that Hillary Clinton's team bankrolled a sleazy dossier of allegations linking him to Russia".
Is Donald Trump's reaction really the story here? Isn't the actual story that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC, by the Washington Post's account, funded the (in)famous dossier about Donald Trump and then lied about it for a year?
I find it hard to disagree with Laura Perrins tonight when she tweets (about this very BBC article), "Textbook example of #BBCbias. Just text book. You are a disgrace to journalism."
She then adds, "Well I'm off, but I will be listening to @BBCr4today tomorrow to see how they cover this Russian dossier story, funded by DNC/HC + then lied about".
Yes, it will be interesting to see how they cover it.
Incidentally, Anthony Zurcher's 'analysis' in this piece takes the 'this kind of thing has been going on "since the dawn of democratic elections'" line.
In other words, 'move along, there's nothing to see here' re the DNC and Mrs Clinton's campaign - which seems a remarkably relaxed line to take for an 'impartial journalist'. A partisan pro-Democrat columnist I'd expect something like that from rather than a BBC journalist. (That said, he does say that the FBI has some questions to answer).
In other words, 'move along, there's nothing to see here' re the DNC and Mrs Clinton's campaign - which seems a remarkably relaxed line to take for an 'impartial journalist'. A partisan pro-Democrat columnist I'd expect something like that from rather than a BBC journalist. (That said, he does say that the FBI has some questions to answer).
I must say that the BBC's reporting of US politics is far too partisan and ideological for my tastes.
You mean the Hillary Clinton they had on Woman's Hour and treated like some persecuted saint? Her? Whoddathunkit?
ReplyDeleteThere's a LOT more to see in DemocratLand in the US. Those weird Podesta e mails, the Clinton Foundation scam (allegedly promising political favours in return for donations to the Foundation), and a whole load of sheet going back several decades. That's before you get on to Bill's crimes, and the cover-ups involving Hillary in a prominent role.
It's been a disgrace the way the BBC has presented the Clintons as honest progressive politicians who have never harmed a fly.
It’s not a top story on my BBC “news” app, just another example of bias by omission.
ReplyDeleteI listened to the R4 Today News headlines and, unsurprisingly, didn't hear this story. I did hear a rather uninspiring set of Guardian sub-headlines including: mental health needs more "resources" (aka taxpayer money), and a proposal that elite Universities be required to lower entry standards for people from underprivileged backgrounds. This latter proposal was not accompanied with the harrumphing about state interference from University VCs like Chris Patten that BBC broadcast intensively when a Conservative MP asked only about the content of university courses.
ReplyDeleteCraig, in support of your last sentence, the BBC have clearly "jumped the bias shark" on Trump/Clinton and on Brexit. I've been noticing the BBC bias since Mrs Thatcher's days, but BBC was always quite careful to not be too overt. But since EU Referendum (or was it the new charter?), it's gone overboard. The answer to the question which is the title of this blog is now clear. Yes the BBC is biased and everyone knows it. This will eventually be it's downfall, because a biased BBC cannot justify the license fee system. So it fights hard the accusations of bias such as that recently by Newswatch. But the evidence is clear and mounting.
One thing you won't hear on the BBC is that ethnic minorities are OVER represented in Universities! There is really only a specific problem with some African-Caribbean and African (not all) sub-groups e.g. Caribbean men and Somalis. So this deliberate attempt to create conflict, division and resentment in our society is a very good example of BBC pursuing a Fake News agenda. If they were really interested in equality of outcome they would be saying "How can we get fewer Indians and Chinese studying in our universities and get more white working class men on the courses." But clearly, they don't, so they aren't interested in equality, only pursuing an agenda, which is globalist no-borders PC multiculturalism.
DeleteSean Hannity covers all the necessary points on last night's show. It really is beyond amazing if it all turns out to be true. At least the witness who has come forward has had his 'gagging order' lifted. Think it's a case of sitting back and opening the popcorn.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwaHVGBbE9o