I don’t know if anyone here’s a fan of the ‘Biased-BBC‘ blog, but I like to think of them as a specialist version of the HYS poster, only a little more sophisticated, a little more eloquent, a little more enraged and right-wing, and of course a shitload more credulous and paranoid. Anyway, they’ve published their own letter to the editor, by ANDREW MCCANN.
FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE BBC COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT
Has the American presidential election already reached its conclusion? I have to ask since the evaporation of coverage on the BBC news since the confirmation of Barack Obama as Democrat nominee has been noted by many. The British Broadcasting Corporation was quite happy to flood news bulletins with ‘Presidential’ campaign happenings during the ‘beauty’ contest between Clinton and Obama. However, now that the BBC might just have to turn its attention to a more balanced coverage of the campaign by including Republican candidate, John McCain (remember him?), it suddenly has lost all interest.
Oh, what a beauty contest the Democrat race proved to be: both candidates filled every ‘tick-box’ on the social profiling sheet of the average Guardianista. One was a woman; the other was black. ‘Whoopee’ cried the anti-Israeli, anti-American, tree hugging news teams at the BBC. What did it matter that a potential leader of the free world should have more suitably meritocratic attributes such as intelligence, political nous, first-hand experience of America’s military engagements, an appreciation of realpolitik, and integrity? The sum total of the BBC’s analysis was preoccupied with the gender of one and the ethnicity of the other. As for the Grand Old Party, they might as well have shuffled off stage-left. The BBC, like the other Left-leaning, liberal ‘luvvies’ which dominate the European media scene, want a Democrat in the White House. Why don’t you just be honest and admit it?
I like the way “every tick box” comes to two. Whatever happened to one-legged Muslim lesbians? And look at the end: the more enraged he gets, the more he alliterates.
I am a BBC licence payer (for my sins). I want to see a Republican returned to power in the United States. I certainly do not want to see someone whose paternal ancestry shares the same religion as the evil-doers who killed 3,000 people in New York City seven years ago: a man who is prepared to ‘combat’ the rise of evil terrorist Islamism by sitting down and having cosy little chats with some of its principal protagonists. When are my preferences going to be incorporated in the so-called impartial coverage your organisation is (dubiously) renowned for?
You missed a trick Andrew: not only does Obama’s paternal ancestry share the same religion as the evil-doers who killed 3,000 people in New York City seven years ago, but his surname is only one letter away from ‘Osama’ and his middle name is only one ‘Saddam’ away from SADDAM HUSSEIN! If you don’t put the effort in, they won’t give a shit for your “preferences”.
If and, as I expect, when John McCain is voted the 44th President of the United States will we be offered the sort of ethno-centric spite-laden coverage I expect? The sort which will feebly attempt to portray the American electorate as bunch of subliminal Alabamaesque red-necks who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for poor old Barack because he was black? I am prepared to bet money on it. For in the final analysis it is those of the Left who lionise on the basis of sociological labels, and it is those of us on the Right who prefer to view people on their genuine merits.
Yours truly
ANDREW MCCANN
I’m with you there. I respect people according to their actions. As long as they’re not female, black, muslim, poor, disabled, Iranian, Chinese, Korean, Iraqi, Palestinian, Syrian, French (um.. someone check that for me, are the French ok again now that Sarkozy’s up for killing some Iranians?), Lebanese, atheist or, God forbid, left-leaning liberal ‘luvvies’.