The Daily Mirror's Reaction

Cummings on the Beeb's coverage

Dominic Cummings, former Tory advisor and now the director of the New Frontiers Foundation gives his view of the media coverage of the Bush victory.

The BBC and mainstream media were so hopeful and sure of a Kerry victory that they have repeatedly distorted news, while simultaneously accusing the Republicans of lies, and have demonstrated that they are incapable of distinguishing between (a) their centre-left opinion and (b) an attempt at discovering objective truth.  As Dan Rather famously said, the New York Times “is not Left, it’s centre”. 

In programme after programme, you see BBC interviewers attacking the Right using the language and arguments of the Left, yet when they have, say, Robin Cook on the Today programme, they always ask questions like – “so why do you think the latest move by Bush is a disaster?”  They never ask a question like – “since you supported the Kosovo war and that was done without a UN mandate because the Russians vetoed, why do you now argue that America needs a UN mandate?”  If the subject is Europe, the Right is attacked with Blair’s arguments, but, say, Blair is attacked from the point of view of “why don’t you do more to sell Europe to the public?” – he is never asked, “given the EU’s stagnant economies and declining demographics, economies and universities, shouldn’t Britain steer clear of a project that seems to many as though it’s going down the tubes?”

In all the debates about bias with BBC executives and journalists, they simply never understand the force of this point – they simply say “we aren’t biased, we balance programmes fairly”. They have, along with Jon Snow et al, entirely misunderstood how people outside their dinner party circuit think – they get away with it in Britain because of the enormous crisis of the Conservative Party since the late 1980s but they have not got away with it with the US election.  Jim Naughtie’s report this morning describing Bush’s policy as “divisive – even unilateral [ie. unilateral is worse than being divisive]”, Humphrys saying yesterday that four more years is “a bit scary”… It is inconceivable that anybody other than “an ideologue”, “an ultra-religious person”, “self-intersted big business” etc could possibly think the Iraq war a good idea or Bush referable to Kerry. 

They just don’t get it.  If the CP in Britain could rejuvenate, the same people from the Independent to the BBC would get a similar shock to the one they have just had.

As a tiny example of the psychology of BBC employees, check this blog by a BBC employee who laments the victory of “a bible bashing chimp”

http://bayman.blogspot.com/

The BBC’s behaviour discredits them as analysts and raises major questions about the license fee paid to a state broadcaster populated mostly by people of a particular political perspective who wrongly think their views are “mainstream” and “centre” rather than centre-left and who consistently distort political debate.  There are exceptions – people who are on the Left but are also neutral, and people on the Right who are also professional (like A Neil), but the overall thrust is clear.  We consequently have a far less diverse and professional media than America and our democratic culture is paying the price. 

This combination of poor professionalism and bias from senior BBC people is, of course, one of the reasons why they handled the Gilligan affair so incompetently – an organisation that every day criticises or sneers at other institutions’ errors made under the spotlight blundered themselves in elementary ways and blew what was objectively a potentially strong hand. 

The next BBC story line?  “America is full of (a) stupid people, and (b) religious maniacs – only this can explain the irrational result.” 

We can safely predict that the BBC’s coverage will continue along the lines of their recent series on Al Qaeda (The Power of Nightmares, advertised by somebody saying that “it simply does not exist”).  It is very unlikely that we will see programmes asking European politicians – “just why is it that America enjoys such higher standards of living than Europe, why is it that their dominance in higher education and hi-tech industries continues to increase, and why has the EU Commission recently published a report saying that three-quarters of EU graduates that study in America do not return to Europe?”  The current mentality will not change until there is another major terrorist attack, after which the BBC mindset will be stunned by the public’s reaction…

Press reaction muted...

Amazingly the British press has not reacted as viciously as one would expect. We suspect it might because they are still in shock from the loss. Jon P who is a member of the press and I have decided it will probably come full bore in the Sunday papers. The Independent showed it’s class by putting some unflattering pictures of various crisises in the past 4 years; with the headline 4 more Years.

The Sun’s reaction on the other hand is factual with a twist of humour. They have some suggestions for Kerry for his post-loss lifestyle. Their upmarket (now only a tabloid) sister-paper is just as neutral on the win and, of course, the Telegraph welcomes the result

The BBC is warming up all usual suspects to bleat about the result including Jesse Jackson. The Guardian’s reaction has been less shrill than we expected them to be. I am sure they warming up for some bile filled rants in the next few days.

Of course, the Mirror has distinguished itself with the headline.. How can 59,054,087 be so dumb?

If you want the reasonable left reaction to both the result and the bleeting of the far left hordes over the top reaction; visit Harry’s Place.

Bush lessons for the Tories?

In times of insecurity, clear leadership has a great appeal. That is why Bush won.
Many self-styled sophisticates on the left, both in the USA and in Europe regarded Bush as a simpleton for his constant repetition of a simple message. Kerry was more nuanced, whatever that means. In reality he flip-flopped.
He voted for the war, then he voted against it. It was the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”, or some such soundbyte.

George W Bush, for all his faults, gave people a real sense of what he was about.

Even if he sometimes used the wrong words, everyone knew what he meant.

There are lessons in this for UK Conservatives.

Be bold. Don’t be afraid to offend at least some of the people, some of the time. If nobody takes offence, chances are, nobody has noticed what you are saying. Don’t follow the opinion polls with your policies. Leadership implies you have something of your own to contribute to political debate.

Be consistent. If you don’t take a line and stick to it, you will confuse the hell out of your own activists who are supposed to be out there spreading the message, let alone the public.

Don’t try to swim too much against people’s preconceptions of you in vain pursuit of your opponents’ supporters unless you really do intend a permanent change of direction.

Conservatives have been promising to match Labour’s spending plans, except in a few minor areas, without raising taxes. At the same time, Oliver Letwin is trying to persuade people that Labour would have to make substantial tax rises if re-elected for a third term. Yes, Ollie’s sums might add up, but I don’t seriously expect the public to believe both propositions at the same time. The detail of the plans might support this but the simple message that you can’t have more spending without higher taxes is far more intuitive, even if it might be wrong. The type of person likely to vote Labour, come what may, will believe the Tories will make massive cuts to public spending, whatever Oliver Letwin’s protestations to the contrary. Others might secretly hope for lower taxes and believe that they are willing to take a chance with the Tories on public services but be unwilling to say it publicly or even to pollsters for fear of the opprobrium that may be heaped on them.

Let me propose a radical departure that may help the Conservative Partybridge this credibility gap. If Gordon Brown increases spending in the next budget, as he surely will, the Tories should abandon the policy of matching Labour’s spending pledges. Instead they should issue a statement such as this:

We can no longer pledge to match Labour’s spending plans because it would be grossly irresponsible to do so. They would lead to significant tax increases. If Labour is re-elected,taxes will rise. A lot. While we will continue to increase spending on public services by at least the level of inflation in our first term of office, the main challenge will be to find enough efficiency savings to prevent those tax rises.

by Wolfie

If you are sick of the Dems and Reps....

Why don’t you go see how followers of the Great Old One are doing this this election cycle?

British reaction

Most of the British press and elite are holding their thoughts because we “don’t know” yet. They seem to be trying to hold out one last hope that it may go the other way. I would recomend looking at Sky and the Beeb for reaction whenever the result is clear.

Election Coverage from the BBC

The BBC has extensive coverage of the U.S. elections, probably the coolest results map of them all, and a ‘poll tracker’ that shows how the Candidates faired in the polls after specific events occurred.

BBC has Bush with 249 and Kerry with 221, unlike FoxNews and MSNBC, both of which are probably just itching in a super-itchy kinda way to call the whole election.

Jon Pearce calls the local vibe

Pleasantly surprised by the BBC 6 O‘Clock news coverage of today’s polls. Fairly balanced sample of opinions from the public and a lack of obvious sneering. Let’s hope it stays that way. Some times the BBC really can do this sort of coverage well.

One of my colleagues at work said I have a haircut like John F. Kerry. I am thinking of taking legal action and probably going to the barber straight afterwards.

Blogs for UK reaction...

If you are interested in the view from the non-hysterical left you can try Harry’s blog who routinely links to such bleating sources as The Guardian and The Independent to see what lunacy is contained therein. Oliver Kamm is another source of interesting insights on the reasonable and unreasonable left. Pollard will no doubt be writing about the day’s events as well.

Peter Cuthbertson and Iain Murray will be giving the Conservative view of the proceedings. And for the strictly (British) libertarian view of it all, I highly recommend Samizdata.

The British media awaits

With the exception of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph and maybe The Times, the British press, in all its forms is fundamentally anti-Bush. Of course, that is not to say they are all pro-Kerry either, some wish he would win with clenched teeth. The amusiing thing about reading and watching the British MSM media is that one does get a sense of it not being very good for the President. Bush supporters who do not have Fox on Satillite or work in a non-American filled office will be mighty surprised if anything but a win for Kerry or a draw comes to pass. Needless to say the BBC has been reporting the entire election campaign from an extremely skewed viewpoint.

An interesting aside is predictions on the affect of a Bush or Kerry win on Blair. There is much discussion on whom he prefers to win and whom it would be better for him if they win.

What I am looking forward to is the reaction whatever the outcome tomorrow. Wether or not Bush wins or loses the (out)cry is going to be loud and long.

For another perspective, today’s leader in DT has some interesting analysis of this election cycle.