BBC distorts Obama speech
February 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarHarmless Sky has details of the BBC almost inventing quotes from Obama. They played this:
We will restore science to its rightful place, [and] roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.
Now you listen to that and it sounds very powerful. But they have spliced together three seperate sections:
Two parts come from Para 16:
Paragraph 16
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
So the bit on science was not linked to climate change, but if anything to health care issues such as stem cell research. And where did the warming planet part come from. That was six paragraphs later:
Paragraph 22
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
The impression you get from the actual speech, is totally different from what the BBC manufactured. It is a classic example of altering the news to fit a viewpoint.
Related posts:
- Free speech – but only for some
- Not Evil Just Wrong
- Climate Change Scepticism is Free Speech
- The effect of Climategate
February 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I wonder if bloggers ever do such a thing? Surely not!
[DPF: Bloggers are not a state owned broadcaster that is meant to be strictly impartial, and fair]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Thanks for posting this Mr. Farrar. Supports my repeated refrain that the mainstream media cannot be trusted, and have not been trustworthy for some time. The problem is compounded by the fact that most leftists regard such sources as impeccable, and consider that all that is required to support any wild assertion they might make is a reference to an AP or Reuters or BBC article. So almost every discussion with the left on current issues becomes corrupted by series of lies based on more lies, or deliberate omissions or half truths or distortions.
Here’s a good old article from the BBC on Saddam and his nuclear bomb. Its 2001 and he’s got one they say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm
One could ask the BBC today- Where are the WMD?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
As long as they don’t say Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Or that, when asked which newspapers and magazines he reads he answers “um, ah, you know, all of them. I don’t know their names but I read them all”
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The Biased Broadcasting Corporation aside, who is his speech writer?
Vote:Inspiring stuff and he would deliver it well. Oh to have such orators here.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This infringement is, of course, minor. The Obamessiah is not a politician that the BBC is “out to get”; far from it. They will actually have been intending to help Obama, not hinder him, unlike any politician who is “on the wrong side” of the political fence from them.
In the context of the overall speech above, it is difficult to imagine that what the BBC said would be that much different to Obama merely saying the same platitudes in a slightly different order, as he may well have done on other occasions and may well do yet.
I mean, he actually said in a speech prior to his election, that “….future generations could look back and say that this was the time that the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal…..”; his supporters fail to see any fanciful absurdity in that? Whenever I quote it I get hit with negative karma.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
The BBC is acountable David, you know that. They decide what the news is so we don’t have to.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Off topic: I’ve been waiting all day for bloggers to pick up on Obama’s astoundingly stupid idea of capping executive compensation of bailed out companies. Coyote blog is the only one, and he’s not worried. Well, I am. It tells us Obama either has no idea how markets work and does not believe incentives matter, or is knowingly trying to destroy the massive investment the US taxpayer has made in those companies.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“The Obamessiah is not a politician that the BBC is “out to get”; far from it”
Isnt that just as bad?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I think the truth here is far less sinister than people imagine. It is this: The BBC does not have the time/space in its broadcasts/print media to quote the speech in full. So they pull out the most interesting bits (which they are) and produce something like:
Mr Obama said that there would be a new approach to X.
“X blah blah,” Mr Obama said.
Y would receive new emphasis.
“Y blah blah,” Mr Obama said.
He also warned that Z.
“Z blah blah.”
But this is still not tight enough, so it gets further compressed to:
Mr Obama said that there would be a new approach.
“X blah blah, Y blah blah, “Z blah blah,” Mr Obama said.
Maybe this is the result of deliberate distortion. but more likely it is sub-editors under pressure to pare down the material to ever smaller size.
You can call this sloppiness if you like, but the real cause is our sound bite culture that Mr Obama gets a 30 second clip, or one paragraph, so let’s compress the maximum possible into that frame.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
The BBC is in lockstep with the enviro-Marxists and the global warming commies- whatever the BBC say, its designed to aid the agenda of these two groups.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
BBC, youre a nice company.. but we are done professionally!
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
At least Obama is coherent, something that his predecessor wasn’t.
“I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it… I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet… You know I… I hope I… I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t… You just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”
– George W. Bush, August 13, 2004, when asked if he’d made any mistakes since September 11, 2001
I think we’ll really miss Shrub.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Compared to Bush Obama is a gibbering bufoon but the media likes to rehash Bushes cock ups while editing out Obamas.
Jesus the man was so inept at his inauguration that they had to have him take the oath again the next day because he wasn’t legally the president he’d screwed it up so badly.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@Redbaiter-
Vote:Agreed strongly that the mass media is biased. Although contrary to what you seem to be implying this is not limited to the left, it applies to all. Apologies in advance if I misread what you were saying and you are not in fact only refering to the left.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Oh crap murray. Obama got it right, the judge doing the swearing in was the one doing the cockup.
Still got the hots for the Wassilla wannabe, too I suppose?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
unnacceptable.
Vote:Heads should roll.
But they won’t because the BBC would honestly think that they had improved on the actual speech, therefore it is ok.
They will fire someone for using the word gollywog, but allow shit to be made up and passed off as news.
Disgraceful.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“Although contrary to what you seem to be implying this is not limited to the left, it applies to all.”
Whereas there is a tonne of studies and polls and surveys that prove the media is biased to the left, example-
http://www.contactomagazine.com/mediabias031606.htm
I’ve seen none that prove it is biased to the right. Maybe you can provide some substantiation for your claim.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Oh crap jerk, go listen to anyone of dozens of Obamas speechs. The bugger should be drug tested. Give it 12 months before the media tire of their new toy and start laying into him with constant reruns of him playing foot in mouth.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
So what’s new?
Any reporting on AGW is distorted.
When Malcolm Muggeridge was one asked what he thought of the Empire Loyalists he replied “I have some sympathy for their plight. How can one be loyal to something that no longer exists.”
I remember his words whenever I see someone asked “Are we doing enough to manage climate change?” or whatever.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Don’t wuwwy muwwy. In a little less than 4 years, the American people will get to pass THEIR verdict. And they won’t care a jot or a tittle for you or your ramblings.
Go back to playin’with your Nailin Palin doll.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@Redbaiter-
Vote:Nice strawman you built there. I never said that there wasn’t more of a left lean than a right, but rather the right wing is also biased. My assertion was the entire mass media is biased. I base this off the need for them to generate an income and the bias which comes from the journalists perceptions. They are simply two causes for the bias.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Jesus Jack are you 6 or 7? Next will be Nah,nah nah nah nah I suppose.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“Nice strawman you built there.”
OK, so you don’t have any studies.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
If the dastardly BBC really is trying to build up Obama this is a pretty stupid way to go about it. Building up expectations that he is a lot more liberal/radical than he is is only going to create disappointment and disillusion when the reality of his actions becomes apparent. So maybe the BBC is secretly scheming for the Republicans? Or maybe they are really in the pay of the Chinese and cunningly working to undermine the popularity of the US in the Western world?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
s.russell normally that would be true, but the AGW machine is such that you can basically say anything and get away with it. in fact be applauded for it. I was having my evening stroll last night when I saw placards on a number houses saying “Stop Global warming. Cut Australian emissions by 50%” Now that would be akin to saying lets stop manufacturing and most industries immediately. The thing that makes this stand out is that Balmain is the Ponsonby of Sydney. Mostly professionals and creatives, Mostly homes of 1 to 2 mil and all renovated. And the renovations are magnificent, but if you buy into the carbon footprint theory, then those renovations would have had a massive impact on the enviroment. Yet the same people who so lovingly renovate their period terrace houses generating tonnes of carbon emissions sees nothing wrong anymore with demanding that emissions be cut by half.
It reminds me a bit of a doco I produced 20 years ago. An American (owned a major brand sports company) went to NZ to shoot a trophy stag. It was at that time the world record. Now the stag had been a stud on a farm in Taupo and was trucked down to Kurow to a hunting block. If you whistled it would come looking for you. Anyway, the great white hunter flew in took one shot to sight his rifle, was driven to within 100 yard of the stag and shot it. We interviewed him afterwards and his aim was to shoot one of every species that he could, and have it mounted back home. Why? we asked him. Ah he said, I am doing it for my daughter and son. By the time thy grow up some of these animals might be extinct and they might never get to see them. Ya Think!?! As a young gung ho producer in his early twenties I had my arse severely kicked when I suggested that maybe if he stopped killing them they might survive long enough for his daughter to see them for real.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Where’s I will not employ tax cheats? These first 2 weeks have been wonderful. I thought live under Obama would become a steamroller, but it seems we’re getting a circus instead.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Good job he didn’t use the word “terrorist” anywhere given Obama has been quite hawkish with regards to Pakistan and others. The “No True Muslim Terrorist” BBC would have had to change it for fear of offending their future sh*t-masters.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 6:24 am
With the Clinton Circus in tow, he is bound to have difficulty picking anyone without a sordid past.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Crikey Redbaiter, you gave an example yourself in your 2:11.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that conflating quotes from a speech to make it appear Obama supports AGW would be a lefty bias, whereas conflating Saddam and nukes would be a conservative bias.
Yes, I know it’s not a “media study” but it’s still an example of both sides of the bias, isn’t it?
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 9:44 am
“Yes, I know it’s not a “media study” but it’s still an example of both sides of the bias, isn’t it?”
No its not. Go away you try hard bore.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Why not?
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Reid, you think what you like. Here’s a hint. Check the date of the article. It was before 9/11 and before WMD were presented by the MMM as a major reason for the Iraq war. The BBC changed their tune completely once “there were never any WMD’s ” became the refrain of the treasonous global left, far more interested in defeating George Bush (and capitalism) than bringing democracy to Iraq.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Redbaiter, during the timeframe to which you refer, the media across the board clamoured for war with Iraq. Some useful idiots fell for the bullshit perhaps because they failed to understand that the media has a two-way bias that’s obvious to everyone who isn’t as thick as a whale omelet.
Here’s a hint for you. Look up the definition of the phrase ‘hoist with your own petar.’
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am
“during the timeframe to which you refer, the media across the board clamoured for war with Iraq.”
Yeah, while Democrats were in the Whitehouse.
“the media has a two-way bias that’s obvious to everyone who isn’t as thick as a whale omelet.”
So where’s the study again??? You’re an idiot. I could give you, from my own data base, a score or more of studies that show the media are baised leftward, and anyone who denies for example, the extreme leftism of the mainstream media’s flagship, the New York Times, has to be completely out of touch with reality. (Most leftists are, otherwise they wouldn’t be leftists.) Go away Reid. You bore me intensely.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Your very own example gives a counter-example of the point you’re trying hard to make.
No matter how desperately you try to spin your way out of it, you’re fucked.
I’m not surprised you find that rather boring. It’s hard admitting you’re quite wrong, isn’t it?
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 10:05 am
“It’s hard admitting you’re quite wrong, isn’t it?”
Why don’t you quit posing as the umpire at the same time as you contest you pathetic try hard drongo.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Hey it’s not me RB, it’s a teeny thing called logic.
Last time I looked, that is the main thing one usually looks toward when analysing reality.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am
“Last time I looked, that is the main thing one usually looks toward when analysing reality.”
That’s funny coming from someone so introspectively contorted from hitting the leftist kool ade conspiracy bottle so hard, he’s fast disappearing up his own umbilical.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Hey lucid argument, RB. You’re really coming along, aren’t you.
Vote:February 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Hoist with my own petard, as I remember, if you are quoting from Cyrano de Bergerac.
If you are quoting Shakespeare then you would have to use all his strange spelling:
For tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his owne petar.
(The petard mortar was an engine of war and engineers were designers of engines of war.)
Vote: