4 ms·
>In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be f
by aphextron 10y ago
>In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud.
I think this is more of a general British attitude than The Economist in particular. You see a lot of the same kind of stuff from the BBC. Arrogant, anglo-centric, looking down the nose at anyone foreign.
- choult 10y agoThe BBC is clearly doing a pretty good job at being unbiased (as per its mandate) as _everyone_ thinks it's biased against _them_. In reality, in an attempt at balance, the Beeb generall gives too much time to fringe views, often lending the appearance of legitimacy to them. (cf. Their climate change coverage up until fairly recently)
- ZenoArrow 10y agoThe BBC has a bias for whomever is in power. You can see it most clearly in their political coverage. For example, compare this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpkpUaJF8Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpkpUaJF8Og With this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVe5foPumHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVe5foPumHE
- tonyedgecombe 10y agoI'm not sure what your seeing, the Tories weren't plotting against their leader whereas Labour were and still are, no journalist can ignore that.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoAt the time of those videos, the Labour leadership coup wasn't in full effect, the questions instead were focused on hammering on the 'unelectable' narrative the BBC and other mainstream media outlets have been aiming at Corbyn since he got in the leadership race. Contrast this with the softball questions that Cameron was getting. Worth remembering there's plenty of controversial decisions that the Conservatives made in the recent past that they could've discussed, that 'no journalist can ignore', I can go into details if you like. Additionally, I could point out plenty of other examples of media spin from the BBC against Corbyn. Would be willing to share more.
- tonyedgecombe 10y agoOr perhaps Corbyn genuinely is unelectable.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoBased on what? The fact he won the Labour leadership election by a landslide? The fact that the Labour party membership has nearly doubled compared to last year? The fact that Labour have held all 4 seats contested in by elections since he was elected leader ( http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/by-elections/by-elections-since-2015-general-election/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/by-e... )? The fact that Labour largely maintained their lead in local government representatives during the last local elections? You could probably point to some poll or other that claimed he was unelectable, but as I said before, the media has been attacking him from day one, and many people are swayed by what they read in the media. There's also the issue of the rise of the SNP in Scotland, but that's got very little to do with Corbyn.
- tonyedgecombe 10y agoWinning the leadership isn't the same as winning an election, both Labour and the Tories have a history of choosing leaders from the extremes of their party then not being able to get into power. Labour needs to stop blaming the media for their woes and get on with making themselves acceptable to the general electorate.