It’s a well-known fact – and one even admitted by the network itself – that the BBC blatantly shills for the left at every opportunity. Today is no exception. Check out the headline on their story about the internal review Team Obama did on itself in light of the Blago pay to play scandal:
Just from reading that headline alone, you’d think that an independent investigation had cleared Team O of any legal wrongdoing/inappropriate contact, right? But you have to read the actual story to find out they were “cleared” via an internal review:
President-elect Barack Obama’s team had “no inappropriate discussions” with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, according to an internal review.
But his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel talked to Mr Blagojevich about who should fill Mr Obama’s senate seat.
Mr Blagojevich has been accused of attempting to “sell” the seat, but says he is not guilty of any wrongdoing.
The review reveals that the US Attorney leading the Blagojevich probe spoke to Mr Obama as part of his investigation.
Patrick Fitzgerald also questioned Mr Emanuel, and Obama aide Valerie Jarrett last week about their contacts with Mr Blagojevich.
No quid pro quo
The internal review was conducted by Greg Craig, a legal adviser to Mr Obama.
And so that’s supposed to mean that we believe the findings without question.
A lot of people are “headline” readers. If they know there’s a big issue on the table, they’ll pick up the paper (or scan the online headlines) and see something like the BBC headline and think the review was external, and that the coast is clear. Some of them won’t read the accompanying article which, naturally, gives more detail. I know you can only fit so much into a headline, but at least the Washington Post and NYT of all places had the decency to note that it was an Obama report. The headline from the BBC will convince many of the Obama worshippers in the UK that the controversy is over, because the Obama team has been “cleared.”
This isn’t too suggest that I believe that Obama and Co. are guilty of any legal wrongdoing, but instead to point out the BBC’s willingness to swallow whole and without question the assertion that Team Obama has been cleared of wrongdoing – especially considering it was an Obama lawyer who conducted the “review.” Show of hands out there how many believe the BBC would have treated George W. Bush … or John McCain the same?
I didn’t think so.
Dodge ball, anyone?
Update – 6:49 PM: ST reader Anthony finds a hilarious headline from the LAT: “Obama team probe of Obama team finds no Obama team impropriety.” Priceless. This nugget was buried in the article:
The Obama team did not keep phone logs, so their contact list was developed from memory, which may or may not match the federal wiretap chronology if it’s ever released.
“From memory” yet the BBC … well, you know.