Why is the BBC funding pro-Obama polls?

We already knew that most of the world wanted Barack Obama to be the next US President.  Plenty of polling already existed to suggest as much (see Pew for example).  That didn't stop the BBC commissioning a poll of its own to reach the same conclusion.  Shadow Culture Spokesman Jeremy Hunt (incidentally being tipped as the next Tory Chairman) wonders if this is a good use of BBC resources.  He issued this statement to ConHome:

"I'd like to know where the money is coming from the fund these polls. If they are funded from the commercial profits of BBC World News, that's one thing but I would question whether it is something UK taxpayers should be financing through the licence fee."

Does anyone doubt that the BBC wants Obama to win?  Last week Jim Naughtie wished the Democrats "good luck".  This entry on BBC Online yesterday ends with a very negative reference to McCain-Palin.  At 4am this morning on BBC World Service an hour long debate from LA found only one person in the "balanced" audience who thought Sarah Palin had the experience to be VP.  The list could go on and on...

Comments

[Man in a Shed]

Now this is one of those bear in the woods type trick questions isn't it ?

[John]

they found a person who thought Sarah Palin had the experience to be VP?!

[David_at_Home]

It is the despised "Rednecks", or, in the UK, the Daily "Mail Readers” who earn most of the money which is taxed, one way or another, to support the “Chattering Classes” who dominate the BBC. .

Time for another peasant’s revolt?

[Helen]

The world? The world? How do we know what the world wants? Most of the world's people have no right to vote for their own government. Even in Britain we do not actually vote for the people who provide us with 70 - 80 per cent of our legislation and the people whom we do elect have no right to throw any of it out. What they mean is the nice left-of-centre BBC groupies, tranzis and NGOs want Obama to be president and if the place were run properly they would be deciding who rules which country. Shame America is a democracy and ordinary people have to be asked for their views.

And John, in case your comment is not being sarcastic at the Beeb's expense, Governor Palin, as governor of Alaska has a great deal of executive experience. Considerably more than Obama who is running for president even though he seems to be campaigning against the Veep candidate. If it is sarcasm at the Beeb's expense, forget what I said.

[Londoner]

David at Home: the peasants' revolt failed mate. Thankfully...

[All Hail Uncle Dave!]

Yes, in future the BBC will be banned from reporting any stories we do not like. That is because we Tories believe in freedom!

The BBC may think it is an independent broadcaster free to make its own editorial decisions but, no. When we Tories are in power we will exercise editorial control. because freedom is about being a Tory! We are the party of freedom! Set the people (except those in the BBC) free!

All stories that favour the left and "tranzis" (what they?) will be banned. Especially any opinion polls that tell is what we "already know". (Except in britain, we want more polls now! In fact tomorrow we plan to complain that the BBC haven't commissioned any polls!)

Forward with Dave!
Death to all Tranzis!
Long live Thatcher-Hague-Cameron thought!

[London Tory]

The short answer is "because the BBC wants Obama to win". This became obvious during their coverage of the party conventions. At Obama's, Justin Webb and Jim Naughtie competed all week to ladle on the hyperbole and superlatives, starting from the speech of Sinn Fein's best friend, Senator Ted. Webb was almost reduced to girlish giggles at times, so overwhelmed did he become at the thought of the fresh man from Illinois making it to the White House.

What a contrast to the GOP convention. Then we were treated to "Stern Justin" and "Sober Jim". On BBC News 24 they ran a totally dishonest trailer for hours, fronted by Emily Maitlis, stating that "doubts were growing" about Sarah Palin's suitability. These were never backed up. One wondered if these doubts came from the moose population of Alaska, or maybe from another left wing BBC producer with a Hamas badge on his lapel, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian in his pocket.

[Edward Turnham]

You've missed the point of the BBC Online article. It's not anti-McCain.

[Empedocles]

This poll was done by the World Service, which is funded by the Foreign Office, not by the license fee. You would have thought that Jeremy Hunt would know that.

Oh, and it's hardly logical to say, in any case, that the BBC are "funding pro-Obama polls" given that you can only know that a poll is "pro" anyone until after you've done it.

By that rationale, the BBC exit poll done for the past 3 elections have been "pro Labour", just like every opinion poll at the moment is "pro Conservative".

[ACT]

"Sinn Fein's best friend, Senator Ted" - that's very unfair. Certainly Rep. Peter King of New York will no doubt find it outrageous that anyone else is accounted a better friend of Sinn Fein than him. Mind you, Peter King *is* a supporter of the 'war on terror', so I suppose for some tools he'll be adjudged a Good Egg.

[DOS]

Liz Forgon, whose entire career seems to have consisted of moving back and forth between different levels at the Guardian and the BBC, said the other day that the leaders of the "superpowers" (sc. the USA) should be voted for by a world-wide electorate. You couldn't make this sort of stuff up. For all her exciting moving about between the Guardian and the BBC, her mental state, her powers of analysis, and her understanding of the world and of history are those of a fourteen-year-old. Why am I not surprised?

[Justin Hinchcliffe - go Sarah!]

Why is the BBC funding pro-Obama polls?

Because they're c***s!

[Michael McGowan]

Isn't it time Orla Guerin made a guest appearance to tell us, in her intensive care unit voice, about some evil Zionist conspiracy behind John McCain?

[Victoria Street]

ConHome at its worst.
Lazy BBC knocking, with no reference to facts (e.g. poll produced by FCO funded World Service, not licence fee), provoking splenetic reaction from the usual suspects, who remain at large despite the best efforts of the mental health community to round them up.

[DOS]

Victoria Street @ 11.44:
"the usual suspects, who remain at large despite the best efforts of the mental health community to round them up."

Why do some people always respond like this?
My post (above) was entirely factual. I reported what Liz Forgon had said and likened her remarks to those of a fourteen-year-old. I stand by this. I'm not saying she is "mentally ill", "swivel-eyed" or any of the other silly things that some people say, simply that her remarks betray a striking immaturity. Did you read her embarrassing criticisms of Sarah Palin, including an emotional rant about Mrs Palin's hair-style? I rest my case.

[Tim Montgomerie]

It's still the BBC budget Victoria Street.

[Iain Lindley]

How tedious. Every time the BBC says something that you disagree with, someone pops up on here and yells "bias". The same whining voices that complained about the top-line coverage BBC News Online gave to the Democrat convention were stony in their silence when the same prominence was given to McCain and Palin (indeed Palin - and I mean before any of the controversy emerged - got far more coverage than Biden).

The BBC doesn't get everything right - far far from it - but this pathetic crying wolf every time something disagreeable pops up means that NO-ONE IS LISTENING when the BBC actually is biased...

[David_at_Home]

"...poll produced by FCO funded World Service, not licence fee"

It's all our money!

[Victoria Street]

Yes, David at Home, it is our money and via the World Service it's pretty well spent. 200m listeners a week and a global reputation for fairness, relability and culture is a good return on the investment.
Actually, Tim, it is not the same thing at all. World Service budgeting is totally separate because the legislation precludes licence fee money being spent on World Service Radio or World TV.
And, anyway, as the owner of this site should know very well, an opinion poll is not designed to deliver the result a commissioner demands. If it did, YouGov would lose its reputation overnight.

[Michael McGowan]

Iain Lindley, come off it...you aren't telling us that the Naughties of this world and the other BBC apparatchiks were exactly cheering when Palin was unveiled? She may have got coverage....but what sort of coverage.

[Tim Montgomerie]

I really don't understand your point Victoria Street. The fact is UK taxpayers' money is being used to reproduce essentially the same polling already adequately undertaken by Pew (and others).

My point is that the results are predictable because others have already asked the same questions. I'm not questioning any pollsters' integrity.

[johnC]

Given that they conducted a similar poll in 2004 which concluded that 30 out of 35 countries preferred Kerry to Bush, one might have thought that the BBC would have given up trying to influence American elections (and waste taxpayers' money) in this way.

[Norm Brainer]

"My point is that the results are predictable because others have already asked the same questions. I'm not questioning any pollsters' integrity."

Do we know what the questions were? this may have been part of a regular poll they do and just one of the questions in it?
The results may have then been sold for a profit?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"David at Home: the peasants' revolt failed mate. Thankfully..."

Posted by: Londoner | September 10, 2008 at 10:23

But not the one in 1979.

The Tories do not have to "ban" the BBC; it merely has to abolish the TV license and let it stand or fall on its appeal to the public. Those that wish to subscribe to it can provide the finance.

[Victoria Street]

Tim, the World Service is perfectly entitled to spend taxpayers' - as opposed to licence fee payers' - money on polls such as this. It is a global organisation, reporting news and views from all and sundry. It would be foolish not to test the waters with regular opinion surveys.
If your argument is that taxpayers' money should not be spent on a global broadcasting corporation, then that is a different argument. But, if you accept that it is a valid use of our money, as I do, then you should accept that it will spend money on activities, such as opinion polls, that are useful tools in its business and broadcasting model.

[David, let me have your babies]

The Tories do not have to "ban" the BBC; it merely has to abolish the TV license and let it stand or fall on its appeal to the public. Those that wish to subscribe to it can provide the finance.

Yes, so we can have high quality TV like ITV on every channel.

[Tim Montgomerie]

VS: You are not even engaging with what I've written.

[Victoria Street]

TM: You wrote: "I really don't understand your point Victoria Street. The fact is UK taxpayers' money is being used to reproduce essentially the same polling already adequately undertaken by Pew (and others). My point is that the results are predictable because others have already asked the same questions. I'm not questioning any pollsters' integrity."
My reply was that they are perfectly entitled to spend money on opinion polls. They are a global organisation which should be testing the political temperature of its 200m listeners. Are you arguing that an organisation should not undertake polling because others have asked similar questions in the past or that all opinion polls are predictable because others have done them before?

[Time to get rid]

Victoria Street - what planet are you on? Commissioning a poll like this was obviously always going to show a massive pro-Obama bias. The BBC therefore knowingly engaged in a political debate to push Obama - using taxpayers' money. Look at the front page of Drudge - it was a story in the US election, even if a minor one. As a UK taxpayer, I think this is wrong. Simple as that.

[Poll-y]

What's wrong with backing the best person for the job?

[Cllr Tony Sharp]

I am all for the BBC doing these unique and ground breaking polls using taxpayers' money.

What we need now is BBC staff to go out campaigning for Obama and delivering editorials telling the American public "You must vote for Obama. The world is telling you it wants him to be your President". Surely it is a moral imperative.

There is nothing the Americans like better than being told, by enlightened foreign nationals who know so much more, just what they should do.

** This comment may contain traces of irony

[London Tory]

The BBC increasingly confuses its target customer audience with its workforce recruitment policy. Notionally it is supposed to cater for the British people as a whole. Increasingly it's 'news types' in particular seem to be drawn from narrow sections of society. Orla Guerin is another prime example of this. She has never sought to hide her pro Palestine, anti Israel sympathies. It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to predict where Mark Thompson ticks his box on election night, either.

As for Barack Hussein Obama, he has that unhealthy air on 'entitlement' about him, which I hope will be his downfall. His mentality, and that of the Left in general, is well captured in a piece by Jonathan Freeland [ex cheerleader of Gordon Brown, now a sinner who repents] in todays Guardian. In a nutshell, Obama must win because he DESERVES to. Quite why is always left to the imagination, but the interpretation is obvious.

There will be some very long faces at BBC TV Centre on the night McCain wins the Election !

[C List and Proud]

The more the Guardian, BBC, Independent and the Eu tell the US to vote for Obama, the less likely he is to win.

So, perverseley, I would like the BBC to spend more of my TV Tax on pro-Obama stuff because the rednecks willget all arsey and not vote for him as a consequence. :-}

[David, let me have your babies]

As for Barack Hussein Obama, he has that unhealthy air on 'entitlement' about him, which I hope will be his downfall. His mentality, and that of the Left in general, is well captured in a piece by Jonathan Freeland [ex cheerleader of Gordon Brown, now a sinner who repents] in todays Guardian. In a nutshell, Obama must win because he DESERVES to. Quite why is always left to the imagination, but the interpretation is obvious.

Cut the crap and say what you mean. He's black.

Tories: always willing to prove there are worse things.

[London Tory]

@ David

Do you think B.O's much reported remark about his "Muslim faith" last week was a freudian slip ? :)

[Harry Haddock]

Regarding BBC R5, Rhod Sharp's pro-Obama bias is obvious to me, which prompted this

[Cleethorpes Rock]

C List and Proud, don't forget Russel Brand's endorsement of Obama! The coalition is building.

I know I've been perhaps too strident in some of the terms I've used about SOME OF Sarah Palin's views, but the BBC hasn't been balanced in any way in its coverage of this election. There is certainly no need for taxpayers' cash to be used on polling. There are plenty of polls out there already. It is the BBC's job to report the news, not make it themselves.

I think both McCain and Obama will both be equally hopeless, but at least if McCain wins we get to witness the weepy mourning and hand-wringing of the left- Russel Brand and the BBC included!

[Alex]

"Why is the BBC funding pro-Obama polls?"

Because the BBC (Brown Broadcasting Organisation) are a organisation with a political-left wing bias and therefore want Obama to win.

[Shaun Bennett]

And having just received my TV magazine for next week, I was disgusted to find that the BBC's coverage of the party conference season has been cut back to a bare minimum this year. True the stupid Lib Dems have started their conference on a Saturday-ruling out coverage on Saturday and Sunday-but I was shocked to find that the BBC will only be showing a single hour's coverage on Monday and another hour on Tuesday. Since political programmes never run over anymore, they probably won't even cover all of the leaders speech in full.

Now I don't particularly care whether they show the Lib Dem conference or not, but presumably coverage of the Labour and Tory conferences will be similarly non-existant.

10 years ago they used to show about 4 hours a day at conference time, and they had a talkback programme in the evening each night. Last years coverage was dire, but this year is just taking the mick.

Why are the BBC allowed to get away with it!!!

[Shaun Bennett]

Having just consulted the BBC website, it seems that the Labour and Tory conferences will have slightly more coverage overall. But is still absolutely dire compared to previous years output.

A clear case of the BBC dumbing down.

Isn't it about time an incoming Conservative government put together proposed legilsation to allow the BBC to be prosecuted for political bias? Mabye the threat of a prison sentence for their director-general, chairman and senior executives would make them think twice about what is acceptable.

[Peter W]

Reason #2016 to sell the BBC off.

[Fed up with loons who want rubbish TV]

Actually the BBC broadcast more conference coverage than ever. You can watch the whole thing live and uninterrupted on the parliament channel. So please, stop whining and deal with the facts.

[Jill, London]

What gives “Victoria Street” the authority to proclaim: “My reply was that they are perfectly entitled to spend money on opinion polls.”?!

Under these circumstances, it’s irrelevant who pays for the BBC World Service – either way it’s the bled dry taxpayer! And in return we are patronised – and infantalised – by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.

Not content with trying to lecture us about the greatness of the government of all the Comrades who are never responsible for the consequences of their own actions – because it’s either the fault of ‘global forces’ – or the Americans – the BBC has now targeted Americans in order to ‘nudge’ them into voting for Obama. As someone else pointed out, I hope this has the same effect as The Grunaid’s interference on behalf of Kerry in the last presidential election.

Indeed, the BBC are morphing into their fellow travellers [the government of all the Comrades] when they try to poke their collective noses into other people’s business – and if possible – charge them for the ‘privilege’.

[Mark]

I'm surprised this is being called a "pro-Obama" poll. Sure, it shows his popularity outside the US.

But being very popular outside the US is as likely to be a vote loser as a vote winner within the US.

You could just as well argue it's part of a cunning anti-Obama plot and the BBC really must in the secret pay of the Republicans!

[Jim Carr]

Fed up with loons who want rubbish TV

And I'm fed up with loons who want me to pay for what they consider to be good TV.
The BBC has not produced a good programme for many years, and no I don't consider their vast number of identikit programmes (all with the same style of lighting and camerawork, no actors over 40, and polluted with political correctness) worth watching.
You want it - you pay for it.

[James Maskell]

This story seems a little overcooked. Is the BBC deliberately going out to fund pro-Obama polls, or are they just funding a poll that comes out in favour of Obama? Would there be complaints from this site if the polls were coming out in favour of McCain?

[Time to get rid]

James - they never ever commission polls which show anything other than people believe in lefty stuff - when was the last time they did a poll showing people want lower taxes, less integration with the EU, a tougher line on terror, and so on.

[Norm Brainer]

"The BBC has not produced a good programme for many years, and no I don't consider their vast number of identikit programmes (all with the same style of lighting and camerawork, no actors over 40, and polluted with political correctness) worth watching."

Do you only watch prime time bbc1? .. do you think that's where all your licence fee goes?

[Timetogetrid]

norm - you forgot to mention all those great nature programmes which in themslves completely justify taxing everyone £150 a year...

[Matt]

Have you turned on BBC Parliament recently? Wall to wall TUC/Democrats Coverage! And during the Republican convention.....barely half the amount of airtime.