My annual weekend in Washington D.C. fell on the final weekend of campaigning in the Presidential election. By today it will all be over bar the counting.
Washington D.C. is a city completely in the grip of Harris-Walz mania. Every banner, button or shout-out is for Kamala Harris. MAGA hats sold in tourist shops next to Harris hats, purely for commercial reasons are the only reminder that Harris has an opponent.
The television news, at least the channels playing in the bars and hotel foyers, is wall-to-wall Harris propaganda. Kamala Harris is invariably shown smiling, waving and glad-handing an adoring public. Trump is rarely shown in action and is usually pictured looking glum and isolated.
The pro-Harris message could not be clearer. Any statistics that are shown refer to blue states where Harris is likely to win. Admittedly, the percentages were close in these, but I saw no reference to red states where Trump was likely to win.
I walked the length of Pennsylvania Avenue from a heavily fortified Capitol to the White House. There were stalls and gatherings everywhere, usually of middle-aged women sporting Harris t-shirts emblazoned with her inanities about women changing the world. Pink hair was much in evidence. There were very few men involved in these mini-rallies and those I saw were black. Such is the nature of intersectional politics.
As I approached the White House the gatherings were larger and noisier. They were not obtrusive, however, and I reckoned that this was because there was an implicit assumption that if you were in D.C. that weekend, you were a Harris supporter.
I asked a woman in my hotel foyer about her banners which she happily showed me. They carried more of Kamala’s vacuous utterances. The woman explained that she was for Harris, against Trump and especially against Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation document which is an agenda for the formation of a truly conservative administration.
I am sure that nothing in Project 2025 was to the liking of my hotel cohabitee, but it was especially odious to her that there were proposals to clamp down on trade unions, abolish overtime and widen the ban on abortion. She did not ask my views, and I did not volunteer them.
Last week a giant turd sculpture appeared on the Washington Mall, the purpose of which is to denigrate the protesters of January 6th who entered the Capitol and who, allegedly, left turds on desks and floors to mark their invasion. The giant turd is completely unofficial, but it has not been removed. Perhaps that would be a high priority for a Trump administration if he wins.
Readers of the Washington Post are upset, apparently, that it has not given its usual endorsement of one of the candidates. Presumably they would be furious if it had endorsed Trump. I was unable to ascertain the weekend coverage in the Post: no copies appeared to be on sale early on Sunday morning in Washington Reagan airport. But there were plenty of copies of the the New York Times (NYT) and it is not shy in endorsing Kamala Harris.
Rather, I should say that it is not shy in trying to demolish the candidature of Donald Trump. In fact, there is very little in the NYT about Harris. The entire Sunday edition, on the front page, in the opinion supplement and in the magazine is devoted to the sheer awfulness of Donald Trump.
A front-page column, decorated with a picture of Steve Bannon, opens on the theme of Trump and his allies using the same “subversive playbook” as four years ago to challenge “the false notion of a stolen election” result which he clearly feels will go against him, regardless of the vote. Project 2025 is dissected on the final two pages and its entrails laid out in such a way that the link between the policies it contains and those of key figures in Trump circles are made clear.
The second part of the main newspaper reports on the 230,000 volunteers enlisted by the Republicans as election monitors who, the article headline says, are not so much there to prevent fraud as to prove that it has taken place.
The second and third pages of the NYT always contains a series of soundbite columns offering fun facts and summaries of recent news. These two pages are remarkably free of anti-Trump propaganda. But one such column, Second Look, has a cartoon drawing of trees and chimneys pouring out smoke which obscures the tops of the trees.
The message is clear without reading the caption, which refers to how “many are anxious” about what will happen to the environment if Trump is elected and reverts to his environmental policy, which was to abolish most environmental policies in favour of a carbon fuelled industrial economy. It is reckoned that 100 environmental policies could be repealed, and the question is raised as to “where would the environment stand” after a Trump administration. No facts related to the environment are provided and the writer clearly confects a link between changes in environmental policy with actual change in the environment.
The opinion supplement is dedicated to the NYT’s editorial line but there is not a single article dedicated to the greatness of Kamala Harris. Rather, it is a diatribe against Trump and speaks of the fragility of democracy, how autocracy is on the cards at the election and to what people fear if Trump wins. Trump is portrayed as a Pol Pot like character without any of Pol Pot’s redeeming features.
The NYT magazine picks up the theme of the threat to democracy with a message to that effect on the cover page. Inside, all manner of concern is expressed by all manner of people about the prospect of a Trump government. The sheer one-sidedness and amnesia in the reporting in the NYT is staggering. While it is reported that challenging election results is very much a Trump trait they conveniently ignore the times when Democrats have likewise questioned election outcomes.
They also seem to ignore the fact that Trump is much stronger on rhetoric than action. The best way to judge someone’s likely actions is to look at his past record. Under the last Trump administration there were no mass deportations, unlike under his predecessor Barak Obama. Trump’s famous wall at the Mexican border went largely unbuilt. Trump is not perfect, and he may not be the best. But America cannot wait for the best; it may have to make do with better.
Dr. Roger Watson is Academic Dean of Nursing at Southwest Medical University, China. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He writes in a personal capacity.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
As Sir Desmond Swayne MP puts it in a recent blog post
“…the BBC (in reality a partisan campaigning organisation)…”
https://www.desmondswaynemp.com/ds-blog/concrete-though-tempted-to-profanity-britain-isnt-finished/
One would have to possess a heart of stone not to laugh.
I’ll only laugh if the BBC admits she lied, apologises for having a liar as a disinformation reporter and sacks her, or I see a flying pig.
Honestly, hasn’t she got a face you would just love to slap?
(A wet slap at that!)
“A brilliant reporter” what smug twat she is!
a BRILLIANT LIAR more like!
Oh what a terrible shame. I thought she was such an open-minded, honest and even-handed person, not someone who is simply reverting to type…./sarc.
Miss Information Mariana Spring falls
“Everything else on my CV is entirely true.” Unless it isn’t. Oh how I laughed. She will however escape punishment or any kind of sanction.
The bottom line wth this Spring creature is that she is a liar. We know that, she knows that and we can always call on this fact when the stupid, evil woman needs taking down a peg.
Those eyebrows look like ‘deliberate disinformation’ to me.
If you’re going to put yourself in this sort of position, you have to be whiter than white. Since no one can be that perfect, there shouldn’t be a BBC Verify. The very idea that a state broadcaster funded by compulsion is now dictating what is and isn’t reality is utterly terrifying. The only conclusion is that the people are consciously malevolent or so stupid that they’ve no idea just what sort of slope they’re sliding down.
Can someone tell me what big news story this person has ever reported on?…..What exactly are her supposed reporting credentials?….…
Before last year I had never heard of her…and the only thing I know about her now is that she seems to be another useless, likely overpaid BBC numpty….with a non-job, paid for at our expense….
….the idea that we, the public, should pay for these people to tell us what we can and cannot see…..or read..or hear…and that somehow they have the magical power of being the only ones capable of being the arbitrators of the truth is beyond ridiculous…
Who the hell do they think they are?… especially air-headed twenty something’s who know way less than me….just bugger off, no thank you….I’m not buying the crap you are selling….
We know civilisation is in terminal decline, but If this is the epitome of what we now call an investigative reporter..God help us…..
https://nypost.com/2022/11/01/marianna-spring-tries-to-understand-us-politics-by-creating-fake-americans/
PS…a round of applause for all you smug buggers who don’t pay a licence fee!!! LOL!
“What exactly are her supposed reporting credentials?….…”
Apparently she once bumped in to Sarah Rainsford. Err, that’s it.
Who is Sarah Rainsford?
She is, apparently, a leg-end in her own lunchtime.
And a bell-end the rest of the time.
As Vanessa Beeley said of Spring on U.K. Column “she’s a piece of work”.
There’s an article in Spiked on this issue. For a while it seems to find it slightly amusing although by the end it does admit that the BBC’s reach makes it a bit more important.
Well I don’t find it remotely amusing. The woman is a proven liar and yet she is telling millions of people that others who have the temerity to question events are the ones lying.
She should be sacked and never work in the media again but we know that’s not the way the MSM work.
Leave her in place – if she does the equivalent damage to the BBC licence fee payers that Mulvaney did to Bud Lite sales all well and good.
Those doctors and scientists who have stood up to all the covid nonsense have told the truth despite the detriment to their careers
Marianna Spring has lied to further her career, both on her CV and in her reporting.
What a contrast between these heroes and the despicable low-life Spring.
Perhaps the most significant thing about Marianna Spring is that she’s the best the BBC could get to run its Orwellian offshoot. She’s a nobody, who looks about 12 (age, not size!) whom no one had heard of before, who has no significant experience. You would have expected them to front this setup with a big name, but clearly no one experienced with any common sense would take on such a job.
She’s actually probably a nice girl who means well, but a lot of these people suckered by the progressivist left don’t understand just how totalitarian their world view is. In essence: ‘You should be nice to everyone. I’ll MAKE you be nice to everyone!’
That manjaw: this picture makes it look as though Marianna has a huge manjaw. I’m sure she hasn’t got a manjaw like this, so why publish a picture that makes it look as though she has actually got a huge manjaw?
It really is a low blow to try and pretend that she has got a huge manjaw and I think you should reconsider. Women have feelings too, Daily Sceptic.
Check her out on a picture search. That’s what she looks like when they aren’t doing carefully lit publicity pictures…
What she looks like is not particularly relevant. What she spouts is. She is a crook.
BTF that’s putting it mildly.
Hopefully more TV licence cancellations come of this.
The BBC lie by omission. During all the time since the Covid vaccines were first introduced in December 2020 – two years and nine months ago – the BBC have reported nothing negative about the Covid vaccines. Absolutely nothing – apart from the death of the BBC’s own presenter, Lisa Shaw, which the Coroner stated was due to the Covid vaccine, which the BBC could not avoid reporting, briefly.
The BBC have never allowed any expert critical of the vaccines to speak on the BBC. They never report what any critic of the vaccines say. That’s not honest reporting, that’s propaganda.
There was an interview with Dr Malhotra, but he did have to use subterfuge: –
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1613837487796850688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1613837487796850688%7Ctwgr%5Ee29792375d4be71d6ecf52cfad4d8594860d5d06%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeadline.com%2F2023%2F01%2Fbbc-interview-anti-vax-aseem-malhotra-praised-by-andrew-bridgen-1235220965%2F
Yes, the interview wasn’t about the vaccines, but he managed to get a sentence in about them when the interviewer wasn’t expecting it. And it was on a regional BBC channel, not any of the main channels.
By their silence, they have actually endorsed our scepticism about the new
wonder jabs being pushed on the population for a virus that 98% survive.
Jesus. That smile. The smile of the smug and the self-righteous.
What a dupe.
In the private sector, lying on your CV would be an instant P45.
Agreed
Marianna Spring identifies as a Brilliant Journalist but hasn’t actually made the transition yet.
The bigger question is why a 26 year old, with all of her life’s inexperience, could get the job in the first place. Like most of her ilk she knows the square root of sweet FA
Yes, you’d expect a big name BBC journalist to front such an organisation, not someone in her mid-20s with no life experience. Which means no big name journalist would take the job.
Who better to employ to broadcast lies than a liar.