It’s the Religious Right? Wrong.
ByTonight on Newsnight, reporter Stephanie Flanders adopted the standard BBC/Guardian default position used as a stock explanation for virtally anything that happens on the political right in the US…it’s all the work of the religious right.
Ostensibly, but falsely, explaining the demise of the Miers nomination, Flanders gives us a clip of a group of people kneeling, holding hands, and praying, as she serves up this:
But by far the harshest opposition has come from right wing faith groups…
As I’ve pointed out previously, this is complete and utter rubbish, and the fact that Flanders was able to track down a Christian who denounced Miers doesn’t make it smell any better. The most immediate, powerful, and heated objections came from the likes of George Will, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and the entire staff of National Review. These people are not voices of the Christian right. They are voices of intellectual, ideological, principled conservatism, and contrary to the BBC’s warped reporting, these are the voices that influence and drive conservative policy in Washington, not Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. Link here.
The Beeb getting a good telling off by the excellent American Expatriate. I anticipate that I may be linking to him a lot more in the future.
4 Comments
October 29th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I must do the Christian Right’s bidding
Via Englishman in New York, I’ve discovered this great post The American Expat about the BBC’s obsession with the Christian right and its misrepresentation of its infuence: Tonight on Newsnight, reporter Stephanie Flanders adopted the standard BBC/Gu…
October 29th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
The Christian right is so overrated and so overly feared. Most Americans, including Christian Americans, scoff at them. And you’re absolutely right. It’s the intellectual conservatives who were in a tissy about the Miers nomination, and not the religious right. My husband actually thinks that Bush nominated Miers to through a bone to the Christian right, all the while knowing that the nomination would fall through. Bush could then later nominate a candidate that the intellectual conservatives will approve of but who will not hold a christian right bias with Roe vs. Wade. Does the BBC not understand American culture or are they blatantly trying to create a false impression?
October 29th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
It’s not me who was right, it’s the American Expat. But I have been meaning to blog about this the last couple of days.
It seems ironic to me that Democrat-leaning friends of mine in New York have spent the past two years convinced that Bush was itching to pack the Court with people who would reverse Roe vs Wade. Then this happens and his nominee is opposed by conservatives…more because of her lack of experience than her unreliability on the abortion issue.
It makes me wonder how well we really understand Bush and his views.
As for the BBC, I don’t think they do not understand American culture. I think they do not want to understand. And I think it is far easier to re-inforce stereotypes than it is to break them.
October 29th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Aren’t the women in Bush’s life pro-choice? I’m “surprised” the BBC wouldn’t want to make conjectures on how that might influence his strategy behind his Supreme Court nomination decisions. And being that most intellectual conservatives strongly opposed the Myers nomination, a more intellectual response by journalists would be to reassess what Conservatives actually value. Now many people have told me that European papers are a bit more intellectual than their American cousins, so what’s going on? The BBC response seems to me to be absolutely unintellectual as it is not even based on fact. But perhaps with their very low opinion of American intellect they feel quite comfortable. It’s fun to say that Americans are stupid – and I confess, as an American I’ve even had a bit of fun with this myself although it’s growing tired.