Brandjack News

By Quentin Langley

This morning, BBC Radio Four's Today Programme led off its news with a report that a vote to prevent the US defaulting on its debt had been postponed. Appropriate choice of lead item. Important news. But the way the BBC described the news was tendentious at best, and flat out false at worst. The vote is not to prevent default. It is to raise the ceiling on US debt.

It may be that the consequence of not having this vote would be default. That is what President Obama claims. But to make that news, rather than comment, depends on 1.accepting his analysis and 2. believing that he isn't bluffing. For default is not the inevitable consequence of not raising the debt ceiling. It is President Obama's chosen response, assuming he is not bluffing.

The consequence of not raising the debt ceiling is that the US federal government will have to cut back on some of its expenditure. The President could choose to make those cuts anywhere. He says he will default on the debt. There are two parts to his negotiating strategy. First he says "if you don't do as I say, I will default on the debt". Second he says "you are irresponsible for even contemplating a default on the debt". In other words, his response is very similar to a kidnapper saying "do as I say or the hostage gets it. Don't make me do this. It will be your fault if I do".

Now someone ideologically aligned with the President, a blogger say, has every right to repeat the President's talking points as though they were fact. But the BBC is not supposed to be ideologically aligned with the President.The BBC is supposed to be neutral. A blogger would be free to reject of my characterisation of the President's policy, and suggest a parent yelling "don't make me come up there" would be a closer fit. But the BBC is not supposed to have a view on this. It is supposed to report the facts. The Corporation should stick to that.

You see, it would be perfectly reasonable to look at this vote the other way round. Since there is no plan for the US to get its fiscal crisis sorted, borrowing even more money probably makes default in the medium term more likely, not less. And whose fault is it that there is no plan in place? President Obama's, of course, and only his. There were two bipartisan commissions, one set up by the President, which produced plans, but the President decided to ignore them. There is also a plan from Republican Congressman, Paul Ryan. But the President is opposed to that. Opposing specifc plans is reasonable, but where is the President's plan? Not being published this side of the election, I am sure.

So the President, by ignoring his own commission's plan for putting the US on a sustainable fiscal path, has done a lot to create the immediate fiscal crisis. But he now says it is entirely the fault of one half of Congress. And the BBC reports that, not as an attributed opinion, but simply as fact.

This is nothing other than a decision to take a partisan alignment in US politics. I am allowed to do that. The BBC is not. Has anyone at the Beeb ever read the Charter?