Wednesday 7 September 2016

Ken tells the truth again

Ken Livingstone was on Sky News  today, treating us to an almost identical interview to yesterday’s Victoria Derbyshire one. No doubt it’ll be on YouTube soon if it isn’t already. 

As before, he was invited on to Sky to opine about Keith Vaz, but it wasn’t long before Kay Burley brought up “Hitler”. 

Ken still insists that what he said was true. Obviously nothing is ever going to change his mind about that.
 Pity Kay Burley was so poorly briefed. It’s as if everyone has forgotten why he said what he said. (“Hitler  was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”)

He said it in defence of the indefensible, i.e., Naz Shah, who has already admitted to a string of antisemitic tweets, pleading ignorance or insanity, apologised and promised not to do it again.
“For Ken Livingstone to say Hitler was a Zionist is offensive – well, of course that would be offensive. I wouldn’t just apologise if I’d said that, I’d have been straight off to my GP to check if I was in the first stage of dementia. Hitler hated and loathed Jews, but that didn’t stop him doing a deal with the Zionist movement in the 1930s.”

Since people have already posited the theory that Ken is in the first, or some other stage of dementia, bringing it up all by himself in the form of a metaphor seems a bit close to the bone. 

He didn’t say Hitler was a Zionist - he said Hitler was supporting Zionism. See? Two completely different things, with plenty of wiggle room, or slither room if you like; enough for him to slither sideways with an almost conciliatory elucidation ….that the Zionists could’t help it, and he didn’t blame them, and what’s more Norman Finkelstein agrees with him, and no-one could call Norman Finkelstein antisemitic! 

At the end of the section, Kay Burley read out a message from a viewer complaining that Ken was given a platform.

Kay Burley put her down quite superciliously, saying ‘That’s democracy”. 
Not really, Kay. That’s show biz.


  1. On a blog called "Is the BBC Biased?" haven't you at least got to explain why you are featuring Sky News?

    I am quite happy that you feature Sky News but that kind of begs the question. Sky News have recently been running some seriously pro-migration items which I doubt do much for their viewing figures.

    Surely you have to explain what has motivated you to switch your focus from BBC to Sky?

    1. They really don"t. That's free speech.

    2. Anon,

      Yep. We do sometimes deviate; me in particular . Take your pick from any of these potential replies.

      1. File it under “….and any other matters….”

      2. I frequently cite topics with but a tenuous link to the BBC on the grounds that all roads ultimately lead back to the broadcaster with the widest, most global reach.

      3. The sight of Sky emulating the previous day’s BBC / Ken fiasco was too bizarre to ignore.

      4. Take it as a compliment to the BBC on the principle that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

      5. Your happiness (at my featuring Sky) is motivation enough. :-)

  2. Kay Burley shutting down an interviewee who is saying things Kay Burley doesn't want said on her show... that's censorship.

    Next up... propaganda.

  3. Sorry this is of topic, but I had to post it. Unsuspecting people have been ripped off in restaurants and bars in almost every country in the world for as long as there have been restaurants and bars. Unscrupulous, but hardly headline news. At least you would imagine. Certainly not something our “world class” news provider would deem worthy of reporting as it delves through all the lofty topics of the day. Unless of course, it happens to be an Israeli restaurant: Row over Israeli restaurant’s”huge bill”, emblazoned in bold type on the front page of it’s website this morning.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.