a) should the BBC and Sky (and any other broadcaster) get away with editing footage to misrepresent an interviewee ‘just because they can’?
and b) must we all be held accountable for the stupidity of our own so-called supporters?
A comment from stewgreen led me to Sammy Woodhouse’s twitter thread.
It seems that the edited version of her interview with Gabriel Gatehouse placed undue emphasis on her remark - very likely in answer to a leading question - that paedophiles can also be ‘white’. She says she never meant to deny that grooming gangs were (and are) predominantly Pakistani Muslims.
The Beeb’s manipulative editing has caused unnecessary trouble for her. Several of her twitter interlocutors challenged her, assuming that she too is now joining the authorities in denying the very things that they felt obliged to deny for fear of being condemned as racists.
Not only that, but her remarks about Tommy Robinson ‘jumping on a bandwagon’ drew indignant and malicious comments from some of Tommy Robinson’s most unhinged supporters. So who does deserve the most credit for exposing the grooming gang phenomenon? In my humble opinion, that entire matter is a complete distraction. There was an admirable amount of bravery on all sides in the battle against the conspiracy of denial. There needn’t be any competition between ‘the brave girls’ and the ‘Tommy Robinson army’ over that irrelevant accolade. The media (and people like Nesrine Malik) should drop that one.
As for Gerard Batten, the jury’s still out. (My jury) His resilience in the face of Jo Coburn’s onslaught was - dare I say it, reminiscent of Nigel Farage’s - in the early days of his rise and rise to infamy. Hat’s off to him. Isn’t it sad that there’s so much conflict between all the figures who should be ‘on the same side’? They all seem to hate each other. Why can’t they get together to form a formidable opposition party and iron out their differences in private?
We all (anyone who raises their head above the parapet) get so-called supporters who effectively discredit us. (e.g. Anders Brevik / Melanie Phillips, and, say, Tommy Robinson / Darren Osbourne.)
To some extent, I concede that this applies in varying degrees to Jeremy Corbyn. (But he really is an antisemite)
On a smaller scale, this happens a lot on websites such as this one. When Craig and I try to be nuanced and reasonable we’re still regarded by people who disagree with us as fascists and ITBB as something of a hate site. A right-wing one at that. To me that is bonkers.
In the story of the Emperor's New Clothes the small boy doesn't have a degree in fashionReplyDelete
thus he doesn't know if the tailors are good people are not.
but then he spots the emperor is naked. He didn't need a degree to spot that.
And he now knows that for despite all their claims of authority and adoration from courtiers, it's the tailors who are the con men.
Thus we can judge Sky, Biased BBC and rest of the MetroLib Guardianland media likewise.
I remember being taught that story in school...I am sure it is no longer taught.Delete
I often make that connection too. It's a perfect analogy.ReplyDelete
What has Melanie Phillips done - killed someone? This could explain why she didn't appear on Moral Maze this week. I'd read previously that she was going to be on the panel.ReplyDelete