Saturday 18 May 2019

Tainted love

I’ve reached the conclusion, sadly, that one’s enemy’s enemy sometimes has to be one’s friend. One has to come to terms with that and suck it up..  

The other day I wrote about the BBC’s short-attention-span format, which seems to be aimed at producing the memorable sound bite. That is to say, if a memorable sound-bite emerges from one of those ‘sorry, we’ve run out of time’ scenarios, the BBC deems it a success. Then, lo and behold, George Galloway said the very same thing on This Week. About the paucity of the in-depth interview on the BBC and the rest of the UK’s main channels. (Obviously not Press TV)

I said that too! 
“I can’t access  Al Jazeera Eng. any longer, but although they were who they were, they allowed their debates time to flow. I think I’ve heard more uninterrupted speech from Israeli politicians and spokespersons on Al Jaz than on any of our own MSMs”
and I did reluctantly mention that “on this occasion,” GG “spoke sense” 

In a similar vein, My sympathies here lie with Benjamin, even though I don’t quite see the humour in “I don’t give a shit” (about the Holocaust)

Again, one has to concede that Peter Oborne has an authoritative persona and that he made some persuasive points about Boris this morning. However, (and it’s a huge however as well as a big but) his ridiculous obsession with the Jewish Lobby - and his so-called documentary was indeed ridiculous - renders everything he ever says and does decidedly toxic. Tainted love, if you like.

This is like the BBC itself. It does some good stuff and it does some bad stuff. At the moment, the bad outweighs the good by a country mile. 

By the way, that interview with the prancing rocker Bobby Gillespie was in the ‘bad’ camp. What was it for? Did someone in the Newsnight production team like this band?
   
“people on the right, they’re not very funky” 



If I were forced to identify as “on the right” (and I might cave if forced) I’d say “Yes we are! How very dare you! We’re as funky as funky can be. And groovy and extremely sexy to boot.” 

Euphemistically referring to his drug-addled state as “immersed,” the poor chap was evidently struggling and befuddled; he had to take a few moments to think hard before answering Kirsty’s somewhat fawning questions.  When it came to the one about “Israel’s right to exist “ his delayed response was almost unintelligible, but on replaying it I detected that it was: “Stolen Land” 

Stupid, ignorant old git.

3 comments:

  1. Front man of a Rolling Stones tribute act with minimal talent apart from getting their pics in the press. He dances like he's got a serious case of piles. Not "funky" at all. And since when did he get permission for that piece of cultural appropriation,eh?

    Son of a far left Labour man who stood for Parliament. The bigotry was clearly in his blood.

    A low IQ know-nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting video - Deplatforming Conference in Washington DC, addressed by Anne-Marie Waters, Ezra Levant and Tommy Robinson:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mQZu6jkvis

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bias levels on Any Questions were stratospheric.

    No just the usual bias of the Chairman's questions but the first three questions were all designed to boost the Remain-Left cause and do down the Brexit Party: "Which party should Remainers vote for?", "Should you choose a populist to beat a populist?" "Is the new definition proposed for Islamophobia fit for purpose?" The Brexit Party swerved it on the Islamophobia telling the politicians to sort it! That probably wasn't foreseen by the biased producer.

    Other elements of bias:

    1. The Chairman's introduction implied Anna Soubry was a government minister when she resigned the Conservative whip. Of course she was not. She was removed from office in July 2016 - three years ago. The fall from grace probably influenced her decision to become a hard Remainer.

    2. The Chairman intervened without need to protect Soubry when she came out with a pathetic excuse for why she supported privatisation of probation services - she claimed she made her views known in private! lol But Dimbo provided effective cover for her, intervening to move the discussion on.

    3. Soubry was allowed to claim that the proposed Islamophobia definition would not restrict free speech in response to a Dimbo question - no comeback from Dimbo, leaving the impression he accepted that absurd assurance, and so strengthening Soubry's case, such as it was.

    4. It was not made clear at any point that an "All Parliamentary Group" has no official status at all. It's just a group of MPs getting together to whinge, whine and interfere in Governance without any official authority and with no accountability.

    ReplyDelete

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