Monday, 14 October 2019

Nick Robinson speaks


Nick Robinson, speaking at The Times and The Sunday Times Cheltenham Literary Festival, has expressed his disapproval of LBC for giving a party leader, Nigel Farage, a two-hour radio show. He calls it a "great danger".

He also disapproves of Boris Johnson using Facebook for his People's PMQs to "broadcast directly" to the public. “And they say that’s democracy. It ain’t democracy. It is a form of propaganda used by dictators down the ages”.

And as for political types who pen official complaints to the BBC he says, “It is lunatic that people that are politically motivated, who are trying to alter the agenda of the BBC, can use our complaints process. And believe me they do. To try and bully the BBC into saying and doing the things they want us to be saying and doing.”

If he reads the comments below the article on the Times website, he'll find plenty more complaints about the BBC and an awful lot of democracy. They could be going better for him.

11 comments:

  1. In my humble job (as a radio listening researcher) I talk to 20 to 30 ‘ordinary’ people every week about their thoughts and views on what’s on the radio. Mainly they, the listening public, tune in to music stations. But I’m hearing more and more people talk about LBC and Radio 4 (in particular the Today programme).

    What these people are telling me is that LBC is how the BBC ought to be, in that LBC presenters are biased, are honest about being biased, and they listen to callers to their programmes who hold different views without shutting them down (in fact they encourage people with differing views to call in).

    With Radio 4, you have Today and The World at One jam packed with MSM left-wing bias and PM renamed the Evan Davis Show and presenters like Nick Robinson denying there is a problem – a stance that is easy to describe as lying, denying, dangerous, na├»ve and not very bright.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nick Robinson seems to think only trained journalists should interview politicians. Who ever decided that they are appointed to this role? No one.

    BBC interviewers interrupt people they disagree with frequently and give people they agree with a respectful silence until the interviewee finishes talking. It is this bias that Nick Robinson seems unable to see for himself. In additions these BBC interviewers get to chose the questions, even on programmes where the public ask the questions - who decides which questions are asked?

    Politicians who by-pass the BBC, Sky, ITV can get their message across directly without the sniping sneering full of their own self importance interviewers trying to denigrate them and focus on often trivial issues to trip up their interviewees.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I expect he thinks LBC should be like Radio 4's only 'phone-in', the Anita Anand Show, where callers are told what they should be thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've just listened to Jeremy Bowen's latest report from Syria.
    Trump this, Trump that.... the regime the other.

    How about pointing the finger at the actual criminal - the one who has been up to his elbows in facilitating the Syrian civil war since the beginning, Erdogan.

    Even now, as Turkey invades Syria, the BBC are still playing down the seriousness of Turkey's actions, so focussed are they on destroying Trump.

    Mr Robinson doesn't seem to realise that the BBC don't make political documentaries any more because they haven't got the information to make a coherent story.

    The BBC spends its' time creating narrative and the little bits of narrative don't glue together.

    That's what propaganda looks like, Nick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite. There is a lot of evidence that Turkey was in cahoots with IS, and they certainly support Jihadist factions. Moreover, from their own mouths we know they use the "migrant tap" as a way of exerting political pressure on the weaklings in the EU.

      Delete
    2. So correct if people look at the Photos of the alleged Free Syrian fighters going into Syria from Turkey last week a lot were doing what looked suspiciously like ISIS salutes

      Delete
    3. Re Isis salutes - That's because they're deeply associated with Al Nusra. The FSA was funded and trained by the US, France and UK at the beginning of the war, but not during Trump's tenure.

      FSA and White Helmets HQ's have been located near Al Nusra HQ's for years, and that's been widely known for years (reported by Pierre Le Corf, Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley).

      Even the Dutch government has been caught out delivering 4WD vehicles to these people. But because the British media spent years praising the FSA and the White Helmets, they can't go back and compromise their reporting by now telling the truth.

      Delete
  5. I have likened his latest efforts to the outcome of the Wannsee Conference, which will doubtless result in much huffing and puffing about statues and "quotes" outside the building... once Juncker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Bercow and Swinson have signed off on it following their next in camera meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The BBC is now fatally committed to TDS.

    And the people committing atrocities are not him, yet they ignore that in order to further their cocktail cred in Soho and Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did Nick Robinson complain about Nick Clegg, Lib Dem MP, pesenting BBC Newsnight reports as though he was a regular BBC journo? Er no.

    Here it is: Nick Clegg promoting the Remainiac myth that only "the left behind" voted Leave (reminder to Remainers: the richest region in the UK, the South, voted Leave).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WEDoXx910

    Robinson is an arrogant hypocrite whose views are taking us further further into the bottomless well of bias and denial of free speech. Whether he knows this is what he is encouraging, I don't know. He's not as clever as he thinks he is for sure.

    We've seen the mask slip on Marr as well this weekend haven't we?

    The rivers of bias run deep and cavernous through Broadcasting House.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Prince William on Pakistan:

    "We share unique bonds and so it will always be in our best interests for Pakistan to succeed."

    My observations:

    1. Princes William and Harry by becoming "pontificators" have made it impossible for us to know when they are expressing their opinions and when they are reading a government-approved script.
    Prince William intervened early on in the EU Referendum debate with a speech that was widely regarded as a pro EU membership speech. Given what we know Cameron did with the Queen re the Scottish Independence Referendum, we might imagine Cameron encouraging William to make those comments.

    2. Really, Will? Is it really in our interests to see a country that describes itself in its official title as an "Islamic Republic" and therefore one dedicated by definition to the creation of a global Caliphate achieve great success? Will it help the people in Pakistan who are so horrifically abused, discriminated against and exploted - the minority Hindus and Sikhs, the minority Christians, women and gays? Will it help them if the Islamic Republic becomes even more powerful? Will it help World Peace if the Islamic Republic builds up its military and nuclear arsenal? Remember Pakistan, after stealing nuclear weaponry secrets from the West, exported its nuclear technology all around the world to places like Iran, Libya and North Korea.

    And you want to see these people become MORE powerful, Will?




    2.

    ReplyDelete