Tuesday 15 October 2019

Why indeed

Why should Boris kowtow to biased BBC presenters who say that he's a 'dictator'?
That, of course, refers specifically to Nick Robinson, who said on Sunday of Boris Facebook 'People's PMQs', "And they say that’s democracy. It ain’t democracy. It is a form of propaganda used by dictators down the ages."

The Telegraph piece by Robin Aitken puts Nick's "jibe" down to "pique": 
Johnson has found a way to communicate with voters without subjecting himself to interrogation by the likes of Robinson and his ilk and they can't stand it. 
He continues:
If Mr Johnson had agreed to all the interview requests the BBC has made in recent weeks what would have been achieved? Would any of us be much clearer about the government's intentions? Would the country be any more united behind what the government is proposing? I think I can confidently answer all those questions in the negative. 
What we would have been treated to would have been a series of hostile interviews in which Robinson – or some other tribune of the people – would have tried to embarrass the Prime Minister and trip him up. He would have been pressed over and over with questions impossible to answer. 
A few weeks ago, for instance, Today presenters repeatedly challenged government ministers by saying that the EU had ruled out any possibility of re-opening negotiations on the terms of our departure, therefore why was the government proposing changes? The EU's position was stated as an unchallengeable matter of fact to which there could be no adequate answer. Ministers facing this question sounded either evasive or stupid, and yet, here we are a few weeks later, having that very renegotiation.
 Fair points, I'd say.


  1. If the BBC always snipes, denigrates, sneers, and interrupts Boris, he is right to boycott it. Today increasingly says a government minister/spokesman was unavailable - as if these BBC types expect a government person to be summoned to refute or comment on their biased reports.

    The more the BBC behaves as if its reporters have some kind of right to summon government ministers to answer to them, the more resistant ministers should be. The BBC isn't Parliament, and ministers answer to Parliament, and the BBC can report what they say, rather than makes them repeat themselves and be interrogated with snide and often petty questions which are not relevant to the issues.

  2. It's all to do with the BBC's mantra 'holding Ministers / government to account', decking itself out in the noble mantle of the press - and reporters such Robinson - as 'the fourth estate'. Robinson and his BBC pals fervently believe or in some cases, I suspect, pretend to believe that is what they are doing.

  3. More than fair! Bang on!!

    I have remarked numerous times on the refusal of BBC newsfolk to even countenance the notion that EU leaders might occasionally lie, or game situations or adopt insincere negotiating ploys. Robin Aitken provides proof positive of this: the BBC took as gospel the EU's insistence it couldn't re-open negotiations. When ministers pointed out that "they would say that wouldn't they?" they were accused of being fantasists, irresponsible and not sincere in their wish to negotiate.

  4. The self-regard of BBC hacks like Robinson and his colleagues has been off the scale for a very long time. It is an interesting take on the term “dictatorship” in which the public are compelled by law to pay for their version of events. At least the print press are open about their bias.


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