 |
| One for fans of 'offence archaeology' |
The Spectator has granted Nick Robinson a 'right to reply' piece headlined "I didn't 'ambush Douglas Murray" after Douglas Murray had strongly criticised him there. The top comment below Nick's piece reflects my reaction, so I'll simply quote it:
Actually you did, and why do you not address Douglas’ point about how you failed to quote the previous statements made by his co interviewee?
I wish to complain about Nick Robinson's lack of even-handedness during his interview with Douglas Murray and Kehinde Andrews. The whole thing reeked of a one-sided ambush, with Nick Robinson not only bringing up one of Mr Murray's past 'controversial' statements in the middle of the interview but browbeating him again with the same thing at the end of the interview - and, even worse, then giving himself (Nick Robinson) the final, sarcastic word - and, thus, victory over Mr Murray. This was awful, unfair interviewing, made worse by the fact that many, if not most, people would say that Kehinde Andrews is by far the more inflammatory and controversial figure - especially in terms of past 'controversial' comments. But Nick didn't bring up any of Mr Andrews's past 'controversial' statements. Why not? Surely, Nick should also have raised at least of those inflammatory opinions with Mr Andrews, if only to appear even-handed? Please remind Nick Robinson of the need to ensure that rigorous questioning of 'controversial' views does not lead to a perceived lack of impartiality because the lack of impartiality here was blatant and very easy to perceive.
