(from Blithering Bunny)
Earlier tonight there was a new Aussie sketch show on Paramount called “Skithouse”. One sketch featured a man who was interested in buying a car from another man. The buyer’s method was to fire questions at the seller about his life until he slipped up – without thinking, he revealed that the car was a lemon that was costing him a fortune to keep on the road.
This came back to me later on as I watched Kirsty Wark on Newsnight. She was firing questions at Hazel Blears on the fact that the government has suddenly released one of the terrorist detainees, an Egyptian man named “C”. Blears played a straight bat. Wark, as arrogant as ever, just kept firing in the same question in slightly different ways, and calling it all a shambles. Blears just kept giving the same answer.
It seemed to me that Wark was simply hoping that if she asked enough questions fast enough, Blears would slip up. That’s all there was to it. Sooner or later, Blears would accidentally say “and of course the whole thing is a bloody shambles, but…” and the Skithouse technique would prove triumphant.
Or else that Blears would lose her rag. This seemed entirely possible. How could anyone have refrained from saying “I’ve answered the question, you freakin’ hag. What part of it don’t you understand?” Guess that’s the hardest part of being a polly. Not saying “How do you feel about the cost of the Scottish Parliament, Krusty?”
The whole Wark performance was extremely hypocritical. Wark was now taking the “How do we know this man isn’t dangerous?” line, like the BBC have ever cared about that, but really, all she was concerned with was making the government look bad. Fine. Probably the whole thing is a shambles. A few such questions were fair enough, but the arrogance of Wark was breathtaking. Why don’t all politicans just refuse to have anything to do with Newsnight? Freeze the bastards out, and leave them with just Galloway to talk to.
Wark was firing in so many questions in such a shambolic way that she ended up asking whether C had a right to know whether he was under surveillance or not. I don’t think she had any idea how ridiculous this question was. I’m no cheerleader for the security state, but expecting MI5 to inform targets that they’re under surveillance is, er, not really going to work, is it?
And now there’s yet another global warming scare story on. Ho hum. Which will come first? The day global warming causes some terrible disaster, or the day the BBC actually informs us about the workings of the EU?
Wark positively enjoyed trying to trick the police guy. I wish he had been able to reach across and grab her by the throat to tell her he cared about PROTECTING us from terrorist attacks. That the terrorists would happily kill her or anyone. That they despise us all – especially our weakness in letting them operate here, letting them play taxpayer-funded legal games against us. With the BBC cheering them on.
It was par for the course to follow on with a global-warming item.
La Wark ought to have been put out to pasture over Hollyrood and/or her vacation arrangements. This ghastly woman is the BBC personified.
Worth millions as she is, it truly is one of lifes great joys to see her take licence payers money in exchange for her unattractive attempts to tell us all why we ought to be happy to pay her salary as we applaud her moral and cultural relativism.
For me, the revolution cannot come soon enough.
The head of the leftie CNN has just made the ridiculous claim that US troops targeted and killed 12 journalists in Iraq.
http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html
But the Head of BBC News, Richard Sambrook, was present at this meeting. Why has he not ensured that the BBC cover this story ? Srely it is highly newsworthy ? Or is he trying to cover up the nonsense ?
Sambrook was up to his neck in the defence of Gilligan. He should have had the honour to resign after Hutton – or should have been fired.
OT
Did the BBC actually cover the story of the new EU regulations concerning food sourcing and data storage?
I’ve looked round their site and did a google but couldn’t see anything.
OT
My wife and I were very keen to see some coverage of the post election situation in Iraq – is there euphoria, disappointment or what?
Why was there no coverage in last night’s BBC news?
For one thing, I haven’t heard of any terrorist attacks since the election.
Try http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CDE6C27E-962B-48F1-B0E3-D29812909472.htm
I think the warfare at Highbury last night has pushed everything else out of the way for the moment.
The media elite loses interest in stories when it feels they no longer serve it’s agenda, some examples:
1. When Jessica Lynch revealed that she was very likely beaten and raped, the media buried the story as fast as they could. The story was now hotter than ever, yet the media “lost interest” at warp factor nine!
2. Rathergate. Much reporting of the “documents”, much less reporting of their being fake.
3. Had the Iraqi elections been a disaster, we would have been hearing about it all week. Because they have been a success, they are of little use to the media’s own agendas.
Sounds like Wark went to the same finishing school for interviewers as the execrable Dousset. The BBC damages itself by having these wayward attack dogs attempting to beat up interviewees with no rational, informative outcome.
Kirsty Wark on Newsnight.
I am Kirsty Wark and I have you tied to this contract – you know I am one of the Scottish “Amigos” and know the Gang Leader McConnell……..and he knows I have the Dewar tapes about that White Elephant in Edinburgh………sack me if you dare….
And……now that the Scots are in Westminster for the third time…….Stuart Kings; Ramsay MacDonald; Blair/Brown/Darling/Reid/Liddell/
you know it is mandatory to employ Scots at every critical position…….it is the Celtic Mafia come to loot England and ram through Foundation Hospitals, Tuition Fees, Hunting Ban using Scottish votes……..
I am Kirsty Wark……..Scottish Money Princess