Did you catch this “interview” on Today between Zac Goldsmith and John Prescott? I feel that James Naughtie allowed Prescott to interrupt, make childish class-baiting allegations and then dared to suggest they were both “going at it”. This is not what I heard. I carry no candle for Goldsmith but he was courteous whilst Prescott was rude and arrogant and got much more time to defend his own stupid housing schemes. This is a favoured BBC tactic – invite on two people, allow one of them (usually from the left) to rant and rave uninterrupted and then when the other interviewee dares to respond they are both labelled the same. Prescott hectored and blustered and Naughtie made no attempt to ensure any fairness. More pathetic bias.
IN PRAISE OF PREZZA?
Bookmark the permalink.
I have no time for either of them – Goldsmith is a smarmy eco warrior with too much money, and Prescott is an arrogant buffoon.
I did hear the exchanges, and the Precott contribution was typically Prescott – short of breath for talking to fast, full of bile and bluster, and overflowing with bullshit. Goldsmith, far more reasonable and polite, but also trying to talk to fast and gasping for breath.
I can never really understand why they bother with Prescott, anyway, is he a stand-by old bluffer-comic-routine they wheel on for their own entertainment? If so, he’s wasted on me – he talks a lot of claptrap at the best of times, and is little more than a fat oaf.
Standard run-of-the-mill Today bias.
I have to say, I was pleased enough to sell half my garden many years ago for a (then) small fortune…
I heard this…and it really should be used as a complaint to some watchdog or other.
Naughtie admitted he just wanted some aimless controversy by allowing these “chalk and cheese” politicians to just vent. There was absolutely no point to it apart from allowing the BBC to let “our John” bluster,lie and abuse over anything that the other one says.
As if this fat philanderer,sex pest with his reinforced toilet seats(taxpayer funded of course) has ANYTHING to add to any debate. This Lord in the making is the very apex of what has gone wrong in Britain…a patronised and indulged failure in everything that he has ever done-but he`s “oop for t`cup” so the linen suits can have a laugh.
Prescott has how many houses then Jim?…sexually harrassed how many employees than Justin?…you`ll not get the questions ever being raised by these cringing NuLabor quislings and lickspittles.
Why the hell do we let them take our money to turn it into Lord Whore Whore moolah for the Beeb and fat liars and parasites on the working class like Prezza? NO wonder they have a laugh at us for allowing it to go without a fight!
‘Naughtie admitted he just wanted some aimless controversy by allowing these “chalk and cheese” politicians to just vent.’
This is getting beyond farce.
I have already highlighted today a BBC telemprompter-reader trailling a set of ‘guests’ under the banner ‘Ooo, a sh*t fight’ as a triumph of heat over light, and now they seem to be on a roll.
That the licence-fee funded iPhones of one set of public sector parasites are only configured to call a whole new set (with books to sell or causes to spew) is no friggin’ excuse for allowing fact to give way to debate.
They really have soiled themselves beyond any redemption.
Check out the audience quote they managed to find and display prominently on the website:
How wonderful to hear John Prescott articulate what we must all be thinking – why is the Labour party being held responsible for the parlous state of the economy? Where are the bankers in it all? What a refreshing interview.
BBC mindset in a nutshell.
David,
They’ve now replaced that quote with:
Good for Prescott, a strong intervention on the real issue, i.e. housing shortages and the NIMBYs of the rich burghers of Richmond and the like! Sadly, Goldsmith is the nice face of the old Tories who are sadly revealing their true colours.
Arianna Andreangeli, Facebook
So they are still rigging everything they can, from input (who gets invited) to how it gets viewed by carefully selected ‘members of the public’ with their farcical ‘quotes’.
Do the BBC think facebook is the voice of the public?
It comes back to a point I’ve made here many times before: the Tories are useless.
They know what Prescott is like. He always shouts and blusters his way through an interview and interrupts his opponent who has usually listened politely to his bluster. So why are they not ready for this? Point it out. Make fun of him. Don’t just BLOODY SIT THERE AND TAKE IT.
I have noticed that the BBC has increasingly become the spiritual home of the lying pundit.
Guests are allowed to lie, tell the most incredible whoppers and get away with it. No lie is big enough no manipulation of the facts is too perverted, the lying BBC pundit can get away with it all no worries and yet only one class of lying pundit ever gets the special beeboid welcome, only special friends,fellow travellers and allies are picked from an increasing stable of the most awsome liars available.
Any guest that happens to be an ideological enemy of the BBC has to justify every sentence and is constantly interupted in order to challenge any points made.
The lying pundit is a BBC special invention stolen from the USSR, used to great effect for years to hide the truth and distort reality and the best thing is there is no defence against it, if you play like a decent human being with morals and values you lose every time against the lying pundit. Its a win win for the BBC, they get to spread the lies they need to force down our necks and the enemies of the BBC look foolish. Only a spiteful and childish outfit like the BBC could do this, there are other imitators like CNN but they are small time compared to the BBC.
As prevalent is the ‘proxy pundit’ who, if not lying, presents a body of opinion that the BBC itself cannot espouse directly, so simply wheels on an exclusive mouthpiece to spout off and/or agree with.
If put up against a counter view for ‘balance’ that doesn’t suit the narrative, you can be sure the BBC ‘moderator’ will be tasked with running interference to allow the proxy free rein.
Very true, Cassandra. I have been on the BBC with plenty of those.
But you have to laugh at the irony of the BBC pitting an elected Tory MP against an unelected Labour Lord !!!!