The BBC have launched an extraordinary hatchet job on Boris Johnson. using some pretty ancient history (the Guppy phone call made the news in 1995)….no coincidence that the newspapers have in the last few days been full of stories that the successful and popular Boris looks like going for the leadership of the Tory Party…..the BBC’s Eddie Mair making the highly personal and opinionated comment that Boris is a ‘nasty piece of work.‘…any doubts he knew that would make the headlines? Was it scripted or a ‘preconceived notion’ in the beat up for the programme? If so, very dodgy for the BBC...if the comment is seen as intentionally damaging to Boris’s reputation. (Link from Reed in the comments)
Perhaps Mair’s antipathy towards Johnson arises from this quote from Boris:
“If gay marriage were OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”
Mair is gay and covers a lot of gay ‘politics’. for the BBC
The BBC, having seen how successful Boris was in capturing the London vote which should be prime Labour territory, may have thought he would wipe the floor with the highly unattractive Ed Miliband….and decided to intervene….with stories that have been dragged out of the archives…so the question is …why have the BBC done this now?
The first point is that the BBC supported the Leveson inquiry and has consistently attacked the reporting of personal affairs (link again from Reed in comments) and activities of celebrities and politicians claiming such things are irrelevant.
Nicky Campbell only a couple of days ago defending Prescott’s workplace dalliances….and the comments by another Labour man, John O’Farrell, in his book that he would have been happy to see Thatcher dead…Campbell claimed the reporting of such a comment was unfair.
How things change…Boris has an affair and suddenly the BBC is ‘acting like a Red top’….the BBC’s excuse…… its all to do with ‘integrity’.
Johnson was given no time to explain anything whilst Mair seemed to be conducting what amounted to a highly judgemental kangaroo court.
Johnson’s ‘crimes’ were either personal, minor or non-existent….for instance the phone call with Guppy….Johnson handed over no address and never intended to….and nobody was ‘beaten up’…..and yet Mair made an instant judgement and denounced him as guilty of partcipating in a plot to attack someone.
Having an afair…telling a porkie to the boss..about the affair…hardly the work of the Devil as Mair seems to imply.
Can it be that one of the BBC’s sanctimonious self appointed little priests, Mair, is spinning this up into a storm of finger pointing, pious indignation not out of any real moral conviction but as said before, because Boris is a Tory, a successful and popular one, and looks like he may be thinking of going for the Leadership one day?
The BBC are perfectly within their rights to question Boris about lying on the job or involvement in any plots to beat people up….as long as they give him time to answer, but it is far outside their remit to pronounce judgement upon Boris, or anyone else and certainly not in such vicious and abusive, and highly political terms….as ‘a nasty piece of work’.
And if Mair wants to talk about ‘integrity’ how about a journalist who invites someone onto his show to talk about one thing….‘he thought he “was coming on to talk about the budget and what’s happening in London.”‘ and then ambushes him with something else entirely for which he is not prepared or able to martial his thoughts under a withering attack designed to confuse and disorientate?
And the BBC’s own ‘integrity’ might also be in question when it uses a journalist to cover extremely controversial issues, such as gay marriage, who is gay but most viewers or listeners will not know that….. people should be able to judge whether his interpretation is coloured by personal interest or views…they can only do that if they know his background…..we can judge Marr’s or Naughtie’s interviews and programmes by knowing they are Labour supporters and we can assess the interview with that in mind.
Mair is gay, nothing wrong with that but he keeps it pretty quiet….which could be a problem when he is extensively reporting on gay political issues….it’s a legitimate question to ask does he use that position to campaign on behalf of gay rights whilst ostensibly merely ‘reporting’ on them?….as this comment jokes about:
‘I only found out about the gay radio presenters through trying to find out if Eddie Mair was gay after a comment from someone. I *think* he is gay but he keeps it quiet…even so seems he keeps it so quiet he isn’t on the list [famous gay people].’
The interviews with CoFE people etc trying to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws are even funnier with the thought that Eddie is gay and they don’t know.
It’s like Trevor MacDonald interviewing Nick Griffen and Griffen not realising MacDoughnut is black.’
Mair does many reports on gay politics…without people knowing his own position…'”he’s mightily good at keeping his private life private, though, isn’t he?”….he also interviews many politicians about gay politics, recently on gay marriage..again almost certainly without proclaiming his own interest or the politician or any viewer knowing that personal interest:
Richard Dyce @dickiedyce 5 Feb #personaljourney Eddie Mair eviscerates Theresa May on gay marriage. Nicely done
‘Miller was completely torn apart by Eddie Mair on Radio 4’s PM Show before Christmas’….(talking about gay marriage.)
‘Gay MP’s : Pride and prejudice in politics. “Eddie Mair looks at the homosexual history of Parliament and the hypocrisy that gay MPs frequently encounter”
The Independent seems to think Mair has some influence as a gay person voting him 52nd most influential..and rising:
52 (56) Eddie Mair
Broadcaster
The voice of Radio 4’s PM, Mair has gained new fans by standing in for Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight — with a much calmer style of interviewing. With Newsnight suffering its current troubles over Jimmy Savile, perhaps a more permanent position on the late-night BBC2 show beckons?
Should someone who has a personal interest in a subject, a highly political and controversial subject such as gay marriage, be interviewing politicians about it without declaring that interest or broadcasting what could be perceived as ‘gay propaganda’ on the BBC? If he was an ardent Labour supporter and was interviewing a Labour politician wouldn’t it be relevant to know his own views to judge the rigour and direction of the interview?
That example is of course a bad one as everybody at the BBC leans left by default apparently!
Mair is being highly hypocritical when he is so shy of letting people know he is gay himself as here he criticises the Tories for keeping quiet about being gay….. why just the Tories?, does no other Party have gay MPs who are not open about it?
“I’m sorry but I’m away on Sunday”. “Sorry – she’s away till mid-August.” “Can you call back in September?” We scour the world for the brightest and best guests every Sunday morning – but this time of year it’s like trying to find an openly gay Tory.’
Mair is clearly a good and popular journalist…
‘Wicked. And just a tad sneaky. Clearly a man who takes no political prisoners….when they try (as they so often do) to bodyswerve the tricky questions, Mair believes its perfectly legitimate for him rigorously to pursue them, almost to the point of rudeness.’
No kidding.
….and appeals to ‘the ladies’…albeit on the scary Mumsnet:
I am a little bit in love with Eddie Mair (57 Posts)
Snaf Fri 12-Sep-08 19:36:03 Was listening to the PM programme this evening and… he is just great, isn’t he?
Habbibu Fri 12-Sep-08 19:38:23 Oh, snaf. You are a woman after my own heart. I shall join you in stern looks if there are anything but positive comments on this thread.
constancereader Fri 12-Sep-08 20:01:52 Oh god I love him too.
He is absolutely the best interviewer
seeker Fri 12-Sep-08 20:04:30 you do know he’s gay, don’t you? Such a shame – just like Evan Davis.
Habbibu Fri 12-Sep-08 20:05:58 yes, I’d heard that, seeker – he’s mightily good at keeping his private life private, though, isn’t he? (Not that I’ve googled, oh no).
….but Mair does seems to be on a personal campaign to promote gay equality through the offcies of the BBC and in this interview with Boris has descended into personal abuse and judgement when that is not the BBC’s role, which is to establish the facts and not to proclaim them either good or bad….those are value judgements and in this case highly political.
Not the BBC – just the view of one of this sites most regular contributors when discussing Boris.
“Idiot admits wanting to be head boy.”
“In other words he really is an idiot.”
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/idiot-admits-wanting-to-be-head-boy.html
Thanks Albaman…a great help for pointing out the link to the BBC’s programme on the Tory Bullingdon Boys and that they focus in on Boris’ leadership potential:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21836935
‘Boris Johnson has admitted that he would like to be prime minister but insists “it’s not going to happen”.
In a forthcoming BBC Two documentary, the mayor of London says he thinks the job of PM is “very, very tough”.
But he will say he would like to “have a crack” at it “if the ball came loose from the back of a scrum”.’
Which all kind of makes my point….that Boris’s leadership push is a problem for the BBC.
Thanks again Alabaman….I’ve given you a ‘like’ because of your unique insight and contribution…I knew we could convert you to the cause.
Certainly looked like an ambush; I would say it was to divert/bury/obscure any possible bad press for Miliband that Boris may or may not have brought up. Miliband made a very weak response to the budget but has been all over the media (and especially the BBC with half a dozen stories just on Miliband, more than on Cameron or Osborne) since that budget….and with his speech to Labour re decade of decline (without anyone telling him that decade ash already started and he was in the governing arty for the first 2 or 3 years!
At least unlike Super Shagger Marr – no super injunctions to be seen
I can’t warm to Boris. I was glad when he managed to get shot of the Odious, creepy Livingstone, but so far as I’m concerned, Mayor he should stay. I just don’t think he has the gravitas for the PM’s job. Perhaps leader of the former conservative party, in which case there would be a ghost of a chance of a coalition with UKIP (though I’d prefer them to run the country by themselves).
Don’t like the BBC stitch up, though – typical.
Yep….undoubtedly too much character for PM…but that doesn’t mean the BBC should, as you say, ‘stitch him up’ especially on such old, relatively minor and unproven ‘skeletons’ in his closet.
The BBC calling him a ‘nasty piece of work’ is pretty outrageous when you think about it…..knowing it’s a headline that will fly around the world.
And that’s the most pertinent point, Alan – referring to Mr Johnson as a ‘nasty piece of work’. If that was the tone of interview adopted by Mr Mair for all his guests, then one might see it as his party piece but it isn’t. I can’t recall anyone from the socialist and certainly muslim strata of our society ever being referred to as such, despite there being many examples of not just nastiness but definitely vicious vindictive physical and verbal abuse.
Ad hominem attack, wasn’t it? Typical of the Left, as we know only too well.
‘Anti-gay’ tirade? Your opinions are as loud as they are wrong….and daft.
You need to explain what was anti-gay about it.
Boris was ambushed, by the sounds of it – a favourite BBC tactic and one they do not spring on their Labour colleagues – and not ‘strung out’, but subjected to some unwarranted and unprofessional abuse – again, which you would never hear directed at anyone from Labour.
Now whilst I agree Alan may have overcooked the gay angle in this piece, he says ‘ Perhaps Mair’s antipathy towards Johnson arises from this quote from Boris:
“If gay marriage were OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”
…by way of trying to come up with an explanation. A pretty reasonable one, I would have thought. Something obviously upset Unsteady Eddie, didn’t it?
Perhaps you have an explanation, or theory, as so far you seem to have allowed yourself to get sidetracked from the crux of Alan’s criticism.
What a silly bit of nonsense from Alan. Think he’s jealous that Eddie Mair is capable of asking sensible questions, can form a reasonable argument, and is liked and respected by people as a result?
Mention anything even slightly critical of anyone who is gay and Scott is sure to follow with a defence of the person criticised – or, dare we say it, accuse the that person of being a homophobe.
By the way, Scott, the point of the article is that Mair may be prejudiced (you could be generous and say “unwittingly”) when he reports on gay issues. There’s a big difference between reporting objectively and being a proselytizer. He’s hardly an independent voice on that issue, is he?
…Eddie Mair is capable of asking sensible questions, can form a reasonable argument,…
Nothing to do with your being gay, as that may not be the factor for why you express your perceptions as though your head is up your arse, or somebody’s anyway.
Even if you consider the questions designed to embarrass Boris in the worst way as sensible, not giving him the time to answer fully, and hectoring him while attempting to, shows your idea of fair debate.
I know you will think that I’m insulting you, but really I’m just conforming to your idea of ‘reasonable argument’.
Thank God you changed your avatar Scott.
Scott Matthewman – editor of the Stage I presume?
I watched the “interview” on the BBC webpage and from whatever personal, political or media angle you come from it was a disgrace.
I also noticed that they had uploaded a seperate video of the “lying” accusation which begs the question why?.
It was a nasty and irrelevant piece of work and the BBC should be hauled before whatever media committee responsible and asked to explain itself but as we all know it will never happen.
Perhaps the best that can be done is to lodge as many complaints as possible.
Boris is rather slimy, it seems. Seems a bit old news, though. Every time I’ve brought up older evidence for something, defenders of the indefensible usually dismiss it as “stale vomit” or ancient and irrelevant. So I don’t see why the BBC should be allowed to do it if we can’t.
I’d like to ask defenders of the indefensible to provide us with a list of video clips or quotes of Beeboids calling any Labour or non-Tory politician “a nasty piece of work”. All in the interest of proving balance, you know. Go on, gentlemen, you’re usually very eager to find things to prove we’re wrong about the BBC not doing something.
But what does this have to do with Mair being homosexual? The BBC hates Boris for well known reasons, some of which you did mention, Alan. The segment was prepared by the same team who always work on the Marr show, not a special homosexual hit squad brought in while Mair is in the chair. A heterosexual interviewer would have said the exact same things. Mair might very well have a personal thing against Boris for it, but there are plenty of reasons for the BBC to try and destroy him.
Make a separate post about how Mair is an example of the BBC allowing people to do reports on topics in which they have a personal vested interest. Like how Justin Webb, who has a son with diabetes, was allowed to use BBC airtime and production facilities to do a report championing stem cell research for a cure for diabetes and frowning those whose religious beliefs instructed them against using the unborn for it.
David, this blog is about BBC Bias and double standards…not about ‘Gayness’ per se…nor is it about Islam….as you have recently discovered for yourself…nor Europe or the Labour Party or climate change.
To explain why something is biased it is necessary to mention those things for context rather than condemnation of the thing itself.
The relevance of the ‘gay angle’ is that the basis for the BBC Boris interview was to question his integrity.
If Mair keeps his sexuality quiet but proceeds to seemingly campaign on the BBC for gay rights and criticises Tory MPs for not being openly gay then it is relevant and raises a question about his own ‘integrity’ and the BBC’s for knowingly using him to front programmes about such highly controversial politics.
Do you complain when journalists who are parents question politicians about changes to child benefit without first declaring an interest?
Or is just the gay journalists who should work to different rules?
I think we should know as much as is relevant about any journalist when they are tackling highly controversial subjects in which they have a dog in the fight…but it depends how big that dog is…Mair does many programmes on gay equality and politics…….obviously of great personal interest…and it has to be said many people have strong opinions on either side……so why have a journalist cover such material if his own interests may colour his reporting…especially when most viewers will have no idea of that personal angle?
This site questions journalist’s personal views all the time…it is the basis of the site…from Israel, climate, immigration and
politics…..and many other stances.
And yet, if Mair did talk about his personal life during interviews, Biased BBC would trot out the ridiculous “gay militant agenda” line that crops up on this site all the time.
In the interests of disclosure that you’re so keen on, are you going to disclose why you’re so against gay journalists doing their job?
Against gay journalists? Did I say ‘Mair is clearly a good and popular journalist’ or not?
The point isn’t Mair being gay…it’s about being gay and not being open about it whilst at the same time extensively reporting and investigating ‘gay issues’….I have no problem with Mair being gay….but I think it’s a legitimate question to ask if he is using the BBC to campaign for his own special interest….just as I question any other BBC journo if they have a special interest…such as being dedicated Labour supporters and not revealing it whilst giving Labour politicians an easy ride in interviews for example.
You’re own reaction illustrates this….you’ve gone directly to the ‘gay’ part of the post without regard to the main issue…because of your own personal interest that colours your outlook and response.
It’s right to ask whether Mair’s interpretation of ‘gay political issues’ is coloured by his own outlook….would be nice to know when I’m being asked by him to make my own judgements based on his report into what are highly controversial subjects.
And I’m a not saying he shouldn’t report on this issue…he may have insights ‘straight’ journalist wouldn’t have but it might be valuable to know.
Many journalists presage their broadcast or article with a declaration of self interest…so that they can let the viewer or reader know of their own personal knowledge or experience that can add value to the programme…so being openly gay would increase Mair’s credibility when speaking about such issues.
you’ve gone directly to the ‘gay’ part of the post without regard to the main issue…
Oh Alan. Do you not realise how much space you devoted to Mair’s sexuality? It’s not ‘part of’ the post. It’s virtually all of it.
‘Do you not realise how much space you devoted’
And the price that can be paid is being exacted.
Now, do you think BBC interviewers should be telling folk that they are ‘a nasty piece of work’?
I’d say not, and am going to ask the BBC, for all the good it will do.
Your words and deeds here, or elsewhere, or not, will be telling if the claimed cause of ensuring the public is served objective, professional news coverage is sincere.
Scott….The post is about an interview which is clearly a ‘hatchet job’…..and as for Mair being gay……it’s in fact about Mair having a particular interest in one subject and reporting on it extensively….it’s about possible conflict of interest and hypocrisy when the BBC claim Mair’s interview was based on ‘integrity’…..just how much integrity does the BBC and Mair himself have?
Does Mair keeping his sexuality under wraps mean the viewer/listener gets an interpretation of news (in this case gay political issues) that they don’t understand may be coloured by the journalist’s own interest…but it could equally be whether the journo is Black or Muslim or a Euro fanatic or of any political persuasion or indeed if they have dated the top two politicians of the Labour Party.
You keep bleating on about Mair keeping his sexuality “under wraps” as if he’s hiding something. He isn’t. He’s not bringing his personal life into the interviews he conducts as part of his job.
That much ought to be immediately obvious to anybody with a basic understanding of human interaction. Why is it that you can’t grasp it?
Although the site custodians don’t need me to defend them, I have observations as follows :
1. the site is called biased BBC not biased Murdoch – and we can choose to not purchase any offerings from the Murdoch stable. Other than cancel one’s tv licence and stop watching live broadcasts (as I intend to do once my current licence has expired this year) one has to fund the effing bbc.
2. The non-Murdoch media played as significant a role in the hacking activities but because there aren’t as many normal people in the media; ie non-socialists; that outrage is effectively overlooked. Socialists, whether they are in the bbc, the guardian the mirror, the new statesman or wherever they rear their malicious heads behave with biased, bigoted malice and cry innocence and unfairness whenever they are shown for what they really are. You want to decry Mr Murdoch or whoever, then setup a website for it, or go to one of the other ridiculous sites already in existence such as Comment is Free (and that’s a laugh too because unless you agree with their distorted views your comments will most probably not be published).
I gave up the TV years ago, and don’t miss it at all.
I watched QT on iPlayer yesterday, that was fun, watching that Labour droid squirm as Gove tore her a new one.
Best QT I’ve seen in ages.
The £145.50 p.a. now goes to good causes, such as UKIP.
Well said .
Damn it! The gigs up chaps. Johnny Colditz has finally sussed we are all in the employ of the One Great God Murdoch the Magnificent.
Time to take the site down and try a different tack.
NB is the wifi in your cells still playing up?
‘we should know as much as is relevant about any journalist ‘
Any holder to account ‘should’ be held to account every bit as much as those they presume to hold to account on behalf of others. Absolutely true.
But there are certain facts of life that govern how things get played and, often, see the game manipulated.
There is a massive red card still glaring in the form of that professionally damning personal opinion misused in the course of an interview, but self-evidently it is now being swamped by all the little pink ones being waved from the crowd as the sweet water of an perceived ‘ism has awoken what was blissfully dormant Flockers like my kids’ sea monkeys.
They have all arrived, and not one with the slightest interest in addressing the actual, professional, bias.
Plus already a bunch of all-inclusive ‘you lot’ attempts that are frankly as pathetic as they are inevitable.
It’s still an open goal, and as one living up to my side of last night’s bargain, despite the campanologists’ siren call attracting the clans like bees to honey, I’d suggest focussing on that as much as ignoring those very keen it gets distracted from.
“It’s still an open goal, and as one living up to my side of last night’s bargain, despite the campanologists’ siren call attracting the clans like bees to honey”
*FIVE* metaphors mixed in one sentence! Congratulations, quite an achievement. Every comment you leave is truly a feast for connoisseurs of convoluted prose.
You are most welcome, and in replying to a new chum here I do hope I am not spoiling my feeding time promise.
Just to check, was there a point coming on the actual topic, or is literary styles to be your only choice of response subject?
Because I do recall this person-playing happening before. Not under this name, but the style is familiar.
And your CI introductory effort as a grammar nazi with Richard Pinder was so subtle it simply breezed by.
Here’s another prose ache to chew on: Is there an instrument that measures what you have managed so far by way of actual on-topic playing the ball commentary?
A Nulpointdaftprecedenttypoinexactitudomockometer perhaps?
If so, it will need very, very small calibrations to register any useful input.
I am sure “Capital Idea” is willing and able to defend the BBC, he has just not got around to doing so yet.
🙂
Still, interesting debut (as a fresh name at least).
Two for two going straight for the person’s spelling/grammar and not a peep on the discussion.
Par for certain courses.
Okay, Colditz, that’s pretty much the entire staff of the BBC (except Andrew Neil, Tim Willcox, possibly Nick Robinson, and possibly Andrew Lansley), so well done you. And hardly any are truly in the center, either. Perhaps to someone with extreme Left views such as yourself, Stephanie Flanders or Paul Mason might seem center or center-Left, but they’re really not. Time to give it up. You aren’t accomplishing any defense of the BBC with this stuff, and it’s clearly not really your intention. If you actually just want to fight with your ideological opponents, why not spread your poison on Telegraph blogs or something instead? You’ll even get a bigger audience for your charming insights.
‘Do you complain when journalists who are parents question politicians about changes to child benefit without first declaring an interest?’
And what has gay marriage, clearly a very controversial and divisive topic being driven by a very vocal and yes, militant minority, got to do with children?
A piece of spurious moral equivalence which just muddies the issue being discussed here.
‘A piece of spurious moral equivalence which just muddies the issue being discussed here.’
Can’t imagine what the reason may be.
Oh look, a squirrel!
being driven by a very vocal and yes, militant minority
Equal marriage is supported by a majority of the country.
And you *really* need to learn what the word “militant” actually means…
You do realize you’re going to open a whole ‘nother can of worms with the debate about how the BBC uses the term “militant”, don’t you?
Oh, I know what it means. It means Christian B and B owners being persecuted and a handful of brave Catholic adoption agencies being hounded out of business. Oh, and two women parents on a birth certificate. It also means: what next? Perhaps you are in the know and can enlighten.
‘Equal marriage is supported by a majority of the country.’ I’d have to take your word for it, but I don’t think they actually see it as a priority. And in whose manifesto did it appear? When was this fundamental sociological change put to the electorate – surely a far better test than some shaky opinion poll?
Anyway, from what I’ve read and heard only a very small minority of gays want it.
a handful of brave Catholic adoption agencies being hounded out of business
Oh, here we go again. You bring this up every time.
These “brave” Catholic agencies decided that placing children who needed loving families was less important than their being able to exclude certain families based purely on their ideology. And then, when the High Court ruled that they couldn’t choose to ignore the law of the land, they played the victim card.
That’s not brave. It’s the exact opposite. Thankfully other, better adoption agencies still exist, so the children who need fostering and adoption won’t suffer just because of a small number of Christians have lost sight of Christ’s teaching.
“placing children…was less important than…their ideology”
I have no doubt that the Catholic Church would make the same argument against you.
A missed trick for the gay movement to show some generosity of spirit to other minorities so that all good people can rub along together (and the Catholic adoption agencies are VERY good people, dealing with the most difficult cases).
But no, there has to be an Inquisition-style enforcement of the law to uphold gay ‘rights’ no matter what the impact is on the most vulnerable children in society, or any other innocent victims come to that. Those who were once the victims are now doing the victimising. Those who once were not tolerated are the being intolerant. I still have some sympathy with gay rights, but it is being eroded very rapidly. As has become the norm in this country, a very vocal minority is screwing it up big time for the majority.
And yes, I have raised this argument before (and will continue to do so). Funny you should know that as a new poster on this site.
Seem to recall Stephanie Flanders having a go at David Cameron about child benefits and specifically mentioning she was a single mother.
Perhaps BBC journalists should in a spirit of openness declare any links they might have to the Labour Party.
…it would be much quicker and easier for those that don’t to declare their lack of links.
Yep but that would require the back of a fag packet [no jokes as the chorus gals will get bitchy] which is a problem as the BBC hate smokers !
The name’s Scott, hippiepooter. As everybody but you, it seems, has been intelligent enough to work out, Dez and I are different people.
If they were like you they’d be called ‘nasties’.
Bless you for (a) thinking that’s a hilarious insult, and (b) thinking anybody cares that you’re insulting them.
Any other angle than that of the hugely rude personal opinion being made by a so-called professional, impartial interviewer is opening the door to all the distractions already being predictably deployed above.
But I will agree with you that raising the notion of ‘a matter of integrity’ by a BBC employee, in this manner, on a BBC channel, po-faced, is hoot and a half, given what has gone down (excuse me, vicar), is being redacted and will be FoI-excluded by the BBC for ever more.
Yes, Boris needs to be held to account.
But by heavens getting held to account by a sanctimonious bunch of hypocrites such as the BBC system ensures only get employed is truly pulling so many other ones you’d think you were at a campanologists’ jam session.
‘Hypocrites’ – also ‘liars’ (as in 28gate).
I’m not saying Mair doesn’t have a personal reason for hating Boris. I’m just saying that in this case, the result would be the exact same no matter the sexual orientation of the Beeboid doing the
attackinterview. I even said that there’s a place for a separate discussion about the concerns over vested personal interests.There is a place for discussing BBC and homosexuality, but that interview with Boris Johnson is not it, so for once your critics have a fair point. Drawing attention to whether or not the interview was a hatchet job however is entirely fair given that this site is called Biased BBC.
I don’t think Mair keeps his homosexuality that quiet (how I have known for years I cannot even remember) but the attack on Boris was vicious. Either Mair was following the BBC line to be nasty to all Conservatives or there was a particular reason. I think Alan was right to bring forward an idea of why that may have been – he may be correct in his suggestion or not – but I hadn’t known Boris’ views on homosexual marriage and it certainly may have an effect when being interviewed by homosexual interviewers (Mair and Evan Davis for example).
You must be joking David no way will they answer the real issue not as the word ‘gay ‘ was used! that’s it for the one trick phoneys that haunt this place that is a far as they will go so expect loads or ‘homophobic’ ‘ bigots ‘ yada yada so on and so forth !
The main thrust of the piece above has garnered an unsurprisingly immediate and expected immediate swarm defence which I will leave to others to swat about, especially as I have been asked nicely to steer clear of feeding time.
However, in amongst all the inevitable distractions that can only serve to make those of a happy disposition even happier, I do still see this:
‘BBC’s Eddie Mair making the highly personal and opinionated comment that Boris is a ‘nasty piece of work.‘
Given that Mr. Mair had Boris on the ropes factually throughout (objectively I can’t argue that he was a blustering, ill-prepared and tongue-tied fool…. maybe caused by the assault but he’s a political big beast and them’s the breaks), it seems to me to have handed a much bigger problem to the BBC than one of their boys taking down a political foe.
Because that really can’t be excused away as anything other than highly personal subjective opinion no interviewer worth his, her or their salt should ever be caught in the open committing.
Unless the BBC can get away with an ‘Eddie just being Eddie’ attempt, I’ll be interested how this one gets spun away.
I don’t see how this is connected to the interviewer’s sexual choices, but it is pretty clear to me which of those two is ‘a nasty piece of work’.
Valerie Singleton once threw a full glass of water in his face when they were broadcasting live, so (assuming she was provoked) I am guessing he is not on her Christmas card list.
I think his motives for saying what he said – almost exceptional even by BBC standards (did Livingstone, for example, receive similar for his anti-Jewish remarks?) – need to be questioned. Alan’s theory is still as reasonable as any.
Can’t understand what all the fuss is about. We have many politicians who have told much bigger and more serious lies than Boris seems to have done and have reached the top of greasy pole.
Of course it does matter that Boris is a Tory so the BBC will be in attack mode. Just like they were with McAlpine and Mitchell. Contrast that with their heartfelt laments when their friend Huhne transgressed.
The double standards and hypocrisy of the BBC make you want to vomit. At least I am sure that if Boris is ever PM he will now see to it that the BBC is got rid off in short order.
Oh I can’t wait for that glorious day. Hopefully the vacant Broadcasting House can be sold off to Sky at a knock down price.
Couldn’t be worse than Brown, Miliband etc and he might stuff the BBC which I would gladly pay several years License Fee in one go to see.
On by the way does anyone know if the Piers Gaveston referred to in the interview is the gay lover of Edward II. Surely not because that was ancient history and no one bothers about that at the BBC, unless of course they can find an angle to make England /Britain look bad. Of course his sexuality may not have been acceptable then but it would be now. Boris didn’t say anything nasty about that aspect did he and possibly upset Eddie and his close chums?
If it was that historical figure, Boris should take heart, because the BBC are a forgiving lot when it comes to historians. Look at Professor Orlando Figes , done for penning anonymous but highly damaging reviews of rivals work. When first challenged by the Daily Mail he said it was his wife who had done it but eventually was forced to admit the whole sorry truth. But the good old BBC are helping him recover by having him presenting programmes. Of course they don’t let him write any reviews, not yet anyway.
For all BBC employees hypocrisy is spelt HYPOCRISY
Political views entirely determine how the BBC “reports” the world. Once your political allegiance is determined, so is the manner of how they “report” you. They are so partisan they make football supporters look open minded.
‘But PM. You are joking. It would be like our own Silvio running the country. Bunga Bunga parties all round!’
What childish claptrap. Expected better, even of you.
Old news hacked to death ! still gota love your dedication to the mail !
Bunga-bunga not a wild exaggeration, then.
Anyway, seem to remember when Labour were in power their trangressions were ‘their private business and nothing to do with politics’. You know, private for them, sleaze for the Tories. Put simply, crass hypcocrisy.
Stephanie Flanders will be pleased that the BBC has opened the gates to the past indiscretions of public figures.
The BBC’s defense will be that Mair was only hashing over what’s going to be in the new documentary about the erstwhile Golden Boy. As soon as one of our cavalier defenders of the indefensible can show us video or even a citation of a Beeboid calling Ken Livingstone or Ed Balls or similar a nasty piece of work on air, I’ll change my mind.
This chap seems to agree with you:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100208742/boris-johnsons-eddie-mair-interview-if-boriss-private-life-is-fair-game-then-so-is-everybody-elses/
This, I think, is the key question. Can anyone imagine this ‘journalist’ pausing during an interview with Ed Balls to exclaim “You’re a nasty piece of work, aren’t you”. This – during a prime time TV interview on one of the BBC’s premier political programmes. This is the kind of lazy, pointless, personal abuse one might hear on a partisan talk radio show, not on a national broadcaster’s output that has a supposed commitment to high standards and impartiality.
Dreadful.
ps: Why are the comments to the Telegraph thread closed?
288 comments
Comments for this page are closed.
Is there anything in this post-Leveson, HackedOff-controlled shadow world of ‘free media’ that is not run through a filter now?
The gay angle is just plain silly but that doesn’t make the interview any better.
It is poor journalism to take three things from someone’s past, represent them in the worst possible way, and then launch into an over the top attack on your interviewee. Mair tried to create a negative image of Boris in the minds of the viewers. That’s spin not reporting.
‘Mair gives all politicos a rough time. It’s just that you don’t notice when its Labour being crucified. That’s called being bias.’
Oh dear, another open goal. Here we go….
As requested several times before, colditz, please provide links to or transcripts of BBC interviewers roasting Labour politicians on ‘no more boom and bust’ or ‘there’s no money left’ or, asking them in every single interview what their policies are (as they did with the Tories in opposition), or why mass immigration was never mentioned in their ’97 manifesto, or, in the case of Andy Burnham when they gave him free rein to criticise the Coalition over care for the elderley, why he didn’t do something about it during his time in cabinet, or his accountability for North Staffs (on his watch), or why Labour let the banks run riot with their lending, or why they let personal debt rise from £600 billion to £1.4 trillion in 6 years, or why they created so many wealth-sapping public sector jobs, or why it took them 13 years to introduce the 50% tax rate, or why they did nothing about our energy security, or why Miliband signed us up for 80% carbon emissions reduction by 2030, ……..(enough to be going on with).
The floor, as ever, is yours…….
I think you’ve just been ‘strung out’….
Dear Colditz,
I was never aware of you providing such information so could you do so again. I particularly look forward to Edward Mair roasting:
1. Kenneth Livingstone viz. ‘given your profession of socialism and your tax arrangements to really are a disgusting little hypocrite …’
2. Dianne Abbott viz. schooling and racism ‘you really are a disgusting little hypocrite …’
3. Please feel free to add to the list.
Also I see in an earlier post you speak of someone called ‘Nutty Nigel’. Is that his real name or are you breaching the colditz guidelines on Levenson that though shalt not hurl abuse/hate online. Or should this commandment be changed to ‘though shalt not throw abuse/hate around online unless though are colditz or a Quisling.
Best
Kyoto
I’m no fan of Boris Johnson, nor of Mair, who is a self-important prat. But his comment about Johnson should earn him the sack. It is utterly and totally unprofessional for a broadcaster to say such a thing – particularly when he does it so hypocritically, on a programme named for a famed adulterer!
As for Dez and his acolytes, when they can produce evidence of similar treatment being meted out to clearly more deserving candidates (Galloway and Prescott spring quickly to mind) by their BBC heroes, they might have a case. Until then they are just yapping like silly little poodles.
‘It is utterly and totally unprofessional for a broadcaster to say such a thing’
Interestingly, those commenting here feel it was a tour de force:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17974981
Not a single hint of concern… out of three.
Mind you, unlike BBBC, the fact that the BBC moderates what goes through, and out, via its ‘Snippets of reaction from viewers’ selections may have some bearing on this.
Interesting how here all views get posted to be seen by all, whilst elsewhere…. it seems down to trust in those in control of the edit.
‘unprofessional for a broadcaster’ Ah but he is a BBC broadcaster so this justified attack on a disgusting evil baby killer Tory who are so unlike the kiddy rich lurvies at the house of auntie will strike him out as a true mans man [no pun intended! ulp ] of a staffer!
I have watched the interview. I’m afraid Boris is going to have to do a much better preparation than that.
It may well be that Mair is not as aggressive with people of other political colours, but Boris has to defend Boris, and no-one else.
In the light of the fact that he is co-operating with them making a documentary about himself, it would have been wise to expect some digging of dirt by Mair.
I’m afraid Boris will have to learn a boxers wisdom, and be ready to defend yourself at all times.
Seriously, when has eddy queen of smughad a proper go at anyone on the labour benches who wasnt blairite.
The beeb love catty waspish gay interviewers its in their genes/ jeans.
If I wanted Frankie howard i would watch up pompey. Ooh madam. Titter yee not.
When did Ballsack or Millepede get a proper grilling.
Can anyone remember red ken ever getting a question harder than a lob?
Scum
“Can anyone remember red ken ever getting a question harder than a lob?”
http://youtu.be/r5PhIBMheU0
Sorry, though I appreciate you putting up the line, however, I’m not wading through a 15 minutes of Kenneth Livingstone. But could point to the bit where he is accused of being a ‘disgusting little hypocrite’.
Well im so looking forward tothe balance of golden [boy] Mair dragging Lard Pressalot over the coals! just like prezza did to his secretary over our property in our office while drawing expenses and a wage from our tax money and then Meir can beat chunky like he did that member of the public or grill him on his commons credit card use in all those grill houses !
But nay holding me breath Eddie baby [what is it with the BBC and all these Edds???]
Good comment…
richyork
If the BBC is going to act like the redtops then shouldn’t we be having a word with Lord Justice Leveson about being a bit more inclusive with the most influential player in our UK media?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100208742/boris-johnsons-eddie-mair-interview-if-boriss-private-life-is-fair-game-then-so-is-everybody-elses/#comment-840850004
And just to ram the point home, as it were, let us recall that four days ago the folks on Five Dead were laughing along with loveable Uncle Al Campbell, objective media commentator extraordinaire.
I’m guessing that the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus would rather spend time with ‘nasty’ Boris than loveable Al…. what with BoJo being elected and all, while Al avoids the ballot box like the BBC avoids accountability. It’s probably all down to Campbelphobia.
“Mr Mair is too experienced and professional a practitioner (he also presents BBC Radio 4’s PM and occasionally BBC2’s Newsnight) to have let such a phrase slip from his lips.”
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-03-24/boris-johnson-eddie-mair-nasty-piece-of-work-or-a-journalist-just-doing-his-job/
Nice spot…..if the comment was scripted or even just something dreamt up in the editorial before the interview I would think the BBC should be in trouble…..as your quote carries on:
‘Those of us who paddle in these treacherous waters would do well to ponder that question; as would those who get at least a part of their political intelligence from TV interviews, and who use them to distinguish their leaders from their would-be leaders.’
That illustrates how Mair’s comment might be reflected in both any leadership election and national election…and if it was a deliberate attempt to damage Boris’ reputation
the BBC should be taken to task for what is essentially corruption of the political process by the ‘impartial’ BBC.
It was just SO unnecessary. Tough questions are fine, but accusing a guest of being ‘a nasty piece of work’ is simply unprofessional. This was a man projecting his own personal dislike of his guest into the interview and out to the audience.
He sounded as though he was taking his cues from the Labour plant in the Question Time audience – resort to dismissing your ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶t̶ opponent as being beyond the pale – as though they were social unacceptability personified.
It showed the petty resentment simmering beneath. This is what happens when people take their politics so deeply personally, almost to the degree of religious belief, so that they are unable to separate the personal from the political. Occasionally, it can’t help but bubble to the surface.
It’s just unprofessional and ill-mannered, but this seems to be becoming the style for BBC TV news interviewers with an eye to making a name for themselves as the next whoever.
‘with an eye to making a name for themselves as the next whoever’
—-
It’s interesting how it has not, or where it has been covered enthusiastically. Looking at the morning headlines:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/you-are-a-nasty-piece-of-work-arent-you-boris-johnsons-past-troubles-finally-return-to-haunt-him-during-car-crash-interview-with-eddie-mair-on-andrew-marr-show-8547375.html
Of course, the solidarity across the BBC-complementing tribal media appears not to be total:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/doctor-who-sex-scandal-two-1783309
It may be the story and focus taken will see the Mirror being contacted by a whole new audience as a result.
When certain groups fall out it does seem they can react poorly with each other.
I wonder what the relative ABC ratings are in assessing what story is of interest to more of which audiences, that can guide editorial priorities?
A deliberate hatchet job, and in co-ordination with political friends I’ll wager.
Not the last time we’ll hear ‘nasty piece of work’ from a socialist’s lips. A new mantra has been coined.
What the Beeb fails to understand is that they are doing Boris a favour. He is an anti-politician politician. Beeb censoriousness just makes him seem more human. Other politicians have become plastic mouthpieces for opinion polls. Boris is real. The BBC and the Grauniad et al will never understand this.
“It’s like Trevor MacDonald interviewing Nick Griffen and Griffen not realising MacDoughnut is black.” Which would be fine. A black radio interviewer would not have to tell Griffin he was black before the interview, nor would a Jewish interviewer have to give him notice of his Jewishness.
Mair no doubt thinks he’s been clever as he luxuriates in all the congratulations he will no doubt be getting from gloating Beeboids in their droves but you have to wonder whether he’s picked on the wrong target here. Johnson, not being Cameron. Is unlikely merely to simper and roll over and let his tum be tickled; he’s a calculating and ruthless individual under that persona of buffoonery and is likely to be out for blood. Mair should not assume any time this decade that he’s heard the last of this.
I’ve just watched the interview and really can’t see why Boris Johnson comes out of it so badly. To read the press reports you would think he was left looking totally ridiculous, but I don’t see it at all. In my view he maintains his dignity and humour in the face of a typically snide and cynical interview from Eddie Mair . Boris didn’t loose his temper, didn’t tear his microphone off and storm out. He ended up managing to get in some good points about the labour party’s terrible position on the economy and how Mandelson and Blair are highlighting this. Well done Boris, you’ve gone up even further in my estimation. I wish you well despite you’re chequered past. I look forward to seeing Eddie Mair conduct a similar interview with Miliband or Balls.
I felt there was something slightly odd about Eddie Mair but couldn’t say what. His tone on the PM prog’ on R4 is gentle, soft, polite, reassuring, but he can ask awkward questions and not be put off by weak answers. He is unlike Paxman in this respect and perhaps all the more dangerous for it. His attack on Boris did surprise me – very ad hominem – and I don’t recall similar attacks on Left folk with messy private lives.