Current Affairs The Make Brexit Great Party Ltd

[roydo]

that John Humphrys thing is incredible - sorry if people have seen it already, but if not:

I heard that live, and in full. Talk about taking something out of context.

 

[tsubaki]

I heard that live, and in full. Talk about taking something out of context.

Humphrys or the clip?

 

[roydo]

Humphrys or the clip?

Well both. If the clip is in some way meant to paint Humphrys as a Trump supporter based on a few seconds, then you need to listen to the whole interview, and why that exchange came about.

 

[johnblue23]

Farage has wall to wall coverage when the Brexit party 'won' the European election. He gets wall to wall coverage for being a loser. Meanwhile the so called unelectable "'anti Semite' is electable. This is 1997 all over again and its just a question about the size of a Labour majority. Despite the sour grapes of the msm Peterborough was an astounding victory for Labour.

 

[tsubaki]

Well both. If the clip is in some way meant to paint Humphrys as a Trump supporter based on a few seconds, then you need to listen to the whole interview, and why that exchange came about.

the whole interview is here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005mhs (from 2h13)

I don't really understand your point though - he wasnt trying to say Humphrys was a Trump supporter, he was saying Humphrys claimed Trump didn't say something that it was blatantly clear he had said and then tried to claim he had heard him not say it.

 

[roydo]

the whole interview is here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005mhs (from 2h13)

I don't really understand your point though - he wasnt trying to say Humphrys was a Trump supporter, he was saying Humphrys claimed Trump didn't say something that it was blatantly clear he had said and then tried to claim he had heard him not say it.

So what was the point in posting a few seconds of a 15 minute interview then? To big up the MP, or discredit Humphrys?

Just seems a bit agenda based.

 

[tsubaki]

So what was the point in posting a few seconds of a 15 minute interview then? To big up the MP, or discredit Humphrys?

Just seems a bit agenda based.

It isn't postworthy when a BBC presenter, on its flagship politics show (on radio anyway), tries to claim that something that was a national story (including on the BBC), which was filmed and which was preceded by the US Ambassador saying exactly the same thing didn't happen?

I don't mind the combative approach Humphrys took throughout that interview - as long as he does that with everyone - but honestly what is the excuse for what he did there? It isn't an argument over statistics or policy, it was an argument over reality and he was on the wrong side of it.

 

[roydo]

It isn't postworthy when a BBC presenter, on its flagship politics show (on radio anyway), tries to claim that something that was a national story (including on the BBC), which was filmed and which was preceded by the US Ambassador saying exactly the same thing didn't happen?

I don't mind the combative approach Humphrys took throughout that interview - as long as he does that with everyone - but honestly what is the excuse for what he did there? It isn't an argument over statistics or policy, it was an argument over reality and he was on the wrong side of it.

Dont know if you have heard the interview in full. If you have then we have different interpretations of what happened. If you havnt, I suggest you do.

 

[tsubaki]

Dont know if you have heard the interview in full. If you have then we have different interpretations of what happened. If you havnt, I suggest you do.

I have, and I am kind of perplexed as to how anyone can have a different interpretation of that.

 

[roydo]

I have, and I am kind of perplexed as to how anyone can have a different interpretation of that.

Why? I heard Humphrys trying to make the point that the next day Trump turned turtle on the statement. But the MP, who was tied up in knots trying to make his position on a 2nd vote even semi clear, seized on the comment, and managed to deflect the interview away from ground he was very poor on. Humphrys didnt say "He didnt say that", he tried to say "He altered what he said"

In the context of the whole interview, it was a pretty unimportant exchange. And pretty poor form from Humphrys for laying the ground for the diversion to take place.

 

[mightymoyes]

that John Humphrys thing is incredible - sorry if people have seen it already, but if not:

Humphries is a seriously nasty piece of work

 

[tsubaki]

Why? I heard Humphrys trying to make the point that the next day Trump turned turtle on the statement. But the MP, who was tied up in knots trying to make his position on a 2nd vote even semi clear, seized on the comment, and managed to deflect the interview away from ground he was very poor on. Humphrys didnt say "He didnt say that", he tried to say "He altered what he said"

In the context of the whole interview, it was a pretty unimportant exchange. And pretty poor form from Humphrys for laying the ground for the diversion to take place.

He literally said "He didn't say that, but anyway go on", though. It is right there on that tweet (after 0:14), and on the whole interview in the link I posted above (2h21:03).

As for the rest, McDonald wasn't "tied up in knots" - Humphrys had just accused him (with zero evidence) of saying Labour leave voters were thick, and he was trying to respond to that. The 2nd referendum point was answered clearly.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

It isn't postworthy when a BBC presenter, on its flagship politics show (on radio anyway), tries to claim that something that was a national story (including on the BBC), which was filmed and which was preceded by the US Ambassador saying exactly the same thing didn't happen?

I don't mind the combative approach Humphrys took throughout that interview - as long as he does that with everyone - but honestly what is the excuse for what he did there? It isn't an argument over statistics or policy, it was an argument over reality and he was on the wrong side of it.

He does I'm afraid

It's why I don't like his interviews

He's not alone though

Interviews with politicians are more like boxing matches than conversations these days

All the politician cares about is staying "on message" you his/her parties equivalent of Malcolm Tucker doesn't eviscerate them whilst all the interviewer cares about is tripping them up so they can say they "won"

 

[roydo]

He literally said "He didn't say that, but anyway go on", though. It is right there on that tweet (after 0:14), and on the whole interview in the link I posted above (2h21:03).

As for the rest, McDonald wasn't "tied up in knots" - Humphrys had just accused him (with zero evidence) of saying Labour leave voters were thick, and he was trying to respond to that. The 2nd referendum point was answered clearly.

Like I said. Interpretation. I didnt think the 2nd ref point was clear at all. Maybe its me.

 

[tsubaki]

He does I'm afraid

It's why I don't like his interviews

He's not alone though

Interviews with politicians are more like boxing matches than conversations these days

All the politician cares about is staying "on message" you his/her parties equivalent of Malcolm Tucker doesn't eviscerate them whilst all the interviewer cares about is tripping them up so they can say they "won"

TBF the interview with Farage earlier was a bit different in tone to the McDonald one