Monday, November 27, 2017

Nick Robinson: you don't even have to set traps for him


The myriad of ways in which BBC Today presenter Nick Robinson has just mutilated his own credibility by writing an article for the Mail on Sunday are so obvious that they barely need to be stated, but let's just run through some of them anyway.

* Two weeks ago, Robinson argued that the problem with The Alex Salmond Show was not that the programme itself would contain "Kremlin propaganda", but rather that it would lend credibility to the propaganda found elsewhere on the RT channel.  It's therefore reasonable to conclude that Robinson always pauses to think deeply about the credibility he might be lending to the output of any media organisation he associates with, and that he's decided he's more than happy to give his personal stamp of approval to the Mail's demonisation of immigrants, relentless body-shaming of women, and sexualisation of girls under the age of consent (among the many other delightful things we know and love about that publication).  At the very least, it's clear that he simply doesn't think these things are important enough to compel him to withhold credibility from them.

* It's a statement of the obvious that the Mail has a political agenda, and tries to shape the news as much as report it.  If Robinson thinks a politician should have nothing to do with a propaganda media outlet, what does it say about him as a public service broadcaster with a duty of complete impartiality that he has freely chosen to associate with the right-wing, British nationalist political platform of the Mail?

* In contrast to Alex Salmond, who has total editorial control over his RT programme, it's clear that Robinson was content to cede a degree of editorial control over the presentation of his article to the Mail.  Indeed, it's pretty much impossible to write a newspaper article without doing that.   The Mail have taken advantage of that with, for example, a strategically-placed and carefully captioned photo of Alex Salmond that emphasises the ways in which Robinson's piece is in tune with the newspaper's own familiar anti-SNP (and indeed anti-Scottish) propaganda.  It's tantamount to saying "You see?  It's not just us.  The neutral BBC think it as well."  Robinson has given them full licence to use his status for their own ends.

* Much of Robinson's article relies on innuendo rather than fact, which is something he would never tolerate in respect of criticisms of either himself or the BBC.  For instance, he thinks it's enough to simply pose the question: why did Radio Sputnik set up a base in Edinburgh of all places?  Well, there could be many possible answers to that question, only one of which is "because breaking up the United Kingdom is a clearly-defined and overriding objective of Russian-funded broadcasting".  An alternative explanation is that Radio Sputnik and RT are both seeking niche ways of expanding their reach in a crowded market, and have identified the energy of the pro-independence alternative media in Scotland as an obvious gap in that market.  (Ironically, they wouldn't even have had the opportunity if it hadn't been for the failure of the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media to give the pro-independence side a fair crack of the whip.)  By the same token, there are many possible answers to the question: "what can we read into an extraordinarily misleading report by Nick Robinson on prime-time BBC News just before the indyref claiming that Alex Salmond didn't answer a question that he clearly did answer, and at great length?"  It's not compulsory to jump to the conspiracy theory conclusion, and Robinson clearly finds it offensive when people do.  If he wants them to stop, I'd suggest he should practice what he preaches.

* Two months ago, Robinson used his Reith Lecture to argue that the BBC needed to combat a loss of trust on social media by advertising its own impartiality proudly.  So does he really think a BBC presenter siding with a right-wing British nationalist newspaper against Alex Salmond, and doing so in the most brazenly hypocritical way imaginable, will help to win back that trust on social media?  Or will it, just conceivably, cause people to fall about laughing?  Or, indeed, to become extremely angry, because it confirms all of their worst fears?  Answers on a postcard, folks...

29 comments:

  1. Aye...but there's no such thing as *British* Nationalism...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, Anonymous, it is, of course, English Nationalism as I'm sure the NON-UK Channel Islanders, Non-UK Manx Folk and NON-UK Republic of Ireland people as well as around, 50%,(to the shame of the other 50%), of Scots, will testify.

      Delete
  2. Robinson continues to show why we need an alternative media - to counteract the partiality of the BBC which sees its first duty as toeing the establishment/UK Government line and the sheer nastiness, xenophobia, racism and anti-Scottishness of most of the media.

    How can anyone have faith in a blatant hypocrite?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give examples and name names!

      Delete
    2. Why do you havr to use a non de plume.

      Delete
  3. The BBC's lack of self awareness is in direct proportion to having a huge legally enforced licence tax at its disposal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The BBC is accountable to the public and Parliament. The problem you nat sis have is you have been unable to control and dictate to BBC Scotland.
      And for Salmond to stack his pockets with money from a horrendous murderous regime and to have his nat si apologists says it all about you jock fascists.

      Delete
    2. It's only answerable to the Culture Secretary in Mrs May's cabinet.

      Delete
  4. Anyone who takes BBC political news or output at face value is simply naïve. There is a "line" to everything they say, and even the stories that they omit to cover. This seems to coincide with the view that is most friendly to the view that UK Gov would have. There is also now an increasing trend to create news by using FOI info plus selected comments to generate a slanted version of the story, with limited right of reply.

    ReplyDelete
  5. James this one of your best non poll related posts EVER. This is a takedown that would do the Rev Stu of another parish proud. The best praise I can bestow ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post is just continuity of nat si policy in making up hard done tae stories to sow the seeds of discontent. It has been tried and tested but failed as was seen on September 2014.

      Delete
  6. Great post James , more please , give Wings a run for their money , the more the merrier .Robinson has never forgiven Alex for calling him out on his mis-reporting when he said Alex hadn't answered a question when he clearly had , it made him look foolish and Robinson or any other BBC correspondent don't like that , they think they are always right but the British public know the opposite is the case If RT is the equivalent of Russian propaganda then the BBC is the equivalent of Westminster propaganda . They can almost get away with their lies in print but when it is there for all and sundry to view they blow a gasket . The BBC have always had it in for Alex that is why they are doing cartwheels about him being on RT , keep it up Alex , your doing a grand job !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strange how you nat sis and the BBC and British establishment lie about the government saying they will spend £350 million on the NHS post Brexit.

      Delete
    2. Screech, screech, screech...

      Delete
    3. The wheels on the bus just fell right off...
      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/uk-and-eu-agree-brexit-divorce-bill-that-could-reach-57bn

      Delete
  7. Mr Robinson showed himself to be a liar, issuing a blatant lie. He has no credibility with a very large swathe of the population.
    The Mail. What kind of person reads that and feels clean afterwards?
    Sputnik and RT would not still be here if no-one was watching their output, and the Brit establishment would be quick off the mark if they stepped out of line...
    As for the BBC, they claim that programmes/news etc is balanced to prevent bias. See that water biscuit that I came up the Clyde on!

    ReplyDelete
  8. (Nick Robinson: Fake News: Daily Mail).
    All deserve to be in the same brackets together.

    ReplyDelete
  9. excellent commentary :)
    btw we're all agreed we're ignoring that twat gwc, aye? let him waste his breath

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dinnae worry son I do not communicate with liars. I note you say we! Cleary you are part of the cabal of nat si liars. The Daily Mail is moderate compared to you EU belly crawlin scumbags.

      Delete
  10. Excellent takedown, James! I do hope someone passes the man a copy along with his next fix of BBC tea and biscuits. Keep us informed of any comeback from him!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I always enjoy James's writing when he points out things I should have noticed I enjoy the laugh at myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you noticed points that do not exist.
      I noted that the Jock nat sis and their Tory pals are against Labour plans to take our ex nationalised buses and trains back into public ownership. Whose pockets are you nat sis in? James is more interested in non stories like the wee gnach Robinson but never challenges the Nat si policies or non policies!

      Delete
  12. Anti EU anti fascist Kate Hoey gave the Irish capitulator to the EU a going over today.
    You pretend Jocko nat sis will never sell out Scotland to the EU.
    We Unionists are on yer case fash bhoys and yer Irish sell out pals. Up yer kilts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #snivellingtroll #brexiteerwhine

      Delete
  13. Did you hear Robinson interviewing - somewhat sneeringly - a spokesman for RT on the Today programme this morning (Tuesday)? The gist of his angle was that RT were solely a Kremlin mouthpiece and had little or no autonomy. The spokesman defendes his station well, especially given that English wasn't his first language. To finish with, a quote of approval for RT from Nick Griffin was offered; "what do you think of that?" (or something like). The spokesman said that it seemed like a sensible comment; Robinson, extrapolating in a manner remeniscent of Rik in the Young Ones, then asked, "So you agree with extreme right-wingers, then?". No, that's not really what he meant... [end of interview]

    Derek

    ReplyDelete