George Galloway loosing the plot and his rag.

mike65

Sky News 9 min rant

or

YouTube

Mike.

esquier

Yeah, he was good was`nt he, nice to see someone speaking
something resembling the truth, to a greater extent.

DMC

He's a very good public speaker, convinced of his argument, cock sure...

But his rottweiler "get your retailiation in first" style is certainly not appealing to me, nor his style of politics.

You can't ignore the bugger tho. I want him and Paxo to go at it again, like they did at 5am last UK election night when Galloway walked off.

lostexpectation

im sorry mike he showed up reporters sham question brilliantly, so what if she spoke in quiet tone, she didn't know the names

mike65

Ah but does he know the names of the dead Israelis?

Galloway is a puffed up joke of an MP, he is obsessed with putting himself at the centre of the story and a good 'arguement' (it was'nt as Anna Botting was simply shouted down) on live telly was Mission Accomplished. Meow!

Mike.

DMC

lostexpectation wrote:

im sorry mike he showed up reporters sham question brilliantly, so what if she spoke in quiet tone, she didn't know the names

In fairness to Anna Botting, she didn't lie down, but she is no Paxo or Jon Snow.
I wonder is anyone in Sky News brave enough to tackle and win against Galloway?

Dave!

DMC wrote:

In fairness to Anna Botting, she didn't lie down, but she is no Paxo or Jon Snow.
I wonder is anyone in Sky News brave enough to tackle and win against Galloway?

Adam Boulton seems to have had a few clashes with him, I don't remember who came out the better though...

That video is brilliant, Galloway at his best (well, appearing before the Senate was also a bit of a hoot )

mike65

How does one 'tackle' Galloway? If he is allowed speak he runs riot, if someone tries to pull him up short he complains about media bias.

Mike.

DMC

mike65 wrote:

How does one 'tackle' Galloway? If he is allowed speak he runs riot, if someone tries to pull him up short he complains about media bias.

Moot point, Mike. I think as an interviewer, you have to fight fire with fire. Like if Paxo*, you throw a spanner at him, as you know what you are going to get. Anna asked him a glib question, and she threw it back at her, to say as much as its a crap question. Paxo (or John Humphreys) on the other hand, would plan a opening question that would bamboozle any other politicians spin, so to throw them of their pre-spun stride.

You can see why Blair hates, absolutely hates Humphreys and Paxman. Their skill works.










* I'm sorry for banging on about Paxo, but he is the prime example of how to deal with Galloway.

mike65

I suspect the best way to disarm him would be to be very nice to him and keep bowling under arm until he thinks he controls the interview and then - bam! A good interviewer will pick up on some point Galloway makes and then can turn it against him.

Mike.

jesus_thats_gre

Makes for good TV indeed. In fairness to him though, Skynews is slowly becoming more and more like Fox News everyday.

mike65

I don't see that to be honest. They spend more time covering Lebanon than Isreal or is giving the Isreali perspective at all, wrong?

Mike.

esquier

I think if it was like Fox George would hardly be invited on, I still think
the substance of his arguement had merit but his patronising manner can
be a bit hard to take, he knows these newsreaders are easy meat. I`d
like to have seen the Paxman interview.

Dave!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519553.stm

I don't know if that's the one you're talking about, but it's worth a look anyway!

DMC

That is most certainly the bunny. I watched that live on the night, and no amount of caffiene woke me up more than that interview!

imeddyhobbs

mike65 wrote:

Sky News 9 min rant

or

YouTube

Mike.

thanks man!!

imeddyhobbs

was it a coincidence today or was it a fluke but within 2 hours after 11 or more isreali soldiers had been killed isreal announced that they captured one of the guys that kidnapped the isreali soldiers a few weeks back,did they just pick him up today?when did they auctally get him??was this another good story out of a bad one?so in essence the jews in the world say on one hand we lost another load of jewish kids but on the upside we got the terrorists that kidnapped our soldiers,is this what we are to belive

imeddyhobbs

mike65 wrote:

How does one 'tackle' Galloway? If he is allowed speak he runs riot, if someone tries to pull him up short he complains about media bias.

Mike.

has he ever reported media bias agenst the beeb?

esquier

Thanks for that, DaveMcG.

Hobbes

Where is he loosing the plot? Historically he is correct and the reporter is clearly loading the questions.

mike65

Only 'clearly' from your perspective Hobbes. Or are you perfectly neutral?

Mike.

Sgt. Sensible

Galloway is a twat but he said what a heck of a lot of people think about the war and Murdoch's media. I don't know how Anna Botting has a job after that performance to be honest.

Sgt. Sensible

mike65 wrote:

Only 'clearly' from your perspective Hobbes. Or are you perfectly neutral?

Mike.

Do you regard yourself as having a neutral opinion of Galloway? I don't, like I say he's a twat but he was 100% correct here.

mike65

Christ no! He is the living embodyment of the politics and characteristics I loathe.

Mike.

Gordon

I thought it was up to the news to provide an unbiased view while giving all sides their chance at voicing their opinions. That female presenter clearly had bias and shouldn't have resorted to trying to shout him down. But that goes for Galloway too, he shouldn't be so petty as to call reporters stupid and suchlike.

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

Only 'clearly' from your perspective Hobbes. Or are you perfectly neutral?

If you ignore the rant of him calling the reporter silly, everything he said is factually correct. Also the reporter was clearly loading the questions and even started it off in the introduction.

If there was something wrong in what he mentioned please let me know.

mike65

Just a thought - as everyone knows Galloways angle perhaps Botting was simply loading the dice to counterbalance what she knew his tone would be?

Mike.

Gordon

mike65 wrote:

Just a thought - as everyone knows Galloways angle perhaps Botting was simply loading the dice to counterbalance what she knew his tone would be?

Mike.

You mean she was prejudiced? That's not a very good way for a news channel to conduct an interview if it's true.

flogen

Sky News got Galloway on to create that entertaining bit of TV there, no other reason. Galloway went onto Sky to create that entertaining bit of TV too; he knew what he was going to say and he knew the way he was going to be treated.

With that in mind the interviewer did ask very loaded questions and Galloway was well within his rights to ridicule them (but not her); but at the same time you could argue that the interviewers job in this case is not to simply give a platform but instead to challenge and question as a "devil's advocate". It would have been different if a pro-Israeli guest was debating with Galloway but as that wasn't the case it would have been very bias of Sky to give Galloway a platform and not pose some kind of questions to him.

Whatever you can say about him he's a very capable speaker, even if you think the words he uses are wrong. With that in mind it's interesting that he was put up against someone who didn't know the conflict nearly as well...

Gordon wrote:

You mean she was prejudiced? That's not a very good way for a news channel to conduct an interview if it's true.

It's not really that; there's no point in her saying "what do you think and why?" and then allow Galloway to spout on without any questions.
People like Paxman do it all the time, it's the whole basis of his interview (where he basically makes the interviewee look like a fool, picking something they did and taunting them with it), the problem here was that Botting wasn't educated enough to justify her questions...

In a Paxman interview he might ask someone to explain why they did something or said something but because he knows his stuff it's as though he is personally asking this question and his knowledge justifies the dissent.
Botting didn't know what she was talking about and it was obvious that she was given a list of questions or else came up with a list of questions to annoy Galloway rather than actually challenge him, because of that it looks like she's just bias and has no justification for her questions other than her bias.

esquier

DaveMcG wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519553.stm/QUOTE]

That was good, George`s ego was severely bruised there, not being congratulated on his win, which was why he ultimately left IMO, Paxman was his usual direct self but again the substance of what Galloway was saying was true, even Jeremy accepted that I`d say.

mike65

Into

"He feels Hezzbolah is justified in attacking Israel/How do you justify your support...?"

Response

"What a proposterous way to introduce an item and first question..."

"What I'm about to say is illegal in this country … Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation. I am here to glorify the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, and to glorify the resistance leader, Hassan Nasrallah …

Spoken by Galloway at an anti-war/Isreal rally on 22 July 2006.

And repeated here

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9334

That makes it doubly important that the anti-war movement raises its voice clearly. To be for peace means to be for the justice without which there can be no peace. To be for justice means to take sides against injustice. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel, for that’s what it is, is a monstrous injustice.

I side with the resistance to that injustice. Hizbollah is leading that resistance. I do not hesitate to say, and Blair and his law officers may take note, that I glorify that resistance.

I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Here is the full 5 mins on youtube

So was Botting wrong in her introduction?

Mike.

Uuuh Patsy

I for one, think he is a legend. Whether you believe hes right or wrong, the world would be a much better place if we had more polticians like him (have a backbone or neck depending on your point of view).

I think we should appoint him as our supreme planetary leader!

esquier

mike65 wrote:

So was Botting wrong in her introduction?

Mike.

Wrong as in....incorrect?. If you look at Anna`s introduction she practically spat it out, so Galloway used his "preposterous" to turn the tables in his favour and he did`nt deny his support for Hezbollah.

mike65

If you look at Anna`s introduction she practically spat it out

Hmmm thats in the ear of the beholder I guess.

Mike.

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

Into

"He feels Hezzbolah is justified in attacking Israel/How do justify your support...?"

Response

"What a proposterous way to introduce an item and first question..."

Hizbollah came about because of Israels occupation of Lebanon. Prior to that they did not exist. Thier goals where to remove Israel from Lebanon. Its only in recent times those goals have changed however he is correct in that this didn't suddenly all happen 4 weeks ago.

That youtube link points out how Israel where acting as terrorists as well.

Sgt. Sensible

mike65 wrote:

"He feels Hezzbolah is justified in attacking Israel/How do you justify your support...?"

Depends who you think attacked who. There are no Lebanese troops in Israel and it's the Lebanese people who are bearing the brunt of the war, if you could call it a war.

Morgans

I'm fairly neutral on this issue, and I have some sympathy for the Israelis in their position. I am not a rabid Pro palestinian and look with something along the lines of disdain on those who are out protesting against the Israelis unquestioningly, but there is no way that that was George Galloway losing the plot or his rag on that. He said somethings that Sky News didnt want aired, and couldnt be answered/rebutted in an accomplished manner by their employees. In fact, while you have pointed the finger at people being biased towards the Palestinians, Mike, by suggesting he lost the plot and rag, it is clear that you have the bias. George wins that one. Plain and simple. I'd avdise Sky News to have a better gameplan the next time he is invited to comment....

mike65

If Sky did'nt want him to say anything that you reckon they did'nt want to have broadcast they woud'nt have invited him on. Or they could have pulled the plug with a 'whoops we've lost the feed' moment.

Mike.

Gordon

flogen wrote:

With that in mind the interviewer did ask very loaded questions and Galloway was well within his rights to ridicule them (but not her); but at the same time you could argue that the interviewers job in this case is not to simply give a platform but instead to challenge and question as a "devil's advocate".

Yeah, I did mean that also but didn't elaborate my point at all, well said.

esquier

mike65 wrote:

Hmmm thats in the ear of the beholder I guess.

Mike.

That works both ways, Mike.

Morgans

Are you saying that this would be justified. Bigger news story then I'm afraid. Dont know you Mike, your views, or your previous posts on this, but taking this thread at face value but started by stating that GG lost the plot and rag, which I thought I would see. I didnt. I saw someone who presumbaly doesnt have the same opionion as you, put accross his point very well, in his typical abrasive manner. And rightly punish the lazy broadcast journalism of Sky.

Do you think that they should have 'lost the feed' when the interview wasnt going well? Do that and you have lost the arguement full stop, and you are essentially condoning a supposedly neutral tv 'news' station propagandising its own point of view.

Galloway shouldnt have been invited on. He was and Sky were punished. George won. They lost. They should either a) get someone more intellegent and is a serious broadcaster to try to debate with GG, or b ) never have him on their screens again. Fox takes the latter strategy.

mike65

Do you think that they should have 'lost the feed' when the interview wasnt going well?

You clearly don't know me if you think thats what I was suggesting!

Mike.

Morgans

As I mentioned above. YOu appear to be suggesting it as a way out of a interview where the stations point of view is being questioned/defeated.

lostexpectation

flogen wrote:

Sky News got Galloway on to create that entertaining bit of TV there, no other reason. Galloway went onto Sky to create that entertaining bit of TV too; he knew what he was going to say and he knew the way he was going to be treated.

With that in mind the interviewer did ask very loaded questions and Galloway was well within his rights to ridicule them (but not her); but at the same time you could argue that the interviewers job in this case is not to simply give a platform but instead to challenge and question as a "devil's advocate". It would have been different if a pro-Israeli guest was debating with Galloway but as that wasn't the case it would have been very bias of Sky to give Galloway a platform and not pose some kind of questions to him.

SKY NEWS - THE DEVILS ADVOCATE

mike65

Dear God some here are so literal-minded

I would'nt expect Sky or anyone to pull such a stunt nor would I approve of such an action!

I wish I had'nt bothered.

Mike.

flogen

lostexpectation wrote:

SKY NEWS - THE DEVILS ADVOCATE

If you remove the "S ADVOCATE" you'd probably be more accurate

On another note can posters please refrain from getting personal here; thanks.

Elmo

It futher proves that Sky News Reader are nothing more then News Readers.

Morgans

Fair enough Mike, I have already stated that I dont know you, but what you think is hard to guage really, given that you believe that GG lost the rag and the plot on that Sky News interview.

DMC

Uuuh Patsy wrote:

I for one, think he is a legend. Whether you believe hes right or wrong, the world would be a much better place if we had more polticians like him (have a backbone or neck depending on your point of view).

I still think he is a well-spoken, self-motivated carpetbagger, who uses the middle-east as his cause célèbre. But thats just IMO

lostexpectation

Morgans wrote:

Fair enough Mike, I have already stated that I dont know you, but what you think is hard to guage really, given that you believe that GG lost the rag and the plot on that Sky News interview.

he didn't lose his rag, thats how those type of politicans talk, did anyone see hairy sheridan after his win in libel court?

mike65

I did and I loved his presumption about the social make-up of the jury

"12 working class men and women...blah blah blah" did he ask them? Or did they all wear flat caps?

Mike.