George Galloway Vs Sky News

I have very little time for George Galloway and he regularly makes a fool of himself, however I have even less time for Sky News and he does actually make some fairly accurate points about their coverage of the conflict.

Her dimming of his microphone is typical of a Murdoch owned media station too. Bill O'Reilly on Fox News loves cutting peoples microphones when someone says something he disagrees with!
 
Originally posted by Galileo@Aug 7 2006, 07:16 PM
What a wanker.
Click to expand...
Yes she was. (And I know that's not what you meant) Any journalist worth their salt should at least do a bit of homework on their subject before conducting such an interview. She had no chance with Galloway - apart from the director reducing the volume on his mike - because there were occasions during the interview when she had no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter on the route that he had taken. Her only solution was to toe the Murdoch line. I'm afraid that Sky is becoming more and more like Fox. "F*ck the news, we have a view, that's what will colour every report."
 
Anyone who results to insults in a debate like that is a wanker. Anyone who also suggests Hizbollah is not a terrorist organisation is again a wanker.
 
I saw no insults. I don't agree with George Galloway - I just wish that they would allow professional journalists who can handle him to conduct the interviews.

Neither do I agree with Rupert Murdoch - and the worry is that he is a thousand times more powerful than George Galloway.
 
When he resorting to calling the interviewer "silly" and his general patronising tone of "your old enough to know"....thats enough for me.
 
Originally posted by Galileo@Aug 7 2006, 07:46 PM
When he resorting to calling the interviewer "silly" and his general patronising tone of "your old enough to know"....thats enough for me.
Click to expand...
I disagree - she was being silly and she was refusing to accept relevant history that had taken place during her professional lifetime. That was almost certainly because she had a prepared list of questions and was unable to deviate from them. This isn't showbiz journalism, you know. You are expected to have some knowledge of your subject.
 
It will be a cold day in hell before Galileo responds logically to Brian's argument.
 
He is a wanker, but I warmed to him a lot over the past nine minutes. That bint was being silly, and her questions were ludicrous.

If somebody asked me onto their show and asked me such stupid questions, I would probably call them more than silly. I loved his passion.
 
she was being silly and she was refusing to accept relevant history that had taken place during her professional lifetime.
Click to expand...

She was not refusing to accept anything....she is the interviewer. She asked direct questions and every answer was brought back to evil Israel and America. He refused to accept Hezbollah as a terriorist organisation...like seriously what the f@ck is that?!?
 
He addressed it by saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
 
Admittedly Galloway has got very one-sided views. But her pursuing of the line that Hezbollah is suffering now owing to the fact that there are more Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil than Israelis was ridiculous.

Hezbollah are terrorists, but so is the Israeli government. Her refusal to tackle Galloway at his own level was semi-humorous, and semi-sad.
 
If thats the case, there is simply no such thing as terrorism. I however see them as terrorists, as does the international community including the EU and the UN.
 
I don't think that anybody should estimate the following fact, which was pointed out to me by an Israeli friend in work yesterday:

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Defence Minister Peretz are both lacking in one of the most important social capitals in Israel, military rank. They therefore need to prove - to the public as well as to themselves - that they can mix it with the big boys.
 
Galileo, my argument, in this instance, has nothing to do with Israel, Lebanon, Hizbullah, Syria, Iran or Washington. I am concerned that the Murdoch organisation is winning, even if it is just in one corner of Ireland, by sticking to the same agenda that it does with the appalling Fox News. It would be a sad day for the profession of journalism - a profession that we need, especially when our leaders ignore the wishes of the majority of those who put them where they are and act duplicitously while doing so - if it were to follow only a prepared agenda and adopt the closed mind dictated by its employers.

Secondly, I consider it totally unprofessional to go into an interview unprepared and lacking a basic knowledge of a subject that your interviewee has mastered. Because if the interviewee uses his vastly superior knowledge to make a one-sided argument look as if it is the unchallengeable gospel truth then the journalist would do better to take up plastering or caall centre telephony.

Though it is admirable for someone to spring to the defence of a young woman who is out of her depth...
 
He`s just a publicity whore. If the papers and media in general ignored the little turd he`d hopefully go away.
 
Can I have a 'hands clapping' emoticon for Brian's last response, please? Some things are just too serious to be left to pop interviewing. You wouldn't have John Simpson interview Pete Doherty, so why have airheads interview politicians?

There is a relentless dumbing-down of televized news, anyway, with idiotic visual pointers to what's being broadcast in case you're incapable of forming a picture of a flood when a flood is announced, or a crashed car when there's been a car crash. Time was, an announcer gave you the straight news, with perhaps a brief topical shot of, say, the Prime Minister arriving in Singapore as he, er, arrived in Singapore. We didn't need to follow that up with someone in Singapore telling us that the Prime Minister was now being shown arriving in Singapore. Somehow, God bless us, we more or less managed to put the words and the picture together and figure it out for ourselves.

Now we have some over-coiffed ditz (male or female) asking the news in question form. "Today, all NHS hospitals north of Chester exploded due to a build-up of methane gas from farting patients. Now, over to Suzee Scudbang in Salford. Suzee, is it true the hospitals in Salford have exploded?" "Hallo, Ditzy, and thank you. Yes, it's true they exploded at approximately 10.30 a.m. this morning." "So, Suzee, not one left standing, is that right?" "Yes, Ditzy, not one left standing, although final figures aren't yet in from the suburbs." "Right, thanks, Suzee. So, not one hospital left standing in Salford. And now, over to Dirk Disaster-Master in Dundee... Dirk... "

And to think that once upon a time, they had to have gone to university... :(
 
Sky News recruits for their audience who are generally soundbite addicted airheads. I blame the producer who threw this poor incompetent girl to Galloway in the first place, and then thought it would cleverly undermine the gorgeous one to show Israeli casualties on the split screen. All it did was help his point.
 
The poor bit was woefully out of her depth with GG. Love him or loathe him he is a quality debater.
 
While Sky News certainly has its flaws, absolutely....from my viewing of their coverage of these events in the middle east their reporting seem to be very much sympathetic and almost onside with the Lebanese goverment and people.
 
Back
Top