Rotheram Abuse: Bbc Interviewer Cuts Interview With Trump Supporter Short

[Hypognosis]

Just found this on Twitter and surprised there is no thread here about it.

http://ow.ly/YXsD300Gol9

Due to an ongoing health situation, I am not able to participate fully in the thread. I am hoping that BBC denialism should be sufficiently shocking to keep the discussion reasonsbly animated.

Basically, the interviewer poked Trump's "Muslim ban" with a stick and didn't like the answer he got. Do you think he was out of order?

[anneasquith]

Hypo. Sorry you feel unwell.

[Svejk]

Yes. Out of his depth too.

[Togo]

Typical BBC response. In denial again. They have stated so many times that "lessons will be learned", after the vile Saville was able to hide in plain sight, but it is just mealy mouthed pc platitude.

[Svejk]

Third comment removed. Lol.

[Togo]

Was it mikey?

[Svejk]

I can see a few gaps on other threads. Perhaps someone else 'bought the farm'.

[jourdain2]

Yes, he was out of order, given the information I have gleaned. Once freedom of speech is curtailed (from either side of an argument) civilisation as we know it is doomed. (Pte. Frazer fans can finish the quote.)

[Togo]

EIEIO.

[Old_Geezer]

Went on a bit didn't it. But for sure the interviewer didn't handle it well.

His response should have been to question why, if a group of people do something wrong, that justifies specific action against everyone of the same religion.

I suspect the interviewer was unaware of the incidents referred to and felt unable to continue with that direction, assuming it was correct, as he might have been having the wool pulled over his eyes.

But the skill of interviewing is to have a response that fits whatever has come up. To assume many would be justifiably offended at the suggestion such a thing happened, and opting to cut short the interview, and apologise to these offended folk, was not the way to go. But we all have off days.

[Peter Pedant]

// His response should have been to question why, if a group of people do something wrong, that justifies specific action against everyone of the same religion. //

OG I have tried to point out the obvious craziness of
"some muslims are bad so all muslims are bad and so we will all be murdered and or raped in our beds" without an awful lot of success in these very threads ....

similar argument with roman catholics and the IRA in the seventies
but the only reply has been from Ummmm - why the feck have you brought the IRA into it ?

[Togo]

--answer removed--

[Baldric]

I think it was 'intheroom' that took an early bath.

[Togo]

Lol he only joined at 17:45 today posted first time at 19:27 banned at 20:11or so. That must be a record.

[jackthehat]

Togo - Not really....he's been banned much more quickly than that in the past.

The interview shows unusual behaviour from an experienced BBC journalist, they can usually handle commentators better than that.

[naomi24]

Abysmal research.

[Ric.ror]

I listened to this at the time and thought the attitude of the interviewer was one of the reasons those 'northern cities' got into so much trouble in the first place
I like Doton but he lacks the gravitas to take on the more serious subjects

[Hypognosis]

@anneasquith

Thanks for your kind words. I'll pull through, it's just hard to think straight or concentrate, at the moment.
--

@Svejk

(was he out of order?)
// Yes. //

Clearly, I thought so, or I wouldn't have posted. The court case was done and dusted and featured on his employers' main news, for a week or more. Is the world of radio a complete bubble?

//Out of his depth too. //

I would be. Feel free to expand on that.

It's possible that he was tasked with extracting some dirt on Trump, his campaign, his supporters or even this specific spokesman and the interviewee going off-piste was just too much. I'm guessing this is local or regional radio as I don't recognise the interviewer's name.

If I'm right, I'm also curious as to why anything short of a national station would be troubling itself with American politics.

--

@Togo (20:14)

//Typical BBC response. In denial again. //

BBC's TV news fully covered Rotherham. It's just this one interviewer who is not up to speed. Do you normally draw broad generalisms, starting from one-off examples, like this?

//Was it mikey? //

Odd for him to pass up a thread on this topic. I was away from the forum so didn't get to see the zapped posts. Again :-/

[Hypognosis]

@Peter_Pedant

Yes, it's the old "All (these) B are A, therefore, all A are B" strand of logic.
If sufficient factual, indisputable cases can be accumulated, then that is taken to justify blanket treatment of the whole group. I emphasise the "indisputable cases" aspect because that is why it can be hard to convince people to ditch the prejudice.

At the same time, it's educational to note that the BBC is unable to take the edge off Rotherham by saying that the behaviour was prohibited, under their faith and culture. That is the sore point that I doubt they will ever feel able to address.

[Hypognosis]

@jackthehat

//The interview shows unusual behaviour from an experienced BBC journalist, they can usually handle commentators better than that.
//

He had just successfully batted away the "keep out terrorists" angle, by referencing Tim McVey so should have been in the mood to neutralise the next offer but, maybe, he didn't recognise it from the initial description offered? In fact he reacted so fast (as if to a made-up, outrageous allegation) that he talked across the interviewee's attempt to make the words "in Rotherham" audible.

Call it lawsuit avoidance behaviour ( Ian Hislop routinely does a tongue-in-cheek version of this but don't let that distract us).

@naomi24

// Abysmal research. //

Quite. Or so eager to interrupt, he didn't hear the "wild accusation" re-described as "in Rotherham".

@Ric.ror

//I listened to this at the time and thought the attitude of the interviewer was one of the reasons those 'northern cities' got into so much trouble in the first place //

Public Office terms and conditions of employment. Thou shalt not say anything which may be *perceived to be* racist, or prejudiced against an identifiable minority group. Uttering certain word sequences *will* cause you to lose your job, should they be heard by someone who despises you or covets your job.

It's really kind of twisted when self-preservation is the driving force behind PC utterances, instead of a genuinely good disposition to all of your fellow human beings.

// I like Doton but he lacks the gravitas to take on the more serious subjects //

I think journalistic gravitas can be a matter of distribution of labour and who gets to do the meaty stories (eg warzones) from which it is gleaned. Usually not enough to go around and the same faces hogging all the best stuff. That or 20-odd years' worth of hard graft, covering multiple types of story, equally well.