Paxman Can’t Be Biased, Because Wossy Agrees With Him

Stan Rosenthal, who forced the BBC Trust to admit, three months after the event, that Jeremy Paxman was guilty of bias and in breach of the BBC Charter requirement of impartiality, has complained about his presenting of Newsnight last night.

Paxman opened an interview with Douglas Alexander, shadow foreign secretary (8′45″ in), by asking: “Are you proud when you see the pictures of Tony Blair embracing Col Gaddafi?” Nothing wrong with that, and Alexander is well able to look after himself. But the later repeated sneering reference to the man whom “the prime minister clasped to his bosom”, was plainly biased, as was the set-up of the interview, with Paxman backed in the studio by Huda Abuzeid, whose father, a Libyan dissident, was murdered in London.

Not that Rosenthal has much chance with this one. Paxman enjoys the safety of numbers.

It was unfair of me to single out Krishnan Guru-Murthy yesterday. The entire LBLM&C* is united and vocal in getting straight to the heart of the Libya crisis, as best expressed by Alec Macph at Harry’s Place:

The Reason Tony Blair Was a Duplicitous, Money-Grubbing Warlord When He Did Not Invade Libya, and Was a Duplicitous Money Grubbing Warlord When He Invaded Iraq; But, Most of All, the Reason Why I Am Right

No word yet from Guru-Murthy, Paxman, Jonathan Ross and all the rest on which alternative policy they wanted Blair to follow in respect of Libya: (a) sanctions, as applied to Iraq 1991-2003; or (b) military action.

Actually, what the LBLM&C seem to be saying is that they wanted the Third Way. Don’t sell Gaddafi any weapons; don’t let British or US companies develop his oil (Russian and Chinese ones should have been encouraged); and don’t worry about his sponsoring terrorism or making weapons of mass destruction because we all know that those are fairy stories.

If ever there were an illustration of the old adage about the role of the auditor, more recently adapted to that of the leader-writer, the recent conduct of the LBLM&C captures it perfectly:

A man who watches the battle from the safety of the hills and then comes down to bayonet the wounded.

*London-Based Liberal Media and Culturati.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• "The Continuity of the State"
• Why the Treasury thinks the deficit rose last year
• Men of Secrets II
• Men of Secrets
• The Dawn of Time

• BlairSupporter

  @ takeoman – have you any idea what a stupid, illiberal, undemocratic thing you’ve just said? Well, of course you haven’t. According to your world of wallies we now have to prove negatives in order to prove positives.

  In other words everything such as you think is illegal is clearly illegal unless others can prove it isn’t. Similarly anyone you think is a war criminal is obviously a war criminal unless it can be proven he isn’t.

  C-R-A-ZY people. Utterly insane.

• takeoman

  Oh dear ,Nanny and Uncle John didn’t do a very good job explaining either freedom of speech or democratic debate to you did they? It is perfectly acceptable for someone to hold and put forward a belief other than the one held by you, when this happens the two of you engage in a debate ie each has to produce facts to support their position and prove their point, while refuting the evidence of the opposition. Now have you got that you as well as your opponents have to argue and prove your case.

• BlairSupporter

  @ takeoman,

  Nice try. Except that it is clearly a distraction from my points, and also clearly wrong. Having “freedom of speech” and thus a “democratic debate” is an entirely different matter from saying that one side – YOURS- already knows all the answers. And because that one side KNOWS, the debate is actually pointless. Therefore, your argument goes, evidenced by the extreme nature of your comments, get the object/subject of your distaste and KNOWLEDGE into a criminal court. Guilty before being proved innocent, as it were.

  That is not a debate. That is putting forward a position as FACT. And the facts are simply wrong.

• takeoman

  No obviously you just can’t get your head round the idea that you constantly do what you accuse others of, ie making an assertion and expecting it to be accepted as fact. Lancashire Lad says the war was illegal, you say it wasn’t, you demand he proves his assertion but object to anyone requiring you to do the same as regards yours. In your view you are always right,again exactly what you accuse others of.

• BlairSupporter

  @ takeoman.

  You people are so confused. Ever heard of “innocent until proven guilty”? That also applies to politicians. The simple fact is that when one accuses others of llegal acts it is for the accuser to prove their case. You may not have noticed but no court has seen fit to charge Mr Blair with any illegal act. That is most likely because there is no charge that would stick. All I say is that Lancashire Lad and people who are so convinced they are so right should at least consider that they might be wrong.

  But they don’t. They can’t. They are suffering from Blair Derangement Syndrome. They KNOW they are right, and Blair was wrong. Correction – he was an ‘evil lying war criminal’ etc.

  One day they are going to offer degree courses on the pathology from which LL and probably yourself are suffering.

  In the meantime, as far as I am concerned, Tony Blair is (like you and me and LL) innocent until proven guilty.

• takeoman

  I see what your problem is, your Blair Obsession has totally taken over your life and warped your thinking. Not once in our present discussion have I mentioned Blair T., yet your replies keep bringing up the subject of his guilt or innocence. Strange as it may seem to you I for one can accept that the war could well be illegal but Blair could be guilty of nothing more than a sad lack of judgement.