Jacob Rees Mogg | Page 3 | Vital Football

Jacob Rees Mogg

Journalism used to be about trying to seek the truth. Of course it used to be skewed according to editor pressure. However, Brexit has highlighted a growing problem on TV. That is too often the presenter just facilitates two positions and unless there is some confronting of what is said the viewer is left with the impression that there are two equally valid positions. There was recently an interesting interview on Channel 4 news involving Susannah Reid formerly UKIP leader and Heidi Allen from the Independant Group. Reid claimed that polling showed that people now favoured ‘no deal’. Krishna Gurnamurtyh challenged this by pointing out that wasn’t true and when she tried to repeat it he continued to ask her for the evidence of this. He’s right in terms of the evidence. When Heidi Allen said there is polling support for a second referendum, which is true, he asked her for her evidence for that that she hadn’t come prepared with. So he was completely fair to both. It was exactly the kind of thing I would want from all interviewers. The BBC has been guilty of a lack of challenge of false and misleading statements and has let itself down badly throughout the Brexit process. John Humphrys’ featherbed interviewers approach to a never ending parade of brexiteer supporters on his Today programme has been a disgrace. The lack of challenge to JRM has been one of the problems.

waldo, before reading your post I was going to comment on the 'feared' John Humphries and how he must have been replaced by a clone that has been programmed not to ask any difficult questions of brexiteers. No wonder I tend to listen to O'Brien on LBC rather than the neutered BBC, ITV etc

I don't mind at all if hard questions are asked of remainers as well as brexiteers as most brexiteer arguments fly in the face of the evidence. But as O'Brien says, since Brexit and Trump, the BBC impartiality model has been broken.
 
I don't mind at all if hard questions are asked of remainers as well as brexiteers as most brexiteer arguments fly in the face of the evidence. But as O'Brien says, since Brexit and Trump, the BBC impartiality model has been broken.

So the BBC's impartiality model is broken according to O'Brien (someone ditched from the BBC for not being impartial) as it won't allow him to express his biased views about Brexit and Trump from the viewpoint of a supposedly impartial presenter. Makes sense!

He should seriously think about joining C4 - the Jon Snow (the King of upper middle class metropolitan liberal smugness, not the "King in the North") comments on the recent Brexit protests are the very epitome of the attitude I have been talking (ranting ) about in my recent posts.
 
The fact that you term being "anti PC" as yearning for "racism and sexism" sums up the views of those who live in that bubble or lap up what they preach - the sort, a bit like the aforementioned James O'Brien, that rant about tolerance and how wonderfully tolerant they are, then are intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them - the escalation of this thread pretty much being a prime example.

Hating political correctness and the "do as I say not as I do" metropolitan elite who want to instil their values on everyone else, does not make me racist or sexist or have a yearning to be such.

Completely true - I am very smug when I read the squabbles between lesbian activists and transgender activists. Tolerance only applies when it is about something you agree on - Vegans aren't tolerant of meat eaters, but they will be the front of the line at any anti-racism march.

Just read this article for a laugh - https://www.theguardian.com/comment...gbtq-birmingham-sex-education-school-protests

(mostly, but not exclusively) Muslim parents are protesting about LGBTQ-inclusive education. He has managed to reference Margaret Thatcher and section 28 in 1988, just in case (heaven forbid) that anyone believes (because it isn't true) that only Muslims have ever been intolerant in history.
 
One thing the BBC seems to care about more than perceived impartiality or balance, is the justifying of the licence fee. And to justify the licence fee they need to show that their content is reaching people and getting decent viewing figures, remember that they are still in competition with other channels like Sky, ITV and Channel 4 who all receive commercial funding.

That's why giving airtime to outspoken controversial figures who support movements like Brexit or Trump is a no brainer for the BBC, because whether you like what they say or not, you'll tune in to watch. When Farage and other like him are on Question Time people either tune in either because they like what he has to say, or because they want to see other members of the panel rip him to pieces, but either way people will watch.

As long as the news is viewed as just another wing of the entertainment industry and continues to be measured using similar commercial metrics, then the controversial outspoken public figure will always get more airtime than the one with more reasonable intentions.
 
Last edited:
You hit the nail on the head there RainhamGill.

Any commercial enterprise can present anything in anyway they see fit.
Hence Sky, CNN, Fox, all have their bias.
There are no issues with that.

The Guardian panders to the left
The Express panders to the right

The huge difference with the BBC is it is NOT a commercial enterprise and should therefore have no bias.
I believe (no facts) that before, during and after the referendum, the BBC gave disproportionate coverage to the Remain campaign and still heavily favours the remain side.

just my opinion
 
Going back to the original post, I see that Mogg's sister is standing as a candidate for Sir Nigel's new Brexit party at the European Parliament elections.

Despite looking a little like him, I would... which is a tad disturbing.
 
News as entertainment and politics as entertainment feed off each other. The change is they've moved to centre stage. You don't project and sell to get to the real business of reporting and governing. They've become the real business, and we expect to be entertained, flattered, and provoked, rather than informed and led.
 
Yes, that's exactly it. The BBC reports on politics these days as if it were a soap opera involving a small group of people at Westminster - nothing about what the politicians actually say or what their policies actually involve, only about personalities and events and how they might affect the balance of power.

The only time they ever go outside that bubble is to interview some confused pensioners in a provincial high street.

That, combined with the fact that the political talk shows are usually nothing but shouting matches, means that viewers who want to be informed about politics get next to nothing out of it.

It's part of a wider trend of the past 20 years, where it's become clear that they assume all their viewers are morons who can't handle politics unless it's presented as the Game Of Thrones or the Jeremy Kyle Show.

Pretty much the same goes for the rest of their programming these days, to be honest.
 
As long as the news is viewed as just another wing of the entertainment industry

Thank you RainhamGill for hitting the nail on the head. The phrase at the end of the World at One, "And that's the world this xxxday lunchtime" is laughable when considering the number of far more or at least as serious events and atrocities both nationally and internationally that go completely ignored day after day while the media focus selectively on the most headline grabbing scandals, celebrities, America, Brexit and maybe a feel good piece about a rare frog finding a mate!

(Obviously they can't cover everything in 45 minutes, but at least don't deceive yourself that such a statement could be credible, and by it try to lull your audience into believing that only what you deem to be news(/entertainment) worthy, and nothing else, really matters!)
 
Last edited:
Journalism used to be about trying to seek the truth. Of course it used to be skewed according to editor pressure. However, Brexit has highlighted a growing problem on TV. That is too often the presenter just facilitates two positions and unless there is some confronting of what is said the viewer is left with the impression that there are two equally valid positions. There was recently an interesting interview on Channel 4 news involving Susannah Reid formerly UKIP leader and Heidi Allen from the Independant Group. Reid claimed that polling showed that people now favoured ‘no deal’. Krishna Gurnamurtyh challenged this by pointing out that wasn’t true and when she tried to repeat it he continued to ask her for the evidence of this. He’s right in terms of the evidence. When Heidi Allen said there is polling support for a second referendum, which is true, he asked her for her evidence for that that she hadn’t come prepared with. So he was completely fair to both. It was exactly the kind of thing I would want from all interviewers. The BBC has been guilty of a lack of challenge of false and misleading statements and has let itself down badly throughout the Brexit process. John Humphrys’ featherbed interviewers approach to a never ending parade of brexiteer supporters on his Today programme has been a disgrace. The lack of challenge to JRM has been one of the problems.

The former UKIP leader was challenged to provide evidence for support of no deal - she couldn't
Heidi Allen was charged to provide evidence for support of second referendum - she couldn't.

What level of support are we talking about? Probably some in both cases but not the majority in either.

The only difference I see is your assertion that Allen's excuse that she had not come prepared was acceptable whereas you are sure that the UKIP leader could not make the same excuse.

Media outlets are not the only ones needing a sense of balance.
 
I am not interested in Rees Mogg's Brexit position, or his social class. He is one of the most right wing politicians sitting in the current house of commons. He believes that the welfare state is unaffordable and that it should be dismantled entirely. He believes this on economic grounds but also philosophically. He believes that any help at all weakens the recipient and that only unfettered competition in everything will strengthen our national resolve and bring success. He declares no ultimate national loyalty and considers himself above nationality, governance and all the rules of man.

That's not very polite and it's pretty dim of you if you believe him a champion of Britain. He isn't.
 
JRM charming, calm and civil (major points for that) but a bit thick. Cut from different cloth from Johnson who is scared of responsibility (not damning by any means), but then plays the hard line purist from the sidelines -those bogus, rubbish Telegraph op eds. Ugh.

BBC -socially liberal is about right -although the BBC news in America is a constant stream of the-world-is-fucked-and-miserable to the point where it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they want to erode everything. Orla Guerin could make a kid's birthday party sound like the aftermath of a disaster. "In spite of everything, the children (we could find no parents, perhaps there are none), bravely try to enjoy themselves in simple ways, hoping that harmful sugar and plastic will provide a sense of the normality which is obviously lacking in their, to this point, so short lives. I'm Óglaigh na hÉireann, reporting for the BBC from somewhere horrible."

Speaking of British cars -330 mile round trip today through snow, sleet and up to 30 mph gusts and complete white outs in a 2006 Disco 3 with 130 thousand on the clock and four hakkapeliittas on the rims to get to a funeral. They're talking 15 inches by tomorrow morning. Bloody scary at times, but, all in all, a perfect day... well except for, you know

Johnson is also a serial liar. The only consistent thing about him is that he lies. He lies in private, in public and in print. He's just been caught at it again. Take note of his employer's defence; apparently we shouldn't expect to believe a word he says. I don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rced-correct-false-brexit-claim-boris-johnson
 
Johnson is also a serial liar. The only consistent thing about him is that he lies. He lies in private, in public and in print. He's just been caught at it again. Take note of his employer's defence; apparently we shouldn't expect to believe a word he says. I don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rced-correct-false-brexit-claim-boris-johnson

I have to confess that the "statistician"/complainant is my cousin. I have contacted him to disassociate myself with him, but to be fair to also applaud the mischief making!
 
The former UKIP leader was challenged to provide evidence for support of no deal - she couldn't
Heidi Allen was charged to provide evidence for support of second referendum - she couldn't.

What level of support are we talking about? Probably some in both cases but not the majority in either.

The only difference I see is your assertion that Allen's excuse that she had not come prepared was acceptable whereas you are sure that the UKIP leader could not make the same excuse.

Media outlets are not the only ones needing a sense of balance.
As usual you’re missing the point. The interviewer knew the facts to be able to challenge the person who was telling an untruth. As it was only one of the two being interviewed was lying, the same lie that Boris Johnson told and which the Daily Telegraph has apologised for saying that his column isn’t serious analysis just comment. What Heidi Allen was saying was true but she didn’t have the source at her finger tips. However, the challenge to both by the interviewer was to be applauded and is what is seriously missing in a lot of BBC interviews.
 
I see the BBC gave Farage another ten minutes' free advertising at the top of the 6 o'clock news for his tiny faction's split from what is already a fringe party. I'd love to know what incriminating photos of the DG he's got in his possession to get publicity like that.