BBC Doing Best to Scupper Boris as PM

[Teddy Bear]

It is clear from the continual pro-Labour bias that the BBC engage in on a consistent basis, that the scenario they fear worst is the likelihood of Boris Johnson becoming PM should he ever stand as such. He is in fact the closest thing to a real Tory in the upper echelons of the party, that hasn't drifted further and further left to fit the BBC propaganda of what a 'good politician does'. Given Boris's charisma it's fair to say there's a good possibility of his succeeding to lead the Conservatives at the next election, and winning outright.

So what does the BBC do, beyond the day to day reporting that might cast him into a negative light, or fail to mention positive instances?

First they 'blackmail' him into participating in a documentary about himself, that certainly gives the appearance of being less than flattering, as well as invite him to a interview that is solely for the purpose of tearing him apart.

The interview is described below but you can hear a 3minute+ clip of it here.
I cannot recall any Labour politician, no matter how vile, being treated in the same manner. Eddie Mair, the BBC interviewer, is clearly trying to savage Johnson, without giving him any real chance to respond to the accusations levelled at him.

'You're a nasty piece of work, aren't you?': Boris Johnson is mauled by BBC presenter Eddie Mair as he refuses to confirm he wants to be PM

• Mayor of London was interviewed by Eddie Mair on the Andrew Marr Show
  
• Mr Johnson refused to discuss allegations about his private life
  
• Exchange came ahead of BBC documentary to be screened tomorrow
  

By Helen Lawson

London mayor Boris Johnson hit out at 'trivial' and 'hysterical' questions about his personal integrity and ambitions to be Prime Minister today.

In an interview with the BBC's Eddie Mair, a clearly uncomfortable Mr Johnson was forced to deny being a 'nasty piece of work' and refused to discuss allegations about his private life.

He also refused to be drawn on his ambitions to be Prime Minister, raising his hand and asking Mair for 'permission to obfuscate' when he was asked why the words would not cross his lips.

The intense exchanges came after the Tory politician explained why he had agreed to take part in an in-depth documentary about his life, due to be aired by the corporation tomorrow evening.

Mr Johnson suggested he had been effectively 'blackmailed' into participating by respected journalist Michael Cockerell.

'It is like when the News of the World ring up and they say listen, you are going to be in this story. You can either cooperate or not cooperate,' he said.

'I thought on the whole it was probably wiser given that it was going to happen anyway to try to say something rather than leave the field clear to put the boot in.'

When Mr Mair said he wanted to 'talk about you', the Mayor joked: 'That's exactly what I am trying to avoid.'

However, he appeared thrown as the interviewer grilled him on his sacking from The Times more than two decades ago for making up a quote.

'I mildly sandpapered something someone had said. It is very embarrassing, and I am very sorry about it,' Mr Johnson said.

Mr Mair, standing in for Andrew Marr as he continues to recover from a stroke, then pressed Mr Johnson over whether he lied to Tory leader Michael Howard about allegations of an extra-marital affair in 2004 - which resulted in his resignation as shadow arts minister.

'I never had any conversation with Michael Howard about that matter,' the Mayor replied.

'I do not propose to go into all that again. Why should I? I've been through it a lot. Why don't we talk about something else?'

Mr Mair said he was talking about 'integrity' and turned to a 1990 telephone conversation Mr Johnson had with one of his friends who was demanding the private address of a News of the World journalist.

A recording of the call to fellow Old Etonian and convicted fraudster Darius Guppy suggested Mr Johnson had agreed to supply the details, even though Guppy indicated he wanted to have the reporter beaten up for smearing his family.

BORIS: 'IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN'

In a documentary to be shown on BBC2 tomorrow night, Mr Johnson is profiled by journalist Michael Cockerell.

It is the first time Mr Johnson has co-operated with a television profile.

Cockerell filmed Boris Johnson at work and in his leisure time, including a tennis match with his siblings, journalist and author Rachel Johnson, Tory MP Jo Johnson and Leo Johnson, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

When Jo had to leave the match, Cockerell took his place across the net from Boris.

Cockerell told today's Mail on Sunday Live magazine: 'Boris said to me later that he was very worried about the film. Why?

The mayor's response: '"Well I kept trying to hit the ball very hard straight at you, when you were at the net – and you were getting it back. You might make it look as if you were better than me".'

Again in the programme, the London mayor fudges the question of whether he holds ambitions to take over from fellow Old Etonian David Cameron at 10 Downing Street.

He says: 'Obviously, if the ball came loose from the back of a scrum – which it won't – it would be a great, great thing to have a crack at. But it's not going to happen.'

'Boris Johnson: The Irresistible Rise' will be shown on BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm

Mr Johnson stressed today that 'nothing eventuated' from the conversation, adding: 'I think if any of us had our phone conversations bugged people say all sorts of fantastical things whilst talking to their friends.'

Mr Mair said: 'You are a nasty bit of work, aren't you?'

'All three things I would dispute... if we had a longer time I could explain that I think all three interpretations you are putting on these things are not wholly fair,' an exasperated Mr Johnson replied.

Challenged to give a 'straight answer' on whether he wants to be Prime Minister, the Mayor said: 'What I want is for David Cameron to win this election which he deserves to do.

'In these circumstances it is completely nonsensical for me to indulge this increasingly hysterical conversation.

'What I want is to spend my time remaining as Mayor to do as well as I can as Mayor of London.'

He went on: 'I think people would rightly conclude that I don't want to talk about this subject because I want to talk about what should happen, which is that the Government deserves to win the next election.

'It is a measure of the trivialisation of politics that I thought I was coming on to talk about the Budget and housing in London, and you have... I do not mind all these questions about other stuff, but I think it is more important that we look at the things that are happening now in the economy and what the Government is doing to help.

'They don't care about phone conversations with my friends 20 years ago, they don't care about some ludicrous made up quote... what they care about is what is happening in the UK and which of the two parties has the best prospectus for recovery.'

Asked if he was going to watch the documentary - on BBC at 9pm tomorrow - Mr Johnson shot back ruefully: 'I'm certainly not, not after what you have told me. I am not going to watch it.'

Today, documentary maker Michael Cockerell revealed how he persuaded the Mayor to take part in the show.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday's Live magazine, he said: 'I sent him a handwritten letter – and he kept me waiting six weeks for an answer.

'I imagine he and his advisers eventually decided it would on balance be better to co-operate than to refuse to appear, as the film was going to be made anyway. And if they were going to do it with anyone, I was the devil they knew.

'I also suspect that Boris was flattered to be asked to join a list of my other TV portraits, which included Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Enoch Powell and Alan Clark.

'He agreed to give me more hours of interview and access filming than he has ever done before.

'My aim was to capture a true likeness and show the real Boris Johnson. Was he a serious political operator and would-be Prime Minister – or was he a gaffe-prone joker who flew by the seat of his pants?

'Johnson revealed to me that, as a tactic, he sometimes gives the impression that he doesn't know quite what's going on.

'But he rejected the idea that he is lazy and a shambles. "I'm probably more industrious than almost anybody else I can think of. I get up pretty early and work pretty hard".

[Teddy Bear]

Dan Hodges at the Telegraph expounds more on the assassination attempt 'interview' and shows it for what it was.

Boris Johnson's Eddie Mair interview: if Boris's private life is fair game, then so is everybody else's

By Dan Hodges

I’ve just sent the Eddie Mair interview with Boris Johnson that everyone’s raving about. By common consent, it was tough broadcast interviewing at its best.

Well, not for the first time, the common consensus is wrong. It was a disgrace.

Actually, it wasn’t a disgrace. It was perfectly legitimate journalism, so long as we all agree that grilling people about the details of their private lives, accusing them of guilt by association , and openly abusing them is legitimate.

The portion of the program that has got people on their feet relates to the moment Mair started asking Johnson about a documentary about him due to be broadcast tomorrow night.

Question one was about the occasion 25 years ago when Johnson was sacked as a trainee reporter for The Times for fabricating a quote from his own godfather, Colin Lucas. You could argue that’s a fair question if you’re planning to interview Boris Johnson for a job as your news editor. The relevance in 2013 to his duties as Mayor of London is less clear.

Question two was about the fact that when, he was Tory leader, Michael Howard asked Johnson if he was having an affair. Johnson reportedly denied it. Which was stupid. He should have told Howard it was none of his business. In the same way it’s none of Eddie Mair’s business, my business, your business or anyone else’s business, aside from the parties directly involved.

Question three related to a telephone conversation Johnson had in 1990 with his friend Darius Guppy, in which Guppy asked him to supply the address of a fellow journalist so he could assault him. The address was never supplied. The journalist wasn’t assaulted.

Question four wasn’t actually a question, but a statement. "You’re a nasty piece of work, aren’t you?" said Mair.

Question five didn’t even pretend to be a question, “Your friend Conrad Black, a convicted fraudster, even he says he doesn’t trust you completely.”

Eddie Mair and the BBC would no doubt argue their line of questioning was entirely reasonable. Indeed Mair claimed this was about Boris Johnson’s “integrity”.

And that’s fair enough. If the Mayor of London is lying to people about issues relating to his duties, that’s very serious. If he’s fabricating information that’s equally serious. If he’s running around his own capital city getting journalists beaten up, that’s even more serious. Especially for the producers of the Andrew Marr Show.

The problem was, none of the questions about his integrity related to Boris Johnson’s duties as mayor. They were reheated tittle-tattle, most of which dates back quarter of a century.

But so what? Boris Johnson is a grown-up doing a grown-up’s job. Eddie Mair is, actually, one of the BBCs best, and most tenacious, interviewers. If you can’t stand the heat, and all that.

It’s not the interview I object to. It’s the response to the interview. This, apparently, is now the gold standard. Judging by the wave of adulation sweeping Twitter, it’s exactly how we want our politicians, and other public figures, to be held to account.

Fine. But if Boris Johnson’s private life is in bounds, so is everyone else’s. If issues of personal integrity are of such importance, great. But let’s hear no more squealing when Ed Miliband is asked about knifing his brother. If something Johnson wrote in 1988 is of relevance, fair enough. But why the bleating about the scrutiny John O’Farrell received for something he wrote in 1998? If we want interviewers casually asking people if they’re “a nasty piece of work”, I’m up for that. But then please, no more about “dumbing down”, or the paucity of the level of our political discourse. And no cries of “bullying” when the first female politician gets subjected to a similarly robust interrogation.

Some people out there may be shocked by the revelation Boris Johnson isn’t the new George Washington, though I’m not one of them. And if Eddie Mair has just set the new gold standard for political interviews, I haven’t got a problem with that. But I suspect some of those cheering now soon will.

[steevo]

I don't know anything about Eddie Mair but I'd like to see "fair game" applied to him if possible. Skeletons in his closet? What do neighbors, associates, friends and relatives going back to his day of birth have to say about the man? It doesn't have to relate in any way about journalism although I wouldn't be surprised at all the questions concerning 'integrity' on the job, but about him personally. I know I'm just blowing hot air but it would be nice if other major media not so left wing had the guts to level the playing field. I just have that feeling arrogant aholes like Mair would be reduced to utter disgust, strictly from the facts of course.

[Teddy Bear]

As far as Mair's (lack of) integrity goes, one needs go no further than the BBC charter. Calling an active politician 'a nasty piece of work', amid various accusations of transgressions in the distant past, and not giving him a fair chance to give a response is simply a hatchet job and goes way beyond their 'fair and balanced' remit.

Clearly Mair wants to make a name for himself within the BBC hierarchy as a bulldog standing up for their agenda, ala Paxman, while filling in for Andrew Marr.

Alan at Biased BBC Blog also makes some valid points concerning motive undercurrents for Mair's aggression towards Boris.

Perhaps Mair’s antipathy towards Johnson arises from this quote from Boris:

“If gay marriage were OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”

Mair is gay and covers a lot of gay ‘politics’. for the BBC

He also notes:

The first point is that the BBC supported the Leveson inquiry and has consistently attacked the reporting of personal affairs (link again from Reed in comments) and activities of celebrities and politicians claiming such things are irrelevant.

Nicky Campbell only a couple of days ago defending Prescott’s workplace dalliances….and the comments by another Labour man, John O’Farrell, in his book that he would have been happy to see Thatcher dead…Campbell claimed the reporting of such a comment was unfair.

How things change…Boris has an affair and suddenly the BBC is ‘acting like a Red top’….the BBC’s excuse…… its all to do with ‘integrity’.

Johnson was given no time to explain anything whilst Mair seemed to be conducting what amounted to a highly judgemental kangaroo court.

Personally, I would love to grill Mair. or for that matter, most of the BBC presenters related to their 'integrity'.

[steevo]

I've seen many gay men in particular with power in the media taking a vengeance. They hate. It wouldn't surprise me Mair wishing for Boris' death. Ultimate motivation is everything... and when it's personal in addition to ideology it's sick.

[Teddy Bear]

Darius Guppy, one of the friends of Boris, who was mentioned in the interview, comes to Boris's defence, and attacks Mair.

Who points the finger? Darius Guppy offers a defence of Boris Johnson

Eddie Mair has more front than Harrods. Consider this: a member of the British Media, Mr Mair, berates another former such member, Boris Johnson, for making up quotes! What planet are you living on, Mr Mair? Making things up is what people in your profession do for a living!

The Leveson enquiry focuses on one particular scandal but hacking into voicemails is among the least of the crimes committed by a metier which is almost single-handedly responsible for the cultural degradation of an entire nation.

Next, Mr Johnson, a politician, is criticised for lying to another politician, Michael Howard, all the while his interviewer feigning horror and surprise. Again, Mr Mair, what brand of glue are you sniffing? That’s what politicians do. Yes, they lie. Just like journalists. And they fiddle their expenses and they pervert the course of justice and they commit perjury and they make up stories to justify invading countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people. Welcome to the real world.

And then Mr Mair attacks the Mayor of London for agreeing, when in his mid twenties, to supply a friend – me – with the address of a News of the World journalist so that the journalist in question can be given the hiding which most of us secretly admit such people deserve.

Tell me, Mr Mair, if a piece of tabloid scum wished to smear members of your family, what would you do? Cry? Report him to the Press Complaints Commission?

As we all know, Mr Johnson never provided me with any address and it is perfectly clear from the tape recording in question that he was simply placating a friend he considered to be letting off steam. But while this may rightly exonerate the Mayor of London, my own line has always been somewhat different – and consistent: my only regret being that I was never able to finish the job.

Likewise, the lure of no public office in the land could tempt me – unlike certain of my contemporaries — to fawn before people like the Murdochs, individuals whose heads, in a better age, would be pinned to Traitor’s Gate.

Members of the British media should aspire to similar consistency it seems to me. They may turn their noses up, for example, when journalists hack into the voice mail of some celebrity using a technique known to most nine year olds but did Mr Mair not consider the circumstances under which the Johnson tape was obtained? — a police informer planting listening devices in someone’s home, an offence for which he was arrested and admitted guilt only for him to sell the tape recordings obtained to the press at a later date.

The methods may differ slightly but they both constitute the same crime — illegal interception of communications. Fruit from the rotten tree. In fact, though, it is what Mr Mair did not question which reveals the moral bankruptcy both of his profession and society itself.

Tell me, Mr Mair, which do you think will cause Mr Johnson the greater difficulty on the Day of Judgement: making up some quotes as a journalist or the ritual humiliation of his wife and children?

The fact that virtually no-where has this argument been raised illustrates the topsy-turvy, Daily Mail-like nature of the British Media’s moral posturing. The truth is that so utterly deadened to acts of genuine immorality, so totally immune to the breaking of vows made before God, so casual in the face of constant assaults on the sacred concept of family have we become that real crimes do not even raise an eyebrow. Such reasoning does not even enter our minds.

But should being ‘a nasty piece of work’, as Mr Mair put it — justified or not — preclude Mr Johnson from high office? Not for the student of history, at least.

For the largest Empire the world has ever known was created by some very rum characters indeed. Today, the Duke of Wellington, whose instincts I am convinced would have accorded very much with my own when it comes to the media, would be doing time for attempted murder in respect of his duelling. Oliver Cromwell would be on trial at the Hague for his butchering of the Irish Catholics he considered mere ‘chaff’ to his sword. Edward Longshanks ‘Hammer of the Scots’, Francis Drake, Clive of India, Cecil Rhodes — the list is endless and I can confirm from my own experience that the re-incarnated spirits of such men are far more likely to be found in Wormwood Scrubs than in the Cabinet.

The plundering of half the world’s natural resources from their legitimate owners and the systematic enslavement of entire populations were not achieved by ‘nice pieces of work.’

Is this to advocate a return to a more brutal age? Not so much as to seek cogency on the part of a media nostalgic on the one hand about Britain’s ‘glorious’ past and bitter about her relegation to miserable little backwater as they see it, whilst simultaneously pointing the finger at ‘nasty pieces of work.’

So, bearing in mind that I have never once, in any form of election, voted for clowns from my own or my parents’ generation – many of whom I have met and known – so undeserving do I consider them of endorsement, would I make an exception in the case of Mr Johnson?

This would depend on how much he has changed in the past couple of decades — to what extent he has become corrupted by a system which promotes mediocrity after mediocrity and to what degree the types of ‘minders’ who inevitably surround such individuals will have re-programmed him.

But when it comes to the Boris Johnson of the Eighties and early Nineties I knew so dearly then the answer is, yes, I would make an exception. And for this reason alone: his capacity for original thought.

The jokes and fun were all very well but the Boris Johnson I knew liked ideas and ideas are what we need now, more than at any time since World War II. The rest of the now prominent nonentities among our contemporaries – the politicians in particular – were simply incapable of ‘big’ or new ideas to an extent which, as a widely-travelled man, I have seen in no other society.

It is upon ideas therefore that I suggest he focus, not on an office to which no honour attaches nor any real power. So too he must cherish the mother of his children and the family God has given to him.

A career has been made by pretending that Ian Hislop is actually funny and a general dumbing down. It is time to dumb up.

[steevo]

Good for him.

And I bet, Mair has read every, single, word.

[Teddy Bear]

Yeah, but since Guppy was the one involved in some less than legal scheme, Mair will probably dismiss it as 'birds of a feather...'

[Teddy Bear]

Seemingly inspired by the recent attack on Boris by Mair, a 25 year old recaps on his observations related to BBC political debate.

The BBC would like to make it aware to viewers that other political leanings are available…
The musings of a 25-year-old licence-fee-payer in Britain. How are more people not opting out?

by Andrew McLean on 28 March 2013 14:20


It is no secret that the BBC has been keeling leftwards for sometime, but the manner in which this bias is now presenting itself leaves a taste in the mouth as bitter as Mr Mair’s attack on Boris Johnson.

It would be easy to pass my comments off as the diatribe of an antiquated complainer, with enough spare time to write endlessly to the BBC, or the my local council, or MP, or MSP, or MEP…but the truth is I am a 25 year old license fee payer in full-time employment, feeling rather irked by Auntie’s left-wing agenda.

Lady Thatcher and Norman Tebbit both opined that they fought elections against the BBC as much as they did other political parties, but at in bygone years the fight was far less brazen, the Beeb being more MI5 than B52.

Eddie Mair’s Sunday morning assault on the Mayor or London was the lowest form of journalism and trickery, leaving Mr Mair looking more of a buffoon than his intended target. Yet, do we now expect any less of our national broadcaster? One need only tune into the Today programme to hear Mair’s colleague Humphrey’s bounds after his guests and experts with the vigour of a dog in heat, whilst on Radio 2 Jeremy Vine does his very best impression of a political heavyweight for two hours each lunchtime.

For a truly comedic/infuriating talk-radio moment, I implore you to find Jeremy’s discussion on the appointment of Justin Welby as the new Archbishop. Every sentence is punctuated with the idea that Welby’s previous career in the oil industry made him possibly, sort-of, maybe, responsible for numerous atrocities across the globe (it is not that preposterous, he is probably personally responsible for global warming too).

Thankfully we are provided with a more rounded view of Justin the man, as Jeremy talks (impartially you understand) to those who have met him. Why not ask someone who happens to walk their dog in the same park as Welby if his dog’s tail is docked (because only an evil, right wing, capital-loving oil baron would commit such a heinous act)?

Ah, I see, you failed to notice whether or not the dog’s tail was docked, understandable. Well maybe he tried to convert you to Christianity as you cleaned up after your faithful hound (because converting the great unwashed whilst in the park is exactly the sort of thing a right wing, tail docking, oil loving, evangelical would do)? Oh, I see, you just spoke about the park and your dog. Interesting.

Vine’s vitriolic attack on those with a right of centre leaning is a daily occurrence, and if bored in the car, a fun game is to count how many times he mentions bankers’ bonuses, Eton College, and out of touch conservatives.

It is not all hard hitting politics though. If like me you are a fan of comedy you can always tune into hear the jokes of Mark Steel, Sandi Toksvig, Jeremy Hardy, Phil Jupitus, Paul Merton, the Now Show, the News Quiz… wait a minute.

The BBC is our national broadcaster, paid for by us, watched by us, enjoyed by…well enjoyed by some I’m sure.

There is no doubt it excels in documentary making, original drama other such avenues, but it is not there to provide such an imbalanced view of the wider political landscape. Allow the people to make up their own minds. Allow Boris to fall into a pit by himself, do not throw him in. Let people decide for themselves whether or not Justin Welby has the right tools to be a successful Archbishop (I’m not sure what the tools are exactly, but they definitely exist).

It is not just a question of left-wing bias, it is just damn shoddy journalism, and the Beeb should be ashamed.

Hopefully the new Director of Strategy, James Purnell, can steady the ship and ensure some impartiality…hang on a second!

Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to eat a fox and watch Top Gear.