Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Really?


Do you think anyone would last long with any employer if they said the people making their product were like a bunch of 13 year olds with no idea?


And a person interviewing politicians should be impartial (which he was). Going public with your views distorts that even if he had tried to remain impartial.


I like Paxman, and see what he's saying about ideology of the young, but think it's right that he kept quiet til he'd left the job.

Was thinking the same thing... publically slagging off your employer isn't really the done thing, is it?


I guess "managing the best you can to the advantage of as many people as possible" should be the aim of all political parties, but nevertheless it wouldn't be a tagline I'd necessarily associate with the tories.

I meant that he could not say anything whilst at the BBC because they are so entrenched in their own leftie smugness -and I suppose he knew they would sack him since they are a bunch of petulant children and he wanted to make exposures. I also like Paxman - he is a breath of honest fresh air

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I guess "managing the best you can to the

> advantage of as many people as possible" should be

> the aim of all political parties, but nevertheless

> it wouldn't be a tagline I'd necessarily associate

> with the tories.



That's what I thought, but guess he means he's more of a Tory types ideologist rather than thinking current politicians are actually doing a good job if doing this.

The problem with BBC impartiality, or at least trying to let all sides have a say, means everyone thinks it's against them.

Righties think it's leftist. Lefties think it's rightist, Palestinians think it's pro Israel, Israelis think it's pro Palestine, Christians think it's anti Christian Muslims think it's pro Christian, etc etc etc.


Actually it gave ukip acres of coverage and the greens nowt, so some people might be right...

Isn't there a difference between being socially/economically left or right of centre, and being politically left or right of centre?


The former being a judgement call, and the latter supporting a football team?


One requires analysis and the other an abdication of critical faculties.


Paxman attempts several seemingly innocuous generalizations to make his point, but broadly he paints liberalism as naive, inexperienced, poorly informed, ideological dithering. Conversely he paints his own 'one nation Toryism' as experienced, pragmatic and action focused.


In fact his assertions are confused: action demands by necessity that artificial limits are placed on debate; that at some point you must stop talking and do something.


Yet at the same time he talks about taking decision making to those people who are affected: a process that is both consultative and never ending - since every involved individual will have a different perspective and interpretation of both the impact and the correct course of action.


His parting views would have been dissembled by a more effective interviewer or commentator.


I suspect that Paxman is horribly conflicted. His irascible desire for absolutes (exemplified in his badgering of interviewees to deliver black or white answers to questions) would have been tempered by the handwringing of his team, and he was probably a better journalist for this. He's too intelligent not to know this.


Like a bad web hack, he didn't want to concede this point as it was too closely linked to his sense of identity, so he resorted to 'ad hominem' attacks and the flinging of insults.


The irony is that a polarization of his views at the BBC probably forced his colleagues into even more polarized and opposing positions in order to find a balanced middle ground.


In other words, he himself created the '13 year old' idealism that he claims to despise.


Paxman was and is an excellent journalist, but without the support of his team he would have run out of interviewees willing to accept his attitude very quickly. A wise man would be more reflective on that.


I would like to imagine that with age Paxman would become a wise and somewhat avuncular commentator, but I suspect that without a support network he is more likely to harden his views to the point of becoming a figure of faint ridicule.


Regardless of that, I don't think he's a football team supporter, and will probably regret identifying himself as a 'one nation Tory'.

:) Still having fun!


Is Paxman a King Lear of our times?


Utterly reliant upon his peer support, but patronizing of their competence, he grants them the keys to the kingdom. He's confident that his authority supersedes the fragile (BBC) autocracy upon which it was built?


Is he destined to be supplanted by the next terrier interviewer at the BBC and rejected by the political elite that was the source of his power?


What will his moment on the blasted heath look like? Who will be his Fool? There seems to be no Gloucester.


Will there be a Cordelia? A BBC acolyte who trusted him when he did not trust himself? Who will finally sacrifice themselves as the painful realization of Paxman's fragility dawns?

BBCs 1 & 2 are his Regan and Goneril, Now he's no longer KING (Doing Newsnight) they'll regret allowing him and his entourage to stay at their houses carousing (presenting University Challenge and documentaries on The Victorians) and will restrict his servants and entourage (researchers and make-up artists) so he will leave in a fit of pique and end up on the Blasted Heath (Sky) howling at the wind (presenting "Edwardians Unveiled" on Sky Arts 2).

Blow, Sky, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!

You cataracts and Toryism, spout

Till you have drench'd our steeples, drown'd the cocks!

You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,

Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,

Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,

Smite flat the thick rotundity o' network!

Crack nature's moulds, an germens spill at once,

That make ingrateful man!

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blow, Sky, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!

> You cataracts and Toryism, spout

> Till you have drench'd our steeples, drown'd the

> cocks!

> You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,

> Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,

> Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking

> thunder,

> Smite flat the thick rotundity o' network!

> Crack nature's moulds, an germens spill at once,

> That make ingrateful man!


Your starter for 10 Manchester... er, doth any here know me?

We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage:

When thou dost ask me about the BBC, I'll kneel down,

And ask of thee forgiveness: and we'll live,

And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh

At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues

Talk of television news; and we'll talk with them too,

Who loses, and who wins; who's in, who's out;

And take upon 's the mystery of things,

As if we were Sky's spies; and we'll wear out,

In a walled prison, packs and sets of great ones

That ebb and flow by the moon.

"In fact his assertions are confused: action demands by necessity that artificial limits are placed on debate; that at some point you must stop talking and do something"


Indeed, but those constraints can be derived from observation or, on the other hand, purely abstract ideas. Both approaches have the potential for infinite musing. From my own experience the materialist tends to be more inclined to confront the problem at hand, whereas the idealist seeks to solve all potential future problems. So, I accept his contention.

Indeed. Sort of hubris that led to the Savile and McAlpine debacles ...and the erroneous " we are the smartest guys in the room" culture that prevails. Oh and the inability to spot that appointig a former BNP sympathiser to a very prominent role might provoke comment.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...