radio 5 live vs Beefy botham

[Buzzer]

Do me a favour. We could all just pluck (excuse the verb) a non-related, ridiculously exaggerated example out of thin air. But you aren't seriously suggesting that a McDonald's chief exec would be as angry, as chippy, and as unprepared as Botham and expect to get away with it?

We both listened to an interview where a discussion about a charity giving away food to the homeless turned into an environmental debate about the morals of grouse shooting. And when the interview was going pear-shaped, someone else turned the conversation into the ethics of hunting lions. I don't think anything I've suggested as a hypothetical equivalent is as non-related and ridiculously exaggerated as what really did occur! It was a car-crash of an interview and the blame lies solely with the interviewers.

Botham was unprepared and sounded pissed off? Of course he bloody was. Here he was expecting to do a piece about trying to make a difference to homeless people's lives and instead has to field ridiculously irrelevant questions about grouse and then big game hunting with a subtle but nonetheless snide hint that Botham is somehow trying to make a quick buck. Just how exactly does one prepare for that sort of interview?

I'll give you this though, the cast-adrift 14 million would I'd wager rather have a Big Mac than a pheasant pie.

Maybe so but Botham's the one making the offer. McDonalds aren't offering Big Macs to homeless people. And Botham doesn't make Big Macs, he makes pheasant pies so he's got off his arse and decided to try to help make a bit of a difference with his pie company. So please, spare me the inverted snobbery and your admirable but wholly misplaced defence of a shoddy interview by Burden and Campbell.

 

[GT49er]

Call me a cynic but I think you'd have to be exceptionally naive to take this 'feeding the homeless' shite at face value. It's an obvious publicity stunt for the shooting industry and five live would have been failing in their duty if they had not asked a few questions. The chosen line if questioning didn't work well though.

Looking forward to the interview with the Master of the Belvoir Hunt when they start charitably handing out foxburgers to all the poor people in Leicestershire.......

 

[clapham_gull]

Lovely opportunity to bring the debate on missed. I hate all forms of hunting for fun but then I'm a meat eater.

Animals bred to be killed for sport but then eaten.

Do I agree ? That's irrelevant but forms a basis for discussion. Completely missed by Radio 5 live.

Shame in the mornings it can be so dumbed down because some of their programmes are brilliant.

Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

 

[Tooting Gull]

We both listened to an interview where a discussion about a charity giving away food to the homeless turned into an environmental debate about the morals of grouse shooting. And when the interview was going pear-shaped, someone else turned the conversation into the ethics of hunting lions. I don't think anything I've suggested as a hypothetical equivalent is as non-related and ridiculously exaggerated as what really did occur! It was a car-crash of an interview and the blame lies solely with the interviewers.

Botham was unprepared and sounded pissed off? Of course he bloody was. Here he was expecting to do a piece about trying to make a difference to homeless people's lives and instead has to field ridiculously irrelevant questions about grouse and then big game hunting with a subtle but nonetheless snide hint that Botham is somehow trying to make a quick buck. Just how exactly does one prepare for that sort of interview?



Maybe so but Botham's the one making the offer. McDonalds aren't offering Big Macs to homeless people. And Botham doesn't make Big Macs, he makes pheasant pies so he's got off his arse and decided to try to help make a bit of a difference with his pie company. So please, spare me the inverted snobbery and your admirable but wholly misplaced defence of a shoddy interview by Burden and Campbell.

I wouldn't have taken you for such a mug. Botham wasn't saying 'Here are a load of free pies' and doing some sort of Jesus-style feeding of the 14 million. He was saying buy one, get one free. So there clearly was at least some commercial angle to it, call it what you will. And whatever you say, some people will have views on his hunting/shooting activities, and choice of product.

And please spare me your anti-BBC bias, and wholly misplaced and cringeworthy defence of a desperate celebrity charity endorsement. It's an idea hatched by PR numpties that should never have made it past the beer mat stage.

 

[Buzzer]

And please spare me your anti-BBC bias, and wholly misplaced and cringeworthy defence of a desperate celebrity charity endorsement. It's an idea hatched by PR numpties that should never have made it past the beer mat stage.

Utterly pathetic. A specific criticism of one interview becomes anti-BBC bias? You're clutching at straws there and so very wrong if you believe I'm anti-BBC.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I wouldn't have taken you for such a mug. Botham wasn't saying 'Here are a load of free pies' and doing some sort of Jesus-style feeding of the 14 million. He was saying buy one, get one free. So there clearly was at least some commercial angle to it, call it what you will. And whatever you say, some people will have views on his hunting/shooting activities, and choice of product.

And please spare me your anti-BBC bias, and wholly misplaced and cringeworthy defence of a desperate celebrity charity endorsement. It's an idea hatched by PR numpties that should never have made it past the beer mat stage.

That's horribly harsh.

Botham is an alpha male Yorkshireman, but anyone who thinks he's just pursuing his own glorification, and isn't a top bloke, is bonkers.

I love the BBC, but this was tabloid radio. I'm surprised she didn't ask him if his friendship with West Indian cricketers wasn't 'surely a mixture of endorsement of drug abuse, gang culture, and loose morals'.

FFS.

 

[GT49er]

I wouldn't have taken you for such a mug. Botham wasn't saying 'Here are a load of free pies' and doing some sort of Jesus-style feeding of the 14 million. He was saying buy one, get one free.

Not exactly your normal BOGOF offer then - it was buy one, and I'll give one to a homeless guy (or gal) you've probably never heard of. Depending on the profit margins on one pie, that might mean only a slight loss to the Botham business - or even a break even point if there is a 50% profit on pies sold. It's still a good deal for the homeless, charitable too, unless of course they don't like pheasant. Of course, though, if they are vegetarians, it is their choice - fine, no problem with that. For non-veggies though - pheasant pie? Yum, yum!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Utterly pathetic. A specific criticism of one interview becomes anti-BBC bias? You're clutching at straws there and so very wrong if you believe I'm anti-BBC.

Quite. Attempts to duff you up over this are ludicrous. I'm sure the criticism is just naive, though. The trouble with 'eworld' is it lacks nuance. Ernest called me a red tory a whil back

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll keep the (flag of reasoned fair consideration of the facts) flying here

 

[Buzzer]

Quite. Attempts to duff you up over this are ludicrous. I'm sure the criticism is just naive, though. The trouble with 'eworld' is it lacks nuance. Ernest called me a red tory a whil back

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll keep the (flag of reasoned fair considration of the facts) flying here

I bloody love your late night posts.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Utterly pathetic. A specific criticism of one interview becomes anti-BBC bias? You're clutching at straws there and so very wrong if you believe I'm anti-BBC.

But you haven't done that, have you - made only one specific criticism? You have made other value judgments. Which is fine, but someone who does that should perhaps be a little less sensitive when the same heads their way.

Tell you what, I'll happily debate this on Five Live with you tomorrow morning. It'll be better than today's fare.

 

[Buzzer]

But you haven't done that, have you - made only one specific criticism? You have made other value judgments. Which is fine, but someone who does that should perhaps be a little less sensitive when the same heads their way.

Tell you what, I'll happily debate this on Five Live with you tomorrow morning. It'll be better than today's fare.

I think I have made a specific criticism about one interview, namely that the interviewer did a poor job and I then explained why citing numerous examples. So of course I've made other value judgements coming to that conclusion. Aren't all opinions based on value judgements?

It's not sensitivity on my part rather than incredulity that's led me to remark that it's utterly pathetic to take my comments about one interview and draw a general assumption that I believe the BBC is biased. And biased against what? There's no political angle to my criticism.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I think I have made a specific criticism about one interview, namely that the interviewer did a poor job and I then explained why citing numerous examples. So of course I've made other value judgements coming to that conclusion. Aren't all opinions based on value judgements?

It's not sensitivity on my part rather than incredulity that's led me to remark that it's utterly pathetic to take my comments about one interview and draw a general assumption that I believe the BBC is biased. And biased against what? There's no political angle to my criticism.

You seem a bit confused between 'anti-BBC bias', and 'accusing the BBC of bias'. Two rather different things, one of which - despite you mentioning it above - was never raised.

 

[Buzzer]

You seem a bit confused between 'anti-BBC bias', and 'accusing the BBC of bias'. Two rather different things, one of which - despite you mentioning it above - was never raised.

Sorry, you're right. Badly worded by me. I'll ask again, what has led you to believe, based on my comments, that I have an anti-BBC bias? And do you also think that if someone criticises Laura Kuenssberg (as many have done on NSC) that they also have an anti-BBC bias?

 

[Mr Putdown]

Sorry [MENTION=15605]knocky1[/MENTION] As much as I hate the constant questioning (which this wasn't anywhere near) of the likes of John Humphrys, a decent interviewee will always give an answer, not a question. As a journalist or reporter, you're not giving your opinion, you're playing devil's advocate. A lot of people seem to mistake one for the other...

Personally I hate the constant refusal to answer a straightforward question far more than I hate the constant asking of a question.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Sorry, you're right. Badly worded by me. I'll ask again, what has led you to believe, based on my comments, that I have an anti-BBC bias? And do you also think that if someone criticises Laura Kuenssberg (as many have done on NSC) that they also have an anti-BBC bias?

My impression is that you are a bit anti-BBC generally. If that is incorrect and you are in fact their biggest fan and don't think they are a den of communists or left-wing vipers, then I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

But I have to say on this particular thread I do think you are taking the specific incident a bit too seriously. It was - we can agree - a car crash interview, even if the blame for that we might lay at different doors.

We are talking, or rather Botham is, about f*****g partridge and pheasant to feed the starving, the whole thing is farcical and ripe for piss-taking and Beefy knew he was on a sticky wicket and expected trouble from the start, that's why he had all the spurious facts to hand.

And to answer your other question (I try to), no, of course people can criticise one thing without necessarily showing overall bias over a wider range of issues.

 

[Buzzer]

My impression is that you are a bit anti-BBC generally. If that is incorrect and you are in fact their biggest fan and don't think they are a den of communists or left-wing vipers, then I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

I don't think that at all. Just about the only news broadcaster whose champagne socialism (in my opinion) results in clear bias is Jon Snow at C4. Over at the BBC, I think it's broadly neutral with Andrew Neil being the very best example and possibly just slightly right of centre in some areas (Marr, Kuenssberg) and ever so slightly left of centre in others (R4 Today). Gary Lineker only uses Twitter when he plays to the gallery with his virtue-signalling hypocrisy and just about the only place where you can clearly see an infestation of lefties is with radio comedy panel shows but all of that genre, even 'I'm Sorry I haven't A Clue', stopped being funny or relevant years ago.

Regards the rest of the BBC, I'm a huge fan. I listen occasionally to Radio 6 or Radios 3 and 4 for plays and book discussions and that's about it but happy to pay my licence and maintain the status quo.