Oh dear. Basic stuff.
I admire the passion, but the content is risible. I’m guessing his dad’s bigger than their dad, too.
Come on, Mr Neil, things are much more complex than you care to mention. If you have a platform on national television, you should take your responsibility more seriously. You’ve had a week to get it together.
Poor.
Which bits were risible?
I don’t much care for Mr Neil, but it’s essentially the same message as the much-lauded John Oliver intro, is it not?
Didn’t see the John Oliver. But as you mention him, I’ve never found him very funny or impressive.
ell he point was ‘Fuck you, arseholes!’ which is better than most responses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRulzotv51I
Which bits were risible? Well, the roll-call of famous names, for starters. A whole bunch of artists and composers taking up about a quarter of the rant; then five seconds spent on the likes of “cutting-edge scientists” and “formidable security services”. Lazy lazy lazy boy. Do some fucking research and come up with a properly considered roster of French superstars across the disciplines. As I say, he [his team] had a week to get this right. He could have made his two minutes count but he fell so short he didn’t even crack his forehead on the arse-end of the boat he’d just missed.
[Oh, and he finished his list seemingly randomly with Juliette Binoche – fnarr fnarr, you dirty old bugger – and creme brulee. Just so funny, Andy].
First thing I thought was that this was a deliberate attempt to ‘do a John Oliver’.
On reflection, John Oliver was possibly trying to ‘do a Jon Stewart’.
What annoys me about both rants is that seems so easy to say, this ‘you will not win’ spiel. In many ways they *are* winning, because everybody’s bricking it.
I’m not.
It depends on how you (and more importantly ISIS) define a “win”.
The media is bricking it, or rather encouraging us all to do so. Most normal people I’ve been in contact with in the last week are going about their business exactly as before.
I think you can be carrying on as normal and still be worried.
Undoubtedly, but I’m not sure that making people a bit worried really classifies as a win for terrorism.
Isn’t the point of terrorism to spread fear, though? If you’re splitting hairs about the difference between ‘worried’, ‘bit worried’ and ‘bricking it’, then that’s a fair point and I should probably have qualified it by saying that it’s obviously going to vary from person to person. But the fact is that fear is being spread. Anyone who doesn’t look at the events in Paris and be [insert word here] just has no imagination as far as I can see.
Well, I guess my main thought is that people aren’t saying ISIS have failed to win the battle, just that they won’t win the war.
But even leaving that to one side, if we ignore the press coverage, the Paris attacks haven’t had any impact on the actual behaviours of anyone I know. No one is hiding behind the sofa, people are still going to gigs and football matches, getting on planes and congregating in public places. There may be some unspoken worry knocking about in their minds (who’s to say), but that hardly constitutes a big win in my book. If people are feeling fear, they’re hiding it well.
Obviously, it may be a different story in Paris. But London was back to normal within weeks after 7/7, and I’m guessing it’ll be the same story here, assuming no further attacks.
Also worth noting that the only sense we have of the public reaction is from the media, and the media would love to have us all shitting bricks – it sells papers (or whatever it is they sell these days).
Sorry, Bingo, I don’t buy the idea that the media would love us all to be shitting bricks because it sells papers or whatever. It’s just as interesting a story if were are all NOT shitting bricks and we are all standing up to the terrorists. The attacks are the story and the reaction, whatever that reaction is, is the next part of the story. I’ve worked in news media for 40 years, the last 25 in real-time news, so I have some first-hand knowledge of how media organisations respond to these events and report them. I think possibly your notion of the media rubbing their hands about us shitting bricks may be true for a couple of trashy tabloids and websites. But not for the rest.
I’m not saying it’s a conscious thing, by any means, and it certainly sounds like you’re better placed than I am to make a judgement.
From my own perspective, our media are never knowingly understated. They are in a race to break news first, and they have vast acres of space that demand to be filled, often to a tightly defined editorial brief. This means they’re not always as thoughtful and rigorous as they might be. Personally, I’m not convinced that the public interest was particularly well served by our introduction to “Jihadi John” and (this week) “the Cowgirl”. Nor do I believe we’re at imminent risk of a chemical or nuclear attack, as has been suggested in some quarters. I can also look back on the coverage which followed both 9/11 and 7/7 and see that a substantial portion of it was hysterical. Obviously, I’m generalising, but you get the gist.
There’s probably a debate here to be had about the extent to which the media reflect the public mood vs look to shape it. Over the course of my lifetime, I’d say it’s swung radically in the direction of the latter. OOAA.
Out of interest, which element of the video in the OP did you consider risible? The word is certainly apt for that particular presenter generally, but I couldn’t see too much wrong in the spirit of what he was actually saying on this occasion.
OK, Bingo. Point by point.
I agree that these days there can be an unseemly race, even among the so-called serious news organisations, to be first with the news. I find the use of social media by the news desks particularly dangerous and irritating in many cases.
I believe, too, there are significant differences in terms of presentation style and content between US news providers and those in the UK.
As for the “risible” question, I answered it above, but obviously our messages crossed.
And lastly, I find Andrew Neil hard to take in general. However, as I implied in the OP, despite my habitual dislike of the man and his style, in this case I found it possible to fleetingly admire his spirit; but not his substance, nor his arrogant complacency.
It’s nice to knock these things back and forth without falling out.
Absolutely; particularly because in doing so I can get an opinion from someone far more qualified than myself to deliver one on this topic!
I’m entirely with you on Andrew Neil, I find him utterly odious. I assumed the “risible” was a judgement on the content rather than the sentiment, but wanted to check in case I’d missed some sort of subtext in the rant. Thanks for clarifying.
Largely concur with you Bingo and agree the British media seem to be revelling in the fact that we might all be shitting ourselves. Well I can tell you right now that I am not giving it any thought in regards to what activities I will or won’t undertake either now or in the future. The chances of being caught up in a terrorist attack are probably no greater than wining the lottery and I could even get fucking 3 numbers on that little baby. The next raft of media reports will be our ‘boys’ bombing the shit out of desert rubble. The headline in the Sunday Express today is that we will wipe the Jihadists out in 14 days flat. Do they think they are preaching to morons?
Exactly.
I’m sat in an airport restaurant as I write this. You honestly wouldn’t have known on the way through security that anything had happened – people were joking about.
In about an hour’s time, I’ll get on a plane. I know people for whom that’s an enormously stressful concept – a couple of hundred people in a metal tube at 10,000 feet. And there have been a load of high profile aviation disasters recently as well. However, statistically (ie in reality), my journey to the airport was far riskier and more dangerous than getting on the plane. In retrospect, I should never have let my missus drive.
Ba-dum-tish.
Man. I hate Andrew Effing Neil! Whether or not I thought John Oliver was “correct”, his rant last week was immediate and, considering the awful circumstances, very funny.
Neil, or his tosspot scriptwriters, blatantly copied the formula except a week later it now comes across as pretend-ranty bollox.
A wanker and always will be.
I agree with Poppy. I’m not scared day-to-day but if I was going to the football this weekend, I’d be at least a little apprehensive, and not just because Dejan Lovren is set to return to the heart of our defence.
I was at Old Trafford the day after the Manchester bombing and remember feeling very nervous.
I did discuss this with Mrs S at the beginning of the week.
Say I had tickets to take grandson to his first football match – England v France. Would I say “We must stand together in defiance against these evil bastards” or would I say “You know what, we can watch Minions for the 47th time, won’t that be fun?”
Of course you would have been much more at risk on the journey to and from the match than at the match itself. But I do understand your point.
I don’t believe people when they say they are carrying on as normal. They may be driving to work just up the road without thinking about terrorism, but if they are getting a train into the city they will, whether they care to admit it or not, have a little nagging fear in a corner of their mind, and if they are going to some event with a large crowd, they will be thinking how easy it would be for some arsehole with a suicide vest to detonate himself.
I’ve just heard on the radio that the industry association for Paris theatre producers has announced that theatre and concert bookings are 80% down on last week. So yes, I think the terrorists are winning, for now. And that’s only to be expected.
I don’t recognise that, the fear among people in the city, I mean. I was out in London in the evening twice in the week, in crowds, and didn’t notice anything different. I had two meetings in the Palace of Westminster and didn’t notice anyone acting different. Security was the same as it always is. There was no particularly different atmosphere on the trains or the tubes, and no noticeable change in police presence.
Maybe I’m just not very observant.
I don’t think it’s visible. But I think the fear, small or otherwise, is going on, at least intermittently, in people’s minds. Obviously, the further we move on from that terrible Friday in Paris without further incident, the more those fears will recede. Until the next one.
I see nothing wrong with he says, even though he may be a risible tosspot on a daily basis. I wish more people would stop pussyfooting around, call evil for what it is and stop worrying about whether language used might be offending crazed loons and their acolytes. They already hate us.
I can’t say that I worry on a daily basis, nor has Paris (or previous atrocities) affected or changed my daily routine. However I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t worried about what could happen here, in London, and how I would feel if loved ones were killed.
We just have to get on with things and hope that when the news has moved on, our government and security services are still on their case.
It’s been a bloody depressing week though.
Hi, Dodger.
I don’t believe it changes people’s daily routines. Most of us have no choice but to get on with things. But I do think some people might think twice about going to a big event, or anywhere that might be a possible terrorist target in the style of the Paris attacks [in truth, we have no idea where they may strike next, but the most recent atrocity always focuses our minds on particular scenarios]. As I said elsewhere, even if fear is not visible to us, I do think it’s going on in people’s minds to some extent. [See my comment about Paris theatre bookings, above].
Oh I’m sure that’s right to a certain extent.
I’ve got a number of school trips to France organised for next year, mostly in the Summer and some going to Paris. Only two of the schools have called me this week; one to cancel and another to ask what happens if they cancel. I am sure most parents are torn about what’s the right thing to do. I am not sure what I would do in their shoes.
I get the train into London every day, and I can honestly say – hand on heart – that I don’t think about it at all. I read a book and listen to music, maybe muck about on here. It’s actually quite relaxing in the contex of my day.
People have been trying to bomb London trains for a very, very long time – it’s a basic and unpleasant fact of life. Exceedingly few of them succeed – that’s a happier one.
It may be that I’m deluding myself, but I choose to focus on the extraordinarily low statistical chance of actually being involved in a successful terrorist attack in Western Europe. You have more chance of winning the lottery, and I don’t play that either.
Everyone will be affected differently by recent events, and I’m not holding myself out as some sort of paragon of bravery. I just think that, logically speaking, it will need to get a hell of a lot worse before outright fear is justified across Europe’s major cities.
Here’s hoping I’m right.
I lived for a few years in an African country which was enmeshed in a brutal civil war. There were very many acts of terrorism on a daily basis throughout the country, including bombings. A particularly brutal way the rebels had of spreading terror through the populace was their habit of cutting of peoples’ noses and lips, but letting them survive as a daily reminder to the rest of the village.
I can’t say I particularly felt fear, apart from one day where there were numerous bombings in the heart of the city and it was thought a coup was taking place.
However, I believe everyone suffered from a general, low-lying anxiety which one only noticed when one was outside of the country.
I lived in London for decades and noted, with some pride, how people just got on with their lives, even the day after 7/7. How much this has to do with the enormous size of the city and the consequent very low probability that one would be unfortunate enough to be involved in an incident or whether it’s a reflection of the type of individual who makes London their home, I can’t tell.
London has the blitz within its living memory. There are people on my road who survived it and can point out which houses aren’t the “original” version. It makes the idea of hiding behind the pillows at something like Paris seem a total nonsense.
I agree completely about the pride after 7/7.
Not a fan of AN. Not particularly impressed by the script, espesh in the light of the croquembouche moment. Couldn’t find fault with the delivery and thrust of the rant though, and glad he said it all the same. Call a bunch of fucking arseholes a bunch of fucking arseholes, I reckon. Doesn’t matter if you’re the first or the fiftieth person to do so; the fucking arseholes deserve reminding of their moral bankruptcy every few seconds until they die and rot and everyone forgets they even existed. Oh, and did I mention it? They are a bunch of fucking arseholes.
I agree, but these fucking arseholes don’t care, do they? They don’t care whether they die for the cause, which makes it impossible to protect/defend against. They don’t care that we think they’re arseholes. We kill one, another springs up in his/her place. It’s hell on earth and there is no answer to it.
No answer.
He said Ball Sack – hur hur
Andrew Neil is the man who tries…too hard.
I am not in the UK but does he still wear braces in order to look like an authentic investigative journalist on TV? Does he promise hard-hitting probing interviews but you can’t remember a single moment of it 10 minutes later? Do you get the sense that he has some great connections but is not exactly liked? Has he presented HIGNFY? He would love that.
Bit of a side issue but when do people change their facebook/twitter avatars back from the tricolour tinged ones that some of my pals are currently displaying. This isn’t a criticism cos at times like this people feel so powerless and any way that they can get to show support and solidarity is cool.
But what is the decent time to allow before you change that won’t have people thinking you’re an unfeeling wretch. A week? A month? Is it for always like the LBGT flag? Is there a modern book of manners that people can refer to in times like this?
Sort of reminds me of one of my favourite Onion pieces
http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-not-exactly-sure-when-to-take-down-americ-229
http://i1058.photobucket.com/albums/t407/maggieloveshopey/blogger-image–1335998618_zpsefjy45br.jpg
Andrew Neil was spot on. Every word. The Paris attackers ARE/WERE indeed Islamist scumbags and France HAS made a wonderful contribution to civilisation which will out last them; these seemed to be his two main points.
And he’s the best political interviewer in the business too. No one else at the BBC can match him for pinning politicians about policy details and exposing the cant and hypocrisy that they spin out in an hourly basis through the media.
AN rips through the Tories and these current Labour clowns with equal balance and deft thoroughness. Which is why you rarely see either Cabinet level Ministers or front bench opposition spokespeople having the balls to take him on. They usually send their junior cannon fodder instead.
I agree Rocker. I think he’s frequently on the money. He was excellent on the Scottish referendum. Also he doesn’t spout social media outrage fodder which is another vote in his favour.
Also agree wholeheartedly. Sharp as a tack and far from the Glenn Beck type many seem to portray him as.
Hugely enjoyed his rant.
Wholly agree, rocker. He’s an excellent political interviewer who has the facts always to hand and shows no fear nor favour to any of the political parties. Easily the most incisive, intelligent and dogged of any questioner on TV.
As for the lauded John Oliver – note that, in his typically hectoring, content-free rant, he never specifically names the ‘fucking arseholes’. Wouldn’t want to be thought racist or Islamophobic, would we? Also, we’re not in a fucking ‘pastry war’. It’s a little more serious than that.
If you have any children or small pets, please lock them away now. I can’t decide what’s worse every time I see this but I think it’s Portillo’s ecstasy drugged up gurning face
WRT the threat from ISIS, I have vague recollections of a comment that some senior honcho in the provisional IRA said in the aftermath of the Brighton hotel bombing in 1984.
As I say, I dont remember it word for word, but the gist of it was “We only need to get lucky once, you have to be lucky every single time”
I think that is the situation we (The west) have with ISIS. Add to the mix that so many of their followers/supporters are willing to die for the cause, I dont think ISIS will ever surrender or be beaten.
IMHO, its only a matter of time before the stakes are seriously raised & a large western city gets hit by some sort of WMD.
What can/should we do about it? – I havent got a clue.
*Nervously raises head above parapet*. Er, maybe that’s why, post 9/11, the ‘neo-con’ intention to establish democracy in the Middle East was well-intentioned, if arguably hopelessly naive and, less arguably, hopelessly followed-through. That said, perhaps if their ‘regime change’ objectives had been more ruthlessly implemented, instead of the laughably premature ‘Mission Accomplished’ back-slapping, we would be in a better place right now. But how many would have supported them in this ‘colonialist’ approach?
I think the OP has overanalysed ANs rant. Wether I like him or not I think he captured the anger that a lot of folks were feeling well and injected some easy humour into it. Perhaps that wasn’t enough for you MadFox. You say he missed the boat? I think you let your obvious disklike of him get in the way , and missed the point . My opinion, if I’m allowed to disagree with you is that it wasn’t supposed to be comic genius, rather just a semi humurous rant.
I thought the name check was funny, in the same fashion as the Norwegian football commentator all those years ago “Maggie Thatcher, your boys took one hell of a beating” chill out FFS.
Henpetsgi, is it ok if I call you a wanker?
I dunno about this stuff. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC used to do it every night; several times in one show. He’d read a news item then turn to a second camera and rant down the lens to the supposed protagonist of whatever the transgression du jour was. You can see how it quickly becomes another weapon in the ratings-wars and loses its potency; like reporters crying on location during a report.
I don’t doubt that Oliver and Neil are sincere and can’t argue with their sentiment/content, but it’s a US-style presentation that I don’t like to see creeping into British news/current affairs programmes. There’s a lot to be said for dispassionate reporting and analysis with a healthy dose of grand old traditional British emotional repression.
See your point Ewenmac, and if these had been on Newsnight, BBC news etc , I think there would have been many, myself included , that would say it has no place etc, but AN,s programme This Week, has always (tried to be) been lighthearted and a little bit humorous (failing often) and John Oliver is based out of the USA, so I wouldn’t say this is creeping into the mainstream UK news reporting.
Fair point; Neil’s show is not a straight format but as ever when these things get some currency in the mainstream, they start to creep into more mainstream shows and becomes part of the lingo.
Yes, definitely , wouldn’t want that to ever become the norm in terms of news reporting. Irreverency and humour absolutely has always had , and always will have a part to play, but not in mainstream news reporting. I make no apologies for my opinion, but for me that is one of the things the BBC does better than most. Brings the news from various perspectives. Serious news reporting, never should be diluted and agree with you 100% on that, but I also like the way we are able, in a democracy, able to satirise and bring humour.
The BBC. Then there’s all the others.
It’s very “My Two Cents” with Kent Brockman isn’t it?
I, for one, welcome our new Ant overlords.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; democracy simply doesn’t work.