71 comments from readers

Lou
21 October 2010 at 12:32

Hilarious indeed. Is he a member of the Adam Boulton school of professional journalism and broadcasting?

I wouldn't mind but it's not as if the placard protester was shouting out continuously like they were doing earlier and disturbing the broadcasts.

It comes to something when free speech in the political heart of our democracy, silent protest even, is silenced by the media.

Take a chill pill Nick.

.

Simon
21 October 2010 at 12:40

Why?

Steve Taylor
21 October 2010 at 12:41

Hilarious? Err... you need to watch some comedy.

Chris
21 October 2010 at 12:44

I actually thought he handled the confrontation quite well. "loses it" is a bit of a ridiculous claim.

The funniest part was the fact someone actually clapped him for doing it! A brave move at an anti-war protest...

joey
21 October 2010 at 12:45

to be fair, he was probably just a bit understandably pissed off at the banner messing up his piece, I severely doubt Nick Robinson even read it before he broke it.

Chris Harrison
21 October 2010 at 12:45

Wonderfully characteristic first comment on YouTube: “The people should not stand for cuts in their own country while continuing to fight these ridiculous wars. The Jews have taken control of your government too.”

Frankly, confronted with that while trying to do my job I might “loose” it too.

writeoff
21 October 2010 at 12:47

Once a Tory, always a Tory. Totally uncalled for, but just shows you what he really thinks, if you didn't know already.

Lou
21 October 2010 at 12:51

Ok it might not be rolling on the floor hilarity but it is hilarious - as in cheerful, very funny - that Nick Robinson can't handle a silent protestor behind him and has to react in any way at all.

The protester has as much legal right to be there as Nick and the media crews.

If the protester had grabbed Nick's clipboard of notes and destroyed it in frustration, the reaction would be very different wouldn't it.

Iain
21 October 2010 at 12:53

The issue is not 'free speech', but rather the protester deliberately trying to hijack and thereby ruin NR's report on the spending review. NR's job is to produce video, the protester was stopping him doing that. He could have held up the placard elsewhere.

If you were a sculptor and I kept nudging your arm with a placard would that count as a legitimate protest protected by a right to free speech?

Lou
21 October 2010 at 12:56

You'll be telling the footie fans they can't jump manically behind the cameras at the tv studio crew on live tv next.

If Nick and the others want to do location broadcasting uninterrupted by the public, then stick to Downing Street, the inside of Parliament and other such places.

Anthony
21 October 2010 at 12:56

Is it possible to agree with the anti-war protesters and to also think that the newsman has a right to do his broadcast on the budget unimpeded by placards? Or is that to moderate and reasonable?

Lucy
21 October 2010 at 12:59

I think this is totally understandable and was quite a measured approach on a what must have been a very busy and stressful day for NR.

swatantra nandanwar
21 October 2010 at 13:00

I think I'd have cheered if Nick had done a prescott. Some people have no manners.

adamblanerichards
21 October 2010 at 13:06

I found it funny. Especially the bit where he stamps on it in an utterly pathetic, privately educated, soppy wanker kind of way.

Nick Robinson deserves all the stick he gets, he is a nasty Tory bastard in my opinion.

Sorry.

bonk
21 October 2010 at 13:11

Silly actions by a vain man..i'll leave it to the reader of the post to work out who i mean :)

JB
21 October 2010 at 13:13

Criminal damage, shurely?

Lou
21 October 2010 at 13:16

A sign ten feet behind him and a silent proteester wielding it is only a visual impediment on Nick's video piece. It was in context - cut wars not the poor - so we can hardly complain about the protester protesting it.

The protesters are there to draw attention to their particular causes, you can't blame them for wanting to maximise the opportunity. They've been doing it for months and have been far more noisy, in your face and detracting from the news story than last night's protester was.

I can understand that it's frustrating for the journalist, particularly the more vocal interruptions on live broadcasts, but they can do video feeds and live political reporting from places other than college green if it's that much of a hindrance.

Like I say, had the protester felt sick of the broadcasters impeding their protest and done something similar, the opinion would be very different, not to mention the fact that it would have got blanket, negative coverage by the media.

It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but you can't have it both ways can you argument wise?

John Hilley
21 October 2010 at 13:19

True colours....

All too symptomatic of the establishment BBC's marginalisation and intolerance of legitimate public dissent.

thinkov
21 October 2010 at 13:33

he is a very punchable man

WacoKid
21 October 2010 at 13:45

lost it my arse, he got applause for picking it up and standing on it. The glue sniffer holding the camera sounded more like he 'lost it' to me.

SR
21 October 2010 at 14:14

The pathetic, grubby and deluded placard carriers should simply be shot dead, preferably by some of the troops they want bringing home

Mel Davis
21 October 2010 at 14:36

I cannot abide Nick Robinson, if ever there was an inflated sense of self-importance in a man, then he epitomises it perfectly. Odious little toad.

David Cromwell
21 October 2010 at 14:38

Thank you Mehdi.

Not quite as funny but another heartening piece of guerrilla protest....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L27L7eAPxoY

Let's see this become a feature of corporate media interviews out in the wild, i.e. where the "ordinary people" are.

BayTheMoon
21 October 2010 at 14:43

Chris say 'loses it' is a bit of a ridiculous claim. Not nearly as ridiculous as 'looses it'.

Dave C
21 October 2010 at 14:48

I both thought it funny and agreed with Nick Robinson.

If some chap was holding a placard advertising, say, a cola drink, I would say it had no place on a BBC broadcast. The same applies to a particular cause, whether one might agree with it or not.

Rebellionkid
21 October 2010 at 14:59

You know what really pleases me. That he did this after the camera had stopped rolling. He was intensely frustrated by an idiot trying to stop him from doing his job and he carried on doing it anyway and only did anything daft once he'd finished. I know it's a strange concept but that's a thing called "professionalism" and it used to be valued by presenters of TV shows.

typical tory
21 October 2010 at 15:07

why is he allowed to be the chief political editor - he is so biased...

cipriano
21 October 2010 at 15:57

typical-tory: did you mean Nick Robinson or Mehdi Hasan? I know which one I think you should be referring to...

Tom
21 October 2010 at 16:20

Rebellionkid - it may have been 'professionalism' in your view, but it also shows his action to be purely spiteful. He didn't do anything about them 'trying to stop him doing his job' - indeed, the fact that he very easily carried on doing his job shows what nonsense that accusation is - but instead he seized it and smashed it after he'd finished. At which point it wasn't serving any purpose except to satisfy him and his political views.

The boxer
21 October 2010 at 16:45

Nick Robinson is such a slaphead.

Come on if you think you are hard enough!

Huge Malarkey
21 October 2010 at 18:28

So remember kids - Nick Robinson owns Parliament Square. Remember to get his permission before mounting a protest.

Had quite enough
21 October 2010 at 18:50

Ponder on this, Nick ....

It is the soldier, not the reporter

Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier , not the union official,

Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,

Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag

Who serves beneath the flag

And whose coffin is draped by the flag

Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

(Lines written by Father Dennis Edward O’Brien

United States Marine Corps)

Colin Galbraith
21 October 2010 at 20:58

Didn't notice Nick losing it and didn't find it that funny. What the owner of the video doesn't get, is that by trashing a placard he isn't making a comment about the war, bit on the idiot who was preventing him from doing his job - broadcasting all aspects of the war to millions. Bravo for putting your cause on the back-burner.

Steve O
21 October 2010 at 21:10

Had Quite Enough (Spammer), a lot of Iraqis didn't get much of fair trial when being slaughtered in their thousands by the soldiers to whom you play the role of groupie.

swatantra nandanwar
21 October 2010 at 21:33

You could add the following line:

'It is the soldier that shot you through the heart, orders from above.'

jeremiah
21 October 2010 at 21:46

Nick Robinson wasn't an ordinary card carrying member of the Tories, he ended up being national head of the student wing of the party.

That was when they were called The Young Conservatives and most of them held views that Maggie T would have found a bit right wing.

I find it shocking that people still claim the BBC to be pro-Labour. You have Robinson, Marr, Paxman and Neil presenting the bulk of BBC political programming and all of them happen to have Conservative sympathies!

Geoff
21 October 2010 at 22:07

People are making a real meal of this and misrepresenting what happened in the description. As far as I can see he stayed pretty calm and didn't stamp on the banner - he just stamped on the pole to break it and remove it. Plus he was apparently willing to debate with the protester as he left the platform.

And by the way why is that part edited so tightly? Why not show us more of what was said? Or perhaps it doesn't suit the agenda?

Buckskins
21 October 2010 at 22:44

"Had Quite Enough (Spammer), a lot of Iraqis didn't get much of fair trial when being slaughtered in their thousands by the soldiers to whom you play the role of groupie"

I didn’t see a single word about that being for American soldiers or Marines. It happened to be written by a USMC Chaplain. Iraqi soldiers were not slaughtered. Many were killed fighting for Saddam, that’s hardly a slaughter. The slaughter occurred in Kuwait where those Iraqi soldiers raped, murdered, and slaughtered at will during their occupation of that country.

I realize it’s popular to trash talk The United States at any opportunity by Brits. Those same American soldiers are the ones that did your fighting for you when the British ran from Basra and now in Helmand province Afghanistan. It was American soldiers that twice came to your country’s aid when it was YOUR country’s security under threat. Then gave you billions to rebuild your country that was squandered by your govt. trying to play the big shot on the world stage. We never asked for thanks. We do expect a little more courtesy by our supposed to be allies.

David Cromwell
22 October 2010 at 06:35

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/last_nights_...

Nick Robinson: "I am a great believer in free speech but I also care passionately about being able to do my job reporting and analysing one of the most important political stories for years."

You may have convinced your self in your own mind that you are "reporting and analysing one of the most important political stories for years". But this is delusional; you are essentially a propaganda mouthpiece reporting what those in power say and do. You've admitted as much:

"In the run-up to the conflict, I and many of my colleagues, were bombarded with complaints that we were acting as mouthpieces for Mr Blair. Why, the complainants demanded to know, did we report without question his warning that Saddam was a threat? Hadn't we read what Scott Ritter had said or Hans Blix? I always replied in the same way. It was my job to report what those in power were doing or thinking. Elsewhere on our bulletins we did report those who questioned the truth of what we were being told.

"That is all someone in my sort of job can do. We are not investigative reporters. We do not have expertise in weapons systems or intelligence. We report on politics. Yet we are imbued - rightly or wrongly - with authority to speak on a vast range of subjects. Now, more than ever before, I can see why my reporting angered those who opposed the war. Now, more than ever before, I will pause before relaying what those in power say. Now, more than ever, I will try to examine the contradictory case."

(' "Remember the last time you shouted like that?" I asked the spin-doctor', Nick Robinson, The Times, July 16, 2004; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-1180654,00.html)

Your problem is that you carried on regardless: you did not "pause before relaying what those in power say." This is not journalism; it's stenography. People can see that; the people who pay your salary. Perhaps you'll bear that in mind the next time you encounter someone making a protest while you act as an echo chamber for power.

Leon12
22 October 2010 at 10:04

The funniest thing about the clip is that with Nick Robinson demolishing the placard, another ones rises up, phoenix like, right behind him. Classic.

Lady J
22 October 2010 at 11:59

THE BEST RESPONSE TO NICK ROBINSON IS MAKE SURE THERE IS ALWAYS A PROTESTOR STANDING BEHIND HIM EVERYTIME HE IS BROADCASTING OUTDOORS.

MOBILISE EVERYONE, EVERYTIME THERE IS A MAIN POLITICAL EVENT, STAND BEHIND NICK ROBINSON WITH A PLACARD UNTIL HE LEARNS THAT DAMAGING PEOPLE'S PROPERTY IS WRONG.

even better video
22 October 2010 at 12:02

Has anyone noticed this placard holder at the end of the video? Look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EbFAKkLUIY video from 27 seconds....

very funny

Jennifer Flemming
22 October 2010 at 14:26

Totally out of order to destroy an innocent protestors belongings.

Yes he did loose his rag, embarrassingly so.

It is part of his job to report under such "conditions" so if he can't handle it he should leave the area and report elsewhere.

Besides that he is a biased political reporter and should rejoin the Conservative party.

Rose
22 October 2010 at 15:59

I thought it was hilarious, especially shown alongside Nick's self-satisfied smile at his little "over the edge" comment ". The protesters silence while the poster slowly turned to reveal another message was especially good. Can't help thinking the camera crew were amused.

What with his interjection at the Labour leadership count, Nick Robinson is getting his come-uppance for over valuing his importance. Maybe he should try his hand at stand-up comedy.

ang
22 October 2010 at 17:57

Prize pratt.

The protest was peaceful and legitimate, but nicks reaction was violent and destructive. The banner was someone elses property and he smashed it up, that's a criminal

offence!

I would sue him for damages.

Dave C
22 October 2010 at 18:10

jeremiah wrote, "You have Robinson, Marr, Paxman and Neil presenting the bulk of BBC political programming and all of them happen to have Conservative sympathies!"

Certainly true about Andrew Neil.

However, according to Wikipedia:

"When, in his twenties, Paxman unsuccessfully applied for the vacant editorship of the venerable Labour-supporting weekly The New Statesman, he said he considered himself a socialist. He had previously stood as a Communist candidate in school elections. More recently, he has been described as "the archetypal floating voter", and Jon Snow once said that Paxman's greatest strength was being "not very political".

"Paxman himself has stated:

"I do understand we have to have a government, and I do firmly believe in democracy. So it's not true to say I'm not a political person. I am a political person. But I'm not a party political person. I don't believe there is a monopoly of wisdom in any one party. I suppose as one gets older - I would have described it at the age of 21 as the process of selling out, but another way of looking at it is to say, actually, the world is not a very simple place, and that as you get older simple-minded solutions seem less attractive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Paxman

Neil
22 October 2010 at 20:41

Jeremiah/Dave C:

I dispute the accusation against Paxman, I feel he is one of only a few journalists (Jon Snow, John Humphries) who dare to confront the right-wing agenda.

Other BBC tories include James Langdale (Eton), Evan Davies (pro private sector outsourcing), Robert Peston (neo-liberal) and David Dimblebee (Bullingdon Club).

AndyS
22 October 2010 at 22:31

I tried to add a comment on the 'Nick' escapade on the BBC website, but unfortunately they have blocked anyone from adding any further comments. What a surprise.

Nick Robinson was more concerned with how it looked on TV, instead of the real truth stairing through the back of his head.

If that's how some of our media correspondents are going to react, then how the hell are we ever going to get fair and balanced news reporting? The 'Child' Adam Boulton was bad enough and we have to rely on SKY and BBC to provide the nations news, god help us all!

jeremiah
23 October 2010 at 01:19

@Neil & Dave C. Have either of you read any of Paxman's books?

Paxman may have been a leftie when young but he ain't any more! The one thing I would say in Paxman's favour is that he does not allow his Conservative sympathies to show. I like his style and he gives the Tories as much of a hard time as Labour. The same cannot be said of Andrew Neil.

It is a disgrace that Neil presents political programming on the Beeb given his strident views and clear bias against Labour.

jeremiah
23 October 2010 at 01:24

@Neil. I'm not sure about Peston being a "neo liberal". I think you mean James Landale and I can't say I have found his reporting to be that biased.

Mark
23 October 2010 at 07:33

Corporate journalists are not impartial hacks who only seek the truth. They have careers, ambitions, bosses and their own ego's to think off.

Robinson is just another stenographer for the establishment. He's not there to inform you, but to influence you.

If Nick Robinson wants to use a legally organised, public demonstration as a backdrop for his report (while totally ignoring the message of the demonstrators) then we should ask what is the point of him being on the street in the first place?

Mark
23 October 2010 at 07:47

"If that's how some of our media correspondents are going to react, then how the hell are we ever going to get fair and balanced news reporting? The 'Child' Adam Boulton was bad enough and we have to rely on SKY and BBC to provide the nations news, god help us all!"

During the recent Chilean miners coverage at BBC and Sky, where for 72 hours both channels showed the same images, and even at times had the exact same rolling banners, I felt the need for some variety and had a look at the Russia Today channel, my God what a shock - ,news from all over the world, in depth analysis, decent commentary, and most important, not one single story dominating the content hour after hour and being endlessly repeated. I have since taken to it and now look forward to the launch of CCTV in the UK.

Oh, the irony.

Rose
23 October 2010 at 13:14

If he is doing an interview in front of the Home Office, can we assume now he is going to rip down their insignia?

PhilDuval
23 October 2010 at 20:06

I'd ask all those defending NR to watch the video again.

Angry at his broadcast being interrupted? I don't think he even noticed, he looks comfortable during his piece, smiles when he has finished and then looks round to see the sign. He pauses while he reads it and then rips it off the protestor. He did it because he didn't like the values it espoused.

If he was such a pro why didn't he just ignore it and walk away?

And while we're in the vicinity of the cuts, even the NY Times (hardly the US version of the Socialist Worker) thinks the cuts are insane in such a time of weak recovery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/opinion/23sat2.html?_r=3&t...

But since supporting the cuts is becoming an article of faith for some I await bile.

helen_back
23 October 2010 at 20:29

Just watched it, my 8 year old son popped his head round to have a look at what i was watching just as part of the placard had moved behind Nicks head. He said ''What does that mean, cut the war not the poo ''. I did larrfff..

Dave C
23 October 2010 at 20:32

Neil wrote, "Robert Peston (neo-liberal)"

Robert Peston is a former NS contributor: See: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/robert_peston/page/1

He is the author of:

* Who Runs Britain? How the Super-Rich are Changing our Lives

* Brown's Britain (a biography of Gordon Brown)

His father is Maurice Peston, distinguished economist and Labour peer.

I would say he's unlikely to be a neo-liberal.

Mary Hogg
23 October 2010 at 21:59

You may be right about Peston, Dave (I don't know) but you've made a fundamental error if you think there are neo liberals in the Labour Party!

The Neo liberals are the fifth columnists that need to be purged from the party.

Johnny B
23 October 2010 at 23:13

So much for the theory that the BBC is full of lefties!

What a gigantic ego problem that guy has got. Why broadcast next to a demo, if you can't stomach the cause of the demonstration?

mike
24 October 2010 at 09:14

Personally I found the 'sack kay burley' protester funnier at the electoral reform demo outside the coalition negotiations.

I'd be pissed off if somebody interrupted my broadcast like that too, doesn't matter what the sign says, he had to probably waste another half an hour doing a second take.

I just can't believe how some people here think this is an example of Nick Robinson being a Tory! Labour AND the Lib Dems also support the war in Afghanistan!

Dave C
24 October 2010 at 12:04

Mary Hogg

Neo-liberalism died the day queues formed outside Northern Rock. Unfortunately, its corpse still walks the land.

Morky
24 October 2010 at 20:44

I am relatively new to politics and have to agree with a few posters above. How is Andrew Neill allowed to cover politics on the BBC. He is totally biased towards the conservative party. I do find him funny and a good presenter but surely the beeb should be impartial.

swatantra nandanwar
24 October 2010 at 21:41

Andrew Neil is not biased. He gives everyone a hard time, regardless of Party. None of the BBC presenters are biased, although a question mark hangs over ITV interviewers who have a tendency to favour the Tories

Michael I
24 October 2010 at 22:29

but seriously....

Why did they keep recording when it was obvious the clip could not be used?

Secondly, I might have some sympathy for NR if he had made some attempt to reason with the protester. I think he comes across as a pompous prick.

Dave C
24 October 2010 at 22:56

Swatantra

Andrew Neil is very biased. I saw him interviewing Ken Livingstone. Livingstone started to articulate the position that the worries about the deficit are exaggerated. However, Neil didn't choose to probe that position with any questions. He just talked over Livingstone in a rather childish manner and said he was talking nonsense.

No other BBC interviewer would have been so unprofessional.

Mrs Nobody
24 October 2010 at 23:08

The BBC is the mouthpiece of the establishment, it's no more neutral than a can of acid.

I'm amazed at the number of gullible contributors to this blog. Or are they told by their party to post on these blogs to influence and educate those of us who think for ourselves?

Check out medialens for a balanced incisive view of our media and the BBC's role in the propaganda machinery.

EhtchTee
25 October 2010 at 09:47

The beeb says it is impartial. But it seems to me that its idea of impartiality is relative, depending on what external political forces are acting upon it at any said time.

In the last six months, it has been as cutting as chocolate knife in its journalistic reporting. Extremely namby-pabmy wishy-washy. Recently seems to jump onto and saturate its outlets with not the most important story of any given day - almost Sky News/Daily Wail-like.

Dave C
25 October 2010 at 11:03

Very true, HT.

The problem of impartiality as defined as being impartial between (generally) two political parties is that, as both parties have moved right in the last 30 years, so-called impartiality has moved right with it.

One reason I support AV is that some rather marginalised voices will start getting a look in and those attempting to be impartial will have to become more sophisticated.

writeoff
25 October 2010 at 12:50

"None of the BBC presenters are biased": Evan Davies cannot hide his privatisation agenda, he has written about it extensively and is dismissive of anyone who disagrees. He goes starry eyed when he gets a Tory minister on Today and likes to present from their laps. Justin Webb doesn't give anyone a hard time because they're either in his Club or he went to school with them. Their obsequiousness is vile to listen to. If the Establishment could talk with one voice, it would sound like a Dimbleby. Bloody Esler has been an apologist for the extreme right in Latin America for decades. Marr is a berk and a soft touch for big interviews as he doesn't or can't give anyone a hard time. You don't get to his position by asking difficult questions. That tw@t who does Hard Talk was in a scandal over selective editing. Brillo, I second the above. Robinson, once a Tory, always a Tory, he just puts a sneer in his voice when something in distasteful to him, he's been carrying it since 1997. The BBC is stuffed full of Tory front men. It's so bad it can't even report the continuous attacks it has been under, and it's own slow demise accurately.

Aside from biased reporters, cuts have left staff with 20mins to make a story fit a snappy template for goldfish attention spans. Balance has to come way down the list. What little time left to fact check or get decent alternative views has gone. Add the institutional neutering after the Kelly affair and you're down to a pastiche of John Craven's Newsround at best.

I heard Justin Webb talking with a minister about 'the MOD's projection of British Par'. Par? WTF? It took me ten minutes to realise he was talking about power. Never bothered to ask what the hell that actually means, or why that role should be a military one etc. Hopeless.

With DC on AV.

PhilDuval
25 October 2010 at 13:44

Yep, we really need to get behind AV. It's not PR but it's the best chance we've got to get some alternative viewpoints into the political mainstream. Labour will always be beholden to the 'centre' ground. The Greens may be able to introduce the public to the idea that infinite growth in a finite world might just not be possible.

I had once hoped the Lib Dems would fulfil a similar function. Alas...

Harry Harpur
26 October 2010 at 14:19

The Best Macc Lad ever...bet he couldn't wait to get home for his Beer & Sex & Chips n Gravy!

Mike
28 October 2010 at 13:00

the professional act would have been to rerun the very small snippet. His actions show him for what he is - he doesn't believe in free speech, only his speech. Robinson is just he latest in a long line of BBC and Fleet Street journalists whom by their actions, demonstrate not a fair and even-handed approach, but one of pandering to the ConDem Alliance. Propaganda out of the mouths of the press men. Shame on you, Robinson.