To think it grossly unfair that Emily Maitlis won't be on Newsnight tonight and DC and BJ are still in their jobs?

[theduchessstill]

It just sums up this shit country and the state it's in imo.

Watching Johnson stuttering and blustering his way through the select committee this afternoon showing that he doesn't have a grip on the crisis at all and then finding that Maitlis, who is excellent at her job, has been chastised and suspended feels like yet another blow to decency in the UK. It comes after the government refusing to appear on the show for weeks as well - too scared.

How much longer will this shit go on?

No evidence that they did. Did she write the intro?

Well no doubt an investigation will draw out who is to blame.

There's just been a media expert interviewed on Talk Radio who said, in summary, that her comments were not acceptable as she claimed DC had broken regulations despite the Police having not confirmed it at that point and, as they had been asked to investigate it, she should have been very careful with comments that could be seen as pejorative. He also said the problem is more than Maitlis as the comments would have been approved by a producer, entered up to prompter, etc so the BBC is at fault. I can't remember it all but his arguments sounded very clear and reasoned
Apparently the freelance presenter who stood in last night has said EM was not asked to stand down and she would not have presented the programme if she had been which the Talk Radio presenter claimed was further evidence of BBC leftie bias

I have work to do and shouldn't be here. But here goes as to why it was a personal rant and not reporting of facts. What she said is as follows:

"“Dominic Cummings broke the rules."
Actually this is debatable, not factual. The rules were not to travel except for essential work, food or care-giving. He argues they were travelling to get care for their son. It also depends on whether they came into contact with anyone on their journey, or at Barnard Castle. Durham police have decided not to fine or prosecute so where is the factual basis for saying that he broke the rules?

"The country can see that, and it’s shocked the government cannot."
This is incorrect because 'the country' isn't in agreement. This is a persuasive technique which she's using to gain support for her argument. The very fact that she's using a persuasive technique indicates that this statement isn't factual. The word 'shocked' is emotive - again, this is a judgement by Maitlis and it isn't factual.

"He was the man, remember, who always got the public mood."
'The public mood' is a reference to Brexit and the Conservative win in December. 'Remember' is a personal appeal to the listener - another rhetorical technique, not a reporting of facts. She's reminding you that he's the guy responsible for Brexit and Boris as PM. If you hate both of those things, she is reminding you of reasons to hate Cummings. This is nothing to do with his journey to Durham.

"He tagged the lazy label of ‘elite’ on those who disagreed."
'lazy' is a personal judgement on the part of Maitlis. Again, not factual. Basically she is saying that if you didn't vote for Leave or the Conservatives, Cummings called you names. She is giving Remain and non-Conservative voters another reason to hate him. And this is NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the journey to Durham. Factual? Not a chance.

"He should understand that public mood now. One of fury, contempt and anguish.”"
'Should' is another value judgement by Maitlis. Not in the least bit factual. 'Fury, contempt and anguish' are personal opinions. They aren't factual because how do you measure fury, contempt and anguish? They are extreme adjectives, designed to persuade the listener. She's also adhering to the rhetorical 'rule of three' - she's a Cambridge literature graduate so she knows how to compose a persuasive piece better than anyone. But there are virtually no facts here.

Basically this is a diatribe against Cummings because he was the architect of Vote Leave. She's saying that if you voted Remain, remember that he's the guy responsible for Brexit. In the last sentence she repeats the phrase 'the public mood'. This is the mood which she previously stated was in favour of Brexit. It's an attempt to argue that even the public who voted Leave have turned against him. It's hyperbolic nonsense, in other words, and as far from fact as it's possible to get.

It also depends on whether they came into contact with anyone on their journey, or at Barnard Castle. Durham police have decided not to fine or prosecute so where is the factual basis for saying that he broke the rules?

The Barnard castle trip was nothing to do with child care. That is a fact. Neither could it be deemed to be essential. In fact, it also broke the rules about driving with dodgy eyesight. So, actually, not debatable.

The police don’t have to fine or prosecute for there to have been a breaking of the rules. They have some leeway. I once got stopped for speeding but they didn’t give me a ticket. Does that mean I didn’t break the law?

This is incorrect because 'the country' isn't in agreement.

The country is never in agreement with anything. People will always have different views. By this token you could never say the country voted for Brexit or voted the Government in. Anyone smart enough to understand language understands when someone uses the term “the country” they mean “a majority” and there is no doubting at all that the majority of those who are speaking out about it are not happy with what he has done. Those supporting him publicly are primarily those in government or some of the more right wing stalwart commentators.

’Should' is another value judgement by Maitlis

Incorrect. It isn’t a value judgement. It is something the government and its advisors should do no matter what the situation. A government should always be looking to serve the people. That’s its job. A government who ignores the public is a dictatorship.

Basically this is a diatribe against Cummings because he was the architect of Vote Leave. She's saying that if you voted Remain, remember that he's the guy responsible for Brexit.

Except I had no idea he was anything to do with Brexit. There are lots of people responsible for Brexit and in this piece she never mentioned that at all. That is you making a value judgement of her based on your own opinions.

"The Barnard castle trip was nothing to do with child care. That is a fact."
I didn't say it was. When Maitlis gave her speech, the police had made no statement on whether or not he broke the rules. It isn't up to a BBC journalist on £260,000 a year to decide.

"The country is never in agreement with anything"
This is EXACTLY my point. She has no right to claim that the country thinks or believes anything.

"By this token you could never say the country voted for Brexit or voted the Government in."
Umm, no, you're very wrong there. There was a referendum and an election.

"Anyone smart enough to understand language understands when someone uses the term “the country” they mean “a majority” and there is no doubting at all that the majority of those who are speaking out about it are not happy with what he has done."
Anyone smart enough to understand language knows that she is using rhetorical, persuasive techniques. This is the opposite of factual reporting. And it's the majority OF THOSE WHO ARE SPEAKING OUT who are not happy. Not 'the country'.

"Incorrect. It isn’t a value judgement. It is something the government and its advisors should do no matter what the situation. A government should always be looking to serve the people. That’s its job. A government who ignores the public is a dictatorship."
Incorrect again. 'Should' is a personal, value judgement. A rational argument is built on facts. If you wish to argue that a government's job is to serve the people, you need to demonstrate why, rather than saying 'should'. 'Should' is simply another way of saying 'it's my opinion'. A government who ignores the public is a dictatorship, is it? What if the public is wrong?

"Except I had no idea he was anything to do with Brexit."
You can't be serious.

"There are lots of people responsible for Brexit and in this piece she never mentioned that at all."
Because it was about Dominic Cummings. Obviously.

"That is you making a value judgement of her based on your own opinions." No, I've demonstrated why the language she used would lead the listener to this conclusion. If you disagree, you need to engage with the points I made with regard to words such as 'remember', 'the public mood', 'lazy' and particularly 'elite'. Those words have no connection with him driving to Durham. Why did she use them? Not to report facts, that's for sure.

the freelance presenter who stood in last night

Katie Razzle is a member of the Newsnight team, not a freelancer . She just doesn't front it as often as Maitlis or Wark.

Maitlis removed* Still on this erroneous line, I see.^

Point taken @Minty, but the fact remains that whether through her own volition, presumably because she wasn't happy with the way she was treated or the concessions she would have had to make, a voice stating negative facts abut the government has been silenced. That matters, imo

Maitlis removed Still on this erroneous line, I see.
Point taken @Minty, but the fact remains that whether through her own volition, presumably because she wasn't happy with the way she was treated or the concessions she would have had to make, a voice stating negative facts abut the government has been silenced. That matters, imo
"He tagged the lazy label of ‘elite’ on those who disagreed." 'lazy' is a personal judgement on the part of Maitlis. Again, not factual. Basically she is saying that if you didn't vote for Leave or the Conservatives, Cummings called you names. She is giving Remain and non-Conservative voters another reason to hate him.
I highly doubt any such voters need reminding by Maitlis why they hate Cummings, or at least what he has done to this country over the last few years! Yes, she’s using some rhetorical devices but she’s hardly likely to change anyone’s mind here. And of course it’s factual that he is responsible for the term ‘elite’ and its appropriation in the referendum campaign – you don’t need to look very far to find that out. Yes, it’s her opinion that it’s a lazy label, but that’s not what’s relevant here. What’s relevant is that he got people riled up about the elite despite being elite himself, and then behaved differently from how he had told others to behave because he is elite and thinks rules don't apply to him if they're inconvenient.

That’s the point, and the use of some rhetorical flourishes in a piece doesn’t mean it is devoid of facts.

Basically this is a diatribe against Cummings because he was the architect of Vote Leave. She's saying that if you voted Remain, remember that he's the guy responsible for Brexit. In the last sentence she repeats the phrase 'the public mood'. This is the mood which she previously stated was in favour of Brexit. It's an attempt to argue that even the public who voted Leave have turned against him. It's hyperbolic nonsense, in other words, and as far from fact as it's possible to get.

What a load of twaddle. It's you who are guilty of hyberbolic nonsense.

The anger in this country, which Emily Maitlis accurately reported, crosses all barriers - class, gender, race and age. and includes those some who voted to leave, some who voted to stay and some who didn't vote.

As the police have now reported that Dominic Cummings DID breach lockdown the BBC owes Emily Maitlis an apology.

There is a great deal at stake here. Much harm has been done to the people of this country and the future is uncertain and difficult. It is irresponsible to try to rebut legitimate criticism by invoking other issues which are completely unconnected.

Point taken @Minty, but the fact remains that whether through her own volition, presumably because she wasn't happy with the way she was treated or the concessions she would have had to make, a voice stating negative facts abut the government has been silenced. That matters, imo.

Nice of you to admit that the entire premise behind your OP was rubbish!

@theduchessstill
" a voice stating negative facts abut the government has been silenced"

She wasn't stating facts, which is why we are discussing her.

She hasn't been silenced, for goodness sake! You make it sound like a Sopranos hit. She's been tweeting today and it looks as if she chose not to present tonight. Silenced? Hardly.

@theduchessstill
"Yes, she’s using some rhetorical devices but she’s hardly likely to change anyone’s mind here."

She isn't trying to change anyone's mind. It's a rallying call - no doubt you would call it a dog whistle.

As for elite - Maitlis is on £260,000 a year and married to a merchant banker!

Um, you've made a bit of a leap there, @Cendrillion. She wasn't on newsnight and, while it might have been her own choice, clearly words were had, as further supported by her sarcastic 'apology' tweet' today.

a voice stating negative facts abut the government has been silenced.

That has happened, so, no, the entire basis no my OP wasn't rubbish was it?

No evidence that they did. Did she write the intro? Was it checked before it went on air, did everyone else reading it at that point see that it was a summary of questions to be answered, just as most introductions on this type of show are?

She's a senior journalist, not just a pretty face. I expect she wrote her own intro - it's what she's paid for.
You know, like Andrew Neil.

She isn't trying to change anyone's mind. It's a rallying call - no doubt you would call it a dog whistle.

You need to get out more. Difficult atm I know but a bit of fresh air and plenty of daylight works wonders.

Well, @Suckiking, she's not on the nation's flagship news analysis programme at the moment, which is a shame, but, yes, fortunately other media exist these days.

As for elite - Maitlis is on £260,000 a year and married to a merchant banker

What's that got to do with anything? She's not the one claiming 'the elite' are some kind of dark force. It was millionaires Banks, Cummings, Farage and Johnson et al who performed that blatant piece of manipulative hypocrisy. That's what she was calling out. Her own level of eliteness wasn't the point!

@Tavannach
"What a load of twaddle. It's you who are guilty of hyberbolic nonsense."

Really strong argument there, well done.

"The anger in this country, which Emily Maitlis accurately reported, crosses all barriers - class, gender, race and age. and includes those some who voted to leave, some who voted to stay and some who didn't vote."
No. The argument is about whether she 'accurately reported' or made a personal speech. You slip this comment into the middle of a sentence as if it's a fact that she 'accurately reported'. If you want to prove that what I wrote is twaddle, you need to set out why her speech constitutes accurate reporting. Please refer to the language she used. It isn't accurate because you say it is. You need to explain why.

"As the police have now reported that Dominic Cummings DID breach lockdown the BBC owes Emily Maitlis an apology."
The police in Durham have only issued a statement this afternoon. When Maitlis made her speech this was her personal opinion, not fact. And she said much more in her speech than 'he broke the rules', very little of which was factual. She broke the rules on impartiality.

"There is a great deal at stake here. Much harm has been done to the people of this country and the future is uncertain and difficult. It is irresponsible to try to rebut legitimate criticism by invoking other issues which are completely unconnected."
So you admit that her speech was legitimate criticism rather than factual reporting? It can't be both. But you are absolutely correct that it is irresponsible to invoke other issues. This is exactly what she did in her speech, and she did it in the most emotive way possible.

@Tavannach
"She's a senior journalist, not just a pretty face. I expect she wrote her own intro - it's what she's paid for.
You know, like Andrew Neil"

Andrew Neil presents a magazine programme. There is scope for him to make personal speeches without breaching guidelines on impartiality. Newsnight is supposed to report the news. The clue is in the name. You're absolutely right to compare her to Andrew Neil because it illustrates why she broke the BBC guidelines. The reason why he can do it is because he presents a different type of programme.

Why do people defending Maitlis's subjective speech feel the need to write essays on here defending her? Do only those of us who value objectivity still have jobs to do?

@Tavannach
"You need to get out more. Difficult atm I know but a bit of fresh air and plenty of daylight works wonders."

Well done. Your argument just gets better and better.

Really strong argument there, well done

This from someone who said emily M broke lockdown rules Cos she had a haircut

Nice of you to admit that the entire premise behind your OP was rubbish!

Let's have some respect for facts.
The entire premise was NOT rubbish. The BBC reprimanded her about the intro and Emily Maitlis asked to be stood down from that edition of Newsnight. Without the reprimand the programme would have gone out with her at the helm.

Why do people defending Maitlis's subjective speech feel the need to write essays on here defending her? Do only those of us who value objectivity still have jobs to do?

Apparently she’s allowed to pump out propaganda that even the BBC itself has had to disown because she is mega-awesome, or something!

The BBC reprimanded her about the intro and Emily Maitlis asked to be stood down from that edition of Newsnight. Without the reprimand the programme would have gone out with her at the helm.

And the BBC was 100% right to do so. I don’t pay a licence fee so that the BBC can pump out rank propaganda willy-nilly.

That is how people feel. Implying the majority