The thought that the Sun’s non-bullying political editor Tom Newton Dunn might be offered a similar role with BBC Newsnight had gained such traction recently that betting on his appointment was suspended. And as Zelo Street regulars will be aware, I judged this to be sufficiently serious to start a petition calling for the Beeb to reconsider and get someone else to do the job. There was not long to wait for developments.and announced that Nick Watt, who was considered to have been passed over for the political editor’s job at the Guardian, had been appointed by the BBC.
However, that alleged news waits on a reliable source to confirm it, and none has yet been forthcoming. In the meantime, there is the fallout from the Beeb’s flirtation with appointing Newton Dunn to consider, and here what is most interesting about the saga is all the stuff that the Sun man has chosen not to tell his Twitter followers, which is rather a lot. For starters, he was, I’m told, never offered the Newsnight job.
I’ll go further: my information is that the folks at Newsnight were mildly amused that anyone bet on Newton Dunn, never mind that there was so much betting as to have the process suspended. Someone has been mounting a highly effective false propaganda initiative. It’s been put to me that Ian Katz, formerly of the Guardian and the man running the show now, did not want Newton Dunn to get the job.So when the Fawkes rabble claimed “BBC sources tell Guido that senior management has overruled editor Ian Katz in his first choice for the Newsnight pol-ed job. The Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn has been vetoed as too expensive in a time of BBC austerity and job cuts, as well as being too tainted by proximity to Murdoch for the Beeb’s tastes”, they are, not to drive this one round the houses for too long, talking total crap.
The Fawkes “report” went on to say “Other names in Katz’s hat can be culled from all over the Lobby”, which is also crap, as by that time the decision, whether or not Watt is the name in the frame, had already been made. And there was one final reason for steering clear of Newton Dunn, a reason that might worry him, because if the BBC won’t look seriously at him, he is unlikely to find a decent berth elsewhere nowadays.
My source tells me that the Corporation had concerns over Newton Dunn’s treatment of junior staff. The old bullying business coming up again, suggesting that the incident in Moncrieff’s Bar was not an isolated one and that the Sun man has behavioural issues which are likely to see potential employers steering well clear of him. But good to see the Fawkes mob are as poorly informed as ever.
In the meantime, that’s a 100% petition success rate. JUST REJOICE AT THAT NEWS.
Sunday, 13 March 2016
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Either you have your tongue pressed so far into your cheek that it threatens the stability of your teeth, or you're letting your imagination run away with you. Your petition has just over 700 signatories (200 or so short of its target) and there's no evidence that it influenced the BBC anyway. I think this is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious thinking.
Only in your anonymous world does 796 equate to "just over 700".
And the petition does not have any specific target.
There is no fallacious thinking at work, except at the Fawkes blog. Still, never mind, eh?
"Either you have your tongue pressed so far into your cheek that it threatens the stability of your teeth..."
There's no pulling the wool over your eyes, genius.
Anon, you do realise that the petitions site increases the automatically set "target" every time the target is reached. One of my many, and increasing daily, pet-peeves.
The point about all this is that Newton Done isn't getting the job, sought or not. Which is temporarily cheering - dependent on who the BBC do employ. After all, their record of appointing neocons speaks for itself.
Tim's petition only existed for a few days and scarcely got wide coverage. Given the circumstances it did creditably. That the execrable Newton Done even got mentioned for a post tells you all you need to know of the BBC News "standards,"
As for him being "happy" at the Scum......Well, he fits right in with the disgusting rag. And his Nazi puppet master.
"Only in your anonymous world does 796 equate to "just over 700"" -- apols, it was at 726 when I last checked and I hadn't refreshed the page. And the page definitely says: "204 needed to reach 1,000", which is definitely a stated target. In any case, I stand by my main point and that is that it is not your petition that has caused this.
"I stand by my main point and that is that it is not your
petition that has caused this"
Not entirely sure where it says in the post that it did.
"And the page definitely says: "204 needed to reach 1,000", which is definitely a stated target."
No, that's arithmetic.
"I stand by my main point and that is that it is not your petition that has caused this."
And I stand by my main point that Tim's tongue was most definitely in his cheek when he suggests as much, as anyone with half a brain should be able to figure.
Simple maths tells you that 1000 minus 204 = 796.
At no point can I find any claim that the petition did anything. For one it needs to be delivered to the BBC which obviously it had not.
Well, it got you talking about it. Presumably those who re-tweeted it too.
Every little bit helps, particularly if Newton Done got fucked off anyway.
Post a Comment