Joining those who have deleted Tweets, but should have deleted them rather earlier, or in her case not Tweeted at all, is Kate McCann of Sky News, who should not be confused with anyone else of that name. Ms McCann’s last berth was at the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph, and the howler she has just been caught performing is more suited to the Tel - or to the Murdoch Sun, where she worked before that.
Maybe smirk a little less and apologise a little more
“Looks like Gordon Nardell, the QC appointed to oversee Labour disciplinary cases (inc many on anti-Semitism) IS leaving the party this year. Also hearing claims Karie Murphy - one of Corbyn’s top aides - is on extended leave. Party spox: ‘we don’t comment on staffing’”. Expert framing, eh? It’s all about anti-Semitism! Hey everyone - Labour just did some more anti-Semitism! Cooeee! More Labour anti-Semitism!
Except it isn’t: there are two things you need to know about Ms McCann’s now-deleted Tweet, and neither of them reflects well on either her, or her employer. One, Nardell is returning to full-time practice “following his term as Executive Director of Legal Affairs to the Labour Party, the Party’s inaugural General Counsel role”. So that’s a fixed-term assignment coming to its conclusion. Nobody is doing any anti-Semitism there.
But much worse, and most likely the real reason Ms McCann deleted the Tweet, is her reference to Karie Murphy, who is one of those Labour figures, like Seumas Milne, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott, and indeed Jeremy Corbyn himself, who is supposed to just sit there and allow every jumped-up hack and pundit smear and defame them, as if it were some kind of morbid entitlement. It isn’t, and this instance has crossed the line.
The Tweeter known as Tory Fibs put Ms McCann, and her pals, straight: “Jeremy Corbyn’s Chief of Staff, Karie Murphy, was at her mother’s bedside. Her mother died last night. Can you see how much distress unresearched speculation such as the stuff you print above causes hurt to a family privately grieving?”. That’s what crossing the line looks like.
And if her first intervention was bad, Ms McCann’s response was worse. “That is incredibly sad news and of course I wouldn’t want to add to that upset. I’ll delete the tweet now and if you give me a min I’ll explain the process I went through to check it last night”. HOW ABOUT SAYING SORRY? Christ on a bike, what are some of these hacks about?
Randall Northam tried to break it to her gently: “Look at the comments about Murphy and see what you started. If she was absent because she was at her dying mother’s bedside you have a lot of apologising to do”. As Kevin Kline once said, apologise.
Rosie Robertson, meanwhile, was not interested in Ms McCann’s explanation. “Your explanation for *what*, exactly? Setting up the original tweet to intimate that there was a sinister nefarious reason for Karie Murphy not being at work? If you had no info as to what was happening, good journalistic practice precludes speculation and innuendo!”
And the last like of that Tory Fibs Tweet echoes what many think about the disgraceful treatment of many on the left which is excused as journalism nowadays: “Labour will implement Leveson II to end this”. Which, of course, is the reason for all the smears.
They took Ms McCann out of the Tel. Sadly, they could not take the Tel out of Ms McCann.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
Think that's bad?
ReplyDeleteYou should've seen the increasingly dishevelled, scatty, baggy-eyed Newman on C4 "News" last night.
"Questioning" appalling far right Blairite motormouth spiv Jess Philips on a tory "education policy", she asked, "Do you think Corbyn should consider his position?"......No, really.
I'd love to know if she thought that little ploy up herself or if it was plugged into her headphones by one of her "editorial/journalist colleagues".
And Old Media people like Newman wonder why they're laughed to scorn and held in contempt......
Despicable isn't it? She really should apologise. Who cares about the 'explanation' APOLOGISE.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see Newman interview Phillips, but we had a similar thing on North West Tonight the other day when Corbyn was in Macclesfield. Failed actress turned political editor Nina Warhurst asked him if he should step aside for Rebecca Long Bailey. I found myself asking 'where are these calls to resign coming from?' and then realised that they are of course coming from within the media itself who are not above shaping a narrative at the behest of some of the centre ground plotters within the party. It's a vicious circle of it all being 'news' primarily because the news teams are making it so. No one would really be asking for Corbyn to step aside would they? Surely the fact that he has so successfully won two leadership competitions and saw off two Tory PM's now tells us that. And what did Warhurst end her interview on, the pressing matter of whether one should wear socks with sandals.
Incidentally, it's funny how the MP's who are most fearful of and against the deselection process want Corbyn deselected isn't it?
@anon 13:28
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing like an objective comment about media people or politicians.
And that was nothing like am objective comment...
Do you have a problem with women?
@ 15:19.
ReplyDeleteNow you ask - No.
But I do have a problem with non-objective "presenters" and "journalists" - male or female - who pretend to be objective. People like Newman......or, oh I dunno, Andrew Neil for instance.
Clear?
@13:28
ReplyDeleteYou can criticise a person's journalism without describing
them as dishevelled scatty and baggy eyed.
It's horrible wrong and unnecessary.
And if you think Jess Phillips is far right I seriously suggest
you get some help.
I'm surprised the writer of this blog allowed your comments
to be published.
For the avoidance of doubt I want Jeremy Corbyn to be our
next PM.
@ 20:29.
ReplyDeleteNonsense on all counts.
1. What is "horrible, wrong and unneccessary" is both Newman's "interview" technique AND her sad appearance - the former of course much more important than the latter. Anyone who thinks the Phillips "interview" bad (and it was, very) ought to see her "interview" a few years ago of Lagarde, the corrupt, orange-faced, beak-nosed, Armanised front woman for the international banking scam. In which she talked about Lagarde's grandchildren. Newman probably picked up her technique from Snow, whose dress "sense" has him looking like he's on the way to a retired clowns convention run by Berkshire drug dealers. She's in the business of peddling weighted "news" (read: propaganda) to the public, and as such, like all similar Old Media churnalists, should be subject to the most severe examination. If she doesn't like it she can always try some genuinely useful and honest social work - but I wouldn't make book on it.
2. Phillips?......From the same political spiv stable as Umunna. A superficial, untrustworthy chancer. She describes herself as a Blairite, "neo-liberal"* who "...would stab Jeremy Corbyn in the front...", who voted against an investigation into the illegal mass-murdering Iraq war, who voted in favour of lunatic nuclear weapons, and who said she "...would make a good prime minister." She's typical of the kind of leech, like Umunna, who uses the Labour Party for her own ends. To coin a phrase, a horrible, wrong and unnecessary opportunist.
My original opinions stand whether you like them or not. If you don't like the choice of adjectives, adverbs and nouns I suggest you steer clear of this blog. Tim's posts are full of similar. And more power to his unredacted elbow.
*I doubt if she even understands that term has long been hijacked from its true meaning. Far right economic thug Newspeakers try to imply it means capitalism is "liberal" - which of course it isn't, never has been and never will be. The same goes for much abused "free trade".