Laura Kuenssberg stepping down as BBC Political Editor

[Nic Robinson]

Indeed, I was wrong about Trump.

And how!

 

[Nick_G]

Indeed, I was wrong about Trump.

Odd that, as all the warning signs were glaringly obvious in his election campaign.

 

[ff1d1l]

Indeed, I was wrong about Trump.

Indeed. Have you ever demonstrated any medium to long term political acumen? I'm guessing, for example, you voted both tory and brexshit? How's that going?

 

[Dave H.]

He’s Kuenssberg 2.0: politically amoral and sensationalistic (remember his breathless promotion of the broadcast of Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech?), an industrial-strength establishment suck-up, instinctively prickly and defensive regarding journalistic clientelism. But slick enough to cover it up. An ideal replacement, as far as the BBC and Conservative Party are concerned.

https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/amol-nitrate-why-the-bbc-is-so-high

Thanks for the link. That wasn’t the impression I’d formed from watching him. Will investigate.

 

[droodzilla]

Thanks for the link. That wasn’t the impression I’d formed from watching him. Will investigate.

The interview with Peter Oborne right at the end of the article is most telling: Rajan in full journalist class-solidarity mode.

 

[Nic Robinson]

Regardless of Rajan’s journalistic abilities, I think he’s a dreadful presenter. His breathless delivery reminds me of a nervous head boy’s speech.

 

[AndrewG]

Regardless of Rajan’s journalistic abilities, I think he’s a dreadful presenter. His breathless delivery reminds me of a nervous head boy’s speech.

Totally agree. His delivery is too fast and it appears to be reading from a script, even though he’s obviously not (most of the time). I quite like his confrontational style when interviewing some Tory politicians on the Today programme but that’s not going to be generally acceptable in a political editor.

 

[droodzilla]

A damning verdict on Laura K's time as the BBC's political editor:

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/...l-editor-was-a-catastrophic-systemic-failure/

On her watch, lies were not just permitted, they were amplified and given credibility by Britain’s state broadcaster. At least partly as a result of this, the UK Government now routinely lies with impunity. The country’s international standing has been irreparably harmed, and trust in the political system has been trashed.
...
The reason she took this approach was that her bosses shared her equivocal stance towards the truth. She was chosen for her continuous news strengths, not for her analytical skills.

I think the emphasis on systemic failure is correct, although the author is a little too generous to Kuennesberg, in my view.

It's impossible to understand the all-pervasive rot in UK politics without grasping the role that the media has played, in abandoning the idea that it ought to challenge the lies of the powerful.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

If the media does not challenge the lies of the powerful, and instead repeats and amplifies the messages of the same, it is no more than a propaganda channel. The difference between the BBC during this time, and Russia Today, is more one of degree than one of credibility and ethics.

 

[Tony L]

Sadly we have little beyond gaslighting. Any real scrutiny tends to be independent and crowd-sourced these days (Good Law Project, Led By Donkeys, Carole Cadwalladr, Byline Times etc).