Apart from making the usual Daily Telegraph accusations against the protesters, of which more later, Boulton made a fantastically crass and spurious analogy between Occupy London's ad hoc campsite near St Paul’s and the Nazi occupation of France.
Yes, you read correctly. Adam Boulton, a professional (and highly-paid) television news anchor, compared the St Paul’s protesters (peaceful, if woolly, hippies sitting in tents) to the Nazis (you know, that lot who invaded Europe and Russia, kicked off World War Two and murdered six million Jews in cold blood). You can see it at 1m18s in this video clip:
Now, apart from the fact that Boulton immediately lost the argument pace Godwin’s Law (not that the knuckle-dragging morons watching Sky News will have ever heard of Godwin or his Law), the sheer spuriousness of the analogy should have been an easy target.
Unfortunately, for all his well-meaning idealism, Phil McKeenan utterly failed to capitalise on Boulton’s blunder and instead merely floundered with feeble antipodean platitudes.
Thus, for what it’s worth, McTodd will now present some easy to follow lessons in how to deal with Fat Cunts like Adam Boulton, using the above video clip as a framework, in...
The McTodd Guide to News Management
1. The “Protesters Don’t Always Stay Overnight” Rhetorical Ploy
Adam Boulton and his blonde cock-washer both attacked McKeenan with the tired Daily Telegraph canard about protesters not sleeping over at night and nipping off home for a nice kip. The natural response should have been:
So what? The Arab Spring protesters didn’t all stay overnight in places such as Tahrir Square, does that make their protests any less valid or meaningful? You and your assistant don’t sleep in the studio overnight, does that make your reportage any less valid?* I don’t know, are we allowed to go off-site to the toilet, or do you expect us to shit in our tents as well?It doesn’t matter if all your points are 100% valid or reasonable, they just have to sound logical and – crucially – through them you need to attack the interviewer.
*No, it’s the fact that it’s for Sky News that completely invalidates it.
2. “When the Nazis occupied France they didn’t go home [to Germany] at night”
Actually, McKeenan dealt with this stunningly weird Boultonism as best as anyone could by simply looking gobsmacked and saying that Adam was overstating things a little, which leads us to the Fat Cunt’s next point…
3. “You are imposing your will on everyone else like the Nazis did”
A brilliantly attackable point, but one which McKeenan sadly utterly fails to deal with. This is what he should have argued:
In shaping, some would say manipulating, the direction of this interview with all your rhetorical tools, Adam, it could be said that you are imposing your will on your millions of viewers, just like Hitler’s speechmaking. Would you agree that that is a fair analogy? If you don’t think that you can be compared with Hitler, then you can only agree that your crass comparison of our peaceful protest with Nazi atrocities in Europe is grotesquely unfair.Again, go on the attack. It doesn’t matter that you’ve stretched Boulton’s point, the important thing is to make him look a fool by exposing – through exaggeration – just how grotesque his argument is. However, don’t over-exaggerate. Note that in the above I refer to ‘Nazi atrocities in Europe’, I do not refer to the Holocaust. Had I done so, that would be over-exaggeration because of its specificity to a particular enormity (one with colossal emotional resonance at that), but a vague reference to ‘Nazi atrocities in Europe’ is sufficiently hard-hitting, conjuring up images of the Holocaust without explicitly saying so, whilst at the same time being vague enough to avoid outright offence and accusations of over-reacting.
4. “You’re stopping people going about their everyday business, as if their rights don’t matter”
This is the Boris Johnson Argument, the patronizing, “You’ve made your point, now go home like the compliant little boys and girls we want you to be.” It’s also dead easy to refute because most journalists, being lazy and/or too busy, have already made similar points before, so it’s easy to do a bit of research ahead of the interview and prepare for it. Unfortunately, again, McKeenan merely flaps about like a limp lettuce leaf. What he should have said was something along these lines:
We are not getting in anyone’s way, we are not preventing anyone going about their lives, people can still go to work, use the cafes and restaurants around here, worship at the cathedral. We did not close the area around the cathedral, the Corporation of London and the cathedral authorities did that using quoting Health & Safety issues. It’s a shame you don’t check your facts first, Adam, I’d advise you to ask the Corporation of London and the cathedral authorities why they closed the area.Yet another example of going on the attack and also blaming someone else, with a beneficial side helping of attacking Health & Safety, which will appeal to the prejudices of the average Sky News viewer. And I don’t know whether the protest camp is getting in people’s way or not. However, it’s not important if what you’re saying is 100% true or otherwise, because Adam and his blonde pink-oboe-player won’t know what the true facts are as they simply don’t have the time to get the full background behind every story they cover. You just need to sound plausible, blame someone else and go on the attack.
So what have we learned about how to deal with aggressive news interviewers?
1. Like the Scouts, Be Prepared
Journalists are lazy, they will generally merely parrot the points other reporters have made previously (see Point 4 above). Check in advance what the most common points they make are and prepare your response.
2. Exaggerate
Reporters are vain creatures and will therefore attempt to stamp their mark on an issue by making one or two points unique to them. Adam Boulton’s Nazi Analogy is a classic example of this. Exaggerate what they say and go on the attack, but be careful not to over-exaggerate, as this leaves you wide open to the counter-attack of being over-sensitive or sensationalising (or trivialising) the issue. Seeing where the boundaries of over-exaggeration lie can be difficult, and they’re different in each case. Check out Point 3 again for a concrete example.
3. Don’t be over-scrupulous about The Truth
As mentioned before, reporters are either too lazy or too busy to get the full background of a subject. Use this. Attack their argument if necessary with a borderline spurious point of your own (for example, I don’t know if the protesters really are getting in people’s way or not). They won’t be able to argue against this, and if it turns out you stretched the truth (don’t ever outright lie, though) this will only become apparent much later. The important thing is to score your points and win the argument on the spot, that is what viewers will remember. They won’t remember a later report which shows you over-egged your case.
4. Shift the blame
News stories are rarely back-and-white issues, there’s usually someone else who can be blamed, so blame them! Divert the interviewer’s ire! Point 4 above is a classic example – put on your best wounded more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger voice and say don’t blame us for closing the area, ask the Corporation of London and the cathedral authorities, Adam… Not only do you shift the blame but you sound dead reasonable by giving the reporter some friendly advice.
It's a service, this.
