Anyone watching Channel 4 News?
Discussion
Tommy Winchester said:
They both came across rather poorly.
wtf was the closing iphone gag? christ.
This wtf was the closing iphone gag? christ.
Edited by Tommy Winchester on Friday 16th July 19:27
nothing changes eh
he was within the rules(he interprited them basically) then would not answer. New politics my arse,
Sure this was a stitch up, trying their hardest. Never saw anybody go that hard against the flippers of this world.
He should have answered better without all the s
te at the begining. came across as a cock to me.All in my opinion that is.
Edited by Pesty on Friday 16th July 19:37
http://order-order.com/2010/07/16/zac-v-snow/
Absolutely fking hilarious. Two children fighting over a shiny toy.
/edit: although I must add that John Snow got owned there.
Absolutely f
king hilarious. Two children fighting over a shiny toy./edit: although I must add that John Snow got owned there.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Friday 16th July 21:19
I dont really see what ZG has doen wrong, good on him for trying to show the media up for what they are if that was the case
looks like that Snow was being fed in his ear by a desperate producer trying to shut ZG off talking about the stuff happening before the show
in relation to the expenses, i spose its a fien line between what is a valid cost and not but as he says its probably standard practice across the country and most MPs could be done for it
looks like that Snow was being fed in his ear by a desperate producer trying to shut ZG off talking about the stuff happening before the show
in relation to the expenses, i spose its a fien line between what is a valid cost and not but as he says its probably standard practice across the country and most MPs could be done for it
He came over as someone who wanted to avoid talking about the issue and I really don't think that was the best tactic.
He could have risen above Snow by using a touch more intelligence and reason but he chose to stick on one point which, IMO, made him look like a petulant child.
If he covered up the true cost of his expenses then he should expect the press to go after him and he needs to sort out a reasoned, believable defence.
I'm not saying he should be singled out, but he should realise that someone in his position, with his money, will be a target.
It wasn't much better than Ed Ball's performance on This Week last night.
He could have risen above Snow by using a touch more intelligence and reason but he chose to stick on one point which, IMO, made him look like a petulant child.
If he covered up the true cost of his expenses then he should expect the press to go after him and he needs to sort out a reasoned, believable defence.
I'm not saying he should be singled out, but he should realise that someone in his position, with his money, will be a target.
It wasn't much better than Ed Ball's performance on This Week last night.
I have to admit I've not seen the entire article with the alleged evidence, but I thought from the interview that it came down to signs and some jackets that were purchased and used for the Goldsmith campaign but were (certainly in the case of the jackets) "party" jackets where they would be re-used but with different logos or something?
Personally I think Goldsmith made Snow look like an arse, but laboured the point too long and managed to make himself look pretty daft in the process.
Personally I think Goldsmith made Snow look like an arse, but laboured the point too long and managed to make himself look pretty daft in the process.
FasterFreddy said:
He came over as someone who wanted to avoid talking about the issue and I really don't think that was the best tactic.
He could have risen above Snow by using a touch more intelligence and reason but he chose to stick on one point which, IMO, made him look like a petulant child.
If he covered up the true cost of his expenses then he should expect the press to go after him and he needs to sort out a reasoned, believable defence.
It was an important point to make. He could have covered it in 3 minutes if the presenter had not been so desperate to stifle him. He did keep saying he woudl answer the questions and talk as long as he coudl if they let him clarify his willingness to come on the show previously.He could have risen above Snow by using a touch more intelligence and reason but he chose to stick on one point which, IMO, made him look like a petulant child.
If he covered up the true cost of his expenses then he should expect the press to go after him and he needs to sort out a reasoned, believable defence.
I have no love for the Cons or Goldsmith but he seemed to address all the points perfectly validly (that were put to him).
They used the billboards as a double header for local and general elections
The coats had stickers put on them and will be used for a host of other marketing activities. As Goldsmith said the rules are probably complex and C4 have just found a way to make it look worse than what it is.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff