Galloway as debater

This post relates to the one below, about my conversation with George Galloway on his TalkSport programme on Friday evening. I appear to have done a disservice to the producers of the programme in suggesting that they have a practice of fading out a guest as soon as Galloway interjects.

The producer has pointed out that he and his colleagues would in fact never do this, and I'm anxious in that case to publish this correction: the continual and almost instantaneous "fades" are entirely the work of Galloway himself. I've written to Galloway's producer on this, and as it's a point of moderate importance I'm reproducing here the relevant part of that email.

"Many thanks for your kind message and for correcting me on the question of those "fades". I apologise for having assumed that these were the work of the production team rather than Galloway himself, and I'll speedily put the record straight on my website.

"You gallantly and properly say that Galloway, like other presenters, has been trained to fade the volume of his interviewees when he's speaking; but his conduct of the interview seems to me idiosyncratic nonetheless. I realise that in live radio discussions, and particularly programmes where members of the public phone in, the presenter needs to be able to shut off the other party lest there be a free-for-all or worse. But I've never previously come across a presenter who immediately fades into silence a response to a question that he has himself posed merely because he doesn't wish his invited guest's answer to be heard. This happened repeatedly, on trivial matters (I twice corrected Galloway's witty description of me as a "real banker" by pointing out that I'm a working journalist) and on important ones (Galloway's support for autocratic regimes).

"A broadcast programme sets its own ground rules, and I'm not complaining at their unusual character in this case. But they are unusual, and worthy of note for that reason. I did indeed enjoy taking part in the programme, especially given that - as I managed to say on-air, probably because it was the first answer I gave and the man wasn't expecting it - Galloway has previously refused to take part in BBC debate with me where there would have been a neutral moderator."

As I say, I have no problem with the limits of discussion on Galloway's programme: it's his show, and he can do as he likes with it. But I'm also entitled to note those limits publicly, as I for one was not aware of them beforehand, and to draw my own inferences. There is a widespread notion that Galloway is a skilled debater; from my experience, that is not true at all.

Comments

[Oliver Kamm]

What a difference 24 hours makes to your contributions here, Mr Chuckman. In the comments thread below this one you insist on Galloway's "incomparable" qualities as an advocate. Now that you discover, through me, that those attributes are not all that they appear, it turns out that the question of Galloway's debating skills is inconsequential compared with your liking for his political message and your aversion to mine.

That's your prerogative, but let's not confuse your grounds for indignation at me and reverence for him. A man whose willingness to engage in debate depends on his ability literally to silence his opponent at any time is not a new Paine, Voltaire or Jefferson.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

I knew there was something familiar about this entire matter of George Galloway as seen through the eyes of Oliver Kamm.

But I just couldn't put my finger on it in the first instance.

Well, now I've got it.

Mr. Kamm writes about this in exactly the same way he reviews a book whose subject he does not like - that is, he focuses on style, errata, or typos.

Readers saw this in his recent review of a book, which although awkward in its editing, contains some significant conceptions worthy of discussion, conceptions Mr. Kamm ignores entirely.

Mr. Kamm's list of errrata - that is, his "review" - ended with giving the book away in a somewhat petty expression of contempt.

And just so with George Galloway.

The real matters at play here - the great issues of human affairs and ethics - are treated just as though they did not exist.

Formal debating points count.

I do believe it fair to characterize this approach as shallow.

[Paul]

Good for you. An entirely appropriate and reasonable response to Galloway's irresponsible interviewing style.

[Guy Walters]

I'd noticed the fades as well, and had incorrectly assumed that they were the work of pro-Galloway post-production editors. It's outrageous that the fades were live, and further undermines Galloway's undeserved reputation as an orator or a debater. His frequent and near-instantaneous recourse to ad hominem attacks illustrates the vapidity of his thinking, and the use of faders surely busts his flush. Galloway has a certain verbal facility, but an understanding of the word 'adumbrate' doesn't get much of a clap in this household. I recall arguing like Galloway once – when I was fifteen.

[Charles]

Ah yes, Paine, Voltaire and Jefferson. Splendid names to bring forth on to your blog however, their words will be remembered for the same reasons yours will be forgotten.

I believe your friend Christopher Hitchens does the same trick by constantly referencing his moral anthesis, George Orwell in order to disarm his audience.

Your stand on most things is objectionable however, your support for the current brutal episode in Palestine is beyond reproach. That said, I would expect nothing less from a banker like yourself.

[Chris]

Perhaps Galloway's respect for The Times stems from its approach to Nazism in the 30s? After all, if that editorial view had won out then there might not be any bankers today to steal from the poor, and there'd certainly be no troublesome Israelis to bomb Gaza. A once great journal indeed!

[Patrick Kirkwood]

Three questions Mr. Kamm,

1. How many Israelis died from Hamas rocket attacks before the aerial strikes, in 2008?
2. How many are dead now?
3. When has any invasion/bombardment by Israel done any good?

Even the notion that the current actions by Israel are protecting its own people’s lives is evidently ridiculous.

Instead of crying foul play concerning your appearance on a radio station that quite obviously targets the ‘nutter’ demographic, why don’t you attempt to justify your ridiculous views concerning the events that really matter?

This is clearly war without end.

Obiter dictum (a superfluous phrase used in your honour), why does your Latin American analysis bear no mention of Ingrid Betancourt thanking Hugo Chavez? Why no questioning of Alvaro Uribe, particularly concerning his regime’s disgraceful human rights record? Why no mention of Evo Morales eradicating illiteracy in Bolivia? Why no mention of voter turnout increasing in Venezuela? Why no basic research into a continent that will become overwhelmingly important in the near future?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7701556.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/business/newsid_7793000/7793177.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7773643.stm

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Not at all, Mr. Kamm.

You are grabbing for a laurel you have not earned.

I know George Galloway is a great speaker. Full stop.

He can be genuinely thrilling at times, not something many are capable of.

But I do believe, if you look back at my words, I said people have their off days.

Even the incomparable Churchill had days when sounded just sulky or dull.

And Roosevelt fell flat in his words more than once.

So too Obama.

Galloway has the fire, on a subject he knows and cares about, of an Edmund Burke.

And in the true spirit of a writer like Graham Greene, he knows words are more than strings of polished sentences.

A writer's - as a great orator's - duty is to something larger than himself, it lend his strength in the great causes of injustice and evil we find.

And these are not fixed in time or place, They crop up in new places with each passing year and require new efforts to oppose.

[sid]

Always interesting to know about these little media tricks, and it does indeed inform us about Mr Galloway's character.

[faceless]

You went running to the producers because the big bad man called you a banker? haha

You say, at the end of your whinge, that you didn't know what to expect from the interview. Do you, as a professional journalist, usually go unprepared when talking with someone whom you've had a long-term obsession over? That's laughable.

In the interview I laughed most at the point where you said that Hitchens 'whopped' Galloway in the 'Grapple in The Big Apple' from 2005. If anyone's not heard this 'whopping' you can hear it here:

http://www.archive.org/details/grapple-in-the-big-apple

[Simon Davies]

Dear Sir,
I wish to correct your unfounded lies regarding the interview conducted with Mr Galloway. As an unbiased listening viewer, there was no so called 'fades' at any point in the interview. You were given the opportunity to express yourself, which you did so in a respectable manner. Please do not use your position to turn a personal grudge into something which the public needs to be informed of. Rather, use your position to report on real issues which need addressing.

[David]

"And I'm anxious in that case to publish this correction."

Why then have you only quoted more of your own turgid posturing?

(By the way, why don't you explain to your readers the steps you and yours took in order to get your time on the radio? The invitation didn't just fall from the sky.)

[Peter Brookhouse]

He gave you every opportunity to answer every question he asked, and answer you did.

He faded you only when he wanted to comment on an answer. It's difficult to listen to a radio conversation when two people talk over each other.

It's that simple.

[Phil]

Why was Galloway not on air last night?

[Oliver Kamm]

Media Lens have landed, I see.

[Shuggy]

"entire matter of George Galloway as seen through the eyes of Oliver Kamm."

Hmph! The complaint that Mr Kamm has failed to engage with any argument of substance might carry more resonance if I hadn't just listened to some wide boy from Dundee using an argument that seemed to rest very heavily on the use of rhyming slang so well-known that I think my 7 year old son's recently come across it at primary school. You're something of a brick, Mr Chuckman from Toronto.

[Alexis]

For those who care for innocents, it is a real struggle to engage in respectful conversation with somebody who is hell-bent on justifying Israel/America's outrageous campaign in Gaza at the moment. Kamm's background in banking & hedge-funding being mentioned was done deliberately both to point out Kamm's own obsession with Galloway's background, and to make clear the contempt GG feels towards Kamm.

[Jack]

"When has any invasion/bombardment by Israel done any good?"

I can answer that one, Mr Kirkwood. Operation Defensive shield in the West Bank in 2002 reduced and eventually stopped suicide bombings in Israel, many of which were carried out by Hamas.

[Chris]

But Alexis, if you feel contempt towards bankers just for being bankers then what does that say about you? Oh, silly me, I know this one. It says that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a tragedy for you.

[Red]

John Chuckman to compare a posturing, self publicising, terror supporting man like George Galloway with Edmund Burke is ridiculous. Galloway is a useful idiot.

[JB]

If hundreds of Israelis were being massacred, the world would feel the same disgust as they are feeling seeing hundreds of Palestinians being massacred. It's a shame that supporters of Israel like Mr Kamm find it so difficult to feel anything for the deaths of human beings unless they are Western or Israeli. Instead they apparently feel nothing and carry on defending the indefensible and telling us that everything we believe, even things seen with our own eyes, is simply not true.

At least this blog goes some way to explaining why Galloway was removed on Saturday night - heaven forbid that we have even one tiny bit of the media telling the truth about the situation in Gaza.

[Madam Miaow]

Seriously, there's carnage going on, Israel has just bombed a market, deaths are running at a hundred to one, and all you can toss at Charles's excellent riposte is, "Media Lens have landed, I see."

And they pay you as a journalist?

[Tim Newman]

The real matters at play here - the great issues of human affairs and ethics - are treated just as though they did not exist.

Are you reading the same blog I am? I've read every post written on this blog, and most of the time more weighty issues you could not ask for.

[Jack]

"If hundreds of Israelis were being massacred, the world would feel the same disgust as they are feeling seeing hundreds of Palestinians being massacred"

I think not. Hundreds of Israelis were massacred by suicide bombers in 2002 and it didn't stop people blaming it on the Israeli occupation (which Israel had offered to end in 2000 at Camp David). The only protests I can remember were against those very Israeli actions in the West Bank that put a stop to the terrorism.

[Martin Kelly]

There is an interesting, and really quite relevant, comparator to the behaviour which Mr. Kamm seems to be alleging.

The form on which I am typing this comment has three fields above it - name, e-mail address and URL. All three fields are populated, and the 'remember personal info' box is ticked because I have ticked it on previous visits. I am a blogger, and always seeking traffic.

Yet on the two previous posts on this blog on which I have commented - 'Fourth Estate', November 20 2008 and 'Christmas Books', December 5 2008 - there are no links to my blog. One could be generous and say that it might be because of technical issues with the page - but if it's not, why ask commentors for their URL if you don't intend to direct traffic to their blog? Isn't that censorship?

The essence of censorship is the censor's denial of access to viewpoints other than the censor's own. If the moderators do not like other bloggers' content, they should just remove the request for a URL to be provided.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Oliver, don't you agree? Or do the Queensberry Rules (or is it the Geneva Conventions?) go out the window for you if you've ever written nice things about Neil Clark and criticised Oliver Kamm?