Nick Griffin was interviewed by Nick Martin for Channel4 on November the 8th, two days before the verdict. The interview lasted 23 minutes and was far from unbiased. The people from channel4 cut out most of it, and rearanged the interview to conform with what they want people to think about Nick Griffin and the BNP. I filmed the interview with my own camera. I haven’t cut out anything.
The irony is that I saw the reporter in the lift on the first day of the trial. He was talking to another repporter. They were discussing how to report about the trial without putting the BNP on a pedestal! They seemed to be very annoyed and worried by the fact that this trial, and the publicity about it, could actually benefit the BNP. Shouldn’t repporters try to repport the facts and let people make up their own minds?
Click here or on the picture to view the interview.
Channel 4 version: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=3871
E.d’Aubignosc
3 responses so far ↓
1 thefox // Nov 12, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Its good to be able to view the interview in full although what c4 chose to show dosen’t bother me. I think Nick Martin was a bit weak and it was good to see Nick Griffin shoot him down time and time again. Why do these journalists set themselves up for it? Do they get offered some sort of incentive to take on Nick Griffin? Mr Martin if you read this don’t worry about it you’ll get over it but take some advice, stick to people you can handle. If Jeremy Paxman can’t handle Nick Griffin what made you think you could?
best regards
2 njm2000 // Nov 17, 2006 at 12:18 pm
I think these comments show a clear lack of understanding on this issue. But I’m open to debate so that is why I’m commenting.
I didn’t set out to shoot Nick Griffin down. I set out to do an interview in which the issues were discussed. That is the intention of an interview. I think many of you have been watching too much Newsnight.
No one was trying to be clever here - both my self and Mr Griffin knew the purpose of the interview and I think I was entirely fair. I gave him questions in advance and talked through the issues BEFORE the cameras rolled - that is fair, and rare.
I think were were more than fair with what eventually made air time and I think your comments show a certain level of ignorance, even paranoia, about the issue if you think every interview is about humiliating, being clever or trying to get one over eachother. There is a far more simple explanation. As a responsible news programme, the purpose is to give the public a wider understanding of the subject and to allow them to decide whether they agree with Nick Griffin or they don’t.
There is no irony regarding the conversation in the lift and I was well aware that the man who ‘overheard’ it was a BNP member. I was simply saying that the court case should be reported on its own merits away from the activities outside the court - that the reporting of the story should be centred on what the jury heard in the court - I think everyone would agree with that. Again, I feel this is a simple point and worth ironing out.
Thank You
Nick Martin
3 thefox // Nov 18, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Good of you to make your comments Nick but i still don’t quite agree with you. Without going into great detail, to me the tone of the interview was still one of slight hostility with the emphasis on trying to make Nick Griffin look a “baddie”. I don’t think what was aired was fair and it certainly wasn’t reflective of the interview as a whole. I regret calling you “a bit weak” but as you accuse me of “ignorance, even paranoia” this comes down to the contrast between your interview and the aggressive vindictive style we usually see whenever NG is interviewed by mainstream journalists. As for the “lift” point, what you say above differs from what Emmanuel said, “how to report the case without putting the BNP on a pedestal”. Says it all really.
thefox
You must log in to post a comment.