Welcome to the latest edition of Media Watch. Remember you can get the newsletter straight into your inbox for free by clicking the banner above.
It was an interesting week for David Lammy as he prompted a prominent BBC presenter to claim he had changed in the last few months since becoming part of the Government.
Lammy ‘a different politician’
On Laura Kuenssberg’s Sunday show at the weekend, Lammy was asked about false claims Donald Trump made about Haitian immigrants eating pet cats and dogs in Ohio.
But despite being critical of the former president in the past, Lammy went quiet, leaving Kuenssberg stunned by his position.
Trump made the unproven claim during a TV debate with his White House rival Kamala Harris.
READ MORE: See the Scottish celebrities who campaigned for independence in 2014
Asked about it on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg show, Lammy said there was a “robust” political debate in the US and he would not comment on its domestic issues because he had to work with whoever was in the White House.
Lammy (below) said: “I’m here as Foreign Secretary. America is one of the most robust democracies in the world. They have a lively debate.”
He went on: “The ups and downs of the American political system, the language that’s used is a matter for them.
It led Kuenssberg to tweet saying Lammy is “very much NOT the same politician” as he was when he was in opposition.
She said: “David Lammy as Foreign Sec, very much NOT the same politician as David Lammy as opposition front bencher."
That’s because Lammy has not always been so reluctant to criticise Trump. In 2017, he said the former president was a “racist KKK and Nazi sympathiser” and vowed to protest on the streets if he visited the UK.
Elsewhere on the BBC show, journalist Ava-Santina Evans noted that Lammy had also changed his rhetoric on Gaza since coming to power.
She said: “David Lammy has been at every Palestine event for the last decade.
"I think I’ve been covering him at Palestine events for the last decade. The moment that he becomes Foreign Secretary, he goes quiet.
“What’s extraordinary, when he was in the shadow position, he lobbied David Cameron to publish those [Israel] arms export licences. He wanted to know the information. Now that he’s in power, now that he’s Foreign Secretary, he’s also refusing to publish that information.”
Salmond’s fury at BBC documentary
Elsewhere, a BBC documentary covering the fractured relationship between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon caused quite the stir.
Salmond reacted furiously when the BBC released the two-part progamme accusing the broadcaster of "venomous bias" against Scottish independence.
READ MORE: Scottish independence white paper 'was not a blueprint for new nation'
The documentary called Salmond And Sturgeon: A Troubled Union looks at the breaking down of the relationship between the pair and includes interviews with both of the former leaders.
Salmond put out a lengthy thread on Twitter/X saying the broadcaster had “plumbed new depths”.
He posted: "For any independence supporter to trust a single word the BBC, or associated organisation, say is one of the great mistakes in life.
“The BBC’s venomous and institutional bias against Scottish independence was demonstrated during the referendum and remains to this day.
“And so when I was invited to take part in a ‘blue chip’ history of the rise of the SNP by Firecrest Films for the BBC, I should have smelled a rat immediately, instead of believing the assurances that they willingly gave, that they were intent on making serious programming.”
He added that the first episode “offered some hope” but that a desire to portray the relationship between him and Sturgeon as a “psycho drama” meant that major figures including Winnie Ewing and Jim Sillars failed to be mentioned.
The thread continued: “The second episode plumbed new depths even for the BBC – soap opera history.
“In this parody, half-built ferries, bottle schemes, self-ID law, male rapists in female prisons and blue tents outside houses do not rate even a sole mention in explaining the decline of the party.
“Instead, a collection of SNP loyalists (and Liz Lloyd) who are the same people jointly and severely liable for the party’s recent reverses, are paraded. The case for reality is left to the redoubtable Kenny MacAskill.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel