Schadenfreude, as you probably know, is that dancing, hidden delight you feel when someone you know bashes their shins and falls in the mud. It doesn’t have to be literally shins and mud, of course. It can happen in a TV interview, especially during an election campaign.
In Britain last week, it happened to Michael Fallon. He’s a Tory MP and is frequently referred to as an “attack dog”: when they want someone to go out there and sink their teeth into an opponent, Fallon’s the man.
So picture the scene. It’s Channel Four News last Friday, and Krishnan Guru-Murthy is conducting an interview via a big screen link with Michael Fallon. They’re talking about Jeremy Corbyn, and you’ll remember Corbyn did an interview with Andrew Neill where he argued that, while the Manchester bomber bore responsibility for his heartless attack on so many young people, Britain should look at its foreign policy in the Middle East and accept that ‘the wars on terror aren’t working.”
Fallon was having none of it. Corbyn was making excuses for “this appalling act of terrorism”. Guru-Murthy then reads out a question.
Guru-Murthy: Is it possible that things like the Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists, but the war has unquestionably sharpened the resentments felt by such people in this country, giving them a pretext?”
Fallon: Well, I don’t think you should allow pretexts for people who blow up innocent people –
Guru-Murthy: – Because those are actually the words of Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary.
Fallon does his best to ignore this alarming piece of information.
Fallon: They’re not entitled to excuses. This was an act of murder, and of callous murder at that, taking the lives of innocent civilians.
Guru-Muthy: What I put to you was not Jeremy Corbyn, it was Boris Johnson.
Fallon: Well what were the words you were quoting?
Guru-Murthy: “ ‘The Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists but has undoubtedly sharpened the resentments felt by people in this country and given them a new pretext.” He goes on to say ‘The Iraq War did not introduce the poison into our blood stream but yes, the war did help to potentiate that poison’. Which is exactly what Jeremy Corbyn is saying
Fallon: No, ah, no I think it’s more, I think he’s saying what I said. You can’t use acts like this to explain to explain, ah, explain away terrorism.
Guru-Murthy: On the contrary. He said ‘It is difficult to deny that they have a point, the terrorist brigade.’
Fallon: Well I don’t agree with that.
Guru-Murthy: So Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary is wrong.
Fallon: Well I’d have to see the words you’re trying to quote to me – I don’t have them in front of me.
Guru-Murthy: I’ve just told you them.
Fallon: Well I’d have to look at them.
There is nothing quite like a presenter leading someone onto what they believe is firm ground and then sending them plunging into a pit dug by one of their mates. Or as the Labour commentator Owen Jones (yes, the one who looks as if he’s about twelve years old, Virginia) put it in a tweet: “This really can’t be tweeted enough. This is a work of art”.
Guess which attack dog is getting a kicking at Tory headquarters these days.
Aw… give the dog a bone !
Well Islamic Fundamentalists and Jihadists have existed for centuries, there’s no disputing that. Without the Iraq War there would still be a lot of Islamists who would want to attack and destroy the West/elsewhere for simply being non-Islamic.
As far as I’m concerned both sides have a point. The Iraq War was an utter disaster and made things 100 times worse and drove what would have been moderate people into being extremists or extremist sympathizers. On the other hand I still believe there would be attacks in the West even if the Iraq War had not have happened, though not as often as it happens today.
I will be watching out for that presenter in future, I don’t think we have seen the est of him yet.
Jude, you describe Michael Fallon as a Tory MP and an `attack dog’ for the party. He is actually the UK’s secretary of state for defence and therefore has been sitting in the same outgoing cabinet as Boris Johnston, which is surely relevant to your narrative. A little research often helps in these matters.
That’s probably true, Kevin. I suppose I could also check if he’s happily married, has children and where he went to school. But the main point for this exchange was that he is someone the Tories use to push back at any advantage Labour may appear to have seized. I’m not sure what new light his being Defence Sec or in a cabinet with the obnoxious Boris would throw on his appearance. But it’s an interesting thought – how do we introduce people. I like to be introduced as a writer or writer and broadcaster. I sometimes get the (vaguely) meaningless “Commentator’.
Maybe Sinn Fein commentator would be more accurate,Jude!
In all fairness Jude, when you decide to write a piece about Fallon, you might be expected to know that he is the defence secretary, discussing international terrorism, and not just another Tory MP. You also spoke of your sense of schadenfreude that Fallon had not prepared himself properly before venturing into the public arena – does this not work in both directions ?
Nah, Kevin – I do this for free. Mind you, I’d consider a swap with MF…
“you might be expected to know that he is the defence secretary, discussing international terrorism, and not just another Tory MP.”
This does not change the exchange quoted. In fact, it could be argued it makes it worse. Don’t you think that the Defence Secretary, who discusses international terrorism, should know what the Foreign Secretary said about international terrorism?
Ceannaire, it was obviously the fact that both men are senior cabinet ministers which made the exchange noteworthy in the first place. The irony was that Jude passed judgment on Michael Fallon’s lack of insight while discussing international terrorism but thought he was just another Tory MP and was entirely unaware of his position as defence secretary.
So Kevin I assume I will see you give a full personal history of any individual you will ever comment on which will include age, education, marital status, number of children, how many years in current occupation and all other jobs held. Sounds absurd doesn’t it.
Kevin you need to remember that Jude is just outlining his opinion in the blog, just as you and I are outlining ours in the comment section.
That’s fine Eamon – so, if Jude assesses comments by a politician on international terrorism, and fails to realise that the gentleman in question is the UK defence secretary, that is just another minor detail which can be compared to his marital status ? We are all offering our opinions but a little factual background always helps.
Kevin no harm to you, but you are coming across a little childish.