Bashing The 'Bishop

Will hackery never cease?

Sully is aghast that an interviewer would persist in getting an answer to a question from a public figure who had spoken publicly on an issue of monumental public concern. According to a transcript of the interview, a BBC Radio interviewer asked the Archbishop of Canterbury about an advertisement he had previously signed opposing war in Iraq on grounds it was "immoral." The Archbishop tried to dodge the question, saying the statement had been made before the war began, so the interviewer asked him pointedly if he now thought the war was immoral ("Was it immoral?")

The Archbishop reportedly hesitated for 12 seconds before answering, then danced around the question and some follow-ups.

To Sully's twisted mind, the exchange reveals this:

The BBC interviewer wants another anti-war headline from the archbishop, who doesn't want to go there. So he persists. The campaign by the leading media to distort and denigrate the liberation of Iraq continues.

This is beyond assinine. The Archbishop earlier made a public pronouncement on the war, and the interviewer asked him whether his position had changed. When the Archbishop refused to answer, the interviewer persisted. The nerve of a journalist to ask a tough question after an interviewee doesn't "want to go there!" Is that what passes for professionalism nowdays?

Plainly, the interviewer wasn't arguing against the war. He was asking questions, and not even leading questions. He was giving the Archbishop the opportunity to state his views on the war -- a subject on which the Archbishop had previously spoken publicly. The interviewer did not distort or denigrate the war in any way; he offered no opinion whatsoever.

And Sully fudges the key facts. He claims "[i]n a radio interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury [sic], there was a prior agreement that the question of the Iraq war would not be raised." But the Guardian reported "[w]hen the interview was over, Dr Williams said he believed there had been an agreement not to talk about the war." The CofE apparently refused further comment, stating that it was "not offering our version of events." The BBC's position according to the Guardian:

The BBC said: "The archbishop insists that he agreed to the interview only on the understanding that it would be confined to the single subject of this week's Lambeth conference.

"The Today programme accepts that the archbishop thought the interview would be on the single subject, so in the interests of fair dealing, decided not to run that section of the interview which went beyond its main purpose."

So the article hardly confirms that there "was" a prior agreement not to talk about the war. Perhaps there was an agreement, perhaps there wasn't. But the article Sully cites doesn't say there was.

One suspects that if the interviewer had grilled the Roman Catholic Cardinal-designate for Scotland in a similiar manner, seeking clarification on his views (and apparent shift) on matters of morality, Sully would have had high praise indeed. But when it comes to the beloved liberation, even asking someone to state or clarify his position on the war evinces a revolting anti-war bias. Sully embarasses himself with his delusions of pro-war persecution and his refusal to state the facts correctly.