question time panelists' behaviour on 7th July 2011?

Question

Did not manage to watch all of Question Time. Only managed to catch a little bit towards the end. Hugh Grant and Jon Gaunt seemed to be arguing a lot..... but then towards the end Hugh Grant mentioned something about British morale to which Jon Gaunt said it was well said and clapped. My question is... why would Jon Gaunt say that and clap if he had been arguing with Hugh Grant and they obviously do not like each other. What was the hidden meaning behind Jon Gaunt's comment and clapping? It's a bit of a random question but would still appreciate your answers.

Answer 1

In response to the suggestion that he would like to introduce partial or biased political television programmes and channels, Jon Gaunt puffed himself up and wagged a finger at Hugh Grant :"Who are you to tell us who we can of cannot watch, Hugh?" This provided the knockout blow of the night from Grant:"Who is Murdoch to tell us who and who we shouldn't vote for? ", which drew the loudest audience applause during the show.

Gaunt struggled to downplay the influence of The Sun but it was suddenly a losing battle.(Unfortunately, he's wrong as usual - it's still a force, just look at how well the SNP did in May with the Scottish Sun's backing instead of the opprobrium and falsehoods it ran 4 years earlier.)

But back to Gaunt who had to be seen 'on side' with the audience, which explains why he was seen clapping Hugh Grant's contribution to the next question almost as the final credits started to roll.

That's how it works with shock jocks and motor mouths. They dish out the dirt but love to be loved.

Answer 2

I thought that Hugh Grant was an exceptional panelist last evening (aside from his gaffs), he brought substance, and a relative opinion to a table that has recently sat the ineptitude of Fern Britton and David Mitchell. He argued for there to be more regulatory control over tabloids, John Gaunt vehemently disagreed. This unfortunately led to a vile outburst from Gaunt citing Grant's past misdemeanour as the catalyst for his crusade against the tabloid. Hugh Grant rightfully objected to the low blow and pointed out that his arrest had every right to be exposed in the public domain, the details of his personal life didn't.

We were then exposed to the fickleness of John Gaunt as a tub thumping journalist who basically used rhetoric to appease the audience. He stated that he was a former journalist of 'The Sun' and made a comment to distinguish News corps. stablemate away from the practices of the News of the World. This is a tabloid that has failed to report the news by carrying two front page headlines that couldn't be further away from the storm, one (insensitively) of which is the prime reason for the operations current woes. IVF lotto and a celebrities love life. If the paper was to be distinguished surely they would have had the freedom to print the newsworthy story therefore displaying their right to the much advocated freedom of speech, as well as displaying editorial agency enabling them to disassociate themselves from this scandal. Instead they chose the tacky option and pushed a piece inside to page 6 that deflected culpability from those at the top of News International. John Gaunt later jumped on the bandwagon and made a comment concerning the tabloids lack of reporting the issue, contradicting his earlier praise of 'The Sun' and it seems trying to win over the audience.



It was a good QT, particularly the battle between Grayling and Alexander which epitomised the blame culture that inhibits modern day politics. It amazes me to this day that party lines are still utilised even when the nation state is losing jobs to Europe and whilst one of the core institutions of democracy is currently embroiled in a scandal of far reaching proportions. All in aid to retrospectively score a political point

Answer 3

They disagreed on several points through the night but also found points to agree on. I don't think they really disliked each other they just had differences of opinion and were respectful of each other throughout.



Just because he disagreed with Hugh before, when Hugh said something he agreed with he wanted to endorse it by nodding and clapping. He's clearly very eurosceptic and wanted to add his weight to any argument somebody else made which supported the case for being eurosceptic.



Don't think there's too much to read into here, they argued when they disagreed and endorsed each other when they agreed.

Answer 4

IMO John Gaunt was vile. .



He has an extremely high opinion of himself and likes to think he is a journalist. In reality Gaunty doesn't know how to argue, he just shouts a lot and then makes crap jokes and laughs at them. Whenever he is losing an argument he cuts people off and then slags them off (when they can no longer reply).



The jibe about HG and the hooker was uncalled for.



John Gaunt is two faced and many chinned.

Answer 5

Got to laugh at that silly fat ****, Jon Gaunt, pretending he knew nothing about phone-tapping when he worked at The Sun. He can talk as much populist bollocks as he likes. It's been an open secret for years that tabloids use all manner of criminal activity and everyone in the industry damn well knew it.

Answer 6

Well they were talking about that train manufacturing deal in Germany but most of the time the were debating about Rupert Murdoch and his rather large influence with both Labour and the Conservatives (he's basically the kingmaker)