Kirsty Wark's interview with Nigel Farage, following Crick's report, lasted all of 1 minute 34 seconds. Astonishing! With so much to ask Mr Farage about, especially his decision to stand down as leader of UKIP in the UK (which was not asked about), and with his party holding it's annual conference, you would have expected (and been right to expect) a longer interview.
Now, despite giving him only 1 minute 34 seconds of her precious time, Kirsty still went on to interrupt Nigel Farage! Her I.C. was 0.7.
Her questions were hostile in tone:
"Why not make this a fair fight if you want to be taken seriously for Westminster and go into a constituency where candidates actually campaign?"
"So basically it's a publicity stunt, as you've said." (As NF pointed out, he'd said no such thing.)
"Oh, but, but, if you look what UKIP did... 2 1/2% of the electorate supported UKIP last time round. You're never going to make a mark on that seat!"
Kirsty's "Thank you very much" at the end was abrupt and stern in tone. Her face was like thunder. Please watch it on the Newsnight website & you'll see what I mean!
P.S. As she also mentioned that Newsnight had tried to get John Bercow himself on (but that he wasn't available), I have a strong suspicion that Nigel Farage would not have received an invitation to appear at all had Bercow been prepared to appear.
Sadly not having the time to cover the BBC website as well (as I work full-time) I'm making a rare comment about it here. The Beeb's very young political correspondent Ross Hawkins reports on Nigel Farage's decision to step down as UKIP's domestic leader here:
It's a good piece, not at all hostile to UKIP. I enjoyed reading it. Well done, young man!
My congratulations most definitely don't extend to the piece's sub-headings (which would not be Ross's doing). These are ''Wild men'' and 'Tough'. Who the hell wrote these sub-headings? Why pick on two negatives? They are hardly representative of the piece itself. And why pick on two such irrelevant sub-headings? Truly bizarre - and another sign of the BBC's bias against the Right. Poor show, mystery sub-editor!