Borkowski Weekly Media Trends: Schofield, Tate, Biden & MORE
PLUS: Royal Blood's viral meltdown last weekend
The BBC, Tate and Phillip Schofield
Good day for the Beeb
It’s been a whirlwind 24 hours for BBC News.
First Andrew Tate granted an exclusive interview from house arrest in Romania and then Phillip Schofield gave a joint exclusive to the BBC and The Sun.
As the BBC struggles to keep pace with the streaming giants, caught in the culture wars crossfire, and domineered by its relationship with the government, the fact that two of the most talked-about people in the country chose it as the platform with the reach and influence to give them a narrative foothold in major reputational struggles, is a sign of its continued significance. The BBC should be cautious about proliferating ‘tabloid’ content lest it damage its credibility as a herald of serious world events, but in the short term it’s a PR win for the corporation.
Tate’s Tantrums Exposed
Lucy Williamson’s performance interviewing a hostile Andrew Tate was undoubtedly part of this success. There are some that will argue, and indeed already have, that a reputable broadcaster like the BBC shouldn’t be giving any airtime to Andrew Tate. But the BBC’s Lucy Williamson’s interview with the misogynist influencer is a masterclass. Williamson, stoic and firm, gives Tate just enough rope to hang himself with, laying out the facts and refusing to rise to his tantrums. This imagery, of the diminutive Williamson, legs crossed and dressed all in black, amidst the gaudy backdrop of Tate’s home while he shouts, “you’re not the boss here!” is one that both the BBC and Williamson will be aware has enormous impact. She does not allow him to take control of the conversation, forcing him to confront the accusations of emotional manipulation, hate speech, human trafficking and more, for which he become infamous. Williamson has been in Bucharest covering Tate’s case since late last year, exposing herself in the process to the special level of vitriol that Tate’s fandom produce (her Twitter account is currently set to private). This in itself has leant credence to the growing evidence of Tate’s toxic cultural influence. For this trends writer, watching a man who posits himself as the ultimate alpha male, fall to bits at the hands of an unflappable female force brought more than a little joy. Reminiscent of the 2019 image of Emily Maitliss deftly exposing the ego and ineptitude of Prince Andrew, this excellent piece of journalism was a reminder of the special type of power women can have in the cultural conversation.
Tate, on the other hand, went ‘full Trump’ in his aggressive, absolutist denial of every accusation and positing of conspiracy theories about the BBC’s agenda for the interview. Trump has show that it’s incredibly difficult to hold someone to account when they refuse to engage but the interview -and Tate’s followers’ response on social media- effectively exposed the dangers of Tate’s philosophy and influence. Of course, Tate and his cultists saw the interview as a resounding victory but this sentiment hasn’t penetrated the mainstream ‘Matrix’.
Schofield’s effective (but performative) response
If Tate was Trumpian, there’s an argument that Phillip Schofield went ‘full Meghan Markle’ in a carefully stage-managed performance of his side of the scandal that has engulfed both him and ITV. Both Tate and Schofield wanted to seize control of the narrative and while Tate was a blunt instrument, Schofield’s approach was a complex theatrical production.
First there’s the script – near-identical in both BBC and Sun interviews suggesting careful preparation. There have been some (fair) accusations of insensitivity around Phillip’s comparison of himself to Caroline Flack, but he’s far from the first to do so and his invocation of the tragedy might give even his most vociferous critics pause for thought. Overall it was an effective damage limitation exercise; contrition mixed with emphasis on the limits of his moral failings (chiefly his contestation that nothing illegal or coercive happened). Some even speculate that it may have contained a veiled threat - “I knew everything about Holly”- to his former co-host, of retaliation should she add any fuel to the fire...
There were other elements. Props: the disposable vape which has become a meme and a reasonably if not totally effective ‘dead cat’. Then there was the performance: Schofield is undoubtedly under immense stress but his very specific signalling of emotional fragility, much like the script, was near-identical in both interviews. People close to the edge aren’t usually capable of staying quite so consistent, so on-message. It’s left commentators feeling a tang of inauthenticity, but overall Schofield’s version of events is now part of the overall narrative, and as long as he told the truth, these interviews may just temper the furore.
Stumbling Joe
We’ve all tripped on something in public. Often if you have to stand up in front of a crowd and speak the possibility of a comedy fall runs through your mind. Politicians often will say it's their biggest fear when speaking.
Sadly for none other than the ‘leader of the free world’, 80 year-old U.S. president Joe Biden, whose age and fragility have provided significant ammunition for his critics, that nightmare came true this week at an Airforce Base graduation.
Although it does look like the President tripped over a wire as opposed to simply losing his balance - a fall that could happen to any of us- it wasn't dignified. And when headlines around the world reported the fall without this apparent caveat the damage was done. The Presidents' advisors have been trying to rebrand him as a vital, competent 80 year-old capable of governing but sadly accidents like this even in appearance only, undermine any progress they may have made and will be exploited by his opponents.
It’s never easy at the top, particularly in an ageist society, but Biden’s increasing instances of apparent physical fragility or forgetfulness are gold for those trying to ensure he does not win a second term.
Royal Blunder - rock band attacks crowd
British rock duo Royal Blood cooked up a storm at last week's Big Weekend - Radio 1's televised live festival. Frontman Mike Kerr viral rants caught the country's attention for both his criticism of the crowd and his snarky delivery, which was as middle-class as it gets, featuring sarcastic applause and child-like tantrums. Brewdog and Waitrose were trending alongside Royal Blood, with thousands commenting on Kerr's 'Waitrose accent' and cracking jokes to the tune of, 'if Brewdog did rock music'...
To quote Bruce Springsteen, "When a rock band turns its back on the crowd, it turns its back on the very essence of rock 'n' roll".
As we all know, rock music doesn't have the same commercial or mainstream appeal as once upon a time. Still Royal Blood are among the few rock beneficiaries of early BBC Radio 1 endorsement. The BBC played a pivotal role in the rise of Royal Blood, providing them with a platform and championing their music to a broader audience. So after over 10 years of success, why pull a stunt like this? And let's be honest, this was a stunt - Royal Blood knew they weren't surrounded by fans and chose to whip up a storm. Unfortunately, whether this was pre-meditated or not, they failed to factor in how cringe these rants were and the childish exit that saw Kerr slowly trot off the stage with his back to the crowd and two middle fingers sky high.
Could this have been a funny Spinal Tap moment? Something more self-deprecating and less malicious to spice things up for a crowd that isn't interested in you. Yes, but Kerr's entitlement thwarted anything salvageable here. There will inevitably be a spike in ticket sales, social media and website traffic, and short-term interest in the band, but the optics, coupled with a mediocre gig, spells trouble. They won't lose their fanbase, but they are so uncool to the broader industry they'll struggle for commercial opportunities and brand partnerships outside the rock world, a space far from its 'cultural significance' peak.