An Extremely Boring Video. Do Not Watch It. 502


I have managed to get hold of a copy, which you can see here, of my lengthy interview with Sky News about the Skripals yesterday, which Sky refused to put online because they allege I was boring. With the warning you might therefore be very bored, you may watch it if you wish.

Kay Burley then appeared to suggest in reply to persistent questioning from Teymoor Nabili that Sky News could not put the interview online as they did not record it and do not hold a copy, which is plainly untrue (and would be illegal under their broadcast license).

My perspective on the interview itself was that the interviewer became aggressive and sarcastic, increasingly shrill as the apparent effort to discredit me was not going well, and resorting eventually to asking about any old extraneous matter but the Skripals. I strongly suspect it was not me being boring, but the strange performance by Kay Burley, which motivated Sky to bury the interview.

But you must judge for yourself.

It is my policy when invited by journalists, to give considered and courteous answers to the particular questions which they ask. This is as opposed to what politicians do, which is to spout pre-prepared soundbites irrespective of what they are asked.

I appreciate that mine is a very old-fashioned approach, and may lead you to be frustrated about areas I did not cover. I also make no attempt to look slick or sound glib. I realise in this modern age that may not be good PR, but my belief remains that in the long term people will see me as a polite and thoughtful old gentleman, and feel less disposed to share the obvious contempt towards me of the media and politician classes.


502 thoughts on “An Extremely Boring Video. Do Not Watch It.

1 9 10 11
  • Martin clarke

    She said it wasnt edited to change the neaning of the scientist’s interview, but it WAS edited with potentially a different slant on the interview being heard, – best wishes Craig Myrray

  • Joe Hood

    Wow. Craig, your interview was everything but boring. Congratulations on the calm and level-headed way in which you handled that vile bully’s interrogation. It’s people you who we need running this country. I look forward to hearing you speak on TV again.

  • Phil

    Never seen anything from Sky until this interview. Won’t be seeing anything in the future either. The interviewer displayed all the characteristics of a Murdoch hack and the world has more than enough of that decrepitude. She clearly had planned the interview primarily for a showdown over criticisms made by Murray about a previous interview on Sky. She had no interest in hearing his reasoning since it contradicted the establishment line. Sky pulled the interview for two likely reasons:

    The interviewee responded to its planned strategy of verbal provocations, with calm, reasoned responses – none of which supported the establishment narrative.

    The interviewer’s arrogance and pugnacious approach reflected poorly on herself and on Sky. She’d be better retraining as a police interrogator – shouldn’t take long – most the requisite skills are there now.

  • terry walsh

    It wasn`t a boring interview at all. I think you done a great job with Burley.
    You didn`t let her get her own way.
    In fact i found it sad that she had to lower herself into insults and trying to talk down to you.
    You nailed it !

  • Lot

    I’ve got no love for Kay Burley, but they aren’t claiming that they didn’t record the interview: They gave you the recording! Ffs. She’s just saying that, because it’s pre-recorded, they can choose whether to air it or not. They chose not to because reasons (20mins rather a long interview with a Seth Rich-troofer, Syrian chemical weapons denier, pro-Putin conspiracy theorist? Yes, it was pretty boring? Yes, you have a relaxed attitude to personal presentation that doesn’t really shine on TV? All of the above? And Kay Burley reveals once again that she’s a maggotbrain).

    Fact is, you don’t have a right to be put on TV. They asked to interview you, showing willing to air your views, but didn’t like the results. Oh, boohoo, you didn’t get on TV.

    The conspiracy here was to put you on TV, and it didn’t work out.

    • Felneymike

      “Syrian chemical weapons denier”?
      So there’s, uh, evidence they did it, then?

  • harvey monte

    I watched the original interview and was struck by your clear thinking and plain talking. You said many things that I have occurred to me. What is very interesting and worrying is the failure of the media in general not to give some prominence to what you said. No one could be more neutral or more objective than you and your previous role as ambassador to Russia should give more weight to your opinions

  • Paul Foden

    Basically, she wasn’t getting the BLAME RUSSIA statements she and her boss wanted, so she became detached, belligerent & snappy instead (very grown up; not), constantly interrupting & patronising you.
    Kay Burley was the boring one and is a joke worse than Kuenssberg.
    I hope she doesn’t have a mishap with her ribbon soon . .

  • John Connor

    An excellent response Craig to very poor interviewing! What was that format all about? It seemed designed to showcase the sylph like figure of the interviewer rather than a high-minded discussion of the facts. Keep telling the truth.

  • Tim K.

    Hi Craig,
    Excellently handled.
    I’ve been wondering if any journalist would pick up on the point you raised regarding that it was the US that decommissioned the CW facility in Uzbekistan.

    You are the first to remind us of this known fact. It would be interesting to see what possibility the US would have had to exploit the decommissioning to gain access to the CW research in Uzbekistan.

  • Janette Stephenson

    I think your assumption about Kay Burley are spot on, the interview was not going the way she wanted it to and she becomes aggressive and ignorant, she needs knocking down a peg or two, you should have stopped the interview and told her to sod off.

  • DAvid Roger

    Burleys performance was excruciatingly embarrassing . Like a snappy school teacher , condescending and patronising
    Really horrible to watch
    Mr Murray was calm and collected and very cogent
    Her subsequent comments here are even worse
    So full of herself and arrogant

  • Cath Neal

    You are correct, she was rude and looked foolish/I’ll informed – congratulations!

  • Tony M

    I’d say their ultimate motive to have you on for an interview became clear by the end – to try to discredit you, or take you down, for criticising their previous interview. You did really well to stay calm and reasonable as the interviewer increasingly tried to unnerve you (‘well, you’re the expert’ etc.) Their not posting the interview may be proof that the interviewer failed to successfully do so, and that, as you didnt conclusively point the finger at any country or agency, it didn’t comply with their agenda. I also think that the interviewer sidestepped the fact that their previous interview had indeed been edited (thus misrepresenting what question the interviewee was actually responding to), in order to try and make you retract your criticism. The unpleasantness of her subsequent comments to you, are telling. Well done.

  • Robert Hopkins

    There are a lot of questions that haven’t been answered.
    Boris Johnston was to quick to say that Russia made the Novichok that was alleged to have been used.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if it was either the USA or the UK that made the poison, if it was used.
    We may NEVER be told the truth about who it was not only made by but used.
    Why didn’t they just shoot them instead of using a poison. Why were the police not wearing protective clothing
    If it was that dangerous, why not.

  • ashley haworth-roberts

    So if you accept it was probably Russia, why make insinuations on live TV against Ukraine and Iran? Just wondering.

  • David Rintoul

    Boring! You don’t answer any of her questions and we don’t come away with any new understanding of the event at all. You are pedantic without being informative in any way. I would delete it too.

1 9 10 11

Comments are closed.