ORIGINAL SOAPBOX ARTICLE FROM BRIAN HERE
Well, folks, Jen’s asked me if we should reproduce or draw attention to this typical bit of Daily Mail sensationalism.
I’m not not really sure, to be honest. Here’s why. I’ll tell you the truth. This Mail on Sunday Online article really is pretty much a load of shite. (Oh ! You’re surprised ? !) It’s mischievous. It misrepresents my intentions. Makes me look as if I was trying to make a point. Like I’m banging on about something again. I wasn’t. I did the interview purely to talk about how happy I was that Sir Patrick’s affairs were now being wound up in a way which would make him happy. Full stop.
But the way this guy writes it, it’s all blown up way out of context and the bits that would moderate it are left out that would make people realise I wasn’t on the attack at all. I actually realised this during the interview. I should have quit. Actually I shouldn’t have done it in the first place. I wish I’d recorded it, really, so you could hear how the interviewer kept pushing for more ‘conflict’, more things to say to make into a ‘newsworthy’ story. He asked why I stepped in to buy Patrick’s house. I said I was surprised the State didn’t step in and rescue a knight of the realm and a national treasure. The interviewer said “Well, don’t you think the BBC should have bailed him out ? I said I didn’t think there was a BBC department dedicated to things like that. He said “But surely they should have taken care of him after he did all that work for them for 50 years ? I said, maybe, but it just wasn’t something they were set up to do. I said I did think it might be nice if the Government set up some kind of fund to aid such important and well-loved people who had given so much to Britain. He said … “So you’re saying the BBC let him down ?” I said, well the BBC actually never took much care of him anyway – and this was fairly normal ! I then said … “I’m Brian Cox’s greatest fan, but it was noticeable that the BBC flew him to Niagara Falls to film a rainbow for him, while the budget for a “Sky at Night” for a whole year was probably less than what that trip cost ! “So you’re saying the BBC treated him appallingly ?” “Well, not really – all I’m saying is it would have been folly to expect them or any other organisation to step in and keep Patrick in his home for his latter years. It was his friends who gathered round and kept him afloat.
You can see roughly where this is going. If you read the article you would imagine I was gunning for the BBC. But I wasn’t.
Well, it’s the Daily Mail (well, it’s maiden Aunt, the Mail on Sunday Online – sorry !) Did you really expect the truth ?
Well, folks, my recommendation is – read this newspaper article only if you want to remind yourself how the truth can be distorted to make a sensational ‘story’. If you want to know about Patrick and the labour of love we’ve been slaving away at for the last two years – to honour his legacy … just read my original piece HERE, which tells it all.
Why did I do the interview for the Mail on Sunday Online ? Well, truthfully, I felt a bit sorry for them – because by prevaricating and trying to insist on editing my piece down, they lost the initiative last week – to the Daily Telegraph. So I was asked to talk to this guy, and I said OK. But his brief was obviously to stir up some muck, no matter WHAT I said in the interview.
“Brian May Blasts the BBC” ? ?? Well, it’s all smoke and mirrors, folks. I have a fairly decent relationship with the BBC (And Brian Cox !!) Well, I did, prior to when this piece of nonsense came out. Maybe I don’t any more. Well, there you have it.
“Brian May blasts the Mail on Sunday Online” ?? Well, maybe that would be closer to the truth. Next time I won’t be speaking to them. Life’s too short.
See also HERE
PLEASE OBSERVE COPYRIGHT© brianmay.com