My first though was ‘well, is she a bigot?’
I agree that he may have seemed like less of a wuss if he’d stuck up for himself a bit. We’ve known about his public/private mood shifts for some time, it’s obvious with how forced his smile looks (some PR guru evidently told him to smile more), when the cameras were off he reverted instantly to a dour face.
If she was a bigot then he should have stood up to her.
However, there is no reason to believe from the statements that she made that she was a bigot. Certainly what she said about immigration is consistent with Brown’s stated stance on immigration.
And if no one noticed another Labour candidate hit a roundabout, pissed (must have been as police took a blood sample; they only do that if breath alcohol is over the limit, but not massively so)…
Not to mention John Cowan a day or two ago.
Brilliant. The utter destruction of the Labour party may be upon us 
You must mean this: Labour candidate John Cowan suspended over online messages | The Independent | The Independent
Gordon Brown seems to be stumbling from one disaster to another. Lord knows what the other two will make of it in the debate on Thursday.
Except for the god bit I agree completely. He would have earned more respect by saying “I stand by my earlier remarks” instead he wussed out. One more nail in the coffin of the Labour government.
For me, it’s just a further indication of the scummy, parasitic behaviour of the so-called “news” providers.
I agree; it was highly unethical to continue recording him when he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that’s not even mentioning passing it on and making a story of it.
Exactly. It seems that had Brown commented on what a lovely lady she was, they would have then been crying out, “But, but…the woman was an out and out bigot!”
You would think though that he would have had an aide who would have pointed out the fact that he was still wearing a microphone.
Brown does seem to have been let down by his aides. It should be somebody’s job to take care of these mics once they are no longer needed.
I want my reporters to report, not create news stories.
You really think that distinction is possible, or even meaningful? Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle – that the observer changes the thing observed by observing it – applies with even more force in human social life than at the subatomic level.
Which is why, in my opinion, it’s even more important to pay strict attention to journalistic ethics (in theory – obviously with Murdoch properties it’s a lost cause).
I’m not sure that BBC News or ITN would have behaved any differently.
The Associated Press on Brown’s travails and Clegg’s rise: News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com
Yes. Someone gave the go ahead to run with this piece of shit “journalism” without even making the slightest attempt to verify if what he said was even true, or not.
Another debate coming up, supposedly on the economy. I’d wager Brown isn’t looking forward to this one as the others…
The amusing thing is one gaffe like this could cost Labour a constituency, Rotherham is a very marginal constituency where Labour has a majority of only a hundred or so votes. Brown’s probably cost him a fair few votes with that little blunder, the lifelong Labour voter he insulted said she’d not vote at all. Good news for the Lib Dems, though.
Yes, but she didn’t say she’d be changing her vote to a Tory or Lib-Dem one, either. And I’m fairly sure it happened in Rochdale, not Rotherham.
It’s still a vote less for Labour, which is the point.
Whoops, wrong R.
Watching the debate right now. I missed the opening statements, but nobody’s mentioning Gordon’s gaffe right now.