I don't know, I turn Sky off and start watching the Sopranos and Gordon Brown is nice as pie to a lady on camera saying she has a "good family" and that it was "nice to meet her"; then, forgetting the microphone was still on his jacket, gets in a car and calls her a "bigot" and sounds very pissed off that he even had to speak to her.
Ironically, the conversation was along the lines that the news would run on the story because it was about immigration. Well, he was at least partly right, they are playing his video over and over again on the news, but not becuase of that conversation but because of his.
Gordon Brown is, as I type this, apologising personally (40 minutes or so) to the woman for his comments, and CNN and Fox in the USA are now running the story too.
Basically we have a really bad day for Brown and a bloody great day for this grandmother's purse thanks to Fleet Street.
What I find myself wondering though is what the response would be to the story if it was brought to us in the traditional form of an "unanmed source"? It would be denied of course and called a smear or "tittle tattle". This story actually gives strength to those sort of stories in a way, especially in relation to Brown.
Does anyone believe that he would be having an epiphany in private and apologising to this woman if he hadn't been caught saying it? Of course he wouldn't.
Thing is, the real story here should be what Peter mandelson has said in his spinning. Without a hint of irony, Mandelson said to Sky News that "sometimes you say something you simply do not mean" - surely that is the real story here? Mandelson admits he speaks with forked tongue!.. OK, maybe not.
UPDATE: Brown came out and says that he is "mortified" about what he said whilst smiling? WTF? He's just made it worse surely?