The Guardian's article on the income of British MPs other than their MP salaries covers about 20 of the solons, Galloway occupying a relatively humble third place with meager BP 265,350.
These came primarily from paid weekly appearances for the Iranian state-owned broadcaster Press TV, for which Galloway received £100,650, and a further £96,000 – not including air fares – for fortnightly broadcasts from Beirut for Al Mayadeen, which does not publicly disclose its financial backers.The Spiv, however, was irked by the article, which in reality didn't mean any harm*. To a degree that he unleashed his spokesman on the press:
A spokesman for Galloway accused the Guardian of “attempts to smear” the MP, and said “his media earnings are for a few hours’ work a week”.The only point I fail to understand in the above is one of reaching a far greater audience. The Spiv has already appeared in a highly successful venue that brought him an audience one can only dream about, remember?
“His programmes enable him to reach a far greater audience than would otherwise be the case for his views, both domestically and internationally,” he continued. “No one from these TV stations determines editorial content.”
If the size of the audience is the issue here, there was no reason to eschew this gig for some doubtful Middle Eastern venture. Besides, it was, like, totally fitting...
(*) As for the accusation of trying to harm - no, really, it is a clear misunderstanding. First of all, the Guardian employs the highest percentage of the Spiv's admirers anywhere. It is simply that, being relatively low-paid serfs of that media outfit, these folks are naturally envious of the kind of fees our illustrious Spiv commands. And to add that “his media earnings are for a few hours’ work a week” - no, really, George, be more sensitive next time, please!