I've been listening to this hype about Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time tonight.
On Radio5 Live, Mark Byford, depute director of the BBC stated Question Time was the flagship programme of the BBC. I completely disagree. Question Time is a pre-recorded programme which is highly edited prior to being broadcast. The audience is hand picked and so are the questions. Nick Griffin has already been on QT back in May.
The BBC's case for allowing Griffin to appear on Question Time is challenged by New Statesman political editor, James Macintyre, a former producer on the programme. "Question Time are being dishonest about having him [Griffin] on. They've always wanted him on and I went to meetings where I had to argue against that position. They lost the battle with management then and now, after two years' lobbying, they have won."
What it claims is that it speaks in a representative and objective way, allowing wide access to the arguments that concern the population and thus play a responsible democratic role in the service to the public.
The reality of the situation is that it is part of the wider political class now wishing to perpetuate itself in the face of public content. Think about the expenses scandal - did the BBC invest in its own sustained coverage of the issue by, for example, commissioning a series of documentaries on the expenses culture of the Commons, the Lords and the various political parties?
Indeed it did not. If I remember rightly there was one Panorama programme and little else. It had been warned by No 10 that it may be subject to this new public demand of 'transparency' so it had better be careful. Do you really believe the BBC published its expenses at its own volition? The expenses publishes were just the limited amount reclaimed by executives, after they had initially laid out cash. 99% of total executive expenses are actually covered by central bookings, so do not require reimbursement and are still unpublished.
To put it kindly, the BBC is part of the expenses racket and its associated 'culture of entitlement' which it defends from public scrutiny.
It refuses to cover matters which could make it accountable in a good ongoing way, that would help open up the political class to democracy. It will however, cover the dark side of public opinion to ensure the rest of us are faced with a choice between that and them.
The argument about whether the BBC should give Griffin a home on our screens should not be conducted in narrow terms to reinforce the idea that there is only a choice between the rise of the new facists or better government by the old patricians. Given only these two choices we will have to back the latter and the BBC executives can laugh all the way to the champagne bar.
The BNP could never have bought the publicity created by the media about Nick Griffin being on a TV show. Using QT as a platform for him is wrong as it is not debate but pre-rehearsed speeches.
The fault for the rise of the BNP lies with our main political parties who have continually refused to address the matters which concern the public. They are the guilty in this case, not the people who in desperation, have turned to a party which professes to listen and take action.
Posts
17 comments:
Uh Huh, News speak debate has been controlled for many a year. It doesn't even solicite a cynical grimace from myself these days whenever their obedientand obliging news squeak presenter utters platitudes about nobody knowing the questions they're to be asked or the identidy of the selected plants in the audience. Chosen for their impartial innocence from concerned citizenry, no doubt.
Rather like Westmidden and parochial toon cooncil enquiries up and doon the land, really.
I remember on one occasion, amongst the many others that I caused a fair bit of mischief at, with the accountability an aw.
That was a public meeting with the usual officials and rag tag and bobtail wannabe polical somebodies rigged and planted 'question time' concerning the closure of two local hospital wards.
The chairperson of the local health board was spewing forth her verson of events and circumstances, when up pops myself at the end of her fairy tale telling with a battery megaphone and surround by folk who really were concerned locals acting as partime minders. Couldn't have the the disruption, disrupted could we.
...and proceed to tear her fairy tale apart with the aid of copies of confidential documents and memos. Where apon the meeting came to a halt with herself and the rest of the lying toerags exiting stage left, red faced in embarrassment to the jeers and catcalls of liars and whatever.
...and for those who were the hard of hearing there were the abundant copies of same paperwork liberally distributed throughout to consult with.
My, I was amazed at the behavior of many of yon folk attending following those revelations.
Shite hit the fan right enough and the polis were called.
Still it had the desired result.:-)
Didn't it just.
Wrong on one account SR. I was in the BBC QT audience once in 2005. Although the questions - as you say - are solicited in advance and presorted, nothing is edited out. I even found it a little pedantic that the "Hello and welcome to Edinburgh" bit is genuinely said before running the titles realtime. Although I don't remember Alex Salmond or George Galloway saying anything particularly shocking, it was all left in (including some very irritable coments by Dimbleby to a sound man in his ear).
Tea and sandwiches beforehand were great (and I got Dimbo's autograph after the show).
Personally I prefer 'This Week', but that is for the saddoes; QT is as mainstream as a politics show can get nowadays, hence "flagship".
.
...and as for the BNP;
Ah'll spare ye the blushes by refraining from commenting on that organisation.
Enough to suggest that the best part of themselves slid doon their mithers legs and was discarded when they born.
.
.
.
Mek I attended a QT programme from Perth back around 1998, and lots of it was cut. The recording lasted from 7.00pm until around 8.45pm if I remember. Anyway chunks of it were cut.
I prefer the Politics Show because I get a look at UK and Scottish politics. Also the STV programme is very good.
Aye, yer right about the mainstream, MQ.
News squeak and sulphine and obliging.
...and as ah've already written, Just like Westmidden, really.
.
Oh wisnaeme, I wish I'd been there. These days public meetings are just propaganda and we still attend.
Hi SR
Interesting article, and anyone who has worked in the broadcasting game knows damn well that any and every program can and will be edited, as required by the producer/s and/or the boss.The punter in the street would never know unless the editing was totally amateur, and they don't get near an editing suite !
Next, there seems to be a lot of vested interests trying to make sure, by miss-direction, obfuscation, and in a couple of instances,riot and insurrection, to make sure that the BNP does not get a hearing about ANYTHING.
Those taking this route should understand this GIVES the BNP publicity they would never get otherwise, but a lot of people have voted for the BNP and many more will yet.
Why?, look at the ones "protesting",
some lablibcon politicians who are already not popular with the electorate, a lot of PC apparatchiks, and a rentamob of what appears to be,judging by appearances and the signs they carry to be hardline lefties,Radical Islamists, illegal immigrants,etc, who are doing their cause no good at,all.
Like a lot of people, I would like to hear, without rabid interruptions just what the BNP are saying, all of it; so far people only hear about immigration and supposed racialist policies,and they seem to like it!!!
How about giving the BNP the same chance to say their piece as YOU expect for you're sales pitch.
Carry on as is happening now and the people may decide they are being kept from something they might like, and will vote accordingly.Maybe because they do not like the intolerance of those complaining about intolerance !!.
D.
On the minor point of BBC expenses; I have experienced them arriving in provincial England for a few months filming and the first thing they do is set up temporary accounts with hotels, restaurants, taxi companies and suchlike so that as much as possible of their wining and dining and general swanning around goes to Central Bookings rather than individual expense accounts.
Apogee, I've just watched QT and it was a shameful performance from all the politicians plus Ms Greer.
The rent-a-mob didn't impress either and I only saw one person who looked as if they were over 50. Usually that audience is made up of a balance of age groups.
I've no time for Nick Griffin and his ilk because he does not have the courage of his convictions, having changed quite radically to suit main stream politics, but I'm sure his party gained a few votes after than terrible display from the panel on QT.
Yes banned and they refuse to publish these expenses.
They live in the best hotels too, no expense spared.
It's easy to spend other people's money though banned I should think. Sadly I've never had the chance.
Ah'm harmless for the most part these days, Subrosa. But in times past I was all for causing unaccountable cretins as much grief and mischief as possible.
...and I did. They even gave me a rendition flight once. Much good it did them. The ensueing publicity swelled the fighting fund, gained unprecedented sympathy amongst folk worldwide to support and greatly increased momentum of a just cause.
...and a deep personal satisfaction that my efforts over years contributed towards a better and more caring community that is Scotland.
However, I digress.
The bloodthirsty, ancient Roman circus spectacle we were treated to on BBC Question Time was to say the least, deeply distastful.
It merely made a martyr out of the cretin with the baying for his blood.
...and like that Roman civilisation of yor, the 'values' displayed were merely an entertainment to distract folk's attention away from other concerns and hardships in their every day lives.
...and from the doings of our lairds and masters.
It was not only distasteful, it was obscene. To think that our 'advanced' civilisation has not travelled that far from the matyrdom of christians and others for the entertainment of.
...and we all know what history taught to us about the resurgence of God botherers and their various beg to differ, off shoots, don't we?
Then there was that "my struggle" fella and his 'martyrdom' that turned into the great crusade aginst humanity.
Intolerance begats intolerance and division, that's for sure and yon was a prime example of it.
.
Ah wisnaeme, it's good to look back and see the passion we had and how we stuck to our principles isn't it.
Great description of QT tonight. It was quite disgusting really. Spitting and nigh on hysterial politicians spewing hate - that's no way to win any argument.
I actually felt ashamed of all the panelists and their behaviour. These people, we are told, are the creme de la creme. The tory woman did bring up the point that immigration had been ignored by labour but that's the only short piece of actual common sense I heard.
This wasn't a 'flagship' political programme, it was the Nick Griffin Show.
The rent-a-mob audience showed how rehearsed everything was and do tell me if you saw more than one person who looked over 50.
Intolerance begats intolerance indeed.
I never watch QT, or indeed any TV politics programme - for obvious reasons. I'm worried by any statement that begins ' Yes, we believe in free speech, except for...' followed by a list. You either believe in freedom of speech, or you don't. Clearly many politicians don't but, hey, that's not news.
It is rather sickening to watch people like Peter Hain, or indeed any of the ruling mobsters, pontificating on the evils of the BNP. BNP policy is to keep nasty foreigners out of the country, while the explicit policy of Hain's party is to murder them by the million before they get here. Hain apparently believes that this is the moral high ground.
*Some* of the fault lies with the main political parties, including the SNP's dalliances with Islamism and Jacobite Jihadism.
Also, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to the BBC, did you not know?
PS Did anyone else think Griffin fancied Bonnie Greer?
No Alec, I didn't know the FOI Act didn't apply to the BBC. How did they manage that one?
Not even MPs managed to push that through this year - they were found out just in time.
I agree with most of what's been said, SR, but would add that anything written by James MacIntyre is heavily biased and extremely economical with the truth, and some of his ravings styled in the Damien McBride school of journalism have had to be withdrawn, accompanied by profuse apologies for the "article" ever having appeared.
Aye I knew that BS but somehow this comment rang true. Maybe I'm more of a fool than I think. ;)
Post a Comment