23 October 2009

Shame on the BBC

Last night's much over-hyped Question Time was a public disgrace. There was nothing wrong about inviting the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, to participate in a panel discussion format which usually excludes minority views. But the format - and the conduct - of the programme was completely changed in a way designed to turn rational discussion into a form of televised bear-baiting. Instead of a range of contemporary issues - the government's appalling economic record, rising unemployment, the MP's expenses and bankers bonuses scandals just for instance - every single question was related to BNP policies and Griffin's own opinions - past, present, and future.

He might be an unsavoury individual with barmy and indefensible notions - but that's not what Question Time is supposed to be about. And the chairman David Dimbleby made absolutely no effort at all to promote rational debate over a wide range of issues. All we got was a barrage of well-rehearsed personal abuse from panel members and audience alike.

The BNP might be a party which is built around a single (and to most people) unpleasant idea - but the best way of exposing that fact would have been to discuss a range of topics, and let Griffin expose his own intellectual deficiences. As it was, the bloke's ended up with what seems to me a perfectly legitimate grounds for complaint against the BBC for orchestrating a witch hunt. With millions and millions of taxpayers' money pouring into prop them up, they still manage to make a bollox of things, don't they.


Amy said...

It is unfortunate that there are people with the same views as Griffin. They should not be allowed to be in politics.

MANTEX said...

You might be right Amy that it's unfortunate people have views like Griffin's. But when he commands sufficient support to represent them in a parliament, then they have a legitimate right to be heard.

And if we don't agree with their views, we must argue against them, in the hope that most people will support us and defeat what we see as prejudiced views, unfounded assertions, and illogical arguments.

That's democracy.