Hi folks, been away from the board for a while but here's something that's been bugging me recently. I still don't have an idiot box (haven't owned one since 2004) but lately a few people I know have been posting clips on social media from Question Time (or been posting about how "awesome" some panellist has been on it and how they "owned" some other panellist).

These posts have led me to view the clip of the incident in question on Youtube or sometimes watch the entire show on BBC's iplayer. I always end up regretting doing so, as I'm quickly reminded why I stopped watching this smug, middle class sheeple wankfest in the first place.

For starters there is nothing spontaneous about it. Although many people to this day still think it is broadcast live, it is pre-recorded several hours earlier. The audience members are individually invited by BBC researchers after applying via the website and giving their reasons for attending. The BBC like to claim that the audiences are carefully selected to represent the nation - but if these self-important mediocrities truly represented the whole UK, sales of The Guardian would be about 45 million, as opposed to around 250,000.

The questions all have to be submitted in advance, enabling the show's producers to weed out any questions that they don't want to be asked. They also stage a mock debate beforehand, which they tell the audience is to help people "warm up". The real reason they do it is so that they can watch out for anyone they deem to be a weirdo, who will then be ignored if they stick their hand up during recording of the show itself.

But watching the show again, I've realised that what really bugs me more than anything else is the constant bloody clapping. It's like the X Factor for politicians.

The most braindead of all, of course, are the ones who still believe that politicians in one particular party are working for them and so they dutifully applaud whatever crap they come out with. However, the BBC always invite a couple of guests, usually a celebrity and a journalist or campaigner, e.g. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, to act as some sort of "voice of the people".

Someone was posting this week about Charlotte Church and praising her for holding her own against a bunch of grey male politicians and saying how "refreshing" it was to hear in a debate about the Leveson inquiry about how all the press are owned by corporations and don't represent us.

This is what I said in response:

"I can understand why you find it 'refreshing' to hear someone state something we already know amid so much shite on the TV, Clare, but I have to say that I find Question Time to be a very patronising format. The audience are mainly there as applause fodder, to clap like seals for either a politician who they think speaks for them or for the token non-politician who is picked to be the 'voice of the people' for the week. Good on CC for pointing out the obvious, but are we so far removed from the decision-making process that we're supposed to be grateful that our weekly appointed voice of the people said it? Apparently so. "

So anyway, please don't buy me a gift set of Question Time DVDs for Christmas, folks.

dreamweaver wrote:
Good call and welcome back

Noted

dreamweaver wrote:
Fuck!

QT and it's sister show Any Questions are classic BBC. Whilst maintaining the pretense of free and open debate, they are really there to stifle any real and meaningful debate. Rather like politics itself, the spectrum is very very narrow. Transparent bullshit.

Yes, it was funny to see Griffin looking like a frightened rabbit caught in the headlights, but that was hardly a regular edition of QT, was it? More like a show trial, albeit one for a rather obnoxious individual.

The regular format involves the panel being asked questions about topical issues of the week and each getting a roughly equal say. This, by contrast, was a (successful) attempt to stitch up Nick Griffin and the BNP. If you recall, the BBC was taking a lot of flak at the time for inviting Griffin onto the show. They skewed the format so that they could say "hey, we're good guys really" to their critics.

So I see that episode as an exception that proves the rule. Had they allowed QT to stick to the regular format, which Griffin would undoubtedly have prepared for, it would have been a nice PR job for the BNP. Not that this lets Griffin off the hook, as any would-be leaders should be able to think on their feet, so here is Mr Pink playing the world's smallest violin for him:



However, the point is that the usual format is a nice line in stage-managed PR for the Establishment parties. They couldn't afford to be seen to be doing that for the likes of Griffin, hence the deliberate change of style.

dreamweaver wrote:
LMAO!!

It is an undeniable wankfest, but it's not the worst thing on the BBC.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
It is pure, concentrated evil. If anything is worse than that on the BBC, I'm even gladder that I don't have an idiot box.

dreamweaver wrote:
Tbh the only things I watch are online and that consists of The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad. I watched Question Time on the XBox a while back and it was a bit meh.