This morning, the intensity reached fever pitch among the Righteous:
A BBC presenter has attacked the decision to invite the leader of the British National Party (BNP) on to BBC1's Question Time tonight, warning that the move "completely contradicts" rules on impartiality and would erode the public's trust in the Corporation.Hmm, which one? One of the big political presenters – Huw Edwards? Jeremy Vine?
Michael Rosen, the former children's laureate…Ah…
…accused the broadcaster of "hiding behind" the BNP's European election victories to justify its decision, adding that executives "were relishing" the ratings that the broadcast is expected to receive. "It is failing in the very impartiality that it claims to be trying to uphold," he said.He didn’t elaborate on how allowing an elected party member onto a tv debate would do that, which is just as well.
He added that the BBC's championing of the "trust agenda", introduced after controversy over a documentary about the Queen, had been ignored in pushing ahead with Mr Griffin's appearance. "It will lose my trust and that of others if it goes ahead with this," he said. "The BBC is not just any ordinary organisation. It is like a public place – we all own it and need to be a part of it. It has a responsibility to everyone.And so are the people that have voted for them.
"They make this very clear when you work for them. If I were to say anything remotely similar to the things Nick Griffin has said and will say tonight, I would not be allowed on. The BNP's whole notion of reversing immigration rests on the notion that many people shouldn't be here ... the people that the BNP target are licence-fee payers."
Quite a dilemma, eh, Mikey?
He added: "The BBC is obsessed with putting things 'through compliance', to ensure no one will find programmes politically, sexually or socially offensive. I have been stopped from reading a poem that contained one swear word before. Yet while they go into palpitations over things Jonathan Ross says, they are allowing Nick Griffin airtime to say things that will offend millions."Because no-one voted for you or Jonathon Ross. You are just employees on contract.
This man, like it or not, is an elected official, and is therefore entitled to present his case.
What are you all worried about? The BNP will likely condemn themselves out of their own mouths, so why not let them speak? After all, as DumbJon points out, the creme de la creme of diversity is aligned against them. Surely Sayeeds Warsi will have no trouble swaying us all?
But it seems that some aren’t so sure, and would rather subvert democracy:
Hundreds of protesters are expected to gather outside the BBC tonight, and police are poised for violent clashes. The programme may be moved to a secret location should it prove too dangerous to ferry guests to the studio in BBC Television Centre, west London.It shouldn’t prove ‘too dangerous’ – the slightest hint from the UAF and other rent-a-mob scum intent on undermining democracy and the riot gear and water cannon should be deployed.
Weyman Bennett, joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, said: "The BBC will be responsible for any increase in racist attacks that take place after they have gone ahead with this."No, they won’t. The people that commit them will be responsible.
Or would you accept being held responsible for the actions of your members?
No? Thought not…
"He didn’t elaborate [I DID, BUT YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT THIS IS A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT DOESN'T PRINT EVERYTHING THAT A PERSON SAYS. THE PERSON WHO DIDN'T ELABORATE WAS THE JOURNALIST.]on how allowing an elected party member onto a tv debate would do that, which is just as well.
ReplyDeleteHe added that the BBC's championing of the "trust agenda", introduced after controversy over a documentary about the Queen, had been ignored in pushing ahead with Mr Griffin's appearance. "It will lose my trust and that of others if it goes ahead with this," he said. "The BBC is not just any ordinary organisation. It is like a public place – we all own it and need to be a part of it. It has a responsibility to everyone.
"They make this very clear when you work for them. If I were to say anything remotely similar to the things Nick Griffin has said and will say tonight, I would not be allowed on. The BNP's whole notion of reversing immigration rests on the notion that many people shouldn't be here ... the people that the BNP target are licence-fee payers."
[I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT - PERHAPS FAILING - THAT THERE ISN'T FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE BBC FOR ANY PRESENTER OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR. IF EITHER A PRESENTER OR A CONTRIBUTOR MAKES A RACIST COMMENT OR AN OBSCENE COMMENT IT IS EITHER REMOVED/CUT OR IT IS IMMEDIATELY 'MEDIATED' IE COMMENTED ON DECLARING THAT IT IS AN UNACCEPTABLE COMMENT OR THAT IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF AN UNACCEPTABLE COMMENT THAT IS ONLY BEING WAY OF DOING THINGS - EXCEPT ON THIS OCCASION.]
I'm afraid my post lost a couple of lines at the end. I was simply saying that racist or obscene comments are only allowed as examples. If one gets through, then it is immediately stated as being unacceptable. That's how the BBC does it.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian is reporting that the Unite Against Fascism protesters outside the BBC are chanting this charming ditty...
ReplyDelete♫ "Build a bonfire, build a bonfire, put Nick Griffin on the top, put the Nazis in the middle, and burn the fucking lot." ♪
Makes you wonder who the real fascists are doesn't it.
"I DID, BUT YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT THIS IS A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT DOESN'T PRINT EVERYTHING THAT A PERSON SAYS. "
ReplyDeleteYikes! Volume down, please. This isn't one of your large-print kiddie books...
So, feel free to elaborate here. Don't keep us all in suspense.
"I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT - PERHAPS FAILING - THAT THERE ISN'T FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE BBC FOR ANY PRESENTER OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR."
No, you were trying to make the point that you don't see why this man should be given a platform 'to offend' when you and Ross are not allowed such license.
Well, the point is that you aren't in the same position as an elected MEP.
And when did people get a 'right' never to have to hear anything that 'offends' them? Where does that end?
"Makes you wonder who the real fascists are doesn't it."
Not really. I think they've made it pretty clear, haven't they?
"If one gets through, then it is immediately stated as being unacceptable. That's how the BBC does it."
ReplyDeleteWell, indeed. I remember them saying it straight after the news report about Gordon Brown's 'British Jobs for British Workers' speech and..
Oh, wait...
Michael Rosen
ReplyDeleteI don't quite see your point. IF Griffin makes a racist or obscene remark (and I personally think it very unlikely) then surely he will be censored the same as anyone else?
BTW I disagree hugely with much of your political outlook, but thanks for the books, truly.
Another thought actually Michael. How are you with Tom Paulin calling for Jewish settlers to "be shot in the head"? What sanction did he face from the BBC? How's your trust barometer reacting to that?
ReplyDeleteI watched it, and I reckon Griffin came across badly. You could tell that he isn't used to this.
ReplyDeleteBut if there is one thing I will take away from that programme, it was Griffin's insistence that the English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh, are the indigenous races of the UK, to the same extent that Maoris are the indigenous race of New Zealand. And not one of his fellow panellists was even prepared to allow that we do, as a race, exist.
In fact their argument that there are no indigenous Britons. No race, no history, no culture, no heritage.
And the audience cheered.
In fact their argument that there are no indigenous Britons. No race, no history, no culture, no heritage.
ReplyDeleteYou could make a bit of case out of that. The original inhabitants of the British Isles have been invaded and mingled with so often that it's hard to say what's indigenous. Pre Norman? Pre Viking? Pre Saxon? Pre Roman? I've met a few Cornish people who would jokingly claim that the nearest to indigenous Brits are them and the Welsh, and everyone else should fuck off. Where do you draw the line? It's not at remotely as clear cut as it is here with indigenous Australians, and even then many who describe themselves as indigenous Australians have as much European ancestry. Bottom line: Griffin bats a sticky wicket when he starts talking about 'indigenous' races when what he probably means is 'nationalities'.
@ Michael Rosen:
The BBC is not just any ordinary organisation. It is like a public place – we all own it and need to be a part of it.
Does that exclude people whose opinions we don't like? Or are you again referring to this point (caps removed):
... there isn't freedom of speech in the BBC for any presenter or contributor. If either a presenter or a contributor makes a racist comment or obscene comment...
Sorry to stop you there but the Beeb broadcasts plenty of content that a small minority find obscene, a fair bit that many find obscene and possibly a small quantity that outrages nearly everyone.
... it is either removed/cut or mediated... except on this occasion.
Three points. 1 - if this occasion is the beginning of a trend then I for one am pleased, and if you feel you're not free to speak on the BBC you should be too. They can't easily deny you something they allowed Griffin. 2 - employers get to dictate terms, and if BBC employees feel unable to say something that they want to get out then they should leave. If enough do so then the BBC would be forced to rethink its policies on free speech. 3 - Other outlets exist. Presumably the BBC can't dictate what you say on your website, though they can threaten future employment if they don't like what you say. Even that doesn't prevent anonymous blogging/tweeting.
Finally, to repeat what's been said elsewhere, Griffin and his type have been gagged before and it just hands them ammunition. Remember him walking around on election night and playing the victim with masking tape over his mouth? Want him to be able to keep that up? I don't.
Of course, Michael Rosen is happy to appear alongside certain totalitarians like Respect and the SWP, and whilst I know he has criticised anti-semitism on the left in the past he makes comments of his own that are questionable:
ReplyDeleteI'll let David T explain it
A simple Google of Michael Rosen will show where his sympathies lie.
ReplyDelete'... the people that the BNP target are licence-fee payers." And so are the people that have voted for them.'
ReplyDeleteJulia, I think your rejoinder to Michael Rosen here explains succinctly why the BBC allowed the QT circus to go ahead last night. Had they denied Griffin (or Andrew Brons) the right to appear, as MEPs, the BNP could have urged their voters (nearly a million of them) to withold their licence fees in protest.Given that many BNP supporters are on low incomes I would have expected the great majority to jump at the chance, both to save £140, AND embarrass the Beeb at the same time.
It is unfortunate that there are people with the same views as Griffin. They should not be allowed to be in politics.
ReplyDelete