The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state:
...'Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth? [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world??
The Commentator also has an article on this 'questionable' Question Time time:
I especially like one of the comments below the article: Marty Caine UKIP • 7 hours ago − They will need get David Bellamy to chair BBC Question Time soon with all those Labour plants in the audience
A new low for "neutral" BBC Question Time We have all suspected the Beeb, with its institutionalised left-leanings, of occasionally fixing the audience, but last week’s was a tour de force for the “neutral” broadcaster
by Simon Miller on 11 March 2013 12:11
Did you see Question Time last week? If you did, you’ll know that either the vetters for the audience no longer care about subterfuge or they really don’t give a damn about political balance.
We have all suspected the Beeb, with its institutionalised left-leanings, of occasionally fixing the audience, but last week’s was a tour de force for the “neutral” broadcaster.
A woman in the audience asked Ukip’s Diane James about the party’s “disgusting” immigration policy.
So far, so what? There are many people in the country that share the view that Ukip is a party of racists and whether you agree with them or not, that’s an issue for having a multitude of voices in a democratic society.
No, the thing with this is that the woman in question is Amy Rutland.
Rutland happens to be the South-East Policy Co-ordinator for the Labour Party. She tweeted last week that her followers should not miss out on Question Time as they would “see [her] rip into that disgusting UKIP woman!".
Again, you might think, so what? Can’t activists go on Question Time? Yes, indeed they can. But surely if they were actively involved in the Eastleigh By-election, and talked with Claire Hawkins and Stephen Twigg about early years provision and secondary education concerns with students, should the BBC really provide them a platform without due notification that they are not ordinary members of the public?
Oh, and of course Stephen Twigg was the Labour MP who sat on the panel…
If you weren’t aware of who Rutland is, it is even harder now since her Linked-In account has been suspended and her Twitter account is now gated. But that’s the beauty of this here internet thing – you can get to the facts a lot quicker than relying on the BBC, who, incidentally, I have asked about the vetting policies on Question Time. I am waiting a reply.
Last night (7.xi.13) was another blatant example. About 25% of the British people who bother to vote, vote for UKIP (depending on the election). Yet the BBC managed to get a QT audience almost all of whom were prepared (and allowed) to deride and disagree with everything Nigel Farage said.
The rest of the panel joined in the derision and interruption, so much so that the programme became unwatchable as four people shouting at once became incomprehensible.
Considering that Farage was outnumbered 5 to 1 on the panel, I thought he held it together very well, and out of all of them will probably have benefited the most from it. Considering he's basically the closest to being a real Conservative, one would have thought the Tory representative would have been less aggressive towards him. As it is, I think she probably lost a lot of votes for her party with her ridiculous outbursts, clearly trying to demonize Farage, but succeeding more in making herself appear a pathetic and desperate individual.
There's more about their tussle in this article. I noticed when you look up the combined population of Bulgaria and Romania, one of the points of contention, the figure shown is 29 million as Farage stated, and not the 27.5 that she claimed. In any event, she was only trying to deflect his point by focussing on the least of what he said.
I notice that Boston is a Conservative consistuency, but that's never stopped the BBC before from making sure they get a majority left wing audience in. Judging by the Tory Soubry's reaction to Nigel, I'm wondering how Tory supporters will want to vote in future.
GussieG 4:17 PM on 08/11/2013 Having looked at QT again, I am more than bemused as to where the BBC got the audience from. I have lived here all my life and think I probably recognised 6 people at most. I was always under the impression that the EU was formed purely as a trade group. How come the members have let them interfere in virtually every aspect of our lives, not just immigration? Personally, I have nothing against regulated immigration, as the UK needs more workers. However, I do object to all and sundry coming when lots have no intention of working, just here to scrounge. Hats off to the foreign gent last night who stated that many immigrants don't want to integrate. That alone should be telling the politicians something!!!
On a slightly different QT rant, remember when Nick Griffin was on the panel ? OK I know he is not the flavour of the month, but it was like a witch hunt when he was on. DD was very rude and arrogant to him, the audience were booing him before he had even taken his seat. He had every right to be there and speak, regardless of his political beliefs
Why do beeb have so called "celebs" on the panel. Nothing against showbiz people, but most of them live on another planet. A couple of these I detest are Will Self and Germaine Greer. My most hated one quite recently was Russell Brand. What a plonker !
Not just celebs - but left wing mindset celebs. Simple reason for having them - they spout the BBC agenda, without making the BBC appear to be doing it. I agree with you completely about Brand and Self. What's scary is that there are always people in the audience who applaud their rubbish.
I'm glad you share my sentiments re the celebs. Sometimes I think it is just me who feels like this. There was another lady (with a slightly dark skin, if we are allowed to say that) ! who was on QT about a month back. Very left-wing, can't remember her first name, but I think her surname was also Greer. She got right up my nose ! Made me smile cos DD got her name wrong and called her Germaine ! She had a greasy chip on her shoulder.
If she dislikes Britain as much as she made out on QT, then why doesn't she sod off to another country !
Last Edit: Nov 11, 2013 14:42:36 GMT by dance2drop
She was such a regular feature on Question Time, and people who never really thought about the BBC agenda couldn't understand why, that I think is the reason the BBC realised they had better look for others to make similar noises.
Mehdi Hasan anyone?
Last Edit: Nov 12, 2013 14:59:05 GMT by Teddy Bear
The former editor of this newspaper has the loveliest manners of any living Englishman, but even Charles struggled just a teeny bit to keep a straight face during some of the Welsh chanteuse’s interesting views.
"There was strong evidence that a few Tories had somehow snuck in and they were even allowed to join in the discussion"
When La Church explained that the UK having Trident not only provided no deterrent, but made us less safe, Charles’s head swivelled in amazement to the left; he wore the stoical yet infinitely pained expression of an archdeacon who has just detected a fart at Matins.
After the show, Church complained on Twitter:
In fact, there was strong evidence that a few Tories had somehow snuck in and they were even allowed to join in the discussion. Praise be!
Could my column about my recent experience with a highly partisan audience on Radio 4’s Any Questions have had some effect at the BBC? I was pretty amazed to appear on a panel in true-Blue Cambridgeshire with an audience straight out of Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington.
Views I expressed, which most British people would regard as mainstream, were jeered or greeted with sullen silence, while a representative of the universally derided Corbyn shadow cabinet met with rapturous applause.
Well, dear reader, your reaction to that column was positively deafening. “Until three or four years ago, I never missed listening either to Any Questions or Question Time,” wrote Ann, “but now I turn both off immediately because of the audience reaction on both programmes. "The hard-Left bias regularly displayed is a disgrace to the BBC, and I do not find either Dimbleby at all sympathetic to anything resembling a centrist point of view, let alone a centre-right. I may say I found the same political bias in all the election programmes that I watched unless chaired by Andrew Marr or Andrew Neil, who are now the only BBC commentators worth listening to.”
Several readers who live in Dorchester told me Any Questions was recently broadcast from there, and the town was still in shock after the audience was hijacked by “booing yobs” who were in no way representative of the Tory-voting locals.
"Telegraph readers are disgusted by the blatant bias in BBC audiences"
Poor Catherine was making blackberry jam when I made my ill-fated AQ appearance. “I really don’t know which was boiling up more – me, or the jam,” she said. “I was appalled at the reception you received from the audience.
Even if you had stated that Stalin was a good fellow, the audience would have been biased against you. It was a very poor piece of broadcasting and unless the BBC addresses the balance of the political make-up of the Any Questions audience, it ought to cease airing it.”
I got scores of emails saying exactly the same thing. Telegraph readers are disgusted by the blatant bias in BBC audiences. It’s literally a turn-off.
Why, they wonder, are they paying the licence fee when their political views are either not represented at all or treated as grotesquely aberrant? “Who won the bloody election anyway?” demanded Dave from Eastleigh. “Why should I pay to put up with the Left-wing ‘centre ground’ of the BBC?”
Quite so, Dave. If the BBC wishes to hang onto its licence fee, it will have to try a lot harder to represent the feelings of all the British people, not just the ones it agrees with.
At present, the BBC is only answerable to itself in deciding its standards and coverage. How does it measure up to what you consider good quality, and impartial and unbiased reporting as required by its charter? All TV viewers in the UK are forced by law to pay for this 'service'. Do you believe that what is received truly 'serves' the society, - or merely increases the problems within it?
Your perceptions of BBC output are important and welcome. Register and activate your account to be able to post