I see that the BBC has admitted that QUESTION TIME is biased;
The political sway of the audience on Question Time is governed by the leanings of the area where the episode is filmed, the BBC has admitted. Director-general Mark Thompson has revealed that the audience is selected to reflect the voter make-up in the region from which each edition of the topical debate show is broadcast – rather than the political landscape of Britain as a whole.
I don’t accept that this “admission” is adequate. Sure, the composition of the audience may be skewed in the way Thompson says – so MANY Labour leaning cities and towns to visit that neatly explains the howling moon bats that constitute the core of so many of the weekly audiences – but that is only HALF the story. It is the bias that is manifest in the composition of the panel, in the selection of the questions, in the behaviour of the Chairman, that so offends. Yes the raving leftist audience is a concern but Thompson is fooling no one with this deflection. In my view/
Strange how they also change their regional accents. Carrot crunchers from Norfolk with cockney ‘lefty’ accents for instance!
And similar disparities in Swansea.
Does this mean that London was a largely Islamic City in 2001, judging by the BBCs Islamist packed audience, picked to attack the U.S, and Philip Lader in particular on their infamous “Question Time” 9/11 edition?
At the time, London and the BBC were largely anti-American, and thought that the 30 people on my street deserved to be murdered like that because of US foreign policy (which policy? Take your pick, really).
That episode accurately reflected the attitude of the majority of people at the BBC, not to mention quite a few British people of my acquaintance, most of whom lived or worked in London.
David, fortunately we don’t all live in London and are therefore not infected with whatever virus or genetic aberration that afflicts all socialists. Consequently, we don’t harbour irrational hatred of ourselves or our friends.
I know that, john. And thanks. But it did come as a shock to the system for me. I knew about the generic anti-American attitude in the UK and Europe, having remembered all the anti-nuke protests and all that crap, the hatred of Reagan (by the same people who celebrated when the Berlin Wall came down, naturally), and all the rest of it.
But I’m still not sure what was more shocking: the statements that innocent civilians – from Dominican busboys to African-American electricians to Hispanic secretaries to Jewish bankers – deserved to die, along with the even more bizarre statements that this act of mass murder was the only way the downtrodden could make their voices be heard.
And I’m not even talking about the QT audience. I heard the above from people I know personally. It was all reflected in that audience, as well as an BBC coverage. I didn’t know about the QT episode at the time, but I was in London not long after this and did see and hear about some of the news coverage and what was discussed on the radio. It was this plus an episode of MoneyBox that woke me up to the problem of BBC bias, the very real influence they have on so much.
Mate, don’t worry true Brits love Americans… we are the same people mate, and Londonistan is no longer an English city; it has become a foul cesspit of ethnic ‘enrichers’, Muslim terrorists and upper class Lefties who don’t mix outside of their little Knightsbridge wine bar fraternity. You visit any place outside of London and Edinburgh (two very left-wing cities) and you’ll get a warm welcome. I lover America and class you as my cousins.
Judging by the way my granddaughter has been taught about the Vietnam and Iraq wars, look no further than our socialist teachers.
“At the time, London…largely anti-American”
If you think that a majority of Londoners were happy that New York had been attacked you do not know what you are talking about – the UK is not France.
The UK is not France? Thank Christ for that – I live in France, and would hate it to be anything like the Former UK…
I can only go by personal experience. If I’ve over-generalized from several anecdotes, I apologize.
I am sorry you had that experience David (there are of course some anti-British and some anti-American currents in both our respective countries) but I all can tell you is that in my own limited experience it was entirely the opposite – it was as if a family member had been attacked.
Rest assured you’ve definitely over generalised, David. The UK is not anti-US, never mind how some here (bBC, likes of CND, etc) have always tried to portray otherwise. The British anti-US thing is utter mythical bollox!
It’s not totally mythical, though. There’s plenty of it still around.
There are some that are either left-minded or are stupid enough to follow the BBC lead. Moderates and democracy lovers who remember who was the main defender of Europe against the evils of the USSR, are still happy that the USA are our truest friends.
No need to apologise as you are broadly correct. It depends who you mix with but I know many people who are anti-American for no other reason than they themselves are left-wing. They have to be anti-American to function in their social groups.
As an example, I was working in an office of lefties on 11/9 and their first reaction to the first plane was ‘stoopid yanks can’t fly planes.’ After the second plane they were cock-a-hoop that the ‘Evil Empire’ had been dealt a blow.
They were less happy after I pointed out that the majority of the people in the buildings would have been ordinary office workers like them and that many would not even be American. The hostility I received afterwards was astonishing. I left soon after that as it became obvious as I was about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit…
So, no need to apologise. There are some people who are just wicked (in the real sense of the word) and they are mostly left-wingers.
I once saw an online forum where an American lady wrote about an extraordinarily abusive response (invoking various anti American remarks) from an eBay seller that had ripped her off.
She remarked that that the British never used to be so rude and impolite – and she wondered what had happened to them?
I’m guessing that the seller was a newcomer to the British Isles, and that the American lady wasn’t aware of the new multicultural make up of the UK!
Actually, I’d say the audiences – ideally – should reflect the overall attitude of the city they’re in on a given week. I’ve always assumed that’s the whole point of the show. Ideally.
But this is obviously rigging it to conform with…what? Some poll? An arbitrary snapshot of voting tendencies? The composition of the local council and party affiliation of their MP? If so, doesn’t this disenfranchise some people who might not conform to the majority? Screw you, license fee payer, if you don’t fit the story we want to tell this week, I guess.
This also explains why the producers allow in activists from other areas.
But judging from the audiences, nearly all of England is a Labour constituency. So you have to wonder just how they do it.
But judging from the audiences, nearly all of England is a Labour constituency. So you have to wonder just how they do it.
I agree, I have yet to witness (although I eschew the shite fest these days anyway) any perfectly reasonable Conservative statement about ANY subject given any applause whereas dross and venom infested spittle is greeted with rousing applause. This is why DV is spot on to question Thompson and to call this a deflection from wider bias: “The political sway of the audience on Question Time is governed by the leanings of the area where the episode is filmed” is a weak admission designed to not create any polemic at all because its sounds reasonable.
Yes, and I also agree with DV that the makeup of the audience is only half the story, and Thompson’s apologia doesn’t touch the the rest of DV’s points.
“Director-general Mark Thompson has revealed that the audience is selected to reflect the voter make-up in the region from which each edition of the topical debate show is broadcast”
Only two questions here…
Firstly, I thought people had to apply to be a member of the audience of BBC shows. So how on earth does the BBC select its audience to fit such a profile – or does it just contact a few ‘cronies’ in the area and ask them to pack any audience with their mates ? I can’t imagine, for instance, that one ‘scientific’ screening criterion for a seat at any of these shows is set out on the application form as ” Are you left-leaning or right-leaning in your views ? ”
Secondly – what proportion of these shows are held in areas defined as ‘left-leaning’ or ‘right-leaning’ and is the BBC trying to tell us that no particular group can possibly sway the composition of the audience in any of these locations ?
So, will the BBC guarantee, in future, a balanced mix of political leaning locations for these ‘shows’ and a definite bias in the audience to the right in every location deemed to be in any area deemed to be one of the ‘right-leaning’ areas chosen.
Or is the usual ‘balanced and un-biased’ defence of the BBC just so much bull-cr*p as it always is.
I think we can gather a good picture from what a few people here have told us about producers asking them to submit questions beforehand. If the question doesn’t suit the Narrative they’re going for that week (or, supposedly, they recently covered that issue), the supplicant is asked to have a re-think and try again. Otherwise, they’re barred.
Yep, David – that sounds about right for creating a scientifically-balanced audience in a scientifically-balanced number of locations with different political views…….. (I really wasn’t aware of the ‘selection criteria’ you mentioned, but it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest).
So, the current ‘narrative’ is ant-government, which probably is reflected in the QT audiences now (the BBC would probably say)….but, given that the ‘narrative’ towards the last few years of the previous Labour government was increasingly and extremely anti-government, then presumably the audiences around the country might have reflected that…. ?
Or do I get the feeling that my previous description (‘bull-cr*p’) is probably more descriptive of the BBC’s position in this respect ?
It does beg the question of who really drives the agenda for the show. They audience members do ask the questions (read off cards or not), but from what I can tell, only questions pre-selected by the producers are put in the stack from which Dimbleby chooses.
I guess it’s not a conspiracy since I’m sure audience members ask enough up-to-date topical questions that the producers already have enough to work with for an agenda that they don’t need to try anything else. But if you want to ask a question they don’t want asked, you’re not allowed in. That can’t be right.
@Richard D:
In answer to that question, please allow me to refer you to long time BBC journalist Peter Sissons, when he stated:
@ “By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent,” he said. “Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there'”‘
Hmmm….Does the BBC print arm otherwise known as the Guardian newspaper decide the “big questions” of the day one wonders, via it’s thought provoking pages that virtually no Beeboid can ever put down?
To be selected to be in the audience you have to fill out an entry form. On the 2 most recent occasions where I participated, the key question asked was whether I supported the Iraq war.
This ensures the BBC achieves their desired balance, and as DP indicated, from there the QT producer decides which questions will be submitted to the panel.
Anyway we have all seen Dimblebore lean to the left, that is when Harriet the Haradon is tugging heavily on his sleeve, indicating what he should do.
You mean this?
All I got was a message saying that the video is no longer available because the uploader has closed their Youtube account.
Hmm, I have updated the video link.
Try this link.
Thanks
Funny how Thompson can own up to any bias at all now he is off. He is presumably giving confession before moving on. The admission is a laughable distraction to the real process of audience and panel selection which, to anybody watching, has been blatantly obvious since Robin Day stepped down as host. Who are they trying to fool?
Thompson has never really admitted that the BBC actually IS biased. His view is that it ‘used to be’ biased, but it has moved on, or that it is biased, but like QT audiences, only in an even-handed way.
That’s why the Balen Report remains buried in the BBC vaults – so that someone can eventually release it and claim that ‘this was how it used to be in the BBC… but now we’ve moved on…’ – thus proving that the BBC can’t possibly be accused of bias at any point in time.
Now – if soemeone were to have the good sense to ask this question, and its follow-up, of Mark Thompson, I’d be really impressed….
‘So, Mr Thompson, you have admitted that the BBC was clearly politically biaed in the past. You’ve obviously envisaged in your mind exactly when that was, and for how long….now, let me ask whether you or any other senior members of the BBC who were around at that time accept that when challenged at any point during that time, you denied that the BBC was biased, you knew that this was a lie, and you knowingly covered it up ? And why should we believe you now, when you say the BBC has moved on – or is that the same lie being promulgated today ?
Thompson claims they fixed it: by doing things like having Paul Mason (Marxist), Stephanie “Two Eds” Flanders (Left-wing economic credentials), Robert Peston (Gordon Brown’s biographer and champion of his economic policies), and Evan Davis (Left-wing economic credentials and publisher of Left-wing think tank monographs) as the BBC’s top economics mavens. >_>
The BBC’s idea of being unbiased is have someone who is extreme left debate someone who is soft left.
Just about right. To be right wing is by definition to be not fit for polite BBC company.
The “who is the most ‘Right On’ competition” between the various Guardian readers on The Review Show would be funny if it were no so pathetic.
It is a sort of de-education show in correct Party thinking. Typical BBC in other words.
I find the review show really funny all these metro trendy lefty’s with there heads up their own arses.
Think they are really smart when they are really a bunch of know it alls. Talking a load of complete rubbish.
Yep, to them that’s the definition of “a wide range of views”.
You could also ask Thompson to indicate exactly what was done to address this MASSIVE LEFT WING BIAS he observed way back when that makes it any different today.
Then wait for the stutter.
A new phrase for my collection of ‘BBCisms’
‘selected to reflect’, meaning ‘skewed to suit the BBC’s utterly bent, but essentially got about right worldview’.
Sort of their own, updated version of this charmer from another age, only with a new set of uniquely unacceptable exclusees…
http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2010/09/07/no-irish-need-apply-sign_eCt7R_19672_470x229.jpg
You just had to see how they treated Nick Griffin, love him or loathe him, a leader of a democratically legal party which represents well over a million people in this country; they treated like scum and ambushed him in every foul way possible. It was an utter DISGRACE but is typical of how the left, and Question (but no real answers) Time operates; they don’t debate, reason or listen to others’ points of view… they just ambush, humiliate and intimidate in true Stalinist police style. The Left control the media and so give the impression that they have won… but you go into pubs and houses outside Londonistan (no longer an English city) then it’s a different story.
QT is nothing but an idle chit chat show for the chattering classes and the audience members are always hand-picked and over represented by Muslims and ethnic ‘enrichers’. Personally, I find the Dandy more politically insightful.
I find Thomson’s statement hard to believe. I stopped watching QT long before I left for Canada, but one I do remember came from Dorking in the heart of Surrey stockbroker belt in a true blue conservative constituency surrounded by other Tory constituencies.
It’s an area I know well. I recognised nobody in the audience nor did anyone else I knew that had watched it. There wasn’t one Surrey accent in the audience and the views expressed were at odds with the voting demographic of the area. We came to the conclusion that they had been bussed in
That guy Craig who used to frequent the old blog was great with stats. He posted the host town for each episode from an entire series, and what Party it’s MP represented. If I remember rightly, about 90% of the shows were broadcast from Labour constituencies.
I was always amazed that even when they did episodes in the middle of bloody nowhere, like Shetland Isles or Cornwall, they’d always have people like Shami Chakribhati or that annoying Batmangeli women on; don’t recall too many Cornish folks walking round with bowls of fruit on their heads!!! Also, when they film in Jocko-land they always have the pain-in-the-arse, Scottish Nose Pickers (SNP) on… the BBC have been accused big-time, of being pro-Nationalist… not surprising when you consider that Fatty bum Salmond and his party of Nazis are far-left bigots who want to cleanse pie-land of the english.
While we all have our own recall of events, to suggest the BBC and SNP are in bed together stretches all credibility – Salmond snarls in most interviews how the BBC hates the nationalist cause – if it was pro-Labour how could it be pro-nationalist? Can’t have it both ways!
The make-up of each audience is set to reflect the political make-up of the area – there needs to be nationalists in Wales/NI/Scot etc, and it’s hard to find crowds of Labour voters in rural Sussex and Tories in Liverpool etc, not sure about the bussed-in comment, the audience make their own way in, but are asked to give their political allegiance when they apply, but it’s hard to check they have told the truth.
Across the year, there is a range of cities and smaller towns and different parts of the UK are picked (at least one per BBC region, more for London, West Mids and northern England and SE England, where there are more people)
( NI has it own version of QT several times a month, which is probably not very well know in other parts of UK, where main show is then not seen)
While I find some of the conspiracies on here a little outlandish – people are entitled to their view – but as a right-leaning BBC staffer, i thought a few facts might help.
Each audience member is asked to write a question which are then piled up – in subjects. The subjects nearly always reflect the big news of the week and a qusstion from the 5 biggest piles (and one daft question to end with if there is time is picked). The subjects that make it to air are fairly obvious, but the panel members do not see the submitted questions – picked or rejected – in advance.
“Salmond snarls in most interviews how the BBC hates the nationalist cause – if it was pro-Labour how could it be pro-nationalist? Can’t have it both ways!”
Indeed.
“The make-up of each audience is set to reflect the political make-up of the area”
I think you will find that is what is in dispute.
“Across the year, there is a range of cities and smaller towns and different parts of the UK are picked”
True.
“I thought a few facts might help”
Except that one of your key “facts” is disputed.
“The subjects that make it to air are fairly obvious”
True.
To conclude. You have failed to convincingly address the issue of whether or not the audience does indeed reflect the locality (I presume you work on the assumption that 80% of the population are Labour supporters) and ignore the issue of whether or not the panel is biased to the Left.
In short typical BBC complacency and arrogance.
Except there are times when the BBC does deliberately rig the audience.
Look, the bottom line is that, while the road to creating the QT audience may be paved with the best of intentions, the screening results in a hand-picked audience which reflects little more than the producers’ opinion of what the host city should look like, based on, one assumes, polls. Or what else, voter registration records and council demographics?
‘Except there are times when the BBC does deliberately rig the audience.’
Odd, the comments there seem closed before they opened, too. Hugs Boaden freelancing as a sub?
Rather quaint that the audiences are claimed never to be rigged (albeit ‘rigourously’), except when they.. er… are.
One presumes for ‘balance’.
Hence, ‘getting it about centre’?
The very notion of any pre-selection process being anything other than subject to the whim and prejudices of the individuals at the sharp end, under the watchful eye of those who hired them and ‘influence’ their career paths, is laughable.
But a daft conceit I see trotted out day in day out, on the basis that if it is said enough it may well one day become fact.
One man’s “careful audience selection” is another man’s “rigged”, I guess.
Rubbish! BBC Scotland are pro-Nationalist; the bias is well known and was even stated by a prominent Labour MP on Newsnight Scotland a few weeks’ back, much to the shock of isobel Fraser! Your organization believes in the minority struggle; that’s perhaps why the BBC hate the white, working class English so.
Agreed. Craig has done a lot of great work with stats and lists for a lot of BBC output.
Thought you may like this:
http://www.shavedlongcock.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/i-think-this-t-shirt-sums-it-quite-well.html
Funny. And I love that “Anonymous” comment about how Romney uses our money to pay his taxes, and if elected will drag us into another illegal war. Sounds like something a Beeboid would say.
Craig’s website, though closed now, still contains his archived material.
The BBC have ceased to even pretend they are not biased, the BBC and the Labour party have not let up on their criticism of the Government for even one day and the BBC actively encourage them. It is as if the BBC favour the opposition and only tolerate the Government. It is actually very, very annoying we are being force fed the opposition every single day.
The opposition are going to find something to whinge and nit pick about every day during the paralympics even if it all runs as smoothly and perfectly as the Olympics, and the BBC will be following them hysterically day after day. I guarantee. The thing is they need to be broken up if they want to take sides.
Tonight’s synthetic row about the Paralympics, invented by Labour and faithfully parroted by bBBC (and ignored by ITV), is that it was ‘discriminatory’ to ask wheelchair users seeking tickets to telephone a special line to talk to someone about their personal mobility needs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19384473
It’s very unfair to say that the BBC always attacks the government. Between 1997 and 2010 the BBC were the Government’s biggest cheerleaders (except on Iraq where Blair aligned with Bush). Other than that they were 100% supportive of the Government for 13 years.
Of course, for balance, they also had a previous period of constantly attacking the Government, i.e. between 1979 and 1997.
You see, it all balances out in the long run. 18 years of attacking, and lying about, the Government, at every given opportunity. Then 13 years of giving it its full support and, since then two years (so far) of attacking the government again.
I finally lost patience with this the last time Peter Hitchens was on, utterly depressing.
And “The Big Questions”? Don’t even go there.
This hatred of the US is really strange. They saved our arses in two world wars, helped us during the Falklands, We share the same language and values, The USSR would have overrun Europe without them, Our economy would be third world without them. The French much prefer the Germans. Our cultures are similar and centre around Christian values. Long live the memory of Regan.
I guess the most awful QT was post 9/11. I would have thought you could have trawled the length and breadth of Britain and not found such vile, narrow, anti American bigotry. The American ambassador looked close to tears.
And, of course, they lost any pretence of impartialitly after the Nick Griffin lynching. The audience looked as though they’d come straight from a UAF rally. Scruffy, dreadlocked, one ugly brute constantly chewing gum. The noisy, unpleasant, undemocratic great unwashed .
And in the middle of this mayhem that smug, oh so superior, silver spooned Dimbleby. A bloke who wouldn’t recognise an inner city ghetto if he tripped over it.
I imagine the selection process is like this:
Constituency X 50% turnout. 25% Labour, 15% Tory, 5% Lib-Dem, 5% others.
Audience share :
50% from Labour as they scored 50% of the votes cast.
10% from Lib-Dems as they scored 10% of the votes cast
7.5% from Tories as they scored 7.5% of the votes castable.
The other 32.5% from ‘independant’ local organisations who just happen to be run by labour activists.
Constituency Y 50% turnout. 15% Labour, 25% Tory, 5% Lib-Dem, 5% others.
Audience share :
30% from Labour as they scored 30% of the votes cast.
10% from Lib-Dems as they scored 10% of the votes cast
50% from ‘independant’ local organisations who just happen to be run by labour activists.
5% from the other parties, SWP, Respect (sic) and UKIP etc
5% from the Tories as they are currently over represented in the consituency at large and the BBC want to give ‘other voices’ a platform.
Naturally only Lib-Dems who are against the Coalition will be accepted for their allocation …
I seem to remember Nigel Farage in his autobiography ridiculing an audience member for making a ridiculous leftist comment then saying the same man was drinking with the producers after the show.
Of course our friend Soothsayer omits to mention that the producer of Question Time is a well known member of the Far Left – who as we know from reading Marx are famous for their fairness and balance.
Judging by his arrogance and complacency he no doubt feels that the serfs who pay his wages would be convinced by the argument that the producer could equally well have been a member of the Far Right.