Question Time

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Mary Scanlon actually did a pretty good job as a public representative on a local level, party politics aside.  She was far from the worst of the highland Tories, who are often a very odd bunch.

She was my clueless economics lecturer many moons ago - perhaps I am biased?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

She was once my Economics tutor. Which was quite amusing given that she knew f**k all about economics and I know slightly more than that.

Just replied the same - taught Public Sector Economics along with Eileen Cook who was in the SWP.

[Redstarstranraer]

 

I'm afraid I think there's a lot of disingenuous pish being waffled by certain people here on this issue.

Question Time supposedly consists of, according to the BBC's own website:

"Topical debate in which guests from the worlds of politics and the media answer questions posed by members of the public".

The BBC pick the studio guests, the location, the audience and subsequently edit the footage to show what they deem representative, entertaining or relevant.  The BBC devised and have progressively tweaked the show's format.  Nobody is forcing the BBC to make any of these editorial decisions.

Given the BBC are actively promoting Question Time as an opportunity for the general public to grill politicians on the issues of the day it would not be unreasonable for the watching public to assume that those posing the questions are not affiliated with a particular political party.  The BBC unashamedly promote the show as a forum for "Joe Public" to put his point across to otherwise relatively inaccessible politicians.  This undoubtedly gives the impression the show is a more or less accurate representation of the vox populi and public opinion in general.  I think it not unreasonable therefore that many of the watching audience may assume that contributors and questioners are not actually paid up members of political parties let alone hold or have held public office.  The panel is presented as comprised of such individuals, not the supposedly random audience.

In my opinion, and I do not think I would be alone in holding this view, councillors, party activists and ex-MSPs cannot legitimately be presented as members of the public.  They are essentially politicians.  Given the BBC apparently vets those who wish to get on the show via an application process either the BBC is fully aware of these individuals backgrounds and chooses to ignore them or those in charge of the vetting process are entirely incompetent.  I do not think it is the latter.

It may well be difficult to compile such a show without attracting applicants who are politically engaged, but I do not think it impossible to do so without either excluding actual party activists or at least making them identify themselves as such.  It is quite clear audiences will esteem questions and points differently if they know they are being raised by individuals who have an actual association with a certain party than someone apparently unconnected to one at all.

All any of this would take is asking a questioner where relevant to say "I am a member of X party" before making their point.  If they refuse to do so then their contribution can be edited out in the post-production stage.  If someone slipped through the net then the BBC could, say, exclude that party from the subsequent edition and reinstate them once obtaining a promise to desist.  It wouldn't actually be difficult to do.  

The current format essentially allows political activists (who appear to be predominantly of one certain political persuasion) to make tendentious points and political attacks on their opponents whilst masquerading as ordinary citizens.  That is fundamentally dishonest. 

The "yellow dress" woman or whatever she was called actually appeared on a Tory party political broadcast not one hour ago standing next to Ruth Davidson at what I assume was the Scottish Conservative conference.  Presenting someone such as her who clearly is deeply associated (and one assumes a paid up member) of a political party as a "member of the public" distorts audience perception.  For clarity this would hold true equally if the person involved was associated with the SNP.

Many of the watching audience may well be duly cynical about the background of some audience members. In my opinion however the BBC is being deliberately and unnecessarily misleading by not identifying where it can that many of those asking questions are not politically unaffiliated members of the public as the show may lead the audience to believe.

 

[Kuro]

30 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Which was my point in the second sentence. You clearly didn't get that far.

You genuinely believe its coincidence Tory activists, volunteers, candidates and representatives keep getting in the audience and asked to comment?

[welshbairn]

Just now, Kuro said:

You genuinely believe its coincidence Tory activists, volunteers, candidates and representatives keep getting in the audience and asked to comment?

No. 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

2 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

It's fine for the audience to be political activists of whatever slant but they should at the start of their question declare themselves to be what they are. Better Together exploited this 'ordinary mum' stuff to great effect and it's not been forgotten that a strong opinion coming from a seemingly non aligned person has much more weight than it does coming from someone whose job is to say these things.

In a perfect world the audience would be mostly non aligned punters but I think if they were to enforce that strictly the audiences would just be mostly pensioners as everyone else is too busy or tired.

The Daily Express had at least 3 online articles with headlines screaming.... 'member of the public tells Sturgeon to get on with day job'.

A lie travels round the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.

 

[Sunrise]

Apparently the yellow dress woman from last nicht.

[BawWatchin]

7 hours ago, Sooky said:

 

Didn’t watch the show, but I’m not really understanding the outrage at this? She’s posing as a member of the public, because she is a member of the public? Fair enough if she was still an MSP, but she’s not.

 

What about these 2?

2 currenty Moray councilors.

[Jeff Venom]

Apparently the yellow dress woman from last nicht.

Made the mistake of following that thread to Peter Sweden. Independent journalist, apparently.

[NotThePars]

Conservative commentators who are scared to leave the house aren't limited to the Anglophone countries as Peter Sweden ably demonstrates.

[GAD]

5 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Indeed. I’m guessing a lot of the complaints come from Alt Nats who’d have a panel of 6 SNP spokespeople and an audience of Wings followers

 

That would be awful. Much better the way it currently is with a panel of 5 unionist spokesmen and a random SNP (f**k the Greens, not having them on) for the orange order members and Tory activists you've actually bussed in from other parts of Scotland to shout at.

In England it's even better. Just get a black woman on and call her a thick c**t for an hour whilst the gammon bigots roar their approval in the background.

[DublinMagyar]

 
I'm afraid I think there's a lot of disingenuous pish being waffled by certain people here on this issue.
Question Time supposedly consists of, according to the BBC's own website:
"Topical debate in which guests from the worlds of politics and the media answer questions posed by members of the public".
The BBC pick the studio guests, the location, the audience and subsequently edit the footage to show what they deem representative, entertaining or relevant.  The BBC devised and have progressively tweaked the show's format.  Nobody is forcing the BBC to make any of these editorial decisions.
Given the BBC are actively promoting Question Time as an opportunity for the general public to grill politicians on the issues of the day it would not be unreasonable for the watching public to assume that those posing the questions are not affiliated with a particular political party.  The BBC unashamedly promote the show as a forum for "Joe Public" to put his point across to otherwise relatively inaccessible politicians.  This undoubtedly gives the impression the show is a more or less accurate representation of the vox populi and public opinion in general.  I think it not unreasonable therefore that many of the watching audience may assume that contributors and questioners are not actually paid up members of political parties let alone hold or have held public office.  The panel is presented as comprised of such individuals, not the supposedly random audience.
In my opinion, and I do not think I would be alone in holding this view, councillors, party activists and ex-MSPs cannot legitimately be presented as members of the public.  They are essentially politicians.  Given the BBC apparently vets those who wish to get on the show via an application process either the BBC is fully aware of these individuals backgrounds and chooses to ignore them or those in charge of the vetting process are entirely incompetent.  I do not think it is the latter.
It may well be difficult to compile such a show without attracting applicants who are politically engaged, but I do not think it impossible to do so without either excluding actual party activists or at least making them identify themselves as such.  It is quite clear audiences will esteem questions and points differently if they know they are being raised by individuals who have an actual association with a certain party than someone apparently unconnected to one at all.
All any of this would take is asking a questioner where relevant to say "I am a member of X party" before making their point.  If they refuse to do so then their contribution can be edited out in the post-production stage.  If someone slipped through the net then the BBC could, say, exclude that party from the subsequent edition and reinstate them once obtaining a promise to desist.  It wouldn't actually be difficult to do.  
The current format essentially allows political activists (who appear to be predominantly of one certain political persuasion) to make tendentious points and political attacks on their opponents whilst masquerading as ordinary citizens.  That is fundamentally dishonest. 
The "yellow dress" woman or whatever she was called actually appeared on a Tory party political broadcast not one hour ago standing next to Ruth Davidson at what I assume was the Scottish Conservative conference.  Presenting someone such as her who clearly is deeply associated (and one assumes a paid up member) of a political party as a "member of the public" distorts audience perception.  For clarity this would hold true equally if the person involved was associated with the SNP.
Many of the watching audience may well be duly cynical about the background of some audience members. In my opinion however the BBC is being deliberately and unnecessarily misleading by not identifying where it can that many of those asking questions are not politically unaffiliated members of the public as the show may lead the audience to believe.
 

Don't go away again

[Sooky]

Can you imagine Alex Salmond not being identified by the presenter/panel if he was "randomly" selected as a member of the public, then "randomly" selected to ask a question on QT?

He's not even a member of the SNP at the moment, never mind still being a MP/MSP.

 

Bit of a difference between former first minister and political heavyweight Alex Salmond and a former Tory list MSP who, by comparison, is a bit of a non-entity.

 

If you’ve held a position like first minister, I’d argue you never truly go back to being a normal member of the public. I think that’s different for former random backbench MSPs.

[Sooky]

Indeed. I’m guessing a lot of the complaints come from Alt Nats who’d have a panel of 6 SNP spokespeople and an audience of Wings followers

Leslie Riddoch was complaining about the make up of the QT panel on Twitter due to the other pro-Indy panellist being critical of the SNP??? Which is, frankly, bizarre.

[Sooky]

What about these 2?



2 currenty Moray councilors.

Fair enough. I wouldn’t have currently elected officials in the audience, from any party. My point was more about former politicians.

[Sooky]

I think the point being made was there doesn't seem to be equivalent infiltration of audiences by Yes activists. Probably as a result of QT's audience booker having documented far right sympathies.

Do they? Can you link me anything? Genuinely interested as not come across this before.

[Kuro]

11 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

What about these 2?

2 currenty Moray councilors.

All four of them are actually Tory representatives not just two.

[BawWatchin]

Just a few facebook likes from our crowd selecting friend.

[BawWatchin]

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by BawWatchin

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

It's a fucking joke. 

'Normal members of the public'.