B P Quiz Friockheim Bowling Club 7Th...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Question Time: Dimbleby
14 Answers
Does anyone else think that David Dimbleby made a complete hash of Question Time on Thursday?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As an avid viewer of Question Time, I was left with my chin on the floor after watching Thursday's edition. I haven't commented on this so far because it's taken me this long to come to terms with what I witnessed – the complete public demise of reasoned debate.
Simply put, Question Time imploded.
I've been watching Question Time for many, many years. I've been watching it since Robin Day was Chairman which is quite some time ago.
On Thursday, David Dimbleby (a man I previously respected and admired) disgraced himself quite spectacularly. As Chairman, his job is to facilitate debate. He is there as an administrator; a conduit through which reasoned debate should flow. Should a panel member wander off the point into political rhetoric, the Chairman is there to pull them back and direct them to answer the question put to them.
But on Thursday he appeared to forget his reason for being there. He turned into a facsimile of Jeremy Kyle or any other of the myriad of odious, opinionated, self interested presenters.
Dimbleby is entitled to his opinion just as much as anyone else, but when acting in his capacity as Chairman, he must put personal opinion aside and act with complete impartiality. He not only failed to act impartially, he actively engaged in the bullying of a man, who quite frankly, would have hung himself if he had been given the chance to speak.
You don't defeat illogical viewpoints by shouting over someone or gagging them. You defeat them by engaging them in calm, rational debate.
Simply put, Question Time imploded.
I've been watching Question Time for many, many years. I've been watching it since Robin Day was Chairman which is quite some time ago.
On Thursday, David Dimbleby (a man I previously respected and admired) disgraced himself quite spectacularly. As Chairman, his job is to facilitate debate. He is there as an administrator; a conduit through which reasoned debate should flow. Should a panel member wander off the point into political rhetoric, the Chairman is there to pull them back and direct them to answer the question put to them.
But on Thursday he appeared to forget his reason for being there. He turned into a facsimile of Jeremy Kyle or any other of the myriad of odious, opinionated, self interested presenters.
Dimbleby is entitled to his opinion just as much as anyone else, but when acting in his capacity as Chairman, he must put personal opinion aside and act with complete impartiality. He not only failed to act impartially, he actively engaged in the bullying of a man, who quite frankly, would have hung himself if he had been given the chance to speak.
You don't defeat illogical viewpoints by shouting over someone or gagging them. You defeat them by engaging them in calm, rational debate.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Couldn’t agree more. I too am a long time fan of QT. However, this week’s edition was a disgrace.
I am no fan of the BNP or of Nick Griffin. However, odious as it is, the party does air some of the concerns that many voters have and this is something the mainstream parties have failed to do. They are now reaping the benefits of that failure.
However, that is not the issue here. The way Griffin was treated by Dimblebore was disgraceful. The selection of questions was appalling, all of them designed to allow the panel and the audience maximum mileage in their denigration of Griffin.
Any time a member of the audience made a point in support of some of Griffins views they were ignored and the debate was swiftly moved on. Instructions handed to the audience when they arrived made it clear how the debate was going to be handled.
No other politician (or indeed any “lay” panel member) of any persuasion has ever been treated thus. I am all for giving politicians a hard time in arenas such as this, but Dimbleby’s treatment of his guest on QT was nothing short of shameful. If this is the BBC’s idea of impartiality I shudder to think how they would behave if they decided to be partisan.
Whether people like it or not large numbers of voters have legitimate concerns about some of the issues the BNP supposes to address. They have tried to engender debate among the main parties and have failed (being denounced at best as racists and at worst as “Little Englanders”). As a result many of them have turned, probably in desperation, to the BNP. They are just as entitled to have their concerns properly, rationally and fairly discussed as anybody else.
I don’t usually wish any member of the BNP success, but I wish Mr Griffin well with his complaint against the BBC (as I would anybody who had been treated as he was).
I am no fan of the BNP or of Nick Griffin. However, odious as it is, the party does air some of the concerns that many voters have and this is something the mainstream parties have failed to do. They are now reaping the benefits of that failure.
However, that is not the issue here. The way Griffin was treated by Dimblebore was disgraceful. The selection of questions was appalling, all of them designed to allow the panel and the audience maximum mileage in their denigration of Griffin.
Any time a member of the audience made a point in support of some of Griffins views they were ignored and the debate was swiftly moved on. Instructions handed to the audience when they arrived made it clear how the debate was going to be handled.
No other politician (or indeed any “lay” panel member) of any persuasion has ever been treated thus. I am all for giving politicians a hard time in arenas such as this, but Dimbleby’s treatment of his guest on QT was nothing short of shameful. If this is the BBC’s idea of impartiality I shudder to think how they would behave if they decided to be partisan.
Whether people like it or not large numbers of voters have legitimate concerns about some of the issues the BNP supposes to address. They have tried to engender debate among the main parties and have failed (being denounced at best as racists and at worst as “Little Englanders”). As a result many of them have turned, probably in desperation, to the BNP. They are just as entitled to have their concerns properly, rationally and fairly discussed as anybody else.
I don’t usually wish any member of the BNP success, but I wish Mr Griffin well with his complaint against the BBC (as I would anybody who had been treated as he was).
To be fair i think it was a difficult one to call. It was definatly the most ridiculous of QT that i\'ve ever whitnessed but i suspect that was the whole point. They must vet the people who go into the audience? Surley supporters from the BNP would have wanted to be there? Yet there seemed to be absolutly no audience member willing to even listen to Mr Griffen.
As for Dimbelby, well maybe it was all a bit too much... every panel member (barring Boonie Greer) turned every question into a chance to shamlessly plug their policies without coming up with an answer vaguley related to the issues. Once the audienceship dissepates again I have no doubt normal service will resume and we won\'t be forced to watch any more fourty minute bullying sessions.
As for Dimbelby, well maybe it was all a bit too much... every panel member (barring Boonie Greer) turned every question into a chance to shamlessly plug their policies without coming up with an answer vaguley related to the issues. Once the audienceship dissepates again I have no doubt normal service will resume and we won\'t be forced to watch any more fourty minute bullying sessions.
I thought Dimbleby was fine.
It's true, he did push Griffin quite hard regarding things that he'd said and was alleging as misquoted, but that's because Griffin was being quite evasive - such as with the holocaust denial stuff. He interrogated Jack Straw with just as much severity when he too avoided answering questions - such as the question regarding the success of the BNP set against failure of govt policy. And I also remember him urging the debate back on track after it went off (though I must confess I can't remember exactly what they were talking about at that point).
It's true, he did push Griffin quite hard regarding things that he'd said and was alleging as misquoted, but that's because Griffin was being quite evasive - such as with the holocaust denial stuff. He interrogated Jack Straw with just as much severity when he too avoided answering questions - such as the question regarding the success of the BNP set against failure of govt policy. And I also remember him urging the debate back on track after it went off (though I must confess I can't remember exactly what they were talking about at that point).
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Law5 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News12 mins ago
