Tonight's Panorama On Immigrationwho In The Bbc Is Responsible For Nproducing S

[vetuste_ennemi]

Just watched it.

Who in the BBC was responsible for this blatant propaganda piece?

And has Nick Robinson (and his editor) no shame in trying to portray a woman in her eighties as a stupid bigot? At least Cathy Newman, when she was looking for someone to belittle, was honourable enough to pick on someone she considered (wrongly) to be her intellectual equal. Robinson wasn't about to run that risk, was he?

[Theland]

What is blatant about highlighting the threat to our culture?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Apologies for having garbled the title, which was meant to be:

Tonight's Panorama On Immigration.

... and then followed by my invitation to comment on its slant and editorial standards.

(Shame, too, that this stopped Theland's getting the point of the OP)

[vetuste_ennemi]

By the way, you would need to have seen the program in order to comment.

[fiction-factory]

Nick Robinson is a Tory though VE - not some leftie BBC luvvie. I didn't see teh programme though, I admit, so maybe he has had a change of political views in the last year or maybe he was forced by the BBC to take that line.

What I don't understand about these threads though is that if the propoganda was blatant it would have achieved little or nothing unless we feel large numbers are too gullible to be able to see through it.

[emmie]

i did see the programme and it was slanted, biased in such a way, anyone being portrayed on there as being against immigration was made to seem foolish,
why did people expect anything other than a propaganda piece.

[fiction-factory]

I wonder if the programme has changed anyone's minds on the subject.

[emmie]

no it hasn't, we do need a certain amount of people to fill the gaps say in the NHS, those we appear to be turning away, or the quota system is full, but we are getting lots of bodies from all manner of places that have nowt, and likely won't be much use in the industries where there are shortfall of staff.

[naomi24]

I’ll watch it later. Although Nick Robinson is reputed to be Tory, his reporting style often belies that claim. He’s the man who initially confirmed to me the BBC's bias.

[emmie]

me too, i am surprised if he is a Tory, seems more likely a Labour voter..

[fiction-factory]

So if no-one has been persuaded by the propoganda it shows it was a waste of time and (and this is a bigger issue) a waste of licence payers' money.
From what we've seen here any attempts at propoganda have backfired as it just seems to have harderned the opposite view..

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, give it time. There have only been responses from four posters - and some of those haven't watched it.

[emmie]

that should read for immigration of course, sorry

[emmie]

its early and im tired still, so whatever else i put ignore..

[Peter Pedant]

.//By the way, you would need to have seen the program in order to comment.// vet


//I didn't see it so it's impossible to comment. What did he say?// s/o a few days ago

so no - it doesnt look as tho you need to see something in order to comment on AB

if you dont like something on the Beeb - newswatch is another venue to complain. Some comments are valid and others are well you know ABish. Recently in the bad weather, a viewer was agonising over sending out the poor commentators into the cold ....

[naomi24]

PeterPedant, //I didn't see it so it's impossible to comment. What did he say?// s/o a few days ago ////

That wasn't from s/o - it was from me - on another thread on a different subject. If you're going to keep records hone your filing skills - otherwise your posts are likely to come across as senseless. ;o)

[Kromovaracun]

It wasn't "propaganda." It was a slightly slanted and hastily cobbled-together piece of television - there's a vast difference.

For those who haven't seen the programme:

The scene v_e is referring to happens right at the end. Robinson throughout the show asks people in Mansfield which sectors of the economy should cut immigration (and did so with a bizarre set of visual aids which he seems to have stolen from the nearest primary school). All of the people shown (we don't know how many were asked) were in favour of reducing immigration in general, but would not, for example, say that the country needed fewer care workers or chefs or lorry drivers from abroad. At the very end, Robinson is talking to two people - one girl (with an older women next to her who says nothing) and an elderly woman. They argue incoherently, because the elderly woman says "we have enough in this country", and the girl responds with some half-baked non-sequitur about the quality of immigrants as people. There's then a cut, and Robinson asks the old lady what is wrong with bringing in EU migrants to do said jobs. The women affectionately responds with, "We've got enough, ducky." And the program ends.

According to v_e, this is "propaganda" which makes an elderly woman "look like a bigot." It does nothing of the sort. It's a lazily edited and pretty banal piece of television featuring an exchange between unremarkable members of the public in which Robinson is hardly shown as being involved. It feels a lot more like the post-production staff were keen to get this finished before 5 o'clock than obsessively inserting some Machiavellian political agenda. This is nothing even approaching "propaganda."

[vetuste_ennemi]

Fiction-Factory: "So if no-one has been persuaded by the propaganda it shows it was a waste of time and (and this is a bigger issue) a waste of licence payers' money."

The purpose is not to change minds, Fiction-Factory, it's to stop any properdiscussion of all the implications of mass immigration on this country (and, for that matter, Europe in general). The technique is to conflate all types of immigration with skill-shortages, then challenge people who are not especially well-educated or bright to explain how any "reasonable", or any "decent" (these words aren't explicitly used, but they're implicit in the whole tenor of the interview) could possibly object to filling this gap through immigration. So, the interlocutor puts to his targets, (any or all) immigration's got to be good thing, isn't it? The hand-picked victims of this unpleasant deceit know that a trick is being played on them, but can't work out how it's done: better say nothing then, pipe down, keep quiet - only going to make myself look a fool or worse.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Kromovaracun: //It wasn't "propaganda." It was a slightly slanted and hastily cobbled-together piece of television - there's a vast difference.//

I don't necessarily disagree with your alternative reading of the program, Kromo. But back to the blurb for the show (I guess this came either directly or paraphrastically from Auntie herself):

"Immigration - Who Should We Let in? Immigration was at the heart of the vote to leave the EU. Nick Robinson travels to the heartlands of the Leave vote...to find out what immigration the public wants and what Britain's businesses and public services say they need.

The program only delivered on the last bit of that. And yes, if Britain really has too few engineers, radiologists, HGV drivers and barmaids, then let's get them from abroad.

That's the bit most of us agree on. It's the upside of immigration - how immigration is good for the country. It's the bit we don't agree on which was ignored as it always has been and always will, because only racists and xenophobes oppose it don't they? And it's not necessarily about disagreement, it's about asking an obvious question: what are the aspects of immigration which might be bad for the country?

It is just about possible that the answer to that question will be "None". But we're never going to find out, because we're not allowed to talk about it.

And that's why the program was a propaganda piece.