Editor's Blog1 min ago
And You Thought Q.t. Couldn't Get Any Worse
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
There you have it, folks. Two unbiased, apolitical ABers have declared QT perfectly fair and unbiased. ;-)
jim360 //Then he would have been replaced already. But he hasn't.//
But he has. By a particularly thick left wing woman (joco) who has changed the DP into a version of Loose Women with even thicker women panellists.
jim360 //Then he would have been replaced already. But he hasn't.//
But he has. By a particularly thick left wing woman (joco) who has changed the DP into a version of Loose Women with even thicker women panellists.
Regarding the Beeb I think "bias" is mainly (though not always) the wrong word.
The people who present the news in the BBC, which means not only its presenters and interviewers, but, often more importantly, its editorial staff, are chosen from a particular group with a similar cast of mind and similar political and moral predispositions. It is this shared world-view which (usually unconsciously) informs the BBC's coverage and analysis of the news and which constitutes its "bias".
I'll give just one obvious example: the use of the term "Far-Right" which is used routinely in the BBC's reporting to describe all anti-immigration movements and "populist" parties like Pagida and AfD in Germany. But what makes support for, or opposition to mass-immigration a left/right issue (apart from the obvious fact that such movements will attract unavoidably real Nazis given the total neglect of the issue by the main-stream)?
Answer: what makes these movements "far-right" is the moral axiom that any opposition to mass immigration is racist and inspired by hate. This moral "axiom" is, of course, stupid. But, nonetheless, it's an axiom that all of the BBC's editors and most of its commentators share.
The people who present the news in the BBC, which means not only its presenters and interviewers, but, often more importantly, its editorial staff, are chosen from a particular group with a similar cast of mind and similar political and moral predispositions. It is this shared world-view which (usually unconsciously) informs the BBC's coverage and analysis of the news and which constitutes its "bias".
I'll give just one obvious example: the use of the term "Far-Right" which is used routinely in the BBC's reporting to describe all anti-immigration movements and "populist" parties like Pagida and AfD in Germany. But what makes support for, or opposition to mass-immigration a left/right issue (apart from the obvious fact that such movements will attract unavoidably real Nazis given the total neglect of the issue by the main-stream)?
Answer: what makes these movements "far-right" is the moral axiom that any opposition to mass immigration is racist and inspired by hate. This moral "axiom" is, of course, stupid. But, nonetheless, it's an axiom that all of the BBC's editors and most of its commentators share.
That's not quite what I said, spicerack. The BBC is biased towards impartiality, even when it shouldn't be. That is still a form of bias.
Regarding QT as an example, in the run-up to the 2015 election one of my friends was in the audience, and informed me that the audience make-up in that case was something like 25% Tory, 25% Labour, 25% Lib Dem, and 25% undecided. This is the definition of impartiality -- except, of course, that the *actual* representation should effectively have been (ignoring those who never turned out), 37% Tory, 30% Labour, 7% Lib Dem and 26% "other". Thus the QT audience ends up being heavily biased in favour of the Lib Dems in particular, at the expense of the Tories, because the BBC tried to be too literally "impartial".
Regarding QT as an example, in the run-up to the 2015 election one of my friends was in the audience, and informed me that the audience make-up in that case was something like 25% Tory, 25% Labour, 25% Lib Dem, and 25% undecided. This is the definition of impartiality -- except, of course, that the *actual* representation should effectively have been (ignoring those who never turned out), 37% Tory, 30% Labour, 7% Lib Dem and 26% "other". Thus the QT audience ends up being heavily biased in favour of the Lib Dems in particular, at the expense of the Tories, because the BBC tried to be too literally "impartial".
I would assume it's related to the application form for being in the audience, alongside conversations.
I'll concede that it's second-hand knowledge, but it does fit in rather well with the observation that the BBC has been rather good at trying to portray various issues as if they are split down the middle (eg on Climate Change), ie generally insisting on 50/50 representation of opposing views, as opposed to the reality of a 95/5 split, or some such.
I'll concede that it's second-hand knowledge, but it does fit in rather well with the observation that the BBC has been rather good at trying to portray various issues as if they are split down the middle (eg on Climate Change), ie generally insisting on 50/50 representation of opposing views, as opposed to the reality of a 95/5 split, or some such.
It may just be that the bussed in Momentum crowd (was the SWP mob) make more noise than anyone else, empty heads and all that.
But why oh why does Dimbledum and Dumbledim pause to encourage the mindless hooting and hollering after every platitude parroted by lefty.
Then continually interrupt anyone to the right of Pol Pot and immediately launch into some vital public service announcement lest anyone dares to clap Wrongspeech.
But why oh why does Dimbledum and Dumbledim pause to encourage the mindless hooting and hollering after every platitude parroted by lefty.
Then continually interrupt anyone to the right of Pol Pot and immediately launch into some vital public service announcement lest anyone dares to clap Wrongspeech.
On another recent thread, which I now can't find, ichi produced a Wikepedia link which lists every panel of QT back a long way, and to prove his point (which was that he remembered a panel which was Brexit biased) which I conceded was correct, he had to go back to just prior to the referendum when the BBC was confident that remain was going to win, a 'mistake' they haven't made since as the list demonstrates.
I think Jo Coburn would be an excellent choice: a BBC stereotype, an "intelligent and critical" interviewer who moderates political discussion programmes like "Politics Live", but will step in quickly to prevent any elaborations or justifications for extreme views (unlike her co-presenter on that programme).
So, yes, a good replacement for Mr Dimbleby.
The fragrant Fiona, I suspect, will be always thirty seconds behind the ideas being discussed and incapable of controlling the direction of flow.
So, yes, a good replacement for Mr Dimbleby.
The fragrant Fiona, I suspect, will be always thirty seconds behind the ideas being discussed and incapable of controlling the direction of flow.
