Question Time left me with Qs
As an infrequent visitor to BBC’s Question Time - a British news and current affairs show - I chose to watch it – online of course recently.
The dynamics of live audience / presenter / panelists paired with an explosive topic can, I find, be quite exciting and revealing – as much as a study of people watching as it informs my loftier political understanding!
So, buoyed by an eager anticipation, I was excited to discover how Fiona Bruce would hold proceedings (having inherited the presenter’s mantle from the venerable David Dimbleby at the start of 2019).
As you’d expect, there was the typical political posturing from the panelists on a variety of topics including knife crime, mandatory vaccination and Brexit of course.
As the show unfolded, a couple of things caught my attention as being, dare I say it, even more interesting than the mildly interesting cycle of panelists’ responses and audience retorts.
What struck me?
A couple of audience questions were handled in a very odd way. A small number of audience questions seemed to be bypassed with no rhyme or reason, the panel not having been given the chance to answer them. Read on…
First up:
- a gentleman posed a question about a particular political party’s leader’s reaction to alleged anti-semitic comments that had seemingly been made publicly by those in that party [in terms of context, the subject of anti-semitic comments having been made within this party is news theme that has been in play for over twelve months – I pass no judgement by the way on this story, suffice to say that anti-semitism is as we can easily recall from last century, abhorrently evil].
So the question was asked. And aired. And Fiona Bruce, having acknowledged the question, moved straight onto another topic via the question of another audience member.
Granted, alleged anti-semitism may be a awkward topic to respond to. However these were seasoned politicians (perhaps with the exception of the CEO of the Wetherspoons pub chain, who was necessarily thick-skinned) who, elsewhere in the show, were lambasted quite without respect by some audience members.
But why air the question asked, only for it to be publicly ‘leapfrogged’ by a question on another topic altogether? At the close of the show, I was left with an uneasy feeling.
And secondly:
- a question on the topic of knife crime, which for many teenagers, together with gang membership, is a very real problem, especially in less affluent parts of UK cities . Numbers of knives intercepted on the street are down – as are ‘stop and search’ events – yet ironically deaths from knife crime are on the rise.
Very simply, to paraphrase the question put by a (different) gentleman in the audience: “so while we are quick to place blame for knife crime at the doorstep of teachers and politicians, why aren’t we including the parents in being responsible for what their kids get up to?”.
Again, the person asking the question was acknowledged and Fiona moved onto the question of another audience member, without inviting comment from the panel – which is, after all, what the show is about, right?
For me, it really was question time – for me: “so, who’s (literally) really running the show?”.
With Fiona’s hair liberally obscuring her neck and ears, I'm mindful that as viewers, we rarely stop to consider the control room’s real-time, critical (yet unobtrusive) stream of instructions into Fiona’s ears. This one-way link to Fiona does, I'm sure, ensure the show's timeliness.
While not wishing to be considered an ardent conspiracy theorist(!), the airing of relevant and topical audience questions - followed by Fiona's subsequent over-ruling - hardly felt like a safe discussion forum.
And from the perspective of a fuller analysis: I think, to be fair, that I would need to watch a number of episodes to determine whether there is a consistent approach to pattern in place.
I'd certainly think it necessary for this show to be sensitive on particular subjects that are clearly xenophobic or clearly insulting in other ways - but - with eyes wide open to the potential for that process to be mismanaged, whether in error, or deliberately so.
In that regard, I wouldn't regard antisemitism or knife crime to be particularly touchy subjects - indeed, these are surely subjects that we'd be prudent to engage with honestly, for the 'common good' of society and respect for each others' humanity and uniqueness.
Sadly, I was left feeling uneasy and, actually, disappointed with what I had seen of the show's real-time editorial approach.
The dynamics of live audience / presenter / panelists paired with an explosive topic can, I find, be quite exciting and revealing – as much as a study of people watching as it informs my loftier political understanding!
So, buoyed by an eager anticipation, I was excited to discover how Fiona Bruce would hold proceedings (having inherited the presenter’s mantle from the venerable David Dimbleby at the start of 2019).
As you’d expect, there was the typical political posturing from the panelists on a variety of topics including knife crime, mandatory vaccination and Brexit of course.
As the show unfolded, a couple of things caught my attention as being, dare I say it, even more interesting than the mildly interesting cycle of panelists’ responses and audience retorts.
What struck me?
A couple of audience questions were handled in a very odd way. A small number of audience questions seemed to be bypassed with no rhyme or reason, the panel not having been given the chance to answer them. Read on…
First up:
- a gentleman posed a question about a particular political party’s leader’s reaction to alleged anti-semitic comments that had seemingly been made publicly by those in that party [in terms of context, the subject of anti-semitic comments having been made within this party is news theme that has been in play for over twelve months – I pass no judgement by the way on this story, suffice to say that anti-semitism is as we can easily recall from last century, abhorrently evil].
So the question was asked. And aired. And Fiona Bruce, having acknowledged the question, moved straight onto another topic via the question of another audience member.
Granted, alleged anti-semitism may be a awkward topic to respond to. However these were seasoned politicians (perhaps with the exception of the CEO of the Wetherspoons pub chain, who was necessarily thick-skinned) who, elsewhere in the show, were lambasted quite without respect by some audience members.
But why air the question asked, only for it to be publicly ‘leapfrogged’ by a question on another topic altogether? At the close of the show, I was left with an uneasy feeling.
And secondly:
- a question on the topic of knife crime, which for many teenagers, together with gang membership, is a very real problem, especially in less affluent parts of UK cities . Numbers of knives intercepted on the street are down – as are ‘stop and search’ events – yet ironically deaths from knife crime are on the rise.
Very simply, to paraphrase the question put by a (different) gentleman in the audience: “so while we are quick to place blame for knife crime at the doorstep of teachers and politicians, why aren’t we including the parents in being responsible for what their kids get up to?”.
Again, the person asking the question was acknowledged and Fiona moved onto the question of another audience member, without inviting comment from the panel – which is, after all, what the show is about, right?
For me, it really was question time – for me: “so, who’s (literally) really running the show?”.
With Fiona’s hair liberally obscuring her neck and ears, I'm mindful that as viewers, we rarely stop to consider the control room’s real-time, critical (yet unobtrusive) stream of instructions into Fiona’s ears. This one-way link to Fiona does, I'm sure, ensure the show's timeliness.
While not wishing to be considered an ardent conspiracy theorist(!), the airing of relevant and topical audience questions - followed by Fiona's subsequent over-ruling - hardly felt like a safe discussion forum.
And from the perspective of a fuller analysis: I think, to be fair, that I would need to watch a number of episodes to determine whether there is a consistent approach to pattern in place.
I'd certainly think it necessary for this show to be sensitive on particular subjects that are clearly xenophobic or clearly insulting in other ways - but - with eyes wide open to the potential for that process to be mismanaged, whether in error, or deliberately so.
In that regard, I wouldn't regard antisemitism or knife crime to be particularly touchy subjects - indeed, these are surely subjects that we'd be prudent to engage with honestly, for the 'common good' of society and respect for each others' humanity and uniqueness.
Sadly, I was left feeling uneasy and, actually, disappointed with what I had seen of the show's real-time editorial approach.
Comments
Post a Comment