Cryptic tweet wondering why the BBC bothers with 'expert' guests on news and/or arts programmes when, it seems to me, that the hosts, if they don't agree, just talk over the guests and 'put them down'.
Dimbledore is a master of it on Question Time. I know this is somewhat subjective and both sides think that the Beeb is biased against them (I find this laughable, but it is a genuinely held opinion), but watch carefully as he allows pannelists knocking the coalition government to wax lyrical for just a bout as long as they want - see Victoria Coren's seemingly endless, scripted, unfunny, pointless and tedious diatribe this week [was that/is she the most hideous and obnoxious performance/guest they've ever had? The bar is pretty high, but I think she set a new standard]; compared to Alan Duncan (this week, who was pretty feeble to be fair) or Griff Rhys Jones last week who's performance was increasingly viewed with horror by Dimbledore as he (Griff) went 'off piste' from the accepted BBC doctrine of kicking the Coalition and supporting the Global Warming scaremongering scam.
On Wednesday night this week, Paxman told the guests (tory and economist) appearing alongside Nobel economist Paul Krugman that: 'You can't disagree with him, he's a Nobel Prize winner.' Well, Jeremy, in that case, why the fuck have them on the programme then? And in broader terms, why (the fuck) listen to economists now at all - did they predict the current global economic melt-down we're in, or contribute massively to its creation? Why are the people who got us into this desperate mess the right ones to get us out of it, rather than the ones at whom we should be throwing rotten eggs and tomatoes, at the very least?
At the end of that programme, Paxman revealed that former Cameron communications guy Andy Coulson had been arrested on a purgery charge, or at least as Jeremy described this 'innocent-until-proven-guilty former public servant: 'the Tories' former head of propaganda'. Can you imagine the howls of outrage if he'd said that about, say, Peter Mandelson or Alistair Campbell?
Anyway, last night on Newsnight Review, Kirsty Wark did a piece on Tracy Emin's new exhibition 'She lay down deep beneath the sea' at the Turner Contemporary Gallery in Margate - it was clear that the two 'wimmin' got on well during the interview (absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, except when it clouds the objective approach taken by the host when the programme is aired). I'm also not making any judgement about 'Mad Tracy from Margate' (her words), either.
The terminally pretentious Paul Morley talked about it (the show and the shiny new gallery) being a metaphor for Margate, which is falling apart - 'indeed, it is a metaphor for the whole country' (under this coalition Government: - resounding thumbs-up from BBC/Stasi attitude adjustment manager in the wings). Then a young, good-looking guy, lecturer at Oxford (I think but I can't find his details online and it's not on iplayer yet), who obviously was less than impressed with Emin's new stuff, got his turn:
He thougt the work was childish - and that Emin can no longer get away with this at her age - scratchy and unpolished, just not very good. He also asked how one is supposed to have sympathy for her when the theme for the whole exhibition came about because she was upset when her gardener in Italy cut back her olive vines too severely leaving 'stubs' rather than the branches and leaves that she wanted for the shade? She (said that she) subsequently threw herself to the ground when she saw what he'd done, poor lamb, and related, it, as only artists can, to the situation being faced by her dying father.
La Wark jumped in fast at this point to defend the artist, to justify Emin's thought processes and to explain what she (Emin) meant and why what she's doing is wonderful and, essentially, 'you're not coming on my show again unless you toe the line much better from now on laddie, capisce?'
Well, fine, but don't bother having people on who disagree with you unles you're prepared to at least listen and consider what they have to say, rather than ridiculing them and dismissing their opinions.
When you have journalists interviewing other journalists to get an insight into what's happening: And, more invidiously, when they are providing opinions instead of reporting the news, then you're starting to become the propagandists BBC. Unless of course you're going to tell us what angle (political background) your reporters like Paul Mason come from? He was opining on the future of the EU, (obviously in line with the BBC's 'only report anything about the EU if it's positive for the union or if you just cannot avoid it and then make it look as positive and damage-free as possible), last night. (Obviously the total melt-down of the whole of Southern Europe, bank collapse, failure of law and order and social cohesion is a bit of a bummer - he can see some of the riots from his four-star hotel and it's making sleep a tad difficult at times - but something will turn up in the next few weeks), was essentially his conclusion.
BBC Radio is also always quick to preview any interview with anyone who's remotely likely to be positive about the Coalition by telling the world that, effectively, 'this person has right-wing baggage, so please listen, but don't believe a word'. Maybe they should explain, before Stephanie Flanders makes her reports that she is infinitely more familiar with Labour 'Members' than she is with Tories? Allegedly.
Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment