Oct 2009 22

The only people not asked about the BNP on the BBC are the public11

Tonight, the BNP will appear on BBC 2's Question Time for the first time. The row about whether Nick Griffin should be allowed to take part has been dragging on for weeks, and everyone has had their say: Unite Against Fascism, free speech campaigners, the BNP, Peter Hain, Jack Straw, Alan Johnson, Jerry Dammers from the Specials, Russell Brand, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Everyone, that is, except the licence-fee paying public.

Indeed, it is the licence fee itself that has excluded the people who pay for the BBC from actually having any say or power over the issue.

In any normal business, if you dislike a company's actions, you could punish them. In terms of broadcasting, that punishment can happen through viewers switching off or advertisers withdrawing. Often the former will trigger the latter, of course.

This can be a powerful tool. When Jade Goody was accused of racist bullying of Shilpa Shetty in Celebrity Big Brother, such pressure was exerted on the advertisers that Carphone Warehouse withdrew its sponsorship of the show. This was undoubtedly a major factor in Channel 4's subsequent actions on the issue.

In the US at the moment there is a major controversy over Glenn Beck, who has seen 80 advertisers withdraw from his Fox News show over comments about President Obama.

There are of course numerous examples of programmes being dropped by commercial channels due to awful viewing figures, without the specific and public withdrawal of an advertiser. If a channel reliant on advertising has awful ratings, its revenue is depressed as a result, which means it needs to change.

The BBC has neither of these pressures – not only does it not have advertisers, but it actually has quite an explicit mission to actively ignore consumer demand in its output. There is a theory that the licence fee model allows the BBC to produce broadcasting that is good, rather than just popular, but that model assumes two things:

1) The public don't like "good" broadcasting, they just like "populist" dross. Indeed, something becomes dross in the view of some precisely because it is popular.

2) Senior Beebocrats like Alan Yentob and an elite coterie of editors know what is good broadcasting far better than the public, and if they get anything wrong then the BBC Trust are able to get it right as a fallback authority on good taste.

The true absurdity of the current situation is not that Griffin and his many absurd views will be paraded on Question Time, but that such an important issue should be down to Peter Hain's lawyers, the BBC Trust's review panels and a few other unaccountable officials to decide.

The BBC's financial model has not placed the broadcaster in the hands of the public, it has taken its activities completely out of the control of viewers. It may on paper belong to the people, but the compulsory licence fee ensures that it never has to answer to them. The high minded ideals of those who want a "people's broadcaster" have, counterintuitively, produced one which is less accountable to the viewing public than ITV, Channel 5 or The Adult Channel.

The issue of whether Griffin should be on Question Time or not ought to be down to viewers. If they believe he shouldn't be on, then they will watch something else and boycott the show. Alternatively, if they are intrigued to watch what will be either a fascinating car crash, a political horror show or a combination of the two, then they will tune in – and why should anyone prevent them from doing so? The people's broadcaster should let the people decide.

Related Posts

  • C Riley

    It is typical of this Country the people are never asked for their views on any important subject we are allowed to vote in General and Council elections but any important separate point we are not included. The most important point lately being MP’s expenses and what should be done about the MPs who have aboused the system. If a member of the general public was to abuse the tax system then we would probably find ourselves in jail.

  • Kevin Elks

    I cannot fully agree with the article above because there are in my opinion, fundamental flaws in the arguments.
    For a start, the BBC should not be about ratings and popularity as we can get that from the commercial stations, the BBC should be about a fair and balance information source for the public to trust, it unfortunately fails miserably on many occasions. It failed over the BNP issue as the presenter was far from neutral and with his bullying and bias railroaded the whole discussion into a one sided BNP bashing exercise that has only made many viewers who were expecting a lively debate disappointed and perhaps even sympathetic.
    Secondly, if we were to have media like the USA we would see bias and self censorship that would make even the most brain dead of us cringe, yes it is that bad. Do we really want our news and debates completely controlled by big business, I for one do not.
    Lastly, should even the viewing public deny a political party and a MEP that was democratically elected from airtime? My non-white partner is studying the government booklet ‘Life in the United Kingdom’ and it clearly states that in time of elections it is a legal requirement to give equal time on air to all political parties. OK we are on the run up to an election but the principal is the same.
    The big problem is the inability of the political parties to listen to the fears and hopes of the ordinary public, instead they listen to those that have political agenda through an electoral system that is not at all democratic. We desperately need a vibrant political system that is accountable to the public and driven by the interests of the public. That unfortunately means those that have far left and far right and even the most objectionable views must have a voice, just as it is in France.
    Now just to reiterate, my partner is not white, she is a foreign national, law abiding and here legally. I still want to see the illegal and bogus asylum seekers as with those that are foreign criminals deported with the least fuss and as sorry as I feel for those that have been scammed by the people trafficking criminals it will only perpetuate the misery unless we have a firm crackdown. I also wish to see those that will not respect our culture and insist on special treatment and separatism (those clearly not happy with us British), powerfully ‘encouraged/helped’ to go where they will be happy.

  • http://www.elizabethrobillard.blogspot.com Elizabeth Robillard

    The way Mr.Griffin was treated was a disgrace.

  • http://theopenforum.ning.com/ Steve Perrett

    Well said Kevin Elks. I find it somewhat a farce that a debate of whether Nick Griffin should be included on Question Time or not actually took place at all? I don’t defend his views, I think the BNP are a loathsome organisation. But they are gaining ground, does this tell us something about our present policies?) and as an elected official, he should have his say. You can’t have selective democracy, something this government and the Euro quango is desperate to foist upon us! You either have democracy or you don’t. There is no in between.

  • a hartley

    Griffin had his say on national TV did it do him any good, not at all, anyone teetering on the brink must have been put off the BNP for life and those that were not are a lost cause, so good for the BBC and freedom of speech let the extreamists dig their own graves in front of millions.

  • vernon wood

    What a disgraceful example of villification. The public lynching of Nick Griffin by the hysterical mob-audience, goaded by the inquisitorial panel and the chairman of breathtaking hostility was a travesty of British fair play.
    I have little time for Mr Griffin, but he had no chance to put up a fair performance in the face of such a barrage of ranting rage.
    It seems everyone in the country knows why the BNP is gaining support – except for MPs and their admin cohorts. It is the historic inadequacy of immigration control policies by all parties,and the laughable inefficiency of border controls compounded by pathetically ineffective repatriation methods. The political party to sort this out will gain millions of votes.
    A final thought. Wasn’t jaded Jack Straw a joke ? However did this country acquire a Minister of Justice with such a talent to blather incoherently about matters of little relevance to the question…aided by Chairman Dimbleby overconcerned with preserving his knighthood prospects.

  • Daran

    I think the BNP will continue to make ground up until the Tories come in next year. They will be much tougher on immigration (i’d like to see a deal reached with the EU to share migration fairly around the main economies instead of current situation where UK gets highest influx).
    Once Cameron gets to grips with it the BNP will fade away as people see the problem diminishing.

  • robin winston-smythe

    bonny greer did the best demolition job on nick griffin. the lib-lab-con-by their meps voting to have open borders,are to blame for uk being 3rd most populous region on the planet.
    UKIP Warned that the 14,000 figure by the political”elite”was way out of reality.
    griffin should stop blubbing,as a UKIP candidate at local,general election,i have had worst vilification and still won the debate.
    the truth of the matter with the eu helped by ”industry”minister peter mandelson privatising post service,we already have ‘corporate fascism”
    Leave the eu now for DEMOCRACYS SAKE

  • J. C. Constable

    The tumultuous scene surrounding MEP Griffin’s appearance on BBC TV calls to mind the sentiment, apocryphally ascribed to the Enlightenment writer and philosopher Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a6361010970b burn

    I find it unbelievable that nobody turned on Jack Straw during the broadcast and simply asked him to explain the BNPs new found political prominence and apparent vote-winning capability.

  • JAMES

    The political elite have kicked there own goal,Nick is a lot more cunning than you think, he allowed himself to be attacked,he played the victim ,and they were to stupid to see it.as a bnp member i just love it when the loony let attack,call us nazis, AND ALL,Fall out of the chair unbeliveable stupity,laughter,pissing myself.Its almost as funny as MONTY PYTHON,THE BUDGEE SEEN SPRINGS TO MIND IN REGARD TO SO CALLED MUTI WHAT EVERISM