Friday, 3 February 2017

140 character assassination

I do see the point of Twitter but I don’t have an account. Looking through the Question Time timeline (if that’s the right term) makes me think I’ve made the right choice. The absolute absurdity and inanity of most the Tweets is compounded by the fact that they’re accompanied by selfies. It’s as if they’re proud of themselves:
”This is a portrait of the idiot who just made that 140 character testimony to it his/her/its own stupidity.” 

Mainly, but not entirely, the reaction to Laura Perrins's appearance on the panel went something like: 
  • “Who is she? 
  • “I’ve never heard of her! 
  • “Dreadful woman! 
  • “Get back to Ireland!    (g’wan g’wan)

That is an indication of the level of discourse I’m alluding to. But then, that’s Question Time. It’s par for the course. But wait! On the other hand Nick Hewer’s inanely lefty comments didn’t go down too well either. 

Anyway, Laura Perrins gave a robust response to Rebecca Long Bailey’s outrageous faux indignation over  President Trump’s  “Muslim ban” being announced “on Holocaust Remembrance Day of all days
What disrespectful hypocrisy, coming from a member of the antisemitic Labour Party! (Of all people)

As Laura Perrins so eloquently pointed out, the Holocaust was a systematic, government sanctioned genocidal programme to eradicate the Jewish people, whereas President Trump’s executive order was………well, what was it exactly? At its very worst, “a Muslim ban.” (Some Tweeter typed “Muslim band”, now that would be fun)
And let’s just reiterate, throughout all the faux indignation shown by Yvette Cooper and any colleagues of hers who invoke the Holocaust in connection with this matter, there is never one squeak of acknowledgement that much of the antisemitism we’re being told is on the rise emanates from Muslims. 
Much of it has ‘trickled down’ through the ‘hard left’ and politicians with high numbers of Muslim constituents, not to mention the BBC. 
Admitting that would weaken the entire case for the exaggerated moral outrage at the inaccurately christened “Muslim Ban”,  and while we’re at it, that goes for Theresa May’s forced (by the media) condemnation of it, too. 
The Executive Order may not be the most sophisticated way of following through those election promises, but dismissing it as racist and Islamophobic is simply wrong.

When Craig and I give examples of the BBC’s bias against any of the topics we think the BBC is biased against, we risk being labelled apologists for said topic. 
I’m prepared for the inevitable assumption that when I criticise the BBC’s OTT demonisation and ridicule of Donald Trump, I’m an avid Trump supporter. I’m certainly not that.

When we point out the BBC’s excessive pro-Remain coverage, we’re seen as unequivocal Brexiteers. We’re not so unequivocal about that, either.

When I side with Israel against the BBC’s relentless bias, which mainly takes the form of unadulterated regurgitation of the Palestinian viewpoint with little or no genuine attempt to redress the balance, I must be what people call an “Israel Firster” - a Zionist zealot who thinks Israel can do no wrong and is blind to its faults. I’m more of an anti-anti-Zionist than anything.

 The same principle applies to the BBC. We are not anti-BBC. We just think it needs a reformation.
The pendulum has swung far enough to the left and it’s time for a recalibration. (I suppose that could fit into a tweet.)

It’s not only Twitter. The blogosphere is a no-go area when it comes to nuance. It’s a waste of time trying to be subtle or express any form of ambivalence. But not to worry. We keep calm and carry on.


  1. I've never understood the reason for the QT Twitter thing. Dimbleby always announces it as a way to get involved in the discussion, but they never read them out on air or reference it at all during any broadcast. Is just a way for the BBC to 'prove' audience interaction and reach? Another way they claim to have their finger on the pulse, etc.?

  2. Yes, it's a pretence. The QT programme is already done and dusted before Dimbleby makes an invitation to 'become involved in the discussion'.

  3. It seems pretty clear the only 'discussion' the BBC is ever interested in is one where they control the topic, moderator, guests, audience and edit for subsequent broadcast.

    Proof of BBC anything likewise is easily intercepted by a 'purposes of' exemption.