Saturday 20 February 2016

In for the count

When Evan Davis went to Paris and hosted a non-BBC version of Question Time for UK sixth-formers concerning the UK's membership of the EU, the panel famously consisted of 5 pro-Remain guests and 0 pro-Leave guests. 

I ended that post by writing: 
Returning to official BBC matters in the light of all this: How many episodes of the BBC's own Question Time will have an overwhelmingly (or entirely) pro-EU panel over the next few months?  
I bet someone will be counting.
People already are, suggesting a marked pro-EU bias across most Question Time panels in recent weeks.

This week's edition sparked controversy by featuring 3 firm pro-Remain guests, 1 who 'came out' as pro-Remain and 1 who remains undecided - and all the eve of David Cameron's 'mighty' EU deal. 

The BBC officially pooh-poohs 'counting' as a way of monitoring bias, but if they refuse to do there are plenty of others who will.

As the EU referendum looks set to be called for June, Question Time will have to be very careful over the next few months. 


  1. That was the maddest edition of QT I think I’ve seen in ages.

    There were a helluva lot of teachers in the audience. Disproportionate, one might say. Perhaps they were bussed in from some NUT conference?

    Did you notice Lisa Nandy, that earnest young Labour MP, announce, with a look of earnestness that surpassed even her previous looks of earnestness, that David Cameron had uttered the immortal slur on the people fleeing persecution in Syria by referring to them as “A BUNCH OF Migrants”.

    I don’t mean to be mean, as we often say when being mean, but the comedy was ramped up a notch by her pronunciation of BUNCH (boonch) which some of us find very foony.

    “There will be people who have already suffered as a result of what that man has said and done” she almost sobbed, at which point June Sarpong nearly nodded her own head off.

    There was universal bafflement at the Trump phenomenon. The panel couldn’t understand how Trump could have achieved such credibility. They fell over themselves trying to outdo each other’s expressions of bafflement.

    Without a scintilla of self awareness, they were all completely baffled as to how such an ignoramus could ever have got where he is today.
    (Oddly enough I was wondering something similar.)

  2. Paphitis isn't really undecided. He was playing the on-the-fence role at the BBC's invitation. I think he's for In, although he did a good job of taking the other side more.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.