Light Relief

Sometimes the news...

...invites the obvious joke in response:

That lead onto this:

Book that man for an appearance on Mock the Week!

They'll have to be quick though.

Flags of inconvenience (updated)

The closing song by The Cranberries on last night's The One Show struck a discordant note - or two. 

Alas, that was partly because the singer, Dolores, was somewhat out of tune. 

(I feel for her. I'm apparently tone-deaf when I sing, in that I think I can sing but truly, truly can't. I once belted out Queen's 'Don't Stop Me Now' to a very rude Karaoke game at a friend's party. The game flashed up a running commentary. I remember "Ouch!" and "Don't give up your day job!".)

The other discordant note came from there being an absolute mass of EU flags (well over a dozen of) being waved behind the performers, with just a single Union Jack for company. 

The social media response was huge and instantaneous. Large numbers of Leavers took to Twitter to ask countless variations on the question "WTF?" while, simultaneously, many a Remainer (including one with the tell-tale moniker Remainy McRemainface‏) took to Twitter to admire all the EU flags, or to gloat at the Leavers, or to do both. 

So what were all those EU flags about? Were they stage-managed by the BBC - and, if so, for what reason? Or were they a stunt (a 'photobombing') by pro-EU activists? 

It was all very strange.


Update: With a very strong tip of the hat to Quelly in the comment below, it's now clear that this was a stunt by pro-EU activists, namely a group called EU Flag Mafia - the same people behind the Proms pro-EU flag campaign last year.

They are jubilant about their One Show action and are, indeed, calling it "a stunt":

David Dimblebly is aghast

(h/t a kind reader!)

David Dimbleby, throwing his hands up in despair at the British public

There was a striking exchange on Thursday night's The One Show following the judges' ruling over Brexit:

Matt Baker: We heard a lot of angry people there in our little film which we've just shown in our studio. A lot of people didn't realise that the actual referendum was advisory and not binding. I mean, did you see this chaos coming?

David Dimbleby: That's what I don't understand. That the government itself said 5 years ago that referendums don't instruct parliament. And that's all the judges said. They said if you're going to have a referendum it's only advisory unless you make it very clear at the time that it's not advisory, that it's one that compels parliament to do something. And they didn't do that. 

Alex Jones: No, they didn't.

David Dimbleby: And I don't understand why. It's as though nobody had thought this thing through. It's weird. 

Of course, the really 'weird' thing here was that not one of these BBC presenters, including David Dimbleby, mentioned the leaflet which every household in the UK received from the government during the referendum:

The circled bit (for any passing BBC types who haven't got their specs on) reads:

So that, Mr Dimbleby, is why people thought it was binding. Because - contrary to what you said - the government did tell voters it would be binding. And it kept telling them that. The public weren't being stupid.

The One Side of the Argument Show

There's a response from the BBC on their Complaints page about last Tuesday's edition of The One Show

The One Show, BBC One, 14 January 2014

Complaint

We have received complaints about Paul O'Grady's appearance on the One Show on 14 January. Some viewers felt that his views on benefit reform were not adequately challenged.

BBC's Response

The One Show is a topical magazine programme which occasionally reports on prominent news stories. Following media coverage of the debate around Channel Four's Benefits Street, The One Show asked members of the public for their views on the programme. A variety of opinions were heard from all sides of the debate. Following this, and in keeping with One Show tradition, the presenters discussed the issues raised with that day's studio guest, Paul O'Grady. Paul was clearly identified as a Labour supporter, and he was challenged on how he would reduce the benefits bill. Paul's views were forthright, and on reflection more could have been done to put them into context, but it is important to note that balance can be achieved across a number of programmes, and this is a subject that the One Show has covered before and hopes to revisit again in the future.

The situation arose when The One Show tackled Benefits Street. The presenters' build-up to it stressed its controversial nature and detailed the opposition it's aroused - hardly a neutral-sounding build-up.

After a clip Paul O'Grady, a Labour supporter, was asked what he made of it. He sounded off:

It’s one of those programmes to get middle England ‘up in arms’. These people are the sacrificial lambs on the altar of light entertainment and they have gone willingly: a smart tongue has got them to say all sorts and it is a very unfair representation of unemployment in this country. A lot of people do not choose to be on benefits and this is portraying everyone on benefits as doing it because they want to, not because they have to - it's shocking. 

Fair enough, as that's his view. The criticism of the BBC arose because the complainants felt he had not been "adequately challenged" by the presenters.

Watching this edition of the programme, it's certainly true to say that Paul O'Grady's highly partisan views weren't adequately challenged; indeed, that's something of an understatement. His denunciation was accompanied by large numbers of agreeing 'noes' and 'yeses' from both Matt Baker and Alex Jones, and Matt even said, "Yes, I think a lot of people second your views. That's why there's been such a backlash" at one stage.

When Paul O'Grady complained about The Daily Mail, saying it would keep banging on about benefit scroungers for weeks now, Matt added, "Yeah, I know". 

Later Matt, asked him, "Well, Paul, you've come out and said what you've said and you're quite vocal in that you're a supporter of the Labour Party, so how would you reform the benefits?" In response, Paul denounced IDS for bringing back the workhouse and being born with a silver spoon in his mouth.  

Now, the BBC admitted that "on reflection more could have been done to put them into context". It certainly could. 

They were correct, however, in their defence that the vox pops offered by the people of Liverpool - and broadcast by The One Show - were many and various. 

And, yes, balance isn't to be judged on a single programme but over time. So, a robust defender of Benefits Street and IDS and/or a strong critic of 'benefits scroungers' should, presumably, be given an easy ride some time soon then.