QT Audience...
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
Match? Reality denying socialists aren't appropriate for anything.
The BBC seeks to represent the 1% of morons out there and ignore the 99% of people.
I'd understand if they really were matching, in my opinion they are not. They're just recruiting demagogues, nutters and activists.
That's not what I'm saying at all. You do know what I'm saying, but you're trolling as per your normal.
What I'm saying is let's not have an audience filled with activists who are there to shout down politicians, hand picked by the BBC because they'll create Jerry Springer style drama.
What you're saying is just your usual misquote and stuff words in mouth rubbish.
I think so - but I wonder if there's something going on similar to the nostalgia effect where our perceptions aren't quite right. All things considered though if you look at BBC News it's gone to opinion, Panorama has gone down the tubes, Paxman just fishes for soundbites, and my opinion on the QT audience, and I agree about Dimbeby.
I honestly didn't know until now that anyone who had an interest in politics voted Green. I genuinely thought that every single person who had ever voted for them had run through the thought process of "I hate politishuns, there all nasty I like babbies and kittuns lol."
I used to think they had a social democrat bias, but I no longer think so.
I think they just try for sensationalism and their idea of balance is to pick two people from the opposite side of an issue, which implies the truth is in the middle. They don't seem to care if one of them is a scientist who supports the proven by scientific method peer reviewed opinion while the other one is a creationist nutter.
I chose that as a way to illustrate their balanced thinking.
They shouldn't be. We have plenty of news sources that do that, the BBC is there to be a public service and should be there for news, not opinion.
I just don't agree with you there at all. Their coverage of financial issues, for example, is staggeringly poor and they seek to dramatise things at every single opportunity. I've lost count of the number of times my dad has copied me into an email he's sent to the BBC complaining about their coverage being opinion not news, and misleading.
As for Panorama? It's a crying shame that an institution of investigative journalism has been destroyed like that.
No, not at all. In fact that goes to illustrate my point.
I don't care that it's left wing or right wing nutters that are there. I care that it's nutters and that what should be a valuable tool for democracy is turned into a disgrace all in the interests of higher viewership and drama.
No, the problem isn't solved. The problem is that QT is being wasted, the solution isn't to throw it away. What kind of nonsense is that?
It wasn't always about drama and confrontation. I'm guessing by left wing you mean socialist, rather than left wing as in liberal...
I don't care that it's got a left wing bias at present, I care that it's gone to the dogs. I would expect the challenges against the government to come from the political spectrum where the government isn't....
That is not how your OP reads though, at least not to me. It appears that you are suggesting that the BBC researchers are systematically chosing from a specific subset of the applicants to create a specific bias in the audience and thus in the discussion and therefore the show itself.
Also given some of your other responses it seems apparent that you think the BBC current affairs dept is biased toward sensationalism and a certain spectrum of opinon as well.
If that is not the case, then I don't understand your argument I'm afraid.
When you say bias I assume you mean towards some particular political ideal. I don't think they are biased towards any particular ideal.
They are "biased towards sensationalism", however that's not normally how I would use the word bias, and when I said I didn't think they were biased I was meaning towards a political view.
I'd be just as annoyed if they filled the audience with Little Englanders and or extreme libertarians.