I DON’T envy the editor of Question Time, they’ve got an extremely challenging job right now.
There is intense scrutiny on new host Fiona Bruce and the BBC following allegations that the flagship programme legitimised racism and sexism towards Labour MP Diane Abbott on last week’s programme.
Then there’s the claims circulating about a “hostile atmosphere” being “whipped up” in the audience warm-up session. Either way these are serious and potentially very damaging charges which cannot be brushed aside.
But here’s the thing, the BBC’s response – a public non-apology – has done nothing to address the issue. And this dismissive attitude is damaging both Question Time and the BBC’s reputation.
This attitude and intransigence is, I am sorry to say, something that pervades the tone of Question Time in my correspondence with the programme editor.
In the SNP we have deep concerns over the fairness of representation of Question Time panels.
READ MORE: SNP calls for BBC's Question Time to show better party representation
Question Time claims that there isn’t a formula for selecting the panel. Yet week after week on the panel there is: one (sometimes two) Tory politician(s); a Labour politician; a hard-right Brexiteer; a leftish/alternative commentator; and someone else.
Now the SNP may be the third-biggest party at Westminster, the second-biggest party in the UK by membership and the party of government in Scotland for nearly 12 years, but we only get occasional slots in the “someone else” seat.
The third party point is important. In the 12 months prior to the 2015 General Election the LibDems – who were then the third party – appeared on 22 out of 41 episodes of Question Time. Yet as the third party at Westminster the SNP were last year on less than a third the number of times the LibDems appeared in their final 12 months of being the third party.
Our key question to Question Time is simple – what is the formula and how has it changed?
The editor’s dismissal of this has so far amounted a nonsensical point that the LibDems were in government in 2015 – and that they didn’t work there then.
Another simple fact that we’d be keen to get agreement on from Question Time is their recognition that the UK is not a two-party state. It was ironic that a senior BBC manager tried to dismiss our concerns in a public letter in the same week that they had two Tory MPs on one Question Time panel.
And then there’s Nigel Farage. The BBC get very touchy when
you mention his name. Which is odd given he has appeared, on average, more than anyone else on Question Time in its 40-year run. With 32 appearances in 19 years Farage has been on an average of 1.7 times per year.
The grossly disproportionate level of exposure that Farage has enjoyed since the year 2000 on Question Time has undoubtedly helped propel him – and his views – into the mainstream and, arguably, played its part in getting the UK into the constitutional mess that it finds itself in today.
My last correspondence with Question Time was a fortnight ago when I suggested we meet to discuss the concerns we have raised, I’ve not heard back yet. Given the public spotlight on the programme this week, the public should know the Labour Party are not alone. I expect the programme editor is somewhat busy right now in the midst of a scandal, but I look forward to hearing from them soon.
Erik Geddes is the head of broadcast media for the SNP
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel