Right, so I assume you were all up bright and early to get to your post picket line (unless of course, like me you live nowhere near a big mail centre, and have to wait till tomorrow morning for the delivery offices). But it doesn’t stop there. This is the day when the BNP’s Fuhrer gets his moments on Question Time. As Salman makes clear, there are varied opinions on this, but one things for sure it will be one hell of a day. I (and I’m sure other Third Estate writers too) will be on the demonstration outside with a coach load of Essex students, and technology permitting will get updates up. I’d encourage everyone to join us from 5pm. There will also be protests at local BBC offices around the country. Again, join them if you are so inclined. But if you can’t/won’t, then let us know what’s going on. Post comments as you watch: How does Griffin get on, is he being effectively challenged, how many fascists in the audience, is Jack Straw really more comfortable talking to a Holocaust denier than a woman in a veil, etc?
Until it all starts rolling, here’s one of the best arguments on the issue, from Michael Rosen:
The BBC doesn’t have to broadcast what anti-social people say and do. It doesn’t have to give a platform to people who advocate burglary as a way of life. It may well choose to show such people.
But when it does it will always be surrounded by commentary and context that make clear that this is anti-social and that it is a “problem” that this person is saying such a thing.
This is because of what the BBC calls “compliance”, which it has extended into the “trust agenda”, which I, as a broadcaster, have to abide by.
On the BBC’s own terms, it’s clear to me that Griffin on Question Time would break both these principles.
It may seem to trivial to make the comparison, but the point about the recent Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand scandal, was that it broke “compliance” and “trust”.
The BBC’s contract with the public was deemed to be broken because it “offended” “us”, and “we” couldn’t “trust” it any more.
For those who’ve forgotten about it, this was about a broadcaster claiming that he had had sex with the granddaughter of the person he was ringing up, on air.
If that is “universally” deemed to be offensive, then how much more offensive is it to broadcast the views of someone who is planning to ruin the lives of millions of people?