QUESTIONING QUESTION TIME

QUESTIONING QUESTION TIME

>> FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2011

I posted this over on my other blog, A Tangled Web, but thought I would put it here also. To be honest, I was sick to the stomach after the Liveblog last night and wanted to share my thoughts;

"UK readers will be only too aware of the BBC’s flagship weekly political debate programme - Question Time. US readers may not be so familiar but essentially it consists of an invited panel being asked questions by a selected audience. It has, shall we say, a certain reputation for being left-wing, and that is why I set up a Question Time LIVEBLOG over @ Biased BBC a few years ago – allowing readers a chance to have their say on it as it is broadcast live. Usually, this is good fun and whilst the programme is predictably dreary, massively pro-Labour and reliably leftist in all other zones, I get quite a kick out of the Biased BBC commentariat and their caustic wit!

However there is a serious side to this. 10 years, after 9/11, the edition of Question Time that was broadcast that week became infamous. The Towers lay burning, thousands were dead (reduced to ash) and I think most people were in a state of shock. On the panel of Question Time that week was the then American ambassador Philip Lader. He was reduced to tears by the unbelievable hostility of the “selected” BBC audience which baited him, blamed America and essentially suggested that the US got what it deserved. The BBC seemed surprised by the reaction from people across the UK andapologised for the atrocious programme.

Last night, the BBC ran a 9/11 special edition of Question Time, ten years on. As usual, we hosted the live discussion. After 20 minutes, I was thinking of leaving the debate, after 40mins, I did. Quite simply, this was ANOTHER opportunity for the “invited” BBC audience to vent their spleen against the Great and Little Satan. America was berated, Israel was berated, Islam was exonerated and Muslims were defined as the real victims since, as Tariq Ali stated, “their lands are occupied”. In short, the programme made me sick.

There is plenty to be said about 9/11, but I would have thought most decent human beings would sympathise with all those innocents who had their precious lives taken, so horrendously, so unimaginably. America was the VICTIM of a vicious terror attack by militant Islamists who shouted how great Allah was as those planes detonated into those offices. Since 9/11, there have been 17,000+ additional acts of Jihad. America made mistakes before 9/11 and it has made mistakes after 9/11. Perhaps we can all agree on that but in the final analysis, it was America that was attacked and it is America that has every right to defend itself.

Bonnie Greer, Tariq Ali and all those others US haters in the Question Time audience last night made me feel ashamed to be British. When it comes to the BBC’s Question Time – my response is NOT IN MY NAME."

BLATANT DISHONESTY...

Tony Newbery, of Harmless Sky, who is quietly doing brilliant work about BBC bias, tipped me off last night about an item on Today's business news yesterday morning. It is a gem. First, the Guardian had already led on the story (one BBC box firmly ticked!); second, it involved a dodgy capitalist (who as a bonus was daring to exploit fossil fuel); and third it allowed the use of an "expert" who actually is a militant greenie anti-capitalist. The story was that Tony Hayward, former chief executive of BP, has formed a company called Valleras and has secured £1.3bn of backing from a range of sources including the Rothschilds. It has very enterprisingly launched a reverse take-over of a Turkish company called Genel which has the rights to extract oil in Kurdistan, estimated to be the world's sixth largest (and hitherto unexploited) oil field. My instinct is to say...fantastic! Thank goodness someone in Britain has not thrown in the towel under the deluge of EU regulation and is showing a flash of the spirit that built an empire. But not, of course, the BBC. You could hear the disdain in presenter Adam Shaw's voice that the new company might soon join the FTSE 100, especially as it was run by an executive who - as was rammed home with relish - had been associated with the gulf oil spill. But the most questionable part of the whole exercise was that the woman chosen by the programme to react to the news - and introduced on air as only a "San Francisco based oil industry analyst" was Antonia Juhasz, who in fact is a hellcat hell-bent on destroying the oil industry. That's not difficult to prove, because Exhibit A is her book called The Tyranny of Oil: the World's Most Powerful Industry and What We Must Do To Stop It. With such neutral credentials, Mr Shaw asked the said Ms Juhasz several times what she thought of Mr Hayward's return to frontline oil exploration. It doesn't take much imgination to work out what was expected of her, and she duly delivered; essentially it boiled down to that Mr Hayward was a nasty, vicious crook who should not be allowed near an oil well and must be held to account for the "catastrophe" and "disaster" of the gulf oil spill. Mr Shaw uttered not one peep of disagreement. Of course, the BBC and Mr Shaw got exactly what they wanted. But a very serious point of journalistic conduct is raised here, in that without a shadow of a doubt, the deliberate omission of Ms Juhasz's highly partisan standpoint was blatantly dishonest, even by the BBC's gutter standards.