In the interests of impartiality, I would draw your attention to the Ahmadiyya community which is a sect that also exists in the UK. There are around 20,000 Ahmadiyya Muslims and they have received death threats from within their own communities.
.jpg)
Source/Credit: The News Hub
By Aqib Shaikh | February 8, 2015
The weekly debate show has been running for 36 years and has invited guests across the political spectrum. However, it could be perceived that the broadcaster's selection of candidates, questions and choice of locations leaves the debate open to bias. Is this unintentional or are the BBC using their impartiality guidelines as a veil to cover their bias?
This weeks Question Time was held in North Finchley and the panellists were Nicky Morgan MP (Con), Tristram Hunt MP (Lab), George Galloway MP (Res), Christine Odone (Legatum Institute, Think Tank) and Jonathan Freedland (Editor, Guardian).
The programme follows a format of question and answers as you'd expect, and there are usually around three questions during the show.
The first 38 minutes were dry and covered the following two questions:
1. Is Labour Billy No-mates in the business community?
2. Is it realistic for David Cameron to expect there to be no more bog-standard schools whilst reducing funding in education?
As you'd expect, the respective MPs were then grilled on their policies prior to the election. And Tristram didn't fare well during the questions. It seemed Labour hadn't agreed on their policies yet and were contesting against the Conservatives' proposed policies in the run up to the general election.
The last 21 minutes of the programme focused on the next question which was posed by Gabriel Rosen.
The gentleman, who is Jewish, posed the following question to the panel:
Why is anti-semitism rising in the UK?
He then added (off-the-cuff)..."And do you think a member of the the panel bears some responsibility?" (directed to George Galloway)
This was then directed to Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian editor who is also Jewish. He spoke of the deep roots that are in Britain and highlighted the fear in the community post-Paris attacks.
He directed the attention of the audience towards the Jewish community which has a population of around 300,000 in the UK. And compared it to the up-surge in the numbers of anti-semitic attacks in response to the violence in the Middle East.
Is there a correlation between the two and is the increased police presence in London fuelling further tensions within the capital?
I think that it is unfortunate that the Jewish community is being marginalised in the UK. There is a definite issue here and we shouldn't forget that Muslims have also been on the receiving end of such attacks. But they haven't received similar police protection.
In the interests of impartiality, I would draw your attention to the Ahmadiyya community which is a sect that also exists in the UK. There are around 20,000 Ahmadiyya Muslims and they have received death threats from within their own communities. And they also have an open-ended fatwa issued from Iran courtesy of an Egyptian cleric. But they haven't received any form of police protection. Why? Bearing in mind that I'm not an Ahmadiyya Muslim. However, I do feel compassion towards a marginalised community at risk from extremist attacks.
We live in a nation where we are free to practise our faiths without fear of attack. Christine Odone highlighted the view out of her window whilst travelling to the QT programme. She witnessed what she believed to be an "unbearable site with police guarding a synagogue in North Finchley." Admittedly, the police have responded appropriately by offering a presence but is this positive discrimination?
This leads me to the choice of location for the Question Time programme. After the show, I perused articles on the internet and came across one posted by the Jewish Chronicle. The newspaper had spoken to Gabriel after the show and he stated that the producers of the show allowed him to ask the question. However, his additional comment wasn't first approved. So really the blame then doesn't lie on the BBC, right? I wouldn't be so sure. The question combined with the choice of location (that is home to a large Jewish community) left George Galloway vulnerable.
What's funny is that prior to George's introduction to the question, Jonathan ended his sentence with "it could lead to hate."
Before George utters a word, members of the audience shouted the following to him then and during the show:
"You're disgusting" "You support Hezbollah" "You're not welcome in London."
Galloway responded in a typical fashion, first criticising the programme's choice of audience then discussing the right of freedom of expression post-Charlie Hebdo.
He has a point and David Dimbleby did instruct audience members not to shout during the show. But it continued throughout until the end.
George Galloway portrayed himself as Daniel, up against the lions in the audience "baying for blood." It was a horrific sight and the comments were not justified by the behaviour of Jewish members of the audience. No matter how George has behaved in public, you have a duty as a British citizen to respect the values of others. Whether they are inflammatory or not, you have the right to disagree but you don't have the right to close huge swathes of Britain.
Galloway is not innocent, as he declared last year that Bradford is an "Israeli free-zone." This comment brought as one audience member described a multi-faceted issue from the Middle East onto the streets of Britain. And she had a point. Galloway's remarks whether intended or not were disrespectful. But equally, this question could have been posed in a more conservative location. The fact that the last third of the show focused on an issue sensitive to the local area, was obviously going to make good television and their reactions were to be expected.
This isn't the first time it's happened, remember British National Party leader Nick Griffin? He appeared after much controversy in 2009 at the Television Centre. He was openly mocked by the audience, receiving similar abuse.
The BNP may have been termed fascists but they still have a right to reply. Therefore, an audience in London where the ethnic minority population is at 40% is certainly not wholly representative of Britain today. It is understandable that Nick Griffin received the type of treatment he did during the show. Was it editorially justified to feature the show in London? Could the show be broadcast from Manchester which is more representative of the cross-section of Britain today?
I began this piece by questioning the BBC's stance on impartiality: I presented two programmes that featured one left wing party and one far-right.
Has the BBC done enough to veer away from bias or is the broadcaster merely putty in the hands of the public, desperately trying to create entertaining television?
It's your choice ultimately, you're paying the license fee.
-----------------------------
Aqib Shaikh of United Kingdom is afreelance journalist writing for @WePlugGoodMusic, @BlastingNews and @PolarityUK. Twitter: @aqib_s89 Website: aqibshaikh.com
Read original post here: Question Time | I question the BBC's stance on impartiality after this week's programme
This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times. Ahmadiyya Times is not an organ of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, nor in any way associated with any of the community's official websites.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.