Filed under: Politics | Tags: BNP, British National Party, Facism, Homophobia, Islam, Nick Griffin, Politics, Question Time, Race, Racism
I’d be very surprised if anyone missed it, but Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time last Thursday and you can watch it here. I couldn’t help but blog on something that has dominated the press and quadrupled the usual amount of people tuning in to listen to David Dimbleby and guests.
Before Question Time took place, there was a debate taking place on whether the BBC should be inviting someone who is widely viewed and accepted by mainstream politicians and the media on the whole as a racist, fascist, bigot, Anti-Semite and homophobe. Flying the flag for not allowing Nick Griffin on were the usual left wing pressure groups and anti-BNP organisations as well as Peter Hain who deemed the BNP an illegal party after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission won a legal ruling to force the BNP to allow non-white people to join. Firstly, I’d like to make it clear that I agreed with the decision to invite Nick Griffin on to QT. Close to one million people voted for his party in the European Union elections. Without being patronising to those who voted, I don’t believe they were all actually racist and having Griffin’s views challenged by politicians and an audience would hold him and his party to account, which I think it did brilliantly.
- Nick Griffin’s performance was one of a nervous man who was unanimously reviled throughout, his performance included defending a leading member of the Klu Klux Klan insisting that he was non violent, attacking Islam and describing homosexuals as ‘creepy’. Griffin desperately tried to appear moderate insisting he was the “most loathed man” amongst Nazi’s in Britain and clapping in appreciation even when people were attacking him and his views (most of the show). While all this was taking place, swathes of protestors outside the BBC headquarters in London attempted to break in, to show their opposition to Griffin’s appearance on the show.
After QT had been broadcast, a whole range of opinions were given on the performance of Griffin, the audience and the other panel members. Overwhelmingly the mood in the media was that Griffin had been politically destroyed by the audience, political elites and Bonnie Greer. Although there was also a slight fear that Griffin may have appeared as a victim and hence gaining popularity from the show; which was supported by an YouGov opinion poll in The Daily Telegraph declaring that 22% of people questioned would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP with Peter Hain contributing with a slightly I told you so tone “The BBC has handed the BNP the gift of the century on a plate and now we see the consequences. I’m very angry.”
Despite these findings and BNP claims that 3,000 people registered to join the party during and after the show, Griffin sought to claim more publicity after the show by complaining about the BBC ‘mob’ , the changed format of the programme which focused only on him and it being held in London – apparently no longer a “British city” – strange how he raised no such complaints during the broadcast.
Personally, I don’t think Griffin’s appearance will have much of an affect – they have enjoyed the publicity but on the whole I think he was shown up for what he really is; primarily out of touch with the British public. Britain doesn’t have a history of endorsing fascism whether that be Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, the National Front or the BNP who in my opinion and hopefully will remain but a fringe extremist party who won’t make the jump into mainstream politics.
Filed under: Journalism, Politics | Tags: Catherine O'Connor, Churnalism, Decline of newspaper sales, Deidre O'Neill, Fourth Estate, Journalism, Journalism Standards, Leeds Trinity and All Saints, Newszak, PR, Press releases, Public Relations
In my first blog post, I discuss a journal article entitled The Passive Journalist which can be accessed here written by Deidre O’Neill and Catherine O’Connor; two academics from Leeds Trinity and All Saints university. This article is mainly concerned with contemporary journalistic standards and how journalists use sources of information.
Source noun is defined by the Cambridge University online dictionary as “the place something comes from or starts at, or the cause of something” while this may not be a literal definition of a journalist’s source, it is possible to acknowledge that a source can often act as the basis of a story and are often at the “heart of news selection and production.” There are plentiful sources of news, in a seminar our group of four students named forty sources whereas Harcup (2004) lists seventy-two. However, it is argued that journalism has become slack and lazy, whereby it has become a common sight in news rooms across the country to see journalists glued to their desks all day waiting to package press releases and becoming dependant on a small number of sources who are able to put a spin on what information they provide.
A constant source of discussion among academics, scholars and journalists is the apparent decline of sales and therefore circulation of print newspapers, something that has seemingly affected nationals (red tops, middle market and broadsheets) which is attributed to many factors, online news the most often accused. A lack of sales is not without consequences, as revenue declines so do many argue the number of sub editors, journalists and time afforded to writers.
However, the variety of local newspapers might be declining but profitability has remained higher than that of the nationals (Bob Franklin), although, much like the national and even international press there are emerging monopolies such as Trinity Mirror, Newsquest Media Group and Johnston Press which dominate the local news market; which leads to the accusation that journalists are ill afforded time to become a part of the local community and develop an array of contacts. As I mentioned in the paragraph above the ever more capitalistic nature of newspapers leads to less journalists doing more work with less time. As local newspapers become detached from their respective communities it is important that local news “should offer independent and critical commentary on local issues”. Is it too easy, bearing in mind the less than ideal conditions that a contemporary local journalist has to operate under to become reliant on propagated packaged news from dubious sources such as press officers and PR firms – and is this the reason why we’re ending up with what is described as “churnalism”.
The Passive Journalist study focuses on the type and number of sources reported in 2979 news stories published in four daily West Yorkshire papers, owned by the three main proprietors of local newspapers in the United Kingdom; The Huddersfield Daily Examiner (Trinity Mirror), Bradford Telegraph & Argus (Newsquest) and The Yorkshire Evening Post and the Halifax Courier (Johnston Press). Reliance on sources reinforced the above views, with seventy six per cent of those stories that used a single source rarely being contentious or critical of the source that provided the story which leads to the accusation that “This seriously undermines the trust that the public can place in information from local papers.” While this might be a slight exaggeration in my opinion it does lead you to question the qualities of local journalists.
Local government reporting was particularly interesting to me, as they were found to have an unquestioning reliance on council press officers and press releases; where does this leave the supposed bastion of the fourth estate? The study also shows that two thirds of local government sourced stories had no discernible secondary source. This kind of journalism provides no questioning of the accountability of local government and as such local journalism isn’t providing a suitable watchdog role over local MPs and councillors. I can see no reversal of this frightening trend, and can only hope that journalistic standards somehow are able to improve whereby critical journalism can flourish.
