25 October 2009

You know something?

While the Mail (and others) harangue the BBC for inviting Griffin on and blame it for the possible rise in it's popularity, do they not realise that the main culprits are themselves?

They say the BBC gave him a platform - now what, pray tell, were Sky news doing when they broadcast his absurd complaint? And what are the Mail and the rest of the newspapers doing by saying one in four might vote for them, and constantly banging on at the BBC and allowing Griffin to 'play the martyr'

Sky gave him a better platform than the BBC did, and the Mail are primarily the ones who say he was unfairly treated in their attempts to destroy the BBC

The show didn't need to provoke controversy - the press could have let it rest, like they do pretty much every Question Time episode, but no - they had to big it up, causing the inevitable controversy, because they could sell a few papers - they didn't need to do it, there was no public interest argument here - had Griffin just come on as an MEP and spoken his rubbish, without the weeks of news-stories beforehand, far fewer people would have been interested, AND without the massive coverage the audience probably would have been less concentrated on him

The BBC started this, but it was organisations like the Mail that did the real damage

1 comment:

  1. I suppose the BBC had to allow Nick to appear on QuestionTime, being a public service broadcaster. Particularly as the BNP have a few seats on Local Councils and in Brussels. Its hard to criticise them for the simple act of inviting him to appear.

    Maybe the strategy was to i) avoid any accusations of being unfair to the BNP through not inviting them onto the show ii) make it such an unpleasant experience that Nick will be reluctant to appear again...

    I suppose the key thing is whether the poll bounce is sustained or not...