Recent public outcry surrounding the realisation that the BNP (British Nationalist Party) do actually have some capacity for media influence, despite being the least likely to stimulate happy audiences, raises a pertinent perspective on the argument of 'freedom of speech'. Last month it was revealed that the BBC had officially scheduled a place of debate for the BNP (and opposing political parties, who would be seen to take on the far-right party) on a forthcoming edition of its public-based political peep-show, Question Time.
The party in question, chaired by MEP Nick Griffin, has been requested to make an appear ance on the flagship show by the programmers who manage BBC programmes such as Question Time. The presumed aim of this broadcast political panel is to air the views of the respective British parties, in the hopes that a better, interpersonal scope for argument against certain party policies endorsed by the BNP will enable a more justified analysis of the infamous ultra-nationalistic body. The justification itself would be embodied not just through the demonstration of protest towards a party whose raison d'être enshrines gross ethical shortcomings, but also by the polemics of the BNP itself, which should mainly serve to bolster a common feeling of contempt for them across the country.
Still, regardless of the high potential for strict judgement across a televised medium and the disparaging of the BNP, which Justice secretary Jack Straw has been quoted as agreeing with, there are those members of the British electorate that condemn this decision of the BBC's because of its supposed negative implications on the avid public audience; not to mention the affront this causes to anti-fascist protesters. This outlook on the situation, although valid in its own right, is a moot point, as surely further exposure on the side of the BNP elevates the moral high ground of its adversaries.
The party in question, chaired by MEP Nick Griffin, has been requested to make an appear ance on the flagship show by the programmers who manage BBC programmes such as Question Time. The presumed aim of this broadcast political panel is to air the views of the respective British parties, in the hopes that a better, interpersonal scope for argument against certain party policies endorsed by the BNP will enable a more justified analysis of the infamous ultra-nationalistic body. The justification itself would be embodied not just through the demonstration of protest towards a party whose raison d'être enshrines gross ethical shortcomings, but also by the polemics of the BNP itself, which should mainly serve to bolster a common feeling of contempt for them across the country.
Still, regardless of the high potential for strict judgement across a televised medium and the disparaging of the BNP, which Justice secretary Jack Straw has been quoted as agreeing with, there are those members of the British electorate that condemn this decision of the BBC's because of its supposed negative implications on the avid public audience; not to mention the affront this causes to anti-fascist protesters. This outlook on the situation, although valid in its own right, is a moot point, as surely further exposure on the side of the BNP elevates the moral high ground of its adversaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment