Here is an example of the sort of thing that is increasingly turning people off of the BBC.
In this video from 2018 we have two young men, in a rather contrived set up, debating the legitimacy or otherwise of the Cross of St George, England’s (as distinct from Britain and the UK) national flag since at least the 1300s.
We are introduced to them simply as Kehinde (against) and Callum (for).
Kehinde is, in fact, Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies in the School of Social Sciences at Birmingham City University, Director of the Centre for Critical Social Research, founder of the Harambee Organisation of Black Unity and co-chair of the UK Black Studies Association. He is the author of “The Psychosis of Whiteness” and has his own Wikipedia and IMDB entries.
It might’ve been quicker to simply write “professional race baiting grifter” but that might be considered rude.
Callum is, as far as I can establish, simply Callum. I doubt he is a Professor of English Culture and Symbolism or a founder of a group promoting “White Unity”.
Now, I’m not knocking Callum, he does very well indeed, I think he carries the argument, but then I would. He makes good points calmly and even manages to smile. He certainly deserves a medal for keeping his cool and not simply lamping the smug, snivelling seated one. Nevetheless, the pairing can hardly be described as balanced.
This is classic BBC, and increasingly other media outlets. Give equal time in an unequal contest. Taking the best or most qualified representative of the side they favour and a less weighty champion from the one they don’t. I’ve seen it done at events I was present at. It’s much more subtle than just a numbers game.
I have heard it argued that they take “typical” examples of the supporters of two sides. If this is the case then they need some of their own unconcious bias training.
A good example is the EU/Brexit debate where we’ve seen endless vox pop pieces which contrast smart, articulate (if smug and annoying) Remaniacs with clumsy, knuckle dragging Leavers who can barely string two words together. I know this is how BBC types see the two sides, but it is not reality. I personally know a great many cultured, articulate, well read and well travelled folk who voted Leave. In fact, I’ve always been struck by the high number of people involved in the anti-EU/Brexit campaign who have real experience of Europe. But this does not fit the BBC/EU narrative.
I’d be interested to know your take on this, let me know if you agree that the heroic Callum carries the debate or not
8 replies on “When the BBC gets it wrong…”
I’d be quite glad to see the BBC gone, but I’ll settle for privatised. There’s nothing truly British left about them anyway.
The guy sitting down (weird juxtaposition for a debate, eh?) came off as somewhat condescending, even when speaking somewhat even-handedly (not resorting to emotion). However, he trotted out several tropes I’ve heard over here in the states, the Crusades, slaves, etc. I would almost conclude that he was anti-Christian rather than anti-white (but whites are Christian, eh?)
The guy standing wrapped in his flag didn’t have much to offer but history, which in itself is quite an argument.
Are they trying to remake England/Britain, too, like they are the USA?
Oh, very much so.
Auntie Beeb has been getting it so wrong for so long they have forfeited the right to begin, participate, or end any Conversations about any Matters of Consequence.
They should re-run the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Doctors and leave it at that.
It’s certainly not a brand new phenomanon and is part of the general march through the institutions. It gets worse over time as is more succesful.
The generation raised on only 10% biased TV go to 10% biased Universities, get a degree in Media studies, then go on to get a job at the Beeb or lecture at the Uni and produce 20% bisaed programmes or courses…and so the ratchet turns.
I do think the demented and desperate reaction to the election of the Donald and Brexit in 2016 have brought things to a head. They’re less subtle than they were and more folk are catching on.
I harbor some hope that the Democrats and the Left have gone so far as to be too far overboard these last few weeks announcing what they are going to do when Biden is President (and he can still be President, until matters are sorted out, and he cannot be President – he is Schrodingers Cat right now, more so than Donald Trump, who will merely – and yes, that is a very big, almost entirely inappropriate “merely” – be on his 2nd Term is he wins).
That this could be their Robespierre’s Last Speech.
Not that they will be dragged off to the guillotine with a jaw they have have shot off trying to avoid said guillotine.
[Robespierre knew nothing of firearms, so he did not load enough powder into his dueling pistol, or where to aim it, so instead of blowing his brains out he shot his jaw half off so it could could only be held on with a large handkerchief. The handkerchief was demed to intefere with the most efficient action of the guillotine so his executioner ripped it off before pushing his neck into that half curve designed to make sure the blade hit where it should. It was all so fun! For the audience, of course, not for Robespierre.]
People who might be appalled at the result of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the idea of a Trump second term might actually feel reassured Biden lost.
Ahhh, the demise of Citoyen Robespierre always gives me a warm fuzzy (unlike Scott, I’m not a good man.)
I hadn’t heard of his lack of firearms awareness. It reminds me of a question I was going to ask. I undestand from the news and personal correspondants in the US that many of the large number of first time gun buyers of the last few months are Democrats. Can we expect a surge in self inflicted missing toes and other foot injuries as they get to know their new weapons?
We’re past that, and maybe for the better, and maybe not.