Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
ergo Norn Iron are dirty smelly low wage muslim imgrunts.
"The party is contesting all 69 seats at stake in the UK mainland regions, on a platform of demanding the country withdraws from the European Union.
Leader Nick Griffin, a candidate in North West England, said the BNP also wanted to stop Turkey joining the EU."
If any other party takes this stance, I'll vote for them.
in a more thoughtout less 'lets keep tha fookin mussies out' sort of way
if they want us to leave the EU, why do the care whether Turkey joins or not? Actually, how do they even think they could stop Turkey joining, if they've had the UK leave?
Also - cunts.
would not give you the power to pull your entire country out of the EU.
So presumably the next best thing is to get in there and do what they can to stop the EU screwing us up even further. And by making it known throughout the rest of Europe that it's not a popular body in the UK.
you can't help but think 'fuck balanced reporting.' That the BBC chooses to give an uncoloured platform for this stuff is to become complicit in the message.
but when you're operating one of the most powerful media channels in the world you have a bit of responsibility behind you. The phrase 'not all immigrants are terrorists but all terrorists are immigrants' is one of those pieces of hate-fuelled unspeak - a logical fallacy of the very worst kind - that has no place on a well-publicised media podium.
and the BBC have a duty to give all parties a platform. BNP voters also pay the license fee after all.
It is no the BBC's role to make up people's minds for them.
The whole 'oxygen of publicity' argument is flawed. You effectively ban a party getting it's message across and people will flock to see what the message they aren't allowed to hear is. I say give Griffin as many interviews as possible so he can make plenty more baseless and easily dismissed claims and make himself look more like the loon he is. Like on Newsnight a couple of years back when he claimed the Heroin problem in this country stems from the Muslim community. Have the argument and expose the fact they don't have one.
to ensure that arguments are being presented to the public in a way that isn't deliberately misleading. The ideas presented in that Dale article are sound in part; that an organisation should be given the chance to air its views so that all its dirt can come out in the wash.
But there's a need to recognise how media outlets can bootstrap a tiny minority irregardless of the idiocy of their views. You can tell me that growing support for the BNP is due to a groundswell of bad feeling from the populace, but to me a simpler and more occam's-razor-friendly explanation is that exposure equals votes. If David Icke scraped together the cash to form a 'legitimate' independent party and the media gave them a platform in the name of fair and balanced reporting, they'd pull in a few votes too.
So to come back to the title of this thread: it's phrases like this that have no place on the BBC. In its current form it has no meaning or implication whatsoever beyond badmouthing immigrants. If Griffins want that particular view aired, he should be forced to clarify exactly what he means: all immigrants out.
If the BBC hadn't chosen to report on the BNP launching their election campaign it would in no way have been a restriction of free speech - it would have been an editorial decision not to cover it. You can not write about the BNP, or not choose to invite them to a university debate or whatever else without in any sense denying their right to free speech.
BNP voters (individually) pay as much license fee as any other voter, and it's not like they are an uber-minority political party.
I suppose you'd have to read the BBC charter to see exactly what it says about giving column space to smaller Parties, but i'm not going to do that now.
the journalists have a right (and I'd argue a responsibility) to challenge/question any dubious claims made in interviews. The quote that heads this article is basically inaccurate and a journalist should challenge it on those grounds alone.
'but to me a simpler and more occam's-razor-friendly explanation is that exposure equals votes'.
So we should keep the populace ignorant and that way they'll vote the 'right' way? There is clearly a section of society who agree with what Nick Griffin et al have to say. If they want to be represented in the Council or in Westminster or Brussels by these people then they are allowed to be.
What you're saying is "ah, I know better than these people. If we don't let them know about the BNP then they'll just keep their silly thoughts to themselves or their friends down the pub, and they won't be use these views as part of the democratic process because they won't realise that there's a Party out that agrees with them and that they can vote for."
Maybe it is true exposure does equal votes, but if someone wants to vote for the BNP that's their prerogative.
Also, Griffin shouldn't be forced to anything. As long he acts within the law, it's up to him to decide the manner in which he portrays his message, how accountable he wants to be, or how clearly he wants to set out his message.
when I say forced I mean that should be the duty of the media outlet. Either they should investigate the issue to reach the core of what is actually being said - that is for 'not all immigrants are terrorists but all terrorists are immigrants' the core message is 'this country is no place for immigrants' - or they should leave it out. Don't leave vague statements out there if they have the potential to do harm; do your jobs and investigate.
So when I talk about exposure and votes, I don't want to see people's choice restricted (and I wonder if we're talking at cross purposes here because that's not my point at all); but I do want to know that it's been presented in a way that people know what's really being said. If Griffin stood up and screamed 'no more immigration, because this country is for the people who were here already' and the country erupted in agreement, then we'd have to listen.
One counter argument might be that I'm assuming that the general public aren't smart enough to see through clouded language, and suggesting that the Beeb has to protect the proles from the nasty manipulating BNP man. This isn't true; given time and motivation people can always see through bad arguments. But the power of a phrase like the one we're talking about here is only apparent if it's allowed to pass unnoticed. It should never be 'normal' practice to hear things like this said.
need something equally snappy to shoot it down with......
you have misquoted them. They included descendants and relatives of immigrants too.
What white, Anglo-Saxon terrorist organisations are currently operating at a level which constitues public risk? I can't see that there is much inherently wrong with the statement in itself. Rather it would be using the statement as justification for any number of xenophobic policies or initiatives which would be stupid and abhorrent.
Also, I thought if anything the BBC has a specific and clearly defined duty to report on the BNP's dealings.
the article is just reporting what was said - the BBC has a 'Views and analysis' section on its website and plenty of TV and radio programmes where political views are challenged.