Question Time can’t deal with Griffin’s propaganda

Tonight, Nick Griffin and the BNP are being given a platform on Question Time. They are being welcomed into the mainstream by the BBC, who claim that it’s their duty to reflect society – of which the BNP are now elected to represent in Europe. To an extent they’re right. The BNP should face the same scrutiny as other parties, on programmes like Newsnight, where they can be grilled on a pre-decided topic, allowing the journalists working on the show to conduct some in-depth research, in a bid to prevent the BNP ‘getting away with it’, so to speak.

But Question Time is not a good forum to hold them to account. Firstly, it’s well known that the BNP survives solely on propaganda-based policy. How can you fight propaganda in a television debate? An example of this can clearly be seen from Griffin’s appearance on Tuesday night on Channel 4 News. He reeled off claims about Selly Oak Hospital charging wounded soldiers for using televisions. This has since been proven false. Civilian patients have to pay to watch TV, but military personnel are given free cards with ten pounds of credit each, allowing them to watch TV or make phonecalls for free. If they run out, the cards are simply topped up by the military liaison officer. It was only the next day that Griffin got called out. This is one of the problems with Question Time. Griffin can use propaganda, misinformation and sensationalism to put his twisted message across. The other panelists and David Dimbleby are hardly going to have enough reference material, or knowledge on all the examples Griffin will no doubt cite, to call him out on it. Only reflection on what Griffin is saying, which will come in the hours and days after his appearance, will reveal the truth. But the damage will have already been done. The huge press that this issue has received will ensure that there is a larger-than-usual audience. Once Griffin has used this platform to spout propaganda, which does not open itself up to rationality and therefore cannot be contested with rational debate, Griffin may have had an impact on some parts of the audience who are susceptible to his vitriol. What good can possibly come of this?

Another argument put forward by those who believe Griffin is right to have a platform, as an elected representative, is that we will in some way ‘expose’ the BNP. How many times do we have to expose the BNP? It’s almost being presented as if this is the defining moment for them, and a chance to stick it up ‘em. Well, they get exposed time and time and time and time and time and time again. When comes the point where we go ‘there’s a societal problem here, so let’s deal with it’?   

Let’s not even start on Jack Straw…His record is tarnished and he’s a part of a weakened and inept government. He might as well draw a target on his forehead and be done with it. How this man is supposed to challenge Griffin is a mystery to me…

By giving Griffin a platform where his views might well be appropriately challenged, but his evidence to support his views isn’t, is not the way to beat the BNP. Some people watching will say ‘hold on – he’s got a point’, when he substantiates his claims with false evidence.

I think Griffin may do well, and the BBC will be regretting their decision tomorrow morning…