Latest news with #DebateNight
Times
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Times
I'm an opinion writer — but I'm not even sure of my own opinions
Recently my dad's friend saw me on the BBC's Debate Night. 'Your daughter was on TV,' he told him. 'What now?' my dad asked, probably wincing. 'She was complaining about something again,' came the reply. It goes with the territory. The role of a columnist is to grasp an idea, shake it and see what comes loose, then catch the pieces and arrange them in a new order. You could call them complaints, but I prefer opinions — little thought babies escaped from their mother. Sometimes I'm asked if it's tiring coming up with so many new opinions. It would be if I was a different kind of commentator. My more combative colleagues will argue the opposite line just to be contrarian, a skill I admire and fear equally. It sounds terribly earnest, but I can only write it if I believe it. The truth is I haven't made up my mind about most things. Instead of charging head on into a topic I prefer to dance around the edges. It often leads to having to get creative. This is a ploy, you understand. If the truth were known I'd be out of a job. Help! I'm an opinion writer who isn't sure of their opinions. It isn't the natural order of things. Surety is the hero of the critic. I know this when I read my favourites, whose recommendations I co-opt for the sake of time and ease. Gloriosa is our best Glasgow restaurant. We agree The Driver's Seat is the most readable novel of Muriel Spark's. For a decade my go-to coffee order was a cappuccino because it was what my mum ordered from Costa when I was growing up. I don't even like cappuccinos and yet there I was at the front of the queue, size medium and hold the chocolate sprinkles please. • 'Am I a woman or an intellectual monster?' Muriel Spark's peculiar genius Commentating isn't criticism but it lurks in its margins, demanding the same clarity of thought and elegant argument. I had bags of those in my twenties, or at least I thought I did. Your twenties are a decade of being convinced you're always right. The past is black and white not only in photos. Now every passing year is a reminder of everything I do not know. The alternative is to be a sure person. I have worked under a few over the years. They make decisions before you've even finished talking, kneejerking into action as if it's the most obvious choice in the world. Every one of them turned out to be a fool. Look, I'm a fool too. It's how I stumbled into this problem in the first place. We're just different kinds of fools, living in opposite houses on the same foolish street. The opinion-adjacent opinion writer feels around gaps in the conversation, trying to place her hands on what's been left unsaid. The sure person is out there making confident pronouncements, watching as the sea opens up to them like Moses. In being a sure person — a Moses type of doing person — you preclude all the fun stuff, the fray of don't know fixed into a tight knot. The brain-firing part lies in meandering towards a conclusion, my resolve dressed and undressed a thousand times until I've gathered all the evidence. It's a neat parable for life, although I'm wary — and this won't surprise you — of neatness. • Lists: a distracting, futile, universal, comforting joy Too many times I've wandered down a neat highway only to realise it's a dead end. On the neat highways I feel backed into a corner, out of options, with my back against the wall. I don't recognise them in real life. My driving is too messy, full of ten-point turns along the scenic route. Maybe you prefer them over these roaming efforts. I suspect it comes down to your definition of a column. There are several, but I've found mine as a subject, a reader of other people's. There is something magical in finding my thoughts buried in someone else's. The moment of this is what it feels like for me too. A shared experience turns into an intimate act. Sometimes it is as small as a fragment. Sometimes it is sprawling as a moral code. I have no easy answers on thorny subjects. I can offer you no wisdom if you want it packaged tidily. But I'm certain someone else might feel uncertain. That — maybe only that — is my one absolute. @palebackwriter One of my favourite journalist/authors has a new novel out. John Niven's The Fathers (Canongate £18.99) promises intrigue and plot twists through the lives of two young dads. Buy from Discount for Times+ members.
Times
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Times
I'm an opinion writer who isn't sure of their opinions
R ecently my dad's friend saw me on the BBC's Debate Night. 'Your daughter was on TV,' he told him. 'What now?' my dad asked, probably wincing. 'She was complaining about something again,' came the reply. It goes with the territory. The role of a columnist is to grasp an idea, shake it and see what comes loose, then catch the pieces and arrange them in a new order. You could call them complaints, but I prefer opinions — little thought babies escaped from their mother. Sometimes I'm asked if it's tiring coming up with so many new opinions. It would be if I was a different kind of commentator. My more combative colleagues will argue the opposite line just to be contrarian, a skill I admire and fear equally. It sounds terribly earnest, but I can only write it if I believe it. The truth is I haven't made up my mind about most things.
The National
17-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
BBC bias may well be unspoken but it exists
The Prof's dogged determination yesterday showed what can happen when an easy listening Radio Scotland programme ambles into a serious subject with a formidable contributor ready to stand his ground. He was determined to point out that 'fringe' causes like independence and Gaza are now mostly majority causes, yet casually placed way below the 'mainstream' concerns of the great and good in broadcasting's pecking order. Richard spoke about the preponderance of business over trade union voices on the BBC, the insidious presence of right-wing Tufton Street think tank types on Question Time and Debate Night … and the unfair way his own interview was being conducted. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: I went on the BBC today. Here's why it got fiery For that he got it in the neck. And gave back as good as he got. Yesterday's Mornings phone-in was about bias, bad judgement at the BBC and a decline in trust amongst viewers and listeners. Savaging the sole pro-indy, left-wing voice substantiated the accusations rather well. To be fair, Richard was asked on. I was too but didn't pick up the message till halfway through the show. So, it's true the left/indy position was sought out and 'heard'. But that's not enough. It's one thing to have a sole voice representing the Yes 'minority' (which as Richard pointed out, is a polling majority these days), it's quite another to be interrupted throughout like an annoying, foot-stamping, attention-grabbing, irritating toddler. From her tone, I'm not sure presenter Connie McLaughlin knew Richard's background beyond him being a National columnist (though strangely the paper's name was omitted from his description). For the record, Professor Richard Murphy from Sheffield University co-founded the Tax Justice Network and directs Tax Research UK. He co-created the Green New Deal and the concept of country-by-country reporting, used in more than 90 countries to identify tax abuse by multinational corporations. Not a guy to be shut down. And anyway, from 25 years' experience of live broadcasting at the BBC and Channel 4, it's totally counter-productive to interrupt or shut down a speaker accusing you of bias. Flexing the extra muscle wielded by a broadcaster flips the audience instantly onto the interviewee's side. The transcript of the exchange has done the rounds but the nub of the exchange was this: Richard: Let's just be clear. I've heard a programme which is entirely about how good the BBC is from BBC editors and producers. That is bias. Connie: Have you not been speaking for the past eight minutes or so? Because I don't think then that's accurate. Richard: Yes, and every time I do, you interrupt me. Connie: Come on. Richard, that's not fair. Come on. Listen, I'm going to give you a minute and a half, but I have got to move on. That's part of my job, so you can continue on for a minute and a half. There you go. Richard: You aren't rationing others… Connie: You're eating into your minute and a half … Richard: The BBC is biased against the nationalist cause in Scotland. It is biased against the Palestinian cause and its right to have a state. It is biased in favour of Israel very clearly. It is biased with regard to its output in favour of the wealthy of this country. And that is the accusation that most people in this country have against the BBC, which is why they won't listen to it, because they do not get objective reporting. Wow. It was powerful listening because bias was being demonstrated not just discussed. And because another contributor, former BBC Scotland political correspondent Brian Taylor, was correctly asked to respond. He insisted he'd never been asked by the BBC to tailor a report to fit an agenda dictated by managers. He observed Unionists also complained of BBC bias and finished: 'The Beeb did not steer me for one scintilla of one second.' Actually, that was my experience too – it doesn't mean management bias didn't exist. IN my 25 years working for the BBC, I only experienced one active steer by London in 1997, after Scots had voted out every Tory MP, meaning Her Madge's Opposition at Westminster would have no representation in any Scottish election programmes if we played it by the usual book. READ MORE: Half of Aberdeen homes fall in value as 'oil capital' status diminishes No MPs should mean no microphone. But London insisted the Tory voice should be heard despite their election wipe-out and that they should be the second speaker in any political discussion. I decided I didn't get that memo but did let Tories speak, for the same limited time as every other minority party. No-one complained. But the bigger point is that no-one gets to broadcast for the BBC without internalising its collective outlook and corporate stance. Things that deviate too far from a comfortable, middle-of-the-road stance simply feel wrong. No-one has to say anything. Especially after the BBC's clash with Tony Blair during the Iraq War over the 'dodgy dossier', when popular director-general Greg Dyke was forced to walk the plank. After that Auntie shrank from any confrontation with government and the higher echelons of the BBC and the Tory Party became interchangeable. The corporation's timorousness and insistence on the most wooden version of 'balance' were palpable to all staff. Take the indyref. I got a call from a producer in 2014 explaining that BBC Scotland couldn't cover the phenomenal increase in Yes activity unless there was some grassroots No activity they could film as well. Did I know of any? Control by unspoken diktat is how all corporate culture works everywhere. Nothing needs to be said. But back to the programme. Clearly, producers imagined much of their discussion would centre on the Beeb's decision to sack MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace for alleged sexual harassment and John Torode for an alleged racist remark, and to allow a 13-year-old Palestinian lad to accurately describe the living hell of Gaza, where his dad has worked for Gaza's Hamas-run government. A BBC review into the documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone concluded there was nothing 'in the narrator's scripted contribution to the programme that breached the BBC's standards' or evidence his 'father or family influenced the content of the programme'. Abdullah's parentage was a relatively small problem which could easily have been signposted, letting viewers decide on his story for themselves. READ MORE: Former top judge says court would 'likely' rule Israel is committing genocide in Gaza But oh no. The BBC removed the documentary from iPlayer. As ex-BBC journalist Karishma Patel asked: 'If the BBC is serious about signposting the relevant connections of every contributor, why not tell us when an interviewee has served in the Israeli military? Why not highlight the ICC arrest warrant out for Benjamin Netanyahu whenever he's mentioned?' Indeed. And while we're at it, what was the problem with Gaza: Doctors Under Attack – another excellent, disturbing, passionate documentary dropped by the BBC in case it did 'not meet the high standards' of impartiality – even though subsequently broadcast by Channel 4 without any formal complaints. Roger Bolton – former Radio 4 presenter told MacLaughlin that the biggest danger to the BBC is its 'on the one hand, on the other' style of reporting. 'When facts dictate the truth of one side,' he said, 'the Beeb should take a stand.' Correct. But he went on to praise the BBC as great value, 'costing less than a cappuccino a week'. Whit? This very comparison presumes a middle-class audience – when in fact, women account for three-quarters of criminal convictions for watching TV without a licence. Why? According to a BBC-commissioned report it's because women are more likely to head single-parent households; more likely to be in when an inspector visits and more likely to be living in poverty or low-paid work and struggling with bills. £174.50 is a lot for many people yet non-payment is treated as a criminal offence, unlike any other unpaid household bill. This is Auntie's biggest problem. It is so very special. A bit like M&S food. It does not just produce programmes. It produces BBC programmes. Unashamedly targeting middle to upper-class consumers may work for a private company. But not for a public service broadcaster. Some views, voices and causes are quite plainly the wrong leaves on the line for BBC Scotland. What's needed is a heartfelt apology to Richard Murphy. No-one's holding their breath.
The National
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
Lisa Nandy 'either dishonest or ignorant' after benefits cuts claim
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told BBC Breakfast that her constituents feared 'coming off PIP and into work' because they worried about losing access to Personal Independence Payments if employment did not work out for them. But critics have pointed out that PIP is not related to a person's employment status, suggesting that she was either not across the detail of the benefits system or was attempting to 'deliberately mislead' the public. READ MORE: BBC issues correction after Debate Night 'bias' on eve of by-election PIP is given to people to help with the added costs of living with a disability and claimants do not have to update the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of changes in their employment status. Interviewed about the cuts – which are expected to push 250,000 people, including 50,000 children into poverty – Nandy said: 'Lots of my constituents worry about coming off PIP and into work because it's so […] hard to go through a reassessment process, very gruelling process, in order to get back onto it. 'So one of the reforms that we're introducing is that you can try work, without risking losing your benefits and go back onto PIP if it doesn't work out without any kind of reassessment.' Lisa Nandy is either lying or has grossly misunderstood what her constitutents are saying here. PIP is NOT an out-of-work benefits. 1 in 5 people on PIP are in work. Noone on PIP WOULD EVER say this. Full stop. I will be complaining to the PCC. — Dr Jay Watts (@Shrink_at_Large) June 20, 2025 Kirsty Blackman, the SNP's DWP spokesperson, told The National: 'There are only two explanations here - either a Labour Cabinet member is wholly ignorant of the current system and the cuts to disability her government is planning or Lisa Nandy is in fact trying to deliberately mislead the public on the consequences of Keir Starmer's cuts. 'Either way it is evidence of just how desperate and detached the Labour Party has become and either way it won't wash with the public who can see these cruel cuts for what they are - an attack on the day to day lives of disabled people.' The cuts, which are expected to save around £5 billion from the £326bn total cost of the social security system, are expected to result in a substantial rebellion from Labour MPs when they go to a vote early next month. READ MORE: Do you get a free car because you are disabled? The Motability Scheme explained Government whip Vicky Foxcroft quit on Thursday evening saying she was not prepared to persuade others to vote for them – or back them herself. Others in Government are reportedly on resignation watch. Blackman added: 'With even Labour's own whips resigning because they won't vote to make disabled people poorer, the real question is if Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour MPs are going to stay true to form and support their Prime Minister no matter the cost.' (Image: PA) Greens MSP Maggie Chapman (above) said: 'Labour MPs need to be able to explain to constituents what different benefits actually are. Lisa Nandy should know that PIP is not an out of work benefit - the clue is in the name. So, either she is being extremely dishonest, or she doesn't understand the basics of what PIP is. 'People rely on PIP to get by in their day to day lives – to help with essentials like getting washed and dressed, managing medicines, eating and drinking, and mobility. Labour wants to cut that support for 1.3 million people, throwing lives into turmoil and pushing many into poverty.' The proposed cuts include making it harder to claim PIP, in a bid to stop an estimated 400,000 people from claiming, while around 800,000 new claimants will get lower incapacity top-ups of £50 per week, down from the present £97 per week. Labour were approached for comment.
The National
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The National
BBC issues correction after Debate Night 'bias' on eve of by-election
The programme, aired on June 4 – the night before the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election – was billed as a "Glasgow Special" episode. It featured the SNP's Glasgow Council leader Susan Aitken, Scottish Tory MSP Annie Wells, artist David Eustace as well as both Scottish Labour MSP Paul Sweeney and Labour peer Willie Haughey. READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens as by-election results called The initial promotion material for the programme did not make it immediately clear that Haughey was a Labour peer, instead stating that he was an "entrepreneur". Tonight, join Debate Night for a Glasgow Special@StephenJardine will be joined by @SusaninLangside, @AnnieWellsMSP, @PaulJSweeney, Lord Willie Haughey, and David Eustace June 4th at 9pm on @BBCScotland, 10:40pm on @BBCOne Scotland Apply here: — BBC Debate Night (@bbcdebatenight) June 4, 2025 Further, there were no Green politicians represented on the programme, despite being the third largest party at Glasgow City Council with 11 councillors, leading the party to lodge a formal complaint accusing the BBC of "bias". The SNP also expressed anger at the decision, with a party source telling The National that Debate Night appeared to have 'thrown the BBC's proposed guidance on balance out of the window.' The by-election, which took place the following day, was won by Scottish Labour's Davy Russell with 8559 votes. The SNP's Katy Loudon came in second with 7959 votes, while Reform UK's Ross Lambie picked up 7088 votes. Now, the BBC has issued a correction on its decision to feature two Labour politicians. READ MORE: Actor Alan Cumming to receive honorary degree from University of St Andrews In a clarification published on Friday, the BBC admitted that it "could have been clearer" on Haughey's designation as a Labour peer. The full statement reads: "In featuring Lord Haughey, as part of the panel, we could have been clearer on his designation as a Labour peer. "While the programme did cite his status as a Labour donor and our social media team referenced prominently his party political affiliation in the House of Lords once the programme was live, we should have applied that approach consistently to both the pre-broadcast publicity on social media and referenced that point clearly on air. "We are happy to clarify that point."
