Having been sitting on Mark Wallace's article in the 'i' newspaper on David Dimbleby leaving 'Question Time', for one week longer than its worth, there was an urge to rake together a pontification. I rubbed my hands and read again Mark Wallace's troublesome thoughts with heed.
The opening: 'Farewell, then, David Dimbleby. From terrorising politicians of all parties with arch asides, glasses swinging laconically in your hand....' is not at all respectful. Indeed, I can envisage a wry smile from David Dimbleby if he was told this by a work colleague doing a mildly candid, competitive taunt; alas this is from a Thirty-three year old Tory who was in grubby school shorts when Dimbleby took the 'Question Time' helm. Glasses don't swing laconically in Dimbleby's hand -- if the glasses did they'll have a brain, an ability to think... in truth they *swing* due to a finger pincer motion, the term hand is obsolete and bares no relevance to the glasses swinging; albeit, Wallace may not know the difference between a hand and a finger; p'raps Mark Wallace was too busy enjoying two ice creams than observing anatomy books. Of course, I don't hold his lack of anatomy knowledge against him, he's no doctor; alas, this underlines his non-specific, cavalier attitude on say other topics such as - democracy.
Unsurprisingly, Wallace prefers that 'Question Time' absconded into political history just like David Dimbleby. Now, if you're aware of the flagship show on Thursday night, there's a sense, the format of a panel, audience and cajoled participation (s) equates to fullfilling the role of a democratic state. When you tamper with say removing the show for example one could believe the act is of a despot. What Wallace fails to realise is that the show goes worldwide and is a gauge to where Western democracy is at - social media cannot be guaged in the same means, for there's a plethora of platforms and unless you're a data harvesting firm you're unable to fathom the 'mood in the democratic state camp' if 'Question Time' didn't exist. Naturally, there's an audience participation bias which the question masters like to air; hence, this is a separate issue entirely. You don't terminate all brands of ice cream because you don't enjoy a '99 Flake' do you? Indirectly, voyeurs of political shows are indeed clandestine activists; this is the nature of our Body Politic - why I don't see what Wallace means by the statement: "Question Time has become a pursuit for those inside the bubble, not a platform for those beyond it."
Political 'bubbles' tend to be of all different types and sizes, whether it's in a journalistic, activist or Westminster perspective (s). Yes, they interlock and change shape - albeit you cannot claim they're of 'one bubble;' this view is nonsensical. As far as I can tell, 'Question Time' has not changed its format and has not transgressed into a pursuit of any sort. The charm is audience questioning, regardless of answers. And members of the audience ask relevant questions - they're not all recognised by being in a 'bubble.' Pity Wallace left this peculiar claim in the air as if it was fact or agreed to a higher office; proof would aid this part of his article. But something tells me he shoots from the hip and rarely diagnoses his own prose let alone tap into credible data. There's a satirical ofference here which doesn't gift David Dimbleby as being an expert of broadcasting but generalised it by saying: 'experts in any field' about Dimbleby leaving 'Question Time.' Why the non-correlation? Immense time at the helm of a popular show tends to identify a person in the job, whereby you cannot imagine anyone else doing; meh, expertise is a non-variable. I don't turn on the show and consciously validate Dimbleby's chairman expertise; he's synonymous with the show, end of..... and to correct Wallace again he isn't retiring either he's going back to his first love - reporting --- hence, not exactly, 'farewell, then, David Dimbleby,' he'll very much be popping into a reporting bubble.
Again without bursting Wallace's rhetorical bubble, or throwing sand into his '99 Flake' - I'm frankly not bothered who replaces Dimbleby - the show is bigger than one paradigmatic individual. Once Alex Ferguson left Manchester United after twenty six years of being at the helm, Manchester United the club remained intact. The concept that the end has come for 'Question Time' is as about assumptive as informing us, real fairies are the main ingredient of fairy cakes. Wallace irresponsibly thinks up another question: Should the format be retired when Dimbleby departs? For those old enough to remember those spotty dickie-bows of Robin Day whom was chairman (before Wallace entered this world), it's strange but Wallace has automatically concluded Dimbleby has full legal rights to the show's format. A churlish question on the back of a prejudiced pontification that a fresh faced someone could be of a *drastically different demographic* - meh, what does that mean? Wallace implies the new chairman of the Question Time panel could be an underground urban rapper, or worse still, be a disciple of oppidan; hence, the drastic demographic Wallace plants his trepidation on; the answer being... get rid of the show entirely.
One area Wallace refers to which I adhere with is the yah-boo allocation of blame, an attempt to divert attention onto other panelists. Usually done by a guilty administration exposed as being inept, incompetent and out of touch; suddenly out comes the last century omnishambles of failed government claiming they're too be blamed for allowing deregulation or the wrong kind of social media. Wallace doesn't like the freedom of thought to go beyond neo-liberalism, duly he announces the electorate can now confront politicians directly in a myriad of other ways... he calls it 'ambushing' and even myopically claims the social network novelty of contacting those in political circles as no longer special, had its day, just like 'Question Time.' In truth this is sour grapes from a despondent Tory. Y'see when a Tory knows they're losing an argument they change the rules to suit themselves and the Editor of Conservativehome merely is outlaying the party failures by terminating debate; the proof, Wallace is wanting to call time on 'Question Time.' Not only can he use the term 'myriad' (a noun) incorrectly; he categorically states, 'Question Time' audiences have been influenced negatively by the popularity of 'gotcha' moments. Not hard to cultivate 'gotcha' moments when there's so many avenues to choose from -- I'd even happily clarify 'gotcha' moments are a symbol of a poor administration, discombobulated policy, contradistinctions beyond repair and actual rancor.
Here's some advice Mr. Wallace spend less time queueing up getting free ice cream at 'Unite's' ice cream vendor at 'Labour Live' claiming that there's hardly anyone wanting to listen to social policies at these events; and embark on something totally alien such as thinking beyond the protectionist mindset. For the record, the institution of 'Question Time' is written in the fabric of our democratic state, a removal of the flagship show demonstrates the UK is under autocracy rule - undoubtedly, you'll definitely won't like the populist answer to that questionable scenario.
Comments
Post a Comment