To be fair Question Time has a history of this. I suppose bringing on contrarians and giving the room a panto atmosphere makes for good TV.
There was no way back after they had Nick Griffin sat there a few years back.
Moronic. BBC really struggle to understand the term “impartiality”. If you invite someone to talk about Galileo you don’t invite flat earther for the balance!
It was exactly the same in 2016 – on one side economists explaining catastrophic impact of Brexshit, on another Coco the Clown.
I’m sure they just churned out the usual nonsense too, and no one corrected them.
Personally I don’t have an issue with this. People have rejected the vaccine for a range of personal reasons and I’d be interested in hearing their opinion.
I don’t want it to be used as an outlet to spread obviously fake news and I hope the producers prevent that from happening, but you won’t help people change their minds if you don’t actually listen to their concerns.
Remember, not everyone who hasn’t been vaccinated for covid is necessarily antivax. I personally know someone who only got his first jab a few days ago because he was simply terrified of needles. There are others who got the first dose but had a bad reaction and are too scared to get further doses. Let’s listen to these people instead of deplatforming them.
The BBC is a great one for doing this. Nigel Farage getting a platform to spout his bile on QT god knows how many times before the referendum is a case in point.
Do we even have a definition of what counts as an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
‘End mass jabs and live with Covid, says Dr Clive Dix, ex-head of vaccine taskforce’
Is this guy an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
Or Steve James, the consultant anaesthetist who challenged Sajid Javid.
Is he an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
Dr Robert Malone, vaccine scientist and mRNA pioneer who has become a famously vocal critic of the project.
Is he an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
I had the first two but I am not having a booster. Daughter just had her flu inoculation, and her HPV before, but not the covid one.
Are we ‘anti-vaxxers’ ?
Can we at least decide WTF an ‘anti-vaxxer’ even is before we start condemning them ?
It will be a room full of Brexity frothing throbbers.
[deleted]
I don’t know what the right answer is, it seems like a lose-lose situation.
Invite Anti-Vaxxers on –> lend creedance and give a platform to misinformation
Don’t invite Anti-Vaxxees on –> censor people and add an extra layer of tinfoil to their hat.
The trouble is “anti-vaxxer” is a catch all, straw man term.
I’m fully vaccinated but have been called an anti-vaxxer multiple times because I oppose vaccine mandates, vaccine passports and am concerned about vaccinating children.
Its critical all sides of the debate get heard, especially so they can’t be misrepresented.
Maybe we should only talk to people we already know we’re going to agree with, who can’t offer any new information or alternative points of view.
What an interesting world that would be.
For anyone defending the BBC’s defence of “impartiality”, you should be asking why they don’t also have a super “pro vax” person who advocates for mandatory vaccinations of every kind for every man woman and child.
Same goes for climate change debates. They have a level headed scientist and a person who believes it’s a hoax. Where then in the name of impartiality is the eco warrior who believes we should live without electricity and modern civilisation? Or someone from an anti car lobbying group? If the BBC is claiming to show all sides of the story then why when it comes to extremes do they only represent people on one of the sides?
This is why cancel culture is so harmful. You can’t just run away from ideas you don’t like. We have to confront them and debunk them. Let the anti-vaxxer come on the telly and demonstrate the indefensibility of their position with however many brain cells they’ve been able to scrounge together that day.
Look having people on the programme which are “anti vaxxor” is important so that their reasons and rationales are exposed and countered.
It’s not about “giving them equal weight”, but hiding the opinions of vocal minorities isn’t helpful either.
Unless we should do the same for other topics and then completely prevent any types of social progress.
What does ‘anti-vax’ mean?
In my view it should be reserved for people who oppose the use of vaccines, or even just these vaccines, for anybody. Someone who chooses not to take the vaccine themself say, or is against vaccine passports and mandates is not automatically an ‘anti-vaxxer’, yet many will label them that.
I have had two shots of the vaccine but feel uncomfortable having a booster because I don’t want to take a shot every six months. Because of that stance I’ve been labelled an ‘anti-vaxxer’.
That been said I would support anti-vaxxers coming on QT and any nonsense shared be challenged and countered.
If 1 in ten people are unvaccinated it seems like its a big enough group to warrant representation of some kind in these debates. I mean the lib dems got around 11% of the popular vote in the 2019 general election and nobody is suggesting that they shouldn’t be invited on to programmes to share their ideology because they are a fringe group. Only seems fair to me. If the scientific evidence on the value of vaccinations is strong enough there will be no issue in debunking some of myths surrounding it. No point in operating in an echo chamber when these things can be discussed freely, that has no value whatsoever.
BBC Balance – serial killers next, I mean we seldom get to hear them make their case and until you have heard both sides you are probably thinking what they do is wrong without being properly informed.
The anti-vax movement just goes to show that the supposed “marketplace of ideas” is an utter failure.
By treating those views as having merit all it did was view them more of an opportunity to grow. It didn’t matter how many well informed scientists explained that Wakefield’s research was bogus, it still gained traction.
The issue with these type of things is that there will be a million different anti-vax theories, all back up by complicated but wrong, or misleading facts. It takes quite a bit of knowledge and effort to thoroughly debunk one of those, very hard on a live tv show. Even if you do the anti-vaxxer will just drop it and pull another out of their ass.
Hands up who can accurately define “anti-vaxxer”?
What does it even mean? Are we talking people who are flat out against all vaccination? And if so, for what reasons?
If Mary from Sheffield doesn’t have the vaccination because she feels she doesn’t need it and it is not necessary for her to have it then bring her on! Let’s have an open dialogue and educate people.
In this scenario, she is not anti-vax.
Or, are we talking about Perry from Bolton who is convinced vaccines are part of a winder conspiracy aimed at controlling the population with secret implantations and lizard people?
Bring him on also!
I don’t know what my point is anymore.
Alternative view points are not allowed in the new censorious utopia.
i’m convinced that the bbc have given up on pretending to be unbiased. between this and the recent transphobic article they published, they’re clearly not bothered about spreading dangerous misinformation! i’m kinda pissed now that i get tv license included in my rent, because i can’t even protest their recent actions! it’s honest to god bullshit that us tax payers are forced into funding this viral misinformation and spread of conspiracies and hate speech. clearly the bbc are still just as feckless and useless as they’ve always been (and that’s really saying something when you remember what horrible things they’ve done and enabled others to do in the past)!
My biggest gripe is that no matter what the actual medical and scientific EXPERTS say, these people will dismiss it because they don’t actually want to change their minds – they are steadfast that they are part of the rebel alliance standing up for ‘mah FrEeDoMs’.
So much information has been put forward to show that its safe and reduces your risk but its still not enough, and you find the people who tend to be anti vax are all deep into 5G / autism conspiracy theories.
Dara O’Briain said it perfectly, there is a stupid thing in the media where they always try and make it out that both sides have the right to be taken serious.
Fuck. That.
Why don’t we give a platform to people who have no fucking idea what they are talking about
Oh yeah. Fantastic idea
Their opinions are not as valid as those of real scientists
This is the same BBC that hosted a climate change denying conspiracy theorist and gave them the same credence as a climate scientist in the interest of “balance”. This absolutely tracks with all the other shit they do.
Do the BBC think they’re being impartial (?) by doing this and showing ‘both sides’? Problem is that doesn’t work when one side is clearly BS, surely impartial doesn’t work when it comes to science and health?
As much as I can’t stand anti-vaxxers, I don’t really have an issue with them being given a seat on Question Time. The whole point of that show is to give opposing sides of a debate an opportunity to voice their perspective.
Some will say giving anti-vaxxers at seat at the table legitimises them, but I don’t think Question Time will do that any more than has already been done elsewhere. The way I see it, problems are seldom made better by building walls that widen the gulf. Diplomacy and discussion are far more constructive, and Question Time is a good platform to at least try that.
I don’t know, as long as depict them accurately as being dumb as shit, I don’t have a massive problem with it. If they pretend it’s a legitimate viewpoint, then it’s irresponsible.
Not all people’s opinions are equal and neither should they be treated so.
Normalizing stupidity never helps; it’s no longer contrarian when it’s the view of many.
‘Impartiality’ should mean portraying contrasting perspectives of *experts* on the topic, both of whom are wise, educated, and arguing in good faith. Unfortunately, BBC’s ‘impartiality’ has come to mean pairing an expert with an uneducated crackpot conspiracist. Producers have a responsibility not to platform potentially dangerous misinformation, particularly the public-funded BBC. Alas, that doesn’t seem to matter anymore in an age where producers are clamouring to dominate the audience’s attention and attain those delicious viewing numbers from shallow controversies.
The actual amount of anti vaxxers is very small. Tiny.
But the amount of airtime and space these idiots get is unproportional.
Surely it’s a cross section of society. So if your having a debate about the vaccine why give so much attention to something only a small minority believe in.
They would never do this to flat earthers or those that believe white people have superior genes etc
False equivalence. You don’t invite the village idiot to come and speak at a debate because he’s full of alternative talking points.
33 comments
To be fair Question Time has a history of this. I suppose bringing on contrarians and giving the room a panto atmosphere makes for good TV.
There was no way back after they had Nick Griffin sat there a few years back.
Moronic. BBC really struggle to understand the term “impartiality”. If you invite someone to talk about Galileo you don’t invite flat earther for the balance!
It was exactly the same in 2016 – on one side economists explaining catastrophic impact of Brexshit, on another Coco the Clown.
I’m sure they just churned out the usual nonsense too, and no one corrected them.
Personally I don’t have an issue with this. People have rejected the vaccine for a range of personal reasons and I’d be interested in hearing their opinion.
I don’t want it to be used as an outlet to spread obviously fake news and I hope the producers prevent that from happening, but you won’t help people change their minds if you don’t actually listen to their concerns.
Remember, not everyone who hasn’t been vaccinated for covid is necessarily antivax. I personally know someone who only got his first jab a few days ago because he was simply terrified of needles. There are others who got the first dose but had a bad reaction and are too scared to get further doses. Let’s listen to these people instead of deplatforming them.
The BBC is a great one for doing this. Nigel Farage getting a platform to spout his bile on QT god knows how many times before the referendum is a case in point.
Do we even have a definition of what counts as an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
‘End mass jabs and live with Covid, says Dr Clive Dix, ex-head of vaccine taskforce’
Is this guy an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
Or Steve James, the consultant anaesthetist who challenged Sajid Javid.
Is he an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
Dr Robert Malone, vaccine scientist and mRNA pioneer who has become a famously vocal critic of the project.
Is he an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ?
I had the first two but I am not having a booster. Daughter just had her flu inoculation, and her HPV before, but not the covid one.
Are we ‘anti-vaxxers’ ?
Can we at least decide WTF an ‘anti-vaxxer’ even is before we start condemning them ?
It will be a room full of Brexity frothing throbbers.
[deleted]
I don’t know what the right answer is, it seems like a lose-lose situation.
Invite Anti-Vaxxers on –> lend creedance and give a platform to misinformation
Don’t invite Anti-Vaxxees on –> censor people and add an extra layer of tinfoil to their hat.
The trouble is “anti-vaxxer” is a catch all, straw man term.
I’m fully vaccinated but have been called an anti-vaxxer multiple times because I oppose vaccine mandates, vaccine passports and am concerned about vaccinating children.
Its critical all sides of the debate get heard, especially so they can’t be misrepresented.
Maybe we should only talk to people we already know we’re going to agree with, who can’t offer any new information or alternative points of view.
What an interesting world that would be.
For anyone defending the BBC’s defence of “impartiality”, you should be asking why they don’t also have a super “pro vax” person who advocates for mandatory vaccinations of every kind for every man woman and child.
Same goes for climate change debates. They have a level headed scientist and a person who believes it’s a hoax. Where then in the name of impartiality is the eco warrior who believes we should live without electricity and modern civilisation? Or someone from an anti car lobbying group? If the BBC is claiming to show all sides of the story then why when it comes to extremes do they only represent people on one of the sides?
This is why cancel culture is so harmful. You can’t just run away from ideas you don’t like. We have to confront them and debunk them. Let the anti-vaxxer come on the telly and demonstrate the indefensibility of their position with however many brain cells they’ve been able to scrounge together that day.
Look having people on the programme which are “anti vaxxor” is important so that their reasons and rationales are exposed and countered.
It’s not about “giving them equal weight”, but hiding the opinions of vocal minorities isn’t helpful either.
Unless we should do the same for other topics and then completely prevent any types of social progress.
What does ‘anti-vax’ mean?
In my view it should be reserved for people who oppose the use of vaccines, or even just these vaccines, for anybody. Someone who chooses not to take the vaccine themself say, or is against vaccine passports and mandates is not automatically an ‘anti-vaxxer’, yet many will label them that.
I have had two shots of the vaccine but feel uncomfortable having a booster because I don’t want to take a shot every six months. Because of that stance I’ve been labelled an ‘anti-vaxxer’.
That been said I would support anti-vaxxers coming on QT and any nonsense shared be challenged and countered.
If 1 in ten people are unvaccinated it seems like its a big enough group to warrant representation of some kind in these debates. I mean the lib dems got around 11% of the popular vote in the 2019 general election and nobody is suggesting that they shouldn’t be invited on to programmes to share their ideology because they are a fringe group. Only seems fair to me. If the scientific evidence on the value of vaccinations is strong enough there will be no issue in debunking some of myths surrounding it. No point in operating in an echo chamber when these things can be discussed freely, that has no value whatsoever.
BBC Balance – serial killers next, I mean we seldom get to hear them make their case and until you have heard both sides you are probably thinking what they do is wrong without being properly informed.
The anti-vax movement just goes to show that the supposed “marketplace of ideas” is an utter failure.
By treating those views as having merit all it did was view them more of an opportunity to grow. It didn’t matter how many well informed scientists explained that Wakefield’s research was bogus, it still gained traction.
The issue with these type of things is that there will be a million different anti-vax theories, all back up by complicated but wrong, or misleading facts. It takes quite a bit of knowledge and effort to thoroughly debunk one of those, very hard on a live tv show. Even if you do the anti-vaxxer will just drop it and pull another out of their ass.
Hands up who can accurately define “anti-vaxxer”?
What does it even mean? Are we talking people who are flat out against all vaccination? And if so, for what reasons?
If Mary from Sheffield doesn’t have the vaccination because she feels she doesn’t need it and it is not necessary for her to have it then bring her on! Let’s have an open dialogue and educate people.
In this scenario, she is not anti-vax.
Or, are we talking about Perry from Bolton who is convinced vaccines are part of a winder conspiracy aimed at controlling the population with secret implantations and lizard people?
Bring him on also!
I don’t know what my point is anymore.
Alternative view points are not allowed in the new censorious utopia.
i’m convinced that the bbc have given up on pretending to be unbiased. between this and the recent transphobic article they published, they’re clearly not bothered about spreading dangerous misinformation! i’m kinda pissed now that i get tv license included in my rent, because i can’t even protest their recent actions! it’s honest to god bullshit that us tax payers are forced into funding this viral misinformation and spread of conspiracies and hate speech. clearly the bbc are still just as feckless and useless as they’ve always been (and that’s really saying something when you remember what horrible things they’ve done and enabled others to do in the past)!
My biggest gripe is that no matter what the actual medical and scientific EXPERTS say, these people will dismiss it because they don’t actually want to change their minds – they are steadfast that they are part of the rebel alliance standing up for ‘mah FrEeDoMs’.
So much information has been put forward to show that its safe and reduces your risk but its still not enough, and you find the people who tend to be anti vax are all deep into 5G / autism conspiracy theories.
Dara O’Briain said it perfectly, there is a stupid thing in the media where they always try and make it out that both sides have the right to be taken serious.
Fuck. That.
Why don’t we give a platform to people who have no fucking idea what they are talking about
Oh yeah. Fantastic idea
Their opinions are not as valid as those of real scientists
This is the same BBC that hosted a climate change denying conspiracy theorist and gave them the same credence as a climate scientist in the interest of “balance”. This absolutely tracks with all the other shit they do.
Do the BBC think they’re being impartial (?) by doing this and showing ‘both sides’? Problem is that doesn’t work when one side is clearly BS, surely impartial doesn’t work when it comes to science and health?
As much as I can’t stand anti-vaxxers, I don’t really have an issue with them being given a seat on Question Time. The whole point of that show is to give opposing sides of a debate an opportunity to voice their perspective.
Some will say giving anti-vaxxers at seat at the table legitimises them, but I don’t think Question Time will do that any more than has already been done elsewhere. The way I see it, problems are seldom made better by building walls that widen the gulf. Diplomacy and discussion are far more constructive, and Question Time is a good platform to at least try that.
I don’t know, as long as depict them accurately as being dumb as shit, I don’t have a massive problem with it. If they pretend it’s a legitimate viewpoint, then it’s irresponsible.
Not all people’s opinions are equal and neither should they be treated so.
Normalizing stupidity never helps; it’s no longer contrarian when it’s the view of many.
‘Impartiality’ should mean portraying contrasting perspectives of *experts* on the topic, both of whom are wise, educated, and arguing in good faith. Unfortunately, BBC’s ‘impartiality’ has come to mean pairing an expert with an uneducated crackpot conspiracist. Producers have a responsibility not to platform potentially dangerous misinformation, particularly the public-funded BBC. Alas, that doesn’t seem to matter anymore in an age where producers are clamouring to dominate the audience’s attention and attain those delicious viewing numbers from shallow controversies.
The actual amount of anti vaxxers is very small. Tiny.
But the amount of airtime and space these idiots get is unproportional.
Surely it’s a cross section of society. So if your having a debate about the vaccine why give so much attention to something only a small minority believe in.
They would never do this to flat earthers or those that believe white people have superior genes etc
False equivalence. You don’t invite the village idiot to come and speak at a debate because he’s full of alternative talking points.