Jump to content

BBC Hopetoun House Debate Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How can the BBC continuously get the audience wrong?  STV can do balance why can't the BBC?

 

And for clapping after every single answer  it's so annoying....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it's not unusual for Celtic supporting men, I would skelp her as well.

Speak for yourself. She looks like the Lisa Simpson "Little Miss Springfield" wax figure - you know, when they didn't have a body so they shoved a Lisa head on Dr Ruth body.

I'm also reminded of Linda LaHughes in "Gimme Gimme Gimme", when she seduces a man who's into being dominated by old women. Afterwards he says, "thanks. I didn't believe you were eighty at first. Not until you took your clothes off."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can the BBC continuously get the audience wrong? STV can do balance why can't the BBC?

And for clapping after every single answer it's so annoying....

Each party gets an equal quota, greens maybe slightly less.

So whilst the SNP sit astride Scotland like the electoral colossus they are the political make up of the audience would have the attendees at last night of the proms thinking it was all a bit yoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes - they always compose their audiences according to their party political affiliation, and most of the "Scottish" parties (aka accounting units and branch offices) are strongly opposed to Scottish statehood and in favour of Scotland's status as a bit of North Britain with negligible influence on its own sovereign parliament being retained.

It's an absolutely incredible position for any country worthy of the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Sturgeon adviser has said that the audience had voter ID of about 20% per party except for Green which was closer to 10% and the remainder not affiliated.

That is not the same as the audience being split 70/30 No to Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Sturgeon adviser has said that the audience had voter ID of about 20% per party except for Green which was closer to 10% and the remainder not affiliated.

That is not the same as the audience being split 70/30 No to Yes.

No it's not.

Nor is it representative of the population at large.

I'm not all that bothered TBH I'm not even sure of the value of the audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not.

Nor is it representative of the population at large.

I'm not all that bothered TBH I'm not even sure of the value of the audience.

Completely agreed. I think I said in the thread after the last BBC debate that several of the Canadian election debates took place without an audience and it immeasurably improved them.

Bernard Ponsonby put both BBC debates to shame in terms of firm but functional moderating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it probably is.

 

Besides, crowd selection should be based on poll support. It makes no sense for their to be the same number of conservative supporters in the crowd as SNP supports, considering the glaring differences in the level of support.

 

The BBC use support based broadcasting for everything else (take football for example. Their clear favoritism for the old firm). So why not the same for politics?

The purpose of the debate is not to re-enforce existing seal clappers. It is to provide informed debate on the issues distinguishing the parties from one another.

At least a per-party apportionment gives you an indication of who is being persuaded. If an applause is especially spontaneous and loud, it means that more than just their own party supporters are applauding them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agreed. I think I said in the thread after the last BBC debate that several of the Canadian election debates took place without an audience and it immeasurably improved them.

Bernard Ponsonby put both BBC debates to shame in terms of firm but functional moderating.

 

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of the debate is not to re-enforce existing seal clappers. It is to provide informed debate on the issues distinguishing the parties from one another.

At least a per-party apportionment gives you an indication of who is being persuaded. If an applause is especially spontaneous and loud, it means that more than just their own party supporters are applauding them.

 

 

That's where they can't find balance during questions on the constitution 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of the debate is not to re-enforce existing seal clappers. It is to provide informed debate on the issues distinguishing the parties from one another.

At least a per-party apportionment gives you an indication of who is being persuaded. If an applause is especially spontaneous and loud, it means that more than just their own party supporters are applauding them.

😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the crowd statements, not sure how many of these I've watched now and I've found virtually every interaction with the crowd to be cringeworthy in the extreme. Get them tae f'ck, and why go back to them to hear their pre−prepared response to the answers?

 

How long did they talk about Independence ? I voted Yes but fucking hell shut up aboit it already, the No camp are still absolutely papping themselves about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...