BBC Television programmes  permalink

Question time

Messages: 1 - 9 of 9
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by marcelmann (U15620568) on Monday, 18th February 2013

    It would be interesting to know, either at the begining or the end of the program, the occupations of the audience. for instance, how many work in the public and how many in the private sector, Then divide it further, any one self employed any one the director of a small limited company , anyone work for a big corporation in managment or another roll, does anyone run a business employing more than 5 people
    . For the public sector is any one in government, or education or health or military and what sort of roll they have.
    you could ask , on a show of hands if any one present dares to admit to earning more than the national average etc.
    I put this idea forward as our occupation and background influences the way we see things this inturn might explain some of the cinicism and envy displayed by the audiences

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Grandadpop (U3054464) on Monday, 18th February 2013

    I do not know whether or not the audience is selected but have always assumed them to be a cross-section of the local public, with a cross-section of views. Though I sometimes wonder...

    But if you are serious, I suggest you take note of the location, rather than the people...This often tells more about the audience.

    For instance, (generalising...) if QT was coming from a leafy, surburban area, you might expect their responses to favour the right wing...but if QT was coming from a heavy industrial area, then left wing - but not necessarily. A younger audience would almost certainly respond differently to an older audience, a room full of students might be more volatile, a room full of pensioners would react more deferentially. Though there are always exceptions to the rule.

    Audiences are what they are...members of the public, entitled to their views. If you try to tick all the boxes you suggest, then you would either need a small army of receptionists to deal with the paperwork, or the audience simply wouldn't bother to turn up. I would resent being asked what my political views are just to attend a public meeting. If that was the case, I would join a political party and air my views there, amongst like-minded individuals.

    The panellists - mainly politicians - need to FEEL the atmosphere when they respond to questions. A selected audience would just sit and listen and that would be a very dull show!
    But people who have been affected by the policies of government, deserve the chance to tell politicians exactly what they think of them and Question Time provides a platform for just that, hence the occasional outburst and exchange of views. Much more interesting.

    I think filling in a questionaire before the show starts would be more time-consuming than it's worth and may well put people off.

    'G-G'

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Johnbee (U542312) on Monday, 18th February 2013

    What a strange couple of posts. I live in an extremely pleasant leafy area in a detached house overlooking green belt land, and I am on the left politically, certainly left of the QT audience of viewers who are very right wing. I earn more than the national average so am not at all envious of the viewers of QT - in fact if I was like them I would probably be as miserable as they are.

    What matters about QT is the almost constant mix of two right wingers, two other anti Labour people, occasionally one from the far left, a right wing chairman, and one Labour party person. One person from the current majority in the country against four or five from the minority.

    Of course I don't mind the BBC catering for a minority, but my objection to this is that it is actually rather a bore hearing the same views week after week, from the same few.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Tuesday, 19th February 2013

    I agree that the primary audience “influence” will be the locality of the show which explains why it moves from place to place. However audiences in the main do represent a cross section of opinions, something which seems to have improved on the current series (the affects of a coalition situation perhaps?).


    Of course I don't mind the BBC catering for a minority, but my objection to this is that it is actually rather a bore hearing the same views week after week, from the same few. 


    What is more of a bore I would suggest are (1) Dimbleby’s interruptions and (2) the Labour panellist always contradicting what coalition say – no matter what the subject or contribution made they always say the opposite and throw in class politics for good measure. We never hear what they would do (which I guess is par for a party in opposition mid-term) but we get the usual “defenders of the poor” diatribes ….. so pathetically tedious. At least the Tories are not going on about everything being “Labour’s fault” as they used to when first in power although we still get the occasional irksome accusation. We all know that Labour are in denial supported by those with very short memories but I would rather hear constructive comments not “you say black I say white” exchanges. IMHO the “guest” panellists make the show; Ian Hislop being an good recent example.


    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Wednesday, 20th February 2013

    It would be interesting to know, either at the begining or the end of the program, the occupations of the audience. for instance, how many work in the public and how many in the private sector, Then divide it further, any one self employed any one the director of a small limited company , anyone work for a big corporation in managment or another roll, does anyone run a business employing more than 5 people
    . For the public sector is any one in government, or education or health or military and what sort of roll they have.
    you could ask , on a show of hands if any one present dares to admit to earning more than the national average etc.
    I put this idea forward as our occupation and background influences the way we see things this inturn might explain some of the cinicism and envy displayed by the audiences 


    Good point.

    Maybe anyone who asks a question or makes a comment should have to state their occupation and employer. Also they should say if they are members of a political party before they make their comment. E.G "I am a teacher in a State school ...." or "I am a admin assistant employed by XYZ and a Trade Union shopsteward ...." etc.




    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Wednesday, 20th February 2013

    I get the impression that a considerable (and vocal) proportion of the "Question Time" audience comprises Labour Party councillors and activists. The Conservatives have never been very good at manipulating this type of event.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Wednesday, 20th February 2013

    Information about the QT audience wouldn't be in the least bit interesting, although people who complain about the composition of the audience are pretty amusing. Why just QT? Why not apply these suggestions to all programmes, so we can understand why the audience is laughing at the "jokes" in Mrs Brown's Boys?

    What would improve the programme is to vet audience contributions beforehand and weed out those where the person has nothing intelligent to say. Even better would be to weed out the boring panellists, which would get rid of most celebrities and politicians. Then, provide a decent presenter, one who can control the panel, doesn't repeat himself, (I think we heard some "expert's opinion on Bute three times last week) and doesn't waste time asking politicians boring questions where the answer is completely predictable. (eg Provoking a five minute discussion on the Eastleigh bye-election in a programme coming from Stirling, where the Liberal and Conservative just said they would do their best to win, over and over again). Then it might be a programme worth watching.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) ** on Wednesday, 20th February 2013

    I'd like to know what the questions being asked are going to be. Then I could decided whether to bother or stay up for the duration...... but then that, I suppose, is why they don't tell us in advance.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Wednesday, 20th February 2013

    I agree that the primary audience “influence” will be the locality of the show which explains why it moves from place to place. However audiences in the main do represent a cross section of opinions, something which seems to have improved on the current series (the affects of a coalition situation perhaps?).


    Of course I don't mind the BBC catering for a minority, but my objection to this is that it is actually rather a bore hearing the same views week after week, from the same few. 


    What is more of a bore I would suggest are (1) Dimbleby’s interruptions and (2) the Labour panellist always contradicting what coalition say – no matter what the subject or contribution made they always say the opposite and throw in class politics for good measure. We never hear what they would do (which I guess is par for a party in opposition mid-term) but we get the usual “defenders of the poor” diatribes ….. so pathetically tedious. At least the Tories are not going on about everything being “Labour’s fault” as they used to when first in power although we still get the occasional irksome accusation. We all know that Labour are in denial supported by those with very short memories but I would rather hear constructive comments not “you say black I say white” exchanges. IMHO the “guest” panellists make the show; Ian Hislop being an good recent example.


     
    Yes....say what you will about the Coalition, at least they don't practise class politics.













    Oh..........

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.