It was wonderful to spend an evening at the Cambridge Union Debating Society, which has been home to many former Prime Ministers, watching (or because it's on radio 4, listening?) to a live broadcast of the BBC's Any Questions? Hosted by the witty, veteran presenter Jonathon Dimbleby, the show discussed many important issues of the past week with thought and intelligence. For those who are curious about media, political debate, it is something I would definitely recommend.
Having watched its BBC1 sister (or rather brother, according to the Dimblebys!) show Question Time for nearly a year and listened to the last few radio broadcasts of the programme, I was interested to see how making the radio programme worked and what the overall structure would be. My father and I arrived at the Cambridge Union around an hour and a half before Any Questions went live, though the deadline for arrival was 45 minutes before. We met friendly volunteers who gave us a program containing that evenings panel, paper if we wanted to ask a question and let us in. Sitting and admiring the beauty of the Cambridge Union, both the architecture and the overall atmosphere was so delightful. There were flags representing each of the Cambridge colleges, each unique in their style and appearance. (some better than others) Plugs, wires and general technology needed for a radio programme to be broadcast live were scattered around the front by tables where the panel was to sit. Interestingly the layout for sitting, changed from the standard debating structure of seating at the left, right and front centre to the panel being at the left of the room (not in their political stance that is). The society gradually began to fill up, not before taking photos and selfies that is. One of my favourite pastimes, when I can, is to eavesdrop on conversations. Wherever I am, it's always part of my intuition to listen in on people's thoughts and views. The Cambridge Union was no different. A number of conversations kept coming up: what people thought panelists would talk about, the quality of college flags, what they were studying at Cambridge. It definitely felt like there was a large and wide cross section of the public of all ages and genders, but all united with a common interest: current affairs. At quarter past seven the doors were shut with tickets very clearly stating that as the deadline. Key people who helped to bring Any Questions to Cambridge spoke, including a key life member of the Cambridge Union, who explained helpful safety procedures, the editor of Any Questions, who read out funny questions that weren't going to be asked and made sure we knew what Any Questions was about, and the producer of Any Questions, who sat next to Jonathon wearing headphones throughout the broadcast, and explained the structure. It was inspiring to see how a small, close group was able to make a radio programme 50 weeks a year. The panel, in my view, were of a very high standard, relevant to current events and likable, even if I didn't agree with all their views. Emily Thornberry, the shadow Foreign Secretary, was very clear in her viewpoints, and spoke well on many issues, particularly Donald Trump's plan to invest in infrastructure, which should be welcomed. Dr Lisa McKenzie is an insightful sociologist and a key figure from the left, arguing against a neo-liberalist capitalist society. Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the former British ambassador to the US was very relevant given recent events - he would have many experience concerning US and foreign relations and what the future could hold. Kwasi Kwarteng, a backbench Conservative MP since 2010, was very clever and had a clear way of expressing his views. Unsurprisingly, the main topic of conversation was Trump. As I suspected, the questions where different elements of what Trump's presidency could consist of, though this was hard to predict. The ideology and growth of populism was discussed, with it not being bad to be popular, but how populists often give simple answers to complicated questions. Globalisation, and its potential decline, following Trump's victory was mentioned, with questions raised over trade deals and agreements. Relations with Russia and Putin was discussed, with Sheinwald worrying about Trump having access to the big, red nuclear button. The other topic discussed was whether universities should 'no-platform' speakers who were, allegedly, offensive i.e. not let them raise a point of view or opinion. I felt Kwasi Kwarteng raised a good point about speakers who aren't allowed to publicly raise a view 'going underground' and gaining more support for a potentially, shocking view. My view regarding free speech has always been that people, instead of being silenced, should be able to express their view, and then challenged through proper debate. That, to me, seems far more logical and effective way of destroying an argument. I was glad Lisa McKenzie mentioned Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time a few years ago, and how his, frankly racist views, were torn to pieces by the panel and audience. While the right to offend is important, nobody should aspire to offend when expressing a view. The evening opened my eyes both to political developments and, from a media perspective, the hard work, dedication, research and technical aspects that go into the programme. There are few political programmes that give the public a chance to hold politicians to account. That is something we must preserve.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|