Dimbleby's Leaving Question Time.

[PDQ Mobile]

So David Dimbleby is giving up Question Time at the end of the year.
I am pretty ambivalent about him, he's mildly "ok"- mostly.

But the BBC has popped on a little vid for our "titilation";

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertain ... r-25-years

We get :-

-The "Dimblebot" with John Prescott.

-A fellow being asked to leave the venue.

-Mr D sliding down the stage scenery

-A woman talking about "forks" being interrupted by Dimbleby's pager.

-And very and almost certainly predictably, we get the Rees Mogg and Eton school repartee moment.

It's not a lot to show for 25 years really is it?
Or is there a little editorial bias creeping about here? No pun intended!

[661-Pete]

He must be getting on a bit - (*Wiki's*) - yes he''ll be turning 80. Can't say I blame him. (Young bro Jonathan is a mere spring chicken at 73). How time flies!

I can remember his dad Richard pretty well - of whom it was said when he passed on in 1965: "No-one famous will be able to die anymore..." His last and most famous tour-de-force had of course been his commentating on the Winston Churchill funeral, earlier that same year.

[thirdcrank]

HIGNIFY was much improved when they decided not to have a permanent chair and I could see benefits for that approach here: it should be what was once called a current affairs programme, not a stage for a media personality who can easily become more significant than the events being discussed. That won't happen, of course, not least because there's surely some background here involving balance.

[Mick F]

Off topic. Sorry.

HIGNFY was an acronym that we had at home, well before anyone ever used it in the press. Maybe we called it that back in its first or second series. 1990?

BTW, it was one of those shows on the BBC that slowly lost its edge, and one of the reasons we stopped watching it.
It was part of the steady demise of our having a telly.

[PDQ Mobile]

HIGNIFY was much improved when they decided not to have a permanent chair and I could see benefits for that approach here: it should be what was once called a current affairs programme, not a stage for a media personality who can easily become more significant than the events being discussed. That won't happen, of course, not least because there's surely some background here involving balance.

While I can see some benefit in a non-permanent chair for Question Time, I always thought the opposite about HIGNFY.

The genuine animosity between Merton and Deayton lent the programme a unique flavour.


I have always thought Deayton's chairing to be unequalled by later "guest" presenters.

On the issue of Question Time balance, it would refreshing to see a hard left chair one week balanced by a hard right the next.
And then for good measure a Green Party etc. effort.

It is exactly the (subtle) lack of balance in my original quoted clip about Dimbleby's tenure that I was getting at earlier.
Surely he did/said more interesting and intelligent things than slide down the scenery?

[thirdcrank]

HIGNIFY was a poor example because it's what the media types now seem to call a "vehicle" for Ian Hislop and Paul Merton, so it doesn't illustrate the suggestion of regular change.

What I'm trying to get at is that if it's intended as a discussion of current affairs between a studio audience and a panel of politicians and worthies, then the chair should be a facilitator, not the star. If David Dimbleby hasn't done much that's personally memorable, then it may that he's been doing a good job. For some reason, Harold Bird OBE, comes to mind, and not as a chair for Question Time.

[mercalia]

So David Dimbleby is giving up Question Time at the end of the year.
I am pretty ambivalent about him, he's mildly "ok"- mostly.

But the BBC has popped on a little vid for our "titilation";

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertain ... r-25-years

We get :-

-The "Dimblebot" with John Prescott.

-A fellow being asked to leave the venue.

-Mr D sliding down the stage scenery

-A woman talking about "forks" being interrupted by Dimbleby's pager.

-And very and almost certainly predictably, we get the Rees Mogg and Eton school repartee moment.

It's not a lot to show for 25 years really is it?
Or is there a little editorial bias creeping about here? No pun intended!

except a very very very very nice pay package all those years, given what we know about how the BBC does things, mostly tax free or at a low rate of tax? he is probably smiling the same way Cameron did when he left office, having "got away with it all these years" And I bet a very very very very nice severage package. All for what? not doing much really I wouldnt mind do ing that at his hourly rate

[PDQ Mobile]

HIGNIFY was a poor example because it's what the media types now seem to call a "vehicle" for Ian Hislop and Paul Merton, so it doesn't illustrate the suggestion of regular change.

What I'm trying to get at is that if it's intended as a discussion of current affairs between a studio audience and a panel of politicians and worthies, then the chair should be a facilitator, not the star. If David Dimbleby hasn't done much that's personally memorable, then it may that he's been doing a good job. For some reason, Harold Bird OBE, comes to mind, and not as a chair for Question Time.

I think it's a very valid point.
But Dimbleby does ask questions too and quite a lot of them, yet in all those 25 years the BBC could only find the examples given above??
So from that perspective it would seem the man is completely uncontroversial or inventive in his thinking and questioning? We do after all have some pretty profound problems as a species and as a society.

((The inclusion of the Rees Mogg repartee was more like an advert for Rees Mogg, proving the unpleasant man has a sense of humour?
When I saw the "Dimbleby's finest moment" video available I just knew that clip would be there.
Surely Dimbleby must have made a more solid contribution to our understanding of politics etc than just suffering a jibe about his own son going to Eton. Proof of his "establishment to the core" credentials maybe?))

[Littgull]

David Dimbleby typifies the pro Establishment figure the BBC always use for these programmes.

Question Time has long since become an irrelevance with its recurring group of panelists who are mainly a 'gravy train' of egocentric self publicists and never stray from the establishment line. Even the hand-picked audiences are tedious and boring. The programme either needs a total revamp and revised format with issues, panelists and audiences who discuss and debate proper radical solutions to the important issues or it should be scrapped.

[Ben@Forest]

David Dimbleby typifies the pro Establishment figure the BBC always use for these programmes.

Question Time has long since become an irrelevance with its recurring group of panelists who are mainly a 'gravy train' of egocentric self publicists and never stray from the establishment line. Even the hand-picked audiences are tedious and boring. The programme either needs a total revamp and revised format with issues, panelists and audiences who discuss and debate proper radical solutions to the important issues or it should be scrapped.

I'm not quite sure in what way you mean hand-picked. I have been in the audience at QT, I just rang up and they asked a few questions (including who I voted for at the last election or who I would vote for if there was an election right then) and that was it - I had a seat. So there is a 'picking' process but I suppose that is just to try and get a balance and they don't end up with all one colour of politics in the audience.

I've also been in the audience at Any Questions (R4) - for that I think it was just a case of ringing and saying you'd turn up, but there is far less audience participation, unless they really clap, cheer or boo hard the audience can't even be heard during the transmission.

[georgew]

David Dimbleby typifies the pro Establishment figure the BBC always use for these programmes.

Question Time has long since become an irrelevance with its recurring group of panelists who are mainly a 'gravy train' of egocentric self publicists and never stray from the establishment line. Even the hand-picked audiences are tedious and boring. The programme either needs a total revamp and revised format with issues, panelists and audiences who discuss and debate proper radical solutions to the important issues or it should be scrapped.

^^^^^^^This.

Not to mention the disgrace of the person responsible for choosing the audience being found to have neo-fascist tendencies which skewed her choices.

[pwa]

David Dimbleby typifies the pro Establishment figure the BBC always use for these programmes.

Question Time has long since become an irrelevance with its recurring group of panelists who are mainly a 'gravy train' of egocentric self publicists and never stray from the establishment line. Even the hand-picked audiences are tedious and boring. The programme either needs a total revamp and revised format with issues, panelists and audiences who discuss and debate proper radical solutions to the important issues or it should be scrapped.

Not sure how you do that, though. I'm sure the BEEB are trying to create an audience that reflects a "cross section" of opinion as it exists out there in the real world. Some of that will reflect your opinion, or mine, and some won't, because that is what is out there. Audiences are made up of mouthy people, because those are the people who put themselves forward. Ordinary people don't have the time or the inclination. You want "radical" and not "boring"? So not ordinary people? What's the point in that? Who will watch mouthy, radical activists, who tend to be egocentric anyway? Just another way of being divorced from reality.

The Dimbleby role is one for someone who can welcome all shades of opinion in a relaxed manner (which he does well), and I expect there are others who can do it.

Question Time is a useful format because it exposes strands of opinion to a booing and cheering audience and allows us to test ideas current at the moment. Nobody will like every opinion voiced, and that isn't the intention. But without it we have what? PMQs?

[Ben@Forest]

Not to mention the disgrace of the person responsible for choosing the audience being found to have neo-fascist tendencies which skewed her choices.

I don't know when that happened or who it was but when I was on QT (during the high days of New Labour and before the Iraq War) the audience was more Labour than Conservative - but I was living in a Labour constituency at the time.

[Littgull]

David Dimbleby typifies the pro Establishment figure the BBC always use for these programmes.

Question Time has long since become an irrelevance with its recurring group of panelists who are mainly a 'gravy train' of egocentric self publicists and never stray from the establishment line. Even the hand-picked audiences are tedious and boring. The programme either needs a total revamp and revised format with issues, panelists and audiences who discuss and debate proper radical solutions to the important issues or it should be scrapped.

Not sure how you do that, though. I'm sure the BEEB are trying to create an audience that reflects a "cross section" of opinion as it exists out there in the real world. Some of that will reflect your opinion, or mine, and some won't, because that is what is out there. Audiences are made up of mouthy people, because those are the people who put themselves forward. Ordinary people don't have the time or the inclination. You want "radical" and not "boring"? So not ordinary people? What's the point in that? Who will watch mouthy, radical activists, who tend to be egocentric anyway? Just another way of being divorced from reality.

The Dimbleby role is one for someone who can welcome all shades of opinion in a relaxed manner (which he does well), and I expect there are others who can do it.

Question Time is a useful format because it exposes strands of opinion to a booing and cheering audience and allows us to test ideas current at the moment. Nobody will like every opinion voiced, and that isn't the intention. But without it we have what? PMQs?

I think your view and comments exactly illustrate my points. ''Everything is ok' as long as the breadth of opinions, questions and answers conform to 'establishment norms'. I don't doubt for one minute that Dimbleby is extremely professional in chairing the programme within what the BBC want and that he has immense stamina to be still doing it at nearly 80 years of age. But the fact remains that the programme, presenter, majority of panelists and audience do next to nothing in promoting thought provoking debate and solutions to important issues.

[thirdcrank]

I feel that one problem is the way that political parties - understandably - do their utmost to exploit the media and this type of programme is just one more example. Think of how Today has evolved from a sort of middle class, London-based bumbling start to the day with Jack Demanio (sp?) getting the time wrong with Monty Modlin somewhere down Billingsgate providing the common touch, to several hours of party politicians spinning away. I say "evolved" but it didn't happen through natural selection. It's probably one of the strongest arguments for the BBC not being reliant on politicians for its funding.

Good presenters try to cut through the spin in its various forms but inevitably become celebs themselves in the process.

When I mentioned balance earlier, I was thinking of the characteristics of the replacement: they won't be male, pale and stale. Indeed, she won't be male, pale and stale. Could be someone young, like Kirsty.