There’s a serious concern here. And it isn’t really much to do with the right to free speech.
It is still true in our democracy (despite social media) that broadcast news and current affairs are a key platform and source of news and information about politics.
If you doubt that, read the detailed work done by @CMAgovUK in their report on the Fox/Sky bid, where they found that a Fox takeover of Sky Need would endanger media plurality. gov.uk/government/pub…
Access to broadcast media (and certainly to popular programmes like @BBCr4today or @bbcquestiontime) is necessarily a scarce resource. So editors of those programmes play an important gatekeeper function to our discourse on political issues.
The concept of free speech doesn’t help much in deciding who gets access. What does help are the concepts of “due impartiality” and of “accuracy”: part of the statutory broadcasting code.
It is therefore entirely consistent with a fierce belief in free speech to have serious concerns about the choices made by (for example) @BBCr4today or @bbcquestiontime in deciding who gets a platform.
It seems to me that there should be three basic criteria for deciding who gets a platform and attention on a topic of current controversy. First, do they represent voters (eg MPs) or significant groups of voters (eg genuine membership bodies with a significant membership)?
Second, do they have power? If so, then part of the accountability that comes with power is that they are asked questions about the use of that power.
Third, do they have expertise or experience, so that their view is likely to be particularly informative? (Eg if there is a discussion on a current legal case, it’s a good idea to talk to a lawyer - perhaps more than one if it’s an area where experts differ.)
Applying those tests to @BBCr4today this morning, I can’t see any reason why Raheem Kassam was asked to appear. He represents no one. He has no relevant power. And he has no expertise in the area.
Nor, to take another example I’ve been commenting on, do I understand why spokespeople for @the_tpa are asked to appear on such programmes.
They represent no one (@the_tpa is not a “grassroots campaign”, as it asserts, since its policy is decided by a self-selected board, its supporters have no vote for the board or its policies, and its funding is obscure).
Nor do they have any position of power nor (as such) any particular expertise. (Of course some people involved with it may have expertise, but they should be considered on that basis, not on the basis of their links with the TPA.)
As I said, none of this is anything to do with free speech. Kaseem and the TPA can say what they like. The question is whether, when access to crucial public platforms is in short supply, they have any claim to it. My view is that they don’t.
Of course, broadcasters must provide a wide diversity of views: impartiality requires that.
But there is plenty of diversity among elected officials and representatives of real membership bodies, people with power, and people with real experience and expertise: that, I think, should generally do.
Incidentally, I also think that broadcasters should try harder to get voices eg from outside London and from poorer backgrounds.
But I don’t think that that is at all inconsistent with looking for people who are genuinely representative or who have real relevant experience: eg a benefit claimant may well have really relevant experience when talking about universal credit. /ends
PS it’s also critical to remember that “due impartiality” does not mean that every view has to matched with a counter-view, no matter how off-the-wall.
And the requirement of accuracy should also encourage broadcasters to ensure that those (from all parts of the spectrum) who say things that are simply untrue or misleading are effectively challenged. That isn’t done enough: and use Twitter as a resource.
