“He may be vegan, but that hasn’t dissuaded Chris Packham from sinking his teeth into the BBC, which pays him handsomely for presenting Springwatch. After watching its coverage of the Tory leadership debate, Packham wails: ‘Why is this wretched fiasco on BBC One?'” Writes Richard Eden in the Daily Mail.
Why wouldn’t it be, this writer wonders? After all, surely appointing a new Prime Minister is of interest to the majority of the viewing public?
The full Tweet is shown to the left for those interested. It appears to suggest that the Left would like a say in how the Tory leader is elected.
Mr Packham is not unknown for his passionate outbursts but, of late, they seem to have become more ranting. This appears in a manner more associated with Left-wing students than seasoned BBC presenters.
This one, for example, appears to be aimed at climate change not being addressed as quickly as our presenter would like. It is unclear what the relevance of the tagged celebrities might be.
Why, though, shout at the TV? This seems more the action of an angry young activist.
What does this have to do with the BBC?
What does this have to do with the BBC, I hear you ask? Despite the BBC asserting that Packham is not bound by its impartiality guidelines as he doesn’t work in news or current affairs, the viewing public will not make such delineation. As far as they are concerned the BBC is either impartial, or it is not. Any presenter expressing a view that is far from impartial inevitably damages their reputation.
From the same piece by Richard Eden: “Tim Bonner, of the Countryside Alliance, tells me that Packham should be ‘free to express his views…but the BBC should be equally clear that it cannot employ presenters who destroy its reputation for impartiality'”. Any discussion about the way a presenter is paid, employed or contracted is moot. The BBC is judged on, and is responsible for, its output.
As it happens, I rarely watch the BBC. On those occasions I do I am left with the distinct impression it leans more heavily to the Left. This can only be a result of presenters, and their respective scripts, being ‘nodded through’ without thorough checks being made.
Another example, if one were needed, of irrational ranting. In this case ignoring all the facts and science related to trophy hunting. So-called trophy hunting is, in most cases, nothing more than a managed cull. As we do with deer in the UK.
BBC struggle to present unbiased output
The BBC will clearly struggle to present unbiased, impartial output if it is unable or unwilling to bring its presenters under better control.
At the same time I cannot help wondering what might be triggering Mr Packham’s increasingly irrational outbursts.
Quite why either of these two people posting on this thread thought this exchange was wise is beyond me.