Today, an article on the BBC began:
"Former Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins argues that people who eat, drink and smoke more than is good for them should pay more towards the NHS..."
Hopkins is perfectly entitled to her opinions of course but why has the BBC felt it necessary to give her this platform? If there was really nobody more credible to champion this viewpoint then perhaps it didn't need saying. And if somebody has to be introduced as a 'former Apprentice contestant' then unless they are discussing The Apprentice they are probably not the right person for the debate.
This isn't really about Hopkins, the wider issue here is that we seem to have reached a point where fleeting infamy on the back of a reality TV show acts as an access-all-areas pass to the rent-a-quote ranks of 'expert without portfolio' in the UK media.
Perhaps the BBC would like to share with us Maureen from Driving School's thoughts on the Middle East. Or maybe we should be told Rhydian from The X Factor's views on global warming.
Personally I'm eager to know what Bubble from series two of Big Brother thinks about women bishops and I won't sleep until I've heard Pudsey the dog's one woof for 'yes', two woofs for 'no' opinion on whether Chelsea were right to sack their manager.
Comments