Eminence grease

I do believe ex-mayor Livingstone has something on Andrew Marr.

I have just coined another acronym GOing Through ThE Motions (GOTTEM)

A very 'civilised' interview with ex-mayor Ken Livingstone just now.

However, I was a little surprised that Andrew did not pick his interviewee up more on the related issues of delegation, deputising and responsibilities.

I do believe that under the previous administration there might have been more tangible, as opposed to alluded to, examples of dubious practices amongst senior subordinates. It's a shame these were not raised to remind all concerned.

Also, as experience with Gordon Brown seems to be showing, the CEO trying to be on top of and/or doing everything isn't the smartest move. Perhaps building competent teams, leading from the top, staying hands off (but maintaining a watching brief) might be worth a shot?

I am sure Gerry Robinson would agree.

Amen

In the Indy Letters:

Point of the plinth

Sir: No need for anything on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square other than an inscription: "The Honest Politician".

Some newspaper headlines go beyond parody

Ken Russell's former wife contests will of mother's lesbian lover

This is in a 'quality', mind.

And no, I have't read on.

Positive discrim... spin

Seems our government is thrashing about again, and our national broadcaster is well on board. To summarise a piece on 'positive discrimination' seems an amazing attempt at sticking oars in that would seem almost unworkable, we have suggested in conclusion:

'Labour wants to craft a fairer society'.

Quite a statement. Which is how it came across. I have written to ask if that was drafted elsewhere and just read out, or generated from within the BBC who already have the necessary officers in place to comply, be seen to comply and tell all and sundry that the are complying?

Especially for what appears yet another piece of misguided, intrusive, and ultimately pointless and doomed policy floating more for spin than substance, by an increasingly desperate, meddle-addicted government.

Why do I sense the only thing that will happen is a ton more jobsworths are created, a bunch of relative innocents hung out to dry and the vast majority sail on by simply working around the system?

Guardian - Not all women want to run the firm - I might also add that if this is the calibre of input we are getting from our accelerated sisterhood, it might not be all it's cracked up to be simply on plain evidence of our own eyes.

BBC - Law 'will ban age discrimination' - If not, in my experience, actually prevent it.
BBC - Harman pushes discrimination plan
Telegraph - Equality Bill: Labour's latest attempt at social engineering

What's really important

What could Gordon do to turn it around?

Just a suggestion, but instead of thinking in terms of his and his government's fortunes just for once ponder those of the country and its people. That might help.

Something all politicians and the media chatterati might bear in mind, too.

But as someone has already pointed out; it ain't gonna happen, is it?

Why use one short word...

Cut the conditionality: a clear message on jargon

Tactical noting

Gordon's law

Actually, a great comment from a viewer:

AMAZING GRACE?

I spotted Alistair Darling bailing like mad to stop the New Labour boat sinking, on the Andrew Marr show (Sunday). He came out with the priceless plea: 'The next election is not a referendum on us.' Is he by any chance descended from Grace?

My addition:

3. At 5:37pm on 23 Jun 2008, barriesingleton

Shame the commentariat we currently enjoy do not seem to see fit to analyse what might be meant by such an assertion from one of our political 'leaders'.

The maritime analogies abound, but I'll pitch in with 'rudderless; and 'up a certain creek without a paddle' for now.

The current crew navigating the ship of state are of course so far beyond help it is not funny, but I weep for all aboard who they are taking down with them.... only without the benefit of index-linked life-preservers given to all who enjoy their tax, fine & fee-funded largesse.

Ain't law great? We seem to have more than one?

No link, but an email from Ch4 that is a neat summary of a situation, with their own take:

NAOMI'S RAGE SPARKS MEDIA CIRCUS
Naomi Campbell pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers and threatening behaviour. She has been sentenced to 200 hours community service, must pay £2,300 in fines and £200 compensation to each of the police officers. And the detail of what actually happened is pretty stunning, and she tried to make race an issue at the time. It occurs to me, the day after Big Brother aired the eviction of Alexandra for alleged threatening behaviour, that young black girls in Britain are not currently seeing the best role models.

I am less interested in the issues of race and/or role models, but certainly in the way the law works, and hence note this for future reference in case a precedent is required.

As I understand it she committed both assault... and battery... on a police officer, in a plane. The consequences for this action seem... interesting, all things considered.

Quote of the day - It's all relative

...Of a quote of a quote...

'Interview by Jeremy Paxman with Yvette Cooper last night - as she was trying to justify the high inflation rate by comparing it to other countries. Jeremy's reply -"It's considerably lower than in Zimbabwe. Is that significant?" '

It wasn't me said it; it was Harvey

As a consequence of a series of blog posts that at first didn't make much sense, I have ended up at an explanation, namely an interesting journalistic technique.

Basically, if you want to say something but don't want to be held responsible for it, you create 'a character'.

Letter to the governor

Quite cute (agree with much), but a little ethically dubious.. and a tad morally corrupt?

And dangerous when it gets mis-reported elsewhere. That of course, is mainly down to those who chose to share only part of the story, but having got to the source I do question the wisdom of the notion or the objectivity is suggests beneath the surface.

Of course support for any agenda can be found, and shared, serving whatever messages one wishes, but at least by being a real person you can attribute some opinion to fact.

This is of course not my view, but those of my friend Harvey here. So I think I might use this again.

Leading questions

I am trying to fathom the mindset infecting many in the media firmament.

I have just come back from my Mum's cottage, where she has BBC News 24 on (unfortunately for her, and my, sanity pretty much 24/7), and there was a reporterette interviewing a senior Government Minister.

It follows the news of the latest tragic loss of life of British service personnel in Afghanistan.

Thing is, the logic behind and hence thrust of the questioning seemed to be along the lines of 'now a woman has been killed, isn't it time we pulled out?'.

Ignoring all the greater geopolitical issues and failings or otherwise of policy and leadership, as articulated that has frankly got to be the most facile thing I have ever heard, and if if endorsed by her superiors in editorial and above a truly worrying insight into the state of mind that exists within or national broadcaster.

I'm also not too sure that it serves the interest of our armed forces on the ground too well either (mind you, as I understand it that has not been a high priority in previous conflicts either).

Addendum

Rarely, I get newsflash emails. But only when something world-shattering happens. This just in:

A female soldier is one of four UK troops killed in a blast in Afghanistan, the BBC understands - the first woman soldier to die there.
For more details: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Tragic. But I don't recall getting many as a consequence of previous volunteer professional soldiers giving up their lives.

If looks could...

Just watched the pretty, groomed blonde BBC anchor ask a hairdresser if the way you look should have any influence on your suitability for doing the job.

No sense of irony there, which may explain the lack of in-depth analysis on how the laws regarding corporate and/or personal choice and preference can be used and abused, and often in a very selective manner.

No dealing with sensitive issues in a socially divisive way just for cheap time filling and ratings there, then.

But way of balance at least we can be distracted by endless guff from the kids on all the ways they have to cover their heads at Ascot.

I am feeling my media classes are so in touch with the real world.

At the sharp end

We are now pretty much in an era of process over result.

It matters not what actually happens or does not, merely there is an impression of some action.

I don't pretend to fully understand and certainly don't condone knife crime, but to me it seems all efforts need to be dedicated to the intent to or, good forbid, actual use of one.

Yet what do I see on my news just now? A bunch of reporters and highly paid 'experts' getting excited about a child of 14 buying a kitchen knife at a supermarket.

I fully agree that this is downright bizarre, but really cannot fathom how sorting this out will prevent a sharp-edged object getting into the hands of a person, even a young one, who intends to use it for more than cutting a loaf or eating a steak. And I am guessing Boy Scouts are exempt at camp?

The world is going to hell in a handcart, yet the politico-media establishment seem content to wallow in pointless symbolism.

How the news gets 'made'

Glenny attacks BBC for placing foreign correspondents under pressure

jadedhack Comment No. 1165049

"What's the mood there?" - from London

"F***** if I know . I've been standing on a hotel roof all day but my fixer says it's a bit tense...." would be the honest answer most of the time.

LoL. If I may presume to suggest an addition:

'... but here's my personal opinion and my employer's favoured line anyway...'

Cut back to see whoever is on researcher speed dial and/or within walking distance of studio to then add authoritative 'objective' commentary to authoritative 'objective' reporting.

Worth every penny... I'm sure.

Licence free for all

Just watched the tail end of Breakfast News where some kid 'magazine' was being profiled/promoted.

Amongst other fun things, it would be seeking to empower our 'yoof' by facilitating things like flash mobs, for instance 'to protest Mr. Bush's visit'.

I wonder if they get a subsidy from BBC Worldwide, who I am sure can re-juggle their budgets up again to accommodate.

Anyway, as the blonde and bouffant seemed to approve, it's all merry japes.

Welcome to the UK, American scum

History will pass judgement on the abilities and actions of many, assuming it is still left to be shared in a professional, agenda-free form from the hands of those who in theory concern themselves with facts and balance in serving us our information.

If so, I rather doubt President Bush will be deemed on his merits one of the best the USA has had, for their own country or others.

However, I do rather find myself warming rather perversely to the man, if for no other reason than having just caught a bit (popping Mum back home after lunch, and she, much to everyone's misery, watches News 24 dawn 'to dusk) of the live commentary of his arrival somewhere here by helicopter.

I can only presume the person doing all the talking was an invited American guest as there was a British accent involved too, but all I heard was a stream of rather partisan opinion on Mr. Bush's legacy. To the extent that as part of the invective there was thrown up the fact that 9/11 took place during his Presidency (yeeees.... but not so sure the whole 'attack the US' concept was entirely aimed at him. I am sure Mr. Clinton's statesmanlike actions might have had a hand in things) and he didn't cope with the whole being told in front of the kids thing very well (what was he supposed to do? Leap up and scream 'we're under attack!!! I'm off to man the nearest ack-ack gun?').

These are all entirely valid things to opine in a free, democratic system, but they seemed distinctly odd as part of the commentary on the arrival of a world leader to our country. If there was balance before or after I must have missed it, but in the circumstances it was anyway rather extreme and to me beyond the remit of our national broadcaster.

But in the world of reporting helicopter diplomacy, at least in the hands of the BBC, as a bookend to Ms. Plett's eulogy during Yasser Arafat's ascension to the heavens it would be perfect.

Speaks for itself

‘Vultures’ expose corruption

Mr. Mainwaring would be proud

For the last few days I, and the nation, have been told not to panic by the government and the media, especially our national broadcaster.

However, as drove with a friend back from a meeting today, our BBC news pretty much screamed that '100 stations had already run out!!!!'.

We actually looked at each other, frowned, and said '100? That doesn't sound like much. And in any case it is just Shell stations at certain locations, isn't it?'.

This just in from Ch4 : Tanker drivers picket Shell, with this as an intro to the email: The fuel tanker drivers' strike is not bringing Britain to a standstill quite yet. Around 120 petrol stations have run dry across the land - that's just over 1%.

Seems that if we are not yet panicking, the media will do all it can to make us anyway.

At least I can trust them on that. Tomorrow, first thing, both cars to the brim... just in case.

Times - Petrol strike: garages start to run out of fuel

And now, we break for a brief piece of content

Catching up on some reading in Howden

3. At 8:35 pm on 13 Jun 2008, barriesingleton

Mr. Crick's fine tome probably needs all the help it can get, and who better than rallying some mates to the cause, FOC?

I rather fear there is what was, what is, and what will never be again. The era of sticky-back plastic is now done and dusted. We should be grateful; for our fee we get not one face of the BBC and its chums, we get two.

I am sure BBC Worldwide can accidentally overspend a few million on a product placement sca... in house facility to ensure that whilst money goes into the commercial arm, the effects of such largess can coincidentally be felt elsewhere in the broadcast output.

Support for and promotion of the arts in the name of public interest and entertainment is of course a tricky line, but having just returned from a few hour car trip listening to Radio 2 we're all still chortling at the end to end 'guests' who not only pretty much were there to plug their book/gig/DVD first and actually chat in a witty way as an afterthought, but mostly freely admitted that was what was going down. This, so long as accompanied by much bashful giggling, can also be topped by reading out the where, when and how much as they have been 'caught out' and might as well go for broke.

As it isn't going to change, may I just enquire as to when, as a co-funder, I get my cut? A reduction in the licence fee will be a great first step to compensate for the loss of any form of credibility and objectivity in what I see or hear.

Anyway, to be fair to Mr. Crick, if in error he maybe did not know, or simply forgot best practice.

I am sure that checking with the necessary authority will establish the proper procedure and, even if it is not not strictly found contrary to the rules, any perception of inappropriate behaviour, especially one that might compromise one's professional standing, and even more in the eyes of a trusting public, will result in an immediate cessation of the practice.

With luck it will suffice and may then be allowed to rest... well, for at least 10 years. Hold on, is that the phone?

Let me tell you what you think, again

Those luvvies in certain media just don't give up, do they?

Referendums...

It is rather unedifying reading again and again in media rejoicing under names like 'The Independent' that the 'wrong' result was arrived at in an... election, from people who seem to think they are better able to assess what's 'right'.

Thing is, those of who support democratic freedoms and tolerate such views are rather up against the simple strategy of ignoring 'inconvenient' results and banging on and on, in slightly different ways, until the 'right' one is achieved.

At which point the process is suddenly changed to stop everything at this 'acceptable' point and lock it down.

Guardian - The fear factory devastated Ireland's flaccid political class

Telegraph - The EU's definition of democracy

Times - How can our No vote mean nothing to European leaders?

Times - Contempt for democracy

Times - If that constitution returns, Gordon, we want a vote -

What 'we' want, vs. what 'we' get, especially on the basis of democratic voting systems, seem these days to be rather different things. It rather depends on which 'we' wants what.

Because there are ways, Mr. Liddle, there are ways.

Guardian - A parochial message from Mr No

'A parochial message - Beware delusions of omnipotence'

No mirrors in your place I take it?

P-EU

Blog off EU

Apparently, this is not all about the EU that is arrogant, barking and proving rather unpopular.
As I can currently write on my blog. For now.

Ah, bless

Mark Oaten: Tabloids should ’stick to the facts’

I just had to cut and paste it, if only to see it in print again:

'...all I would ask is that papers stick to the facts, ignoring gossip and intrigue'

What happens to folk who end up in Westminster? And how do they end up in charge of our futures?

QUOTE OF THE DAY - The troof 'urts

Apprentice winner Lee on his CV 'mis-writing':

'I suppose I should have shared the actual situation more correctly'.

That would be... um.. not telling porkies, then.

Gaurdian - Last night's TV: The Apprentice

Times - Face it, the right apprentice won

Losing it

As has the BBC, I have just 'learned', that the civil servant involved in the latest data loss scandal has been suspended, but it would seem to appear (at least as presented) that this is only after Prime Minister Brown 'intervened'.

Now I can see why he needs to know about such stuff, but worry about the sensible running of the country if no hiring or firing decision in government seems possible without his say-so. Or at least until his spinners get a crack at telling the BBC to lay it all at his door first.

What on earth are the various ministers and/or departmental actually for then, save plotting and briefing media mates off record?

The irony is that this 'PM takes charge' scoop actually doesn't make me think at all well of the organisational set-up at all.

No one person can micro-manage to this level, and if they try to the exclusion of any devolved responsibility, it's no wonder that systems are shoddy and cock-ups inevitable.

Indy - He had one chance to take risks. But Brown has wasted it with this macho posturing

Indy - Loyalists belittled by opportunism and argument

From such as this situation to my utter confusion as to the role of the 'whip' in 'telling' my MP how to vote, I have never been so disillusioned as to what the point of voting for anything or anyone is, if one's beliefs and conscience can be traded so easily in this manner.

Guardian - A pyrrhic victory doomed to pitiful defeat

Guardian - A shaming victory

Gaurdian - Pork-barrel Brown - Not quite the result he wanted?

Gaurdian - Liberty sacrificed to politics

I would have posted on the Guardian, but typically with their 'new', 'improved' system, it won't let me any more:(

Reality News

My Dad used to jump up and down shouting at the TV when the wrestling was on.

And even as a kid I used to tell him to calm down as it was all faked.

So I don't know why I still find the various idiocies created for and served up by our 'news' media any different.

I have just watched a piece on BBC Breakfast about a kid in the USA whose Mum let's him walk to school at age 9.

All with vast amounts of 'what do you think?' flying about.

All I know is that, following this level of profile, from his Mum to the US news media to dear old Aunty, this kid's daily stroll is never going to be the same again.

But at least they all got their stories.

Questions are being asked

I love our local news, mainly because it serves to remind me just how lucky we are to be in this neck of the woods.

Well, except for the sorry excuse of news reporting we have here.

Pretty much top of the tree today we had the major story of the mother whose moppet ended up in the drink feeding the Swans on the River Severn.

So far, so newsworthy, if only to highlight the various local good Samaritans who fished her out.

What got me was the po-faced pursuit of the notion that the council should now pursue better barriers to prevent this happening in future. So questions are being asked and reports drawn up.

Mother. Daughter. River. Swans. Gravity. Parental responsibility. Common sense.

But good on our intrepid media to see this as a critical subject for investigation.

Travel panning

Other than getting testy with sloppy reporting, I am a bit intrigued as to what guides or 'leaders' travel plans. Whim? Whimsy? And who pays for all these mercy dashes of questionable public benefit?

Prospects for Tuesday, 10 JuneNewsnight
Today's output editor is Simon Enright - here's his morning e-mail to the production team:
Tomorrow sees the crucial 42 day parliamentary vote and David Miliband has cut short his trip to fly back today to help lead the debate.

I'm sorry, but as I don't know as much as I evidently am expected to, maybe someone might help with explaining what trip and where, and why he was there and now needs to come back to 'help' 'lead' this debate? Was he on holiday? Or on UK business? If so what is happening to the overseas responsibilities in the interim. Is he going back? I am a little confused as to how all this gadding about works. Was the date a last minute surprise to the diary? Is his presence essential? Who pays?

I am not, of course, expecting too mnay answers.

I am sure there are good reasons and explanations, but a lot seems to have been taken as read. Having been given a hint at the situation, it would be nice to know the full story.

Blah no evil

If it's out there, it will have a 'Have your say' button.

How to stay on top of all the news, forums and blogs that exits these days? And why should one?

Well, you need to prioritise, and keep on doing so to ensure those who opened the Pandora's box of public feedback don't close it by the simply expedient of making it such a boring mess most give up.

I tend to participate with those who send me an email. They don't actually care what I think, but need me to visit to get the numbers to show how popular they are.

Hence I tend to reply to such as the Guardian and BBC Newsnight more than many.

Speaking of the latter, it is proving an effort.

For a start, since the 'improvement' a while ago, the system and many of those who use it have become a trial. It really is an effort to get a decent point across with all the trolls and partisan attacks that usually signal the loss of the argument by one 'side' or other, which then inspires playing the person and not the ball.

But what really gets my goat is the sheer arrogance that only they can set agendas and ask questions. And certainly few, or any posed back... to our national, funded, broadcaster will be entertained, much less answered. Even if they are more than warranted to establish key aspects of many debates they have decided to engage upon on 'our' behalves.

I have given up posting as little as the day before, no matter how more relevant the thread may be, as that is old news and nothing ever gets addressed, no matter how much it is still active and deserving of update. I still await, in vain, to sets of outstanding responses from the editorial team on two separate topics they raised, but seem reluctant to shed light key issues any halfway responsible , objective news entity should.

So I'll just pester. Those who would challenge those on pedestals would do well to look beyond their feet at what supports them too from time to time.

Is anyone listening?

The establishment, and many of its media mirrors, seems to have a quaint faith in the illusion and persuasive power of 'listening'.

With no paying of attention, subsequent understanding and/or meaningful action/response, it really is of little value beyond being a pointless platitude used solely as a sound bite.

Much like the statement 'give us your views' used on most programmes and sites such as this.

If those views also take the form of questions to those who set themselves up as questioners, but remain unanswered, one has to ponder the wisdom of the old saying 'there's no so deaf...'

And here... is the... PR...er.. news

Welcome ad fans!

'I watch the BBC News every morning' - I actually think there should be a campaign against the dangers of doing this to excess. Just trying to keep your head straight as the blonde and bouffant cheerfully parrot often rampantly contradictory stories back to back without trace of irony (I think my favourite was one on space tourism (to much ooo and ahhhing) followed by polar bears (to much 'naughty budget holiday makers... naughty!).

Only vee, ze BBC, ask ze questions!

Remember this - Questions that Sir John Lyon might like to ask Caroline Spelman on Monday? It was a few days ago, mind.

Actually, I think Mrs. Spelman was darn silly and a little greedy. But compared to what has happened since and is going down....?

You know, there are an awful lot of good questions being asked here. Especially in the thread to the original post.

I wonder... will any get answered?

Not holding my breath. It seems a case of 'only vee vill ask ze questions!'

I'm still waiting on my request to see if there might be investigation into the truth or otherwise of that Polish MP's claim on the levels of unfair negative coverage by the BBC on immigration issues.

As per usual, it seems that there is a flurry of fuss, a few loaded questions get asked, the answers (or not) rather ignored and then... moving on...

Dashed odd way to run a premium news programme dedicated to objectivity and fact.

Buddy, can you spare about £3.5B pa?

BBC blunders blamed on cuts

Well, at least we still have Mr. Ross. And the new ad-model supported online offerings. And...

So it's easy to see how lack of money in these key areas of public broadcasting could prove an unavoidable issue.

Maybe the licence fee should go up again to handle it?

Trust me, I've been on a course

BBC staff vote for more courses in trust

There are courses in trust!!!!!?

Simple. Publish the truth, objectively and accurately, and if you make a mistake correct it and own up.

Or... throw bazillions at 'courses' and PR to show you 'understand', are 'looking at', etc.

And working so well for the current leadership.

Poles Apart

Is the BBC to blame for attacks on Poles?

Well, they asked. Attacks... hmn? But I have to say, purely by personal observation (Hereford is a high Eastern European area of influx), the 'immigration' question is very rarely illustrated by much else than a white guy on a fruit farm.

So... an admirable piece of navel-gazing prompted by the notion that in being seen to try and address one issue, a liberal elite stands accused of opting to use one minority rather than other, perhaps more 'sacred' ones.

Do I hear the creak of a can of worms opening?

At least for the few days before it all blows over and the next issue gets cranked out.

Too much to cross fingers that the 'evidence' from either 'side' might make it into any if discussion (guessing a Newsnight 'twofer 'are/aren't' team are prepping as we speak) so the viewing public become any the wiser.

Or maybe such information would join the growing collection best left for the BBC and its Trust to know, and the rest of us to guess at.

BBC - MP blames BBC for 'picking on Poles'

Addendum on Newsnight:

15. At 2:00 pm on 04 Jun 2008, JunkkMale wrote: Too much to cross fingers that the 'evidence' from either 'side' might make it into any if discussion.

Rather odd, if not these days unusual, to watch a BBC presenter read out a statement from 'the BBC' (whatever that description covers) 'defending itself'.

At least we had a good natured discussion with the chaired twofer.

However, despite having the MP in question to hand, I don't recall him being challenged to substantiate the key aspect of his claim (the comparative levels of negative coverage of one ethnic/national grouping vs. any others when it comes to issues resulting from immigration).

And hence no attempt was required, and therefore provided to prove any defence to the contrary. Hence as a result of this news item I am none the wiser on the facts of the key point raised (first by the MP, and then here by the editorial).

I know it's tricky, especially when dealing with the reporting of any grouping (especially in the negative, but of course undue positives can also raise eyebrows, too) if it ends up based on an objective (er... how would this be managed/measured/policed?) % of statistical demographic representation. However numbers are there, obviously. Hence I was surprised to learn that Poles are now the largest grouping, which may go to the relative levels of their nationality being mentioned in matters of immigration, though personally (and living in fruit-picking central, Hereford) I cannot say I have much experience of any real negatives in my county at all.

And while I am sure the BBC does relish any opportunity to drag the Daily Mail into anything possible by way of comparison, I could care less what this newspaper does. The issue was how our national broadcaster is handling its coverage.

Sadly, at this point I remain about as wise as I do when in answer to a challenge Mr. Paxman a senior politician says 'I don't accept that' and gets away without being nailed on a substantive inaccuracy.

Civil Se...

Seems that is about what you are getting vs. what you are paying for.

I'm not coming in today ...

I think they might be under Dr. Pepper's care.

If they do keep pulling sickies, 'What's the worst that can happen?'.

And I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Bang. Crash. Pow! That's the economy, now...

Gordon Brown turns (to?) superhero to save Britain

I am sure he needs all the help he can get, and it is fascinating to see where it is coming from by the support given in some quarters, especially when it comes to adjusting the headline to deliver what I am sure is deemed 'a better reflection of reality'.

I await, with dread, our Dear Leader tearing himself away from trivial affairs of state to tell such as Andrew Marr* (cc: Guardian newsdesk) how proud he is.

Bless.

*I may not be joking. BBC News was... toe-curling this morning.

Get 'em while they're young

And really screw the pooch all round.

Oz TV advises CO2-emitting children to die early

As state-supported broadcasters go, at least the BBC is not as bad as some:

I post this in the fervent hope that with the obvious desire to point us in the 'correct', emerging truthful direction, no such excesses will be contemplated here.

(Objective) information is essential. (Balanced) debate fine. But rampant, relentless, unchecked propaganda is not only unacceptable, but plain silly.

By underestimating a) the intelligence of audiences and b) the power of the net, such blatantly agenda-driven efforts serve only to set back reasonable environmental advocacy through the power of well-substantiated fact and reasoned argument.

Mutually assured gravy

The BBC has one law for the rich, one for the poor

Hard to comprehend.

Whilst undoubtedly talented (mostly), there are plenty more where they came from, and no one is, or should be, indispensable.

The BBC is unique, and that works in a variety of ways. One is giving all sorts of folk the opportunity to get in front of a national audience, which can launch big-money careers opening fetes, providing VOs, signing books, etc. Less profile... less moolah.

Hence a slot on the BBC should be seen for the opportunity and privilege it is.

Along with the lazy, useless, senior management on equally rewarding packages, who defend their atrocious negotiating abilities with their mates on such spurious grounds.

If they were not part of yet another option-free, voter-unaccountable (telling that one who might see fit to intervene, our PM, is protected from paying the licence fee... by us) drain on the taxpayer, along with most other index-salaried, golden pensioned public bodies such as HMG's civil service and countless quangos, one suspects they'd soon find out what their true value in the open market was.

Guardian - BBC talent report: are the stars worth it?

Guardian - Woss it all cost?

As there are no advertisers, the only purpose I can see for ratings to register at the Beeb is as a measure of how the top guys are doing to help with their salaries. Not, surely, what the licence fee is/was intended for.

Whilst undoubtedly talented (mostly), there are plenty more 'stars' where the current crop came from, and no one is, or should be, indispensable.

The BBC is unique, and that works in a variety of ways. One is giving all sorts of folk the opportunity to get in front of a national audience, which can launch big-money careers opening fetes, providing VOs, signing books, etc. Less profile... less moolah.

Hence a slot on the BBC should be seen for the opportunity and privilege it is.

Not a means for an unaccountable cultural elite to enrich themselves at the public trough.

Telegraph - The BBC can never admit it's wrong

She shoots. She hits her foot.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And any medium is entitled tpopay who they wish to offer it.

I just have to wonder why such as the Indy (and, in broadcast, the BBC) give so much opportunity to this lady:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: A lament for the death of the left as a political force

As an example of less than subtle decrying the results of public choice and democratic process it would be hard to imagine.

When two tripes go to war

It's hard not to enjoy, to an extent, spats between media about themselves.

That Comment Is Free argument again

Hard not to err on the side of the Telegraph author here.

And that is some moderation systems are more equal than others. At least when it comes to getting to 'correct' views going/staying in, and those that are not being rejected.

Apparently.

ps: Re: 'I too am surprised that the Telegraph is happy to see so many pro-BNP comments on its site, but that's your decision. I wouldn't want my brand to be so closely associated with them,'

Forgive me, but are the BNP not also a legal political party, for whom I can opt not to vote? I would worry a bit if a major medium denied their existence and I was required to find out what they believe by other, less mainstream ways by an odd notion of what I am capable of deciding, using my own mind and free choices.

Seems an odd, and for me poor example to use in this argument.

More telling folk what they think

Is Hillary Clinton a victim of sexism?

Post the London Mayoral elections, C&N, etc, we now have a transatlantic version of a rather quaint new notion by those who don't like democratic results.

Instead of it being any failings of the candidates in question, the reasons are a weird mix of failings on the part of the electorate to know what's 'right', and being too dumb to understand that they are being hoodwinked by those who are 'wrong'. The solution being advocated by some is that only those (who, and by what measure?) entitled to have the 'right' opinions should be allowed to speak, and hence shape others' views 'correctly'.

It would be silly for me to say I have no interest in the next leadership of the USA, but as a Brit I at least can declare one, stand back and offer subjective opinion.

Mrs. C would not be my first choice by her actions and words, and those around her. Mis-speaking, catastrophic memory-loss and fantasist behaviour are not encouraging traits in a national leader.

Hello, how are you?

The inevitable opening line of any call centre nightmare. And then, over the crackling line the long-distance caller then usually simply launches into their spiel whether I have replied or not.

Gordon Brown's best - and only - bet now is to be bold

It's rather like being back in the schoolyard, where a 'mate' of one of the less popular girls sidles over and mutters 'she fancies you, and is prepared to prove it'. Not really a comfortable experience and I am not sure any of the parties come out of it well.

'We moan often enough that politicians are out of touch, so we shouldn't just ridicule leaders when they try to do something about it.'

But maybe it's still OK if it is something patently bonkers, at least in this day and age.

Getting an unsolicited (I know it is meant in response to a approach in the first place, but few of us have 'people' to screen and prioritise and select) call at home from a guy called 'Gordon' with an impenetrable accent on a shared line (calls will be recorded for quality purposes) is unlikely to start well, let alone be of much use to either party as a true reflection of feelings.

Sadly, and especially in these security-aware, time-poor days, it's hard to see how our senior leadership can get to mix and empathise with those they govern, unless they try a modern day version of 'The Prince and the Pauper'.

From grocer's daughters from Grantham to 'Call me Tone', whatever common understanding and touch any pol might have had at the outset is soon lost behind a wall of minders, screenings, scheduled photo, ops, etc, managed by layer upon layer of yes-folk hired to ensure things go smoothly.

To suggest otherwise is a silly as it is dishonest.