Do two w..ell, whatver they are, make a right on story?

I am a tad intrigued by stories in the Guardian that seem to have comments closed before they start.

Sort of 'we're listening...la..la.la...'

Tory PR machine targets local paper's online poll

Other than noting how most news media would take any poll they are offered to prove or disprove anything if it suited, I can't help but recall a certain paper that took it upon itself to try and rig an election in another country by getting its readers to write to the voters and tell 'em how to vote the right way.

Worked a treat.

Plus ca change

Against all odds we can still win, on a platform for change

Change? Must have seen that meaningless word borne by too many flat surfaces lately. Plus the walls and aircraft they like to stand in front of... on platforms.

To me it's now just the stuff that rattles around in my pocket until it makes a hole and falls from my grasp, only to be eagerly picked up as well by those who also turned my crisp notes into only so many loose promises.

Plus ca change.

BBC - Miliband in Labour rallying call - Change!

Telegraph - David Miliband is clearly enjoying the continuing speculation - I am glad some aspect of our country's governance and its impact on the people is being enjoyed by some. His name is tricky to spell, too, isn't it?

Guardian - Brown's courage and vision deficit knows no borders - As I still cannot post, I must reply on others to speak in proxy:

'David Miliband is a man of integrity. I know this for a fact.'

'Perhaps but just because he did you a favour and let you in the building doesn't translate into full integrity.'

Indeed. What a truly daft thing to write. And a glaring example of how those who have access via the media credentials can miss how things play from our political 'leaders' more directly to us.

You say tomato, I say a red fruit-like thing that is not the same thing

An interesting exchange on the Newsnight news blog (the distinction is, apparently, now significant), as opposed to the other news published/broadcast by the national entity we fund.

Bank balance sheets become focus of scrutiny

Look at 13, 14 & 15 and then the reply from a rather defensive reporter in 16... and wonder about the mindsets at work.

'...if this were "reporting" then you would have a point. As it is, it is blogging. It is not meant to be award winning journalism.

And I am not reporting "unsubstantiated gossip" - I am reporting a...

Not sure I can get my head around this, not just as a possible official insight into national media broadcasting/publishing editorial definitions, but also consistency...:

'...if this were "reporting" then you would have a point[ie: not reporting]. As it is, it is blogging.... I am reporting [or...] a...'

So... is it reporting... or blogging, and what then is the difference as it still appears in print, for public consumption, from a BBC reporter on a BBC organ of news sharing?

I am to in future ignore all I read on these pages?

Addendum: I have had a reply:

21. At 11:15pm on 29 Jul 2008, PaulMasonOfNewsnight wrote:
In on-screen reporting you can pursue bar stool intelligence and try to stand it up as fact. With blogging, I think it's legitimate to explain what people are saying if it's relevant and plausible and doesn't libel anybody, and especially when as "sentiment" it is a material factor in events. If people are beginning to act on an idea it becomes relevant even if not true. I'm trying to help people understand the scale of private concern in the financial sector, is all.

I could ask what the heck he is trying to say, as it is almost Rumsfeld-Clintonian in not clarifying, at least to my satisfaction, how onscreen is different to blogging when it is from an official, national media reporter, and how he in nay case seems to have contradicted himself on this distinction on one sentence anyway.

I think it best to leave that masterpiece of doublespeak as its own epitaph. Then again...

Just walk away, Renee

Seems I am not the only one who is thinking the number of 'laws' where the definitions of what is legal or not are vague at best is getting out of hand:

More nonsense laws

No one is doubting the severity of what is being talked about, and the need to address it, where possible, but I have seen a definition of manslaughter as the following and have no reason to doubt it:

"the unlawful but not deliberately planned killing of one human being by another"

And it's hard to reconcile that with a '...but it's OK if...' in the manner proposed.

Indy - New murder laws 'may send wrong message'

Stepping stones

Indy - * The editor of the BBC’s Newsnight programme has resigned his position to join Google as head of PR for the UK. Peter Barron has spent 12 years at the BBC2 programme, as well as time at Channel 4 and with Tonight with Trevor McDonald

Gaurdian - Newsnight editor Peter Barron to join Google in communications role

BBC - Newsnight editor moves to Google - Interesting to see how he goes into the commercial world as Google's head of PR for the UK, Ireland and Benelux, following a career straight into the BBC, using "...creativity and brilliant journalism...'.

I clashed with him a few times, especially on matters of the latter, and never did get adequate answers, even when having him dead to rights. Maybe the BBC's loss is Google's gain. But then, maybe Cuil have a chance as well, then.

Addendum: Eventually got an answer to my on site question from Paul Mason, who also answered my question on his odd phrasing in defence of reporting online vs. blogging.

I have replied:

Thanks for that. I see the topic was raised the day before by Midnight Pantsman but missed his reference as it had initially been referred to the moderators (why?), so I had no idea what his subsequent comment was about.

Nice to have confirmation here at last; these days it's hard to trust much of anything in the news unless it is direct from the horse's mouth.

As we have discussed elsewhere, blog gossip is often of less value than the energy used in the keystrokes.

How would one define such a move from news journalism to PR? Poacher turns gamekeeper? Or vice versa? Surely politics can only beckon more brightly now.

Well, as a kind of shareholder, and one with an interest in well-researched, objective reporting and editorial, I too will await with interest the next content visionary who will be appointed to fill Mr. Barron's shoes, and what he/or she will be doing to maintain the standards we have come to expect from one of the few national news programmes left that can often be relied upon to try and discuss matters that are newsworthy.

Brand Republic - Google v Cuil round two

Newsnight - Farewell

Have fun at Google.

I do. It gives me all sorts of varied options around topics on top of immediate answers.

And I trust them to be balanced and objective in how it all gets sourced, delivered and presented. At least to date. Unlike most sources.

How Cuil is that?

Gaurdian - NEW - Barron: why I'm leaving Newsnight... With friends like these? Poacher turns gamekeeper? Or vice versa? Surely politics can only beckon more brightly now. Be a nice change (big theme here) to get someone from the BBC who did pop out of the cosy club for a wee while at least at try to survive in the real world. At least we know where the ad for the next 'content visionary' (I, for one, live to have the latest episode of our foremost political interviewers' undies aired asap) will be placed.

Plus ca change

I share this - Saint Bob suffocates in African protocol - not because of my initial eyebrow-cock on 'When the Band Aid plane landed...' but how I read all the way through without once registering the date to which it referred... over 20 years ago.

Damning sentence

Hard to know who’s the real villain of this doomed canoe trip

'John and Anne Darwin, who last week began sentences of more than six years each for having defrauded insurance companies. That’s roughly what you’d get, on average, if you raped someone and 19 times longer than the average sentence for people convicted of knife crime.'

Indispensing wisdom

I noticed this in passing: Carol Vorderman quits Countdown 'after being told to take 90 per cent pay cut'

And simply wondered whether the bosses of the BBC, who negotiate 'stars'' salaries, and their bosses who 'negotiate' theirs, might have had a moment of reflection. Or, maybe, not.

Also the wording of the headline seems odd to me. Surely she was just made an offer and chose not to embrace it?

Telegraph - The problem of executive pay now share options aren't paying

The notion of rewarding numpties to stay in place just because no credible alternatives can be found seems prevalent these days.

Addendum - Just watched the Andrew Marr show, with all sorts of deputising both in government and the media world taking place at present, to and from all sorts of locations (Deputy PM Harriet Harman looking very golden, if not talking much sense), for all sorts of reasons. And while Huw Edwards was chatting with the early morning guests, not once but on three separate occasions they were disrupted by workers making off camera noises. And then our Carol's 'firing' came up.

Today's programme was a fair metaphor for the state and conduct of public service and broadcasting in these 'difficult international economic times', especially when so many are off for the summer (many fortunate enough for it to be all summer long). Whilst Ch4 and its employees seem to have to recognise the impact of the market conditions, it is interesting how government and some others can still operate to a different model. One where those at the top are allowed to continue doing their well paid jobs no matter what realities may exist around them, and whilst cuts must be made they will obviously take place where they can do the most good. But maybe the BBC could run to a person (or maybe ask an idle functionary to double up) who can address 'on camera' interruptions a bit sooner than the third time?

Addendum: there was also a segment with Sen. Obama's Chief of Staff.

I too, was interested in how Senator Obama was going to address the complexities of the economic vs. environmental 'pulls' of the climate change issue.

And now I know; "through a sensitivity to the magnitude of the problem'. Solved!

At least he is not going to insult us by suggesting it's all down to some where and someone else during these difficult economic times, followed by the jaw-dropper that 'we', apparently, all want the person most qualified to lead us through these (repeat, it may yet stick) difficult times (based on.... what? The last sets of voting results as a measure of what 'we' want. Or the situation 'we' are in after over decade's worth of prudent financial handling?) to 'stay focused on doing his/their job(s)'.

Strewth, in fact run those quotes on the campaign posters... for the Tories (who are very wise IMHO to keep schtum even if they are not being invited on, as frankly they seem to have sod all much of value to say either) and they'll be a shoo in anytime!

Times - Barack Obama: He came. He saw. He, er, left - Hope, dreams, freedom, a world made new.... “This is our moment to give our children back their future,” he declaimed. “This is the moment to stand as one” Hmn.

The gift (of the gab) that keeps on giving

Another reason for Labour edginess in Glasgow East

'...the Labour candidate, Margaret Curran, was forced to admit that a previous claim to have lived and worked in the city's East End all her life was a "slip of the tongue".'

Maybe she was deafened by the sniper fire? (if you gotta ask...)

All the news that's fit to edit

In my other life as a songwriter, I have a half-penned song from years ago called 'Edit'.

I must dig it out and finish it, as it was written a long time ago and was a rail against modern media, especially broadcast, using the edit suite to shape whatever they wanted, from simple pasting to playing with pixels to suit either personal/editorial agenda or the tyranny of the rating.

The chorus goes:

Edit, edit edit,
Cut, splice, re-arrange..
The soundbite's now all the rage.

Thanks to woeful, but woefully under-reported and prosecuted, though still blatant efforts such as the one featured here, sadly trust in media is now gone, and truth dead. Damn all who have brought us here, for whatever sorry reason they care to muster.

Telegraph - CBS News: shame on you

Telegraph - The New York Times censors John McCain - Land of the free... well, maybe not press, but...

But it's OK, two wrongs can now be twisted in some heads to make a rig.. an acceptable view as it all about the numbers.

I wonder how the ghosts of Omaha Beach feel.

Times - Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article

Ah, stealth

The Government grabs £200 from an average family holiday

In won't say I don't mind taxes, but I accept many are necessary.

I just like to know where they are, and where they are going.

I merely log this for now for future ref.

Three monkeys

It's a growing list, but to add to such as 'lessons must be learned' I must now add 'I am getting on with the job' as amongst the most self-serving and facile statements I have ever heard from a politician with their head stuck so far somewhere they can almost see where the are speaking from.

Especially when accompanied by the delusional presumption of linking 'People know the current situation... ' (I do, pal, every rotten moment I see what I have left to pay with, and what I am expected to pay for with it) '... and want me to get on with the job' (must have missed the memo and, if I had, might have had another view on how the job gets done or by whom).

This is my country. I live in it, work in it and am rearing my kids to live long, happy and productive lives in it too. And while it may represent a perverse, suicidal moment of 'told you so' to hold on two years to see this clown and his cronies humiliated on full package and pensions, I'd really rather that right now every single thing was not f*cked up almost as soon as it has been generated, committed, spun and mis-handled.

Trouble is, what's the sodding alternative?

Guardian - Can Labour make itself electable now?

Order Order - Interesting level of support from the well-paid front-persons on the national news service

Telegraph - The party's over for Labour under Gordon Brown

Telegraph - Is Gordon Brown really the best we've got?

Times - Weakened Gordon Brown gives in to union demands

Or, putting it another way....

BBC - Labour rejects union strike calls

Guardian - When Gordon's luck ran out - ably supported by...

YouTube - Gordon Brown's Downfall - Glasgow Election - Oh, dear

Guardian - How to regain popularity: windfall taxes or surcharge on banks? - I still cannot post for some reason, but this person has said all that needs to be said:

Why do they have to regain popularity, Michael? Would it not be best that they do the best thing for the country. It seems to me that all you New Stasi apologists can come up with is "what is good for Labour?" - NOT - "How we can stop destroying the country?"

Auntie's nice little earners

BBC must end sponsorship of its programmes - Foster

Commenting on today’s ruling by the BBC Trust that the BBC was wrong to accept sponsorship for some of its programmes, Liberal Democrat Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Don Foster said:

“Today’s ruling is a welcome reminder to the BBC about where the limits to its commercial activities should lie.

“While we all want the BBC to provide value for money, we cannot ignore the danger that programme sponsorship poses to editorial integrity.

“Commercial broadcasters are already struggling for funding. The last thing they need is for the BBC to make matters even worse.

“In response, the BBC has announced the ending of sponsorship of events around BBC programmes.

“Questions must be asked about why they were accepting sponsorship in the first place.”

That'll have the blondes, bouffants and blazers scuttling to the cellar for all of an afternoon. - 'Oh, oh... questions are going to be asked chaps! Last one who was on Newswatch... be a good lad and pop up next week and tell 'em you don't think that's fair. Should make it all go away 'til the next budget round.'

I should blooming well coco that more than questions should be asked that it has taken this long to get round to a report that has them immediately backing off and standing around whistling with a 'who me?' grin on their faces.

I rather hope this pretty wet response (why do even its victims feel the need to slap a 'we love Auntie' prologue to any subsequent 'what the hell...!!!' comment. Just makes 'em look like they are afraid of taking a stand) is not all that we'll be seeing about what is getting more and more murky regarding this organisation whose funding and what it chooses to do with it no longer adds up.

Many of us are finding we pay them to compete with us, and often with no thought to consequence or worry about revenue streams. Is the BBC commercial or not? And if it makes money as a commercial entity, why do we need to pay a licence fee? Or is that just to cover the pay packets and pensions?

Telegraph - NEW - BBC website budget increase 'unfair’ to other sites

Oh, yes!

Trouble is, a nodding dog on a parcel shelf doesn't get much done, no matter how much you might nod along too.

The blameless society

Daily Mail - NEW - Bonuses in the public sector are nothing less than rewards for failure

Watching the defectives

Huge pay rises for watchdog bosses

Who negotiates and/or approves these 'deals' to get the 'talent' 'necessary' for these 'vital' roles?

I know, Ministers should create a Regulator of Regulators!

NOte : Offence will be taken

Better a topless model than a brainless charity

Doppleganger

Seen him around before, but this time I captured an image.

Coincidence? An homage?

Ah well, as I say on the Junkk site hoping one day the Kellogg's Marketing Director will be listening, it would just be junk without that extra special 'k'

Reality Gap

I am seeing more and more tripe trotted out by pols and such, faithfully trotted out by the media, and then endlessly chewed on by the commentariat, almost all missing one vital aspect... the reality gap.

And that is accepting that no matter what you want or what should be, there now what is, and will be. So it might be better to devote more energy to accepting inevitability and work on adjustments to these than railing against frankly done deals.

Just today I look at headlines that refer to absentee fathers, choices of weapons, etc that are all well and good but simply closing the stable door after the horse has nicked it and invoked the human rights act to entitle them to do so.

It wasn't me guv, it was him.. er... her

Misquote? What misquote?

Is there anything anyone in this benighted lead..er.. followership that calls itself a government says that can actually be pinned to to any of them (nothing sharp can used any more, for sure) for more than a millisecond before they deny it, claim it was misunderstood, misinterpreted or try and pass it off on a colleague or flunkey? Much less anything they DO.

And if, I ask, rhetorically, as it is patently the case they say or do nothing (especially of any value), what use are any of the packaged, pensioned, useless lot of them anyway?

The chav, and the chav nots

Ban the word 'chav'

Oh bless; I didn't think you could get satire this good any more. The editorial and events over there on planet Fabbo must be a hoot!

It's Tuesday and someone in or via the Guardian wants to ban something else, doubtless from a well-funded little elitist bolt-hole (in a nice part of London) that might cease to exist if folk forgot they existed for a while. Who rattled a stick in your comfy nest this time... Burberry?

Canut would be proud of the notion of 'banning' a 'word' that has been out there in popular use for a fair old while, and my my experience more often used than not amongst those who it best describes, in its quaint street-cred, if not fond way:)

I recall as an expat in HK the fun that was to be had simply enthusiastically embracing the pejorative 'gweilo' used by the majority population, which sucked any power in might have had. Banning it would have worked sooooo much better.

And enough of this royal 'we' being sprayed about, sunshines, when it appears that what you are talking about is the odd little world that leaps from the appointment pages of this fine paper to the bunkers of Auntie, and in so doing seems to figure it automatically speaks for what the rest are thinking, saying and doing or, if not, jolly well should be made to change our ways about toot sweet.

I am sure that from shell-suits and beneath designer caps the length and breadth of the country there is an audible 'tut-tut' (most surely the cuss-word of choice in the 'hood) in empathy, but unless this is a brillo wind-up I must suggest you get a life... and real job.

Guardian - The chavs and the chav-nots - Nice headline, mind. Maybe she reads my blog?

Addendum - 17/07 - The BBC News, with fingers ever on the pulse, just had a discussion on this key issue. And their guest was the Guardian hackette above. Oddly, and whilst surprisingly critical of the basic premise, they all decided that there had been no demand for a ban. So I posted them the piece written by the originators of this topic, whose headline seemed/s quiet clear to me. To date they do not seem to have seen any need to correct the information aspects, favouring more the more colourful feedback they have had from viewers. Your licence fee in action.

Addendum 2 - 17/07 - Out of the mouths of babes... follow up session from our merry sofa set. Carefully avoiding the issue of whether a 'ban' was asked for now, the topic of how one deals with what kids should or should not say came up. Lovely moment when the blonde and bouffant asked our Guardianista heroine about the word 'fat'. A definite no-no, natch. However, they then pressed on to enquire as to how a child should describe a person of greater girth than is deemed more average. The answer?....: 'Oh, don't go there'.

So I'd say we'd better enjoy any descriptive words while we can.

BBC - Stop use of 'chav' - think tank

Nanny state of play

'Is the nanny state doing us any good?'

Well, worthy advice on matters of health & safety & respect, etc are only to be welcomed, especially if they contain information we may not know, can get to grips with... and act on positively.

Which counts out most of the dross we get served up these days.

There's also the small matter of the ROI. Too many award-winning campaigns with vast production and media budgets going out with messages either way over the main targets head or in media that is more to look good to the commissioners' mates than to reach those who might benefit. With lord knows who on lord knows what P&P (package & pension) to administer, research oversee, report and run around it all).

So by also blowing a bunch of dosh that could have been applied more usefully, and tangibly, elsewhere, I'd say... no.

Midas, meet Canut (or acronym thereof)

Have Your Say: Brown's African misadventure

'His announcement prompted the collapse of a ceasefire in the oil-rich Niger Delta and helped to drive up crude oil prices on world markets.'

Presuming this to be an accurate reflection of the situation, what else is there to say other than he seems to be exporting his skill sets domestically to the world stage.

I wouldn't mind him getting lost elsewhere (though the 'don't waste food' masterpiece of timing and PR was tops from the well-stocked tables of the G8), but it seems his magic touch does seem to be operating on some 'anti-Midas' basis, turning all to sh*t. Even if it were gold he'd flog it at rock bottom.

I feel so inspired for our chances over the next two, looooong years.

Here is the news, well, a version of how we see it

I still trawl the Newsnight blog, but only rarely watch the programme (other than on the PC) as it really, really seems to be losing the plot.

Which is a pity, as it is... was... one of the few serious news programmes left to actually challenge plain wrong things being said or done by plain wrong folk.

Sadly, they seem to have decided that if you can't beat 'em it's worth joining 'em. And objective news reporting has suffered as a consequence.

How to win a by-election and still lose your deposit

In reply to two posters who seemed less than thrilled :

Didn't catch the slot, but thank you both for what I believe to be better reporting of a news event than I can now ever expect from the national broadcaster.

'But what clearly happened was that an over-arching strategy was decided before filming as to the sort of output they wanted, and then the filming was arranged to suit that strategy.'

If true, an interesting way for objective information to be shared with the public, though not really how I like my reporting and editorial served up.

Maybe a topic for future coverage. With apostrophes* all correctly placed, of course. Must maintain standards.

*The blog a few days ago decided it was worth obsessing about this key topic as there was so little else to discuss of late.

Home Alone

A good (it can happen) piece on the BBC News regarding the age limits and responsibilities of kids left at home unattended.

Especially with six summer weeks approaching.

However, a key question needs answering.

How on earth can you be prosecuted for 'breaking' a law on the basis of a 'legal' age limit that is not specified?

It is totally unacceptable to have laws that are 'vague' in this manner, and astounding that they are allowed to exist in this form if they can lead to a conviction.

In fact I'd be intrigued as to how a conviction could ever be derived on this basis.

Like many road-related 'laws', there are simply too many vague ways to not actually tell you what is or is not legal, but with the option of nabbing (usually with a fine) if the mood takes them.

Tightening belts - a few extra holes?

From a press release:

Commenting on the BBC’s annual report which showed that BBC trustees and executives’ pay had increased by £1 million since last year, Liberal Democrat Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Don Foster said:

“While Auntie remains a much loved institution, it’s quite clear that like many of us, she needs to lose a bit of weight.

“As pay restraint is being forced on the public sector across the board, people will have little sympathy with BBC executives on high wages giving themselves massive pay increases.

“The best way for the BBC to increase public confidence that it doesn’t waste money is to let the National Audit Office scrutinise its accounts.

“However, we should all welcome the fact the BBC keeps on producing top quality content and remains the leading light in world broadcasting.”

Not sure if that last para, even if sincere, will serve to deflect any efforts by those with vested interests trying to encourage voters to do so 'correctly'.

I just find myself vexed to be funding the whole sorry process.

Indy - BBC chiefs cash in after year of turmoil

Indy - No laughing matter

Gosh, if there were self-serving systems, checks and balances like this across all public service jobs, just imagine the mess the UK would be in.

The lunatics have hired the incompetents to not only mis-run the asylum, but also set their own levels of remuneration to do so.

I am trying to envisage how exactly this country will function when there are 59,999,999 on the public payroll sucking dry the last poor sod actually doing something of value... and which they are held fully accountable for.

On the BBC, I could care less what the others are doing; their companies fortunes, and the salaries they make in 'helping', rise or fall with the market. They do not force me on pain of prison to pay for their antics, on and off air, no matter how much I do not see any value to them.

And the feedback/complaint systems, from Newswatch to 'The Trust', are a bad joke.

Sorry, I feel quite strongly about this.

If these executives feel they can do better in other areas then, just like the 'stars' they are too lazy or incompetent to seek replacements for, they are welcome to make the leap.

There is a vast talent pool out there, and no one irreplaceable.

Plus working with the only national broadcasting entity that gives one access to an audience of 60M is an amazing opportunity that should be treasured, not taken advantage of.

Especially when, by any measure, it's not like anyone who comes in subsequently could do much worse.

Brand Republic - Is the BBC right to reward its top executives with big pay rises? - And it just adds insult to injury to find I am now fighting for audience share against a pretty-much open cheque-funded outfit... that I am also obliged to contribute to!

BBC Politics - Listen to Tessa Jowell not answer the question, or be asked to.

Newsnight -

Fancy getting Tessa Jowell on for a repeat performance of top leadership in action*?

Just to get 'a sense of proportion':)

'MPs discuss BBC bosses' bonuses'

I now have to add 'self-denying ordinance' as the new, cute obfuscating 'mots du jour' from Ministers who, it seems, do not not need to have anyone justifying anything to them, begging the question as to what they do, or not, and on whose behalf... to justify their equally handsome wadges of wonga.

Telegraph - 40p a day for the BBC must be good value - And if one disagrees, what then? I wonder how much goes to him?

It seems to have stuck a chord:

Well, is this going as well as intended, Mr. T?

Must be taking lessons in PR tactics from Mr. Brown.

Worthy bedfellows indeed.

Thing is, the current media/political eli... establishment have figured out there is almost nothing anyone can do change the situation, so the unaccountable, irresponsible, isolated-from-reality lunatics in charge of the gravy part of the train are just running the rest of us in the cattle trucks into the buffers.

Sad what this country has become at your hands.

Times - NEW - Briefing: Cost of the BBC -
Times - NEW - BBC executives’ pay rises 17% to nearly £5m despite scandals

BBC - NEW - Thompson rejects calls to cut BBC - In the interests of balance

Telegraph - NEW - Jenny Abramsky, are you retiring comfortably?

Dumb & dumber

A rather amusing moment just now on the trivia-fest that passes for morning news on the BBC.

In one of their regular 'research has shown something we should all be really stirred up about' slots they had a quiz on wildlife.

Seems our kids don't know their Yak from their Yoda or somesuch.

It was therefore rather good value to find that when they gave the 'answers', even with the benefit of hordes of researchers and all the time in the world in advance, they managed to label a certain butterfly incorrectly.

Lots of girlish giggling at the faux pas (even from the blonde too), but it certainly puts these 'are our kids dumber than a box of rocks?' slots in context for the stupid, divisive, ratings-driven non stories they are.

Reuters - Common wildlife is alien to many British kids

Another blow for Bill

Diminished and discredited

It seems incredible to me that much positive can be thought or said of any man who, as leader of the free world, thought standing in the Oval Office with his trews round his ankles wondering what to do with his cigar... and then lying about the whole thing... was a smart, statesmanlike move likely to serve his nation and its allies well.

But then, look what we have to compare him to.