31.3.09

Vine and chums

If Jeremy Vine's 'show' gets preserved, do try and catch today's, as I did driving back from a meeting.

First up we had what I call 'The Newsnight Twofer' (seems to apply here too) , where two extremes are brought in to comment, on this occasion on the latest expenses scam... er.. diversion.

I am not up to speed on the facts, but it seems taken as read there is someone leaking, though I have yet to find out where this originated. Oddly, no news reporters seem too concerned about that.

So we get some ex-Sun type, now a commercial London station DJ, basically in full 'geezer' mode. And in calm rebuttal, we have... a Guardian political commentator. Hey, balance! Thing is I was with the Guardian guy most of the way until he 'suggested' that it 'may' have been leaked by a Tory mole.

Er... at their distracting best, I thought the BBC, via its tame, carefully-selected invitees, were just try to push the £300k greed angle? Now it's a Tory plot? What the heck?!!!!

And while I think that touting for money does weaken our 'hero's' (I don't see the person, if they exist, as anything like that) case, there are a few points that came up that seemed not to get mentioned.

First, our Jezza and his mate from the Grauniad were pretty keen on the 'Why now when it was all coming out later?'. Er... with the state of our government these days, I imagine most that would have come out was going to be accidentally shredded waaay before Dear Leader's new deadline. Also, and this is no excuse, what are the prospects for an honest whistleblower? I say fired and stripped of pension at best. So £300k doesn't seem too bad really as compo for exposing the sick, hypocritical farce that is our government.

Speaking of which, we then get that paragon of fiscal probity and moral rectitude, ex-DPM Prescott on to pitch his book... um... discuss his inspirational relationship with his protege and poster child for the Labour revolution.... assault your teachers, get expelled, meet a 'celeb' pol given airtime, 'stay in touch', get a job, get knocked up ('...it were after I met John,' she confirms, sparing us a mental image too far. I guess we'll have to hark back to his secretary for word on his advice on contraception to those he mentors), leave job, stay in touch... and get touted as inspirational for being a bit miffed she hasn't be shoved up the benefits register further by now. But... she does want to be a lawyer. Bless.

Even Mr. Vine and almost all his callers were having trouble keeping that load of b*llsh*t down. Though one was accused by Mr. Prescott, of being a Tory troll (rhymes with 'mole'). If I were them I would sue the S.L.O.B (Senior Labour Outdated Bruiser) for libel. And the BBC and Mr. Vine for letting such a thing pass as a defence at their expense. Just because most folk are heartily sick of the sordid lot of them, the results of their failed experiments, and feel moved to comment, does not make all of us Tories. Though to the BBC, anyone not Labour must deafault this way.

But I am sure the Tristrams are delighted with the result, and ratings, but if called to account on Newswatch at dawn this weekend will grumpily assert that it was the public's right to be kept informed on senior Labour Party thinking and the aspirations of their voting, grateful, democratic power base, innit?

DD getting cancelled very soon. Anyone know what happened to Charles Moore?

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Physician, heal thyself

BBC stars 'in breach of rules by earning thousands of pounds on the public-speaking circuit'

Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary, told the Sunday Telegraph: 'This appears to be a clear breach of the BBC's guidelines.' How does a clear breach 'appear'?

A BBC spokesman said: 'It is for the BBC to be the interpreter of its own rules,'

Yeah, that'll work.

30.3.09

How to get banned by the BBC - mention porn

Though... I didn't... directly.

More... on our establishment leaders' involvement with same... and how it gets reported (or not)

Sunday Express - JACQUI SMITH PUT ADULT FILMS ON EXPENSES - no, she didn't. Her husband did! What's his job? Her expenses. Who oversees him... she does!

BBC - Smith 'sorry' for expenses claim - yes, an 'expenses claim'.

Guardian - Home secretary Jacqui Smith embarrassed by new expenses row - yes, an 'expenses row'. A new one.

Indy - Jacqui Smith embarrassed by expenses row - yes, a row.

Times - Jacqui Smith's husband stops short of apology to public over porn expenses claim - but the key is that it is not porn. Which is, really, irrelevant, but fun in a salacious way.

Mail - Blue movies on expenses: Jacqui Smith's husband apologises for watching porn... paid for by the taxpayer - should they be red movies?

Sun - Hubby sorry for porno expenses

Order Order - Sunday Sleaze Porno Special

.........

Then, I decided to ask the BBC's political editor about this political story...

Preparing to herd cats

Telegraph - Must we really subsidise pornography for Jacqui Smith's husband? - The title changed midway:)

To this comment...

How long before they report this on the BBC?March 29, 2009

...I felt moved to reply:

Days 1-2: Don't know about it. Too trivial to register.
Days 3-4: OK, it did. But not newsworthy. Meanwhile, Kate Silverton has bought a new frock. We go to Milan with her to see her try it on. Next up, climate change is caused by plebs using Ryan Air.
Day 5. Small mention on the CBBC website page. See... we did mention it!
Day 6. Mark Mardell & Nick Robinson and Newsnight do get round to a mention, but mainly supporting the notion that a government Minister's hubby using taxpayer's money to donwload porn is in fact a right wing plot and all on the blogosphere are paid members of Tory machine. Interview Derek Draper, Jasmin AB and Polly T to get some balanced opinion on the matter.
Day 7 - Gordon Brown says it is 'not acceptable', 'will be looked at', he 'understands how we feel', but she 'has his full support'.
Day 8 - BBC runs feature on political disengagement by the public.
Day 9 - Entire MSM gets diverted as Prince Harry and Madonna rescue child from orphanage in Malawi and elope.
Day 200 - Turns out the couple were blackmailed by MI5 and assisted by the SAS on the orders of 'someone in No 10' during the last hours of the bunker.
Day 500 - Political editors of Guardian, BBC and Independent ask what all the fuss is about as this internet thing is just a flash in the pan... from Hawaii, where President for Life Obama has established a Useful Idiot compound to write and mail to Islington, Westminster and certain West London addresses all the news that's still fit to print on dead trees.
Day 499 - BBC run the story, forgetting the time change, and dismiss claims they are just a PR machine for certain agendas masquerading as fact and objectivity. Explain that their ratings and executive bonuses depend on 'enhancing the narrative' and 'interpreting events' as the UK audience need to be helped to thinking about things in 'the right... er... correct... way'.
Day 501 - PM Cameron does sod all as, um, it's kind of useful having a PR machine that is funded by the Govt. and EU and will dance to any tune required, when required
Day 502 - I, and a few others eventually get the nerve to cancel our DDs. The full force of the law is duly applied.
Day 600 - Rapists and murderers are released early from jails to make way.... the BBC is unique. Unique I tell you!!!!!!

Sorry, it's early (despite the time change) and the world really has gone mad!!!!

ps: Mods. I know it is 'off topic', but the point kind of is what does get chosen to 'be topic' these days. And as a bit of Catch 22 from a free press it's hard to fathom... or justify.

Oddly, it was deemed... No. 37... broke the rules.

And, now, is 'closed for comments'. Well, I never.

Newsnight
-
Newsnight - Seeme they are cool nect door. 5. At 10:02am on 29 Mar 2009, JunkkMale wrote: Mods. I salute you! I know it is 'off topic', but the point kind of is what does get chosen to 'be topic' these days. And as a bit of Catch 22 from a free press it?s often hard to fathom? or justify.

Let the flames begin!

BBC - Smith thought she'd be cleared - Bless. Like the conspiracy notion that hubs fell on his sword (so to speak) as a get out.

522. I really hope this gets past the mods (who I doubt are reading this far, either), as it is newsworthy, 'cos Aunty has played it up big time all day, so it must be.

I am not up to speed on the facts, but it seems taken as read there is someone leaking, though I have yet to find out where this originated. Oddly, no news reporters seem too concerned about that.

The only thing I have heard is a succession of useful idiots wheeled on as proxies to whisper it 'may' be a Tory mole. Rhymes at least with Tory trolls, the default response to any pro-Labour defender (and some who give 'em airspace) to, well anything about this government of all the talents that isn't rote praise or defensive excuse.

And not, I suspect, playing to well with those who are not Tories, but do have some cause for concerns. [Comments closed soon thereafter]


________

Guardian - Who would you rather trust - the BBC or a blogger? -

Oh, a nerve being touched. I can tell when I get to pp 3 and find there are, in fact, even more. Sorry if I repeat anything as I tend not to wade through after this point, and skip to the end.

Lazy, but lucky in this case as I by coincidence got to...

NickReynolds
30 Mar 09, 11:51am

People may be interested in the reaction of the BBC's Richard Sambrook on his personal blog:

Disclaimer - I work for the BBC.

Nick, I have seen you post, and engage, elsewhere, before,. Better than most... any from the Beeb bubble. And that is to be respected.

But having taken Mr. Sambrook's link, and read on despite the deja vu of seeing 'I can't be bothered' in the intro (do some seriously think that gets other online readers/bloggers onside?) I then opted against engaging there.

Partly because such a smug effort deserves to lie in the wasteland for all the arrogance it represents (a bit of an Aunty trait), but also because I'm getting a tad ticked off replying, politely, and then getting moderated or complained out by legions of green inkers on staff or funded by quangos (and hence funded) for pretty darn spurious reasons.

I am in a bizarre Catch 22 exchange with Nick Robinsons's blog minders, having escalated to a complaint, where they are saying I was 'off topic' and I'm pointing out that if they use 'not newsworthy' as a reason for not even entertaining the notion of a story, than that is bias by omission at best.

To Nick C's question 'Who would you rather trust - the BBC or a blogger?'..

... the answer now, sadly, has to be neither, with all the reasons already well articulated by many (which the BBC will doubtless airily dismiss as it does not apply to 'them'). But, at least, I will concur with the point about bloggers' reputations for accuracy and honesty making or breaking them, where Aunty, is, well, 'unique' however she blunders on. In waaaaay too many ways, for now.

Also I can arrive at some view just be surfing across the spread and coming to my own.

I'll simply say that 'enhancing narratives', 'interpreting events' and other fun ways of playing with facts and even opinions 'to suit in the suite', is not winning many fans , guys.

But keep on deleting, banning, omitting, editing, sneering and insulting if you think that's the way to keep the funding rolling in.

I'm not a Tory blogger. But I am getting a tad fed up being treated by some who think that's the way to defend rubbish reporting, being caught with knickers down, or in a twist, poor science and a very odd way with freedom of speech, as if it some old boys' broadcasting club.

Telegraph - Jacqui Smith is clinging on by her fingernails - I do believe, even in 'retirement', the means will exist for us to cover the manicure.

Telegraph - Making you pay for their porn won't stimulate the economy

Telegraph - Public opinion demands that Jacqui Smith must go - Now, now. For this poor woman, and mother, who would support the notion of justice via public op... oh.

Gaurdian - Jacqui Smith is a victim of the new wave of puritanism - For, er, 'balance'. And here was me thinking it was the taxpayers were the victims of her greed and ineptitude. 700+ comments!

25.3.09

Some speech is freer than others

To ban Chris Moyles from saying 'gay' can only add to his fizz

I often wonder whether the listeners are as a consequence of the talent, or the celebrity (and all its rewards) is spawned from the listeners.

Clearly there is an element of each.

Can it be that there is not more than one person in the UK able to occupy the prime slot of a national broadcast entity and do a pretty darn decent job of DJ'ing, playing music, chatting, entertaining and not seeing themselves as more important than all the rest, and possibly see access to audiences in the millions as worth doing a decent job over?

It might well help out Aunty's inflation-busting unique funding model by adding a smidge of competitiveness to the 'market rate' deals out there, and also cutting out the hordes of execs who 'negotiate' them, who subsequently have a vested interest in keeping the clubby gravy train going.

Personally, as I am 'out of demographic', Mr. Moyles can do and say what he likes to offend my dainty sensibilities as I am happy to judge him on his deeds and words and move on, but when it comes to how what he might say or do impacts on my almost teenage sons and how they treat others... I take an interest. Especially when it seems some suggest the solution is that I may be invited to switch off if I am not keen, yet oddly still have to co-fund it all.

There's also the matter of the consistency when the PC brigade break out in force, especially in certain quarters. If we are all going to get collective knickers in twists over perceived offences (look hard enough and one will come and find you) and unacceptable memberships, attitudes, statements, etc, it seems to me it should be all or nothing.

Once you get selective with your cause, and what's 'in' and 'out' based on narrow prejudice, agenda and cosy group-think, from Daily Mail to Guardian, it all rather falls apart. I'm still laughing at Gorgeous George's hypocritical bluster on why he shouldn't be persona non grata in other countries, but requires the power to deem others as unfit to grace our shores.

The BBC, and some supporters, have rather shown themselves to operate rather 'selectively' of late, based on an interesting collection of defensive, and often contradictory, parameters.

24.3.09

As I doubt it will make some media here....

So I said to Gordon Brown, I said...

The Spectator - Home and away

Daniel Hannan MEP:
The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government!

Prime Minister, I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician: namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. You’ve spoken here about Free Trade – and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase ‘British jobs for British workers’ and that you have subsidised, where you have not nationalised outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks? Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words? Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country?

The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging; in other words – to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the water line under the accumulated weight of your debt.

We are now running a deficit that touches 10% of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure. More than Pakistan, more than Hungary; countries where the IMF have already been called in.

Now, it’s not that you’re not apologising; like everyone else I have long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s that you’re carrying on, wilfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year - in the last twelve months – a hundred thousand private sector jobs have been lost and yet you created thirty thousand public sector jobs. Prime Minister, you cannot carry on for ever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re ‘well-placed to weather the storm’, I have to tell you that you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense! Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF has said so; the European Commission has said so; the markets have said so – which is why our currency has devalued by thirty percent. And soon the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.

It is a matter of some concern to me that, no matter how much 'they' might not agree with what is said, the majority of the MSM has seen fit, so far, to not cover something that has captured the public's imagination. I seem to recall such as the BBC, when caught out in the past, usually sniff that such things are 'not newsworthy'. Can't wait for Newswatch. What's the betting it will be an in-depth defence of the Jade coverage.

Newsnight

Iain Dale - Hannan Tells Brown Like It Is

BBC - Brown looks to Obama for consensus
22. At 08:30am on 25 Mar 2009, BenHLondon

Amazing what can be done in the edit suite. In another blog I suggested it was hard to do much with what you put in... seems I was wrong.

As to what you re-splice or leave out, well enough said. Maybe Mr. Hannan's speech, and the reaction to it, is 'not newsworthy'.

BBBC - Dan the Man - as of lunch, 26 March, no word in much of the MSM yet.

600,000 hits - wow!

Ah, see now, there you have it: it's obviously 'not really newsworthy'

'Compare the news feed, what con?' Simples!

Telegraph - My speech to Gordon Brown goes viral

Lumme. 15 pages... and counting.

All that needs to be said has been. Even by the apologists, which in the face of wit and literacy merely show the value of free speech, if only to humiliate themselves and their causes.

A shame some in the MSM still deem it 'not newsworthy'. But I do believe a pretty teleprompter reader might have a few months of 'hold the front page' wedding plans to hold us in thrall.

BBBC

Order Order - What the BBC Wouldn’t Let Guido Broadcast
Order Order - Hannan Tells Gordon He Is “Pathologically Incapable” - Note the comment on coverage
Order Order - Rushies, Co-Conspirators: “Hannan is Our Leader”
Order -Order - Gordon in New York: Hannan Attack Front Page Drudge

SKY - Hannan Hits Where It Hurts - the defence of the MSM by the author in comments is...telling.

Telegraph - Fox got Hannan. Why didn't the BBC's 'Newsnight'? -

The MSM does rather seem to have missed the boat, and by missing it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist as a consequence is going to look at tad silly.

Saying 'it's not newsworthy' when it's en route to a million hits, that for a political speech, by the way, takes some Nelsonian eyepatch.

So far, to their credit, Newsnight's mods have allowed me to enquire what's (not) going on, but let's wait and see.

I started (not the first) on the BBC political editor's blog, but just got an email saying that my enquiring what everyone was going on about was 'off topic'.

How Catch 22 is that?

If they don't know about it, or choose not to see it, it therefore doesn't and hence cannot exist or be asked about?

This is NOT what I co-fund a news broadcaster to not provide.

Telegraph - Hurrah for Hannan: Brown hasn't been spoken to like that for decades

Guardian - Why has Daniel Hannan become an internet sensation?

'MEP's tirade against Gordon Brown is top of YouTube's most viewed'

I must check out the definition of 'tirade' again.

Took me a while to find it because, bless 'em, those who 'know' what's 'newsworthy' and 'good for us to know' felt it something they didn't feel worth being aware of, for some reason.

I was referred to on Nick Robinson's BBC political editor's blog, but because I asked what most folk were talking about in the thread that wasn't in the main blog test, it was removed for being 'off topic'.

Quaint. And very Catch 22.

'If we haven't heard about it, or don't like it, it doesn't exist' Therefore you cannot ask about it, as it does not exist. Nifty reporting standards.

And some wonder why folk are getting their political info and insights from other sources these days.

At least you acknowledged the piece, and allow discussion. Shame those I co-fund don't seem to feel the same way.

Ch 4 Snowmail - Finally, Twitter and a brilliant speech lambasting Gordon Brown in his presence at the European parliament two days ago, deliver what the conventional media failed to spot at the time: a very embarrassing moment for the prime minister.

Euro Snowclouds - Hannan and Brown: http://tinyurl.com/caq6n9

Addendum - For all the airy dismissals from the MSM's dead tree dinosaurs, old boy broadcasters and their slavish supporters, many surrounding the relative obscurity of the 'incident' (an MEP, in the Brussels Parliament, and a noted commentator on a major UK quality daily), it might have been better that the commentator made his political point by lobbing a shoe to be deemed 'newsworthy', as opposed to polite, calm, but deadly, not to mention well-aimed words.

It seems quaint for a few to bleat that it's time to move on, and throw toys out the pram that some do not feel ready to, when the point at issue is that something of not insignificant political note, and public interest, remains essentially glossed over, apparently through not conforming to a desired narrative.

How much better to have given the piece the objective coverage it warranted at the time... and then move on. Now, each time a non-group think politician is fingered for putting their bins out on the wrong day, the credibility of those that suddenly get excited by trivia over substance spirals ever lower.

Newsnight - Anger Night

Also, I am only now 'finding out' but for some reason from oddly selective sources, that a world leader (The President of Brazil no less), came out with a rather 'interesting' take on the racial breakdown that should be considered in the global banking crisis.

Is this lack of reporting due to who was standing next to this person, given a pass to be more than a tad racist when others might find the full glare of liberal ire upon them? Maybe it is, as SKY's anchor suggested, 'yet another embarrassment for the PM'.

If anyone should be embarrassed, it should be those caught editing by omission whilst claiming objective reporting.

Telegraph - For once, Gordon Brown had to sit and listen

Order-Order - Hannan Breaks the Million Views Barrier

Telegraph - Daniel Hannan vs pretty much everyone

Addendum

I am more and more watching SKY News in the morning, despite forays into celeb/trash TV that makes the bouffant's obsession with Kate Silverton's nuptials seem cerebral.

But when they address real news, they actual get their teeth in.

On top of actually mentioning the Hannan 'affair' and how it's got the MSM in a tizzy (not in a good way), it was followed by an interview with Dear Leader.

Clear, straight...unedited... the interview I mean.

And unlike some media giants and their overpaid, over-pensioned, beholden, market rate talents, the interviewer would not allow him to get away with 'What you should be asking is...' and stuck with getting him to simply answer the question.

It goes beyond party political or anything else, the stuttering buffoon was like a rabbit in the headlights over a simple question posed by someone (again) looking him in the eye and asking for straight answers.

Leadership requires the ability to lead, and anyone who follows this person, based on such performances as i just witnessed, have truly taken the Kool-Aid.

BBC - Wot no Dan? - The dead tree press, Old Boy broadcasters and their mates: when in hole, dig deeper.

BBC - EU speech is an internet phenomenon - so... the BBC 'has run it'. 'And that's all we have time for'. Dig, dig, dig...

Mr. Draper did impress. No really. A guy running a blog (well...) trying claim that all other blogs and their commenters are somehow different, and worse, despite him getting few users and them often millions... quaint.

I see him as a regular on the BBC now, mind. 'Their kinda guy'.

Gaurdian - A dull display of viral virility - speaking of whom.

Telegraph - Questions for BBC and ITV over Daniel Hannan speech coverage

Telegraph - Does anyone at the BBC read the Telegraph?

The phrases 'comfort zone' and 'group think' spring to mind. Me, I find roaming all over the place rounds out my awareness of objective fact and subjective opinion no end.

It is an 'interesting' (and not in a good way) notion that our premier, multi-million, multi-thousand strong national news broadcaster doesn't see anything a bit wrong in being unaware of anything they don't know about.

A piece of Catch 22 logic that got my request for more info to a few of Aunty's blogs removed for being 'off topic'.

And now I read, thanks to others and Matthew, that a highly-paid, market rate talent journalist/interviewer I co-fund 'forgot' he had had you on the self-same programme that only a week later he professes that no one knows of you? Priceless!

Is there a link to that? I'd love to see those two spliced together (the BBC can do that seamlessly (just ask Newnight's Susan Watts, but it does need to be in the spirit of 'enhancing the narrative') with the timeline between them inbetween.

Is that also the one I've (now) heard about where you reduce the interviewer to a gibbering numptie when trying to allude to a 'they' s/he can't actually explain, even under the guise of confidentiality when trying to provoke a rise?

Telegraph - Dan Hannan shames the BBC and proves need for broadcasting freedom

Order Order - Cameron Hails Hannan’s “Brilliant Response”

Just so's you know you read it hear first (7.05am - 28/02/09) - I hark back to a chemistry lecture in my youth, I think about the discovery of how carbon molecules bond in some compounds. The discoverer apparently had a dream of a snake eating its own tail. I may be wrong... no matter. Now, thanks to this case, I would wish a skilled cartoonist could create a ring, comprising the great and 'good' of our inter-dependent, self-serving, Westminster Useful Village Idiot politico-media establishment (Brown, Mandleson, Draper, White, Robinson, Neill, Mardell... it could be a big ring) connected, not with hands in pockets (I think that's been done), bent over with their heads buried in the place the sun don't shine of the next in line. That, to me, would sum up the current state of government, and the media that 'report' to the public they are in theory supposed to serve (and in the case of the BBC, uniquely funded to do so objectively).

Go-fourth - Hold on Hannan

Dear Go Fourth,

Just looked at the new video.

Please define 'fun'.

It looks more like a desperate attempt at attacking the man and not the argument.

Keep on digging, er, for victory!

Still, good luck with the hit-rates.

Labourlist - The devalued Dan Hannan - not sure it is quite working out as intended

Newsnight - Hannan -

I know it will be on the site somewhere, for a while, but I think it worth preserving an important discussion...

Two very different ends of the scale, but calm and articulate in their views. I was impressed... and encouraged.

Not so sure about the representative of the profession that sees all things in terms of 'there must be someone to blame'.

To me, that is not the same as holding people to account and, as again well articulated by Mr. Hannan, a lot of frustration comes from 'our' electorate feeling powerless to influence anything... in a democracy with a vote!

From quangos to lobbyists to backroom deals to EU telling UK what to do or face a fine to my MP's whip telling him how to vote, it's a very lost plot.

And one smugly overseen by the dead tree press and the old boy broadcasting network.

No wonder 'we' turn to the internet. For all the good even that does.

Telegraph - You can't please everyone -

Hey, if some wish to keep on digging (maybe trying to pretend you didn't exist was a better call) in their own back yard, I am sure that there are many more than happy to spread around the nightsoil they bring up, so the stench of their own words and deeds can serve, as ably did your speech, to show their, um, 'positions'.

Speaking of which.... (above)

Speaking of whom...

Nice to see Aunty at last felt the need to notice what you have stirred up, on Newsnight at least (Mr. Robinson still offline, I fear, and Mr. Mardell sulking at the response to his sniffy attempt at justification)

No wonder 'we' turn to the internet. For all the good even that does.

Speaking of which...

Interesting to view the 'counters' on LabourList and GoFourth... er forth, and how well they have gone down.

It seems that all in the blogosphere are equal, but some expect more equal coverage in the MSM than others, in the face of actual accepted IT/media audience measures, because, well, they are just 'right' and others just don't know the 'right' people.

Indy - Mr Angry and Mr Slightly-Cross -

Mr. 3 replies - early days. But, like other such political heavyweights as Mr. White over at the Grauniad, I am sure that elusive million is not far off.

At least, like him, you got round to the topic. If a bit late. And a tad grudgingly. That's the dead tree, old boy broadcasting system for you!

However, and I may be wrong here, but I think telling a bunch of folk who use the internet to get their info because they have lost faith in the objectivity of those who think they are the sole bearers of what is news that they are misguided is... quaint. Especially on a blog. And speaking of minorities, especially when you read the replies. I guess those in support of your world views are just lurking, cowed from supporting you. Or maybe, as some claim, the 'right wing' has hired half the country to spam you. Not a counter going down well with those, like me, who simply enjoy 'independent' (ahem) thought.

It seems that all in the blogosphere are equal, but some expect more equal coverage in the MSM than others, in the face of actual accepted IT/media audience measures, because, well, they are just 'right' and others just don't know the 'right' people.

BBC - Newswatch is worth a gander...

I've popped in a thought:

Any chance of addressing the Daniel Hannan speech phenomenon? Then I 'could be making the news next week'. Or not.

Especially as it seems so un-newsworthy as to merit either no coverage, grudging mention or sniffy dismissal, in that order, to date.

Or, in the case of myself, being excised from approved moderated political blogs for being 'off topic'... for simply asking if it will be mentioned.

How Catch 22 is that?

I would complain, but, funnily enough the site is down. Too many telling the BBC what it doesn't want to know... or hear?

But to quote this week's surly 'why drag me out of my bed' Editor, who seems in some groupthink loop, I am sure 'You don't think there's an issue here'. I am sure you don't.

Remind me, why may I NOT opt out of paying the licence fee to help fund such folk's salaries?

At least later on you acknowledge that, in the spirit of 'enhancing the narrative' and 'interpreting events', the corporation seems a wee bit more interested in what 'might happen', especially if it is influenced at its hands.

Is that the new, intended role? If so, I think I'll claim my refund now.

PajamasMedia - The Gordon Brown Takedown Goes Viral - As other see us. 'Unless you have been living under a rock or only have access to left-wing media'. Yup, the UK population.

Rather amazingly, most in the UK MSM are trying to claim it was, is and shouldn't be 'newsworthy'... and suffering the consequences when brave/dumb enough to do it online with comments enabled.

Or... it seems (caution 'til confirmed), trying to 'bend' things to help 'enhance the narrative':

British Bias Corporation -- Daniel Hannan Remastered

Telegraph - Lefties feel threatened by the internet - On the QC...

The BBC...uh, whose money is it ? Voters can stop it, no ?
Chris long April 03, 2009 11:52 PM GMT

You'd think... hope. But I have much more chance of serving notice for dire performance on my elected representative every few years than I have have had, do or will have with the state prop... broadcaster. At least I can pull my enforced funding from one via the ballot to express... concern.

For the rest... there's The Trust. You should read their latest publication, which is pretty satisfied with the way the licence fee is 'collected'.

The blogosphere must never let down its guard, as it is rapidly becoming the only source of material from which you can hope to acquire a decently informed, balanced view.

The next few weeks on Aunty will be a good time to bury or ignore news, as all their 'reporters' seem to be off on carbon-free (I'm sure) school hols.

Mr. Nick Robinson has been kind enough to share this on his blog, and doubtless needs a rest having had to get up early these last few days, and getting inconvenienced getting to work by all those beastly common folk who run events that can't tell hoi poloi from media legends.

Speaking of tools, it is interesting that one used more and more by some keen on comment being free, but some freer than others, is the 'now closed' button.

From CiF to HYS, it seems to be unleashed erratically, but often when things are not going quite according to narrative. Or even to pre-empt matters.

Mr.Robinson's latest, rather ironically, has 'closed for comment' before any can be made.

Says it all really. Or, rather, when it suits, doesn't.


_____

YouTube - The speech
YouTube - Glenn Beck, Fox

Meanwhile, to show total balance....

BBC - Labour's 'vampire' attack on Tory - Hat tip Not a Sheep - As some have already pointed out elsewhere, this 'effort' may not have quite the effect intended for the creators or their uniquely-funded, objective PR agency:)

ACRONIC situation

We won't beat the Islamists with Whitehall verbiage

OMG. HMG. FUBAR. RIP:)

23.3.09

The gift that keeps on giving

Labour dig at Tories digitally backfires on Torylogo.com

Comment is free, until...

I was going to headline this 'Keep on digging', but actually it's all about stopping.

The Prime Minister yesterday decided to use the comfort zone of a low circulation broadsheet to share his latest 'vision'. We are about to take the war against terror to a new level

Sadly, it did not go quite as expected. Almost no one from what might be assumed to be a more receptive audience has responded very well.

I only share this by a rather odd response by the Guardian, with a cheery message from the 'CommunityMod': 'Please note, this thread will shortly be closing for the night. Thank you for your interest.'... Comments are now closed for this entry.

Not sure that worked out as well as it might, either: Amazing the number of threads in which the government and New Labour stooges get a right royal pasting which are then closed early. Wonder why that is?

is it usual for threads to be closed for the night? or only when the pm is getting his ass kicked black and blue? just asking...

I also liked this:

T.he
W.ar
A.gainst
T.error

Says it all Gordie.

Comment may be free, but it seems only as long as those who control the medium are happy to allow the chips to fall where they may. Funny how 'liberal' media such as the Grauniad and the BBC seem prone to pulling things when the public don't cooperate.

Speaking of capturing moods... Gordon Brown strikes a false note on Jade Goody

Or...

BBC - PM leads tributes to Jade Goody - I thought he might have called her Jane Tweed based on his deep interest and awareness of the whole tragic tale.

22.3.09

Newswatch... ed not very often

I have just had to write to Newswatch, and, I fear, complain...

I have just watched your latest episode, with senior something Peter Horrocks ironically responding to suggestions of airy 'we're right' dismissal of complaints with mostly airy 'we're right' dismissals. I don't think 'we talk about it' was really the best answer to the actual question posed. Shame Mr. Snoddy did not pursue. We wish him well in his new, more senior, and I am sure responsible role bearing this country's name around the world.

I watched the weekend, having been intrigued by an advertisement earlier that referred to Newswatch 'challenging the news makers.'

An interesting statement reflecting, I suspect, the corporate mindset. I had thought the point of any news entity, especially the BBC, was just to report it. I guess this goes to the new agenda where events get interpreted, truth is assisted to emerge and narratives get enhanced. A pity that all this seems to be carried out with a thick coating of institutional group think to ensure that all these 'enhancements' happen in a manner that ensures the public get the messages, and are told how to think, in the 'right' way. Going from 4M to 11m viewers may be good for target-based executive bonuses, but not really as effective in meeting the BBC's remit, surely?

The slot on the Click PC attack was most interesting, as was the, now familiar, 'airy' reply by the grumpy editor whose turn it was to be dragged out early to fob off the plebs (or, in the case of Google, ex-BBC editors who seem to think airy replies can translate to the commercial sector if you used to work in a senior BBC position). I think he ended with 'We did not set out to break the law... but if we did... it was with good intentions'. I personally think the story was a good one, and the basic intentions valid indeed. But that was not the point. And the whole piece, as so often happens, went full circle getting no one anywhere or any the wiser. I would have loved to see the 'interview' delve deeper into the expert IT reader suggestion that the 'attack' be made on the BBC's worldwide network as opposed to unknowing, and possibly unwilling external victims (ie: get the bloke to answer the actual question). Afraid it might have messed with your precious systems? It seems the law was broken, but somehow deemed acceptable in this case for no better reason than the BBC was the culprit and hence clearly above reproach. Not good enough. And a very poor precedent, especially for any entity who may take it upon itself to comment and judge (as it does, now... often. Usually by the simple trick of wheeling on a 'commentator' who conveniently is not 'employed' directly by the BBC, but certainly ticks the required boxes*) on those of us who my breach the letter, if not the spirit of the law. It creates a multiplicity of standards. Not healthy in a decaying civil society. I'd like to highlight many things, and 'have thought long and hard' too, but suspect that breaking the law might not be deemed as forgivably in my personal case.

But I can't fault the accuracy of that ad. Clearly the BBC does see itself now more as a maker of news rather than an objective reporter. Bad enough in my view. But the contempt shown by a few minutes aired off peak in insincere mea cuplas (if that) before most of the country is awake is truly inexcusable.

I don't expect a reply, but if I did I'll add to a growing, ignoble collection. ''We're sorry you feel...yada yada. Sorry it is late..yada yada. We know our team and senior management desire and expect us to... yada yada. To the point at issue... it didn't happen. Ok, it did, but not in the way you say. OK, it did, but it was a glitch. We have only a few billion and tens of thousands of staff who like leaving early to go skiing at the weekend, so mistakes will happen. But we'll log it. Hey, what can you do? We're immune. Don't reply to this because I'm not real and you need to go back into the system to take it higher if you are that naive and have time to waste. And then it will end up, eventually, with the well named Trust. We certainly trust them to make sure you get the same reply as this, only in a more caring, listening and sincere manner. With the same intention. And effect. To make our customers give up and go away and leave us clear to spend their money on what we want without being troubled by any of that annoying stuff real businesses have to worry about.'

Which maybe why what gets apologised for, no matter how 'unacceptable', gets repeated or aired again, and again...

A service worth £139.50 (and rising, for some reason) of anyone's money I'd say. Not.

Yours faithfully,

ps: Care to explain why the archive was last updated, as far as I can see from the site search at least, in June 2007? Budget issues?

*ADDENDUM -
Labour’s latest Tory trap - 'Labour’s tax trap soon brought me a phone call from the BBC. Would I like to go on to condemn the 45p? If I said yes, that would make the story “Tory tax wars”, which they would love. Meanwhile yesterday an offer to appear on Newsnight to discuss the debt petered out without any explanation before I had the details of time and place, and an accepted offer to do the Today programme this morning on the same subject was cancelled. Was it something I said, or something I would not say?'

'I've done nothing wrong'

As readers may know, I am an avid archiver of 'interesting' phrases, especially from our political masters.

They are usually notable for the subtle twist in meanings often to be found, as here, to the extent of being 180 degrees the opposite of what is usually suggested by the term.

I think this one has to go in now.

I think what was/is meant is not 'nothing wrong', but 'nothing yet illegal'. There is a difference of course, which most appreciate, though others, evidently may not.

Newsnight
Newsnight
BBC - Nick Robinson

BBC - McNulty defends expenses claims - I am sure he does. Interesting way of headlining it. I wonder if other media will be so... forgiving, or offer so much balanced 'context' on other historical breaches?

BBC - Andrew Marr - I am an avid archiver of 'interesting' phrases, especially from our political masters. I think this one has to go in now: 'I've done nothing wrong'. What was/is meant is not 'nothing wrong', but 'nothing yet illegal'. There is a difference of course, which most appreciate, though others, evidently may not. However, having just watched Andrew interview one of our best banking regulation brains, 'I'l/(We'll) have to look into that,' runs a good second, especially when looking into stuff for the last decade hasn't been exactly been... thorough. Still, nice to know the PM 'likes everything'. All things to all people might seem sensible political populism, but perhaps not such great leadership.

ps: is this response feature no longer active? It seems not to be updated.

Telegraph - Tony McNulty claims £60,000 expenses on his parents' home

Order-Order - McNulty Should Pay Back His Fiddle

Guardian - Tony McNulty faces call for inquiry over £60,000 allowances - Nothing like an 'urge', combined with some 'discomfort', to really get the wheels moving. NOT.

Telegraph - Tony McNulty's expenses fiddle raises questions over ministerial position

20.3.09

I've always fancied living in Canada

Canada's banks, the envy of the world

Phooey.

What do they know?
At least we can still lay claim to the talents and awesome contribution of Gorgeous George.

C'mon Guardian. And Aunty Beeb; where are the priorities and well directed outrage at what really makes for a well-ordered, civil society?

And of course, we would never ban any freely-elected politician from coming here here, now would we? That would make the liberal media just go WILD...er... wouldn't it?

Guardian - George Galloway banned from Canada

BBC - MP Galloway is banned from Canada

Newsnight -

Ch4 -

LabourHome - Galloway banned from Canada !!!

BBBC - 'Alykhan Velshi the Canadian spokesman who described Galloway as "Infandous".
He was educated at the London School of Economics and was a lawyer in New York, Oh, and he's also a Muslim. How ironic for Galloway.'

Telegraph -
George Galloway spanked by Canada -

Liveleak -
George Galloway gets banned from Canada


Q... and despired A

Would Britain vote to leave the EU?

'It depends on how you ask the question.'

Would make a great inscription on how we are 'lead', and our 'leaders' are held to account (or assisted) by various media who see their mission now as being the interpretation of events rather than objective sharing of facts.

18.3.09

AUNTY SAYS...

..sorry.

The BBC's idea of an apology

I might note that, this having caught my eye at the time, this is the first time I have seen the reality of what happened. Odd, but not surprising it is from a blog that does not follow the current MSM herd.

I also rather suspect that, whatever else, the next time the BBC features a claim that fits with its group think world view, this example might well end up being quoted quite a lot.

As a 'stakeholder' required to co-fund its professional, objective, factual output, in my name (being British 'n all), I'd say that is not really what I had/have in mind for my national broadcaster.

It is not like emerging various truths, enhancing narratives, interpreting events are alien events for Aunty or, sadly, very rare.

Britain. And the world.

Lions cheated by crooks, overseen by ostriches employing weasels, reported upon by vultures.

16.3.09

'Working on it'

Obama's team has only one answer: we're working on it

I have to say I agree it is a bit early to be too critical, and 'we're working on it' does seem to be reasonable and even quite honest in the circumstances.

I just hope that they are, and the work proves of value.

Otherwise it may just go down in history as a US version of another joke phrase uttered a tad too often, and now to great, if bitter hilarity outside of parts of Westminster and BBC studios in the latter half of the last decade: 'I'm just getting on with the job'.

Many tend to think in response: 'Then, on current evidence, I really wish you'd stop'.

15.3.09

What they forgot to mention

If the BBC learns generosity, it can become untouchable

cynosarge16 Mar 09, 1:19am

But one example, but well sai... written. I believe the Guardian might benefit from noting that some do get frustrated, or worse start to question the value of material that might be viewed to be tainted by 'bias of omission'. Certainly my eyebrow cranked with an opening that starts: 'We need the BBC', wondering if the author had merely assumed that included me or thought she had asked. Only on reading the information in subsequent comments do I come to understand what was meant, if rather making an unfortunate point in passing by the way phrased.

I also note, with interest, the recommendations to comments here, though I guess they are easily manipulated.

This is the online section of the Guardian, which I think would itself proudly boast to be a good FoB (Friend of Beeb), with a close financial relationship (recruitment ads) that in turn leads to other 'bonds' (the author's relationship with the subject of her story, and others).

With a readership to complement all this.

So far I merely note most comments reckoning that the BBC, especially with its news, would benefit from getting back to reporting facts objectively (especially in my pet area of frustration, namely science) without 'enhancing narratives', 'interpreting events', facilitating 'emerging truths' and a host of other weasels for a self-appointed, incestuous, over-powerful, privileged-by-position media 'elite' imposing their values of what is 'right' on 'wrong' on what they seem to feel is a misguided majority in need of redirecting to assist their personal, and indeed corporate group-think agendas.

Meanwhile, the 'I see the BBC bashers are out' argument (which it isn't - and rather proves another point) -deployers and their attempts at defence of this attitude (mainly comprised by using it themselves) are getting zippy... plus short-shrift.

Sorry. Devalued.

Newsnight

A poster reckons another apology is in order. I felt otherwise, and got a new acronym at least...

Yes, that should sort it. Just pop over to Mr. Robinson's blog to see how the notion is being received...

A sorry lot indeed.

I think that, with the example set by our media-politico media establishment of late, from Dear Leader to Mr. Ross, etc, I may have to have a wee chat with my boys about what counts as an apology, and what is just an apology for one.

How long before we get apology advocates on the public purse in this new, POOR 'process over obvious result' society that is being spun... staffed, paid, bonussed and pensioned?

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Repeat it often enough...

Just now from the sports reporter on SKY..

'"We were the better team,' says Sir (is there any one, anywhere, not a Sir now?) Alex Ferguson... after his team's 4-1 defeat by Liverpool."

This might explain quite a lot these day.

13.3.09

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Let me tell you a story...

Well you all know what I think of surveys, but...

Survey finds journalism trust levels unchanged in 25 years

'Trust in journalists is not declining - it has always been low'

Well, that's ok then.

12.3.09

It ain't what you do, it's the way you're allowed to do it..

Bank is furious - not merely "puzzled"

Is there anyone he has not offended or nothing he and his cabal have not stirred up? Working out well again, I'd say.

Ah well, can't complain, as a democratically elec... oh, dear.

Edit, or

OK apologises for doctored Victoria Beckham photo

Is anything what is it seems these days?

And does everyone get off by merely saying sorry?

When media spats go good

Cramer versus Stewart

I'm not usually too impressed when the news reporters become the news, but here I'll make an exception. A very funny 8 minutes.

Telegraph - NEW - Jon Stewart attacks blinkered business journalists - as always, a bit more, and more context, from the blogosphere, especially in the comments.

11.3.09

Two wrongs make a...

... well, about a week in today's politics.

Shoesmith's biggest mistake was not to be a bank boss

Not sure this is working out as well as intended

Savers set to pay for bank accounts, as Bank of England reveal rates have hit record low

Not that I... we... have very much, but paying to reduce what we have is not high on the agenda.

Hence removing our money from the system would seem the most logical step. Is that what was/is intended?

Hey, let's annoy 50% of the population

I do so only in affectionate jest...

Want a job done well? Ask an older woman

I am not sure this - '...a 66-year-old Prime Minister of Iceland, or at least what's left of it' -quite endorses the spirit of the headline.

However, I am sure we have much to look forward to as Jackie, Hazel, Harriet, Margaret et al... um... mature.

Addendum -

Hmmn. I seem to either have been banned from the Torygraph comments section, or have failed to understand how it works...

Patronising Harriet Harman's gaffe on black, disabled people

All will be well soon, when she, and a few others (Jaquie, Hazel, Margaret (not that one, natch), etc) have been allowed to 'mature' a little:

Apparently.


Though I am not sure that citing the PM of Iceland, especially with the qualifier the author herself introduces, is necessarily a great endorsement.

Things seem to be working out sooo well under the boxtickocracy currently in vogue.

Maybe... I don't know... just ensure negative discrimination is dealt with harshly and let talent flourish where it is encouraged, regardless of an PC targets?

I just had real fun with a town hall munchkin that, as far as I was concerned, Pink Jedi was entirely acceptable as race an religion in my book.

10.3.09

Led by donk... weasels

Vince grinds an axe and reveals his vicious side

How did we know the banks would honour that? Oh, monthly reports. That would do the trick. So who would see the reports? The answer delighted us whose souls have been shrivelled by cynicism. No one. Ministers. Parliament would be given a statement in a year's time.

The banks will pull the wool over ministers' eyes, and ministers will pull the wool over Parliament's eyes. We all do what we do best.

Where's my vote?

8.3.09

Death by a thousand drips

Mixing my Chinese tortures a bit there, but the effect is as deadly, if not deadlier.

I was just watching SKY news (BBC is getting hard to stomach purely on content alone these days), when the topic of the latest horrific murder in NI cam up.

As part of this, there was a guest commenter, a journo from the Sun, invited on to give his reaction. Safe to say he was John Bullish in his views.

Now, for the sake of 'flavour', I have come to accept, if not condone the practice of getting on often extreme views, in isolation, to provoke responses, which indeed is what transpired.

Because, almost immediately, we had the inevitable 'Have Your Say' read out, by the host's blonde offsider. Thing is, she read out three, which were pretty much damning of the guest's views. Oddly, they also seemed pretty in keeping with the rebuttal the host (hardly an interviewer by any definition I would suggest) had expressed whilst 'debating' with the guest. In fact, the host went on to say that 'evidently no one agreed with [him]'.

Well... no. Three people evidently did not. But how representative were/are they? And how is that reflected by the selection process that goes into what does, or does not get read out?

I already have deep doubts, across the MSM board, about the selection and portrayal of 'guests' (a pretty thin pool, too) and their views, and this is more than compounded by what editors and moderators then sift to portray as public opinion on top.

Frankly it is all so rigged, either in the causes of agenda or ratings, as to be worthless.

But such carefully honed voices and messages, in the drip-drip way they are shared, is surely pretty influential and dangerous in shaping the opinions of others.

6.3.09

QUOTE OF THE DAY - He who makes the rules...

Maybe He'll Text Back

'Whilst I do not wish to be seen as criticising the judiciary, I find it strange that an accident where a driver causes the death of another gets 12 weeks, whereas a speeding motorcyclist who breaks the speed limit excessively but causes no injury whatsoever gets twice the time.'

March 6, 2009 11:53 AM

The lad vanishes

Moderation is a tricky one. I think some fail miserably.

Top 10 who Gordon Brown should blame for his US visit flop

A poster has now be 'moderated' twice. I saw one. It contravened nothing, save to criticise the moderating policy that removed the first, calling the paper the 'Labourgraph'. It has now gone too.

I wonder how long mine will last. A sad day for freedom of speech.

Comes to something when I rate the Guardian more more open on the moderating stakes.

And even the BBC, whilst worse, at least allows you to see when their hobnail boots have stamped all over free speech in the name of some sensibilities... or agendas.

Ok, it's your paying field. If you want to send people off that's fine, but the rest of the spectators might benefit from seeing at least an acknowledgement, if not explanation.

Otherwise the game makes no sense. Or maybe to some that doesn't matter in this process over product lunatic asylum we call a culture.

5.3.09

It might be best to know a bit about the subject to comment upon it

Quality journalism under attack

Honesty, accuracy, objectivity and clarity are cardinal values whether you're writing about mobile phones or poverty in south-east Asia.

Bless.

Another day, another chilling phrase

This time quoted in an interesting piece:

Speaking truth in power

Just read it, and then ponder: 'create the truth'.

Uttered, by all accounts, by an unsurprising source.

Truth, the first victim. It just is, and anyone who can blithely refer to 'creating' it is clearly not fit for... oh.

4.3.09

AGEISM - The age we live in

As a 'victim', I have an interest in ageism. Try getting ad agency employment after 40, much less 50, and you'll see what I mean.

Not much I feel can, or will be done about save empty rhetoric, jobs for more civserfs, money for lawyers and a few handouts for those who play the system, but I do intend to stay abreast of it all.

Guardian - Age discrimination laws could backfire on us if they end up keeping young people out of work - Well, yes, I suppose. But one does wonder how the sprightly author would feel if his employer felt (and wasn't stupid enough to tell him) that they needed a 'younger perspective'.

Frankly, even just pondering in hope the notion that this government has considered anything smacks of losing the plot.

Or....

Imran Khan: This is the result of a weak government and the 'war on terror'

This is the result of the existence nihilistic anarchists who do not value life, brook no argument to their... rather limited and generally unpopular... world view, who like to kill and have minority willing audiences for their sad, selfish, brain-dead, cowardly actions (ambushing civilians is not that skillful or 'audacious'*), mostly in some media and those they turn to for 'analysis' or 'comment' as it's good for ratings.

Take your pick.

Addendum-

*BBC - Who carried out the Lahore attack? - '...a similar number of men staged an equally audacious attack.'

Googled:

1. Fearlessly, often recklessly daring; bold. See Synonyms at adventurous, brave.
2. Unrestrained by convention or propriety; insolent.
3. Spirited and original

Not sure it's quite the collection I'd first go for.

A question of balance

I bang on a lot about reporting standards.

There is also bias by omission.

And then there's the simple, inescapable fact of 'agenda'.

Though from a BBC-critical blog, this piece could apply to most in our rather tainted MSM.

graphic-illustration-of-imbalance

It's hard not to feel that who you are is more significant that what you do, or is done to you, in too many from our 'professional' 4th estate.

3.3.09

Worth sharing

I am a environmental campaigner, of sorts (makes me sound like an addict at an AA meeting)

However, I am an odd one.

I think that the climate is a bit squiffy, and 'we' may be something to do with it.

However, I am not to sure, but also feel that that the certainty that some have, and choose to articulate their (valid) views may not always be helping get the masses on board. In fact it is an area so fraught, and polarised, I tend to content myself with things I feel able and qualified to address, such as sensible, pragmatic reductions, reuses, repairs and recyclings, especially of waste.

And hence I try and keep the more enviro blog I pen on this subject, Junkk Male RE:view, clear of the artillery exchanges climate 'optimists' and 'pessimists' launch at each other.

But I do feel in the mood to share this, from a self-confessed 'sceptic' (I think they embrace this, and I would never use the pejorative 'denier' as some do) site, as it is of value looking at matters of science, and reporting, by the MSM, especially when it comes to errors (to be kind) of omission.

Actually, blanket blanking serves no good purpose. It merely serves the conspiracy theorists. Beyond the irony of all sorts of folk canceling their flights, sensible analysis might of got under the skin of the value of such 'protests' when they backfire so badly, and what exactly the sense of record cold spells, as well as hot... forbodes.

EU Referendum - By their omissions …

Addendum:

17.46 - 03.03

I wrote the above this morning. Before retiring I did my last scope.

One piece I noted was this, from Newsnight's 'Ethical Man':

Obama to bypass Congress to limit emissions

Now, besides noting that in response to his invitation 'Please leave your comments below telling me whether you support America imposing a limit on emissions', after 4 hours he has had precisely one (down a bit form the 50+ before... maybe it will pick up), I can't help but notice the pictures used, and the vague way the Power Shift summit is referred to, bearing in mind the above EU-Referendum link suggests something else went down...

Who to believe?

Support hose

Mr Brown must close the gap between rhetoric and reality

That's some gap...

... and even his most ardent cheerleaders (you know who you are) are now struggling to span, much less plug it.

Just why anyone is offering Capt. Queeg any crumb of support to keep his hands on the wheel of the Titanic as he looks for the next iceberg to ram and other person to blame, is beyond rational comprehension.

2.3.09

All the 'news' that's fit to be... 'imprecisely written'

Another phrase to add to a long, and ignoble list...

"From: jeremy.bowen@xxxxxxx
Your complaint has been passed to me. In the diary I was guilty of some imprecise writing. I was certainly not libelling an entire people. But I should have made the meaning of the sentence clearer...'

I am, of course, assuming the author to be accurate about the exchange. It does ring true enough.

I think I'd like my reporters a bit more able to 'make their meaning clearer'.

1.3.09

One law for...?

I have just listened to the Andrew Marr show.

I had to write in...

Did I just hear* a Government Minister, Harriet Harman, say, in effect: 'it may be legal but we think the court of public opinion takes precedence'.

Interesting precedent.

Mr. Marr seemed none to concerned.

Newsnight -

* heard it again**. Slightly more accurately: '... [this] might be enforceable in a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion'. I think I was still pretty right to crank an eyebrow.

**Better yet...

BBC - Nick Robinson's Newsblog -

405. At 11:08pm on 01 Mar 2009, labourwipeout

For those who have just arrived I quote Harriet Harman this morning on Andrew Marr

"...it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in.

Just think about the consequences of what she has said .

I have been since I first heard them uttered. An interesting precedent indeed.

Oddly, many in the media seem not to have been so troubled as we are.

Telegraph - Harriet Harman wants a Bill of Attainder against Sir Fred Goodwin -

I have long been concerned about the trend towards retrospective legislation. With things like IHT it is bad enough, if only financial, and I suppose could be the same here. However, how long before you can be imprisoned for doing something that was once legal but for various reasons may subsequently deem not to be? An interesting legacy for any government to leave.

Oddly, and starting with the interviewer in question, many in the media seem not to have been so troubled as some of us are.

Telegraph - Sir Fred Goodwin's pension: a human right? - Another not so worried about Ms. Harman's 'notion'. Odd.

BBC - Nick Robinson - If you're at a Loose End...

When the going gets tough, those who keep saying 'tough'... selectively... leave the country? Though, it seems, we pay.

Had myself a little bet on what would make it on Aunty's screens and pages today, and what would not... by way of 'omissions' under the 'enhanced narrative', 'emerging truth', 'could have been better phrased' school of reporting that suits the agenda du jour.

Looks like I win. Sadly, it's in pounds.

Hope Mess(ers) Brown & Robinson have no need of the national currency whilst pursuing vital national interests elsewhere.

I knew the law was an ass. Now it looks like it is one that may be led by the nose wherever venal pols and lawyers may wish to direct it. Ably supported by some in the media. Sigh.

Indy - Harman says Goodwin's pension 'will not happen'

Newsnight - Another day, another redirection

Just thought I'd repeat this before the thread goes down whatever weird and wonderful exotic, high-brow or semantic route it inevitably takes these days.

I listened to the Andrew Marr show yesterday with him 'interviewing' Harriet Harman, when the topic of Mr. Goodwin (this Lord lark is rather devalued IMHO) came up.

And a Government Minister said, in effect: 'it may be legal but we think the court of public opinion takes precedence'.

If so, that is indeed an 'interesting' precedent.

Mr. Marr seemed none too concerned.

So I guess I need not be either.

It has many potential applications elsewhere that I can think of. Who needs to obey the law anyway, especially when it can be bent to fit on a whim? I must try it, say, with the licence fee? 'Hey public opinion, is this really worth an enforced £139.50?'

But looking at the blogs of some colleagues, while many, like me, do seem to think mob-rule from the top rather important, perhaps scooting off to the USA with the man who thinks it's all their fault is wisely deemed more 'fruitful'.

Then again, maybe extortionate money lending here might also be more appropriate to redire... er.. focus our attentions upon..

How much has my family had ripped from it, to give... lend to whom, for what and how much are we going to get by way of a return?

Anyway, just can't wait to see what the new administration's 'Global warming plan' will be.

Maybe... let's they can decide to call it 'climate change' instead? And even that term is proving a wee bit behind the public convincing curve, but best not to rush things, or stay at the cutting edge, eh?

Guardian - Has Harriet Harman gaffed?

Gaffed??? What the heck does that mean?

The minute it passed her lips I was on to the show, and pleasantly surprised that they posted my concern that a government minister was advocating a rather dodgy precedent.

Fortunately I resisted asking if the same might apply to, say, my not feeling like paying the TV licence because the interviewer who elicited this gem seemed blissfully unconcerned and rather remiss in his role.

Meanwhile, since this point, I have scoured the airwaves and blogs of the BBC's political elite, from Newsnight to Nick Robinson, and their attentions seem to have been, how to say... studiously anywhere but on this topic.

Maybe they see no problem with the principle?

Telegraph - Harriet Harman isolated after pledge on Sir Fred Goodwin pension

Times - Harman cut adrift over Goodwin pension comments

Guardian - Brown plays down Harman's threat to cut Fred Goodwin's pension

BBC - Brown targets Sir Fred's pension - Slightly different headline view, but the facts are there later, plus a view of the interview.

Iain Dale - Harriet Harman Let Off the Hook

Telegraph - Harriet Harman's raving almost made me think of siding with Sir Fred Goodwin