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!