Joe vs. the Volcano

As in ordinary Joe, and a bubbling mass of molten spin machine.

It was already an odd thread.

Addressing the chair

But then it got steered off in another direction.

I replied. And the rest, as they say, is a mystery tour...

Oo, eck, I stand rebuked. Possibly. Anyhoo, duly noted.

Heck of an interpretation of what I wrote there, but, taking that and turning it into an allusion about the Today programme, and projecting it onto the entire BBC, with a pretty narrow conclusion as to specific intentions and a political stance was awesome. All without me writing one word that says any of that. But, as the saying goes...'if the cap fits':)

Way to go. It's almost like those events getting interpreted all the time, just like wot Jon Humphrys was on about.

And of course these seem to be further getting shaped - apparently - by hordes of rebuttal units, funded by political parties, or from the public purse, who are out there to stir or spin to order. All a bit devious for me. Maybe I am just being played as a mere individual, as the two 'supportive' posts here seem, well, gifts. But let's work on the basis that they're just from others who have a different view. Which is cool.

And why I tend to go with the facts, and as these are hard to acquire in 'unenhanced' forms these days. I usually go for a spread, from 'disreputable' sites like Guido and Biased BBC who do have posters nevertheless posting silly things like links as 'evidence', to bastions of reporting probity such as Labourlist, the Guardian and some parts of the BBC. All of whom who would never dream of letting reporting what happened get in the way of presuming to tell people how to think. Makes you indeed wonder how the former are succeeding. This phenomenon to some does seem important and of concern, but then these of late do seem to be the same gilded ones who don't think the public is voting the correct way any more, and are appearing quite defensive as a consequence.

I merely noted the views of a possibly genuine listener, and how they were shaped by the 'interview' with Mr. Miser ( latest balanced insight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019114.stm ) Cameron. All in a thread from a colleague about chairs. Go figure.

And as it was raised, I merely wondered if adding 'sighs of frustration' was really where objective interviewers should be going with their interpretation of events to help enhance the narratives to get to emerging truths. Next you'll have folk in charge of the mic calling others fascists and what not, and having to apologise rather than resign. Just think if they'd used an un-PC word in earshot of others, if off-broadcast. The BBC does have indeed have many standards of who should be within its walls to help influence the nation.

As it happens, if I have formed any clear 'anybody but' notions at all, as a priority they would be more directed at our current 'fit to be' PM and his GOATs.

I'd be interested in how such as Ms. Montague would handle a Q&A session with or Nokia -testing steady had in troubled times, based on her current record of studied objectivity, and whether the audience would be treated to a collection of sound effects in complement to make points that inadequate words are inadequate for. With tongue in cheek, I am suspecting sighs might still be the order of the day.

From paid public interviewers to blogs of any hue, I don't respond well to being steered by folk that see the future of this country, and my kids within it, in terms of how things can be spun to how they can be made 'better' to suit their narrow group agenda. Especially in the MSM. And that applies even more, with cherries and cream on top, to the national broadcaster I am currently required to co-fund.

Give me just the facts. Hew close to the line, and let the chips fall where they may.