Too much son, not enough Illumiere

Something interesting has happened in the BBC blogosphere.

A fixture has gone on hols (like MPs, many in the state broadcaster seem to get the same as my kids), and the substitute is scoring well.

It has been noticed.

However, I have been minded to offer a cautionary comment to those who see her contribution as an improvement, and one to be retained.

However.... for some reason (I surmise below), the number of posts is currently significantly down.

This may be a problem. The market rate talents of the boxtickocracies need measures to justify their worth, and hence, regardless of the value of meeting the theoretical main remit (quality journalism) one tends to find that controversy pays better and hence gets hired and protected. Think Polly T in the Grauniad (at the BBC, on occasion). Or, for 'balance', the new Telegraph commentariat regime, where some new bloggers boast of being hired just to provoke. Any old nonsense will do as long as you can crank up a 500+ thread, even if it is folk going 'Huh?'.. or worse.

As many have already mentioned, I am settling in to savour more factual, objective reporting, with links and without narratives being enhanced or events being interpreted thanks to unique access and bestowed briefings resulting in little more than unsubstantiated gossip and spin.

Which may well mean I don't need to comment as the topic is served. Executives please take note. Numbers don't always mean quality. Noise need not accompany light for full sensory illumination.

Addendum

The author has penned another blog - Open primaries for all? - and I was struck by her use of 'left-wing' to describe a publication. I have found this happens rarely, and was moved to comment:

As, with many 'guest' commentators invited in at the drop of a producer's iPhone, it is a rare instance where I have seen a publication that is not 'right wing' or 'conservative' labelled as anything at all, I was wondering if there was, anywhere, an accepted (hah!), objective list/chart/guide where the political positionings of various reference sources was listed. I am not a big 'wing/ist/zi' designation fan.

If not, and to any degree of standardisation, I am in a variety of minds as to whether these appellations should be used. But for once I don't err on shades of grey. I think it should be one or t'other. The 'all' option is, inevitably, open to subjectivity. While 'nothing' remains, in the care of the reader's own eyes and independent thought, still mostly objective.

I am erring on the latter. That said, the provenance of a source is still often very pertinent to the take it/they provide, and of course there are also the numbers and extremity of views held that remain the gift of those who book individuals or quote stories.

Tricky. But as I suspect my preference will be in the minority, and as 'all' will... should be revealed, it can be refreshing to see the possible context of a quoted source and why some who use them may prefer that environment. So long as it is applied equally from all directions.

One also looks forward to certain 'research', by various 'think tanks', etc being framed by affiliations that might colour (blue, red, green...) their findings, being too often merely a means to introduce a spurious degree of separation from what are too often partisan opinions. And without the time or means to check more deeply, if taken at face value for some in the audience, this can stray into misrepresentation.