QUOTE OF THE DAY - So little rare...

From BBC Editors thread:

There are 'news' pages and there are 'opinion' pages. The first should inform the second. The second should never inform the first.

'Should' kind of puts today's situation in context.

Poll 'n count

The value of media 'polls', in a nutshell:

Daily Mail readers vote to allow gipsies to jump NHS queue

Something to bear in mind when... any time the results of same are used, po-faced, to make a comment on anything. Or, worse, used in justification of 'reporting' in any way shape or form as objective.

Hearing what you want

A public element

I misheard and therefore misquoted her as saying she wished to be "queen" in comparison to "trusty old senators". She in fact said - as the metaphor should have made me realise - that she wanted to be tribune.

Easily done. 'Kw-een' vs. Trib-une'. Nearly identical to all but the untrained ear. Simples:)

Shame no devices exist to ensure checking and fidelity of reporting of fact if not objectivity.

Now, have we established who will she get to mow both her lawns on our tab?

Black... is white

...Some say, and others report, to try and grab a tad more ratings or push their views using dubious proxies.

In a world revolving round the internet (which is catching on, and some now see merit in enhancing with lots more of other folks' money), with folk getting their time-poor news fixes from such as Google, Twitter, etc, I notice one often tends to get sample summaries, with URL, headlines and, crucially, possibly first lines of copy.

Upon which you form an first impression, and then decide whether to pursue further.

Hence I am a tad concerned about journalistic and editorial trends that employ the following technique, especially with the latter:

Headline (often also of dubious summary value, depending on agenda of the guys writing it)

Copy: [Rampant opinion/untruth/dodgy/claim], followed by an attribution to a [person, generic, unspecified 'them', latest daft research by quango/charity/thinktank with pension pot to top up], often with the added spice of being set in the future ['will say']. As in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/06/the_return_of_p.html#comments

The country cannot afford it. It is no longer militarily necessary.

Tonight, Nick Clegg uses those arguments to become...

At best, that doesn't strike me as totally competent, or indeed kosher reporting.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - That'll learn 'em

Just listening to a report on BBC West Midlands regarding the absconding of a convicted murderer from an open prison.

According the Prison Service: 'Being located in an open prison is a privilege and, if (if!?) captured, one likely (likely?!) to be withdrawn.'

I feel safer already.

And quite understand why the reporting team found it sufficient to let this pass without clarification, challenge or comment.

Not.

It seems I am misguided

I read recently a good point.

A Labour MP was bemoaning that they were no longer deemed fit to rule.

A poster advised that, actually, they were really only keen on being represented.

Not something I also sense has sunk into the brains of our national broadcaster and too many employees too busy talking to actually listen, much less hear.

Fewer votes for BNP

As a voter, I am getting a teensie bit ticked off some trying, and others letting them 'explain' how 'we' either got it wrong, didn't understand or, in final desperation, were only 'sending a message' about the least awful aspects of the Government's litany of disasters for them to learn from.

Yes, I was, am and will remain less than impressed with the expenses scandal. And yes, though I can easily check what my MP has done and respond accordingly, there was an element of rather thinking the clowns in currently charge of the whole rotten, and decaying from the head system, should cop more blame than most.

Not helped by the shooting each other in the foot procession with the ongoing Titanic clay pigeon meet.

Or rigged rallies with bussed in audiences given full 'news' treatment.

Or a succession of self-interested, deluded troughers just trying to keep going long enough to enjoy that, last, wafer thin mint of a bonus payoff for dragging the country to the abyss in getting booted out rather than walking. Not like it makes CVs suffer much anyway. I wonder if Siralun will be reassessing his hiring policies: 'Screwed up and kicked out, eh? Come on down!'. I though you bought low and sold high. Not get bought and sell out.

And as we're on matters Pythoneseque... I have heard the dead parrot sketch used a lot. I am thinking the Black Knight from the Holy Grail, down to arm and leg stumps gushing.. 'It's just a nick.. a flesh wound. The people wouldn't thank me for not getting on with the job...'.

Oddly, a set of views trotted out by some still, and without much counter from those you might have thought had a smidge of professional pride left, but who also seem to see their fortunes tied to one last roll of the dice in case two sevens come face up.

If Gordon is the answer, I dread to think what the question is. Or why it seems to be the only one asked by too many in certain media.

PM's worst nightmare has become reality

I'd say the BNP are best damned by their own words and deeds, and given the full glare of public scrutiny without being managed by the media, um, elite, who seem to think they know what's better for 'us'.

Though true, this latter 'narrative enhancing' aspect has not perhaps worked so well for others as intended, any more than it worked against the BNP.

Maybe the public are smart enough to see, hear and experience things for themselves, find they don't fancy being steered so cack-handedly very much, and respond in a time-honoured, democratic fashion.

While they still can. Looking at the new, make that ever-evolving cabinet, 'being voted for is just so last year'.

Meanwhile I continue to watch the latest episode of the Media's Holy Grail, with ever more airtime accorded Gordon the Black Knight and his minions...: 'it's just a flesh wound.... you wouldn't forgive me for not continuing to fight.... and then getting back to the job a public [there is one left in the North East I think] is telling me they want me to do'.

Me, I was not best impressed with the expenses to be sure, but actually weighed a few other things up at the same time. And being told I didn't know my own mind, was wrong or was just being angry has rather confirmed what I thought and hardened my resolve.

That the intention, was it?

For the people, of the people, slipped by the people

Newsnight

7. At 6:45pm on 02 Jun 2009, ginadean wrote:
Please could someone explain how Mandleson who is not elected nor an MP could possible be put forward for a top job as forgien secretary in a reshuffle of the cabinet, again not elected?

Very good question. However, the answer might be a tad 'unique' for some in the MSM to feel like asking, much less answering.

From our man at the scene...

It's tragic and it's news for sure.

I am just unsure if this is how all will be reporting it:

Britons could be on lost jet - PM

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he fears....

As with him finding time in his busy schedule to call fellow [insert too many similarities to count, plus a few differences... popular, voted for..] Scot Ms. Boyle, it seems Dear Leader is now personally in charge of finding out the news, commenting upon it, and then PR'ing that he has commented.

The BBC just seems to offer the bandwidth.

Is everything that happens now going to be shared with a 'Gordon hopes/thinks/says..' Headline and intro?

Looks can kill cred

What did Jeremy Bowen do wrong?

Having by told of the terrible situation that resulted in one of Mr. Bowen's colleagues dying at the hands of the IDF, and in less than ideal circumstances for any of the protagonists, his views are quite understandable on a personal level.

However, professionally-speaking, when checking out CVs for objective suitability, I am pretty sure Aunty may opt for a near Somalian relative of a recently deceased Capt. Omar Sparrow to be hired to head up the editorial of the Washington bureau. Or the Guardian to get Damien Green on board for a balanced view of political blogging.

As 'Call me Lord' M has pointed out, looks can kill cred.

Spectator - The Facade Cracks

Questions, questions

Sifting the web wheat from the net chaff

How many cosy, well-paid MSM journalists sift through the huge amount of material from PRs, especially publicly-funded ones, and bother to check out what is even true and therefore worthy of publication... before rushing to air/print?

Hew close to the line, and even if the truth hurts, let the chips fall where they may.

This will form part of my next unenhanced narrative, but slightly events interpreting blog:) Race you to two comments (not counting duplicate blogs).

Evening Standard - Health warning: rumours in cyberspace may seriously damage your credibility

Context is all. Apparently.

Worthy of note that the Indy seems to think this front page stuff:

Bowen 'breached rules on impartiality'

However, I was intrigued by this subhead:

'..former director-general says top journalists should not be undermined'

...as in being picked up on being 'top' more at getting facts either wrong or changing them to suit their personal emerging truth, enhanced narrative or interpreted event and flying in the face of any definition of professional, objective reporting?

"Jeremy has got a very difficult job to do in very difficult circumstances and this does not make it any easier."

Making the life of a propagandist in the guise of a national broadcaster's senior editor is not really something I want encouraged, frankly.

'... if most of his journalism was put under that degree of scrutiny, then it wouldn't stand up. I think we all know that to be true."

Why wouldn't it 'stand up' if it was good journalism. Truth, well told, and all that? As with Smeargate, the MSM and its news 'stars' and apologists seem to be trying defend their version of truth against one most of us recognise, which are facts and balanced commentary supported by well-researched and unsubstantiated support materials.

Not what 'they' 'think' in a twisted personal version of 'context'.

For me it's sod all to do with Israel, pro or con, but simple judgement on what our national broadcaster views as a smart call on who represents their brand in a specific area of expertise.

A bit like getting a near Somalian relative of a recently deceased Capt'n Omar Sparrow to take over as the BBC's Washington correspondent.

Speaking of Airy Replies

Just had to write to the BBC:

There's a certain irony that, as Pres. Obama and some other guys do some stuff that will slot in climate change, which will doubtless get full support and coverage of the national news broadcaster, I have been watching an empty car parked outside a building for a long while now, filmed from various positions, including a helicopter. Why?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'.

People in glass houses...

... are lucky that some in the media are hard of seeing. Apparently.

The 'situation' regarding the ex-head of RBS is beyond parody. But then, so is the response of some in government and those who , er, report*, upon their words and deeds.

Driven to distraction

9. At 12:11pm on 27 Feb 2009, djlazarus
Obviously the irony of getting a gold plated pension and perks for doing a job incredibly badly is lost on Mr Prescott.

Reading the author's (what's his job again?) original post, I'd suggest Mr. Prescott is not the only one.

However, as we are now in favour of not rewarding those who have and/or are sucking us dry whilst not offering much by way of public service worth a damn, or indeed making things worse, covering up badly and all round just digging deeper holes, let's see where else our gazes and direct debit cancellations may alight:)

23. At 12:36pm on 27 Feb 2009, subedeithemomgol wrote:
If Prescott reads the replies to his blog on the Guardian site he'd be quickly disabused about the public opinion - he called for Sir Fred's pension to be shredded, most replies wanted to see his pension shredded.

Order-Order - Prescott's Pension Hypocrisy

Guardian - Sir Fred's just one of millions to do better under Labour - there's what the readers and viewers think, and then there's what such as the BBC and Guardian thinks

Telegraph - Meanwhile, Gordon Brown is getting ever deeper into denial - feeling confident in our 'leadership', are we?

Indy - Ministers criticised over civil service bonuses - I am still grappling with why and how a bonus culture exists in public service at all.

*I have just 'learned' that the BBC 'has learned' that the PM will be telling activists that Sir Fred's unacceptable behaviour is the most serious issue of the moment. If he, and they, say so. I think this episode and how it has been handled says a lot more about them, though.

Telegraph - Gordon Brown has as little shame as Sir Fred Goodwin - Ah, Dear Leader has waited and weighed in... and in as competent a way as always.

I really guess I shouldn't have... but...

Anyone can let a typo slip in, but somehow I thought the tone deserved a reply.

'And, congratulations is in order after Newsnight triumphed'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam

I'm sure they, um... are.

I am sure capturing a new and younger audience is just what's required.

And next year...?

Best 'Interpreting of Events'

Craftiest Edit To Suit Agendas

Most Cooperative Assistance to the Emergence of Truths?

Most Ratings-driving Rabid Extremes Twofer at the Expense of Rational Debate

Highest Cranked Eyebrow and Sneer Whilst Interrupting

Me, I just like my news as objective facts, and opinion well balanced, and will vote for those any day.