Now, here is the news..

Sunday, 12 July...

Guardian - Brown set to reinforce troops in Afghanistan
Two thousand troops could be sent to Helmand following a review after the bloodiest day

Indy - Revealed: Brown's secret plan to cut Afghanistan force by 1,500

I wonder which the BBC will go with?

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.

An unlikley source of sense?

Crowe's frank assessment of the press

Worth a listen.

Mr. Marr not too keen to look at the role of broadcast media, and maybe those in state versions married to print 'journalists' who as couples enjoy cosy relationships with those upon whom they are supposed to report... um.... objectively.

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.

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.

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.

More on 'narrative enhancing'?

Another £100 billion of public spending from the CBI?

'When I heard the BBC tell me this morning that the CBI had called for £100 billion extra public spending in order to prevent a deeper recession I was ready to blog about the CBI’s economic illiteracy. When I read their Press Release I was interested to see the CBI said no such thing.'

Gaurdian 'journalist' has problem with bloggers scooping stories they'd rather keep quiet shock

Analysis of a storm in a teacup

'...really useful public service journalism on the net.'

I'd love a definition of that, as I rather suspect there's the 'I work for the MSM and hence get to tell you what I think you need to know, and in a way that helps you think the 'correct' way' notion, espoused by some not too far away from here and their 'narrative enhancing', 'events interpreting' mates, and the few left... oddly mostly bloggers... who seem to report facts, usually check them, and then let these, supported by clear links (and, as in this case) be the story. Mr. Draper is rather 'involved' in a fair bit of political activity, connected at senior level, is he not? I found this story rather interesting, am glad it was raised and credit those who did. As do most who read such things online, from what I can see. Hence the few sniffy dissenting views are more than interesting by being so out of step.

But, and I look in the mirror as I write this, there may be some merit in the whole 'pot/kettle' thing in having concerns with one writer plying their trade by mainly dissing another. But I think that ship has sailed.

How did that slagging off the Sun guy's story from Israel pan out anyway?

Now, who would have thunkit?

Some my have noticed I am 'concerned' about emerging truths, enhanced narratives, interpretation of events , etc, by our public broadcaster.

BBC accused of portraying refinery strikers as racist by editing quotes

Do you really wonder why?

BBC apologises for misleading edit of striking worker - An 'apology'. That's all right then.

Not right>>> Right not>>> Right no>>> Right on!

It's all in the edit

When the Guardian notices, and is uneasy, and says so, there is more than a slight problem.

As a few have noted, there is a certain amount of 'form' at play here.

Aunty adds a final straw

The BBC is stout in its defence of 'edgy' humour.

Which is what I use to encourage them to ponder their often selective reporting and editorial.

You'd think Newsnight might have mentioned the Glenrothes election in advance, to help them form a view, a bit like the saturation coverage of the US version they seemed to prefer, and still do, over anything closer to home.

So when the first post that wasn't totally US-centric appeared, I pounced:

1.5% worth of humble pie?

Might Glenrothes get a mention, too?

I know it's just an election pertinent to the UK, but as it's also an indicator on a section of the public's views on the competencies of those best placed to help us manage the downturn (I thought 'recession' was non grata - sorry, Bournemouth Council - off limits?), it might rate some coverage.

Even if it is 'once the dust has settled'.

Don't want any voters get silly ideas in advance, do we?

Oh look, a puppy!

Unfortunately, 'This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.'

There are several vague 'catch-alls', but I suspect this is the one they will use:

Are considered to be off-topic for the particular message board

Very Hitchhikers Guide. Especially for a post that is trying to point out that the message board has had no topics about the UK for long enough.

Sickening.

They have been warned:

Dear Mods,

Refer away. But you better have a pretty darn good reason not to approve that post eventually.

Otherwise I will have to presume Hazel Blears has found the prefect test bed from within her party's media comfort zone.

Addendum: I now have a reason, if not a very good excuse:

Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we've had to remove your content below

This post has been removed because special House Rules are in effect during Polling Day. In common with other media organisation the BBC does not discuss elections while the polls are open and users of the BBC website must also abide by these rules.

Telegraph - Hazel Blears, bloggers and professional politics -

From the 'Paranoia is knowing they are out to get you' files, a Macbethian (aka 'The Scottish Play' to those of superstitious thespian bent) tale of caution, with a bonus for any who appreciate the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

After wall to wall US 'news' up to and including today, to the exclusion of all else, I had cause to ponder on the Newsnight blog what else might get a mention, such as Glenrothes.

Seems special 'House Rules are in effect during Polling Days'.

So... nothing discussed that isn't fancied before, can't during, and only the possibility of passing reference afterwards, unless it works out better than expected, in which case it will doubtless be top of the news for days.

Where's a Vogon Constructor Fleet when you need one?

I'd say what is being discussed is already here, with the enthusiastic support of some media who seem to have decided where their loyalties lie.

Meanwhile, in a Galaxy far, far away

I'm sure it's down to the digital switch over in Peebles, but I haven't heard much on this:

Gordon Brown braces himself for defeat in Glenrothes by-election

If he wins, or doesn't lose as badly as anticipated, I am sure normal service will be resumed as normal and Polly T will be 'invited' on to tell us what the BBC needs a front to tell us we should think.

BBC - Voters go to polls in Glenrothes

Indy - By-election triumph boosts Brown

Was there an election in the UK?

Can't say I noticed on the BBC... until this result was announced. Seems the 'right' result from the 'right' candidate was of more interest... elsewhere.

Now it's wall to wall. Odd, that. 'Down to the PM's recent increase in popularity', apparently.

The vote, and the will of the people who did vote, must be respected.

I wish I could say the same for the media machines that now operate in 'informing' them with what gets boosted, what doesn't, and when.

Newsnight -

OK, the 'right' party won in Glenrothes (can we mention that now it's over?).

I guess wall to wall discussion. Polly T and Kevin Maguire on speed dial!

That'll put a smile on Gordon's face:) And we do all love that smile.

A bit late mind. What doesn't get talked about can matter as much during an election as what does.

And who controls the drip.

Telegraph - Barack Obama, the Tiger Woods President

Telegraph - Glenrothes: A black swan moment

Telegraph - Labour wins Glenrothes - majority 6737

I fear all I am seeing is a trend towards tribalism.

In this very paper the term 'support of his fellow Fifers...proud that one of their own can become...'

Sound familiar?

The vote, and the will of the people who did vote, must be respected.

I wish I could say the same for the media machines that now operate in 'informing' them with what gets boosted, what doesn't, and when.

I just hope some in the media comms business would regain some pride in their work, and stop leaving it to those who, evidently, have a lot of time, money and resources to 'get on with their jobs' on behalf of their masters.

Gaurdian - Glenrothes byelection gifts Brown another bounce

Beyond the rather depressing tribalism on display, I also am saddened by the continued erosion of every aspect of democratic process I used to hold dear.

At no stage does this seem to have anything to do with the actual MPs and their abilities. They are reduced to mere human puppet representations of their party machines or, more worrying still, their 'leader'.

So, it would seem, we continue to follow America's lead.

At least we can't match their ad spend which, as I understand it, was $11 per vote for Senator Obama and $2 for Senator McCain.

As an ad-man I am gratified to see such faith in advertising bearing fruit, though I might crank an eyebrow at the ROI.

Now, policies. Where were we...?

Newsnight

Gaurdain - Sarah Brown: the real reason Labour won in Glenrothes?

I'll go a massive yes, if only to see how they try and get the person not a prop-ette to personally visit every person in the country.

Which they might.

Beats 'getting on with the job', as that doesn't seem to be doing 'it' so well.

Telegraph - Labour will lose power but can the Tories win it?

Some are just 'more' than others...

The Feral Beast: 'Times' gets close to the action!

Another day, another isnight into what 'we' get told by 'them'. And why.

'Guardian': no more Starbucks gags - run the taps, again, guys. You've bought off the green media! Must have doubled their circulation, too.

Law unto himself - access, one's flexible rationalisation

Skirting the issue

Newsnight

Much more importantly, to me in the UK and concerned with the BIG issues...

When are you going to be addressing (here's hoping) the vastly important, topical issue of... Mrs Palin's wardrobe. Everyone else is doing it!

Now, I have to say that I have in my wardrobe the same suit I had a decade ago for smart stuff, while the missus is on La Redoute's frequent buyer programme, so there is an 'issue' here.

As it wasn't mentioned on BBC Breakfast News, I still wonder who is paying, but if not the taxpayer whose business it is and hence who cares. Maybe Mr. Obama's helicopter has seats made from whale foreskins?

Maybe some are just still smarting over the expose over their bubbly bill... which is paid for by the licence fee and hence, in part...me.

When it comes to the BBC, might there be a danger of skirting (sorry) dodgy ground here, considering, how to say, more 'favourable', uncritical 'reporting' of the fashions sported by oh so many others 'approved' of (from Princess D through WAGS to Mrs. Brown), and from ladies who also don't seem to lob up each day in the same one-piece.

I merely note in passing a few of Newsnight's very own being involved, irony-free, with a progamme that is currently quite active in getting knickers in a twist over 'inappropriate' relationships.

Meanwhile, I have noted the ongoing quality of editorial riquor with their 'post 'n never check/read again' blogs...
McCain Suckered By Obama Over The Big Bucks

2. At 07:41am on 23 Oct 2008, JunkkMale wrote:
Just like New York...

McCain Suckered By Obama Over The Big Bucks

1. At 07:46am on 23 Oct 2008, JunkkMale wrote:
...New York... evidently a post that is thought so good, they post it twice!

(until it is without acknowledgement or explanation removed, put back in, taken out...).

Sorry, I appear not to be treating these with the gravitas some think they obviously deserve.

Can't think why.

Indy - Republican Party spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe
Obama still has questions to answer

Gaurdian - How to spend $1.5bn on elections - first lavish $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothes
Tomasky talk: Palin v Tomasky clothing budgets

Like the money spent on other billboards is any different, or better, or of use to the poor.

Telegraph - US election: Sarah Palin's spending spree

Remind me, on whose dime was Jackie O's wardrobe when she was hitched to that geezer whose electoral chances seemed to do OK when she scrubbed up well?

Or is it OK only so long as the dosh gets blown on the arm candy? I remember thinking 'Nice barnet, Cherie. Worth every penny!'

Indy - Sarah Churchwell: Who's 'ordinary' in these clothes?

On a point of education for this non-US expert...

Where did these funds come from and how are they defined?

They money used is referred to as 'public funds' hence 'charg[ed] to the taxpayer'. Really?

Does that mean all electoral expenses, no matter what side of the political divide, are covered by the public?

In which case what are the party fund raisers for?

And of these public funds, might we learn what else, again from across the political divide, is spent by the various parties and (one presumes, on behalf of) the various candidates.

In a world of impressions the way a woman looks is given more heft. I seem to recall the media, well some, being quite happy with the image presented by Jackie Kennedy or, more recently, Sarah Brown when not being used as a prop by hubby. Or Cherie's multi-£ barnet.

I guess the message is that these ladies were somehow different? If not politically, maybe it's just that they were the main attraction's female eye-candy, so that's OK then.

Times - Republicans spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothes - No answer to the above yet, but a quick Google leads me in a slightly different direction.

Telegraph - Barack Obama election night rally to cost Chicago $2 million - When in doubt... 2 wrongs! Ain't non-partisan, considered, objective media commentary just the best:)

Hotair.com - Jeri Thompson nukes Colmes, defends Palin’s wardrobe expenses

I guess I am capable of being swayed by a stereotype as the next... person... but Mrs. Thompson was simply the sharpest, most coherent and well-informed person in the exchanges. End of.

Frankly the BBC seems to have hyped an aspect and dropped it once the main line has served its function, namely Mrs. P blowing a wad on frocks. Little on the context vis a vis presentation or the activities of others in this regard.

Party funding is a wee bit more complex than that, and if running with an aspect I would maintain any sharing this either do it 'all or nothing'.

Mrs. T was not about to let Mrs. O get a free pass, but such 'two-wrongs' counters have to be skillfully used to a) make a point without sounding petty and b) giving the very entities that feel free to initiate such trivia techniques the opportunity to say, with all due pompous hypocrisy they can muster: 'well, we're not talking about that'.

Maybe the question should be asked more why they do not, in an even way, from the outset, from so-called 'objective' journalists who these days seem happy to be agenda-supporting shills for party Press Releases.

Telegraph - £92,000 on clothes in nine weeks? Way to go Sarah Palin!

The Guardian Zone

I'm pretty sure that, in its defence of the current regime, some media will trace our current ills back to Boudica if they could.

Back to the progressive future

Imagine if you will, a world of space, and time...

[sfx, spookey, spacey music] ding, ding, ding ding, ding... The Guardian Zone!

We 'would' be thriving now, if something hadn't happened 25 years ago.

Nifty.

Maggie crushed a butterfly!

We feel you pain..ish

I have just watched the BBC Breakfast News with one of the blondes, Sian Williams, conducting an incisive, in-depth interview with David Cameron.

Frankly I was moved to write in with a pithy comment to them, but decided against as there is simply no point, a feeling which the entity I co-fund might like to ponder.

Basically it surrounded/s her use of 'vox-pops' (with the good folk of Brum) to form the basis of her questions, which pretty much were as follows:

"What people are saying..."

"What I got from.."

Now those two in sequence are in their own right interesting. How the heck do I know who these catch all 'people' are? Who selected them? So far I have seen about a half dozen, over and over. How many were interviewed in total. Why did these make the cut and not others? Why? Who selected? Was it to help towards 'What I got from..?' as opposed any accurate reflection of public mood? I don't know, because of the unique way my national broadcaster is funded, and run, and overseen, no one is going to tell me honestly.

I'll leave others more qualified and with more resources to assess such things as matters of balanced reporting, but I now seriously question the value of these vox pops other than to add public voices to assist editorial agendas.

Then, speaking of 'the people' we get onto matters of empathy. All politicians will seek to convince us that they feel 'our' pain. Just as most media luvvies seem to think they are there to and do speak for 'us'.

Along with or Gordon Brown or Vince Cable, I very much doubt David Cameron really can know what most are going through. He's an MP, and they are not short of a bob or two. He's also a party leader so he has layers of 'people' in between him and any domestic, down-to earth reality. Or gets a lot from those Fiesta-driving, mortgage-lumbered, Tesco-shopping guys in our London media... not.

So I have to wonder why this lady dragged up Mr. Cameron's educational background (how often are other MPs' subjected to their schooling, as if this has any bearing on their financial situation now), rather oddly by saying she wasn't going to bring it up but others (unspecified) have...so how about it?

Mr. Cameron and his party have a lot of convincing to do, but when I hear soundbites that match Labour speeches coming out of pensioner's mouths and broadcast nationally as 'representative', and interviewers dragging up failed digs at background not applied to my hearing with anyone else, I sense something akin to the 'Get Palin' from certain quarters on this side of pond, and am starting to react accordingly. And not in a way the masterminds in our public propaganda system might be intending.

And if their efforts do backfire as I suspect they will, I truly hope those in power will take heed that I don't take kindly to any government/media axis of weevils telling me what to think, on what... and when.