Biter Bit

Journalists don't seem as able to take it as they like to dish it out.

I actually value this lady's missives usually, but then there is this:

Will blog commenters eventually leave journalists fragile husks of insecurity, sobbing in the corner?

What on earth did she expect, on a blog, by way of reply?

If commenters are complaining about lazy journalism, journalists have an equal bone to pick with lazy commenting.

Thing is, who owes who what?

I’m all for open commenting on blogs, but I every now and then I imagine a halcyon world where a bit of judicial editing leaves us with only the comments that are worth reading - negative or not.

Well, there is always that magical moderator’s delete facility, used every now and then for perhaps less than professional reasons, in the spirit of some speech being freer than others.

It would certainly save us all a lot of time currently spent scrolling through endless “First!” comments.

Forewarned, I will hence refrain from attempting to note the relative location of this comment in the current thread.*

Annoyingly, as I was penning my witty tailpiece, some other sod got in first and rather stole the thunder.

IRONY ALERT - People in uniquely funded houses...

Check out this thread:

Stop the blocking now

It's about a regime preventing stuff they don't like.

Now check out the number of posts moderated out.

Yours, a snip at just £142.50pa

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Details, details...

Jacquie Smith, Home Secretary, referring on BBC Breakfast to her mistakes and expense claims: '... for some reason, some folk keep focusing on the details..'

Heaven forfend the legal system she is a major part of should ever focus on the details!

Telegraph - Jacqui Smith admits 'serious mistake' over expenses

Telegraph - Eric Pickles has never partaken of the John Lewis list

'Over both sets of limitish, orificer?. Speeding and drunk? Now what limits would they be? Just...details!

Guardian - Parliament at 25% off?

Nice to see Dear Leader still has his hand firmly around the tiller of his ship of foo...GOATS.

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?

Some speech is freer than others

To ban Chris Moyles from saying 'gay' can only add to his fizz

I often wonder whether the listeners are as a consequence of the talent, or the celebrity (and all its rewards) is spawned from the listeners.

Clearly there is an element of each.

Can it be that there is not more than one person in the UK able to occupy the prime slot of a national broadcast entity and do a pretty darn decent job of DJ'ing, playing music, chatting, entertaining and not seeing themselves as more important than all the rest, and possibly see access to audiences in the millions as worth doing a decent job over?

It might well help out Aunty's inflation-busting unique funding model by adding a smidge of competitiveness to the 'market rate' deals out there, and also cutting out the hordes of execs who 'negotiate' them, who subsequently have a vested interest in keeping the clubby gravy train going.

Personally, as I am 'out of demographic', Mr. Moyles can do and say what he likes to offend my dainty sensibilities as I am happy to judge him on his deeds and words and move on, but when it comes to how what he might say or do impacts on my almost teenage sons and how they treat others... I take an interest. Especially when it seems some suggest the solution is that I may be invited to switch off if I am not keen, yet oddly still have to co-fund it all.

There's also the matter of the consistency when the PC brigade break out in force, especially in certain quarters. If we are all going to get collective knickers in twists over perceived offences (look hard enough and one will come and find you) and unacceptable memberships, attitudes, statements, etc, it seems to me it should be all or nothing.

Once you get selective with your cause, and what's 'in' and 'out' based on narrow prejudice, agenda and cosy group-think, from Daily Mail to Guardian, it all rather falls apart. I'm still laughing at Gorgeous George's hypocritical bluster on why he shouldn't be persona non grata in other countries, but requires the power to deem others as unfit to grace our shores.

The BBC, and some supporters, have rather shown themselves to operate rather 'selectively' of late, based on an interesting collection of defensive, and often contradictory, parameters.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - He who makes the rules...

Maybe He'll Text Back

'Whilst I do not wish to be seen as criticising the judiciary, I find it strange that an accident where a driver causes the death of another gets 12 weeks, whereas a speeding motorcyclist who breaks the speed limit excessively but causes no injury whatsoever gets twice the time.'

March 6, 2009 11:53 AM

One law for...?

I have just listened to the Andrew Marr show.

I had to write in...

Did I just hear* a Government Minister, Harriet Harman, say, in effect: 'it may be legal but we think the court of public opinion takes precedence'.

Interesting precedent.

Mr. Marr seemed none to concerned.

Newsnight -

* heard it again**. Slightly more accurately: '... [this] might be enforceable in a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion'. I think I was still pretty right to crank an eyebrow.

**Better yet...

BBC - Nick Robinson's Newsblog -

405. At 11:08pm on 01 Mar 2009, labourwipeout

For those who have just arrived I quote Harriet Harman this morning on Andrew Marr

"...it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in.

Just think about the consequences of what she has said .

I have been since I first heard them uttered. An interesting precedent indeed.

Oddly, many in the media seem not to have been so troubled as we are.

Telegraph - Harriet Harman wants a Bill of Attainder against Sir Fred Goodwin -

I have long been concerned about the trend towards retrospective legislation. With things like IHT it is bad enough, if only financial, and I suppose could be the same here. However, how long before you can be imprisoned for doing something that was once legal but for various reasons may subsequently deem not to be? An interesting legacy for any government to leave.

Oddly, and starting with the interviewer in question, many in the media seem not to have been so troubled as some of us are.

Telegraph - Sir Fred Goodwin's pension: a human right? - Another not so worried about Ms. Harman's 'notion'. Odd.

BBC - Nick Robinson - If you're at a Loose End...

When the going gets tough, those who keep saying 'tough'... selectively... leave the country? Though, it seems, we pay.

Had myself a little bet on what would make it on Aunty's screens and pages today, and what would not... by way of 'omissions' under the 'enhanced narrative', 'emerging truth', 'could have been better phrased' school of reporting that suits the agenda du jour.

Looks like I win. Sadly, it's in pounds.

Hope Mess(ers) Brown & Robinson have no need of the national currency whilst pursuing vital national interests elsewhere.

I knew the law was an ass. Now it looks like it is one that may be led by the nose wherever venal pols and lawyers may wish to direct it. Ably supported by some in the media. Sigh.

Indy - Harman says Goodwin's pension 'will not happen'

Newsnight - Another day, another redirection

Just thought I'd repeat this before the thread goes down whatever weird and wonderful exotic, high-brow or semantic route it inevitably takes these days.

I listened to the Andrew Marr show yesterday with him 'interviewing' Harriet Harman, when the topic of Mr. Goodwin (this Lord lark is rather devalued IMHO) came up.

And a Government Minister said, in effect: 'it may be legal but we think the court of public opinion takes precedence'.

If so, that is indeed an 'interesting' precedent.

Mr. Marr seemed none too concerned.

So I guess I need not be either.

It has many potential applications elsewhere that I can think of. Who needs to obey the law anyway, especially when it can be bent to fit on a whim? I must try it, say, with the licence fee? 'Hey public opinion, is this really worth an enforced £139.50?'

But looking at the blogs of some colleagues, while many, like me, do seem to think mob-rule from the top rather important, perhaps scooting off to the USA with the man who thinks it's all their fault is wisely deemed more 'fruitful'.

Then again, maybe extortionate money lending here might also be more appropriate to redire... er.. focus our attentions upon..

How much has my family had ripped from it, to give... lend to whom, for what and how much are we going to get by way of a return?

Anyway, just can't wait to see what the new administration's 'Global warming plan' will be.

Maybe... let's they can decide to call it 'climate change' instead? And even that term is proving a wee bit behind the public convincing curve, but best not to rush things, or stay at the cutting edge, eh?

Guardian - Has Harriet Harman gaffed?

Gaffed??? What the heck does that mean?

The minute it passed her lips I was on to the show, and pleasantly surprised that they posted my concern that a government minister was advocating a rather dodgy precedent.

Fortunately I resisted asking if the same might apply to, say, my not feeling like paying the TV licence because the interviewer who elicited this gem seemed blissfully unconcerned and rather remiss in his role.

Meanwhile, since this point, I have scoured the airwaves and blogs of the BBC's political elite, from Newsnight to Nick Robinson, and their attentions seem to have been, how to say... studiously anywhere but on this topic.

Maybe they see no problem with the principle?

Telegraph - Harriet Harman isolated after pledge on Sir Fred Goodwin pension

Times - Harman cut adrift over Goodwin pension comments

Guardian - Brown plays down Harman's threat to cut Fred Goodwin's pension

BBC - Brown targets Sir Fred's pension - Slightly different headline view, but the facts are there later, plus a view of the interview.

Iain Dale - Harriet Harman Let Off the Hook

Telegraph - Harriet Harman's raving almost made me think of siding with Sir Fred Goodwin

Is it 'cos I is untouchable?

I was just going to let this headline (and, I presume, an accurate quote) speak for itself (and the main protagonist).

It stopped me in my tracks.

Then I read this and this. They seem to go together.

Interesting also that the 'issue' was prompted by one party merely wondering if blowing vast amounts on ancient perceived affronts (especially nice little earners for those on the gravy train) was sensible.

Obviously some think it is, if they can get away with it.

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.

Careful what you wish for

What a perfect revenge on the arch snooper

It comes to something of an unpretty pass when it all boils down to media tips, 'outed' 'snitches' (interesting precedent in that not wholly less than inflammatory word when your 'report' ends up plastered all around. I presume these guys were willing to give up their names for their 15 minutes of flame), etc, when... and it may have been mentioned and I missed it... surely the police and other record holders know and have records of exactly where she was, is and doubtless will be.

I can see the last might need to stay a secret, but surely this might all have been dealt with easily and above board without recourse to the very dubious systems that are hanging our hapless home sec and her rep out to dry?

Were that some other 'friendly' media as keen to stay on top of a fairly clear case of foot in... well, across the wrong threshold, when so obviously looking at best a case of multiple laws for an ever-growing multiplicity of 'standards' between those who tell us what to do, and what they do themselves.

For example

Despite that cover-up by establishment stooges, Ms Smith is guilty of thievery (and I dare her to sue me)

Let's see who comes out well in this.

I'm guessing the country won't be.

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?

It's good to have standards. Just...not more than one at a a time.

If Jeremy Clarkson must apologise to Gordon Brown, then Margaret Thatcher is owed an apology too

I have followed this for a while. Time to weigh in.

Uniquely funded; uniquely run.

At the very least, on top of some very questionable personal agendas masquerading as policy, there does seem to be a multiplicity of standards (certainly more than two) at the institution I am required to co-fund.

What is most worrying is the mindset in 'the bubble'. This programme, (which I have to say I have followed and enjoyed enormously over the years, and indeed found most of the two above named protagonists pretty funny when they don't descend into left-leaning 'right-on' ad hominems to an easy to whip up crowd), is 'live' is it not? Or at least topical to a few days.

Did it not occur to any involved that, especially with Ms. Brand present, that what they deem acceptable and 'edgy' might to others be as offensive, if not more so in its mass broadcast form, as something that may have been said in private but got a set of collective PC knickers in a twist and various folk running to teacher? I'd like to think if it had been 'Have I Got News For You', Ms. Brand at least might have found herself on a rather uncomfortable end of the others' wit, as did the unfortunate original presenter.

It's like there is a cloak of immunity over the gilded ones who grace our public airwaves, so long as they conform to, or better yet enhance the groupthink. From Gaza to gobby comics, I am getting a bit tired of being included in what the BBC and its invited, restricted-membership 'in-crowd' thinks I think (or at least thinks I should), and presumes to represent or claim on my behalf.

Actually, for all that actually happens tangibly in reaction, there might well be.

This is not the service promised. I want my refund.

ps:

Not that I am within the sound of Bow Bells, but I wonder if there are certain senior ladies from the politico-media establishment elite who have taken it upon themselves to be 'guardians of our thinking' (and I am sure Ms. Brand will be on board with the sentiment if not the targets) who, in this new phrasing-cautious era, might be referred to as 'a bit of a Jay Hunt'?

pps:

On a more serious, or at least less trivial note, this latest episode really represents another concerning metaphor for the culture of image vs. reality, and process vs. result that is being foisted upon us by our elected, and often totally unrepresentative (and very definitely unelected) 'masters' and 'mistresses' (or whatever the heck collective term they can come up with and deem now required over a taxpayer-funded outreach weekend).

A person who does not believe themselves at fault and says so can find the full force of the law thrown at them. A totally unrepentant felon briefly mouths some weasel words and the legal system rewards them with limitless concessions.

Sorry is no longer the hardest word; it is now, in some quarters, without value, at least to those of us not interested in just the words but also the deeds, and refuse to engage with the silly semantic games that so entertain, and seemingly satisfy too many who should know better, and betray their positions by indulging so easily in them.

Being seen to be something, or not, is now of more value than actually doing anything, or not. A slippery path across the board, with no good outcome for any of us, complicit or not.

Addendum - I have often wondered what racism/being racist is; it seems at best a rather moving/evolving entity. Just been led to this: racismtest.com - not going to go near it, at least online, for all sorts of reasons, but interesting that it's there.

More from the 'Xceptions but our rules' files

A HIPs for the unwary job seeker

Allows new meaning to giving someone a bit of Jip.

Interesting notion.

Looking at government down, what might interesting is what happens when well aware of the situation but ambitious enough to risk it (ie: most in Cabinet) to being stuck there against your will (ie: anyone in the shrieking 'no constructive dismissal here' sphere of our Small Business Minister.

Yet more, I suspect, from the 'Ah, but that's different' divide between public and private sectors so selectively imposed and policed by the former.

Getting on with the job?

Cabinet enforcers have to throw their weight around – but not like this

First we have this shrieking character who is on her nth staff member, and now this... individual.

And I understand our Dear Leader is not averse to expressing his displeasure with moving objects

As more and more edicts are issued on how we conduct our workplace and relationships within it, or else, is there any explanation as to why those in government seem to be immune from any consequences of their clearly outrageous work practices.

Or do they... we.... just keep paying the fines?

This GOAT-herd seems to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.

I am minded of the saying: "Great leaders make others feel small. Truly great leaders make others feel great".

These folk are not great. By a long chalk.

Do unto others...

I read this...

British voters 'turned off' by media hype and cynical blogs

So I went to this...

Not Nihilistic, Realistic

And read this....

'...after being tipped off that she was going to attack Guido in a speech later today to the Hansard Society. Guido also called the Hansard Society to arrange to attend the speech. He was told it was a closed meeting. The subject of the meeting, ironically, is political disengagement.'

There are many things that are set to turn this voter off, but two-faced hypocritical pols and their PR-printing glee clubs in the so-called 'major media' are pretty much top of the list.

Telegraph - Hazel Blears, bloggers and professional politics

Guardian - Nihilistic new media

Oh, dearie me.

What's the world coming to when a senior, respected Labour Minister comes to CiF on an outing for a bit of moral support and endorsement for one of their latest wheezes, and ends up being dissed by pretty much the whole crew.

You know what might be good, if not called for? Change.

From I have pegged. But I still I wish I knew to what.

But it's good to have a starting point in mind.

Indy - The Big Question: Is Hazel Blears right to accuse political bloggers of undermining democracy?

"Bloggers are not professional journalists and, often unedited and untrained, can be misleading."

"Is Hazel Blears right to accuse political bloggers of undermining democracy?"

Are the Independent and other homes of 'professional journalism', such as the BBC, who also often try on this argument, having a larf?

The edited and trained agenda-driven trash pumped out these days is not misleading (see the letter here from Sir Christopher Meyer for an example)? Give me a break.

Gaurdian - Is Hazel Blears right about the 'vicious nihilism' of the blogosphere?

Meanwhile 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 BBC Newsnight blog today what else might get a mention, such as Glenrothes.

Seems special 'House Rules are in effect during Polling Days', meaning such discussion ist verboten. Hence my asking the national broadcaster for news about my country gets bounced. The people of Glenrothes must be wondering what their licence fee is for, if information beyond what they are fed on the day about their wee election matters.

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 above is already here, with the enthusiastic support of some media who seem to have already decided where their loyalties lie.

Now, wash your mouth out with soap

Political hypocrisy - don't you hate it?

No matter how 'sophisticated', my contempt for any hypocrisy, from any profession, is total.

ps: For "uptight, right hypocrites", I'd suggest selfishly, self-interestedly, self-delusional... at best... might be a wee bit closer the mark.

IMHO, that we have now a politco/media establishment class who see 'Don't do as I do; do as I say' as a valid motivational piece of leadership explains quite a lot about where 'we' find ourselves these days.

Alastair Campbell's legendary college antics

Michael White has an essay on political hypocrisy this very day.

Many in the media would do well to read it... and this. Then look in a mirror... then look in their photo albums.

The idea that young (predominantly) men got gussied up in twatty outfits, drank too much and behaved 'poorly' in their late teens/early twenties.

The very idea.

Must have been a riot hanging out with most NuLab pols and their Westminster Village Useful Idiot cheerleading mates back when they were in short woolly knickers, drinkin' 1/2 pints and lecturing the huddled masses on their evil ways.

Lord help my boys should they ever be tempted into 'public service'. Prom night at their very fine state secondary usually results in some awesome material for the po-faced commissars of class: DJ's, stretch limos, etc.

I must caution them to cease having a life right away lest a stray spinner be given an outing by a compliant media matey. Or... not.

Physician, heal thine own ad dept. first.

This from a guy who a wee while ago decried journos breaching professional respect levels.

A surprising Sunday Mirror online advert

Well, trying not to be one who weighs into a inter-professional media industry 'critique', I'd have to say that I usually get a bit more disturbed by climate-change nanny articles in some places right next to ads for 4x4s or jaunts to the Maldives.

Where's the AdSense in that?

But agreed, those big guys who have entire media departments to match equally huge editorial ones should no more be allowing inappropriate ads to be placed than they should use Wikipedia to get their stories.

But it still seems to happen.

The 'that's rich!' get richer...

Ian Blair admits he misled MPs over terror threat

One of the country's most senior police officers 'misleads', and admits to doing it.

Not even front page. And it seems he still is in his job, with all perks and privileges.

Now, what are the odds of me operating my life on a similar basis, and getting away with it.

Guardian - Found out: the chief constable who had a love affair on expenses - Maybe double standards are actually policy?