Where's Robbie when you need him?

Newsnight

'..to hear people's views and its not good news for Gordon Brown.'

Not sure, but I think you'll find that going out anywhere, and not just marginal constituencies, might just end up with the same result.

I just worry the bloke is so bad folk are growing to need him for comic relief, like Dr. Zachary Smith in Lost in Space (an oddly apt metaphor there, too): http://www.heptune.com/lis/smith.html

Trouble is, he is still at the controls, not just trying to sabotage them

Getting the results you want...

Why are we in Afghanistan?

A poll carried out for BBC Newsnight and the Guardian

As a matter of interest, as my experience is that polls often tend to reflect the views of those who commission them, how often has our objective national broadcaster shared itself in this way with the Guardian, and how often with other major national dailies? In the interests of balance, that is.

It sort of becomes pertinent when such as the Guardian rather defensively point at extensive coverage of one their pet campaigns across the BBC as justification for the rest of the media firmament (and, or perhaps with a hint of why, the public) not being quite as excited as the sisterhood has managed to get itself. In fact I'm rather expecting this coverage being covered back and forth enough on the basis that if it gets repeated enough...

After the last horro show that was the Politics Pen, might it not be an idea to stay away from any possible suggestions of pre-determinancy?

I would love to know if (and if so, how) Aunty has ever shared herself with, say, the Daily Express. Or, maybe more appositely, the NoTW. A slightly larger readership than the Guardian (in fact at either end of the ABCs' I believe) and, possibly, more empathy with the squaddies on the ground perhaps?

There are polls, damn polls, and 'Tonight, polls show...'.

Aunty, Irony and Me

Newsnight discusses quangos

"Cut the number of unelected quangos to save money and increase accountability"

These would be entities funded by the government and paid for by us (often via supplementary fees above and beyond various tax mechanisms), but with out of control empire-building aspirations, vast property empires, huge, expanding senior executive levels on vast, self-awarded pay packages, and less than clear, in theory objective remits, but often designed mainly to serve certain narrow interests, with secret internal reviews and near total deniability at every level, who can't even be voted out every few years as one can the representatives we choose to represent us on matters of life and death in Parliament... right?

Wonder who might get mentioned?

And who, as with their funding, may remain... unique.

Does Ofcom deserve it?

I am seeing a spirited defence of OFCOM in many quarters, often quoting its officers.

Quite right if only in response to questions solicited by the media.

Ironic if part of a well funded ad/PR budget.

I can't speak for OFCOM, but in the environmental sector I have serious issues, bordering on suspicions of conflict of interest, when public money is used on quango comms budgets that drive 'targets' that in turn reward bonus structures of boards signing off on the very comms efforts driving those bonuses.

Every quango in Britain

Political reporting reaches new levels

In convenience Speakership exchange

If there is a joke in here somewhere, it's perhaps not the one intended.

Though 'Tales from the Urinal Gutter' does seem a promising avenue for political reporting from within Westminster.

One driver, or two?

In reply to:

Why ministers must never upset their drivers

And a few other political revelations, I have rather let fly:

I'd say that Ministers, and those that consort with them, might still be better advised not to upset a rather larger, and more critical collection of folk: the electorate.

Looking at the latest revelations, that doesn't seem too likely.

It's no wonder these guys are so keen to avoid paying tax to the state; they have first hand knowledge of how such money is squandered... hourly.

I'd be keen to know what this latest new job creation scheme was going to save... or cost the taxpayer.

Though it does pass through one's mind as to the calibre of Dom Jolyesque train-traveling, mobile-spouting, laptop-leaving numpties we entrust the competent governance of this country to who would ignore the compromises to self and national security of blabbing in the back seat in front of relatively junior civil servants, no matter how well cleared.

And...

Sorry to single out but one of many, but having seen the much-vaunted HoC FOI blacked-out 'releases', I suggest they are about as much use as, and hence can simply be shredded and used as just so much kitty litter.

Mind you, whilst the WUVis get excited on the inability to detect 'flipping', which is indeed as serious (if 'nuffink wrong') as it gets, as one just flashed by I am getting to grips with just how clean these guys homes must be for all we have been taken to their cleaners for.

How 'clean' they are as public servants... is another matter.

Fun with words

I do confess, I am enjoying playing with this...

Newsnight neologisms needed

'Proxymoron' went down well, though 'enviROI' and 'helicopter environmentalists' passed without trace.

So I have lobbed a few more into the literary frag pit to see what might get flushed.

'Revoltaire' - New era democratic rallying concept, often supported and even promoted by soem who know what's best for us in the MSM ; 'We may not agree with what you say, but we will sort of tolerate it... so long as you are not an Israeli/BNP/[insert folk that you really... really don't agree with and hence reckon need silencing here]'.

Which is an odd caveat from those seeking to be seen as credible libertarians. But usually they are those as dogmatic and convinced of their rectitude as those they oppose.

So, to 'a little bit pregnant' I guess we need to add 'freeishdom of speech'.
complain about this comment

'Enhancing the narrative'
'Interpreting events'
'Emerging truths'

The first two are mechanisms by which objective facts can be passed through a special process managed by those who 'know better' to ensure 'news' is shared in a way that those it gets presented to get to think 'more correctly' about it all.

Often, when it really rather flies in the face of clear evidence, and may in fact be unsupportable, it can still be assisted to the point that it becomes an 'emerging truth'.

Poohbahood - the act of seeking, conferring and/or being conferred with ever longer and more daft un-earned, unwarranted titles in an attempt to confer long lost respectability and reverence, but which actually fools, and impresses few outside a very small world. And probably just makes things worse.

As in...

The Right Honourable Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the County of Durham, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council.

NKorean leader's son is 'Brilliant Comrade'

"Grandiose titles are part of a tradition to stimulate public support in a nation where the media is tightly controlled and little information about the inner workings of the government is available."

Boxtickocracy, Beancounterhood & Targetmeetering - All complementing versions of the same, less than startlingly successful form of nu-governance whereby anything tangible and/or possibly useful is suborned to simply looking like things are going to be done, being done and will be done as opposed to dedicating any funds or personnel to actually just doing a good job in the first place.

Interestingly, it seems that these systems all seem to cost a lot more to implement and run, and despite this are actually self-generating by virtue of limitless funds on tap (if now on the 'never never' - thanks, kids) and a culture of zero accountability, no responsibility and 'Whocaresaboutability?' (oo, another one) so long as the right boxes are ticked, targets are met and ... you get the picture.

Having fun with words

And I have...

Newsnight neologisms needed

proxymoron - derived from 'proxy' - 'a person authorized to act for another - which one could argue is what the person you give your vote to is... er... was. Our beloved MPs.

The second part - oxymoron - is also relevant in more than a few contexts: 'a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms'

There may well be other allusions, but I could not imagine what:)

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.

I'd like to teach the world to sing...

... and they can now teach us:)

Other than being a rather dire piece of reporting as it says pretty much nothing of value, I found the whole tone of the set up a little clumsy.

Immigrant Song Contest

Nice. 'You' have scoured the country to arrive at at shortlist. How did that work? Perhaps in the same way as those headlines get generated in some quarters? So far, other than a ton on links on technology and rules I can find nothing that makes much on this story any the clearer. Who will the judges be? Musicians? Or Trevor Phillips?

I have a Singaporean Chinese wife who is an amazingly talented performer. Guessing she's too late to apply, but if we're in the room with her I am presuming the rest of our non-immigrant family may be allowed to at least watch?

It's not April 1st is it? Or has the joined-up team who organised Air Force One's New York community bonding flypast been put on the case here now?

Other than wondering if such a thing is really what the BBC's premier news programme needs to be getting into, the way it is being handled, and indeed billed, seems a little shy on a few things, including common sense.

At the moment no link appears to explain the teaser copy any further, and simply saying tune in later is really not enough here.

I am sure it will all have sounded simply super in the group hug editorial meeting that came up with it, but I will be interested in how it plays outside the bubble worlds that are reading public mood so well elsewhere these days.

Addendum:

Copped a wee bit of flak for this and a follow up(mainly because I was annoyed that yet agin they changed the site following a critique, but did not acknowledge it, this making any subsequent reader think you are wrong), but am sticking to my guns, from freedom of speech to idiotic, counter-productive PC-meddling to plain rubbish organisation...

My comments pertained to a few things, but I obviously did not realise that for one to apply it had to conform to a consistent set of rules across all... set by such as your good self. Any more than I think an MP’s misdeeds can be claimed to be negated by the manner of their exposure (to pop in a topical news analogy onto what used to be a news blog – hope that’s ‘on topic’ mods:).

And yes, this is a blog. Where you share opinions. Often, by invitation: Throughout the week we want you to help our judges out by telling us what you think..

Though often this can result in an unfortunate reaction when the ‘sell’ is more than a little ‘over’: this is the week the country is captivated'/’the cream of immigrant musical talentvia ’a shared love of cheesy [covers] music’. If some say so. Now, where did you have in mind for me to add my ‘other thoughts’?

But yes, I offered some personal feedback on what has been offered up. You, however, seem more concerned with personal feedback on what I wrote. Fair enough, it’s a free country. Hardly on topic, mind. And, IMHO, rather weakens some pretty good points you are making, ironically, rather in keeping with those I share. Though I do note that you have no opinion as to the standard of musicianship being presented.

I suspect we are both are a little intrigued as to how this effort serves the cause of multi-cultural harmony, or what it’s doing on the main news section of a political news programme and blog, but have perhaps chosen different ways to express ourselves.

Suffice to say that I consider this to have been poorly judged editorially and not exactly slickly reported thus far.

But as it is out there, and there has been a call for comment, plus I have an interest in things political, media, musical and the conduct of competitions in general, I do think I’ll continue to exercise my right to free speech here and not ‘a different post’, ta very much. With luck, you’ll get further distracted by the contribution from BoaMan now?

On reflection it was a mistake to use the missus’ situation simply to make a point, especially without first asking her what she thought. Which was pretty much that she didn’t feel the association with such an ‘exclusive’ initiative would be worthwhile, no matter what the ‘any publicity is..’ benefits might be. She’s a performer, who just happens now to be in the UK. Complementing thousands of others, from all demographics, irrespective of anything beyond the music and talent. Though to be sure there is also competition, and via awards, and these often can help. Especially when the PR value of national broadcast can be very useful, when the talent gets exposure and if, hopefully, for the all right reasons.

But let’s not forget that this competition has been created by the UK’s national broadcaster, representative of one and all. And as one with more than passing experience in the pr and promo surrounding such things, as well as one who takes an interest in many of Aunty’s blogs, I am still keen to find out how it has been and will be conducted. The BBC, you may recall, has had ‘difficulties’ when it comes to such things in the recent past.

Sadly, I can recall no mention of the mechanisms leading up to this final anywhere, and certainly not on the Newsnight blog, before we arrive, with less than a week’s notice, at a series of semi-finals with selected entrants already in place. This I feel at best fails to serve the interests of the participants and eventual winners as much as anything else.

And again not, IMHO, too served well in complement by such as this: ‘The judges will read your comments and take them into account, but they will have the final say in selecting a winner and they will decide based on a wide range of criteria consistent with the BBC Code of Conduct on Competitions and Voting., which, as far as I can judge (sorry:), seems to apply almost exclusively, and irrelevantly to contests inviting a public vote.

I still have no real sense of who these judges are, either. ‘An unusual collection tonight’, we are promised...why 1/3 through?). Any more than I did/have the criteria for selection, etc. It has all just ’appeared’. But as a national broadcaster I think the public has a right to know what processes and thoughts have lain behind all that has got us to this point. If only not to ‘undermine public trust in the BBC and ensure the public will be treated with respect, honesty and fairness, confident that all [interactive] competitions and votes are handled with rigorous care and integrity’.

I have nothing personally against any of the bands or the individuals in them, but I am afraid that I remain very concerned professionally with the agenda behind this competition and the way it has been so far conducted, especially considering the sensitivity of the umbrella theme it has been created under. Having a bunch of folk sprung from nowhere, hyped up and shared on a niche, but significant national broadcast news programme... with clear invitations to comment.... seems to have been asking for some controversy. Great for ratings perhaps; not so good for harmony?

Yes, I did and do weaken my argument a tad by then being unable to resist offering two, very personal, highly subjective, 2 cents on what I have been presented with as a viewer musically, but then as performers you need to get to grips with the reality of audience feedback. And what can I do if the blog post has not been split between the immigration and pure performance issues.

I have found the Font (a very engaging group of young men) story intriguing, but as we’re on the theme of appropriateness in tying discordant issues, I think their experiences in Iran are not well served by the mood of this contest.

And how did they end up with Cliff Richard to cover, as it seems they were barely aware of him and his music? Were they, as a rock band, just ‘issued’ the poppy Congratulations (really banned in Iran? And heavily punished here too.. ha ha. Is that former at least a verified fact?) on a producer’s whim? Did they not choose? To walk in the footsteps of Radiohead? I’d have been more interested in their original work, which was only a tantalizing backing track and a few poor audio clips at best. Not helping the public assessment too well. Ya Freddy’s talents were better served, but not by much. Another engaging young, er, again, man (I am sure there will be some ladies in lead to come), with a sad story to tell. I fear I could get no sense from the piece of what he was capable. If it was about the music. So far this seems more about serving the producers’ agenda rather than the bands' musical careers as they are vying for glory.

Also it is worth noting that the clips via the dedicated hyperlink are heavily edited from the main programme slot including, for some bizarre reason, the actual song performance in question. That I had to find via iPlayer... and endure the whole darn ‘it’s a rotten system’ parade by our MPs first.

Maybe I have been too hasty in my initial critique, but it is my experience that teasers tantalise and invite audience return by sampling the best. Is that what has happened, musically, here so far?

But as some have put it, if a tad ironically considering the knee-jerk comments in ‘defens(iv)e’... Good luck to everyone, may the best man (Mann?) win.

At least the Asian Football Idol initiative, though I also feel poorly judged in the message it sends, as a competition has had clear publicity and will enjoy a long period of local heats up to the finals.

So.... the best use of the license fee in support of either original music, UK live performance talent or community harmony? I was, and still am not so sure.

And hence, by association, what does this tell us about our country, and the priorities and abilities of its national broadcaster?

Daily Mail (I know) - NEW - Newsnight accused of 'dumbing down' with a talent contest for immigrants - Well they could hardly have imagined they were going to be lauded for elevating the gravitas of one of the few political news programmes... or the cause of integration much, really. Could they?

Trolls - guys with big sticks who threaten you, right?

Ask a few who have not stumped up the telly tax on time.

I have had an issue with what the new Newsnight editor has written, in his first sally forth since not doing a great job helping one of his staff a few months' back...

What spending would you cut?

'I realise this will prompt a lot of trolls to argue the first on the list should be the BBC. '

Just the bits that don't do their jobs cost-effectively, if indeed anywhere close to meeting the terms of the Charter. For instance, case-wise, I am unsure if I am getting value for money ushering the DG and DDG to and from the railway station is quite the best use of funds. Or flying reporters to stand on some white stuff to say the rest of us flying places is causing it to melt.

Usually it's arranged for a supportive non-troll to get the first weak interception tackle in, so maybe the cuts have already resulted in the authors trying to do so themselves.

But I am not sure that creating such a Bushist 'If you are not with us you're a troll' challenge from the outset, by a senior public servant does much more than prove a lot of points.

ps: Any more to add on 'interpreting the events of the President of the United States' first major speech in the edit suite.... to 'enhance the narrative'?

I am canceling my licence fee DD now.

I will be interested in the BBC making a good case for my restarting it. Or will you just send Capita round?

ps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) - oddly, it lopped off the bit at the end and changed the URL to another page. Not sure it hurt, mind.

I must have missed the bit where it also includes just having other views to those being promoted, or seeking to hold professional standards to account.

For those who like living in group think comfort zones, I'd suggest one doesn't take part in, much less instigate controversial blogs.

Especially ones funded by an audience that may include some that one is so unhappy having to deal with that it overcomes the temptation not to pronounce from positions of public sector entrenchment that recent days have indeed shown to be shaky pedestals.

And, for good measure, as he has run two similar, but slightly different blogs in series (until the mods and clean up crews sort it all out, as per usual, with no hint it ever happened...

What would you cut?*

I'd also cut out duplicate threads.

*Now, there is a thing... 'It is possible that the page you were looking for may have been moved, updated or deleted.' Or just cut. Ironic, no?

No of which is spoken

Newsnight

'..emotionally stunted, inarticulate hedonists, with the attention span of a gnat. '

Looking at most of today's political 'elite', and the chatterati remoras in their company, I was surprised to read on and find this was actually about our kids.

Sorry 'yet another over-titled person', and those who see ratings and profit on getting on aboard the latest sweeping cause du jour espoused, but my two are just fine.

So enough of the 'we'. But you lot have much to answer for, for sure.

Addendum: Note the blog reply pointing out that her media claimed qualifications may in fact not be as articulated. An all too common event, one presumes to aid agendas.

Telegraph - Our society is indeed broken - but at the top, not the bottom

A BBC jounalist is inconvenienced...

... and turns to print. (I have spellchecked for him)

My Great British Summit Cock-up Hell

This three hour wait of course, and this level of hassle, rudeness and incomprehension by those in authority, is exactly what the poorest of the world have to put up with just to get into work, or get to a water source, every single day.

With the possible exception of the water source, I hate to break it to you (still inside the London 'bubble', see), but welcome to 'our' world!

...it imagined what Britain would look like if it became a bureaucratic collectivist dictatorship.

IF......!!!!!!!?

So, as somewhat redeemed by it, you can keep the last line.

Yours, one of (iv).

ps: And as we're into artistic warnings of the near future, you might want to hark back to what that V might stand for. Tony's kid can help.

ADDENDUM -

I am shocked... shocked I tell you, that some of our finest hacks had to get up early to get to work... and it was just an awful, frustrating time.

Now, who I wonder was in charge of this fine example of organisational skill.

Would Dear Leader have felt able to leave it, with fullest confidence, in the hands of his loyal Home Secretary? Or maybe all the GOATS nannied in.

Still, at least the glow from O left all who were bathed in awe and the better for it.

Not just Aunty. I had to point out to SKY's acolytes that lobbing up whenever you feel like it to a highly complex, orchestrated security-rich arrival scene was not 'casual' and 'laid-back' and 'cool', and maybe President Bush was not so much 'obsessive' as they alluded, but just polite and professional to the guys on the ground when he required things were run punctually. Not too hard, and no excuse not to, when the entire route is cordoned off.

Sorry. Devalued.

Newsnight

A poster reckons another apology is in order. I felt otherwise, and got a new acronym at least...

Yes, that should sort it. Just pop over to Mr. Robinson's blog to see how the notion is being received...

A sorry lot indeed.

I think that, with the example set by our media-politico media establishment of late, from Dear Leader to Mr. Ross, etc, I may have to have a wee chat with my boys about what counts as an apology, and what is just an apology for one.

How long before we get apology advocates on the public purse in this new, POOR 'process over obvious result' society that is being spun... staffed, paid, bonussed and pensioned?

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

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.

When in doubt, ask an ex... er... luvvie

Friday, 20 February, 2009 Newsnight & Newsnight Review

'Instead of inviting Christine Odone & David Aaronovitch to comment on the change in the terms of Jade Goody's fiance's curfew, couldn't Newsnight have found someone who actually knew something about the criminal justice system'

Made my day.

I believe it comes under 'enhancing (or, in this case, perhaps more accurately shaping) the narrative'.

Of course, it can't hurt the ratings, either.

Who needs informed, objective news reporting and commentary anyway?

Unique.

You put the right story in, the left story out...

... you do the hokey-cokey, what's that all about?

This morning I noted a story on the Newsnight blog.

A bit political, so I shared it with a few folk on a political blog.

Then I went back to check... and it had 'gone'.

Now, as the BBC have more than a little form in this area, I am less inclined to think I dreamt it up, and indeed feel the need to make some kind of record (including page catures) lest I be accused of fibbing.

Here's what I wrote to them....

Speaking of Michael Crick's 'Top Story' (Here's Michael Crick with details of tonight's top story - Not, I suspect 'Anorak's Corner from Friday 23rd Jan), is it linking to the right one?

And I could have sworn he had the latest slot in this blog roll this morning with this:

Spelman Decision Soon?

But now it seems to have gone, not just from here, but his own page too.

Which may explain the odd linking, but otherwise has me a tad confused.

There's no news like old news

A piece in Newsnight has moved me to comment...

Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Me: The Full Story!

When I were a lad, on a student exchange scheme in a wee town in Texas, the local paper masthead had a line that struck a chord then, and still does now:

'Hew close to the line; let the chips fall where they may'.

And, being a small town, I was subsequently privileged to meet and chat with the editor.

Charming chap, but despite the relative lack of news 'excitement' around his patch, ruthlessly devoted to the whole 'who, what, why, when..' thing and... especially... confirming the story.

Don't think he'd have thought much of a news environment, especially in the MSM where, to use Jon Humphry's words, 'stars' like him are there to 'interpret' what's happened for us.

I presume that includes adding, or subtracting something between what has actually happened, and what we need to know about. Often that's necessary to make it a well-structured story. But often it can be a�little extra 'value' according to personal taste or corporate dictat, and go too far for my comfort.

And especially, of late, with the uncritical throughput of facts where provenance gives way to speed.

'It may not be true, but we were told it first' may be good enough for ratings, and indeed subsequent deniablity, but really isn't responsible reporting any more, is it?

I wonder what Bob and Carl think of the MSM they, amongst others, inspired to the standard it is today?

Of the people, by the people....

A couple of comments on the Newsnight blog have prompted me to re-engage, if not too supportively...

How much is she (Kirtsy Wark) paid - again?

As we are dealing, again, in class (nominally), it's apparently lacking it, and certainly bad form, to pose such questions to those in the 'Bubble Class' (I made that up... basically the West London/Islington/Westminster politico-media Triangle, with a few, actually a heck of a lot, of offshoots that snake Northwards, by weekly shuttle).

Just ask one P. Mandelson who, according to his reply on SKY this morning 'doesn't read the Daily Mail'. Well, not when it doesn't suit, maybe.

Me, getting back to Aunty's finest, I am simply still getting to grips with the notion of the nighttime floodlight system... for the tennis court... at the overseas villa.

We are truly represented by those who can empathise.

The BBC sometimes seems to take impartiality to an absurdly anarchistic extreme in that if someone asserts a view, the dialectically opposed view must also be heard.

Couldn't agree more, though I may quibble with 'sometimes'.

The Newsnight twofer, combined with the calibre of moderator and the malign editorial umbrella agenda, makes these things hardly worth paying attention to.

Certainly reasoned debate with information and education at its core is suborned at the altar of ratings and sound bites. Plus a few career-enhancing oar stick and stirs by the 'star' to keep things 'sparkly'.

Very few things are black or white. Maybe it is possible to enjoy something that spans the massive views and opportunities inbetween whilst still being as 'colourful' as their market rate broadcast salary targets demand.

Worth a try?

Let he who is without sin...

Newsnight

I have not been impressed with much that the BBC or its flagship news progamme have done much last year. This one isn't shaping up much better.

This is their 16th day...'off'.

Happy New Year to any in the BBC back from the school hols.

Guess you might have missed it, but guess what, over the last few weeks there's been a war on! How 'sparkly' is that!

Never mind, I've managed to catch up thanks to such as BBC Breakfast News, while all the rest of you are having a well deserved rest.

Thing is, I'm not too sure that those on the Xmas shift are really doing the subject justice. Or the ratings. And I think they know that too, so we're treated to heavyweights in this arena such as Annie Lennox and Alexei Sayle to tell us what to think... though in the case of the latter mainly, and oh-so originally, about President Bush's mental capacities, it seems.

Beyond the motivations behind who is 'selected' to be 'interviewed', the competencies of the kiddies doing the 'interviewing' also really need to be addressed if the BBC do insist on trying to dealing with issues of more heft than skateboarding turtles whilst the more qualified guys are hitting the slopes.

If, on such a serious issue, we are to be treated to the unrestrained opinions of a 'comedian'/activist (and 'singer', though that caption may have been left over from the previous highly relevant contributor) it might have been interesting to discover Mr. Sayle's thoughts on the (less than Hamas supporting) responses from many Middle Eastern political leaders who are a tad closer to the conflict than an Islington soiree.

I was just watching a programme about V2s. As these rained down in and around London, I wonder if the first thought of the population was 'Hmn, I wonder why they are so angry with us?' or 'Let's get a Typhoon squadron over there pronto (to inflict a measured, proportionate BBC mindset-pleasing response. Not)!'.

Equally, if someone was so moved to stand outside his home lobbing bricks through the windows, would his first move be to check their motivations or ask the police to stop them?

I guess we'll never know. At least, not via the national broadcast 'news' service currently in operation.

£3.5B not enough? Maybe Mr. Moore has a point.

Gaurdian - Unwelcome guests

Last night I had this 'Snowmail' from Ch4:

We shall be talking live to the Israeli deputy ambassador and also to one of the protest speakers today, the singer-songwriter Annie Lennox. We were rather hoping Ms Lennox would debate live with the Israeli official but, we understand, she’d prefer not to.

Which brings me to a wider point. It’s almost routine in this business for politicians and others to come on the programme, but only on the basis that they will not actually engage with any protagonist from the other point of view. We in the media rarely, if ever, mention that we’ve agreed to it.

It’s only a personal thing, but I reckon if people come on the programme only on the basis that they will not debate live with the other side, I think you, the viewers should know. I think we should tell you. Instead of which we rather cover up for people who want to come out and make their point but won’t take on the other side.

Our programme editor tonight says he felt happy having both Ms Lennox and the ambassador even if they are not engaging with each other because I’ll be able to challenge both. But is he right?

It doesn't seem to go much into the actual qualifications of Ms. Lennox to debate anything of this nature with much authority, and hence the prominence her views seem to be given, but there seems to be some journalistic unease and/or integrity at work. I wonder if this unwillingness to defend statements was made clear when broadcast or left with a minority read email?

I don't seem to recall any such thing associated with all her 'outings' elsewhere, such as the BBC.

Maybe they were just happy at a ready supply of proxies to spout the corporate line.

Hard to see this as objective, mind.

As to the programme editor's 'happiness', well, D'uh. An ambassador vs. a pop star... ratings heaven. Who cares about serving the actual issues, or the public, sensibly?

Love the notion that some of our news media 'stars' will be able to 'challenge' equally, and effectively, on an individual basis. Mind you, well moderated live debate is also long gone. You either get the moderator's personal views mixed in on one side or other, or they are so poorly informed that outright lies can be be spouted with impunity.