Too much son, not enough Illumiere

Something interesting has happened in the BBC blogosphere.

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

It has been noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vine and chums

If Jeremy Vine's 'show' gets preserved, do try and catch today's, as I did driving back from a meeting.

First up we had what I call 'The Newsnight Twofer' (seems to apply here too) , where two extremes are brought in to comment, on this occasion on the latest expenses scam... er.. diversion.

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.

So we get some ex-Sun type, now a commercial London station DJ, basically in full 'geezer' mode. And in calm rebuttal, we have... a Guardian political commentator. Hey, balance! Thing is I was with the Guardian guy most of the way until he 'suggested' that it 'may' have been leaked by a Tory mole.

Er... at their distracting best, I thought the BBC, via its tame, carefully-selected invitees, were just try to push the £300k greed angle? Now it's a Tory plot? What the heck?!!!!

And while I think that touting for money does weaken our 'hero's' (I don't see the person, if they exist, as anything like that) case, there are a few points that came up that seemed not to get mentioned.

First, our Jezza and his mate from the Grauniad were pretty keen on the 'Why now when it was all coming out later?'. Er... with the state of our government these days, I imagine most that would have come out was going to be accidentally shredded waaay before Dear Leader's new deadline. Also, and this is no excuse, what are the prospects for an honest whistleblower? I say fired and stripped of pension at best. So £300k doesn't seem too bad really as compo for exposing the sick, hypocritical farce that is our government.

Speaking of which, we then get that paragon of fiscal probity and moral rectitude, ex-DPM Prescott on to pitch his book... um... discuss his inspirational relationship with his protege and poster child for the Labour revolution.... assault your teachers, get expelled, meet a 'celeb' pol given airtime, 'stay in touch', get a job, get knocked up ('...it were after I met John,' she confirms, sparing us a mental image too far. I guess we'll have to hark back to his secretary for word on his advice on contraception to those he mentors), leave job, stay in touch... and get touted as inspirational for being a bit miffed she hasn't be shoved up the benefits register further by now. But... she does want to be a lawyer. Bless.

Even Mr. Vine and almost all his callers were having trouble keeping that load of b*llsh*t down. Though one was accused by Mr. Prescott, of being a Tory troll (rhymes with 'mole'). If I were them I would sue the S.L.O.B (Senior Labour Outdated Bruiser) for libel. And the BBC and Mr. Vine for letting such a thing pass as a defence at their expense. Just because most folk are heartily sick of the sordid lot of them, the results of their failed experiments, and feel moved to comment, does not make all of us Tories. Though to the BBC, anyone not Labour must deafault this way.

But I am sure the Tristrams are delighted with the result, and ratings, but if called to account on Newswatch at dawn this weekend will grumpily assert that it was the public's right to be kept informed on senior Labour Party thinking and the aspirations of their voting, grateful, democratic power base, innit?

DD getting cancelled very soon. Anyone know what happened to Charles Moore?

Lords of the ratings war

In a 24hrs that sees a furore over a private conversation between some people resulting in a firing:

Big Brother for children: Channel 4 demonstrates why it should be closed down

Yesterday's BBC Breakfast sofa was positively cooking with various folk promoting this... public ser... er.. study... er... rampant ratings grab in the guise of god knows what. To be fair there were a few 'uneasy' at the psychological aspects, so they 'understood' the anguish of parents desperate to be on the telly watching their kids desperate to be on the telly not exactly enjoying the experience of being on the telly. And, without having watched it (my small protest), having been through the edit suite to 'enhance the narrative' I bet most liked the result even less.

Ill-conceived and cynically executed from pitch meeting to press releases. With a complicit MSM ready and waiting to savour the incoming... and fallout. Sick.

Oh, and really, this alone rather puts the whole sorry charade in context: '...without their parents or other outside adult influences (apart from the adult camera crew which films everything they do).

ie: a complete fabrication with no value, but somehow a licence for some adults to mentally torture some minors for some money.