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.

Those awful bloggers

Defensive, toi?

The End of Fortress Journalism

Mr. Horrocks is not one of my favourite senior media paragons.

And having watched awhile, I had eventually to leap in to what is a naked, doomed yet worrying attempt by some to set 'professional' journalism apart, and above, from other forms:

The problem is most people seem to be under the mistaken understanding that the likes of Twitter and blogs are actually news. They're not - they're nothing more than commentary. Each posting is simply one person's view of an event or issue... Unless the rules are changed to level the playing field the choice of news media will be a publicly funded broadcaster (the BBC) or inane one-eyed tweeters.

I have to say that I have used tweets that link to very valuable objective information. And I have, on more than one occasion, felt that news, even from the BBC, has been a combination of narrative-enhancing and/or interpretation of events that hardly makes it a balancing choice to the outlaw blogging Wild West that some are trying to claim.

I find my only hope is to try and gain exposure to a fair spread of 'fact' and 'opinion' - from individuals to uniquely-funded corporations - in coming to something approaching what is as opposed to what many would like to persuade me it should be to satisfy their often elitist, exclusive (and excluding) agendas and/or world views.

Addendum:

An 'interesting' view on how you take on board news and views vs. how you broadcast it without troublesome contrary opinion:

The Blog Is Dead.....oh no it isn't, oh yes it is...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/07/the-blog-is-deadoh-no-it-isnt.shtml

Our own Nick Robinson has recently confessed that he's stopped reading the comments on his blog

As the politicians some 'reporters' so like to wallow with, if you only set to transmit and never on receive, you might get unpleasant surprises if those you think are meekly absorbing your missives actually react to just being talked at as opposed to being engaged with.

We seem to be at an odd stage where those who used to dominate the news agenda are not liking the erosion of their (often less than objective, or benign) influence, and are trying to get back to the 'good old ways'.

Good luck with that.

Joe vs. the Volcano

As in ordinary Joe, and a bubbling mass of molten spin machine.

It was already an odd thread.

Addressing the chair

But then it got steered off in another direction.

I replied. And the rest, as they say, is a mystery tour...

Oo, eck, I stand rebuked. Possibly. Anyhoo, duly noted.

Heck of an interpretation of what I wrote there, but, taking that and turning it into an allusion about the Today programme, and projecting it onto the entire BBC, with a pretty narrow conclusion as to specific intentions and a political stance was awesome. All without me writing one word that says any of that. But, as the saying goes...'if the cap fits':)

Way to go. It's almost like those events getting interpreted all the time, just like wot Jon Humphrys was on about.

And of course these seem to be further getting shaped - apparently - by hordes of rebuttal units, funded by political parties, or from the public purse, who are out there to stir or spin to order. All a bit devious for me. Maybe I am just being played as a mere individual, as the two 'supportive' posts here seem, well, gifts. But let's work on the basis that they're just from others who have a different view. Which is cool.

And why I tend to go with the facts, and as these are hard to acquire in 'unenhanced' forms these days. I usually go for a spread, from 'disreputable' sites like Guido and Biased BBC who do have posters nevertheless posting silly things like links as 'evidence', to bastions of reporting probity such as Labourlist, the Guardian and some parts of the BBC. All of whom who would never dream of letting reporting what happened get in the way of presuming to tell people how to think. Makes you indeed wonder how the former are succeeding. This phenomenon to some does seem important and of concern, but then these of late do seem to be the same gilded ones who don't think the public is voting the correct way any more, and are appearing quite defensive as a consequence.

I merely noted the views of a possibly genuine listener, and how they were shaped by the 'interview' with Mr. Miser ( latest balanced insight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019114.stm ) Cameron. All in a thread from a colleague about chairs. Go figure.

And as it was raised, I merely wondered if adding 'sighs of frustration' was really where objective interviewers should be going with their interpretation of events to help enhance the narratives to get to emerging truths. Next you'll have folk in charge of the mic calling others fascists and what not, and having to apologise rather than resign. Just think if they'd used an un-PC word in earshot of others, if off-broadcast. The BBC does have indeed have many standards of who should be within its walls to help influence the nation.

As it happens, if I have formed any clear 'anybody but' notions at all, as a priority they would be more directed at our current 'fit to be' PM and his GOATs.

I'd be interested in how such as Ms. Montague would handle a Q&A session with or Nokia -testing steady had in troubled times, based on her current record of studied objectivity, and whether the audience would be treated to a collection of sound effects in complement to make points that inadequate words are inadequate for. With tongue in cheek, I am suspecting sighs might still be the order of the day.

From paid public interviewers to blogs of any hue, I don't respond well to being steered by folk that see the future of this country, and my kids within it, in terms of how things can be spun to how they can be made 'better' to suit their narrow group agenda. Especially in the MSM. And that applies even more, with cherries and cream on top, to the national broadcaster I am currently required to co-fund.

Give me just the facts. Hew close to the line, and let the chips fall where they may.

Questions, questions

Sifting the web wheat from the net chaff

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

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

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

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

The lad vanishes

Moderation is a tricky one. I think some fail miserably.

Top 10 who Gordon Brown should blame for his US visit flop

A poster has now be 'moderated' twice. I saw one. It contravened nothing, save to criticise the moderating policy that removed the first, calling the paper the 'Labourgraph'. It has now gone too.

I wonder how long mine will last. A sad day for freedom of speech.

Comes to something when I rate the Guardian more more open on the moderating stakes.

And even the BBC, whilst worse, at least allows you to see when their hobnail boots have stamped all over free speech in the name of some sensibilities... or agendas.

Ok, it's your paying field. If you want to send people off that's fine, but the rest of the spectators might benefit from seeing at least an acknowledgement, if not explanation.

Otherwise the game makes no sense. Or maybe to some that doesn't matter in this process over product lunatic asylum we call a culture.

Why I like the net

The web: fact or fiction, asks Tim Berners-Lee

See, there's the thing. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in any medium? Or, even, what is true and what is false?

Personally I find applying a cranked eyebrow to multiple net sources often more satisfcatory than 'trusting' certain major media these days.

I do declare the BBC was chief amongst the black hole stirrers by my memory*.

*Gaurdian - Picking through the landfill - Er... proof?