AGEISM - The age we live in

As a 'victim', I have an interest in ageism. Try getting ad agency employment after 40, much less 50, and you'll see what I mean.

Not much I feel can, or will be done about save empty rhetoric, jobs for more civserfs, money for lawyers and a few handouts for those who play the system, but I do intend to stay abreast of it all.

Guardian - Age discrimination laws could backfire on us if they end up keeping young people out of work - Well, yes, I suppose. But one does wonder how the sprightly author would feel if his employer felt (and wasn't stupid enough to tell him) that they needed a 'younger perspective'.

Frankly, even just pondering in hope the notion that this government has considered anything smacks of losing the plot.

Or....

Imran Khan: This is the result of a weak government and the 'war on terror'

This is the result of the existence nihilistic anarchists who do not value life, brook no argument to their... rather limited and generally unpopular... world view, who like to kill and have minority willing audiences for their sad, selfish, brain-dead, cowardly actions (ambushing civilians is not that skillful or 'audacious'*), mostly in some media and those they turn to for 'analysis' or 'comment' as it's good for ratings.

Take your pick.

Addendum-

*BBC - Who carried out the Lahore attack? - '...a similar number of men staged an equally audacious attack.'

Googled:

1. Fearlessly, often recklessly daring; bold. See Synonyms at adventurous, brave.
2. Unrestrained by convention or propriety; insolent.
3. Spirited and original

Not sure it's quite the collection I'd first go for.

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?

Support hose

Mr Brown must close the gap between rhetoric and reality

That's some gap...

... and even his most ardent cheerleaders (you know who you are) are now struggling to span, much less plug it.

Just why anyone is offering Capt. Queeg any crumb of support to keep his hands on the wheel of the Titanic as he looks for the next iceberg to ram and other person to blame, is beyond rational comprehension.

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'.

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