Hey, let's annoy 50% of the population

I do so only in affectionate jest...

Want a job done well? Ask an older woman

I am not sure this - '...a 66-year-old Prime Minister of Iceland, or at least what's left of it' -quite endorses the spirit of the headline.

However, I am sure we have much to look forward to as Jackie, Hazel, Harriet, Margaret et al... um... mature.

Addendum -

Hmmn. I seem to either have been banned from the Torygraph comments section, or have failed to understand how it works...

Patronising Harriet Harman's gaffe on black, disabled people

All will be well soon, when she, and a few others (Jaquie, Hazel, Margaret (not that one, natch), etc) have been allowed to 'mature' a little:

Apparently.

Though I am not sure that citing the PM of Iceland, especially with the qualifier the author herself introduces, is necessarily a great endorsement.

Things seem to be working out sooo well under the boxtickocracy currently in vogue.

Maybe... I don't know... just ensure negative discrimination is dealt with harshly and let talent flourish where it is encouraged, regardless of an PC targets?

I just had real fun with a town hall munchkin that, as far as I was concerned, Pink Jedi was entirely acceptable as race an religion in my book.

Led by donk... weasels

Vince grinds an axe and reveals his vicious side

How did we know the banks would honour that? Oh, monthly reports. That would do the trick. So who would see the reports? The answer delighted us whose souls have been shrivelled by cynicism. No one. Ministers. Parliament would be given a statement in a year's time.

The banks will pull the wool over ministers' eyes, and ministers will pull the wool over Parliament's eyes. We all do what we do best.

Where's my vote?

Death by a thousand drips

Mixing my Chinese tortures a bit there, but the effect is as deadly, if not deadlier.

I was just watching SKY news (BBC is getting hard to stomach purely on content alone these days), when the topic of the latest horrific murder in NI cam up.

As part of this, there was a guest commenter, a journo from the Sun, invited on to give his reaction. Safe to say he was John Bullish in his views.

Now, for the sake of 'flavour', I have come to accept, if not condone the practice of getting on often extreme views, in isolation, to provoke responses, which indeed is what transpired.

Because, almost immediately, we had the inevitable 'Have Your Say' read out, by the host's blonde offsider. Thing is, she read out three, which were pretty much damning of the guest's views. Oddly, they also seemed pretty in keeping with the rebuttal the host (hardly an interviewer by any definition I would suggest) had expressed whilst 'debating' with the guest. In fact, the host went on to say that 'evidently no one agreed with [him]'.

Well... no. Three people evidently did not. But how representative were/are they? And how is that reflected by the selection process that goes into what does, or does not get read out?

I already have deep doubts, across the MSM board, about the selection and portrayal of 'guests' (a pretty thin pool, too) and their views, and this is more than compounded by what editors and moderators then sift to portray as public opinion on top.

Frankly it is all so rigged, either in the causes of agenda or ratings, as to be worthless.

But such carefully honed voices and messages, in the drip-drip way they are shared, is surely pretty influential and dangerous in shaping the opinions of others.

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

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.

It might be best to know a bit about the subject to comment upon it

Quality journalism under attack

Honesty, accuracy, objectivity and clarity are cardinal values whether you're writing about mobile phones or poverty in south-east Asia.

Bless.

Another day, another chilling phrase

This time quoted in an interesting piece:

Speaking truth in power

Just read it, and then ponder: 'create the truth'.

Uttered, by all accounts, by an unsurprising source.

Truth, the first victim. It just is, and anyone who can blithely refer to 'creating' it is clearly not fit for... oh.