Who’s responsible? You fucking are!

I see the press are doing their best to make mass murder look like an even better way of getting publicity than a contract with Saatchi and Saatchi.

Filed under: Politics, Society, The Media

The Uppance Cometh

Mwahahaha. Remember, schadenfreude should be thoroughly enjoyed before policy analysis. It is good when people who professionally jeer at civil libertarians and cheer at heavy handed policing get a taste of poetic justice. This may have a chilling effect on free speech, but I doubt some mean bobbies will cause a rupture in over 100 years of boisterous British press history.

By the way, I was at the LibCon editorial meeting for this and this is an exact transcript:

Sunny Hundal: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?

Hopi Sen: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.

Sunny Hundal: Wrong! Don! What is best in life?

Don Paskini: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Sunny Hundal: That is good! That is good.

Filed under: The Media

The Financial Times was once a paper of record – Elizabeth Rigby and Helen Warrell seem unhappy with that

So we have a profile of Theresa May, Home Secretary…

Theresa May is the head girl of David Cameron’s coalition. Famed for never putting a kitten-heeled foot wrong, the home secretary barely batted an eyelid this week when Ken Clarke rounded on her for claiming an illegal immigrant had avoided deportation because of his pet cat Maya.

It was a cat fight that the liberal justice secretary was doomed to lose, against a woman who has always done her homework and has the prime minister’s full backing to bear down on migrant numbers. Within hours, Downing Street had rallied to her defence, delighted at her crowd-pleasing attack on perceived abuses of the Human Rights Act. Mr Clarke had the backing of the Lord Chief Justice’s office, but he was still told to pipe down [my emphasis].

This spat is not interesting because two politicians had a difference of opinion, as is presented here by Elizabeth Rigby and Helen Warrell. This spat is interesting because one politician told the truth and one politicians made things up (or copied things made up by others) and the politician that made things up (or copied things made up by others) won the power struggle.

Ken Clarke was right to criticise Theresa May because she said something that was demonstrably untrue. It was, in fact, demonstrated to be untrue by her own department. The cat was “immaterial” to the reasons a certain Bolivian student was given leave to remain rather than reported.

Rigby and Warrell do not see fit to include this detail in their hagiography of Mrs May. They actually make light of the situation by closing with a pun that this is “just the sort of cat fight the party needs to keep the grassroots content.”

Real journalists would have pointed out that if the grassroots need falsehoods to keep the content then something is amiss at the Tory party conference. But it seems the Financial Times has decided it doesn’t need to employ real journalists anymore.

Filed under: Migration, Politics, The Media, Bolivia, catflap, Elizabeth Rigby, Helen Warrell, Human Rights, Ken Clarke, Migration, The Financial Times, The FT, Theresa May

Melanie Phillips is mad as a bag of hammers

Here.

Oh… and she’s a cunt for threatening a friend of mine with a vexation and shitty libel suit.

Filed under: The Media

Life Neutral Solutions for the World’s Largest Arms Fair

We, well this country, is currently hosting the world’s largest arms fair at the ExCel centre down the road from me. Lots of lovely dignitaries from vile and autocratic regimes are browsing all the best cluster bombs and torture equipment money can buy. It disgusts me but it is good to see something worthwhile proposed: Life Neutral Solutions, the photo atop this post was taken outside my house.

Based on a modest proposal to emulate carbon offsetting programmes to tackle the unfortunate side effects of weapons use. For every life lost Life Neutral Solutions make sure that a new life flourishes! I hope those working in the arms industry take note of Life Neutral Solutions’ message.

Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Politics, Society, The Media, A Modest Proposal, Arms Fair, Arms Trade, Cluster Bombs, Comedy, ExCel Centre, Life Neutral Solutions, Torture, Weapons

Speculation Time: I think there is a D-Notice in place for all riots in London

News seems quite quiet out of London Boroughs, but not from other places. Sensibly it seems news agencies have been asked to keep schtum, which will probably go some way to keeping tonight quieter than either Saturday or Monday. No evidence, just a hunch.

Making the police presence sound intimidatingly large, publicising the thoroughness with which riots will be met tonight and keeping very, very quiet any successful rioting sounds like an excellent way to intimidate people off the streets, which may be exactly what we need.

UPDATE: Nah, changed my mind. I think it is actually just relatively still in London tonight, especially compared to the other parts of the UK.

 

Filed under: Society, The Media

Not that bothered about soldiers

Via Timmy’s Other Place, I see that a number of defence charities have turned down some £3 million donations… These charities may well be snubbing the News of the World but it is the beneficiaries themselves who will suffer—you know, those brave troops who are supposedly the raisin d’être of these organisations.

So we get it, yes? DK thinks symbolic gestures that don’t harm organisations, only those they serve, are bad. Conlusion to this post?

…it means they’ll get nothing from me…

Basically, I’m not sure turning down the money was a good idea, but if it convinces journalists and the public that sometimes forgiveness is not easier to get than permission for the terrible things they do for money, it may be a good thing.

Filed under: Blogging, Society, The Media

Thoughts on Jeremy Clarkson

Now, I am firmly of the opinion that violent mass murders should not be given the time of day, so that means you shouldn’t expect a blog post on the killings in Norway, nor any platitudes about how awful it is, nor any analysis into what it really means. I don’t think people should show his photo, mention his name, or publicise his views, because frankly it might in some small way encourage someone else. Nobody should try to turn this guy into a Martyr.

However, he has brought to my attention the ludicrous opinion of Jeremy Clarkson that “[England] the only country in the world where the national flag is deemed offensive.”

Look at this photo…

Oh, and this one, including a brown person all not offended…

Look at this high-res image too. It is full of flags, because flags are not offensive. You get the idea by now surely.

People who don’t fly the Union Jack or St George are not “worried about the PC Brigade” or “worried about offending someone.” The lack of flying is a sign that flying flags all the time is just a bit vulgar, a bit passé, dare I say a bit American, and just not something the English have ever been particularly interested in.

It is not deemed offensive, it has just never been something the English have done for its own sake. Give us a party, or a new country, and lo and behold!, we start flying flags, but only as appropriate.

Jay-sus-ker-rice-st. You’d have thought someone who bangs on about Englishness would have noticed the fundamentally self-effacing nature of the English national character. I can’t believe this “flags are offensive these days” meme hasn’t been taken down already.

Flags aren’t offensive, they’re just a bit lame.

Filed under: Society, The Media

Why worry about who owns BSkyB?

I’m back from Glastonbury. Actually I was back a while ago and apart from sulking around the internet I haven’t felt moved to do much but blog. Sorry all. But the recent furore over the ownership of BSkyB has dragged me out of my stupor.

Yesterday Rupert Murdoch called off his attempt to take full ownership of BSkyB, in the wake of the News of the World hacking scandal. Robert Peston argues that this might be his biggest setback in over half a decade. That is hyperbole, Murdoch’s lost $1 billion on MySpace and has faced numerous lawsuits, but this is certainly one of his most high profile retreats.

High profile, but I’d argue not particularly important. If you care about media plurality or in mitigating Murdoch’s influence then this news is worse than irrelevant. Ownership of a laptop gives you control over it, ownership of a company does not.

Ownership does not imply control, only varying degree of influence. Even with only a 39% stake in BSkyB Sky News still employ people like Kay Burley and Adam Boulton. Even with only three (now two) newspapers, politicians still kowtow to Murdoch (secret meetings and all).

Murdoch will be annoyed about losing the opportunity to take full ownership of BSkyB not because he will lose influence, but because he will lose money. BSkyB is profitable, and Murdoch needs those profits to expand in Asia where demand for print and electronic media is expanding rapidly. Murdoch has influence without owning the whole of the company.

Let me offer an example. In BSkyB’s Annual General Meeting last year James Murdoch, Rupert’s son and protégé, was re-elected as Director with 98% of votes cast. Now admittedly, shareholder revolts are rare especially when nominating directors, but this illustrates that Murdoch can exercise an arms length influence even without full ownership.

In fact, Murdoch owns around a third of shares in, and works as chief executive of, News Corporation, which itself owns a 39% stake of BSkyB. Owning all of BSkyB is not necessary to be influential when you run a multi-billion dollar media empire.

So the influence of Murdoch is ephemeral even as some claim it is pervasive. If it worries you then the collapse of his BSkyB bid should be of little importance to you. The collapse of his bid is at best the start of any process to diminish his influence.

Filed under: Economics, Politics, The Media

Why are the Mainstream Media so bad?

What a lovely evening #Westskep with the West Minster Skeptics last night was. Personal highlights include briefly meeting the delightful and thoroughly understandably  lethargic Laurie Penny, shouting at Anna Chen, and the wonderfully restrained conflagration between Suzanne Moore and ex-Daily Star hack Richard Peppiatt. [1]

However, substantively, I was a little disappointed.

The problem with discussing the media, mainstream of otherwise, in a pub full of skeptics, is that a pub full of skeptics makes for a very unrepresentative  sample of those who consume the media. This, frankly, should have been picked up on and neon lit in front of the panelists.

Writing in general exists to either entertain, inform, explain, describe, argue, persuade and advise, or for no particular reason at all; quite often writing is just absent-minded scribble. The media in all its forms performs these roles every single day.

The Westminster Skeptics quite understandably see the media as a tool for informing the public, explain the facts and describe the situation. Laurie Penny no doubt sees the media as a tool to argue, persuade and advise others on things as diverse as Charlie Sheen and Saif Gaddafi.

However, I would argue that most people see the media as entertainment. People do not pick up the Metro to be informed on the way into work, or the Evening Standard just in case they missed something while at work. The Daily Star is entertainment, when you see it as competing with Angry Birds rather than the Financial Times it begins to make more sense as a product.

This was the elephant in the room when somebody asked “do the public deserve a more honest media?”

Honesty is boring. Asylum Seekers have never eaten a swan, but the story has legs because it is outrageous. Nobody has avoided deportation because of a pet cat, but people believe it because it gives them something to talk about. Jordon and Peter Andre are not getting back together, but people are interested because…well, okay, I don’t know why, but they are.

The truth is often a lot more boring, and almost always a lot more nuanced. Asylum Seekers do come to the UK because we’re wealthy rather than hang around in camps in Niger, but who blames them? It is wrong to deport people with close links to the UK, even if they built those links while here illegally, and Jordon and Pete probably still have some feelings for each other, but sometimes these things just cannot work out.

There is an abbreviation gap between the left and right and between liberals and authoritarians.

Pointing out a Bad Thing and saying something must be done, usually deportation, is easy. Job done. To point out the fallibility of the criminal justice system or the rigged nature of global flows of goods, services, capital and people is more complicated. As Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe, founder of The Daily Mail knew, the British people love a good hate. It is quick clean fun, simple to parse and easy to discuss.

This abbreviation gap is key, until skeptics package the truth in nugget sized pieces, and swear to never use the word dialectic or phrase “fiat currency,” the mainstream media will remain bad. Bad but wrong is more entertaining than correct but boring, and changing that will do far more than giving the Press Complaints Commission more teeth.

___

[1] In short, don’t fuck with Suzanne Moore.

Filed under: The Media

The 100 year old Daily Mail Business Model: “The British People relish a good hero and a good hate.”

So said Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe, founder of The Daily Mail and Newspaper magnate extrodinaire over 100 years ago.

Plus ça change.

Filed under: History, The Media

Cunt Watch: Melanie Phillips

If still in doubt, try this thought experiment. Imagine the Government was planning to recognise polygamy and polyandry (marriage with more than one woman or man), or marriage between ‘zoophiles’ (people who have ‘loving and committed relationships with mammals’, or bestiality to you and me) and their, er, partners.

That’s correct, she comparing homosexuality and bestiality (via).

On a more serious note, I don’t have much problem with polyandry or polygamy, so long as all partners consent and the washing up is distributed fairly.

Filed under: Society, The Media

How accurate were my predictions for 2010?

Last year, at about this time I published some predictions and I thought I’d review how accurate I was. First off, the things I got correct, then those I kinda got correct, and then those which were rubbish.

1) Uncontroversially, I predicted that Labour would lose the General Election, but that the Tories do not win it. I was correct in predicting that this would result in a coalition between the Lid Dems and the Tories. 2) Part of this prediction was based on the recovering building pace throughout 2010. The economy certainly did improve, but as predicted, not well enough to get me a decent job. 3) Perhaps more controversial at the time, I predicted another round of fiscal stimulus, and although I was wrong in prediciting it would be passed via budget reconciliation, I was correct that it was delivered.

That’s what I got right. I was middling on a few other predicti0ns. 1) I jumped the gun on the failure of a referendum on introducing AV; however, I was correct that an AV referendum would be scheduled. We remain to see whether this referendum will succeed or not. 2) I predicted a right wing blogosphere torn apart by fraternal infighting and a leftwing blogosphere in ascendency. The left is certainly doing well, but the right wing blogosphere seems to be marked by boring relative decline rather than entertaining implosion. 3) I predictioned there would be no more major terroist incidents in the west, but I was wrong to say that major piracy in the Gulf of Aden and its subsequent militarisation would leave to trouble in Yemen. Trouble in Yemen appears to be happening anyway.

I was wrong in my more international predictions, perhaps showing I’m not as clever as I thought. 1) Whereas there was much labour unrest in China (when isn’t there) it did not reach the scale, nor provoke the harsh crackdown I predicted. 2) Iran saw no democratic (or at least anti-autocratic) revolution, a prediction I am sad to have got wrong. 3) Likewise, my prediction that an Orwellian memo being leaked proved wrong. The idea that a “Doubt is out Product” style document is out there by prominent Climate Change denial outfit remains my belief, but we may never find it. 4)

My final prediction is neither right, wrong, or middling, I think it is just premature. I predicted that we were poised on the brink of some major immigrant scapegoating in 2010, that didn’t materialise (in fact, the BNP were routed). However, I don’t think I am wrong here, I just thing 2011 is the year. I have no plans at the moment to make further predictions, but consider that a preliminary outing – 2011 will not be a good year to be a foreigner in the UK.

Filed under: Economics, Politics, Society, The Media

I’m not saying the Economist are spying on me ’cause I’m so great…: UPDATED with more self congratulatory onanism

…but if the Economist want to hire me then all they have to do is ask.

August 24th 2010, Left Outside.

India has not grown as dynamically as China has, and the last decade has seen a clear divergence between the successful India and the very successful China. In the medium to long term however, we are likely to see each system stress tested; for a variety of reasons I think it is very likely India will prevail in any contest.

2nd October 2010, The Economist.

Despite the headlines, India is doing rather well. Its economy is expected to expand by 8.5% this year. It has a long way to go before it is as rich as China—the Chinese economy is four times bigger—but its growth rate could overtake China’s by 2013, if not before (see article). Some economists think India will grow faster than any other large country over the next 25 years.

Were I not so ambivalent towards intellectual property I’d be seeing if Jack of Kent would help me sue for piracy pro bono.

+++Update+++

Scott Sumner is also thinking along similar lines.

Last year the professors at George Mason asked me for my most outrageous belief.  Initially I couldn’t think of one; I thought my views on the Fed were sufficiently outrageous.  (Of course that’s before Fed officials themselves started calling current policy “restrictive.”)  I finally ended up with a post predicting that India would have the largest economy in the world 100 years from now.  Unfortunately, events are moving so fast that this prediction no longer seems outrageous enough, and I plan to move the date much closer to the present.

Filed under: Economics, Foreign Affairs, The Media

Matthew 25:31-46 I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me +++ Alternatively titled; Those who treat immigrants like scum will probably treat everyone like scum, given the chance

Migration Watch are infamous bastards who pick on immigrants; I hold this truth to be self evident.

One reason I don’t like those who are prejudiced against immigrants is that it is usually a good proxy for whether some one is a cunt in general or not; as Jesus would have said if he was a swear blogger.

So that Migration Watch as suing Sally Bercow for libel does not surprise me.

Immigrants are vulnerable (and also laudable) people, if you go out of your way to pick on them there is probably no base act to which you will not stoop.

Filed under: Migration, Politics, The Media

Tony Benn interviewed by Nicky Wire of the Manic Street Preachers

From The Quietus via Labour List.

As only a politics junkie like would notice, Benn sounds like notorious rightist Hayek when he says: “Every night when I go to bed I’m relatively more ignorant than when I got up that day because the growth of human knowledge is so great.” Interesting that.

Filed under: Politics, Society, The Media

#MMR Shit Storm ahoy!

A mother whose son suffered severe brain damage after he was given the controversial MMR vaccine as a baby has been awarded £90,000 compensation.

The judgment is the first of its kind to be revealed since concerns were raised about the safety of the triple jab.

From the Daily Mail. Six facts;

1. This is a tragedy and the long fight this family has faced deserves publication.
2. However, we know that no medical procedure is without risk, including vaccination, even if in aggregate it is a good procedure.
3. We know that there is no significant link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
4. In this case we know it was in fact epilepsy, not autism, which presented following the vaccination.
5. We also know that The Daily Mail are scaremongering bastards keen to take advantage of any vulnerable individual to push an agenda.
6. Nadine Dorries MP for mid-Narnia is involved saying “If an independent panel has reached the conclusion that there has been a link between the MMR vaccine and the brain damage suffered by this boy in this case, then it is fair to assume that there could be as many as thousands of children and parents in the same position. There should be full and easy access to all documentation relating to the judgment for any parent or professional to read and assess.”

Five questions;

1. Are there any new scientific developments in this case to merit the reopening the “debate” on MMR, given the the suffering already caused in increased Measles, Mumps and Rubella cases?
2. If the MMR jab remains proven relatively safe (and no new research has been presented suggesting otherwise), is the above story merely the abuse of an anecdotal evidence?
3. Has advantage been taken of this family’s tragic story push an anti-vaccine agenda?
4. Couldn’t this have been a story about the difficulty in negotiating the legal system surrounding vaccinations rather than a quasi hatchet job on the MMR Vaccine?
5. If The Daily Mail are merely pushing an agenda, as it appears, what has made them choose this particular campaign?

I would suggest “no,” “yes,” “yes,” “yes,” and “because they market themselves to a bunch of moralising fuckwits who use science when it seems to suit them (Wakefield) and insult it when it doesn’t (all subsequent research on MMR and autism).”

Any alternative answers anyone would like to submit, as I readily admit I have not had a chance to read the judgement of look at the medical records?

Filed under: Science, The Media

Lynne Rosenthal/ Stupid Bagel Woman/ Please shut down the Evening Standard

Sometimes you pick up a copy of the Evening Standard and regret it. In fact, often I regret it. It isn’t that the paper is written badly, lots of papers are, it is the angle which it imputes in each story.

With exception of some of the columnists, the gutter press always take the path of least resistance. In most cases this involves appeals to “common sense,” even when this involves backing idiots.

Idiots like Professor Lynne Rosenthal. After ordering a Bagel in a branch of Starbucks, she is asked if she wants butter or cheese with it. Rather than saying no just plain please, this woman takes option b) [1]

b) Throw a fit, saying that if you had wanted butter or cream cheese you would have asked for it, and that the fact that this obvious logic was not understood illustrates the bad grammar of the staff, tout the importance of correct language and, sticking relentlessly by your position, eventually call the staff person an “asshole” until you are thrown out?

What an “asshole!” [2] As The Economist points out, Ms Rosenthal is showing how little she understands language. There are many nuances in asking for a Bagel, and for every one person pedantically asking for one expecting no butter there is one person expecting butter without asking. Being asked to clarify takes no time compared to having to replace an incorrect item.

She subjects a poor service clerk to a barrage of abuse for asking the question which she or he has been trained, nay drilled, to ask. Anyone who has worked behind a counter will be familiar with the easy air of arrogance with which you can be treated. This Professor made a cruel stand against people who could not fight back, people who at best could continue to ask her perfectly reasonable questions.

In the end the police had to be called, three policeofficers ejected her from the premises, that is how unreasonable this woman is. Yet she is lauded because it is an easier story to write than that exploring the abuse those in the service industry endure.

How do the gutter press report on this? The make her a martyr of course! She was only standing up for common sense of course! The phone some rentaquotes called the Plain English Campaign to explain this particular subject “drives people mad” of course!

In short, the writers of the Evening Standard and all the gutter press act in a worse way than even Ms Rosenthal. She can only be an “asshole” to one small group of people at a time (perhaps a 20meter radius delineates the maximum), the Evening Standard pollutes the air it all the way to Newbury, that’s 60 miles away! This is why people don’t buy papers any more and look bored while they read free ones they find in the bin on trains.

Ms Rosenthal is an “asshole,” she went out of her way to ruin someone else’s day. All because she has a messiah complex in which only she can save the English Language. Given the above, the fact that this Professor is a hypocrite too should come as no surprise. Ms Rosenthal is offended by the “language fascism” of Starbucks. For someone who is “a stickler for correct English” I find it amusing that she considers comparing a coffee shop to the world’s greatest monsters appropriate.

Like I said, “asshole.”

UPDATE: Here is the link to the original article, which I did not originally include. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23868473-bunfight-over-a-starbucks-bagel.do

_______

[1] I’m quoting from The Economist because it is excellent (apart from the flippant reference to Asperger’s which seems unnecessary.)

[2] She’s American, so the spelling is correct for her vernacular.

Filed under: The Media

I’ve got to say I’m a little confused by The Economist at times

Last week’s Economist Debate:

This house believes that industrial policy always fails. Do you agree with the motion?

28% voted yes

72% voted no

The debate is now closed

This week’s Economist leader disagrees:

In the rich world, meanwhile, the record shows, again and again, that industrial policy doesn’t work.

It’s very complicated of course, but the Economist shouldn’t canvas people, including Josh Lerner and Dani Rodrik, and then proceed to ignore them.

Instead, perhaps they could show some internal consistency; it is their regular readers who they are alienating and that ain’t very capitalist of them.

(In defence of The Economist, this does look like an interesting debate. Pity it seems they’ll ignore the result.)

Filed under: Economics, The Media

Bah! Morons, the world is run by morons

This really is getting silly:

You might remember the story last November about police being issued with a 90-page elf ‘n’ safety manual on riding a bike. It was rubbish, as the Association of Chief Police Offers was quick to point out:

This work was neither requested nor drawn up by ACPO and we do not endorse it.

It was put forward by a group of well meaning police officers with an interest in this area. ACPO will not be taking it forward.

Some enthusiastic cycling policemen proposed a cycling guide for the force and it was rejected. Just another non-story (albeit one that snuck into the Independent). Except that, er, it’s now popped up in the government White Paper on police reform:

Whole shopping trolleys’ worth of guidance is loaded onto the police during the course of a year. Whether this is guidance for officers on how to dress or 92 pages on how to ride a bike – this has to be reduced.

It’s not the first time a Tory’s used tabloid rubbish to make a point, but you’d think a government document laying out policy proposals might have better standards of evidence…

I hope Jamie doesn’t mind this being exerted in full but this needs to be publicised. There is no reason to base policy on lies, there are enough real problems in the world to worry about.

Hey look over there!

This is why, despite my occasional scepticism I am still convinced of the need to blog the media until they are honest. I’ll leave the conclusion to the ever excellent Angry Mob:

My point is, as it always is, that tabloid journalism has real consequences for all of us – whether we read a tabloid newspaper or not. We are all passive tabloid readers, unavoidably inhaling the hatred, the outrage and the distorted media narratives on a range of topics that impact on our lives. You cannot stop inhaling tabloid messages by turning your head any more than you can stop inhaling a rank smoke that engulfs us all. In the end we all have a choice, we either quietly gulp it down and pretend it does not exist, or we do everything in our power to challenge it and stop it at its source.

Filed under: Politics, The Media