What can it all mean?

Visiting the online site of The Guardian I notice that the most popular stories visited by Guardian readers yesterday were:

Not an opinion piece among them. All sport except the middle one which is about UFO's.

She is a word slut and a charlatan

Carol Sarler is in today's Times. She's blathering on about the compensation culture and other peoples emotional or spiritual dysfunction of which, she says, people mostly don’t give a toss. Attention paid by people to others that they have a shared experience with is, according to Sarler, nothing more than a love-fest for self-pitying pussies and she suggests that they bottle it all up.

I have two observations to make about Sarler. Firstly I find it astonishing that she is writing for The Times. She is one of the worst breeds of journalists who, contrary to her evangelical calls for the bottling up of emotion, is on the bleeding edge of using emotion to belittle and victimise members of a minority group that she happens not to like very much.

Secondly, she is singularly responsible for opening my eyes to the moral corruption and lust for emotional spin that is deep rooted in much of the mainstream media. A media that I did not pay any significant attention to until the day I chanced upon a wicked and self important hate fest that she had published in the Daily Express, a paper I have not read since.

It is her, and people like her, coupled with the relatively recent ability for the ordinary person to scale the walls of the MSM ivory towers using new technologies that has inspired and morally encouraged many ordinary people to start blogging.

I’ve not met her personally so this, to use her MO, means that I am qualified to call her a vexatious charlatan of the worst kind. A word slut who seems intent on perverting the English language into a twisted and darkened figure of abhorrence when, instead, it should be something in which we rejoice. It is her, and people like her, who are responsible for disfiguring the MSM into the Grendel like creature that it has become today.

The tragedy of the SS Guardian

Stephen Pollard asks if the Guardian can sink any lower? Before you go off and read Stephen's observation just remember that there is a distinction between supporting free speech and providing a platform for the kind of thing Stephen points out.

Things are less tragic now.

BBC - choice without choice

Oliver Kamm makes a mistake here:

The problem with the BBC is not that it is a public service broadcaster, but that it isn't very good at it. How to make it better is an important issue. Privatising the BBC is exactly the wrong answer.

The mistake is that he doesn't take into account those viewers who no longer consume BBC programming or who do so only occasionally. For such viewers a decision on quality programming has already been made and they have chosen to seek it elsewhere. Basically, they have been offered the BBC product and have declined it in preference of a product they have decided is better suited to their requirements.

It is not appropriate for these viewers to be forced to repair a product that they have declined.

The very British BBC

From the Times:

THE BBC is to be forced to promote British citizenship and a sense of
community under a new royal charter to be unveiled this week.

That, dear readers, is a political agenda. They will also be tasked with:

representing the UK, its nations and regions

It is, effectively, becoming a tool of the British state.

That's nice

Well, that's a turn up for the books. This blog was in The Times. Thanks for the linkage.

Best blog funding model ever

There’s a very interesting funding model for blogging out there that I’ve just stumbled upon and it’s perfect. It allows bloggers who are lucky enough to get into the model to have all their costs paid for. It also affords the blogger the luxury of free advertising by one of the biggest media outlets this country has ever seen.

The funding model is so perfect and so aggressive that not only is cash not a problem but payments are actually enforced by a very large team of ‘enforcers’ who drive around in vans to ensure that as many people pay as possible.

It’s great.

Press Plagiarist of the Year Award

Guido's most excellent Press Plagiarist of the Year Award has been announced! Go visit him to see who won....or lost depending upon which side of the pair of scissors you are sitting.

Your appearance in the sun is unfortunate

Keep an eye out for the Sun newspaper tomorrow. They are going to run a story on a certain someone. A certain someone who has kicked up a stink around these parts recently.

The story is up. I wonder how the disgraced Terry White will respond? I bet he tries to pass the blame onto right wing English nationalists who blew the story out of all proportion? Words are words Terry and yours are yours.

The Beeb makes a move on the Internet

So, does this mean that we will soon need a license for Internet access? Presumably and hopefully not but it does make a further mockery of the license fee. I am assuming that this feed will only be available to people in the UK who have paid for the content via their current TV license??????????? Yeah, right.

Also, a pack of foxes broke into my home and stole my TV license.

Yasmin, who are you really?

Peter Briffa calls Yasmin Alibhai-Brown the Yazzmonster. It has more letters in it than the word paranoid but less than the more risqué title of Guardian columnist. A happy compromise I suppose.

She’s a difficult woman to understand but that may well be as a result of prejudice. You see equality cuts many ways. If one were to, say, speak up for the rights of one particular racial group then you would expect that those same rights should be extended to all racial groups. For instance, thou shall not prescribe a particular kind of wicked behaviour to a particular racial group. It makes sense. All people have the right to go through their daily lives without this kind of prejudice forced upon them. Don’t they? Don’t they?

Let’s ask Dr. Gabb.

Hello everybody.

Hello Dr. Gabb

I once questioned Yasmin, here’s what she said::

"Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?"

Her answer was yes, though she seemed to think better of this answer immediately after. But she did not take the invitation to deny that the white population was only kept in line by criminal laws to restrain them from attacking ethnic minorities. When Dr Gabb asked if she seriously believed he wanted to murder her, his microphone was turned off and he was "released" from his engagement with 20 minutes of discussion still to run.

Strange way of thinking eh? Like I said, a difficult woman to understand. She fights against prejudice with prejudice. What you gain in chips you loose in beans. We really should have both.

Mr. Briffa brings us further news on the monster herself:

In February last year David Goodhart wrote an essay about diversity. As he puts it:

"All hell broke loose. I was accused of ‘nice racism’ by Trevor Phillips, ‘ignorant scapegoating’ by Sukhvinder Stubbs and people even rang my wife to ask what it was like living with the new Enoch Powell".

…

"The Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, whom I had once counted as a friend, was the most distraught and irrational. She refused to look at the essay when I asked her for comments before publishing it and then attacked me personally with barely a glance at the argument in several of her newspaper columns. She refuses to give up. This year at the Edinburgh book festival she told 300 people that I had once said to her at a Christmas party, ‘Don’t you think there are too many people like you here?’ This is pure invention.

I don’t know what her problem is I really don’t. Can it really be paranoia as Peter Briffa suggests?

Man, that was a sweet job, and we reported with glee

I agree mostly with this assessment of the disaster visited upon the U.S. Gulf Coast and the people living there. The scale of the problem is huge and though I am sure that there have been failings there is no doubt that there have also been successes. No response to a problem on this scale is going to be perfect but the glee with which some reporters have been larging up the inevitable problems smacks of some kind of, oh I don't know, personal vendetta.

That one reporter, I forget his name in the same way I forget the names of various other idiots, who spent a total of three hours in three different visits with people in a stadium without seeing any official except soldiers and police got right up my nose. There is a man who thinks the scale of the disaster is limited to his own personal area of influence.

Moaners, the lot of them, trying to engineer the best possible outcome from a disaster that doesn't affect them. By that I mean anything that looks bad for the enemy president.

Good news is no news

As David says it's well worth taking a look at the comments in this post at Biased BBC. Paul Reynolds (BBC online World Affairs correspondent) graces the comments (good for him) and attempts to defend the BBC predominantly by attacking the anonymity of bloggers/commenters and the less than balanced approach that many of us bloggers take. It's a defence I suppose in a "we are less crap than you" kind of a way but I have just checked over my charter and oddly enough it doesn't mention anything about giving my readers my full name and address or, shockingly, providing balance in my publishing. I know, I know, I should be soliciting the opinion of the EU 'colleagues', Scottish Parliamentarians who denounce the existence of England as a nation, and Guardianistas but honestly, who can be fucked with that?

John in London asks about the lack of BBC optimism regarding Iraq. It's an excellent point because from what I can tell via BBC reporting nothing good has happened in Iraq since the fall of that dictator bloke, you know, Santa:

To take up "John in London"'s points about the use of the word terrorism and the pessimism about Iraq. The BBC does not use the word terrorist in many conflicts, not just the Israeli/Palestinian one. Sri Lanka, Checnya, Colombia are other examples. As for Iraq, I have to say sadly that optimists are few and far between. The US army is now planning on another four years there. Reporters seek to be realists.

It's as if he is saying that the 'terrorist' insurgency will stop when the US army leaves. Do any 'realists' out there really and honestly expect that to be the case?

I also completely fail to see the connection between optimism and balanced reporting. "Hey, I'm feeling really down about the way the Americans are forcing terrorists to blow up Iraqi civilians so you can stick any good news up your backside". Nice.

As a realist I expect there to be continued trouble even when the Americans do finally leave Iraq and, as a realist, I expect the BBC to put out programming denouncing the Americans for leaving the Iraqis to the mercy of the 'insurgency'.

Some medicine, returned

Best headline of the day from Jackie:

Newspaper fat cat gets pay rise as circulation hits rock bottom

Meow!

Oh how I laughed

Listening to BBC Radio 5 Live this morning (why do I do it?) I caught a story about the Licensing Act 2003 which comes into affect in November this year. Basically this Act requires businesses that supply alcohol, hot food and ‘entertainment’ to apply for licenses (as if they were extending an existing license) to continue to do so. If they miss the November deadline they will have to apply as if it were a new license which is a more complex and long winded process.

The main thrust of the BBC radio story was how discriminatory the application process is. You see, the application forms are (warning) WRITTEN IN ENGLISH (shock). They even had an ‘expert’ on to talk about how dreadful this was for minute after dreary minute, completely missing what should have been the main story, ie that having to ask the state for a license to entertain your customers is a bloody crime.

It was at the point where they introduced their ‘expert’ that I laughed. Fancy that. Written in bloody English! It’s almost as if there was a sudden and violent event in the space-time continuum that caused a completely unexpected and alien behavioural crossover to occur in our own Universe. It’s written in English? English! How can that be?

Not speaking the native language is a serious disadvantage in business and in all other walks of life where one comes into regular contact with the odd sounding natives. The solution to this problem is to learn the language. A non-solution to the problem is to automatically supply translations of the states paper trail into any number of languages.

"British" Broadcasting Corporation - the spin and the reality

Andrew Sullivan notes that the spin from the BBC regarding the use of the word terrorism has begun:

Here's the spin today:

Then there has been a controversy about our use of language - particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist". There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.

He then goes on to distinguish between the spin and the reality. Well, at the time of going to press here is a little more reality from the front of the BBC news page:

Subtle, but there. Yes, I am pointing to the use of quotes around the word. Yes, I know they would argue that they were quoting something the French president said. No, I don't think that is the reason why they used the quotes.

And a few minutes later it's changed:

Much better. That's the problem with having crappy guidelines though. People tend to follow them. I look forward to the BBC using the correct terminology when reporting on the terrorist activities in the Middle East.

I preferred the jets in the first picture.

BBSilly

It's funny, you know. I was listening to a phone-in on BBC radio 5 live this morning and the presenter started talking about anti-terror liegislation in the context of the recent 'bombings' in London. My question to the presenter and to the BBC is are they terrorists or not? If not then what the hell has anti-terror legislation got to do with anything? Obviously they can't answer that question without looking very silly and even more obviously they, well, just look very silly anyhow.

BBC tries to show balance again

Unbelievable. Remove barriers to 'understanding' the terrorists. Try to 'understand' the true 'interpretation' of the brave spirit of Londoners.

We 'understand' alright

Tom Gross rightly lays into the BBC for refusing to use the word 'terrorist' during its reporting of various attacks upon innocent people.

The reason why the BBC refuses to use the word is that it can, apparently, be a ”barrier to understanding. It is the duty of the BBC to ”try to avoid the term, while we report the facts as we know them.".

It’s an interesting policy. Interesting because it effectively states that the blanket BBC policy is that, you know, the terrorists might have a point and that it could potentially do their cause harm if the word terrorist or terrorism is used. That surely is the context that their guideline phrase ”barrier to understanding" must be taken in.

But the policy is flawed.

Flawed because the meaning of the words are clearly defined and flawed because it is inaccurate of the BBC to substitute less descriptive words:

Terrorist: - One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

There is nothing in those definitions that prevents any kind of ‘understanding’. They are crystal clear and they are accurately descriptive.

The BBC’s policy is flawed because it refuses to recognise that there is an end game to the process of ‘understanding’. It is not perpetual and cannot, therefore, be comfortably or accurately used within a policy statement. Flawed because ‘understanding’ has been achieved and, indeed, was achieved some time ago. We ‘understand’ what the terrorists are. We ‘understand’ that they think that the deliberate and cold blooded killing of innocent civilians will coerce our society and our government. We ‘understand’ that they revel in the blood and fire. We ‘understand’ everything we need to thank you very much.

The BBC policy is also flawed because it does not extend to other words and phrases that have a clear and accurate definition but that might be a barrier to ‘understanding’. Words and phrases like criminal, blood sport, fat cat, intimidation and any number of others that no one else on the planet has a problem with, including the BBC.

So why pick on terrorist? Again, it’s because, you know, they might have a point.

It is utterly reprehensible and made more so because we are forced to pay for the service that must abide by such a policy. Sickening. Pathetic.

Why not just hand it over?

From the Horse and Hound I note that the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who are looking into complaints regarding police behaviour at the pro-hunt demo in parliament square, are experiencing some difficulties trying to review video and stills evidence of the demonstration:

...progress is proving slow because some of these organisations, led by the Guardian Media Group, have declined to provide CCTV and still photographic evidence, and are currently judicially reviewing the Crown Court order to hand such media over.

Mirror, mirror on the wall

Dan Sabbagh (Hey Dan, how's the Googling going?) writes in the Times:

TYPING your name into Google is hardly an exercise for the modest. Until recently, journalists who yielded to the temptation would have found copies of and links to their articles. But the rise of blogging has changed the relationship — a recent search on Google found that somebody had written that one of my articles about podcasting was “quite possibly the most boring one that I have read”.

Criticism that was once simply spoken, or on a bad day expressed by scrunching up the newspaper, is now being published for the world to see — or to put it another way, the power relationship between print and online is tilting towards the internet.

Dan's right. In the old days when the press used to badmouth me and a bunch of other people who had a particular pass time in common (namely shooting) we used to speak to each other about it and, as Dan correctly suggests, we used to scrunch up the papers that peddled the tripe, lies and outright insults.

Now, criticism that was once written and spread throughout the country to be read by millions of people who looked to the trusted established media for opinion, facts and fairness will now be answered using the tools that we have at hand.

Tough luck to some of your media peers Dan old chum (who is likely a nice guy); they've had a run at frothing the masses against one minority group or other in the past and they've gotten away with it because, frankly, having an old moan over a pint and a torn up newspaper very rarely influences one persons opinion on an issue let alone the opinion of hundreds of thousands of people.

Some in the MSM will be looking at the blogosphere right now and they will be moaning. Moaning and completely failing to recognise their own reflection.

First they came for the girls, then they came for the linkage, now they are coming for you

Needless to say most bloggers start blogging for the girls (we are all men after all, or men pretending to be girls) but as blogging matures and new directions are taken blogging begins to serve more altruistic purposes:

For every columnist (to start with) on the serious UK newspapers, I'm going to put together a register of interests. I'm interested in memberships of quangos or other government type jobs, directorships of companies (public or otherwise), consultancy gigs, freebies, invitations to parties, close relationships with MPs or MPs staff or family, or anything else non-day-job related and dodgy.

It's a bit, you know, invasive. I mean digging around for info. on people, hoping to spot issues that, perhaps, can be used to embarrass them and all that. Too much like proper investigative journalism, though I don't suppose that would stop a subject of this most excellent venture kicking up a fuss about how a bunch of manic right-wing so called 'internet' 'diarists' 'or' 'bloggers' were deliberately trying to undermine them. Wake up and smell the fair trade coffee peeps, and don't complain when little people start doing what some of you have been doing since mankind first realised that words had the ability to change what people think about something.

I mean it would be rather revealing if a moral columnist was shown to be a sheep shagger, or worse, on the payroll of some EU organisation or some such.

Creepy, perverted and weird

The following article, by Carol Sarler, appeared in the Daily Express on the 18th of July 2001. It was an epiphany for me.

I have always considered myself an essentially nice person. Obviously whether you are nice or not is best defined by others around you but all indications are that I am probably right.

When I read the following Sarler article, and in particular the second from last paragraph, I could not believe my eyes. There was this person that I had never met, and who had never met me, in a position of some considerable responsibility and, dare I say it, power, calling me creepy, perverted and weird. She could never wish me happiness in my life and doubted my very soul.

I did not see a single article in the mainstream media coming to my defence. Not a peep. I was one member of a persecuted minority (and yes, we were being beaten up pretty badly back then, metaphorically speaking) and we were a minority that was effectively alone. Powerless, weak and utterly reliant on the tolerance of the majority and we were left to fend for ourselves in the face of mainstream media onslaughts such as that written in the article below.

Prejudice ruled and we were crucified.

Two of my faiths took broadsides. Firstly my effective belief that the mainstream media were essentially truthful. I was naïve, I know, but I really didn’t appreciate it for the spin fest that it was and is. Secondly, democracy lost some of its lustre.

Here is the article in full.

Article by Carol Sarler - Daily Express 18 July 2001

"OUR OLD friends from the Countryside Alliance stuck their pointy heads out of their burrow on Monday, pleased as a stirrup cup of punch with their latest wheeze for yet more killing.

According to a report that they paid good money to commission, the criminal use of handguns rose by 40 per cent during the two years after they were banned in response to Thomas Hamilton's massacre of 16 children at Dunblane. Therefore, reasons the Alliance, the ban should be reversed.

Yes, I know: it takes a moment. More guns in more crimes, so let's have...more guns. This is the selfish nonsense of the spoilt brat. "Me, me, me," it cries, "I'm not Hamilton. I'm safe with a gun. And anyway, he didn't kill the kiddies because guns were available to him, he killed them because he was mad."

It never occurs to them that if guns had not been available to him, he couldn't have killed anyone, even if he'd been mad as a skunk. But logic is never a great imperative to such people; their focus here, as it is with their passion for fox.hunting, is on the rights of the hoorays to enjoy what they like to call "sport". So their thinking goes that if a ban isn't working as well as it might be, instead of trying a bit harder with it we should revoke it altogether to allow those who care to do so to get back to their beloved shooting matches.

I dearly hope that our legislature doesn't take a blind bit of notice. Partly because - and we know this from the experience of the whole wide world -more guns mean more deaths and a couple of years or the odd report makes not a jot of difference to that fact.

But I stand agin partly for another reason. I once wrote on this page that my opposition to fox.hunting is based on a visceral feeling that people who take pleasure in it are precisely the kinds of people I do not wish to have pleasure. And so with guns and so with the people who, similarly; take pleasure in them.

There is something quite particular about a gun. Almost any other weapon you can think of has the potential for good; an axe wood for warmth, a machete hacks bamboo for shelter, dynamite builds dams for water, knives cut vegetables for food and, in a surgeon's careful hand, can actually save life. Even the man who split the atom was working towards an ultimate good he believed in.

Guns, by contrast, have only one function. Whether lifted in attack or defence, whether aimed at an endangered ibis in Africa, a tortured schizophrenic in Liverpool or a silly sod with a boy-wonder cigarette lighter in Brixton, the goal is the same: to rip bullets through flesh, to wound or to kill. In times of war, with awe and respect and reluctance, our trained soldiers may need to load and fire their guns but in times of peace, what do we say of those who find them a source of entertainment? Those who will stroke and clean and polish, who will devote their precious time and energy and even their love to such uncompromising apparatus of destruction?

I say that they are, to the last man woman among them, creepy, perverted and weird. They could not be friends of mine, doubting their souls as I do, and I could not wish them happiness -let alone could I wish them a change in a right and proper law.

We should keep our ban, flawed though it have more best to have it before - might be, tighten it, extend it, enforce it. And if there are still people out there who feel an urgent need for a pastime that allows them to show off their keen eye, their steady hand and their infinite talent for precision, then let them try embroidery."

If you can read that article and nod, agree and generally wonder what all my fuss is about then you are one kind of person. If you can read it for the disgrace that it surely is then you are my kind of person.

Please, make it stop!

The media drone on the wedding, it burns.

BBC's award winning service

It's good to see the BBC being recognised again for its award winning service.

404 on BBC Charter Renewal

Sweet. This 404 page not found message comes to us by way of Dumb Jon.

Free! Free for all! Well, nearly

I for one congratulate the BBC on their success at the Online News Association awards. Winning first place in an international competition by providing high quality online news services to the world is a great comfort to those of us at home who pay the BBC TV license fee.

Note: If your computer is capable of receiving Internet traffic and you do not currently have a valid BBC News Over IP license then you are committing an offence punishable by a fine of up to £1000 or 6 months in prison. Our Internet detector vans are in your neighbourhood now.

Blather Blather Corporation

Like I said, now Bush has won the BBC are going all rabid on us, with the frothing and the rage.

The US election

Either way, us in old Blighty lose. If Kerry wins the BBC will be insufferable, what with all the gushing. If Bush wins the BBC will go all rabid on us, with the frothing and the rage.

This is the way the BBC should cover the results.

Now to the US elections. _____ won. Here’s the weather.

Another media muffin roasted

Blow the fire and make the toast,
Put the muffins on to roast,
Who makes Polly scream the most?
That wicked Scott B.

WikiNews

Well, here is a new definition of BIG MEDIA:

We seek to create a free source of news, where every human being is invited to contribute reports about events large and small, either from direct experience, or summarized from elsewhere. Wikinews is founded on the idea that we want to create something new, rather than destroy something old. It is founded on the belief that we can, together, build a great and unique resource which will enrich the media landscape.

..

While Wikinews aims to be a useful resource of its own, it will also provide an alternative to proprietary news agencies like the Associated Press or Reuters; that is, it will allow independent media outfits to get a high quality feed of news free of charge to complement their own reporting. Thanks to copyleft, anyone can create their own free news source - even a non-neutral one - on the basis of our work. Even if our articles will initially be few, they will be free, permanently available and not require registration before reading.

Press passes for all!!!!!

BBC votes for president

The BBC asks:

The citizens of the United States will be voting on November 2 to choose the next president of their country. The US election has attracted a lot of international attention with President Bush's foreign policy and the Iraq situation emerging as important election issues. As a world citizen, what do you think about this election?

If you could vote in the US elections, who would your choice for President be?

and then provides each and every one of us World citizens the chance to take part in a poll.

I can tell you now, it doesn't look good for Bush (18% of the vote at time of going to press) which just goes to show that everyone at BBC headquarters has already voted and that, somehow, Guardian readers were told about the poll early.

If you don't wish to vote just keep clicking NEXT to get to the results.

Next up, World citizens get to vote on the retention of the BBC license fee.

Mmmm, mmmm, mad sir

Those peeps in the Guardian really are bonkers:

"In order to be truly free, both personally and politically, we need to mandate our freely elected representatives to control what companies and individuals can and cannot do. This is not hiring a nanny, it is looking after ourselves."

Dear American Navy Seals,

Can we watch?

Love,

Nearly Everyone.

Guardian improves briefly

These letters from the USA are a lot of fun. Best content in the Guardian for years.

Progress! Do I win?

Eric the Unread and Laban Tall encouraged us a little while ago to try and get a lunatic Have Your Say comment published on one of the BBC Have Your Say pages.

Well, I've done it.

On the subject of the popular kiddie band Busted siding with the Conservatives the BBC asked:

Do celebrity endorsements add anything to politics?...

Now, clearly the answer is no, nothing useful anyway but I submitted:

Busted really are great. I'm sure this will do the Conservative image a great deal of good.

It got selected. Look for John J.

Ok, it's not a great comment but it is clearly crazy. It contains the outright fallacy that Busted really are great and the loony notion that it will do the Conservatives a great deal of good. What do I win?

Andrew, over at non-trivial solutions has blown my heavily disguised ship of moonbattery out of the water with this outstanding comment :

Busted are my favourite band. Previously, I was considering voting for the Lib Dems, but now I will vote Tory. They've really changed my mind.

How can we ever trust what we see on BBC have your say forums again?

Old aunty beeb

This morning on BBC radio five live (around 7:15am though I am not sure) a member of the League Against Cruel Sports was interviewed. Over a period of a few minutes he explained his position on fox hunting and, not just limiting it to hunting with hounds, explained how all fox hunting was completely unnecessary because foxes eat dead things and they act like cleaners of the countryside. He also said that killing foxes will just result in another predator taking its place (odd that, a predator taking the place of a carrion eater/vacuum cleaner but we’ll let that pass). I’m not sure how long the LACS guy had but it must have been 3 minutes or so at least.

To balance this confused/confusing side of the hunting issue with views from the other side of the debate the BBC read out a couple of text messages from two members of the public. Total time, 8 seconds maybe ten.

The BBC is indeed like an old aunt. The smelly one with the dribbling and the flatulence.

The footsteps of th' invader

Monbiot, in the Guardian, writes:

The Norman lords' superiority, Shoard writes, was established by two features of feudal society: the castle and their "association ... with the horse, which enabled them literally to look down on the serfs, who walked".

As an animal welfare issue, foxhunting comes in at about number 155. It probably ranks below the last of the great working-class bloodsports, coarse fishing. It's insignificant beside intensive pig farming, chicken keeping or even the rearing of pheasants for driven shoots. But as a class issue, it ranks behind private schooling at number two. This isn't about animal welfare. It's about human welfare. By taking on the hunt, our MPs are taking on those who ran the country for 800 years, and still run the countryside today. This class war began with the Norman conquest. It still needs to be fought.

He’s an astonishing guy, is Monbiot. In one article he’s managed to paint me into a corner. Drop me into no-mans land. Place me between a rock and a hard place.

I’m pro fox hunting but if this does turn out to be a class war against (near as damn it) French imperialist invaders then what can I do? I’m in a quandary.

I’ve decided to re-categorise the Normans. They no longer have anything to do with the French, never invaded England and have been our good friends ever since we taught them how to cook food properly.

See, it’s not just writers for the Guardian who can make crap up. Checkmate Mr. Monbiot! Aha!

So what am I to think?

I read the BBC news web site. I also watch the news on TV (BBC, ITV, CH4, CH5). On my way to work I listen to the news on BBC radio. I read the online versions of the Times and the Guardian (the latter as a sanity check only you understand). These are my traditional media news sources and, I believe, not uncommon sources for the population of Britain.

So then, what am I to make of this:

Those occupying and desecrating the holy shrine are almost all completely alien to the city and with faces unseen before by the real locals. Some are not even Iraqi and do not even speak the Arabic language. I tell you this is the truth. Vicious aliens, whether foreigners or criminals and thugs from other provinces, have invaded the great Imams' resting place. Heinous crimes have been perpetrated against the Najaf people including murder, mutilation, kidnapping and arrest of ordinary people policemen and religious leaders; and please note that this was not done by the Americans, or by the IP or the IDC. That is the truth as God is my witness.

It seems so……what’s the word? Contrary.

And this holy shrine key business, you know, Sadr offering to hand them over yet still somehow managing to retain them?

Sistani seems to have given instructions to his office in Najaf not to accept the keys to the holy shrine unless a neutral committee inspects the contents of the shrine and an inventory is made to ensure nothing is missing from the treasury of the shrine.

This treasury which is located inside a safe locked basement beneath the shrine contains historical artifacts, priceless manuscripts and a significant amount of gold and gems. These have been gifted and donated to the shrine by Shia from all over the world for centuries. No one has ever dared touch that treasury except the family that holds the keys to the shrine. Radhwan Al-Rufai'i was forced to give over the keys to one of Sadr's aides last April.

I mean, who do I believe? How can I make a judgement? Should I just wait for the Hollywood movies to come out in the hope that, for the first time in history, they represent more credible testament to what actually happened than the media?

Daily Ablution “scare quoted”

You know those dogs? The ones that collect the morning paper from the letter box and then savage them before delivering them to their masters feet. Well, that’s how I view Scott Burgess of the Daily Ablution. I mean that in a good way.

Anyhow, Scott has received an email from Paul Brown of the Guardian who is concerned that Scott makes a habit of fact checking peoples asses:

Dear Scott Burgess, Reporting the man from Microsoft seems to you to be somehow remiss, yet he is the man from America talking about his fellow Americans. You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says and then add comments, a luxury news reporters are not allowed for good reason, because it leads to distortion of what people say. All the best Paul Brown

It might come as a surprise to Mr. Brown but Scott not only seems free to report on what the papers say and then add comments but he actually is free to do so. It is astonishing to me that Mr. Brown describes this situation as a luxury and I think it ridiculous that, somehow, news reporters are not allowed to behave in a similar manner. Frankly I thought they already did.

I mean, can you imagine the consequences of newspaper reporters writing articles that fact check the asses of their competitor papers? Heaven forefend that such a situation should exist in the 21st century. A situation that could only lead to….well what? Fact checking is about establishing facts and showing where paper spin has distorted those facts and I suggest that a little concerted ablution based reporting by our esteemed paper reporters would eventually lead to the emergence of a lot more facts, say, over breakfast when reading the morning paper.

We read Scott’s stuff because he provides an invaluable service to his visitors, doing all the hard work for them and reporting back the results. That does not mean that he can’t or won’t make mistakes but it is reporting, it is not a fecking luxury and I refuse to even entertain a Guardian reporter’s suggestion that Scott’s methods leads to a distortion of what people say.

Stop fact checking us because we are not allowed to fact check each other. That seems to be the measure of the correspondence.

Sheesh.

What excuse could there be?

Big media has no excuse for not specifying their sources, especially in their online publications. If a blogger, for instance, were to say something along the lines of "8 out of 10 cat owners are a bit dull" or "the public supports a ban on big media using the words The public" other bloggers would expect (nay, demand) that proof be shown, cat owners referenced and the public poll presented in all its misleading glory.

Why should it be any different for big media?

Let's take today's little propeller rant by the Guardian's Polly Toynbee. If you manage to make it through the first few paragraphs before your eyes droop too far or you are swept away by a cataclysmic weather related phenomenon you will come across the following statement regarding wind farms and wind turbines:

Campaigners call the turbines an eyesore, but polls show public opinion strongly favours them - and they like them better the closer they live to them.

Polls show.....but which polls? Where? When? What questions were asked? She may be right, she may be wrong but that's just it isn't it? All she has to do is provide a link to her poll, any poll, and we will have something to go on.

It's frustrating.

Someone requires an ablution and I know just the man.

Good show

Well done to the Campaign for an English Parliament and the Cross of St. George for being included in the BBC's Your Choice of Political Sites (Part II) nominations.

Biased, but editorially independent

Chairman Michael Grade of the BBC says that the BBC needs to listen to its captive audience to survive. A good thing, I suppose, given that the BBC governors are concerned about a decline in audience appreciation.

The audience is talking and the Beeb doesn’t like what it's hearing:

What a load of old rubbish.

A remark often heard in The England project lounge.

What’s on the other channels?

Now, to be fair to the BBC the ‘other channels’ don’t normally do much better but they don’t solicit a:

Why do we have to pay for this crap?!

remark.

To heap even more fairness on to the BBC, not all it has to offer is crap as it does put out an excellent programme or two on occasion but I would not say that it was offering anywhere near enough value to warrant the amount we are forced to pay for it.

Mind you the BBC news web site is very entertaining and informative and, amazingly, available for free to all visitors. Free to all except those who have already paid for it of course. To them it’s just an overpriced news resource and to some it’s just an overpriced news resource with various dubious and biased editorial agendas.

Interestingly enough, commenting on the Hutton debacle, Grade declared:

The BBC is not worth having if it is not editorially independent.

A statement which is both right and wrong. The BBC is indeed not worth having (if it continues to be funded in the way that it is) but wishing to continue its editorial independence is not the right way to appease the hecklers in the audience (who would like to leave but can’t because each time they reach the door they have to buy another ticket for next weeks performance).

Balanced, even handed and factual reporting is what is needed and that is not the same thing as editorial independence.

Spinpapers

The Times: Madonna wins right to keep riff-raff out.
The Guardian: Madonna loses fight to bar ramblers.

I ribbit

Steven Den Beste asks:

And for the moment we don't think of computers as slaves. But what if we became able to produce computers which were easily able to pass the Turing Test? What if it were possible to produce androids which could pass for human, or come close to it? At what point in the process of development of such units would we have to cease thinking of them as property and start thinking of them as slaves? At what point would we have to consider the possibility that they were entitled to civil rights?

My guess is that the point will be reached a couple of decades after the Guardian tells us it is already here, by which time a vacuum cleaner will be editor in chief. The paper will really suck then.

Many a true word...

Via Laban Tall, who I really must add to my blogroll, we have this revelation about those pictures in the Daily Mirror.

Mr Morgan was forced to write a letter of apology. MGN are refusing to discipline him, but it is believed that Tuesday's front page story on the Royal Marines, 'FASCIST PIG BLAIR'S STORMTROOPERS OF DEATH' was replaced with 'CONCERNS GROW OVER ABU GHRAIB'.

Pictures catagorically not taken in Iraq.

Great Scott, Scott!

Scott Burgess is doing some fine work uncovering some differences between BBC guidelines and BBC reality. While the rest of us rant and rave it's good to know that there are people like Scott out there who actually, you know, provide us with material worthy of the ranting. And the raving.

BBC History

Melanie Phillips ponders:

One day, our descendants may look back on the insanity of the west at this time and conclude that the BBC had much to answer for. That is, of course, if there is still a west, which the BBC world view is doing so much to undermine.

More likely they will be learning about the BBC in their media history classes.

So let me get this straight. People had to pay this Bee Bee Cee just to use a television?

 - Effectively, yes.

Even if then never watched their channels?

 - 'fraid so.

Bwahahahahaha.

Cr@ppy TV

I think that the channel 4 commercial that Melanie Phillips refers to here is available on the Internet and that is where it should stay in my opinion. Its audio is work unsafe so don't say that you haven't been warned.

Hey, those of you who 'believe in the BBC'....

...one day you might get the chance to put your money where your mouth is:

Two-thirds of the public believes the licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC should be funded by either subscription or advertising.

I can't wait until they have to ask people to pay for their service. What a reality check that's going to be.

You win some, you loose some

The BBC has won an environment award. Meanwhile, ITN (another UK broadcaster) has won a reporting award. Figures.

Have you seen the new Lynx Effect TV ad?

I've always been a big fan of the Lynx Effect TV ads. In a world of political correctness gone mad and the over supply of commercials where men are made to look the fool they are like a breath of fresh air.

Anyhow, last night whilst relaxing on the sofa with my good lady we were treated to the latest Lynx Effect ad which has got to be the sexiest I have ever seen on TV.

Mmmm, twiddly...

You can watch it online. Go here, select your country, wait for the animation to stop, click on the TV and select the play TV ad option. Fantastic.

Sexy ladies everywhere.

Men with guns vs the BBC

This time it's personal, and another formal complaint wings its way to the BBC.

BBC gags Gabb

My inbox this morning contained a number of messages, mostly of little to no interest. One that did capture my interest however had the subject line:

Sean Gabb on BBC World Service Radio Today 6-7pm London Time

My immediate thought, which I cannot help thinking when Dr. Gabb and the BBC get together was o-oh there’s going to be trouble.

And there was. A few messages further up I saw:

Libertarian news Release: BBC Shuts off Microphone on
Libertarian Alliance Spokesman

You can read the Libertarian Alliances press release on the matter here and join in the fun over at samizdata.net.

My main observation on the event is that the LA procedures need to be improved to include the automatic recording of such broadcasts, which they failed to do this time. Otherwise this can and should be thought of as a successful venture which further exposes the BBC for what it is. Unfair, unbalanced and infected with a liberal bias.

Pram buried in avalanche of toys

You know, sooner or later the BBC pram is going to run out of toys. In the meantime we will probably get to read a few more 'stories' like this one, where old hacks moan on about how badly the Beeb has been treated.

What is shocking about this report, despite the usual bullshit the BBC has been spouting recently, is this comment by the hack:

Humphrys says the outcome of Hutton "won't make us any more careful because that implies we haven't been careful in the past".

I wish I were capable of this same level of arrogance.

Old BBC director general to sign book deal

Apparently Mr. Dykes book deal will be for over £1m; nice work if you can get it I suppose.

Mr Dyke hired agent Vivienne Greene to negotiate the book deal following his enforced resignation last week. Ms Greene also represents Mr Dyke's close friend, Melvyn Bragg, with whom he discussed his departure at length last Wednesday and Thursday.

Close friend Melvyn Bragg? That explains everything!

Ahhhh, diddums

BBC employees have

protested against political "pressure and interference" in the wake of the Hutton report.

They must feel somewhat like those that protest against financial preasure and interference caused by the BBC funding model.

Oh, dear aunty Beeb, you suck so

In a programme scheduled for 9pm today on the BBC called "Hey Big Spender!" we are to be told that we'v