Thursday, March 29, 2007

Give 'em enough rope...

I had first entitled this 'Some parapets are not worth poking over', but hey, it's Friday.

First up there's this:

Guido Fawkes apologises to BBC's Political Editor x2

To which I wrote in this:

Nothing much worth commenting on here any further, bar the reassuring notion that it seems even the Newsnight team is not above a duplicate post.

Or... (SFX: sinister music) did they think it was so good they posted it twice????

Now they have corrected it (see pic), without credit or explanation, I have had a further mooch at it all and have decided to change my mind about the not commenting.... because I can.

Especially as they seem to be gloating... a lot: If you live by gunpowder...

This week, however, we learned that when it comes to making and breaking reputations there's life in the old media dog yet....

If you choose your foe and battleground well enough. If he was dumb enough to accept the set-up (in any and all forms that phrase can take), more fool him. But pride comes before the fall.

Thing is, until now I had never heard of him... and he's the number one political blogger?

The whole smacks of set up. First choose a rubber dinghy bobbing about in a big sea and make an example of the poor sods inside to send a message about the teeth the old dog has to warn off others. One guy in a hostile studio, with the guys behind the camera and hands to edit slider on one side... AND in control?! You must be sooooo proud.

Who can remember the points the poor sap made? I can't. With luck, and YouTube, it's out there so if one did need to debate it with the full BBC team, and all their archive and edit and research resources, a lone warrior 'might' have some chance of recalling facts and tweaking them to suit. In the cold hard light of the next days some blog responders (congrats for running those I see... but, all who have written?) seem less than impressed.

In passing, by the by, I think you have not answered Dennis' main point, that JP admitted that what they did was not 'optimal' professionally, but was done to fill some time. Post Blue Peter, the dictates of time seem to be throwing Aunty off the professional rails a lot these days.

Care to explain why this little blog note..."

'Well that makes.. two of us! Well tucked away little devil of a blog this... wonder why?

As I wrote to a paper the other day in response to a piece about broadcast standards:

'You want unreality [Rest above].'

Tick reply here:

1) It wasn't us
2) It wasn't a problem
3) If it was so what?

And if you get pressed...

4) It was not perhaps the best way to do it
5) We are addressing this at all levels
6) An urgent review is under way

But whatever happens, no one is responsible!'

...didn't make it to a Newswatch blog... yet (who's to wonder if it may pop in soon, after all these days):

Maybe the BBC thought it was 'unsuitable?

Getting back to Mr. Fawkes, from what I recall he had some fair points. Certainly in written form in the blurbs that got me to watch (not his blog, which I personally don't find to my tastes). A few on this blog know that when it does suit, the moderator will not play ball, by taking his away, along with the paying field. A point admitted by the eminence gris , but perhaps not with the irony one would have hoped. He of course would not get to smug to the camera as much, one suspects, if he was too nasty to the guys sending the taxi and big upping his paper.

And having a 'gotcha' on the facts is, sadly, a bit of a bummer for any erstwhile critic. But just how many blogs and post links did you guys wheel out to crow about GF's faux pas?

It's not like the BBC, or Mr. White, is immune from some sloppy stuff (accepting, of course, that you are all very busy). Obviously the 'I don't know Mr. Prescott's age' thing was just being absent-minded, and not worth harping on or hounding.

But oo, guess who just sent me this:

"This was a genuine mistake resulting from the producer misreading [your] e-mail and not a deliberate attempt to doctor our viewers' opinions. The mistake was made in the initial e-mail summary compiled by the producer and sent to the presenters and hence was repeated twice during the programme. Of course we should have read the e-mail more carefully but
I can see how the mistake was made as [you say] the exact opposite of what [you] really think[s] - which is only revealed by the line "yeah right" right at the end - so while not excusing it - I can see how the error was made."

I trust this proves satisfactory. Please be assured that your comments have
been registered and are available to the 'Breakfast' production staff.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with your e-mail.

Now, do I accept this? They don't read information thoroughly. Are incapable of assessing tone of voice from the written word and print only what they want to see, regardless of what it may convey. And defend running one line out of three in this way (also ignoring the first, which was as equally negative as my sadly over sarcastic 'Yeah, right'; a phrase JP would never use in rebuttal on Newsnight, I'm sure, he said.. sarc...) with a load of waffle and spin
and insincere apology with no hint of any chance to take this further should I wish to. And these guys were not under the spotlight, live!

Nah... I think I'll go with what the masters of journalistic integrity would do, and trump... no... no, I won't. I'll simply publish in full and let the people make their own minds up.

Me, I'll just keep on offering information as accurately and objectively and attributed as I can, with the odd bit of subjective opinion lobbed in to show I do have them. And why not?

It's... more honest, less hypocritical... and safer, I do believe

Don't like it? Well, I'm sure you can sort it all in post:)

Guardian - The Daily Telegraph's Spy column today publishes a picture it says is
of Paul Staines, aka political blogger Guido Fawkes (P6). Spy decided
to do this after Staines made a film for BBC2's Newsnight this week
demanding more honesty and openness from political journalists.
However, he refused to appear on camera himself, at one point being
interviewed by video link from a dark studio, appearing in
silhouette. A BBC insider tells Spy: 'The whole disguise thing was
really a bit of a joke. But I think it made him look a bit of a prat.' - All this is getting a bit 'confused' in the reporting, or, soem might call it 'mis-reported'. Who came up with this black-out idea that so misfired? The BBC or the Guy himself? And why are the major media so keen to stick the knives in themsleves? Oh... yes... they are the only ones who should be doing this.

Guardian - A parody of democracy - a long while later. Maybe it's 'cos their man was in it:)

No comments: