Talk about Newsnight
IRAQ
At first I almost joined those in Daily Mail Land wondering why on Earth we had Comical Ali's daft cousin on to waffle for Iran and Islam, but actually I'd say go for it... he did more damage to his cause under Jeremy's more than gentle probing than could have been hoped. For all the good it does knowing that 'we' are 'dealing' with those whose national footy stadium must be the only one with wheeled goalposts.
Sadly, the opposing side of the inevitable Newsnight 'twofer' seemed to be a guy who would have followed Nevile Chamberlain into the gates of hell or, rather, the gas chambers. Usually I am irritated by the dog-fight style of provoking commentary that simply drives ratings and makes the BBC moderator look the only voice of reason, but this issue deserved a lot more.
As it stands, no one is coming out of this well, especially the poor sods seemingly almost forgotten about, at least 14 of them. Plus ca change...
I await with dread the eventual outcome, even, god willing (or should that be 'fingers' crossed'?, their return. Then we will see the pols and the media and their 'experts' at their ... most predictable.
MR. 'I CAN, BUT THEN AGAIN...' MILIBAND
In light of recent comparisons with Communist Russian state behaviours by certain people and administrations, I was amazed to see the staged crowd scenes by Labour's hype & spin department.
As to Mr. Miliband as a leader, you only have to read his Spectator speech, repeated in the Telegraph the other day:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/see-what-staying-up-all-night-does-for.html
A shame so many used it as a shop to simply fire insults at each other, but then, that's today's' Parliament. Thank heavens I still have a vote. All I need now is a worthy direction to point it.
That's along with the rest of the electorate, some of which I do hope are still also watching closely. And not just the Westminster Wonderboys and Girls in the lobby, with pens poised to tell us what to think in their 'We know best-fest', flush with exclusive new vigour following the shock and awe victory over Mr. Fawkes the other night, by cleverly choosing a weak foe bobbing about in a big seas (sound familiar?) and using overwhelming force... that was of course available by taxpayers' funding.
COCA... ISN'T IT?
Sadly I these days have to view all such pieces with a cloud of suspicion over the objectivity of the news media, but what I saw made me very sad and very angry.
Like so many cases, a person says dark is milk, and that's it. Maybe JP does get to rebut, but the silky words of the PR blonde distraction effort still register despite her getting to squirm and issue a series of nonsense about 'reviews' and 'talking' and 'stats' any pol would be proud of. And to her 'determination to strive harder' she gets a thank you... 'as that's all we have time for'. This latter is set to be carved into the headstone of accuracy and truth in broadcast news.
In a few nights, for the media and all who watched it, this will be passed. Not for these kids. And how many luvvies in London would see doing without their choccy fix.. as one ethical commitment too far? Do I not buy my kids an Easter Egg? If so whose? I have no idea how to act as consumer. Oh well, the moment has passed. But I'm sure it will win a news award.
ps: Why, if this site is moderated, do we get a post that says 'test blog', yet some I am aware of that do offer interesting commentary do not make it on board?
ADDENDUM - I was 'dissed'... I think. Why does it always come across as a BBC shill?
Mr. Wallace @ 32
'...maybe some posts do not get on here as they may be too long winded or tedious.(Don't take that wrong, it's just an observation)'
None taken! Plus adding to the quality of discussion significantly by offering some possible explanations, thanks. Though as the issue of editorial control and 'moderation' does crop up on these pages, one has to wonder 'who' gets to decide on 'what' is long-winded and/or tedious as a basis for rejection. I don't think 'you are boring' or 'I prefer complex things debated in one sentence' is really legitimate for censorship purposes. There lies the route to a soundbite-driven culture. Worse, the removal of context as a way to ensure accurate communication of thoughts and information. I do agree that brevity is best, if possible. However I think it was Mark Twain who said: 'It takes a long time to craft a worthwhile piece of long copy. Even longer to produce a short one'. Unpaid bloggers sadly do not always enjoy the luxury of time in getting across points as, say, big media commentators. 'You doesn't pays yer money, so's yer takes even more chances'.
And I do still feel the actual answer to my question may still elude us. On reflection, my thought is that the moderator is tolerant of those simply trying to ensure they are posting correctly on a technical basis, though that could possibly make for longer, and less productive, threads.
'ps .what's wrong with the Daily Mail? It's a great paper'
I don't think I wrote that there was anything wrong with it, necessarily. It was just a way of making an observation... in shortwi...handed terms:)
No comments:
Post a Comment