Thursday, September 27, 2007

Who's in charge

I am personally uninspired and professionally constrained enough to have no real political affiliations, such that my greater allegiance is to the Currently Can't Reasonably Really Abide Any Party Party.

However, I do care a lot on how we are run, and those who would claim to be doing so. Which means currently there is one mob more than any other in my sights. As has been noted here before, it's a lot more effective to be in power and doing than out of it and talking. Especially to those of us lacking in patience on certain issues.

So, even though it was naught to do with the environment, I felt motivated to weigh in a tad having seen a Newsnight the other night that left me less than impressed with our Government and national broadcaster: British investment in Burma

As this 'discussion' 'unfurls' (or, possibly more accurately, oozes to oblivion), I am I supposed to be getting nearer to some clue to what's going on? If so that's no thanks to the Political Leadership of this country or the national broadcaster. What a team!

If this is how we are being represented at government level in matters of explanation and negotiation involving Foreign Affairs I think I'd best start building a bunker. And if this is how the competence of those entrusted with our country's future are to be effectively challenged to explain themselves, I guess I'll... um... what can I do, again?

Other than the half dozen left or so who might be so inclined to look back in archive, this whole mess will be lost, leaving any with some memory of the original exchange still in deep confusion and disappointment.

Whatever happened to professionalism? We had a pol who could barley restrain his loathing of all in front of him (beside camera and at 'tother end) as inconveniences to the grand plan (Version 2. Version 1 now deleted, and WE MUST NOT FORGET IT), and a celebrity interviewer who could barely restrain his loathing of that fact.

Sorry, no, that’s wrong. Neither did restrain anything, barely or otherwise. Save getting and offering enlightenment on topic.

They just let egos rip, with truth and clarity and respect for the electorate and viewership flying out of the window. And I bet now the principals can blame various unidentified minions for letting them down, and the whole thing can whizz off on a distracting tangent leaving the actual issue unaddressed and many questions hanging. Way to go guys!

Is this how we are now to be (micro)managed? An authority figure appears on air and appears to know nothing and commit to less. Then a spat ensues that solves nothing, leaving us to be drip fed undebated sound bites subsequently, to pick up on a website if we can find them?

And while I find it hard to imagine how a few score of those who do stay with such as these blog pages can really be worth the effort, it is proving a trial trying to pick around the stuff that is getting lobbed in here by the spinners at the expense of some worthy comment and attempt at debate.

There are what could be press releases drafted by spin doctors on both sides, masquerading as ‘Joe Public', and now a new quirk, the spoiler. These are the quite frankly bizarre ramblings that are either designed to discredit one side (by association) or the other (by being too obviously designed that way). Or, most likely, simply the process. Sadly this is a moderated blog's (and I recognise the necessity here) greatest weakness. I'm now seeing those who would seek to deliberately get moderated just to raise doubts as to the objectivity of the totality.

Are we really at a point where those theoretically in charge and/or representative of our interests are so irrelevant in comparison to those we can’t see (or vote for/against)? Especially when they see their mission as being to pull any strings necessary to have things simply being seen to be done as they see fit?

While of some value, that's why blogs (and most editable print) can never compare to live, streamed, noddy-free broadcast. Until now. As all parties seem to have found a way to render even this meaningless.


BBC - Newsnight - Online analysis

Reading my previous post, looking at what happened subsequently (not much) I reckon I was not far off.

nteresting. A full six posts since Thursday at time of writing (Saturday pm - assuming this makes it), and one set are duplicates.

The country's Foreign Minister and one of the more significant broadcast interviewer/celebs on one of the few significant national broadcast news shows pretty much lock horns on key matters of fact and the viewer at the time is left bewildered as to what is going on and who knows and/or is doing what.

But fear not, all is to be clarified later on the website.

Now I know out of 60Million there are only so many who can vote and/or care about the state of the country and/or stay up that late (or catch it next day online) to watch a news show, and only a fraction of that audience care enough for sometimes a good 20 to pile in and engage on a blog.

But out of so many protagonists, 5 viewers so far on the only discussion board about the follow-up would seems to indicate that, as media milestones go, it surely ain't that great a poster child for politics or the way it gets reported upon and/or viewed these days.

No comments: