And rule seems to mean licence to gouge without check or balance.
Plus a few worrying stirrings on democratic process and freedom of speech. From the top, plus some less exalted, but oddly on message sources.
As it is still relatively small, usually civilised and may get read by the powers that be, I still invest in the Newsnight blogs (some BBC ones, like Richard Black's, are now beyond parody, as are most via such as the Guardian, which is a pity as they seem to wield influence out of all proportion to their readership numbers).
My big issue, as we barrel up to Copenhagen, is not so much whether there are climatic issues happening (though pertinet), but what the enviROI of proposed impositions being rushed through actually represent. Sensible, tangible global GHG curbs are one thing; giving every lobby-funded chump with a box-ticking wheeze the keys to the exchequer for a comms budget quite another.
I have thrown my hat into the ring on a few occasions in the last 24 hrs. A sampling:
Guardian - Should climate deniers be allowed to speak on the Today programme?
The exclusion of the barking to the biased from 'the oxygen of publicity' would be interesting, especially from entities that are happy to allow even terrorists to make their case. The trick seems to be inviting the right kind of 'unbalanced' individual on just enough to show 'balance', bit still follow agenda whilst not putting the glee club offside.
BBC - The Editors: A balanced approach to climate change
From the title on it tends to go downhill
BBC - Newsnight Thursday
BBC - Ethical Man Blog
And I fear I am not alone in my concerns about the trend
Iain Dale's Diary: Climate Change Poll: Britons Are Unconvinced
There also seems to be this odd notion that it is a wing' thing. For the life of me I cannot fathom how or why. Except where it comes to relative comfort with state, and state media levels of control.
