Debate in this country sucks. No it doesn't.. yes it...

Readers will have no doubt gathered by now I'm a gobby sod. Not just here, but elsewhere (usually cc'd here too in case I get 'moderated').

By virtue of birth, parenting, education, travel, nature and nurture, I have ended up with views. And I often like to share them.

I'd like to think the way I do it is as inclusive as possible, and do try to think of myself as relatively 'centric' in most things, though I do stray in various directions (or back the other way if I change my mind... it is allowed). And as these can vary an awful lot between various topics/issues, I really... REALLY get irritated when some clown tries to find a neat pigeonhole that somehow manages in their minds to encompass all that they think I feel about health, defence, religion, climate change, etc.

And that seems to be happening a lot in the blogosphere, with a worrying trend to even more tackle the player than address the ball. Not that this is a new phenomenon, as our able pols are showing at the moment. More Chis Moyles than Winston Churchill in the Westminster Village and studios that they dash to.

The Internet has indeed revolutionised the exchange and discussion of information. No more are we served up what we are thought to want, or need, by a select group who were no more put in charge of such things than we ourselves have been. They just ended up in a relatively better position to broadcast their thoughts to us all. Many, sadly, mistook the position they were in and the entity that made them known as being less important than they were/are themselves. I know of few who would get where they are without '...from the xx' in the intro.

So we come to matters of trust. And an awful lot of the more traditional organs of education and information have been found wanting in this regard. Call it bias, lack of balance or whatever, the fact is that by selective editing even accurate facts can be presented in the best way to support whatever the creator wishes. For instance, I just watched an edition of the BBC's navel gazing dawn slot Newswatch and was surprised to see the Planet Relief issue dredged up again. Just two viewers, selected lord alone how, and the thing was debated in terms of whether or not climate change is happening or not. To the best of my knowledge that was never the issue (certainly not for me); as it was certainly initially 'sold' as another celeb-style hooly in the vein of Live Earth. The way this came across was the muzzling of an educational documentary. What was all that about?

This is where the Internet is great. Because pretty quick you can get access to some stuff that shows that there is a whole other story out there. And, in some cases, makes a story of why the first story ended up the way it did. It's a fact of modern life. I don't like that it is happening, but I know it is and so I adapt and move on.

My mistake has been to engage too closely on occasion. There really is no point (save for some places where risking a contact URL can be worth it to gain converts to the cause visiting and signing up if they like what one has to say) pitching in.

The views are too entrenched and the people espousing them too self-absorbed to even contemplate allowing another point in. I have mentioned this need for tribal belonging before. Hence you get those on, say, BBC is Biased who think all who doubt them are left-wingers, and those on say, Guardian CiF who think those who would disagree with them are right wingers. And usually there is a hefty dollop of pejorative speculation without any hint of substantiation thrown in to muddy the soup some more. I have actually seen on one such the words 'we have spoken', when referring to a collection of less than two hundred (and ignoring the fact that not all of them did actually agree), when calling for the censure of a publication's columnist. The logic seemed to be that he had drifted from the club line, and hence needed to be ejected.

This is why I fear slightly for debate. Because not only do all these factions believe they are 'the ones', there are those (who should know better but with little time to delve more as they should) who are letting this minute little bunch hold even the modicum of sway that they don't deserve. This is no electorate. These are all, by definition, groups of people, admittedly passionate and often clever, who can and will do all they can to see their views prevail.

So even if I see 99 out of a 100 say black to another's white, I will first try and see how they come to this view, and support it objectively, before according it any value. And, in any case, from this very room I can crank up at least a dozen variations of 'me' to say what I think, disagree with it, support it and back again, all with different IP addresses if I wish. So numbers mean nothing. Which is why internet petitions are plain daft.

Take this as a typical comment: 'You types do not get it. The British public regard you ...' on Newsnight, which gets more posts on the naming of a pet than climate change, and can when passions stir manage all of 200 tops (for a national broadcaster), usually from the same suspects (inc. yours truly). Hardly the 'British public', eh?

I will be cutting right back on the pitching in to these troll fests from now on, but will still maintain a watching brief as they can throw up useful leads.

But... accord any of them, even those moderated by major media, more than passing respect as reliable sources of subjective information or reasonably objective opinion...? Or even as anything like a reasonable barometer of how folk really think...?

You are 'aving a larf.

What a relief?

I was never too convinced about it, so I welcome the BBC climate special decision.

What I don't like is how it now plays out.

I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.

But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.

And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.

I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.

Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.

Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.

I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.

A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.

So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.

If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.

ADDENDUM:

I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.

ADDENDUM 2:

This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.

My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.

It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.

Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used

I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:

At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.

Not so sure about elsewhere.

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece

The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm

Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?

I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.

There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).

I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.

Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.

I personally think the climate IS changing.

And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).

Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.

However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.

So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.

And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.

Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.

But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.

So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?

Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off

'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'

If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.

I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.

Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.

I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.

BBC -

"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"

Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece

Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:

The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm

Replete with such choice shared comments as this:

"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'

Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.

Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.

BBC - Relief relief

ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux

Telly addicts

We need a change of climate at the BBC - An interesting commentary from a writer at the Indy.

While the caveat in mitigation seems almost obligatory, but as a fellow 'unbeliever' in the value of 'these great on-air festivals of niceness', I'd prefer to think of reasoned lack of enthusiasm not as being 'grumpy', but rational.

Live Earth, the last great punt of its type, was pants.

This analysis is interesting: '...while they may be good for the Corporation's image and even for ratings, these orgies of public conscience are not raising awareness at all. They are raising emotion. Mass expressions of analysis-free caring, they are essentially mass expressions of faith.'

Especially as it leads to this: 'When faith replaces thought and T-shirt slogans take the place of discussion, then people quite soon are only prepared to hear the message in which they already believe. Any talk of the more difficult issues is regarded as a disguise for apathy, yet another game that cynical politicians like to play.'

There's being done. And there's being seen off in being done.

The bbc-is-biased blog is proving a tad too addictive, especially for my objectivity. But from this thread on some climate wheeze the Beeb has/had, can I really get my jaw of the ground that the head of Ofcom's boss has the CV he does, and yet is expected to oversee this little lot???!

I await confirmation before commenting further.

This, by the way, was my contribution (so far):

If the BBC really is trying to push the climate agenda with the aim of reducing personal environmental footprints on the part of viewers, the choice of Ross is astounding.

His 'performance' during Live Earth (which worked soooo well) was positively cringe worthy to anyone sincere in trying to share positive solutions and/or encourage reasonable self-sacrifice by positive example.

I'm afraid this all smacks/ed of simply yet another celebrity-fest for some local D-listers to play with lots more toys and uber-cool global A-listers in a very exclusive, self-serving crib.

And it's not like Live Earth even cranked up much by way of the great God 'ratings'.

As awareness went, about all I can recall is a Spice who took one week to forget she was ‘doing it all for her baby’ to getting her own private jet on tour in case she and the power sisters had hissy fits (and I’m sure half of the entertainment crew will be flying along for the ride, if they are not up in helicopters over the Antarctic to show us what ‘we’ are doing by er, taking helicopters to visit the Antarctic).

The use of 'celebrity' to promote the notion of restraint is facile. They have nothing but money and time, and the demands of screen time ensure that they have to seen with loads of 'stuff' and in as many exotic locations as possible all of the time. Popping out of the limo to walk a bit or claiming you offset your trips just doesn't cut it. Just one tabloid shot of a Lemar of Siena or Richard Branson in their new Aston, on a beach in Barbados or lighting the touch paper on a tourist spaceship undoes any positive awareness their brief dalliance with ‘doing their bit’ may achieve. The media is totally complicit because it’s a quick and lazy way to look like you are concerned and ‘doing’ something whilst getting the faces that attract the viewers and some backstage cred in the 'green' room. Message is secondary.

Yes, I think we do need to do all we can to understand and educate on what climate change is all about, and what can and should be done to address what ever it is possible and prudent to do to mitigate any adverse affects.

Having another, now possibly to be aborted, party was never going to be it.

Shame about the waste.

CAN ROCK 'N' ROLL SAVE THE PLANET?

For most of the reasons you articulate... no.

Is it any wonder we are cynical when such as a Spice Mum is up there 'doing it for [my] child' and then next week getting a personal jet to tour in 'cos she and the powersisterhood might have a spat en route.

It's not the message (though I think we are beyond needing any more awareness or consciousness raising) but the choice of messengers.

How can one empathise with someone who makes squillions and, with the best will in the world, pretty much would need to be a saint not to use them to consume and/or travel? All supported by a media industry that demands such excess to have stuff worth watching, reporting upon and getting invited along on for the ride.

The reaction to the latest 'we're in with the in-crowd and you're not' ,BBC Green Elite in The VIP Green Room notion, Planet Relief, is but another case in point. At least some news (if not ents) editorial staff are at last questioning their roles in all this.

Damned if you do. Or don't.... Or if I know.

The Beeb gets a rare old bashing these days, not least on these pages and such as this 'does what it says on the tin' blog - biased-bbc - that has often questioned its dedication to quite overt climate change propaganda, and especially some rather dubious proponents with odd agendas). So it was interesting to note this: BBC news chiefs attack plans for climate change campaign

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I have concerns about a retreat from rational discussion (caused, to be sure, by the backlash against massive, and pretty uncritical espousal of anything 'green' no matter what it is , or the enviROI), but then I can only be thankful we might be spared yet more 'awareness' or "consciousness raising" from such as Jonathan Ross. Like his part in Live Earth worked out so well.

This is pretty definite stuff: Asked [by whom, I wonder] whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks said: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it." Mr Barron said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped." I'm not sure what the 'it' is, but I presume that this means the notion of those who think it's the BBC's job to save the planet. There's a lot to read into those words. Pendulums swinging too far the other way, for one.

If Planet Relief appears [wondering how this is that tricky to decided definitively ] to contradict BBC guidelines on impartiality, then that's pretty clear cut. Rules are rules.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But somehow, I don't see the planet, or those upon it, doing too well out this. Ratings maybe. Chattering class forums maybe. Ho hum.

Daily Mail - Why saving Earth is not the BBC's job, by Newsnight boss