The Daily Mail has a bit if a reputation for the.. 'sensational'.
However, I believe that most are able to separate the wheat from the chaff and, at the end of the day, a fact is a fact.
Woman, 91, dies 'after becoming stressed over £16,000 council bill to make her home eco-friendly'
No one seems to be disputing what happened. Indeed why seems pretty clear.
How is another matter.
Presuming the reporting to be accurate, this story, and quote, suggests that we are in an era embodied by such as the notorious Baby P cases' Sharon Shoesmith, who has a fellow mindset that is hard to swallow:
Councillor Zita Wiltshire, the local housing chief, said leaseholders were consulted on charges in 2006 and made aware of how much they would have to pay.
Cllr Wiltshire said: 'We are sympathetic to the concerns of our leaseholders but the council does spell out the detail of the financial obligations imposed upon a lessee in the terms of each right-to-buy lease.'
I presume her index-linked will easily cover all such demands on her once in retirement.
This is not the way to save the planet, or indeed sell the wisdom of all necessary measures to help do so.
Showing posts with label TUSHTISSUE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TUSHTISSUE. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Friday, December 07, 2007
Climate change in the UK
It looks as if climate change is already having an impact on the UK according to a DEFRA report as reviewed by Guardian Unlimited today.
Central England temperatures are reported to have risen by 1C since the 1970's, while 2006 was the warmest recorded year since the first known records in 1659. Also, "sea surface temperatures around the UK coast have risen by about 0.7C over the past three decades."
And they reckon that a 'significant' portion of that warming is down to human activity; but just what does that mean? I just wish that formal reports would give us the real facts and figures, rather than a qualification. What exactly does significant mean? Does it mean 20% of it, or 80% of it?
Addendum/link (Junkk Male)
BBC - All nations 'need emission goals'
Gaurdian - Front-page thrillers
Guardian - Boris, Israel, 9/11 and me - an interesting insight into the possible motivations of the press. You only get paid if you get the numbers. And to get the numbers, you need to stir things up...
Central England temperatures are reported to have risen by 1C since the 1970's, while 2006 was the warmest recorded year since the first known records in 1659. Also, "sea surface temperatures around the UK coast have risen by about 0.7C over the past three decades."
And they reckon that a 'significant' portion of that warming is down to human activity; but just what does that mean? I just wish that formal reports would give us the real facts and figures, rather than a qualification. What exactly does significant mean? Does it mean 20% of it, or 80% of it?
Addendum/link (Junkk Male)
BBC - All nations 'need emission goals'
Gaurdian - Front-page thrillers
Guardian - Boris, Israel, 9/11 and me - an interesting insight into the possible motivations of the press. You only get paid if you get the numbers. And to get the numbers, you need to stir things up...
Monday, December 03, 2007
In politics, a week is a long time. Ten years, however...
I was going to let this pass, but having watched yet another pol dredge for tushtissue into distant history, I simply cannot fail to pass comment.
On the matter of cancer care Alan Johnson, Minister for something or other (there are so many doing so little in so short a time before being 'reassigned' I can't keep up), was on BBC Breakfast this morning trumpeting some 'new' 'initiative' to 'resolve' some woeful state of service provision. And somehow, in a blizzard of stats he was allowed to refer us back to .... the previous administration.
My kids are now eleven.
So for over a decade they have 'moved on', 'looked at' and 'learned from' a lot.
I can't quite figure out how this is a feat that seems so far to have escaped the government who have been in power for the same period, and seems top have decided the best defence is to come out with such utter tripe to justify the hiring of extra hundreds of thousands (articles in the papers at the weekend on just how much our pensions equate to those of MPs (hint: not favourably), and how much of our local taxes goes to the pensions of public service employees) and the blowing of bazillions that have achieved diddly squat.
To put just one area in context as we're equating things with my kids: just 5 years ago they would have been in the world top 3 for literacy. Now, 5 years later and after 10 years of this administration, we're at 15th (source: Daily Mail. I'll live with 'em for facts).
The only mystery to me is how they keep getting away with this for so long, and what motivations are actually still serving to get even the most manipulable examples of the voting public, even those on the juiciest end of the public trough, still seem to plonk their x on the names of such numpties.
On the matter of cancer care Alan Johnson, Minister for something or other (there are so many doing so little in so short a time before being 'reassigned' I can't keep up), was on BBC Breakfast this morning trumpeting some 'new' 'initiative' to 'resolve' some woeful state of service provision. And somehow, in a blizzard of stats he was allowed to refer us back to .... the previous administration.
My kids are now eleven.
So for over a decade they have 'moved on', 'looked at' and 'learned from' a lot.
I can't quite figure out how this is a feat that seems so far to have escaped the government who have been in power for the same period, and seems top have decided the best defence is to come out with such utter tripe to justify the hiring of extra hundreds of thousands (articles in the papers at the weekend on just how much our pensions equate to those of MPs (hint: not favourably), and how much of our local taxes goes to the pensions of public service employees) and the blowing of bazillions that have achieved diddly squat.
To put just one area in context as we're equating things with my kids: just 5 years ago they would have been in the world top 3 for literacy. Now, 5 years later and after 10 years of this administration, we're at 15th (source: Daily Mail. I'll live with 'em for facts).
The only mystery to me is how they keep getting away with this for so long, and what motivations are actually still serving to get even the most manipulable examples of the voting public, even those on the juiciest end of the public trough, still seem to plonk their x on the names of such numpties.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Boogey me... er... atmospheric phenomena
Get used to 'em: Floods force many to face climate change reality
While there is a (pretty valid) school of thought that 'we' need a pretty big 'something' by way of a climatic kick in the pants, I do wonder if pinning everything on 'climate change' isn't going to get to be a common, and convenient, catch-all, and hence lose its effect PDQ.
I don't know for sure, but at the moment I'm guessing that these floods could equally force a few to face the facts of overpopulation, woeful political priorities, disastrous land management practices and even that most awful of all: stuff happens.
Sitting in my room on July trying to figure which water borne menace will get me first - the river coming up or the rain down/sideways - it's hard not to get the feeling that this is all a tad 'odd'. But then it is not, it seems, without historical precedent. Any hence if nature is just doing its funky thing, then all the billion £ claims are more a matter of how many of us there are now, where we were told/allowed to stick our homes, and fill 'em with expensive kit for insurers to try and get out of paying for.
So when I see such as this: "...mechanism may well explain an observed rise in flash floods in Europe over the last decade.." I worry a bit. Especially with the all too wonderful 'may'.
At least this is definitive: '... parts of China have seen the heaviest rainfall since records began,' though I have expressed caution on 'toll' figures bearing in mind our race's spread over the planet. The Boxing Day tsunami killed a lot more than Krakatoa because in those days Swedish tourists were not skinny-bathing in Phuket, and half of India hadn't cut down the mangrove swaps to get a sea view.
I'm no statistician, so I'll go with this: 'This year's UK floods were an event statistical models say should happen once only every 30 to 50 years, Mehlhorn says: the floods in 2000 were a 25-30 years event. Two such events in only seven years are not statistically impossible, but they are unlikely. Other countries have seen similar increases in such disasters.' But again I think it too easy to just say that it's down to what is dropping from the skies and not a lot to do with what it is all dropping on.
And, frankly, one (while critical) is in the future, while the other is now. So while both need addressing, let it be for the right reasons, and not to get a lot of pretty key questions off a load of folk who should be tasked to explain themselves. Because if we don't have the right folk, with the right abilities, and the right motivations in charge of the future... we're screwed.
And that IS scary.
While there is a (pretty valid) school of thought that 'we' need a pretty big 'something' by way of a climatic kick in the pants, I do wonder if pinning everything on 'climate change' isn't going to get to be a common, and convenient, catch-all, and hence lose its effect PDQ.
I don't know for sure, but at the moment I'm guessing that these floods could equally force a few to face the facts of overpopulation, woeful political priorities, disastrous land management practices and even that most awful of all: stuff happens.
Sitting in my room on July trying to figure which water borne menace will get me first - the river coming up or the rain down/sideways - it's hard not to get the feeling that this is all a tad 'odd'. But then it is not, it seems, without historical precedent. Any hence if nature is just doing its funky thing, then all the billion £ claims are more a matter of how many of us there are now, where we were told/allowed to stick our homes, and fill 'em with expensive kit for insurers to try and get out of paying for.
So when I see such as this: "...mechanism may well explain an observed rise in flash floods in Europe over the last decade.." I worry a bit. Especially with the all too wonderful 'may'.
At least this is definitive: '... parts of China have seen the heaviest rainfall since records began,' though I have expressed caution on 'toll' figures bearing in mind our race's spread over the planet. The Boxing Day tsunami killed a lot more than Krakatoa because in those days Swedish tourists were not skinny-bathing in Phuket, and half of India hadn't cut down the mangrove swaps to get a sea view.
I'm no statistician, so I'll go with this: 'This year's UK floods were an event statistical models say should happen once only every 30 to 50 years, Mehlhorn says: the floods in 2000 were a 25-30 years event. Two such events in only seven years are not statistically impossible, but they are unlikely. Other countries have seen similar increases in such disasters.' But again I think it too easy to just say that it's down to what is dropping from the skies and not a lot to do with what it is all dropping on.
And, frankly, one (while critical) is in the future, while the other is now. So while both need addressing, let it be for the right reasons, and not to get a lot of pretty key questions off a load of folk who should be tasked to explain themselves. Because if we don't have the right folk, with the right abilities, and the right motivations in charge of the future... we're screwed.
And that IS scary.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Vague on solving problems. Vague of the causes of problems.
A committee of MPs not only thought the Iran 'M/marine' affair was mishandled, but seemed unable to locate anyone who was to blame for decisions made all the way up the chain.
This is what I switched on Breakfast TV to find out. No one is to blame any more. And it's 'wholly unsatisfactory'. That'll have all of 'em quaking.
Moving on to a more immediate, and topical issue. Flooding.
Baroness Young of the Environment Agency is wheeled on to explain why a bunch of folk are sitting on their roofs, either not protected or not assisted in good order.
What struck me first was the reasons. There have not been floods like this 'in 200 years'. And a lot of it was down to significant 'run'off'. Hmmn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not had a bunch of officials banging on for a wee while about climate change, with vast amounts of time and energy being 'invested' in campaigns to get us to 'think' about such huge issues as plastic bags. So they were/are aware that some stinky stuff was/is going to happen. Yet the main thing I seem to be hearing is that it is all 'unprecedented'.
Well, at least since 200 years ago, when climate change was what happened four times a year and you just made sure the crops got rotated properly to cope. As opposed to sticking a supermarket carpark on top of them. You'd think they'd have figured it was not only going to happen again, but be even more serious - As Mr. Brown has said: '[they] have to learn lessons for the future'. Like so much else, it all is such a big surprise after the last 10 years being the number 2 in cabinet, I suppose.
Today, I shall be mostly figuring out how to protect my home from the possibility that no one will be responsible/accountable for the fact that the Wye (or more likely run-off from the hills surrounding it) may do what it has done over the millenia (note to EA and my insurers: despite your warning letter, my house has never been flooded before).
You know what? Instead of flood defences, I think we need another really useful, award-winning campaign. All supported by a bloated system of over-staffed, contradictory agencies to ensure that whatever happens (or doesn't), it's no one's fault.
I just watched Peter Sissons take apart a Labour apologist on her attempt to excuse it all away as an 'Act of God'.... well, done!
As I close, our new Environment Minister is due to explain. Can't wait.
ADDENDUM -
Watching now. He doesn't accept that anything was bungled. Asked a direct question, he didn't answer as to who was in charge. A trend at play here. But we get a nonsense appeal to big up the 'moppers uppers' in the emergency services. These are guys at the sharp end. Maybe the guys at the fat end need to explain why they, and those they were deployed to aid, were put at risk in the first place. And fudges on whether the £15M cut from the budget last year was from capital or elsewhere is just a weasel. Note that amount... to cope with flooding infrastructure for the UK. And weight it against the budget for several different 'awareness ' campaigns'.
On the point of building on flood plains, it seems that now they will take it into account. Only... now?
Telegraph - Flood failures: Ministers 'mishandled crisis'
Telegraph - Prevention, not cure
BBC - One family's M5 nightmare - 4x4's.... cause or coping tool? Can a Prius float?
BBC - Benn defends response to flooding - Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has defended the government's response to the floods, although he accepted there were "lessons to be learned" - As well??? Is it a government of parrots?
Times - Families to foot bill for £2.5bn floods - Well, you wouldn't expect the clowns repsonsible to, would you?
This is what I switched on Breakfast TV to find out. No one is to blame any more. And it's 'wholly unsatisfactory'. That'll have all of 'em quaking.
Moving on to a more immediate, and topical issue. Flooding.
Baroness Young of the Environment Agency is wheeled on to explain why a bunch of folk are sitting on their roofs, either not protected or not assisted in good order.
What struck me first was the reasons. There have not been floods like this 'in 200 years'. And a lot of it was down to significant 'run'off'. Hmmn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not had a bunch of officials banging on for a wee while about climate change, with vast amounts of time and energy being 'invested' in campaigns to get us to 'think' about such huge issues as plastic bags. So they were/are aware that some stinky stuff was/is going to happen. Yet the main thing I seem to be hearing is that it is all 'unprecedented'.
Well, at least since 200 years ago, when climate change was what happened four times a year and you just made sure the crops got rotated properly to cope. As opposed to sticking a supermarket carpark on top of them. You'd think they'd have figured it was not only going to happen again, but be even more serious - As Mr. Brown has said: '[they] have to learn lessons for the future'. Like so much else, it all is such a big surprise after the last 10 years being the number 2 in cabinet, I suppose.
Today, I shall be mostly figuring out how to protect my home from the possibility that no one will be responsible/accountable for the fact that the Wye (or more likely run-off from the hills surrounding it) may do what it has done over the millenia (note to EA and my insurers: despite your warning letter, my house has never been flooded before).
You know what? Instead of flood defences, I think we need another really useful, award-winning campaign. All supported by a bloated system of over-staffed, contradictory agencies to ensure that whatever happens (or doesn't), it's no one's fault.
I just watched Peter Sissons take apart a Labour apologist on her attempt to excuse it all away as an 'Act of God'.... well, done!
As I close, our new Environment Minister is due to explain. Can't wait.
ADDENDUM -
Watching now. He doesn't accept that anything was bungled. Asked a direct question, he didn't answer as to who was in charge. A trend at play here. But we get a nonsense appeal to big up the 'moppers uppers' in the emergency services. These are guys at the sharp end. Maybe the guys at the fat end need to explain why they, and those they were deployed to aid, were put at risk in the first place. And fudges on whether the £15M cut from the budget last year was from capital or elsewhere is just a weasel. Note that amount... to cope with flooding infrastructure for the UK. And weight it against the budget for several different 'awareness ' campaigns'.
On the point of building on flood plains, it seems that now they will take it into account. Only... now?
Telegraph - Flood failures: Ministers 'mishandled crisis'
Telegraph - Prevention, not cure
BBC - One family's M5 nightmare - 4x4's.... cause or coping tool? Can a Prius float?
BBC - Benn defends response to flooding - Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has defended the government's response to the floods, although he accepted there were "lessons to be learned" - As well??? Is it a government of parrots?
Times - Families to foot bill for £2.5bn floods - Well, you wouldn't expect the clowns repsonsible to, would you?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Door show
Trust?
Look... there... a framed orifice through which you can pass from one place to another.
Apparently, from now on, if anyone in the BBC does something 'naughty' (my flip word for a broad tranche of policy, journalistic and editorial 'lapses'), they will be 'shown the door'.
So says an evidently irritated DG, Mark Thompson, who looks like he has much better things to do than deal with the public's views on his outfit. Apparently this is how trust will be regained. A fair task, given what's in this blog and the papers today. And will putting staff on a course (I presume at the licence payers expense) resolve this... I doubt it. And truly resent wasting such funds on a mop up which is more of a backside covering effort of tissuelike thinness than anything tangible. As are allusions to compensation. Using what mechanisms? What money? From where? To whom?
However, in the spirit of 'moving on', which is the phrase du jour of all senior (and, in the old days, responsible/accountable) executives/pols, it looks like this will be the latest free pass bestowed on all complicit in misleading the viewing public. And if that is the case again, why on earth should anyone trust anything said or done in the future.
While charitable financial dodginess is bad enough, I can't help but note that we have also moved from what in many ways I see as a much more critical issue to address, and that is the notion, which seems endemic and to pervade every level of the organisation, that reality and truth are entirely adjustable to improve ratin... er... the story.
In a cosy fire side chat with the boss, some quite remarkable things are covered and, essentially, dismissed.
I think I heard the word unacceptable several times. It becomes rather meaningless if in the same breaths it becomes pretty clear a lot has been and is accepted.
Short term contracts and pressure/ may be reasons, but they are not excuses. And while they can be responsible for a lot of things, they can surely not be held accountable for swapping critical chronologies in news items to 'enhance reality'... in the name of what? It is only now that I find out that reordering is 'not good practice'. It blooming well is a darn site more than that if it changes meaning, or has the DG not read the posts on this blog on the matter.
So there is a duty to have an 'eye to the culture'. Do what? And, er, only now? And an 'eye' will really sort it, for sure.
Great play was also made of how open 'they' are all being now. You know, if George Washington was not found standing next to that felled tree with an axe, one wonders just how open he would have been if not challenged. It's all being treated as a bit of a one off that will blow over, which of course it will.
We get the obligatory resignation question, with the standard 'best for the person who got us in this situation to dig us out of it and prevent future repeats' reply, which worked so well for Charles Clarke.
If these things happen, and they are not for 'personal gain', why do it? Of course it is for personal gain, because you gain personally from the salary and status of your career. And to progress that means satisfying the demands of your job, which means your superiors. It's hardly anything to do with training or lack of it... it is policy. Yet again we are seeing those at the sharp end being used as a buffer and deflection from those above who are really responsible and should be accountable, and then 'sacrificed' (and then pardoned) with a 'jolly good telling to' on an internal basis.
This is not a one off. It has been a whole series, and in a short time. And nothing I have heard or seen leads me to suspect that anything has or will be done beyond short-term damage limitation.
And that's all we have time for. Moving on...
Trust? Don't talk to me about trust.
Indy - BBC reveals further cases of fake phone-ins -
Indy - When broadcasters become the news
There will be more, I'm sure...
BBC - BBC boss backed in phone scandal - Well, there's a shock
Creative Match - BBC confess to 'disrespecting the audience' in phone in scam
What worries me as much, is how the 'issue' has now moved onto the equally (if not legally/financially even more) significant area of phone-ins, but we have 'moved on' (key phrase of any senior exec trying to protect tushie) from the fact that a) the truth is out there... waaaaaay out there... and b) the odd notion that there's no much wrong with a little 'enhanced reality (ie: outright fabrication) between feral fiends of the media and the public in this new Big Brother short-contract, high pressure, yoof-media 'professional' age.
I used to, only half-jokingly, write that something I read was on the BBC 'so it must be true'. Oh, the irony.
Gaurdian - Comic Relief among shows that deceived BBC viewers
Gaurdian - Trust angry over charity appeal lies
Guardian - Ofcom gets tough and says broadcasters are in denial - ya think???!
Guardian - Newsdesk notes for Thursday July 19
Guardian - Does the BBC deserve its public "shaming"?
Guardian - Don't believe all you see on TV - I think they'r ekeen on this!
I couldn't face the Tabs and Tories, as I rather suspect they will be a tad to the right of my own thinking only with a slight whiff of 'holier than thou'.
Indy - In defence of the BBC - Well it does need it a bit. Plus several side bar links worth scoping
I find this telling, though: Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, resisted calls from Conservative MPs for the Government to intervene. She told the House of Commons: "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."
I felt moved to write under the heading 'Apples. Oranges. And Lemons':
Excuse me? Harriet Harman says "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."
Our local plod have tried to excuse their inability to properly police crime by pointing out resources are tight and anyway it is a lot worse elsewhere. That's like me trying to get off a speeding conviction by saying other folk are going faster.
And one small, additional, point. Who pays... er, gets forced to pay for the BBC?
Guardian - When they stop calling - Positively Clintonian. It's 'enhancing' the truth; not lying.
Guardian - So the BBC is a subversive leftwing conspiracy? You could have fooled me
As is too often the case, we seem to be being presented a rather stark 'either/or' here.
As has been pointed out, certain distractions, now followed by near apocalyptic warnings, have rather managed to drown out the fact that some people up the executive chain in the BBC decided that telling the truth needed some enhancement. In short, portraying some things as real that were not. Which is, apparently, different to lying. Just like taking money under false pretences now seems not to be fraud.
And, in so doing, using whose money?
What I'm seeing is an attempt to blow this out of all proportion to arrange a major puff of smoke, around which mirrors will be rearranged, things will 'move on' and nothing will actually change.
Until the next time.
Maybe, just maybe, we nail down who did what, and if it was wrong hold them properly accountable?
Marketing Week - The commercial uses of BBC abuses - a worthy analysis of who should really be looked at more thoroughly in all this.
Look... there... a framed orifice through which you can pass from one place to another.
Apparently, from now on, if anyone in the BBC does something 'naughty' (my flip word for a broad tranche of policy, journalistic and editorial 'lapses'), they will be 'shown the door'.
So says an evidently irritated DG, Mark Thompson, who looks like he has much better things to do than deal with the public's views on his outfit. Apparently this is how trust will be regained. A fair task, given what's in this blog and the papers today. And will putting staff on a course (I presume at the licence payers expense) resolve this... I doubt it. And truly resent wasting such funds on a mop up which is more of a backside covering effort of tissuelike thinness than anything tangible. As are allusions to compensation. Using what mechanisms? What money? From where? To whom?
However, in the spirit of 'moving on', which is the phrase du jour of all senior (and, in the old days, responsible/accountable) executives/pols, it looks like this will be the latest free pass bestowed on all complicit in misleading the viewing public. And if that is the case again, why on earth should anyone trust anything said or done in the future.
While charitable financial dodginess is bad enough, I can't help but note that we have also moved from what in many ways I see as a much more critical issue to address, and that is the notion, which seems endemic and to pervade every level of the organisation, that reality and truth are entirely adjustable to improve ratin... er... the story.
In a cosy fire side chat with the boss, some quite remarkable things are covered and, essentially, dismissed.
I think I heard the word unacceptable several times. It becomes rather meaningless if in the same breaths it becomes pretty clear a lot has been and is accepted.
Short term contracts and pressure/ may be reasons, but they are not excuses. And while they can be responsible for a lot of things, they can surely not be held accountable for swapping critical chronologies in news items to 'enhance reality'... in the name of what? It is only now that I find out that reordering is 'not good practice'. It blooming well is a darn site more than that if it changes meaning, or has the DG not read the posts on this blog on the matter.
So there is a duty to have an 'eye to the culture'. Do what? And, er, only now? And an 'eye' will really sort it, for sure.
Great play was also made of how open 'they' are all being now. You know, if George Washington was not found standing next to that felled tree with an axe, one wonders just how open he would have been if not challenged. It's all being treated as a bit of a one off that will blow over, which of course it will.
We get the obligatory resignation question, with the standard 'best for the person who got us in this situation to dig us out of it and prevent future repeats' reply, which worked so well for Charles Clarke.
If these things happen, and they are not for 'personal gain', why do it? Of course it is for personal gain, because you gain personally from the salary and status of your career. And to progress that means satisfying the demands of your job, which means your superiors. It's hardly anything to do with training or lack of it... it is policy. Yet again we are seeing those at the sharp end being used as a buffer and deflection from those above who are really responsible and should be accountable, and then 'sacrificed' (and then pardoned) with a 'jolly good telling to' on an internal basis.
This is not a one off. It has been a whole series, and in a short time. And nothing I have heard or seen leads me to suspect that anything has or will be done beyond short-term damage limitation.
And that's all we have time for. Moving on...
Trust? Don't talk to me about trust.
Indy - BBC reveals further cases of fake phone-ins -
Indy - When broadcasters become the news
There will be more, I'm sure...
BBC - BBC boss backed in phone scandal - Well, there's a shock
Creative Match - BBC confess to 'disrespecting the audience' in phone in scam
What worries me as much, is how the 'issue' has now moved onto the equally (if not legally/financially even more) significant area of phone-ins, but we have 'moved on' (key phrase of any senior exec trying to protect tushie) from the fact that a) the truth is out there... waaaaaay out there... and b) the odd notion that there's no much wrong with a little 'enhanced reality (ie: outright fabrication) between feral fiends of the media and the public in this new Big Brother short-contract, high pressure, yoof-media 'professional' age.
I used to, only half-jokingly, write that something I read was on the BBC 'so it must be true'. Oh, the irony.
Gaurdian - Comic Relief among shows that deceived BBC viewers
Gaurdian - Trust angry over charity appeal lies
Guardian - Ofcom gets tough and says broadcasters are in denial - ya think???!
Guardian - Newsdesk notes for Thursday July 19
Guardian - Does the BBC deserve its public "shaming"?
Guardian - Don't believe all you see on TV - I think they'r ekeen on this!
I couldn't face the Tabs and Tories, as I rather suspect they will be a tad to the right of my own thinking only with a slight whiff of 'holier than thou'.
Indy - In defence of the BBC - Well it does need it a bit. Plus several side bar links worth scoping
I find this telling, though: Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, resisted calls from Conservative MPs for the Government to intervene. She told the House of Commons: "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."
I felt moved to write under the heading 'Apples. Oranges. And Lemons':
Excuse me? Harriet Harman says "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."
Our local plod have tried to excuse their inability to properly police crime by pointing out resources are tight and anyway it is a lot worse elsewhere. That's like me trying to get off a speeding conviction by saying other folk are going faster.
And one small, additional, point. Who pays... er, gets forced to pay for the BBC?
Guardian - When they stop calling - Positively Clintonian. It's 'enhancing' the truth; not lying.
Guardian - So the BBC is a subversive leftwing conspiracy? You could have fooled me
As is too often the case, we seem to be being presented a rather stark 'either/or' here.
As has been pointed out, certain distractions, now followed by near apocalyptic warnings, have rather managed to drown out the fact that some people up the executive chain in the BBC decided that telling the truth needed some enhancement. In short, portraying some things as real that were not. Which is, apparently, different to lying. Just like taking money under false pretences now seems not to be fraud.
And, in so doing, using whose money?
What I'm seeing is an attempt to blow this out of all proportion to arrange a major puff of smoke, around which mirrors will be rearranged, things will 'move on' and nothing will actually change.
Until the next time.
Maybe, just maybe, we nail down who did what, and if it was wrong hold them properly accountable?
Marketing Week - The commercial uses of BBC abuses - a worthy analysis of who should really be looked at more thoroughly in all this.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Edit, or?
This from Newsday, or is it night (it seems they can now be one in the same)? The Queen and the BBC
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Saturday, February 17, 2007
tushtissue.info
Last night I did not go out for my Friday pint or two.
So I decided to invest what I would have spent on yet another website. Tushtissue is dedicated to all those who seek to paper over the cracks only enough to cover their own sweet selves and careers with meaningless action, but are not too concerned with actually doing anything that will make any difference than looking like you are acting.
It has been inspired by this morning watching the news media packed with pictures and interviews of pols, police and all sorts of other talking heads rushing around being interviewed and wearing nice outfits as a response to some high-profile, low-surprise murders with guns - as opposed to all the other much safer ways there are to get dead if anyone wishes to so commit such a crime, especially if the perpetrators are not complete cretins and have the patience to wait about a week 'til the police O/T budgets runs out, and the media get bored enough to move to more productive areas of outrage.
Tushtissue can apply across most areas of public protection and concern, including the environment, of course.
I have, at present, NO IDEA what form the design of this site will take, but have in mind some kind of graph (the logo is sweeeet) that tracks various public events along with the official response and resource commitment, as well as that of the media, etc as time progresses.
I'm guessing a peak for a few days on the latter, maybe a month on the former, followed by a slow tail-off on both. Until the next.
Best use of funds (I mean my £5 - there's a chance a wee bit more has been blown on what we're tracking already)? Let the viewer decide.
Anyone fancy working on it with me?
BBC - Man dies after new gun killing
So I decided to invest what I would have spent on yet another website. Tushtissue is dedicated to all those who seek to paper over the cracks only enough to cover their own sweet selves and careers with meaningless action, but are not too concerned with actually doing anything that will make any difference than looking like you are acting.
It has been inspired by this morning watching the news media packed with pictures and interviews of pols, police and all sorts of other talking heads rushing around being interviewed and wearing nice outfits as a response to some high-profile, low-surprise murders with guns - as opposed to all the other much safer ways there are to get dead if anyone wishes to so commit such a crime, especially if the perpetrators are not complete cretins and have the patience to wait about a week 'til the police O/T budgets runs out, and the media get bored enough to move to more productive areas of outrage.
Tushtissue can apply across most areas of public protection and concern, including the environment, of course.
I have, at present, NO IDEA what form the design of this site will take, but have in mind some kind of graph (the logo is sweeeet) that tracks various public events along with the official response and resource commitment, as well as that of the media, etc as time progresses.
I'm guessing a peak for a few days on the latter, maybe a month on the former, followed by a slow tail-off on both. Until the next.
Best use of funds (I mean my £5 - there's a chance a wee bit more has been blown on what we're tracking already)? Let the viewer decide.
Anyone fancy working on it with me?
BBC - Man dies after new gun killing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)