Or... here's somebodies we flew in earlier: Bono and Gore have an answer, not a solution
Eco(nomic) development vs. Eco(logical) preservation.
Hmmn. Tricky.
Sadly I have to agree that with a growing global population with some major concentrations about to make the leap from 3rd to 1st world (is there a second? I never seem to hear of that stage) status (with all the aspirations and consequences that will bring) I can't see the result being that great for the latter.
So, like many, I have a lot of questions, a load of answers... and precious few solutions (well, a couple that do try to involve motivating and doing, rather than depressing and berating) that at least that have a political ice cube's chance in the sheer hell of a Bali post-conference poolside cocktail. Or a refugee overnighting in a Davos storm drain.
Thing is, I rather suspect there are quite a lot of others in the same boa... er... cattle class... er... business... er... first... er... private plane seat, all with same lack of tangibles to provide. It does now provide a nice little earner for an ever-growing cabal.
But having too long been fed a domestic diet of 'not acceptable', 'needs looking at' and 'won't be easy' by those addicted to gobbling down and squandering funds into holes of various hues (most lately green ones on endless quango comms budgets to tell us to do stuff as consumers - or else - which the systems have not yet been prepared to accommodate to a decent enviROI+), I'm a tad tired with yet more pointless wittering from those totally isolated from any consequences of anything. And those camp followers chasing them about the globe with a vested interest in not rocking the gravy train, comortably along for the ride in the observation carriages
So I have to agree with such as Post 8, Mr. McGilloway, that whatever messages do get spouted, we need a new breed of messenger PDQ. Because if they have lost me, then what effect their 'situations' and how they get portrayed by the inevitable cynical mechanisms that exist (so you now need to work with this fact, which is why you don't hire Pete and Kate to front a health lifestyle campaign) in this modern age has on much lite-er greens can only be imagined.
One has to presume their sincerity and applaud their commitment (nice not to have to worry too much about paying the rent, mind, but hey), but it does seem that there are mental blocks in place in pondering if they are really getting things across to the masses in the best ways possible, and not just pandering incestuously more to their mates behind the VIP Green Room velvet ropes? Warm and fuzzy, to be sure, but not making my kids' futures look any rosier, I'm afraid.
So yes, these two talking about, much less commenting upon cutting back on lifestyle excesses does indeed seem a stretch to empathise, and engage with if you are more Fiesta Family than 'One of my other car's is a Prius' Person.
And they are more than pandered to by an equally illogical, nannying media, who seem to be operating on set agenda and box-ticking mode in trotting out anything 'green' without thought, and yet to see no irony in flying en masse to the snowy wastes to see if they can find a melting glacier, or Tuvalu to dip a toe in the azure rising waters and solemnly intone to camera...' and it's you lot flying EasyJet who are to blame.'
Acts. Together. Get.
Houses. In. Order. First.
And if not 'practical' as in Tony 'Well, y'know, it's not really practical for the likes of me not to... as I have a stonking mortgage to feed [like the rest of us don't]' Blair, then step out of the frame and leave it to leaders who can lead by examples worth following.
Until then, I reckon this lot are just knocking back even further the chances of any coherent, rational, public changes in opinion and/or consequent behaviour.
This addiction to 'awareness' without also thoroughly assessing overall consequences is looking increasingly more short-sighted and self-serving the more we get fed it.
ADDENDUM - I don't know if it is a Mac thing (it's better but not 100% on a PC), but the BBC site is woeful in getting replies through these days. Either an error message or rejection. And then, just for good measure, it either has missed or hasn't so you end up duplicating!
Showing posts with label DAVOS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DAVOS. Show all posts
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
A debate worth having
I'm copping out here: SHOULD WE STOP CARING ABOUT GROWTH?
From the tag I have given it you'll see that it's an issue that needs focusing upon: (Eco)nomy vs. (when the naive hope would be 'with') (Eco)logy (well, Environment, but I'm playing with common spellings).
I don't know enough to really comment sensibly. The two do seem relatively hard to reconcile, especially in the face of growing populations, 3rd World countries turning 1st (is there a second?) and watching the coverage of Davos so hard on the heels of Bali. Apparently Al Gore is lobbing up.
So yes, a debate worth having. The conclusions will be... interesting.
I just hope they are worthwhile and don't represent an exercise in hamster-like wheel spinning that only serves those within the wheel who at least get paid to talk and report on the talking.
I just heard Aunty's reporter call them the 'Great and good'. Hmmn. The cars looked great and the bubbly looked good at all the parties, for sure.
From the tag I have given it you'll see that it's an issue that needs focusing upon: (Eco)nomy vs. (when the naive hope would be 'with') (Eco)logy (well, Environment, but I'm playing with common spellings).
I don't know enough to really comment sensibly. The two do seem relatively hard to reconcile, especially in the face of growing populations, 3rd World countries turning 1st (is there a second?) and watching the coverage of Davos so hard on the heels of Bali. Apparently Al Gore is lobbing up.
So yes, a debate worth having. The conclusions will be... interesting.
I just hope they are worthwhile and don't represent an exercise in hamster-like wheel spinning that only serves those within the wheel who at least get paid to talk and report on the talking.
I just heard Aunty's reporter call them the 'Great and good'. Hmmn. The cars looked great and the bubbly looked good at all the parties, for sure.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Repitition for effect, the sequel
Newsnight - Tuesday, 20 February, 2007
I'm repeating this as Newsnight is stretching the issue of the Petition over a few days (Very amusing Mr. D Ringer). And there are related matters on the environment to follow (cars do use oil right?)
As it has come up again here (6. Mr. G Edwards) , I'd like to add one more to my list of questions I posed yesterday, as it is a good one and I don't seem to have heard one word by way of an answer on this throughout the 'debate' (that's where people answer other's questions and not just those they fancy, right? And moderators ensure they do, and are truthful, right? Not deny, misinform or stay silent, right?).
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
I'm afraid to answer a previous poster I am having trouble with the current administration's abilities and record in translating revenue into result without 99% going on logistics.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Qu: Where is the place that says that by signing the email I would be exposed unilateral responses by what is, in essence, unsolicited, unanswerable (would I get a reply) mass email methods? Was this not a major critique of the methods used (without the benefit of a single database) by the pro-'lobby' as this played out over the last few weeks.
It's very hard to trust anything... when you don't believe anything any more.
I want sensible, fair, open, practical, cost-effective, fully future-proof enviROI steps taken to secure my kid's and their kids' lives and livelihoods. If road-pricing is part and parcel, so be it.
But not organised from a bunker in, for and by London.
On other matters....
ps: Interesting the comment/critique in the Ethical Man slot: 'What have you learned in the last year?'. It rather begs the next few:
1) With all the support (free kit, per diems, ex's etc) to get set-up with much that will save money as well as planet if capital costs are ignored (and most of us likely can't, when all's said and done), what have those of us without BBC-cred access to the Green Room at Climate Aid/Global Cool learned?
2) And as it seems you are on the last stretch, what will be retained, by way of capital kit and ongoing 'do-without' practices?
For instance, it sure helps a bit that the Bishop of London is taking over the mantle of one-year no-flying zzzzz-oh-how-good-an-example-izzat?, but it's really not so effective if the UK population does it as an annual relay (or does this just apply to celebs and green elites?).
pps: I was about to groan as Mr. Miliband went into full 'Oh golly, it's a question... duck and dive mode, now' when cocktail-stepped on Big Oil, and the 'It depends, we'll need to look into it..' defence brought out was looking typical, if tired. But I thought he recovered well.
Just... was his answer accurate? Maybe the bosses of Shell and BP, etc could provide an answer every bit as slick as the one they did to John Humphrys at Davos, to the same level of journalistic challenge and insight
Pretty please:)
ADDENDUM:
I guess it has passed from media interest already, and don't know how many revisit these pages over subsequent days, but following Newsnight's piece earlier in the week I was wondering if anyone else watched Dr. Ladyman's webcast on the road petition this day?
Actually, in addition to a few other questions that seem a bit shy on coherent answers, I am still wondering who of the two guests were correct on the matter of what was or what was not said by Dr. Ladyman at the outset of this issue: him or the Sun chap?
When the latter says it is on record and the former says it is not, I really like to know.
Telegraph - Blair to defy 1.8m who signed road petition
(Didn't feel like adding my 2p as it has been a long day, there are 147 at last count and they are a tad selective)
Telegraph - What have the past 10 years of Blair been for?
Just for this: 'But the extra taxes we have paid have been wasted, not least in putting 700,000 socially unproductive people on the public payroll, where they can gratefully vote for Gordon Brown in perpetuity'.
Buying votes? That's like buying positions in roles in the process of government.
Surely this is not possible in a democracy, with an effective opposition... er...oh.
Will the last person who trusts this leadership please switch out the.... click....
Telegraph - What's the real cost of congestion?
I'm already limbering up with all my questions for tomorrow's man-to-1.8M 'webcast' tomorrow.
Now, what are the odds?
I see a few more things getting busted tomorrow, along with a few - as you have pointed out - still unanswered 'myths'.
I would just be happy to know how you charge someone fairly, in London or out, for a journey that 'will not be tracked'.
But then, I am just a poor tool in the sway of those evil petitioner-pushers and am unable to understand what lies... er.. behind the self-evident truths and less evident between-the-lines fudges of 'the mighty email', which in no way is a spam campaign trying to twist the result.
If that was the best the finest brains in the Dept. of Hype 'n Spin under Wee Wully MacGoebbels (why are they all Scots??) could manage in the weeks they have had to prepare, then gawd help them as the revolution comes.
Guardian - That email
Telegraph - No 10's road toll reply ducks tax cut guarantee - there's a wonder. A few other areas dodged, too.
I'm repeating this as Newsnight is stretching the issue of the Petition over a few days (Very amusing Mr. D Ringer). And there are related matters on the environment to follow (cars do use oil right?)
As it has come up again here (6. Mr. G Edwards) , I'd like to add one more to my list of questions I posed yesterday, as it is a good one and I don't seem to have heard one word by way of an answer on this throughout the 'debate' (that's where people answer other's questions and not just those they fancy, right? And moderators ensure they do, and are truthful, right? Not deny, misinform or stay silent, right?).
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
I'm afraid to answer a previous poster I am having trouble with the current administration's abilities and record in translating revenue into result without 99% going on logistics.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Qu: Where is the place that says that by signing the email I would be exposed unilateral responses by what is, in essence, unsolicited, unanswerable (would I get a reply) mass email methods? Was this not a major critique of the methods used (without the benefit of a single database) by the pro-'lobby' as this played out over the last few weeks.
It's very hard to trust anything... when you don't believe anything any more.
I want sensible, fair, open, practical, cost-effective, fully future-proof enviROI steps taken to secure my kid's and their kids' lives and livelihoods. If road-pricing is part and parcel, so be it.
But not organised from a bunker in, for and by London.
On other matters....
ps: Interesting the comment/critique in the Ethical Man slot: 'What have you learned in the last year?'. It rather begs the next few:
1) With all the support (free kit, per diems, ex's etc) to get set-up with much that will save money as well as planet if capital costs are ignored (and most of us likely can't, when all's said and done), what have those of us without BBC-cred access to the Green Room at Climate Aid/Global Cool learned?
2) And as it seems you are on the last stretch, what will be retained, by way of capital kit and ongoing 'do-without' practices?
For instance, it sure helps a bit that the Bishop of London is taking over the mantle of one-year no-flying zzzzz-oh-how-good-an-example-izzat?, but it's really not so effective if the UK population does it as an annual relay (or does this just apply to celebs and green elites?).
pps: I was about to groan as Mr. Miliband went into full 'Oh golly, it's a question... duck and dive mode, now' when cocktail-stepped on Big Oil, and the 'It depends, we'll need to look into it..' defence brought out was looking typical, if tired. But I thought he recovered well.
Just... was his answer accurate? Maybe the bosses of Shell and BP, etc could provide an answer every bit as slick as the one they did to John Humphrys at Davos, to the same level of journalistic challenge and insight
Pretty please:)
ADDENDUM:
I guess it has passed from media interest already, and don't know how many revisit these pages over subsequent days, but following Newsnight's piece earlier in the week I was wondering if anyone else watched Dr. Ladyman's webcast on the road petition this day?
Actually, in addition to a few other questions that seem a bit shy on coherent answers, I am still wondering who of the two guests were correct on the matter of what was or what was not said by Dr. Ladyman at the outset of this issue: him or the Sun chap?
When the latter says it is on record and the former says it is not, I really like to know.
Telegraph - Blair to defy 1.8m who signed road petition
(Didn't feel like adding my 2p as it has been a long day, there are 147 at last count and they are a tad selective)
Telegraph - What have the past 10 years of Blair been for?
Just for this: 'But the extra taxes we have paid have been wasted, not least in putting 700,000 socially unproductive people on the public payroll, where they can gratefully vote for Gordon Brown in perpetuity'.
Buying votes? That's like buying positions in roles in the process of government.
Surely this is not possible in a democracy, with an effective opposition... er...oh.
Will the last person who trusts this leadership please switch out the.... click....
Telegraph - What's the real cost of congestion?
I'm already limbering up with all my questions for tomorrow's man-to-1.8M 'webcast' tomorrow.
Now, what are the odds?
I see a few more things getting busted tomorrow, along with a few - as you have pointed out - still unanswered 'myths'.
I would just be happy to know how you charge someone fairly, in London or out, for a journey that 'will not be tracked'.
But then, I am just a poor tool in the sway of those evil petitioner-pushers and am unable to understand what lies... er.. behind the self-evident truths and less evident between-the-lines fudges of 'the mighty email', which in no way is a spam campaign trying to twist the result.
If that was the best the finest brains in the Dept. of Hype 'n Spin under Wee Wully MacGoebbels (why are they all Scots??) could manage in the weeks they have had to prepare, then gawd help them as the revolution comes.
Guardian - That email
Telegraph - No 10's road toll reply ducks tax cut guarantee - there's a wonder. A few other areas dodged, too.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A lingering whiff of Davosness still in the air
Turning tides
'The message, it seems, has finally gotten through: global warming represents a serious threat to our planet. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, world leaders saw climate change, for the first time, topping the list of global concerns.'
Topping? While it may have made it above whether or not to have the rose with the airflown strawberries, I'm not sure I read anywhere that it topped very much of anything, other than deciding it's time for one and all (pols, NGOs, biz, media) to move beyond mere rhetoric and act... as in how many acts are there in this farce?
I listened to John Humphrys' interview for Today with 3 of the 'top business leaders' - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html - and came away aghast. If that is what passes for leadership, Davos-styly now, we are toast.
'The message, it seems, has finally gotten through: global warming represents a serious threat to our planet. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, world leaders saw climate change, for the first time, topping the list of global concerns.'
Topping? While it may have made it above whether or not to have the rose with the airflown strawberries, I'm not sure I read anywhere that it topped very much of anything, other than deciding it's time for one and all (pols, NGOs, biz, media) to move beyond mere rhetoric and act... as in how many acts are there in this farce?
I listened to John Humphrys' interview for Today with 3 of the 'top business leaders' - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html - and came away aghast. If that is what passes for leadership, Davos-styly now, we are toast.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Enjoy Today. Tomorrow is looking a lot iffier.
I have a last listened to the Today slot I was told about on Saturday morning (8.10am).
It is one of the scariest things I've heard.
John Humphrys in a cosy get-together with some of the world's 'leading' 'businessmen', at what sounds like a dinner table, watched by a clubby audience (there's a mental image - imagine them watched by starving kids through glass) in Davos.
I don't know if there's a download, but here's the link while it's good. Listen!
I will review it again to be sure, but I counted at least three top bods, from Shell, Pepsi and Nestle.
Two sounded Northern European and one American. I think I can hold my Brit head higher ('til they interview one of this country's hotshots and he mouth's off the same).
The questions were mild, but their answers were facile, with no excuse, no mitigation and no explanation other than if they didn't do what they did people wouldn't buy it. If your audience is dead they may not be buying much soon. And whatever priorities others may have (AIDS patients, etc) that were raised by way of putting their obligations to the future lower on the totem, it was just so much green-won't-wash.
One even tried to separate climate change (not a problem in his eyes) with what he thought was a problem: water shortage! Er... where does potable water come from? Or not, as in Australia, currently? Perrier mines?
Another tried to equate horse-traffic to car-traffic. It was like listening to a kid playing with a fun, rude fact. What on earth has horse manure in 1890 got to do with a few more billion people now driving cars and emitting greenhouse gases!!!! Yes, science and commerce made life 'better', and now it looks like it may be making things worse. It needs a correction.
And somehow what happened in Greenland 1,000 years ago naturally makes what is happening now OK? Er, no. We have 6 billion, and growing, people, trying to survive on limited resources, and making it all worse exponentially.
Another claimed his bottling was all returnable glass. Well, until corrected. Now, what is 'most'?
If they think all that they came out with is sustainable, then I fear for their reading of a balance sheet.
And my kids' future.
BBC - Climate change warning for Sydney - With a vid-link to the water (recyl) situation in Queensland
It is one of the scariest things I've heard.
John Humphrys in a cosy get-together with some of the world's 'leading' 'businessmen', at what sounds like a dinner table, watched by a clubby audience (there's a mental image - imagine them watched by starving kids through glass) in Davos.
I don't know if there's a download, but here's the link while it's good. Listen!
I will review it again to be sure, but I counted at least three top bods, from Shell, Pepsi and Nestle.
Two sounded Northern European and one American. I think I can hold my Brit head higher ('til they interview one of this country's hotshots and he mouth's off the same).
The questions were mild, but their answers were facile, with no excuse, no mitigation and no explanation other than if they didn't do what they did people wouldn't buy it. If your audience is dead they may not be buying much soon. And whatever priorities others may have (AIDS patients, etc) that were raised by way of putting their obligations to the future lower on the totem, it was just so much green-won't-wash.
One even tried to separate climate change (not a problem in his eyes) with what he thought was a problem: water shortage! Er... where does potable water come from? Or not, as in Australia, currently? Perrier mines?
Another tried to equate horse-traffic to car-traffic. It was like listening to a kid playing with a fun, rude fact. What on earth has horse manure in 1890 got to do with a few more billion people now driving cars and emitting greenhouse gases!!!! Yes, science and commerce made life 'better', and now it looks like it may be making things worse. It needs a correction.
And somehow what happened in Greenland 1,000 years ago naturally makes what is happening now OK? Er, no. We have 6 billion, and growing, people, trying to survive on limited resources, and making it all worse exponentially.
Another claimed his bottling was all returnable glass. Well, until corrected. Now, what is 'most'?
If they think all that they came out with is sustainable, then I fear for their reading of a balance sheet.
And my kids' future.
BBC - Climate change warning for Sydney - With a vid-link to the water (recyl) situation in Queensland
Friday, January 26, 2007
Davos IV (er.. more plebs strike back)
I have been moved to repost to the article on my previous DAVOS blog
"Thank you, icurahuman2
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with your technique and use it here in the UK for my environmental website. Hence I get a pretty good objective information spread between the Times and Telegraph on the right/biz-friendly side, and the BBC, Indy & Guardian on the left/liberal/activist side. The government propaganda machine sort of falls in-between, erring, obviously, left politically, but often quite right where money is involved. I now have a further insight by qualifying to be on their mailing list.
It is too often depressing to see what’s served up by press officers churned out without comment or analysis, almost verbatim, with agenda served simply by inclusion (or not) and editing (see below).
However you can get into whole other realms on top of these, such as societal impacts, when you stray into tabloid or magazine territory, which I also need to and do.
Plus of course there is rich and varied fare internationally, though sadly our budget precludes as many paid subs (online or hard copy) as I'd like for true balance. Especially niche areas, such as business, media or my own.
I've blogged endlessly on the power of omission, and cited this, with EDIT as an oft ignored servant of AGENDA, in such as my blog, 'lor forgive me, on the Big Brother episode - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/hell-in-handbasket.html, now moving into its next sorry phase, here and in India at least.
Hence my being a tad dubious on how well served we may be by an exclusive cabal of 'connected’ journalists with, (and I'm sorry to use this as an off-blog opportunity), a slight dig at the informational, financial and environmental ROI's we derive(d) as readers and planet-inhabitters and, as you point out, a weather ear to the masters they serve."
"Thank you, icurahuman2
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with your technique and use it here in the UK for my environmental website. Hence I get a pretty good objective information spread between the Times and Telegraph on the right/biz-friendly side, and the BBC, Indy & Guardian on the left/liberal/activist side. The government propaganda machine sort of falls in-between, erring, obviously, left politically, but often quite right where money is involved. I now have a further insight by qualifying to be on their mailing list.
It is too often depressing to see what’s served up by press officers churned out without comment or analysis, almost verbatim, with agenda served simply by inclusion (or not) and editing (see below).
However you can get into whole other realms on top of these, such as societal impacts, when you stray into tabloid or magazine territory, which I also need to and do.
Plus of course there is rich and varied fare internationally, though sadly our budget precludes as many paid subs (online or hard copy) as I'd like for true balance. Especially niche areas, such as business, media or my own.
I've blogged endlessly on the power of omission, and cited this, with EDIT as an oft ignored servant of AGENDA, in such as my blog, 'lor forgive me, on the Big Brother episode - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/hell-in-handbasket.html, now moving into its next sorry phase, here and in India at least.
Hence my being a tad dubious on how well served we may be by an exclusive cabal of 'connected’ journalists with, (and I'm sorry to use this as an off-blog opportunity), a slight dig at the informational, financial and environmental ROI's we derive(d) as readers and planet-inhabitters and, as you point out, a weather ear to the masters they serve."
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Davos III (the plebs strike back)
Not his fault, I suppose, but it's the first report I've read from 'the front' and this came across a bit smug a la 'I'm one of the in-crowd and you'll find out what I heard in secret when I decide.'
Davos 07: are we fanning the flames?
"I'll pop this on the record, so it's slightly more valuable than a free lunch with a VIP and a jolly with a media rep.
I'm wondering what, who 'mainstream media' is.. are? I'm guessing another 'elite' that means 'not the rest of you'.
I also wonder how many representatives of 'it' there were (the BBC apparently has managed 37, which has to be some kind of record - and we have a bet here they didn't take the bus) slumming it in a very cosy resort who noticed the irony of who was there, who was not, how they all got there (speaking of flying visits) and what was supposed to be quite high on the agenda.
So yes, it is getting warmer, and I have a fair notion who is fanning some of those 'flames'. I'll await my e-version in return."
Davos 07: are we fanning the flames?
"I'll pop this on the record, so it's slightly more valuable than a free lunch with a VIP and a jolly with a media rep.
I'm wondering what, who 'mainstream media' is.. are? I'm guessing another 'elite' that means 'not the rest of you'.
I also wonder how many representatives of 'it' there were (the BBC apparently has managed 37, which has to be some kind of record - and we have a bet here they didn't take the bus) slumming it in a very cosy resort who noticed the irony of who was there, who was not, how they all got there (speaking of flying visits) and what was supposed to be quite high on the agenda.
So yes, it is getting warmer, and I have a fair notion who is fanning some of those 'flames'. I'll await my e-version in return."
Declan Does Davos II - the sequel
No link I'm afraid, but who really needs one, assuming the facts to be accurate?
DAILY MAIL - BBC accused of wasting £50,000 sending 37 journalists to cover
the Davos economic summit.
Your licence fee at work. And, one presumes, they all took the bus.
DAILY MAIL - BBC accused of wasting £50,000 sending 37 journalists to cover
the Davos economic summit.
Your licence fee at work. And, one presumes, they all took the bus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)