The (BBC) Empire fights back

Ironically, the one thing that has dominated the media recently... is the media.

Thanks to News of the World hacking peoples phones News International now has a giant "kick me" sign on its back and the BBC and other media outlets are determined to make the absolute most of the opportunity to do so.

I don't think the BBC could make a more wanton display of delight as it give 24 hour news coverage to the phone-hacking scandal.

But at least there was one commentator on BBC news who had the strength to say that it was looking like a media "cat fight" and that if they didn't start covering some of the other issues properly they would lose credibility.

He's not joking. I'm no friend of Murdoch, but the fact that the European Monetary Union has almost fallen out of the sky and there is a famine in Somalia (apparently?) would surely suggest that it is time to have other news stories on the front page (metaphorically and literally).

But while this whole episode is kicking off I have a completely different concern with the media. One of the few stories that did manage to filter through the "kick him when he's down marathon" was the story of a nurse who might have killed some of her patients.

What concerned me was how this was reported. When the media wasn't trying to stir up a lynch mob to take one Murdock or another to the gallows, they were explaining what they knew about this nurse who was being questioned by the police.

In summary what they knew about her was this:

nothing.


In a display of rather mind numbingly shoddy journalism someone had accessed her facebook page and taken down a few quotes.

That's right; facebook. The thing to which we could all gain access if we wanted. The system where by if you want, you can say your married to your best friend for laughs and where people can read about your favourite TV programmes.

Chances are if people thought this sort of thing was relevant they could have tapped the suspects name in and found the page themselves. I assume that the privacy settings were not very high since the journalists could view it and unless they hacked her account... which in this environment even the most delinquent, walnut brained mammal would know it avoid.

But on to the real issue; what did they find? Well two things, first she describes herself as 'happy-go-lucky' and second that 'she had complained about work in her status updates'.

This is where things get really ridiculous. The tone of voice and the intonation of the reporters when describing these facts made them sound like they were both relevant and sinister.

What shocking use of the media to demonise someone. Sure, they might be guilty, but equally they could be innocent. I have no idea, the media, they have no idea either, who knows at this point. The police may not even know. What annoys me is that instead of someone being innocent until proven guilty in the media, they are innocent until proven able to sell papers... or making 'interesting' news reports.

Is that really fair? That person has to continue living in society long after those news reports are yesterday's bin fodder. Those of their acquaintances who don't know them properly, even if acquitted, are they not going to remember what the news said about them? Of course, if they waited until the person was proven innocent or guilty it wouldn't be half as bad. I'm still not sure it would be ideal, but at least they were not risking a potentially innocent persons life in society.

But taking the issue of liability aside for a moment, what does the information provided actually tell us about the suspect? They describe themselves as happy-go-lucky. The inference of course is 'a nurse that is happy-go-lucky? How reckless! How terrifying, how can they sleep at night'. But of course, this is her facebook page, not he resume. She isn't describing herself as a nurse, any more than when someone states that they are 'single' on facebook it means they are seeking to date workmates or patients.

That sort of logic would suggest that somehow if you knew someone who was an undertaker, and on their facebook page they said they loved practical jokes, people would automatically assume that they put whoopee cushions under the seat of the deceased's wife when they are carrying out funerals. It is just the deliberate misuse of context.

The second statement, she has complained about work in her status updates. How dare she? That absolute soulless piece of... oh, no wait, everyone who has every used facebook status updates has put something like that as their status up-date.

I've just taken a look at the list of updates uploaded by my friends on my facebook page, no less than four can be easily interpreted as complaining about work, including the post at the very top.
Another two could be 'interpreted' to suggest that one of my friends has a serious drinking problem and another that they self harm... of course, that is all a load of rubbish, because they are joking, but if you're a press reporter who is willing to note someone has 'complained about work' then who knows what you will do.

I myself would rant about work on a regular basis, except for the fact that at least two of my work colleagues are on my facebook page. Does that mean I am going to commit violent crime? Not a chance. But I'm sure if read in a suitably malicious and sinister way the press could interpret anyone's updates are indicting. Why? Because that isn't the context in which they are intended.

I'm hoping that the public can see through such ridiculous and dangerous behaviour. But I'm not putting my money on it.

Recently we've found out that the media is willing to break the rules to get the story. This shows that they are willing not just to infringe the privacy of the grieving, but further to demonise those who may be innocent. I don't know which in the long term is worse, even though I know which one is getting the coverage.

I guess it comes down to the old adage of who watches the watchers. The government check the police, the media check the government and ............. no one is watching the media. The government can't do it as they are too busy trying to cosy up to the media. This much can be seen with the ex-editor of the News of the World becoming the communications chief for Downing Street... and thus we're left with a situation where the media scrutinises the behaviour of everyone... except themselves.

Maybe then it is a good thing that the BBC is giving such coverage to the mistakes of the Murdoch media empire. Maybe the various media outlets are ideal for holding each other to account. Maybe plurality of the press is working to keep each other in balance.

In that case, I wish they'd do it with a little more objectivity and with the professionalism of the massive corporation they are, rather than coming across as a five year old with a bitter vendetta, and a complete lack of perspective.

Let the BBC live?

There is a general discussion going on these days about whether or not the BBC should be funded by what is essentially a tax. Anyone who has a device capable of receiving television in the UK is automatically required to pay a 'TV licence' that goes straight to the BBC.

Now I am a free marketeer, so my instinct is that this is wrong. TV should be chosen by the people and they can pay for what they want... or even better they don't have to pay at all because there are breaks for adverts to be shown and this allows the TV companies to pay for themselves. This works in most countries including the US from where we import many fine programs (the ubiquitous 'friends', 'Scrubs' the amusing comedy 'Big bang theory'etc). So instinctively I'm inclined to look at the insane amount of money that Jonathan Ross gets from doing what I essentially do everyday (be social, out going and ask people what they have been up to/working on) and I think what a load of rubbish, make them work for a living live everyone else, but I can't quite do it!

So why does my ever present free marketing spirit become more reticent when I consider the BBC? Quite simple: TV is garbage! I mean really now, I haven't watched a program on ITV for as long as I remember, the only programs I watch on Channel four have been imported from the USA. There is literally nothing on commerical TV produced in the UK that I have, or want, to watch.

The problem with commercial TV is that it is dependent on ratings so what we get is 'lowest common denominator' programs, that is programs that are so simple that everyone can watch them without requiring the slightest use of the neglected organ in your skull. This means that UK TV is just filled with mindless 'reality TV' shows that have the same draw on me as a request to massage the feet of someone with a fungal infection. It is just nasty.

I was talking to an 'intellectual' from Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago and he was saying how everyone listens to the BBC in Saudi, people have a huge respect for it internationally and this is in places that aren't exactly 'West friendly'. Looking at my own experience, I can see why. BBC iPlayer is on my favourites list on my internet browser... I don't think I've even checked if ITV have an online content provider. That says it all.

This is before we get onto issues like iPlayer, Radio 4 and Radio 1 which while Radio 1 plays music largely available on other stations I just can't imagine a commercial radio station producing the sort of thing found on Radio 4.

Lets put it another way when I'm driving home at 1 in the morning and the only thing available of the other stations is 'nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish' I am really, really glad that the BBC radio 4 exists and it isn't paid for by the hard core dance lobby.

With the money that BBC has in excess (through a moderate tax on everyone) excellent programs are produced and technological progress can be made (iPlayer) in which it would otherwise be too expensive to invest. My favourite programs ever made in the UK are Blackadder and Yes, Minister, both produced by the BBC (albeit years ago). All the while British culture is exported through BBC worldwide which is good for the nation too.

Finally the issue of it being a tax, yes it is a tax, lets be honest, calling it a licence doesn't really make it less of tax. But it is a tax for which the money paid goes directly to the product. It is not like other taxes where the money is taken off you then funneled into a big sack where the government then gives it to whoever they fancy, you know exactly where the money is going to go. This is good, because the BBC knows that if it ever stops producing quality and starts producing rubbish it is going to get kicked out into the cold faster than you can say 'Rupert Murdoch'. As a result (unlike with most government) they have the hot breath of redundancy just close enough so that they have to work hard and yield results otherwise they'll get their P45.

The more I think about it the greater it would be if all tax was like that. How much quicker the DVLA might answer the phone if they knew that if they didn't they may end up in the dole queue? How many retarded government schemes would be dropped if there was a direct specific tax to fund them, I would love to hear the conversation to even explain it:

"well sir, we're going to take money out of your earnings so that we can pay for youths caught joy riding to have driving lessons, so that they can joy ride safely" (this actually happened)

Many useless taxes wouldn't even be started because they are so pointless no one would go for it and those that didn't work after a few years would quickly get binned.

So there you have it, want to solve the tax problems? Get yourself a 'tax licence'.

The BNP on BBC question time, next stop savagery and barbarism

Just to boot, in case you haven't grasped how this works yet, my title is sarcastic. I do not think that because the BNP is on question time the world will descend into anarchy.

For some reason people seem convinced that because the BNP are going to be on question time this means that the end of the world in nigh and that we are all soon to be plunged into a neo-Nazi nightmare.

People seem to be missing something however, being put on question time is not being elected, one would precipitate a disaster and the other means practically nothing.

For some reason people think that if you give the BNP the 'legitimacy' of being on a BBC program then everyone in the UK will sit there and think... 'you know what, their obviously not bad guys if the Beeb will have them on their program, I think I'll stop voting labour like I have the last 30 years and start voting for them'.

My goodness people if getting votes was that easy we'd have a new government every five minutes.

There is a fundamental reason why the BNP will never get in... it is not a secret but maybe it will come as a surprise nonetheless;

...the UK will never have a BNP parliament because we're not racist!

The majority of people in the UK are so anti racist it is astounding, I sometimes forget this and then end up choking on my food when I hear someone from another Western European country saying something that, here in the UK, would totally unacceptable. We forget that we are very likely the least racist country in world. As a result there is more likely hood of Katie Price becoming a Nobel Physics prize winner than there being any strong BNP contingent in the UK.

The only way they would ever make head way is if around 50% of the country was racist, and if that was the case the problem would not be that the BNP is in power but that 50% of or country had turned racist over night.

'Ah' you say, 'but it is not the fact their are racist, it is the fact that the BNP can go on the Television and convince people they are actually nice people and not racist and then get votes that way, misleading the public into electing them'.
That could be very true under different circumstances, but lets think about this, which program are they going on? The Jeremy Kyle show? Trisha? No, they are going on question time, what sort of naive retards do you think are going to be watching?
Do you think that will a little demagoguery Nick Griffin is going to have the intellectual class eating out of his hand? If this is the case we better ban him from YouTube too!

At the end of the day sure, if he was going to talk to teenagers in run down areas, if he was talking to those who watch and enjoy Jeremy Kyle, if he was going to talk to those who are borderline mentally handicapped then I would be concerned, but question time? If you think his mind control powers are that good you have been watching a little too much Star Wars.

Oh and just a reminder, the reason why their people got any votes in Europe in the first place is because discussion of immigration (nothing to do with race) was repressed and as a result no one would address or consider what was on the minds of a reasonable amount of people in the UK. These people (rightly or wrongly) then voted for the only people they saw discussing the issue. In short repressing discussion doesn't really help anyone.

When Question time does air, I will not be fretting in my boots. Oh contraire, I will be relaxing in my chair pleased in the knowledge that thanks to freedom of speech these people and their policies are going to be exposed on television for everyone to see in the way nature intended.