Awards for all

From Kevin Maguire on Twitter:

"Press Awards very well behaved. So far. Guardian and Sun tables more than a bun throw apart"

Press awards? Awards for what? Reproducing politicians verbiage virtually word for word? Oh, I forgot - just remembered you can train monkeys to do almost anything.


I have no idea if he is present - and if he is, he stands a cats chance in hell of getting an award - but in my book the only journalist worthy of an award for his continual great writing is Christopher Booker.

Priorities? (2)

Recently we have witnessed our Prime Minister watching a treaty he vetoed being signed by 25 of the 27 Member States; we have witnessed an abrogation of political principle, one held by the Conservative Party, to a smaller political party who form the present government, over the 50p tax rate purely, I would suggest, to enable those of the Conservative Party to remain in power; we witness a disgraced MP accused of behaviour unbecoming of one in his position, able to continue in office unless sentenced to a period of incarceration of more than 12 months whilst our democratic system does not allow those who elected him - and pay him - to effect his dismissal; and we witness that someone appointed to the position of Strategy Advisor for the largest party in the coalition government (whose appointment and salary did not have the permission of the people) is to take a sabbatical. Serious journalistic output on any of the foregoing has been - or will be?


And what is the subject dominating the MSM? Whether our Prime Minister rode a particular horse - and while so doing - what was discussed with the female minder of that horse.


That journalism, as practised today, makes a point to know very little about an extremely wide variety of topics is how they manage to remain in existence. Oberon Waugh is reported to have said that generally speaking the best people nowadays go into journalism, the second best into business, the rubbish into politics and the shits into law. Well, he got that wrong because it is obvious that the shits go into politics and journalism.


Just saying...................

Pickard of the FT

Apropos my earlier post about boardroom targets, one in which I took to task Tim Ross of the Daily Telegraph, it would seem that Jim Pickard of the FT is suffering from the same deficits - namely lack of research or choosing to hide the truth.

Now, Jim Pickard and I have 'crossed swords' previously, here - I wonder whether a similar apology will be forthoming?

Just asking, Mr. Pickard, just asking................

Yet another 'journalistic' masterpiece (not).....

.....comes from the latest offering by Matthew d'Ancona in his usual Sunday Telegraph op-ed piece, this time on matters Huhne and the credibility of politics. It may have escaped the notice of even so 'self-renowned' a journalist as d'Ancona that the credibility of politics and politicians has long been in the 'public dock', if not in the 'MSM dock'. d'Ancona ends his 'offering' thus:

"At worst, whether he is acquitted or not, the court of public opinion will look upon Huhne, the political class, its antics, and its hypocrisies – and deliver a furious verdict."

The public will not deliver a furious verdict because by then they will probably have forgotten about Huhne - and the political class will no doubt ensure that another 'crisis du jour' is presented in order to make sure the public forget. No doubt that point never entered d'Ancona's thought process - and if it had, he would not dare write about it.


Just saying................. 

More 'faux' journalism from another 'faux' journalist

Patrick Hennessey, erstwhile 'Political Editor' of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, reports that David Cameron has been hit by a major protest by Conservative MPs over the Government’s backing for wind farms.

That current planning laws are 'rigged' in favour of the state is not addressed by Hennessey; that Huhne, rather than face a charge of treason, has settled to face the lesser charge of perverting the course of justice is not addressed - but I digress; that the building of wind turbines is the result of compliance with EU requirements is not addressed; that these 101 MPs will have as much effect as those calling for the repatriation of powers is not addressed; that Chris Heaton-Harris is no more a eurosceptic than Cameron is a Conservative is not addressed; that the Conservatives who are ministers and parliamentary private secretaries are unable to sign because they are part of the government “payroll” and as a result are unable to represent their constituents concerns (another deficit of our democratic system of representative democracy) is not addressed; that Tracy Crouch can punt a football further than she will be able to punt opposition to this is not addressed.

And this article is journalism? And Hennessey is a journalist?

Sheesh! Is it any wonder the public are 'ignorant' of matters important when they are reliant upon 'informers' such as Hennessey?

Just asking...........


Update: The text of the letter to which the article refers can be read here. Heaton-Harris' amendments aren't worth the proverbial crock of!

Wednesday 7th December 2011

I am, unfortunately out until mid-afternoon but, in the meantime, I thought it might exercise the brains of the 'unenlightened' if I left, for further consideration, a thought on why our MSM is in the dire straits it is. (paraphrasing Bertrand Russell)

"A stupid man's report of what a politician says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

Is it any wonder, therefore, that the public is so ill-informed?

Just saying...........

And to 'Finnish'......*

a comment from a reader in Finland on this post:

"I am from Finland. I have read many things from internet sites only, of which TV and newspapers don’t tell. Actually censorship in the mainstream media makes my country a dictatorship, ruled by the political and economic elite.

Finland is a corrupt country. Nobody can have a public post without being a member of a political party. In Finland all high-ranking officials, who earn 5000 euros a month or more, are members of political parties.

No one can criticize the elite in the mainstream media. Any one who criticizes leading politicians, will lose his or her job.

Finland as well as neighboring Sweden and Norway are dictatorship countries."

 "No one can criticize the elite in the mainstream media. Any one who criticizes leading politicians, will lose his or her job." So that is how our lot manage to always get a fair hearing in the MSM...........;;;

Just suggesting...................

* Well not quite - there's probably more tonight...............!

Wherefore 'art' thou, journalism?

For some time, whilst bemoaning the abysmal straits into which politics and our politicians have fallen, I have also attempted to highlight the dire standards of journalism - both written and visual. Both forms of the media are no longer filled with what might be termed journalists, but mere 'cut n paste' merchants, blissfully repeating press releases given to them, which means they are practitioners of the type of journalism as formulated by Walter Lippmann, an American writer who believed that (from Wikipedia):

"journalism's role at the time was to act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites. The journalist became the middleman. When elites spoke, journalists listened and recorded the information, distilled it, and passed it on to the public for their consumption. His reasoning behind this was that the public was not in a position to deconstruct the growing and complex flurry of information present in modern society, and so an intermediary was needed to filter news for the masses. Lippman put it this way: The public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues. Furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy. Therefore the public needed someone to interpret the decisions or concerns of the elite to make the information plain and simple. That was the role of journalists. Lippmann believed that the public would affect the decision-making of the elite with their vote. In the meantime, the elite (i.e. politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, scientists, etc.) would keep the business of power running. In Lippman's world, the journalist's role was to inform the public of what the elites were doing. It was also to act as a watchdog over the elites, as the public had the final say with their votes. Effectively that kept the public at the bottom of the power chain, catching the flow of information that is handed down from experts/elites."

 From that same source we find that an alternative view of journalism existed, one proposed by John Dewey, an American philosopher, who believed that:

"the public was not only capable of understanding the issues created or responded to by the elite, it was in the public forum that decisions should be made after discussion and debate. When issues were thoroughly vetted, then the best ideas would bubble to the surface. Dewey believed journalists should do more than simply pass on information. He believed they should weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted. Dewey also believed that the shared knowledge of many is far superior to a single individual's knowledge and that conversation, debate, and dialogue lie at the heart of a democracy."

 That journalists nowadays do just listen to politicians, thus adopting Lippmann's idea, subsequently faithfully reporting what they are told without question is all too apparent. In so doing, besides showing 'slavishness' they also show their ignorance of the subject matter by accepting that which they are told as 'gospel'. Had we journalists of the school of Dewey the public would be informed and would thus know by now that our present politicians have lied to us and thus misled us and consequently cannot be trusted either now or in the future. That the Lippmann school of journalism has prevailed is not surprising because the last thing our politicians wish we, the people, to know are the real facts which would by their nature cause even more questions for those who believe they know everything, to answer.

An example of the Lipmann 'school of journalism' is James Forsyth who writes for the Spectator and the Mail. That Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, has - in modern parlance - 'ripped him a new one' is probably a waste of Helen's time and effort because Forsyth, no doubt, lacks the requisite deficit in his brain cells to understand that which Helen is writing. If Forsyth cannot understand that we can change terms of our membership only by a major treaty change, which has to be agreed unanimously, why the hell is he writing that which he is? This deficit in journalism leads on to question the ability of media editors, those who are supposed to 'edit', correct; and if necessary, discard 'rubbish'. That they do not means that any of us can fulfil the position of an editor - all we need is a rubber stamp!

Facts & Figures = Deception

We all have to learn our 'trade' and when dealing with the public most employers ensure that we have some expertise and knowledge of a product or idea prior to our being 'let loose'. Not so it would appear where the Daily Telegraph is concerned, especially in relation to Sebastian Payne who we are informed is a data reporter (what ever the hell that is) and writes about facts and figures in a sensible way.

That the MSM is in the business of misinformation is well known, a talent that young Sebastian appears to have easily grasped in the manner of a duck taking to water. This young lad writes what I believe is termed a 'puff piece' playing down the importance of the European Union and the effect it has on our lives. Whilst acknowledging that a poll explained that voters do not particularly rate Europe as a pressing issue, we then get the 'throw-away' line: "though many of the higher-ranked matters are intrinsically linked to our continued alliance". He then continues:

"Only 10 per cent of voters cited Europe as an issue important to the country, ranking 8th – below the economy, crime and immigration to name a few. For issues important to individual voters, Europe ranks even lower, at 11th place with 8 per cent expressing a concern."

It doesn't appear to have crossed this young man's mind that problems with our economy, crime and immigration are directly related to our membership of the EU - and if it had crossed his mind, he conveniently forgets to mention it. Likewise, earlier in his piece he writes that during last week's PMQs Cameron stated (for the umpteenth time) that he did not see a case for an in/out referendum and that he believed Cameron had judged the public mood correctly; whilst not bothering to acknowledge that where the governance of this country is concerned it is the people who should be asked the specific question and that it is not one that an elected dictator should pre-empt.

Mind you, where the art of misinformation is concerned young Sebastian is in good company, namely that of Roger Helmer against whom Autonomous Mind has another 'pop' in a well-crafted dissection of both Helmer and the 'Useless Eustice Eurosceptics' group of Conservative MPs. On this subject of disinformation Guido Fawkes has a post, one in which if he deleted the word 'theory' would mean that his opinion of  this Useless Eustice movement would be 'bang on the money'.

It is disgraceful that our MSM, who should be informing the public whilst at the same time exposing the disingenuousness of our political elite, continue to avoid their true function - and the newspaper section of the MSM continue to wonder why their circulation figures fall? Where the politial elite and journalists are concerned, as I have said previously, it is virtually impossible to discern in whose pocket is who.