Pity The Poor Gutter Press “Journalist”

 Media  No Responses »
Feb 032013
 

It is all too easy to just condemn those vile dregs of humanity who work for the gutter press, and pander to the lowest tastes of people in the name of “news”. They are, after all responsible for the low opinion everyone has of journalists which must be galling to those who actually deserve the title “journalist”.

But we must also remember that despite how unlikely it seems, these dregs actually believe that they are real journalists. This makes them dangerously deluded.

In a less enlightened society, we could amuse ourselves by watching the antics of such creatures – as indeed was done in the past with those poor unfortunates who populated places such as Bedlam, but whether we do that or try to treat them, we do need to keep society safe from their destructive activities.

By all means provide them with a safe community where they can carry on with their “journalistic” activities without harming the real world. And eventually once they have been cured of the delusion that they are real journalists, they can be released into the communities as hack writers of romantic fiction and the like.

There’s Nothing Like The Daily Mail …

 Media  No Responses »
Feb 012013
 

For writing rancid rhino shit :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532/Being-vegetarian-does-harm-environment-eating-meat.html#axzz2JfmFq6AN

There’s two false assumptions in that article casting aspersions on the green credentials of switching to a veggy diet :-

  1. That meat eaters only ever eat British raised meat products.
  2. That vegetarians can’t eat a meal without resorting to a “meat substitute” … by which they mean vegetarian sausages, burgers, etc.

Of course vegetarians eat meat substitutes on occasions – I’ve eaten them at least ten times in the last year.

And given that meat eaters cannot be sure they’re not eating something with horses in it, I somehow doubt they can be sure they’ve only eaten British raised livestock.

 

The Leveson Report & The Tory Reaction

 Media, Politics  No Responses »
Dec 012012
 

So Leveson has finally released his report on press regulation, and as quick as a flash the Tories and the chief Tory (David Cameron – the Prime Minister) have announced that they will have nothing to do with it. They prefer some form of self-regulation; in other words a toothless organisation which the press routinely ignores or sticks a middle finger up to (i.e. a modified version of the old Press Complaints Commission).

Nothing could demonstrate more clearly that the Tories will bend over backwards to support any kind of business (including the demonstrably corrupt), and ignore the needs of the public. Without reading the report, it is still possible to determine that the recommendations are sensible merely by looking at who opposes it – the Tories, and the press themselves. Just about every other politician is right behind Leveson.

The big trouble with self-regulation (at least of the press) is that it has been tried again, and again, and still fails. As Leveson himself reports, we have had 7 inquiries into press standards over the last 70 years. The press regularly acts “as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist”.

Or in other words, when the press barons say that they will behave now, we know they are lying seeing as they have promised that before and have yet to live up to their fine words.

Interestingly the Tories seem most concerned about Leveson because they believe that the government and parliament should have no say  in the regulation of the press. Thus demonstrating that their reading comprehension is perhaps at the level of a 10 year old.

As Leveson himself says :-

Not a single witness has proposed that the Government or Parliament should themselves be involved in the regulation of the press. I have not contemplated and do not make any such proposal.

Personally I am not opposed to self-regulation in general; at least until that self-regulation has been demonstrated to be useless. But in practically every case where an industry or professional group has regulated itself, it has failed to do so properly. We have trusted the press to regulate itself and ultimately it has failed to do so.

Statutory regulation of the press is very definitely something to be wary of – let the politicians have a say in how the press is run and we would never have heard of the MPs expenses scandal! But this is not what Leveson is suggesting; he is suggesting that an independent body regulates the press with statutory authority.

Frankly if a regulatory authority wants to punish a rogue editor – perhaps with a thousand lashes of the cat – it needs statutory authority or the rogue editor is likely to raise the finger and walk out.

Finally, and the main reason for this post; time to give the Tories a bloody nose by telling them that we want the Leveson recommendations implemented. Visit the petition site and tell them so!

 

The Paedophile Witch-Hunt

 General, Media  No Responses »
Nov 162012
 

Way back in the 15th, and 16th centuries there was an outbreak of mass hysteria where in many instances the mere accusation of a crime could very well result in finding yourself tied to a stake with a bonfire burning around your feet. The crime? Well it is arguably the case that the victims tended to be inconvenient women – women of power, individuality, or just a trifle too odd for a misogynist. Ignoring the so-called crime itself, there is a great deal of similarity between the hysteria surrounding those ancient witchcraft panics, and the modern day paedophilia panics.

Although paedophilia is a real and serious crime –  in fact because paedophilia is such a serious crime – we need to be very careful about accusations of paedophilia. An accusation is enough to do irreparable damage to a person’s reputation, career, marriage, or even life. Which sounds a reasonable enough start at a punishment for a paedophile, but an accusation doesn’t mean someone is guilty. Again, again (although it is interesting how this story has been inflated over the years), again, again, again, again, again, again,  and again, those who take the law into their own hands have been shown to make mistakes.

And last week with the combination of old media (Newsnight) and new media managed to “name and shame” a totally innocent party: Lord McAlpine. His supposed victim has since indicated that he was mistaken about the identity of his abuser, and that it was not Lord McAlpine. Newsnight managed to “leak” enough information for other parties (the “new media” bloggers) to figure out the name.

No matter how serious the crime, an alleged perpetrator is entitled to present a defence; indeed under British justice an accuser has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator is guilty. And “trial by twitter” is certainly not a fair system of justice.

Of course none of this means we should be taking accusations by the victims any less seriously. Such a victim may well misidentify the perpetrator for all sorts of possible reasons, but that does not mean the crime has not taken place. An accusation needs to be properly investigated to identify the real perpetrator(s), and done in such a way that any potential perpetrators who have been shown to be innocent do not suffer in any way.

Misidentifying an attacker may sound the kind of thing that is pretty unlikely, but is hardly impossible. As an example, within the city I live there used to be someone who looked enough like me for a significant number of people to walk up to me and have a long conversation without realising they were talking to the wrong person.

Tory MP In Reality Show Furore

 Media, Politics  No Responses »
Nov 062012
 

Today came the news that Nadine Dorries (a Tory MP) is being suspended as a Tory (not an MP) for appearing on the reality TV show called “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here”.

Now I’m hardly the most ardent Tory supporter in the country – in fact I can’t stand them, and a quick look indicates that I’m even less likely to like Nadine’s favourite hobby horses. But I believe all this fuss is a little over the top, and perhaps there is a certain amount of snobbishness getting involved here. To a certain extent this is understandable, as the reality show in question is hardly in the calibre of “Question Time” or some other serious current affairs programme.

And there is the concern of who will do her job, when she’s off in Australia getting filmed doing ridiculous stuff on camera.

But we do not know that Nadine hasn’t already or plans to make suitable arrangements to ensure that any urgent demands by her constituents are met in some way or another. And what about all the other part-time MPs? Is Nadine the only MP who has ever taken time off from her duties to do something else? Let’s not have double standards here.

And similarly, there have been plenty of MPs on TV shows of one kind or another. Is it just the type of show that is of concern here? Are other politicians concerned that an MP appearing on this show will bring politicians into disrepute?

If so, I have news for those other politicians – politicians have such a poor reputation that this appearance on a reality show is likely to improve their reputation. And I’m not a fan of the show in question.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries