McCarthyism is alive and well and living in Britain.
I found this out last night as I watched Channel 4 News and a debate about immigration consisting of Chris Grayling for the Tory Party, Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats and Phil Woolas for Labour.
Th debate was dull with none of the parties offering any solutions to the problem, but as it ended, Jon Snow - the news presenter - turned to Chris Grayling (who was the only one in the studio) and began asking him questions about his comments regarding B&B owners turning away gays.
He then finished with a series of rapid fire questions - I don't recall the exact wording or sequence, but they were along the lines of .....
"How did you vote on civil partnerships?"
"How did you vote on Section 28?"
How did you vote on gay adoption?"
This amounted to nothing less than a McCarthy style witch hunt - but one being conducted by an unelected clique. Grayling's voting in the House of Commons is a matter of record - Snow could have found out the questions to all of these with a little research - but that wasn't the point.
The point was to ram home the message that opposition to the pink agenda will not be tolerated - that those who dare oppose it will be ruthlessly hunted down, vilified and, if possible, punished.
Personally, I've been indifferent about gay rights up until this point - it doesn't effect me so I don't much care about it either way - but this has revealed something sinister. It has revealed the fact that elected members of parliament are no longer allowed to hold opinions that do not match those of the liberal elite who really run this country.
I believe that people have the right to approve of homosexuality, but equally believe that others have just as much right to disapprove of it. The most important thing is that those opinions are freely and honestly held - not demanded or forced.
I also believe that news presenters are not there to push their own opinions down the throat of the watching public. Snow is entitled to his own views, of course, but he is not entitled to use a news programme to push those views or promote his own personal agenda.
He should be sacked. If he isn't then we will know that McCarthyism is not just alive and well in this country - it is an active policy of the media.
Showing posts with label C4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label C4. Show all posts
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Swindling the viewer
The makers of the Great Global Warming Swindle have been given a slap on the wrist by the broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom (who makes up these stupid names). Apparently the ticking off was not because the programme misled viewers in any way, but it did, so Ofcom claim, break Channel 4's own rules on "impartiality".
A couple of things about this decision intrigue me. First of all, why would anyone think that a programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would be impartial? The clue is in the title, guys.
Secondly, seeing how Channel 4 news run considerably more reports which do mislead the public regarding global warming and very rarely provide any balance to the opposing viewpoint why is it that Channel 4 News hasn't been criticised for breaking it's own impartiality guidelines?
Thirdly, why did this Ofcom finding get so much news coverage? The Great Global Warming Swindle was made, in part, as a response to Al Gore's much vaunted and totally one-sided "An Inconvenient Truth". This film was not only very partial, is was found to be far from the truth and contained no less than 11 inaccuracies which did materially mislead the viewer according to British judges.
Did that news receive the same sort of coverage as this? I don't think so.
It's one of the reasons why people like Al Gore and the equally disreputable Michael Moore prefer to make "movies" rather than TV documentaries. If you make a documentary for television you have to abide by certain rules like "being honest" - but if you make that "documentary" for the cinema those rules don't apply. So you can lie as much as you like, you can be as partial as you like, you can cut and edit to twist the words and views of people as much as you like - it's only a film. Doesn't stop those films being shown on television, though.
Anyway - having made this ruling, I wonder if Ofcom will get off their backsides to do anything about the way broadcasters - especially the BBC - present man-made global warming as "fact" without ever questioning it?
I won't hold mu breath.
A couple of things about this decision intrigue me. First of all, why would anyone think that a programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would be impartial? The clue is in the title, guys.
Secondly, seeing how Channel 4 news run considerably more reports which do mislead the public regarding global warming and very rarely provide any balance to the opposing viewpoint why is it that Channel 4 News hasn't been criticised for breaking it's own impartiality guidelines?
Thirdly, why did this Ofcom finding get so much news coverage? The Great Global Warming Swindle was made, in part, as a response to Al Gore's much vaunted and totally one-sided "An Inconvenient Truth". This film was not only very partial, is was found to be far from the truth and contained no less than 11 inaccuracies which did materially mislead the viewer according to British judges.
Did that news receive the same sort of coverage as this? I don't think so.
It's one of the reasons why people like Al Gore and the equally disreputable Michael Moore prefer to make "movies" rather than TV documentaries. If you make a documentary for television you have to abide by certain rules like "being honest" - but if you make that "documentary" for the cinema those rules don't apply. So you can lie as much as you like, you can be as partial as you like, you can cut and edit to twist the words and views of people as much as you like - it's only a film. Doesn't stop those films being shown on television, though.
Anyway - having made this ruling, I wonder if Ofcom will get off their backsides to do anything about the way broadcasters - especially the BBC - present man-made global warming as "fact" without ever questioning it?
I won't hold mu breath.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Labour stooge at C4 news
Watching Jon Snow interview some Labour minister (I think it was Yvette Cooper) on last nights Channel 4 news was an excruciating experience.
Snow has a reputation - undeserved, in my opinion - for being a tough interviewer, but he is only tough when it suits him to be. In other words, when the person he is interviewing doesn't share his socialist world view, Snow can be a tough interviewer - but last night was a lesson in deference and forelock tugging obsequiousness.
Discussing the current official rate of inflation - which, through manipulation of the way inflation is measured is actually far lower than the real rate of inflation - Snow allowed the minister to blame it all on oil and food prices and was quite happy himself to play down the comparisons to previous times of high inflation.
Not as bad as the early nineties, nothing like the eighties and far removed from the seventies - all this was allowed and more.
The truth is that inflation - which had run out of control under a Labour administration - was on a downward trend since the early eighties and well under control by the time Labour came to power in 1997. Labour can not and should not be allowed to take credit for the low inflation which we have enjoyed for a relatively long period.
One of the things that annoys me most about our media is the willing acceptance of the myth that Brown was a good chancellor, but the truth is that Brown was fortunate to inherit a Treasury with a solid economic base. The fact it took him 10 years to fuck that up is nothing to be proud of and nothing to crow about.
Inflation is not 3.3% - even though that is the official figure. By the old measure of inflation it would be closer to 5%. When Mervyn King estimates that the official figure will reach 4% by the end of the year that means the real rate will be closer to 7%.
And even then that is not an accurate measurement because, when it comes to the essentials - food, fuel, housing - the real figure is nearer 15-20%. You don't need to be an economist or the governor of the Bank Of England to work that out. Most of us know from our trips to the supermarket each week how fast our food bills are rising. The fact that the latest plasma TV has come down in price by 5% is irrelevant when your weekly food bill has increased by 20%.
And every truly prudent family knows that when you're in times of plenty the prudent thing to do is to put a little aside for when times get a little thin. Brown didn't do this. He embarked on a spending spree which has provided little improvement and left the coffers empty at the very moment we need to be tightening our belts. With inflation rising rapidly it is only a matter of time before the public sector start flexing their restored muscle and demanding inflation busting pay rises. Once that happens, inflation will really kick off.
But Snow didn't challenge the minister on any of this. He just let her say what she wanted when she wanted and meekly sat there and fed her the lines like the Labour stooge he is.
Snow has a reputation - undeserved, in my opinion - for being a tough interviewer, but he is only tough when it suits him to be. In other words, when the person he is interviewing doesn't share his socialist world view, Snow can be a tough interviewer - but last night was a lesson in deference and forelock tugging obsequiousness.
Discussing the current official rate of inflation - which, through manipulation of the way inflation is measured is actually far lower than the real rate of inflation - Snow allowed the minister to blame it all on oil and food prices and was quite happy himself to play down the comparisons to previous times of high inflation.
Not as bad as the early nineties, nothing like the eighties and far removed from the seventies - all this was allowed and more.
The truth is that inflation - which had run out of control under a Labour administration - was on a downward trend since the early eighties and well under control by the time Labour came to power in 1997. Labour can not and should not be allowed to take credit for the low inflation which we have enjoyed for a relatively long period.
One of the things that annoys me most about our media is the willing acceptance of the myth that Brown was a good chancellor, but the truth is that Brown was fortunate to inherit a Treasury with a solid economic base. The fact it took him 10 years to fuck that up is nothing to be proud of and nothing to crow about.
Inflation is not 3.3% - even though that is the official figure. By the old measure of inflation it would be closer to 5%. When Mervyn King estimates that the official figure will reach 4% by the end of the year that means the real rate will be closer to 7%.
And even then that is not an accurate measurement because, when it comes to the essentials - food, fuel, housing - the real figure is nearer 15-20%. You don't need to be an economist or the governor of the Bank Of England to work that out. Most of us know from our trips to the supermarket each week how fast our food bills are rising. The fact that the latest plasma TV has come down in price by 5% is irrelevant when your weekly food bill has increased by 20%.
And every truly prudent family knows that when you're in times of plenty the prudent thing to do is to put a little aside for when times get a little thin. Brown didn't do this. He embarked on a spending spree which has provided little improvement and left the coffers empty at the very moment we need to be tightening our belts. With inflation rising rapidly it is only a matter of time before the public sector start flexing their restored muscle and demanding inflation busting pay rises. Once that happens, inflation will really kick off.
But Snow didn't challenge the minister on any of this. He just let her say what she wanted when she wanted and meekly sat there and fed her the lines like the Labour stooge he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)