Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[rocor]

On 23/08/2022 at 12:12, alastairq said:

Not intended as such...but on a limited income one does have to make some hard choices.

BRM isn't the only one......but I won't mention the competitors.  :)

 

More likely for the authorities to allow you to receive issues of BRM in your prison cell, than those of your currently preferred subscription, as it would not be in any way regarded as a subversive publication. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by rocor

[Schooner]

Just caught up with the thread immediately after watching this...

...which is relevant, and may be of interest to those who have commented recently.

[Hroth]

A warning that there's a fair bit of filler before the lecture commences.  Fast forward to 13:40 for the actual start!

 

Interesting stuff...

 

 

[Compound2632]

See also: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/24/emily-maitlis-says-active-tory-party-agent-shaping-bbc-news-output.

[Edwardian]

7 hours ago, Schooner said:

Just caught up with the thread immediately after watching this...

...which is relevant, and may be of interest to those who have commented recently.

 

Compelling. I should have been working and doing a bunch of other stuff, but I could not stop listening.

 

I've viewed the events 2016-to date through the prism of a lawyer concerned with the rule of law. Maitliss does so as a journalist, A fascinating, parallel, journey and insight into the attitudes and inner workings of the 'mainstream media' and how populists have used its own objectivity to neutralise it.

 

Really important stuff to understand, I feel.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Edwardian
more to say

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

See also: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/24/emily-maitlis-says-active-tory-party-agent-shaping-bbc-news-output.

 

I notice the Grauniad names the 'agent' - Maitliss did not, though it was clear she was referring to a readily identifiable individual - and neglected to mention that Newsnight had faced the same issues from the other populists of the time, the Corbynistas. 

 

This almost suggests the conclusion that embracing one populist fallacy in order to avoid another is not the way to go (see Germany 1918-1933), and that so long as we adhere to our tribal 2-party mindset, we will remain vulnerable to populism of one colour or another. 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[Compound2632]

To my mind the fundamental problem is the point reported in the Guardian article thus "Maitlis said the corporation often slipped into a “both-sides-ism” approach to impartiality that gave a platform to individuals that did not deserve airtime."

 

It seems to me that a public service broadcaster has a fundamental responsibility to explain where the truth of a matter lies, rather than giving airtime to all opinions without critical analysis. 

[wagonman]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I notice the Grauniad names the 'agent' - Maitliss did not, though it was clear she was referring to a readily identifiable individual - and neglected to mention that Newsnight had faced the same issues from the other populists of the time, the Corbynistas. 

 

 

 

As James seems to be skirting around the issue as gingerly as Maitlis did, I will name the 'guilty' party as Robbie Gibb, recently Director of Communications to Theresa May and brother of a Tory MP. I will also challenge him to identify a 'Corbynista' in a similar position of power within the BBC. Hint: there isn't one.

 

[Edwardian]

45 minutes ago, wagonman said:

 

As James seems to be skirting around the issue as gingerly as Maitlis did, I will name the 'guilty' party as Robbie Gibb, recently Director of Communications to Theresa May and brother of a Tory MP. I will also challenge him to identify a 'Corbynista' in a similar position of power within the BBC. Hint: there isn't one.

 

 

Not my story to tell.

 

The thing about the Grauniad article, though, is that it reported many more of Mailtliss's points aside from the complaint there was an inimical Tory agent on the Board. In fact, it seemed to cover all her points except the remarkably similar attacks coming to Newsnight from the Corbyn camp. 

 

[Schooner]

In the interests of demonstrable impartiality, balance and equivalence in this thread, Gibb is also name-checked here...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/emily-maitlis-wants-a-remainer-bbc

Edited August 25, 2022 by Schooner
Tongue gently lodged in cheek. Interesting to note that the article *only* engages with Maitlis' comments on potential Tory influence, ignoring all others

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, Schooner said:

In the interests of demonstrable impartiality,

 

"Legitimising quackery" - quite so; unsurprisingly that rag is all for it!

[wagonman]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

In fact, it seemed to cover all her points except the remarkably similar attacks coming to Newsnight from the Corbyn camp. 

 

 

You're trying to create a false equivalent as the complaints from the Corbyn camp have been demonstrated to be justified. 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, wagonman said:

 

You're trying to create a false equivalent as the complaints from the Corbyn camp have been demonstrated to be justified. 

 

Thus you've and the Grauniad prove my point for me. Neither of you seem able to get past your tribalism. If you had watched Maitliss (or the Grauniad had chosen not to omit that incident) you would have seen that Newsnight faced exactly the sort of populist challenge to its objectivity from the Corbyn Left as it received from the right. There is genuine equivalence here.

 

That one of the two extremes determines the political complexion of the government and can, thus, put their man on the BBC Board is an important point, but it is a different point. 

[Phil Parker]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

It seems to me that a public service broadcaster has a fundamental responsibility to explain where the truth of a matter lies, rather than giving airtime to all opinions without critical analysis. 

 

OK, what is the "truth" of Brexit?

Is the NHS badly funded or very wasteful of our money?

Are strikers on the railways fighting for a decent wage or workshy trotskiist scumm?

 

It can't be done, "truth" is often defined by what any person thinks is right. Any other "truth" is WRONG and they will be demanding the BBC be defunded.

 

I feel a bit sorry for the Beeb. At the moment they are walking a tightrope. Too much negative press for the government (of any flavour) is likely to see them shut down. At that point a lot of people who are basing them will find that the only TV news will be from an increasingly right-wing collection of news channels, which will be very much not to their taste. It's a bit like the Royal Family issue - lots of people are against them, but mostly because they are under the belief that given the option, the British People(TM) will vote for a cuddly lefty President, when all the evidence suggests they are more likely to get either an air-head celebrity or hard-right dictator.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

OK, what is the "truth" of Brexit?

 

As a thought experiment, imagine a Newsnight discussion on whether the Earth is a sphere or flat (our convenor here is well-up on Flat Earthers), or on whether William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him.

 

Would you come away with the idea that there was a clear and overwhelming consensus on one side of the question, and that the speaker on the other side was an oddball eccentric outlier?  

[Phil Parker]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As a thought experiment, imagine a Newsnight discussion on whether the Earth is a sphere or flat (our convenor here is well-up on Flat Earthers), or on whether William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him.

 

Would you come away with the idea that there was a clear and overwhelming consensus on one side of the question, and that the speaker on the other side was an oddball eccentric outlier?  

 

So you believe that on every topic, Newsnight should decide what is "right" and tell only that version of the "truth". 

 

I notice you ignore my difficult subjects, preferring to chose one that can be proven and one that is generally agreed, although not exclusively. However, neither would be as likely to appear in a news programme as the ones I listed. Perhaps your solution is they just steer clear of anything contentious. 

[Ian Simpson]

38 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

So you believe that on every topic, Newsnight should decide what is "right" and tell only that version of the "truth". 

 

Actually, I thought Compound did a good job of choosing examples where the evidence is firmly on one side of the debate. 

I think there are some issues where one side is much more likely to be true than the other. Setting up a false equivalence by treating them as equally plausible isn't just dishonest, it's confusing.

There are other issues where the evidence isn't so clear-cut and both positions really do need to be tested rigorously, and there are even the Does-God-Exist / Is-Capitalism-better-than-Socialism types of debates driven by beliefs and values rather than hard facts, where we probably have to accept that agreement is impossible. 

I think the BBC needs different ways to handle all three types of debate.  (And I think the rest of us do, as well.)

 

 

[Nearholmer]

I agree that the BBC is in an incredibly difficult position, probably always has been, and in a sense always should be, but I dont think I recall a time when its been under more sustained attack than it has been recently - it has clearly irked the government that it can't control the message in the way it would like, and the way it sees its models in other countries doing, and it big-time irks "Media Barons" that there is a large slice of the action that they can't exploit for profit, because a public service body has it for its own, and said Barons have the ear of the government.

 

Maybe about the best that the BBC can do with complex issues like the B thing is to stick to news on news programmes (report events), and only deal with analysis in analytical programmes, where enough time can be devoted to the nuances. It can also make clear where the balance of expert opinion lies, if there is clarity on that, and illustrate where public opinion sits, if necessary comparing and contrsting the two. "Scientists are unanimous in their view that the world is roughly spherical; our survey showed that while 70% of the 1000 people we polled in the street agree, it also showed that 15% believe it to be a flat disc, and 15% weren't sure what shape it is."

 

Climate change, whether or not it is driven by human activity, and what the prognosese are is an example, and I think they've done that fairly well, and wouldn't, now that there is very wide consensus, give false equivalence to what are fringe views ........ mention them, yes, but false equivalence, no.

 

Newsnight is supposed to be for grown-ups, so it can and should deal with things in a grown-up way, in some depth.

 

I do think though that journalists on the BBC, however senior, have a duty to keep their own opinions out of it, except of course that they must use their own judgement on behalf of the viewer/listener to frame questions ........ fine line, but thats what professionals are paid good money to be able to tread. If I wanted to listen to gobby, opinionated shock-jocks telling me what they think, and what I should think, I'd choose another channel.

 

Hardest thing of all must be selection of what to cover, to what degree of emphasis, because to some degree that "sets the news agenda". Clearly any government, especially one that has forgotten that half the nation didn't vote it into power', will want to control, not be controlled by, that agenda, it would like some things to be talked about, and others to be quietly forgotten, Thats where the BBC really needs to be defended in its independence.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

So you believe that on every topic, Newsnight should decide what is "right" and tell only that version of the "truth". 

 

No. But it should make clear which way the balance of evidence points, as far as those best qualified to asses that evidence have concluded.

 

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

I notice you ignore my difficult subjects, preferring to chose one that can be proven and one that is generally agreed, although not exclusively. 

 

Deliberately so! But there is no shortage of programmes out there giving air-time to Oxfordians or other cranks disputing Shakespeare's authorship, simply because that makes for a more entertaining show than the boring fact that Shakespeare did indeed write Shakespeare. Harmless enough, except that it has the tendency to legitimise similar programmes giving credence to climate change deniers and suchlike, whose views, if they prevail, will do untold damage.

 

Besides, I hardly need to address such subjects when there are other posters willing and more able than I to do so.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Compound2632

[monkeysarefun]

 

Rest assured exactly the same kind of thing happened here to the ABC under the Coalition (our conservative) government during its 9 years of rule.

 

Defunding, stacking the board, cutting news and current affairs programmes that provided in-depth political analysis or subjected ministers or government heads to more than just a sound-bite or puff-piece  interview, clumsy attempts to provide "balance" to stories critical of the government or  issues perceived as "left -wing" such as climate change -  so on and so forth..  When Tony Abbott was PM he  went as far as to  claim that the ABC should be allowed to only broadcast positive stories about the Government.

 

  Probably the most short-sighted act was to abolish as "unnecessary" the Radio Australia services that provided large areas of the Pacific with a voice and news source. In response China leapt in and filled that gap. Awesome work!

 

Heres an article, again from the Guardian that outlines the situation here with the ABC.  In the interests of fairness it should be noted its written by Kevin Rudd, Labor PM here on and off then on again  between 2007 and 2013, so it may be argued it also suffers from its own imbalance, but it does  lay out the situation at least and echoes quite a bit of what the BBC appears to be experiencing. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/10/far-from-having-a-leftwing-bias-the-abc-has-been-tamed-by-cuts-and-incessant-attacks

 

(Apologies if I've got the tenet of this thread wrong - the original video is blocked to me here - - now that really is bias!!)

 

 

The new Labor government is still a bit fresh to be able to see how the ABC will fare under it but at the 90th birthday bash for the ABC last week, PM Anthony Albanese outlined the following ideals:

 

The PM stressed the importance of a strong Australian voice in the Pacific in order to keep other influences out.

"When the ABC voice was removed from the Pacific, guess what nation moved in? Simple as that, a major mistake of foreign policy."

He said Australia's "identity, values and interests" must be projected to the Pacific.

"On top of every other consideration, it is a prudent investment in our national security as well as our national interest.

"[This] was undervalued by the previous government, even trivialised. That was a mistake."

Since taking office in May, Mr Albanese has vowed to counter China's rising assertiveness in the Pacific region and restore Australia as the partner of choice.

Mr Albanese reiterated previous promises to restore $83.7 million in funding to the ABC, as well as five-year funding terms and options for financial sustainability which safeguard against political interference.

He appeared to aim at the former Morrison government, saying no government should ever fear the ABC "unless it fears the truth".

"A government that chooses to attack a public broadcaster [is] motivated by either ideology or fear — or a toxic cocktail of the two," he said.

"A government confident of its own ideas and principles should embrace independent questioning as crucial to the democracy it purports to uphold."

He described the ABC as a "beacon of trust" and an "insurance policy" against misinformation and disinformation.

The organisation, he said, would play an important role in the discussions about an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

He also made a small jibe at ABC critics who claim the broadcaster is too focused on "inner-city elites".

"We've all heard the mantras about the ABC as a haven of inner-city elites, repeated with straight faces by critics based in our inner cities.

"I hope those commentators take note of the 48 regional ABC bureaus spread in a great constellation across the country, and the continued existence of Landline."

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by monkeysarefun

[Dave John]

I haven't had a television in the house for the last 25 years, and thus have given sod all to the BBC. Of course, being one of the "horny handed sons of toil" the BBC considers its function is to  "educate" me. Ho hum... 

 

 To quote Scott, 

 

"Television? The word is half Greek, half Latin. No good can come of it." 

 

I do note that a rough calculation suggests the TV licence saving equates to about 3500 sheets of 10 thou styrene. 

 

Given that this is vaguely a model railway forum I would pose the question ; what is better for my head ? Watching the idiots lantern or making stuff ? 

 

I'll go with the making stuff . 

[Edwardian]

8 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

So you believe that on every topic, Newsnight should decide what is "right" and tell only that version of the "truth". 

 

 

 

I'd refer you simply to the examples Maitliss gives in order to illustrate the problem, e.g. it would take 5 minutes to find dozens of economists who thought BREXIT would be a disaster and 5 hours to find one who did not, but the result was one of each was presented to the public as if the facts were truly balanced,

 

Another example would be climate change.

 

I was less sure that Maitliss had correctly and clearly identified what to do about this - the cure is necessarily harder than the diagnosis here - but she was surely correct in identifying the problem. I thought her idea of 'show your workings' had considerable merit.

 

The point I'd suggest is that presenting the broad consensus of fact-based expertise side by side with the bat-sh1t crazy outliers, thus giving them apparent equivalence, is a distortion which is not presenting truth to the audience. 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

7 hours ago, Dave John said:

Watching the idiots lantern or making stuff ? 

You can always listen to the wireless while making stuff. That’s what I do. I never watch news or current affairs on the telly.

 

PS: I’m not entirely sure I’d know what to do with 3500 sheets of very thin plasticard.

[Compound2632]

59 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

PS: I’m not entirely sure I’d know what to do with 3500 sheets of very thin plasticard.

 

Perfect your technique for making panelled carriage sides?

[Nearholmer]

No thanks.