But No 10 said it was “preposterous” to suggest the PM was playing politics.
From: The Beeb
Course, it would be stupid for as politician to play politics wouldn’t it?
October 2nd, 2007Reading the news about the letter bombs sent to various motoring agencies this morning, I noticed a lack of the T word, terrorism in many of the reports. Sounds like a cast iron case (in my opinion) for the use of such a word.
Now I don’t want to make unfounded suggestions but if letter-bombs were sent, say from an Islamic source, to say a governmental department (of which capita and the dvla are not far from being) the newspapers would be swimming with headlines such as terror threat, campaign of terror etc etc. Now I am not trying to make any sort of judgement, simply pointing out the perceptual difference that would occur if the targets were slightly different. People are still being injured, maybe the bombs are not intended to harm, but then again even the act of attempting to send such devises constitutes terrorism so that doesn’t really count.
But I guess seeing as it’s seemingly a (white urban male) nutter with a grudge against driving laws then I guess it doesn’t qualify. Which begs the question, what exactly is terrorism? But even weirder is the complete lack of any suggestion this is terrorism, so what is it about the story that made this simply a crime and not an act of terrorism? The perpetrator (whom we know nothing about), the targets (as mentioned effectively governmental departments) or the size of the explosives?
February 7th, 2007My god, could channel 4 handle this any worse? Maybe if they invited the BNP onto BBLB to discuss their policies? I am pretty sure when Orwell wrote 1984 he assumed that those in charge in his dystopian future would actually know what they were doing, indeed most dystopian futures seem to assume that the government/dictators/ruling classes are always one step ahead of the proles. Well if there is one thing Channel 4 prove, it’s that there is little chance of this coming true as most people in extreme power appear to be blinded it and tend to make rather silly judgments. I mean how else can you explain the the massive cock-up by channel 4 last night when they declared ‘to save Shilpa text xxxxx’ rather than the correct version ‘to evict Shilpa text xxxxx’. Worse PR evar.
Not to be outdone, Kevin Lygo, director of programmes at Channel 4 declared today that:
“This was in danger of being the most boring BB that we’d had in many years, maybe ever…..
……Lygo admitted wondering “what can we do?” before the race row “erupted into this extraordinary story”.
Wow, nothing like a bit of racism to spice things up eh? I dred top think how they are going to top that.
January 25th, 2007Really should have posted about this when I thought about it yesterday. But I was being lazy, and now the point seems a little mute after today’s happenings. But I do feel I need to speak my mind about Charles Clarke getting all puffy and red-faced about media-representation of the government.
“I believe that a pernicious and even dangerous poison is now slipping into at least some parts of this media view of the world.”
Woh there dude….poison, dangerous, are these words that should be used when speaking about what is in essence free speach. I don’t agree with a lot of what the right-wing press prints daily in this country, but I do accept that it is the right of a free country to allow people to speak their minds. It is also the right of any citizen of this country to disagree with those statements. But to declare it poison, especially from a government official, is somewhat dishartening. Especially when the matter in hand is about how the government is apparently getting more totalitarian.
So lets some up, state officials declare that free media are becoming poisonous as well as lazy and deceitful, in what one assumes to be a bid to stop said free media on continuing with this angle. Isn’t this in effect attempting to control the media? Now I don’t think the government are really that totalitarian (but as Simon Jenkins states today - there does appear to be a creeping authoritarianism) but when they attack the press about printing points of view (however inaccurate), a dangerous line is being walked.
Overall, however, I do feel Clarkey boy had a point. Sometimes the press do go too far and print widely exagerated claims based on flimsy evidence and can tend towards absolutism.
“So some commentators routinely use language like ‘police state’, ‘fascist’, ‘hijacking our democracy’, ‘creeping authoritarianism’, ‘destruction of the rule of law’, whilst words like ‘holocaust’, ‘gulag’ and ‘apartheid’ are regularly used descriptively of our society in ways which must be truly offensive to those who experienced those realities.”
But then that’s always been the way the press deals with stuff. Why say something is kinda bad when you can scream “THIS THING THAT HAPPENED HERE IS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLY TERRIBLE AND THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN, EVER….EVAARRRRR…ARGHHHHH…WE’RE ALL DOOMED….ARGHHHHH!!!!!” in 20pt red lettering.
For me the entire argument gets a bit paradoxical. Consider the situation, goverment is accused by press that they are being totalitarian, goverment gets angry and declares that press are essentially being totalitarian by suggesting that government is being totalitarian.
Now look, I have confused myself and am all ism’d out.
Dave the Chameleon, absolutely brilliant stuff from the people that brought us such classics as the war in Iraq and Third World debt cancellation. A very cute mini-film ala Pixar about David Cameron and the very much hyped belief that he changes his opinion depending on whom he is addressing (isn’t that the very definition of a politician?). I really like this, among the style of recent ads where political parties realised that no one likes nasty, this ad manages to be appealing and negative (and seems to be and idea the Tories had themselves).
I see the point made by Mark Lawson that people may think this a little too cute and think higher of Dave than is intended:
In short, Dave is the kind of character that viewers may well love. An office straw poll suggests that the message - you can’t trust the Tories - is undermined by the essential charm of mini-Dave, and the reliance on an overly complex idea. Yes, his namesake is transforming the party, but it’s only superficial. The danger is that the first part of that proposition is more striking than the second. The advert even highlights one of Cameron’s assets - his green credentials, reinforced by his willingness to cycle to work.
However, a point made later in the article, and a viewpoint I share, is that political advertising rarely makes much of a difference anyway.
“There is a myth about political advertising,” warned Philip Gould, New Labour’s polling and marketing guru, in his book The Unfinished Revolution. “Advertising has an effect but it is small and rarely decisive. It is certain that in four of the last five elections, advertising did not materially influence the result.
So if advertising doesn’t really matter then one might as well make it fun eh? In much the same way that large corporates don’t really advertise to increase sales, more remind people of their status and power. I for one think this trend should continue. Gordon Brown and John Prescott anyone?
April 20th, 2006