The new ethical quagmire for journalists

Before today, even if you happened to live in Braintree, the chances are you hadn't paid much attention to the career of the Minister for Civic Society, Brooks Newmark. But now we all know his name.

It appears that a journalist has ensnared him to show a picture of him in his Paisley pyjamas which revealed rather more than most people should reveal in a clothed picture but a great deal less than some of the pictures recently leaked from iCloud.

The fact is that the married, father of five, who is MP for Braintree has resigned from his Government post on the eve of his party's conference. But the only person that this story may have been of interest to would surely have been his wife, and even then we cannot prejudge the nature of the marital relationship between the Newmarks. There are all sorts of possibilities that such a relationship may have been totally okay with this. They may be in a consentual open marriage. It may be that the marriage is beyond repair but they are staying together for the sake of the children and/or his or her career. It may of course be that his has done this against her wishes and without her knowledge and he is in deep trouble with the woman he married who still loves him.

The only reason that this could have been a public interest story is if there were anything illegal going on, or he was being hypocritical in his behaviour and his speeches in Westminster. If the journalist was entrapping him because of something illegal that Newmark had previous on why not take that evidence to the police? The reason of course is that there wasn't anything illegal, this male journalist impersonated a young woman to entrap the MP to get a story for the weekend of party conference.

The ethics of our journalists were under trial over phone hacking and this is a new depth. Posing as someone they are not to entrap either through text messages, or maybe online, into revealing images that could damage such people's careers. In other words impersonation, entrapment and then blackmail like releasing the story. New depths appear to have been sunk to to gather this story.

Journalists are not law enforcement, judge and jury of people's actions. Nor are they the arbitrator and curator of people's private lives. As when numerous ordinary people tweeted at The Last Leg on the issue of nude selfies, many more ordinary people are actually doing exactly what Mr Newmark did. Many of them will be readers of the newspaper this journalist works for. Some of them will undoubtedly be married to someone who isn't the recipient of that text or photo share via Skype, a website or email. But unless a law is being broken what they are doing or what Newmark was doing isn't actually illegal. It may not be part of your normal daily behaviour, it may be behaviour that you do not consider participating in but that doesn't make you the moral compass for everyone else.

Update Buzzfeed appear to have unearthed the Twitter account that the journalist used to flirt with a number of Conservative MPs. This is looking a lot more like a honey trap what was set far and wide.

What is Sainsbury's policy on modesty for magazines?

Apparently the picture on the right from last month's Attitude is too racy for customers of Sainsbury's customers to view as they browse their magazine stands.

Bear this in mind next time you walk in past a poster advertising Tu's swimwear collection as you walk through the door, or maybe a biography of Tom Daley being advertised right at the entrance (like the last one was). In both those occasions in recent years Sainsbury's has a bare chested man on display prominently as you entered the store not tucked away in the magazine racks. In the case of Tom Daley of course at the time he had yet to come out as being in a same-sex relationship, unlike Robbie Rogers pictured here, but he was wearing even skimpier swimwear than the footballer is wearing in this picture.

In fact there is nothing in this picture that anybody wouldn't expect to see at the beach, swimming pool or even in the park (maybe on the street) when the summer finally arrives here in the UK. Men in shorts and topless, often sunburnt, is a sure sign that the sun has actually made an appearance across this country.

The reason I am bringing this up is that I stumbled across this post from a female Twitter user in Manchester. You know the gay capital of Northern England. She took the following picture:

Yeah just to the left where you see the stop of Robbie's eyes and quiff you will see Carmen Electra on the cover of FHM magazine. She is not wearing swimwear, that is lingerie that she is wearing, and that is a push up bra accentuating her bosom. Is there double standards at play here?



What Carmen Electra is wearing is not something that women would typically be seen wearing as outerwear. Yet somehow this particular store did not find it necessary to protect her modesty.

Sainsbury's did replay to the original poster with a reply spanning two tweets:

Hi, we use modesty covers for a range of publications – including Loaded, Zoo, Nuts, Bizarre, Front & Attitude. We do regularly review the titles covered and we’ll look into this. Thanks

Do Sainsbury's also cover up Men's Health or other sports magazines_{see update below} should they display a topless man? You know I reckon they don't.

This month's Attidude comes in its own modesty pouch, it is one of their naked issues, so the choice of five cover stars¹ are all nude. But even then the cover is somewhat self censoring and the cover is to prevent people scanning through the issue looking for the actual nude pictures more than anything else. This is a policy that both Attitude and GT follow wherever they have one of their raunchier cover shoots, they self censor, yet somehow these gay lifestyle publications with their self censoring policy get further censored by supermarkets.

Indeed my local Asda appears to have stopped stocking these two publications, I do wonder if this is down to over zealous DUP (maybe even defected to UKIP) councillors over the proximity of this store to a number of schools, as well as the train station. The net effect is that about £10 of business a month from my wallet leaves the town centre and is most often² spent in Belfast instead, so well done for those who got these titles removed from Bangor's Asda and giving my trade to another part of Northern Ireland altogether.

Update: There is an update to this particular stores position. There is now a hastily made modesty cover over FHM. But as this angle shows Men's Fitness which has a far more bulked up topless male model on the front cover this month was not while Robbie Rogers was. It does therefore appear that there is one rule for the straights and that Sainsbury's haven't got a clue of how offensive they are being in this. For a start Attitude should not have been covered up for the cover at the top, but the fact that Men's Fitness that give a far more unrealistic male body image every month through its topless cover models remains uncovered is ridiculous considering the action this particular store has been taking.

¹Yes I did choose the one with a Strictly Come Dancing winner especially for Caron Lindsay. ²On other occasions I do make the short walk to my local Sainsbury's from home, where these titles are not covered!

Daily Fail demanding an apology on grounds that sound familiar

"I don't think we need to apologise for anything. This was a piece which examined somebody's views very carefully.

"I think there are people out there who need to apologise to us because there have been vicious accusations in the last couple of days, from (former Labour leader) Neil Kinnock among others, that somehow this was an anti-semitic attack."

So said the Daily Mail's City Editor Alex Blummer to Radio 4's Today programme.

However, the "Man who hated Britain" headline was taken from comments made in his youth as he arrived in this country having fled the Nazis in Belgium. However, as Ralph Miliband's biographer, Michael Newman, wrote in The Guardian even these teenage diary entries were taken out of context.

So the Daily Mail are claiming that people are claiming they are anti-semitic. Now a lot of that attention comes from what the Daily Mail was writing during the war, around about the same time as a 16 year-old Ralph Miliband was writing his early thoughts about his adopted homeland in his diary. There was praise for the Black Shirts, anger against the number of aliens who had entered the country and the owner visiting with the Furher.

Yeah the Daily Mail are thinking that people owe them apology for looking at their writings some 70 years ago and associating those thoughts with the actions of today. Somehow they still can't see that the way their presented the story about Ralph Miliband saying not once but twice on separate days that he hated Britain, a nation that as soon as he was old enough he joined the Royal Navy to fight against the atrocities that he had experienced from the Nazis, fighting for freedom to have his own thoughts as well as those of everyone else.

We're sorry to interrupt with other news and sport

Yeah, this morning the BBC went into a frenzy as I was making breakfast and watching BBC Breakfast. The number of non-Royal Baby news stories, and indeed the weather that somehow earned some mention of the news item, for which the only news we have is that the Duchess of Cambridge was admitted in the early stages of Labour was rolling and almost continuous. Going live every 15 minutes to poor Nicholas Witchell who would only have something new to report if he donned scrubs and snuck inside the Lindo Wing of St. Mary's Paddington himself.

But then when the BBC have to give a disclaimer that their news channel coverage may contain other news stories and sport surely things have gone a little bit too far.

Dave paedophiles are not a subset of gay men

Update I was not going to post this until I saw this by Tom Chivers in The Telegraph and then heard the way this was reported on the evening news.

Phillip Schofield may have ambushed David Cameron with a list of suspected paedophiles on This Morning but it is the PM's immediate response that this somewhat startling.

"I am worried this could turn into a witch hunt particularly against people who are gay.

"I've heard all sorts of names being bandied around and what then tends to happen is that everyone sits around and speculates about people some of who are alive and some of who are dead."

He did this without even looking at the names. Now if he was concerned merely about it becoming a witch hunt that would have been a fine response. But why did he add the caveat "who are gay"? Indeed until it was raised by David Cameron this morning nobody was linking the latest peadophilia with the gay community, there were a few individual cases but it wasn't so strongly linked.

The fact that the Prime Minister actually hesitated as soon as he said especially does seem to think that maybe his brain did try and catch on from his saying what came after he'd started with the caveat. Maybe his political brain kicked in, but it was too late he had already said especially. Where could he go after including that?

Not all of the victims of this high profile paedophile ring that are coming forward are male. But the linking of gay men to the accusation of paedophilia by being at the front (or indeed anywhere) in the Prime Minister's response does nothing to pull gay men away from the stigma and finger pointing that has historically been the case. It is often used by people opposed to any LGBT equality, especially the teaching of it in schools. Remember that Cameron himself voted for the retention of Section 28.

Does this 'slip' of the tongue actually reveal the true feelings of the Prime Minister about the LGBT community? Does the inclusion of this caveat actually reveal that he is not actually as comfortaable with LGBT equality as he would like for political expediency to make out.

One thing that is worrying is that by making this connection on national television David Cameron has actually thrown that image, that link back into people's minds. He may have tried to prevent a witch hunt but his misspeaking may very well have created one of his own.

Yes the speculation on the net about names can be a witch hunt, but that is not exclusive to one sexual orientation. The victims don't fit the narrowing of that definition of a witch hunt. So in mathematical terms this Venn diagram is not true.

What we do know from case histories is that men and women, straight and gay prey on underage victims.

This is the actual representation of the issue, though not to scale.

I spent a long time today musing over the rightness of posting this. As I said David Cameron was quite right not to support any witch hunt over the paedophiles that are being used. Indeed the news are highlighting not on the issue of the witch hunt but on it being about a witch hunt on gay people. Therefore my concern that more people will link paedophilia with homosexuality has as a result of Cameron's words already increased.

Thanks Dave for putting the positive message from the LGBT community back slightly all because of six words you did not need to include in your rebuttal of this issue. Having heard some comments from some of the This Morning audience while out earlier some people are talking about the link which isn't there already.

Whether he intended to or not, unprompted David Cameron went on daytime TV and linked paedophilia with homosexuality.  He took it too far and the response in some quarters will be a return to linking the two.

Update I have noticed that the comments this morning have given Nick Griffen something to rant about inaccurately (warning this is the only time I will link to a Griffen Tweet).

The Times They are a Chargin' - The Musical

When my Uncle first found out I was learning guitar my Christmas present that year was a Bob Dylan songbook. It didn't get much use from me before, I think, I swapped it while at University for a couple of tickets for a new up-coming band called Seymour, you may know them better as Blur. However, one of those songs, indeed it is probably the only one I actually learnt how to play, does seem rather appropriate for a little Stephen Glenn alteration today.

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
A click on a Times link
Will soon make you groan
And accept it that soon
You'll be charged to the bone
If your Times to you
Is worth skimmin'
Then you better start spendin'
Online your news fix to own
For the Times they are a-chargin'.

Come writers and critics
Who spread the news with your pen
>Keep keyboards active
And news free from the pain
And don't link from blogs
For the readers won't win
And there's no tellin' who
That it's readin'
The Times loser now
All the others will win
If the Times they go a-chargin'.

Come Guardian, Telegraph
Please heed the call
Don't charge for your content
Don't put up paywalls
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who installed
A charge to look inside
And it is ragin'
And we'll not open windows
For others we'll fall
When the Times they start a-chargin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the world
And don't charge what's free
That's so very absurd
Your sons and your daughters
Are being charged for words
Your old way is
Rapidly agin'
Please get the new way
Where you widen web's world
But the Times they are a-chargin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
Backward step now
Will later be blast
As the present row
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
The Times of London
Is stuck in the past
So the Times they are a-chargin'.

Music of Bob Dylan, words rearranged by Stephen Glenn (with no assistance from William de Worde*)

* A little mention to the editor of the Anhk-Morpork Times for all my Discworld fan readers. Actually I'd like to see Terry Pratchett's take on this whole situation of the online media overtaking the as yet young and fledgling newspaper industry. A sort of Web 2.0 version of Moving Pictures.

The Times They are a Chargin'

Or why the Times Online business model is turning me off

Or after 22 years readership the grand divorce

Younger readers may not realise this but when I first attended an institute of Higher Education my day started in the University Library in the newspaper and periodical sectio scanning the newspapers. Back then they were all broadsheets none of this Berliner or Tabloid format. The reason being that 22 years ago the papers were not online. Their archives where available on microfilm or microfiche after a few months, or in a filing cabinet in the Library until they were available.

I was studying Economics and in our first week we were told, no instructed, no make that ordered to read the Financial Times plus at least two other papers from different parts of the political spectrum. I chose all three of the The Times, The Guardian and The Independent but for the one I used my student discount to buy and have as my own I chose The Times. One of my shelves in my bedroom became my own catalogue of the back issues for that year and I had a card index or relevant stories. Oh how Google would have made my student days easier.

The reason I'd chosen the Times was not because of its 'balanced' reporting, nor was its political view closest to my own, but because it had the fullest sports section. I even got to see the Northern Irish football results on a Monday morning, almost collapsing one morning in my first year when Bangor where third in the league. I called home to clarify this wasn't an early April Fool joke.

Therefore as Caron has pointed out the news that News International are going to charge for their online edition is making me rethink. I still buy a morning paper every morning and skim the others online. My morning blog post in usually inspired from what I have read or seen on the early BBC breakfast news.It normally gets written up on the bus, it usually includes some quote or other. Obviously I'm cutting and pasting those and linking to the source material

Now if I'm already paying a pound a day for a paper copy of the Time I'm loathe to pay an additional pound a day or £2 a week for an occasional (actually frequent) quote. I only visit the pages online I generally have read in the paper copy for the reason of capturing a quote. I'm also not going to direct my readers to a subscription only service.Therefore now that the Time is not cheaper than the Guardian, and is actually more expensive than the Scotsman now in paper form I'm likely from June to switch my reading habits.

You will have already seen a shift in my linking habits as New International have flagged this potential online charging service. I suspect many other bloggers will follow suit and you wonder just what sort of impact that will have on the Times' online footfall. Knowing the number of out clicks that I get that go to the news sources quoted multiplied by the number of blogs out there it would be quite high I imagine, plus the casual reader will not be willing to chip a pound for browsing.

It is a pity that the Times don't seem to get the media in the 21st Century. The Scotsman only have some articles that premium subscribers have to pay for. Thinks like editorials and comments and certain columnists for example, the bulk of 'the news'is freely available online.

Maybe the Times are wanting us all to go back to that image of huddling in the library to read our newspapers in the online sections. Instead of wrestling with broadsheets and newsprint struggling with the indexing system.

Cider House Rules Maybe

I think the operator of the Official SNP Twitter account has been quaffing too much cider before the tax increase at midnight.

First all seemed normal and a policy I actually agree with.


I mean the differential in fuel pricing between those with good public transport provision and those that don't, and therefore need to use their own vehicle, most notably in rural Scotland is grotesque.

But then soon after the SNP seemed to want to have their cake and eat it too.

So it appears that Darling can raise the 3p extra on fuel if he wants to as long as he gives it to Scotland!!! Yeah I think if I'm following that train of thought correctly the SNP fuel policy is:

Fair fuel is want we want but if we can't get it, it's Scotland oil so give us the money.

But the cider drinking continued with the result of secondary school elections (not sure if these are mock election of SYP ones [not clear in the press release]) in Aberdeenshire earning the headline and tweet.


Reading the actual story it turns out to be ab epic fail. On the day of the UK budget this is your first story after the event! They later actually look at a real benefit for Scotand's computer games industry but to release this as your response when everyone else is looking at the budget and the fall out is an epic fail.

The headline is a question "Jim Murphy on Facebook?" So you would expect that the object of the question being on the subject would be in question and therefore the epic fail of the hashtag. But no it is poor grammar, something that the winners of the elections in Aberdeenshire I expect would like to put right. Although I do love one quote in the piece which I have taken and changed to make a true statement (my changes in red)

"It is the Lib Dems which trust Scotland's young people to have their say - that's why we've consistently supported giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds.

"It is the Lib Dems which is introduc promising record more apprenticeships and paid internships, more college places, guaranteed training or education after 3 months unemployed and more investment in youth-services. It is the Lib Dems who care about young people, and it is only with Lib Dems MPs that we can block cuts ensure further investment to the services young people cherish."

The SNP will block cuts in investment in youth the Lib Dems though the Barnett formula differential will be providing more for that end. I believe it is protected for that purpose and might well be in agreement with a Scottish government.

So there you have it, either a cider induced afternoon in the SNP media centre of a somewhat epic fail. I'll let you decide.

Robinson Reaction

The BBC Spotlight programme looking into the dealings of Iris Robinson and her teenage lover has led to all sorts of reaction.

First up as the BBC Report Ulster Unionist leader (and the Minister of my old department under devolution) Sir Reg Empey says Iris's position as MP, MLA and councillor are all untenable.

The Independent look at the sex, money and bigotry that surround the Robinson's as the revelations have come out. Looking at how the revelations we have only just heard about affected his ability to perform as first minister they say:

"For many months, Peter has been curiously inactive as First Minister, holding back on moves to devolve policing powers to Northern Ireland in a way which has puzzled most at Stormont. The most frequently advanced explanation for this was that he was, as Sinn Fein claimed, "spooked" by the fear of losing seats to hardline opponents in the Westminster election.

"But now, an alternative explanation is emerging: he has been grappling not just with political complications but with personal ones – struggling to deal with the behaviour of his colourful wife."

The Belfast Telegraph both use the image of Ann Bancroft seducing young Dustin Hoffman, as I did last night, how Iris is now paying for her lust and greed. But also look at the wider implications for the Democratic Unionist Party. Saying:

"Revelations about sexual indiscretions and questions over financial dealings can be damaging for any politician and any political party.

"But the DUP is not just any party. Its roots lie deep in fundamentalist conservative Protestantism and a brand of religion personified by Ian Paisley, who founded it and towered over it as leader until 2008.

"The key question now is: will the crisis facing the Robinsons impact on an already tarnished brand? The party has already had some tough times. Part of its traditional base was left in disarray by the 2007 decision to form a coalition with Sinn Fein."

The Irish Times point out that questions are being raised about Peter's dealings in this. Pointing out that on Wednesday in his interview whilst providing no further detail about his wife encouraging friends to support her lover Kirk McCambley he had said:

"In all of my public life I have acted in the most professional and ethical way. There is nothing that anybody will produce."

An interesting turn of phrase 'there is nothing that anybody will produce' why not the word 'can' or 'could' instead of 'will'. Also why use 'produce' why not just "There is nothing that anybody has to prove otherwise"?

Their print edition had also running with the story of how yesterday the fundamentalist Christians in Northern Ireland, not normally backward in defending 'morality', had held fire over Iris Robinson's fall from grace.

"It's easier to understand the warmth of feeling towards the wronged husband, rendered suddenly gaunt, fragile and uncharacteristically emotional. But there has been little hellfire and brimstone rhetoric towards Iris from the fundamentalist Protestant community that is the natural constituency of her party, the Democratic Unionist Party founded by Ian Paisley.

"You might think that this would be the perfect opportunity for a spot of thundering about the sins of scarlet women. Instead, the response from that sector has largely been quiet, muted and empathetic."

So that is just a taste of the spectrum of opinion among the broadsheets to last nights revelations the red tops of course took great delight in the age difference, with only passing reference to the financial or political implications.

Today the World Speaks as One

With all eyes turning to Copenhagen this morning the world is hoping for a result that the planet can live with coming out of the Climate talks. 56 papers in 45 countries covering 20 languages (incudung Chinese, Russian and Arabic) including our own Guardian have taken the unprecedented step of carrying a common editorial, many have also moved it to their front page.

I'll let you read it for yourself, but I'll also direct you to the story of how this project came about.

Blogging Bias of the Times - Or Ignorance of @JoanMcAlpine?

I see that Joan McAlpine has done a write up of the Scottish Blogosphere in light of recent events that have seen a bit of a decimation of the politic blogs here in recent weeks. Understandably Jeff is quite pleased about it:

Who can blame Jeff from her comment:

"Scotland is different in that our bloggers are highly individualised. They often link to each other’s sites, even when they are on opposite sides of the political fence.So you can access Scottish Tory Boy and Soapbox, by Labour’s Kezia Dugdale, from Jeff Breslin's SNP Tactical Voting, the most widely read political blog in Scotland."

Which may well be true but only in last month's Wikio rankings he was only one place ahead of me, although with technical difficulties mid month I floundered slightly. So by one measure we are pretty close as is Caron and was Subrosa. But it is far to say that there is an interconectiveness between all the blogs. I remember on my return from hiatus at the end of 2007 gently getting relinked to back on opposition blogrolls and pulling a few others along with me.

Joan went on the say comment about the colour that makes up the 'tartan blogosphere' but in all the various examples of blogs that she mentions fails to mention any of the Lib Dems who make up three of the top ten Scots in this month's Wikio rankings as I blogged yesterday.

Following the recent dropping of Jo Swinson from Question Time with just over 24 hours to broadcast. Caron set up a group on Lib Dem Act*which looks at media underepresentation of the Lib Dems. This is just another case and indeed one which cannot be justified, even the other bloggers from other parties emphasis the input that myself, Caron and Andrew in particular bring to the MacBlogsphere, not bad for a Englishman, a Scotswoman and an Irishman.

This is not a rant brought on by sour grapes, but is one that looks at the wider issue of media representation. It is also one of the reasons that Lib Dems blog in the way they do. We have to get our party message across in an accessible way and for us the controlled media that is blogging is one gateway to do so. Maybe Joan, who blogs at Go Lassie Go, merely made an omission in error, maybe it was just ignorance.

Some will say I'm getting pent up about an opinion piece. But we are within six months of a General Election and the only main Tory blogger and the two main Labour Bloggers as well as several Nats all get mentioned in a piece with deals with politics. Ignoring the not insignificant presence of Lib Dem Blogs in Scotland.

All in all she gave a balanced piece as far as the woes facing blogs has been in recent times as indeed I myself did pointing out not all anonymous bloggers or commenters are nasty following the sad demise of Subrosa. Indeed seeing as that was a major conduit of news to a large number of people it may well have been one other example of the Blogosphere looking out for and policing their own. The sad fact is that in this piece which is in a national paper seems to demise the influence of all but three parties, and a couple of non-aligned commentators.

* You don't need to be a party member to join act.

Is Now the Time for Balanced Election Coverage?

The bias of the media towards two party politics has been highlighted and condemned by Chris Huhne writing in the Independent today. It comes after Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Party's media spokesperson accused the BBC of Labour bias and demanded they employ more Conservative-inclined reporters.

Chris point out:

"A hiring policy that sought out particular views in people who are meant to be professionally impartial would be a dangerous step towards a Berlusconi-style system. It would probably be illegal under anti-discrimination law."

What is needed is not a biased load of journalists for one of the big two parties but to a genuine impartiality. As Chris points out in all bar one election since 1979 the Liberal Democrats have climbed in support from the opinion polls one month out; the average increase being 3.9%. This is due to the media at that point having to drop their two-party view of politics in the UK and becoming more impartial. If the same happens again this time, on current opinion polls it would result in 22 more Lib Dem MPs.

At the heart of Chris's piece is the message that the media are already prejudging, indeed helping to ensure that General Elections in this country will return one of two parties as the main party and the other as the main opposition. He says in conclusion:

"Britain's broadcasters should not prejudge the voters, let alone the electoral system. The only fair approach, at a time of heightened political sensitivity, is to apply the rules as they would be applied in the general election.

"After all, both Labour and the Conservatives have recently announced their election campaigns have begun. It is time for broadcasters to begin election-style fairness too, and let the contest of ideas begin."

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the fairness of not of the proposed leadership debates prior to the next Westminster election. Alex Salmond even says it is unfair to exclude him from such a meeting.

However, one thing that Salmond doesn't have to contend with is being sidelined or excluded from mainline political discussion in the years between elections, here in Scotland the SNPs views are widely covered on Scottish news and politics shows. Yet the Lib Dems are often fighting for a voice on the national stage.

How often do you find Labour or the Conservatives not having a representative on Question Time? Never, but the same applies to the Lib Dems on a regular basis. Following that every Thursday you get This Week which has Michael Portillo and Diane Abbott as the two main foils to Andrew Neill, the Lib Dems get the even more infrequent guest slot on that.

It is an issue that Alex Salmond and his SNP don't really encounter, they are included on Newsnight Scotland and the Politics Show Scotland and therein lies an essence against Alex's argument to be on the UK-wide debate. The BBC already does make allowances for the SNP here in Scotland, indeed to some extent here too they focus on two party politics only this time between Labour and the SNP, there is however less exclusion of the others but it still occurs subliminally on the amount of airtime or positioning of the parties.

So with the main two parties, and for that matter the SNP declaring at the weekend that the General Election race is now on, why must we wait until the election is called to get fair representation of views in the media. For five months the Lib Dems could, on past evidence, be losing ground where they have been so close in recent times to overtaking Labour in the popular vote.

It's not the Champagne that is the Story

I agree with Mark who reckoned this morning that the fact that David Cameron had a full champagne flute in his hand last night at a Spectator fringe event was largely a non-story. At least I agree that supping the champagne in itself is a non-story, I trust it was a decent example of the vintner's art.

What made the whole thing a story is that the Tories have been trying, and failing, to control the media agenda at this, which for them, is a crunch conference.It is the conference before a General Election and as a party looking to take over the UK the Conservatives want to get their message across. Yet they are trying to do just what Labour did in the run up to 1997 and thereafter control the beast that is the fourth estate.

A flute of champagne at a Conservative Party Conference would never have been a front page headline and full page story apart from the fact that Eric Pickles had ordered, yes the Tories can be authoritarian too, all the front bench spokespeople not to be seen with champagne. The Alistair Campbell impersonation that the Tory media machine is attempting is where the story actually lies.However, that media machine is failing whole heartedly. Last night on Channel Four news the Tory Conference story was Ben Summerskill, director of Stonewall not turning up at the LGBTory Conference Pride event, it was backed up by Stephen Fry being interviewed about the open letter that was sent. The morning the papers ran with the champagne storied and Europe continues to hang like the sword of Damocles over the whole shebang. We've all seen the panels on Newsnight in which the PPCs are even not allowed to say 'anything' when the Europe question is posed, how different from the Lib Dems at Bournemouth.

Even when it comes to policy they are seen as stealing and then not too well. Millennium Elephant points out the plagarism of a poor student that Osborne has perpetrated to fill the void of a lack of substantive Economic ideas that his party had before the crunch started to bite. Like any mediocre student he went to the library and looked up what the master had written, taken some key points out of it, tried to pass it off as his own work, but fell short as the whole thing doesn't fit right together. The comments in the side when Osborne receives his work back would probably say 'you have grasped some of the key principles but failed to understand the mechanics behind them to create a coherent, comprehensive answer'.

As Millennium wrote:

"At the Liberal Democrat conference, just a fortnight ago, we were having debates and arguments and even out-and-out scraps about which of our MANY well-established, long-standing, democratically approved, POPULAR policies we could STILL AFFORD to place front and centre in a manifesto.

"It was PAINFUL. It was DIFFICULT. It was what REAL "tough choices" actually looks like.

"The Conservatories, by contrast, have NOTHING.

"There are NO policies that they have had to say "we can't do that"; there were NO polices there in the first place."

So while the age of spin spins inexplicably out of control under the Conservative masters the lesson learnt from that flute is that the media is an uncontrollable as the bubbles in the glass. They will always be there ready for the fresh excitement of being unleashed. While you think you have control as you hold the glass however, the bubbles themselves will do whatever they want.

Why McWhirter is Wrong Seeing Pirates Everywhere on the Online Superhighway

You'd half expect us all to heave to and fly the skull and crossbones on our masthead looking at some of the comments from the MSM since the weekend about us bloggers. Will, Yousuf, Jeff, Malc and Alex Massie have already pointed out some misguided and sloppy generalisations in Iain McWhirter's piece in yesterday's Herald. The fact that I feel the need to add my voice should be one way of showing just how wrong he is when he says, "New frontier of the blog hijacked for ugly politics". Simply looking at the diverstiy of the opinion raised against his turn of phrase makes that self evident.

That diversity across Scottish blogosphere of those who have taken up keyboard in agreement against McWhirter will show him one thing. One bad apple, no matter how large, does not ruin the orchard. Like Will I've been around this blogging lark for many years, but Yousuf, Jeff, Malc et al have also caught one fundamental of the medium that Derek Draper and LabourList have failed to recognise, the blogopshere is a community. As Will put it " I can squabble with Caron on matters of policy one minute, then compare notes with her about Strictly Come Dancing the next?". Just like me and Jeff, or whoever, can dispute policy from different view points or from the same depending just what is the subject of the day and now he's on Twitter we may well settle down to an evening exchanging views on the sport or TV just like me and Malc.

A wee while ago I was having a very public spat with Iain Dale online about his use of language in a particular situation. While at the same time behind the scenes when we both realised enough was enough a friendly agreement was being hatched, to try and tune down the voice of others that was overtaking the dispute. The political blogopshere does indeed tend to have it's own sort of Privy Council terms at times.

Scottish Roundup is a prime example of this. There is a site where the various political hues in Scotland work together to round up the best of the political blogs on a weekly basis. The usual suspects aren't always being nominated by the usual suspects either. I have often nominated the counterpoint to the Lib Dem story of the week, sometimes breaking a new blog in the process, because it is about balance. I had to write up the week that Nicol Stephen resigned as leader, (bad) luck of the draw, I didn't shirk from including pieces that criticised him from elsewhere.

It's not all ugly in the world of political blogs and as the others have also pointed out it isn't all poorly written or badly analysed. It is only when someone refuses to engage with the rest of the blogosphere, wants to set up almost overnight a beacon and try and control its use that things can become ugly. This is what the McBride/Draper scenario attempted to achieve by foul and ugly means.

As for ugliness on the Internet perhaps Mr McWhirter is loathe to venture further away than the comments pages on the online editions of the MSM. Admittedly this is an ugly place where vitriol, sheer volume and anonymity can shield commenters from direct challenge. Debate is spurious at times and acid tongued often, it regularly roams far and wide from the subject matter at hand and often leads to insult trading from across the political divide. While this can occur in the Blogosphere is somehow seems to be better managed as the writer of the piece takes a direct concern in the comments posted, will answer back, and if needs must challenge an individual who is lowering the tone or taking things too far.

The blogopshere is far more hands on and the writer can decide just how nasty or clean they want to make and keep it. Once a bloggers baby is released to the Interweb is is more cared for by its parent than most pieces written by journalists in the MSM. Largely they tend to keep track on what is being said, both on their own blogs and on comments they post elsewhere. If anything the interconnectiveness and interaction on the blogopshere is more direct, more personal and more well Web 2.0 really than the 'dead wood press'.

Of course there are exceptions to that generalisation about the MSM journalists, just as the blogs McWhirter picks up are the exception rather than the rule, but Mr McWhirter would appear to not be one of them, yet.

Therapist Headline Exposes Ignorance

On Thursday I reported that the Metro was carrying on its front page the news that 17% of our country's therapists have attempted to 'cure' gay patients. Well today in the Scottish editions letter page we find this response which I quote in full apart from the senders name.

If homosexuality is a mental illness then, obviously, little credibility should be given to the opinion of homosexuals - like most mentally ill people they will deny that there is anything wrong with them. Homosexuality clearly is a mental abnormality - because it isn't 'normal' - but then so is having an IQ of 150. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is malevolent or dangerous, but to suggest it is normal is wrong. The vast majority of normal people find homosexuality unnatural and offensive. Legislation has not changed these opinions a though it has eroded the freedom to express them.

Well there are a few points that have been cleared up, firstly you have to right to express those opinions, they were published in the Metro. However, if you start to use those opinions to discriminate, or incite hatred or violence then you are in difficulty.

As for the majority finding it offensive I'll refer her to one poll that found a strong case on homophobia in Israel this month. Even though 32% in that opinion poll found homosexuality disgusting 56% had no problem with it. I'll also refer her to a poll amongst protestant church members in the US which said that 70% felt that homosexuality should be accepted by society. In the UK this 2007 poll said that 92% had no problem with a work colleague or a player on their supported football team being gay. Far from being a majority finding it offensive it is actually quite the opposite.

She also ignored the fact at the end of the Metro report which said that the BMA and Dept of Health both agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness and does not require treatment. Pity she seemed incapable of reading to the end of such a short article before writing off her letter.

But then with my sexuality and IQ being as high as it is I'm obviously too abnormal for her to take my opinion from reading these views of others credibly.

Rachel Sylvester: Fail

Rachel Sylvester's column in today's Times really wound me up as I walked from the bus stop to work. First her headline drew me in then wound me up as she quoted Oliver James, but more on that later.



What really got me exacerbated was her daring to comment on politics when she clearly has no idea of opposition "parties" (yes plural) or at least of the English language. She says:

"At the very moment when leadership is required to deal with the economic downturn, politicians of all parties are frozen in the headlights of the recession. The Government is now the majority shareholder of several banks but seems to have no control over the bankers.The opposition parties are quick to criticise Labour's decisions but find it hard to say what they would do instead.

"The political elite has been neutered by the collective failure to predict and prevent the credit crunch and their apparent powerlessness to reverse it now."

Scathing comments if they were 100% true. She mentions parties, Rachel that is the plural of party yet you only mention the Tories as an opposition party. The reason that this really grates is that one party did predict what might happen, did call for measures to be tightened to prevent the banks having carte blanche and are now suggesting what to do different to get out of it. Yes, folks surprise, surprise the MSM, or at least Ms Sylvester, have overlooked the Liberal Democrats.



Strange then that she should have used Oliver James's quote about Tweeters:

"Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It's a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity."

Strange that as Ms Sylvester calls for a party to have a sense of a identity, by her own definition it would seem, had over 1000 uses of the #ldconf hashtag over their conference weekend. Top trended during the leaders speech as well as souring when Howard Dean was speaking. I think that overturns both what Ms Sylvester tried to propagate and disproves what Oliver James has said.



We're Liberal Democrats, we have an identity, and we're going to speak, Tweet, blog and make a fuss about it because it will make a difference.

Lynne Featherstone MP agrees.
Footnote: Proof positive that she doesn't get Twitter she says Nick Clegg Tweets but has fallen for the unofficial Nick as it even says in the profile.

Facebook Join Censorship Over Gaza

Overnight I recieved the following message on Facebook from Abbas Goya creator of the Group A note from Jerusalem -- We need to STOP Israeli assualt NOW!! It looks as if along with the MSM Facebook is trying to hide the world from the facts of what is going on in Gaza at the behest of Israel.

Warning if you follow on the link below you may find it disturbing. However I make no apology for that, this is the reality of what is going on. This is why the assault on Gaza must stop now and not be allowed to escalate further.

"Facebook has issued a warning to me relevant to our cause. You might be
interested to know.

"I uploaded and posted a news video clip on my wall, a clip produced by
Reuters - found @ http://www.rowzane.com/0000_2008/e_m12/gaza-1.wmv - displaying the hospital crew taking care of injured children in Gaza. The length of
video was 45 seconds and I appropriately called it "Gaza in 45 seconds".
Facebook considers it a " hateful, threatening, graphic, or that attack an
individual or group", has sent me the following warning asking me to approve
the warning. I request to either provide specific proof as to Facebook
accusing warning OR remove the warning and reinstate the video clip.

"If you too agree that the warning is unjust object it by
sending an email to "Facebook" warning+yf64oz=c@facebookmail.com

"Facebook warning:

"You uploaded a video that was reported for violating Facebook's Terms of
Use. After reviewing the video, we have decided to remove it. Facebook removes
reported videos that are hateful, threatening, graphic, or that attack an
individual or group. We also remove videos that are not of a personal nature,
meaning they were not created by and do not feature either you or your friends.
Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in your account being
disabled.

"If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page at http://www.facebook.com/help.php?topic=wvideoI acknowledge I
have read this information."

The Steamie

There is a new MSM Blog up here in Scotland. The Steamie is part of the Scotsman's production and it has a blogroll.

However, despite notifying them of my existance on the 3rd of December they have yet to add me to their blogroll. Other blogs have been added in the meantime so I'm musing why the ommission. It is not because I'm a Lib Dem they have one of those already nor is it because I may be a future parliamentary candidate they also have links to a number of those.

So I'm at a lose and won't pursue it any further. They have been told and it is at thier discretion who they add to their blog roll. But as I do seem to be the highest ranked (according to Total Politics) of the currently active Scottish Political Bloggers not to warrant a link I could fume a little if I wanted. Consider the fuming over though.

The Tweeting Twit

Earlier I Tweeted about Sathnam Sanghera's article in the Time's 2 Section this morning about Tweeting and Facebook. On reading it I though woo hoo here is a MSM journo who Tweets with impunity.

That was until I visited his Twitter profile to find he's protected his updates is only following 21 people and has only posted 8 updates. Reckon he logged on yesterday merely to write his article at the behest of his editor. What a Twit? Both he and his editor if that is the case.

The "Colonial" Times

Picking up my daily read this morning I was horrified to see on the Times front page the sub headline (since not searchable in the online archive):

At least 125 dead in Bombay [sic] violence spills into second day.

I'd not picked up yesterday's paper as I was walking to the newsagents on a day of when the express bus pulled up at my bus stop, so it may well have been the same yesterday. However, over 10 pages 7 of news, the leading article, the opinion piece of Maria Mistra and even the letters page, every single mention of Mumbai (the official name of the city since 1996) it is instead called Bombay.

Clearly the Times is still living in colonial Times.

Update: In the comments DG has tried to excuse the Times by saying they have used this because most British people now the city as Bombay. This is not much of an excuse as the Times being a broad street is generally read by the upper socio-economic groups. This is especially true when the equivalent MSM The BBC, The Independent and The Grauniad are all using Mumbai. Even the tabloid press the Daily Fail, the Scum* and the Daily Express have not deemed it necessary to so dumb down. The Times stands alone in its ignorance or deliberate editorial policy of using a rejected name of foreign imposition for the native name of the city making such sad news headlines over the past couple of days.

*As a Liverpool fan I had to break 19 years embargo on reading the Sun to check out their website for this piece.