Showing posts with label Left wing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Left wing. Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 December 2015

The Social Acceptability List 2015


As Christmas approaches, we reflect on a bumper year in the world of social discourse. Here’s a little run down of the movers and shakers in this year’s Social Acceptability List, which is compiled by the Fallen in Public and its patchy memory and is about what politicians, newspapers and netizens went on about and how. What’s in? What’s out? What’s OK? What’s not? Read on to find out...

In today's edition... IT'S IN!  - Voting out the Box!

Across the UK, US and Europe, the left/right divisions are falling apart and small, sometimes esoteric, parties are finding their support base shoot up. What’s the reason for this? Well, rolling news informs us immediately of any tragic event which occurs anywhere, painting a picture of a world in the throes of disintegration; social media gives us the opportunity to react in soundbites and little more, which makes simple solutions seem reasonable; the political establishment’s acceptance of neoliberal capitalism has led to resentment over a lack of choice and growing inequality. At to that the fact that they’re all boring – those politicians –  really not what we’ve come to expect from people on TV.

Hence the rise of the charismatic, fumblingly entertaining dingbat. Boris Johnson was an early version of this new political lifeform, amusing enough to be on Have I Got News For You. Nigel Farage struck a chord by drinking pints when journalists were there. Those watching the evening news were able to look at that pint, then look down at the pint in their hands, then look back at the pint on the TV, and slowly, like a rusty cog finally slipping in to place, conclude: My God! He’s a bloke! All sorts of phantasmagorical deductions could thus be inferred about the righteousness of his policies.

Boris won the mayor prize and Farage has had some good election results here and there, but the Out of the Box Politician Version 2.0 is a more recent phenomenon, and it’s been catapulted right into the mainstream, partly as the dramatic, fairy tale ascendency of Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour gave people the opportunity to join the party on the cheap, and when they joined they brought their democratic voice. It was a voice for Corbyn, the conscientious backbencher more at home on the picket or in the protest than at the dispatch box. There’s been a severe media backlash, and the polling suggests support for Corbyn is low, but if people want a “New Type of Politics” – and these cynical bastards who hate politicians should! – it’s out there.

The next box-circulating politician to have recent gains is the Front Nationale’s Marine Le Pen, who has even wheeled out her brainwashed daughter to put a fresher face on the brand. Indeed, the Pens get prettier with every generation, and the party’s founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, is so ugly that he’s been in Le penalty box since earlier this year. The Front Nationale capitalised on the recent bombings in France and did well in the 1st round of regional elections, but the French saw more sense in round 2.

Elsewhere in Europe, fear and austerity has produced a Christmas hamper of political choice. Greece voted in the anti-austerity Syriza, and the Spanish election showcased to new parties, including Syriza’s political brethren Podemos, who did well enough to share power. On the British left you have pro-independence and anti-austerity parties of Scotland and Wales, and the ever-present-but-going nowhere voice of the Greens. At the other end of the spectrum we’ve seen the expansion of the English Defence League and Germany’s Pegida. These groups shroud themselves in the colours of patriotism in a lazy attempt to come across as something less than racist, but fail.

Whatever their political lean, a common trend is the loss of political slickness that goes with ‘centrists’ trying to appeal to the mainstream. The recent traditions of highly funded political campaigns, of spin and double-speak, are losing ground to a new bluntness, a man-in-the-pub vocabulary, and the use of social media to get the message across. The mainstream is splintered, and entropy is setting in.

Of course, the crowning achievement of the out-of-the-box mentality which has become socially acceptable in our wretched age is, of course, the Buffoon himself. He’s half man, half ape, and half asleep. He’s got the body of a man, but the mind of a foetus. True, he isn’t really socially acceptable in the UK, and perhaps not in the USA, but he is a Republican candidate, and the leading candidate at that. In many ways he is the True Republican, the spirit of the Republican Party melted down, purified and chiselled into a rich, male, blond ogre. He has, in the UK, his female accomplice – TV personality Katie Hopkins – who gets wheeled out on morning TV because audiences love to watch people they hate. Recently, a petition has sought to ban him from the UK for fear that he and Hopkins might spawn.

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Gettin' Righteous with the Feedback

I'm not one to poke my head out and get all riled up but the BBC's been getting my goat of late. I like the BBC as a principle, and often in practise too. Sure, BBC3 and it's down with the kids schtik is a bit grating, and the strange gloss that is liberally pasted over a BBC 1 show makes it undeniably cringeworthy, but that stuff's for other people who aren't me. And that's what the BBC's about – making programmes for people that aren't necessarily me. This is why important programs that don't bring in the viewers are kept on the air. They have a duty to give information, to teach, to be impartial.

Sometimes this quest for impartiality makes for some strange viewing. Let's say you have a front page story – a man's been caught having sex with his goats. Well you can bet that the next day BBC will have some spokesperson from the Foundation for Animal's Rights to Marriage (FARM) putting forward the case for bestiality in the name of a balanced debate. It can mean that some strange and infrequently held views are given inappropriate airtime. A good example is climate change – despite a tiny minority of scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change, the BBC are compelled to invite on some smug, populist sceptic to wave his arms and say it's all a conspiracy. Here James Delingpole laments the BBC's ignorance for siding with "scientists". Pesky scientists, with their "evidence". Another strange situation is that "balance" requires not taking sides in the Israel-Palestine troubles, despite the fact that the crimes have been overwhelmingly perpetrated by Israel. The BBC is generally criticised as being unreasonably pro-Palestine, as this 2006 article by Michael Gove shows.

Ukip are a right wing party, it might not surprise you to hear, and recent darlings of the BBC (and many other media outlets). There's even a website, (IsNigelFarageOnQuestionTime.com) dedicated to informing the curious viewer whether Nigel Farage is on Question Time on any given week. Since 2010, the pint-swilling populist has been Question Time's joint-most-frequently-invited guest along with Labour's Caroline Flint. 

Still, the BBC get a lot of verbal excrement thrown at them by the right for being a Stalinist propaganda arm of the state. Read any number of right wing newspapers for this attitude. Peter Hitchens is a great example. He complained about the Radio 4 program What the Papers Say giving him a silly voice. They do that to all the journalists they imitate, the only difference with Peter is that his voice is silly in real life. Was Peter a little offended, perhaps? Maybe a little political correctness in the BBC is in order, hmm, to stop them satirising poor lowly irritant toffs such as himself, maybe. He also complained about the BBC misrepresenting an article he wrote about Ukip, and then he made out that the fact that they apologised made the BBC even worse

One wonders if Peter and his ilk might have some interests at hand. Like perhaps organisations that criticise the BBC might have something against, say, the principle of public ownership in general. Well the Daily Mail's not exactly one to champion public ownership, owned as it is by the shifty Lord Rothermere who doesn't believe in paying taxes on this profits, and hence doesn't. And what about Murdoch's papers? No surprise that News Corporation is no fan of its big British rival – it can't even stage a take-over. The Centre for Policy Studies enjoys a good BBC bash. Founded by Margaret Thatcher and a few other neoliberal greedy-types, it promotes free markets. The BBC is public and – deep breath – regulated

The uniting criticism is that the BBC is run by a 'liberal elite', and these critics want to swap it with a conservative elite. But the accusation of left-wing bias doesn't really ring true. The Greens, despite having an MP, are vastly outweighed in coverage by Ukip, and Trade Unions, despite being the largest democratic organisation in the UK, are outweighed by representatives from business – union member's bosses. BBC News's bigtime interviewers – Andrew Marr, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Paxman (now gone), Nick Robinson – are all Tories to some degree. We hear a lot about growth in the economy, but no critique of what growth amounts to, and  we get a lot of cheap shots at Ed Miliband (granted, Ed makes himself a target by being pretty useless).

This article from a Cardiff University lecturer shows the stats. It reports that research shows "the BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda."

It then signs off with... 

"The funding for some of the research discussed in this article was provided directly by the BBC Trust."
Oops!
But of late I'd say that the analysis is pretty accurate. The BBC failed to report a huge anti-austerity march last week, except for (eventually) this piddly little post-it note of a report. Then I saw Andrew Marr on Sunday having a great old jolly with his breakfast time pal, Foreign Secretary William Hague, signing off by thanking him for the little chat. "It's been a treat," he said before blowing him a subtle kiss. 
Then today I listened to Radio 4's Analysis. It's one of those slow, thoughtful radio shows that you don't get many places. It tends to go a little beyond the trite pie-slinging political soap opera that's curated by Nick Robinson and friends on BBC News. It was called Tories: Nasty or Nice? Now, no surprises for guessing where I stand, but I'm always up for hearing the other side of the argument. The problem with this episode, however, was that there was no other to the other side. It was presented by Tory supporter Robin Aitken, and he didn't try and hide his political persuasions.
So, I wrote to Feedback – 
---------------------------------
I listened to this week's Analysis, a show which is often pretty good. I understand that this episode was exploring the question of whether the Conservative Party are nasty or nice and it was delivered by a Tory supporter. I don't have a problem with the presenter's political leanings, but I would have thought he would have to adhere to some form of political balance for the sake of the show. This wasn't the case. While he was exploring how the 'nasty' label had come to be, and putting the case forward for 'nice' – with the aid of the Right-wing philosopher, Scruton – there was a complete lack of challenge to his thesis. By my recollection, there was one guest who thought the Tories were 'nasty', yet she still found time to congratulate them on their foreign aid budget. There was no response from a representative of the Left to the accusation that in fact it is they who are 'nasty', never mind any detailed exploration into the damage that Tory policy has caused, or the financial interests that effect many Tory's judgements. Need I remind Aitken that it's not just Tory words that are so offensive, but their actions too.

Aitken's conclusion was that mending the electoral prospects of the Tories is a PR excersise, and after hearing this episode (and with the absense of coverage of the recent anti-government protests fresh in the mind) one wonders how involved the BBC is getting in providing that PR.

-------------------------

I also sent a link of the programme to http://biasedbbc.org/. They're obviously a paranoid anti-left bunch, but bias is bias, right? I'm sure their hatred of Labour, Europe, climate science, Obama, etc., won't get in the way of a their duty to seek out bias and put it right in whatever form it be! Right? 

What I said to them was...

-------------------------


Hi, I noticed some recent bias that I think you'd be interested in.
This week's episode of the BBC Radio 4 programme, Analysis, had a complete lack of balance.
For your interest, here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047ws86

Keep up the good work!

-------------------------

At least I'm nice hey. In conclusion, I don't think the BBC is as-a-rule conspiratorially left-wing or right-wing. Thankfully, the BBC's set-up involves so many editorial pigeonholes that they'd make a really incoherent propaganda organisation. Unfortunately that leads to some aggressive accusations when they slip up. The difference between where the accusations come from, as I see it, is that where the Left generally support the BBC and are concerned when it seems to be parping the government line, the Right are happy to criticise anything because destroying the BBC is the ultimate aim. 

Some say that the BBC generally align themselves with the government of the time, being nice in order to save the license fee. That wasn't the case in the 80s when the BBC was happy to give Thatcher a hard time, and we hope it's not the case now. The fact that both Left and Right seem to have an endless amount of ammunition is probably a sign that the BBC isn't drifting too far either way, overall. (I'm referring to party-political leanings here rather than social politics, for which the BBC is a little to the left – in line with dominant social attitudes – or economics, for which the BBC is to the right – in line with dominant economic discourse.) But to dispell the accusations of pro-gov bias, they better start holding the government to account for some of its work, reporting the mass anti-government movements, and stop snuggling up all cosy-like with despicable politicians on Sunday morning sofas.