Littlejohns Poppycock.

Richard Littlejohn once commented in a webchat discussion with some Mail readers that his role [in journalism] was to "sit at the back and throw bottles". In that quote he had unintentionally admitted that his "journalism" was the most laziest and cynical imaginable. Don't offer measured criticism, don't highlight valid points or make insightful statements. Just sit at the back like some spotty kid who derides everything as "this is just like shit". A monkey can do this sort of thing, and I think it is why; more than anything - I hold his columns in as much contempt as I do. His latest attack is on BBC presenters and others who have been wearing poppies before they officially start collections for them (on Thursday), whilst simultaneously deriding them for not wearing them before hand. Whatever your opponent does, attack them. If they don't do something you approve of, deride them as "out of touch" or "unpatriotic" or whatever. If they do do it, accuse them of being cynical (that's rich) and being tokenistic, and for good measure "out of touch" It really is a win - win scenario, or also known as shitty journalism too. Here is the article in full.

"Not wearing a poppy used to be a badge of honour on the Left. Now they have worked out that the Armed Forces are held in the highest esteem, they have gone completely the other way as they seek to reconnect with the British public.

Some Left-leaning broadcasters and mainstream politicians are sporting poppies already, even though there are more than two weeks to go to remembrance Day.

Members of the shadow cabinet look as if they've crawled through a field in Normandy on their way to the studio.

Someone should quietly explain that wearing a poppy in the middle of October is as inappropriate as having Easter eggs at Christmas."

It also seems the Royal Legion agree, which is why a spokesman said:

"But we would never say an individual’s wearing their poppy too early"

Of course any genuine Poppy Appeal supporter wouldn't. Only someone trying to have a cheap pop at someone they don't like would say something like that that.

6 Music Saved.

A few months back there was a plan to get rid of 6 Music. Well it seems the BBC Trust, looking at where to save a bit a dosh, have decided that 6 Music shouldn't be axed to do so. The cuts have been made to salaries, and top star casting. The Asian network however; seems to have pretty much had it's fate sealed. The report on the Trusts findings are; -like many things of this nature, more interesting for what is not said, or indeed implied, if you read between the lines, than is said out loud. Like I said in the previous article on this back in February, before the election, if we went with the tone of what was being put out about the story in the Murdoch press, that his editorials were gushing about scaling down the "monopolising BBC" (Rupert Murdoch lecturing other media organisations about "monopolising the market" Are you fucking kidding me!!) . The editorials were also "hinting" that our new PM should put pressure on the BBC to streamline as well. Well it must be that the fact he has had to seek coalition with the Lib Dems (who have less baggage in their BBC relations), which News International didn't factor back then, as well as the outpouring of anger from listeners of the station, and appeals from 6 DJ's like Jarvis Cocker and Lauren Laverne to keep the station on air, has actually bolstered the listening (I nearly wrote viewing then! Oops) figures by up to 50 percent, after the planned closure was announced. It is always good to see a bit of people power in action to save quality broadcasting with a loyal and dedicated following. I think Murdoch forgets that most people care more about this, than the desire to increase News Internationals sphere of influence. But both of these events seem to have given the trust a shot in the arm. The comments in the whole article seem to suggest that the Trust is willing to stand up to it's critics, and is self analysing it's role as a public broadcaster. This comment is especially promising:

"The BBC Trust also criticised aspects of the Corporation's flagship channel BBC1 today, saying it should be 'more ambitious and distinctive, in particular by increasing the variety of programming in pre-watershed peak time and showing greater creative and editorial ambition at 9pm.'

BBC2 needed to become 'a clearer alternative to BBC1, even at the risk of reaching fewer viewers', it said.

Both BBC1 and BBC2 in daytime are 'not meeting audience expectations' on the delivery of public purposes, it said."

A pretty robust assertion of public service values.

I wasn't there at the meetings that the Trust had, so I can only attempt to analyse my interpretation of events. But it seems the Trust has engaged in a PR exercise to fend off its critics, and engage with the public it broadcasts to. By cutting the top peoples salaries, and the budgets for A-list casting, the Beeb can show it is doing its bit in a period of economic doo doo. Not axing 6 Music shows the BBC cares about its passionate, licence paying public. The declaration of improving BBC 1&2's output for "audience expectations", likewise. A major problem with cutting an external and obvious source of BBC expenditure like "6", is that it can be argued you can cut some more, and then even some more chunks too.

The BBC, by its very nature will always face flack. But for now I think it has weathered it well. The comments by the Trust are promising, and show they have resolve. They'll need it, because the BBC's detractors will eventually find another stick to beat them with.

BBC's "Survivors" hasn't survived the chop.

Well it's been confirmed after a lot of rumours, that the remake of 70's post apocalyptic drama "Survivors", also called, surprisingly "Survivors" (2008-2010), has been axed and will not be returning for the third season it would have had, had it continued. Largely due to the fact that it was a sci-fi show with decreasing ratings (unlike say Torchwood), and also because (IMHO); lets face it, it was a bit shit as well.

Survivors had a great premise, wipe out just about every human being with a virus, and see how a bunch of "normal people", and others try to eke out a living, with all the comforts and familiarity they took for granted totally stripped away. It's the classic eschatological; fantastic fish out of water - scene setting; that sci -fi writers are so keen to utilise, and when well done it's an ideal environment for a good bit of sci-fi.

Perhaps because I purchased a copy of Alan Weismans. "The World Without Us." , that despite a promising start, the series never capitalises on the premise of this new, nearly post human world (which, the human part would fall apart very quickly, as "World" describes"), in some of the rural scenes, apparently the end of mankind, will be a bit like having a rubbish camping trip, with no one about, and no electricity. Hmmm. The good, apocalyptic sci fis, like the first episodes of the newer "Battlestar Galactica" and Stephen Baxter's novel, "Flood" manage to convey the dire (and unusual) situation these people face, in their now destroyed worlds, in the context of keeping it with a tight character piece. Survivors doesn't do this. The show had an aimless quality, where the characters more often than not, encountered the dull plot of the week, and everything would be fine by the credit roll. There was little scope to see how society adopts to this new world. Indeed when they discovered a colony set up by the highest surviving government official, they fled it due to the harsh rules, so in a way the series ducked the bigger questions of how a new order would be built, in exchange for our characters walking around the Peak District, pretending to be in an apocalyptic wasteland.

The plotting did have the odd good bit now and then, but the origin of the virus plot was far too tenuously spread, and went on for so long without giving us anything to go on, it just became boring. The characters and (bad) script were uninteresting (especially the Doctor, and the Asian guy.) and poorly realised. We couldn't really relate to Abby Grant (the lead) finding her son, as much as the show wanted. The dodgy hard man Tom character, should have been an intriguing one, but spent 90% of his screen time, glaring at stuff in a menacing way. It was all in all, a very long - drawn out, and lacklustre series. And I'm not surprised that it hasn't been renewed, it certainly didn't deserve to be.

Sachsgate. The Saga continues. (No really.) Groannnn!

I really thought that the Daily Mail couldn't possibly wring out any more drips of bile from the "Sachsgate" (the answerphone messages, Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand left on Andrew (Manuel) Sach's phone on their Radio 2 show.) fallout, I was wrong. Because today we have this latest twist in the tale.

To be fair to Ross (The interview that spawned this article is here.) He describes the suspension, and the turmoil, and sudden change in his circumstances as "fun". Likewise, he describes the media furore and the huge over reaction; as "hilarious" and an "intrinsically unimportant" (which it was definitely, on this point) issue in the greater scheme of things. Whether you conclude that [the interview] paints Ross as an irreverent eccentric who sees life as one tragi -comic, whimsical adventure, or an egotistical, overpaid man -child who lives for the day, to hell with everything else. (and I feel that from the tone of the interview, it's the former, sprayed with hints of the latter) I felt that it is wrong to think that it is an attack on Andrew Sachs, but perhaps an up yours to the Mail, and others. A man trying (perhaps a bit to hard) to keep up a cheery; one fingered salute against a fierce barrage of shit. Who is being defined by his critics from the rougher edges of his whimsical exuberance, than the more esoteric side he'd rather be noted for.

There's not much more to add to the narrative of this whole sorry saga. It started with the incident happening and largely passing unnoticed. MoS gets wind of it, and start a feverish campaign to "ban this filth" against a long term hate target(s) (Ross seems to be a particular Dacre hobby horse. Possibly because of his reputed wages at the bloated money burning communist furnace, that is the BBC or what the hell ever it is. Brand also has a few crosshairs on his forehead. He's screwed more people than Bernie Madoff did in a lifetime, scarcely appropriate behaviour for the Amphill WI jam making and annual hot cross bun reviewing Middle England ladies society, and he's also a bit weird looking and thus reduces house prices.) Get people to ring ofcom to complain about second hand stuff they never even listened to. Cue Auntie desperately try to reign in the storm by suspending the pair (Brand is eventually fired) and sacking the controller of R2 (Lesley Douglas). See the BBC fail to understand that their enemies aren't interested in being placated, they wan't them finished, and denounce the BBC anyway. Let's face it, if the DG of the Beeb allowed the pair to have been disemboweled by Melenie Philips herself and Steven Glover had then boiled them alive in hot tar, on the Television Centre car park, the Mail would have ragged the Beeb for inflating petrol prices for the gratuitous use of oil. This is the kind of mentality the organisation is up against.

Now I think that the calls were (no pun intended) a a bad call. There are questions to how much Sachs was aware of what was finally transmitted. Unlike the famous Brass Eye "Cake" spoof, where people were again unaware they were the butt of a joke at their expense, Sachs hadn't done anything to warrant it. In the cake sketch, celebrities were willing to swallow whole blatant bullshit to look good. For me this is why I think someone should have said "hang on" before transmission, and have contacted Sachs, as to what would be put out (it was put out 2 days after recording) and if he was OK with it. For what happened to the trio after the backlash, Sachs was surprisingly dignified about the affair, taking care to not give the press the vengeful soundbites they wanted, (in substantial contrast to the Mail), and just seemed to want the whole thing to blow over. Really an apology to Sachs (which seems to have been how he wanted it to end. He was always very politely keen to bring the whole thing to an end, from what he said at the time), and a bollocking at BBC HQ should have been the end of it. But in the end who really thinks this was just about looking out for a Fawlty Towers legend?

Is this proposed BBC trimming a bad sign for Aunties future?

In the Rupert Murdoch owned Times, there has been an article apparently leaked to the paper that outlines a proposed budgetary shake up of the BBC by its director general, Mark Thompson. He will be undertaking a strategic review of the entire corporation next month, and the Times article suggests that he will largely be focusing on budget allocation, and attempting to bring costs down, a priority he believes is all the more urgent due to the licence fee being frozen in 2013 (there is a good chance the Tories will be in power then, and that brings perhaps extra worries to a BBC director general. More on this later.). The - I must emphasise: proposed cuts can be boiled down to the following:

1. HALVING THE SIZE OF THE BBC's WEBSITES.

2. CLOSING RADIO 6 AND THE ASIAN NETWORK

3. POSSIBLY AUCTIONING OFF BBC WORLDWIDE MAGAZINES (i.e Top Gear and Radio Times.)

4. CUTTING THE BUDGETS OF SPORTS AND IMPORTED PROGRAMMING

5. A SHIFT TOWARD MORE "QUALITY FOCUSED" TV AT THE EXPENSE OF "RATING PULLERS"






The Times article and the Big, Bloated and Cunning comment piece (I wonder how much influence Murdoch had in the wording of the editorial? Hmmmm.) is typical "News International" fayre where Auntie is concerned, and with all these types of commentary, there is more half said, than actually said aloud. Murdoch seems to have an obsessive, almost pathological hatred of the BBC. Perhaps for such a profound control freak, the fact that the BBC and its licence fee are ring fenced (for now) from News Internationals grasps on the UK media market is too much to bear. It also makes his attacks so brazenly hypocritical. Attacks like these:-

"In times of uncertainty, of maxed-out credit cards and job cuts, we all seek the comforting embrace of Auntie Beeb."

"The real giveaway in the proposals is that the BBC seems to have no plans to give anything back to licence-fee payers."

"The best way to make that happen would be to make a substantial cut to the licence fee and give money back to people to spend as they like."

The problem with this argument is it is a "how long is a piece of string?" argument. Like any sort of publicly funded thing that, it can seem too rapacious if you don't approve of it. The problem for the BBC is, if they do fall into the trap of cutting back, their enemies can always say cut more.

"It is an empire that schedules TV programmes to wrong-foot its rivals. Proposals seen by The Times look like a welcome recognition that the empire has gone too far,"

This is a bit rich from a news paper group that tried to undercut it's broadsheet opponents in the 90's with a cut price Times, that nearly brought down the Independent, threatened the Guardian, and even created ripples for the Telegraph.

"The BBC ought to be a creative force for entrepreneurship. In reality it stifles innovation. It has planned to expand local news services when local papers are struggling to survive."

The only thing being stifled that News Media really cares about is Murdochs profits. As for the second half of the quote, read the above paragraph.

"The new proposals were written to serve the best interests of the BBC, not the public. The next government will need to take on what Channel 4’s chairman last year described as “the most powerful lobbying and effective organisation in Britain”. Until then, Auntie Beeb’s warm embrace will simultaneously be a stranglehold that is unpleasant and untenable."

It's a typical piece by the Murdoch media. Attack the BBC as a bloated out of touch, cash guzzling black hole that stifles all it's opponents in it's wake. Suggest that the government (presumably David Cameron's Tories) do something to reign it in. It is essentially a call to arms to hack the BBC down to size, (I'd imagine Murdoch thinks that it should be a non-existent size.), and it looks like they are only too willing to oblige.

"Conservatives wanted "a smaller BBC", but did not want "to beat up the BBC". He added that proposals to close digital stations 6 Music and the Asian Network and cut back the BBC website, reported in today's Times, were "intelligent and sensible"."



"We want a smaller BBC because it is doing down its commercial rivals and this seems to have addressed a number of issues".

However, Vaizey called for greater "transparency" on BBC spending."

I don't know if that a tacit admission of a conflict of interest between Murdoch and the BBC by the shadow culture minister, but a potential Tory government cool to the BBC doesn't look promising to those of us like myself who think the BBC is a valuable asset to both quality broadcasting and the nation as a whole and needs preserving.

Now I'm all for responsible monitoring of budgets, but a lot of qualms about the BBC that are often bandied about are ones about it having to reach niche audiences (see BBC6 and Asian Network) (who incidentally pay the licence fee like everyone else.) The BBC by the virtue of its diverse licence payers will always have to be a mixed bag, and this point has to be emphasised, not perhaps to the critics of the BBC, who don't want to know, but perhaps hammered home a bit more, and I think that this is what Thompson doesn't want to do, by the proposed axing of the aforementioned radio stations. I'm not entirely enamoured with Mark Thompson as D.G, and think he may be setting up the BBC for bigger falls - by shedding the types of networks he thinks the BBC critics might like to see go. BBC 6 and the Asian Network are seen as "the trendy pet projects of an out of touch media elite" and "PC" by many of the more vocal (and largely middle aged, middle English pub bore variety) critics, that are (unintentionally I admit) summed up by the prize plank and I'm sure as night follows day, a dead cert for a future repeat offender on here, MP for Shipley Philip Davies, who describes BBC3, which he wanted to be axed in an interview in 2007 as:

"They don't serve a purpose and nobody watches them."

It seems that Mark Thompson appears to be planning a two pronged defence against a hostile Murdoch media, allied to a possible Tory government, that will freeze the licence fee, or worse will place the fee at a lower rate than the the relative levels of inflation. I can assume he; on the one hand wants to stave off attacks of dumbing down with licence payers money, by looking into increasing "quality broadcasting", and then trying to quell the critics by reducing or strimming "niche and unrepresentative" BBC outlets like R6. I have sympathy for him, it's a rock and a hard place to be really. I just feel that like throwing lambs to a hungry wolf, in the hope that it will get full up and lose interest. It will just encourage the attacks on the BBC, get rid of some of the less popular stuff, why not get rid of more? Not showing popular viewing figure boosters? How can you claim to be representing licence fee payers then? I don't think that most of the low level grumblers about the BBC, want to see it abolished totally. It does on some level seem to permeate into the national psyche. (notice how Radio 4, a very costly radio station, seems to escape criticism. This absolutely not dumbed down station does seem "out of bounds" to the low level critics.) It would be a real tragedy if we let short term grumbles about the BBC allow its more determined enemies to use them to hack it away to long term oblivion.


PS. If you do think as some have suggested that privately owned media, and profit based viewing figures make for better quality news programmes, than BBC news, then I put this to you. I once saw two news broadcasters commentating on the appallingly gruesome murder of a 5 year old girl by a relative. The grandparents of the child wanted the details of the post -mortem, for the sake of their dead grandchild's dignity, and the respect of the family in their grief to be spared from having them made public, on the news broadcasts. The news reporters disagreed, saying it was in the public interest that the warts and all account of the post mortem be divulged on the news (the evening news I might add) for all to see. Now I ask, which of the two outlets; BBC or private news network, do you think that was broadcast on? I think we all know.