Bloggerheads

Rupert Murdoch not only controls what his readers/viewers/listeners learn via right-wing bias (which has long been denied but was finally confirmed last month); he controls what readers/viewers/listeners of other news services learn via accusing them of left-wing bias.

Let me give you an example…

What Tony Blair asked for Africa and what Tony Blair got are two very different things. The $674 million in emergency aid for Africa from the US that he and others did their best to put a positive spin on is a far cry from the billions he was seeking… and it had already been earmarked for this purpose by Congress.

Now, the BBC did make us aware of this in the initial report, but on subsequent reports (especially on radio), they let the claims that this was new/significant money slide in the hope that sensible people would remember the important bit. They do this kind of thing because:
1) They fear that it will be used as a stick to beat them with. (Why does the BBC continue with their anti-American propaganda? etc. etc.)
2) It takes about 18 seconds to explain, and time/space is precious in media.
3) They place great trust in your intelligence.

But FOX has a cleverererer way of dealing with it. They develop a catchphrase that sums up an issue (from their point of view) and/or undermines one of their targets and repeat it again and again and again.

If the BBC were as guilty of bias as Murdoch’s minions claim they are, then this would have been dubbed ‘pocket change’ from Day One and you would still be hearing the term describing it today.

Repetition aids retention.
Repetition aids retention.
Repetition aids retention.

But the BBC don’t do this. FOX do. The Sun does it too. Again and again and again. All the while crying hysterically that the BBC is pushing a liberal agenda. They do this kind of thing because:
1) They do not fear Teh Stick. They are Teh Stick.
2) It takes about 1.5 seconds to assert (no explanation required), and time/space is precious in media.
3) They place great trust in your stupidity.

Report – Campaign against anti-social behaviour ‘needs prevention as well as enforcement’: The Government should consider shifting the emphasis of its campaign against anti-social behaviour (ASB) to show it can tackle the underlying causes, as well as taking a hard line with perpetrators. Research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reveals that a majority 66 per cent of adults believe preventive action offers the most effective way to tackle rowdy, intimidating behaviour, vandalism and other anti-social behaviour. Only 20 per cent interviewed in a specially-commissioned national survey regarded tough action against young people and others accused of ‘ASB’ as the best way forward, while another 11 per cent called for a combination of prevention and enforcement.

Damn it all, you’d think these people would read a newspaper or two. Had they cast an eye over the Sun or the Daily Mail (both pretty much the same thing these days) they would have realised that we are in danger of being overwhelmed by rampaging yobs, criminal gangs and terrorists.

Wait… hang on… now I think about it… isn’t needlessly stirring up fear to sell newpapers a form of anti-social behaviour? How about referring to the French as ‘Crazy Frogs’ on the front page as The Scum do today? Someone should take out an ASBO against these people (and make sure that they use the right name on the form)….

Media Monkey: It was one of those legal quirks that makes you proud of the England and Wales justice system. The Sun escaped prosecution last week for allegedly naming the victim of a sexual assault after the Crown Prosecution Service bungled the case by naming News International as its publisher. Oh no, said the Sun’s lawyers, we’re not called News International, we’re called News Group Newspapers. Legal manager Tom Crone produced a swath of past litigation to prove his point. Asked whether News International “holds itself out” as publisher of the Sun, Crone told Huntingdon magistrates court: “Not to my knowledge. Quite the opposite. The publisher, as the attorney general has always known, is News Group Newspapers.” Moreover, the Sun lawyer Henri Brandman said there was no such thing in law as News International. “The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that not only has the incorrect defendant been charged but, in fact, there is no legal entity that is the party that’s been charged.” Case, as they say, dismissed. But hang on, what’s this on the website of News Corp, the umbrella company for Rupert Murdoch’s worldwide media empire? “News International publishes four of the UK’s top national newspapers – the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World.” The address for News International is given as “1 Virginia Street” – Wapping, to you and me. So does all this mean that News International is an illegal entity? We should be told.