Will the right-wing media eat its own enfants terrible?

I admit that I've probably watched the Lawrence Fox drama play out with a certain sense of wry amusement. Perhaps that's because I understand that, with actions, come consequences. And, if you don't want to accept the consequences, your options might not be terribly palatable.

That means that there are certain rules to be adhered to. For example, the right to free speech is balanced by an acceptance of the consequences of expressing them. If you really are a free speech warrior, then that's actually quite easy. Say something vile, be thought of as vile by a bunch of people, some of whom may have the ability to alter your life. You may conclude that the benefits of being vile outweigh the penalties.

Alternatively, you can restrain yourself from expressing some of the things that you might otherwise want to say, in order to protect the things you care for - wealth, family, loved ones.

But saying something stupid and unpleasant and then apologising in order to protect what you have means that you're not a free speech warrior, you're actually more than a little cowardly. You've suddenly realised that you don't fancy the consequences and would really like to wriggle off of the hook.

It tends to come to all of the (predominantly) right-wing media exponents of extreme positions in the end. There's a buzz to being paid to say things that most people wouldn't either have the nerve to say publicly or want to espouse in the first place. And our media pay well for those who rise to prominence. The catch is that there are plenty of people who hold, or are willing to express, opinions that are provocative or sensationalist, and thus to maintain your lucrative position, you have to push a little further all of the time until you reach the tipping point where your viewpoints aren't just edgy but widely accepted to be offensive.

And that's when your average media company usually decides that their brand is more important than your salary, and you get canned. They need the advertising revenue and, in a world where social media campaigns can very effectively persuade advertisers to look elsewhere, standing by an offensive columnist is just not worth it financially.

How to replace that buzz of attention is the next problem, and that means attracting attention by being even more "out there", shouting into the void. And yes, you can probably make a living, for a while, appealing to a smaller and smaller, albeit more fanatical, audience until you end up like Katie Hopkins (remember her?) - reduced to travelling the world being ever more childishly outrageous in search of the next cheque.

Alternatively, you can row back from your more outré positions and attempt to re-enter the mainstream of commentary. But does that mean that your original statements were made simply to earn money, and that you never believed them in the first place? And what does that say about you as a person, or about your integrity?

And, as the media cycle gets shorter and shorter, and as technology allows more and more people to express themselves and their opinions, the time taken to go from enfant terrible to friendless embarrassment reduces too, and the financial benefits shrink accordingly.

So, Lawrence, was it really worth it? Only you can tell...

More adventures in media choice...

I wrote, a fortnight or so ago, about giving up The Times, in part because of its recruitment of Quentin Letts, but in truth because it has become a source of anger rather than disagreement. The unremittingly negative coverage of transgender issues, the continuing employment of Rod Liddle, the increasingly desperate attempts to smear Jeremy Corbyn (and, for that matter, anyone who isn’t a Conservative Party politician), all added up to a conclusion that giving them £10 per week to annoy me was a pretty poor use of the funds.

So, how am I getting on? 

Well, it’s early days yet, and as my subscription doesn’t expire for another three weeks, I’m still taking advantage of it, but I’ve made two financial commitments and taken up one newspaper that is still free online and apparently not looking for money.

I’ve always enjoyed The Economist, and whilst it can be a little dry at times, its tendency to rely on facts and, where an opinion is being offered, its clarity as to the difference, is welcome in a time where the line between news reporting and opinion is increasingly blurred. For £215 per year, I receive my weekly copy of the dead tree version, plus access to the digital version online, as well as daily e-mails with stories that might interest me. I’m still £305 a year better off, and probably less annoyed.

Ros reads the New York Times, and is quite impressed with their coverage of British politics, but there seems little point in both of us paying for it, so I’ve signed up to The Washington Post. They ask a mere $30 for an initial annual subscription to the digital edition, rising to $100 thereafter, and whilst that may turn out to be more than I really want to pay, at that price, what do I have to lose? And I’m still £282 a year better off...

I know that The Guardian is free online, merely begging for money endlessly. A bit of me wants to give them some, for I am taking advantage of their largesse whilst only offering them potential advertising revenue. But, for the time being, I will resist the temptation to contribute towards Polly Toynbee’s salary. Instead, I’ve downloaded the app for The Times of India, a newspaper my great uncle once worked for. They appear not to want any payment, although that may of course change in the future. It offers me a very different perspective on the world, links me to the family home and is likely to give me an insight into what is likely to be one of the world’s top five economies before very long.

So, there you have it, three very different mediums, each offering a very different perspective, all of which are highly respected. We’ll see how it goes...

Has Dermot Murnaghan forgotten what his job is?

It's a personal rule of thumb that, if a television or radio show includes the name of the presenter, it's intended to be entertaining rather than informative. So, the Morecambe and Wise Show was funny, Weekend World was serious news.

And so, the Dermot Murnaghan/Emily Thornberry exchange over the weekend merely serves to reinforce my theory. Giving the Shadow Foreign Secretary a pop quiz may have seemed vaguely humorous, but it was hardly news. Was it sexist? Possibly, you'd have to ask young Murnaghan that (and actually, why shouldn't he be held accountable for his actions?), but it is an unproven charge.

I suspect that if the tables had been turned, he might not have done at all well either, but it's all a distraction from the things that matter.

For in allowing Emily Thornberry to look vaguely sympathetic, the opportunity to quiz her on such issues as Syria, the next Secretary General of the United Nations, nuclear proliferation, has been overshadowed. And, funnily enough, that's what I assumed Dermot Murnaghan was for.

Her job is to hold the Government to account, and it's rather harder to know whether or not she'd be any better than Boris Johnson if we only get to hear whether or not she can identify the Foreign Minister of Japan. And, even if she can, it isn't that important, as they do change, even as the policies of the nations they represent remain constant(ish).

So, poor form, Mr Murnaghan, try harder and remember what it was that got your name 'in lights' in the first place...

Why journalists are not exactly the best people to report news...

Pog the pig - was her behaviour
a touch rash(er)?

Here in Suffolk, we do like our pork. The pig industry is a key part of our agricultural sector, especially in the sandy heathlands both to the east of the county near the coast, and in the west of the county, in the Brecks. And, because pigs are kind of cute, we've had a Suffolk version of the Cow Parade, called "Pigs Gone Wild", thirty-nine decorated pigs dotted around Ipswich, throughout the summer.

They've been popular too, with children taking a particular interest in such pigs as "The Great Piggish Bake Off" (a pig painted to look like a Victoria Sandwich), and "Sir Bradley Piggins", in cycling gear with sideburns. Even Abellio Greater Anglia, our local Train Operating Company, has sponsored "Hamlet".

And so, when a pet pig called Pog escaped from her home in the town this week, it was a great hook for a story. The Sun's headline was;

ROAD HOG! Giant 300kg pig goes on the rampage through housing estate after escaping from nearby farm

Scary, eh? That's forty-seven stones worth of bacon prowling the mean streets of Ipswich, attacking small children, damaging vehicles, causing traffic accidents. For, after all, rampage is defined as;

violent or excited behavior that is reckless, uncontrolled, or destructive.

The Daily Mail was slightly less apocalyptic;

Pig weighing 47 STONE causes havoc when she escapes from her home and runs wild around village

which does go to show that Daily Mail reporters don't get out much - Ipswich is a 'village' of over 130,000 people. But the havoc thing is pretty scary, you'd certainly want to keep your kids off of the street, wouldn't you?

The Daily Telegraph clearly doesn't want to alarm the retired colonels who make up its readership, leading with;

Police called after massive pig goes on the run in Suffolk

which just about covered the level of local concern. You do need a police officer to keep an eye on things just in case.

Luckily, we can rely on the Ipswich Star's coverage, which got it just about right;

Surprise over actual pig gone wild in Newbury Road, Ipswich

The actual story was that Pog had escaped from her owner's home (not a farm, for the benefit of The Sun) and gone for a gentle stroll. Her owner had come out to make sure that nothing stupid happened and, as an observer noted, “She was very happy, she wasn't going home any time soon. But she was under control, the owner was very very good.”. And then she went home.

Now, I accept that, in the generality of news reporting in this country, a humorous little 'local interest' story isn't terribly important. But we rely on journalists to bring us information, and millions of people absorb what they read and often assume that what they read in their newspapers is accurate. And this story reminds us that, increasingly, newspapers don't supply news, they supply entertainment, plus opinion, propaganda and untruths designed to promote their own agendas.

That's important, especially in the context of political reporting, which colours how we, the voters, make our choices. It certainly affected the result of the EU referendum, and it continues to shape the debate about what sort of Brexit we end up with. After all, what does motivate the collection of foreigners and tax exiles that own much of our national Press? Is it our best interests, or theirs?

And the drift towards opinion masquerading as reporting is a problem for us too. Often merely reflecting the personal prejudice of the author, there is seldom any opportunity to challenge such arguments, and little effort on the part of editors to remove egregious lies. That may be down to the cutting of editorial staff, sub-editors and fact checkers as surplus to profit-making requirements, but it again impacts on our body politic.

I'm a great believer in an informed democracy, where voters make choices based on a range of choices, armed with facts. The media have a critical role in that, but if you can't trust them, and their agenda is pursued covertly, we have a problem. Journalists risk becoming lobbyists, as opposed to reporters. 

The story of Pog the pig demonstrates another weakness of our media - an increasing lack of accuracy. How often do you hear people at the centre of stories remark that the reporting gives a wholly misleading view of an incident? Has the need to sell newspapers become more important than relaying the facts?

I am a pessimist about the British media. In truth, I'd probably be a pessimist about the media in most of the Western democracies. Of course, even our media are better than that which exists in too many countries where censorship or repression of journalists is commonplace, but in a society where freedom of expression is justly placed on a pedestal, it would be nice if the profession showed just a little bit more respect for the ethics and responsibilities of their trade...

Far from the campaign trail... is decent politics to be drowned out by the vilest common denominator?

The news that Jack Monroe has quit Twitter due to homophobic abuse is just another depressing event in what has felt like a descent into a world where too many of the voices you hear are unpleasant ones.

And no, I don't want to suggest that people who disagree with me are unpleasant. Yes, some of them are, but they can't be categorised as simply political opponents. But, below the line in virtually every newspaper, there seems to be a never ending stream of vile abuse towards anyone and everyone who dares to put their head above the parapet to espouse a view that they believe in.

But, and let's face it, such people are hardly discouraged from their belief that rudeness and crudeness are perfectly acceptable ways to treat their fellow human beings. Journalists who write snide comments picking on the imperfections of politicians, politicians who lie about their opponents or wilfully misrepresent them, members of the public who express a view that all politicians are 'in it for themselves', regardless of whether they have any evidence or not, all of them debase our political culture.

And it's worse in the case of such politicians and journalists, because they know exactly what they are doing. By encouraging the likes of Guido Fawkes to do their dirty work for them, or by ridiculing anyone who expresses doubt or hesitation, or even does a little free thinking, they send out a clear message that it is open season on the naive, the thoughtful, the non-partisan. No wonder that politicians attempt to control how they are presented - a foolish notion in any event, but perhaps understandable.

Indeed, I now find myself wondering why anyone thinking of entering into politics would even think twice. Why set yourself up to be abused by the stupid, the evil and the callous when you could live a quiet life, have a decent career and travel entirely under the radar? You and your family get a private life, nobody except your boss expects you to justify yourself and, eventually, you get to enjoy the fruits of your labour without hassle or insult.

There is an obvious problem, I accept. If everyone who has feelings opts out of politics, you leave it to those more fanatical, less caring of what others say or think. One shudders to think of the likely outcome of such a turn of events.

To make matters worse, such behaviour is now targeted at public figures generally. If you are a celebrity, one might at least hope that the financial rewards make up for it (they probably don't), but for those in public life generally, it is another disincentive to serve the wider public. I suspect that the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is avoiding the internet and social media, given her decision on whether to prosecute Greville Janner or not. I don't know whether or not her decision was the right one, but she will have weighed up all of the evidence available before making the decision not to proceed. She will, however, be being abused by people who haven't seen the evidence, and wouldn't care even if they had. And they will be encouraged by the attitude of the Fifth Estate.

No, it's been a deeply depressing General Election campaign, and whilst I know that there are plenty of good, decent people campaigning for what they believe in, nobody is covering that...

The day I met Linda Lusardi

As The Sun appears to have withdrawn the topless women from page 3, today seems like a good day to reminisce. I am, after all, an old man these days...

There was a time, when I was young, when I used to travel around London for fun. Hard to believe, I know, but there you are. I could tell you how to get from just about anywhere to anywhere else, in short, a bit of an anorak. So, when an event was organised that involved travelling the Tube network, getting a card stamped at various stations and perhaps winning something - most of the details of this story are pretty vague, I'm afraid - I wasn't going to miss out.

To make things more interesting, celebrities were promised, not that this was terribly important to me. And so, I found myself at a central London station, Piccadilly Circus if memory serves, where one of the celebrities was Linda Lusardi, one of the most famous Page 3 girls of her era. By this stage, I was being helpful, rather than competitive, and found myself trying to protect her from a rather over-eager audience.

It is perhaps a sign of the times that men were rather keen to get very close to her, and it became clear that the security was non-existent, and so I found myself attempting to get between her and the crowd. It was quite scary, and she was clearly distressed by the attempts to touch her. I have to admit that I felt rather sorry for her, as it couldn't have been nice to be crowded by a bunch of strangers. Luckily, rescue was soon at hand, and she was taken to a safe place.

I have always thought that it must be terrible to be a celebrity in some ways, with the sense of depersonalisation and and that you are, somehow, public property. It must be worse still, if all you are to some people is a naked body to be ogled.

The end of Page 3 in its current format is, therefore, probably a good thing, even if it is only a small drop in a vast ocean of objectification of men and women. But, perhaps, by taking it out of the mainstream, it might make some people think a little harder about the issue in future...

Good on you, @ChukaUmunna...

I note that there is some fuss about Chuka Umunna's decision to walk out of an interview with Dermot Murnaghan yesterday morning on Sky, having decided not to put up with being ambushed on the question of Eric Pickles' letter to Muslim leaders across the country.

You can argue legitimately about whether or not the letter was the right thing to do, and I would expect that those who have read it (I am not included in that category, I admit) to have a view on it. On the other hand, it would be nice to see a little integrity on the part of those asking the questions.

For example, if you invite someone into a studio to answer questions on subject X, a well-organised politician will prepare, read up on party policy perhaps, as well as the news reports on the matter. They may even check what other parties are saying on the subject. At least, they will do if they want to provide the audience with meaningful answers. So, when you ask them about something completely different, you shouldn't be surprised if a sensible politician says, actually, I don't know enough about that to give you a proper answer. And yes, it could be just evasion, but it could be plain honesty - something that you, the media, keep telling us is good.

So, asking a Labour spokesperson to answer a question about a letter he hasn't seen is, effectively, asking him to give you an unprepared, ill-informed answer, so that you can attack him later. And I have a little more admiration for Chuka Umunna for deciding not to play.

Dermot Murnaghan, you might think that it makes good television, but you're wrong, it's just another nail in the coffin of decent politics in this country, and yet another reason why more and more decent people decide that, if that's what it's about, they would rather find some other way of contributing to their community.

Food waste - another victim of misreporting

It is intriguing sometimes to see how the reporting of a story relates to the facts. Unfortunately, unless you are the subject of the story, or are part of it, you don't get to see how the facts and the reporting diverge. This week, however, I've had a ringside seat for a developing news story - the publication of a House of Lords report on food waste. It's been interesting, if not a little disheartening...

For example, much of the reporting, including Liberal Democrat Voice, claims that the report calls for BOGOFs to be banned, which is funny, because it doesn't. Instead, it calls for the supermarkets to rethink their strategy, as such offers on short life perishables are acknowledged, not least by the supermarkets themselves, to be the cause of significant wastage.

And it becomes clear that journalists and reporters don't really have, or make, time to do any real research other than a scan of a summary. Entertainingly, Iain Dale, interviewing Ros on LBC this morning, asked if this would impact on his use of Radox, in response to which Ros merely noted that Radox wasn't food. I'm not sure that I would have been quite so courteous...

It also demonstrates that, too often, the media feed off of each other, so a mistake made in an early report is simply transmitted on to more and more people, leading to misinformation and misunderstanding.

Reassuringly, those people who understand the real issues, from the National Farmers Union to FareShare UK, have broadly welcomed the report. Hopefully, this will lead to some concrete action to reduce wastage levels and provide a steer to the authorities in terms of what might be done.