Declining reputation of Journalism

On 21^st May Amol Rajan (Editor of The Independent) wrote about the confrontations between Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly of Fox News. He made the point, quite rightly, that “..For a civilised society to advance, there needs to be a reasonably settled view of what we call facts: sequential events that we can all agree have taken place.” In saying this Amol Rajan attacked, again quite rightly, Trump's attempts to simply deny and/or ignore facts as we understand them. He goes on to identify that many (not just in the USA) do not believe what the News Media and Journalists in particular tell them. How has this come to pass? Moreover how on earth could a significant minority of people believe/support what Trump says? One could engage in a heavy discussion about truth and meaning in the philosophical sense but where I do agree with Amol Rajan is facts are important and that these are generally accepted events and happenings as well as scientifically based true representations of reality.

It is my view that much of the declining reputation of Journalism is due to two principal reasons: first the expansion of news presentation particularly 24 hour visual media together with the accompanying expansion in the numbers involved – paid and unpaid; and secondly much greater awareness by the general public of the distinction between fact and opinion – not always evident in News and Journalism.

The expansion of news presentation leads to competition for readers/viewers as revenues depend on audience numbers. Slightly different for the BBC but it is clear they still compete for viewers/listeners/readers. In the end News has to be sold! The visual media demands/requires attractive presentation and time constraints which work against rigorous analysis and accuracy . This is a diversion from truth telling and reporting things as they are! The myriad of players (they all term themselves as Journalists but whether they are depends on what they do). Reading the news does not make one a journalist even if you have been trained it should be much more than that! I certainly do not claim to be Journalist only a mere commentator with life experiences. The expansion has seen people pursuing their own stories sometimes admirable stuff sometimes celebrity voyeurism. This expansion therefore leads to confusion as to what is Journalism and what is no more than gossip. It also diverts attention away from the seeking of truth and rigorous analysis.

The absence in much of the media of a clear distinction between fact and opinion has also contributed to the decline in the reputation of journalism. Sometimes the Journalist cannot help themselves particularly if they are “reporting” politics. How often have we heard, “..the agenda has now moved on...”; “..the issue is now...”. It is likely that these ideas were input from an external source maybe sometimes in the media and sometimes from a politician. Remember the old adage: “Just because you say it does not make it so!” Which brings us back to Trump. Don't give up Independent, New York Times, Economist, Washington Post. Trump is an ignorant, loud mouthed, egotistical and dangerous opportunist and while the political elites in both the USA and Europe have much to answer for Trump is not the answer more a nightmare for reasonable discourse.

Labour and Syria November 2015

Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of the Labour Party. In the context of British politics he is of the Left. A Backbencher in the Commons for many years and a serial breaker of the Labour Whip. A couple of years ago the Prime Minister lost a vote in the Commons seeking to extend a bombing campaign into Syria in support of rebels opposing the Assad regime (by any measure a tyrant determined to hold onto power by any means including the use of chemical weapons). Syria was and is allied to Russia.

By general consensus our escapades in the Middle East and North Africa have not been a success. Indeed it could be argued that our actions (with the USA, France and others) have ensured that what we describe as 'failed/dysfunctional states' become ruined 'failed/dysfunctional states'. It can also be argued that, the space created by making a 'failed state' a certainty by our intervention, would be filled by terrorists. This has come to pass. We now have ISIL/Da'esh – an extreme Jihadist organisation which some have described as a death cult in both Iraq and Syria. I agree. Its origins are in the sands of Arabia – but of that more another time. Having filled the space in Iraq they then moved into Syria and we have the catastrophe that now exists. Where are these 'gung-ho' Liberal Interventionists now! Just because it worked in Kosovo does not mean it works everywhere and in all circumstances.

The Prime Minister (a third rate Public Relations person with an attitude of entitlement) is now coming back seeking (or he will when he thinks he has enough votes) the authorization of the Commons for an air Campaign in Syria as well as Iraq against Da'esh. (UK is already operational in Iraq following a request from their Government).

Reading carefully the Prime Minister's statement and the questions from Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition) I see that the argument is framed in terms of the protection of UK citizens i.e. security and safety. This is of great importance but we cannot ignore the terrorist murders in Paris on 13^th November nor those in Beirut, Ankara, Baghdad and other places. President Hollande of France is surely correct that what we face is nothing less than the attempted destruction of our civilization. I am with him and all people who desire a free, pluralistic, democratic and worthwhile place in this world. So my first point is that we must stand and act in solidarity with the French and all like minded people. This does mean an air campaign in Syria against Da'esh.

It is disingenuous to query the UNSC resolution 2249 which clearly states:-

“Noting the letters dated 25^th June and 20^th September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da'esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq's borders that is a direct threat to the the security of the Iraqi people and territory,….

5) Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so take all necessary measures,…...”

This clearly shows that Da'esh (an enemy who we are attacking in Iraq) is now also in Syria. It follows that we should attack them there!. “All necessary measures” could also not be more clear. It is not restrictive nor conditional (save legality under International Law which it would be!)!

We need to be involved showing solidarity with our French cousins and in support of our way of life. The more strength politically and diplomatically we would have if we were also involved militarily. A country cannot be semi-detached militarily but fully attached politically and diplomatically. You may wish it otherwise but that is not the case. Nobody loves or indeed listens to the pontifications of some sanctimonious moraliser who refuses to get his/her hands dirty. So most important are the political and diplomatic positions. Militarily our contribution will be small but the political and diplomatic benefits make it very worthwhile.

What is important is the endgame/exit strategy. We should use are full engagement to ensure, as far as we are able:-

cease fire between Assad and his non Da'esh enemies, creation of safe havens in Iraq and Syria, humanitarian aid, re-construction and sustainable democratic institutions in both countries. This will not be a quick fix but it is better to try than not or even worse just sit on the sidelines carping and wringing your hands.

Then perhaps Labour can get on with its historic task of making this country more equal and an even better place to live.

Why Jeremy Corbyn will deliver the exact opposite of what he wishes

'Were things other than they are': ought to be the motto of Jeremy Corbyn. To read his proposals one would think that all the events of the last 40 years had not occurred and if they are recognised they can be wished away. Dangerous, naive nonsense!

First let us dispose of the 'motherhood and apple pie':-“...a fairer, kinder Britain...”; “...decent jobs...”; “Fair taxes for all...” etc. etc.. Nobody is against this sort of stuff!

“Growth not austerity”, Jeremy Corbyn has to show that this proposal will retain the confidence of the money markets. He has failed to do so. Markets are less rational than he would believe (strangely common ground with neo-liberals in believing that they are). Academics can produce all the statistics they like about rational behaviour in markets but it is not the whole story. Consider this: a huge house building programme, nationalisation of transport and energy; not replacing Trident, lifelong education. Don't get me wrong these are all proper policies but they are (in our present circumstances) undeliverable for this UK electorate. Moreover the circumstances are not going to change substantially. The globalisation train left the station years ago. World financial markets are very integrated. In that context then how is Jeremy Corbyn going to finance his projects – short answer he cannot – its pie in the sky!

But progress can be made if rolling back neo-liberal excess is what is required and that certainly is the case. Starting at the right place is important – let's take energy and transport. These utilities which are now at best oligopolies require licences to operate, the government has control over that process. Licence conditions as to price increases, customer service, Company Accounts transparency and profit levels are possible as well as extending FOI provisions to them. That these companies would squeal is to be expected – all I would say is that in the short consultation period all representations would have to be made public at the end of the consultation period. This is how to tackle the clear abuse of market position that has occurred with the 'botched' Tory privatisations which assumed that natural monopolies and/or oligopolies would behave differently from the more rapacious examples in the private sector. That sort of naive thinking is of the same ilk as Jeremy Corbyn.

So apart from the unlikely event of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister just proposing such policies ensures that Labour cannot win allowing the Conservative Party even more leeway to attack ordinary people. So I would urge all those who have a vote not to use it for Jeremy Corbyn. The road to hell and all that – with the addition of McCluskyite, Moronic, Marxists.

UK Economic Prospects with an Election Coming

At my age I should know better than pay much attention to what Politicians say particularly at the time of an election. However what we have is; Eurozone deflation, Japan in its third decade of stagnation, oil price collapse, political instability in the Middle East and on the Russia - Ukraine border, slowdown in China, UK and Eurozone printing money (asset bubble in the offing yet again!) and UK debt increasing all against the background of increasing inequality in wealth and income. Is it too much to ask for a bit of statesmanship and international vision? The evidence thus far is that I do ask too much. Nevertheless let us analyse what we can in the UK with an eye on international implications.

The Coalition Government has reduced the structural deficit i.e. the amount borrowed to support day to day spending. Yes that's right our day to day expenditure continues to exceed our income!! - the shortfall being made up by borrowing. This Government said that it would have eliminated this deficit by 2014/15 financial year. The Office of Budget Responsibility in December 2014 (Economic and Fiscal Outlook) states that (with a whole load of assumptions about growth performance, tax receipts and commitment from an incoming Government to very large further cuts in Public Expenditure) then this deficit could be eliminated in 2018/19. Who was it who said the best indicator of future performance is past performance! So the past 5 years have seen debt grow not decline. This should put into context any claims that this Government has the nous and will to achieve what is now being claimed.

The Labour Party and the centre Left give the impression that they will be fiscally responsible and the unspoken (or not yet spelt out clearly enough) policy is one of growing the economy out of the doldrums. Yet again we hit the issue of performance. The UK economy has found it very difficult to sustain growth in GDP of 3% per annum without problems - mainly inflation and balance of payments. However past experience does show that a Centre Left government would seriously attempt to do something about the gross and growing inequalities of wealth and income in the UK and other economies seduced by the neo-liberal/conservative supply side/trickle down fantasy.

So on balance I say go for growth (and get the Banks to fully repay their debts to the Country after 2007/8) in concert with other like minded Centre Left parties in Europe and North America.

DRIP A very sad tale of arrogance, pomposity and stupidity

In the middle of this year the substantially discredited political class in Westminster huddled together to push through a most illiberal piece of legislation. Its official title is Data Retention Investigatory Powers Act 2014. This legislation was rushed through at short notice just prior to the Summer recess despite the fact that the issues it attempts to rectify (a decision of the European Court of Justice in relation to privacy of the citizen) arose many months earlier. In brief, and of concern here, the legislation provides for the retention of all electronic communication data - in common parlance mass surveillance. Moreover the process by which this will be achieved is: Security Services/Police report to Home/Foreign Secretary who decides whether to proceed for more detail, i.e. peruse the details of particular communications. There is no involvement of the legal system prior to this further action!
Supporters of the Act usually deploy a number of arguments for the Act. Let's deal with some of them:
a) any action will be lawful - not necessarily because if a mistake is made but nothing happens as a result the injured party is not going to be told. See particularly the provisions of Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights where clearly in such a case as outlined there will have been a breach. However alleged national security will prevent disclosure. Yes its where Kafka meets Catch 22.
b) if you have nothing to hide what have you to worry about? - as a patriotic English man and British Citizen I don't have anything to hide but I do want the State to have the ability to peruse my communications with my family and friends nor my legitimate business correspondence especially out of touch Westminster apparatchiks.
c) all the staff in the Security Services/Police are honest and above board and politicians will always act within the law. I am sure we have all had that excuse in business, "That person no longer works for the company - it was a rogue employee". Without going into detail as to a variety of motivations such as money, promotion, principle or just plain voyeurism we only have to recall Weapons of Mass Destruction, telephone hacking, Birmingham 6 and just recently disclosures about Guantanamo. It is simply not plausible to believe what is claimed.
d) we have prevented many terrorist attacks and crimes and have brought many to justice. There is, of course, no independent verification of these claims. So it it is a question of trust?? mmmm!
e) the loss of privacy is worth saving lives - Hazel Blears admits that this is emotive language (progressonline 11th July 2014). This is not the whole equation and certainly there has to be intensive debate before a conclusion may be reached. So the only good thing about the Act is that it has a sunset clause i.e. it lapses in December 2016.

On the technical side the whole project is problematic. In effect unbreakable passwords and encryption exist - some so strong that with today's computing power it could take in excess of one million years to crack them. Take a case where the encryption is breakable it doesn't take a genius to go for multiple layers of encryption enclosing a coded message which may appear meaningless e.g. "The mallard has a green back" with meaning only to the sender and the recipient! How long before an ISP is hacked by a criminal or terrorist or "piggy backing" off some corporate site. I do not know how to but have been told you can spoof MAC addresses (its a security flaw in WPS and I am not aware of the answer). Probably not far off spoofing IP addresses. What about "use once and discard technology", spoof GPS on mobile phones? The point I am making here is that the really serious terrorists and criminals will know all this and will be acting accordingly. Getting involved in a technological arms race is at best never ending and enormously expensive (think how much NSA's Prism and GCHQ are costing)! An example is High Frequency Trading in various stock and financial markets - think also of the mistakes and manipulation.

So my plea is that all these factors have to be discussed in detail before December 2016 and can we all be treated as adults who have much greater experience of life and the foibles of people than most of those in the Westminster village.     
  

Cameron's Disservice to the UK

When the books are written about the past few weeks discussions at European level concerning the appointment of a new Commission President the massive incompetence of David Cameron will figure large. How is it that in the quest for reform he decided to fight on the grounds he did – opposing Juncker as the candidate of the largest Party in the European Parliament following the continent wide elections in May and objecting to the process saying it was undemocratic (this from a leader who only won a seat in a parliamentary constituency and was elected leader of what became the largest Party in 2010). Whether Juncker is an irretrievable federalist is relevant but not significant. He will be subject to enormous pressure from national Heads of government and (strangely another Cameron criticism) is known as a deal maker! Clearly the traumas of John Major's premiership and the question of Europe weigh heavily on his mind. However if it is not clear to David Cameron (it is, of course, but being deliberately obtuse is part of the politicians' toolkit, at least in the UK) that many of the so-called sceptics in his Party really want nothing less than exit from the European Union. Now I am of an age to remember and to have voted in the referendum of 1975 and being interested in politics. I also remember that it was portrayed as Free Trade and Economic Union. Those of us with an ounce of common knew that if successful such a union would have to develop politically and that a major driver was the politics of it all! Put simply it would be very difficult for constituent parts of a supra-national organisation to go to war with each other particularly if their trading and economies were so intertwined. We should not forget that in the 20^th century around 60 million people were killed as a result of wars originating in Europe.

Turning to David Cameron's strategy and tactics. It is evident that he needs an urgent refresher on Dale Carnegie's “How to win friends and influence people”. If he has not read it then perhaps he should ask for a rebate on his very expensive education fees! He needs to understand that people do not react very well to being shouted at and/or threatened especially as they would claim just as much a democratic mandate as him and that they are looking after their own country's interests. Nor is it good tactics to say if I do not get my way then I am not going to stay in this club. (All too often we witness this “hissy fit” behaviour from him). Then the arrogant assertion that you will regret this not having done as I asked. Talking quietly, making the case methodically and carefully having prepared the ground by developing good working relationships brings results. David Cameron clearly has spent far to much time in PR and is now almost detached from reality.

Now I am pro-Europe but nor “starry eyed”. Reform is necessary but not necessarily in the way David Cameron wishes. His policy is a mish mash of glib right wing pie in the sky utterances. It is simply not desirable nor deliverable to have a free market in goods and services but not have free movement of labour. That is, not possible and remain an open economy! If we were really intent on reform we should start with insisting that the accounts be approved with only minor (in the generally accepted commercial sense of minor) auditors qualifications. If that is not possible then the Commission's budget would be progressively cut (say by 5% a year) until auditors can approve the accounts.

I remain sceptical about political integration but it is on the agenda and would have been easier to deal with if a previous Conservative government had not been so keen to expand eastwards, tellingly not for mainly trade or economic reasons but for political objectives! (neo-con/liberal stuff and the end of the USSR). As with many things we have a certain Mrs Thatcher to thank for that but that is another story.

Advertising - Still a force for Good?

Earlier this year a spat between leaders of the advertising industry and Helen Goodman MP, Shadow Minister for Culture prompted me to look carefully what is being debated. It has become clear that this is another example of a great divide as to the extent to which markets should be left to look after themselves. The belief that to all intents and purposes they (Business) perform better and more effectively when left to the operation of the market  has surely been shattered post financial crisis 2008. However that cannot mean the abandonment of markets as history has shown, markets deliver growth and prosperity. As that very left-wing Angela Merkel has said - markets should serve people not be their masters. Such a position (mainstream European Christian Democracy) means that the interface between market operations and society is one of the major concerns of politics and government - hence a completely free hand in business is neither possible nor desirable.
Turning to the particular. What Helen Goodman was saying is in relation to gambling advertising specifically leading to "excessive marketing practices".
Sir Martin Sorrel of WPP interprets this as an attack on the advertising business in total. Now it is accepted that the days of restrained, informative advertising are long gone and now it appears to me that anything goes. A few examples - the furniture retailers who are always having a sale and quoting higher post sale prices that never seem to appear; the supermarkets who now admit to making "joke offers", what was £3.79 last week is now on offer at £5.19. One should wonder what part marketing and advertising played in PPI mis-selling.
I am not advocating legislation to deal with the claimed excessive marketing practices but I have no doubt they have, and continue to, exist. I remain anxious about statutory regulation of the Press but did they not (through their excesses) bring it upon themselves! So Martin Sorrel is wrong to suggest that this is an attack on the business itself. It is an attack on excesses with the clear implication that if companies do not do more in relation to social responsibility than have a budget for it, managed by a middle ranking executive, then intervention will be necessary. Trying to finesse the argument into one of interfering government versus thriving business won't wash. Parts of advertising and marketing need to clean up their act else the political pressure will become irresistible.

Resources used:
Sunday Telegraph 16th February 2014, Martin Sorrel.
campaignlive.co.uk, Danny Rogers, 31st January 2014