Kofi's lingering goodbye.
Iraq the Model pronounces:
"Isn't it a shame that the secretary general of the UN is whining about he wasn't able to save a murderous dictator?"
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Hot Air today confronts the Jamil Hussein saga mentioned in one of the Sunday posts below. Mrs Malkin's in storming form and reminds me so much of my idealised notion of a female gym teacher. Come on people- especially you, MSM, at the back-, keep up!
Monday, December 04, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Setting his self interest to one side for a moment, I have to say that James Murdoch is spot-on.
"From the very start UK broadcasting regulation was skewed," Murdoch said.
"Not to protect people against real harm, but to ensure that broadcasting was a sort of moral and educative crusade.
"There is a tougher but truer description for this approach. It was and is authoritarian."
crooked materials ii
One reason why the MSM is so jittery about the blogosphere is that they themselves are so politicised.
I read with great interest the response of Associated Press editor Kathleen Carroll to recent accusations concerning her company's use of a supposed Iraqi "Captain Jamil Hussein" as a source for lurid stories of violence in Iraq- a man of whom the Iraqi Government say they have no record, and whose stories they have disputed:
"Good reporting relies on more than government-approved sources.", she said.
Yet the very point of quoting the source's supposed status is to demonstrate the authority of the report.
Two justifications spring to mind:
Stories can be fake but true, if you know what I mean.
The authority lie is a creative ruse to make the truth emerge without risking life and limb.
Blogfather Glenn Reynolds endorsed the theory that Jamil Hussein might be a former Baathist police officer who had never returned to work officially.
Certainly indications are that his stories are not corroborated by other sources.
In the dance for political position- unable and unwilling to trust the authorities, unwilling to ask them real questions (mainly because real questions might involve an assumption that their job is worthwhile), needing to keep them keen by showing independence, maintaining professional pride by enforcing relativism, showing solidarity with imagined grassroots in Iraq, perhaps even staying safe, one thing seems to be forgotten: facts.
Without facts any discourse will tend to become shrill, and if the bloggers get frequently crooked materials they will tend to be a bit angry, and they should be- never mind the lying two-faced mentally enfeebled pols!
Jules Crittenden wrote a good article about the AP. Flopping Aces broke the story about the stories.
Just recently there has been a bit of a blitz against blogs. Among others, Matthew Taylor, that Right On policy geek from Tony Blair's Government, has been having his say, characterising as "hostile" and "shrill" internet "discourse".
Meanwhile the Press Complaints Commission, in association with Alistair Campbell, has been calling for a voluntary "blogger's code" to mirror one applying to journalists.
Is it a coincidence that this comes as opposition to Tony Blair's Government, and invigorated Right or libertarian thought, seems to have amassed with quite some rapidity on the net? Or that the web is increasingly festooned with video reportage, some of which with the flavour of party political broadcasts?
The pace of progress makes it look as though the internet may be a factor in the next general election. Why isn't Labour mobilising on the internet?
Well, it is, but real Labour on the internet just takes the form of the hip and happening BBC. Quietly, and not so quietly, the BBC has been laying the foundations for future internet dominance. Quietly, as in the case of Richard Sambrook, less quietly in the case of the BBC editors' blog.
However, when Richard Sambrook is taking the lead you know that the BBC is serious.