Deepwater Horizon and the media: A letter to auntie Beeb

I am writing concerning BBC coverage of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf Of Mexico.

The vast majority of bulletins I have heard (mostly Radios 4 and 5, which I expect are typical of the network) quote BP sources, very often unchallenged.

Too often they have the distinct ring of a BP press release, but BP are known to have misled us with regards to the scale of the problem, especially in the early days. Treating their PR seriously is demonstrably irresponsible journalism.

The hideous scale of the ecological disaster is rarely touched on. The biggest story by far is efforts to cap the leak rather than the effect of the leak.

Words like “leak” and “spill” vastly understate the scale of what has happened.
“Spill” is appropriate to describe knocking over a glass of water, not a massive underwater volcano of oil.

In fact, the “spill” is larger than Scotland and hundreds of feet thick in parts.

Other problems such as the very unhealthy gasses coming off the oil and the health / environmental effects of the chemical dispersants are not touched on at all.
The same is true of the increase in deepwater drilling caused by increasing scarcity of oil (“peak oil”). This level of drilling is a new phenomena set to continue, so there could well be more disasters of this nature around the corner, but again the BBC appears all too mute.

There is also a news blackout being conducted in some areas of the “clean up” that the BBC generally doesn’t comment on.

Even the Panorama programme on the issue was fairly weak in apportioning responsibility or the role of Blackwater and Halliburton in what went on.

As a licence payer who often defends the BBC I require you to research and tell me precisely how much lobbying BP have done and in what form. What efforts the BBC have made to counterbalance their propaganda? As a layperson I see very little evidence of the latter.

Suffering locals sometimes get a look in, but I have yet to hear anyone from groups such as Greenpeace or the US Green Party. Should the ratio of BP commentary and other groups (including locals) not be 1:1?

What are the BBC news team going to do in future to ensure that content is not overly influenced by large corporations whose hunger for profit can be so destructive to the only planet we have?

I look forward to your reply.



Steven Durrant

Picking over the bones.

Despite the fact that finance capital has been such an obvious screw-up it was generally not a good election for the left.

I got a strong advance indicator when I noticed on a few of those survey sites (that asked you questions and said which party suited you best) that there was no overt left party listed as a possible recommendation (though there were 2 possibilities to the right of the Conservatives)

The 2 main outfits this time out were Respect and TUSC, both coalitions and to be fair it was kind of nice that they provided for less of an alphabet soup / 57 varieties vibe than is often the case.

The constituency I voted in was targeted by 3 total minnows, probably because of the generally low turnout: Workers Revolutionary Party (AKA "The Actors Party through their association with the Redgraves), Socialist Equality (who they? - a typically comic split from WRP I think) and Scargill's increasingly anachronistic SLP.

When push came to shove the results just weren't all that. And I ain't rubbing it in.

Most notably Galloway lost his RESPECT seat, though he won't be missed by all. More sadly, Salma Yaqoob failed to win a seat, though she did creditably and may yet succeed whatever happens to the party.

TUSC are only young and have yet to build any kind of brand consciousness. The future is uncertain for them and the coalition seems more precarious in nature.

I think it's too early to say if and how the left will realign, but they had better make the most of any opportunity that a new voting system presents. It is pretty vile that fascism has sometimes stepped in where the left should have been ready to pick up the pieces of Labour's complacency and betrayals, but why is there a leaden pessimism lurking in my psyche as I contemplate the possibilities?

With one obvious exception it wasn't great for the Greens either - heavily squeezed, even more than usual at a General Election.

Hardly anyone noticed that there were local elections the same night and the results were far worse for smaller parties as a consequence. It's great that the fascists were wiped out in many places but next year they will bounce back somewhat at the locals and proclaim a miracle. they got about twice as many votes as the Greens at the nationals - a disturbing bellwether.

I said before the election that the single most important seat was Brighton Pavilion. For many far beyond the Greens it was the cheeriest thing of the night. It shocked me because results had been pretty poor elsewhere and Caroline's face looked unlike a winners at the announcement. When my clunking brain, with 3 hours sleep in 48, clicked that we had won I was a gibbering wreck. I still well up to think about it now.

I make no big claim about the potential of The Green Party to be standard bearers for the left: For one thing it's not exactly fair to those Greens who don't see themselves as leftists. I would rather people just examine the policies and judge for themselves.

In old money we average out as Social Democrats with an obvious eco-slant (One Green Left comrade happily throws the term "Menshevik" about as a denouncement).

Such a definition as "social democrat" can be confusing because mainstream media today portrays right wingers like David Miliband as "social democrat" just as erroneously as they call Labour "left wing".

Leftie stalwart John McDonnell is going for Labour leadership again, but he might well not get the requisite MP signatures, just as when Brown was coronated unopposed (a very silly thing for all concerned that there was no contest).

A poor show or no-show from Comrade M will only underline what a right wing outfit they are, but some ever patient cheerleaders are trying to get people to join up.

I am stunned that anyone on the left would join Labour at this time.

This should now be a time to reflect on the failure of 13 years in power to do even the most basic populist social democrat things like nationalising railways. The good things cited by defenders of Labour nearly all came in the first term as firm promises to the Welsh and Scots or via the commitment to the Social Chapter of the EU. Else wise it was mostly offensive right wing bilge all the way.

The idea that Labour MAY be more rhetorically left in opposition just adds insult to injury, like the "look at what you could have won" bit at the end of Bullseye.

The phoney left is as rampant as ever. Their bitterness at the Liberals is hilarious.

One week it was "oooohhh..we have so much in common with you, please be our friends" then it was "oooooohhhhhhh..you are in bed with Tories!!11!" (yeah, better than actually being Tories like you, you war criminal muppets)

This showed just how much Labour and Conservatives have in common. It would have been the most honest and stable thing to have had a Tory/labour coalition but it would have given the vacuous tribal game away.

It's like when Labour courted Murdoch for all those years and then suddenly gibbered about how awful he was as soon as he deserted them. Nauseating.

As a leftist there is actually a strong case to be made that it is more preferable for the Tories to be dragged toward the centre than for Labour to take itself to the right.

I'm a coalition sceptic and don't hold a torch for the LDs, but I wont slag them off just for being in government. Truth is that as a minority they look like doing some good rolling back Labour's disgusting authoritarian agenda and implementing a new voting system (though far from perfect). Labour failed to deliver voting reform with a comfortable majority and wanted us monitored for life like sex offenders with ID Cards - their reactionary instincts plain to those with eyes to see.

In her first interview after being elected Caroline Lucas said she would vote on a case by case basis - the right approach and one that will mean politics watchers will constantly be looking to her opinions. There was a short while when there was chatter about her being part of a Labour led coalition. This would have been disastrous. Praise be that it didn't come to pass. -

Greens need not to do much to pick up some votes and support. Our Local GP meeting last week had a record attendance. It's down to us to build on that.

The basics of coalition “mudguard” politics is that the LDs will hang themselves sooner or later in the eyes of many toward the left without us having to lay it on thick. The bigger threat probably comes from Labour posturing, as usual. I lose my rag every time I hear one of the patronising slimes say "progressive". Labour have made that word as redundant as "sustainable". You'd need a masters in quantum physics to get a grip on the different planes of existence which facilitate so many contradictory meanings of the same word. On the other hand, perhaps a rudimentary knowledge of Orwell may suffice as usual.

Back, now with more added puns!!

After lots of electioneering and general neglect of this blog I will be posting some longer pieces soon.

But for now work continues on the gags and puns associated with the leadership battle for the red rose faction of the Authoritarian Banker Puppet War Crime Party.

McDonnell fans will appreciate:

Balls and Deadwood: Burn'eml

Spinwatch on latest Labour scandal

The Labour apologists on messageboards are distancing themselves from the latest influence peddling corruption scandal by labelling Byers et al as "Blairites". It's Gethsemane politics.

Is this line from Labour themselves? I don't know, but we are told a certain Blairite, who had to resign twice over sleaze, is still often "running the country".

Dont foget: His "mysterious" return as Business Secretary (unelected in any capacity) preceeded the banker bailouts (which he oversaw) by a very short time. Mystery indeed. But once more the cry will go up: Hold your nose! endorse corruption, warcrime, right wing economics and authoritarianism with an "X" cos the tory toffs mustn't win!11?

Banking fraud still on the increase.

http://thebankwatch.com/2010/03/11/goldman-sachs-derivative-liability-33823-of-assets/

Any of the mainstreamers who "didn't see the crisis" comming are probably overlooking that the practices which brought it about have not in any way been stopped.

Goldman Sachs now operate at levels of leverage up to 38,000% against actual "wealth"

Basic history: following the 1929 crash a law was put in place in the US that severely limited the main practices that brought it about. This is called The Glass Steagal act. The main facet was dividing the functions of savings banks and investment banks. Generally, for every unit of currency actually held by a bank 10 were leant out. This is known as "fractional reserve" banking. Now, a 1 to 10 ratio is in itself fraud, but it propelled capitalism for quite a few generations with some booms/ busts, but along with Keynsiam treatments for recession there was a limit to the severity of the bust.

Under Clinton, with Greenspan controlling the Federal Reserve (which is privately owned and not federal at all), Glass Steagal was repealed. These were conidered years of economic miracle but the 1 to 10 ratio shot up. It is this factor, linked to the boom in the "derivatives market" (bets on bets on bets to the nth degree, made increasingly and rapidly by computers) that is the true cause of the financial crisis.

Put simply, fact eventually caught up with fiction, but the way out with bailouts and quantitive easing is just a further perpetuation of the fiction.

Despite some strong words Brown et al have done next to nothing to stop this, in fact they have encouraged it. Frankly, another crash at some point is inevitable.

Solutions are complicated, but a basic one is GPEW policy - that only the state should create credit and that banks should be broken up so that "too big to fail" can't happen.

banks being "too big to fail" is the given justification for the bailouts. Even the Libdems are calling for them to be broken up now. That the state should be sole creator of credit is not Marxist dogma. It was a principle of the Founding Fathers of the US.

Obama is looking at some Glass Steagal type regulations, but don't hold your breath.
Gargantuan scams beyond those I have described here continue on his watch.

Busy busy busy.

Just a note on the lack of blogging here: Circumstances compel me to do a lot of paid work at the moment and with campaigning and general political meetings etc. I just aint getting the time together to formulate decent pieces. Hopefully this won't have to last too long, suffice to say that there will be plenty to say as the descent into madness accelerates.

Brown suddenly discovers electoral reform: Nothing suspicious there!

After 13 years it's funny how Labour have suddenly discovered the uses of another system when they are faced with the likely boot.

Of course they could have ended Conservative rule in this way if they hadnt been so lustful for power or such conservatives themselves.

Without consultation or public discussion on alternatives Brown has cynically brought this idea to the fore with his usual outdated top-down approach. He and his wonks have probably calculated (quite rightly I daresay) that the AV system suits them best and gives them the highest chance of getting back into power to represent banks and corporations 4 or 5 years from now.

Of course, he will present it as a remedy for all the disquiet around the expenses scandal, not only does it not fit that bill but it's likely people will see through it and their opinion of "Clunk" will drop even further.

Who'da thunk it?

Politics prof says UK has shifted to the right since "Labour" took power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/24/new-labour-moves-uk-rightwing

Empty froth gets the goods.

The press are loving this UKIP burqa story. UKIP's only motivation is to compete for BNP votes. Nothing more.

It's vapid, right wing, controversial for the sake of it, and nothing will come of it so it suits the mainstream news agenda perfectly.

I think that senior Green Party members need to start making populist froth statements about the banks or something. We need to grab the headlines in the same way the hard right are doing. We don't appear very good at it - too careful and considered. We spent years looking over our shoulder about being seen as whacko. Now with fascists running around and the mainstream landing us £880,000,000,000 in debt it's pretty clear to anyone with a brain that we aint the whacko ones.

Climate Change: Copenhagan cock-up and contrarian conspiracy theory.

Wow. I'm glad that's behind us.

I hate to be the pessimist or the "told you so" guy, but who on earth really thought that mediocrities and climate criminals like Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy or the Chinese Government had the real interests of our planet home at heart? The other one's got bells on.

What we saw was the usual suspect ecocriminal capitalists fly in to lecture us before failing, as usual, to achieve anything meaningful. Meanwhile, protesters were mass arrested in their hundreds for the crime of expressing an opinion and many were carted off to be beaten up in their cells. That contrast tells you all you need to know. The Danish police are clearly not going through the re-appraisals forced on their UK counterparts by the G20 events and the excellent Climate Camp legal team.

At the start of the fortnight of farce Brown said we have a "right to be angry" - something of a mea culpa via Freudian slip because his own record on the environment is distinctly poor as the former Government chief adviser says:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6745082/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Gordon-Browns-climate-change-record-attacked.html

As with so many things, Brown's stated ambitions sound very weak since he and his party have had 12 years get to grips with the climate challenge.

He welcomed protest before, at the G8 Make Poverty History event, sadly another failure. Ed Miliband (or his flunkies to be precise) had been contacting thousands of activists asking them to pressurise on the issue. When the government sponsors protests to get them to do something it has the distinct ring of the dog days of the USSR.

So Copenhagen was a fairly predictable waste of time.

What has been more interesting in recent weeks is the crescendo in the skeptic camp, stemming mainly from the hacking (or leaking) of the Hadley Centre emails. In the first instance I am glad that the IPCC has called for an investigation. People diddling stats is old as the hills, but this really doesn't put nails in the coffin for the basic principles. However, rightly or wrongly, the story has muddied the waters.

The timing of the hacking / leaking was clearly political and I would be interested to know just how many dodgy emails fly around between the skeptics, who are often backed by fossil fuel giants.

This is a Good BBC piece on counter arguments to the skeptics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

In common with most climate skeptics I am not a scientist, but I make a point of asking every scientist I meet what their opinion is regarding human caused climate change. Every one from every discipline and level has told me they basically support the notion.

Those who have the dubious pleasure of my acquaintance know that I can prattle on the topic of conspiracy theories to quite an advanced level. There is some very far-out stuff going on and some nefarious forces at work on this planet, I am certainly no establishment dupe.

But each Conspiracy Theory needs to be judged on a case by case basis, and the truth need neither be the official account or the standard CT analysis.

With Climate Change there are a couple of key confusions made by the skeptics which essentially and incorrectly treat certain possibilities as mutually exclusive when they are not:

First there is an assumption towards 2 extremes on the spectrum of possibilities between climate change as human caused and non human caused.

It strikes me as very silly to assume either extreme, and too much of the "debate" does so. Sun activity and other galactic goings-on clearly can affect things here. But the basic principle that certain gasses which we emit will trap heat is sound. CO2 is not the only gas that could do so, Methane is at least as big a concern. 6 billion humans and the animals we raise for food clearly have a huge input into the environment. Look at the traffic in any town or city, worldwide we are constantly pumping stuff up there. Crudely, if you sit and continually fart in a room then that room is going to smell after a while. Climate change certainly has happened in the past without as much human intervention, that doesn't mean that human intervention won't change the climate.

However, the case by some skeptics that climate change has become essentially fetishised to the detriment of other eco damage has something to it: Deforestation, dead zones in the sea from over fishing, finite resources, the threat from genetic tampering with food, cloning, fiddling around with viruses in labs, fluoride in the water, HAARP and a host of other issues have dropped too far down the agenda. And yes it is governments and the establishment that are often responsible for this. Which brings me to the second mis-assumption:

The standard skeptic slogan is "Human Caused Climate Change is a scam to tax and control us"

Half truths can be just as dangerous as outright falsehoods.

It is very clear indeed to me that HCCC is a genuine problem that governments and elites would love to use to tax and control us, but this is a nuanced position that won't find much coverage in a media that constantly dumbs down debate.

A consequence is that eco criminals can pretend to be our saviours while lying, preaching and ripping us off. But who gets the blame? Environmentalists. That's certainly a conspiracy theory to juggle with.

An interesting aside: If this was purely a blag for an elite global push for global carbon taxes and increased authoritarianism, how come a whole fortnight of pow-wow didn't achieve anything approaching it? There are clearly structural and political breaks on any New World Order plot.

But Carbon trading and (to a lesser extent) taxes would, in my opinion, be disastrous under the current capitalist system. Taxes would need to be ring-fencedd for genuine environmental projects and building adaption and structural resilience to future climate problems. Pretty unlikely really.

Carbon trading could be a real nightmare - sacrificing the future of the planet at the altar of failed fundamentalist economics. The right to pollute would be traded in a crony capitalist system and within a short space of time there would be huge speculation and derivatives based on it. Whatever the solutions are, one of the last things we should do at the moment is hand huge powers and more control over resources and finance to corporate capitalists and their state government puppets. Sad but true.

This interesting post from by someone on The Independents site, details this kind of concern:

"The most important thing to know about Copenhagen is that every journalist and every politician will be representing big business. No one will be representing us.
The biggest lobbying group at Copenhagen will be the International Emissions Trading Association which was created to promote carbon trading more than ten years ago.

Its members include: BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON AG (coal power stations owner, EDF (one of the largest participants in the global coal market), Gazprom (Russian oil and gas), Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley."

It's no secret that Al Gore stands to make another fortune out of such systems and this doesn't help climate activists (he also spent loads of that movie in airports for pity's sake). Any attempt to basically set up some kind of parallel carbon currency would be mediated by the banks. Goldman Sachs are big players in the push for this.

Individual's energy use being monitored by government is a ghastly prospect from a civil liberties perspective, certainly the governments we have at the moment.

The skeptics are also right to be alarmed at the prospect of population control being talked up, but that again needn't imply that the excuse itself is fraud.

The Malthusian agenda is out there, the Club of Rome documents alone clearly state the desire to use climate change as a means of increasing control and spinning the meme that humanity is the enemy of the planet. But how humanity behave and humanity per se are very different things.

When the population agenda isn't downright dangerous it is a red herring. It is not nearly so much a question of how many of us there are, but how we behave and specifically how much we consume and pollute. Producerist capitalism, alienation, commodity fetishism and corporate mind programming ensure we collectively consume far more than is either necessary or sustainable. This needn't be a matter of climate change, more so it is a simple matter of finite resources, though it is certainly true, as many skeptics advance, that not enough is being done to provide free energy (or at least very low impact energy) and that this could be deliberate.

The biggest single problem may well not be CO2 but grossly inefficient use of land and water and methane emissions caused by the un-neccessary and cruel meat and dairy habits of the species, especially the richer populations.

So, where do we go from here? We couldn't and shouldn't have trusted our rulers 2 weeks ago and we shouldn't now. Change can only come from our own behaviour, not just in how we consume but in our social relations and political awareness and activities.

Truth is often nuanced, and you aint likely to get it from phoney governments, clueless media and myopic skeptics who too often believe a conspiracy theory purely because it is a CT, rather than on its own merits.

Climate activists work on a huge range of issues beyond just Climate Change, they are defending our planet home from the very same global forces the CTers complain about (though there will be disagreement about the precise nature of those forces). Most climate activists are singularly undupe like, just as scientists generally are inherently skeptical in the first instance, but not generally so in the acceptance of the broad case for HCCC.

The Skeptic case is too often so simplistic, dubious and misdirected that they could consider careers in establishment politics. A few have managed to marry the 2 trajectories already.

Soft on the heist. Soft on the causes of the heist.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr/article6951011.ece

Both Conservative Parties remain wedded to casino capitalism and more inevitable chaos.

Don't be taken in by cartel politics.

An endorsement for either is an endorsement for gross mismanagement of the economy.

More protests like this please!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DXjjgJantc

Convention of The Left is a umbrella group of socialists, greens, anarchists, trade unionists and others from many different parties / organisations and none.

This is the second of our anti bank "pots and pans" demos - using a motif from Argentian and Icelandic protests that were common during periods where the governments were brought down for their financial mismangement.

I used to say anti-ID Cards was the easiest campaigning I've done. This outstrips it. Hundreds of leaflets handed out, not one person saying they disagreed.

Are there reasons that citizens of the UK couldn't or shouldn't do the same?

We meet on the 3rd Monday of every month at Friends Meeting House, Mount Street, behind the central library in Manchester. All welcome.

Swiss minaret ban is an attack on freedom.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/84073

Excellent piece from The Morning Star. I had no idea there were so few minarets in Switzerland. The islamaphobic tone to their referendum is something that will have the reactionaries and closet racists drooling. But it is a move that strikes fundementally at the heart of the freedom of worship and expression.

Bloody Oil : Launch of new Tar Sands campaign

The UK Tar Sands Network has just finished a tour highlighting an issue that has still to come to mainstream attention, but it needs to.

Peak oil leads to more extraction from unconventional places. Such a source is the tar sands : A mix of sand, clay, water and dense bitumen. Extraction is difficult, destructive and absurdly intensive in energy and water input. The largest project, in Alberta, Canada, is the biggest engineering project in history. Period. On it's own it's projected to emit enough CO2 to raise global concentration by 50ppm. The eco-devastation covers an area the size of England and Wales. It's horrifying to see.

The Manchester event at The Dancehouse was well attended and featured a preview of H2Oil, an upcoming film, and indigenous Canadian speakers from the community most affected.

The excellent film included details of the massive increase in cancers, poisoned food and water (each barrel of oil requires a 6:1 water input) and the tale of a doctor whose career was threatened for highlighting health issues.

On the other side was the usual rogues gallery: Suited corpo-wonks and doublespeak politicians who refused to acknowledge the obvious effects of their profiteering.

The courage and charisma of the speakers who followed the film was really inspiring.
Similar talks were given at the Blackheath Climate Camp, there is something very special about these people and their plight.

Beyond awareness raising the network is looking at ways of targeting the companies involved and shaming the Canadian government, who always want to be seen in a good light in Europe.

There are the usual suspects like Shell and BP, along with banks including mostly state owned RBS. Superdrug share a parent company with the guilty parties and could be a target for boycotting.

Campaigners also want to highlight the misdeeds of the Canadian Government, always keen to be seen in a good light in Europe.

To find out more just search for "tar sands", perhaps along with “Greenpeace” and “People & Planet”, There is also a good Wikipedia entry.

(this piece was originally written for The Mule newspaper and website - great alternative news for the Greater Manchester area)

More Dubai Analysis

From the ever wonderful Max Keiser

here

Proportional Representation Deja vu

http://tinyurl.com/yctrx2l

The Independent says that Labour are going to run PR up the flag pole again. The Guardian was running around saying the same stuff during the crisis earlier this year. How curious, just when the polls are looking at the possibility of a hung parliament again. The idea, according to the Indie, is that Labour will "expose" the other tory party as defenders of 1st past the post.

Starter for 10: Which party has held power for 12 years and has never lifted a finger to change the voting system?

Follow up bonus question: Which party made an eerily similar promise before they gained power in 1997 and went on to bin the idea once they got in?

A guiding principle of modern establishment politics seems to be the assumption that we are gernerally stupid, gullible or too docile to anything about their nonsense and screw-ups in any case.

Start of the next Wave?

Dubai has asked for more time to pay massive international debts. That's Dubai. The playboy sheikh-state famed for being er...really rich.

This video shows their super-daft-expensive resort for the elite.


http://tinyurl.com/2sj65r

Looks even weirder now.

When countries default it is very bad news. Dubai might well not be the first.

Analysts who predicted the 2008 crisis (which actually started earlier) say that Japan or even the US will go down.

In any case, the dollar is heading for a might fall and gold is on the up despite apparent attempts to supress the price.

Keep in mind that the people saying we have turned the corner, establishment media, politicians and "experts" are the same people who "never saw it comming".

http://tinyurl.com/ykqhbsl

A note on "our boys"

Brown spelling a name badly late at night, and the hate-match between Murdoch and his old ally have been the circus of the week. But this story of continuing betrayal of the armed forces slipped by comparatively un-noticed.We also know too many end up on the streets. All the sombre puff around Rememberance is nothing if we don't actually look after people. Of course, that may be best done by not having ill-fated spurious or vague missions that go wrong in the 1st place.

Howard League Report:

http://tinyurl.com/yavtq65

The Doublespeak Chronicles Part 1

Doublespeak : "The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously..." (Orwell)

Here and in some future posts I will discuss examples from modern mainstream discourse and political life. It's a vital topic to understand because doublethink, and it's close cousin "cognitive dissonance" set up confusions in people's mind which are very dis-empowering and can even allow us to be manipulated.

This is a controversial thing to say. One can be accused of being aloof and writing off swathes of people as gullible pawns, or even of being a "conspiracy theorist".

But most mainstream media is demonstrably in the hands of a small bunch of very narrow interest, so the idea that they might be able to set parameters of thinking and debate is hardly tinfoil hat stuff.

Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, was the father of modern Public Relations and advertising. He wrote "On Propaganda" - a ground breaking treatise at the time.

Soviets and Nazis in particular gave "propaganda" a bad reputation (along with putting fluoride in the water), so "PR" ended up the preferred term.

It was Bernays who got first got women to think smoking was a symbol of feminism through a range of media stunts and advertising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSdrYJOvr3Q

(This link is from the amazing Adam Curtis - his BBC documentaries like "Century of The Self" and "The Trap" are vital viewing on these issues and easily found on Youtube)

Advertising throws up an example of everyday doublespeak, not the best but it illustrates my point.

Advertising is a mega billion global industry that essentially engages in mind control. Many people will say that advertising doesn't affect them. But if it had no effect then the capitalists simply wouldn't pay for it.

Naomi Klein's No Logo is the standard modern-ish text on the power of modern advertising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0TQR1kVs0k

As I said before, "propaganda" is often associated in people's minds with Hitler and Stalin's regimes. But does that mean it became less successful after their demise, or did the propagandists get better and more subtle. Evidence suggests the latter.

Another example: How many people claim not to believe what they read in the papers or other mainstream media but are happy to espouse firm opinions based exactly on what they gleaned from those media?

These examples are a bit simplistic, but I hope they set the scene to discuss more specific examples from current political life.

Exhibit A: The European Union "Presidency" and "Constitution".

As an issue, the EU bores the pants off a lot of people. We had a European Election earlier this year where Europe hardly got mentioned, even though it has to be said that UKIP got the 2nd highest amount of votes.

But it's been in the news this week because the last obstacles to the full implementation of the Lisbon Treaty have fallen away.

And we've had plenty of hype about "Who will be the president?". It now looks like a certain war criminal is no longer in line for the job. Pro EU people in this country must be very relieved. But, the idea of an "EU President" really bothers some people.

"hang on", they say, "...what's this...we weren't told about this...I don't want an EU President without at least being asked".

"Ahhh...." say the defenders...."This isn't really a president".

The specific role is to be "President Of The Council".

Currently this job is done for 6 months at a time, the post rotates according to who is head of the government of the nation operating the "presidency".

The main functions are to chair meetings, draw up agendas, technical bureaucratic stuff like that.

The new position will be allotted directly to one person on 2 1/2 year terms. So, it's not really a president. Just president of the commission. The cynics just didn't understand. And once this is explained to the troublemaking citizen, it's straight back to "who will be the president?", "the president this" and "the president that".

The person will represent the EU on the world stage (presumably lessening the chance for 27 countries to represent themselves) and generally swank about the place as president. Would Blair have wanted the role if it was just a dull and technocratic?

Some may not accept that the EU is engaging us in doublethink, at least not deliberately, on the basis of that example.

But what about the "constitution"?

A few years ago, when some countries tried to run the constitution by some actual citizens in referenda. Notably France and The Netherlands roundly rejected.

The way round that turned out to be to just not call it a constitution. This got round all necessary national courts and parliaments apart from Ireland's - the only country who have been allowed a direct say on this watershed document, and the score is still only 1-1 in how they have voted.

Angela Merkel said "The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact." And that is the consensus.

2 quotes to shed light on the mindset at work here

"We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes. " — Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the EU Convention

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way". -Former French President and Vetran Euro-stalwart and Trilateral Commission member.

Not directly related, but we shouldn't forget: "We will put it to the British people in a referendum." — Gordon Brown, General Election Manifesto, 2005

If you weren't convinced that the "president who isn't a president" is doublespeak, the "constitution that isn't a constitution" is a slam-dunk. And there's worse to come in future editions of "The Doublespeak Chronicles"...

A letter to auntie

Hopefully the ripples from the fascist stuff last week will subside quickly, but I thought I'd post up this letter of complaint to the BBC anyway.

Next piece comming soon.

--------------------------------
Sir / Madam

I am writing to complain in the strongest terms about the systematic hype given to Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time last week. I also have a series of questions in bold I would like answered as soon as practically possible.

Normal practice in Question Time is for guests to be announced at the end of the preceding edition. As a licence payer I require you to tell me:

- Why the BBC built up to the programme by regular mentions in news bulletins across the network of Mr Griffins appearance.

- Why the show was oriented around the appearance and opinions of one guest .

Both these phenomena are unique in my experience of watching the show since childhood.

You have given Mr Griffin enhanced status as a guest you consider newsworthy.

- Who made these decisions, when, via which procedures and under what auspices?

If it was a matter of chasing ratings then I hope the BBC is pleased that in return for a 4 fold increase in ratings on the back of your orchestrated publicity there has been a vast increase in interest in the fascist party and ideology.

Although claims may be made about wanting to "expose" the party or that Mr Griffin may have looked foolish to some, it is pretty clear that he and his party benefited, first from the hype for their brand, then from the victim status they can legitimately claim from the unique way the show was conducted.

Please understand I am in no way objecting to the invitation granted to an elected MEP to appear on the show. I also accept that a degree of controversy was inevitable. However, the completely different treatment accorded to him was needless, naive and highly irresponsible.

For years the BBC has given disproportionate coverage to this medium sized party.


I also require to know if an editorial decision was taken at any time or level during the recent European election campaign that the BNP were to be one of the "major" stories.

As an example The Green Party get more votes nationwide and have many more elected representatives. Why do they not get the same amount of attention? Are they just not sensationalist enough to suit your "news" agenda?


I trust that when Mr Griffin or other BNP speakers are to appear on such shows in future, they will receive exactly the same amount of low grade publicity given to other speakers. Any other approach will indicate a continuing fetish for fascism. The BBC needs to look long and hard at the dynamics behind this. I trust you can speak to this issue as well as answering my questions and give me some account of discussions about last week's circus that are taking place at higher levels.


Thank you for your time, I look forward to a full and detailed reply.

Steven Durrant