Does anyone else worry about the way people like Laura Kuenssberg or Norman Smith are called in on every occasion to interpret all political news? It’s as though they hold themselves superior to the lot of us, (the ignoramuses) speculating on the motives of the likes of Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson or whoever. Do they know what’s inside the head of IDS? Does IDS even know?
As soon as something happens, along comes Laura to tell us what we should think, and it’s getting ridiculous. Analysis is one thing, but imperious interpretation is superfluous to requirements. It's overpowering, really.
*****
I watched Simon Heffer’s speech to a packed Bexit crowd. (H/T comments @ B-BBC)
Very nice, but what with Iain Duncan Smith, the BBC and arguably George Osborne and David Cameron helping to undermine their own government, if we vote ‘out’ because we want to regain sovereignty and we want to decide our own future, well, the thing that worries me most is - who will the ‘we’ actually be? The Conservative party’s loss might be the Labour party’s gain, and given the current leadership that bothers me greatly.
******
My agenda was that I wanted to like Stewart Lee and dislike Jo Brand. It didn’t work out.
I watched Stewart Lee’s tedious shaggy cat story about Jeremy Corbyn, the cat.
As soon as he started saying that his diarrhea-afflicted cat was called Jeremy Corbyn, dread descended and hung there like a blanket. A gross ending was imminent. I didn’t even foresee a protracted, interminable raspberry, which the Grimsby Telegraph seemed to find amusing, but the punchline involving the England flag, some shit, the national anthem and someone confusing the cat called Jeremy Corbyn for the ordinary Jeremy Corbyn, couldn’t come soon enough.
How did this script come about? He must have thought: edgy + Jeremy Corbyn + crap -- patriotism--> laborious monologue. He allowed the tail to wag the cat, so to speak; pity you can’t unhear things.
Was that Chris Morris dishing out advice? He should have advised against.
On the other hand Jo Brand’s walk thing was alright. I don’t dislike Jo Brand at all. Despite her political views, she can be funny, but that sitcom about the geriatric ward - Getting On, in which she played Nurse Kim Wilde with Vicky Pepperdine as Dr Pippa Moore - was fine.
Even though he had a small role in Blackadder I could never be persuaded to like Jeremy Harding, if you get my drift, but I think Jo Brand is ok.
*******
Did you read this? As soon as I saw Rod Liddle’s article on the Spectator I realised I’d already heard this Taiwanese author on Start The Week with Andrew Marr. I thought she sounded odd then, but now I’ve connected her with a video, captured clandestinely on his mobile phone by ‘Tommy Robinson’ I know she’s not only odd, but dim.
She has written this dire book about what she sees as 'the far right', and what baffles me is that such an ill-conceived project ever got published, let alone plugged (yes it was) on the BBC.
Just as Hsiao-Hung Pai hasn’t read the Koran, I haven’t read "Angry White People", so at the risk of being berated for my own ignorance, I wonder why anyone would publish such sensationalised drivel in the first place? Judging from the attitude of the author, the answer’s in the question. It’s sensationalist and shallow. Perhaps it ticks the boxes of a publisher that also lists Ilan Pappé and Richard Falk amongst its authors.
Does anyone else worry about the way people like Laura Kuenssberg or Norman Smith are called in on every occasion to interpret all political news?
ReplyDeletePart of John Birt's legacy: explaining news to the dim masses. Helen Boaden ramped it up to 11 during her tenure. That's the whole point of these titled 'editors', and we have long complained about how the job exists essentially to have an excuse to blur the line between objective reporting and opinion. No prizes for guessing on which side of the political spectrum every single titled 'editor' in every division of BBC News has been. With the tenuous exception of Nick Robinson, of course, although the only thing properly conservative about him is his Young Conservative days at university. He's not an honest broker of news regardless of personal politics.
I dislike Jo Brand. Don't like her political opinions or the way she expresses them, don't think she's all that funny, relies mostly on lazy comedy tropes. But she was very good in Getting On, which I liked. The third series didn't work well story-wise. I haven't bothered checking out the American version.
Jo Brand's monotone, lazy whine is painful to listen to. She is foul-mouthed and most probably foul-minded.
ReplyDeleteShe plumbs the depths of 'comedy'. One memorable instance was a made up dream sequence in which she finds Virginia Bottomely standing on her doorstep. Cue the punchline: "Fuck off, you tory bitch!" Cutting edge satire? No, just filth.
No I don't accept that Jo Brand is "all right". When was the last time we saw a BBC-funded narcissist being lauded for long distance endurance? Yes - we're not supposed to talk about him now are we? I found the sycophancy of her local "friends" (i.e. fame-obsessed acolytes) nauseating. I also thought it appalling that the BBC were encouraging overweight and unfit people to partake in charity events that would overtax their bodies and lead to possibly serious injury (costing the NHS huge amounts of money).
ReplyDeleteReally Sue, you shouldn't worry about a Leave vote leading to a Corbyn vote. That's just like all the other Fear Smears doing the rounds: absurd and beyond all likelihood. But you may have noticed that Corbyn's Labour party is a percentage point ahead of Cameron's Tories in the polls. Yes - the leader of the Remain campaign is a point behind Corbyn and his lot. That should tell you something...imagine the scenario where Cameron scrapes a win thanks to the 1.7 million votes from Irish and Commonwealth (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nigerian etc) voters who are not UK citizens...imagine the turmoil that will follow, very possibly involving the break up of the Tory Party...that's what will deliver a Corbyn government - whereas a Remain vote will see him off.
ReplyDeleteSue - yes, you are not the only worried by the need of the BBC (and other media) to put in the spotlight reporters and pundits to interpret and tells us what we should think. As far as I know none of these reporters and pundits predicted the 2008 credit crunch, the Tory Party victory in 2015 or the 9/11 attacks. Why should we be expected to believe they have superhuman understanding of such events long before they occur?
ReplyDeleteAt best the BBC’s need to “explain” the news is deeply patronising and at worst it corrupts the whole democratic process. The now routine practice, at the end of every interview, of the interviewer giving their own interpretation (often in complete contradiction to what was actually said), needs to be stopped immediately.
ReplyDeleteGuessing it`s a return to the literal meaning of the word "media"...as in "mediate".
ReplyDeleteTrouble is is that they are lazy lefties who have adopted the politics and the journalism of attachment, advocacy and passionate emptiness, by way of "cheap grace" and the consensual conspiracy against the laity.
How often have we all heard a politician speak-and the BBC hack then turns to a fellow BBC hack to get a BBC-compliant spin and translation of what we`d just heard from the horses mouth not three minutes before!
The BBCs hall and mirrors freak room confounds only themselves-hardly anybody I know(except for the knock-kneed professions, public sector bucket brigades and the liberal retired and retarded) listen to the BBC for anything but how Pravda has morphed for the EUSSR to come.
Vote out on the 23rd June-or face Stalin had he be retrained as an aromatherapist.
Got to wonder about the BBC and mental illness.
ReplyDeleteStephen Fry, Eddie Izzard, Ruby Wax, Alexei Sayle, Paul Merton, David Aaronovitch and Jo Brand would all provide a case conference of cult-behaviour and rewardings if you get too close to the BBC freak-flame for your warmth and approval.
Being a Lefty does equate to mental illness-maybe the Soviet Psychology quacks who filled their psychiatric hospitals with case studies for Western graduate modular courses had a point after all!
Pity the BBC accept vast amounts of money from the EU. Particularly as it breaks the impartiality clause in their Charter. Also a shame they seems to think Jo Brand and the rest of the Fabian cronies are somehow funny. Peculiar yes, amusing anything but.
ReplyDelete