... for the following reasons:
All bar the last five minutes was devoted to the News of the World phone-hacking scandal.
The Labour and Tory panelists were marginal to the debate. The Tory suit got slapped early on, over the government's prevarication on holding an inquiry, and then shut up for the rest of the night, barely making eye contact, and only speaking to criticise the Labour guy on grounds of hypocrisy. The weasly Labourite initially thought he could join in as one of the jury, but was quickly dragged back to the dock beside the Tory, and so he faded from the debate as well.
This left us with Hugh Grant, Shirley Williams and John Gaunt.
Hugh Grant was very sharp, and unlike the usual celeb on QT, had many informed and rational points to make. Where he stumbled, in my view, was in calling for regulations on the tabloid press, which would I think threaten press freedom. John Gaunt served admirably as the populist, standing up for a free press for the right reasons, and even Shirley Williams came across well, whereas usually she annoys the hell out of me.
Then, with five minutes on the clock came a change of subject and a question on the awarding of the train-building contract to a German company and the loss of jobs at Bombardier.
John Gaunt got in a call for us to leave the EU, Shirley gave a defence of free trade (wow, a classical liberal position!) and Hugh, after saying he believed that the benefits of EU membership probably outweighed the losses, made an incredible statement about the nation losing its morale and losing its identity and needing it back. This wasn't incredible in itself, so much as who said it. Could it really be that the educated, 'liberal' middle classes who Hugh seems to personify, are finally grasping the existential problem with the EU? We can but hope.
Other things to note: when the vast influence of the BBC was mentioned once and briefly, there was a slightly embarrassed shuffling of feet, and then we moved on. The role of the police was discussed, but there seemed a slightly simplified understanding of how the media and the establishment, including the state, inter-relate.
I'll come back to this later, I need to step back and clarify my thinking on some of the issues.
All bar the last five minutes was devoted to the News of the World phone-hacking scandal.
The Labour and Tory panelists were marginal to the debate. The Tory suit got slapped early on, over the government's prevarication on holding an inquiry, and then shut up for the rest of the night, barely making eye contact, and only speaking to criticise the Labour guy on grounds of hypocrisy. The weasly Labourite initially thought he could join in as one of the jury, but was quickly dragged back to the dock beside the Tory, and so he faded from the debate as well.
This left us with Hugh Grant, Shirley Williams and John Gaunt.
Hugh Grant was very sharp, and unlike the usual celeb on QT, had many informed and rational points to make. Where he stumbled, in my view, was in calling for regulations on the tabloid press, which would I think threaten press freedom. John Gaunt served admirably as the populist, standing up for a free press for the right reasons, and even Shirley Williams came across well, whereas usually she annoys the hell out of me.
Then, with five minutes on the clock came a change of subject and a question on the awarding of the train-building contract to a German company and the loss of jobs at Bombardier.
John Gaunt got in a call for us to leave the EU, Shirley gave a defence of free trade (wow, a classical liberal position!) and Hugh, after saying he believed that the benefits of EU membership probably outweighed the losses, made an incredible statement about the nation losing its morale and losing its identity and needing it back. This wasn't incredible in itself, so much as who said it. Could it really be that the educated, 'liberal' middle classes who Hugh seems to personify, are finally grasping the existential problem with the EU? We can but hope.
Other things to note: when the vast influence of the BBC was mentioned once and briefly, there was a slightly embarrassed shuffling of feet, and then we moved on. The role of the police was discussed, but there seemed a slightly simplified understanding of how the media and the establishment, including the state, inter-relate.
I'll come back to this later, I need to step back and clarify my thinking on some of the issues.
5 comments:
I think it's so easy to think of celebrities as their characters and Hugh Grant is a wonderful example. He's normally the bumbling love interest and it's easy to forget he's been on the receiving end of the scummy tabloids for years. (I thought Jon Gaunt's cheap shot at Grant about 'keep it in your pants' was pathetic and showed Gaunt up for the tabloid hack he so often is. It had nothing to do with the issue and the idea that just because someone gets paid a lot and is in the public eye means they deserve to have their privacy invaded is bullshit)
As for "when the vast influence of the BBC was mentioned once and briefly, there was a slightly embarrassed shuffling of feet", I think there was but just because the BBC is so often picked on that the default position is for them them to shy away instead of sticking up for themselves.
There is a HUGE difference between the power of the BBC and the power of Murdoch. The BBC has rules about not favouring one political party especially come election time. Murdoch has no such rules and can throw his weight behind a single party - which he does.
The questioners point about the press in the US and Australia is fair. I can't speak for the US but in Australia no single company can control TV and press. That's why Murdoch can't control more than 65% of the print media and Packer (now deceased) couldn't own more (I think) 30% of TV stations. But there was never a monopoly and while it did involve laws, they did keep the press 'more free' than if one man could control it all. Which Murdoch wanted.
Of course John Howard (sadly, not deceased) wanted to remove such laws but thankfully he did not get his way.
In case you're not familiar with the late Kerry Packer, here's a memorable moment from a select committee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVIOmU3l0Zo&feature=player_detailpage#t=442s
Aw, don't over-do it. Gaunt only mentioned it because Grant was calling for regulation, so it was relevant. Everyone knows about it, Gaunt didn't make a meal of it, he didn't mention hookers and blow jobs.
The case for regulation, i.e. control of the tabloids is not made by this business. The law has been broken by the hacking and the police pay-offs, there's no 'loophole' which needs filling. I also don't see Grant's distinction between the tabloids and the so-called quality press. That may have been true 40 years ago, but not any more.
"I think there was but just because the BBC is so often picked on that the default position is for them them to shy away instead of sticking up for themselves."
No way. The BBC's position is indefensible. It has more power than Murdoch, and it's veneer of impartiality is far more dangerous than Murdoch's open partiality, and it uses the power of the state (i.e. the power of men with guns, who can break down your door and kill you) to enforce it's funding.
It is biased, and only those who share its narrow, establishment cod-liberalism don't notice. Even the Director General admitted that recently.
I'm no fan of the Dirty Digger (Murdoch), but he's been made the personification of evil, and the reality is that the evil is spread more widely.
As for Kerry Packer, very well said (no oil painting though, was he)
"The BBC's position is indefensible. It has more power than Murdoch, and it's veneer of impartiality is far more dangerous than Murdoch's open partiality, and it uses the power of the state (i.e. the power of men with guns, who can break down your door and kill you) to enforce it's funding."
The BBC is massive, true, but all its arms aren't used for wielding power like Murdoch. CBeebies, BBC3 and , Radio 3, Radio 4 Extra, 6 Music and the like are hardly pushing the lefty-liberal agenda. But we always disagree on this so I'll drop it.
As an aside on Kerry Packer, he was a ruthless businessman but left some memorable legacies including changing the face of TV broadcasting of cricket (for the better, might I add!). And after experiencing a heart attack in 1990 the nearest ambulance just happened to have a defibrillator onboard (not that common in 1990) which saved his life. So he paid for the installation of defibrillators in all New South Wales ambulances.
Murdoch, on the other hand, has left a legacy of fuck all in his home country.
Okay, we'll leave it for now, but there can be no denying the BBC's influence is considerable, and that its supposed objectivity looks very different once you step outside the establishment etatist consensus. It gets its money from the state, and as such it knows its place, and when needed (e.g. to sell a foreign war) it falls into line.
Interesting stuff about Kerry Packer, and I don't doubt what you say about Murdoch the American.
Post a Comment