Thank heavens that's over.

The end of Strictly Come Dancing must mean the end of the taxing "pun season" for BBC News's headline writers.

5 December - Strictly Come Dancing's Laila Rouass dances off show
14 November - Phil Tufnell bowled from Strictly
17 October - Calzaghe knocked out of Strictly.

These are not headlines. They're certainly not jokes. Headline writing must be a fairly dour job at the best of times, but inserting excruciating plays-on-words which wouldn't impress a chatty seven-year-old is not good. Stop it, BBC.

Still, 2009 was a low tide compared to 2008, when people danced off the show (twice, much like Gethin Jones the year before that), jived off the show, tangoed off it, foxtrotted off it (another gem recycled) and of course danced through the divide (do what?)

I look forward to somebody writing a style guide fairly soon on the replacement of normal verbs of motion with dancing terminology. I wonder if anybody will cha-cha-cha off next year?

(The BBC aren't the only culprits, either - the Press Association seem to be in a terrible muddle with this confused headline about Calzaghe, a boxer, approaching Guy Ritchie, a filmmaker. Who's tangoing the what now?)

Rage against which machine?

I'm struck by how Rage Against the Machine's victory over Joe McElderry in the Xmas chart is seemingly described only as a battle about music. Do what? "Only about music"? What else could this much-loved media catchphrase, the 'chart battle', have been about?

Bill Bailey, referring in a Twitter post to those pointing out that McElderry and RATM are both signed to labels owned by Sony, insists that

the RATM/SycO record label argument misses the point, it's about the music, to which I am now headbangin in a deliriously happy way! HA!

Delirious headbangin aside, I think there's another, far bigger point being missed by those who share this view. You might not expect the Facebook campaigners to be thinking beyond their immediate goal of 'a protest against X-Factor monotony' (and nothing wrong with that), but this campaign isn't really just about the music. It's teaching us something absolutely critical about consumer culture.

What it amounts to is this: a section of the music-buying public has interpreted the free consumer choice of another section of the same public as an autocratic imposition by the provider. In other words, in making McElderry's single available as a (perfectly sensible) commercial proposition, Simon Cowell's record label Syco is seen not as part of a marketplace, offering consumers a free choice, but as a dictator which has 'decided' on a Christmas no. 1, and must be thwarted by community action to protect a cultural tradition. And yet - it's not their fault if people like what they offer, is it?

Perhaps this isn't teaching us anything completely new. I'm nowhere near alone in thinking that choice is not necessarily a good in itself. But half a million people have bought Killing in the Name simply to 'protest' against the perfectly rational action of 450,000 consumers in a consumerist society. They didn't seek to influence other consumers, by calling for a boycott of McElderry's single. They directed their protest at the record label, even as they bought copies of another track. The protest was against a perceived disempowerment, but that central grievance was a mistake: not being in the majority isn't the same as disempowerment.

It seems to me that this is something more than just a clash between rock and pop, or even a battle for the soul of the music industry: it's a strange lesson in how misdirected public feeling can be, and anybody interested in shaping, or even just understanding, public opinion should be listening very carefully.


*NME makes a good point about Rage Against the Machine's track not exactly being the stuff of genuine protest, and about Christmas no 1s not exactly being the venerable cultural tradition that this campaign makes out. A previous winner of the "Christmas chart battle" was none other than Mr Blobby, remember.

Aliens!

I'm not given to conspiracy theory. But I now have conclusive proof that the Cybermen have visited Earth and spent at least some time infiltrating the Parks and Open Spaces department at the London Borough of Redbridge.



View larger map


Not convinced? Here's a chap who'll persuade you with ease.

Now that's what I call marketing!

Describing Bushey House Beaumont Care Home, owners Barchester Care Homes says: Welcome to the relaxed and happy lifestyle of Bushey House Beaumont. We provide first-class nursing and residential care.

Describing Bushey House Beaumont Care Home, the Care Quality Commission says: People who are admitted to this home cannot be sure that they will be treated in a manner that recognised their needs or cared for in a manner that promotes the dignity of the resident.

And so it goes on. Barchester: We think you'll find we're ideally suited to meet your needs now and in the future to ensure you get the most from your retirement years. Care Quality Commission: We looked at the care plans of four people and found that two people had been admitted to the home suffering from dementia. The home did not have staff trained to meet the needs of people who have dementia.

Barchester: Our team of highly-qualified and attentive staff really focuses on the individual needs of our residents with a tailored care plan for each person. Care Quality Commission: Care plans did not contain sufficient information to enable staff to meet the needs of the residents. They did not offer any guidance to staff on how needs were to be met or care carried out. An example of this was transfer papers from the hospital stated that the person suffered from depression and had attempted suicide. This information was not transferred to their care plan which could mean that they were not protected from possible self harm.

The Care Quality Commission is to be commended for its investigation and clear reporting on care homes, but who's responsible for looking at the marketing of homes which have clearly failed in their duty of care to their residents? I doubt the CQC has any role in evaluating the marketing of the homes under its inspection regime, but I also doubt it falls to trading standards, either. Who knows? Then again, who cares? It's only old people. They don't vote much, you know.

Where was I?

Oh yes. I've been:

• Creeped out by the sight of uniformed soldiers collecting for the Poppy Appeal at Euston Station. Am I unpatriotic?
• Perturbed by Nick Griffin's apparently unexamined assertion that children should receive no sex education until they reach secondary school age
• Wearied by the prospect that Tony Blair is the best available British European
• Depressed by the Churches starting to tear each other apart, as well as themselves
• Getting the hang of Twitter, and slightly unnerved by the boundarilessness of it all

and

• entertained by NewsBiscuit.

That's kept me busy. More soon?

So it's polling day

Over the last few weeks, since the Expenses Scandal (so big it get its own capital letters) broke, I've heard/read/seen a lot of concern expressed that disillusionment brought about by the abuse of the MPs' expenses system will result in low turnout or a large protest vote, either of which could favour the BNP, or other extreme parties.

Is this likely? No idea -- I'm not a political pollster.

Is not voting, or voting for a party you would otherwise ignore a sensible response to the scandal? I don't think so.

Taking them in reverse order -- who gets punished the most by electing an extremist? The ousted party? The ousted individual? Or the members of the public who are now represented by, and potentially subject to legislation drafted by, someone who should never have power. As for not voting, this doesn't really punish any individual either, although it again risks punishing the country as whole. Even were it true that "all politicians are corrupt", or "there's no difference between the parties" -- as apathists tend to say -- the fact is that someone will be elected, and we all have a vested interest in making sure that that person is someone who is going to do what we consider to be a good job.

So come on folks, get out and vote and enjoy the warm glow of knowing you did what people in many countries (say China, aptly, given the events 20 years ago today) would give their lives to be able to do. This blog was set up by the venerated Paper Ostrich, after disussions between several of us, as somewhere to let a moderate view be heard away from the loud minority of extremists. Polling stations serve a similar function.

Headline Watch: No new swine flu cases in update

The headline: "No new swine flu cases in update."

Musings: the BBC is showing a sudden awareness of the likelihood of being parodied if it had gone with the obvious temptation - "No new swine flu cases in Scotland." Instead, it has found the magic formula which makes this news: it's not the lack of new swine flu victims which is news, but the fact that somebody has reported that there are no new cases.

Even worse than this apparent discovery of a justification for non-news" (It's not "not news", it's "no-news news") is the additional rationale: that the swine flu story has become so huge that it probably is newsworthy to report that it's not happening. The default view is no longer that nothing newsworthy is happening until we are told otherwise, it's that anything which runs counter to the public expectation created by the news is itself newsworthy.

Of course, the BBC must faithfully report news without passing judgement on whether or not it ought to be newsworthy. Which neatly sidesteps questions about the role of the BBC - and, of course, all the other media outlets - in inflating this particular story in the first place, and creating that public expectation which it now falls to them to moderate.

Headline Watch: "Demons 'harmless', says Vatican

The headline: "Demons 'harmless', says Vatican.

Natural assumption: Catholic church makes surprising U-turn on controversial theological issue.

Actual story: Vatican cardinal comments on new Dan Brown movie.

Result: BBC score 4 out of 5 for misleading content, 4 out of 5 for cashing in on controversial issues, but a fortunate 0 out of 5 for needless headline puns, mercifully absent from this little bit of drivel.

Nobody's banning anything!

It may well be that local councils need their language simplified, but it seems that the news media might need to be taught how to write accurately, too.

The Local Government Association triggered a story with a press release beginning like this:

"Council leaders have today published a list of 200 words that public bodies should not use if they want to communicate effectively with local people."

and continuing in this vein - "words and phrases that all public sector bodies should avoid".

But this sensible, if relatively meek, measure has been beefed up by journalists with a fondness for a story about titanic power-struggles between huge public bodies. The BBC proclaims "Councils get banned jargon list" and proclaims "COUNCIL JARGON BAN" on its front page, while The Telegraph fails in both spirit and accuracy with "Perplexing council speak such as 'rebaselining' banned in LGA guide" (it's even described in the same sentence as just a guide!). The Aberdeen Press and Journal rather floridly calls it "a hate list". Even Computer Weekly falls for the line with "Council leaders ban business jargon".

It's perfectly possible to report accurately - like the Guardian, ITV News or even, Heaven help us, The Sun (description of an LGA "crackdown" notwithstanding), which makes the BBC's and the Telegraph's overegging of the pudding that bit more disappointing. It's not as if the LGA - which has no power to "ban" councils from doing anything - even sexed up its own press release to get attention.

It's small fry, and not the most exciting story in the world, but the principle is an important one. The media blame the politicians for widespread disengagement with public life - but who's misrepresenting the way things work here?

Hurrah for "big beasts"

We at the Station heartily commend Ken Clarke to the house. It's not through any diehard attachment to the same political banner; it's rather because he is, or at least projects the idea that he is, a rational politician rather than a career one. Rationality in politics has taken a kicking over the latter Blair/Bush years. Clarke oozes it, and his appointment now has a feel of damned good common sense about it, Tory or not . After all, there aren't many bigger beasts (cliche alert!) than Peter Mandelson, but there are none bigger than the original Ken. Business, enterprise and regulatory reform just went from stultifyingly dull to greatest show in town; if only they could go head to head across the despatch box. Lord Clarke of Rushcliffe, perhaps? Surely a grand idea.

Histrionics = success!

There's some seriously weird nitpicking going on in America. Is that really an effective way to get a message about abortion across?

Perhaps if you believe that all publicity is good publicity, then we, and The Stranger, are dancing to the American Life League's very tune. But surely, hopefully, it still requires more than a high profile to win an argument, more than histrionics in a press release to be persuasive...doesn't it?

How extraordinary.

I visited CNN's website today, a habit I picked up during US election season and see no reason to crack just yet. As is the way with websites from time to time, upon my arrival I was exhorted to answer a survey, during which I was confronted with a bizarre question which gave me a ten-point scale and an option at each end: "I like to form my own opinion" at one, and at the other, "I want to be told the facts."

It seems vaguely worrying to me that a serious news outlet either produced, or failed to veto, a question which seems to suggest that forming one's own opinion is the opposite of getting the facts. What market researchers can deduce from the responses to such a question is anybody's guess. Weird.