Whose vote is it anyway?

I don't know about you, but something is annoying me in this election campaign. The media. You see, as the politicians keep reminding us, who gets to run the country is up to us. Whereas the media seem to think it's up to them, and that they can't trust us to make the "right"decision if they were to give us the full facts. And with that the way they assume we're all stupid. On Media Matters on Radio 2 this week a Sun writer and a Guardian writer were discussing the rise in popularity of the Liberal Democrats, and they suggested, no, they asserted, with supreme confidence, that this was only because the people don't know what the Lib Dems stand for but that the press would enlighten them. This could be true, but the arrogance of the assumption (i.e. "I wouldn't vote for these people, so it is not possible that anyone properly informed would") was highly irritating.

However, the thing that's really had me fuming during this campaign has been the way the different media organs go about "enlightening us". In the discussion below I will be focussing on how this has been done to the Lib Dems because I count myself a Lib Dem supporter and thus have particuarly noticed the behaviour I decry below when they affect that party. But I would emphasise that the party here are the example I choose; the problem I highlight is a problem whichever party it targets.

My irritation is basically with the presentation of half-truths, usually as fact, and the systematic destruction of this "policy" in this half-exposed and (presumably deliberate) way. Let me give you an example of what I mean, and I will try to be as part-neutral in the discussion as I can. On Thursday, the Daily Mail published an article (which Ican't find now, link to follow if I can) regarding the Lib Dems' short-term prison sentence policy. The headline was that the Lib Dems would put 60,000 criminals back on our streets. The article was based on a half-truth. The Lib Dem's want to discourage short-term prison sentences in favour of Community Orders and Reconciliatory Justice and the like. But everything after "in favour" above was left out of the article.

Not only is this not "enlightening" readers but misleading them, it's also infuriating because there is scope here for a piece of good journalism. When I read the Lib Dem manifesto and saw their claims that their tactics would reduce reoffending, I thought, "That's good, it actually gets criminals off the streets. Turns them into normal members of society." But of course, I have not looked into the details of the pilot schemes, I haven't investigated whether this Lib Dem claim is true. It could be nonsense for all I know; I just believed them. Surely here the journalist should enter. The journalist is paid (OK, so I'm being naive) to enlighten me by investigating this claim, and telling me whether it's true or not. Then, having given me the facts, they can tell me what they think about it. But having done the half-baked job this Mail article did, it has not told me anything; but of course it may have put some people off voting Lib Dem not by arguing that the policy is poor or not sound, but by misrepresenting the policy. Equally, if the Lib Dem claims about reoffending rates are wrong, I haven't been told and so have not changed by political inclinations.

I can think of a few reasons that this could be, and I'll let you decide which is the most likely.

1. The journalist had not read the Lib Dem manifesto and did not know about the "cutting reoffending claim."



2. The journalist did know about the above claim, but couldn't be bothered to investigate it.



3. The journalist knew of the claim, but didn't want to investigate it because they wanted to scare people off the Lib Dems.



4. The journalist did investigate the claim, found it to be untrue, but chose to suppress this information.



5. The journalist did investigate the claim, found it to be true, but chose to suppress this information.

Basically 1-2 are laziness, 5 is scaremongering and a blatant attempt to make you vote as the Daily Mail wants you to, rather than making aninformed choice, and 3 is a bit of both (4 is unlikely because if i thappened one would expect the Mail to have trumpeted it). Either of these are poor, and basically unacceptable. And irritating.

In the above I've focussed on the Daily Mail 's misrepresentation of Lib Dem policies, but this is just as an example. Many media outlets are misrepresenting many parties; certainly Lab/Lib/Con have all suffered this to some extent or other. Isn't it time that the media realised that in a democracy, their job should be to inform our vote, not direct it through guile? Why should (for example) Rupert Murdoch claim "It was the Sun Wot Won It?" The Sun shouldn't win it, WE, the electorate, should win it. The only credit the Sun can take should be for making us sufficiently aware of the options that we could make an informed choice.

Of course, the truth is that the media don't have the goal of supporting a democracy by ensuring we have easy access the the facts. They have the goal of making money. But we do live in a democracy, and we do have the power. If the media won't tell us things straight, we don't have to give them our money. On May 6th we can vote with a chunky black pencil-crayon hybrid. In the meantime, let's vote with our wallets.

For what it's worth

Despite the unexplained and irritating objection of a single arrogant, unnamed Tory to the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill, the Jubilee Debt Campaign is leading an urgent campaign to get the Government to readopt the Bill and push it through Parliament before the imminent end of the session. The Bill will regulate the activities of so-called Vulture Funds, hedge funds which prey on heavily-indebted poor countries and make their financial problems worse, as Liberia found out to its cost last year. As the Treasury is formally in charge of sponsoring Bills going through the Commons, and Liam Byrne is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he's the chap to get to. I emailed him. If you fancy doing likewise, either visit them or copy and paste this text what I wrote and send it to him at byrnel@parliament.uk.

Dear Mr Byrne,

I am writing to lend my support to the urgent call to the Treasury to take up the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill as a Government Bill. The way in which the passage of the Bill was blocked last week during the third reading was a shameless abuse of Parliamentary convention by the MP concerned, and it would be a great credit to the Government if it were to give this Bill time to pass into the statute book before the end of the session.

I hope that you will take the opportunity to set this matter right and demonstrate that petty political games are not to be allowed to interfere with this country's commitment to global justice.

Yours sincerely

(Get the address right - JDC spell "Byrne" wrong in their text. Nitpick, nitpick.)

I don't blog often, but I like to think it's worth it when I do.

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?