Monday Moan 23

Overblown sense of importance

The BBC makes headline news – on the BBC.  The BBC is ‘in crisis’ – according to the BBC.  The BBC ‘has not faced a greater challenge than this for, oh, at least 10 years’, according to the BBC.

I know the rest of the media has jumped on the various stories about the BBC – never being slow to hammer what is, for many of them, their chief rival.  So it is now, officially, a ‘really big story’.  We know this because the resignation of the Director General on Saturday evening, inconveniently after the main evening news programme had already been broadcast, was considered so important that a special News Report was slotted into the schedule to cover the event.

The UK media is not known either for its modesty about its own importance or for having a sense of proportion that relates in any way to the sense of proportion that might be accorded by the population at large.  But hang on a minute, please.  This frenzy of angst about the BBC stems from a couple of decisions made by the Newsnight programme – you know, the one that goes out at 10.30pm every evening, when its audience (apart from media and political people) consists of a man and his dog.  I wonder whether it was the man or his dog that complained?

The vast majority of the British public probably don’t care one way or the other what  Newsnight reports or does not report.  They certainly wouldn’t have thought the BBC was in crisis, at least until this was headline news on the BBC itself and then in the rest of the media.

Call me old-fashioned, but I much preferred it when the BBC concentrated on reporting the news rather than creating it.

Festival of Remembrance – what is it for?

The Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance in the Royal Albert Hall is a fixture in the annual calendar – always happens, always on BBC1, always the evening before Remembrance Sunday.  According to the Royal British Legion, the Festival commemorates and honours all those who have lost their lives in conflicts, and is both a moving and enjoyable evening.

Saturday’s Festival contained all the usual elements of marching bands, sombre presenter (Huw Edwards) and moving filmed clips of servicemen and others talking about their experiences.  It ended with what amounted to a short service of remembrance and the sight of thousands of poppies falling like snow from the ceiling of the Albert Hall onto the heads of the people below. The audience appeared to be mainly ex-servicemen and women and I am sure they found these elements to be very traditional and moving.

What I’m not sure about is whether they really thought that for the evening to be both moving and enjoyable they needed to be entertained by the likes of Rod Stewart, Amore, Laura Wright and The Overtones.  Obviously good publicity for that list of stars and wannabe stars, but what, in truth, did they add to the occasion?  Rod Stewart is one of many performers today who seem particularly reluctant to get out of the spotlight, despite advancing years making their inability to sing even more apparent than ever.  As for the rest, well let’s just say they are in a long, long line of ‘the most exciting new young stars’ who are thrust before us, shine brightly for a moment and then fizzle out like so many spent fireworks.  Fame, for most of them, will be fleeting.

 

Too close to call?

A big round of applause for the pundits the world over who bought into the expert view from American analysts that last week’s USA election was ‘too close to call’.

 

There was so much discussion about how Mitt Romney had closed the gap and the election was now on a knife edge that people actually believed it.  Only it wasn’t true – it wasn’t too close to call.  Obama won 332 electoral college votes against 206 for Romney.  In the popular vote (which itself counts for nothing) he won by 2.7%.  The 2012 results were closer than those in 2008, but given all the factors involved (see Moan 21) that is hardly surprising.

If this was ‘too close to call’ then maybe opinion polls shouldn’t be taken too seriously?  And maybe the pundits, the ‘experts’ who are wheeled out to give us the benefit of their experience and wisdom on such matters are all being paid just a little more attention and money than they merit?

 

Protecting families and businesses – or making political capital?

Rachel Reeves, the Labour Party’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has complained about the 3p per litre tax rise on fuel planned for January next year.  She says that with the UK economy "so fragile and prices still rising faster than wages", it would be "wrong to go ahead with another tax rise on families and businesses".

Amazingly, it seems that most people in the UK don’t want to pay more for fuel either – with a recent survey revealing that 85% of people had concerns about rising fuel prices.

 

OK, so let’s take stock:-

·        the automatic fuel tax rises which should apply in January were introduced by …….er, the Labour Party;

·       is anybody surprised that 85% of people have concerns about rising fuel prices?  I am.  I can’t believe it’s not 100% - but that demonstrates nothing more than that people don’t like tax or price rises;

·       will a 3p price rise really be a major issue?  Petrol prices have been up and down over the last couple of years, with 3p changes not uncommon in either direction.  So why would another change in January be any more damaging or noticeable?

Can’t help thinking that this is just another example of making political capital, no matter whether the issue merits it or not.  If the Labour Party was serious then surely it would be questioning the fact that over 60% of the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel goes to the Treasury – the highest figure in Europe.  Or is that one a little too tricky?

Monday Moan 21

Time to choose

In a few days from now the American people will get the chance to vote for their next President.  Barack Obama or Mitt Romney – from here it doesn’t seem like a difficult decision, does it?  But that’s not the way it is over the other side of the Atlantic.

How could it be that this is such a close election?  Well, let’s not forget that Barack Obama only just managed to squeeze past the aged John McCain last time round, despite his opponent’s complete lack of personality or charisma, despite the economic crisis and despite the anger created by years of apparently pointless and unsuccessful war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Getting the American public to vote for its first black president was a big deal and it was achieved only by a relatively narrow margin.

Obama was then hailed as the man to change everything. Of course he promised a lot, but much of the euphoria surrounding his election was generated by unrealistic expectations on the part of others.  I confess to being swept up in this myself, so much so that I sat glued to the television to watch the inauguration ceremony, because I was convinced it was a historic turning point.  That euphoria and those expectations have weighed like an increasingly heavy millstone around Obama’s neck as the realities of government have exerted their force.  Nobody, not even the President of what many consider to be the most powerful nation on Earth, can change things overnight. 

Obama has, of course, faced some pretty tricky obstacles as he has tried to govern. It seems that a significant proportion of Americans believe he is a marxist, socialist, communist, muslim (delete as you wish) intent on destroying the American way of life. He has faced opposition from the Republicans to almost everything he has tried to do, including a campaign against his introduction of what to most of the rest of the developed world seemed to be pretty obvious proposals for healthcare reform, to extend access to healthcare provisions to the poorer members of society – including the almost 17% of Americans who have no health insurance.  Apparently, this was just an example of his communist beliefs.

He now faces a man who , according to many observers, is not just gaffe-prone, but a serial distorter of the truth (or liar, if you prefer).  Of course, there are those on the other side of the debate who claim that Obama is the liar.  And in the country of free-speech, both sides are able to make their vitriolic and partisan allegations almost unchecked.  Romney a liar?  or Obama a communist? 

 

Oh well, the election will be over soon and then, apart from the arguments, name-calling and righteous opposition to whatever is proposed by the new President, we can take a rest from campaigning - for at least a year to eighteen months.  Then it all kicks off again. 

 

A multimedia icon speaks

Dr. Michael Savage is not Tom Jones in a poor disguise, but a multimedia icon in the conservative movement, heard by 10 million listeners a week on “The Michael Savage Show” and syndicated across the U.S. in more than 300 markets.  At least, that is how he bills himself on his own website (obviously, not the Tom Jones denial bit).

.

He is also one of only a handful of people banned from entering the UK.  Banned for his extremist views.  But free to peddle them elsewhere, of course.  He is one of President Obama’s fiercest (or at least one of his loudest) critics.  I am not going to put a link to his website in the Moan – you can look him up if you want to do so.  But I will highlight the following comment attached to one of his many video postings:-

 

“Independents and Republicans are shown to have higher IQs then [sic] democrats and liberals. Just science fact now. That’s why none will vote for Obama. We still have to worry about the other 50% of the country though, you know the ones that aren’t that smart.”

 

Heaven help us all.

 

  

Independence Day

Scotland is to get its vote on independence.  That is, the people living in Scotland will get to vote – which includes the almost 370,000 English people resident there, but not the 750,000 Scots resident in England.

 

Where will it all end?  English nationalism?  Independence for the Isle of Wight?  Not much support for the latter at the moment, as the Isle of Wight Party is not after independence but a fixed link (bridge or tunnel) between the island and the English mainland.  There was a Vectis National Party in the 1970s, which campaigned for independence on the basis that it believed the sale of the Isle of Wight to England in 1293 was unconstitutional.

 

That’s the kind of historical grudge that could grow into a major movement one day.

 

 

Pots and kettles

There is something deliciously amusing about the complaints by Chelsea about alleged comments made by referee Mark Clattenburg during their game against Manchester United yesterday.  These comments are said to include some inappropriate racial language.

 

All this from the club that has supported John Terry throughout the Anton Ferdinand affair and all the allegations about racial insults that were involved. 

 

Pots and kettles.

 

Monday Moan 11

Special Olympic Souvenir Edition – Part 2

The Greatest Show on Earth is over but for one more week the Monday Moan feels obliged to concentrate on the London 2012 Olympics.  Hopefully, there will be more things to talk about next week!

  

BBC – We want the action!

The BBC continued to frustrate and irritate with its coverage of the athletics and its apparent determination to get those ‘artistic’ or ‘atmospheric’ shots that they had decided upon at their editorial meetings before the live action.  So, during the nerve-stretching drama that was the 5,000 metres final and Mo Farah’s attempt to win a second gold medal, the BBC managed to miss some of the key moments by cutting away to what must have been pre-planned shots.

At 11.57, with just under two laps to go, Mo was near the front and poised to make his move. 


Mo makes his move - just under two laps to go

   

BBC cuts away to excited crowd

    


Oops - missed the action

 

OK, one lap to go and let’s give them another chance. 

Mo is now in the lead coming to the bell

 

Cut to cliche shot

Someone now on Mo's shoulder - missed it again

Whilst I’m on the subject of this race, I’m sure we were all thrilled to see glimpses of Mo’s family after the 10,000 metres race the previous week, and I imagine that some focus-group work for the BBC had revealed that this was a general feeling. But in typical fashion they reacted by going over the top with ‘family’ shots in the 5,000 metres race.  I can’t have been the only one to have been fed-up with the constant cutting away to shots of his wife and daughter rather than following Mo himself.

Dear BBC – please just show us the action!

Phil Jones – ever sensitive

In last week’s Moan I mentioned Phil’s contribution to the Games and his dubious interviewing techniques.  Someone said he seemed a bit like that dodgy uncle who makes you squirm with his insistence on a cuddle or a squeeze even if you don’t want it.  That’s as may be, but for me he continued to demonstrate a complete inability to show any kind of sensitivity for the moment. 

His interview with Stephen Kiprotich, winner of the marathon, was just embarrassing. Not for Phil the simple question to someone who has just exhausted himself after running over 26 miles in just over 2 hours.  No, he opened up with “what will this mean to your country?”  What?  That was exactly Kiprotich’s response.  For his next question Phil was into a statement – “You made a lot of sacrifices, tell me about that decision and how it’s worked out for you” Kiprotich appeared not to understand, so Paul repeated it, adding that those sacrifices had included leaving his family – “tell me about that”.  Kiprotich appeared both bemused and upset, but Phil saved the day with a laugh and a comment along the lines of “it’s obviously hard to put into words and we seem to be having a bit of a language barrier, but he’s smiling so he must be happy”. 

Perhaps Phil’s finest hour was his interview with Usain Bolt, Johan Blake and Warren Weir, the three medal winning Jamaicans after their triumph in the 200 metres.  Phil had been told to interview them, so that was what he was going to do.  No matter that they wanted to show some respect to David Rudisha, winner of the 800 metres whose medal ceremony was taking place at the same time, and to the national anthem of Kenya that was being played.  Phil was having none of that – “I know the national anthem is being played but I’m gonna grab you for a quick word”.  Johan Blake’s look seems to be saying ‘plonker’.  Spot on.



Phil moves in

He makes a grab for Warren

You plonker

The world’s biggest broken pencil?

London 2012 has been a fabulous celebration of sport. It has been joyous, uplifting, entertaining and exciting.  It has, mercifully, been free of the awful things that some commentators, not all of them entirely objectively, had been given endless amounts of airtime to drone on about prior to the Games starting. There were no security, transport or drugs issues of any real note.  Even the weather relented and gave us only a few moments of trouble.

So what was it with the closing ceremony?  The guidance from the IOC says “the Closing Ceremony is a celebration for the participants in the Olympic Games, a chance to celebrate the drama of the Games and the successes of the athletes. It is a time to revel in friendships made, and of borders and boundaries crossed.”  It acknowledges that the ceremony will include things relevant to the host nation’s culture.  I have searched it very carefully and cannot find anything that suggests it should be an occasion for ignoring sports and instead providing a platform for massaging the already over-inflated egos of ‘stars’ from the world of music.

I admit I feared the worst even before it had started but I was astonished to discover how even my nightmares had not come up with anything as awful as the actual event.  A succession of people whose importance in the scheme of things is akin to that of a flower that blooms briefly, then disappears and is replaced by another and then another and then another. Interesting whilst it lasts but hardly memorable or important.  No sense in me listing them all here, but perhaps special mention should be made of a few whose presence seemed particularly irrelevant.  A moving video of John Lennon singing ‘Imagine’ was replaced by George Michael.  From the top to the bottom in one move.  Fat Boy Slim appeared, pretending to play some records.  Russell Brand came on to general disbelief – what on earth was he doing there?  The Spice Girls – for goodness sake.   Notions of ‘girl power’ have moved on and been given a new meaning by the performances of so many female athletes during these Games.

Full marks to Ray Davies’s agent, by the way, for securing a two-page spread for his man in Friday’s Evening Standard which not only gave the impression that Davies has been the most important and influential figure in British popular music over the last 40 years, but that his role in the closing ceremony would be pivotal, with him filling the end of the show spot traditionally reserved for Paul McCartney.  No matter that hardly anybody would have known the words and been able to sing along with ‘Waterloo Sunset’.  Slightly over-hyped his importance to the event, since he was on quite early and for a couple of minutes only, but the publicity will have done him no harm at all.

Congratulations also to those who decided that they were going to sing live – didn’t always work out well, but at least they tried.  Shame on those who mimed.  Double shame on those who mimed badly.

To me it was just like the biggest broken pencil in the world – completely pointless.  It was a bloated and rather embarrassing spectacle, but I realise this will be a minority view in the media as we’re all supposed to tow the line that we have done all of this better than they did in Beijing.  It’s also not good form to wield a pin anywhere near the egos of our pop stars.   

I really feel I ought to end on a positive note, so here goes. The one good thing to come out of the closing ceremony was that it made me realise that perhaps the opening ceremony had not been quite as dire as I first thought. 

Olympic Broadcasting Awards

After two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage has given huge exposure to the BBC’s team of presenters, the Monday Moan felt it right to hand out awards in recognition of the most deserving.

Most impressive across a range of events – Clare Balding

Most authoritative and interesting expert – Michael Johnson

Best ‘lad’ presenter – Gabby Logan

Most improved commentator – Steve Cram

Most insufferably smug presenter – John Inverdale

Most boring expert – Denise Lewis

Most out of depth presenter – Gary Lineker

Most irritating and insensitive interviewer – Phil Jones (of course), but with a mention for Sharon Davies who tried her best in this category

  

Let’s finish with a non-Olympic moan

Mitt Romney continues to dazzle as potentially the next President of the USA.  Fresh from his error-strewn trip around Europe and the Middle East (see Moan 9) he introduced Paul Ryan, his choice to be the Vice-Presidential running mate in the forthcoming election, as “the next President of the United States”.  This may seem particularly dumb for someone who will, like it or not, be entrusted with the nuclear button amongst other things, but perhaps we should not be too hard on him and we should just put it down to the excitement of the moment.  After all, it seems that President Obama made the same mistake when he announced Joe Biden as his running mate in the last election.

Maybe more worrying is the fact that he has chosen Paul Ryan.  It’s not just his political attitudes (no doubt we’ll discuss these at some time but for the moment suffice to say that in some ways he makes Sarah Palin seem like a good choice last time round) it’s also his inability to utter a coherent sentence when presented to the world by Romney.  If you were interviewing someone for the post of Vice-President, would you be impressed by someone whose first words were “Hey! And right in front of the USS Wisconsin, huh? Oh, man!"? 

Didn’t think so.

Monday Moan 9

 Intellectual indolence

And there I was, thinking that the i-paper (mini Independent) must be as uninteresting as its grown-up brother.  But I was wrong.  A train journey to Leeds was the catalyst for purchasing the i-paper on Friday and I'm not sure if reading it did much more than suggest to me that it resembles nothing other than a Daily Mail-like publication for people who think they are too clever and refined to read the Daily Mail.

I could put forward any number of examples to demonstrate my point, but two should be sufficient.

Amol Rajan writes in the column 'FreeView from the editors at i'.  In an otherwise interesting article broadly about Mitt Romney and his visit to London (see elsewhere in this week's Moan) he fails quite miserably to make the leap for the moral and intellectual high-ground when he argues that headlines describing Romney's comments as 'gaffes' are written by stupid people. Gratuitous insults are not the mark of intelligence. And his repetition of the tortuous explanation from "the excellent Mark Ferguson" which purports to show why failing to call Ed Miliband by his name was actually a sign of respect is something that will have many reaching for the sick-bags.  But save some space in those receptacles for your reaction to his parting shot that people who see gaffes in what Romney said are guilty of "intellectual indolence".  My, my, it would be hard to come up with a better example of the intellectual indolence he so decries in others.  

And then we have a letter from Val Gaize, apparently one who has not succumbed to the general feeling of goodwill towards the Olympics.  Instead, this reader suggests that we have turned London into a police state ruled by Mammon and that this has been done to allow a middle-aged former Olympic gold medallist to fulfil his ambition.

What a ridiculous and unfounded collection of accusations.  Poor old Val.  Maybe she could hibernate for the next two weeks in order to avoid the possibility that she might explode, Mr Creosote-like, as her righteous indignation ferments relentlessly whilst wall-to-wall coverage of the Games dominates all of our lives? 

Thanks for the advice, Buddy?

A long train journey provides a good opportunity to catch up on a bit of reading - once you have selected your seat from amongst those still unreserved.  Why is it that if two individuals, unknown to each other, reserve seats then the train company will place them next to each other, rather than giving them some space?  Hence the need to select your seat even if you have gone to the trouble of reserving one.

Anyway, on my way back from Leeds last week I had time to read The Economist. I read the leader on the American Presidential campaign and it got me wondering who writes these things, since they are never attributed.  What expertise and knowledge do leader writers have on the topics they write about? Should we take them as serious and authoritative contributions to debates on the topics concerned, or are they no more worthy of note than the thoughts of that lonely and rather sad bloke who props up one corner of the bar in your local pub most nights of the week?

This particular leader in The Economist was telling America what it needed to be debating about the role of Government, suggesting that at the moment neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney seemed "to understand the central domestic challenge of the next presidency".

Pretty damning stuff.  However, I can't help wondering whether we would be universally delighted and grateful if the boot was on the other foot and we received similar strictures from some American magazine.

Maybe we would. Or maybe we would suggest that they butt out of matters they don't understand.

Britain at its best?

 

So, the Opening Ceremony.  That's a tough one.  Do you want to join in with the general applause for all that is good about Britain and it's wonderful imagery that was admired all over the world?  Or do you feel compelled to say that, actually, you thought that the few good bits in the show that never seemed to end did not make up for the boredom and embarrassment of the rest of it?

According to the Daily Express,  Wayne Hemingway (fashion designer and tv personality) said: "The musical bit was perfection from the wit and the guts to put Tiger Feet among the Beatles and the Who and then to give pretty much the whole of Pretty Vacant. Normally it would be brushed over, but the punk spirit which is in Britain was written through the ceremony. Anyone cynical about this has no lust for life, it's just bloody brilliant. I don't think anyone could find a fault. He deserves a knighthood."

OK.  First, I guess I have to declare that I have no lust for life - on Wayne's measure of such things.  Second, it is prefectly possible to express a view at odds with those of Wayne, or anyone else wanting to praise Danny Boyle, without being cynical.  It's called having a different view. And third,  whether or not the "musical bit was perfection" is really not an objective issue on which there is a right or wrong answer.  Would I have chosen different music to represent the best of British culture?  Of course I would - and I'd like to think that everybody reading this blog would have come up with their own, different list.  See, that's the beauty of free will and having opinions.  We don't all have to pretend in the Emperor's New Clothes.

Rush to judgement?

All those empty seats over the first couple of days for the Olympics were bound to create a storm of protest.  The media lapped up the opportunity to be indignant and slam the organisation - thank goodness there was something like this, given that transport and security have not turned out to be be problems so far (watch this space though for transport once people return to work and, if all still goes smoothly, once the main stadium is in use during the athletics).

So we had Jeremy Hunt popping up on our screens to say that the problem seemed to be that the sponsors were not using their tickets and something would have to be done about that.  The media duly repeated this and then in interviews with the public we had it played back from them - confirming that the 'message' had been received. 

Trouble is that a bit of further investigation seems to have revealed that the sponsors were not to blame after all, but that the problem lies with the tickets set aside for the 'Olympic family' - national Olympic Associations, competitors and the like.  Moreover, they don't appear to have actual tickets that can be resold to the public if the seats remain empty, since they are merely reserved areas that members of the 'family' can chose to sit in if they wish.

No doubt Jeremy Hunt was briefed that what he said was true - such a shame that he hasn't been back on our screens so far to apologise for his error in pointing the finger in the wrong direction.