EU Referendum

Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Julian Williams and Shub Niggurath co-author a guest post over at Bishop Hill, taking on George Monbiot and his defence of the tainted Pachauri – all under the title "George Monbiot: scrubbing the record clean".

Meanwhile, just in case you are wondering, the Press Complaints Commission complaint against Monbiot, The Guardian and The Sunday Times proceeds apace. All the preliminaries have been dealt with and there has been a robust "exchange of views". Now, the issue is scheduled to go to the full panel of newspaper editors for adjudication during their next meeting in October.

Speaking of The Sunday Times, it having retreated behind its paywall, I have stopped reading it on-line, but have still been buying the print edition. So strapped is Mr Murdoch for cash, however, that the price has gone up today by 20p, to £2.20.

Reading the wartime newspapers – as one does – one sees that the 1940 Observer (pictured) was a mere twopence in old money – less than one penny in new. As a totally unscientific rule of thumb, to get current prices you multiply by 100, which should put the price of a Sunday newspaper at under £1 a copy.

Effectively, the price has more than doubled – but are we getting double the value? For sure, there are all the supplements and the magazines, but I never read those anyway. They go straight in the bin.

That leaves me paying £2.20 for a newspaper (£114.40 a year) but, when you compare then and now, you find that the 1940 editions had far more news – about 40 stories per page. This compares with four on the current front page of The Sunday Times and less on most of the rest of the pages. Furthermore, most stories would not actually qualify as news – and I really don't want four pages on the Pope, plus the front page lead.

Clearly, the time has come for a parting of the ways. Internet news, plus a small selection of good blogs is enough to keep informed. The rest can go hang, although I suspect Mr Murdoch will not be losing any sleep at my rejection of his products.

COMMENT THREAD

The Times and The Sunday Times will start charging for their websites from June. Readers will be offered a day's use for £1, or £2 for a week's subscription. Readers who have a seven-day subscription to the print editions will not be charged extra for access to the websites.

The two titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing site. There will be a free trial period and payment will allow access to both websites.

Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, said: "At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition. We are proud of our journalism and unashamed to say that we believe it has value."

Byeeeeeee ...

COMMENT THREAD

The BBC reports that Sunday Mirror journalist Rupert Hamer, 39, has been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan, along with a US marine and an Afghan soldier. His colleague, photographer Philip Coburn, 43, is in a serious but stable condition.

In August last year, we wrote: "We need to remind ourselves occasionally that, while it is very easy to deride the efforts of journalists, those who are embedded with troops in the field do take very real risks."

Hamer was very much one of the better journalists – it was he who accompanied the Brigade Reconnaissance Force in the push to recover Musa Qala in December 2007. He has paid the price for bringing us the news.

His death, of course, is no more or less tragic than those of the soldiers who were killed alongside him, the many more who have already been killed and those who are yet to die. But it does indeed remind us that gathering the news is not without its price, and we should be grateful that there are men and women still who are prepared to take the risks on our behalf.

COMMENT THREAD

internet[i-internet]A leader in The Australian today suggests how the debate in beginning to be shaped by the revelations on the generous Dr Pachauri, who gives all his pocket money to his own institute – without then declaring how much he gets in return.

Says the leader:

Essentially, the conference's failure to update the Kyoto Protocol leaves developing nations to do as they like. But as the long list of business interests of Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and head of India's Energy and Resources Institute, suggests, the politics of carbon are replete with vested interests.

How Dr Pachauri can remain impartial given his reported interests in fossil fuel, venture capital, alternative energy, research and motor vehicle companies is an interesting question that he is yet to answer satisfactorily.

That is indeed the question, but it was one raised exclusively on this blog a mere eight days ago and developed in subsequent posts. But it took the power of "Big Media" to project the story and give it that all-important "reach" that a small blog cannot achieve – significantly helped of course by James Delingpole and his MSM blog and influential independents such as Bishop Hill.

A point that emerges from that experience is that the MSM and the blogs are not in competition – there is a synergy between them. They can feed off each other and achieve things which alone they could not, as the message of each is spread through the net. This is a lesson some newspaper editors and proprietors – with their dog-in-the-manger attitude to links – could do well to take on board.

But the main lesson to emerge is of the power of the internet as an information tool. Here, from a tiny room in deepest West Yorkshire, without ever leaving the desk, one can reach out through the portal of the computer and conduct a world-wide search, ranging – as this one has done – from Copenhagen, New York and Washington, to India, China, Japan and all points between.

Used effectively, this gives the "citizen" unimaginable power. Searches that would have taken weeks and months, requiring resources beyond the scope of the individual, are now within the reach of anyone equipped with the internet and a laptop costing no more than a few hundred pounds, working out of a back room in a normal home – and they can be done in hours and days.

Business, government and even (or especially) social discourse now relies on the internet but, in so doing, they leave footprints which are difficult to hide. And, if they are there to find, we will find them. In a world dominated by vested interests and crooks like Pachauri, the internet is a tool for freedom.

PACHAURI THREAD

cobra[i-cobra]"Nine missing in US helicopter crash," headlines The Daily Telegraph, one of the many newspapers to carry the report of the tragic collision between a C-130 and a USMC helicopter over the sea off San Diego.

This newspaper, however, then goes on to tell us that: "There were seven people on the US Marine AH-1W Super Cobra helicopter, and two on the C130 transport plane." One can only observe that if indeed there were seven people on board the two-seater Super Cobra helicopter (pictured), then this might have had something to do with the crash.

More likely though, the paper's Nick Allen, reporting from Los Angeles, has got his aircraft mixed up. His report, therefore, does not exactly inspire confidence, either in himself or the sub-editors who are supposed to have checked the copy – in a process which, as the MSM would have it, distinguishes the "responsible" media from us mere bloggers.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]Well, someone's got to do it - releasing valuable resources to cover the global warming crisis - with only 47 days left to save the planet, and all that.

I ended up with the New York Times, almost in desperation – having trawled the British media for story ideas to make up the overnight post.

There, it is almost unbelievable to find that the single most important event in the world – according to our gifted hacks – is the BBC/Griffin affair, covered as lead items by The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and many more.

One of the few sensible commentaries to come out of all that is from an unusual coupling, Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, who say: "Cowardice on immigration has allowed the BNP to flourish". They are dead right, of course, but it isn't going to make any difference.

Reviewing the foreign media, by far the most important issue – to judge by the number of outlets that are covering it – is the Pakistani operation in Waziristan, but with the PAK Army blocking media access, there is very little for us to add that we have not already covered on Defence of the Realm.

Without doubt, this issue is important for, as one newspaper puts it, the strategic focus in the region has shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and events there have all sorts of ramifications for us here, both domestically and in terms of our international relations and security.

It is a reflection on the media though – certainly in this country, and most probably elsewhere – that the profile given to a story is determined these days not by the inherent importance, but by proximity, what interests the editorial teams, and – crucially, accessibility and the availability of photographs. It will come as no surprise to learn that Waziristan is given very short shrift in today's British media.

A few old-time hacks that I know, still in employment in a shrinking industry, are sick to teeth of it, and the venality of the media is often a topic of conversation with friends and acquaintances. It really is quite remarkable how few people these days actually buy newspapers.

So it is that we end up featuring an unusual story from the NYT. It was interesting for what it said about the media industry, one which can no longer find the time to attend executions – but is witnessing its own.

COMMENT THREAD

From The Guardian:

Atkins defended his project, saying the onus was on the newspaper to corroborate what it publishes. "Had those fake stories been fact-checked by the newspapers before they were printed, they would have realised – I think within minutes – that they were about to publish complete and utter babble."

This is a story of an outfit that deliberately set up fake stories on "celebs" and fed them to the media, to see what would happen. Sure enough, they got printed. Yet still there are people who believe what they read in the newspapers.

Come to think of it, how do I know this one is true? We have the ultimate paradox here: "I am a liar, so nothing I say can be believed".

COMMENT THREAD

Today's Daily Telegraph has its usual crop of variable letters on the subject of the Conservative Party and that referendum that is disappearing into the far horizon. Most of them are variations on the same old themes; the one that gets to the core of the matter is by Lord Willoughby de Broke, the other UKIP peer (who is not standing for the leadership).

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, October 3) says that he does not support Ukip because "only the big, old parties contain the DNA to govern".

Whichever party forms the next government here will not "govern". Most of our national law is now made in Brussels, where Britain has 8 per cent of the vote.

Do we want to go on being governed by the unelected and unsackable Brussels bureaucracy with its endless flood of suffocating law? Do we want to go on seeing a largely discredited Parliament acting simply as a rubber stamp for EU legislation?

Our parliamentary democracy worked when our elected representatives made our laws. The only way now to restore that democracy is to give the people of Britain the power of binding local and national referendums, as in Switzerland.

I have introduced a Bill in the Lords to give them that power. I look forward to the howls of protest from "the big, old parties".

Lord Willoughby de Broke

We are all looking forward to those entirely predictable howls of protest from "the big, old parties" and from all soi-disant experts on the British Constitution.

COMMENT THREAD

Musa+Qala+flag+2[i-Musa+Qala+flag+2]It is always unwise to take any official statement at face value – but the same might be said of any statement by the media. Healthy scepticism should be the default mode. So what does one believe when the media charges the government with misconduct, and the government flatly denies the charge?

That is the conundrum presented by a piece in The Sunday Times today. Written by a reputable journalist, Stephen Grey, under the headline: "No 10 asked army to delay Afghan attack until after Gordon Brown's visit", it makes a very serious charge.

Specifically, Grey alleges that during the recapture of the Musa Qala in December 2007, General Andrew Mackay – commanding the operation - "was furious to be asked by Downing Street if he could delay the operation and spare potential embarrassment to Brown." Mackay refused.

The scenario is plausible enough, and the background is set out in Grey's book, Operation Snakebite.

If the operation had been successful – as was anticipated – Brown could have been accused of "political opportunism", attempting to bask in reflected glory. If the operation failed, or there had been a high number of civilian casualties (the greater fear), this could have proved embarrassing for Brown when he met president Karzai.

As to the accusation that No 10 sought to interfere, this is indeed flatly denied. A Downing Street spokesman states: "The suggestion that Downing Street asked for a delay, or indeed any change, to military plans in Afghanistan before the Prime Minister visited at the end of 2007 is utterly untrue."

So, who do we believe? Well, in his book, Grey publishes details of a meeting of "generals and civil servants" at the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall on 4 December 2007, when the attempt to interfere with the operation was supposedly made. With it due to start in three days time, he refers to an "official" (no more detail is given) asking: "Does it have to be so soon? Can't it all be delayed?"

There then appears to be a general discussion about the political implications of the coincidence of the operation with the prime minister's visit. Addressing the meeting via an intercom was General Nick Houghton, based at Joint Operations HQ in west London. He, according to Grey, was asked to "check back" with theatre and "see if there could be any slippage." But, Grey adds, "few expected anything to change".

From this narrative, several points emerge. Firstly, the "official" initially asking whether there could be a delay was not identified. Secondly, there was no mention of No 10 – in this or any other context. Third, there seems to have been a general discussion on the proposition, from which it can be inferred that a consensus was reached. Fourth, this "consensus" was translated into a request that Houghton "check back", couched in terms of "see if". This implies that this was an exploratory question – a query - and by no means a demand.

Finally, and crucially, Houghton was not at the meeting. He was communicating via the intercom from another location. He then – or perhaps even someone delegated by him - communicated with "theatre", although Grey does not specifically assert that anyone talked to or communicated directly with MacKay.

MacKay, of course, was in Afghanistan (as indeed was Grey at the time). If he was contacted directly or indirectly by Houghton or someone deputed to do so, how did MacKay know that the query came from No 10? This is not specified, all in the context of Grey himself making no mention of No 10.

Herein lies perhaps the crux. Most people are familiar with the joke of First World War vintage, recalling a message saying: "send reinforcements, we're going to advance." Garbled in transmission, it comes out as: "send three and fourpence (old money), we're going to a dance". A similar dynamic might be at play.

Deconstructing the key parts of the narrative, we have in London an unidentified official, a general discussion and a somewhat ambiguous "request" which could be construed as asking for information on options. What precisely was conveyed to MacKay in Afghanistan, by whom and in what circumstances, is not specified.

At the receiving end, however, it is quite possible – perhaps aided by ambiguous wording or even some embellishments – that MacKay believed he was being asked to delay the operation and the source of the request was No 10. But a belief does not make it so. MacKay could have been misled, or simply misunderstood what was being asked of him.

As to the meeting in Whitehall, it is quite possible that the issues discussed reflected concerns that political fall-out would reflect badly on the officials, and they would be blamed for not taking measures to mitigate potential problems.

Rather than being directed by No 10, therefore – and Grey makes no accusation as to Gordon Brown being aware of what went on - the officials could simply have been covering their own backs. What we know of the narrative is entirely compatible with officials seeking to establish that options had been considered, and for good reasons had been discarded.

In the event, Grey in his book does not record MacKay's (or anyone else's) response to any query. That the operation went ahead as planned is testament to the fact that the response to the Whitehall query was "no". In fact, Houghton need not have referred it to MacKay - he had the authority to say "no" then and there.

If he did refer what amounted to a "request for information" back to theatre, it would have been as a matter of "form", in full expectation that the answer would be "no". If MacKay, against all expectations, had said "yes", most likely Houghton would have told him to stop being a bloody fool and get on with it.

On that basis, although Grey asserts that MacKay was "furious to be asked by Downing Street if he could delay the operation", we have no context. And whatever message MacKay did receive, Grey relies on his recall, some time after the operation had finished.

Interestingly, nothing Grey asserts in relation to MacKay's actions and reaction is in quotes. The narrative is unsupported by direct (or any) evidence. Rather, it is based on hearsay and ex post facto recollections, relying heavily on a particular interpretation of what could be an ambiguous request, delivered via a fragmented communication system.

Yet there can be no disputing the seriousness of the charge made by The Sunday Times - that attempts were made to interfere with a military operation for political purposes. That is serious, a breach of the long-standing constitutional principle that politicians do not interfere with the conduct of military operations.

On the other hand, the newspaper seems to offer very slender grounds on which such a serious accusation is made. For one of such gravity, more would be expected. Without more evidence, healthy scepticism should apply.

What is so alarming though - to judge from the comments on the Sunday Times piece - is the willingness of readers, uncritically, to believe the paper's account and to pass judgement. How many people tell you that they never believe anything they read in the papers? The evidence would indicate otherwise. We, the people, are our own worst enemies.

COMMENT THREAD

Israeli government press office director Daniel Seaman tells The Jerusalem Post: "I think it's for the benefit of professional journalism. Bloggers have become the watchdog of the watchdog - they fulfil an important role in ensuring that the media adhere to their roles."

To put the quote in context, Seaman is talking about the work bloggers do "in defending Israel and uncovering fraudulent claims against the Jewish state". But the sentiment has a wider application – watching the watchdog is something which many bloggers do well. It is a very necessary job.

COMMENT THREAD

Cole[i-Cole]Michael Yon is back with an excoriating condemnation of the MoD publicity machine in Helmand, lifting the lid on a little-discussed but vitally important aspect of the conduct of the war there.

Speaking with a defence correspondent this morning about it, he could not conceal his delight that Yon had done the deed, with a long account of the behaviour of one particular officer running "Media Ops" in Camp Bastion.

Yon states the behaviour of this officer has been "particularly problematic" – but fights shy of naming him, "so as not to tar and feather someone for his entire life when he still has a chance to change his behaviour".

Others, who have had the misfortune to suffer his ministrations are less optimistic – or charitable, and have no difficulty in recognising Major Ric Cole (pictured) as the man who, single-handedly, seems intent on destroying the reputation of the British Army.

Yon readily acknowledges that many soldiers in the British Media Ops are true professionals who strive constantly to improve at their tasks and work very well with correspondents. Their professionalism and understanding of the larger mission - ultimate victory - provide an invaluable service to the war effort. But, he says, there are a few who should not be in uniform and it takes only one roach leg to spoil a perfect soup. And that "roach" is Major Ric Cole.

Yon recounts how the Major and he were driving in Camp Bastion around midday when it was very hot. A British soldier ran by wearing a rucksack. He was drenched in sweat under the blazing, dusty desert. Yon smiled because it was great to see so many soldiers who work and train hard.

Yet the Major cut fun at the soldier, saying he was dumb to be running in that heat. Writes Yon, "I nearly growled at the Major, but instead asked if he ever goes into combat. The answer was no. And, in fact, the Major does not leave the safety of Camp Bastion." He continues:

That a military officer would share a foul word about a combat soldier who was prepping for battle was offensive. Especially an officer who lives in an air-conditioned tent with a refrigerator stocked with chilled soft drinks. Just outside his tent are nice hot and cold showers. Five minutes away is a little Pizza Hut trailer, a coffee shop, stores, and a cookhouse.

This very Major had earned a foul reputation among his own kind for spending too much time on his Facebook page. I personally saw him being gratuitously rude to correspondents. Some correspondents - all were British - complained to me that when they wanted to interview senior British officers, they were told by this Major to submit written questions. The Major said they would receive videotaped answers that they could edit as if they were talking with the interviewee.

This behaviour is not only gratuitous, it is dangerously harmful. Yon rightly states that it is essential to underscore the importance of the "Media Ops" in the war. When Media Ops fails to help correspondents report from the front, the public misses necessary information to make informed decisions about the war.

But if Cole is the "roach" leg, the king roach is the boss of Media Ops in Afghanistan, Lt-Col. Richardson. Says Yon, Richardson is doing more damage to the war effort than the Taliban media machine. By perpetrating falsehoods that undermine our combat capacity, Richardson has helped the enemy. He thus writes:

Some of the smokescreens are less important but they are demonstrative of the pattern: On 20 August a, CH-47 helicopter was shot down by a Taleban RPG during a British Special Forces mission. Richardson reported that the aircraft landed due to an engine fire. Some hours later, while I was on a mission nearby, the Taleban were singing over the radios about shooting it down. I heard the rumble when the helicopter was destroyed by airstrikes. The Taleban knew they hit the helicopter. So who is Richardson lying to? Not the enemy … unless the enemy is the British public.

We have met some of the efforts of Lt-Col Richardson before – defending Panther's Claw and the Viking, always touting the approved line.

Quite how serious this is Yon himself points out. The British people are demanding truth and they deserve accountability. They aren't getting it from Camp Bastion, he writes. Given the importance of the home front, it is impossible to stress how important it is that we are able to judge what is going on out in Helmand. For a long time, we have known that we are not being told the full story – or even part of it. For its contribution to that failure, "Media Ops" – with Major Cole and Lt-Col Richardson in particular - is losing us the war.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]I had an impassioned telephone conversation with Mrs EU Referendum last night, who is staying with her elderly mother recovering from an operation on her eyesight.

The proximate cause of her ire was the juxtaposition of two events. Earlier that day, she had read in one of the tabloids of a toerag who had been treated to a £7,000 safari holiday at the taxpayers' expense, on the grounds that his social worker thought it might help sort out his criminal behaviour – only to have the scum get caught within days of his return doing some nefarious act.

Later that day, Mrs EU Referendum had been confronted with a distressed young lady at the door of the residence, her clothes smeared in human excrement, apologising that she could not come in as she had to go home to change her clothes and bathe.

The young lady in question was a peripatetic care worker, charged with visiting elderly mother. On her previous call, however, her charge, a very elderly confused man living on his own, had managed for reasons unknown to soil himself very badly. Perforce, the young lady took it upon herself to clean him up as best she could, unaided, thus transferring some of the substance to herself.

For this, the lady in question – doing a task for which most of us would require a king's ransom – was paid the minimum wage. How was it, demanded Mrs EU Referendum, that public money could be lavished on the dregs, yet people who were doing such important jobs, of such great value to society, were rewarded so poorly?

While agreeing with both propositions, I somehow sensed that I was not going to get anywhere pointing out that if we stopped lavishing amounts sending the dregs on safari holidays, care workers were not necessarily going to get increased wages. Public finances simply don't work that way.

Similarly, I am not going to get anywhere pointing out that the linkage made today by The Daily Telegraph - giving the "duck house" an airing again - between the lavish pay and expenses of MPs and the "failure to equip troops on the front line" is also flawed. Reducing the emoluments of our parliamentary representatives would not in any way resolve the defence equipment issue. And any money thus released, even if it found its way into the defence budget, would be a drop in the ocean.

However, in many respects, the Daily Telegraph linkage is not only deeply flawed, it is fundamentally dishonest. Saying that isn't going to get me anywhere either – once the yellow press is in full flow, the baying crowd takes over and nothing will shift the narrative.

Having spent a lifetime in pursuit of lost causes, though, I might as well persevere, and thus have the dubious pleasure of watching my hit-rate drain into the sand, confirming the obvious – that the reason yellow journalism is so prevalent is because it is popular. People like being shocked and mortified and, especially, to have their prejudices reinforced. Truth is always the first casualty.

Rehearsing the issues, firstly, the MPs expenses issue was and is a crock. As we wearily pointed out, the expenses system was part of the overall pay package, calculated in exactly the same way many commercial packages are devised, total remuneration being a combination of "pay and perks".

That it was dishonest and hypocritical is not disputed, but the system goes back to the 70s and was well know to the journalistic fraternity. Its existence stems as much from the political cowardice of successive governments, which have avoided confronting the highly-charged subject of MPs' pay, and our own hypocrisy, at one demanding untold virtue from our representatives, yet refusing to consider what levels of reward were appropriate.

As to the "failure to equip our troops on the front line", time and again we have pointed out, with innumerable examples, that this is not a question of finance. The big problem, put at its most inelegant, is that the MoD is pissing money against the wall, buying the wrong equipment, at inordinate cost, with huge wastage and inefficiency, compounded by gross incompetence.

When it comes to the linkage, therefore, the reality is totally skewed. Our troops are not badly equipped because MPs are drawing excessive expenses. In many respects, our troops are badly equipped because MPs are not doing their jobs properly – which is an altogether different proposition.

On this, we drew an unfortunate but appropriate parallel, pointing out that the total annual cost of MPs' emoluments was approximately £100 million – almost exactly the same amount that the Army had spent on the dangerously useless Pinzgauer Vectors, the unsuitability of which was obvious before even the order had been placed.

Yet that same purchase had been applauded by the cross-party group of MPs on the Defence Committee – a group which has routinely failed adequately to question defence expenditure and bring it in check. One intervention, to block this insane purchase, could have saved the entire amount expended on MPs in a whole year – and there are many more examples of where MPs could and should be saving us a fortune by holding the executive to account.

In other words, the real issue is not what MPs are paid, but what they do for their money. In many respects, it is their failure to do the job for which they are paid which has led to the general dissatisfaction with them. But, in focusing on pay rather than performance, the wrong issue has been tackled and the outcome has left parliament weakened, less able to do the job for which it supposedly exists.

Here, therefore, the media have no cause for self-congratulation. The yellow press has consistently failed to address the equipment issue in an intelligent and adult fashion, running its own narrative which bears no relation to the situation on the ground. And here we go again, with the media going for the cheap shots, missing the point again.

Meanwhile, young ladies on minimum wages are daily performing unspeakable tasks in our name, and toerags are being sent on taxpayer-funded jollies. Oh! And did I say that this young lady was a Ukranian immigrant, a qualified nurse in her own country, whose qualifications are not recognised here? Where do you start on trying to make things better?

COMMENT THREAD

getimage[i-getimage]Regular readers may occasionally have sensed a slight degree of hostility on this blog directed at the journalistic fraternity. However, never let it be said that we are so blindly critical that we are unable to recognise good pieces of work when we see them.

One such – about the Afghan war - in the current edition of The Times is written by Anthony Loyd, of whom we have been quite complimentary over on DOTR. What struck me in particular was this extract:

Given the British government's catastrophic failure in leadership over the war and its inability to explain to the public what it is at stake in Afghanistan that justifies the current losses, it is no surprise then that the high level of attrition among troops undermines support for the war at home.

However, senior British commanders should not be excused from responsibility for the crisis. There has been little uniformity in the approach of different British brigades to their operations in Helmand. Some in the past, displaying little comprehension of current counter-insurgency doctrine, have described their short-term raid techniques against the Taleban as "mowing the lawn".

Yet "mowing the lawn" has enmeshed thousands of young Pashtun men into an alliance with a small Taleban hardcore. As a result, British soldiers are paying a heavy and often unnecessary price, fighting insurgents who are mostly "accidental guerrillas" of a particular valley or village, drawn into a fight against foreigners through natural inclination, as much as it would be our inclination if the situation were reversed.

Loyd joins that very small band of journalists writing about Afghanistan who are prepared to criticise the military performance, breaking free of the default mode in the British media, which has as its narrative, government baaaaaad army gooooood, couched in absolute black and white terms, with not even a suggestion that there could be grey areas.

What makes this worse is that while it is rare enough to see journalists criticise the military, even fewer are prepared to take on the media. One such is Martin Newland, former editor of The Daily Telegraph. But then, he can afford to. He is now editor-in-chief of a newspaper in Abu Dhabi called The National.

Anyhow, he writes a superb piece about how the media has turned the reporting on Afghanistan into a grotesque "reality TV circus that demeans the sacrifice of war". In the UK, this would no doubt elicit a storm of protest, not least from many of the blogs which seem to be part of and reinforce what Newland calls "moral infantilism".

That is not to say that there is not some very good writing on the web. There most certainly is. In this piece, for instance, Brig-Gen Mark T. Kimmitt (ret.) - the former US assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs – writes of a "war of exhaustion" and the requirements for success in Afghanistan. It is a perceptive piece of writing.

Thus, the quality is there if you look for it. The disappointment is that it is so rarely found in the British media but – rare though it is – even there the occasional good piece can be found. They are not all bad.

COMMENT THREAD

NSR+007[i-NSR+007]
There was much warmist trumpeting last week, led by The Independent and the BBC, over a German businessman's claim that two of his ships had managed to sail round the Arctic coast of Russia, writes Christopher Booker in today's column.

Indeed there was, with even Time magazine joining the fray last Friday. Hilariously, the caption to its picture pronounced, "A pair of German merchant ships traverse the fabled Northeast Passage". Yet the lead ship of the two shown was the Russian nuclear icebreaker 50 let Pobedy.

Despite ample evidence that the story was false, the BBC just could not leave it alone. Yesterday, the coprophiles on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme were back on the case telling us that the northeast passage had until recently "been too icy to navigate."

Coprophagic Richard Galpin had been despatched to Archangel (at our expense) to meet one of the two German ships which had just completed the journey. There, he breathlessly told us that "the fact that it is now possible to sail through the northeast passage in the summer months is all down to one thing – that the ice cover in the Arctic Sea has been shrinking rapidly in recent years."

He then cited the "environmentalist" Alexi Kakorin, who was "convinced that man-made climate change is the most important reason behind this." And then we got: "Many scientists do believe that it is only a matter of decades before there'll be no ice at all in the Arctic regions during the summer months."

This tosh was then repeated on television news (pictured - top) throughout the day, with Galpin signing off his piece by telling us that "the dream of a major shipping route through the Arctic is becoming reality, but only as the result of an environmental disaster."

You have to give it to the BBC, in pursuit of their religion, they are utterly shameless. Any lies will do, as long as they support the cause.

NSR+L013[i-NSR+L013]
The more one looks into this, however, the more outrageous the claims become. Pictured above is the nuclear powered ice-capable transport Sevmorput, built specifically for the northeast passage and launched in 1988, whence it had been plying the route ever since, only recently having been withdrawn for conversion into a drilling ship.

Meanwhile, the Murmansk Shipping Company – which is the specialist operator in the northern sea route - is currently running a fleet of 303 vessels with a total deadweight of about 1.2 million tons. In 2006, the company shipped 2 million tons of cargo through the route. Pictures of some of the fleet are here, with some of the ships currently plying the northern sea route shown below.

NSR+005[i-NSR+005]
NSR+kononovich[i-NSR+kononovich]
NSR+Kola_Arktika[i-NSR+Kola_Arktika]
NSR+006[i-NSR+006]
NSR+004[i-NSR+004]
NSR+012[i-NSR+012]
NSR+011[i-NSR+011]
NSR+010[i-NSR+010]
The northern sea route, however, is a mere walk in the park. To July 2008, no less than 71 surface ships have reached the North Pole. The first was the ice breaker Arktika, which arrived at the Pole on 17 August 1977. It is estimated that a total of about 20,000 people have visited the North Pole, the vast majority on sea expeditions in Russian ships.

Nothing of this, however, can penetrate the brains of the BBC coprophiles and their fellow travellers. The only good news is that, by Christmas, The Independent might be closed down. The pity is that the BBC will not be following it.

COMMENT THREAD

Lord Drayson believes science journalism is in "rude health". Yea ... right! And still the virus spreads. Says Daniel Hosseus from the German Shipowners' Association: "it is a very significant voyage ... It is the first time that commercial ships from western countries have used the Northeast Passage or the Northern Sea route as a transit from Asia to Europe or vice versa."

It isn't, but hey! This is the MSM, so it must be right.

The drivel goes on and on, reaching even China, thus demonstrating that stupidity is a truly international phenomenon. As for the "virgin wilderness" about which this author laments, he should read this. Despite this, there is no evidence that the polar bears are glowing in the dark.

COMMENT THREAD

Tel+crap[i-Tel+crap]
The crap, the spotter, the antidote here and a commentary here - with another one here. Iain Dale picked it up, Devil's Kitchen takes them apart, Mr Eugenides adds a treasured comment and our Canadian and Portugese friends are on to it. Witterings from Witney gets it and even some less astute bloggers half get the point.

You wonder, though, whether the hacks begin to realise what complete fools they've made of themselves.

Obviously not, because the turd-eaters at The Daily Telegraph have just joined in (headline pictured above). I just knew they wouldn't be able to resist it, although none of their gifted hacks have been brave enough to put their names to their crap.

COMMENT THREAD

American-Idol-001[i-American-Idol-001]
The turd-eaters are in full flow this morning, trilling about "product placement" on the idiots' lantern.

One of many consuming the fare is Jo Adetunji of The Guardian, who follows the "corporate line", under the headline "UK to follow US lead by allowing product placement on television."

Fresh from successes such as these, our little hackette breathlessly tells us that, "while product placement is rife in film, British television programmes have long had to make up fictional products." But, she writes, "That is all likely to change this week after a decision that is expected to allow commercial broadcasters to show sponsored products for the first time."

And why is that "all likely to change"? Well, according to this turd-eater, it is because culture secretary Ben Bradshaw is to announce a three-month consultation on the changes in a Royal Television Society speech this week.

Despite, in March, the then culture secretary, Andy Burnham, saying that lifting the ban raised "very serious concerns" and was "blurring the boundaries between advertising and editorial", Bradshaw avers – according to la Adetnji - that the "climate has changed" and has accepted lifting the ban "in principle".

That "climate", of course, is the EU's Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

This is now known as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, updating the 1997 "Television without Frontiers" directive, not that you would expect an airhead like Adetunji to realise this.

Nor indeed do the other turd-eaters, crunching on the same set of press releases, not least Jason Beattie of the Daily Mirror who reports under the headline: "Product placement could mean £100m windfall for TV". This feeble hack cites (as do many) Richard Lindley, chairman of the independent Voice of the Listener and Viewer, who moans that product placement it would "contaminate" TV and inevitably lead to placements on news and current affairs programmes.

No it will not, Mr Lindley, because the rules are made by the EU and specifically prohibit "placements on news and current affairs programmes", which actually makes the comment not worth printing. But nothing is too bad, too irrelevant or too misleading for our idle hacks to print, if it fills a space.

Actually, while product placement is permitted by the new directive, it is not compulsory – in theory. On the face of it, member states are "allowed" to make a choice.

That is the theory, but with broadcasters such as BskyB beaming their trash from Luxembourg, taking advantage of EU law, domestic broadcasters such as ITV would be heavily disadvantaged if the UK decided to go it alone. Thus, the UK government would very quickly find itself in the ECJ, defending an expensive law suit. Thus, it really has not option but to accede to the change in the "climate".

Not to be outdone though, in the Financial Times, it takes two hacks, Tim Bradshaw and Jim Pickard, to chew on the turd, telling us that: "Television advertisements are set to escape the confines of the commercial break as the government reverses its opposition to product placement." There is no mention of the EU, of course.

Nor will you get that from turd-eater Peter Taylor in The Daily Telegraph who, like the rest of the diners, solemnly informs us that: "Troubled ITV stands to reap tens of millions of pounds in new revenue under Government plans to allow US-style product placement on television."

The nearest we get to any recognition of the elephant in the room is from Suzy Jagger and Patrick Foster in The Times, and pair who feel the need to hold hands while they munch. They boldly pronounce that, "There's a time and a placement for everything as TV aims to cash in." You have to go way down in the heap of excrement offered to find the reference to "A European Parliament directive" (whatever that is) that "came into force almost two years ago". It, we are told, "permits product placement in sport and light entertainment programmes, if national governments allowed it. Most other EU nations have decided to lift restrictions."

And that's it. The BBC ran the story on its broadcast news yesterday, with nary a mention of the EU, and all the other little turd-eaters have piled in with the same line. One might suggest they are all up their own northeast passage.

COMMENT THREAD

SEE also update here.

NSR+1991[i-NSR+1991]
We were not going to return immediately to the "Northeast passage" but the temptation proved too great when we found the photograph shown above. It depicts an SA-15 type multipurpose icebreaking cargo ship of the Norilsk class. Nineteen were built for the Soviet Union between 1982-1987 at Finnish shipyards Wärtsilä and Valmet.

The significance of the picture is that it was taken in 1984 when the 20,000-dwt ship made the first of several shipments of pipes from Japan to the Ob' estuary via the "impossible" Northeast passage. It was following exactly the same route, to exactly the same destination as the much-lauded Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight. Furthermore, the ship made the journey without an icebreaker escort.

From the same source, we also learn that ships plying this route have been visiting Vancouver since 1979.

In 1986 three made homeward passages with grain after the end of the normal navigation season. The last cleared Vancouver on 12 November, and with minimum assistance reached Arkhangelsk on 2 December. Grain shipments from Vancouver to Arctic ports were continuing up to 1992, when the Ivan Bogin cleared Vancouver on 27 August 1992 for Murmansk.

As to European ships making the passage, the Germans have been there before, beating the Beluga fleet by nearly 70 years. This they did with the 3,287-ton converted merchantman Komet.

She left Germany on 3 July 1940 with a crew of 270, sailed up the Norwegian coast and then, with the assistance of the Soviets, navigated the northern route, crossing the Bering Straits into the Pacific Ocean in early September. She returned safely to Germany on 30 November 1941, after sinking seven ships.

During the war US-built lend-lease vessels, including liberty ships handed over to the Soviets, made 120 voyages with cargoes from the American west coast via the Bering Strait to northern ports, following routes similar to that followed by the Beluga fleet. Navigation by Soviet vessels continued after the war but, in the early stages of the Cold War, the route was closed to Western vessels – not by ice but by politics.

The first offer to open the Northern Sea Route to international shipping was made early in 1967, when it was argued that it could save thirteen days between Hamburg and Yokohama as opposed to the conventional link via Suez. To demonstrate the viability of the route, Soviet cargo carriers made three demonstration voyages from north European ports and Japan.

That the project went no further again was nothing to do with ice. In 1967, after the Six Day War, the Suez Canal was closed. The Soviets did not wish to offend friendly Arab governments – and particularly Egypt - by offering an alternative to the Suez Canal and the invitation for international shipping on the NSR was quietly withdrawn.

NSR+1991+2[i-NSR+1991+2]
Twenty years later, the USSR was shifting its economic enterprises to a self-financing system. In 1989 shipments between western Europe and Japan were made in the new generation of SA-15 freighters, one on charter to a German firm.

The following year space was offered to foreign shippers in eight SA-15s trading between Europe and Japan via the Arctic. In 1991 there were fifteen such voyages with 210,000 tons of cargo (one pictured above). That year, the Northern Sea Route was again declared open to foreign shipping.

To test the route, the French Arctic supply vessel "L'Astrolabe" left Le Havre on 27 July 1991 and successfully navigated the NRS, arriving in Japan in early September.

Yet another European vessel followed in her wake. In the summer of 1997, the Finnish-flag tanker Uikku (pictured, below right) sailed the length of the NSR. beginning in Murmansk 3 September, and discharged fuel along a number of Russian Arctic ports. It arrived in Pevek on the 12th to discharge fuel and then sailed through the Bering Strait on 15 September.

Uikku[i-Uikku]After picking up more fuel in the Pacific the ship sailed back along the NSR. discharging fuel at several ports and reaching Murmansk on 14 October. It was reported by the Russian NSR authorities that a Latvian-flag tanker also completed a full transit of the NSR in 1997.

And yet The Independent has the nerve to claim that, "No commercial vessel has ever successfully travelled the North-east Passage," while The Times in an updated version of its story, is still telling us that "the voyage was considered impossible until a few years ago."

As for Niels Stolberg, founder and president of the Beluga Group, when he tells us that, "We are all very proud and delighted to be the first Western shipping company to have successfully transited the legendary Northeast Passage," why is the media taking him seriously?

COMMENT THREAD

Kara+sea[i-Kara+sea]You see the dynamic all the time. One newspaper (or broadcaster) runs a story and, within hours, the rest of the media pick it up and repeat it, sometimes with their own spin, but with the basic facts unchecked. Thus, a core error gets repeated and repeated until it becomes part of the narrative, pulled out for ever more whenever the issue is raised, becoming part of the received wisdom, simply by dint of constant repetition.

Discussing with one senior official a particularly egregious example of an error-ridden story which had spread through the system, in frustration he described the process as akin to journalists eating each others' turds.

Graphic though that image might be, it is uncannily accurate. You see it in any newsroom, where the assembled hacks have televisions tuned to all the main news channels, they have their competitors' products on their desks, and their websites on screen, each imbibing and re-excreting the droppings of each other, in a constant, self-perpetuating cycle.

There is an added dimension in the Westminster bubble, where the politicians pick up the choicest turds and produce their own, which are seized upon by the ravening hoards of political hacks, to reinforce the cycle.

A classic example of the general dynamic comes with the Independent's story of the sailing the "Northeast passage". This has now been picked up by The Times and the Mail. Both repeat the elements of the story but the latter, in classic tabloid style, "adds a Union Jack" to it – on the assumption that the matter is of no interest to its readers unless there is a British dimension.

Thus we get: "Melting ice cap opens up Northeast Passage to British ships", the lead paragraph telling us that: "The price of British imports from Asia could fall after two merchant ships completed an historic shortcut over the once ice-bound top of the world."

Having planted the flag, the paper then goes on to re-excrete the Independent's droppings, asserting that, "They [the merchant ships] are the first commercial vessels to successfully travel between Asia and Europe using the Northeast Passage and the shipping lane could become a viable alternative to the established Suez Canal route during a six to eight-week window every summer."

Amusingly, not once in its piece does the Mail mention that the ships which completed the "historic shortcut" were German. Although the paper is happy to deliver its own variety of turds, its editors presumably judged that this particular bit of information was too strong for its readers' stomachs.

Nevertheless, the paper repeats without question the shipping company's claim – as retailed by The Independent - that it had saved £180,000 per vessel by using the route to sail from South Korea to Rotterdam. We are faithfully told that: "It is 3,500 miles and ten days shorter than the established 12,500-mile merchant ship journey, which goes through the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean."

This is something I should have picked up in my critique of the Independent piece, as the claim is total garbage. The clue is actually in the piece, but I missed it on first reading. What we are told, in just one sentence, is: "The 12,000-tonne vessels' summer journey through the Northeast Passage was carried out with 3,500 tonnes of construction materials and parts for a Siberian power station on board."

You have to go to the shipping company's website to flesh out this detail, where one finds that the destination of the ships was Siberia. It was delivering heavy components of a power plant to the Russian Novyy Port (see map) which serves the settlement of Yamburg in Obskaya Guba (Ob' Bay), where the shipment was to be delivered by barge to the mouth of the River Ob.

Beluga+fraternity[i-Beluga+fraternity]This begins to explain everything. The two ships involved, the Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight, are heavy lift freighters, with special 250-ton cranes on board which enable them to deliver very heavy cargoes to sites which do not have developed dock facilities. Their task was to deliver a total of "44 cargo modules with single weights of 200 tons and above". (Sister ship, Beluga Family, illustrated - showing the unloading process.)

This does not stop turd-eater Tony Halpin, of The Times describing them as "two German container ships" and then referring to the "heavy merchant vessel Fraternity", unable - it seems - to understand the difference between "heavy" and "heavy lift". At 12,000 tons, heavy it ain't.

Nevertheless, since the whole purpose of the ships' journey was to deliver cargo to this Siberian town, it defies imagination as to how the owners were actually saving money, compared with taking a different route. They took that route because they were obliged to take it. There was no realistic alternative. And as the ships required not one, but two icebreaker escorts – as we now learn – it is extremely hard to see how the route could save any money at all for normal commercial traffic.

Turning to the Mail's assertion that, "The price of British imports from Asia could fall ... ", this is yet another fantasy. The massive container ships which ply the southern routes would not be suitable for the northern route, not least because the deep draughts would drastically limit their navigational flexibility in the shallows of the Kara and Laptev Seas, and the straits which shipping is forced to use.

More particularly though, there is the issue of punctuality. Dock facilities for container ships have to be booked well in advance. Loading and unloading is scheduled incredibly tightly, with massive financial penalties for delays.

With transit through the northern route determined by ice conditions and weather, it would not be possible to estimate passage duration even to within a few days. Thus, the costs of being forced to use smaller, less economic ships, the uncertainties in passage time, the cost of icebreaker escorts and the slower speed of transit (compared with the 25 knots of ocean-going ships) would far outweigh the savings accrued from the shorter route length.

In short, the Mail story is garbage, a turd amongst turds, churned out by the never-ending legions of witless hacks whose sole purpose in life is to fill space, heedless of quality or accuracy of content.

The point, of course, is that in this particular story, the fact-checking is relatively easy and the errors very obvious. In other stories, the errors are equally grave but less obvious and much harder to check. But an industry which is capable of producing the low-grade material that we have just seen is capable of anything. Nothing, but nothing, should be trusted. Just because journalists produce turds does not mean we have to eat them.

COMMENT THREAD

Richards+2[i-Richards+2]A Labour plot to smear the new head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, because of his daughter's "crime" of working for David Cameron, was exposed last night.

Really?

This, apparently, is on the basis that unnamed "sources" said they had heard from Eric Joyce that he had been "disturbed" to hear Labour colleagues discuss Sir David's 25-year-old daughter, Joanna Richards, who recently became Mr Cameron's diary secretary.

"Well-placed sources" say Mr Joyce feared Labour was preparing to deploy more smear tactics against General Richards if he stepped out of line like General Dannatt. "He heard talk of Richards' daughter working for the Tories and did not like it," said one source.

And that is the sum total of the "evidence" offered by the Mail on Sunday, allowing Tory defence spokesman Gerald Howarth to say of the "planned campaign" against General Dannatt's successor: "For Labour even to think about smearing General Richards and his daughter is absolutely despicable."

Can someone please tell me how they would characterise the evidential base offered by this paper, and what purpose is served by the conclusions drawn from it? The other interesting question is how many will believe this heavily-researched and well-authenticated piece of work, and repeat it verbatim, without any qualification?

As to the reality, Gen Richards is extremely highly regarded by ministers, is in constant contact with them and is working intensively on fleshing out the response to US Gen McChrystal's report on the Afghan strategy.

COMMENT THREAD