Mail & Telegraph: More conservative than the Conservatives

David Cameron has been trying to build bridges with gay people. Now whether this is a cynical piece of electioneering or not isn't entirely relevant; the message that comes out of the modern Conservative Party is that the dark days of the 1980s, Section 28 and all that, are over. A poll for Conservative Home of prospective Tory MPs shows that a healthy 62% believe gay couples should have the same rights as married couples (though I wonder if that includes DC's proposed tax breaks for marrieds only?) which is quite encouraging for a more progressive Tory Party.

The Mail and the Telegraph, though, steadfastly stick behind the Thatcher doctrine of Section 28, and call it a ban on 'promoting homosexuality'. Which it wasn't. It was a ban on portraying gayness as equivalent to hetereosexuality, not promoting it at all. It wasn't a ban on Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin; it was a ban on teachers being able to say to kids in class that having gay feelings was OK. As such it was one of the most illiberal pieces of Thatcher-era legislation, and something which made the Tories rightly despised by quite a lot of moderate folk who objected to the rabid dogma.

Now while the Tories appear to have changed, with Cameron's apology, and openly gay MPs and candidates (and yes, openly gay rubbish Tory bloggers), their cheerleaders in the press seem to be dragging their feet. They're not so sure their readers are as progressive or as liberal as the modern Conservative Party is making itself out to be. Maybe they're not sure the blue-rinse brigade is ready to accept or, to use that ghastly word, 'tolerate', gayness...? I don't know but I think that would be a mistake - you underestimate older people at your peril; they've lived long lives, seen a whole load of things and will have encountered all kinds of folk. I reckon they're a lot more liberal than they're often made out to be. But that's an aside.

Cameron is quoted in the Telegraph as saying this:

He said one of his "proudest" moments as Tory leader was telling the annual party conference in 2006 that they had a duty to support a "commitment to marriage" among men and women, between a "man and a man, and a woman and a woman".

That's the same Telegraph, though, that can't bear to bring itself to use the word wedding without inverted commas when talking about same-sex relationships in this especially sneery piece by Martin Beckford:

Homosexual 'weddings' should be celebrated in church, says Chris Bryant
Homosexual "weddings" should be celebrated in churches, a Government minister has said in defiance of religious teaching.

Yes, this is looking like a balanced and fair article already - in defiance of religious teaching! What next, they'll be allowing pork sandwiches at church fetes, IN DEFIANCE OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING? Imagine that!

Beckford:

Chris Bryant, who once posed in his underpants on a gay dating website, said he wanted clergy to be "much more open" to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages.

And the relevance of that is...? Oh, there isn't any. You just want to look down at your nose at someone for being gay. I see. Well do you want a round of applause? I bet that intro took all of ten seconds to think up and you must be very proud of it. Yes, he did once do that, and the relevance to the story...? Go and help me out, go on, tell me the relevance. No...? He, like the Conservative leader, wants a more progressive stance on same-sex partnerships. So how does the posing in underpants prove that? I'm sure Beckford's never done anything, ever, in his past, which might embarrass him. Oh no. He must have lived a spotless life. But of course if he had, he wouldn't mind it being brought up, completely irrelevantly, every time he was mentioned? That would be fair enough, wouldn't it?

It comes as the Government is pushing through an Equality Bill that religious groups fear will force them to give jobs to homosexual youth workers or secretaries, even if their faith maintains that same-sex relationships are sinful.

Look at the language - pushing through, force. And imagine the 'fear' of having to employ someone who's perfectly capable to do the job! Imagine that fear! Imagine the 'fear' of having to give a job to someone on merit rather than being able to reject them on the basis of knuckle-dragging beardy-sky-man prejudice! Horrors! Yes, they are the poor victims in this, aren't they, people who'd like to reject perfectly good candidates for jobs on the basis of their sexuality. Why would any gay person want to work for someone so disgustingly prejudiced and nasty anyway? Unless it was to piss them off. In which case, good.

Uponnothing has a look at the Mail's attitude towards David Cameron's Section 28 Damascene moment, and as you'd expect, they're not entirely happy about the turnaround from their beloved Thatcher's supposed attack on Loony Leftness, either. That same word 'promotion' pops up again:

So, again, Section 28 (according to the Daily Mail) tried to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality, but it has never been about promotion, merely an open, fair understanding and acceptance of difference. Why James Chapman puts promotion into the headline and into the information box is to make it sound crazy that the Conservatives now appear to be in favour of promoting homosexuality in schools, when the issue has never even been about promotion, just education.

The comments under the Mail story, of course, make pretty grim reading. Many people seem convinced that homosexuality is wrong, and bad, and Loony Labour was 'promoting' it in the 1980s. Not all, but many.

I mean it's not as if even 'promoting' homosexuality would turn straight people gay, is it? Is it...? Ah.

Suddenly it's become fashionable for middle class girls to kiss each other. And, says TV reporter Penny Marshall who investigated the phenomenon, it has been created (surprise, surprise) by cynical,publicity-hungry celebrities...

Oh, please. As if there was no such thing as teenage sexual experimentation, or omnivorous appetites, until Madonna kissed Britney Spears (and Christina Aguilera, but no-one remembers that, do they?). What planet are these Daily Mail people on? Mind you, as a piece of unwitting Mail self-parody, this next paragraph is hard to beat, when describing two teenage girls who kissed each other:

Both girls come from smart homes with professional parents, are well-spoken and attend a well-respected Inner London day school.

Yikes! You mean even *middle-class* kids are capable of being turned into evil homosexuals by the power of Katy Perry? Oh noes! Haha, wonderful.

And there is something rather encouraging as well at the bottom of this rambling, nonsensical, rubbish article. The highest rated comments go like this:

This is just ridiculous. Who are these paents who are 'worried'? I'm a parent, and I'd much rather my teenage daughter kissed a girl and liked it than felt coerced into having sex with boys, as the less 'sexually confident' girls of previous times did.
- Flic, Manchester UK, 1/7/2009 10:22

Hooray!

Oh my God, who in their right mind would be "disturbed" by this?! Girls have been kissing each other since the dawn of time, not since 2003! And why is it only a problem when "middle class" girls do it?
- Victoria, London, 1/7/2009 12:40

Hooray!

One big problem about this article - it assumes that being gay is a bad thing.
So what if girls want to kiss each other?! Or boys want to kiss each other?
If they don't like doing it they will stop!
- Will, London, 1/7/2009 12:27

So there we are. While the Telegraph and Mail might think their readers are dyed-in-the-wool tut-tutters, I'm not so sure. Like I said earlier, I think the Conservative Party are moving in the right direction, ie waking up to the 20th century. It's about time newspapers did, too.

What's the point of the PCC?

If you haven't already been following it, I recommend you head over to Don't Get Mad, Get Accurate and read the story from start to finish. But for those of you who are up to speed, the decision has finally been revealed - it's perfectly OK for Melanie Phillips to present a complete load of tosh as the truth.

Now I don't mind that. I don't mind that she can say that things which aren't the truth are the truth. But what I do mind is the veneer of accountability the PCC gives to the press, implying that somehow if they get something wrong then you can do something about it. You can't. They're allowed to talk tosh and they know it. At the very most, if you don't have the finances to get on the blower to Schillings or Carter-Ruck, the maximum redress you will get is a letter in the paper - or they might print a clarification the size of an atom. Well whoop de doo.

Melanie Phillips is allowed to say "the fact is" and the PCC considers that it's fairly obvious she's not talking about facts. It also considers that when she says something is 'totally untrue' that she says that something is true:

I've started to reconsider my position on the feasibility of the PCC as a forum for resistance to the inaccuracies of the Mail and print media in general. The moment came when the adjudication reached 'The column had made it clear that there was research which concluded that gay adoption did not affect children negatively'. What the column had said was, in fact, 'Such people routinely claim that research shows there are no adverse outcomes for children from same-sex adoption. These claims are totally untrue.' The PCC took a statement denying the existence of evidence to be 'making it clear' that evidence existed. Reading that rather tortuous re-imagining of the text, it strikes me that the PCC is not so much a body to hold the Press to account as one to justify their actions within the Code. It becomes a way of legitimising press coverage, rather than scrutinising it.

The PCC is a complete cargo cult construction. Sure, it looks like the kind of self-regulatory body that might be able to do something on behalf of punters who are pissed off by something. But it isn't. It really isn't. Now in the case of the Phillips article it's just something that is generally inaccurate and wrong, and which won't be clarified, but which doesn't upset or injure someone else's feelings personally. It upsets people in general because they know she's talking drivel, but it doesn't upset them personally.

But then there are other stories, where the PCC claims to be working on behalf of the general public who can't afford big-shot lawyers, allowing them a form of redress. What then? Can we expect the same form of consideration? And the same form of dismissal of any valid complaint on the grounds that saying something is a 'fact' means it's an opinion and saying something is 'untrue' means you acknowledge it to be true?

What then?

When health and safety and PC go mad at the same time

It's a collision of forces so evil and violent that in the Daily Mail's universe it should create anti-matter. But no, what it creates in reality is just another gash story to bring its dimwitted readers up to the boil, reaching the desired conclusions about bonkers youcouldn'tmakeitup PCgawnmad elfnsafety Britain without ever stopping to think if, just perhaps, things aren't as awful as the story has made them out to be.

So here's the story. A schoolgirl has been told she can't wear a crucifix because of health and safety concerns. Actually let me put that in capitals - HEALTH AND SAFETY. I'll do this so that you can keep your eyes on it throughout the story. Keep watching HEALTH AND SAFETY because at some point it will magically transform into POLITICAL CORRECTNESS right before your eyes.

Why does it change into POLITICAL CORRECTNESS? Ah, because 'Sikh children' are allowed to wear bangles to demonstrate their faith.

(Now, at this point I think it's probably sensible to mention that these are children and as such aren't really devoted followers of their religion; they're pretty much just doing what their families have told them to, which is all well and good. I'm a bit sceptical about whether eight-year-olds have the same passion for and devotion to their religion as adults do, but maybe I'm wrong.)

Is it double standards? Well, if the ban on crucifix necklaces is because of HEALTH AND SAFETY and not POLITICAL CORRECTNESS then no, it isn't really. A necklace is a potential hazard in that it can snag on stuff, be yanked by someone accidentally while playing sports or even fighting in the playground, and so on. Whereas a bangle doesn't present the same danger, minimal though that might be. I'm sure there are lots of schools where children aren't allowed to wear necklaces for these reasons - is it HEALTH AND SAFETY gone mad? Not especially. We're not talking about the 'goggles for Blu-Tack' silliness that was in the press a couple of weeks ago, which was a genuinely bonkers bit of H&S. There is a slight risk and, as such, I guess schools see it as part of their job to deliver home kids without horrible strangle marks round their necks.

Now watch this:

But the eight-year-old's furious mother has accused the school of double standards because they allow children following other faiths to wear jewellery on religious grounds.

You mean to say that 'Christian children' CAN'T wear jewellery, but 'Sikh children' CAN? At a Church of England School? Is that it? One rule for the ethnics, another rule for the indigenous British white population? Is that what's going on?

Er, no:

The school has suggested she wear a brooch

and the headteacher says

'We do want children to be proud of their Christian faith, therefore we would like to encourage them to wear crosses,'

Whoa! The school has suggested she wear the religious jewellery different, just not in a necklace? They

encourage

children to wear crosses, just not as necklaces? Oh, I see, so it's not double standards at all, and it's not a ban on Christian symbols when Sikh symbols are allowed; it's simply a rule about HEALTH AND SAFETY rather than POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and I am sure - so convinced and sure - that the readers who comment on this story will have noticed this.

Oh, hang on a minute.

The best-rated comment:

Here we go again. Why, in our own country, can we not wear symbols of our faith but it is perfectly OK for followers of other faiths to do so.
- Mike Barrett, Coventry, England, 1/7/2009

Oi, Mike! Fuckwit! Mike! Over here! Pupils CAN wear crosses. They are ENCOURAGED to do so by the headteacher. Just not as necklaces, that's all. If you'd have read the fucking story properly then you and the 1,100-odd people who voted up your comment would have known that.

if this is the case about health and safety then no religious jewellery should be worn, period!!!!!!! it seems one rule for one and one rule for another. how can one group expect to get away wiith it and not another!
- del, surrey, 1/7/2009 15:01

Del, hello. Look, why don't you read past the first paragraph and look at the words that form the rest of the story, and then you might understand that things are not quite as cut and dried as you think? Because religious jewellery is allowed. It's encouraged when it's Christian jewellery. Just not necklaces. Do you see? Do you care?

A brooch is still jewellery - no wonder the churches are now almost empty - such is the leadership of the Christian faith and its stewards - since when has the Christian cross become a fashion item?
- Dab, Cambs England., 1/7/2009 14:55

Dab, none of that makes any sense. At least you have read the bit about the brooch, unlike the other commenters, but somehow you've decided that rather than mitigating the situation it actually makes it worse. I don't know how you've done it, but it's an impressive intellectual feat.

So there you have it. How health and safety turns into political correctness, except it doesn't, but it suits the agenda for it to do so, so that's how it's made to look. See how children being told they can't wear religious jewellery becomes children being encouraged to wear religious jewellery, but by then a lot of readers' minds have already been made up...

PS thanks to Roxy_Hart off Twitter for noticing the madness of the story first!

Links for July 1

It's July already! Mm, isn't it? Nearly halfway through the year, a half-year full of treats and delights. I'll be back later, but in the meantime here are some other things I've read and enjoyed of late, and which you might like to read and enjoy as well.

Sarah Ditum - Mail in 'against libel' shock:

What’s really interesting is how the Mail bend Singh into their own ongoing narratives. Before you even get into the body copy, just in the headline, Singh has been labelled as the “brave scientist” going up against an implaccable system – just as Andrew Wakefield was a “brave scientist” when the Mail was generating vaccine terror. The medical evidence is presented in standard ‘debate’ style: the chiropractors claims are balanced with a neutral “However, many in the traditional medical profession view the therapy with deep suspicion.”

Ben Goldacre - Steve Connor is an angry man. Independent journalist Steve Connor gets all snotty about Ben & chums criticising science journos for making factual errors, but unfortunately for him slightly undermines his case by, er, making a few factual errors. Oopsy!

Angry Mob - Comments, arguments and political allegiances:

The good thing about the majority of blogs is that comments are freely published even if they contradict, correct or outright mock what is actually written by the blogger. Furthermore, unlike the Daily Mail - which not only censors entire posts, but also edits criticism to turn it into praise - bloggers sometimes take the time to respond to criticism or counter-arguments, creating an interaction whereby the reader's contribution becomes valued. Whereas Richard Littlejohn might steal a phrase from his commenters, he will never engage with any of the arguments put forward (largely because he is not capable of arguing a point).

I'm also saddened to hear, via that post, of the disappearance of Alone in the Dark, whom I will miss greatly.

Five Chinese Crackers - But the Express likes sharia law:

Obviously, the Express is outraged. The Express is usually outraged at what Muslims are doing, often to the point of exaggerating it and making extra stuff up so it sounds more scary.
But not always - at least in relation to sharia law. Just under a year ago, the paper was busy bigging up the sharia legal system and publishing, in full, a letter from a prominent sharia supporter to the Home Secretary, which outlined in stark terms how much the sharia system in the country he lives in is better than the system we have in Britain.

If you don't know who wrote that letter, you'll be mighty surprised to find out the answer!

Lady McScamp - Mail gives up on journalism, articles now sourced from comments. Does what it says on the tin.

Daily Quail - Crusading Muslims forcibly convert white cherub:

Whispering silver-tongued incantations of terror into the bewildered child's ear, Sean appears enraptured by the militant preacher as a frighteningly hatted extremist looks on wide-eyed, ready to prevent an attempted escape with his barbed claws [not shown].

Obsolete - Girls Scream Alone. A thorough analysis of the botched prosecution of a slash blogger.

Skepchick - Don't abuse your kids, unless...

It is never okay to neglect a child’s health. Crank’s daughter died with a “tumor the size of a basketball” on her shoulder. It does not matter what religion Crank is and how many other people in the world buy into the same delusion, and it doesn’t matter how long ago her holy books were written. If Jesus Himself descended from the heavens and knocked on Crank’s door accompanied by a choir of angels and the Pope and Moses and Bill Donohue and a crowd of paparazzi, and commanded her to withhold medical treatment from her daughter, it is Crank’s duty as a parent to kick Jesus in the sack and go to the hospital. If she doesn’t, she is not fit to be a parent or a free human being.

And that's about it for now.

Do we need to know he's Jewish?

Here's an interesting little headline from the Mail:

Mystery explosion destroys £600m Jewish property tycoon's offices

Eh?

What's the fact that he's Jewish got to do with his office blowing up? Very little, I would have thought. I mean, you can even see him wearing the little hat in the photograph - it's abundantly obvious what religion the man is. So why mention it? It's not as if the victims of household fires have to fill in a diversity questionnaire on their way out of burning buildings just so the press can report what religion they are, is it? There isn't a whiff of something else going on here, is there?

It seems truly bizarre and the only straw I can clutch at is that someone, somewhere suspects that he's been targeted because he's Jewish. But is there any evidence of that? Or is this just idle speculation based on rumour and fear and widely discredited stories in the press some time ago?

But still, we'll see. Maybe it's a new policy by the Mail. Perhaps every crime story from now on will carry the religion or race of the victim, just to help us out.

*slight update*

The BBC are covering the story rather differently - I don't know if the 'shop' they mention is the same as Noe's offices. They don't seem to think it's relevant that Mr Noe is Jewish.

When Richard Desmond dies...

...how will we be able to pay tribute?

It's a tough question, given that we need to be sensitive to the fact that he is, after all, a human being with a family and friends.

Probably the best thing to do, I've decided, would be to print a photograph of him dying - possibly already dead, who knows? - in order to pay tribute. That's what Desmond's OK magazine says it's doing this week. Not cashing in, no no. Not being macabre, no no. Paying tribute.

I know it's not the normal way that most people would 'pay tribute'. Ordinarily we use that phrase to remember someone fondly, rather than printing a ghoulish photo of the life ebbing away out of their body, but according to Richard Desmond it's the nicest way to mark the passing of a much-loved figure.

Desmond won't mind, then, as he's dying, if we stick a camera right at his dying fat fucking face and slap it on the front cover of a magazine so that everyone in the world can see that this is what a dying - or already dead, who knows? - person looks like. That would be a nice way of doing things, wouldn't it? After all, he's made it clear that's the right and proper way to deal with things.

Hang on a tick, though, what's this?

The grotesque image from the Paris car crash prompted calls for publications reproducing the photo to be banned in Britain. Around 1,000 copies of Chi, the glossy weekly magazine which carries the picture, are due to arrive in the country today, when distributors will decide whether to halt circulation of the offending issue. The Daily Express has decided not to show the photo.

Why, in that flashback to July 14, 2006, it appears that it's the Daily Express (owned by Richard Desmond, lest we forget) having a go at someone else for printing a photo of Princess Diana while she lay dying.

But but but... surely printing a photo of someone dying isn't 'grotesque'? Surely it's 'paying tribute'? No...?

Or was it just that the Express couldn't afford the Diana death photo rather than 'deciding' not to show it?

Either way, when Desmond does kick the bucket, let's all head round to his gaff with cameras to shove in his relatives' faces.

It's what he would have wanted.

Can you spot what's missing?

Here's a story about Prince Charles in today's Daily Mail:

Prince of Wales' funding from the taxpayer rose by almost a quarter last year, Clarence House accounts have revealed.
Cash from grant-in-aid and Government departments handed over to help Charles perform his duties jumped by 23.5 per cent to £3,033,000.

Strange though. Something appears to be missing. Where can it be?

His senior aide, Sir Michael Peat, said Charles had been mindful of the tough economic conditions.
'It's a recession and we have to say that we've looked at all costs very carefully,' he explained.

No, not there.

Sir Michael stressed that the increase was because the Prince was busier than ever.
'The Prince is entering his seventh decade. Many people would be slowing down but he seems to be going faster and faster.'

Nor there.

Odd.

Imagine if this story weren't about Prince Charles - let's imagine we were looking at a story about someone else in the public sector, for example a teacher, or anyone who works for a local council. Let's imagine it was about their wages, which would be considerably less than several million quid a year. Not only would their justification for their remuneration not come at the top of the story, but someone else would be sticking their oar in.

Yes, the Tax Payers' Alliance. They're incredibly vocal about every other piece of public expenditure, making sure they make it clear how awful it is. So why not this one? Why did no-one think to give them a bell? Or maybe they did... but the rent-a-quote weren't forthcoming on this particular occasion? Of course, with their lack of transparency, it's hard to know where they stand on things like a taxpayer-funded monarchy. If they were in favour, for example, they'd be sailing against the wind as far as Mail readers are concerned. Check out these comments:



I'm not sure if that's just kite-flying to try and provoke their readers into defending Charles, or whether that's what Mailies really think of the monarchy. Who knows? All I do know is that the TPA are incredibly silent on this subject, whereas they're normally flying out of the traps. It's refreshing, of course, to see a story about public expenditure without them being in it, and it's a welcome move if it means they're never again to be rung up by Mail journalists; but I don't think that's quite the case. So what's the difference between ordinary people who work for the public sector and Prince Charles - why does he escape the TPA's wrath?

Lower than a snake's belly

You know the audience in The Producers, who've just sat through Springtime for Hitler? You know the expression on their faces? It's something like this...



Well, that was the look on my face as I read this little gem from Britain's No 1 middle-market newspaper today:

Missing chef Claudia Lawrence 'got a kick out of married men and had 40 mystery lovers', claims friend

Do you know what I mean? There's a moment where you think to yourself: hang on a tick, did this really happen? Am I just making it up in my head? And then you look at it again, and again, and again, and you think: No, I didn't make it up at all. What I think I'm seeing with my eyes is what's actually there.

Sure, you might think, what with this blog and all, that I would have become somehow immune to being shocked by stuff like this, and you'd be kind of right. But then I really do think this is something lower than the lowest of the low. A woman is missing, presumed dead - how on earth is it in the public interest, in anyone's interest at all, and how does it benefit anyone, to have an unnamed 'friend' tell tales which may or may not be true, about a woman who is suspected to have been murdered? What do we gain from this? Anything?

The Mail even contemplates itself that the woman's relatives may have been distressed by her disappearance:



'Anguish' - yes, indeed. And what further 'anguish' might be caused to the missing woman's father by having salacious and superfluous details of his daughter's life splashed all over the papers? Again, the question must be asked: how does this benefit anyone at all? Does it?

What's the Mail's justification for this? They don't offer one, but instead leave that to the 'friend' (some friend!) of the missing woman:

Until now her friends and family have been reluctant to speak about any possible liaisons she may have had in the past.
But her friend said that it was important the public should be given a complete picture of her character, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

And why is it 'important' that 'the public' should learn about these matters? Will a vital witness suddenly think "Oh I hadn't recalled anything about that well-publicised disappearance until I remembered details of the woman's sex life, and then it all came flooding back"? Or was there another sort of 'importance' involved in this whole story - a financial transaction that benefited that 'friend', perhaps? Surely if he really thought it was important the public knew he would tell everyone about it, not just the Mail on Sunday?

Here, then, is a textbook example of the kind of anonymous 'friend' that newspapers use all the time, while thinking it's perfectly acceptable that anonymous bloggers like NightJack should be outed at the first available opportunity - as the Mail described last week in a piece headlined "Bloggers beware" (I won't link to it as it's got pics etc of NightJack). Yet while someone like NightJack wrote in the public interest and gave a valuable insight into the life of a serving police officer, whether you agreed with what he said or not, you have to question how the public benefit from learning stuff like this - which may be completely false - from 'friends' of missing people.

The only hope we can all have is that Claudia Lawrence turns up safe and well, and sues the hell out of those who have printed such nasty rubbish about her.

Transparency and the TPA

Look, I know it's easy. It's the easiest thing in the world. You're doing a story about the public sector, you need someone to be able to say "Wuuuuuuurgh, isn't it awful, our tax pounds are being wasted by this" and you're five minutes away from deadline. Sure, a phone call to the Tax Payers Alliance might seem like the most sensible thing in the world. You know they're going to say whatever you want them to say. You know they're pretty much going to complain about public expenditure on anything ever, whether it's justified or not. Sure, it's a piece of piss story.

It's the same with broadcasters. You need someone to put the point of view that spending money on things is bad, if that money has come from the public taxes at some stage. It's a no-brainer, isn't it? Get on the blower to the TPA and they'll have someone droning away at you on radio or TV within seconds, no matter what the subject - they'll always have someone ready and waiting to be called into action to complain about taxation. Just send up the bat-signal and they'll get racing into action. Problem solved!

But do you know who you're dealing with? How transparent are the Tax Payers Alliance? They've become more and more popular in the media, thanks to the fact they're the go-to guys for a hack in a hurry who needs some derogatory quotes about the public sector spending money on things. But are they as transparent as they'd like the public sector to be? And if they aren't, why not? What possible reason might there be for them to be so coy about where their money comes from - particularly when their whole reason for existing is to complain about where money comes from?

Recently the TPA have been frothing at the mouth over MPs' expenses, particularly the redacted edition.

After MPs themselves have been allowed to go through all their own claims "redacting" information, there are some glaring gaps in what the public are being told. It turns out that "redacting" is a technical term for "obscuring potentially embarassing information with a big black marker pen".

Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? But then you have to remember this:

It’s simply not true that all political organisations are secretive about their funding. Most declare their income and expenditure, and some give a break-down of income sources, including donors. The TPA does neither. It publishes abbreviated accounts which means income and expenditure are withheld. The last time it published full accounts was in 2006, when it recorded an income of £130,000. But the current organisation has ten full-time staff across two offices, which suggests either its income has jumped substantially or it is loaded with debt.

But we don't know for sure, because the TPA are very shy. Is it fair enough that journalists harvest quotes from the TPA about transparency and probity, while at the same time they're extremely shy about where their own money comes from? Sure, it's not taxpayers' money and they have no legal obligation to disclose it - but then again, why not? What on earth would be wrong with letting us all know who is funding the TPA and where that money is coming from?

After all, they appear on the BBC, the taxpayer-funded broadcaster, often enough. Shouldn't we as licence fee payers know where this pressure group, which gets hours and hours of coverage thanks to lazy journalists at the BBC, is coming from? Shouldn't we be told what its aims are and why it's complaining about tax, rather than just that it is?

The way the TPA gets presented by journalists is as if it's some kind of independent think-tank which just happens to be really concerned about taxpayers' money. Which might be true, who knows? But what if there was another agenda there? Which people are funding the TPA, and what are they hoping to get out of it? Surely it would be fair enough that we should be allowed to know that - or does transparency only work one way?

There's a story there for a journalist who really wants to find out - rather than just ringing the TPA up every time they 'need a quote' about how bad the public sector is.

The MSM: Sulking bastards

We had a bit of fun on Friday afternoon with the Daily Mail's ridiculously skewed poll about gypsies. So much fun, it turns out, that they've done the grown-up thing and decided to take their ball away and stop playing, because when you go to where the poll was you instead find yourself on their main comment page.

Bless. Sensitive souls at the Mail, then. Now I'd like to think the reason they pulled the poll was because they realised it was ridiculously skewed and unfair, and not because they were taking a pasting in the numbers; but I'm afraid that might be a little naive of me to think that.

Interesting, though, to note this behaviour - and contrast it with the times when their stories get piled on by groups who aren't bleeding-heart soaking-wet left-liberal types, for example when the BNP descend on stories involving immigration and their own fascist political party, and manipulate the comments to make Nick Griffin and chums seem a lot more popular and well-supported than they really are. Does the Mail pull those stories or stop comments on those occasions? No, they don't. They think that's fair enough.

So essentially it's not things being hijacked per se that the Mail objects to; it's things being hijacked by liberals as opposed to fascists. I think that's worth remembering.

You'll see, by the way, that the Mail's columnists and hired heavies are still trying to press ahead with the "Wheelie bins are the agents of doom and we don't like them" drivel from last week.



David Mitchell writes a convincing argument against, and the good news from the poll results is that 57% of Mail readers agree with him:



You'll also notice a couple of other things. Firstly, the Mail is still asking its readers if Michael Martin should resign as Speaker of the House of Commons, several weeks after he did resign as Speaker; and also, that the Mail's poll on "SHOULD IMMIGRANTS BE FORCED (yes, forced) TO RESPECT BRITISH CULTURE?" gets 70% in favour. That is a far more offensive question that the gypsies one, but I guess it's going the way they want it to, so they're not going to be taking that one down any time soon.

But that's the way the mainstream media behave. When they don't get their way, they sulk and pout and stamp their feet. Emotionally, they are a two-year-old child. Take for example The Times's Anna Mikhailova, who manages in an entire article about the outing of NightJack last week to not make a single convincing argument for either the outing of NightJack or her own outing of Zoe Margolis, other than "We in the big boys' media have lawyers and things, bloggers don't, therefore, er, that makes it right what we did. Somehow". But I was intrigued by this:

It was only when I started full-time work that I realised how deeply I was being damaged. I would turn up to a meeting with new contacts and be greeted with a hesitant: “I’ve seen your blog.” Cue an extensive effort by the Sunday Times legal team to take it down — successfully, thank goodness.

Thank goodness they were busily trying to get someone's blog taken down rather than actually defending investigative journalism; what a proud moment for the Sunday Times that was.

Yes, so when the MSM want to get you - out come the big guns of the legal team, no questions asked. When you skew a poll the way they don't like - down it goes. When you skew it in the direction they want - it stays up.

It begins to strike me why the press have had so much fun with the MPs' expenses issue - finally they've managed to take the moral high ground, for the first time ever, by finding a group of people even more reviled than them.