Maria Miller and the press

Maria Miller, culture secretary in the government, is accused of mismanaging her political expenses.  She has made a bit of a hash of the apology and also seems to have a bit of an attitude problem however the matter is being dealt with through the correct channels and for the majority of people the matter has been resolved.  Oh no I hear the media complain. Not to their satisfaction.  I wonder why? What a coincidence that as Culture Secretary she is part of the committee making decisions on the Leveson enquiry which is looking in detail at the management of our newspapers.  Legislation could be introduced to clip the wings of the low life we call journalists.  You may be a bit of a plonker Maria for mishandling this whole matter but it doesn't justify the press in carrying out a witch hunt.  Come on Leveson report do your worst with those disgusting tabloid and broadsheet journalists who see themselves above the law and unable to report the facts correctly because it sells more newspapers.
Post script 9th April 2014
Well she has resigned another victory from our obsessive press.  I sometimes wonder if we live in a true democracy when people I cannot vote out make decisions on my behalf and affect the government of our country

Railways wrongly accused

A recent accident at a railway crossing highlights the dilemma of businesses and companies when
people get emotionally involved in situations.  A young teenager was killed by a tram near Nottingham.  She was crossing crossing the tram line with some. Friends when a tram hit her.  The crossing is clearly signed and the tram was travelling at the signed speed.  Her friends, who were with her, have no idea how she came to step out in front of the tram and of case the driver was very shaken when the accident occurred.  The media and parents of the girl have made it quite clear that they think the tram company is to blame.  Other accidents happen on the railways at similar types of crossing is the argument.  The tram company have been forts to spend thousands of pounds on a pedestrian bridge because this girl did not take care when crossing a dangerous tram line.  When are people going to take responsibility for their own actions?  Is it the function of the media to stop all accidents?  What a fruitless task that is.  The parents of the child are of course upset and angry so being able to involve the media makes them feel better even though what is published gives little opportunity for the tram company to state what I have above.  They will be seen as heartless if they do.  When companies are obviously. Negligent I someway then by all means make this information public and bring the culprits to justice but I this case the tram company were accused of something that another persons negligence was responsible for.   You only have to see the number of videos showing people trying to cross railway lines in cars, on foot and on bicycles trying to beat the on coming train because they can't wait. Many near misses I can tell you.  People who do this make a conscious decision to do so which results in the rest of us being inconvenienced by unnecessary bridges and blocked access.  Let's accept that people make mistakes and in this case the young teenager made a mistake and paid for it with her life.  No one else to blame for this so media look beyond the story and give all parties a chance to reply without being caught out in a media trap.

Lazy media. What happened to editing

How lazy can the TV and Radio get.   The number of times I see the same edited shot repeated again and again in a programme.  Any one would think we still shot documentaries on film and the cost prohibited the camera man taking enough shots to satisfy the editor.  One example is Tony Robinsons programme on Channel 4 "Walking though Britain." If I saw the man walking down  a road once I saw him walk the same road again and again.  Exactly the same tree and scenery all representing different parts of the programme.  Do editors and directors think the public are blind and will not notice.  It's sloppy TV.  Michael Buerk "Inside the National Trust" was another example.  If we saw the same shot of him in a Victorian kitchen baking something we saw him again and again with the same dialogue.  Let's recap on everything after a commercial break.  Yes it uses up another minute of programming but it doesn't half make the programme less interesting.
It's like editing on the radio.  Or do I mean lack of editing on the radio.  With a bit of care the flow of a package can be improved by some de-uming. I mean edit out all the "ums"  and "ers" And we could get 30 seconds more interview in without changing the story.  The cry goes out that you are affecting the way a person communicates and this is not truthful. The fact that the person can't communicate properly in the first place because they can't string two words together says a lot for the choice of interviewee.  Lets be kind and help them get their story across to us in an understandable way so we don't loose interest.  Isn't the role of the media to help people tell their story in an interesting way not to make them sound like morons.  And as for Robert Peston (Business Editor at the BBC) How that man got himself a job on BBC in front of the camera I will never know.  Must have friends in high places.  Give him a script and he's fine and in fact interesting but ask him a question he hasn't prepared an answer for and you might as well go and make a cup of tea since he'll still be trying to get an answer out when you have finished pouring it.  Get him back behind a desk instructing other more capable presenter on what to say. Wow! Quite a few issues there.  I'm sure I'll return to them again and again in the future.

Lazy road signs

Motorists really do get it in the neck when it comes to breaking the rules of the road.  How many times do councils and motorway authorities get it in the neck for doing things that make it possible for motorists to break the rules? Never!! The number of times I have been driving on motorways, through towns or country roads and been faced with a road sign warning me that something was up ahead that required me to slow down.  Then when you get to the spot there isn't anything there.  I'm talking about roadworks and warning signs on motorways.  Road narrows, temporary traffic lights ahead and when you get past the signs the traffic lights are either on the side of the road facing away or there aren't any their because the lazy road workers couldn't be bothered to take the signs down after their days work.  Motorway signs "Congestion Ahead" slow down.  Variable speed limit 50 mph.  Nothing in the road no congestion so why was I told to slow down? Maybe the brainless operators in the control centre hadn't got anything to do so thought they could play with the signs.  Fog signs when you are already in a pea souper. On one occasion I could hardly read the sign because it was so foggy.  No warning before hand however.  Miles of cones and nobody working on the affected part of the road.  No wonder people ignore road signs and then get into trouble. If only people would do their jobs properly in the first place that's all I ask.

A firemans lot is not a happy one.

A recent report in the media comments on the fact that a woman had called out the fire brigade to rescue her cockatoo from a tree outside her house.  The fire brigade attended and the matter was resolved without a problem.  The news media decided to focus on information they had put together that the the whole activity had cost £4000 and that this was a total waste.  How is it that money is the favourite weapon of the news media.  Can I ask how they came to this figure?  The only cost as far as I can see was the fuel for the fire engine and maybe wear and tear on the engine itself.  Certainly nothing like £4000.  Oh I hear the media cry what about the firemen's wages?  Can I ask what these firemen would have been doing if not called out?  We would have been paying them to play snooker and cards as well as drinking endless amounts of tea. What a set of con artists the media are?  Let's sensationalise a non story.

BBC reporter Jon Kay gets it wrong again

Yet again BBC reporters get it wrong and it's the second occasion for this reporter, Jon Kay.   Reporting from the Somerset levels, which has been hit by serious flooding, Kay made  reference  to a proposal being put forward to protect the area from future flooding. The plan will cost around £100 million.  Whether this is money is well spent is another matter but more to the point Kay then made reference to the Prime Minster who at a previous visit had said that there would be no limit to the money needed to be spent to rescue the  people of the area from the present disaster. Kay decided to twist this comment to make better copy by saying the proposed plan would be a test of the Prime Minister as to whether he would honour the costs or not.  WRONG.  The PM had referred to the present crisis not to future protection.  Anyone only hearing this report would take it on face value.  The standards of journalism in this country go from bad to worse.  While on this matter reference has also been made to the £17 million supposedly cut from the environment agency and the adverse effect this will have on flood defences.  I refer readers to the fact that money has been cut from the police force and crime has actually gone down.  It's not the money that makes the only difference it's the people working in these agencies and if by cutting funding the agency works more efficiently then bring it on.  Funny how the complaints about cuts to the police force budgets have gone quiet now the evidence is in.  Nothing being shouted from the media on that

The Press are called to account

The trial of Rebekah Brooke's, the News of the World editor, continues.  The story has been rolling on for months and how nice it is to see these people get a taste of their own medicine when they come out of court. The Paparazzi  hound them as they make there way to their cars.  I wonder how they feel now about the way they have encouraged these animals to try and get that one picture that will sell a few more papers.  One of the main defence arguments appears to be that Rebekah Brooke's knew nothing of the phone hacking that was going on in the name of her paper.  Do I hear this correctly? She even has the audacity to say she didn't know phone hacking was illegal? Is this woman real?  She was running one of the largest newspapers in Britain (thankfully the paper is no more) and says she doesn't know the legal issues surrounding the acquisition of information.  How many times have I heard publishers of newspaper say that no matter what goes wrong in a business the buck stops at the top.  The Managing Director should resign we hear because he or she failed to monitor what was going on.  Maybe we could save a lot of money on this trial by simply stopping it now.  As far as I'm concerned Rebekah Brooks has admitted her guilt in this matter by being totally unaware of the things she is responsible for.   These vile tabloids have got to be taught a lesson and the sooner Ms Brooke's realises she is not immune to the legal processes the rest of us have to abide by the better.