Why we should be grateful we don't have to be subjected to Fox News

There are some things that we in Britain have to be thankful for. We live in an affluent and tolerant society, we can complain jovially to each other about the weather, we can even watch Adrian Chiles and Christine Blakely every evening should we so choose. And we don’t have to be subjected to Fox News (*for those pedants among you I appreciate it is available via a Sky subscription).

Just as the British tabloids are feared and viewed with a certain amount of bewilderment by those across the Atlantic, the same goes the other way for their rolling 24 hours a day TV ‘news’ channels. For this is the station which brings you the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, presenters of hours of hate-filled and biased political commentary brought direct to your living room. Though this blog may have taken issue with much rubbish spouted by the Daily Mail, rest assured this is just an uncomfortable pin-prick in comparison to the full-scale rack of torture that is Fox News.

For those unsure of the type of content broadcast, this is the station that on the day of Barack Obama’s historic inauguration as US President dedicated much of its coverage showing images of the departing George Bush. This is the station whose main star Beck upon presenting Sarah Palin cried on air because he was so moved by her ‘patriotism’. The same station who allowed business anchor Neil Cavuto to insinuate Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden was going to be supporting John Kerry in the 2004 election. The station whose host John Gibson, during the sensitive election of 2000 where serious questions were asked of the ballot counting, said: “Who needs to know that he's [Bush] not a legitimate president?”

And it doesn’t just stop at controversial comments. When a New York Times piece criticised the network in 2008, Fox News staggeringly doctored photos of the journalist in question, Jacques Steinberg, and the editor, portraying them unattractively with yellowed teeth, skewed facial features and darkened eyes. Not only was this petty in the extreme but offensive and morally downright abhorrent.

Just a week ago Hannity was caught out by Jon Stewart’s Daily Show using footage from a completely different protest in order to exaggerate the scale of one of the “tea parties” it had openly backed and encouraged people to attend to demonstrate against the government. Although subtle, one shot of a sunny autumn day then cuts to another which is overcast and the trees are magically green again. Hmmm…

And yet nobody was sacked. Can you imagine what would have happened had a similar tactic been used here? There would have been uproar with the aftermath lasting for weeks. But Hannity merely dedicated a few seconds on his next show, saying Stewart had “got him” and it had just been a “mistake”.

It begs the question why can this be permitted, and why is a comedy programme doing the work of investigative journalists? I would strongly urge anyone unfamiliar with Stewart to watch his show, (aired weeknights at 20.30 on More4). It is satire at its very best and certainly counters any claims that American TV is weak in this regard.

But the issue at large here is one of responsible objective media reporting. Fox News claims to be “fait and balanced” and gets very fidgety when people openly question this. In fairness their news probably isn’t as biased as one may think. But the thing is most of content on the channel is not news per se, it is comment. And it is here where impartiality is left behind at the station and the train has long since disappeared.

Fox News is partisan in its support for the (right-wing) Republicans. Literally overnight its views changed, supporting Bush right to the end and then changing tack to blaming the new administration for all of the country’s ills. Like the Mail in the UK, Fox News plays on people’s fear, with regular updates on the level of security threat. But it is much snider in its reporting and very much more sensational, the result being very manipulative.

In one of the most shocking outbursts I have witnessed on broadcast television, Beck who previously had overtly stated that Obama’s economic policies were “communist”, “socialist” and also “fascist” (contradiction duly noted…), later affirmed Obama was a “racist” and had “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture”. Fortunately some sense among the population was seen and advertisers in their dozens refused to be associated with the show. But it’s astounding that this type of comment was allowed to go unquestioned, unpunished.

People are perfectly entitled to their views but only up to a certain point can you air such opinion. This is example was not only defamation but an insult to millions. It is no surprise to learn that the White House has boycotted interviews with the network though Fox has been stinging in its criticism of this, openly declaring a “war”. But the sad fact is Obama will suffer as a consequence due to the power the network holds over so much of the nation.

It all just makes me relieved and so much the more grateful for our neutrality laws when it comes to TV news. Next time you’re sat watching Nick Robinson, maybe you should appreciate it a little bit more.

Why I was wrong (or perhaps why I was still right...)

Thanks a lot Jenson. Way to go and spoil my previous blog post (see 7^th November 09). And after I was so nice to you as well.

Two weeks ago this blog praised the selfless Button in reaction to his crowning as Formula 1 World Champion. The fact he’d taken an enormous pay cut and stayed loyal to his team through difficult times led to me and many others applauding his altruism and lauding his deserved success.

And of course last week he made the post look very foolish in contradicting all that was written by signing for McLaren, a rival team, for a much more lucrative salary.

There certainly seemed to be some sourness coming from his former team, Brawn GP, who have forbidden him from making any appearances for his new employer until his contract expires at the end of the year. Nick Fry, one of Button’s bosses, said in a statement: “Clearly loyalty would be nice, but in this day an age you don’t expect too much of that…we don’t see the logic of the decision.”

Evidently, then, the rose-tinted views expressed were far too optimistic and Button is the no different from all of the other multi-millionaire, greedy sporting stars.

Or is he?

Suggestions made by the press and Button himself in interviews state that he will actually earn less at McLaren than he would have done remaining at Brawn, who were understandably keen to give him a pay rise. Not only that but Brawn’s low-budget operation was last week bought out by Mercedes, so no longer are they the plucky underdogs but have potentially massive financial backing. Button stayed through the hard times and acknowledged that he was leaving the team on good terms while looking for a new challenge.

In addition, by signing for McLaren, Button pits himself against former champion Lewis Hamilton, widely regarded as the fastest man in the sport and for whom the team is organised around. Button faces a huge task in trying to beat Hamilton in ‘his’ team, whereas most were expecting him to stay put in the comfort of familiar settings. By doing so Button is leaving his comfort zone far behind him and has his reputation as one of the racing élite to uphold; failure would inevitably render him as a ‘one-season’ wonder that got lucky.

So maybe Jenson will keep proving us all wrong for a little longer yet. Just don’t necessarily believe everything that you read.

Why the US healthcare protests are enough to make you despair

Despite all of his detractors and critics, Russell Brand made me laugh recently. Having already upset large swathes of the American public while hosting the MTV VMA Awards the year before by suggesting outgoing President Bush was a “retard cowboy”, he was at it again this time around.

Sticking with his political theme, one of Brand’s skits began by trying to explain the difference between the British and Americans. “Instead of saying truck we say lorry,” he quipped, “Instead of saying elevator we say lift.”

“And instead of letting people die in the street, we have a thing called free healthcare…”

Love him or hate him (I’ll leave the definition of the word “edgy” with you), it was a line that certainly struck a chord and ultimately summed up the current American healthcare bill debate better than any political commentary I’ve yet seen. In fact it was almost heroic.

Just under two weeks ago the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, announced that President Obama’s proposed healthcare bill had been passed, incredibly narrowly by 220 votes to 215. The Senate will shortly be determining their own version of the bill and should these two agree in principle, both chambers will vote whether or not to accept it. And there will be tens of millions of American citizens who will be desperately hoping that they do.

Obama’s plan, similar to the one Bill and Hilary Clinton tried and failed to implement in the 1990s, would mean that there would be an option for people to sign up for a government–run healthcare plan. At present it is estimated that approximately 47 million – about 1 in 6 - Americans have no health insurance cover, that is to say if they get ill they will not be entitled to be treated.

This is something that is actually quite hard to fathom for most Britons, or indeed Europeans. Perhaps we take for granted the fact that we can go and see our doctor at any time, pay for heavily subsidised drugs and receive free treatment. Even the much maligned waiting lists for operations are as low, about 16 weeks, as they have been for years. The National Health Service is so much a part of our society (it’s also the fourth largest employer is the world after the Chinese army, Wal-Mart and the Indian railways) that the whole nation leapt to its defence when the anti-health bill lobbyists attacked it as one of the “bad examples” of a government-funded system.

It may cost the taxpayer a lot, but to put this into context the USA spends £1.34 trillion on healthcare, about 16% of its GDP and this is nearly double what the average developed country spends.

So upon seeing the massive demonstrations and huge political backlash against the bill it is almost impossible to comprehend how people can object to helping the sick and needy. The basis for the counter-argument is that it will cost too much and prevent the health-insurance market from being ‘free’ and the government are going to completely takeover the healthcare system (as in Europe).

But it’s been the nature of the objections which have been truly scary. It’s true to say that the USA is polarised in its political views and for the most part, though not entirely, on healthcare the nation is split down party lines. For the most part Democrats support it, Republicans are against it.

Those opposed to the Obama administration have begun to mobilise themselves in Fox News supported “tea parties” to rally against their belief that the President is driving the country towards socialism. These have already descended into very bitter attacks, some of which have even likened Obama to Hitler.

It’s enough to make you despair.

The guy hasn’t even spent a year in office yet. He’s the first black President of the USA and some of his first priorities have been to try to potentially save the lives of millions too poor to be able to afford treatment. And these people are comparing him to the man who was responsible for the cold-blooded and clinical extermination of millions of innocent people from minority groups.

Sometimes it’s extremely difficult to see the good in the world.

But to use the words of the 44^th President, we’ve still got hope.

Why we should never politicise and devalue Remembrance Day

91 years ago today the Great War ended. The war to end all wars. And yet only twenty years later the world descended once again into global conflict which would lead to the needless deaths of even more still.

Marking this anniversary is something I’ve always felt that Britain does remarkably well; sombrely and poignantly. In each city, town and village wreaths will be laid at the memorials which list every person killed in conflict and people pay their respects with two minutes of silence.

This is the first year in which there are no longer any living survivors of the trenches. The war has now passed from memory into history. I’m not sure that anyone today could get close being able to fathom what it must have been like to fight in the trenches. It is almost completely impossible to imagine what life must have been like there, despite the first-hand accounts, poetry, documentaries and even sketchy footage.

In fact one of the most emotive depictions I have seen is the ending to Blackadder Goes Forth, in which all of the characters meet their deaths, which then fades out to the scene of a field of poppies (see the video at the bottom of this blog).

To put the seemingly limitless loss of life into context, families are currently mourning the death of the 200^th casualty since Britain began operations in Afghanistan. Already people are rightly beginning to question whether military operations should continue. Yet on the first day alone of the battle of the Somme one hundred times this number (20,000) died and a further 35,500 were wounded. These are just numbers, but it’s roughly equivalent to the size of the town of Rugby disappearing overnight. In total 15,000,000 on all sides died.

Today we donate money to the British Legion and are able to personally pay tribute to all of those killed in all conflicts by wearing a poppy. All of those who died gave up their lives to enable us to live in a free society, where we are free to able to make whatever choices we wish, free to speak our minds, free to vote for whom we choose. It is therefore totally abhorrent to use this day of commemoration for any form of political wrangling, or indeed coerce people into making the gesture if wearing a poppy.

People can wear a poppy if they choose to – but they should never feel pressured into doing so which increasingly seems to be happening on the television. John Snow apparently refuses to wear a poppy when presenting the Channel 4 News for this very reason, but off camera does indeed wear one. Likewise, the Italian manager of the England football team, Fabio Capello, chooses not to wear a poppy as he respects it as a British act. On the other end of the scale, the British Legion has asked BNP leader Nick Griffin not to wear a poppy badge throughout the year in order that it not become a political symbol.

Equally, as part of its anti-Gordon Brown week, the Sun derided the Prime Minister for not bowing his head upon laying a wreath at the Cenotaph on Sunday. But as John Walsh of the Independent points out:

“If a politician lays a wreath at the Cenotaph, it's not an insult; it's an expression of respect. And forgetting to adjust your head a certain way indicates you have personal feelings and aren't just going through the motions.”

In a similar vein, five of the Premier League football teams chose not to embroider a poppy onto the front of their shirts for last weekend’s matches. Manchester United was one of those teams and a spokesperson rightfully pointed out that poppies were available around the ground, were worn by club officials and the club works regularly with armed forces charities.

Yet again the bullying campaigns such as in the Daily Mail to ‘shame’ those who do not wear a poppy wholly miss the point. Quite instead of respecting the lives that were lost they are devaluing their sacrifice.

I shall leave the final word with Guardian journalist Richard Williams:

“The bullying campaign run by the Daily Mail debased a tradition that, in its modesty and dignity, reflects individual responses to collective emotion. Coercion does not come well from a newspaper that might do better to reflect on its own reaction to the rise of totalitarianism in the 1930s (sample headline: "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!")”

Why Jenson Button's success is a good thing for society

Say what you will about Formula 1 drivers, Jenson Button’s crowning as World Champion last month in Brazil is undoubtedly one of the good news stories of the year. I would go as far as to say it’s not just a good story for fans of British sport, it’s a great story for society as a whole.

During last winter Button received a phone call from his manager which effectively told him that he was out of a job, unemployed. His team, Honda, had pulled out of the sport, the global economic crisis rendering the running of an expensive Formula 1 team unviable. It probably additionally had an awful lot do with the fact that its cars had spent the last two years embarrassingly running at the back of the field.

From its ashes emerged the Brawn Grand Prix team, receiving last minute backing from a number of parties (including Honda themselves) headed by team manager and technical director Ross Brawn. Money was tight; one of the most poignant moments from Brazil was Brawn dedicating the success to the some 250 members of staff who had been made redundant following the downsizing of the workforce.

In my last blog I voiced my distaste for the avarice of the world’s bankers, keen to pay themselves vast amounts for achieving seemingly little. In regards to Button, it made me think back to an interview he did on BBC’s Top Gear. When speaking to Jeremy Clarkson he stated with some vehemence that he’d trade all of his millions for a World Championship in an instant, “100%”.

Yeah right, we all thought.



And yet, to some extent that is what he did. Button’s (admittedly very high) salary was slashed in order to get the new team onto the grid for the first race in Australia in March. In 2008 he was paid around £8million – a staggering amount yes, but on a par with other top sportsmen around the world. In 2009 it is believed he took a 70% pay cut, credited with being one of the biggest reductions in wages in sporting history. He could have left to join other teams but his loyalty meant he wanted to see things through.

And the rest, as goes the cliché, is history.

After dominating, completely and utterly, the first half of the season – winning six of the first seven races (a feat only matched by the all-time greats that were Alberto Ascari and Michael Schumacher), he eventually crawled over the line following an incredible drive from the near the back of the grid to finish fifth and take the title in Brazil.

There are those who discredit the sport as being boring and processional (often fairly) and unfair and unreflective of talent given the differing performances of the cars. ‘Button only won because he had the best car’. But the driver who accumulates the most points at the end of a season is always a worthy champion and in answer to the critics who allude to machine being the quantifier of success, why is it that the best drivers always end up driving the best cars? This is unquestionably no coincidence.

Though he may have been seen as a ‘playboy’ in his early twenties, Button was merely doing what any multimillionaire male icon would do in that position. It is to his credit that he matured as a person, most markedly in the years when given woeful equipment during which he did not lash out publically against his colleagues. He remained patient and was justly rewarded when he was finally given a race-winning car.

Are racing drivers overpaid? Perhaps, but they earn no more than the top football and baseball players and are far more personable and approachable than athletes in those sports. It is easy to forget too that they risk their lives on every occasion that they step into their vehicles, as we were starkly reminded by Felipe Massa’s terrifying accident in Hungary from which he was lucky to survive. Equally they are the fittest of nearly all sportsmen – you or I could only survive a few laps of the immense forces the drivers are subjected to (a fighter pilot experiences g-forces of up to 5g for 90 seconds at a time – a Formula 1 driver does likewise for up to 2 hours at a time).

He may not win Sports Personality of the Year. In all probability he won’t win another world title. But the next time we roll our eyeballs at the spoilt and greedy behaviour of a footballer, banker or even politician, we could do worse than to think of the example of Jenson Button.

Why there is nothing worse than seeing the British public getting all high and mighty

And so the MPs expenses “scandal” had reared its ugly head yet again. And this time in the same week that we learnt that the bankers are paying themselves billions of pounds worth of bonuses again. Great.

At least this time though we’re finally seeing some sense in the form of the proposed reforms. As headline grabbing as the duck-houses and moat-cleaning escapades were they only scratched the surface and hardly told the whole story.

According to BBC News, 415 of the current 646 MPs (about two-thirds) claim a mortgage allowance of up to £24,000 per year. If they all claimed that full amount, it works out at about £10 million per year (or 6,049 duck-houses, if that’s your currency).

I don’t have a problem if the taxpayer is contributing towards the 5-year rent (a maximum Parliamentary term) of a London property. But paying for an (often already very wealthy) MPs mortgage of their private property from which they will personally financially benefit from in the long term seems a step too far. It’s the small items that look ridiculous and great for the papers, but it’s the seemingly mundane accumulation of mortgage payments which are far worse.

To be honest though, I was never overly bothered by the “scandal” in the first place. There are many civil servants who have a higher wage than the MPs. Yes it’s impossible to deny many of the MPs have been proven to be morally bankrupt in the way they’ve swindled the system. Tony McNulty is a case in point – claiming for a house his parents lived in 8 miles from his own home.

But it was a bloody stupid system. And can they really justify demanding money back again? Talk about changing the goalposts. It’d be like your boss telling you: “You know that week of holiday you had? Well it turns out we need it back – so to make up for it you’ve got to come back into the office and work overtime. On Christmas Day.”

In my opinion they should just have been given a higher wages and taken away all expenses completely. They had the chance to do this in the 1980s, but bungled the decision and chose not to. In all of this people seem to forget that the reason MPs are paid is to prevent only the very wealthy from becoming MPs in the first place. Otherwise all of our politicians would still be called Rupert Urquhart-Smythe or Tarquin Fillongley-Rogers.

The thing that outraged me the most was the apparent outrage of the population. There is nothing worse, in my opinion, than seeing the British public getting all high and mighty. If, as in the case of many of the MPs, they had received phone calls from the expenses office asking “why don’t you claim this on expenses?” then it’s certain that 95% of people would have done exactly that. Their “holier than thou” attitude makes you want to sob into your pillow.

At least they’re doing something worthwhile like running the country. But compare this to the city bankers who seem to have got off scot free. Now that the markets are picking up again they’ve decided to compensate themselves for all that stress with massive bonuses again. No-one’s seemed to clock that this might have had something to do with the monumental global-recession in the first place. At least Sarkozy and Obama are trying to stop them doing it in their respective countries.

What makes me laugh (in a sadistic kind of way) is that they seem to justify it by saying “well we all work 80 hour weeks”. So? Why do long hours in our society mean you are more ‘worthy’ of obscene amounts of money? I’m pretty sure nurses work incredibly long shifts. Making rich people richer for a living hardly seems to warrant a vast pay cheque.

What these people seem incapable to recognise is that when they screwed up it had catastrophic consequences for people all over the world. As usual it’s those at the bottom of the ladder that end up worse than anyone. And the only reason the banks are doing well again is because they’re just plugging the gaps in the market caused by the failures of some of their rivals.

Still things could be worse.

Since day one of the expense-gate I’ve said all along that people from outside Britain looking in are going to find our “scandal” hilarious. I mean come on guys, this isn’t a real scandal – we should be embarrassed. It doesn’t even compare to Blagojevich trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. Or we might have this guy in charge.

Image this conversation:

Brit: “The corruption of politicians these days is just appalling – it’s the same for you Italians isn’t it?”

Italian: “Yes well, I mean given that our President is the self-proclaimed ‘most prosecuted man’ in our history after being involved in that case where he allegedly paid off a lawyer to lie in court, the recorded tapes of him and that prostitute, calling the first black American President ‘well tanned’ on a number of occasions, being allegedly linked to the Mafia, monopolising the media, supposedly dodging tax fraud and being accused of having sex with an 18 year old actress – things could be better. Is it the same for you in the UK?”

Brit: “Yeah well there was this one guy, right, and he bought this house for his ducks…”

Why I was one of the 22,000 who complained about Jan Moir

Last week I had the misfortune of reading Jan Moir’s Daily Mail ‘article’ suggesting that the late Stephen Gately’s death was not “natural” and rather a result of his “lifestyle”. Although briefly blinded by the outrage, I struggled through to the end of the piece where she questioned the legitimacy of same-sex marriages (let’s ignore the fact that at the moment they are not in fact marriages but civil partnerships according to UK law – we’ve still yet to get to the stage where they have equal legal status) and attempted to relate Gately’s death to that of M

att Lucas’ ex-husband. I say struggled to the end, the column flicks from casual homophobia to a light-hearted ‘story’ about Tara Palmer-Tompkinson’s risqué dress-sense with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, at which point my patience had long-since been excessively tested.

I have yet to work out quite what I’m most appalled about; is it:

a) That someone with such a large potential readership has he temerity to insinuate that gay people are victims of their own sexuality?

b) That it is still legal to get away with saying something like this in modern twenty-first century Britain?

c) That the second most-read newspaper in the country is willing and able to publish such material?

d) That the people reading such an article nod their way through it and actually agree with the dross which is being written?

I think for all liberal-minded Guardian readers the answer is sadly probably ‘d’. We don’t necessarily fear what is being written; the real fear is that British people might genuinely agree with it.

It seemed rather bizarre that Moir challenged the verdict given by the coroner’s report which stated quite clearly that there were no suspicious circumstances involved whatsoever. Her words are extremely disrespectful not just to gay people, that’s a given, but to all of those healthy people who do in fact die with no prior symptoms.

Anyhow, by the time that I had digested the abhorrence of the spouted drivel, I had a Charlie Brooker-inspired compulsion to vent my feelings to the Press Complaints Commission. At the time about 4,000 others had done likewise. I joined the accompanying Facebook group and posted urging others to do similarly.

As you read this more than 22,000 have. The PCC have had more complaints in the last 7 days about this than in the whole of the past 5 years. Of course they’re not going to do anything about it, other than perhaps a strongly worded letter of irrelevance, as only complainants involved in a story can make anything happen.

But I partly made the complaint out of principle. After all Middle England loves complaining. If we all lived in an ethnically-cleansed, sanitised, Clarkson-esque world they strive for they’d still be complaining that there was nothing to complain about. Let’s not forget the 40,000 people who complained about Jonathan Ross & Russell Brand being rude (and actually not very funny) to Andrew Sachs – when 39,998 of them hadn’t even listened to the programme in question. I’m not an especially big fan, but I watched Ross’ show for weeks after it came back on air just in protest to contribute to getting the ratings as high as possible.

In any case, to my dismay I later discovered that the head of the Press Complaints Commission is, you guessed it, the Editor of none other than the Daily Mail…

The now infamous Question Time episode waded

happily into this debate though, with BNP leader Nick Griffin true to form describing gay couples as “creepy”. Well what did you expect?

It was disappointing in a way that the programme didn’t run on its more regular format in order to oust Griffin from society by bringing to light his horrific fascist policies. In the end he ended up being defensive and was able to take a moral stance that he’d been ‘victimised’. Oh how the irony was lost on someone who if he had his way would be doing an awful lot of said victimisation.

It was right though that the BBC allowed Griffin on the debate. In our culture of free speech it would have been hypocritical to have banned him from appearing – and would have given him far more credibility had he not been permitted to attend.

Griffin came off badly as the despicable man should have with his pathetic attempts to side-step his holocaust denial and ludicrous suggestion that Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was a non-violent figure. It was a shame though that the senior members on the panel that night were unable to make any killer blows - but kudos to the magnificent member of the audience who suggested sending Griffin to the South Pole – “a colourless landscape that will suit you fine”.

One final thought from the superb News Quiz – along with Have I Got News For You by far and away the best topical satire around – who quoted this Nick Griffin line:

“Sadly it’s not the indigenous, hard-working, middle class tax-paying population that’s exploding; my worry is how many immigrant mums have contributed anything to this country before landing us with another child to educate…”

“…Oh wait hang on, no that was Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail, that’s odd…”

Enough said.