Censorship, we all hate it, don't we?

Censorship is, the the words of '1066 and all that', a 'bad thing', isn't it?  Of course it is - there would be a justifiable outcry if any government tried to censor our free press.  However, it strikes me that a few editors are, in effect, censoring our news coverage.  Here are a couple examples from recent days.

How many Libyans are being killed by UN-backed air strikes?  I heard a BBC correspondent using the word 'obliterated' when referring to the pro-Gadaffi forces that had been attacking a Libyan town.  Obliterated by air power suggests to me that the casualty list might be rather high, but I haven't seen much of a furore being made about this.  In a totalitarian state, like Libya, will all of the troops described as being pro-Gadaffi, actually be supporters of the mad Colonel, or will they be regular guys who fancied a better-paid job?  I'd quite like to know how many are being killed and a bit more about their motivation.

How are things at Fukushima?  Again, it seems that the struggle to regain control of the nuclear reactors there is regarded as having gone on for far too long.  Why couldn't these pesky Japanese either fix it quickly, or have the decency to have a proper melt-down?  Don't they understand that this is getting boring?

It's an old cliche that editors understand their readers or viewers, but I'm not sure that it truly stand up to scrutiny.  What we get is what we're given, and the papers and television news channels all seem to be singing off the same hymn-sheet.  If a dozen or so individuals in the Home Office, the Foreign Office, or the Ministry of Truth decided what we could and couldn't see or read, the we'd all be up in arms (possibly literally), but it's OK for a few editors to adopt that role and we seemingly accept it meekly.  I wonder what motivates them to decide that some topics are just not right for you and me to read or view?  Funny old world. 

Sky News up to its old tricks

You'd have thought that pillorying an innocent man in the Jo Yeates murder case might have taught Sky News a lesson, but apparently it hasn't.  There is a suspect in the Sian O'Callaghan case, and as yet he's not been charged with anything.  However, that hasn't stopped this increasingly shabby news channel from publishing his name.

I guess they have deep pockets and reckon they can afford to pay out damages when they get it wrong.  As for the government law officers, what are they doing to stop such abuses?  As far as we can tell, not a thing.  Spineless or what?

Pi-eyed in Alabama?

This made me smile, but what was especially pleasing was that some people have taken it seriously!  The serious point is that the Republicans in the US are so damned crazy that you wouldn't put it past them to try something as daft as this - in this case it's not Sarah Palin, but it could have been!  "Who do these pesky foreigners think they are making pi so complicated - we're 'the Land of the free and the home of the Brave' - we can damned well do anything we please!"

Read and enjoy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-squires/republicans-introduce-leg_b_837828.html

Fashion victims and the news

Fashion commentators say things like "Blue is the new black", but this week Libya is the new tsunami as far as the 24-hour news channels are concerned.  Can someone remind me please: wasn't there a magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan ten days ago, and didn't a massive wave sweep across swathes of the north-east of the country?  Wasn't there some sort of a problem with nuclear reactors too, and maybe I dreamt that more than 300,000 people were displaced and that tens of thousands perished?

Watching Sky this morning, it's as if it didn't happen, and the Beeb is making only the most occasional references to it.  Libya, Libya and even more Libya is what we're getting, with pointless pics of a black sky with anti-aircraft fire flashing through it.  There are some library shots of planes taking off, and submarines firing tomahawk missiles - I've seen it all before in Iraq and I'm bored with it.

Do these people really think that we're so dumb that we'll put up with this lazy and sloppy journalism, or is it me that's out of step with the general view?  More likely is that they simply overdid it so much last week that they believe we're all tsunami'd out, and need a change.  I fear that my journalism course is simply making me loathe televison news with a vengeance. 

The old adage that the pictures are what is important was absolutely true when the tsunami struck, but that was only because they were so 'good' (that's TV speak for horrific) that no-one who saw them will ever forget it.  However, in 90%+ of news reporting that isn't the case, and that means that the words become important.  The problem is that when news channels are stuck with their rolling coverage, the pictures - probably already unremarkable in most instances - are coupled with cliched, and not very good words.  The result is coverage that is occasionally wonderful, but usually pretty average.  That's why I turn on Sky News first thing to look at the breaking news ticker, but then immediately dump it for Radio 4 - maybe it's my age but I prefer my news to be of the grown-up variety (this morning, by the way, Radio 4 did cover the crisis at the nuclear plants - it's going better but there's still a long way to go - you wouldn't have got that from Sky!).

George Galloway the patriot.

I don't normally agree with George Galloway, but his interview on Sky News yesterday was spot on.  When Galloway spoke on Saddam Hussein he lost most people's respect by appearing to show a measure of sympathy for the tyrant, but speaking about Gadaffi he took a different view.



His argument is simple: the Arab states are predominantly ruled by dictators, of which Gadaffi is one, the King of Bahrain another, and President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the ruler of Yemen, a third.  All are currently killing their people, so why has the West become so exercised about Gadaffi?  Galloway's answer was 'a dirty little three-letter word, O-I-L'.  Bahrain, of course also has oil, but it also has its US naval base and is a vital land link into Saudi Arabia.  When the presenter tried to mock Galloway by saying that Libya only represented 2% of the world's oil, he looked incredulous, and said that was still a lot of oil - as BP's $15B dollar investment in Libya showed.

The Sky presenter, Anna Botting - goodness knows where they find these people - tried her best to put the counter argument but she was well out of her depth.  She said that the Arab League had supported the no-fly zone, and Galloway laughed - didn't she know that the Arab League was comprised of the representatives of dictators?  Suddenly Sky was putting the case for the tyrants, and Galloway was the democrat! 

He then went further.  What credible threat to British interests does Libya pose?   His answer was chilling: none at all, until we take military action.  Then, he went on, Gadaffi would revert to type and sponsor terrorism as he has done in the past.  Botting leapt on that - was Galloway saying that we should expect terrorist attacks as a direct result of military action?  The answer was a simple 'Yes'.

By then Galloway was well ahead on points, but he then delivered the knock-out blow.  You see, George said, he is a patriot, and he declared that if any country posed a real and credible threat to the UK, he'd be the first in the queue at the recruitment office, signing up to defend the nation!

As the seconds rushed in to revive Botting, Galloway smiled - it was a job well done.

Compelling viewing, in much the same way that a car crash is - I knew I shouldn't watch Botting being taken apart, but I couldn't take my eyes off it.  Mind you, what can you expect from a channel that believes that Eamonn Holmes has the necessary gravitas to present their breakfast news show?

How do you choose your friends?

There's a line in Randy Newman's 'Rednecks' about the segregationist Governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox, that goes 'He may be a fool but he's our fool', and we're seeing more than a touch of that this Arab Spring.

What's the difference between Colonel Gadaffi's use of violence against his people, and that of Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the King of Bahrain?  It's simple: Gadaffi is an outcast, a mad dog, and possibly mentally unstable, whereas Al Khalifa is our ally.

Bahrain is tiny with not many more than 1.25M inhabitants, and is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway - that's what makes it so important.  The US Fifth Fleet has its headquarters in Bahrain, and the King's Army, the Bahrain Defence Force is armed with US weapons.

At the heart of the troubles in Bahrain is religion - isn't it always thus?  Too easy to simply describe the demonstrators as 'Islamists' - what we're seeing is the Shia majority protesting against the Sunni minority who they believe have a disproportionate amount of access to government and military jobs.  Yes, it's the same old story: one brand of superstition proclaiming that it's 'better' than another!

So, when you hear Hillary Clinton criticising Gadaffi and Al Khalifa, note the different tone that will be employed - she and the US want Gadaffi gone (even if they don't know how to do it), but they want the ruler of Bahrain to stay.  He may be a totalitarian tyrant, but he's our totalitarian tyrant!

If you want a look at the King of Bahrain, you'll get your chance soon, as he's scheduled to be a guest at Will and Kate's Bank Holiday beanfeast - you see, I told you he was our public school-educated, Sandhurst-trained friend! 

Don't you just love Sky News?

I swear to you that Sky News has just interrupted its Pacific Tsunami coverage by going straight to the British Airways ad that starts: 'Lesson 24 - How to ride the wave', featuring a surfer!  Following on from their banner headline a few moments before that included the made-up word 'preperation' instead of preparation, they seem to be having a bit of a bummer of an afternoon.  Muppets.

Oh Flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again...

England play Scotland on Sunday in the 118^th Calcutta Cup rugby match.  For England supporters it’s an important match, but for Scots fans it is the match, the only one that really matters.  It’s always been that way, but back in 1990 the game had an extra edge, and it’s all explained in The Grudge by Tom English – simply one of the best sports books I’ve ever read.

For younger readers let me take you back to 1990.  The country was led by That Bloody Woman, as Margaret Thatcher was known north of the border, and she’d decided to use Scotland as the testing ground for the hated poll tax.  Spitting Image caricatured the situation perfectly, with Thatcher saying she needed somewhere to test things out ‘Somewhere – a long way from my house’.  It also contained the line uttered by the George Young puppet ‘And then there’s our new reciprocal fuel experiment.  We take their oil, they take our nuclear waste.  Very successful.’

England’s rugby captain was Will Carling, son of an army officer, public school educated, a City type, and in Scottish minds, a  supporter of Thatcher.  In other words, everything the Scots detested.  There was always an edge to Calcutta Cup encounters, but this time there was genuine hatred.   I don’t mean a bit of a dislike, I mean genuine hatred, with pictures of Carling’s head superimposed on cartoons of Edward 11, the English monarch beaten at Bannockburn, and a journo telling the England captain at a press conference, ‘You know the whole of Scotland detests you.’

Going into the game the situation was simple.  Both teams had won their previous four games, England brilliantly, and Scotland solidly – in the minds of impartial observers there was no doubt about it, the English would win.

Tom English – he’s an Irishman who lives in Scotland – sets the scene beautifully with interviews with all of the key figures involved in the match.  Read the Scottish coach, Jim Telfer’s, pre-match speech and I defy you not to feel a shiver run down your spine.  You’ll laugh out loud at the story of the pregnancy, and wonder that Brian Moore’s views on all things Scottish didn’t start a civil war!   

Come the big day the drama continued, and I remember it as if it was yesterday.  England ran out at Murrayfield, as teams do, but the Scots, led by David Sole, marched out slowly in single file – it was a statement of intent.   The National Anthem was played and was met with the usual Murrayfield mix of indifference and antagonism, but Flower of Scotland was a different matter, and I promise you it was being belted out in living rooms across the whole of Scotland that day.  At the ground it was very, very special: as the England back Simon Halliday remarked afterwards, ‘…their guys knew the words.  That’s when I knew we were in trouble. Previous years they didn’t sing anything.  I had a little look across and they were absolutely screaming it out.  I thought, this all looks a bit different to other years.’

The result is in the history books so revealing it ruins nothing: Scotland won 13-7 and claimed the Grand Slam, and the England team, in the words of the Scottish anthem, were sent ‘homeward, to think again’.

This Sunday’s Calcutta Cup game will hold no such surprises: it’s at Twickenham and the Scots are surely going to get hammered.  However, the miracle is that the scoreline in the 117 matches played so far isn’t more one-sided than it is – it’s 63-39 to England with 15 drawn.  Ten times the population and 25+ times the number of players to choose from, and the Scots still hold their own on many occasions – it illustrates the power of desire and commitment in sport.

Read The Grudge.  If you can, read it before Sunday’s game, and then sit down and enjoy another historic encounter between the Scots and the Auld Enemy.  It will be a very special day – the Calcutta Cup matches always are.

From a contact in Christchurch

A rugby contact of mine runs a PR business in Christchurch, NZ, or rather, he did.  His business has dried up because his clients have had their businesses destroyed or damaged.  I reproduce his piece here simply because it gives a normal punter's experience of the way Christchurch is today.  His name is Kip Brook.


If all my possessions were taken away from me with one exception, I would choose to keep the power of communication, for by it I would regain all the rest. - Daniel  Webster 1782-1852

Christchurch was known as the most English of New Zealand cities. It was the Garden city and one of the most liveable and safest places in the world. None of that applies any more. It’s etched in the unnerving faces of people who still remain; those that believe in fight, not flight.

It will be become known as of now as the city that suffered two the worst earthquakes on record in New Zealand.

On the streets, cafes, restaurants and supermarkets, you don’t see many smiles any more. People talk more to each other. They just say to someone they may not know: ‘’how did you get on?’’

Some answer: ``We’re OK. We’re living with our in-laws, or with friends. We lost our house.’’ Anything less doesn’t matter. Sadly for many hundreds and thousands they have lost family and friends. We have seen and heard too much horror. We yearn for normality.

Few people in Christchurch don’t know a friend, or friend of a friend, who perished in the terrible February 22 earthquake in a city which until six months ago was peaceful, thriving and the tourist gateway to the South Island’s tourist trail.

The city’s tourist website says Christchurch has a heritage heart, a sense of adventure and plenty of 19th century stone buildings.

The soul of Christchurch’s heritage has been buried in the wreckage after the terrifying quake at 12.51pm on February 22 which claimed hundreds of lives. The sense of adventure has turned into fear, sadness, anger and despair, for many people.

But keep in mind that a lot of the city is still intact, many suburbs and many parts of the cordoned central city will be revived and will resume business again soon; some day soon. There is a resilience and emotional attachment by the proud people of Christchurch that staggers visitors. You can see the determination in the whites of their eyes. The majority of Christchurch people are still here, working, boxing on, re building – with help from thousands of outside helpers, volunteers, emergency crews. We are not running away. We are overwhelmed by the nation’s support and concern.

Sadly, this is no ordinary city any more. The annual Ellerslie Flower show in Hagley Park was expected to attract more than 65,000 visitors next week.  Many of the tents put up for the show have been used to house the homeless who had to flee their shattered homes, ruined by the earth’s menacing ruptures and fissures.

Other parts of Hagley Park are full with motorhomes and porta-loos for temporary living. The eastern suburbs have been heavily hit, with broken stormwater and sewer pipes. The health risk of a ‘poo-nami’ out east is often talked about.  Many badly-hit streets are a ghost town, as the people who could get out have left.

Supermarkets are open and these have been re-stocked to feature extra shelves of bottled water, torches, batteries, antiseptic hand cleanser and toilet paper – the five most sought-after items for survivors.

Thousands of people are still without electricity, water or access to toilets. Trying to fetch for basic provisions is difficult because of the buckling damage done to roads. It is dark at night in areas without power and people are feeling vulnerable.  Around 27,000 houses are still without power around white powdered, dusty, embattled streets.

Thousands of portaloos are needed out east. No one says how long they will be deployed. All of Christchurch's people – other than the 40,000-60,000 that fled after February 22 – still need to boil water before drinking or cleaning their teeth.

Waterways are contaminated with untreated sewage. Liquefaction silt – just like sand which rose out of the ground across the city as the earthquake struck – is sewage-contaminated. High winds this week have whipped up the dust blanketing the shaken city. Dust masks are a common sight. Threat of disease lingers.

Schools remain closed. Some may not re-open this year. Some doctor’s surgeries and pharmacies are closed. People are anxious; but the fear decreases daily. Like its iconic entombed cathedral, Christchurch will rise again.

Cheap as chips in Paris

Chatrier in full swing

A friend warned me about the prices in Paris, and to a point he’s right: two just about OK coffees and average crepes in a place near the Musee d’Orsay cost €21 which is plain outrageous.  The hotel in the 7e where I’ve stayed for years, but haven’t been for the past three, has hiked the price of a double room from €110 to €230!  That’s for a modest double above a great old brasserie, Thoumieux – well, what used to be one, serving the very best Cassoulet and Confit de Canard.  Now it has gone all poncey on us and the prices have leapt accordingly – the bourgeois burghers of the 7e seem to have lost their taste for the classics of South-Western France.

However, one place that is utterly unchanged is the wonderful Chatrier up north of the river on Rue de Faubourg Montmartre.  For well over 100 years it has been serving good honest food at remarkable prices. I swear to you that two of you can eat a three course meal with a decent half litre of house red for less than €40 – that equates to less than £18 per head which for Paris in this day and age is quite remarkable.



Unprepossessing on the outside: wonderful inside

I started with Celeri Remoulade which is a favourite of mine, and Jane had Salade de Tomates – one course in and we’ve racked up €4.40.  Next came a steak with excellent chips and a cracking pepper sauce, and roast veal served with vegetables - €11 each.  Dessert, which we resisted but the couple next to us had and declared great, was prunes soaked in sweet wine and served with proper vanilla ice-cream.  The house plonk was perfectly acceptable when we started on it, and got better with each sip - at £3 for half a litre it didn't deserve to be!

The atmosphere in Chatrier is wonderful, with more than 500 covers served in well under two hours at lunchtime. When you get there you get seated wherever – we were the outside two seats of a block of six, beside two French couples. The waiters are proper ones, wearing the traditional white aprons beloved of brasseries, and ours, Dizzy – number 21 and says he always will be – was great.  One of the maitres d’ writes your order on the paper table-cloth, and your waiter, who is handling four or five blocks of six, reads it and heads for the kitchen.  Service is quick, charming and delivered with pride – just what Michel Roux’s 'Service' was all about.

The queues at peak times can be long, but they move quickly so don’t be deterred – Chatrier has been making Paris affordable for well over a century and long may it continue.  Put it on your list of Paris essential visits, along with the usual touristy ones.