Showing posts with label independent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independent. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Political Betting vs. The Independent
I urge you to read this demolishion of the Independent's headline story today by PB.com, which goes to prove why it is the leading political website. Excellent article and, of course, spot-on. It's just a good job so few people read the Indy. I used to be a daily reader of the paper but things like this remind me why I quit it last year. I did phone up the Indy to tell them why I was ceasing my subscription and they really didn't care one way or the other - amassing losses clearly mean nothing to them.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Possibly the most rude, pointless and patronising political interview ever
If you feel the need to cringe this morning I suggest that you read this interview with Dr Sarah Woolaston, the Tory candidate chosen by Open Primary in Totnes, organised by The Independent newspaper. Clearly its name has got nothing to do with the political outlook of the paper and I feel very ashamed having previously credited the paper with being a decent read after seeing this. I don't know if it tell us more about the people who email questions in (possibly the odd Labour stooge there somewhere) or the Independent team for publishing them.
Look at the questions; are these really the best they recieved? Some show little or no attempt at balance or even trying to get an important or interesting answer. Of course not all of the questions were awful - Norua Jamenez rightly asks about the experience of the Open Primary, Stephen Casey asks about the political philosophy behind Dr Woolaston's 3 year membership of the party and Craig Sotherton, Anil Joshi and Niall Simpson all asked valid questions on the NHS.
But there were others...
Jeff Gilchrist asked Dr Woolaston to justify the way the Conservative Parliamentary Party voted in the 1945 parliament; what on earth is he going on about? Do we ask the LibDems about David Lloyd-George or ask Gordon Brown to jusift the actions of Ramsay MacDonald? I am sorry Jeff but that is a very bizarre question - and unbelievably the Independent chose it to publish!
Frances Chaudrey asks about the role of Michael Ashcroft in funding Tory campaigns - OK I grant you its an issue within political circles but I am on doorsteps day-in-day-out year round and not a single person here in Norwich has ever raised it. It may be a big deal to Frances, I am not taking anything away from that, but does it really rate amongst the 10 biggest issues raised with The Indy?
Tim Vole offers the chance for Dr Woolaston to single out the most offensive thing that Anthony Steen has ever said; this question is offensive in itself (given its probably intent just to embarrass Dr Woolaston and/or Mr Steen) and Dr Woolaston's repsonse that most people have moved on is correct. This is negative politics at its worst; not tell what you want to change about the country but tell me what you hate the most about a man who is months from leaving office.
Verity Matthews asks about the expense claims of the "Tory squirearchy" - seemingly forgeting that the claims and possible illegal activites of our MPs covered all parties including the governing one - and the response of Dr Woolaston to remind them of LibDem candidate April Pond's moat was brilliant.
I don' t have a problem with challenging questions or the topics here, but I do question the judgement of the editorial team in choosing them for publication to a future legaislator. Are we really short of questions on crime, education, foreign affairs or the economy? I understand a GP getting a lot of questions on the NHS (including the fair one on Hannan's comments) but is this really the remit of her role? Or has the Independent just pandered to its own prejudices and allowed anti-Tory readers to have their day in the sun? This whole exercise is designed to trip up and embarrass not to probe, search and find her views. Where is the vision and the positive view of what Dr Wollaston can help to achieve in government?
Come on Independent, I was almost a regular reader - until this.
Look at the questions; are these really the best they recieved? Some show little or no attempt at balance or even trying to get an important or interesting answer. Of course not all of the questions were awful - Norua Jamenez rightly asks about the experience of the Open Primary, Stephen Casey asks about the political philosophy behind Dr Woolaston's 3 year membership of the party and Craig Sotherton, Anil Joshi and Niall Simpson all asked valid questions on the NHS.
But there were others...
Jeff Gilchrist asked Dr Woolaston to justify the way the Conservative Parliamentary Party voted in the 1945 parliament; what on earth is he going on about? Do we ask the LibDems about David Lloyd-George or ask Gordon Brown to jusift the actions of Ramsay MacDonald? I am sorry Jeff but that is a very bizarre question - and unbelievably the Independent chose it to publish!
Frances Chaudrey asks about the role of Michael Ashcroft in funding Tory campaigns - OK I grant you its an issue within political circles but I am on doorsteps day-in-day-out year round and not a single person here in Norwich has ever raised it. It may be a big deal to Frances, I am not taking anything away from that, but does it really rate amongst the 10 biggest issues raised with The Indy?
Tim Vole offers the chance for Dr Woolaston to single out the most offensive thing that Anthony Steen has ever said; this question is offensive in itself (given its probably intent just to embarrass Dr Woolaston and/or Mr Steen) and Dr Woolaston's repsonse that most people have moved on is correct. This is negative politics at its worst; not tell what you want to change about the country but tell me what you hate the most about a man who is months from leaving office.
Verity Matthews asks about the expense claims of the "Tory squirearchy" - seemingly forgeting that the claims and possible illegal activites of our MPs covered all parties including the governing one - and the response of Dr Woolaston to remind them of LibDem candidate April Pond's moat was brilliant.
I don' t have a problem with challenging questions or the topics here, but I do question the judgement of the editorial team in choosing them for publication to a future legaislator. Are we really short of questions on crime, education, foreign affairs or the economy? I understand a GP getting a lot of questions on the NHS (including the fair one on Hannan's comments) but is this really the remit of her role? Or has the Independent just pandered to its own prejudices and allowed anti-Tory readers to have their day in the sun? This whole exercise is designed to trip up and embarrass not to probe, search and find her views. Where is the vision and the positive view of what Dr Wollaston can help to achieve in government?
Come on Independent, I was almost a regular reader - until this.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Daily Mirror: A waste of paper and ink
Whilst trapped inside of a soft-play centre during a rainy time I was forced (i.e. boredom drove me to) to read all of the newspapers on offer. It included my staple diet of the Evening News and EDP, plus also a few titles I hadn't read in a long, long time.
I was deeply shocked by the Daily Mirror; aside from being badly written and utterly misguided, it seems to have totally missed the point. Luckily the whole newspaper took me less than 2 minutes to "read". The political stories were laughable; I didn't think anybody or anything could still support this government like the Mirror does. I was told about "desperate Cameron" who was "trying to con people into thinking he could be trusted with the NHS"; this wasn't in the opinions page or the letters page, this was the news stories!! The Paul Routledge column actually made me double-take it was so out-of-touch; we need more proper socialists writing this stuff because, God knows, with this government in power we need a laugh. The headlines make The Sun look rational and the choice of celebrity gossip was, frankly, second class indeed.
The whole content and structure of the paper lacked anything approaching clarity. It was devoid of a single interesting article. I understand that I am part of the Telegraph faithful, but I cannot stand the Daily Mail and have more and more been taken with the Indy (which, although it contains little to no news, always has something worth reading), and so the Mirror probably isn't designed with me in mind. But even so, is this really the best they can do?
I was deeply shocked by the Daily Mirror; aside from being badly written and utterly misguided, it seems to have totally missed the point. Luckily the whole newspaper took me less than 2 minutes to "read". The political stories were laughable; I didn't think anybody or anything could still support this government like the Mirror does. I was told about "desperate Cameron" who was "trying to con people into thinking he could be trusted with the NHS"; this wasn't in the opinions page or the letters page, this was the news stories!! The Paul Routledge column actually made me double-take it was so out-of-touch; we need more proper socialists writing this stuff because, God knows, with this government in power we need a laugh. The headlines make The Sun look rational and the choice of celebrity gossip was, frankly, second class indeed.
The whole content and structure of the paper lacked anything approaching clarity. It was devoid of a single interesting article. I understand that I am part of the Telegraph faithful, but I cannot stand the Daily Mail and have more and more been taken with the Indy (which, although it contains little to no news, always has something worth reading), and so the Mirror probably isn't designed with me in mind. But even so, is this really the best they can do?
Labels:
daily mail,
daily mirror,
daily telegraph,
independent,
newspapers
Friday, August 22, 2008
It must be tough in the Clegg household
Here he goes again ... Nick Clegg was apparently the name with the presentational skills to save the LibDems. And today he uses an interview in The Independent to convince people he feels their pain in the credit crunch. And how does he do this? Well, by claiming his mortgage repayments have soared (on his second £1.3m home in ultra-fashionable Putney) and by saying he's had to stop shopping at Ocado (the on-line version of Waitrose) and go to Sainsburys instead. Gosh it must be tough for him on just his MPs salery (oh, and his wife's full time job as a lawyer). Come off it!
This isn't feleing the pain of the credit crunch, this is a very wealthy man who's been slightly inconvenienced by it all. So, why say anything at all?
I'm pretty sure no political leader is that impacted - they're not losing their homes, or turning off the heating or not buying food for their family. But so desperate is Clegg for any publicity that he's willing to say anything. This may have been a good idea in the eyes of the LibDem spin doctors but I imagine a lot of people who have really felt the crunch will be very angry that their plight is the equivalent to having to shop at Sainsburys rather than Waitrose.
This isn't feleing the pain of the credit crunch, this is a very wealthy man who's been slightly inconvenienced by it all. So, why say anything at all?
I'm pretty sure no political leader is that impacted - they're not losing their homes, or turning off the heating or not buying food for their family. But so desperate is Clegg for any publicity that he's willing to say anything. This may have been a good idea in the eyes of the LibDem spin doctors but I imagine a lot of people who have really felt the crunch will be very angry that their plight is the equivalent to having to shop at Sainsburys rather than Waitrose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)