What is the motivation behind saturation news coverage of one theme ..from the World Cup to Covid?

Have the BBC and other mainstream broadcasters given up on news? The thought occurred during the recent coverage of the World Cup. The main news story would routinely be a package of interviews and comment about an upcoming game. Not news but speculation. Then with no hint of irony, there would be a move to "other news", which could be something like at earthquake or buildings destroyed, costing many lives. Another favourite was the bulletin reporting the game that had just been played. This would consist of a report on the game, with accompanying vox pops from a pub somewhere. Some viewers no doubt wondered had they not seen this before, people screaming at a television in a pub. The total takeover of the news agenda by one subject has become the norm over recent times. At the time of the Queen's death, there were 10 days of relentless, monotonous coverage. No other news was allowed a look in. Indeed, the coverage took over the whole schedule each day, as all those programs carefully produced for many years before, awaiting the very day of the Queen's death, were rolled out. No dissenting views were permitted, as a sort of coercive compassion took hold. In defence of the broadcasters, this was a once in a lifetime event. There was huge interest amongst the public. But it did go a bit far. At the start of the year came Russia's invasion of Ukraine. News operations moved to Ukraine and neighbouring countries to provide saturation coverage. Original coverage was difficult to obtain, given restrictions on movement in a war zone. This story then moved to home shores, focusing on those fleeing to war zone seeking sanctuary here. The main story though moved back from the saturation levels of the first few weeks to regular updates. The frame of reference though was of good (Ukraine) v bad (Russia), with a theme of unending war. Peace rarely got a mention. This fixation on one subject to the exclusion of all else is something that seems to have developed over recent years. Another was the Covid pandemic, which ran and ran for nearly two years. Little else featured in the news, with infection levels and deaths becoming a daily staple of the coverage. What may have surprised many since has been just how quickly the news agenda shifted in the opposite direction to providing virtually no coverage of Covid. Levels have risen and fallen over the past year but this previously dominant subject has disappeared from the news. The official narrative seems to be that there are effective vaccines now, so it is time to move on - no worries. The story now is more about the after effects of Covid and how it was handled - the corruption around PPE contracts, NHS waiting lists, the debt, people leaving work, never to return. Conspiracy theorists of a Big Brother mindset might think there is some sort of news control going on, switching saturation coverage to suit the interests of the rich and powerful. It seems doubtful if anything so organised could happen, more a gradual chipping away of traditional news values. The reduction of funding for news no doubt plays a part (vox pops for football games or Covid are cheap and easy to compile). A move away from the need to inform and educate the population toward entertaining and in some cases scaring them. What it all amounts to is a mass dumbing down, accompanied with the helpful by-product of asserting greater control over people. Another qualifier from the broadcasters angle is that the subjects focused on are popular, so draw audiences but then viewer numbers should not be the sole criteria for news programming – especially not in the case of public service broadcasting. All is not lost ofcourse, there are so many different places to get news and information these days. The mainstream news channels are but one. Though, in the era of fake news, reliable trusted sources of information are ever more urgently needed. The mainstream news channels, used, to some extent, to perform this task. Now, it would seem, increasingly less. Maybe, they will rediscover their news value compass - relearn what news really is. Put some money into news. The demand should be there. Or maybe not, as people become blinded by a steady diet of the mundane and mindless mixed in with the fear factor.

Direct action protesters are right to demand that the environmental emergency is taken seriously

The efforts of Extinction Rebellion, Just Oil and Insulate Britain have caused discomfort for some across the country. The environmental activists have been deploying direct action tactics to draw politicians and the public's attention to the climate and biodiversity crises, engulfing the earth. The activities vary from blocking roads, locking onto public buildings to taking action against those companies seen to be perpetuating the crisis. The protesters say that the world is in an emergency, with action needed now to stop a catastrophe unfolding. They do not believe that traditional forms of protest such as lobbying politicians, going on marches etc are having the required impact. Hence, the need for more direct activity. The protesters argument has no doubt been aided by the actions or should that be inactions of the politicians over recent months. So, as Just Oil were blocking roads and locking onto bridges, politicians from across the world gathered for latest COP (27) meeting. Headline news that rather than cut emissions, the world is racing ever more quickly toward catastrophic levels of warming. Meanwhile, the COP participants discuss why the actions agreed 12 months earlier had not happened. A major cause being the First World countries failure to come up with the money pledged. Mood music from the domestic arena sees the Conservative Government pledging billions to develop a new nuclear power station at Sizewell. Not only is nuclear power expensive and dangerous but it will also take more than a decade to come on stream. Not exactly in the spirit of the emergency now facing the world. Then the latest inexplicable act of waving through a new coal mine in Cumbria. The protesters are right to take the actions they have. The report of the International Panel on Climate Change in 2018, warned that there were 12 years to address the crisis. So far, the first four years have been wasted. Emissions and habitat destruction has continued and even accelerated. It is as though the world is caught in some sort of giant bubble of denial What no doubt irks the protesters is that all humanity has recently witnessed how the world does react to a real emergency – namely the Covid pandemic. That was accepted very quickly as a real emergency and some very draconian actions were taken to deal with it. Having seen how humanity reacts to a genuine emergency, can anyone wonder that those passionately concerned about our planet suggest that the environmental emergency is not being dealt with by a similar level of seriousness? Ofcourse the actions have inconvenienced people and many of those effected share the concerns over the planet but the protesters have been driven to these extremes by the lack of action. The government response has been to legislate to make it more difficult to protest. They do not seem to understand this will just drive people to greater extremes. The only feasible response is to actually take the protesters concerns seriously, recognise that this is a very real emergency and treat it as such. This will mean substantial changes in the way humanity lives on the earth. The changes need to happen now, not when it is politically convenient for the ruling elite. Emergency must mean exactly that at every level of government - until that happens people will rightly keep protesting in whatever form they consider necessary to obtain the fundamental changes required to save the planet.

Strange world of the amateur politician

The appearance of former health secretary Matt Hancock on the ITV reality show, I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here, caused some controversy. What was the Member of Parliament for West Suffolk doing heading off to spend three weeks in the jungle, when he should have been in Parliament serving his constituents? A very fair question. Other MPs, though, have taken on reality TV challenges, such as Nadine Dorries (I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here), Penny Mourdant (Splash) and George Galloway (Celebrity Big Brother). But why, when they should be giving 100% of their working time to the very demanding job of being an MP? Yet, it has been a strange custom going back centuries that MPs are allowed to have more than one job. The part time, MP role, whilst doing something else, like practicing the law. The rather weak defence is sometimes put up that they get to see other sides of life. This does not really stand up to scrutiny because if they are doing the MP’s job properly they will be getting a very full view of life from dealing with their constituents’ problems. They need the money – hardly? MPs have an annual salary of £84,000, well above what the vast majority of people earn. And, they can put so many of their daily activities down to expenses, that much of that salary can be banked. No, it all seems to go back to this strange tradition of amateur politicians, running back centuries, that goes right through the political system. There is the job, then there is politics. The politics is not considered in itself enough to fill the whole day. A sort of amateur/professional thing. This does seem amazing, given that if an MP is really doing the job properly, it is usually a 24/7 commitment. But the whole system seems to be set up on this sort of amateur/ professional type basis. Take local government. Many councillors have other day jobs. Councillors receive a basic allowance for the activities they do. This varies around the £10,000 to £12,000 depending on the authority. Opinions vary, from those who think councillors should not receive anything, to others concerned that keeping allowances low stops many of the people who should be coming forward to represent their communities from doing so. But the role of the councillor is a rather strange hybrid sort of role. It is structured to be part-time but the expectancies are often for a full time commitment. Some give huge amounts of time, other less. Most give huge amounts to the role - people don’t become councillors for the money. But if there were no payment or allowances are kept very low, then that skews the role toward those who can afford to do it – these will be those with so much money, they don’t need an allowance to pensioners and those with supportive partners and/ or flexible day jobs. But what of the single parent living on the housing estate, who should be representing their community but cannot afford to do so. Or the disabled person forced to survive on the allowance, which is low but high enough to stop them receiving certain benefits. The same peculiar attitude to the political class that exists regarding MPs applies to councillors also. It is a role that should/ could arguably be full time but the aurore of amateurism hangs over it. The MPs and councillors with their second and main jobs respectively. On the plus side at councillor level, there is a flexibility that enables people from different backgrounds to take part and contribute. Though, as mentioned previously, the level of allowances, hours of operation etc can stop others who should be coming forward from doing so. On the MP side, there really is little excuse for having other roles – the job demands full time commitment. Maybe, it didn’t in the 18th century but it certainly does today. So, let’s hope that in future our elected representatives keep their focus on the day job (their Parliamentary role) and not decide in the middle of a Parliamentary session to depart to the jungle for a few weeks and generous renumeration.

Football sold out at the Qatari World Cup

The World Cup in Qatar has already stirred up much controversy - mainly off the field. The repressive attitude of the Qatari authorities has seen restrictions on expression and assembly. Football in the UK has only just begun to emerge from the dark ages, when it comes to LGBT rights. But in Qatar, same sex relationships are banned. There is also much discrimination towards women. Challenges to the reactionary attitude, such as wearing the multicolour One Love armband have been stamped upon. All credit to football pundit and former player Alex Scott, who made a stand by wearing the One Love armband on a BBC broadcast. There has been much publicity about the treatment of the migrant workers, who built the stadia for the tournament. There was use of forced labour, with thousands losing their lives. Amnesty International has called for some $400 million in compensation and to prevent such abuse in the future. So, why many might ask is the tournament being held in the middle of winter in Qatar - playing havoc with domestic football fixture programmes? The simple answer is money. It seems to be the only thing that matters to the football authorities, from FIFA down. It has been nauseating to see spineless FIFA and the equally supine FA crumble before every Qatari government demand. Neither fans or players really seem to matter. Players have long since been bought and sold like expensive commodities. The football authorities have little sense of care for players - one tournament follows another, if there are any gaps in a year these are filled with meaningless friendlies. It all takes a physical toll. The one thing the players, unlike those who built the stadia, have achieved are decent rewards for their labour. Some are shocked at the amount players are paid but it is they who produce the spectacle people come to see, not the owners, directors or accountants that run football. And in terms of the World Cup it is the players again, who have excelled, with some great matches already. Some have also taken brave stands, such as the Iranian team, who refused to sing their national anthem. The people who should hang their heads in shame are the football authorities. FIFA for giving the World Cup to Qatar, then trying to defend much of the behaviour of that regime. Then there is our own pitiful FA, who fell in line on the armband ban, insisting England players did not wear it. This was a great opportunity missed, remember the huge impact of the black power salute made by John Carlos and Tommie Smith at the 1968 Olympics. FIFA stand to make $5 billion from the tournament. Qatar is an increasingly important energy supplier to the UK. Money talks. If this World Cup is remembered for anything, it will be when football sold its soul to the highest bidder.

Do we need a mobile phone?

Comedian Paul Merton recently told of life without a mobile phone. Merton revealed on the One Show how he has not had a phone since the early 1990s. Whenever, someone reveals living without a mobile phone it causes a mixture of sentiments from bewilderment to wonderment and envy. The phone, as with much other modern technology, has come to seem a necessity. But there are pluses and minuses. The modern mobile is a fantastic device, with powers to communicate via written and spoken word. The possibility to research almost anything via internet access, as well as games and entertainment. Facilities like WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter provide great ways to stay in touch. On the negative side; are we not all becoming obsessed and addicted to phones. Constant checking of the phone for messages, hours spent literally glued to the device. Many often feel they cannot go anywhere without their phone. Some 25 to 30 years ago, people did not feel the same attachment to such devices. It is difficult not to think there is a sort of escapism going on. People literally living through their phones Yet, how necessary is much of what happens on phones? It must be doubtful if many of the messages being conveyed are any more vital now, than they ever were. The addiction to mobile phones does represent something of a marketing masterclass. People have been persuaded that they literally cannot exist without a mobile phone. Returning to the Paul Merton example, there is now almost a two track society developing: those engaged on social media and those not. It is interesting when mixing socially with people who engage on social media and those who don't. Much has to be explained about what has happened to those not online. Though, often like Merton, those not doing Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to name but a few, often take a certain pride in being out of the loop. They do also tend to be predominantly older. Though technology is a funny thing, it can be liberating or constraining. For example, take those who have decided not to have a TV. Again mixed emotions. Television can educate, enrich and entertain but at the same time a lot of life can be wasted watching absolute rubbish. There must be a sense in some ways of getting your life back by making a decision to opt out on having a mobile or TV. But then there is also a missing out on what this technology has to offer, The best route is probably moderation, a middle road, not addicted to the mobile or TV but not a total refusenik either. That is probably where most people dwell, though polarisation maybe growing.

Triggered by Emma Burnell at the White Bear, Kennington

The triggering of sitting MPs has been a subject of much controversy. It is a process brought in during the Corbyn years to democratise the party, making MPs more accountable to members. The reality over recent times has seen the right using the process to deselect sitting left MPs. It is against this background that Emma Burnell brought forth this excellent entertaining play, that encapsulates the whole process. The play is set in the fictional constituency of Hollingsdean. The story unveils focusing on just four characters, the sitting MP, Sally Finch, (Antonia Beamish), local chair of Momentum, Jim Marr (Michael Palmer), Blairite, Sadia Peters (Catherine Adams) and NEC representative June Wright (Carrie Cohen). The trigger process unveils with the robust Wright holding the ring. The challenged and sometime affronted centrist MP, the leftie man of principle and the uber ambitious Blairite do battle for the seat. The play running over an hour covers much ground in such a short space of time, exposing divisions and factionalism, as well as a basic goodwill for the common good shared by all candidates. There is much good humour in the play, with final hustings seeing the Red Flag, the Internationale and Things can only get better being sung simultaneously by the various participants. A Westminster insider for 20 years, Burnell does well in bringing the whole trigger process together in such an enlightening and entertaining way. Research included talking to the likes of Jon Landsman and Luke Akehurst from across the political divide. Focusing on the 2019 election, the content though is already ageing, with a final line about Boris Johnson becoming PM and questioning how will he ever be got rid of. Maybe Burnell will need to do a sequel for 2024, looking to how the trigger process has been used during the interim. What is for sure is that Triggered deserves a longer run, once it finishes at the White Bear on Saturday. The Labour Party Conference would be one good future venue.

Britain's strangely contorted attitude to immigration

The British have once again been found behaving inhumanely to people coming seeking sanctuary in their land. There was an outcry recently, with the way that migrants, coming across the Channel, were being treated at holding centres at Manston in Kent. The mainly, asylum seekers, were once again being treated like criminals by the British authorities. There is much history to this approach, with a whole privately run wing of the security state growing up to deal with migrants coming to the UK. Instead of sanctuary, read detention – often for some time. This inhumane approach is followed with accompanying mood music from the British tabloid media, which has spent decades vilifying foreigners, who may come seeking to live in this land. It has been more than amusing recently to see the true fruit of this approach over the years. It led, in part, to the disastrous Brexit, which in turn meant less skilled labour available to do the jobs that, often the indigenous, would not do. Brexit and the Covid pandemic led to the labour that had been staffing hospitals and care homes, working in hospitality and harvesting the crops heading home. One of the big problems of the British economy over the past couple of years has been the lack of people to actually do the work. This is causing those, who previously scored cheap and racist political points vilifying migrants, now seeking ways to get people to come here to work. This pattern has been seen before, with people from Ireland and the Caribbean coming over to do essential work in previous decades. Many of them suffered that particular brand of British racism saved up for those who come to contribute to the UK. Many still remember the no Irish, no Blacks, no dogs notices of the 1950s and 60s. This though is to only discuss one particular group of people coming to the UK, namely economic migrants, seeking to make a living for themselves and contribute. They are desperately needed now but maybe less willing to come. The people arriving on the beaches of southern England are mostly asylum seekers fleeing oppression. More than 75% of their claims for asylum are upheld (eventually). There is an international duty to provide refuge to these people under the international Refugee Convention. Listening to the rhetoric of government ministers, the point is clearly missed. It is the old “Britain is an easy touch routine,” not that these people are fleeing oppression needing refuge. Home Office minister Robert Jenrick typified the approach, when he started highlighting the numbers of refugees coming to these shores compared to other European countries. No doubt the deteriorating relations with European neighbours like France, due to the bombastic nationalistic approach taken by the Conservative governments since Brexit, may mean that they are being less co-operative than before, when it comes to dealing with this human tragedy. But in reality the British are merely reaping what they have sown. Conflict and climate change are major creators of refugees. The UK and other countries from the rich First World have contributed to wars and the destruction of the planet. The arms sales register is one table where Britain always features in the top five. These causes, substantially contributed to by Britain and others from the rich First World have helped create more and more refugees seeking asylum. Given the circumstances, the least that the UK and others can do it so face up to its moral and legal responsibilities by providing a safe refuge for these people. Castigating and criminalising people who are taking such desperate measures to get here, reflects very poorly on the UK. It is high time that the UK recognised its international responsibilities and accepted those seeking refuge – especially given the culpable role that this country played in creating their plight in the first place. A caveat to this argument, on economic migration, is that just maybe Britain with its ageing population should recognise that migration is good. When people come here seeking to work and to contribute maybe it would be to everyone’s benefit to welcome them. The alternative is to continue to build a country and economy that is internationally isolated and fundamentally flawed when it comes to providing the good and services required to make things work for all 67 million of its inhabitants. Irish Post - 19/11/2022