BBC Blog Network

User Profile

dekehoustie

Listed below are comments made by dekehoustie between Friday, 29th May 2009 and Tuesday, 1st September 2009.

«Newer
Older»

What future for media and journalism? 3:16pm on 01 Sep 2009 I do wonder at some of the statements that seem to suggest that there is no added value to journalism, for example:
"124. At 12:33pm on 01 Sep 2009, Marcopolio wrote:
The News industry has really out grown it self, a fire in California is just a fire in California, it really makes no difference who reports it."
Not picking this out for special treatment, as it seems to be representative of a point of view on this thread. It seems to confuse the “facts” that you get through a wire service such as AP with reporting the news.
Do you think Watergate would have been fully investigated under some of the models being proposed? The “news” was the break-in and with no video coverage probably wouldn’t have rated that high. But, this argument doesn’t just hold for investigative journalism.
Where I work it is very noticeable that different papers have different approaches to how they, operationally, cover stories. One newspaper sends a specialised reporter. The other sends whoever is available on the day. The difference in understanding is striking with the specialised reporter being able to get behind the obvious and ask probing questions rather than just accepting the line that is given.
I have also been told by a friend who is a journalist at the BBC that they are getting so short staffed that all they can do is sit at their desks and look at PRs and e-mails – they rarely have time to get out and about and ask the questions that need asking.
Unfortunately I believe that journalism is now so undervalued, and people are so willing to invest in it, that all we will get in the future is an odd mixture of “facts” lifted from the wire and personal opinion.
First thoughts 10:54am on 26 Aug 2009 There sems to be a lot of hot air being talked about the use of the term quasi-judicial. Actually it is a pretty common term in many forms of government. For example, all planning and licencing decisions within local government are quasi-judicial. Really all it means is that it is a decision is made by politicians within a legal framework - only relevant factors are allowed to be taken into consideration and that the issue shoud not be predetermined (though they are allowed to have a predisposition).

I know that politics is a dirty word - but the point of having politicians involved in these functions is that priciple that they are more responsive to public opinion that a strict adherence to the letter (but not the spirit) of the law would allow. For example, there are many cases where a licence has been refused because of the potential impact on a neighbourhood. It is that responsivness and accountablity that a politician is, in principle, is meant to bring.

The alternative is to have significant parts of the decision-making process without any public accountability. Is that what people really want?
Time to say goodbye 12:45pm on 24 Aug 2009 After spending last week in Scotland, I would be interested in getting an American persepective on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and the subsequent fallout - especially the letter from the Director of the FBI.
When to talk about spending? 3:49pm on 29 Jun 2009 As a new poster on this blog can I ask what the magical significance of a ceiling of 40% of GDP for net public debt is? There seems to be quite large variations across the G20.

I would also be careful about what the OECD and IMF say should be done. Experience elsewhere is that countries have had imposed upon them, as a condition of loans, the sort of free-market liberalisation that has led to this disaster with drastic effects on the everyday population.

Their paradigm is entirely about returning to the status quo ante.
Big week for healthcare 10:27am on 24 Jun 2009 The polling reults are not necissarily contradictory. 80% of Americans may be satisfied with their health care and still want a fundamental change in the system. All that requires is that they care about those that do not have good (or any) coverage and want to do something about it. Perhaps showing that Americans are more community-minded/willing to act collectively/not afraid of government being a supplier/socialist (pick your own label) than they are given credit for.
Obama's Iran dilemma 1:05pm on 17 Jun 2009 I am slightly confused about the statements being made about the time being taken to count the vote and whether it automatically means the election was fixed or just well organised.
Firstly I am not sure what is being referred to. One poster said they found it odd that turnout was known within 2 hours of polls closing. In the UK, where there is also manual counting of most elections, turnout can be estimated pretty accurately by about lunchtime and within a percentage point by close of play.
Secondly, I am not sure from the comments and some of the links whether the results or the projected results were announced within 2 or 3 hours.
In the UK, once again with manual counting, the first parliamentary seats are announced within an hour and after 3 hours there would be a pretty good model of voting patterns and a fairly accurate prediction of number of seats for each party.
Now I don't know the actual election day procedure that is used in Iran and, in particular the size of the polling disctricts or the how the count is organised so I would be interested to know whether anyone with knowledge of the practice on the ground whether it would be technically possible to have an authorative projected result within three hours.
More on the Supreme Court appointment 12:01pm on 29 May 2009 Just to comment on postings 15 and 19. Having read the link that was posted on the previous blog the relevant quote seems to be:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice OConnor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding casesI am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life."

It was not a conversation but part of a keynote speech at Berkeley. The issue being addressed is general competence it is not specific to cases where an understanding of the context is important.

Now if what she had said was that: "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a different conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life." then I think not as much controversy would have ensured.

Interestigly no-one has picked the sentence at the begining of the paragraph which suggests that there may be physiological reasons why judgements would be different.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

dekehoustie