Life at Walter Peak High Country Farm is not bad for a hard working lass from Wales who is good with people, loves horses and riding, open space and the occasional dip into the high-life of Queenstown, 45 minutes across Lake Wakatipu on the Earnslaw Steamer.

I visited daughter Katie as spring turned to autumn on New Zealand’s South Island at the end of February 2010. I was even persuaded to take my first ever horse ride, thanks to Lloyd, who operates the riding stables at the Peak.

It’s a tough job, but someone’s got to do it….

The Earnslaw arrives at Walter Peak High Country Farm. Click for larger version

Click for larger image

For Goldfields Cavalcade photos 2010, click here.

For photos of the Christchurch to Greymouth TranzAlpine railway, click here

On February 15th 2010 at 4pm I left for Queenstown, New Zealand. Ten hours flying in the daylight to Los Angeles then 12 hours flying in the dark over the Pacific Ocean, arriving at dawn in Auckland. A change of plane then to Christchurch and then by turbo-prop to Queenstown, where landing requires losing height, throttling back and banking steeply between mountain peaks in order to line up with the runway. A nerve-racking experience for an infrequent flyer like me.

Jeremy preparing for the off on day one

I stayed at Walter Peak High Country Farm on the shore of Lake Wakatipu across from Queenstown. Between the two plies the Earnslaw, a beautifully maintained coal-fired steamer which makes the journey in 45 minutes carrying goods and tourists who want to have a meal, a farm tour or a horse ride. Daughter Katie works there in the restaurant.

On 20th February I travelled 70 km north to Wanaka, on the shore of the lake of the same name, from where on 23rd February I began a 4 day tramp (hike) with the 62 strong “Minaret Marauders” as part of the Central Otago Goldfields Trust’s annual “Cavalcade”. This year the Cavalcade has been hosted by Wanaka.

The Earnslaw coal steamer. Click for larger version

580 people joined The Cavalcade trails which cover the rugged hills, rock-faced gullies and tussock covered plains of Central Otago, a region famed for its vast open spaces, dramatic scenery and sparsely populated settlements.

The Cavalcade was organised into three walking trails which took three to five days, four riding trails that take six to seven days crossing Otago’s dramatic hills and rivers plus two wagon trails that take five days each. The Cavalcade covered tracks and land not normally available to the public. It is a very special experience for the Kiwis who love their country and who are happy to share it with people who also appreciate and respect its grandeur and uniqueness.

Wales was enthusiastically represented on the Parade by me and a Cavalcade regular. Click for larger image

Each trail took a different route before arriving back in Wanaka on 27th February for a very well attended grand parade through the town and later a “hoe-down” dance. The sight of hundreds of horses and riders in the grand parade is something I and most people will never have seen before and the road was lined several people deep as we walked and rode into town on a warm summer’s day in bright sunshine.

The Minaret Marauders trail covered about 60km over 4 days, climbing 1,500ft on several occasions. We slept in wool sheds (where sheep are sheared and the wool baled), had 3 boat trips and washed in the lake when we could. I spent one night sleeping outside under the stars with my glasses on so I could see the star and galaxy formations, which are different from ours in the northern hemisphere.

Finally after changing into period costume we travelled across the lake on the barge belonging to the owner of Minaret Station to join the road back to Wanaka.

Minaret Station runs 28,000 sheep and a deer rearing operation but has no road access. The barge carries goods and vehicles across the lake to and from the farm.

The road to Wanaka

On the morning of 20th February 2010 Katie, Lloyd and I set out from Walter Peak Station, a 65,000 acre farm where Lloyd keeps his horses. While they got the beasts on the trailer, I photographed the paddock and the lake beyond.

Lake Wakatipu, New Zealand South Island, from Walter Peak Station in early morning. Click for larger image

From Queenstown, Wanaka is 70km by road. From Walter Peak Station, only 8 km from Queenstown across the lake, Wanaka is 268 km by road, (view route on Google Maps) as you have to go around the mountains. So that’s what we did. The track from Walter Peak Station also goes through St Nicholas Station from where I took this view of Lake Wakatipu. After 40km of dusty farm track we met a tarmac road.

Lake Wakatipu, New Zealand South Island from Mt Nicholas Station. Click for larger image

I have created a gallery of some photos of the Minaret Marauders which can be viewed here (opens new window). The panorama below is one of dozens I could have taken. Around every bend was another breathtaking view through clean clear air down to the lake water which is more than clean enough to drink directly.

Lake Wanaka, New Zealand. Looking South from Minaret Station. Click for larger image

Planning for the 2011 event is already under way and the Cavalcade is scheduled to head for the South Island’s historic town of Oamaru.

I intend to be there…..

Ben Lomond Views

Wed 3rd March 2010. I did the Ben Lomond Walkway today. You can see the route here

Started from Lake Wakatipu (300m above SL) Queenstown and climbed 1000m to “The Saddle” where the track takes a left turn for the last 450m to the summit (1750m above SL). The 3000ft climb was the equivalent of climbing Snowdon (1085m) from sea level. It was getting cold in a strong wind so I didn’t go the rest of the way up to the summit. Nevertheless, it was the biggest climb I’ve ever done in a single session!

View from Saddle below summit of Ben Lomond

I don’t read many books. I really mean that. I read a book perhaps once every couple of years. So no-one is more surprised than me when after 3 days I’m 100 pages into a 350 page tome full of graphs, tables, lengthy footnotes and other cerebral stuff.

I first heard about David MacKay’s “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air” on one of my favourite BBC programmes “More or Less” which does a great job cutting through the statistical misrepresentations we are routinely fed in the media, which never lets an honest examination of the figures get in the way of a sensationalist headline.

David MacKay

David MacKay’s friendly writing style and his simple presentation of the issues and clear, colourful graphics makes this book a surprisingly easy read.  It’s educational value for anyone trying to get to grips with how to modify their lifestyle to meet the challenge of living on less energy is enormous. It blows away many myths, as he explains in uncompromising  terms:

“We are inundated with a flood of crazy innumerate codswallop. The BBC doles out advice on how we can do our bit to save the planet – for example “switch off your mobile phone charger when it’s not in use;” if anyone objects that mobile phone chargers are not actually our number one form of energy consumption, the mantra “every little helps” is wheeled out. Every little helps? A more realistic mantra is: if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little.”

Rebecca Willis

The “More or Less” programme also featured Rebecca Willis from the government’s Sustainable Development Commission which doesn’t like some of David Mackays sums on Nuclear Power. She commented:

“David MacKay’s approach is to boil it all down to a giant equation…it’s not about giant equations…it’s essentially about how we can lead happy lives while using a quarter of the carbon we do at the moment…for me it’s not a technical question it’s a profoundly political one.”

What’s all that supposed to mean Rebecca?  Of course our country’s energy policy is ultimately a question for the politicians to decide – that’s why we elect them. But to claim it’s not a technical question is a bit like claiming a car can run on will-power. How can politicians make informed decisions if the options they are given are not technical accurate and represent reality?

Willis’ substance-free critique seems to expose the problem the SEC is having backing its recommendations with numbers, a fatal approach which if continued will lead to its being consigned to the quango dustbin with the next change of government.

Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air is downloadable as a PDF, or you can read it online, or order a copy from a bookshop .

A page from David MacKay's book

Here is a YouTube video from David MacKay.

Here are some quotes from the 5 star reviews on Amazon – all of which I agree with.

“This book is an amazing performance: sharp, accurate, quantitative and at the same time clear, entertaining and compelling, not to mention beautifully illustrated with great photographs and informative diagrams and maps.”

“Quite staggeringly brilliant. Real science, real numbers, and real, strong conclusions, but with such a light, accessible approach that the reader doesn’t even notice how difficult the concepts are that they have just understood.”

“It’s rare to find a book that is so full of good, scientific facts and well-researched figures, and yet is so enjoyable to read….I think we should be lobbying the BBC to make this into a documentary series. It would also be a great basis for A-level physics teaching. There aren’t many books which fit both roles so well.”

“This is the book I was waiting for: someone has done the research and put credible broad-brush energy numbers down on paper, and it’s surprisingly entertaining as a bonus.”

“If you want to know the scale of the sustainable energy/climate change problems we face, and what scale the possible solutions need to be, get this book. If you’d prefer to believe that buying a Prius will save the world, don’t get this book.”

“This has to be one of the most well written books I have read in ages. Professor MacKay brings all forms of energy down to the rule of thumb, making the scale of the problem understandable.”

So if you know anyone half interested in the topic of sustainable energy, point them to this book or buy it for them. It’s a gem.

How wrong I was. The BBC was not being clever by banning the DEC appeal, it was just being cruel and weak. The BBC appears terrified of angering the Zionist lobby even by broadcasting internationally accepted facts about Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. For instance it seems to regard UN resolutions against Israel as invalid unless Israel accepts them. A standard that it does not apply to any other country.

The Independent Newspaper on Thursday 16th April 2009 reported:

“The BBC Trust yesterday called into question the corporation’s reporting of the most sensitive news story of modern times, publishing findings that the BBC Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, had breached guidelines on accuracy and impartiality. The ruling will be seized upon by campaigners who claim that BBC News is prejudiced against Israel in its coverage of the Middle East.

“Bowen was censured for a piece which he wrote for the BBC website last June under the headline “Six days that changed the Middle East”, attempting to give context to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by analysing the events of the 1967 Six Day War. The Middle East editor referred to ‘Zionism’s innate instinct to push out the frontier’.

He wrote that Israel showed a “defiance of everyone’s interpretation of international law except its own” and that its generals felt that they were dealing with “unfinished business“, left over from the 1948 War of Independence.

The committee ruled that Bowen’s reporting partially breached the BBC’s rules on accuracy and impartiality.

“Readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war,” it said. “It was not necessary for equal space to be given to the other arguments, but … the existence of alternative theses should have been more clearly signposted.”

Robert Fisk in the Independent of the same day did not mince his words in an article entitled “How can you trust the cowardly BBC?”. He began:

“The BBC Trust’s report on Jeremy Bowen’s dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest. But I am mincing my words.

“The trust – how I love that word which so dishonours everything about the BBC – has collapsed, in the most shameful way, against the usual Israeli lobbyists who have claimed – against all the facts – that Bowen was wrong to tell the truth.”

Fisk goes on to detail how Jeremy Bowen’s article and broadcast were not only accurate, but already milder versions of the reality which exists.

He concludes:

“I’m afraid it’s the same old story. If you allow yourself to bow down before those who wish you to deviate from the truth, you will stay on your knees forever.”

Fisk then recommends a solution to the problem. Get your news of the Middle East from more accurate and honest broadcasters. He recommends Sky TV and Al-Jazeera English.

I agree wholeheartedly with that suggestion. I made the move away from the BBC News months ago. Instead, I watch and listen to the following online:

1. Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, the Monday to Friday 1 hour current affairs programme. Israel is always accurately referred to as “Israel and the Occupied Territories”).

2. The Real News Network with Paul Jay, which broadcasts several articles a day of up to 10 mins each.

3. Bill Moyers Journal, has wonderfully conducted lengthy interviews with very knowledgeable guests. Such a contrast to the hectoring argumentative style of Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys.

4. GritTV with Laura Flanders. Several Interesting discussion and feature pieces each day.

5. Aljazeera English 24 hour news channel – this can also be received just as an audio feed.

6. Sky News can be viewed online but you need to be a Sky subscriber. I’m not, so I listen to the Sky News audio feed only which is usually adequate, given that the visuals on most news reports are completely unnecessary.

In 1972 the first report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) computer modelling group called the Club of Rome was published as a book entitled -The Limits To Growth.

“Our world model was built specifically to investigate five major trends of global concern – accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of non-renewable resources, and a deteriorating environment.”

Its conclusions were received with shock by a world which had seen unprecedented growth since the end of the second world war. The predicament of mankind, the Club of Rome said, was that the world would ultimately run out of many key resources. It’s main conclusions were:

• If present growth trends continued unchanged, a limit to the growth that our planet has enjoyed would be reached sometime within the next 100 years. This would then result in a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
• These growth trends could be altered. Moreover, if proper alterations were made, the world could establish a condition of “ecological stability” that would be sustainable far into the future.
• The world could embark on this second path, but the sooner this effort started, the greater the chance would be of achieving this “ecologically stable” success.

The Limits to Growth was published in 30 languages and became the best selling environmental book in history, selling over 30 million copies.

In 2004 the Club of Rome published an update. While the previous 30 years had shown some progress, including new technologies, new institutions, and a new awareness of environmental problems, the authors were far more pessimistic than they were in 1972. Humanity has squandered the opportunity to correct its current course over the last 30 years, they conclude, and much must change if the world was to avoid the serious consequences of overshoot in the 21st century.

The current financial crash which followed huge increases in commodity and fuel prices in 2008 can be dismissed as purely a result of the greed of city speculators and the usury of banks. Correcting it, we are told, is just a matter of tighter regulation and the baling out by taxpayers of a few hundred banks and financial institutions. I, along with many other people believe it is more than that. The capitalist model which ad nauseum we have been told has delivered prosperity and democracy to the world, has in reality only benefited a small proportion of the it’s inhabitants. More worryingly, the model for wealth creation it has used has not delivered sustainability, so even the benefits received by the minority are now in peril. The capitalist train has run into the buffers, and although it will get going again, our leaders are tying to get it back on the same rusty track which will head straight for the global resource restrictions described in The Limits to Growth.

We are all socialists now

Whether we wish to believe it or not, one of the central tenants of socialism – the nationalisation of banks – has been taking place in both sides of the Atlantic. When a government owns 80% of a bank or financial institution, our leaders may not want to use the “N” word, but nationalisation has occurred.

So why is our mainstream media not having serious discussions about the role and benefits of the nationalisation of key industries? Because the BBC for the overwhelming bulk of its output only gives airtime the spectrum of idea from Labour to Conservative. Other political philosophies are simply excluded from serious debate.

With the world desperately in need of new philosophies and business models which will incorporate the best elements of both capitalism, socialism and environmental sustainability, the mainstream media is simply failing to promote this debate. We have to look for the alternative media for proper discussion of such weighty, but vital matters.

On yesterdays edition of “Democracy Now”, Amy Goodman interviewed Marxist historian David Harvey. His dream of a “no-growth economy” might have seemed pure fantasy a couple of years ago, but today it seems no less likely to deliver a solution than the optimistic and hugely expensive policies of Gordon Brown or Barack Obama.

I believe that in less than 10 years time, after another major crash, when the current model of global capitalism will finally be recognised as having failed, the ideas of David Harvey, along with many evolving community based strategies will emerge as a coherent political movement to challenge the redundant capitalist old guard and their self-serving creed.

If you cannot see the video above, thy this Real Video Stream or listen as a Real Audio Stream. You don’t need to download the Bloatware Real Player, just download and install Real Alternative (first remove Real Networks Real Player if it is installed).

Adam Price MP

In Monday’s Independent Newspaper, reporter Genevieve Roberts in an article entitled “MP attacked by youths as he delivers presents” wrote:

“A prominent gay MP needed stitches after he was attacked by a gang as he delivered balloons to his parents for their 50th wedding anniversary. Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, and a friend were treated in hospital after the assault by four youths in Worcester on Saturday.

“Mr Price’s spokeswoman, Heledd Fychan, said he received facial cuts and was unable to attend the party. “A gang of youths set upon him randomly. They had no idea who he was. It was an unprovoked attack. He is a bit battered and bruised and has a black eye, but no broken bones.” She said that while Mr Price, 40, and his friend were walking to the party, some youths were being cheeky. “He didn’t respond,” she said. “But then the group of youths started hitting him and his friend in broad daylight.”

“A police spokesman said: “Mr Price and his friend were taken to hospital for treatment. Four male suspects were arrested.” He said the attack took place at 5.10pm on Saturday, near Brown’s restaurant in Worcester.

“Richard Everton, the owner of the restaurant, said: “It’s disgraceful really. Let’s hope the gang get everything they should get.”

I would like to apologize on behalf of the Independent for this shoddy piece of reporting which made a totally irrelevant reference to the sexuality of a victim of an unprovoked assault. As I have pointed out in my letter to the Independent’s news editor (below), their own report states that it was a random attack, and that the attackers had no idea of the identity of the person they were attacking. So where does the “gay MP” epithet fit into their report, other than to suggest – when the evidence was to the contrary – that the attack was because of Adam’s sexuality?

Would we refer to the Independent’s news editor as “Heterosexual editor Oliver Wright who yesterday had his car stolen” or to “Lesbian reporter Genevieve Roberts who was a victim of credit card fraud”? I have no idea of, nor do I care about the sexuality of these two people. They should be equally uninterested in the sexuality of others, unless it is central to a story.

It’s sad that even a so-called “quality” newspaper such as the Independent cannot resist the temptation to insert irrelevancies into its reporting of a pretty mundane story in order to try and catch the waning attention of its readers.

Sir/Madam,

I refer to your article: “MP attacked by youths as he delivers presents”.

The nonsensical inclusion of the victim’s sexuality in the first line of this article could be expected from the Sun or Mirror, but from the Independent I hope for something more mature and considered.

How ridiculous it would appear if the first paragraph read:

“A prominent heterosexual MP needed stitches after he was attacked by a gang as he delivered balloons to his parents for their 50th wedding anniversary”

So why is it less ridiculous to refer to “A prominent gay MP”?

Are you perhaps claiming that that the attack on Adam Price was in some way related to his sexuality? Yet you state that the attackers could not have known it as “They had no idea who he was. It was an unprovoked attack”. You cannot have it both ways. Or do you have scene of crime evidence that you are choosing not to print? In which case you should be making a statement to the police.

I believe you owe Adam Price an apology.

Jeremy Clulow

John McCain and Barack Obama

For the American voter not to boot out the Republicans and give the Democrats a chance could only mean that the country has been seized by a collective madness for which there can be no cure. Even the prospect of every US citizen having to fork out 2,200 dollars to bale out the banks and save the skin of the very industry which has ripped the country off for years, seems not to bother a frighteningly large number of Americans. Hundreds of thousands of poor people’s homes are on the verge of being repossessed, yet that inexplicably doesn’t appear to register as an unforgivable failure of the current Republican administration.

Gretchen Morgenson a financial commentator with the New York Times stated last month:

“The ugly thing about this is this is privatizing gains and socializing losses. So when things are going well, the managements make out, the shareholders make out, the counterparties are fine. All the private sector people do well. But when something goes wrong, when decisions are made that turn out to be bad decisions, the U.S. taxpayer has to take on the problem.” – see the video

So despite opinion polls currently giving Obama a significant 6-10% lead over McCain, I still think that there’s a real possibility that Obama will lose the election. Here’s why:

Fear is the over-riding emotion that appears to drive middle-America. Fear of attack by terrorists and fear of plots being hatched against America in countries which don’t like American intervention around the world. Fear of losing their lifestyle based on abundant cheap energy. McCain is ex-military. Over and over again vox-pops show citizens saying that they “feel safer” with McCain in charge, and “he knows how to protect us”. The fact that McCain has a very short temper and access to a huge nuclear arsenal, while at the same time appearing to know little about world affairs, beyond what his advisor’s tell him minutes before opening his mouth, or whisper in his ear after he’s made a gaff, doesn’t seem to bother these people. I guess, with only 20% of Americans owning a passport, he still knows more than them!

Sign from West Plains, Missouri

Racism may be more influential in the final vote than opinion polls currently indicate. It is feared that many white Democratic voters are saying to the pollsters that they will vote for Obama, but on the day will not do so. The frequent refrain from white working class voters is “I’m not sure if we know enough about Obama” – which appears to be code for “I don’t want no uppity nigger telling me what to do”. The Republicans have cultivated these doubts by making much of the fact that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein” – “That’s foreign ain’t it – He’s an Arab – He’s a Muslim – Like that Saddam guy we whopped Iraq?”

Update – 22nd October 2008 – On today’s edition of Democracy Now!, Mark Crispin Miller says that there is virtually no evidence for the mass last minute changing of voting behaviour described above. The Republicans however are happy for this theory to be perpetuated as it gives them a “narrative” to explain how an Obama loss (achieved through widespread registration fraud), has happened against the opinion poll predictions of an Obama win. See todays Democracy Now with an Interview with Prof. Miller 12 minutes into the programme – http://tinyurl.com/6qpkg

Vote Stealing is emerging as a possible major factor in the outcome on November. Mark Crispin Miller, a media studies scholar from New York University and author of “Loser Take All: (Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008)” explains how election fraud is happening to an unprecedented level – mostly to favour the Republicans. Vote suppression is used to shrink the size of the electorate before election day, and Election Fraud is used on election day mainly through the use of electronic voting machines and systems, whose operation is opaque to all but the technical experts. No public verification of the electronic vote can take place as it can with paper votes which are counted, or recounted, by human beings. Miller gives a full explanation on this video in an interview with Bill Moyers.

One hopeful sign is that since the 2004 election the American public have become more aware of the possibility of having the election stolen again and are prepared on election day to turn out at polling stations and record evidence of polling station fraud. Video the Vote is a national initiative to protect voting rights by monitoring the electoral process and then distribute video footage to the mainstream media and online to make sure the full story of Election Day gets told.

Greg Palast, an investigative reporter and Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the lawyer son of the assassinated Attorney General have been investigating how, since before the 2004 election, people have been systematically removed from voting lists, reducing mainly the Democratic vote. They have launched a non-partisan website “Steal Back your Vote” to explain to people how people can protect themselves against these practices. They have even produced a 24 page manual in comic book format which explains how people should deal with attempts to steal their vote. It can be downloaded from his website for a minimum donation of 1 dollar.

Palast did a report for the BBC Newsnight programme which was re-broadcast on Democracy Now! It’s split into 3 on YouTube. The 3 parts of the video are below.

View / Hide Part 2 of video

View / Hide Part 3 of video

If Barack Obama’s fails to get elected, it will for me be the final nail in the coffin of American democracy. It will prove that the system which America is attempting, through war and intervention to spread throughout the globe is little better than the dictatorships oligarchies and fiefdoms it wishes to replace.

With McCain and Palin in the Whitehouse, America can only look forward to more of the same failed international and domestic policies which over 8 years of Bush have failed to improve the health and well being of so many of it’s citizens or enhance America’s standing in the World.

Update 30th October 2008: Further coverage of the flaws with the electronic voting system and vote rigging can be found on the websites of  Harvy Wasserman FreePress.org and Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Prof Greg Philo

The article below by Prof Greg Philo of the Glasgow University Media Group was originally sent to The Guardian for its comments page. The article was rejected by the Guardian on the grounds that ‘it would be read as a piece of old lefty whingeing about bias’.

The article was subsequently distributed by email with an introduction by Greg Philo in which he invited comments. Here is my own contribution.

Dear Prof. Philo,

I’m afraid I agree entirely with what you are saying. I wish I didn’t, as I’ve grown up thinking that the mainstream British media – in particular the BBC – gave me a uniquely truthful and informed view of the world. I no longer think that. I now get most of my analysis of current international affairs and politics from three Podcasts.

Democracy Now! - www.democracynow.org
(1 hour daily current affairs programme)

The Real News Network - www.therealnews.com
(several pieces a day each lasting up to 10 mins)

Bill Moyers Journal - www.pbs.org/moyers/journal
(A weekly 30 minute interview)

I download them automatically using Miro - www.getmiro.com
A free media player (Broadband required).

I find the BBC’s output far too uncritical and shallow. The “balance” it achieves is between the Government’s preferred view and that of the average self-interested middle class, middle England voter, not between the Government view and anything which could be described as “progressive” or “alternative”.

I watched Naomi Klein on Newsnight a week or so ago. Her “shock doctrine” is being played out before our eyes, yet Paxman gave her about 30 seconds per soundbite to explain her take on the financial crisis before cutting to another economist who got even less of a chance to explain himself. This format is highly un-enlightening and this, from the BBC’s “flagship” news programme!

Too much of the Today programme on Radio 4 suffers from the same “ego intervention” by presenters. I’m not sure whether they fear the listener/viewer might get bored with the interviewee, or fear not hearing their own voice for half a minute. “Dumbing down” is a much overused phrase, but in this case I believe it describes the process perfectly.

Some dedicated Radio 4 investigative and news programmes and pre-recorded extended pieces for BBC news / Panorama can be educational, but I have to hunt them down, whereas I know that the three sources above will leave me each day feeling that I have actually learned something new. For me, that’s what engaging with the media is all about.

Kind Regards,
Jeremy Clulow

The article below was originally sent to the Guardian for its comments page. It shows how public debate on political issues is narrowed on the most influential media because of the absence of critical voices ­ whether the issue is the financial crisis or world conflicts such as in Israel/Palestine. New polling evidence from YouGov and the GUMG, suggests that this is not at all what the public wants. The article was rejected by the Guardian on the grounds that ‘it would be read as a piece of old lefty whingeing about bias’.

But I think there is more at stake than this. There is a deep crisis of legitimacy both for politicians and broadcasters, in that many people do not feel properly represented. There is also great public confusion over issues such as the reasons for world conflict and the nature of the present economic crisis. Until recently there has been very little debate about the consequences of the free market policies which were promoted by political and economic elites. One consequence is that areas of public spending such as education and health are likely to be sacrificed in order to pay for the black holes in the banking system. As Naomi Klein has pointed out, the global budget crisis may be used as a rationale for deep cuts in social programmes.

At present the Conservative Party is ahead in the polls. But do voters really understand what it would mean ‘to balance the government’s books’ and ‘reduce its debt’? There is little discussion of such issues in broadcast media or of possible alternatives. Re-structuring the ownership of the economy in favour of the mass of the population is apparently off the agenda. Nationalisation has come to mean the privatisation and selling of valuable assets, while losses are socialised. We are offered various forms of the free market discussed mostly by bankers ,stockbrokers and the economic experts and politicians who have delivered the crisis. But the closure of debate will only increase public frustration and the sense that broadcasters have abandoned their duty to inform their audience.

Greg Philo
30th September 2008

More News, Less Views

News is a procession of the powerful. Watch it on TV, listen to the Today programme and marvel at the orthodoxy of views and the lack of critical voices. When the credit crunch hit, we were given a succession of bankers, stockbrokers and even hedge-fund managers to explain and say what should be done. But these were the people who had caused the problem, thinking nothing of taking £20 billion a year in city bonuses.

The solution these free market wizards agreed to, was that tax payers should stump up £50 billion (and rising) to fill up the black holes in the banking system. Where were the critical voices to say it would be a better idea to take the bonuses back? Mainstream news has sometimes a social-democratic edge. There are complaints aired about fuel poverty and the state of inner cities. But there are precious few voices making the point that the reason why there are so many poor people is because the rich have taken the bulk of the disposable wealth. The notion that the people should own the nation’s resources is close to derided on orthodox news. When Northern Rock was nationalised, TV news showed us pictures of British Leyland and the old problem ridden car industry.

Never mind that it was actually privately owned when most of the problems occurred and that company policy had been to distribute 95% of profits as dividends to shareholders, rather than to invest in new plant and machinery. This is all lost in the mists of history and what is conveyed is the vague sense that nationalisation is a “bad thing”. We showed how this affects public understanding by asking a sample of 244 young people in higher education (aged 18 ­23) about the great spate of privatizations which had taken place in the 1980s. We asked whether the industries involved had in general been profitable or unprofitable.

Actually, the major ones of gas, electricity, oil and telecommunications were both profitable and major sources of revenue to the state, but nearly 60% of the sample thought that the industries had been losing money. This is especially poignant now that energy prices are being jacked up and the foreign owners of many of these companies are not interested in passing on their windfall profits to the British people.

Countries such as China, Venezuala and even Russia keep key industries very firmly in state hands, but where are the critical voices in broadcasting here, who are given space to raise these arguments? They can be heard in the outer reaches, occasionally on Question Time, Channel 4 News or Newsnight. But is this what the population want? At the start of the Iraq war we had the normal parade of generals and military experts, but in fact, a consistent body of opinion then and since has been completely opposed to it. We asked our sample whether people such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore should be featured routinely on the news as part of a normal range of opinion. Seventy three per cent opted for this rather than wanting them on just occasionally, as at present.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is another area of great imbalance in the views that are heard. Our study of the main TV news output showed that pro-Israeli speakers were featured about twice as much as Palestinians. This year BBC News covered Israel’s ‘birthday’ of 60 years since the setting up of the state. This was of course also the anniversary of what, from the Palestinian perspective, was the great disaster when they were forced from their homes and land. Israel’s superior public relations machine meant that they set the agenda on broadcast news. The Palestinians were featured, but rather less and as a sort of afterthought. As a presenter on BBC’s Today programme put it, “Today Israel is 60 years old, and all this week we have been hearing from Israelis about what it means to them”. Quite so.

We commissioned YouGov to ask a sample of 2086 UK adults whether they thought that more coverage should be given to the Israeli point of view, or more to the Palestinians, or equal for both. Nearly twice as many people thought that the Palestinians should have the most as compared with the Israelis, but the bulk of the replies (72%) were that both should have the same. Only 5% of the population supported what the broadcasters have actually been doing in the main news output.

Politicians and broadcasters say they are worried about a growing lack of interest in politics especially amongst the young. Our work shows there is no lack of interest in lively critical debate. The problem is that a news which largely features the views of two political parties with very similar free market policies at home, and an international agenda which follows America, does not provide this.

Greg Philo
Glasgow University Media Group
3rd September 2008