Tuesday 24 July 2018

Deeply Misleading Impressions, aka Total Bollocks

Remember how Miliband used to conjure up helpful members of the public in his speeches?

"I met a man in my constituency the other day", he would say, "in MacDonalds, you know, and he said to me 'Ed, obviously you're the best leader the Labour Party has ever had, and a really clever bloke - but somehow people get the wrong end of the stick when you're trying to you get your message across and so it makes you look as though you're useless, even though we all know your policies are really brilliant, particularly that energy price freeze'."

That sort of thing.  Really, really credible.

Well.  At the weekend in our BTL discussion on freedom of the press, the name of IMPRESS came up in a comment from our good friend Radders.  As it happens I'd just been reading a particularly self-serving piece about IMPRESS by one Jonathan Heawood, its chief exec.  Here's an extract**. 
It's a pity that the only thing some people know about Impress is that we are linked to Max Mosley.  I got talking recently to someone who asked me what I did for a living.  "Press regulation," I said.  "Oh yes?" he said, brightly.  "There are two regulators these days, aren't there?  Which one are you with — the one that's run by the motor-racing chap?"  "You mean Max Mosley?" "That's the fellow. " "Well, yes, I'm with Impress. And yes, it's supported by a charity that's funded by Max Mosley's family trust, but actually I run it."  "Oh. Not Mosley?"  "No. He doesn't have anything to do with it."  He was surprised. Not particularly bothered (he had nothing against Mosley; in fact, he admired him for the stand he had taken against newspaper intrusion), but surprised.  He was familiar enough with the issue to know that there were two press regulators in the UK, but innocent enough to believe that one of those regulators was run by Mosley.  He is not alone.  Most news about Impress is published by newspapers whose owners have a vested interest in our failure.  As a result, we move through a fog of misinformation.
Don't you just love "in fact, he admired him"?  What a nice touch.

I think I can safely say, I don't believe a word of that.  Just my opinion, mind.  And I've probably been befuddled by all that, errr, fog.

** British Journalism Review, June 2018 


Electro-Kevin said...

"...run by the motor-racing chap ?" That's the point when I smelt bullshit. There's something he's even more famous for - fnarr fnarr.

Bernie said...

Yep. Anyone who knows that Max Moseley used to be involved in F1 would know his name.

andrew said...

As Oswald's auntie might have said

all rather non u

Raedwald said...

Most normal people might have asked ".. run by the deviant bondage sex-with-prossies chap?"

The sight of him trussed up naked like a turkey with his old chap strapped and leashed like a packet of giblets is not a picture I can ever erase from my mind.

Anonymous said...

Still, at least responsible media know what to report and emphasise, and what NOT to report at all.

Just looking at BBC News North America page, featuring Trump as ever, and this.


"Police have yet to establish a motive for the attack. Officials said it was unclear if race played a role in the shooting. Cowell is white and the women he is accused of stabbing are black."

This story - three people macing a young mother, taking her baby and then burning it to death, seems newsworthy - but not to the BBC. Wrong perps, wrong victim. Shades of Stephen Lawrence vs Kriss Donald.