BLOGDIAL : We are the best

All in all, it was not a poor programe. It was basically a re-hash of Matt Cowan's excellent NPR show, only longer.

The BBQ, due to its 'ethics' is never allowed to actually say anything, or be anything; it is like an elephantine slug that slobbers all over England without leaving a drop of slime or a single smushed building.

Imagine a programme that had as its tagline, "Is the moon a hoax, or is there really a huge orbiting object circling the earth every thirty days, creating tides, crime waves and causing dogs to howl in the night? We investigate!". This is what that programme was, essentially, and it is how many BBQ programmes are put together. They pose a question that they already know the answer to, and then ask a legion of subjectes (yes, the plural of 'subjecte') questions so that they may fall on either one or the other side of the question. This is a useful device in programme making when you want to guide the listener into and through a subject, BUT, it rules out the asking of important questions by virtue of the narrators paternal voice guiding the listener thanks to the pre determined agenda.

For example; a programme on the 'war in Iraq' would pose the question, "Were we right to go to war in Iraq, and what is the future of that country now that the elections have taken place?". A set up line of inquiry like this excludes the asking of pertinent questions like, "How is it that the country went to war on a lie and no one resigned for telling the lie and murdering innocent Iraqi people?" or, "Where is all the money coming from to execute this ongoing operation"? or, "If the will of the people was not to go 'to war' and they were right in that judgement but were flagrantly disobeyed by the government, is it not now time for a change in how democracy works so that the will of the public is obeyed in crucial decisions like this?".

Hmmmm.

And here is another example from something that is not a fait accompli; "ID cards: a bullwark against terrorists, illeglal immigrants and fraud, or a pointless excersise in burocracy and an infringement of our civil liberties?".

Now in this case, we will get trotted out all of the innapropriate talking heads, none of whom are computer literate, and of course, the presenter will be completely computer allergic, meaning that the right question cannot be asked in this or any other universe.

These two examples show how a style of programme like of this type, when it discusses something important, is like the slug I described above; a hulking thing that ultimately leaves no effect behind, no change, no information and no good, which the BBQ is meant to exist for; the public good. There is a feeling that on some level, that information has been passed, some form of 'democratic debate' or portion of 'the democratic process' has been undertaken, and that indeed, the brief of public good has been fulfilled. This is of course a lie.

Programmes like Newsnight with its recent Paxman roasting of Bliar, for example, actually do nothing at all. Bliar was roasted but remained unsinged, like the burning bush if you will. All the newspapers jumped on it, counted the number of times he failed to answer the figures question, but ultimately, no good came of it, no instruction, no crowbar of change...nothing, save the pleasurable experience watching Bliar loose his cool, but then, we get the same feeling from watching the contestants of Big Brother debase themselvs, and they dont go to war illegally and kill 100,000 people for the priveledge.

Programme making that does not have a thrust, that does not try and engineer change, that sits on this endlessly boring fence of false objectivity, that doesn't innovate, that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up is, ultimately, a failure. 'Tracking The Lincolnshire Poacher' does not fall into that category, thankfully. We still need however to be delivered programmes that have a thrust in a single direction, which are paid for by the licence fee and broadcast by the BBQ. After all, we all PAY for this 'service' and frankly, the milk blooded, limp wristed, say nothing, do nothing, grey plane white noise production values are just not cutting it. It is not what the population desperately needs.

Now for the example of what works. In the interests of balanced reporting.

'Jamie Oliver's School Dinners' was a perfect example of how a programme should be made. It had s single thrust, presented its argument, proved its point and made something happen in the real world. It conveyed real information, made people think about the core problem fully and did not dilute the issue by giving the other false 'side of the argument'.

Being objective about the mass poisoning of England's children should not be an option - ever, but if that programme had been made for BBQ (!) it would have to have been neutered in order to toe the false objectivity line, and it would indeed have said that the poisoning of children with Turkey Twizzlers was indeed one of the options, equally weighed against not poisoning children. The programme would have been fatally crippled, would have lost its thrust and ultimately been weakened so much that it couldn't possibly have made a difference.

What 'Jamie Oliver's School Dinners' shows is that it is still possible to make programmes that can change the way we live and the way things get done. It shows that these programmes can be hugely popular. There is no reason why this sort of programme should not be done on our bill - the licence fees paid by the public.

Smile: you're under global surveillance

Published Thursday 21st April 2005 10:56 GMT

A newly-published report warns that a global infrastructure of registration and surveillance is emerging through the efforts of groups such as the EU, G8 and ICAO. According to the report, which was produced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Focus on the Global South, Friends Committee (US), International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (Canada), and Statewatch, anti-terror and security measures being driven largely by the US are being used to roll back freedom, increase powers and exercise increasing control over individuals and populations.

The report details a number of "signposts" on the road to global surveillance, and argues that these add up to a bigger picture where the aim is to ensure that "almost everyone on the planet is 'registered', that all travel is tracked globally, that all electronic communications and transactions can be easily watched, and that all the information collected about individuals in public or private-sector databases is stored, linked, and made available to state agents.

Most of the signposts are already clearly visible. Registration systems for foreigners, national ID schemes and biometric passports provide the registration process, while electronic borders, passenger data sharing and threat lists cover surveillance of physical movements. The increased sharing of database and their convergence at an international level have accelerated the globalisation of surveillance and security, while mutual legal assistance arrangements contribute to an erosion of democratic values and sovereign checks and balances.

The technological capacity of the structures being built "dwarfs any previous system and makes Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four look quaint", says the report.

The result, however, will be a massive loss of freedoms in exchange for systems which do not succeed in their intended purposes, and which may even obstruct them by chasing down the blind alleys of predictive 'threat models' and risk profiling. "The initiatives described in this report are not effective in flagging terrorists or stopping their determined plans," it says. "They divert crucial resources away from the kind of investments in human intelligence we need to give us good intelligence about specific threats, rather than useless information on the nearly 100 per cent of the population that poses no threat whatsoever."

On the back of the report the groups have, with the support of around 100 civil liberties groups and NGOs world-wide, launched the International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS), which will campaign against mass surveillance-oriented anti-terrorism efforts. Commented Statewatch director Tony Bunyan: "Our message is that mandatory registration and mass surveillance are not the answers to the problem of terrorism, and not a road that any nation should be heading down. What is needed is good intelligence on specific threats - not the so-called 'risk-profiling' of entire populations and the generation of more information than can possibly be usefully analysed. There is a real danger that in trying to watch everyone you are actually watching no-one." ® [...]

The words sound like old style paranoia, but it is all true, and will come to pass if everyone registers. If no one registers, then none of this can happen. Commerce is more important than this, and if commerce is distupted by people refusing to travel, for example, these measures will be dropped immediately.

If an airline has all of its bookings cancelled for one month, it will not be able to survive - it will go out of business. People who are against registration if they want to stop what is happening simply need to boycott a single airline for 30 days as a show of power. As a result, that airline will cease to exist. The message will have been sent; "we will not go along with this in any way shape or form.: