Recently we have been hearing that there will be three live debates, featuring the three main political party leaders in the UK, broadcast live on TV, before the election day coming up this year (currently widely assumed to be May 6th).
The idea is based upon the similar American debates that happen on the other side of the Atlantic – and usually, a political strategy that has crossed the pond to us usually has me worried. But not this one…
To sum up for those who don’t know, here is a short quote about the debates from a Guardian news article:
The first programme, to be presented by ITN’s Alastair Stewart, will cover domestic affairs and come from the north-west. The second show, presented by Sky’s Adam Boulton, will cover foreign affairs and come from the south-west. The third, presented by the BBC’s David Dimbleby, will cover the economy – seen as the most important election issue – and will be broadcast from the Midlands.
And here are my main opinions:
Firstly, the three debates are on three different broadcasters (starting with ITV1, followed by Sky News, and lastly the BBC), meaning there can be no ‘blame’ or ‘bias’ to a single broadcaster or host for a single show. I know it’s against broadcasting law to be politically bias, not just for the BBC, but for all channels in the UK, but I suspect Sky News will show their true right wing colours at some point… or maybe thats just me.
I am also interested to see that none of the three debates will be held in London, but in varying locations across the country. I would like to see at least one set somewhere in the countryside, so people who don’t live in urban areas (which makes up rather a large proportion of the UK’s population) feel their opinions are heard.
Which party will benefit most? For me, the Lib Dems. As mentioned on a Question Time debate a few days ago, the Lib Dems will be on the same level or debate as both the Tories and Labour. I suspect that a larger proportion of the mainstream public will change their viewpoints to the Lib Dems.
I am also glad to see some of the ’strict’ rules put in place for the debates’ format. One that particularly grabbed my eye was the rule that the audience may not applaud during the live debate, and will only do so at the beginning at the end of the show. By not applauding, TV audiences will not be influenced to what the party leaders say based upon what the studio audience thinks. That to me, is a good thing, as the public needs to make their own mind up.
I am, however, not happy at the reaction given by some of the smaller parties, such like The Green Party, UKIP, the SNP, etc. The thing is, these live debates are for the mainstream, large parties, which are their to promote a future prime minister, not to reinforce opinions of local MP’s – which is what these smaller parties need. Plus, the SNP and Plaid Cymru can bugger off, their policies have nothing to do with me living in England – don’t you dare say that their opinions need to be heard throughout the UK!
So, finally – my political opinion? Well, as I have made it clear before, I am more of a right-wing person, but I will promise myself to base my political opinion solely on the outcome of these debates… this should be interesting!
Call me a sceptic, but I personally believe that climate change and global warming as it is known today is highly exaggerated, and not caused by human actions, such as CO2 emissions.
This belief of mine is based upon the continual unreliable data that is used to influence public opinion.
Image: Guardian.co.uk. This is the professor, who has now resigned, who was at the centre of the 'climate-gate' scandal.
Below is a quote from the Guardian newspaper, regarding the recent “Climate-Gate” email scandal, last November, at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. It reads…
Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.
and further on in the article, it states that:
In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.“
…this being reference to the declining of global temperatures – essentially meaning these folks FIXED the data they found.
I’m sorry, but the way I see it is that all scientific data should be peer-reviewed before being let out to public domain, but if there was a conspiracy of mis-information – how can we believe anything that is being said is actually fact!? It turns out that the CRU at this university supplies data and climate statistics to both the Met Office and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… which are apparently the two “most reliable sources of climate data” – well, not anymore.
I will admit that this email was dated over 10 years ago now, but below is a quote from another article I found, this time at BBC News, entitled “What happened to Global Warming?“:
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
These were results from an impartial and independent BBC investigation in October last year.
My question is how the world is meant to respond to these claims, and that “global warming”, could, in actual fact be a worldwide inter-governmental conspiracy plot.
Take a look at the screen shots below of headers of the most popular newspaper websites here in the UK. 4 broadsheets, and 4 tabloids. See if you notice any difference between the two… and i’ve added some arrows and circles to help you on the tabloid screen shots.
By next June, when the next general election is to be held (or before then), I will have not reached my 18th birthday, and as a result will not be able to vote… I’ll be 17 years and 11 months. Great. Thankfully, I’ll not have to worry about who I would vote for next year… but it makes me wonder who I would vote for if coincidentally, my parents timed their night in just a month or two earlier.
While I like, and I am very supportive of the new features and design changes you bring to the community, the latest bunch of changes have had me very puzzled, and consequently annoyed.
I have never really liked the “Live Feed” idea, and in my mind it is just messy. Therefore I was happy to have it hidden away in the previous design. Now, however, I get awfully confused when sometimes I click on the “Home” button whilst logged in and it takes to one or the other (and not the last page I had previously been on) of either the much nicer, clearer and customisable News Feed, or the slow, irritating and cluttered Live Feed.
To be honest, and I will admit, this is not massively annoying, one click and it will take me back to my preferred News Feed. But WHY, have you – intentionally or not – COMPLETELY messed up my News Feed!?!? WHY!? Items that should be in the live feed are apparent… Items or types of updates I had previously hidden, are now appearing… and most of all – everything is out of order.
On Thursday, 8 million people tuned in to watch Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP), ramble on about some useless twaddle about how Britain needs to remain British. I watched the programme, and thought it was fantastic; the debate was very interesting, and I loved watching Griffin squirm as he couldn’t give an answer to anything respectable.
Today I stumbled across this blog post, by a guy named Gary Hayes, and he has put together this fantastic flash embed widget that shows how more dependent social media is becoming around the world. Check it out:
Hey folks. From here on, look out for a new series of posts called “Oh, the Delicious Irony…”, in which I will be covering news topics that are just so unbelievably ironic, you may as well think i’m making these stories up.
——
During the summer, we had a big swine flu outbreak, as we all know. Even I, suffered from the virus. During this period, the UK government and the NHS made a few broadcasting and print based adverts for swine flu. Here, take a look:
Well, at the beginning of August, the Daily Mail published an article that confirmed the actor in the blu jacket, David McCusker, had caught, and then suffered from swine flu, himself.
Now, I know you are all saying that he, like everyone, is just as susceptible to the virus as anyone else… but, come on… If he was IN THE ADVERT, as a PAID ACTOR, SURELY he would know how not to catch the virus…. SURELY!?
A few posts ago, I wrote about how I favoured the Guardian news website against rivals, but today I stumbled across something that really rather annoyed me (for you folks outside the UK, you probably won’t understand this post, sorry.).
On the front page of all the major news websites, right now at about 9.30pm, there’s some story about the war, politics or something like that… but not The Guardian. The lead story here is about how, according to a survey, the Great British public support the BBC as a public corporation. Great news none the less, and this post is not a contest of that – but there findings are a bit interesting.
First, this all kicked off when James Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation in Europe attacked the BBC, and this was at a keynote speech at the Edinburgh TV festival last weekend – an event sponsored and broadcasted by the Guardian Media Group. The next few days saw the reaction to this, and the poll, published by the company ICM, that the article refers to was introduced… great, but hang about… is this not a company heavily influenced by the Guardian Media Group as well? Oh yeah, I didn’t mention, the poll was also hosted on, and only on, the Guardian website. Great.
Some of you may be thinking what’s the problem with this. Well, the average reader for the Guardian newspaper is slightly left-wing… meaning they support public companies and object to privatisation. See where I’m going? Oh yeah, the BBC is one of those companies.
That’s right. By that line of thinking, everyone who actually visited the website and voted was heavily influenced already! Independent survey!? Bollocks to that! I would imagine had the survery been hosted on the Times Online website… or the Telegraph website, the results would be much different.
On a day-to-day basis, I, and I’m sure many others of you do too, read the news. I commonly read mine online, brought forward to me either by RSS feeds or Twitter feeds – or by looking at my Safari homepage, currently set to Guardian.co.uk.
If you know me personally, you will know how much of a picky person I am, and here I will tell you why I picked the Guardian for my homepage out of all the other news sites to compare. I hve compared the layout of The Guardian to two other media sources; the BBC and The Times.
BBC News Online
I have always been a supporter of the BBC, and I shall say that for specific news stories, I read the BBC News online articles by choice. However, I dislike the BBC Homepage. Firstly, the whole thing just looks crammed in my opinion. I dislike the way that those eight ‘other top stories’ on the right don’t even get a description… and compare this to the ‘also in the news’ section and the ‘video and audio news’ section which have far less important stories, but are granted a thumbnail. Don’t get me wrong, the content on the BBC is great – but the layout and the homepage… not so.
Times Online
I rarely use the Times Online website, which is strange for me considering the Times is my favourite newspaper. Strange right? Well, I don’t read the online articles out of choice, nor is it set to my homepage, nor do I have any Times-related RSS feeds or updates of any sort. However, I thought I’d bung it in for comparison. I do rather like the layout, though see that big white space above the logo… yeah, thats a big banner ad – thankfully it’s not showing as I have an ad-blocker plug-in installed. Also see that space in the bottom right, yeah, that’s an ad too. I know companies like Times Online have to make money somehow, but I honestly hate large obtrusive adverts. Then there’s just the general feel of Times Online, it just looks… bland, plain, boring. Compare it to the Guardian, below, which makes better use of colour. And then, the layout, it hosts the biggest crime of all. When I’m scrolled to the top, excluding the ‘most read’ box, I can only see a maximum of 4 news stories. Just 4.
The Guardian
And then we have the Guardian, my current favourite. The page is vibrant and attractive, unlike The Times it is colourful and mildly exciting – and I can see more than just 4 stories! There are no obtrusive ads, and the column on the right is small and out the way in my opinion.
And then, finally, as it’s worth a mention – the Media Guardian section is fantastic and hosts great content – one of the real great reasons why I use The Guardian for online news reading.
My name is Moggy, and I moan. My interests are web design, graphic design, technology, Apple products, politics, media and geography. Plus a few other random things.
I hope you enjoy all my posts. If you do, why not pass the word onto a friend, leave a comment, subscribe to the RSS, or even get in touch with me?
Lots of love all you gorgeous people!
Mogs
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Recent Comments