´óÏó´«Ã½

The Glass Box for Thursday

Comments

1. At 05:03 PM on 19 Jul 2007, wrote:

   on the issue of trust and integrity, I have suspected for a long time that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was favouring Labour as opposed to the Conservatives in its reporting. So the relavations of the last few days and weeks have not been a suprise. It has just confirmed what I had long thought. This is a pity because the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was a lifeline to me overseas for 25 years and always belived them to be the best.

2. At 05:17 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Amen Andrews wrote:

   Michael@1)

   How often do you listen to Radio 4 news? David Davis has got his own chair in the S1 studio. Hence my 'phone bill....

3. At 05:32 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Penrose Feast wrote:

   RE: Jacqui Spliff...

   The Home Secretary's admissions today seem only one rung up the ladder of inadequate excuses than Bill Clinton's claim to have 'not inhaled!'

   Politicians, as society's, view on drugs is completely hypocritical.

   There seems to be no problem if people wish to dramatically alter the delicate balance of their brain chemistry by imbibing potent and addictive compounds - as long as those compounds are labelled alcohol, nicotine or caffeine.

   Other compounds are considered not OK, or 'wrong' as the Home Secretary said today.

   Politicians, and wider society, need to engage with the whole ideas, effects, status and role of 'drugs' in society, as the current prohibitive approach to certain compounds, while positively encouraging others, really is not working - and sends a confusing mixed message to young and old alike.

   Just a thought....

4. At 05:45 PM on 19 Jul 2007, alice hudson wrote:

   Eddie,

   Nobody could make up some of the stuff you tell us!!

   AH

5. At 05:45 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Ian Rowley wrote:

   Please stop covering the politicians who smoked cannabis. The only people interested are yourselves.

   Journalistists seem to see the mundane as sensational - surprisingly it isn't.

   Please can we have coverage on the impact of Birtism on trust and honesty at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the reasons for phone in scams. Could it be driving down cost and the quest for World Class Excellence and other such Birtisms.

   Oh No. We can't hear this because its hidden behind a cloud of smoke - Oh, its cannabis smoke!
   

6. At 05:50 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Gideon wrote:

   re politicians and cannabis at university.

   I'm not worried about what politicians were doing years ago. Many people have done things in their youth that they come to realize the harm of only later in life. I think the idea that a politician can't admit doing something like taking cannabis even years afterwards could only lead to more deceit in politics - the very thing that people despise the most.

   The important thing is that everyone now realizes the danger for themselves and others of things like cannabis psychosis and that with skunk the drug itself is even more harmful than when these politicians were experimenting with it.

7. At 05:52 PM on 19 Jul 2007, E Lister wrote:

   How I agree with michael ogden. No suspension was given to James Naughtie for revealing his partial views during the run up to the last elections - referring to Labour as "us". Or Andrew Marr for that matter saying that things were "Worse" than was expected, for Labour of course, not Conservatives or the weather! The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has a long way to go for impartiality in it's reporting and to be regarded as honest as it once was but I am not holding my breath!

8. At 05:53 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Audrey Frost wrote:

   I felt it was inappropriate to use the words 'chucked out' in the headline about the expulsion of the diplomats. To use them in the headlines undermines the importance and seriousness of the news item. They may be appropriate in the discussions but not the headlines

9. At 05:58 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Derek Winslow wrote:

   Potential authors might present a more impressive argument if you were to edit out the NINE uses of the word 'basically.' Or would that be deceiving the audience?

10. At 06:16 PM on 19 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Pretty good programme, overall. Jane Austen was a bit of a non-story, though. All aspiring writers know that (a) we don't have to send stuff to publishers, and (b) they don't have to read it if we do. They don't even have to pretend to read it.

    Sid (aspiring writer)

11. At 06:22 PM on 19 Jul 2007, huw saunders wrote:

    After having fun making politicians squirm over cannabis I'm sure Eddie Mair would be willing to tell us whether he has smoked it. I have come to expect such cheerful honesty from him; its the kind of thing that makes PM a much better programme than it used to be.

12. At 06:49 PM on 19 Jul 2007, P Jones wrote:

    So the ´óÏó´«Ã½ got caught being dishonest! If anyone did that in any other job which was funded by Public money they would be SACKED not sent on a training course (which costs more money) Why is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ full of dishonest people - After all the DG is sending everyone on an honesty course - so he must think everyone who works for him is dishonest - Not a nice working environment for the people who do do an honest days work to provide us with good quality programmes. Was one of the items - The Queen Video - not made by an outside firm. How is the DG getting them to sit his honesty exam? Who is paying for all this and how will it affect my TV and Radio? Stop giving control of your programmes to outsiders and high fliers and make your programmes yourselves and keep control. Stop wasting time and money and get on with what you do best - being a Public Service Broadcaster.

    P. Jones

13. At 07:12 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Ian Baldwin wrote:

    Is this proof that Cannabis leads to a stronger drug - Power ?

14. At 08:04 PM on 19 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Ian (13),

    
    ;-)
    ed

15. At 08:05 PM on 19 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Ian (13),

    And a far more addictive one!

    
    ;-)
    ed

16. At 08:35 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Markham Weavill wrote:

    Audrey (8)

    I could not agree more about using the term "chucked out". It clashed horribly with the other sentences and phrases around it. Is Eddie now taking over the scripting and producing from those who've been sent on suspension?

    As for the non story about Cabinet Ministers having a spliff in their university years. I do wish the media "feral beasts" would grow up and treat their audience as adults who have been there, done that and survived to find the subject boring and of no consequence to how effective a Minister is. By all means attack them for their current incompetence but please remember it was only yesterday that the true incompetence of the current ´óÏó´«Ã½ management had the spotlight shone on it.

17. At 09:55 PM on 19 Jul 2007, alan bennett wrote:

    I wish the presenters would stop using the word 'crime' inappropriately. Crime is not a quantity, it cannot rise or fall. The number of crimes may rise, or the number of reported crimes, or even the amount of crime, but crime itself cannot rise or fall. I know it is used as a shorthand but it is unnecessary and very annoying as it is another example of the 'dumbing down' of reporting on radio 4. And please do not substitute 'crime statistics' as crime statistics also cannot rise or fall.

18. At 10:34 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    P Jones wrote @12:

    "So the ´óÏó´«Ã½ got caught being dishonest! If anyone did that in any other job which was funded by Public money they would be SACKED not sent on a training course (which costs more money)"

    Unless they happened to be the Home Secretary, in which case stealing money from the public purse to pay for one's mistress to travel first class on a train is conveniently forgotten by a Prime Minister who "has every confidence in" said thief.

    The sum involved was more than a single mother at the time was getting on the dole to live on for a week, as far as I remember. Let's not even think about thousand quid handbags being chewed by the dog, eh, or where the money for that little bauble came from...

    Pah!

19. At 10:40 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Austin Spreadbury wrote:

    Yet another item accepting unquestioningly the link between the warming of the climate and carbon dioxide emissions. It would be nice if just occasionally the form of words you used acknowledged that this is just a theory (albeit one with quite a weight of opinion behind it) and that a large number of experts dispute it vigorously. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has extensive "form" on this.

20. At 11:07 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Audrey Frost/Markham Weavill, are you having a larf???

21. At 11:20 PM on 19 Jul 2007, David Bull wrote:

    Your report on polution from ships was as usual totally incorrect. Hundreds of Millions of £ are being spent on reduction of greenhouse gasses and polutants from Marine Diesel Engines.
    The IMO controls the emissions using MARPOL regulations. (Annnex VI has been in force for 7 years and new regulations to further limit emissions are currently being discussed)
    Shipping may account for significant polution but it is by far the least poluting per tonne carried per mile.
    Modern Marine diesels do NOT polute the world they cleanly and efficiently dispose of waste product remaining from the refining process producing the fuel and oil used in cars, lorries and aircraft.
    The environmental cost of transportation is a complex subject and should be treated by someone who has a real depth experience of the marine industry.

22. At 11:45 PM on 19 Jul 2007, Tim wrote:

    Chris Ghoti.

    So it's acceptable for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to act dishonestly because a politician had a mistress in the past.

    Either you are an apologist for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (one of many) or you are incapable of dealing with one item on it's own merits.

23. At 12:16 AM on 20 Jul 2007, jeannette wrote:

    If single parents are going to be forced to start looking for a job once their youngest child turns seven maybe it would be a good idea to penalise families who have 2+ children when in receipt of long term benefits.

    
    Those single parents who cannot find work face the prospect of being placed in workfare schemes. For those single parents who have had limited opportunities for education, have no employment prospects and are in the uneviable position of being poor the only way forward might be to have more children.

    
    

24. At 01:24 AM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    I have always supported the ´óÏó´«Ã½. In fact I would, until recently, have been willing to sell my house and all it's contents to support the corporation.

    Tonight was the last straw.

    I overheard a promotion, trail, clearly the voice of someone who sounded very similar to Ronnie Corbett trying to impersonate Fi Glover!

    This is another prime example of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ attempting to hoodwink us. I believe that Ms Glover had already been sacked by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for petty theft? If my memory serves me, she was sacked some Months back for thieveing stationary from a ´óÏó´«Ã½ office desk?

    Why then, is she still allowed to broadcast - under the mask of Ronnie Corbett?

    More lies from what was once a trusted organization?

    Mr Mair - As a respected (some would say) member of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - please stop and think.

    Then question ..

    What would Lord Reith have made of it all?

25. At 06:28 AM on 20 Jul 2007, Eloise Pasteur wrote:

    RE: Cannabis - you know, although I'm not a pot head, I think less of the politicians who haven't ever tried it than those that have.

    If they'd been addicted, that would be a different matter, but even smoking most of their way through University, so what?

    RE: ´óÏó´«Ã½ "Scandal" - One of the guests on This Week last night suggested the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should make a documentary about editing tricks in use in making TV, and tie that in to the current interest in ethics in broadcasting and the audience.

    The ´óÏó´«Ã½ messed up in a small number of (admittedly rather massive) shows. OK, we all do, sometimes. If it was systemic, that would be far more worrying.

    Tell the audience - you know what, we're much more likely to cope with that, and showing us what tricks are used in news and live broadcasts won't hurt at all - look at how popular shows like Dr. Who Confidential and the various "Making of..." shows are. Look at how popular this blog is - it's a kind of "making of PM"

26. At 09:24 AM on 20 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Tim @ 22, my comment was a direct response to the suggestion made by P. Jones @ 12, that if any public servant other than a member of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ behaved dishonestly he or she would be sacked. I gave a counter-example of an unsacked dishonest public servant.

    It is sometimes hard to remember that politicians are supposed to be public servants, but that is the theory.

    I don't in fact give a tuppenny stuff about it having been a mistress for whom he stole, nor do I care with whom or with what a politician gets his jollies (so long as he doesn't expect me to become involved). If the man had stolen your money and mine to pay for his wife or his sister to travel at our expense the fact of theft would have been the same. It happens to have been for a mistress, so I said so.

    I've been out of the country and ignoring the British news for ten days, so I don't know which venial little twerp is accused of what at the ´óÏó´«Ã½, nor do I care all that much about that either...

    Hey, maybe when you accuse me of being 'an apologist for the ´óÏó´«Ã½' you are demonstrating that 'you are incapable of dealing with one item on it's own merits.'

    I was dealing with one item on its DEmerits, actually, but what the hey. Pointing out that something is wrong doesn't mean that something else is right, you know: it is possible for two things to be wrong both at the same time. Some people cannot grasp that difficult idea, though.

27. At 10:10 AM on 20 Jul 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Austin (19), it really is not the case that large numbers of reputable scientists now question the link between human activity and climate change. If you are interested in a discussion of, for example the mistakes made by David Bellamy, and the deliberate obfuscation of the issues by the oil industry and others, I can recommend George Monbiot's recent book 'Heat'.

    Of course the issues are complex, but if human activity is responsible for climate change then we can do something about it . Is this not preferable to saying that we are powerless and the human race is doomed ?

28. At 10:34 AM on 20 Jul 2007, Gerrof Moyland wrote:

    Dear Sir, Thank you for your timely report on the historical misdemeanors of those who now wield such power in our govt. A close friend recently confided that her own child had expressed an interest in seeking a position at Oxford University studying "English Literature". In the light of recent disclosures we have, of course informed the local authorities and have assured our good friend that she can rely on our total support in what must be a difficult time.

29. At 11:04 AM on 20 Jul 2007, skirm wrote:

    Re: Interview Yuri Fedetov.

    Good balance. There seemed to be little objectivity in Mr Fedetov's position although his command of diplomatic English is impressive. EM's dissection of his logic was very sharp. It did seem a little unfair, however to use the same technique on Mark Pritchard who seemed to retire behind a screen of bullspeak almost immediately. Cheers, guys.

30. At 11:17 AM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Politicians are a weird species – they believe that they become an overnight expert on any subject if they are given a position in the government - yet they admit that they matured at a far slower rate than any normal human being!

31. At 11:19 AM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Can we now expect random drug testing during cabinet meetings?

32. At 12:14 PM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Austin (19),
    "that this is just a theory .... and that a large number of experts dispute it vigorously."
    

    
    ... no one ever considers himself if he really knows his job. A man who knows a job sees so much more to be done than he has done, that he is always pressing forward and never gives up an instant of thought to how good and how efficient he is. Thinking always ahead, thinking always of trying to do more, brings a state of mind in which nothing is impossible. The moment one gets into the "expert" state of mind a great number of things become impossible.
    --- Henry Ford Sr., "My Life and Work."
    

    
    xx
    ed

33. At 12:28 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Ed (31), Henry Ford as a role model???

34. At 12:47 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Al wrote:

    A bit late I'm afraid with this comment, but what a fantastic feature the other night on the man who donated his kidney to his friend. Very moving and so refreshing to hear of a good deed being done for no other reason than his friend's life would be improved.

35. At 12:55 PM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Appy,

    Not particularly, but we used to roll around in a model A in Canada. The only thing on the roads during the Spring Thaw...

    Just liked the ex-spurt comment.

    xx
    ed

36. At 01:02 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Ed @ 31, it may have been Isaac Asimov who said something along the lines "if a scientist says that something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong; if he says it might be possible, he is almost certainly right."

    I think he was talking about future invention or discovery types of speculation rather than understanding of present conditions and problems, but it does seem to go along with not being so much of an "expert" as to close one's mind to possibilities one hasn't already encountered.

37. At 01:26 PM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Appy,

    I did try to say we had to roll model A out in the muddy Spring thaws in Ontario.

    xx
    ed

38. At 01:35 PM on 20 Jul 2007, simon perry wrote:

    With regard to the latest 'dishonesty' revelations at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ isn't it time we viewers got together and withheld our license fees from what is clearly an organisation with no regard for the mugs who stump up for it and headed by a D.G who responded pathetically to Eddie Mair's rigorous interview on Wednesday's PM.
    We get no choice in the content of the output much of which has been dumbed down to base level in order it seems to compete with the trash put out by the other commercial channels. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be far above this as used to be the case.
    In my opinion the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not accountable for the huge budget it enjoys and for a start could replace some of the so-called big name celebrities (whatever that means) who receive obscene salaries for providing talentless drivel or sexual inuendo as an alternative to genuine talented entertainment.
    No other organisation would enjoy continued financial backing for failing in it's remit.

39. At 01:38 PM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Now, Am I mistaken, or was Fi Glover not fired due to petty pilfering of stationary from and around her desk.

    Yet!

    On the worst week the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has had in ages, we have a trail going out which is voiced by Ronnie Corbett - claiming to be FI Glover!

    It's all lies

    Damned lies!

40. At 02:04 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Hmm, Ed I in agreement with the father of the modern production line and thus theif of craftsmanship did rather jar... but I see the attraction of the quotation. I suppse it depends how one defines an expert -- I tend to think of them simply as those who used to be pert ;-)

41. At 02:26 PM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Appy,

    Actually, it wasn't Ford whose thinking lay behind the production line, but one Frederick Winslow Taylor:
    

    : Master of Scientific Management
    
    Frederick Winslow Taylor is a controversial figure in management history. His innovations in industrial engineering, particularly in time and motion studies, paid off in dramatic improvements in productivity. At the same time, he has been credited with destroying the soul of work, of dehumanizing factories, making men into automatons.....

    xx
    ed

42. At 02:45 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    How one defines an expert:

    expert, n. a has-been drip under pressure.

    (spell it ex-spurt)

43. At 03:10 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Eloise Twisk (editor of Thurs PM) wrote:

    Thanks for all the comments. We had a tricky day yesterday, waiting all afternoon for a big foreign policy speech from David Miliband, only to discover at 4.30 that it was rather dull and not worth the six minutes we'd left for it in the programme. Eddie was right we could probably have worked that out sooner. Can you guess the items slotted in at the last minute? (and that's not a competition...) We were bewildered by cannabis revelations coming out all day and weren't sure if we could take another 'does this matter' discussion, so we just told the story of what had happened during the day and left it at that. Glad you enjoyed the discussion about kidney donations last week (Al - 33) - I'm sure Andy will keep us updated via the blog. Eloise

44. At 04:39 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Ed (40), Taylorism and Fordism were roughly contemporaeneous, and, although not exactly the same, are often used as interchangeable terms outside of there academic sphere. It was Ford who was first to introduce the assembly line right across his production plants and Fordism superceded much of Taylorism in Europe a few years later, hence Ford being charged with the theft of craftsmanship by post-fordists and later movements. If you want to read more about Fordism itself Huw Beynon's famous study "Working for Ford" is a good place to start.

45. At 04:59 PM on 20 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Appy,

    Touché! ;-)

    Not a fan of either.
    xx

    But abusive, malicious and premature!

46. At 07:53 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Simon wrote:

    Dear Eddie

    Thank you as always for enlivening my drive home.

    I would like to comment on your piece about junior doctors starting today. The fact that there was little obvious crisis is solely due to the fact that large numbers of hospital staff have been working their socks off over the past couple of months to try and undo the chaos, idiocy, spin and buck passing of the Department of Health and the Secretary of State. In is in spite of them not because of them that hospitals have been able to get some semblance of order out of this fiasco.

    The aftershocks of this debacle will ripple along way as the government and the incompetent Hewitt have destroyed the trust and confidence of a whole generation of clinicians. I can well understand their bitterness and frustration.

    This has been one of the biggest fiascos I can remember in my 15 years in the NHS and surely Hewitt has to have been one of our very worst health secretaries in living memory