Some mainstream media blogs are usually worth reading.  I like the Telegraph’s blog network - the content is thick and fast, but posts are always refreshingly short.  A good balance.  Until this kind of rubbish finds its way onto their webspace.

I am sure Melissa Kite is a journalist of merit (although I can’t say I have every been overwhelmed by one of her articles), but her comment on David Cameron’s suggestions of alcohol leave a lot to be desired.  In an informal atmosphere, Cameron was hypothesising on the role of alcohol in the home - namely that if people drink sensibly in the home, they tend not to drink stupidly outdoors.  The continental model.  It is a common line of thought, and deserves consideration.  To rubbish it as a principle because some deliberately silly hypothetical central government project to promote drinking at home would clearly not work is shoddy journalism.  It is no way to make an argument, even if it is via a blog.

The longer the media take the attitude “I wouldn’t write this for the print media, but it’s fine for the blog”, the longer it will take for them to catch up with the wider blogosphere.

For what it’s worth, I think the cultural attitude to alcohol goes much deeper than whether or not people drink small quantities at home from a reasonably young age, but this is a reasonable approach to take with one’s own kids.  One things I can agree with Melissa Kite on, despite her chronic approach to argument, is that any state attempt to encourage this sensible behaviour would be impossible and equally undesirable.

We’ve been rather behind on this one. Originally, I’d ignored the whole fuss as another tabloid celebrity sales-orgy - until this excellent post by Jim Jepps. So, time to rectify my silence, I think.

It’s not a matter of free speech, as the News of the World claims. Very few claim that the paper shouldn’t be allowed to publish the story - if it’s true. What’s at stake here is privacy; which, as usual, the paper has very little respect for. To infiltrate someone’s house (or £35,000 dungeon, as the case may be…) and film them without permission represents a blatant invasion of that individual’s private space.

Nor does the story fall in the category of public interest usually used to justify such invasions. What an individual does behind closed doors, in private, is just that - a private activity. If that private activity happens to involve whips, chains and dangling pricks, then who else can judge? There’s little evidence to suggest that Mosley’s particular private predeliction affected his performance in public. And so, little evidence to suggest either the public or his employers had a desperate need to know of it.

Indeed, the fact Mosley can afford his £35,000 private spanking parlour perhaps suggests he’s doing perfectly well in his job, thankyouverymuch. (And, of course, that income tax isn’t progressive enough yet…)

So it’s not a matter of free speech or public interest - which is what’s concerning. The direction of media coverage throughout the case has been a tad depressing. As Hari asks - hadn’t we got over this sort of thing? Most people manage a, “none-of-my-business” shrug for an increasing number of sexual preferences. Why not BDSM? And, likewise, the very possible (and probably more relevant) discussion that could be had on prostitution has been conspicuously absent.

A very interesting discussion (which, unfortunately, I don’t have time to engage in tonight. Should do at some point though…) could be had on the ethics of power exchange in sex. I imagine the very phrase would have as a divisive an effect on a crowd of feminists as pornography. Is it a simple projection of patriarchal power structures, or a matter of sexual freedom? Or, indeed, possibly both at different times, in different circumstances…

But, of course, the real world finds itself stuck with a tabloid induced celebrity sales-orgy. Could there be an apter demonstration of the internet’s superiority that the contrast between the wood-pulp mush and Jim’s post?

Something has happened to the Torygraph. It should be a comforting bastion of reactionary idiocy; a pompous rag to lampoon mercilessly. And yet - note the author of this.

Not a Thatcherite.

I trust it’s a momentary lapse. Else, the world will be set out of kilter and the seas shall rise and Labour will win a 4th term…

According to a source knowledgable concerning such matters the next few years shall be especially interesting ones for London media:

It would seem that Boris intends to ban the evening papers due to them generating too much mess and hassle. Exactly how likely this actually is to occur is uncertain owing to us not being certain whether it is actually his idea (seemingly those that aren’t get priority, perhaps that’s for the best) and how likely it is merely another “Release the River Fleet” is unclear.

Assuming, however, that he does do as much this would annoy Murdoch but relieve the Daily Mail group. This is because The London Paper runs at a mild loss while The London Lite runs at a major one. The former exists to establish itself as its own brand, however, while the latter exists only to serve as a challenger to ensure that the Paper can not, as well as a flimsy and rather poor grade advert to the slightly less low quality Evening Standard. To be honest this shows; the Lite is little more than an even more awful of the Standard and accordingly is truly dire.

However, if what has been claimed will come to pass does then it will have served its function. With The London Paper no longer in existence the Lite could be shut down quite happily, and would in fact save the DMG a good deal of cash. In short, mutual destruction suits them just find.

Less pleasing for them is the woe which The Evening Standard has encountered. Admittedely a fair proportion of this must be due to the free dailies but the newspaper being well to the right of the average Londoner {the only socialist writer they have is a neo-conservative chap so loathsome I won’t even honour with a naming} and also of very low content quality and production values.

{You may well note that it tried to suspend reality by claiming to be a “Quality newspaper”. I find this the height of irony as every newspaper possesses “Quality”, be it high/good quality or low/bad quality. It is rather akin to saying that a film “Contains language”, only more inane because they are trying to assert themselves as a valauble product while displaying that the editor is incapable of using the English language properly.}

But regardless of my view of the rag the numbers suggest that it will be gone in five years. I find this news pleasing but I’m not sure if I can wait that long. Of interest is that this will leave the DMG in control of a pair of outfits, one The Daily Fail and the other The Fail on Sunday. This will seemingly seriously curtail their influence, albeit after the 2012 election, where they will receive one last chance to offer hard-line support for the right.

There is a chance, of course, that this Boris ban turns out to be just another lie {see: amnesty for immigrants} and that the sales of the Evening Standard pick up {doubtful} but this certainly creates an interesting vision for the future. Not to mention a pleasing one; few of the downfalls would I regret. It would only be a pity to see the only paper Murdoch has failed in ruining outlawed.

It’s a few days old - but if you haven’t seen Johann Hari’s piece on Section 28, it’s well worth the read. It must be some of his best writing in a while:

Let’s end with the story of one boy – one of many – who paid the price for Section 28’s stalling. Jonathan Reynolds was a 15 year-old from Bridgend, South Wales, who came out to some of his closest friends in 2006. They blabbed – and he was bullied and harassed and threatened as a “faggot” and a “poof” until he couldn’t take it any more. His school had no policy in place to protect gay children; any move to develop one had been squashed by the vast legal block of Section 28, and hadn’t recovered in time for him. So one day, after he sat a GCSE exam where he earned a starred A grade, he lay down on the train tracks near his home. He texted his sister Sam: “Tell everyone that this is for anybody who eva said anything bad about me, see I do have feelings too. Blame the people who were horrible and injust 2 me. This is because of them, I am human just like them. None of you blame yourself, mum, dad, Sam and the rest of the family. This is not because of you.” Then a train sliced his body apart.

Jonathan Reynolds’ final text message – his last cry of “I am human” – should serve as the obituary for the late, un-great Section 28.

Ignore the occasionally poor sub-editting, and it’s an excellent summary of just how vile that law was.

We’ve only been doing it for four months but it looks like finally the national press is becoming aware of the anti-Scientology raids, all thanks to the noble sacrifice of Epic Nose Guy. A bad day also, for the City Police who have their high-level corruption and connections of senior policemen with the Cult of Scientology exposed, once again.

I am informed that he has a free lawyer and that it is almost certain that the case will not even reach court, as the CPS are unlikely to act upon it. Even without the joy of seeing this case laughed out of a courtroom is snatched from us the footbulletery thus far has been simply superb: a few hundred anons turned up wanting to carry signs calling the Church of Scientology a cult and since they legally prevented that being permissible now six national newspapers {all save the Indie and Sun} have picked up on the matter and the word “Cult” and “Scientology” are flying around in the same sentence across the airwaves of Britain and beyond as the BBC cover this on the radio and television, not to mention internet.

The last time they got onto Radio 4 was when they attempted to sue WikiLeaks for distributing for free large chunks of confidential church material that the public was either never intended to see or would have to pay tens of thousands to get a look at. It seems like the Hubbard order of attacking and never defending has effectively led to an organisation engaged in the PR equivalent of severe self-harm.

This pleases me greatly and for once I’ll hold back a snide comment about how useless the print media seem for missing out on us for so long. To compensate I should probably say something insulting, slanderous, defamatory and offensives so here goes: It’s really not a religion, it’s a dangerous cult.

Ahem.  Observe the journalist, lazily reporting that the bloggers, “should agree to a set of guidelines which reflected the laws on defamation, intellectual property rights and incitement.”

Now witness the blogosphere telling the journalists to fuck off.

I don’t often cite Devil’s Kitchen, but it puts it rather well today…

Another fine article ruined.

It strikes me as a damn shame that a man who can make such valid points produces articles riddled with minuscule annoyances.

Hmm. You should always take on the best arguments of your opponents, not the worst.

“Hmm” goes in your head, Hari! Not on the page! I’d gladly volunteer to be Johann’s pre-editor if it rid us of these minor irritants.

The Evening Standard apparently knows Boris will be a poor choice as mayor. Floating through yesterday’s posts on Stop Boris, I noticed this. Observe their attacks, right from the start on BoJo’s manifesto. On his Tube policies:

Nothing infuriates the unions more than a suggestion of a no-strike deal. There is no way Aslef and the RMT would agree - it will immediately lead to a strike. On air conditioning, he is restating what is already being done. Work on subsurface lines starts next year while aircon on deep-level lines is beset with technical problems. Has he grasped the detail of the Metronet contracts?

Pretty damning stuff, that. How about the C-Charge?

Utility fines is good vote catcher but difficult in practice. Not enough detail on “reform” of C-charge, although a consultation on the Western extension and rephasing lights would be welcome. Annoyed the green lobby by refusing to bring in £25 charge for gas-guzzlers.

Slightly less cutting, but still negative. Even crime, Boris’ headline (lack-of-decent) policy, comes in for criticism:

Advocating the use of hand-held weapon scanners could hark back to the days of stop and search. His idea for New York-style crime maps could ghettoise areas blighted by crime.

All in all, it doesn’t look good for Boris here. He comes in for some 17 jabs throughout the piece. Compare this with their assessment of Livingstone’s manifesto. Even with their standard (hah…) hostility,  they find it hard to pick major holes in him. The most common description is, “realistic” and “practical” if “limited.”

The ES knows BoJo is a distinctly inferior candidate.

And yet they continue to support him. If one were looking for evidence of how much the ES hates Ken, here would be a good place to look: so desperate are they for him to die (painfully, I suspect) that they’ll support a man they know to be a confirmed idiot.

I’ll leave you with Stop Boris’ conclusion on the matter, which puts it rather well:

Of course, given how little is left in his manifesto that the Standard haven’t exposed as fundamentally or seriously flawed in this article, one has to wonder why on earth they’re so keen to get him elected as Mayor. Nothing to do with a petty squabble with a certain incumbent, is it? As it happens, Ken’s manifesto comes off comparatively well under their scrutiny. (They even admit his crime reduction target is “realistic” and that “latest figures show crime fell by six per cent last year”!) No wonder they’re trying to distract voters from the actual issues in their more high-profile day-to-day election coverage!

I’m not surprised.  Tory Troll sums it up well:

Of course The Sun’s endorsement of Boris Johnson should come as little surprise. Boris is in many ways the ideal Sun candidate. Here is a public school toff posing as a friend of the working class. A man who speaks almost entirely in mockney puns without actually saying anything even mildly offensive to Murdoch and his chums.

Quite simply he is a win-win candidate for the paper. If he fails as Mayor then he provides acres of stories and if he succeeds as mayor then nothing is lost. Even if he does fail, a Mayor Boris can blame all of his failures on a hostile Labour government. This in turn would be a plus for Murdoch, as he would have yet another stick with which to whip Brown.

Boris is astonishingly suited to the Sun.  His main policy platform - populism on crime - matches the Sun’s to a tee.  He worships Thatcher - as did they, in the 80s.  They both have similar views on immigration.  Both often verge on jingoism; note how the Sun approvingly borrows Boris’ quips about “Caracas Ken.”  Both hate the EU.  Both have written scurrilously about gays, and supported Section 28.  Both rely on image and bluster (or, in the Sun’s case, twin images emblazoned fully across page 3…) to cover a lack of substance.  Both write bad puns, and think themselves witty for it.  Both…

You get the picture.

And, meanwhile, the Sun has loathed Ken - or, the, “most odious man in Britain,” as they prefer it - since the 80s.  He was never going to win their support, and won’t miss it.

The Sun likes to tout itself as election-winning.  I find the claim questionable at the best of times - but here, it hasn’t made one bit of difference.  Unless it’d done something outlandish, like endorsing Paddick, this was entirely predictable.  The Sun has always hated Ken; meanwhile, it was bound to love Boris.  Its readers presumably agree, or pay so little attention to the Sun’s political coverage that it overly coming out (hah…) for Boris won’t have changed anything much.  So there…