Tag Archives: The Media

Italy: Rupert Murdoch lies out of his arse, and a bit on electoral reform

Posted on by

(I hate migranes by the way – I’ve been out of action for eight hours today…)

Tax-dodging media mogul Rupert “I really shouldn’t say this, but” Murdoch has announced that he won’t be taking sides in the Italian elections expected in May next year, at which anyone with any brain desperately wants Silvio “rabid, corrupt maniac” Berlusconi, whom Murdoch met for lunch today, to be booted out on his unpleasant arse.

Murdoch says of his Sky Italia channel that “I believe that in TV one is using a public licence to disseminate the news and it is important that you should remain absolutely fair,” while admitting that “If I were publishing a newspaper or magazine [in Italy] I would consider that quite differently”.

Murdoch and Berlusconi used to be good mates – but that was before Sky started branching out into the Italian market. As Silvio owns 45% of Italy’s free-to-air TV channels and a good chunk of the country’s printed media, he was always going to be a rival – but since he became PM he’s been pissing about with government subsidies for digital services, undermining Murdoch’s satellite base.

Is this enough to make Murdoch swing behind Belusconi’s rival for power, former European Commission head Romano Prodi? God knows – he did meet him for a chat yesterday though. But even if Prodi did get Murdoch’s backing, Berlusconi’s half-Nelson on the country’s media ensures that his propaganda machine will still easily dominate.

And then, of course, there’s Berlusconi’s attempt today to reform Italy’s voting system ahead of the elections:

“‘This law would reduce the margin of the opposition’s likely victory,’ said Maurizio Pessato, a political analyst and chief executive officer of Trieste-Italy based SWG Srl polling company. ‘It’s a return to the past where each party defends its own interests rather than the general interests of the country.’”

Sounds great, eh? The basic plan seems to be to return to a version of the voting system Italy had before 1994 – the one that produced such unstable governments that Italy has had over 50 of the buggers since the war. The benefit to Berlusconi? Well, under that system you voted for a party alone. Romano Prodi – and here’s a reason to love the guy – has not only never joined a political party, making it rather hard for him to get elected if the system changes again, but is also leading a coalition made up of lots of little parties which may get wiped out under the proposed changes. Coincidence, eh?

Paul at Make My Vote Count is my bitch, so has more on the dodgy vote changes. Worth keeping an eye on, this – Silvio got so excited about it in the debates today that he twisted his ankle. He knows that without some kind of dodgy dealing even his propaganda advantage won’t be able to help him cling on to power – this is not something he’s going to be prepared to let slide.

The benefits of European integration, part 4,578

Posted on by

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the EU-wide arrest warrant, extremely helpful in fighting terrorism and organised crime – which, I think we can all agree, is largely cross-border these days.

And – please note – on this occasion a suspected terrorist mastermind has been let free thanks to the wishy-washy weaknesses of a mere national government – not through want of EU efforts. You can’t pin this one on the European Union (though I have no doubt that the usual suspects at the usual blogs will try).

More discussions of the problems of the arrest warrant at the International Herald Tribune are also worth a look. This affects you too, you know – Slovenia could extradite you tomorrow under this agreement. Probably.

The fact that this arrest warrant has been deemed to go against the German and Polish constitutions and to violate suspects’ basic rights is neither here nor there – after all, if they’ve got nothing to hide they’ve got nothing to fear, right?

(I really can’t tell if I’m being sarcastic any more – this is a good thing for proving the effectiveness of closer integration, but it’s a bad thing for civil liberties, but it could make us all safer, but it could be used to lock us all up, but… My brain hurts again.)

Update: Just noticed – this story gives a prime opportunity to compare and contrast news coverage to check for bias. Let’s see…

EU Observer (run by a sceptic) – Terror suspect freed on European warrant glitch – taking “European” as a synonym for “The European Union”, as many headline writers do, this would tend to suggest it’s the EU’s fault.

Compare to the pro-EU Guardian – Germany blocks extradition of al-Qaida suspect – factual, no confusing reference to “Europe”.

That Scotsman article linked above, from a traditionally strongly Eurosceptic paper, opts for the sensible, factual Setback as German court bars al-Qaeda suspect’s extradition. Unusual, as they’re normally only too happy to have a dig.

The Financial Times, meanwhile – seemingly unable to make up its mind about the EU these days – plays it safe and goes for both headlines: first (possibly via Reuters) German court rules EU arrest warrant invalid, again bringing the EU up in the context of a failure in an apparent attempt to sully it by association, then Germany sets free suspected al-Qaeda financier – a more honest approach, as the EU actually has precious little to do with this story, other than as a possible way to prevent such a thing happening again.

Finally, the sceptic Telegraph has a not so subtle dig: Al-Qa’eda suspect freed as Germany rules EU extradition warrant illegal – note the cunning implication, by the use of the stronger “illegal” in place of the FT’s “invalid” that this is somehow the EU’s fault for proposing a dodgy law, rather than Germany’s fault for bollocking up the implementation?

If anyone spots any more interesting coverage of this story, let me know.

Update 2: Yesterday’s headspack means I’m behind. The usual suspects have already latched onto it.

First up Ken at EU Realist seeing this ruling as the herald of the collapse of all international treaties and the the beginning of the end for EU Law. Wishful thinking there, old chap – that’d only be the case if every member state had the same legal situation of Germany. If they did, there’d be no need for legal rulings at an EU level as we’d already all be in perfect harmony.

Next, the increasingly barking Helen Szamuely at EU Referendum. Interesting how here the al Quaeda suspect of everyone else’s coverage becomes “a half-Syrian, half-German businessman whose Import-Export Company is suspected of being a front for a money-laundering operation to provide funds for terrorists” – with little mention of how high up the wanted list he is or how important his financial dealings as thought to be. Because, hey, if the EU’s trying to screw him over, he must be OK, right? Oh, and look – Ken “filthy communist” Livingstone’s said he’s dodgy, so he must be OK (for some reason).

In other words, smoke and mirrors to detract from the central point which is that, had the German government implemented the legislation correctly, EU legislation would have enabled the detention and trial of a man strongly suspected of funding terrorism. As it is, the sovereign courts old Helen praises so much have let a suspected terrorist fundraiser continue unimpeded, and she offers no practical suggestions for preventing this from occurring again.

But as she then starts drooling with conspiracy theories about the secret service aiding terrorists (whereby somehow because terrorists exist – erm… the EU’s bad, m’kay?), I think it’s probably best to back away slowly, smiling gently, and try not to make any sudden movements…

Tackling the euro popularity deficit

Posted on by

Another one to get the sceptics all upset – a call for a propaganda campaign to convince people that the euro is great and stuff. From the report (.doc download) it looks like some of our more economically-minded anti-EU brethren could have some fun with this:

“the benefits of a single currency and its accompanying instruments – a single monetary policy and enhanced co-ordination of economic policies – cannot be seriously questioned at this stage”

I mean, I’ll freely admit to having little knowledge of economics and even I know that’s a silly claim to make.

There’s also the assertion that “polls in new Member States also reflect some scepticism to the adoption of the euro caused primarily by a lack of relevant information” (my emphasis).

Lack of information is not the issue – it’s lack of a detailed knowledge, understanding and ability to interpret the relationship between macroeconomics and individual prosperity.

I’d say that the dodgy situations of Italy and Germany, both Eurozone members, is probably in itself reason enough to be a tad sceptical about the benefits. And it’s entirely reasonable for the average punter to look at the apparent short-term impact of the new currency on those states which have adopted it, even if the hopeful assertion is that, long-term, it will be beneficial to all – and even if the short-term impact may only be a perceived one.

What else, after all, can they base their judgement on? They certainly aren’t going to trust “information campaigns” funded by an organisation with a vested interest to see the thing work. Bias in economic analysis is among the worst sort, for economics is basically a science. You wouldn’t trust the findings of a creationist study of evolution which concluded that evolution is a load of bollocks, so why would you trust an EU-funded study which concluded that the euro is great?

In any case, a propaganda campaign is not the way forwards, as it assumes a popular hostility which flies in the face of the facts. I seriously reckon that, when you get down to it, the issue of euro resistance is not one of nationalism. Naturally there is a strong traditionalist attachment to national currencies – especially one as strong and successful as the pound. But what the majority of people want is not so much the coins they’re used to jangling in their pockets, but simply a comfortable standard of living.

The issue of the Queen’s head on our currency has long since been sidestepped by – erm – each member of the Eurozone being able to have national symbols on their money. And the experience of switching from L.s.d. in the seventies shows that everyone can cope with a far more complex currency changeover than a simple shift from one metric system to another would be. (The issue of metric weighting is somewhat different, what with money being an arbitrary construct dependant on many variables and weight actually relating to something tangible and constant and all, but that doesn’t really bear on this issue, thankfully.)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the largely abstract notions of national identity are not as strong or as binding as the desire to get food on the table as cheaply as possible. If the euro could be demonstrated to cut our bills and make life in general cheaper, we would – bar a few “patriotic” extremists – be up for it.

This is why, of Gordon Brown’s famous (yet never sufficiently remembered) five economic tests, the only one that really matters to the average man on the street is the last – “Would joining the euro promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs?” That test cannot be passed with a propaganda campaign – and until it is any propaganda campaign will fail.

The real question, of course, is whether the euro can ever achieve all that has been claimed for it. As of yet, there is little in the way of overwhelming evidence to support claims that the euro – and, importantly, the euro alone – has been responsible for “price stability, low mortgage rates, easier travel, protection against exchange rate fluctuations and external shocks” as that report asserts. There is also little overwhelming evidence of the opposite. But when it comes to this sort of thing, better the devil you know is a fair enough line to take until the evidence becomes overwhelming. The evidence isn’t yet overwhelming – hence Gordon still saying his tests aren’t passed – so no one but the most fervently ideological is going to be convinced. That simple.

Free constitution for every reader! (And news round-up)

Posted on by

Now there’s an idea. In preparation for their referendum on the EU constitution on 20th February, the Spanish dailies El Pais, El Mundo, ABC and Razon yesterday all provided free copies of the vast document with their regular papers.

Not a bad idea, and one that might bear copying in the UK should we ever get around to holding a referendum ourselves, although quite who would fancy trawling through that turgid document of a weekend I have no idea. The very first reason for rejecting it on this anti-constitution Spanish site is that it is way too long… They’ve got a point. I can’t see readers of The Sun getting too excited about having a 300+ page legal document come free with their newspaper. Perhaps they could tart it up a bit with commentary from topless lovelies?

In other Euronews, Gerhard Schroeder is leading calls to loosen the EU’s rules over budget deficits, writing in the Financial Times (behind a subscription wall) that “The stability pact will work better if intervention by European institutions in the budgetary sovereignty of national parliaments is only permitted under very limited conditions,” and thus setting the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of all 25 European finance ministers. However, the German central bank seems to disagree with the Chancellor, noting that “a loosening of the budget rules could herald a paradigm shift of fiscal policy in member countries and lead to developments in economic and monetary union that make conflicts between fiscal and monetary policy more probable.”

I’ll confess to having no idea what either of them are talking about, but this problem of Germany and France flaunting the rules over 3% limits on budget deficits has been going on for ages now, and continually threatens new problems. Perhaps it’s time it’s abandoned, but then, what is the EU without its economic ties? This could continue to cause problems for a while… (Edit: EU Referendum has a good summary of what Schroeder’s article could mean, along with a few more quotes.)

Meanwhile the Tories have announced their ambitious tax cut plans, promising savings of thirty-five billion quid. Of course, had we not gone to war in Iraq (a war the Tories fully supported), the country would have saved significantly more than that – something the Liberal Democrats, who also launched their pre-election campaign today, might want to point out at some stage…

The press, politics and the bloggosphere

Posted on by

Still busy. Sorry. More posts soon. For now, a quickie:

There looks to be a friendly disagreement between (pro-EU) Toby of Straight Banana and (anti-EU) EU-Serf of The Road to Euro Serfdom over the merits and bias of that mighty organ that is the British national press when it comes to the EU.

As both bloggers are entertaining and eloquent chaps (well, I assume EU-Serf is a chap, I’m not entirely sure), it makes for a fun and interesting read. I’m hoping they’re going to keep it up – I’d weigh in myself, but truly haven’t the time to formulate a decent post. Rest assured, the run-down is roughly as follows:

Enter Straight Banana, stage left:

- The UK Press is generally anti-Europe and perpetuates myths in a manner which, were they to apply similarly slack levels of fact-checking to any other area of public life, would result in public outcry. But at least the myths are amusing…

Enter EU-Serf, stage right:

- Ah-ha! But what about the BBC, eh? They’re always spouting pro-European pap! We need the likes of the Sun to balance out the state-sponsored selling of our sovereignty!

The great thing about this is, Toby at Straight Banana (though always enjoying a dig at the Eurosceptics) is no fool, and so desn’t stoop to mindless, one-sided attacks. Liewise, EU-Serf (though always enjoying a dig at pro-Europeans) is also no fool, and likewise avoids silly, one-sided attacks. My silly little summaries really don’t do either of their posts justice – they are both well worth a read, and both make several very good points.

Even though EU-Serf was responding to Straight Banana’s post (and Toby may not even be aware of this yet), there is a mutual respect here from two people from different sides of the European argument, because both can acknowledge the other’s intelligence and sensible arguments when they are presented.

So, perhaps the question we should be asking is not “why is the press biased one way or the other?”, but “why are the respective leaders of the pro- and anti- EU campaigns so insistant in presenting everything in overblown and fraudulent terms?” On the evidence of these two posts from two people with very different takes on the EU as a whole, there is – between the lines – much agreement. Both recognise many shades of grey. But in the current climate it is very hard to admit this. Pro-Europeans feel if they acknowledge bad points that shows the EU is flawed; anti-Europeans feel if they acknowledge good points their argument is likewise weakened.

The Yes Campaign routinely claims that the EU is not a leech on British sovereignty, almost everything it does is great, and anyone who can’t see the benefits must be a fool. This is obviously nonsense.

The No Campaign likewise consistently alleges that the EU is destroying the British nation, introducing mindless and petty laws, forcing foreigners in, and will destroy everything you know and love. Equally rubbish.

The truth, as ever, is somewhere between the two, but we are only ever presented with binary opposites. Either you are pro-Europe, or you are Eurosceptic. This is a nonsense (and the fact that “Eurosceptic” – in current usage – doesn’t actually mean what it says and the term should probably be “Eurocynic” is simply a further complication – I am sceptical about the EU in many ways, yet I am certainly not a Eurosceptic as the term is used today).

If we as a nation are going to come to a decent conclusion over this whole mess – and not just Europe, but also my pet topic of the lack of a viable opposition – we need intelligent people from all sides of the political divide to sit down and talk like rational human beings. Avoid the name-calling that is so endemic in the Republican/Democrat split of the US, and debate reasonably without any of the petty point-scoring and one-upmanship which can be witnessed day-in-day out on the floor of the House of Commons.

This country’s current poltical system was built (largely) in the 18th century (largely) on reasoned and sensible debate – even if this seems to have fallen out of fashion these days. Likewise, the 18th century saw a boom in political pamphleteering from the likes of Addison, Defoe, Swift, Paine and Johnson (and umpteen more which Europhobia’s Matt could tell you far more about than I).

They used intelligence and wit to get their point across, and it worked. The good arguments and viewpoints rose to the surface on merit. Because, lest we forget, (almost) everyone really wants the best for the country: whether you’re pro- or anti-Europe, Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem – even (at a stretch) UKIP. We may all disagree on the best means – and even the best ends – but in the final analysis that is what we all want, because the best for the country we live in is likely to be the best for us as individuals.

The comparison between blogs and pamplets has been made before, and discussed many times, but it remains a fair and good one.

There is a need today for the same kind of intelligent and witty debate as took place in teh 18th century if our stagnant polity is to be revived. As it stands at the moment, I wouldn’t liken any blogger to any of those great figures of yestercentury – and I certainly can’t name a single MP capable of delivering speeches of the kind that were reported given by the Disraelis and Sheridans of days gone by. At the moment I’d say we are more at the level of the English Civil War pampleteers and nascient parliamentarians (in the broadest sense – not just the Roundheads) of the 1640s than those of the Golden Age post-1695. But we might – just – be on our way there.

With the sort of dedication our 18th and 19th century forebears showed, and through avoiding the infantile rants and spats which are so prevalent online, bloggers – and (perhaps especially) the choices and responses of their readers – have a genuine chance to make a positive impact on current political debate.

As you may have guessed, this is a bit of a pet idea at the moment. The trouble is, for every restrained, amusing and reasonable voice like those of Toby at Straight Banana and EU-Serf at The Road to Euro Serfdom, there are ten thousand rabid maniacs who have yet to get over the novelty of internet anonymity and realise that even under a pseudonym it is possible to maintain a sense of dignity and intelligence. Hell, half the most influential and successful pamphlets of the 18th century were written under pseudonyms. Today Private Eye is largely written under pseudonyms, and it’s probably the best political magazine going.

The difficulty we face is that, in democratic systems like those in which we are lucky enough to live, our political class – and our fourth estate – reflects what it perceives to be the character of the people it has been elected to represent. The fact that our polticians and newspapers are (for the most part) obsessed with petty-minded and childish attempts to make those they disagree with look silly is an indictment on our whole society.

It is time for a change. We live in a democratic society. So the change has to come from us.