Inside the news media

A comment from "Ryan" on the previous post is too good not to feature up-front (hope you don't mind, Ryan):

My sister is a journalist, but stays away from the nationals. She points out that the big papers get all their real news from Reuters and the local papers, then work it up into a much bigger story. They don't employ many real reporters or journalists - its too expensive. They prefer talking heads that can offer news-views which add a narrative to a story dug up by someone else and which matches the editorial line of the paper.

My sister also tells me that the papers have dirt on almost every public figure, but they CHOOSE who to turn over. This gives them enormous power over those that they chose to support - they can make you king one day and pauper the next. You can see they do this all the time with celebs, building them up one year and tearing them down the next, but we never imagine that they employ the same tactics with politicians - but they do.

She used to tell me all the tactics that papers would use to tell a story their way with their own spin on it. For instance, how often have you seen a phrase along the lines of "A spokesman said"? No name given. Why? It means the line was made up by the writer and attributed to someone real to give it substance. "A spokesmon", "unnamed sources", "A source within the Labour party" etc etc etc. Yes, they may all refer to a real person - but they could just have been made up by the journo to get his opinion across whilst making it sound like he has his finger on the pulse.

She showed me a story that she sold to the Guardian for £50. It was one column inch. The Guardian worked it up to half a page - all of it made up and based on opinion. She was pissed off: "I should have got £2500 if the story had really been that big!"

Take a story, remove the bits that are attributable to named sources - and what is left is usually made up. The attributable bit has probably come right from Reuters. That's why I don't read papers anymore and rarely watch TV news. Its 90% made up by wet-behind-the- ears kids that know nothing about the world we live in but make up a narrative for the news that suits their editor.

Can anyone else give us any more on the ways of journalists and the news media, please?

Here is the news

Lead story on Classic FM news this morning: "It looks like Britain's heading for a recession."

FLASH: Queen Anne's dead.

Where does the news come from? Is it any use? Other than weather forecasts, the last usable information I can remember is from the summer of 1987, when I learned that Sir James Goldsmith had sold all his shares on the Paris Bourse, which confirmed my feelings about the way the market was going - but that item came from Private Eye magazine.

December 1, 1978: publication of the Times and Sunday Times suspended for 11 months. During the journalists' industrial dispute, a spoof paper comes out, called "Not The Times". At that time, a strap line for the Financial Times was ""Don't you wish you were better informed?", so the send-up featured a picture of a steam locomotive that had crashed right through the wall of a railway terminus and down onto the pavement beneath, with the headline "What could you have done, had you been better informed?"

...this one, as I recall

Useless, or trivial. As the Poet Laureate Alfred Austin wrote about the terminally-ill King Edward:

"Along the wire the electric message came,
He is no better, He is much the same."

So, who determines the news agenda? Are journalists much cop any more? Are they allowed to be?

... which brings us back to gold.

A quote from the Economist article cited yesterday:

real returns from American shares were just 0.1% a year from 1966-81; they fell a dismal 1.3% a year from 1973 to 1981.

Although that performance was much better than the painfully negative returns suffered by holders of government bonds, it was a long way short of the 6-7% returns that shares have historically achieved. Gold was a much better inflation hedge, earning an annual 10.9% in real terms between 1966 and 1981.

Which is, I suppose, what Marc Faber means by recommending gold at this point.

Inflation bad for investors as well as depositors

I wondered recently what was the effect of inflation on shares - are they a hedge? Past history suggests not.

Now there is corroboration from a more distinguished source - the Economist.

And Nicola Horlick says don't buy shares for 2 - 3 years.

Well now, I've been leading the experts for a while. When I call the bottom correctly, it'll be time to start my own hedge fund. Usual terms: 2 and 20.

Government and homelessness

The "Pathfinder" project for urban renewal has come in for some criticism, because so far it's meant a net loss of 9,000 homes and many of those whose houses have been demolished have not received sufficient compensation to buy something similar elsewhere (see here and here, with an attempt at more balanced discussion in the Liverpool Daily Post).

I suspect we don't have a housing shortage, but a housing misallocation. There are lots of old people rattling around in houses too large for them, and too expensive for them to maintain properly. And how many million bedrooms have been converted into domestic gyms, games rooms etc? We simply expect far more space than we used to, and so the "shortage" is a function of our choices.

But there is a limit on land space, if we want to retain the capacity to feed ourselves in hard times. Maybe we should review policies on housing, housing benefit, local taxation etc. And the policy of using foreign labour to keep down wage rates, and so create traps for our working and under-classes. And is there a Gramscian plan to undermine the cultural cohesion of the country by means of deliberate negligence in border controls, with the side-effect of worsening the pressure on accommodation?

Governments have a talent for creating problems that will long survive them. After four centuries, Northern Ireland still has its difficulties. And look at Fiji, where a century ago British planters imported Indians for indentured service periods of ten years. By the end of their contractual decade, quite naturally the labourers had married, had children and put down roots in the island. The historical result is festering resentment between ethnic groups, leading to outbursts such as George Speight's rebellion in 2000.

Similarly, covering England's green and pleasant land with concrete, tarmac and brick will also have persistent unpleasant consequences. And is there any way to change it back? Could we put a foot depth of earth along a disused motorway to convert it to arable use? So, new building on agricultural land, flood plains etc is tricky, and now we are seeing some of the problems of brownfield development.

But there's a huge number of houses built in the Thirties that need refurbishment. There may be a boom in plumbers, plasters, electricians and bricklayers; while at the same time we may see growing white-collar unemployment, as a result of outsourced information-processing. Maybe the working class will be victorious, after all, while the chattering classes fill holes in their shoes and jumpers with old copies of the Guardian.

I know it can happen, because it did happen in the Thirties - read Helen Forrester, whose debt-burdened middle-class father made the mistake of leaving London post-Crash, to return to his Liverpool birthplace, where the parish had no statutory obligation to support him. Helen wrote that if the Depression comes again, the things to stock up will be newspapers, razor blades and soap. And in her case, a purse inside her clothes so that her own family couldn't steal her meagre savings.

What are recessions and bear markets?

I'm reading picky definitions, e.g. a bear market is one that drops 20% in two months, and a recession is two quarters of negative GDP.

Says who?

What we're in now waddles and quacks like a duck, and darned if it isn't a duck. I say we're in a recession and a bear market, and have been so since the year 2000. A recession, because our manufacturing industries are in steeper decline and will take the rest of the economy down slowly with them*; a bear market, because the stockmarket is more likely to go down than up, over the course of the next year or two.

I once paid for a repair to a slow leak in one of my tyres, and only when I ran over a nail did I discover that the repair had been effected using an old-fashioned inner tube. It went totally flat in two seconds. Thank goodness I wasn't on the motorway. Now, any problems, I get a new tyre.
Monetary inflation was used as an inner tube to repair the economy from around 2003 on. Subprime was the nail.

* For corroboration see "Alice" on the UK current account deficit and our declining trade.

Make the punishment fit the crime

After this, and this, I begin to think about about the return, not only of capital punishment, but the gibbet. I really never thought I'd get to this stage; but I never thought society would, either.