It’s Political Correctness Gone Sensible!

The Daily Mail likes to target the BBC. They are too left-wing, they waste taxpayer’s money. Now I believe the BBC do try to be more inclusive and remain balanced. I accept they do get this wrong from time to time – and sometimes very wrong. Mistakes are made. Live TV, editorial pressures and personal prejudice affect the ability to remain balanced; but they try. It is much easier to maintain an ideological position and, in the words of Richard Littlejohn, “throw bottles”. This is what the Daily Mail does.

Sometimes, the target is because of a perceived editorial stance, or some decision (such as cancelling Last of the Summer Wine). Other times, they simple make stuff up.

Yesterday, the Daily Mail ran with the following front page (cached online version here):

A follow-up to the original article (cached again here) bleated:

“Andrew Marr says he will ignore BBC diktat to stop use of BC and AD.”

Take note of the language. The BBC has apparently forced its staff to stop using the AD/BC date format in favour of the secular terms CE/BCE – “to avoid offending non-Christians”. The articles contain some quotes from religious figures (the Christians say they are offended at the removal, the others say they aren’t offended by AD/BC) as well as the typical Tory rent-a-gobshites. Given that the Daily Mail is a horrendously Islamophobic newspaper – by non-Christians, they mean Muslims. They are again using the ‘them and us’ rhetoric, that implicitly racist position that other religions are coming here and imposing their values on us, to stir up a shitstorm.

For those not familiar with the way the Daily Mail writes articles, allow me to give you a tip. Don’t read the headline; just read the last paragraph. Let’s do that now, as it contains a quote from the BBC on the matter:

“Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.”

Oh. That matches the headline, doesn’t it?! There is a whole can of worms relating to this writing technique, and how the PCC refuses to regulate this kind of article, where the headline is deliberately contradictory and incorrect. It is a disgrace to journalism and insulting to the readers. To me, it is like saying ‘we are going to lie through our teeth whilst obfuscating the truth to scrape through the regulatory procedure.’

Does the BBC quote say they have ‘turned their backs’? No. Did they issue a “diktat”? No. This is simply made up drivel.

The regular munch bunch of Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips and James Delingpole are quick to point out the liberal elite Marxist conspiracy at work here, eroding the rights of the Christians. Get real. If there really is a liberal elite ruling us (not in the economic sense, obviously) – then I suggest they should go and do some investigative journalism and find some stuff out, rather relying on made up shit to justify their incoherent, albeit well-remunerated rants.

This ‘attack on Christianity’ leads me right into another narrative. Political correctness gone mad! The use of politically-correct language, very often meaning secular language, is used as to not cause offense. We don’t say ‘nigger’, ‘paki’, ‘faggot’, ‘pikey’ or ‘spasticated’ – they are deeply offensive terms. Privilege is a bad thing – especially when based on illogical and ideological grounds. Whites, men, heterosexuals and abled people are still more privileged than their counterparts. Why is this the case? Why should any group feel a sense of entitlement, and have it reinforced through dogma, bigotry and stereotypes? Politically-correct language is aimed at a common, neutral ground. It is an attempt at showing an understanding of our differences. Secularism is about ensuring no religion has any privilege over any other religion, or over no religion at all.

In America (a country built upon wave-upon-wave of immigration) it is customary to say ‘Happy Holidays’ rather than ‘Merry Christmas’. Dates too, have cultural significance. We all know of 9/11, but that’s not how a British person would format that date. There are loads of well-documented cultural differences regarding the passage of time. Why should we continue to use a religious convention, when we have a perfectly good secular system? We don’t even know if Christ was born in the year the AD/BC system implies!*

if you believe, truly believe, that your privileges should be reinforced in our culture in favour of others, please leave a comment and say why. I genuinely want to know.

* For more fun on the year 0 and its implications – see Wikipedia.

Migration Statistics

The latest migration statistics have been released, and so the seemingly-perpetual “the foreigners are taking over” story hits the front pages of the media once again.

The Mail screamed Immigration soared by 20% last year – making a mockery of Government pledge to bring it DOWN. The Express ran with Immigration soars 20% in a year. The stories weren’t just restricted to the right, either. The Mirror and the Independent jumped on the “Immigration up 20%” bandwagon. Others such as Sky News and the Evening Standard joined in the fun.

The problem is – that is not what the statistics show.

The ONS report actually describes net migration – the number of incoming immigrants minus the number of outgoing emigrants. Net migration was estimated at 198,000, it was actually 239,000 – a 21% difference. Two further key points explain why net migration has risen:

• “Emigration is at its lowest since June 2005".
• “Immigration remains steady at 575,000”.

So what the report actually says is that the reason net migration has increased is that less people are moving out – not more people are moving in.

Funny – that’s not the impression you get from the headlines above. Read the articles, however, and they all talk about net migration. It seems the headlines do not match. Let’s see what our regulators say about that. According to the Press Complaints Commission’s Editor’s Code of Practice (not that it means much anyway):

“1 i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”

Furthermore:

“1 iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.”

Are these newspapers doing the above? No. Will anything be done about this? No. According to the PCC:

“Given that headlines are usually only a few words in length, it can be quite challenging for newspapers and magazines to summarise what are often quite detailed or complicated stories. The editor will have to decide how much prominence to give to particular aspects of the story; some parts may be omitted from the headings altogether. The PCC's approach to headlines is that a headline should be read in conjunction with the text of the article before considering whether or not it is misleading.”

It seems fair enough that a headline should be read in context of a story, but the above advise does not reflect that a headline can be physically separate from an article. After all, the front page of the newspaper only has a shouty statement rather than a full article. A passer-by or a skimmer will pick up the headline, but not the article. How are they meant to judge if the headline is misleading? The logic is flawed. But in the eyes of the PCC this is fine. Clearly the article content undid the damage caused by the headline, just look at the comments under the Daily Mail’s online article:

As a result of the PCC’s total inability to handle the ongoing phone hacking scandal, it seems as if they will not be around in their current form for much longer, so hopefully whatever replaces it will have the strength to be able to enforce its rules, and make sensible rules in the first place.

The reason why these things matter can be found on our streets. The perpetuation of the fear of immigration is one of the causes for the rise in far-right groups such as the BNP and the EDL. Constant demonising of Muslims and immigrants in general has led to the immortal phrase “I’m not racist, but”. Immigration was one of the hot topics of the 2010 General Election. In the first live TV debate, the on-screen Tory approval ratings shot through the roof when Cameron started talking about imposing tougher border restrictions.

This “them and us” culture is a difficult one to tackle, especially when those who spread these stories have no concerns of retribution. Even when the PCC does wrangle an apology out of a newspaper it is never given equal prominence. These stories are spread like wildfire on forums and social networking sites, but the retractions and apologies never fully percolate the minds of the public.

Politicians tap into the fears of the public to gain power. We cannot say that the fear of immigration elected a Tory-led coalition, but I’m sure it contributed something. It’s time we stopped creating boogeymen and viewed the world in a different, more factual way - maybe then we'll have a better society.