Saturday, 23 December 2017


People are nuts.

Some of the comments on this BBC post on Facebook, regarding the ruling by Impress and a correction required of The Canary, are beyond depressing.

I wrote for The Canary from July 2016-Jan 2017, and no, I didn't agree with the way they went about everything. I do think they idolise Corbyn to a point of fault, and yes, I do think they write off anything and everything that doesn't align with their position on the political spectrum. In fact, were anyone to corner its Editor-in-chief Kerry-Anne Mendoza or some of the other staff members and ask what they think of me... they probably wouldn't have much good to say. Probably that I'm rude, infantile, and/or won't follow direction.

What I'm trying to say, is I don't really have any reason to defend them.

In light of that, please let me assure anyone reading this of one detail. The Canary are comprised of undoubtedly decent and moral individuals, who want nothing more than to see a fair equitable Britain. And to see that those genuinely responsible for the disgraceful mess our country is in, be held to account. I do not agree with their position on everything, but they're on the right track, and nor are they even vaguely on the same page (pardon the pun) as the hate-sprawling filth routinely peddled by The Express, The Daily Mail, or The Sun. Chalk and cheese. Publications the BBC treat as supposed 'reliable news', covering their headlines on a literal daily basis. It's a joke.

Many of us feel the BBC, and its political editor are very Tory biased. Deal with it. Nothing to do with bullying, nothing to do with the fact she's a female, or the left being misogynists - that's just smear; smoke and mirrors. Misdirection. "Don't look at that... look at this." At the time of this supposed outrage, The Canary was genuinely spun as misogynistic and oppressive, led by The New Statesman as I recall. The majority of the jeering mob seemed conveniently and blissfully oblivious to the fact Mendoza is a feminist and an LGBT woman. It just defies logic so many would fall for such basic, ill-thought out smear, but hey... that's Britain in 2017.

Versus The BBC

Nor does every single Corbyn supporter and/or UK voter with leftist views unilaterally despise the BBC. I for one feel a great level of sympathy for the organisation, and many who work there. Their asses are literally owned and paid for by the Tory government. If a leftist or even centrist government seized the reins, things might be quite different. How far can the BBC realistically deviate from what their paymasters want propagated? How long would any of us last in our jobs, if we publicly criticised or incriminated those who pay our wages? That's just realpolitik.

Not to mention, the BBC is far more than just news. As an actor/musician who grew up adoring of the BBC's contribution to arts and culture, who aspired and greatly hoped to work for them one day in such regard, I think to write off/vilify and 'wish away' all the marvellous things the BBC have created, and the countless ways it's enriched British lives for generations (and millions more around the world) is actually pretty sacrilegious. And I'll say one more thing in that regard: I live in fear for the day entertainment and arts coverage in the UK is entirely owned by private, capitalist entities. It'll be junk and vacuous reality shite on overdrive... anything cheap to turn a profit, and entirely in the hands of the same right-wing media that now rules British opinion.

Don't think it's already happening? I suppose the appointment of Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth to Arts Council England is just a coincidence. Or that the winner of ITV's recent I'm A Celebrity is an adamant Tory - a primped and privileged Made In Chelsea star who hates 'benefit 'scroungers', fancies Jacob-Rees Mogg, and wants to make conservatism 'cool and sexy', is just coincidence. Or that the very same programme threw in Boris Johnson's dad for good measure. It's normalising horrible stuff, and as ever, controlling the media and entertainment is key to it all.

Going Out On A Limb  

The Canary strives to cover the stories the MSM will not touch, or cannot. And invariably - as with any person or organisation that dares to go out on a limb and tell the truth - mistakes will be made. It comes with the territory. If truth-seekers are made to fear over-zealous repercussions of mistakes, they will be scared to seek truth. Which is of course, exactly the point. The next step after that is making sure they don't uncover truth. (Eg: pretty much what Erdogan did in Turkey, and what many other repressive states enact by force.)

The Canary have taken responsibility for the mistake, which is more than many MSM papers do. Certainly, none of the supposedly equivalent 'alt-right' blogs and publications have signed up to any journalistic standards, despite any cutting remarks about Impress. You won't see Media Guido, Leave.EU, or Westmonster etc signing up any time soon, for any sentient organisation to scrutinise their stuff.

Not to mention, Laura Kuenssberg had been listed on a prominent Tory website as attending a Tory conference as an invited guest, which was then removed by those who posted it. So it's not like The Canary pulled it out of thin air, invented it, or did anything so horrid or macabre as the tabloid press have got away with for literally decades in the UK. Their mistake was to trust in the reliability of internet, and more specifically Tory publications!

The whole thing was really a witch-hunt, and blind hypocrisy. A bitter backlash from the MSM for all the accurate finger-pointing The Canary have engaged in.

As for the people ranting that the publication is "hate-filled" and "fake news" etc? They literally don't have a clue what they're talking about. Or even the vaguest awareness of the irony.

Taking on a bully doesn't make you a bully.


  1. Kepp up the good work guys, Kuenssberg is biased beyond belief, completely incapable of objective reporting where the Tories are concerned (or Labour for that matter). She must go.

  2. I asked the same question on a Facebook group where you posted this. I thought it might be more appropriate posted here as it's more relevant:

    This is an interesting issue. I'm a little confused on the press standards regulations in the UK.

    I was previously aware of IPSO, whose site details complaints and rulings made against publications which they regulate. The list of regulated publications is quite large.
    I've heard that Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail's editor-in-cheif was until recently, chair of the Editors Code Committee who set the standards that IPSO uphold. This seems like a conflict of interests to me.

    I'm now also aware of Impress, whose list of regulated publications is significantly smaller than IPSO. It seems that Impress was established following the Levinson Enquiry which investigated the phone hacking scandal some years ago.

    Both of these regulators seem to be 'indpendent' ie. not Government controlled (I understand that Government control of press standards opens quite a big can of worms). It seems that publications volunteer to be regulated.

    So is it a case that there is not currently any form of mandatory regulation of press standards> And are IPSO and Impress independent of each other and essentially parallel entities regulating only those you volunteer to be regulated by them?

    What's the overall picture here?

  3. I rarely read the Canary, but I read this and think you make some great points. Just because I'm not keen on the Canary doesn't mean I don't value its existence. Keep writing!!