Friday Ephemera

I would have thought it more a of a Roger Dean lair than one belonging to a villan.

dicentra,
“I want an end to the default of binary gender in science fiction stories.”
Heh. As Mr Correia says, “Focusing on message rather than story is a wonderful way for writers to continue working at Starbucks for the rest of their lives.” I’ve lost count of how many dramas and TV series episodes were scuppered by prioritising some ham-fisted social message over story-telling basics, like plot, tension and psychological plausibility. It reminds me of Bidisha’s self-refuting article on much the same subject. An article titled Planet Diversity and which bemoaned the fact that not every example of the genre conforms to her rather stern and quite extensive political preferences, which all science fiction should, apparently. For diversity’s sake.
And it’s odd just how often our tearful betters, the ones fretting about how terribly oppressive various norms are, want to “end” this and that, everywhere, forever – regardless of the consequences for everyone else. Regardless of reality, logic, and the actual meaning of words. There’s an absolutist tendency, at least rhetorically – an urge to purge. In order to be sufficiently inclusive, in order to be “free,” we must pretend that the world and the people in it are something other than they are. Because dogmatic pretension is apparently a sound footing for utopia and mental wellbeing.

At last, a nocturnal toilet landing light.
That would actually be useful in our house. It would save me getting told off in the morning.

Steve,
Apparently the BBC has a certain political bias. Who knew?
Thanks for that. It’s a subject that’s cropped up here more than once. As I pointed out to Dr Dawg here, it’s sometimes difficult for readers overseas to appreciate just how widespread and reflexive the default leaning is, including as it does an enormous range of non-news programming and web content, and just how dominant our state broadcaster’s position is relative to its rivals. Thanks to its antiquated funding method. I mean, if you only look at, say, election coverage, when the Beeb is mindful of being scrutinised and on its best behaviour, the institutional preference can be quite subtle. But spend an afternoon listening to, say, Radio 4 and the effect – the cultural tone – is much more obvious. As the paper notes, the bias is often in little details like this:

[The research] finds that right-of-centre think-tanks are far more likely to receive ‘health warnings’ [i.e., an indication of possible partiality] than their left-of-centre counterparts (the former received health warnings between 23% and 61% of the time while the latter received them between 0% and 12% of the time). A higher proportion of left-of-centre think-tanks than right-of-centre think-tanks are referred to as “independent” by the BBC.

Of course it isn’t just the publicly-funded BBC, though the Beeb is something of a stronghold for statist assumptions and smug leftism. (And a vast publicly-funded media organisation will tend to favour the party that favours public subsidy for vast media organisations.) Media organisations as a whole will tend to be somewhere to the left of the general population, largely because the arts and media graduates they employ tend to be somewhere to the left of the general population. That so many BBC employees are hired via adverts in the Guardian merely compounds an existing tendency.

Steve,
Sometimes the bias slips out for all to see, but nothing is done.
Well, I suppose Humphries’ behaviour wouldn’t necessarily be regarded as jarring or unprofessional by a great many of his colleagues. My impression is that’s the default setting, the comfort zone, of the institution as a whole. God knows, I’ve listed enough examples of the same over the years. My chief objection to the BBC is its public funding and consequent dominance. If people want to watch news through a left-of-centre lens, then fine. Let those who wish to pay for it.
But while “Auntie” is arguably the worst offender, and certainly the most powerful, similar attitudes can be found elsewhere. Following the twitter feeds of high-profile journalists and news editors at, for instance, Channel 4 is an education, if not exactly surprising. Though it does give some background to behaviour like this. Note how Jon Snow smiles approvingly at one guest and suddenly becomes much more quarrelsome and prone to interruption when talking to the other. Again, it’s often about tone.

Your readers might find this column of interest:
Since the 1980s, liberals have allowed conservative metaphors to take over their own metaphoric framework, so that all discussions or arguments about social policy are carried out on conservative terms. Liberals waste their time and effort in arguing from the evidence (conservatives, of course, can have no evidence); they should instead be working to get conservatives to accept a different metaphoric framework.
Apart from the tendentious nature of the claim, I think Gramsci has grounds to sue.

(conservatives, of course, can have no evidence)
It’s the modesty of these guys that I like most.

..we must pretend that the world and the people in it are something other than they are
Yes, the science does seem to suggest psychological differences between the sexes – it’s not proof, but it’s the best model we have at the moment.
But how quick the gender crowd are to undermine any science that would suggest such a thing, and how credulously they accept unscientific waffle from “theorists” in Gender Studies departments.
It’s like trying to persuade a 4-year old that just you wanting it to be Tuesday isn’t going to stop it being Friday.
“Don’t have to believe it if I don’t want to, so there!”
All very funny except until this nonsense finds it’s way into supposedly bona fide scientific work – what people study, how they study it, intellectual bias. Then they’ll have bad science to back up their theories, too.

Apparently the BBC has a certain political bias. Who knew?
I, for one, am shocked.
The Swedish media is currently soiling its collective pants over the fact that you can’t host programs on the state radio in an election year if you’re involed directly in politics.
Or rather, they are upset that people who hold The Correct Opinions also have abide by this rule. A comedian called Soran Ismail is involved a little too deeply in various “anti-racist” causes and therefore lost his show on the state radio. I can hardly sleep due to their incessant wailing. “But he’s an anti-racist! It’s those other people who are supposed to be prevented from airing their views in the media!”

Oh, and that B-movie titles article gets it wrong. At the very least, The Last Gangster used a newspaper theme for the opening titles, five years before The Payoff.
I don’t think those are moving printing presses behind the titles, but Hot News Margie from about 1931, is worthy of the Friday Ephemera anyhow for its use of sex and its surprising punchline at the end.

Hmmm, Can’t decide about this artwork
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10629830/150000-sculpture-of-The-Don-fails-to-make-the-grade-in-Cambridge.html
At least it’s recognisable. Does look like a baddy b-movie robot.
P.S. Love periodic videos and all the Brady channels (especially Numberphile).

Craptacular.

I’m surprised that Dalrymple has never before encountered Lakoff (rhymes with), he being one of the more prevalent thought-leaders on the Left.

Ultimately Professor Lakoff’s view, if I have him aright, is deeply pessimistic. If it is true that it is pointless for liberals to argue from the evidence, it must also be pointless for conservatives to do likewise. Prejudice is all, reason nothing. There can be no resolution of dispute or disagreement except by dishonest manipulation at best and force at worst.

Because right there we have postmodernism in a nutshell. Because language is too slippery to ever “point to” an objective reality, there’s nothing left but narrative, TRVTH being a false construct that White Cismales employ to oppress Teh Other.

Hmmm, Can’t decide about this artwork

But Nadine Black, Cambridge city council’s public art officer, said it was “possibly the poorest quality work” ever submitted to the council.

Au contraire, Nadine, au contraire.
Why just two years ago £50,000 ($84,000 USD) got pumped into this useless bauble, which is not only hideous but also deteriorating after only a year on display.

Media organisations as a whole will tend to be somewhere to the left of the general population, largely because the arts and media graduates they employ tend to be somewhere to the left of the general population.
But while “Auntie” is arguably the worst offender, and certainly the most powerful, similar attitudes can be found elsewhere. Following the twitter feeds of high-profile journalists and news editors at, for instance, Channel 4 is an education, if not exactly surprising.
I’m glad you mentioned that this is not solely an issue at the BBC but the news media in general.
Just last night I was reading your comments with Channel 4 news on in the background when I heard this exchange between the main anchor, Jon Snow (JS), and journalist Michael Crick (MC) while both were reporting from a flood-hit region of England:

JS: … well let me pick you up on one other thing because, er, until now, we’ve had climate change deniers, basically, or sceptics at least. Even Owen Paterson, the environment minister, secretary, is, is dubious. Now, is that changing? Is government starting to say: ‘Hang on a minute!?’
MC:Well that will be, that will be, will, it’s difficult to tell at this stage. I’ve always felt that, probably a majority of Conservative MPs are skeptical about climate change. Will that remain the case? Er, and, er, the Green party today indeed were calling for Owen Patterson, er, to be sacked. But the other thing, the whole question about the role of the state. David Cameron has always been a man who’s argued the role of the state should be reduced and yet, in places like this, Conservative constituencies, they’re asking for the state to play a bigger role: the army, the local authorities, a-a-and of course, the, er, the environment agencies. It’s going to have a-a quite a fascinating effect on politics for, er, a very long time.
JS:Michael Crick making a very interesting prediction there.

It’s not so much that there is a very clear and obvious bias in this segment but that the source of the bias – I think – comes ultimately from the universities.
Responsible journalists are bound to look for a ‘neutral’ arbiter in arguments between political positions and more often than not they will – in a way quite sensibly – consult experts in the field for their opinions.
But the experts are by and large working in the universities and university departments are, by and large, in turn overwhelmingly left or even far left in their outlook; and that includes not just liberal arts and social sciences where you might expect that to be the case but even STEM faculties.
It’s no wonder, then, that centre-right think tanks are given ‘health warnings’ because by definition they will almost always come up with arguments that are not given support (or even any credence at all) by the academy. That, to me, is the real and most serious issue and why I think school and university education has a moral duty to represent a greater range of opinion and thought.
But anyway, …

Now I do like this “evolution door”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umfvm8I9_oU

Matt Frei’s BBC ‘interview’ with Thomas Sowell
On the whole, the interview didn’t seem quite so bad as I think I was expecting it to be although having said that I felt embarrassed on Frei’s behalf when he asked the question below – I felt it almost to the same degree that I enjoyed the sharpness in Sowell’s reply:

Matt Frei:So, policies apart, when Barack Obama was elected as the first African American president of this country, were you brimming with pride as an African American?
Thomas Sowell: No … Because I can’t put policies aside … He was not elected to be a representative, like, you know, choosing a homecoming queen at a college

While I can understand that the election of a black president in the US is a noteworthy and emotional event for some, it was incredibly silly and patronizing to ask someone of Sowell’s background this question during a discussion of contemporary American politics (as opposed, say, to asking random people in the street how they felt about that aspect of the election).
The question which immediately follows this (And you started off life as a, as a Marxist, is that right? … [during] university life then?) is rather tiresome in what it insinuates about the kind of person Sowell is to the kind of UK audience Frei expects to be listening to the programme: he is clearly anticipating the listener to conclude something like: ‘Oh, so when he was young he was a (left wing) progressive idealist but now he’s a (right wing) sellout and so he’s just another crusty old fart’. Such an insinuation is way, way off base.
And of course Frei is now a C4 regular presenter.

Nik,
I think the disappointing nature of the interview may well be related to Mr Frei having exactly the kind of views that Sowell criticises.

Yes, there was more than a touch of a sneer in the beginning of the programme about ‘deep fried butter’…
And the sneering at people he regards as parochial – practically anyone insufficiently left-of-centre – itself seems rather parochial. But that’s his signature. It’s very Guardian. Very BBC.