The BBC are going to give the Director General who’s resigned after 54 days in office a £1.32 million golden parachute. Isn’t that kind of them? I make that nearly £25,000/day.
But why this is not going to change is illustrated by the Telegraph story which tells us the Patten has approved a £1.32 million severance package for George Entwistle, after 54 days in place as director-general.
This is a society where the élites have abolished the penalties for their own failures. The slime rises to the top, screws up and gets handsomely rewarded for so doing. In the fullness of time, one expects Entwistle to be given a lucrative job on the fringes, to “compensate” him for the indignity of being fired.
And the new DG has walked out of a TV interview. I wonder how much he’ll get when he goes?
Anyway, I was arguing last night that one-way bullhorn broadcast media are inherently propaganda media. For example, the principal role of the BBC during WW2 was to maintain civilian morale. And if that’s your agenda, you can’t just baldly report the news, particularly if it’s very bad news. No, you have to look on the bright side.
So when the French army surrendered in 1940, and the British army had retreated to Dunkirk, and was facing complete annihilation, the bright side was that an armada of little boats sailed across the channel, and took them all back to England. And that’s the heart-warming British story of Dunkirk: it’s one of heroic rescue against all odds. The preceding catastrophic military defeat has been overshadowed by the subsequent heroic rescue. So Dunkirk was made into something to feel good about, and even proud of.
And I imagine that, during the subsequent London Blitz, after a day when thousands of homes had been destroyed, and hundreds of lives lost, and a couple of enemy bombers shot down, photos of the downed bombers would be on the front pages of newspapers the next morning, with the farmer who shot them both down standing proudly next to one, shotgun in hand. It gave people something to feel good about.
And this sort of agenda-driven news management has continued in peacetime. The 2007 pub smoking ban was carefully managed, essentially by down-rating its importance, and barely mentioning it in the news, apart from brief interviews of a couple of grateful smokers. And everyone said what a great success it had been. Just like Dunkirk.
The agenda of the media wing of Tobacco Control is to denormalise smoking, and everything is subservient to that goal. And so it plays up the faintest shred of evidence about the dangers of tobacco, and plays down any benefits. So how would they spin this report in Medical News?
Lung cancer in females will rise thirty-times faster than in males over the next thirty years in the United Kingdom, according to a new report by King’s College London, and funded by Macmillan Cancer Support.
The authors of the report say that the number of annual deaths among women in the UK will rise from approximately 26,000 in 2010 to about 95,000 in 2040 – an increase of over 350%.
Male annual cancer deaths over the same period are expected to rise by 8%, from 39,000 in 2010 to 42,000 in 2040.
Almost no mention in Medical News of smoking at all, apart from the rather half-hearted bleat at the end:
The majority of lung cancer patients are either current regular smokers or used to be.
Today’s BBC coverage of the same story, however, emphasizes smoking far more, with a helpful picture included:
The peak time for smoking in women was in the 1960s – 20 years after the peak in male smoking.
A bit further down is added, rather tersely:
…this will largely be due to an ageing population.
So the increase in lung cancer will be the result of increased longevity, not peak smoking 60 years previously. But they had to link it to smoking all the same, didn’t they?
The propaganda agenda of the past 60 years has required that smoking always be mentioned in the same breath as lung cancer, and the link repeatedly emphasized. And today the BBC was doing exactly that once again, in the middle of a crisis that has, oddly enough, grown out of telling lies based on shoddy research.