Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it […]
Thanks to the new facebook lexicon, now we know:
Blue line is Obama, yellow line’s Clinton, green is McCain
Obama most popular among the young folk of facebook - shock horror. More interesting to see when he shot ahead, and how much it’s closed up.
More interesting to see just how much everyone’s stopped caring -not a good sign for those on the democratic side claiming a long race is helping keep people’s attention democrat.
Anyway, nice new tool from facebook there. Less sure about chat - do we have to do everything through facebook, man? There are other sites out there, guys.
The world and his dog has heard the news that Mattel and Hasbro have sent out legal letters to Scrabulous, the facebook app that lets you play Scrabble online. Madness. Scrabulous is ideal marketing for Scrabble - the tactical thing to do would be to either buy them out or insist on free advertising on the page.
That way, thousands more people are introduced to scrabble, when present-buying time comes around everyone can see who’s a fan of the game, and face-to-face real scrabble beats the online version every time.
There’s an easy win here, if Hasbro/Mattel are clever enough not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The other option’s just going to make a lot of lawyers richer, and absolutely smash goodwill among scrabble fans.
There’s a facebook group calling for “biased” BBC political editor Nick Robinson to be kicked out, as he’s “nothing” compared to Andrew Marr (his predecessor), and “Thatcher in disguise”. I disagree - and I think the group’s members are on rather shaky ground.
Firstly, I actually think Nick’s fantastic at his job (okay, maybe I just like his blog. And glasses.). Despite having to act as political correspondent across dozens (worryingly, that’s literal) of broadcast outlets daily, he keeps up a regular blog of consistently high quality. Personally, I’m a fan of the relaxed tone - while it might undermine the “gravitas” of the reporter, it illuminates where stories come from, why they’re covered in certain ways, and often where the correspondent is coming from in relation to it. Nick has been known to justify the questions he asks on there - if that’s not accountability, what is?
Much of his coverage isn’t exceptionally highbrow. At the risk of being coarse: no shit sherlock. TV political coverage, on a “mass appeal” channel like the BBC has to aim to be lively and inclusive. Those of us who like more extensive coverage are not short of outlets on the Beeb: Today remains excellent, Newsnight has its merits, and BBC Parliament is always there for the ardent fans. The dreaded two-up interview works because it keeps people engaged. The issue might be “dumbing down”, but I don’t really think Nick R’s to blame.
Leaving his merits or otherwise aside, the real charge is one of “bias”, and good gosh are those accusers on shaky ground. The usual suspects (let’s start, with, oooh, Guido and his charming Andrew Marr cartoon?) are all too keen to accuse the BBC of left-wing bias - the Mail even uses facebook data to back this up. Eleven times more BBC facebookers give their political allegiance as “liberal” than do “conservative”. It could be that Nick Robinson stands out because his (slight) bias is in the opposite direction to the corporation’s usual.
I don’t think the BBC is biased, or at least not intentionally so. You have people who naturally have partisan beliefs working towards a brief to be “impartial”. I believe they make their best effort to do this, and are generally successful. The problem is that those of a right-wing disposition are less likely to *want* to join a state broadcaster in the first place, so the population of the organisation will always be skewed. If compensating for one’s own bias is going to be imperfect (and it is), then a skewed population may lead to some slight overall bias - though this can be minimised through effective safeguards and scrutiny.
If your solution to this dilemma is to exclude anyone who’s ever publicly declared a political allegiance from the corporation, so be it, but expect the quality of journalists at the corporation to fall sharply. As a large proportion of the facebook group are members of the Labour Party (or student labour groups), I would expect them to uphold that principle themselves, naturally.
Finally, it worries me how political student union representatives allow themselves to be. Martin McCluskey’s (Oxford University Student Union president) membership of the odd facebook group matters little - his labour club past is a matter of public note. But Gemma Tumelty’s decision to sign a Guardian letter calling for the UK to support the outcome of Venezuela’s referendum was frankly outrageous.
The NUS (and its local student union branches) has an important role representing students, but also providing welfare services. Unlike other unions, many students are “automatically” NUS members. This means they have a duty to represent all students, not just those who share their political views. Leaping into such partisan issues, with such little relevance to students, is not an appropriate part of that role.
