Well over three thousand comments on the Dellersblog about the Paul Nurse stitch-up is a remarkable social phenomenon. It is one to which the media and politicians should pay attention, as it demonstrates that "debate" – such that it is – has not disappeared. It has simply found other venues.

However, the use of scare quotes on the "debate" is well merited. The comments range from the barely literate abuse, to the pretentious, aggressive and, occasionally, well-reasoned. Very few, nevertheless, are going to plough through the many thousands of entries, but by and large, having comments read is not the intention. Instead, the aim of each side to dominate the argument by force of numbers, driving the opposition into obscurity.

View full article here

One alternative would be for Delingpole to have recorded himself being recorded and then make that available on the internet. A digital voice recorder or something, plonked on the desk while the interview was being set up.

I think things are changing for the better though. Even only 15 years ago a few words from a talking head on the telly would be the beginning, middle and end of their contribution. Thanks to the internet now it can kick off not just wider exposure of an expert's more complete and considered position but also a comprehensive discussion of what they have to say. I think that is what some experts don't like - we have never had so good an opportunity to inform ourselves rather than fall down for the divine right of experts as Harold MacMillan would put it.

Did you see the attack on Anthony Watts in the guardian today?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... f-comments

My comments, which was a list of scandals involving Phil Jones, M Mann and Pachauri, were deleted

I think you are right ... he should have been better prepared and less trusting. The fact that he was doing his own filming, as well, would have acted as a brake on the ambitions of Nurse.

The spoken word is more dangerous the the written, with the written word you can wave a piece of paper and get the calligraphic experts to confirm your script, but with the spoken word and cut and paste you can always find witnesses to say you said no when you said yes.

word of advice never ever say anything to a policeman, he will make night into day without touching the light switch.

Exactly so Richard, and explains why slowly, ever so slowly, people who wish to receive or exchange informed and reasonably objective comment are deserting the MSM and the BBC in droves, as they increasingly understand the 'monotype' approach which is only concerned to parrot a party line, or edited to express the same old Leftish biased views.
I did not see the Dellers piece, but I suspect the response is way beyond anything MSM generally would get in say - the mainline daily papers, or dare I say it, a BBC Blog?
Stupid politicians still do not get it do they. They have not yet grasped the power of the Internet, though they are aware of its potential. They still do not understand that very few politically minded, articulate, people interested in current affairs and politics do not turn to politicians for an informed and intelligent debate.
They seem to suffer from some sort of collective mental dementia, and still believe they are the centre of the political universe. They are in for a nasty surprise, as the Internet revolution continues to transform the public square - leaving the "Westminster Village" way behind, with their worn out old cliches - "Does my Right Honourable Friend agree with me..........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Drone on sonny - nobody listens, not even in your chicken run..

Yup, Julian, that attack on WUWT is sheer Graunidegook. Mind you WUWT is probably pushing the Grauniad for readership, and factoring in the IQ of the readership leaves the Grauniad in the dust

On the plus side, the very fact that they enemy have started putting so much effort into fighting back is a sign that we right-wing internet denizens are starting to have an impact. The left can feel their control of the public debate slipping away and they don't like it one bit.

As one can see from his diaries (Free at Last!: Diaries 1990-2001), Tony Benn grasped that point back in the mid 90s. By then, he already thought that Parliament was an empty shell, whilst rapid advances in technology would take politics in brand new directions.

How many times do you watch a documentary on a subject about which you know nothing and end up thinking it was quite interesting? Strange though, that when you know quite a lot about a subject you end up shouting at the telly. I'm afraid that I didn't even bother to shout at the Horizon programme. It was fairly obvious from the start that it was not even going to get near any in-depth questioning of the scientists. Was it the frequent use of the word "denier" that gave the game away?

The only point where my blood pressure did start to go through the roof was the appearance of Phil Jones. He manages to convey the appearance of a poor, naive, put-upon scientist (must be the socks-with-sandals fashion statement) and when he bleated on about the deluge of FOI requests that he had had to suffer, I yelled at the box that he wouldn't have got all those if he had answered the polite requests for the data. If Nurse had bothered to do a bit of research for himself he ought to have been a damn sight more rigorous with Jones and pinned him to the floor on that question. But, no, Jones was let off scott free and shuffled off in his sandals - to mis-file more data, probably. Perhaps it is all lurking in the archives in the Royal Institute which Nurse seemed to be so proud of. I mean, what was the relevence of that? Was it to show that scientists archive all their research and findings and subliminally tell us that scientists are all good archivists? A good reason for kicking Jones out, I would have thought.

Urghh.

Sir Brandon Gough, Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, is accused of being complicit in academic fraud and corrupt abuse of public funds in relation to Climategate.

More here: http://www.stopcp.com/cpclimategate.php

.

Regarding "Hidden" recording, this guy has used it to devastating effect in his battles with UKBA
http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.com/

If TV can be edited to show anything the producer wants, even getting a letter (or email) in your local paper is no guarantee of not being shafted. I have sent several in the last few months, they either don't get published, or more usually are "snipped" to alter the meaning, or to make it "tame" enough for inclusion.

Mind you I did get a reply agreeing with my complaints about the constant political sniping between various factions that are regular features...

It must have been really hard for them to print that, since one of the prime talking heads has a monthly page in the paper!

This technique of hunting the magic words isn't limited to just tv interviews, though it has the most visible expression there - and produces the most immediate response if it's done right. Any long-ranging interview is usually aimed at the same subject: the police, for instance, when lacking hard evidence often interview suspects for hours waiting for the specific sentence that they can use to convict, even if it wasn't actually an admission of guilt. I've faced similar behaviour from council "officers" acting in a "legal capacity" but I'd had just enough experience in interview techniques at University to understand that the whole thing is a game and that the only way to win, as the film says, is not to play. Or at least not play by their rules.

It's funny actually, I've not trusted a single documentary since I attended that course because I know how they're made. Bismark's pithy little phrase about sausage factories comes to mind.

Watts was impressed, if I remember correctly, because he believed that the Guardian was going to stop using the word 'denier'. I don't know why though.

Actually, the commonest example I've got experience of is job interviews. An interviewer asks "What are the problems with...?" and is expecting to hear that, for instance, it's expensive. You say that it's complex, it doesn't address the real issues, it's an out-of-date approach, it requires scarce technical skills, a whole stream of issues, and the interviewer will still be saying "Are there any other problems?" - trying to get the magic words "It costs too much". When (if!) you say it, they immediately hand over to the next questioner....