Who runs this site?
Concerned individuals with no affiliation to any political party or organisation.
Do you just hate rich people?
No. We don’t really even hate Lord Browne. He’d probably be perfectly good company at a cocktail party, he may be nice to his servants, and as a businessman he only did what many other companies do every day. But that’s small comfort to the people who died in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, or to those whose lack of desire to live with £50,000 of debt will prevent them going to university. There’s not much point in hating rich people – like the poor they will always be with us. But after investigating someone like Lord Browne the question arises: should we really be subject to government by the rich, for the rich?
Is this site objective and balanced?
Not by the ordinary definitions of objective perhaps. Yet this site is mostly reliant on facts (with a little opinion thrown in of course – we trust you to tell the difference). It’s true that the facts are ugly, but that’s not our fault.
If we look at the BBC idea of ‘balanced reporting’, they don’t see it as their role to actually call the government on their lies – instead they allow ‘differing voices’ on their programs. If it is a point of fact that is being talked about, and the journalist knows the facts, you would think they could say this, but apparently not, apparently you just let the minister talk. But they do find people who disagree with the government, who even sometimes accuse the government of lying (but not too often – that would be ‘extreme’, even though the government lies all the time and we all know it). The problem is that the government has a sophisticated PR machine (propaganda machine was the old word for it) and their spokesmen are on our screens around the clock, while the ‘other’ voices get to come on from time to time, each with a different message, unable to present a united front as the government does, and so the government looks more right by default.
In the run-up to the Iraq War, government spokespeople were on our screens pretty much 24 hours a day. A man called Scott Ritter also spoke, saying that in his opinion Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction nor the ability to produce them and that this had been the case since 1998. Scott Ritter was the former UN weapons inspector for Iraq, who had drawn his conclusion from investigation of the facts, as empowered by the international community. In the run-up to the Iraq War he spoke on BBC programs two or three times, once at 3am.
Sometimes the traditional idea of ‘balanced’ reporting barely seems concerned with the facts, but even where it does reveal the facts, it does so selectively, according to the biases of those putting the facts together. Our selection of the facts is also biased, and it leads us to particular conclusions about Lord Browne of Madingley and what he symbolises about the political system. We make no apology for this. This website is subjective, but so is the BBC. The difference is, we know it.
Hunter S. Thompson, writing on the death of Richard Nixon:
Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. […]You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.