It’s fantastic news that Iceland is dropping the plastic packaging that ruins our environment.

Shame it took several decades and a campaign by the Daily Mail to make them see the folly of their actions.


Still, that’s how all corporations work – from Bejam to the Beeb, from retailers to retellers. Many blindingly obvious ideas get stuck in the narrow bottlenecks of strict hierarchies. Customers get ignored. But they’ll listen to powerful lobbyists.

Isn’t it time we examined the damage caused by all unnatural packaging? There’s an awful lot of media products that have a short display function and then spend a lifetime fouling up the environment.

If only the media would follow Iceland’s lead, examine their consciences and consider the damage caused by plastic proletarians and the padding out of all their products.

The big media supermarkets, the BBC, Sky and ITV, all have identical products.

They run a sort of enhanced BOGOF deal on news. Every day, they give you three identical news items, for the price of one BBC licence.

The lack of variety is bad enough, but the deception is even worse. Trump-bending stories (known in the trade as ‘Trump L’Oeil’) are injected with all kinds of confections. Then there’s the notorious Despite Brexit department at the BBC, that puts harmful fake colouring into everything and weighs it down with bias-ballast.

They rarely take fresh produce from independent specialists although there are a few exceptions. Social campaigners such as Peter Tatchell or Julie Bindel are the genuine article. You have to respect their courage and integrity, even if you wouldn’t want them to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their organic growth has been naturally fertilised by the compost of the environments in which they have spent a lifetime campaigning. The thing is, Tatchells and Bindels take decades of work to cultivate.

But alongside them, there are endless gobby, goady, products which have been artificially seasoned under the hot lights of a studio. These can create an adverse reaction.

If you look at the ingredients of any news products, there’s always plenty of fleshing out with cheap Owen Jones soundbites. ‘Independent’ analysis comes from BBC colleagues standing in or, worse, from rentagobs who don’t seem to be experts in anything other than glib generalisations.

As soon as you see one of these labels on your screen – Katie Hopkins, James O’Brien, Milo Whatsit, Guardian columnist – the best you can do is switch off.

Look out also for these deceptive ‘farm-fresh’ style newsroom weasel worderies: ‘People are saying’, ‘According to sources’ and ‘Some might ask’.

People are never saying, there are no secret sources and nobody, apart from Evan Davis perhaps – might be asking.

Many of the fruits of the news counter have been artificially ripened in plastic proletarian ‘Polly Toynbee tunnels’. As a result, we are getting unnatural products which look good under the lights but have no real intellectual nutrition. And worse still the temporary packaging used to dress up news stories creates long-time environmental damage and drips poison into the well of human kindness.

As a result, many people are starting to grow their own news on YouTube or Twitter – often with dangerous results.

Meanwhile, I’m going to try to find a branch of Iceland. Which won’t be easy as the local store is now a Lidl. If only they’d dispensed with the packaging earlier they’d have won over the public a lot sooner.

94 COMMENTS

    • He was quite charming at first.

      Then the cameras corrupted him and he got delusions of grandeur.

      In Jerusalem the hospitals regularly admit people who are caught up in the atmosphere of the place and fall victim to Messiah Syndrome

      I think broadcasting studios have the same effect. We should call it Media Syndrome.

      All journalists should have a DOG rating (the meantime to delusions of grandeur).

    • I’d prefer a strong dose of clap to a dose of O’Brien.

      I am, however, far more likely to get the latter.
      .

  1. We were however warned years ago.
    Television journalist Edward R. Murrow in a 1958 speech said:

    We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognise that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

  2. “Katie Hopkins… the best you can do is switch off.”
    Oh I don’t know. I find her amusing. A good replacement for Del Boy.

    • I suppose if she could be billed as a ‘no holds barred’ comedienne, that would be OK. Like many comics, she has some opinions that are a bit extreme. She can be funny at times.

      James O’Brien was quite charming when he started on LBC. He was quite sweet and polite to people.

      Now he’s become deranged and rather unpleasant.

      Something happens to people who spend their lives in studios, thinking up new ways to goad the public into phoning premium rate numbers. There must be some sort of hot housing effect that drives them berserk.

      • In the case of JOB, I’ve always assumed it’s a schtick to drive listenership numbers upwards, and possibly imposed by management at Global Radio. (LBC effectively being the radio equivalent of the MailOnline in that seems to exist in order to invite outrage.) Like you though, I now find him (or his act) unpleasant and will turn over the moment I hear his voice.

  3. “Many blindingly obvious ideas get stuck in the narrow bottlenecks of strict hierarchies. Customers get ignored. But they’ll listen to powerful lobbyists.”

    It’s the same with mobile ‘phones….when I pointed out to schools/teachers/governors how dangerous these products were for children, I was treated like a Luddite. Now that the government is telling schools/teachers/governors that they have got to do something about the problem, I am always being asked by schools for my ‘support’ in this amazing ‘challenge’ to ‘protect’ my children.

    The government – the worst lobby group – is so arrogant it thinks it holds the monopoly on common sense.

    • True.

      She is courageous and honest at least. She says the unsayable. She’s like an alternative Frankie Boyle.

      A comic, yes.

      But not really one for Current Affairs though, surely.

      • That view might be valid if the BBC didn’t keep wheeling out lefty “comedians”, slebs and luvvies on QT and other current affairs programmes. There is a grave imbalance whilst serious conservative experts can’t fight and won’t fight it seems.

    • Not at all.

      He’s another brilliant comedian. He says the unsayable and he’s very clever. But do we want experts on telly taking positions like Feminism is Cancer.

      Isn’t journalism supposed to be about asking questions. When did it become about ranting?

      Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News is a prime example. She spends all her time trying to frame the interview on her terms. It’s all “So what you’re saying is that I, as a woman, am not…”

      Then the interviewee has to say, “No, I didn’t actually say that.”

      • Well we have plenty of experts on telly ramming leftisms down our throats. A bit of “edgy” and provocative dissent might produce more balance. The polite conservatives never seem to get anywhere.

        • I did!

          I felt a bit sorry for her. She’s probably a decent enough person, not beyond redemption but she’s caught up in this whole cult movement.

          She kept saying “So, what you’re saying is…”

          Imagine her interviewing great historical figures.

          Cathy Newman: So, Mr Luther King. It says here you’re a Doctor and a Republican and that you had a dream.

          So, what you’re saying is that while you were asleep you came up with a plan to close down hospitals. Are you saying that I, as a woman, should be governed by some plan you came up with in bed? Is that what you’re saying?

  4. Forgive me going back to your early observation ~ China warned the entire world last June that it was not going to accept plastic waste from the beginning of this year. At the last moment the government realised that China was serious, so launched a campaign to demonise plastic. German academic research has shown that over 90% of plastic in the oceans is from 10 SE Asian rivers, our ‘contribution’ is not measurable amongst the remaining 10%.

    Vegetables, fruit etc wrapped in plastic sold by supermarkets is preserved by an atmosphere by nitrogen which ensures that it will keep for several days, paper cannot retain nitrogen so the food will rot much quicker, not a good outcome for virtue signaling I suggest

  5. the plastic bag ban has definitely increased my stock of plastic bags, as I now have to buy a load every time I go to the supermarket, and I can’t reuse them as bin liners.

    the use of plastic reporters is having a different impact on my behaviour, as it reduces the time i spend paying attention to journalists.

    given a choice between the two options, i would remove the plastic bag ban rather than improve the quality of journalists; this is because the plastic bag ban affects my quality of life, whereas bad journalism has no impact, or maybe slightly improves my life it as i no longer think that watching tv news is a good idea.

    • BBC purile solutions, global solutions. Lying swines deliberate misinformation. Julian says we produce plastic and lead the third world astray. Has he ever been to a plastic bag factory in Pakistan?

  6. Sometimes, provocateurs are needed to get conversations going.
    So long as you are aware of what they are then you should be able to ingest appropriately.

  7. Plastic has been a boon to our health and hygiene. Like antibiotics once given to third world primitives they then become a liability to us all.

  8. “Many of the fruits of the news counter have been artificially ripened in plastic proletarian ‘Polly Toynbee tunnels’. As a result, we are getting unnatural products which look good under the lights but have no real intellectual nutrition. And worse still the temporary packaging used to dress up news stories creates long-time environmental damage and drips poison into the well of human kindness.”

    A splendid piece of allegory, Nick. Splendid!

    And the eye-opening feature of all this is that 99.9% of the gardeners and other horticultural workers who produce all this stuff don’t have the remotest idea of the damage they are doing, because they have been progammed/indoctrinated/conditioned from birth to be the useful idiots of the organ-grinding psychopaths who control them. Their mentalities have been corralled so as to ensure that they can build their worldviews only on the foundations of prejudicial fallacies which are helpful to the psychopaths in their battle for power, and hindrances to the more complete and rounded people who recognise that for the sake of humanity they need to ensure that the psychopaths are defeated.

    • Thank you, you are very kind.

      I’m sure Paul Mason would be able to explain that the whole devaluing of news values is a tory plot.

      • I’m sure he would, but this just goes to show that when people have such a psychological need for their worldviews to remain intact, they are capable of concocting any narrative, however implausible, and then portraying it as if it were an unquestionable truth. This isn’t rhetoric, and nor is it the product of critical thinking – it’s the application of denial to escape the agony of cognitive dissonance.

  9. “‘Independent’ analysis comes from BBC colleagues standing in or, worse,
    from rentagobs who don’t seem to be experts in anything other than glib
    generalisations.”

    Equally, ‘independent analysis’ at the BBC also comes from someone with the required PC standpoint who represents some organisation I’ve never heard of nor read, identified in a little subtile at the bottom of the screen, with no accredition or explanation of what the organisation is. These unknown supposed independent experts spouting the BBC line remind me of an old marketing poster:

    “I don’t know who you are. I don’t know your company. I don’t know your company’s product. I don’t know what your company stands for. I don’t know your company’s customers. I don’t know your company’s record. I don’t know your comapany’s reputation. Now, what was it you wanted to sell me?”
    .

  10. Interesting that the New York Times, is the main one sought out by Trump. Just happens to be edited by Brit Mark Thompson, who in his position of BBC controller, came in for bias towards labour. Seems to have form for bias.

    • Mark Thompson was BBC director general before he joined the New York Times, and in that role presided over years of sustained BBC pro-EU and anti-UKIP bias. His propaganda also helped facilitate the rise of David Cameron, arguably a con-artist in everything he said and did.

  11. The whole balance of programming is the problem,nearly everything has a lefty bias,be it in the news,entertainment,drama and even sport has to have a politically correct placement. Take for example…Eastenders….just go to the East End of London and you can see how out of touch the programme is, but the Beeb will never except its bias until it is brought into the real commercial world and has the licence fee stopped

  12. Please leave Katie Hopkins out of your list. She is a breath of fresh air and honesty in the otherwise polluted cess pit.

      • I like Milo, he’s like a really near the knuckle comedian.

        But I don’t know why he’s the only person the person gets to comment. They must think he represents everyone who doesn’t think Jeremy Corbyn is the Messiah. Well I suppose he does in a way.

  13. Clever article, my favourite is when the BBC say something has “caused outrage” or “many people have been offended by *******”
    I normally counter with ” but the silent majority think it’s great”

    The BBC is finished but like an oil tanker they just keep drifting on

  14. I have found an extremely simple way to avoid being irritated by the bbc and sky news, stopped watching them.
    Sky news was not so bad until Mee me me took over then became unwatchable. Still get irritated with having to pay for the bbc while never watching it!

    • The average fine is about £500, so if you can avoid being prosecuted for four years you’ll be in profit. It also does not carry a criminal record, even if you go to prison for non-payment.

      The person found watching television without a licence is liable for prosecution, so if you don’t speak to the inspector when they knock on the door and, most importantly, do not give them your name, then it’s very hard for them to summons you to court.

  15. Don’t get me started on the BBC Weather Forecast. They gabble their way through telling you about all the weather where you aren’t, on days that aren’t today. EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES.

    • It’s the ridiculous hand waving that gets me.

      It’s so over the top it’s a distraction.

      If I took over at the BBC the first cut i’d make would be to cancel all the contracts to the freelance hand waving tutors. They must be on a fortune and they make every news programme, documentary or weather forecast unwatchable.

      What’s the point of that?

      • Fortunately I’m not allowed to watch BBC. Or any TV for that matter.

        My gripe is about radio – specifically Radio 1. (Yes I know – “grow up!” Sue me. I loved Peel back in the day and am determined to stay musically ungrownup.)

    • You’re so right. The weather forecast has become entertainment. Will the BBC’s new forecast providers Meteogroup take the same approach? I fear the terms of their contract will require them to be even worse.
      Pet peeve: we keep being told that the presenters are trained meteorologists, i.e. scientists, yet very few of them seem to know that mph stands for miles per hour.

      • They might very well be, but it means little. In my career I’ve seen a number of sub-par engineering grads disappear into marketing roles which suited them better. I also saw a number of high achievers disappear into law and accountancy, which pay better.

  16. I used to shop at the BBC. It had a huge variety of produce – everyone could be sure to find something which catered to their tastes. And, of course, there was lots that didn’t appeal to mine… but that wasn’t a problem with the choices available. I loved the slogan for years running atop their entrance – “Because we are licence-funded, we made programmes no commercial station ever would”.

    Then something changed.

    These days all their produce is homogenated. They still have ‘variety’ – of sorts – but everything leaves a processed, cheap and identical taste.

    I’ve noticed they’ve subtly changed their slogan too… it now reads: “Because we are licence-funded, we make programmes which have to appeal to everyone”.

    • It would be a shame to lose the BBC altogether though.

      I just hate the way it got colonised and ‘weaponised’.

      There’s a three part process by which luvvy louts take over and destroy every national treasure.

      Old School Ties
      Colonise
      Weaponise

      • I fear that, as with the EU, the BBC is controlled by a political clique who are incapable of behaving any differently from how they behave now. Part of this behaviour, of course, is to make it impossible for anyone to join the BBC’s power elite if there is any danger whatsoever of this person being in any way non-conformist to the BBC’s political worldview.

    • No, no, no! The BBC motto these days is surely “Because we are licence-funded, we make programmes which only have to appeal to ourselves”.

  17. I turned on Radio 4 by mistake about an hour ago, and caught a 1pm “news” item on how the world perceives Trump. Blatant, Goebbels-style propaganda, taking snippets of reaction and emotion and turning them into “facts.”

  18. The worst thing is breaking open the BBC’s glossy wrapper, only to find that something has gone very rotten inside. The whole package stinks.

  19. Meanwhile the Muslim population of London has topped 15%. Thanks to continuing mass migration from Africa and the Middle East London is not only the acid attack capital of the western world but also the TB capital. Mrs May’s response to this is to allow another 10,000 so called “unaccompanied minors” and drug traffikers claiming to be their relatives into Britain to start another round of chain migration as she continues her surrender to EU open borders fanatics. Why are these”migrants”our responsibility when they have illegally crossed multiple borders to get to Calais?. The first question that should be asked before allowing a single migrant in is “what’s in it for the people already living in Britain”? the same sort of question asked in Australia. Instead May imports another round of £1 million per migrant welfare dependents (Migrationwatch). Doesn’t she know that none of Merkel’s 1.2 million Muslim “refugees” allowed in in 2015 have gained any real employment? (read: “2030: Your Children’s Future in Islamic Britain” by David Vincent, Amazon and Kindle)

    • May is a globalist they believe the natural population should be destroyed and replaced by immigrants to build the new world order. The last people to try that were the Danes, that didn’t end well as I remember.

    • Theresa May clearly believes there’s a moral component to immigration. There isn’t, of course. It’s simply about money.

  20. There is only one way of solving the problem of single use plastics, you start at the very place where the problem originates from, the manufacturers, and you don’t fart around with moronic statements such as the EU has come out with “we want this problem to end by 2030” you announce right now, that in 3 months from this date all single use plastics will be banned, yes the industry will moan, yes they’ll say they can’t change their manufacturing process in time but, in truth they can, you could be guaranteed that if they found a way of changing their process to cut their costs in half, it wouldn’t take them 3 months, so they can do it, all it takes is someone with common sense and balls to do it!
    As to our governments idea of charging the end user for coffee cups, only in today’s bonkers Britain would someone look at the situation, see that you have 1 guy producing millions of the cups, then the next guy who owns a coffee shop buying tens of thousands of them every month, finally you have the end guy who buys one cup of coffee, and which one do our government think should carry the fine? Not the one producing millions and could make a change, not the one buying thousands and could demand a change, the guy buying one who has no choice, insane!

  21. With respect, If all you people commenting put the energies you use in this echo chamber into complaints to MP’s maybe something would change.

  22. Nothing wrong with plastic packaging. In fact with once weekly shopping expeditions it’s essential if the trolley is not to end up with squashed and damaged content. First disappointing article I’ve seen on CW.

  23. News providers have still not woken up to the internet and the fact they there are alternate sources for information not just their slanted output. The BBC squawks ;Fake News’ at every opportunity because people have seen through their leftist output and made them irrelevant and not worth their 4 billion annual taxpayer bung. Their fake Global Warmist output is also an insult to any intelligent person as is their pro globalist anti Trump and anti Brexit propaganda. Hopefully the government will dump this useless broadcaster asap and use their bung for something useful eg the NHS.

  24. Pass 50% of the BBC’s taxpayers bung to the private broadcasting companies then perhaps we wil get some decent programmes on all channels and get rid of the dross from the BBC. Soaps, and Saturday night crap are mind numbingly bad.

    • The BBC IS partially privatised already.

      There are private production companies making many of the programmes. Hat Track Productions seems to do very well out of the BBC.

      Then there’s David Baddiel’s production company, which seems to win a huge volume of business from Radio 4.

      I wonder why nobody complains about this? Is our national treasure being furtively exploited by private companies? Is this all above board?

      Surely it would be much more cost efficient if the BBC was to remain unsullied by filthy capitalist exploiters.

      I wonder if the political affiliations of their proprietors has anything to do with this uncharacteristic enthusiasm for private sector exploitation of a publicly funded body.

      • Thatcher’s legacy. The Peacocok Inquiry she supported demanded 25% of BBC programming be provided by the private sector.

Comments are closed.