The story so far! Woke activists and disappointing colleagues are holding the Father Ted Musical hostage. I was asked to remove myself because my toxicity meant "they wouldn't be able to get funding or find a theatre. Since then, I have been approached by two different organisations wanting to fund it, and a theatre willing to put it on. So they're not telling me the truth and I think I deserve at least that if they're trying to remove me from my own creation.
Exciting news re: getting approached by two other organisations willing to fund Father Ted. Not so good about being lied to - but lies and obsfucations are the hallmarks of T ideology and TRAs.
I was chatting a good pal and kick ass news journalist recently. In later years of career he provided a lot of training both to trainees and updating staff.
His favourite question for each group was 'what is news?' Almost no one gave the correct answer including most senior. All news services have one thing in common. I've never been a news journalist and didn't get it right, but it made perfect sense when told.
I'm not sure, but for a long time I've thought most see news as information those in control of it want people to know, or think they know, to suit their own agenda. Stuff not to believe, I suppose.
'Product' is one way to view it, but news organisations wield such enormous power, through deciding at source what the rest of us should or should not even be given information about or be able to learn of as 'news', and then putting their spin on what they anoint noteworthy. 'Product' seems pretty benign for such thought-steering, world-shaping influence. Especially with the health or otherwise of democracies being contingent on sources of information, on what people do/don't have access to.
I can see why a seasoned news journalist would view it as 'product' from the business insider vantage point, and perhaps to dissociate himself from the enormity of his daily decisions. But the effects of 'news' out in the world are something else.
I believe news being a product is effectively matter of fact. This applies wether it's the big uns e.g. BBC/AP/dirty digger to an individual who's blogging about apparent shenanigans in the parish council.
The decision of what to report on, and not, the bias/spin/fibs/honking great lies/etc are all aspects of what makes it a product. The effects of news can have enormous consequences. But that doesn't mean all news isn't a product.
What I find most significant is almost all of those working in news don't know what they are making.
Do you have a type of news operation, or specific org', in mind whose output doesn't fit the 'product' concept?
Oh I agree that it is 'product', that's a factual description on one level. I'm trying to put my finger on how, in the case of news organisations, it's somehow more than that, because of its profound influence – unlike the 'product' of shoe or grooming 'product' manufacturers – and because we imagine a higher purpose than we do of mere consumer product providers. We need to trust news organisations to at least try to be more than mere providers of product.
Strong yes to, 'What I find most significant is almost all of those working in news don't know what they are making.' And it sounds as though you have experience about this... may I ask if you'd elaborate? I'm curious to know what sorts of things lie behind the newsroom curtain.
As to your last question, I'd like to hope there are still individuals out there whose foremost aims are things like 1) reflecting on and rooting out the most important things for people to know about (e.g. would've been nice if news orgs hadn't taken 50 years to start properly covering and drawing the public's attention to environmental trashings that were there to be noted decades earlier) and 2) conscientiously digging out hard facts, covering unfashionable subjects probingly and as objectively as possible, without product and profit being the ultimate arbiter of what makes the news.
Going by the fact that the BBC do not want to publicise the outcome of Mike Webberley's MPTS Tribunal, I suppose that the BBC thinks that it would give its consumers indigestion.
The BBC is an interesting example because of the relationship with Government via setting the Licence Fee and conditions attached to it and internal forces, ie. "woke ideology":
In Business Marketing terms, for the BBC:
CLIENT = Government
CUSTOMERS = Licence Fee Payers
CONSUMERS = people who actually consume the product, including, for example, the children of paying customers
As pointed out by the EDIjester in his recent interview with Graham, and by others in the anti-woke fold, the incursion of Queer Theory and a Social Justice agenda (EDI - or "DIE" as it would be more aptly termed) via hirings, training and ideological capture ruins Businesses by destroying normal business relationships and priorities:
The NHS is another "Business" (or "Industry", if the term "Business" leaves you cold) that is being eaten away from the inside for the same reason. A perfect example is the prioritisation of the feelings and "rights" of "trans staff" over patient service and safety, eg. women being told to accept care by an obvious male when they have requested a female member of staff.
I endured 20 years of "Marketing Planning" in the NHS, which has operated on a quasi-business model since the introduction of the Internal Market by Thatcher in 1989. This is straying away from the original question about News Services in general but it has relevance to the BBC and even to Channel 4.
GENDERBREAD MODEL
When I first saw the "Genderbread" diagram it was immediately familiar as a Marketing Planning tool.
Bear in mind that Business and Marketing involve not only the identification of "target markets" but also the creation of new markets by offering "solutions" to "problems" we never knew existed.
A good historical example is Listerine, developed as a surgical antiseptic then sold for a wide range of purposes, including as a floor-cleaning product, it was re-purposed as a "breath freshening" cure for the invented problem of "halitosis", which you might not even be aware you have, so best to buy Listerine and gargle regularly to stave of the possibility of disgusting others with your foul odour.
*How Halitosis Became a Medical Condition With a “Cure”*
"Bad breath wasn’t perceived as a medical condition until one company realized that it could help them sell mouthwash"
"Ultimately, the bad-breath campaign was so successful that marketing historians refer to it as the “halitosis appeal”—shorthand for *using fear to sell product*."
A current example is the proliferation of products on offer as solutions to the "problems" generated by the Gender Identity Industry, or what might be termed the Human Transformation Project (just thought of that term).
These range from books for toddlers through "training" for organisations to Non-Binary Gender Nullification Surgery to remove breasts, nipples, belly buttons, external genitalia and internal reproductive organs.
We are told that denial of access to these "life saving solutions" leads to suicide: "using fear to sell product".
"Fear drives ratings" - CNN expose by Project Veritas
You can see the clash between Gender Identity Industry and Gender Identity Ideology representatives and priorities if you look at the agenda for WPATH and EPATH conferences.
EPATH 2019:
"Depathologisation: Opportunities and Challenges” Keynote speech by Dinah Bons (strategic director TGEU)
"However, the World Health Organisation finally removed trans identities from the mental health disorders chapter in its latest edition of the International Classification of Diseases and included them in a new chapter called “Conditions related to Sexual Health”.
Let’s not forget that this change includes a diagnosis for children, Gender Incongruence in Childhood, contributing to their pathologisation when no medical treatment is needed."
Where they have merged is in the championing by WPATH of "eunuch" as a "gender identity".
It is blatantly obvious that castration cults and fetishists have nothing whatsoever to do with "gender identity" but hey, it's another market pull in under the "Transgender Umbrella".
"Trans Health Authority Cites CASTRATION FETISH Site in Guidelines"
Anything that would affect the profitability of the Gender Identity/Human Transformation "Business".
This profitability is protected and promoted by individuals with vested interests, whether personal (eg. parents of "trans kids"), ideological, financial or status-driven.
The BBC does not want its *consumers* to know about the outcome of the Mike Webberley Tribunal therefore it is "not news".
- As *customers*, we should complain to the BBC.
- We should also complain to the Government-appointed Regulator, OFCOM, because the Government is the BBC's *client*.
Sometimes News Services just lack the intelligence/information to produce a certain type of product, even when there is an appetite for it, or they are lazy and just copy what seems to be selling well for others.
That is where investigative journalism and citizen journalism come in.
An example would be coverage of the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust GIDS (gender identity development service) for children.
Perhaps because "human interest" stories about children are a popular product with both *customers* and *consumers*, News Services focus on the *consumers* and their interface with GIDS. (The main "human interest" in the Sonia Appleby ET case was "safeguarding children" and its ramifications.)
Perhaps because NHS funding and governance is both complicated and politically sensitive, News Services have tended to ignore the bigger picture:
CONSUMERS = children (Newsworthy!)
CUSTOMERS = taxpayers (funding is 80% general taxation, 20% National Insurance)
Loved learning the Listerine story, the invention of halitosis as a medical problem so people would worry that they have it and fork out money for a 'cure'. Yes, gender identity wrong bodyism and 'treatment', and it also brings to mind bioethicist Carl Elliott's excellent piece about apotemnophilia (with a cameo role for transsexualism) for the Atlantic back in 2000, 'A new way to be mad', which asked, ‘Can a mere description of a condition make it contagious?' He observed,
‘Fifty years ago the suggestion that tens of thousands of people would someday want their genitals surgically altered so that they could change their sex would have been ludicrous. But it has happened. The question is why.
‘…it is possible to imagine… that our cultural and historical conditions have not just revealed transsexuals but created them. That is, once "transsexual" and "gender-identity disorder" and "sex-reassignment surgery" became common linguistic currency, more people began conceptualizing and interpreting their experience in these terms. They began to make sense of their lives in a way that hadn't been available to them before, and to some degree they actually became the kinds of people described by these terms.’
‘Many people seeking amputations [as in apotemnophilia] are desperate and vulnerable to exploitation. … All they have is the Internet, and their own troubled lives, and the place where those two things intersect.’
And yes, people need to make a noise to the BBC about choosing to ignore the findings of Mike Webberley's tribunal.
Some news products are designed to give the target consumers indigestion e.g. Mail and Express: carefully finessed to scare/alarm, yet many happily pay for it!
The news product can and does change: I find it hard to believe 10 years ago BBC news would’ve published some of the anti-science gender extremist drivel it more recently has. But equally a couple of years ago I wouldn’t have believed that it would give coverage to those pointing out the problems of gender id extremism, but it has.
News being a product doesn’t necessarily require a business plan. An individual blogging about local/parish council shenanigans is still making a product. They pay for it and do the work themselves.
“Sometimes News Services just lack the intelligence/information to produce a certain type of product, even when there is an appetite for it, or they are lazy and just copy what seems to be selling well for others.”
That can be true, but doesn’t negate the fundamental characteristic of it being a product. For e.g. the gender id extremism on BBC is ultimately due to those in control deciding it was best for their product. Note not best for the listeners/viewers/readers!
“That is where investigative journalism and citizen journalism come in.”
I disagree because both of those are still a product. For e.g. Private Eye is generally an excellent source of factual unbiased investigative journalism, but still a product. Despite assorted campaigns about tax dodging/avoidance/non-doms cnuts/etc, the ownership of PE is offshore for the tax benefits. PE as a product relies on its credibility, so we’ll never read about their ownership structure in PE.
I can't think of a better and safer investment at the moment than this show. There isn't a person I know across about 10 countries who wouldn't want to see this show made.
I'd happily chip in a chunk if there's a space for investors.
Here’s an idea; you crowdfund to buy it from Hatrick but instead of simple donations we become ‘shareholders’ and get a cut of the profit. A kind of Father Ted Co-operative - My Lovely Horse Ltd. Or just sue the bastards.
Oh ,well done 👏👏👏 Sometimes I wish I could get these cowards in a room and let rip ,as you have in your email. Instead ,I just shout at the TV screen.! 🤮🤬
I’m sorry I don’t do any social media , have always thought it toxic but I’ll help where I can
The fact that other companies are willing to produce it shows a turn for the better I would think
I’m probably just naive 🙁
I think you’re right, about the toxicity.
Exciting news re: getting approached by two other organisations willing to fund Father Ted. Not so good about being lied to - but lies and obsfucations are the hallmarks of T ideology and TRAs.
I gave #FreeFatherTed a shout out (along with Rachel Rooney) at Posie’s Speakers Corner on Sunday - lots of support for you 💕
Great interview with EDIJester! A wonderful, funny, humane, thoughtful man.
I was chatting a good pal and kick ass news journalist recently. In later years of career he provided a lot of training both to trainees and updating staff.
His favourite question for each group was 'what is news?' Almost no one gave the correct answer including most senior. All news services have one thing in common. I've never been a news journalist and didn't get it right, but it made perfect sense when told.
Anyone like to take a guess?
I'm not sure, but for a long time I've thought most see news as information those in control of it want people to know, or think they know, to suit their own agenda. Stuff not to believe, I suppose.
The factual accuracy, and left/right bias, of many news services is handily monitored here: https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
But this is fundamental.
Ground News is an interesting site and app that lets you see how a story has been portrayed by different news outlets and also your own "media bias"
https://ground.news/
News is a product.
Whatever the news service, it's designed for consumption of certain group(s), and there's always a business plan.
Lovely. Nice and cynical then. 👍🏼
Not a positive or negative, but it is a simple truth. Can't a product can be a good thing? I believe so.
Consider the characteristics of news services. The output is the product.
'Product' is one way to view it, but news organisations wield such enormous power, through deciding at source what the rest of us should or should not even be given information about or be able to learn of as 'news', and then putting their spin on what they anoint noteworthy. 'Product' seems pretty benign for such thought-steering, world-shaping influence. Especially with the health or otherwise of democracies being contingent on sources of information, on what people do/don't have access to.
I can see why a seasoned news journalist would view it as 'product' from the business insider vantage point, and perhaps to dissociate himself from the enormity of his daily decisions. But the effects of 'news' out in the world are something else.
I believe news being a product is effectively matter of fact. This applies wether it's the big uns e.g. BBC/AP/dirty digger to an individual who's blogging about apparent shenanigans in the parish council.
The decision of what to report on, and not, the bias/spin/fibs/honking great lies/etc are all aspects of what makes it a product. The effects of news can have enormous consequences. But that doesn't mean all news isn't a product.
What I find most significant is almost all of those working in news don't know what they are making.
Do you have a type of news operation, or specific org', in mind whose output doesn't fit the 'product' concept?
Oh I agree that it is 'product', that's a factual description on one level. I'm trying to put my finger on how, in the case of news organisations, it's somehow more than that, because of its profound influence – unlike the 'product' of shoe or grooming 'product' manufacturers – and because we imagine a higher purpose than we do of mere consumer product providers. We need to trust news organisations to at least try to be more than mere providers of product.
Strong yes to, 'What I find most significant is almost all of those working in news don't know what they are making.' And it sounds as though you have experience about this... may I ask if you'd elaborate? I'm curious to know what sorts of things lie behind the newsroom curtain.
As to your last question, I'd like to hope there are still individuals out there whose foremost aims are things like 1) reflecting on and rooting out the most important things for people to know about (e.g. would've been nice if news orgs hadn't taken 50 years to start properly covering and drawing the public's attention to environmental trashings that were there to be noted decades earlier) and 2) conscientiously digging out hard facts, covering unfashionable subjects probingly and as objectively as possible, without product and profit being the ultimate arbiter of what makes the news.
Going by the fact that the BBC do not want to publicise the outcome of Mike Webberley's MPTS Tribunal, I suppose that the BBC thinks that it would give its consumers indigestion.
The BBC is an interesting example because of the relationship with Government via setting the Licence Fee and conditions attached to it and internal forces, ie. "woke ideology":
In Business Marketing terms, for the BBC:
CLIENT = Government
CUSTOMERS = Licence Fee Payers
CONSUMERS = people who actually consume the product, including, for example, the children of paying customers
As pointed out by the EDIjester in his recent interview with Graham, and by others in the anti-woke fold, the incursion of Queer Theory and a Social Justice agenda (EDI - or "DIE" as it would be more aptly termed) via hirings, training and ideological capture ruins Businesses by destroying normal business relationships and priorities:
"A chat with EDIJester"
https://youtu.be/egDp6B2H4UQ
The NHS is another "Business" (or "Industry", if the term "Business" leaves you cold) that is being eaten away from the inside for the same reason. A perfect example is the prioritisation of the feelings and "rights" of "trans staff" over patient service and safety, eg. women being told to accept care by an obvious male when they have requested a female member of staff.
I endured 20 years of "Marketing Planning" in the NHS, which has operated on a quasi-business model since the introduction of the Internal Market by Thatcher in 1989. This is straying away from the original question about News Services in general but it has relevance to the BBC and even to Channel 4.
GENDERBREAD MODEL
When I first saw the "Genderbread" diagram it was immediately familiar as a Marketing Planning tool.
Bear in mind that Business and Marketing involve not only the identification of "target markets" but also the creation of new markets by offering "solutions" to "problems" we never knew existed.
A good historical example is Listerine, developed as a surgical antiseptic then sold for a wide range of purposes, including as a floor-cleaning product, it was re-purposed as a "breath freshening" cure for the invented problem of "halitosis", which you might not even be aware you have, so best to buy Listerine and gargle regularly to stave of the possibility of disgusting others with your foul odour.
*How Halitosis Became a Medical Condition With a “Cure”*
"Bad breath wasn’t perceived as a medical condition until one company realized that it could help them sell mouthwash"
"Ultimately, the bad-breath campaign was so successful that marketing historians refer to it as the “halitosis appeal”—shorthand for *using fear to sell product*."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/marketing-campaign-invented-halitosis-180954082/
A current example is the proliferation of products on offer as solutions to the "problems" generated by the Gender Identity Industry, or what might be termed the Human Transformation Project (just thought of that term).
These range from books for toddlers through "training" for organisations to Non-Binary Gender Nullification Surgery to remove breasts, nipples, belly buttons, external genitalia and internal reproductive organs.
We are told that denial of access to these "life saving solutions" leads to suicide: "using fear to sell product".
"Fear drives ratings" - CNN expose by Project Veritas
https://www.projectveritas.com/video/part-2-cnn-director-charlie-chester-reveals-how-network-practices/
You can see the clash between Gender Identity Industry and Gender Identity Ideology representatives and priorities if you look at the agenda for WPATH and EPATH conferences.
EPATH 2019:
"Depathologisation: Opportunities and Challenges” Keynote speech by Dinah Bons (strategic director TGEU)
"However, the World Health Organisation finally removed trans identities from the mental health disorders chapter in its latest edition of the International Classification of Diseases and included them in a new chapter called “Conditions related to Sexual Health”.
Let’s not forget that this change includes a diagnosis for children, Gender Incongruence in Childhood, contributing to their pathologisation when no medical treatment is needed."
Where they have merged is in the championing by WPATH of "eunuch" as a "gender identity".
https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Dinah-Bons.pdf
Compare with the presentations advocating hormones and surgery for children/minors:
EPATH 2019 Book of Abstracts:
https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Boof-of-abstracts-EPATH2019.pdf
It is blatantly obvious that castration cults and fetishists have nothing whatsoever to do with "gender identity" but hey, it's another market pull in under the "Transgender Umbrella".
"Trans Health Authority Cites CASTRATION FETISH Site in Guidelines"
https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/trans-health-authority-cites-castration?s=r
"The Trans Umbrella Is Older Than You Think"
https://womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/
WHAT IS NOT NEWS
Anything that would affect the profitability of the Gender Identity/Human Transformation "Business".
This profitability is protected and promoted by individuals with vested interests, whether personal (eg. parents of "trans kids"), ideological, financial or status-driven.
The BBC does not want its *consumers* to know about the outcome of the Mike Webberley Tribunal therefore it is "not news".
- As *customers*, we should complain to the BBC.
- We should also complain to the Government-appointed Regulator, OFCOM, because the Government is the BBC's *client*.
Sometimes News Services just lack the intelligence/information to produce a certain type of product, even when there is an appetite for it, or they are lazy and just copy what seems to be selling well for others.
That is where investigative journalism and citizen journalism come in.
An example would be coverage of the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust GIDS (gender identity development service) for children.
Perhaps because "human interest" stories about children are a popular product with both *customers* and *consumers*, News Services focus on the *consumers* and their interface with GIDS. (The main "human interest" in the Sonia Appleby ET case was "safeguarding children" and its ramifications.)
Perhaps because NHS funding and governance is both complicated and politically sensitive, News Services have tended to ignore the bigger picture:
CONSUMERS = children (Newsworthy!)
CUSTOMERS = taxpayers (funding is 80% general taxation, 20% National Insurance)
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-funded
CLIENT: Government via NHS England Specialised Commissioning, ie. The Gender Identity Programme Board
https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/gender-dysphoria-clinical-programme/
Fascinating, thanks.
Loved learning the Listerine story, the invention of halitosis as a medical problem so people would worry that they have it and fork out money for a 'cure'. Yes, gender identity wrong bodyism and 'treatment', and it also brings to mind bioethicist Carl Elliott's excellent piece about apotemnophilia (with a cameo role for transsexualism) for the Atlantic back in 2000, 'A new way to be mad', which asked, ‘Can a mere description of a condition make it contagious?' He observed,
‘Fifty years ago the suggestion that tens of thousands of people would someday want their genitals surgically altered so that they could change their sex would have been ludicrous. But it has happened. The question is why.
‘…it is possible to imagine… that our cultural and historical conditions have not just revealed transsexuals but created them. That is, once "transsexual" and "gender-identity disorder" and "sex-reassignment surgery" became common linguistic currency, more people began conceptualizing and interpreting their experience in these terms. They began to make sense of their lives in a way that hadn't been available to them before, and to some degree they actually became the kinds of people described by these terms.’
‘Many people seeking amputations [as in apotemnophilia] are desperate and vulnerable to exploitation. … All they have is the Internet, and their own troubled lives, and the place where those two things intersect.’
And yes, people need to make a noise to the BBC about choosing to ignore the findings of Mike Webberley's tribunal.
Some news products are designed to give the target consumers indigestion e.g. Mail and Express: carefully finessed to scare/alarm, yet many happily pay for it!
The news product can and does change: I find it hard to believe 10 years ago BBC news would’ve published some of the anti-science gender extremist drivel it more recently has. But equally a couple of years ago I wouldn’t have believed that it would give coverage to those pointing out the problems of gender id extremism, but it has.
News being a product doesn’t necessarily require a business plan. An individual blogging about local/parish council shenanigans is still making a product. They pay for it and do the work themselves.
“Sometimes News Services just lack the intelligence/information to produce a certain type of product, even when there is an appetite for it, or they are lazy and just copy what seems to be selling well for others.”
That can be true, but doesn’t negate the fundamental characteristic of it being a product. For e.g. the gender id extremism on BBC is ultimately due to those in control deciding it was best for their product. Note not best for the listeners/viewers/readers!
“That is where investigative journalism and citizen journalism come in.”
I disagree because both of those are still a product. For e.g. Private Eye is generally an excellent source of factual unbiased investigative journalism, but still a product. Despite assorted campaigns about tax dodging/avoidance/non-doms cnuts/etc, the ownership of PE is offshore for the tax benefits. PE as a product relies on its credibility, so we’ll never read about their ownership structure in PE.
Do tell 🙏🤞
You are kinda close :-)
They are idiots who are not watching closely enough. Throwing away the chance of a runaway hit to appease the child abusers in America.
Love Barry .... hope you have another convo soon.
How much do these shows cost, roughly?
I can't think of a better and safer investment at the moment than this show. There isn't a person I know across about 10 countries who wouldn't want to see this show made.
I'd happily chip in a chunk if there's a space for investors.
The Nolan interview doesn’t seem to be available anymore on YouTube
Shared on Twitter.
Here’s an idea; you crowdfund to buy it from Hatrick but instead of simple donations we become ‘shareholders’ and get a cut of the profit. A kind of Father Ted Co-operative - My Lovely Horse Ltd. Or just sue the bastards.
Thank you! I may repost this if that’s ok!
Alice that was just great. Thank you.
Fantastic! ❤️
Oh ,well done 👏👏👏 Sometimes I wish I could get these cowards in a room and let rip ,as you have in your email. Instead ,I just shout at the TV screen.! 🤮🤬
Oh I will write to them too that’s a great idea!
This really is ....rather good.