h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The thing is politicians believe they have many audiences...but in the cold light of day looking impartially from the outside they have one...the problem is the 'one' is full of morons who lap up the crap MP spout out which the MP's play on.

Television audiences who watch Clarkson aren;t thta stupid...I would say that a large proportion of Top gear Viewers also watch him on QI/HIGNFY and realise he is playing to the type of show he is on...but he isn't someone who we have elected to run our country so when MP's say different thiongs to different audiences they show themselves to be the self-serving liars they all are.

Clarkson, I would assume, would say SURE I play a different character in the programmes I make but I'm not lying or cheationg the viewers just creating an experience on TV...I am not a politician lying to placate or keep quiet different audiences.

...so we're not having Top Gear Dog as Transport Minister then?

Top Gear Dog has been missing for a few series...I think Richard Hammond must have thought a labradoodle plus whitened teeth was just a bit too gay.

No tax on beer and petrol then

In that case, he's got my vote

in a westminster style parliamentary system a person need only to persuade a preselection committee in a safe seat and then a parliamentary caucus and (s)he has roughly a 50% chance of being prime mininster.

depending on the country this can mean persuading as little as 100 people.

not exactly a trial by ordeal.

re clarkson. he is a comedian. light entertainer if you aren't laughing.

the entertainment value lies in the sheer oddness of his opinions.

if either the man himself or his fans confuse that with real opinion and positions then they really ought not to be voting.

Actually he is a journalist.

In the recent Australian election a journalist ran against the sitting PM in his seat and beat him. The first time a sitting PM has been unseated for many many elections.

She was a respected political journalist though and had resigned some time before the election was announced - but it was still a real upset. She has been given a reasonably good position in the govt for a first timer - she's not just a "pretty face", as I said she was well respected

There were other factors involved - the general swing against the govt, and a redistribution of the boundaries changing the demographics of the electorate, but the point is that it can happen.

<>

So there are roughly two of them, then? B*****X

Why all this pussy footing about JC only becoming PM?

Much better to get rid of all elected represenatives and the useless Windsors. Install Jeremy as dictator and King with absolute power.

Now that might really be fun.

dot dot. journalism is not a profession but an activity. simply put, anyone can be a journalist as the web is ample evidence.

pedro. westminster parliaments overwhelmingly devolve into two party contests. where third parties get a crack at power it is usually a consequence of a reconfiguration of the existing 2 dominant parties. examples of westminster style parliaments with a genuine 3 or more split between parties capable of forming government are very rare indeed.

point remains that to become a prime minister in these systems only requires that you are supported by a small amount of people.

<>

Really? I beg to differ. Journalists need to understand the law, how to research, shorthand at a minimum speed of 100 wpm and a myriad of other skills. No newspaper will touch a prospective journalist without a formal qualification. To get on a course requires a minimum of 3 A levels. Even with a journalism qualification, the competition is so fierce that a journalist may first have to do piece work to build a portfolio.

You may be confusing bloggers with journalists. Any journalist could be a blogger, but not many bloggers have even the basic skills a journalist has. Bloggers write for fun, with no deadlines or direction. There's a world of difference.

Yes; much as any quack on Harley street, can by law call themselves 'Doctor'. Doesn't mean being a properly qualified medical doctor isn't a profession.

<>

I would too - I believe he'd use his brain, and that furthermore, unlike Reagan, he has a functioning one!

Vicky

with respect swl, there are so many obvious errors of fact in what you post i am tempted to think you are trolling. either that or the sarcasm is so dense as to be not immediately evident.

mainstream media is packed to the rafters with byline journalism created by celebrities and people with zero credentials in any field relevant to what they are writing about.

the notion that someone becomes a 'real' journalist by virtue of being employed by murdoch or the like is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

assuming your post was legit, i rather think you are the one who is confusing the old fashioned profession of reporter with journalist.

was it david malouf who suggested the world is filled with novelists trying to create news and journalists writing fiction?

and the comparison to doctors is ill made. medicine is about the most highly regulated profession you could think of.

any published writer can legitimately style themselves a journalist without fear of contradiction.

anti you quite clearly didn't read my post. I said by law anyone can *call* themselves 'doctor', in reply to your claim that anyone can be a journalist.

' By law, unlike “protected titles” such as nurse or physiotherapist, anyone can call themselves a doctor or a neurologist.' from

http://www.badscience.net/?p=234

And what a turn up, you are now muddling yourself by saying on the one hand,

>>journalism is not a profession but an activity. simply put, anyone can be a journalist as the web is ample evidence.<< post 51

>>any published writer can legitimately style themselves a journalist without fear of contradiction.<< post 56

So now you claim a journalist is only someone 'published' in post 56, after saying in post 51 that anyone can be a journalist. You are contradicting yourself.


Am I going a bit SoRBish?

<>

Very much! It's counter-productive to debate, 'n' all...

thx for the link, which itself is an example of both poor reporting and the poor reading skills of some readers.

in fact the article does not support the proposition that anyone can style themselves a doctor, much less set up a practice as one. doubtless you were confused by the misleading headline to the story.

vets, dentists, chiropractors and possibly a few other professions are entitled to style themselves with the honourary title of doctor. honourary of course unless they actually have doctorates. this entitlement comes by virtue of appropriate educational qualification and registration with their particular professional member bodies as determined by statute.

this ability to style oneself 'doctor' does NOT extend to all members of the public.

interestingly, perhaps paradoxically, you cite the blog version rather than the mainstream media version. why? did the guardian cut out the factually incorrect claim that 'anyone' can set up practice as a neurosurgeon with the title of doctor?

bit rich when people are attempting to establish a qualitative distinction between journalism and blogging and then use a blog as a cite.

as for your assertion that there is a contradiction between the two sections of mine you quote: you are misguided. putting your piece online is publishing. if you doubt this, try defaming someone on a website that is accessible via links and see whether the law makes such a precious distinction.

Yes, I'm all for common sense rational statements showing what is true and what is muddled rubbish. Keep it up.