![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Given the abysmal performance of the cards during Mr Ward's 17 hours at the table ("I'm here for another week and if that doesn't involve a single hand of poker, that's fine by me" ... and people think that it's a fun social game...) it's fortunate that there are some other London players to funk for. In particular, the good Doctor Channing, whom I have undoubtedly bokked to death simply by mentioning his name, is still in as the end of day three approaches. The Channing's path and mine nearly crossed more than once before we first met at a tournament in the Stakis in 2000 or thereabouts. He took over my position at City Index when I got fired ("they got rid of me eventually, too" he observed. And, of course, I am not alone in the poker community in ballsing it up at an online betting firm. The Camel's performance at BlueSquare is more legendary than mine).
If the Good Doctor can bring home a sizeable wedge there will be no more deserving winner. He said to me earlier in the year at Mr Ward's Tucson celebration that he started 2007 with a determination to be "more professional", so it would be excellent if he could cop a good one here.
And, of course, it's likely to make the drink-up in London sometime next month which I am confident Mr Ward will propose even more ribald than the last one.
++++++++
No-one resigns as a matter of honour any more. Their lawyers and agents won't let them. "Fuck principle, let them fire me and give me a big goodbye present" is the attitude. And I can see a large number of younger readers saying "And what's wrong with that?" Well, if you don't know now, you never will.
The latest example of "why should I quit? I've said I'm sorry." goes to Peter Fincham, controller of BBC1. In a private showing of forthcoming TV programmes on BBC1, Mr Fincham "led" with sensational footage of the Queen flouncing out of a photoshoot with Annie Leibowitz after being asked to remove her crown. "Looks like the Queen lost it a bit", said Mr Fincham to the journalists collected for the autumn preview.
Unfortunately, proving that the BBC no longer employs anyone who knows fuck-all about news reporting, Mr Fincham made just about the most basic journalistic error there is. He didn't check his source. The production company that provided the footage put it in the wrong order, and the shot of her "flouncing out" was actually film of her arriving at the shoot.
Whoops.
As Michael Grade observed this morning on the radio, this is typical of many of the younger players in the media industry at the moment - "sexing things up" to make them more interesting, without realizing that factual documentaries are meant to work by certain rules -- one of which is that the basic order of things is kept if changing that order might change the meaning. The problem is, independent documentary makers have for years made documentaries about "nobodies", where the script is written first and the "facts" are then found to fit it.
From there it is a small, but dangerous and significant, step to wilfully distorting the facts. When you do this with the Queen, rather than with an unemployed single mum in West Lothian, there are consequences.
What neither Grade, nor Fincham, nor John Humphrys pointed out in an interview love-fest this morning on Radio Four was that the commissioners of these documentaries (i.e., the BBC and ITV, C4, Five, Sky) have for years been penny-pinching to death the producers of those documentaries. This has resulted in the independent production companies being unable to pay decent wages, and the result is the kind of cock-up which we saw a couple of days ago -- basic journalistic errors in the production stage.
What is more worrying is that this was compounded by Fincham failing to check the source, and then, even more astoundingly, not seeming to realize that he was in error. As far as Fincham was concerned, the line "we were deceived" is good enough. Unfortunately, in the courts, it isn't.
I'm reminded of a marvellous story concerning Brooke Shields. A leading British newspaper, often given away free in hotels and with a notably robust attitude to immigration, ran a story about Ms Shields being arrested at an airport. This story (a blockbuster) had been supplied by a freelancer in France, and the paper ran with it. No decent news editor would have run such a story unchecked, but the news editor had finished for the night, and (so I heard) the main night news editor was on holiday. This meant that the weekend night news editor was in charge, and he clearly made the same mistake as Fincham. The better a story looks, then the more careful you should be in checking that it is true.
The newspaper ran the story. It was completely false. Shields sued and got one of the best public apologies ever (kudos to the Shields libel lawyer there, by the way!).
So, Fincham won't quit, even though he has shown himself to be useless at his job. But in a few months he will undoubtedly be 'promoted' to a job where he can do less harm. I supect that he now has a great future behind him.
If the Good Doctor can bring home a sizeable wedge there will be no more deserving winner. He said to me earlier in the year at Mr Ward's Tucson celebration that he started 2007 with a determination to be "more professional", so it would be excellent if he could cop a good one here.
And, of course, it's likely to make the drink-up in London sometime next month which I am confident Mr Ward will propose even more ribald than the last one.
++++++++
No-one resigns as a matter of honour any more. Their lawyers and agents won't let them. "Fuck principle, let them fire me and give me a big goodbye present" is the attitude. And I can see a large number of younger readers saying "And what's wrong with that?" Well, if you don't know now, you never will.
The latest example of "why should I quit? I've said I'm sorry." goes to Peter Fincham, controller of BBC1. In a private showing of forthcoming TV programmes on BBC1, Mr Fincham "led" with sensational footage of the Queen flouncing out of a photoshoot with Annie Leibowitz after being asked to remove her crown. "Looks like the Queen lost it a bit", said Mr Fincham to the journalists collected for the autumn preview.
Unfortunately, proving that the BBC no longer employs anyone who knows fuck-all about news reporting, Mr Fincham made just about the most basic journalistic error there is. He didn't check his source. The production company that provided the footage put it in the wrong order, and the shot of her "flouncing out" was actually film of her arriving at the shoot.
Whoops.
As Michael Grade observed this morning on the radio, this is typical of many of the younger players in the media industry at the moment - "sexing things up" to make them more interesting, without realizing that factual documentaries are meant to work by certain rules -- one of which is that the basic order of things is kept if changing that order might change the meaning. The problem is, independent documentary makers have for years made documentaries about "nobodies", where the script is written first and the "facts" are then found to fit it.
From there it is a small, but dangerous and significant, step to wilfully distorting the facts. When you do this with the Queen, rather than with an unemployed single mum in West Lothian, there are consequences.
What neither Grade, nor Fincham, nor John Humphrys pointed out in an interview love-fest this morning on Radio Four was that the commissioners of these documentaries (i.e., the BBC and ITV, C4, Five, Sky) have for years been penny-pinching to death the producers of those documentaries. This has resulted in the independent production companies being unable to pay decent wages, and the result is the kind of cock-up which we saw a couple of days ago -- basic journalistic errors in the production stage.
What is more worrying is that this was compounded by Fincham failing to check the source, and then, even more astoundingly, not seeming to realize that he was in error. As far as Fincham was concerned, the line "we were deceived" is good enough. Unfortunately, in the courts, it isn't.
I'm reminded of a marvellous story concerning Brooke Shields. A leading British newspaper, often given away free in hotels and with a notably robust attitude to immigration, ran a story about Ms Shields being arrested at an airport. This story (a blockbuster) had been supplied by a freelancer in France, and the paper ran with it. No decent news editor would have run such a story unchecked, but the news editor had finished for the night, and (so I heard) the main night news editor was on holiday. This meant that the weekend night news editor was in charge, and he clearly made the same mistake as Fincham. The better a story looks, then the more careful you should be in checking that it is true.
The newspaper ran the story. It was completely false. Shields sued and got one of the best public apologies ever (kudos to the Shields libel lawyer there, by the way!).
So, Fincham won't quit, even though he has shown himself to be useless at his job. But in a few months he will undoubtedly be 'promoted' to a job where he can do less harm. I supect that he now has a great future behind him.
