Mail Online overtakes BBC

So, it's finally happened! The Mail online has finally smashed the monthly traffic record for a UK website and has overtaken BBC online.

The Mail has been gunning for the Beeb for many years but this is a moment for anyone interested in online communications to sit back and applaud the strategy.

In reaching for an international audience, as pointed out by Asda's Dom Burch in a CIPR North West summer social event yesterday, the Mail has become the gossip and celebrity site of choice for web users on both sides of the Atlantic.

The publication clearly aims for a wider audience than its sister print channel and in PR circles, it is becoming widely seen as the place to launch a consumer or celebrity story; especially as many newspapers and news sites now unashamedly take the Mail online's content as their own.

While the Mail isn't a popular newspaper among the left, this web achievement is certainly something paying dividends for them and Mr Murdoch will no doubt be looking to address this soon.

Facebook makes another PR Fail

My wife is an interesting and talented woman, yet she has no time for marketing. She likes what she likes, she goes by her own instincts. So when, three weeks ago, I came in to see her deleting many of her Facebook albums, I was curious why this was?

Her response? "I don't trust it (Facebook), you don't know who is looking at them."

So it was with great interest that I digested the latest PR fail from Facebook which has seen the company on the defensive today over the use of facial recognition to tag photos, a feature they launched in the US last year but have now introduced globally.

I don't have a problem with big brands, I imagine working in PR would be a challenge otherwise. So for that reason I don't buy in to the 'Facebook bashing' which seems to be the preoccupation of many bloggers; yet the issue for Facebook is that there have been so many of these slip-ups that it's now a mainstream issue - my wife wouldn't be worried about it if it wasn't.

To put it another way, Facebook is becoming famous for having a poor privacy policy. If you put 'Facebook privacy' in to a news reader you will get between 450-700 recent articles from across the globe. That's a statistic which doesn't need to be analysed.

Privacy becomes even more important when one considers the growth of content curation (read @JamesCrawford at his blog for more on this) and the growth of the cloud consumer.

As discussed in this interesting Marketing Week article, the growth of social channels is being driven by cloud consumers who, typically, create 90 pieces of content a week on Facebook.

Now this content is why every brand is flocking to Facebook, they want this content to link to, endorse and interact with their brands. So the more data Facebook gives them, the more accurate this spend can be.

But here's the rub. For every brand page, Facebook still grew on the bread and butter of people sharing very personal information with their friends in a way never done before. My wife is, effectively, a cloud consumer in the rawest sense. She uses the technology and channels to live her life and take part in online communities, she uses it to keep friends and family up to date with the progress of our children. Clearly, however, Facebook's reputation has altered enough for this cloud to turn a shade of grey and the negative media coverage has affected her behaviour.

A personal example, yes, but not a one-off. It's an issue Facebook's reputation managers need to address as it reaches the heart of debate over privacy versus marketing and there's nothing to say that if the cloud consumers don't like what they here that they couldn't float away elsewhere.

Because behind every cloud is a competitor with some silver lining.

Ken Clarke defends rape comments

Ken Clarke was either brave or foolish to go on Question Time tonight. As it is, it was probably a wise move thanks to the shocking introduction of grown up debate from Jack Straw and Shami Chakrabarti amongst others.

Mr Clarke undoubtedly made a mistake but the feeding frenzy was sensationalist and the arguments deserved a better quality of debate. That would have done justice to the millions of victims and their families who deserve not only justice but an intelligent argument about how to improve the law, especially the often horrific trial process which I have read about.

That doesn't mean cutting sentences is right, that's not my point, the fact is that it's a serious issue and the news coverage was sensationalist, personality politics not befitting the severity of the topic.

Why the collective responsibility of ministers needs refreshing in a coalition

When I was a young whippersnapper, my favourite lesson of the week was politics. Mr Wood was the teacher, a portly chap with a touch of that famous chef detective. I digress, anyhow, he used to ensure all the boys and girls memorised parliamentary conventions and quotes, it was a truly throwback way of teaching but it did wonders for one's grasp of democracy.

Events this week have led me to delve the Commons' Library in search of developments on my favourite such convention, that of ministerial collective responsibility. It's a fascinating read and important to keep front of mind as the coalition cabinet looks to a new age of more diverse and challenging decision making.

The coalition looked to address this early on with 'agreements to differ' within its coalition agreement yet many policies, such as NHS reforms, were not included in this. So either the proposals by the health secretary were originally passed through cabinet and it was only negative stakeholder reaction which influenced the changes; or the Lib Dems kept their counsel because of the convention.

Either way, Nick Clegg needs to test the convention as as much as possible, starting with NHS reforms if he is to repair the damage inflicted on his party in the 'midterms' - although backtracking in the wake of election defeat is not the most sincere way of achieving this.

I think the convention needs redefining beyond the 'agreement to differ' convention in a modern, coalition government. For voters deserve the right to know the balance between Lib Dem/Conservative in to decision making, as the smokescreen of collective responsibility is simply leading to claim and counter-claim.

Granted, this is somewhat of a minor issue to most people, yet I can't help but wonder if modernising the convention for this unique time we live in would improve the quality of coalition cabinet decisions and transparency for voters.

N.B. I tried to find something else on the topic and stumbled across this opinion piece from Lib Dem voice. There wasn't much else out there but the sentiments expressed are similar.

AV campaigns falling on deaf ears

I have every admiration for some of the excellent reports on the AV referendum debate, such as the Guardian's but it's quite clear that this referendum isn't going to turn out well.

You can't blame Prince William and Kate Middleton for getting married but I'm sure 'yes' campaigners would appreciate it if they had decided not to. It's just one of a plethora of news stories smashing the AV debate out of mainstream news.

I don't mean it's not getting coverage, course it is. Yet today I read every tabloid and broadsheet and did some social media listening. All the debate is being generated through the core group of journalists, commentators, creatives and geeks who usually get excited about Westminster.

The man on the street is gearing up for Bank Holidays, the Royal Wedding, the FA Cup and so forth.

Now I realise this is always the case in politics yet this debate should be so much more. It should be more than a vote on AV, the miserable little compromise, it should have momentum, generate real debate outside of the political elite.

Alas, it is not. It hasn't captured the public's imagination and even the image of Nick Clegg weeping to Simply Red isn't going to salvage enough sympathy for the public to come out on his ticket, so he is left in the shadows.

It's therefore down to the wonderful couple that never was, 'Ed and Vince', to parade around and rally the 'yes' campaign - rally in the Tim Henman sense, over before it has started.

So what will this debate teach us about the future of British politics? Nothing, I guess. I'll estimate turnout at around 40% and first past the post will remain. This will be pretty rotten considering the protests, cuts and age of revolution we live in.

But that's the problem with this referendum. It's evolution when the people demand more. Or at least they would, if they were listening.

Ed Milliband's address to forget

#March26 will live long in the memory for many reasons - but Ed Milliband may well wish otherwise.

The Labour leader must have known he was taking a huge risk addressing a TUC rally that would see the largest protest in the capital since the anti-war movement of 2003.

What did Ed have to gain from it? Many in the crowd will have been sceptical of his role in the economic crisis anyhow and it wasn't as if he was marching, he wasn't.

His gamble backfired on live TV when anarchists picked that very moment to launch a series of violent attacks - meaning Sky News and the BBC both carries his words over images of violent outbreaks: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/03/britain_and_public_spending_cuts

That was a mistake, and an avoidable; yet perhaps he didn't have a choice - the younger Milliband famously owes the Unions his leadership victory over his brother, David (http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/6320223/ed-miliband-owes-his-victory-to-the-unions-and-whatever-pact-he-made-with-them-may-haunt-him.thtml)

If the Unions did force his hand then they can't be blamed for the speech itself which questionably linked the anti-cuts protest with the suffragettes and anti-apartheid movements. Unsurprisingly, this has caused consternation even in the left-leaning press: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/27/tuc-march-ed-miliband-labour-rally

It caps off a poor week for Mr Milliband who has to handle the juxtaposition of a party poll lead and poor personal approval ratings.

I have previously said that 'Red Ed' needs a cause to make his own but until he has clearly made the case for the 'alternative' he speaks so passionately about, he will struggle to reach those voters beyond the Unions and leave himself open to allegations of hypocrisy.

David Cameron started his early years as leader riding huskies and hugging trees - how Ed Milliband must wish he had the time to dip his toe in such less contentious waters.

Budget 2011 predictions

The Sundays are full of 'predictions' and ''source' based info on this week's budget. Why on earth they just don't say 'The Treasury tells us' is another thing! A miss the good old days when Ministerial announcements weren't leaked in advance; although when those days were is another thing...

James Quinn in the Sunday Telegraph focuses on how George Osborne will attempt to convince big business to stay in Britain, whilst sending a message to the public that these same organisations must pay their way http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/8392894/Budget-2011-Double-edge-to-George-Osbornes-Budget-for-growth.html.

This is the Catch 22 budget, Osborne is arguably damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Either way, his 'enterprise' policies to promote growth in Britain and to send the army of enterprise (some of the metaphors being briefed are truly cringe-worthy) in to battle, need to hit the mark. The public will not tolerate spin over substance this time, any gloss will melt away rather quickly under scrutiny.

Can the Conservative Chancellor succeed in delivering a budget that pleases Joe Public, The City, small businesses and his Cabinet colleagues?

Of course not. It's who he chooses to prioritise which will define this budget.

Matt Baker asks Prime Minister David Cameron "how do you sleep at night?"

This is worth a watch - did he or didn't he mean it?!

The reaction of the co-presenter seems to indicate Matt Baker's question was unscripted, which suddenly makes the One Show interesting!

I think Matt knew exactly what he was saying.

A rare moment of controversy from the Beeb's  early evening snooze-fest.

'Churnalism' website must not be used as an attack dog on PR industry

Flat Earth News (Nick Davies) was a monumental game changer in the debate as to how the 24/7 new media culture has had a damaging impact on the quality of journalism.

In the book, Davies is scathing about the 'copy and paste' techniques used by certain publications upon receipt of a press release. Now, the Media Standards Trust has launched the website http://churnalism.com/ to help people check press releases against articles and see how much of this has simply been copied and disseminated around the world.

The website itself has the potential to have a positive impact on journalism if it encourages fact checking and real journalism in place of copying and pasting. It could also, however, be detrimental for several reasons.

Firstly, if an article becomes infamous for its appearance on the site, then a journalist could feasibly receive real damage to their career; yet we have no background as to why the decision to publish the press release in full took place. It could have been a line manager's decision. The reality is also that commercial pressures require spaces to be filled and if the release is 'non commercial' and of genuine interest, then large parts of it could be of legitimate use.

At this point I must point out that although I work in public relations, I value relationship building and acting as a door to a source for journalists, I have no interest in 'forcing' copy on to a page or not recognising the value of an independent and pluralistic media - I even defended the media in my MA dissertation after John Lloyd's What the Media is Doing to Our Politics book.

I think it will also be a shame if the site is used as an attack dog against PR per se. Public relations is about managing reputations. It is every organisation's right to manage their reputation and the practice has been going on since the dawn of society. Yes, from time to time, methods can be criticsed but so can journalists'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11306595.

So, simply using content from a press release isn't a crime. There might be legitimate insights via statistics, quotes or facts. A journalist can write around this and use counter arguments if needed, but there could be a large number of words used in a release and an article; without the article being compromised.

So, churnalism.com certainly puts the cat amongst the pigeons but whether or not it is here to say, who knows. It also strikes very much as a 'PR stunt' by the Media Standards Trust, does it not?

And there's the irony, simply defining something as 'PR' is in many ways an anachronistic exercise and one would be better served to understand the way reputation managers work with the media in today's climate.

The face of the Big Society

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12394034

In answer to my previous post, we now have a face for the Big Society and classic case studies from north and south but the question remains - will voters care about these groups? If so then they could become Cameron's super-advocates. I am still sceptical about the first batch, however, and bet No.10 is still desperately seeking that 'golden ticket' example of the Big Society which it craves.

How big can the Big Society be?

There's been lots of noise this week on the perceived crisis of the 'Big Society' programme.

Labour Councillors are refusing to play ball after public sector cuts, none more so than in Liverpool - an eerie reminder of the problem Tory-led Governments face when Labour are in power on Merseyside: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/03/liverpool-big-society

As a concept, the Big Society doesn't resonate easy with ordinary voters - this is illustrated by a recent poll which found that two thirds of the public were 'baffled' by the policy: http://www.prweek.com/news/1051960/Almost-two-thirds-public-baffled-David-Camerons-Big-Society/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH.

Phillip Blond isn't universally loved by Conservatives but he's honest enough about the challenges faced by policy makers at Number 10. What Cameron needs, at the very least, is some great case studies - the cornerstone of successful PR in policy.

Blair had his mums and cute babies, the ambassadors of Sure Start - a powerful image which people truly embraced. What image can get the Big Society idea across?

I'm not for one second advocating PR over policy. My point is that you need to consider how to translate policies into the vernacular and policies that fail this test usually falter.

It'll be interesting to see what if this decline can be reversed but I'm doubtful the Coalition know exactly how to sell this idea and until they do expect further councils to follow Liverpool's example.

Andy Gray sacked by Sky

Andy Gray was today sacked by Sky after acting as anchor for their coverage since 1992.

To say that there was no way back from his comments on womens' ability to officiate at football matches is, however, incorrect.

Gray faced a media storm, especially as it enabled opponents of Sky to give them a kicking. His comments were crude and represented the 'old boys' club' - the antithesis of the generation of family viewers Sky Sports is looking to attract.

Despite this, I think Gray's job could have been saved. Ricard Keys' immediate on the record denial was stupid, and the silence that followed was filled with the views of Karen Brady and journalists criticising Gray. If Andy Gray had shown a genuine remorse and met the official he criticised in person, he could have begun to publicly repair his reputation by admitting he was wrong and showing a willingness to change.

A visit to an anti-discrimination charity, an open letter on the Sky website - there was a myriad of options available to begin the healing process and to show some public humility.

Perhaps, in the end, Andy Gray was a victim of a position where he is asked to always stick by his opinion. Or, perhaps bosses looked over his shoulder, saw the fresh face of Jamie Redknapp and decided the time was right.

If you're interested, Andy, then I'm sure Jamie can recommend a good holiday company.

Cameron resurrects the ghost of Blair

It was interesting to read today about an 'intriguing' book name checked by David Cameron in reference to the NHS...Tony Blair's autobiography, nonetheless http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/17/critics-public-service-reform-grow-up-cameron

Strange that the Prime Minister would look to Blair's original plans for the NHS as aspirational. No doubt Mr Blair lacked the conviction to deliver on the NHS reforms he could have. The ones he did deliver on where a mixture of success (breakthroughs in treatment for cancer patients) and criminal wastes of resources (money spent on dubious IT projects).

The Prime Minister was actually trying to paint the critics of his plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12203000) such as as the BMA, as Luddites, blocking the road to reform.

The big area of contention is how big a role can the private sector play in NHS reform and what checks and balances on this can be introduced to placate the millions of public sector workers and the rest of the Coalition.

Ultimately, the NHS needs to its serve patients first and foremost and I think it's going to come down to the arguments made by Andrew Lansley and his department over how the money spent is going to improve on Labour's record. If the private sector can facilitate this then will swinging voters actually care where the services come from? I doubt it, but the millions of public sector workers will protect their ground. Meaning we will see more Union clashes for the Coalition.

One thing is for certain - Tony Blair couldn't survive losing the public and neither will Mr Cameron. Which is why I predict we can expect a surprise budget carrot to go with all this stick.

Cameron's Regional Growth Fund runs risk of Dragon's Den comparison

David Cameron and Lord Heseltine have unveiled their Regional Growth Fund - yet the announcement adds no clarity to how regional economies will benefit any further than they did under the previous Government's system of RDAs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12131202

The reason it's not clear is that it is all rather ambiguous, it seems to tick the boxes of what regional business leaders will want to hear without the concrete detail. So we're told that regions heavily reliant on public sector spending will have a better chance of succeeding in the applications - what he taketh away with one hand...

My view is that this policy should have had clearer messaging. It's all coming across a bit Dragon's Den. The rich London kids in the middle are offering the poor people the chance to pitch their crazy 'Northern' ideas - I can imagine many of the Treasury team will find it quite natural to say 'I'm out'.

It's another example of how the Coalition isn't connecting regionally. In the North West, Vince Cable this week ran a comment in Insider magazine outlining his hope for regional growth in 2011 http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/north-west/44668-vince-cable-tells-insider-2010-was-turbulent-year/index.html

On the same day, Manchester Council leader Sir Richard Leese warned 2011 could be 'awful' as the private sector comes under pressure to fill the gap left by savage cuts http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/north-west/44800-2011-will-be-dreadful-year-sir-richard

I'm not saying these opposing views are unusual (!) but the point is these two articles came into my inbox on the same email - clearly highlighting the lack of confidence currently inspired by the current plan reducing small business rates and the new Regional Growth Fund.

Will regional business eventually be inspired by what they are hearing or will it need more than the Dragon's Den to resurface from the economic slump? I'll ask Evan Davis...

Lib Dems drop to lowest poll rating for 19 years as Ed Milliband fails to win support

Interesting poll from Ipsos Mori and the Guardian today showing support for the Lib Dems at only 11% - a 19 year low:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/14/chris-huhne-liberal-democrats-poll

The other stand out statistic is that Ed Milliband only has a +1 satisfaction rating after 3 months in office - the lowest for a new leader since Michael Foot.

Despite all this, David Cameron and the Conservatives seem to have retained support - despite controlling the majority of Government offices in a time of unprecedented cuts.

I put this down to perceptions of principle. Voters know Cameron and Osborne's agenda. They have made a clear and concise statement - we are going to cut and cut deeply. They have no plan B (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8077541/Spending-review-2010-Theres-no-Plan-B-says-George-Osborne.html).

This strategy has been extremely unpopular yet still the Conservatives have been perceived to be straight talking and the venom of the liberal left has been directed at the 'betrayal' of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems.

Even big business leaders such as Phillip Green have been attacked ahead of the Chancellor.

I believe this is because voters seem to be anxious to see the results of this plan. Yet they are still suffering and hurting and who better to take it out on than a Lib Dem party flip flopping over student fees and one uncomfortable in its own skin at the present time.

Nick Clegg needs to find definition to salvage his reputation.

Definition is also something lacking for Ed Milliband. Normally, I wouldn't see this as a problem but I was concerned to see the younger Milliband brother hold the first of new regular press conferences this week.

Press conferences, after three months and without any clear policy direction? The strategy seems to be hold this rather grand sounding review, then drag it out whilst taking pot shots at the government. That may have worked for another Leader of the Opposition but not one who was a Minister in the last Cabinet months ago.

I'm afraid Mr Milliband will need to shelve the press briefings and find a niche, a cause. Even Cameron defined himself in the early days - even though the 'green' credentials were shed, logo aside.

Expect the Labour logo re-design soon.

Tuition Fees Increase and Riots put UK Democracy under spotlight

"If we amplify everything, we hear nothing" Jon Stewart

As the Lib Dem and Tory Whips scuttled round the Commons effectively coercing a majority of 21 to pass a vote to increase tuition fees which will increase some fees to £9k a year, London was anarchic.

My brother sent me a picture of the police 'kettling' and it looked truly terrifying. He also reported to me gangs of young trouble makers in masks, clearly not there for a peaceful protest and with little passion about the cause of the protest. He remarked that it was similar to a gang of football hooligans infiltrating a peaceful march.

The images of Charles and Camilla's car being attacked, of original windows in the Supreme Court being smashed, of a disabled man being dragged by police out of his wheel chair - they shame this country by revealing the dearth of democracy on our streets.

More than that, the true tragedy is that the hard working students who have tried to press the debate, such as the NUS leaders, have been let down. They'll now be painted as rioters, as selfish, as the one niche in society unwilling to pay their way when the going gets tough.

Nick Clegg will fair no better. He has been dismissive of the student voice, so shamed by the picture of him proudly signing a pledge not to increase tuition fees which he gladly posed for before the election.

Rather than delay this law and try and form a truly open dialogue, the Coalition has got into a 'tit for tat' public argument. Hyperbole has been the order of the day. 

For example, only a day before the vote, the Deputy Prime Minister uses the media to talk of 'dreamers' and over simplistic syntax - this adds fuel to the protesters' fire, it takes the debate nowhere:

''I would feel ashamed if I didn't deal with the way that the world is, not simply dream of the way the world I would like it to be,'' the Deputy Prime Minister said.

''In the circumstances in which we face, where there isn't very much money around, where many millions of other people are being asked to make sacrifices, where many young people in the future want to go to university – we have to find the solution for all of that.

''I believe that asking graduates to make a contribution – and only make a contribution after they have left university, no upfront fees whatsoever, and only when they have earned a considerably more amount of money than they do under the present system – that is the best possible choice we could have taken.''

This is paralleled by the physical hyperbole of some of the violence last night. It is an eye for an eye, the 'haves versus the have nots'. 

Only, it is not that simple. It is the physical embodiment of a vacuous space void of true dialogue, of engagement - of democracy.

Britain has always turned to violence when democracy fails, from the Corn Laws to the Poll Tax. It is a nasty underbelly which gives lie to our projection of a civilised Western society.

For the real loser hear has been democracy. In extinguishing the flames on Trafalgar Squares Christmas Tree last night, officers signaled the dawn of a new dark age of ideas. Trapped by a blanket of reaction, our politicians are fed by fear and our public is at odds with the debate, unable to find a door to enter the debate. Without this, the UK will be led kicking and screaming through the fall-out from the recession.

Thought, reason and judgement will be muffled through the prism of apathy.

Jon Stewart was right, when we amplify everything, we hear nothing.

WikiLeaks US Embassy Cables and democracy

Everyone needs to be following the Guardian's rolling blog of the WikiLeaks US Embassy Cables http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/nov/28/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-blog?intcmp=239

It's going to take hours to digest the information but what's clear from initial responses from the US Secretary of State is that WikiLeaks will be condemned by officials around the glove for what it has done; as will the media who report the stories.

My first question is, why? Surely states will already know most of the details from their own intelligence? I think it's more of a case that is alters the position of the world the US has tried to give people through its own propaganda and media operation.

What this story gives people, because it has been syndicated throughout the globe using the internet, is a genuine insight into the real relationship between the world's leading superpower and other states and this is a game changer, make no mistake.

How it impacts on investigative reporting and journalism should also be fascinating - will it redefine the rules of engagement? WikiLeaks has already reported it is under denial of service attack today.

Ultimately the most important question is whether the leak is positive for democracy or damaging to it? I don't think we will truly be able to assess this until it plays out but what's clear is that this is the most controversial leak in history and a day we will never forget.

Rupert Murdoch creating digital newspaper for iPad

Rupert Murdoch has been absolute in his determination that online journalism should be payed for and now CNN reports, via WDD, that he's taking this to the next level with a bespoke digital newspaper for iPad: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/11/21/ipad.daily/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

The news is no surprise as Mr Murdoch indicated back in August that he saw Apple's latest invention as a 'game changer' and a device which had the potential to rejuvenate journalism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/05/ipad-rupert-murdoch-apple-newscorp

If the story is correct then I think that it is a positive move for the future of journalism as it could undoubtedly help the transition from print to digital news which has so far seen traditional media try to stem the flow and catch up, but not create or innovate - leaving journalism under threat in the age of Google and Facebook.

And, of course, rather like the launch of the Independent's 'I', it leads to accusations that could the new format cannibalise its print brethren; yet no one knows at this juncture and with advertising revenues continuing to falter around the word then there's no reason not to try and forge a viable economic model for the industry from new technology like the iPad.

Murdoch's detractors may not like it but yet again the mogul seems to be one step ahead.

New York, New York

I'm here in the Big Apple working with the fabulous Euro RSCG Worldwide PR team.

It's great to be able to spend time with Marian Salzman and her colleagues - it's an honour, in fact. During my time here I am looking at traditional and social media conversations in the US and how they compare and contrast to the UK. It's been a fascinating couple of days and I'll make sure I blog my findings.

I've also found time to take in a trip to the theater and I saw Al Pacino in the Merchant of Venice. Never the easiest play to perform, I have to say it was brilliant. Pacino's Shylock struck the right balance between humour, bitterness and did what the character is meant to in my humble opinion - leave you questioning whether you sympathise with him or whether you applaud his downfall. Not something to debate here given the anti-Semite themes there may or may not be, depending on how one critiques the play.

Anyhow, just a quick update from me, I'll be sure to report back soon.
 

Minister Jeremy Browne branded racist on Question Time

Just watched Foreign Office Minister, Jeremy Browne be branded racist by a heckler on Question Times because of a comment he made about the French.

I don't think Mr Browne intended it to come across as anything but a satirical joke - but instead the awkward delivery just sounded vaguely racist.

When briefing public figures on unscripted interviews or panels you simply must ensure they don't ad lib jokes - it never works.

Just ask President Obama: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7129997&page=1