The House of Lords does not see any need to relax media ownership laws in response to the boom in online news sites – quite the reverse, in fact.

Interestingly, the report from the Lords’ communications committee sounds the alarm on falling standards of journalism and newsgathering, saying that much of the news available on the internet and new TV channels is merely “repackaged from elsewhere.”

Meanwhile, Trinity Mirror shares slump 25 per cent after a profits warning.

 

So an Ipsos MORI poll finds that a majority of the British public is not convinced that climate change is caused by humans. Interestingly, The Observer report uses the phrase “still not convinced”, which suggests that eventually they will be. Wishful thinking?

Leaving aside the current state of the scientific debate, this poses a huge problem for the communicators in Government and in the environmental lobby. In their zeal to influence people’s behaviour, have they painted such an apocalyptic vision that it is simply beyond the normal person’s comprehension? How can you respond in a measured and effective manner when the Four Horseman are galloping through the firmament?

The latest message that ordinary people are receiving is that the UK will need to spend £100 billion in order to meet an EU-imposed target for achieving 15 per cent of its energy needs through renewables by 2020. Unfortunately, the sceptics translate this as meaning: “The government has its hand in your pocket – but it’s for your own good!”

Back in 1976, a real ‘scorcher’ of a summer in which there were widespread water shortages, government contented itself with practical suggestions such as putting a brick in the toilet cistern or sharing a bath with a friend.

Something along those lines is needed now: advice on how to set your thermostat for greatest efficiency ... set your central heating to come on later and switch off earlier. People might even listen.

If The Guardian is saying that “Enough is enough!” then things must be bad. People’s lives are becoming too cluttered with information, messages and ‘calls to action’ that are inconsequential, irrelevant or
just plain daft.



I took this picture this morning in St Andrews Park in Bristol. The paddling pool, which has provided endless hours of amusement for local children over the years, has now acquired ugly ‘Water Hazard’ signs. Obviously, they cannot be read by toddlers – so they must be directed at adults. But can’t they recognise a paddling pool when they see one?

As far as I can recall, nobody has come to grief there since an Allied bomber crashed in that corner of the park during the War with the loss of its Polish crew.

Orange used to the one of the symbols of Bristol’s high-tech culture – innovative, far-sighted and a bit wacky.

The firm’s headquarters, squeezed into the M4/M5 junction at Almondsbury, was home to all kinds of people who did clever things with technology and marketing. ‘The Future’s Bright ... the Future’s Orange’ caught the mood.

But when they sold out to France Telecom, the culture so carefully created by chief executive Hans Snook, changed. The ‘dead hand’ of French business bureaucracy descended and the ‘juice’ was squeezed out of Orange.

The noises coming from the new head of the UK operation are encouraging – but will he ever recreate the excitement of the 1990s?

There is always the danger that in trying to ‘sell’ a message you fall into the trap of overstating your case.

Wasn’t the Anglican Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, trying just a little bit too hard when he likened those who “refused to face the truth about climate change” to the incestuous Austrian paedophile, Joseph Fritzl?

His real point was that such people are “in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key.” He then compounded the problem by arguing that “if there is no future for our children and grandchildren, we will have been guilty of committing the most appalling crimes as well?"
 
The good Bishop therefore equates the crimes of Herr Fritzl with the sin of omission.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the individual has the power to prevent such a global catastrophe – or whether it will happen at all –his views represent an increasing polarisation of opinion to the point where sensible communication has been rendered extinct even before the polar bear.