Gef the Mongoose, Howard's Der Sturmer?

[Roger Mexico]

51 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

Oh well you’ve hit upon a clear conspiracy that I might have overlooked now I read that well presented information you’ve just posted. I read the answer to Robertshaws question above. It reads to me like the total spend for the wider campaign was £10,000 of which “Gef” got some of that. It’s reads like a typical civil servant reply to me. Designed to get people looking in one direction to avoid what actually went on in another. So in reality it seems that Gef received only a small proportion of £10,000. So you might assume absolutely nowhere near £10,000. 

But as I pointed out before, that's a classic reply to a Written Question - they've only answered part of it[1].  So that £10,000 only applies to the Return to Work Campaign[2], not to any other payments made since Gef was revived in March for articles on other subjects, advertising such as the banner adverts I mentioned before, or mass purchases of Howie memorabilia.  (Pray God I'm joking about the last one).

 

[1]  Technically they've answered all of it because Robertshaw (who can rarely be bothered to ask questions and isn't much good when he does) basically asked "Have you given Gef some money?" to which they could have just answered "Yes".  But obviously "How much, then? is sort of implied.

[2]  Obviously without the wise guidance of the Communications Team, it would not have occurred to anyone that they could go back to work.

[maynragh]

39 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

I’m not sure it is as you have presented very few facts.

I didn't realise the validity of a fact was proportionally related to the number presented. If you want to point out what you think is factually incorrect we can discuss, but you won't.

This isn't a conspiracy. They have been asking questions alongside other 'news' outlets, and presenting articles as 'news'. They are in receipt of government funding. As noted, that's not a unique situation, the only question is the nature of the relationship. MR funding is secured on the basis of journalistic independence, presumably Gef doesn't have the same security. 

There are plenty other people who've found out what happens to your government funding if you criticise the government. Presumably Gef is smarter than that.   

[Uhtred]

7 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Are they proper journos?

Clearly not.

[Rhumsaa]

They were a PR or Advertising company and gave it a fair crack of the whip but then back end of 2019 it just wasn't working out for them so they seemed to let it slide. It's not everyone's cup of tea but they were trying something different.

I was a little surprised that they were suddenly given the same standing at government briefings, I didn't realise anyone could run a Facebook page and get that level of access

[finlo]

14 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

They were a PR or Advertising company and gave it a fair crack of the whip but then back end of 2019 it just wasn't working out for them so they seemed to let it slide. It's not everyone's cup of tea but they were trying something different.

I was a little surprised that they were suddenly given the same standing at government briefings, I didn't realise anyone could run a Facebook page and get that level of access

Someone will be related to someone etc

[Anyone]

I would hope noon takes this mongoose chap seriously. He is clearly an idiot with zero credibility.

 

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, finlo said:

Someone will be related to someone etc

I may be wrong but I think it's produced by some PS/CS types? 

[Mr Newbie]

3 hours ago, maynragh said:

MR funding is secured on the basis of journalistic independence, presumably Gef doesn't have the same security. 

For the avoidance of doubt you seriously said that? 

[maynragh]

8 hours ago, Mr Newbie said:

For the avoidance of doubt you seriously said that? 

For the avoidance of doubt yes. I assume you are insinuating that Gef the Mongoose has a legally defined position as a government supported independently regulated national broadcaster, which I have somehow overlooked? For the further avoidance of doubt please also note that I have not made comment on the effectiveness of the defined journalistic independence of MR. I have simply noted the fact it exists and is publicly defined in law. If the same applies to Gef please provide a reference or link to this new information. It would certainly help dispel the impression that a group of people who had given up on a media platform six months prior were approached by IOM Government to help present information on an unsecured funding basis. As far as I am aware we don't know how this relationship was defined, and I assume if you made a FOI request it would be incorrectly classed as commercially sensitive so we will probably never know.

It may be that no pressure was ever directly applied to Gef in terms of the way it presented it's 'news' items, but as I've already said there was probably no need. Anyone with half a brain would understand that if you're taking money from Government to run infomercials and ads on an ad hoc basis you're probably best not asking any really difficult questions to your 'mates' 'Howie' or 'Ashy' or 'Dr Al' in a live press conference, or be running any overly questioning editorials. Also as said there are plenty of examples of people who've failed to grasp the 'hand that feeds' principle and lost their funding / contracts, which I'm sure Gef is aware of. If the nature of the relationship was fully published it would probably help to dispel most of the suspicion created by not knowing, but the people who could make those decisions don't have to because most of the target audience don't really care - so they won't.

To be fair the Covid situation was unique so there is probably a reasonably justifiable argument to be made for trying to reach the younger demographics in an emergency. It will be interesting to see if this type of PR work carries on like this especially on the run in to the GE in 2021. It would probably remain largely uncontroversial until such time as they're asked to spin something really unpopular - like a massive hike in government debt (actually something there was an attempted positive Gef article on) or increasing stealth tax 'charges'. It's a lot more difficult to be chipper and chummy when you're shovelling shit and people are chucking it back at you I would guess.    

[Mr Newbie]

45 minutes ago, maynragh said:

For the avoidance of doubt yes. I assume you are insinuating that Gef the Mongoose has a legally defined position as a government supported independently regulated national broadcaster, which I have somehow overlooked? For the further avoidance of doubt please also note that I have not made comment on the effectiveness of the defined journalistic independence of MR. I have simply noted the fact it exists and is publicly defined in law. If the same applies to Gef please provide a reference or link to this new information. It would certainly help dispel the impression that a group of people who had given up on a media platform six months prior were approached by IOM Government to help present information on an unsecured funding basis. As far as I am aware we don't know how this relationship was defined, and I assume if you made a FOI request it would be incorrectly classed as commercially sensitive so we will probably never know.

You seem to be really great at conspiracy nonsense. In fact you sound paranoid that they got a few quid to place what is effectively just PR. Are you suggesting that government should not use any agent for PR outside of Manx Radio or any other businesses whose explicit role has to be defined in Manx law? I bet they hardly got anything too. The £10,000 mentioned in the reply seems to be for the whole wider campaign. They might have only been given £500. Why don’t you make an FOI rather than posting baseless conspiracy claptrap on a public forum? 

[maynragh]

1 hour ago, Mr Newbie said:

You seem to be really great at conspiracy nonsense. In fact you sound paranoid that they got a few quid to place what is effectively just PR. Are you suggesting that government should not use any agent for PR outside of Manx Radio or any other businesses whose explicit role has to be defined in Manx law? I bet they hardly got anything too. The £10,000 mentioned in the reply seems to be for the whole wider campaign. They might have only been given £500. Why don’t you make an FOI rather than posting baseless conspiracy claptrap on a public forum? 

If that's the way it reads to anyone else I'd be concerned, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't so I can only assume I've offended you by even discussing it. My apologies.  

[Donald Trumps]

Is there any history of IOMG using on island PR firms to communicate with the electorate?

MR is supposed to have tilted toward a young audience, you'd think communications effort would be concentrated there

[Declan]

Just now, Donald Trumps said:

Is there any history of IOMG using on island PR firms to communicate with the electorate?

MR is supposed to have tilted toward a young audience, you'd think communications effort would be concentrated there

Not only that, they have offices full of press officers and communications specialists.

[manxman34]

1 hour ago, Donald Trumps said:

Is there any history of IOMG using on island PR firms to communicate with the electorate?

MR is supposed to have tilted toward a young audience, you'd think communications effort would be concentrated there

MR's 'younger' audience must now be the over 80s rather than those actually dead

[Andy Onchan]