Mayor writes happy news under a pseudonym

BC reader Jonah is convinced that Brockley Central is secretly funded by Lewisham Council - because what other explanation could there possibly be for the fact that we are not automatically hostile towards anything they do? But is the truth more horrific than even he dared imagine? Has anyone ever seen Brockley Central and Mayor Bullock in the same room? Yes, but let's not facts get in way.

We thought of this theory when our favourite news programme, The Young Turks, discussed this story: A Utah Mayor was so fed up with negative coverage of his town, that he started writing for local news under a pseudonym for local news, in order to ensure that some happier stories got covered. Certainly Brockley Central was in part born in reaction to the steady diet of stabbings and disgruntled crowds that our newspapers offer, but it never occured to us to ask Steve Bullock to serve as a freelancer.

 Our question is - once you've heard the story, how do you feel about the ethics of the Utah Mayor?


Whealie said...

Seen this?

Osh said...

I don't see the harm - he did it for the right reasons. It's reassuring to know that local media is the same everywhere.

Welcome to 2011 said...

I think it was the wrong thing to do - even if it wasn't actually articles about the mayor himself, the fact that he was trying to big up his own city could be viewed as favouring him electorally. I'd probs still vote for him if I liked him though...

Tj said...

Crap - he should rely on his actions as mayor rather than trying to spin words

Lou Baker said...

Most politicians in this country have one over-riding aim: they want to make things better.

Yes, a few are self serving - but the same can be said of almost every profession.

So while it is fine to question policies and ideas, I believe questioning motives is usually unfair. Take the Greens for example. I don't doubt they're nice people who want to make things better. But, bless 'em, the policies are dire.

But the problem with the media is that its default position is that all politicians are corrupt and evil. And, of course, bad news sells better than good news. So the Utah mayor is right to blow his own trumpet.

Peace and goodwill to all men. Even monkeyboy.

Jonah said...

Wow, look at me, Ma - I'm a marquee name! Must be doing something right.

But, Nick, please don't put words in my mouth when I can speak for myself.

The new evolved form of public relations, according to Richard Edelman your boss, is public engagement.

How are you doing this?

You, and a number of your colleages--Spook Media, etc included--are HIS disciples. And if it's conspiracy you want I find the early beginnings of Edelman senior (Danny j)worthy of note. A propagandist for the American war machine who then set about 'public engagement' using psyops.

Unbelievable! Incredible! Conspiracy! Unfortunately not.
But, if you do want to go there, more on that later.

Keep blagging.

Anonymous said...

Young Turks? Is that a sort of online Turkish Newsround?

Mb said...

Jonah, why not set up your own site for your revelations. Somewhat ironic that you use the edleman's se4 site to reveal your findings. Or is that all part of their dark plan, are you infac a plant? A lightening rod for the conspiracies theorists but just loopy enough for people to dismiss it? Mind you I did see nick staring at a goat and it DROPPED DEAD! No sh*t

Jonah, or should I say edleman's counter criticism distraction?

(cheque to the usual PO box please nick, or I accept payment in expensive hams or cheese)

Jonah said...

"Somewhat ironic that you use the edleman's se4 site to reveal your findings."

The 'Edelman SE4 site'?

Not a theory. Read Richard Edelman's posts. Yawn.

Mb said...

It would be bizarre if the owner of a PR company was to ignore the usefulnes of Twitter, the Internet and hyper local sites. Does that mean all it's employees are up to no good if they are using them in a personal capacity?

It's ok, put your case if is compelling people will believe you and you've done some good, I find your case risible. Sorry.

DJ said...

Mb, just let him think what he likes - he will anyway.
Also, if this site isn't run as a front for a shadowy PR organisation, hellbent on brainwashing the citizens of Lewisham to do their bidding and that only Jonah can expose, then he'll have to get a girlfriend.

Anonymous said...

More likely to be an arm of the Tory party rather than Lewisham Council methinks. It's always Rah Rah Big Society! on BC.

Jonah said...

Mb, I respond to you, but not the idiot (stooge) after you.

"Mb said...
It would be bizarre if the owner of a PR company was to ignore the usefulnes of Twitter, the Internet and hyper local sites."

Absolutely agree, and this you should question. Edelman is a hugely succesful public relations company. However, when I have people speak of 'conspiracy theory' - how sad is that? - in order to undermine a propositon then i must speak out.

I also assure you I am fully capable of investigating any concern I raise in relation to public relations firms, and not just Daniel J Edelman, Inc.

Actually the main fuel to my fire is the response I have received to these concerns, and Nick's derisive nature.

"Does that mean all it's employees are up to no good if they are using them in a personal capacity?"

Absolutely not. But some may be.(I do not believe all of them are. I do though suspect that Nick is fully aware of what he is 'expected to do'. I do not believe this makes him 'bad', just lost.)

But if you and others want to deride my concerns, then I will research further and post accordingly. (And not on this forum alone.)

"It's ok, put your case if is compelling people will believe you and you've done some good, I find your case risible. Sorry."

Thank you for your response, which does not seek to belittle, or derise. I do not seek to turn people against Nick. Just Nick against the other (PR) Nick. But please state where it was thought 'risible' what I suggested and then I will, Nick (Edelman)allowing, respond. I am but one they are many.

60s badge slogan said...

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

Transpontine said...

The bigger question is 'what's wrong with bad news'?

OK nobody wants where they live to be misrepresented as some kind of violent hell hole when most of the time most of the people get along fine. And if you live in SE London you do have to fight against that lazy image of it being just some kind of gangster town.

On the other hand if you want to know what's going on in your area, you need to know the facts, good and bad - stabbings, shootings and all. Bloggers including myself naturally tend to write about what interests us and what we like. The danger is that we tend not to report so much of the bad stuff and therefore give a misleading image of where we live. Love or hate Newshopper and South London Press but maybe we need them to balance the implicit positivity of bloggers!

Anonymous said...

that may explain the brockley dogging society....

Lou Baker said...

Jonah: you sound like an idiot.

Nick provides a valuable resource for our area. We owe him a great debt of thanks.

Brockley Nick said...

@Transpontine - quite agree that bad news has its place. Not sure I agree that most bloggers are inherently positive. It is one thing to celebrate local culture, another to put a positive slant on local political and social change. For example, strip out the historical and cultural posts from Transpontine, Deptford Dame, Bob from Brockley, etc - is the weight of political discussion positive or negative?

Anonymous said...

The aim of BC in some way is to promote the area I believe so a slant towards the positive is natural.

The occasional negative piece is good to keep a sense of realism.

Also it is better to be politically neutral and just gove voice to the broad spectrum of opinion in the area.

Anonymous said...

give voice to the broad spectrum I mean...

that wasn't a Freudian slip...

Anonymous said...

@Jonah, I love how you're all 'question everything' until someone disagrees with you - then they're a 'stooge'. Typical nutter.

Brockley Dogging Society said...

The BDS always gives time to the broad speculum, and it'll come out again this wednesday night at 6:30.

Jonah said...

Lou Baker... stop the medication.

There's 'sounding' like an idiot and displaying idiocy, and for a (seemingly) thinking person, you do the latter.

On the numerous occasions you have posted you have been the idiot in the aether. (To those who are not open to your view that is.)

You may be an idiot for all I know. (I seem to agree with you most of the time, so I guess... I must be an idiot too.) That's fine. But please speak with some knowledge, and do some legwork.

It is not my intention to provoke the few addicts of this site who should be in Blog rehab to rebel, just to think, or to imply that it does not do some good that is better than the dull, negative local paper - that's not the point. It is important though to question the motives of some blogs - flogs - based on the ethos of some public relations firms.

To my mind, only an idiot, or a 'stooge', would question such a theory. However, to avoid doubt Lou, I am not calling you a stooge.

Jonah said...

Forgot to add... Brockley Dogger seek help NOW.

BDS said...

Oh, the irony. Physician heal thyself!

Bakerloo said...

Of Lou he says...

"You may be an idiot for all I know. (I seem to agree with you most of the time, so I guess... I must be an idiot too.)"

You have no idea how happy this makes me.

Lou Baker said...


Many people agree with me. Most are just too politically correct to say so. Like the anti-Clarkson brigade who complain to the BBC just to keep up appearances while secretly agreeing with him.

Jonah: you're an idiot because you believe in conspiracy theories. I don't know Nick. I am sure he would be delighted to meet me. But it is clear just from reading this blog that it's written by someone who loves the area - who is neither pro nor anti the council. And who has a more positive outlook on life than some.

Brockley Central is a great resource for this area. It benefits us all. And I say this knowing that I disagree with the majority who contribute to the site and that some of the ubber pinkos despise my outlook on life.

I think Nick should be commended for his contribution to the area - despite his occasional corduroy tendencies.

Bakerloo said...

As deluded as Clarkson. An opinionated, intellectual lightweight. Bombast and unoriginal "outrageous" comments are not a substitute for a sensible point.

Clarkson is an adolescent twerp, his act is wearing thin. It appeals to Daily Mail tendency, which as you say many people agree with. They are wrong. Glad we agree that you occupy the same space.

Anonymous said...

Clarkson-hating is the new cause celebre for the mung bean chewing corduroy wearer. I tend to ignore it.

Lou Baker said...


Most people agree with Clarkson's sentiments. At best 2 million went on strike last week - and that's if you believe the union's questionable counting. So 58 million people + in the UK were not involved in the strike. Including all the wealth creators - except those inconvenience by the striking parasites.

We know people like you think you hold the moral high ground. You think individuals should have no responsibility for their own actions. You loathe wealth creation, success and self-improvement. You'd be happy for the state to wipe your arse. We get all that.

But really, you should stop kidding yourself. You're not smart. You're not forward thinking. You're stuck in the 1950's, with no understanding of how the world has moved on. I feel for you. It's all quite sad.

welcome to 2011 said...

jonah - I'm dissapointed, you said you'd explain the business model a week ago, but we've heard nothing. How does it generate revenue? What are its costs? Ballpark figures would be fine, but i would like some clarity on the revenue streams and cost centres. Who pays? What for? How much?

Bakerloo said...

Did I express an opinion about he strikers? No. I expressed an an opinion about the ingnorant, nasty, stupid outbursts of an overgrown schoolboy who thinks his opinions are interesting or usefull. I have similar opinions about Clarkson.

". You think individuals should have no responsibility for their own actions. You loathe wealth creation, success and self-improvement."

Nope, not at all. See above, I just dislike clarkson, I dislike you. Your posts are full of bile, hatred, and plenty of ignorance, as you have amply demonstrated again. If you'd like a spade to continue digging that hole do let me know.

You appeal to the crowd of half wits that stand in the Top Gear crowd. That's OK, I'm rather pleased I'm not one of them and again I'm glad we agree that you operate on the same level as jezza.

Or do you think I should be shot?

Brockley Nick said...


"A propagandist for the American war machine who then set about 'public engagement' using psyops."

I'm disappointed that a committed truth seeker like you doesn't include links when making such outlandish claims.

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that he worked in WW2 for the US military to combat Nazi propaganda?

And then after the war, he went on to promote jazz musicians to radio stations and invented what would now be known as the "roadshow", taking hair styling products round America.

Not exactly Professor X.

Anonymous said...

If anyone watched the programme about the Facebook founder, you'd realise in freely 'sharing' your information and likes and dislikes you are help some people to become extremely rich.

Facebook is not annoymous and commercial companies pay Facebook to become a 'friend' of someone who says they like their product.

Google searches are not as annoymous as people think, on data provided by Google a journalis was able to track and identify an elderly woman's interests.

Before a Commons select committee evidence was produced of companies that set up forums to attract youngsters, monitor the chat and feed promotional material into the chat.

Celebs have been identified who take money to 'randomly' mention products in their tweets.

Advertisers having seen the publicity success of Susan Boyle's one TV appearnce on You Tube and a tweet by Demi Moore, aren't going to ignore that sort of thing.

And I'm sure our politicians are not adverse to using similar tactics in a positive and negative way.

Anonymous said...

Bakerloo do you watch the news?

Have you not noticed in recent times reporters take sides?

So you'll have a reporter 'with' the police and for balance a reporter 'with' the protestors.

So the balance is not in the reporting but now giving both sides equal time to have their say (usually about the other lot) unchallenged.

Bakerloo said...

Keep up, my point is specifically that Lou (along with clarkson) is a fool. Many people don't agree with the strikes, yes he was "joking" about executing them. It was though a crass, brainless stupid comment. For clarkson you are either with him or an imbecile. Clarksons commet wasn't a useful "alternative" view, nor was it "what everyone thinks but is scared to say". For a 15 year old it would be understandable, for others, not really. Should it be censored? Of course not.

Anonymous said...

I thought BC was funded by busybodies with too much spare time?

Ben said...

I would like to see mass media demonisation of wealthy tax dodgers, the real leeches of our society.

Given they fund the Tories I don't expect this anytime soon.

Labour also did nothing to combat this.

Danja said...

There can't be many more posts in this thread until Bilderberg is mentioned.

Oh damn, cat's out of the bag.

Lou Baker said...


Temper, temper.

Clarkson made a joke. You may not have found it funny - pinkos don't do humour - but it was a joke.

The reaction from the puritanical left has been pathetic. Seriously outrageous.

The fact is that while unions have a right to strike, the do not have the right not to be offended. Nor do you for that matter.

It is telling that pinkos take offence whenever
anyone dare criticise their warped 'state should be master of all things' ideology.

It is because it is easier to shout loudly and feign offence than it is to have a coherent argument on the issues. Because on the issues Trots lose everytime.

Anonymous said...

Bakerloo, but the complaint tends to be governed by the viewpointof the complainer.

Think back to the Thatcher era and what people said they'd like to do to her and her government.

Recall Julian Clarly and his wanting to 'fist' Norman Lamont, oh how we roared with laughter.

Like the guy who custard pied Murdoch, Clarkson garned sympathy for those who were the butt of the joke.

max said...

I agree with Lou, people shouldn't get too offended.

DJ said...

I'm a 'pinko' (or would be if it was still the 70s) and I wasn't offended by the comments. It's what Clarkson does. Boring. Interesting to see the Mail sticking up for him and tasteless jokes in general. Wonder if they will still see the funny side when Frankie Boyle jokes about disabled kids or we have another Sachsgate. Unlikely I feel.

Bakerloo said...

I wasnt especially offended, just saying that you and Clarkson are both buffoons, as your 'pinko' comment illustrates.

Lou Baker said...

Sticks and stones.

Your problem is that you claim to love free speech - but then when someone says something you don't like, you whine about them.

You don't engage with the issue. You play the man, not the ball. Clarkson is a buffoon because you don't agree with him. You say I'm a buffoon - but you're unable to engage with the issues.

You deal with personal insults because, frankly, you don't have a point. You'd make a great union leader.

Bakerloo said...

my point is that you and Clarkson are one and the same in views and approach. You seem to be more than happy with that comparison, thats fine.

As for abbuse, I agree. To quote Michael Corleone, "we're both part of the same hypocrisy"

Brockley Central Label Cloud