There are many things wrong with the Church of England today. The lack of a black archbishop has never particularly struck me as a big one. Though the appointment of the Rt Rev John Sentamu would appear to be a step forward – something the church rarely seems to take. Good for him.

I’ve always liked reading MediaMonkey, as regular readers will know, but this tickled me so much that I’m going to have to reproduce it here:

On this sunny Friday afternoon, Monkey has nothing better to do than rifle through the departing editor’s email inbox and has decided to run a competition for the most entertaining exchange of the last five years. And the triple crown goes to Piers Morgan, the new proprietor of the former journalist’s bible, the Press Gazette. We start after MediaGuardian.co.uk ran a story that Jane Goldman, Jonathan Ross’s wife, was in the running to take over from the Mirror’s TV critic, Charlie Catchpole. Sit back and enjoy…

13.19. 26/03/2001. From p.morgan@mirror.co.uk
“She was never on the bloody list. EVER. Why on earth would she be? You’re worse than Sunday Sport you lot. At least they ring and check if I’ve had a kinky threesome with Anna Nicole Smith and Pamela Anderson. They still run it, but they CHECK. Which makes them one step ahead of you, who just flies it.”
After an email explaining it came from a good source.
“Dear Clueless, It’s so wrong as to be laughable. I don’t want anything from me on there denying something that’s bollox. I was merely advising you of the fact. And please spare me the ‘good sources’ claptrap. Since the first I have heard of Ms Goldman’s name was on your website perhaps you could explain who these people are and I will fire them and send them to you lot for retraining as incompetent retard luvvies.”

Ping. A further exchange.

“Listen luv, I am obviously not getting through to you very well. Rusbridger might not know what his arse and elbow are doing in the newsroom when it comes to hiring and firing due to the ‘collegiate’ atmosphere of your tawdry little rag – but I take more of a Corleone view. If someone gets ‘whacked’ or ‘made’ then I clear it. And I am telling you, for the last time, that Jane Goldman has never been considered for the job. For the simple reason that she has not and never will be a bloody TV critic. Now I know it’s hard to admit you’ve dropped a complete clinker but just remove the fucking thing from the website before you make yourself look even more stupid than I am beginning to suspect you might be. Then just sit there quietly drinking your Ethiopian expresso and munching your lentil sandwich and hold your head in disgusted shame. Which is, I believe, a preferred mode of expression for you these days.”

Oh dear, Piers is beginning to make the former Sky TV boss, Sam Chisholm, look like a charm school graduate.

Ping. Another email arrives.

“I wish to deny that I have AIDS, syphilis and herpes (Though I admit it would make me an incurable romantic). Now just remove it for god’s sake. IT’S A LOAD OF BOLLOX.”

Just for the record then, it was a load of bollox and Monkey is down on all fours (as requested) with a belated apology to the new owner of the Press Gazette.

Since ‘leaving’ the Mirror, Piers really has done well for himself, and you have to admire the fact that he’s making numerous puditry appearances here and there, instead of fading into relative obscurity. Well done him. And good luck to him with the Press Gazette, too.

Dr Rowan has a problem with web-based media:

THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”. He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was “close to that of unpoliced conversation”.

My question: What’s wrong with ‘unpoliced conversation’? Surely it’s something worth fighting for and viciously defending, not something to try and avoid?

Neil McIntosh has caused quite a debate over on the Newsblog by suggesting that Bob Geldof shouldn’t be getting so worked up about Live8 ticket sales on eBay, suggesting instead that if Geldof had auctioned the tickets in the first place, he could have raised a lot of money. Understandably, this upset a few people, and so the debate has begun.

Of course, Geldof isn’t really that bothered whether his tickets are sold on eBay or not. It’s illogical to complain: After all, by selling them, people who are more committed to his cause than those current ticket holders will buy them. Geldof simply had his little faux-angry outburst to get Live8 another day of headlines. And it worked beautifully.

This also explains a point which has been confusing me. I’ve been naively wondering why Geldof has organised this huge concert, which will attract fans of the artists playing, and not people who support his cause, thus making no political point whatsoever. The point of the concerts is clearly not to have a large demonstration of public support. The idea is to generate a whole wave of media coverage, with the central Africa theme in the background. Once this consumes the whole news cycle, politicians will then be forced to respond.

Think about it: The day of the G8 meeting itself, the papers will be full of reportage from the previous day’s concerts. The following day, they will be full of reportage from the rally. Therefore, Tony Blair will be forced into announcing something, or he will look weak, unresponsive, and ultimately impotent.

It doesn’t really matter who goes to the concerts, as long as they’re considered a success. So they need a full house – and what better way to ensure a full house than to give away the tickets?

This is an extremely cynical plan, as it assumes that Geldof can second-guess and manipulate the media, and that’s a notoriously dangerous thing to do. However, he’s very brave to attempt it, and he believes his cause is just; even if I’m not entirely convinced, I’m glad that the issues are being publicly discussed, and that’s a major step forward. So good luck to him.

I was actually going to post about the lack of updates from the Guardian about it’s qualoid relaunch yesterday, but the Jackson events beat me to it. Clearly, someone at the Grauniad was reading my mind, as today Julia Day announces that it’s going to happen early next year – nine months ahead of schedule by my count.

As far as I’m personally concerned, the sooner they make the change, the better. It’ll also be interesting to see the new design they come up with – their last relaunch caused something of a storm, and the look of the paper is still reasonably unique amongst the papers. Given that they’re going full-colour, I expect that they’re going to make much use of that in the design, and I can’t imagine me liking it if they do. At least at first. But I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

It seems strange that the Guardian have dropped their previously preferred qualoid synonym ‘midi’ for ‘Berliner’. I can’t imagine them launching with ‘Berliner’, so why introduce it now? Unless, of course, it’s just a bit of a slip. I’d imagine they’d go ahead with ‘midi’, unless of course they don’t refer to the size by any term in particular, just advertising that the paper has a new look. But I’d think they’d want to at least mention it.

Other than that, my reservations are largely still the same as they were in February:

The only thing that’s been worrying me since the announcement was made last September is this:

Most importantly, from the reader’s point of view, it will not leave the Guardian’s journalism untouched, particularly in the manner and tone of presentation.

The Guardian’s tone is one its great strengths. To change it would be suicide.

Hopefully, though, it’ll be pretty much the same Guardian, with a refreshing design and a much handier size. Hopefully.

I have to say that, despite my general hunch that Michael Jackson is not a child abuser (which I mentioned at the beginning of the trial), the verdict surpised me. And, in many ways, pleased me, not least because it shows that American juries can actually take decisions that don’t involve a thought process along the lines of ‘Ooh, it looks like he’s messed with kids. I don’t care about the evidence, if he’s messed with kids he should go down.’ Which is, largely, how I thought this might play out. Though I thought they’d convict him on the giving alcohol to a minor charge, rather than the full whammy. I think that a custodial sentence would have been largely unhelpful – but those who read this blog often enough will know that this is my opinion in many (if not most) cases, whether the defendent is found guilty or not guilty. But that’s not the argument I’m having right now. Michael Jackson has been found not guilty on all ten counts against him, and that decision should be respected.

Now we have to be concerned about Gavin Arvizo. Assuming (as we should and must) that the jury’s verdict is correct, then this fifteen year old boy has been living a very public lie for months, and possibly years. He’ll be hated by many Jackson fans, and his family quite possibly slated in the press. And yet, he’s got to somehow grow up as a ‘normal’ person. I don’t envy him, and I only hope that he gets the support he needs during the remainder of his formative years.

As for Jackson, I hope that he too seeks the psychological (and physical) help that it would appear to me that he needs, and that he recovers from the immense stress he’s been put through during this trial as a result of the false allegations.

As I write, the breaking news is that a verdict has been reached in the Michael Jackson trial. I was fairly certain a very quick verdict would be reached, and when that didn’t happen I thought there’d be a long deliberation – that hasn’t happened either. So I’m not sure what that indicates, and the verdict has yet to be announced. Unfortunate timing for the papers – by the time the verdict is announced, there’ll be next to no time to reorganise the whole paper. Though I expect the bones of the story will already have been written, and it’ll just be a case of fleshing out the descriptive detail. There’ll be more from me on the verdict tomorrow, or maybe later tonight if you’re lucky. Bet you can’t wait.

A new video of Saddam Hussein. You know Caroline Hawley thinks it a serious development, because she’s managed to restrict herself to a handful of front-loaded sentences, instead of her usual strategy of using that construction in almost everything she says.

Gordon Brown, in a very Prime Ministerial speech, today announced that the G8 finance ministers have agreed, subject to conditions, to wipe out 100% of the debt owed by eighteen countries with immediate effect using an IVA. Those countries are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. A further nine (Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Malawi, Sao Tome, and Sierra Leone). This will cost, in total, around about $55bn.

That at first glance, seem relatively laudable. But really it’s not that helpful. Adding all of the debt African countries owe to external countries and bodies, we get to $300bn. This is aid worth $55bn, and Bolivia, Guyana, and Honduras aren’t actually in Africa. So it probably leaves Africa around $250bn in debt. According to Freedomdebtrelief.com reviews, ActionAid reckon that there’s another forty countries that need immediate 100% debt relief.

And as a sidenote, how many of those people walking round wearing white bands supporting this kind of action could point on a map to any of the countries named above? Some people would say that’s irrelevant, and that they are showing caring for people rather than demonstrating their knowledge. But the campaign is a political one. How can they possibly support a particular political campaign if they don’t understand it’s mechanisms and implications, and can’t even place the countries on a map?

Back to the point… Compared to what’s gone before, this debt relief is a pretty big leap. But far more needs to be done to make a huge impact, and I hope that the G8 will throw up some bigger and brighter ideas. Whether debt relief is the best way of helping these countries is also open to question, and I have to say that I’m not convinced. We need much more open public education and debate on these issues. The campaign should be raising awareness and educating, not just asking people to send letters that they quite possibly don’t understand to Tony Blair.

Essentially, whilst the action that’s been taken is clearly laudable, a lot more must be done, and it’s not time yet to rest and feel good about ourselves. Hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly every day, and this won’t stop that. We just have to hope that one of the great minds of our generation can think of a real solution, and that the conscience of the world will lead us to implement it – even at great cost.

There’s a title I never thought I’d be writing. I refer, of course, to his little performance in the Commons today:

The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period.

His choice of American idiom has caused something of a storm. As the ObserverBlog puts it,

Has someone, like, just come back from the States, or what?

I have to say that his particular choice of word doesn’t particularly bother me: It just highlights how out-of-touch he is with the British people. And that hardly constitutes news.

But with Mrs Blair yesterday and Mr Blair today, one does have to wonder if this blog is turning into something of a family affair. Tomorrow: Meet Ewan.

Not really.