From a personal point of view, it's been nice to see a number of commentators in the mainstream media coming out and agreeing with me that these televised leaders debates may have been a bad idea.
Although that is, in some small way, quite satisfying, it is much less satisfying that only managed to reach this conclusion after the event. It demonstrates, in my view, a considerable failing in our political media that they are unable to consider the consequences of something before it happens correctly.
This is due, at least in part, to the fact that they are so deeply enmeshed in the political machine itself that so many are now unable to think independently anymore. They political media is the grease that keeps the political wheels of the three main parties moving and in power. They are the reason why progressive liberalism has such a hold on British politics and why nothing else can get a look in at the moment.
The leaders and main players of the three main parties know that they'll have camera crews, reporters and photographers following their every step as they move from stage-managed "public" event to another and they make use of this free and extraordinarily biased publicity while every other party scrabbles for the crumbs that the media throw in their direction - on very one-sided terms.
The trouble is, because the political media are so close to the three main parties, they have lost the capability for objective journalism which is why they can not see the possible consequences of various proposals such as these debates.
It's why they can not understand the problems that things such as proportional representation, an elected House of Lords or alterations to the voting system will bring. They have a herd mentality now and can not think beyond the narrow margins that they work in. Nor will they be able to as long as they remain in the thrall of the three main parties.
What we need more than ever is an independent and free media.
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Monday, April 19, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Polls, popularity and pictures
It would be nice if the recent poll that put the Tories just 6 points ahead of Labour could act as some sort of trigger for a proper political discussion in Britain today, but I fear it will not. Over the last couple of years, the mainstream political commentators have been telling us that Cameron's Tory party is now incredibly popular and that their poll lead was proof of this.
This was never the case.
The Tories held a significant lead over Labour not because the Tories were popular, but because Labour was unpopular - and the reason Labour became unpopular is that they were being led by a man that the media don't like. Gordon Brown's unpopularity had little to do with his policies which, by and large, are exactly the same as his predecessor who was very well liked by the press.
Gordon Brown became unpopular because the media decided this was to be the case and so began a long campaign of subtly drip feeding negativity about the man. They use tried and tested but remarkably discreet methods to do this - a favourite being a picture taken in an unflattering pose or poorly lit.
Throughout his time in office, hardly ever was there a poor photograph of Blair published -either in the newspapers or on online editions of MSM content. This isn't because poor pictures of Blair don't exist any more than good pictures of Brown don't exist - it is a deliberate policy by the MSM who employ experienced photo editors to ensure that the image of a person they publish conveys the image of that person they want to get across to the public.
Over the years they've got very good at this as they've had lots of practice - usually at the expense of previous Tory leaders such as Hague, IDS and Howard. Curiously, since Cameron became leader there seems to be a dearth of bad pictures of Tory leaders, but a wealth of damaging images of Mr Brown. This isn't a coincidence - the press like Cameron as he is considered the best man to continue the Blairite revolution which our press almost universally favour.
Unfortunately for the media, the electorate are not quite as gullible as they like to think so, despite their best efforts to talk up Cameron's Tory party, the Conservative party's share in opinion polls is little better than it was under Hague, IDS or Howard.
The MSM recognised this - and recognised the fact that even with a 15 point lead over Labour, the Tory share in polls was never going to be enough to translate into a victory at a General Election. Around 40% is nowhere near enough for the Conservatives. The first past the post system and constituency boundaries means that they would need to be polling somewhere over 50% to have a realistic chance of winning a decent working majority at an election.
So the MSM upped their campaign and became less subtle in their demonisation of Brown with daft stories about biscuits and then, critically, the overblown tirade over the letters to dead soldiers families. But this lack of subtlety has backfired - and rather than making Brown even less popular the electorate seems to have decided that it really isn't British to keep kicking a man when he is down. So Labour support has risen and Tory support has fallen.
I'm sick to death of a media which seems to think it has the right - as well as the capability - to decide who we elect as our leaders. Wouldn't it be nice if who we voted for was decided by the politics of the people and the policies of their parties rather than the elite of the MSM?
This was never the case.
The Tories held a significant lead over Labour not because the Tories were popular, but because Labour was unpopular - and the reason Labour became unpopular is that they were being led by a man that the media don't like. Gordon Brown's unpopularity had little to do with his policies which, by and large, are exactly the same as his predecessor who was very well liked by the press.
Gordon Brown became unpopular because the media decided this was to be the case and so began a long campaign of subtly drip feeding negativity about the man. They use tried and tested but remarkably discreet methods to do this - a favourite being a picture taken in an unflattering pose or poorly lit.
Throughout his time in office, hardly ever was there a poor photograph of Blair published -either in the newspapers or on online editions of MSM content. This isn't because poor pictures of Blair don't exist any more than good pictures of Brown don't exist - it is a deliberate policy by the MSM who employ experienced photo editors to ensure that the image of a person they publish conveys the image of that person they want to get across to the public.
Over the years they've got very good at this as they've had lots of practice - usually at the expense of previous Tory leaders such as Hague, IDS and Howard. Curiously, since Cameron became leader there seems to be a dearth of bad pictures of Tory leaders, but a wealth of damaging images of Mr Brown. This isn't a coincidence - the press like Cameron as he is considered the best man to continue the Blairite revolution which our press almost universally favour.
Unfortunately for the media, the electorate are not quite as gullible as they like to think so, despite their best efforts to talk up Cameron's Tory party, the Conservative party's share in opinion polls is little better than it was under Hague, IDS or Howard.
The MSM recognised this - and recognised the fact that even with a 15 point lead over Labour, the Tory share in polls was never going to be enough to translate into a victory at a General Election. Around 40% is nowhere near enough for the Conservatives. The first past the post system and constituency boundaries means that they would need to be polling somewhere over 50% to have a realistic chance of winning a decent working majority at an election.
So the MSM upped their campaign and became less subtle in their demonisation of Brown with daft stories about biscuits and then, critically, the overblown tirade over the letters to dead soldiers families. But this lack of subtlety has backfired - and rather than making Brown even less popular the electorate seems to have decided that it really isn't British to keep kicking a man when he is down. So Labour support has risen and Tory support has fallen.
I'm sick to death of a media which seems to think it has the right - as well as the capability - to decide who we elect as our leaders. Wouldn't it be nice if who we voted for was decided by the politics of the people and the policies of their parties rather than the elite of the MSM?
Monday, June 08, 2009
From news hounds to blood hounds
Perhaps one of the more unpleasant features of modern journalism is the way they have turned from news hounds - genuinely interested in finding news stories, investigating them and reporting them - into blood hounds - a pack of ferocious hacks sniffing out the scent of blood before chasing after it.
Sometimes it is real blood - as in war reporting which has gone from factual information on battle progress with the goriest bits withheld (other than, perhaps, a brief mention of casualties) to lingering over blood spattered images with graphic descriptions and emotional outpourings.
At other times it is metaphorical blood - as with the hunting down of Gordon Brown. On these occasions there is often no "scent" to search after - so the media instead create the story and then tear into the subject with unremitting ferocity. Sometimes this is based on third hand tittle tattle - such as the media trying to insist that they "knew" Gordon Brown was planning to sack Alistair Darling as Chancellor. They knew no such thing for certain - but they hate being made to look foolish, so they made out they did know.
So, having been deprived of their prey for now, they are back - baying for the blood of the PM to be spilled once more and jumping on the slightest thing to prove themselves justified. They will not be satisfied until they have caught their prey, ripped him to shreds and drank their fill of his blood.
This isn't political news reporting, it's blood lust.
Sometimes it is real blood - as in war reporting which has gone from factual information on battle progress with the goriest bits withheld (other than, perhaps, a brief mention of casualties) to lingering over blood spattered images with graphic descriptions and emotional outpourings.
At other times it is metaphorical blood - as with the hunting down of Gordon Brown. On these occasions there is often no "scent" to search after - so the media instead create the story and then tear into the subject with unremitting ferocity. Sometimes this is based on third hand tittle tattle - such as the media trying to insist that they "knew" Gordon Brown was planning to sack Alistair Darling as Chancellor. They knew no such thing for certain - but they hate being made to look foolish, so they made out they did know.
So, having been deprived of their prey for now, they are back - baying for the blood of the PM to be spilled once more and jumping on the slightest thing to prove themselves justified. They will not be satisfied until they have caught their prey, ripped him to shreds and drank their fill of his blood.
This isn't political news reporting, it's blood lust.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Chutzpah!!!
Stephen Pollard writing in The Times about Guido Fawkes and blogging.
So I am no starry-eyed fan of blogging per se. But I am evangelical about the benefits that it can bring - and I accept that the price of being able to print genuine exposés may be the freedom to print rubbish.
The MSM thrives on having the freedom to print rubbish.
That said, Pollard makes a serious point and one which I've been trying to push.
Guido Fawkes had 147,689 unique visitors last month. A big number for an independent website, yes; but small fry compared with the millions who, for instance, watch BBC News.
The real impact of a blog story happens only when it moves into the traditional media. Many stories emerge online about politicians; but they only affect their careers when a newspaper makes them part of the broader news agenda.
The point Pollard makes is that the MSM still controls what the vast majority of people get read or hear about - and my point is that the MSM is overwhelmingly leftist in its make-up. The BBC itself is institutionally leftist by its own admission, but it is far from being alone.
The right does not have such an outlet for its ideas and opinions - all we have is the blogosphere which relies entirely on someone coming to find specific content. The left don't have this problem - they are able to disseminate their world view through the MSM.
They don't even have to use news, current affairs or political discussion programmes or stories to push these views. They promote them through comedy, drama and even documentary. They quite happily use childrens television to push a leftist viewpoint about all manner of subjects thus indoctrinating the young at the earliest opportunity. They also dominate the schools, universities and colleges. Pushing a particular political doctrine on to children is supposed to be illegal, but that has never stopped the left doing so.
Not only do the left dominate these areas but they actively work to recruit only from the left into those areas. And if, somehow, someone of a right wing opinion manages to slip through the net and get into education or journalism, the left have a programme of indoctrination which they will be forced to go through to ensure their conversion or, at the very least, compliance (usually it goes under innocent sounding titles such as "diversity training" - but indoctrination is what it is).
It is this domination of the MSM and the establishment that allows progressive liberalism to maintain its iron grip on the political topology of Britain - but it only maintains that grip while the reality of the world view they push remains hidden from the electorate.
As soon as the reality starts to dawn on people - whether it be the reality of crime, education, immigration, economy or what have you - only then does that grip diminish. That is starting to happen now. The dreadful state of our education and high levels of crime are affecting the youth of Britain in particular and the next generation are showing signs that they do not like what is happening. The impacts of immigration hit the white working class far harder than they hit the metropolitan elite as it is their homes that are going, their streets that are being colonised and their kids that are finding it hard to find school places because the schools are full of immigrant children.
And now the economy is bust and the ordinary people of "Middle England" (a horrible phrase which is largely incorrect - in truth they are the real working classes) are starting to see that the leftist world view is nothing more than fantasy.
The bulwark against this pressure is the public sector and welfare state - the vast army of leftist state dependents - which is holding this thing together and prevent it from collapsing at the moment. But that can not last. The public sector and welfare state is and always has been unsustainable - especially for an economy which is not based on manufacturing.
I've no doubt that the left wing domination of Britain is coming to an end, but my big concern is that it will not end peacefully. Because the left has fought so hard to deceive the electorate and hide the reality which is now becoming impossible to deny I fear that the resulting anger may boil over into hatred and vengeance - with all that entails. I hope it isn't the case. I hope that traditional British stoicism, reservation and preference for quiet revolutions rather than violent confrontation means we can move back to a conservative world view and allow us to recapture that traditional British nationalism and centre right social conservatism that was our hallmark for so long.
That's what I hope for, but I have serious doubts.
So I am no starry-eyed fan of blogging per se. But I am evangelical about the benefits that it can bring - and I accept that the price of being able to print genuine exposés may be the freedom to print rubbish.
The MSM thrives on having the freedom to print rubbish.
That said, Pollard makes a serious point and one which I've been trying to push.
Guido Fawkes had 147,689 unique visitors last month. A big number for an independent website, yes; but small fry compared with the millions who, for instance, watch BBC News.
The real impact of a blog story happens only when it moves into the traditional media. Many stories emerge online about politicians; but they only affect their careers when a newspaper makes them part of the broader news agenda.
The point Pollard makes is that the MSM still controls what the vast majority of people get read or hear about - and my point is that the MSM is overwhelmingly leftist in its make-up. The BBC itself is institutionally leftist by its own admission, but it is far from being alone.
The right does not have such an outlet for its ideas and opinions - all we have is the blogosphere which relies entirely on someone coming to find specific content. The left don't have this problem - they are able to disseminate their world view through the MSM.
They don't even have to use news, current affairs or political discussion programmes or stories to push these views. They promote them through comedy, drama and even documentary. They quite happily use childrens television to push a leftist viewpoint about all manner of subjects thus indoctrinating the young at the earliest opportunity. They also dominate the schools, universities and colleges. Pushing a particular political doctrine on to children is supposed to be illegal, but that has never stopped the left doing so.
Not only do the left dominate these areas but they actively work to recruit only from the left into those areas. And if, somehow, someone of a right wing opinion manages to slip through the net and get into education or journalism, the left have a programme of indoctrination which they will be forced to go through to ensure their conversion or, at the very least, compliance (usually it goes under innocent sounding titles such as "diversity training" - but indoctrination is what it is).
It is this domination of the MSM and the establishment that allows progressive liberalism to maintain its iron grip on the political topology of Britain - but it only maintains that grip while the reality of the world view they push remains hidden from the electorate.
As soon as the reality starts to dawn on people - whether it be the reality of crime, education, immigration, economy or what have you - only then does that grip diminish. That is starting to happen now. The dreadful state of our education and high levels of crime are affecting the youth of Britain in particular and the next generation are showing signs that they do not like what is happening. The impacts of immigration hit the white working class far harder than they hit the metropolitan elite as it is their homes that are going, their streets that are being colonised and their kids that are finding it hard to find school places because the schools are full of immigrant children.
And now the economy is bust and the ordinary people of "Middle England" (a horrible phrase which is largely incorrect - in truth they are the real working classes) are starting to see that the leftist world view is nothing more than fantasy.
The bulwark against this pressure is the public sector and welfare state - the vast army of leftist state dependents - which is holding this thing together and prevent it from collapsing at the moment. But that can not last. The public sector and welfare state is and always has been unsustainable - especially for an economy which is not based on manufacturing.
I've no doubt that the left wing domination of Britain is coming to an end, but my big concern is that it will not end peacefully. Because the left has fought so hard to deceive the electorate and hide the reality which is now becoming impossible to deny I fear that the resulting anger may boil over into hatred and vengeance - with all that entails. I hope it isn't the case. I hope that traditional British stoicism, reservation and preference for quiet revolutions rather than violent confrontation means we can move back to a conservative world view and allow us to recapture that traditional British nationalism and centre right social conservatism that was our hallmark for so long.
That's what I hope for, but I have serious doubts.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The dire state of conservative media in Britain
Has the credit crunch disappeared overnight? Has the threat of Islamic terrorism receded to the point where it is no longer realistic? Have our energy concerns suddenly been alleviated by the discovery of some source of free, everlasting power? Has the knife culture which has seen the slaughter of young men and children on our streets evaporated?
No - but don't let those things get in the way of the real issues of today. Namely, John Sergeant on Strictly Come Dancing.
The Telegraph's comment section devotes no fewer than four items to the portly political commentator's hoofing on the reality show today. In God's name why? I have to admit that I haven't actually bothered to read them and they may actually be metaphorical - perhaps somehow demonstrating that John Sergeant's survival on SCD is somehow indicative of how western civilization can win the war on terror .... but I doubt it.
I find this sort of tabloid nonsense in the comment section of what used to be a serious newspaper very depressing. If I wanted to read this sort of garbage I'd go to the Sun or Star - but from the Telegraph I want proper comment about proper issues - not celebrity gossip and tittle tattle.
I still turn to the Telegraph website in the hope that I'll find it has gone back to its roots. I keep hoping that I'll stumble across a new Steyn, O'Rourke or Dalrymple. I keep my fingers crossed that the former champion of the conservative way will rediscover what conservatism is all about - and I keep getting disappointed.
The trouble is, The Telegraph is the only proper newspaper us right wingers have. There isn't any other newspaper which bothers to even pretend to be conservative and with the Telegraph sliding inexorably towards the left the future for conservative journalism in this country is bleak.
I can't believe that there isn't a demand for it. Conservative media in the USA flourishes - conservative talk radio dominates the genre over there even if the main newspapers all follow the liberal line, but over here conservatism in the media is dying a slow lingering death.
I know the Mail and Express are, supposedly, conservative - but I've never really found either of those particularly satisfying. They are, however, successful - which makes me wonder why it is that the conservative broadsheets have abandoned the right. The Telegraph should be aware of the fact that progressive liberal newspaper market is already over saturated - so why try and move in on it?
I can only think that the broadsheets - the main business of which is political news and comment - reflect our political system. And as that is dominated entirely by the liberal left it is therefore not surprising that every one of them should drift toward the ideology of the party they support. The Telegraph is Conservative, not conservative, and therefore gravitates towards the Cameronian brand of conservatism which, as most of us are aware, is just progressive liberalism with a posh accent.
Us conservatives need a proper conservative newspaper. The market is crying out for one, but there is nothing to fill the gap. Until something comes along the British right wing will have to rely on the blogosphere.
No - but don't let those things get in the way of the real issues of today. Namely, John Sergeant on Strictly Come Dancing.
The Telegraph's comment section devotes no fewer than four items to the portly political commentator's hoofing on the reality show today. In God's name why? I have to admit that I haven't actually bothered to read them and they may actually be metaphorical - perhaps somehow demonstrating that John Sergeant's survival on SCD is somehow indicative of how western civilization can win the war on terror .... but I doubt it.
I find this sort of tabloid nonsense in the comment section of what used to be a serious newspaper very depressing. If I wanted to read this sort of garbage I'd go to the Sun or Star - but from the Telegraph I want proper comment about proper issues - not celebrity gossip and tittle tattle.
I still turn to the Telegraph website in the hope that I'll find it has gone back to its roots. I keep hoping that I'll stumble across a new Steyn, O'Rourke or Dalrymple. I keep my fingers crossed that the former champion of the conservative way will rediscover what conservatism is all about - and I keep getting disappointed.
The trouble is, The Telegraph is the only proper newspaper us right wingers have. There isn't any other newspaper which bothers to even pretend to be conservative and with the Telegraph sliding inexorably towards the left the future for conservative journalism in this country is bleak.
I can't believe that there isn't a demand for it. Conservative media in the USA flourishes - conservative talk radio dominates the genre over there even if the main newspapers all follow the liberal line, but over here conservatism in the media is dying a slow lingering death.
I know the Mail and Express are, supposedly, conservative - but I've never really found either of those particularly satisfying. They are, however, successful - which makes me wonder why it is that the conservative broadsheets have abandoned the right. The Telegraph should be aware of the fact that progressive liberal newspaper market is already over saturated - so why try and move in on it?
I can only think that the broadsheets - the main business of which is political news and comment - reflect our political system. And as that is dominated entirely by the liberal left it is therefore not surprising that every one of them should drift toward the ideology of the party they support. The Telegraph is Conservative, not conservative, and therefore gravitates towards the Cameronian brand of conservatism which, as most of us are aware, is just progressive liberalism with a posh accent.
Us conservatives need a proper conservative newspaper. The market is crying out for one, but there is nothing to fill the gap. Until something comes along the British right wing will have to rely on the blogosphere.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Quote of the day
From the ever excellent House of Dumb in relation to Baby P and social services.
Social workers have totally assimilated the cultural Marxist view of the world as an endless battle between the oppressed and oppressors. Anybody who can make a plausible claim for victimhood, such as ethnic minorities, junkies, the deranged or just members in good standing of the underclass, are, by definition, victims. Meanwhile, everybody knows that the traditional family is by definition an abusive environment, especially if there's a danger of the children being exposed to Christianity.
Why can't we get similarly astute and acerbic comment from the MSM instead of the drivel we have to put up with? Thank God for blogging!
Social workers have totally assimilated the cultural Marxist view of the world as an endless battle between the oppressed and oppressors. Anybody who can make a plausible claim for victimhood, such as ethnic minorities, junkies, the deranged or just members in good standing of the underclass, are, by definition, victims. Meanwhile, everybody knows that the traditional family is by definition an abusive environment, especially if there's a danger of the children being exposed to Christianity.
Why can't we get similarly astute and acerbic comment from the MSM instead of the drivel we have to put up with? Thank God for blogging!
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Long live the King!
Over on The Times, Alice Miles blasts the "Fourth Estate" of which she is a member.
Instead of derision, the Tories have enjoyed deference. The Fourth Estate is in awe of the self-confident new political elite.
Fundamentally I agree with what she is saying - there has been no real scrutiny of Cameron's policies even though they are few and far between, but the "deference" displayed by the media is not one of awe - it is the deference of a creator admiring his latest creation. It is the same "deference" given to Blair - the previous darling of the media - and the same deference withdrawn from Brown.
When Edmund Burke looked at the press gallery in the House of Commons and said "'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all" he understood that political confidence would come from having the backing of the media. The "new political elite" are chosen by the media and their self-confidence comes from knowing that they are the chosen ones of the fourth estate.
Alice Miles is right to criticise the deference - but it's 11 years too late. Fair enough, question the lack of critical analysis on Cameron, but where was all the critical analysis during the Blair years? Particularly before the election that swept him to power.
Cameron is enjoying the same free ride given to Blair - and it will end the same way. When the media decide they are bored with their latest plaything they will anoint their chosen one and crown him before the last king is dead.
Instead of derision, the Tories have enjoyed deference. The Fourth Estate is in awe of the self-confident new political elite.
Fundamentally I agree with what she is saying - there has been no real scrutiny of Cameron's policies even though they are few and far between, but the "deference" displayed by the media is not one of awe - it is the deference of a creator admiring his latest creation. It is the same "deference" given to Blair - the previous darling of the media - and the same deference withdrawn from Brown.
When Edmund Burke looked at the press gallery in the House of Commons and said "'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all" he understood that political confidence would come from having the backing of the media. The "new political elite" are chosen by the media and their self-confidence comes from knowing that they are the chosen ones of the fourth estate.
Alice Miles is right to criticise the deference - but it's 11 years too late. Fair enough, question the lack of critical analysis on Cameron, but where was all the critical analysis during the Blair years? Particularly before the election that swept him to power.
Cameron is enjoying the same free ride given to Blair - and it will end the same way. When the media decide they are bored with their latest plaything they will anoint their chosen one and crown him before the last king is dead.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Water cooler politics
Blognor Regis nails it.
The country's gone to the dogs, the economy's going down the toilet, crime is through the roof, I'm on half the wages I was two years ago and am barely keeping my head above water and crossing my fingers that I'm going to even have a job in six month's time, like lots of others no doubt, and all these assorted wonks do is wiffle on and on about which interchangable dipstick is going to which interchangable, ineffectual government department next.
I felt the same way last night. Watching the news and the ridiculous media frenzy over Milliband's overheard, off-the-cuff comment about a "Heseltine moment" - as if anyone outside of the Westminster village really gives a damn.
It wasn't news. It wasn't even interesting. It still isn't - but the papers are full of the same garbage today. Why?
Because the political commentators, journalists and leader writers are as detached from the real world as the politicians are. They inhabit a cosy little clique where everyone knows everyone else and nobody wants to seem like an outsider. So they all follow the same lines and report the same crap which is of no interest to anyone but themselves.
It's a bit like an office where someone overhears a boss's comment and it becomes the gossip at the water cooler. Only we're not talking about office politics but the politics of a nation. What we want to know is what our government intends to do about the various issues that affect us - not what they are doing among themselves.
As long as our political reporting remains rooted in the business of tittle-tattle we will not have properly accountable government. Our media needs to grow up or get lost.
The country's gone to the dogs, the economy's going down the toilet, crime is through the roof, I'm on half the wages I was two years ago and am barely keeping my head above water and crossing my fingers that I'm going to even have a job in six month's time, like lots of others no doubt, and all these assorted wonks do is wiffle on and on about which interchangable dipstick is going to which interchangable, ineffectual government department next.
I felt the same way last night. Watching the news and the ridiculous media frenzy over Milliband's overheard, off-the-cuff comment about a "Heseltine moment" - as if anyone outside of the Westminster village really gives a damn.
It wasn't news. It wasn't even interesting. It still isn't - but the papers are full of the same garbage today. Why?
Because the political commentators, journalists and leader writers are as detached from the real world as the politicians are. They inhabit a cosy little clique where everyone knows everyone else and nobody wants to seem like an outsider. So they all follow the same lines and report the same crap which is of no interest to anyone but themselves.
It's a bit like an office where someone overhears a boss's comment and it becomes the gossip at the water cooler. Only we're not talking about office politics but the politics of a nation. What we want to know is what our government intends to do about the various issues that affect us - not what they are doing among themselves.
As long as our political reporting remains rooted in the business of tittle-tattle we will not have properly accountable government. Our media needs to grow up or get lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)