Two features of discussion perturbed me today.
First, we have a major consideration underway in respect of the European Convention. When a news editor was tackled about the lack of exposure of the topic, of more importance to us just now and nearer home than the blasted American Primaries, (please am I the only one sick of this media onslaught?) his answer could be effectively paraphrased as,
"...well we don't have all the facts, we can't talk about a European Parliamentary President because we don't have one, we do not really know and do not understand too much about this subject. It's not as exciting as the stuff in America [for reporters] because there are no ya boo activities and major personality issues."
The second issue was the power that the unelected media have taken unto themselves, even in the theatre of war. This can be encapsulated thus;
"We were goody two-shoes because after we soul-searched and came to an agreement with the Ministry of Defence, (provided we got some personal stuff on Prince Harry's activities in Afghanistan) we didn't tell a soul that the Prince was actively serving."
Then once the gaff was blown;
"There was no good reason for being secretive about the deployment of the Prince, he was never likely to be in a position for easy pickings therefore, would not have put other lives in danger."
Read the latter to mean, some other journalists have got the coup we denied ourselves and just think what stories we might have had.
It seems the media in general, has taken power unto themselves, they hold it, are ransoming various people and organisations with it. We suffer with their ignorance, a lack of reporting and selective reporting to suit their needs.
In order to have a free press, some of it of dubious quality, do we have to tolerate their anarchy?

















