Back to the subject of what is believed to be a profession, namely that of journalism, and one in which it is increasingly becoming obvious is no more than repitition of someone else's often 'engineered' facts, or a critical article based on those 'engineered' facts.
To highlight this, one only has to view this article in the Mail by John Kampfner. Discussing the recent 'statements' made by Alan Duncan and Daniel Hannan, his headline laments that 'lobotomised and cloned MPs could make matters even worse'. ( my emphasis) Could? One might argue that they already exist, as is actually admitted later in the article:
"As for parliamentary voting, I have lost count of the number of times I have been with MPs when the division bell sounds, and when I ask what the issue is about, they say they don't know. They just troop in regardless - sheep providing voting fodder for the party whips."
Having complained that Duncan and Hannan have, in effect, 'spoken out of turn', later in the article he states:
"Of course, no political party can exist without a certain amount of discipline, but the Commons could benefit from an injection of some of those intellectually creative and outspoken people who are so evident in society at large."
Like Daniel Hannan, one presumes?
To label both Duncan's and Hannan's comments as 'crass' is surely taking 'journalistic licence' a mite too far. For sure Duncan's comment was 'crass', but Hannan's? To query and/or comment on the shortcomings of a 60 year old system - one that, as I have commented recently, was instigated in a different time and within a different 'society' - is hardly 'crass'.
Methinks that, along with so many others, John Kampfner is in need of a refresher course at the 'School of Journalism'.
2 hours ago