As regular readers will be only too aware, I have in previous posts complained bitterly about the standard of journalism that exists today. The main complaint is that 'journalists' parrot the information that is provided to them without any questioning of the facts. Very few articles raise questions about the status quo and the reasons for that; and when they do appear, are so tame in content as to be worthless.
Amongst those journalists that write on political matters, this is probably due to the 'hold' that politicians - who, understandably, are probably the majority source of journalist's 'information' for the tat they write - have over journalists, with the unspoken threat that if journalists write anything of a negative nature their source would be terminated.
This can only be the reason for the rubbish that appeared under the byline of Henry Porter, writing in the Guardian, in which he mentions the campaign being run by Power 2010. Yes, the aims of Power 2010 are laudable, but can never be achieved whilst this country remains a member of the European Union.
The statement by Pam Giddy, Director of Power 2010, in which she is reported as saying "People are worried about the power of the state. They want more say in decisions that affect them, their families and communities. And they want a stronger parliament that can hold government to account." shows that even she does not understand this 'democracy thingy'. Why cannot Henry Porter and Pam Giddy not accept that however 'strong' you make parliament, as parliament does not pass the majority of our laws, what is the point of attempting to hold it to account?
One would have expected Henry Porter, with his 'experience' and obvious libertarian views, to query this point in his post. When will the MSM cease this 'head in the sand' attitude when it comes to journalistic output? A further example is that of Charles Moore, in today's op-ed piece in the Telegraph.
Writing that David Cameron is a great moderniser, Moore states that "His leadership is unchallenged, and his public presentation is good. He has pulled the Conservatives roughly 10 per cent ahead of Labour in the opinion polls....." His leadership may not be challenged by the 'robotic followers' that form his shadow front bench, but it sure is by the Conservative faithful who comment on Conservative Home. His public presentation is crap, to be blunt, with his 'Cameron Direct' and the recent 'MSN Q&A' session being no more than answering non-explosive questions on policy, from an audience which is so blatantly 'hand-picked'. And when one considers the state of the present government, a lead of 10 per cent is something to laud? FFS!
Moore cites the case of Joanne Cash and how she was 'then reinstated with the help of the party leadership'. That little 'exercise' did nothing more than show the authoritarian attitude - and the 'centralist control' - of David Cameron in the area of 'localism', something which he is keen to promote. Did Moore 'pick up' on this authoratarianism? No, and the reason is as stated above - he wishes to remain 'in' the Westminster Bubble.
It is the job of the MSM, of which newspapers are a part, to 'inform' their readership of what is happening in our country, something they will not do until they begin to question what they are fed by their political sources. Moore recounts a story of events during the leadership of William Hague: "There was a time – much too long a time – when the Tory Party was so enfeebled that it allowed us in the media to lead it. I remember, when I edited this paper, asking William Hague, then the leader, to write an article for us (I forget the subject). He agreed. I was telephoned by a bright young man in his office called George Osborne. "What do you want us to say?", asked George. They were in too weak a position to have anything to say for themselves." The big difference now is that the Conservative Party - along with the other two main parties - are anything but enfeebled. It is more likely that today parties call journalists to find out what they intend writing and then dictating the content of that writing - and it is becoming increasing obvious, to their shame, journalists agree.