Saturday, 13 February 2010

When Will The MSM Inform The People About The Real Issues?

It is the job of the MSM to inform their readership on 'matters of the day' and in so doing to inform with well-written, well-researched writing - at the same time to present both sides of a question. Far too often those employed by the MSM - supposedly journalists - repeat a statement issued by a minister, quango and fake charity as it is given to them, accepting the data as fact when invariably this is not so.

An example of what may arguably be considered 'bad' journalism is this article in the Times, written by Janice Turner, the central thesis of which is that the one thing that will cleanse British politics is reform of the House of Lords.  Janice Turner, we read, joined the Times from the Guardian in 2003 and writes mainly, but not exclusively, on family matters and women's issues. Might one suggest that she sticks to family matters and women's issues?

Our country is approaching probably the most important general election in our history, and the concentration on subjects such as Gordon Brown crying on television, whether Lord Ashcroft pays tax in this country, are but minor issues. It would appear that 'journalists' write about democracy and exhibit a total lack of knowledge on the subject.

If the MSM wish to be taken seriously and and in so doing reverse their falling numbers of followers, then they need to completely revise how they 'present' news to the people. A prime example is that of global warming, or climate change, or whatever it is called now. Up until the exposure of the emails from the University of East Anglia, all the MSM did was to 'parrot' the information it was given. The blogsphere began to question the findings of various reports from the outset and then with the email leak all hell broke loose. Should that 'questioning' not have been done by the MSM, right from the onset of the green agenda? Remember it was Richard North, EU Referendum, who along with Christopher Booker, 'broke' Pachauri and exposed a 'financial scam' within the climate change scam. Only then did some of the MSM pick up the story - in the case of the Telegraph, possibly even plagarising North's work.

Is not that which Richard North and Christopher Booker did, what the MSM should be doing? Is not those of us in the blogosphere (too many to mention) who are trying to expose the deficit in our democracy what the MSM should be doing? How can the electorate, when going to vote, make informed choices when their only source of information - the MSM - refuse to do their job properly?

No comments: