When reviewing the output of our media, it is necessary to ask oneself on just what planet they live.
Without ‘trawling’ the media output – be that the BBC, ITV, Sky, or any of the newspapers, a snapshot can be found on Politics Home which advertises itself on Google as providing: all the latest political news, opinion, interviews and analysis from Westminster, Whitehall and beyond – of which, today, comprises this. This example is no different to any other day where Politics Home is concerned and but mirrors that of every other news outlet dealing with what are supposed to be: ‘matters du jour’.
When comparing the ‘news’ provided by our media to that which is really important to those for whom they are supposed to write, the media is found ‘wanting’ in which ever subject you care to name. Invariably, the content provided is but a re-write of some other news outlet who would have us believe is a ‘scoop’ by them. Never does it appear that anyone has stopped to think is that which I write correct, consequently it becomes obvious that no ‘checking’, or research, has been done.
It can be held that those organisations in the ‘news market’ are therefore a tad ‘insular’ in their ‘information services’, which appear to be based on events within United Kingdom politics. That the ‘news’ they report – and the opinions they publicise – is ‘ill founded’, factually incorrect and has no ‘information content’ is only too self evident when compared with the output of the blogosphere; in particular that of EUReferendum.com.
On this website, during the last few days, at least three well researched – and thus in-depth – articles have appeared on Grenfell. On this subject, Andrew Neil, he of the BBC Daily Politics, tweeted:
In a country with a plethora of health and safety rules, how could 181 of 181 buildings be clad in flammable material? Scandal of our times.
To which I replied:
This is not the first occasion on which I have suggested to this doyen of the BBC that, if he wishes to unearth the facts, then the author of EUReferendum is the man to whom he should talk. The odds of such a suggestion being taken up must be on a par with getting six numbers courtesy of Camelot.
This then lends credence to my previous question, made many times, where the relationship twixt the political elite and the media is concerned, namely: in whose pocket is who? It is understood that if ‘private’ – ie, not state funded – organisations are permitted to provide news, then they may well have an ‘agenda’ they wish to promote. But, if we are to have a ‘state funded’ news outlet, one funded though a form of taxation which if not paid can result in imprisonment, then should not that organisation be impartial? Should this provision of impartiality and factuality not be that of a news outlet that we fund?
When the financing of such an organisation is determined by the government of the day – coupled with the ‘bunce’ that it receives from the European Union – we must return to my earlier question of: in whose pocket is who?
Where the provision of factual, unbiased news is concerned, we the demos, ain’t getting it – and that ain’t democracy! When a state-broadcaster is financed via a select few – and the content is thus obviously ‘controlled’ by that same few – then that ain’t democracy either!