How Thick Are 'Journalists'?

If you are like me, then you often find yourself dissatisfied by the level of reporting in the press. After reading a story, or watching a TV news item, you have a vague feeling that you need to know more. Then, when you think about it, you realise that the report didn't really tell you anything. It is why the British public have absolutely no idea what is going on in Afghanistan, yet our soldiers are being killed and maimed there.

But, you might say that is a complicated subject and would require risk taking to get the real details out. Yes, I would reply and that is what journalism was once about. The war reporting during the Crimean campaign is said to have had a devastating effect on the British public, who demanded change. In today's world of instant communication and 24 hour 'news' we are lucky I suppose, to even know we have troops in Afghanistan.

But on more local, straightforward ground, the press still insist on guessing their way through a story. Santander pulling out of buying 316 RBS branches was not because they didn't like what they saw, no it was 'probably' something to do with the problems in the Spanish economy. The BBC in particular, confused issues with their made up reports before with Santander, asking as Spain sought bailouts, if your money was safe here.

Well, Santander UK is a stand alone entity, owned ultimately by the Spanish parent, but operating independently and doing quite nicely. Possibly because they had greater reserves and didn't get involved with stupid, get rich quick schemes that so easily beguiled the monumentally ignorant, but highly paid, bank CEO's at other, more 'established' firms.

So no, unless Britney buys a new handbag, there will be no news from the 9 to 9.30 'journalists.

The News Today

Wow, some infuriating telly today! What is it about the left that they feel it their right to shout the odds all the time? People who are natural conservatives, the real, famed centre ground, stage a massive, but quiet protest to such extent that the socialist government of the day have to set the police on them, without awaiting provocation. Yet the left riot and shout. Blair was confronted by a woman, an actual member of the public who felt let down by his running of the NHS, but today a politically active leftie shouts at the Health Secretary because she has an opposing political view! And the BBC just refer to her as a 'pensioner'.

Substance versus ideology, as ever. Then we have the BBC news saying that there is going to be a massive shake up in border controls. No there isn't, we are just planning on actually having some. Chunky Cooper stands up in the House and witters on that the Home Secretary is blaming the Borders managers and this is disgraceful. Not sure why. Anyway, just because it was their fault apparently, theirs and the Labour government that first suggested not really bothering with any controls.

For at least ten years Labour blamed 'the previous administration' for everything that went wrong. Within a year of the Coalition coming in Labour felt that their greatest achievement, the massive overspend of public sector employment and other unfunded projects, unchecked immigration, run down of the armed services, moral destruction of the NHS, dumbing down of education (and all the rest), were nothing to do with Labour and it was outrageous how the Conservatives could allow these things to go on.

Almost as cheeky as Brown being so annoyed about being dumped as PM (despite feeling, personally that he had done strikingly well), that he refused to do any work at all. But could we keep paying him.

BBC 'News'

Wow, the BBC seem to be ramping up the bias on their news, unless it is just someone controlling breakfast news today. After a report about how manufacturing seems to be picking up, the 'advert' for its next slot asked how companies would cope with consumer spending down and growth down. The report about the anti-capitalism tents (I don't know if there are any people involved) at St Paul's had close ups, repeatedly, of a banner saying 'What would Jesus do?'. This of course appeals to the Left liberal type, lacking a religious motivation as well as basing their ideology on spite as they do. The banner is clearly designed to appeal to the conscience of the religious, which is a cruel trick by people who clearly don't have a conscience at all.

A piece about the government's attack on gang culture involved interviewing a Professor who provided some nice attacks on the suggestions, but little helpful advice and a woman who had grown up in a respectable family, yet still joined a gang. Her comments were listened to or ignored depending on which bits fitted left liberal ideology. When she said she doubted the government initiatives would work, there was great interest. When she said that she made the choices that caused her to join a gang (and ultimately leave) she was ignored.

Making choices suggests empowerment as opposed to victim status and as every fool knows people only join gangs because they are in some way victims. I'm not forced to pay for the Guardian (well, apart from it surviving on state funded advertising!) so why am I forced to pay for an ideologically corrupt institution like the BBC?