Just for once Chris Bryant states the obvious……

……while omitting the other half of what is obvious (why change the habit of a lifetime?).

In an article in the Independent, he writes:

“Watching the prime minister dance around the minor issues in Lord Justice Leveson’s report, so as to avoid the fact that he was trying to reject the central recommendation of the independent inquiry that he had set up, I couldn’t help think that the good judge was absolutely right to worry that MPs have always been part of the problem.  We have an interest.  We are bound at the hip to the national press. We breathe the same air as them and we fear that if we do anything they dislike we shall be deprived of oxygen. We crave their support, we need their column inches, we fear their censure. Our political futures, both as individuals and as political parties are in their gift.” (Emphasis mine)

Are not the press/media within the gift of politicians? Do not the press know, full well, that to write anything adverse against any politician means that they, the journalist, will be ‘cut-off’ from that politician’s ‘confidences? Are not the media and the political elite so inter-dependent that they have become one and the same? Is it not a case that because of that ‘inter-dependance’ the political elite are able to have half-truths and downright lies fed to the public; and that because they appear in the media, the public then accept those half-truths and lies as fact? And are not the media thus guilty of misleading the public and also of spreading propaganda?

I can but repeat an oft-quoted question of mine; namely, in whose pocket is who where the relationship of politician and media are concerned? Is that question not the sole reason for this debate about press regulation being held?

As ever, just asking…………………….


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

6 Responses

  1. Tondew says:

    The regulator will be totally independant. He will be appointed by the industry and not at all answerable to central government……..unless central government don’t like him, then they can impoes their own.

  2. Tondew says:

    The regulator will be completely independant. Appointed by the industry and free from central government control……unless central government don’t like him, then they can appoint their own.

  3. Tondew says:

    Sorry about the duplication and spelling mistakes, the technology hates me!

  4. john in cheshire says:

    WfW, have you been watching ‘The Hour’? I’m not sure if I’m watching something that gives an insight into how the bbc used to be or if it’s a joke. There are issues that on the face of it are pertinent to today, there is certainly an amount of entertainment and there is an evocation of unwarranted largesse for the employees at all levels; parties, expenses, lots of booze and cigarettes. But, has there ever been a crusading ethos within the bbc journalist brood? If I switch off my mind, I can watch it as pulp fiction. The US does entertainment much better in my estimation. But if this series is also contaminated with the usual self-referential propaganda, then I have to return to my first sentence and conclude that the bbc portrayed is a joke. It’s excruciatingly smug.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012