It may be that I hold an old fashioned view where fairness and responsibility are concerned (a quintessential “English” view?), but is it unreasonable to expect organizations in the business of providing information to present a balanced view? Is it unreasonable to expect interviewers of media organizations, in the privileged positions that they occupy, to speak for those to whom they are providing information? Far too often interviewees are given an “easy ride” by interviewers asking what may be termed “patsy questions” and who then fail to “follow-up” what may be termed contentious responses – a situation that arises, one presumes, because either the interviewer has not carried out the required research, possibly due to laziness; or, having done the research, they just do not understand the subject matter with which they are dealing.
I pose the question having just listened to an interview of Thorbjørn Jagland by Dermot Murnaghan (Sky News) which has just been posted by Richard North, EUReferendum. Dermot Murnaghan, having given Jagland’s “background” and made the point that viewers will readily understand where he stands on the possibility of the UK leaving the EU, then promptly forgets that point in his questioning which followed. Did Murnaghan counter Jagland’s assertion that were the UK to leave the EU it would involve a loss of sovereignty, that the UK had already lost sovereignty by being a member of the EU? No. Did Murnaghan counter Jagland’s assertion that the EU legislates and by that process “influences” other countries? No. Did Murnaghan counter Jagland’s assertion that were the UK to get what it wants, other countries would demand the same and that this would have a negative process on the EU? No. Did Murnaghan make the point that, to hell with the EU, surely what mattered to the people of the UK was the best interests of the UK; and not that of the EU? No. Did Murnaghan counter Jagland’s point that Norway has no “input” into EU legislation by pointing out that she must assuredly does through her membership of UN bodies? No.
Admittedly I did not watch SkyNews when this interview was broadcast – not that I watch television anyway – and consequently am not aware whether a rebuttal interview was broadcast; but, in fairness, if it was not – why not? This leads on to the point that although this debate about the UK’s membership of the EU, following “that speech”, is in its early days, it is already obvious that said debate is being skewed in favour of an ‘In’ vote should the referendum ever happen – and we have five more years of this?
What is apparent is the Powers-That-Be (PTB) are imitating a process, conducted by the last government where the matter of immigration, equality and diversity is concerned, of “social engineering”, ie the government are “conditioning” the public to accept a policy idea which has hidden ramifications.
It is well known that governments can control the news by means of carefully releasing “stories” and “information”, whether by means of “official announcements” or “leaks to the press”. Such has happened over the last two days with the “news” that Adam Alfryie (who he, other than another suckler at the public teat by means of being handed a job for life) is being touted as a future leader of the Conservative Party – and which include “unstated” references to Obama. To the cynic in me this suggests a blatant attempt to divert the attention of the public from matters EU and, thus is but another example of “social engineering”.
And we, the people, are not sheep being led by “Judas Goats“?