Today, in the first of the posts in this “series” I had what may be termed a “mini-rant” at the distortions that are being applied to the topic that, contrary to the wishes of David Cameron, appears to be the “subject du jour”.
When comparing the informed information that is being provided by Richard North, EUReferendum, here and here, compared to that which is appearing in our media here, here, here and here, can anyone argue that my frustrations at the lack of informed debate are unfounded? It is probably little known that a couple of years ago Richard North’s posts were regularly linked to by, for example, Politics Home. Now, since he has become an avowed critic of ‘matters political class’ and ‘matter EU’, links to his articles are few and far between. For what purports to be an information source for all matters political, one would have thought that all views, no matter their “alignment”, would be worthy of inclusion – which leads one to question whether censorship is practised by PH and, if so at whose instigation.
It is well-known that “journalists” read blogs – from whence else would they get their “news” – yet rarely, if ever, do we see an article that is “au contraire” the accepted view and certainly not – if one does appear – with any attribution.
Why is it that detailed opposition to the news that is put out by the MSM never gets mentioned? Why is it that the detailed rebuttals of those that are considered “accepted voices” never make the output of the media? Why is it that the authors of articles such as this never return to that which they have written and answer their critics? The only person who so does, among those who believe they are the “great and the good”, is Norman Tebbit.
That a fair and reasoned “debate” can be held on any subject, let alone this country’s membership of the European Union, is but a dream. What price Leveson when considering the independence of the media? The media has no independence - like those in whose pockets they are, thee media have “vested interests”!
