When one considers that the public perception of our political parties is dependent upon the media – something which presumably accounts for the swings in opinion poll ratings, one has to wonder at the thought processes in the heirarchy of said parties – but yet again I digress.
Just at the moment it becomes known that David Cameron employs a non-British national as a nanny to his children, his party not only appoints a new minister but one that then gives what might be called a controversial speech on the subject of immigration. It is noted that John Mann is now demanding that the entire cabinet disclose how many domestic staff from overseas they employ. Why stop there -should he not demand the same of his own party, heads of quangos, heads of NGOs, etc, etc?
It has now become known, via the Coffee House ‘Evening Blend’ – an email available on ‘free’ subscription which is supposed to inform those interested in what is important within the field of politics – tells us that his Nanny, a Nepalese by the name of Gita Lima, has applied for a British passport. That the application dates from 2010 seems to matter not to our media – and why it has only just been ‘discovered’ is another matter – no doubt because the media suspect a ‘story’ in that it is now inferred Brokenshire considers Cameron to be one of the ‘wealthy metropolitan elite’.
For heaven’s sake, just what is the media hoping to accomplish with this non-story? Those who are able to ‘work the system’ do it all the time. Bankers do it; accountants do it; MPs do it – even the lowly benefit claimant does it – so why is this news? No one seems to care anymore – such stories have become so repetitive that they now hardly register on our consciousness. Are there not far more important matters on which our media could expend their energy – and in so doing provide news which is fair, balanced and authoritative?
I would have thought that this story warranted reams of print – and questions put to our political class about how they intend to fight a proposed ‘genuine political union’. One cannot but help notice that at the end of Waterfield’s piece is a statement from one of the rent-a-quote crowd; in this case: Nigel Farage. Should not Ukip have been breaking this news, rather than a journalist – on the other hand as Waterfield no doubt spends more time in Brussels than Ukip MEPs, it is understandable.
Another article which would be worthy of journalistic endeavour is this one on Conservative Home authored by Nick Denys, Digital head of Bright Blue (and who is Bright Blue? See here). Cameron had already promised that if the 2015 general election produces another Coalition any ‘deal’ would have to be ‘signed-off’ by his MPs, yet if we are to believe what we read in this article he appears to have had yet another change of mind. Denys believes that rather than just MPs, the entire Conservative membership should have a say. Leaving to one side that in 2010 Cameron achieved residency rights at No10 on less than 25% of the total votes cast, I suppose it follows that an even smaller percentage of the electorate should decide whether a coalition government should be allowed to govern us. Should not the journalistic fraternity be writing about how this is not democracy – and while they are at it, pointing out that representative democracy is not democracy either?
That the standard of journalism in the UK cannot sink much lower is beyond denial – and when the flagship of the UK’s media is exposed as a liar where the amount of funding it receives from the European Union is concerned; one can but ask why should we believe one word that that news outlet – or any other outlet – tells us? From Wikipedia we learn that journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style that aims to provide a service to the public by the dissemination and analysis of news and other information and that journalistic integrity is based on the principles of truth, disclosure, and editorial independence.
Inquiry and literary style? There is none. A service to the public? There is none. Dissemination and analysis of news? There is none. Journalistic integrity? There is none. Truth? There is none. (With the exception, of course, of Christopher Booker!)