Click to get your own widget

Friday, January 27, 2006


Sir Ian Blair has been forced to apologise to the press for saying that race was a factor in the amount of coverage they gave to Soham.

Of course it was. it was one of a nmber of factors which made this story sexy. So far as I can see the major factors were
living in a middle class
in the silly season when Parliament is in recess

each of those quadruples the amount of coverage the media give it.

I don't suppose there is any way to make the media purely objective, for a start there is no objective definition of "objective", in how they report things but at least it should be possible to mention that there is a problem. I have not previously been much of a supporter of Sir Ian & no doubt he is as aware as anybody that had the CCTV of Menendez being killed not been lost it would have been a much bigger story, but he has been forced to apologise for telling the truth & that is quite wrong. It may be an inherently insoluble problem but anything you don't discuss is immediately insoluble.

I dislike the media playing us like a fiddle.

"I dislike the media playing us like a fiddle."

So do I. How can the media be "objective", "impartial", or "unbiased" when it is owned by the CORPORATE Military-industrial/financial-banking complex & DRUG Cartels?

It also explains why the corporate media supports "genocidal child-raping" Nazis in the Balkans:
Money, Power, Domination, Exploitation under the guise of "humanitarian intervention" & "fighting for Western liberal democracy & values".

"World's Largest Media Source Controlled by World's Largest Drug Company"
It's not just race.

I understand exactly why the story gained the profile it did. There is a dark and well-fed hunger for stories of sexual violence and sex crimes, especially involving minors or young girls, in the UK (as I'd imagine, in most other places). It dresses itself as well-meaning concern and outrage, but it's based in a prurience which is unhealthily voyeuristic.

It's quite clear that one question runs through many minds - what would it be like to do that, if they were less conventianal, less scared of consequences. So they dress up in an anger and outrage which is commonly fed by the very same pages that give them near-naked teenage girls to ogle, and it all blends and festers in the darker corners of their being.

Sometimes it bursts out into acts violence, not usually the acts they secretly and furtively turn over in their minds - sometimes in acts of violence against family, sometimes against outsiders. And sometimes in the very lynch mobs invoked by the media, where they find an opportunity to demonstrate publicly their moral rectitude. And sometimes merely in the assertion of violent opinions (castrate them, hang them etc) on the subject.

Occasionally it erupts into the act itself. I know police professionals are well aware of this transitional moment. Which is why I find Blair's professed puzzlement unbelievable, and don't understand his reluctance to continue the argument.

So he's left the field open to the most appalling examples of what I'm talking about - these people demonstrating their moral rectitude and outrage. But underneath, something dark slithers.
A very good point. I have noticed that the press, who are the ones pushing the whole paedophile lynching agenda, not only always take great care to ensure their semi-clad models are at least 18 but that they have faces, which look about 15.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.