Friday, 30 January 2009

'Nanny' Governance & Media Integrity

I have been struck by some reports in the media of late that raise questions with regard to how they have been covered and the points that have been made in said reports.

Some examples:

1. The report concerning the two children taken from their grandparents and placed with two homosexual partners who will act as foster parents. The coverage has been concentration on the sexuality of the foster parents. Leaving aside the fact that I find same-sex relationships 'distasteful', it is a fact that other peoples lifestyles are none of my, or anyone else's, concern.  Little mention has been made of the fact that bureaucrats have intervened, purely on what seems to be for politically correct reasons, ignored the family aspect in which the children had been living and placed them with 'strangers'. I have seen no allegations that the children were badly cared for, mistreated, abused etc, so by what 'right' does the state interfere?

2. Much is made in the news, today, about strikes that are 'springing up' at various places around the country with regard to British workers not being able to find work due to the influx of 'foreign' workers. Then we have Gordon Brown, seeking yet another 'sound bite' and a few more seconds in the media spotlight (again), sounding off about 'British jobs for British workers'. Yet little is made of the fact that under EU law, these strikes cannot be allowed to succeed as the result would be illegal under EU law and that also under EU law employers have the right to hire 'foreign' workers. This particular example serves, yet again, to demonstrate that no matter what our politicians do, or would like to do, their hands are tied and they no longer 'govern' this country. More importantly because this is not widely known by the workers in question, nor the public at large, it could be said that the politicians, aided by the media, are misleading the country.

3. Various sections of the media report that thawing of the Arctic circle could provoke military confrontation over oil and gas reserves. As various statements are issued by government, 'advisory bodies' funded by government and think tanks for example; the 'twitterings' of such people are faithfully 'parroted' by the media with out question. No attempt seems to be made to question such views, no attempt is made to obtain statements that the 'thawing' is, in fact, questioned by other minds.

The concerns are that in 'slanted', what could be termed 'sloppy', journalism the public is being misled. It is also reasonable to believe that the media is under 'government' control because of this. Whilst accepting that some newspapers, for example, have definitive political 'leanings', is it too much to expect that any media outlet should present a reasonably balanced view? The BBC is supposed to be impartial, yet faces accusations of biased reporting which in some instances would appear to be true. Examples have been noted recently where some journalists have virtually 'copied and pasted' another newspaper's reports - is a practice like that, journalism?


No comments: