I see the Economist has adopted my title of "accidental president", even if it hasn't quite got the point.

But there is something of a common theme, alongside The Times. In the absence of any substantive news, it relies on Charles Bremner to pontificate about Cameron's blunder, "in opting for a shoot-out with guns blazing against the unassuming Luxembourger last month, rather than seek allies to oppose the selection method on principle".

However, in dozens of conversations I've had over the past week on this issue, I'm not convinced that Cameron has made a "blunder" – any more than usual. It has been the English media that has presented his stance as "opting for a shoot-out", misrepresenting what has really transpired.

However, as does the presence of a black hole in a galaxy distort gravity, and even time, the presence of the media narrative distorts reality itself. Rather than simply report the "facts", the media is creating them, changing the perception of events to such an extent that the perception becomes more real than the events.

Thus is the timeline polluted, with serious analysis almost impossible as the dark body of the media exerts its malign effect. Despite the torrent of words, therefore, we are no better off in our understanding, and in many senses worse off. All we can do is wait, record what facts eventually do materialise and then try to filter out the "noise" to work out what is really happening.

Even then, full understanding may elude us, as the players themselves are living in their own distorted bubble, with many of them unable to recognise the truth, even if it was presented to them gift-wrapped.

Nevertheless, as events unfold, I'll revisit this post, and update it through the day, when we learn who the Commission president is to be, and struggle to make sense of what so often seems incomprehensible.

FORUM THREAD