01/06/2015
Decry the
Guardian as we do (and must, for the loathsome leftie rag that it is), it is also the only newspaper that seems to entertain serious reporting of the affairs of other newspapers.
Thus, when the
Mail on Sunday popped up yesterday with
a story claiming that Rupert "Hacker" Murdoch had done a "U-turn" and now supported staying in the EU, it was this paper which
led the way rebutting it.
Whether either paper has got it right or wrong, we have no way of knowing. The later denial by Murdoch may be simple damage limitation by a man who still wants to keep his options open â or wants to conceal his true stance for a while longer.
However, the
Guardian did usefully point out that, like the
Mail, the
Sun is officially a Europhile paper, even if that may seem at odds with that paper's public stance. In December 2011, for instance, when Mr Cameron cast his pretend veto (the
Guardian says: "used Britain's veto to block an EU-wide treaty"), the
Sun greeted the news with a splash headlined "Up Eurs", showing a photoshopped picture of "bulldog" Cameron giving a two-fingered salute.
But., notes the
Guardian, a close reading of the Sun's leading articles about the EU in recent years suggests that it has not argued for Brexit. For example, on 10 December 2011, its editorial said: "Britain's interest lies in being in Europe but not surrendering to Europe".
For my money, even if the
MoS is wrong, it is only a matter of timing. In good time before the EU referendum, the
Sun and its stable-mate,
The Times will very publicly support Mr Cameron's "renegotiations", as will the
Telegraph - which has always been pro-EU membership â the
Mail and even the
Daily Express.
In short, none of the media can be trusted. In the meantime, they are tivialising
the issues and the
personalities, and
rigging the debate.
Newspapers are quick to claim a privileged position in society as custodians of free speech, arguing that a free press is essential to a functioning democracy. But, in this vital referendum campaign that has already started, few journalists have shown any ability to report intelligently or knowledgeably on anything to do with that.
On this, I am often asked why we have not sought to gain more (or any) publicity for
Flexcit from the media, but the answer should be fairly evident. Apart from the fact that the book isn't quite finished, with over 19,000 downloads already, we neither need nor want ignorant journalists crawling over it, misrepresenting it and getting it wrong.
As it stands, we already have enough critics, although it has to be said that those who are most vociferous about its flaws are invariably those who haven't read it. My only wish is that I could be endowed with that rare skill of being able to critique a 400-page book without having to read it. It would save me a huge amount of time. Even the ability to not-read 20-page reports would be fine.
More dangerously from our point of view though, is the media's
constant attempts to frame the debate as a business issue,
aided and abetted by those who would have us sitting on our hands until the outcome of Mr Cameron's "renegotiations" was known, only then to decide whether to oppose continued EU membership.
White Wednesday takes this particular piece of stupidity apart, an occasional blogger thus
doing the job that the media should be doing, but hasn't even recognised as an issue.
We're also getting a little tired of the media trying to
foist a leader on the "no" campaign. Currently, at the behest of Ukip's one and only MP, Douglas Carswell, the vacuum cleaner maker James Dyson is being slated to take the top spot.
Here, I do wish all the parties concerned would try to understand that it is up to the Electoral Commission to decide which organisation, if any, gets the lead campaigner designation. It will then be up to the winner to decide on its leader or leaders. This is not in the gift of the media, nor individuals such as Carswell.
As with the constant speculation about an early referendum, this illustrates the inability of the media to report issues cogently. Unless it is spoon-fed new information by someone of sufficient "prestige", it chews over the same limited themes,
ad nauseam, for want of anything else to report that its dim hacks can actually understand.
When they are not blathering about putative "no" campaign leaders, the hacks spend time
recycling stories about Ukip's eternal civil war, homing in on
biff-bam personality politics with which the media is so comfortable.
One interesting thing that did come our way,
though, was a report that John Redwood was warning businesses executives to stay out of politics, and not "speak out in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union".
What should happen to those who speak up for leaving the EU, Redwood didn't say, especially as they are going to be the ones that fund the "no campaign". There is an interesting issue emerging here, as to whether businesses are buying influence, especially in support of the Mr Cameron's "renegotiations".
Meanwhile a facile story with a
misleading headline has been reactivated on Twitter, with the Youkippers rushing around in a frenzy of outrage at the non-existent prospect of membership of the single currency being made compulsory for all Member States by 2020. Yet this year-old piece is an entirely speculative punt by Andrew Lilico that has absolutely no substance at all.
But that's our readers for you. They are all to happy to consume the product, chasing after will o' wisps and ignoring the hard stuff. And if you give them a
biff-bam dust-up to play with, they'll be as happy as pigs in a midden â and just about as useful.
