Another Thursday, another debate, this time on foreign affairs and on Sky News. I'm starting to like Thursdays, purely because of their over-zealous political coverage. Remember on BBC it used to be "Thursdays are funny"? Well, it would take a rather acute sense of humour, now. Not unless you find the fact that Gordon Brown has to be on the right for the debates because of his eyesight funny. And I don't. I expected better from you, tut.
First of all, I need to say that I am a great supporter of these debates. I think it's great how it has re-energised politics, making it as exciting as it needs to be. Because I study politics at Uni, people are coming up to me now at work, asking for my opinions and giving their two cents back in return. I think that this is a great achievement, one which would be unlikely without the debates. But the debate on Sky News last night just didn't rest easy for me last night, for a number of reasons;
a) Sky News is a channel available to only those with satellite televisions. Those without Sky News (and subsequently satellite TV) are losing out from not catching the live debate, even though it was shown at the anti-social time of 11:35 last night on the BBC.
b) Rupert Murdoch. You know, that Australian guy who looms over our news-worthy skies with such pessimism and - whilst varying in strength between FOX News in America and Sky News here - bias towards some political thought.
c) Kay Burley. Have you seen/heard her? She is literally awful at being a journalist. For noone who has ever seen her in action, imagine a hybrid of Sarah Palin and Anne Robinson but with a humour engine replaced with a lack of tact. On previous interviews she accused the partner of the Suffolk Strangler of not satisfying his sexual needs, a possible reason why he killed five prostitutes. Seriously. She is like the Daily Mail but in human form, just blabbering about us lefties scrounging from the state with our immigrant friends whilst causing cancer or something (DISCLAIMER - Kay Burley never actually said any of the stuff from the "Daily Mail" bit onwards, but you know, she gives off that vibe of right-wing lunacy. A bit like Franck Ribery).
Ahh, newspapers. They love this election stuff, too. Elections are like Moses; they have the ability to split newspapers almost perfectly in two. You have your left-leaning media (The Guardian, The Mirror) and the right (The Sun, The Times, Express, Mail, etc).
The bias is clear. Cameron won the debate, according to the right. Brown was the only one with Prime Ministerial potential say the others. I was about to say that there was nothing wrong with bias, because when the bias is of a conflicting view we get offended but find it ok if it is in our favour. The same people who don't like Murdoch's influence in this election with his News International company probably didn't mind when said Australian backed Tony Blair in 1997.
I don't really mind bias because bias is opinion. Bias is preference. Bias is your say, and therefore, by association, it is democracy. But this week some of the right-wing papers went too far with the personal attacks on Nick Clegg.
This link is just an example of the interrogation he has suffered from these fear tactics. He has even said himself he gone from "Churchill to a Nazi" within the week. And it's not on. I personally do not support the Lib Dems but they should be treated with the respect it deserves, none of this bullying.
Then again, this is the same paper which claimed white bread could give you cancer.
Now that is funny.
DC
x
No comments:
Post a Comment