NEWS: Why it’s turning into Confusionews

Egyptair, Ryan Giggs, Francois Hollande, Boris Johnson & the public interest

Président Flat-Screen Hollande told the media at 12.20pm CET today what the media had already told him about the Egyptair flight that (as he rather confusingly put it) “is now confirmed to have crashed and disappeared”. Francois told us that he did not rule out any hypothesis.

The BBCNews anchor then confirmed what Hollande had confirmed about not ruling out any hypothesis.

Everything Hollande le plat-écran knows about plane crash hypotheses could probably be inscribed with little difficulty on the backside of a 5 centime piece; but the media seem determined to position the world’s leadership élite as the definitive source of information about everything.

There is, alongside this odd mission to disinform, a desire to maintain the illusion that normal people care at all what celebrities get up to either intra or extra maritally. Today, one such celeb took up valuable UK Supreme Court time in order to secure protection from his own serial randiness being unveiled.

So good for you Ryan Giggs, but most of us with a pc found out about this weeks ago – and we all know your difficulty in keeping the old todger in the trousers. Some years back we also got wind of your recreational habit issues….but as you got help, what’s it got to do with us?

What am I going on about here, and why?

For me, it’s all about the phrase “in the public interest” when it comes to the media – especially those owned by megalomaniac bottom feeders.

The public is interested in the fate of the Egyptair flight’s fate. But I doubt if the banal yes-and-no-with-reservations drivel of a tedious yet illiberal French President is of any interest or value to any of us.

Knowing that Ryan Giggs is something of a serial shagger is of interest to the public, but is it in their interests to have that knowledge confirmed? I mean, since Bobby Charlton, does anyone know of any footballer anywhere who has a thinking mechanism beyond his groin?

Giggs has little or no power over us to speak of….but Boris Johnson does, and his wife engaging in public vertical fluids exchange is of interest to the public, because it suggests (given his own bed-hopping tendencies) a shared character flaw. When that wife then uses her power to drop her stimulatory partner in the poo as a means of protecting both her and her hubby, then of course it is in the public interest….being strongly indicative of both familial disloyalty and the abuse of power.

But always today, there is this knee-jerk recourse to Law, hearings and super-injunctions. It produces at times hysterically funny tableaux in which the media covers such censorship – as if their inability to tell the reader whoTF they’re on about is somehow informative. It might tease and titillate, but the last thing it does is inform.

The danger with this sort of banal media soundbite reporting and expensive legal cover-up is that, ultimately, the ordinary citizen becomes increasingly unable to distinguish between what is of cultural value, and what isn’t.

The right to privacy from purely invasive Newscorpism gets blurred (and exploited by) those with no right to hide their dark side. And the quietly expressed opinion of the gauche, media-untrained specialist gets drowned by the woffle of the media-manipulating political leader.

In my day (he began in old-fart mode) such delineations were sorted out by editors of enormous experience – often against the wishes of their proprietors who – very often – backed off in the face of a threatened resignation.

The arrival of Murdoch, Maxwell and the Barclay twins changed all that. And so – as always – the main winners are lawyers, and the consistent losers are the citizens.

Let me close by returning to the Egyptair incident. I watched one particular channel as an aviation expert opined quietly, “The only explanation for the lack of a distress signal from the crew is sudden structural failure of the aeroplane, or being hit by a missile. In 2016, the latter is far more likely”.

We shall see. But this gentleman added more insight in the eight seconds it took for him to say that, than the three hours of updated speculation that preceded it.

And for me, that’s what news should really be: the succinct adding of value.

16 thoughts on “NEWS: Why it’s turning into Confusionews

  1. Hollande was on TV over teh week-end saying he was the only choice for the Left in France . His approval rating last time out was 13 pct . He’s claiming things are getting better in France .


  2. Marina Marina
    Je veux tu le plus pret epouser
    Marina Marina Marina
    Vous ne devez
    Laisser te faire baiser.

    Enough shilly shallying JW

    ” Wheel’er” out..


  3. EU debate is thed same … no added information just 2 bickering sides who cannot project a sound argument either way to convince a decent majority.

    Just shot a BREMAIN troll down on this, grounds being no mention of lack of democracy and fiscal accountability. No I do not care about the immigration or regulation issues they sort themselves out after democracy and fiscal accountability is introduced.

    Won’t happen, we still get all the specualtive hyperbole on BREMAIN and the danger of BREXIT that prevents us demanding of europe what we should really ask for and NO IT IS NOT MONEY YOU ARE SKINT. After that it becomes fair game, no 2 year exit neither, if the EU betrays a promise all agreements are off called accountability once more.


  4. …and in other news:
    Queen Elizabeth stunned BBC production staff yesterday while preparing to deliver the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament, hinting that she is planning to abdicate the throne and flee the UK, a BBC insider claims.
    ‘One is making the necessary preparations to abandon ship,’ Her Majesty said. ‘A violent storm is coming, the likes of which Britain has never seen.‘
    BBC staff ‘stunned’
    Her Majesty was speaking to her advisors while taking on the Parliament Robe of State and Imperial State Crown in the Robing Chamber, however she was already wearing a microphone and her comments were heard by the whole gallery.
    ‘She seemed angry that she had to remain neutral in her speech. She said there is solid intelligence from military top brass that if we don’t Brexit there is an inevitable World War 3 scenario that will play out,’ the insider said.
    ‘World War 2 will seem like a bump in the road compared to this. I must warn my subjects,’ the Queen said.
    The line was cut off at this point and BBC production staff were urgently addressed by the director John Kirby. He said he had been warned by BBC executives that the Head of State had been ‘shooting her mouth off a lot lately‘ and that ‘we must all ignore, forget, delete from our memories everything that we heard.’
    ‘He said there wasn’t going to be a scandal on his watch.’
    What does Queen Elizabeth know that we don’t? She is certainly privy to information that is kept from the public. The possibility of a geopolitical conflict, culminating in World War 3, has been discussed by Britain’s politicians this past week. By warning advisors that she has made the necessary preparations to flee the country, is she hinting that she has inside information of the darkest kind?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The Giggs saga and the rest of the super-injunction we-know-who-it-is-but-we’re-not-allowed-to-tell-you pantomime allows the media to pretend to be fighting for free speech – when in fact, as you say, the whole thing is of no significance to anyone. Note the differences in how the media reported a footballer’s perfectly legitimate liaisons with the case of John Whittingdale, a man with responsibility for the media who left himself open to blackmail by consorting with a prostitute, as well as bringing politics into further disrepute. The press made excuses for him because he was prepared to bash the BBC in return.


  6. The ‘news’ these days has little to do with informing people and much to do with the business of selling an agenda. Sadly, the BBC is as guilty as any other ‘provider’ in this respect – to the extent that much of what is promoted deserves little or no respect at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The word “public” in the phrase “in the public interest” means “pertaining to government”


  8. The tortfeasor can hide to sum extent behind the law! but really is circumnavigating our laws really the right way too uphold the law! my understanding is a court case is possible ,i doubt whether a jury will be involved but if one was surely ignorance of the facts at this time would make for a better trial! however i feel this decision was more about protecting others who are & those that will rely on these laws shortly! has John alludes too!


  9. These days I am desperate for any reason to hope for a more just future. The French people are showing me a glimmer as they push back against the police state. The spirit of De-Gaulle and the Republic seems to be rising to oppose the Neoliberal and Neocon psychos that are dismembering their public institutions. During my years on this planet, not only have I seen the Russian government become more truthful and rational than my own, but now the French have put the British population to shame in their response to repression. Why no coverage in the Western MSM?

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Apologies – OT

    This is an excellent, but extremely worrying interview with Stephen F. Cohen re. NATO actions in the Baltics. Our Neocon-controlled policy makers are either attempting to poke the Bear into a nuclear response deliberately, or they are genuinely so stupid that they believe Russia will not respond to their provocations.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I’m pleased to announce that we have a winner of The Spectator’s President Erdogan Offensive Poetry competition, and here it is:

    There was a young fellow from Ankara

    Who was a terrific wankerer

    Till he sowed his wild oats

    With the help of a goat

    But he didn’t even stop to thankera.

    The author of this winning entry is former Mayor of London and chief Brexiteer, Boris Johnson MP.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Canexpat [Off Topic]

    “or they are genuinely so stupid that they believe Russia will not respond to their provocations”

    It was in 2011 that JW posted an article on the effects of Chinese hackers on US military systems.

    The Chinese are not stupid, and so far have kept their powder dry, so to speak. But then, they are not at war. Yet.

    So what has this to do with Russia? Well, the two powers now have the best relationship they’ve had for a very long time – partly as a result of American sabre-rattling. However, how much military intelligence have they shared between them?

    After all, American diplomacy depends on their ability to drop bombs on people, and so get them to toe the line.

    When you rely on dropping bombs to get your way, it has an effect on a person’s ability to think. After all, you don’t need to think if you shoot first and then wonder what questions to ask…

    So consider this: an American bomber circling in the skies and losing altitude slowly as a result of a ‘computer glitch’. Or a US destroyer heading for the Baltic coast of Sweden because its electronically guided steering system has mysteriously jammed….

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s