Gawd I HATE The Limelight....Now
As Tony Blair leave politics and enters the private sector, he's now decided that "the media" is a horrible thing...
Media 'like feral beast' - Blair
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6744261.stm
I'm particularly intrigued about his statements regarding how the media tends to interpret the quotes of politicians, rather than simply feedback to the public what is said. This observation is coming from a politician who's spent most of his career as a lapdog to American Presidents and puts more spin on his statements than Andy Roddick puts on the ball during his serve. The very nature of political speech is fraught with code words and enigmatic phrases that are designed to let the politician weasel out of, if need be, whatever laudable promise or charge he or she is making at the time. I've watched speeches from Blair et. al. and I have to interpret some of their double-speak so I can relate completely to new reporters who are trying to keep us informed.
I'm getting such a kick out of all these politicians and celebrities suddenly biting the hand that feeds them. When the person is being headlined as a "Defender of Freedom" or "The Next Big Thing" well then, there is purpose in reporting. However, let "the media" report (excuse me, "interpret") a lie, or report an indiscretion and all of a sudden they are just a bunch of dirt-digging rumor-mongers!
I for one do not want a policy of lap-dog journalism. Perhaps climbing up a tree to take a picture of an actress poolside is a bit over-the-top, but simply reporting events as they unfold, regardless of how unflattering they may be, SHOULD be the responsibility of "the media"...As long as it's done factually with no attempt at slanting the facts one way or the other. If these "public-types" don't like it they have two choices: 1) Be a straight-shooter so that the media has nothing bad to report...Or...2) Don't enter a career in the public sector.
Just a thought.
Media 'like feral beast' - Blair
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6744261.stm
I'm particularly intrigued about his statements regarding how the media tends to interpret the quotes of politicians, rather than simply feedback to the public what is said. This observation is coming from a politician who's spent most of his career as a lapdog to American Presidents and puts more spin on his statements than Andy Roddick puts on the ball during his serve. The very nature of political speech is fraught with code words and enigmatic phrases that are designed to let the politician weasel out of, if need be, whatever laudable promise or charge he or she is making at the time. I've watched speeches from Blair et. al. and I have to interpret some of their double-speak so I can relate completely to new reporters who are trying to keep us informed.
I'm getting such a kick out of all these politicians and celebrities suddenly biting the hand that feeds them. When the person is being headlined as a "Defender of Freedom" or "The Next Big Thing" well then, there is purpose in reporting. However, let "the media" report (excuse me, "interpret") a lie, or report an indiscretion and all of a sudden they are just a bunch of dirt-digging rumor-mongers!
I for one do not want a policy of lap-dog journalism. Perhaps climbing up a tree to take a picture of an actress poolside is a bit over-the-top, but simply reporting events as they unfold, regardless of how unflattering they may be, SHOULD be the responsibility of "the media"...As long as it's done factually with no attempt at slanting the facts one way or the other. If these "public-types" don't like it they have two choices: 1) Be a straight-shooter so that the media has nothing bad to report...Or...2) Don't enter a career in the public sector.
Just a thought.
posted by Invictus | 10:42 AM
|
0 comments
