Journalists Consorting with Known Police Suspects
Peter Wilby, the ex-editor of the New Statesman, writing in the Guardian on Monday, backed the Guido thesis, that the Westminster embedded Lobby is too cosy with its subjects. He wrote that "political correspondents tend to give politicians the benefit of the doubt... The lobby system makes the press a poor watchdog over government".
Guido wonders what kind of coverage will be given to Levy's expected trial by the likes of Anne McElvoy, Dominic Lawson, Matthew d'Ancona (Speccie editor), Will Lewis (Telegraph editor), Charles Moore, Nick Lloyd, Eve Pollard, Piers Morgan and errm, Sue Lawley. Lobby low-lifes were also at Levy's leaving party in numbers.
One wonders about the wisdom of frontline editors like Will Lewis and Matthew d'Ancona attending, could it lead them to compromise their coverage? Even encourage them, in the words of Peter Wilby, to give the Sleazemaster the benefit of the doubt?
Incidentally, Guido's champagne-swilling co-conspirator spied Dominic Lawson deep in conversation with John Scarlett for much of the evening.
UPDATE : Just noticed that d'Ancona outed himself as an attendee on his blog this morning. He mentions the "oblique reference in His Lordship's own speech to the great cloud of loans for honours and the files now with the CPS."
29 comments:
As that fat fucker Dominc Lawson is "ex" Mi6 asset why should it be suprising to see him swilling champagne with Scarlett?
ps
If The Hitch is found dead in Hyde park having ingested one nurofen with a big toe slashed by a swiss army knife you will know that it is murder.
When you're in the slime pit one becomes innured to the smell.
Mix with criminals and you become blase about ownership and adopt their mores.
So it is with the lobby hacks, they become seduced, they become co-conspiracists. They lose all sense of decency and values and ethics and morals.
A pox on em.
Why are journalists supposed to act as 'watchdog[s] over government'? Surely that's the opposition's job.
The press are supposed to tell us what happened, more of a CCTV system over government
"their" in numbers?!
Helen:
Because the Lobby represent the MSM, which is the third party that communicates government propaganda or criticisms.
Criticisms from the opposition, have to come via the filters and firewall that the MSM put up. If th MSM are in Labour's pocket, criticisms will be very muted and pro-government propaganda takes over, as we have so often seen in the last ten years. The Conservatives lack of clout as critics of this shower, as well as not having enough seats in parliament, stems from a lack of support for them and/or obvious support for the government. The MSM have to be the peopel who inform the public of governmental wrong-doing and incompetence.
gordo on a horse on daily politics. no nappy in sight
Good explanation by Geezer - could you now get BBC to drop their institutional bias & adopt proportionality rather than balance as their ethos!
Would be useful to know who WEREN'T there (but invited) from lobby & elsewhere. eg guessing Robinson Boulton Humpheries Paxman ?
Geezer:11.46.
Just a small addendum. This is why the whole sorry crew don't like bloggers, who short circuit their cosy little arrangement.
'their in numbers.' Might want to check your spelling next time xx
Did you see another of the shady crew - John McTernana - is speaking at a 'National Commissioning Conference - Learning, Networking and Delivering Outcomes' in Birmingham on 16-17 July? He's advertised as 'from the Prime Minister's office.' Alongside him will be Patricia Hewitt (though she'll be sacked as a minister by then so probably won't turn up), Andrew Lansley MP and Norman Lamb MP. The conference will' provide you with the tools to deliver improved outcomes for all'.
"their in numbers"
Which bog-standard comprehensive did you attend?
You two mongs are today's sub-editors.
and I am today's editor-in-chief.
Guido, you keep talking about "there" but only the d'Ancona update allows us to figure out what "there is".
Teat.
.. could you now get BBC to drop their institutional bias & adopt proportionality rather than balance as their ethos!
(ducks low as a formation of flying pigs bank over Richmond and head towards Wood Lane)
Mong/editor-in-chief,
The story below should make it clear, but to satisfy you it is now re-edited.
Many thanks for your input. etc.
Criticisms from the opposition, have to come via the filters and firewall that the MSM put up.
Not anymore!
Maybe the lobby correspondent's reports should carry "independence" caveats much like IFAs do when spouting investment advice - see how trusted they become then !
Julian said...
.. could you now get BBC to drop their institutional bias & adopt proportionality rather than balance as their ethos!
(ducks low as a formation of flying pigs bank over Richmond and head towards Wood Lane)
What colour are they? - please try & get photo or video!!
Do not scare them off their landing site please
Interesting comment on John Scarlett being present at Sleazys leaving drinkies - shows how politically corrupted the Security Services have become under Bliars watch (not that things weren't bad already) Still, nothing we shouldn't expect from a man of dishonour - wasn't he involved in the whole Kelly/Iraq debacle? We're all fucked.
I think we know their landing site. Its the same one as one of the 21/7 wannabe suicide bombers ran towards after the failure of his backpack to detonate.
(Hint: he was at Shepherd's Bush Metropolitan Line - a few hundred yards from the BBC TV Centre)
Come off it Guido, I'm as suspicious of the Lobby as you are (well, maybe not quite as much), but I'm sure you'd have been very happy to have got yourself into that party to have a nosey, if only your photograph hadn't been sent to every security guard on Whitehall...
what happened to the legal challenge mumble? currently off my dials in bamgkok and vaguely remembered some strange episode where you threatened to dip your cock in the custard
Come, come. When you think of denizens of the print media - the likes of Black and Maxwell - journalists can't afford to be picky about the company they keep.
Ed said...
"Criticisms from the opposition, have to come via the filters and firewall that the MSM put up.
Not anymore!"
For the mass of the electorate, the MSM is still key. The new media hasn't yet got the penetration and influence of the MSM (although it will have before too long, which is why certain people are shitting bricks about it!)
The bits of the electorate that may switch their votes come a GE are probably the types of people, I suspect, who still rely on TV news and tabloids for current affairs information.
I know someone who has been using the internet for 12 years (longer than anyone else I know) does web design for a living, even does his own blog and thinks Pinkos should be shot but he never used blogs for current affairs info and would go to the BBC instead! Old habits die hard for some people.
The under 25's are the ones who are accustomed to using the net for everything, especially today's teenagers, That is why the likes of Toynbee and Blair and others have been crapping themselves. Today's youth are tomorrow's voters, and unlike the '80s/'90's generation of TV addicts who got brainwashed by lefty broadcasting propaganda. The youth of today likes to use the net and quality right-of-centre blogs are dominant and give people a perspective they don't get from the BBC.
In a few more years time what MSMs messers write say do or are economical with the truth about, will not matter to anyone but them, their book publishers and close relatives.
These feral lying beasts are going to get their last terminal stabs in the neck, some time over the next ten years. However several deeply inserted daggers are already hanging from their butts.
INTERNET RULES OK.
It is very real people power. A force for the re-democratisation of Europe that our ruling elites in the media and our various parliaments are understandably very worried about.
'Bias BBC' for example, now has at least 2 and possibly far more, people working at the BBC "grafting" full time posting tedious, nit-picking, rude, and wonderfully patronising BBC type excuses for the BBC's current vastly expensive poll tax subsidised truely pathetic attempt at Public Service Broadcasting.
All we have to do is stop the bastards controlling the internet and one day soonish WE may even be able to start controlling our politicians for once.
Who knows we may even one fine day, be able to tame the most nasty vindictive brainwashed and brainwashing, party political, completly out of controll by anything sensible, liecenced to extort, incredibly dangerous, unyet still very curiously respected and influential, most feral BEAST of them all, The BB Bloody C.
Where's my Prozac?
geezer,
Much as I'd love to believe it, the simple truth is that the under 25s who use the net for this sort of thing are a tiny minority, because it's only a tiny minority of u25s who can actually read.
Anon 5:34
They don't have to use it for current affairs when they are young, but my point is that they are used to using the net for everything, and if and when the time comes, when they stop looking for news on Brittany's latest tattoo or something, and start trying to find out something important, the web is where they'll be looking. The web is uncontrolled and un-PC the Left-wing elite know exactly what that means for them after years of controlling broadcasting.
IF the commisar scumbags silence the net(the last democratic voice) then I am off to Switzerland to buy myself an AK47 and I am coming back to silence some commisars! Seems only fair to me, so who's with me?
Guido, please. Your headline is not so much a headline as a JOB REQUIREMENT. It'll do those softies some good to rub elbows with an honest-to-god crook once in awhile. Someone's got to represent while Conrad Black is tied up in the US.
Post a Comment