« Over drugged | Main | Commons Sex and innocence »

January 29, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jolly Roger

With regard to the Parliamentary fleece.
I'd simply like to add this piece.
A logo emblazoned on their backs.
Should reflect the glaring and massive cracks,
In expenses paid for by my dosh,
The nepotism just won't wash.
It seems that they shun the light for the murkies.
If that be the case they should all wear turkeys.

Present co. excepted, natch.
As cover-ups begin to hatch.
There are a number of your species,
Who treat the punters as if they were faeces.

Roger Jardine Thomas

Two points here are linked. I have had reason to contact the Guardian in the past over inaccuracy or unbalanced.

There attitude was their journalists are experts and no additional material is required.

If you are a MP or within a small media etc set you my not notice.

Outside they can be very arrogant and dismissive. The journalist is more important than accuracy of the story.

Eg the Dome. I have letters and emails from Government consultants that show the proposal for an environment centre at the Dome was shortlisted.

The Guardian ran numerous articles on the Dome listed some of the proposals, not mine.

The Guardian would not add even a small amount, compared to what others were getting, piece that an environment centre as one proposal. Completely unbalanced.

Their attitude was their journalists were experts and knew everything about it. No they didn't, they weren't in the bid so didn't know everything.

The Guardian and media miss out so much important information. It is deliberate omission rather mistakes etc that is a problem with the British media.

That's my experience. Which will be different than that of an MP.

The comments to this entry are closed.