News management in return for political patronage

Is it the journalists?  Is it their editors?  Or is it the media moguls who own the news media?  Wherever the responsibility resides, the fact is the British press ignores stories that undermine the agenda of the political class.

There is no contradiction between the press turning a blind eye to inconvenient realities on essential matters such being able to leave the EU but still enjoy access to the single market, or the global organisation origins of the myriad of regulations that flow to us via Brussels, and journalists scuttling through the sewers to get stories that undermine or wreck the careers of individual politicians, or the election prospects of particular parties.  It is understood in such circles that while some of the actors are expendible and faces might occasionaly change, the collective objectives are shared throughout the establishment and are therefore untouchable.

If the British press were genuinely committed to transparency and ensuring the people can know and understand what the political class is doing and how it is doing it – i.e. reporting the facts regardless of views and objectives of the respective hack, editor or owner, the press would readily publish stories that debunk the lies and misrepresentations that are continually reported without question, challenge or scrutiny.

This is why, despite definitive and absolute knowledge that journalists at a number of heavyweight publications and news organisations have read blog posts and detailed evidence that catagorically refutes David Cameron’s ludicrous  ‘Norway fax law’ and ‘top table’ claims; and John Cridland of the CBI’s argument that leaving the EU would damage UK commerical and employment interests – even though leaving the EU is political and what matters commercially is the economic issue of maintaining access to the single market – those journalists, their editors or the moguls who own the publications, ensure the story is never published in the news and editorial sections.

Revealing such information – while of vital importance to ensuring the people of this country understand the options open to them and beneficial alternatives that are available concerning the way this country operates and is governed – is detrimental to the interests of the politicians and the parasitic media that feeds off them in return for patronage in the form of career moves, access to the ‘big beasts’ and the occasional scoop that drives readership and therefore advertising revenue.  So it is simply omitted from the record. The chums continue to rub along together, pissing out of the tent on the rest of us while just about tolerating each other within it.

Instead, such news and information is consigned to the comparatively small readerships of columns by fearless journalists such as Christopher Booker and Mary-Ellen Synon, polemecists such as James Dellingpole, or blogs such as EU Referendum, The Boiling Frog, Witterings from Witney etc.

Concealment of the truth in this way is nothing less than a carefully coordinated and orchestrated deception.  The British public is being lied to because the truth is being withheld from ‘the record’.   This demonstrates the news  in this country is not honest.  The media has no integrity.  It cannot be trusted.  It is riddled with agenda and vested interest.  It does not reflect reality.

Disturbingly this will be news to some readers here.  But hopefully, as this deception becomes increasingly recognised and understood, more people will consider what the read and hear through the prism of scepticism, asking themselves how the story worked its way into the arena, who benefits from what has been published or broadcast, and what else is likely to be known but is going unreported.  Those same people may even then be minded to dig for more information and read reports that are cited from themselves to see if the media coverage reflects reality.  Getting to the truth requires effort.  Never moreso than today.

Spread the word and encourage others to look beyond the headlines and seek out what the establishment would rather we did not know.  They can begin here.

8 Responses to “News management in return for political patronage”


  1. 1 David Phipps 21/07/2013 at 4:33 pm

    Damn good post, extremely well said. Thanks for the mention – greatly appreciated

  2. 2 Pogle's Woodsman 21/07/2013 at 5:58 pm

    Each Wednesday, The Telegraph has established a Q&A with one of their staff or regular contributors.

    Just a suggestion.

    How’s about as many contributors as possible pose the same point – the same point in precisely the same wording?

    To whit:-

    …’Christopher Booker, and regular contributors to the threads attached to your pieces, have established very compelling evidence that Mr. Cameron’s contention that Norway has ‘NO influence’ outside the EU on international trade and standards is entirely without substance. A major keystone of Government policy seems to be fatally flawed from major and comprehensive research by one of The Telegraph’s own journalists.

    Why does the senior editorial staff of the Telegraph persist in pretending this information does not exist, let alone attempt a proper scrutiny of the information collated? Does that editorial staff even understand the information Mr. Booker has presented? Should this information not be repeatedly highlighted to Government Ministers to justify their stances? If not, why do you refuse to use research at your own fingertips to properly report news matters, rather than regurgitate the approved Party line?’…

    We can tighten up the wording, increase or decrease its level of relative aggression, and then with multiple contributors, carpet-bomb the Telegraph’s Q&A sessions to see if we can get people to wake up? No matter how many times it’s ignored, we simply up the ante the following week with the self-same question. We can’t force them to answer, but we can rub their noses in it….?….

    Any thoughts?

  3. 3 Autonomous Mind 21/07/2013 at 6:29 pm

    Do you think this would pass their censor filter? It would more likely result in the ban hammer crashing down.

  4. 4 Pogle's Woodsman 21/07/2013 at 6:32 pm

    I appreciate the concern, but there’s no obscenity, and no unreasonable observation. On the basis of some comments which are left publically visible, if they decide to selectively ban commentators on the basis of ‘inconvenient’ scrutiny, who is more likely to be permanently harmed?

    It shouldn’t take long for uncommitted observers to notice there’s a certain anomaly going on?

  5. 5 Audrey Quattro 21/07/2013 at 6:34 pm

    For many months I’ve left comments on the DM website (under a different name to the one I ise here) to illustrate the ‘truth’ behind much of their inadequate reporting only to have EVERY SINGLE ONE of the comments deleted (unprinted) whereas all the ‘tat’ comments I make – deliberately made – seem to get through every time.
    They aren’t just deceiving the British people – they are actively and consistently betraying them.

  6. 6 Sam Duncan 22/07/2013 at 1:11 am

    I sometimes wonder, reading the Telegraph (Booker excepted), whether it’s got worse or I’ve become better informed and more critical of misinformation. I think it’s a bit of both.

  7. 7 Autonomous Mind 22/07/2013 at 11:04 am

    For the second part of that Sam, Richard North deserves a huge vote of gratitude. His work supporting Booker has been invaluable.


  1. 1 Beware! Children at play | Autonomous Mind Trackback on 26/07/2013 at 6:01 am
Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive