Celebrities, The Media , Privacy, Rumour and the fallout.

Once confined to a certain type of Publication, all areas of the media now have an insatiable need for, and an addiction to Celebrity news, gossip, or rumour. A need so great, that in some cases they appear to have made someone a Celebrity, just so they can report on them.

A large number of celebrities have used this insatiable need, to form a symbiotic relationship with the Media to enhance, extend, or rejuvenate their careers and in some cases made considerable money from doing so.

The result is that in the eyes of the Media, a Celebrity regardless of whether they actively court the media, or not, does not have the right to separate their private and public lives, if it sells Newspapers, Magazines, or fills a broadcast News slot.

Every action has a reaction and the result is a law designed to protect Children and other Special Cases against being named in the Media, is being used to protect rich Celebrities from having their indiscretions revealed. As usual a Law drafted by Lawyers, has been perverted by Lawyers to enrich themselves and as a by product, protect their clients.

Unless the a criminal law is being broken (or in the case of Politicians, National security compromised), I have little or no interest in the indiscretions of those in Public Life, but the effect of, what I see as the misuse of the Super Injunction did irritate me.

My irritation was increased as in some of these cases there is an element of; 'It's the rich wot gets the pleasure. It's the poor wot gets the blame', where the Celebrity's privacy is protected, but the other person involved is not. As they are not rich enough to obtain their own Super Injunction, the media focus on them. So they are 'named and shamed' but the Celebrity remains hidden behind a legal screen.

What has finally pushed my irritation level to the point of writing this has been how, in the absence of facts about who is protected, malicious rumours and gossip, over Social Networks and Blogs,( on servers outside UK Jurisdiction) have gained a following at the expense of People who have not obtained an injunction and apparently having nothing to hide, but have been forced to use both the Mainstream Media and the same Social Networks that falsely named them, to defend themselves.

The law can do nothing to protect those falsely accused and ironically can also do nothing if someone who is protected by a Super Injunction is named!
So a law that was passed for good reasons, but since perverted by Lawyers, has now due social networks and blogs outside British Jurisdiction, not only being subverted, but has resulted in people being falsely accused of using it. My late Father used to say the Law is an Ass, but I suspect he would, if still alive replace I s with an r and append an e.

Linda Norgrove Articles Guardian 21st Jan 2011

Today the Guardian ran two similar articles on Linda Norgrove and both are informative, interesting and worth reading:
Linda Norgrove took photos of Afghan captor before death in botched rescue
and
Linda Norgrove: 'She took a lot of risks'
I just wish they hadn't used the word 'botched' (twice in the first article and once in the second), 'failed' would have been fine.

Moving on: One important element in both articles is that Linda Norgrove's parents have established:
The Linda Norgrove Foundation which is a new grant-giving trust that provides funding for women, families and children in Afghanistan. The Foundation provides help in the following areas:

Education

Health

Childcare, including orphanages

Scholarships to help Afghan women go to university.

The foundation certainly deserves support in its aims.

To its credit the Guardian has made a donation to the Foundation. One hopes it makes similar donations to the families of British and Americian charities that support the families of those killed in action? Appears not, but then maybe I botched up my search keywords!

British Journalistic Integrity, Responsibility & Professionalism - Bah Humbug

Simon Jenkins In his column on the 2nd December 2010 for the Guardian wrote an excellent piece entitled: In this World Cup sewer, we reptiles of British journalism hold our heads high and I suggest it is worth reading.

However from the viewpoint of this post, one paragraph caught my attention and I 'cut and pasted' it to my Notepad and intend to learn it by heart, because it totally sums up my view of British Journalism and henceforth when I hear any of the following

• Journalistic Integrity.
• Journalistic Responsibility
• Accurate Factual Reporting
  
• That Journalism is a Profession
• Journalists only report what is happening, they do not make things happen.
  

I shall quote this back:

I have no illusions about the press. I have watched enough dirt swilling down the journalistic sewer to abandon any quest therein for responsibility, accuracy, sensitivity or humility. The great American editor Oz Elliott once lectured graduates at the Columbia School of Journalism on their sacred duty to democracy as the unofficial legislators of mankind. He asked me what I thought of it. I said it was no good to me: I was trained as a reptile lurking in the gutter whose sole job was to "get the bloody story".

Well there you have it a major figure in British Journalism whilst obviously only commenting on his own lack of ethics, responsibility and accurate reporting, has further confirmed my own impression of the state of British Journalism in general.

Whilst I have always accepted that Print Journalists in particular carried the 'baggage' of their Publication owners agenda and all Journalists had a need to 'keep in' with the main figures of their 'patch' whether Politics, Law and Order, Defence etc, etc. I did feel that other than the 'dirty Mac brigade' (who's only difference between them and a Peeping Tom, was they were paid to do it and would corrupt by bribery or other means anyone they felt necessary to obtain a corruption story in high, or even low places) there was a smidgen of ethics and some residual Integrity in the Journalism Trade (I gave up considering it a Profession around 1990).

I still hold some Journalists in high regard and indeed respect for their writing, or broadcasts. Unfortunately although I still will, on occasion read Simon Jenkins, I can no longer view him as someone I respect. Not that he will care as he has made a good living in his sewer of journalism.

The Parcel Bomb Attacks - Failure, or Win?

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Devices, the attack using Parcel Bombs Carried on Aircraft has, at least so far failed, or has it?

Even though detected, due the Media frenzy Worldwide a classic climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) has been generated, this in it's self could be considered a win by those who planned/authorised the attacks. There is nothing new about Parcel Bombs and other than these were designed to explode in Flight, were a reversion to 'old school terrorism'. What has changed is the way the Media now 'spin' such stories.

When Intelligence and Security services foil a planned attack without publicity, the Terror Planners, may, or may not learn a useful lesson from the failure, but there is no getting away from the fact it was a failure.

But when as in this case, the plan fails, but does so under the spotlight of intense Media Interest (almost obsessive analysis of every aspect) then the failure can be turned in to a PR win. Actually killing people can rebound by hardening the resolve of the targeted Nation, or Culture, but not killing anyone whilst reinforcing the possibility of at anytime doing so, generates the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Also the Media demands action, leading to Politicians having to react publicly and immediately, which can in turn result in unfortunate statements being made and possibly counterproductive reactive action being ordered.

I find causalities from IEDs tragic, but the IRA were using remotely detonated roadside devices 30+ years ago, parcel/letter bombs have been used by many groups , again including the IRA, even bombs on Aircraft predate Lockerbie by decades. What has changed is the way the Media Report these events (actually report is often an incorrect term, express opinions that they may not be qualified to give, is too often the case). It is fair to say groups such as Al-Qaeda has learned that in many ways the Western Media, due to the way they react to events, useful in assisting in raising the climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

It probably why, although individual Journalists and film units have been targeted, no attacks have been launched against News Media Studios and Headquarters.

A cynical update of the view: 'A capitalist is someone who sells you the rope with which you then hang him', could be rewritten as 'The Western News Media's way of reporting, assists in the destruction of their way of life'.

Link to an Article in Aircargo News 02nd November 2010: Bomb plot fails but terror still rules