|
Thursday, 02 July 2009 18:24 |
|
When examined closely it is clear the Mail writer's dismissal of many otherwise normally functioning things in our society is due to them (& others) being the footsoldiers for big-business, inducing enough doubt into people's minds so they're pushed to agree with policies that would make their lives worse. You see that a lot in America - while most countries manage to have a working public healthcare system, in the US all we hear is cries of 'Socialism!' and 'We don't want our healthcare to be as bad as Britain!" (they know healthcare in Britain is bad because the Mail/Telegraph etc tell them so and the stories get picked up on Drudge). Hence average people in the street who would benefit greatly from a safety net of healthcare become consumed with doubts over wether any change is possible. Big business would benefit greatly from lax safety laws (so the Mail is against 'Elf 'n safety'), they'd also make a packet from the BBC if it was broken up (so the Mail hates the BBC) and rich people could have lower taxes and cheaper workers if welfare was destroyed (so the Mail hate welfare). The first rule of journalism is: Follow the money. Once you do that the zealotry of the right-wing columnists becomes understandable. It might be fine if they had the interests of the majority of the population at heart but we know they don't. As for the leftish writers - yes, there are some hypocrites here and there and some who write drivel but generally they try to back their assertions up and allow dissent on their websites - witness CIF in the Guardian whose comments often read like ravings from the Young Conservatives or BNP. Do you see that sort of dissent in the Mail? Or Fox News? Or the Rush Limbaugh show? Keep up the good work with your site and good to know you're a fellow cynic about our illustrious leaders! |
