Endlich Grund zur Panik

Many people have breached this complaint on twitter and the like and after today’s appalling Breakfast showing I can withhold no longer.

Will the media stop trying to make us all grab a pitchfork and scream panic. Please.

It can be expected of the tabloid dirge, who regularly peddle headlines such as this and spend more of their time fretting over the welfare of celebrities. They chose the “let’s be scandalous” route long ago, as the discovery that they tapped people’s phones shows. Their newspapers shouldn’t really be branded as newspapers, seeing as the closest they ever get to telling you news is when they either:

1. tell you about some random and weird “human interest” story (example, “I’m suing my wife for my kidney“).
2. tell you that the country is becoming overrun with “filthy illegals”, who apparently deserve to be treated at a lower class than regular humans because they weren’t spared the privilege of being born in the UK (example, let’s deny people access to healthcare).
3. tell you that some moderately famous person is having sex / dying / suing / angry with another moderately famous person, and it is imperative that you know this information. Current hot favourite is linking said story to Michael Jackson in any way possible.

1 and 3 I can live with. Feeding people’s insatiable desire to be nosy is ok, so long as you’re not breaking any laws (or human rights) whilst you’re doing so. But it’s a great shame that they bundle in plenty of number 2 with all of that stuff. I understand the need to report events that occur, and I’m sure that the current fear story (Calais ambushes) is probably true, making it important to relate advice to the wider travelling public. But to brandish all of the asylum seekers as “highway robbers” is rather sensationalist. Although choice of words is a key weapon here. Although they’re clearly visible (they’re robbing us apparently) they are still trying to “sneak” their way in. It’s a story that sells papers. As far as I’m aware, a significant portion of Calais holiday makers leave the port via a motorway, which makes it rather difficult to hold anybody to ransom. Obviously for those not travelling on that route, there may be instances where there is potential to be stopped. But considering that there is only 1 (that’s ONE) reported instance of this occurring, I think we can rest easy. Several reports of running a “gauntlet” exist, but only one instance of actual robbery. So of the 25,000 people that travel there every day, there has been one reported robbery. Even if this only started last week, that’s a one in 175,000 chance. There’s 0.000000571428% chance of you getting robbed. I like those odds.

Tabloids aside, that actual straw that broke my proverbial camel spine was BBC Breakfast this morning. I’m a traditionalist when it comes to news. I want to be told the facts, impartially, so that I can see the world news and make my own decisions on it. The BBC of old, at least in my youthful eyes, seemed to have and maintain this image. Recently though, just as Charlie Brooker belated in his Screenwipe series, the news streams seem to be more interested in telling you exactly what to think, and when to think it. The show is littered with so many opinions that you end up with a completely warped and moulded news stream. It seems that, in a bid to replicate channel 4 news, the BBC presenters have decided to take a Paxman-esque attitude to any political guest on their show, but not anyone else. So Westminster members are greeted with blunt impoliteness in the shows attempt to bludgeon them into saying something that they can then belittle them for. One show even had them asking the guy the same question 5 times, in an attempt to extract an answer other than “It’s a flu. You’re making too much of it”.

The swine flu pandemic is upon us. We’ve known this for a fairly long time now. Telling us that we shouldn’t be worried by it all by reporting it like this is not helping. It’s amazing that they digitise the figures for infections (55,000) but they then write the number of deaths in letters (fifty three). Combine this with a bit of bold CAPS words thrown in for emphasis and we’re cooking on tabloid gas. The story is broken by an advert / video, presumably to encourage you to stop reading and thereby MISS (now I’m doing it too) the actual facts: that of the 53, the vast majority all had underlying health problems. As for the baby story, what premature birth doesn’t struggle?! As far as I’m aware ALL premature births are then followed by observation, incubation and anything that the health service can do to help them survive. After all, they’re born prematurely. That means that they (in a natural sense) came out too early (forgot caps) TOO EARLY. I’m going to stop moaning now, but I’ll finish with the epiphany of this story, the pinnacle, the raison d’etre.

“The highest number of cases have occurred in the 16 to 64 age group, followed by the under fives.”

OH MY GOD. The 16 to 64 year olds?! Followed by the under fives? Really? Anybody else? Wait, you pretty much covered the demographic there.

Honestly. The only way the Sun could have made that worse was if they finished it with “…which was a shame because there’s too many filthy illegal over 65s who are stealing jobs and welfare as it is.”

Sorry for the length, W

Dear tabloid reader,

Dear tabloid reader,

It seems you are quite aggravated by the current events in Iran (Sample). We here, in the world of intelligence have a couple of questions we’d like to raise with you regarding your position.

Do you think that “infighting” will help prevent terrorist acts?

The Iranian government has been known in western media for supporting terrorist organisations. That’s true. So why oppose an election that possibly offers the chance to step away from this? Even if it doesn’t offer a change, it shows that the people of Iran have a choice in their futures, their fates and their lives.

Do you think that every single Iranian is plotting to terrorise you?

Much in the same way most people can understand the circumstances in Germany under the National Socialists, where the world recognised that much of an atrocity is due to the actions of the few, Iran’s support of terrorism and nuclear armament is the actions of its government. So in that understanding, is it truly necessary to name call an entire nation? Would it not be wise to show support at attempts to rectify and replace said government?

I leave these questions here for your ponderence and potential correspondance. I also rest safe in the knowledge that this letter will only serve to incite you to more slurring. I know that there will be no change in your position. You believe the best route to a peaceful world is through the destruction and sadness of others. You have no compassion for your fellow man.

We can only hope that you are not in charge of children’s futures.

With regret,

W