Rupert knows to come in the back door… he always cleans his feet as for his hands…?

So who really decides the news the politicians or the journalists? The editors or the media moguls, or the public? These questions have been partially answered for me this week when you begin to see how politicians and journalists and the police feed off each other. Literally eating and drinking and socialising to the extent that they have been compromising their professional roles in holding each to account. The news and the stories are being spun, we know this, but we get annoyed when we see it happen in front of our eyes and it spills over to touch and impinge on the lives of ordinary citizens. The most powerful people in the land are the people who decide what is news worthy. No doubt journalists do their best to sell a story to their editor, but it is the editor that makes the final decision. No wonder the leading politicians all want to court the editors of the tabloids. Yet it all sounds so manipulative. Especially when I heard that old Mr Murdoch was invited to 10 Downing Street for tea, to thank him for his efforts in getting Mr Cameron elected but he was instructed to go through the back door. I thought that was a bit cheap. In fact if I was Mr Murdoch I might have been tempted to be offended. However the media mogul seemed to take it as par for the course. It was the same drill when Mr Brown and Blair were in Downing Street, he used the back door. the tradesman's entrance. He was trading a commodity and one that the politicians didn't wish to advertise. One thing is for sure you can't get into heaven through the back door. There's only one way, and one door. (Sorry about that I lapsed into preaching I thought i was writing a sermon.) Let me continue. I was watching the "Murdoch's Judgement Day" during the Commons Culture Committee's hearings on phone hacking yesterday afternoon. What struck me was how poorly many of our national politicians performed. I was pleasantly surprised at the West Bromwich MP Tom Watson's unwavering, forensic style while questioning Rupert Murdoch. I believe he has earned himself plaudits across all the political parties. There is even calls that he should be the next labour Prime Minister.He made it clear in a polite yet firm manner that it was Mr Rupert Murdoch who had to answer for the corporate governance of News International. At times the octogenarian looked tired and a bit lost, like a granddad who wasn't fully aware of everything doing on. All this highlights the fact that it is not an excuse to simply say I didn't know can I leave that to my son to answer. If it is your business to know, you better know. So whether your a media mogul or the chair of a local charity, or indeed the minister of the local congregation. The laws of governance seem to be clear that it is not a defence to say that you didn't know. It is your business to ensure that you know what is going on in your organisation. It got me thinking no wonder so many older elders across the country have resigned from Kirk Sessions its because they feel the responsibility of keeping up with all the rules surrounding governance is getting too much. So what did we learn from the exercise of democracy calling the media to account? Not much, the pending police inquiries and the forth coming judicial inquiries have made it possible for the moment for those who do not wish to give straight answers to use these forth coming events as an excuse. So will the truth be eventually out? Who knows while we still have a government that works backdoor politics can we ever be sure that what is going in the front door is genuine?
0 Comments
Leave a reply