Vocal Voices

I’m always a bit wary when politicians start wittering on about the press. Yes we’ve all seen the press presenting the news the way they want it to, but outfight fake news? Presenting their own story which clashes with the truth. It’s not quite so common as Trump would have us believe.

Although we do see it in the way they present their fantasy land over political correctness and racial hatred.

As you know I watch the currency markets, usually a few times a day. So when I saw one newspaper blaring about “the £ slides as the BOE testifies”, over the statements of the BOE officials to Parliament, I went and had a look again.

Now yesterday morning the £ was €1.1711. This morning it was around €1.1750 ish. I read that article and it was at €1.1770.

Now your definition and mines of “slides” might be slightly different. But it’s usually downwards. Right now it’s at €1.1825, oops just updated it whilst writing this mail €1.1834…

Yes there will be some profit taking, probably somewhere around €1.1850, but I’m struggling to associate “slides” with what is going on.

Essentially, as I see it, the reporter decided where the currency should be going, according to their prediction and then presented it as “fact”.

In other words, “fake news”.

The more they do this the more people are going to take note. Before the politicians started shouting about fake news, the papers could, just about, say whatever they wanted so long as they did not libel someone.

Hopefully the unfounded charges of fake news will make people more aware of just how the press do present their “alternate reality”.

As I post this it’s now €1.1836. Slides? It’s just not working for me.

I think the British public cottoned on long before Brexit, Trump, Twitbook and 'fake news' came along, and even before the NotW phone hacking.

The Mail and Express have, for a long while, been regarded as 'dodgy' with the facts, so has Sky. The biggest shock, or not, is the decline in faith of the BBC. People have now identified so many agendas and the way topics are reported that the BBC is simply not believed any more.

One other thing people have really noticed is that on any particular subject the press and media keep bringing up the same old faces peddling the same old views. It might not be 'fake news' in the real sense, but it certainly is manipulation.

One must admit that newspaper reading would get very boring if they did not put
their own interpretation on events. It certainly makes for more interesting reading.

But the problem with interesting reading, or listening or viewing, is that some people treat it as fact and then act upon it.

There is nothing wrong with comment, as in the Andrew Marr show or The Week in Politics, although a broader spectrum of views would be appreciated. The 'News', however, should be presented factually and not agenda driven, as is sadly the case with current BBC output.

The mainstream media is fighting to regain lost influence.

In the referendum Remain was backed by the BBC and Sky as well as by most papers apart from the Main, Express and the Telegraph.

But Remain still lost.

In the USA Hilary Clinton was back by virtually ALL broadcast media and newspapers.

And she still lost.

Hence the attacks on the Mail , Express and on websites like Breitbart. Nationalism is on the rise and dislike of politicians is on the rise, and the powers that be want this stopping pdq. Hence the accusations of "fake news" and living in a "post-truth" society.

cromwell wrote:And she still lost.

Yep and it's all the Russians fault you know. Although, as I recall, the press was really heavily banging on about the FBI at the time and it all being their fault.

In short Clinton had too many skeletons in the closet and the media tried to hide them but they kept bursting out of the doors.

It's like being stuck in a Men in Black movie where the truth is not in the mainstream media.

Suff wrote:

cromwell wrote:Yep and it's all the Russians fault you know. Although, as I recall, the press was really heavily banging on about the FBI at the time and it all being their fault.

In short Clinton had too many skeletons in the closet and the media tried to hide them but they kept bursting out of the doors.

She was a bad candidate; she was carrying more baggage than a 747!

They make me laugh when they go on about the Russians "hacking elections". How? How did they influence the outcome of any election?

You could look at George Soros, multi-billionaire backer of open borders. He finances "non governmental organisations" in countries throughout the western world, who act as pressure groups trying to influence politics, politicians and elections.

But strangely enough very little is said about his activities.