Sometimes I look at the world and see lots of familiar faces stuck a top the wrong bodies.
The bodies are crawling to work, climbing up the ladder, smiling to themselves and nodding their heads.

I don’t really understand why. I mean, of course, I understand the concept of ‘the economy’ and 'capitalism' and why labour makes money makes the world go round, but I am just so confused.

I understand why in today’s ‘credit crunch’ climate that we should keep spending money, support smaller businesses and try not to let the economy lapse any more, but when situations such as the police reaction to the G20 protests on weds last week occur I get a little bit more confused. Surrounding a group of people, penning them in and refusing to let them leave… a peaceful protest - supposedly.

Who are these people working in the government? Working for the police? Working for the banks/ institutions/ reading the sun/times/telegraph/ watching the BBC and being spoon fed their own opinions. It’s like the heads on top of the bodies refuse to be accountable so they act as hosts for whatever the globalised authority believes should be correct at that particular moment in time. Are we those people?

Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East correspondent, has been accused of lacking impartiality. Call me naive, but reporting on the Middle East for your entire journalistic career does mean that you may develop an opinion- nay, an understanding (albeit subjective, as are all understandings/histories etc) of the particular situation. It is why journalists are journalists. They want to develop an understanding that is closer to a truth (albeit subjective, as are all truths/understandings/histories etc) so as to relate a situation/ the ‘news’ to an audience. An audience that can then develop an opinion (albeit subjective yet again, as are truths/understanding/histories etc) and an audience who can then choose for themselves the thoughts that their bodies host and filter into their actions.

I understand that the BBC strives for this ideal of impartiality, strives to be a fair representative of the good old people of Britain, but the atmosphere is changing. It is always changing. To scapegoat one of their best correspondents due to a few complaints is surprisingly not that shocking at all. Especially when we see the President of Iran attack Israel (after declaring how he wishes to wipe it off the map/argues that it should never have existed in the first place) resulting in half of Europe stepping back out of the UN boardroom into the safe zone, and shouting ant-Semitism at the top of their lungs. And quite rightly- what Ahmadinejad says is anti-Semetic and it is anti Israeli.
I personally do have issues with two roads being created in one country- one for Israelis, one for Palestinians, and the difference in quality of each road. And I also have issues with the way id cards are issued. And I also have issues with the path of the Israeli security fence/ land possession/ house demolitions/ embargos on Gaza/ owing airspace/water space and land which is technically Palestinian. Some actions of which could in fact be interpreted as oppressive, or indeed, racist.

It seems this man has taken it upon himself to state what he believes. Rather than letting it slide, he is not letting go. This could be his best –or worst decision to date. Especially when taking into account the current international climate.

I’m so confused as to how the world is up in arms over some statements by an angry man- albeit an angry biased man, who is actually making some very interesting points that are without a shadow of a doubt, true.

I keep forgetting what democracy is. And what honesty is. And what it is to fight for what you believe in. There is a very long way to go yet.

1 comment:

DannyFox said...

Journalistic neutrality. It's a concept that is so positive at first glance but, on examination, so loaded with errors of thought that it turns out to be a largely pointless exercise. I have no wish to work for a newspaper or network for just this reason. Any attempt to stay neutral inevitably involves a choice of possible arguments (showing or printing all possibilities is quite impractical). The BBC sees Israel v's Palestine and tries to represent 'both sides'. There are as many different arguments and experiences as there are people; reducing them to 2 equal sides is madness, reductive and unfair to all involved. But it's not an easy thing to try and work around policy. Independence allows freedom of opinion. I hope.

As far as media-consumers are concerned (all of us) it is up to us to get journalism from as many sources as possible; we should not expect one source to be 'neutral' or fair. I look at FOX NEWS, Al Jazeera, BBC, Financial Times, The Economist, Latin American websites and podcasts. Still it's not enough to get a real picture of what happens. But at least it's easier to form your own opinions. Never be afraid to buy a Daily Express (or any other media) - everything tells you something, even if it's just the policy of the newspaper.

Sorry for the journo-rant, but I've been thinking a lot about this sort of thing recently.

Love. D.