Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Dissecting the news

I awoke to my TV tuned to the BBC their main story was of the suspension of another police officer, so of course they blipped through it as quickly as possible; we were told that they would be talking to a civil rights lawyer I looked forward to watching that.

It is of course the anniversary (if that's the right word to use) of the events of the Hillsborough Disaster the BBC had a reporter at Anfield who started her report with something along the lines of "The disaster took place 60 miles away, but it is here that the main memorial service will be held" Um why? If it took place over 'there' why are you holding the service 'here'. No explanation was forthcoming, obviously if you don't know then you're a bit thick and shouldn't be allowed to watch the news.

The constantly repeated story, which I was getting sick of listening to, was the study that home births were no more dangerous than hospital births; this study from the Netherlands. So they were looking at home births in the UK and comparing them to UK hospitals? Who knows, that never gets mentioned yet this seems to provide an excuse for a three-guest interview (plus baby; aaah baby) about the subject.

We get the report on providing teachers with powers to discipline students outside the school gates Kate mentions the provision of using "appropriate force" with concern which Ed Balls waves off. Yes see it's important to teach children that force isn't something they should practice and if they don't learn that we'll use force against them... nothing better than teaching by example is there? Hardly a surprise though what would politicians know about that. Perhaps the best method for the bullies who like to use force is to steer them in a career that will make use of their talents; like becoming a riot officer.

In an odd synchronicity we get a report about the increase in fruit allergies and a report about British apple orchards being undercut by imports. As seems to becoming common with news reports we get large amount of personal detail and low amounts of fact.

Huzzah after 40 minutes we finally get the interview with the civil rights lawyer. She claims she was surprised at the actions as the police were fully aware of all the cameras around. An interesting statement in that she wasn't shocked that the police would do something like this, something that perhaps the majority of the country felt, but that they had done so in such a public and recordable manner. Perhaps they were hoping that section 76 of the CTA would cover them. Kate acting police patsy played the 2a and b card by pointed out that we didn't know what happened just prior to the footage and that things happen in the moment. Sadly the lawyer agreed without argument.

And that was it - pathetic.