What do you reckon is worse?
Scenario A) Katie Hopkins, in her article 'Rescue Boats, I'd use Gunships To Stop Migrants', on the 17th of April, perhaps prophetically, that she doesn't care about bodies floating in the water...
or
Scenario B) Using the image of a young child's body floating in the water to sell newspapers?
The Sun newspaper did both.
Disaster porn sells, we learnt this on September 11th 2001 and then remember Roaul Moat?
I vividy remember that Friday evening. Everyone was on Facebook, including me, commenting while glued to either Sky News or the BBC News 24.
When does the important task of news broadcasting become the less important task of collecting profit?
If you only got your news from the Sun then you'd think the war in Syria started last week, not three years ago.
It's a shame that it took the death of young Aylan Kurdi before the British press thought it was important to act.
The Sun's headline on Thursday was "Mr Cameron, summer is over ...now deal with the biggest crisis facing Europe since WW2" and it was accompanied by two pictures. The one on the left, a baby born in a Hungarian train station on Wednesday and on the right a picture of a police? officer carrying young Aylan's limp, lifeless body.
On Friday they ran a 'crisis campaign' with the headline "For Aylan", detailng 'YOU can aid kids like tragic tot'.
On Saturday, this was followed by self-congratulation of helping raise £350,000 for the 'Help the Children's' campaign along with a smiling picture of Aylan in happier times. This was accompanied by the 'For Aylan' article. I'm sure his suffering family are delighted that his picture is being used as a pawn in a propaganda war.
And you just know they thought "I wonder if he had a mobile...... Oh damn, we don't do that anymore!"
I was wondering what news they were trying to bury?
Then, last night..... News came out that David Cameron wants to have another vote to bomb Syria.
This is a joke, right?
This will need to go through a vote in Parliament; the last time that happened was in 2013. Cameron was all for dropping bombs on Syria but it didn't make the cut.
So, I'm thinking to myself "Why the sudden outrage from the Tories right wing press?Where have they been for the last three years of the Syrian war? And why now?!"
Beautifully done.
First you have to create a fear of migrants, make people reluctant to take "them" in. "Swarm of migrants". Then you get the press to tell every that we need to start taking "them" in.
But then there's going to be opposition for this from the far right and the questions are asked, "How many more will we have to take?"
It's a worry, I know. Too many migrants, we're full up. There's six inches of space on the Isle of Wight but that'll soon be gone.
We can't leave the migrants to die, not now that a three year old boy has died in such distressing circumstances. We didn't realise people were dying, we just thought they were playing kiss-chase around Europe.
So this is the problem; we can't leave them to die. We need to take in as many as we can but once we're full, we're full. But, we'll be full up and people will still be dying.
What to do?
The only thing to do is to bomb Syria.
How long until someone suggests that ISIS are a few months away from getting their hands on WMD, I wonder?
And, that's not all. The Guardian today is running a story that Cameron 'hinted at' (it's noncommittal so that Cameron doesn't need to confirm or deny anything) that he might abandon the vote to bomb Syria if Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leader race. A last ditched attempt to prevent people from voting Corbyn.
Meanwhile, the Telegraph is running a story that Corbyn will block help going to Syria.
We can't have someone opposing government austerity measures, now can we?
Don't buy the press, read me instead. I'll tell you what's REALLY going on.
No comments:
Post a Comment