Our beloved MSM are in a bind: do they keep on reporting on the Carrie refurbishment scandal, do they keep on reporting on what Cummings might reveal, or do they keep on reporting on what BJ said about bodies piling up? 

Generally speaking, it seems to have escaped the notice of the MSM’s chief editors and their reporters that we, who are not sitting cosily inside the Westminster Village, actually don’t give the proverbial. We’re not interested in who pays those £58,000, we don’t care who said what in October last year. We want to get on with our lives and have had enough of the MSM telling us how to do so or what we have to be interested in.

We know, or rather: the past year, the covid year, has shown us that the MSM have overstepped their mark by selective reporting with their fear propaganda. But that’s not the real issue. The real issue is that our MSM, starting with their war on Cummings, have driven politics, not least because there was no Parliament doing their job and there was no official opposition.

Instead we had carefully orchestrated covid PR ‘events’ where the MSM reporters were both audience and ‘opposition’, where these reporters hybristically assumed the role of speaking for us, the people. I don’t need to point out that this was traditionally the role of our elected representatives in the HoC, nor do I need to point out that nobody elected those reporters, that their role is not to hector us into compliance nor to denounce large groups of us as ‘deniers’ and worse. 

Now however there’s evidence that two TV reporters, having played politics, have become ‘the story’, a big no-no in traditional journalism. It’s no longer about using ‘gotcha’ questions to show up BJ’s inanities while presenting themselves as clever ‘voice of the masses’. It’s about the ‘bodies piling up’ remark which they maintain did happen and which No 10 says did not. 

Yes, that was an insensitive remark if it was made – but frankly, given the ghoulishness of the MSM which have gleefully shown photos of covid dead bodies, be they from Italy last year, or now in reports from India – reports which seem to try and make out that another covid catastrophe is on its way just at a time when reports are coming out that vaccines work – why would that interest us now, six months later?

In a confluence of ‘Boris said’ and that ‘Dyson scandal’, the DT has published two articles side by side. I don’t know if that was intent or if it just happened. In his comment article – sadly paywalled – Sir James Dyson describes what occurred when he contacted BJ about ventilator manufacturing. It is, if I may humbly suggest, water under the bridge by now – or would be if it weren’t for Sir James telling us that:

“The BBC’s characterisation of me as a prominent Conservative donor, or supporter, leveraging a position of power to extract favours from the Prime Minister, is completely untrue. […] When the BBC contacted us, we answered all of Laura Kuenssberg’s many questions. She did not ask if I am a Conservative donor. In her broadcast, however, the BBC claimed I was a prominent Conservative supporter – this she later admitted was based on a charitable donation shown on the Electoral Commission register of £11,450, made by The James Dyson Foundation to the Wiltshire Engineering Festival. […] She and the BBC made this grotesque mischaracterisation to justify their “sleaze” story which would otherwise simply not have stood up.” (paywalled link)

Ah, but Ms Kuenssberg clearly was determined to ‘sell’ that story about ‘Tory sleaze’, and had already made up her mind that Sir James was a ‘Tory donor’, the horror! At least Sir James had the opportunity to put the record straight and forced the mighty BBC to retract, uprooted in the accompanying DT article on Sir James Dyson:

“A message posted on the BBC’s online “corrections and clarifications” page notes that some BBC coverage last Wednesday referred to Sir James as “a prominent Conservative supporter or said he backed the Conservatives”. It goes on: “Sir James says this is factually incorrect. We are happy to set the record straight.” (paywalled link)

Yes, well, if Ms Kuenssberg had done her job properly, there’d have been no need for ‘setting the record straight’. However, this BBC reaction surely takes the biscuit for sniffily maintaining they were right anyway even when they were wrong because it’s all in a ‘good cause’, namely because ‘the public needs to know’:

“A BBC spokesman responded on Tuesday: “The BBC has led the way on reporting a significant story which is clearly in the public interest. Sir James Dyson has informed us he is not a prominent Conservative supporter and at his request we put that detail on the record.” (paywalled link)

They overlook that one of their ‘star reporters’ had actually spoken to Sir James and that she’d done a rubbish job. It is outrageous to use this holier-than-thou attitude (“we put that detail on record”) to bury a blatant mistake.

It gets worse. The DT took a close look at the ‘bodies piling up’ remark by BJ – something he allegedly said last October – and writes:

“On Monday, the Prime Minister completely rebuffed claims he had made the controversial remark last autumn after agreeing to a second lockdown – answering “no” when asked if he uttered the comment. It came after he had earlier branded the reports “total, total rubbish”. Yet that did not stop both the BBC and ITV leading their evening news bulletins by citing sources who contradicted the rebuttal of the PM” (paywalled link)

This next quote is revealing on many levels:

“ITV’s political editor Robert Peston even went so far as to suggest that one of his sources for the story was willing to go on the record, if necessary, raising the possibility of the row escalating further. He also denied that Dominic Cummings, who is also close to the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg, was the source of some of his intel, despite once being described as the former Vote Leave campaign director’s “stenographer”.” (paywalled link)

Ms Kuenssberg is ‘close to Cummings’? Who knew! And Mr Peston was once ‘Cummings’ stenographer’? Crikey! Perhaps ‘tis just a nice little smear by the author of this DT  article, a certain Ms Tominey who was one of the driving forces in last year’s Cummings war?  More:

“[Peston] even goes so far as to brag that he has had the story corroborated by “two eyewitnesses – or perhaps I should say ‘ear witnesses’”, who he insists did not brief the Daily Mail, who originally reported the incendiary quote. “So that suggests there are three sources,” adds Mr Peston, seemingly riding a coach and horses through the age-old convention that a journalist should never discuss their sources.” (paywalled link)

Crikey – it seems as if the whole of No 10 is populated only by ‘sources’ feeding the MSM! What is it with those people that they can’t keep their mouths shut? But why should we care about not discussing sources when these sources, feeding yon ‘TV star reporters’, are clearly helping them to make politics? Neither the ‘sources’ – always anonymous – nor the TV reporters were elected by us to do so. Nor can we hold them to account. The only way we can get rid of them is by stopping to pay the TV Tax and no longer watching them on the screen.

Next the DT takes a closer look at Ms Kuenssberg:

“Arguably subject to tighter sourcing rules than ITV, Ms Kuenssberg’s reports on the incident were much more circumspect. She told the Six and Ten O’Clock News: “Several sources, familiar with private conversations at the time, say the Prime Minister did then suggest he would ‘let bodies pile high in their thousands’. At the time, Dominic Cummings was by Boris Johnson’s side. Now the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser is very firmly out of government and very firmly on the warpath.” (paywalled link)

Why the gratuitous mention of Cummings? Ah – the MSM war against him must go on – or is it only the Tominey war against Cummings? Then there’s this next ‘record-setting-straigh’t bit:

“A former BBC employee who once worked closely with Ms Kuenssberg said it would be “unthinkable” for her to have contradicted Downing Street’s denial “without the corroboration of two or three credible sources”, while conceding: “But it is unusual for the BBC to corroborate a story that has been flatly denied by No 10.”  (paywalled link)

Ah – but this is clearly another exercise by those two TV ‘stars’ in ‘gotcha, BJ’, this time on their own behalf. It’s wasting time that they’d better spent on finding out about SAGE and their connections to Big Pharma, or about sleaze inside Hancock’s imperium.  Finally, savour the concluding paragraph in that astounding piece:

“There are two schools of thought as to the broadcasters’ recent interpretation of events. One is that they have been emboldened by a widely-held view in media circles that No 10 is being increasingly economical with the truth. The other, more worrying, suggestion is that the BBC and ITV are both being used as pawns in a high stakes game of revenge by the Prime Minister’s sworn enemies.” (paywalled link)

For me, this is a sly suggestion that Cummings is using Mr Peston and Ms Kuenssberg as ‘pawns’ in his game of revenge. Taking into account that the author of this report was at the forefront in last year’s war on Cummings then it all becomes clear. It’s no longer about proper reporting, it’s not even any longer about TV reporters becoming ‘the story’ – it’s about trying to make out that ITV and the BBC are victims of Cummings’ cunning. 

If you believe that then I have a London Bridge I’d love to sell you …




Print Friendly, PDF & Email