I have been fairly silent about the News Corp business over the last week. This is not because I don't care. This is because I am simply exhausted by it all. Floodgates have opened. Compass of truth spinning wildly (were it not for Guardian and BBC, ethical guidelines books vindicated). I have recently joined Twitter and my head is spinning with how often some people tweet. I actually feel cooler than alot of famous people as a result.
I have been tempted to make several updates at each juncture but it's spinning so fast that it will always outpace me. And I would just be adding to the newsglastonbury tsunami. I get it. Shit just got real.
I did always think that the Murdoch camp was systemically unprincipled, and that's all coming to the fore better than I would have thought (i.e. Brooks isn't the head of 'the monster' - she's just the conveniently medusa-like decoy):
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/the-most-incredible-thing-fox-news-has-ever-done/242037/
My Guardian/BBC love, ethical guideline publication-supported, feels utterly vindicated. But then that sense of vindication is not worthy of the high ethical standards of those companies. And it's shocking, even to a person who always distrusted News Corp, how insidious it's claws were. I feel like we're finally getting some honesty for once. But there's a watershed moment for political transparency - what new ceilings could fall in?! I won't pretend to know everything, but Cameron's proximity to the Murdoch clan is far closer than Blair's was, IMO. Flying to Aus for publicity before an election, and attending annual soirees (as Blair did) seems legitimate liaison, but private dinners and holidays together (as enjoyed by the Camerons) is over-fucking-fraternising. And all that commercial favouritism in Cam's media policies? Looks either seriously uninsightful or even more sinister now, no?!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/02/rupert-murdoch-tory-media-policy
But seriously, who do we trust? BBC and Guardian are literally our guardians of truth right now. But I worry for those too. They're not infiltrated yet. BBC has massive commitment to ethical guidelines, but how independent can it stay given BBC Trust influence? The Guardian is sustained by a trust, instructed to uphold truth, but isn't the continuation of that trust also dependent on commercial input?
Is truth possible? Well we've got some of it in this fight - only because we've had polar opposites playing tug-of-war.
Also distressed that, despite being pleased that more people are tapping into The Truth, increased popularity means I find it hard to find a copy of the Guardian (just cos I get up at 12 on a Saturday?! What?!).
Also realise that my assertion that BBC and Guardian not infiltrated yet indicates that the Harry Potter plot has taken over my brain. In this analogy BBC is Hogwarts and the Guardian the Daily Prophet I guess. Ahem. Best stop now.
