Our 4th in a state

US Election: Please help me make my mind up

Well, like me, you could decide on neither. And it wouldn't really matter, 'cos we're not over there, or voters.

However, to help you, you could try you very own paper, who shares gems like this front of house:

Brigitte Bardot calls Sarah Palin a 'disgrace to women'

Another obscure foreign ex-celeb calls media-luvvie object of obsession foreign VP aspirant some names and it's Splashville USA!

I fly no flag for Mrs. Palin, but with each effort over here my faith in and respect for the UK media excavates a little lower through the barrel base than it is now.

Of course, I have another, counter, theory as to what the 4th in a state is up to, and it ain't pretty either.

Heck, look at the picture.

Gaurdian - Palin ducks press questions... you betcha

You may as well ask why Sen. Obama can't function without a Teleprompter, or Gordon Brown (a politician of slightly more concern to me here, now) will only be seen on certain comfy sofas, but this isn't the right (geddit?) place for such questions, I guess.

If I paid for access to this, I'd be moved to make it one of my first belt-tightening sacrifices (publisher take note - the BBC/car mag subsidy is not much use with no licence-fee paying or car-driving readers). But as it's free, let's keep the dance going.

Gaurdian - Tina Brown's new website is a curious beast -

'An online scrapbook of her pals' views ...'

In... The Guardian (online). Too easy.

Newsnight - It's All Relateable

I fly no flag for Mrs. Palin (nor any of the others... who are they again? Thanks to the quality of BBC coverage it's hard to recall, bar the bloke Simon Schama has decided to 'follow') and, as a UK voter, that opinion really matters little.

But the way the chattering classes here are treating this overseas election, and trying to shape the result in the 'correct' way using unsubtle versions of the last 'correct' way (Operation Clark County anyone?) is starting to reach silly levels..

From the Guardian to the Telegraph and beyond (you know who you are), there appear to be on-staff individuals whose sole function is to talk about an aspiring foreign VP, and usually in as dismissive terms as possible, even if on occasion journalistic integrity does manage a small bit of objectivity to creep in.

Now there is another technique: agenda manipulation by quote of proxy celebs.

Hence yesterday I am treated to what ex 60s heartthrob Brigitte Bardot thinks of Mrs. Palin, and now 'The Boss' (he's not keen).

I know journalists, especially those working for the BBC, do... well... should not allow their personal agendas to creep in, so using such techniques - 'I'm just reporting a respected political viewpoint, from a rock star, honest' - leaves me deeply concerned for here.

What next: 'Jim Davidson, when commenting on the new fiscal bail-out some have described as Mr. Brown's latest masterstroke, has with remarkable insight reflected the unquestioned view of the majority of the public that dealing with a massive mess in which he was totally complicit by throwing yet more public money into an abyss is hardly cause for media cheerleading now'?

Spare the opinion/commentary/aspirations, Aunty. Just the facts. I'll decide the rest.

But then, when it comes to pols compromising themselves in word and/or deed with unprompted errors, or their telegenic mates endorsing them, one still has to trust that one is served the rough with the smooth, across the board, in equal measure. Can we?

Telegraph - Top dozen YouTube gaffes of US election - 'Course, they have been 'selected'