THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TIME FOR

In the spirit of 'The Gord taketh, and the Gord, er, taketh yet more..'

I was just over at my Mum's, and sadly News 24 was already on. For this brief moment with the Chancellor on, in full waffle mode.

FULL CREDIT to the blonde for trying to make the point that the Europeans don't seem to be facing the same level of reaction in their banking community as does the UK in the face of this 'world crisis', especially in light of Mr. Brown's claim that the UK is well placed to weather this better than most.

Mr. Darling totally ignores this and goes straight back to talking about the bl**dy US situation.

He is either a liar or simply an idiot, yet will retire soon on a whopping pension co-funded by the likes of my Mum, who I have to care for.

However, and this is what gets me, this promising avenue of 'debate' is cut short...again (some Labour Pol waffling earlier seemed to be caught out on 'fact' by Rod Liddle in a piece on smoking, leaving me none the wiser as to what the truth was, and /or who these days is capable of speaking it)... probably to go to a critical skateboarding turtle update, by that most annoying of all news editorial/reporting/presenting mechanisms... 'THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TIME FOR'.

Why do we have 24/7 'news' if it is then incapable of running with a promising story as it unfolds!

New acronym - TAWHaTF (Thanks, but, what the F?)

Leading questions

I am trying to fathom the mindset infecting many in the media firmament.

I have just come back from my Mum's cottage, where she has BBC News 24 on (unfortunately for her, and my, sanity pretty much 24/7), and there was a reporterette interviewing a senior Government Minister.

It follows the news of the latest tragic loss of life of British service personnel in Afghanistan.

Thing is, the logic behind and hence thrust of the questioning seemed to be along the lines of 'now a woman has been killed, isn't it time we pulled out?'.

Ignoring all the greater geopolitical issues and failings or otherwise of policy and leadership, as articulated that has frankly got to be the most facile thing I have ever heard, and if if endorsed by her superiors in editorial and above a truly worrying insight into the state of mind that exists within or national broadcaster.

I'm also not too sure that it serves the interest of our armed forces on the ground too well either (mind you, as I understand it that has not been a high priority in previous conflicts either).

Addendum

Rarely, I get newsflash emails. But only when something world-shattering happens. This just in:

A female soldier is one of four UK troops killed in a blast in Afghanistan, the BBC understands - the first woman soldier to die there.
For more details: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Tragic. But I don't recall getting many as a consequence of previous volunteer professional soldiers giving up their lives.

Welcome to the UK, American scum

History will pass judgement on the abilities and actions of many, assuming it is still left to be shared in a professional, agenda-free form from the hands of those who in theory concern themselves with facts and balance in serving us our information.

If so, I rather doubt President Bush will be deemed on his merits one of the best the USA has had, for their own country or others.

However, I do rather find myself warming rather perversely to the man, if for no other reason than having just caught a bit (popping Mum back home after lunch, and she, much to everyone's misery, watches News 24 dawn 'to dusk) of the live commentary of his arrival somewhere here by helicopter.

I can only presume the person doing all the talking was an invited American guest as there was a British accent involved too, but all I heard was a stream of rather partisan opinion on Mr. Bush's legacy. To the extent that as part of the invective there was thrown up the fact that 9/11 took place during his Presidency (yeeees.... but not so sure the whole 'attack the US' concept was entirely aimed at him. I am sure Mr. Clinton's statesmanlike actions might have had a hand in things) and he didn't cope with the whole being told in front of the kids thing very well (what was he supposed to do? Leap up and scream 'we're under attack!!! I'm off to man the nearest ack-ack gun?').

These are all entirely valid things to opine in a free, democratic system, but they seemed distinctly odd as part of the commentary on the arrival of a world leader to our country. If there was balance before or after I must have missed it, but in the circumstances it was anyway rather extreme and to me beyond the remit of our national broadcaster.

But in the world of reporting helicopter diplomacy, at least in the hands of the BBC, as a bookend to Ms. Plett's eulogy during Yasser Arafat's ascension to the heavens it would be perfect.