Mixing my Chinese tortures a bit there, but the effect is as deadly, if not deadlier.
I was just watching SKY news (BBC is getting hard to stomach purely on content alone these days), when the topic of the latest horrific murder in NI cam up.
As part of this, there was a guest commenter, a journo from the Sun, invited on to give his reaction. Safe to say he was John Bullish in his views.
Now, for the sake of 'flavour', I have come to accept, if not condone the practice of getting on often extreme views, in isolation, to provoke responses, which indeed is what transpired.
Because, almost immediately, we had the inevitable 'Have Your Say' read out, by the host's
blonde offsider. Thing is, she read out three, which were pretty much damning of the guest's views. Oddly, they also seemed pretty in keeping with the rebuttal the host (hardly an interviewer by any definition I would suggest) had expressed whilst 'debating' with the guest. In fact, the host went on to say that 'evidently no one agreed with [him]'.
Well... no.
Three people evidently did not. But how representative were/are they? And how is that reflected by the selection process that goes into what does, or does not get read out?
I already have deep doubts, across the
MSM board, about the selection and portrayal of 'guests' (a pretty thin pool, too) and their views, and this is more than compounded by what editors and moderators then sift to portray as public opinion on top.
Frankly it is all so rigged, either in the causes of agenda or ratings, as to be worthless.
But such carefully honed voices and messages, in the drip-drip way they are shared, is surely pretty influential and dangerous in shaping the opinions of others.
