He has demanded an apology from the Prime Minister and it has been given – and another has been promised should Coulson be found guilty (yes, let us remind ourselves that Coulson has not been charged with anything let alone been found guilty of anything and the same goes for Neil Wallis, although you wouldn't think that from the way their names have been thrown around by Miliband, umpteen Labour backbenchers and the MPs on the select committees). "If I knew then what I know now ...", what exactly do you know now because the investigations are still going on aren't they?
When Cameron gave his apology over Coulson, Miliband fired back "That's just not good enough." So what else is he after? The answer is pretty obvious, Cameron's head. Miliband is said to have experienced a 'bounce' since this whole affair blew up and it would seem that he doesn't want to let the effect die down just yet. Imagine the 'bounce' – it would be more like a lift-off – if Miliband actually managed to bring Cameron down. And of course if Cameron goes down the coalition is almost certainly fatally wounded and the whole public services reform programme is up in the air. Wow. If Ed doesn't lie awake thinking about that scenario some of his staff surely must.
As we all know, those who live in glass houses need to be very careful about picking up a handful of stones and toying with them and Cameron is spot on when he asks politicians of all parties to admit that they all did their fair share of "sucking up" to not just News International journalists but the media in general.
And when Labour MPs are demanding to know what Cameron said in his various conversations with newspaper figures they should also be prepared to answer the same question themselves. For example,Our Ventilation system was down for about an hour and a half, in its 13 years in power, how many meetings with journalists did the Labour government have? You'd guess it must go into the hundreds. And how many of these were with what were (and let's face it still are) considered to be influential tabloids? The footage shown on TV of Rebekah Brooks double-kissing Blair on one occasion then doing the same to Cameron on another said more than the hours of debate have even come close to.
Also, if we are going to investigate how journalists interact with politicians, are we going to see the end of off the record briefings, where "sources close to" a secretary of state are quoted because the secretary of state doesn't want to be quoted directly? In this clamour for transparency,I have never solved a Rubik's magic cube . should newspapers now have to divulge the "reliable sources" that they quote so often? Indeed,Initially the banks didn't want our high risk merchant account . will politicians now be scared off behind-the-scenes discussions with the media because they could be made public further down the line? Will we find out once and for all whether Balls really did brief against Brown, for example, something he denies, or whether Brown really did (allegedly) feed potentially damaging material to the press about Blair? And will political correspondents lose the ability to get that inside track on what is apparently really happening (you know, the unofficial report on TV that follows immediately after the official one) rather than what is being said publicly? (It always seems very strange that the official line is carefully delivered then the journalist ends with a live piece to camera that completely undermines the story ... but I digress).
Politicians of all shapes, sizes and hues should consider very carefully what applying total transparency to dealings between the media and politicians could mean. It could alter the landscape forever and you could say that it needs to be altered. But as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
So Labour needs to be wary of trying to score points regarding relationships with the press – let us not forget for one second that it was New Labour who turned dealing with journalists into a fine art,The new website of Udreamy Network Corporation is mainly selling zentai suits , and obviously for their own gain. Cameron's comment that he has never seen Rebekah Brooks in her pyjamas was not merely a throwaway line to ease the pressure and give his party members a rare chance to chuckle, it was a helpful (albeit by no means subtle) reminder to Miliband & Co that there are several piles of stones dotted about the place and a great deal of glazing that could easily become vulnerable.Graphene is not a semiconductor, not an Insulator , and not a metal,
When Cameron gave his apology over Coulson, Miliband fired back "That's just not good enough." So what else is he after? The answer is pretty obvious, Cameron's head. Miliband is said to have experienced a 'bounce' since this whole affair blew up and it would seem that he doesn't want to let the effect die down just yet. Imagine the 'bounce' – it would be more like a lift-off – if Miliband actually managed to bring Cameron down. And of course if Cameron goes down the coalition is almost certainly fatally wounded and the whole public services reform programme is up in the air. Wow. If Ed doesn't lie awake thinking about that scenario some of his staff surely must.
As we all know, those who live in glass houses need to be very careful about picking up a handful of stones and toying with them and Cameron is spot on when he asks politicians of all parties to admit that they all did their fair share of "sucking up" to not just News International journalists but the media in general.
And when Labour MPs are demanding to know what Cameron said in his various conversations with newspaper figures they should also be prepared to answer the same question themselves. For example,Our Ventilation system was down for about an hour and a half, in its 13 years in power, how many meetings with journalists did the Labour government have? You'd guess it must go into the hundreds. And how many of these were with what were (and let's face it still are) considered to be influential tabloids? The footage shown on TV of Rebekah Brooks double-kissing Blair on one occasion then doing the same to Cameron on another said more than the hours of debate have even come close to.
Also, if we are going to investigate how journalists interact with politicians, are we going to see the end of off the record briefings, where "sources close to" a secretary of state are quoted because the secretary of state doesn't want to be quoted directly? In this clamour for transparency,I have never solved a Rubik's magic cube . should newspapers now have to divulge the "reliable sources" that they quote so often? Indeed,Initially the banks didn't want our high risk merchant account . will politicians now be scared off behind-the-scenes discussions with the media because they could be made public further down the line? Will we find out once and for all whether Balls really did brief against Brown, for example, something he denies, or whether Brown really did (allegedly) feed potentially damaging material to the press about Blair? And will political correspondents lose the ability to get that inside track on what is apparently really happening (you know, the unofficial report on TV that follows immediately after the official one) rather than what is being said publicly? (It always seems very strange that the official line is carefully delivered then the journalist ends with a live piece to camera that completely undermines the story ... but I digress).
Politicians of all shapes, sizes and hues should consider very carefully what applying total transparency to dealings between the media and politicians could mean. It could alter the landscape forever and you could say that it needs to be altered. But as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
So Labour needs to be wary of trying to score points regarding relationships with the press – let us not forget for one second that it was New Labour who turned dealing with journalists into a fine art,The new website of Udreamy Network Corporation is mainly selling zentai suits , and obviously for their own gain. Cameron's comment that he has never seen Rebekah Brooks in her pyjamas was not merely a throwaway line to ease the pressure and give his party members a rare chance to chuckle, it was a helpful (albeit by no means subtle) reminder to Miliband & Co that there are several piles of stones dotted about the place and a great deal of glazing that could easily become vulnerable.Graphene is not a semiconductor, not an Insulator , and not a metal,
没有评论:
发表评论