TV ga-ga

Yesterday, ITN really confirmed that, if the BBC is the televisual equivalent of The Times and Channel 4 News that of The Guardian, it is one of a tabloid (and barely mid-market at that). I say this because it focused almost exclusively on the Princess Diana inquest verdict, leaving space for a five-minute piece on the latest Shannon Matthews development and just passing references to the Tibet protests to the Olympic torch in Paris and the removal of the 10p basic rate of tax, the latter affecting millions of people. Sensationalist was its modus operandi, criminally feeding conspiracy theories by saying, that despite the definitive inquest, "there are some questions that may never be answered." What editor let that pass unhindered? ITN obviously doesn't consider itself a serious news organisation.
And who assigned Keir Simmons any job at all. This idiot journalist did part of his reporting on the Shannon Matthews case while driving a car. To do so, he had to keep taking his eyes off the road to look into the camera mounted in the back of his car. It is a most curious way to explain such a story, especially when he continues his report (in a cut-away scene) on foot outside house in Dewsbury. Okay, so maybe he was running short of time to file his piece, but if to use one's mobile whilst driving is a criminal act of negligence, punishable with a jail sentence, what is repeatedly turning back to talk into a camera while in control of a vehicle? At least most attempts at this have the camera mounted side on to the driver.

The Chinese government said it wanted the Olympic Games to show the true face of China around the world. Well, with the passage of the Olympic torch - guarded by thugs in blue (who incidentally have no executive power and should therefore be arrested when they attack protestors) - the world certainly is seeing what China is really like. As China is doing nothing to ameliorate its actions (though it said it would be more tolerant and open), in either Tibet, jailing dissidents or Darfur, then the Chinese leadership deserve all the humiliation they get. And then there's Jacques Rogge, head of the IOC, saying he is unhappy about the occasional irruptions (it's not 'violence', apart from that coming from the Chinese guards) among the protests, but Chinese soldiers and police beating and killing Tibetans must be just fine for him and the IOC, given that he makes no mention of what was the key spark for the protests. Ostriches, heads and sand are words that seem appropriate for the IOC. You don't have to boycott the Olympics to show your disapproval of what China is doing or just keep silent altogether - there is a medium between those two extremes.