Most of us were brought up to believe nothing we hear and only half of what we read.

 

We know, in the UK especially, we have a habit of building someone up and then knocking them down.  We saw this decades ago with the household favourite boxer – Frank Bruno built up by the press to be everyone’s favourite.  He went on to win the world title.  But then life events happened and gradually he wasn’t winning anymore.  The same press then changed their headlines from totally positive to totally negative especially during his mental health issues.

 

Why? wouldn’t it have been a great opportunity to share the fragility of life and use positive press reporting to encourage debate on social issues as well as mental health? It seems not.  Negative headlines ‘sell’ better

 

As the years have passed, social media has made reporting instant. Reputations are damaged in a second without any responsibility or accountability.  If the truth ever ‘outs’ it’s a shrug of the shoulders and an ‘oh well’.

 

Today we have the news that ‘our man in Brussels’ has chosen to step down and the Government has ‘no’ plans.  How does the press know this?  The same press reported on how David Cameron and his team including our man in Brussels’ had failed to negotiate any tangible change to the UK membership of the EU resulting in the vote to leave a few short months later.

 

So is ‘our man in Brussels’ effective or not?  It seems there are two sides to everything but the press only wants to highlight the points that ‘sell’ or result in ‘retweets’ or ‘likes’.

 

What happened to solid, impartial reporting to give the public the facts?

Advertisements