Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Would YOU buy a second-hand wristwatch from David "I even know a black person" Cameron?

It's been a long time since we had any annotated Pravda:

The election campaign in the United Kingdom presents a perfect opportunity to analyse not only the British press but the British media in general. At a first glance, the precept that journalism should be free, fair and objective flies out of the window and the notion arises that the real aim of the game is a public thrashing of whoever is in power.
Classic. Not totally insane stuff, just like people phoning in to phone-ins always have a sensible intro that gets them past the first person they speak to in order to get on the air.
Let us leave the politics of the election to the British people. [Three paragraphs on stupid electoral system, the public services destroyed by the Conservatives (or 'Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives') and whether 'Gordon Brown's Labour' has done anything to deal with them...] While Gordon Brown is regarded as an international hero and a world leader by the opinion-editorial pieces in countless foreign newspapers,
Wow, is he?
which look on astonished that anyone could even consider voting for a prissy, uppity David Cameron of the Conservative Party who looks like a prep-school boy spoiling for a playground fight and who would say anything and use anyone to get into Number Ten.
'Prep-school' is a reference instantly understood by any Russian.
And as for Nick Clegg…who?
Not sure who this is referring to.
So what is fundamentally at stake here, the British media have side-stepped. They are trying to turn this campaign into who looks great on TV, who looks at the camera, who forgot to turn his mike off (and what was disrespectful or "disastrous" in the PM’s remark anyway?).
Er... I mean, it was a stupid story and didn't end up really harming him, but calling a woman a bigot is disrespectful.*
And what is even more perverse and sinister is the fact that these organs of communication, which are supposed to be objective and impartial, are trying to gain points through the manipulation of public opinion.
Oh, if only we could have Pravda over here. Oh, wait, I'm reading this on...

Would YOU buy a second-hand wristwatch from David "I even know a black person" Cameron?
Like this caption. And picture.
The Guardian (or is it Grauniad?)
Up to minute satire, again perfectly comprehensible to any Russian.
declares it is supporting the Liberal Democrats. OK let us hold them to that. Let us all from now on analyse the “policies” of the LibDems and hold the Guardian true to its word. For example, dismantling Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Wonderful policy, eh?
Yeah, ipso facto lunatic! Doesn't need any more analysis than that. Because if you haven't got a nuclear deterrent then you aren't a proper country.**
Sky News (as in “Hey you guys! So you’re looking for some revenge for 9/11 are you?” to US troops in Iraq) has humiliated itself by being so pro-Tory it makes Hitler look like a fairy Godmother,
Sky News is hilariously pro-Tory, but I wonder if this comparison with Hitler is quite apt.
assuming that Cameron would have a whopping majority and waltz into Number Ten.
He's too down with the kidz. It would be breakdancing all the way.
But he hasn’t. Almost seventy per cent of the electorate don’t want him or his toffs.
No! We want other toffs! (How come the writer didn't make this point himself? It's so insightful about THE MACHINE!)
The British media has a lot to answer for. Rather than inform the people, discussing issues and policies (they could not do that because everyone would then give Gordon Brown an absolute majority
Just like that.
and the Banks obviously have some kind of a deal with the Tories)
Oh yeah! It is obvious!
they have turned the entire campaign into a smokescreen which tries to hide the truth.
Thank God for Pravda.
No wonder people out there are asking “Who are we voting for?” It is not who, but what. If the British people do not know substance when they see it, then they have their media to blame. Trying to be bullish, all it manages to do is to spew Bull.

John WHITEHOUSE must have felt very clever when he thought up the bullish and bull thing. Quite reasonably, since my top-level text analysis program informs me that, on the basis of his endearing rhetoric that he is a bright fifteen-year-old or very bright thirteen-year-old.

* I watched the whole exchange sort of expecting her to sound bigoted, and then it turned out she didn't. She said one not particularly bigoted thing about immigration and her qualms thereabout. That was interesting, in itself.
** I am not necessarily in favour of not having nuclear deterrent. My views on this subject are complex and inspiring. Given half a chance, I might write about them soon in an important Chinese daily newspaper

1 comment:

Salvador said...

Not sure I agree. She moved straight from a discussion of benefit cheats to "you can't say anything about the immigrants". This is: a) clearly untrue and b) the usual prelude to saying something negative about immigrants. Moving from that she asked the rhetorical (and really quite stupid) question about where all the Eastern Europeans were flocking from. Not explicitly bigoted but negative link made to my mind and the usual target identified. Interestingly, anti-Eastern European prejudice enjoys cross-class currency from Rochdale to Hampstead in my experience with the biggest lie being their plundering of our welfare state. Now Brown dealt rather well with all of this and then made a slightly impatient comment in private to an aide. It might have been much more unpleasant about her appearance, her social class, her age or gender but he just summed her up - fairly or unfairly - for how he perceived her social attitudes. Personally I'm more distressed about The Sun sending a hearse with a coffin to Downing Street.