Telegraph’s new low in EU reporting
I was happily reading through speculations about the hearings in the European Parliament over the new Commission cabinet that are due to start tomorrow when I came across an article by the Telegraph.
Titled as it is, Britain is ruled by 26 illegal Brussels sprouts, I had my doubts. It reminded me of Rompuy pumpy is EU’s numpty too much – I still have nightmares about that particular headline.
Surprisingly enough it is actually quite revelatory of the article. Here’s why
- It is claiming Britain is ruled by the EU (Brussels)
- There are 26 Commissioners
- Illegal in the sense that original plan was to have a new Cabinet around the same time as the new MEPs started
- And finally sprouts to reveal the level of accuracy and IQ the author possesses
Welcome to high school!
I wouldn’t really recommend anyone to read it, it would just increase traffic on their site. But still, how can a legitimate paper publish something like that? Surely the level of political debate in this country has to be above and beyond calling people sprouts?
The whole illegality debate centers around the fact that a new cabinet was chosen later than originally intended. What Christopher Booker forgets (or maybe the poor guy doesn’t know) is the minor detail of the Lisbon Treaty.
Admittedly that might have only gotten him fired up and shouting words like “sovereignty”, “referendum” and “disgrace”.
But to elect a cabinet before knowing what posts you were going to have and how many people would have been a bit silly in my opinion.
Before the Irish voted right yes and the Czech debacle was handled, we didn’t know whether there was going to be a High Representative and a President. I’d say that would have hindered the nomination process.
Overall, it is a great way of writing a derogatory article about a democratic event. The elected MEPs, including the UK’s, are there to cast their votes and question the wannabe-Commissioners.
Also, what is up with calling Brown “Messrs Brown”?
Filed under: UK & the EU | 2 Comments
Tags: EU, euroscepticism, fact check, journalism, UK
Nice to find that I’m not the only one wondering about the tone and the quality of British EU debate.
My 5 rules of UK EU reporting (updated for your post!)
The first rule of UK EU reporting is that the most ridiculous nonsense can be published and called fact because few people know or care enough to correct it.
The second rule is that anyone that corrects it is “biased” or “spouting propaganda”.
The third rule is that no matter how stupid the reporting the UK public is so used to reading this sort of thing that even if proved to be false, the response is a “tut! Wouldn’t put it past them”. On this basis you can pretty much write anything.
The fourth rule is that if you want to get away with doing it, take something like Treaty minutiae that MIGHT be true (e.g. build on the fact that it wasn’t clear that Barroso being appointed under Nice and the others under Lisbon was possible but it was highly unlikely that any MS would oppose it and that’s what counts under the rules of realpolitik) and make it scandal. It adds another layer of patina to the already stained and damaged view of the EU in the UK.
The fifth rule of UK EU reporting is that no matter how bad, ridiculous inaccurate (and against the UK national interest?) this sort of reporting is, it will never be as bad as the comments box contents below…