There are a lot of cynical methods employed by the hacks of various newspapers in order to present something as truth when it's actually just conjecture, rumour or straight-up nonsense, but none should set the alarm bells ringing quite as loudly as the subtle use of quotes in a headline, like when the Daily Mail today says:
Censored! Bikini advert blacked out with spray paint by 'Muslim extremists who object to women in swimsuits'
Do you see them, those little inverted commas? They could mean anything, couldn't they? They could mean, for example, that those are the words used by police representatives to describe what they know has happened at the scene of this vandalism. But you know what? You'll never guess. They don't. No. Guess who said those words? Nobody. They're not directly quoted in the article. You know who said that it was Muslim extremists? People that work at the Daily Mail. You know why? Because they're not all that fond of Muslims. But it doesn't stop there; it's actually hilarious, the lengths to which the Mail will go to posture as a source of genuine news. In the first paragraph we're presented with the argument that:
this poster, in Birmingham, has been defaced in an act of vandalism blamed on militant Muslims who were offended by her flesh.
which, in case you weren't paying attention, is just the unfounded opinion of some guy, somewhere. But in case that isn't enough to convince you it was really the pesky Muslims that did it, the Mail have more evidence!
The freestanding advertising unit, stands in the Balsall Heath area of Birmingham, which has a large Muslim population.
Across the road from 'Muslim Students House Masjeed', an education centre, the poster is next to a busy main road.
Don't you see? They're taking over. They live in our cities now! It's practically a Muslim ghetto. Also, Muslim kids don't just deface posters for fun, you know! It's religiously motivated. Just take a look at this undeniable slice of anecdotal evidence from a veritable expert on the subject of religious extremism, Robert Tonkins, who in his capacity as a 45-year-old delivery driver is perfectly equipped to provide insightful analysis:
It's a bit worrying, I don't think it's up to other people to decide what can and can't be displayed on our streets, especially because we're a Christian country.
Testing my patience, now, buddy, because we're not a Christian country at all, but we'll let that slide because of your esteemed position as delivery driver and use your rambling bullshit to form the crux of our article and then pretend that it is objective fact. I can't wait to see the day when the Daily Mail just throw three sheets to the wind and go for:
'Muslims Did It'
in which the reporter relies upon the single indisputable testimony of an EDL member.
For all I know, the people that committed this everyday act of vandalism might have been Muslim. It's a shame I don't have the Daily Mail's infallible logic and reason to aid me in finding a more certain, and provocative, conclusion.
Referendums don't happen in this country, but when they do, they tend to be on suitably enormous subjects. The only other referendum in UK history was in 1975, on membership of the Common Market - what we now know as the EU. The turnout that day was 64% of the electorate - that's higher than turnout for 2 of the last 3 General Elections. But this time, it's not our economic future on the line - it's our political future. The referendum on the Alternative Vote is not just a throwaway poll on a single voting system. It is potentially the releasing of the handbrake on the UK political system. If there's a NO vote tomorrow, the voting system and politics in general are likely to remain the same for the next two generations at least. If there's a YES vote, it opens the dialogue for further and open discussion: how can we get the best out of our democracy?
We often hear that those who don't vote in General Elections don't have the right to complain when things aren't the way they want them to be. By the same token, this is your chance to impact the future of British politics and, with it, British society in general. There are no consituencies in this referendum, no tactical voting involved. You can vote with your heart and hopefully with your informed mind.
As I've said, this opportunity won't come around again. If you're unhappy with British politics, or you care about it at all, you'll vote in the referendum on May 5, even if you don't vote in the elections. Whichever way you vote, remember you're not voting for a party. You're not even really voting on AV or First Past The Post. You're voting for change, or the absence of it. Because whatever the result is tomorrow, that's the sound that will ring out in political discourse for years to come. If it's a NO vote, it sends the message that the British public voted they were happy with the system they had in place. Are you happy with UK politics? Answer that question tomorrow.
There are certain discourses within the domain of UK journalism which persist despite there being no actual fuel to maintain them. Sometimes the stories that compile these discourses are exaggerated and rehashed versions of prior outrages, used to remind readers of that one time when that bad thing happened and it was touted as 'the end of free speech as we know it' or some other equally ridiculous assertion. But sometimes, the things newspapers write about are quite simply complete bullshit.
You would think that if the EU wanted to merge the UK with France, more newspapers would have seen fit to raise the issue. I think it would be quite a big deal, actually, if Brussels wanted France and the UK to become the same entity. That's what the headline which titles this article implies, right? That the United Kingdom (that's US, in case you didn't know) and France (THEM) are going to become the same thing. A merge. I would think - and correct me if I'm wrong - that other people might have picked up on a story of this magnitude, lest we all awake one morning to a fanfare of the Marseillaise and find our local bakery has been converted into a boulangerie.
The reason that no other paper seems quite as concerned as the Express is simple: it's bullshit.
Of course it's bullshit. The article doesn't even seem to know what it's saying, so I figure the best way to approach it is to pick it apart sentence by sentence, translating the language of imbecile into plain English (ed- or French or European):
FURY erupted(1) last night after a European Union plot to “carve up Britain”(2) by setting up(3) a cross-Channel region was exposed(4).
which actually means:
WE FELT A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF ANGER(1) last night after we found out(4) that in 1996 the EU created a transnational network(3) called Arc Manche which has had its own Assembly and President since 2005. This one guy said something "quotable"(2).
Actually, I could go on, but I feel it would largely be a waste of time. Once you've debunked the premise of an article as unequivocally and easily as it is possible to do here, there's not much scope for expansion.
One interesting thing that this story does throw up is the way in which people rely on newspapers to get their information, and therefore by ignoring a story as it is initially relevant or bringing it up at a later date after it's been forgotten, rags like the Express can imply that there's some sort of a cover-up involved. Which there isn't. Ever.
