Friday, 27 March 2015

Licence To Troll

When is a “troll” not a troll? Why, when it’s a licensed troll.

The beyond-parody “journalist”  Grace Dent wrote an opinion piece in the Independent after the Brenda Leyland ambush last year. It was a good reminder that, though the battle to break up the MSM racket isn’t won, there’s been plenty of progress. In 2007 it was  vapid feature writers like her who earned colossal salaries while filling the centre pages with defences of the McCanns, thus creating  the justice-destroying McCann Affair.


Grace Dent – MSM remnant – in Power Pose

The great news is that those same columnists have been culled relentlessly ever since. Their leader, Parsons, announced with a gratifying swish in 2013 that he was leaving the Mirror, not because it was a criminal conspiracy but because it was “dying”. And then he moved on to writing novels,  because (fiction) writing for the MSM didn’t pay any more. M/S Dent writes for a fraction of the salaries that her spoilt forebears raked in when the paper wasn’t owned by the son of a Russian oligarch who can’t even give the rag away. Long may that continue.

Chunks of M/S Dent’s piece were quoted in the Huffington Post, itself another, minor,  symbol of the old media’s continuing collapse. Dent dismissed clams that Mr Brunt was “responsible for Brenda Leyland’s death”.

"While @sweepyface may have been in her element flinging around accusations, gossip and provoking ill-will, the real life Ms Leyland met Mr Brunt’s request for a comment with a firm No and an attempt to disappear into her car.”

Mr Brunt is now being accused by some sections of “hounding” Ms Leyland to her death. This seems extreme. Reporters have been doorstepping people and requesting answers on British television for the past 50 years.

"Are we now saying that in this new internet age, any person who draws attention to themselves vehemently but anonymously online is out of bounds for reporters?"

Isn’t that wonderful? It’s a time capsule, like a browned copy of a  2007 Mail coming to light when you take up an old carpet.

Don’t you just love the logic and the language? Because reporters have been harassing people for 50 years it’s OK; as in “Jimmy Savile  was abusing kids and corpses for forty years (while we ignored him) so it’s OK.” Oh, and do you like her “requesting answers”? Just like asking strangers the time, really. 

Anyone who hasn’t seen the media pack in full-on action, as we have,  should have a glimpse sometime at  journalist Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities where the mob can be seen in its full glory, best represented by the cameramen and photographers who scream out “HEY CUNT”  at their victims so they can catch the look of outraged horror on their faces as they spin round  to see who shouted it. Snap! Gotcha!

The same Huffington Post quoted a  tweet saying Brenda’s targeting had been “a perfectly legitimate report with tragic, though unforeseeable consequences.”  It was from Neville Thurlbeck, a typical  representative of the MSM in its days of pomp – award winner for his “scoops”, news editor, admired by his peers, a secret police grass in return for information from the Police Database about people he wanted to target. Nice, eh? And a criminal who was deservedly sent to prison. This residue of the old MSM isn’t owned by a Russian √©migr√© though -  his last journalist role, according to Wikipedia, was as a  theatre critic for the world-famous Surrey Comet.


Neville Thurlbeck, MSM Hero

Look in Google and you’ll see that our MSM, far from being unsavoury crooks and bullies, are constantly at work protecting potential victims, with page after heartbroken page about people who’ve been bullied to death by Facebook posters. What sweet concern.

They do it for one reason: with so much crumbling around them they want to retain their  greatest remaining – just –privilege: The monopoly right, authorised by precedent and codes of practice, to decide  who is targeted, the exclusive right to decide who should suffer pain and shame.

Most people know that traditionally the “punishment” in court for a minor  crime has been nothing compared with the real sentence – exposure of your acts in the local or national rags, your public shaming.

Remember national treasure Rebekah Brooks, to take just one example,  who led the “name and shame a paedophile” campaign prompting ignorant mobs to march on  supposed offenders, including the paediatrician whose house was vandalised?

That sort of stuff has a solid, unbroken, history in the MSM. Way back in the 1950s when it was the paper press that had the  monopoly, the targets were not paedophiles but ordinary gay people.The Mirror group – nothing changes except decline –  ran lurid stories about the “homosexual problem” that had to be “stamped out”. The “evil men” had to suffer the MSM treatment.

If, like Tom Driberg, you were a journalist yourself, as well as a Labour MP,  you could screw Guardsmen in London’s Hyde Park on a nightly basis and regale your fellow journalists at the Express with the details the next morning.If you were just an ordinary gay it was a different matter.The Express objected violently to the suggestion that the media should “show restraint” when reporting on the trial of such unfortunates. “The whole purpose of sentences,” it wrote,  “is to deter others by making an example of the criminals. How can you make an example without full publicity?”.  So the fifties were dotted with the suicides  of gay men who got their MSM-awarded additional sentences of  “full publicity.” It’s what they do.

If Facebook had been around in the fifties at least Driberg would have joined the “full publicity” list. And that’s what the MSM hate. All the MSM posturing about Facebook and Twitter bullying is in defence of that privileged and immoral position: we decide the targets.

With its corollary: and we decide who to remain silent about. It wasn’t the government that protected the sinister Driberg, whose gayness positively glowed with innocence compared with his other attributes. It was the MSM, which now tries to protect its position by trying to whip up pressure for legislation to control internet comment.

It’s doomed of course: legislating the internet is like trying to legislate against what people are saying to each other as they walk along Oxford Street. It can’t be done, for the internet is just the voices and the pictures of the public itself, with all the public’s great strengths and horrible weaknesses. The MSM is no such thing – it’s the voices of a small number of people who pretend to be the public. Licensed trolls.