The BBC website has an article regarding the reporting that the husband of Jacqui Smith (UK Home Secretary) claimed expenses for a television viewing package. Apart from actually justifying watching TV as a valid expense, there is (or appears to be) a lot of outcry due to his watching a couple of porn movies. Whatever. If the guy wants to do this then fine. No problem.
The article is incredibly 'loaded' in its comments:
"Richard Timney's humiliation is one many other men will identify with - to have been caught by one's partner watching pornography."
"Mr Timney's late-night surreptitious viewing of two pornographic films has caused his wife severe embarrassment."
"the suspicion cast over Mr Timney shows it's by no means a mainstream pursuit".
Despite the general message that the real outcry was over the charging of the movies (regardless of nature or content) to expenses, the comments above and the general tone of the article seem indicative of judgment having been made. It is presumptive in stating that Timney is suffering 'humiliation', Ms. Smith is suffering 'severe embarrassment', and draws the rather dodgy and almost puritanical conclusion that these were watched 'surreptitiously', late at night.
This sort of reporting 'elevates' the BBC to that of 'The Sun' or 'News of the World'.
Charging for the TV package could be construed as not justifiable. Making an issue over the content while passing judgment on an individual is another matter entirely. Making blanket, unqualified statements regarding either an individual or pornography is not journalism. It is prurient tittle-tattle of the lowest order.
One of the problems with British society is that people have a tendency to be overly judgmental and to form opinions without basis in fact. Add to that the salacious subject matter and you very soon have a stoning mob gathering at someones door.
If porn is not a 'mainstream pursuit', how come it has been so profitable for so long.
Glass houses and stones anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment