Do journalists 'get' Blunkett?
- 31 Oct 05, 12:00 AM
Poor old David Blunkett seems to be lurching from one scandal to another at the moment - the latest concerning his before his re-appointment to the Cabinet. The coverage of it has prompted Stephen Glover in to ask: "Why can't the news media treat Blunkett like any other politician?" Well, I wasn't aware they weren't treating him exactly the same as any other MP caught in the middle of a dodgy situation, but let's bear with Mr Glover and see what he has to say about the Blunkmeister.
So first, Blunkett is "a remarkable man who has overcome formidable obstacles to achieve high office". Ah, it's the old "Is it because I is blind?" argument. Not so surprising, I guess - we've all heard that one before. Then the article goes on to look at Blunkett's portrayal in the recent Channel 4 / More4 satirical drama A Very Social Secretary, which seemed to suggest that "he was a sex-crazed power maniac, idiotic to the point of stupidity" - although here Stephen Glover argues that although "it was meant to be satire . . . satire should have a core of truth".
Blunkett a sex-crazed power maniac, you say? Now there's a description of the Work & Pensions Secretary that I had never heard before . . .
For me, though, the really curious part of the article comes when it argues that newspapers and broadcasters have been ignoring the DNA firm directorship 'scandal', even downgrading its importance:
". . . there is really only one explanation for the generally comatose reaction. Despite everything he has done, the press remains, because of his disability, more indulgent of Mr Blunkett in his private life than it would be of other ministers. Though I admire and like him, and found his depiction in that Channel 4 programme grotesque, I wish we could treat him like any other politician."
And so Crippled Monkey remains confused. Taking a look at the headlines and the front pages this morning, Blunkett is all over them, mired in the middle of another juicy revelation. I can't see that the press are treating him any differently from any other MP caught in a similar situation. In fact, the way in which one story appears to follow straight on from another when it comes to David Blunkett seems to suggest exactly the opposite - that it's open season on him at the moment, whether or not he's a blindie. What do you think?
Comments