The Big Bong and Other Nonsense

Disclaimer: I do not take drugs or endorse drug abuse. The views expressed here are simply a matter of principle.

Images from Google Images

Hands up who thinks journalism has gone to the dogs? Ah, I’m glad to see you all agree. Last week, the front pages of most of the newspapers were awash with cries of angst from petulant journalists. Apparently, some MPs and other people in positions of power took drugs in their youth. Big freaking deal; I don’t see how that’s newsworthy. And I don’t see how it has any bearing on their trying to enforce new drug laws now. If they were caught rolling spliffs in between sessions at parliament, and found to be passing laws based on fantabulous ideas their stoned minds came up with, then we’d have a problem. If they were eating magic mushroom risottos at lunch or using cocaine as sweetener for their lattes, then we would have every right to call them hypocrites. But for stuff they did at uni? Give them a break, guys. They weren’t responsible for the country back then; they were just students. Now that they’ve successfully waded through experimentation and found the ambition which has landed them in positions of responsibility, there are plenty of other things, I’m sure, that would have looked better on the front pages. Cue the violins…

I’m asking special permission from the powers that be, to line up every single person that slandered the poor Jacqui Smith, gag them with cold oats, jab them with truth serum, and then interrogate them as to their hallucinogenic past (or present, as the case may very well be). I’d then take their inevitable confessions of guilt, plaster them all over the front pages, and call the journalists themselves hypocrites, for calling other people hypocrites, because they spent their days at uni doing exactly what they’re trying to crucify other people for. The only hypocrites here, are the people pointing fingers. Arguably, journalists are also people in positions of power – they inform and shape opinion everyday. If they stopped ‘dabbling’ in weed thirty odd years ago, would they think it was fair for the public to cast aspersions on their morals today? Probably not. So why are they whining?

And this is not by any means, in support of drugs, please remember that. It’s just me observing, that the death toll in Iraq has obviously sky rocketed to a level that’s ubiquitous enough to be boring, the property ladder is not any easier to get onto – nothing to report there, crime has gone both up and down – they can’t decide which is which. The press has tired of its usual contingency-plan, space-filling material, so they now need to work retrospectively, to dredge up ancient personal history, which wasn’t anymore relevant to anything then than it is to anything now.

Now that ‘offenders’ are older and wiser, they have every right to try to reclassify the offence, because they have the benefit of experience. Been there, done that, know better. Who knows how many people will be saved by its being a more serious offence? Some people simply won’t touch it because they don’t want to get into trouble. It is actually responsible of them to try to address the issue. Imagine if in a few years from now, eight year olds were puffing lye in the toilets. The journalists would have a field day about how the government didn’t make enough of an effort blah blah blah. Imagine what a lame excuse it would sound like if Jacqui et all said, ‘Sorry, we felt it would be hypocritical to enforce weed laws because we smoked it as teenagers and hance didn’t feel we had a right to stop others from doing so.’ Imagine the very same journalists calling them lax lazy buggers, crying about abandoned duties to society etc. So why is it that when they are actually trying to do their duty, they get attacked?

Another stupid moment in journalism was in the Telegraph two weeks ago, when an article proclaimed that students in Tony Blair’s school were expelled or suspended for posting a clip of themselves on YouTube smoking weed. If I worked at No10, I would sue for defamation/slander/libel/the whole lot, just on principle. a) The fact that his children attend(ed) the school, doesn’t mean that he owns it and b) his kids weren’t even involved in the incident in anyway. They just used his name, as a hook for a negative story, which, in the light of his recent stepping down, is as tasteless a crime as speaking ill of the dead, if you get my drift. Was it really necessary to include the Blairs when there was no connection in any way?

Before my grandma retired, she worked as a broadcast journalist, and made history by being the first woman in Nigeria to run a TV station. She knows a thing or two about journalism. Her theory is this: opinion is free, but fact is priceless. We were equally appalled by the two stories I mentioned above. How did they pass the whole line of command and get into the papers as they were? Why didn’t the editors do something? I know we’ve come a long way from then, but in Grandma’s day, you’d have been fired for attempting to pass off such conjecture as journalism. What’s happening is that the type of reportage used to cover whimsical celebrity behaviour, is creeping up on real news. It’s potentially dangerous and needs to stop. Take a few minutes to think of the repercussions…

Incidentally, while we're on the topic of journalistic demise, those awful, purple, brain-addling evening papers need to be got rid of. Where are all the environmental campaigners? Surely these are trees we’re killing! They litter the streets and make London look messy, especially with the rain. Walking home is like one ugly plod through papier mache quicksand. We were just fine with our morning (blue) Metro and (orange) Evening Standard, thank you very much; their distribution remains a tidy, orderly affair, and doesn’t turn the city into a pictorial of chaos in hades. One would have thought that the (purple) papers pass-on value means that you don’t need such a massive print run. The poor dudes (and dudesses, if that’s a word) practically maul you at street corners, because they’ve been told they have to shift their stash – a stash that still wouldn’t be halfway dwindled if you handed three papers each to every UK resident. Plus, most days, the content is just an extension of trashy telly in print. The only thing I find interesting, is that anonymous article, ‘Life in the Square Mile’. I always used to take one, just because I had forgotten that I still have a choice; they’ve become such a large part of the Everyday, a given, like a (red) London bus. Also, because short of keeping your fists closed and shoved deep into your pockets, your eyes behind shades to minimize eye contact, and your walking pace at competition speeds, the chances of reaching a tube station between 4 and 7 pm on a week day evening un-purpled are slim to none. Ignore them and read a book instead – much better for the posterity of your mind!