I missed the introduction but the first feature on the BBC News at 10 was a discussion of Prince Harry and the decision by the M.O.D. not to send him to Iraq. We saw families who had lost children in Iraq and they were none to happy, understandably.
Over to Warminster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warminster a small rural town in England which was chosen because of its military base and connections with Harry, where a random selection of Joseph Public were interviewed for their views. We were told that the residents were "usually loyal to the Queen" but "divided" over this issue. I vaguely remember from school that a Minster is a cathedral or church.
Disturbingly though, we then saw a platoon of about twenty army cadets, still at school, maybe aged fifteen, young ladies and men. We were told that "most of them" wished to join the army on leaving school and that this decision (Harry/Iraq) may affect them. Does it not create a perception for watching young people though, about a future military career and the possibilities of such. Maybe Gordon Brown will offer his new apprenticeship/school package, as discussed yesterday, to the armed services and we could see the scallies joining up at say aged fourteen.
Does it really matter if one is aged 11, 13 or 17 if your life is taken in the name of war. Not even given a chance, taken in your prime and brought back in a bag so your mum can bury you.
We went over to the MOD buildings and were told that the reasons for not sending PH to Iraq included a "threat to return Harry to the Queen with his ears cut off" and "specialised kidnap fears". Surely they would have to kidnap him before removing his ears anyway. Could this somehow have something to do with the claims that Harry is not of the bloodline of Charles and that perhaps, extremely subtly, we are being conditioned to focus on his ears next time we see him. This may prove/disprove his parentage in our minds. eg He has big ears, he must be. Look at his mouse's ears, he cant be. However this will all be relative to our perception of human ear size.
We pottered over to Portugal for the latest on Madeleine. Here we were quickly told that there was a feeling that all the attention on the "suspect"yesterday has somehow drawn away from the focus of the search and the girl. Furthermore, the "suspect" had given a private interview to the BBC although this could not be discussed due to the legal position. He was "venemous in his defence". We were also told that he cant sleep, eat, he feels trapped and all for just trying to help. A friend said "it is such a shame", "it is cruel". Furthermore, his mother, who set up a tent to try to help in the hunt, is aged 71. The "suspect" would love all the attention to be taken away from him and focused on Madeleine. The friend also said she had phoned the British Embassy but they were having lunch. I touched on this slightly, last week. http://newspaceman.blogspot.com/2007/05/tv-news-monday-070507.html
So what does this all tell us. We dont know if the "suspect" is guilty. Assuming he is not, he and his family have been through a terrible ordeal by media. Thing is, we all know that, surely? So why is it allowed. One might argue that it is what viewers want to see, one might take a more cynical view and suggest that the story instills fear in parents, grannies etc and this is the desired result, a scared population. The greatest worry though is that this is being "allowed" in order that it can be used as an argument for "censorship" later. In a similar manner, if the tragic death of Princess Diana was "proved" to be due to the paparazzi, then we could see an outpouring of all our built in anger, directed towards the media and their methods.
Back to Maddie though and we were told it is "unusual for society to so embrace a cause" whilst images of the girl were shown in the background. We saw images of big TV screens in Glasgow showing images of Maddie and then we flashed to yellow ribbons and were told that yellow ribbons "are a symbol of the missing".
We saw the girls aunt, Philimena, who was at the Commons, lobbying MP's. She was surrounded by MP''s perhaps a dozen or more. We saw an appeal from Leicester city football ground and short clips from the televised appeals of Beckham and Ronaldo last week. Then we saw some more images of Madeleine.
A chap was then interviewed I did not catch his name. He wore a sombre grey suit, in local street slang he would be known as a "straightpeg". He advised we "should be wary of society being caught up in a wave of emotion". Well said that man, but is society not a round hole nowadays good Sir and are you not perhaps being portrayed in a manner which some, in their ignorance, would perceive as socially backwards. Furthermore, the fact you were interviewed in a park with the trees etc can sometimes give an almost "dark" effect. Ask for your next interview to be based in a childs nursery, surrounded by loveable little rascals.
Elsewhere in the 'Garve, a Russian man has been taken away along with some computers. The reporter he had just seen the McCanns, "going for a stroll", walking past two search zones.
We know that there is a computer link between the "suspect" and the russian man.
We rushed off to politics, Gordon Brown and Scottish Independence. Alex Salmond was sworn in but has no majority we were advised. What, even with all the symbolic treaty signing last week ?
Bank of England- rates forecast to rise.
Cameron, grammer schools, we saw Mr Cameron acting as a teachers assistant, pointing at the class and we were told that teachers want zero tolerance to swearing, bullying etc. Surely this is a prerequisite ? Anway, it obviously isnt and "grammer schools affect social mobility, adversley."
Gaza- It's ready to "kick off" . We saw images of buildings burning, two large multi storeys, one on fire about two thirds of the way up. Very like 9/11. Hamas is to blame for it all and Israel "might" get involved. Would this affect Harry ? No one asked.
Then we saw a feature on Cannes film festival and were reminded that all the top celebrities etc would be attending, especially the Americans. The French love the Americans because they make good films. The Americans love the French because they make the Americans welcome for a week a year and pander to their ego's. Moral is more of this France, America, Scotland, Ireland, Wales bonding, with Germany and the celebrity, Hoff, hovering.
Back to Harry and we were treated to some vintage TV of Prince Andrew, just after the attack on the Belgrano. You may recall the anniversary of this attack, mentioned in the newspaceman just last week. Anyway, Andrew advised the camera "you would never believe that a small missile of 18" could do that much damage". In reference to the Belgrano. Missiles ? 9/11 ? reinforcement of fear ?
I dont have time to write much about ITN, sorry. More fear really. cheers.