TRIVIA OBSESSIONS CLOUD REAL NEWS

The written media column inches and broadcast media hours associated with Philip Schofield, a relatively minor celebrity, is surely out of all proportion to his relevance in a world full of turmoil, wars, famines, floods and tragedies. That media editors sensationalise and obsess with such trivial garbage casts doubt on their sense of proportion when serious issues are reported, highly dramatized, where the label “crisis” or similar is applied with gay abandon.

A GAY AFFAIR

Philip Schofield, a TV personality hosting the ITV “Morning” show jointly with Holly Willoughby, resigned from the show: newsworthy perhaps of 30 seconds of recording or a column or two on inner newspaper pages. Yet it was headline news, a national controversy for days. The story was expanded and magnified by the revelation that Philip Schofield, who some years ago came out as gay, had some more years ago had a consensual relationship with a young employee on the same show. Is it not fair to ask, “so what”? Do most of the British public care, aside from perhaps some people in television who are prone to egotistic self-importance and inward-looking concerns? He had apparently previously denied the affair and so lied to ITV and others. Front page headlines in major newspapers recorded that Holly Willoughby was “hurt” by that, as she was his friend.

Media outpourings on this non-event illustrate sadly how difficult it is to trust the judgement of so-called media professionals in assessing the importance of any event. It is surely a time for a common-sense return to proportionality.

MINISTER SPEEDING – NATIONAL UPROAR

Likewise, recently the behaviour of the Home Office Secretary of State, Suella Braverman, has stirred outrage and moral astonishment, threatening the firmament of Westminster if reports are to be believed. The reaction of supposedly serious and important people as well as the media again is totally disproportionate to the behaviour itself. Alastair Campbell, a man of extremely vocal opinions about others but a ruthless doctor of spin to a point of absurdity, declared that this incident warranted the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, resigning.

The behaviour in question was that the Home Secretary had been caught speeding. As often with a speeding offence, she had the option of attending a course on careful driving, speed awareness, instead of paying a fine and getting licence points. She seemed to have asked civil service staff to see if she could have such a course in private, but they refused to help. She also asked advisers. It not being possible, after some public furore, she decided to pay the fine and take the points. 

Opposition leaders of all parties demanded a full enquiry into this alleged breach of the Ministerial Code. The media speculated with much gnashing of teeth whether this was another crisis for government and Suella Braverman: perhaps it could be if they chose to make it one. There perhaps is a now embedded knee-jerk reaction to “discredit” anyone alleged to possibly have behaved less than perfectly. Like Suella Braverman or not, this surely did not merit the excitement commentators and her enemies sought to generate. 

Rishi Sunak finally announced there would be no further action. The world’s reaction to that perhaps evidences the falsity of previous excitement and speculation. That reaction was complete silence; and had any of the shouters and screamers really cared about the matter, surely there would have been outcry at such a decision. Only the most vociferous of anti-government protagonists could continue the tirade about another non-event.

DECIDE ON WARS BUT TRAVEL ECONOMY

Recent sniping at Rachel Reeves, UK Shadow Chancellor, for travelling Business Class, London to New York and back, illustrated an inability to resist a sneer. She attended meetings to talk serious politics and economics with relevant people. Rather would it be sensible to send leaders or potential leaders into important situations as exhausted as they could be? In the recent past Ministers have been sneered at for foreign travel, such as the Foreign Secretary whose job is international relations as if travel by air week by week is some jolly holiday. Rishi Sunak was sneered at for taking a non-public flight domestically. Some shout hypocrisy about climate change commitments or just why spend money in this way.

 What is the problem in the UK where the most important people in the country choose a comfortable, efficient and private way to travel? Similarly, the Prime Minister and Chancellor are required to live in, and work in, antiquated, unfit for modern purposes, cramped and inefficient premises in Downing Street, hundreds of workers packed in like sardines. Its mad and bad. Does not every sensible business treat its most important decision-makers, the top leaders, in a way to minimise stress and hassle, and maximise performance. Why does the UK behave in such a trivial manner in relation to those in public service, charged with the security and prosperity of 65 million people, with the toughest jobs in the land, who are handling a war for Western survival, but having to answer for their wallpaper or why they have succeeded in making money? Is it media or is it that any attempt to treat politicians decently will be met with cries of hypocrisy and one rule for them and so on? 

TIME FOR GROWN UPS

Trivia and dishonest grandstanding need to be consigned to the bin, and patently trivial snapping and sniping despised.  People who purport to be grown up and serious should behave as such, so that in a world which malfunctions so often, honest and considered thought is applied to the real issues of the day, not obsessing with trivia.