Sir, your third last paragraph ends with, "Their readers, listeners and viewers know what they aren’t covering. And they will want to know why." In that position in your column, it is close to a concluding statement.
That being so, allow me to offer a completely cynical answer to your implicit question. [And a correct answer, I contend.]: Those organs simply have drank the Kool-Aid and have adopted the position of the opposition to ANY consideration of regulation of the treatment under discussion. In other words, they have taken sides. Interestingly, they have adopted the same side as their paymaster in chief, ol' Blackface himself.
I admitted that I was cynical and I asserted that it was a correct answer. My cynicism is, well, understandable in these times but, as to correctness, I despair at that as it simply is a confirmation that the much of the mainstream media, that old MSM, has again taken a political position in their "news" reportage. It matters not to me which side of the discussion one concludes is most praiseworthy (or most damning, if that is one's wont); editorials SHOULD take positions but that is decidedly not the case when reporting NEWS.
So, if one of those organizations had said something like, "The NHS has concluded .... and has adopted .... as it's position after analyzing scientific studies, but we are unpersuaded - or we are persuaded ...." then I would be sanguine about those organizations. They would have acknowledged the issue and provided NEWS about the scientific basis of the issue and then would have provided their own opinion. Good on them - if they had done that. But they didn't.
So, cynicism and my "knowledge" of why they didn't do that.
Oh, and I saw those studies and the NHS referenced when announced and I wasn't even looking for them. Yes, people do wonder why SOME news is and some news isn't reported, but, truthfully, we do know. Cynicism and "knowledge."
Sir, your third last paragraph ends with, "Their readers, listeners and viewers know what they aren’t covering. And they will want to know why." In that position in your column, it is close to a concluding statement.
That being so, allow me to offer a completely cynical answer to your implicit question. [And a correct answer, I contend.]: Those organs simply have drank the Kool-Aid and have adopted the position of the opposition to ANY consideration of regulation of the treatment under discussion. In other words, they have taken sides. Interestingly, they have adopted the same side as their paymaster in chief, ol' Blackface himself.
I admitted that I was cynical and I asserted that it was a correct answer. My cynicism is, well, understandable in these times but, as to correctness, I despair at that as it simply is a confirmation that the much of the mainstream media, that old MSM, has again taken a political position in their "news" reportage. It matters not to me which side of the discussion one concludes is most praiseworthy (or most damning, if that is one's wont); editorials SHOULD take positions but that is decidedly not the case when reporting NEWS.
So, if one of those organizations had said something like, "The NHS has concluded .... and has adopted .... as it's position after analyzing scientific studies, but we are unpersuaded - or we are persuaded ...." then I would be sanguine about those organizations. They would have acknowledged the issue and provided NEWS about the scientific basis of the issue and then would have provided their own opinion. Good on them - if they had done that. But they didn't.
So, cynicism and my "knowledge" of why they didn't do that.
Oh, and I saw those studies and the NHS referenced when announced and I wasn't even looking for them. Yes, people do wonder why SOME news is and some news isn't reported, but, truthfully, we do know. Cynicism and "knowledge."