_JamesDavies
Can The Haves Use Their Brains
Blog on (other people's) photography
|__________________________________________________________________|
I was a little surprised by The Evening Standard's crusade for the poor in London in their recent week-long series of articles on those who don't live in Notting Hill or Knightsbridge. It was probably just an attempt to gather a bit of support for the Tories by blaming everything wrong in the world on the Labour Government now that the General Election is on the horizon.
Now, reporting the poverty that still exists in London (and the rest of the UK of course) is very important and it is a good thing that somebody is doing it. What I object to is the utter ignorance of this poverty in the paper for the other 51 weeks of the year, and the attempt to turn this poverty into a political issue to use to the advantage of a political party. That's not going to breed positive results is it?
The opening paragraph on day one of the Standard's campaign was:
"London is a shameful tale of two cities. In the richest capital in Europe almost half our children live below the poverty line. These families are cut off from the life most Londoners take for granted. They are the dispossessed.
The Evening Standard will shine a light on their plight. With the general election imminent, we demand action."
As the only citywide newspaper in London you'd think that the poverty that exists here wouldn't come as such a surprise to the staff of the Standard. Yet reading the paper you realise that its target audience live in another world of minor Royals, book launches, West End theatres, disputes with architects, and restaurants where the price of a meal for two, with wine, would feed the dispossessed for 6 months.
You probably won't be surprised to learn that the Evening Standard is owned by a Russian billionaire and it's editor is an ex Etonion who went to Oxford, lives in Notting Hill and "has never let up his devotion to the privileged social scene". Average Londoners then. The absence of any criticism for London's multi-millionaire Conservative Mayor was also noticeable by it's absence.
I believe that the only thing the Standard had in mind with its light shining plight is to stoke up right wing fury (check out the comments on any of the articles to see how successful they were in this) and boost support for their equally rich Conservative friends in the election in May. Be careful what you wish for.
Can The Haves Use Their Brains
Blog on (other people's) photography
|__________________________________________________________________|
I was a little surprised by The Evening Standard's crusade for the poor in London in their recent week-long series of articles on those who don't live in Notting Hill or Knightsbridge. It was probably just an attempt to gather a bit of support for the Tories by blaming everything wrong in the world on the Labour Government now that the General Election is on the horizon.
Now, reporting the poverty that still exists in London (and the rest of the UK of course) is very important and it is a good thing that somebody is doing it. What I object to is the utter ignorance of this poverty in the paper for the other 51 weeks of the year, and the attempt to turn this poverty into a political issue to use to the advantage of a political party. That's not going to breed positive results is it?
The opening paragraph on day one of the Standard's campaign was:
"London is a shameful tale of two cities. In the richest capital in Europe almost half our children live below the poverty line. These families are cut off from the life most Londoners take for granted. They are the dispossessed.
The Evening Standard will shine a light on their plight. With the general election imminent, we demand action."
As the only citywide newspaper in London you'd think that the poverty that exists here wouldn't come as such a surprise to the staff of the Standard. Yet reading the paper you realise that its target audience live in another world of minor Royals, book launches, West End theatres, disputes with architects, and restaurants where the price of a meal for two, with wine, would feed the dispossessed for 6 months.
You probably won't be surprised to learn that the Evening Standard is owned by a Russian billionaire and it's editor is an ex Etonion who went to Oxford, lives in Notting Hill and "has never let up his devotion to the privileged social scene". Average Londoners then. The absence of any criticism for London's multi-millionaire Conservative Mayor was also noticeable by it's absence.
I believe that the only thing the Standard had in mind with its light shining plight is to stoke up right wing fury (check out the comments on any of the articles to see how successful they were in this) and boost support for their equally rich Conservative friends in the election in May. Be careful what you wish for.