Friday, 4 September 2009

Mainstream Media: What Exactly is it good for?

It seems the blogosphere is rife tonight with rumours of Gordon Brown's health. If true (especially the claims that pointers to the deterioration of his mental health have been around for several months) it really does call into question the role of the mainstream media in all of this.

If true, it would appear that the MSM have resisted the persuit of this story for over a year. The question needs to be asked: why?

This is the prime minister we're talking about. His health and especially his mental health is not a private matter. This is the man with his finger on the nuclear button, the man in charge of national security, of national policy, of directing our armed forces.

The same goes for those working around the PM. Its patently obvious that we shouldn't have a manic depressive at the helm of the country, so why haven't those in the cabinet made moves to remove him? Why haven't those in the civil service either?

If the stories are true and the mainstream media and the political establishment have colluded in suppressing this story, you really have to ask what the Mainstream is good for any more.

Not only that, what use are the spineless bastards in the cabinet and those in Parliament that know about this and did nothing?

The next few days will be interesting as this story develops.


  1. I wonder if anyone in the MSM will be brave enough to pick it up and run with it.

  2. I do hope so. If the rumours are true, then Gordon Brown is seriously mentally impaired and is unfit to be in office.

    It also opens up constitutional questions on how there are no procedures to remove a mentally ill person from office. Sure, you're disqualified from becoming an MP if you're an "idiot" or "a lunatic, during non-lucid moments", but what about if your become mentally unstable during office?


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.