I suppose the nub of my perplexity with people like McGough, William Boyd and John Le Carre is why such educated and intelligent people are so woefully ill-informed. Do they simply read the corporate media, watch the BBC and ITV and nothing else? Which I find hard to believe. Or are they actually aware of the lies and falsehoods peddled by Kuenssberg et al and their blatant hypocrisy and yet choose not to ignore or excuse it?
That's the bit I don't understand.
In next week's Radio Times Roger McGough pens a poem welcoming Kuenssberg back from her holiday break.
This is the bit I can't get my head around (like I couldn't when William Boyd and John Le Carre signed a letter condemning Corbyn's and Labour's "antisemitism"): McGough is a bright chap, must read a fair amount, including current affairs and media analysis, yet just like Boyd and Le Carre he seems woefully naive and ill-informed and tamely accepts the prevailing and bogus corporate media view of the world. I can't decide if he really knows the score -- that Kuenssberg is a lackey and mouthpiece for corporate propaganda and the most sickening example of well-paid hypocrisy we have -- or is a totally credulous naif who never strays outside his aesthetic bubble of media luvviedom and floats along on cloud of make-believe.
I mean, can he be so innocent and unworldly as to believe the bias and pernicious underhand slanting without suspecting the truth? Or is he in on the scam but knows if he's to keep his safe and cosy berth with the BBC (for his poetry slot) then he has to pay homage to establishment icons and keep his trap shut about the real issues?
I honestly don't know the answer. As a scouser I'd have thought McGough would have more savvy and backbone than this. They're usually such a bolshie bunch.