This morning more than five UK national newspapers reported what is believed by many, the biggest political scandal of the year. Jacqui Smith, UK's Home Secretary's husband Richard Timney who also works for the government as his wife's parliamentary aide was yesterday (Sunday) discovered to have added two pornographic films to his home internet connection, the BBC News website reported.
Mr. Timney has publicly apologised for the embarrassment he has caused his wife and has also declared that he had 'mistakenly' chosen those adult films and that neither him or any member of his family was willing to add any pornographic material to their TV or internet connection.
This scandal has caused lots of rumours both among PMs and in Downing Street. This scandal has drawn Miss. Smith to be under investigation by the UK parliamentarian authorities for misusage of her second home allowance.
This is a perfect example of how the media can cause damage to an important person. No one can escape from the media. If this story had never gotten to the newspapers, Miss. Smith would have never gone through this embarrassing moment. First of all, why does it mater that Jacqui Smith's husband rented two pornographic movies? After all he has declared that he did not rent them on purpose.
The answer is this, because the media, and special the tabloid press, injected in the mind of the readers that Jacqui Smith's husband uses tax payers' money to buy pornographic material, which is - in a way - out of proportion. Considering that part of the tax payers' money is dedicated for those who work for the government, such as Miss. Smith and her husband, once the money arrives to them, it no longer belongs to the tax payers' but it belongs to the proprietor. As long as the money isn't used for illegal purposes, they can use their money for whatever they want to spend it on.
I'm not saying that it is right to rent such dirty and tasteless movies. To be totally clear, the porn industry is a dirty business that only causes harm to our society by injecting shameful sex acts - that must be personal and not publicised - to youngsters and adults who simply are affected psychologically after using such materials. But I do believe that a free person, in a free society such as the one we live in, should be allowed to use such materials and it should be kept private. No one, not even the press should be allowed to publicise anything about someone's private life and activities.
I also believe that there are more important things to publish out there in the world, and newspapers are wasting their time and money on a story that is simply not of interest to anyone - at least it is not of interest to me and to many people I know - and that is simply not educative. Newspapers should be there to publish educative topics and to inform the public about the many important events that take place in the UK and the world. Why didn't those newspapers - the ones that dedicated their front pages to the Jacqui Smith scandal - dedicate their front pages to the war-on-drugs that is currently taking place in Mexico? Because these types of stories simply don't sell newspapers and scandals do.
Newspapers treat and develop these kinds of stories in such a way that people have no other choice but to look at them. Unfortunately, the times when we could find a good documentary on TV or a good exclusive in the newspapers, are simply falling apart and the media in general is everyday moving more and more towards scandals because they simple want to make money.
The picture used for this article was taken from www.timesonline.co.uk
BBC News article used to write this story:
Jacqui Smith's profile (Wikipedia):
What is an PM? (Wikipedia):
Downing Street's profile (Wikipedia):
Media's profile (Wikipedia):
Newspaper's profile (Wikipedia):
Tabloid press' profile (Wikipedia):
Definition of pornography (Wikipedia):
Mexico's war-on-drugs profile (Wikipedia):
Mexico's profile (Wikipedia):
Hi,
ReplyDeleteNice article. I'm sick of these individual "scandals" and "rows" the media run with.I agree totally with your post but I was suprised by one thing:
once the money arrives to them, it no longer belongs to the tax payers' but it belongs to the proprietor. As long as the money isn't used for illegal purposes, they can use their money for whatever they want to spend it on.
I was under the impression they had to account for all they did using that money which is why he got in trouble.
Thats certainly how the media protrays it but now I think about it it doesn't make sense.
I like your blog, and altho people say I'm a news junkie tbh I'm getting bored by the mass media at the moment.If you can enjoy and analyse it daily without throwing ur coffee mug at the wall then kudos!;)
Well, they basically have two salaries. One of them has to be declared, and the second one is personal, and they can do whatever they want to do with it. However, so far, there has only been speculations that they added the porn expenses to the one part of the salary that they had to declare, but nobody really knows because the government wouldn't tell. However, they are both under investigation so they might have done the wrong thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm delighted by the fact that you like my blog. Most of the people who read it only criticise it. It's nice to find someone who agrees with my views. I like your blog too. Both our blogs have lots of similes wouldn't you say?