‘We are now facing, particularly after some of the stuff that’s been in the newspapers today, a crisis of public confidence, whatever their abilities and all the rest of it (sic), you need to replace the leadership of that health board and you need to do it now!’
He said that after a long painful interrogation where he merely revealed his lack of grasp of how things happen in large organisations but it’s that sentence that reveals the most about either his duplicity or his stupidity.
Leaving aside his astonishing arrogance and patronising manner toward a woman whose abilities cast his into the deepest shadow, does he really think that the ‘stuff’ in the newspapers, readership around 5% of the population, equates to anything like evidence of what the public think? Does he really think that even those few reading them believe everything they read? I’m sure he must know that many if not the most buy them for sport, TV and other popular culture ‘stuff.’
Most of all though, does he really believe that newspapers, or his show for that matter, function to tell us, impartially and objectively, what is actually happening in the world? Social scientists have been demonstrating empirically for decades now that our newspapers and our TV news broadcasts are based on a small selective sample pandering to the all-too-partial and biased preferences of those in powerful positions in society, to construct and to communicate a version of reality, which suits the interests of the political establishment in which they are mere courtiers, or is it courtesans?