The media attacks

Online newspapers always look for convenient shock horror stories, and in the process, attack the reputations of places, towns and cities where these shock horror events are said to happen. Does this sort of report on the reputation of places have an effect, does it matter, is it 'fair'?

Today Manchester is described as a "dystopian city" where residents, in fear for themselves and for their children, have become accustomed to an everyday "plague" of drugged up, mainly homeless 'zombies', in the streets, staggering about, crawling and writhing in agony, or frozen into bizarre postures, slumped against walls, running up and down arguing and screaming, lying prone in the streets shouting, blue and vomiting, with police and ambulance services stretched to the limit, being called out multiple times a day for agressive and seriously ill, some "essentially dead", victims of the extremely addictive synthetic zombie drug epidemic, which experts warn is spreading across the land.

Blackpool also gets a mention.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4397316/Horror-movie-footage-homeless-Spice-addicts.html


We have seen this all before, where newspapers increase their readership with lurid reports from various towns and cities, labelling Rochdale as a centre of political incompetence, violent crime, sexual assault and abuse, modern slavery and asian grooming where lives are ruined, Burnley as a filthy, brain dead, dysfunctional vortex of hopelessness, rape, head injuries and summer riot zone, etc. Whilst this may all be quite factual and 'proven' with eye witness and victim accounts, court reports, photos and video, is it really useful to run down the reputation of these towns and cities, or, does it just embed negative attitudes and impressions, cause economic and social damage and make matters worse? Is the media just making it's money by attacking easy targets in places where people suffer enough already?

The media make their money and justify their existence for making the mountain from the molehill as to do otherwise would lose them their businesses. Bad news sells.

Man's propensity to ghoul and revel in others misfortune makes for media over-kill. Blame man if you want to blame anybody.

The main question intended above is - Whilst this may all be quite factual and 'proven' with eye witness and victim accounts, court reports, photos and video, is it really useful to run down the reputation of these towns and cities, or, does it just embed negative attitudes and impressions, cause economic and social damage and make matters worse?


Not about blame but about whether this is useful for the towns and cities reported on. Mass media obviously influence a mass of people, would those people choose to go, for instance, into Manchester centre with this sort of publicity? If not, it will effect the economy. Those people will go elsewhere.


If highlighting problems brings about improvements in the long run, perhaps it is useful, but does it? The damage done in terms of people who are able to choose, leaving the area, negative perception possibly damaging investment, general despondency and so on might make it more difficult to tackle the problems reported on.


How has Rochdale reacted after the grooming scandal, is it a better, safer place now, or, much the same?

Knowledge is a two-edged sword. If you don't want to know - don't read or listen to anything. Alternatively endow yourself with all you can obtain, sift the wheat from the chaff and base your perceptions on that which suits your purpose.

The decline of the industrial North of England and all that goes with it has to be exposed if the area is to ever arise from those ashes. It is no more nor less than thousands of other regions across the world that have suffered in similar circumstance. You cannot obtain the wherewithal to 'mend' it if you don't first expose the injury to critical appraisal and take on board those that become concerned with you.

On balance - the media, whilst hyping the known facts, helps towards that end game.

The north of England will have to get itself organised, no-one else is going to do it.

For that to happen there has to be the 'will'. I see no movements towards 'resurrection' when there's no good reason. One gets paid large sums of money for going through the motions and appearing interested - so why do more? Lets face it - you are dammed if you do and you are dammed if you don't - so why bother in the first place.

I'm afraid such is today's scenario. This present society hasn't had to do much fighting for it's place amongst the nations and has come to expect 'all' will be provided one way or another. Not a good prospect for radical changes or personal betterment. It has also become much more rabid in its dog eat dog approach to 'society' as a whole.

It is difficult to imagine things improving much.

Celebrity Culture
Scientists have discovered that celebrities can be cultured in a petrie dish in the laboratory from a particular combination of mould spores. This will reduce costs for media industries in running tv talent shows and the like.