Illusory Narratives

So, after several days of being bitten to buggery by insects every time I go outside, several sleepless nights due to the heat, (and being disturbed by nuisance phone callers every time I'm just managing to drop off to sleep), yet more family dramas and an ill advised trip to the pub (it actually extended to two pubs) after a day walking around the New Forest, it's fair to say that I'm exhausted.  Not that that will help me sleep, of course.  It never does.  So, I'm cursed to scroll through various news sites in the hope that this might send me to sleep.  What I've gleaned from these is that, as ever, the British media seem determined to weave narratives of their own making from recent events.  Foremost amongst these speculative narratives is that surrounding the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and the fact that she was crying in the Commons while Starmer defended the concessions the government had made over welfare reforms.  Now, according to Reeves, her tears were the result of a 'personal issue' she, understandably, doesn't want to divulge.   Obviously, that isn't good enough for the press, with their supposed political 'experts' going into overdrive claiming that the tears were because of her 'humiliation' in the PM having put her financial plans into chaos thanks to the welfare climbdown.  Or, it was because of a prior altercation with the Speaker of the House.  Alternatively, it was because she knew her time as Chancellor was up, with Starmer planning to make her a scapegoat for the welfare debacle.   The trouble is that none of these stories offered any kind of sourcing to back themselves up - a sadly all too common state of affairs when it comes to the UK's media: speculation passed off as fact.  

This sort of thing isn't confined to political reporting - it's absolutely rampant in sports reporting, particularly football coverage.  We're currently in the grip of the transfer window, meaning that wild speculation, usually based upon supposed 'In The Know' sources reported by non-professional football blogs, none of which can give any concrete sources for their 'information'.  Take all those stories about how Spurs have been negotiating with Atletico Madrid )or even Real Madrid in the most recent reports) for the sale of Cristiano Romero.  These apparently originated with an unsourced report  from an Argentinian publication.  Despite being completely dismissed by some of the more reputable sports writers and despite the fact that Romero still has two years on his Spurs contract, thereby giving Spurs the upper hand when it comes to potential transfers, the story has continued to be amplified by those dubious football bogs that regurgitate any and every rumour, reporting them as carved in stone fact.  These in turn have been picked up by some of the less reputable UK newspapers, who frame the non-story not just as fact, but as a 'dome deal' that Spurs have no option other than to follow through.  As ever, facts are thin on the ground.  It's all reminiscent of when, according to these self same press outlets, Harry Kane was on the verge of an 'inevitable' transfer to Real Madrid every summer.  It's as if they think that if they report the lies enough, they'll somehow force the transfer to happen.  So it is with political reporting - they can make their illusory narrative real if they repeat them over and over.  Of course, it could just be that Rachel Reeves had a private situation that mover her to tears and that Spurs have no intention of allowing Romero to leave this Summer and therefore have not actually entered into transfer negotiations with anyone.  But that would be too simple for the UK press, for whom everything has to involve some kind of conspiracy.