The media sucks

OK, so some jughead in Philadelphia who fancies himself an "amateur historian" has written a book laying out how Britain is responsible for all the world's ills. Setting aside for the moment that author Steven Grasse was inspired by the rampant American bashing that's in vogue these days, the book, The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined The World, aims at the wrong target. For the record, I'm one of those who believes that the world is a much better place for Britain's widespread and profound influence on it.

What's really wrong with the world is the media, and the Daily Mail article linked above is a fine example. In an article that's supposedly delivering facts, i.e., it's not an editorial column, I see "factual" statements like these:

As for the debacle in Iraq, Grasse believes Britain is to blame for the bogus scaremongering over weapons of mass destruction which led to the ill-conceived assault on Saddam.

and...

One reason for his campaign is that he believes that after the debacle of President Bush's war on terror, young Americans have fallen into an era of national selfloathing, equal to that which paralysed the U.S. in the wake of the Vietnam War.

Just who the hell are the writer and editor to decide which nation's military actions are "ill-conceived" "debacles", and what are such opinions doing being published outside the editorial pages?

This is the real problem. When the opinions of writers and editors creep into what are supposed to be factual news articles, the public consumes these opinions over and over again until to the public, those opinions are irrefutable facts.