Will the truth about the "anti-capitalists" be heard? - Part 4

Days after the Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral resigned in protest at the prospect of violence being used against the so-called "anti-capitalist" protesters, the Dean himself has resigned.

The latter was looking distinctly uncomfortable as he addressed the protesters in the last day or two (intimating that he shared their concerns but not their methods), and this is understandable when (reportedly) it was he who closed the doors of the Cathedral on "health and safety" grounds. I saw this as a PR ploy to put media pressure on the people outside, and I suggested the bluff should be called. Well, it's backfired anyhow, what with the Archbishop of Canterbury giving feline-subtle hints of support for the erstwhile Canon and leaving the Dean somewhat exposed.

Other spin may also bear re-examination: an audience member on BBC1's Question Time (Thursday night) challenged the media-spread allegation that most of the tents were empty at night, saying that the heat sensors were merely picking up the heat from tents that had gas burners going, and missing the body heat of other campers.

Have we - especially we bloggers - forgotten why the blogosphere has become such a significant forum? It's because of the biased, uncritical, gullible, lazy and perhaps even sometimes corrupt news reporting establishment.

Have we forgotten why the protestors are outside St Paul's, rather than Parliament, Downing Street or Threadneedle Street? It's because the might of the law is being used to squeeze dissent out of public spaces, with the - yes, I'd say it - evil misuse of legislation ostensibly introduced to combat organised criminal gangs and terrorists. Remember Brian Haw.

The subtext of mass reporting is that protest is OK as long as it's unobtrusive, out of the way and unheard. The more prominent element of the Fourth Estate has largely failed us, now that so many of them live in grand style and sup with the rich and powerful.