I got to listen recently to quite a number of comments about how serious journalism needs to stay factual in its reporting. A news “story” must report facts that have taken place. Opinions should be left for later or for some other space.

Still, this dictum oversimplifies matters. Any event is constituted from a number of facts. The story which reports on them cannot cover all the facts. “It” must select what “it” considers to be important or relevant. Whichever choice is arrived at amounts to an expression of opinion: for when a fact is selected rather than another, the choice is not only related to which of the two is the most important, but also which of the two might lead the reader to one judgement rather than another.

Then there is the language used to describe what has happened. It too gives a good clue to what the writer believes -- or what he/she would like the reader to believe. Like for instance this choice of language in a report:  “Don’t you believe him,” he said -- he said with a smile -- he groaned -- he screamed -- he lamented ironically -- he laughed angrily...           

***

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DISAPPOINTS

An interesting article in Der Spiegel magazine focussed on how the Catholic Church in Geermany is experiencing a crisis: members who are genuine “believers” are abandoning it because they consider that it is not really genuinely responding to contemporary challenges. According to them, its response is bureaucratic and authoritarian, mostly designed to defend outdated psoitions that relate to antiquated realities and relationships.

For the German Church the problem therefore is that it is losing some of its most valuable members.

I doubt whether this is just a German or even a Church problem. Other churches in other countries need to give it their full attention... as well as possibly, the older established and “big” political parties everywhere.

***

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REFORM

Changes in how European Parliament meetings are being held in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic call for a deep reflection about the procedures of the Parliament. This should generate radical change in parliamentary structures. Too many vested interests will rise against this.

Firstly, it has become clear that “virtual” meetings can be as effective as face-to-face ones. Perhaps they could be more efficient. This would mean that much of the current travel could be greatly slashed. After all, as of now, almost all Brussels-to-Brussels meetings are also being done at a distance.

Secondly as I see it, on this basis, a change could be affected by which to bring the work of the national parliaments and of the European Parliament into a greater synchronicity with each other. An MEP could quite easily serve also as a national MP because meetings at a distance allow one to follow and participate in the work of both institutions. So, elections to the European Parliament could happen at the same time as elections to the national parliament with the organization in parallel of a vote for MEPs who would also be members of the national parliament. In this way the European Parliament would be less concentrated on what is taking place within the Brussels bubble.