UK Politics for a moment

I spent some time in England this past year, and while I had fun with some great people there, it took a bit of learning to understand the political differences between England and America. British newspapers are far more tabloid based. The "gotcha" journalism is more obvious in the UK as a result, and they clearly wear their politics on their sleeves. That's both a good thing (transparency!) and a bad thing (arrogance!).

Anyways, this is what caught my attention. Conservatives get millions from donors. Here's the money shot:

"Dozens of property firms have given a total of £3.3 million to the party over the past three years, including large gifts from companies seeking to develop rural land..."

Basically, it looks like the Telegraph is upset that the Conservatives (Tories) got £3.3 million over 3 years by land developers. Okay, that might be a "pay for play" deal, but really? £3.3 Million? By more than a dozen donors, who gave the money through conferences and intra-party meetings? And it sounds like it is right up front, so this doesn't feel like it's a backroom deal. It sounds more like basic fundraising, doesn't it? But to be fair, this does come after the major corruption scandal in Parliament (where MPs swindled money for themselves at the tune of billions). But, um, wasn't Labour the ones who were implicated more as a party in that? Anyways, here's where things get a bit more dicey.......for the Telegraph:

"The Daily Telegraph has launched the Hands Off Our Land campaign to urge ministers to rethink the measures, joining opposition from the National Trust, English Heritage and the Campaign to Protect Rural England."

Come again? The Telegraph has a campaign involved in protecting rural England? That's their right to do so; but it sounds like, you know, a conflict of interest in writing this stupid article. First, the £3.3 million sounds like the Telegraph's trying to spin fund-raising efforts as something eeevil, and then by admitting they're against the Tory plans (if we can call it that; they haven't actually done anything yet) for political reasons tells me that they are precisely trying to spin this for their own political gain. They then go on to give the anti-land developers a soapbox to stand on- which is the problem with these kinds of conflicts of interest articles (pay attention, journalism class. Don't do this).

At least the damning evidence is right there in the top paragraphs, and you don't have to read to the bottom of the article (like you would in the New York Times) to get to the real gist of the article. But next time, try not to make a molehill out of an anthill in the process. It just makes you look like an ass.