A Wayward Game Read Online Free PDF Page A

and factual analysis of
current affairs. That, perhaps, was why Argyle’s story slipped
through the net to begin with. It might have invoked displeasure in
certain circles, but the very fact that it was printed suggests to
me that there was no overarching conspiracy.
     
    I sit thinking
for a moment, sipping my coffee. Phillip’s cool, intelligent,
measured tone impresses me; he’s a welcome counterbalance to the
more vociferous elements that sites such as this tend to attract.
There is also a degree of concealment in his post, the feeling of
someone who prefers to ask questions rather than answer them, and
is perhaps unwilling to take too definite a stance – someone who
chooses to bide his time, and wait and see. I type out a reply.
     
    Hello Phillip, and
welcome to the forum. There’s a “Welcome” page specifically for
newbies, if you’d like to introduce yourself properly.
    I think you’re probably
correct in saying that the Establishment consists, in part, of the
media. Most individual journalists, though – in my experience, at
least – hold themselves to pretty high standards. That may not be
the public perception, but the majority of journalists approach
their work in an objective, scrupulous manner. This, of course,
does not preclude the existence of “groupthink”, the subtle and
almost unconscious tendency of individuals to align themselves with
the majority view and suppress dissent. Yet journalists also have
highly-developed critical and analytical skills, and often subject
their own reactions and thought processes to rigorous scrutiny.
    However, when you move
beyond that grassroots level – when you get to the big bosses, the
people pulling the strings – a conspiracy becomes altogether more
plausible. These people are, as you say, powerbrokers. It is in
their interests to put across a certain narrative. I agree that
there is not necessarily one unified “Establishment”. What I do
think, though – and what it would be insane to deny – is that
certain people and factions enjoy infinitely more power and
privilege than others, and are far better placed to promote their
particular views. I believe that Argyle fell afoul of these people,
and paid the price.
     
    I’m finishing
my coffee when Phillip replies:
     
    Hello Kittyminx, and
thanks for your warm welcome. I’ll introduce myself on the
appropriate page.
    I’ve always bridled at
the idea that journalists are mere puppets. I work in a
much-maligned profession myself, and know how unfair such sweeping
judgements can be. However, I also know from experience that
“groupthink” can indeed be a very powerful force. Few people have
the courage or tenacity to challenge the established order or the
accepted position on a given issue, especially when their
livelihood or professional reputation may be affected. Thank God
there are a few mavericks who come along occasionally and shake
things up. They’re not always right, but we need them.
    Good discussion,
everyone.
     
    Everything goes
quiet for a few minutes, and I click away from the thread. I make
my way instead over to the “Welcome” page, and see that Phillip has
already written a post introducing himself. I click on it, and read
his message.
     
    Hello everyone, just
thought I’d introduce myself. I’ve been lurking on this forum for a
while, but haven’t posted before. I’ve been interested in Diane’s
case for a long time, and have been trying to see it from every
angle. Of course, I don’t seriously think that an internet
community can succeed where the Met failed, but discussing the case
may help us to refine and clarify our opinions.
    My own opinion, based
on the evidence I’m currently aware of, is a simple “I don’t know.”
The problem is, simply, that such evidence as exists is not
sufficient to get anyone into a court of law. I have my suspicions,
but suspicions amount to little; guilt must be established beyond
reasonable doubt, and so far it has not been.
    I’m