Why not middle of the road?

[Alg]

I hope I can get my point across here.
Why is it that the majority of those who head organisations are so "right wing" or "extremist" and why is it that we accept their decisions and listen to their biased opinions.
Surely it would be better to have people in charge with a more balanced point of view. We have both middle of the road and right wing members on this forum and you can see where common sense is sometimes countered with an extreme view. Surely the more balanced view is the correct one?

Examples:
Cherie Blair let someone off recently just because he was religious, sort of. (Just an example, read nothing into the details)
http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/02/19/cherie-blair-religious-people-deserve-special-legal-rights.htm
A more balanced person wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

Child protection agency Heads call for silly measures in various areas of life to protect children. I can't be bothered to Google for an example but hope you know what I mean.

Someone was in the news the other day saying that animals that have been abused by humans should be given their own lawyers. This was given credence and discussed in Parliament. Obviously whoever thought that one up is a huge animal lover above and beyond the level of a normal person. (Or possibly a budding animal lawyer.)

It seems to me that a new Governing body or Think tank for anything and everything appears on the scene almost daily. The News always reports that "Blah blah There are calls by the Blah blah Anti Sausage League for fireproof coveralls for sausages to stop them getting burnt whilst being fried etc etc) and they seem self appointed and people listen to them. They may be people who absolutely love sausages with a passion but as we know passion often clouds judgement.

Surely more measured views from people with nothing to gain either financially or in expected reputation would be better from those who have authority.

[Yokel1]

Its all about noise -  sensible approaches, suggestions, and schemes rarely (if ever) recieve the media attention, even on the BBC.  let's face it, to be honest, people don't want to read about the country being run well, they want to hear about it being run badly.

If you are a sausage fanaticist then you are sure to find one or two other sausage fanaticists over the web and....voila!...you have your own Movement.

The Western world is inherently consumerist and capitalist and it relies on people's disappointment with what they have in order to drive unnecessary consumption which means there is no left or right wing any more - all parties are right wing, except the outliers, who are generally seen as tree hugging hippies.

Me, I consider myself a pragmatist, I'm more socialist in leaning but lets  be honest it isnt going to work in the society we have - that thrives on mass ignorance and hysterics rather than dignity and balance.

[hermes2007]

As usual I agree with Yokel who makes sensible points.
But to take Alg's points one stage further why are so called media experts, actually experts. Most seem self-appointed and actually know what seems next to nothing. But because they call themselves 'an expert' get called on by the media for their often useless points of view. One thing I will say for Emma Britton on Radio Somerset (which I much prefer to Radio Wiltshire) is that she likes to interview 'ordinary' people who actually do the jobs she is talking about - and questions them in an upbeat, positive way.
And don't start me on why Church of England Bishops in particular (and some other 'religious' people) aren't banned from the media - or perhaps they like sounding like complete idiots.

[Alg]

Case in point today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8565619.stm

[Mike Hawkins]

1. I would hardly call the BBC "right wing" or "extremist".

2. "Expert" = "ex" means a has-been, ""spurt" = a drip under pressure

Maybe some people accuse them of being right wing, extremists or "experts" (in a derogatory tone) merely because these people give views different to the one's they hold!

[Alg]

I was referring to England's children's commissioner Maggie Atkinson and Professor Rod Morgan, former chairman of the Youth Justice Board and not the BBC.

Their views and opinions seem to differ from those of the "middle of the road, common sense possessing majority."

[Mike Hawkins]

I was referring to England's children's commissioner Maggie Atkinson and Professor Rod Morgan, former chairman of the Youth Justice Board and not the BBC.

Their views and opinions seem to differ from those of the "middle of the road, common sense possessing majority."

I would certainly agree with you. I could not believe the comments coming from these two.