A British Thread for Freedom

[BeautifulBurnout]

Now you Americans have someone sensible at the helm of your country at long last, I wanted to draw people's attention to this speech by Hazel Blears.

Nihilistic New Media

This is an edited extract from a speech, called Tackling Political Disengagement, that Hazel Blears is giving today to the Hansard Society.
I know that every generation of politicians complains about the state of political culture, about the media, about young people's lack of involvement, about radical fringe movements, and so on.
We must be careful not to eulogise some mythical political golden age, with father coming home from the union meeting to discuss the Irish question with the children over supper, while mother prepares her talk on free trade for the Co-operative Women's Guild.
No such age of mass participation ever existed. The Chartist movement, the rise of the trade unions, the suffragettes, the Liberal, Labour or Conservative Parties: these were only ever minority pursuits in Britain.
But with the caveat that politicians always complain about their own political culture, let me say that we are witnessing a dangerous corrosion in our political culture, on a scale much more profound than previous ages, and the role of the media must be examined in this context.
Famously, Tony Blair called the media a "feral beast" in one of his last speeches as prime minister. But behind the eye-catching phrase was a serious and helpful analysis of a 24-hour broadcast media and shrinking, and increasingly competitive, newspaper market which demands more impact from its reporting – not the reporting of facts to enable citizens to make sense of the world, but the translation of every political discussion into a row, every difficulty a crisis, every rocky patch for the prime minister the "worst week ever".
The changing structure of the media is what drives this desire for impact and the retreat from dispassionate reporting.
And I would single out the rise of the commentariat as especially note-worthy. It is within living memory that journalists' names started to appear in newspapers; before then, no name was attached to articles. And in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers. And if you can wield influence and even power, without ever standing for office or being held to account by an electorate, it further undermines our democracy.
The commentariat operates without scrutiny or redress. They cannot be held to account for their views, even when they perform the most athletic and acrobatic of flip-flops in the space of a few weeks. I can understand when commentators disagree with each other; it's when they disagree with themselves we should worry.
There will always be a role for political commentary, providing perspective, illumination and explanation. But editors need to do more to disentangle it from news reporting, and to allow elected politicians the same kind of prominent space for comment as people who have never stood for office.
This brings me to the role of political bloggers. Perhaps because of the nature of the technology, there is a tendency for political blogs to have a Samizdat style. The most popular blogs are rightwing, ranging from the considered Tory views of Iain Dale, to the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes. Perhaps this is simply anti-establishment. Blogs have only existed under a Labour government. Perhaps if there was a Tory government, all the leading blogs would be left-of-centre?
There are some informative and entertaining political blogs, including those written by elected councillors. But mostly, political blogs are written by people with a disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.
Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair.

My highlighting. As I said on the blog, words fail me, other than four-letter ones. This, combined with the governments plans to have a black-box collecting all our emails and internet traffic records, indicates a desire by Nu Labour to stamp on dissenters and control thought.


The more this goes on the more I want to move to Canada. Although it would be safe to move to the States now.

[Camiel]

Yes and no. Governments should refrain from censoring media period. On the other hand (at least here in the Netherlands) I can clearly see how media and certain internet blogs have a direct influence on society these days. And not for the better. Every dimwit can express his or her opinion. And when a lot of dimwits express their opinions collectively, it has a direct outcome on society. I will even go further. They can change a vote and here in the Netherlands that will not be for the good I believe. Personally, I'm not on the hand of the leading parties. Then again, the alternative today will almost certainly be some populistic new party like the PVV (Wilders). That party alone is created for people reacting from their abdomen, who subsequently dominate certain internet blogs or newspapers. I think media has a certain roll to correct the government. The executive, legislative and judicial bodies (Trias Politica) have already been extended by much more bodies like the civil service, unions, but also the media. In a good working society, these new bodies will be corrected by each other, but somehow I've got this feeling that the equilibrium between these bodies has tip the scales in favour for the media. He who shouts the loudest dictates the public opinion nowadays or so it seems.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Now you Americans have someone sensible at the helm of your country at long last, I wanted to draw people's attention to this speech by Hazel Blears.

Nihilistic New Media




My highlighting. As I said on the blog, words fail me, other than four-letter ones. This, combined with the governments plans to have a black-box collecting all our emails and internet traffic records, indicates a desire by Nu Labour to stamp on dissenters and control thought.


The more this goes on the more I want to move to Canada. Although it would be safe to move to the States now.

If you'd like, we can talk to Obama about using the Bush doctrine to overthrow your government....

Seriously though, I do think that there's a valid point to be made about the sorry state of how news is reported these days. Increasingly sensationalist and opinion-based rather than broad and objective. Certainly nothing about it needs to be legislated, but I would love to see more of a return to the communication of important information rather than the growing popularity of FOX News and MSNBC.

Where blogs are concerned, I say "who cares?" Blogs are just individuals exercising their freedom to express opinions and share information/theories they find interesting. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about, or to be making big government speeches over.

[dubman]

oh my god it's 2003.

seriously tho, growing popularity? i dunno if you remember back when the bush administration was still seen by media as a decent thing that FOX is okay in deifying, but they had their heyday and we've noticeably calmed down since.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by dubman

oh my god it's 2003.

seriously tho, growing popularity? i dunno if you remember back when the bush administration was still seen by media as a decent thing that FOX is okay in deifying, but they had their heyday and we've noticeably calmed down since.

No comment. uh-oh, that kinda is, huh?

[Deckard]

I hold no torch for Hazel Blears but I do find myself very much agreeing with the essence of what she's saying. The press - by which I also include the commentariat, but also mainstream journalism in a broader sense - is absolutely the biggest culprit in poisoning the political atmosphere. Perhaps by extension we could say that readers - ourselves - and capitalism are the bottom line culprits. Either way, I'm more inclined to view the press as damaging than I am politicians.

I find it very hard to disagree with her on this, for instance:

a 24-hour broadcast media and shrinking, and increasingly competitive, newspaper market which demands more impact from its reporting – not the reporting of facts to enable citizens to make sense of the world, but the translation of every political discussion into a row, every difficulty a crisis, every rocky patch for the prime minister the "worst week ever".

When I scour public opinion - as I often do, cringingly and depressingly - it's incredible how closely the presentation of opinion mirrors the language of the most popular press, and how the views are similarly poorly constructed and the people misled. Whether the issue is the government's response to knife crime, or a proper debate on affirmative action, or another instance of data loss, or a cabinet reshuffle, or whatever it is - Blears is absolutely right that the press, for the most part, leave the public shockingly uninformed and in a state of largely unnecessary fear and cynicism, reacting from moral panic to moral panic instead of using their heads. Consequently, platforms of public opinion are filled with the kind of alarmist and unremittingly negative words and phrases that they're spoonfed by the likes of the Mail, Express, Sun, and even, these days, the Indie - SHAME, OUTRAGE, DISGRACE, FURY, FIASCO.... etc. The press actively encourage this negativity, stoking outrage as much as they can, and leaving people to revel in their cynicism and - in the case of papers like the Mail - spite.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a politician clearly evading an answer because of how the press are quite obviously going to distort it. Any attempt by a politician to say something that isn't within party lines will be plastered over tomorrow's paper as DISUNITY - LABOUR IN CHAOS. Any attempt by a politician to admit they were wrong and change course is lambasted as INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT IN U-TURN. Even though it's completely irrational to expect a politician to make no mistakes, and completely sensible for them to change course when they realise it.

You might say that, in that case, a politician should be stronger and not succumb, they should stick to their guns and rise above it all. I say that's unrealistic. The sheer weight carried by the press in how a politician or PM is "seen" is astounding, despite the denials of Murdoch, Dacre and co. The press IS the prism through which we find out what's going on - and by definition, the popular press is the most influential.

These things say far more about us (readers and press alike) than than they do about politicians. Whenever a public figure makes a statement that doesn't accord with the over-simplistic black and white approach of the press - whether it's the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on integrating aspects of Sharia Law into UK law, or a government-sponsored academic's comments on changes to the classification of murder - it's like it passes through a ridiculous filter by the press and congeals into just two utterly misleading strands of black and white - and the public debate ends up dominated by stupidity.

"Archbishop calls for Sharia Law in UK!!!!!!!"

"Now we go soft on murderers!!!!!"

"Now poppies are banned!!!!"

An effective democracy requires an informed public, a public that gets access to facts, and knows how to think for themselves. Information is most effectively transmitted when it's calm and considered. It's least effectively transmitted when it's hysterical and unremittingly cynical. When that happens, people stop using their heads and resort to their gut. The fact that pompous, bloke-ish, conservative bores like Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Littlejohn would probably beat any politician hands down in an election says a lot about the state of political discourse and the perception of politicians in this country - but that doesn't mean the fault necessarily lies with the politicians. I'd say it speaks more about how uninformed and easily sucked in many people are by the tirade of negative and over-simplistic journalism and commentary. Politicians are caught in a 'damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't' trap.

[Rog]

I agree with deckard's excellent post!

It comes to something when a misinformed sensationalist press can be the cause of a measles epidemic which will leave a proportion of young children blind/brain damaged/dead from a disease which shouldn't be around in this country......(daily mail anti MMR stance).
This is just one small item and there are many many more.....F**k the popular press and media .....but do it by not buying their products or viewing them rather than big bro type legislation.