Do Daily Mail journalists cry at night?
The pathetic and desperate hatchet job on Nick Clegg, by our friends at the Daily Mail, was pretty much instantly rebutted last night, in just 140 characters.
@DougSaunders: British journalism in microcosm: 2002 op-ed by Nick Clegg: http://is.gd/bCESl Resulting Daily Mail front pager tomorrow: http://is.gd/bCETh
Merely linking to the article that was the basis for Tim Shipman’s front-page piece shows the real context, debunks the Mail’s outrage, and exposes their highly partisan agenda. Iain Dale is right: this will backfire on the Conservatives (regardless of whether they actually had a hand in placing the smears), and further highlight The Slow Death of the British Newspaper As We Know It.
Alongside the online rebuttals and link-sharing, we see the rise of the satirical #hashtag, in this case #NickCleggsFault (seeded by Justin McKeating, I believe), and Chris Applegate has updated his seminal Daily Mail Headline Generator to capture the Zeitgeist:
WILL NICK CLEGG GIVE YOUR HOUSE SWINE FLU?
A few questions present themselves. The first is the obvious perennial: how deep does this sort of ridicule penetrate into the national conversation? Are these jokes just a distraction for a insular blogosphere, the “Twitterati”, or does the meme spread out enough to properly counter the spin being spread by the Mail?
Social marketers will spend all election trying to answer this question… but whatever the level of influence right now, I think it is safe to say that it grows on a daily basis. Meanwhile, the tabloids diminish in stature. This is now a given.
But what I really want to know, is this: What do the journalists at these outlets really think about the satirical attacks on their paper? I can well imagine a bunker mentality affecting the editorial team at the Mail, or the Express, or the Telegraph – these are intense and high-stakes positions, after all.
But does this attitude extend to, say, a young journalist working on the news desk? Or the sub-editors? Or the music reviewers? Or the poor chap (or chapess) who has to moderate all the angry comments!? What do they think when they see the Daily Mail Headline Generator and the #NickCleggsFault hastag cluttering up their screens? Just as the Mail’s readership is not a monolith, we know that their staff cannot be either.
I would love to know their reaction to these kinds of online surges – and not out of any sense of schadenfreude, fly-on-the-wall, Downfall-type snigger. I think it would be a genuinely useful insight into how major media operations operate in the second decade of the 21st Century.
Any pseudonomynous contributions in the comments would be gratefully received.
Did Sunday Times mislead over Muslim shoe-throwing case?
Last week a front-page story appeared in The Sunday Times, reporting that apparently the Metropolitan Police had “bowed to Islamic sensitivities and accepted that Muslims are entitled to throw shoes in ritual protest”.
The incredible claim being made was that police had specifically given the members of one faith group, Muslims, special permission to throw shoes as some kind of “concession”.
A little bit of digging however soon showed the article had some major problems.
First, the focus of The Sunday Times’ piece is one particular prosecution of an individual for violent disorder, following the protest that took place outside the Israeli embassy in January 2009:
Judge Denniss agreed that the act of shoe-throwing should not be considered in a charge of violent disorder against the student because it was “a symbolic” political gesture.
…
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service admitted this weekend that the police advice to the Downing Street protesters was a factor in the case at Isleworth crown court, west London.
But after I contacted the Crown Prosecution Service myself, I was sent this statement by CPS London Borough Crown Prosecutor Jeetinder Sarmotta:
There is no CPS policy that people who throw shoes, rather than other objects, during demonstrations will not be prosecuted. The CPS makes charging decisions based on the totality of the available evidence.
Mr Salim pleaded guilty to violent disorder by throwing a stick but not by throwing a shoe. We were aware that there was a question over whether or not the police had given demonstrators permission to throw shoes by way of a political statement, but the CPS accepted Mr Salim’s guilty plea on the basis that we could not be certain on viewing the CCTV footage whether the item thrown was a shoe or not.
By accepting the guilty plea we considered that the court would be able to impose a sentence that would reflect the criminality of Mr Salim during the demonstration.
The Times article also omits the issue of the CCTV footage. The CPS prosecutor refers to the shoe-throwing purely in the context of the act being “a political statement”. Nothing about ‘Muslims’ or ‘Islamic sensitivities’.
Chris Holt, the defendant’s solicitor, told me of the wider context for the prosecutions of the Gaza protesters, particularly the fact that “a large number of demonstrators, with no criminal history and even after timely guilty pleas, have received custodial penalties of up to eighteen months”. (Newsnight report).
Targeting Muslims
But there is no mention in The Sunday Times article of these numerous custodial sentences handed down to other protesters. This is a point taken up by ‘The Gaza Demonstrators Support Campaign’, in a statement published on their website.
The group says that “rather than ‘bow[ing] to Islamic sensitivities’, the Metropolitan police have done precisely the opposite: targeting for arrest almost exclusively Muslim protesters from amongst the very diverse group who protested outside the Israeli Embassy last year”.
However, returning to the most startling aspect of The Sunday Times’ story, how did the newspaper come to claim that “Scotland Yard” has accepted “Muslims” can throw shoes as a form of protest? There is no doubting the emphasis of the piece. The headline talked of ‘Islamic protestors’, while the article was clear that the “concession” (a term used twice) was to “Muslims” and “Muslim demonstrators”.
Complaint
Musab Younis, a member of the Gaza Demonstrators Support Campaign, says that “the article was not only misleading” but also “dishonest”: the article “states the demonstrations in London against Israel’s attack on Gaza were composed of ‘Muslim demonstrators’, when they were in fact made up of an extraordinarily diverse range of people”.
The demonstration on 3 January 2009, when organizers arranged beforehand with the police for a symbolic shoe-throwing outside Downing Street, was indeed coordinated by a variety of groups, including Stop the War, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and CND.
Younis added that with “no response” from the newspaper to their objections, “we have no choice but to file a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission in consultation with our solicitors”, while continuing to “urge The Sunday Times to amend the article”.
We probably haven’t heard the last of this story yet.
Why Clegg and Cameron did well: populism and values
Nick Clegg is certainly the man of the moment in Westminster. All those journalists and politicians snubbing their noses up at the Libdems won’t do so lightly again for sure.
But how exactly did Clegg do so well? He was good on some policy: notably attacking both parties on Trident, on the need for a different approach to law & order, and… some other fluffy stuff that I can’t remember…
And that’s the point isn’t it? By today, most people who would have watched that debate last night would have forgotten 95% of the policies they talked about. It was excellent political theatre, and threw up a few laughs, but we’re not sitting here discussing the policy implications of what they said – we want to know how the voters reacted. And why.
Populism
This was Clegg’s strongest card. He remembered the names of all those who asked questions. He addressed them directly. He didn’t use flowery language.
But most importantly he was constantly exasperated. He pitched himself as being against the other squabbling parties who never reached any consensus.
He berated both of them for saying one thing and doing another (on electoral reform and cleaning up politics), or not doing them at all. At times he went into full drama-mode, showing exaggerated annoyance at ‘typical politics’ of Westminster.
Some may hate it – but Clegg did excellent at playing on the annoyance and exasperation many feel at Westminster politics. He played the underdog. He attacked continuously but in an exasperated sort of way that made the other two look petty.
I think the other smaller parties – especially the Greens could learn a lot from this. Most of the time they lack the ‘fire in the belly’ that Clegg showed last night. The hunger. The sheer annoyance at how things are done. Even if it was partly theatrics – it worked.
Values
I also think Cameron did well in his closing speech. Brown’s speech basically said: ’stay the course’. Cameron didn’t just say that the Tories had changed (though fairly subtly) – but he went for the I believe in your values line.
That was the only part of the debate that showed a degree of emotional intelligence. People mostly don’t vote on policies (as I keep saying) but on whether they think the politician is like them or understands their concerns/fears/optimism etc.
Cameron is usually distrusted because a large swathe of people feel he’s not like them. He went head on to neutralise that. He tried to assuage their fears that he had different values, and largely I believe it worked.
My feeling is that Brown should have gone more on the offensive on the ‘values’ issue early on. There is still a big percentage of the population who don’t trust the party. That is Cameron’s weak point but Brown failed to exploit it.
By the end I think Cameron pulled it back.
Gordon Brown performed well too. But he didn’t land any killer blows unfortunately.
The question now is: who did Clegg take votes from?
Why Plaid/SNP should be at the Leaders’ Debates
contribution by Marcus Warner
I think Plaid/SNP should be present on the Prime Ministerial debates.
This is based on my view that many of the issues discussed are devolved. Not enough so far is done to offer the ‘England Only’ health warning.
‘Free Schools’, ‘Cancer Guarantee’ – are all meaningless to Welsh and Scottish voters.
It’s also worth remembering that:
* That voters in Wales and Scotland are often in seats whereby the fight does not include either Labour, or Tory or both.
* That the BBC has a right to be fair to other parties
* Plaid get 1000 votes in every single seat in Wales. Unlike the three major Westminster parties, who do not.
* We do not have an elected presidency – voters in Wales vote for an MP, and in places like Aberconwy, Ceredigion, Llanelli, Ynys Mon the battle is not between two westminster parties, but Plaid/Lib Dem, Plaid/Labour/Tory.
Secondly, from a liberal left perspective
* English voters hearing about devolved policies is good for understanding the system, but also hearing different ideas. There is a westminster consensus on things, often teetering centre right at times.
* The Lib Dems are being asked about their views on a hung parliament, but it is just as valid for English voters to hear the SNP/Plaid views too.
The opposing arguments are also worth arguing against
* That Plaid/SNP leaders cannot be PM. Nor will Nick Clegg.
* That you open the floodgates to other parties – which is not true, both those parties have elected westminster representatives. UKIP, Greens and the BNP do not.
Why it’s important to just Tweet and be damned!
The furore around @BevaniteEllie has got me thinking. Twitter isn’t really understood very well by a lot of people.
Ellie Gellard is now a public enemy as far as the Mail is concerned and Stuart MacLennan has lost his parliamentary candidacy because of twitter.
Twitter is fundamentally misunderstood by a lot of people.To the Old Media it is something through which to trudge, to dig up filth to smear on those it pleases. Others think that because nothing on twitter matters that twitter doesn’t matter. I think both views of twitter are wrong.
For example, Paul Sagar argues that Twitter is treated as something really important, and that really annoys him.
Twitter is little more than a bunch of idiots expressing half-baked thoughts, joining herds of other stampeding #idiots, and at very best linking their “followers” to other place that aren’t Twitter, where things of substance are actually going on.
There seems little better description of 90% of the human condition, the boring, mildly entertaining, benign, hilarious, passionate, confused, occasionally dull, and almost entirely inconsequential content of most of most of our lives.
I don’t say this to belittle human life – I agree with Brian Cox, human life is the wonder of the solar system – but I want to say that a lot of it, fun though it is, is unimportant. I think that’s an fairly uncontroversial position so long as you are not so self-absorbed that you consider any moment not worthy of record as not worthy of yourself.
99% of the time nothing on Twitter really matters, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used for something important, or that the links built on it can’t be transformed into something more. Inconsequential doesn’t mean not worthwhile.
The second way that twitter is “misused” is less of a misunderstanding and more of a clash of formats.
Twitter is in my view an extension of conversation. In a bar you can’t stop someone from talking to you or overhearing your conversation, likewise on twitter you can’t stop someone seeing your tweets. The difference however is important. Tweets are immemorial whereas speech is transitory.
Those who think it is unimportant because it is inconsequential should take another look at how important their day to day conversations are to them – and how important they might be if recorded for all time.
Likewise, those cynically exploiting Twitter for cheap dirt should reconsider how much credence they give to throw away comments when they would be inconsequential in everyday conversation – sooner or later they will end up looking like gossip mongers not investigative journalists.
—————
A longer version is at Left Outside
Election sexism watch (episode 1)
Introducing a new, month-long series, where I’ll be keeping a watchful eye on the meeja* and picking out some of the sexist-shite coverage of the General Election campaign.
Episode 1
From Andrew Pierce in yesterday’s Daily Mail:
Ugly rumours may cost Cash the cutie dear
Joanne Cash, the Conservative Party Alister, has been tipped for Cabinet office if she wins the marginal seat of Westminster North.
Tatler magazine has named her as one of the ten Tories to watch and Vogue included her as one of the top 50 women of the age.
Small wonder, then, that Ms Cash is pre-eminent among the telegenic Cameron cuties whom the Tories will be hoping to wheel before the cameras in the weeks ahead.
Why MPs should support libel costs reform
contribution by Jack of Kent
There is currently before Parliament a draft statutory instrument on reforming the obscene costs in libel cases. It may go to a vote of the House of Commons this week after being defeated in committee last week.
Both supporters and opponents contend this draft SI will have a dramatic effect should it be enacted.
The draft statutory instrument (SI) does not have a glamorous title – it is called The Conditional Fee Agreements (Amendment) Order 2010.
Nor is it very long: it has only three paragraphs, of which only one is substantive. Indeed, one could almost tweet it. The single substantive paragraph contains a single, simple provision.
continue reading… »
Catherine Bennett, free speech and the Chinese Communist Party
There was a time when I’d be awestruck by national columnists because of their stature and the belief that they had cast-iron arguments. There was even a point when I had high regard for Catherine Bennett.
But it strikes me that when your article compares lil’ ole me to the Chinese Communist Party on the premise that I was calling for the “gagging” of Rod Liddle – then I can’t help but question the author’s sanity.
But, you may have read her column in the Observer today. In it, she says:
For some on the left, progressiveness is denoted by the denial of platforms for one or more of the following: the BNP, Islamists, Israeli academics, climate change deniers, arrogant BBC comedians, newspaper columnists pushing their idea of “free speech” that bit too far. Last week, the progressive website Pickled Politics was enjoying the humbling of its current bête noir: “[Rod] Liddle doesn’t believe in free speech,” declared Sunny Hundal, “he simply believes in his right to say what he wants without regard for facts or any blowback.” Blowback? As in a critical response to one’s opinions? If so, it seems Tory commentators are apt to be equally heedless. At ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie has counselled offenders that “there is constructive criticism and there is destructive criticism. There is a time for debate on the right and a time to either be silent or gun for Labour”.
God knows what reassures such speakers that their high-minded support for gagging has absolutely nothing in common with, say, that of the Chinese communist party and, moreover, that they will never suffer the consequences of their own selective approach to free expression.
Breaking: Simon Singh wins libel appeal
Fantastic news from the Royal Courts of Justice, this morning, where Simon Singh has won his appeal for the right to rely on the defence of “fair comment” in the libel action brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association.
According to one tweet, from Jack of Kent, the judgement cites both Orwell and Milton – If M’luds are breaking out Areopagitica as an authority in a case of this kind then this really is going to be the landmark decision that Singh’s supporters [including me!] have been hoping for.
Why I opposed Libel costs reform yesterday
Yesterday, a Statutory Instrument that would have reformed costs in English libel cases was stalled at committee stage after several MPs voted to block a reduction of lawyers’ success fees from a 100 per cent mark-up to 10 per cent. Here, exclusively, Tom Watson explains why.
Libel reform campaigners, anxious for progress, understandably pressing for great change, do a disservice to the campaign if they focus their ire on the people who rejected the ill-conceived proposals, hurriedly presented yesterday in Committee Room 12 of the House of Commons.
Briefly, let me make the case for the libel reform I want to see.
- End libel tourism.
- I want the burden of proof rule to be reversed for big corporations who bully writers, creators and scientists.
- I would like to see a change to statute of limitations and the multiple publications rule that’s not fit for purpose in the digital age.
- I’d like to see a defence of “responsible journalism” defined in law.
- And I’d like the law of “criminal libel” to be junked in Scotland as it was South of the border last year.
I came to these conclusions, having heard evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee for our inquiry ‘Press Standards, Privacy and Libel’.
continue reading… »
PCC slams Rod Liddle for his racist blog posting
It’s wonderful to be back in London (I got back last night from back-packing around S.E. Asia) and get such a wonderful present on my return. Yesterday the PCC finally ruled on Rod Liddle’s blog post from December last year where he said London’s African-Caribbean youth were responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of violent crime in the capital and had given only “rap music” and “goat curry” in return.
You can read the PCC ruling here. What’s notable is that Rod Liddle tried to pass off his bigotry as fact, and when questioned the magazine was unable to offer proper evidence to support its case.
The Spectator magazine also refused to amend its own blog posting, as Roy Greenslade points out, and was ultimately forced to publish the ruling on its website.
The ruling has been called “significant” because it relates to a blog. I don’t think it is – the Spectator was only caught out because the magazine itself is regulated by the PCC. The PCC simply extended its mandate to include online content, as it should do.
Cameron’s gay rights gaffe
David Cameron recently stumbled his way through an interview with the Gay Times.
But interestingly, it wasn’t just the liberal-left media which reported this. Sky News and ITN covered the story, which originally broke into the mainstream via Channel 4. These news channels are hardly known for their pioneering pro-gay rights agenda – but they’re all carrying the story. Perhaps more surprisingly, the right-wing Telegraph is carrying the story on its news pages with a fairly critical angle, whilst The Times news blog declared “Cameron loses plot in gay interview”.
What’s especially significant here is both that the story is being widely covered, and that Cameron is being widely criticised. Not just for his indecision, but also for the fact Tory MEPs are apparently supporting homophobic actions in the European Parliament. This – as well as Cameron’s inability to answer questions about gay rights in a satisfactory manner – is being criticised across the political spectrum. That Cameron felt the need, post-interview, to re-iterate a Tory “commitment” to gay equality indicates that this was a major slip-up.
What does this tell us? Most importantly, that being homophobic is no longer publicly acceptable in our society. continue reading… »
Straw backs libel reform
In what is, for bloggers, very welcome news, Index on Censorship are reporting that Jack Straw has announced that the government believes the case for libel reform has been made, and that the Ministry of Justice will now move to make reforms to England’s defamation laws, potentially with a Libel Reform Bill.
In terms of the specifics, it appears that the pernicious Brunswick (multiple publication) rule will go and will be replaced with a single publication rule operating under a one year limit, but with scope to allow judges to extend that limit where necessary.
Consideration is also to be given to the creation of a statutory defence for publications that are in the public interest and to procedural changes designed to curb the growth in libel tourism.
All-in-all this appears to be several steps in the right direction and a significant victory for the ongoing Libel Reform campaign.
It is, however, only the beginning for campaigners.
What is now needed, and quickly, is the commitment of all the main political parties to, at least, the MOJ’s proposed reform package.
Cameron Aide’s girlfriend made ‘legal threat’ to web developer over #cashgordon debacle
One of the more curious episodes in yesterday’s #cashgordon debacle came by way of a tweet by “Jimmy Sparkle”, one of the techies who’s playing with the Tory’s new webtoy helped to break it.
Jimmy is a web developer and cheekily took advantage of the non-existent security on the Cash Gordon website’s twitter feed to tweet a segment of Javascript that, for a very brief period of time, redirected visitors to the Tory’s site to his own personal site. Sparkle Interactive.
Compared to some of the other redirection scripts posted to the site before the Tories took it down, which included a rickroll and the infamous Goatse (and if you don’t know what Goatse is, don’t search for it at work – you’ll get fired) Jimmy’s piece of scripting was one of the least contentious and inflammatory things tweeted to the site all day. Nevertheless, within a couple of hours of the site being taken down, Jimmy put up this tweet.
conservative party phoned my workplace claiming they may sue me for supposedly hacking their website… tweeting != hacking. lol #cashgordon
Pretty shabby, huh? continue reading… »
Venables journo has manslaughter conviction
This one come firmly from the file marked ‘You couldn’t make this up even if you worked for a tabloid’ via the offices of Private Eye.
If you look at the bylines under much of The Sun’s recent coverage/speculation about the recall of Jon Venables to prisons for as yet unknown breach of his licence terms, you’ll frequently find the name of the Sun’s Chief Reporter, John Kay.
What you won’t find in The Sun is any reference whatsoever to Kay’s 1977 conviction for the manslaughter (by diminished responsibility) of his Japanese wife after an apparent murder-suicide bid.
The story was, however, recorded by the Miami News who, on 21 December 1977, published this brief account of Kay’s efforts to end his own life…
John Kay, 33, drowned his wife in the bath, said the prosecutor in court at St. Albans, England. Then he tried six times to kill himself. First he slashed his wrists – but the cuts were not serious. So he threw himself head first out of a window, but landed on a plastic garbage can. Next he turned on the gas in the kitchen, but the oven had a self-lighting mechanism he was unable to put out. He tried to hang himself but couldn’t get into an effective position. He then stood on a bridge overlooking a bypass, but decided, remembering the window episode, it was not high enough. His final attempt: driving his auto full speed into a stationary car. Kay (a reporter, it must be recorded) lived, slightly injured, to tell the tale – in court.
I dunno about anyone else, but I can’t help thinking ‘Wasp Factory’ when reading that…
EDL, The Police and our Misleading Mainstream Media
The mainstream media reporting on Saturday’s English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism demonstrations in Bolton has proved worryingly misleading. It indicates that important lessons must be learned by UAF and all those who oppose the growth of the far-right EDL.
Frustratingly I was stuck in a 2-hour tailback on the M6 on Saturday morning, so missed the first stages of the counter-demo. However, I’ve been able to piece together the following from speaking to people in the afternoon and from media reports (though more on whether to trust those later).
Essentially, the EDL and UAF demos were scheduled to begin around 1pm. Greater Manchester Police had established two distinct protest areas for each group, separated by barriers (and later by police with dogs standing between the barriers). However, UAF protestors attempted to occupy the entire protest area in the morning, in a bid to deny the EDL the ability to protest at all. The police response was one of zero-tolerance: riot police and horses were sent in, and the area cleared. The majority of UAF arrests – that have been so publicised in the media – were therefore made in the morning before the EDL had arrived. Certainly, I only saw one arrest in the entire course of the afternoon, and nothing like the 55 reported. continue reading… »
Biased media reporting of Bolton EDL riots
I got this highlighted to me while travelling and thought it was worth flagging up. Expose the BNP points out what happened in Bolton and how the media help and aid fascists from the BNP and EDL:
Video on the Bolton News website makes it clear, however, that the violence was not coming from the anti-fascists. It shows an elderly veteran of World War 2 who had joined the protest, and UAF stewards can be heard urging protestors to stay calm in the face of apparent police efforts to provoke a riot.
The Bolton News had a reporter in Victoria Square who described on Twitter how EDL members had broken away from the square to cause violence: “Number of demonstrators intent on causing disorder have broken away from protest site. Large numbers of officers deployed to address.” The journalist saw “missiles flying” as the EDL tried to get out of its enclosure.
The BBC also lets the English Defence League people describe themselves as “a peaceful, non-political group” — which is of course pure rubbish. But this isn’t challenged at all. In the interests of “balance”, UAF spokespeople were not quoted.
Read the full report here
Vote Pirate Party
This originally appeared on Hagley Road to Ladywood’s pre-election series.
I voted for Labour in the last three General Elections. In ‘97 I did it with conviction and hope. Four years later, before the War on Terror and all that jazz, I voted Labour with quiet content. At the last election, despite my better judgement and deep anger at the party, I did so again.
I will not be voting Labour in the coming General Election.
The fact remains that some of my closest political friends are still deeply wedded to the party. They don’t have much love for Brown, and they’re not defenders of the Iraq War, but their loyalty is to the party, not the personalities of the current car-wreck of a government. I’ve always been a pragmatist, not a tribalist.
I toyed with voting, and campaigning for, the Lib Dems. But having ‘enjoyed’ many run-ins with leading Lib Dem bloggers, I found many of them to be insufferably self-righteous. I know Lib Dem bloggers who are great, but others seem to believe they have a monopoly on liberalism and a fabulous sense of their own importance.
So, I find myself without a natural home.
Recently I wrote encouraging voters to ignore the largely indistinguishable major parties and vote for the single issue that’s closest to their heart. For me, it is individual rights and the increasing illiberalism of our lawmakers. Following my own advice I’m inclined to vote for the Pirate Party UK. continue reading… »
Write a blog, kill your career?
I’ve spotted a couple of references recently to the ‘perfect memory’ of the Internet and how it can come back to haunt you in later life. It breeds a peculiar form of self-censorship. First, the now-outed Girl With A One Track Mind says:
I wish my blog wouldn’t continue to bite me on the arse (not in the good way); I’ve held my finger over “Delete Blog?” button so many times.
I can understand why Zoe might want to start afresh, but this sentiment feels wrong and offensive – like book burning.
The other worry is for those who might want to start a political career. James Joyner at the Outside the Beltway blog discusses Philosopher Kings and the potential for a blogger-turned politician. continue reading… »
Call to boycott Total Politics blog awards
This originally appeared on ‘Though Cowards Flinch’, here and here
It has come to our attention that the magazine ‘Total Politics’ is planning to publish an interview with Nick Griffin, the racist leader of the British National Party.
Yesterday, we made an initial call to bloggers to consider a boycott of this year’s ‘Total Politics Blog Awards’, in the event that this magazine chooses to publish as planned an extended interview with Nick Griffin, the racist leader of the BNP.
The initial call was greeted favourably by some bloggers who saw it, and we are therefore seeking to extend the call. continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civil cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
» The Labour leadership’s token contender.. and it’s not Diane Abbott
» In defence of these fraternal nominations
» Is this the end for the socialist left?
|
25 Comments 66 Comments 20 Comments 12 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Nick posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? » Bob B posted on Complete tits » Nick posted on Complete tits » Mike Killingworth posted on Complete tits » Mr S. Pill posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits » Matt Munro posted on Why I'm defending Ed Balls over immigration » Kate Belgrave posted on Complete tits » Kate Belgrave posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Obama is right to slam BP - and why capitalists should too » Thomas Hobbes posted on The Daily Mail and "Bongo bongoland" » Matt Munro posted on Complete tits » Matt Munro posted on Complete tits » Lee Griffin posted on Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed? |
