Guido Fawkes is a blogging nuisance
Some of you may find this more amusing than others, but its worth highlighting as an example of how one “leading blogger” is trying to strangle any criticism of his activities.
Last week Tuesday Aaron linked to this blog post by Tim Ireland on Bloggerheads, which accused Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) of getting up to all sorts of things, including using the Conservative Party’s email systems for himself (incidentally, a security breach), using other people’s images without attribution and nicking their bandwidth.
Quick off the mark, although I didn’t read it until much later, I was sent an email by Staines threatening to take me to court for the link. He was: “not minded to not pursue this just because you withdraw it at a later date.” That is quite a threat. I was asked to get in touch soon or else. “And I won’t leave the pistol in the holster this time,” he ended.
continue reading… »
This not so charming man
A couple of weeks back, the right-wing columnist Richard Littlejohn made a vile attack on Gordon Brown in which he made reference to his “kiddie fiddler smile.” That estimable blogger Paul Burgin was one of those who were suitably outraged, expressing the view that Littlejohn should not be allowed to get away with such a “joke.”
I left the following comment on his blog:
“It’s not a joke, Paul, it’s a deadly serious attempt by the right to fix the idea of Gordon as a “weirdo” in the public mind. It’s not just the likes of Littlejohn who are doing it, you can see also see it happening on all the leading right-wing blogs.”
When I wrote this, I had in mind a particularly disgusting post on Guido in which a sock-puppet called “Stanislav” claimed the Prime Minister was suffering from chronic mental illness as a result of having repressed his homosexuality, and that marrying Sarah and having children as the prospect of No 10 drew closer had essentially been a front.
Of course, David Cameron would never utter such contemptible rubbish. But nevertheless, it’s clear from his interview with the new Times editor this morning, in which he describes Mr Brown as “that strange man in Downing Street,” that portraying his opponent as somehow not one of us is a key part of the Tory leader’s political strategy.
Mr Cameron clearly wants to portray himself as This Charming Man, and Brown as This Strange Man, but if the public has any sense it will backfire. What on earth gives Cameron the right to describe another man as “strange” and by what measure of “normality” does he seek to judge the Prime Minister?
We are all individuals, and the fact that, like Esau, Gordon Brown is not a “smooth” man does not necessarily make him a bad man. Increasingly, for the political and media class, it seems that the worst crime is to be different.
* Cross-posted on my own blog.
Sunny adds: I also love Anthony Barnett’s response to this.
The new breed, same as the old breed
Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of American blogger Matt Drudge breaking the story of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Things were never the same again. The world was rocked to its foundations by the astounding news that older men like getting their knobs sucked by younger women.
There were many crimes committed by the Clinton Whitehouse. However, I don’t think there are many sane people in the world who think Bill getting a nosh from an intern was one of them. Or at least one of the major ones. How the odd happy finish from Monica impeded the Clinton presidency before right-wing prurience attempted to derail it has never been adequately explained to me.
Still, we are where we are. In his paean to Drudge, Guido Fawkes somewhat prematurely hails his hero’s coup as the end ‘once and for all [of] the gate-keeper ability, if not the mentality, of the mainstream media elite’.
Guido’s love letter to his mentor is interesting in that it fails to offer a qualitative judgement of how things have changed. How much Drudge earns and where that income allows him to live seem to be the essential yardsticks rather than any explicit estimate of whether what he produces is any good. That people in large numbers are prepared to consume a product is not always the most reliable gauge of quality. It’s a thought that’s kept the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Bernard Matthews and Noel Edmonds warm for many a year.
continue reading… »
The Diana non-story continues
Like most rational human beings, I gave up on the Princess Diana “story” a long time ago. Although my very first reaction when I heard about her death was to assume that the secret services had bumped her off, the idea of the Duke of Edinburgh as some sort of murderous eminence grise is simply not credible.
So I reckon Roy Greenslade’s call for editors to stop reporting the increasingly tedious Diana Inquest is probably quite timely.
But it seems to me there is a slightly deeper issue here to do with the nature of modern journalism which I am surprised that Greenslade, as a media commentator, does not address more fully. It concerns what I would term “journalism without context.”
continue reading… »
The BBC and political education
Iain Dale makes it difficult to take the right seriously when it comes to criticism of the BBC. Yesterday he ranted against the BBC for attacking “commercial publishers of educational political content”, and added in a Times article: “Not all of us want children emerging from the educational system with a BBC-engendered outlook.”
This is a result of a speech by director-general Mark Thompson yesterday that I was invited to. I’m betting Iain didn’t read the full speech at the time he offered his excellent analysis because he completely misses the point.
Thompson’s speech, which is better summarised here, was about how the media can help build trust between the public and politicians. You can read the full version here. It was a fairly sophisticated speech and quite self-critical of the BBC’s own mistakes over the summer. For reasons that I will have outlined in this article, I wasn’t that impressed by it. I don’t think the director-general went far enough. But to view it simply as an attempt to crowd out other political education providers is laughable.
Thompson’s premise was that people are suspicious of politicians because, despite being closer to the politicians than ever, they don’t understand the political process very well. And he wasn’t referring to political bloggers / readers like you and I. So the BBC wants to address that by trying to educate people about what the political process is and what is going on. What exactly could be wrong with that? To get this reaction out of that speech is simply absurd.
Moments and Momentum
I note that the last seven posts on the Liberal Conspiracy have been about the US Primaries (I’ve been posting musings at my own place too). This might seem odd for a group site that is supposedly concerned with the direction of the British Liberal-Left.
But let us have no apologies. Who can blame us for lapping up anything which undermine the cynicism of politics-as-usual? In analysing yesterday’s Democrat debate, Xpostfactoid makes some interesting points about the nature of politics and campaigning:
Politics is almost literally all talk. You’ve got to be good in the cloak room, at the negotiating table, on the debate floor. What gives a politician the ultimate strength to push through change, though, is to convince the mass of voters to support his or her effort for something major like health care reform. “Don’t discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens.” That says it all. That’s a real political philosophy at its deepest. (via Andrew)
It also provokes column inches and blog posts, generating a momentum that magnifies such power. As we await the next wave of primaries, it is beginning to feel as if our American cousins are about to create a historical, political ‘moment’ that has spun out of control of the spinners. The last such ‘moment’ we had in British Politics was Mr Brown’s clammy handling of the early election decision. You will excuse me if I keep my attention fixed on New Hampshire, where altogether more inspiring events are unfolding.
Newsnight vs Policy Exchange
The argument between Newsnight and Policy Exchange is, quite rightly, carrying on. On Monday The Times published an apology to the MCB’s Dr Abdul Bari for claiming the East London Mosque was responsible for hate-literature Policy Exchange had unearthed.
That evening, writing on Newsnight’s blog, journalist Richard Watson said:
A professional document examiner found evidence that three of the receipts may have been fabricated. Later, we had concerns about the authenticity of another receipt – from Al Muntada mosque in south west London – so that makes a total of six questionable receipts.
Now it seems that there are doubts about the quality and reliability of the research in a seventh case – East London Mosque.
…
This then is very similar to the scenario set out to us by the management at Tawhid mosque in Leyton, a case we did feature in our film. Policy Exchange has accepted its researcher bought books from the bookshop next door but argue it was justified in saying in the report that they came from the mosque because, they say, its researcher was led from the mosque into the bookshop to buy the books – and that means the mosque approved the material. If this was the case, then why is this not spelled out in the report?And by the way, we still haven’t had an answer from Policy Exchange to that simple question: do they believe all of the receipts are genuine?
Dean Godson’s illustrious past
Over the last few days, there has been much said about Dean Godson, Policy Exchange’s “Research Director”. His appearance on Newsnight to defend P.E.’s report into extremist literature was quite extraordinary. Here are some interesting facts about Mr Godson.
Most notably, he holds the extraordinary distinction of having lost his position at the Daily Telegraph because of his political views. Back in 2004, Martin Newland, former Telegraph editor, explained to the Guardian:
It’s OK to be pro-Israel, but not to be unbelievably pro-Likud Israel, it’s OK to be pro-American but not look as if you’re taking instructions from Washington. Dean Godson and Barbara Amiel were key departures.
Dean Godson was too pro-Likud and too subservient to the US government for the Telegraph. Given the writers they happily still employ, you’ve got to wonder just how extreme his own views must be.
continue reading… »
Policy Exchange, Newsnight and hate literature
The Tory think tank, The Policy Exchange is under fire from Newsnight. At stake, specifically, is the credibility of their recent report, the Hijacking of British Islam.
More generally at stake is the reputation of The Policy Exchange itself.
Osama Saeed summarises the Newsnight allegations as follows:
Tonight’s Newsnight investigation into The Policy Exchange’s recent report on extremism in British mosques found major irregularities with the receipts that the think tank handed them to investigate the issue further:
- Receipts from North London mosque’s bookshop, when the mosque doesn’t have a bookshop. Forensic examination revealed that the receipt’s heading had been printed on an inkjet printer – when usual procedure for such pieces of paper would be mass printing
- Receipts from other mosques printed entirely on inkjet printers
- A receipt for Euston Mosque with the address on it being for the mosque next door to it on North Gower Street (who would have thought that two mosques next door to each other would be an advantage one day!)
- Forensic tests that found handwriting matching on two separate receipts for different mosques
- Forensic tests showing that the writing on one receipt had been done on top of another receipt for an entirely different mosque
What did we do to you?
Not that I feel sorry for her, but Melanie Phillips is an easy target for ridicule and incredulity from the left (including on Liberal Conspiracy here and here). Her fearsome seriousness, her apocalyptic pronouncements and above all her journey from Guardianista to neo-con positively invite the ‘Mad Mel’ jibes (not that I approve of them – abuse is a poor tactic in political discussion). It’s quite a journey from the liberal left to defending intelligent design and denying man-made global warming. But however shocking Phillips’s journey has been and however far-right her current ideas are, I don’t think that those of us who criticise her have fully appreciated the depths of her disillusionment.
Take this recent post on her blog, in which she satirises Suffolk County Council’s considering ways to remove stiles and other obstacles with the aim of making rural pathways accessible to people in wheelchairs:
Yess!! Obviously thousands of people in wheelchairs, who would otherwise think nothing of bowling along rutted countryside paths studded with tree roots, rocks and boulders, fallen branches, overhanging brambles, mud swamps and other impedimenta to progress which make them such a challenge for the able-bodied, are being stymied by the kissing-gate.
And why stop there? What about dodgem cars? Ice rinks? Bungee jumping? Formation water-skiing? SAS training? How many wheel-chair users can take part in these activities, then, eh?? We should hang our heads in shame.
End rustic disablism now! We need a new methodology of the stile.
This post took my breath away. I’d read about the Suffolk initiative as well and saw it as interesting and well-intentioned, if maybe impractical. Yet Phillips sees this as worthy of the most vituperative ridicule.
There seems to be three main principles behind the scorn:
- A conservatism so extreme that any attempt at making life easier for a minority is instantly distrusted.
- A deep-rooted belief that social policy should be majoritarian – attempts to cater for minorities should be rejected.
- A conviction that the only response to physical and other forms of disability should be stoicism and a refusal to look to the wider society for improvements to one’s quality of life.
I think it is worth trying to grapple with these principles as I don’t think Melanie Phillips is alone in holding them. They represent an absolutely implacable refusal of the idea that life can be improved. They reject the very idea of social policy as anything other than reactive and repressive. How can these ideas be combatted?
The other question that Melanie Phillips’s work raises is: what did the liberal-left do to her? What caused this radical turning away from any kind of belief in a better society? Above all, why do those who turn away from the left end up attacking it so viciously?
Fight fight fight!
Melanie Phillips, that journalistic voice of sanity, is in a tizzle again. Guess who with? No it’s not gays, feminists or Muslims. Or even the whole world. No, it’s Guido Fawkes. Oh, and the Telegraph. Couldn’t happen between a nicer set of people to be honest. Who will you be rooting for?
Morrissey: Oh god not again!
I see my hero Morrissey is in a spot of bother with the NME again, this time for failing to hold views that they find acceptable on the subject of immigration. The last time some of you may recall he was in hot water for being racist, not that he actually did anything racist unless you count waving a union flag at a concert as racist. Which I accept that some folk do for reasons that are utterly beyond me.
I remember it well because I was in my final years of school at the time and I incurred the wrath of the folk with Anti-Nazi League stickers on their schoolbags for being an unrepentant fan. They of course were easily dealt with by asking them how in a school with a population that was 60% Asian they had managed to avoid making one single Asian friend or acquaintance. But that was fifteen years ago. More recently I found myself in the remarkable and unique position of receiving death threats and abusive emails of a mainly graphically sexual and sexist nature after this appeared on Indymedia whilst also receiving threatening emails from folk claiming to be affiliated with the BNP for some snide remark or another. Mind you it’s nice that both the racists and anti-racists have something to unite them even if it his just their violent urges towards women.
continue reading… »
Politics and the web
<shameless plug>on Sunday, Radio 4’s Westminster Hour had a special supplement on Power and the Web, presented by Spectator editor Matthew D’ancona. Though I briefly feature near the end, the programme is worth listening to despite the damage I may do to your ears. The second part goes out Sunday December 2 at 10.45pm and will mention Liberal Conspiracy.</shameless plug>
Ken Livingstone’s report on Islamophobia
The long delayed, Livingstone report on Islamophobia and the UK Media was finally been published this week. Between £30,000 and £50,000 of public money has apparently been spent on this report.
Frankly, all you need to know about this report, can be determined by the following facts. One of the authors is Inayat Bunglawala. Two of the other authors are Mohammed Abdul Aziz and Tariq Hameed. All three of them – that is, one third of the team – are Muslim Council of Britain activists. No muslim, unconnected to the MCB, were appointed to the committee.
One of the major themes of the report is that the Muslim Council of Britain has been unfairly criticised by journalists. So, in effect, what has happened is this. Ken Livingstone has given tens of thousands of pounds of public money to fund a report, co-authored with the Muslim Council of Britain’s spokesmen, in which newspapers and television stations are criticised for pointing out that the MCB is a promoter of the politics of the Islamist far right.
Precisely what this has to do with the representation of ordinary muslims in the British media is unclear to me. It seems to have rather more to do with Ken Livingstone doing a favour for one of his allies. Isn’t that a scandal?
continue reading… »
A good clean fight?
It’s all very well wanting a civilised, engaging debate on the Internet but some of the Left’s opponents aren’t interested in fighting fair. They’ve taken the gloves off. On some prominent right-wing blogs debate is at a standstill with homophobia and defamation becoming tools of the trade. But the way the owners of these blogs behave, getting redress for a slur on your character is fast becoming impossible.
Now, many people put this down to the normal Punch and Judy of blogs and blogging but when this is happening on what the media regard as the go-to blogs, it means trouble for all of us who have higher hopes for the blogging medium. You can’t ignore these people and expect them to go away. They’re the shock troops of a resurgent Tory party.
Comments deleted to shape the narrative of discussions. Criticism ‘disappeared’. Offensive, libellous comments left unchecked to be catalogued by Google for anyone to find. A refusal to give a right of reply to those who have been slurred. Leading right-wing bloggers are creating an atmosphere in which the admission of fault and the apology are taboo; they have their own ‘reputations’ to protect after all. People on the wrong end of this treatment find themselves in a dead end. Sooner or later one of them is going to have to reach for a lawyer to get redress. Anybody got a few grand to spare?
Why should liberal-left bloggers be concerned? So far, the big guns of Tory blogging have given left-wing bloggers a free pass because until recently most of us spent our time attacking the various sins of the Blair government. It was a marriage of convenience. But try sniffing around how prominent Tory bloggers conduct themselves and you’re off the Christmas card list pretty damn quick. ‘Stalker’, ‘obsessive’ and worse are the labels you can expect to have pinned to you by them if you dare to press for a straight answer to a straight question. Their online supporters (and they do have a lot of supporters) will question your mental health and your sexuality and libel you under the cover of anonymity. And you get no right of reply.
It pains me that more left-wing, Liberal, liberal and decent right-wing bloggers don’t get stuck in on this. Come a Conservative administration this could very well be the norm in political blogging instead of the behaviour of a just handful of high-profile opportunists. It’s a disease and it’s spreading fast. Tory central office would be fools if they aren’t paying attention to how debate can be controlled and opponents smeared online. At least one Tory MP has already adopted some of the tactics.
I have a feeling that a lot of bloggers trying to stick it to a future Tory government and their online cheerleaders in a few years time are going to wish they’d paid more attention to what’s going on right now. Sooner or later they’re going to target someone you care about. Real world reputations are at stake and are being damaged. It’s time to get in the ring and go toe to toe.
Those Daily Mail Readers
I have heard it twice in seven days. Twice, at two very interesting events, run by two very respectable think-tanks: Its those dreaded Daily Mail readers who are to blame.
In both cases, that journal was being used as a convenient short-hand – to signify something right-wing, reactionary, and irrational. The implication is that there are all these subscribers out there who are somehow intractable. A block of voters who can be persuaded of nothing.
There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago, comparing David Cameron to Hilary Clinton. Both politicians, said Andrew Sullivan, are “scared of what they believe”. They are under the impression that the rest of their country does not share their politics. And so they triangulate and obfuscate.
I think a similar fear is being expressed when the left-winger cites the problem of the Daily Mail. But while both Clinton and Cameron’s fears may actually be justified, I think the lefty’s worries are pretty groundless. First, I think popular culture is against the Mail: Think of the ridicule piled upon it on by those TV panel shows, or in the blogosphere. Second, the idea that any section of the population is a single-minded Mobb, is as false as it is patronising.
Worse, though, is that it is defeatest. Assume that Daily Mail readers are a lost cause, and your own campaign becomes a lost cause too. We need to be more confident in the power of our own arguments, and make better arguments too. Not even the government is doing that at the moment. The Daily Mail does not represent the bulk of British opinion: It represents what a small number of editors think British opinion should be.
So, by all means let us continue fisk and critique articles in the Mail, but let’s have a moratorium on the clichés of the dreaded ‘Daily Mail Readership’. If you want to invoke a bogey-man, well, there’s always The Daily Express Readership instead. They’re still fair game.
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?
|
26 Comments 66 Comments 20 Comments 12 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » sally posted on Complete tits » Joanne Dunn posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Lovely Lynnette Peck posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » 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" |
