Of all the people you wouldn’t choose to comment on political disengagement, the media and blogging, I reckon that Hazel Blears would be pretty close to the top of the list and in an extract from a speech she’s to give to the Hansard Society, published by the Guardian, she provides ample demonstration why…
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.
Go on…
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”.
Blair’s speech hardly offered the most original analysis, most of it seemed to have been cribbed from comments made by Robin Cook is his account of his period as Leader of the House of Commons, ‘The Point of Departure‘, although what was most interesting in Blair’s speech was the extent to which he deviated from Cook’s analysis in a purely self-exculpatory fashion. While Cook saw the relationship between politicians and the media as, for good and for ill, a two-way street, and offered a sharp and critical commentary on both the press’ obsession with personalities and novelty and on politicians’ proensity for pandering to those obsessions in the search for a precious few inches of newsprint and a favourable headline, Blair chose simply to lay the blame solely at the door of the media, setting a precedent that Blears seems determined to follow.
And so we get this…
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.
So what you’re saying, Hazel, in a nutshell, is that free speech is only for politicians?
That’s what she seems to be implying here in talking about the ‘commentariat’ wielding influence and power without standing for office or being held to account by an electorate – only if you subject your views and opinions to a vote, of some description, do you have any legitimacy or authority -
- which is complete and utter rubbish.
There are numerous ways in which its possible to legitimate your views and opinions; and the two that I happen to have the greatest fondness for are the use of reasoned argument and evidence, the foundations of the Scientific Method. When Newton formulated his Laws of Motion and Gravity and Einstein his Special and General Theories of Relativity, these weren’t put up to vote before being accepted as expressions of fundamental truths about the universe. They stand up on their own merits – and Blear’s wishing to disagree with that then let’s see her introduce a bill into parliament to repeal the Law of Gravity.
In truth, her whinge about the views of the commenariat being perceived as being as important and authoritiative as those of an elected politican or cabinet minister seems faintly reminiscent of the kind of ‘but you’re just a bunch of amateurs’ whining that bloggers have periodically had to put up with from the professional commentariat over the last few years. Much as some commentators clearly hate having their opinions scrutinised and challenged by the great unwashed of the blogosphere, forgetting (of course) that its often us bloggers who’re far better qualified to offer informed commentary than most journalists, so Blears seems to resent the Toynbee’s, Porter’s and Parris’s impinging on what she believes to be her territory.
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.
Really?
That’s funny – some members of the commentariat has done little else but complain about the scrunity they’ve been subjected to by bloggers since the medium emerged sufficiently for the MSM to sit up and take notice, all of which seems to point to the fact that Blears just hasn’t got the first idea what she’s talking about.
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.
Ah, so now we get to the nub of Blears speech – the media spends too much time publishing other people’s opinions, many of which are critical of government, rather than supinely running cut’n'paste articles based on official press releases – and this from a member of a government that’s been more notorious than most for its inability to grow a pair and argue back whenever the right-wing tabloids start whipping up a bout of synthetic apoplexy.
That’s the real issue here – the point at which the cozy nexus between politicians and the press actually starts to poison the public narrative and undermine democracy, the point at which Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre shout ‘jump’ and the government scrambles round in a blind panic trying to figure out how high off the floor they need to get to keep their media overlords happy.
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’s a slight problem with that particular piece of analysis.
It’s all very well flagging up that its only around half a dozen right-wing blogs, at most, who’ve been putting up the big traffic numbers and suggesting that this is ‘simply anti-establishment’ and due to blogging having emerged only during the period in which Labour has been in office, but if that’s what she’s thinking then how does she account for the fact that most of the leading liberal and left-wing blogs are equally anti-establishment across a range of key issues from Iraq through to the government’s near-constant assaults on civil liberties and the systematic construction of the database state.
The problem that the current goverment has isn’t that there’s a general lack of popular or influential left-of-centre blogs, its that its policies on Iraq, etc. cost it the support of the vast majority of major players in the left-of-centre blogosphere, most of whom are at least semi-detached from the Labour Party if not operating fully within a broad ‘independent left’ category.
There are some informative and entertaining political blogs, including those written by elected councillors.
Now we know for sure that she hasn’t got a clue. With a few notable exceptions, like Bob Piper and Tom Watson, the majority of blogs run by elected politicians, and especially councillor-run political blogs, are amongst the most insipid and tedious you’ll find anywhere in the political blogosphere.
Just from scraping the current Bloggers$Labour feed for a few choice examples, some of today’s gems include…
Welly Washing
After all the recent rain, South Park was a sea of mud. Fortunately, we’d taken our wellies, and afterwards plodded back to the car, which I’d parked in Abbots Yard…
Ooooh! Aaaah!
Tens of thousands of people were the audience in South Park last night for the annual Fireworks Display.
Creating the annual event was one of Labour’s first initiatives when we came to office back in 1991 – it’s been a huge success…
Visit to Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College
Today I attended the Council of Gurdwaras South East celebrations of the 300th Anniversary of the Gurgaddi Diwas. the year when the formal status of Guru was awarded to the holy book of the Sikhs the Guru Granth Sahib…
Patients’ No.1 priority: better access to GPs
Earlier this Summer I launched a survey seeking your views on the NHS at 60 and received lots of really useful replies. Now. the Conservatives are doing the same.
That’s pretty much the sum total of what you get from councillors and even a few MPs – nothing that wouldn’t get in you local weekly free paper and certainly nothing that might challenge an official party line ot run the risk of falling foul of a complaint to the Standards Board.
Obama will the US Presidential Election, and all that one councillor can find to talk about are his wellies…
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.
Okay, so I’ll plead to the unearthing ‘scandals’ in as much as anyone has been scandalised by some of my investigative material on far-right BNP nutballs and conspiraloon, and yes, I’m certainly hypocrite intolerant as well but let’s be careful here an not confuse disdain for our current crop of politicians and the current political system with a disregard for democracy and democratic values – its a deeply and passionately held belief in the latter that drives and animates much of the writing and commnetary emanating from Britain’s political blogosphere.
Even allowing for the likes of Guido, its not us who’rre poisioning the democratic well, its the combination of media thrives on synthetic outrage and a supine political class that too scared to argue back – politicians bought wholesale into the myth that newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Mail are the ‘authentic voice’ of the British public and carry enough influence to swing an election result and they’ve been running scared ever of Murdoch and Dacre ever since.
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.
Now there’s a challenge if ever I heard one – just beware what you wish for Hazel, you may just get it!
Well said.
If ever there was an example of New Labour’s inability to ‘get’ either Web 2.0 or why left/liberal bloggers aren’t ‘on message’, Blears’ approach is it. Also, her timing is spectacularly bad, given Obama’s victory, how he achieved it, his use of the internet and a less centralised approach to activism, and his overall message of hope. All I see with Blears is yet another attempt by the government to say ‘Why can’t you report the nice things we do?’ at the same time they kow tow to every right-wing vested interest they can find.
“left-wing blogs are equally anti-establishment across a range of key issues from Iraq through to the government’s near-constant assaults on civil liberties and the systematic construction of the database state.”
Ah yes, but you are using ‘left’ and ‘right’ in a different way from Hazel the Squirrel. To her “right-wing” is somewhere further down the same axis as “irresponsible” implying you are actively malevolent rather than a mere patsy playing into the hands of more dangerous enemies of the people (such as, say, me) by asking questions. It’s a boo-word to bludgeon people who dissent from the authoritarian communalism of government policy, not a term of political analysis. If you oppose the database state or defend civil liberties you _are_ right-wing and irresponsible in her terms.
“So what you’re saying, Hazel, in a nutshell, is that free speech is only for politicians?”
Absolute bollocks.
What she is saying is what everyone else in parliament agrees with, that free speech is irrelevant if nobody is listening – complain to a brick wall and the only thing you’ll get back is an echo.
Her comments came in part of a speech that was all about tightening up consultation procedures to link in complaints by forcing local authorities to agree ways to respond to them.
Why shout in the wilderness and whine about the waste of tax-payers money when there are already dedicated staff to deal with your problems paid for by us but who are underemployed by us?
In all your blogging I have to ask you – do you want to become famous, or do you want your problems sorted out? If it’s the former then Blears is absolutely correct that you are a prime example of the cynicism contributing to the apathy, ignorance and disorder of this country.
It doesn’t help that the only two blogs Blears apparently reads are run by a drink-driving knobstone and a passive-aggressive Tory propagandist with a neat line in character assassination by proxy. She needs to get out more, figuratively speaking.
Ah, hello, “thomas”. Community activism, care in the community, which is it?
“In all your blogging I have to ask you – do you want to become famous, or do you want your problems sorted out?”
Is that a straw man I smell burning in the breeze?
Of course, it’s not as if our esteemed government has ever given us anything to be cynical about. Still, at least you haven’t suggested compulsory registration of bloggers. Yet.
Toodle pip.
Last night on Newsnight Arianne Huffington claimed that one of the factors which led to Barack Obama’s win was the internet. I agree with her. Therefore, I believe that political blogging is good for democracy. Hazel Blears is, of course, tunnel-visioned and would see more if she removed her nose from Iain Dale’s bum!
Darsh,
stop trying to score points, I’m not precious about it.
This SCA is a huge electoral gamble for Labour which depends on Labour being the only party which takes advantage of the powers within it so that they can turn them to their ends.
Labour candidate saves post office etc, Labour candidate wins more votes… why can’t Conservative or LibDem candidate save Post Office etc? because Con and LD parties disregarded the potential uses of the act.
What this means is we get a country inspired by Brown and Blears and Balls vision and when we finally do get rid of them we are left with an even bigger hole to dig ourselves out of.
Oh joy!
Well said.
And after yesterday’s debacle on the Guardian website, we know what we are up against.
Is this what you mean:
http://darrylbeckford.blogspot.com/
Still, the most demented blogger of all has now started a family business.
I don’t much disagree with you on Blears although I do resent the tax bung to the Guardian through the appointment contract and the BBC which warps the media leftwards .
You say ….
‘There are numerous ways in which its possible to legitimate your views and opinions; and the two that I happen to have the greatest fondness for are the use of reasoned argument and evidence, the foundations of the Scientific Method‘.
As all political views will claim “scientific†support , that leaves us back where we were and as the moral questions which lie heart the heart of much politics are not amenable to so called scientific method this is conceited drivel .When I come to think of it science has been called upon to support some especially nasty policies eugenics springs to mind ( Perhaps that’s why the Fabians were so keen on it ). How does science evaluate the sacrifice of freedom for safety for example ? Scientifically , I can see no good reason not to beat babies over the head should they be inconvenient up the age of about six months. This is about the stage at which their relatives in the ape family would emerge frpm the womb , human babies do remarkably early . They are little more than eating and crapping machines for the duration I can promise you ( I would not want to participate in such an activity myself gut I have no doubt scientists could prove me foolish ) Why not eat them ? I believe it has been suggested , after all cows feel pain.
This belief in science animated both Marxists and fascists in various ways a fact I find telling about the attitude of the left to democracy and humanity . Indifference and contempt
Anyway I popped in to mention that if you think Browns sudden discovery that lunatic borrowing is a cure for the recession and not a consequence of it then you must be a New Labour parroting cretin . Do you think the last ten years have been getting your Keynesian retaliation in early ? With Debt at the level it was and the entirely predictable effect on both welfare need and tax receipts recession brings there is no choice . If you are unable to admit that this is , for the most part at least, a transparent lie then you do not deserve any hearing . Keynsian economics never suggested you drive the country into penury during a boom and don’t quote international comparisons at me they are meaningless as the flight form Stirling shows and Brown knows ( Hence the golden rule ).
On swingeing cuts to social services I would agree but it is entirely anachronistic to draw comparisons with 1930s America as no-one is suggesting any such levels of welfare ( none virtually ). The contemporary point is this .With the private sector having had their pensions stolen , with insecure jobs and facing a brutal shake out the moral case for feather bedding Labour’s friends in the Public sector is weaker even than before .Personally I would like to see sound money cuts to the public sector and we will probably need tax rises as well. That way we might return to sustainable national prosperity. Thanks to Brown’s lie we are now in a la la land in which money does not have to be repaid and economic strength is developed from keeping the Public Sector Unions happy .
PS Since you call me Paul ( Do you think I value my ‘mystique’ you twit ..ha ha ) , I thought I`d mention that the choice of ‘Unity’ for a name left me with the impression you were a woman .Actually I assumed you were fascist sympathising woman . Perhaps I am right., lets ask a scientist shall we ?
Let’s ask someone who has the vaguest idea about the works of Alan Moore instead, eh Newmania? By the way, I missed wherever Unity called you Paul, but thanks for drawing it to my attention….
To be fair, I’m a Tory councillor in the North and I got chewed up and eaten alive by the press for a post on knife crime, where I suggested that maybe, just maybe, knives weren’t so bad (why to God, I chose to describe my own as cool, I’ll never know) and maybe, just maybe, it was the psychotic little fellows using them that were the real problem.
And guess what? I’ve been reported to the Standards Board of England and Wales. Took me only four months of being in office.
Everybody hates a libertarian, especially the clumsy mouthed ones.
Sadly, Philip, the situation you describe is all too common and you’re certainly not the only councillor (or blogger) who’d cheerfully see the Standards Board consigned to the dustbin of really dumb ideas.
Unity, am I okay to label you as a Labour member on my blog roll? Your Liberal conspiracy bit says you are but your acid-dipped dissection of the party’s senior members casts some doubts. I’m no fan of the party-system but it helps guide the readers.
Sure, just put me down as a Labour member in the party’s great tradition of internal dissent and in-fighting
Excellent, I think any sort of dissent is a good thing, if only in the intellectual challenge it provokes. The only opinions I hate are the ones that insist on uniformity. It’s probably why I’m having such a hard time in politics.
Sadly, Philip, the situation you describe is all too common and you’re certainly not the only councillor (or blogger) who’d cheerfully see the Standards Board consigned to the dustbin of really dumb ideas.
Now there I agree with you entirely , but I have no idea what the reference to Alan Moore is .He was a KA of Michale Moorcock in whose books a volutuous bisexula dominatrix called Unity appeared I recall .Is that it ?
Not quite.
The Alan Moore reference in V for Vendetta. Moore has worked with Mike Moorcock and wrote the foreword to Firing the Catherdral, the most recent of Moorcock’s Jerry Cornelius collections, but the dominatrix is Miss Bruner and not Una Persson, who I think you referring to as Unity.
@chippy – What an honour.