Posted by dereklane
on November 2, 2009, 11:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Just before we draw the line under this"
" I'm afraid it is your scare-quote drenched litany of insufficiently "risqué" words and phrases that comes across as superficial"
'Scare-quote drenched litany' - none so bitter as a Wearing scorned...
I do recall a time not so long ago where prose drenched with scare-monging was proliferated by yourself (think BNP)....
David, John Hilley is a great writer, and thinker. I'd urge you to read some of his work before deciding you're going to attempt to crush him as well as D Edward and Cromwell in your attempt to assuage your guilt for appearing in the pages of the Guardian.
The thing is, the more you decide to use angry language against people, the more they're likely to use it back. You may feel morally or intellectually superior, but, in these pages, the only ones who truly are are those refusing to rise to the bait (which excludes you or I).
In terms of right and wrong, black and white, well, they're not so obvious as we would wish.
Both John and the editors have spent patient years collecting the data on what can and cannot be printed in the press, along with the balance of opinions that routinely show there. It isn't an empirical issue, as we all know, although there have been some thoughtful empirical studies done in the area of the media which show, at the very least, a decided bias (I remember reading some here, if anyone else recalls and wishes to post). But the fact is, the editors have a point, and John has a point about the lack of risque in your piece, as painful as that might be.
Its not even, in my opinion, all that useful, though I don't disagree with the sentiment of any of it (that is, we are in agreement on the problems you raise, just not on solutions). It talks a lot about things we could offer' to the government to fix things, or, failing that, start our own party:
"And in the absence of backing from a major political party, what actions can progressive people take to get these ideas on to the agenda? Genuine change in British foreign policy remains possible, but it requires a broad and dedicated effort from across civil society to take the initiative."
The question isn't asked why noone has thought of this before, or why the government hasn't taken up these things, or why they're not already very seriously talked about. In all those things, the media plays a vital role. We are, if not told what to think, we are told what to think about. *That* is the media's role. So the media does play a vital role here, in all this, and needs to be a part of that discussion - every time.
Also, medialens are a part of the 'broad and dedicated effort' you speak about. The editors have recognised that if you want new ideas to be seriously listened to, you're going to have to seriously reform the media first, to allow these things to be said freely and overtly (not in the cif back pages, or rather the backpages of the cif, at the whim of editors who overwhelmingly publish proestablishment pieces).
This is why (I guess) they complimented you on the article but pointed out all the reasons why it, and other articles like it, aren't all that worth getting excited about.
I'd say the fundamental problem here (for you) is being disagreed with - it happens routinely on this board whenever someone makes the mistake of doing it. The scorn and sarcasm and straw man finding and bombastic insult sharing all come out. Disagreement *can* be done civilly. We used to do it quite a bit on this board.
But there are good points you make - people do find the occassional fig leaf dissident in the mainstream, and get lead somewhere better by them. As I said, this was my path to realising there was a lot I'd been missing, so I can hardly disagree with the fact that, at least sometimes, such writing is useful. But it also has the back hander of giving credence to such media outlets that wouldn't otherwise be there.
So, by saying we need dissidents in the msm, you're also saying we need the msm (because one helps keep the other). If we doubt that, we need only ask 'why do they then keep employing them, but in small measures?' If they didn't need them, surely it would be easier on editors all round not to have to edit and read and reject quite so many articles? They could have a 3 strikes and you;re out system for such people - put a piece I don't like on my desk 3 times in a row, and you can forget about the fourth, because from thereon in, it'll be going straight in the bin.
John's right - they're not particularly risky things you said in your article. They're left wing in a mainstream way. I say this, because the options of putting these things to the main parties, and if they reject them, setting up your own are all things that mainstream voices have said before, often, as though these things are a possibility and we have a democracy already, if only people got off their bums to exercise their wills.
The idea is that the mainstream system is a legitimate one, it just needs good ideas. The non mainstream position, the risque notion, would be to say that the present system, short of dismantlement, from media to government to elite, is irretrievable corrupt, which is the truth. One of the parts, either to bring down the media, or the government, or the elite management of both, might point us in the right direction. I doubt that would be allowed to be said in the mainstream. It would very likely be considered treasonous.
cheers,
Derek
--Previous Message--
:
: Seriously risqué discussion, on the other
: hand, would show how the Guardian itself has
: specifically contributed to Britain's
: foreign policy “deficit” through its
: war-rationalising editorials. Even more
: risqué would be Rusbridger and the Guardian
: permitting any such criticism within its own
: pages. That's the true content measure of
: dissenting output.
:
: John, lets be crystal clear about this shall
: we? No mainstream political party, no major
: newspaper, and no "concerned
: policy-maker inside the foreign office"
: is considering, after the next election,
: implementing a programme of:
:
: * Total, immediate and unilateral nuclear
: disarmament
: * The end of all UK support for tyrannies
: such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the
: Gulf States
: * The end of all support for Israel
: * The total withdrawal of all UK armed
: forces from Western Asia and the end of all
: further aggression in the region
: * The end of the British arms industry
: * The end of the British financial sector as
: we know it today; and
: * Serious measures to end the threat of
: climate change, including a massive aid
: programme to the developing world.
:
: Those policies have the potential to save or
: contribute to the saving of many, many
: millions of lives, and the improvement of
: the lives of many millions more around the
: globe. That's the actual substance of the
: article. Next to that, I'm afraid it is your
: scare-quote drenched litany of
: insufficiently "risqué" words and
: phrases that comes across as superficial,
: rather than the piece I had published.
:
: Given the real impact that the policies I
: described would have on millions of human
: lives, articulating their value, and
: encouraging a large and wide audience to
: campaign for them, is something whose worth
: need not be described to anyone whose
: interest in such issues is remotely serious.
:
: I have to say I find it sad that a minority
: within the ML community have become so
: fixated on the Guardian that in their eyes
: no discussion of any other topic in that
: paper is substantively worthwhile unless it
: criticises the paper itself. This is an
: absurdly narrow position, based on an
: entirely one-dimensional analysis of the
: importance of the media.
:
: It is particularly depressing to see the
: propaganda model - a serious and
: sophisticated analytical tool - being turned
: in the hands of some here into a crude
: bludgeon, applied without serious
: discrimination or thought.
: