Posted by dereklane
on November 3, 2009, 8:42 am, in reply to "Re: Just before we draw the line under this"
Hi Walter,
"It’s not like you to intervene with the referees cap on"
I wasn't aware I'd done that. Whatever I actually said last night, what I *felt* was another stab of annoyance that Wearing has, over the last few years, drawn the battle lines with anyone with whom he's disagreed. That he's now doing it with John Hilley, who, while happy to debate, doesn't often (ever?) rise to nasty to and fro-ing (like I've been known to do...) annoyed me. Every new encounter here with him seems to make me think that there are some who simply can't countenance an opinion different to their own. That's fine if what you do with it is go off and sulk. Not so fine when your goal is then to change, or flame, *every* opponent. Gone from this messageboard (nearly) is the
a) links to stories
b) letters to editors
c) media analysis
...and in its place, just lot's of fighting. I'm loathed to back down from it, but you're right, I'm probably making it worse. Unfortunately, it seems to me what's happening is that these arguments are driving away all the thoughtful (and comradery) analysis of media articles that once made me glad to see it, and insisting on a pushing through of mainstream 'left' thinking that, if I wanted, I *could* get from the Guardian, instead. I'm not all that happy about that, to be honest, because it seems this board has been comandeered by a few people who wish it to be about what *they* think is important, rather than the Editors' original goal (more than likely why they 'had a little chuckle in the media lens bunker').
Perhaps its unfair for me to have thrown up other elements (John's previous output, and David's) but I feel it is relevant. We are not objective creatures, and nor is David Wearing. The more he protests over these details, the more I see hurt feelings (in him, and reflecting onto others).
Its to be expected, but it 'wearing' [really sorry] a little thin for me, not least because of his often exceedingly nasty reactions (to people with whom he disagrees), in lofty tones.
Its entirely unhelpful to anyone. I - also as a subjective human being - have moments where I think, 'Maybe if he can see some of this type of reaction back again, he'll realise his own reactions may be getting everyone worked up'. Of course, that's silly, though. It rebounds on the writer of such style and abrasive tone (in this case me). Again, because of that, maybe it'll help, as he takes a deep breath and assumes the moral highground which involves friendly, helpful language rather than 'How Dare You?' language.
Actually, the BNP argument is relevant, because its at the heart of David's opinions here too (that this system is workable, if only the left got off their bums, and that the BNP is not part of that system). It's only tangentally linked, but it is linked. Quite simply, I'm not all that convinced by David's output. I'd rate scores of other mainstream writers above him in terms of dissidence, and of recognising the inherently and irretrievable corrupt position of actually system of government, media, elite. It's a lot easier to see, for example, the lack of differences between the BNP and Labour when you're prepared to acknowledge they're both part of the same system.
What he rejects here in relation to either the efficacy of writing in the mainstream or his own particular sphere of interest in writing in the mainstream media (8 years after the start of the first war and at a time when public opinion and media opinion is already largely supporting his non-risque ideas on foreign policy) it seems he rejects because he still sees a workable model in place, just without the right people.
I don't, which is why we probably disagree.
"So how can his (on the one hand) humdrum leftie material simultaneously provide a fig leaf to protect the Guardian’s 'radical mantle' (a claim which I don’t think David has made anyway)?"
That's a good question Walter - one I hadn't considered until now, so thanks for posing it. I'd guess though, that it makes sense that, rather than seeing the Guardian (or any such publication) as a Pilger-esque fig leaf vs a Marr-esque establishment-position, what you *do* have is a spectrum, which ranges from establishmentarianism to soft dissidence. You don't go any further in the direction of dissidence than point x on that scale - you just won't see anything past there. So, Monbiot (one of the best) goes *very* close to the end of the acceptable scale, and seumus milne does too, though maybe not so close.
All of them provide this perception of ranges of thoughts, and any on the left side of that scale could probably be included in the fig leaf concept, even when they're probably less figgy than Monbiot.
If you say the catchcrys of the left (nuclear disarmament, for example) that probably helps the fig leaf concept, but if you frame it in establishmentarianism, then you're doing the job of the editors of the guardian for them. The perception of lefty without the difficulties of it (like suggesting, maybe, that nuclear disarmament is tied to the illegality and lawlessness of the whole establishment - as we can see when we compare the public perception, borne from the media, on Iran to that of the US).
"Perhaps David can only take so much of this kind of heartfelt, but not very constructive, criticism? "
You are right, and I've suggested it before. Its not constructive, and never was (for him) because it was automatically, at the outset, a challenge. But, at the point where the knives came out, it ceased to be (for me at least) about David himself (as a medialens contributor), and more about the content and context of the article. That is, knowing his output in other areas (just as happens in the media) allows us to analyse and dissect this piece, and the reasoning behind it, and the ideas behind thinking it to be a useful contribution.
I'll admit its not all that fair to keep on about it, but well, he started it
By the way, the 'crushing' was more about crushing dissent to his view, rather than people themselves (I'm sure that should be obvious). That goes with the general theme of David v anyone-who-disagrees-with-him. My use of the word 'crush' has to do with the manner and style he chooses to make these attempts - sarcasm, patronising tone, straw men, ignoring good points and dissecting to small detail the poor ones, more sarcasm, lofty intellectual insults, etc.
cheers,
Derek