This week’s Metro carried the headline ‘The truth about our fear of epidemics’. It’s not clear whether by ‘our’ they mean the public’s or media’s.
The Metro was also good enough to have a headline which suggested that 40% of the UK population could be infected by swine flu, and also had a poll which said the government was not doing enough to tackle this. These actions have been replicated elsewhere in the mass media.
Not to belittle the obviously serious nature of this illness but it’s hard to avoid the feeling that the main things which are making people sick in this country are the media’s relentless suggestions that catastrophe is just around the corner.
In the last couple of years alone we have been told that the new Black Plague is up on us in the form of SARS, bird flu and now swine flu. And yet it’s fair to say that most of us are still here.
What exactly do those in the media who are determined to magnify health scares think they are achieving each time they do so? Is it really as cynical as trying to sell more ‘papers or attract more viewers?
Health scare stories are ideal for creating a few days’ news. Firstly you report the condition itself and where it’s appeared, then you get to talk about whether or not it might make it to the UK, and if it does you can report this too.
In between you can have various experts who explain what it is, what will happen if it’s caught and speculating on the likely impact it will have at home and abroad. You can also have stories about what the government’s doing and if this is enough or not.
Of course the ultimate conclusion of this – which we know from past experience – can only be one of two things. It could feasibly create a mass panic as people worry about the potential effects.
The alternative – which is more likely - is that as people become immune (boom, boom) to such stories they will simply ignore them and get on with their lives. The obvious downside to this is that if we do ever face a genuinely serious threat (perhaps swine flu, who knows?) it will likely be met by utter cynicism from the public.
The counter arguments from media carrying these stories are that it’s vital the public is aware of the threat and also that it forces the government to be prepared for it as the spotlight is shone on them.
This is all well and good except by creating regular scare stories it doesn’t really raise awareness, it simply alienates people from the news process. And it has minimal effect on government since you cannot really stockpile mass specific flu vaccines; each one has to be developed as the specific strain of flu becomes clear.
If every time a health scare arises the media blow this out of proportion eventually the public will ignore these messages. And it’s at that point we would be most vulnerable.
There has been notable discussion in recent times of the growing role of online communication, leading to the decline of the traditional media. Whilst this is in some ways exaggerated it’s certainly true that traditional media – not least newspapers – are in something of a slump.
However the way to reverse is surely not to create hysteria and scare stories but to try and find out why people have gone online and change the product accordingly. Panic stories which turn out to be false simply turn people off such outlets even more.
The mainstream media (newspapers, TV, radio and online editions) remain the primary way most of us get our information. But they run the risk of hastening their own demise by constantly wrongly predicting ours.
29 Apr 2009
25 Apr 2009
Enough of politics, what about the football?
So the Budget's happened, financial problems continue and for other reasons politics remains a hot and controversial topic. Still what's that compared to the football, not least the potential for Celtic and Rangers to finally move to play in England?
The phrase 'love-hate' is often overused but really perfectly encapsulates Scottish football's relationship with the Old Firm. On the one hand many rival fans and chairmen would happily say goodbye to them; on the other the financial calamity this could cause makes such a move difficult.
In fact this question is really at the heart of the issue, for the rest of Scotland at least. Do Celtic and Rangers - problems though they may be perceived to cause - actually provide the lifeblood for the game here?
There's obviously two schools of thought here. On the one hand those that believe Scotland without Celtic and Rangers would have a flourishing football scene, one where there was nationwide competition which would encourage people to flock to stadiums and thus attract TV deals and other sponsorship.
The flipside though is argued solely by looking at Setanta's football coverage; at least 90% of games feature one or both of the Old Firm. This is for the simple reason that in Scotland and further afield these games are what attract TV audiences, and in turn sponsorship deals.
One of the points that somewhat undermines the notion that competition would attract fans is that were this the case junior football would be much better attended. If all people wanted to do was watch a league where it wasn't clear who would win then such football grounds would be packed out every week.
Instead the problem is really that what people want is some degree of quality, along with competition of course. Social changes in the past 30 or 40 years mean that the size of crowds which used to turn up to watch all non-Old Firm teams simply aren't going to happen anytime soon.
It may be that a league without the Old Firm would bring in a few more fans in the short-term, and it would certainly increase local interest. But in the long-term this would surely come at the expense of TV and sponsorship deals which would eventually reduce the quality of the overall product. The Irish and Welsh leagues are surely fair comparisons.
There is also another obvious downside to all this and it's found in the idea of Celtic and Rangers leaving Scottish football. Whilst this may happen they certainly won't be transported from Glasgow to south London, which means that all media and sponsorship interest will continue to focus on them. The notion that Scotland without the Old Firm will suddenly have more fans leading to more money and so on is surely misplaced?
And what would this all mean for Celtic and Rangers themselves? Well again there are different schools of thought here.
On the one hand many people in England believe that they would be found out should they move and be proven for little more than the 'big fish in a little pond' they so obviously are. Anyone who believes this is guilty of a great misunderstanding.
Teams such as Celtic and Rangers with, respectively, regular attendances of 60,000 and 50,000, combined with the level of TV money on offer in England would surely become huge teams in any league. Of course in the short-term this would have to be balanced with the loss of European football money, but even this would surely still only be a temporary state of affairs.
However this may come at another cost for the Old Firm clubs though. The biggest and most successful teams in England (Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea) all have foreign owners and investors and it may be that this would be required to push Celtic and Rangers to the absolute top of both English and European football.
Given that we have in the past seen protests from English teams against such owners - and both Old Firm teams have had anti-board campaigns in recent memory - would this be something fans would be comfortable with?
The fans would also have to countenance time without success. There is no doubt that while successful teams attract more fans the reverse is equally true. In other words if the Old Firm did move south it could mean time without trophies, which fans would have to be prepared to live with.
There is a question about what can reasonably be done to make Scottish football more competitive - but there may be no answer to this. The fact is we often fool ourselves that other leagues are full of healthy competition whilst only in Scotland do we have a monopoly.
In reality whilst it may be particularly obvious in Scotland the majority of European leagues have a clear dominance of 'big' teams. Even England has only had three league winners in the last fifteen years, which actually points to the major role money plays in football being what really skews things.
So this leaves all sides in Scotland with a bit of a dilemma. Celtic and Rangers playing football in England is really a gamble for everyone; it could make-or-break both sides of the debate. It could bring about a renaissance of Scottish football and competition or reduce it to the status of the Irish or Welsh leagues. And it could push Celtic or Rangers to the top of the European tree or leave them stuck in mid-table limbo if they had a bad start.
Fans and clubs may all have problems with the current set up but should also consider the notion that the grass may always appear to be greener. Except at Fir Park of course.
The phrase 'love-hate' is often overused but really perfectly encapsulates Scottish football's relationship with the Old Firm. On the one hand many rival fans and chairmen would happily say goodbye to them; on the other the financial calamity this could cause makes such a move difficult.
In fact this question is really at the heart of the issue, for the rest of Scotland at least. Do Celtic and Rangers - problems though they may be perceived to cause - actually provide the lifeblood for the game here?
There's obviously two schools of thought here. On the one hand those that believe Scotland without Celtic and Rangers would have a flourishing football scene, one where there was nationwide competition which would encourage people to flock to stadiums and thus attract TV deals and other sponsorship.
The flipside though is argued solely by looking at Setanta's football coverage; at least 90% of games feature one or both of the Old Firm. This is for the simple reason that in Scotland and further afield these games are what attract TV audiences, and in turn sponsorship deals.
One of the points that somewhat undermines the notion that competition would attract fans is that were this the case junior football would be much better attended. If all people wanted to do was watch a league where it wasn't clear who would win then such football grounds would be packed out every week.
Instead the problem is really that what people want is some degree of quality, along with competition of course. Social changes in the past 30 or 40 years mean that the size of crowds which used to turn up to watch all non-Old Firm teams simply aren't going to happen anytime soon.
It may be that a league without the Old Firm would bring in a few more fans in the short-term, and it would certainly increase local interest. But in the long-term this would surely come at the expense of TV and sponsorship deals which would eventually reduce the quality of the overall product. The Irish and Welsh leagues are surely fair comparisons.
There is also another obvious downside to all this and it's found in the idea of Celtic and Rangers leaving Scottish football. Whilst this may happen they certainly won't be transported from Glasgow to south London, which means that all media and sponsorship interest will continue to focus on them. The notion that Scotland without the Old Firm will suddenly have more fans leading to more money and so on is surely misplaced?
And what would this all mean for Celtic and Rangers themselves? Well again there are different schools of thought here.
On the one hand many people in England believe that they would be found out should they move and be proven for little more than the 'big fish in a little pond' they so obviously are. Anyone who believes this is guilty of a great misunderstanding.
Teams such as Celtic and Rangers with, respectively, regular attendances of 60,000 and 50,000, combined with the level of TV money on offer in England would surely become huge teams in any league. Of course in the short-term this would have to be balanced with the loss of European football money, but even this would surely still only be a temporary state of affairs.
However this may come at another cost for the Old Firm clubs though. The biggest and most successful teams in England (Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea) all have foreign owners and investors and it may be that this would be required to push Celtic and Rangers to the absolute top of both English and European football.
Given that we have in the past seen protests from English teams against such owners - and both Old Firm teams have had anti-board campaigns in recent memory - would this be something fans would be comfortable with?
The fans would also have to countenance time without success. There is no doubt that while successful teams attract more fans the reverse is equally true. In other words if the Old Firm did move south it could mean time without trophies, which fans would have to be prepared to live with.
There is a question about what can reasonably be done to make Scottish football more competitive - but there may be no answer to this. The fact is we often fool ourselves that other leagues are full of healthy competition whilst only in Scotland do we have a monopoly.
In reality whilst it may be particularly obvious in Scotland the majority of European leagues have a clear dominance of 'big' teams. Even England has only had three league winners in the last fifteen years, which actually points to the major role money plays in football being what really skews things.
So this leaves all sides in Scotland with a bit of a dilemma. Celtic and Rangers playing football in England is really a gamble for everyone; it could make-or-break both sides of the debate. It could bring about a renaissance of Scottish football and competition or reduce it to the status of the Irish or Welsh leagues. And it could push Celtic or Rangers to the top of the European tree or leave them stuck in mid-table limbo if they had a bad start.
Fans and clubs may all have problems with the current set up but should also consider the notion that the grass may always appear to be greener. Except at Fir Park of course.
21 Apr 2009
More money for schools?
According to a Scottish think tank all extra money which has been spent on education in recent years has achieved nothing with results showing no change in performance.
Reform Scotland claim that since devolution spending on primary and secondary education has doubled but that there has been no corresponding increase in achievement. The full report doesn't yet seem to be online so any response has to be done based on media reports.
It's absolutely right that we should have this type of debate about how we spend public money, especially on something like education which obviously touches so many people's lives.
Again without seeing the report it's hard to fully comment but it's likely that a large proportion of this extra spending must have gone on increased teaching salaries (under the McCrone Agreement) and some to cover new school buildings (both PPP and normal financing).
In itself both these things are worthwhile and it's possibly too early to assess their impact. Expenditure like this has to be measured in the long-term, based on potentially attracting better people into the profession and how a school settles once in a new environment.
But even allowing for this it is worthwhile considering - especially before any extra money is spent - other issues we may need to consider. The problem with the things described above is that - at least in terms of teacher salaries - this was an across the board increase, and not in any way targeted at those areas which need it most.
This is not necessarily to argue for differentiating such payments (something the unions would be up-in-arms about) but rather to ask if there were perhaps not other ways this money could have been utilised.
For instance both main parties in Scotland (Labour and the SNP) have in recent times argued for across the board decreases in class sizes; in Labour's case this was in S1 and S2 Maths and English whilst the SNP want this in primaries 1-3. Neither of them have suggested - or indeed have the resources - to do this at all stages.
But is this the right approach and does this continuing national planning offer any hope of success? When funds are limited, especially now, does it not make more sense to try and target this towards those schools and communities which need it most?
Of course smaller classes in all schools would be a good idea and certainly aid better learning. However the resources to do this properly and effectively don't exist, in which case the better idea would be to reduce class sizes in schools in the poorest communities.
Doing this would achieve two things: one, it would simply improve the educational chances of children there (compared to better-off pupils elsewhere who generally have better general opportunities and learning environments) and it may also help encourage some parents who would otherwise put in a placing request for their child to keep them local.
As was noted when talking about this before the main obstacle here are complaints from better-off parents in those schools that don't benefit. The fact that often this group is more likely to vote and contact their local elected representative means it's exceptionally unlikely to happen, but that doesn't mean it would not b more effective that uniform national changes.
The Scottish Government's response to this report is interesting in many ways. It doesn't blame the previous administration for wasting money (suggesting this was a civil service rather than political response) but instead points towards future changes which are, apparently, going to radically transform education.
These reforms, or Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) to give them their proper title, have for some time now been pointed to as the actions which will help deliver radical change and better prepare young people for the modern workplace. Started by the previous administration they have been fully embraced by Fiona Hyslop since becoming Education Secretary.
But will they provide this impetus to deliver better performance? Well whilst it's impossible to predict the future a best guess would say not. These reforms - which in many cases echo work already going on in schools - will have no impact as long as the current exam system remains in place.
CfE is meant to encourage all school subjects and departments to work together and deliver joint courses. The theory is that such joined-up schooling will better aid pupils who will go into a rapidly changing global economy. All well and good except because the exam system still concentrates solely on performance in individual subjects new joint work (which will have minimal credit value) is just not likely to be embraced in a massive way.
Again there is nothing wrong with national government seeking to influence the broad direction of education and schooling in this country. But trying to do it with vacuous and meaningless reforms, whilst spreading any extra money evenly across 'rich' and 'poor' schools makes no sense and is designed to achieve nothing more than the status quo.
Anyone who has read this blog before will have seen numerous arguments for governments to concentrate their resources on genuine priorities - education should be one of these. And for that to mean anything it has to involve focusing more money in that area. But if it's going to actually make changes this time that means thinking about where it would actually have an impact. Not just sharing it so that no-one complains.
And it doesn't take a great education to see that.
Reform Scotland claim that since devolution spending on primary and secondary education has doubled but that there has been no corresponding increase in achievement. The full report doesn't yet seem to be online so any response has to be done based on media reports.
It's absolutely right that we should have this type of debate about how we spend public money, especially on something like education which obviously touches so many people's lives.
Again without seeing the report it's hard to fully comment but it's likely that a large proportion of this extra spending must have gone on increased teaching salaries (under the McCrone Agreement) and some to cover new school buildings (both PPP and normal financing).
In itself both these things are worthwhile and it's possibly too early to assess their impact. Expenditure like this has to be measured in the long-term, based on potentially attracting better people into the profession and how a school settles once in a new environment.
But even allowing for this it is worthwhile considering - especially before any extra money is spent - other issues we may need to consider. The problem with the things described above is that - at least in terms of teacher salaries - this was an across the board increase, and not in any way targeted at those areas which need it most.
This is not necessarily to argue for differentiating such payments (something the unions would be up-in-arms about) but rather to ask if there were perhaps not other ways this money could have been utilised.
For instance both main parties in Scotland (Labour and the SNP) have in recent times argued for across the board decreases in class sizes; in Labour's case this was in S1 and S2 Maths and English whilst the SNP want this in primaries 1-3. Neither of them have suggested - or indeed have the resources - to do this at all stages.
But is this the right approach and does this continuing national planning offer any hope of success? When funds are limited, especially now, does it not make more sense to try and target this towards those schools and communities which need it most?
Of course smaller classes in all schools would be a good idea and certainly aid better learning. However the resources to do this properly and effectively don't exist, in which case the better idea would be to reduce class sizes in schools in the poorest communities.
Doing this would achieve two things: one, it would simply improve the educational chances of children there (compared to better-off pupils elsewhere who generally have better general opportunities and learning environments) and it may also help encourage some parents who would otherwise put in a placing request for their child to keep them local.
As was noted when talking about this before the main obstacle here are complaints from better-off parents in those schools that don't benefit. The fact that often this group is more likely to vote and contact their local elected representative means it's exceptionally unlikely to happen, but that doesn't mean it would not b more effective that uniform national changes.
The Scottish Government's response to this report is interesting in many ways. It doesn't blame the previous administration for wasting money (suggesting this was a civil service rather than political response) but instead points towards future changes which are, apparently, going to radically transform education.
These reforms, or Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) to give them their proper title, have for some time now been pointed to as the actions which will help deliver radical change and better prepare young people for the modern workplace. Started by the previous administration they have been fully embraced by Fiona Hyslop since becoming Education Secretary.
But will they provide this impetus to deliver better performance? Well whilst it's impossible to predict the future a best guess would say not. These reforms - which in many cases echo work already going on in schools - will have no impact as long as the current exam system remains in place.
CfE is meant to encourage all school subjects and departments to work together and deliver joint courses. The theory is that such joined-up schooling will better aid pupils who will go into a rapidly changing global economy. All well and good except because the exam system still concentrates solely on performance in individual subjects new joint work (which will have minimal credit value) is just not likely to be embraced in a massive way.
Again there is nothing wrong with national government seeking to influence the broad direction of education and schooling in this country. But trying to do it with vacuous and meaningless reforms, whilst spreading any extra money evenly across 'rich' and 'poor' schools makes no sense and is designed to achieve nothing more than the status quo.
Anyone who has read this blog before will have seen numerous arguments for governments to concentrate their resources on genuine priorities - education should be one of these. And for that to mean anything it has to involve focusing more money in that area. But if it's going to actually make changes this time that means thinking about where it would actually have an impact. Not just sharing it so that no-one complains.
And it doesn't take a great education to see that.
19 Apr 2009
Essential viewing
Wherever you go you obviously cannot avoid the topic of the economic downturn. There's also no shortage of experts offering their insight into all aspects of it.
So you can read newspapers, blogs, economic journals or watch the TV. But if you want a concise analysis which brilliantly captures the essence of the problems - and the role that everyone played in creating this - then look no further than here.
Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle on BBC 2 has been great viewing but this really is a great summary of the economic crisis. Highly recommended (or just 26.15 onwards to get the gist).
NOTE: As this is on iPlayer it's only available until Monday 27 April.
So you can read newspapers, blogs, economic journals or watch the TV. But if you want a concise analysis which brilliantly captures the essence of the problems - and the role that everyone played in creating this - then look no further than here.
Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle on BBC 2 has been great viewing but this really is a great summary of the economic crisis. Highly recommended (or just 26.15 onwards to get the gist).
NOTE: As this is on iPlayer it's only available until Monday 27 April.
15 Apr 2009
Taking the bait
Oh I can't resist it. I have tried but clearly my better angels are shouting me down.
Iain Macwhirter, who does he think he is? Criticising me like that. Just me mind, none of the other bloggers out there. This is all about me and my blog. The worst of all is when he calls me an egotist. The shame and shock of him choosing to speak about me like that...
Yes, whilst sarcasm may be the lowest humour it's also the quickest way to express disagreement, so let me do just that. This post is obviously about Iain Macwhirter's Monday Herald column (and subsequent reply) which dared to cast aspersions on political bloggers, and indeed the whole genre. Rather than just this blog.
For those of you (a minority of bloggers, the overwhelming bulk of the rest of the populace) unaware Mr Macwhirter's original article suggested that political blogging was not just a minority pursuit but one inhabited by people you may not otherwise choose to engage with. The nerve of it all. So let's think about what he said. And the extent to which he might be right. Or not of course.
The first and most obvious point is of course that blogging - regardless of coverage of the past few days - still pales into absolute insignificance compared with the 'real' media. Even the likes of Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale attract only a fraction of the daily audience which any half-decent newspaper does (although you can argue those blog visitors do so for the specific content on offer, as opposed to newspapers which people may buy for multitude of reasons).
So in terms of ego journalists should still win, for size alone if nothing else. There is also the 'legitimacy of salary' journalists have (a phrase just there invented but which I cannot help but think deserves wider exposure, my rampant ego again spewing forth); simply put, they do it for a living, bloggers do so in their own time so journalists are thus more important.
There may be some attraction to this were it not for the diverse nature of the mainstream media. It is no more legitimate to read the Daily Star's political coverage and say this reflects the wider media than it is to do the same for blogging based on a small number of sites.
It's no surprise that the 'blogosphere' has taken Mr Macwhirter to task for his comments, not least those about the depth of coverage and also the tone of content. That's because the idea that it is all bile is nonsense, especially in the Scottish context.
There is no question that within the Scottish political blogging community there is a fairly close relationship between many commentators. This sometimes stems from pre-existing relationships but also is due to the fact that the scene is not huge in Scotland and so most bloggers speak on a fairly regular basis, even holding real life get-togethers occasionally.
Part of the problem of this criticism is that it confuses comments left on newspaper websites with political blogging, and they are two very different things. Some public comment on newspaper websites is well worth steering clear of because it is either spiteful, irrelevant or both. Blogging is different though, and for many of the reasons listed above.
Mr Macwhirter's comments about the length of articles is a different kettle of fish though. Generally the blogs which seem to do best are relatively short and updated regularly (that's my excuse for this blog not being the top one, and I'm sticking to it). But then I like to think that this blog and others disprove the notion of their being no blogging depth, having lengthy and considered comment.
Of course generally though such blogs do tend to struggle for attention. But another point Mr Macwhirter misses is that, for better or for worse, this is no different to newspapers. The Daily Star and Sunday Herald have different audiences and sales figures and surely no-one (bar political spin doctors) buys both of them. Because people know what they want and choose accordingly.
Blogging is no different. A successful blog can be measured in its readership and all these readers are choosing to go one place rather than another. In some ways this might be sad if the blogs people choose to visit are those that make personal attacks the order of the day, but that's still their choice.
Andrew Marr's book My Trade takes us through the history of the British media and is a fascinating insight. And one thing it does show is that newspapers going back to the start of the industry have always included sensational and salacious gossip; that is by no means a new innovation. That people choose to now get this online can be reacted to in many ways, but shock shouldn't be one of them.
The blogosphere is - numerically speaking - truly huge. A quick look through Blogger or other such sites shows up literally tens of thousands of people across the world having their say. However this is a slightly generous description; the majority who do so have very small (or no) audiences and really just do it for catharsis or something to do, or whatever.
In other words blogging is still a minority pursuit. The events of the past few days aside most people will never have heard of or visited any political blogs and have better things to do with their time. Good for them. However for others blogging is a hobby, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It may be that Mr Macwhirter's criticism stems from his own relatively unsuccessful blogging experiences. As a successful newspaper columnist and TV pundit he is surely used to a fairly large audience and following, however given that he has been using Blogger since February 2006 but does not yet have a following to rival Dale, Fawkes or even some of the more established Scottish blogs that may lead him to the conclusion it's a waste of time.
In fact it's likely he falls down in that the length of his posts probaly puts many off, but that is undeniably true of this blog too. The point however is to try and provide a range of reading options online and hope that people then engage with you (even if you can't force them). But you also have to take the time to read and comment on other sites to get your blog going, especially at the very start. That may be something he is unable or unwilling to do.
Does blogging yet rival the mainstream media? Of course not. The reach of TV and newspapers simply dwarfs any blog (shown by the fact Guido Fawkes had to use the media to promote his story rather than keep it all online). And this isn't going to substantially change anytime soon.
However just as with the rise of newspapers the one thing which will most decide what happens next is the public. If they drift towards blogs and online comment over TV and newspapers that is their choice to make. And if that leads to the decline of serious and investigative journalism that will be to all our detriment.
But it's no more for us to say they shouldn't do it than it is to ban newspapers we may disagree or disapprove of; indeed the challenge is surely to understand where trends are going and use these for your own particular medium. That's whether you are a serious journalist or simply a blogger 'ejaculating' over their keyboard...
NOTE: This article was in fact 1299 words long, so something above 200. But then that's still quite some distance down on my usual length, so perhaps this is evidence of dumbing down.
Iain Macwhirter, who does he think he is? Criticising me like that. Just me mind, none of the other bloggers out there. This is all about me and my blog. The worst of all is when he calls me an egotist. The shame and shock of him choosing to speak about me like that...
Yes, whilst sarcasm may be the lowest humour it's also the quickest way to express disagreement, so let me do just that. This post is obviously about Iain Macwhirter's Monday Herald column (and subsequent reply) which dared to cast aspersions on political bloggers, and indeed the whole genre. Rather than just this blog.
For those of you (a minority of bloggers, the overwhelming bulk of the rest of the populace) unaware Mr Macwhirter's original article suggested that political blogging was not just a minority pursuit but one inhabited by people you may not otherwise choose to engage with. The nerve of it all. So let's think about what he said. And the extent to which he might be right. Or not of course.
The first and most obvious point is of course that blogging - regardless of coverage of the past few days - still pales into absolute insignificance compared with the 'real' media. Even the likes of Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale attract only a fraction of the daily audience which any half-decent newspaper does (although you can argue those blog visitors do so for the specific content on offer, as opposed to newspapers which people may buy for multitude of reasons).
So in terms of ego journalists should still win, for size alone if nothing else. There is also the 'legitimacy of salary' journalists have (a phrase just there invented but which I cannot help but think deserves wider exposure, my rampant ego again spewing forth); simply put, they do it for a living, bloggers do so in their own time so journalists are thus more important.
There may be some attraction to this were it not for the diverse nature of the mainstream media. It is no more legitimate to read the Daily Star's political coverage and say this reflects the wider media than it is to do the same for blogging based on a small number of sites.
It's no surprise that the 'blogosphere' has taken Mr Macwhirter to task for his comments, not least those about the depth of coverage and also the tone of content. That's because the idea that it is all bile is nonsense, especially in the Scottish context.
There is no question that within the Scottish political blogging community there is a fairly close relationship between many commentators. This sometimes stems from pre-existing relationships but also is due to the fact that the scene is not huge in Scotland and so most bloggers speak on a fairly regular basis, even holding real life get-togethers occasionally.
Part of the problem of this criticism is that it confuses comments left on newspaper websites with political blogging, and they are two very different things. Some public comment on newspaper websites is well worth steering clear of because it is either spiteful, irrelevant or both. Blogging is different though, and for many of the reasons listed above.
Mr Macwhirter's comments about the length of articles is a different kettle of fish though. Generally the blogs which seem to do best are relatively short and updated regularly (that's my excuse for this blog not being the top one, and I'm sticking to it). But then I like to think that this blog and others disprove the notion of their being no blogging depth, having lengthy and considered comment.
Of course generally though such blogs do tend to struggle for attention. But another point Mr Macwhirter misses is that, for better or for worse, this is no different to newspapers. The Daily Star and Sunday Herald have different audiences and sales figures and surely no-one (bar political spin doctors) buys both of them. Because people know what they want and choose accordingly.
Blogging is no different. A successful blog can be measured in its readership and all these readers are choosing to go one place rather than another. In some ways this might be sad if the blogs people choose to visit are those that make personal attacks the order of the day, but that's still their choice.
Andrew Marr's book My Trade takes us through the history of the British media and is a fascinating insight. And one thing it does show is that newspapers going back to the start of the industry have always included sensational and salacious gossip; that is by no means a new innovation. That people choose to now get this online can be reacted to in many ways, but shock shouldn't be one of them.
The blogosphere is - numerically speaking - truly huge. A quick look through Blogger or other such sites shows up literally tens of thousands of people across the world having their say. However this is a slightly generous description; the majority who do so have very small (or no) audiences and really just do it for catharsis or something to do, or whatever.
In other words blogging is still a minority pursuit. The events of the past few days aside most people will never have heard of or visited any political blogs and have better things to do with their time. Good for them. However for others blogging is a hobby, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It may be that Mr Macwhirter's criticism stems from his own relatively unsuccessful blogging experiences. As a successful newspaper columnist and TV pundit he is surely used to a fairly large audience and following, however given that he has been using Blogger since February 2006 but does not yet have a following to rival Dale, Fawkes or even some of the more established Scottish blogs that may lead him to the conclusion it's a waste of time.
In fact it's likely he falls down in that the length of his posts probaly puts many off, but that is undeniably true of this blog too. The point however is to try and provide a range of reading options online and hope that people then engage with you (even if you can't force them). But you also have to take the time to read and comment on other sites to get your blog going, especially at the very start. That may be something he is unable or unwilling to do.
Does blogging yet rival the mainstream media? Of course not. The reach of TV and newspapers simply dwarfs any blog (shown by the fact Guido Fawkes had to use the media to promote his story rather than keep it all online). And this isn't going to substantially change anytime soon.
However just as with the rise of newspapers the one thing which will most decide what happens next is the public. If they drift towards blogs and online comment over TV and newspapers that is their choice to make. And if that leads to the decline of serious and investigative journalism that will be to all our detriment.
But it's no more for us to say they shouldn't do it than it is to ban newspapers we may disagree or disapprove of; indeed the challenge is surely to understand where trends are going and use these for your own particular medium. That's whether you are a serious journalist or simply a blogger 'ejaculating' over their keyboard...
NOTE: This article was in fact 1299 words long, so something above 200. But then that's still quite some distance down on my usual length, so perhaps this is evidence of dumbing down.
13 Apr 2009
What does it all say about politics?
For now at least the mainstream media (or MSM to use its online handle) has turned to political blogs, giving them possibly their biggest ever profile.
This of course is in relation to the Damian McBride story which is now pretty much everywhere, having been broken on the Guido Fawkes blog. It's fair to say the details of this have been pored over in great detail elsewhere so instead it's worth considering what this says about politics in general.
It may be tempting to just put this down to the actions of one or two people - or perhaps even one party - and in the sense of this specific incident that's obviously true. However to imagine that such Machiavellian tactics don't find their way further afield than this would be naive.
Just as has been discussed recently there's nothing the media like more than a scandal story, or at least something which appears (rightly or wrongly) to have some degree of controversy about it. Whilst journalists will find many of these stories themselves they do not do so exclusively.
In other words this means that political parties obviously help them in this, pushing them towards any stories which may exist and could cause problems for their opponents. Of course the content of these will not always be as personal as in the McBride case but it would be naive to think this is the first time it's ever happened.
As was also discussed before it would be much better for politics if all news coverage focused on genuine policy debates rather than personal stories. But if people are doing something wrong it's inevitable (and not entirely unfair) that people expose this; if it hurts your political opponents too then it's surely seen as being so much the better.
The danger in this story is that it turns into a 'plague on all their houses' tale. In other words it's just written off as being the type of rough-and-tumble only found in politics and that the public as a whole hates. Whilst it's likely this will be many people's response there's actually a question about how much these type of actions simply reflect wider society.
Immediately you can argue this must be so because it obviously takes at least two groups (and maybe more) to make it work. Obviously politicians but also the media to print such stories. You could also contend that the public have to actually buy this to make it worthwhile so perhaps there is some blame there too.
You could also throw in political blogging and online commenting for good measure too. Whilst large parts of the blogging world have sensible debates and good relations others are anything but; you only have to read some of the bile and hatred which can be found in commenting sites (including those involved in this story) to see that negativity is not confined solely to the political classes.
Indeed it's worth considering the way that many people treat each other in their everyday lives. Gossip, including malicious comment, can be found in most workplaces, pubs and indeed families across the country; it's certainly not the preserve of Westminster or Holyrood.
Now perhaps politics should rise above this. People are paid high sums to run the country for the good of us all and as such they should not be drawn into such actions. Ideally this is true but it ignores the fact that if humans are predisposed to often negative gossip then this will pervade all aspects of society, including politics.
It's also the case that it reflects the desperation to win and maybe also the growing public belief that all parties are the same or at least very similar. This is particularly so with the rise of opinion poll and focus group-led politics which logically have to narrow the political choices on offer.
If increasingly the public don't take the time to understand politics and local issues with the result being that major parties are just described as being all the same then something else has to be used to differentiate between political choices. At this point we shift towards a personality-based political debate, something which undeniably already exists.
This is clearly true in the USA with the post of president driving this but it's also been relevant in Britain for years and certainly since Thatcher was in power (just consider the way that all Prime Ministers and opposition leaders have been contrasted in the run-up to elections since).
This approach will work both ways. On the one hand parties want to portray their candidate as being upstanding, moral, energetic and full of the right ideas. But they also then need their opponents to been seen in the opposite manner, leading to some of the criticisms evident today and at other times.
Where does this take us from here? Well in terms of the McBride story that will no doubt rumble on for a few more days, certainly the focus will widen to consider anyone else involved in it. But in the broader sense, well, probably nothing really.
The idea that this will mark the end of negative campaigning is of course preposterous. Stories which (legitimately or otherwise) paint opponents in a bad light will continue to be used by all sides and the public in turn will become even more disillusioned with the political process. But then negative gossip will continue outwith politics too.
This story does tell us something negative about politics. But it's perhaps worth thinking if there are lessons for wider society too.
This of course is in relation to the Damian McBride story which is now pretty much everywhere, having been broken on the Guido Fawkes blog. It's fair to say the details of this have been pored over in great detail elsewhere so instead it's worth considering what this says about politics in general.
It may be tempting to just put this down to the actions of one or two people - or perhaps even one party - and in the sense of this specific incident that's obviously true. However to imagine that such Machiavellian tactics don't find their way further afield than this would be naive.
Just as has been discussed recently there's nothing the media like more than a scandal story, or at least something which appears (rightly or wrongly) to have some degree of controversy about it. Whilst journalists will find many of these stories themselves they do not do so exclusively.
In other words this means that political parties obviously help them in this, pushing them towards any stories which may exist and could cause problems for their opponents. Of course the content of these will not always be as personal as in the McBride case but it would be naive to think this is the first time it's ever happened.
As was also discussed before it would be much better for politics if all news coverage focused on genuine policy debates rather than personal stories. But if people are doing something wrong it's inevitable (and not entirely unfair) that people expose this; if it hurts your political opponents too then it's surely seen as being so much the better.
The danger in this story is that it turns into a 'plague on all their houses' tale. In other words it's just written off as being the type of rough-and-tumble only found in politics and that the public as a whole hates. Whilst it's likely this will be many people's response there's actually a question about how much these type of actions simply reflect wider society.
Immediately you can argue this must be so because it obviously takes at least two groups (and maybe more) to make it work. Obviously politicians but also the media to print such stories. You could also contend that the public have to actually buy this to make it worthwhile so perhaps there is some blame there too.
You could also throw in political blogging and online commenting for good measure too. Whilst large parts of the blogging world have sensible debates and good relations others are anything but; you only have to read some of the bile and hatred which can be found in commenting sites (including those involved in this story) to see that negativity is not confined solely to the political classes.
Indeed it's worth considering the way that many people treat each other in their everyday lives. Gossip, including malicious comment, can be found in most workplaces, pubs and indeed families across the country; it's certainly not the preserve of Westminster or Holyrood.
Now perhaps politics should rise above this. People are paid high sums to run the country for the good of us all and as such they should not be drawn into such actions. Ideally this is true but it ignores the fact that if humans are predisposed to often negative gossip then this will pervade all aspects of society, including politics.
It's also the case that it reflects the desperation to win and maybe also the growing public belief that all parties are the same or at least very similar. This is particularly so with the rise of opinion poll and focus group-led politics which logically have to narrow the political choices on offer.
If increasingly the public don't take the time to understand politics and local issues with the result being that major parties are just described as being all the same then something else has to be used to differentiate between political choices. At this point we shift towards a personality-based political debate, something which undeniably already exists.
This is clearly true in the USA with the post of president driving this but it's also been relevant in Britain for years and certainly since Thatcher was in power (just consider the way that all Prime Ministers and opposition leaders have been contrasted in the run-up to elections since).
This approach will work both ways. On the one hand parties want to portray their candidate as being upstanding, moral, energetic and full of the right ideas. But they also then need their opponents to been seen in the opposite manner, leading to some of the criticisms evident today and at other times.
Where does this take us from here? Well in terms of the McBride story that will no doubt rumble on for a few more days, certainly the focus will widen to consider anyone else involved in it. But in the broader sense, well, probably nothing really.
The idea that this will mark the end of negative campaigning is of course preposterous. Stories which (legitimately or otherwise) paint opponents in a bad light will continue to be used by all sides and the public in turn will become even more disillusioned with the political process. But then negative gossip will continue outwith politics too.
This story does tell us something negative about politics. But it's perhaps worth thinking if there are lessons for wider society too.
10 Apr 2009
Just what we need, more politicians
A quick look at the political map of Scotland would suggest that the last thing we need is more political representation.
By way of illustration let's consider what political avenues your average Scot can turn to: one MP, one constituency MSP, seven regional list MSPs, four (or three) councillors and seven MEPs. Or 18 political representatives in total.
This is slightly misleading in that some of these groups represent much bigger areas (sometimes national) than before because of their particular proportional representation election systems. However you get the point that the last thing anyone can claim to be is underrepresented.
However in the week that saw the passing of one of the SNP's most senior elected representatives Professor Sir Neil MacCormick the issue of the SNP's continued opposition to House of Lords membership was raised by J. Arthur MacNumpty. The broad principle of what changing this would be designed to achieve is worthy of more general consideration.
Quickly looking at the SNP their opposition is surely unlikely to change any time soon. Past criticism levelled at this institution - plus its perceived place in the 'British state' - would make such a move untenable for many in the SNP, particularly those on the fundamentalist wing. Nevertheless it's worth considering the role that the House of Lords actually plays and the way that this could be developed both across the UK and in the Scottish political environment.
It's hardly surprising that many people dislike the Lords. It's full of people in dress which makes them stand apart, it's unelected and for years it was full of people whose only justification for membership was something their great-grandparents (or older) did.
Those are fair criticisms but they don't address the value of a second chamber. The ability to have people that are experts in their field, have gained notable experience outwith politics and can take time to consider issues and legislation in detail are all positive arguments for a second chamber.
This is not to say that everyone in the Lords meets these qualifications but it's perhaps more likely than membership of the Commons, or Scottish Parliament. It's for this reason that an elected second Chamber would be a disastrous idea, simply replicating the weaknesses of the Commons.
A strong second Chamber, which can ultimately be overruled by the elected Chamber (the Commons), is something which can help political debate and ideas. The big question is how to arrange membership of this in a way which is open, transparent and ensures a wide range of differing and experienced opinions.
This is a more difficult conundrum to answer, but certainly one that should not involve elections. Instead it could be possible to have a selection committee to select Lords members, with committee membership drawn from all political parties, devolved administrations and independent members too. They could then select Lords for perhaps eight years.
The result of this would be the chance to have men and women with experience in business, engineering, science, education, medicine and many other groups in public life, able to suggest and amend legislation. This surely would be more in line with the type of considered debate the public, media and politicians say they want?
And what impact does this have on Scotland? Well it certainly doesn't mean that we need more politicians. Aside from the sheer numbers mentioned above the current public revulsion at politicians' expenses makes such a scenario completely untenable.
However given the money that we do currently spend and the number of representatives we have anyway would it beyond the wit of man (or woman) to devise some way of creating a body which would be removed from the rough-and-tumble (and often irrelevancy) of daily political debate?
As was mentioned in one of the comments in J. Arthur MacNumpty's story there are few think tanks or groups in Scotland that spend their time solely developing ideas to make the country a better place, rather than ways to seek out political advantage.
Is there a chance to use all current elected representatives (so involving no extra cost) and create some sort of body which could meet on a regular basis and debate the key issues of the day? This body could also invite key thinkers from all the groups named above and others to contribute and spend their time thinking about the nuance of policy, rather than party advantage.
The idea of a 'Scottish Lords' is not going to enthuse or perhaps even win much support amongst the public-at-large. But that doesn't mean it's not the right idea. The current level of political debate and policy development in Scotland is very narrow and often restricted to different interest groups seeing who can shout the loudest.
A 'Scottish Lords' wouldn't stop this, but it would be a forum for genuine consideration that could develop the type of ideas and analysis which would then shape government policy and general debate. It would at least ensure a more open forum for all ideas, immediately popular or not. It's also a chance - following recent debate - to ensure a more diverse voice in policy making.
The danger of the professionalisation of politics is that within a couple of generations everyone running the country will have spent their lives doing nothing else. Having such people will surely mean a dearth of ideas or policies which simply have no real basis in reality. That would obviously hurt us all.
Instead we can use the time, money and expertise which already exists to change this and ensure that more ideas at least get an airing and consideration. And we can particularly ensure that genuine experts who have spent a life understanding and working in a specific area are not shut out of public debate.
By way of illustration let's consider what political avenues your average Scot can turn to: one MP, one constituency MSP, seven regional list MSPs, four (or three) councillors and seven MEPs. Or 18 political representatives in total.
This is slightly misleading in that some of these groups represent much bigger areas (sometimes national) than before because of their particular proportional representation election systems. However you get the point that the last thing anyone can claim to be is underrepresented.
However in the week that saw the passing of one of the SNP's most senior elected representatives Professor Sir Neil MacCormick the issue of the SNP's continued opposition to House of Lords membership was raised by J. Arthur MacNumpty. The broad principle of what changing this would be designed to achieve is worthy of more general consideration.
Quickly looking at the SNP their opposition is surely unlikely to change any time soon. Past criticism levelled at this institution - plus its perceived place in the 'British state' - would make such a move untenable for many in the SNP, particularly those on the fundamentalist wing. Nevertheless it's worth considering the role that the House of Lords actually plays and the way that this could be developed both across the UK and in the Scottish political environment.
It's hardly surprising that many people dislike the Lords. It's full of people in dress which makes them stand apart, it's unelected and for years it was full of people whose only justification for membership was something their great-grandparents (or older) did.
Those are fair criticisms but they don't address the value of a second chamber. The ability to have people that are experts in their field, have gained notable experience outwith politics and can take time to consider issues and legislation in detail are all positive arguments for a second chamber.
This is not to say that everyone in the Lords meets these qualifications but it's perhaps more likely than membership of the Commons, or Scottish Parliament. It's for this reason that an elected second Chamber would be a disastrous idea, simply replicating the weaknesses of the Commons.
A strong second Chamber, which can ultimately be overruled by the elected Chamber (the Commons), is something which can help political debate and ideas. The big question is how to arrange membership of this in a way which is open, transparent and ensures a wide range of differing and experienced opinions.
This is a more difficult conundrum to answer, but certainly one that should not involve elections. Instead it could be possible to have a selection committee to select Lords members, with committee membership drawn from all political parties, devolved administrations and independent members too. They could then select Lords for perhaps eight years.
The result of this would be the chance to have men and women with experience in business, engineering, science, education, medicine and many other groups in public life, able to suggest and amend legislation. This surely would be more in line with the type of considered debate the public, media and politicians say they want?
And what impact does this have on Scotland? Well it certainly doesn't mean that we need more politicians. Aside from the sheer numbers mentioned above the current public revulsion at politicians' expenses makes such a scenario completely untenable.
However given the money that we do currently spend and the number of representatives we have anyway would it beyond the wit of man (or woman) to devise some way of creating a body which would be removed from the rough-and-tumble (and often irrelevancy) of daily political debate?
As was mentioned in one of the comments in J. Arthur MacNumpty's story there are few think tanks or groups in Scotland that spend their time solely developing ideas to make the country a better place, rather than ways to seek out political advantage.
Is there a chance to use all current elected representatives (so involving no extra cost) and create some sort of body which could meet on a regular basis and debate the key issues of the day? This body could also invite key thinkers from all the groups named above and others to contribute and spend their time thinking about the nuance of policy, rather than party advantage.
The idea of a 'Scottish Lords' is not going to enthuse or perhaps even win much support amongst the public-at-large. But that doesn't mean it's not the right idea. The current level of political debate and policy development in Scotland is very narrow and often restricted to different interest groups seeing who can shout the loudest.
A 'Scottish Lords' wouldn't stop this, but it would be a forum for genuine consideration that could develop the type of ideas and analysis which would then shape government policy and general debate. It would at least ensure a more open forum for all ideas, immediately popular or not. It's also a chance - following recent debate - to ensure a more diverse voice in policy making.
The danger of the professionalisation of politics is that within a couple of generations everyone running the country will have spent their lives doing nothing else. Having such people will surely mean a dearth of ideas or policies which simply have no real basis in reality. That would obviously hurt us all.
Instead we can use the time, money and expertise which already exists to change this and ensure that more ideas at least get an airing and consideration. And we can particularly ensure that genuine experts who have spent a life understanding and working in a specific area are not shut out of public debate.
7 Apr 2009
What were they thinking?
It's impossible not to be shocked by the story of two pre-teen boys apparently torturing another two children of the same age.
Understandably this story was everywhere in yesterday's media but as it's still being investigated it hasn't yet been fully digested or explained. What is certain though is that in the next few days it will surely be defined as a reflection on modern society. But is this entirely fair or even a helpful discussion point?
It goes without saying that this is a quite genuinely horrifying event, one which is utterly unimaginable to most people, regardless of their age. Clearly anyone prepared to inflict such injuries has psychological problems it's hard to fathom.
It's worth remembering that part of the reason this is so shocking is that it is an incredibly rare occurrence; the last event to come close to this level of malice and violence (certainly within the media spotlight) is surely the Jamie Bulger case and comparisons will certainly be made with this.
However it is to be hoped that in any discussions the story does not just drift into another 'aren't things terrible now, we're going to hell in a handcart story'. Instead, if we are going to work out how children can commit such acts, we have to actually consider what lies behind this.
Attention is almost guaranteed to focus on video games and movies at some point. Just as with Jamie Bulger the content of these will surely be raised as an issue in influencing such actions, and of course it's certainly the case that these forms of entertainment have become more extreme in the past 16 years.
This is a worthwhile matter to consider, but only if it's done in a sensible manner. To my mind the content of many of these games and modern movies is quite sickening and their overall value hard to quantify. Nevertheless plenty of people watch them without turning violent, so something else has to be a factor.
The Bulger case is also important because it's a reminder that this is not something which has never taken place before, with these two events being a generation apart. There are also other stories going back much further of terrible crimes young people have committed, again though only a minority.
Because of these points - and others which will no doubt be raised too - it's vital that the first instinct of the media and society is not to seek a quick scapegoat by pointing fingers without actually knowing or considering the full facts of the case.
Clearly one key element of this which is as yet unknown is the background of the two boys who seem to be accused of this crime. Coverage will at some stage turn to their home life, any previous incidents they were involved in and so on. Actually having the facts of this - rather than just sensationalist accounts - will be a vital component of this too.
There is always a temptation when acts such as this are committed to seek a quick resolution by placing blame on one particular event or issue to simply explain how two children could do this. But if we are serious about tackling some of these problems this is completely futile.
Other stories have shown that across society as a whole there may be a growing violence even towards certain groups once considered by many to be beyond this. There are also plenty of examples of other incidents of violence. So again whilst we may be horrified at this one specific event and want answers to this we have to look more widely too than just one terrible event.
Deciding that blame lies with computer games or single parents or whatever other issue eventually becomes the defining point of this case may help salve the national conscience for a day or two by either, excusing us all from responsibility or seeming to stop the problem ever repeating itself. But that would be a waste of energy.
Quite what goes through someone's mind to commit such unspeakable acts cannot be explained here, or indeed anywhere probably; in other words there's no simple answer to this post's central question. There's also the chance that there never will be an explanation for such isolated acts of evil.
But as attempts are made to try and piece this together in some ways let us hope it's done in a way to change things in future rather than just make people feel better just now.
Understandably this story was everywhere in yesterday's media but as it's still being investigated it hasn't yet been fully digested or explained. What is certain though is that in the next few days it will surely be defined as a reflection on modern society. But is this entirely fair or even a helpful discussion point?
It goes without saying that this is a quite genuinely horrifying event, one which is utterly unimaginable to most people, regardless of their age. Clearly anyone prepared to inflict such injuries has psychological problems it's hard to fathom.
It's worth remembering that part of the reason this is so shocking is that it is an incredibly rare occurrence; the last event to come close to this level of malice and violence (certainly within the media spotlight) is surely the Jamie Bulger case and comparisons will certainly be made with this.
However it is to be hoped that in any discussions the story does not just drift into another 'aren't things terrible now, we're going to hell in a handcart story'. Instead, if we are going to work out how children can commit such acts, we have to actually consider what lies behind this.
Attention is almost guaranteed to focus on video games and movies at some point. Just as with Jamie Bulger the content of these will surely be raised as an issue in influencing such actions, and of course it's certainly the case that these forms of entertainment have become more extreme in the past 16 years.
This is a worthwhile matter to consider, but only if it's done in a sensible manner. To my mind the content of many of these games and modern movies is quite sickening and their overall value hard to quantify. Nevertheless plenty of people watch them without turning violent, so something else has to be a factor.
The Bulger case is also important because it's a reminder that this is not something which has never taken place before, with these two events being a generation apart. There are also other stories going back much further of terrible crimes young people have committed, again though only a minority.
Because of these points - and others which will no doubt be raised too - it's vital that the first instinct of the media and society is not to seek a quick scapegoat by pointing fingers without actually knowing or considering the full facts of the case.
Clearly one key element of this which is as yet unknown is the background of the two boys who seem to be accused of this crime. Coverage will at some stage turn to their home life, any previous incidents they were involved in and so on. Actually having the facts of this - rather than just sensationalist accounts - will be a vital component of this too.
There is always a temptation when acts such as this are committed to seek a quick resolution by placing blame on one particular event or issue to simply explain how two children could do this. But if we are serious about tackling some of these problems this is completely futile.
Other stories have shown that across society as a whole there may be a growing violence even towards certain groups once considered by many to be beyond this. There are also plenty of examples of other incidents of violence. So again whilst we may be horrified at this one specific event and want answers to this we have to look more widely too than just one terrible event.
Deciding that blame lies with computer games or single parents or whatever other issue eventually becomes the defining point of this case may help salve the national conscience for a day or two by either, excusing us all from responsibility or seeming to stop the problem ever repeating itself. But that would be a waste of energy.
Quite what goes through someone's mind to commit such unspeakable acts cannot be explained here, or indeed anywhere probably; in other words there's no simple answer to this post's central question. There's also the chance that there never will be an explanation for such isolated acts of evil.
But as attempts are made to try and piece this together in some ways let us hope it's done in a way to change things in future rather than just make people feel better just now.
2 Apr 2009
You can't change the world by smashing windows
Whom exactly were those anti-capitalist marches in London yesterday that turned violent aimed at?
Was it the politicians who have seen this all before and were safely ensconced far from the marauding hordes? Perhaps it was the UK public that may agree terrible mistakes have been made in the global but will surely be equally turned off any message spread by violence?
Or maybe it was the reception and security staff in those banks that protesters broke into that were either terrified at the attacks or will now have to clean the mess up? Indeed if the security staff worked for an agency maybe they'll even get a couple of (non-paid) days off whilst this takes place. Truly a victory for the working class...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with marching and protesting. Not only is the right to do so an essential part of a democratic society (as is the right to then vote against the government if you feel you've been ignored) but it is a way of expressing a legitimate opinion.
However the instant it crosses a line into mindless violence surely any moral legitimacy that may have existed disappears. In fact the entire focus of the media coverage is on the fact that confrontations have taken place, rather than your actual arguments.
Yesterday's events mirror those of the May Day riots in London in 2000 when most notably a McDonald's restaurant was smashed up by vandals. Again though beyond terrifying staff on the minimum wage and forcing them to clear up the mess it's hard to see what this achieved, unless several McDonald's executives were in town that day eating there.
Billy Bragg once said that you can't change the world by smashing windows (a sentiment shamelessly stolen for this post title). If these people have so much excess energy they'd be better trying to organise McDonald's staff into unions rather than destroying their workplace.
Are their legitimate protests taking place in London during the G20 meeting? That is surely beyond dispute unless anyone genuinely wants to suggest that recent economic problems have not been in part caused by lax regulations and actions.
And is it equally the case that many of the poorest people in the world don't get their voices heard at fancy summits? Well that seems unarguable too, which is why there is a validity to protests and marches raising these opinions and views.
But to have this end in violence in a way which detracts from the overall message and in fact may turn people against the protesters raises questions about what those that commit such acts of vandalism and assault actually want to achieve. It seems to be personal gratification rather than anything for the poor.
As with Billy Bragg above if people have such excess energy and a willingness to take direct action there is no shortage of ways they can do this, here or overseas. They could volunteer in their local community or perhaps even do so somewhere like Africa.
This would be genuine action to help the world's poorest and those that will suffer from any economic downturn (wherever they live). And it would be rather more effective than throwing stones and smashing windows.
Was it the politicians who have seen this all before and were safely ensconced far from the marauding hordes? Perhaps it was the UK public that may agree terrible mistakes have been made in the global but will surely be equally turned off any message spread by violence?
Or maybe it was the reception and security staff in those banks that protesters broke into that were either terrified at the attacks or will now have to clean the mess up? Indeed if the security staff worked for an agency maybe they'll even get a couple of (non-paid) days off whilst this takes place. Truly a victory for the working class...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with marching and protesting. Not only is the right to do so an essential part of a democratic society (as is the right to then vote against the government if you feel you've been ignored) but it is a way of expressing a legitimate opinion.
However the instant it crosses a line into mindless violence surely any moral legitimacy that may have existed disappears. In fact the entire focus of the media coverage is on the fact that confrontations have taken place, rather than your actual arguments.
Yesterday's events mirror those of the May Day riots in London in 2000 when most notably a McDonald's restaurant was smashed up by vandals. Again though beyond terrifying staff on the minimum wage and forcing them to clear up the mess it's hard to see what this achieved, unless several McDonald's executives were in town that day eating there.
Billy Bragg once said that you can't change the world by smashing windows (a sentiment shamelessly stolen for this post title). If these people have so much excess energy they'd be better trying to organise McDonald's staff into unions rather than destroying their workplace.
Are their legitimate protests taking place in London during the G20 meeting? That is surely beyond dispute unless anyone genuinely wants to suggest that recent economic problems have not been in part caused by lax regulations and actions.
And is it equally the case that many of the poorest people in the world don't get their voices heard at fancy summits? Well that seems unarguable too, which is why there is a validity to protests and marches raising these opinions and views.
But to have this end in violence in a way which detracts from the overall message and in fact may turn people against the protesters raises questions about what those that commit such acts of vandalism and assault actually want to achieve. It seems to be personal gratification rather than anything for the poor.
As with Billy Bragg above if people have such excess energy and a willingness to take direct action there is no shortage of ways they can do this, here or overseas. They could volunteer in their local community or perhaps even do so somewhere like Africa.
This would be genuine action to help the world's poorest and those that will suffer from any economic downturn (wherever they live). And it would be rather more effective than throwing stones and smashing windows.
