« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
Some interesting discussion of online etiquette and abuse from British columnists. Started by David Aaronovitch in The Times:
One reason for this libellous intemperance is the odd anonymity conferred by the internet, and the peculiar sense of indemnity it seems to offer.
Picked up by Linda Grant in The Guardian:
What, if anything, can be done to reclaim political discourse? Bullies can rarely be shamed into admitting that they have done anything wrong. Perhaps the only way is to stand up to them collectively, for people of sharply differing political opinions to cross the lines of debate and join with others with whom they do not agree on a particular question, to insist that the venom, spite, stereotyping and demonisation are not welcome.
And continued by Madeleine Bunting also in The Guardian:
Aggression, abuse and contempt are now the normal currency of debate among strangers on blogs.
It reminded me of a comment in Bill Keller's recent Hugo Young lecture on the recent tone of political debate in the US:
the tone of public discourse in my country has been nasty. It has been nasty by design; dividing the electorate into mistrustful camps and pandering to their fears ...
And somewhere else, I can't now find, there was a reference to the rarity these days of respecting someone else's right to disagree with you...(I'll find it and update!)
(This blog, thankfully, is in the minor league and attracts few comments. I welcome debate and discussion and generally feel a bullying tone simply backfires on the commenter. I've only had a couple of ranting and abusive contributions where, as it's a personal blog and not a professional one, I reserve the right to simply delete and block them...It's quite satisfying.)
Some good discussion of Alastair Campbell's thoughtful Cudlipp Lecture earlier this week - in particular Charlie Beckett of Polis.
Perhaps unsurprisingly I agreed with Kevin Marsh's observations too however:
"...while Alastair seems on one level to recognise that his controlling urges changed both politics and political journalism, he seems on another to be in denial about the scale and corrosive effect of that urge for control ... and what needs to be done to make good that corrosion.
The truth is that some very important things did change the moment Alastair left No10. It became possible, for example, to have rational, calm conversations both with Downing Street and other Government departments. My dealings - I was then Editor of Today - with Government and Ministers was no longer a perpetual combat, a zero-sum game in which reason was a sign of weakness and the resolution of every negotiation or complaint had to have a winner and a loser."
Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust reports that in questions afterwards Alastair said if the Press ever influenced voters it "was only at the margins" So what was the point of all the spin, tussling and control-freakery? I have a suspicion the media has as much power as is conferred upon it - and ironically AC conferred a lot on it.
But then apparently he also denied hectoring the BBC on Iraq. He has a short - or at least selective - memory.
These inconsistencies apart it is, as ever, an entertaining and perceptive look at the troubled relationship between media, politics and the public. In particular I was struck by this passage:
The internet gives access to news, information and consumer choices unimaginable before. On the other hand, it has further contributed to the general shortening of our attention spans. And in civic or citizen's journalism, which sounds so benign there can surely be nothing wrong with it, it has become home to a form of journalism in which there are things constantly said and written which in old media would lead to papers and radio stations being shut down. Working out where news and views are coming from, and what weight to attach to them, at a time when a new blog is created every second of every day, is now an essential part of the media consumer’s toolkit. It has meant an acceptance that certain basic journalistic standards which used to be taken for granted have been eroded. News can be news simply for the fact that someone reports something, regardless of veracity. Anyone can be a journalist. Anyone can be a cameraman. A rumour can be launched on a message board and find its way quickly, if interesting enough, into the US presidential election debate. It is a new landscape. I would love to know where it is all heading.
Wouldn't we all. Hopefully the future will include recognition of the difference between those outlets which have values, transparency and accountability and those which don't. .
For the first time in 7 years I'm not at the World Economic Forum in Davos (in spite of the Daily Mail reporting otherwise). I hear it's downbeat with concern about the economic outlook. There's a surprise.
However, they have pushed forward their reachout campaign via videoblogging in particular. It doesn't capture the real business of the conference, but it at least makes it feel more accessible.
Try You Tube
or Buzzmachine where Jeff Jarvis (and Robert Scoble) are busy using their mobiles to videoblog.
or Loic Lemeur on Seesmic
or David Brain's twitter round-up at SixtySecondView
(PS: Im delighted to read that Howard Stringer, the CEO of Sony, agrees with me about mobile..."it will be the platform for everything"...)
[Photo by Jean-Bernard Sieber via Flickr]
Most of the attention in the UK has been on the fight for the Democratic nomination. The Republican nomination is just as interesting. There's a theory, which I've heard from a couple of seasoned observers in the US, that when we get to the final campaign, the Republicans will pick their moment and play the terror card hard and strong convincing voters to "play safe" and elect John McCain.
Try Thomas Edsall in the Huffington Post for example.
In fact the McCain campaign has already started pressing those buttons in negative campaigning against Romney:
(UPDATE: I'm embarrassed that this slightly lame one-liner posted by phone is attracting my highest ever blog traffic. If you want pictures, details and analysis, try the BBC coverage!)
![BBCi: Javascript is not available
on this browser](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/bsp/hi/services/htmlsyndication/img/synd_js_error_js-inactive.gif")
.
