Posts by Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You're right about where the power lies.
Malik is talking about holding power to account as if the only power is the government/state.
It's not even just the individual power of someone like Murdoch, it's as much that all the proprietors in a self interest sense, and their editors from a world view sense, are all perfectly happy with those other areas of power not being held to account.
The media ownership mix is crucial, but I think that genie is out and the Brits have to live with it. But the coarse cynical culture goes beyond just them, the fact for instance that something like the BBCs Today programme is a such he said/ she said bear pit, that ceased doing what it's supposed to long ago, is part of the same problem. Having a starting position where everyone in public life is treated with total contempt just isn't healthy.
-
Pleased to see OED chose Omnishambles as their WOTY, but hard to go past Dotcom.
WOTD: Global
-
Hard News: Looking at Leveson, in reply to Rob Stowell,
The real indictment of the press today is not that it is too powerful but that it is too cowardly. It fails to probe deeply enough, it is unable to ask the difficult questions of those in power, it refuses to challenge received wisdom. In that sense the problem with the press is not that it is too strong, but that it is too weak.
Why the press is so weakened is interesting but not really the point… though a sense of weakness is an interesting explanation for the bully-boy behaviour.
But I think this is the crux of Malik’s argument, and it’s unconvincing:I think he's missing the point though, it's not that the 'press' are too weak, but that reporters in relation to their editors and proprietors are.
The refuse to hold certain quarters to account in and old fashion sense is not due to cowardice, but because in the case of many of then they simply have no interest in doing so. If you take the Mail for instance, what's been obvious for a long while and was confirmed by evidence given to Leveson is that the paper is pretty the vision of one man. That's an extreme example, but it's true to a degree true for most of them.
I've no doubt many individual journalists still take their role of holding power to account very seriously, but I don't think that's true of those in management.As to second point, he's right that it means more than simply reigning in the papers, but if you're going to try and change the poisonous cynical culture starting with people who've probably played the largest role in creating it seems sensible.
Here's Sundal Hundal on why Leveson was right to ignore the internet, make of it what you will.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/11/30/lord-leveson-was-right-to-ignore-the-internet-in-his-report/
-
Hard News: Looking at Leveson, in reply to Russell Brown,
Then I read Kenan Malik. Damn he is impressive.
It's a very strong argument. I've just followed him on Twitter.
It is, but there's also something of an irony with accusing Hacked Off of a kind of moral blackmail when there's been plenty of 'Support Leveson = hate freedom' type responses, often from people who wouldn't normally engage in such ott behaviour.
There's been an interesting conversation between Nick Cohen & Salman Rushdie on Twitter this morning. Interesting as Cohen's been one those most vehement that this is a major threat to free speech, and has written extensively in support of Rushdie. Rushdie's calling on people to join Hackned Off & sign the petition.
There's plenty of well argued legal opinion that the extent and effect of any statutory underpinning will be a lots less than been claimed.Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Telegraph & it's source have been prosecuted under existing law? This may be an opportunity to ensure there can a proper public interest defence?
My hunch is this will probably has less of an effect either way, as it's not going to do much for the culture that's at the root of the problems.
-
It'a been amusing watching each of the major players of the right wing press respond to Leveson by just reverting to type. That Dacre's actually upped the personalised nature of the attacks has been particularly brazen.
They're all counting on the fact that the overwhelming tone of British public life these days is one of cynicism. Celebs are acting out of pure self interest, the Guardian reading 'liberal elite' bogeyman wish to silence the popular press,and all politicians are liars.
They've help create a culture where you're expected to assume the worst of the motivations of anyone in public life, and if they can exploit it to their advantage now they will. The thing I noticed whilst living their was the extent to which it was just accepted, and that expecting anything better was largely pointless.
-
I really hope Cat Power does make it.
I know she's said that despite cancelling the European tour she still intends to come, but given everything that's been going on with her sadly I wouldn't be shocked if it doesn't happen.
-
Am I along in really liking Songs for Drella?
-
Hard News: The Velvet Underground Etc., in reply to Grant McDougall,
James Young’s account of life as Nico’s Keyboardist, Songs They Never Play On The Radio is hilarious and includes a section on touring NZ with Headless Chickens supporting.
It was hilarious, although I did wonder how embellished some of the stories were.
-
Hard News: The Velvet Underground Etc., in reply to Martin Lindberg,
You can buy the record and the songs on it every digital whichway now -- not least on this year's six-disc (yes, really) reissue package
Because I'm a VU fanboy I have ordered this. It will fit nicely next to the five-CD box Peel Slowly and See from 1995.
I was enough of a fanboy for Peel Slowly, and actually like the demo on disc1 but 6 more discs without anything really new is just a bit much.
-
Hard News: Triangulated by Fools, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Reality has a ABC bias as well as a liberal one.