The Thursday rant #9
This week’s ranter: Neil Harding is the uncut, uncensored, unofficial voice of Brighton Regency Labour.
Editorial note, Thursday evening: Sadly it has been brought to our attention that this is – as well as being uncut, uncensored and unofficial – entirely unoriginal, as it was previously posted on Neil’s own blog two months ago. As such, it is now below the fold (as it has attracted some interesting comments, at least). “The Rant” is designed for original pieces, not cut and pasting, though obviously we can’t read through every ranter’s entire output in advance to make sure. We are, however, still on the lookout for more potential “Rant” contributors – all we ask is for a modicum of effort. Cheers. NM.
We will never have a free press while it is run by reactionary bigots
This article is about THE most important subject  power  and it’s much easier to achieve power if you can control or manipulate the media. Think of the constant vilificaton of immigrants, the poor, public services and ultimately the Labour Party. This happens every day and is a drip drip of propaganda affecting all our thinking.
While the newspapers are unregulated and dictated to by commercial interests they will always be biased in favour of the right-wing agenda of tax cuts and public service cuts. Our extreme press vilify the BBC as left-wing for daring to give airtime to both sides of the argument. The reality is, even the BBC is affected by the press, which skews its agenda to the right.
Yet there is something simple, proven and immediate we can do to remedy this. There are strict laws on impartiality which govern the broadcast media. While these laws are not perfect they prevent overt bias by putting the onus on broadcasters to cover all sides of the argument. All we have to do is extend this law to the press. The press will try their best to get around it and no doubt will still express bias BUT it will at least make it much more difficult for them to get away with the most overt kind.
Opponents may claim this as a restriction on free speech. It is nothing of the sort. The press would be free to print whatever they like as long as they give due consideration to other points of view. You may say this would be difficult to enforce but it seems to work ok in the broadcast media, so why not the print media?
This government legislate against newspapers? I imagine Tony’s friend Rupert would have quite a bit to say about that.
A government who seems to think its very survival depends on assiduously courting Murdoch and The Sun are hardly likely to turn round and say, “enough’s enough, lads” They’d last five minutes. It’ll be “The Sun backs The Tories” and before you know it every dirty little New Labour secret would be getting an airing.
And then you’ll have the rest of the press queuing up to get their lumps as well. Can you see the Mail being restrained about this?
This is before you get anywhere near arguments about press freedom. You’d be better off campaigning to give the Press Complaints Commission more teeth – the power of proper sanctions etc.
Or the one sentence version of your rant: ‘The press isn’t sufficiently biased in favour of my own political opinions.’
Think of the constant vilificaton of immigrants, the poor, public services and ultimately the Labour Party.
Erm, the press is biased against the Labour Party? This would be the same press that virtually unanimously recommended voting them back into power for an ‘historic third term’ all of 6 months ago? Say what now?!
This happens every day and is a drip drip of propaganda affecting all our thinking.
You know, it pains me to say it, but in the absence of effective, principled and consistent opposition, the press is really the only thing holding back the government from outright tyranny. There is a massive difference between ‘propaganda’ and holding the government to account and ensuring that it does what it has promised to do in the past. You seem not to understand this distinction.
While the newspapers are unregulated and dictated to by commercial interests they will always be biased in favour of the right-wing agenda of tax cuts and public service cuts.
Ah, yes, the unanimous calls for public service cuts from the press are deafening aren’t they? I particularly enjoyed Polly Toynbee’s call this week for the NHS to be shut down, and for benefit scroungers to be publicly flogged. The Independent’s leader story only yesterday on how the upper-bracket tax rate is simply tyrannical was particularly enlightened, I thought.
Muppet.
“Opponents may claim this as a restriction on free speech. It is nothing of the sort. The press would be free to print whatever they like as long as…”
Ha! And for next week’s rant, that Duff and Nonsense chap with “I’m not racist but…”
Surely the subject of the rant ought to be the people who buy these newspapers?
required by legislation to give due consideration of other points of view?
something like this?
Columnist A: The invasion of Iraq is a terrible crime! I have considered the possibility that it’s a good thing, but have rejected it.
Columnist B: The invasion of Iraq is a good thing! I have considered the possibility that it’s a terrible crime, but have rejected it.
We could have disclaimers after every story. “The author hereby certifies that other points of view have been duly considered.”
Might not a genuinely free press – obviously not all individual members of the press, but as you seem to believe, a majority – have come to hold what you consider to be right wing positions, of their own volition? A point of view worth considering, I think.
What would you need to see before you would declare the press to be unbiased? Of course, as somebody who likes to consider all points of view, I’m sure you’d agree that a left wing bias is no better than a right wing bias or of any other sort of bias. So, we’re looking for some sort of distribution of opinions across the press – perhaps a quota system calculated so that the points of view expressed in the media match the distribution of points of view held by the public, as established by opinion polls? Hmm, I foresee a problem, what if the general public are themselves found to be biased? It’s a tricky one.
Perhaps sampling the distribution of points of view expressed in the media is the wrong track. Perhaps we need an appeals system, or a bias prosecutor. We need a council of wise persons, so if Oliver Kamm complains that Noam Chomsky hasn’t duly considered matters, he can force an adjudication and correction. And vice versa. Or, if a case of pernicious bias is identified in a news story masquerading as straight reportage, the newspaper in question can be fined and told not to do it again.
Sounds like fun – baggsy the job of policing The Guardian.
Does it work OK in the broadcast media?
OK, as Luis raises an interesting point (and I’ve got a temporary lull in workloads) I’m going to take this more seriously – what would Barthes have to say about all this?
Actually, I know PRECISELY what he’d have to say: “The Reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in it origin but in its destination.”
As it stands at the moment, the British press has fairly clearly-defined loose political biases that pretty much any even slightly attentive newspaper reader would be able to tell you. Reading the Guardian you know to look out for leftism, the Mail for rightism.
In knowing where the bias lies the reader is better able to filter the information and react to it appropriately. To introduce compulsary balance (which, due to the problems of terminology – the lack of an agreed definition of “terrorism” being prime, but equally the potential ideological overtones of words such as “class”, “Empire”, “markets” etc. – would be well-nigh impossible) would simply lead to confusion. At the moment, however, political allegiances in the printed press in this country are pretty much clear, often overtly stated, and also fairly flexible, as the Sun’s switch from Tory to Labour proved.
Maybe we should force everyone to read everything? That’s the only way you’re going to ensure they have the ability to form truly balanced opinions. But then we’d also have to force everyone to watch both hardcore porn and Songs of Praise, so that they’ve got both sides of the argument; everyone would need to be made to watch Jerry Springer the Opera AND listen to Christian Voice blather on for an equivalent period of time about why it’s blasphemy.
But, of course, the very fact that you propose introducing compulsary “balance” to every newspaper presupposes an utter contempt for the ability of the reader/public to detect political bias themselves – even when a paper stamps “WE BACK LABOUR” all over its front page.
Because, after all, no one would EVER consider, say, buying both the Telegraph AND the Independent to get two sides of the same story, thus enabling them to make up their own minds, would they?And no one would, like, prefer to read a paper which echoes their own opinions and stuff, would they? Market forces are, like, TORY and stuff, and therefore must be inherently eeeevil and incapable of working.
Therein lies your own bias. Which is precisely why you accused me of being a Tory on here a couple of weeks back because I disagreed with you, even though I’m quite blatantly not.
Would the article you have just written, which considers only the effect of the press on Labour, pass your own proposed impartiality test? Why?
Its dem bloggers we need to regulate!
Neil, take your Equal Time for Holocaust Deniers law back to the Thomas Kuhn Institute for the Promotion of Falsehood in Public Discourse where it belongs.
this “Thursday rant” feature really isn’t working.
Equal time: yes it is.
No, I don’t think this idea will catch on.
Neil, is this a rant about the press or is it really just about the Sun and the Mail?
Neil
Trouble is, to report with the degree of responsibility you’r describing, the Press would have to understand the news. As a rule they don’t really.
Disappointingly, this rant is exactly the same as when Neil first posted it here:
http://brightonregencylabourparty.blogspot.com/2005/10/we-will-never-have-free-press-while-it.html
I wouldn’t mind, but 10 comments were left there, and we end up just covering the same old ground.
“Our extreme press vilify the BBC as left-wing for daring to give airtime to both sides of the argument. The reality is, even the BBC is affected by the press, which skews its agenda to the right.”
http://www.cps.org.uk/pdf/pub/411.pdf
Mr Harding correctly claims that the BBC gives air time to both sides of the argument. Perhaps in the interests of equality and fairness (ideals that I’m sure Mr Harding would like to associate himself with) he might encourage the BBC to give equal air time to both sides of the arguement.
I know that this The Sharpener is supposed to lack bigotry, but Neil really is the biggest knobhaed in the world, ever. Cheating, ignorant Labour apologist that he is.
When I rule this country, he will be burnt at the stake; although there’s no purification intended or expected…
DK
Entirely off-topic, but what’s up with Harry’s Place? It’s been pulled down, in its entirety, within the last hour with no explanation. I was able to TB the site about 10am today, and now it’s just got a banner saying “No blogging here”.
What a horrific tragedy. Be still, my burning tears.
Ding, dong, the witch is dead!
*skips off into the sunset down the yellow brick road*
Actually, bugger – spoke too soon. It’s back again.
Why do I ALWAYS have to jinx everything?
No it’s not. I can’t get to it – it still says “No blogging here”.
Well, they’ve probably banned anyone with a Muslim name from reading it by now…
“Smith” is a Muslim name, now? We’re doomed!
Ditto Chris Lightfoot on the people who buy the newspapers.
Nosemonkey: you could use google’s site:www.example.com phrase. eg site:brightonregencylabourparty.blogspot.com “manipulate the media”. But why do we have to be so cynical? Oh, because we’re dealing with a New Labourite who is so independent he calls his site “BrightonRegencyLabour”.
It got cracked.
See here
I think in the interest of fairness and balance The Sharpener should publish a rant of equal length and unoriginality, outlining why impartiality-laws should *not* be extended to the printed press.
You got one you published a couple of months ago waiting? But wouldn’t it have to be of a different length and very original to balance the metaphysical karma, and stuff?
Hi guys, just to clear up a few points.
I emailed this article to the Sharpener before I published it on my own blog. After 2 weeks of not hearing anything, I assumed they weren’t going to use it, so I put it up on my own site.
When I was contacted in the last few weeks about it, I was asked if they could still use it. I said fine and made one minor change to the original.
As is demonstrated in the comments, most of you had not read the article, so I don’t see why it matters that I had put it on my blog 2 months ago. I certainly didn’t realise that that barred it from selection.
On the other main point. All the people making the point about ‘equal coverage’ of issues are misinterpreting what I and the broadcast act actually say. I use ‘due consideration’, that is not the same as ‘equal coverage’. Equal coverage is obviously rubbish and is the argument used by ‘intelligent design’. This is most certainly not what I am advocating.
This change is not a perfect solution but it does seem to stop the most overt kinds of misrepresentation of facts. I’m sure nobody here would argue that most newspapers are more balanced in their coverage than any broadcast media. That is all I’m trying to remedy.
Ok, well take your Due Consideration for Holocaust Deniers law and put it where you put the Equal Time Directive.
I think this law should be applied to your blog. Then you wouldn’t engage people in argument, receive a counterargument, and then repeat your original argument without acknowledging the other side of the story, which on ID cards you did again and again and again.
And this week at The Sharpener, we have a barrel full of Neil-fish and an automatic weapon. Let’s see what happens, shall we…?
DK
IMO each section of the media is always going to complain about the opposite side being biased. The Daily Mail types bitch and rant about over political correctness by using a few silly examples to make their point.
While we on the left (not including DK of course and maybe others) will complain about the right wing agenda.
There are two arguments here. Firstly that maybe this is what people want – biased newspapers that fit into their agenda. Something the Indy editor-in-chief Simon Kelner has been advocating as: “Viewspapers”.
It is also true, and proved by many a study, that people buy newspapers that not only bring them their kind of news, but also values that they agree with. Therefore I buy the Guardian over the Daily Mail because I don’t want high blood pressure every day :)
The second view is that having two sides to every argument (or two diff newspapers) is good for democracy and the national conversation in general because it allows people to take sides and thrash out an argument.
All this applies more to newspapers of course than broadcasting IMO.
The only problem is that the PCC has been terrible at pulling up newspapers for false and mis-leading headlines. The Advertising Standards Authority does a great job with ads, so why the newspapers aren’t regulated better is a source of frustration.
Examples being “asylum seekers ate Queen’s swans”, “banks ban piggy banks in order to avoid Muslims” etc etc.
Martin: “Ok, well take your Due Consideration for Holocaust Deniers law and put it where you put the Equal Time Directive. I think this law should be applied to your blog. Then you wouldn’t engage people in argument, receive a counterargument, and then repeat your original argument without acknowledging the other side of the story, which on ID cards you did again and again and again.”
I think that is unfair, I acknowledged the other side of the argument so much I actually changed my position, what more did you want me to do? On the other point, due consideration for holocaust deniers would be just to state that their position is ridiculous. I only want the law that works so well for the broadcat media extended to the press, that is all. We all know how biased the press is.
Wait, wait… DK’s “on the left” and I’m a Tory?
Good grief, no wonder you appear to be wrong on pretty much every single political issue.
Edited: Ah… Not Mr Harding claiming that. My bad. Need more coffee, evidently.
“Erm, the press is biased against the Labour Party? This would be the same press that virtually unanimously recommended voting them back into power for an ‘historic third term’ all of 6 months ago?”
Can we really say the Murdoch Press supports Labour when it slagged them off for years before the election, then only gave its reluctant backing in the last few weeks when it was obvious Labour were going to win?
I remember how the Sun was promoting Howard’s scandalous campaign against Gypsies and Immigrants just as much as the Daily Express/Mail/Telegraph campaigns.
The Sun heavily campaigns for tax cuts, how does this help Labour?
Justin: “It’ll be “The Sun backs The Tories†and before you know it every dirty little New Labour secret would be getting an airing.”
Isn’t that the case already?
The Sun recently described Conservative MPs as “traitors”. I think Labour have little to complain of in terms of the Press.
Neil, have you read The Sun since 1994?
Support by Rupert Murdoch’s press cannot be taken for granted. Its because Labour goes along with policies that suit them, that they support Labour (loosely, since they oppose Labour most of the time except near election time).
Sean, the Sun accused Tony Blair of a big betrayal and treachery on Thursday. (I was going to say that that evens up the “Traitors” attack on the Davids, but I think it just shows that Trevor Kavanagh has become deranged.)
On the right wing issues, the Sun will back TB (note TB not Labour), but on everything else and crucially taxation they argue against Labour.
_This_ is the guy who likes ID cards? Cool – it’s nice to see my enemies reveal themselves as eedjits.
ObBalance: “Oh no it isn’t!”
etc..
Has anyone read Anthony Sampson’s book on ‘Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain in the 21st Century’?
There is a chapter about the press, the Rothermeres and Murdochs etc. and how much power they have exerted over government policy. It is absolutely frightening. We have to do something to curtail this power, the internet is helping. I can’t think of anything more democratic than the blogosphere at the moment, where so many different views can get an airing and where there is in-depth debate. This is what we need the press to become more like.
The press needs to be more like the blogosphere? A bunch of know-nothing, pyjama-wearing armchair generals pontificating arrogantly about issues that will never effect their cosy, middle-class lifestyles? No thanks. I’ll take Trevor Kavanagh and Rebekah Wade over that any day of the week.
A bunch of know-nothing, pyjama-wearing armchair generals pontificating arrogantly about issues that will never effect their cosy, middle-class lifestyles?
And just because the national reporters get press releases sent to them, and have sub-editors to look after their grammar, you think they’re different?
Mental note: self-deprecating humour doesn’t work on blogs…
Mental note 2: nor did this joke…