If the LSE had the slightest notion of their role in society, they'd be offering John Sweeney an Honorary Doctorate. It is surely insane to argue that Sweeney and the BBC should not have gone to N Korea because the North Koreans ban journalists from entering the country?
Instead, they whine about how his decision to quietly join one of their tours in order to report from North Korea could have imperilled 'innocent' students and future trips to this sinister and murderous Kleptocracy.
There's an obvious one word answer to the LSE's charges; Diddums.
Or a longer one where you have to point out - to idiots - that their options to expose their students to disgusting propaganda may have been reduced because of a naughty old journalist.
Do the LSE imagine that it is their role to relieve any of their students of their rights to full enquiry, freedom of expression or assembly? That they should ask them to waive their rights or their desire to do these things when they sign up to a trip - and that they collude with the worst form of totalitarianism?
Do they imagine that the North Koreans will now revise their previously open and even-handed approach to how their hellhole is reported?
Surely, it should be a key part of the preparation they give to their students prior to such a trip? To disabuse them of the view that it's acceptable to collude with fascist propaganda. To understand that pleading innocence of this obligation is the essence of the Quisling. To stress that any and all opportunities must be taken to combat censorship of the most brazen kind.
This is a matter that is so simple and clear-cut. For all of the bleating from the LSE about how their students were being endangered (and I doubt they were in any serious way), there's not one word of admiration for the bravery of John Sweeney and the film crew that accompanied him. Had they been exposed on this trip, I suspect they would have found themselves treated very badly indeed.
I hope there are resignations at the LSE following this. And I hope that the entire British media unites behind Sweeney
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Immigration. Some things that no-one seems to be saying.
The Tories have decided to make immigration a cornerstone of their mid-term build up. Electorally-speaking, I suppose there are reasons to do this. Given the perceived (I would argue, overstated) threat from UKIP, and the presence of Lynton 'Dog-Whistle' Crosbie on the team, this is only to be expected.
A few questions:
Firstly, is immigration something that politicians need to worry about for reasons other than electoral gain?
I'd say it is. I buy the 'free movement of peoples is good for the economy' line. I'd also argue that, in the highly devalued currency of what constitutes 'illiberalism', denying people the right to cross borders and live/work where they choose is a good deal more important than a lot of the alleged 'end-of-a-thousand- years-of-history' infringements that liberal commentators are keen to highlight.
I write this with the ongoing Leveson debate ringing in our ears.
As a matter of principle, it remains unstated, I would argue, because it makes a hypocrite of many of the people who selectively use civil-liberties arguments when it suits them.
But, on the other side of the argument, what about some of the poorest people in UK society? Does large scale migration damage social capital? I'd say it does, often very seriously, and that this argument is hugely under-made partly because it hits the least articulate and most poorly-represented people in the UK. Similarly, it hardly makes the labour market a more comfortable place for those same people either - a non-issue if what passes for public debate is anything to go by. Is an argument that the Labour leadership make sotto voce when they want the unions to buy into a slightly tougher line on this subject, but that's the only time I ever hear it. Is there some kind of liberal omertà on this subject? And is that sustainable?
Secondly, does the fact that politicians such as Cameron and Farage are jostling to own this issue create new dangers? Is demagoguery a worry here or is it simply a reflection of sentiment that is already in the country? Does the jockeying in the Westminster Village alter the the way people think? I would tentatively argue that it probably doesn't. Does the way newspapers report it? I'd strongly argue that it does.
Thirdly, the big question: Does the emergence of this issue, along with a few other worrying factors such as the tensions pulling at the EU, and the decline in trust between the people and the various social and capitalist pillars of our society, mean that we're living in dangerous times?
We take our open society and liberal democracy for granted, but is it really going to be something that we all spend all of our lives enjoying? I suppose that, If I'm lucky, I'll get another 40 years with my boots on. My children will get a lot longer I hope. Will that time see my country at war with its neighbours? Will it see another age of informers, secret police, patrolled borders, a real hungry economic collapse and extreme political movements?
In the chapter 'The Fall of Liberalism' in Eric Hobsbawm's 'The Age of Extremes' we see a collapse of liberal institutions throughout much of the globe. I hope you take this prompt to dig it out and read it for yourselves so I won't spoil it for you, apart from to say that he concludes that 'Fascism-as-catalyst' was really very far from being the sole cause of the gathering catastrophe that followed the 1918 Armistice in his view.
Hobsbawm discusses the fiction of 'the people' (one that liberal bourgeois society buys into but that sociologists and politicians often don't) that was tested and found wanting in the 1930s. That is, the people who have an identifiable common interest that can be met - with tensions resolved - by an agreed political process. Now, we haven't seen a slump on the inter-war scale, whatever newspapers try to tell you. Nor do we have the kind of nationalalst tensions we had then, though a break up the EU could fix that quite easily. But The 1930s didn't see migration on this scale either. If politicians are to have a credible policy that restrains immigration effectively, it will involve measures that will serverly strain bourgeois liberalism and leave it at the mercy of populism. It would need proper expensive border control, work permits and various measures to identify people without the correct 'papers'. It would involve internment. Sorry to sound alarmist, be we're talking of camps here - on a scale that we've not really braced ourselves for to date.
Why is no-one discussing any of this? And why do anti-immigration politicians not come clean about the need for ID cards, databases, arbitrary detention, deportations and large-scale surveillance? And why do those of us who want to live in a world where free movement is possible and easy not acknowledge the price that is paid - often by the sections of society that are least likely to vote?
It seems to me to be a very odd debate.
A few questions:
Firstly, is immigration something that politicians need to worry about for reasons other than electoral gain?
I'd say it is. I buy the 'free movement of peoples is good for the economy' line. I'd also argue that, in the highly devalued currency of what constitutes 'illiberalism', denying people the right to cross borders and live/work where they choose is a good deal more important than a lot of the alleged 'end-of-a-thousand- years-of-history' infringements that liberal commentators are keen to highlight.
I write this with the ongoing Leveson debate ringing in our ears.
As a matter of principle, it remains unstated, I would argue, because it makes a hypocrite of many of the people who selectively use civil-liberties arguments when it suits them.
But, on the other side of the argument, what about some of the poorest people in UK society? Does large scale migration damage social capital? I'd say it does, often very seriously, and that this argument is hugely under-made partly because it hits the least articulate and most poorly-represented people in the UK. Similarly, it hardly makes the labour market a more comfortable place for those same people either - a non-issue if what passes for public debate is anything to go by. Is an argument that the Labour leadership make sotto voce when they want the unions to buy into a slightly tougher line on this subject, but that's the only time I ever hear it. Is there some kind of liberal omertà on this subject? And is that sustainable?
Secondly, does the fact that politicians such as Cameron and Farage are jostling to own this issue create new dangers? Is demagoguery a worry here or is it simply a reflection of sentiment that is already in the country? Does the jockeying in the Westminster Village alter the the way people think? I would tentatively argue that it probably doesn't. Does the way newspapers report it? I'd strongly argue that it does.
Thirdly, the big question: Does the emergence of this issue, along with a few other worrying factors such as the tensions pulling at the EU, and the decline in trust between the people and the various social and capitalist pillars of our society, mean that we're living in dangerous times?
We take our open society and liberal democracy for granted, but is it really going to be something that we all spend all of our lives enjoying? I suppose that, If I'm lucky, I'll get another 40 years with my boots on. My children will get a lot longer I hope. Will that time see my country at war with its neighbours? Will it see another age of informers, secret police, patrolled borders, a real hungry economic collapse and extreme political movements?
In the chapter 'The Fall of Liberalism' in Eric Hobsbawm's 'The Age of Extremes' we see a collapse of liberal institutions throughout much of the globe. I hope you take this prompt to dig it out and read it for yourselves so I won't spoil it for you, apart from to say that he concludes that 'Fascism-as-catalyst' was really very far from being the sole cause of the gathering catastrophe that followed the 1918 Armistice in his view.
Hobsbawm discusses the fiction of 'the people' (one that liberal bourgeois society buys into but that sociologists and politicians often don't) that was tested and found wanting in the 1930s. That is, the people who have an identifiable common interest that can be met - with tensions resolved - by an agreed political process. Now, we haven't seen a slump on the inter-war scale, whatever newspapers try to tell you. Nor do we have the kind of nationalalst tensions we had then, though a break up the EU could fix that quite easily. But The 1930s didn't see migration on this scale either. If politicians are to have a credible policy that restrains immigration effectively, it will involve measures that will serverly strain bourgeois liberalism and leave it at the mercy of populism. It would need proper expensive border control, work permits and various measures to identify people without the correct 'papers'. It would involve internment. Sorry to sound alarmist, be we're talking of camps here - on a scale that we've not really braced ourselves for to date.
Why is no-one discussing any of this? And why do anti-immigration politicians not come clean about the need for ID cards, databases, arbitrary detention, deportations and large-scale surveillance? And why do those of us who want to live in a world where free movement is possible and easy not acknowledge the price that is paid - often by the sections of society that are least likely to vote?
It seems to me to be a very odd debate.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Hawks and Doves
Imagine you have two rival organisations. One is a new outfit that you have just created called The Doves. Lovely people! Anyone can join - no barriers, No discrimination. No nepotism. No 'old establishment'. Highly agile and flexible. Very flat democratic structures - anyone can raise an issue and all decisions are taken out in the open. All of your structures are decided democratically. You're a paragon of transparency.
You set The Doves up because you want to challenge The Hawks. The Hawks are invitation-only. Opaque and undemocratic, they look like a cross between The Freemasons and The Illuminati with a bit of Bilderberg thrown in.
See what you did there? You gave The Hawks the sort of gift that they couldn't have hoped for in their wildest dreams. You gave them a weapon they could never have built or bought.
This is why you can never trust a hippy.
You set The Doves up because you want to challenge The Hawks. The Hawks are invitation-only. Opaque and undemocratic, they look like a cross between The Freemasons and The Illuminati with a bit of Bilderberg thrown in.
See what you did there? You gave The Hawks the sort of gift that they couldn't have hoped for in their wildest dreams. You gave them a weapon they could never have built or bought.
This is why you can never trust a hippy.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Journalism needs to develop a collective conscience if it is to survive
I started last Sunday morning in bed, the way I usually start Sunday mornings: Sitting up, reading loads of articles that had been recommended to me by my Facebook timeline during the past week - some blogs but mostly from newspaper sites - on the iPad or my laptop.
The iPad cost about £450 and the laptop cost a good deal more than that. I probably clipped a few things to Evernote from my work PC as well during the week. My WiFi connection costs me over £20 a month..... all in all, tech companies get paid a lot of money by me to make this lovely Sunday lie-in a good one.
I usually clip articles that I intend to read straight to Evernote (which I pay for) and the only ads I really see are the ones Facebook serve up. Sometimes, if I notice people on Facebook or Twitter mentioning something without linking to it, I'll go over to Google, find out what they're on about and clip the article again for reading, so I do see the odd Google ad as well.
For these reasons (and not because of any deliberate ad-avoidance) I dont see any adverts that are posted next to the articles. It would be fair to say that I don't pay a penny directly or indirectly to the authors or their agents for any of my Sunday morning reading.
I rarely pay in any way for the journalism I consume. I get The Times app on my iPad to read on the way to work. I tried The Guardian one but it was so unreliable, I cancelled it. My 'Times' purchase is an ill-considered one - and one that I don't get much value from. If I thought about it, I'd switch to the FT instead as I'm not keen on giving the Murdoch clan much of my tin, but I keep it on mainly because it's a fairly painless way for me to salve my conscience about not paying anything to read newspapers.
People like me are destroying the investment base of journalism. The only economic interaction I have with journalists is that their work nudges up the value that I place upon my iPad, laptop, Evernote and Facebook.
Objectively, people like me are far more vicious censors than any Ministry of Truth or any restrictive social convention. At least they allow some journalism to exist with a sustainable economic base. Do I feel bad about it? No. There would be no point in that. On the other hand, I would, if journalism as a craft with a collective conscience (and other crafts have these) woke up to the fact that their failure to assert the value of their work needs to be addressed radically.
But until then, there's no point. At the moment, I accept that we have a moral duty to part fools from their money.
Don't get me wrong either. I hate piracy and abuse of people's copyright. I work with film-makers and I know plenty of penurious musicians. I know how much learning, work and craft they put into their product. When some prick digitises their work and puts it on a P2P site - especially when the artist or their agents are either making it available at a price or choosing to exercise their moral rights - I regard this as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.
But newspapers are not filled with such craft. Nor do many of the writers have the chutzpah to demand that their work is valued in the way film-makers or musicians do. It would be a tough job to do if they did. After all, the blogosphere has established over the past decade that anyone can produce what a large slice of what most of the journalistic profession describes as the 'craft' of journalism is capable of producing - and that there are literally millions of people are already doing it in their own spare time.
Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has got one and no-one wants to hear any of them. We can all use Twitter to add our own flavour of cynicism and spin to what other people report. But good journalism - investigation, reporting, genuine educated insight - still needs to be funded. Unless it is, it becomes the exclusive terrain of those who would benefit in other ways from doing this work. As the professions of PR and journalism merge, this is already increasingly the reality here.
Good journalism won't ever be 'crowdsourced' like the Unicorn Cult of Wikipedians imagine it will be. When a 'journalist' copies the 'exclusive' work of a real journalist and reprints it without attribution, a profession with any sense of itself would hound them out of that profession. We're back to that 'craft conscience' issue. The missing component of all of the post-Leveson hand-wringing here in the UK has been journalists putting their hands up and saying "we have collectively failed - we have stood by and watched our profession degrade and it's time we did something about it."
That's the problem. It's not a profession or a craft that has any collective conscience. As such, it doesn't have the legitimacy that it needs to demand that its products are valued. Journalists seem to do little by way of demarcation between themselves and PR people these days. If it did, the profession and its industry would at least have the self-respect to be able to kick back against the scornful undervaluation of their work as much as the music and film businesses have.
But journalism is barely a profession or a craft anymore - except (ironically) the sort of stuff that people bother to clip to Evernote having read it in their Facebook or Twitter timeline.
What to do about this? It's hard to know where to start. You'd expect a craft that had a collective conscience to at least be discussing this. There is no question that the demand for real reporting and insight is larger than ever before. Other industries that have had their demand boosted by the arrival of the Internet have increased their revenue. But as long as it is the convention to give all of the content away to anyone with a browser and to allow search engines to index all of it without charge, no market can ever emerge.
Musicians like Camper Van Beethoven's David Lowery have been saying this for some time. Journalists need to start demanding the erection of a paywall around their work. They need to start insisting that Google pays something to index their content - as a single supplier that dominates the market, it exercises monopoly powers here and it should either compensate for the damage that this does to journalists, or be broken up.
It's time for writers to stop being conned into creating demand for tech kit. They deserve a slice of that cash we all spend on hardware / services / WiFi. I don't particularly want to see paywalls, and I don't think that a functioning market will ultimately need them either. But until they exist on all titles that pay journalists and Google have to pay to index what is behind them, no-one is going to incentivise publishers to take them down. There will be no functioning market for journalism until paywalls are at least introduced. Doing so may concentrate a few minds wonderfully.
If such paywalls existed, personally, I'd pay a fair few quid a week to my ISP if they could route me around them. I wouldn't mind paying a bit to services like Evernote for the added value I get from clipped stories.
Newspaper sites could be negotiating deals like this - if they erected paywalls, but at the moment they can't. For some reason, I can't remember the last time I heard a journalist attacking publishers for not creating paywalls. Why is this? Even though good journalism is a valuable craft, perhaps the fact that few people perceive it to be so means that no-one is prepared to make the argument?
The failure to articulate a collective journalistic conscience is at the heart of this problem.
The iPad cost about £450 and the laptop cost a good deal more than that. I probably clipped a few things to Evernote from my work PC as well during the week. My WiFi connection costs me over £20 a month..... all in all, tech companies get paid a lot of money by me to make this lovely Sunday lie-in a good one.
I usually clip articles that I intend to read straight to Evernote (which I pay for) and the only ads I really see are the ones Facebook serve up. Sometimes, if I notice people on Facebook or Twitter mentioning something without linking to it, I'll go over to Google, find out what they're on about and clip the article again for reading, so I do see the odd Google ad as well.
For these reasons (and not because of any deliberate ad-avoidance) I dont see any adverts that are posted next to the articles. It would be fair to say that I don't pay a penny directly or indirectly to the authors or their agents for any of my Sunday morning reading.
I rarely pay in any way for the journalism I consume. I get The Times app on my iPad to read on the way to work. I tried The Guardian one but it was so unreliable, I cancelled it. My 'Times' purchase is an ill-considered one - and one that I don't get much value from. If I thought about it, I'd switch to the FT instead as I'm not keen on giving the Murdoch clan much of my tin, but I keep it on mainly because it's a fairly painless way for me to salve my conscience about not paying anything to read newspapers.
People like me are destroying the investment base of journalism. The only economic interaction I have with journalists is that their work nudges up the value that I place upon my iPad, laptop, Evernote and Facebook.
Objectively, people like me are far more vicious censors than any Ministry of Truth or any restrictive social convention. At least they allow some journalism to exist with a sustainable economic base. Do I feel bad about it? No. There would be no point in that. On the other hand, I would, if journalism as a craft with a collective conscience (and other crafts have these) woke up to the fact that their failure to assert the value of their work needs to be addressed radically.
But until then, there's no point. At the moment, I accept that we have a moral duty to part fools from their money.
Don't get me wrong either. I hate piracy and abuse of people's copyright. I work with film-makers and I know plenty of penurious musicians. I know how much learning, work and craft they put into their product. When some prick digitises their work and puts it on a P2P site - especially when the artist or their agents are either making it available at a price or choosing to exercise their moral rights - I regard this as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.
But newspapers are not filled with such craft. Nor do many of the writers have the chutzpah to demand that their work is valued in the way film-makers or musicians do. It would be a tough job to do if they did. After all, the blogosphere has established over the past decade that anyone can produce what a large slice of what most of the journalistic profession describes as the 'craft' of journalism is capable of producing - and that there are literally millions of people are already doing it in their own spare time.
Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has got one and no-one wants to hear any of them. We can all use Twitter to add our own flavour of cynicism and spin to what other people report. But good journalism - investigation, reporting, genuine educated insight - still needs to be funded. Unless it is, it becomes the exclusive terrain of those who would benefit in other ways from doing this work. As the professions of PR and journalism merge, this is already increasingly the reality here.
Good journalism won't ever be 'crowdsourced' like the Unicorn Cult of Wikipedians imagine it will be. When a 'journalist' copies the 'exclusive' work of a real journalist and reprints it without attribution, a profession with any sense of itself would hound them out of that profession. We're back to that 'craft conscience' issue. The missing component of all of the post-Leveson hand-wringing here in the UK has been journalists putting their hands up and saying "we have collectively failed - we have stood by and watched our profession degrade and it's time we did something about it."
That's the problem. It's not a profession or a craft that has any collective conscience. As such, it doesn't have the legitimacy that it needs to demand that its products are valued. Journalists seem to do little by way of demarcation between themselves and PR people these days. If it did, the profession and its industry would at least have the self-respect to be able to kick back against the scornful undervaluation of their work as much as the music and film businesses have.
But journalism is barely a profession or a craft anymore - except (ironically) the sort of stuff that people bother to clip to Evernote having read it in their Facebook or Twitter timeline.
What to do about this? It's hard to know where to start. You'd expect a craft that had a collective conscience to at least be discussing this. There is no question that the demand for real reporting and insight is larger than ever before. Other industries that have had their demand boosted by the arrival of the Internet have increased their revenue. But as long as it is the convention to give all of the content away to anyone with a browser and to allow search engines to index all of it without charge, no market can ever emerge.
Musicians like Camper Van Beethoven's David Lowery have been saying this for some time. Journalists need to start demanding the erection of a paywall around their work. They need to start insisting that Google pays something to index their content - as a single supplier that dominates the market, it exercises monopoly powers here and it should either compensate for the damage that this does to journalists, or be broken up.
It's time for writers to stop being conned into creating demand for tech kit. They deserve a slice of that cash we all spend on hardware / services / WiFi. I don't particularly want to see paywalls, and I don't think that a functioning market will ultimately need them either. But until they exist on all titles that pay journalists and Google have to pay to index what is behind them, no-one is going to incentivise publishers to take them down. There will be no functioning market for journalism until paywalls are at least introduced. Doing so may concentrate a few minds wonderfully.
If such paywalls existed, personally, I'd pay a fair few quid a week to my ISP if they could route me around them. I wouldn't mind paying a bit to services like Evernote for the added value I get from clipped stories.
Newspaper sites could be negotiating deals like this - if they erected paywalls, but at the moment they can't. For some reason, I can't remember the last time I heard a journalist attacking publishers for not creating paywalls. Why is this? Even though good journalism is a valuable craft, perhaps the fact that few people perceive it to be so means that no-one is prepared to make the argument?
The failure to articulate a collective journalistic conscience is at the heart of this problem.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
How will the Tories react to confident forecasts of defeat?
The recent near-consensus (even among Conservative commentators) that the Tories are very very likely to be in opposition after the 2015 election makes this an interesting moment. This is the time that big moves are made.
I'm taking this opportunity to re-post something that I wrote elsewhere a few years ago on Slugger O'Toole about how the Tories made a move to make a coalition with the Lib-Dems possible after the 2005 poll results offered them a mountain that was too steep to climb by 2010. It draw heavily upon a prediction from a very good but now-defunct lefty blog.
I think that this move went almost un-commented upon at the time, but I think there are strong grounds to believe that it was the result of a deliberate strategy that paid off for the Conservatives.
I think that this move went almost un-commented upon at the time, but I think there are strong grounds to believe that it was the result of a deliberate strategy that paid off for the Conservatives.
Having shafted the Lib-Dems over PR and a few other things, the Tories behaved dishonourably since 2010. Having done so closes doors for them. Good.
Read on....
"...the political right in the UK got a lot of things right in recent years without ever taking to the streets with placards – particularly in its understanding of the gamechanging potential of digital media.
Not being privy to their gameplan, I can only sketch it out the way I saw it. One bit of critical analysis I was recently reminded of came from a now-defunct Marxist blog called Socialism in an Age of Waiting. They noted that the Tories’ outlook was very bleak after the 2005, and that – barring an earthquake – it was unlikely that they’d be able to achieve the kind of swing needed to overturn the Labour majority in 2010. They went on to argue that the Tories needed to come up with a narrative that could make it possible for the centre-left populist Lib-Dems to get into bed with the Tories in the event of a hung parliament (pre-Lehmans and the spectacular personal car-crash of Brown’s leadership, this looked like the only foreseeable electoral scenario that could offer the Tories a glimpse of power). Even with the ‘earthquake’, it turns out that their analysis was accurate.
“…an intelligent and adaptable Tory leadership would give some serious thought to courting the LibDems, with a view to forming a grand anti-Labour alliance around policy positions that both parties could sign up to with only a few adjustments, and, crucially, with the enthusiastic support of much of the media for glib rhetoric about “consensus” and “freedom”:
- a commitment to proportional representation, presented as a matter of fairness (which it would be), but in the sincere hope that it would prevent Labour from ever having a majority again (which it might well do);
- wholesale privatisation of education, health care, pensions and social housing, to an extent that would make New Labour’s PFI programmes seem positively Bevanite;
- a lot of earnest-sounding guff about human rights and civil liberties, coupled with little if any reduction in repressive measures, on the shrewd assumption that most people won’t notice the difference most of the time;
- a commitment to overhaul the EU in an even more free-market direction, neatly balancing Tory Euroscepticism with LibDem populism, and probably in alignment with the trend in other major member states;
- hostility both to increased immigration and to any further breaches of the “sovereignty” of nation states, thus combining (overt) right-wing little-Englandism with its (covert) liberal-left counterpart, and usefully blocking off any serious challenge from UKIP, Veritas, the BNP and the like; and,
- given that New Labour will have been in power for 12 or 13 years by the time of the next election, the usual blether about the need for a new start, new faces, new this and that, of the kind that the media will dutifully lap up and regurgitate.
But of course the Tories are the stupid party, and their leaders are neither intelligent nor adaptable – or are they?” (hat-tip: Will Rubbish, who was impressed enough at the time to take a copy of this)
In fact, we have no idea if The Stupid Party ever did fully grasp the favours that were being done for it by it’s more intelligent and adaptable outriders in the blogosphere. They should be grateful though, because a number of important planks were laid between the Tories and the Lib-Dems online – not least in the way that civil liberties arguments were successfully conflated with free market ones. Labour’s managerialist inflexibility was successfully portrayed as authoritarianism (I argued this at length elsewhere at the time). The liberal-left fell for this one hook-line-and-sinker. That the cult of the methodological individualist was used to remind a Lib-Dem party of the L-word that was really only there as a reminder of the party’s bureaucratic heritage. It created the kind of weather that allowed the Orange Book authors to turf out the left-ish Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell and rise to the top of a traditionally socially liberal party."
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
2013 predictions
Here are my predictions for 2013:
- The number of economists who will be crowing about how accurate their predictions for 2013 were in twelve months time will be, or be close to, zero
- Commentary in the mainstream media will continue to be dominated by people who can be relied upon to have a simplistic and polarising view on absolutely everything rather than having any valuable insight on anything
- On 31/12/13, the facts upon which public debate are based upon will still be supplied by journalists working under the constraints that have made journalism almost entirely dysfunctional
- It will not get any harder for a well-heeled pressure group to dominate the news agenda at the expense of the public interest
- Politicians will be no less convinced that their decisions must be dictated to them by economists, the commentariat, churnalists and wealthy pressure groups
- The number of people who profess themselves to have been 'turned off politics' will not have decreased by the end of 2013
Monday, November 26, 2012
Awaiting Lord Leveson
I understand the principled arguments against press regulation. Really. I do. I probably agree with most of them as well, in all of their impoverished fiddling-while-Rome-burns glory.
But can everybody else who opposes this please also acknowledge that British journalism has been a recurring car-crash for decades now? We don't have regulation already? Apart from the right journalists have to only print the prejudices of their proprietor that their advertisers don't object to?
It's not as if there is some beautiful crystal garden there that is about to be ruined by the heavy jackboot of the state, for f**k sake. We have Europe's most distrusted press corp. Our anti-regulation journalists have allowed their industry to turn into one where beating competitors is a sideshow. Beating regulators is the main event, and actually reporting what is going on with any accuracy or lack of bias is..... well.... just so analogue.
As a result, monopolies have thrived while the local press has been gutted. Journalists have allowed the perceived value of their work to be diminished almost to nothing, and then they wonder why no-one will invest in it. Reporting has been suffocated by an Oxbridge-dominated commentariat who imagine themselves to be experts about everything. Every public debate is reduced to a set of polar simplifications and competing groupthinks that get picked up, cab-rank style, by the appointed overpaid class of celeb mouthpieces.
I don't know about you, but if I never heard from Simon Jenkins, Matthew d'Ancona, Peter Oborne, Janet Daley, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Fraser Nelson, Andrew Rawnsley, Henry Porter, Seamus Milne, Benedict Brogan or (..... add your own in here) it wouldn't be a moment too soon. If any of us never saw another page of our infotainment tabloid sector, would we be stupider or wiser?
Don't get me wrong. There is a place for good commentary. I specifically left a few names out of that list because there are one or two of them that understand that there's more to being a columnist than simply playing the simplifying roles assigned to them. But it's the ubiquity of it all that is so unacceptable.
There is no reason to imagine that a regulatory ecology that has Parliament as a player is necessarily any worse than one that is only regulated by our self-serving metropolitan chattering classes, within the confines of an industry that has no notion of the public interest at all. We have norms and rules that regulate how our press works already. They are useless and counterproductive. The most convincing argument for press regulation is to spend a short period watching most of the most vociferous opponents making their case.
Democracies and markets rely upon wide access to reliable information and our press is not, currently, an asset to civil or commercial society. If anything, it's the opposite - and that needs fixing whatever else Leveson comes up with.
But can everybody else who opposes this please also acknowledge that British journalism has been a recurring car-crash for decades now? We don't have regulation already? Apart from the right journalists have to only print the prejudices of their proprietor that their advertisers don't object to?
It's not as if there is some beautiful crystal garden there that is about to be ruined by the heavy jackboot of the state, for f**k sake. We have Europe's most distrusted press corp. Our anti-regulation journalists have allowed their industry to turn into one where beating competitors is a sideshow. Beating regulators is the main event, and actually reporting what is going on with any accuracy or lack of bias is..... well.... just so analogue.
As a result, monopolies have thrived while the local press has been gutted. Journalists have allowed the perceived value of their work to be diminished almost to nothing, and then they wonder why no-one will invest in it. Reporting has been suffocated by an Oxbridge-dominated commentariat who imagine themselves to be experts about everything. Every public debate is reduced to a set of polar simplifications and competing groupthinks that get picked up, cab-rank style, by the appointed overpaid class of celeb mouthpieces.
I don't know about you, but if I never heard from Simon Jenkins, Matthew d'Ancona, Peter Oborne, Janet Daley, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Fraser Nelson, Andrew Rawnsley, Henry Porter, Seamus Milne, Benedict Brogan or (..... add your own in here) it wouldn't be a moment too soon. If any of us never saw another page of our infotainment tabloid sector, would we be stupider or wiser?
Don't get me wrong. There is a place for good commentary. I specifically left a few names out of that list because there are one or two of them that understand that there's more to being a columnist than simply playing the simplifying roles assigned to them. But it's the ubiquity of it all that is so unacceptable.
There is no reason to imagine that a regulatory ecology that has Parliament as a player is necessarily any worse than one that is only regulated by our self-serving metropolitan chattering classes, within the confines of an industry that has no notion of the public interest at all. We have norms and rules that regulate how our press works already. They are useless and counterproductive. The most convincing argument for press regulation is to spend a short period watching most of the most vociferous opponents making their case.
Democracies and markets rely upon wide access to reliable information and our press is not, currently, an asset to civil or commercial society. If anything, it's the opposite - and that needs fixing whatever else Leveson comes up with.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Dexys: What are they like?
I travelled up to Cambridge the other night to see Dexys showcase their recent LP. Declaring an interest here, this is the only band I've over-played to the point of having to replace the vinyl albums.
But that was a long time ago, and dealing with that short-noise-long-silence gap made the gig a particularly unknown quantity from the outset. Recent interviews with Kevin Rowland have shown us a more equivocal soul than the smash-and-grab merchant behind Burn It Down - but surely the whole point of Dexys was the emotional incontinence and the fanatical self-assurance of one man who Knew He Was Right?
Outgrowing certainty is surely a sign of a welcome maturity in most. But will it really work for Kevin?
This was reflected in the current sound. The tightness and purposefulness of the popular stomping recordings was missing and the 'difficult' 'Don't Stand Me Down' sound dominated - a choice that would have suited the more dedicated fanbase in the hall.
Gone was the punch or the conviction that the three-piece brass section gave the first LP. Gone, also was the twinkling pantomime Celtic pixie-ness or the passionate Caledonian soul of their Too-Rye-Aye phase. Now there's no 'Emerald Express' - just a sole fiddle.
But the new LP is a fine original piece of work. It has the feel of a bunch of musicians, some of whom had been in the same band at different times around thirty years ago, who have recruited some other journeymen to put together a bit of musical theatre, reviving some of their old idioms on the way. In itself, it's funny, and at points, poignant. And this is also true of the song-cycle of unwelcome maturity, infatuation, commitment-phobia and lonely old age.
The first hour of the gig was a track-by-track performance of 'One Day I'm Going to Soar'. And very good it was too. The second hour was more flaky and thin though. I won't spoil it for anyone who has tickets for this tour (I'm going again on Sunday!) by naming most of the chosen tracks, but in that hour we got only a handful of tunes including a painfully protracted 'Come On Eileen'.
A lot of it was glued together with a stilted conversation between Kevin and Pete Williams dressed as a policeman which stretched the audiences willingness to suspend normal expectations to the limit. It was a thin hour.
All in all, it was one last wild waltz and the new LP's showcase was worth the entrance fee alone. But if this show is to run and run, rather than provide us with one final cameo appearance, they need to decide: Either keep this line-up and lean heavily on Don't Stand Me Down for the back catalogue next time, or hire a driving brass section and more Celtic Soul Brothers and The Strong Devoted and tighten the whole set up.
Those of us with almost a tribal loyalty to Don't Stand Me Down often forget what fine LPs the others were.
It's a gamble. Personally, I think that the breadth of Dexys 1980s output is a largely unacknowledged jewel that would grab new audiences by the nuts. It would need a lot of conviction to pull it off, and maybe the new, introspective Mr Rowland would say that he's grown out of that now?
We may never know.
But that was a long time ago, and dealing with that short-noise-long-silence gap made the gig a particularly unknown quantity from the outset. Recent interviews with Kevin Rowland have shown us a more equivocal soul than the smash-and-grab merchant behind Burn It Down - but surely the whole point of Dexys was the emotional incontinence and the fanatical self-assurance of one man who Knew He Was Right?
Outgrowing certainty is surely a sign of a welcome maturity in most. But will it really work for Kevin?
This was reflected in the current sound. The tightness and purposefulness of the popular stomping recordings was missing and the 'difficult' 'Don't Stand Me Down' sound dominated - a choice that would have suited the more dedicated fanbase in the hall.
Gone was the punch or the conviction that the three-piece brass section gave the first LP. Gone, also was the twinkling pantomime Celtic pixie-ness or the passionate Caledonian soul of their Too-Rye-Aye phase. Now there's no 'Emerald Express' - just a sole fiddle.
But the new LP is a fine original piece of work. It has the feel of a bunch of musicians, some of whom had been in the same band at different times around thirty years ago, who have recruited some other journeymen to put together a bit of musical theatre, reviving some of their old idioms on the way. In itself, it's funny, and at points, poignant. And this is also true of the song-cycle of unwelcome maturity, infatuation, commitment-phobia and lonely old age.
The first hour of the gig was a track-by-track performance of 'One Day I'm Going to Soar'. And very good it was too. The second hour was more flaky and thin though. I won't spoil it for anyone who has tickets for this tour (I'm going again on Sunday!) by naming most of the chosen tracks, but in that hour we got only a handful of tunes including a painfully protracted 'Come On Eileen'.
A lot of it was glued together with a stilted conversation between Kevin and Pete Williams dressed as a policeman which stretched the audiences willingness to suspend normal expectations to the limit. It was a thin hour.
All in all, it was one last wild waltz and the new LP's showcase was worth the entrance fee alone. But if this show is to run and run, rather than provide us with one final cameo appearance, they need to decide: Either keep this line-up and lean heavily on Don't Stand Me Down for the back catalogue next time, or hire a driving brass section and more Celtic Soul Brothers and The Strong Devoted and tighten the whole set up.
Those of us with almost a tribal loyalty to Don't Stand Me Down often forget what fine LPs the others were.
It's a gamble. Personally, I think that the breadth of Dexys 1980s output is a largely unacknowledged jewel that would grab new audiences by the nuts. It would need a lot of conviction to pull it off, and maybe the new, introspective Mr Rowland would say that he's grown out of that now?
We may never know.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
Left losing its mind about brain-work
In recent years, an unconfident left has watched shiny new bandwagons passing by and it has sometimes jumped upon them in hope.
A few years ago, Islamism looked oddly attractive to some. Today, its 'copyleft'.
For some reason, there seems to be a view that support for copyright infringement is popular (this report - pdf -comprehensively demonstrates it isn't).
For some reason, there seems to be a view that support for copyright infringement is popular (this report - pdf -comprehensively demonstrates it isn't).
Opposing the enforcement of intellectual property laws also looks like quite a radical cause. You get to stick it to the man - especially when the man is the MPAA - Universal, Disney or (history fans) EMI (who?).
And then there's something of a mystical pseudo-rationalist view that the internet offers unlimited quantities of magic dust that multiply knowledge and - on some utilitarian calculation - make copyright infringement a small crime that has a large benefit to mankind and the commons.
There's a ton of bad science behind that one. There's no reason it has to be an either/or question. We are told that the very mild measures outlined in the UK Digital Economy Act or the French Hadopi law designed to reduce file-sharing are somehow 'censorship'. That these measures, and those around Sopa/Pipa in the US would somehow 'break the internet' if they were ever passed.
Then there's what Andrew Orlowski of The Register refers to as the Pseudo Masochism of self-styled civil liberties campaigners who claim any enforcement of IP law is a form of censorship. Take the celebrated Newport State of Mind parody - it was totally censored as you can see here, here, here and lots of other places.
And the closer you look into it, the more you find that it's more of an issue for corporate monopolies, the very-very right wing and even the fascist and neo-nazi far-right.
And then there's something of a mystical pseudo-rationalist view that the internet offers unlimited quantities of magic dust that multiply knowledge and - on some utilitarian calculation - make copyright infringement a small crime that has a large benefit to mankind and the commons.
There's a ton of bad science behind that one. There's no reason it has to be an either/or question. We are told that the very mild measures outlined in the UK Digital Economy Act or the French Hadopi law designed to reduce file-sharing are somehow 'censorship'. That these measures, and those around Sopa/Pipa in the US would somehow 'break the internet' if they were ever passed.
Then there's what Andrew Orlowski of The Register refers to as the Pseudo Masochism of self-styled civil liberties campaigners who claim any enforcement of IP law is a form of censorship. Take the celebrated Newport State of Mind parody - it was totally censored as you can see here, here, here and lots of other places.
And the closer you look into it, the more you find that it's more of an issue for corporate monopolies, the very-very right wing and even the fascist and neo-nazi far-right.
In the last few weeks, evidence of Google dog-whistling up campaigns from supposedly liberal organisations has happened at the same time as a surprisingly slick campaign at EU level against the global anti-counterfeiting treaty, ACTA.
Thing is, the music / film / TV industries that lose so much from having their work nicked like this are mostly populated by small independent producers, small labels and freelancers who have to invest in their own kit, skills and training. Many have spent a great deal longer learning their craft than the over-paid professions that they compete with.
Journalists, bafflingly, have bought the liberality of this argument hook line and sinker - none more than The Guardian - a newspaper group whose business model could be summed up as Set Controls for the Heart of the Sun. (another h/t to Andrew Orlowski for that one). Meanwhile, as a profession that has dedicated itself to openness, local newspapers everywhere have died on their arse. The writing is on the wall, but can you find any journalists who are prepared to read it?
They pay taxes at decent rates (unlike the ISPs, search engine(s) and hardware manufacturers who benefit from copyright violation). And creative work has a great multiplier effect on the UK economy.
Journalists, bafflingly, have bought the liberality of this argument hook line and sinker - none more than The Guardian - a newspaper group whose business model could be summed up as Set Controls for the Heart of the Sun. (another h/t to Andrew Orlowski for that one). Meanwhile, as a profession that has dedicated itself to openness, local newspapers everywhere have died on their arse. The writing is on the wall, but can you find any journalists who are prepared to read it?
They pay taxes at decent rates (unlike the ISPs, search engine(s) and hardware manufacturers who benefit from copyright violation). And creative work has a great multiplier effect on the UK economy.
When the DVD market is hit by piracy, it still hurts. Badly.
If you want a good - if long - outline of why this is an essential issue for anyone who has ever believed that people should be paid and not exploited for this work, this open letter to Emily White is worth a read. But more to the point, creators rights are basic human rights. Why have we decided to forget this?
Next time you speak to the opponent of copyright enforcement measures, ask them...
If you want a good - if long - outline of why this is an essential issue for anyone who has ever believed that people should be paid and not exploited for this work, this open letter to Emily White is worth a read. But more to the point, creators rights are basic human rights. Why have we decided to forget this?
Next time you speak to the opponent of copyright enforcement measures, ask them...
- Do you think copyright should just be abolished and that music/film/TV work should just be appropriated with no compensation to creators (usual answer: No)
- What effective enforcement measures would you support (usual answer; Er..... waffle waffle whataboutery - usually something about how totally unfair some pricing models for music were in the past)
- OK. Now answer that first question again (usual answer as above)
The whole debate is being distorted by a false flag campaign that actually wants to abolish copyright altogether. The Pirates make no bones about it. The words are more weasely from the Open Rights Group. Which brings me to the final argument: That the music and film biz totally missed the boat and should have adapted earlier. That they should have adapted. 'Home taping didn't kill music' we're told. Because knocking up a few mixtapes for your mates is exactly the same thing as pulling down entire record collections and movie catalogues off a torrent, innit?
Google and Apple don't get their copyright breached because they would have your bollocks in their pockets 30 seconds after you did it. Musicians, on the other hand, can't enforce their rights, so they've kinda got it coming to them.
It's feudalism - pure and simple. And, apparently, it's a liberal cause as well.
Google and Apple don't get their copyright breached because they would have your bollocks in their pockets 30 seconds after you did it. Musicians, on the other hand, can't enforce their rights, so they've kinda got it coming to them.
It's feudalism - pure and simple. And, apparently, it's a liberal cause as well.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Alan Turing - 100 today
 |
| The 'Bombe'. This machine killed fascists. |
But I've signed this one and I hope you do the same. A few weeks ago, £millions was spent celebrating the (whatever colour it was) Jubilee. Today, the centenary of fascism's greatest nemesis will go largely unmarked.
They also serve who smile and wave, I suppose, but our country's shame at the treatment of this man is only matched by our failure to properly recognise the enormity of his contribution - both to the war effort and to our wider economy and culture.
I'll be getting a nice cake in to share with the kids. They need to know about this.
Pic credit: Pic from here.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
The Greek elections - voters and distributed judgement
What do voters know about their vote in the Greek elections?
Looking at the BBC's summary of party positions (scroll down) there is really only one party that can tell its voters how its MPs will act - the Communists who are promising to kick the table over and return to the Drachma.
All of the other parties are really standing for a variation on the 'stay in the Euro and renegotiate the bailout' line, whatever they are actually saying - variations on the 'Swedish healthcare on US Tax rates' policy.
Circumstances beyond the control of these voters will determine the choices of the politicians that are elected when the counting is over. There is, for example, a chance that Frau Bundeskanzlerin will blink and offer a deal that is good enough to persuade a majority of Greek MPs that honour has been satisfied.
Or there is a chance that she will have her arm twisted by a combination of a newly emboldened French left, or even a Greek government playing its extremely weak hand well.
Or the third option: The new Greek government may overplay their hand and find themselves in an impasse that is disastrous to all concerned.
Whatever. It tells us a lot about democracy because this Greek election is oddly similar to any that any of us have voted in. Sure, it's a more extreme situation and the consequences are nastier than normal, but the Greek people can have no certain idea of what the best hand to play is.
They don't know how the outside world will react, the politicians concerned are all knowingly offering an unrealistic account of how they will behave the moment the polls close, and they don't know what the consequences of any outcome will really be anyway.
So, just another election then.
They don't know how the outside world will react, the politicians concerned are all knowingly offering an unrealistic account of how they will behave the moment the polls close, and they don't know what the consequences of any outcome will really be anyway.
So, just another election then.
One small upside of the current Greek situation is that pundits have been remarkably backward in coming forward with confident predictions. The benefits of this should be observed approvingly everywhere.
Uncertain people are voting for uncertain politicians who will take decisions that have mysterious consequences. The only power Greek voters have is to play a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, gaming each other into coming up with a final configuration of Parliament. Correspondents are full of stories of lefties switching to New Democracy while other former moderates dive off to a Syriza party that is offering an extraordinarily radical set of proposals.
Whoever wins (polls say its currently 'too-close-to-call' in the race for that vital majority that awards 50 extra seats) will struggle to claim to be the unity government that Greece will need the moment the whole bailout package has been finalised one way or the other.
Voters seem to be signaling in a negotiation more than they are voting for candidates in a party. A vote for Syriza may be, for instance, closer to an attempt to look confident at a Poker table than it is an indicator of conviction. I could totally understand a vote for almost any of them regardless of any underlying political positioning.
This can't bode well for Greek governance in the long term. It's like voting in a referendum and then having to have your whole government shaped over the long run by your vote on a single issue. In many ways this is a referendum - and probably a better one than we'll ever have in the UK.
Whoever wins (polls say its currently 'too-close-to-call' in the race for that vital majority that awards 50 extra seats) will struggle to claim to be the unity government that Greece will need the moment the whole bailout package has been finalised one way or the other.
Voters seem to be signaling in a negotiation more than they are voting for candidates in a party. A vote for Syriza may be, for instance, closer to an attempt to look confident at a Poker table than it is an indicator of conviction. I could totally understand a vote for almost any of them regardless of any underlying political positioning.
This can't bode well for Greek governance in the long term. It's like voting in a referendum and then having to have your whole government shaped over the long run by your vote on a single issue. In many ways this is a referendum - and probably a better one than we'll ever have in the UK.
Every European politician needs to put themselves in the shoes of their Greek counterparts and update their understanding of what an elected representative is for. And every voter needs to do look at the situation Greek voters are now in and update their understanding of what a vote actually is.
Elections. They're a hoof-it-and-hope affair at the best of times. Politicians need to learn that they don't have a mandate and they do have an obligation to get into genuine human negotiations with their political rivals and not get stuck in a 'prisoners dilemma' sort of partisan grandstanding. And voters need to learn that a vote isn't a direction to government - it's a feeble speculative intervention in a whirlwind - that's all.
It's still better that all of the alternatives...
It's still better that all of the alternatives...
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Begorrazw
As an aside, the most compelling political argument I've found recently has been the one that the Tories are making vindictive cuts, not because they need to, but because they want to.
The need for a restructuring of the economy (and it is needed) is being used to justify score-settling by nasty Thatcherite fantatics.
That this is an opportunistic political attack dressed up as economic prudence. That it's not the cuts we object to, but their choice of cuts.
When they identify the barriers to growth, they don't see banks that won't lend, or these mythical startups that fail to materialise, or a private sector that hasn't got the entreprenneurial nuts to jump into the space vacated by the public sector.
They don't see consumers and businesses who are keeping their cash in their pockets because they don't know if tomorrow is going to be more rainy. They don't see the unmet need for housing or the uncertain caution of people in precarious employment.
No. They see trades unions who are too strong. Workers who enjoy anti-social employment rights. Bosses who can't fire anyone they please.
Unions have the potential to be the rallying point here. I'm not sure it's an opportunity that they always take, but if ever there was a time for a 'free trade union' campaign in the UK, now is it.
It's a slightly anti-political argument - it plays on a general suspicion about the motives of the political caste. But this isn't something to be afraid of. If it helps to nudge Labour out of it's own bunker-mentality, so much the better.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
A few things a few people should know about copyright Pt1.
I like 38Degrees most of the time. They campaign on issues that I agree on. I know one of the people there slightly, and I know that they take on some of the criticisms I've made about the democratic problems around petitions and write-in campaigns. I also think that there are some issues where the Westminster Village needs to be jogged out if it's own obsessions - especially on important issues that slip below the radar at election time.
I also like the way they're diversifying into other constructive forms of crowd-sourcing.
But where I worry most is the way that campaigns can be built up because they have a superficial appeal to a particular activist demographic. On complex questions this can be the case. 38 Degrees and AVAZZ have both made their presence felt on issues around copyright. There is a general, slightly muddy contention that the open internet is always a good thing and that the benefits of letting it rip in all ways outweigh any benefits related to curbing the way it's used. So, no porn-blocking, no piracy-enforcement, and so on.
It's not an argument I've ever seen made much beyond being an idealised contention, though for the most part, I'm in complete agreement with this view (except where it comes to the 'piracy enforcement' which I'll come to in a sec). It's a fashionable view. And, if you hold it, I suspect you may be receptive to claims that support it.
Here's 38 Degrees from a couple of years ago:
This resulted in a significant write-in campaign. There are a number of things wrong with their position (do read the whole thing):
a) Millions? Schools, libraries and businesses?
Er.... only after a range of warning letters. In France, the Hadopi Bill (generally seen as being a good deal more draconian) has reduced piracy significantly without resulting in any civil liberties fiascos it's opponents suggested would happen. The amount of disconnections are expected to be negligible.
This is a massive over-egging of the civil liberties argument to the degree to which the only rational conclusion about the people who make these claims must be this: That no measures that curb illegal copying of copyrighted material are acceptable.
b) "But one group likes it, the music industry."
We'll, yes, they do. I suppose they could have added Disney/Time Warner/Universal from the film industry as well. But this isn't just the big music industry. It's also smaller labels. And its not just the industry. Actually, the most active part of the 'industry' that is supportive of steps to curb illegal copying is the Musicians Union. And then there are independent TV production companies. They hate it as well - and they see their ability to fundraise for new productions being seriously hit by falling DVD sales.
Then there's Equity, the actors union and BECTU (who - declaring an interest, I work for part-time - I blog here on my own time though). And PACT, the independent producer trade body. Not just Hollywood.
Because only one part of the opposition to legislation like this has the lobbying muscle to make itself heard doesn't make it the only part of the opposition, yet these voices get no name-checks.
And here's AVAAZ:
There is other stuff in there about pharma and patents, areas on which I have little knowledge, but seeing as it sits below such an outrageously over-stated and simplistic case as the one about copying, if it is a good case, it's tainted by association with a bad one.
The claims about censorship (as I've argued at perhaps too much length in the comments here) are nonsense. My real problem with this is that, undisclosed in these circles, is the huge global battle upon which so much hangs. And - more to the point - politicians are now openly speaking about how these campaigns shift them away from decisions they would have otherwise made.
Google stands to benefit hugely - and we're talking about eye-watering numbers here - from the weakness of artists in enforcing their rights.
They have a huge interest in not dealing with piracy. By 'dealing with' I don't just mean 'stopping' but also 'not facilitating an alternative'. The continuing presence of rogue sites that they could easily block damages the capacity others have to create a legitimate market. Delay in enforcing the Digital Economy Act, for example, is the perfect outcome for them.
Google are a monopoly here. As we've seen, they're as close to governments now as Murdoch ever was. When you have a monopoly position, your responsibilities go way beyond some dumb compliance with regulations. (I'm awake to the irony of me posting this on a Google-owned bit of software, btw).
Google are looking down the barrel of a fantastic opportunity here: They could end up as the world's default collecting society - collecting a fraction of the amount that national or regional players would (from Google!) for monetising unlicenced content. Creators will only have a monopoly to turn to.
When you oppose copyright enforcement without coming up with an alternative, then you essentially favour the alternative that inertia promotes. When Johnny Rotten said 'Never Trust a Hippy' he was talking about Richard Branson's Virgin Records after they'd just made the leap from EMI and A&M.
Say what you like about those businesses, they paid something from the profits they made out of musicians' rights. More than Google ever will, I suspect.
I hope no-one gets involved in the next write-in campaign without addressing these questions first.
I've got a few more of these to come as well - stay posted. In particular, it's worth focussing on the degree to which the industry that carries and 'adds value' to content has mushroomed without much benefit to the people who actually make the content.
I also like the way they're diversifying into other constructive forms of crowd-sourcing.
But where I worry most is the way that campaigns can be built up because they have a superficial appeal to a particular activist demographic. On complex questions this can be the case. 38 Degrees and AVAZZ have both made their presence felt on issues around copyright. There is a general, slightly muddy contention that the open internet is always a good thing and that the benefits of letting it rip in all ways outweigh any benefits related to curbing the way it's used. So, no porn-blocking, no piracy-enforcement, and so on.
It's not an argument I've ever seen made much beyond being an idealised contention, though for the most part, I'm in complete agreement with this view (except where it comes to the 'piracy enforcement' which I'll come to in a sec). It's a fashionable view. And, if you hold it, I suspect you may be receptive to claims that support it.
Here's 38 Degrees from a couple of years ago:
The Digital Economy Bill .... gives the government the ability to disconnect millions. Schools, libraries and businesses could see their connection cut if their pupils, readers of customers infringe any copyright. But one group likes it, the music industry.
This resulted in a significant write-in campaign. There are a number of things wrong with their position (do read the whole thing):
a) Millions? Schools, libraries and businesses?
Er.... only after a range of warning letters. In France, the Hadopi Bill (generally seen as being a good deal more draconian) has reduced piracy significantly without resulting in any civil liberties fiascos it's opponents suggested would happen. The amount of disconnections are expected to be negligible.
This is a massive over-egging of the civil liberties argument to the degree to which the only rational conclusion about the people who make these claims must be this: That no measures that curb illegal copying of copyrighted material are acceptable.
b) "But one group likes it, the music industry."
We'll, yes, they do. I suppose they could have added Disney/Time Warner/Universal from the film industry as well. But this isn't just the big music industry. It's also smaller labels. And its not just the industry. Actually, the most active part of the 'industry' that is supportive of steps to curb illegal copying is the Musicians Union. And then there are independent TV production companies. They hate it as well - and they see their ability to fundraise for new productions being seriously hit by falling DVD sales.
Then there's Equity, the actors union and BECTU (who - declaring an interest, I work for part-time - I blog here on my own time though). And PACT, the independent producer trade body. Not just Hollywood.
Because only one part of the opposition to legislation like this has the lobbying muscle to make itself heard doesn't make it the only part of the opposition, yet these voices get no name-checks.
And here's AVAAZ:
"The oppressively strict regulations could mean people everywhere are punished for simple acts such as sharing a newspaper article or uploading a video of a party where copyrighted music is played. Sold as a trade agreement to protect copyrights."
There is other stuff in there about pharma and patents, areas on which I have little knowledge, but seeing as it sits below such an outrageously over-stated and simplistic case as the one about copying, if it is a good case, it's tainted by association with a bad one.
The claims about censorship (as I've argued at perhaps too much length in the comments here) are nonsense. My real problem with this is that, undisclosed in these circles, is the huge global battle upon which so much hangs. And - more to the point - politicians are now openly speaking about how these campaigns shift them away from decisions they would have otherwise made.
Google stands to benefit hugely - and we're talking about eye-watering numbers here - from the weakness of artists in enforcing their rights.
They have a huge interest in not dealing with piracy. By 'dealing with' I don't just mean 'stopping' but also 'not facilitating an alternative'. The continuing presence of rogue sites that they could easily block damages the capacity others have to create a legitimate market. Delay in enforcing the Digital Economy Act, for example, is the perfect outcome for them.
Google are a monopoly here. As we've seen, they're as close to governments now as Murdoch ever was. When you have a monopoly position, your responsibilities go way beyond some dumb compliance with regulations. (I'm awake to the irony of me posting this on a Google-owned bit of software, btw).
Google are looking down the barrel of a fantastic opportunity here: They could end up as the world's default collecting society - collecting a fraction of the amount that national or regional players would (from Google!) for monetising unlicenced content. Creators will only have a monopoly to turn to.
When you oppose copyright enforcement without coming up with an alternative, then you essentially favour the alternative that inertia promotes. When Johnny Rotten said 'Never Trust a Hippy' he was talking about Richard Branson's Virgin Records after they'd just made the leap from EMI and A&M.
Say what you like about those businesses, they paid something from the profits they made out of musicians' rights. More than Google ever will, I suspect.
I hope no-one gets involved in the next write-in campaign without addressing these questions first.
I've got a few more of these to come as well - stay posted. In particular, it's worth focussing on the degree to which the industry that carries and 'adds value' to content has mushroomed without much benefit to the people who actually make the content.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Esoterica - elsewhere
I'm not religious. Really, I'm not. But I've mentioned here (and here) before that I think sacred music is fascinating.
And the biggest, fleeting doubt I've had about my choice of agnosticism has been in learning about the direct relationship between proportion and beauty - the Fibonacci Sequence in structure and design or the mathematical basis of musical harmony, as examples.
I think most agnostics with a limited grasp of natural sciences prefer 'cosmic accident' as an explanation for most natural phenomena, don't we?
I'm not alone in seeing some profundity in these things. All sorts of esoteric cults have grown up around this evidence. Picking at these subjects, I keep stumbling over various artefacts and concepts - the Harmonograph, the 'music of the spheres' or many and varied artworks that I think are worth thinking about.
I suspect my interest will be more similar to curious fascination that drives most readers of The Fortean Times than it will be to the kind of interst expressed by any 18th Century sub-Freemasonary sect.
Rather than boring you about them all here, I've just started using Tumblr to keep track of them here if you're interested. I've not really got my head around how Tumblr works, but I think you can post things on to it yourself if you feel like it.
I think most agnostics with a limited grasp of natural sciences prefer 'cosmic accident' as an explanation for most natural phenomena, don't we?
I'm not alone in seeing some profundity in these things. All sorts of esoteric cults have grown up around this evidence. Picking at these subjects, I keep stumbling over various artefacts and concepts - the Harmonograph, the 'music of the spheres' or many and varied artworks that I think are worth thinking about.
I suspect my interest will be more similar to curious fascination that drives most readers of The Fortean Times than it will be to the kind of interst expressed by any 18th Century sub-Freemasonary sect.
Rather than boring you about them all here, I've just started using Tumblr to keep track of them here if you're interested. I've not really got my head around how Tumblr works, but I think you can post things on to it yourself if you feel like it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Copyright. Patented in Ireland.
The Statute of Anne came into force on the 10th April 1709 (303 years ago today). I mention this as it’s seen as the cornerstone of the anglo-saxon model of copyright (often contrasted with the more continental approach to intellectual property) and it’s a subject that I’m having to think about quite a lot in the course of my work.
I mentioned this to my mother recently. It’s very rare that I discuss anything with her without her finding some Irish connection – usually a connection with Mayo, or – if possible – a connection with the small north-western portion of that county.
I figured the idea of copyright couldn’t have been conceived by some fella from Tallaghan Bawn or anything like that. And, in this case it wasn't. But she was, obviously, happy to correct me any 'copyright wasn't an Irish idea in the first place' misconceptions I may have had:
I mentioned this to my mother recently. It’s very rare that I discuss anything with her without her finding some Irish connection – usually a connection with Mayo, or – if possible – a connection with the small north-western portion of that county.
I figured the idea of copyright couldn’t have been conceived by some fella from Tallaghan Bawn or anything like that. And, in this case it wasn't. But she was, obviously, happy to correct me any 'copyright wasn't an Irish idea in the first place' misconceptions I may have had:
“The first historic mention of Copyright, which set the universal precedent, can be traced to 6th Century Celtic Ireland. It is contained in a judgement of Diarmaid, High King of Ireland – the legal equivalent of today’s Supreme Court – in his finding against the Christian missionary Columba, founder of monastic rule, later canonised as Saint Columcille, who had become and incorrigible plagiarist......
....The High King took that well-founded legal precedent and extended it in his famous judgement against Columcille thus:
“As to every Cow its Calf, so to every Book its Copy.””
Sunday, April 08, 2012
Media Mess
In today's Observer, Julie Burchill - perceptive and pithy as ever - brings the consequences of the media's failure to adapt to a changing world into sharp focus;
Where the sort of Bishops that get invited onto Newsnight have chosen to wring their hands over the bad behaviour of News of the World hacks, the infinitely bigger problem of how creativity and journalism is funded is largely ignored. The superficial moral malaise is but the product of a bigger, nastier structural one.
Churnalism is, after all, largely a product of under-funding and a failure to ensure that journalism has a well-invested future. The dominance of trust-funded kids in music, theatre, film and broadcasting reflects an industry that would rather live on the short-term charity of posh parents than invest in a long-term future in which talent rises on merit rather than on a feudal ability to buy your way into a profession.
Short term dividends to shareholders and sky-high salaries to managers trumps any public interest in journalism.
If we really imagine that we'll have a world-beating broadcasting settlement, a high standard of journalism to counter our low democratic/constitutional settlement, or a film industry that makes great movies / attracts inward investment*, we're just kidding ourselves. Where Julie Burchill highlights our poisonous tolerance of everying that Monarchy implies, this is the price we pay, both in terms of economic value and democratic scrutiny.
A rare exception can be seen over on Open Democracy, but even then, Angela Phillips solutions lack flesh or any sense that the injunction to follow the money is usually good advice.
Why is no-one asking this question:
Or more succinctly, where is the money going?
A recent report by Vodafone (pdf) illustrates the tiny revenues – around two per cent – that 'rights-holders' make from this burgeoning marketplace as well as showing the huge percentages of online traffic that are taken up by the streaming of high-quality content. It's very fashionable to stick two fingers up to 'rights-holders' (trans: The Man, EMI, the MPAA, even News Corp etc), and there's a great deal wrong with the way that they appropriate and distort creativity, but for now, the fact that a handful of media monopolies - whether it's Samsung, Apple, Google, or BT - are making a fortune adding value to content, is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.
Until we can lose our Anglo-Saxon cultural cringe about hardware levies, it's a sin that will largely be ignored. But I doubt if the whole question is one that has even appeared in the periphral vision of most UK journalists.
The copyright debate is an important one. I don't think that most journalists understand it. I don't think they're atuned to the political sideshows that deprive them of their professional incomes and allow their professions to enjoy any integrity. As a related sideshow, the moral rights of journalists are hugely undervalued in this country. I doubt if Lord Leveson would be holding an inquiry if this were not the case.
The media is in a mess. It's workers don't really have any sense of where their incomes should come from. It's quite ironic that a profession whose flag is carried by an investigative branch know so little about what economic value they create - and how little of it that they personally harvest.
*Delete depending upon which side of the price of everything/value of nothing divide you fall
"Fewer than one in 10 British children attends fee-paying schools, yet more than 60% of chart acts have been privately educated, according to Word magazine, compared with 1% 20 years ago. Similarly, other jobs that previously provided bright, working-class kids with escape routes – from modelling to journalism – have been colonised by the middle and upper classes and by the spawn of those who already hold sway in those professions. The spectacle of some smug, mediocre columnista who would definitely not have their job if their mummy or daddy hadn't been in the newspaper racket advising working-class kids to study hard at school, get a "proper" job and not place their faith in TV talent shows is one of the more repulsive minor crimes of our time."
Where the sort of Bishops that get invited onto Newsnight have chosen to wring their hands over the bad behaviour of News of the World hacks, the infinitely bigger problem of how creativity and journalism is funded is largely ignored. The superficial moral malaise is but the product of a bigger, nastier structural one.
Churnalism is, after all, largely a product of under-funding and a failure to ensure that journalism has a well-invested future. The dominance of trust-funded kids in music, theatre, film and broadcasting reflects an industry that would rather live on the short-term charity of posh parents than invest in a long-term future in which talent rises on merit rather than on a feudal ability to buy your way into a profession.
Short term dividends to shareholders and sky-high salaries to managers trumps any public interest in journalism.
If we really imagine that we'll have a world-beating broadcasting settlement, a high standard of journalism to counter our low democratic/constitutional settlement, or a film industry that makes great movies / attracts inward investment*, we're just kidding ourselves. Where Julie Burchill highlights our poisonous tolerance of everying that Monarchy implies, this is the price we pay, both in terms of economic value and democratic scrutiny.
A rare exception can be seen over on Open Democracy, but even then, Angela Phillips solutions lack flesh or any sense that the injunction to follow the money is usually good advice.
Why is no-one asking this question:
The demand for content is burgeoning. The amount of money going into the digital economy is multiplying at a rate of knots. So why are 'content creators' scuffling for cash? Why can't newspapers pay for journalism? Why are theatres and TV producers so reliant upon interns?
Or more succinctly, where is the money going?
A recent report by Vodafone (pdf) illustrates the tiny revenues – around two per cent – that 'rights-holders' make from this burgeoning marketplace as well as showing the huge percentages of online traffic that are taken up by the streaming of high-quality content. It's very fashionable to stick two fingers up to 'rights-holders' (trans: The Man, EMI, the MPAA, even News Corp etc), and there's a great deal wrong with the way that they appropriate and distort creativity, but for now, the fact that a handful of media monopolies - whether it's Samsung, Apple, Google, or BT - are making a fortune adding value to content, is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.
Until we can lose our Anglo-Saxon cultural cringe about hardware levies, it's a sin that will largely be ignored. But I doubt if the whole question is one that has even appeared in the periphral vision of most UK journalists.
The copyright debate is an important one. I don't think that most journalists understand it. I don't think they're atuned to the political sideshows that deprive them of their professional incomes and allow their professions to enjoy any integrity. As a related sideshow, the moral rights of journalists are hugely undervalued in this country. I doubt if Lord Leveson would be holding an inquiry if this were not the case.
The media is in a mess. It's workers don't really have any sense of where their incomes should come from. It's quite ironic that a profession whose flag is carried by an investigative branch know so little about what economic value they create - and how little of it that they personally harvest.
*Delete depending upon which side of the price of everything/value of nothing divide you fall
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Pasties and party funding
All attacks rebound in some way. Sometimes, they blow up in your face and other times, your shoes just get splashed a bit.
Today, Labour had a good time looking terribly 'in touch' in front of their supporters, and a bit smarmy in front of everyone else. The Tories look slightly off their game at the moment, but they still didn't need to work too hard in partly unpicking Ed's 'prolier than thou' credentials.
Still, it was bad day for the Tories and a not bad one for Labour, when all things are taken into account. It could have been a lot better though.
A union could have orchestrated a better stunt. A non-Labour affiliated one could have really gone to town on this one. Or any union's money could have hired the right celeb to take the piss out of Cameron all day long.
This has been in the Tory playbook for as long as anyone can remember. Deniable outriders make the attack before the front benchers turn up with a subtle and statesmanlike coup de grâce. A lot of the attacks Labour would like to make are out of bounds for two reasons: that they can rebound on the people who make them, and because they compromise future policy positions. Not a problem that the Tories have ever had with Taxpayer's Alliance attacks on Labour.
This is why party funding matters less than it seems. Labour and the big unions can help each other more if they start doing it informally.
This is an argument that's unlikely to find favour with Labour and senior trades unionists for all of the wrong reasons.
Today, Labour had a good time looking terribly 'in touch' in front of their supporters, and a bit smarmy in front of everyone else. The Tories look slightly off their game at the moment, but they still didn't need to work too hard in partly unpicking Ed's 'prolier than thou' credentials.
Still, it was bad day for the Tories and a not bad one for Labour, when all things are taken into account. It could have been a lot better though.
A union could have orchestrated a better stunt. A non-Labour affiliated one could have really gone to town on this one. Or any union's money could have hired the right celeb to take the piss out of Cameron all day long.
This has been in the Tory playbook for as long as anyone can remember. Deniable outriders make the attack before the front benchers turn up with a subtle and statesmanlike coup de grâce. A lot of the attacks Labour would like to make are out of bounds for two reasons: that they can rebound on the people who make them, and because they compromise future policy positions. Not a problem that the Tories have ever had with Taxpayer's Alliance attacks on Labour.
This is why party funding matters less than it seems. Labour and the big unions can help each other more if they start doing it informally.
This is an argument that's unlikely to find favour with Labour and senior trades unionists for all of the wrong reasons.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Is Ken a tax-dodger? Is Boris a hi-jacker? Is mayoral politics annoying?
I hate the concept of 'elected mayors', or at least, I hate elected mayors in way they're intended to fit in with the wider settlement in the UK. I suspect a growing band of Londoners will come to share this view over the next few weeks.
Already, everyone is in pointscoring mode, and anyone beyond Planet Politics who doesn't conclude that 'all politicos are utter wankers' is probably in the sizeable quartile of the population who have previously tuned politics out all together.
Anyway. Back to the shrillness of it all. Personally, I'm really no fan of Ken Livingstone. He's my party's candidate, and he's the kind of devisive figure that smokes out dissenters from within the party's ranks.
For instance, anti-Ken Labour people are happy to give a following wind to this Tory attack-blog idea that he's some kind of tax-dodger or hypocrite.
It's not a fair line of attack. He's not fiddling his taxes or living high on the hog. He's a political obsessive - if he wasn't paying HMRC, he'd be spending the money in other ways to get himself elected in a climate where political funding is hard to get.
As a Labour supporter, if I were to find that a candidate - any candidate - wasn't managing their finances efficiently and couldn't finance their campaign properly as a result, I'd be very unhappy about it.
In addition, given Ken's circumstances as a self-employed individual who pays staff and who almost certainly drags is wife's elbow-grease into his campaign whenever he can, there isn't a single accountant anywhere in the country who would even let him arrange his finances any other way. Anything else would result in him over-paying taxes for the sake of appearances.
If Ken were salting the money away in some tax haven or buying himself a mansion, this would be a fair line of attack - but if not, it looks to me like opportunism.
I don't suppose we've heard even a fraction of the shrill opportunist attacks that we're going to hear on Ken over the next few weeks.
But Boris isn't going unscathed either. Today, a range of Labour people have got their knickers in a twist about how Boris has 'hijacked' ... er .... his own Twitter account. Sorry - that should read "his own TAXPAYER FUNDED account!!?!??!?!!!"
Boris was @mayoroflondon and he is now @borisjohnson. The former has been converted to the latter now he is in 'election purdah' period.
Here's a likely example of the dialogue that took place a few years ago between Boris and a civil servant a few years ago now:
CC: "Mr Mayor, it's in our job description to encourage you to interact with the public a bit more. Now I know that this is a bit of the job description that most civil servants ignore, at the very least, but I've got a time-and-motion person from Capita standing behind me to make sure that I tick everything on my list off. So why don't you .... er .... set up a Twitter account?"
BJ: "Gosh, I say! What a jolly good idea. What is a 'Twitter' by the way?"
CC: "It's a social networking tool (Boris looks blank) ... on the Internet (Boris looks blank) .... on your computer (Boris looks blank) .... the tellybox on your desk that you watched that Thai lady .... you know ... with the ping-pong balls?"
BJ: "Ah! I remember that. Have her sent to my room! What were we talking about again?"
(This goes on for some time). We return an hour later and the conversation is still progressing.
BJ: "This Twitter thing is a jolly good idea of mine. So shall I call it @borisjohnson or @mayoroflondon?"
CC: "Well there are all sorts of silly rules about what you can and can't say. Best if you let us have the passwords so we can step in when ... er ... IF you ever say anything a bit problematic.... about the Chinese Ambassador's wife and ping-pong balls, for instance. So let's stick with @mayoroflondon - and we'll set up a few feeds so that some tweets are automated...."
BJ: "What's a tweet again?" (this goes on for some time). We return an hour later and the conversation is still progressing.
BJ: "OK. I fully understand this now. Ping-pong .... computer .... internet .... Twitter .... can do it from my phone .... shouldn't do it from my phone .... can't pass comment on Frau Bundeskanzlerin's appearance... so how much will this cost the jolly old taxpayer then?"
CC: "Not much. Well, technically, not anything. Of course we signed some PFI deal with Accenture that means that we've got to send a couple of staff on a Social Media Risk Awareness Course at £800 per head. And we've got to then commission some written guidance from them (£6,000). And we've got a similar arrangement with BT that means we've got to make the account match our corporate house style (don't ask - an arrangement with Wolff Olins). So it'll probably look like about £25k if we get the wrong sort of FOI requests in. But it doesn't really cost anything."
BJ: "Ticketty boo!. And just to prove I've been listening, I'll need some 'followers', right? Do we have an obligation to pay Serco to drum them up for me?"
CC: "Er.... no Mr Mayor. If you can't get a couple of hundred thousand followers on twitter for nothing, then I doubt if anyone can."
BJ: "And I can say anything I jolly well please?"
CC: "Er.... no Mr Mayor. Accenture will draw up a lengthy list of things you can't say"
BJ: "What? Can't I even have a pop at old Ken once the election starts?"
CC: "Er.... yes Mr Mayor. But at that point, you're on your own. And you'd probably better set up a new account as @borisjohnson"
BJ: "But Ken will be doing this as well between now and then. His lot will have thousands of followers by the time the election has been announced - he's got nothing better to do, and I'll be at a standing start. That isn't fair."
CC: "Well maybe the sensible thing is to re-name your account as @borisjohnson when the purdah period starts. Technically the rules say that you can't use publically funded assets for political advantage, but the account won't be paid for by the public sector.
And anyway, I suspect that giving you a twitter account without any restrictions on what you can say is technically the opposite of giving you a political advantage.... and it's not really an electioneering tool in itself. Tories don't really use Twitter much anyway...."
BJ: "What's a hashtag again? I say, I appear to being 'followed' by a charming Russian lady who has no followers herself. This looks promising...."
And so on. Get the picture? Ken's not a tax dodger. Boris hasn't hi-jacked anything. And this is going to be a very long month or so.
Already, everyone is in pointscoring mode, and anyone beyond Planet Politics who doesn't conclude that 'all politicos are utter wankers' is probably in the sizeable quartile of the population who have previously tuned politics out all together.
Anyway. Back to the shrillness of it all. Personally, I'm really no fan of Ken Livingstone. He's my party's candidate, and he's the kind of devisive figure that smokes out dissenters from within the party's ranks.
For instance, anti-Ken Labour people are happy to give a following wind to this Tory attack-blog idea that he's some kind of tax-dodger or hypocrite.
It's not a fair line of attack. He's not fiddling his taxes or living high on the hog. He's a political obsessive - if he wasn't paying HMRC, he'd be spending the money in other ways to get himself elected in a climate where political funding is hard to get.
As a Labour supporter, if I were to find that a candidate - any candidate - wasn't managing their finances efficiently and couldn't finance their campaign properly as a result, I'd be very unhappy about it.
In addition, given Ken's circumstances as a self-employed individual who pays staff and who almost certainly drags is wife's elbow-grease into his campaign whenever he can, there isn't a single accountant anywhere in the country who would even let him arrange his finances any other way. Anything else would result in him over-paying taxes for the sake of appearances.
If Ken were salting the money away in some tax haven or buying himself a mansion, this would be a fair line of attack - but if not, it looks to me like opportunism.
I don't suppose we've heard even a fraction of the shrill opportunist attacks that we're going to hear on Ken over the next few weeks.
But Boris isn't going unscathed either. Today, a range of Labour people have got their knickers in a twist about how Boris has 'hijacked' ... er .... his own Twitter account. Sorry - that should read "his own TAXPAYER FUNDED account!!?!??!?!!!"
Boris was @mayoroflondon and he is now @borisjohnson. The former has been converted to the latter now he is in 'election purdah' period.
Here's a likely example of the dialogue that took place a few years ago between Boris and a civil servant a few years ago now:
CC: "Mr Mayor, it's in our job description to encourage you to interact with the public a bit more. Now I know that this is a bit of the job description that most civil servants ignore, at the very least, but I've got a time-and-motion person from Capita standing behind me to make sure that I tick everything on my list off. So why don't you .... er .... set up a Twitter account?"
BJ: "Gosh, I say! What a jolly good idea. What is a 'Twitter' by the way?"
CC: "It's a social networking tool (Boris looks blank) ... on the Internet (Boris looks blank) .... on your computer (Boris looks blank) .... the tellybox on your desk that you watched that Thai lady .... you know ... with the ping-pong balls?"
BJ: "Ah! I remember that. Have her sent to my room! What were we talking about again?"
(This goes on for some time). We return an hour later and the conversation is still progressing.
BJ: "This Twitter thing is a jolly good idea of mine. So shall I call it @borisjohnson or @mayoroflondon?"
CC: "Well there are all sorts of silly rules about what you can and can't say. Best if you let us have the passwords so we can step in when ... er ... IF you ever say anything a bit problematic.... about the Chinese Ambassador's wife and ping-pong balls, for instance. So let's stick with @mayoroflondon - and we'll set up a few feeds so that some tweets are automated...."
BJ: "What's a tweet again?" (this goes on for some time). We return an hour later and the conversation is still progressing.
BJ: "OK. I fully understand this now. Ping-pong .... computer .... internet .... Twitter .... can do it from my phone .... shouldn't do it from my phone .... can't pass comment on Frau Bundeskanzlerin's appearance... so how much will this cost the jolly old taxpayer then?"
CC: "Not much. Well, technically, not anything. Of course we signed some PFI deal with Accenture that means that we've got to send a couple of staff on a Social Media Risk Awareness Course at £800 per head. And we've got to then commission some written guidance from them (£6,000). And we've got a similar arrangement with BT that means we've got to make the account match our corporate house style (don't ask - an arrangement with Wolff Olins). So it'll probably look like about £25k if we get the wrong sort of FOI requests in. But it doesn't really cost anything."
BJ: "Ticketty boo!. And just to prove I've been listening, I'll need some 'followers', right? Do we have an obligation to pay Serco to drum them up for me?"
CC: "Er.... no Mr Mayor. If you can't get a couple of hundred thousand followers on twitter for nothing, then I doubt if anyone can."
BJ: "And I can say anything I jolly well please?"
CC: "Er.... no Mr Mayor. Accenture will draw up a lengthy list of things you can't say"
BJ: "What? Can't I even have a pop at old Ken once the election starts?"
CC: "Er.... yes Mr Mayor. But at that point, you're on your own. And you'd probably better set up a new account as @borisjohnson"
BJ: "But Ken will be doing this as well between now and then. His lot will have thousands of followers by the time the election has been announced - he's got nothing better to do, and I'll be at a standing start. That isn't fair."
CC: "Well maybe the sensible thing is to re-name your account as @borisjohnson when the purdah period starts. Technically the rules say that you can't use publically funded assets for political advantage, but the account won't be paid for by the public sector.
And anyway, I suspect that giving you a twitter account without any restrictions on what you can say is technically the opposite of giving you a political advantage.... and it's not really an electioneering tool in itself. Tories don't really use Twitter much anyway...."
BJ: "What's a hashtag again? I say, I appear to being 'followed' by a charming Russian lady who has no followers herself. This looks promising...."
And so on. Get the picture? Ken's not a tax dodger. Boris hasn't hi-jacked anything. And this is going to be a very long month or so.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Paid links
Here's an odd one. Someone is offering me $25 to put a link to a commercial service in an old post. The way they're asking me to do it is not even really an endorsement of the thing I'm linking to and I doubt that the post concerned will get many visits, apart from search-engine crawlers.
Has anyone else had a request like this? It looks like free money to me. WDYT?
Has anyone else had a request like this? It looks like free money to me. WDYT?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Neo-liberalism or Managerialism?
 |
| A f**king clipboard yesterday. |
Have we been sold a hospital-pass with the widespread use of the term 'neo-liberalism' to describe the current economic impasse we're in?
Are we, in fact, in a managerial age instead, where all economic activity is designed to increase the status and value of administrators at the expense of workers and the professions?
And - in doing so, are we missing an opportunity to say the right thing and enjoy all kinds of political benefits that we don't currently enjoy?
If anyone still comments on blogs, I'd be interested to hear what people think on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sociable
