When the Grauniad started their “Comment is Free” “blog” I dipped in out of curiosity. Unfortunately, it tended to sum up the underlying feeling I had that mainstream journos just don’t get what blogging is. It is difficult to conduct a conversation when HTML is prohibited. No italics, block-quotes or links make it difficult to quote either the text of the article or that of other contributors to the comments section. Frankly, I tend to lose the plot fairly quickly – and, no, that’s not an invitation.
So, generally, I give it a miss. My attention has been drawn back recently by Mr Eugenides and MatGB writing over at The Devil’s Kitchen about an article on blogging by Catherine Bennett.
Oh, dear, where to start? If, as a man, I was to stereotype women in the manner that the somewhat misandristic Bennett attacks men, I would rightly be castigated for it.
One of the greatest pleasures of political blogging, for its participants, is that here, usually unidentified beyond their humorous nicknames (“9inchknobber!”), the part-time pundits enjoy, quite as much as any party of anglers sharing smutty jokes beneath a wet, green umbrella, some well-earned respite from the dreadful constraints imposed by civilised society. Or, at any rate, by the wife. For anyone who has ever wondered how educated, politically engaged, middle-aged men really feel about recent developments in women’s liberation, political blogs can offer important clues. It is not only on the Guardian’s own Comment is free site that women are singled out for belittling comments – “love”, “time of the month?”, “scabby old bat”, and so forth – rather, this seems to be routine treatment from contributors who learned all they know from political weblogs such as Mr Eugenides, and Harry’s Place (where roguish contributors demonstrated support for the Danes, in the cartoon controversy, with a photograph of Helena Christensen wearing a pair of socks). For principled defenders of freedom, disgusted by squelchy liberalism, wussy surrender monkeys, and Guardianista-style appeasement, a redneck approach to sex and women, expressed in appropriately free language, appears to be a key indicator of having consistent progressive views. How can you defend the freedom to offend people, if you don’t go round offending them yourself?
Nothing like sweeping generalisations along with hackneyed stereotypes to make a dire piece of journalism – and, Catherine, well done, you manage to do the very thing you criticise in others. I believe the word, here, is hypocrisy – and you do it very well, my love. :dry: Much like her colleague, Joseph Harker, who wrote this pile of lazy, offensive, stereotypical horse shit:
I’ve been looking at the drivers of these flag-waving vehicles, and – OK, I admit this isn’t exactly scientific – half of them are in white vans, and the rest are white, male, tattooed, pot-bellied 35 to 55-years-olds: exactly the type I’ve been seeing on TV for the past month complaining about “our houses going to the asylum seekers”, or that “we’re losing control of our country”. I can’t tell if these drivers come from Barking and Dagenham, where the BNP gained 11 seats, but that borough is just a short drive from where I live, so who knows?
What is it about the Guardianista that makes them such sanctimonious self-righteous arseholes? (Rhetorical question). Had Mr Harker written that diatribe about Asians, for example, he would have been in hot water pretty sharpish. Oh, but if you confine your bigotry to white middle-aged men (preferably English ones for the hat trick), then it’s okay; it isn’t a dogmatic, narrow-minded diatribe of prejudice and hate, it’s comment.
The suggestion by the egregious Ms Bennett that men have taken up blogging as a substitute for all the laddish things we used to do, such as going to the pub or fishing, displays a lack of research, ignorance and lazy writing. Given that I don’t drink (even the smell of beer turns my stomach) and don’t fish, I belie the stereotype (as, I suspect, do many others in their own way. We are, after all, a collection of individuals). I write a blog because it satisfies my need to write. In times past, I’d probably have been what is quaintly known as a diarist. I write a blog because I want to – I need no justification. If people read my scribblings, well and good. If they feel sufficiently motivated to comment, I will cheerfully engage them in conversation; but if none of that happened, I would still write because I need to. As a professional journalist, Catherine Bennett should understand this. However, like Oliver Kamm before her, she appears not to understand the phenomenon one jot.
Women blog too. A quick trawl of the net will confirm this – had Bennett bothered to try to find out before putting finger to keyboard. It’s just that, by and large, they seem to leave politics alone. This is a pity, but so be it. We write about what interests us.
The interesting place to which this leads me is that while my background is of the traditional left (and that has always been a loose label), I find more and more, that it is the right wing blogs that appeal. Mr Eugenides, The Devil’s Kitchen, The England Project et al. Might it be that by and large, I’ll come across witty, intelligent comment even if I disagree with it, rather than partisan party politics? Or, worse, purile schoolboy behaviour. There’s probably a moral in there somewhere.
So, reading drivel from the likes of Catherine Bennett causes me to wonder. Comment is Free – which makes it overpriced at half that.
Sorry you don’t think I’m intelligent, I’ll admit that DK etc is wittier than me. I think pretending that Tory policies are sensible is a humourous advantage for them to start with.
You say I’m partizan and I get this accusation a lot, but I argue vigorously for lots of policies that are not Labour policy. For example, proportional representation for Westminster, legalisation of drugs, congestion charging (the independent Livingstone not Labour (at the time)), eco taxes, citizen’s income, etc, etc. I even admit that I might not vote Labour under a different electoral system.
Yes, I wear my support for Labour on my sleeve, that I think is a honest position. Labour have always been (and continue to be by a long way) better than the Tory alternative. This fundamental point tends to be forgotten in all the Tory press crticism of this government. The real significant achievements of this government will only be truly missed when the Tories are back in power and are reversing them.
I don’t think you are unintelligent, Neil. The point I was making is that your blog is just far too partisan. I do like Unity’s Ministry of Truth and he is hardly a Tory – take a look at some of those on my blogroll and you will see a mixture of opinions. They are there because I like what they write and find them interesting.
That doesn’t mean I don’t read you, but I find myself sighing with frustration sometimes when you brand people as “Tories” because they have differing political views.
When it comes to blogging, I am assessing not just the viewpoint – and recall that I stated I often disagree with the viewpoint – I like blogs that are sassy, well written and entertaining, whatever their political views.
I accused Tim Worstall of being a Tory and he denied it at the time, now he is listed on Ian Dale’s website under ‘Conservative blogs’.
I think people like DK and Tim are Tories, they are just too ashamed to admit it sometimes.
Under this electoral system we have TWO possible governments, Labour or Tory (I know it’s boring and cliched to say this but that doesn’t stop it being true). I personally dislike most of Labour’s policies but if like these blogs (all I did was criticise Labour ALL THE TIME), people start to forget that the Tories are even worse. There is certainly enough criticism of Labour, I don’t need to add to it, so I focus on the positive side of Labour that gets little attention.
Neil, there is a subtle difference between “conservative” and “Conservative”. While it is perfectly reasonable to label Tim as conservative, I really couldn’t say if he is Conservative. (As an aside, Ian Dale’s blog is well written and readable). Also, DK is as scathing about Cameron as he is about Blair and co (so, too have I on occasion). Okay, DK is right of centre. The difference, I guess, is one of style. Even when disagreeing, I find his writing wickedly amusing. He manages to be insulting, scathing and rude, yet readable. The way not to do it is demonstrated on Bob Piper’s blog where it just comes across as childish and immature.
I’m not suggesting you emulate DK (and certainly not Bob) as this clearly isn’t your style. But, as an opener, “the Tories would be worse” is wearing thin. In some aspects, maybe they will. In others, probably not. Overall, likely as not, it will be more of the same as centrist politics seems to be flavour of the month. :dry:
When you do diverge from the Labour party line it gets lost in the “Tories would be worse” noise.