Tuesday, 19 October 2021
As if they are living in a parallel universe
Ben Sixsmith has a nicely sarcastic piece in The Critic about opportunist attempts to stifle public discourse on the back of the murder of Sir David Amess. It is well worth reading the whole piece.
There is something about Twitter that makes it almost impossible to resist not only making but publicising snap judgements. As soon as news broke that Sir David Amess MP had been stabbed, online commentators were drawing conclusions. Some blamed incendiary verbiage from the left, such as Angela Rayner MP calling Conservatives “scum”. Others blamed the government, with former PCC Arfon Jones, saying “this is what happens” when you have a government that “sows hate”. No one, to be clear, knew what had happened.
Evidence that has emerged since, following Sir David’s tragic death, has not been kind to the “civility in politics” narrative. The killer is reported to have been Ali Harbi Ali, apparently the 25-year-old son of a former media spokesman for the Prime Minister of Somalia. The suspect had reportedly been referred to the government’s anti-radicalisation scheme Prevent and has been detained under terrorism legislation. This makes it unlikely, though not impossible, that he was radicalised by watching people argue about Brexit or lockdowns.
Somehow, journalists and politicians have maintained their initial narrative. It is as if they are living in a parallel universe where none of this news has been reported. Their discourse flows on, river-like, and nothing one hurls into it can make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I've no answer - but I wonder if the citizens of Rome were far more concerned about stricte venire choros (their version of strictly come dancing) than the fear of barbarians at the gates. From which it follows that local news would follow the news of bread and circuses rather than unpleasant issues elsewhere?
To some journalists politics is a subject worth pandering to. If you get it wrong, no-one gives you the sack. If you get it right you will probably get an award from other luvies. Either way it fills column inches or screen pixels without needing any research or accuracy.
At a certain level events are not a cause for concern but an opportunity for entertainment.
Good article; many thanks for pointing it out.
The issue of politicians' discourse rolling on regardless reminds me of the idea of "non-decision making" or agenda-rigging as a means of exercising power. Political sociologists Bachrach and Baratz wrote about it 50 years ago, but it seems as relevant as ever. There are some things that are simply not allowed to be spoken about, and when one realises this, it becomes obvious that many of the things that are spoken about by politicians are merely "fillers". They are presented as important and complicated, but they are just there to take up time and space where the decisions are made, to block other issues.
Sixsmith is careful to allude rather than to state, but I'll be as clear as I can. The policy (or non-policy) of mass immigration has been a major disaster for this country, and politicians are terrified of talking about it. Even political murder won't stop them talking about other stuff. Anecdotes about the brave victim, online anonymity, too much "hate", and the status of shitty Essex seaside towns.
@Sam Vega
I often thought that the amount of parliamentary time spent debating fox hunting (whatever your views) were disproportionate when considered against other events. Unless it was class war by proxy, of course.
Trying it on 24/7, that's all it is. Johnson will be one of the first once it comes.
Democracy , not how I envisaged it those years ago, today a vote in the HoC was received thus, they are laughing at us, very few there for what was an important vote and we the electorate are treated with total disdain, what a day this has been for the hopeful re emergence of Guido Fawkes.
https://twitter.com/AnonCitizenUK/status/1450516987604578305
Once again I find myself in complete agreement with Sam Vega. I think that what distinguishes us on this excellent blog is that we have a shared characteristic, not shared by the large majority, of being willing to face up to reality however unpleasant or unpalatable and even if contrary to our views and desires as individuals.
The BBC are the worst culprits in either fake news, or non-info by omission.
I find that life is so much easier by ignoring/disagreeing with everything they say, then skim the online rags, but come to decent places like here for a proper discussion. I only hear the news at night if I'm 'sleepless in Kent', and we never watch the news on TV.
Result? Lower blood pressure and more well-being.
DJ - going with the trend may simply be the low risk approach. Journalists do not seem to be generally courageous and apparently don't need to be.
Sam - I agree, the policy of mass immigration has been a major disaster. What is to be done about it I don't know, but future generations are now stuck with it.
James - I think they have tried it on and found it works.
Wiggia - yes it's a depressing move, but entirely expected. It's what we have to live with now.
Tammly - thanks, I often wonder how big that large majority is. It may depend on how bad things become, although even that may be taken care of by propaganda and pervasive surveillance.
Scrobs - yes the BBC are the worst culprits. Very good at lying by omission. I never watch and don't miss it.
Post a Comment