Picking Your Battles

I remain relatively new to this whole blogging business, and am still very much learning the ropes.

And while I am largely making it up as I go along, what with posting pieces on the culture and politics of two different nations, interspersed with classical music excerpts, architectural musings and the odd cat picture, I do try to stick to a few strictures passed down from others that seem to have served them quite well – post regularly, engage with your readers, link selectively, and so on. This seems to be working fairly well, but there are some occasions when the pieces of advice I have read or received come into conflict with each other. For example:

1. Post something, anything, about every important story that comes up. That way, people will learn to keep coming to your blog out of habit, your readership will go up, etc. etc.

and

2. Focus on quality. Pick your battles, and only weigh in on those stories where you have strong and original opinions. Your posts will be better informed and more enjoyable to read, and your readership will go up, etc. etc.

This is tricky for me. I tend to have opinions about most things, and if I had unlimited hours I could certainly commit a lot more of these thoughts to this blog. But aside from the time constraints, I often feel that by the time I come to a story, others have already dissected and analysed it in a far superior way. There’s no point in parroting the words of someone who got there first, without having anything interesting to contribute. And that leaves the question of what to do with all of the articles that capture my attention and interest, but about which I have few original thoughts to add.

For example, George Miller, writing at adamsmith.org., has an excellent piece reminding us that the recent failures of the private security firm G4S (contracted to provide much of the security at the upcoming London Olympic Games) should not be viewed as an indictment of outsourcing, or of the private sector in general. It is concise, well-written and chimes entirely with my own beliefs, but I have nothing really to add to it.

And therefore in future, rather than constructing a throwaway, waste-of-time blog post about such articles, or ignoring them entirely on my blog, I have decided to offer a kind of “daily summary” at the end of each day, with a few select stories of interest and a line or two from me about why they are worth a read. Hopefully, once this has a chance to bed down and establish itself, it will become a popular feature of this site.

I would be interested to here in the comments section below from any readers who have any other suggestions, insights or advice that they could offer.

In the meantime, I am going to proceed as planned.

Your Business Model Offends Me

When a person’s ability to fly, see through walls and shoot lasers from his eyes is more plausible to readers than your firm’s continued profitability and existence, you know you are in trouble.

The Onion reports widespread incredulity that The Daily Planet newspaper, famous  for being Clark Kent AKA Superman’s employer, has not gone out of business given the fate being suffered by every other major metropolitan daily newspaper in the world.

They report:

While they acknowledged that enjoying the adventures of a superhero who can fly, lift a bus over his head, and shoot beams of intense heat from his eyes requires some suspension of disbelief, longtime fans told reporters they simply could not accept a daily metropolitan newspaper still thriving in the media landscape of 2012.

Those fans have a point. It continues:

Other fans said The Daily Planet—which for some strange reason has not been acquired by multimillionaire Lex Luthor with a promise to give readers shorter articles with more sizzle—is so deeply woven into the Superman universe that they had no choice but to avoid the comic altogether. They said even the most exciting stories are routinely marred by absurd depictions of a publication that somehow flourishes in print and whose millions of loyal readers seem oblivious to the idea of getting news online faster and for free.

“I can totally buy into an epic battle in which Superman claps his hands and creates a sonic boom that sends Darkseid flying through 50 buildings,” lifelong reader Richard Taft said. “But as soon as people start lining up at newsstands to read about it in The Daily Planet, I think, ‘Doesn’t anyone have a computer at work? Are there no smartphones?’ Before I know it, I’m suddenly aware I’m reading a fictional comic book, and the spell’s totally broken.”

And finally a point dear to my own heart:

Lou Wadlow, owner of a Boston-area comic-book store, said the outright ridiculousness of The Daily Planet not putting up a pay wall in a futile attempt to remain profitable is causing the popular comic to lose readers, especially younger ones.

Yeah, timesonline.co.uk. Cough.

Priceless.

When No One Takes A Stand

Islamophobia

 

This morning I came across a thought-provoking piece by Mehdi Hassan, now of Huffington Post but writing here in The Guardian, about the rising tide of Islamophobia in British political commentary, and what he considers to be the insidious attempt to smear or question the pro-western credentials of all moderate Muslims in public life so as to create the impression that there are no moderate Muslims to be found.

Hasan speaks in candid terms about the effect that the ignorant, baseless abuse which he has received in response to his work at the New Statesman magazine has had, both on himself and his family:

To say that I find the relentlessly hostile coverage of Islam, coupled with the personal abuse that I receive online, depressing is an understatement. There have been times – for instance, when I found my wife curled up on our couch, in tears, after having discovered some of the more monstrous and threatening comments on my New Statesman blog – when I’ve wondered whether it’s all worth it. Perhaps, a voice at the back of my head suggests, I should throw in the towel and go find a less threatening, more civilised line of work. But that’s what the trolls want. To silence Muslims; to deny a voice to a voiceless community.

And the money passage, summing up the aggregate effect of this abuse, and the fact that too few commentators in the mainstream media are willing to take a stand and denounce it when they witness sloppy or prejudicial reporting of Muslim life or the rise of radical Islam written in their own publications:

The truth is that the fear-mongering and negative stereotyping is out of control. I’ve lost count of the number of websites that try to “out” every Muslim in public life as an extremist or Islamist of some shape or form. The promotion of Sayeeda Warsi to the Conservative frontbench in 2007 provoked the influential ConservativeHome website to describe her appointment as “the wrong signal at a time when Britain is fighting a global war against Islamic terrorism and extremism”. Labour’s Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, was accused of holding “extremist” views after he called for a “more independent foreign policy” and was spuriously linked to Hizb ut-Tahrir. In April, Labour peer Lord Ahmed was suspended from the party after he was falsely accused of having put a £10m bounty on Barack Obama’s head (the suspension has since been lifted).

If Muslims such as Warsi, Khan, Ahmed and me are all secret extremists, who are the moderates? That, of course, seems to be the implicit, insidious message: there aren’t any. But if those of us who try to participate in public life and contribute to political debate are constantly painted with a broad brush of suspicion and distrust, then what hope is there for the thousands of young British Muslims who feel alienated and marginalised from the political process? I used to encourage Muslim students to get involved in the media or in politics, but I now find it much harder to do so. Why would I want anyone else to go through what I’ve gone through? Believe me, Muslims aren’t endowed thicker skins than non-Muslims.

The targeting of ConservativeHome here is a little unfair; I followed the link and the quote about the “wrong signal” refers to a press statement by the pathetically-named “Margaret Thatcher Center [sic – yes, American] for Freedom” at the Heritage Foundation, not the most intellectually robust of groups these days and certainly not representative of ConservativeHome editorial positions or the views of their readership (though I concede that there is likely to be a degree of overlap in this case).

But Hasan’s broader point is valid – if even those Muslims in British public life who have impeccable records of patriotism and public service have their motives and allegiances called into question, this most certainly does feed the perception that there is no such thing as moderation within the Muslim community, a situation that no one interested in reasoned, free debate should allow to stand.

The only area where I would take issue with Hasan is where he states:

I’m a fan of robust debate and I’m not averse to engaging in the odd ad hominem attack myself. This isn’t a case of special pleading, on behalf of Britain’s Muslims, nor do I think my Islamic beliefs should be exempt from public criticism. But the fact is that you can now say things about Muslims, in polite society and even among card-carrying liberal lefties, that you cannot say about any other group or minority. Am I expected to shrug this off?

Are Muslims getting a rough deal at the moment, and is it shameful and wrong and concerning? Absolutely. But are they the only group? Hardly. Has no one reading this moaned about gypsies lately, or perhaps laughed at a “pikey” joke?

Let’s take a stand when we hear untruths being spoken about moderate Islam, Muslim public servants or commentators. But let us also apply this same standard to every community; trying to silence people with threats, or drumming them out public office based on false evidence or highly selective interpretation of their past statements is not a route that we should be going down.

Cable News, Just Give Up

You long ago proved yourselves incapable of any serious, impartial, in-depth analysis of topical news stories.

And whatever claims you had to be the best at delivering breaking news are pretty comprehensively debunked by this failure to correctly call the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare:

 

How about you sit the next few rounds out and leave it to the newspapers and armchair bloggers?

The BBC Doubles Down

The Guardian reports that the BBC is shrugging off the unprecedented levels of criticism of their Diamond Jubilee television coverage with the practiced ease and disinterest of the vast, bloated behemoth of an organisation that it is – one that doesn’t have to generate its £4.2bn annual budget by turning a profit, nor justify the way in which that money is spent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/06/queens-diamond-jubilee-bbc

In fact, as the chorus of complaints grows louder, it emerges that the BBC executive in charge of the jubilee coverage has actually gone on holiday, and will not be available to answer any of the criticism:

The senior BBC executive responsible for the corporation’s diamond jubilee coverage has been unable to defend the output amid mounting criticism, because he is now on holiday.

BBC Vision director George Entwistle, a leading internal candidate to replace Mark Thompson as director general, went on holiday on Tuesday evening and could not appear on Radio 4’s Today programme on Wednesday to defend the corporation, which has faced criticism from vnewspapers, celebrities and even former executives about its four days of diamond jubilee coverage.

By Wednesday afternoon the BBC had also received 2,425 complaints from viewers and listeners about its diamond jubilee coverage, with the vast majority – 1,830 – about Sunday’s Thames pageant. The BBC said it had also received “lots of positive feedback”.

Though the majority of the complaints centred around the lightweight presenters and their lack of a decent command of their subject matter, the BBC chose to duck this line of criticism altogether, focusing instead on defending itself against a number of other decoy straw man arguments:

A senior BBC source said that this was the biggest outside broadcast of a flotilla ever undertaken, with 80 cameras attempting to film 1,000 boats.

“You cannot rehearse something of this scale and you certainly cannot have a running order or predict monstrous weather,” the insider said.

The source said that senior staff involved in the coverage were too tired to appear on the Today programme: “They had worked flat out and we were unable to put up somebody who knew exactly what they were speaking about.”

Fine, but the cloudy weather, scale of the event and the technical hitches had nothing to do with the fact that you assembled a cast of C-list presenters who between them had less gravitas and knowledge of the unfolding events than the jubilee-themed sick bag that one of them, in her wisdom, decided to promote.

Here’s some news, BBC – just because you caught the attention of 15 million largely captive viewers in the UK doesn’t mean that your coverage was any good. It wasn’t. It was really, really, uncharacteristically bad.

And as an organisation you really need to acknowledge it as such if you want to avoid a similar broadcasting catastrophe when the next big national event rolls around.