I've tried to steer clear of dabbling in politics since starting this website in an attempt to keep it focused primarily on the Daily Mail and the tabloid media. However, some comments posted on this site recently have made me want to make my political allegiance clear (I have none) and has also made me want to make a few general points about common arguments that are encountered on blogs. Furthermore, I appreciate people commenting, it lets me know that people actually read this site - and if you spend the time to post a comment the least I can do is respond, either in the comments or in a post like this. If I'm not prepared to engage with readers - especially critical readers - then what is the point of me offering a comments system? The good thing about the majority of blogs is that comments are freely published even if they contradict, correct or outright mock what is actually written by the blogger. Furthermore, unlike the Daily Mail - which not only censors entire posts, but also edits criticism to turn it into praise - bloggers sometimes take the time to respond to criticism or counter-arguments, creating an interaction whereby the reader's contribution becomes valued. Whereas Richard Littlejohn might steal a phrase from his commenters, he will never engage with any of the arguments put forward (largely because he is not capable of arguing a point). This means that commenting on the Daily Mail website is a pretty thankless task as even if you do somehow get some criticism past the moderators, you know that the article writer will never engage with you. I don't want the humble readership of this site to feel as if commenting is a waste of time. Without debate, without engaging with those who have different views nothing is ever going to change. It is quite rare to get criticism on a website because normally the readership are already broadly in agreement with the views that you have, so in many ways a blogger is already preaching to the converted. Thus when I receive comments that go against the grain of what I think / write then this is a good chance to engage with someone with a different viewpoint, and actually preaching to those that I want to convert (so to speak).
Firstly, someone called Anthony posted on the article ' Richard Littlejohn is a coward':
Has it not occurred to anyone that Johann Hari is only a left wing version of Richard Littlejohn.
My political views are eclectic so I read all the papers. In all of them are vitriolic pundits who are paid large incomes simply to rant.
The paper they rant in only mirrors the views of the main readership. Hari is as sad and spiteful as Littlejohn; except his left wing readership agree with him as the readers of the Mail agree with Littlejohn.
I do find Hari's anal obsession with Littlejohn both fascinating and disturbing. Perhaps freud would have something to say.
Let's start by addressing the whole 'right-wing, left-wing extremes are just as bad as each other' point that frequently comes up. I'm fairly apolitical because having a particular allegiance - even perceived - just shuts down debate; as is being done here by Anthony. Johann Hari is immediately discarded as merely a 'left wing version of Richard Littlejohn' so that Anthony doesn't have to switch his brain into gear and try to take on board what Hari is actually saying.
This is the same thing that religious people do with Richard Dawkins; they claim he is a 'fundemental atheist' and therefore just as extreme as a religious fundamentalist. Logic then dictates that if we dismiss the one then we must dismiss the other (or in other words, Dawkins becomes as bad - or no better - than the people he is trying to defeat in argument). This ignores the intellectually rigorous arguments that Dawkins politely puts forward against religion in The God Delusion and many other debates and papers and instead tarnishes him with an extremist label (and I do wish people would read the God Delusion to see just how patiently and politely he does put forward his arguments - then compare this with Christians laughing at Dawkins' impending eternity in hell).
If Anthony had read the article properly he would realise that Johann Hari confronted Richard Littlejohn with facts over what benefits an immigrant is actually entitled to. Littlejohn confessed he had no idea how much they actually got; so Hari pointed out to Littlejohn that as he always wrote about immigrants being 'hosed-down' with benefits can he not see how he was lying and feeding the BNP with distortions? Somehow I fail to see how confronting Richard Littlejohn with facts makes Hari a left-wing extremist but I understand what an important mechanism such an accusation is to maintain the blinkered worldview that Anthony demonstrates.
Take Fox news as another example, if anyone ever dares question their version of the world then that person is demonised as a 'liberal' or 'terrorist' (which are one and the same to Fox News). To ask any questions about American policy is to 'hate America' - the person asking the question is attacked, avoiding the awkwardness of trying to answer the question. Fox news - like Anthony here - tries to shutdown debate by making out anyone asking questions or bringing up inconvenient truths as being an extremist, they apply a negative political label to dismiss their opponent's arguments out of hand. This is a logical fallacy and doesn't achieve anything apart from the continuation of ignorance.
This brings me to my own political allegiance. I suppose if I oppose the Daily Mail and the BNP then I am on the left of the political spectrum, but I find the whole right / left labels a block to actually engaging with people. If we refuse to engage with people because we perceive them to be left or right wing then we fall into the logical fallacy of not judging an argument by its own merits but dismissing it based purely on who said it.
Likewise, with political parties I am extremely sceptical as nothing much really changes no matter who is in charge. The last 50 years has ably demonstrated that regardless of whether Labour or Conservatives are in office there is a frightening consistency of callous foreign policy. Furthermore, Tory voters on the Mail website constantly bemoan the state of the UK under New Labour seemingly without any awareness that they have pushed a very Conservative agenda since being elected in 1997- distrust of citizens, foreign occupations linked to resources, free market economics and absolute confidence in economic liberalisation.
Considering disastrious events like the invasion of Afghanastan and Iraq I fail to see what the Conservatives would have done differently - even more so considering the support lent to the invasions by them at the time. I also remember that in 1997 everyone was thoroughly sick of the Conservative Party, so much so that they voted Labour in with a huge majority. Fair enough, New Labour have been utterly rubbish, but have we all forgotten that the previous Conservative Party was just as rubbish and hated as New Labour are today? It is no wonder that people are apathetic towards politics when we now face the prospect of voting out one shower of shit simply to let in another shower of shit that we voted out for being a shower of shit in 1997. This process is repeated every 10 years or so.
Anyway, this post was just a rambling response to Anthony, in case he ever visits the site again. I realise I may have gone off the point somewhat but I think what I wanted to say is that it is far too easy to simply dismiss someone as a left or right-wing nut-job without actually having to put forward an argument. I understand that occasionally I may drift into a personal attack on a Mail writer out of frustration but I hope that on the whole my articles actually put forward factual, logical arguments and not unsubstantiated attacks.
If you feel they don't, then you are free to comment.
I realise that I intended to discuss more than one comment, but I feel that this post is long enough already.
I also want to say a fond farewell to Alone in the Dark who blogged the Daily Mail very patiently and eloquently for a few months but has now run out of time and has to abandon the project. He is willing to let someone take over the blog so pay him a visit if you're interested.
The blog's demise also encourages me to keep trying to get more writers contributing to Angry Mob as there are a few Daily Mail / tabloid blogs out there which might be more successful if they joined together. It is hard updating a website single handedly.
Again, any contributions to Angry Mob are welcome so get in touch via email: angrymobATuponnothing.co.uk (remember to replace AT with @) or use the submit article button at the top of the page. |
