Off the artistic roll call
I make it a point of trying not to attack other bloggers but in one or two cases I will make an exception.
If you’re even slightly interested in blogging, particularly political blogging, I’d urge you to go and read Tim Ireland’s long, forensic but fascinating post about Guido Fawkes.
Today, I am going to ask you to help me kick things off by doing something positive for the political blogging community:
- If you currently link to Guido on your blog; I am going to ask you to consider removing him from your blogroll.
- If you’re one of those who are addicted to the gossip and rumours he spreads, then I’m going to ask you to attempt to quit the habit.
- If you’re one of his sources, please read on; there’s a little surprise for you at the end… and you’re not going to like it.
Older readers may remember Guido shooting his bolt (along with the now seemingly respectable Alex Hilton) in January of last year by attempting to claim a role in the outing of Mark Oaten (Guido and Hilton made some enlightened jokes about Oaten, conflating homosexuality and paedophilia, in one of their hilarious podcasts and then tried to get in on the scoop.) You can read more about the whole edifying saga here (which is also published in black and white in The Blog Digest).
Being one of the most prominent bloggers in Britain right now Guido Fawkes is held up by the more lazy elements of the mainstream media as being an exemplar of the blogging medium despite him being a personification of its worst traits, as shown in detail by Tim. (Although it has to be said that, while his blog’s comment box is a honeypot for assorted racists and homophobes, they’re not bothering anyone else.) As I’ve said before about him, however,
Holding Fawkes up as an example would be like eating a turd and then declaring your dislike of chocolate eclairs. Sure, they’re both long and brown but you’re the one who’s been eating shit.
This isn’t to overestimate Guido Fawkes‘ power or influence, however. If he was as influential as he thought he was it’s arguable someone would have sorted him out by now. For the time being, it seems he has yet to cross the line that would provoke someone with real power to go gunning for him.
Unfortunately though, all bloggers are being lumped in with Guido Fawkes in the minds of the mainstream media and by extension, the mainstream media consuming public. We’ve already seen prominent figures close to the centre of power expressing their ‘concern’ about blogging’s contribution to debate. There’s a chance that, if/when somebody does come gunning for Guido, blogging as a whole might get caught in the crossfire.
Blogging isn’t a mass movement or hive mind. It isn’t an invention and plaything of the Right, despite what some would have you believe. It’s a wide-ranging medium like all the rest. But, right now, thanks to the likes of Guido Fawkes and complicit bone-dry, bone-headed and bone-idle journalists, the medium and his message are, almost inextricably, mashed together.
If you care about blogging, whether reading or writing, or just plain old-fashioned common decency for that matter, then read Tim’s piece, think about it and act on it.
Update: A thoughtful, alternative, response from Nosemonkey.
Posted on January 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
| See also • Guido Fawkes: guardian of political morality • Meanwhile elsewhere… • A heartfelt plea to non-bloggers |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Blog, bloggers and blogging |
• 25 Comments |
Nice title to this piece, another Bill Hicks fan I take it?
I’m afraid so.
Heh, good stuff.:)
[...] An alternative take on all this is up over at Chicken Yoghurt – someone with whom I more often than not agree. On this occasion, however, we’re at slight odds – largely because, try as I might, I can’t see how any of this is really that important. Blogging is not going to be taken seriously by the press for the forseeable future because (as I’ve argued elsewhere) it is a threat to those in the press who determine opinion – the highly-paid columnists who rattle off the ill-informed think-pieces about blogs that seem to be perceived as a problem by both Manic and Justin. Guido isn’t the cause of this, he’s merely a handy way of providing additional justification for an attitude towards blogs from the press that was pretty much inevitable from the start, echoing preachers’ dislike of the printing press in the 15th century and cinema’s dislike of television in the 20th. [...]
Well, also, who reads blogs? Even a reasonably well-known blog must have a very small readership compared to any national columnist.
Incidentally, why would preachers have disliked the printing press half a millenium ago? The press and preaching went together.
ejh – when the printing press first arrived on the scene there were vocal sections within the Church who saw it as a threat to the monopoly the priesthood then had on the interpretation of the gospels. Considering the Reformation kicked off shortly afterwards, they may well have had a point…
It’s also, perhaps, worth noting that it’s impossible to tell how many readers individual columnists have. You can tell the circulation of the paper and make a guesstimate of the readership based on that (readership and circulation not being the same), but it’s practically impossible to tell what percentage of that readership bothers to read the columns.
They’d still probably get more than most blogs, though, because a good 50% or so of unique visitors to blogs tend to bugger off again within five seconds…
Here endeth the sidetrack.
“a good 50% or so of unique visitors to blogs tend to bugger off again within five seconds”
Not necessarily. Just means they haven’t clicked on another page on your website within 5 seconds of entering. May have spent hours digesting the intricate thoughts on your homepage before going to another unconnected site, thereby ending up on your “less than 5 seconds†tally.
That’s what I keep telling myself.
Here endeth another, more obscure sidetrack.
ejh: Ask yourself what happens when something appears to have sprouted spontaneously from a number of smaller weblogs, but is actually co-ordinated.
The more anonymous blogs/comments there are, the easier it is for this level of infiltration and subversion.
We’re still in a relatively robust position, but going backwards fast.
(And, as we’re all is a sidetrack mood; The reason celibacy was introduced as a priestly requirement? Real estate.)
1. when the printing press first arrived on the scene there were vocal sections within the Church who saw it as a threat to the monopoly the priesthood then had on the interpretation of the gospels
Mmm. But those were clergy, not “preachers”. Until the Reformation the clergy didn’t really do any preaching: there was no requirement for it. Very little actual proselytisation, very little actual spreading of the word got done – and those people who did do it, who were quite likely outside (actually or effectively) the Church were very likely to see the printed word as an ally. They were, for instance, very likely to be in favour of the translation and dissemination of the Bible in the vernacular, something which the Church opposed until it could oppose it no longer. (In common, one might add, with every other social advance in the course of its history.)
It’s an important distinction. Preachers, ministers, priests: these are not the same people and they did not do the same things.
(Oh, as far as priestly celibacy goes – in his autobiography Buñuel suggests that it aided in the maintenance of class distinctions, something sexual relationships were not likely to respect.)
2. Tim – I’m not sure I get your point, would it help if I made some further comments and you responded?
I’m not sure how much there’s such a thing as “blogdom” or what its extent is. (Personally, when I write, I just write: I don’t see what I do as part of anything, it’s just a means of writing what I want to write. On the other hand, I don’t want to decry, or seem to decry, people who do feel part of something and consider it’s important. A decade and a half a ago I was part of the football fanzine “movement”, which did eventually make a difference to how football was written about, however trivial any individual fanzine might have been: from that perspective I can see a lot of parallels with blogs.)
However, I think that people who know about blogs will know they come in all shapes and sizes and that a Guido Fawkes isn’t representative because nobody’s representative: while people who don’t read ‘em aren’t going to know the truth or otherwise of what they’re told about them. In which case, is not the attitude, either way, that people take towards Mr Fawkes likely to be irrelevant?
I don’t think Guido is irrelevant because I’m very aware of the level of ignorance and fear there is amongst politicians. And there’s some serious/active branding taking place here, too…
For example; Guido being heralded by Iain Dale (in his guide) as the pinnacle of ‘honest’ blogging.
If the perception spreads that this is what blogging is about (and this perception *is* spreading) then all we will end up with is politicians who might engage positively, but won’t dare, and politicians who just don’t give a fuck and continue to abuse a system that has grown in a way that’s open to abuse.
The majority will be shouting from the outside in and even this interaction will be open to subversion.
[...] This post is courtesy of Chicken Yoghurt, Tim Ireland, and the Nosemonkey. [...]
Why does it matter what Iain Dale says? How important is he?
Or you? Or me? Or this blog?
Do any of us have remotely enough clout to affect what people generally think about blogging?
It does seem to me to be a bit like shooting a gnat with an elephant gun – when we haven’t got an elephant gun.
Chicken Yoghurt, I’ve never agreed with your take on Christianity but I sure agree 100% with the way you read politics and the blogosphere. A glance at my sidebar shows I don’t link Guido Fawkes and yet I do link Dale and other cronies.
Now this is in no way sycophantic but you’re a 1000% better blogger than the GF.
ejh – But those were clergy, not “preachers†– Shorthand, designed to indicate that they, erm… preached. Which they did, what with being literate when the vast majority of the population was not. Not used in any technical sense – and but one small, largely irrelevant, part of a very, very long post. (Please also note I specifically said 15th century – not 16th, when the terminology became more important.)
Quinn – ust means they haven’t clicked on another page on your website within 5 seconds of entering – true. Call me a pessimist…
Tim – Guido being heralded by Iain Dale (in his guide) as the pinnacle of ‘honest’ blogging – I agree with ejh on this one. How seriously do politicians really take Iain Dale? As much as he seems decent for a Tory, and as much as he comes across as a nice enough bloke, he’s surely best known in Westminster for running a failed campaign to get David Davis elected party leader, and as a failed parliamentary candidate? I doubt his opinion really counts for too much amongst MPs. And anyone with an once of sense who actually checks out Guido’s site will swiftly see that it’s hardly the most intellectually demanding of places, and dismiss Dale’s opinion even further.
Guido censors my comments all the time. Or did – I stopped going to his site. It’s just tabloid-level journalism anyway.
Everytime he complains that somebody has (self)censored something on their site (as in his recent criticism of recess monkey) ask him what happened to this post:
“Popbitch gayers in political outing dilemma.”
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-did-you-do-last-friday.html
of Wed 22 November 2006 8:17 PM.
The usual homophobic twaddle I guess…
Sorry the 18-20th words of my post should read “sub-tabloid twaddle”.
If you are in doubt about Guido’s kookiness listen to the podcast (the one with Sian of the Green Party) where he suggests we might want an independent nuclear deterrent to deal with France…
It’s not just Iain Dale.
Not a Conspiracy Theory, Just a Natural By-Product of Economics:
There’s a whole group selling a certain advertising product to organisations that sell ideas to politicians and companies with surprising efficiency… and the blog that’s waved in front of everyone’s faces is deeply, deeply flawed on a fundamental basis (and I mean flawed in such a way that is deeply unsettling before you even think about taking into account the intentions or character of the person behind it).
There is also more than one company out there selling ‘blogs’ that are little more than content management systems. Others offer even easier easy-outs that – in the end – cheat both MPs and their constituents.
Damn it, we started off so *well*. We were way ahead of the Americans; we had elected officials having actual conversations with voters. Then, there were people then who feared blogging, but for a very good reason; they wouldn’t get away with their usual bullshit.
For many, many reasons, recently it’s deteriorated to a point where almost everyone is afraid of it… except for the total bullshitters, as they now know (or ‘think’, if you’re an optimist) that they can shut debates down and push certain campaigns, rumours or spin forward with nothing but a bunch of sock-puppets … and no-one is going to bat a fucking eyelid.
It’s good to see that someone has at last pointed out that Guido Fawkes’ blog is a load of twaddle. There is indeed a danger that Guido’s illogical arguments and childish jokes become, in the public mind, what blogging is all about.
Tim says: “For example; Guido being heralded by Iain Dale (in his guide) as the pinnacle of ‘honest’ blogging.”
As I recall Iain picked his friend as No.1, then his other friend (and now business partner) as No.2, then Iain’s friend at No.2 picked Iain as No.3.
If you want to hail this as having some real meaning as to quality that’s fine, but to me it looks about as grown up as an infant’s school playground.
Fight!…
My Google Reader is on fire this morning thanks to the flaming Tim Ireland has unleashed on Paul Staines. ……
I have been noticing recently that bloggers are talking more about each other and their medium than (very likely) more important things.
That strikes me as rather like the “ad hominem” compared to consideration of facts and logical argument.
Is this evidence that the blogosphere is terminally ill, or has August just arrived unexpectedly early (perhaps due to global warming)?
Best regards
Oh, *that* Guido Fawkes. Yes, I remember reading his blog a couple of times, but didn’t subscribe to it, because it was toilet. In the same way that I don’t subscribe to Harry’s Place either. (I don’t subscribe to Iain Dale’s blog because I find it dull, rather than explicitly toilet, if anyone is interested.)
I must say that I have never, ever seen a reference to his GF’s blog in any context apart from, well, the odd other UK political blog entry – no board posts, no serious outside media coverage apart from in the odd “look what those funny bloggers are saying now” piece, and certainly it’s never come up in any discussion about politics I’ve ever had. I’m vaguely aware that it’s considered “important” in the scheme of net things, but really, it isn’t.
The last thing we bloody want is a situation like the one in the US where the political blogs just spend their time slagging off other political blogs that they don’t like.
I have been noticing recently that bloggers are talking more about each other and their medium than (very likely) more important things.
Nigel, I would have thought that this is a good thing. Tim’s original post is indeed about blogging, but it is not self congratulatory about blogging. We are debating the ethics of the medium, and trying to define and justify those ethics. We are asking about whether there is any power in the medium, and if so, who weilds, and for what purpose. If only the tabloids did this more often!
In any case, a bit of narcissism is good for the soul sometimes: “Take a look in the mirror” is the advice we give to those who wish to avoid hypocrisy.
Honestly.
There’s a stench of shite about this. I hold no brief for either side. Tim Ireland is clearly as big a tosser as Guido. Peas and pods. The reader on the Clapham bendybus reads both blogs knowing the back story that both have created for themselves. And the shit filter is adjusted accordingly.
Of course people can create unattributable aliases, some will do so for nefarious reasons, others simply because they don’t fancy using their real names. Both know ultimately that they could be tracked down. This is what people do, have done and will always do – whether on blogs or in the letters page of newspapers.
There is though something vaguely amusing about Ireland’s exhortions about knowing and controlling the identity of comment leavers. If it’s tough policing a blog, imagine what it’s like running a country. Trebles and ID cards all round.
PS Shhhh…my name’s not really Guillermo, but you won’t tell will you?
[...] So do pay attention. Chicken Yoghurt and Nosemonkey are particularly good. Paul Linford is keeping score. [...]