This brings us to the events unfolding on Twitter this afternoon as Tory tweeters went into overdrive/meltdown over the spitting at and intimidation of journalists and egging of conference goers. While nothing compared to the student protests of five years back, it's all very stupid. Gobbing at and intimidating HuffPo and Telegraph journalists, and snarking at them the revolutionary armchair with imbecilities such as this is so utterly idiotic you almost don't know where to begin. They weren't the only ones. Kevin Maguire got some flak for his well-known Tory politics, and Michael Crick copped a wodge of gob too. In these circumstances, only one word will do: twattery.
That isn't to say stupid behaviour on today's demonstration is unknowable and mindless. Why, we might ask ourselves, have journalists (not all journos, as Laura McInerney observes) become a target? It's pretty obvious. On the one hand, they are the bodies-on-the-ground for organisations that routinely misreport and distort the truth for the Tories. It doesn't matter whether they're from the Labour-friendly Mirror and HuffPo, they're all seen as peas in a pod. On the other hand, as we know media firms are virtually untouchable. When Michael Crick files distorted rubbish about Jeremy Corbyn, or when the Telegraph competes with The Mail for the most ludicrous red-baiting stories, there is no comeback, no accountability. Social media and comment boxes offer simulacrum of holding journos to account, but the lie machine continues as before. This breeds resentment and frustration both, which some individuals then take out on the journos - as per today. Ditto for Tories, like our egged friend. Their government makes the lives of millions of people a struggle and a chore, but they avoided their electoral just desserts thanks to fearmongering, which was faithfully passed on for printing and broadcast. With the politicians out of reach, those nearer will have to do.
The twattery has proven contagious. Here are some Conservatives point-scoring off today's events:
What a pathetic sight. Particularly ironic are the comments of the last, whose Twitter profile says he doesn't believe in safe spaces.
I am tempted to say that if you don't want "Tory scum" yelling at you when you gather for a conference, it's probably a good idea not to pursue scummy policies. Nevertheless, this suits the Tory frame nicely. It's grist to the mill of their new trade union project, and allows them to portray their opposition as a rabble - as all governments of whatever hue do when there's a hint of trouble at a demonstration.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things, a slap here and a bit of goz there pail against the violence of the eviction, the care withdrawal, and the zero hours contract. If there is time and a place for trouble-making, today's demonstration wasn't it. The actions of a vanishingly tiny number have muddied the issue and gave the Tories a moral victory, even though there is an amoral vacuity at the heart of their programme. Meanwhile, the real story, the typical story of the demonstration, of tens of thousands of people - including families as per the snap from Newcastle-under-Lyme comrades featured atop this post - demonstrating their opposition to Tory policies has got lost.
Image Credit
17 comments:
Phil, you're doing it yourself! This is yet another why-oh-why about Teh Violences, not a celebration of a really huge, well-organised and disciplined march which demonstrated mass defiance of austerity and passed off almost entirely peacefully.
The fact is that "the actions of a vanishingly tiny number" (your words) couldn't have been foreseen, prevented or controlled by the vast, angry but peaceful majority (I was there). Nor will it be possible to prevent something similar happening on the fringes of any other march - and if by a stroke of luck the next march is entirely free of egg- and spittle-related incidents, we'll simply be called upon to denounce the 'violence' of shouting and intimidation. (Dan Hodges has got a head start on that & started already.)
These incidents should be seen for what they were: a sideshow, and - with all due respect to Michael Crick - a very small and insignificant one. The real story didn't "get lost" - it was buried by Tory hacks who deliberately and cynically hyped up some very mild and isolated disorder into a cross between the Millbank riot and Kristallnacht. I understand that some on the Left are genuinely concerned about the damage this kind of disorder does to our cause, but I think they're mistaken. The damage isn't caused by the disorder but by the way it's denounced - and if it wasn't that they'd be denouncing something else. Agonising over what a handful of people did, instead of celebrating the march that the other 99,990 of us took part in, is ultimately playing into the Tories' hands.
Apparently, the Tories in private discussions have been worried about their being increasing street violence over the next few years. They fear it might give the impression of a divided nation, as opposed to their narrative of "One Nation" Toryism. And, of course, we know from what Ed Miliband told us, and what others in the media tell us that we are in reality one harmonious nation, with only a few extremists at either end of the spectrum causing disharmony, don't we???
It is why any party can only ever win by remaining as vacuous and evasive in its message as possible, sticking assiduously to the "centre ground", and answering every question, with a non-answer, as the Tories and Blair-rights have continued to do over the last week or so, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Corbyn's election has been a reflection of a significant change, and rejection of that approach.
As I blogged yesterday, its notable that neither the Tories, their media, nor the Blair-rights have backed up their narrative that Corbyn would crater Labour's popularity, with any opinion poll data to back up their claim. But, in fact, three weeks into Corbyn's leadership, and despite all the shit thrown at him by the Tories and the media, despite all the sniping by the Blair-rights and soft left, Labour's opinion poll standing has if anything been rising, whilst the Tories has declined, and the Liberals have been buried.
Corbyn needs to step up the politics by other means, as Michael Foot did effectively after 1980, which saw Labour's standing at the end of 1980 rise as high as 56%! That was when Foot was leading large marches in cities up and down the country against Thatcher's austerity measures, and when it looked like her tenure of the office would be short lived.
Of course, you would not know that reality if you listened to the Tory media or the Blair-rights. Its why Tom Watson should be told that his immediate task is to establish a Labour Internet TV station, and online Labour newspaper, so that the monopoly of the Tory media barons can be broken.
As if the press was ever going to give any consideration to the demonstrators and their causes if they all behaved like good little boys and girls.
You sound utterly condescending with this kind of respectability drive.
Part of the reason for the concentration on an egg and some spittle was to avoid dealing with a huge TUC demonstration; possibly numbering around 100,000. Even more important was the desperate need to avoid discussing the even larger issues raised by the Government's austerity offensive.
It is difficult to know how the labour movement should deal with that minute section who come along for the sake of the aggro. Neither muscular march stewarding nor a band of kind therapists provide any solution. And there is the possibility, and experience of the past validates this, that a huge entirely peaceable, serious and sober demonstration would not even be reported.
It's very very simple. Jeremy has a mountain to climb. He doesn't just have the Tories and the right of the Labour party, he has many on the left as well that he has to convince. He knows that any incident like this plays into the hands of the Tories. Hence 'kinder politics'. Hence his instant slapping down of the protestors. It's very straightforward - if you want Jeremy to succeed, as I'm sure the gobbers do, then do as he says.
In many was a really good demo. Biggest ever in the modern history of Manchester (although peterloo and chartist demos were probably close in size.
By TUC standards the slogan was both direct and radical "no to austerity, yes to workers rights" is better then a future that works. Whilst mainly Trade union heavy there were quite a lot of kids too. Felt younger and livelier then last couple of London TUC demos.
Down sides- Speakers should have been about service users, grass roots activists and workers in struggle and less about celebrity endorsement and Gen secretaries.
- lack of chanting and singing. Unions gave out whistles and vuvuzelas.
- Billy Bragg and all the clash songs being played- I like a bit of Billy Bragg but I am a lefty in my mid 30s. Surely theres more recent music to play. Sleaford Mods, Plan B, Slaves etc
Observations
- Anarchism is really in decline in Britain. There wasnt really any black block to speak of. This has been evident for a while. In the last couple of years the Green Party seemed to hegemonise the mileu they come out of. Think Corbynism now is doing that.
- Theres no legislating for eccentrics/ idiots. One guy in a V for Vendetta Mask (thats so 2011) With placards about 1066 and the Rothchilds. An other guy off his head on speed in an all lycra suit wanting to get people to join him in chargeing three metal barriers and police snipers. Thing is they were one offs. not representative of the march at all.
"I am tempted to say that if you don't want "Tory scum" yelling at you when you gather for a conference, it's probably a good idea not to pursue scummy policies."
Utterly fucking stupid. One man's "scummy policy" is another man's sound policy, and who are you to say your interpretation is unbridled truth? Would it be OK if I took Corbyn's policy to be scummy and had gone down to Brighton and shouted "Labour scum" at conference-goers and spat at hacks there?
Most people get their information from BBC and Sky news and the tabloid press. Internet Labour TV will not even begin to challenge the fact that the important sections of the media are monopolised by the voices of the ruling class. We have an unfree media, no matter what Boffy argues.
Now there are 101 adult channels on the Sky platform and on freeview (and 99 of them are very similar).
Why can't we have a left TV channel which relentlessly challenges the superficial crap that BBC economic editors come out with, such "We don't have enough money' or 'we are living beyond our means'.
Let us have a channel dedicated to analysing these presumptions, and raising the level of discussion beyond the superficial.
Let us have a show where Corbyn meets his economic advisers and takes questions from the audience. Let us have another that highlights the attacks on the NHS.
Let us have a show that systematically highlights corporate media bias.
Let the movement have its official voice.
"Utterly fucking stupid"
I suspect you were taking the comment too literally (ironically something I would expect from the Utterly fucking stupid), rather than seeing the nuance. For example, I think the comment was meant to say that extreme policies may create extreme reactions, so be prepared to live with that. I guess the utterly fucking stupid are incapable of taking this leap of the imagination!
"One man's "scummy policy" is another man's sound policy, and who are you to say your interpretation is unbridled truth?"
True, though if said sound policy makes an individual homeless or forces them to the food bank or in a more extreme case packs them on a train to a camp you may get some negative reaction.
I am not expecting the sound policy of taxing the rich til the pips squeak to go down too well, and the sound policy of banning fox hunting brought some negative reaction.
I think if you are in politics you have to expect some negative reaction to your sound policies. Be philosophical and call it direct feedback.
BCFG seems to have outdone himself in illogicality.
First, he attacks the idea of a Labour TV channel, because it was proposed by someone else. Then he concludes by calling for the Labour Movement to have an official voice!
Secondly, he argues that there could not be such an independent voice, because
"Most people get their information from BBC and Sky news and the tabloid press. Internet Labour TV will not even begin to challenge the fact that the important sections of the media are monopolised by the voices of the ruling class. We have an unfree media, no matter what Boffy argues."
But, then he wants this unfree press that is monopolised by the ruling class to somehow agree instead to provide the Labour Movement with its own channel, to put out material that would challenge the power of that ruling class!
Does he ever put any effort into thinking about what he writes, or does he just look for something to disagree with from other people, and write the opposite no matter how ridiculous?
Mr Anon,
Something can appear to be illogical because those making the accusation do not fully understand what is being said.
If those making such accusations put more effort into understanding what is being said then we could save a lot of time.
But for the hard of thinking let me explain/clarify why your perception is leading to incorrect interpretations.
When I say the press isn't free I am saying this not from an absolute or legislative point of view, but from a technical or to all intents and purposes point of view. I.e. media organisations require huge capital investment, and those with the most money have the most influence. So it isn't the actual laws which necessarily make the press unfree but the inequality and division that capitalism engenders.
The next point is to say that if something is unfree it doesn't mean it can't be struggled against and mitigated, and even mitigated to the point where qualitatively it is transformed. But we have not yet reached that point. As of now we have an unfree press. So my observations are from that concrete position.
I didn’t attack the idea of internet TV as you mistakenly claim.
My argument re internet TV is that this is not the platform where people get most of their ideological nourishment (and there are little signs that it will be any time soon), the place for that is still the main TV platforms, Sky or the free channels. Therefore if you do want to begin to dent some of that ruling class media monopoly it is better to forget about internet TV and instead have a channel on a TV platform, after all there is even a psychic channel, so why can't we have a left channel?
anon then said,
"then he wants this unfree press that is monopolised by the ruling class to somehow agree instead to provide the Labour Movement with its own channel, to put out material that would challenge the power of that ruling class!"
The unfree press don't particularly have a say in the matter, as I said above. The unfree press and their total dominance over it does not entirely stem from law or the ruling class saying who can and can't have a TV channel but from the realities of capitalist dynamics.
I really shouldn't have to go into this much fine detail, but I guess I sometimes forget that their are those around who just don't put the effort into thinking!
So to repeat the points:
We have a media dominated by the ruling class
This makes the press unfree
The best way to challenge this is not via internet TV but via actual TV, the thing that sits in the corner of the living room, not the thing being held in someone’s lap.
Mr. BCFG doesn't seem to understand the ABC of logic, and so responds with sophistry, and a claim that his illogical rants are really logical if only mere mortals were able to understand his thoughts.
To try to square the circle, he now wants to claim that when he says the media is unfree, he really only means that it is free for those who have the capital to establish newspapers, or more particularly TV channels such as the BBC or Sky.
In other words, he uses the term unfree incorrectly, because what he really means by it is biased. In other words, we have a free but biased pressed. Biased because it is owned only by very rich people.
He goes on to argue that this must be the case, because it is very expensive to establish such newspapers and TV channels, which thereby excludes workers from doing this.
So, what still is his solution to this problem? It is that workers should do the very thing that he says they cannot do! That is they should not establish an Internet TV channel, which would be cheaper, or online newspaper (which is what the capitalist press are all moving to) but should establish their own broadcast TV Channel, similar to the BBC or Sky! In other words, the very thing he said previously they could not do, because the cost of establishing such a channel is too expensive!
So, when Mr. BCFG says that the media is not free, he now tells us that it is free after all, and that what he really means is that its biased. He then says its biased because only rich people can establish the kind of mainstream TV channels that the majority of people watch. And his solution to this problem is that the Labour Movement should establish one of these channels that they cannot establish, because only rich people have the money to do so!
He goes from one inanity to another, but it seems he is prepared to write anything, no matter how ridiculous, in order to disagree.
“In other words, he uses the term unfree incorrectly, because what he really means by it is biased. In other words, we have a free but biased pressed. Biased because it is owned only by very rich people.”
I am scratching my head here. Are you a comedian? Or just a pedant?
The media is bias according to Mr Anon because it is owned by very rich people, but according to Mr Anon the fact that it is owned by very rich people is not indicator of it being free or not. Well Mr Anon I beg to differ and in the strongest terms, I think it is this that makes it unfree. Your pedantry will not sway the argument.
You equate the concentration of wealth and power as a problem of bias rather than a problem of freedom (maybe we could throw in democracy). Bias is one thing and freedom is another thing according to anon, and never the twain shall meet. But neither of these concepts are things in themselves, but intersections of many things. And I would argue that bias is something derivative, while freedom is more elementary.
Regarding power and wealth as simply questions of bias leads to some strange conclusions, so to Mr Anon we have a free press that just happens to be owned by a small % of people, the fact of latter does not enter an atom into that of the former according to Mr Anon.
If this is logic then you can keep it.
“So, what still is his solution to this problem? It is that workers should do the very thing that he says they cannot do! That is they should not establish an Internet TV channel, which would be cheaper, or online newspaper (which is what the capitalist press are all moving to) but should establish their own broadcast TV Channel, similar to the BBC or Sky!”
I have nowhere said we shouldn’t develop on line activity, I am just prioritising a TV channel above those things. I have nowhere indicated that Left TV would have the same budget as Sky or the BBC, I think I mentioned the psychic channel! There will be no premiership football on left TV, we can quash that rumour right now!
Secondly, I didn’t just mention cost as a factor in making the media unfree, yes, cost is a huge factor (allowing for aggressive advertising, offering free presses etc – even the free newspaper we get on the bus was criticising Corbyn), but I also mentioned the divisiveness of capitalism. We should also bring into the equation opportunities of circulation (again think of the free newspapers on buses) history, culture, and group behaviour as factors that have a bearing on things, though judging by your cognitive abilities I do so with trepidation. But put it all into the mix and a free media is a struggle just like any other worker struggle. It is a component part. We are not in struggle for everything but a free media, we are hoping to make the media free by our actions!
Thirdly, I don’t think a TV channel on the sky or free view platform will in itself overturn the unfree media, this forms part of the wider struggle for freedom. But I think given the choices among which media to go for, it is the best among limited options. With the options that are available we should look to create a modest TV channel that brings left ideas into one place, and the TV platform is the most visible place from a media point of view. Now a normal person would just indicate whether they thought a left TV channel was a good idea or not but a pedant like you wants to divert the argument to one of logic. And you say I am looking for an argument!
Fourthly, we can challenge the unfree media. Despite their alarming decline over the years the unions could put up some money to invest in the TV channel, those energised by Corbyn could be fund raisers etc.
So to repeat:
The whole media is dominated by a small % of rich people
The actual dynamics of the capitalism reinforce this reality
The bias of the media is just an indication that it is unfree, not the fact of the matter
The struggle for a free media forms part of a wider struggle for freedom generally.
Given the choice between internet TV and a TV channel or I would go for the latter.
Simply using sophistry in ever larger quantities, and with ever more hyperbole, and misuse of language cannot make an argument logical, when the structure of that argument remains contradictory and illogical. Mr. BCFG, then also tries to distract attention from the ridiculous nature of his argument, as all such trolls do, by name calling and misrepresentation of the arguments of others.
The facts quite simply are these.
1. Britain has a free media. That is anyone can say whatever they like in it, provided it does not breach laws on incitement, or libel. It is what distinguishes it from somewhere like Nazi germany, Stalinist Russia, or modern day Iran. It is what enables the press such as the Daily Mail, to carry stories about David Cameron's activities with pigs, or the Daily Telegraph to carry stories about Tory MP's asking for expenses to cover the maintenance of duck houses and so on.
2. This free press is necessarily biased, because it is owned by very rich people, whose class interest they seek to further through that media. The nature of the media as free is something that socialists should defend, for the same reasons that socialists argued, for example, that bourgeois freedoms in general should be defended in Nazi Germany, against their removal. The ownership and control of the media by a small group of very rich people is something socialists should try to overcome, just as the control of the means of production by a small group of very rich people in general is something that socialists should seek to overcome.
If you fail to distinguish between these two things - the freedom of the press and the biased nature of the press stemming from the nature of its ownership - you will necessarily fall into error, because you will be led into a belief that defending the former is unimportant, which facilitates a removal of all those freedoms that workers require to move forward.
3. Despite all of his sophistry, Mr. BCFG still cannot resolve the contradiction at the heart of his argument, and which flowed from his original argument. That was an objection to the idea that Labour should establish its own alternative media.
Mr. BCFG wrote,
"Most people get their information from BBC and Sky news and the tabloid press. Internet Labour TV will not even begin to challenge the fact that the important sections of the media are monopolised by the voices of the ruling class. We have an unfree media, no matter what Boffy argues."
Now he wants to claim that he was not after all objecting to what Mr. Boffy suggested of an Internet TV channel, to challenge this dominance! That simply illustrates the extent to which Mr. BCFG does seek to write simply to disagree with others, because having first written to object to Mr. Boffy's suggestion, he now writes to support the idea of such an Internet TV channel and other online media activity!
Mr. BCFG then also seeks to get out of his contradiction by claiming that he was only arguing for a labour Movement TV channel that would be as popular and successful as the Psychic TV Channel! In which case, the argument as to why to pursue such an expensive, whilst ineffective alternative to an Internet TV channel, and online newspaper (which is the direction the mainstream media in any case are moving, with 30% of young people today obtaining their news by these means).
The reason is quite clear. It is that Mr. BCFG is only interested in objecting to and provoking an argument with others, no matter how ridiculous the arguments he has to use to do so. It is mr. BCFG's own form of entertainment, it seems, but simnply wastes the time of others.
“Britain has a free media. That is anyone can say whatever they like in it..., “
This is a very restrictive use of the word free, almost childlike in its simplicity. It isn’t based on any logic, abc or otherwise, it is your subjective and in my opinion apologetic definition of free and I am challenging your definition. You are confusing challenging your subjective, apologetic definition with a problem of logic. Is this sophistry, pedantry or plain stupidity on your part, who can tell?
In Saudi Arabia anyone can say what they want, just be careful who you say it to. In Britain anyone can say what they want (provided it falls within the limits set by government) but I will have a tough time getting on the BBC breakfast sofa (I do not have an Oxbridge degree). So everyone can say what they want (provided it falls within the limits set by government or BBC editors) but some can say it more often and to more people! A bit like the old saying everyone is equal but some are more equal than others!
But for Mr Anon, the mass concentration of wealth and power has absolutely no bearing at all. We can say what we want therefore we are free. This apparently is logic in its pure, abc form. I guess reducing everything to banal simplicity avoids the inevitable problem of contradictions! I guess Mr Anon lives in a world free of contradictions, safe in the knowledge that his logic never has to deal with them! Again, you can keep abc logic. I will live with the problems of thinking a bit more deeply about concepts.
“provided it does not breach laws on incitement, or libel.”
Of course in the USA this provided by clause does not apply. So if we take your simple definition of free, are they freer than we are? If they are freer than we are, logically, does that make us free or unfree, or is there some sliding scale of free?
“The nature of the media as free is something that socialists should defend,”
A worker is free to exchange his labour with a capitalist; yet still we seek to end this freedom. Socialists are about transforming society not apologising for it. We sometimes have to take a defensive position when we are being directly attacked, like the trade union legislation currently being enacted by the government.
“he was only arguing for a labour Movement TV channel that would be as popular and successful as the Psychic TV Channel! In which case, the argument as to why to pursue such an expensive, whilst ineffective alternative to an Internet TV channel, and online newspaper “
Firstly, I never said I expected a left TV channel to be as popular as the Psychic channel – you really should learn to read more carefully. It may be more or less popular, you don’t know until you try.
I think a left channel could be a relative success, this is my gut feeling. And who knows where that can lead? This brings us onto an inconvenient truth that your world of simple logic cannot grasp, there is a contradiction that socialists have to live with. It is that we must transform society in a world where ruling ideas reflect the idea of the ruling class. Now in a steady state society this contradiction would appear to be irresolvable, but in a world of change and flux the predominant ideas can be challenged and defeated. I will not say anyone, i will just leave that thought hanging in the air, as your logic would simply not be able to comprehend it on any level.
“The reason is quite clear. It is that Mr. BCFG is only interested in objecting to and provoking an argument”
I really do think a left TV channel would be a good idea but it may turn out to be a damp squib. Life is like this out of the world of abc logic. If you think my idea is shit then by all means say so. I have no objection to developing on-line capabilities, but i think we overstate its importance. Maybe one day the moment will come and maybe we have to be ready, but in the here and now, I would prefer to see a left TV channel.
I will ignore your bullying and assert my rights to free speech...oh no I have contradicted myself again...cue abc logic
Mr. BCFG,
You have hung yourself with your own sophistry, and willingness to say anything no matter how ridiculous in order to perpetuate an argument for the sake of it.
You say,
"In Saudi Arabia anyone can say what they want, just be careful who you say it to. In Britain anyone can say what they want (provided it falls within the limits set by government) but I will have a tough time getting on the BBC breakfast sofa (I do not have an Oxbridge degree). So everyone can say what they want (provided it falls within the limits set by government or BBC editors) but some can say it more often and to more people! A bit like the old saying everyone is equal but some are more equal than others!"
And, there you have it from your own words. In your world there is no more freedom of speech in Britain than in Saudi Arabia, where criticising the government or the religion even in the mildest terms gets you beheaded and crucified, or subjected to 1000 lashes!!!
So, there is no more reason to defend the freedom of speech that exists in Britain than there is the same freedom of speech that exists in Saudi Arabia, in your perverted world view.
I'd be tempted to say that its the same kind of Third Period sectarianism that the Stalinists applied in the 1930's, which similarly claimed that there was no difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism, and which used the same kind of sophistry you use here to claim that everyone who was not a member of the Communist Party was some kind of fascist.
But, that would be to give you a respect that is not warranted. The Stalinists at that time used that perverted sophistry for their own sectarian political ends. But, it seems quite clear that you have no political ends that are being served by your comments and arguments. Your only purpose is to create arguments for the sake of it, and to perpetuate those arguments by whatever sophistry is required to do so.
In other words, as with every such troll it is merely a form of entertainment for you, with no other purpose, and so a waste of time anyone taking part in such purposeless activity that only feeds your rather odd need for such entertainment.
It is interesting that Mr Anon mentions Stalinism because if you think we already have a free media then you must think transforming society will not change the media at all. In which case, assuming we no longer have very rich capitalists where will the bulk message come from? The party? The state? Anon's formulation sounds rather Stalinist to me. What free papers will be on the buses for the masses to consume?
We should also not forget that when the masses consume the media they are not some blank sheet of paper, but have already been conditioned and primed to receive the message, for example via the education system. You can't strip the media from society and treat it as something separate as abc logic attempts to do.
For Mr Anon contradictions are not real, they don’t actually exist. He regards contradictions as defects of logic, therefore Mr Anon sees abc logic as the search and destroy tool to be applied against contradictions. It isn’t struggle or institutions or instruments that deal with contradictions but abc logic, it is a problem of thinking, not a real problem with a material existence.
So Mr Anon sees a contradiction between my belief that the media is unfree and my idea for a left TV channel and thinks this equates to a deficiency of reasoning, rather than the contradiction we all have to live with and struggle against.
You mention Saudi Arabia but I had already dealt with this point by mentioning the USA and the fact that they don't have laws around incitement. So if we take your abc logic then how can it explain that we have more freedom in the USA, less in Britain and even less in Saudi Arabia? Does that make all these countries media free but simply they are on some sliding scale of freedom?
But anyway enough of this pedantry and let us hold out a hand to abc logic and put it in terms it may understand.
In our battle against freedom wouldn’t having a left TV channel be better than having an internet TV channel, or shouldn’t we at least prioritise this?
After all we there is a multitude of left voices currently on the net. The choice is truly amazing..cue abc logic. Even Jeremy Corbyn is on Twitter! The call for more online activity actually fails to recognise that we already have it! Though I accept strategists should always be looking to see if it can be improved. I am willing to accept this on line activity has been useful but to give us that extra push, reach those voices who regard the internet as one giant shopping centre, shouldn’t we branch out to the TV channels?
That is all I am saying, with all modesty.
So engage with the actual question you sophist and pedant.
Post a Comment