In defence of political blogging - 1 comment

In the light of Guido Fawkes' recent humiliation on Newsnight at the hands of The Guardian's Michael White, Oliver Kamm criticised political blogging in that newspaper on Monday. He concluded:

The blogosphere, in short, is a reliable vehicle for the coagulation of opinion and the poisoning of debate. It is a fact of civic life that is changing how politics is conducted - overwhelmingly for the worse, and with no one accountable for the decline.

I don't mind dishing out a bit of criticism from time to time, but I couldn't disagree more with this analysis.

The central thesis in Oliver's piece is that Guido failed because, as a (mere?) blogger, he developed in an atmosphere where talk is cheap, commitment is low, and facts aren't checked:

[...] He thereby illustrated blogging's central characteristic danger. It is a democratic medium, allowing anyone to participate in political debate without an intermediary, at little or no cost. But it is a direct and not deliberative form of democracy. You need no competence to join in.

This is partly true of the political blogosphere, and yet a poll of bloggers taken before Newsnight would undoubtedly have predicted the outcome: because Guido has a particular reputation for gossip, rumour, and rabble-rousing faux-scandals; because of the ludicrously effected anonymity; and because White is an experienced and reputed journalist, who, I daresay, fancied Guido's scalp. Bloggers4Labour is lucky to have some of the most thoughtful British political blogs pass through its aggregator, day in, day out, and it's hard to believe many of their authors would venture forth as foolishly as Guido did, for they are just as careful, and just as keen to avoid tarnishing their reputation by publishing and uttering nonsense, as "dead-tree" journalists, not all of whom could have wielded a scalpel as efficiently as White.

A secondary charge is that political bloggers can be lumped together as "a self-selecting group of the politically motivated who have time on their hands". One arguing this point would have to prove this was generally the case, and generally not the case amongst offline journalists. By definition, a professional journalist will have upwards of 40 clear hours per week to devote to their musings, while a typical blogger will have evenings and weekends only, to juggle alongside family, food, and TV commitments. As for "self-selecting" and "politically motivated", these are pretty weak charges: what would be left if we eliminated political motivation from public service, from literature, journalism, or other areas of human expression? I certainly selected myself to blog: if you don't want to read what I have to say, you can vote with your feet and read another blog, or perhaps a book. As long as you trust me not to mislead you, reader, I'm sure you're better off under such an arrangement than if someone else selected your correspondent.

I can't help feeling it's ultimately fruitless to maintain a distinction between bloggers and journalists: there are standards of behaviour, repute, interest, and quality, and these ought to be applied irrespective of the medium.

True, political blogging is partly "parasitic on the stories and opinions that traditional media provide", but that doesn't mean that political bloggers must narrow the conversation, any more than entering a verbal conversation with someone must. "Fisking"or otherwise undermining and correcting bad (illogical, inconsistent, demonstrably false, etc.) arguments gives people the chance to debate better arguments. It is frustrating when people are resistant to changing their mind with the balance of evidence/persuasion, but minds change, and new thoughts are introduced.

It is a shame that political bloggers keep so closely to their own political community, albeit with some on the edges feeling the need to lash out at opponents periodically, tackling the Party rather than the ball, and others dealing in the crudest and most hackneyed stereotypes. Nonetheless, I can't accept this is the generality: much of the hostility between political bloggers stems from a small number of trouble-makers. Political blogging has created a decent, and fair-sized online community here at Bloggers4Labour, whose affiliates have met in real life on several occasions, which has - I hope - done a little to increase political engagement, and is keen to do more.

I've posted before to criticise the "post-comment" model of political engagement, where politicians struggle to find a way of assimilating a disparate mixture of distracting, abusive, stupid, but also some sensible (yet contradictory?) responses to articles they have published. Perhaps only a small technological leap is required here; alternatively, a commitment may have to develop between local politicians with power, and local voters with an interest and a commitment. I'm convinced that the better political bloggers, together with the online civic society crowd, will take us there - and that a reaction against the blogosphere, back towards the reputed off-line journalists whose names we're all familiar with (journalists, perhaps, of the calibre of Madeleine Bunting), and whose articles make the journey from word-processor to printed Berliner page by some method beyond the ken of their readers, would be a retrograde step.

Over the past three-and-a-half years or so, I've found political blogging challenging and informative, and I believe I've learned a lot from some very intelligent people. It's not the solution to every political issue that faces us, it doesn't yet come close to approaching genuine popular democracy, and it shouldn't distract us from meeting voters on the doorstep, but I've enjoyed the opportunity to engage in it, and therefore I'm all the more reluctant to have my voice taken away just because some political bloggers - who it is easy to ignore - have acquired a bad name, and because other journalists can feel a hammering at the gates but see only barbarians.

Via Tom H.

Update: I've just discovered Tom Freeman has a response; as does Norm, who even chose the same title as me.

Update II (12/04): Oliver updates as follows: "I gave at the end of my post links to three blog posts by writers with much experience of, respectively, journalism and academe. They [...] declare themselves mystified at my criticisms of political blogging. In the next post or two, I shall oblige them by explaining why they're all wrong."

Mystification was by no means the only criticism, nonetheless, this I have to see. With the greatest of respect, making unnecessarily crude generalisations seems an unwise gambit at the best of times, all the more so when it antagonises the kind of blogger who, one assumes, wasn't the intended target.

Sacrilege on Sunday - no comments

Are Republicans good for the world's poor?:

The Republicans have in the past spent more on aid than the Democrats: Todd estimates that, based on past averages, the success of the Democrats in the mid-terms will cost Africa about $800 million.

I think we forget the importance of the evangelical movement in the Republican coalition; and that the churches have continued to press for more aid for the developing world. Furthermore, on trade policy, the Republicans are routinely less protectionist and less mercantilist than the Democrats.

All of which shows that we should not make simplistic assumptions about politics in other countries.

I had a discussion with Tyger, and others, about this on his blog yesterday, but I think it's worth bringing up here as part of a general mission to challenge political stereotypes. I'm interested in whether the above analysis is true or not, not who produced it. If it isn't, let it be refuted, and/or placed in an appropriate context. If it is, well, I think that matters in itself, also because who knows what other issues we might have to look at afresh if we lay down our stereotypes?

Update: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I've now replaced a bit in the last paragraph.