Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on Blogging

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown comments on Guido and blogging although some of it is more reasoned than Liddle’s little diatribe over the weekend.

Pumped up with the gases of self-regard and malice Guido Fawkes and others of his venal tribe must have thrown their laptops in the air, LOL, boasted, damp with improper pleasure. YES! another topman scalp! William Hague this time, who had to explain his sexuality to the world because they made him. Fawkes and his sort are now the power behind the green benches in the Commons, spreading silent panic among MPs who fear they could be next.

Nice bit of hyperbole, but if the journos actually did some research, they would realise that there are bloggers who do not feel that this was a good thing. Indeed, the issue has caused much discussion and not all of it is favourable to Guido. Which, to be fair to Yasmin, she infers.

His “news” is carried by others through the internet sewers until the stench becomes intolerable. Think of them as the worst end of the press, disreputable and increasingly intrusive, and all in the name of what, exactly? It is simply political soft porn and must alarm the more serious bloggers, who conscientiously pass on invaluable information about political parties and the workings of government.

I don’t tend to regard Guido’s output as “news” unless it actually is news. Then, naturally, reporting it in the mainstream becomes necessary. Which is why the press and the Westminster village pay so much attention – every so often he does have something to say that is worth noting. It’s just that if you follow him, you have to put up with the dross along the way.

Few take him on because they know what comes next. To be fair, he didn’t create the invasive culture we now are forced to live in. He was just smart enough to exploit a society that wanted more transparency and the internet, a cost free and potentially injurious instrument.

A point here. Libel laws apply to bloggers as well as any other writer. So if Guido or any other blogger commits libel, those laws may be invoked by the injured party. It is disingenuous to claim that it is cost free – get it wrong and it can cost an awful lot. Yes, I know that is not quite what she is saying here – and I do wonder what her alternative might be? A return to only having opinion columns in newspapers, perhaps?

While I may dislike Guido’s approach, it is only right that the state is transparent and afraid of those it represents. That is the way the relationship should work.

Newspaper telephone hackers are big babies when compared to those who practice the dark arts in the blogosphere. Once you have a name that is vaguely recognised, you are fair game in this depraved new world. They strip us of all natural born dignity and verbally violate us often anonymously.

Oh, please, now you are being very silly. Anonymity is a flimsy patina that can be removed quite simply in the event of libel laws being invoked and who in their right mind thinks that Guido is in any way anonymous? It is also worth pointing out that if the political class did not behave so reprehensively and journalists didn’t brown nose them so blatantly, much of the seething anger would largely dissipate. It is not because people are vaguely recognised that they are so viciously attacked, it is because they make up laws that they don’t think applies to them and it is because they write newspaper columns that praise this illiberal behaviour that we feel inclined to reach for the poisoned keyboard. It is our way of letting you know how badly you are violating us.

Long before I stir this morning and take my first sip of coffee, these creatures of the night will have sent over their foul invective, racist missiles and illiterate essays on what I have written ( or not, it doesn’t really matter). The thing is guys, I do not read what you write, haven’t done for ages because I don’t have to. Just like I don’t have to go to a BNP summer fair or a pub smelling of vomit and beer or indeed a meeting of crazed Islamicists. But those who care about me do read the stuff and it upsets them. That, I am sure will turn on the scribblers in their unlit rooms, practising their peculiar form of onanism.

This is just wonderful. She doesn’t read what we write, yet we are illiterate – how would she know? It is interesting that both Brown and Liddle appear to think that literacy is the preserve of the professaional journo – bloggers are illiterate and racists to boot (gotta sling in a racism slur somewhere as weer all racists now). We sit up all night – er, no, I don’t think so. Has she not grasped the principle of time zones? And, of course, we are either BNP or crazed Islamists and wankers to boot. Like Liddle, Yasmin engages the sweeping generalisation and scoops up whatever hackneyed insults that that lie in the detritus on the dusty floors of her tired imagination.

We, of the old media can be unfair and prurient ( I have been both) but we are accountable and do have to control base instincts. Freedom of expression, an inviolable right, depends on an ingested understanding of how far to go.

And there it is: “I believe in free speech, but…” If you believe in free speech, there are no “buts”; you accept that some people will go too far, say things that are outrageous and deeply offensive. Yes, doing so carries consequences, such as a libel action if libel has occurred (or a black eye), but otherwise, tough, get over it – the alternative doesn’t bear thinking about. The suggestion that the mainstream is in some way accountable via the PCC is laughable and no one will take such an absurd comment seriously.

The outlaws of etherland have thrown out decency, fairness, self restraint and feel bound by no rules.

The law of libel?

Without rules there is only chaos and pain.

The law of libel?

Some constraints have come in, but not enough.

“We need more hate speech laws.”

Here I am defending the human rights of a Tory minister against whom I have battled for years.

No human rights were breached. Hague can, if he has been libelled, take legal action – and I wouldn’t blame him for doing so. His best immediate response should have been to refuse to dignify the allegations.

You know, I think I might be inclined to take mainstream journalists slightly seriously if they could manage to write a column that is factually accurate, well written, informative and avoids the use of logical fallacy. They are no better than we are. We, at least, are aware of that.