One never expects much from BBC local news programmes, indeed they are best avoided, but Emily Witless, sorry Maitlis, provided an exemplary show of even handedness when interviewing a representative of the Muslim Safety Forum on Tuesday's programme. The Forum's representative was interrupted and hectored as he tried to explain some of the problems involved in persuading young Muslims to trust the police and join its ranks.
The Paxman-Essler technique is clearly becoming a standard part of the BBC's presenter toolkit and one can only assume that it is now mandatory within Beeb training programmes. Giving interviewees a tough ride and probing their arguments is one thing, talking them down and deriding their positions - an approach which suggests that the interviewer occupies a position that has a legitimacy the interviewee lacks - is quite another. Maitlis' interview subject was unable to advance his views, moderate though they were, without Maitlis continually interrupting.
BBC London has always been the home of poor interview technique, its reporters frequently substituting ill-informed posturing for objective reporting. There is a tendency in local reporting to frequently overegg matters in an attempt to create a story where there is none. Although there are exceptions many BBC London reporters default to this mode.
Terrorism, the state killing of innocent members of the public, and the concerns of our communities should be dealt with by a public broadcaster in a balanced fashion and with as much objectivity as is possible. That's not what is going on at BBC London.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Charles Clarke's Spooks' Charter
Charles Clarke’s announcement that he plans to introduce a global database of ‘extremists’ is worrying and the implications of such a proposal, potentially dangerous.
Clarke told the Commons today that he has asked the Home Office, Foreign Office and the intelligence agencies to "establish a full database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated relevant behaviours".
These relevant behaviours are yet to be defined. We are told that these measures are principally aimed to exclude those from the
The Government also intends to introduce an offence of “indirect incitement to terrorism.” The
On the surface these proposals may seem reasonable. No one can or should support the targeting of innocent civilians and the ideas of the Islamist extremists this measure presumably targets – organisations such as former Al Muhajiroun and its cognates – must be countered, especially by the left.
It is likely that during the coming weeks, we will hear reassurances from the Government that the measures are not designed to stifle legitimate debate, or for that matter to bring all radicals – religious or secular – under a regime of surveillance and monitoring. The aim of these measures, we will be told, is to provide instruments which are wide enough in scope to enable the police and security forces to ‘do their job’ and protect society. Safeguards will be built into the system.
The track record of the security forces in these matters is not a good one. During the Cold War, MI5 and other security organisations dedicated considerable effort to infiltrating socialist organisations and unions. Margaret Thatcher made similar use of the security forces to further her domestic agenda, most notably crushing the National Union of Mineworkers. What hope, therefore, than a new set of powers will be used in a restrained and discriminating fashion? None at all.
Yet the problem with this whole approach goes wider. Indeed, reflecting the imperialist project of which it forms a part, the mechanisms of surveillance and the denial of legitimacy that form the essence of the Clarke proposals are part of a logic that seeks to cement the interests of the US and British (and by implication, Israeli) states as the only legitimate deployers of violence.
Marxists have historically opposed individual terrorism and condemn attacks on innocent civilians. We are not, however, pacifists. The left has a tradition of supporting liberation movements around the world and defending workers’ organisations right to resist oppressive regimes. In the Spanish Civil War and other conflicts, socialists have participates in conflicts, even when those conflicts are in foreign countries.
More recently, the left has supported the struggles of the Nicaraguan and El Salvadorean peoples against US-backed insurgencies and in struggles with US-backed dictatorships. Would the FMLN be proscribed under Charles Clarke's proposals?
Similarly, many young Muslims may be opposed to violence against civilians yet support military actions against those they see as their oppressors, whether that may be in Chechnya, Kashmir or Palestine.
Now let’s not be naïve. Such organisations will already be under some form of surveillance.
However, the term ‘indirect incitement’ is very broad and would, I fear, in the hands of a zealous spook, encompass many of the radical weblogs now on the Web.
And one must also ask: will such measures actually work? Applied in too heavy handed a manner, constraining debate and vigorous opposition to government policies, it could even enhance the cachet of the lunatic fringe. The solution to beating the extremists is not to be found in overly sweeping measures such as these, it is in the provision of alternative avenues for protest and involvement, and in the removal the grievances that create wave upon wave of potential recruits. Unfortunately, the government has proved time and time again that it lacks the imagination and will to pursue such avenues.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Good riddance
There will probably be some idiot in the national press who will try and find some good in the tawdry, sordid, miserable life of John Tyndall, racist, fascist and leading figure within Nazi organisations stretching back to the Fifties. Unlike more recent leaders of the fascist right like Nick Griffin, Tyndall made little attempt to disguise the true nature of his politics and his bids for respactability were always less plausible, even to the more gullible elements within society.
The BBC's story lets the man off lightly and allows the British National Party to praise Tyndall as a 'great man.' The fact is that the man was scum and the world is better off without him. Tyndall was an anti-semite and was involved in the founding a number of openly Nazi organisations. One site quotes the BNP as saying that the CPS and police may have hounded Tyndall to death. If only.
Good riddance.
The BBC's story lets the man off lightly and allows the British National Party to praise Tyndall as a 'great man.' The fact is that the man was scum and the world is better off without him. Tyndall was an anti-semite and was involved in the founding a number of openly Nazi organisations. One site quotes the BNP as saying that the CPS and police may have hounded Tyndall to death. If only.
Good riddance.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
A light interlude pop pickers
When we're not being po facedly political we like a natter about popular music down here at the Grill. It's generally agreed that list programmes are a bad thing. A lazy way of filling the schedule for next to nothing but Jarvis Cocker, you've come across some cracking stuff on Jarvis Cocker's TV Rules. I thought I saw and remembered every rubbish TV music moment from the Seventies but I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Peter Glaze and Jan Francis performing Bowie's Golden Years on an episode of Crackerjack. How drug addled were BBC production staff back in those days? Fantastic!
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Banged to rights
Bernie Ebbers, the fraudster head of telecoms giant WorldCom cannot have expected to have received a 25 year sentence. After all, accounting scandals aren't real crimes are they? Even if the sums involve amount to $11 billion.
Ebbers, claiming health problems - usually know as the Pinochet defence - and past good works is pressing for less jail time. After all, look at the way that other fraudsters have been treated. Take that nice Mr Milkin. All that insider trading but out in a few years.
Of course, the financial press cites the thousands of shareholders who lost money on WorldCom rather than the hundreds who lost jobs. One cannot deny that there are small investors and others foolish enough to have bought into the pre-bubble hype who deserve sympathy.
The attack on white collar crime was a final component in maintaining the legitimacy of US finance capital in the wake of the 2000/1 downturn. In reality, expect Ebbers sentence to be significantly reduced in the light of a 'lesson learned'. co-operation with the court and good behaviour. After all, poor Ebbers did reliquish most of his personal wealth to compensate shareholders. Now he is estimated to be worth a mere $25 - $40 million. Poor man, what is there to look forward to, even when he does get out? Sad.
Ebbers, claiming health problems - usually know as the Pinochet defence - and past good works is pressing for less jail time. After all, look at the way that other fraudsters have been treated. Take that nice Mr Milkin. All that insider trading but out in a few years.
Of course, the financial press cites the thousands of shareholders who lost money on WorldCom rather than the hundreds who lost jobs. One cannot deny that there are small investors and others foolish enough to have bought into the pre-bubble hype who deserve sympathy.
The attack on white collar crime was a final component in maintaining the legitimacy of US finance capital in the wake of the 2000/1 downturn. In reality, expect Ebbers sentence to be significantly reduced in the light of a 'lesson learned'. co-operation with the court and good behaviour. After all, poor Ebbers did reliquish most of his personal wealth to compensate shareholders. Now he is estimated to be worth a mere $25 - $40 million. Poor man, what is there to look forward to, even when he does get out? Sad.
Newsnight under fire
According to the television industry bible, Broadcast the BBC has once again been forced to defend Newsnight's treatment of MP George Galloway during interviews.
"Invited on the programme on Friday, 8 July, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London, Galloway faced Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler, who challenged the MP on his views on the bombings.His style of questioning attracted complaints from viewers who said it was "rude and aggressive".Newsnight editor Peter Barron himself admitted that it "became ill-tempered" butstood by Esler's technique ....... More than 100 viewers complained, but BBC head of political programmes Sue Inglish said Paxman's line of questioning was justified."
Nancy Banks Smith: Time Traveller
At times like this one needs some light relief. It was provided this morning by the always amusing Nancy Banks Smith, doyenne of British TV reviewing. For once the amusement did not arise from Nancy's writing. Instead, it revealed the Grauniad at its accident prone best.
Banks Smith fillets the CSI season end Tarantino-directed double bill with her usual aplomb. Unfortunately, it had been cancelled presumably because its content was not appropriate in the light of recent events.
We look forward to seeing the postponed episodes with ......... suspense? Maybe not.
Banks Smith fillets the CSI season end Tarantino-directed double bill with her usual aplomb. Unfortunately, it had been cancelled presumably because its content was not appropriate in the light of recent events.
We look forward to seeing the postponed episodes with ......... suspense? Maybe not.
Making sense of madness
The news that the July 7 bombers were British highlights a wide range of issues: too many to adequately address here.
The media, it seems, is struggling to find the right tone and language. There is a desire to preserve the liberal consensus and to highlight the exceptional and unrepresentative nature of the acts and the perpetrators. Yet repeatedly muslims are described in the language of the other. The muslim communities (I would contend that there is no single muslim community) are questioned in terms of their failure; as if these communities remain loosely appended additions to British society rather than an integral part, tightly enmeshed with its fabric.
Let us not be naive: there is a large element of truth, not because muslims exclude themselves but because it is from jobs, welfare provision, education and many other facets of British life that they are excluded. These cannot be ignored as contributory factors explaining (though, of course not justifying) the actions of these isolated, hitherto unknown, invisible individuals.
Communities are both defined and self-defining. Benedict Anderson described nations as Imagined Communities. Similarly, the borders of ethnic and religious communities have borders that have an element of the imaginary, whether than delineation happens within the minds of the majority population or those of the minority.
An interesting dimension of the nature of the the muslim community is the way that both leaders within the community, certain elements within it, and external commentators seek to define muslims as exclusively religious rather than culturally muslim. This highlights the limitations of our common understanding and a constraint and distorting factor upon dialogue and debate.
Of course, like Christians, Jews, Hindus or, for that matter, Zoarastrians there are those who are orthodox and observant, those who are moderately religious, and those who have little or no interest in the religion into which they were born, other than to make occasional observances once or twice a year. Some may have total belief, others will display none.
This latter group, larger than many in the media or the broad community would acknowledge, is largely overlooked. I highlight it for a number of reasons. First of all, because it highlights the reductive nature of the debate and of making judgements regarding a diverse group of British people.
To hear commentators speak or to read many blogs one would think that young British muslims all live in enclosed communities, are homophobic, discriminatory and their lives are determined entirely by religion. Unfortunately, this is the view of many who would see themselves on the revolutionary left. They would ignore the fact that many have extremely liberal views, have diverse friends, gay and straight, have varying strengths of religious commitment, go clubbing and with varying frequency to the mosque and feel nothing but revulsion at religiously or politically inspired violence. How do I know this? Because they are my children and their friends? I am fortunate to live in a mixed family.
My step-daughter, in the course of lively, stimulating and humerous discussions, often teases her godless atheist step-father. I sometimes do the same back but she knows I support and respect her in all she does, and that includes the practice of her faith, something she does lightly but with real seriousness. Young women like her are off the radar of the pro-war 'left' - let alone the right.
I am not saying this to contrast a more 'liberal' Islam with more traditional forms. I highlight my step-daughters case because one of the things that unites her and her more religious sisters is that the media and others will ask her to comment on or condemn the bombers, as if they had some responsibility for them and their actions, simply because they are co-religionists.
No one makes these demands of C of E parisioners because ant-abortionists bomb clinics, of catholics because of the Real IRA, or of hindus because of JVP-led violence. Nor should they.
However, for the pro-War left, Islam is all of a piece. One should not work with muslims in organisations like Respect. For these groups most politically active muslims are Islamists.
There is of course a political phenomenon called Islamism and it does have a violent wing. Moreover, there is undeniably support for the actions of resistance movements and varying degrees of support for the various forms that violence takes. Yet for many on the left there is no differentiation between those whose Islam is an inspiration for general political action and the motivations of the suicide bomber.
The morality and political consequences of terrorist practice is an issue that merits independent analysis. Yet it is worth asking the question of why young men should turn to such actions and examining the nature of the relationship between such individuals and wider Islamic political movements.
The term chosen by many bloggers and columnists is that of Islamofascism. Hitchens, Aaronovitch and Cohen have all adopted this term. Lenin examines this usage in a characteristically useful contribution. Tariq Ali, a critic of the war and of imperialist activities, suggests that Islamo-Anarchism is a more appropriate descriptor.
This is unfair to most anarchists who would see the state but not ordinary working people as a target for different forms of direct action.
But in another sense Ali seems to be on the right track. Perhaps a better analogy is the terrorist groups of the 1970s such as Baader-Meinhof, the Red Army Faction, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weathermen. These, it is undeniable, grew out of the left and the Movement of the Sixties. The participants in such groups were frequently middle class, isolated, demoralised, pessimistic of the possibility of mass action or social transformation. Substituting themselves for a working class for which they had contempt such organisations frequently became solopsistic death cults, unable to see beyond their own limited experience and disappointments.
If anything that is where the parallels and lessons are to be learned. Not asking questions of innocent members of communities and groups who bear no responsibility for the actions of a small number of disaffected young men.
The media, it seems, is struggling to find the right tone and language. There is a desire to preserve the liberal consensus and to highlight the exceptional and unrepresentative nature of the acts and the perpetrators. Yet repeatedly muslims are described in the language of the other. The muslim communities (I would contend that there is no single muslim community) are questioned in terms of their failure; as if these communities remain loosely appended additions to British society rather than an integral part, tightly enmeshed with its fabric.
Let us not be naive: there is a large element of truth, not because muslims exclude themselves but because it is from jobs, welfare provision, education and many other facets of British life that they are excluded. These cannot be ignored as contributory factors explaining (though, of course not justifying) the actions of these isolated, hitherto unknown, invisible individuals.
Communities are both defined and self-defining. Benedict Anderson described nations as Imagined Communities. Similarly, the borders of ethnic and religious communities have borders that have an element of the imaginary, whether than delineation happens within the minds of the majority population or those of the minority.
An interesting dimension of the nature of the the muslim community is the way that both leaders within the community, certain elements within it, and external commentators seek to define muslims as exclusively religious rather than culturally muslim. This highlights the limitations of our common understanding and a constraint and distorting factor upon dialogue and debate.
Of course, like Christians, Jews, Hindus or, for that matter, Zoarastrians there are those who are orthodox and observant, those who are moderately religious, and those who have little or no interest in the religion into which they were born, other than to make occasional observances once or twice a year. Some may have total belief, others will display none.
This latter group, larger than many in the media or the broad community would acknowledge, is largely overlooked. I highlight it for a number of reasons. First of all, because it highlights the reductive nature of the debate and of making judgements regarding a diverse group of British people.
To hear commentators speak or to read many blogs one would think that young British muslims all live in enclosed communities, are homophobic, discriminatory and their lives are determined entirely by religion. Unfortunately, this is the view of many who would see themselves on the revolutionary left. They would ignore the fact that many have extremely liberal views, have diverse friends, gay and straight, have varying strengths of religious commitment, go clubbing and with varying frequency to the mosque and feel nothing but revulsion at religiously or politically inspired violence. How do I know this? Because they are my children and their friends? I am fortunate to live in a mixed family.
My step-daughter, in the course of lively, stimulating and humerous discussions, often teases her godless atheist step-father. I sometimes do the same back but she knows I support and respect her in all she does, and that includes the practice of her faith, something she does lightly but with real seriousness. Young women like her are off the radar of the pro-war 'left' - let alone the right.
I am not saying this to contrast a more 'liberal' Islam with more traditional forms. I highlight my step-daughters case because one of the things that unites her and her more religious sisters is that the media and others will ask her to comment on or condemn the bombers, as if they had some responsibility for them and their actions, simply because they are co-religionists.
No one makes these demands of C of E parisioners because ant-abortionists bomb clinics, of catholics because of the Real IRA, or of hindus because of JVP-led violence. Nor should they.
However, for the pro-War left, Islam is all of a piece. One should not work with muslims in organisations like Respect. For these groups most politically active muslims are Islamists.
There is of course a political phenomenon called Islamism and it does have a violent wing. Moreover, there is undeniably support for the actions of resistance movements and varying degrees of support for the various forms that violence takes. Yet for many on the left there is no differentiation between those whose Islam is an inspiration for general political action and the motivations of the suicide bomber.
The morality and political consequences of terrorist practice is an issue that merits independent analysis. Yet it is worth asking the question of why young men should turn to such actions and examining the nature of the relationship between such individuals and wider Islamic political movements.
The term chosen by many bloggers and columnists is that of Islamofascism. Hitchens, Aaronovitch and Cohen have all adopted this term. Lenin examines this usage in a characteristically useful contribution. Tariq Ali, a critic of the war and of imperialist activities, suggests that Islamo-Anarchism is a more appropriate descriptor.
This is unfair to most anarchists who would see the state but not ordinary working people as a target for different forms of direct action.
But in another sense Ali seems to be on the right track. Perhaps a better analogy is the terrorist groups of the 1970s such as Baader-Meinhof, the Red Army Faction, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weathermen. These, it is undeniable, grew out of the left and the Movement of the Sixties. The participants in such groups were frequently middle class, isolated, demoralised, pessimistic of the possibility of mass action or social transformation. Substituting themselves for a working class for which they had contempt such organisations frequently became solopsistic death cults, unable to see beyond their own limited experience and disappointments.
If anything that is where the parallels and lessons are to be learned. Not asking questions of innocent members of communities and groups who bear no responsibility for the actions of a small number of disaffected young men.
Monday, July 11, 2005
It's not what you say ......
It's clearly a matter of who says it.
As a brief rider to the Friday's report of the BBC's Newsnight interview with Galloway, it was interesting to note that former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer advanced exactly the same view in the following segment. Scheuer, some may remember, published - with his employers permission - Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America.
Scheuer argues that the source of discontent in the Middle East, fuelling the murderous actions of the most reactionary elements, is rooted not in envy at Western freedoms or a desire to impose a caliphate upon non-Arab nations but instead, in bitter fury at the actions of Western governments in the Middle East and other muslim regions. For Scheuer the answer is withdrawal from Iraq, an end to propping up dictatorial client regimes and a harder line with the Israeli's. Where is the difference except in the BBC's standards of journalism.
No one accuses Scheuer of insulting the dead, of cowardice in the face of the enemy or support for the evil deeds of weak, isolated individuals. Why then do so when it comes to the left?
As a brief rider to the Friday's report of the BBC's Newsnight interview with Galloway, it was interesting to note that former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer advanced exactly the same view in the following segment. Scheuer, some may remember, published - with his employers permission - Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America.
Scheuer argues that the source of discontent in the Middle East, fuelling the murderous actions of the most reactionary elements, is rooted not in envy at Western freedoms or a desire to impose a caliphate upon non-Arab nations but instead, in bitter fury at the actions of Western governments in the Middle East and other muslim regions. For Scheuer the answer is withdrawal from Iraq, an end to propping up dictatorial client regimes and a harder line with the Israeli's. Where is the difference except in the BBC's standards of journalism.
No one accuses Scheuer of insulting the dead, of cowardice in the face of the enemy or support for the evil deeds of weak, isolated individuals. Why then do so when it comes to the left?
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Protecting Orthodoxy
Gavin Esler, like many of his Newsnight and Today colleagues is one of the better exponents of BBC journalism and frequently probes the inconsistencies of government policy, domestic and foreign. As a public broadcaster, the BBC is not informed by the more naked class interests that drive much of the press. However, major events - war, strikes, terrorism - have a way of revealing the role that broadcasters like the BBC in preserving orthodoxy and delineating its borders.
Such was the case with Esler's interview with George Galloway on Friday night. Galloway could not have made clearer his revulsion at the acts of the terrorists and his support for their being brought to justice and punished in the severest of terms. He also stressed that one should never - can never - negotiate with the perpetrators of such atrocities. Yet Galloway, quite legitimately, argued that the attacks cannot be isolated from British and Foreign policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Blair, Bush and other advocates on the 'war on terrorism' strive to suppress such criticism, arguing that the country must unite 'steadfastly' behind their policy. To dissent is to offend decency.
Decency insists that in a respectful manner those who dissent do so, clearly, calmly.
Galloway put it even better in his speech to Marxism 2005 and if truth be told, he allowed himself to be drawn on the question of his right to raise such issues. If Galloway has a weakness it is to be drawn from the issues to the personal. Understandable, but it weakens the message.
But the exchange highlighted the limits of the BBC's role and role it plays in maintaining hegemony.
For more on Marxism 2005, see this space in the coming days.
Such was the case with Esler's interview with George Galloway on Friday night. Galloway could not have made clearer his revulsion at the acts of the terrorists and his support for their being brought to justice and punished in the severest of terms. He also stressed that one should never - can never - negotiate with the perpetrators of such atrocities. Yet Galloway, quite legitimately, argued that the attacks cannot be isolated from British and Foreign policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Blair, Bush and other advocates on the 'war on terrorism' strive to suppress such criticism, arguing that the country must unite 'steadfastly' behind their policy. To dissent is to offend decency.
Decency insists that in a respectful manner those who dissent do so, clearly, calmly.
Galloway put it even better in his speech to Marxism 2005 and if truth be told, he allowed himself to be drawn on the question of his right to raise such issues. If Galloway has a weakness it is to be drawn from the issues to the personal. Understandable, but it weakens the message.
But the exchange highlighted the limits of the BBC's role and role it plays in maintaining hegemony.
For more on Marxism 2005, see this space in the coming days.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Fuck off Bob
Yeah, you're well meaning, I don't dispute that. No one has bought your records for years so I really don't think that's your motive. But when even Newsnight remarks that you are standing in the way between those who want to change the world and those who want to preserve the status quo then perhas you should, as another Bob once said, stop "blocking up the halls." Before he started advertising underwear and coffee that is....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)