I’m intrigued by Andrew Marr’s recent attack on blogging. For those who’ve missed his comments, here’s what he told an audience at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, as reported in the Telegraph:
“Most citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all. A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother’s basements and ranting. They are very angry people. … Most of the blogging is too angry and too abusive. It is vituperative. Terrible things are said on line because they are anonymous. People say things on line that they wouldn’t dream of saying in person.”
It is not the rather tired cliche that bloggers are ugly geeks that surprises me — we’ve all gone for the cheap laugh at some point. No, it is Andrew Marr suddenly taking the moral high ground which I find a little, well, cheeky.
Cast your mind back just over a year, and you may remember a rumour which did the rounds of a handful of bloggers alleging that the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was dependent on prescription painkillers and pills. The story was not touched by a single reputable news outlet because there was not a shred of reliable evidence to support it.
But that didn’t stop Andrew Marr choosing to ask Mr Brown about it live on air on his Sunday morning show.
Perhaps next time Andrew Marr chooses to attack ‘abusive’ blogging he might also like to say why he’s happy to use unsourced rumours on blogs as a source for questions to the Prime Minister in a desperate bid to generate some controversy?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Binface: the back story
The nearest beach to Leicestershire and Birmingham
Bonus podcast content: politics, football and the movies
Simon Costain
David Wright
Matt Wardman
theakes
Peter Martin
18 Comments
I really dislike Andrew Marr.
He is a self important twit, and him saying this is just a confirmation.
He thinks he is qualified to comment on all subjects, but I have yet to see him present anything without including non-sequiturs, unfounded assumptions and his own blend of pomposity.
Maybe he has something to hide perhaps he should take out a super injunction,
What strikes me as odd is how muddled Marr’s abuse is. “Young men” are not usually “cauliflower nosed” or “bald”. Young men who sit in their mother’s basements are usually in N.American, since in the UK it is rather unusual to have a basement, yet he also refers to the “country” which in context seems to represent Britain. He seems to be doing exactly what he accuses bloggers of — incoherent ranting.
And in any case, the man is hardly an oil painting himself …
Do none of you read Private Eye or Guido Fawkes then you will see why he has a bee in his bonnett about bloggers.
Saying that tho he has clearley struck a nerve with some of you maybe he has a point.
Funny that he should make such an observation. After years of reading newspaper columns, there came a time in my career in the 80s when I when met with many of these journalists whom I’d previously held in high esteem. And I remember thinking, “What a distasteful bunch of unkempt, sweaty, back-stabbers they really are!.” Many of them looked like members of the dirty-mac brigade, with eyes that showed all the sincerity of a Petticoat Lane street seller. I can still remember their odour – a combination of stale clothes, BO, and old ashtrays.
Nothing I said to them was ever reported accurately – there was always a twist. My spoken sentences would lose the clause or caveat once they appeared in print, giving a completely different impression to anyone reading the newspaper account. Sometimes, two halves of two different sentences would be joined together to create one new “apparent” sentence for their readers. I soon appointed an agency to act as a barrier – and my flesh stopped creeping after that.
“…socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother’s basements and ranting…”
Oi! I am quite clearly not bald!
Describes me exactly….
Andrew Marr may well be hypocritical, but I do agree with him that many bloggers write some rather extreme comments on the blogosphere. Generally it is easier to write extreme comments on a key than it is to say such things to someone’s face.
One obvious glaring hypocrisy is where he writes ” A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother’s basements and ranting.” Which is precisely the kind of unthinking stereotyping that he complains about bloggers making.
“socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother’s basements and ranting”
You and me both, Mary.
Is this the same Andrew Marr who confronted Gordon Brown with allegations about the abuse of pain killers.
Marr decided to trawl the internet to broadcast these unfounded allegations.
geoffrey …. That may well be true. But the point still stands that he is more than happy to repeat the nonsense spouted like GF when it suits his purpose.
Citizen journalism, blogging, whatever you call it does have a part to play – but I would hate it to reach the point where it sets the news agenda.
Brown having to deny he’s a drug addict or Hague denying he’s gay – purely because of gossip is pretty sleazy.
I’ve never trusted Andrew Marr since I discovered that he was responsible for Polly Toynbee!
The characature is unpleasant, but I have to agree with Geoffrey that is correct that many bloggers”are very angry people. … Most of the blogging is too angry and too abusive. It is vituperative. Terrible things are said on line because they are anonymous. People say things on line that they wouldn’t dream of saying in person.” Or rather, in my experience, it is not the blogs (i.e. the main posts) themselves that are vituperative, but the comments that follow. One need only read a few of the comments left below a post on LDV on any vaguely controversial issue to see the the kind of thing to which he refers.
Of course, if one looks beyond what Marr says to consider why he might say it, one might wonder whether this is good old-fashioned self interest at work. After all, Marr has as much interest in protecting the privilaged role of professional journalism as taxi drivers do in maintaining the taxi licensing system, or doctors and lawyers do in operating their preventing anybody else encroaching on their domain. Traditional journalism is facing an enormous challenge and their response is like the Kübler-Ross model. Most journalists have passed through Denial; Marr is now clearly at Anger. Some bargaining and a bit of depression follow, but the sooner they all reach acceptance the better!
Geoffrey is also right to point out the hypocrisy in Marr’s statement.
Geoffrey, will you please stop being right? It is very unsettling!
Marr’s comments reflect a fear not only of new technologies, but also of the erosion of privileges they encourage: http://bit.ly/bkYMd2
Andrew Marr. What a hypocrite!
What journalist worth their salt DOESN’T read some of the internet’s blogs? Bit like saying none of them reads Private Eye. Perhaps blogging was a source for his Gordon Brown/pills personal intrusion, but this public man at the heart of the British press and media, hypocritically takes out an injunction to prevent the public learning of his extra marital affair. Here’s a devious little fox who also likes to hunt with the hounds.
Andrew Marr responds to “angry, abusive and vituperative” citizen journalists with a series of knowingly inflammatory statements which are angry, abusive and vituperative. O-kaaaay.
Good God, have we reverted to the law of the playground? “He’s ugly, sir! And really angry! And I really, really hate him!”
A shame, because the point he was making about the need for us to recognise the economic value of accurate, professional news gathering and dissemination is a valid one. Instead, we get this tawdry, headline-grabbing tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush blunderbuss approach.
Here are my thoughts on Marr’s comments. I would welcome your comments, as long as they’re not angry, abusive or vituperative, of course! 😉
http://slouchingtowardsthatcham.com/2010/10/13/in-defence-of-bloggers-an-open-letter-to-andrew-marr/
Hey, I know that socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young man, in fact, I know several, and they”re all journalists (ok some are just SPADS wishing they were hacks).
What’s more, most of them write for Private Eye whenever they want to say terrible things that can only be pungently aired under the cloak of anonymity.
Of course, these days many of them even start up anonymous blogs where they espouse their vituperative musings – and we’re right back to that socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young man. Or could be a ditto old woman. Or a ditto old man. Young woman anyone?