A week ago, Damian McBride was still the Prime Minister’s chief media advisor, and LabourList’s Derek Draper was attempting to laugh off as blokeish banter the emails which implicated Number 10 in smears against senior Tories. But, then, we know what they say about a week in politics.
Paul Staines, sole author of the Guido Fawkes’ blog, has had a good week, given ample, respectable print space to repeat a central point he’s been making for years: that those political journalists who are part of the ‘lobby’ system have failed democracy:
Though the fourth estate may not have a formal constitutional role, its task is real. Journalists are to there to “speak truth unto power”, not trade favours for tittle tattle, not report spin as truth. From the start of this era of spin the lobby pack have been willing accomplices. It is hard to name journalists who can hold their heads high.
He’s right on this. The Independent’s Steve Richards this week recounted a seemingly all-too familiar tale – ‘On one occasion shortly before a presenter was about to interview a cabinet minister McBride texted him with the message: “Ask him about his drinking problem.”’ He then had a (deservedly) tough time on BBC Radio 5 Live defending lobby journalists for failing to call time on such snide behaviour long before the exposures of ‘Smeargate’.
The Times’s Alice Miles explained how the whole complicit system works:
On the one hand, as one victim of hostile Downing Street briefings puts it: “If somebody at No 10 is saying that Harriet Harman is having a mental breakdown, journalists are justified in running it.” On the other hand, as another victim of Mr McBride’s sees it: “It takes two to tango – you need McBride and you need the flopsy-bunny journalists who will just take the line.” I think they should be clearer about where the line is coming from, and why.
Do you see what I did just then? I placed in your head the creeping falsehood that perhaps Ms Harman might be having a mental breakdown; because if someone has suggested that No 10 might be saying it, then perhaps No 10 is saying it, and perhaps it is saying it because it might be true?
And you will remember, long after you forget everything else in this article, that someone once told you that Harriet Harman was mentally ill. And that is precisely how the poisoners operate.
This, then, is the current state of political journalism: to hell with policies and ideas, let’s just spew out the latest titbit of scandal we’ve scoffed, and ignore the trail of vomit we leave.
It’s truly depressing, not least because politics has rarely been this interesting. The banking system last year came close to imploding, with potentially devastating consequences; the US has just elected a liberal Democrat as its first non-white President; the next UK general election will be the most closely-fought since 1992. All of which merits some discussion, the application by journalists of some sceptical intelligence. The public is hungry for a grown-up conversation. The acendancy of Vince Cable is not just because ‘he told us so’, it’s because he never knowingly underestimates the public’s desire to understand, and never knowingly overstates that he has all the answers.
So, political journlists have failed us, are failing us. Does this mean that Paul Staines’ Guido Fawkes blog is the solution? No.
There has been an inherent hypocrisy in the past week’s reporting. Journalists, eagerly tripping over themselves to make amends for their embarrassing failures, have placed Paul on a pedestal. Yet the Guido Fawkes blog is a petri dish of unsubsantiated smears. As Paul Linford points out:
Back in 2007, Guido spent months attempting to convince his blog’s many readers that Gordon Brown had been photographed on a rocking horse wearing a nappy, and to utilise the power of search engine optimisation and Google to spread this ridiculous tale across the entire internet. It even made it onto Wikipedia, and when I tried to remove it, some patsy came along and reverted my edit.
He also gave house-room to a sock puppet called “Stanislav” who suggested, in one particularly disgusting post, that the Prime Minister had been steadily driven mad by the strain of repressing his “homosexuality” over many years – part of a deadly serious attempt by the right to fix the idea of Gordon as a “weirdo” in the public’s mind.
Paul Staines is a libertarian who will happily peddle smears that undermine governments, any government and any political party. That’s his role, and one he is eminently comfortable fulfilling.
But those of us who care about politics, the capacity of government to be a force for good (not least by doing a lot less, and allowing individuals to do a lot more), need more than that. We need the media, both new and old, to focus on what actually matters, to quest for the truth. Smears have no place in public life – and that applies to all, bloggers and journalists alike.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Big swing to Lib Dems in South Oxfordshire
West End Christmas Afternoon Concert tomorrow #dundeewestend
Raking in the cash
Could the wilderness years be over for Coventry Rugby?
John Rogers meets the dinosaurs of Crystal Palace Park
eFocus on NE16 no. 190
Graham Jeffs
Jenny Barnes
John Reed
David Garlick
11 Comments
Is this not sour grapes from mainstream media and left and liberal bloggers jealous that GUIDO has exposed the totally shameful goings on at the heart of what is supposed to be democratic politics. GUIDO is to be applauded for his scoop and showing that bloggers can and will get scoops ahead of the shyish mainstream media. I bet you lot wouldn’t be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot and you had got the scoop?
GUIDO should go after the UNITE union now and expose what is going on there? Why public taxpayers are funding a party that indulges in smear….
http://www.plenty2say.com
I do not know Paul Satines, but Guido Fawkes is a delight to disagree with. Over-the-top, absurd. open, human, inconsistent, dogged, with a gift for annoying the crooked, the self-important and the powerful; his attempts at character destruction are never anonymous, often funny and never believable. His straight accusations -as in the McBride case or on MP’s expenses – are signed, often funny and usually believable.
To imply, as Paul Linford does, that Guido can be part of any concerted “deadly serious” attempt is either a complete failure to appreciate Irishness and/or an inability to grasp the differnce between ‘serious’ snd flight-of-fancy. It is equally a category mistake to call Guido a libertarian: can you see him as a wooden Ayn Rand character religiously seeking a consistent standpoint against the evils of over-government?
The solution is honest, dogged, investigative jounalism; not Guido. But if a LibDem Guido should arise (I suspect we all are too fair-minded and well-mannered), I would be delighted. No Labour Guido can arise: New Labour is too distrustful and detructive of individual initiative to permit it. permit
One thing about Paul Staines/Guido is he is human, he admits it, he makes mistakes, he fights his corner even when he’s wrong and when it would be better to let it drop.
As for being a libertarian – he is one sort of libertarian, and that’s no bad thing, but just as there are different sorts of liberal (just look at the LibDems).
@David
Ayn Rand hated libertarians… (objectivists are possibly one small grouping of libertarian in my opinion, but they will deny that).
You have to give it to Guido and the conservative Party spin machine to turn this trivial incident into something that looks like the final coffin of Gordon’s reign.
The emails were sent in January this year. They were nasty, but no further action was taken.
I know in the past I have entertained nasty thoughts of managers I have worked with. Though fortunately these were stated over a beer, not in text and in those days no one a camera that could record what we were saying.
Guido and the Tories strategy is the ‘dog whistle’ tactic. Every day, every week, every month put out bad info about your target. Get a negative twist on anything they say, or do, or don’t do.
It worked Labour panicked. Instead of trying to aim body political blows on Cameron and his cronies on policy, or their ‘achievements’, such as an ‘improved rail service’ run of capitalist lines, Draper and McBride speculated on fighting in Guido territory setting up Red Rag.
Once the news broke the Tories played their cards marvellously. Indignation, threats of legal action, heavyweights in every radio and TV station.
Why was Gordon smearing them when he should be worrying about the economy?
Then the pressure for Gordon to apologise. If he did he was obviously involved. If he didn’t he was obviously not in control of his office.
(Apparently this was more important then sorting out the economy or they would have let Gordon get on with it.)
Then there is the question of how did the emails get leaked. Did Guido have them for a long time and then decide to release them at an opportune time? I doubt it.
Has Draper’s emails been hacked? By right wing groups or out of control secret service personnel? Possibly?
Or did someone of the Blairite tendency leak them? Stronger possibility.
What is clear is that the Labour Party machine has lost its ability to deal with media problems.
The obvious strategy for Gordon Brown, when asked for an apology was a two word reply. The second word being ‘OFF’
“Guido and the Tories strategy is the ‘dog whistle’ tactic. Every day, every week, every month put out bad info about your target. Get a negative twist on anything they say, or do, or don’t do.”
Whatever else that tactic is, “dog whistle” is the wrong terminology.
Dog whistle campaigns are when you say things that can only be heard by certain groups. A classic example is referring to “limits on immigration” when you want people to hear “fewer asians”
Right….I’ll defend Guido (up to a point)
“Back in 2007, Guido spent months attempting to convince his blog’s many readers that Gordon Brown had been photographed on a rocking horse wearing a nappy, and to utilise the power of search engine optimisation and Google to spread this ridiculous tale across the entire internet. It even made it onto Wikipedia, and when I tried to remove it, some patsy came along and reverted my edit.”
I doubt there was ever a serious attempt to persuade anyone of this fantasy. I’m not even sure if Guido came up with it. I’ve followed the blog for a long time and I can vouch for my own lack of persuasion!
“He also gave house-room to a sock puppet called “Stanislav” who suggested, in one particularly disgusting post, that the Prime Minister had been steadily driven mad by the strain of repressing his “homosexuality” over many years – part of a deadly serious attempt by the right to fix the idea of Gordon as a “weirdo” in the public’s mind”
I think there was an err…laissez-faire approach to comment moderation on Guido’s blog. This is in line with libertarian philosophy and it also pushes up the number of comments! The “Gordon is Gay” rumour is one I’ve heard independently elsewhere even before I chanced upon the Guido Fawkes blog….I still don’t believe it.
My main gripe is people making fun of Brown’s partial blindness…this isn’t funny and is unnecessary….the injury and the years of fearing total blindness must have been difficult to bear. This doesn’t mean that people shoud refrain from attacks on Brown’s somewhat megalomaniac personality!
I too have heard the Gordon is Gay rumour. I think whether one believes it or not is irrelevant just as his sexuality does not matter. The fact he may or may not be gay does not affect his total incompetence so I do not think it worth re-hashing.
As for Guido, good on him. He has broken a great story, caused alot of discomfort for the Lobby journalists and has had a real impact.
Well done.
Yet again the Liberal Democrats completely miss the point. Guido Fawkes is a private individual running a blog. He is not a civil servant working in 10 Downing Street or a politician hoping for our votes. What can’t you understand about the difference between private and ublic life?
How condescending.
Guido Fawkes single-handedly smashes the Labour communications set-up, demolishes a good few reputations – with a few more scalps yet to be taken – and is responsible for Labour taking a 5% hit in the polls.
Stephen Tall describes him as being merely “a naughty boy”.
Tells us a bit more about Stephen Tall than it does about Guido Fawkes, I think.
Guido Fawkes single-handedly smashes the Labour communications set-up, demolishes a good few reputations – with a few more scalps yet to be taken – and is responsible for Labour taking a 5% hit in the polls.
And the reputation of democratic politics as a whole falling by how many percentage?
What I want to talk about in politics is how we can get things moving, how we can get people what they want, how we can resolve the climate change issue, etc etc etc. Not throwing silly insults at each other. I couldn’t give a piece of crap for Guido Fawkes or any other of these pumped-up nonentities who seem onlt to be interested in silly personal tittle-tattle.
I am a regular reader of Guido Fawkes and have been for some time, yet completely fail to recognise either of your stories. Everything that Guido has actually emphasised and made a large play of has been important. Most prolific bloggers could be criticised for some obscure story they have mentioned, yet few could take credit for the sort of material Guido has managed to publicise.
It reflects badly on you to emphasise Guido’s trivial mistakes, rather than the fine service he has given attacking the unseemly side of politics.