« Cripes | Main | The Ethic of Reciprocity »
February 13, 2007
It isn't that simple
One thing that has become apparent during the recent blog spat is the tendency of right-leaning bloggers, astroturfers and sock puppets to take a massively simplistic view of peoples motives.
For example, when questions were raised over the charitable status of the Policy Exchange, the response was that it was all a left wing attempt to divert attention from the investigation into the Smith Institute, and that anyone raising such a challenge was an obvious Brownite.
A simple and trite response that was totally wrong.
If people had bothered to read and understand any of the posts on the subject, they would have noticed that no one was defending the Smith Institute. Rather the objective was to highlight another potentially suspect body, and to show that neither side of the political spectrum was above challenge.
Another case. Apparently the challenge Tim Ireland presented to Paul de Laire Staines which then, as a consequence of Iain Dale's naivety or culpability (delete as appropriate) spread to his blog, was an effort to boost "ratings".
A simple and trite response that was totally wrong.
Tim's concerns were that a set of consensual guides to online conduct (or rules/laws as the astroturfers would have it) were not merely being eroded, but actively destroyed without thought for the consequences. This form of online moral code evolved over many years in an effort to resolve an issue affecting most forms of online engagement, the lack of direct interaction and the consequent removal of non-verbal indicators. These "rules" aren't published anywhere and try as you like, you want find them writ large on tablets of stone. But they served the online communities well back in the days when 2400 baud was a fast connection. Sure, they may need updating, but an evolutionary approach has served well in many situations, and you don't ignore to destroy something without heed to the consequences.
Now fools such as Caroline Hunt may feel happy with their fun-loving stance regarding online conduct, but they're generally the first to shout when the consequences of their actions turn and bite them. If you want the freedom to attack people then you shouldn't be surprised if other people exercise the same freedom, but directed at you. This is something Paul de Laire Staines discovered this weekend.
Anyway, there is a point to all this. If Conservatives expect to be the next party of government (though looking at the consequences of current polls and boundary changes, there'll be a lot of horsetrading and compromise first), then they should learn the fundamental lesson that New Labour failed to grasp. Put your own house in order first, or the mauling given - justifiably - to New Labour may look like a picnic compared to the attacks you may receive. The electorate have been deceived and misled by one leopard that claimed to have changed its spots, they probably won't be so tolerant of another. If you want to avoid accusations of authoritarianism, engage in open and honest debate; don't resort to simplistic smears and trite arguments founded on dubious evidence.
In other words, grow up and get real.
Posted by Clive on February 13, 2007 8:44 PM in the category Politics
Comments
Well said. It's about time the simplistic views were taken to task. And again I agree about the likely Tory government. This is why I don't blindly clap in agreement with every rightwing criticism of the current government.
It's all to obvious that playing up to people's discontent is a good tactic to gain votes and power for the Tories...
Posted by: leon at February 14, 2007 12:53 PM
David Rose made his reputation as a political journalist by becoming an expert on the FCS, a fact that no doubt embarrasses hm immensely 20 years on. FCS was factional and mini spin doctors on either side used Rose to spin stories against each other. The Guardian printed any old shit against the Tories - do you not remember its pravda like qualities in 1984, before the fall of the Berlin wall, when half its staff were given cash bungs by the Stasi? When one of its foreign reporters used to collect dollars in a suitcase from the GDR Embassy to take to give to SWAPO? A wet faction spin doctor gave Rose this fabricated story and the Tosser printed it! No doubt Paul failed to win Deputy Chairman responsible for foreign policy of FCS Northern Region as a result. Or not. Who cares? I actually don't think he has ever been north of Camden anyway
Posted by: mutleythedog at February 15, 2007 11:06 PM