Blair goes nuclear on the media
posted at 12:53 pm on June 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They’ve launched every conspiratorial missile that they could think of at him for the past four years. Now comes the counterstrike. The new rules of media, according to Chuck Norris’s would-be running mate:
First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light. Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. Watergate was a great piece of journalism but there is a PhD thesis all on its own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one conspiracy up.
What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact. Third, the fear of missing out means today’s media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out. Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself.
So - for example - there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little or no relation to what was intended. In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary.
He singles out the Independent, one of the most relentless and relentlessly dishonest critics of the war, for special abuse on that count. But what’s this?
It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon. New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media. In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five.
I wonder who he might mean.
Read the whole thing, although it’s page three where most of the fireworks start popping. Exit question: Does his sinister call for revising the “regulatory framework” in which the media operates end up sabotaging the righteousness of his criticism?
Update: Naturally, the Independent responds by saying it’ll wear the criticism as a badge of honor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Not sure. The media functions differently in England. I beleive the BBC is publicly funded and therefore insulated from the free market pressure that prevents liberal media from proliferating in the U.S. If the BBC had to compete its significant liberal slant would hurt it in the marketplace. That is what I beleive Tony is talking about.
Theworldisnotenough on June 12, 2007 at 1:01 PM
will Bush do this once out of office? I sure hope so…
jp on June 12, 2007 at 1:07 PM
I doubt it jp, he hasn’t dared go against the left on anything in an aggro way like Blair did in this piece.
Bad Candy on June 12, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Man, ain’t that the truth. Apparently there is no such thing anymore as an honest policy decision that didn’t work out well. Any bad result has to have been the maliciously intended goal from the outset.
Dudley Smith on June 12, 2007 at 1:11 PM
*believe
Ugh…
Theworldisnotenough on June 12, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Probably. However, the First Amendment does not exist on the far side of the pond.
steveegg on June 12, 2007 at 1:16 PM
There’s a BOMB in his RIBCAGE!
saint kansas on June 12, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I didn’t know it was the role of the media to speculate, and then vindicate themselves when they think they’re right…because Lord knows they apologize when they are wrong.
StoutRepublican on June 12, 2007 at 1:36 PM
jp,
No. He might attack illegal immigrant amnesty opponents some more, though.
PRCalDude on June 12, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I’d like to see how Kos and his wannabees would respond to this article. Let me guess… “Screw him!”
flutejpl on June 12, 2007 at 2:35 PM
If Bush suddenly becomes a chatty-Kathy out of office I’ll register as an independent.
I’m sick of his inability to explain himself.
unamused on June 12, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Lets just hope he doesn’t turn into Jimmy Carter, spending the rest of his life trying to make up for a botched presidency. Can you imahine a future headline?
“Bush foundation inspects al-Qaeda reactor, gives thumbs up!”
Theworldisnotenough on June 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Social Security
tomas on June 12, 2007 at 3:58 PM
I think what Bush will do after he’s out of office will be a new variation on what Clinton and Carter have been doing — he’ll be almost unbearably unctuous in his fawning support of and praise for the next president, provided that it’s a Democrat. If it’s a Republican, however, he’ll be silent.
You heard it here first, folks!
Kensington on June 12, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Is it just me, or does that “exit question” not fit the description of what he’s complaining about? More news and less opinion would probably be good all around.
corbettw on June 12, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Blair gets kudos for knowing who the U.K.’s only real ally is, but little else.
He has allowed the rampant Islamification of the England, and pretends to know the Koran, when, apparently he fails to realize, when it is taken fundamentally, it creates something more dangerous than a feral press.
I have never heard him criticize the jihadists so seriously.
profitsbeard on June 12, 2007 at 7:46 PM
Ahh the things you can say when on your way out.
“Hey, boss! How are ya today? I just hit the lottery, so $%^* you; here’s my 2 weeks notice.”
“Hey, boss of my boss, how are you today? The way you disseminate information in this company totally blows ass and your opinions mean nothing to me. By the way, my boss has my two weeks notice! Cheerio!”
What a nice pipe dream (for me).
PM Blair is in such a position today as every human being should be entitled to at least once in their lifetime. The position of flipping a verbal bird to those who employ/harass/threaten you on a daily basis.
I’ve long admired PM Blair’s ability to “turn a phrase.” Listening to him speak has always been a pleasure (and makes me wonder just how much I missed out on in my publicly funded schooling). He has a way with English that sometimes sends me scrambling for a dictionary. I’m willing to bet (if he were that kind of guy) that PM Blair could have a nun setting fire to her habit to remove it for him after only 10 minutes of conversation and innuendo (apologies to the Catholic faithful.)
I love it that he has finally called a spade a spade in very eloquent language that never approached being “harsh” by American standards. From my understanding of his speech, he basically equated the MSM with the Tabloids. He also seems to have lobbed a shot across the bow when he basically states that MSM reporters “report” opinion as fact. I love it. What politician on this side of the pond has the stones to do that?
Mr. Tony Blair, you have now risen above the title of Prime Minister into the ranks of the private sector. Although I think your domestic policies may someday prove to be more problematic than the present (at best) or utterly disasterous (at worst), I still admire you for making the hard decisions and standing with a friend in our time of need. Here’s a Strongbow to you, sir!
American_Jihadist on June 12, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I recently saw the movie “The Queen” starring Helen Mirren. In one scene, the Queen is talking to Tony Blair. She reflects on his popularity with the media as the new Labour Prime Minister yet she is reviled for reluctance to acknowledge Princess Diana’s death. She mentions how easily the media will turn on him and be just as cruel to him as they are being to her. She insists on it.
Whether the real Queen Elizabeth said this to the real Tony Blair or this was just poetic license for a bit of current events irony I don’t know, but I appreciated the moment.
The movie was about Queen Elizabeth. They did not make Tony Blair look like a fool. He was portrayed respectfully. There were no jabs against him. His awkwardness upon first meeting the Queen after his election very well could have really happened, but it was an amusing anecdote that was still respectful of Blair.
hadsil on June 13, 2007 at 1:19 AM