OT: IN the end you get the PM you deserve

[sidders]

First of all, the job of journalist occupies a wide spectrum, as does the 'job' of politician, so one of my bones of contention with you, Mr Jackal 2, is that you generalise far too often.
Secondly, a good incisive journalist does a lot more than interpreting the politician's words. For example, he may be in a position to put a light on an element of back story that the great British public is unaware of. Rory Stewart is a good example of this point. He was just another scruffy MP until journos revealed the fact that he was a polyglot, that his dad was a spy. These are both important background factors in who he is and what he says.
Corbyn has been presented as having no interest beyond politics and allotments but a journo brought to light that he is an expert on James Joyce's Ulysses, which is not a book for the faint of intellect.

[OP67]

True. I think the former group are called remainers, the latter group leavers.

*YAWN*

[drillerpie]

Jackal from part of what you've written it seems like you appreciate the importance of good public service journalism, even if you are disappointed with the way it's being carried out now as opposed to in the past.

From other things you've written it seems like you're in favour of total accountability for anyone in public life, plus a kind of libertarian light-touch approach towards expressing opinions based on a high level of trust in the public to do the right thing.

I don't agree with much of it but I do find it all interesting.

Can I ask, does your disappointment in the lack of accountability extend to other public servants? For example a police officer doesn't have a mandate and is not directly accountable to the public but he can still arrest you. The most you can do is complain to the relevant regulator as with a complaint about the BBC, but the regulator wouldn't be directly accountable to the public either.

Does your trust in the will/ability of the public to reach the right decision extend to all realms of life or only politics? Should there be regulation of misleading advertising for example? Again that happens via a regulatory body which is not directly accountable to the public. Would you prefer to see cigarettes sold with advertising saying they'll clear your chest and leave people to make their own mind up about it? If not, why should politics be any different?

The advent of the internet has reduced the role of journalists as intermediaries in public discourse. Now Trump can tell you directly via Twitter that he has been exonerated by the Mueller report when he hasn't. Salvini can beam a Facebook live directly into your brain saying that African migrants have been found with credit cards issued by George Soros and nobody can challenge him. This is as close as we have ever been to the situation you describe as ideal, where raw information (or disinformation) is presented and it is down to each individual to fact check everything (or not). Do you think this has improved public discourse?

[jackal2]

First of all, the job of journalist occupies a wide spectrum, as does the 'job' of politician, so one of my bones of contention with you, Mr Jackal 2, is that you generalise far too often.
Secondly, a good incisive journalist does a lot more than interpreting the politician's words. For example, he may be in a position to put a light on an element of back story that the great British public is unaware of. Rory Stewart is a good example of this point. He was just another scruffy MP until journos revealed the fact that he was a polyglot, that his dad was a spy. These are both important background factors in who he is and what he says.
Corbyn has been presented as having no interest beyond politics and allotments but a journo brought to light that he is an expert on James Joyce's Ulysses, which is not a book for the faint of intellect.

"Journalist Defends Journalists Shocker!"

First of all, the job of journalist occupies a wide spectrum, as does the 'job' of politician, so one of my bones of contention with you, Mr Jackal 2, is that you generalise far too often.

As do you, Mr sidders, frequently, but it's not your fault or my fault. It's the nature of writing on message boards like this, rather than the Sunday Times. If we went into huge depth it would take all day to write and nobody would want to read it. We're in good company though, because most media outlets do the same these days to feed a generation who can only take information in Tweet-size chunks.

Secondly, a good incisive journalist does a lot more than interpreting the politician's words. For example, he may be in a position to put a light on an element of back story that the great British public is unaware of. Rory Stewart is a good example of this point. He was just another scruffy MP until journos revealed the fact that he was a polyglot, that his dad was a spy. These are both important background factors in who he is and what he says. Corbyn has been presented as having no interest beyond politics and allotments but a journo brought to light that he is an expert on James Joyce's Ulysses, which is not a book for the faint of intellect.

True. All politicians will have a back story, as do all people, and as you say, good incisive journalists will bring that to the public's attention.

My point is that the public shouldn't become reliant on journalists to do that, and more importantly, they shouldn't take it on trust that the journalist's interpretation of that back story is impartial. The journalist may themselves have all kinds of motivations (money, political dogma, even being coerced by others!) for presenting a certain individual in a particular light, and moreover, journalists themselves often generalise or tell half the story if it suits their agenda. For example, it's not entirely untrue to say that "Jeremy Corbyn Supports terrorists", but it's not entirely true either. His position is, shall we say, "nuanced" (as it is on Brexit!)

Of course, I'm not advocating a world without journalists. I've cited above an example of one from yesteryear who I thought was second to none. But I am saying that people shouldn't necessarily trust what they hear from journalists any more than what they hear from politicians. The media does not tell you "the truth".

[BigFatPie]

Jackal, firstly, what exactly is in my first paragraph that you think I got wrong?

I don’t really know what to make of what else you’ve written. I thought it was commonly accepted that politicians should be accountable to the public, and one of the ways in which they’re accountable is having their policies and views challenged by informed people, one group of whom would be journalists. I think your reticence about that process is that when people are more informed, they rarely turn more right leaning in their opinions. We’ve seen who succeeds in the polls when people are misinformed, and they don’t appear to be people you disagree with.

To take the example of Brexit, the reality is that it is a hugely technical issue that takes a weird interest in trade policy to fully understand. I read pieces from a number of people who are expert in the area, and I don’t really begin to understand it. The sad thing is that neither Boris Johnson nor Jeremy Corbyn appear to know much about it either. I just know that the overwhelming weight of informed opinion is that we are better out than in. You won’t find that informed opinion in the Sun, the Mail or the Telegraph. The likes of Johnson need to be tested and challenged BEFORE they assume positions of power.

[jackal2]

Jackal from part of what you've written it seems like you appreciate the importance of good public service journalism, even if you are disappointed with the way it's being carried out now as opposed to in the past.

Yes.

From other things you've written it seems like you're in favour of total accountability for anyone in public life, plus a kind of libertarian light-touch approach towards expressing opinions based on a high level of trust in the public to do the right thing.

Depends what you mean by 'total'. I accept you can't have direct accountability for everyone in public life, but there should be at least indirect accountability, to keep people reasonably honest. And yes, if we want to consider ourselves a democracy then by definition we should have trust in the people's judgement (whether it turns out to be right or not). The opposite is to not trust the public to make decisions, in which case you're leaning towards a dictatorship, be that a good or bad thing.

Can I ask, does your disappointment in the lack of accountability extend to other public servants? For example a police officer doesn't have a mandate and is not directly accountable to the public but he can still arrest you. The most you can do is complain to the relevant regulator as with a complaint about the BBC, but the regulator wouldn't be directly accountable to the public either.

A police officer swears to uphold the law, and legislation is decided by our elected Parliament. Admittedly, the waters get muddier when you factor in interpretation of the law by (unelected) judges, but at present it's the system we've got be it right or wrong.
Regarding police complaints, I suppose you can say that independent regulators such as OFCOM or the Independent Office for Police Conduct have a certain democratic legitimacy in being set up by the elected government to serve a purpose, but there's an argument for more direct public involvement in them. Whether the public would be interested is another matter. In America there's a culture around direct election of public servants, but the Police & Crime Commissioner elections in this country haven't really caught the public's imagination, for better or worse.

Does your trust in the will/ability of the public to reach the right decision extend to all realms of life or only politics? Should there be regulation of misleading advertising for example? Again that happens via a regulatory body which is not directly accountable to the public. Would you prefer to see cigarettes sold with advertising saying they'll clear your chest and leave people to make their own mind up about it? If not, why should politics be any different?

Poignant question. My dad died from cancer from smoking and for all the public health warnings, he only believed it was killing him when much of the damage was already done. Likewise, I can't believe the number of young people I still see smoking, given the prevalence and strength of the warnings you're talking about.

Again, the elected Parliament ultimately played their part in changing the legislation on smoking advertising, so at least there's indirect democratic accountability in that decision. Ultimately though, it is still the responsibility of the public to educate themselves, or at least research the validity of warnings they receive from others.

[sidders]

Again I can't argue with a good deal of your last post but the ultimate consequence of your thought is to question whether there can ever be such a thing as objectivity, something the ancient Greeks and far finer minds than yours and mine argued over ad infinitum.
In presenting a piece of information or a point of view the author is inevitably subject to their own prejudices and self-interest.
In the end, we have to decide that someone's honesty places them on something of a pedestal in that they have earned our trust but that can only happen through judgement (in your case with Brian Walden).
These days a journo is expected (often) to entertain and amuse as well as inform which brings a whole other dimension into it. Nothing illustrates this better than the role of a football journalist. He sees the game through his own eyes and they will record a wholly different impression than any spectator.
Btw, I was much more a teacher than a journo, having had no professional training for the latter but several years of schooling and research for the former so I don't jump to their defence that automatically.

[jackal2]

Again I can't argue with a good deal of your last post but the ultimate consequence of your thought is to question whether there can ever be such a thing as objectivity, something the ancient Greeks and far finer minds than yours and mine argued over ad infinitum.
In presenting a piece of information or a point of view the author is inevitably subject to their own prejudices and self-interest.
In the end, we have to decide that someone's honesty places them on something of a pedestal in that they have earned our trust but that can only happen through judgement (in your case with Brian Walden).
These days a journo is expected (often) to entertain and amuse as well as inform which brings a whole other dimension into it. Nothing illustrates this better than the role of a football journalist. He sees the game through his own eyes and they will record a wholly different impression than any spectator.

Fair points. In fact, I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding the decline (in my opinion) of journalism being connected to the need to entertain and amuse more than inform. The BBC would argue that last night's "debate" was staged to better inform the public about the views of their next PM, but in my view it's mainly done as a spectacle, in the same way Prime Minister's Question Time is more of a promotional and publicity stunt than a genuine example of the Parliamentary scrutiny process. The real in-depth information is to be found in Parliamentary committee sessions.

[jackal2]

Jackal, firstly, what exactly is in my first paragraph that you think I got wrong?

I didn't say you were wrong. I said it was your interpretation and others may have a different view. For what it's worth, I think Boris waffled a lot last night and Jeremy Hunt and Sajid Javid performed best, though I've already stated that none of those on offer for the PM job are "political heroes" of mine. I can think of at least two more suitable candidates than any of them, but they aren't in the running so it is what it is.

I don’t really know what to make of what else you’ve written. I thought it was commonly accepted that politicians should be accountable to the public, and one of the ways in which they’re accountable is having their policies and views challenged by informed people, one group of whom would be journalists. I think your reticence about that process is that when people are more informed, they rarely turn more right leaning in their opinions. We’ve seen who succeeds in the polls when people are misinformed, and they don’t appear to be people you disagree with.

I thought you said your point was not political? This sounds pretty much like your usual "right-leaning people are just wrong" presumption. Your argument appears to be that if everyone was better "informed", they would vote the same way you do, i.e. Remain and presumably for a non-right-wing party. To me that sounds rather arrogant, if not extreme. None of us is guaranteed to be right or wrong.

To take the example of Brexit, the reality is that it is a hugely technical issue that takes a weird interest in trade policy to fully understand. I read pieces from a number of people who are expert in the area, and I don’t really begin to understand it. The sad thing is that neither Boris Johnson nor Jeremy Corbyn appear to know much about it either. I just know that the overwhelming weight of informed opinion is that we are better out than in. You won’t find that informed opinion in the Sun, the Mail or the Telegraph. The likes of Johnson need to be tested and challenged BEFORE they assume positions of power.

Brexit is a technical issue and you say that because you don't fully understand all elements of it, you are going with the "overwhelming weight of informed opinion" to say we are better off in. That's a perfectly valid position, even if it does make assumptions about what is 'overwhelming' and who is "informed". There have been many occasions in history when the "overwhelming weight of informed opinion" has turned out to be wrong, so that's not a guarantee of the success or failure of anything.

There are plenty of "informed" people who support leaving the EU, and even if they are in the minority (which isn't a given, despite what some elements of the media imply) then it doesn't mean that they are wrong.

In a democracy, the public take as much or as little notice as they like of all the information on offer and they make a choice, and in this case, the majority voted to Leave the EU, which is what every candidate in the debate last night said they would do.

I've got absolutely no problem with Boris Johnson or indeed any other politician on any side of the argument being tested on their claims about whether or how they will leave, or when it will be done, and that's what the questions from the members of the public last night were designed to do. Once the question was asked, each candidate should have been afforded a certain amount of time to answer. The viewing public can hear the question and the answer and decide for themselves how good or bad or true or untrue the answer is.

What we didn't need was Emily Maitlis constantly interrupting and disrupting the debate, not least because all of the candidates then started chipping in, which Maitlis struggled to control. Her actual job as facilitator of the debate should have been to ensure that everyone got their fair share of time, but instead she wanted to be part of the debate herself, so in the end what you got was not a genuine challenge to the position of any of the candidates, but a chaotic farce.

[Trickytreesreds]

Stewart for me was easily the least bad of a bad bunch, but what a way of picking the most important politician in the land. The only positive of a Bozo victory is that we'll get to see if Trump really will give him a great deal. The downside on that is that the NHS will form the bedrock of that deal.
As Notts County fans, all our bad chickens have come home to roost at the same time. What did we do to deserve it?

Stewart doesn't fill me with charisma.

He did get posted to Afghanistan on secondment during his Gap Year. He spent 3 months there saw no action, spent it doing admin and was so loathed by the full time professional Squaddies, they nicknamed him
Gladys of Belgravia