shuggy's blog
A truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you could invent.
Wm Blake.
Yep, the point, and the only point, about the Blair speech is that it was made by a brass-necked, self-deluding and now discredited fool.
The fact that he picked on a topic that many might agree with, serves only to highlight the guy's self-disclaiming opportunism.
Now Tony, what about a speech on 'my personal role in contributing to, and consolidating the collapse of 'real' journalism and news reporting in the UK'.
Have you read the speech, Ted? "In the analysis I am about to make, I first acknowledge my own complicity. We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media. In our own defence, after 18 years of Opposition and the, at times, ferocious hostility of parts of the media, it was hard to see any alternative. But such an attitude ran the risk of fuelling the trends in communications that I am about to question."
Speaking as one of the feral beasts of the media, I think his analysis was pretty accurate, and the coverage of the speech tended to prove his point. The only unsupported assertion was that there is a demand for real news. I hope there is.
"As someone who used to buy it, who bought the first ever goddam copy and remained a loyal reader for several years,..": me too (except for the bad language, obviously). But as for Blair: he's like someone who's just enjoyed a satisfying shit pointing out that the lavatory bowl is soiled.
Shuggy – You seem to have missed the point that he has got it in for everybody. He went on to complain that 'non-traditional' media outlets (I think he means us, bloggers) were making matters worse, not better:
"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."
He does mean bloggers doesn’t he? Maybe we need to be regulated for the public good…
The Serious Crime Bill ought to do it if he can get away with it… Five years pokey without trial.
But as for Blair: he's like someone who's just enjoyed a satisfying shit pointing out that the lavatory bowl is soiled.
Reasonable point - hence the title of the post. But in fairness he did sort of acknowledge this himself, as Joe has mentioned above. And Paulie's argument, which has some merit, is (I think) how can a politician survive these days by doing otherwise?
He went on to complain that 'non-traditional' media outlets (I think he means us, bloggers) were making matters worse, not better
Phil - I think Chris Dillow's remark was salient here: I doubt his awareness of blogs stretches beyond Guido and all that shit.
Joe, yes I did read the speech - mainly because having heard a large part of it on cable I could hardly believe the guy's nerve.
To you and Shuggy, can I repeat that the point about this speech is the type of politician who made it. I was about to also repeat that it matters not that we might agree with the points he made... but on second thoughts I think it's worse than that.
It enables some of the 'feral' targets of the speech to respond with "if thats the kind of supporters you have it doesn't say much about your case"
And what was it with New Labour and 'feral'? Wasn't it for a while 'feral youths' that were the cause of all society's ills? Or was that just the Blairities playing up to the 'feral' media??
Commenting by HaloScan
