The Last Ditch

Finally, a business the Guardian approves of...

Why journalism needs paywalls | Tim Luckhurst | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

All my life I have longed for the day when the truth about business would be published in the Guardian. As it happens (no doubt to the horror of some readers) I agree with Tim Luckhurst's basic point. Intellectual property is as valuable and worthy of protection as any other and libertarians should be champions of all property rights. Yes, it's nice to get content for nothing, just as it would be great if Rolex left watches around to pick up for free, but please don't be surprised if supply dries up when creators are not paid. That kind of naivety should be reserved for the Left.

I am not remotely surprised that the media are looking for ways to earn money from online content. I hope they find a good (or preferably several good) business models, so we get some competition. Free content was always going to be a fad that passed as "online" content drove old models out of business. Free online content has of course accelerated that process, cannibalising the print media business.

If you were starting a news business today, the last thing you would do is write a business plan that involved logging and pulping trees for paper, printing on it and distributing it in vans. You would start your business online. Libertarians above all should realise that you would get no investment to do so (even from your Mum) unless your plan explained how you were going to make a profit.

The self-importance of the media is hilarious though. Rather than saying (as is the truth) that "if my boss can't earn any money he will close this rag and I won't have a job," Luckhurst pontificates about the importance to democracy of the news media;

It is time to admit that giving away value is not remotely democratic. In fact it undermines processes that keep representative democracy healthy.

"Giving away value" is not "undemocratic", but plain stupid - and not just in the media biz. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and the capitalist a return on his capital, whatever the business in question.

And when oh when can the poor, benighted taxpayers stop giving away more than half the value of their work, Mr Luckhurst? That's a business model in need of revision too, but I don't expect the Guardian to bleat about it any day soon.

Tory Zac Goldsmith admits he is a non-dom

Tory Zac Goldsmith admits he is a non-dom - Times Online.

Another headline lusciously loaded with malevolent meaning. An "admission" carries the unspoken connotation of guilt, as in this headline we shall sadly never see;

"Labour Gordon Brown admits whole life warped by envy" 

Labour has not learned from Crewe & Nantwich. How could it? It is a party founded on an ideology of class hatred. "New" Labour's only real political innovation has been to create new classes of people to hate. They have added spice and variety to the embittered vocabulary of Leftist hate speech, but they still relish attacking their traditional foes; the successful, the prudent and their heirs. Unless of course, like Tony Benn in his day and the Milliband brothers in ours, they are Labour too. Their family trusts and tax structuring (not to mention their dynastic tendencies) are perfectly fine, of course.

The quality of political debate in Britain drives me to despair. The blogosphere has not really helped in that respect. Given the regularity with which classical liberals are venomously smeared and ridiculed in the mainstream media, it's perhaps not surprising that, given an outlet by blogging, some sought to give as good as they get. Not surprising, but disappointing. It has escalated the war of insults, which increasingly alienates reasonable people from political life, leaving the field to bruisers and back-stabbers.

Much as I enjoy his blogging and recognise the wit behind his delicate use of foul language, I worry about the election of Chris Mounsey of Devil's Kitchen fame as the new leader of the Libertarian Party. I know, like and respect Chris, but I feel he has queered his political pitch with his blogging. Not only will we, his readers, now lose the original (and best) swearblog, but his past writings (of which he has every reason to be proud) will give his opponents every excuse selectively to lower the tone of debate even further.

A recent casualty of the declining standard of public discourse is Anna Raccoon, who has thrown in the towel at her popular blog. I enjoyed her writing very much, but I also enjoy the writing of the gentlemen who stand accused (not by her, but by some or her readers) of "bullying" her into silence. I always enjoyed (though I often disagreed with) both blogs; while always knowing I would prefer to have lunch with Anna.

In her parting post, she wrote;

It seems to me that the world of blogging is fuelled by petty jealousies, vitriol, feuds, unsubstantiated allegations, apostrophe police, and a whole host of people who in another age would have been happy twitching their curtains and writing letters in green ink. I have watched in horror as several new forums have descended into a cesspool of hatred and nastiness, and you know what? I got up this morning and decided that I just didn’t have the energy any more, or the thick skin, to do it any longer.

Save as to the thinness of her skin, as to which she is best able to judge, she is quite wrong. There are many corners of the political blogosphere where civilised debate is attempted. Her bitter words will help mainstream politicians and journalists build their dismissive stereotype of bloggers. As if the professions that spawned Lord Mandelson and Alistair Campbell had any moral standing to criticise.

A sad week then. One more reasonable voice falls silent, enemies of libertarians are licensed by the party to call us all c***s, and the political charlatans mob the toff de jour as if it were still the 1950s. I have been both poor and prosperous in my life and I can't correlate the contents of my bank account to my wisdom or morality at the time. The only remarkable part of Zac Goldsmith's story is, though even better placed than Anna to kick back and enjoy life, he is prepared to give up his non-dom status to become an MP.

Even those who envy his wealth certainly can't fault the man's enthusiasm.

The Prime Minister and the grieving mother

FT.com / UK - Brown looks at £1bn helicopter order.

I wonder if the linked story has anything to do with this? If so, Mrs Janes' shameful conduct in secretly recording and publishing a private call has at least had some good result. That still doesn't make it right.

The Sun's approach to this story, which demonises Brown (a man well worthy of it) for something irrelevant, is unprofessional. He is partially sighted and his handwriting is understandably poor. If he makes a spelling error, it is hard for him to detect. He is an over-promoted economic policy wonk, not a writer, and has had his letters typed for many years. It was very proper, indeed admirable, for him to write a personal, hand-written note to Mrs Janes. She should have received it in the spirit in which it was sent. Her reaction is emotional, unreasonable and unjust and the Sun's exploitation of it is sickening.

Labour's opponents will be tempted today, remembering the exploits of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, to sneer that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword. New Labour corrupted British political journalism; combining bribes of privileged access and bullying to make poodles of those who should have held them to account for their actions. Now they are weak and near defeat, some poodles are taking a cowardly chance to nip at their ankles. It's hard not to enjoy it, but that would be to make the mistake of accepting the despicable standards of journalism Labour has set.

We should demand better of the next government. It should not spin, bully or play favourites. Its ministers should treat journalists with the respect their profession deserves (even if some individuals within it deserve none). They must be open to be interviewed by serious journalists from all political points of view. Most difficult of all, if they are to do a good job, they must focus on the merits of their policies more than whether their press coverage is good or bad.

If the New Labour spin catastrophe teaches us anything, it is that sustained press manipulation will be detected and despised. In the end, burying bad news leaves a disgusting smell. As Abe Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. In the long run, it's better not to try. If a Conservative government behaves properly in its dealings with journalists, it will surprise and confuse them immensely. Labour has been in power a long time. Many British political journalists have no experience of honest dealings. Some - accustomed to bullying - will attack perceived weakness. Over time however, respect that can never be stolen or extorted can be earned - and reciprocated.

Call me naive, but I hope never to learn that a Conservative Minister or aide was responsible for promoting or seeking to benefit from such a disgusting, exploitative story as this one. Just as I hope that none will ever seek to benefit from smearing the private lives of their opponents or outing their personal foibles, whether they mask their prurience with references to "trust" and "honesty" or not.

I am sorry for Mrs Janes loss. We owe her son a debt of gratitude and respect. But his death does not give her opinions one grain of extra weight. She should shut up and pay her late son the respect his memory deserves in her grief. If they are wise, anti-Labour commentators will shut up too. There is no story here.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers

Carter-Ruck in new move to stop debate in parliament | UK news | The Guardian.

I understand all the concern about injunctions preventing the reporting of Parliament, but why are the lawyers at Carter-Ruck the villains (and partner Adam Tudor in particular?) There have been flash mobs outside their offices and they have been vilified across the British blogosphere.

Why is the headline to the linked article not "Trafigura in new move to stop debate in Parliament?" Lawyers do nothing without instructions. Those instructions come from their clients and whatever actions they take are on their clients' behalf and in their name. If Mr Tudor has been asked to block publication, then that is what he must try to do - whether he personally approves or not. You may say he is liable to criticism for failing to advise his clients that their actions would be counter-productive (as they certainly have been - who had heard of Trafigura before?). However, you don't even know whether the actions were on his advice or against it. He can't tell you without his client's permission, which is hardly likely to be forthcoming.

Perhaps Adam Tudor is the ass or the villain you think he is. A first class degree from Oxford doesn't speak to his morality or his common-sense. You should at least accept that he is the agent of his clients in these matters. If you want to be angry, be angry with them. Except maybe you shouldn't. At least not just yet.

If there is anything to make Adam Tudor smile in the media today, perhaps it's this quote from Prodicus, in the course of roundly criticising him and his partners and calling them asses;

These are the world's smartest legal brains with vast collective experience.

If the partners of Carter-Ruck have a collective sense of humour, they will use that quote on their website, to the irritation of the world's smartest legal brains. After all, they didn't go into defamation work to be loved. As I am sure they are reminding themselves today.

An independent legal profession, free to serve the interests of (popular or unpopular) clients, is a pre-requisite of a free society. You may not like how much some lawyers earn for doing this important work, but if you want the big bucks what's stopping you? There's almost always a shortage of legal talent. Get the qualification, put in 20 years of hard work, and maybe you can nose through the flash mobs in your Porsche too.

Because that's really why the lawyers are the villains here, isn't it? The English Vice: Envy. I can understand "rich bastard" rhetoric from the envious left, but the rest of the blogosphere should really know better.

[I am a partner in a City law firm. I am not, and have never been, a partner or employee of Carter-Ruck]

Guardian TV poll: let's keep up the pressure

Poll: What's the best TV show of the decade 2000-09? | Media | guardian.co.uk.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen, please click on the link above and infuriate the Guardianistas who are posting such exasperated comments as;

Top Gear is not fit to grace any list that has the likes of the office, the west wing and arrested development on it.

The Wire is catching up fast on Top Gear with one day of polling still to go, so if you want to see Jezza ending the show with the poll results and the words "...and on that bombshell..." you need to get over there and vote. Urging on family, friends and work colleagues, not to mention posting a link to the poll on your blog (and in comments to every blog you frequent) would do no harm either.

Does Shahid have a point?

Twitter / Shahid Ahmad: When Theo van Gogh was mur ....

 Blogger Shahid Ahmad of Suspect Paki is tweeting furiously about this shocking story. A Russian in Germany was being prosecuted at the instigation of a Muslim couple for "insult and abuse". The accused strode across the court room and stabbed complainant Marwa el-Sherbini 18 times in front of her 3 year old son, killing her. She was pregnant. It is a disgusting crime, which in the Muslim world is now giving rise to rage against "the West" in general and Germany in particular.

Of course, no decent human approves of the crime. Of course, the killer will be prosecuted for murder and (unless proven insane) convicted. But Shahid is convinced that, not the incident itself, but the way in which the media have reported it is evidence of "islamophobia" and "racism."

He makes the point that when Theo van Gogh was murdered it was treated not as the act of a madman, but as an expression of Muslim extremism. He asks why this incident is viewed differently. Perhaps one answer is that it's because there are no organised groups encouraging such behaviour or applauding it when it occurs. Another might be that "Western" public opinion is united in considering the action wrong and the actor evil. So where's the story?

One has to ask though. If one strips away his hyperbole does Shahid have a point?

The truth. Is it out there?

 Golliwog row: Mad, or just morally muddled? - Telegraph.

It has been such an odd week that I have even found Libby Purves amusing for the first time ever. Normally, I find her smug mumsiness infuriating. A thought came back to me, as I read her "Man from Mars" piece, that has been occurring to me all week. What if the journalism about the economic crisis is as hysterical and inaccurate as that about the "snow event?" What if the journalists are striving as hard to make it "a story" as they did the meteorological circumstances of this week?

Perhaps I am having a late onset of optimism. However, I have long known that journalism (even specialised journalism) about my own field of expertise is always so utterly wrong that mere ignorance on the part of the journalists scarcely suffices to explain it. So why do I assume that there is any merit in their effusions about the subjects I know less well?

Journalistic Armageddon

Link: FT.com / Home UK / UK - Last-ditch effort to save a column from Armageddon.

I noticed years ago that every time I read an article about something I knew, it was wrong. I am not sure why it took so long to realise that all the other articles were wrong too. By definition, journalists are experts in nothing but journalism.

Some are sensible however. Some are witty. Lucy Kellaway's writing in the FT, for example, is a regular source of delight. She has a delicate way of skewering pretensions with no apparent malice. In the linked column, she writes about the current spate of linguistic inflation. I linked to it without logging on to my FT.com account, so you should be able to read it too;

"This is the worst column I've written since 1929.

In scenes not seen in living memory, last Thursday in a late night session, I hammered out the fiendishly complicated details of this article in a last-ditch effort to inject some sense into the system. At 8.05pm, the lights were on in my first floor study and, anticipating a long and tense night ahead, I put in an order to the local curry house for a balti. When the foil wrappers had been cleared and with the clock ticking, I started feverishly drafting sentences about the changed landscape that we are in, the most toxic since the Great Depression. Ashen-faced and reeling, at 1.40am I rose. How would the package go down with shell-shocked readers? Would they roar their approval? Or would their confidence plummet in the worst collapse since the 1930s? Only time would tell."

Do click through and read the whole thing. She lays into the ludicrous comparisons with 1929.

"Irving Kahn, now 102, was last week interviewed on the BBC World Service and crisply said that today "things are a great deal better. People are spoiled". The main villains, he said, were the journalists - "the reporters who want to get attention writing up headlines saying how bad it is".

So is he right? Certainly the current reporting has been bad. So bad, in fact, it has been the worst since . . . 1929."

Bloggers are often unkind about MSM journalists. Sometimes with good cause. Their profession certainly has its full quota of rogues, charlatans and fools. Yet while it may be true that the best bloggers are better to read than the best journalists, it's beyond doubt that the worst of us is worse than the worst MSM hack. We should occasionally acknowledge that not only is journalism our meat and drink, but that sometimes it tastes pretty good. If Lucy Kellaway's column were a restaurant, it would rate three macarons.