There is a profoundly worrying trend going on at present on Twitter, and elsewhere. There is a very clear trend emerging that represents a deliberate attempt to target expert comment.
There was a particular focus in the last few days. Professor Christina Pagel has, alongside Professor Devi Sridhar, been one of the most objective and relevant commentators on Covid that we have had. She posted this interview that she had done for the BBC:
Giving some examples on @BBCOne @BBCNews just now about why we we could have - and should have - avoided more than100,000 people dying from Covid. pic.twitter.com/1a1sEsUSA6
— Christina Pagel (@chrischirp) January 26, 2021
Unambiguously she is critical of government. But who isn't now?
It got vicious responses:
Disgraceful that on such a sensitive subject the @BBC uses someone so clearly partisan and fails to inform viewers. https://t.co/loq7D1BJ8q
— Dr Liam Fox MP (@LiamFox) January 27, 2021
That's Guido Fawkes wading in with typical nastiness, then backed by a Tory MP demanding that the BBC not interview an objective observer. There were other comments, of similar type from those, like Fox, who should be upholders of the freedom of the press.
Which is my point. There may be those who disagree with Christina Pagel, and that is their right. But the objective of those commenting is threefold.
It is to discredit Christina Pagel not because she has no evidence to support her case (because she clearly has) but to do so because her evidence does not support the government.
Then the objective is to intimidate, and it takes a very thick skin to survive this type of abuse (as I know).
And, thereafter the aim is to silence those who might criticise who then appreciate that they will be treated the same way.
This is, of course, a standard far right technique. Experts are not trusted, because they might tell the truth, as Prof Pagel does. But beyond that the aim is to silence them, using whatever means necessary.
I already noted this technique being used against Prof Corrine Fowler this week. Here it is in use again. The aim is identical, and is to discredit and then silence an opponent of the far right agenda. Unless we wake up to, and fight this now these people will win.
Please show your support to those being victimised in this way. They do need it. They aren't just telling the truth. They are at the forefront of the fight for the right to tell the truth. And that makes them especially important.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s the fascism of Trump and the Tory government picked up and amplified by their mindless followers. It disgusts and appals me. (though it was good to see many tweets criticising both Fawkes and Fox)
And now the Government are exercising their fascistic muscles, as you noted in another tweet, by making it almost impossible for The Good Law Project to hold them to account through a ” judicial review of their decisions to award contracts criticised by the NAO” as Jolyon Maugham wrote in an email last night. One more small step on the way to making the Government above the law.
Indeed
Sir David King was chief scientific advisor to Blair and Brown and is now chair of Independent SAGE. He had spoken at the end of Mark Carney’s fourth Reith Lecture ‘From Climate Crisis to Real Prosperity’. At the end of the lecture, Sir David said, “Many scientists, and I’m one of them, now believe that the melting of the poles has passed a tipping point. But even at the present time, if we look ahead to just the mid-century, 2050, countries like Vietnam will be so frequently flooded that they will be effectively unable to sustain a population. And just near them, Indonesia, we can see Bangladesh, we can see the cities of Calcutta and Mumbai also being un-liveable because of frequent flooding. I’m heavily focussed now not only to get deep and rapid emissions reduction, but we also now need to learn how to remove greenhouse gases at scale.”
The Independent’s subsequent interview with Sir David (independent.co.uk/voices/arctic-ocean-ice-temperature-climate-change-b1790779.html) astonished to me. I started listening to the recording of the Reith Lecture (bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000qkms) — got a bit bored and found a transcript (Reith_2020_Lecture_4_transcript.pdf). But they didn’t match! There was a warning: “This transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script. Because of the risk of mishearing … the BBC cannot vouch for its complete accuracy.”
Carney’s diction was good. The ‘risk of mishearing’? Non-existent.
No! This is inconvenient information. Too many are so focussed on current power and profitability that they cannot stop to consider the threat to London of sea-water inundation in the not too distant future.
This was the passage omitted:
“But now the effects of climate change are beginning to affect assets which have a market price which make the scale of the human calamity more tangible since the 1980s: the number of extreme weather events has tripled resulting in a fivefold increase in the amount of property destruction – and that’s just the amount that was insured.
Coastal flooding is projected to rise by 50% by the end of this century threatening assets worth 20% – 25% of global GDP.
Those insurance losses are measures of the stock of assets. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the measure of the flow, that is, the increase in wealth. Estimates suggest that over the balance of this century, climate change could cause the equivalent of a decade of no economic growth. In other words, climate change is the curse that keeps on taking. Of course, measures of GDP and insured losses can only take into account that which is priced in the market yet so much of what climate change destroys — species, habitats, ways of life natural beauty — is not formally valued.”
This is why bankers are worried
Their collateral will be under water
This is the same sort of “cancel culture” that the right have been complaining about so vociferously lately, isn’t it? Worth pointing out to them.
Dr. Fox – what IS disgraceful is you trying to bully an independent BBC.
….but I did chuckle at the accusation of being a “Hardline Centrist” – could someone please tell me what that means and why the BBC should not allow “Centrist” view to be aired?
I rather liked that line
As every day goes past the rules and regulations on social media seem to change. When did it become possible to ‘block’ someone on Twitter for example.
I discovered this forum because it was mentioned on the Alex Salmond show and I needed evidence to counter the claim of “there is no money except taxpayers money”. Admittedly I’ve been sucked into situations and even posted in haste a couple of times when it would have been better to cool down first but surely that is part and parcel of debate. Since I’ve come back I’ve noticed ‘troll’ being banded about so I googled the term and nearly had a panic attack because at first glance the description seemed to apply to me.
I smell some sort of psychobabble manipulation going on here that nobody seems to be questioning.
I am not sure that I have ever thought you a troll
I am not sure what the psychobabble is
Sorry Richard my brain’s still a bit fragile following the recent breakdown and I once again posted without proper checking. What I meant to say was that I had seen the term in general usage before checking the meaning.
I’m still unsure whether or not to return to Twitter due to the madness that goes on there. Madness that to my untrained eye seems to be choreographed in part
‘
If i9n doubt leave Twitter alone
Or just watch and not intervene
Sorry Richard my brain’s still a bit fragile following the recent breakdown and I once again posted without proper checking. What I meant to say was that I had seen the term in general usage before checking the meaning.
‘
It has been possible for years now.
Though people should be aware that if they block accounts to stop them reading their own tweets about the blocked account, all that blocked account has to do is to view the twitter account that has blocked them, without logging in. Better to mute them!
I got a life suspension from twitter for my actions…………..in blocking all advert accounts…………and Nigel FarRight.
That’sc@ bit extreme by them….
“Hardline Centrist” – Interesting to know if Liam Fox suffers from piles to make such a bizarre utterance!
Otherwise just an idiotic and meaningless comment from what we’ve come to understand as the amateur politicians involved in the two main stale political parties in the UK.
@ Clive Parry,
” ‘Hardline Centrist’ — could someone please tell me what that means ”
It does sound odd at first look. But there has been a general realignment in politics recently. The old hard left, I’m thinking of people like George Galloway, have formed odd alliances with the far right recently. He’s appeared as a guest speaker at Farage’s rallies.
He would say that the Labour Party have become more centrist, have lost contact with the working classes and that’s why there are now Labour MPs in Canterbury and Putney but not in Stoke or Grimsby. The Spike group, now very much on the right, started off a bunch of Revolutionary Communists.
It looks like the new divisions in politics could be more aligned to the sides of the culture wars than social class or previous concepts of left and right.
Thanks
“Hardline centrist” as opposed to er “moderate extremist”?
Compare “metropolitan liberal elite” as opposed to “parochial bigoted scum”?
🙂
I don’t know if the story of Dan Price the Seattle businessman has been aired on this forum before. I used to think I was a good judge of character, not any more,
but he’s got me torn. Lovely generous guy or skilful manipulator. It’s like something out of a Grisham novel.
Anyway that’s beside the point.
In 2016, Fox News described him as a socialist loser whose business would be lucky to last 6 months.
Last week, on January 19th Fox News interviewed him live, where he came up with this ‘game changer’.
” We’ve given socialism to the big companies with government handouts and capitalism to the small people”
Always fight an opponent where he/she is weakest. Often the weak point is what appears to be its strong point. Perhaps what is needed is a ‘Robin Hood’ (Game Shop model) co-ordinated response specifically at those who attack people like Sridhar, Pagel (notice they are both women – the attacks do not appear so co-ordinated against the male experts who have spoken up similarly). I say that ‘tongue-in-cheek’, but it has advantages; “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” (Bowell’s ‘Life of Samuel Johnson). I guarantee it would have an effect, like a deflated hedge fund. I predict that would change things – and perhaps force some regulation to stop the drift to anarchic nihilism. I doubt if rational argument will ever change anything; destructive attacks are too effective.
The reason I say this I have long had the suspicion (since 2014 – and let me be clear, not because the referendum was lost, I always assumed it would lose; Scotland was not ready) that deep within the hidden mysteries of social media there could be ‘boiler rooms’; organising co-ordinated, short, sharp effective attacks. Of course I may be wrong, it is a hypothesis I cannot prove, based on an intuition.
So, positive campaigns are needed
I don’t think you’re wrong, John. Cambridge Analytica showed how elections can be influenced and undermined, and it seems unlikely that the British state would disregard these techniques, especially when we uppity Jocks start having thoughts of independence.
My worry is that the techniques in play since Cambridge Analytica are not being dealt with precisely because they might come in useful during the campaign to undermine Scottish independence!! Although one can always say that the undermining of Scotland has never really stopped since old Long Shanks himself. It’s never gone away.
It is curious that Liam Fox does not think he is partisan. As a doctor he has no excuse for not understanding the scientifiic basis of the criticisms of experts in the field.
Isn’t it fair enough to question if someone is objective or not, or at least give the viewer the full information on that persons background?
Christina Pagel may be a Doctor, but she’s also obviously very partisan, the fact being she is a Labour activist. Which probably makes her objectivity variable depending who is in government.
It’s a bit like when the BBC have interviewed someone and presented them as a particular thing, only to find out that they are a local councilor. Don’t you think that is likely to affect someone’s outlook and presentation of various things?
I also find it a bit rich that the left are complaining about this, when the left spend a lot of time no-platforming people who don’t agree with their views (just look at JK Rowling) and spend a lot of time trying to shut down any dissenting views from their own positions.
Even this blog seems to have that problem – any real dissent or questioning of the orthodoxy of Richard Murphy’s views quickly gets commentators blocked and banned. hardly an advert for free speech.
This blog does not accept trolling
With respect you are remarkably close to it
But if objectivity is in doubt then the real issue is those who, unlike Chsritina Apgel who do not disclose their biases – like all the Tufton St linked think tanks
As for my editing – editorial freedom to prevent abuse is about free speech
Perhaps the rather coy ‘Annie’ would care to share some of her credentials that support her own “objectivity”, or even intimate knowledge of Pagel’s discipline?
For the avoidance of doubt, if I am asked to choose between the objectivity of Professor Pagel, who openly stands behind her professional advice, and ‘Annie’, who has presented precisely nothing about herself and, on the face of it, offered unsubtantiated assertions about the Professor (the fact that someone may possess a political opinion does not, of itself and without proof of bias in her professional opinion, tell me anything worthwhile whatsoever); following your comment, you tell me which opinion, between you and Professor Pagel, is likely to sway informed readers – anywhere?
The aggressive “scorched earth” approach appears to be back-firing on the Republican Party especially after it led to the incitement inspired attack on the Capitol by those supporters who are easily led. See result of “Do you want Trump to be barred from holding public office again?” vote.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-promises-truth-after-trump-s-lies-how-hold-leaders-ncna1255905
Now there’s the new GOP House Representative Majorie Taylor-Greene saying “Sandy Hook killings weren’t real” and the GOP leadership of the House putting her on the House Education Committee which adds to making Republican Party Congress politicians look like really sick puppies! (Sandy Hook was the United States’s equivalent to the UK’s Dunblane Massacre.)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parkland-parents-marjorie-taylor-greene-removal_n_60134766c5b6aa4bad327825
The right-wing politicians in the UK had better wake up and realise that making the Trump style of politics its poster child is ultimately highly counter-productive. Not least a UK consequence being a dismemberment of the UK as an attempt to escape it!
The MSM and Politicians in cahoots to delegitimise anything that is counter narrative.
Not necessarily off topic –
I’ll leave this here for these BrexShit heads such as ‘dr’ Fix – to be asked about as what I have long said about their agenda gets firmly put on a legal IIRREVESIBLE track.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/29/britain-launches-visa-scheme-for-hong-kong-citizens
Further on my previous about media narratives.
Have just found out that today’s daily death stats were delayed until this evening.
They are not fewer than yesterday.
What have the media to say about the delay? Where are the ministers being questioned?
The attacks on the experts is denialism of the plain lies that we are being fed.
The RobinHood debacle shows that the weapons of mass distraction CAN be used against these who use them against us. In a non violent but financially painful way against them.
“Weapons of Mass Distraction!” Not come across that term before but highly relevant in the context of what’s going on in the UK and US. How many Americans. for example, were aware of the freely available Washington Post four year fact-checking of Donald Trump’s false claims and misleading statements record?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4
We have a clear evidence of the war on experts by Michael Gove’s infamous phrase : “Britain has had enough of experts”. He meant, let’s discredit and fight them through the gullible who, of course, make up the majority of the population. Far right ideologies are in the process of poisoning these minds.
For the next 4 years of this government in power, with the help of the right wing media, I am getting very concerned they might succeed in this project of indoctrination because I am already finding it extremely hard to reason with people who have already submitted to this dangerous ideologies. It is a two completely separate worlds.
Agreed
That worries me, greatly
I’ve got this weird vision from 3 years ago of two people in Silicon Valley sitting at their computers and one turns to the other and says.
” Hey buddy I bet you $100 that within 3 years I’ll have all the limeys starting sentences with the word ‘So'”
In Felix Martin’s book “Money” there’s a chapter entitled “Money Through The Looking Glass.” The chapter is largely about the Irish Potato Famine of the 19th century and the British establishment’s obsession with monetary rigidity that led to its refusal to send adequate aid to relieve the famine. Is there not a parallel today with Donald Trump’s refusal to take the coronavirus seriously and Boris Johnson and his entourage having to be dragged through a hedge backwards to take it seriously? Doesn’t this all stem from the mentality of rich elites that these are only the “Little People” whose needs don’t really have to be taken all that seriously?
I think o am going to have to read this……
Mz Schofield,
Between Richard’s unparalleled efforts to advance new ideas on ‘money’ from MMT (Kelton, Wray etc.,), your own blogs here (which I shall reflect on); on the history (and the links to sources), and the comments that have flowed from them; the gathering together of sources on the new history of money currently be written (especially Graeber, Théret, Desan, Martin, Milevsky) – I am impatiently awaiting the arrival of the Martin book (thanks to Mr Richardson, I think for the Martin source) – I believe this makes and invaluable contribution to the debate. My thanks to all.
I can’t remember the name of the MP who was employed to stitch up Allyson Pollock when she was criticised in Parliament for pointing out that PFI wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. She wasn’t too popular with the Government when they wished the Lansley reorganisation on the NHS either. Her investigations into Rugby and brain injury hasn’t go down well in some quite influential circles. I’m just glad that we have people with the courage and expertise to tell it like it is.
She has had her fair share of it
We do know each other…..and she offers support on occasion