I posted this thread on Twitter in reaction to the lecture by Emily Maitlis, already noted here this morning:
What Emily Maitlis seemed to me to be saying in her Edinburgh lecture was that there are truths that need to be told that can be stated as facts without requiring rebuttal. A short thread to discuss this…..
There is, for example, a phenomenon called climate change. No broadcaster need balance that opinion with the view of someone who denies this: any alternative claim is not credible.
It's also true that climate change has been advanced by human activity. In that case it is beholden on us, now, to address it if we wish to secure the future for human life on earth. This is fact.
There are many other such facts. For example, deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is racist. That's a fact. The merits of the policy can then be discussed, if a broadcaster thinks it useful. But the racism should be on the table.
That Brexit has failed is also indisputable. Key social, economic and political indicators make that clear. It is evident people are unhappy about this. What to do about the failure of Brexit can be discussed, but denying that failure is no longer credible.
It's also a fact that people will suffer and some might die this winter if they are not supplied with more help to pay their energy bills and meet other costs. They need help whether that be directly or by way of inflation matching pay rises. This is a fact.
It's also a fact that when wages are rising at a rate lower than inflation that they cannot be the cause of an inflationary spiral. That's not possible. So no journalist needs to say it.
It's also a fact that governments need not balance their books. We have had a national debt since 1694. It's served us well. Almost no national debt at all has actually been repaid since 1945. And our economy works because this is the case. Just say it.
It's also a fact that taxpayers do not fund government spending. Quantitative easing proves it. The crises of 2008 and 2020 were not paid for with tax. They were paid for with Bank of England created money. This is a fact. Denial is not possible.
It's also a fact that we do not need to repay the national debt. Apart from the fact that about a third of it is already owned by the government, which makes repayment hard, the owners of the rest really don't want to sell it. Celebrate that. Don't pretend it's not true.
Stop pretending too that the national debt is a burden on our grandchildren. For some grandchildren it will be an asset they will inherit. For others, the national debt is a cheap funding mechanism that makes their future - even their survival - possible. How is that a burden?
Whilst we're talking about ridiculous claims, might we stop pretending Covid is over? It is not. Deaths are up. People are still suffering from it. It's still massively disruptive in our economy and society. Let's talk about what to do about that, and stop denying it.
Let's also face facts about democracy. Assaults on the right to vote, the Electoral Commission, the right of organisations to comment during elections and much more are combined assaults on democracy, and free speech. These are facts.
Whilst we're talking free speech, the pattern of media ownership in the UK oppresses free speech by introducing massive bias into our media. This is a fact. Talk about what to do about it. But please do not deny it.
There are many more.
- Our society is structured to advantage the wealthy.
- We are systemically denying access to the law to most people in this country.
- Student debt is designed to crush younger people into debt compliance.
- Benefits are intended to perpetuate poverty
I could keep going. The point is we need to say these things as the facts that they are. Journalists need to report then as fact. They are indisputable. Then debate on their consequences can begin. But we can't progress whilst some deliberately dispute the truth.
The fake news agenda, as embraced by the Tories here as it is by the Republicans in the US, actually spends its time promulgating falsehoods. Let's stop giving them the permission to do that. Might we instead talk about the world as it really is? Think how useful that might be.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Maitlis’ lecture reminds me that there is nothing more cunning than the cunning of unreason – learnt in the Oxford debating societies and from the fascist textbook of history.
‘Unreason’ as defined by John Dunn (2001) is basically the art of fulfilling partiality in political discourse whilst masking it seem ‘impartial’ or ‘shared’.
To my mind, Neo-liberal/libertarian theory is mostly ‘unreason’ – from von Hayek to Buchanan.
The partiality element is planted firmly in money-power. ‘Unreason’ is the agency of the rich so that the world (as you say) serves them.
Her discussion about populism to me was about fascism essentially, which seems to confirm to me that fascism is indeed the science of achieving and retaining power and not a political outlook itself.
Thank you for putting up here.
…………….I have to say though that since looking at your Twitter feed and seeing once again the Newsnight Corbyn/Kremlin back drop – I remember being aghast at this when I saw it and I still think that the BBC dropped a huge clanger that night.
I’m still not sure if they were naive or whether it was unconscious bias or something darker but it still, to my mind, was very stupid and looked really bad.
I was never ever sold completely on Corbyn because as the record will show here, I agreed that too many of the fiscal ideas were dead ends and his BREXIT stance was completely loopy.
But I’ve never been to a rock concert before (Radiohead at the Emirates Stadium, July 4th 2017 – a superb night BTW) where the crowd spontaneously sing about a politician and the band begins to accompany them.
The Corbyn story has yet to be fully told.
But Maitlis is right that the media can get caught unwittingly in the middle of stuff like this and needs to become more aware.
This comment just highlights the issue.
Here are some facts or points:
Did Newsnight construct an image of Jeremy Corbyn wearing a Russian Style hat standing in from of the Kremlin and tint the entire image a red colour ?
-Yes
Was it designed to create a particular association or view of Jeremy Corbyn ?
– Yes (otherwise a standard stock image of Mr Corbyn would have been used.)
Did both Mailtlis and the Newsnight Production team defend and indeed malign those complaining about the use of the image ?
-Yes
Was it a deliberate act ?
-Yes (the process of scripting/editing and producing a TV programme is in itself a deliberate act)
Yet the commenter is unsure of his view of Jeremy Corbyn and his policies and tells us ‘the Corbyn story is still to be told’, therefore whether or not the construction and use of this image is either naive, unconscious bias or something darker remains remains open.
However, what is not in doubt are the failures of Jeremy Corbyn, his fiscal ideas were dead ends and his stance on Brexit was loopy.
You either believe in impartiality or you don’t – doesn’t matter who it applies to.
But as they say, they had used the image before relating to Russian stories
And let’s be blunt: Corbyn made a fool of himself on this
Please don’t defend the indefensible
The big question is how do we even begin to get these truths out to the people who need to hear them? How do you begin to get this across to a section of the population who have been systematically conned into voting directly against their own best interests?
This is why I use Twitter
By being courageous – by taking the opportunity to have a go whether by Twitter, get -together s, parties, etc.
Bravo Richard. You expose how elegantly corrupt our media is.
Regarding assaults on the right to vote, my local electoral registration office emailed me on 22nd of August for me, or someone in my household who is eligible to vote, to confirm who is entitled to vote – the deadline for replying is August 29th! Talk about US-style voter suppression – this is naked discrimination against people who do not have broadband or are not IT literate. On all the other issues raised I couldn’t agree more, lets’s hope now that Emily Maitliss has put her head above the parapet more journalists will have the courage (and courage is needed in this fascist-leaning environment) to say the truth about climate change, inflation, poverty, inequality, lack of legal aid etc etc. Of course, there are some honourable exceptions like George Monbiot but how many people in the general population have even heard of him?
If you miss that registration deadline, the council will post you a copy of the form. They’re trying to save paper.
I had the annual electoral roll this month as most of us did.
There was no mention of the photo ID requirement. Has that been passed into law yet?
Surely such a thing should be well advertised in advance.
I did some telling in the election for the new Somerset County Council and I mentioned it a few times but no one seemed aware of it.
Schedule 1 of the Elections Act 2022 makes changes to the elections rules in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, including adding in Rule 37 “(1A) A ballot paper must not be delivered to a voter unless the voter produces a specified document to the presiding officer or a clerk.” (passport, driving licence, bus pass, etc. or the new “electoral identity document”)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/37/schedule/1
That is enacted but not yet in force: it can be activated by statutory instrument.
“Papers, please.”
“It’s also a fact that when wages are rising at a rate lower than inflation that they cannot be the cause of an inflationary spiral. That’s not possible.”
Economists generally class inflation as demand pull, caused by over-lax fiscal and monetary policies or cost-push, due to workers using their collective muscle power to force up their own wages. We have neither at the moment.
We have what might be termed lack-of-supply push. Obviously if supply is down by, say, 5% we’re all going to be 5%, on average, worse off as a consequence in the short term. Theoretically if Govt used the taxation system to rematch demand with a reduced supply we wouldn’t have any inflation. But once the inflation has started it is just about impossible for any Govt in a democracy to try to cure it by imposing extra taxation. The Govt needs votes much more than they need any taxation revenue!
So whereas, theoretically, inflation could be cured, or at least reduced, by us all taking a wage cut it just isn’t going to happen politically. Even if wages stay the same in nominal terms there will still be an imbalance between supply and demand. Prices will rise as a rationing mechanism meaning that real wages will have to fall in any case. So it could still be argued that nominal wages are the issue.
Only if you think it right to crush wages to solve inflation without tackling rents and profits
Sorry Richard, I think you forgot to add
while destroying the lives of real people and killing many of them, in the process.
I sometimes worry that you hold back from truth.
Richard why are the ECB doing this? I thought the europeans had more sense? Why are they all in on this together? ..are there any economies defying this trend of interest rate rises?
“Further rate hikes flagged in latest ECB minutes
The minutes of the European Central Bank’s July meeting underline its new approach to normalisation: we can do whatever we want, whenever we want
ECB President, Christine Lagarde at a news conference after July’s meeting Source:
ECB President, Christine Lagarde at a news conference after July’s meeting
In these fast-moving times, it is always hard to extract any hints for future ECB decisions from a meeting that took place four weeks ago. Still, the just-released minutes of the bank’s July meeting reveal some interesting insights. Here are our top picks:
The discussion on the Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI) took actually place before the discussion on hiking interest rates. The TPI was agreed upon unanimously.
Concerns about the weak euro came on top of the policy-relevant discussion, with “Members widely noted that the depreciation of the euro constituted an important change in the external environment and implied greater inflationary pressures for the euro area…”
Recession is still a forbidden word in the ECB’s dictionary as it was only used nine times. However, there were many phrases like downturn or contraction, pointing to the same direction.
Wage growth remains key for the ECB to identify second-round effects as “Members agreed that the persistence of inflation depended, to a large extent, on the behaviour of wages. Wage growth, also according to forward-looking indicators, had continued to increase gradually over the last few months but still remained contained overall.”
The rate hikes by 50bp were broadly supported, with few ECB members calling for the initially almost pre-committed 25bp. The fact that many ECB officials, including ECB president Christine Lagarde, had publicly consistently repeated the intention to hike by 25bp since the June meeting was explained by “The Governing Council thereby took a larger first step on its policy rate normalisation path than signalled at its previous meeting, applying the stated principles of data-dependence and optionality. This was seen as providing a clear signal of its determination to act and to fulfil its mandate.”
All in all, the minutes illustrate how the momentum within the European Central Bank changed between the June and the July meeting and also stress its determination to continue hiking rates as the minutes repeatedly underline that the ECB is on a path of normalisation.”
Group think by bankers who have all been persuaded that interest rate rises in the midst of an economic crisis when demand is collapsing will reduce infaltio0n, which is insanity
“Group think by bankers who have all been persuaded that interest rate rises in the midst of an economic crisis when demand is collapsing will reduce infaltio0n, which is insanity”
But it seems every major economy has the same belief? Are there any economies not thinking this way and keeping interest rates close to zero?
China has cut rates
Japan is sticking
This group think goes largely unchallenged by politicians across the political spectrum because it has become to be seen as a non-political “purely technical” issue that is best left to the experts – i.e. the bankers.
Odd that these experts are believed but scientists are not
“China has cut rates
Japan is sticking”
Turkey has gone against the herd and has rates close to zero
And it borrows in foreign currency and is run by an extremist so let’s not pretend it is in the mix
The only reasons I can see for raising interest rates are:
1 Because the Americans have raised theirs and having long since become a colony of Wall street, if the City of London is to retain confidence it has to slavishly copy whatever its masters do.
2 Specifically because of Brexit and more generally the arrogant stupidity of the Tory government of the last twelve years the pound is it on its knees and declining. As ever the only response is to try and prop-up the pound by sacrificing the interests of British citizens to the interests of dodgy offshore money always looking for better no-risk rates of interest.
1) Broadly true
2) Not so much: the euro is declining re the dollar
Richard,
Thats a disappointing response above, I had hoped for better.
The deliberate construction and use of any image in such a fashion is a bias, it is designed to create a particular response, this is undeniable. Its basic propaganda.
As The BBC often heralds it’s own impartiality and fair play in news coverage it was an act they never should have taken in the first place if they held true to their core beliefs. Why not use a stock library image of Mr Corbyn ?
Finally, I can’t believe this needs saying, the actions of Mr Corbyn are not in question or whether or not he ‘made a fool of himself’ or even if they had used the image previously (which thinking about it, would only make it worse)
This is about the actions of The BBC and in particular the Newsnight production team, none of which I might add, you have addressed.
Thank you for being patronising
The image was not Newsmigth’s greatest moment. However, Corbyn chose the image of himself. And he chose to defend the Kremlin when that was very obviously a crass thing to do. Were they not meant to make that point? Why the heck not? Corbyn made a foo,l of himself (and he still is, as are those on the left seeking to defend him on such matters) and I think it was fair journalism to say so.
As I say, maybe not their best moment – but you have it hoelessley wrong
And I wouldn’t bother to argue because I am not going to waste more time on that issue, or Corbyn who is very definitely yesterday’s news
Your definition of ‘facts’ would appear to be at odds with a significant majority of the population.
They are mistaken
I didn’t think that your arrogance could get much greater, but it seems I’m wrong.
It’s hardly any surprise that you’ve fallen out with just about anyone you ever met or worked with! It’s certainly not a Christian attitude either, but you’ll probably suggest Christ was wrong in a number of his teachings too and that you know better!
😀
You might have noticed Christ fell out with most people
I think you should think again
I think this is all correct and certainly the points you raise around the economic issues and climate change are arguably the most important ones.
I think it is telling that a liberal centrist such as Maitlis focuses mainly on the areas where there is a liberal consensus, Brexit and Covid. And she is, of course, correct there was a clear right wing influence over the coverage of both and still is.
But she still has a blind spot over the general orthodoxy that permeates throughout BBC news employees that isn’t necessarily aligned Labour/Tory. You simply do not get hired, no matter who is directing the news output, if you think remotely outside the neoliberal economic orthodoxy.
It wasn’t the Russian hat that angered me about the coverage Corbyn got from 2017 onwards and it wasn’t the video they ran of him as Voldemort. It was the relentless ‘how are you going to pay for it?’ it was the ‘what are you going to nationalise sausages as well?’ it was the scorn poured on the idea of planting 2 billion trees, it was the ‘broadband communism’ it was the way senior reporters talked about nationalising utilities as fantasy politics. Do I think Corbyn’s economic policy was perfect? Of course not. But would I take it over what the two main parties seem to be offering now? In a heartbeat.
You list a number of things here that I completely agree should be treated as unassailable truths by news media. A significant issue is that so many of the things you have listed are treated as if the opposite is accepted fact. And I don’t think it is as simple as a right/left divide I think a great deal of it is the pool of people the BBC draw from as broadcasters and journalists. In the current climate I don’t see how you would ever be hired by them if you expressed the thought that government debt wasn’t a big deal or said that asking how you pay for it is the wrong question.
Sadly I just don’t think this is going to change any time soon.
I think you are close to the bigger issue – which i hope I reflected in my thread, much of which i do not see The News Agents agreeing with in economics
I welcome a discussion about this issue as alluded to with AB in another post.
The big question for me in terms of modern journalism is ‘What ever happened to research?’. I don’t think Maitlis said much about that.
Most if not all of the issues discussed here are promoted by the effective research of its owner – it’s even in the blog’s title – oh for such quality in the media where opinion is too often courted.
Research is not valued, much
And those who are pointing out that Maitlis and her new crew seem to be fairly in the neoliberal construct as are her main podcast rivals in Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell are right
They are liberals alright, but neoliberal ones economically
I think that is the big missing issue in what was said by Maitlis. She thinks populism is wrong. It has not occurred to her and many others that what she is defending may be too.
Wait until spring
I supported and voted for the Labour party in the last general election. They had a very good radical manifesto. The neoliberals knew that they had to destroy the support for Corbyn and through their lies succeeded in this with the help of the Labour party head office workers (see the Forde report) Corbyn was a supporter of Keynsian economic policies and like myself supported the public ownership of many industries,including the utility providers. We now know there is a ‘magic money tree’ called MMT!
We need to educate people to understand how MMT can transform society a.s.a.p. (or else we are doomed to increasing poverty!)
Richard Murphy and his followers are some of the main protagonists to do this!
The key quote that stood out for me, was this…….
And yet every day that we sidestep these issues with glaring omissions feels like a conspiracy against the British people.
It feels like a conspiracy, because it is a conspiracy.
Over 25 years ago but has dated very well……
https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU
Excellent post Richard. Is it worth a complaint to Ofcom every time the BBC misrepresents the truth on any topic, either by suggesting a fact is up for debate, or by stating something very debatable as fact? Is there even any legal route to go down, civil or criminal?
I think there is no legal route
By all means complain…
When Gove made his comment about ‘we have had enough of experts’, he opened a Pandora’s Box in much the same way as Trump’s spokesperson with her comment about ‘alternative facts’. No amount of research or preparation can deal with the now prevalent approach from politicians that dismisses experts and comes up with ‘alternative facts’, no matter how obviously wrong and dishonest they are. We had it with Brexit in spades, with Covid and now with just about anything. Ive never found myself shouting at the TV or radio before, as I have in the last few years.
It takes a particularly dogged, knowledgeable and argumentative interviewer or journalist to challenge this kind of person. James O’Brien, Marina Purkiss, Femi or Krishna Gurumurthy all try in their different ways. If they do they risk being blocked or their organisations attacked, with the BBC being especially vulnerable, and Channel 4 being under attack. I’d be more generous to Maitlis as someone who on Newsnight made an effort but was clearly pushing against the traces. It is more concerning that she and others are leaving the BBC and then making their views clear.
I very seriously doubt that Twitter is seen or used by an even-demographic of the population. It is mostly talking to the convinced and the opposite people. That leaves untouched the people that we would wish to see our “balanced” views and truths. Talking to the converted (and the bigoted) does nothing.
Getting pieces in the tabloids does seem more valuable to me.
Anybody got stats on who sees and uses Twitter.
On the basis of your argument I should never blog either
And given that my tweets are what usually get me on air or in newspaper (7 times in the last 10 days, I think) I am not quite sure how they are a waste of time, even using your argument
Sadly, neither tweets nor blogs have yet brought down this disgusting government. Not an excuse for giving up though!
You are a clever chap and agree broadly of your assessment, yet you have failed to make the final hurdle on identifying the facts vs fiction.
I do not mean that in a disrespectful way at all, as if you were to talk about that, everything else you would say would be immediately discredited probably.
This thing begins with an “S” and ends with an “N” and it is a weaponization of the financial system. That is a fact but the consequences of these financial weapons and what they achieve seem based on fiction.
That means you are being driven by ideology or you choose to not go that far in your questioning for fear of rebuttal of an unpopular view.
The truth can be hard and unpopular, and questioning oneself and to pause, rather than doubling down or conveniently leaving out the “elephant in the room” makes it easier to point the other way rather than have to speak the unspeakable or admit a mistake.
you said “I could go on”…..But you did not.
“What Emily Maitlis seemed to me to be saying in her Edinburgh lecture was that there are truths that need to be told that can be stated as facts without requiring rebuttal.”
Yet it is fear still, she is scared. We still can not talk about it can we?
I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about
A broad sweeping Weaponization of the financial systems in the west.
If I recall aright you said it began with S
Sorry…
This thing begins with an “S” and ends with an “N” and it is a weaponization of the financial system. That is a fact but the consequences of these financial weapons and what they achieve seem based on fiction.
You what? I think you need to be a great deal more transparent if you want anyone to have the faintest idea what you are rabbiting on about.
Ok let’s take for instance sanctions placed on Iranian oil….
Biden would like to lift these sanctions to get the oil on the market, but Saudi Arabia is opposed to this and if the sanctions are lifted then MBS will cut oil production probably to a lessor amount than the Iranian oil coming to market and ruining relations furher between the USA and the Saudis.
So as you can see these sanctions can be easy to come in to effect initially but can become hard to remove.
They can also become extremely undesirable when you no longer want them yet you are made to keep them.
They don’t neccessarily hurt only the state or country they are aimed at but they can also hurt your own interests.
So much so that sanctions may be at the end of their usefulness as a finnancial weapon that can blow up in your own face.
Unforeseen consequences are hardly a new idea