But we all have different approaches to these matters, and different words mean different things to different people, but to read others making broadly similar criticisms in relation to political discourse perhaps invites a degree of retrospection and introspection. Thus I occasionally cringe at what others have written, but on reflection perhaps use similarly toned criticisms myself. And reading something I've written a day or two previously it often seems overly harsh, although I suppose that the standards displayed by what's been described as the more sociopathic side of the blogosphere perhaps helps return a sense of perspective and proportion to the more self-critical approach.
Of course, another facet of this issue is that others will view my own writings differently, and this may be skewed by partisan or personal matters. Indeed, some of those criticised may deflect attention by taking offence, and in turn this may be genuine, or merely synthetic. For example, I recall a couple of years ago using the words "hypocritical" and "ill-informed" in the local press in relation to a political figure - note that I didn't call this person a hypocrite, but merely called their stance hypocritical, on the grounds that the latter sounded less harsh and personal than a more direct description. Nevertheless the response was that I was guilty of a highly personalised attack. But since the response completely side-stepped the substantive issues that I'd related the criticism to then it all looked simply like crude diversionary tactics. And, of course, the criticisms weren't what I'd call 'personal', because they were about this person's public stance on a political issue rather than relating to purely personal matters.
My caution on these things is one reason I avoid contact with officialdom on potentially emotive issues, and prefer to keep things in writing rather than verbal - at least there's something to fall back on if things get distorted. And interesting in this regard was a recent article in the Telegraph about the reluctance of some local authorities to disclose the remuneration of their top officials, despite the wholly reasonable public interest in such matters. The rationale for this was reported thus:
But local authorities claimed that the pay disclosures would leave their staff vulnerable to reprisals from taxpayers. They argued that officers would be subjected to “personalised attacks and mischief making”.Thus it's entirely plausible to imagine a scenario whereby merely challenging a politician or public servant (or anyone, for that matter) could be misrepresented as something more sinister, and thus the complainant unfairly discredited and demonised.
And even if, as mentioned above, everything is kept in writing things can easily be misrepresented, particularly in what seems to be an increasing ethos and acceptability of dishonesty and distortion among many people; to put it as charitably as possible, for some the ends seem to justify the means. For example, a proffered piece of what I thought was some well-intentioned and constructive advice was recently bent and twisted so out of shape that I ended up being portrayed as a "dribbling loony" and a threat to the recipient and their family, inter alia.
Moreover, despite our apparently restrictive and illiberal defamation laws*, countering such scurrilous attacks is a tricky process, and not one for the faint hearted. I've no doubt that the libel jurisprudence does indeed favour big corporations and rich individuals at the expense of bloggers and citizen journalists et al, but reverse this scenario and it's not so easy for those of us at the bottom of the pile.
Thus the relevance of the above to the current debate on Gordon Brown and bullying should be obvious. As is usual in such scenarios, my own perspective is that there's very probably an element of truth in both the allegations and consequent rebuttals, but no doubt with the usual large dose of over-egging and hyperbole. Thus ultimately all such accounts should be taken with a substantial pinch of salt, albeit that this may be unfair on the more reasonable and truthful versions of events, but such is the cost in terms of mistrust arising from the culture of spin and dishonesty in the public sphere. In short, who can you trust?
And one particular exchange vis-à-vis the prime minister was perhaps particularly illuminating regarding all of the foregoing.
One last night's Newsnicht Paul Sinclair, a "former No 10 special advisor" to Gordon Brown, defended him eloquently, including the compelling comment that "intimidation is in the eye of the beholder", which essentially equates to much of the above - what may seem ostensibly objective from an individual's perspective can be subjectively interpreted and represented by others, reasonably or otherwise. There's no strict dichotomy between objective truth and subjective opinion.
Unfortunately Mr Sinclair, in my opinion at least, completely undermined his remark and made a bit of a fool of himself when pressed by Glen Campbell on the question of whether he considered that bullying in Downing Street may have been an issue in the past, if not presently. In response to what seemed entirely fair, but robust and probing questioning by Mr Campbell, Paul Sinclair responded**:
As I've said, Glen, please don't bully me, I feel quite intimidated. I'm not going to name names, nor am I going to phone a helpline...Thus Mr Sinclair's response to what seemed in the journalistic context a wholly reasonable line of questioning appeared entirely unreasonable and disproportionate, and underlined what he said about these matters being in the eye of the beholder, but at the same time completely discredited him with his overreaction to Glen Campbell's interrogation. Frankly, if someone in the political sphere - and who has indeed worked in the Downing Street environment - can't withstand this kind of probing without resorting to such nonsense then they should be in another job, as was my line of thinking in relation to the local politico who I described as ill-informed and (almost!) hypocritical and who responded by accusing me of a personal attack but without addressing the issues, as described earlier. And if a blogger (say) considers it "offensive" to repeat a previous comment after a certain (unspecified) period of time then perhaps they should either address the substantive point or take a long, hard look at themselves.
Thus perhaps the lesson from all of this is simply to tread carefully, and from a personal standpoint I can only hope that Paul Sinclair isn't reading this - no doubt he has deeper pockets than me!
Previously I might have ended a post of this nature on a note of optimism - the truth will out, or suchlike - but experience dictates an increasing cynicism, and indeed perhaps defeatism.
*To the best of my (limited) knowledge I'm not aware of Scots law being substantially different from that pertaining to England and Wales in this regard, the latter being the subject of the Telegraph comment piece.
**The interview with Paul Sinclair runs from 4:40.
0 comments:
Post a Comment