Category: Metablogging

The government on Twitter

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The Central Office of Information run a rather good website called the News Distribution Service, formerly the Government News Network. Below the fold are the RSS and Twitter feeds in three groups – aggregate, departmental and regional.

Unfortunately, no-one knows about it as the COI doesn’t do much to promote it despite being “the Government’s centre of excellence for marketing and communications”. It consists of news updates for all the big bits of government – departments, agencies and regions – that you could want. It’s a good way of keeping an eye on what they’re all up to an finding the occasional hidden gem of a press release. They’ve had RSS feeds for ages and now they’re on Twitter (thanks to yours truly).

xD.

Continue reading “The government on Twitter” →

For posterity…

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Norm ‘Normblog’ Geras is running a posterity collection poll.

The story is that, civilization approaching its possible doom (not really, but it’s the premise of the poll), the normblog readership has been assigned the task of assembling for posterity a representative collection of the Arts of Humankind, to be preserved in a sealed container so that some future beings of intelligence, discernment and taste can discover it and be impressed. That’s you and me, and also you. What we all have to do is to nominate under the following 12 headings those artists whose work we would like to see going into the sealed container.

Well, here we go. Continue reading “For posterity…” →

The bully pulpit, or, why I’m Ben Goldacre

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Teddy Roosevelt referred to the Presidency of the USA as a ‘bully pulpit‘. He used the former word in the (Famous Five) sense of ‘bully for you’. In other words, it’s a great platform from which to promote an idea or ideology. Any elected representative can, eventually, be removed from office in a reasonably-functioning democracy. In the USA, the occupancy of the bully pulpit is limited to eight years. However, the Presidency of the United States is not the only bully pulpit; many others have no check or balance from an electorate, reality or vague sense of decency to contain them.

Enter, stage left, Jeni Barnett. Jeni has a radio programme on LBC and used it to suggest that the MMR triple vaccination was unsafe. While my understanding is that the overwhelming consensus is that the MMR jab is not only safe but a very good idea (CDC, IoM, NHS) and that there is, at least, a prima facie conflict of interest in the originator of the research, Barnett has the right to broadcast these opinions, even if they do contribute to declining rates of measles vaccinations. This right is contigent, IMHO, on a sensible provision in copyright law (based, I believe, on earlier Common Law principles) called fair dealing that allows you to criticise and review what people have broadcast (CDPA 1988 s 30 as amended). In other words, the fact that you’re on the radio doesn’t give you immunity from people pointing out your errors.

Enter, stage right, Ben ‘Bad Science‘ Goldacre. Goldacre posted, with some pithy remarks, the relevant bit of Barnett’s remarks; he has since removed the audio because of a legal threat (ish) from LBC. You can read Goldacre’s reactions here; Barnett has thoughts here; interestingly, that particular page no longer appears in her archive or on the front page of her blog.

You can read more about all of this, including some interesting insights on the legal position, over at the Wardman Wire.

Three things come out of this. Firstly, given that Wakefield’s research has been gutted by the peer review process and that the peer review process has consistently supported the safety and efficacy of the MMR jab, I am not minded to give much credence to Barnett’s comments; I just hope that other people do the same.

Secondly, as Goldacre puts it,

without being too Billy Bragg about it all: this is a law that apparently works a bit better for wealthy people.

Thirdly, quite a lot of the denizens of the internet in general and blogosphere in particular get really annoyed when freedom of speech is impinged upon. They’ll have a robust debate with positions they don’t agree with, but if you don’t play by the rules, they kick up a stink that can bring you a lot of negative publicity. The Times has picked it up as did Radio 4’s Start the Week and there’s an EDM in the offing from Paul Flynn MP. It would seem that people need to learn about the Streisand Effect.

You may insert the usual hand-wringing rant about the ‘meedja’ here.

xD.

In answer to Chris Dillow

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Chris ‘Stumbling and Mumbling’ Dillow asks five questions. Here are my answers; number two is the best. I’ve put Chris’s questions in italics.

1. The government wants children to learn about the slave trade. But in 18th century England, how much different were the living conditions of the average slave from those of the average unskilled worker? I mean, both got a bare subsistence living and neither had political rights. But slaves had more job security. So how bad was slavery compared to free labour?

I know the passage from Africa was horrific, and there are examples of terrible mistreatment of both slaves and workers. But I’m asking about averages. Anecdotes aren’t enough. And don’t give me any nonsensical effort to empathise from today’s perspective.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence – the pictures of beaten slaves and of (free) children pulling heavy carts through narrow mineshafts – that life for most people in the 1700s was not pleasant. That, however, doesn’t answer Chris’s question. To do that, we’d need detailed breakdowns of the socioeconomic situation of the various types and classes of people at the time. They are not, so far as I know, available.

However, slavery was not just an economic condition. It is very much tied in to race and religion; the question of whether non-whites even had souls was prevalent. While the economics of the situation are worth studying, the moral justifications that were deployed and the attempt to keep slavery out of sight and out of mind are worth studying too; after all, “one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in.”1

In any case, the eighteenth century was one of great change that saw the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions and the move from the countryside to the city. I would add that, although villeinage had disappeared in England by 1700, villeins existed in Scotland until 1799.

2. The National Gallery of Scotland wants the tax-payer to buy some paintings from the Duke of Sutherland. Why don’t we apply Nice-style cost-benefit analysis here? Would £100m spent on art really produce £100m worth of increases in quality-adjusted life years (by improving the quality of life, not length of course)? And if we don’t apply such reasoning, why not? Why is the restrictive CBA of Nice only applied to drugs, rather than to all public spending?

Actually, NGS doesn’t want to do that or, at least, if they do they haven’t told anyone. I telephoned the NGS’s contact for the Sutherland purchase and they have not announced how they propose to fund it. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they want to take it out of general taxation.

Using QALYs would, in time, almost by definition suggest that the spending is justified. It is a one-off purchase of two paintings that will also secure a long-term loan on a further fourteen pieces of art. If we say that, on a scale of one to zero, one is perfect health while zero is dead, we can give a figure to the change in QALYs from the expenditure.
I quote from the entry on NICE’s website on QALYs:

Patient x has a serious, life-threatening condition.

If he continues receiving standard treatment he will live for 1 year and his quality of life will be 0.4 (0 = worst possible health, 1= best possible health)

If he receives the new drug he will live for 1 year 3 months (1.25 years), with a quality of life of 0.6.

The new treatment is compared with standard care in terms of the QALYs gained:

Standard treatment: 1 (year’s extra life) x 0.4 = 0.4 QALY

New treatment: 1.25 (1 year, 3 months extra life) x 0.6 = 0.75 QALY

Therefore, the new treatment leads to 0.35 additional QALYs (that is: 0.75 –0.4 QALY = 0.35 QALYs).

The cost of the new drug is assumed to be £10,000, standard treatment costs £3000.

The difference in treatment costs (£7000) is divided by the QALYs gained (0.35) to calculate the cost per QALY. So the new treatment would cost £20,000 per QALY.

Let me substitute a little.

Person y has a serious, life-threatening condition; they are alive and therefore will die in n years.

If they continue receiving standard treatment they will live for n years and his quality of life will be m, where 0? m ? 1 (0 = worst possible health, 1= best possible health)

If they receive the new drug they will live for n years (assuming that art doesn’t affect length of life), with a quality of life of m + b, where b is the benefit in terms of quality of life derived from viewing the art

The new treatment, art, is compared with standard care in terms of the QALYs gained:

Standard treatment: n x m = nm QALY

New treatment: n x (m+b) = nm+nb QALY

Therefore, the new treatment leads to nb additional QALYs

The cost of the new drug is assumed to be £50,000,000, inaction costs £0.

The difference in treatment costs (£50,000,000) is divided by the QALYs gained (nb) to calculate the cost per QALY. So the new treatment would cost £50,000,000/nb per QALY.

Let us say that a nice trip to the gallery to see the picture is equal to a positive change of one one-thousandth, or 0.001. We very quickly see that the cost, given that n is constant, per QALY is an astronomical number: 50000000000. That, however, is for one person. To bring it down to the £30,000 limit suggested by the NHS, 1,666,667 people would have to see the paintings. That’s not per year; that’s in total ever. NGS tell me that one and a half million people visit the National Galleries of Scotland per year, a million of which go to the National Gallery of Scotland where the Titian is.

It may be that my assumption of one one-thousandth of a QALY is too high. It wouldn’t matter; you’d have to wait longer to derive the benefit, but it would happen. It is also, of course, possible that it is too low. Not everyone who sees the paintings (the total is fourteen) is going to be someone off the street. Some will be schoolchildren on guided tours who may have a lifelong interest sparked in art; I’m sure you can think of other, equally unquantifiable examples.

You could also add into the calculation the benefit of the continuation of these major works of art to the local economy, including the increased publicity they will receive from the coverage of the possible purchase.

I wonder if Chris has been reading Bentham; the QALY method is the descendant of the felicific calculus and I’m sure that he would like to think he’s had an impact. The reason, I suspect, that this form of CBA is only applied to medical treatments for two reasons. Firstly, medical types tend to have a decent grasp of statistics and so are more likely to come up with ways of quantifying abstracts like ‘quality of life’. Doing the same thing for, say, Trident would be a lot harder as you have to make unprovable, untestable assumptions about the effect of having nuclear weapons. You could say that having a bell on a stick would prevent us from being nuked and it would be just as hard to prove. It is also hard to test the effect, if any, of things like prestige. I suspect, though, that the main reason is that the budgets for the NHS in general and medicines in particular are so large that they cannot be ignored and that, as the Government wanted to move responsibility away from itself, both to avoid the demands of political exigence and thereby to give a fairer result, NICE was set up and went about things in the best way it could.

3. How can academics be so quick to close down free speech? Surely, any proper teacher must know that the solution to mistaken beliefs is to correct them through discussion – that’s what teaching means. Academics must therefore support free speech, by definition. Does this episode merely corroborate my prejudice, that a close interest in the Israel-Palestine question is dangerous for one’s mental health?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of academics who don’t sign up to the scientific method; I point to many of the people involved in promoting creationism or intelligent design and, for some excellent rebuttal, Thunderf00t’s YouTube channel.

Mistaken beliefs should, in theory, be correctable by teaching so long as the belief is honestly held on a misappreciation of facts or misapplication of argument. Often, the aim is not to find any sort of ‘truth’ or answer but to ensure that your side wins; the fervour behind that aim, whether religious or secular, is such that any methods are justified leading to a lack of understanding in why what can be broadly termed the scientific method is important. That leads to lazy citation and research and quoting David Duke.

In answer to the final point, yes. I agree with much of Dave Osler’s thinking about the problems around discussing the area at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean.

4. Companies are moving their head offices to Ireland or Luxembourg to save tax. So, is there something to be said for a cut in corporation tax, financed by higher top income tax rates? The idea here is that companies’ head offices are more mobile than individual high-earners, and it doesn’t matter much anyway if a few of these leave or retire anyway. So we protect tax revenues without increasing inequality. What’s wrong with this?

In a unitary state, not much. However, in a country like the USA, where a slight rise in corporation tax could allow for a reduction in income tax in a given state, making people move to a state next to the state where they work. Indeed, it could make sense for a state to try to ride the Laffer curve if they have a nearby headquarters. Ultimately, it depends on whether the costs of moving justify the rewards of lower taxes for a given high-earner.

As to what might be wrong with this, we well know that the majority of the press will not report such subtleties other than as ‘tax rise’ or an attack on anything resembling progressive taxation.

I have wondered what would happen if we scrapped all taxes except income tax, adjusting the total take accordingly; I suspect, though, that whatever we did companies and other states would play the system to their advantage.

5. Merrill Lynch has lost a quarter of the profits it made in 36 years in just 18 months. Does this show that the profits to investment banking are a reward for taking black swan risk? You make decent profits, on average, in exchange for massive losses on rare occasions? Were Merrill’s profits (and those of other investment bankers) in good times merely a reward for taking this obscure risk? Did they – and their rivals – really fully understand what they were doing, or were they just lucky punters? What would count as persuasive evidence here?

Persuasive evidence here would be pretty hard to come by as we are only looking, for the most part, at the actions rather than the rationale. The turnover in staff may also mean that people came in without sufficient time to analyse the situation and those that did thought that the expectation of the low probability event given a short time at that company was low enough to take the risk. I would add that Merrill Lynch and others may have actually had a role in causing and worsening the crunch that has led to their losses.

Are there interesting, non-trivial answers here that are well-founded in evidence? Or is it that there’s a lot we don’t know?

Both, I’d say.

xD.

1 – cited from a judgement of 1569 by counsel for Somersett, a slave, in Somersett’s Case (R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett) of 1772 which “held that slavery was unlawful in England (but not other parts of the British Empire”

London papers

Posted on by David Landon Cole

London needs greater media diversity.

I’m going to explain the situation, why it’s bad and then propose a solution.

The Evening Standard has something close to a monopolistic position on London news. It is, as we know, the only paid-for London newspaper. Metro, London Lite and thelondonpaper are meant to be read on the way to or from work and are entertainment – hence the huge amount of celebrity gossip – rather than news. Some local papers – the Camden New Journal, for instance – are pretty good, but some areas don’t have any decent, local paper.

I would also say that the Evening Standard focuses (if I may pinch Ken Livingstone’s phrase) on the area around the wine bars and brothels of Westminster and, now, City Hall; it deals with trivia and minutiae. My objections to the Evening Standard‘s position are not because it is right-wing, obsessed with Ken or a bit tabloid. Rather, it is that they are unchallenged in their position. My objection to the newspaper market in London is that it leaves great swathes of GLA and borough politics untouched.

If we move away from the print media, the situation is not good. ITV London News has nothing of the politics of the capital, but only stories of interest. BBC News is, I feel, slightly better but still pretty woeful. Channel Four News and Sky News don’t cover the capital other than in passing. Moving to the online world, I want to weep. The ES‘s main website is thisislondon.co.uk, an entertainment guide, where showbiz comes above news. Its news site, standard.co.uk or thisislondon.co.uk/standard, is very much a second-string site; do a search for Evening Standard and you’ll see that only thisislondon.co.uk is anywhere to be seen. BBC London News just doesn’t have many stories.
In particular, I wonder how many people could name, say, three members of the Assembly. I wonder how many people know what the GLA does and doesn’t do.

I do want to flag three blogs in particular – Dave Hill’s London: Mayor and More; the Tory Troll; and Boris Watch – for their good coverage. While much of their content is great, it is not enough; I hope my reasons why will become clear later on.

All this together effectively gives the Evening Standard a bully-pulpit. While Teddy Roosevelt meant ‘bully’ in the positive, now-arcane sense, I fear that the Evening Standard does not quite match the idea of “a terrific platform from which to persuasively advocate an agenda”. (C-Span Congressional Glossary).

There has been at least one attempt at direct competition with the ES in the past; Bob Maxwell’s London Daily News. Suffice to say, it failed. By resurrecting the Evening News and slashing prices to 5p, Associated were able to stop the London Daily News. The situation now is different; for one, the freesheet model has matured. I’d add that with the initials ‘LDN’, a London Daily News might fare better after Lily Allen’s song.

Equally, I don’t think everyone wants all celebrity news, all the time; I do not want a ‘Lite’ newspaper. The World, Stephen Glover’s proposed, new compact picks up on that idea; see the Wikipedia article for more information.

There is room and need for competition for the broader (rather than just middle market tabloid) London news market. Despite its attempts to move upmarket, ES’s news coverage is pretty poor. It doesn’t cover borough politics and only lightly covers the Mayor and GLA.

However, the ES retains several advantages. One is brand recognition; another is its distribution network. As an aside, I wonder what effect all those anti-Ken placards had in the run-up to the election; at any rate, those placards and the orange vans are a lot of advertising around the city. I don’t think it’s too much to say that the ES and its sellers are part of the street-scape of London; I would say, though, that the distinctive yellows and purples of London Lite and thelondonpaper, together with the muted annoyance at being attacked with freesheets at every station in zone one, have become part of the street-scape, too.

This leads me onto an area where I think the ES has singularly failed to capitalise; the online realm.
If I can take the issue of brand recognition first, ES, largely because of its decision to run as thisislondon.co.uk online, doesn’t have the on- or off- line, perceived web presence of some other outlets. Much as I like it, neither does Londonist – which isn’t really a news site – or thelondondailynews.com (no relation, I believe, to Cap’n Bob’s paper of the same name).

The other devolved administrations – Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, with respectively three, one-and-three-quarter and five million inhabitants – have their own competitive newspaper markets and, I am given to understand, the national papers have regional editions for the nations. London (eight million), effectively the fifth home nation and the economic, cultural and political centre of our country, does not have that and suffers as a result.

I believe that better news coverage and debate about London – effectively the fifth home nation – would be a good thing. The question is how.

In keeping with Guardian America and Guardian Weekly as successful sub-sets of the Guardian brand, I’d like to propose Guardian London.

Its primary issues could be City Hall, including the Mayor, Assembly and executive arms; London beyond zones one and two; transport; the boroughs; the City; and informing people about the reality of London today. Over an eight-week cycle, there could be information on the council politics of the different boroughs, grouped as four at a time. To begin with, there could be a guide – one a week – to each of the boroughs. It should also look at what might be called the civil society of each borough.

The arrival of Crossrail is one particular issue that deserves attention that the existing media offer singularly fails to address. To take just one station as an example: Tottenham Court Road. Crossrail allows for the development of a better, larger, more accessible station but the Astoria and Sin will go and the Paolozzi murals on the platforms need to be maintained. I’m sure there are similar issues at just about every station on the Crossrail line and will be in future on the Crossrail 2/Chelney line. All we will get will be a glitzy, CGI, double-page spread when it’s far too late to do anything about the changes as the station is about to open. Instead of the newspapers giving us news and comment to allow us to form opinions, they’re giving us re-cycled press releases.

It would do well to do profiles of the main people in London politics; the Mayor, various deputy Mayors, GLA members, people who run and are on the boards of the MPA, TfL, LDA, LFEPA and any future authorities for waste, recycling, education, skills, the environment and planning.
Initially, it could operate a purely online outfit. Journalists need not be retained but could be remunerated on the same basis as CiF. If successful, it could perhaps grow to a weekly supplement to the print edition in London, and perhaps the south-east, on Saturdays.

If we look at the blogosphere and social media, the combination of individual blogs, group blogs, media blogs like Comment is Free and Coffee House, Facebook and so on, we see a potentially powerful combination for attracting people’s attention and engaging them in the London polis.

The trick would be to attract people to local goings-on – whether campaigns over a particular issue, calls for involvement, bouncing around ideas or just keeping people in the loop – by cross-pollinating from the main Guardian. There are all manner of local campaigns, organised on the internet, that act on different facets of the same issue that should be given greater, public exposure. An example might be the Better 172 Now campaign to improve the 172 bus route; I’m sure there are similar issues that ‘citizen journalists’ could report that would be of interest to people who don’t live on the Brockley-St Paul’s route. At the moment, they are too fragmented.

Local papers often suffer from a lack of critical mass; the use of the Guardian’s existing online community and brand could help increase the traffic, as (dare I say it) could its more user-friendly website.

Because people move from one part of the city to another on a regular basis, they are going to be interested in what’s going on away from where they live, whether it’s because they go there for work, socialising or recreation. Equally, many ‘local’ issues become London-wide, in no small part because of the re-institution of strategic, City-wide governance. There is the need and the potential for a new entrant to London news.

xD.

UPDATE: An edited version of this post appeared on Liberal Conspiracy.

Blog Nation part 2: qu’est-que c’est le blog?

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Last night’s Blog Nation gathering at the Guardian’s offices was interesting. Two main things came out of it for me.

1. There’s no such thing as blogging

Or rather, there’s no one thing called blogging. It’s a clever piece of software, coupled with the internet, that allows people to do different things. Just ‘political blogs’ covers sites that explicitly politically campaign and organise, discussion areas for groups and communities, sites for self-promotion, personal musings, ranting, communication with interest groups of all shapes and sizes and more besides. This is exacerbated by Labour being in government, meaning that there is no common enemy on which to focus. Even if, though, the Tories were in power, they would not be the focus of even the majority of blogs.

Until people move away from the idea that there is only one effective model of blogging – the trivia of day-to-day politics – the medium will not achieve its full potential. That conflict was highlighted in a panel discussion with Sadie Smith, Kate Belgrave, Zohra Moosa and Cath Elliott when various people raised the disconnect between feminist political blogs and other political blogs. While I don’t doubt that there is a disconnect, I don’t think it’s unique to feminist blogs; as I pointed out, there are lots of blog communities that focus on an abstract issue that have varying amounts of engagement with the generalist blogs.

In terms of making a political difference, a blog that only reaches twenty people may have as much impact as a blog a thousand times as large if those twenty people happen to be party activists who feel it gives them a connection to their local councillor (or whatever) as it can help to improve responsive campaigning and keeps those twenty motivated to knock on doors and hand out leaflets.

A point made by Mark Hanson of Labour Home was that all this new, social media may herald a return of sorts to the halcyon days of town hall meetings; unlike the television, it allows for responses. I do hope so; it strikes me that we’re not there yet.

All the above feeds into commenting. As we all know, there are a lot of unpleasant and fatuous comments out there. This feeds off and gives rise to the somewhat combative, adversarial feel of contemporary UK blogging. For my part, I feel this to be negative as, although there is a place for strong words, it seems to be drowning out engagement on a lot of blogs. This comes from the preponderance of the aforementioned style of blogging.

The indomitable Dan Hardie made a point that was picked up on by Mr Phil ‘No2ID‘ and others; if online campaigning is the visible tip of the iceberg, the greater part – offline campaigning – is there under the waterline. I agree with them; emails, websites, blogs, YouTube and the rest are the tools, not the objective.

My blog is a generalist blog. I hope that I have not given the impression that there is something inherently wrong with that style of blogging; that is neither my intention nor my belief. However, there is nothing inherently right either.

2. There’s no such thing as the left

There’s no such thing as the right, either. I dislike the use of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ as they are, at best, of low descriptive and predictive value. I would go as far to say that thinking in terms of a single axis is damaging for debate in the country, but that is a theme for another day. What was clear was that at this gathering of the liberal/left/progressive/’various people against nasty things’ caucus, there was not a single, unifying leitmotif. You might have been able to find twenty issues that four-fifths of people would have agreed on fourt-fifths of the time, and you would certainly have found groups with greater correlations than that. There will be particular issues and particular campaigns that bring people together from time to time, but to say that there was harmony and concord would simply be inaccurate. If the progressive (I can’t think of a better word) section of the British polity is going to effectively use the online domain, it must remain diverse and, crucially, campaign effectively offline as well.

I would tend to say that the same is true of bloggers who wouldn’t have fitted in at last night’s gathering. There was talk of the ‘right’ being a monolithic entity on the blogosphere (I think the description of choice was ‘pyramid’). Given the range between UKIP, libertarians, wets, dries, Tories, Young Turks, Englishers and so on, I don’t think that the description will hold (if it even does now) once their common enemy – Labour – is out of government.

My thanks to Liberal Conspiracy and the Guardian for organising it and to everyone there for the pleasant evening I had. There are some write-ups and so on over at LC, and I hope more will be appearing soon.

xD.

Blog Nation part 1: thanks, Cath

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I attended last night’s Blog Nation event hosted by Liberal Conspiracy and the Guardian. I’ll write it up later, once I have my thoughts in order, but I wanted to quickly thank Cath Elliott, who writes for Comment is Free, for linking to my post on Nadine Dorries’ use of statistics1 from this post of hers on CiF, entitled ‘It takes two to make a teenage pregnancy‘. Thankyou to everyone else who links to me from time to time… it’s just nice to be picked up by the Guardian.

xD.

1 – ‘like a drunk using a lampost, more for support than illumination’

Two cheers for Tom Watson

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East and Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, has released a code of conduct for blogging civil servants. It reads:

1. Be credible
Be accurate, fair, thorough and transparent.

2. Be consistent
Encourage constructive criticism and deliberation. Be cordial, honest and professional at all times.

3. Be responsive
When you gain insight, share it where appropriate.

4. Be integrated
Wherever possible, align online participation with other offline communications.

5. Be a civil servant
Remember that you are an ambassador for your organisation. Wherever possible, disclose your position as a representative of your department or agency.

There are a couple of particular points that I want to flag – reasons why Tom deserves a cheer – and one big omission from the code.

First cheer

Tom attracted some controversy, and quite a lot of blog-inches were given over to the subject, when he talked about a Code of Conduct for civil servants who want to blog in March of this year. The early version read:

1. Write as yourself
2. Own your own content
3. Be nice
4. Keep secrets
5. No anonymous comments
6. Remember the civil service code
7. Got a problem? Talk to your boss
8. Stop it if we say so
9. Be the authority in your specialist field – provide worthwhile information
10. Think about consequences
11. Media interest? Tell your boss
12. Correct your own mistakes

That is the reason for the first cheer. While the thrust and many of the specific ideas remained, there are clear changes. He asked the experts (and I’m well aware of the irony of calling bloggers experts), listened to the debate and came up with a very sensible policy. I hope people take note – it is possible to have a pretty good debate on a policy in the online world. While I’m sure that the Civil Service had a great deal of input, as is only right and proper, I think we can see the effect of the informal, online consultation as well.

This isn’t just bloggers getting terribly excited at the merest sniff of actual politics (well, it is, but not only). The method of consultation seems to have worked rather well and is novel; rather than just a consultation where you submit responses and they’re collated, people were able to engage in a discussion about the policy.

Second cheer

Greville Janner’s Complete Speechmaker has a wealth of stories and anecdotes at the back. One of my favourite is on brevity:

“We have lost the ability to be brief. The Lord’s Prayer consists of seventy words; the Ten Commandments, three hundred and thirty five word. The EU Directive on the Importation of Caramel – 26,211”

If for no other reason that that the Civil Service Blogger Code is, in total, seventy-nine words, Tom Watson deserves recognition.

However, it is not just the appeal of the style that merits a cheer. As Matt Wardman points out, it encapsulates principles rather than individual rules. That will give it greater longevity and covers some of the problems with the original draft – client confidentiality, for instance, is covered under ‘5’. I know that the civil service code would still apply and that this acts as an addendum to it, but it’s easy to see how someone could, ahem, get confused.

But why no third cheer?

I commented on Tom’s original post to point out the big thing missing from his draft – protection for bloggers. Unfortunately, there are many instances of bloggers being fired from their employment for blogging. The creation of the Code of Conduct emphasises that the medium is new; people don’t know how it works and don’t know what their rights and responsibilities are. This Code of Conduct was an opportunity to establish, in principle, that ‘a right to blog’ is a subset of ‘the right to speak freely’. I’m afraid that, for missing that opportunity, Tom only gets two cheers.

(But they’re quite loud, Tom).

xD.

Opposition response to the state of the blogosphere address

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Like Paul Evans of Hot, Ginger and Dynamite, I hail from Somerset but live in London. Paul has given a ‘State of the Blogosphere’ address in advance of President George W Bush’s final State of the Union address. In anticipation of the final opposition response to a State of the Union address by Bush, this is my opposition response to the State of the Blogosphere address.

Mr Speaker,
Mr Vice President,

Mr Evans began his State of the Blogosphere address by saying that

“Today, we are regularly advised that the blogs are the new fifth estate of British politics.”

The term ‘fourth estate’ was coined by Burke, according to Thomas Carlyle. Prior to the rise of the newspaper, people relied on the priest and the pulpit for news. The power of the fourth estate came from being able to report, independently and verifiably, the news of the day, principally from the galleries above the Houses of Lords and Commons. Here was something genuinely powerful; no longer could time, distance and obscurity protect the powerful in Westminster and Whitehall.

Or so we thought.

Power is not confined to a few acres along the banks of the Thames. It lies also in company boardrooms, and sure enough we see companies – into which I include charities – not only influencing politicians directly but also subverting the press, sometimes with the collusion of members of the press, to promote their agenda, be it sales, policies or influence. Equally, power is not confined to a few acres along the banks of the Thames. It lies also in town halls, devolved assemblies, political parties and any pub or front room where one person sits down to convince someone of something.

News reporting, though, is difficult. You have to check facts, interview, probe and search but most of all, in today’s competitive world, you have to cover an awful lot of ground. While blogs may well be able to highlight what’s going on at the council, they’re not going to be able to say what’s going on in a municipality on the other side of the world; they won’t know if something important is happening. What they can do, though, is act as a filter. I could read, in the New York Times, for instance, about what’s going on in New York city and highlight it for my readers. That is only a worthwhile effort, though, if I say why it’s important or, more generally, why I’m interested in it and why they, the readers, should be as well. Immediately, it is commentary and is filtering (despite the protestations of some about getting rid of the filters) and is biased. None of these things are bad, but they do mean that we should and, I think, do take them with a pinch of salt.

If it is commentary that it is valuable – if it is argument that can change the world – and not reporting the reported, there seems to be little point in half the UK blogosphere linking to a BBC News article on Peter Hain’s resignation. Tell me what you think, tell me why it matters but don’t be surprised if I don’t bother reading your blog if you just tell me that it happened. It would be even better if people wrote intelligently.

‘Intelligence’ comes from the Latin intellego, meaning ‘I understand’. If someone understands the situation, they would, I hope, do more than simply say ‘I like’ or ‘I dislike’. Swearblogs are one of the worst for this; while an acid tongue can help get a point across, many would do well to realise that vitriol is not invective and impudence is not satire.

I therefore question the assertion by Mr Evans about the state of the ‘left’ part of the blogosphere. The Euston Manifesto is changing thinking, for one thing, and I would venture that, as a general rule, more thinking by bloggers, at the moment, goes on towards the Labour end of the spectrum. This is not to say that all is well, or that all is bad on the right; that would clearly be false.

The great poverty of the Conservative-leaning blogosphere is that it did start first, and so it had a few stars at the beginning. Quite why people try to emulate Paul Staines in ‘breaking’ ‘stories’ is beyond me, as he, it seems, blogs more-or-less full time, which most people can’t do, and the stories he breaks are often inconsequential or plain wrong. There wasn’t a second email system and whether Brown picks his nose or not is of supreme indifference. Unfortunately, people seem to be taking the commenting habits of those early blogs as well. What good are fifty posts congratulating an author on a post? If it is a new, struggling blog then, yes, by all means congratulate, but don’t just say ‘good’ or ‘bad’; don’t resort to shorthands like ‘NuLab’ or ‘GuF’. If that’s all you have to say all the time, develop your ideas or get one page on a free host and shut up.

We have here two views of blogging. The one says that politics is best measured by noise; the other says that politics is complex and not measured by a single metric. Mr Evans concludes by saying that “The litmus test of the political blogosphere will be its capacity to sway opinion in the country at large”. On that basis, it will fail. There are too many blogs; they must be aggregated. If it is done by the media, Mr Evans’ thesis falls. If it is done by large blogs, they act in the same way as the media, and Mr Evans’ thesis falls.

Litmus is a crude indicator. Universal Indicator differentiates more finely than lichen extract, and allows us to judge the effects of the political blogosphere not just by its capacity to sway opinion but to improve opinion, to foster debate and hopefully – and this is a lot harder than throwing mud – increase, if not turnout at polls, engagement in civic society. That is something worth blogging for.

And may Tim Berners-Lee bless the netizens.

xD.

PS – The text of Carlyle I mention above, the Hero as Man of Letters, can be found here. Much of Carlyle’s work can be found here on Project Gutenberg.