h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And incidentally...we'd kinda expect the police to encounter the worst in society.

See, for me, this is where blogs show their value.

We *know* by virtue of the fact that it's a blog that what we're going to see on that one - a cynical, anti-pc, warts and all look at modern policing. It's likely to be (and very much is) biased towards the average cop's point of view. Aware of that bias, you can then view it critically.

You could say the same about Winston Smith's blog too, substituting "youth worker" for "policeman"

There is little doubt that they are written by people who know what they're talking about, yes?

Now take your average journalist. Very few are experts in one field. In fact, many are really just social commentators. They work from press releases, briefings and interviews - usually with people trained to deal with the press. Some of them go beyond that and work directly with source material* but many don't. They just don't have the time to go in any depth into the subject. That's not criticising journalists per se, it's just pointing out the superficial nature of so much mainstream output.






*Peter Sissons tells the story of how he was told to prepare a report on Subject X shortly after starting work with the BBC News. He asked for time to research the subject and was told "no need, it's all in here" as a Guardian was tossed on his desk.

Well you have a point. As long as we remember it tells us about a policeman as opposed to about society in general. In much the same way that reading, say, a column by Peter Hitchins or Melanie Philips is more an exercise in pathology than journalism.

Don't get me wrong. Inspector Gadget has a viewpoint. I have little doubt that he's given a reasonable account of a case on his patch, if. But there's an awful lot quite obviously wrong with it, isn't there? I say this not with my Leftist hat on but with my critical faculties intact.

In journalistic terms, he (and other coal face bloggers) are not 'Journalists' - they're 'Sources'. The difference is important.




Incidentally, I remain puzzled as to why you think this says anything about the current state of society. Are you making out that it's anything new?

<>

Quite.

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/we-get-the-message-loud-and-clear/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-14370721

As to how this reflects on modern society, consider this excerpt:

" Dawn’s father, and I use that term loosely, has nine convictions for burglary in the last four years and has never served a single day in adult detention. All cases of violence and abuse against family members have been dropped due to a lack of support by victims and witnesses. We don’t ‘police by consent’ on this estate. In 2004 he broke a Met policewoman’s jaw and received a suspended sentence."

Fifty years ago (say), do you think the criminal justice system would have treated him the same way? Bear in mind this was before the massive rise in crime linked with drug criminalisation and Judges were both less inhibited in sentencing and had fewer options.

I'd say agree that very probably he wouldn't have got away with violence against a police officer.

But we know that fifty years ago people *did* get away with sexual violence against family members. And police simply weren't interested.

C'mon, c'mon...you've been studying criminology. You know you need some trend data to back this up.

Ach, I'm not putting forward a thesis

I'd agree that sexual predation within families was at least as prevalant 50 years ago, but there have been changes. My mother was a District Nurse of some 30 years standing. When she started out she had to be very careful in reporting suspicions about abuse because the ramifications were serious. Basically a complaint from a DN was *always* acted upon by social services. She felt it changed after the Orkney child abuse scandal (?) when social workers removed children from a suspected satanic abuse ring (or something like that). It turned out there was no such sex ring and the nurses noticed a massive change in social services after that. From a "no smoke without fire" approach, they adopted an arse covering one, to the point where the nurses *knew* unequivocally abuse was taking place but could do nothing but treat the wounds.

A lot is said about keeping families together, due in no small part I'm sure to the systematic abuse culture in state institutions, but I feel the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Some people are irredeemable imo.

>>Ach, I'm not putting forward a thesis

Well there you are, see. And this is my point. Blogs like that are part of the picture, certainly. But know their place.

Whether or not I agree with the rest of your post is irrelevant in this context (as you might guess, I could find various objections). What you *can't* do is say 'See! See! This copper bloke says...' and extrapolate from that, as though you'd pulled out a trump card. Thats both bad criminology and bad journalism.

All you have there is a single source. Some of the basic facts in it may well be accurate. But even the lay reader can see that he wears his biases on his sleeve. What might he be misinterpreting in the light of those biases? What other parts of the picture might he have deemed irrelevant? Etc. etc.

It goes without saying that the same critical approach should be applied to apparently left-leaning blogs (honest!).

In Journalism, however, and in the best of blogs - whether left- or right- leaning - we sometimes have some clues as to quality. For instance, are we being presented with a range of sources and viewpoints? 'One person says this, but another says that...' etc. etc. I don't mean that awful sham called 'Balance' - but at least some acknowledgement of a wider picture.

There was a program by Prof Brian Cox a while back which was getting at the culture of 'balanced' reporting where the format is essentially here is the proposition, here is a quote from source A supporting and here is a quote from source B against. His point was that this isn't balance, not when, on a matter of science such as, ooooh, evolution, you pitch the source A, a scientist quoting the scientific viewpoint, a viewpoint which has been extensively peer reviewed and subjected to rigorous scrutiny against, say, source B, a religious spokesperson quoting the bible, a veiwpoint which, well, hasn't. It makes both arguments seem equally valid, which often they aren't. OK, I've given a provocative eg, but watch the news for long enough and you can see them doing it, credible source a pitched against random opposing viewpoint just for the sake of having 'balance'. Not just for science either. It does drive me nuts.

Of course, that's the TV news and prolly the beeb in particular, but hey. In some ways it's more relevant - everyone knows the newspapers have their axes to grind, but we do go on sometimes about the neutrality of the bbc.

Good point Solnuska - there was an example recently during the referendum debate when the BBC got some reasonable chap in to argue the Pro case and an idiot in to put the Anti case. On the face of it balance was achieved but in reality...

<>

Unfortunately, I don't think that's really true. I'm sure that there are a lot of people who do not think their chosen regular newspaper has any bias.

Well, that's true about People and their Own Papers, I agree. What always worries me is that a) they agree that Other Papers are biased, but b) the beeb isn't.

It's always more noticable when it's your specialist subject. I can't bear reports about Russia. The negative adjectives they can squeeze into a mention of Putin is impressive. Even when they have no real reason to mention Putin. Plus they will put up their own Russian based correspondent, who might be expected to have a clue, as source A and some numpty who thinks bears roam the streets of Moscow as source B. Their own corresspondant for goodness sakes!

I feel I must deal with...

>>I'd agree that sexual predation within families was at least as prevalant 50 years ago, but there have been changes. My mother was a District Nurse of some 30 years standing. When she started out she had to be very careful in reporting suspicions about abuse because the ramifications were serious. Basically a complaint from a DN was *always* acted upon by social services. She felt it changed after the Orkney child abuse scandal (?) when social workers removed children from a suspected satanic abuse ring (or something like that). It turned out there was no such sex ring and the nurses noticed a massive change in social services after that. From a "no smoke without fire" approach, they adopted an arse covering one, to the point where the nurses *knew* unequivocally abuse was taking place but could do nothing but treat the wounds.

Your mother's opinion is, of course, valid. (btw - snap. My mum was a District Nurse also. And an abortionist)

*However* - please take it from me that Social Workers are still legally obliged to follow up any allegation of child abuse and do so. In fact, such is the state of resources that this is about all they can do. Agreed there is still a general legal principle of 'Minimum Intervention' - but the primary concern is for the child's welfare. Admittedly we can be sure that there are sometimes mistakes.

Incidentally, I'm told by the local expert that the legal history of child abuse is interesting. As late as the 1960s paediatricians were perplexed by children turning up in A&E with broken bones. The parents swore blind they'd been with them all day. So who could have done it? Newfangled American theories about the prevalence of parental violence were regarded as quackery.

>>Well, that's true about People and their Own Papers, I agree. What always worries me is that a) they agree that Other Papers are biased, but b) the beeb isn't.

a) I doubt most people even think about it. They just buy a newspaper. as I've already said, there are many people who buy the Mail who aren't actually fascists. And ask them where the Grauniad or Telegraph sit, they probably can't tell you.

b) What I really hate is the pseudo-balance of the Today programme's adversarial science. John Harrumphries thinks he has to Challenge everyone. There may be a case with politicians (and even then...), but he has the same tone with, eg, someone from the WI. ('Do people *really* need jam?!!!!') It's not about journalism, its about cheap,knockabout entertainment. In a recent incident Graham Linehan was mocked on air for not going along with it, but he was damned right.

Incidentally, it's worth bearing in mind that the Mail is written by women for women (highest proportion of female journalists and readers of any UK newspaper).

Sol,

> watch the news for long enough and you can see them doing it, credible source a pitched against random opposing viewpoint just for the sake of having 'balance'.

It's a very good point, and the BBC are indeed amongst the worst offenders in this. I can entirely see it from their point of view, it sees off potential criticism in times when they are under threat. But, it's often just not justifiable. The interesting thing is that it creates a form of bias - for example many of the people who deny that climate change is happening are really quite bonkers. Not all of them are, but many are. And they get to present their nonsense on TV because of this idea that you have to have balance. But the thing is, there are many other issues where an alternative viewpoint that would provide balance is not heard, because you only need to have this form of pseudo-balance from points of view with powerful vested interests backing them. When do you get to see a news item on an economics issue balanced by a Marxist or anarchist viewpoint?

>>When do you get to see a news item on an economics issue balanced by a Marxist or anarchist viewpoint?

Only on hootoo.




(reminds me...I have something to link on 'Capitalism Kills'. l8rs.)

>>have you ever tried swatting a wasp with a phone? Bad idea!

I can tesify to that: I once swatted a wasp with a copy of Heidegger's "Being and Time".

Broke the mirror in the bathroom, neatly removing the bottom third which fell into the sink and shattered.

>>I once swatted a wasp with a copy of Heidegger's "Being and Time".


Annnnnnnd...Chomskyan Bingo!!!

http://bonoboworld.blogspot.com/2007/03/those-invisible-green-ideas-are.html

I'm flattered.

Actually...that's possibly worth a thread...