Marr’s attacks
I'm back. I had a great holiday. England is cold and dank and slate-grey and full of grumpy people. I knew I was home when I saw a miserable-looking old lady in a cyan coat at a bus stop with a tartan shopping trolley. And then I read about Andrew Marr saying that bloggers are 'inadequate, pimpled and single' while I was away.
Sigh.
It's tempting, isn't it, to start off by saying "Ooh Andrew Marr, who the hell is that fuck-ugly Michael Gove doppelganger to judge others by their physical appearance, the weedy little runt; is he just getting back at others for the repeat bullyings he inevitably endured at school?" - but that would be the lazy blogging of crude stereotype; that would play into his hands and go some way towards proving his point. One could even bring up that thing about Andrew Marr; but again, that would be wrong too (so don't do it in the comments, please); that would be exactly the kind of nasty blogging that he's obviously read, and didn't like, so why go and confirm his prejudices by playing up to them?
No. And besides, Andrew Marr does have a point. A lot of bloggers are inadequate fools, let's not deny that. I'm paraphrasing here, but someone (I think it was Suzanne Moore) said they'd been to a blogging event and it hadn't dispelled the notion of bloggers as sad men masturbating in the spare bedroom. Well, that's kind of what a lot of us are: tragic loners tapping away at a keyboard; losers who blame their own failures and misery on the shortcomings of others, and transform that supposedly righteous anger into swearing and abuse; anonymous cowards who wouldn't squeak at anyone 'in real life' but who develop an online persona that's crusading, powerful and mighty, all the things they in reality lack.
It's a fair cop. And Marr was only having a dig to raise a chortle at some literary event; you can see why someone might be a bit sneery about the online world as opposed to the printed one at such a thing, and maybe he was just playing to the gallery. I don't think he's sly enough, either, to have made the comments hoping for a wave of disapproval that would have made his point more elegantly than he could ever have done. No, he just said what he said, and that's fair enough. I don't mind at all.
The only thing I would say is that there isn't a taxonomy of bloggers, just as there isn't an easy way to spot a journalist, for example - though you can always have a bash at the latter. (Do they wear corduroy? Do they smell of booze at 8am as if they might have slept in a skip? Do they look a bit shy, and are overcompensating by shouting on the telephone? If they weren't in a newsroom, would they look out of place shuffling around a library all day in soiled, crumpled clothing? Are they driving a really rubbish car? Do they look like they got dressed in the dark, and yet somehow seem proud of the fact? And so on...) But just as not all journos are like that, not all bloggers are scratchy, marginal characters, 40-year-old virgins or pissant keyboard warriors; some of us actually have lives, and are reasonably ordinary, even pleasant, in real life. No, really.
And Marr is wrong, mind you, to bring up the hoary old 'blogging will never replace journalism' silliness. At the risk of setting up a strawman, since (as someone pointed out to me a while ago) accusing someone of setting up a strawman is becoming something of, er, a strawman, it's a bit of a strawman. I've probably mentioned before I'm doing this thing on Friday, where me and other sad pimpled inadequates will be discussing blogging and journalism and that; can I say now and give fair warning that anyone who says 'blogging will never replace journalism' will get a slap round the face with a dirty, oily old salmon from me? Because that's not the point and it's never the point. No-one wants blogging to replace journalism or supersede it; no-one seriously thinks it will, completely, either. Good blogging can and will complement good journalism, while bad blogging, like bad journalism, drags everyone down. And it's healthy to have some of the old guard challenged by new writers - they'll either up their game or get washed away with the tide. Competition is good for all of us, rubbish amateurs like me and established silky craftsmen like Marr.
So while it's tempting to stick two fingers up to someone like Marr, he's a mainly harmless cove really. He's got a bit of a point, as well. Though it's not true of all of us. I think. Hope. Something.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
October 19th, 2010 - 08:19
Ahh… the first sensible reaction to Marr’s comments I’ve seen. Glad you’re back.
October 19th, 2010 - 08:25
The thing is, what Andrew Marr understands as bloggers is, simply, Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale, and the nutjobs who leave comments for them below the line. That is his whole definition of “blogger”, and in those limited terms his comments make a certain amount of sense.
But it is like attempting a full analysis of what it is to be a journalist with the analysis informed only by Liz Jones and Jan Moir.
Plus he has teh funny ears innit.
October 19th, 2010 - 08:49
Bloggers write because they believe in their message and need to express their personal, independent point of view.
Journalists pride themselves on not have a point of view and write because they’re paid to.
October 19th, 2010 - 09:16
I was merely disappointed at Marr’s outburst. I expect much better from him, as I’ve always enjoyed Start The Week on Radio 4 and will continue to do so, despite his ill-conceived, sweeping generalisations.
October 19th, 2010 - 09:37
Blogging is a medium, really, not a role. Journalists can be and are bloggers, bloggers can become and are in some cases journalists.
It irritates me when people conflate blogging with political blogging, as I think Marr was doing in his comments. There’s a whole world of blogging out there, about a vast range of subjects, and arguably the political blogs are among the worst in terms of the ration between content and quality. It’s sad that they’re also the most high-profile among non-blogging ‘traditional media’ types.
October 19th, 2010 - 09:37
Oops … I meant ratio, not ration. Doh.
October 19th, 2010 - 10:03
Well done for the best title on the issue.
There’s something in your point that wants drawing out further – good blogging is no different to good journalism; the bad blogging of which Marr speaks is no different to tabloid twaddle that outsells the quality papers many times over.
People in general like squalid unfounded gossip, and relatively few of us want properly researched factual reasoning. We could just as readily look at the Sun and Mail and make hoary generalisations about journalists.
By the way, without wishing to appear to slurp your anus, I thought you should know that I did a post about Marr’s comments that, in explaining why bloggers are good journalists, links to Enemies Of Reason.
http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2010/10/andrew-marr-doth-protest-too-much.html
October 19th, 2010 - 10:54
The extent of my reaction to what Marr said pretty much amounted to, ‘you work in a profession that gives money to the likes of John Rentoul, mate. Sort that out and then you can talk.’
October 19th, 2010 - 11:00
Welcome back!
Hope you had a happy newspaper free holiday
I’ve just been away too, the dreadful truth of what awaited me when I got back dawned on me when I was pushed out of the way on the plane by a middle aged couple who then started muttering to each other about how inconsiderate people are nowadays (apparently I shouldnt have been in their way).
In between moaning about the quality of the airline food (what did they expect?) they repeated the “its so nice to get of of Britain … to a place where people speak English!!!” joke in slightly different varients about 5 times.
Then they got bored and started reading a copy of the Daily Express for the rest of the journey.
By the time we landed about the only thing stopping me from leaving the UK for good is the fear of ending up with a load of ‘expats’ who are even worse.
October 19th, 2010 - 11:19
I think Jason is probably right. The word “bloggers” has, in some circles, come to mean not just those who run a blog, but those on comment on those blogs as well. And, as we all know, blog threads attract all sorts of awful people [folds arms and look smug].
October 19th, 2010 - 11:32
Spot on.
Although that was my granny at the bus stop. Cheeky git.
October 19th, 2010 - 13:40
I think Marr’s comments, as someone already mentioned, are directed at what is commonly viewed as the blogosphere: genuinely nasty bastards like Guido Fawkes and more malevolent tossers like Ian Dale.
That being the case, Marr is broadly correct. The problem with the argument though is that it’s a very limited view of the blogosphere – there’s lots out there that isn’t just Tory ranting and nasty rumours.
It is a shame that the blogosphere is dominated by such types, but then it’s hardly different in that sense than the printed press.
October 19th, 2010 - 13:45
“No-one wants blogging to replace journalism or supersede it; no-one seriously thinks it will, completely, either. Good blogging can and will complement good journalism, while bad blogging, like bad journalism, drags everyone down. And it’s healthy to have some of the old guard challenged by new writers – they’ll either up their game or get washed away with the tide. Competition is good for all of us, rubbish amateurs like me and established silky craftsmen like Marr.”
Brilliant observation Anton and many thanks for it (from a local reporter who loves reading good blogs… and I count yours as one of them).
I think Marr and others are rather out of touch… lI agree completely with Jason, because Marr, like so many at the Beeb, they are told by their researchers that Guido and Dale are the only bloggers of note and everyone else is wannabe Guido or Dale. And yet, back in about 2004/5 I was fortunate enough to have dragged Manic (www.bloggerheads.com) into the current affairs department and got him to show off what could really be done on a blog.
In those days Guido and Dale were not even on the radar. Sadly, places like Newsnight and News24 “read the morning papers” seem to love either one of them. Madness.
I would like to state that I believe some bloggers are easily as good as journalists, but that they do do different work.
I once wrote on one blog that the day a blogger sits next to me in the magistrates court, crown court, council chamber, or spends time on the beat speaking with police, or victims of awful crimes, and then writes up the story in a way that is considered fair, accurate and readable, then I will really believe the occasional claims.
But I like your approach better – there is blogging and there is journalism and sometimes the Venn diagrams (is that right, I was crap at maths) merge and merge well.
Nice one Anton. Good luck with the Festival of Ideas event. Will be wishing you well from down in Plymouth.
PS Buy a local rag occasionally. If nothing else you’ll be supporting local reporters working for a pittance…