Slaughter of the cybernats : update of earlier post

I once interviewed a psychologist whose specialism was road rage and for some reason our conversation always stayed in my mind. He suggested that when some drivers get behind the wheel, they morph with the  vehicle and start behaving in ways that are not quite human - and often totally out of character. Gentle individuals who would never dream of giving the finger to someone who gets in their way in the supermarket behave far more aggressively inside their box of steel and glass. 

Does the same phenomenon exist in our political blogosphere? I am referring, of course, to the rows about Wardog and the Universality of Cheese. For those unfamiliar with the tale, Wardog, aka Bruce Newlands, called the Labour Scottish Secretary a C**** . the self employed architect is now under investigation by the university that employed him as a lecturer in building. He was exposed by the News of the World.  Universality of Cheese's Montague Burton, who is today outed as Mike Russell's constituency office manager Mark MacLachlan, had sprung to Wardog's defence, believing him to be a victim of a media/Labour Party sting. So is this an example of road rage on the cyber superhighway? Do bloggers get "carried away" in their vituperation, giving the metaphorical finger to anyone who gets in their way?

I do not know Bruce Newlands/Wardog though he recently friended me on facebook where his postings suggest a pleasant, professional guy who loves soul music -  always a plus point. Very different from his take-no-prisoners Wardog persona - though it should be said he was, like Montague, a left of centre, civic nationalist (but not a member of the SNP) The C-word posting came as a bit of a shock.

I do know Mark MacLachlan, who has resigned after being exposed as the author of Universality of Cheese. The picture painted of Mark in the papers today as a swivel-eyed, ranting cybernat spreading "poisonous bile" is very different from the person I encountered: a highly literate, intelligent and convivial man.  His wit and wide cultural interests marked him out from the robotic wonks you increasingly meet in all political parties. He had lived a real life: he'd directed film festivals, made television documentaries, run his own "Cinema Paradiso" in Newton Stewart of all places and travelled round the world with his family. He really was a think global, act local person. I don't think I ever had a conversation with him in which he didn't mention some idea for promoting his adopted home of Dumfries and Galloway - from harnessing the tidal power of the Solway, to installing a Borders version of The Angel of the North at Gretna. He was keen to market South West Scotland as a world class centre of environmental art, given its connection with Andy Goldsworthy and Charles Jencks. At the more practical end of the spectrum, I understand he was instrumental in getting the local authority to check every bridge in the region after the recent flooding. His departure will be a big loss, and not just to Mike Russell. Others agree with me, see Jeff's posting here. 

Of course being a good citizen in the real world doesn't excuse cyber rage. But is that what it was?  The whole row throws up some very interesting questions about mainstream media v bloggers. Is it reasonable to expect bloggers to play by the same rules as professional commentators? Are bloggers doing what journalists used to do, and should still be doing: getting up the noses of the powerful?  Or do they use their anonymity to defame and offend in a way which is unacceptable? Might some of these "scurrilous rumours" have been worthy of following up? I have no idea of course. They may well have been smears with absolutely no basis in truth. But were they checked out?

Since starting this blog, I've been impressed with the lively political debate taking place in the Scottish blogosphere. There is a healthy number of players and they interact across party lines, linking to the sites of their sworn enemies as well as their fellow travellers. Take a look at this one, where a staunch unionist contemplates Wardog's fate.  Many bloggers are impeccably polite. Some can be combative and crude, but the venom comes in all political colours. This is not a cybernat issue.

Having been the occasional victim of some pretty vile cyber snipping myself,  I understand demands that they should play by the same rules as us paid journalists.  I know my media law and wouldn't write anything on Go Lassie Go that I wasn't comfortable about seeing in my newspaper. But then I am not a true "citizen blogger" and I hesitate to censor people who care enough to contribute to public discourse. The cutting edge does serve a purpose and I wonder about the wisdom of the iron fist approach. How do you distinguish between plain nasty and nasty in the public interest?  You could argue that the "scurrilous rumours" of today's bloggers continue the traditions of Private Eye, the magazine whose unattributable exposes have enraged the establishment for decades. Private Eye prints stories other outlets ignore, for example the Rotten Boroughs (anonymous) column on local council corruption. 

It's also worth noting that the great Benjamin Franklin, a founding father of the United States, wrote under a variety of pseudonyms - as did many 18th and 19th century pamphleteers. Franklin was not above spreading scurrilous gossip about establishment figures using aliases. It was the only way to get allegations against rich, vested interests into the public realm. 

Contemporary bloggers would defend their allegations in exactly the same way. Professional journalists may look enviously at the lack of constraints under which the wannabees work. If a newspaper accuses someone of a crime, it must be sure of its facts or could end up in court.  It can be pretty infuriating when some bloggers act as though they are beyond the law and the even tougher restrictions of the Press Complaints Commission. 

Yet blogs serve a purpose. As budgets are squeezed, investigative journalism that requires time and money is more difficult to do. The Sunday Times is one of the few newspapers that continues to invest in this area. Increasingly,  however, traditional media relies on the web to "get things out there". That isn't much comfort to those who  are victims of lies. Eventually, I'd predict we will see more cases of defamation taken against internet service providers such as Google, which offers a free, anonymous blogging tool. Unfortunately, it will be the wealthy who do this, to keep uncomfortable truths secret....something journalists complained about long before the web arrived.

In addition to innuendo/ smears etc the bloggers are accused of cruelty and poor taste. Here, it is easier to defend them. Print media, especially the so called "regional press" has become bland for fear of offending and losing a single reader. It hesitates to attack any local worthy - including public bodies - in case is affects a penny of advertising revenue. The blogs, on the other hand, maintain the dark satire that has been a feature of political polemic back to Hogarth and Jonathan Swift... or, for that matter, the contemporary caricatures of Ralph Steadman or Steve Bell. The more extreme bloggers are also successors to the fanzine movement of the 1970s-1990s, the post Viz generation. And let's not forget that it's  politicians who are the victims here, a group whose reputation after the Westminister expenses scandal is more lowly than any blogger. That might be unfair on the good guys, but the uncompromising distain expressed in some parts of the blogosphere is indicative of the public mood. And while we are speaking truth to power, we should ask ourselves which is worse: politely-packaged politicians taking us to war on the basis of a lie, or a few bad words bandied about in some obscure corner of the internet?

Irreverence has been with us almost as long as the printing press, though cruelty is now prime time entertainment. Think of the mockery of talent shows and reality TV. Frankie Boyle and Jonathan Ross were censured for their jokes at the expense of others - innocents, not politicians -  but their careers are undamaged. This is the culture in which we live. The mood music emanating from the blogosphere reflects this tone as, come to think of it, do many of our tabloid newspapers, ahem.... check out NOTW's splash on Tiger Wood's alleged marital difficulties today.

Interestingly, after I posted the first version of this, I read that the mainstream's Mr Nasty, Simon Cowell himself, is planning to hold televised political debates.  No doubt this will involve the ritual humiliation you see on X Factor and Britain's Got Talent. Fair enough if it gets the voters talking, though if politics is "showbiz for ugly people" expect a lot of mockery based on personal appearance. Is it any worse than the treatment of David Steel, who never recovered from being a puppet in David Owen's pocket in Spitting Image all those years ago? Or Cathy Jamieson being irrevocably damaged by Jonathan Watson's (unfair but hilarious) portrayal of her as a wifie laden down by Primark bags?

This is the context in which we should judge bloggers who misbehave, adding bite to the debate in the precess. Given our constant hand-wringing about disengagement from the democratic process, apathy etc, we'd be fools to rush in and crush those who are genuinely excited about politics. Or even over-excited. 

Now if you will excuse me I'm off to vet my comments section, just in case anyone's got carried away...

SEE ALSO MY SUBSEQUENT POST More thoughts on blogging, the mainstream media and hypocrisy

Comments

[peter1958]

Sorry Joan, I know its bad manners to respond to the posts of others, but the comments of "Juan" are just too funny to leave alone.

The thought of the labour Party recruiting armies of bloggers to defame SNP politicians is just too funny.

Juan, the Labour Party can't organise a decent jumble sale let alone a coordinated cyber attack.
If you have evidence to the contrary - then let us all know.

Besides, I would be gutted to think I hadn't been invited to that party. I can smear with the best of them!

[Jeanne Tomlin]

Now you notice someone going on about how horrible it is for nationalists to smear Labour and then states: "if she is right, then the SNP leadership is truly despicable, no need to mince words..."

And provides not even a smidgen of evidence. I believe the correct phrase for that is pot, meet kettle.

As an American with an intense interest in Scottish politics (a strange thing, but that's all right), I have been struck time after time after time by the intensity and viciousness of the attacks on-line against nationalists.

Do you see Alex Salmond going around whining and threatening lawsuits because bloggers (and I could point you to a LOT of them) call him a c*nt and worse? How many times have I seen NATIONALISTS called sewer scum, racists, etc., etc.

I would be REALLY interested in seeing NotW in attacking those bloggers. Do I EXPECT to see it happen? *snort snort*

AYE, RIGHT!

[ayewecan]

a thoughtful post. I have never met Mark McLaughlin, but in my on line dealings with him I too have found him a very rounded person with the cultural interests you mention. To me though this only makes it more remarkable that he posted what he did and expected to get away with it.

I take you point about jounnos and former journos having a better grasp of media law etc than amature bloggers, but surely anyone can grasp calling someone( least of all the Secretary of State for Scotland or the political editor of NOTW) a "cunt" on a blog that can be read freely by millions online might bring some difficulties somewhere down the line....say it in a pub youd most likely get a sore face, in a newspaper a big fine and more. So why do bloggers somehow think if you say it online and sometimes anonymously its ok?

[Edwin Moore]

Hmm. Have mixed feelings on this. I first encountered wardog on the Steamie when he brusquely took me to task for doubting the wisdom of we Scots perceiving ourselves as having an innate tradition of 'compassion'; but afterwards, I decided to look up his blog and lo, he turns out to be an interesting guy with some interesting things to say.

I have to say I left off looking at his blog because of the language; life's too short for reading rants.

You give a spirited defence of your friend Mr MacLachlan, but the Sunday Herald has this to say today -

'Mr MacLachlan suggested some Labour politicians got a sexual thrill from bullying women, branded a prominent Tory “the biggest liar in the Scottish legal system”, and posted a picture of Gordon Brown in a noose with the headline “duplicitous lying bastards”.
He also alleged a married Labour MSP visited gay cruising spots, badmouthed the daughter of Lord David Steel, the former presiding officer at Holyrood, and described several opponents as “c***s”. Mr MacLachlan had been employed at public expense since 2007.'

Mr MacLachlan may be as nice a guy as you say in everyday life, but if what the Herald is saying is true he is totally out of order.

A couple of random thoughts:

Smears have always existed in politics but Scottish political life seems especially bad - you probably remember Margo MacDonald writing about her belief that the SNP leadership quietly briefed against her when she was diagnosed with her illness. I do believe that the heat needs to be taken out of Scottish political discourse and that we should all watch our language, and reserve our strong language for occasions such as the Margo example (if she is right, then the SNP leadership is truly despicable, no need to mince words).

Your reference to Private Eye is interesting, as many of us have traditionally looked there for stories that are not covered in Scotland. Indeed you should take some credit yourself on the matter of covering the Scottish ''dark' side - I think you were the only journalist writing about the Chirnsyde Comuunity Centre, for example, which should have been a massive story but somehow wasn't.

Bringing up Benjamin Franklin is also interesting, as it now seems he may have been a British as well as an American spy - he possibly got so involved in his personas that he sometimes forgot what his real individuality was. A lesson for many Scottish bloggers, perhaps.

[More]

Regarding the comment about Simon Cowell and his politics show, as the Eye pointed out a few weeks ago, this idea was previous carried out by ITV and one of Cowell's new collaborators. In that instance, the public decided to vote, repeatedly, for what the Eye called "A swivel-eyed fascist", who was described as being anti-immigrant, anti-gay and anti-everything.

I'm not sure what that says about the British public or about ITV's viewers, but I have a feeling that no good will come of this.

[Juan]

Indeed Joan the DTP have vested interest in slaughtering the Independence support. More often than not , the bloggers call into question the veracity of their output.

I note no mention of the Labour candidates who are also involved in smearing bloggers. They actually have an outsourced department to carry it out. How very new Labour.....