Category: Uncategorized

Just what is says on the title… <a href="http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_law_glossary?page=1&greekEncoding=UnicodeC">here</A>

<a href="http://www.garyjones.org">Gary Jones</A> has a <a href="http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000084.html">review</a> of the <a href="http://www.extremedemocracy.com/">Extreme Democracy</a> book/blog/wiki thing. The piece itself is a little densely-written, and spattered with invective against Joi Ito and Bruce Sterling, but it is worth persevering with.

Mr Jones makes an fair case against some of the claims made for emergent democracy. He is particularly strong on the need to avoid information cascades (which distort decision making), and the antidemocratic nature of simple majoritarianism. I myself think that he takes a good argument too far at time – I doubt, for example, that Joi Ito really wants to take over the world – but his piece is a useful reminder of the importance of variety, local independence and competition in democratic systems.

His arguments echo one of his earlier pieces, also worth reading, called <a href="http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000075.html">Situation Normal</A>.

From the US: the <a href="http://www.utne.com">Utne Reader</a> has a very positive piece about the <a href="http://www.utne.com/pub/2004_125/promo/11349-1.html">European Dream</a> (over the American dream).

From the UK: The <a href="http://www.ukip.org">UK Independence Party</a> held its annual conference (semi-literate conference report <a href="http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=conference&page=conferencenews">here</a>) at which the <a href=
"http://www.europa.eu.int">European Union</a> was held up as all that is evil and sinister.

We report, you decide.

An interesting day, politically. <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk">Labour</a> have won the <a hrf="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3706100.stm">Hartlepool by-election</a>, though with a reduced majority as you might expect. More interestingly, <a href="http://www.ukip.org/">UKIP</a> have pushed the <a href="http//www.conservatives.org">Conservatives</a> into fourth place (the Liberal Democrats came second). A by-election is not a general election, but if UKIP can do so well in a national election, do the Tories have something to worry about? In the worst-case scenario, a split of the rightist vote could make even the safest constituencies – the <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/constituencies/333.stm">Huntingdons</a>, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/constituencies/617.stm">Wealdens</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/constituencies/390.stm">Maidstones</a> of this world – into contestable seats. The Tories won't want to have to fight on two flanks.

Also, in America, the consensus view seems to be that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64102-2004Oct1.html?referrer=email">John Kerry outperformed President Bush</a> in the first of the three presidential debates. Given that foreign policy is one of the main issues of this campaign, and that people's views of the candidates will be created much more by this debate than by the next two, this could be a very significant gain for Senator Kerry's wobbly campaign. He is known as a strong finisher – could he come from behind in the final furlong?

There are <a href="http://www.thankyoutony.com/">still some people</a> who support Tony Blair's policy on Iraq.

An <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3698436.stm">illustration</a> of how people take in the anti-politician attitudes of the mainstream press comes from the BBC News site. They showed <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3697434.stm">Tony Blair's conference speech</a> to a group of A-level (17/18 year-old) students in North East London, and asked them what they thought.

The students are surprised by how genuine and heartfelt the speech is, but still suspect everything contrary to the media presentation is 'a publicity stunt'.

One of them, a Melanie Stevens says:

<blockquote>"I didn't know what to think of him before because we've been presented with all the negative aspects of what happened in the media".</blockquote>

Well, quite.

<a href="http://www.boris-johnson.com/">Boris Johnson</a> – the editor of the <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/frontpage.php">Spectator</a> and <a href="http://www.conservatives.com">Conservative</a> MP for <a href="http://www.henley-on-thames.com/">Henley</a> – provides an interesting example of how media ethics vary in the US and the UK.

Exhibit A: Mr Johnson's<a href="http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1313243,00.html">article</a> in the Guardian's media section yesterday. In it, he mounts a defence of Andrew Gilligan (the journalist whose report on the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today">Today Programme</a> set off the chain of events that led to the <a href="http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/">Hutton enquiry</a>). Following the principle that the best form of defence is attack, the article attacks any journalist who has had the temerity to criticise Mr Gilligan – who was strongly criticised by Lord Hutton and later sacked. Mr Johnson's argument is a fairly common one in the print media, and goes something like this:

<blockquote>Sure, Gilligan's story wasn't true in exactly the way it was expressed, but the concerns in it were true in a general sense. After all, there <i>were</i> some people who were concerned about the Iraq intelligence although Mr Gilligan didn't know the extent or level of those doubts. The intelligence has since turned out to be wrong. And that Tony Blair, he just seems a bit dodgy, doesn't he? He's a politician, he must have been knowingly deceitful.</blockquote>

For me, as I have said before, this argument just doesn't wash. Mr Gilligan's report was wrong, and accused the Government of bad faith on no evidence. That Mr Gilligan's report was somewhere close to something like true, and that the Government's deceitfulness is now generally assumed, does not change the fundamental fact that Mr Gilligan's report was inaccurate. Journalists are not there to reveal essential verities – we can leave that to the novelists – they are there to reveal true facts.

Exhibit B: The controversy around CBS's report of the falsified memos concerning President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard. Here, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml">Dan Rather</a> made a report based around memos which were later revealed to be forgeries. Outside the political parties and their proxies, the details of Mr Bush's service in the Guard, along with its deficiencies, are not seriously disputed. And yet Mr Rather – a highly respected journalist – is facing a career-marring disgrace on the basis of his story, and a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml">high-level investigation</a> has been launched.

The standards applied to Mr Rather, which Mr Johnson is unwilling to apply to Mr Gilligan, are high. Perhaps, for such a long-serving journalist, they are harsh. But they are right. I would not want to fly on a plane with a pilot who would more or less hit the runway. I would not want to go to a surgeon who had a general idea of where the appendix is. Journalists have an important and privileged position in a democracy, and their accuracy matters too much to be shrugged away. Nearly right is not right, despite Mr Johnson's political or personal vendettas.

Incidentally, Mr Johnson is Mr Gilligan's new employer. I leave that revelation right to the end of the piece, just as Mr Johnson does.

In an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html?referrer=email">extraordinary article</a> in today's Washington Post, former president Carter attacks the Florida state election procedures in terms that leave no doubt he thinks it worse than many third-world countries'.

I'm currently taking part in an interesting discussion on the role that corporations play in American politics. It's on an open conference on the Well called <a href="http://www.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/">inkwell.vue</a>, and anyone can post without being a WELL member.