In the few years since we stumbled into recession, it seems as if the British media has reinforced its grip on an unfortunate and possibly even dangerous niche. There is less money, internal conflicts have shaken our belief in the steady progression of democracy and the EU safety net has disintegrated. As a result, we’re scared.
But rather than heeding the inevitably sage advice of Albus Dumbledore, “it is in the darkest of times that we must band together”, we appear to be heading the other way. David Cameron has offered us a route out of Europe into a little England era of protectionism. Scotland, rather than working towards a comfortable compromise of mutual economic benefit and cultural freedom, may be poised to cut itself away completely. Entirely self serving and ill-informed comments concerning the immigration situation in Boston received both a round of applause on last week’s Question Time, as well as support from several high profile British journalists. It is this last group that must shoulder a fair burden of blame for the increasingly fractured nature of British society.
We are currently living through the age of the celebrity journalist. With such a phrase the likes of Richard Littlejohn and Peter Hitchens are brought to mind, but a short perusal through the Daily Mail stirs recognition with the likes of Melanie Phillips, Ephraim Hardcastle and Richard Kay. Regardless of whether one can match these names with the pensive pictures that adorn their articles, their various styles and angles have won them loyal followings and a great deal of column space.
Whist I cannot claim innocence, having regularly found solace in the right on aggression of Charlie Brooker and a sense of superiority at Littlejohn’s expense, I still feel that the danger such writers pose is worth being brought to the public’s attention. And that danger is a spear-header of the increasingly blurred line of comment and news.
Both sides of the political spectrum are culpable. The first five pages of this Wednesday’s Guardian include value judgments in three out of seven headlines; the same day’s Mail boasting over half. The problem is endemic to British newspapers and it is naive to think we can pardon this step away from impartiality by claiming it is “what the public want”: the subtle interweaving of fact and comment osmosing subjectivity beneath the reader’s radar.
However, as much as this recently exaggerated form has weakened the credibility of the front pages of our newspapers, such a writing style has proven popular: it is a somewhat slippery concept and is therefore hard to stop. As such we should turn our attention towards the far more immanent celebrity columnist whose loud voices cannot be considered a force for good. There is something perverse about a writer employed on a daily basis to produce opinions on demand. Something worrying about the ease with which one can form loyalties with a regular and biased voice. And something simply wrong with offering credence and respect to people who are trained as writers and yet comment on the dense and ambiguous fields of politics, society and science.
One such example is a man whose name I’m loath to mention on any forum through fear of inadvertently promoting his cause. A man who, to use his own style of aggressive metaphorical nonsense, is so used to mixing opinion and fact, it would be unsurprising if he considers writing boobs on a calculator a valid mathematical equation. This man is James Delingpole.
Delingpole is a writer for the Independent, was a student of English at Oxford and has taken it fully upon himself to “debunk” the “Global warming Jig”. I do not feel qualified to refute the science he cites, but I do take issue with the inclusive nature of anything pro his preformed opinion and the crawling, self-righteous manner with which he treats anything to the contrary. Whilst one doesn’t have to read his articles, he is increasingly hard to avoid in a media that seems to push the extreme and entertaining to the fore.
And this is where the danger lies.
We must not view these people’s opinions as laudable simply because they possess a well-honed and persuasive writing style. We must constantly suspect them of self-promotion and careerism, at the expense of any vestige of integrity. Their viewpoints are in no way necessarily better than anybody else’s; they’ve simply found a higher platform, and if we pick sides, we are in danger of further splitting our society by overlooking the facts in favour of an exciting spin.