Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Missing: The Guardian's Spinal Column

Page: (1)2 3

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:32 / 25.10.04

Many thanks to fridgemagnet for bringing this to my attention.

Charlie Brooker writes a column about television called Screen Burn for The Guardian. On Saturday, his column was about the televised presidential debates between Bush and Kerry. Fridge has mirrored the column here. It ends thus:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Obviously this is humorous, but I hope we can all agree there can be little in the way of credible moral objection to wishing for the assassination of Bush. A strategic objection, sure, but not a moral one.

Predictably, the Guardian has been inundated with complaints. Ever-keen to appease the right and cowtow to the forces of reaction, the Guardian pulled the piece from their online archive and printed an apology. What spineless fucks! What shitty cowards! Thus always with moderates and centrists.

Remind me why I ever buy this paper again?

12:54 / 25.10.04

The jobs section on a Monday?

13:02 / 25.10.04

Well, to play Devil's Advocate for a minute: "entirely justifiable" is in the eye of the beholder, innit?

I mean, if Brooker had ended a column on, say, media coverage of the Intifada with this...

"Yasser Arafat is a bloodthirsty shit-tick who has surely proven, by this point, that he has no interest democracy, no interest in the rule of law, no interest whatever in improving the lives of his people as long as their collective misery is of benefit to him personally. That both the Israelis and the Palestinians would be better off without him is indisputable: If some true Palestinian patriot—some enterprising suicide bomber—were to blow his rancid guts to Hell, it would be a martyrdom of which all civilized peoples could approve. In the absence of such, we can only pray that the Mossad can improve on its long record of near-misses."

...would you complain? If so, would you then be a reactionary fuck?

13:05 / 25.10.04

Oh, wait... just spotted this bit in your initial post...

...I hope we can all agree there can be little in the way of credible moral objection to wishing for the assassination of Bush.

I see we're starting from very different places, here.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:05 / 25.10.04

No, I probably wouldn't complain - Arafat has conceded far too much to the Israelis in his time.

13:07 / 25.10.04

By God's Sack, read Julius Caesar! The only thing lead injections do is turn tyrants into saints.

13:09 / 25.10.04

Arafat has conceded far too much to the Israelis in his time.

Way to score radical cred without seriously addressing either the ethical implications of your stance or the issue of the double standard. Well-played, sir!

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:15 / 25.10.04

Thanks, Jack!

(Malle Babbe, read the bit where I talk about strategic objections.)

Okay, Jack, I'll play: so if someone made a joke in print about wishing for the death of a figure I actually admired and thought was doing good, would I complain? It depends on which publication it appeared in. I might complain if it was The Guardian. I wouldn't bother if it was on some loony right-wing warblogger's site, or in the New York Post. I wouldn't expect them to care.

The point is, most of the people who complained about this joke hate The Guardian, and always will, because they perceive it (astonishingly) as a radically left-wing and liberal publication. The Guardian should not back down to these people.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:24 / 25.10.04

I mean, if someone did actually shoot Bush, I'd be pretty horrified because it would be a massive strategic error. It would probably make the current situation worse. But would I think that the person who did had made hirself just as bad as Bush himself, or something like that? Of course not. That would be silly.

13:36 / 25.10.04

The Guardian should not back down to these people.

These people.

Mm-hmm.

But should they, hypothetically, back down to clued-in, right-on folks such as, oh, I dunno, yourself? Does a newspaper have an obligation to print things that will please (and perhaps to not print things that will not please) people who share its editorial biases? If so, then in what meaningful sense is it still a newspaper?

FWIW, I think the Guardian was pretty craven to withdraw the piece—but (a) I don't think it was a very good piece to begin with—Charlie's drop-off since the glory days of TV GO HOME has been pretty precipitous, and (b) articles of a similar tone and character appear every day in magazines, small newspapers and websites, but they do not draw comment because those publications are read only by people who already agree with the publication's ideological slant.

And not to muddy the waters, but that state of affairs—of well-intentioned people being able to seal themselves in an ideologically-pure media bubble, an ethical echo-chamber—seems to me far more shameful than finding the satirical lionization of Lee Harvey Oswald objectionable enough to fire off a sternly-worded letter to the editor.

And can we/should we draw a distinction between wishing for the death of a public figure and wishing for them to be assassinated? I think it's a small but crucial difference. Do you?

13:38 / 25.10.04

But would I think that the person who [assassinated Bush] had made hirself just as bad as Bush himself, or something like that? Of course not. That would be silly.

Okay, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's where we part company.

Buh-bye.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:52 / 25.10.04

But should they, hypothetically, back down to clued-in, right-on folks such as, oh, I dunno, yourself? Does a newspaper have an obligation to print things that will please (and perhaps to not print things that will not please) people who share its editorial biases? If so, then in what meaningful sense is it still a newspaper?

In the sense that every newspaper ever has been a newspaper? (This is an odd conversation. I think you're right about us coming from very different places.) The sad fact is that even if there is a hypothetical Platonic ideal of a newspaper that is 'objective', such things do not exist in practice. In the face of a far greater number of publications with a right-wing bias, the best one can do is produce a publication that attempts to redress the balance. The Guardian does this quite often. But it often fails, by doing ill-advised things like giving a platform within its own pages to right-wing commentators, and by making concessions like the one above.

As I said: I would never expect a right-wing publication to back down to a complaint from someone like myself. I doubt it would cross their mind. This is one of the reasons the right usually wins.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:00 / 25.10.04

I hope we can all agree there can be little in the way of credible moral objection to wishing for the assassination of Bush. A strategic objection, sure, but not a moral one.

And here I would have hoped that we could all agree that murder was a bad thing.

Are you going to tell me he's a special case? That he's so dangerous that we should waive the usual laws and standards? Only, that's exactly his position regarding Al Qaeda. It seems it's not his approach you dislike, just his targets.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:01 / 25.10.04

Hoom. Possibly an issue is that it is a felony to express a wish to kill (or by extension a wish to see killed) the President (or the Vice President, or the president-elect. I think you can express a desire to kill the Veep-elect with impunity) - to do so will often lead to investigation by the Secret Service. Now, this is complicated by the fact a) that Brooker is British and b) that Brooker did not express a wish to kill Bush. He asked a question to which the answer is "he's in jail, they're dead". As such, I don't see that a threat against the life of the President is being made. Watts vs US, 1969 came to a similar conclusion in the case of a man who said that were he to arrive in the army, which he would never do, the first person he would want to use that rifle on would be LBJ rather than his black brothers. The point being that he has already said that he is not going to take up that rifle, therefore the act of violence against the president is conditional upon something that could never happen happening. By the same token, I don't think Booth, Oswald or Hinkley are viable weapons.

However, maybe the Guardian decided that it was making a rod for the Democrats' back. The office of the President has a specific value and importance, and to see a press supporter of John Kerry printing what appears to be an appeal for the death of that president is likely to turn off exactly the people Kerry needs. You can see Fox saying "The Guardian doesn't want to see a single terrorist executed, but they're happy to kill the President of the United States. In the wake of Operation Clark County, we ask: has anyone told the Brits they're the junior partner now?" At which point I'm not sure whether adding "yeah, but Charlie Brooker wants to kill Jamie Cullan a lot more" is going to help.

Of course, there is then the question of whether other nations' free presses should have to tiptoe to avoid providing succour to the American Right...

14:17 / 25.10.04

And here I would have hoped that we could all agree that murder was a bad thing.

Table for two at Club Bourgeois, Mink.

Let me get you a drink: they know me here.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:30 / 25.10.04

Isn't that a bit easy, though? I mean, if you could be fairly sure (which in this case, you can't, of course) that Bush's death would see the end of policies that are currently causing massive death, poverty and misery, and may in the future cause the end of human life, and if there was a piano heading his way from the fifth floor, would you not feel just a bit Heathcliff if you pulled him out from under?

There are many good reasons not to condone killing of any stripe. However, "death is a bad business for good people to mix themselves up in" is not in itself a complete argument.

Of course, there is also the question of why the Guardian should pull the story, which it did not, for example, do for Julie Bindell or any number of Julie Burchills, or indeed for Brooker's far more clamorous homicidal feelings toward Jamie Cullen. It may or may not be right to withdraw the story from Guardian Unlimited. It is indubitably inconsistent.

14:33 / 25.10.04

Room for one more, Jack?

I think the Guardian was probably right to issue the apology, cowardly though it may be. I think that if you want to maintain an objection to assassination (Israel is an obvious example here), even in jest (like the famous Ann Coulter incident) then you really want to avoid sounding like you are encouraging it. Otherwise, as Celibate Mink says, you give the impression that killing people for a political end is not something you have a problem with in principle.

And I can see why the Guardian would want to back away from that, even though the concession is an admission of weakness.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:40 / 25.10.04

On the issue of why it would be wrong to actually kill George: whatever - we agree that it's not actually a desirable event. I think Haus is absolutely right about inconsistency: the thing about Burchill's hateful screeds is that The Guardian thought they were, y'know "letting the other side have their say"... Presumably what is happening here is that The Guardian want to appear even-handed and counter the impression that they lean one way or the other - they wouldn't apologise for Burchill or Bindel because they could point to the paper's record elsewhere on the issues involved (in theory). This is all horribly misguided, and I firmly believe they're over-compensating.

14:42 / 25.10.04

Are you going to tell me he's a special case? That he's so dangerous that we should waive the usual laws and standards? Only, that's exactly his position regarding Al Qaeda. It seems it's not his approach you dislike, just his targets.

and what, exactly, would be the problem with that? i don't have any moral objection to assassination per se. if i thought we could stop terrorism by killing bin Laden, i would pull the trigger myself. however, in the real world, that sort of approach doesn't actually work in many, if not most, perhaps even all, circumstances, and usually pursuing it is merely inviting a backlash which is worse than the original problem.

Bush is recklessly pursuing a counterproductive strategy that endangers the safety and well-being of more people than it helps. he needs to be prevented from doing so. as it happens, i don't think killing him would prevent the rest of his administration and his half of the American populace from continuing on their present course, and would also invite a backlash. accordingly, i oppose it, but that's really the main reason.

if, by eliminating one key person at one key time, you could prevent the suffering and death of thousands, perhaps millions, i can't see a moral case for not doing it. the problem is that life rarely presents such simple solutions to complex issues.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:59 / 25.10.04

I mean, if you could be fairly sure (which in this case, you can't, of course) that Bush's death would see the end of policies that are currently causing massive death, poverty and misery, and may in the future cause the end of human life, and if there was a piano heading his way from the fifth floor, would you not feel just a bit Heathcliff if you pulled him out from under?

Sure. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do it - especially since he has a track record of being reborn as a new person. However, that's not really the point. There's a world of difference between wishing someone wasn't in power (or even wishing they'd get struck by some kind of ludicrous falling Steinway) and actively hoping for their assassination. I definitely wish Bush weren't President of the United States. That puts me in agreement with somewhere around half of the electorate in the US and a somewhat greater percentage of people world wide. I don't wish him assassinated, ever, by anyone, because that's not how I want politics to be conducted anywhere.

I agree that Bush's re-election could mean dreadful events. It's also possible that those dreadful events are necessary to demonstrate the wrongness of his views and conduct, and that it's important he should have to deal with the consequences of the last four years, rather than a Democrat. I don't know. These things cannot yet be reliably modelled. But increasingly I believe in 'first do no harm' politics.

Tryphena Absent

14:59 / 25.10.04

But would I think that the person who [assassinated Bush] had made hirself just as bad as Bush himself, or something like that? Of course not. That would be silly.

Okay, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's where we part company.

Buh-bye.

I don't believe in an eye for an eye but I don't think that person would be as bad as George Bush, a man who has killed not only thousands of Iraqis but also a fair number of his countryfolk. On top of that let's not forget Guantanamo- no it would be difficult to be as awful as Bush. There are times when you have to forget your moral obligations and those times usually relate to the abuse of power and the misuse of an institution like the American government and I'd suggest that George W. Bush has abused, misused and caused a level of pain that has hindered the quality of life of far too many people.

I wouldn't dream of murdering anyone myself but I wouldn't cry over George W. Bush if he was assassinated. The article that this thread refers to is not about morality or even the will to kill the President, it's simply about wishful thinking. There is no inherent threat in the writing so then what are you all arguing about? The moral absolutes that surround the sanctity of life? Well that sanctity is bullshit because we all sacrifice it eventually, some of us for partial birth abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, assassination, execution, warfare, the overthrow of a dictator, women's rights in Afghanistan. It's logically impossible to believe purely in the sanctity of life because decisions made on the subject contradict one another. And it's absurd not to recognise that there is nothing purely immoral about wishing George W. Bush was wiped off the face of the earth. This is person who has performed more immoral acts than any of us who wish that someone would knock him off.

Essentially though we're talking, not about the concept of murder but the wish that Bush would disappear. I'd be very surprised if you'd never, ever thought about the relief of waking up one morning to a particular news item that said Bush had... gone. Realistically he isn't going to just go away so who can blame anyone with a sense of proportion who wishes the man was wiped out by another human being.

15:01 / 25.10.04

On the issue of why it would be wrong to actually kill George: whatever - we agree that it's not actually a desirable event.

I dunno, I think it is quite an important point myself. The opposition to Bush's policies becomes a lot weaker if you simply think he is killing the wrong people rather than having a moral objection to killing for political ends. (Thats really oversimplified, and I should really pin my colours to some ethical theory with regards to war or political violence for that point to work. Suffice to say, that I can't imagine any such point of view that thinks it is ok to kill an elected leader like Bush and yet objects in principle to asssassination in other situations.)

Also, is

they wouldn't apologise for Burchill or Bindel because they could point to the paper's record elsewhere on the issues involved

a good comparison? Did Bindel actually call - in a light hearted jokey way, of course - for transpeople to be killed? I don't recall. Though I imagine Burchill probably did say comparable things, being the sort of writer she is.

15:04 / 25.10.04

Bush is recklessly pursuing a counterproductive strategy that endangers the safety and well-being of more people than it helps. he needs to be prevented from doing so.

Good thing, then, that elective democracy has a built-in mechanism for removing him.

Boy Fly: ...I firmly believe they're over-compensating.

Entirely agreed; apologize if you must, disclaim if you must, but keep the article available. The Guardian, to be true to its liberal principles, should know that the way to deal with offensive opinion is with counter-opinion, not by stifling the offender.

It's an open (and interesting) question, though, whether liberalism's obsession with "fairness" and equal time for opposing viewpoints is really helpful. I think that calling it "horribly misguided" as a general principle is overstating the case, but it certainly happens that, in their dedication to "balance" as a prerequisite of trustworthiness, news outlets sometimes lend credibility to unreliable sources.

This is particularly true in science reporting, esp. in US media coverage of global warming, where shills for petrochem-industry think-tanks are routinely given rebuttal time to dispute whether the phenomenon even exists.

Tryphena Absent

15:05 / 25.10.04

It's also possible that those dreadful events are necessary to demonstrate the wrongness of his views and conduct, and that it's important he should have to deal with the consequences of the last four years, rather than a Democrat

If people can't see that Bush has already demonstrated the wrongness of his views, his inability to help people with no advantages at all, his willingness to kill institutionally through use of war and of course capital punishment than they won't see it. This is not someone who has made a mistake, he's someone who's carrying out a method that he thinks is right. There won't be any consequences for this man. All his problems have already begun and it's obvious that they are not biting him in the arse. All this toss about consequences is a myth that we're constructing so we don't cry when he gets in again... but if that happens than we should be crying because George W. Bush is a fascist and moreover he's going to get away with it.

15:14 / 25.10.04

I dunno, I think it is quite an important point myself. The opposition to Bush's policies becomes a lot weaker if you simply think he is killing the wrong people rather than having a moral objection to killing for political ends.

i disagree. i think that arguing morals is seldom productive. some people think it's OK to kill "the bad guys," some people don't, others do in some situations but not others. most people know how they feel on the issue, and any appeal to morality inevitably falls on deaf ears. you tell a voter "you shouldn't vote for Bush, because he kills people, and you shouldn't kill people," the immediate response is "says who?" and the conversation stops there.

it's much more productive to attack Bush as incompetent, rather than immoral. you're never going to convince people that killing is morally wrong if they don't already believe it. however, you can convince people that, even if you're OK with killing, the particular strategy in question is ineffective, counter-productive, or misdirected. it's much easier to sell "this is a bad war" than "war is bad."

Good thing, then, that elective democracy has a built-in mechanism for removing him.

which doesn't always work, and which can be subverted even when it does.

15:26 / 25.10.04

i disagree. i think that arguing morals is seldom productive. some people think it's OK to kill "the bad guys," some people don't, others do in some situations but not others.

Sure, but I agree with Mink above that I want politics to be conducted in a better way. So, for instance, referring to international law and the UN Charter is not just some stick to beat the Bush administration with. It is also a reasonable starting point for administrations I might actually like.

And, of course, a good debating strategy is to highlight the incompetence of Bush. But at no time in doing so would I concede the principled objection to the violent pursual of political aims.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:32 / 25.10.04

Anna:

If people can't see that Bush has already demonstrated the wrongness of his views, his inability to help people with no advantages at all, his willingness to kill institutionally through use of war and of course capital punishment than they won't see it.

Ah. Then democracy isn't all that important any more, is it? I mean, if people can't see what the situation is, and that won't change however bad he gets, then democracy is clearly a lousy way of running a country.

Many of the things you mention are not particularly offensive per se to many, scary though that is. It's possible that a demonstration of the consequences of those things is necessary to persuade them to change their minds.

It's not about whether one becomes 'as awful as Bush'. I think there's a line, and assassination is simply on the other side, along with torture and a bunch of other things. Once you cross it, you just aren't one of the good guys any longer.

15:43 / 25.10.04

I think there's a line...

A line that can be summed up in one cliché, five words: The end justifies the means.

15:57 / 25.10.04

And, of course, a good debating strategy is to highlight the incompetence of Bush. But at no time in doing so would I concede the principled objection to the violent pursual of political aims.

in my opinion, that's a huge strategic error. in dealing with people who are inclined to use violence for political ends at the drop of a hat, such a stance pretty much guarantees that no one will ever take you seriously. if you want to win people over, you have to build some kind of empathetic bond while emphasizing the strategic limitations of force. if someone is screaming "i want to kill those bastards for what they done!" it's much better to say "yeah, me too, but it won't work, and here's why," rather than "violence is wrong."

Ah. Then democracy isn't all that important any more, is it?

it never was, in and of itself. like any other political belief system, it's a means to an end, that end being the most happiness for the most people, most of the time. if democracy helps us get there, good. if not, then something else.

It's not about whether one becomes 'as awful as Bush'. I think there's a line, and assassination is simply on the other side, along with torture and a bunch of other things. Once you cross it, you just aren't one of the good guys any longer.

i just think that's an unrealistic oversimplification. though i would agree that the tactics you mentioned are rarely, if ever, productive, it's foolish to rule out anything out of hand. tactics are, by themselves, morally neutral. it's just a question of aims, strategy and context.

A line that can be summed up in one cliché, five words: The end justifies the means.

justifies to whom?

16:02 / 25.10.04

The one pursuing the end.

16:04 / 25.10.04

tactics are, by themselves, morally neutral

for instance.

16:07 / 25.10.04

A qustion - would it have made much of a moral difference if Brooker had reference pretzels rather than former presidential assassins? Is a pretzel in the right place, or moreover, wishing for a pretzel in the right place more acceptable than a bullet?

16:08 / 25.10.04

John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Don't you think there's a reason he called up these particular people? That, rather than summoning anyone who actually could assassinate Bush, he's musing on specific assassins in US history? Anna de L is on the money about wishful thinking - this is more akin to "wouldn't it be convenient if..." than "why doesn't someone just...." Clearly, he's writing with a measure of dark humor. Surely he doesn't literally posit that a Bush reelection would disprove the existence of God?

And so isn't this really just a popular opinion (Bush is bad) put into provocative hyperbole (too bad those assassins aren't around right now)?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:12 / 25.10.04

Ok - this is a Switchboard thread, which means it is for the discussion of current events. A bt of political philosophy is probably fine (although whether the function of all political systems is utilitarian is a *lot* of political philosophy, and might more comfortably sit in its own thread), but could we dial back the temperature-raising, aphoristic one-liners, please?

16:15 / 25.10.04

As I said upthread: And can we/should we draw a distinction between wishing for the death of a public figure and wishing for them to be assassinated? I think it's a small but crucial difference. Do you?

I see a lot of UKleftybloggers salivating over the apparently imminent demise of Baroness Thatcher. That is certainly understandable, if in poor taste. However, to say "Someone should borrow a nurse's outfit, slip into the posho private hospital wherein they've got the bitch stashed, and stab her. In her bed. In the face. With face-knives."—well, that's a slightly different thing, IMO.

Page: (1)2 3