Is Matthew Taylor right about blogs?

I have met Matthew Taylor a couple of times and will admit to quite liking him. He has always struck me as a someone with a sharp brain and a solid grasp of modernity and the need to develop a progressive political agenda. Until now that is.

Speaking at an e-democracy conference earlier this week he said:

What is the big breakthrough, in terms of politics, on the web in the last few years? It's basically blogs which are, generally speaking, hostile and, generally speaking, basically see their job as every day exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are.

Generally speaking, that is pretty general. Generally speaking, that is not backed up by experience. Generally speaking, that is just silly.

What is missing from Matthew's analysis is a 'however' clause. For example Matthew could have gone on to say:

However it is also true to say that blogs provide politicians with a significant opportunity to re-engage with their electorate. Blogs take the media out of the hands of the corporate world and put it into the hands of anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Politicians that seek to engage with their constituents, who are able to get almost instant feedback on local, regional or national issues are much more likely to be in a position to shape future policy in order to help meet the needs and aspirations of those they represent. Blogs offer a simple, efficient and effective means of doing this."

The truth is that there are plenty of blogs that are neither hostile nor driven by a desire to be on-line gossip columns. There are plenty of blogs that are actively entering into a dialogue with readers about how we set about shaping the political landsacpe in a modern age. I would have thought that this was something Matthew would support, indeed I would have thought that it was something he would be actively seeking to influence.

Comments

[Miranda]

Very disappointed with Matthew's comments. For some busy councillors like me writing a blog is an invaluable way of reaching many more of my ward constituents. It also lets me show case Labour positively and directly, because my praise is not drowned out by a hostile press who either ignore the work Labour is doing or do not give us the credit for it. Mr Taylor should reconsider his views.

[Stan Rosenthal]

If I might say so, typical blogs from Mike Ion and Miranda; hostile, one-sided, taking words out of context,ignoring or caricaturing elements of the opposing argument that do not fit your agenda. In other words the opposite of the kind of deliberative discourse, taking account the complexities of most issues that Matthew Taylor was calling for.

Indeed, Matthew actually said that "the web could be "fantastic" for democracy,and praised the sort of interactive blog that David Miliband had introduced.

"Generally speaking" means "more often than not" and what objective observer of the blogging or postings scene can deny that "more often than not" it is about slagging off politicians, in particular the Blair administration?

I suspect that the criticisms of Matthew's remarks have more to do with his references to the media (of the left as well as of the right) being involved in "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpeptual state of self-righteous rage" and in getting out the message that "leaders are out to shaft you" which might have touched a raw nerve as far as Mike and Miranda are concerned.

[Pete]

I agree with Miranda. If Mr Taylor actually bothered to read some blogs he would realise that lots of them serve a job of putting people in touch with each other and sharing views.
Just because he doesn't believe the views to be valid doesn't mean they shouldn't be aired. No 10 people live in a bunker and feel the whole world is out to get them. It's not, people just have different views that's all.

[Jonathan Roberts]

Blogs are indeed a valuable way for hard working representatives to communicate with their constituents. However, the true usefulness of the net has not yet been properly harnessed by any political party (although we are beginning to do better).

The amount of rational, forward thinking, helpful debate going on online is minimal in comparison to the slightly bonkers rantings that take place on the extreme fringes of genuine politics. This can be harmful, especially if it starts to radicalise otherwise sensible observers.

[Captain Spaulding]

Matthew Taylor is surely aware of what the rest of LP hierarchy is doing - i.e. promoting specifically Labour blogging via the personal URLs now available to LP members, labourspace.com etc.
Or is he?
I have heard of a "bunker mentality" but this is ridiculous...

[Seasider]

Matthew Taylor may have left out the "however" paragraph provided by Mike Ion, but he was right in one respect.

People don't often go online to wax lyrical about their favourite policy or initiatives they particularly agree with, or to admire the latest set of figures about hospital waiting lists. Just try it!

Immediately you will be accused of being a Blair spin-doctor, and practically put on trial for war crimes. You are simply not allowed to agree with any Government policy - on foreign affairs, the economy, the public services, trade, employment, environment, immigration, security, even speed cameras.

You will soon meet the single issue headbangers, hardened cynics, and those who are angry and frustrated because even though life has passed them by, socialism (one way or another) has still not arrived.

Often bloggers seem to be frustrated individuals with a large axe to grind. They sometimes fancy themselves as politicians, or great writers/ philosophers. They are not actually involved in any real political activity themselves, and seem to resent those who are. So anyone who is actually either involved in a political movement or a trade union, or anyone holding a public office, gets the full force of their frustration, resentment and anger.

However, these days there is such a wide choice of sites and blogging is becoming a much more mainstream activity.

Perhaps it will eventually replace the mass-membership political organisations? At any rate, I think the Labour Party's attention to the possibilities offered by the internet puts them well ahead of "WebCameron". Obviously the Lib Dems have a little way to go!

[Paul]

I think Seasider has just about summed it up.

Blogs are the online equivalent to a rant or a chat in the pub: they do nothing to challenge the political establishment. The recent spat between Nick Robinson and Guido Fawkes was ultimately about when a story becomes a story - and the answer was most definitely only when the mainstream media pick it up. Otherwise, it's ignored. Even then, Fawkes - who has the largest 'political' blog - by his own admission deals only in gossip: not 'real' politics. Even if John Prescott had resigned, nothing would have changed fundamentally within politics.

There is also the myth that they are somehow more 'democratic'. They are not: there is a 'blogging mainstream' with a few key bloggers to which everyone else defers: Chicken Yogurt, Mr Eugenides, Europhobia, Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale, A Big Stick and Small Carrot, etc. Far from acting as an 'alternative', the 'mainstream media' confirms their 'acceptability': the Guardian has at least two of the above on it's 'comment is for free' blogging site.

The debate about blogs vs. traditional news media is akin to the debate eight to ten years ago about the internet replacing print media. In the end, after book sales went up and one of the first internet companies to make a profit outside of porn, Amazon, did so by selling books, it was realised that the internet is just one medium; likewise, it might be just one way for politicians to reach an audience, but only a small, select audience.

The people who post to political blogs invariably already have strong opinions, so the 'debates' are merely partisan rows; meanwhile, access to real information can only come from the mainstream news media in most cases: the title of the Guardian's foray into the blogosphere, 'comment is for free', says it all: insiders are few and far between, and blogging revels in comment and speculation, when not immersed in rows. Craig Murray is one of the few 'insiders' (although now on the outside) - and the internet essentially allows him to be marginalised.

Political blogs are not going "to shape future policy", and, moreover, given that they only represent a tiny vocal minority of the electorate, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.